miles mathis article on the family

NEW PAPER, added 2/16/20, The Nuclear Family was (Not) a Mistake. My response to the current cover story at The Atlantic.  

First published February 16, 2020

As you can see from the graphic above, this is a response to this month's cover story at The Atlantic.  I saw an issue near the check-out at my local organic market, and I really wanted to stomp the magazine to little shreds, then toss the lady a fiver for my damage.  I didn't for only one reason: I don't want The Atlantic to have even $1 of my money.  Plus, I know that the bulk of these magazines will end up in the incinerator or landfill anyway: almost no one is daft enough to read this crap or believe it.

However, I think a response is worth my time anyway, since it plays right into several themes that have come  up  in  my  papers  recently.     First  of  all,  many  readers  will  say,  “See  Miles,  you are  a conservative”.     That takes us back to  this recent paper, which is about liberalism and why I am a liberal.  But yes, in this sense, I definitely am conservative, since I want to conserve the family, I want to conserve the best things of history, I want to conserve the old definitions of art, I want to conserve rationality and truth.  But before you start patting yourself on your back for your victory, you may want to read the rest of my paper here, as well as read David Brooks' article and bio closely, because you will find out it isn't that simple.  The word “conservative” will dance around all over the place below.

Others will say, “You are jumping the gun, Miles my dear, since I have read the article and Brooks isn't arguing what you have assumed he is.   He admits the loss of family in the past 60 years has been a tragedy and tries to suggest various ways of rebuilding it”.  To which I can only say, WAKE UP!  That isn't what he is doing at all, though I admit that is what is trying to make us think he is doing.

Brooks is a master of “sober, evenhanded writing” and appearing earnest. . . but he isn't.  He is just one of the most slick propagandists alive, fooling you into thinking he is the exact opposite of what he is. Jim Denison at the Christian Science Monitor replied to Brooks almost immediately, but he seems to have missed this fact completely.  We expect him to argue against Brooks strongly, but that also doesn't happen.  His reply is short and squishy in the extreme and is hard to glean anything from.  You won't have that problem with me, you can be sure.

The first thing you should do is search on David Brooks online.   At least read his  Wikipedia page, which should provide you with the lay of the land here.   He is from a wealthy Jewish family and he went to work for Bill Buckley right out of college, writing for the National Review.   Now, that is conservative, but not in the way we were just talking about.   It would be better to call the Review fascist, since what it wished to conserve was the hegemony of old money, the military, the government, and the Intelligence community. Buckley was unabashedly peerage, Intelligence, military, and bloodlines.   He was an actual CIA agent.   Brooks has also been connected to the Hoover Institution since his 20s, another huge red flag.   We have seen the Hoover Institution many times as a primary bastion of fascism and government control.  So already you should be surprised to see Brooks writing f o r The  Atlantic.    For  many  decades The  Atlantic  sold  itself as a  progressive and  liberal  voice, appealing to the opposite demographic of National Review.    But although that sale was always just a pose, the magazine recently gave it up, and it is now openly run by conservative Jews, like everything else.  The whole liberal/conservative dichotomy was jettisoned after 2001 and the magazine is now just another bullhorn of Intelligence propaganda, matching the tone and the politics of just about every other magazine and media outlet.

So if your knee-jerk reaction to that title “The Nuclear Family was a Mistake” was to assume the jackals were at it again, ripping up the American family on purpose for profit, with ever less subtlety, you were right.   Brooks is shifty, but hardly subtle.   For those who know up from down, his article remains as transparent as thinnest glass.

More proof of this is that Brooks then ended up at the Wall Street Journal, which is certainly not liberal.  It sells itself as conservative but is again fascist, since it is another government front.  What it wishes to conserve is the wealth of the already wealthy, including their military contracts and other gulp-from-the-treasury projects and conjobs.

