new

Why Older White Men Should Start Second Families

Developed societies are not reproducing themselves. This includes the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and European peoples along with their former white colonies.

Societies must have children. At the same time, children of our peoples will enjoy better prospects if they can live among others like themselves rather than among a mix of other ethnicities. And governments, whoever their citizens may be, have a constant need for new generations of taxpayers and soldiers.

A significant number of older men become available for marriage. Though some are widowed, more are divorced. Whether they sought this freedom or not, many older men find themselves no longer bound by obligations to former wives, children, and grandchildren. They are free to start over.

Identitarians, who are making the strongest case for increasing the fertility of their own groups, should look at older men as natural allies and recruit them to the cause. Older men identify more strongly with the societies into which they were born. They retain traditional values. They have demonstrated by their survival and success that they have “the right stuff” worth passing on to a new generation. They generally have the material resources to support children, and if they do not already have a family, they should start one.

Men should not be encouraged to fritter away the last few decades of life traveling and playing golf. Like younger men who are re-discovering their identities, they should raise strong families to perpetuate their heritage.

Genetics

Genetics lie at the core of most arguments against older fatherhood. Although the bulk of the harmful mutations that appear in every person’s genome are inherited from parents, an older man is more likely to have de novo mutations to his genome — those that appear during his lifetime.

Still, the number of harmful de novo mutations is small compared to the thousand or so inherited mutations. Kondrashov includes a table showing that in the genome of a newborn, de novo mutations make up 10 percent of the worst mutations (which reduce fitness by 10 percent or more), 1 percent of those that reduce fitness by 1 percent or more, and 0.1 percent and .001 percent of the lesser orders of magnitude of deleterious mutations. However old a father may be, he can take comfort in the fact that a significantly greater percentage of his children’s load of deleterious genes will be ones he and his wife inherited rather than new ones he passed along to his children. The increase in the risk of harmful mutations is probably no more than about 25 percent. If the rest of his genome gives children a 25 percent edge — in terms of charm, good looks, intelligence — it can be a fair trade.

Genetic advantages of an older father

An older guy who is available for marriage probably inherited fewer harmful mutations than most. He obviously didn’t inherit anything that would kill him young. Heart disease is about 30 percent heritable. An older guy fit enough to marry probably doesn’t have it. Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia are about 50 percent heritable. The older husband who doesn’t yet show any signs of dementia is less likely to carry those mutations. An older guy on the marriage market is less likely to carry genetic mutations favoring bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or other conditions that show up over the course of adult life.

An older man available for marriage has almost certainly been successful, and therefore above-average in intelligence. Intelligence is about 80 percent heritable. A woman can’t control her own contribution to a child’s intelligence — that’s baked into her genome. But if the older partner she attracts has a 20 IQ point advantage over a younger suitor, she can reasonably expect her children will be correspondingly smarter.

Part of the argument about de novo mutations is that since the rates of childhood mortality fell from about 50 percent at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to today’s 1 percent, an increasing number of deleterious genes are retained in each successive generation. The older father is one or two generations closer to the Industrial Revolution. In all, though the older father will have somewhat more deleterious mutations, his genome may be superior to that of a young woman’s younger potential partners.

What do we want out of life?

There are other considerations, and each of the following has a particular point of view: the older man, the younger wife, the children, and the state. Finally, society has an interest in perpetuating its culture, values, and traditions and this interest may conflict with those of the individuals and the state.

Will children make an older man happy? Children take time and money away from the pursuit of commercialized happiness. A man whose concept of “happiness” is skiing, surfing, and rock concerts will find that children do not bring happiness.

Personal consumption is a major element in many men’s idea of happiness. They want the latest iGadgets, imported wines, and Swiss watches. Children are expensive, so all but the wealthiest men must make trade-offs, but children can also be a vehicle for conspicuous consumption. Sending them to private schools, exclusive camps, and Ivy League universities burns money almost as well as buying yachts.

