You can subtlely promote the nuclear family without forcing people to stay married, and you can dissuade the nuclear family without ever coming close to forcing anyone to break up, alternatively it's quite easy to point people in the direction of making bad choices. It's quite easy to train people such that they can never be a good husband or a good wife or good mother or a good father, ensuring that the most toxic form of relationship dominates.
In one of the chapters my book, I talk about how some relationships just need to die, so of course when a relationship is just totally toxic it just needs to end. On the other hand, there's quite a few times where a good relationship just had some hard times and our society tells us to throw that away the moment that it becomes remotely difficult.
In the black community for example they used to have one of the highest marriage rates and the highest rates of marriages staying together of any group of people, and that was a big problem for the ruling elite. So in the name of helping them, they created a whole bunch of incentives to split up a marriage that might otherwise have been functional.
The thing is, family is anathema to the state. Most people would die for their husband or their wife or their son or their daughter before they would die for their country, and while people may tolerate Injustice towards themselves, many would be ready to pick up arms when they witness intolerance against their loved ones. For this reason, authoritarian regimes either co-opt the family or seek to dismantle it. The Soviet Union was famous for pitting children against their parents. Of course the "trained marxists" at BLM explicitly attacked the family, because how are you supposed to mindlessly pick up their self-destructive ideology and burn down your apartment building when you know that the people you love the most live in that apartment building?
It isn't an exclusive or operation here. The basis for a lot of strong communities is a strong family. A strong family where one parent can provide for their children and for one of the spouses to be able to spend time raising the children and participating in the community. When you look at it from this lens, it becomes clear what's been done to the family: everyone has been turned into a worker for the benefit of corporations, to the detriment of the community and the family, which has driven down wages and therefore ensure that most families are required to have the postmodern family unit of a worker and another worker in the state to deliver them from all of the crises caused by constantly being on the brink.
It isn't an accident that as the more traditional family unit disappears, so has community and mental health issues have exploded.
In one of the chapters my book, I talk about how some relationships just need to die, so of course when a relationship is just totally toxic it just needs to end. On the other hand, there's quite a few times where a good relationship just had some hard times and our society tells us to throw that away the moment that it becomes remotely difficult.
In the black community for example they used to have one of the highest marriage rates and the highest rates of marriages staying together of any group of people, and that was a big problem for the ruling elite. So in the name of helping them, they created a whole bunch of incentives to split up a marriage that might otherwise have been functional.
The thing is, family is anathema to the state. Most people would die for their husband or their wife or their son or their daughter before they would die for their country, and while people may tolerate Injustice towards themselves, many would be ready to pick up arms when they witness intolerance against their loved ones. For this reason, authoritarian regimes either co-opt the family or seek to dismantle it. The Soviet Union was famous for pitting children against their parents. Of course the "trained marxists" at BLM explicitly attacked the family, because how are you supposed to mindlessly pick up their self-destructive ideology and burn down your apartment building when you know that the people you love the most live in that apartment building?
It isn't an exclusive or operation here. The basis for a lot of strong communities is a strong family. A strong family where one parent can provide for their children and for one of the spouses to be able to spend time raising the children and participating in the community. When you look at it from this lens, it becomes clear what's been done to the family: everyone has been turned into a worker for the benefit of corporations, to the detriment of the community and the family, which has driven down wages and therefore ensure that most families are required to have the postmodern family unit of a worker and another worker in the state to deliver them from all of the crises caused by constantly being on the brink.
It isn't an accident that as the more traditional family unit disappears, so has community and mental health issues have exploded.
The alternative to not having a nuclear family in practice is not some idyllic extended community, its having a tenuous grip to a single parent who is barely propped up by the government.
The data shows that like 90% of violent rapists come from single parent households, as well as an overwhelming majority of violent crime, despite being a minority of individuals.
The data shows that like 90% of violent rapists come from single parent households, as well as an overwhelming majority of violent crime, despite being a minority of individuals.
"learn about this but only learn about it in ways we approve of"
USA Today is Already a meme, because they've been so dishonest they'll tell your the sky is green and the ocean is dry if the right politician tells them to.
USA Today is Already a meme, because they've been so dishonest they'll tell your the sky is green and the ocean is dry if the right politician tells them to.
For some people they're going to have a role that can't be replaced. For a lot of people, they're basically just a credit card processor with extra steps.
There's a lot of different things that I would like to get rid of that I can't, so I can relate if that's the case with PayPal for what you're doing.
There's a lot of different things that I would like to get rid of that I can't, so I can relate if that's the case with PayPal for what you're doing.
Apparently they did it "in error".
But really, makes you think regardless. Who the fuck is Paypal? Why would I support them?
But really, makes you think regardless. Who the fuck is Paypal? Why would I support them?
PayPal just gave themselves the right to fine you for wrongspeech online.
Maybe it's time to delete your PayPal. Do they really provide a product so important that they deserve the ability to fine you for speech they don't like?
Maybe it's time to delete your PayPal. Do they really provide a product so important that they deserve the ability to fine you for speech they don't like?
https://youtu.be/JDtsOcaSq4A
Imagine for a second what's actually going on here.
You have governments that specifically implement policies that cause mental health issues. The destruction of the nuclear family we know causes mental health issues. This is not up for debate, the data is overwhelming.
In the story Tim talks about, isis was basically created by government policy in the west, and further enabled by policies essentially crafted to deny the existence of isis, obviously not directly but indirectly.
So you have all of these policies that specifically and directly create mental health issues, then you have the government implementing euthanasia for mental health issues.
These people want to call us ontologically evil, perhaps that's because they've mistaken their mirror for a window.
Imagine for a second what's actually going on here.
You have governments that specifically implement policies that cause mental health issues. The destruction of the nuclear family we know causes mental health issues. This is not up for debate, the data is overwhelming.
In the story Tim talks about, isis was basically created by government policy in the west, and further enabled by policies essentially crafted to deny the existence of isis, obviously not directly but indirectly.
So you have all of these policies that specifically and directly create mental health issues, then you have the government implementing euthanasia for mental health issues.
These people want to call us ontologically evil, perhaps that's because they've mistaken their mirror for a window.
That's one of my pet peeves is seeing people complaining about a "lack of flexibility" in the economy, usually related to the ability to create dodgy fintech to make massive amounts of money without ever coming close to adding any actual value to the economy.
Yeah, absolutely. It's a social science and not a hard science so the things involved aren't laws of physics but identified patterns in the data over decades and centuries. But just as you said, these people aren't suggesting a new model. They're just rejecting their own models because this week they're not consistent with the story they want to tell.
It's the same as "A recession is two quarters of economic decline just kidding recessions only exist when we say it exists and it doesn't exist because that would be stagflation which would be incredibly inconvenient for us"
It's the same as "A recession is two quarters of economic decline just kidding recessions only exist when we say it exists and it doesn't exist because that would be stagflation which would be incredibly inconvenient for us"
That's something that blows me away, that these people are basically lying about the fundamentals written in every macroeconomics textbook. It isn't some alt-right version of economics that talks about the effects of interest rates, reserve requirements, and QE on prices, it's the normal course every economist had to take.
They are also lying about stagflation, and they aren't doing anything to prepare the world for the fact that stagflation is one of the most difficult economic conditions to deal with.
They are also lying about stagflation, and they aren't doing anything to prepare the world for the fact that stagflation is one of the most difficult economic conditions to deal with.
Isn't it wonderful that england has no problems right now whatsoever so all they have left is mean posts on the Internet?
That's sort of my point. They're trying to appeal to certain people as part of the trick, but if they get everything they ask for what they really get is world domination by the elite class.
Sun Tzu says that a wise general will choose the battlefield. You can decide to attack where you enemy is weak and you are strong, you can pick battles where even if you lose you don't lose because you are facing an enemy already defeated.
The art of war is the art of deception. Where you are weak you want to appear strong, and when you are strong you want to appear weak.
In this sense, it makes sense for the rich to take up marxist causes twisted to suit their ends. They have chosen a battlefield where if they win, then their twisted form of marxism which says you must support megacorps and the establishment becomes law and they win; and if they lose then marxism loses and the megacorps see one of their ideological opposites fail and they win.
This is where populism becomes a dirty word. Populism is defined as separating the world into the common people and the elites and saying that the power should be held by the common people instead of the elites. Marxism should be populist, but they chose the battlefield so they're actually pushing a self serving non-populist marxism, and they're trying to set it up so it's non-populist marxism vs non-populist conservatism, and if it appears that someone is calling for people to have power over their own lives then both groups are supposed to attack that evil populist. That's how you end up with democrats and "normal republicans" and the Lincoln project types vs. the "evil" maga republicans.
The art of war is the art of deception. Where you are weak you want to appear strong, and when you are strong you want to appear weak.
In this sense, it makes sense for the rich to take up marxist causes twisted to suit their ends. They have chosen a battlefield where if they win, then their twisted form of marxism which says you must support megacorps and the establishment becomes law and they win; and if they lose then marxism loses and the megacorps see one of their ideological opposites fail and they win.
This is where populism becomes a dirty word. Populism is defined as separating the world into the common people and the elites and saying that the power should be held by the common people instead of the elites. Marxism should be populist, but they chose the battlefield so they're actually pushing a self serving non-populist marxism, and they're trying to set it up so it's non-populist marxism vs non-populist conservatism, and if it appears that someone is calling for people to have power over their own lives then both groups are supposed to attack that evil populist. That's how you end up with democrats and "normal republicans" and the Lincoln project types vs. the "evil" maga republicans.
One thing a lot of people don't realize is that the biggest regulators on the planet are not governments, but insurance companies.
You can eventually be doing enough to follow the law, but if you do everything the insurance companies ask, they'll make up more shit the next year, they'll invent new shit, because they don't want to pay out any more than they absolutely have to.
You can eventually be doing enough to follow the law, but if you do everything the insurance companies ask, they'll make up more shit the next year, they'll invent new shit, because they don't want to pay out any more than they absolutely have to.
holy shit I was looking for a certain image, and found this more web 1.0 than web 1.0 website:
http://www.sherylfranklin.com/trek_bones.html
Someone is paying to keep this site online!
http://www.sherylfranklin.com/trek_bones.html
Someone is paying to keep this site online!