Survival, Canada's True National Game

I believe, that "LOVE" is never stronger nor a family any better than when--like chickens, we have to do a little scratching for anything we get.

Many economists , politicians, psychologists, and psychiatrists claim economics, not love was the motivating force for union in primitive societies, indeed in virtually all hunting, gathering and agricultural societies. The family was a unit established for the purpose of optimizing the chances of physical survival. Man/woman relationships conceived and defined not so much in terms of “love” or need for emotional intimacy as in terms of the practical need associated with hunting, gathering, fighting, raising crops, child rearing, staying alive, and so forth. Some claim, in primitive cultures the idea of romantic love did not exist at all, that the cardinal and ruling value was the survival of the tribe or family. They also claim the individual was subordinated to the tribe families needs and rules in virtually every aspect of life. This was the essence of tribal/family mentality. These people also claim that passionate individual attachments are seen as threatening to family values and tribal authority
I was born into what some might claim to have been a primitive, hunting, and agricultural society; and yes, much thought was given to hunting, raising crops, child rearing, and especially fighting and staying alive. The whole world was at war.
But my father came HOME from the war. Actually, he came to a brand new home; a house (built my grandfather), not quite finished, but completely paid for. If there was no "LOVE", if no love existed; then I will take that "old fashioned commitment, every time. But, there is one thing I can tell you for sure: there was much more mature; but passionate “LOVE” at that time than there is today, and much importance was granted to the worth of individual personality, and emotional attachments. But it was also known that no man is an island unto himself, and too much self assertion, and individualism, can crush romantic love; because “LOVE” requires commitment. It is not a feeling--it is something that you DO. If this had not been recognized, OUR MODERN SOCIETY, would not be here today.

Modern twenty-first century society would seem to believe: Self assertion and individualism is all that matters. Marriage brings a man only two happy days: the day he takes his bride to bed and the day he lays her in her grave. A wife is expensive, a burden, often a hindrance to a man's freedom. If you do not believe this is the modern thinking; you are not watching nearly enough TV. In the modern twenty-first century, you must also believe:

•  that a man owes it to his man-hood to have children but-- It is not “cool” to have any part in their up-bringing. 
• Children do not need parents, but we need to keep some illusion of a family. 
• It is irresponsible to responsibly care-for or try to teach your own child.
• Self esteem, “LOVE” and individualism, can best be taught if the child is removed from the parents, and becomes part of a large group in which everyone must do exactly the same things in the same way--which is the purpose of modern day-cares, pre-schools, kindergartens, and schools.
• Since sexual attraction tends to wear off in three to four months, all relationships should be very short term, preferably just overnight.
• When the greatest threat to man's/ world survival is gross over population, HUMAN population-- A maternal family is often most desirable because a single mother can, and perhaps should, use children to support herself. This is very evident; with such agencies as World Vision, and the recent birth of oc-tuplets.