Family will always build the superior person. It is the family, and one cannot say this enough, or too often, that is the ‘life-womb’ of a continuing higher-culture. It is the wisely nurtured soil of the family – out of which the race-culture achieves its greatness through the individual genius – that finally creates its final and finest fruit. This is not ‘social science’, as the Modern continuously exhort us to believe. It is the observable, the traditional common place, day to day, facts that one can clearly see with one’s own eye. It is the ‘family’ that everyone knows, the family who stands out: the Family that is beautiful, harmonious, intelligent, and numerically large, and is precisely these families, sadly, that are disappearing. The family, however, is not the only foundation upon which the life of its people rests; it is, however, the cornerstone of the race-culture [i.e. social mores, emotional stability, inner-strength, etc.,] and that, which is built upon it. When one sees the dying vestiges, as one saw in Greece, Rome, as well as Sumer and beyond, even as we see in the West today, one knows that senility is upon us, for the very understanding of the root-strength of the family has passed away from us: We are ‘civilized’. The Family, to be a real family, must be rooted in the earth; its source must be recognizable to all which spring from it.
In Greece, after the Ionian invasion [cir. 1600 b.c.], Homer tells us vaguely of the modes of [Family] life that these ‘Hellenes’ were used to practicing after many hundreds of years of consistent, homogeneous, tribal life. They were, simply, individualists, independent, owned and possessed their own land, a prerequisite for all free people. They voluntarily joined into political decisions with their neighbors. They were Farmers belonging, as it were, to that ancient class of ‘peasant stock’ that was deeply rooted to the soil.  They lived sparsely at home, giving impetus to the later ‘christian’ frugality of modern race-history. They built extra-ordinarily majestic temples for their gods and goddesses. The men of the day produced the food and crafts; the women, those garments which would clothe the family, raise the children with her husband, and be ruled by the Paterfamilias. As a whole, however, not much of family life was entertained. The ‘Spartan’ life however, was more conducive to the family as a ‘unit’, with one purpose in mind: That of the creation of the warrior/protector, and all the family energy went into this end. This meant that the individual’s highest aim was the protection of his unit, and by extension, his corporate unit, the State. 
The Romans, on the other hand, were the first to institutionalize the value of obedience, in a demonstrable form, and finalize the ‘concept’ of family life. The Spartan, on the other hand, considered duty, proper, as the most important embodiment of the family. The ‘duality’ here is apparent. It is significant, that while one is a political directive, the other is organic [spiritual], yet one must come before the other. A child, for example, must be receptive to the obedience demanded of his parents before he will fully understand, in a mature sense, the demands of the State upon this duty
This is Patriotism in the nascent stage.
From its birth, into life, the Roman family was larger that ours. It consisted of Father, Mother, unmarried daughters, sons, grandsons, as well as wives, clients and slaves. It was the Father, the man, who held paramount leadership, and loyalty: he was the Paterfamilias to his whole extended family and descendants. Consequently, the early Romans learned the first rule of government: Obedience to Authority.
We can hear the shrill cry of ‘foul’ from the modern.
The Romans first, however, owed their life to the skill of Agriculture, as have ‘all’ indo-European peoples. So it was, that every Roman could run a furrow, and take care of their own stock. These Romans were a more connected people than the Greeks to the earth. They followed the examples of their ancestors for several centuries, never becoming materialistic in the modern sense, that is, not until their fall. They clung to the ‘old ways’ because they were good, because they worked. In the same stubborn way, they held on to their property rights. Gibbons, in his great treatise, Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, goes to great lengths in discussing this agri-based family structure and disintegration. He [Gibbon] places the loss of Roman vitality, of which the empire needed to remain a world power [i.e. higher-culture], on the breakdown of the Family; other factors, to be sure, also coincided with this loss but, by far, the breakdown of the family was paramount. Sharing a considerable, and deleterious effect, was the rise of a ‘matriarchal’ dominance, instilled through a series of judicial imperatives, designed to level the playing field. This destabilizing process went right through the very heart and soul of Roman authority, since their very inception was based on the concept of paterfamilias. This shook the very fabric of Roman society, and never again [although many Caesars attempted to correct it] did they resume the direction and vision of their fathers.