It is impossible to measure the value of sex. The man raising children within a marriage can be reasonably sure of getting sex every now and again, but he can be equally sure that he will not get all he wants. The man who equates happiness with frequent sex is better off being a wealthy bachelor, frequenting prostitutes, or using Tinder. An older husband, presumably with a somewhat reduced libido, is likely to be better matched to his wife.

Responsibility for a family gives a man a reason for living. The family provides emotional support. A lifelong partnership gives a man an anchor in life, a sense of stability. Happiness comes with satisfying ones felt obligation to God and/or the church, one’s clan, one’s tribe, and one’s nation. For a patriot, serving his country also brings happiness.

Community involvement

Being married provides a man with a niche in society. Other people know how to peg him: married with children. He is automatically included in other groups: the PTA, parents who carpool, babysitting cooperatives, swimming pool parents, etc. These connections keep an older father involved in society. It is easy for a retiree to let go of life bit by bit as his family obligations are satisfied and no new ones appear. A late-life family poses real obligations, and keeps a man connected with society.

Why would an older man start a family?

Having children doesn’t offer material benefit for the older prospective father. If he is already old, he won’t last long enough for children to care for him in his dotage. Having a younger wife will confer some status whether or not she bears him children, but the tax and welfare benefits of children are laughably small. Ultimately, the only motive is to have children for their own sake, and perhaps to follow some higher calling, such as an obligation to ancestors, society, or the church.

Why would a woman have children with an older man?

Western society has been drenched for decades with anti-fertility messages. We are told there are too many people on earth and Westerners, because of our material consumption, damage the planet. Our societies are inherently unfair to women and racial minorities and sexual minorities; we should die out. Add to that the scare stories from women’s magazines about the genetic risks of an older father.

If a woman decides, despite all the opposition, that she wants children, what are the advantages and disadvantages of an older man? The age of the mother is dictated by biology. A woman’s fertility declines quickly after 35. If she is over 40, the couple may well seek medical help, and will probably stop at one child. This is asymmetric: he has three more decades of fertility than she.

In Western society, a woman who has decided to dedicate her fertile years to having children is in a privileged position for choosing mates. This is especially true for intelligent, educated women, because so many of their competitors are busy with careers. Such a woman can choose a partner from more or less her own age up to the limits of male fertility. Why would she choose an older man?

Financial resources

Raising a family takes money. A woman wants a man who can provide for her.

In choosing a younger man, a woman is betting on the future. It’s uncertain how far he will rise. He may burn out — and prove to be an unsuitable provider — or, he may become spectacularly successful, pull away from his wife and family, and become subject to all kinds of temptations. With an older man, you get what you see. The drama has already played out.

Older men tend to have more money. This is especially true of older men looking for younger woman in the marriage market. They would not be looking unless they were successful. It is also something specific to this generation. The baby boomers have been running society for more than 40 years, and have stacked the deck in their own favor. The baby boomers are the richest generation in America’s history, and also in Western Europe. Younger men are not likely to have as much money.

Men already on pension are probably receiving healthy ones. This is on top of the wealth they have accumulated. Gen X and millennial men have had such a hard time scraping together the down payment for a house that they have not benefited from the rise in stocks and real estate. Moreover, they could well be cheated out of social security; there will be nothing but a dry well for them.

Maturity

People tend to become more stable and predictable as they get older. They know more about life and they fall into habits that have proven successful. An older husband is less likely to make erratic decisions, such as changing careers, moving, or developing a newfound taste for drugs, alcohol, or video games.

Arguments and stress are part of every marriage. A mature man will understand his long-term interests better, and favor the long-term benefits of marriage over short-term concerns about one-up-man-ship or self-esteem.

A woman should enter marriage with the expectation that her partner will be there for the 20 years or so it takes to raise children. An older guy can be a good bet. Actuarially, an older suitor in good health is very likely to survive another 20 years, and psychologically, he is more likely to remain the same person.

