Skip to content

How To Destroy Marriage

August 14, 2014

You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up.
– Morpheus addressing Neo, The Matrix

There’s one near universal thing that I notice in people. If you go inside the church, you see the power of tradition take hold, even in the new believers. In the world, you see people accept everything they’re presented by their employers, by their government, and other entities without question. What do I notice?

People tend to accept the things they see before them as good without question.

They don’t think about what they’re doing and what is before them. If you tell them the sky is orange, they’ll accept it if it seems reasonable enough. This leads to a little exchange I had with Dalrock on his blog. While there was no significant disagreement, it led to an interesting thought. As Dalrock writes: “Very few people can see this, for reasons I don’t understand.” When you think about these things, they all tend to come together like dominoes in a line.

We begin with the days of the Marxists. It can be logical to surmise that if you want to implant your ideology, especially one that demands total fealty to government as a God, you’ll have to remove the family from consideration. Especially when you consider socialism itself, it becomes verboten for a child to be in a family and have it be considered their child – or their property. Their child to raise, their child to educate. In socialism, the child belongs to society, as administrated by the State. Not too many people will willingly give up their children, let alone to the State. Nor will they give themselves up as subjects of the State themselves.

So as communists, if we want to instate our agenda, we have to get past the family – in other words destroy the family, yet not be so bold as to raise the alarms of the unthinking masses. So how do we do this?

1. Give license and control of marriage to the government, arresting the influence of the Church.

Here, you make marriage “illegal” and then require permits in order for it to occur. The unthinking masses will not think of the implications of such things. The priests will, given that marriage was the exclusive realm of the Church, so we can give them the important role of arbitrator of such things, as well as other benefits in order to look the other way and not present proper Church teachings against the idea. In the process of giving assent to such things as the marriage license and birth certificate, the government can claim the right to raise the child the way it sees fit if the parents don’t comply, and literally define the terms of the marriage. Naturally, we can abolish other “forms” of marriage. This ability to make and define marriage for what it is and isn’t is useful for what must happen later.

Send the child off to the public indoctrination center or else. Give them proper medical care or else. What is the “or else”? Take them out of the home against the will of the parents. The child becomes the State’s to mold in the socialist doctrine. What makes this so? The parents ceded this right in the three-party marriage contract.

2. Foment the sensibilities of women against their husbands and the idea of marriage.

As noted before, we can stir up women against the idea of marriage and family. “That the man was everything and the woman nothing.” And that “the typical family is where the woman has no will of her own, no time of her own and no money of her own.” Briffault’s Law is indeed well-proven, as Alexandra Kollontai addresses the “working woman” repeatedly and exclusively in her work. All that is needed is to whip up anger is to stoke a little consciousness raising. They will remember the previous system of feminism, and hasten to act. The men will remember their proper role of sacrificial lamb to her needs (after all women are good and men are bad), and will not question this happening.

3. Enable no-fault divorce.

Next, we enable the unconditional dissolution of marriage. Given the fomenting of women, and the natural aspect of the feminism already in place, we will have legions of women rushing to take advantage of it. After all, a woman will not have to suffer a husband who beats her and makes her life a misery with his drunkenness and uncouth behaviourthe presence of chivalry will not make people question this. This gives the extra bonus of the division of property, as well as the abolition of parental rights. It will also give the opportunity to condition parents to follow the dictates of the State, as all things the State dictates can be done “in the best interest of the child”.

4. Encourage fornication.

If we can get people to bypass marriage altogether, this will be a bonus. Put out media that encourages it, encourage “sex education” classes which promotes sexual activity, hand out condoms and begin birth control programs, and you’ll get people having sex with one another outside of marriage, devaluing it. In the process, we will need to abolish the idea of legitimate and illegitimate births. As well, you’ll get out of wedlock children which can be more easily controlled by the State.

5. Establish and condition children and caretakers to government provision.

The end goal of the Socialist enterprise is to condition people to seek and find support in the collective and in society, and not from the individual. This can not be done immediately, but can be done through the venue of “child support”. Child support will be accepted over the alternative of family formation, both for cases of broken marriages and out of wedlock births. Again, we can use the traditional form of feminism. Later on, concepts of “social security” and “welfare” can be instituted, again using the reasons of “the best interest of the children.”

The Conclusion Of The Matter
So what do we have in the end? Does all of this sound familiar to you? It is said that you need to learn from history to not repeat it:

According to Marx and Engels, under Communism the “bourgeois” family would have to “disappear,” just as “the capital” would. The practice of parents “exploiting” their children would be abolished, and family education would be replaced by public education.

The year 1917 saw the Soviet government passing decrees “On Civil Marriage, Children, and Registries” and “On Dissolution of Marriages.” The decree “On Dissolution of Marriages” granted spouses unconditional freedom to a divorce, performed by a local court, at the desire of either one or both parties. “On Civil Marriage” decreed that all except civil marriage (including religious marriage) would cease to be recognized by the state, while at the same time abolishing all distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children. (It should be noted that the sole aim of introducing civil marriages was to undermine religion. Writing in 1922, one Soviet lawyer stressed that “[t]he institution of Registrars was necessitated by the fight against the Church.”

