Burn it down?

28 Mar

Papists have an advantage over Prots: we can civilly divorce, while remaining married, since what God has brought together no man may put asunder. As I wrote in the comments to my gay marriage-encouraging post:

Note that the marriage penalty as outlined in this article chiefly attacks two-income couples. For a traditional family where one person works in the cash economy, and one works in the household economy, there is a benefit from the tax laws. But US tax policy has been opposed for a long time to couples where both partners work, and I think this is one big reason WHY feminism and careerism was pushed: there’s MUCH MORE profit for the government in it.

They have been taxing marriage for over 40 years, and now they’re getting less and less of it. The smartest tax-wise course of action for a married couple with two children where both work is to seek a civil divorce (if Catholic, great, as there’s no annulment), and then each parent can take one child and file as head of household. In the given example, if each gay man were to adopt one child and file as head of household, his Federal taxes would drop by $2500 (not counting child credits or exemptions, of course) over the single rate, his NY State taxes would drop by about $200, and his NY City taxes would drop by about $25. That’s $2750 per person in tax savings, or $5500 annually.

When you add up the numbers, it is clear that the Federal Government is financially supporting divorce. A married couple, each earning 200K with two children, that divorces and each file as head of household will save OVER 13,000 in taxes, mostly Federal, EACH AND EVERY YEAR. If they can cohabit successfully, they get the benefits of marriage without paying the financial burden.

So it was interesting to read about a scorched-earth tactic from an anonymous Dalrock commenter. In brief, marriage belongs to US, as Russia belonged to the Russians, and it behooved the Russians to burn down Russia to starve out the advancing Napoleonic and Nazi armies. Just so, we should separate from the state marriage to burn down any association between marriage and state, and starve out the parasites eating our society from within.

It’s so good, I have elected to elevate it entirely, below.

the smart play will eventually happen: end State sanctioned marriage. It’ll be one royal mess, but what does exist of the TradCons will hopefully go that way. It’d solve a whole lot of problems with the current system anyway.

I was thinking the same thing. When the Nazis (and before them, Napoleon) were marching east, the retreating Russians used classic scorched earth tactics: they burned their own cities in advance of the invaders, so as to deny them winter shelter and resources. The city of Minsk, as I recall, was so completely burned out that not a single roof remained.

Along the same vein, I recall an American revolutionary officer, who questioned his subordinates as to why they weren’t firing their cannons upon a certain house that the British had seized and turned into a headquarters. “But, that’s YOUR house, sir!” He ordered them to open fire.

If the SCOTUS supports sodomite pseudo-marriage, it’s time for scorched earth.Marriage rightfully belongs to us and NOT to them, and it’s an abomination for them to have it, so we have every right to destroy it in order to deny them access to it.

Plus, of course, as pointed out above, a whole crapload of other problems that have infected state-marriage will be gone if marriage is repealed. And the feds lose a whole lot of taxes due to nobody filing as married any more. (Hmm….) Christians and others who want to marry in religious ceremonies, can certainly still do so, and the legal aspects of life together (property, etc) can be handled contractually. As to the rest… as Mel Gibson playing Wallace said of the English fort in Braveheart: “Burn it.’

Let’s not forget though, that the Russian burning everything in the advance of an invasion, was NOT their whole strategy. The complete strategy is, ‘Retreat….. and wait for Winter”. And winter is surely coming –it is mathematically impossible for the entitlement state to continue indefinitely, so on that basis alone, a civilizational crash logically cannot be avoided. And then, the objective age old truths of conservatism [EA: he means reactionarianism], will come hammering down on the thick skull of this culture til people are FORCED to listen to reason again.


Posted by on March 28, 2013 in Brave New World Order, sodomites


5 responses to “Burn it down?

  1. Will S.

    March 29, 2013 at 6:29 am

    Interesting, EA! I like it. And yet, I am slightly concerned, that once such a civil divorce has happened, that the wife has ‘blackmail power’ once that happens, which, presumably, she wouldn’t be looking to use (since these would presumably be otherwise happily wed couples doing this), for alimony and child support, etc., should she choose to use it. And while hopefully in most cases that wouldn’t be so, it could happen…

    I think it would equally be great for a movement to arise, within traditionalist churches of all kinds, to not legally marry, only do church marriages – and simply write one’s spouse directly into one’s will, etc. Alas, in Canada, we have this thing called ‘common law’ marriages, wherein if two unmarried people of the opposite sex live together long enough, the Crown automatically considers them married, for taxation purposes, etc., and from then on, operates on such an understanding. So church-married couples who wish to not get considered ‘common-law’ married would have to spend a certain amount of time officially apart (not sure the details on how long), each year. Hey, that might not be a bad break; move back temporarily in with your parents for a while, or go visit your brother or sister, sponge off them… 😉

    The gays want legal marriage? Let them and only them have it. Burn it down, indeed! Ingenious. 🙂

  2. electricangel

    March 29, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    I think the answer has to lie in a suggestion like you made. Religious marriages, in a tightly-knit community. No private ownership of property. Everything held in common by the elders of the Church. So each person gets income from the community, so long as he contributes to it.

    Divorce your husband for cash and prizes? He doesn’t have any cash or prizes to give you. Oh, and you are now excommunicated: good luck with that, dearie.

    The Amish, Trad Catholics, and Orthodox Jews will replace the rest of us in this way.

  3. infowarrior1

    March 29, 2013 at 7:41 pm


    Now how are we gonna prevent the state from enroaching on such religious communities.

  4. electricangel

    March 29, 2013 at 8:26 pm


    I could quote Augustine, but will choose a similar thought from Murray Rothbard: the state is a gang of thieves, writ large. I do not know that they are THAT interested in murder for its own sake, and kidnapping via the draft ended a while ago.

    That having been said, it is imperative to avoid much economic wealth if the State is to leave such a religious community alone. The idea of social capital encapsulates this: a man with a faithful wife in a supportive community is far wealthier than one with millions of dollars who lives in a world that supports his being denuded of that wealth for cash and prizes. Orthodox Jews are nowhere near as wealthy as their Reform co-religionists; there is simply less there to steal.

    Iraq had the great misfortune to have a lot of oil, as has Iran, and both face or faced US military action. North Korea has dirt and poverty and no easily-stealable wealth. Is it any wonder they’ve been left alone?

%d bloggers like this: