On FamilyAndrew Hamilton
German translation here
A myth of our time is that the Western family still exists. We assume it does despite abundant evidence to the contrary. This can be accounted for by the psychological persistence of outdated experience, and a mass media that subconsciously insinuates false perceptions.
Because the image of the family exists in our collective consciousness and, in some cases, our own personal recollections of a white world, we mistakenly assume it exists in real life as well. But it does not. The family has been obliterated, shattered. Hostile elites have furiously attacked it as an evil, patriarchal, omnipresent institution that must be destroyed. And, effectively, it has been.
“Marriage as an institution providing economic security and as an essentially permanent arrangement aimed at reproduction and enabling the rearing of children is no longer universally felt to be necessary,” Dutch demographer Dirk van de Kaa notes.
The family survives primarily as fiction in a few TV commercials and the public images and rhetoric of unctuous politicians. For example, the famous photo of Mitt Romney’s large family prior to the PC addition of a Negro child.
True, there are some young white families with children left. However, they are essentially “accidental”—white by happenstance. They are not consciously white, organically white, committedly white. Nor are they psychologically white: fundamentally, they are non-white, even, frequently, anti-white.
Their few children are reared in unhealthy ways. They do not play and run free as normal children always did—think of Tom Sawyer or Penrod Schofield. They are domesticated and shut in. They attend schools that resemble prisons, with on-duty police officers, ubiquitous closed-circuit surveillance cameras, and locked doors. Members of the public need a pass in order to enter.
Schools and mass media inject the child’s mind with racist, anti-white, pro-“minority” (really majority) poison, sick gender and sexual beliefs, and state-sponsored Holocaust religion. From infancy kids are raised to hate everything they should identify with, and admire and trust those whom they should despise and reject. This has been going on for several generations now.
The costs of having and raising children are prohibitive. Money is needed to raise a family, and the mother should be at home (preferably). The household can be thought of as a firm. The woman who shoulders the responsibility and burden of running it is performing an essential and arduous task. The role of wife, mother, and homemaker should be celebrated, not denigrated.
If divorce rates hover around 50 percent, as they reportedly do, the odds of even this pathetic remnant of the family remaining intact for long equals the flip of a coin. Divorce will inflict severe emotional and financial harm on many, including children—typically no more than one or two, if that. Naturally, society valorizes “single moms” and demonizes “deadbeat dads.”
Looming danger lurks as well in a sick, alien culture that seeps into and pollutes all families, and emanates from an omnipotent, trigger-happy State itching to stick its snout where it does not belong and jail spouses and seize children.
Until recently, reproduction took place almost entirely within the family. “Historically, levels of illegitimate fertility [‘fertility outside of marriage’] in the West have been insignificant as (at least until the last few decades) the vast majority of reproduction has occurred within the context of marriage.” (Massimo Livi-Bacci, A Concise History of World Population, 4th ed., 2007, p. 240, n. 14. Emphasis added.)
The family was principally an arrangement for producing, rearing, and socializing children—that is to say, of preserving, replicating, and advancing our genetic and cultural heritage. To utilize a concept formulated by Austrian philosopher Friedrich Hayek, the Western family was a “product of human action but not of human design,” suitable to our race. That is why it evolved. Its dismantlement helped propel our population into a fatal tailspin.
If this is correct, it suggests there may be something inherent in the family that is crucial to our collective well-being. The lesbian couple shown in the adjacent photograph had biologically white children (assuming no donor was a Jew or other non-European) by using artificial insemination and fertility drugs (in other words, they did not adopt other peoples’ children). But the fact that this reproduction occurred outside the family effectively nullifies the purely numerical or biological accomplishment. The social, psychological, and ideological harm caused by normalizing such an arrangement exceeds the value of the children produced. Those children, children in general, and society at large require family structures to properly function. This was the case throughout history when we were a successful rather than a failed people.
Likewise, it can be hypothesized that widespread antipathy to Mormon polygamy in the 19th century was fueled by a healthy instinct: there are environments in which children should not be created and raised, and which, by their existence, threaten, at its foundation, the viability of society. Though tangential to the primary point, it has recently been suggested that even in purely census terms Mormonism suppressed the overall number of offspring of plural wives. (“Polygamy hurt 19th century Mormon wives’ evolutionary fitness, scientists say,” Science Daily, February 23, 2011)
A glance at an older reference work paints a familiar picture of the Western family. The quotes are from The New Columbia Encyclopedia, William H. Harris and Judith S. Levey, eds. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1975).