Brooks' most famous book is  Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There. According to its own self promotion at Wikipedia, “The book, a  paean to consumerism, argued that the new managerial or 'new upper class' represents a marriage between the liberal idealism of the 1960s and the self-interest of the 1980s.”  If that doesn't make you want to toss your lunch, you aren't paying attention.  Especially, note how the word “liberalism” has been flipped and squashed, so that it can be applied to “self-interested consumerism”.   I have news for you, liberalism never had anything to do with that until these frauds like Brooks got a hold of it.   If there was any real liberal idealism in the 1960s, which I begin to doubt, it wasn't about self-interested consumerism, it was about altruism and caring for your fellow man.  Self interested consumerism was never a project of liberals or liberalism, it was a project of these greedy Jewish and crypto-Jewish bastards like Brooks, Buckley, and all the rest, who wish to fully control society for their own enrichment and glorification.   Just go back in memory or read your history: was self-interested consumerism sold by the hippies, anti-war protestors, or any other real liberals of the time?   No.   It was sold by the merchants and other cloaked fascists.   Who benefits from consumerism?  Not hippies.  Merchants.  And, as it turns out, the only hippies who were selling limited and perverted definitions of freedom have turned out to be hippies planted by the fascists—fake hippies like Ram Dass, Tim Leary, Terence McKenna, Carlos Casteneda, and so on. Cloaked and costumed hippies infiltrating and blackwashing the opposition.

They admit this at Wikipedia.  See this line in Brooks' bio, which gives it all away. Collins [of New York Magazine] was looking for a conservative to replace outgoing columnist William Safire, but one who understood how liberals think.

Now, ask yourself why he would want that.   Obviously, so that Brooks could pretend to be liberal, while actually blackwashing liberals and liberalism.   Collins wanted someone surpassingly oily and unctuous, a person with zero scruples, but one with the touch of a snake charmer.  Someone who could sell snow to eskimos.  That is what Brooks has always been.  That is precisely what he is doing in this article at The Atlantic.

Tripping on any article with the title “The Nuclear Family was a Mistake”, you would assume it would be written by a liberal, right?  If there is anything most genuine conservatives wish to conserve, it is the family.  So you should be surprised to find Brooks, a conservative, writing it.  You have been flipped even before the first word, because—unless you are well aware of who Brooks is and what he is up to

—you will read the article in the wrong light.  You will read it thinking you are reading the words of a squishy caring liberal, and that is exactly the way Brooks comes across here.  He makes you think he cares greatly about the break-up and loss of the family and is working hard to build alternatives.  He isn't.   He is part of the cabal that destroyed the family with malice aforethought, for profit, so all his tears are crocodile tears.  I don't believe his claims to being involved in Weave or his attendance at All Our Kids and neither should you.   It sounds like blarney to me.   If Weave exists it is only as a CIA project front to do exactly the opposite of its founding creed.  At best it is a band-aid on a decapitation, at worst it is salt on the wound.

If you don't believe me, look it up.   Weave comes out of the Aspen Institute.   If you trust anything coming out of the Aspen Institute, again, you aren't keeping up.  It was founded by Atlantic Richfield CEO Robert Anderson, who was also behind Harper's Magazine—another faux-liberal rag like The Atlantic.    Anderson came from a big banking family, and he later pushed modern art, including Bauhaus.   The Aspen Institute was originally a spin-off of Bauhaus, since another founder was artist Herbert Bayer, also Jewish.

There you can see how incredibly talented he was.   Reminds me of Gary Larson's notorious  “Cow Tools”.

They admit the Aspen Institute is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the Carnegie Foundation.  So if you are black and you think these people are on your side, well, good luck to you.  If you think anything that comes out of the Aspen Institute or any of these Foundations benefits the little man, of any color or creed, good luck to you.  For the truth is, these people made their money preying on you and yours, and they don't give a rat's behind for your prosperity one way or another.   All they care about is continuing the con, by any means necessary.

Often, they continue it by fooling you into thinking they are philanthropists of some sort, as here with Brooks and the Weavers.  But I suggest you go to the  Weaver's website and watch Brooks talk for ten seconds.  If you have any sort of intuition at all, you should be able to look into his eyes and tell you are being conned.  If you can't, then not only should you realize your intuition is faulty and that your eyes don't work like they should, you should realize you need to study history a bit closer.   Weaver can't possibly care about opiate/opioid addiction, since again his people and class created it on purpose. The huge pharmaceutical companies are run and owned by the same companies that own and fund everything else, including these top foundations and institutes like the Rockefeller Foundation and the Aspen Institute, and they profit incredibly from the sale of addictive drugs.   They aren't addictive by accident, they are made as addictive as possibly in the lab on purpose.   This has been known for decades.  These are the same people that made cigarettes as addictive as possible back in the day, but now that cigarette sales have plummeted due to health concerns, they have to get their immoral profits elsewhere.  One of those places is with prescription drugs, with your own doctor as pusher.

But let's look closely at the article itself, which confirms in gut-wrenching detail everything I have just told you.  Brooks leads off the article like all modern articles—with a dunking in syrup.  Nobody ever just gets to the point anymore, they have to carry you in on a fluffy pillow with a soft human angle, where Grandma is making coffee or Jennifer is patting a dog or someone is washing the car with his son.   In other words, the author has to lull you into a state of faux-rapture, one where you couldn't possibly imagine he might be another nasty Intelligence writer trained to hypnotize you.  I am immune to that, because I have learned to just flip-off the screen with both middle fingers and scream, “get to the point you smarmy jerk!”  I recommend you try it.  It is very liberating and immediately breaks any possibility of hypnosis.

Anyway, Brooks' gambit is to open with a Thanksgiving story, where children are sitting around wide- eyed and oldsters are squabbling about whose memory is better and there are piles of plates in the sink, yadayada.   Actually, Brooks is incapable of creating his own cliches here, and he is borrowing them from  director  Barry Levinson.    This is a scene from the 1990 movie Avalon.   Which name is yet another level of the hypnosis, of course.   The movie is part of Levinson's series of Baltimore films, exploring the themes of Jewish assimilation into American life since the 1960s.   So why is it named Avalon?  What does Jewish assimilation in Baltimore have to do with the little island in the lake where King Arthur found the sword Excalibur?  On the surface nothing, as on the surface there is no reason why Brooks should be mentioning either Levinson or Avalon in the first paragraphs of the article.  But if you are a reader of mine, you know these people don't do anything by accident.   If they mention Avalon it isn't just because they like the consonance.    It is part of their centuries-old  protocol. Remember, we have discovered these top crypto-Jewish lines have ruled the British Isles (and world) long before their cousin William came over in 1066 and joined them.  They have ruled it even before their cousins the Vikings/Phoenicians showed up to join them.  Which means. . . yes, they are nodding to  their  ancestor  Arthur  here,  and  to  previous  propaganda.     [Avalon  is  probably  the  same  as Glastonbury Tor, by the way, which means that area was once under water, except for the hill.  This will help you understand the current Glastonbury festival, but that is subject for another paper.]    They are still doing their best to cover up the connection between Welsh and Hebrew, but it is pretty obvious. Do a search on that, and you get many intriguing hits, including  a recent article in the Independent confirming that two British journalists were detained in Libya because the authorities there thought Welsh writing  in  their  effects  was  Hebrew.     Which  tells  us.  .  .  the word  Avalon  probably  has Hebrew/Phoenician antecedents, referring to something long before the Arthur legends.   But again, subject for another paper.  That does tell us why Levinson used it, and why Brooks is keen to reference it here. Anyway, in the Levinson film, the break-up of the family starts when the eldest son arrives for Thanksgiving to find the father has already cut the turkey.   He gets angry and causes a huge scene. Levinson tells Brooks that “when you violate protocol, the whole family structure begins to collapse.”

Really?  That's what Brooks decided to go for?  We are supposed to believe that the family in America collapsed due to a minor violation of protocol?  You see what I mean by lack of subtlety.  Unction out the wazoo, but not a drop of subtlety.

You will say that Brooks is just easing us in with a harmless anecdote, but it doesn't get any better. And, besides, that is not what he is doing.  As I said, this is all a hypnosis for the weak-minded.  It is the first small lie in a series of ever larger ones.  He starts you out slowly, and once you have digested that one, he feeds you a larger one.  They have an entire playbook on this.  Just pay attention.

Here is the next lie: “But then, because the nuclear family is so brittle, the fragmentation continued.” The nuclear family broke because it was so brittle?  Not because it was targeted by the billionaires and trillionaires and strafed unceasingly over many decades.    Not because the CIA, FBI, DIA, Justice Department, Pentagon, and every other government agency targeted it for extermination.  Not because the media targeted it for extermination.   Not because promoted authors targeted it for extermination. Not because modern artists targeted it for extermination.    Not because Hollywood targeted it for extermination.    Not because the Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie and Gates Foundations targeted it for extermination, spending trillions to destroy it on purpose.   The family broke simply because it was brittle.  If you aren't angry enough for revolution in the morning, you need to knock off the opioids.

