Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
So, what are the reasons for this? Why are men and women having a harder time getting along? I've thought about this problem for quite a while, and I believe that I understand the reasons. Some of the reasons for the decline of marital stability are economic, some are social, and some are psychological. Historically, marriage has been based on the bedrock economic fact that a well-defined division of labor results in greater survivability. If a man and a woman worked together as a team, with the woman keeping the home front under control while the man brought home the bacon and chased the wolves away from the door, both gained a competitive advantage over unattached singles and were more likely to survive and prosper -- not to mention the fact that their children were far more likely to survive than those engendered by unattached individuals.
This economic basis for marriage survived even the enormous social changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, but economic developments in this century began undermining it. There was the large-scale recruitment of married women into the non-domestic work force during the past 60 years, at the same time many men found that their income alone could no longer support a family. Another development was the advent of the welfare state.
When employers came to regard their employees simply as interchangeable economic units, they no longer could see any reason why they shouldn't hire married women, even married women with children, for any sort of work women could handle -- especially since doing so increased the size of the labor pool and lowered the price of labor. The transition of America from an industrial economy to a service economy during the past 30 years or so has greatly accelerated this tendency by decreasing the percentage of jobs which require a man's strength.
At the same time that the percentage of married women employed outside the home was rising from nearly zero 60 years ago to its present level of around 70 per cent, technology was greatly reducing the burden of maintaining a home. Sixty years ago clothes were washed by hand with a washing board and a washtub. Modern fabrics hadn't been invented, and so everything that was washed then had to be ironed. Homes didn't have electric or gas refrigerators, and only those in urban areas where there was an icehouse even had iceboxes. Kitchen work took substantially more time and effort, and so did shopping; there was no such thing as popping a frozen dinner into the microwave.
In other words, at the same time new employment opportunities for women meant that they weren't as economically dependent on their husbands as in the past, men were finding that a woman's work in the home was less essential than it had been: with all of the modern appliances and shortcuts, a man could get by in reasonable comfort alone. The introduction of the welfare state after the Second World War meant that a woman dissatisfied with married life didn't even have to worry about finding employment if she left her husband.
A century ago couples had fights just like they do today, but they had strong economic motives for making peace and keeping the union together. Today the tendency is just to announce, "I don't have to put up with this crap," and walk out the door.
Paralleling these economic changes were social changes which also worked to the detriment of marriage. A century ago, when most of us lived in a rural environment or small towns, there was strong social pressure on a couple to stay together. A divorce was almost scandalous. In today's urban environment this social pressure and the accompanying stigma of divorce are entirely absent.
After the Second World War the rise of feminism and so-called "women's liberation" also took their toll on marital stability. The feminists asserted that women were essentially the same as men, except for a few minor anatomical details, and that women didn't need men in order to live a complete and fulfilling life. They insisted on being treated just like men. And of course, their cause was taken up by the government and by the Jewish media, which resulted in their doctrines influencing many otherwise sensible women.
Women consequently lost their special status. When they asserted that they no longer needed the protection or the support of men, many men took them at face value. Men responded by deciding that they no longer had a special obligation or responsibility to support or protect a woman. Deciding to shed a wife became much like deciding to change roommates. Feminism has eroded the traditional complementary relationship between men and women, which was a relationship based on their natural differences, and tried to replace it with equality, which is not in accord with reality. The result of this failed effort has been very traumatic for both men and women. In many cases it has turned natural affection to hostility on both sides. Just as many women have responded by becoming less feminine, many men have become less masculine. It has played havoc with the institution of marriage.
So what's to be done?
Unfortunately, about all we can do in the short run is try to minimize the trauma for ourselves as individuals. If you're a man, when you're looking for a mate steer clear of women who have been tainted by feminism; and if you're a woman, be on your guard against men who have been "sensitized" by the feminists.
In the long run, we can make the institution of marriage healthy again only after we have cured the social and economic problems in our society. One of the easiest things we can do is simply stop promoting the false and destructive doctrine of feminism. When our government, our schools, and our media recognize that men and women are different and complementary members of our society and have fundamentally different roles to fill, we'll be a long way ahead.
Fixing the economic problems which beset marriage will be more difficult. It is hard to take women out of factories and offices and put them back in the home when most families have become accustomed to a life-style which requires two incomes to maintain. One of the reasons our grandmothers were able to stay at home and raise their children instead of dropping them off at a day-care center on the way to work was that our grandparents managed to do without many things that have come to be thought of as necessities today, so that one income was sufficient for them. Outlawing credit cards and other forms of borrowing certainly would cut consumption and help more people get by on one income, but that probably would cause a revolution all by itself, because our people have forgotten the old way of paying for things first and then having them.
We don't need to go back to using washing boards and washtubs, but we can look forward to building a new society in which economic policy and employment policy are made subordinate to the primary goal of promoting the racial and spiritual health of our people. One thing we can do is get rid of government welfare programs -- no food stamps, no subsidized rents, no welfare checks, nothing. If churches want to set up soup kitchens or flop houses for the homeless, that's their business, but no one should be forced to pay for the support of those who won't work, male or female -- nor should the dole be an attractive alternative to working or to keeping a marriage together.
And a career should not be quite as attractive or available an alternative to marriage for young women as it is now. Simply doing away with the government-imposed requirements for hiring and promoting women and leaving employers free to hire whom they choose will help a lot in this direction. And women could just forget about careers as soldiers.
We don't need governmental coercion to make marriage healthy again. We just need an end to the governmental programs which have made it unhealthy. Without feminist propaganda and without government interference, the instincts of men and women will do most of what needs to be done to get things back on a healthy track again. Their inherently different natures will reassert themselves again. Perhaps we can't make things quite as sound as they were a century ago when most of us lived in much smaller communities, but we can make them a lot better than they are now.
Whenever I talk about the things we need to do to make a better future for our people, I hear many people telling me, "Oh, you can't do that. You can't just take the welfare class off the dole. They'll riot. They'll burn the cities. And you can't expect women to give up their careers and become housewives. You can't just take away all of the privileges the government has given them. You'll lose their support if you try to do that."
Well, let me assure you, with a healthy government in place, the welfare class will not riot -- at least, not more than once. We know how to deal with rioters. All it takes is will power. It will be a good training exercise for our military people. That's not a hard problem at all.
As for losing the support of women, I'm sure that will be true in some cases, because the enemies of our people have convinced many of them that being a housewife or a mother is a fate worse than death. Many of them believe that they absolutely have to be fighter pilots or corporate executives. And I'm not proposing making a law that they can't be corporate executives if they want to. I'm just saying that we shouldn't pump them full of propaganda to convince them that that's what they should be. And we shouldn't have laws which give them an artificial advantage in becoming corporate executives. I believe that the institution of marriage can tolerate a few female executives: just not quite so many as we have today.
One thing I must admit: it would be easier not to do anything, just to leave things as they are. If we just keep feeding the welfare class, then we don't have to machine-gun them when they start demanding what they think they're entitled to. And if we leave the government quotas alone, many feminists won't hate us as much for trying to take something away from them.
But, you know, leaving things as they are really isn't an option. If we do nothing, then our people will die. Our race will become extinct, and the earth will be inherited by the savages and degenerates of the non-White world. The birthrate for White women in America is far below the replacement level. There are fewer White Americans with every passing year. The White birthrate has fallen below the level necessary for replacement for pretty much the same reasons that the divorce rate has gone up. As more women have left the home and joined the work force, they have decided to have fewer children. Children are a hardship on mothers who are obliged to hold down a full-time job outside the home. Children can lower a father's standard of living. Worse, the women most susceptible to feminist propaganda, the ones most likely to choose a career instead of motherhood, tend to be the brightest and most capable, the ones who most need to have children and pass on their genes to the next generation.
So we really have no choice in the matter. We either start having and raising more healthy White babies, or we die. Our race dies. Our country dies.
We will do what we have to do. We don't want to be unpopular, we don't want to make anyone hate us, but we will if we must. Those who hate us will be those who hate our people and want our people to die, or who have become so self-centered, so individualistic, so alienated and rootless that they don't care what happens to our people, so long as it doesn't inconvenience them personally. Let them hate us. It is a mark of honor, a mark of distinction.
The truly unfortunate fact now is that those who hate our people and want us to die are in control of most of the organs of influence, the media of influence. On our side we have American Dissident Voices and we have a growing presence on the Internet, but those who hate us have nearly everything else. They have the television networks, and they have Hollywood and Madison Avenue, and they have the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, and Time and Newsweek, and they have all of the slick, trendy, shallow, feminist-oriented magazines available at every magazine rack. Because they control the media, they also control the government. No politician, from Bill Clinton down to the least significant Congressman, dares to contradict them.
If we are ever to have any hope of making the institution of marriage healthy again, any hope of getting the White birthrate up to the replacement level again, any hope of keeping our people from becoming extinct, then we must gain for ourselves a much greater influence: eventually more influence than the enemies of our people have. The only way to do this is to build our own media for communicating with our people: to reach more of our people with American Dissident Voices broadcasts, Free Speech, and our other media.
Our enemies would like for everyone to believe that the only people who are concerned about the things I have talked about today -- the decay of our marriage institution and the declining White birthrate -- are what they like to call "right wing extremists" or "White supremacists." Ordinary people, they will tell you, don't share my concerns, my feeling that we must do something about what is happening to our people.
But our enemies are wrong. I know that a great many thoughtful people share my concerns. I know that a great many decent people are just as distressed as I am about what has happened to our marriage institution. I know that a great many of our most intelligent and perceptive people are as alarmed as I am over the catastrophic decline in the White birthrate. Not all of them have been quite so rude as I have in placing the blame for these things where it belongs. Not all of them are willing to be shrieked at by the controlled media as "anti-Semites" and "racists," so they keep quiet. But they are concerned; they are distressed.
My task -- our task -- is to persuade them to speak up, to persuade them to give voice to their concerns, to stop letting themselves be intimidated by those who want to destroy our people. And it also is to make many more of our people think about these things. So many of our people today are so busy, so wrapped up in their own affairs, that they haven't taken time to look at what is happening to our society and to think about it, to try to understand its long-range implications: its implications for their children and their grandchildren. I believe that when they do understand these implications, they too will share my concerns.
We need to continue talking with them, to talk with more and more of them. We need to get our radio program on more and more stations and our publications read by more and more people. Everything counts on it. You can help. I hope that you will.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page