Higher civilizations should privilege men

Long before Tsar Leonid, who became the favorite of American gun owners, with his answer to the Persian millions of “Come and get!” Spartan spears, if they want the Spartans to lay down their arms; before the Spartan ephors, mocking Philip of Macedon with their audacious “ifs” at the threat of invasion; long before this lived Lycurgus, the Spartan Solon, who was gifted with humor more than anyone else from the society of Laconia.

Plutarch praises him in “Life,” telling the story that Lycurgus met a man who was trying “to use all means” to establish a democracy in Sparta modeled on Athens. Sparta's father answered him:

"First go and establish democracy in your family."

Truly paternal objection! Only a father can truly understand how little the distribution of power and authority can be in a viable family. The family is essentially either monarchical or anarchic - with no intermediate or compromise options. Children grow up and learn by learning the facets of [permissible] - as the saying goes, “If you want to destroy a person, give him everything he wants”. Paul Harvey refers this aphorism to the vague people of the “ancient Greeks” - a favorite style of older Americans who are unable to identify the source, but who are keenly searching for instructive quotes. The man who invented this phrase definitely saw a child who was gifted with everything he longed for and knew the danger of complacency born of satisfaction: a vicious mind, a fierce heart and a dead soul. Societies seeking to satisfy all needs for this purpose ultimately change the [natural] hierarchy in such a way that it eventually disappears. In particular, we see in our own decaying monument of egalitarian thought the overestimation of women and the underestimation of men since childhood. {Apparently, the author opposes the feminist mainstream of the West}.

Family - and its extended version, genus - teaches people not only the concept of power, but above all principles that are respected by all men of all societies - these are social norms, taboos and ambitions, which are the root of power regardless of place and time, despite the obvious contradiction with the so-called “rule of law” imposed by the state. True independence in society is always based on the opinions of others - and the degree of tolerance for deviations from the usual norms shows the level of social cohesion and stability in the society in question. Community justice and legal (state) justice are in fragile balance or do not exist at all: this is the meaning of the term anarchy-tyranny, when in reality community justice is absent, when the law becomes more theoretical, vague, when social justice becomes academic. Social justice is determined by how it is problematized, complicated by circumstances, and revealed as a fundamental truth. Spiridon shares with Nerzhin in "In the first circle" Solzhenitsyn:

- Is it conceivable - to a man on earth to understand: who is right? who is guilty? Who can say this?

- Yes, I'll tell you! - enlightened Spiridon readily responded, as readily as if they were asking him what kind of duty attendant would be on duty in the morning. - I'll tell you: the wolfhound is right, but the ogre is not!

- How-how-how? - choked Nerzhin from the simplicity and power of the decision.

“That's it,” Spiridon repeated with cruel conviction, turning to Nerzhin. - The Wolfhound is right, but the ogre is not.

In the family, on the other hand, the principle is silently expressed: “The wolfhound is right and the ogre is not.” Thus, the family and its extended version of the family, once the basis of the functioning of society - implied in the objection of Lycurgus, described in detail in the works of Confucius, from the point of view of which the world is nothing but an imitation of the relationship between father and son - the lord of the family and his student.

Even where the family is not a model of social interactions, it still has a significant impact on society and political structures. Society is inevitably controlled in accordance with the image that reflects the family and the race, and either perpetuates the form of family life that corresponds to the type of management of society, or else turns the family into a form of power. Strictly speaking,in traditional societies, the genus is the supreme judge who determines truth and falsehood, as well as the first to whom man is faithful after God. Thus, the state and the genus are closely related to each other. On the contrary, the progressive society always sees the state as the supreme judge, defining right and wrong, and the only object of human loyalty (since God is not a choice). The consequence of this is the destruction of the family and henceforth everything that unites men is their equal dependence on the state and connection with it. The change of roles in the West is historically observable - one form of society has replaced another. This change comes from a social reality in which families are devoted to the stability and well-being of the family. Here two changes appear: the first is the transition of the definition of "family" from the blood to the marital union; the second is that “family” instead of historical meaning has become a much more literal concept. In short, the “family” has ceased to represent continuity [of generations] and society, but has become an isolated unit consisting of two time-bound physical beings.

The rise of the nuclear family and its opposition to the more ancient and traditional family structure of a healthy society is in the air for so long that even American conservatives have taken note of it - however, the academic predecessor on this issue, Jan de Vries, designated it as a positive change. However, even de Vries sees the family in a particular place, and not in time. Finally, the nuclear family for the liberal mind is sacred in that it is an economic unit with sexual equalitywhich is a dogma of the XX [and XXI?] century. Thus, the rejection of the family and the family (that is, the kind) is not considered, because clan and tribe are neither egalitarian nor complementary to the sexes.

Thus, a family can be built either hierarchically or on an egalitarian basis. The traditional (hierarchical) family was originally the supreme judge and the source of social norms. The nuclear (egalitarian) family is closely connected with the ideology of liberalism and progressivism, which undermine the traditional forms of society and replace the natural hierarchy with various forms of dependence on the state. According to the author, modern conservatives are not paying enough attention to the family as a historical figure, considering it only as an isolated demographic model. In the next chapters of the translation, we fill this gap.

If you find it important that we publish such material, support the authors

Vladislav Kogan

Vespa on social networks

Materials that you will not find on the site