Get the exclusive (almost) Weekly Digest.

    Obamarama 2008: Obama and the Eradication of the Traditional Family

    February 19, 2008 by Brandy Vencel


    The family is the association established by nature
    for the supply of man’s everyday wants.

    Aristotle

    I don’t pretend to really understand why socialism tends to require the devastation of the nuclear family. We see this is many dystopian novels, most notably in 1984 and Brave New World. But I had expected that when I first read them. After all, they are about the disaster of government control.

    What I found fascinating is that this destruction of the family is often found, in glowing description, in perhaps the earliest story of its kind, Thomas More’s Utopia. Granted, it doesn’t sound so bad when More portrays it all in such a positive light, but it is there nonetheless. “Families” are not organized in the manner that God intended {according to blood}, but rather in a way that is convenient for the community as a whole. Food is eaten in community and children are raised in community, and there don’t seem to be expectations that children would be tied to their particular parents or whatnot.

    My only guess is that socialism elevates the State above all else. {Remember I said that it, in essence, declares itself to be God?} The family sometimes gets in the way of the State. This is, for instance, why Germany persecutes their homeschoolers. They do not want children to have a greater allegiance to family or religion because this is not in the State’s best interests.

    Another guess is that family is deeply tied to private property, something else that Marxism stands against. After all, sons, or at least first-born sons, have the traditional priviledge of inheriting their father’s estate, and also perhaps caring for their father’s widow and/or remaining minor children. This intrudes upon the State’s desire to {1} own and control all property, and {2} own and control all people, especially the “needy.”

    The Communist Manifesto doesn’t acknowledge God. It doesn’t believe that the family was the first form of culture created by the LORD, and therefore the unit from which all larger culture is derived. Instead, it necessitates the eradication of the family structure that God created in Genesis. It also, by the way, calls for the elimination of religion. The State, again, doesn’t want any competing interests.

    We see the abolition of the family in a speech given by Obama on 1.22.08, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. In the tradition of Margaret Sanger before him, who almost single-handedly brought about the legalization of birth control in our country, which quickly brought about the ultimate form of birth control {abortion}, Obama rightly interprets Roe v. Wade to be about more than abortion. It is part of a larger movement to organize society in a certain way. It makes the statement that women can be like men. You see, since the primary difference between men and women is that women can bear children and nurse them, killing the baby in the womb eliminates differences. A woman’s life no longer has to stop for children, it no longer has to consider anyone but the Self. Which serves the purposes of the State. If the Self has great allegiances to family and faith, the State is annoyed by this.

    Obama says:

    But we also know that Roe v. Wade is about more than a woman’s right to choose; it’s about equality. It’s about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons. And so to truly honor that decision, we need to update the social contract so that women can free themselves, and their children, from violent relationships; so that a mom can stay home with a sick child without getting a pink slip; so that she can go to work knowing that there’s affordable, quality childcare for her children; and so that the American dream is within reach for every family in this country.

    This is the elimination of the family spelled out. First, we do away with gender distinctions and gender roles. We kill our babies when they are in our way. Women work, and children are raised, not by mothers and fathers, but by State-subsidized employees. Perhaps the children attend public school before heading to their federally-funded after-school care for the remainder of the day. Men are often demonized in this context. If mentioned at all, they are irresponsible, “dead-beat,” or violent, which is really a way of dismissing them from the entire conversation. After all, encouraging women to see men in a positive light would be counterproductive; it would encourage marriage and family.

    It is interesting to me that Obama is himself the head of a nuclear family when what he believes is obviously in direct contradiction to such an arrangement. What is the American family to Obama? It certainly doesn’t include men. His statement is primarily focused on the woman who has the power to tear down her house with her own hands.

    If the woman goes the way of the socialist-enlightened self, there will be no family.

    Get the (almost) weekly digest!

    Weekly encouragement, direct to your inbox, (almost) every Saturday.

    Powered by ConvertKit
    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    No Comments

    Leave a Reply