Civil war coming to America?

[iamsoandso]

So there is a causal relationship between the Detroit riots of 1967 and the "Summer of Love" in San Francisco?

Bare in mind that I'm not meaning this as any type attack on women,,but

In the 60's a man worked and on his wages (alone) he made enough money to buy a house,a new car a boat ect. Companies competed with each other for employees by offering retirement,good insurance(dental,optical ect.) and most had money in savings after paying their bills. Women for the most part were "stay at home Moms" watching their children and teaching them morals,family structure ect.(the most important role in my opinion). As time went on the abilities of only "one person" being able to provide financial security for an family was considered by the companies and as it seems the US underwent an "paradigm shift".

The shift of thinking came by a promise of "equal rights"(both race and sex). At first it seemed to be beneficial(a good thing) but if you examine the outcome of this their intention was never to "raise" the rights of women or minority races up to the standard of living and rights of an man but to flood the market with additional workers and reduce the benefits and pay they were giving one man.


So now this is many years later and men and women of every race have equal rights but whats the outcome? If you notice now(today) both an husband and wife work to try to buy an house and cars ect.(used to only take the one) but most cannot make enough money to buy a house or have extra money for savings at the end of the month. Most families now have both the husband and wife working but it's a struggle to pay notes on a home and buy food or get health insurance when one family members wages used to be enough to do this.

It's apparent that they actually never had the rights of a women in their interest in a "better manner" but instead their intention was to take and double the available workers by adding women into the workplace. The outcome of this reduced all employees down to where the companies don't need to compete for full time employees and so they don't need to offer good insurance, retirement ect. to entice workers to work for them anymore.

Today we see in the stores "fast food" in boxes made especially for this that had their beginnings during the sexual revolution such as frozen pizza,TV dinners or pre-prepared meals because they know that if both husband and wife worked they would be too tired to come home and cook.

Anyway though I don't mean this in any way a belittlement to women it's that I lived before and after the paradigm shift in this and so I think that they(the system) tricked everyone by saying "equal rights" and instead of women's rights going up they meant equal to mean "low wages for everyone". If not and a man could pay for a new home,a car a boat and have a good retirement then and they actually raised anything then today we would have twice that standard instead of half. I always misspell stuff(lol) pardon me if I did,sorry for such a long post.

 

[EleventhHour]

Bare in mind that I'm not meaning this as any type attack on women,,but

In the 60's a man worked and on his wages (alone) he made enough money to buy a house,a new car a boat ect. Companies competed with each other for employees by offering retirement,good insurance(dental,optical ect.) and most had money in savings after paying their bills. Women for the most part were "stay at home Moms" watching their children and teaching them morals,family structure ect.(the most important role in my opinion). As time went on the abilities of only "one person" being able to provide financial security for an family was considered by the companies and as it seems the US underwent an "paradigm shift".

The shift of thinking came by a promise of "equal rights"(both race and sex). At first it seemed to be beneficial(a good thing) but if you examine the outcome of this their intention was never to "raise" the rights of women or minority races up to the standard of living and rights of an man but to flood the market with additional workers and reduce the benefits and pay they were giving one man.


So now this is many years later and men and women of every race have equal rights but whats the outcome? If you notice now(today) both an husband and wife work to try to buy an house and cars ect.(used to only take the one) but most cannot make enough money to buy a house or have extra money for savings at the end of the month. Most families now have both the husband and wife working but it's a struggle to pay notes on a home and buy food or get health insurance when one family members wages used to be enough to do this.

It's apparent that they actually never had the rights of a women in their interest in a "better manner" but instead their intention was to take and double the available workers by adding women into the workplace. The outcome of this reduced all employees down to where the companies don't need to compete for full time employees and so they don't need to offer good insurance, retirement ect. to entice workers to work for them anymore.

Today we see in the stores "fast food" in boxes made especially for this that had their beginnings during the sexual revolution such as frozen pizza,TV dinners or pre-prepared meals because they know that if both husband and wife worked they would be too tired to come home and cook.

Anyway though I don't mean this in any way a belittlement to women it's that I lived before and after the paradigm shift in this and so I think that they(the system) tricked everyone by saying "equal rights" and instead of women's rights going up they meant equal to mean "low wages for everyone". If not and a man could pay for a new home,a car a boat and have a good retirement then and they actually raised anything then today we would have twice that standard instead of half. I always misspell stuff(lol) pardon me if I did,sorry for such a long post.

You state a lot here.

Sadly many people want more than they can afford and that is the main problem from an economic point of view, not women entering the work force.

 

[Lisamn]

An interesting article by Dennis Prager...

The 'Good American'
Haunting parallels to 1933.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/good-american-dennis-prager/

 

[iamsoandso]

What is that? And, good morning SoAndSo

Good morning,,,

My dad had shrimp boats(small skiffs) when I grew up around Galveston and so after eating shrimp every other day my favorite was "blue crabs" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callinectes_sapidus Most see them as a hassle to eat but when I was a kid I realized that God gave them a tool for that(the claw that moves in their pincher) so I would would look at them on the plate and take the biggest one and break it off and it fits into every nook and cranny in the shell kind of like using it like a tool.

 

[iamsoandso]

You state a lot here.

Sadly many people want more than they can afford and that is the main problem from an economic point of view, not women entering the work force.

Yep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury it is no coincidence that the first credit cards sprang up at the same time we are speaking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diners_Club_International now we live in a world where we say "whats your credit score?". I'm glad I don't have any of them,not even a debit card I've never even made a bank loan. I just saved up and bought my land and then my house and never bought a car I couldn't pay cash for so if the economy crumbled tomorrow I still own them.

 

[calibob]

Bare in mind that I'm not meaning this as any type attack on women,,but

In the 60's a man worked and on his wages (alone) he made enough money to buy a house,a new car a boat ect. Companies competed with each other for employees by offering retirement,good insurance(dental,optical ect.) and most had money in savings after paying their bills. Women for the most part were "stay at home Moms" watching their children and teaching them morals,family structure ect.(the most important role in my opinion). As time went on the abilities of only "one person" being able to provide financial security for an family was considered by the companies and as it seems the US underwent an "paradigm shift".

The shift of thinking came by a promise of "equal rights"(both race and sex). At first it seemed to be beneficial(a good thing) but if you examine the outcome of this their intention was never to "raise" the rights of women or minority races up to the standard of living and rights of an man but to flood the market with additional workers and reduce the benefits and pay they were giving one man.


So now this is many years later and men and women of every race have equal rights but whats the outcome? If you notice now(today) both an husband and wife work to try to buy an house and cars ect.(used to only take the one) but most cannot make enough money to buy a house or have extra money for savings at the end of the month. Most families now have both the husband and wife working but it's a struggle to pay notes on a home and buy food or get health insurance when one family members wages used to be enough to do this.

It's apparent that they actually never had the rights of a women in their interest in a "better manner" but instead their intention was to take and double the available workers by adding women into the workplace. The outcome of this reduced all employees down to where the companies don't need to compete for full time employees and so they don't need to offer good insurance, retirement ect. to entice workers to work for them anymore.

Today we see in the stores "fast food" in boxes made especially for this that had their beginnings during the sexual revolution such as frozen pizza,TV dinners or pre-prepared meals because they know that if both husband and wife worked they would be too tired to come home and cook.

Anyway though I don't mean this in any way a belittlement to women it's that I lived before and after the paradigm shift in this and so I think that they(the system) tricked everyone by saying "equal rights" and instead of women's rights going up they meant equal to mean "low wages for everyone". If not and a man could pay for a new home,a car a boat and have a good retirement then and they actually raised anything then today we would have twice that standard instead of half. I always misspell stuff(lol) pardon me if I did,sorry for such a long post.

You state a lot here.

Sadly many people want more than they can afford and that is the main problem from an economic point of view, not women entering the work force.

You're both correct but did you or I miss mentioning or noticing the other economics invention that is and has been destroying the families and family units ever since the late 50's? Credit cards! and Debt.

The 20th century form of enslavement. I've known Psychologists that were over $100,000 in debt to student loans when they graduated. I don't think my father ever imagined he could ever pay off a $100,000 loan in his lifetime. He bought 2 year old cars for cash and drove them for years. He also paid off his mortgage before he retired and never paid another dime for rent. That sounds like a fantasy world or life now days.

My dad did it with a 4th grade education, honesty and lots of hard, factory work, while Mom stayed home and stayed Mom. I never had a baby sitter. But a TV and lots of books.

 

[Smoke]

Bare in mind that I'm not meaning this as any type attack on women,,but

In the 60's a man worked and on his wages (alone) he made enough money to buy a house,a new car a boat ect. Companies competed with each other for employees by offering retirement,good insurance(dental,optical ect.) and most had money in savings after paying their bills. Women for the most part were "stay at home Moms" watching their children and teaching them morals,family structure ect.(the most important role in my opinion). As time went on the abilities of only "one person" being able to provide financial security for an family was considered by the companies and as it seems the US underwent an "paradigm shift".

The shift of thinking came by a promise of "equal rights"(both race and sex). At first it seemed to be beneficial(a good thing) but if you examine the outcome of this their intention was never to "raise" the rights of women or minority races up to the standard of living and rights of an man but to flood the market with additional workers and reduce the benefits and pay they were giving one man.


So now this is many years later and men and women of every race have equal rights but whats the outcome? If you notice now(today) both an husband and wife work to try to buy an house and cars ect.(used to only take the one) but most cannot make enough money to buy a house or have extra money for savings at the end of the month. Most families now have both the husband and wife working but it's a struggle to pay notes on a home and buy food or get health insurance when one family members wages used to be enough to do this.

It's apparent that they actually never had the rights of a women in their interest in a "better manner" but instead their intention was to take and double the available workers by adding women into the workplace. The outcome of this reduced all employees down to where the companies don't need to compete for full time employees and so they don't need to offer good insurance, retirement ect. to entice workers to work for them anymore.

Today we see in the stores "fast food" in boxes made especially for this that had their beginnings during the sexual revolution such as frozen pizza,TV dinners or pre-prepared meals because they know that if both husband and wife worked they would be too tired to come home and cook.

Anyway though I don't mean this in any way a belittlement to women it's that I lived before and after the paradigm shift in this and so I think that they(the system) tricked everyone by saying "equal rights" and instead of women's rights going up they meant equal to mean "low wages for everyone". If not and a man could pay for a new home,a car a boat and have a good retirement then and they actually raised anything then today we would have twice that standard instead of half. I always misspell stuff(lol) pardon me if I did,sorry for such a long post.

I was well aware that in 2021, dual income is the norm as a necessity. I didn't consider the obvious implication of doubling the workforce on wages. Very interesting. Appreciate this post.

I would love to see the correlation of the average wage (fixed for inflation) with the # of people in the workforce throughout the last 60 years.

 

[EleventhHour]

You're both correct but did you or I miss mentioning or noticing the other economics invention that is and has been destroying the families and family units ever since the late 50's? Credit cards! and Debt.

The 20th century form of enslavement. I've known Psychologists that were over $100,000 in debt to student loans when they graduated. I don't think my father ever imagined he could ever pay off a $100,000 loan in his lifetime. He bought 2 year old cars for cash and drove them for years. He also paid off his mortgage before he retired and never paid another dime for rent. That sounds like a fantasy world or life now days.

My dad did it with a 4th grade education, honesty and lots of hard, factory work, while Mom stayed home and stayed Mom. I never had a baby sitter. But a TV and lots of books.

I agree, however there is a difference between good and bad debt.

 

[Smoke]

You state a lot here.

Sadly many people want more than they can afford and that is the main problem from an economic point of view, not women entering the work force.

I think both can be true. We always want more. Human nature is to spend as much as you make for the most part. But it does make logical sense that the more supply you have of something, the less demand there is for it. That isn't to say women SHOULDN'T work, but it makes sense that would be one of the consequences of women entering the workforce.

 

[calibob]

Good morning,,,

My dad had shrimp boats(small skiffs) when I grew up around Galveston and so after eating shrimp every other day my favorite was "blue crabs" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callinectes_sapidus Most see them as a hassle to eat but when I was a kid I realized that God gave them a tool for that(the claw that moves in their pincher) so I would would look at them on the plate and take the biggest one and break it off and it fits into every nook and cranny in the shell kind of like using it like a tool.

Dad worked for the Chicken of the Sea fish cannery on Terminal Island, California. We did eat lots of fish, but we were Catholics and that was expected.

 

[calibob]

I agree, however there is a difference between good and bad debt.

What's good debt other than debt paid? Like Jesus did for our souls?

 

[iamsoandso]

I was well aware that in 2021, dual income is the norm as a necessity. I didn't consider the obvious implication of doubling the workforce on wages. Very interesting. Appreciate this post.

I would love to see the correlation of the average wage (fixed for inflation) with the # of people in the workforce throughout the last 60 years.

Yep in the mid 1960's the companies begged for employees and used benefits to get them to come to work for them,,,by the 1980's people stood in lines and begged for jobs with no retirement or health insurance(benefits) and it was equal for both men and women it was just less for both.

 

[EleventhHour]

What's good debt other than debt paid? Like Jesus did for our souls?

I never mix religion with economics. LOL

But good point for sure!

 

[iamsoandso]

Dad worked for the Chicken of the Sea fish cannery on Terminal Island, California. We did eat lots of fish, but we were Catholics and that was expected.

My dad worked for Sheffield Steel(ARMCO) so after 15 years he got 13 paid weeks vacation per year and he took it timed around when shrimping season opened and we turned into shrimpers,lol. We also farmed 4 or 5 acres of land during the times he was working at the plant.

 

[iamsoandso]

You're both correct but did you or I miss mentioning or noticing the other economics invention that is and has been destroying the families and family units ever since the late 50's? Credit cards! and Debt.

The 20th century form of enslavement. I've known Psychologists that were over $100,000 in debt to student loans when they graduated. I don't think my father ever imagined he could ever pay off a $100,000 loan in his lifetime. He bought 2 year old cars for cash and drove them for years. He also paid off his mortgage before he retired and never paid another dime for rent. That sounds like a fantasy world or life now days.

My dad did it with a 4th grade education, honesty and lots of hard, factory work, while Mom stayed home and stayed Mom. I never had a baby sitter. But a TV and lots of books.

Yep most all families back then were like that but not many are left old enough to remember how cheap things were before the mid 70's. It's a night and day difference in the standard of financial stability from then to now and those who don't remember it(too young) don't realize that their standard of living has been reduced by more than half.

 

[Magenta]

Bare in mind that I'm not meaning this as any type attack on women, but

In the 60's a man worked and on his wages (alone) he made enough money to buy a house, a new car a boat etc.. Companies competed with each other for employees by offering retirement, good insurance(dental, optical etc..) and most had money in savings after paying their bills. Women for the most part were "stay at home Moms" watching their children and teaching them morals, family structure ect.(the most important role in my opinion). As time went on the abilities of only "one person" being able to provide financial security for an family was considered by the companies and as it seems the US underwent an "paradigm shift".

The shift of thinking came by a promise of "equal rights"(both race and sex). At first it seemed to be beneficial(a good thing) but if you examine the outcome of this their intention was never to "raise" the rights of women or minority races up to the standard of living and rights of an man but to flood the market with additional workers and reduce the benefits and pay they were giving one man.


So now this is many years later and men and women of every race have equal rights but what's the outcome? If you notice now(today) both an husband and wife work to try to buy an house and cars ect.(used to only take the one) but most cannot make enough money to buy a house or have extra money for savings at the end of the month. Most families now have both the husband and wife working but it's a struggle to pay notes on a home and buy food or get health insurance when one family members wages used to be enough to do this.

It's apparent that they actually never had the rights of a women in their interest in a "better manner" but instead their intention was to take and double the available workers by adding women into the workplace. The outcome of this reduced all employees down to where the companies don't need to compete for full time employees and so they don't need to offer good insurance, retirement etc.. to entice workers to work for them anymore.

Today we see in the stores "fast food" in boxes made especially for this that had their beginnings during the sexual revolution such as frozen pizza, TV dinners or pre-prepared meals because they know that if both husband and wife worked they would be too tired to come home and cook.

Anyway though I don't mean this in any way a belittlement to women it's that I lived before and after the paradigm shift in this and so I think that they(the system) tricked everyone by saying "equal rights" and instead of women's rights going up they meant equal to mean "low wages for everyone". If not and a man could pay for a new home, a car a boat and have a good retirement then and they actually raised anything then today we would have twice that standard instead of half. I always misspell stuff(lol) pardon me if I did, sorry for such a long post.

Women entered the work force before that, even, since during the war there was a shortage of men for factory work etc, and after that, women seemed more eager to break free of the constraints of being confined to domestic duties, family and home life only, although I have also heard (not sure at all from whom) that women's lib was just a guise to enable men to have freer sexual access to women. And we can certainly see where that has gotten us, with single parent families burgeoning and the rise in crime rates reported among young men raised without proper male supervision and role models. Not to mention the sheer numbers of abortions being performed, as people wish to indulge in behaviors that often inevitably lead to specific outcomes, without any desire for taking any responsibility for those outcomes.

 

[PC123]

As an interested onlooker into American politics, it seems to me that every trick in the book is being tried to depose what seems to be legitimately elected leaders (primarily Donald Trump, but other leaders also).

One thing I admire about America's political system is its Second Amendment - the right and responsibility of the citizens to hold the government to account, via the use of force if necessary, if the government starts to act illegally.

However, as Christians, whose kingdom and true King are not of this world, in the event of a political coup by the popular Communist party, or an assassination, or false flag nuclear attack, or some other underhanded tactic, would it be better to let the world deal with the affairs of the world, or as citizens of America, would it be best to fulfill one's responsibilities to restore lawful government to the country?

I ask, because many of the members of the opposing party (e.g. Hillary Clinton), are clearly non-Christians, and would likely go to an eternity in hell were they to die in any coup attempt or subsequent civil war. However, the bible clearly states in Romans that the government of a country does not bear the sword in vain, so it may almost be a dereliction of one's duty and justice, in the event of a coup or takeover and in light of the Second Amendment, if the leaders of the coup were not brought to trial by those holding the ultimate authority - the American citizens.

I trust the above was not offensive, and would be interested to hear Christian responses to (what will hopefully remain) such a hypothetical situation.

According to Yuri Bezmanov, America is in the crisis stage of the Marxists subversion of America...
The Soviet KGB use this old war tactic of subversion. America doesn't even know about it...
Over decades
Step one is Demorilization... The first two is introducing anything that takes that society away from its traditional values
Step two is Destabilization... Equality, rascism, feminism and all thes lovely sounding ideas, immigration. All for division
Step three is crisis... This is where America is now
Final step is Normalization (new normal)

When in crisis Yuri says, there are two ways to get to the new normal...
One is through civil war
The other is another entity taking over (UN possibly)

America is in crisis on the edge of entering a new normal
Yuri says once the new normal is established the takeover is complete...
Communism is there and its there to stay... Too late to save it or anything

Yuri Bezmanov... Best lecture on how America allowed Marxist ideology to infiltrate everything and twist the original morals of that society... After this hour long lecture on politics and the KGB and ideology he finishes his lecture with... God...
First there has never been a successful society without religion... And when societies turned their backs on religions they fell, i won't get into why exactly but they fell... Also the societies that broke from family and got into unnatural sex collapsed...

Firm religion. Strict family values. The two biggest foundation blocks for a society... All but gone


Top lecture. Ill link if anyone is interested

 

[Lisamn]

According to Yuri Bezmanov, America is in the crisis stage of the Marxists subversion of America...
The Soviet KGB use this old war tactic of subversion. America doesn't even know about it...
Over decades
Step one is Demorilization... The first two is introducing anything that takes that society away from its traditional values
Step two is Destabilization... Equality, rascism, feminism and all thes lovely sounding ideas, immigration. All for division
Step three is crisis... This is where America is now
Final step is Normalization (new normal)

When in crisis Yuri says, there are two ways to get to the new normal...
One is through civil war
The other is another entity taking over (UN possibly)

America is in crisis on the edge of entering a new normal
Yuri says one the new normal is established the takeover is complete...
Communism is there and its there to stay... Too late to save it or anything

Yuri Bezmanov... Best lecture on how America allowed Marxist ideology to infiltrate everything and twist the original morals of that society... After this hour long lecture on politics and the KGB and ideology he finishes his lecture with... God...
First there has never been a successful society without religion... And when societies turned their backs on religions they fell, i won't get into why exactly but they fell... Also the societies that broke from family and got into unnatural sex collapsed...

Firm religion. Strict family values. The two biggest foundation blocks for a society... All but gone

Where’s the step where they take away the guns? I would think that’s a big step considering a lot of Americans own guns and it seems that they’ve been trying to do that for a very long time and failing.

 

[PC123]

Where’s the step where they take away the guns? I would think that’s a big step considering a lot of Americans own guns and it seems that they’ve been trying to do that for a very long time and failing.

What use are scatterd people with guns vs an organised Army... We're not together, we're too split up...
What will you and your gun do if the UN take over??? A revolution requires coordination and that requires unity

Just look how divided it is... Using guns on eachother the Marxist are loving it...
Besides, the definition (russian definition) of subversion is to take over without applying force or ever shooting a gun

This has been going on since the 50s

 

[PC123]

Here is an example.. Sexuality...
The generation before me were strictly no divorce.
Then the Marxist in the schools persuaded the next generation that its oppressive, so then sex outside marriage became acceptable and divorce became acceptable...
The next gen, millenials now with schools full of socialists, accepted gays, transgender..
Whats next... Necrophilia, why not, not harming anyone... Zoophilia, why not, love is love

Each generation being indoctrinated further and further from Gods will

The family unit is soo vital and a mothers job is the most precious thing sometimes us guys get are envious at the special relationship she has with her child... For that child to grow the mother must be there... Well they convinced women that satisfation is were men are, working their guts out... In the 50s hardly no women chose to work.. They had a choice and they chose to ruloe the home, raise the kids... Now the mother must work abd the kids over to the state...