draft: family renewal / revival

We value the family (as well as the individual and the larger community). We grieve for any weakening of the family and for the trend of growing dependency on centralized bureaucracies. However, we also respect the gratitude that people may have for institutional generosity. We are simply skeptical of the long-term sustainability of any form of institutional generosity. We support institutional incentives for personal responsibility.
In particular, this organization promotes a consideration of what steps are relevant to take for individuals who wish to renew the strength of family in their own private lives. While political activism is not excluded, the priority focus here is on actions that make a tangible difference in individual lives and their own families.

In fact, we respect the historical fact that there are cycles of both centralization and decentralization of power. In other words, within any culture, there are cycles of increasing personal discretion and decreasing personal discretion. We do not oppose all tradition or conformity in general, but we are cautious of the tendency for a herd mentality to produce widespread paranoia and hysteria, such as unexamined presumptions about certain health crisis.

So what can we do about this situation? What response is best?

For your consideration….

Below is:

A message to parents (and grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc)
First comes:
Comments on specific issues
on public health:

The best solution to promoting public health (rather than quietly advancing a depopulation agenda) would not be the fighting of symptoms or attacking the immune system’s healing responses. By advancing awareness of simple individual choices that can dramatically improve the health of people one by one, we would reduce the interest in “isolated solutions” (such as mandatory vaccination or compulsory health care protocols to combat specific complications).

For instance, we challenge the advocates of the paranoia about cholesterol to evidence a causal relationship between cholesterol levels and various common health issues. Because of the widespread popularity of the paranoia, most people would never question the correlations that are repeatedly presented as if correlation was evidence of causality. So, just how much interest is there in controlled long-term studies on the effects of specific changes to dietary intake of cholesterol? How much interest is there in long-term research in to the effects of interventions designed to inhibit liver function and reduce production of the nutrient cholesterol? How much interest is there in why the livers of so many animals produce so much cholesterol (and what factors influence the amount of cholesterol produced)? How much interest is there in the assertion that cholesterol is an essential nutrient that is used to manufacture a multitude of important hormones as well as to combat existing health crisis of various kinds? In general, how much interest is there in science itself, such as the huge distinction between correlation and causality?

Also, we respectfully challenge the advocates of vaccines to publicize clear, concise, credible research by independent experts (with an openness to the most conservative skepticism toward popular hysterias and paranoias). If an extreme policy is ever warranted, then let it be examined and criticized (with controversy invited rather than persecuted). The ridiculing of skeptics evidences a complete lack of confidence by those practicing the ridicule, with the idea that any dissent at all would constitute a massive potential threat to expose the total lack of merit in an underlying position which is recognized to be so weak that it must be protected from even the most minimal skepticism.

on public schooling:
tell the targeted audience what subjects to focus on as important
eventually, a steady stream of trivial details and confusing presumptions

essentially, a system of social intimidation 

that rewards the memorization of slogans (like slogans about science presented as science)
and then the blind repetition of those slogans on command
& that destroys the natural love of learning
while promoting chronic social anxiety about the opinions of classroom peers in relation to you
on mainstream media:
tell the targeted audience what subjects to focus on as important
constant stream of trivial controversies and distracting scandals
(I could add more “specific issues” to comment on)
A message to parents (and grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc)
Year after year through the mass media, you may have been fed images of family life that repulsed you or at least confused you. Also, you may have experienced unfavorable interactions in your own youth that repulsed you. However, even if there have been severe traumas in your personal life, what if those are evidence of the importance of strengthening the family? A weak family is not better than no family. A strong family is best.

Yes, in many parts of the world, there has been a trend of increasing stress for many families. There have been social conditions that resulted in many people focusing mostly on other things besides effective parenting (and besides effective communication). By the time they become parents, many adults have had very limited experience with children, so then they often turn to “experts” for childcare and education, and as a result of that they do not develop any much competence with interacting with children. By the teenage years, the relationship between many parents and their maturing children is quite stressful or is simply “distant.” With each generation, the bond between the parents and the young adults tends to form less and less. Parents may even openly disrespect or harass each other, presenting the youth with patterns of disrespecting one of their own parents.

With an increase of single-parent households and geographic dispersion, many children by their teenage years have spent much more time with school teachers than with their non-custodial parent or other close relatives like grandparents. The children may be generally unfamiliar with interacting with adults outside of the impersonal structure of a classroom. Many children have spent more time watching TV shows about families than time interacting with certain members of their own household in which they live.

What is the solution? Individuals can make it a priority to heal any past traumas relating to family and to relationships. Individuals can also recognize the cultural trends de-emphasizing the family.

In particular, the vilification or “demasculinization” of males is a particularly notable issue, corresponding to frequent complaints by women that “it is very hard to find ‘a real man’ that is still unmarried.” In other words, certain masculine qualities have become so rare that men who have even moderate development of those qualities are likely to be extremely desirable to women (and thus women who encounter such a man will not only be very interested, but will be extremely disappointed if the man does not show as much interest in her as she would like, which can then result in extreme jealousy, rage, and resentment- emotions which women would not experience so intensely if they identified an over-flowing abundance of men that are attractive to them and “within their reach”).

There has been a corresponding masculinizing of women (as in a defeminizing). Women have to balance for the lack of masculine qualities in their social circles and that naturally corresponds to less development of feminine qualities.

So, because of the lack of development of classic masculine attributes in the public education systems, young adult males face a disorienting transition when they leave the familiar structures of the classroom (which systematically rewards blind conformity and promotes social anxiety about political correctness rather than rewarding initiative or discernment). The typical response in the school system to masculine initiative may be to ignore it if moderate and otherwise to suppress it with addictive psychiatric drugging. As they get older, the addictive tendencies of many young men (whether alcohol, smoking, or other addictions) maintain a chronic suppression of masculine motivations and practices.

As young men exit school settings, if there is very little momentum of relationship between the young man and emotionally-mature men, many young men have very little experience and very little ongoing guidance from anyone but women. The young men do not trust masculinity (and have not developed their own masculinity enough for it to be worthy of trust). They are then shuffled in to “the workforce” and, if they hit a crisis of masculinity within a few decades, that is very common (and may even be very healthy for them if the crisis is given proper respect and nourishing).
What are interested adults to do? They can study experts in masculinity (which will have practical benefit to them). They can participate in groups and training programs. For those who wish to cultivate the motivation to promote masculine qualities, they can also learn about the cultural warfare of Marxism and the international socialists.
Women who would like for specific men to develop masculinity can learn about resources for developing masculinity and then make references to those resources. Tell the man “just please don’t talk to your cousin about his men’s group or else, in retaliation, your mom might stop making you a cake on your birthday. You wouldn’t fit in to that group anyway because it is not for men who are terrified of ever learning anything new. You better stay home instead and watch some really important sports event on TV.”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: