causality-binds-all:

ricwulf:

causality-binds-all:

sultoth:

causality-binds-all:

If Socialists in the US really wanted to reduce poverty, they would be trying to reduce single motherhood.

Single motherhood is one of the biggest factors in deciding whether or not someone will end up in poverty.

The Brookings Institute, which is a leftist institute, found that there are only 3 things you need to do to not end up in permanent poverty:

1. Graduate high school.
2. Get a full-time job.
3. Don’t have kids before getting married.

And if someone fails to fulfill #3, it makes them more likely to fail 1 and 2. In addition, being raised by a single mother makes it more likely that a child will fail to accomplish those 3 things as well. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle. Single mothers create boys who create single mothers or girls who become single mothers.

So how do you reduce poverty? Simple: You encourage marriage and stigmatize, not glorify, single motherhood.

I dont know if you need to go so far as to stigmatize single motherhood.

If there are no social consequences to it, then it will not be as effective at deterring it.

Single motherhood today is so rampant both because of those who glorify it, and because those who don’t glorify it are more likely to say nothing than to condemn it.

Single motherhood should be actively discouraged in all situations not involving abuse.

I think I’m going to have to side with Sultoth because you can see that this stigmatization hasn’t had an effect. Because it’s already there, in that society does have a negative stigma against men who abandon their children, especially new-borns.

This hasn’t solved the problem, in fact it’s created a push against this stigma, with many wanting the legal right to “abort” their financial and physical responsibilities as a parent.

Now, I’m pro-nuclear family too, I think it’s the best course for society as a whole, but I think that the biggest issue is the “sexual revolution” that began in the 60′s (that is the oral pill for women that gave women a lot of sexual freedom) is what has caused a break-down in regards to the values of a stable, healthy relationship*. I think that a lot of people now treat relationships as banging first, emotions later, and that has fostered this culture of almost mass dating, going in and out of relationships within mere weeks, with nearly all of them being sexual in nature.

And don’t get me wrong, sex is great and all, and if you enjoy casual sex, that’s great too, but the point is that the value of a committed relationship is gone. 

I think that the best way isn’t to stigmatise, it’s to show the value and worth of proper, healthy relationships that don’t rely on sex as the main function of the relationship (rather, it’s a shared, intimate “reward” (for lack of a better word) between each other). 

But that’s just my two cents.

* The sexual revolution of the 60s was a good thing for the record, but there is always side effects.

To be completely honest, I think stigmatizing sex outside of marriage or at least engagement is something that we should do as well.

Pre-marital sex has a demonstrably negative effect on a person’s relationships. Those who wait until after getting married to have sex have the highest rate of successful marriages, lowest STD rate, lowest divorce rates, lower single motherhood rates, and so on. The more sexual partners a person has, the worse those rates get for them.

So, personally, no, I don’t think casual sex is a good thing. Statistically and societally speaking, it is actually a very bad thing and should also be discouraged.

And that’s not from a view influenced by any kind of religious puritanism. That is my view based on what is good for society, and based on the statistically demonstrable negative effects of single motherhood and casual sex.

And when you think about it like that, the sexual revolution is probably one of the worst things that ever happened to society. It allows irresponsible behavior with virtually no immediate consequences.

causality-binds-all:

sultoth:

causality-binds-all:

ricwulf:

causality-binds-all:

sultoth:

causality-binds-all:

If Socialists in the US really wanted to reduce poverty, they would be trying to reduce single motherhood.

Single motherhood is one of the biggest factors in deciding whether or not someone will end up in poverty.

The Brookings Institute, which is a leftist institute, found that there are only 3 things you need to do to not end up in permanent poverty:

1. Graduate high school.
2. Get a full-time job.
3. Don’t have kids before getting married.

And if someone fails to fulfill #3, it makes them more likely to fail 1 and 2. In addition, being raised by a single mother makes it more likely that a child will fail to accomplish those 3 things as well. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle. Single mothers create boys who create single mothers or girls who become single mothers.

So how do you reduce poverty? Simple: You encourage marriage and stigmatize, not glorify, single motherhood.

I dont know if you need to go so far as to stigmatize single motherhood.

If there are no social consequences to it, then it will not be as effective at deterring it.

Single motherhood today is so rampant both because of those who glorify it, and because those who don’t glorify it are more likely to say nothing than to condemn it.

