There actually is a political logic to this. If we start at the things “Them” are trying to do to wreck society, it could be summarized as “abolition of all ordered governments, private property, inheritance, patriotism, the family, religion and the creation of a world government.”
Though families are of all kinds, not just the Christian, nevertheless the PTB recognize that the Church is a major obstacle in achieving their goals. Despite its problems of being termited from within, the scripture the Church is supposedly based on still recognizes human dignity and supports faith, hope and charity, none of which have a place in the New Order. Only loyalty to the State has a place and that’s where we’re headed now. The citizen of the future has no mind of his own – he is ruled by social policy declarations.
The family is still hanging on as the engine room, the core of the fast-degrading current society and that’s where the battleground is. If you value its preservation, then it’s necessary to oppose the above agenda in all its forms – your choice. If you value freedom of the individual, freedom of enterprise and the right to self-determination as good things, then that’s another reason to oppose the above agenda, now finding its way into the UN Agenda 21.
Enough of the politics and more of the family itself or rather – the marriage, the cornerstone of the family. Individual achievement and freedom are vital but in a relationship, they are subordinated to an extent in the “us”, the “one flesh” scripture refers to:
Some marriage partners continue to place greater weight upon ties with parents than with the new partner. This is a recipe for disaster in the marriage and is a perversion of God’s original intention of “leaving and cleaving.” A similar problem can develop when a spouse begins to draw closer to a child to meet emotional needs rather than to his or her partner.
Emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, financially, and in every other way, the couple is to become one. Even as one part of the body cares for the other body parts (the stomach digests food for the body, the brain directs the body for the good of the whole, the hands work for the sake of the body, etc.), so each partner in the marriage is to care for the other. Each partner is no longer to see money earned as “my” money; but rather as “our” money.
There was a time when this did not need spelling out and for most readers of this blog, it goes without saying. But it doesn’t go without saying out in the public sphere today and so many stories stem from this failure to understand the underlying principles. Neither the feckless male who now no longer needs to commit nor the feckless female trying to emulate this and get a slice of the action but who ends up holding the taxpayer-supported baby – neither of them seem to understand the “one flesh” concept or its necessity.
From that concept come other values such as self-sacrifice, generosity of spirit, compromise, delayed gratification, loyalty, mutual support and so many more – all of which militate against the “do as thou wilt” of the new State mantra. Do as thou wilt leads to chains, which they’re well aware of. Voluntarily giving up the self for the partnership, even in part, bolsters the defence of that partnership and though each stars in that partnership in his or her way, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
If there was ever an example of this principle, it was in our situation in Russia. To tell this, it’s necessary to mention my own place over there and I’m simply telling it as it was, neither more nor less, OK? I had a certain noteworthiness in that city, largely on account of me being a foreigner at a time when they were thin on the ground, together with my work, which took me all over the place.
However, once my girlfriend and I started going places together, frequenting the major establishments and generally floating about, something curious happened. An example I’ve mentioned before was when we went to the major pizzeria one evening and the proprietor put the champagne on the house and I swear it’s true – even told us the glasses were ours to take at the end. We were stunned. My experience of cafes till then had been to go in and be shunted into some corner, eat up, pay up and go – obviously I liked this new condition and I know she did too.
We took a trip to Paris and at one stage went to a cafe just off des Champs-Élysées, just one pair among hundreds of thousands through that establishment but a curious thing happened. The waitresses started coming over to our table and the chef came out from the back and spoke to us. Now I wasn’t spending big and it was on card anyway but we did want the speciality of the house – what’s the point of going somewhere if you don’t sample the local wares?
Wherever we went we were watched and people tended to come over to talk. Every hotel we stayed in, we seemed to attract attention. On a dance floor in Tenerife [not a club], I thought I’d do the Gomez Addams thing of the rose held between the choppers, emulating that dance of theirs [can't find a youtube but this sets the mood] and an elderly Spaniard who actually was a good dancer, unlike me, came over and said he admired us. My gf didn’t – she thought I was being silly bending her over backwards, decided to showcase her own dance skills [considerable] whilst I stood back and admired and then she was a bit surprised it didn’t wow them. Myself, I’d never have danced solo because I can only dance with a woman in the arms – it triggers something.
I believe that people see couples who are obviously into one other and it lifts the general mood, not unlike those flashmobs and if he appears er … maybe solid … and she is a ravishing beauty, then if they act a bit larger than life, tuned into one another, perhaps people warm to this. When my gf read it as admiration for her own talent and beauty and began to showcase herself, people lost interest, though she was propositioned a lot for sex, out of earshot of me, natch. Even today she is still only now learning [from our Skype conversations] that she adds a huge amount to the couple’s standing, no question but it’s not all her that people are admiring. Nor is it the guy – it’s the couple together and the interaction people like.
Why is this such a hard principle to get through the skull?
The answer is socio-political. Society reveres a “do as thou wilt” libertarian “don’t you oppress me” mentality, whilst at the same time promoting compliance with a “subordinate your individuality to the PCish social policy” mantra – a cognitive dissonance is then guaranteed. In a relationship, the traditional esteem the woman was held in – all the poetry, operas and other culture reinforced this and the Latins made an artform of it – has been twisted into “worship the woman” and the fashion and cosmetics industry is all about her being the sun the planets revolve around. Sure men play up to that [those who these days can still stand women's modern behaviour] and bathe her in compliments but it’s not meant to be taken literally that she actually is a goddess. Films these days are all about her kicking butt, adverts have her as the dominant lifeform.
I’d not have it the other way around and have a lot of trouble with the Adam’s Rib idea. I don’t wish to dominate, preferring to nourish obscurity but I do expect the right relation to exist. At the risk of flogging a dead horse here, look at Bogart. An OK actor, had some good roles but what defined him? Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman and Katherine Hepburn. They themselves were better beside him. The word missing so far is chemistry, so much better than the individual parts – Abba, Talking Heads, so many artists who’ve left the group and tried to go it alone are other examples.
Be upstanding, charge your glasses and here’s to that chemistry.