Chapter Four: The Pillars and the Plot

Part 7: The Family Plot: Following the Masculine Principle is the “Right Way”

“Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable…

Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth.” — George Orwell 
.
It’s hard to say, really, what one should “do” about all of this falseness that’s crept into our society. The family unit is obviously being altered. Everybody seems to have an idea of how to make it “work” better – by further deconstructing it. We’ve got a 50% Divorce Rate, Shared-Parenting, Gay Marriage, 5-Parent Families, unsustainable birth-rates, and over half of children now go to bed without their biological father in the house. I think marriage has been fixed enough, don’t you?

As I mentioned in the last section, in March 2013, British Columbia’s new Family Act went into effect. This law forces defacto marriage upon all common-law couples after two years. Further, the act allows for five parent “families.” A sperm donor, an egg donor, a surrogate, and two homosexuals who adopt the child, can all be equal parents of the same child. But this has even further implications than what’s here on the surface.

I was watching the Business News Channel when they interviewed some manager of a REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust). He was saying that they were going to buy 1 Bedroom Condo units in the Vancouver area because of this new law. I was amazed at how well this fellow thought dialectically, and that I was actually hearing it on the news. Follow along with me for a moment as I paraphrase what he said:

Since we now have gay marriage, and since, because of spousal rape laws, there is no longer an expectation of sex to occur within marriage. This means that two heterosexual room-mates will be able to claim legal marriage after two years.

The only way out of this “defacto marriage” status after two years of living together, is to make what is essentially a pre-nup, as if you were actually a married couple – since the only legal way you can be common-law without being married now, is to spend a few grand on lawyers to hash out everything before hand. Literally, the only way to not become legally married, is to go through all the BS of declaring your assets, imputing your income in case children are born at some time in the future, their future custody arrangements – the whole shebang, for imaginary children! If you don’t do this, after two years all of your assets will be co-joined as if you had gotten married in a church or courthouse without a prenup.

(It used to be that you didn’t write a pre-nup before living together common-law, since the act of making the pre-nup itself indicates that you are indeed, living as married people – you were worse off to make one than to not have one). 

This, figured the REIT manager, would make demand rise for 1 BR Condos, once these things fall into place over the next few years.

Every time you try to fight back in this web of lies, you just get sucked further into it. The situation I described above is not “marriage.” It’s a sham of legal jargon and bullshit. Of course, that’s probably the point – the BC Lawyer’s Association heavily supported the changing of this, and guess who gets paid to write up all of those agreements, and fight all of the new divorce cases that will arise?

You know what I thought when I heard of this law?

Since they want people to declare legally, beforehand, what type of a relationship they are in – so that it will remove confusion later, (so they said)… I wonder what would happen if a couple came in with their Bible and simply said,

“That. Make the prenup that! Marriage exactly as it’s laid out in the Bible.”

I mentioned this to a few people, and everyone gasped in horror. “You mean presumed father custody? No way!” The women present, of course, were adamantly opposed to it… but I thought to myself, they’re right, it does remove any confusion about what kind of marriage – and divorce – you want!

That’s their choice – I wouldn’t want to force a marriage on anyone… but I think a man would be wise to save his wallet – his life’s labour – for a REAL marriage.

I looked at these people – me being the only non-Christian among them – and thought,  

“MY GOODNESS! IT’S THE BIBLE!!! ARE YOU SAYING GOD IS WRONG?”

But I’m serious. I think this is the correct thing to do, and if they won’t allow people to legally get married the way God put it forth in the Bible – to have a prenup declare Marriage 1.0 to be a valid form of marriage – then the government would be forced to publicly declare that the Bible is wrong… and I want to see the shit-storm that would come from that. I mean, if God, The Absolute, is WRONG… then we’d better have a talk about where the government thinks our unalienable rights come from! (Although, here in Canada, we have a gun registry – so I’d probably be waving around my chainsaw. America is so one-dimensional with its guns. There are plenty of ways to die!)

“If God did not exist, it would be neccessary to invent him.” — Voltaire

“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” — Mark 10:9 (KJV) 

You know what?

That IS the “Right Way.”

I don’t mean a violent revolution, but go back to the beginning. Back to what worked. It’s the logical place to go. We actually do have the tools – we’ve got the Bible and we’ve got our Constitutions. We’ve got “the system.” We just have to start using it.

