Often in the mainstream media you will see opinion pieces or editorial commentary that refer to the “Two Americas” that exist today, side by side. Sometimes, this will manifest as a critique of racism or “white supremacy,” exposing the cultural and economic gulf between white suburbia and black urban ghettos. Oftentimes, it take form as an exposé of the urban versus the rural America, which also serves as a proxy for the racial divide and is easily highlighted with electoral maps. Even right wing media recognizes the existence of these two parallel “Americas.”
Increasingly there is another chasm, just as significant as the others, only less noticeable if you’re not paying attention. It is the ideological, economic and cultural split between childless adults and their fertile, family oriented counterparts. The boundary is often blurry, with “incel” or divorced white men making strange bedfellows with working class single mothers as they ally with “conservative” married families. This group is juxtaposed against feminist catladies, soy infused bugmen, homosexuals, transgenders, and married couples who choose to wait until their late thirties (or never at all) to become parents. While the fertile, married people and the disenfranchised men and women (who also desire normal family life) may outnumber their shitlib counterparts, the political and economic power that the latter group wields is cause for alarm and foreshadows further cultural decline in the future.
I began to notice this phenomenon long before I affiliated myself with the Dissident Right. Since the early days of the internet, I’ve frequented BBS discussions and comment sections of blogs and articles. More often than not, the most extreme liberal positions were held by men and women who claimed to be childless (if they were open enough to disclose such information). Early bulletin boards were often fairly intimate and, pre-Obama, remarkably civil. Indeed, “flame wars” occurred all the time, but Western politics had not yet reached the critical mass they have today. Still, a window was opening even then to shed light on things to come.
I’ll call this period the “2000’s”, though it actually started in the 90’s. Gay rights issues were being heavily injected into the mainstream, and the “intersectional” social justice cult was coalescing. Predominately childless white lesbians and feminists, there were also gay men and a cadre of bugmen to debate. If an issue could be characterized as harmful to the institution of marriage and family, this growing chorus was singing its tune. Examples of this included, but weren’t limited to, the legalization of drugs, gay marriage, gay adoption, legalizing prostitution, gay literature in schools, access to pornography and birth control/abortion issues. Bubbling under the surface, transgender issues were hardly a blip on the radar for most of us. But make no mistake, both it and pedophilia were issues the Left was preparing to do battle over.
Anyone who works for Corporate America™ also knows that these childless hordes were being granted special and coveted positions in the corporate hierarchy even before the Obama administration made “Big Gay” fashionable. Even then, every Human Resources department had a “problem glasses” wearing cat lady feminist at the helm, and if the company was big enough, a few gay men and brown people as well. It follows suit that managerial positions on the corporate ladder have been handed to these same people. But why?
It is tempting to categorize this as part of a greater “white genocide” conspiracy and an attack on the white male patriarchy, but it’s not so simple as that. It’s about loyalty to career, brand and the bottom line rather than family. Where in days gone by, a family man and father was seen as a stable and desirable employee, today the childless SJW is considered the most versatile and useful person to promote. It stands to reason after all! Where the father might be unavailable and out of reach at his child’s soccer game or ballet recital on a given Saturday evening, the childless cat lady or gay man doesn’t have that sort of commitment to anchor him/her down. Need to transfer your corporate accountant to a new location? It’s as simple as 123 when they have no children to uproot.
The concerns of family and children are by their very nature anti-liberal. A stay at home mother will tend to steer her children away from homosexual imagery and themes. A father will preoccupy his children with sports and wholesome hobbies, rather than gay rights parades and gangster rap music. And heaven forbid a family save their money for a rainy day rather than spend it on Star Wars collectibles or the latest Harry Potter or Marvel DVD.
Childless men and women spend money on frivolous, self absorbed things. Parents invent creative ways to NOT spend money. Who do you want to target with your advertising dollars? Who do you want on your marketing team to make those decisions for your company? In non-clownworld times of yore, the answer would have been clear. A stable family oriented society would have meant a stable and predictable market, thus stable and predictable profits. But in today’s quarter-by-quarter, investor driven, globalist hellscape, the conventions of the past are out the window.
There are a lot of cultural and economic battles to be waged in the coming years as the Dissident Right gains influence. We would be remiss to forget this aspect of the demographic problem by focusing too much on the brown invasion. It’s something to think about in upcoming elections.
-By Dixie Anon
Oh, I'm a good old Rebel, now that's just what I am; For this "Fair Land of Freedom" I do not give a damn! I'm glad I fit against it, I only wish we'd won, And I don't want no pardon for anything I done.