Next, Brooks tells you he is going to investigate the destruction of the family, but he utterly forgets to do it.  All he does is tell you what you already know: the big extended Walton or Amish farm family was whittled down to a nuclear family of 4-6 by the 1940s, and that in the 1960s that began to crumble. He tells us that the nuclear family was always “freakish” but gives absolutely no examples of that.  He says the extended farm family was more resilient and more supportive, which is true, but that doesn't make the nuclear family freakish.  He admits that even now more than 1/3rd of all people in the US still live in nuclear families, which he tries to spin as a sign of its weakness, but which is actually a sign of its strength.   33% is a pretty big number, considering that the family has been targeted by all those powerful entities for 60 years or more.    Any weak or brittle construction would have absolutely dissolved down to nothing under that kind of attack.   And yet, the American family is still around. Brooks admits it is actually making a small comeback, which explains why he is here.  The comeback of the family worries the governors, because it is a sign they are failing.    So their response is predictable: spend more money, increase the levels of propaganda, tell more lies.

Later in the article, Brooks admits that more than half of all adults are still married, or as good as. They are not single.    Furthermore, while 90% of baby boomer women were married by age 40, and 80% of GenX women were, only 70% of Millennials are expected to be.  But wait, that is still pretty good!   Especially if we consider that around 10% are gay.   That means only 20% don't get married. You can see why the governors are pissed and are stepping up the propaganda here.  Their project is failing.  We aren't getting the message.  They have been trashing marriage and the family since 1960, but only 20% of women are listening to them in 2020, sixty years later?

Brooks is sure to repeat over and over that we can't go back: the favorite mantra of the Phoenician navy.  Move on, the past is over, you can't go back.  In other words, “We won, get over it.”  But of course none of that is true.  You can go back if you decide to.  If the recent past was better, you can easily return to it.  Hell, you can still buy all the implements on Ebay. That is what worries them.  They know you could buy back your entire 1963 existence in a week, for much cheaper than they are selling you the present.  Just throw everything you own in the garbage and buy back 1963 from Ebay.  I am totally serious.  It's all there, and you can get it for little more than postage.  I know, I've done it.

Brooks even admits the nuclear family in the 1950s was tied closely to many other families, creating an extended nuclear family.  Not just relative families, but neighbor families.  All true, which completely undercuts his claim it was freakish or brittle.  But he ignores that contradiction, of course.

Speaking of the 1950s, Brooks admits:

Finally, conditions in the wider society were ideal for family stability. The postwar period was a high-water mark of church attendance, unionization, social trust, and mass prosperity—all things that correlate with family cohesion. A man could relatively easily find a job that would allow him to be the breadwinner for a single-income family. By 1961, the median American man age 25 to 29 was  earning nearly 400 percent more than his father had earned at about the same age.

Which  is  exactly  why  that  prosperity  had  to  be  targeted.     There  was  excess  income,  and  the

Phoenicians have never seen a pot they didn't think belonged to them by birthright.  They saw that extra

400% and told themselves that if the guy's father could live on 1/5th  of that, so could the son.   That money was ripe for the skimming.   So the first thing they did is change the tax structures to feed heavily on that excess, while making greater plans.   One of those plans was the destruction of the family, so that the vampires could drink not just from the men but from the women and children as well.    They found they couldn't raise taxes 400% overnight on middle-class men: that might look suspicious.  What they could do is split the men from the women.  If you do that, you only have to raise taxes 200% on each to achieve the same thing, immediately taking them much nearer their goal.  You still can't raise taxes 200% overnight, so you need corollary schemes, such as inflation, state and locals taxes, new fees: a whole smorgasbord of new bleeding via decreased services and increased costs. And of course this is what happened.

Once all that was achieved by the 1990s, the vampires figured, why stop now?  If we can get away with this mass blood-sucking, we can get away with anything.  Let us just gut the government, replacing it with a feeding frenzy.  Once we drain all the treasuries worldwide, we will just raise the debt ceilings to allow a continuous and unauditable theft, out into the future.   And we won't stop until the people yank our bloated and distended bodies from the feeding tubes by force.

That is where we are at right now, and you know it.

But back to it.  While avoiding saying anything actually to the point, Brooks diverts you with sloppy paragraphs like this one:

The major strains were cultural. Society became more individualistic and more self-oriented. People put greater value on privacy and autonomy. A rising feminist movement helped endow women with greater freedom to live and work as they chose.

You see, everything is passive there.   Society just becomes more selfish for internal reasons, or no reason.  People stop wanting what they wanted before.  Although everything was an idyll in the 1950s,

people got tired of it.  They were tired of being happy and rich and satisfied.  Not able to come up with anything else, when pressed Brooks says it was because women wanted out of the house.  Because that is true in a limited sense, he wants you to think it caused the entire social revolution.  But we know it didn't.  While some women wanted more, many were quite satisfied.  In the same way, we know that many men of that time wanted out of their jobs.  Some would have been glad to trade places with their wives, if that had been an option.   But that dissatisfaction didn't cause the social revolution anymore than the women's dissatisfaction.  Men and women have been dissatisfied since the beginning of time. It is part of the human makeup to be dissatisfied and to want more.  But although that dissatisfaction was always present, it didn't cause major societal disruption until the 1960s.   Why?   I just told you why: it was planned.  It didn't just happen, it was a desired outcome, and trillions of dollars was spent to make it happen.   Once it did happen, tens of trillions of dollars in profit was made, justifying the initial investment.

Brooks even admits the plan goes back far before 1960.  He tells us divorce rates started climbing in the 1880s.   Yes, and we know the vampires have been planning this for a long time.   It went into overdrive after WWII, but it was has been in swing for almost 200 years now.  We have seen that with the Fabians, the Marxists, the Socialists, etc.  The turtle has been striking hard since the 1820s, and we have been following its plans and schemes in my papers for many years now.   They haven't even bothered to bury the evidence, posting it in plain sight at Wikipedia and elsewhere.

In a bullet, Brooks says

We’re likely living through the most rapid change in family structure in human history. The causes are economic, cultural, and institutional all at once.

Yes, we are, which is why its so tragic, but as usual he fails to even try to pinpoint a cause.  Causes can't be economic, cultural, or institutional, only effects can be.   Saying a cause is economic is an empty telling, since it doesn't explain who is controlling the economy, the culture, or the institutions. Do institutions and economies control themselves?  Of course not, they are controlled by people.  The decisions of those people are what caused this rapid change, not a bunch of words strung together.  And we have already seen who controlled them: the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, and Gates Foundations, for a start, and the families behind them.  How hard is it: they tell you who they are in the titles.  If you want  some  more  names:  Cohen,  Schiff,  Astor,  Vanderbilt,  Oppenheimer,  Warburg,  Sachs/Saxe, Stewart, Stanley, Murray. . .  Epstein, Weinstein, Hoffman, Levinson/Leveson, Brooks.

Brooks admits that porch life has declined, along with yard life and park life.  People now stay home. Why?   They just decided they wanted to be lonely and miserable?   No, they were driven inside and under the bed by decades of fake events and fake serial killers and fake child molesters and fake mass murderers and fake #Metoo movements and fake feminists and fake liberals and fake conservatives. Everyone's sanity and well being has been targeted on purpose by an ever-expanding Project Chaos, by which the government has destabilized its own citizens in an act of overt and covert war.  This is their last ditch effort to suck us dry, zombify us, and avoid imminent revolution.  If we wandered outside the house for any reason other than to buy some overpriced food, guns, or gear for the fallout shelter, we might begin speaking to one another, realizing we were all ready for revolution tomorrow.

And now for the next lie: Brooks tells you that

Among the highly educated, family patterns are almost as stable as they were in the 1950s;

among the less fortunate, family life is often utter chaos. There’s a reason for that divide:

Affluent people have the resources to effectively buy extended family, in order to shore themselves up.

No, family life is utter chaos across the board, though it differs in form somewhat.  Yes, affluent people can hire maids, nannies, and masseuses, but that doesn't mean they are happy or stable.  It means they are killing themselves in slow motion with expensive whisky, coke, Oxycontin and foie gras instead of on McDonald's cheeseburgers, ripple, meth and white lightning.    So why would Brooks tell you something he knows isn't true, and that you should know isn't true?  Because he wants to hypnotize you into think you are doing just fine.  If you are semi-affluent, he wants you to think you are doing just as well as those cozy people back in the 50s, or better, just because you can drink Perrier and hang out at the golf course and send the wife to San Tropez.  He wants you to think that, because you are the real danger to him.  The governors have never feared revolution from the proletariat or the lower classes. That was all just a feint.  No, they know that—paradoxically—the revolution will come from the upper classes.  Not the billionaires and trillionaires, but the rung below that.  The lower-upperclass, which is growing faster than any other segment.  There are a lot of these people and they have a lot of resources and know-how.  These are the people that are reading The Atlantic (if anyone is), not inner-city black mothers or hispanic blue collar workers or Southern rednecks.  So the governors have to convince you that—against all the evidence of your own senses—you are doing very well in the Brave New World. Forget the fact that your wife is a harpy and your children are vicious little monsters strung out on drugs and that you yourself are a self-loathing bundle of confusion, spiraling down into a self-created hell of guilt and misery.  Forget that.  You have loads of money in the bank and can afford a new car every year: you are the envy of 98% of the people in the country and 99% of the people in the world.

Playing on that guilt is Brooks' greatest weapon, which is why he now lists all the alleged societal results of your callousness and selfishness.  He throws all the statistics of working class families and poor inner city families in your face, reminding you that you are the product of the split society, where the rich get ever richer and the poor get ever poorer.  But did you craft public policy over the past 60 years?  I doubt it.  Your only sin was being born to the right families, working hard, and not having the strength to say no when it came time to benefit.  And why should you: if you had refused the money it wasn't going to be sent directly to the poor.  Some other rich bastard more selfish than you would have taken it, and perhaps done worse with it.

That may all be true, but it doesn't change the bottom line: you have been hoodwinked by jerks like Brooks and those he works for just as fully as any poor black factory worker or hispanic farm laborer or white IHOP waitress.  And probably a lot more fully.  You have suffered in your own ways, though they have been mental rather than physical.   One way you have suffered is having to read dreck like this at The Atlantic, or to even see the cover at the grocery store.  To see what now passes for news, information, or opinion must be supremely painful to any rational person, and is enough by itself to make all of us PTSD.    Taken in its full meaning, import, and implications, this one article, by itself, would be enough to justify immediate revolution, and the pulling down of those responsible for it.

The lies have gotten so atrocious, so convoluted, so longstanding, so entrenched, and so vile, you would think even the liars would be begging for revolution. . . and maybe they are.   Maybe that is exactly what we are witnessing.  A large percentage of the articles and artifacts I now critique seem to be created by split personalities or borderline cases, gleefully transgressing while at the same time implicitly begging to be stopped.   This article also reads that way, making me hope an end to this madness may be near.

Here is the next incredible lie:

Over the past 50 years, federal and state governments have tried to mitigate the deleterious effects of these trends. They’ve tried to increase marriage rates, push down divorce rates, boost fertility, and all the rest. The focus has always been on strengthening the nuclear family, not the extended family. Occasionally, a discrete program will yield some positive results, but the widening of family inequality continues unabated.

The government has tried to increase marriage rates and push down divorce rates?  Who believes this? Brooks doesn't cite one example, because that would show up the lie.    Yes, there may be a few initiatives, especially at the local level, but they are poorly funded and end up getting harpooned by the big boys.   If you added up all the projects over the past 60 years that targeted marriage and divorce rates, the ones against would far outnumber and outweigh the ones for.   But of course you have to include all the big-money black budget projects, not just the little government projects starved by Congress.  That would include the Intelligence projects, the Hollywood projects, the TV projects, the other media projects, the modern art projects, the “literary” projects, and on and on.   Anyone awake knows that marriage has not been promoted by the government or anyone else—except maybe the Church—over the past 60 years.  Which explains why the Church has also been targeted for extinction.

The last part of Brooks' article is the most offensive, since it is where he offers a solution.  The bright future on the horizon.   And that is?   His first suggestion is communes.   A rich Jewish conservative pushing communes?  Really?  Do you think he really believes this is the future of the family?  Do you really think he gives a damn?  His example of the glories of communal living is Martin, who has a 3- year-old daughter who has a “special bond” with a young man in his 20s.  “Stella makes him laugh, and David feels awesome that this 3-year-old adores him,” Martin said. This is the kind of magic, she concluded, that wealth can’t buy.

Hmmm.  Are you thinking what I am thinking.  Of course you are.  Brooks wants you to think that.  He made up this story just to create that “ick” response.  Just so you understand me, I don't think there is anything wrong with single guys playing with their friends' children.  Almost everyone loves playing with kids, just as almost everyone loves playing with puppies or kittens.   But Brooks hasn't told the story right on purpose.  He is blackwashing his own suggestions, on purpose.  He must know good and well, as you do, that playing with your friends' kids is no substitute for family.  So some guy playing with a little girl isn't to the point here, no matter how innocent it is.  It absolutely fails to address the problem.  On purpose.

How about this:

As Martin was talking, I was struck by one crucial difference between the old extended families like those in Avalon and the new ones of today: the role of women. The extended family  in Avalon thrived because all the women in the family were locked in the kitchen, feeding 25 people at a time.

What?  I don't remember that.  They actually locked women in the kitchen in the 50s, did they?  And they fed 25?  So if we want to go back to nuclear families or extended families, we have to lock women in the kitchen, and they have to feed 25 people all day every day?  Is that what he is saying?  Just a tad exclamatory, isn't it?   Don't you think it might be possible to reverse current trends without actually locking women in the kitchen?

It's funny, because I was just watching The Waltons last night.  No really.  If Brooks gets to use fiction

as examples, I guess I can too.  I don't remember Liv ever being locked in any kitchen or cooking for

25.  She has seven kids and the Waltons always seem to have guests, but even so the table always tops out at about 15, at most.   And she always has the kids and grandma to help, and the boys also help. Just last night, John Boy was milking the cow.

More to the point, I remember the 60s because I was there.  My maternal grandmother was mostly a housewife, though she also worked at the Junior College, and I don't remember a lock on the kitchen. She liked being in the kitchen and was a damn good cook.  She thrived on taking care of everyone, and you couldn't have stopped her from doing it short of knocking her cold with a brick.    And yes, everything  was  better  back  then,  and  it  was  because  of  the  extended  nuclear  families  we  had. Christmas was glorious, with the warmth and crowds and bustle and good home-cooked food, and she was a very large part of that.  She would glow if she heard me say that, I am sure, because I am sure she never resented it.  She never resented it despite being Phi Beta Kappa.  She had lots of talents, but she knew that family was the most important of those.  My paternal grandmother, though not quite the miracle of efficiency the maternal one was, was also loving and presided over some grand holidays. Women like those two were a very large part of the non-brittle nuclear family, and sad to say they are mostly a thing of the past.  They were slandered to their faces for many decades by these merchants and their hirelings, told they would be more useful working in some office for some big faceless company. Which was just another bold and vicious lie.  They weren't more useful there, to themselves or anyone else.  They were just another cog, another money-making automaton for the consumer economy.

Which isn't to say I think all women should be at home, taking care of families.  It is to say I think that all people, men and women, should be home taking care of families—far more than they are.  Both men and women should tell the slavedrivers to take a flying fuck at the Moon and get back to the important things in life.  True, the poor are in no position to revolt, since many would starve within a few months.   But large swaths of the country have enough assets to weather the longest revolution. They should just cash out, quit their jobs, and say enough is enough.  They aren't budging until this is solved.  They have the power to seriously monkeywrench the system.  They have the power to demand the lies stop, the fake events stop, the obscene theft from the treasuries stops, the predation on the lower classes stops, everything.  No more psyops on the American people by their own government, no more covert wars by the government on its own people, no more raping the environment for profit, no more pillaging the third world for profit, no more turning this world into Pottersville*. . . or Mordor.

Those who run the world could return to the 1950s more easily than anyone, since they were already trillionaires then.   They hardly needed to stockpile more cash or assets, and there is no reason they couldn't have left us alone with our prosperity.  That is where they went off the rails, and they should wish to return to that time and start over more than anyone.   Their spirits have turned utterly to ash since that time, but like anything else, sins are reversible.  They think you can't go back, but you can, and they can.  They can reverse anytime they like, preferably tomorrow.  Like the Grinch, they can turn the sled around and come back down the mountain, redistributing worldwide their stolen booty.  It is their only hope.

*From It's a Wonderful Life, remember