Straight white males are the winners in the sexual counter-revolution

Forget the culture war rhetoric. We squares have won

13 December 2014

9:00 AM

13 December 2014

9:00 AM

When it comes to the battle of ideas, it’s often said that the right won the economic argument and the left won the cultural one. But consider the case of the radical lesbian with the deluxe dildo I met at a north London squat party in the early 1980s. We were having an argument about sexual politics. She was drunk and trying to be provocative when she pointed the dildo at me and declared, ‘You lot are finished. The future belongs to us: the sexual freaks.’

By ‘you lot’ she meant white, middle-class heterosexual men like me. (And ‘us’ were radical lesbians, gays, the S&M brigade, bisexuals, transsexuals, try-anything-once-sexuals.) This was back in the days when Ken Livingstone was the head of the GLC and according to the Daily Mail any black, one-eyed lesbian could get a grant from Ken and co. to subvert the white heterosexual world and destroy the nuclear family.

Of course that was just silly tabloid scare-mongering. But there was a serious belief among academics — in particular the new post-structuralist school of gender studies — that sexual minorities could subvert the system in a way that the left had so blatantly failed to do. After all, the personal was political. The heterosexual penis and oppressive patriarchy went hand in hand and led to rape, nuclear war and ecological devastation.

Not long ago I ran into that same dildo-waving lesbian. I reminded her of our encounter and she laughed and blushed. And with good reason; she has a wife, two surrogate kids, a job as a civil servant, a mortgage and a house in the suburbs. Yesterday’s radical lesbian activist became a soccer mom; so much for the future belonging to the ‘freaks’.

I should point out that ‘freaks’ and ‘queer’ were terms that many on the sexual left were happy to embrace. Back then sexual radicals didn’t want to be assimilated into mainstream, straight society, thank you very much. The thinking then was: who wants to be like those boring white heterosexuals?

Today the answer is clear: everyone does. Yesterday’s sexual outsiders have come in from the margins and bought into the lifestyle of the Great White Males they once despised. A man I know who was famous for his bondage parties in the late 1980s is now celebrated for his barbecues at his home in Surrey. Gay activists no longer fight for the right to be different, but the right to be married and raise children just like the ‘straights’.

And yet the myth that we are a doomed species persists. A few weeks ago the New Statesman declared, ‘The days of the Great White Male are numbered.’ A whole set of liberal-leftish figures lined up to give the white male some advice about what they must do to survive. What the NS contributors failed to see was how much the white, heterosexual male has changed over the past three decades.

A homosexual rights activist is led away by police
A homosexual rights activist is led away by police. Photo: Getty/AFP

In the Thatcher era it was assumed that we white heterosexuals were too moralistic and too uptight about sex to adapt to the emerging, post-1960s world of sexual pluralism. Nothing summed up the nasty narrow-mindedness of the white heterosexual male quite as well as Clause 28 — that 1987 piece of Tory legislation that forbade the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality as a ‘normal family relationship’ in schools. Of course the gay movement was right to be angry — and the NS crowd is wrong to think nothing about the Great White Male has changed since then.

Look at British popular culture. Clare Balding (OBE) is the new queen mum loved by all; Graham Norton is the Terry Wogan of the Noughties. OK, Stephen Fry is irritating but not because of his sexuality. And when the artist Grayson Perry — a grown man who sometimes dresses up as a little girl — came into our lives, did we ‘uptight’ white heterosexuals freak out and call for the men in white coats or for a return to moral values? No, we gave him the Turner Prize (2003) and then a CBE.

Claire the female alter-ego of Grayson Perry
Claire the female alter-ego of Grayson Perry. Photo: David Levenson/Getty

And yet I have lost track of the number of books and broadsheet think-pieces about how the small-minded white heterosexual male is doomed because he can’t accept a changing world and change himself. I confess that at one time I thought the End Was Nigh for men like me. I remember in the 1990s there were endless revelations — and accusations — that all our heterosexual icons were gay. Mention the name of any handsome A-list Hollywood star or sporting figure — alive or dead — and a geek chorus of my gay friends would cry: ‘You know he’s gay!’ It got to a point where the only white heterosexuals left in public life were the creepy Hugh Hefner and the loathsome Donald Trump. Now, thanks to George Clooney and the Mad Men crowd, being a white male heterosexual is kind of cool.

But if the anti-white-heterosexual left were right, I should be on the brink of a nervous breakdown — or at least a mild identity crisis. In fact, it is not the white male heterosexual who is facing a crisis of identity, but members of the gay, lesbian and transsexual community. There’s currently a fierce row going on between feminists and the transgender crowd about what constitutes a woman. And some gays are wondering if their distinct gay identity will be damaged by the trend towards gay marriage.

Personally, I can’t remember a time when it’s been so good to be a white male heterosexual. It used to be that in fashionable, arty, media metropolitan circles to be a white male heterosexual was to be a sexual hick. I used to apologise for being so ‘boringly straight’. When I confessed to friends that I’d never had sex with a man or had been to an orgy they would look at me with incredulity, as if I’d just said I had never been to Paris. But not now. The personal — especially when it comes to sex — isn’t political: it’s just boring.

The white heterosexual male no longer has the power to expect everyone to conform to his idea of sexuality or being normal — and nor does he want to. But then gayness, bisexuality, transsexuality have lost something too; that edge of transgressiveness; the glamour that goes with being an Outsider. I confess to feeling a twinge of nostalgia for the good old gay days when dykes (as they proudly called themselves) with dildos delighted in freaking out straights like me and declaring we were finished! The sex war is over — and I’m sorry to say we boring white heterosexual males have won.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Fred Collier

    George Clooney heterosexual? Really? I think not. He is as camp as a row of tents.

    • Terry Field

      Indeed. tin ribbed or what

  • Michael H Kenyon

    Virtually all the smug sex-radical post-modernists I’ve met in academia in the past 30 years have been assimilated into various banal university administrative roles, where they still know and do Foucault. (Geddit?)

    • rtj1211

      Yes….that why academia has ‘overhead costs’ of 100% or more when submitting fully costed grant proposals. I”ve never seen a greater waste of money than how they centralised ‘administration’, taking productive secretaries away from busy Professors to create pools of timewasters doing SFA.

      • Michael H Kenyon

        I’ll say. But Universities deserve some of the blame for allowing fatuous ‘qualitative’ researchers a free run since the 1970s, despite their methods and findings being minimal. Hiding behind inclusiveness, their crap has had a corrosive influence on some disciplines, In the process disempowering generations of students. And now the universities money-grub and threaten academics who kept it all together, whilst Jeremy, once so withering in his rejection on “so-called ‘science'” crowing how his study of “cottaging” (post-coital chats with 10 men met on Hampstead Heath transcribed and dressed up with pomo flimflam ) would bring down empiricism, has the, er, “whip hand” in insisting we produce high impact publications funded by big grants.

      • Malcolm Knott

        It was all predicted: ‘More means worse.’

  • Laguna Beach Fogey

    This is only true, I suppose if you’re the sort of straight white man [why does Cosmo persist on calling us ‘white heterosexual males’?] who enjoys going out and seducing and sleeping with attractive women. There’s never been a better time to be a player.

    On the other hand, if you’re the sort of straight white man who longs to marry a good women and have children, the present dispensation pretty much sucks.

    • Daniel Holland

      it will turn around. But embrace the decline

    • Mr Grumpy

      Internalising the belief that there’s nothing special about the kind of sex that makes babies is not victory, it’s Stockholm syndrome. Ask some of those straight black and brown men who are apparently invisible in Landesmann’s world – for the moment.

      • Brogan75

        you forgot red and yellow ones.

    • Brogan75

      United we stand!

    • M P Jones

      I’m afraid I haven’t noticed this particular fight. In my world women appreciate good manners, men opening doors and beautiful seduction – and revoking Clause 28 was a grave mistake putting additional stress on parents to counter the mindless propaganda for perversion taught in schools.

      • Dryermartinithanyours

        Can I be you? What’s truly strange about the culture wars is wh we’ve devolved to a pre-civilised society with obsessive rubber fetishes. Is the human imagination really that tiny, after all? Until we realize the main aim of sexual politics is to make ordinarily contented people perpetually dissatisfied.

    • Jeff Blanks

      Ah, but “we’re history’s actors”, you know. If he, in a position to influence people, declares the sexual revolution over and his side the victor, that’s a way of making it so. That’s something neither the political nor cultural left of center have understood for a long time.

      Maybe “freaks” aspire to be “square” because they’ll die hungry, early, and alone otherwise, thanks to the squares??

  • Cim Thayne

    In the end we’ll win. As we always have, and as, one would imagine, we always shall.

  • myechoagain


  • Chris

    ‘You lot are finished. The future belongs to us: the sexual freaks.’

    Who maintains the electrical systems, roads, sanitation, and computers that keep her cosseted life from reverting to medieval squalor? Who grows, processes, and transports every mouthful of food she eats? Who guards her from skinheaded thugs and frothing bearded death cultists who’d happily see her stoned to death? Who built the modern world on which all identity politics idiots parasitise?

    Clue: it largely ain’t the constituent elements of the rainbow coalition…

    • Lydia Robinson

      This is so true. Every time I walk down my street the only people doing any labouring jobs, building work, picking up the garbage, street sweeping and road maintenance are men.

      • Gwangi

        Yes – except when I went to Russia years ago and all snow-shovellers were meaty muscular women! Hey, why not force Brit women to do hard physical work? Lose all that flab! No child or maternity benefit unless you do, girls!

        • Terry Field

          And the Russian population falls every year. I wonder why?

    • David

      Yup, that’s the truth.

    • Jeff Blanks

      Because they’re not let in. Let us in and we’ll do our part.

  • Simon_in_London

    I don’t think most straight white men bear much resemblance to Cosmo Landesman and the Metropolitan elites, of whatever orientation. The message I got from this is that the ruling elites are more and more detached from the general population.

    • Frank

      Cosmo a member of the “ruling elites”? Give us a break, this is a man who works here because his own country (America) clearly cannot abide him.

  • Daniel Holland

    Was anyone shocked? Their idea was literally “do the opposite of what worked for our ancestors and it will work out.”

    • porcelaincheekbones

      We know better than evolution! (LOL creationists are dumb)

      • Daniel Holland

        They also deny evolution shaped human behavior

      • MrsDBliss

        I don’t think people supporting LGBT rights believe in creationism.

        • porcelaincheekbones

          equal under God……..

          • MrsDBliss

            You’re being a bit silly now. LGBT rights is a dogma of gender theory. Creationists believe god created men and women male and female, therefore in opposition to it. You’ve just shoe horned in a swipe at creationist Christians and therefore projected your own bigotry.

          • porcelaincheekbones
          • MrsDBliss

            That means male and female gender, not LGBT.

  • SiliconNooB

    We still catch the blame for every social misfortune under the sun… :/

    • Gwangi

      Indeed, white men are the ONLY people it’s cool to be bigoted against! And plenty of 3M women (mediocre, menopausal, moaning) women are very keen to get their ‘positive’ action, over promotion and all-women shortlists, so don’t care that better candidates who happen to be men are being wronged day in day out in our diversity-worshipping country.

    • Lina R

      According to posh women, all white men are inherently privileged. They clearly only know men from the upper-middle-to-upper classes (ie. their class).

      • SiliconNooB

        I’m sure the guy who pumps their gas has sooooooo much privilege…

  • Dan Nicolle

    People get boring as they get old, hold the front page.

    • Neil Saunders

      The colonisation and reinvention from within of traditional institutions by radicals is disturbing rather than boring, Dan.

  • Laguna Beach Fogey

    If this is victory, I’d hate to see defeat.

    • Neil Saunders

      Poor Cosmo hasn’t quite got it right this time, has he?

      • hdb

        It is certainly true that the prudes have won. I thought when Mary Whitehouse died that was the end of mainstream anti-sex and pro-censorship movements. But they seem to have just moved over to the left. Mary Whitehouse’s trendy nieces are everywhere now and she would be proud indeed of their achievements such as the long list of fairly mild acts that have recently been banned from British porn. The anti-page three campaign which is on the verge of triumphing is something old Mrs W could only have dreamed of back in the eighties.

  • A Sensitive Scholar

    If the normalisation of deviant activities like cross-dressing and sodomy is a victory, I’d hate to see what defeat looks like.

    • EricHobsbawmtwit

      Though it was quite common in the cradle of western civilisation (ancient Greece) wasn’t it.

      • Neil Saunders

        Also a cradle of slavery, in case you’ve forgotten.

    • justejudexultionis

      ‘cross-dressing and sodomy’ —

      I think you’re confusing ‘deviant activities’ with the private life of most Tory MPs.

      • Neil Saunders

        Very funny, ho ho. Take a large subject and trivialise it into tribal, party-political point-scoring. I hate the Tories, too, as it happens, but no more than I hate the Lib-Dems or Labour. They are all the enemies of the ordinary, indigenous people of the UK.

    • Neil Saunders

      Hear hear!

  • Dodgy Geezer

    …We squares have won…


    Er… WHAT have we won…?

    • Gwangi

      The right to watch some dug-tugging yummy mummy squirting rancid milk out of her nipples at her spoilt brat sprog at your local pc breastaurant! Hoorah!

      • Mike

        Love the prose !

    • Neil Saunders

      We’ve won the right to stand by and watch as our graves are being dug.

  • Gwangi

    Identity politics always see people as a race or a gender. That allows its followers to hate the ‘enemy’ – white men – and push for discriminatory policies against them.

    Instead, we must realise that social class is what decides who has power – privileged women aplenty use feminist bleating about patriarchy and crave victimhood to grab unfair advantage and get jobs and promotions over better men (eg Harriet Harman, most BBC controllers, most police chiefs etc). Ditto for rich ethnics (Keith Vaz, Chukka Umuna, or any of the 20% at public schools who are non-white).

    That mean the REAL oppressed minority these days is working class and lower middle class white men – who vote 4 the only party not committed to unfairly discriminating against them: UKIP.

    • rtj1211

      Couldn’t agree more. I’ve never worked with a working class woman who was a rampant feminist, worked with plenty of disgusting and appalling harpies who either went to private school or who went to Russell Group University. Not one of them was sexually happy and most of them were malignant s**ts to the attractive women in the office too.

      • Gwangi

        Oh women are famously nasty to each other – far more than men are! But it’s just convenient to blame men, the bogie man of the world and the cause of all suffering and wrongness in it! Hilariously, the feminists also blame men when women behave badly – because you see, they live in a ‘patriarchal society’ created by men, so even if a woman murders a baby it’s all the fault of men!
        Of course, really disadvantaged women and men stay disadvantaged – not for them the positive action advantage used by privately educated women and ethnics to forge ahead in their careers (step forward Herr Harman and Chukka Umuna, and just about every weather presenter or newsreader on our pc TV these days).
        White working class and lower middle class males are the most disadvantaged group in society today.

      • Mike

        Definitely my experience as well.

    • Mike

      Social engineering on the scale of Labours multiculturalism and to a fair extent from Cameron as well, will always substitute one discriminated group by creating another as you’ve rightly pointed out.

      You only have to look at the results of removing apartheid from S. Africa or Southern Rhodesia. It might have seemed a good idea at the time and it may have some moral justification, but are the people any better off for it ? He–ll no, they are starving where before they had food, they have little of no health care whilst before they were looked after, they had a roof over their heads and a job and now most have neither.

      The inherent problem with the left leaning militant luvvies who demand so called rights for their personal cause, they have no idea of the consequences they’ll bring down on those they pretend to protect whilst sc****** up many parts of that society that actually worked.

      • Neil Saunders

        I don’t think you can make a comparison between multiculturalism in the UK and the introduction of majority rule in South Africa or Zimbabwe, other than to establish a general connection between good intentions and unintended consequences.

        I’d also disagree that the PC social engineers always misunderstand the nature of the consequences that are likely to flow from their policies; while there are some well-meaning dupes, and others intimidated into silent cooperation, there are also zealots who actively seek the destruction of our society and its replacement with something utterly different.

