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.
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.
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.