Very good questions, which I plan to answer in a longer work. Briefly, my argument pertains mostly to the US welfare state, which differs from the European in being limited to the poor, rather than broad-based social insurance for all. So it created the "underclass" of low-income broken families (a trend also in Europe, but more slowly). As for the USSR, it defined Communism in terms of industrial production, and while it certainly did the family no good, it did not target it directly, and a solid core of "family values" survived in the former Eastern bloc to this day, more intact than in the West. Your comments also point to something very important that I plan to address: Excessive talk of "cultural Marxism" diverts attention from the ways that Woke culture, with its strong emphasis on sexual radicalism (plus race), is very different from standard Marxism. In fact I suspect that conservatives are keen to call it "cultural Marxism" so they can just go on about the virtues of the free market and private ownership, and that gives them an excuse to avoid precisely the issues I am raising and the special interests behind this.
Superb. I have had the (mis)fortune of observing the Great Society from its inception, and this is the most incisive analysis of its unintended (maybe) consequences since Daniel Patrick Moynihan's treatise of 1965.
As a temporary foster for young children whose parents are in drug rehab or in jail, my husband and I can attest to the fact that every single decision made by Childrens Protective Service was to the detriment of the children, which only served to compound the damage done by their dysfunctional families. If they grow to be productive citizens, which would take a miracle for some of them, it will be despite the CPS bureaucracy.
The Administrative State … perhaps an equally viable term for the Deep State, created a political black hole, just like the astronomical ones studied and theorized about throughout the cosmos.
It has been said that the gravitational pull of a black hole is so strong that nothing can escape its power, not even a ray of light traveling at 186,000 miles per second.
The same is true of the underclass who have been sucked into this administrative state’s welfare vortex. Once you are sucked in there is no escaping the immense gravitational pull. The political black hole vortex will suck you in, chew you up, then spit you out, only to start all over again.
Coincidentally … wasn’t it Einstein who once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result?
What are parameters used for fatherlessness in those statistics? Sweden is a very special case and I am not sure using it as an example to disqualify Mr Baskervilles argument is wise. Sweden has come the furthest in the world in giving father equal custody, 40% of couples are afforded a 50/50 split and unified decision making is enforced. The mother is not allowed to move without permission for example. Interesting if you compare this to Norway, a better example I think, an even stronger welfare state than Sweden (much wealthier) higher fatherlessness (21-22%). The custody laws in Norway still give 75% of cases custody to one parent and mother can move without permission.
How is it that the ultimate welfare state, the Soviet Union, never destroyed the family unit?
It's critical to explain the differences between communist Soviet Union and the Western Welfare State. Why is one preserving the family unit and the other destroying it? Do the women running the Western welfare state intend to destroy the family or is destroying the family simply the unintentional product of the welfare state? Sweden is an extant welfare state yet has relatively lower levels of fatherlessness (14%) compared to the US and UK (23%).
It would also be helpful and more convincing to explain the mechanics of how the Western welfare state destroys families and why these mechanics did not exist in the Soviet Union. Preaching to the converted is easy (you don't need to convince me), but convincing others might need a bit more explanation to make this a stronger, more useful article for us to put in our arsenals.
You might want to take a risk and mention "Marxist Feminism," the elephant in the room.
Very good questions, which I plan to answer in a longer work. Briefly, my argument pertains mostly to the US welfare state, which differs from the European in being limited to the poor, rather than broad-based social insurance for all. So it created the "underclass" of low-income broken families (a trend also in Europe, but more slowly). As for the USSR, it defined Communism in terms of industrial production, and while it certainly did the family no good, it did not target it directly, and a solid core of "family values" survived in the former Eastern bloc to this day, more intact than in the West. Your comments also point to something very important that I plan to address: Excessive talk of "cultural Marxism" diverts attention from the ways that Woke culture, with its strong emphasis on sexual radicalism (plus race), is very different from standard Marxism. In fact I suspect that conservatives are keen to call it "cultural Marxism" so they can just go on about the virtues of the free market and private ownership, and that gives them an excuse to avoid precisely the issues I am raising and the special interests behind this.
Superb. I have had the (mis)fortune of observing the Great Society from its inception, and this is the most incisive analysis of its unintended (maybe) consequences since Daniel Patrick Moynihan's treatise of 1965.
Very sad to realize this, but I have heard similar comments from many other foster parents. Thank you.
As a temporary foster for young children whose parents are in drug rehab or in jail, my husband and I can attest to the fact that every single decision made by Childrens Protective Service was to the detriment of the children, which only served to compound the damage done by their dysfunctional families. If they grow to be productive citizens, which would take a miracle for some of them, it will be despite the CPS bureaucracy.
The Administrative State … perhaps an equally viable term for the Deep State, created a political black hole, just like the astronomical ones studied and theorized about throughout the cosmos.
It has been said that the gravitational pull of a black hole is so strong that nothing can escape its power, not even a ray of light traveling at 186,000 miles per second.
The same is true of the underclass who have been sucked into this administrative state’s welfare vortex. Once you are sucked in there is no escaping the immense gravitational pull. The political black hole vortex will suck you in, chew you up, then spit you out, only to start all over again.
Wash … rinse … repeat … wash … rinse … repeat again.
Coincidentally … wasn’t it Einstein who once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result?
What are parameters used for fatherlessness in those statistics? Sweden is a very special case and I am not sure using it as an example to disqualify Mr Baskervilles argument is wise. Sweden has come the furthest in the world in giving father equal custody, 40% of couples are afforded a 50/50 split and unified decision making is enforced. The mother is not allowed to move without permission for example. Interesting if you compare this to Norway, a better example I think, an even stronger welfare state than Sweden (much wealthier) higher fatherlessness (21-22%). The custody laws in Norway still give 75% of cases custody to one parent and mother can move without permission.
How is it that the ultimate welfare state, the Soviet Union, never destroyed the family unit?
It's critical to explain the differences between communist Soviet Union and the Western Welfare State. Why is one preserving the family unit and the other destroying it? Do the women running the Western welfare state intend to destroy the family or is destroying the family simply the unintentional product of the welfare state? Sweden is an extant welfare state yet has relatively lower levels of fatherlessness (14%) compared to the US and UK (23%).
It would also be helpful and more convincing to explain the mechanics of how the Western welfare state destroys families and why these mechanics did not exist in the Soviet Union. Preaching to the converted is easy (you don't need to convince me), but convincing others might need a bit more explanation to make this a stronger, more useful article for us to put in our arsenals.
You might want to take a risk and mention "Marxist Feminism," the elephant in the room.