Civil war coming to America?

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.

What is that? And, good morning SoAndSo

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.