We don’t need no stinkin’ marriage Part II

by Kung Fu Zu   6/28/14

In case anyone believes the lunacy spouted by Masha Gessen regarding the destruction of marriage is something new, I think the following two paragraphs, taken from Wikipedia, will be enlightening:

Kollontai’s views on the role of marriage and the family under Communism were arguably more influential on today’s society than her advocacy of “free love.” Kollontai believed that, like the state, the family unit would wither away once the second stage of communism became a reality. She viewed marriage and traditional families as legacies of the oppressive, property-rights-based, egoist past. Under Communism, both men and women would work for, and be supported by, society, not their families. Similarly, their children would be wards of, and reared basically by society.

Kollontai admonished men and women to discard their nostalgia for traditional family life. “The worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; she must remember that there are only our children, the children of Russia’s communist workers.” However, she also praised maternal attachment: “Communist society will take upon itself all the duties involved in the education of the child, but the joys of parenthood will not be taken away from those who are capable of appreciating them.”

Alexandra Kollontia was a woman born into a wealthy family during the early 1870’s. Her father was a Cossack General. She was given an excellent education and consorted with the Russian “intelligentsia” of the time. (Never forget the word “intelligentsia” was first used by Russian intellectuals to describe themselves as opposed to the rest of society.) Alexandra joined the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party before it split into the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. She decided to cast her lot with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Once the Bolsheviks came to power, Kollontia set up a “Women’s Bureau” and later served as the Soviet ambassador to several countries.

Kollontai was an archetypical intellectual radical of her time and her desire to destroy the family was not a new idea even then. As Kollontai makes perfectly clear, the Left’s goal is for the State to be our parent. Procreation will simply become a political duty to the all powerful state. Children will belong to society not their parents. I find this idea particularly disturbing as we all know that if a child is everybody’s, it is effectively nobody’s.

It should be clear to anyone with a bit of common sense or an ounce of honesty that the destruction of our traditional society is the real goal behind such madness as same sex marriage. No doubt, there are some Candides aka Libertarians who have bought the specious “equality” argument and who have not considered the ramifications of homosexual marriage. But thinking people should be under no such illusions. The abomination of homosexual marriage has been nurtured and guided by progressive Vandals with a clear intent of killing our culture and making slaves of us all.


Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (1748 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to We don’t need no stinkin’ marriage Part II

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    You know, I’d rather be thought a lunatic than stupid. And by pointing out the truth of Establishment Republicans, I might well be thought of as a lunatic. But these words by Kollontai could have been said by would-be (and failed) gubernatorial Republican Attorney General (of Washington State), Rob McKenna:

    Similarly, their children would be wards of, and reared basically by society.

    McKenna supported “early childhood education,” which is basically a plan to turn over your 3-year-olds to the state, Kindergarten I guess not being early enough for indoctrination to begin.

    And people will tell you that Rob is a nice guy. And he is. But he is totally unaware of the context of any of this stuff or he would (presumably) not support it.

    But as I surmise (and with good reason), most of these Republican “leaders” have come out of the same Progressive mind-indoctrination mill that is so prevalent today. That is, they wouldn’t know a conservative principle if it bit them on the ass.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      You know, I’d rather be thought a lunatic than stupid.

      The problem is that, too often, neither the lunatic, nor the idiot are self-aware. They cannot recognize their predicaments.

      Your friend McKenna is a perfect example of what I caution people to look out for. Simply having an R behind one’s name does not preclude one from being a lunatic progressive. Believe me, plenty of these types have wormed their way into the Republican party for their own nefarious reasons. And of course, there are those, like sponges, have absorbed the Leftist cultural rot spewed out over the last century.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    The Communist Manifesto called for the abolition of marriage, which Marx and Engels justified on the grounds that the middle class already pretty much held women in common anyway by fooling around (which I found rather amusing when I read it). Of course, they were living in Paris at the time. But a major aspect of the Left has been to leave the state as the only real institution. Recall the purpose of Room 101 in 1984. The Party’s concern was probably not sex (though Julia the nymphomaniac thought so) but genuine love. (It would be interesting to guess whom Parsons was supposed to betray — probably the child he was so proud of, not his wife.) Similarly, Stalin was very unhappy with Molotov when the latter chose to recuse himself from a vote reinstating his wife’s party membership — Molotov was admitting that his relationship with his wife might bias a party decision.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Recall the purpose of Room 101 in 1984. The Party’s concern was probably not sex (though Julia the nymphomaniac thought so) but genuine love.

      Great point. I forget which article I read about this, but it noted some of the relationships at the Weather Underground…you know, the place where terrorist Bill Ayers was a member, the buddy of our Marxist America-hating president, Barack Hussein Obama, and who likely wrote one of his books.

