Why marriage is a self-enslavement ritual - Michael Tsarion

[Winston]

Check out this part 52 of Michael Tsarion's lecture "Age of Manipulation":



Near the beginning he explains how marriage is an ancient ritual of self-enslavement and submission to turn yourself into owned property, hence the license requirement. He also explains the true meaning of the prayer gesture of your hands.

Check out these YouTube comments that are so spot on:

"That's why they call it 'wedlock'. You promise to love each other. That is like promising to always prefer vanilla ice cream over all other flavors. You can say the words; but you cannot make yourself feel feel love in the future. The heart does not listen to the head in that way. In fact, promising to love is the fast track to losing love. It becomes an obligation. Trapping the one you love is not an act of love; it is the opposite of love. It produces trauma - the basis for mind-control."

"Marriage is a corporate merger. More precisely, it is a 'takeover' since we live in a patriarchal society and the female takes the male's surname, property is in the male's name, etc. That's why if you get a divorce you go to a judge who works provisionally for international bankers. The United States is a corporation founded in 1868. People need to wake up and understand what is going on. Federal Reserve is private, etc."

"You are correct.
If a couple wishes to have some kind of gathering of friends, then that is OK. But vows and state licenses are abominations of love. It is so sick and twisted that 'They' messed with our spirituality in that way. What little girl doesn't fantasize about having a big wedding some day? It is no wonder that many people find love elusive. They think it is something to own. If you love her, set her free. If she come back... set her free. She is not 'yours'. Never!"

[momopi]

Marriages exist because men don't want to raise someone else's children, and thus he pays a bride price or cost of providing for a wife, in exchange for exclusive sexual access. This arrangement is formalized through marriage and the children are considered legitimate. The women, in exchange, is provided for, and her children is assured to be legit in inheritance of land, property, and title. If the man has children out of wedlock, the children are considered illegitimate. Poorer people who had no property or title had nothing to inherit and pass on, were less concerned about the formalities of marriage.

If marriages did not exist and all men openly competed for smaller numbers of pretty young nubile women, a lot of you guys would be royally screwed.

[jamesbond]

Tom Leykis says only women and children benefit from marriage. If a divorce occurs (which happens 50% of the time in the US), the woman makes out like a bandit. She receives child support for each child until they turn 18 AND she can spend the child support money on ANYTHING she wants (like going out to bars with her friends, buying clothes and jewelry, etc.). She may also get alimony which is money her ex-husband has to pay her for AS LONG SHE LIVES (unless she gets remarried).

No wonder why women in the US want to get married so badly, they know they have a "golden parachute" waiting for them if they decide to divorce their husbands!

[dano]

Despite the fact that I'm divorced I think marriage can be a spiritual experience for some people. I've seen it happen a few times in my life. The people involved bonded very well with each other and they both gave 100% effort to the relationship. For most people however marriage is harder than being single.

[Winston]

Even if marriage serves a practical purpose, the point is it's unrealistic and artificial. As this YouTube comment said:

"That's why they call it 'wedlock'. You promise to love each other. That is like promising to always prefer vanilla ice cream over all other flavors. You can say the words; but you cannot make yourself feel feel love in the future. The heart does not listen to the head in that way. In fact, promising to love is the fast track to losing love. It becomes an obligation. Trapping the one you love is not an act of love; it is the opposite of love. It produces trauma - the basis for mind-control."

It's not realistic or sane to promise to only like vanilla ice cream and no other flavor. Why bind yourself to something so unrealistic? It doesn't make sense and it's not realistic.

Why commit yourself to a prison anyway?

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Even if marriage serves a practical purpose, the point is it's unrealistic and artificial. As this YouTube comment said:

"That's why they call it 'wedlock'. You promise to love each other. That is like promising to always prefer vanilla ice cream over all other flavors. You can say the words; but you cannot make yourself feel feel love in the future. The heart does not listen to the head in that way. In fact, promising to love is the fast track to losing love. It becomes an obligation. Trapping the one you love is not an act of love; it is the opposite of love. It produces trauma - the basis for mind-control."

It's not realistic or sane to promise to only like vanilla ice cream and no other flavor. Why bind yourself to something so unrealistic? It doesn't make sense and it's not realistic.

Why commit yourself to a prison anyway?

Nicely put... I like how this person dealt with his new found freedom after his divorce:

Canadian Man Burned $1M in Cash to Avoid Paying Ex-Wife Child Support.

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/man-says-he ... ld-support