F. Roger Devlin once remarked about those saying a return to Marriage 1.0 would be “too radical.” How could it be to consider something which has existed in our civilization for centuries – since the beginning – to be “too radical,” compared to two gay men claiming they’re married while keeping a straight face?

What in the hell are we “thinking” here?

On a philosophical level, the Male Principle is the answer. If ever one studies the dialectic and how it is used to manipulate, you will see the one constant recommendation for how to “stop” the dialectic: 

Step out of it.

This means that you must “step out of the cycle” and take a stand. To stop the dialectic you must stand up straight and tall, and declare, “THIS is right, and THAT is wrong. I will not budge.”

Communist countries don’t outlaw religions solely because it competes with people’s allegiances to the State. They also outlaw them because religious books like the Bible, based in Absolute Truth, zap “the staircase” into oblivion. The two cannot co-exist in the same philosophical space.

“Dialectical thought is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that a motion picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to the laws of motion.” — Leon Trotsky

K.I.S.S. 
(Keep It Simple, Stupid)

You do not need to argue every single point made in this staircase, which is what people tend to do – in fact, it’s what they want you to do.

In order to defeat “the staircase,” stop fighting the “top argument” (in this example, a man-tax) and go back to the beginning, and argue the base argument upon which all of the other arguments are founded upon. This is essentially what I’ve been trying to do throughout this entire book – to show that Gender is NOT a Social Construct, or that the vote and civil equality is not an unalienable right, All of the other arguments will fall into place if you defeat the base argument – because it is used as a justification for all of the other arguments. Defeat the base argument and none of the others have any foundation to exist upon – in fact, all of the other arguments will naturally fall into place the way they should be.

God’s Law = Absolute Truth
Natural Law = Objective Truth = Masculine Principle
Civil Law = Subjective Truth = Feminine Principle

If a Civil Law contradicts a Natural Law, it is a false law. And if a Natural Law contradicts God’s Law, it is a false law.

It’s that simple.

There’s no need for yet another Boomertopian Human Rights Movement to defend it. Movements, like herds, hives and harems, are for women.

The Truth just is. 

There’s no need for Departments of Male Studies to follow Warren Farrell as he blindly tries to “gender transition” us into more androgyny.

God created humans – not Warren Farrell and his colleagues in their Academic Ivory Towers.

“One waits in vain for psychologists to state the limits of their knowledge.” — Noam Chomsky

There’s no point in forming a White House Council for Men and Boys. The Masculine Principle is a part of what it is to be human – to seek the Truth. It’s an unalienable right. It exists outside the scope of government and its subjective truths. Government serves the Truth, not the other way around.

The Truth has no use for a lobby group.

Marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one. It comes from the Bible – from the Creator – and therefore it is out of reach from the government. And in the Bible, there is no marriage 2.0, and certainly no marriage 3.0. There is only marriage 1.0 – the model that works!

There is no need to fight for “paper abortions,” so men are equal to women in reproductive rights. Marriage 1.0 already had that. Children outside of wedlock belong to women, but the children of a marriage belong to the husband. He “paid” for them honestly with his life’s labour, and it is an unalienable right to keep what you have honestly worked and paid for. Marriage is a vehicle for men to have children, not women.

If the Churchians ever got up from their damn pews and  
actually stood on the Bible, they could clean house… if they just stopped listening to Eve’s forbidden fruit.

Sometimes the Truth hurts – but that is no reason to ignore it. There is no reason to accept falsities to spare people’s feelings. Either we live in a world where 1+1=2 or we live in a dangerously false world.

Man is at war with the Truth, 
But the Truth is not at war with man. 

Would you want the engineers who design jet liners to use “relative truth?”

(1+1=2) + (1+1=3) = 5 divided by 2 = 2.5
Therefore: 1+1=2.5 (Truth)

No, you wouldn’t do that – nor would you trust any calculations made after this mistake, for they too
would obviously all be wrong.

All you can do is go back to the beginning and say 1+1=2!  

And I don’t care how much you cows moo at me about it!

Gender is NOT a Social Construct!

Some arguments are more important to win than others.

Previous / Index / Next

Backed Up and Credited by – no-maam.blogspot.com