Being somewhat of a traditionalist I am saddened when an institution is changed or marginalised (for no good reason). Even though I am an atheist I still respect the history and allure of the Church. Many men have been motivated to perform great deeds by her tenets. I still have a soft spot for the Crown and the time-honoured controls that we place on that office. Commonwealth countries benefit from the civility and identity that the Crown bestows upon them. Many in the United States, with her shared history, have adopted the Crown as a symbol of the Mother Country. It should, then, be no surprise that I do not agree with the changes in definition of the institution of marriage.
We are all individuals with our own hopes and aspirations for a happy and successful life. Far be it for me to promote the use of governmental force against those who practice a non-traditional lifestyle. Live and let live is the only reasonable position I can perceive. Relationships between human beings exist for as many reasons as there are people. Companionship, dependence, fear, love, money and tradition are all compelling reasons why people choose to bond with each other.
The fundamental reason for a union between a man and a woman is survival of the species. We must procreate or die off. Perhaps science will find a way to dramatically extend our life spans, but in the mean time we must reproduce as we always have. The institution of Marriage has for centuries been our solution for Man’s endurance on this Earth. It is a tradition with great merit that has stood the test of time. It has many subsidiary benefits as well; a stable environment to raise children, protection against sexually transmitted disease, the support of pooled resources and the passing on of inherited wealth. Marriage has been interwoven with history, giving families a sentiment of pride and glory. It allows individuals to have a sense of continuity with the past and a base of support to affect the future. Why would anyone want to change such a force for good in our lives?
We can garner the answer from history as with most modern conundrums. The individualist philosophy that predominated during the 18th century Enlightenment has suffered two hundred years of persistent and innovative attacks. The great parliamentary traditions of Great Britain that have been transplanted throughout the world matured under the tutelage of this period. The Constitution of the United States began here. The oligarchic enemies of individualism have schemed and plotted the destruction of the enlightenment ever since.
Who are these enemies? Who stands to lose from the evolution of the sovereign individual? Could it be those who wield the power of the state and those that benefit from that power? Make no mistake; these Stateists have been very clever in their reaction. They have invented many arguments with which to enhance the power of the state and assail the individual. This was no easy task, as the Aristotelian logic of the Enlightenment is grounded in reality and cannot be defeated without contradiction. This did not deter them however; they merely dispensed with reality and used reason’s antithesis emotion as their tool of persuasion.
The Stateists began with state sponsored religion as a primary method of control. One only has to look at the Province of Quebec in Canada as an example of the use of religion to enhance centralized political and cultural manipulation that lasted well into the 1950’s. But non-hierarchical religions can lead to decent and are not suited to centralized control.
Philosophy became the new battleground in the 19th Century. With the twisted coils of Emanuel Kant’s theories, reality became a figment of one’s imagination. William James’ work professing pragmatism was able to dispensed with principles and form the underlying foundation for modern political movements in the 20th Century. With reality gone and principles viewed as a form of mental illness the world was ripe for a flood of political “isms” that were to lead to untold suffering. Global Socialism or Communism, Racist Socialism or Nazism, Anarchism or Nihilism and the subtlest movement; the Mixed Market Economy all are founded to enhance the power of the state and assail the individual.
What has all this got to do with the institution of Marriage one might ask? In order to understand why there is pressure to change the definition of Marriage one must understand the mindset of those who wish to change it. Marriage (and the resulting family connections) is the buttress of individualism and self-reliance in the world today. It is an obstacle to centralised state control and thus has come under attack by stateists.
The state is determined to become the paternal overlord of many aspects of our lives. Most modern stateists support an incremental approach to the destruction of individual rights. They will tolerate enough freedom to pay the bills and keep people from going to the barricades.
Marriage is to become no more than a financial arrangement sanctioned by the state. It will no longer serve as the potential bastion of the individual and anchor one’s place in history. It will be open to or forced on any combination of people. Many think that the new definition has something to do with homosexuals wishing to call their relationships a marriage. While they are included in the new definition it is preposterous to presume the State will care if one has a sexual relationship in order to be married. It is the destruction of the historical tradition of marriage that is important. An example of how traditional marriage will be debased is the new single purpose marriage that might look something like this:
John and James went to school together and shared an apartment. Upon graduation John obtained employment with a large unionised firm, which had a generous spousal benefits program. James wished to extend his education by obtaining a Masters degree so he remained a student. On his way to school James falls and breaks his leg and must have months of expensive therapy to recover. John and his girlfriend feel sorry for James so they go to the Internet and download the latest do-it-yourself marriage kit and presto John and James are married. The spousal benefits flow to James as long as he requires the convalescent care. Once James is back to normal John simply downloads the do-it-yourself divorce Kit and ends the financial arrangement.
The new single purpose marriage will have a dramatic impact on all forms of spousal benefits. Since the cost of benefits will then rise out of reach for most people, the government will claim the high ground and step in to make them equally available to all. Of course taxes will have to be raised to pay for the new infrastructure and the power of the state is enhanced once more.
The institution of Marriage is debased and becomes a convenient legal manoeuvre for the extraction of financial benefits. The historical impact of Marriage on our culture and our Country will be changed into the Brave New World of State control. It is not hard to follow the logical conclusion that will accompany the destruction of the tradition of marriage – Just read Huxley!
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Monday, November 08, 2004
Mrs. Naggy where are you?
I have always held a certain reverence for the British and their glorious tenure on the world stage. Having gone through Elementary school in the early 60’s I was part of the last generation in Canada to feel a bond with the Empire. I remember listening to radio programs and watching NFB films that discussed the benefits and the civilizing effect of British Imperialism on undeveloped parts of the world.
I was also greatly inspired by a little old woman who was a frequent supply teacher throughout my years before High School. Mrs. Naggy would hold me spellbound with her stories of travel and adventure across the Empire. Having worked in Africa, India and China, she instilled a feeling that the world was in good hands and that we should all be proud of our righteous cause. We would discuss weighty questions such as; does the sun ever set on the British Empire or what makes a Dervish whirl. Strangely it never occurred to me that none of my fellow students were as enthralled as I was and that most of them thought Mrs. Naggy was a boring old fool.
Today I can’t help but feel sadness that most have lost a romantic view of the world (if they ever had one) and with it the confidence to make the world a better place. Surely the benign values that motivated our forefathers still hold true.
- A free market of ideas where one could argue any religious or secular philosophy.
- A free market of commerce without barriers guaranteed by the ‘Rule of Law’.
– A heroic view of Man struggling against nature and ignorance.
God, Gold and Glory!
There is a strange type of human being that distains any form of greatness or success. These people will always present a greyish alternative argument that lacks clarity in every aspect except what they are against. It is a form of localism where a banal existence is to be preferred over competence and vision. Freedom with its endless alternatives is a grave threat to the provincial mind with its desire for order and control. From the “Little Englanders” of the 19th century to the Liberal Party of Canada this view of the world is accepted by an embarrassingly large constituency.
Fear of competing on a level playing field without constraints empowers this group to openly propose such abominations as; outlawing private healthcare, aboriginal “self-government” (paid for with other peoples money) or asymmetrical federalism. This is unearned elitism at its very worst. Their plan is simple: purport to speak for any group that is perceived to be disadvantaged and use the power of Government to redistribute wealth to maintain control.
The world is full of ‘localists’ who seek special dispensation for their charished supplicants. The United Nations - a gathering of localists - has become one gigantic lobbying effort for the redistribution of power and wealth. Short-term advantage is sought by most nations at the expense of any semblence of moral principles and long-term benefits.
I have to believe that most of us do not want to loose our freedom. We are ready to defend our Ideals because we will die in slavery without them. The motivation that drove Mrs. Naggy’s generation can be ours again if we can only comprehend our true self-interest.
I was also greatly inspired by a little old woman who was a frequent supply teacher throughout my years before High School. Mrs. Naggy would hold me spellbound with her stories of travel and adventure across the Empire. Having worked in Africa, India and China, she instilled a feeling that the world was in good hands and that we should all be proud of our righteous cause. We would discuss weighty questions such as; does the sun ever set on the British Empire or what makes a Dervish whirl. Strangely it never occurred to me that none of my fellow students were as enthralled as I was and that most of them thought Mrs. Naggy was a boring old fool.
Today I can’t help but feel sadness that most have lost a romantic view of the world (if they ever had one) and with it the confidence to make the world a better place. Surely the benign values that motivated our forefathers still hold true.
- A free market of ideas where one could argue any religious or secular philosophy.
- A free market of commerce without barriers guaranteed by the ‘Rule of Law’.
– A heroic view of Man struggling against nature and ignorance.
God, Gold and Glory!
There is a strange type of human being that distains any form of greatness or success. These people will always present a greyish alternative argument that lacks clarity in every aspect except what they are against. It is a form of localism where a banal existence is to be preferred over competence and vision. Freedom with its endless alternatives is a grave threat to the provincial mind with its desire for order and control. From the “Little Englanders” of the 19th century to the Liberal Party of Canada this view of the world is accepted by an embarrassingly large constituency.
Fear of competing on a level playing field without constraints empowers this group to openly propose such abominations as; outlawing private healthcare, aboriginal “self-government” (paid for with other peoples money) or asymmetrical federalism. This is unearned elitism at its very worst. Their plan is simple: purport to speak for any group that is perceived to be disadvantaged and use the power of Government to redistribute wealth to maintain control.
The world is full of ‘localists’ who seek special dispensation for their charished supplicants. The United Nations - a gathering of localists - has become one gigantic lobbying effort for the redistribution of power and wealth. Short-term advantage is sought by most nations at the expense of any semblence of moral principles and long-term benefits.
I have to believe that most of us do not want to loose our freedom. We are ready to defend our Ideals because we will die in slavery without them. The motivation that drove Mrs. Naggy’s generation can be ours again if we can only comprehend our true self-interest.
Friday, November 05, 2004
US votes for Self-Preservation
Is it my imagination or do many people think that tactics win elections? It would appear that one way to evade the real reason that your side lost is to claim that you were beaten by the “get out the vote” organization of your opponent. Perhaps you were ‘out-spent’ or they used ‘dirty tricks’. There are some who believe that the other guys were able to mobilize and herd their sheep to the poles more competently than we could move ours.
This paternalistic view of the world is taken for granted by most commentators who then heap praise on campaign managers that pull off feats of logistical brilliance. The pundits have moved away from ideals and lofty goals to a cynical view that skilful manipulation of the great unwashed is the only valid route to victory. Of course none of the people who espouse this theory consider themselves one among the masses.
It is one thing to understand the base instincts of our society, but to aspire to them is another thing all together. This is the very essence of where we are headed. The Europeans have gotten there before us and have degenerated into a nihilistic despondency. They are now helpless against any determined group of true believers. They are truly ready to compromise on any aspect of their existence. Without an ideal or rational philosophy to believe in, a dark emptiness will pervade the soul of a nation. The vacuum will be filled by the bizarre and the fanatical.
Disarming the population of its moral structure has been the strategy of the left for the past two hundred years. If one is to accept forced wealth redistribution, special treatment for certain groups, and abhorrent behaviour masquerading as cultural quaintness one must be morally emasculated.
It is heartening to learn that moral ideals were one of the compelling reasons for the Republican victory in 2004. This is not a religious revival as many will say, but a move toward self-preservation. The confidence in what America stands for is still alive in just over half the population. Other once proud nations i.e. Canada and the United Kingdom have slipped below that plurality.
I suggest that it was not skilful manipulation of the electorate that won the US election of 2004, but the self-confidence generated by the desire to attain our most cherished ideals.
So lets keep chivalry alive! Lets believe in the goodness of Western Civilization. No one is perfect, but we must have a direction to follow even when we fall. As a Hobbit once said “There are some things worth fighting for”.
This paternalistic view of the world is taken for granted by most commentators who then heap praise on campaign managers that pull off feats of logistical brilliance. The pundits have moved away from ideals and lofty goals to a cynical view that skilful manipulation of the great unwashed is the only valid route to victory. Of course none of the people who espouse this theory consider themselves one among the masses.
It is one thing to understand the base instincts of our society, but to aspire to them is another thing all together. This is the very essence of where we are headed. The Europeans have gotten there before us and have degenerated into a nihilistic despondency. They are now helpless against any determined group of true believers. They are truly ready to compromise on any aspect of their existence. Without an ideal or rational philosophy to believe in, a dark emptiness will pervade the soul of a nation. The vacuum will be filled by the bizarre and the fanatical.
Disarming the population of its moral structure has been the strategy of the left for the past two hundred years. If one is to accept forced wealth redistribution, special treatment for certain groups, and abhorrent behaviour masquerading as cultural quaintness one must be morally emasculated.
It is heartening to learn that moral ideals were one of the compelling reasons for the Republican victory in 2004. This is not a religious revival as many will say, but a move toward self-preservation. The confidence in what America stands for is still alive in just over half the population. Other once proud nations i.e. Canada and the United Kingdom have slipped below that plurality.
I suggest that it was not skilful manipulation of the electorate that won the US election of 2004, but the self-confidence generated by the desire to attain our most cherished ideals.
So lets keep chivalry alive! Lets believe in the goodness of Western Civilization. No one is perfect, but we must have a direction to follow even when we fall. As a Hobbit once said “There are some things worth fighting for”.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Don't paint Republican Voters as Religous Zealots.
Who would a 'Free-market Capitalist', who also happens to be an atheist, vote for in the US election? If you listen to the media you would not think it would be the Republican party. A party which is portrayed as the lone preserve of the seemingly ever increasing devout evangelical Christians.
The fact of the matter is that most Republican voters hold traditional American or British values that include individualism, which means responsibility for ones actions and fair-play. They feel that the primary role of the state is to protect their freedom from foreign and domestic encroachment.
These people will not vote for a party that is dominated by special interest groups that seek to use the government as a means of extracting resources for their pet projects.
Many of those who hold deep religous beliefs that are not inline with the avant-garde will, of course, gravitate toward a party that will protect their right to exist and give them a forum for their views.
It is wrong to paint the Republican Party as an organization dominated by some shadowy organization called the religous right. Look at the GOP track record over the past four years. It has been a steady push in the direction of traditional values - not particular religous demands.
So there you go - This whole thing comes down to the same old battle - Individualism vs. Special Interests.
The fact of the matter is that most Republican voters hold traditional American or British values that include individualism, which means responsibility for ones actions and fair-play. They feel that the primary role of the state is to protect their freedom from foreign and domestic encroachment.
These people will not vote for a party that is dominated by special interest groups that seek to use the government as a means of extracting resources for their pet projects.
Many of those who hold deep religous beliefs that are not inline with the avant-garde will, of course, gravitate toward a party that will protect their right to exist and give them a forum for their views.
It is wrong to paint the Republican Party as an organization dominated by some shadowy organization called the religous right. Look at the GOP track record over the past four years. It has been a steady push in the direction of traditional values - not particular religous demands.
So there you go - This whole thing comes down to the same old battle - Individualism vs. Special Interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)