in “Kinship and marriage among the Visigoths,” giorgio ausenda writes [pgs. 147-48]:
“Langobardic [Lombardian] laws concerning forbidden marriages also became stricter over time. Liutprand 33 [8th century] forbade marriage with the widow of a cousin, but no further prohibitions were reflected in the laws. We know, however, that more extended prohibitions were made compulsory by the Church….
“This shows that both Church and State were interested in forbidding close kin marriages. Their common concern becomes clear when one bears in mind the recognized difficulty the Church had, from the fourth century onwards, in expanding into the countryside….
“In conclusion, the strenuous effort [by the Church] to penetrate the countryside entailed a long-drawn battle against traditional religion, whose vehicle was the kin group, and substituting the authority of the elders of the kin group with that of a religious elder, the presbyteros. At the same time the king’s rule was undermined by revolts on the part of the most powerful kin groups, clans or sections, whose conspiracies and murders menaced the power of the state. Thus Church and State became allies in trying to do aways with the political power of extended kin groups utilizing all manners of impositions. One of the most effective among them was to destroy their cohesiveness by prohibition of close kin marriage.“
so, it was not just the early medieval church that wanted to reduce the cohesiveness of clans and tribes, it was also very much the political powers-that-be of the day. kings and princes wanted to reduce the power of these extended-family groups because that would enable the transfer of more power to themselves. divide and conquer.
that was then. this is now:
(you don’t really have to read any of those. you know the sort of things they have to say.)
tptb today also want to grab as much power for themselves, but there aren’t any clans or tribes left to dismantle (at least not in the west). so, how to divide the population? well, one way is via mass immigration, which they’re obviously doing as i type. the other is to divide the family even further, even though it seems like that shouldn’t be possible. i mean, what the h*ck is smaller than the nuclear family? well, i guess single-parent families….
the character of europe was radically altered by the changes in mating patterns in medieval europe — which were imposed from outside by both the church and the state. we, living today, might say that those changes were for the better, but the members of the clans and tribes that disappeared wouldn’t say that. they would probably say that their extended families were destroyed — just as families are being destroyed today.
i’m very socially liberal by nature (live and let live, say i) and not religious at all, so i don’t find it immoral if people have children out of wedlock, nor do i think that gay marriage is morally wrong. i really don’t care what people do in their own home (altho i am kinda sick and tired of all-gay-all-the-time wherever i turn — can’t you just be gay and quiet about it for a change?). but i do care about the breakdown of western society, prolly mostly just because i have a conservative personality, but also ’cause i think that western civilization has been pretty darn wonderful, so why fix what’s not broken? i mean, what are we going to wind up with if we do away with the stable family entirely: african family structures and, therefore, african-like societies and ideologies?
i’m against too much welfare for single-moms and no-fault divorces and gay marriage not because of any moral revulsion i have about these things. i’m against them because i think they’re being used by the elite as weapons against the ordinary folk and the ordinary family. they’re changes in mating patterns being imposed, largely, from outside with the intent of breaking down family bonds.
divide et impera. sub sole nihil novi est.
(note: comments do not require an email. or a knowledge of latin.)