The nuclear family (parents with children), was “found in most societies as the sole existing form or as a unit in a broader system. Anthropological hypotheses of the 19th century asserting a primitive stage of group marriage or promiscuity have been largely discredited.” There was also the extended family: large kinship networks consisting of “two or more married couples and their children, or of several generations connected in the male or female line.”
The primary functions of the family are reproductive, economic, and educational; it is through its immediate kin that the child first absorbs the culture of his group. In preindustrial societies, the ties of kinship are strong; they bind the individual both to the family of orientation into which one is born [consanguineous/genetic/blood kinship], and to the family of orientation which one founds at marriage and which includes one’s spouse’s relatives [affinal kin].
Turning from this older source to a contemporary article written by a white Southern female sociologist at Duke University, we are presented with a completely different picture, dripping with sarcasm. Under its entry for “Family,” Microsoft’s Encarta Encyclopedia (2005) (formerly Funk and Wagnalls) reprints a still photo from the 1950s TV show Father Knows Best (1954-1963), accompanied by the following derisive caption:
During the 1950s several American television shows portrayed an idealized middle-class family consisting of a wise breadwinner father, a cheerful and attractive wife, and socially and academically successful children. American actor Robert Young, who starred as Jim Anderson in the series Father Knows Best, epitomized the role of all-knowing, morally superior husband and father. Here, Anderson is seen surrounded by his loving family, who expectantly await his interpretation of the world as symbolized by the newspaper story he reads.
Cultural arbiters and governments leapfrogged the Western family long ago, imposing revolutionary institutions and behavioral patterns inimical to normal, healthy domestic life. Age-old patterns of marriage, family, child-bearing, cultural transmission and socialization were supplanted by post-family chaos. Over the course of the late 20th century marriage and family underwent precipitous change. Today, only tattered remnants and tenuous links with the past remain.
So-called “modern families”—interracial families, homosexual “families,” cohabitation, serial monogamy, second, third, and fourth marriages, acquisition of new live-in “boyfriends” or “girlfriends” well into middle and old age, and other fêted arrangements are not families. In particular, they are not white families. Such “families” are celebrated precisely because they fail to fulfill the psychological, emotional, physical, social, and biological functions of a true family.
Might it not be that the family—and, more broadly, a nation composed of families—is essential for racial survival, necessary to prevent Aryan society from devolving into a dissolute, alien dictatorship that oppresses, dispossesses, and destroys a people?
Toward a Rebirth of the Family
In the past, death was the main cause of marital dissolution, at which time the survivor (widow or widower) might remarry. As used here, the “death of the family” refers to the destruction of this longstanding arrangement, formerly universal, of ultra-stable pair bonds: marriage for life (“to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; to be faithful until death do us part”), children within marriage who in turn marry, usually at a young age, other whites such as themselves within an overall society closed to mass immigration and multiracialism (no significant degree of race-crossing). Families have enough children, on average, to reproduce the entire population and, when necessary (such as after the Black Death, or now), to expand it.
The rebirth of the family is aspirational, a goal to strive for. It will not be attained in its entirety. Failures—many botches and fiascos—are inevitable. We must learn to walk again while simultaneously subject to a System that makes long-term marriage and family nearly impossible to sustain. On top of everything else, family, like its contemporary alternatives, comes with plenty of stresses and strains of its own. It is not utopia. Nothing is utopia, there is no utopia, there never will be utopia. Utopia of any kind is the wrong goal to shoot for.
But striving to establish a white family, like certain other actions or attitudes—unswerving opposition to totalitarianism, Jewish power, and white genocide; withdrawing to the extent possible one’s support for, identification with, and attachment to a hostile state and dominant culture; establishing Pioneer Little Europes (this website is written in a grammatically awkward style and seems buggy, but conveys the general idea); moving to the Pacific Northwest; or homeschooling—can be undertaken here and now. (Ironically, in some cases the best path forward might be outside existing marriage laws written and enforced by anti-family, anti-white states. It is the substance, not the form, that matters.)
Post-1960s post-family sexual arrangements as well as bachelorhood and spinsterhood, with or without children, clearly do not replace or expand the white population, preserve our culture, or provide in-group cohesion (belongingness). Disintegration of the family has been key to achieving and perpetuating dangerous levels of sub-replacement fertility. Anti-family ideology and public policy provided the means for its dissolution.
After being hit by a tidal wave of hostile forces that instantaneously dissolved social institutions and mores on multiple fronts, it makes sense to turn to what worked in the past. Uncontrolled rationalism severed from experience should be rejected.
Our most pressing need, apart from smashing the totalitarian power of Jews and the state, is the attainment of replacement fertility and population expansion. It is prudent to conjecture that a millennia-old institution such as the family is a necessary precondition for successful reproduction and socialization.
A scary thought. “Give up this?” But sometimes the physician is the bearer of bad news: “If you want to live, your legs must go.”
Experience suggests that the family works. Certainly post-family arrangements imposed on us by our racial and ideological enemies do not. By attacking, disrupting, and eventually upending sexual, marriage, and family customs, Jews and the Left succeeded in preventing births within European groups.
We should treat the present situation like a crashed computer and restore it to the last known good configuration—the point at which things still functioned properly. In the realm of sex and reproduction, this entails the rebirth of the family.
The State of the Nation for White Advocates
CPAC 2023: The Republican Party is Dying Out
Hitchcock vs. Visconti
The Populist Moment, Chapter 10, Part 2: The Ambiguity of “Communitarianism”
A Woman’s Guide to Identifying Psychopaths, Part 4 Demographics
Black People’s Problems are Your Fault
A Woman’s Guide to Identifying Psychopaths, Part 2 Relationships
Malign Social Contagions, the Bible, & White Advocacy
“The primary functions of the family are reproductive, economic, and educational; it is through its immediate kin that the child first absorbs the culture of his group. In preindustrial societies, the ties of kinship are strong; they bind the individual both to the family of orientation into which one is born [consanguineous/genetic/blood kinship], and to the family of orientation which one founds at marriage and which includes one’s spouse’s relatives [affinal kin].”
For this reason and many others, I would like to see someone write something on the highly mobile nature of modern White Americans. Moving even several times a year for new jobs, etc. It clearly destroys a sense of rootedness in anything. But I also think we lose a lot from not being around extended family. I certainly think I must have picked up my first sense of belonging to something greater than myself, yet deeply inherent in myself from developing close relationships with some of my cousins, and even their cousins, for instance. It seems there might be a natural progression from love of extended family to love of ethnicity and race, and even culture and civilization.
Indeed, I’ve always felt that the mobility of modern society has been high on the list of causes of the collapse of the family/community. Moving creates anomie. Anomie, in turn, makes one more susceptible to degenerate ideas in an attempt to create stability. One tends to “go along to get along.”
“Moving creates anomie”. Yes, and a lot of this started with WWII. Much has been written about that disaster for the European people, be as it were, in Europe or the US, it destroyed the Extended family. Many men never returned home, and those that did, never went back their familiar homes. Those like my father came home to a radically changed America. Moving from one job to another was common, many men were from farms, and that lifestyle was terminally interrupted for many. Competition for any job was intense. This was much like a repeat of the emptying of the Plains during the Dust Bowl, too many men looking for too few jobs. Men in the construction trades were treated like the Okies, Arkies and Codies of the 30’s. Worked like mules and derided if you complained about the pay.
Now it is the corporate/government entity that furnishes most of the good paying jobs today, where possibly one of the parents can stay home and for at least the first twelve years of life of the children and nurtured by a mother in the home. However, due to the loss of jobs in what used to be a viable’ Main Streeter’ economy, families are uprooted due to the diktat of the corporation/government entity. Along with the consolidation of banking, media, corporate Ag., so comes with this, the loss of control over the ability to earn a living that is independent of these mega forces, in order to establish a sense of place, security and kinship in order to raise children in a traditional family.
I am really bothered by you using that link to that particular PLE website that sprang up in the last few months. It really does us a huge disservice. I am hoping it will improve eventually but at this time it really is not at a point where it should be used for marketing. Certainly not a point where it should be put out to fellow WNs as an example.
It is better to light a single flame than curse the darkness. Why not post the link you like?
You nailed it that the family is the basis of our civilization. We all have anecdotal stories to tell of the damage that divorce does; much higher that sodomy, in my opinion.
“Not a family. Lesbian couple with 5 children conceived via sperm donor(s?) and in vitro fertilization. Use of fertility medication resulted in two sets of twins. “I had a (lesbian) midwife once tell us that it helps to orgasm after inseminating. Trying was SO NOT SEXY for us. It became as cold and clinical as it gets.””
“Not a family. Queer couple with adopted blond boy.”
Yes they are. And doing some service for their people too. Whether they realise it or not.
I would agree. I would, however, say that these are sub-optimal families, perhaps a bit better than single parent families, but still sub-optimal if we believe that normal psychological development requires close bonding with parents of both sexes. I think the nerve of Hamilton’s piece is that we have lost any sense of the purpose of the family and the optimal family for that purpose, partly because norms are felt as oppressive and exclusionary to sub-optimal families.
Life isn’t optimal Greg. A child doesn’t need a mother and a father for “normal psychological development.” It does take a village. Provided a child grows up in a healthy society they’ll do fine if they only have a single mother or are raised by a gay couple. What’s the alternative? Those kids not be born at all? How is this for the best.
White Nationalists should get over their opposition to homosexuality. All we are doing is painting ourselves into a backward conservative ghetto with no future. Our race has far to many problems to waste energy on such needless squabbling.
Disagree. They may be trying to help the society, but only by providing crutches. The mere fact of planning a ‘family’ where the child is shut out from any possible contact with their biological mother or father is a disgrace.
As for the gays: Go ahead, live your life, enjoy your sex life, but keep it the hell out of the public sphere. It is boring, and does not provide any future for your people. It’s your private business, and that’s it.
Gay marriage is not the biggest threat to the marriage institution, but is is definitely a threat. And in the traditional meaning of marriage, ‘gay marriage’ is just a ludicrous construction.
Is it good, then, for children to see the “gay pride” parades? I don’t see them going away anytime soon, no matter how much right and privilege is extended to homosexuals.
Every human society has taboos, proscriptions, and laws about sexual behavior because of the critical importance of sex in reproduction, the stability of the family, and the protection of children. All varieties of alienated sex – sex disengaged from its reproductive and family moorings – are destructive forces – pornography, masturbation, homosexuality, the use use contraceptives and abortion, rape, pedophilia, incest, bestiality. Serious people cannot “get over” opposition to sexual practices that strike at the core of our existence.
Carle C. Zimmerman’s book Family and Civilization looks like it might merit the attention of Andrew Hamilton or F. Roger Devlin. Originally published in 1947, it was reprinted a few years ago in an abridged edition by ISI Books. Zimmerman identifies three basic forms of the family: the trustee family, the domestic family, and the atomistic family. It seems clear enough that in America the domestic family has been replaced by the atomistic family, which is hardly a family at all. (Not long after Zimmerman’s book was published, Francis Parker Yockey would remark that “Marriage in America has been replaced by Divorce. This is said with no paradoxical intent. In the large cities, statistics show that one of every two marriages ends in divorce. Taking the country as a whole, the figure is one in three. This situation can no longer be described as Marriage, since the essence of Marriage is its permanence.”)
In a review of Zimmerman’s book in The Family in America, the reviewer brings up two important points made in Zimmerman’s book. The first point is that “Reproduction, even in the most virile times of a society, is limited to a small segment of the living population.” This segment of the population is smaller than is generally recognized. Indeed, Zimmerman estimated that before the Second World War one-third of the wives were producing three-quarters of the children.
The second point is that men and women do not necessarily understand and respect the demands of the family just because they grew up in one. The reviewer remarks that “if the elites of society do not participate in familism, they will create institutions that encourage others to do the same. Everything from the design of houses, the durability of children’s toys, and the dynamics of the labor market become geared toward those with few or no children. For families to sustain themselves becomes progressively more difficult. More and more people abandon the effort, and the society stagnates demographically. Society doesn’t immediately dissolve, notes Zimmerman, because ‘the backward, rural, mountainous, isolated and distant populations or countries still have to be drained of their surplus population and familistic values.’ In the meantime, the urban elites have no capacity to even see the problem, much less see the remedy, because they have never actually participated in the domestic family as opposed to the atomistic family.”
I think, however, that a part of the elite has consciously and maliciously created the problem.
Good article, but that study on Mormon polygamy suppressing fertility is wrong. If you closely examine the details surrounding the practice (not just any man could take multiple wives and those women who did survive the westward migration were clearly more robust. Also, the parents attitude toward the purpose of having large families reveals refined moral character which is also a heritable trait), and trace the various genealogies (and then note subsequent collective successes ranging from educational attainment to affluence to continued WHITE fecundity), you would see that it was an example of positive eugenics the likes of which has not been seen in this country since. I’m not a practicing Mormon, and I’m not arguing for the overall theology, but facts are facts. I am descended from polygamist stock on both sides and have the unequivocal evidence to support above claims. I have many in my extended family that have graduate degrees (including most women) of all kinds AND have 4 or more children as a rule!
@Alaskan, Polygamy has no historical basis among the peoples of Northern Europe, that is to say, Mormon polygamy was a doctrinal imposition on a people whose evolution produced the nuclear family. An evolutionary form is attended by consciousness, attitudes, and feelings that support the form. Western women cannot easily set aside their expectation that marriage is an exclusive relationship. I followed the commentary about the current practice of polygamy among the FLDS and found that men rarely commented while women were apoplectic in their denunciations. Mormon polygamy may have worked to allow women, who otherwise would not have been able to marry, to produce families, but a well-order society would concentrate on making it possible for all young men to marry and raise families rather than giving the advantage to the wealthy.
