divide et impera

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:

How Become a Good Single Parent
Equality for all parents, straight or gay
Accept gay marriage

(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.)

Advertisements

11 Comments

  1. The American poet Joel Barlow (in “Letter to the National Convention of France”) once wrote that, to ensure equality: “Every individual ought to be rendered as independent of every other individual as possible; and at the same time as dependent as possible on the whole community,” and this seems to sum up the liberal program fairly well.

    But to play devil’s advocate for a minute, what if the liberals are right? What if continuing on this line will lead not to Africanization, but that global “Parliament of Man” everybody was so looking forward to? Should we just say “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good?”

    Reply

  2. “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.”

    This explanation is too inclusive – surely it would apply to all governments everywhere? Surely all central governments would (from self interest, in a sense) *want* to destroy local power – but mostly they didn’t – perhaps because they couldn’t for some reason (e.g. govt too weak, tribes too strong), or had some other more compelling reason to leave local power/ tribes intact.

    *

    Re: you own basic stance – libertarian. You can’t have it, I’m afraid.

    The combination of socially liberal and culturally/ economically conservative has never and will never exist except on paper and in people’s heads – it is a theoretical pick and mix, bits of right and bits of left and nothing to hold it together but personal preference – a bit like trying to make the perfect movie by randomly sequencing one person’s favourite scenes from several other movies.

    Libertarianism is a kind of secular hedonism – which (in effect) discards the egalitarian morality of PC in order (it hopes) to achieve (or be able to choose) greater levels of pleasure. (Most libertarians start out as straightforward Leftists – then abandon some aspects of Leftism in order to enhance others). But it is an individualistic and selfish view, so that libertarians are just a line drawn around a bunch of people who want to be left alone and given pleasurable choices.

    Libertarians can be defeated by *any* combination of people with *any* morality – or any hatred or indeed anything at all capable of unifying people.

    Furthermore, libertarianism is not positively admirable. ‘Leave me alone to do my own stuff, and I will do the same for you’ is not admirable – there is no heroism about it, nobody would want to rely on a person who lived by that creed.

    You will go one way or the other: PC or reaction.

    That is the choice (and PC is only a choice until it destroys the basis for its own existence).

    Anything else is avoiding the issue, is wishful thinking.

    Reply

  3. PC is the only choice??? Good grief, Charley Brown!

    Is it not evident that PC is intellectually vacuous and deceitful and morally corrupt? Our PC fellow Americans are actively promoting racism and race hatred in the guise of multiculturalism. And they are actively working to suppress freedom of speech, press and religion. In 2008 and 2010, we endured the most violent general elections since the Civil War, and every instance of violence, every single one, was committed by our PC brethren.

    PC is merely a tool of socialism. And socialism in all its forms is authoritarian and violent. The Red Flag symbolizes blood and fire and it is no accident that the flag of the Nazis and the Communists is red. Socialism (PC) justifies violence, glorifies violence and incites violence.

    PC is the only choice. Indeed. G-d help us all.

    Reply

  4. @fredr – “What if continuing on this line will lead not to Africanization, but that global ‘Parliament of Man’ everybody was so looking forward to?”

    well, it might do! it might do. i don’t discount that.

    there’s just two things (or, maybe, three).

    1a) i’m kinda attached to my own, extended kin-group(s) — my ethnic group and, more broadly, my race — so, emotionally, i don’t want them to disappear. 1b) i’m also kinda attached to western civilization, but that might just be a reflection of 1a — at least it’s connected to it.

    2) to get a global ‘parliament of man’ would require an evenly distributed outbreeding/cross-breeding across all the populations. everyone would have to be more-or-less equally related to one another. i don’t see how that’s practical with a global population of 6.whatever billion people and rising. it just won’t work.

    but, i do agree that as much outbreeding as possible between one or more populations ought to create more altruistic sentiments across the new group. i think it should work that way anyway.

    Reply

  5. @bruce – “This explanation is too inclusive – surely it would apply to all governments everywhere?”

    well, i didn’t actually think so, but maybe i should’ve said so in my post.

    what’s characteristic about the medieval europe situation and our situation today in the west is that tptb are people who are trying to usurp power from others. the kings & princes of the middle ages were trying to take away power from the clans & tribes; nowadays our so-called elite is trying to take away power from the general populace.

    there are other ways to have power, though. mohammed and (later) his clan’s tactic was to unite all the various tribes — with themselves on top, of course — but they didn’t try to gain power by eliminating the other tribes. they weakened the other tribes by making them kinda-sorta submissive to allah. but, as anyone can see, that’s not a perfect system because the sheer existence of the tribes guarantees trouble at some other point down the road.

    Reply

  6. FredR

    “But to play devil’s advocate for a minute, what if the liberals are right? What if continuing on this line will lead not to Africanization”

    It is leading to Africanization though. Every inner-city in the western world is in a process of reverse evolution. The liberal media either want western civilization destroyed or they have their heads buried in the sand and simply won’t report it.

    The reasons why it’s happening fits this way of thinking too.

    1) If you have an endogamous group move into the terriotory of an exogamous group the children of any couple formed between the two groups will be *more* related to the more endogamous side of the family. This fits what you see in reality. If you have a town made up of an exogamous group and groups of more endogamous immigrants arrive then there is no merge into one. What happens is the more exogamous get absorbed into each of the more endogamous groups over time so that you end up with the disappearance of the exogamous population and balkanized endogamous enclaves in their place.

    Also as these enclaves are often small and the more endogamous groups don’t mix together much these enclaves get *more* endogamous over time while waiting for Rwanda to start.

    2) If you had multiple endogamous populations from the start then you’d get balkanization from the start.

    3) If you had multiple *equally* exogamous populations at the start e.g. America in the early days then it could work.

    It might still have worked even with the more endogamous southern europeans as long as it was stopped there and time allowed for things to settle down. This *could* also be true of 1) if the immigration took place in very samll doses with large gaps of time for assimilation to occur.

    4) I think Fukuyama was right (even if he left out the ethno part). An ethno-nation-state is the most efficient form of organisation you can get i.e. the one where the level of voluntary co-operation can include the maximum number of people.

    The reason is unity = blood-ties plus idealogy and idealogy that explicitly leverages the blood-ties gets an extra boost.

    If you take one ethnic group in their own exclusive terriotory and then breed them over time to the maximum amount of exogamy at the individual scale then that gives you the maxium amount of endogamy at the national scale. That’s your base. If you then add an idealogy which explicitly leverages those blood-ties and adds a religious tinge i.e. a mythologized familial nationalism then you get the most efficient form of unifying idealogy.

    It can’t get any better than that imo.

    What left-liberalism has done since WWII is unglued both sets of unifying forces at once.

    Reply

  7. Yes three possible reasons for what are on the surface are the same policies

    1) Reduce internal conflict
    2) Increase co-operation
    3) Divide and rule

    but they’re not the same.

    The reason the first two forms are benign is they have the effect of *increasing* endogamy at the highest level of potential co-operation. This leads to maximizing the basis for voluntary co-operation among the population. Mass immigration reduces levels of endogamy at the national level thereby reducing the foundation of voluntary co-operation and at the same time reduces the effectiveness of national idealogy replacing it with the actively dis-unifying idealogy of multi-culturalism which is really multi-racialism.

    .
    “This explanation is too inclusive – surely it would apply to all governments everywhere?”

    I think it probably did up to a point. Why might Christianity have been more so? I’d guess conflict. In most places religion would have grown up organically as part of a particular population’s group idealogy whereas Christianity came out of the blue and was in a battle from the beginning.

    Another way of looking at it is as a response to the problems of early multi-culturalism – all the problems of two tribes on the same piece of terriotory with the church trying to mix them up.

    Reply

  8. Every inner-city in the western world is in a process of reverse evolution.

    This is kind of OT, but I’d say that if you have to have NAMs, you probably WANT them in the “inner cities”. Historically, cities have been demographic sinkholes. Put the NAMs out on the outskirts and in the countryside, and they may well sprawl out and expand. (That may be happening in certain areas of Europe today.)

    Reply

  9. @g.w. – “If you have an endogamous group move into the terriotory of an exogamous group the children of any couple formed between the two groups will be *more* related to the more endogamous side of the family.”

    oh, that’s very clever, g.w.! i never thought of that! of course! (^_^)

    Reply

  10. @hbdchick

    “of course”

    It’s what you see in those kind of neighborhoods. There’s no melting pot there’s a melting away of the more exogamous base leaving behind a patchwork of (increasingly) endogamous immigrant enclaves. It’s literally reverse social evolution heading back from nations down to localized clans again. It’s currently held together by the glue from the exogamous majority but once that drops below a tipping point…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s