Cultural programming at its finest...

a reply to: xuenchen

Interesting.... Hadn't a heard that one yet.

originally posted by: onequestion


Did you notice how the author places the importance of retirement over the importance of the family?

Quite right, too.

There's no guarantee that the kids won't bugger off as soon as the parents get frail and elderly and too much trouble to look after.

At least with some money put by old people can afford to pay for some sort of care and comfort.

Families do a fine job of self destruction with out outside help. Trying to place the blame on media for inherent family disfunctionallity seems like finger pointing and false reasoning imo.

kinda like placing the blame on old people eh?

a reply to: berenike

Ohh this problem is worse than I thought isn't it..

a reply to: olaru12

Trying to place the blame on media for inherent family disfunctionallity seems like finger pointing and false reasoning imo.

I remember the key transition stages. When the TV came into the home, everyone had to be quiet, the show was on. Later, when people couldn't agree what to watch, everyone watched their own tv in their own room.

I remember each moment when the TV wedge was driven ever deeper in between the family members.

I''m not saying there weren't other problems, just that the magic light box took precedent right away to what other people were saying. Ever been shooshed while speaking because the TV was on?

a reply to: intrptr

TV certainly did quash communication, but in my opinion the biggest cause of the destruction of the family is alcohol.

a reply to: olaru12

Alcohol and drug use has been a part of every human culture as far back as....

a reply to: onequestion
I agree. I actually read something some time ago how they destroyed the traditional American Indian clan system, with its extended families, and replaced it with the "nuclear family". I see that happening in the rest of America as well. My family is hardly close, for example. There are cousins, aunts, and uncles I haven't seen in years, and mostly at funerals. Now, in contrast to that, there's the way it is in other countries. Take my sweetheart's people in Papua New Guinea, for example. They have extended families and a clan system. Family is very important to them and they take care of older relatives instead of putting them in homes.

originally posted by: onequestion
Here I am to save the day!

Just kidding, but I really do love Jim Carey and Liar Liar was one of my favorites growing up.

So let's try ignore the content of the article but rather focus on the presentation of ideas.

www.wsj.com...

It’s crucial that both parties understand the financial implications of this homecoming. For parents, a child’s return often means a greater financial burden, just as the parents may be struggling to meet their own savings and retirement goals. It also can make it more difficult for the millennials to acquire the financial skills they’ll need later in life.

Did you notice how the author places the importance of retirement over the importance of the family?

I truly believe part of our cultural programming is the destruction of the family.

Over the last 20 years I've seen families falling a part and acting selfish. I know so many people who are always talking about how they can't even trust their money anymore or how rich their uncle but won't give them a job or how one sibling is homeless and the other is rich and so on and so on.

So I'm wondering ATS? Is this line of thinking part of the program?

You are reading too much into it. Many financial advisors always recommend that funding your retirement takes priority over spending frivolously on your children. The article is pointing out that when a millennial moves back home, it is raises the living costs of the parents. This is happening during their prime earning years in which funds should be socked away for retirement.

Your kid can always find a job and take care of themselves. As you get older, it becomes harder and harder to find employment and you may be beyond your prime earning years.

Nothing is worse for kids than having elderly parents who cannot take care of themselves financially. Often times parents sacrifice for their children, but it often leads to a worse situation down the road.

There is no reason a twenty something should be living at home with parents. Too many are enabling this delayed manhood of millennials.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: olaru12

Alcohol and drug use has been a part of every human culture as far back as....

True and it destroyed families as far back as.....

It destroyed my nuclear family and I destroyed my own with my drug and alcohol use. TV, media, didn't even enter the picture.

However I think poverty is the main cause of family breakups and using drugs and alcohol to try and deaden the pain of poverty.

Vicious circle....

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: intrptr

TV certainly did quash communication, but in my opinion the biggest cause of the destruction of the family is alcohol.

The other big one. Both can produce neglect, not healthy for young minds.

a reply to: onequestion

Absolutely, it's far worse.

This is why I rarely take main stream sources such as WSJ seriously anymore.

Social programming has become an elaborate psy-op and we've all been influenced by it.

You've now got evidence right here in this thread as well.

Look at what the primary sources are for what most people talk about: the MSM.

The good news is that modern culture, based on the premise there is no inherent purpose or positive design in human life, has been exposed as a long-term Illuminati psy-op designed to demoralize us. It will fail.

The Satanic Origin of Modern Cult-ure

...historians, educators and journalists collaborate by upholding a false reality and distracting us from the truth. Our world, our perception of the human experience, are shaped by an occult secret society. Our culture is an elaborate psy-op.

The Satanic Cult That Rules the World

POPULAR CULTURE = BRAINWASHING. "Popular culture" (music, TV, movies, books, fashion etc.) is NOT spontaneous but corporate controlled and manufactured. "Today's mass culture operates like the opium trade: The supply determines the demand."

Bankers Are Behind The Counter Culture

Modern Western culture is based on denying objective truth and erecting a false reality in its place. The New World Order is dedicated to replacing Truth with a solipsism created by the same people who create money from nothing and charge interest.

Modern society is based on a solipsism created by Illuminati (Cabalist) Jewish bankers and their Masonic minions. The word "solipsism" means a self-created reality that has little or no connection with Truth. Instead of being dedicated to Truth, humanity has been hijacked by the bankers. The "New World Order" is a solipsism that stymies and enslaves mankind while increasing the bankers' power and wealth. We are being drawn into a solipsism that inverts good and evil; truth and lies. We are being inducted into a satanic cult.

