As Ian Curtis had rightly said, “[the so-called] Love will tear us apart”. Jacob C Toews: “Nearly half of today’s marriages end in divorce. Is the entire marriage institution headed toward oblivion? Many are predicting that marriage will soon be a thing of the past—perhaps within a generation. The number of broken homes is increasing, with Russia and eastern European countries [relatively Droogie realms (Serbia is cognate to serpent)] showing the highest spikes in divorce. BBC News reported that “the chances of this year’s newly-weds staying together for the rest of their lives are slimmer than ever”.
Marriagists favour the doddering “institution” of marriage (with their glass is half-empty hence I need my one drop pessimism!), ignoring calls for reform.
Some instinctively feel “marriage is sacred and cannot be questioned”. Others are insecure about their lack of logical self-development (lack of Norepi), and thus lack of dark appeal, and feel that this lack of appeal rules them out as supporters of an individualist, non-maritally amorous new order. Both are mistaken, and should heed logic, not instincts or deep-set fears and insecurities!
As Jacob Toews adds: “Many struggle to find happiness, only to watch their visions, goals and expectations evaporate into heartbreak and failure." People, losing sight of what makes them happy, feel that another person (“soulmate”) can bring them happiness. How can that be? If both share deep common interests (other than just “making a family”) and love each other for that, it is logical friendship; that is much more rewarding; it is far better than marriage in the solemn sense in which it is understood: a desperate compromise I’ll have at least 1 “friend”, in a society whose unfriendliness linear thinkers create but don’t think about (yet they pretend Kantianistically moral).
The custom of marriage blocks an effectively infinite, low-importance utility (love), blocking it by illogical artificial contracts (“marriages”) – it is similar to how Big Oil blocks the supply of oil, inventing a myth of scarcity (“peak oil”) merely to sell oil at higher prices; that is the style of many linear thinkers!
The ritual of marriage, though an occasion as evil as to drive logical girls to tears, is pre-emptively disguised as celebration, involving the bribing of the Toms, Dicks, and Harries, with food, so that they publicly, insincerely endorse a custom wholly unnecessary, one side of a coin whose other side is a world of rape and more generally what may be called “male” competitive behavior.
The “male” competitive attitude prescribed by the analytic school is, as Paloma Migone notes, “similar to the territorial behaviour of chimpanzees, which continuously monitor the borders of their territory… “When a male stranger is found he is likely to be brutally beaten and possibly killed" (van Vugt).
Wilhelm Reich says: “From the standpoint of social development, the family cannot be considered the basis of the authoritarian state, only as one of the most important institutions which support it. It is, however, its central germ cell, the place of reproduction of the reactionary. Being itself caused by the authoritarian system, the family is the most important institution for its conservation.” Love ought to be a trivial, omnipresent, depoliticized aspect of life, not centrally governing life and death. Think about it, and let the typical adjectives like “sacred” fade away: marriage is suddenly exposed as a perverted scandal seeming logical only in the context of an illogical society.
The idea that placing obstructive bounds on the lives of others – may be “moral” – is an instinctive behavioral relic originating from some prehistoric instinct of jealousy, and not, as some feel, an idea polished by the intellectual machinery of man over years of debate. Evidently, such debates have never occurred; people were too shy or too touchy about this topic! In other words, the instincts behind the “natural” justification of marriage appear to be apish impurities of behavior, and not divine truths associated with man’s logical side.
The marital system used to help reactionaries survive, so it may have served a purpose long ago, but needs to be phased out (at least among those who are more logical) – because a much happier life can be obtained by lighter and less destructive social systems than marriage, whose continuing presence hints that mainstream academic sociology is also barren (due to analytic degradation) – in how it fails to originate new, novel systems. There’s nothing progressive about marriage, which is the same old “a man with a club, a cave, and a wife” custom. The old elfish logical customs must return!
Illogical, brain-destroying manners are practiced by the spouses, like tracking the partner’s mental states, ensuring that the partner’s alliances are “profitably aligned”, meeting mutual acquaintances together (and smiling at them as if to prove their “friendship”), and such activities occupying wasted time. Such socio-economic activities are not love, but lesser social activities involving shared time misinterpreted as “the time of love” or “necessary sacrifices”.
More or less, love is unrelated to such quantitative social activity; it is qualitative. It is about appreciation of another as an end in itself rather than a means; this logical interpretation of love frees time and people, making it ubiquitous and trivial, rather than the misunderstood birthplace of war and contention.
From the point of view of Gnostics who have the ability to understand and appreciate objects – as humans are the most enjoyable “objects” of all, one’s quality of life is evidently poor if he or she loves merely one person’s lovable things in his or her one life (once again, there is no such thing as reincarnation).
In other words, as merely one person holds only limited charm for a creature as inquisitive as the thinking man – in marriage, intimacy becomes a novelty out of necessity; one doesn’t want to burn it out quick; so the focus is usually not on the object of the so-called love at all – but rather some vain pursuits and perfunctory beating around the bush (e.g.: going somewhere together). Thus usual married lifestyle can be called “love” only by some syllogical “reasoning”; it is anything but love (which means the delving into another).
Real love has a qualitative aspect to it (qualitative sampling of varied lovers, rather than quantitative sampling of one “lover” as in marriage). Thus, though true love is noble and good – the idea of solemn love (or its marital manifestation) – was the worst invention by the worst poet, repeated by all village idiots until eventually, the ignorant came to see it as a “divine truth”.
The question is: is multiple love (or polyamory) morally inferior to the practice of leaving the beautiful to stalkers trying to escape the ugliness of a world promoted by conservatives who defend marriage, war, usury etc.? The Droogies do not have such definitions of "morality” which allow for the mass-killings of young males and mass war-rape of young females to be ignored as “reality-sanctioned exceptions to the theory of morally marital mankind”.
Of what use is the linear thinkers’ famed “multitasking”, if it has not learned how to love multiple people at a time, simply because humans are too complex and easier categorized as “suspicious – to be ignored” than “loved”?
And what of the biological law that one gets bored of the partner after 3 years, according to science? It is a strange “morality” that orders you to suppress your fondness for another, merely because that person is “married”.
Another reason for the inferiority of marriage – it denies education to children, causing mental diseases. Delanceyplace quotes Jared Diamond: "The role of ‘allo-parents’ – i.e., individuals who are not the biological parents but who do some care-giving – has ever been decreasing in recent decades. Daniel Everett, who lived for many years among the Piraha Indians of Brazil, commented, "The biggest difference is that Piraha children roam about the village and are considered to be related to and partially the responsibility of everyone”. Allo-parents are psychologically important influences and models beyond the parents themselves”. Allo-parents are intellectually healthy adults who therefore find curious kids to be good to hang out with it (not in the pedophilic sense!) – As kids can prove to be of help (help with routine tasks), or cuddly; they can collect fruits, for example, and even learn something about life along the way. The excess energy of overly herdist or pet-dog-like children can be usefully used; and they’ll even escape the trap of foolhood (thus anthropologists working with Piraha-like societies “often comment on what strikes them as the precocious maturity of their children”).
The idea of love ought to be separated from the idea of reproduction. Reproduction is no longer the “last word in the arms race”, so not all pairs in love may reproduce, only any two of your episodes of love that are the most intense.
(PS: Above excerpted from my latest book, the Punk/Droogie manifesto: www.djedefsauron.net)
What do you think about marriage?
.
Take the goods, ignore the bads i suggest