Sunday, February 15, 2015

The Utility of Chattel Marriage & Gay Schools

Pleasantry as Censorship

What a lovely trap evil sets for the foolish! England recently blocked "humanist weddings," proving that, despite the affectations and slightly reduced volume of its celebrities, it really is just as dumb a place as Australia and the U.S. (As the sarcastic say at such moments, what a coincidence.)

After the gay marriage distraction, we must all now be familiar with how marriage is really chattel slavery, where men own women in order to ensure social order and genetic security. Except that now it's not, because people keep wanting to have "marriages" which mean something other than a property transaction between the males of one family and the males of another. So marriage morphed from slavery into love, or into financial security, or into convenience, or into "ability to put you on my health plan," or "a social affirmation of our relationship," etc. And everyone likes the excuse to sell things to idiots, so business has always been behind the idea of weddings and divorces.

Leveling the playing field would mean eliminating marriage from State involvement, and making it wholly a private affair. Naturally, no one listens to those who want that. But when gays, or any other group, begin(s) advocating for the right to have ten-thousand-dollar weddings with cakes and decorators and deejays and invitations and ballroom rentals, all of a sudden, it's a national issue. And it wins. Marriage continues to evolve, becoming a ritual based on social affirmation of a two-person relationship. Similarly, when people want to leave school curricula alone, they're cast as morons, while those who want to spend millions of dollars buying and disseminating "tolerance" software, posters, books, and assemblies find easy support from Big Money.

The trap that lies in wait for those who change the meanings of words is a dire one. Once, it was obvious that marriage was chattel slavery, and that school was youth prison, designed to prepare people for State subservience and job performance. In both institutions, beatings were expected and permitted, and the institution rested on a foundation of formal bigotry and rightlessness. As time goes by, people--often very well-meaning people--would see these institutions, and think, "Oh, we can make this better! Let's change 'school' to mean 'place of acceptance and learning,' and let's change 'marriage' to be about 'love.'"

This is the province of those such as Jane Austen, who lament that marriage has to be about having your father sell you to the most prominent man you can attract, and should instead be about having your father grant you discretion to choose one whom you love. Sure, that's an improvement, of sorts--but when the quest is completed, the children of the next generation will no longer have the ability to discriminate between chattel slavery and freedom. By changing the definition of marriage, rather than by coming up with a new term by which to describe "love-based life-bonding," the history of marriage is scrubbed from the collective consciousness.

It is possible to do historical research and discover that once, marriage meant something other than what it means now. Yet revelations of chattel marriage were such a shock to the generations who considered the "gay marriage debate" because they had, before then, forgotten what marriage really was. They'd been led to believe it was a love-based, somewhat child-based social ritual, involving government paperwork and changes in tax status, and the majority were genuinely shocked to discover that marriage was conceived of as rather the same as African-American slavery, rule of thumb included.

Regarding public schools, the horrible term "school," akin to marriage, was (used as a noun, in contrast to the "schooling" of elites, who tended to get one-on-one or small-group attention) developed as referring to a place where masses of children were extracted from their parents, beaten into place, and instructed in how to sever ties to their family and wed, instead, their employers, and the governments to whom those employers were wedded. Nearly no one remembers that or cares, now, because, like the definition of marriage, the definition of school has been subtly changed over the years, to mean, "Place where children are respected and cared for, and treated to free self-affirming learning."

Accordingly, the horrors of the past have been glossed over. The callous, selfish disregard that we and our predecessors have shown so many former generations of "wives" and "students," by transmogrifying the terminology denoting their beaten, enslaved positions into our own preferred versions of amicable interpersonality, are horrifying, both in scope and in scale. We have denied them their identity; we have turned a blind eye to their suffering, and co-opted their selves by replacing them with versions of history that suit our preferences, rather than their truths. Students who froze to death in impoverished country huts; students who were sodomized by roaming headmaster-perverts, then dropped into the bogs and marked as truants; wives who went to the noose for fleeing a pudgy, impotent nobleman in the arms of a dashing rogue. It is as discriminatory an act from which any politically-correct social justice warrior could have possibly recoiled. And we do it loudly, proudly, telling ourselves all the while that, by "improving the meaning" of a word, we're making things better for everyone.

Marriage, like school, should be made to stand for what it was conceived as: formal slavery. Let those who want marriage to be about love and children and man and woman, rather than property and children and man and woman, come up with their own word. Similarly, let those who want marriage to be about financial prudence and adult and adult, come up with their own word. In time, the better arrangements will reveal themselves: "marriage" would be shown to be wretched, and no one would choose it, while plenty of people would choose the "man/woman/child/love" arrangement, and plenty of others would choose the "social acceptance and man and man" version.

For the so-called conservatives who believe in "man/woman/child/love" arrangement, the sad news is that you are little different in expressing patterns of revisionism from the LGBTs who now want the State to sanction two-"mother" child adoptions. You can argue that your system is better, if you want, but it's just as improper to call your man/woman/love ritual "marriage" as it is for two dudes to call their own social affirmation "marriage." Lizzie and Mr. Darcy, in pursuing a love-based relationship, would have been nearly as radical as gays at the courthouse now, for they flung tradition on its back and argued instead for their right to choose based on loins and hearts, instead of class and coin.

(Actually, let's burst another bubble while we're at it, and remind everyone that Lizzie chose Mr. Darcy because of Pemberley, through which she found her more conservative version of "love." Jane Austen was actually countering the growing romantic-love-based argument of the time, by supplanting for it a more traditional "love"--e.g., the warm feeling a woman gets when she realizes the guy who wants her is, like, totally loaded. Nonetheless, the example stands: if you took the naive and wishful view of P&P, the metaphor suffices within such constraint.)

Those To Come

The Memory Hole concept serves here. When we change the definitions of words, even if what we're doing actually makes them "nicer" or "more inclusive," we cripple our ability to critique the older word. In the case of "marriage," by changing the term "marriage" to mean an all-inclusive social ritual based on love and acceptance (in theory), we define marriage, to later generations, as an inclusive social ritual about happiness and good feelings. It's theoretically possible for later generations to investigate history and learn the truth, but even the tiny percentage of them who do such a thing will encounter great difficulty presenting their findings to others--worse still, even those who do the research will be unable to shake their instinctive reaction to the term as positive, despite what they may learn about its history. A scholar who spent years growing up believing that "marriage" was about "two people who love each other having a celebration and being in love forever" will never be able to eliminate that incorrect definition from her/his linguistic palate, even if s/he later comes to understand that the new version of the word is really only perfume sprayed on shit.

Moreover, elite record-scrubbing makes it increasingly difficult to do such research in the first place. The future may hold times where not only the present and future definitions of words are censored, but also the past. All e-books and historical archives could be cleaned up, to make the history of the human ritual of marriage appear to be just as positive as we want the present to be. All censorship is a clear attempt to rewrite the present and the future, but less-often recognized is that successful censorship deletes, also, the past.

The weakness in all censorship lies in its inability to justify itself. The act of censoring removes the justification for censoring. What was so objectionable about marriage that it was changed, anyway? After not too long, few remember. A bit farther down the timeline, it's irrelevant trivia. Flat ultimatums backed up by police power can cause people to behave in conformity with the whims of censors, but like all formal acts of censorship, the necessity of blocking knowledge transfers causes people to question the truth of the censor's motives--and, therefore, sows the seeds of its own destruction, like so many intestinal blockages.

Any censor proves himself wrong through the act of censorship, except to the fools dim enough to be themselves afraid of discussion. And even those fools, in the privacy of their minds, may begin to question the reasons why the censor is so afraid. If the censor is afraid of discussion, s/he is necessarily powerless to win the discussion. It's an entirely predictable conclusion, which is why some censorship is undertaken: specifically to cast doubt on the obvious. That's why European elites so assiduously punish "Holocaust denial"--because the more cowardly a front they present as to the relevant historiography, the more they encourage their populations to question the concentration camps operated by all major powers during the Great War, in ultimate service to other such wars of extermination. By cultivating an eerie mystique of pigheaded non-comment, Holocaust censors encourage people to believe, in the privacy of their own minds, that the killings might not have taken place. All of the darker, poorer gypsies, communists, trade unionists, and swarthier Jews who did die in the camps are largely forgotten, and white nationalist anger is stoked to the point of readiness for a new race war--whose hammer will, yet again, fall most heavily on Romani, darker-skinned Jews, and the politically unwanted. In the meantime, of course, the whitest of peoples will manage to escape through their own racist nationalism, having consigned to the killing fields those who can't afford to shop countries and claim backgrounds. Indeed, the twentieth century's hypocritical wave of WW2-related censorship can be most accurately seen as guaranteeing a nationalistic backlash, and new world wars. Never let it be said the elites lack foresight.

The Failure of the Gay Commune

The censorship of language itself, through the derivation of "more inclusive" versions of words replacing less inclusive (i.e., genuine) versions, will backfire similarly on those who are now celebrating the mysterious suddenness with which elites have embraced their cause (note to white people: whenever the rich spend decades repressing you, then suddenly get on your side, be very &$%#@$ suspicious). Reinventing the term "marriage" will prevent future people like you from realizing from what it was you freed them. Moreover, it will make your version of marriage seem to be a censorship of the old one, causing future generations to assume that, because the definition was censored, there must've been profound meaning in actual marriage, or marriage-as-chattel-slavery.

Ergo when some kind of happy, inclusive LGBT commune of the future tries to teach its tubespawned young about the horrors of "marriage of old," their message will fail to reach those young people. Accustomed in their every social interaction to conceptualizing of the world, and of marriage, as about "happiness and love for two consenting adult partners," those later generations will be unable to fully process what chattel slavery really meant. The cries of thousands of honor-killed women will be unable to reach their ears. That's a profanity in its own right; more troublesome for the future of those ignorant people is that they will have lost the ability to use the word "marriage" to describe a dehumanizing property contract between men who wanted to transfer pussy for purposes of exclusive breeding.

A suitable example to the "evolution" of the term "marriage" might be to discuss what it would mean to, say, African-American slaves, were businesses of the future to "evolve" the term "slavery" to mean, "employment by consent of the laborer and the manager." Centuries later, slaves go to their cubicles and work, right? Now, does using the term "slave" in that way disrespect those who were actually slaves? Yes, just as revamping the meaning of "marriage" disrespects those who were actually wives. By the same token, changing the meaning of "slave" so that it encompasses "employee" makes it gradually more difficult, then eventually nigh-impossible, for future "slaves" (employees) to understand what "slavery" actually means. This disempowerment makes it more likely that actual slavery--the chattel ownership of a person--might return, just as the disempowerment of modern "spouses" makes it more likely that actual marriage might return someday.

If you were unable to grasp the chilling aspect of redefining "marriage" into a happy-happy kumbaya version of itself to include, say, gays, then considering it in the context of the word "slavery" may help you. Gays who advocate for changing the definition of "marriage" to include their own preferred relationships are destroying the very historical record that gives evidence of what they went through previously. Future gays, possessing only the Newspeak version of marriage, will be powerless to completely describe their history, just as future slave-slaves would be unable to explain what makes them different from employee-slaves, lacking the very terminology of communication--the word slave used correctly--by which they might accurately portray their experiences to other human beings.


We can see the same process occurring right now with regards western schools, especially ones in the U.S. During much of the twentieth century, schools were improved and modernized, yet they were still called "schools." As gay-marriage advocates now do with the term "marriage," educators and administrators continue calling schools "schools," even after corporal punishment had been prevented, and sexual and racial integration achieved, and teachers subjected to direct administrative oversight, and school boards established to monitor administrators, and internal gangs of violent youths controlled, to some extent, by security personnel.

With what result, these theoretically positive changes, occurring hand-in-hand with shifting the definition of "school" to include them? Well, the term "school" no longer evokes chills in families. Instead of representing child theft, indoctrination, molestation, and brutal beatings, "school" has been perverted into a benign term. School is now commonly thought of, and portrayed as, a happy, harmless place. And for many children, it no doubt is.

Yet in the U.S., we now see the desired end result of perverting the term: the cycle is allowed to perpetuate. Now that people have let down their guard about "schools," schools have been able to revert back to their old roles. Schools are increasingly built like prisons, with spiked outer walls, spartan grounds under the observation of security staff with headsets, metal detectors, lack of constitutional rights, a roving crew of guards (truant officers) who sweep the streets for potential revenue-generators, and the return of an in-school State presence with the unpunished power to grope and beat children at will. Not only educational administrators, but prison guards and police officers are brought into schools, where children are taught to revere State ideals, avoid questioning sacred subjects, memorize common trivia, and obey, obey, obey.

Where once, people could have warned each other about these things by lowering their voices, and saying, "He's been sent to school," that power is now absent, because "school" has lost its pejorative sense. A few decades of relatively benign indoctrination, fewer beatings, and more inclusiveness, has allowed "school" to become a trap that ensnared far more victims than it originally did.

So too with "employee" and "slave," where the act of being a paid laborer is now so normalized that people think of a "career" as "being in thrall to the whims of distant corporate managers, living from paycheck to paycheck without any direct recompense for the specific quality of my work output, but instead, remuneration for the time I put in." People who would've once balked at going to "school" or being an "employee" will now happily subject themselves to those fates, just as women who would've once shuddered at the thought of being "wives" are now delighted to "marry" their female partners. The manipulative power of censorship to scrub history clean--to steal from us the horrors we've suffered in ages past--should not be underestimated. Nor should it be assisted willingly by those it would entrap. If you have a new idea, do what people used to do, and give it a word.

No comments:

Post a Comment