        • Mike

          Fair response as it was only my intention to make a case about unintended consequences but as you pointed out there are some zealots out there that know full well what the consequences might be but their ideology is far more important to them than the misery of others they affect.

          Most politicians in Socialists governments are not dumb but their mantra ensures that their privileged minority benefit whilst most others in society suffer.

      • porcelaincheekbones

        They don’t care about the consequences, because they bear no responsibility for the bad ones.

        • Mike

          Good point as they always seem to find a way to blame others for the collateral damage they caused whilst if there is any good from their actions, they take the credit.

          • porcelaincheekbones

            That’s why they seek to change policy, but never get INTO power.

  • Gwangi

    ‘But there was a serious belief among academics — in particular the new post-structuralist school of gender studies — that sexual minorities could subvert the system in a way that the left had so blatantly failed to do.’
    And you take seriously what up-themselves pompous academic twerps say, do you? Sad.

  • Blindsideflanker

    With the silent epidemic of male suicide accounting for 3,000 men’s lives a year it doesn’t seem like much of a victory.


    • pointlesswasteoftime

      Um… how many of those3,000 were straight, or white, or had mental health problems, depression due to relationship breakdown, loss of employment, loss of housing, inter-generational family disputes…. there are 3,000 reasons for those 3,000 suicides. What do they have to do with this article?

      • Preacher John

        Men kill themselves at a rate 3 to 4 times that of women in the UK. Over the last 30 years suicide rate among women has more than halved, while suicide among men has remained about the same, currently suicide is the biggest cause of death among UK men up to and including middle age.
        It is asinine of you, pointlesswasteoftime, to propose that this strong gender bias is “coincidence”.
        The article supposes that men are triumphant, whereas this data indicates that a great many men are very much not.


    • Preacher John
  • EricHobsbawmtwit

    The days of the Great White Male are numbered

    It’s OK to be racist but only if your racism is directed at white males, isn’t it.

    • Terry Field

      This stupid article reflects the degeneration of some centres of over consumption in western cities, and is unrepresentative of the vast majority of the world, and that includes the generative bits. These sexual and psychological degenerations are clearly associated with, and may be causal of declining, failing, past-thoer-sell by date societies.
      That is why this stupid article and the cohorts of the leather clad gays and their ‘surrogations’ are not even a footnote to history.

  • jack

    Homosexuals have had their way and think they are accepted as normal homosexuals in a heterosexual society, but forget that living in a 1% bubble and gaining certain legal rights such as marriage, does not necessarily confer an acceptance by ‘normal’ society that they so desperately crave.

    Gays and Lesbians have gained so much over heterosexual men and women in the last three decades, that there is not much of a middle ground left, and which is now being rapidly taken up in an extreme way by Islam. Gay/ lesbian liberal men/women, overly liberal heterosexual men and women, and aggressive feminazi man haters have shut down and shouted down any avenue left to speak out against the lowering of moral values, or even what an individual parent may wish their child to be taught in schools.

    The ‘ liberators’ have unwittingly created a situation where our Western society is no longer viewed as moral and upstanding, but decaying and decadent and open to attack by people still living in the 7th Century.

    • Neil Saunders

      I don’t think that the ‘liberators’ created the situation unwittingly, jack.

      They’ve created the moral and cultural equivalent of HIV, destroying our society’s immune system’s ability to deal effectively with such scourges as Islam, a fact which you quite correctly acknowledge.

    • Mike

      The irony is that when you discriminate against the majority by forcing through a multitude of laws that give preferential treatment to minority groups, all sorts of unintended consequences can arise. I have yet to hear from anyone on the left how they can square away Islams position on gays when non Islamic people would get arrested for committing hate crimes for promoting the same ideology.

      Islam blatantly promotes sexism & homophobia, it inspires pedophilia & murder and yet the establishment turns a blind eye to it. I can’t get to grips with this contradiction but apparently the left are quite at ease with this as we saw in Rotherham with young white girls or Muslim girls murdered in honour killing.

      • jack

        Minorities in the first instance always promote themselves, and in their fight for approval and rights will assist other minorities, in order to create a collective fight against the established majority.

        Gay and Lesbian minorities have neglectfuly backed Islam as a religion of peace, and its minority adherents in the West as pious peace lovers, somehow practicing a great philosophy.

        The real irony is that two Gay men will never procreate at the same rate as Islam ,and so one day will once again become an ‘oppressed’ minority within a majority that they promoted and created in the first instance.

  • balance_and_reason

    What if i is a striped man? when is my time?

  • balance_and_reason

    Actually the winners will be the ones that get off their ar”ses and do something…always. The rest are parasites and in the end they will always lose.

  • Ed  

    You can’t fight the law of gravity. The 20 year old sexual nut case (if he lives) wakes up one day to realize he’s 35, and settles down.

    This has been happening for a long time, folks, and isn’t going to stop until we find a way to repeal the passage of time.

    Shocking, shocking, that a new generation has had to learn it from scratch.

    Your grandmother could have explained this to you, if you’d been listening.

  • JohnCrichton89

    At the end of the second world war white Europeans made up more than a third of the worlds total population, we now account for less than 10%………… partly due to a marginally declining birth, but largely because non-whites have had a population explosion. Ironically, on hand-outs from white societies.

    To give you an example;
    The population of Pakistan was around 42 million in 1960, it’s now over 182 million. Africa and the middle East are the same story, I doubt white people will be the main demographic of any country anywhere in the future.

    How is this winning ?

    • porcelaincheekbones

      The West wrongly assumed other countries were capable of emulating our foresight. Tragedy of the commons. There will be a famine, or an epidemic, or a war, a correction is inevitable.

      • JohnCrichton89

        Our fates are intertwined with every other 2nd/3rd world country now, where a large proportion of the UK’s residents hail from.
        When the correction comes it will engulf us, and Europe.

        Unlike those that herald this up coming culling, white demographics don’t have the fertility rate to cope with such a thing. Indigenous Europeans will simply disappear, and this collection of countries will turn into another African continent. Surviving through numbers……… the world will have lost so much. And from the ashes ? Probably another Islamic caliphate.

        • porcelaincheekbones

          It depends. If the dregs are rounded into a contained area, say, London, and everyone else were dispersed and generally distant, we might be okay. They’d simply kill one another and the military could pick off the survivors.

          • Neil Saunders

            London is the cultural and administrative capital of the United Kingdom. Ceding it to immigrants de jure (rather than, as now, simply de facto) would constitute decapitation and therefore capitulation by the indigenous population, which is exactly what the globalisers/multiculturalists want.

            Far better to fight the globalist/multiculturalist/mass immigration agenda by exposing its moral and legal illegitimacy, and sponsoring its wholesale reversal by all humane and reasonable means.

          • porcelaincheekbones

            Very large holding pens.

          • JohnCrichton89

            You really underestimate their fertility rate.
            The Muslim demographics have been infighting for over a thousand years, as have the black communities, and still they have had the numbers to maintain other wars. Muslims alone took the middle east with constant infighting, Africans took Detroit whilst murdering each other on a scale unheard of outside of ethnic cleansing.

            Quarantining every single Muslim/African until their is but one machete wielding madman left simply wouldn’t work, they would continue to grow in numbers whilst perfecting the art of barbarism and enslavement on one another.
            Options are simply not available, get used to the idea that white countries are a thing o the past. Black and Muslim countries are going to replace them.

          • porcelaincheekbones

            The inbreeding has kept their IQ low. Siege tactics. They will turn on each other when resources become scarce. If they can be defeated in the Middle Ages over many Crusades, with modern technology we can certainly do it.

          • JohnCrichton89

            Defeated in the middle ages by the crusades?
            They weren’t, whom do you think owned those lands before Muslims came along ?
            Well they are all Muslim lands now aren’t the,y bar Israel and India. Which I might add, are under siege………. literally under siege.

            The Persian Empire, the Egyptian Empire………. they even sacked the Byzantium Empire as a prelude to their attempted march on Europe.

            You have to think of this as a strategist, you are looking down on a world map and watching this unfold. We haven’t gained any ground……….. where as they are now everywhere. Establishing themselves in our countries whilst ethnic cleansing what’s left of the non-Muslims in lands we have long abandoned any right too.