Affirming such moves, the 1918 Family Code introduced a whole new morality, contravening the existing practices of marital and family law. In its provisions for divorce, the new legislation granted spouses rights to separate property and thereby abolished shared, family property. The Code also included vague criteria for deprivation of parental rights. Article 153 stated that “[p]arental rights are exercised exclusively in the interests of the child, with courts invested with the right to deprive the parents thereof in case said rights are exercised improperly.” Article 183 prohibited adoption, replacing it with a system of state-appointed foster caretakers. The Soviets were also the first government to proclaim complete freedom of abortion.

All of these steps were in line with the new authorities’ ideology of considering the family the backbone of the oppression of women. Russian Communists thought the liberation of women required destroying family households and family education for public versions of both, while drawing women en masse into public production. Writing in 1919, Lenin argued that “true liberation of women, true Communism comes about only when and where the masses rise up . . . against . . . small-scale households.”

And how many of these things came to light in this country to thunderous applause and approval in order to improve the plight of women? To very little question and opposition whatsoever. When the opponents of homogamous marriage speak of the “sanctity of marriage”, these things never enter their minds. It is because they are in truth on the side of these progressives. It is also a wonderful illustration of how feminism was something only used well by Marxists, nothing that was created by them.

10 Comments
  1. jack permalink

    Well, most women are infallibly gullible, and will vote for anything that sounds good, without and notable critical analysis of cause and effect.

    You could create a law that required the killing of puppies, but as long as you labelled something like “environmentally sound animal management”, the idiot women would gleefully vote for it.

    Basically 50% of men are stupid. 80% of women are also stupid. And women are at least 10x more gullible than men.

    Because feeeeeelings!!!!!

  2. Lazarus permalink

    My church recently had a men’s fellowship. An event for only guys where we had a short message as well as played sports. In between we were talking about marriage and the role of a man. Now I’m not going to lie, my church is pretty feminized (or at least some pastors). One of the pastors in the group was talking about the equality of man and woman in marriage. So I started to bring up examples of Barak and Deborah, and some of the fathers of faith and their wives. I kid you not, the head pastor says those were patriarchal societies and we aren’t living in one right now.

    So I try to bring up a more contemporary example and ask him if he knew what was C.S. Lewis’s thoughts on marriage in Mere Christianity. He says he forgot. So I explain that Lewis thought that in a marriage, if a man and woman disagree, that is one vote against, one vote for something, i.e. there is always a stalemate. However Lewis said that based on the Bible, then the man should be assigned the one who makes the final decision otherwise you would never have agreement.

    Then the head pastor disagrees. He sees is such a stalemate scenario occurs you bring the entire matter to the church. I disagreed.

    Now an interesting thing happened. Another pastor agreed with me. He even went as far as to say that he believes in even today’s relative “egalitarian” society, it is men who are to run the family. Another peer in the group my age also agreed and came and told me that after the meeting.

    As feminized as the church is, I think most men try to be reasonable. If we get the seeds planted in men’s heads it may eventually bear fruit. They may disagree with me, but if you keep presenting Biblical examples as well as the theologians that the church people respect, eventually they can’t ignore all the evidence.

    Thank you to people like you who give us a little bit more ammo. Sometimes you don’t even need all the ammo, sometimes if you simply stand up for your stance you will find more people agreeing with you than you thought, but it certainly helps. It is hard to know that you even belonged to such a tradition without having the perspective of people who are allowed to speak freely online, like yourself. Cheers

    -Lazarus

  3. Well done Lazarus!
    That is the way to make change happen. I take a similar approach and attempt to explain these things to my brethren at church. It is essential that Christians understand what the Bible teaches concerning marriage and the roles of men and women. The feminists have turned it upside-down, but speaking the way you have will expose the lies.
    Another dirty secret that most churches have is there very feminised divorce apologetics. They have foolishly allowed women to divorce and remarry and sanctioned it in doctrine. This is in direct contradiction to what Jesus taught.

  4. Robert What? permalink

    Here’s the thing that always makes me wonder: when the communists and progressives finally have their utopia and all the producers are destroyed or totally demotivated – who do they think is going to pay for the whole dam’ thing!

  5. Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Article 53

    Article 53. The family enjoys the protection of the state.
    Marriage is based on the free consent of the woman and the man; the spouses are completely equal in their family relations. The state helps the family by providing and developing a broad system of childcare institutions, by organising and improving communal services and public catering, by paying grants on the birth of a child, by providing children’s allowances and benefits for large families, and other forms of family allowances and assistance.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Antidepressants, scholarship and lesbian-themed fiction for Christians | 字典
  2. God Ordained a Separation of Powers. | The Society of Phineas
  3. How To Destroy The Church (Part 1) | The Society of Phineas
  4. Book Review: Growing True Disciples by George Barna | The Society of Phineas

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 105 other followers

%d bloggers like this: