There is a rather oddball notion floating around that the traditional family arrangement is actually unnatural to Europeans and reflects—and this is intended as an insult—“Jewish family values”. This should be of no interest to us, except that it is an idea promoted by self-defined “Traditionalists” and for rather ignoble purposes. Unfortunately, in understanding this matter in its depths, we cannot count on Julius Evola who, while disparaging so-called bourgeois values, actually proscribed important aspects of the Roman tradition. Also, as this is a matter of principle, we cannot appeal to contingent factors such as the “disorder of the world” or “riding the tiger” to justify a truly un-Roman attitude.
Preliminaries
We can immediately and unequivocally dismiss the notion on a strictly factual basis: “Jewish family values”, under the Mosaic Law, included polygamy and easy divorce. On the contrary, Roman family values required monogamy and divorce was forbidden or rare.
To demonstrate this both historically and principally, we will make use of two works, one on Ancient Rome, and the other on the Second Rome, describing what well-bred men considered mentally healthy and normal; these are respectively The Ancient City by Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges and The True & Only Wealth of Nations: Essays on Family, Economy & Society by Louis de Bonald.
I want to clarify the method once again, since it may not yet be clear to everyone despite our many posts on the topic. First of all, after gender, the next differentiation in man is caste, since it refers to fundamental orientation of a man towards the conditions of his being. This is prior to subsequent differentiations such as race, nationality, or religious affiliation. In our day, a man’s caste is not immediately visible to the senses, nor even necessarily understood by the man himself, so they play very little role in social analysis today, except perhaps in its degenerate form of economic class. Yet, it is a fundamental notion, certainly more important than racial or religious characteristics, despite the false importance attributed to these latter distinctions by most “defenders” of Tradition.
The second point is that we regard the Roman Tradition as a spiritual unity. Rene Guenon often remarked that the Christian Tradition was unusual in that it did not contain a law in its scriptures. Instead, the Medieval spiritual tradition adopted the old Roman Law; that is why the Mosaic Law was never part of Christianity. Of course, there is a clear and obvious reason for this. The law of the more ancient traditions, including those of the Ancient Cities, comprised detailed requirements for the performance of rites, the conditions of ritual uncleanliness, various taboos, and so on. To an outsider, including men today who think they can return to such pagan traditions, these laws would seem arbitrary, even unreasonable. In fact, that is the case; although in general the principles are true, in specifics, the exact relationship is difficult to discern.
As Guenon pointed out, in is origins Christianity was esoteric, hence its primary emphasis was on the interiorization of the law, not on outward observance. Morality, that is, outward observances or law, was secondary. By that I mean nothing more than that morality could be derived from metaphysical and theological principles, and therefore did not require its own revelation. I will expand on this at another time.
This is not at all to deny that the Ancient Tradition lacked an inner or esoteric dimension. The quotes that follow are taken from the two books mentioned; it is easy to see the spiritual continuity between the two. Quotations are indicated by a blue bar.
The Ancient City
We have previously indicated, in the Son of duty, the importance of family to the ancient Greeks and Romans. For a man, especially for a man claiming to be recovering the ancient Roman tradition, to deliberately fail in this task, indicates a severe fault and is not at all normative. This is what I mean by a “dead end”, it is the end of a tradition, not a revolt against the modern world which, in any case, is similarly, and radically, opposed to the Traditional patriarchal family. This is how the ancient Romans actually did consider it:
[The Ancient City] rendered marriage obligatory; celibacy was a crime in the eyes of a religion that made the perpetuity of the family the first and most holy of duties. But the union which it prescribed could be accomplished only in the presence of the domestic divinities; it is the religious, sacred, indissoluble union of the husband and wife. [my emphasis]
Civil marriages were not valid. Adultery was a crime. For the sacred fire should be transmitted from father to son.
The son born of adultery annihilates in this world and in the next the offerings made to the manes.
Of course, this applies to the higher castes, as the plebeians did not have a sacred marriage. The proletarian mentality even today eschews marriage as the high illegitimacy rates attest to. Even so, there are remnants still alive of the old idea as we see in divorce statistics.
