Friday, March 6, 2015

Destroying the family is good for business

Our elite puppetmasters have come out of the shadows to admit the real reason they want to impose same-sex “marriage” on those of us who will never believe that marriage is anything but a union between one man and one woman--it’s good for business:
AT&T and Verizon. Dow Chemical. Bank of America. General Electric. Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft. And the San Francisco Giants.
They’re among 379 corporations and business organizations that have signed onto legal arguments offering the court another reason to declare a nationwide constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry — it would be good for business.
“Inconsistent state marriage laws impose an added economic burden on American businesses at an estimated cost of over $1 billion per year,” the companies’ lawyers wrote. With 13 states still prohibiting same-sex marriage, and refusing to recognize marriages conducted in other states, they said, “our ability to grow and maintain our businesses by attracting and retaining the best employee talent is hindered.”

Of course, what our elites aren’t admitting is that destroying the family has always been one of their objectives, because families, by and large, are efficient and cautious consumers, while “households” composed of single adults, single or divorced parents, grandparents raising grandchildren, etc. tend not to be.  And the biggest spenders of all are the DINKs--double-income, no kids--which describes the vast majority of gay couples in America (since only a relatively small number of gay couples will ever or do ever have any responsibility for children whatsoever).

So naturally our elites want to destroy the family.  They have wanted to do this, says Rod Dreher today, since the 1920s:

I bring this up in context of the post from earlier today about “Silicon Valley Mordor,” and the rapid loss in our time of what it means to be human. Setting aside Dante’s theological vision, his metaphysical vision is what’s at issue. I quote here from an essay titled “The Ascendance of Eroticism,” collected in the book The Crisis of Modernity, by the late Italian philosopher Augusto Del Noce. The book recently appeared in an English version translated by Carlo Lancellotti, a reader of this blog. Del Noce died in 1989, but his vision was extremely prescient. He says, for example, “One is not surprised by the most advanced ideas, including marriage between homosexuals.” Why not? Because del Noce realized that the metaphysical underpinnings for traditional sexual morality were gone.
Del Noce points out that the ideas behind the Sexual Revolution were completely worked out in the 1920s, but Fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism put them on hold. They returned after the war, and became dominant in the 1960s. Del Noce, writing about the psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich, an avatar of the Sexual Revolution, says Reich was correct to say “that no compromise is possible between traditional morality, taken in its entirety and without modifications, that is, fully recognizing its first premises, and thus without emphasizing unilaterally any particular aspect, and sexual liberation.” Del Noce, describing Reich’s vision:
"Having taken away every order of ends and eliminated every authority of values, all that is left is vital energy, which can be identified with sexuality, as was already claimed in ancient times and is actually difficult to refute. Hence, the core element of life will be sexual happiness. [...]"
Del Noce first published this in 1970. He appears to be every bit as visionary as Philip Rieff was. This is not the place to go more in-depth on his essay, but it will have to suffice to say that Del Noce argues that overturning of the older sense of metaphysics by the sexual revolutionists was advanced through the arts. In other words, it was the poets (meaning novelists, filmmakers, and all artists) who taught the world to see things differently (to use the most neutral phrasing). Whether you think they enlightened the world or endarkened it depends on what you think about the Sexual Revolution.
You can’t have a mindless consumer culture until you have maximized the creation of mindless consumers.  And you can’t do that without convincing people that the summum bonum of existence is self-gratification, including sexual self-gratification, unmoored from any considerations of responsibility, family, society, or culture.  What started with the promotion of rampant divorce and the facilitation of ubiquitous fornication via contraception has reached its present fruition--funny word to use--in the promotion of the ultimate fruitless consumer lifestyle not only of gay couplehood, but of heterosexual temporary childless unions under the banner “marriage.” Since new consumers have to be created, though, our elites are also on board with the "non-carnal" manufacturing of children via IVF, and will be the first to insist that the artificial womb be used not as an emergency incubator but as the most liberating way to process one’s children who will be carefully selected and programmed from the embryonic state to be the ultimate not only in consumer choice, but as future choosy consumers themselves.

O brave new world, etc.


Elizabeth said...

"And you can’t do that without convincing people that the summum bonum of existence is self-gratification, including sexual self-gratification, unmoored from any considerations of responsibility, family, society, or culture. "

I have to say, I'm baffled at where you get this idea.

Young people very much want to get jobs, buy homes and start families. My son is aware that he and his wife are just lucky that their debt/earnings ratio worked out so that they could afford to marry at age 26. (They got married in a free public park and held the reception in her sister's back yard, so I'm not talking about affording a wedding.) So many of their friends, siblings, cousins and classmates from Class of 2010 and earlier are still having trouble getting good jobs. I don't think self-gratification is the highest thing on their agendas.

Romulus said...

It is not easy these days to find young people, even those preparing for marriage, who possess a rightly ordered understanding of marriage. Most conceive of it, as they do of life and the world in general, in romantic terms: sentiment and feeling predominate over reason and objectivity. People get married with a consumerist mentality, to increase the sum total of their perceived happiness, defined as the gratification of self. This can be proven by the near universal use if contraception, and the incomprehension that greets any suggestion that procreation is the first and chief end of marriage.

L. said...

I am proud that my employer is among the 379 companies. :)

John InEastTX said...

"...because families, by and large, are efficient and cautious consumers, while “households” composed of single adults, single or divorced parents, grandparents raising grandchildren, etc. tend not to be."

That's an interesting claim - would you care to substantiate it?

I'll agree that households (without the "scare quotes") of single adults are likely to be less efficient or cautious consumers, but what leads you to claim that single parents are less efficient or cautious in their consumption?

Or the grandparents raising grandchildren?

Looking forward to examining the evidence you provide for that claim...

Anthony S. Layne said...

If you want to develop this theme further, I suggest you check out a BBC miniseries that came out about thirteen years ago, titled The Century of the Self. It'll also give you some more names involved in breaking down our self-discipline, notably Sigmund and Anna Freud, and Murray Bernays.

Pat said...

This blog post makes sense only the reader subscribes to the belief that a husband and wife are not a family.

In effect, the blogger is asking us to believe that a family exists only upon the birth of a child.

David Sharples said...

American society is presently in the business of sexualizing and materializing everything, everything, everything:
- no longer citizens we're called "consumers".
- we're being called to worship the twin gods of money and sex, even most of our elected officials come from 1 party for sex and 1 party for money.
- And Almighty God is being usurped by the authority of the State.

Nothing speaks louder to this, then the Supreme Court moving to hear arguments to redefine marriage. No culture in the history of the world has ever survived a weak family culture, none-

@Elizabeth, there are people young and old that swim against the tide (God bless them), but its' the tide, and we're all in this together. When a tsunami hits innocent people drown.

Red Cardigan said...

John, I’m sorry I didn’t get back to this sooner (I’m still under the weather a bit). I probably should have said that more clearly, but what I said is something I learned in a basic business class decades ago and that still crops up in various economics discussions. What it amounts to is that when a household consists of only one parental figure with children that household spends more than a two-parent household, and that households composed of individual adults (the growing number these days) are the biggest spenders.

So theoretically two grandparents raising grandchildren might not spend as much, except that they are still more likely than two parents to need external help with things like childcare and meals and so forth.

Sorry I’m not up to digging for stuff on this right now. I’ll try to get back to it later.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

For most of human history, the "traditional family" was a partnership in which husband and wife worked in close proximity to each other, often with the children. There often was a division of labor, but they weren't in distant and separated spheres.

Capitalism began breaking up the family when it took the man, or the children, out of the home to "go to work" while leaving the wife at home to spend a separate day in a distinct sphere. Karl Marx called the process "alienation of labor." It also alienated the family.

It took a while for the law to catch up with "child labor" because it became a very different issue when the children were laboring, not in and around the family home and business or farm, but away from home for an indifferent overseer. Now, having limited that sort of child labor, we have another social problem... what are teenagers for, if they neither weave nor spin, in or out of the home?

A curious result of feminism resulted from the application of another Marxist observation. Marx wrote that the price labor could command in the marketplace was the cost of reproducing that labor -- generally the cheapest possible cost of doing so. In the short run, that meant the cost of feeding and sheltering the laborer so they could come back next morning healthy enough for another shift. In the long run, it included the cost of reproducing another generation of laborers, before the current generation became to old and weak and useless to perform.

IF the man went to work while the woman stayed home minding the house, then the man's wage had to be enough, barely enough to sustain the wife and kids. But, if both parents work, then the relation of prices to wages adjusted so that it took the work of TWO adults to pay the costs of sustaining the family.

This induced new tensions... schools called when a child became sick or a major discipline problem, but nobody was free to come get the kid, because the boss wanted workers who would "put the company first." (I was a shop steward briefly -- I remember a young woman who was issued a final warning and told if she ever left work again when her son had an asthma attack and had to be taken to the hospital, she would be fired.) If mommy was not providing free labor to raise the kiddies, then someone had to be PAID to do that.

So it is entirely believable that American business, always looking at the short term, immediate, bottom line, would favor single people, childless couples, anything that removed such unfortunate distractions as children requiring time and money.

The answer of course was presented by that well-known ideologically doctrinaire Marxist, John Paul II: "The market was made for man, not man for the market."