            Modern tech that we will never use, but once they get one country in Europe. Like France or Sweden, they have nukes. and they will use them. It’s game over for us. This is if somewhere like Iran doesn’t develop them first, or if Pakistan decides to just hand over what we gave them to any of the Islamic groups willing to use it.

          • porcelaincheekbones

            They were trying to bring Islam to Europe. They failed in that. Their own lands are none of our concern, for the large part. Only the latest gaggle of malignant idiots would just let them in and pay them to breed and take over our schools, convert our churches and run for positions of leadership.
            As far as protecting our section of the world, Europe is rather large and technologically superior. I refer, of course, to larger bombs and nukes. Yes, if they get one country, my money’s on Sweden, then it’s game over, and if every country in Europe doesn’t vote in immigration control parties, cut off all foreign aid and batton down the hatches before it’s too late frankly they deserve all they get, and all their descendants get at the end of a scimitar.

          • JohnCrichton89

            They were trying to bring Islam to the world, and they took a lot of ground. They continually take ground, we never take any back………. that’s called loosing, from a tactical standpoint.
            ‘Holding pens’…………. that’s just naïve..
            Going to put up a wall around our capital ?
            Set up check points and such ?
            Cause it’s working wonders for Israel. Worked wonders for Stalin.

          • porcelaincheekbones

            Electrified fences, armed guards, not just a wall.

          • JohnCrichton89

            Oh right !?

            Well why didn’t yo say so, quick somebody get Israel on the phone.
            We need to tell them to put armed guards at their walls to stop Palestine death squads DIGGING UNDER IT.

            This is a troll, must be……….. made me laugh anyway.

          • porcelaincheekbones

            Cities have concrete foundations.

        • ScaryBiscuits

          Birth rates rise as well as fall.

    • hdb

      On ‘handouts from whites’! That made me laugh. I guess you think Bangladeshi garment workers are overpaid?

      Yes, population has grown outside Europe, just as Europe’s population grew between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries. It is a normal part of modernisation and all predictions are growth will trail off in the middle of this centuries as developing countries become wealthier.

      • JohnCrichton89

        So, India is an autonomous state then ? Free from financial aid from white countries, except for the 3,000 million dollars dumped into it in 2011 or the nearly 2,000 million in 2012……….. that’s 1,600,000,000.
        This doesn’t include the Pakistani sister state of India.
        How would their population growth be without that aid ? How would they be fairing if we didn’t police the area for them at the cost of BILLIONS !
        There would be genocide and disease wiping them out.
        Europe grew in line with the social infrastructure created by us, whenever we got to big for our society something like the black plaque or the hundred years war would happen to cull our numbers. We are allowing the populations of third world countries to exceed their social infrastructure by feeding them and policing them.
        It’s a population bubble that will burst, soon something like Ebola will come along and we wont be able to save them. And it will reach us. Soon they will simply ask for too much aid because their numbers have grown so much.
        This is to say nothing of the diseases we have wiped out in these places.

        • J Li

          You are a racist through and through. Don’t talk as if the third world countries are eating out of your pocket. Just don’t talk on a hypothetical basis. Look into the history and check who exploited whom, who looted the third world in the name of ‘colonisation’ and reduced them to what they are today. If the so called ‘developed’ countries have come forward to ‘aid’ the developing, I don’t see why you have to fret and fume and whine so much, its called a humane gesture and please note that nobody here is living on your pocket, the third world is better off without your whining pity! “retarded societies”? Atleast we are taught here basics ethics like respect!

          • JohnCrichton89

            ‘Reduced them to what they are today’ , you mean when England united the divided Indian regions, built railways lines and introduced a judicial system still in use. Perhaps you don’t like the governing and academic infrastructure based on English principles ?

            India is perhaps a bad example of aid dependence, it has a lot going for it. But lets look at the bigger picture.

            If Western countries turned off the welfare tap, India would be OK. On paper at least, it’s economy is going from strength to strength. Politicians are horribly corrupt, but it’s working.
            And looks like it would be just fine.

            If Pakistan wasn’t on it’s border.

            Pakistan would just melt down without aid, Muslims would flood into India and it would go up in flames.

            It’s not some ‘humane gesture’. It’s the status quo for the region to be completely dependant on our tax money out of some self deluded sense of victimhood……… tell me. How has the British Crown persecuted you ?

            It’s been nearly a hundred years since British colonialism in many of these ‘developing’ places, blaming England at this point for the state of affairs is a self defeating and laughable.

          • J Li

            FYI, the Divide and Rule that the British so effectively implemented has been one of the major reasons for the Hindu Muslim divide that exists in the sub continent. The amount of resources that were exploited, God only knows. Nobody is blaming anybody, we give enough credit to England for their endeavours in the field of Education, language, railways and judiciary. I just can’t understand why you are getting so hyper about Muslims and third world countries and immigrants, surely they are not simply coming and living in your country for free. They earn their own living and pay their taxes, infact why are your employers even hiring them if they are a ‘burden’ to you. I’m not interested in fighting with an unknown person but just couldn’t stand unnecessary criticism and misconstrued info about this matter. PEACE is what is required now, take a deep breath, didn’t we introduce you to yoga? Take a break and forget about all these differences brother. Stay calm and have a good day.

          • La Fold

            Shoe makers.

          • madge hirsch

            Yes indeed. Liberating the Hindus from the yoke of dhimmitude that the Muslims had subjected them to was so bad for them. You should read the Muslim reports about some of the waves of conquest by them in India. Mountains of skulls and the sort of mass enslavement that make ISIS looke like amateurs really make for super friendly relations.

          • J Li

            Ya I also suggest you to read Indian history and British History , reconcile and see the story from both versions . Do not jump to wrong conclusions reading a one-sided story. Nonetheless we were treated as slaves and subjected to inhuman treatment and thoroughly exploited in the name of colonisation. We do not deny the good done by the English nor will we forget the bad and crown them as nobles. Whether you agree or disagree this is the truth. Nobody is interested in digging the past but such unnecessary criticism is uncalled for!

    • andyrwebman

      Therein lies the problem. Victory in population numbers doesn’t belong to those societies who let women have rights, allow their people to live a varied life, leaving it for years (or never) until they settle down and have children.

      Victory instead belongs to the narrow minded societies who force their women to become baby factories and force their men into feeding them.

      The really self destructive thing the west does is to look at those societies and think “hey, I know, let’s invite them to live here”. It’s like covering yourself in blood and inviting in a ravenous wolf.

      • ScaryBiscuits

        Victory actually belongs to neither of the extremes you mention. It belongs to stable populations that grow within their means. As soon as the white man stops subsidising the rest, as he will sooner or later, these populations will collapse, probably in a big war.

        • The white man is not subsidizing “the rest.” He is raping them and leaving the commoners to pay for the programs the elite said they could not live without. Foreign aid goes out one door and comes right back in the next.

          • ScaryBiscuits

            Look at the accounts of any western country. You’ll find your prejudice against the west isn’t backed up by the numbers.

          • That doesn’t even make sense. I am not “prejudiced against the west.” Read the book and get back to me. Maybe it will stop your infernal trolling.

      • Sun

        Too bad your mother was a baby factory you degenerate feminist c*nt. Feminist need to die out.

        How anyone could like your post is beyond me. Your kind is like a cancer slowly deconstructing the West and then you have the audacity to turn around and claim you know what victory is and who is really “harmful” to the West.

    • Richard Lutz

      I really don’t think you need to get your knickers in a twist over how much melanin people have in their skin old chap. Think of England and tally-ho!

      • JohnCrichton89

        Oh really ? Well I’m not English, but I do worry for them.
        Tell me, which white minority country should England aspire to be like ?
        Which Muslim majority country ?
        The skin is the largest organ in the body, is it so hard to accept that other organs are different.
        You think filling your country with Muslims from the most backward tribal villages of Pakistan, or poorest parts of sub-Saharan Africa wont matter in the long run ?
        White Europeans, and white Britons, are literally being bred into obscurity. And all people can say is PC cr@p about how skin colour doesn’t matter.
        Even though every bit of research on the issue implies the contrary.
        Your country is doomed !

        • Richard Lutz

          Thank you for your reply. Seems to me your concern is about culture, not race. We all come from Africa as a matter of interest, so it would be accurate to say that whites are light skinned Africans. Perhaps we should focus more on the good things in life and less about our fears; while treating people like the enemy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You might like to consider becoming a Christian or a Buddhist as hate will eat you up. Life is too precious to waste being a hater. Have you seen the movie Zorba the Greek?

          • JohnCrichton89

            That is wish washy non-sense, we are all Africans? No, we aren’t. This statement is just completely false on so many levels.

            I don’t hate anyone, quite the opposite. I recognise that different races are exactly that, different. That each race and culture has something to be celebrated, and preserved, including white Europeans and Britons.

            To go even further. Whilst it’s true that within every racial demographic the potential gene expression of every other demographic exists, the gene expression is correlated with race. You can make quite precise predictions of a demographic based on race, ie; how they physically look. Skin colour, eye colour, jaw line, eye shape etc.
            More over. You could, with s trained eye, discern where they and their parents have come from.

            Race exists, and the differences aren’t skin deep. It’s just a fact. We are not all Africans, saying this is commonly used as a back handed way of justifying the out of control immigration in your country.

          • Richard Lutz

            There are of course minor differences between people as you say. I hear some people think the blue-eyed race should keep to themselves and not impinge on the biological purity of the brown-eyed race. Perhaps brown-eyed white people could join forces with brown-eyed black people to shore up the brown-eyed race? Do you have brown eyes?

          • JohnCrichton89

            Minor differences ? As I said the skin is the largest organ in the human body.
            Again, we can make generalisations based on skin colour alone about other organ gene expression. sickle cell anaemia, lactose intolerant, more susceptible to certain viruses.
            We can sub categorise into smaller groups to get more precise data, and it holds up.

            Race simply exists.

            It’s understood by anyone and everyone with any sort of intellectual honesty. Those denying that race exists, or that the word itself has no taxonomic meaning in in science or society, have generally fallen victim to the PC position or are being led by their political bias.
            The analogy that ‘we are all Africans’ is just silly and serves nothing but a political agenda. Whether it’s right or wrong that we all came from Africa, it’s a GROSS over generalisation (to call us white skinned Africans) made by those with a very small understanding of evolutionary biology and genetics.

            As an example;
            Shall we refer to all dogs as wolves ? or as the first domesticated breed ? perhaps we should just refer to all dogs as dogs, cause they are all they same…………. reflect on how dumb that sounds.
            Envision the Monty Python-esque scene as you went to a kennel to adopt a dog, and the need to sub categorise dogs as much as possible. And how important it is to know the dog’s ancestry when training it. Think of how this matters in EVERY species because of traits and IQ and aggression and so on. From horses to cats, to plants and viruses/diseases………… not humans though, cause that’s just silly.

          • Richard Lutz

            Seems to me that race is a social construct. Are people who have blue eyes a different race than people who have brown eyes? The so-called races are far too similar to justify calling one a sub-species of the other. Two blonde Swedes will have more genetic differentiation from each other than do one race from another as there are only a few genes involved in physical characteristics like skin colour.

            The domestic dog has a number of breeds which you might equate to race, but all dogs but very similar even though they can look very different. I don’t think it is fair for anyone to say a dog is like a wolf as their temperaments are quite different despite being very close genetically. Dogs are domesticated while wolves are not.

            Perhaps we should change the binomial nomenclature for the human species from Homo sapiens to ‘Homo africanus’ to make it easier for people to accept the idea that whites are light skinned Africans? Modern humans are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, so we would change this to ‘Homo africanus africanus’.

            As a matter of interest, do you think nation states like the UK are inherently racist because they discriminate against non-citizens? Discrimination against people due to the nationality is deemed a form of racism by many nations, which is why it is illegal for a hotel in the UK to refuse to rent a room to a Swede because he is Swedish.

          • Neil Saunders

            No hotel in the UK would even consider refusing to rent a room to a Swede on the grounds of race, since Swedes are barely distinguishable from us ethnically, and are very close to us culturally and linguistically.

          • Terry Field

            We all come from Africa as a matter of interest, so it would be accurate to say that whites are light skinned Africans.

            Untrue. Latest research show different racial groups not all from Africa. Keep up, old son, keep up.

          • Richard Lutz

            You can believe that whites are descended from Angels or aliens for all I care, but genetic studies and fossil evidence show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago, that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.

          • Terry Field

            You are inadequately informed and your knowledge of genetics is not sufficient. You are quoting quite old beliefs not based on latest evidence. And the junk about angels shows you to be a stupid lightweight.

          • Richard Lutz

            Thank you for your reply Mr Field, much appreciated. You are free to believe whatever you like.

          • Terry Field

            Mr Lutz, there is a difference between belief in a subjective condition, and absolute truth. Radioactivity exists irrespective of belief.
            I do not ‘believe’ in the observation I have made.
            I have disclosed truth and you should be happy to embrace it.
            Anyone who names their submersible ‘Alvin’ needs a stiff scotch and soda, followed by a serious chat with a well-balanced person like me.

          • Richard Lutz

            Thank you for your comment.

            Do you think we should change the binomial nomenclature for the human species from Homo sapiens to ‘Homo africanus’ to make it easier for people to accept the idea that whites are light skinned Africans? Modern humans are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, so we would change this to ‘Homo africanus africanus’.

          • madge hirsch

            Please provide links to this research.

    • Niko Belic

      “At the end of the second world war white Europeans made up more than a
      third of the worlds total population, we now account for less than 10%”

      Also because of the maniacal tendency of white European males to go after attractive non-white (Asian in particular) women, instead of marrying within their own ethnic group. Had everyone stuck to their own, we’d be just fine. But a large number of white males decided that they wanted some variety!

      And then the “hand-outs” you mention are only part of the story – populations have grown in Africa, the Middle East and Asia also because of scientific and medical evolutions (I purposely refuse to use the word ‘progress’) that have enabled people to live much longer (in Europe too). It’s not just that the third world nations are having more kids, their elders are also living longer and making the population swell.

      Having said that, I do agree with your conclusion: this demographic boom in poorer parts of the world can only end very badly. At best, a war to control territory and resources as happening in the Middle East and Africa. At worst…

  • Aporia

    Given the systematic use of ‘white’ in front of ‘heterosexual male’ I was expecting (and hoping for) some analysis along those lines.

    In particular, (i) why are ‘non-white’ heterosexual males exempt from sexual the revolution battle? (ii) Whose ‘side’ would they be on, if either? (iii) If every individual of the group ‘non-white heterosexual male’ is exempt just in virtue of their skin colour, does this tell us that those individuals ‘genuinely just couldn’t ever, ever be sexist or homophobic’, or does it point to a bias, conscious or not, on the part of the ‘sexual revolutionaries’?

    I would suggest the following answers:

    (i) Probably one or both of the following reasons: the sexual revolutionaries fear criticising typically non-white cultures and non-white individuals for fear of appearing racist; the sexual revolutionaries see non-whites in general as part of the Rainbow Coalition of the Oppressed in the struggle against the ‘dominant’ white, male patriarchy.

    (ii) Individually, both – skin colour is not a determining factor on an individual basis. But the sexual revolutionaries would claim the group as their own, for Rainbow Coalition purposes.

    (iii) No need to answer this one, it should be clear enough from my tone.

    • Gwangi

      Yep, and a great irony that, from what I can tell, the people in the UK who are the most bigoted – the most anti-gay, with the most backwards views of women’s roles, and indeed the most racist against people of other skin colours and cultures – are usually from ethnic minorities. Just ask a black person what they think of gays, or a Muslim if he’d allow his daughter marry an atheist white man.

  • Neil Saunders

    I like you, Cosmo – but this sure as hell doesn’t feel like victory to me.

  • Mike

    An excellent piece full of ironies.

    Its certainly true that as a hetero sexual I’ve changed my attitude towards moderate or should I say ‘normal’ gay people amongst whom I have some good friends. I care not for their sexual preferences for myself but its none of my business just as what my heterosexual friends might get up to under the sheets or where ever. That doesn’t define their character or the social morality of a person but what I can say, I despise ALL who are militant in your face bigots whether its based on religion, culture or sex.

    The sad part is that peoples attitude to different lifestyles, culture, colour or religion has previously been allowed to evolve at a natural pace and it has always worked pretty well as a whole. However whenever extremist left wing activists in Labour or left wing copycats like Cameron try and force it on the electorate without a mandate, there’s always tears. Multiculturalism was around for decades before Labour made it compulsory and even gay marriage would have evolved naturally but no, Cameron couldn’t let nature take its course, he had to create a problem where none existed.

    One wonders why minority groups who wanted to be recognized as being different 30 years ago with all manner of special concessions have now demanded to be treated the same. The only fly in the ointment is that some still want their special treatment and thats where resentment and disharmony sets in.

    Politicians should NOT try and social engineer people or their culture, they are ill equipped to understand what they are doing, they are incompetent in drafting responsible legislation and as most are failed lawyers, they are hardly Freudian as far as their skill set goes. They should just stay the f*** away from it !

    • sfin

      Hear! Hear!

      An erudite summary of how “progressive” politics causes misery and conflict.

      • Mike

        No doubt I’ll be called a racist, bigot, sexist or homophobic by the real freaks of extremism but I’ll wear that badge with pride as I’m not a control freak like many in FlibFlabFcon but a ‘live and let live’ sort of person. As long as your actions aren’t detrimental of discourteous to others, you can do whatever ‘floats your boat’.

        I believe in complete freedom of actions within the privacy of your own home providing its consensual, doesn’t present a threat to society, doesn’t abuse the underage and everyone is up for it. Once you’re in the public domain, you should respect the wishes or feelings of others and that includes ‘no dogging’, hiding your identity (burkas) and discrete breast feeding in a restaurant. It shouldn’t be your ‘right’ to upset the majority or be a potential threat just because your a militant a**hole or a religious freak !

    • Neil Saunders

      I would dispute your suggestion here that mainstream society was already organically evolving – albeit at a slower pace – towards the kind of political correctness that has been rapidly imposed by fiat.

      I agree with you that it is not the responsibility of politicians (or other powerful and influential people and institutions) to “social engineer the people and their culture”, but it is a hostage to fortune (as well as simply untrue) that they have merely hastened a process that was already ongoing and would have resulted in something similar over the longer haul.

      • Mike

        Mainstream society is constantly evolving and you only need to look at the sexual revolution of the 60’s to see that. Additionally, the percentage of families with unmarried parents is off the scale compared to pre WWII and all of that happened without government involvement or social engineering.

        It is quite possible and likely that attitudes towards gay relationships would have evolved naturally as well if they had been allowed to but we’ll never know as the PC merchants interfered and forced it down our throats. Its akin to beating a dog with a stick because it messes on the floor rather than training it to go outside or in the case of a child, showing by example rather than screaming at it.

        Its perverse that the same liberal progressives who ban the cane or insist no kid can fail an exam, in the same breath demand complete subservience to their social engineering policies.

  • sfin

    This article could have been condensed into:

    Eventually, most social progressives grow up.

    • Neil Saunders

      Except that would have misrepresented what has really happened. The PC versions of traditional institutions bear as much resemblance to them as Monopoly money does to the real thing.

      • sfin

        A good point.

        Mike makes a good argument below – that, of course, traditions, norms, mores and institutions change…

        …but over time, and evolution always trumps revolution.

        The youth and the ill-educated/ ill-informed always want instant change. I respect the rights of gay people to build lives together in a legal framework which protects the rights of each partner.

        Regardless of what the legislation currently says, will I, personally recognise a gay couple as “married” – never!I also respect the rights of proprietors of the likes of hotels to refuse entry of gay couples on religious grounds.

        ‘Revolution always diminishes the depth of ‘institutions’ and the respect in which they are held.

        • Neil Saunders

          I agree with Mike’s general point about society needing to evolve organically, rather than radical change being socially engineered into existence on the back of diktats from our elites and imposed on a recalcitrant populace.

          I’ve argued elsewhere that gay so-called marriage lacks what the philosopher John Searle (in writing about social institutions such as money, legal systems, etc.) calls “collective intentionality”; the PC brigade are fond of legislation because it can be used coercively to redefine the public meaning and content of social institutions, but (like all authoritarian framers of utopias) they overlook the important (indeed, crucial) fact that while people may be forced to consent to something with their tongues (and even their visible behaviour) they may still withhold true consent in their hearts. (This, by the way, is why it was so important in George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” that Winston Smith really had to love Big Brother at the end; his conversion had to be a genuine one. This is the ultimate in social control – and a destination that appears not to trouble the authoritarian left, even if they currently (and, let us hope, prospectively) lack the means for its achievement.)

          • sfin

            Another good read…

            Maybe, with reference to Mike’s points about education, the authoritarian left feel that with the removal of parental authority and childhood boundaries in education, along with the force-feeding of left wing dogma, over the last fifty years or so, the electorate are now ready to hear an empty headed narcissist like Brand spout his stuff on what is, supposed to be, a serious public, political debating platform.

            They even have columnists like Dan Hodges in the DT saying Brand was ‘better’ than Farage – which really does make me feel like I’m living in LaLa land.

            Maybe, as you (and Orwell) so rightly point out, we’re all supposed to really love it by now…

            I don’t.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Great post Neil.

        • Mike

          The human race has evolved to where it is today because of free will and you only have to look back through history to see that when social engineering of the type practiced by Labour and now the Tories took place, evolution slowed to a crawl.

          Previously it was religion that brought human development to a grinding halt and now its this dogma of multiculturalism & political correctness which to all intents and purposes is 1984 social engineering.

          Everybody will have varying opinions for or against gay marriages, Islam, polygamy, political parties and all manner of subjects but despite attempts by the establishment to prevent debate, it doesn’t change whats in your mind whether good or bad. As you rightly pointed out, no matter what the legislation states or what penalties are invoked, it won’t make people change their mind one way or another as only time & evolution can change mindsets.

          Its been proven time and again that the most effective & productive way of educating infants, then kids and then students is to set strict boundaries as infants, then open up learning, free thinking as kids and finally as mature students, let them teach themselves based on experience and research with assistance when asked for. Only by this route will they be a benefit to society as well as fullfilling themselves. Social engineering does none of this and just creates zombies of no value to society & rebels who object and fight against whats going wrong.

          Currently I think we have a 33/66 ratio of zombies to free thinkers but if the social engineers succeed in getting their way, we’ll stagnate once that ratio flips the other way. Unfortunately the current establishment can’t see they are instrumental in bring down the very system they benefit from.

          • sfin


            You touch on two points here which make me believe that all of this is deliberate.

            The removal of child boundaries and the creation of a ‘zombie’ class.

            I find it extremely odd how today’s youth cling to the PC orthodoxy (what was called ‘the loony left’ – three decades ago) instead of being the rebellious free thinkers of yore.

            Breitbart reports Essex University SU holding a vote on wether to ban UKIP from their campus. A student body proposing a motion to ban a legitimate political point of view.

            I’m not a conspiracy theorist. But this is all rather sinister.

          • Mike

            Sinister it is as it used to be the case in my youth where the young (15-25 years) were generally rebels against the establishment whatever their political leaning. They neither had nor wanted any ‘adult’ role model or influence in their thinking as they grew up and the majority of us settled down, got married, had kids and integrated into society.

            Nowadays we see this insidious brain washing by the left that starts off in small ways at primary school, builds up at secondary school and is indoctrinated at further education. It would appear that the far too many educationalists (teachers) have deliberately abandoned their core functions of teaching children how to explore for themselves by 16 years of age and have become agent provocateurs to condition the young into their twisted ideology.

            I recently watched a group of students having a Q&A with Farage a week or so ago and its was startling that virtually none of them could debate facts or discuss valid arguments but they all had some sort of chip on their shoulder and were clearly brain washed from college/uni etc. All of them in varying degrees were a watered down version of Russel Brand and I pitied them for their naivety. My generation certainly rebelled against authority but we never had social engineering as an unpublicized part of our curriculum as happens today.

        • Damaris Tighe

          I always get an unpleasant twinge when I see a man referring to his ‘husband’ or a woman referring to her ‘wife’. This is cultural Marxist triumph – the complete subversion of language.

          • Neil Saunders

            My every instinct recoils against such grotesque abuses of language.

    • Mike

      If only the militant wing grew up as well !

  • Thank goodness for good men with fortitude and sound morals. As a straigt myself, I now listen to Joe Sample and Lalah Hathaway “When Your Life Was Low”.

  • porcelaincheekbones

    They wanted to take down capitalism until they got comfortable with its gifts.

    • Neil Saunders

      It was never really about “taking down” capitalism, but always about power; the industrial proletariat were a convenient client base until something or someone “better” (from the point of view of subverting the existing social order and grabbing the reins of power) came along – the now-familiar troika of women, gays and non-whites. This is why the Culturally Marxist left experience no cognitive dissonance in sponsoring both the gay-rights lobby and fundamentalist Islam, however antithetical each of these groups is to the other, since both are hostile to the established order. (As it happens, I’m fairly hostile to it myself, but I can make no common cause with the PC left or its client groups, which are morally nihilistic in the case of the sexual radicals, or totalitarian in the case of Islam.)

      • porcelaincheekbones

        the key of CULTURAL marxism is targeting based on identity, instead of class
        the PC name is identity politics or third wave SJW feminism

        • Neil Saunders

          Yep, that’s about the size of it!

  • More insane by the day

    “she has a wife, two surrogate kids… Yesterday’s radical lesbian activist became
    a soccer mom; so much for the future belonging to the ‘freaks’.”

    I don’t know what planet this writer is living on, but if that doesn’t meet the definition of “freak” I don’t know what does. The writer has also completely DISMISSED THE ENTIRE MAIN OBJECTION to distorting “traditional” sexual ethics and marriage: the consequences for CHILDREN.

    I believe surrogacy to be evil in general, treating children as if they are some mere material consumer commodity and not living, breathing human beings with natural biological desires. Never mind having that on the child’s shoulders, on top they have to deal with the unnatural parenting from being brought up by sexual dysfunctionals, never truly knowing their own father or having a masculine discipline in their lives, no male role model, and no-one to teach the virtues of masculinity; cumulatively this resulting in a much greater likelihood of mental and behavioural problems, lower achievement, and difficultly forming healthy relationships for themselves.

    Of course, when these problems become more well acknowledged, no doubt the loony left will pin blame the rest of us for not being “tolerant” rather than acknowledging that you can’t simply dismiss biological reality.

    • Zimbalist

      The effect on children is completely overlooked. I cannot fathom how WILFULLY denying a child a (female) mother and a (male) father does not constitute child abuse.

  • thomasaikenhead

    ” Clare Balding (OBE) is the new queen mum loved by all…”

    Actually not so, but this is due to her lack of talent rather than her sexuality.

  • thomasaikenhead


    Would you care to define what you mean by ‘white’?

  • Corpus_Innominata

    But now the Left advocates a new culture of sexuality – Arabs raping British children by the thousands. This is still somewhat taboo in today’s culture, but time will tell who wins this cultural war. With the lenient prosecutions should we expect decriminalization?

    • Neil Saunders

      Make that Pakistani Muslims rather than “Arabs”, and you’ve hit the nail on the head.

    • That is propaganda of the worst kind. Nobody advocates anyone raping children from the left or the right. You are making stuff up and being alarmist. Shame on you for such an ill-informed comment. Show us your evidence – that’s right you can’t.

      • Neil Saunders

        The people who turned a blind eye to the grooming and rape of underage girls by Muslim men in Rotherham, because they were afraid of the adverse consequences (as they viewed them) for “diversity” if this sickening abuse were to become common public knowledge, were advocates by default. This is not propaganda of any sort, nor is it alarmist – it’s just fact, indeed a matter of record.

        • Doh

          Not “the people” but “the Labour Councillors” who turned a blind eye … and the local police.

          • Neil Saunders

            That’s precisely whom I meant, Doh!

      • Corpus_Innominata

        It’s been proven countless time that labor wanted mass immigration to, in their words, “rub there noses” in multiculturalism. This is perhaps the main reason that UKIP is now so prolific.

        I stand on truth, not liberal/progressive anti-white hatred.

  • hdb

    Whatever about the white heterosexual male the nuclear family seems to have imploded in the last thirty years. From the inability of many men to bring in an income sufficient to raise a family on to the trumpeting of everyone’s right to great sex there have been a host of issues which have nothing to do with Red Ken’s symbolic politics which have done much to very seriously undermine it. It is now almost abnormal for teenagers to still live together with the two people who brought them into the world.

    • Lina R

      It’s called the welfare state. Women no longer have to be concerned if the man they choose to father their children will stand by them financially.

  • Frank

    Why does the Spectator employ this unpleasant individual?
    “white straight males”, what about other races?
    Who says that it is a competition?
    Who gives a stuff about who the media decides is an icon – the media is bound to be wrong.
    Why is Cosmo Landesman such a pillock? Surely America needs him much more than poor benighted Britain.

  • Rodney S

    The best time to be a straight white male was back in the 1970’s. It’s been downhill ever since.

  • Sean L

    But the enforcement of such sexually subversive attitudes is racially exclusive anyway. References to ‘b*tches’ and ‘hos’ are the staple of musical forms emanating from black America and Jamaica. Yet no one bats an eyelid. Whereas a white bloke makes some inane remark about traditional gender roles, or wears a shirt adorned with pin-up girls, and he’s pilloried. As for *promoting* sexual deviation, witness the left wing protests at your local madrassa. Not.

  • pavel1952

    Thanks Cosmo for lifting my spirit for a change.

  • ‘No, we gave him the Turner Prize (2003) and then a CBE.’ This is the part that shows that there is still a problem. It amply demonstrates your thinking that white middle-aged men are the ones who should be in power and entitled to be throwing crumbs. Get over yourself, you are nobody that special.

    • Neil Saunders

      This is the problem with basing everything on identity politics: whether or not someone is actually qualified for a job comes to be regarded as an irrelevance, if not evidence of culpable “prejudice” and “discrimination”.

      Surely the only criterion for whether someone holds and wields power (and the responsibility that comes with it) should be whether they are competent in practical terms to do so; if they are suitably qualified and willing to undertake their duties, whether or not they are white, middle-aged, male or whatever, should be completely beside the point.

    • Mr_Ominous

      Men create their own power unlike parasitic women who want to have men’s wealth creation hand over to them with help of the government.

  • The level of hate in the comments here is truly disgusting. Shame on you.

    • Neil Saunders

      No, Monica, the level of argument in your comments (pitifully low) is truly depressing. Shame on you!

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      Welcome to Spectator blogs.

  • callingallcomets

    Oh dear…another piece of cod sociology based on the antics of a handful of metro pseuds who represent approx 0.001 of the population. It’s like those Polly Filler Telegraph pieces which imply that every woman in Britain has a pair of Jimmy Choos in her wardrobe. Presumably stuff like this is filed under “Lifestyle” and helps to bulk up the space originally filled by real, experienced journalists who actually used up shoe leather for a story

  • Richard Lutz

    I enjoyed Mr Landesman’s article but dispute his assertion that “Gay activists no longer fight for the right to be different, but the right to be married and raise children just like the ‘straights’.” Homosexual adults already have the right to marry an opposite-sex adult and raise children just like the straights, as do asexual, bisexual, pansexual, transsexual and zoosexual adults.
    It would be more accurate to say that gay activists want homosexual couples to have the right to deprive children of a mother or father despite the developmental and emotional harm this naturally causes and validate this hideous neglect via the public institution of civil marriage. A cause supported by the illiberal left and the libertarian right which are obsessed with validating equality or individual liberty and are wholly indifferent to the harm this causes children and society.
    Would it be accurate to say that zoosexuals who want to marry a companion animal and have children want to be like straights and this amounts to a moral victory for straights? Would it be accurate to say that incestsexuals who want to marry their sisters and have children want to be like straights and this amounts to a moral victory for straights? To be frank I really don’t care. What I care about is ensuring that children have a mother and a father who are not close relatives.

  • Richard Lutz

    I am a little disappointed that many commentators seem obsessed with race. Off topic chaps! This is rightly a forum to comment on and debate marriage, not get your knickers in a twist over immigrants.

    • Neil Saunders

      Not off-topic at all; part of a toxic package deal.

  • Terry Field

    “And with good reason; she has a wife, two surrogate kids, a job as a civil servant, a mortgage and a house in the suburbs”

    Surrogate from where?!?
    How totally bloody evil..

    all they are are warehouse attendants for other peoples children. They do not pass their DNA on. And as the gays get together, their reproduction failure rate rises, and they will become very rare indeed.

    They are the truly irrelevant. They are the past, and not the future.

    • Neil Saunders

      Sadly, though, they’re the present – the perfect citizen-consumers of a world where everything and everyone is for sale.

      • Terry Field

        Yes, Britain is all about human recycling via mutual human socio-economic consumption.
        It is a centre for social experimentation. A dreadful place.

  • Richard Lutz

    I was disappointed that many comments relate to a fear of immigrants. Treating people like the enemy is a self-fulfilling prophecy, while we must accept the fact that whites (Caucasians of European descent) are a minority in the world and will become a small minority by the end of the century. Thus whites must treat non-whites decently or our children or grandchildren could pay a terrible price.

    “Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.” – Rainer Maria Rilke

    • Neil Saunders

      What if certain people are the enemy? How should we treat them then? And make no mistake, if immigration to the developed world continues at its present scale and pace, the indigenous population will be replaced in very short order. This makes the immigrants our enemies, whether they or we acknowledge or even recognise the fact or not.

      Your solution to this urgent crisis is to become one of Churchill’s appeasers who feeds the crocodile in the hope that it will eat him last.

      • Richard Lutz

        I don’t think it is very helpful to characterize non-white immigrants to the UK as the “enemy”, while you might like to consider the fact that treating them as such is recipe for disaster.

        Immigration has many benefits and should only be restricted when it is in the best interests of a nation as a whole to do so. Stopping good people immigrating to the UK because they are non-white is not in the public interest, whereas stopping bad people immigrating to the UK because they are members of a violent extremist group is in the public interest even if they are white. Physical characteristics like skin colour are inconsequential, but a person’s character is all important.

        • Neil Saunders

          No, opening the floodgates to unassimilable immigrants from the third world – especially Muslims – is a recipe for disaster. Stopping mass immigration is entirely in the interest of the indigenous people. I take your little spin of Martin Luther King’s statement about the content of a person’s character, and obviously there are wonderful people from all races and cultures, as well as awful ones. But an open-door policy of no-questions-asked mass immigration is hardly the best way to sort the wheat from the chaff.

  • JacksAllesandro

    Cosmo – sorry to shatter pretty much the only evidence you’ve offered up for this long piece of waffle… but people who are into the leather scene are actually capable of hosting barbecues too. It’s not a mutually exclusive life choice. The fact that you think it is says a lot.

  • Peter Gardner

    A clever article with a little twist here and there in the logic and occasional omission of relevant fact in order to come successfully to a conclusion opposite to the truth. Good try but actually flawed.

  • CrankyMiddleAgedGuy

    I must live in a parallel universe. I gone through my whole life without once discussing sexual politics with anyone. I’ve known a few gay men who I have been passingly friendly with. I dont think any of my mates have ever discussed the topic either (it never occurred to me to ask them if they had)
    The only reason I’m even interested at all now is gay marriage. Dont reall care what people do in their spare time, but for me, marriage is a sacrament from God and not something that people can play “me too” with. Not well pleased.

  • wchancellor

    I agree with most of your observations, but I challenge your vantage points and ponder the grip of blinding, delivered-wisdom biases. Some men, more often than women, are profoundly oblivious to the pheremones interacting around them. This was as true when we were at school as it is in any Metrosexual intersection or alleyway profiled in Tyler Brûlé’s Monacle.

    Gay and Str8 are passé terms. The internet has lifted the curtain and the population of males teleported into gigabytes defies “academic” projectsions for same-sex-male gratification–once or frequently–that are remarkably lower today than they were fifty-plus years ago when the US-centric Kinsey Study inspired my mother’s first-anniversary card to my father.

    I’ve made numerous enquiries with “out” men and the feedback is that the older, red-blooded ones were turned off when the Lesbians and wannabe-sisters took over the “gay freedom” brigade when they were being slaughtered by AIDS. By a decade ago, with the marriage-for-all noise, guys who like sex like sport simply became more clever and went into an ether underground, as policing and Mommy-state regs stripped the proverbial bushes and lews from urban landscapes, and all for the better, as they had become menacing, embarrassing places for the weak in bladder.

    One of the Biggest Lies dying before our eyes is that of the Third Gender. Apart from some biologically marginalised people, most of us can be as gay as we would like, and it is here where our respective societies’ value systems come into play. Going forward, the Church, the Temple and Qu’ran will no longer be able to hide behind Moses and St Augustus’ maxims about what is “The Normal Life”. They will firstly be obliged to put their true mission as Pillars of our societies at the top of their web pages: these institutions are first and foremost agricultural and Human Husbandry is the subtext of all their poetry and singsong.

    Intelligent, well-employed, respected, fit or not, and quite often committed “family” men are having more, better and eye-popping sex than in centuries. It is sport and it isn’t anything like the cliché SSM coupling that social anarcho-Catholics are seeing upside in. Fear not too much, as “intelligent” still defines a segment only slightly larger than what Kinsey had discerned, and he thought 50 percent of males in the 1950s were “experienced” (and hadn’t screamed abuse).

    Now, bring one the screams, denunciations, and Mommy police.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Shouldn’t one of the parameters of this article be “white women”?
    Ship yourselves east of Suez and you’ll think the Muslims have it right. The significant difference is that you sidestep that distasteful process of dying.

  • Kepha Hor

    Not so fast. The straight white male wannabes have won some victories, but society as a whole has lost.

    Consider your lesbian friend’s surrogate kids. That smacks of trafficking. Consider some young boy’s “family” that consists of dad, himself, and the creepy guy who nudged mommy out. We all know what “wonders” and “social health” abolishing fatherhood did for American blacks as a demographic. What new “beautiful” kinds of spontaneity will appear among kids raised by sexual deviants?

  • gram64

    This is all utterly irrelevant for at least 90% minimum of the population, who, as everyone can see every day, are straight men and women. Straight families continue to exist and to breed, albeit there are an awful lot of divorces and changes of partner. If this were not so, society would implode.

    Among the millions of new immigrants the old ideals of straight marriage and family are so much to the forefront that the ‘debate’ covered in this article is risibly non-existent. Nice to see such a huge influx of Catholics from Poland, for example. If you don’t like the Muslims, you can’t ignore either their emphasis on straight male superiority, on the importance of the traditional family, and the inadmissibility of homosexuality. Those values don’t change and will never change, and they apply also for the huge non-Muslim Indian population among us, not to mention the Chinese, etc.

    So most of the topic is just cock and bull propagated by a tiny minority of confused whites, most of whom live in the bigger urban conurbations. You certainly won’t find that the topic is even on the radar out in the countryside – except as an occasional subject of mirth.

  • Niko Belic

    Why is being heterosexual conflated with being a white male in this piece? Did black, yellow, orange or whatever-colour males magically join the troops of the rainbow army?

  • Jeff Blanks

    I see racial prejudice is alive and well in the comments.

  • ManOfKent

    The idea that Cosmo (who the f*** calls themself ‘Cosmo’ ffs) Landesman is representative of white British heterosexual males is more ridiculous than one of the lesbians or transgenders type he is trying to prove that he is superior to. Is there any chance that the Spectator can get some real men (gay or straight) involved in writing their magazine and dump these effete metrosexual urban liberal tossers?

  • Sun

    Sub-human minority freaks need to be put into the oven.