The Carle Zimmerman book, which I was unaware of, looks quite interesting, although it is not obtainable at a nearby library. I would have preferred the unabridged original, since it looks as if a great deal of text was eliminated in the editing of the recent edition.
Stephen Baskerville reviewed the edited edition, and the first two pages of his review, which are quite interesting, can be read here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12115-009-9218-5#page-1
In another article on the Net, Baskerville writes, “A critical change in the Left over the last few decades has been the shift from the economic to the social and increasingly the sexual. What was once a semi-socialistic attack on property and enterprise has become a social and sexual attack on the family, marriage and masculinity. . . . The Left’s brilliant move has been to clothe its attack on the family as a defense of ‘women and children.’”
You stated, ““Reproduction, even in the most virile times of a society, is limited to a small segment of the living population.” This segment of the population is smaller than is generally recognized. Indeed, Zimmerman estimated that before the Second World War one-third of the wives were producing three-quarters of the children.”
Let us imagine a self-sustaining, self-reproducing population without immigration, in which births equal deaths. That is to say, a healthy but not expanding population. Or, it may be expanding modestly, but not rapidly. Historically, this was the default situation much of the time.
Given such a scenario, population geneticist L. L. Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues noted in The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994):
“What matters in practice is the number of active parents, and because about only one-third of the individuals in a real population are of parenting age, the ‘effective population size’ . . . is approximately one-third of the census size.”
So that fact is known to population geneticists.
But, the age structure of the current white population is not normal: a disproportionate number of living whites are past the reproductive stage.
We are confronted by a state and culture extremely hostile to family formation, long-term marital unions, and white reproduction.
Replacement migration is occurring on a massive scale.
Racial consciousness has been deliberately erased from the minds of whites, leading to more and more miscegenation. Simple observation leaves no doubt that, in mating, race is not a factor for most whites. Worse, unions with non-whites are often viewed as positive: e.g., white females with Jewish and black males, or white males with Asian females.
Finally, there is the bizarre feminist mentality that views men as loathsome and fetuses and children as “parasites.”
So if one thinks of race dynamically, we appear to be facing a Black Death scenario that snuck up on us extremely rapidly, catching us unawares.
As for the commenters who singled out population mobility as an important factor in the death of the family, I agree, and have many times thought the same thing, although I did not think to mention it while writing the article.
I just wonder how many people who post here have raised or are raising White Children instead of talking about it? Kind of annoying to be lectured to by these people about how 2nd marriages with children are not really authentic when they are often an attempt to salvage a situation when one partner falls victim to social ills.
And if you people are raising kids are you putting them in public schools to be indoctrinated in the ways of the Cathedral because you HAVE to have the extra income from mommy working? Just wondering if this is all talk and how many of you are really walking the walk.
I put my education and career aside in order to raise and homeschool several generations of kids, starting with my brother in my early 20s, and now with my youngest in my late 40s.
Again, I know some of you and I dont know ANY of you who actually are raising children.
It gets tedious hearing lectures about what we all should be doing when the majority of the profs are not living up to the same standards.
I hear you April. It is not easy raising kids in this day and age. My heart goes out to you. I did not remarry. I told my sons that their father was their father and there would be no other. I stayed in a town I hated so that they could have their visits which they did not want for he took them as chaperones with his new girl friends. They got it. They are fine young men. It is not simple now a days. Yet I know there are some really stupid women not thinking of their kids.
Good for you Rhondda. I too kept my piece of shyt ex in my kids lives, going so far as to letting him stay over at our house so he wouldnt have to pay for a hotel when he was in town. I felt that it was important that they know their dad because they were partially him. I even went so far as to creating a genealogy for his side of the family so they would have that as well and because I am anal about these sorts of things ( once a horse breeder always into pedigree) . Today he is sober and living a pretty good life with a new wife and a prestigious job. Who’d a thunk it? He is now in a situation to help the girls out some financially which is great.
I disagree with women who try to keep the kids away from their father. No matter how bad he is he is still their daddy and they NEED to know him. He might just end up reforming like in our case.
I remarried because I wanted more children and I found a great mate with similar ancestry who also wanted a child and was pro White. I lucked out that way but honestly would have had a baby on my own if necessary. I had baby fever that bad and I dont think that it would have been so horrible, but it is far easier with a daddy in the picture.
As a hopeless romantic, I agree that a two parent, male and female family is important and the ideal but, I cannot help but worry about those awful marriages where the two parents hate each other and pretend they are staying together for the children, but in actuality take their hate out on the children. As far as I am concerned it is better for the kids to have someone who really cares about them, than two people who stay together to save face and only had kids because it looked good. Not all single parents chose to be so. My two brutish, narcissistic parents are a case in point. When I was a social worker, I did not care if there was a two parent family or not as long as one person deeply cared about the kid I put with him or her, or a two parent home. That’s all it takes. I could not believe how kids came to me just because I listened to them. (it was kid-peer referral) My practice was to do what my parents refused to do. I hope they are rotting in hell. The older I get, the more I know this is true.
Don’t read the articles. That’s what I do with some writers.
If you think there’s anything “personal” about this—regarding you or any other reader—then the ideas aren’t speaking to you. There’s lots of other stuff to read, so read that instead.
This article illustrates my hypotheses that when we get our own white countries all the institutions will have to be restructured. It is not as important that man and woman live together in order to satisfy others conceptions of the proper environment of raising children, what is important is that white children are produced in large numbers. Properly constructed institutions can take the place of a mother and a father. If we can continually beggar ourselves to subsidize non-white birthrates and fight jewish wars we can surely subsidize our own survival. A white women with little sexual morals who has a child with several different white men is doing more for our race than any of the existing white nationalist organizations. We should not hesitate to discard the old defunct christian ways of doing things, what have they done for us but lead us to the brink of extinction. We must think out of the box and develop a new paradigm.
Oh, I think not, I think not.
Numbers are not the only thing that matters, as one can easily see by looking at the sorry state of young whites today. You are engaging in a radical kind of rationalism characteristic of the French Revolution, Communism, and the Left that does not and cannot work in practice.
Welfare Whites grow up to be thugs and sluts who then mix with welfare races. Why wouldn’t they since they share a common culture? Kids raised by Gays will often become warriors of the Left who fight even more social distortion. And yes, many will be gay – far above average.
Culture isn’t just symphonies and museums. Those things are flowers and fruits. The roots and stems are family and folkways.
A white women with little sexual morals who has a child with several different white men is doing more for our race than any of the existing white nationalist organizations.
A nurse told me that a problem with the above is that as the children begin dating it becomes increasingly difficult to know who the parents of the children are and when half sisters and half brothers unknowingly begin having children of their own with each other, well you can imagine the long term results.
The fears and surrounding the idea of inbreeding are really grossly over-exaggerated.
Reading this article — which I must say I very much liked — I was immediately reminded of another, published here at counter-currents a few years back (by Anthony M. Ludovici). I thought I’d quote a relevant passage here. The commentators “Carpenter”, “Mimir’s Well”, and “Thorgrun” should enjoy it. It’s very much in line with what they were getting at:
“Three influences — urbanisation, industrialism and the negative Socratic values which began to prevail with the spread of Protestantism, and happened to be favourable to the two former — have now, for almost two centuries, been inclining the people of Europe, and all countries like Europe, to set their faces ever more and more steadfastly against a biological attitude towards man. And this has resulted in the tendency of modern civilisation not only to neglect and despise the body but also to exalt as praiseworthy all those practices which favour the multiplication of biologically inferior human beings.
To deal with urbanisation first, it must be clear, even to those who are unfamiliar with the contempt in which boroughs and their inhabitants were held by the rural populations of the Middle Ages, that the city and town do not and cannot breed the healthiest, sturdiest and most active members of the community and cannot, therefore, cultivate a very fastidious taste in standards of human desirability. The kind of occupation open to the town-dweller — quite apart from the air he breathes and the food he tends to live on — neither selects nor is calculated to maintain the soundest of types. Moreover, by withdrawing the human being from a close touch with the realities of Nature’s work and laws, from the everyday and obvious lessons to be learnt by watching cultivated plants and animals grow, and observing the conditions essential to their prosperity, town life must in time foster a fantastic or unrealistic attitude to life and its problems, which of itself constitutes mental or intellectual unsoundness.
Over and above this, however, in towns and cities, the very roots of human life tend to wither. In the country there is always some way in which the child only just past toddlerdom can help in the general impersonal work of Nature, even if it is only to scare the sparrows from the ripening corn. Thus children are always welcome and quickly become a further asset to the house in which they are born. But in towns the child tends to become more and more a luxury, an undesired by-product of the sexual adaptation of its parents. The result is that an unnatural relationship begins to grow up between married couples, and women as a whole incline to neglect and despise maternal occupations. In fact, society reaches a condition known as Feminism, on the one hand, in which, as even the Feminist Havelock Ellis admits, “Motherhood is without dignity” — indeed, how could it have dignity when children are unwanted? — and, on the other, a condition known as Pornocracy, in which the taste of the harlot, and the outlook of the harlot, necessarily tend to prevail.