A few days ago I saw a famous actor, whom I did not recognize, on a TV interview show. The hostess asked him (an obvious set up question) when he planned to marry his attractive blonde gf named Kirsten. He said they will when their “friends” are allowed to do so. “I don’t want to perform a ceremony as long as they can’t.” There you have it; for the prole mentality of an actor, marriage is not a “sacred union”, but only an arbitrary and unnecessary ceremony. Yet, the power of the ancient ideal of marriage persists as we see in these ceremonial elements that go back thousands of years:
father gives away the bride, bride wore a veil, white clothing, groom carries her across the threshold, sprinkled with water, bride and groom share a cake
By law in Greece and Rome, no family could become extinct, and it was the duty of the leaders to prevent this. The modern world, on the contrary, is intent on making the family itself extinct. So, you rebels against the modern world: where do you take your stand? Which path do you intend to take?
Germanic Monogamy
Tacitus in Germania, sections 18 and 19, describes the Germanic women of his time. Tacitus notes that the matrimonial bond is quite strict among the Germans, with monogamy being the norm. The woman is not the weak link in that relationship; rather she shares fully in their common life:
That the woman may not think herself excused from exertions of fortitude, or exempt from the casualties of war, she is admonished by the very ceremonial of her marriage, that she comes to her husband as a partner in toils and dangers; to suffer and to dare equally with him, in peace and in war: Thus she is to live; thus to die.
Their society is based on chastity, with no “seductive spectacles”, adultery is extremely rare and immediately punished. Young couples are expected to be virgins, so marriage is lifelong. They don’t try to limit children through birth control, nor through infanticide as in other cultures.
That opposition to divorce, promiscuity, adultery, and birth control was very influential on the Roman church. Even the Greeks allow divorce and have been inconsistent on contraception. Of course, the neopagans believe in none of it.
The Ancien Régime
The concrete situation in the medieval and subsequent era is different from the ancient city. First of all, the specifics of the rites and duties of family life are not spelled out in detail, but must be inferred. Then, there is the separation of the spiritual authority and political power, so the latter is entrusted with enforcing the law determined by the former. Bonald distinguishes between the domestic professions, which we would call the Third Estate, or the professions of the Vaishya caste, and the public professions of the higher castes of Priests, Administrators, and Warriors. In the book referenced, Bonald discusses the ideas of marriage and divorce. Implicitly rejecting the notion of the social contract as the source of social order, he writes:
Domestic society began with monogamy and the indissolubility of the conjugal bond.
For Bonald, this is not just a religious, or even Catholic, notion, but is fundamental to any Traditional society. Aware of the Roman Tradition, and in agreement with Fustel, he informs us:
For several centuries the Romans fought against divorce. It appeared among them only very late.
Interestingly, he considers the Roman attitude as indicative of the “highest wisdom” and understands the role of Christianity to apply this wisdom to society. In his words:
The highest wisdom made itself heard, the Christianity, which is only the application to society of every moral truth, began by constituting the family, the necessary element of ever public society.
Bonald also pointed to the customs of the Germanic tribes, which he admired:
The general march of society toward civilization was no less constant and continuous, and the peoples of the north, who in the end came to renew the worn-out body of the Roman Empire, received the Christian religion from the vanquished wherever they settled in exchange for the monarchical constitution that they brought to them.
As for their attitude toward divorce, “[divorce] was not so among the people [Germanics] whose martial way of life was chaste and simple.
For Bonald, marriage is understood in its organic wholeness, and is farthest thing from a “right” or to the personal whim of just the two parties involved. He explains:
[Regarding divorce], the government will have fulfilled all its duties toward religion when it will have seen to it that the bond of marriage, formed by the mutual consent of the parties, guaranteed by the civil power, and consecrated by the religious power, cannot be dissolved by law.
Marriage is at once a domestic, a civil, and a religious act which, in the public state of society, requires for its validity the concurrence of the three domestic, civil, and religious powers: In the consent of the two parties, authorized by their parents, in the intervention of the civil power, and in the concurrence of the religious authority. Once the bond had been formed by this triple knot, and the family that it has founded has taken its place among the families that compose the State, the legislator should consider it as an integral part, inseparable from the great political whole, composed itself of families, religion, and the State.
This is absolutely incomprehensible and absurd to the modern mind which understands society to be composed of individuals, not families, and religion to be a private, rather than public, matter. Even at the time Bonald was writing, in the generation following the French Revolution, marriage was considered a mere civil contract, requiring only the consent of the two parties. Clearly, this the dominant view today, among the chattering classes. Their ill-equipped opponents simply sound ridiculous to educated people today. That is because they sense something is wrong with the modern view, but they lack the intellectual tools to oppose it; a fortiori, their viewpoint is actually consistent with what they oppose. For example, in the USA, the dominant Protestant ideology sees no sacred or sacramental character in marriage, they oppose any public spiritual authority, and their view of society is itself individualistic and atomic, rather than organic. That they are shocked by recent developments is itself shocking.
