One might pose the question: is our economic strategy a sum of reason, or a product of externality? There is a reason we put “no exit” at the bottom of a street sign so I would favour the latter. There is a parallel here between the politics of section 59, and the politics of our economics.
Eighty percent of the population is clear that we wish to retain the authority of the family. We want the law to represent that position, which it does at this time, yet slightly over 50% of our MP’s are being whipped into voting against the population.
How many of those 63 odd MP’s are being whipped to vote with the party, how many would simply vote for the party any way, and how small is the group at the top who are ordering a block vote instead of a conscience vote.
The reason I point this out is because this is the same small group of people that provide the externality for one mans thinking, and the consequential economic direction of the country. It may be a little more difficult for eighty percent of the population to come to grips with the complexity of economics as opposed to understanding family authority and discipline, but it is not hard to understand this parallel: that if a small group within the State Party are determined to have authority over your children then they are equally determined to have authority over your finances, or to put that another way, if the central social plan offends the population, then so does the central economic plan.
This didn’t work in Russia, and it isn’t working here. It hasn’t worked in Sweden, and we are doing as Sweden did – trading its economic security for a failed social experiment.
If the strength of our economy is the production of voting fodder, then we will be short changed financially the way we are being socially. There’s no shame in ruthlessly pulling these people apart, because that’s exactly what they are doing to us, so lets stop being polite about it, and lets get rid of them.
I’ve come across an example of a failed thing, economics wise.
To me this is an example of lack of flexibility.
And even applies, to the tomato glut mentioned.
To get the best price, supply should match demand.
And production, easily outstrips demand.
A perfect industry, would perfectly match demand.
And process all the surplus, into high value products.
It would co-ordinate between all the growers.
Helping the factory, be economically viable.
An oversupply, not resulting in a worthless crop.
Getting people buying, more than they will use.
If splitting families up, was an economic strategy.
It’s great for the landlords, that control government.
Great for lawyers, helping people, fight for there kids.
Then they have had great success.
Spitting families up doubles demand, on housing.
And helps lawyers, make fortunes.
Forcing up rents, so landlords are happy.
Thousands are in poverty, thousands are in motel rooms.
Thousands of children, harmed.
An economic success, but a social failure.
The farmers, lack co-ordination.
Even selling at a loss.
Those that prey on families.
Got greedy, and rich.
The co-ordination near perfect.
Weakening families is both a feminist strategy in respect of the mother and child reunion and a state strategy as opposed to the patriarchal state of the family.
Within the patriarchal state of the family you have the debate of male and female bloodlines.
I agree withe the feminist strategy, of the mother child reunion.
Some feminist don’t see men as having rights, in regard to children.
And is a genuine voting block, politically.
I think in NZ the patriarchal family, still exists.
But it is no different than the matriarchal family.
With the woman in charge.
Some relationships work with the women in charge.
Some with the male in charge.
I highly suspect it’s always been that way.
The culture, of the man as the head of the household.
Is not the culture of today, as I see it.
And the results are not good for some men.
A far more sexually free society, should effect paternity fraud rates.
But I haven’t seen evidence of that.
Presently for accuracy you would choose the female bloodline.
Even then you must consider genes being lost.
Even maternal DNA is corrupted.
The mothers, mothers DNA corrupted, by fraud.
The mother passing on for each gene, one X to the daughter.
But there is an usurper, giving one X as well.
Past on to the daughter, genetic maternal heritage lost.
Weakening families, and providing ways for women easily to have men ruined, fleeced and imprisoned is probably a strategy by the ultra rich to reduce the threat that other men might challenge their wealth and power either through rising against them or by gaining comparable wealth and power. Hence the manipulation by the wannabe emperors of the world of news media and governments towards feminist ideology, and their massive funding of feminist groups and initiatives. Such things as democracy and equal opportunity that enabled today’s oligarchs to gain their wealth and power are now no longer useful to their positions so out they go. In the end, empowered women and weakened men will be easier to control than intact men will be. Earlier encouragement of feminism was motivated by a desire to increase the available workforce and thereby drive down wages, though self-protection from male usurpers may already have been in the equation back then.
It’s tiresomely confusing.
Patriarchy entered the English language to describe Jewish family structure. In our time it’s been used to describe the Christian framework of the man’s castle as you might call it.
Words change the meaning and use as much throughout history as they do today.
In the sense of social battle if you can manipulate or destroy the language and then the logic in the community you would certainly have a financial advantage.
That’s a game we’ve been playing long before we could even write.
Numeracy you might say has a bigger history than literacy but we’re failing both in this country so social decay shouldn’t be a surprise but the manipulation of education might be the social crime that is advantageous to others.