Industrialisation, even under the most humane and solicitous factory laws and regulations, confirms and intensifies most of the worst influences of urbanisation. It cannot help so doing, because, in addition to offering the urban crowds unhealthy occupations, it has not reached that stage of enlightenment when it would necessarily regard it as a duty to protect the character and minds of the so-called proletariat from the besotting and degrading influence of mere machine-minding, or of performing, year in year out, unskilled, repetitive and often merely fragmentary tasks. Besides, the factory can be adequately served by types which would not have the stamina or endurance for heavy farm work, and this again exercises with the town a preferential selection in favour of unsoundness.
On its occupational side, therefore, it undermines the garnered qualities of a national constitution and character. It lives on the spiritual and physical capital of the people, without making a single contribution of value to either from one generation to another. Thus, it creates among a mass of physically deteriorated, uprooted and traditionless individuals, already removed from the instructive realities of life by their urban habits, a standardized type of mind and character, which is steadily becoming more and more helpless, passive, colourless and servile. It means that a race is being reared which in character, body and mind is hardly civilised.
Turning now to the third influence — that of Socratic values — which has made the two former influences possible, it is difficult for the modern man of Western Europe to appreciate the extent to which he has become saturated, “conditioned”, and disciplined both in body and mind by the values which tend to underrate and neglect body standards. If we have ceased to look with horror on a man or woman who, although under thirty, has false teeth, if we have ceased to demand an apology from people with foul breath, and if we imagine that human rubbish and human foulness can give us good laws, good poetry, good science and good art, it is wholly and exclusively due to Socrates and his influence.
His exclusive claim to notoriety is that, thanks to his own wretchedly poor physical endowments in the midst of a population of beauty-venerators, he found himself forced in self-defence to discover a dialectical method of excusing every kind of physical disreputability, degeneracy and putrescence.
He argued, after the manner of the fox who had lost his tail, that the beauty of the body is but a slight affair, and that man’s greatest achievement is to set a higher value on the beauty of the soul, and he declared to Glaucon, “If there be any merely bodily defect in another, we will be patient of it and love the same”.
“Merely bodily defect”! — These three words epitomise the whole savour and trend of Socratic teaching.
Thus radiant and flawless health is everywhere rare among human beings, and wherever Western civilisation has spread the minority of the sound are taxed out of existence and sacrificed in order to preserve, succour and pay honour to the unsound.
Now to set one’s face against this deeply implanted bias, to invite modern men, and particularly modern women, in the teeth of their morbid sentimentality, to change their attitude and to honour and look up to the sound, to protect the sound from extermination by the unsound, and to resist their being sacrificed for the latter — in fact, to assume towards humanity the very attitude which, to a farmer contemplating his animals and his crops, is a commonplace of good husbandry, is to-day one of the most difficult and precarious of undertakings…”
— Anthony M. Ludovici (https://counter-currents.com/2012/02/hitler-the-third-reich/)
Understanding the role rampant industrialization has played in the disintegration of the family is key here. Part and parcel to this understanding is that the modern nuclear family, isolated in their suburban home, is itself “partially an aberration”:
“It is said that a return to the 1950s is our objective. Many cultural conservatives fall into the trap of answering in the affirmative—that they do wish to see a return to the 1950′s. This is a fatal error. Whilst this period of time looks attractive compared to our current predicament, the 50s was the product of a certain time and place. The lengthy post-war economic boom made it feasible for the wife to stay at home, it alleviated the stress of the Depression years and brought forward a dynamic rise in the average spending power of ordinary families.
It is in these years of economic expansion that the seeds of alienation were sown. The Nuclear family, far from being a historical norm is in-fact partially an aberration. The Nuclear family is insular and compact—it is efficient from an economic perspective—but is an isolated historic occurrence.
Whilst it does contain inherent advantages: the mother remains at home, allowing for the thorough raising of the children; roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and does conform to what is the most basic and organic element of Human organisation. It was thoroughly unnatural in some respects.
A society where the basic family unit is comprised solely of parents and their children and implicitly states that this small group of people are responsible for themselves and themselves alone. It makes permissible an egotistical attitude: my family is all that matters—I’m alright guv’nor. It makes abandoning an elderly grandmother for a job offer on the other side of the country, fine. It cuts the bonds between the extended family. It’s the first step in the dissolution of the community altogether.
What our Nationalism demands is the reestablishment of the community. This in an age where the primacy of the economy absolutely constitutes a revolutionary objective. Of course, there is an economic dimension to life, but there is also Man’s social, cultural and aesthetic needs to consider—needs that must take precedence over mere production and consumption.”
— “Nationalism is Social Idealism” By National Youth (http://national-action.info/2014/01/19/nationalism-is-social-idealism/)
Ludovico was following his master Nietzsche in his slander of Socrates. Socrates was tradesman and had been a soldier who served with distinction. He was reknowned for his incredible endurance in the field, and in drinking young men under the table all night long, taking a nap around dawn and then getting up for another day teaching in square. In short, he was ugly but not weak.
True enough, Socrates was tough. But drinking all night long will eventually make you sicker and weaker than you would otherwise have been or invite one sort of disaster or another. What is it with white people – why do so many have an alcohol issue, even 2,000 years ago in less multicultural places. Can wise people still be wise without all that drinking? In movies and TV shows, etc. getting pissed is quite often presented as funny or cute, etc. Doesn’t that tell anyone anything?
I’m not knocking alcohol, I’m wondering why so many of us can’t control it.
As far as I know, Socrates preached and practiced moderation and even a degree of asceticism. But a Master secure in his self control can be moderate even in moderation and indulge once in a while rather than be a party pooper. Did his enemies accuse him of drunkenness? I don’t know. Perhaps Mr Johnson can answer as he seems to know the Dialogues better than any of us. In any case, his enemies accused him of many things.
How did he stand the cold, go without sleep, and drink people under the table? By mastery of his nervous system, the type that yogis sometimes have. Remember, he also was seen going in trances, sometimes lasting all day. We think of the Greeks as sensualists, but there were other currents in that civilization as well. I think there is more evidence for this than for him being a drunkard. In any case, the old boy was one of the greatest characters in our History. He deserves far more respect than the hatchet job Nietzsche gives him.
On a frivolous note, there are references to Socrates as a drunkard in Monty Python’s The Philosopher’s Song, which also includes the line that Heidegger “could think you under the table”; having once thumbed through Being and Time, I’d have to agree with this.
Another excellent article by Mr. Hamilton. I recommend to anyone who has an interest in the state of the modern family to check out a book by G.K. Chesterton entitled What’s Wrong With The World, particularly the chapter “The Free Family.”
Great article, Andrew Hamilton, thank you.
Where the white family does still exist in its strongest form is among educated upper middle class traditional families. And when the mainstream media does cast its Sauron-like eye on this last enclave of the white family, it finds out all sorts of truths which it hates. These truths are worth learning about as they’re quite useful to a pro-white movement, and I think we should be making a much bigger deal about them.
These truths boil down to the point that, by almost every measure, the upper middle class traditional white family is doing better than all other forms of white “family structures.” It seems like a simple point, but point it out to the politically correct left and they go absolutely insane with range.
Their project is to mandate that “as long no one gets hurt” no way of living is better than any other. This sounds nice enough until you realize that the real goal is root out and tear down tradition wherever possible. By making the non-traditional equivalent with the traditional, all behavior is morally the same and equally permissible and acceptable. Thus, to get married three times and divorced three times is fine, but to express disgust at gay marriage is to be an evil nazi. It’s all okay.
But the evidence of the living, still existing, traditional white family says otherwise. The evidence this form of family demonstrates is that children grow up best there. They’re less likely to die before they become adults, they’re fed better, they learn more, they’re less likely to live in poverty, they’re more likely to grow up and have traditional families of their own, and those families are more likely to be financially successful and enjoy better quality of life.
The body of evidence that the white family represents is very important, in my view, because what it points out is that no, not all choices are equal, and that there are in fact victims of their shitty second-rate pseduo family structures – white children! This is the starting point that collapses their no-consequences, nobody’s-getting-hurt, tradition-destroying project.
From the starting point that white children do best in traditional white families cascades more positive conclusions as well. White women live better, more secure lives. White men live longer and are happier. The elders in such families are treated better. Traditional white families are more financially secure and prosperous. And so on. Long story short, traditional family life is the most fulfilling way of life for white people.
Our enemies want to see us mired down in battle-of-the-sexes struggles like those waged by feminists versus PUAs and MRAs. Jewish intellectuals, Jewish opinion makers, and non-whites in general love to see whites divided and squabbling in these demoralizing fights. What they would hate to see is white men and white women coming together to make strong, healthy white families. A pro-white movement has an opportunity to offer a true third way past “boys vs girls” by offering a pro-white critique of the traditional family.
If one understands the nuclear family as an organic, evolutionary product of our people then the disengagement of sex from its family moorings and from its organic function results in alienated and destructive sexuality. Western people have been persuaded to trade their birthright for a mess of pottage. Childbearing is mocked and denigrated as “squirting out kids” while every type of alienated sex is celebrated and facilitated. White people are afraid to oppose contraception, abortion, and sodomy because they can’t bear being thought of as “religious nutcakes”, “right-wing bigots”, prudes, misogynists, or “barefoot and pregnant”.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment