Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old November 15th, 2019 #1
Wyte_Fyte
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Default Family: today and yesterday

Family: today and yesterday
The family of yesterday based upon traditional roles where women played their role as caregiver and homemaker as well as supportive companion serving as the glue which binds the family unit together, the men as defenders and sustainers through external relations with the larger society deriving the resources which uphold the integrity of the family unit through involvement with that outside of itself with it being the focus and orientation.
Both respected their traditional roles and knew the necessity of those same as the necessary condition of the continuance of their lineage and the eternal life of their oversoul in its evolution through incarnation of forms.
The stereotypes of masculine and feminine were the pillars of support of this great work, around which circumambulated the generations of posterity weaving their coloured ribbons around these maypole totems of fertility based upon the solid foundation of nature.
Thus the sexes were not chums or ‘comrades’ in a communist kibbutz but were separate in their function working in a unified way in harmonious synchronicity for the achievement of this purpose. Tradition was (and will always be) the entelechy of culture that sustains that of the biological beings (races and race members) who are the bearers of culture.
So begins the destruction of the family unit with the destruction of tradition by the mind manipulators / black magicians who have through this means of illusion generation broken apart the fabric of the family unit and left it in tatters, have struck with the axe of cultural degeneration the pillars of Jacin and Boas thereby nearly toppling the temple of the family unit and thereby the bases of society.
This leads to the so-called family or ‘fam’ of today which is one of infamy not of holiest of holies; a sacrilege against nature, an abomination which leaves desolate, and sowing the seeds of its own destruction results in a white sepulchre of its own fabrication thus a ruined temple of spiritually dead quasi-life, the temple of the living dead.
Hence is seen the bending and breaking of sex-gender correlations where the natural union of behaviour and biology is severed in the name of freedom and substituted for a chaos of floating signifiers which are chique today and passé tomorrow wreaking havoc amongst those they influence through the irreparable damage caused (sex change operations, vasectomies, insemination of foreign dna and mixed-race children, etc.).
The family unit of today is the hollow mockery of yesterday; the castration of men (psychical and even physical, but certainly hormonal through chemical means and malnourishment, etc.) and the phallicization of women have served to invert nature along Luciferian lines substituting the illusion of freedom (to be anything, do anything) for the reality of life, being freedom in its negative moment, i.e. under the limitations of natural law not its violation in the name of life beyond life, a mystico-magical illusionary false reality portrayed as the height of heights when it is the bottom of life, the grave.
 
Old December 20th, 2022 #2
jagd messer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,355
Default Sexual Morality May Be Far More Important Than You Ever Thought


Sexual Morality May Be Far More Important Than You Ever Thought - When Abandoned, All Societies Disintegrate - We Are In That Stage Of Cultural Freefall Now...The End Is Here.


One winter afternoon I was relaxing with a half-dozen fellow graduate philosophy students discussing theories of law and punishment. About an hour into the discussion, it occurred to me that some moral laws might limit pleasure and enjoyment in the short term but in the long term minimize suffering and maximize human fulfillment.


A few days ago I finished studying Sex and Culture for the second time. It is a remarkable book summarizing a lifetime of research by Oxford social anthropologist J.D. Unwin.[1] The 600+ page book is, in Unwin’s words, only a “summary” of his research—seven volumes would be required to lay it all out.[2] His writings suggest he was a rationalist, believing that science is our ultimate tool of inquiry (it appears he was not a religious man). As I went through what he found, I was repeatedly reminded of the thought I had as a philosophy student: some moral laws may be designed to minimize human suffering and maximize human flourishing long term.


Unwin examines the data from 86 societies and civilizations to see if there is a relationship between sexual freedom and the flourishing of cultures. What makes the book especially interesting is that we in the West underwent a sexual revolution in the late 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s and are now in a position to test the conclusions he arrived at more than 40 years earlier.


Unwin’s cultural categories

Unwin described four “great patterns of human culture” and degrees of flourishing measured in terms of architecture, art, engineering, literature, agriculture, and so forth. The primary criterion for classification was how they related to the natural world and the forces it contains.[3]


zoistic: Entirely self-focussed on day-to day-life, wants, and needs, with no interest in understanding nature. Described as a “dead culture” or “inert”.


monistic: Acquire superstitious beliefs and/or special treatment of the dead to cope with the natural world.


deistic: Attribute the powers of nature to a god or gods.


rationalistic: Use rational thinking to understand nature and to make day-to-day decisions.


Unwin’s degrees of sexual restraint

Degrees of sexual restraint were divided into two major categores—prenuptial and postnuptial.

Prenuptial categories were:[4]

Complete sexual freedom—no prenuptial restraints at all

Irregular or occasional restraint— cultural regulations require an occasional period of abstinence

Strict Chastity —remain a virgin until married


Postnuptial categories were:[5]

Modified monogamy: one spouse at a time, but association can be terminated by either party.

Modified polygamy: men can have more than one wife, but a wife is free to leave her husband.

Absolute monogamy: only one spouse permitted for life (or until death in some cultures)

Absolute polygamy: men can have more than one wife, but wives must “confine their sexual qualities (i.e., activity) to their husband for the whole of their lives.”


So what did he find?

I have prepared a 26-page collection of quotes from his book that summarize his findings (2), but even that would leave you with a significant under-appreciation of the rigour and fascinating details revealed in data from 86 cultures. Here are a few of his most significant findings:


Effect of sexual constraints: Increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.


Single most influential factor: Surprisingly, the data revealed that the single most important correlation with the flourishing of a culture was whether pre-nuptial chastity was required or not. It had a very significant effect either way.


Highest flourishing of culture: The most powerful combination was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with “absolute monogamy”. Rationalist cultures that retained this combination for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area, including literature, art, science, furniture, architecture, engineering, and agriculture. Only three out of the eighty-six cultures studied ever attained this level.


Effect of abandoning prenuptial chastity: When strict prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking also disappeared within three generations.


Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing — which Unwin describes as “inert” and at a “dead level of conception” and is characterized by people who have little interest in much else other than their own wants and needs. At this level, the culture is usually conquered or taken over by another culture with greater social energy.


Time lag: If there is a change in sexual constraints, either increased or decreased restraints, the full effect of that change is not realized until the third generation. (Note: I’ve added a clarifying footnote at the end of this article. See footnote #13)


How does this compare with our culture today?

Unwin published his findings in 1934, long before the sexual revolution that occurred in the West. We now have an opportunity to test his conclusions by observing if our own culture is following the predicted pattern. Unwin’s “generation” appears to be approximately 33 years, so it should take about a century for us to see the cultural changes take full effect, but we are far enough along in the process that we should be able to observe certain predicted effects.


We now have an opportunity to test his conclusions by observing if our own culture is following the predicted pattern.

Prior to the sexual revolution which began in the late 1960’s, prenuptial chastity was still held in strong regard by Western culture. But, starting in the 1970’s, pre-marital sexual freedom became increasingly acceptable. By the early 2000’s, the majority of teens were sexually active, to the extent that remaining a virgin until marriage was regarded with disbelief if not ridicule. At the same time, our culture moved from a social norm of absolute monogamy to “modified monogamy”.


Unwin’s predictions for our culture

Thanks to the rationalist generations that preceded them, the first generation of a society setting aside its sexual restraints can still enjoy its new-found sexual freedom before any significant decline in culture, but the data shows that this “having your cake and eating it too” phase lasts a maximum of one generation before the decline sets in. Unwin wrote:

The history of these societies consists of a series of monotonous repetitions; and it is difficult to decide which aspect of the story is the more significant: the lamentable lack of original thought which in each case the reformers displayed, or the amazing alacrity with which, after a period of intense compulsory continence (sexual restraint), the human organism seizes the earliest opportunity to satisfy its innate desires in a direct or perverted manner. Sometimes a man has been heard to declare that he wishes both to enjoy the advantages of high culture and to abolish compulsory continence. The inherent nature of the human organism, however, seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory. The reformer may be likened to the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake and to consume it. Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.[6]


Looking at our own sexual revolution, the “having your cake and eating it too” phase would have lasted into the early 2000’s. We are now at a stage where we should begin to observe the verification or falsification of Unwin’s predictions.


Unwin found that when strict prenuptial chastity was abandoned, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking disappeared within three generations.

Unwin found that when strict prenuptial chastity was abandoned, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking disappeared within three generations of the change in sexual freedom. So how are we doing as we enter the second generation since our own sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century?


As predicted, absolute monogamy has already been replaced with modified monogamy. Common-law relationships are becoming the norm. Although divorce occurred prior to the 1970’s, the mainstream of our culture still maintained the view that marriage should be for life, and common-law relationships were regarded with some distaste. That has clearly changed. Those who actually practice life-long commitments in marriage have become the minority, with couples born prior to the sexual revolution much more likely to maintain a life-long commitment in marriage.


Deism is already rapidly declining, exactly as predicted. Prior to the 1960’s, a combination of rationalism and a belief in God was the norm for mainstream culture. Not only has belief in God greatly decreased since the 1960’s, but there has been a trend to remove the concept of God from government, the educational system, and the public forum. Those who still believe in God sense a strong societal pressure to keep deistic beliefs private. In its place, is a surprising rise in superstition,[7] classified by Unwin as a “monistic” culture, two levels down from the rationalist culture we had prior to the sexual revolution. There has also been a huge increase in the percentage of the population that classifies itself as non-religious, a symptom of the lowest, “zoistic” level of Unwin’s categories.[8]


The swiftness with which rational thinking declined after the 1970’s is astounding. In its place arose post-modernism, characterized by “scepticism, subjectivism, or relativism” and “a general suspicion of reason”.[9] But it gets worse … post-modernism is giving way to “post truth”. In direct contrast to rational thinking, a post-truth culture abandons “shared objective standards for truth” and instead, stands on appeals to feelings and emotions, and what one wants to believe.[10] People can now “identify” themselves as something which flat-out contradicts science and rational thinking and, in many cases, receive the full support and backing of governments and educational systems. Not only do people feel they have a right to believe what they want, but any challenge to that belief, even if supported by truth and logic, is unacceptable and offensive. Here is a quote from Unwin that has become particularly a propos in the last couple decades since our own sexual revolution …


If I were asked to define a sophist, I should describe him as a man whose conclusion does not follow from his premise. Sophistry is appreciated only by those among whom human entropy is disappearing; they mistake it for sound reasoning. It flourishes among those people who have extended their sexual opportunity after a period of intense compulsory continence. [11]


Summary of where our culture is going, given Unwin’s findings
For the first part of the 1900’s, mainstream Western culture was rationalist and experienced enormous technological advances — from horse-and-buggy to cars; from hot air balloons to supersonic flight and spacecraft landing people on the moon; from slide rules to computers. Unwin’s three main predictions — the abandonment of rationalism, deism, and absolute monogamy — are all well underway, which makes the ultimate prediction appear to be credible … the collapse of Western civilization in the third generation, somewhere in the last third of this century.


Unwin’s three main predictions — the abandonment of rationalism, deism, and absolute monogamy — are all well underway, which makes the ultimate prediction appear to be credible … the collapse of Western civilization in the third generation.


Will our culture be the exception?


I suppose we can hope, but there is always a tendency to want to believe “it cannot happen to us.” Unwin describes this attitude as a “pardonable egocentricity” and a “quaint and comfortable doctrine”, that flies in the face of data, which indicate that the pattern of decline happens with “monotonous” regularity. That's another way of saying that “insanity is doing the same thing yet again but expecting different results.” The primary predictions are already unfolding with alarming “alacrity”.


Why is there such a “monotonous” perfect inverse correlation?


The old adage, “correlation does not entail causation”, probably holds true here as well. Unwin makes it clear that he does not know why sexual freedom directly leads to the decline and collapse of cultures, although he suggests that when sexual energy is restrained through celibacy or monogamy, it is diverted into more productive social energy.


Perhaps, but I find it difficult to accept it as a primary cause. Mary Eberstadt’s recent research into mass killings, the substantial rise in mental health issues including depression, and the explosion of identity politics is a “primal scream” due to the loss of identity that was once provided by growing up in a long-term, immediate family with siblings and a sizable group of cousins, aunts and uncles, all of which provided identity—essential for well-being. Eberstadt shows and documents from various studies that this decimation of the family was a direct consequence of the sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century.[11]


Eberstadt shows and documents from various studies that this decimation of the family was a direct consequence of the sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century.

Her research indicates that increased sexual freedom led to the decimation of the family, which resulted in the loss of family identity, which produces Eberstadt’s ‘primal screams’—a massive increase in mental health issues, mass killings, and the rise of extreme identity groups at war with each other … all symptoms of a society rapidly spiraling into collapse. This appears to have greater explanatory power than Unwin’s psychological suggestion, although the two may actually be closely related, given what Eberstadt shows.


Both Unwin and Eberstadt provide substantial evidence that a sexual revolution has long-term, devastating consequences for culture and civilization. As Unwin states, “The history of these societies consists of a series of monotonous repetitions,” and it appears that our civilization is following the same, well-travelled road to collapse.


Back to the philosophical thought

So back to that afternoon in the philosophy seminar when it occurred to me that some moral laws will seem to limit human pleasure in the short term, but will prevent great suffering or maximize happiness and fulfillment in the long term. For years, it has been my thinking that God’s moral laws are not simply a bunch of arbitrary rules given to restrict mankind's freedom. Instead, they are like operating instructions designed to spare people from suffering while maximizing human flourishing. Unwin’s and Eberstadt’s research provides strong rational justification for the inference that God’s moral laws pertaining to our sexuality, although they may restrain us from some immediate pleasure, protect us from enormous long-term suffering while maximizing our long term flourishing.






Sexual Morality May Be Far More Important Than You Ever Thought - When Abandoned, All Societies Disintegrate - We Are In That Stage Of Cultural Freefall Now...The End Is Here. 20 XII 2022.



Morality and a healthy society were always synonymous.
A work colleague use to say -"If there was a better way of doing it , it would have been thought of long ago".
 
Old December 22nd, 2022 #3
jagd messer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,355
Default Family is


The Family is the building block of society






“As the family goes, so goes the nation and so goes the whole world in which we live.” --John Paul II, the C I A Pope.


“Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” -- Saint Augustine.


Women are divinities, they are life. Buddha.


Do not allow the intellect to enjoy the happiness that comes from the ecstatic condition ( Samadhi / coitus ) but by means of the practice of discrimination, free it from the love that it feels for that happiness. Hindu text.


“To love one who loves you, to admire one who admires you, in a word, to be the idol of one’s idol, is exceeding the limit of human joy; it is stealing fire from heaven.” (Delphine de Girardin).


"There is no friendship, no love, like that of the parent for the child."


"While we try to teach our children all about life, our children teach us what life is all about."


"Your children need your presence more than your presents."


"The voice of parents is the voice of gods, for to their children they are heaven's lieutenants." - William Shakespeare


"Grandchildren are God's way of compensating us for growing old."



“A woman's world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. We do not find it right when she presses into the world of men.” ― Adolf Hitler.


The great treasure our people possessed has always been in our genes rather than our gold and our gadgets. David Lane.

22 XII 2022.
 
Old April 1st, 2023 #4
jagd messer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,355
Default





















 
Old June 12th, 2023 #5
jagd messer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,355
Default Marriage and Family are being systematically destroyed in America


A new congressional report proves that the institutions of marriage and family are being systematically destroyed in America




The numbers that I am about to share with you are extremely sobering, and they should be a massive wake up call for all of us.




Yesterday, I wrote an article about how our society is breaking down everywhere we look, and nowhere is this more evident than in our marriages and in our families. But without strong marriages and strong families, no society can thrive for long. Recently, the Social Capital Project of the Joint Economic Committee Republicans released a report entitled “The Demise of the Happy Two-Parent Home”, but you probably never heard about it until now because it was almost entirely ignored by the mainstream media.



I have never seen a congressional report document the collapse of marriage and family in American society to such an extent, and to be honest it is quite surprising to see such a quality piece of work come out of Washington.



I have selected nine of the most alarming quotes from the report and put them in bold below. Following each quote from the report, I am going to share some of my own commentary…




#1 Overall, between 1962 and 2019, the percentage of women ages 15-44 who were married dropped from 71% to 42% (Figure 1).16 Furthermore, Figure 2 shows the percentage of women ages 30-34 who had never married increased from 7% in 1962 to 35% in 2019.17



Numbers for men are similar, but they were not included in the report. We have never seen marriage rates collapse like this ever before, and most of the decline can be attributed to the fact that many young Americans simply do not see any reason to get married anymore. These days, many would prefer to be free to run around having sex with whoever they want. When they become dissatisfied with their current sexual partner, they just move on and find someone else.



#2 Today, around 45% of American children spend some time without a biological parent by late adolescence.3 That is up from around one-third of children born in the 1960s and one-fifth to one-quarter born in the 1950s.4



Study after study has shown that children do better with two parents, and so the fact that nearly half of our children have been raised by just one parent for at least a portion of their lives is extremely alarming.

I have tremendous respect for single parents, but if our society is going to thrive we need a whole lot more two parent households.



#3 Single parenthood is experienced by two-thirds of the children of mothers with less than a high school education and by 80% of black children.


Over the past several decades, impoverished Americans have increasingly been drawn to the ideology of the Democratic Party. But the ideology of the Democratic Party does not value marriage and family, and in impoverished communities all across America the results have been absolutely disastrous. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is increasingly moving away from traditional values as well, and that is an extremely alarming trend.



#4 Among women ages 19 to 44 who married between 1965 and 1974, just 11% had cohabited with their husbands prior to marriage, but that number jumped to 32% among those who married between 1975 and 1979 and continued to soar thereafter. For the past two decades, two-thirds of new marriages have been preceded by cohabitation.28


These days, the vast majority of young couples want to “live together” before they get married. But study after study has shown that couples that “live together” before marriage have much less long-term success than couples that don’t. In the old days, it was clearly understood that cohabitation prior to marriage was wrong, but these days hardly anyone wants to speak out against it.



#5 The decline in marriage and the increase in cohabitation has led to substantial growth in unwed childbearing. The percent of births to unmarried mothers has jumped from 5% in 1960 to 40% today (Figure 6).29


It is hard to believe that things have gotten this bad. How in the world is our society going to be successful when 40% of our children are being born into unstable family situations? These days, many young men don’t feel any responsibility for the children that they father, and that is something that must change if we ever want to have any hope of turning our country in the right direction.



#6 In a 2007 study researchers found that 50% of children born to cohabiting parents experienced a maternal partnership transition by their third birthday, compared to just 13% of children in married-parent families.32Thus, children born into households where the parents are not married are much more likely to see their parents break up.



This is yet more evidence that cohabitation is a bad idea. The order is supposed to go like this – get married, live together and then have children. But these days so many young couples are doing things in the exact opposite order, and the vast majority of the time that does not work out at all.



#7 As of 2019, 57% of highly-educated women ages 15-44 were married, compared to only 36% of moderately-educated women and 18% of women with low education (Figure 8).39 These differences were much smaller in the mid-1960s, with less than ten percentage points separating the three groups in 1964.


Numbers for men are similar, but once again the numbers for men were not included in this report. To be honest, I was a bit surprised by the huge differences among the various groups. Does not having money make both men and women less desirable to potential marriage partners?



#8 Two-thirds of births (65%) among women with low education occur outside of marriage as of 2018 along with half (52%) of births to moderately-educated women (Figure 9). Among highly-educated women, however, just 11% occur outside marriage.40



If you are a woman and you have a child outside of marriage while you are very young, it is very likely that you will have to work to support that child. So any dreams of a higher education are often delayed, and in many cases those delays end up being permanent.



#9 Women with a bachelor’s degree and married for the first time are very likely to be married for a long time; 78% will still be married 20 years later. However, among women entering their first marriage who have some college but no bachelor’s degree, it is as likely as not that their marriage will end within 20 years. Among women with no more than a high school diploma, just 40% will still be in their first marriage after 20 years.



The U.S. has one of the highest divorce rates in the entire world, and things are especially bad in our impoverished communities. As a result, vast numbers of children in our impoverished communities live in broken homes, and those that come from broken homes tend to be much more likely to gravitate toward crime, drugs and violence.

The bottom line is that if we want to fix America, we have got to fix our families. In the report, the authors included a remarkable quote from Princeton University sociologist Sara McLanahan…

If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.

For thousands of years, two parent families have worked, and the reason they have worked is because that is how things were originally designed. Sadly, these days most Americans find traditional values repugnant, and they think that they have figured out a better way of doing things. Of course the truth is that they have greatly deceived themselves, and if we stay on this current path there is absolutely no future for us as a nation.



A new congressional report proves that the institutions of marriage and family are being systematically destroyed in America



End Of The American Dream October 7, 2020


All of this was synonymous with Christianity, which as we all well know, was far from perfect. Weigh up the trade we have in place of it.

By destroying the family, the society and the culture, the Nation is Destroyed.
12 VI 2023.
 
Old June 12th, 2023 #6
jagd messer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,355
Default Cultural Marxism and the War on the Family - CultureWatch

CULTURAL MARXISM AND THE WAR ON THE FAMILY
Apr 8, 2016.


The communists of old, who used guns and tanks to take over a nation, and the cultural Marxists of more recent times, who seek to take a nation over from within, have both made clear their hatred of marriage and family, and have done all they can to destroy both.

Sexual morality in general was targeted by these activists, and everything from abortion, free sex, homosexuality, and so on have been promoted. We saw much of this happening in the former Soviet Union and other communist countries. And it sure was not pretty.

But while political communism seems to be a spent force today, the ideology behind it is alive and well in the West. What we call cultural Marxism has been moving full steam ahead. Taking over the institutions of power and influence is now the preferred strategy of the revolutionaries, and it has been going on for nearly a century now.

For background on this, and to learn more about communists like Antonio Gramsci who spoke about the “long march through the institutions,” see here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/06/...tural-marxism/

I have written before about the goals of the communists in the West. One such American list includes these points:

-Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

-Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression.

-Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

-Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

-Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

-Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

-Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

-Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

-Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.


Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage by Kengor Ph.D., Paul.

The targeting of the family and the war on morality, especially sexual morality, has been a hallmark of these folks for many decades now. One of the most important exposes of this is a very important book penned last year by Paul Kengor called Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage (WND Books).

A nice summary of this well-documented volume appears in an article from last year. In it Kengor states:
Efforts to fundamentally transform marriage and family have been long at work, but never (until now) accepted and pushed by the mainstream. In the past, these efforts were spearheaded by the most dangerous radicals. For two centuries, leftist extremists made their arguments, from the 1800s to the 1960s, characterized by the Communist Manifesto, where Marx and Engels wrote of the “abolition of the family!” Even then, in 1848, Marx and Engels could call “abolition of the family” an “infamous proposal of the communists.”

“Blessed is he who has no family,” Marx wrote to Engels, at best only partly in jest. Marx’s partner in crime detested family and marriage so much that he refused both. The ideological duo fulminated against the “bourgeois claptrap” of marriage, which was merely a “system of housewives held in common.” Engels was carrying the banner to smash monogamy a century before the 1960s New Left adopted the credo.
Efforts to revolutionize family and marriage continued, from socialist utopians like Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Albert Brisbane to cultural Marxists in the Frankfurt School such as Herbert Marcuse and Wilhelm Reich to 20th-century leftists and progressives ranging from the Bolsheviks—Lenin, Trotsky, Alexandra Kollontai—to Margaret Sanger, Betty Friedan, Kate Millett, and ’60s radicals Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Mark Rudd.

When Tom Hayden and Robert Scheer ran a “Red Family” colony in near Berkeley in the 1960s, they were merely following the footsteps of socialist-utopian colonies in the 1800s in places like Oneida, New York and New Harmony, Indiana.

In his book he spends a lot of time detailing this war on marriage and family. The push for all things homosexual today comes out of all this of course. Indeed, he has a whole chapter on “Communists and Homosexuality” for example. He writes:

As communists over time broke down barriers in sexual relations and the covenant of marriage, many moved toward acceptance and advocacy of homosexuality and bisexuality. “Smashing monogamy” was merely one manifestation of blowing up coveted traditions. Some of these cultural Marxists practiced what they preached. Kate Millett’s “sexual politics” had translated into a lesbian lifestyle for her personally, and the New Left politics of guys like Mark Rudd and Bill Ayers at least dictated that they give bisexuality a shot.

He carefully documents how homosexuality and homosexual marriage were not at first championed by the communists, but eventually they fully jumped in bed with these radical causes. Says Kengor, “Any previous reticence about homosexuality … has been tossed out the window. Communists who once purged gays are now aboard the gay-marriage bandwagon. Two examples particularly stand out: Communist Party USA and (amazingly) Fidel Castro’s Cuba.”

Consider this from one of the recent CPUSA documents:
The main obstacle to progress today is right-wing extremism. Right wing spokespeople and groups represent and are funded by the most conservative sections of the rich and powerful. The extreme right, which now dominates the Republican Party, is seeking to roll back all the social and economic rights that working people fought for and won. They want to take the country back to a time before marriage equality, before voting rights, before women’s reproductive rights, before the right to a union. It seems at times that they want to take us back to the days of slavery.

As for Cuba, consider Fidel Castro’s niece Mariela. Says Kengor:
In Havana, in broad daylight, Mariela Castro led an LGBT activist parade, where, as Johnson reported, “Some 400 transvestites sashayed behind Castro, doing a conga line through the streets, to celebrate the Fifth Cuban Day Against Homophobia, observed elsewhere on May 17. Marchers shouted, ‘Down with homophobia! Long live sexual diversity!

This is not just extraordinary; it is utterly unprecedented in Cuba’s tyranny. To repeat: a Fifth Cuban Day Against Homophobia. The day is celebrated just after May Day, the high holy day for the communist state. Mere decades ago, this absolutely would not have been accepted in Cuba. The marchers would have been immediately jailed, without question – and handcuffed and beaten and carted straight to the loony bin.

Raising more eyebrows still, Mariela maintains that her uncle, the grand old gay-basher-in-chief, actually favors same-sex marriage, “but he has not made it public.” More than that, Fidel, according to his niece, is a closet gay-rights advocate. She further reports, “He has done some advocacy work, speaking of the need to make progress in terms of rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Does this radical reversal make sense? Says Kengor:
Yes, it does. The root of the answer, once again, is the much older Marxist/communist assault on marriage. Wittingly or unwittingly, intentionally or unintentionally, led either by the spirit of the times or by more sinister forces that have long led communists, the communist priority is less gay rights than it is a continued assault on the family. The assault means a rejection of older and more established and despised enemies for communists: morality, tradition, religion, God….

For Cuba’s communists, faced with a conflict between their penchant for persecuting the family/marriage and for persecuting gay people, the communist war on traditional morality and faith and the family wins out, thus dictating a sudden embrace of gays. As long as the traditional family is reversed, Marxism is advanced. That is the overriding priority. Communists will do whatever they need to destroy the family; “gay marriage” is an ideal, handy device. Even in Castro’s Cuba, it works nicely for their purposes.

Sixteen years ago American commentator Bill Lind was also highlighting the agenda of the cultural Marxists. In a talk on “The Origins of Political Correctness” he too notes how the war on family and marriage is a major part of these radical’s plans:
Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Where does it come from? What is it?

We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious. If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.

He continues:
The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

If you want to understand why things are the way they are today, you have to know something about the past. That is why the leftists and Marxists have also denigrated history, and/or sought to rewrite it. If we do not learn from history we will keep repeating its mistakes.

The revolutionaries have been singling out marriage, family and morality for a century now, and if you want to understand why things are so bad today, you need to know something of this history. And based on that knowledge, we must act. So, over to you…


Marriage and the family, which in their very DNA reflect the relationships within the Trinity, are the main obstacle to the principalities and powers of this age, charged with transmitting God’s truth, morality and values from generation to generation. Therefore it is the family that has to be atomized, making all of its formerly interdependent and constituent parts totally dependent on the state.

What is incredible is the way Queen Elizabeth 11 has signed the Commonwealth Charter, signing up 54 countries to anti discrimination laws, based upon age, disability, race, belief and then wait for it: gender; sexual orientation; transgender; being pregnant (including pregnant transgender man) and being married ( including same sex). This is the main product of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (ECHR). What the Queen does not understand is that, in the UK, this was set up Angela Mason CBE, anarchist, lesbian, IVF mother and Lucifer worshipper – she designed the logo Stonewall which is a Satanic symbol, the inverted pentagram.

It was Angela Mason’s “wife”, Elizabeth Wilson, Marxist, who along with Peter Tatchell wrote the preamble to the 1971 Gay Liberation Manifesto in which it stated clearly its intention of destroying marriage and family.

It was no coincidence that in 2012 the Queen signed the Charter, World Pride was held in London, in which Peter Tatchell boasted, “There are no borders or boundaries when it comes to LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender) human rights. No nationality, no culture, no belief system can stand in the way of the historic quest for LGBT freedom,” …. and just a month later the Olympic games was held in London, which finished with a ceremony which looked truly satanic.




http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/15/ho...ge-and-family/
http://www.academia.org/the-origins-...l-correctness/




Cultural Marxism and the War on the Family - CultureWatch
12 VI 2023.

“When you have men by the scrotum, their hearts & minds soon follow”?
 
Old July 27th, 2023 #7
jagd messer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,355
Default Death of UK Family: Half of Children Not Living With Both Parents by 14

Death of UK Family: Half of Children Not Living With Both Parents by 14



A study from the Marriage Foundation suggested that nearly half of children in Britain are no longer living with both of their biological parents by the time they reach 14 years of age.

Drawing on a dataset of 4,476 first-born children in the UK conducted by the Millennium Cohort Study and weighing the sample to represent the national population, the Marriage Foundation revealed on Monday that 46% of children in the country are not living with both their natural parents by the age of 14.

The Marriage Foundation found that the majority of such cases (70%) were a result of breakups from non-married couples, while 30% were from families of married couples. For children whose biological parents were still together by the age of 14, 84% had married parents, compared to just 16% who were unmarried.

The data also showed that 60% of parents who had never married were separated at the time of their child’s 14th birthday, compared to 21% who married before the child was born and 32% who married following the birth.

Harry Benson, Research Director of the Marriage Foundation, said that even when “considering a wide range of socio-demographic controls – such as ethnicity, age, time lived together, education and relationship happiness”, the numbers still indicated a greater probability of never-married parents to split up at 46%, compared to 26% for those who married before the birth and 27% after.

The results back up similar findings from the Children’s Commissioner last year which found the 44% of those born in 2000 spent some time living outside of a traditional nuclear family by the time they reached 17.

Mr Benson said per The Times: “Marriage provides relationship clarity, and encourages good things like sacrifice and forgiveness. “This is why couples who have tied the knot tend to be more stable and more likely to weather the challenges that life throws at them… why marriage accounts for lower levels of family breakdown than other less stable forms of relationship. “No wonder a huge majority of couples who are still together by the time their children become teenagers are married.”

The founder of the think tank, Sir Paul Coleridge said: “Every experienced parent knows that if adolescents are to successfully navigate the scary teenage years they need a secure and a stable family environment. “If you want to experience the rich rewards of fully enjoying your children… marrying the other parent is a crucial first step.”

The Marriage Foundation report called on the government to do more to support marriage. This may be a big ask, however, given that the supposedly Conservative government has in its decade-plus in power demonstrated open hostility towards the traditional family.

For example, stay-at-home mothers were enraged in 2020 when then-Home Secretary Priti Patel demanded that the government do more to incentivise the 8.5 million “economically inactive” people — nearly two million of whom were women who decided to stay home to raise their children — into employment.

The government’s tax structure already punishes traditional family structures, with the state only taxing individuals rather than recognising family units, meaning that families reliant upon a single income of £50,000 will take home less money than two working parents on salaries of £25,000, thereby incentivising both partners to work rather than stay at home with children.

Despite the cost of living crisis, Prime Minister Sunak’s government doubled down on punishing middle-class families, relying on what is referred to as a “stealth tax” whereby the government freezes the tax band thresholds. The result will likely see thousands of families placed in artificially higher brackets given that their wages increased due to inflation, but in reality, in many cases keep their relative income at the same level as the cost of living also increases.

On top of that, family benefit programmes were also frozen, meaning that the same families will over time be priced out of the government programmes by the same mechanism.



Marriage and family is the building block of civilization. This used to be common knowledge.

I'm very sad to say that I agree with you, as I've seen this decline in my lifetime (I was born in 1944). We went from a homogenous, Christian, civilized nation which valued marriage and the family and in which the majority went to church - or at least knew that they should - to the present chaos. I hope and believe we are in the End Times and that the Lord will soon return.

Completely true, but the government also gave women a whole lot of government incentives to encourage women to divorce their husbands. "Emotional abuse" crap is the cover. Standard practice take out a Restraining Order against the husband which forces him from his home and restricts his access to his children.

Over 70% of all divorces are filed by women because over 70% of all women care more about themselves than their children. All the damage in the world could be done to those kids but it won't deter a selfish woman from caring more about herself.

Eventually though, after England becomes an Islamic republic, divorce will be illegal and fornication will get the death penalty. When a nation abandons Christianity the void is filled by another religion. Materialistic westerners are only going to have a short while to have fun before the suffering begins, for their descendants... That's the sad part, the people who commit the selfish acts pass on the suffering to those who come after them.





Death of Family: Half of Children Not Living With Both Parents by 14 27 VII 2023.
 
Old August 25th, 2023 #9
Major Sharpe
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 1,457
Default

How many WN leaders have happy, stable families? With children? And who were never divorced? For the life of me I cannot think of a single one. Do they exist?
 
Old August 29th, 2023 #10
Major Sharpe
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 1,457
Default

At least in this regard, many of the attitudes and practices of the modern WN movement remind me of the Democrat Party's stance, such as their anti-Christian viewpoint. Also, WN Neo-Nazis are very pro-censorship, particularly over on Stormfront.

 
Old August 29th, 2023 #11
jagd messer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,355
Default Destruction of the British Family: Marriage Rate Falls to Lowest in Recorded History




The UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) has revealed the marriage rate for British heterosexual couples has reached the lowest level recorded.

In contrast to countries that have recently adopted pro-family policies, such as Hungary and Poland, the United Kingdom is continuing to see a dramatic fall in the marriage rate, with 2017 — the most recent available year — showing record lows.

Indeed, while the rate has dropped by 45% since 1972 and halved since 1940, the average age for marriage reached a record high in 2017: 35.7 years old for women and 38 for men. Put another way, the total number of marriages in 2017 was at a level last seen in 1895 — the population of the United Kingdom having more than doubled in the intervening 125 years.

According to the statistics for England and Wales released by the ONS, marriage rates for unmarried men slumped to 21.2 per 1,000 unmarried men and 19.5 per thousand for unmarried women, the lowest in recorded history. In total there were 242,842 marriages in England and Wales in 2017, a decrease of 2.8% from the year before.

Religious marriage ceremonies also dropped to their lowest level in history, with just 23% of marriages being held in a church or other places of worship.

The British government has placed an emphasis on women entering the workforce through taxation schemes that, by accident or design, disincentivise traditional families. The government levies tax on individual earnings rather than on family units, creating a system in which families reliant on a single income of £60,000 will take home less money than two salaries of £30,000– as the single income is placed into a higher taxation bracket, and is denied the marriage allowance, which is only available to lower earners.

The cost of living compared to incomes also means that buying a home, never mind raising children in a stable and safe environment becomes difficult on a single average income of around £30,000. The result of the anti-family policies has been one contributing factor encouraging millions of more women entering the workforce since the 1970s, with women representing the majority of new entrants into the economy — a change which has had a significant knock-on effect on marriage rates, and fertility.

The British approach comes in contrast to the Hungarian model, which has seen marriage rates increase by nearly 100% over the previous year and an increase of 9.4% in the birth rate.

Last year the conservative Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán — who is leading his nation’s continued recovery from decades of communist occupation — introduced a raft of pro-family policies, including policies particularly geared towards women. The legislation exempted women who have raised four or more children from paying income tax for life, as well as introducing a loan scheme for women under the age of 40 that marry for the first time, that would be entirely forgiven if the family has three children.

“In 2010, when [Orbán’s Fidesz party] won the elections with a two-thirds majority after eight years of socialist, anti-work, anti-economy, and anti-family governance, our country was at the brink of collapse,” Hungary’s State Secretary for Family, Youth, and International Affairs, Katalin Novák said last week in exclusive comments to Breitbart London.


“The recent demographic figures speak for themselves, the number of marriages is at its 40-year high, the fertility rate at its 20-year high, while the divorces haven’t been as low as last year in the last six decades,”
she added.

Last year, Poland also introduced a scheme to support motherhood directly, bringing in a “maternal pension” to show “gratitude and respect” to women who have contributed to society by having four or more children.



How to destroy a country in one easy lesson - the leftie socialists are winning by destroying us from within, getting rid of families, religion and culture so they can do anything they like with the people. They keep promoting alternative inferior families.

They are brain washed from little on to REJECT family, religion and traditional roles.
Women are supposed to be men and take over their role as the "bread winner" and men, are supposed to be feminine. Roles are reversed.

Children are missing out - being brought up by strangers in nurseries just doesn’t work.

Divorce courts and lawyers have taken away parents rights. Families are destroyed not only by using the ridiculous laws against each other in times of heated emotional strain but the lawyers and courts encourage it. Lawyers and courts get rich off of families going through destruction.

Meanwhile, the millions of enemy Muslim invaders and conquerors, i.e., demographic jihadists, currently invading and infiltrating the UK to wage a stealth demographic jihad against the British non-Muslim unbelievers in the UK, courtesy of the globalist leftwing lunatics that have hijacked and co-opted the government of the UK, are using their multiple wives to out-breed the local non-Muslim unbelievers in the UK to eventually conquer the UK demographically via a stealth demographic jihad.




Destruction of the British Family: Marriage Rate Falls to Lowest in Recorded History

29 VIII 2023.



First I will state the obvious - It takes a Mother and a Father to bring up a child / children.

ALL our politicians and Leaders are concerned about is looking after alien migrants which is always done at the cost to the indigenous people’s welfare. Universal Equality laws only apply in the West.

Women can be and do ANYTHING but be a real WOMAN with a family.

So called EDUCATION is simply another means of BIRTH CONTROL.
 
Old September 10th, 2023 #12
jagd messer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,355
Default Family

Marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman for their mutual joy, the procreation of children, and the good of society.

Marriages - the real solution is starting in elementary / primary school teaching about the life, responsibility of the individual, the society, the race and the nation.

Marriage - most likely the biggest problem is the false expectations many have of marriage.
Many confuse "being in love" with "loving" someone. I doubt marriage ever was viewed as being to make someone blissfully happy for the rest of their life, rather than just being a necessary security for a woman to have children - life.

The purpose of marriage, as a social convention, was never to make the couple concerned happy... the intention was always to create stability and security for children, and therefore social stability for their community. Having children takes a relationship to a whole different level. No one ever compares to that person you had children with.

Society does much to divide couples and nothing to help them resolve their issues.
Especially when there are children involved couples don’t decide to go through the hell of divorce simply because early romantic love is over and their expectations coming into the marriage were too high and unrealistic. Most couples finally divorce after years of constant conflict and emotional pain, eventually coming to the point where they can't stand the sight of each other anymore.

"The woman who has not had a child remains incomplete, ill at ease, and more than a little ridiculous. She is in the position of a man who has never stood in battle; she has missed the most colossal experience of her sex." H.L. Mencken.

“A woman's world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. We do not find it right when she presses into the world of men.”
Adolf Hitler.




"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfilment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe."
- 卐 Adolf Hitler 卐


“As the family goes, so goes the nation and so goes the whole world in which we live.”
- John Paul II.
 
Old September 10th, 2023 #13
Ole Massa
Senior Member
 
Ole Massa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Florida's Redneck Riviera
Posts: 1,921
Default

By 2034, it shall be complete.
 
Old October 24th, 2023 #14
jagd messer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,355
Default Former Aussie PM: Conservative Govts Should Support Working Women to Have More Children

Former Aussie PM: Conservative Govts Should Support Working Women to Have More Children


Mother and new baby.

Tony Abbott has said conservative governments should do more to help working, middle-class women to have more children because the current birth-rate for that demographic is a “real problem”.

“While I’m all in favour of stay-at-home-mums if that’s their choice, I do think that a properly conservative government, acknowledging that having a family is one of the most wonderful things that anyone can do, would make it easier for women in the workforce to have more kids,” Mr Abbott said at the Centre for Independent Studies in comments reported by The Sydney Morning Herald.

“That is a real problem in every western country: middle-class women do not have enough kids. Women in the welfare system have lots of kids,” Mr Abbott said. “If you’re very wealthy you can afford to have as many kids as you want,” the former leader of the centre-right Liberal party added, noting it was the squeezed middle-classes struggling most.

If that position sounds extraordinary coming from the former leader of a Western country, that’s because it is. One result of women having fewer children is a slowing or shrinking of the population, but the West has not looked to supporting mothers to solve the problem. Rather, nations like Sweden and Germany have embraced mass migration from the third world to counter their own falling birthrates. In March 2019, statistics revealed that not one EU country’s birthrate was at natural replacement level.

In the UK, August statistics revealed that British birthrates were at their lowest ever on record — however, the population continues to grow, underlying the effect that immigration is having on the demographics of the country. Indeed, deaths of British-born residents last year outstripped births to British-born mothers for only the third time since 1838.

The notionally ‘conservative’ British Conservative government has, in previous iterations, failed to articulate in policy to support working women who want to be mothers. Rather, Tory former Prime Minister David Cameron’s gift to British women was to prioritise encouraging mothers back into paid employment by offering them 30 hours a week “free” (or rather, taxpayer-funded) childcare, rather than finding means to encourage women who are not wealthy to take up the option of being full-time carers to their children.

Indeed, the Office for National Statistics revealed in October that over 75% of mothers have to work in the UK. Stay-at-home motherhood is strongly disincentivised in Britain due to changes in recent decades to the tax, pension, and child benefit systems, which have made it all but unaffordable to not return to work for most.

In central Europe, however, conservatism is expressed in terms of social conservatism, rather than fiscal, and it is where motherhood is afforded a value greater than that of paid employment.

Hungary and Poland have, like the rest of Europe, experienced a falling birthrate; but rather than looking to mass migration to solve a future shrinking population, they seek to encourage their men and women to make their own citizens.

In the last 12 months, Hungary introduced tax and other financial assistance to incentivise Hungarians to have more children. Such measures included exempting women who have had four or more children from income tax for the rest of their lives; loans to women under 40 who marry for the first time, with the loan written off after the birth of a third child; and free IVF.

Poland also introduced a maternal pension in recognition of “mothers and grandmothers who have devoted their lives to bringing up children” and who deserve the “gratitude and respect” of Polish society.

Speaking early last year, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stated the country’s rationale for backing such measures over mass migration. “In our minds, immigration means surrender,” Mr Orbán said, continuing: “If we resign ourselves to the fact that we are unable to sustain ourselves even biologically, by doing so we admit that we are not important even for ourselves.”


What makes a successful nation? God, Family, Country.

For decade after decade Western women ( whites only) have been told by the Left that children hold back their careers, prevent them having "fun" and that the "population boom" meant it was irresponsible for them to have children. This was drilled into them and backed up by every depiction of childbirth on TV or on film being akin to torture. ( My mother in law had six and described it as "Like shelling peas"). Then to "help" women achieve their "utopia" they were then first supplied with free contraceptives and then with abortion on demand. Result? The birthrate plummeted.

Then the Left said we have too few children to supply industry, support the economy and pay for our pensions and insisted we must import replacements for our missing children from the 3rd World. Orwell describe this as "Double Think".

All right kids, put your cereal bowls in the sink and grab you books and jackets and off to school, mommy has some house work to do.
All right kids, time to get up, no we have no food, just put you shoes on and start walking, free stuff is just over the horizon I promise. The land of the infidel is not far now, and we will get our jizyra. alla ackbar.



Former Aussie PM: Conservative Govts Should Support Working Women to Have More Children

24 X 2023.

It doesn’t make sense for a country to pay foreigners and aliens to breed at the expense of its own people.

Their solution is to scrap ‘nationalism’ rather than looking after their own people by financially helping families and stopping the mass invasion immediately.
 
Old December 29th, 2023 #15
jagd messer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,355
Default Legacy Of A Society That Has Rejected Family, Faith And Patriotism

Americans Are Lonely, Miserable And Depressed – The Legacy Of A Society That Has Rejected Family, Faith And Patriotism


What in the world has happened to us?


Once upon a time, America was made up of tightly-knit communities that were united by family, faith and patriotism, but now we are more isolated than ever before. Of course one of the biggest reasons for this is the fact that we are all spending countless hours staring at screens instead of interacting with real people, and this is something that I covered in a previous article. However, our fundamental beliefs are also significantly shaping how we behave. For the past couple of generations, we have de-emphasized family, faith and patriotism as a nation, and instead we have become an extremely “me-centered” society that is primarily focused on doing whatever makes ourselves happy in the moment. But this single-minded pursuit of individual happiness has resulted in much of the country being perpetually mired in loneliness, depression and/or addiction.

When you look at the numbers, they truly are startling. For example, a recent survey that was conducted by Cigna found that almost half of all Americans feel lonely… Nearly half of Americans are lonely, according to a survey of 20,000 people across America by Cigna, which used the well-regarded UCLA Loneliness Scale to measure responses. Indeed 46% said they sometimes or always feel alone and 47% say they sometimes or always feel left out.

And other surveys have produced numbers that are even more alarming. A Harris Poll that was conducted a few years ago actually discovered that 72% of all Americans “experience loneliness”…

The survey of more than 2,000 Americans conducted by the Harris Poll last month on behalf of the American Osteopathic Association, showed that almost three-quarters (72%) of Americans experience loneliness. And for many, it’s not just a once-in-a-while occurrence — one-third said they feel lonely at least once a week. Of course this is commonly known as “the happiest time of the year”, but for many it just magnifies their loneliness.

People see love, warmth and community modelled in television commercials and in Hallmark movies, and they assume that most people out there must be living lives like that. Sadly, that is not true at all. What we see on our televisions are echoes of the way that America used to be, and many of us would love to see that type of culture make a roaring comeback.

But for now, America is a very, very lonely place, and this reality is reflected in a song that was just released by one of our most popular pop singers… Mabel, the singer behind the hit “Don’t Call Me Up,” has a new track for those who struggle with loneliness during the holidays. Titled “Loneliest Time of Year,” Mabel captured how for some people, the holidays can heighten feelings like loneliness, loss and depression. In the song, released Friday, she sings lines like, “Sorry I’m not so merry/But I feel like this yearly/Christmas time isn’t my vibe/Brings no joy into my life” and “If I’m feeling lonely/I can’t be the only one.”

Yes, millions of American families will gather during the holidays, but way too many of those gatherings are filled with bitterness, resentment, strife and discord. In fact, another new survey has found that the average American only needs 3 hours and 54 minutes “before they start to feel sick of their families”…

The holidays are supposed to be a time to come together with family and celebrate, but a new survey finds that most Americans can barely get through an evening with their family before needing a break. A total of 2,000 Americans who usually travel to visit family during the holidays took part in the research, and 75% say they will inevitably need to get away from their relatives and indulge in some much needed “me time.” In fact, it only takes respondents an average of three hours and 54 minutes before they start to feel sick of their families.

This isn’t how it is supposed to be. We were created to love and to be loved. And when you remove love from the equation, people become very miserable quite rapidly.

In America today, “deaths of despair” are happening at the highest rate in all of U.S. history. The following information comes directly from the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee… Anne Case and Angus Deaton famously chronicled a dramatic rise among middle-aged non-Hispanic whites since 1999 in “deaths of despair”—deaths by suicide, drug and alcohol poisoning, and alcoholic liver disease and cirrhosis.1 The Social Capital Project has extended Case and Deaton’s research to cover the full American population as far back as available data permit: to 1900 in some cases, and to 1959 or 1968 in others. We present here a snapshot of the long-term trends in deaths of despair. We also attach our full dataset for use in future research, including results broken down by age, sex, and race.


Mortality from deaths of despair far surpasses anything seen in America since the dawn of the 20th century. (The trend for middle-aged whites reveals a more dramatic rise but only goes back continuously to 1959.) The recent increase has primarily been driven by an unprecedented epidemic of drug overdoses, but even excluding those deaths, the combined mortality rate from suicides and alcohol-related deaths is higher than at any point in more than 100 years. So it would appear that our very unhappy nation is rapidly becoming even unhappier. And it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what this is happening.

As a society, we decided that marriage wasn’t important. So now we have one of the lowest marriage rates and one of the highest divorce rates in the entire world.

As a society, we decided that children weren’t important. So now our birth rate has dropped below replacement level and a third of all U.S. children live in a home without a father.

As a society, we decided that patriotism wasn’t important. So now the American flag is being banned by some schools as a “divisive symbol” and most of our young people have never even read the entire U.S. Constitution.

As a society, we decided that God wasn’t important. So now just about every form of evil that you can possibly imagine is exploding in our society, and we are literally on a path that leads to national suicide.

If you feel lonely, miserable or depressed this holiday season, I would definitely encourage you to get my latest book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters”. It is filled with very practical advice that will enable you to start turning things around immediately. But even more importantly, reach out to those that you love during this holiday season.

Life is way too short to live it alone.

Society would have us believe that those that have the most money are the most “successful”. But that is not true at all. In reality, those that love the most are really the most “successful”, and so let us endeavour to be people of great love.




Americans Are Lonely, Miserable And Depressed – The Legacy Of A Society That Has Rejected Family, Faith And Patriotism

29 XII 2023.
 
Reply

Tags
birth, dating, family, marriage, mgtow

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:32 AM.
Page generated in 0.73501 seconds.