Broken Homes, Broken Civilisation

It is probably the closest thing to an actual self-evident truth, at least among traditionalists, that the family is the indispensible foundation of human community.  There is no wonder that it is the very thing the merchants of filth and death have been attacking for so long.  Destroy it, and everything else follows.  I know it is no coincidence that the point of attack for the enemy was and remains the home and family.  The problems of marriage, mating, home life, and childrearing have been the death of the West.  The concurrent population displacement is preparation for what comes after.  How did this happen?

Marriage has been destroyed.  Egalitarianism and affluence are responsible.  I don’t know how much any one who may read this knows about the current social situation, but that is a fact.  All the mainstream social conservatives, who are about as useless a lot as ever there was, need to stop prattling about “defending traditional marriage.”  That battle was lost decades ago.  Southerners might as well prepare to defend Vicksburg from the invaders.  If any effort at all is to be made, it is to build traditional marriage again out of the ruins.  Is that possible?

The death of marriage and civilisation along with it was ensured by two main factors: female liberation and birth control.  These correspond to egalitarianism and affluence.  (No doubt there are others, but they affect, I think, the structure.  One could develop a list running into the hundreds of pages.  This rot is in the foundation.)  I want to look at one of these in particular, egalitarianism.  It is more philosophical, less mechanistic.  Errors in thought always lead to worse errors in practice.  Most of the so-called conservative movement accepts both of these things as normal and desirable.  As the eminent RL Dabney told us, conservatism is the shadow that follows radicalism to perdition.  If hell is your destination, does it really matter whether or not you are on the back of the train or up front with the conductor?

Think about liberation.  Who could be opposed to that?  To be opposed to liberation is to be in favour of tyranny and oppression, correct?  Only a backwards dummy could believe otherwise.  Or so we are told.  To require liberation implies being in a state of helpless slavery; of being cruelly oppressed.  The Israelites in Egypt needed liberation which God provided.  Did or do women need liberation?  From what?  Into what?  What state did women inhabit prior to the glorious liberation brought to them in the twentieth century?  What, and more importantly, who is behind this liberation?

This cry of liberation from the feminist is a declaration of total war on human life.  It is hatred for God’s order and, in a perverse irony, hatred for femininity.  It is a desire in the female to be masculine-to posess male traits in her own self rather than to complete a familial unit by pairing with a man.  It is the rejection of life and fertility for death and sterility.  It is the unleashing on a grand societal scale the punishment of Genesis 3:16c -

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The desire of millions of women has been turned toward their husbands and potential husbands-the desire to usurp, control, and displace.  When natural endowments, proclivities, and limitations get in the way, their desire turns to burning rage and hatred for the other; in this case, men.  The egalitarian program had to be carried out by men whose misplaced sympathies were aroused by false cries of oppression and mistreatment.  As men gave more and more to ensure equality women required more and more to be given.  It was and is a self-feeding circle of demand and acquiescence that, rather than making two unequal things equal, actually increases resentment by reminding both parties of the basic inequality.  So, you get what we have here today.  No less a woman than Queen Victoria warned us what would happen:

” I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights’, with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.” – Queen Victoria

Can anyone contradict her?  Are not contemporary women as a class the “most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings?” 

Men and women alike are complex creatures.  It will be instructive to think about one of the most complex, deep-rooted, important, and overlooked aspects of our persons; the mating ritual.  Christian or not, this affects anyone of age who is not a eunuch.  It has formed and influenced much if not most of our cultural norms since Adam and Eve left Eden.  Christianity has informed, changed, and uplifted, but not done away with it.  And it should not, because it is the method chosen of the Creator to propagate His image bearers.  It is, for 99 99/100 of humanity, an inescapable fact and fundamental part of life.  It is the bedrock of the human community and the bridge between past, present, and future generations.  The need to procreate is so woven together with the need for acceptance and love that it is hard to tell exactly where one begins and the other ends, but it is apparent that both the romantics and the mechanists have done humanity a terrible disservice.  Men are made to be fathers and women are made to be mothers, and included in that is the need for an emotional connection as well as the need for material provision and home life.  Marriage is not exclusively emotional, sexual, or economic.   It is all of these.  Previous generations understood better than we do what is included in a complete life.   

The methodology of the mating ritual is instructive.  Some of the devotees of biomechanics (i.e. so called Game Theory, Pick-Up Artists) have helpful functional insights.  One can learn from someone without endorsing their moral code.  The fact of the matter is that, apart from the open negotiations made for wives in Patriarchal times (and even then, Rebekah was asked for her consent to go to Isaac, she was not forced as we see in Pagan or Mohammedan settings) and some harsh, dark places in the world today, males display and females choose.  In this respect men are not different from the lower orders.  The evolutionist has his explanation, and the Creationist his, but I do not think the process is either good or evil in itself; it simply is.  For a Christian, it is that way because God made it so.  It is certainly appropriate when viewed in the context of St. Paul’s words to women, and St. Peter’s reference to Sarah in I Peter 3:6.  Many of our codes of interaction from a more civilised age recognised this fact and regulated it to the benefit of all parties.  Think of a scene in a Jane Austen novel of a country dance, or of the community events once prevalent in the Old South.  The natural mating ritual was regulated precisely by this means because the community had an interest in seeing its young men and women making good permanent matches.  Rigid disapproval for divorce and infidelity reinforced the order, particularly female infidelity.  (We might as well get it out of the way: yes, there was a double standard, no there is no moral difference between male and female infidelity, yes there is a functional difference in its social effects.)  The social strictures controlled both the male and female natural inclinations.  This point is critical.  Social conservatives are apt to always blame men today for being cads and using poor innocent girls cruelly.  More often than not, it is the opposite.  Female virtue is loudly praised and proclaimed.  Conservatives, particularly Christians, ought to know better.  Female virtue today is practically nonexistent.  The male tendency towards sexual license is bad, no doubt.  The female tendency toward hypergamy is socially devastating.  The old codes controlled both to a degree tolerable enough to allow for a stable, thriving community.