WESTERN CULTURE BASED ON DENYING REALITY

Thus kulture is contrived. How do we know what we know? We are taught by the mass media and the education system. But what if they were subverted by a satanic secret society, i.e. the Illuminati? The mass media and education system promote this suspension of reality. Truth is suppressed. Lies are promulgated. Negative or self-destructive behavior is portrayed in a positive light.

How the Illuminati Control Culture

originally posted by: onequestion

Did you notice how the author places the importance of retirement over the importance of the family?

It's called being self-sufficient so that you do not become a burden on others. If you have the kids raiding the fridge long after their pull date, it puts a crimp on finances. The western nuclear family was never intended to support grown children. This is not a new phenomenon, but is in fact centuries old. And further, it isn't even confined to the human species. From birds to bears, parents kick the kids out of the nest.

The most amazing thing here is that these kids actually have the expectation that their parents are obligated to support them seemingly forever with no corresponding obligation on their part. They present their parents with a fait accompli just assuming it's their right to move back in. They present their case as the inability for them to find employment when, in fact, it is their unwillingness to seek alternatives and develop their own self-sufficiency that is the issue. (Some of those alternatives have already been presented here in this thread.)

I find it amazing that these parents allow themselves to be brow-beaten by these children into letting them back in. It's hardly the "destruction of the family" if you're not expected to be living in your Mom's basement when you are 30. And if, in fact, that is what is happening, that does not mean the family is destroyed--it's still intact--far longer than was intended.

The fact is people often do not pay attention to their own retirement because their energy and resources are directed toward raising the children in the manner to which they have become accustomed. To then rag on them for trying to finally pay attention to their own needs for once is selfish in the extreme. Just whose life is it, anyway? You cannot claim that emotional word "family" when all you see your parents for is a meal ticket.

Being an empty-nester might just be a very good thing and something your parents deserve. The best thing you could do for your parents is move out. Yeah, you might have to put off buying that Corvette for a few more years, but that's what your parents did when they married and had you. Why can't you do the same thing?

If you want to talk "destruction of the family," look no further than the inner city where fathers are absent and single mothers exist on welfare from the state for generations. Now THAT'S destruction of the family, not preventing some sniveling middle class kids from moving back home where they've worn out their welcome.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: onequestion

Did you notice how the author places the importance of retirement over the importance of the family?

It's called being self-sufficient so that you do not become a burden on others. If you have the kids raiding the fridge long after their pull date, it puts a crimp on finances. The western nuclear family was never intended to support grown children. This is not a new phenomenon, but is in fact centuries old. And further, it isn't even confined to the human species. From birds to bears, parents kick the kids out of the nest.

The most amazing thing here is that these kids actually have the expectation that their parents are obligated to support them seemingly forever with no corresponding obligation on their part. They present their parents with a fait accompli just assuming it's their right to move back in. They present their case as the inability for them to find employment when, in fact, it is their unwillingness to seek alternatives and develop their own self-sufficiency that is the issue. (Some of those alternatives have already been presented here in this thread.)

I find it amazing that these parents allow themselves to be brow-beaten by these children into letting them back in. It's hardly the "destruction of the family" if you're not expected to be living in your Mom's basement when you are 30. And if, in fact, that is what is happening, that does not mean the family is destroyed--it's still intact--far longer than was intended.

The fact is people often do not pay attention to their own retirement because their energy and resources are directed toward raising the children in the manner to which they have become accustomed. To then rag on them for trying to finally pay attention to their own needs for once is selfish in the extreme. Just whose life is it, anyway? You cannot claim that emotional word "family" when all you see your parents for is a meal ticket.

Being an empty-nester might just be a very good thing and something your parents deserve. The best thing you could do for your parents is move out. Yeah, you might have to put off buying that Corvette for a few more years, but that's what your parents did when they married and had you. Why can't you do the same thing?

If you want to talk "destruction of the family," look no further than the inner city where fathers are absent and single mothers exist on welfare from the state for generations. Now THAT'S destruction of the family, not preventing some sniveling middle class kids from moving back home where they've worn out their welcome.

You got to remember, this is ATS where no one is supposed go out and earn a living. If only the rich would just redistribute some of their wealth we can all sit around the campfire singing kumbaya till we grow old. Kids living at home is how this nonsense starts.

My parents have always been there for me. However, when I graduated college, they basically were like GTFO. They were like you can come by for a meal or two, but don't think we are going to keep your bedroom the way it was when you were 15.

Completely agree with you about the lack of fathers in the inner city. Progressives never want to talk about that issue since it is a problem they created.

a reply to: onequestion

The pursuit of a better life is what's killing the modern family.

Student loans are the next mortgage. Folks want to provide the best for their kids but they are burdened with loans and in turn their kids are burdened with loans. When I was studying IT a fellow classmate told me something that will stick with me for the rest of my life.

"Employers want a 20 year old with 30 years experience."

How right he was. In order to make money these days you need to spend money and that's why college education will collapse into itself. There is no shame in holding down a menial job and there are more graduates then there are jobs. Johnny optometrist is not guaranteed a job as their is a thousand other johnny optometrists out there.

As long as the cycle of 'necessary' debt continues they will never be a happy family.