The regulation of human sexuality produced the heterosexual family as well as the inter-generational transfer of property, knowledge, social traditions, and it resulted in the creation and refinement of laws and governments.
The regulation of human sexuality was the beginning of civilization, the symbiosis of all of those things and those that grew out of and because of them: clans, villages, towns, nations, empires, societies, and more traditions and laws that made them function more smoothly.
Civilization refined itself over the course of 10,000 years. It evolved into something great, gradually caused living conditions and the quality of life for people to become better and better, as well as ever more widely available, until civilization reached the apex from which it is now beginning to depart.
The deliberate abrogation of the family and the legalization of sexual freedom (modern feminists, Marx and Engels, and their disciples called it “free love”) brought about the decline of the order that had made civilization great. That causes the decline of the symbiosis of all things that constitute civilization.
Attempts will be made to start over. The degree of success with those will determine the length and severity of the dark age during which those attempts will be made until civilization will once more begin the thrive.
All of that happened many times through history, to greater and lesser extents. It happened to nations, dynasties, empires and civilizations that often knew little or nothing of one another in time and space.
»As we pass through life, we learn by experience. We look back on our behaviour when we were young and think how foolish we were. In the same way our family, our community and our town endeavour to avoid the mistakes made by our predecessors.
The experiences of the human race have been recorded, in more or less detail, for some four thousand years. If we attempt to study such a period of time in as many countries as possible, we seem to discover the same patterns constantly repeated under widely differing conditions of climate, culture and religion. Surely, we ask ourselves, if we studied calmly and impartially the history of human institutions and development over these four thousand years, should we not reach conclusions which would assist to solve our problems today? For everything that is occurring around us has happened again and again before….«
— Sir John Glubb, ‘THE FATE OF EMPIRES and SEARCH FOR SURVIVAL’; http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
»It seems that certain things in this world simply cannot be discovered without extensive experience, be it personal or collective. This applies to the present book with its fresh and revealing perspective on the millennia-old trends of socialism. While it makes use of a voluminous literature familiar to specialists throughout the world, there is an undeniable logic in the fact that it emerged from the country that has undergone (and is undergoing) the harshest and most prolonged socialist experience in modern history. Nor is it at all incongruous that within that country this book should not have been produced by a humanist, for scholars in the humanities have been the most methodically crushed of all social strata in the Soviet Union ever since the October Revolution. It was written by a mathematician of world renown: in the Communist world, practitioners of the exact sciences must stand in for their annihilated brethren….«
— Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, in the foreword to ‘The Socialist Phenomenon’ (1975) by Igor Shafarevich;
Much of what has been presented in ‘The Socialist Phenomenon’ is relevant to discussions that relate to the deregulation of human sexuality (via the legalization of sexual freedom) and to the abolition of the family (the legalization of adultery, separation, and divorce). Take for example what the book states in these pages:
VI. The Contours of Socialism 194
The consequences of the abolition of the family and the subsequent decline of social order during the early years of the USSR are described in this:
The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage
“Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in the consumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka”
A WOMAN RESIDENT IN RUSSIA; JULY 1926 ISSUE; GLOBAL
One more example, covering a greater span of time:
Dynastic Cycle in China
1. A new ruler unites China, founds a new dynasty, and gains the Mandate of Heaven.
2. China, under the new dynasty, achieves prosperity.
3. The population increases.
4. Corruption becomes rampant in the imperial court, and the empire begins to enter decline and instability.
5. A natural disaster wipes out farm land. The disaster normally would not have been a problem; however, together with the Corruption and overpopulation, it causes famine.
6. The famine causes the population to rebel and a civil war ensues.
7. The ruler loses the Mandate of Heaven.
8. The population decreases because of the violence.
9. China goes through a warring states period.
10. One state emerges victorious.
11. The state starts a new empire.
12. The empire gains the Mandate of Heaven.
(The cycle repeats itself.)
The Mandate of Heaven was the idea that the Emperor was favored by Heaven to rule over China. The Mandate of Heaven explanation was championed by the Chinese philosopher Mencius during the Warring States period.
It has 3 main phases:
1. The beginning of the dynasty.
2. The middle of the dynasty’s life and is the peak of the dynasty.
3. The decline of the dynasty, both politically and economically, until it finally collapses.
Source: ‘Dynastic cycle’
See also ‘Mandate of Heaven’
More on ‘Dynasties in Chinese history’
The concept of the Mandate of Heaven is not quite the same as the concept of the Devine Right of Kings that many members of royalty assumed to rationalize that they were entitled to absolute power. The Mandate of Heaven included not only the imposition that rulers had to earn the mandate, but also the understanding that the people had the right to rebel against rulers who failed to make the efforts required to earn or to keep it. One could say that it was a democracy backed up by the people, swords and other weapons (people’s duty to rebel when necessary), whereby frequent elections were not necessary.
It was not until quite late in the history of the Occident that someone explained that the divine right of kings entailed not merely absolute power of rulers but had to include obligations to serve and to help the people who were being ruled.
We are all familiar with Lord Acton’s statement about how “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” but it is important to consider the context in which he expressed it in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 1887:
»I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.«
— Dalberg-Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston: The Becon Press, p. 364
More: ‘Migration of political power from the family to the state’
It is obvious that it will take much more time before it will be generally known and become universally accepted that no well-functioning civilization will remain well-functioning if it decides that the heterosexual family must be abrogated or normalized down to a less constructive and beneficial common denominator, namely to equate it to any and all forms of sought-after living arrangements that can be established and dissolved at the drop of a hat.
In a nutshell:
»The “family” in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after. It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communities—such as tribes, villages, peoples, and nations—grow.«
—Allan Carlson, ‘What’s Wrong With the United Nations Definition of ‘Family’?’, in ‘The Family in America’ (August 1994), p. 3
Walter H. Schneider, Fathers for Life
Bruderheim, 2017 12 11