The Gamers/PUAs understand this process, but apply it to bad ends.  Their ethic is that of the vulture or the maggot.  Furthermore, their theory has one glaring logical flaw: Women are blamed for the social disaster, but if women are totally, only, and always slaves to their instinct (as in biomechanical theory), they cannot be responsible for the social disaster, and the social conservatives are right.  But both are wrong.  The PUAs are right about women’s behaviour but wrong about their moral culpability.  The conservatives make the opposite error.  NO progress can be made without realisation on the part of conservatives that the fairer sex has been coarsened beyond belief.  Women are NOT “naturally” moral, and a conservative (and certainly a Christian) ought to know that.  The truth is that women do have a natural inclination towards [serial] monogamy-with a catch.  They only want one man at a time.  (This is why marriage has to be an ironclad, legally enforceable covenant, only breakable under the Biblical standard of fornication.  It must render it impossible for women to leave out of boredom, the #1 cause of no-fault divorce.)  Roger Devlin has termed this Rotating Polyandry.  It is the situation we are in today.  Women want commitment from the same men or from the same small group of men that all the other women want to commit.  The other 90% of men they would just as soon drop dead.  Traditional monogamy actually works to ensure that men lower on the socioeconomic scale get wives.  It is definitely to men’s advantage, Hugh Hefner’s lies notwithstanding.  Sexual liberation of women then, has effectively been liberation from the expectation of lifetime monogamy and into hypergamy and polyandry.  The Sexual Revolution was the most devastating of all the Satanic movements.

So, women were liberated from a world of social convention where virtue and virtuous womanhood were cultivated and praised.  The chivalrous conservatives of today are clinging to an outdated, unworkable system.  It is like trying to drive a car with no wheels.  It cannot work with only half the parts in place.  Women are not to be praised simply for being female; and the things for which they once were praised they no longer possess.  Virtue itself was embodied or imagined as a chaste women, both in pagan and Christian thought.  Scripture uses the image for the Church of God.  This is how Christianity elevated women in community.  She is to be, not an interchangeable cog in an egalitarian machine, nor a competitor, nor an animal driven by raw instinct,  but a moral agent who is the counterpart of Adam-able to respond to him in every way and do her part, not his, of the task of dominion.  It is Patriarchal Christianity that gave women their high place of honour and restored the picture of which only fragments remained here and there in pre-Christian European nations.  And that is finally what women were liberated from-hearth and home and motherhood and the best form of life possible given their-and our-fallen limitations.  What they have been liberated into, culturally, is a Sodom of perversity and degeneracy, and so have dragged the culture along. 

The economic factors provided the wedge.  Women were first liberated into the workforce, long before they were liberated into sexual license.  (Think about the term workforce: very military, is it not?  Industrial society is regimented from the top as a mass operation for mass warfare on what Lytle called the ordinary functions of life.  Basic to these, of course, is marriage and procreation.  But that is another story.)  The industrialists and businessmen, seeing the opportunity for lower labour costs, welcomed it.  The money power financed it, couching it in terms of equality, that hateful word again, knowing it was a great step toward further social control for them, as well as a deathblow to their hated enemy, the free man on the land.  The result should have been obvious: females in direct competition with males for work, essentially doubling the supply and so driving down the price economically, and turning them into objects of competition to be defeated by men.  That meant men’s opportunity to create an economic base for a new home became more and more precarious.  It also meant that men’s taught and learned respect for woman as woman had less and less of a grounding in real circumstances.  Women have taken full advantage of this double standard, all the while babbling “equality.”  With the co-incidental erosion of all traditional morality, also financed by the same children of their father the devil, all the ugliest traits of women (chief of which is social climbing and hypergamy) came roiling to the surface.  For more than sixty years now this devil’s brew has been eating the vitals out of the nations of the West, in particular the Anglosphere.  Currently, the Institutional Church as well as Institutional Conservatism have embraced every single Satanic tenet of the egalitarian program, so do not look for help from that quarter.

And so the circle is closed.  The Serpent has hissed equality into the ears of Eve’s daughters.  They have listened, and Adam’s sons have acquiesced in their folly.  He or it or they have nearly always directed their attack towards the weaker vessel.  Now we have equality all right - the equality of the chain gang - and the finer things, the “unbought graces of life,” to borrow a phrase, are left abandoned to rust and decay.  Home and hearth, instead of a shelter and a bulwark against the Luciferian war raging against civilisation outside, is just another battleground, and it looks like it is one that has been lost.  I am afraid there is a cherub with a flaming sword guarding the way back, with the warning You may not return this way again.  Unless the devilish dogma of egalitarianism is buried once and for all, there is no possibility of return, or of improvement.