The New Right & Family Values

By Jordan Jacob

The Efficacy of the Right’s Pursuits

The dog days of the public New Right movement in America are dragging on in post-Charlottesville America. Meanwhile, veterans of the great meme war occupy themselves with foreign happenings in Brazil, France, Italy, and the like so as to escape the mundane merry-go-round of Trump Twitter teases and the sanctimony of liberalism. Occasional Frequent right-wing in-fighting also serves to break up the staleness of the third year of the Trump presidency. Accelerationists are growing increasingly impatient. Somehow it feels like 2020 cannot come quickly enough.

Not every man was built for the ways of content creation – nay, most of us must simply observe the humiliation of journalists from the sidelines, occasionally signaling appreciation of a particularly tasteful slur with a like or retweet. This support is not unimportant, but passive consumption of right wing online culture is not moving the needle of American politics in the slightest, nor is reading a variety of tomes of anti-modernist literature. It is, however, not my intention to denigrate the intellectual pursuits of the digital right wing ecosystem. The question is, to what use can this knowledge and awareness of our modern plight be best put to use? So you are familiar with the writings of Julius Evola. Now, the question is, “What do?”

The most primal assaults that cult members of anti-logos ideologies conduct are on the family. Normie parents are at the mercy of these ideologues because they simply do not know any better. Sexual liberation, hip-hop, feminism, and other machinations of our deadly cultural decline would have failed otherwise. The digital right wing movement is not filled with normies, however – they are uniquely attuned to the prevalence of evil in this world, and therefore are uniquely capable of creating families shielded from such nefarious elements. Upon examining the similarities between the state and the family, it will become apparent that applying the principles within the New Right’s political and philosophical ethos is a great defense against the left’s most aggressively subversive war effort.

The Three Pillars: Law, Culture & Morality

It is obvious that the right is better suited toward constructing cohesive family units. Its numbers may be decreasing, but in comparison to the sterile left wing, the right still owns the means of healthy child production.

Yet, there is much to learn about the familial dysfunction borne from the apathy of right wing Boomers. For the Boomer did not just turn a blind eye toward the ballooning national debt and the invasion of third-world do-nothings, but they also neglected to defend their offspring against the advancing death cult of the modern world. Additionally, Boomer fathers particularly neglected their roles – not just in abandonment of the mother – but also through an addiction to work. The workaholic father is emblematic of American culture, in that the father becomes divorced from the family and exists as a mere economic unit, just as America is made of a conglomerate of economic units divorced from a true national identity. In this way, the children are raised by the society at large, and thereby become true sons and daughters of the sexual revolution.

That is not to minimize the father’s role in securing resources. This activity will become even more demanding as one aspires to sire more and more sons, but when the father becomes entirely consumed by his dealings outside the home, the family suffers. For even as a king must make war and foster peace abroad to secure the prosperity of his nation, so too must he tend to domestic matters with equal diligence. When the king neglects the duties assigned to the caring of his homeland, he will return to chaos. Furthermore, as the father becomes more distant from the affairs of his household, it reinforces his belief that his worth is solely tied to putting bread on the table. He must continue to work longer and harder to avoid the reality that he has abandoned his responsibilities of home governance, and so a destructive, self-reinforcing cycle begins. It is the equivalent of a desperate politician launching a war to improve approval ratings.

While the Boomer was busy pulling himself up by his bootstraps, he let his offspring dive directly into the muck of post-modern degeneracy headfirst. It was the Boomer’s naivety as much as his desire to indulge in the opportunity America presented that led to his negligence, among other things. On the other hand, the New Right is equipped with a hyper-awareness of post-modern dangers that the modern world cannot erase, and the “red pill” (when properly applied to this area) makes them very able governors of family bodies.

First, the New Right’s acknowledgement of the differences between men and women is a crucial base by which to divide the responsibilities of the household. Men are the natural leaders, governors, lawmakers, disciplinarians, and creators of culture. Women, on the other hand, are natural rule followers, housekeepers, beautifiers, and caregivers. Right wing families often segregate responsibilities based off of these realities without thinking about it.

The question is, what are the duties that the father is absolutely responsible for within the family given the abilities endowed to him? He must create guidelines of acceptable behavior for the children (and the wife in a more negotiated manner). The mother must uphold the rules put in place by the father with perfect consistency and correct the children where they go astray. If video games are to be allowed only one hour a day according to the husband, then the wife must enforce it to the best of her ability. Where her ability fails, she must call in the father to act as the police or military, exercising his rightful authority over his children.

With the laws established and the rules enforced initially by cooperation through the mother, and then by force through the father, a family culture can be created. The culture must compliment the instituted laws, or disorder will result. One can imagine the moral confusion of a child living in an outwardly devout Christian family where obscenity (rap music), perversity (pornography), and idolatry (celebrity worship) were perfectly accepted within the home.

