Comments by "Spiritual Psychotherapy Services" (@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices) on "Lex Fridman"
channel.
-
6
-
🐟 27. MARRIAGE & THE FAMILY:
Matrimony is the contractual union of a man with one or more women, primarily for the purpose of PROCREATION and child-rearing.
The couple should be brought together by their respective parents, and if practical, some sort of nuptial ceremony performed. Once a couple has been engaged to be married, they should not break the agreement, unless one party has been proven to have lost his or her virginity with a third party. OBVIOUSLY, after the wedding, the marriage contract cannot be broken, unless one or both parties has committed adultery, or one party has chosen to no longer carry out his or her marital duties (for instance, if the husband refuses to materially-support his wife/wives, or the wife refuses to perform domestic chores for her master, both of which are legitimate grounds for divorce).
A RESPONSIBLE father will objectively evaluate the unique characteristics, virtues, idiosyncrasies, and shortcomings of his child from a relatively early age, and thereafter, seek a compatible spouse from the available pool of persons in his social circles. Unless his nation faces extinction, the potential match should not be any closer to his child than a cousin. If a prospective couple do not belong to the same clan (and thereby do not share the same family name), it is probable that their genetic code is sufficiently divergent to create healthy offspring. As implied above, incestuous marriage should only be condoned if the human race is in danger of extermination, or possibly in the instance where an entire race or nation is on the verge of annihilation.
If one’s parents fail in their duty to select a suitable mate, one should very carefully choose a COMPATIBLE spouse. The recommended criteria used to evaluate marital compatibility are as follows: physical characteristics (such as relative height and sexual attractiveness), personality type, intelligence, emotional temperament, diet, cultural similarities, political ideology, religious affiliation, and life goals.
One of the major causes of conjugal breakdown in recent decades has been due to the couple selecting each other based solely (or at least predominantly) on sexual attraction and/or amorous attachments, with little consideration given to the other guiding principles, listed above.
Romance rarely lasts more than a couple of years. Marriage is an institution based largely on PRACTICAL considerations, not on lustful feelings or on fleeting sentimentality. Without firm, practical reasons for a couple remaining conjugally-bound, they are susceptible to marital divorce.
Generally speaking, women have the potent desire to raise children, and require a man with which to mate, and then protect and support her and the offspring, during the fifteen-plus years (for EACH child) of child-rearing. Most men also desire to have a family, and additionally, possess a very powerful libido, which, if not channelled in a legitimate fashion, can cause a great deal of social misbehaviour (e.g. rape, etc.).
There is no such thing as a nun in the eyes of God. Therefore, unless a woman is seriously disabled, either physically or psychologically, or else a lesbian, she is lawfully OBLIGATED to marry the man preselected by her parents (or if her parents are deceased, by her extant master, whether that be her grandfather, an uncle, or an adult nephew). Ideally, women ought to be betrothed as soon as they reach adulthood, to avoid a childless existence. Quite understandably, very few men have aspirations to mate with a post-menopausal female.
Marriage is mandatory for men too, apart from missionary priests, those unfortunate males who are unable to support a family for reasons of mental or physical incapacity, men who are simply passed-over by hypergamous females due to being perceived as low-value suitors, homosexuals (meaning, men who are not at all attracted to the opposite gender. Bisexuals are not exempt from marriage), and men who reside in jurisdictions where ILLEGITIMATE feministic governments enact so-called “laws” which abrogate the lawful rights of married men.
In my particular case, despite being a model husband and father, my first wife, with the support of the dirty, demonic, democratic Australian government, literally kidnapped my three precious children, whilst my second wife, with the assistance of the equally-wicked, violent, corrupt, murderous Filipino government, stole my presbytery (the house of a priest).
The recent exodus of men in Western countries from the dating pool (or at least from formal marriage) is more than understandable.
The man should be approximately ten to twenty years OLDER than his wife/wives. Some of the reasons for this are:
It is natural for women to be attracted to older men and for men to be attracted to younger women. There is a good evolutionary reason why women reach their sexual peak between the ages of about fifteen to twenty-five and why a man's sexual market value peaks in his thirties to fifties. The female matures earlier (physically and socially), so if she mates with a man of similar age, she may find her spouse to be emotionally immature. The husband is almost a substitute for the woman's father figure, so the husband’s age gives him added authority as head of the family. Also, it gives the man extra time to establish his career, a house and home for his wife and forthcoming progeny.
The main duties of the HUSBAND are to teach his wife/wives and sons whatever beneficial lessons he has learnt from his own masters, protect his family from harm, and supply their necessities of life (that is, food, clothing, and shelter) as well as desired luxuries, if practicable. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
Marriage is not a democracy. Any so-called man who compromises with his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives or his offspring, is surely doomed to failure. Feminized western men, in particular, are guilty of such uxoriousness. Such emasculated “men” are not true men, and desperately need to regain their dignity as the head of their homes.
The main daily duties of the WIFE are to execute domestic chores such as to cook, clean, sew, take care of the children, and to keep the husband sexually satisfied so he doesn't look at other women.
The wife should submit to the will of her husband. She should fully respect him as her master, and should address him accordingly.
Whilst conversing, the wife should focus her attention completely on her husband. She should listen carefully to what he says, learn what he is saying, answer him, and obey his instructions. A man should never be alone with any female, apart from his wife, of course.
POLYGAMY has been taught by all the major religions. Unfortunately, the “westernized” religious cults seem to have done away with the practice for unbeknown reasons. The reason for polygamy is simply due to the fact that every woman needs a husband. Also, a certain proportion of men are destined to die as bachelors due to female hypergamy, which is a natural trait of women (even if it may seem unfair).
When a woman marries, she LITERALLY joins the family of her husband.
She takes her master's family name, and the husband's parents become her parents, which is why they are called “father/mother-in-law”, that is, “father/mother according to the law” (the one and only law of God, or more accurately, the Universal Law, as propounded in Chapter 12).
Cont...
5
-
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH:
The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word.
Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down.
A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering.
For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute.
It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent.
Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed.
Good and bad are RELATIVE – what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.'
Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good.
However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul.
When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law).
The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit).
Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason – because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability).
This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter.
Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything.
If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth.
OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”.
For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being.
So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth.
“In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are.
We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is."
***********
“God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This.
So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this – the Energy or the Consciousness.
The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.”
Roger Castillo,
Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015.
“I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”.
Lord Jesus Christ,
John 14:16 and 8:32.
4
-
4
-
3
-
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH:
The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word.
Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down.
A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering.
For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute.
It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent.
Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed.
Good and bad are RELATIVE – what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.'
Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good.
However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul.
When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law).
The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit).
Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason – because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability).
This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter.
Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything.
If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth.
OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”.
For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being.
So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth.
“In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are.
We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is."
***********
“God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This.
So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this – the Energy or the Consciousness.
The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.”
Roger Castillo,
Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015.
“I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”.
Lord Jesus Christ,
John 14:16 and 8:32.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
freedom of speech:
the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION.
Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level.
In private, freedom to speak one’s mind is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question.
Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. To give example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example.
2
-
1
-
1
-
@jimaforwood743 , respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🐟 27. MARRIAGE & THE FAMILY:
Matrimony is the contractual union of a man with one or more women, primarily for the purpose of PROCREATION and child-rearing.
The couple should be brought together by their respective parents, and if practical, some sort of nuptial ceremony performed. Once a couple has been engaged to be married, they should not break the agreement, unless one party has been proven to have lost his or her virginity with a third party. OBVIOUSLY, after the wedding, the marriage contract cannot be broken, unless one or both parties has committed adultery, or one party has chosen to no longer carry out his or her marital duties (for instance, if the husband refuses to materially-support his wife/wives, or the wife refuses to perform domestic chores for her master, both of which are legitimate grounds for divorce).
A RESPONSIBLE father will objectively evaluate the unique characteristics, virtues, idiosyncrasies, and shortcomings of his child from a relatively early age, and thereafter, seek a compatible spouse from the available pool of persons in his social circles. Unless his nation faces extinction, the potential match should not be any closer to his child than a cousin. If a prospective couple do not belong to the same clan (and thereby do not share the same family name), it is probable that their genetic code is sufficiently divergent to create healthy offspring. As implied above, incestuous marriage should only be condoned if the human race is in danger of extermination, or possibly in the instance where an entire race or nation is on the verge of annihilation.
If one’s parents fail in their duty to select a suitable mate, one should very carefully choose a COMPATIBLE spouse. The recommended criteria used to evaluate marital compatibility are as follows: physical characteristics (such as relative height and sexual attractiveness), personality type, intelligence, emotional temperament, diet, cultural similarities, political ideology, religious affiliation, and life goals.
One of the major causes of conjugal breakdown in recent decades has been due to the couple selecting each other based solely (or at least predominantly) on sexual attraction and/or amorous attachments, with little consideration given to the other guiding principles, listed above.
Romance rarely lasts more than a couple of years. Marriage is an institution based largely on PRACTICAL considerations, not on lustful feelings or on fleeting sentimentality. Without firm, practical reasons for a couple remaining conjugally-bound, they are susceptible to marital divorce.
Generally speaking, women have the potent desire to raise children, and require a man with which to mate, and then protect and support her and the offspring, during the fifteen-plus years (for EACH child) of child-rearing. Most men also desire to have a family, and additionally, possess a very powerful libido, which, if not channelled in a legitimate fashion, can cause a great deal of social misbehaviour (e.g. rape, etc.).
There is no such thing as a nun in the eyes of God. Therefore, unless a woman is seriously disabled, either physically or psychologically, or else a lesbian, she is lawfully OBLIGATED to marry the man preselected by her parents (or if her parents are deceased, by her extant master, whether that be her grandfather, an uncle, or an adult nephew). Ideally, women ought to be betrothed as soon as they reach adulthood, to avoid a childless existence. Quite understandably, very few men have aspirations to mate with a post-menopausal female.
Marriage is mandatory for men too, apart from missionary priests, those unfortunate males who are unable to support a family for reasons of mental or physical incapacity, men who are simply passed-over by hypergamous females due to being perceived as low-value suitors, homosexuals (meaning, men who are not at all attracted to the opposite gender. Bisexuals are not exempt from marriage), and men who reside in jurisdictions where ILLEGITIMATE feministic governments enact so-called “laws” which abrogate the lawful rights of married men.
In my particular case, despite being a model husband and father, my first wife, with the support of the dirty, demonic, democratic Australian government, literally kidnapped my three precious children, whilst my second wife, with the assistance of the equally-wicked, violent, corrupt, murderous Filipino government, stole my presbytery (the house of a priest).
The recent exodus of men in Western countries from the dating pool (or at least from formal marriage) is more than understandable.
The man should be approximately ten to twenty years OLDER than his wife/wives. Some of the reasons for this are:
It is natural for women to be attracted to older men and for men to be attracted to younger women. There is a good evolutionary reason why women reach their sexual peak between the ages of about fifteen to twenty-five and why a man's sexual market value peaks in his thirties to fifties. The female matures earlier (physically and socially), so if she mates with a man of similar age, she may find her spouse to be emotionally immature. The husband is almost a substitute for the woman's father figure, so the husband’s age gives him added authority as head of the family. Also, it gives the man extra time to establish his career, a house and home for his wife and forthcoming progeny.
The main duties of the HUSBAND are to teach his wife/wives and sons whatever beneficial lessons he has learnt from his own masters, protect his family from harm, and supply their necessities of life (that is, food, clothing, and shelter) as well as desired luxuries, if practicable. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
Marriage is not a democracy. Any so-called man who compromises with his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives or his offspring, is surely doomed to failure. Feminized western men, in particular, are guilty of such uxoriousness. Such emasculated “men” are not true men, and desperately need to regain their dignity as the head of their homes.
The main daily duties of the WIFE are to execute domestic chores such as to cook, clean, sew, take care of the children, and to keep the husband sexually satisfied so he doesn't look at other women.
The wife should submit to the will of her husband. She should fully respect him as her master, and should address him accordingly.
Whilst conversing, the wife should focus her attention completely on her husband. She should listen carefully to what he says, learn what he is saying, answer him, and obey his instructions. A man should never be alone with any female, apart from his wife, of course.
POLYGAMY has been taught by all the major religions. Unfortunately, the “westernized” religious cults seem to have done away with the practice for unbeknown reasons. The reason for polygamy is simply due to the fact that every woman needs a husband. Also, a certain proportion of men are destined to die as bachelors due to female hypergamy, which is a natural trait of women (even if it may seem unfair).
When a woman marries, she LITERALLY joins the family of her husband.
She takes her master's family name, and the husband's parents become her parents, which is why they are called “father/mother-in-law”, that is, “father/mother according to the law” (the one and only law of God, or more accurately, the Universal Law, as propounded in Chapter 12).
Cont...
1
-
1
-
🐟 27. MARRIAGE & THE FAMILY:
Matrimony is the contractual union of a man with one or more women, primarily for the purpose of PROCREATION and child-rearing.
The couple should be brought together by their respective parents, and if practical, some sort of nuptial ceremony performed. Once a couple has been engaged to be married, they should not break the agreement, unless one party has been proven to have lost his or her virginity with a third party. OBVIOUSLY, after the wedding, the marriage contract cannot be broken, unless one or both parties has committed adultery, or one party has chosen to no longer carry out his or her marital duties (for instance, if the husband refuses to materially-support his wife/wives, or the wife refuses to perform domestic chores for her master, both of which are legitimate grounds for divorce).
A RESPONSIBLE father will objectively evaluate the unique characteristics, virtues, idiosyncrasies, and shortcomings of his child from a relatively early age, and thereafter, seek a compatible spouse from the available pool of persons in his social circles. Unless his nation faces extinction, the potential match should not be any closer to his child than a cousin. If a prospective couple do not belong to the same clan (and thereby do not share the same family name), it is probable that their genetic code is sufficiently divergent to create healthy offspring. As implied above, incestuous marriage should only be condoned if the human race is in danger of extermination, or possibly in the instance where an entire race or nation is on the verge of annihilation.
