IDK-from another view, the feudal state was a codified "total" family state in which everything was inherited and passed on via marriages that were primarily political maneuvring to benfit the extended family over generations. Romantic love was a phantasy of "Camelot" or "Tristan and Isolde". It also figures in the TV series about the Templar Knight 'Arn" and "Romeo and Juliet", but always as an anomaly.
Duty to the family is the first obligation from which everything comes to every individual : wealth, profession, labor, political power. Names reflected it :Otto von ("of") the Bismarck family. John of Coventry: a commoner of an area of likely several known families by which the exact status of our "John" is expressed: Russian patronyms ae still used and iRussia has always been the conservative of western nations, even under Soviet rule, which put a Red face on many Tsarist institutions.
The Church was the one instituion offering some "social mobility" and "meritocracy"., particularly academic.
The secular world was dangerous but, win or lose, an aristocrat never lost his title and lower classes obeyed. Rich or poor, a peasant was still at the bottom and obeyed everyone else. The apprentice learned his trade from a master who set prices : not th e"free market".The royal family was always the "Frist Family" and marrying into it wasn't easy but conveyed great power.
Today, this is nepotism : a dirty word.
When the family shouldered the responsibilities and powers of the state, it was inviolate. When it became subsidiary, it dwindled into "civil unions".
Maybe, we could say, that th feudal state was a totalitarian family state?
And the Totalitarian States of the 20th Century were, comparatively, liberal, progressive states which, while honoring the family, gave it no power hence did not arrest its decline, although it did block its deliberate destruction by the Communists of the day?
To help people follow along I've listed what I detect is the logical argumentation throughout. But since this is an excerpt from a book I don't have this is limited. I recommend getting the book in order to follow more lines of reasoning.
Argument 1:
- π 1: Most marriage, especially among Western Europeans is based primarily on love and individual desires
- π 2: This leads to unstable families and low birth rates.
- π 3: Western societies prioritize marriage based on love over lineage, duty and stability.
- π: The prioritization of marriage based on love in Western societies has led to unstable families and low birth rates.
Argument 2:
- π 1: A stable society requires recognition of fundamental differences between men and women's roles
- π 2: Contemporary ideology promotes equivalence of men and women's roles
- π 2: Men in particular are undermined.
- π: Contemporary ideology is undermining stable society by failing to recognize differences in men and women's roles.
Argument 3:
- π 1: Excessive individualism and egalitarianism have led to a decline in enduring heterosexual families
- π 2: Excessive individualism and egalitarianism are consequences of Christianity's emphasis on love
- π: Christianity's emphasis on love paradoxically contributed to the decline of stable heterosexual families.
Argument 4:
- π 1: An overly refined sexuality focused on individual sensuality is incompatible with large families
- π 2: Western societies promote an overly refined sexuality focused on individual sensuality
- π: The promotion of individual sensuality in Western societies undermines their ability to have large families.
(Also, π 2 leads to the sexual revolution which snowballs the problem)
Argument 5:
- π 1: The ideology of obligatory love for others functions as a soft form of totalitarianism
- π 2: This ideology monopolizes public discourse and access to media/education
- π: The ideology of love for others operates as a totalitarian system in Western societies.
And notice how excessive individualism has lead to this obligatory love for others and especially other groups in spite of the self or oneβs in-group.
Argument 6:
- π 1: The ideology of love for others promotes race-mixing, immigration, and attacks on national identity
- π 2: The purpose of this ideology is the destruction of European peoples and cultures
- π: The promotion of race-mixing, immigration and attacks on identity by the ideology of love for others aims to destroy European peoples and cultures.
Argument 7:
- π 1: Sexual austerity seems to be necessary for stable couples with many children in Western societies
- π 2: Western societies have moved away from sexual austerity through promotion of concepts like free love
- π: The lack of promotion of sexual austerity in Western societies undermines their ability to have stable couples with many children.
Also not how this manifests in western women having a high βbody countβ and how this impacts her ability to pair bond with a long-term partner.
Argument 8:
- π 1: Marriage that lowers itself to the level of a civil union rather than an institution for lineage and duty undermines family stability
- π 2: Western marriage has been lowered to the level of a civil union focused on love and individualism
- π: The lowering of marriage to a civil union focused on love and individualism in Western societies has undermined family stability.
You could add here a 3rd premise that no-fault divorces, at least here in the United States in particular, would also add to this conclusion.
Argument 9:
- π 1: A society cannot reproduce itself long-term if there is a confusion between male and female roles
- π 2: The current prevailing ideology promotes a confusion of gender roles
- π: By promoting a confusion of gender roles, the current prevailing ideology undermines a society's ability to reproduce itself long-term.
Argument 10:
- π 1: The stable, fertile couple presupposes a radical differentiation between the genders
- π 2: The current prevailing ideology rejects a radical differentiation between the genders
- π: By rejecting a radical differentiation between the genders, the current prevailing ideology undermines the stable, fertile couple.
Argument 11:
- π 1: Christianity's emphasis on love and charity paradoxically led to excessive individualism
- π 2: Excessive individualism has undermined stable families
- π: Christianity's emphasis on love and charity indirectly contributed to undermining stable families.
Argument 12:
- π 1: Marriage based primarily on love rather than lineage/duty stems from a Christian conception of marriage
- π 2: Marriage based primarily on love rather than lineage/duty has undermined stable families
- π: The Christian conception of marriage as based on love rather than lineage/duty has undermined stable families.
Argument 13:
- π 1: Christianity introduced a confusion of conjugality, sex and love into marriage
- π 2: This confusion of conjugality, sex and love into marriage has undermined stable families
- π: Christianity's introduction of a confusion of conjugality, sex and love into marriage has indirectly undermined stable families.
Argument 14:
- π 1: A stable society requires people to prioritize duties to their family and nation over individual wants
- π 2: Christianity's emphasis on love, charity and individual salvation undermined the priority of family and national duty
- π: By shifting priorities away from family and national duty, Christianity indirectly undermined social stability.
The overall argument of the article according to my understanding of it:
- Major π: For a society to be stable and able to reproduce itself long-term, it requires stable family units, a clear differentiation of gender roles, priority placed on family/national duty over individualism, and the ability to maintain its ethnic/cultural identity.
- π 1: Christianity's emphasis on love, charity and individual salvation promoted excessive individualism.
- π 2: This excessive individualism led to the prioritization of marriage based on love over stability and duty.
- π 3: Marriage based primarily on love results in unstable families and low birth rates.
- π 4: Contemporary ideology further promotes gender role confusion, individualism and attacks on ethnic/cultural identity.
- π 5: This contemporary ideology operates as a soft totalitarian system that monopolizes discourse.
- Major π: By indirectly and directly promoting factors like individualism, gender confusion and attacks on identity, Christianity and the contemporary ideology that developed from it have undermined the stability and long-term reproduction of Western societies.
IDK-from another view, the feudal state was a codified "total" family state in which everything was inherited and passed on via marriages that were primarily political maneuvring to benfit the extended family over generations. Romantic love was a phantasy of "Camelot" or "Tristan and Isolde". It also figures in the TV series about the Templar Knight 'Arn" and "Romeo and Juliet", but always as an anomaly.
Duty to the family is the first obligation from which everything comes to every individual : wealth, profession, labor, political power. Names reflected it :Otto von ("of") the Bismarck family. John of Coventry: a commoner of an area of likely several known families by which the exact status of our "John" is expressed: Russian patronyms ae still used and iRussia has always been the conservative of western nations, even under Soviet rule, which put a Red face on many Tsarist institutions.
The Church was the one instituion offering some "social mobility" and "meritocracy"., particularly academic.
The secular world was dangerous but, win or lose, an aristocrat never lost his title and lower classes obeyed. Rich or poor, a peasant was still at the bottom and obeyed everyone else. The apprentice learned his trade from a master who set prices : not th e"free market".The royal family was always the "Frist Family" and marrying into it wasn't easy but conveyed great power.
Today, this is nepotism : a dirty word.
When the family shouldered the responsibilities and powers of the state, it was inviolate. When it became subsidiary, it dwindled into "civil unions".
Maybe, we could say, that th feudal state was a totalitarian family state?
And the Totalitarian States of the 20th Century were, comparatively, liberal, progressive states which, while honoring the family, gave it no power hence did not arrest its decline, although it did block its deliberate destruction by the Communists of the day?
To help people follow along I've listed what I detect is the logical argumentation throughout. But since this is an excerpt from a book I don't have this is limited. I recommend getting the book in order to follow more lines of reasoning.
Argument 1:
- π 1: Most marriage, especially among Western Europeans is based primarily on love and individual desires
- π 2: This leads to unstable families and low birth rates.
- π 3: Western societies prioritize marriage based on love over lineage, duty and stability.
- π: The prioritization of marriage based on love in Western societies has led to unstable families and low birth rates.
Argument 2:
- π 1: A stable society requires recognition of fundamental differences between men and women's roles
- π 2: Contemporary ideology promotes equivalence of men and women's roles
- π 2: Men in particular are undermined.
- π: Contemporary ideology is undermining stable society by failing to recognize differences in men and women's roles.
Argument 3:
- π 1: Excessive individualism and egalitarianism have led to a decline in enduring heterosexual families
- π 2: Excessive individualism and egalitarianism are consequences of Christianity's emphasis on love
- π: Christianity's emphasis on love paradoxically contributed to the decline of stable heterosexual families.
Argument 4:
- π 1: An overly refined sexuality focused on individual sensuality is incompatible with large families
- π 2: Western societies promote an overly refined sexuality focused on individual sensuality
- π: The promotion of individual sensuality in Western societies undermines their ability to have large families.
(Also, π 2 leads to the sexual revolution which snowballs the problem)
Argument 5:
- π 1: The ideology of obligatory love for others functions as a soft form of totalitarianism
- π 2: This ideology monopolizes public discourse and access to media/education
- π: The ideology of love for others operates as a totalitarian system in Western societies.
And notice how excessive individualism has lead to this obligatory love for others and especially other groups in spite of the self or oneβs in-group.
Argument 6:
- π 1: The ideology of love for others promotes race-mixing, immigration, and attacks on national identity
- π 2: The purpose of this ideology is the destruction of European peoples and cultures
- π: The promotion of race-mixing, immigration and attacks on identity by the ideology of love for others aims to destroy European peoples and cultures.
Argument 7:
- π 1: Sexual austerity seems to be necessary for stable couples with many children in Western societies
- π 2: Western societies have moved away from sexual austerity through promotion of concepts like free love
- π: The lack of promotion of sexual austerity in Western societies undermines their ability to have stable couples with many children.
Also not how this manifests in western women having a high βbody countβ and how this impacts her ability to pair bond with a long-term partner.
Argument 8:
- π 1: Marriage that lowers itself to the level of a civil union rather than an institution for lineage and duty undermines family stability
- π 2: Western marriage has been lowered to the level of a civil union focused on love and individualism
- π: The lowering of marriage to a civil union focused on love and individualism in Western societies has undermined family stability.
You could add here a 3rd premise that no-fault divorces, at least here in the United States in particular, would also add to this conclusion.
Argument 9:
- π 1: A society cannot reproduce itself long-term if there is a confusion between male and female roles
- π 2: The current prevailing ideology promotes a confusion of gender roles
- π: By promoting a confusion of gender roles, the current prevailing ideology undermines a society's ability to reproduce itself long-term.
Argument 10:
- π 1: The stable, fertile couple presupposes a radical differentiation between the genders
- π 2: The current prevailing ideology rejects a radical differentiation between the genders
- π: By rejecting a radical differentiation between the genders, the current prevailing ideology undermines the stable, fertile couple.
Argument 11:
- π 1: Christianity's emphasis on love and charity paradoxically led to excessive individualism
- π 2: Excessive individualism has undermined stable families
- π: Christianity's emphasis on love and charity indirectly contributed to undermining stable families.
Argument 12:
- π 1: Marriage based primarily on love rather than lineage/duty stems from a Christian conception of marriage
- π 2: Marriage based primarily on love rather than lineage/duty has undermined stable families
- π: The Christian conception of marriage as based on love rather than lineage/duty has undermined stable families.
Argument 13:
- π 1: Christianity introduced a confusion of conjugality, sex and love into marriage
- π 2: This confusion of conjugality, sex and love into marriage has undermined stable families
- π: Christianity's introduction of a confusion of conjugality, sex and love into marriage has indirectly undermined stable families.
Argument 14:
- π 1: A stable society requires people to prioritize duties to their family and nation over individual wants
- π 2: Christianity's emphasis on love, charity and individual salvation undermined the priority of family and national duty
- π: By shifting priorities away from family and national duty, Christianity indirectly undermined social stability.
The overall argument of the article according to my understanding of it:
- Major π: For a society to be stable and able to reproduce itself long-term, it requires stable family units, a clear differentiation of gender roles, priority placed on family/national duty over individualism, and the ability to maintain its ethnic/cultural identity.
- π 1: Christianity's emphasis on love, charity and individual salvation promoted excessive individualism.
- π 2: This excessive individualism led to the prioritization of marriage based on love over stability and duty.
- π 3: Marriage based primarily on love results in unstable families and low birth rates.
- π 4: Contemporary ideology further promotes gender role confusion, individualism and attacks on ethnic/cultural identity.
- π 5: This contemporary ideology operates as a soft totalitarian system that monopolizes discourse.
- Major π: By indirectly and directly promoting factors like individualism, gender confusion and attacks on identity, Christianity and the contemporary ideology that developed from it have undermined the stability and long-term reproduction of Western societies.