That the civil power would have any say in marriage is rejected today. Here is Bonald’s view on that notion, although his sanguinity is unjustified, given subsequent developments:
The right of the civil authority to establish impediments to marriage will not, I am sure, be contested. Politics, sometimes more stern than religion admits some that religion has not been able to recognize.
For example, from a strictly theological perspective, parental approval and certain levels of consanguinity may not be absolute impediments to marriage; the Church is more interested in the parties sharing the same religion. Nevertheless, the State itself can require parental permission; it can also prohibit marriages both to close relatives and even to those whose bloodlines are too different from each other. Such laws would be impossible today.
In continuity with the requirement of the Ancient City to preserve the family, Bonald provides his own understanding of it, along with a disturbing prophecy:
Let us make bold to say it: The State has no power over the family except to affirm its bond, and not to dissolve it. And it the State destroys the family, the family in its turn will avenge itself and will silently undermine the State.
No doubt most, if not all, of those peddling this nonsense about traditional family values being Semitic, are the same people who fawn over the Vikings and pagan societies as (alleged) proto-feminists. Such folk dominate the White Nationalist scene.
Mr. Big Legs, I have given you the benefit of the doubt, too much benefit, as a matter of fact, and certainly more than you deserve. I have allowed you to ramble on since we go a long way back together and, in the recent past, you have heaped high praise on Gornahoor.
While I can appreciate youthful and immature exuberance, simply parroting a man’s words is a bit too immature, as intelligent men typically give that up by about the age of 9 or 10 or so. Since you have continually shown your inability to behave properly as a guest in my domain — and that is all you are –, I need to remind you to treat me with respect and deference.
Therefore, since you are so intent in correcting my errors, I am asking you, as a gentleman, to voluntarily restrict yourself to correcting spelling and grammatical mistakes. At the end of the year 2012, we can revisit this issue.
Open your mind just a bit and learn to appreciate nuance and subtlety; and appreacite the data I presented here, and see how it explains concepts you didn’t understand before (which made you say Riding the Tiger was a dead end opposed to liberation).
Apparently, Cologero, you are under the impression that merely copying other web sites, or making a laundry list of contingent events, and taking what Evola says out of context, are signs of great intelligence. Someone has to disabuse you of that notion, and I guess that “someone” is me. What is necessary is an analysis, Cologero, which is, at this point in your development, beyond your skills. Mere verbal similarity is insufficient; what would be helpful to us all is a deeper understanding of the symbolism.
Apparently, Mr. Big Legs, you are under the impression that merely copying other web sites, or putting “crypto” in front of word as an accusation, or making a laundry list of contingent historical events, are signs of great intelligence. Someone has to disabuse you of that notion, and I guess that “someone” is me. What is necessary is an analysis, Mr. Big Legs, which is, at this point in your development, beyond your skills. Mere verbal similarity is insufficient; what would be helpful to us all is a deeper understanding of the symbolism.
Please keep in mind Guenon’s admonition (in letter VII) that each man will follow a path that is congenial to him. Evola described a path that is congenial to those “who cannot or do not wish to abandon the contemporary world”. No one can object to that. That does not make that path the only path, nor the universal path, nor a necessary path. For some men, it may indeed be a congenial path.
There is no point in repeating again what is obvious to everyone else, that there are those able and willing for a different way. Make an effort to understand what Guenon writes about the totality of possibilities. Unfortunately, men are blinded by their own limitations; that is the reason behind “humility”, because one man’s limitations do not limit someone else. Open your mind just a bit and learn to appreciate nuance and subtlety.
I wrote above “…the fact that the social structures no longer exist means that the highest reasons for getting married and having children in the West have sadly evaporated…”
Inspired by an excerpt on marriage from the writings of Bô Yin Râ, I feel it necessary to state that just as there is nothing in principle preventing a man from attaining full spiritual integration even in our day, there is nothing in principle preventing a man and woman from coming together (no pun intended!) and likewise spiritually reintegrating one another, this being the highest reason for getting married. Indeed, the first case will always involve a ‘marriage’ of sorts (i.e. not necessarily to a person), for every complete spiritual integration must resolve the male-female binary.
