I am not sure if you are being serious or mocking my post, because I think the idea is pretty clear... but I will try and break it down even more in case you are serious because I know some people have never been exposed to conservative thought.
The traditional monogamous family in which there were distinct roles (men provided and defended, women cared for the home and the education of children) was like a miniature nation in itself: a group of people bonded by blood living in the same territory which was their home or the land they owned. Everything that was needed to thrive was provided within the family. The State, then, was simply a way for all the different families within a nation to organize themselves and take care of communal tasks. In the same way a wife had a place and a role within the family (the education of children and caring for the home) her role within the State mirrored it, women represented their families in matters of faith, spirituality and the rearing and education of children. Men's role also had a mirror in society at large: they represented their family politically and fought wars. This order creates a very stable society where every person has one mate, offspring, and a role to fulfill, since divorce was frowned upon or outright banned, people were encouraged to maintain this order. Women depended on their husband, their husbands depended on them, children depended on their parents, and each family had the incentive to do well in order to keep themselves fed, clothed, and possibly wealthy. The State is a
representation of the families that make up the Nation and it is very hard for the State to get out of hand.
What happens with totalitarian regimes? They all become totalitarian by breaking up these natural bonds in society. They all drive wedges between families, atomize society so that each person is simply an individual with a vertical relationship with the leader of the State or the State itself. The only relationships that are encouraged are within the confines of the State such as Party affiliation. If you are lucky enough to never have lived in a Communist Paradise, you can at least see good examples of this in literature. In the same way Fidel Castro encouraged people to rat their own parents out, in 1984 the Party was incapable of abolishing the family but they instilled in children a greater sense of loyalty towards the Party than towards their parents:
1984 said:
The family could not actually be abolished, and, indeed, people were encouraged to be fond of their children, in almost the old-fashioned way. The children, on the other hand, were systematically turned against their parents and taught to spy on them and report their deviations. The family had become in effect an extension of the Thought Police. It was a device by means of which everyone could be surrounded night and day by informers who knew him intimately
It isn't just in Communism, this is a method of mass control that is used by many movements and cults as well. Cults will break up families. In Scientology members are expected to fill out reports on their loved ones when they break any rules or behave inappropriately. Even your parents, your brothers or your sisters can write up reports on you. Scientology also promotes the idea that family bonds are irrelevant because they believe in reincarnation and in immortal souls, so why should you care about your family when it is only a transient thing? Scientology, on the other hand is forever. They make Sea Org members sign a billion year contract with the organization.
Now, I am using the most extreme examples to explain this, but every perverted system looks to do the same in more subtle ways. Socialist and marxist movements in countries that are not socialist yet will push to break up the family because they know that as long as the families exist and are strong, they are competition to the State they want to build. The more wedges the State drives within families the easier it is to knock the tower of society down and subvert the system. So.. for example.. marxism will promote the idea that a couple must be completely independent from one another. Women must work and earn a wage, men must do house chores and they must split everything in half. This way you are 2 independent individuals that don't need each other to thrive, you are simply sharing a common space, like roommates and can break up at any time. The same thing happened with the female vote. Before the suffragist movement each family had ONE vote. The father represented the family in matters of State so he was the one to cast it, but it was a vote per family. That way politicians had to appeal to the entire family in order to win their votes over. But with the female vote you now had 2 votes per household. So a party could, for example, promise handouts and privileges ONLY to women, to secure their vote driving a wedge between husband and wife, and creating a state in which it is no longer necessary to appeal to the entire family, just the individual members of it.
The subject is long and I dont want to hijack the thread so if anyone wants to discuss this at length feel free to hit me up on DM.