Single motherhood should be actively discouraged in all situations not involving abuse.

I think I’m going to have to side with Sultoth because you can see that this stigmatization hasn’t had an effect. Because it’s already there, in that society does have a negative stigma against men who abandon their children, especially new-borns.

This hasn’t solved the problem, in fact it’s created a push against this stigma, with many wanting the legal right to “abort” their financial and physical responsibilities as a parent.

Now, I’m pro-nuclear family too, I think it’s the best course for society as a whole, but I think that the biggest issue is the “sexual revolution” that began in the 60′s (that is the oral pill for women that gave women a lot of sexual freedom) is what has caused a break-down in regards to the values of a stable, healthy relationship*. I think that a lot of people now treat relationships as banging first, emotions later, and that has fostered this culture of almost mass dating, going in and out of relationships within mere weeks, with nearly all of them being sexual in nature.

And don’t get me wrong, sex is great and all, and if you enjoy casual sex, that’s great too, but the point is that the value of a committed relationship is gone. 

I think that the best way isn’t to stigmatise, it’s to show the value and worth of proper, healthy relationships that don’t rely on sex as the main function of the relationship (rather, it’s a shared, intimate “reward” (for lack of a better word) between each other). 

But that’s just my two cents.

* The sexual revolution of the 60s was a good thing for the record, but there is always side effects.

To be completely honest, I think stigmatizing sex outside of marriage or at least engagement is something that we should do as well.

Pre-marital sex has a demonstrably negative effect on a person’s relationships. Those who wait until after getting married to have sex have the highest rate of successful marriages, lowest STD rate, lowest divorce rates, lower single motherhood rates, and so on. The more sexual partners a person has, the worse those rates get for them.

So, personally, no, I don’t think casual sex is a good thing. Statistically and societally speaking, it is actually a very bad thing and should also be discouraged.

And that’s not from a view influenced by any kind of religious puritanism. That is my view based on what is good for society, and based on the statistically demonstrable negative effects of single motherhood and casual sex.

And when you think about it like that, the sexual revolution is probably one of the worst things that ever happened to society. It allows irresponsible behavior with virtually no immediate consequences.

stigmatizing sex outside of marriage or at least engagement is something that we should do as well.

yes but contention arises when you want to decide TO WHAT EFFECT

is it simply enough to say “this is a bad thing” or does such circumstances need to be negatively reinforced within existing structures

“TO WHAT END” is the eternal question, one which exceptionally few have been able to answer, even WITH a time to think such a monumental decision over.

This is why I said “stigmatize” not “punish”.

The word stigmatize virtually always refers to social consequences. Not legal punishment, not physical punishment, not financial punishment.

People should be made to feel ostracized for these things in all but the obvious exceptional cases.

And this is coming from someone who has broken this rule, and would receive relatively harsh stigmatization if society acted the way I’m talking about.

causality-binds-all:

sultoth:

causality-binds-all:

If Socialists in the US really wanted to reduce poverty, they would be trying to reduce single motherhood.

Single motherhood is one of the biggest factors in deciding whether or not someone will end up in poverty.

The Brookings Institute, which is a leftist institute, found that there are only 3 things you need to do to not end up in permanent poverty:

1. Graduate high school.
2. Get a full-time job.
3. Don’t have kids before getting married.

And if someone fails to fulfill #3, it makes them more likely to fail 1 and 2. In addition, being raised by a single mother makes it more likely that a child will fail to accomplish those 3 things as well. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle. Single mothers create boys who create single mothers or girls who become single mothers.

So how do you reduce poverty? Simple: You encourage marriage and stigmatize, not glorify, single motherhood.

I dont know if you need to go so far as to stigmatize single motherhood.

If there are no social consequences to it, then it will not be as effective at deterring it.

Single motherhood today is so rampant both because of those who glorify it, and because those who don’t glorify it are more likely to say nothing than to condemn it.

Single motherhood should be actively discouraged in all situations not involving abuse.

triggerwarningrainbows:

true-king-gremory:

triggerwarningrainbows:

true-king-gremory:

triggerwarningrainbows:

true-king-gremory:

causality-binds-all:

triggerwarningrainbows:

causality-binds-all:

As a non-religious person, I still believe that the ethical and moral values put forward by Judaism and Christianity are a better guiding force for society than secularism.

People have always argued that you don’t need to be religious to have morals and ethics, and that’s true.

But in general I find that those without religion are more likely to fall into or encourage destructive behaviors that not only harm themselves but, on the grander scale, harm society as a whole. And much of what has happened over the last half century or so kind of proves it.

The rise in the rate of single motherhood in the US is almost entirely the fault of Secularists incentivizing it through government welfare. Christians and Jews would never have encouraged such a thing.

Single motherhood, we now know, is one of the most negative things that a child can have in their life. It makes them more likely to commit crime, have a mental illness, end up in poverty, and drop out of school, which all contribute to the perpetuation of that cycle.

Secularism and moral relativism has almost single-handedly led to the degredation of society through that one policy of not shaming or discouraging single motherhood.

So I should be ashamed because I left my son’s abusive father to raise him on my own?

Obviously not.

But the existence of abusive fathers doesn’t change the fact that in general a mother+father household is better for the well-being of children.

@triggerwarningrainbows you’re trying to take the radical and extreme case and push it off as the average. This is the same thing pro choicers do when they mention rape and incest when people talk about abortion. The average single mother isn’t there because she was in a abusive relationship and this doesn’t disprove the fact that single motherhood fucks up children on average.

Doesn’t change the fact that there are single mothers out there for valid reasons. What if the father died? Cheated? What if he abandoned the family? I’m not trying to push anything our any narrative but not everyone is A single mother because they have some hang up about the nuclear family and they shouldn’t be shamed just for being in that situation. Just because the rate of it happening may be low doesn’t mean they should be limited in with everybody else.

There’s nuance, that’s all I’m saying.

And just to iterate I WAS SPEAKING FOR MYSELF. I wasn’t trying to do shot so don’t presume to know my motives. Gtfo with that bullshit.

And all those are extreme cases. Women initiate 80% of divorces not men. So the majority of the time women are stripping the kids from the man.

What are you even talking about in the last paragraph? Lol

So because they’re not the majority of cases they don’t matter? They should be shunned with the rest of them? How very sjw of you.

What a lovely strawman. I never said anything like that, I simply stated you shouldn’t use individual cases to justify the majority. Your individual case has nothing to do with what OP was talking about which was incentivizing single motherhood through welfare and how it harms children more than help. You’re the one using sjw logic here because you believe your anecodtal case is greater than all the evidence and statistics proving the opposite.

you’re the one that strawmanned me

“ you’re trying to take the radical and extreme case and push it off as the average. This is the same thing pro choicers do when they mention rape and incest when people talk about abortion.”

not even close to what i was saying. i reiterate THAT I WAS SPEAKING FOR MYSELF. you two are the ones here ignorinmg the nuance of the situation, saying single mothers should be shamed.let me ask you something, do you think 100% of divorces are initiated because “i just didn’t feel like being married anymore”? no, there’s irreconcilable differences, children do not need to be in a household with constaqnt fighting, that’s even more harmful. there’s also abuse and adultery. do you know how much an uncontested divorce costs to file? i worked for a lawyer and i can say not a whole lot of anybody came in filing for a lark. so your divorce stat is completely veering off subject.

you don’t know a person’s situation, you don’t know why they’re a single parent. life isn’t perfect and sometimes that’s the lesser of the two evils. you shouldn’t go around shaming people for being single parents, you don’t know WHY they are and it’s none of your goddamn business anyway.

that was an sjw tactic. “well in the majority of cases….so they’re all guilty” fuck off with that shit. you don’t have any empirical evidence showing that people are taking to single parenthood for a lark so don’t lump me, and any other people who have been subject to the nuances that brought them to that position, in with other people who attack the nuclear family. it’s also not a secular point of view, so don’t taint those waters, either.

Even if you were speaking for yourself, you were taking the radical example. Your example is the radical example. And the majority of women who file for divorce usually do it because they fall out of love. Like I said, youre taking the minority and using it to justify the majority. If it was because of abuse and things like that you would expect the number to be equal.

Most women are single mothers because of shitty decisions. That should be shamed. And it’s arguable that single motherhood is the lesser of two evils.

Your shaming language of calling everything you don’t like a sjw is weak and pathetic.

triggerwarningrainbows:

true-king-gremory:

triggerwarningrainbows:

true-king-gremory:

triggerwarningrainbows:

true-king-gremory:

triggerwarningrainbows:

true-king-gremory:

causality-binds-all:

triggerwarningrainbows:

causality-binds-all:

As a non-religious person, I still believe that the ethical and moral values put forward by Judaism and Christianity are a better guiding force for society than secularism.

People have always argued that you don’t need to be religious to have morals and ethics, and that’s true.

But in general I find that those without religion are more likely to fall into or encourage destructive behaviors that not only harm themselves but, on the grander scale, harm society as a whole. And much of what has happened over the last half century or so kind of proves it.

The rise in the rate of single motherhood in the US is almost entirely the fault of Secularists incentivizing it through government welfare. Christians and Jews would never have encouraged such a thing.

Single motherhood, we now know, is one of the most negative things that a child can have in their life. It makes them more likely to commit crime, have a mental illness, end up in poverty, and drop out of school, which all contribute to the perpetuation of that cycle.

Secularism and moral relativism has almost single-handedly led to the degredation of society through that one policy of not shaming or discouraging single motherhood.

So I should be ashamed because I left my son’s abusive father to raise him on my own?

Obviously not.

But the existence of abusive fathers doesn’t change the fact that in general a mother+father household is better for the well-being of children.

@triggerwarningrainbows you’re trying to take the radical and extreme case and push it off as the average. This is the same thing pro choicers do when they mention rape and incest when people talk about abortion. The average single mother isn’t there because she was in a abusive relationship and this doesn’t disprove the fact that single motherhood fucks up children on average.

Doesn’t change the fact that there are single mothers out there for valid reasons. What if the father died? Cheated? What if he abandoned the family? I’m not trying to push anything our any narrative but not everyone is A single mother because they have some hang up about the nuclear family and they shouldn’t be shamed just for being in that situation. Just because the rate of it happening may be low doesn’t mean they should be limited in with everybody else.

There’s nuance, that’s all I’m saying.

And just to iterate I WAS SPEAKING FOR MYSELF. I wasn’t trying to do shot so don’t presume to know my motives. Gtfo with that bullshit.

And all those are extreme cases. Women initiate 80% of divorces not men. So the majority of the time women are stripping the kids from the man.

What are you even talking about in the last paragraph? Lol

So because they’re not the majority of cases they don’t matter? They should be shunned with the rest of them? How very sjw of you.

What a lovely strawman. I never said anything like that, I simply stated you shouldn’t use individual cases to justify the majority. Your individual case has nothing to do with what OP was talking about which was incentivizing single motherhood through welfare and how it harms children more than help. You’re the one using sjw logic here because you believe your anecodtal case is greater than all the evidence and statistics proving the opposite.

you’re the one that strawmanned me

“ you’re trying to take the radical and extreme case and push it off as the average. This is the same thing pro choicers do when they mention rape and incest when people talk about abortion.”

not even close to what i was saying. i reiterate THAT I WAS SPEAKING FOR MYSELF. you two are the ones here ignorinmg the nuance of the situation, saying single mothers should be shamed.let me ask you something, do you think 100% of divorces are initiated because “i just didn’t feel like being married anymore”? no, there’s irreconcilable differences, children do not need to be in a household with constaqnt fighting, that’s even more harmful. there’s also abuse and adultery. do you know how much an uncontested divorce costs to file? i worked for a lawyer and i can say not a whole lot of anybody came in filing for a lark. so your divorce stat is completely veering off subject.

you don’t know a person’s situation, you don’t know why they’re a single parent. life isn’t perfect and sometimes that’s the lesser of the two evils. you shouldn’t go around shaming people for being single parents, you don’t know WHY they are and it’s none of your goddamn business anyway.

that was an sjw tactic. “well in the majority of cases….so they’re all guilty” fuck off with that shit. you don’t have any empirical evidence showing that people are taking to single parenthood for a lark so don’t lump me, and any other people who have been subject to the nuances that brought them to that position, in with other people who attack the nuclear family. it’s also not a secular point of view, so don’t taint those waters, either.

Even if you were speaking for yourself, you were taking the radical example. Your example is the radical example. And the majority of women who file for divorce usually do it because they fall out of love. Like I said, youre taking the minority and using it to justify the majority. If it was because of abuse and things like that you would expect the number to be equal.

Most women are single mothers because of shitty decisions. That should be shamed. And it’s arguable that single motherhood is the lesser of two evils.

Your shaming language of calling everything you don’t like a sjw is weak and pathetic.

i’m doing nothing but speakin g for myself thankyouverymuch. i ain’t trying to justify anything, just make you see the nuance of the situation. again, do not presume to speak for me nor presume my motivations. you used sjw tactics so i called you out on it. does that bug you? cry me a river.

“ Most women are single mothers because of shitty decisions. That should be shame.”

“Wah because you won’t just accept my dumb views that means I’m speaking to myself”
Lmao “everything I don’t like is a sjw tactic wah wah”

>doesn’t provide any citations
>asks for citations
Such a sjw tactic tbh

causality-binds-all:

uteropolis:

causality-binds-all:

If Socialists in the US really wanted to reduce poverty, they would be trying to reduce single motherhood.

Single motherhood is one of the biggest factors in deciding whether or not someone will end up in poverty.

The Brookings Institute, which is a leftist institute, found that there are only 3 things you need to do to not end up in permanent poverty:

1. Graduate high school.
2. Get a full-time job.
3. Don’t have kids before getting married.

And if someone fails to fulfill #3, it makes them more likely to fail 1 and 2. In addition, being raised by a single mother makes it more likely that a child will fail to accomplish those 3 things as well. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle. Single mothers create boys who create single mothers or girls who become single mothers.

So how do you reduce poverty? Simple: You encourage marriage and stigmatize, not glorify, single motherhood.

The Brookings Institute, which is a leftist institute, found that there are only 3 things you need to do to not end up in permanent poverty:

1. Graduate high school.
2. Get a full-time job.
3. Don’t have kids before getting married.

Another obvious thing:
4. Don’t be born into a family that’s poor.

That’s something you have no control over.

And why are we solely blaming the women here? It takes two to tango. We should discourage men from fucking and dumping women and leaving them pregnant with no father.

Also, free. fucking. birth. control.

Also darkstarlucifer I’m not sure why you’re agreeing with this post since you’re apparently opposed to marriage.

No, actually, being born into a family that’s poor has nothing to do with it.

If you’re born into a household that’s poor, but has both a mother and a father, the chances of you ending up poor are extremely low. The chances of poverty for black people who don’t have kids out of wedlock is only 7%, by the way.

“Today, 64 percent of the people born to the poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile—11 percent rise all the way into the top quintile. Meanwhile, 8 percent of people born to the richest fifth fall all the way to the bottom fifth. Sometimes great wealth makes kids lazy and self-indulgent, and wrecks their lives.” 

Income mobility is very good in the US. Simply being born into a poor family is in no way a sentence for permanent poverty.

>We should discourage men from fucking and dumping women

We already do. We also have an entire court system dedicated to hunting them down and making them pay child support, and a multitude of TV shows dedicated to paternity tests to make men take responsibility for their children.

>Also, free. fucking. birth. control

Birth control isn’t even that expensive. It doesn’t need to be free.

On top of that, if you wanted to be as safe as possible AND give yourself the best chances for a healthy, happy relationship later in life, you wouldn’t be having sex outside of marriage. Allow me to show you why:

As you can see, the more sexual partners you have outside of wedlock, the more likely you are to:

- Contract an STD
- Be depressed
- Be unhappy
- Have an unstable marriage

Therefore, if you are being responsible and forward-thinking, you would not engage in pre-marital sex and would ostensibly not need birth control in the first place.

uteropolis:

causality-binds-all:

If Socialists in the US really wanted to reduce poverty, they would be trying to reduce single motherhood.

Single motherhood is one of the biggest factors in deciding whether or not someone will end up in poverty.

The Brookings Institute, which is a leftist institute, found that there are only 3 things you need to do to not end up in permanent poverty:

1. Graduate high school.
2. Get a full-time job.
3. Don’t have kids before getting married.

And if someone fails to fulfill #3, it makes them more likely to fail 1 and 2. In addition, being raised by a single mother makes it more likely that a child will fail to accomplish those 3 things as well. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle. Single mothers create boys who create single mothers or girls who become single mothers.

So how do you reduce poverty? Simple: You encourage marriage and stigmatize, not glorify, single motherhood.

The Brookings Institute, which is a leftist institute, found that there are only 3 things you need to do to not end up in permanent poverty:

1. Graduate high school.
2. Get a full-time job.
3. Don’t have kids before getting married.

Another obvious thing:
4. Don’t be born into a family that’s poor.

That’s something you have no control over.

And why are we solely blaming the women here? It takes two to tango. We should discourage men from fucking and dumping women and leaving them pregnant with no father.

Also, free. fucking. birth. control.

Also darkstarlucifer I’m not sure why you’re agreeing with this post since you’re apparently opposed to marriage.

Except women can get abortions. Also free birth control has nothing to do with it. If women are too fucking poor and stupid to buy birth control that’s their fault since you know they have the baby and can get the abortion.

Also you can become rich even if born into a poor family so that has nothing to do with this list.

And last just because I oppose marriage doesn’t mean I don’t care about what’s happening to society. Also I don’t oppose marriage as a whole, I oppose modern marriage.

causality-binds-all:

triggerwarningrainbows:

causality-binds-all:

As a non-religious person, I still believe that the ethical and moral values put forward by Judaism and Christianity are a better guiding force for society than secularism.

People have always argued that you don’t need to be religious to have morals and ethics, and that’s true.

But in general I find that those without religion are more likely to fall into or encourage destructive behaviors that not only harm themselves but, on the grander scale, harm society as a whole. And much of what has happened over the last half century or so kind of proves it.

The rise in the rate of single motherhood in the US is almost entirely the fault of Secularists incentivizing it through government welfare. Christians and Jews would never have encouraged such a thing.

Single motherhood, we now know, is one of the most negative things that a child can have in their life. It makes them more likely to commit crime, have a mental illness, end up in poverty, and drop out of school, which all contribute to the perpetuation of that cycle.

Secularism and moral relativism has almost single-handedly led to the degredation of society through that one policy of not shaming or discouraging single motherhood.

So I should be ashamed because I left my son’s abusive father to raise him on my own?

Obviously not.

But the existence of abusive fathers doesn’t change the fact that in general a mother+father household is better for the well-being of children.

matt-ruins-feminisms-shit:

causality-binds-all:

As a non-religious person, I still believe that the ethical and moral values put forward by Judaism and Christianity are a better guiding force for society than secularism.

People have always argued that you don’t need to be religious to have morals and ethics, and that’s true.

But in general I find that those without religion are more likely to fall into or encourage destructive behaviors that not only harm themselves but, on the grander scale, harm society as a whole. And much of what has happened over the last half century or so kind of proves it.

The rise in the rate of single motherhood in the US is almost entirely the fault of Secularists incentivizing it through government welfare. Christians and Jews would never have encouraged such a thing.

Single motherhood, we now know, is one of the most negative things that a child can have in their life. It makes them more likely to commit crime, have a mental illness, end up in poverty, and drop out of school, which all contribute to the perpetuation of that cycle.

Secularism and moral relativism has almost single-handedly led to the degredation of society through that one policy of not shaming or discouraging single motherhood.

Moral relativism which is the philosophical basis for secular morality is the root of the progressive beast we deal with today. Social justice warriors are the natural result of an attempt at secular morality it just took a while to get this bad. You could say time+relativism=cancer. The irony is that they call themselves progressives but their ideological basis if concretely implemented makes progress impossible. (I explain why in the link)

Although I wouldn’t say it’s a matter of not shaming or not discouraging single motherhood, that’s letting them off easy. They actively encouraged it, they lied about the effect it had and continued to celebrate it and through advocacy incentivize it with the legal system. 

Which is the other problem with secular morality is that they often turn to the state in the absence of a deity. There is no judgement day so somebody needs to punish the hateful heathens. Which we see with the authoritarian shift the left has taken. And a lot of these dangerous authoritarian globalist ideas come from a particular form of secular morality, humanism. The idea that we are inherently good and can do anything including create utopia and heaven on earth. Or as we all know it how every dystopia both real and fictional has ever begun.

My long post on relativism if you’re interested.

If you want a tldr for the question of what’s wrong with our society you could reduce it to relativism and marxism. It’s like aids and cancer teamed up and are racing to see what will kill us first. Understand the failings of their ideologies and what is happening right now will make total and absolute sense. In fact many have been predicting it for decades.