Therefore, the highest reason for getting married actually cannot ‘evaporate’ entirely; the important social reasons can (and largely have), and the possibilities of realisation may not be great, but let it clearly be said that there are likely many cases of lovers who even today have forged commitments that carry them beyond the profane to a greater or lesser extent, so it is not vain to seek to make this the basis of your personal spiritual opus.
May the Eternal Lover light our path.
Yes, your last sentence pretty much nails it.
One moment this site would seem only for hermits, the next it would seem only for family men.
Traditionalism or neotraditionalism is a literary caricature of premundane societies, the latter being highly diverse and differentiated allowing for manifestations of countless possibilities which nowadays seem contradictory. A mannerbund does not equal arsebanditry. Not getting married does not equal antiromanity. The Knights Templar were a mannerbund (bond of men), for example. A military brotherhood with initiatory rituals, a sacred warrior band.
{Among the Iranians they are documented in the period of Zarathustra, but since a tart of the vocabulary typical of the Männerbflnde is also found in Vedic texts, there is no doubt that associations of young warriors already existed in the Indo-Iranian period. G. Dumnézil has demonstrated the survival of certain military initiations among the Celts and the Romans, and H. Jeanmaire has discovered vestiges of initiatory rituals among the Lacedaemonians. So it appears that the Indo-Europeans shared a common system of beliefs and rituals pertaining to young warriors.}
Early Romans:
{Roman writers tell us that their society was divided into three tribes (the word tribe is derived from tri, or three) who are each supposed to have contributed 1,000 warriors, and thirty curiae, a word derived from that meaning ‘assembly of armed men’, and clearly the warriors of Romes earliest societies were the ones permitted to vote – enshrined in the oldest voting assembly of Rome, the Comitia Curiata. At this time the word legio meant ‘levy’, and the organisation of later times does not apply.
It isn’t known exactly how these warbands organised themselves on the battlefield, and although hoplite warfare came later, some sort of less rigidly enforced formation must have been used. However its clear that early roman warfare was far from sophisticated, mostly concerned with small raids and cattle rustling, and set piece battles must have been rare. There were no generals, and important warriors led their men by example, providing booty and success against rival warbands.
There is a strong possibility of these men using a shield wall even at this early date. The Ancile is the legendary shield with miraculous properties, and interestingly, images of the rounded and convex rectangular roman shield (scutum) exist on 8th century stone carvings despite the trend of the time for circular shields.
There are other aspects to this. Etruscan cities of this period are known to have fielded their own armies, and therefore Rome was following the fashion with its legio of three thousand men. Further is the case of the salii, the priests of Mars. Two colleges existed in republican and early imperial period – The Salii Palatini and the Salii Collini. The first is connected with the ancile, the second with Quirinus, the sabine name for Mars and derived from their word for lance. Both were headed by a magister, from an etruscan word denoting military command. The salii were latin in origin, not exclusively roman, and other colleges existed in latin cities. Since the origin of these colleges is very old, the significance is that these men had formed warrior bands, perhaps limited to a dozen members who were not heads of families, dedicated to the worship of Mars in return for protection in battle. These rituals survived into later periods – the helmet of the salian colleges, the apex, is based on a conical helmet worn by early warrior-priests.}
Rome, originally formed by warrior-bands was later defeated by warrior-bands, and revived by warrior-bands. So it was with all the other States.
E.g. {The name [Ionian] was derived from the Ionians, one of the four most ancient tribes in Greece. According to the usually received tradition, after being driven out of the Peleponnesus, they migrated to Attica, where, about 1060 BC, they sent forth warrior bands to settle on the bays and promontories and islands of Asia Minor; but it is more probable that the immigration was gradual and spread over a long period of time.}
The mannerbunde created order (light) in a chaotic (foreign, or dark) area. To maintain the specific order (customs, bloodlines, e.g.) some would need to settle down:
{The first marriages were by capture, i.e., the groom would kidnap the woman, and take her away from her tribe with the help of a warrior friend, his Best Man, who would help him fight off other men who wanted this woman, and also help him prevent her family from finding them. The groom would put himself and his bride into hiding, The Honeymoon, and by the time the bride’s family found them, the bride would already be pregnant. When the groom fought off other warriors who also wanted his bride, he would hold onto her with his left hand, while fighting them off with his sword in his right hand, which is why the bride stands on the left, and the groom on the right.}
{According to Heraclides Ponticus (Fragm. Hist. Gr. 218), the name of the Samnite tribe of the Lucani came from Lykos, meaning wolf. Their neighbors, the Hirpini, took their name from hirpus, the Samnite word for wolf.