In more modern times, we have seen Europe tossed by this selfsame storm. The French Republic, from which we Americans, have taken many of our customs and legal applications, before Napoleon’s rise to power, pressed for the ‘rights’ of women in many new legal areas.
Every culture moves through these organic phases, and certain aspects of French society needed to be corrected/changed, as seen by us today. A certain validity to the legal maneuvers before Napoleon may be agreed, yet, by the time of Napoleon, the centers of France, specifically Paris, showed such a remarkable [even for this period of Europe] femininity in dress, speech, and decorum which so angered the general population that Napoleon met little opposition when he ultimately ‘invalidated’ the many legal maneuvers precipitated by this assertive liberalization of woman and family.
The Modern of today lays many untrue charges against Napoleon, yet we use much from the ‘code Napoleon’* to this day in our modern [Western] legal system[s], [which was some two to three-thousand years in the making], with England being an exception. He was ‘hard’ on the ‘status’ of women, to be sure, but through his ‘code’, as well as the relaxation of marital status, specifically, allowing a form of Polygamy to exist settling, perhaps for a time, the curse of adultery and divorce, which plagues all decadent civilizations. Napoleon’s view of no divorce after ten years may not be accepted in the Modern’s society, but it was clear after Napoleon’s code that married partners remained married not only ten years, but well beyond, keeping that stability so necessary to a society who seeks to extend stability and peace. His ‘orientalism’ must not frighten those who seek to better understand the organic process of nature; and if, as Napoleon said, “women are treated too well, and in this way have spoiled [or been spoiled] in everything,” should be looked at as something that has occurred, and is occurring in the modern West. In anticipation of the modern to the use of someone like Napoleon, let me add that he also granted suffrage to Jews, and relaxed the measures against negroes, both of which, with time, proved onerous to the population.
It was not animosity towards ‘woman’ in particular, nor was it animosity toward any liberalizing trend or force that had caused events and circumstances to thwart this trend. Rather, it was from that non-organic social change, the absolute cultivation of it, which affected society from the top, down. It was the ancient Fati Machi Parole Femine. It was the ‘reaffirmation’ of deeds over words; it was the ancient law of nature, with its organic understanding of all those who search and listen to the laws of nature. It was a reaffirmation of a balance in nature, made manifest by a single issue: childbearing. It was the knowledge that the first-fruit of every marriage, children, was becoming passé. In all civilizations, this is the benchmark of decadence. Of Death.
In the Classical world, the question of life, and its myriad meanings, became paramount. They asked themselves: “What am I to be?” “For what goal am I to be sacrificed for?” “Am I, as man or woman, not to be master of my own design?” For millennia, such searching, and deeply held psychic/spiritual questions have been asked by men and women alike; for woman, these questions become ‘symbolized’ through the act of childbearing. Since ‘woman’ was the sole mechanism by which life was produced, she was then, in a position of authority to dictate certain terms in regards to the interactions between man and woman. In the modern world, woman has certainly reclaimed her ‘right’ to do what she will with her body, and this includes, in the Modern’s creation, the destiny of the life within her as well. She has choices. It is this point of deliberation, that of the ‘weighing of pro and con’ by women concerning childbirth, that inevitably points a higher-culture to it great turning point in history; its own very’ personal’ history.
At this point, begins the prudent limitations of Births.
Limitations soon, however, become widespread, rampant both in design and understanding. It becomes accepted as an ‘individualistic imperative’ held mostly by women who now recognize its limitation as their only source of power in a world run by power. It is the ultimate act of selfishness. To empower oneself, it is not requisite to force one down; but inevitably, this will occur. But to hold hostage a burgeoning life, is the ultimate ‘deed’ of the modern. In the Classical world, this practice was denounced by Polybius as the ‘ruin of Greece”, yet, even at his date, the greatest of Greek cities practiced it; in subsequent Roman times, it become profusely common in practice. As this occurrence became commonplace, so also, the changing mores of choosing a mate.
A Man’s choice of a woman who is to be, not mother of his children, like the most single rudimentary understanding of the common folk and primitives, but his own ‘companion’ for life, then, becomes a problem of mentalities. This Ibsen-like marriage appears, a contradiction, which the Modern still expects the masses to ‘accept’. This ‘type’ is a liberal contradiction, which stresses the spirituality and affinity between both parties. They are now both free. Free, that is, as ‘units’ of individual intelligence; free from the organic, almost plant-like urge of the blood, to continue itself. This lack of race-consciousness enables such men as Shaw to shout to the world that unless Woman repudiates her womanliness, her duty to her husband, to her children, to her very social order, to the organic laws of nature, and to everyone but herself, she cannot set herself free. This concept, of course, stands apart from the natural prime symbol of woman – that of Mother; this always industrious, intelligent and consistent woman who, being a part of the whole, sees herself as part of the earth, an extension of its natural being, its rhythms and cycles, as well as her culture, in which she is, in large part, responsible. Yes, she is mother, understanding all that this title entails; she would have it no other way. The Modern, of course, cries foul. After all, woman owes ‘nothing’ to no one; she is modern as well.
What has devolved from these higher aspirations of woman and higher-culture in general, such as was held in Greece, Rome and early America, is now that strange ‘der Geist der stets ver neint’. Instead of child, of duty, woman has ‘conflicts of the soul’. To her, today, marriage is the ‘art of war’, and is to be used for the advancement of that ‘mutual understanding between woman and man’; that they both belong to themselves. Yes, they both belong to themselves, and they will both be unfruitful, leaving nothing by which the future will know them. Alone, together, they will share in the ultimate selfishness. Yet, perhaps, these individuals are a solution to the very problem facing the West.
It is to the fruitful that we owe the rise of higher culture. We must recognize, and I venture to say that a majority feels this way, that anything which does not facilitate the race-culture in a physical, or spiritual sense is, consequently, to the detriment, to the denial of, higher-culture. The time, the place, the race, or culture makes no difference. The Family, then, is the sole basis of all unity and strength. The spirit and organic unity, that very continuity of individual presence, manifest in both its cultural and personal progress on which a higher-culture is built. So, also, the Rise of the West. The origin and strength of a higher-culture is but a part, albeit an important one, to this discussion. It must be shown that as the biological nation grows, it will, of necessity, assume many responsibilities inherent to its rate of growth or cultural destiny.
[excerpt ~Rise of The West ~ copyright]
1. In today’s world, especially in the West of this Northern continent, it is not now generally grasped by the American population, especially those children of their European ancestors, that it is ‘precisely’ this class of person [i.e. the Farmer, Yeoman, or Rancher] who is responsible for the continuing strength of this People, this Nation. This ‘class’ of persons who, by the very sweat of their brows, have continued to feed a Nation, are rarely thanked, let alone discussed on a national level. And those who blindly partake of these labors without giving thanks for those who nourish them represent the ultimate in what has become ‘modern’. True it is however, that those who once tilled the soil are increasingly leaving the land, and those not of our Western stock, taking their place. Skills may be learned by whomsoever will learn, and it is apparent that our own stock, Western stock, has begun that final descent into barbarism by forgetting the roots of their Fathers. In addition, it is with this final generation, if we do nothing, that this great and independent class of persons will cease to produce not only the yield of the field, but of the womb as well. It is a tragedy that has precedent, and all the great Western cultures have gone through it. The leaders of today’s Western powers know this historical axiom, but address it as in ancient times: They fill the ranks of their own kind with cheap labor, with Treaties which trade out the hard-work ethic of our fathers, and fill that void with others which are ‘land-poor’ and struggle against oppressive governments which deny them also, of land by which they could feed their own families, but would rather give in to, and go to where it is ‘easier’ for them. This is only human nature, as most people would rather go around the wall than through it. Compassion is due to these people, to all people who have suffered, for all people share these cycles in common; yet it is hoped that not only our Western people/leaders will realize the inevitable result of this compulsion [i.e. to those who would make money on cheap labor, making slaves of the guest worker] to make more money, or to simply fulfill some altruistic, well intended purpose, will be that of the total destruction of the Western man and woman from the soil itself. This cannot be allowed! Not by anyone. No leader, no political body, no human rights commission, no international treaties can be allowed to separate us from the land won at such great costs to our fathers and mothers. It is more than ‘shameful’ for their progeny to forget them, become lazy, and give up what was won through so much struggle and suffering. All of us must once again regain that imperative so necessary to our continued survival. Remember, the man or woman who does not control the land he lives on is a ‘slave’, and if one is a slave, how can one say his is truly free? FLS
2. Not in the sense of the ‘modern’ state. The modern sees the state as a means to ‘control’ the mass, for the few always fear the many, whereas the noble man sees the state as a means by which the people may then be served by the servants. The state is, in the final analysis, simply the mode, or technic, by which a People may extend themselves, seek and strive for peace, and comfort. FLS
- First modern legal code of France, promulgated by Napoleon I in 1804. The work of J. J. Cambacérès and a commission of four appointed by Napoleon I in 1800 was important in making the final draft. The Code Napoléon embodied the private law of France (i.e., law regulating relations between individuals) and, as modified by amendments, it is still in force in that country. It is a revised form of the Roman law, i.e., the civil law, which prevailed generally on the Continent. It shows, of course, many specific French modifications, some based on the Germanic law that had been in effect in northern France. The code follows the Institutes of the Roman Corpus Juris Civilis in dividing civil law into personal status (e.g., marriage), property (e.g., easements), and the acquisition of property (e.g., wills), and it may be regarded as the first modern analogue to the Roman work. Not only was it applied by Napoleon to the territories under his control—northern Italy, the Low Countries, and some of the German states—but also it exerted a strong influence on Spain (and ultimately on the Latin American countries) and on all European countries except England. It was the forerunner, in France and elsewhere, of codifications of the other branches of law, including civil procedure, commercial law, and criminal law. The Quebec province and the state of Louisiana owe much of their law to the Code Napoléon. In addition to the Code Civil, Napoleon was responsible for four other codes: the Code of Civil Procedure (1807), Commercial Code (1808), Code of Criminal Procedure (1811), and the Penal Code (1811).
- Corpus Juris Civilis, the most comprehensive code of Roman law and the basic document of all modern civil law. Compiled by order of Byzantine Emperor Justinian I, the first three parts appeared between 529 a.d. and 535 a.d. and were the work of a commission of 17 jurists presided over by the eminent jurist Tribonian. The Corpus Juris was an attempt to systematize [traditional historic] Roman law, to reduce it to exhaustive order after over 1,000 years of development. The resulting work was more comprehensive, systematic, and thorough than any previous work of that nature, including the Theodosian Code. The four parts of the Corpus Juris are the Institutes, a general introduction to the work and a general survey of the whole field of Roman law; the Digest or Pandects, by far the most important part, intended for practitioners and judges and containing the law in concrete form plus selections from 39 noted classical jurists such as Gaius, Paulus, Ulpian, Modestinus, and Papinian; the Codex or Code, a collection of imperial legislation since the time of Hadrian; and the Novels or Novellae, compilations of later imperial legislation issued between 535 a.d. and 565 a.d. but never officially collected. Because it was published in numerous editions, copies of this written body of Roman law survived the collapse of the Roman Empire and avoided the fate of earlier legal texts—notably those of the great Roman jurist Gaius. With the revival of interest in Roman law (especially at Bologna) in the 11th century, the Corpus Juris was studied and commented on exhaustively by such scholars as Irnerius. Jurists and scholars trained in this Roman law played a leading role in the creation of national legal systems throughout Europe, and the Corpus Juris Civilis thus became the ultimate model and inspiration for the legal system of virtually every continental European nation. The name Corpus Juris Civilis was first applied to the collection by the 16th-century jurist Denys Godefroi.