I’m pleased to find that Mark Richardson’s blog is public and active again. Welcome back! In honor of the happy occasion, I’m cross-posting some Throne and Altar posts whose links now work again.
If you won’d do it for your ancestors, do it for your children
Fight white gentile shame, that is. Is this the life you want for your children and grandchildren, a never-ending cycle of ever more abject self-abasement met with ever more hysterical denunciation?
Perhaps you think all this anti-white hatred will peter out on its own if we just keep our heads down and apologize long and abjectly enough? I used to think so too, but it is clear that this isn’t happening. The more docile and powerless whites become, the more viciously our moral standing is assaulted. Immigrants, having risked death to come to America, immediately turn to castigating the native population of their new home for being insufficiently diverse and welcoming. The Democratic Party insures that every non-white newcomer is made into an honorary negro, complete with the anti-white resentments that come with this new status. White demonization is not going to stop on its own. Why should it, when so many people benefit from it?
If I had to sum up my Defense of Patriarchy in one sentence, it would be this: “The essence of the patriarchal family is embodied personal dependency.” Dependency means people rely on each other for basic needs. Personal means that the dependence is ultimately on a specific person for one’s needs, rather than a large organization. Embodied means that one’s specific duties are “read off” from biological facts, particularly sex differences, and these facts are then given meaning by one’s role in the family.
Thanks to the research of Oz Conservative, I can now be sure that I wasn’t the first to emphasise some of these points. Mr. Richardson brings to our attention a 1914 essay by Mrs. John Martin, in which he reads
The family is a closely organized, coherent, interdependent group. The basic principle upon which it rests is the mutual dependence of its members. It is founded on the needs of its members for one another. Were it not for these mutual needs the family would not have been formed.
…
It is the plant which we tend and water that interests us; it is the canary bird we feed ourselves; it is the baby we nurse and fondle and care for; it is the husband whom we watch over, appreciate, sympathize with, are grateful to, enliven, comfort and cheer; it is the wife whom we toil for, protect, guide, defend, serve and cherish – these are the persons whom we love.
…
It is apparent that the unity of the family arises out of its common needs and mutual services. But when woman has no need of man as breadwinner and he has no need for her as home-maker, and the child has no further need for either of them as nurse, teacher, guide, friend, but finds most of its needs supplied elsewhere by paid experts … – then the cohesive force of the family dissolves.
Mrs. Martin saw and explained everything clearly, decades before it happened. But who’s ever heard of her? Who has ever heard these arguments? I had to figure it out mostly by myself. The longer I live, the more I think that arguments don’t make any difference. When an idea comes up, like feminism or easy divorce, that gives people an excuse to be selfish, they’re going to accept it no matter how good the counter-arguments are. It’s a very depressing thought, especially given the hobby that I’ve chosen for myself.
Best of the web, mid-March 2010
Mark Richardson explains, to those for whom it’s not obvious, that government support for working mothers is a plot to supplant the role of the father. The husband is made obsolete, and the state assumes his role for the mother and child.
The Orthosphere 
Pingback: Oz Conservative is back | Neoreactive
Not only that, but Zippy is active again, too.
Great news all around!
So family exists because of nexus of need-love only?
The State never claimed to provide women with anything else than cash. It never claimed to love women, to cherish them etc. So, the family must have been in a bad shape already before the State stepped in. You can not blame the State if the families were rotting from inside.
At the very minimum you can blame the state for contributing to the rot; for creating a worse situation than already existed – something government seems supremely good at. But that’s if one accepts your premise that the family was self-destructing independent of government interference, which I most certainly do not accept except insofar as it is the human condition to be sinful and fall short of God’s ideal.
It depends what you call the state, but there is a reason the sexual revolution was marketed as “women’s liberation” rather than as a free cash program.
Laws existed for the state prior to its existence and some states have been faithful to those laws and been very beneficial to women.
The link below will bring you to an encyclical that is not a short read but it is a worthwhile one to read and consider:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html
Well, Bonald, you can imagine my surprise, after your recent aggrieved declamation that white supremacy is “never” the theme of your posts, that–in your very next post for this blog–you lead off with a recognition of the necessity for something like white pride. Granted, pride (or, at least, confidence) in one’s race or ethnicity isn’t equivalent to “white supremacy”, but surely the white supremacist perspective is eminently relevant to such a consideration.
Now some, including Bruce Charlton, emphatically rule out any preoccupation with white nationalism as a prospective way forward. Charlton advocates instead the imperative need for a Christian revival above all else–nothing more nor less will do. Yet my impression of Charlton is that Christian revival isn’t even working out in his own person. Most everyone here regards Charlton’s “Christianity” as so idiosyncratic as to be either ridiculous or perverse; Charlton, by his own admission, doesn’t attend church; and, frankly, we all know that he is infinitely more concerned with the occult than he is with anything resembling traditional, orthodox Christianity.
If this is what “Christian revival” looks like in one of its foremost proponents–how on earth could we imagine that the way forward is a shambolic “Christian revival” a la Charlton?
Now please believe me when I say that I am myself a Christian and I would like nothing more than to see a revival of traditional Christianity throughout the West and especially in my own homeland. But it’s time to get serious and acknowledge that the only realistic way forward is the cultivation of a long-term resolve to reassert control over our enemies. However unpleasant such a consideration may be, the perilous times ahead will be far more unpleasant–no matter what we do. Then, everyone here will discover that, not only is blood thicker than water, it is thicker than spirit as well. Spirit is only thicker than blood for that class of men who may be denoted by the term “saints”.
And in the coming wave of crisis after crisis, the “saints” will be something worse than useless to us, I’m afraid. To believe otherwise is to indulge a grandmotherly sentimentalism.
Wade McKenzie…
It’s not easy to convert from a deracinated “Christianity” to wS, but Dr. Charlton has, in my regular reading of his blog, implicitly acknowledged the existential crisis faced by the white man. It seems a truism that one MUST HAVE a spirit to live. This truism is no longer held by a critical mass of white men, therefore, “white man” is collectively headed towards a self-annihilation. Dr. Charlton has repeatedly noted the absolute import of reasserting a Christianity centered around family creation, maintenance and perpetuation (this is a critical aspect of his “revival”). He ONLY LACKS a racial imperative to his thoughts. The forces of HIS BELIEFS will move him along in due time just as before.
TD, I think the key word in your first sentence is “implicitly”. I too used to feel that Charlton was “implicitly acknowledg[ing] the existential crisis faced by the white man”–and maybe he was or is. But I’ve since been disappointed to hear explicit disavowals of white supremacism from him.
Having said that, I suppose I ought to say that I enjoy Charlton’s “notions”–however lacking in seriousness I may find them–and I’m more sympathetic to his “free association Christianity” than I let on in my comment above.
My primary purpose wasn’t to criticize Bruce Charlton–that was simply a means to my end, which was to insist that “Christian revival” is not the solution to the problem of Western man. I cited Charlton because he’s a strong proponent of the view that Christian revival is the answer–as well as an opponent of the white supremacist program–and as I said, “Christian revival” doesn’t seem to be having anything other than a fanciful or “notional” effect in his own life. Thus, I suggest, its effect on Western moral and political order in the present crisis will only be likewise. As below, so above.
If Western moral and political order is ever to be regenerated along a “traditionalist” line, it will have to be done the age-old, traditional way–through a violent seizure of power. White supremacy prepares our hearts for such a necessity. Christian revival and Bruce Charlton’s “notions” do not.
I too would hope that “the forces of HIS BELIEFS” would someday carry him into an explicit awareness of white racialism, as well as an intimation of the imperative need for ourselves and/or our descendants to cope with a looming civic deterioration into violent conflict amid widespread social collapse. I fear, rather, that the forces of his beliefs will in years to come carry him right on out of the Christian orbit entirely and into the next stage of his New Age evolution and visionquest. I wish him well on his visionquest, however it turns out–it just isn’t relevant to the revitalization of the West.
Of course, we need spirit to live–the things of the spirit are, I believe, the ultimate ends of man. But the human spirit itself needs blood–the spirit is in the blood. In a coming time of chaotic social unrest and violent strife, everyone will have to learn the hard way that only a reliance upon ties of blood–of racial and ethnic kinship–will be effectual, while a reliance on spiritual camaraderie in the form of a shared Christianity–in the absence of racial kinship–will be essentially useless.
Pingback: OzConservative Back Online | S y d n e y T r a d s