At the foot of Mount Soracte lived the Hirpi Sorani, the “wolves of Sora” (the Volscian city). According to the tradition transmitted by Servius, an oracle had advised the Hirpi Sorani to live “like wolves,” that is, by rapine. And in fact they were exempt from taxes and from military service, for their biennial rite-which consisted in walking barefoot over burning coals-was believed to ensure the fertility of the country. … According to the legend, described by the Roman historian Titus Livius, Rhea Sylvia, beloved sole daughter of the so called “Denominator” King of Alba Longa and, simultaneously, a vestal virgin within God Mars’ Temple, is said to have suddenly become pregnant “out of the blue Moon” with Mars, the wolf-god, and eventually delivers twin boys. Her powerful uncle Amelia, apparently not “buying” her explanation, orders his servants to throw the bastards into the Tiber River. However, designated executioners would prove to have a heart and decide to better abandon both babies into a floating basket, going down the wild river’s stream only to be, subsequently, found by a “She-wolf”, meaning a woman from a neighboring wolf-named tribe, probably the Samanite tribe of the Lucani.
A similar legend is found in Central Asia, in several variants, where the marriage between a supernatural wolf and a princess gave birth to a population or to a dynasty. Most probably, the Romans adopted this legend from east.
According to the legend, Romulus established a place of refuge for exiles and outlaws on the Capitol (F.Altheim, Roman Religion, pp. 260, 261). … The capture of the Sabines originates from the practice of the wolf-people to capture their wives. … The capture of the Sabines remained in the custom of simulated capture in the Roman marriage ceremony. This custom is present today in the Romanian marriage ceremony, where the groom has to pay for having back the kidnapped bride.}
Etc. The common origins of the Romans, the Greeks, the Germanics and the Vedics are not difficult to spot.
Trying to make appear some dualism between Romanity and Riding the Tiger (Slaying the Bull) is ridiculous, as both have the same roots and is another example of the crypto-Socialism of Cologero.
Both are variations on the Royal Tradition (Ars Regia), the Cinnabar Path (“Nei-tan”), to wich Evola belonged.
The Tiger of Evola’s Ride the Tiger is a chinese symbol, corresponding to yin and the Life-force (ming); in India it corresponds to Shakti, and in the West it corresponds to Isis, and Mithra’s bull. Whereupon the bull is exhausted, Mithras leads it to a cave where he sliced it open — its entrails symbolise a birth forth of a new era.
Izak, I know of both, and enjoyed some laughs reading the Ferd’s (and guests’) eclectic productions. The ‘manosphere’ in general has brought about some interesting things, and loads of $1.99 e-pamphlets!
Perhaps it came down to a choice between being dissipative gameboys, chronic masturbators and dedicated bloggers, or dutiful husbands with shiny white teeth, and this latter proved the best option for them. A rock’n’roll nihilism that will hardly last beyond youth is not the most prudent orientation upon which to base serious decisions and sacrifices.
On the question suddenly arising about the existence of the erotic in the Mannerbund, I think it’s being taken far too seriously. What is necessary is to see whether historical evidence can be obtained for one view or the other. Almost certainly, the fact is that some manifestations of the Mannerbund had homoerotic practices (the Sacred Band of Thebes being a famous one, Achilles and Patroclus another), and some did not (it would seem to be less common in the Germanic war bands). If there happens to be such a practice, then what does that matter? The important question for us to ask is whether or not it led to the development of higher inner states and Traditional social orders reflecting these.
Matt: I wouldn’t be surprised.
Aghorable: Over on corrupt.org, which I think was originally meant to be a nihilist blog (?), the last few entries were about how wonderful it is to get married in one’s mid-twenties, completely oblivious and indifferent to the decay of the surrounding world. It only makes sense that the blog was discontinued soon thereafter.
Similarly, there was another blog called In Mala Fide, which was also intended to be a nihilist blog, and the last few entries there from the blog’s curator were about the virtues of abstaining from meaningless sexuality, masturbation, and rejecting the basic onanism of society at large. That blog also was discontinued soon thereafter.
All of this makes sense to me. These people are probably doing more good without blogs than with them.
“It sounds like it makes a difference as to what type of marriage one should pursue.”
A plebeian would not even bother to ask himself that question.
Outstanding post, but this statement raises a question: “Of course, this applies to the higher castes, as the plebeians did not have a sacred marriage.”
How does one know whether he is a member of a higher caste or a plebeian? It sounds like it makes a difference as to what type of marriage one should pursue.
