SJWs Call to “Abolish the Family” to Make Society Equal

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
May 6, 2015

Yes, this is real.
Yes, this is real.

It has finally begun: SJWs are now arguing that the family should be completely abolished as having families gives White people an advantage over the oppressed colorfuls.

John Hess sent me an article in an Australian paper about some SJW “philosophers” calling for White parents to stop reading to their children, as it gives them an unfair advantage over the colorfuls by making them more intelligent and capable individuals.

This is the ongoing chant of the Marxists, ever since they realized that you cannot bring up brown people to the level of Whites: you must find ways to bring Whites down to the level of non-Whites by making them stupider and less capable somehow.

It was a pretty seamless more from “we have to help these colorfuls more” to “we have to injure Whites.”

This is what the great leader was talking about when he wrote:

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.

If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.

I then clicked through to the original interview on ABC with the “philosophers” Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse, and was slightly surprised – even at this stage in the game – to see them openly advocating for the “abolishing” of the family in order to end the privilege Whites gain from being raised by responsible parents.

He tried to stop this.
He tried to stop this.

The piece begins:

So many disputes in our liberal democratic society hinge on the tension between inequality and fairness: between groups, between sexes, between individuals, and increasingly between families.

The power of the family to tilt equality hasn’t gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time. Now, philosophers Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse have felt compelled to conduct a cool reassessment.

Swift in particular has been conflicted for some time over the curious situation that arises when a parent wants to do the best for her child but in the process makes the playing field for others even more lopsided.

There you have it, goyim. While doing what is best for your children, you are hurting the colorfuls. In order to do what is best for the colorfuls, you must activity seek to make your children stupider than they otherwise would be.

Swift then gives his explanation of what needs to be done in order to achieve justice: “One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.”

Some kids don't have the advantage of bedtime stories.  White kids must be made more like them.
Some kids don’t have the advantage of bedtime stories. White kids must be made more like them.

The article goes on to explain that Swift has conceded that most people will not go along with a plan to literally abolish families and put all children in the care of the state (at least not at present), and accepting this, Swift has gone on to figure out ways that parents can neglect their children on purpose to the end of making them dumber, like colored people.

Swift says, “What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children.”

Just to be clear, this is a real thing.  This is a real guy who is being promoted by the Australian media as a guy with really good ideas.  Also, to be clear, the article doesn’t make it 100% clear they are talking about racial inequality, it is just assumed.

Swift then explains that he has devised a test to see what helps children become more intelligent and capable, and argues that these things should be banned.

He starts out by saying private schooling bestows unfair advantage, and then goes on to attack bedtime stories.

While arguing that private schooling should be outlawed, he stops short of saying that it should be outlawed for parents to read to kids, but does say parents should worry about poor unfortunates when making their child smarter to reading to him: “I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally.”

Here's the deal: let's send all the colorfuls to private schools, all the Whites to intercity public schools.  If the Blacks end up doing better than Whites, we'll go with Swift's plan.  If not, we'll end multiculturalism forever.
Here’s the deal: let’s send all the colorfuls to private schools, all the Whites to intercity public schools. If the Blacks end up doing better than Whites, we’ll go with Swift’s plan. If not, we’ll end multiculturalism forever.

Swift then notes that many different things give “unfair advantage” to children who have good parents, but that it just isn’t realistic to ban everything.  However, he does say that the state needs to take a more active role in telling parents how to raise their children, so they can make the kids stupider.

“When we talk about parents’ rights, we’re talking about the person who is parenting the child. How you got to be parenting the child is another issue. One implication of our theory is that it’s not one’s biological relation that does much work in justifying your rights with respect to how the child is parented,” he says, adding “We think that although in practice it makes sense to parent your biological offspring, that is not the same as saying that in virtue of having produced the child the biological parent has the right to parent.”

So, he has a dialectic going on here – he begins by saying that the most logical thing would be for the state to own all children, then says that it’s unrealistic, but we need to find a median between the state literally owning children and parents having a right to raise them as they wish to raise them.

And just to say again – the entire context of this is that intelligent children need to be made stupider in order to make society more equal.  That is important.  Because he compares his theory to that presented in Plato’s Republic, where the state raises children, but Plato had much different aims than those of Marxist multiculturalism.  The Republic was an authoritarian meritocracy.

I don't agree with everything in the Republic, but it wasn't a plan to destroy society.
I don’t agree with everything in the Republic, but it wasn’t a plan to destroy society.

He then goes full-Adorno, and says that the relationship between children and their parents is a social construct: “It’s true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people’s identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.”

He doesn’t explain why he believes genetics to be a hoax, but he clearly implies that genetics are a hoax.  I mean, when Adorno wrote this stuff, at least there was no genetic science (even though there was Darwinism and obvious realities, such as that children look and behave like their parents).

Here is the interview:


This is what happens when you deny that human beings are a part of nature.  Would these fiends be trying to change the family structures of monkeys or dogs?

Are chimp families a social construct, Mr. SJW?
Are chimp families a social construct, Mr. SJW?

Of course not.  Because we accept that the social norms of animals are determined by nature.  But somehow, we are to believe that humans are somehow outside of nature.  Hilariously, this is a purely metaphysical concept, disguised as something scientific.  No science exists to back up the concept that human beings are something beyond nature.

If we accept that we are a part of nature – a form of animal – we can then accept that we have natural social patterns, and that our government, economy and institutions should be geared toward maintaining the natural order.