      Anyway, I remember the article said that any and all sex was considered good. But to have a love-based relationship was strictly verboten.

      That’s striking, for look just how much this general vibe has cascaded into the general atmosphere of today’s culture.

      When I say that we have been infiltrated by Communists, this is part of what I mean. It’s extremely important that people become aware of the end game of these fiends and the methods they use to get there….or else all we have left is our role as useful idiots — or Establishment Republicans. Same thing.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        But to have a love-based relationship was strictly verboten.

        Is there any clearer proof that these types are cracked? They are sociopaths who claim to be for the good of society. What an incredible lie. Their goal is to infect the rest of us with their misery and emptiness.

        Their motto is, “I love society, it’s just people I hate.”

        Abstracts are so much easier to deal with than people.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Remember that Bernardine Dohrn was excited by the murder of Sharon Tate and company. It was probably the first orgasm she ever had.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Their goal is to infect the rest of us with their misery and emptiness.

          In essence, yes. That is the best way to understand them. From their perspective, they see others who are happier or have more stuff. And the only way they can assuage these feelings of inferiority is to try to “equalize” everyone.

          This is what makes them tick. This is why the are hostile to freedom and the free market. This is why they so often go into government where they are typically freer from the pressures of actually having to do something.

          Life, freedom, and the free market puts pressure on us all. And we can either deal with it like adults (accepting our limitations where we can’t change them or working hard to overcome them) or we can try to drag everyone else down to our level.

          That’s the choice America and the West faces. And you know which side you are looking in the eye when they denigrate freedom as “everyone out for themselves.”

          I don’t see any immediate way to walk most people back from the Communist brink. They’ve bought into the deceptive marketing messages.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I was thinking about this some more, Mr. Kung. And there’s certainly the factor of hatred of men behind the designs by the Left to eradicate marriage. This exists in synergy with the homosexual movement.

    But I think it also coincides with the sexual revolution and just the general pining for Utopia (either from liberals of libertarians). The implicit deal with giving yourself over to the modern “social democracy” (to the state as the center of one’s life) is the Peter Pan Effect.

    In essence, the implicit deal is that you never have to grow up. The state will take care of you while you stay in a perpetual state of adolescence. Get a tattoo. Hell, cover your whole body with them. Life is hereby and officially declared to be about nothing more than a party, chasing sensual pleasures and acquiring material stuff until the day you die.

    This is, after all, the explanation that Mark Steyn gives for why birth rates have dropped so precipitously in Europe. Children get in the way of the modern material pursuit of pleasure.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I’ve been commenting for some time on the infantilizing of society as a result of liberalism. Even the leaders behave like spoiled brats; when I first saw Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory a while back, I immediately saw Veruca Salt as the model for the Crybarry president.

    • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

      I’d really like to pursue some of the statistics on this. It might help our case if we could tie gay “marriage” to a declining rate of real marriage and a declining birth rate. Even a decline in the rate of legitimacy spells trouble for any society.

  4. NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

    “No doubt, there are some Candides aka Libertarians who have bought the specious “equality” argument and who have not considered the ramifications of homosexual marriage. But thinking people should be under no such illusions.”

    I think you’re absolutely correct on this. I will hazard a guess, though, that the “Libertarians” you mention (I’ll call them useful idiots) vastly outnumber the people who actually are behind this attack. In such a way, then, can the minority that is the Left overcome us – by enlisting the big class of useful idiots in the culture wars (in politics, they can enlist the bribed also). We should also note the method of indirect attack has been used here – a direct assault against marriage would have failed – and this is becoming the Left’s weapon of choice (used alongside intimidation).

    Finally, we should understand that our side is losing this battle, and it’s losing the way we always do – by default – because our alleged “leaders” (a/k/a Establishment Republicans) don’t want to fight and haven’t the intellectual ability to do so in any case.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      A committed small group can have disproportionate influence on a community at large. That disgusting progressive G.B. Shaw noted this a long time back.

      Normal people have other interests in life such as family, work, relaxation. But fanatics such as committed Marxists and the Lavender Thought Police are consumed by one idea or goal. To this they will dedicate their lives and everyone else be damned. That’s why progressivism is a modern religion.

      Until normal people wake up and decide to stand up and make their voices be counted, we will continue to slide into the oblivion of Leftist culture.

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    An interesting piece on homosexual marriage and divorce.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/382154/will-gay-couples-divorce-more-straight-ones-and-will-we-even-be-allowed-study-it-jason

    I have always had a niggling suspicion that a number of divorce lawyers were more than happy to back homosexual marriage as they knew it would add a profitable niche’ business.

  6. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The link is to a nice piece about the advantages of being married to a working husband. This is what the Left and radical feminists hate.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/29/letter-to-my-breadwinner-husband.html

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I doubt that letter will make the rounds at Vassar.

      The official policy of these United States is “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” There are two forces that could compete with feminism.

      1) Islam

      2) Robotics

      I was watching a series on Amazon Prime called Humans which at first glance looks mediocre but with some potential. The latest tech gadget is a “Synth” which looks like a human and can provide most of the functions of a human (if you know what I mean).

      The series looks boring and stupid because it includes a group of Synths who have consciousness and can feel. Geez. There’s a shockingly original idea. They are in hiding and also are being hunted down.

      But as offensive as this may sound to traditionalists, the way things are going now where every scratch is itched by tech, a Synth female could provide real competition to human females and thus severely undermine feminism (which is the power of women over men expressed politically).

      I’lll watch a few more episodes and report back. But you decide: Would you want a screeching feminist who is an emaculating competitor or a programable Anita who caters to your every need?

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Robots with feelings — I once read a story (I think it was by Poul Amderson) on the subject. Some men were unhappy with the creation of a robot — but the robot pointed out that it had nothing to do and finally concluded that they were the lucky ones — they could always get drunk.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Materialist metaphysics dominates the day. The assumption is that if you make robots sufficient complex, they will become sentient. Maybe so. Maybe not. Who really knows?

          The other common belief (at least amongst the geek types) is the idea of the “technological singularity” (first proposed by John von Neumann) wherein computers/robots reach a point where they (in the words of Wiki) “would enter a ‘runaway reaction’ of self-improvement cycles, with each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an intelligence explosion and resulting in a powerful superintelligence that would, qualitatively, far surpass all human intelligence.”

          I know I’m not telling you anything you don’t know. This is for our home audience. But obviously movies such as The Terminator are based upon this premise. And the tech changes that we’ve already seen in the last 100 years forbid any kind of sober prediction on what could happen.

          But while the rhetorical positing of runaway intelligence is easy to do, there may be good reason why artificial intelligence might not ever reach some sort of singularity. What computers can do now is pretty much only what we have programmed them to do. And when they seem to do more, they are still just following programming, even if the programming allows for some flexibility.

          And there is no sign that a machine can have the kind of perspective outside of tracked algorithms that consciousness gives us. When people say to “think outside the box” what they really mean is “Think really really outside the box” because our minds and consciousness already give us this ability as the norm.

          Still, because we don’t know how consciousness arises or meshes with matter, it’s a little early to say what is possible or not possible. But what is certainly possible is the Model T of Synth units being produced, and produced soon. And they (much like internet porn already does to some extent) will give women a run for their money. If one views certain aspects of homosexuality, as I do, as an end-run around feminism, a programmable and life-like female Synth could be the biggest blow to feminism yet.

  7. Gibblet says:

    “(much like internet porn already does to some extent) will give women a run for their money”

    Internet porn takes a good thing (sex) and makes it distorted, artificial, and unhealthy. Just as a steady diet of Twinkies would distort ones taste for real food (a good thing) while providing nothing of value beyond temporary pleasure with diminishing return, thus leading to an unhealthy state of being.

    If anyone is getting a run for their money, it would be those trying to find satisfaction by unnatural means, be it porn, homosexuality, junk food, or robotic companions.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I think you’re talking apples and oranges. If anyone is getting a run for their money, it would be those trying to find satisfaction by unnatural means.

      Thank you, Gibblet, for clearly articulating the ought. I was, however, talking about a quite possible is.

      And internet porn made indeed distort sex, etc. But it certainly is. It’s difficult to imagine that a Synth-like female robot that is life-like in every way and sells for, say, about $2000, wouldn’t be a huge hit. As my younger brother quipped, “Condom sales would plunge.”

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        It’s difficult to imagine that a Synth-like female robot that is life-like in every way and sells for, say, about $2000, wouldn’t be a huge hit.

        $2000??? You must be kidding! This would create a completely new industry, which might be as big as the automotive business. People would take out long term loans for $20,000 and more. And think of the upgrades along the way.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I was figuring manufacture in China, Mr. Kung. But I’m not committed to a particular price point. 😀

        • Timothy Lane says:

          It would start out high, but over time the price would decline, as it has for computers. Of course, this presumes a human texture to the skin (which is implied by “life-like in every way”) — though the male models may not need it so much.

          • Gibblet says:

            I know you all are just having fun here, but perversion is perversion. Robo-honey sounds like a leftists construct. She and the feminists are friends.

          • Lucia says:

            You mean like “The Stepford Wives”? That idea’s been around for decades. There’s nothing new under the sun.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Life-like robots would be something new under the sun, or at least under the LED silicon sun. Most tech things have no Biblical equivalent. And it’s not the Bible that is driving morals today. For instance, whatever is Left of the Moral Majority has devolved into Jerry Falwell Jr., an ardent supporter of Donald Trump.

              I’m stating what is likely. Look at pets which have already become surrogates for children for many couples. And often kids are raised on the idea of taking care of pets that only exist in a computer.

              Plus, women are lost when it comes to a discussion of sex. What is not new under the sun is that men and women are wired completely differently. Women may look for grand meaning in sex but men generally do not. For them it is a physical act. They may surely develop close bonds with a woman (perhaps out of necessity). But they remain wired that way.

              A perfect, available, willing, beautiful, compliant woman might provoke disgust from women but men, in their heart of hearts, are thinking “How much and when will they be available? Do you take credit cards?”

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            In the series, Humans, apparently they’ve got skin texture down pat. I’ve watched through episode nine now (of ten in total in season one…the only season available). It’s a mediocre series, at best. But it’s mediocre in a way that is not stupid, and that makes it at least watchable.

            I thought the movie, Surrogates, is an underrated gem and much more believable in terms of what-if science fiction. The synopsis at IMDB.com says that Surrogates is “Set in a futuristic world where humans live in isolation and interact through surrogate robots, a cop is forced to leave his home for the first time in years in order to investigate the murders of others’ surrogates.”

            I think domestic robotic servants (or play things) is an inevitable result of the advance in robotics. Where Humans jumps the shark is that it delves into the rather boring cliches of some of the Synths (by design, in this case) becoming conscious.

            Had they centered on the sociological implications of domestic robots, there wouldn’t have been as many fights, car crashes, chase scenes, or blood (blue, in this case) but it would have been far more interesting. For a while, the wife in the featured family does chafe at the robot taking over some of her roles. Even the kids like “Anita,” the youngest girls expressing what could have been great potential for the show when the mother wants to take over from Anita reading a book to her daughter. The daughter complains, “But mother, you always rush through it.” The child is much more enamored with the unlimited patience of Anita.

            Thus not only could the feminist anti-male agenda be interrupted by the competition of bots, so too could the career female. But then, women have already chose careers over children in many cases, so one might find a reversion to what the upper class did a century ago: leave their children to be raised by a nanny. It would certainly be affordable compared to regular day care and would, in this case, further free women from the constraints of being a woman. But the series wants chase scenes not sociological exploration. This is meant for the crowd that thinks tattoos are a bold statement so there’s only so much brainware going into a series such as this.

            Which makes me consider that developing a robot that mimics human beings might actually be extraordinarily easy these days. The problem might be in dumbing them down sufficiently so that they fit in.

            The sociological exploration of Humans dissolves quickly and the show becomes merely a sort of Roots for Robots as the five conscious robots work with this family of humans to avoid capture. The writing is becoming ham-fisted and not particularly creative. Perhaps it won’t be long until robots are writing these things. Maybe they already are.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              I have not seen a lot of these types of movies or TV series, but the best that I have seen was “Blade Runner”.

              Of course, this sort of thing goes back to “Frankenstein” and even Pygmalion, the Greek character, not Shaw’s.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Not to mention Pinocchio. I do rather like Bladerunner — including the possibility that Harrison Ford’s character might himself be a robot.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                LOL. Pinnochio. Good point. And I rewatched the original (I think) Bladerunner a few weeks ago. It still holds up. Humans is an unoriginal mix of a whole bunch of movies such as this.

                But it does have good elements too. The best scene so far is between William Hurt (a co-creator of the Synths but who was fired by the CEO — David — because Hurt didn’t want to go along with the plan to make the Synths conscious) and one of the Synths who is a little scary.

                The five renegade Synths (or at least escaping Synths…haven’t quite got all their backstory yet) are a mix of characters, but at least a couple of them are pretty tame, quite unlike the Bladerunner replicants. But one who is every bit a replicant-like in attitude is the lovely Emily Berrington who plays Niska.

                At one point she is hiding in the guise of a prostitute Synth. She’s frustrated for a lot of reasons and she takes it out on a John who wants her to get a little kinky. (White male killed by girl power. We get it.) But later she makes her way to the home of the retired William Hurt who himself has Synth problems (his new mandated medical bot is far too Nurse Ratched-like for him).

