The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. (Ah, those were the days!)
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
------ Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto
Then I find this blog comment on marriage by Henry Makow:
"Possessiveness" is Part of Marriage
December 10, 2009
(A break from the drumbeat of despair, this slightly revised article originally appeared May 3, 2008)
My wife recently asked me why I loved her. Instead of enumerating her good qualities, I answered simply and honestly: "Because you belong to me. "
At the risk of being politically incorrect, what many men seek in marriage is not great beauty, brains or sex, but the simple feeling of "possessing" a woman. In other words, what they seek is a degree of ownership or power. (Gasp!)
And I believe that, in their heart, many women have the complementary craving, to totally "belong" to their husband.
This is the key to intimacy, how two people become one. When a man wins a woman's love, she entrusts herself to him. And of course he aspires to be worthy of this responsibility.
Thus, a woman empowers her husband. Men and women were designed to complement each other, not to compete or fight.
When I reflect on my marriage, I get most satisfaction from the fact that my wife is "mine." She makes other women redundant. I no longer feel one of them holds the missing key. I have what I want. My wife helps me fulfill my goals. And she gets security and caring from this bond.
The origin of this "possessiveness" is quite real and practical. Men need to "own the womb" to ensure their wives conceive their child and not another man's. Women want to rear an offspring that is the fruit of their love and commitment.
Marriage is the exchange of feminine worldly power for masculine love and protection. Of course, women retain other forms of power, i.e. aesthetic, moral, emotional, intellectual etc.
We live in a toxic environment for marriage. The Illuminati (Masonic) central bankers, who control modern politics, education and kulture, continue to sabotage this exchange by constantly attacking woman's trust in men.
Men are irresponsible "abusers." Marriage is exploitative and oppressive. Women must be "independent." How can a person belong to another? Women must be "strong and independent." The more sex the better. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Women! If you want to be independent, why get married?
Plain and simple, our "feminist" political leaders and educators are dupes and opportunists at best, impostors or traitors at worst. No honest government allows its men and women to be turned against each other.
SEX AND THE CITY
A reader in his early 20's writes that the TV show "Sex and the City" has molded girls of his generation.
This lesbian-tinged quotation is their watchword: "Maybe our girlfriends are our soul mates and guys are just people to have fun with."
Today's young woman "sees no value in a marriage or boyfriend-girlfriend relationship; rather she just gets random sex from guys and emotional/interpersonal stuff from friends," my correspondent writes.
"It's influenced all girls my age because they see some value to sleeping around-- like being a whore is some "strong women" empowering thing..."
Paradoxically the TV show was about four aging career women who are looking for marriage and/or family but find they are incompatible with men. The reason of course is that, due to their feminist (i.e. lesbian) brainwashing, they think men and women are identical. They are confused -- want to control a man and yet be possessed at the same time. They have lost the knack of feminine love (i.e. to surrender, trust and empower.)
Similarly feminism has also molded men to seek sex and extended adolescence instead of marriage. It has undermined and emasculated men so that often they can neither demand nor command a woman's trust.
Thus, the Sex in the City women end up in a series of unsatisfying sexual encounters with men who cannot love. They cannot commit and marry and, as a result, they suffer from arrested development. But all along they console each other in coffee shops and chic boutiques and pretend they have sacrificed marriage for their women's lib principles and their friendship is superior to what they really want.
When a woman chooses a man to love, she will defer to his superior judgment and power. This is the only kind of man she should marry. This is how a woman loves. Similarly, a man cannot love a woman who defies and challenges him constantly.
Sex is the sacred symbol of heterosexual possession, intimacy and exclusivity. The more men a woman belongs to sexually, the less likely she'll ever belong to any.
It's no coincidence that the Creator of "Sex and the City" is Darren Starr, a homosexual.
I have defined homosexuality as "failure to bond permanently with a member of the opposite sex, caused by confusion over sexual identity, resulting in arrested development." Heterosexuals are being re-engineered to fit this description.
ENLIGHTENED "OWNERSHIP"
You don't win a woman's trust by attempting to dominate or suffocate her. Rather you show her how you live, and want to live, and invite her to take a honored place in your life.
You respect her individuality. For example, you don't try to impose your ideas on her. Naturally you will choose someone who has an affinity with you. But you are not looking for your clone. You should value her perspective and enjoy the differences.
I get letters from men who complain that their women can't buy into the "Conspiracy." So what? Do you really want the madness mirrored back to you? If what we're saying is true, it will become apparent to everyone eventually. People in possession of the truth do not have to impose it.
Another example. I can't imagine a man ever insisting on having sex with his wife when she's not in the mood. There's no faster way to turn a woman off a man, and off sex. (Of course if she never wants sex, the marriage is broken.)
On the other hand, a man won't let his wife engage in activities that endanger her or their marriage.
CONCLUSION
When a man loves a woman, he wants her to be happy. He wants her to want to be his.
I'm not saying all marriages have to be this way. I'm not saying my marriage is perfect. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Whatever works for you is best for you.
I am saying there is a place for "possession" in many marriages. If I am right, the quality men should seek is feminine receptivity: i.e. the ability to love, trust, belong.
No comments:
Post a Comment