Andries Louis Joubert

Trouble is coming for North America through it’s young. There is rising loneliness and less sex. In secular environments, there are fewer children and 45% of women will be alone by 2030. There is rising homosexuality (25% among Gen Z, now a quarter of the population). This is completely unsustainable. A society where young men and women fail to come together, marry and have families is doomed to fail. A civilization that is destroyed from within will not rise again. But what is the cause of the coming calamity? It’s not hard to spot the answer, though many, including conservatives, have become so used to the status quo that they don’t want to face the answer: feminism and the gay identity movement. Feminism has taught young women to be rabid careerists and to withhold sex from men as much as they want. Women are naturally ambivalent about sex through instinct and feminism has taught women to look down on men, which may explain why the younger generation has so little sex compared to previous generations. The reality is that feminism combined with the remains of male chivalry have made Western women incredibly arrogant. They are treated like they are made of glass and then become convinced that they are strong. The gay identity movement has aggressively endorsed a way of life that contributes nothing to society and works against the family. What is the solution to these problems? It requires a complete rethink of our current system and a return our pagan roots in ancient Roman and Greek thinking, especially Athenian democracy. The West is Rome so it makes sense to look to it for wisdom to defeat the enemy within without adopting everything it represented. It requires a complete rejection of all the “waves” of feminism, including the first one, and of gay identity ideology. What should replace them? A return of pagan masculinity and the heroic ideal without any puritanism about sex, including homosexual sex.

Sex and Gender

Why are men more suited for leadership contexts than women? The reasons are legion. Men are more rational/analytical and women are more intuitive. They are also more intelligent than women. Men are more assertive than women, meaning that men are more likely to address things that need to be addressed, while women are more likely leave them be. Men are competitive. Feminists are used to seeing the acrimonious side of competitiveness rather than its positive side: men want to do better than each other. This is the engine of progress and therefore of business which is why the feminine spirit does not belong in business leadership. Women are more likely to be bitter. Bitterness is weakness. Strong people do vengeance and then move on or they decide a provocation is not worth their response and then move on. Holding onto old hurts hampers objectivity. Women are normally attracted to men who are stronger, higher status and more successful than they are because they want to submit and be led. Women don’t want to lead, otherwise it would be the inverse. This is the same as saying that women are naturally submissive to men, at least to those men they choose as partners. Gender egalitarianism goes against nature. Women dominate men by withholding sex, which is why at least marital rape should be legal. Men then try to do everything to win their wives’ approval for sex, which means the wife then has the position of power in the relationship. It is unnatural and anti-social for women to dominate men, which is why marital rape has been acceptable until recently.

Nature clearly intended for men to dominate women. Gender Egalitarianism is impossible because each sex will vie for power over the other. Women take power in sexual politics if men don’t assert their dominance. Feminism has never really been interested in egalitarianism, but only in triumphalism of the feminine over the masculine. Men must re-establish their authority over women. Patriarchy must return. In general, women should not do the same things as men because if women are constantly in male contexts, men lose objectivity and start to “peacock.” Weaker men will do whatever it takes to have sex with women, including voice wrong opinions, though stronger men can do only so much to resist the influence of the “peacocks.” The more peacocks voice wrong opinions for sex, the stronger feminine power and female opinions becomes. Another reason to exclude women from leadership contexts is that feminine practices of passivity and emotion will, as a matter of course, enter leadership contexts if any women are allowed. Therefore, women should be completely excluded from leadership contexts, including all managerial positions, politics and government, professions (doctors and lawyers), and academia. Women should focus on support, administration and artistic pursuits. Suffrage should be limited to male property owners (maybe property value equal to or exceeding $1,000,000 in Canada and $500,000 in the US), which is something akin to the Roman pater familias. It is such a high amount because the ruling class should include “rich values” rather than “poor values”. If you limit suffrage to the poor, you will get a poor country. Doing it like this will destroy the values of the malcontent who always wants more from society and the government, refuses to the take responsibility and who wants to destroy the rich and the strong.

Suffrage is a privilege, not a right, which is why it can be easily taken away if a citizen who qualifies by the above criteria does not attend civic meetings or acquires “felony” convictions. They have to know what the law says and have the self-control to follow it. People with self-control can be objective under pressure. Universal suffrage has quickly led to civilizational decline and will lead to its complete destruction if it is not stopped. Too many weak, evil riffraff get to vote. To ensure that this new aristocracy knows what they’re voting for, they will have to complete an open-book exam about the policies of the candidates under consideration. These reforms will help a great deal for the problems discussed during the introduction. Women will be more submissive to men, will focus more on home life and have more children. This “aristocracy” will be rich property owners who like capitalism, liberty and want the government to leave them alone to govern their own affairs. Capitalism is still the best economic system, but it is constantly opposed by women. It is a harsh, masculine and Darwinian system that leaves the noncompetitive by the wayside (the “creative destruction” of the market). This is the only way progress takes place. A stronger emphasis on the free market will decrease the cost of living making it easier to afford a home and groceries.

Sexuality

The great slogan of the gay identity movement is “marriage equality.” But is homosexuality equal in value, whether socially or ontologically, to heterosexuality? Obviously not. Heterosexuality results in the family and the next generation, while homosexuality contributes nothing to society. The family is one of the most important, maybe the most important, institution in a society. It is what teaches the next generation the values of the society, makes them citizens and provides an indispensable refuge from the troubles of life as well as a platform from which to excel. Heterosexual relationships have psychological compatibility, while homosexual relationships do not. What does that mean? Male homosexuality has astronomical levels of sexual promiscuity while female homosexuality struggles with the opposite issue, colloquially known as “lesbian bed death.” Both are dysfunctional. Also, venereal disease spreads like wildfire among male homosexuals, much faster than among heterosexual couplings. To get even more uncomfortable, let’s discuss sex acts. Heterosexual couples can do everything that homosexual couples can do plus vaginal intercourse. Vaginal intercourse signals unity and sexual love in a way that no homosexual sex act can. Male homosexuals try to get to this unity through anal sex but it is simply not the same. All of this is to say that heterosexuality is objectively superior to homosexuality and should be prioritized by the state and culture, while homosexuality should be discouraged. To put it another way, Western societies should be heteronormative. This is not to say that homosexual sex acts should be condemned as immoral, but gay marriage should indeed be condemned as contrary to the health of the society. Only heterosexuality should be endorsed by the state and culture, because it is the ideal sexual relationship. Do homosexuals have to be in long-term same-sex relationships?

My belief is that LGBT ideology (the idea of gay identity and orientation) should be completely rejected. The reason for this is simply that gay identity propaganda seems deceptive, because gay men are actually bisexual (or something of that nature, without affirming sexual identity). Why should we believe this? Many men who come out as gay were first in apparently successful heterosexual marriages, complete with multiple children. They reach mid-life and decide they will from then on be gay. This seems to me to mean that gay men still find women sexually attractive and enjoy sex with them. But what then is the homosexual identity? What is it that drives certain men and women to long-term same-sex relationships when they still find the opposite sex sexually attractive? I don’t have a clear answer to this. We’ve already established that rising homosexuality is a problem due to the fact that heterosexuality is objectively superior and because long-term homosexual relationships are anti-natalist. The fact is that an increasing number of people want to be LGBT in some way or another due to cultural pressure and this will be a lot less if heterosexuality is encouraged while long-term homosexual relationships are discouraged (without discouraging all homosexual sex acts). If there is such a thing as gay identity (i.e. the desire for long-term same-sex relationships), it should be regarded as a disability due to its non-ideal nature, so that the rest of society does not regard it as a viable option. Even those who “have to” should be encouraged to take wives and husbands and do homosexuality “on the side” without making it a way of life. Heteronormativity here is not meant to imply that those with such a disability should be excluded from the “aristocracy” I’ve described above. Most importantly, something in LGBT identity goes against pagan masculinity. This is why it does not belong anywhere near the military (again referring to homosexual identity not homosexual sex acts) and in great numbers, it will weaken the men in a society whether it is outside the military or not, especially if it is as strongly endorsed by the culture and the state as it currently is in Western societies.

Race

This piece is titled “a defense of pagan heteronormative patriarchy”, but not “racist patriarchy.” Why is that? While it is true that blacks have a different genetic profile to whites (including genetic propensities to lower intelligence and criminality), black men who meet the criteria of the new “aristocracy” will undoubtedly be more than competent to rule alongside the rest. They are probably more intelligent, more stable and more independent than their black peers. White men are genetically inferior to Asian men in terms of criminality and slightly less intelligent. Jewish people tend to be more intelligent and law-abiding than white men. Should we then include only Asian and Jewish men and exclude white and black men? This is not about selecting the perfect racial genetic profile, which is unnecessarily strict and perfectionistic. The criteria do enough to select for the best men regardless of race. If white men do not consider themselves inferior to Asians and Jews, then black men should not consider themselves inferior to whites even given the scientific facts regarding race.

Religion

Christianity is the reason for the current crisis. Feminism developed out of Christianity and the gay identity movement developed out of both (Christianity and feminism). Christian men were unable to stop these movements that are currently destroying the West because of its lack of cultural confidence and weakness. It harsh to say but simply true that men become weaker when they become Christians. They become too soft and too eager to please everyone. Paul tells his followers to constantly avoid making people angry (e.g. Romans 14:13-23) and to “be all things to all people” (1 Corinthians 9:22). The New Testament strongly teaches non-retaliation and Jesus even condemns all anger. Strong Christian men reject something in Christianity and do their own thing with it (e.g. Matt Walsh and Pete Hegseth). The masculine side of Christianity can also no longer find expression due to new knowledge and intellectual weaknesses that can’t be overcome. Intellectual confidence is required for masculinity. Men need to know they are doing something that makes sense, that’s clever, even if they are not intellectuals. Finally, orthodox Christianity has too many things to be strict about which also generates weakness. I suspect that Christian men, especially left-leaning men, wanted to be saved from strictness of Christianity and so embraced feminism and gay identity politics, because those were the only alternatives at the time. Liberal Christianity is more rational than orthodox Christianity, but it is bankrupt. It’s churches are aging and emptying and it worships gay pride. Some combination of Roman or Greek paganism and atheism is ideal. Even though atheists today have supported a number of wrong causes (socialism, feminism and LGBT identity politics), secular people, including Deists, have made things much better over time through an excellent tradition of rational thinking that comes from the Enlightenment. Atheists made things better by simply opposing the theocratic impulse in Christianity and its irrationalism, secularizing society, promoting skeptical values and making science socially authoritative. If people cannot be atheists, they should do paganism in a theistic way but without “mythic literalism” which will generate superstition or irrationalism. The great thing about paganism is that people can focus on those things that they identify most with.

Military

Patriarchal and heroic values will help the military as well. A feminized and gay culture cannot support it properly and it is growing weaker by the day, with little interest from men in being soldiers. A strong and clever enemy will know how to exploit these weaknesses. The military is ideally a masculine, authoritarian and uniform culture, which is why it should exclude women and gay identity politics and certainly any trans stuff. The presence of women in the military erodes the ideal of physical excellence and the men know they can get away with more if women are present, because they lower the bar and people want to be softer with them. It also changes the atmosphere and the attitude within the military. Leaders in the military know that women were included from kindness and a desire to be inclusive. This makes everything softer.