On Family

by Andrew Hamilton

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 This can be accounted for by the psychological persistence of outdated experience, and mass media that subconsciously insinuate false perceptions. (ILLUSTRATION: Not a family. Childless marriage, promoted here by Jewish feminist author Lauren Sandler.)

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 the 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 (their Web site [now defunct — Ed.] is written in a grammatically awkward style and seems buggy, but conveys the general idea); moving to the Pacific Northwest [or becoming part of an intentional White community such as the one the National Alliance is trying to establish in the Appalachian Mountains — Ed.]; 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.

* * *

Source: Author and Counter-Currents