Russia Population
A problem occurs for society with the promiscuity of the young. If we sleep with many partners, we bond and break on a regular basis. We lose the ability to properly bond. [2] The serious relationship leading to marriage becomes problematic as we have difficulty bonding. We have difficulty with connection and commitment. We are more prone to run off with someone else. Promiscuity is not good for the stable functioning of society. Pornography has a similar effect since the same hormones are released. Which begs the question: “Why is pornography free?” Try a web-search for “Who controls porn?”
In the words of:
Jeremy Hunt: “We have become so distant from blood relatives that we don’t have any idea even when they are dying.”
Those with illusions of grandeur as manipulators of the state see the family as a competitor to control by the state. Those with vested interests will seek to change the structure of marriage and family to gain control of the state.
Under the law of:
Moses: “If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, ...” [Deuteronomy 24:1]
She actually has to do something inappropriate. Charles Ellicot [1819—1905] comments:
“Evidently mere caprice and dislike are not intended here. There must be some real ground of complaint.” [Deuteronomy 24:1] [4]
This is open to interpretation. Something disgraceful might occur such as adultery or the complaint might be boredom. Boredom with the relationship appears to be a driver in the current ‘no-fault’ divorce. John Gill (1697 to 1771) suggests:
“and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes; is not agreeable to him, he takes no delight in her person, nor pleasure in her company and conversation; but, on the contrary, his affections are alienated from her, and he cannot bear the sight of her.”
Whether this makes your blood boil or not is irrelevant. Fast forward to today, and the Church is having a hard time maintaining a stand on marriage and the controllers of the controllers of the nation-state have reduced the marriage to a non-binding contract. Marriage can be annulled when she gets bored with him. The MRAs say “She wanted a divorce because she was unhaaaaapy.” Marriage is no longer a stable institution for the raising of children. Even within the marriage, the children are encouraged to ignore some of the instruction of their parents in favour of Satan’s Pulpit and the state with its education system. Jesus corrected a situation where a male could divorce a woman for spurious reasons. In the words of Gill:
“they suppose a man might divorce his wife for any ill qualities of mind in her, or for any ill or impudent behavior of hers; as if her husband saw her go abroad with her head uncovered, and spinning in the streets, and so showing her naked arms to men; or having her garments slit on both sides; or washing in a bath with men, or where men use to wash, and talking with every man, and joking with young men; or her voice is sonorous and noisy; or any disease of body, as the leprosy, and the like; or any blemishes, as warts, are upon her; or any disagreeable smell that might arise from any parts of the body, from sweat, or a stinking breath.”
We now have a problem with women breaking marriages for spurious reasons. Women might think of this as a reasonable ‘right’. But the consequence is not favourable to women as a whole because it is a massive disincentive to young males contemplating marriage. Jesus rejected most of the reasons that the Hebrew males were using for divorce. The institution of monogamy meant that the man was equally guilty in the event of an inappropriate divorce. This gave permanent protection to women other than abuse, but it also meant that men were careful who they married. Marriage became a true loving union that benefited society as well as the participants. To the Romans, a separation with the view to breaking up a marriage was considered to be a legal divorce. The Jews had what they called an ‘Any Cause’ fault arrangement for divorce, which meant that any reasonable cause could be the reason for divorce. In practice ‘Any Cause’ could include something spurious such as ‘She is not as pretty as when I married her’. Jesus (and Paul) were against ‘no-fault’ divorce. Fast forward to today, and we have been encouraged to adopt a divorce arrangement closer to the Jewish and Roman system. Our system is close the failed divorce arrangements brought in by the Bolsheviks from which Russia has yet to recover. One of the arguments used was spousal abuse. If spousal abuse was the issue, it alone should have been added to the available reasons for divorce.
David Instone-Brewer writes: “We have to reassess Jesus’ teaching on remarriage in the light of his rejection of the ‘Any Cause’ divorce. If his debate with the Pharisees concerned this new ground for divorce, his conclusion that remarriage was adultery was presumably also a reply to this question. He was stating, in effect, that anyone with an ‘Any Cause’ divorce was still married, so if they remarried they were committing adultery. We can now see that Jesus was rejecting the ‘Any Cause’ divorce in the most shocking way possible — by stating that remarriage after an ‘Any Cause’ divorce was equivalent to adultery! This is similar to his teaching that anger is equivalent to murder and lusting is equivalent to promiscuity.” [Read his book: “What God Has Joined Together” By David Instone-Brewer]
The above book is an interesting read. What this implies is that when Jesus criticized those who had remarried after divorce. He implicated virtually all Jews that had remarried. Jesus was not saying remarriage itself was adulterous, but that remarriage after an invalid divorce, which included an ‘Any Cause’ divorce, was adulterous, because the person was still married. Jesus was one very controversial man. He said the same about the Roman divorce. Romans that divorced by separation were still married and thus were guilty of adultery. These items were an ongoing and long-running debate. Jesus taught forgiveness rather than hasty divorce and this is closer to the conciliation and arbitration system used in the Muslim faith. We desperately need to adopt a system of arbitration and conciliation operated by the family and friends of the married couple and backed by the Church. When I take a hen’s day out in a bus, I recognize that the attendees are the support group for the bride for the rest of her married life. They should give support in the event of issues with the marriage. When I take a buck’s night group, it is more than an excuse to have a booze up and act like idiots. The males may be going back to their behavior as teenagers, but they are the support group for the male as he travels through his marriage. I recognize these events to be extremely important bonding exercises between the individuals and the families acting as a support group for the married couple as they travel through the ups and downs of married life. Stable marriage is essential for stable society. Any one of the participants can be called at any time in the future to assist with the correct functioning of the marriage.
One can see that Jesus was a rebel that the Pharisees and the Romans wanted to silence. The current ‘no-fault’ divorce is far from anything that Jesus would have approved of. The Bolsheviks, who took over Russia in a coup d’état and a subsequent bloodbath, were almost entirely Jewish.
“The Soviet Union is the other state that is truly ruled by Jews. Stalin, too, is only their tool. Of the five-hundred-and-fifty commissars in the Soviet Union in 1921, thirty were Russian, twenty-four Latvians, a few Hungarians and Poles, and — four-hundred-and-forty-seven Jews!” [Führerinnendienst des Bundes Deutscher Mädel in der Hitler-Jugend, Gebiet Mainfranken 39, 1944-02.]
Orlando Figes: “The Bolsheviks were forced to turn increasingly to terror to silence their political critics and subjugate a society they could not control by other means”
The Bolsheviks soon implemented ‘no-fault’ divorce and an era of sexual promiscuity took place along with an increase in family breakdown. A consequence of the ‘no-fault’ divorce law was that men abandoned their families more frequently. Women’s favourite institution is marriage and that was the first thing that the Bolsheviks targeted. Soviet women were forced to live the ‘double burden’ of family homekeeping and wage labour and their marriages were under threat. Understanding history and constantly questioning is important. Understanding what happened in the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution (a coup d’état disguised as a revolution) and looking through the propaganda about World War Two is absolutely crucial to understanding the world we live in today. The Bolshevik Revolution was ‘a classic coup d’état’ in which the Bolsheviks disguised their real aim which was to create ‘a one-party dictatorship’. [Richard Pipes] This coup d’état pretending to be a revolution, was neither popular nor democratic. The invaders implemented a dictatorial state that tolerated no opposition and sought to control and alter every aspect of its citizen’s lives against their will. A comprehensive propaganda war on the ‘outdated’ institutions of family and marriage was undertaken by the Bolsheviks that enabled the state to gain dominance. You can see some strange falls in population. Russian author, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, stated that around sixty-six million ‘real Russians’ were murdered since the Bolshevik coup. These were primarily Christians. The earlier February Revolution provided the opportunity for Russia to develop a western-style democracy with civil liberties. It was thwarted by the Bolshevik coup d’état eight months later. The country spiralled into an era of family destruction, promiscuity, destruction of Christian churches and death camps.
These four girls are about to be liberated!
These next four girls have been ‘liberated’! Look at their joyful smiles at their ‘liberation’! “Hats out. Stand in line. Do as you are told. Go kill people! You have been liberated from oppression by men. Aren’t you lucky!”
This next piece was written by Alexandra Kollontai. She was an extremely prominent figure in the Bolshevik party. You can see her concept of ‘Women’s liberation’. Liberation from family life into the workforce. She believed that women that wanted to look after their own children were ‘selfish’. Their concept of liberation included that a woman was ‘selfish’ to want to look after her own children! Part of their ‘liberation’ policy for Christian Russia was to sever the natural ties between mother and child. Nowadays it is called child-care.
Alexandra Kollontai: “The family is ceasing to be necessary either to its members or to the nation, ... are well aware that the old type of family, where the woman is a slave and where the husband is responsible for the well-being of his wife and children, constitutes the best weapon in the struggle to stifle the desire of the working class for freedom and to weaken the revolutionary spirit of the working man and working woman. ...
The old family, narrow and petty, where the parents quarrel and are only interested in their own offspring, is not capable of educating the ‘new person’ ... There is no escaping the fact: the old type of family has had its day. ... the family is ceasing to be a necessity. The state does not need the family, because the domestic economy is no longer profitable: the family distracts the worker from more useful and productive labour. The members of the family do not need the family either, because the task of bringing up the children which was formerly theirs is passing more and more into the hands of the collective. ... The woman in communist society no longer depends upon her husband but on her work. ... She need have no anxiety about her children. The workers’ state will assume responsibility for them. Marriage will lose all the elements of material calculation which cripple family life. ... The women of the working class, therefore, need not worry over the fact that the family is doomed to disappear.” [First Published: in Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920; Source: Selected Writings of Alexandra Kollontai, Allison & Busby, 1977; Translated: by Alix Holt.]
A leading Communist wrote:
Madame Smidovich: “To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did.”
Now I show you a Soviet poster. She is portrayed with a manly look with no emotion.
It was not as if the effect of breaking up the family was not known. A man by the name of Lenin wrote:
“Destroy the family and you destroy society.”
Richard Pipes writes:
“For humankind at large Lenin had nothing but scorn” [Richard Pipes. ‘The Unknown Lenin’]
Richard Pipes continues:
“He did not care about Russia. He cared about Germany and England in the sense that, for him, as a revolutionary, they were the key countries. Russia he viewed as nothing more than a stepping-stone to global upheaval; a backward country, populated mainly by an uncouth rural ‘petty bourgeoisie’ in the shape of self-sufficient ‘middle’ peasants and ‘kulaks’. Such a country could not make a world revolution: at best, it could serve as a spark that would set off the powder-keg abroad. In his view, Russia was the weak link in the chain of world imperialism, the snapping of which would unleash upheavals in the heart of Europe.” [Richard Pipes. ‘The Unknown Lenin’]
Socrates (470BC to 399 BC) said something even more dramatic when promoting the city-state:
D.H. Lawrence wrote in ‘A Propos of Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ (‘man’, here, refers to man and woman.):
“It is marriage, perhaps, which has given man the best of his freedom, given him his little kingdom of his own within the big kingdom of the State, given him his foothold of independence on which to stand and resist an unjust State... Do we then want to break marriage? If we do break it, it means we all fall to a far greater extent under the direct sway of the State.”
Under the new rulings of Bolsheviks, divorce took a matter of a few minutes and could be obtained at the request of either partner. Chaos arrived. Men began changing their wives with the same enthusiasm that they had for newly restored forty-percent vodka.
A woman at the Tzik: “Some men have twenty wives, living a week with one, a month with another, They have children with all of them, and these children are thrown on the street for lack of support!”
In 1921, Aleksandra Kollontaj writes about the rise in prostitution after the Bolshevik changes to marriage and divorce. She tries to blame it on Capitalism. However, it rose under communism:
Aleksandra Kollontaj 1921: “Prostitution continues to poison the atmosphere of the workers’ republic ... It is true that in the three years of the revolution the nature of prostitution has, under the pressure of the changing economic and social conditions altered somewhat. But we are still far from being rid of this evil. Prostitution continues to exist. ... in this transitional period with its many problems, prostitution has become extremely widespread.” [1]
The truth was that prostitution exploded!
Aleksandra Kollontaj 1921: When the old Tsarist laws were revoked by the Council of People’s Commissars, all the statutes concerning prostitution were abolished. ...
In other places, brothels exist quite openly. ...
And there are yet other areas where prostitutes are considered criminals and thrown into forced labour camps.” [5] (Gulags = Concentration Camps. It was Bolsheviks that ran Concentration Camps. After WW2, Bolshevik Concentration Camps were kept out of the western press and as a cover, blame was put on Germany. Germany = bad. Russia = good! Bolshevik Concentration Camps were horrendous.)
If a girl could not feed her child and received food, clothes, or money for sex, she was sent to a Gulag. ‘Emancipation of Women’, my hat! Next, she says that women are so desperate for food and clothing that they sell their bodies. For this, she advocates the death camps. Then she shows her contempt for marriage:
Aleksandra Kollontaj 1921: “Prostitutes, from our point of view, are those women who sell their bodies for material benefit — for decent food, for clothes and other advantages; prostitutes are all those who avoid the necessity of working by giving themselves to a man, either on a temporary basis or for life.” (i.e. Marriage.) [5]
In the same document, she talks about prostitution in the middle ages supplying the same service as the ‘bad girls’ do for free in the current era each Saturday night.