                There’s a very good scene where Hurt is sort of talking her down from her sociopathy and seems to break through. Niska does regret killing the man. And it’s noted that these Synths, even if pre-programmed with a whole lot of stuff, are only early teenagers in age, if that (they’re basically Mr. Kung’s “little monsters” still to have civilization beaten into them…or at least talked into them as Hurt accomplishes to some degree).

                There’s some potential here for intelligent sci-fi but it’s mostly lost as it turns into little more than a cops-chasing-replicants thing….done far far better in Bladerunner, of course. But since most yutes probably have given no notice to anything created before they reached enlightened Singularity (which I think happens in high school now), they have little to measure this okay, but mediocre, series by.

  8. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Any reader of ST would have known this some years back.

    http://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/2017/09/02/cheap-sex-is-making-men-give-up-on-marriage-author-says.html

    I will say it again, I find it incredibly stupid that so many women will simply give away their greatest power over men so easily. There seems to be some correlation between women gaining higher education and women becoming stupid about relations with men. This should not be the case.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Elizabeth Woodville would be most disappointed with women today. I’m not sure how Eleanor Talbot Butler would feel.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Lots of factors going on here, Mr. Kung, including:

      1) The drive for equality — aside from environmental wacko-ism, the central tenet of Leftism — means women trying to act as sexual as men.

      2) One of the central points of Big Government is to relieve women of dependency on men.

      3) Abortion and birth control have completely changed the playing field. No “sexual revolution” was possible without these things.

      4) While women are being taught to be as sexually promiscuous as men, men are being marginalized, their “toxic masculinity” used as a way to shame them. Thus fewer and fewer fathers (when there is a father) would feel good about that idea of putting limits on their daughters. That would just be paternalism or “toxic masculinity” or something like that.

      5) And, of course, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

      6) I agree with your point that “education” is making many women stupid about the realities of sex, the world, men, and the inherent vulnerability of women.

      Given that tech will continue to be enormously influential in shaping our world. And despite the Nazis at Google believing otherwise, men will dominate this field. In essence, men can program-away the need for women and are doing so as we speak with VR, sex robots, and internet porn. Women are making this transition easy by being easy. I foresee a very interesting Brave New World, Mr. Kung.

  9. pst4usa says:

    Six months ago or so, I was at a Lincoln Day Dinner, I sat next to a young man, (25ish), that I have known off and on most of his life. (High school pole vaulter, very fit and, according to the women I know, very good looking). So in the midst of small talk, (generally I only talk about religion or politics), I asked how his love life was going and if he was looking at marring anyone any time soon. I knew he had been seeing this girl for several years and his answer shocked me. It supports the whole idea from a slightly different angle.
    He said that he was going to have to dump her because all she wanted was sex all the time. She is very attractive, so being a guy, I though what is wrong with that, so I asked. He said he really was ready to settle down and he wanted a long term relationship that was more than just sex. Don’t get me wrong he said, I love the sex, but, he said, I can get sex any time I want, and with any number of girls. I want someone to grow with, to share my life with, not just my bed. I must admit to being a bit taken aback. He then told me that therein lies the problem, he is a male so when sex from a young attractive women is offered he has a hard time turning her down. That part I completely understood, (I have no complaints about my life, and consider myself very lucky, but I was nowhere near this wise at 25, even though I had been married for 7 years by then and, if it had been offered, I would have turned it down out of fear of losing my wife).
    Well, if this one example demonstrates anything, it does show that young men today can get sex when-ever they want and that there really is no reason to settle down as long as the women of today keep “putting out” for those that are not as wise as this young man. You would think he would have no trouble finding such a girl, but even for him, he is struggling to find a girl that will be more than a sex toy. Apparently they have been taught that this is the way to happiness; as Brad notes, just be like a man and everything will be great. Sleep around, have as many partners as you can, no shame, no caring, no remorse, no marriage, just be like the caricature left has painted men and happiness will be yours. I have to wonder, just how many leftist professors male and female, are talking advantage of this concept today?
    Strangely enough, God, it seems, has different plans for us. He makes men like this young man with wisdom beyond his years, (if not the required strength of will all the time). Talk about a Don Quixote tilting against windmills, those windmills of male sexual nature have been spinning for a long time, and I think it will take divine intervention to overcome this leftist indoctrination, because they sure are using God’s design for the survival of mankind against us with this one; all while denying His existence.
    I for one would have never imagined a world like this, but this is just another example of the left’s long term strategy, tear down the wall of truth, one brick at a time. As soon as they complete that task, we may be finished as a society or as a country; maybe we already are?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Thanks for that evocative anecdote, Pat. If we could just get this fellow (even anonymously) to write about his perspective, that would be great, and no doubt of use to many other yutes out there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *