Opposition to traditional values, faith and family does not necessarily look like radical feminist attacks on temples, like pogroms or terrorist actions. Those who want to destroy the family most often do not say so directly. With a heartfelt voice, they talk to society about the “value of every choice,” play on sensitive and painful strings, wrap their fascist and neo-Marxist ideas in the cotton candy of “understanding and sympathy,” and, brick by brick, destroy the idea of values, morality and duty.
Has the devil ever devised such a sneaky trick? Of course it is he who came up with it, but it seems that he had never before succeeded on such a large scale and in such a sophisticated way as nowadays. Family advocates face a stark lack of public understanding. They are starting to look like armed men fighting cute pink ponies. But, alas, under their costumes, these “ponies” hide weapons that will destroy us and everything we hold dear–and yes, including those who do not believe in danger.
Let’s look at one interesting material as an example. An article posted on the infamous OpenDemocracy portal supported by the Soros structures. We have already written about their materials, and caused the indignation of Soros’ “fact checkers”. The article is called “We Don’t Have to Be Related to Be Family”.
True enough, you don’t have to be related to someone in order to support another person. There are plenty of human associations that form family-like relationships within themselves. Among them are the traditional ones–the village, clan or parish community, and the monastery. Without an atmosphere of mutual support, any association will fall apart: it is equally necessary in the working team as in a tourist group, or a hobby club, or even a music band. And, of course, a person who cannot create a traditional family can create a micro-community of friends or neighbors in which he or she will not feel alone or threatened.
We all understand the value of friendship. Every child–and adult–dreams of a good, faithful friend, and values those friends that fate has sent him. Sometimes we argue about who understands us better–a friend or a spouse, a girlfriend or a mother, whether a spouse or parent can be a good friend or not. But really, who would think of claiming that friendship is a substitute for family?
This is just another “harmless” idea introduced to make young people stop wanting to start families. Fueled by youthful optimism, levity, and sociability, someone wants to make people believe that friendly communes are the same as family, and even better. In addition, sexual relations within them do not entail any responsibility. Creating a temporary relationship without marriage, family or children is okay. It is enough to snort at the usual notion of family and sing the joy of temporary cohabitation.
Here are a few statements from the article in translation (our commentary on the implication of the fragment is in parentheses):
“While ‘proper’ families spend their weekends at IKEA or walking through national parks, I’m at a club dancing to Whitney Houston with mine, or at an anarchist meeting, or at a collective clean-up day for the local social center.” (Family people think only of themselves and their domestic life, while we benefit society.)
“In Northern Europe, where I live, family is usually understood as marriage, children and a mortgage. But as I was growing up, I decided this setup wasn’t for me. I decided to bail on ‘womanhood’ and fight my way out of the patriarchal system of two genders, which in my case also meant opting out the notion idea of family.” (Family is a boring, financial routine caused by having to take responsibility for someone and assign socially meaningful roles).
“The only life-long member of my family is my biological sister, and the fact that I’m not sure if my current family constellation will be exactly the same for the rest of my life is both a good and a bad thing.” (I should not seek to create lifelong relationships and be responsible for the people with whom I make connections. People come and go, I don’t have to be faithful to anyone or anything).
“Unlike many wives in traditional relationships, my siblings and I can opt out if we’re having a bad day and come back the day after.” (Women in traditional families are enslaved; they are not allowed to rest from their housework or get tired).
These are just a few examples, but in each paragraph of the article you can find more and more statements about how family is bad.
As we have already mentioned, OpenDemocracy openly promotes neo-Marxist models of society, emphasizing that the family means the oppression of women, and that as a unit of society it should be altogether replaced by communes. Those ideas that the Soviet Union rejected in its time, seeing their destructiveness in practice, turned out to be pleasant and consonant with the new same-sex, trans and queer communities, of which the author of the article under discussion is a representative.
We all really know that a family is much more than the sum of its parts: living together, taking care of the children, the relationship between spouses, support, and the distribution of finances. The family is a microcosm, open to all human talents, launching the personal growth of the man and the woman, and setting their goals that are higher and more important than those they could come up with on their own. And the unity of the spouses in marriage cannot be compared to any other relationship.
All other forms of associations and relationships are always compared to family. When someone finds a collective in which people are attentive and caring to one another, he always says, “We are like family.” Such a comparison would not have been made if the family were not a special, unique community. The family is always a challenge to all human vices and selfishness; it is always the resilience and sacrifice in which each person melts. It is extremely dishonest and unfair to oppose a good friendship to a family with imperfect relationships, since friendships can also be bad. But no matter how we look at it, even a family with problems brings immeasurably more benefit to its members than the nicest and most pleasant temporary relationship.
OpenDemocracy attracts young readers with an image of imaginary happiness without any obligations, without crisis, without debt, without purpose–thereby deceiving them with rainbow pictures that have little in common with reality.