Nietzsche on the institution of marriage

F. Roger Devlin’s views on marriage made a fairly deep impression in my worldview. So deep in fact that nothing has aroused more my emotions in the last few months than watching over and over both the British television series of Pride and Prejudice as well as the 2005 movie adaptation of the same novel, together with the well-known 1995 adaptation of Sense and Sensibility: the classics of Jane Austen.

Presently I cannot stand a single minute of TV or Hollywood. Indeed, while imbued in the feeling that today’s West is like a Gomorrah that has to be burned to the ashes, these adaptations stir my soul to such degree that the stories’ conclusions—old-time traditional marriages—move me almost on the verge of tears.

It must come as a surprise that the anti-Christian Nietzsche maintained, like the Christian Devlin, a quite traditional view of marriage until the very end of his intellectual life. The following is a passage from section 39 of “Skirmishes of an Untimely Man” of his 1888 book Twilight of the Idols:


Friedrich_Nietzsche

39.-

Our institutions are no good any more: on that there is universal agreement. However, it is not their fault but ours. Once we have lost all the instincts out of which institutions grow, we lose institutions altogether because we are no longer good for them. Democracy has ever been the form of decline in organizing power: in Human, All-Too-Human (I, 472) I already characterized modern democracy, together with its hybrids such as the “German Reich,” as the form of decline of the state. In order that there may be institutions, there must be a kind of will, instinct, or imperative, which is anti-liberal to the point of malice…

The whole of the West no longer possesses the instincts out of which institutions grow, out of which a future grows: perhaps nothing antagonizes its “modern spirit” so much. One lives for the day, one lives very fast, one lives very irresponsibly: precisely this is called “freedom.” That which makes an institution an institution is despised, hated, repudiated: one fears the danger of a new slavery the moment the word “authority” is even spoken out loud. That is how far décadence has advanced in the value-instincts of our politicians, of our political parties: instinctively they prefer what disintegrates, what hastens the end.

Witness modern marriage. All rationality has clearly vanished from modern marriage; yet that is no objection to marriage, but to modernity. The rationality of marriage—that lay in the husband’s sole juridical responsibility, which gave marriage a center of gravity, while today it limps on both legs. The rationality of marriage—that lay in its indissolubility in principle, which lent it an accent that could be heard above the accident of feeling, passion, and what is merely momentary. It also lay in the family’s responsibility for the choice of a spouse. With the growing indulgence of love matches, the very foundation of marriage has been eliminated, that which alone makes an institution of it.

Never, absolutely never, can an institution be founded on an idiosyncrasy; one cannot, as I have said, found marriage on “love”—it can be founded on the sex drive, on the property drive (wife and child as property), on the drive to dominate, which continually organizes for itself the smallest structure of domination, the family, and which needs children and heirs to hold fast—physiologically too—to an attained measure of power, influence, and wealth, in order to prepare for long-range tasks, for a solidarity of instinct between the centuries.

Marriage as an institution involves the affirmation of the largest and most enduring form of organization: when society cannot affirm itself as a whole, down to the most distant generations, then marriage has altogether no meaning. Modern marriage has lost its meaning—consequently one abolishes it.

15 Comments

  1. “With the growing indulgence of love matches, the very foundation of marriage has been eliminated, that which alone makes an institution of it.”

    I wonder when marriage started to be more about love than practicality?Did that come from England?

    Schopenhauer thought arranged marriages were better from what I understand.

    I think society and most people would be better off with at least some form of arranged marriage. Maybe you don’t force people to get married sight unseen, but you set people up with the point of them possibly getting married. You wouldn’t have all this nonsense of dating and trying to pick people up with all the silly romance that wears off. Most people aren’t that good at it in the first place and it doesn’t lead to good marriages in many cases.

    Of course, most of the time the word dating means having sex in today’s world.

    There was a study in India recently that found that people who had arranged marriages had their “love” increase over time, while the modern romantic marriages had their ‘love” peak in a few years then dissipate.

    • The golden mean between the two extremes is precisely the Austen world. Have you seen any of the cited films? These dilemmas are touched there in subtle, and not so subtle, ways.

      • No, I’ll check them out.

  2. There is a little problem with traditional marriage. It presupposes leadership of the man, that is, patriarchy, but requires the same chastity and loyalty of men as of women. This is tricky.

  3. Reblogged this on vikingbitch's Blog and commented:
    Interesting piece on marriage.

    I have never been married, but my parents have been together since 1970. Really, their relationship is a mystery to me and that is fine because I really do not want to know the dark corners of their relationship. Not at all.

    My parents held their relationship as some shining example of what should ‘be’. They had me and then my younger sister. All I can say is that these 2 people were typical of Boomers in that they really sort regarded the couple thing as the ultimate achievement of one’s life, well at least my mother did.

    Interesting though my dad stated to me once years back how he believed that women put too much emphasis on relationships. It was an interesting statement coming from a traditional male, but really, in some ways, my dad is not so traditional. He has often said that he would have loved for my mother to have made money etc.

    My mom was educated, and tried to the job thing, but never got out and worked for awhile. She dug being the lady of the house.

    What is and makes a “marriage” is really up to the 2 people involved. It is their relationship and they navigate how they wish.

    When I look at WN, and I really I think the ‘movement’ is bullshit, so many put this emphasis on being married as the cure all for societal ills. Look, good people make good marriages. Good people make good institutions and societies. The truth is there a fewer good people today in the decadent West and so consequently it is harder to partner.

    National Socialism and its fascist view of marriage does not do it for me either. I like to clean- I could clean all day, but baking cakes and sewing, not my strong point.

    There is no formula that works for everyone.

    Someone on the thread wrote about traditional marriages that are arranged in India. I have also read that women in India are more likely to contract AIDS /HIV if they are married versus those that are unmarried.

    I think also, there comes a time in one’s life where really marriage is pointless. I mean once you get past age 35, good luck because you will be to set in your ways UNLESS you have been married before or maybe have kids, things might be different.

    Marriage failed in the west because Western Society depended too much upon it, and frankly, the West was built by European men who were silently backed by their women; however, their women never got kudos and in fact, as the Mini Hef phenomenon revealed, these men had jackshit loyalty to their women and would often cheat on them and trade them out.

    Sorry to say but marriage kind of became a raw deal for women. I can only speak for myself by saying that I was taught from an early age to make sure I could support myself. I was taught that marriage is a good idea, but that my husband could die or leave me and that I better be able to take care of myself.

    It seems to me that WN is really pro White Men and really wants to replace White Women. It is in fact pro White Women genocide. It wishes to them because they are not good Silent Slaves anymore.

    I have watched Pride and Prejudice and what comes to my mind is how each of the sisters’ relationships with their respective spouses are different. Again, can we pleas ditch the one size fits all attitude towards marriage.

    Yeah, I am over it myself. Sure I would like to get laid regularly, but in truth I could do that outside of being married. That being said, I don’t because what is the big deal about getting laid? Really.

    Bringing back this attitude that men should dominate women and that women should be enslaved and married to fugly old men is just retarded and will just bring back the very problems we have today.

    When will the men in the West learn that they cannot own women? They cannot own slaves.

    America and its Autistic Elite refuse to let go of their want to enslave others. First the blacks. Now the Mexicans. The Elite will not wipe their own arces or clean their own homes, so now we have America Third World Style.

    Same with marriage. Europeans are dying and not procreating because there are men and women that enter marriage with a overseer / slave mentality. Nope, I am not a slave and I don’t want to screw a slave.

    I have a different attitude about “White Women” today. You see, I think they are slaves still. They are expected to work on the Plantation because massa’ say dey privileged – yeah, that is bullshit! Mean while massa’ siphons off taxes from these Working White Women’s earning and they are funneled into him shipping in more cheap poon while all the while he yelps “White Female Privilege”. Oh yeah, that is right, I am privileged because I am not being raped, beaten, impaled. That is right, I am a parasite. If I am not sucking massa’s dick, there is no need for me to exist. Furthermore, their so called compadres in “the struggle” are withholding marriage from them – fuck you Moronosphere.

    Bringing back traditional marriage will not do a damn thing. Raping a bunch of White Women and forcing them to marry will not do a damn thing.

    But really, that is the whole crux behind WN and really NS, not doing a damn thing.

    • VB, yesterday I banned a Hispanic troll from Paraguay because the guy simply cannot grasp my code, “In your private life Thou shalt only speak to Aryan males.”

      This Paraguayan, a proud “Hispanic”, is not supposed to read my stuff. This blog is only for white males (or at least those who are not pure Aryans but that nonetheless do believe in the 14 words). However, like Andrew Anglin I won’t ban women visitors just because they’re women.

      SexualUtopiaCoverAt any event, if you really want to engage on a serious discussion of why marriage and patriarchy must be reinstated to save the race from extinction, I’d recommend your reading of Roger Devlin’s book.

      Cheers.

  4. I have to add my own $.002 worth on the subject where I have to respectfully disagree with you, Cesar, and will cite something in your own cultural origins to back up my case.

    The mind of the Aryan Japhethite male has been so infected by Semitic orientalism that he has adopted their Woman as Subhuman Inferior mindset.

    Now think about this logically and dispassionately for a few minutes and answer this question. How can any superior person produce offspring of equal ability and intellect if he is breeding said offspring with an inferior person? The best he can hope for is offspring with ability and intellect somewhere between the two parents.

    Many White Nationalist men raving about feminism remind me of a man pounding his fist on the table, bellowing, “I’m king of this castle!” Yet, the whole attitude of the lord of the manor to his wife is not that she is his lady but that she is his serf.

    Princes bed serfs, they don’t marry them. They seek out princesses who will ultimately be their queens when princes become elevated to kings.

    White men, particularly Christian White men love, love, love to cite all the scripture saying wives are subject to their husbands, yet they overlook a much more pertinent text in the bible about equal yoking in a marriage.

    Men and women could and should have their separate functions based on their skills, knowledge, and expertise on a subject, but there is hell to pay in a marriage whenever and wherever the power dynamics of a couple are too weighted in one direction over the other. Especially if the more powerful partner is not troubled much by ethnical scruples or personal honor.

    To back up my contention, I am relying on Spain’s history to cite the best example of equal yoking where the marriage of Prince Ferdinand of Aragon to Princess Isabella of Castille was concerned. Only this union of equally yoked partners made the expulsion of the Muslims and their Jewish confederates ruling their joint territories with a rod of iron possible.

    I strongly suggest that you go further back before the Christian calamity destroyed Europe at how much more egalitarian Aryan men and women were and even with their shield maidens, the men were, by no means, any slouches where it came to being feared and respected.

    Until White Aryans can purge themselves of all traces of Semitic Orientalism with its slave mentality, we are doomed to an eternal Battle of the Sexes where one side (feminism) or the other (misogyny) will have the upper hand and exact revenge for past insults until we drive ourselves to the brink of the extinction.

    Because Europeans are all about scorched earth once we get pissed off and you see what this attitude produced with two world wars.

    The households that have the best chance to remain standing are those where all the men are king of this castle and all their wives are their queens and both parties get their due respect. That way, instead of fighting a bunch of civil wars until the union is destroyed, they can work together as a team against any invaders.

    • peplodorio

      You simply have not read The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. It contains a long section (sample chapter: here) on ancient Sparta that basically refutes the feminists’ claim that our grandmas’ mores started with Christianity.

    • Reyes

      P.S. Regarding Isabella, Tomás de Torquemada wanted to expel all ethic Jews by the end of the 15th century.torquemada

      Compassionate Isabella on the other hand tolerated the converso Jews—who turned out to be a huge problem in Spain’s subsequent history.

    • @ Clytemnestra57,

      I see you are coming from VB’s blog, where women are posting comments like this one:

      “…we need just as many leaders who are women.” (link)

      Sorry, but that’s racially and culturally suicidal. No healthy western society has allowed such a thing. And although I am not a white nationalist it’s false, as another commenter says in that thread, that “WN’s hate White women”.

      You really have to read Devlin’s book to understand our POV (sample chapter: here).

      • There is a bizarre subset among WNs that, for lack of a better term, I would classify as mock anti-white nationalism. I use the word “mock” because this subset would have Aryan males become radical feminists and practice egalitarianism among Whites. They think that by redefining “tradition” (ie. “shield maidens”) and “facts” (ie men are irrational, women can provide perspective) that no one will notice the sleight of hand: they accept every single triumph of the left on the woman question as a fait accompli. Covington is a prime example of this.

        I’m afraid the “debate” among the two rival factions (WNs vs mock anti-WNs) leaves me with a feeling of total disgust; and asking them to read the pristine prose of Devlin is like “throwing pearls before swine.”

        We need to rise above this.

      • I was trying to be civil because of her recent comment in another branch of this blog. (link)

      • “Covington is a prime example of this.”

        So true. And what amazes me is that when he indirectly answered my criticism some time ago, at The Daily Stormer I believe, his excuse was that the (feminist) genie could not be forced back to the bottle. Covington wrote it after he was betrayed by a female porn star, Axis Sally (Corinna Burt), who used to be in his inner “nazi” circle!

      • Finally, it is so revealing that some quarters in white nationalism cry that homophobia is Jewish (e.g., Greg Johnson) or that marriage is Jewish (the above commenter, cheered by other women at Vikingbith’s blog).

  5. […] time don’t give any credit to the rumor of syphilis. As to Nietzsche’s views on the family see: here. The causes of Nietzsche’s solitude and incapability to form a family are explained in a lyrical […]


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: