The family is a subversive institution, as all of us know very well. I am referring here of course not to the range of new “alternative” family units, all of which appear to be perfectly compatible with the interests of our contemporary State, but only to the “traditional” unit, consisting of mama, papa, and wee bairns – together with that mysteriously toxic array of uncles and aunts, cousins and grandpersons, in-laws and out-laws that radiate from this “nuclear” core.
That larger families are more dangerous than small might go without saying, and also that the happier the family the bigger its threat to the (currently) established order.
Again, this is obvious. Families offer raw and increasingly illicit competition to the State as providers of social services and healthcare, of goods and services, and as sources of political indoctrination. Each family is in effect a secret cell, partly beyond the reach of the tax department, passing money and other valuables back and forth in a frivolous and undocumented manner.
Worse, the State still feels compelled to partially legitimize the existence of these “black markets,” at an untold cost to the revenues needed to support public services, and pay interest on the mushrooming national debt. It could be argued that there would be no debt at all, if traditional families were paying their fair share. Instead they are allowed to hoard money away, or spend it on private vanities such as detached houses.
I could go on. The traditional family was largely, if not entirely responsible for the population explosion, and thus all the material problems that have followed from the proliferation of people on this planet. If you want to know the cause of global warming, and the many other environmental crises that settled science has been patiently identifying on behalf of the State, look no farther.
Mom, dad, and childers are to blame. Many remain quite shameless about it, and continue to consume our finite resources without compunction. They act as if they have some “natural right” to food, clothing, and shelter, in return for their selfishly focused labor; as if private property were not theft. There will never be equality so long as the traditional family is allowed to interfere with the State’s scientific programs of resource allocation.
It is worse than that. As Mary Eberstadt recently demonstrated, beyond the possibility of correction, the relation between traditional family and traditional religion is like that of the strands in the double helix. The two have risen or fallen together, with frightening simultaneity, throughout modern Western history.
Now, truth to tell, I’m a bit of a rogue myself. Perhaps gentle reader may attribute this to my own dark childhood. I was raised in one of these traditional families, a dangerously happy one, and while its nuclear core was not especially large, my uncles and aunts on the paternal side were gratuitous breeders. They engendered more cousins than I can count, and succeeded in filling the heads of several with the sort of religion that inspired them to become repeat offenders.
My own experimenting with Catholic Christianity is notorious. In my defense I will say that it has done little damage, or maybe even some public good: for I seem to alienate more than I attract. And the State thrives on alienation. But these cousins of mine, who have gone Christian, or more precisely remained so: what a scandal! They went underground, and until the day when the cops search my files for their names and addresses, they will continue to undermine social progress.
Little George Alexander Louis is big news
Indeed, the forces of reaction were at large this week, as anyone with access to a television will have noticed. A family of breeders in England became the focus of international attention, when one of their women gave birth to an “heir.” U.S. media were puzzling why Americans – free of overt family rule for nearly ten generations – should be enchanted by this spectacle.
It was as bad, perhaps worse than some earlier irruptions of royalty-watching in the USA. I gather that in 1837, for instance, the country was seized by an unhealthy fascination over the coronation of Queen Victoria. And I remember the bleating over Princess Diana.
Americans were hardly alone in their proclivities. In China, a country where the nuclear family has surely been pulverized by State anti-population policies, the story also went viral, with national betting on what name the child should be given. (“George,” “Edward,” “Philip,” and “David,” were the top four suggestions.) Did they not remember the Opium Wars?
Ditto around the rest of the world, except curiously enough in most Muslim countries, where State media were instructed to play the story down. But even there, minor end-of-newscast mentions triggered tidal waves of comments and hits.
I confessed to being a rogue, above, and now must confess to some specific misbehavior. I found myself on television, pitted against a prominent Canadian republican, disgusted and discouraged by the whole circus.
While I proudly claimed it was not the sort of thing that keeps me glued to the idiot box – for when royal celebrity coverage is prolonged, I, too, start feeling the need to gargle – I nevertheless observed that it made a nice story. Stuff like that, and the adoring reception of Pope Francis in Brazil, provided some contrast to the other media circuses.
Therefore I proposed to cautiously join in, and “celebrate the celebration.” The whole world was watching, and the whole world was happy. There was goodwill and good cheer, even from the pursed lips of many liberal talking heads. Nothing bad happened.
Well, a few republican snobs whined and sniffed. But we were reminded how pleasant the world can be, when no one is listening to them, or taking orders from them about what we should like or not like.
“Normal human beings,” I outrageously argued, “regardless of race, creed, color, or class, love pageantry, and babies. Let’s have more of both.”