Aleksandra Kollontaj 1921: “In the Middle Ages, when artisan, production predominated, prostitution was accepted as something natural and lawful. Prostitutes had their own guilds and took part in festivals and local events just like the other guilds. The prostitute guaranteed that the daughters of the respectable citizens remained chaste and their wives faithful, since single men could (for a consideration) turn to the members of the guild for comfort. Prostitution was thus to the advantage of the worthy propertied citizens and was openly accepted by them.” [5]
Then she talks about the nineteenth and twentieth centuries:
Aleksandra Kollontaj 1921: “With the rise of capitalism, the picture changes. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, prostitution assumes threatening proportions for the first time ... When a woman’s wages are insufficient to keep her alive, the sale of favours seems a possible subsidiary occupation. The hypocritical morality of bourgeois society encourages prostitution by the structure of its exploitative economy, while at the same time mercilessly covering with contempt any girl or woman who is forced to take this path. ... In Berlin, there is one prostitute for every twenty so-called honest women. In Paris, the ratio is one to eighteen and in London one to nine. ... Prostitution is the way out for the woman who fails to find herself a permanent breadwinner. Prostitution, under capitalism provides men with the opportunity of having sexual relationships without having to take upon themselves the responsibility of caring materially for the women until the grave.” [1]
She concedes that: “Prostitution, under capitalism provides men with the opportunity of having sexual relationships without having to take upon themselves the responsibility of caring materially for the women until the grave.” and thus her illogic is jaw-dropping. Men should take care of women until the grave does not match her communist goals of family destruction in favour of baby farms operated by the uncaring state. ‘Care until death’ was te Christian procedure.
Male support for women just happens to be what Jesus advocated. Jesus advocated that males should take the responsibility of caring materially for a woman until the grave. Kollontaj now shows that what she wanted was for women to become work-slaves for the state:
Aleksandra Kollontaj 1921: “Down with the unproductive labour of housework and child-minding!” [1]
Next, she uses the communist trick of denouncing those that don’t fit the ideals of the Jewish controlled nation-state. Honest merchants are sent to the concentration camps called Gulags:
Aleksandra Kollontaj 1921: “We now call the ‘honest merchant’ a speculator, and instead of awarding him honorary tides we drag him before a special committee and put him in a forced labour camp.” [1]
This all-powerful woman demonstrates an all-powerful woman’s approach on the control of women. She also likens a housewife having sex to a prostitute. It was all useful propaganda that was rehashed by the male funders and promoters of the selected female feminist mouthpieces that came from the same tribe.
Aleksandra Kollontaj 1921: “We must fight prostitution as another form of labour desertion. ... We do not, therefore, condemn prostitution and fight against it as a special category but as an aspect of labour desertion. To us in the workers’ republic it is not important whether a woman sells herself to one man or to many, whether she is classed as a professional prostitute selling her favours to a succession of clients or as a wife selling herself to her husband. All women who avoid work and do not take part in production or in caring for children are liable, on the same basis as prostitutes, to be forced to work. We cannot make a difference between a prostitute and a lawful wife kept by her husband, ...” [1]
I believe that she is telling us that a wife is a whore. The state is only interested in getting useful work out of her. Kollontaj was not an elected representative. She was a part of a forced takeover of the nation that gave her dictatorial powers. She was not responsible to the citizenry.
Aleksandra Kollontaj 1921: “The workers’ collective condemns the prostitute not because she gives her body to many men but because, like the legal wife who stays at home, she does no useful work for the society. ... Soviet Russia does not want illness and disease to cripple and weaken its citizens and reduce their work capacity. And prostitution spreads venereal disease. ...” [1]
‘The workers’ collective’ was a euphemism for her undemocratic dictatorial state. Now she talks about an explosion in casual sex with itinerant soldiers.
Aleksandra Kollontaj 1921: “Furthermore, in this time of changing moral norms and particularly when there is also a continual movement of troops from place to place, a sharp rise in the number of cases of venereal disease occurs independently of commercial prostitution. ...” [1]
Casual sex went through the roof! As it did with the copy-cat sexual ‘liberation’ in the West. You have been ‘liberated’ from sexual oppression. You can now be sexually oppressed by all men. None of them will care for you for more than a few minutes. Out of preference, men will enjoy three minutes of fun and run. Men would call it “Woman’s Logic!” It has no logic. The reasoning does not follow. I get blisters but I like high heesls. I’m overweight but I enjoy food. How dare you give me advice on weight loss. Are you saying I’m fat? Women are better looked after under male logic than female logic.
Aleksandra Kollontaj 1921: “The woman looks after him for the period that the troops are quartered in the village. The troops move away, but they leave venereal disease behind. Infection spreads. The diseases develop, multiply, and threaten to maim the younger generation. ...
A man who buys the favours of a woman does not see her as a comrade or as a person with equal rights. ...
The contempt he has for the prostitute, whose favours he has bought, affects his attitude to all women. ...
[Prostitution] continues under various guises in our Russia. Soviet ladies exchange their favours for a pair of high-heeled boots. Working women and mothers of families sell their favours for flour. Peasant women sleep with the heads of the anti-profiteer detachments in the hope of saving their hoarded food, and office workers sleep with their bosses in return for rations, shoes and in the hope of promotion. ...” [1]
I have watched girls play flirting games with their supervisors. This is not entirely a case of males taking advantage of females. Females are also taking advantage of their femaleness to gain favour. A male subordinate does not have this option.
Sex becomes a means to an end rather than a way of bonding a male and a female to provide a stable family for the benefit of offspring and family. Office workers sleeping with their male bosses occurs in the current sexual revolution. One report suggests that fifteen percent of women have slept with their bosses and thirty-seven percent of them got promoted for it. [businessinsider.com.au]
Aleksandra Kollontaj 1921: “The prostitute and the house-wife are both labour deserters, and you cannot send one to a forced labour camp without sending the other. Marriage or the existence of certain relationships between the sexes is of no significance and can play no role in defining criminal offences in a labour republic. ... Where does prostitution end and the marriage of convenience begin? ... The family was an independent and enclosed collective. In communist society this cannot be. ... But of one thing there is no doubt: under communism all dependence of women upon men and all the elements of material calculation found in modern marriage will be absent. Sexual relationships will be based on a healthy instinct for reproduction prompted by the abandon of young love, or by fervent passion, or by a blaze of physical attraction or by a soft light of intellectual and emotional harmony. Such sexual relationships have nothing in common with prostitution. ... Healthy, joyful and free relationships between the sexes will develop. Our task is to wage a merciless struggle against all the remnants of individualism and of the former, type of marriage.” [5]
They were waging war on the family as the unit of society and turning persons into individuals dependent on the state. At that, it was a repressive state.
Jesus nearly had that cured. The Bolsheviks had the destruction of marriage and family on their menu. You can see what happened. Prostitution under no-fault divorce increased in a manner that was difficult to control. In another document she says:
Aleksandra Kollontaj 1921: “The conservatively inclined part of mankind argue that we should return to the happy times of the past, we should re-establish the old foundations of the family and strengthen the well-tried norms of sexual morality.” [3]
What her mob were good at was killing Christians:
The most probable estimate of the citizens killed by the nation-state is about sixty-five million although it could be as high as one-hundred-and-twenty-five-million. Sixty-five million is equivalent to the deaths of the total current population of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada combined. As a cover, the Germans were accused of murdering six-million Jewish persons. The total population of Jewish people in Germany at the time was about half a million and the total Jewish population of Europe was five-and-a-half million!
The Christian religion was also discouraged and effectively banned in Bolshevik controlled Russia. Propaganda campaigns condemned religion as a fraud and as ‘an opiate of the masses’ [Marx]. Christianity had been a strong supporter of the family unit with strict marriage laws. Christianity effectively encouraged women to use their sex to create control by women. It eliminated casual sex and mistreatment of women and forced males to care for females to the extent that women had a hidden control over men and society. Women controlled the moral operation of society by controlling the ethical upbringing of the young. By control of the crèche, the kitchen, and the vagina, women controlled men. Monogamy prevented males from taking the upper hand in the sexual relations of humans. Sex will occur. If it is to occur, it needs to occur in a manner that benefits all parties in society. Christianity had this as the backbone of their code. This poster decries religion, particularly the Christian religion. At the same time, anti-Semitism was decreed to be a crime. It is estimated that 8100 clergy, monks, and nuns were murdered... [Wikipedia] and life was made a living hell for millions of Russian Christians.
During the Stalinist era, the Soviet government gave up on the propaganda and forced women to enter the workforce. The proportion of women in the workforce increased through oppression, not liberation. Women moved from the freedom of home life to became oppressed in an uncaring workplace. On a recent trip through Ukraine by train, I saw queues at church doors. I visited churches where there was standing room only. The people appear to be flocking back to the church after the hell of communism.
Be wary. Feminism is re-birthed communism.