Turning now to the question of conjugality…
Our good host asks where we rebels take our stand, what will be our path; I fear that more than a few readers have, after lobbing a few stones at the forces of the modern world, long since passed beyond what we might call the rampart of rebellion. They now trek through the deeps of the Detachment Forest, soothing their wounds with help from the nymphs and gnomes who dance and play at the edge of the waters of the Lagoon of Indifference, and seeking the uncharted lands beyond.
One Ms Moretti recently wrote an article published on another website, where she eloquently summarised the issue: “So stop intellectually masturbating to Evola and go make your Nordic gods proud.” And this for a relatively ‘activist’ audience – imagine the bombs she would drop if she partied with us!
Cologero comments, in response to Andrew: “The required social structures no longer exist. Nevertheless, action follows thought.”
I think it is worth mentioning the interesting writings of a Karlo Z. Valois, wherein he treats of behavioural orientations (his ‘style elements’) as they pertain to those, including women, who open and seek to follow the way of a superior, vertical development in our current unfavourable milieu. He does this without collapsing into trivialities. The writings can be found on his dormant but still online blog.
Indeed, the fact that the social structures no longer exist means that the highest reasons for getting married and having children in the West have sadly evaporated, and so we see (and will continue to see) appeals to surviving but subordinate reasons from interested quarters. Will this be enough to seduce students of spiritual perfection who hide in their hearts visions of love and order so rarefied that, as Cologero says, the modern mentality would find them incomprehensible and ridiculous?
Perhaps a cultivated detachment will eventually motivate some of us to take a woman (or three) for wife precisely because we have jettisoned all fear about the outcome, the glorious Me ne frego!
Yes, de-detachment. Oh the lure of Mephistopheles!
Yes, I am in agreement with those of you who have perceived and rejected the tenebrous attempt to interpolate, as a foundational element, an exalted ‘homoeroticism’ into the idea of the Männerbund.
Further, I venture to assert that from our perspective, and with reference to those that move in these intellectual circles, a certain kind of homosexuality can be interpreted as a ‘mark’ of the influences to which some individuals remain exposed, and hence a level at which they are presently arrested. Beware of channels through which pure things can be exposed to ‘soiling’.
Although in this case the proposition of a bunch of hunky war-men getting down and dirty between battles, and enjoying this so much that a whole civilisation grows out of it, engenders images ridiculous enough to disarm the current before it corrodes one’s mind.
There need not necessarily be a contradiction between the Mannerbund and the view of the family presented here. The men of a society acting within the Mannerbund create and maintain a state in which the community can exist, and thus forge bonds of brotherhood which may or may not take on a spiritual nature (the caste of kshatriya) and these same men later act within the family in terms of producing and rearing the next generation, being the members of the society the Mannerbund protects, and undertaking other forms of spiritual development (the practices of the Householders in Hindu society being an example, where the man would then go on to try and attain what Danielou called the “four aims of life”).
Izak,
Yes, the whole “Mannerbund theory” is an interesting case.
I’m reminded of what Evola said in his book on eros. In the chapter on homosexuality, Evola stated that pederasty may have had a noble origin as a purely platonic relation (“only a love of the boy’s soul” to quote Evola, if my memory serves me well). And I think that is probably the case with the mannerbund/male warrior phenomenon….in that it most likely started out as a chaste, brotherly love relation and then eventually declined to where it turned into a relationship of an erotic nature.
“While I agree with this in principle, realizing such a marriage is the difficulty.”
I’m afraid I have no advice to you, Andrew, as all we can talk about are principles. The required social structures no longer exist. Nevertheless, action follows thought.
Good work.
Although the guy responsible for the theory you’re refuting makes a few good points here and there, this essay needed to be written nevertheless, if not only to help establish the basic universal quality of human heterosexual partner-bonding. My guess is that the “mannerbund theory” (or whatever) will blow over fairly quickly.
On a related note, recent statistics also show that on average, those in the upper-classes are more religious than those in the lower classes. Not too surprising considering marriage and religion seem to be linked….though it is surprising to the current assumption of today that the lower-classes are more religious and committed to marriage than the upper-class. This then gets to the question (for Gornahoor readers its rather rhetorical) that is really interesting….since the modern assumption of marriage/religion and its relation to the proles does not align with reality, where does this assumption originate from?
While I agree with this in principle, realizing such a marriage is the difficulty. Is this something that would be worth expatriation and moving to a “healthier” society?