If one’s parents fail in their duty to select a suitable mate, one should very carefully choose a COMPATIBLE spouse. The recommended criteria used to evaluate marital compatibility are as follows: physical characteristics (such as relative height and sexual attractiveness), personality type, intelligence, emotional temperament, diet, cultural similarities, political ideology, religious affiliation, and life goals.
One of the major causes of conjugal breakdown in recent decades has been due to the couple selecting each other based solely (or at least predominantly) on sexual attraction and/or amorous attachments, with little consideration given to the other guiding principles, listed above.
Romance rarely lasts more than a couple of years. Marriage is an institution based largely on PRACTICAL considerations, not on lustful feelings or on fleeting sentimentality. Without firm, practical reasons for a couple remaining conjugally-bound, they are susceptible to marital divorce.
Generally speaking, women have the potent desire to raise children, and require a man with which to mate, and then protect and support her and the offspring, during the fifteen-plus years (for EACH child) of child-rearing. Most men also desire to have a family, and additionally, possess a very powerful libido, which, if not channelled in a legitimate fashion, can cause a great deal of social misbehaviour (e.g. rape, etc.).
There is no such thing as a nun in the eyes of God. Therefore, unless a woman is seriously disabled, either physically or psychologically, or else a lesbian, she is lawfully OBLIGATED to marry the man preselected by her parents (or if her parents are deceased, by her extant master, whether that be her grandfather, an uncle, or an adult nephew). Ideally, women ought to be betrothed as soon as they reach adulthood, to avoid a childless existence. Quite understandably, very few men have aspirations to mate with a post-menopausal female.
Marriage is mandatory for men too, apart from missionary priests, those unfortunate males who are unable to support a family for reasons of mental or physical incapacity, men who are simply passed-over by hypergamous females due to being perceived as low-value suitors, homosexuals (meaning, men who are not at all attracted to the opposite gender. Bisexuals are not exempt from marriage), and men who reside in jurisdictions where ILLEGITIMATE feministic governments enact so-called “laws” which abrogate the lawful rights of married men.
In my particular case, despite being a model husband and father, my first wife, with the support of the dirty, demonic, democratic Australian government, literally kidnapped my three precious children, whilst my second wife, with the assistance of the equally-wicked, violent, corrupt, murderous Filipino government, stole my presbytery (the house of a priest).
The recent exodus of men in Western countries from the dating pool (or at least from formal marriage) is more than understandable.
The man should be approximately ten to twenty years OLDER than his wife/wives. Some of the reasons for this are:
It is natural for women to be attracted to older men and for men to be attracted to younger women. There is a good evolutionary reason why women reach their sexual peak between the ages of about fifteen to twenty-five and why a man's sexual market value peaks in his thirties to fifties. The female matures earlier (physically and socially), so if she mates with a man of similar age, she may find her spouse to be emotionally immature. The husband is almost a substitute for the woman's father figure, so the husband’s age gives him added authority as head of the family. Also, it gives the man extra time to establish his career, a house and home for his wife and forthcoming progeny.
The main duties of the HUSBAND are to teach his wife/wives and sons whatever beneficial lessons he has learnt from his own masters, protect his family from harm, and supply their necessities of life (that is, food, clothing, and shelter) as well as desired luxuries, if practicable. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
Marriage is not a democracy. Any so-called man who compromises with his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives or his offspring, is surely doomed to failure. Feminized western men, in particular, are guilty of such uxoriousness. Such emasculated “men” are not true men, and desperately need to regain their dignity as the head of their homes.
The main daily duties of the WIFE are to execute domestic chores such as to cook, clean, sew, take care of the children, and to keep the husband sexually satisfied so he doesn't look at other women.
The wife should submit to the will of her husband. She should fully respect him as her master, and should address him accordingly.
Whilst conversing, the wife should focus her attention completely on her husband. She should listen carefully to what he says, learn what he is saying, answer him, and obey his instructions. A man should never be alone with any female, apart from his wife, of course.
POLYGAMY has been taught by all the major religions. Unfortunately, the “westernized” religious cults seem to have done away with the practice for unbeknown reasons. The reason for polygamy is simply due to the fact that every woman needs a husband. Also, a certain proportion of men are destined to die as bachelors due to female hypergamy, which is a natural trait of women (even if it may seem unfair).
When a woman marries, she LITERALLY joins the family of her husband.
She takes her master's family name, and the husband's parents become her parents, which is why they are called “father/mother-in-law”, that is, “father/mother according to the law” (the one and only law of God, or more accurately, the Universal Law, as propounded in Chapter 12).
Cont...
1
-
1
-
1
-
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1