Family culture involves the music, television, and Internet that is allowably consumed in both measure and content. It involves the daily schedule that the family adheres to and the educational direction that is taken, for a boy in a public school will have to confront the cultures of some of the most rotten elements in the community, while a home-schooled child will be insulated from negative influences – overly so in instances. Culture is the way each member of the family speaks to each other and how leisure is enjoyed and the sports that are played. It is the food that is eaten and the frequency at which meals are enjoyed together. The onus of these cultural decisions is on the man, for he is naturally more capable of creating a cohesive, empowering, and consistent way of life and enforcing it through his natural authority.

Finally, the position that must be most rigorously established and defended is the moral high ground. Herein lies the ultimate scepter of power, determining the level of trust, obedience, and even love the child will have for his parents. Just as democracy subsists on the belief that granting political clout to all adult members of a society is moral, so too does a parent’s control over his/her child subsist on the idea that their ordinances are not only moral, but also that they are followed with an equal diligence that is expected of the child.

Imagine a parent that extolled the virtue of patience, and yet made public displays of rage when the lines at the grocery were long, or preached peace and understanding but hit their kids for the smallest of infractions. While children may not explicitly understand the hypocrisy of their parents on account of a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, they will internalize these double standards and rebel against it when the infamous teenage years arrive. This is paralleled in the teenager’s bouts of nihilism spawned from the blatant hypocrisy of the powers that be, painfully represented by the character A.J. in the Sopranos.

The moral high ground can become the bloodiest of familial battlefields, where poisonous words fly like bullets and intense offensives (groundings, technological deprivation, etc.) are no match for the resilience of a teenager who has lost faith in the moral commands of his/her superiors. The teenage wars will result in a demoralization of both sides, and the child will realize that the parents’ rules have not been constructed on a moral system, but rather, a system of control. The legitimacy of the regime is lost and so too is the subject’s obedience. On a societal level, this looks like the Yellow Vest movement.

It is therefore imperative that the moral high ground be reinforced with justifications to avoid the “because I’m the parent and I said so” conundrum. The underpinning of the culture and laws of the family must be built into a structure that is unassailable from an ethical perspective. Two chief options are available to build this structure: secular reasoning and religion.

Secular reasoning is a more difficult path in comparison to religion for a variety of reasons. Essentially, religion allows a couple to reliably outsource the responsibility of determining what is moral to a tried and true institution that has existed for centuries. A secular upbringing will involve a constant confrontation with micro-decisions, as every rule will be debatable, exceptions allowable, and punishments questionable. There is no institution that bolsters belief in the value of secular reasoning on a weekly basis. If a parent were to establish their moral code on something like the non-aggression principle, there are obvious holes that will be difficult to plug such as those related to drug use or pornography, as they do not violate said principle. Parenting in this way puts your inner philosopher to the test, and few are capable of maintaining consistency in the face of constant moral barrages.

Formulating the family structure around God – the ultimate Father that supersedes all – grants the parent the benefits of the divine right of a king. Their authority is protected by divine legitimacy before an unquestionable God.

A Future Forged

These three things – laws, culture, and a moral foundation – are all equally worthless if both parents do not adhere to them with the best of their ability, and where they do fail they must admit fault to their children. This is even more important for the father, however, as studies repeatedly show that his actions will speak more loudly than the mother’s. This should be obvious to the New Right, though, for how many female leaders have men gladly marched to their deaths for throughout history?

So if you are an Integralist that dreams of the rule of a Monarch directed by Catholicity or an ethnat trying to parse through who will be allowed into your ethnostate, it may be more worth your time to ponder how to apply your political insights toward building a healthy family to own the libs. One man gets to become the King of Catholic America, whereas (almost) every man has the opportunity to anoint himself king of a healthy, organized family. For one day, the generation we raised with the most diligent of care will stand on our shoulders and effect the change that we once dreamed was impossible.

4 Comments Add yours

  1. This is all nice but it doesn’t hit at the heart of the matter of why, starting with late Gen Xers, fecundity has dropped off into the shitter.

    The social and moral decay of Western society is rooted in the whorish nature of men and women.

    By whorish I mean treating as transactional the marital bond.

    This goes double for Trad wiafus and Innawoods daddy boys.


  2. stallard0 says:

    The neo-absolutists (to whatever extent these people are real or just rode a fun trend until the latest exciting but unserious idea came along) put themselves here to the left of Margaret Thatcher: the foundational unit of society is the family, and greater structures are built upon that. The idea that a King has an absolute and unchallengeable prerogative to run roughshod over every sphere in his kingdom is a horrible farce that damaged and destroyed kingdoms as soon as it was practiced, and opposed by nobles, bourgeois, churchmen, and others across religious and ethnic divides. A healthy society is one where authority is mediated through all classes with a respect for unequal powers, yet no claim to Supreme authority, which of course here belonged solely to God, Whose authority humbles all others.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s