Fidelity

A woman should not bet on a man who is unlikely to settle down. A man’s character becomes clear by the time he is 50. An older man is less likely to his affections wander, so long as he has a reliable partner.

To return to a previous point, the primary reason an older man would want to marry a younger woman and have children is because he wants children. The best way to succeed at that is to remain in a monogamous marriage. Children in a stable marriage are more likely to succeed, and the man himself is far more likely to have more children with a single loving spouse than he is with whatever paramours he may find by stepping out.

Traditional values

The rate at which society changes has accelerated dramatically. Members of the silent generation grew up attending church, not cursing (very much, anyhow), believing in the Golden rule and that honesty was the best policy, and expecting that we would marry and stay married. Our millennial children think we are hopelessly square. More than that, they slur us with epitaphs such as patriarchy, racist, bigot, homophobe, and whatnot when we utter what was merely common sense when we were younger.

A woman might conclude that the family values with which an older man grew up are a better foundation for a family than the social justice ideas that fill the minds of younger men.

Commitment to children

Convincing a much younger woman to have children is not an easy task. A man who does so has already shown his commitment to children. He probably already has children. A prospective bride can talk with him about what worked and didn’t, and how he will contribute to raising a new family. A man who has never married may not have given the subject much thought, and except for a few who have had the chance to help raising younger siblings, not much experience either.

Experience

Older men who are inclined to marry have probably done it before. They have experience changing diapers and babysitting. They probably know how to wash dishes and keep house. If the guy has kept himself in shape, as a great many have in this day of bicycling and health clubs, he should be up to the task. A man who works to stay in shape can sustain himself pretty well until he reaches his 70s, but at some point age catches up with him. An offsetting benefit is that an older husband is likely to have more time to spend with his wife and family

The wife’s career

The odds are strong that the prospective husband has already reached the peak of his career. If he is a workaholic, it will be evident — and he will probably not want to saddle himself with family responsibilities. If he truly wants children, there is a strong chance he will find time to spend with them. If her husband has more time to spend with children, his younger wife may find her own life easier. It will be easier for her to pursue a career if she wants, or to take music lessons, attend lectures, and do other things strictly for herself.

Predictable problems

An older man will have a different circle of friends and different interests than those of a younger wife. If both man and wife come from the same country and culture, he may expect his wife to socialize with people of his generation. If they come from different countries, as is often the case with modern May-December marriages, one of them will have to adapt to a whole new environment and make a new set of friends.

For an older man, the better option appears to be to rise to the challenge of learning a new language, making new friends, and adapting to new customs in his bride’s country. If it is the woman who is doing the adaptation — moving to a wealthier Western country — there is a chance the new environment will change her perception of her husband. Not a few older men have seen their tender Asian or Eastern European brides go feminist and decide that this marriage was not exactly what they wanted.

Advantages to children of an older father

The children of an older father will see more of their father. Spending time with their father doesn’t contribute to intelligence or the formation of personality, since these things are mostly inherited. However, boys, especially, turn out better if they grow up in intact families and spend a lot of time with their fathers. When mother and father agree that developing a child’s character is important, it seems they can do that. Even in a therapeutic society dedicated to the proposition that every child should be “happy,” parents who emphasize responsibility and hard work seem to be rewarded.

The good of society

Society needs children. A culture needs new generations to share everything that defines culture: customs, religious beliefs, history, dress and so on. The more fathers, the more children, and the more children, the better — at least in the West. If older fathers sire more productive children — intelligence, personality, etc. — their children make more positive contributions.

If we look at society as a gene pool, an older father’s increased load of de novo mutations is more than offset by the likelihood that he is perpetuating superior genetic material

The good of government

A government needs soldiers and taxpayers. Government benefits from children — and pays for their education and services — whoever the father may be. Older fathers do not impose any special costs on government. Their pensions do not go up. An older father is more likely to be solvent and less likely to be on welfare. This benefit is more than enough to offset the greater likelihood that he will die and his family will go on welfare.

Conclusion

We of today’s older generation have more education, resources, and time than any in history. Although we do not have as much of a feeling for our family, tribe, and nation as our ancestors did, we certainly have more than the generations following us. If there is going to be a renewed ethnic identity among our people, we have an important role. Many of us are already committed.

Awareness alone, however, will not solve the problem. We need new generations of people like ourselves. White people need to be raising white babies. Japanese need to be raising Japanese babies, and Chinese, Chinese. There is no danger in encouraging other groups. Given our shrinking numbers, the world has room for all of us.

We reached the zenith of human accomplishment when we had pride in ourselves and our people and believed that what we had was worth passing on. We can continue to do this by spending time with our grandchildren but, when possible, we should start new families.

Resolving to begin again and find a committed partner is not easy but it isn’t impossible. There are traditional women in our own countries, women who have not been swept up in the moral ambiguities of the age, who are looking for reliable partners. There remain countries such as those of Central and Eastern Europe where a majority of women of childbearing age want a traditional family.

Stop lamenting the unfortunate changes that have affected our countries and our society, and create a new generation to perpetuate all of the good that we inherited and cherish.

Marry Your Own Kind

We can marry whomever we want. Anti-miscegenation laws are gone, and social norms have been relaxed. “Empowered” women, sexual liberation, and lesbianism mean there are fewer white women available or desirable as wives. White men are looking elsewhere, especially to Asian women.

There is a bitter backlash from white women who resent this, but nobody wants to marry a bitter woman. The “manosphere” is full of complaints about white women, so why should a white man marry one? I was married for eight years to an Asian and for 25 years to a half Asian (three children), and am now ten years into a successful marriage (two kids) with a white woman. Marrying your own kind — after choosing carefully — makes the most sense.

I have read widely on evolution. Survival of the fittest means differentiation and competition. The strategies that work best win out.

Sarah Blaffer Hrdy writes that human reproductive strategy was simply better than that of our ape ancestors. Nonreproducing females — sisters, aunts, grandmothers — help raise children. Human males do the same, at least more so than male apes. Human mothers can therefore bear children every two years or so as opposed to every five or six for apes. We out-bred apes, and with homo sapiens’ unique ability to speak and cooperate, other ape-men as well.

Real diversity

In Race, Evolution and Behavior Philippe Rushton applied r/K strategy to races. We evolved different reproductive strategies because we occupy different niches. Northeast Asians — fighting a harsh but predictable climate — became the most K selected. Africans, in a benign but unpredictable environment because of disease and predators, remained the most r selected.

Families reflect these differences. Asian “tiger moms” invest a great deal of effort in each child. Every member of a multigenerational Asian family recognizes that he must work towards bringing up the next generation. More than other people, Asians fulfill their roles out of a sense of duty. One of the attractions of an Asian wife is that sense of duty. Asian wives tend to feel obligated to feed their husbands, whether they like them or not, and to take care of children.

On the other hand, libido is weaker among the K-selected Asians. The newspapers carry stories of young Japanese and Chinese of both sexes who have no interest in sex. They are more likely to be faithful, but perhaps less likely to be satisfying partners. These are population averages; there is far more variation within a race than between the races.

Africans on average have measurably higher levels of sex hormones, mature earlier, and tend to have higher sex drives compared to Asians, but they don’t feel the Asian sense of obligation to spouses and children.

Caucasians are in between, although a bit more toward the Asian end of the scale. Stanford’s Luigi Cavalli Sforza has devised a scheme of measuring the genetic distance between any two populations. The genetic distances between the major races are much greater than those between any two European nations. Since our temperaments are under considerable genetic control, we are more likely to understand a fellow European at a deep level. That has certainly been my experience.

True love

Some things do not fall on the r/K continuum. We white folks came to believe in love and romance.

James Q. Wilson, writing in The Marriage Problem, attributed the notion of marrying for love to the medieval English practice of a young man moving out of the parental house to start his own homestead. When he was established and could afford it, he went out on his own to seek a wife among the local girls. He would choose on the basis of personal attraction, without much input from parents or anybody else.

Kevin MacDonald, writing in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, pushes the practice back further. He links it to the individualism of the hunter gatherers of preagricultural Europe. Each individual rose on his own merits in the “Männerbund,” or brotherhood of men. These were egalitarian societies in which individual merit mattered more than family.

Dr. MacDonald proposes that monogamy was the standard in these societies. Individuals living close to nature don’t have enough resources to support multiple wives, and sexual rivalries would have destroyed the cohesion of the Männerbund. Both parties chose carefully because they were marrying for life. They wanted someone who was skillful at manly or womanly tasks, but also pleasant to be with. The Catholic Church, a uniquely Western institution, promoted monogamous marriage as a sacred bond, based on love, dedicated to raising children — Augustine’s fides, proles et sacramentum.

That sets Europe in contrast to the rest of the world. In richer societies elsewhere, families chose mates for their offspring to keep wealth within the family. They arranged marriages for the competitive advantage of the tribe. In some places, such as among the Indians of the Brazilian rain forest, chiefs simply assigned marriage partners. All members of a tribe were so closely related by blood that it didn’t make much difference genetically.

The upshot is that romantic love is a Western notion, and we white people evolved the mental equipment to make it work. We believe in love. While the Japanese have made a fetish out of sending Valentine’s Day cards, and the Africans certainly celebrate sex, we lead in our belief in love. Moreover, Western societies were unique in the status afforded to women. We evolved to treat them as true partners, not just status symbols or incubators of our children.

Belief in love is not an unmixed blessing. Westerners are uniquely disappointed when we don’t find it. An Asian man will remain with the wife of his youth and simply take concubines if he can afford them. Sex in African societies is unconstrained. Native Americans likewise consider fidelity to the tribe to be more important than fidelity to their partner.

We Westerners have put ourselves in a bind. Western women have grown to expect that they can have it all: a family and the true love that society celebrates and that their ancestors knew, along with freedom and a career. Sometimes it all fits, often not.

Before the 1950s, sex was seen as part of marriage, not an end in itself. People were expected to fulfill their obligations to each other in the marriage, especially with regard to earning money, keeping house, raising children, and paying bills. Satisfaction came from fulfilling obligations to family and society, not sex.

Hugh Hefner started Playboy magazine in 1953, and in the same decade, Simone de Beauvoir published The Second Sex. The 1960s saw Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique, along with the pill, the sexual revolution, the antiwar counterculture, and drugs. The emphasis turned to self-gratification, with sex becoming a plaything more than an instrument of procreation as part of a larger, social commitment. Sex became burdened with expectations it could never fulfill, leading to generations of unfulfilled men and women. This is how we arrived at today’s situation.

Children

The children of a mixed marriage are . . . mixed. My one-fourth Japanese children called themselves “mixers” — neither Asian nor white. However, when pressed, because being white is so monumentally out-of-favor, they lean toward their Japanese quarter.

If the genetic distance between the parents is great enough, the parents will be genetically closer to members of their own race than to their own children — hard as that may be to believe.

I had hoped my children would inherit their mother’s Asian work ethic and conscientiousness and my drive and curiosity. I was disappointed. Is this common? Anecdotally, I do not see as many successful mixed-race Asian Americans as one would expect.

Only one of my mixed-race children inherited the sense of romantic love I got from my parents. She is also inclined to be critical of men who don’t have an Asian level of conscientiousness. I believe that she and, indeed, all three of them would be more comfortable if they were not mixed.

There is unlikely to be a statistical study of the characteristics of Asian-Caucasian “mixers.” It is hard to imagine a more politically charged research thesis. Moreover, a rigorous statistical study would be very hard to construct. And there is the question of which Asians? Profs. Lynn and Vanhanen find that the average intelligence in Asian nations varies by as much as 20 points.

Children of any mixed marriage find themselves in the same position as my children. Are they white or Asian? Or, like George Zimmerman, white or Latino? There may never be statistical validation of this point, but it is common sense to stick with your own kind and to have children who don’t have to decide who they are.

What’s the solution?

To make ourselves attractive as marriage partners, we white people should learn once again to act responsibly. We should learn to respect each another. We should learn that true satisfaction comes from family. But what can you do if you want marriage and children when there are so few well-suited partners?

Look in the right places. Find religion. People who attend church are more likely to believe in the Christian tradition of monogamous marriage and family. Take on a self-improvement program: People who attend Toastmasters or take night courses are more likely to be just as conscientious in their romantic relationships. The people you will meet at Dale Carnegie or dance lessons are more likely to be outgoing and interested in forming stable relationships.

If you are a woman, you should attend American Renaissance conferences, where you will find many like-minded men. You will find younger people in identitarian groups. Don’t just attend — take leadership roles. Learn to speak publicly. If a person’s first impression is looking up at you on a podium, he might continue looking up at you.

You can expect the commenters on articles at American Renaissance to be on your wavelength. There are ways to protect your privacy — burner email addresses, SIM cards and Skype numbers — and still let people know how to reach you. The odds of finding a soulmate among people interested in the future of our people are certainly higher than on Tinder or eHarmony.

Millennial YouTube personalities such as Brittany Sellner (formerly Brittany Pettibone) and Blonde in the Belly of the Beast have an attractive message. Join the commenters on their YouTube pages or Mrs. Sellner’s book and make contact with them.

After my second divorce, I was too old to do these things. As a graduate student on an American campus from 2003 to 2006, I didn’t find anyone who would have interested me even if I had been young enough to be in the running. Two poignant books, “Sexual Utopia In Power” by Roger Devlin and “No Campus For White Men” by Scott Greer pretty well sum up my experience.

The logical choice for me was to look elsewhere. While there are substantial white populations in Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, and southern Brazil, the largest number by far are in Europe. Women in just about every less-developed or recently-developed country, whatever their race, are less affected by cultural disease than women in the United States and Western Europe. Moreover, an American income is also more attractive to them.

I consider the Visegrad countries — Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and the Baltics to be recently developed. Although their standards of living approach those of Western Europe, the people remain traditional. I am continually encouraged by their resistance to the dictates from the European Union that they take immigrants. They are standing their ground, asserting that they are Christian countries and want to stay that way. The former members of the Soviet Union — Russia itself, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine — might properly be considered underdeveloped. Average monthly salaries are less than $1,000. Though Western culture is making inroads, these peoples are still better marriage prospects.

Although most people think going abroad means American men looking for foreign brides, it works the other way. The men in these countries are more traditional. They tend to be more courtly, more inclined to observe the traditional courtesies such as opening doors. They can fix things. They expect to marry, the major constraint being whether they can afford it. At the same time, the characteristics now called “toxic masculinity” haven’t been beaten out of them. A white woman looking for a real man — with both the advantages and disadvantages — could do worse than Eastern Europe.

University has always been an ideal stage of life at which to meet a partner. All of Europe has a tradition of relatively inexpensive education. Here in Ukraine, education is ridiculously cheap — the most expensive schooling is about $5,000 per year for medical school. Moreover, at some universities, a lot of the courses are offered in English. A parent interested in the prospects of grandparenthood and the well-being of his wallet could do worse than to recommend that his children study overseas. Although it will probably take longer if the language of instruction is not English, the knowledge of a foreign language will be a lifelong asset, the experience with a foreign culture invaluable, and the possibility of a delightful (and philogenitive) partner is valuable.

Racial diversity brings differences that are hard to overcome in any context, differences that are on constant display in the United States and Western Europe. Marriage is the most intimate possible human relationship. The difference between men and women is already profound, and bridging it is challenge enough for any couple. As I have learned from costly experience, it does not make sense to burden a relationship with the added differences of miscegenation. Marry your own kind.