Black Lives Matter's war on the nuclear family

In traditional societies, the clan was the basic unit of society.  Clan marriages were almost always a matter of strategic planning with the goal of strengthening the clan, not romantic love orpersonal choice (anyone remember the play Romeo and Juliet?).  Indeed, it was the development of the nuclear family and individual control that allowed the development of romantic love and personal choice in spouses.

The nuclear family grows out of the traditional extended family structure, where the leader of the clan, the oldest (almost always) male, asserts control over the lives and decisions of all the members of the clan.  The nuclear family is an outgrowth of capitalism.  The Industrial Revolution with its city living did indeed destroy the traditional extended family — it simply cost too much to house an extended family together in a single dwelling.  But I would defend the development of the nuclear family and the development of romantic love as a basis for spouse selection.

Why is such an assertion necessary, you might ask?  The answer rests squarely on BLM.

BLM, Incorporated has asserted in its goals, which are easily found on the BLM website: "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another[.]"

BLM desires to "disrupt" this structure and replace it with a neighborhood community that would raise the child.  To the average nuclear family, this would mean giving up the raising of their child to a neighborhood community.  The idea that parents would do a worse job of raising their own child than a non-related neighbor community is objectively false.  Does anyone think a non–biologically related neighborhood community would do a better job of raising his child?  If that is the case, I would ask: just how dysfunctional is your nuclear family?

How is it objectively false?  Compare the fate of nuclear family's child to the fate of a child raised by the state in a state orphanage — or even single-parent homes, or a foster child in non-adopted settings.  By any measure — economic status after ten years after being thus raised, crime and incarceration rates, poverty rates — the child raised by an intact nuclear family does a better job of raising his own children.  So the idea of a non-biologically related neighborhood community will almost certainly be yet another failure with tragic results for the parents and the children thus raised.

The sooner everyone understands and acts on the fact that BLM is a socialist organization that aims to destroy our capitalist-democratic system and replace it with its own (dysfunctional and dystopian) socialist system, the better.

In traditional societies, the clan was the basic unit of society.  Clan marriages were almost always a matter of strategic planning with the goal of strengthening the clan, not romantic love orpersonal choice (anyone remember the play Romeo and Juliet?).  Indeed, it was the development of the nuclear family and individual control that allowed the development of romantic love and personal choice in spouses.

The nuclear family grows out of the traditional extended family structure, where the leader of the clan, the oldest (almost always) male, asserts control over the lives and decisions of all the members of the clan.  The nuclear family is an outgrowth of capitalism.  The Industrial Revolution with its city living did indeed destroy the traditional extended family — it simply cost too much to house an extended family together in a single dwelling.  But I would defend the development of the nuclear family and the development of romantic love as a basis for spouse selection.

Why is such an assertion necessary, you might ask?  The answer rests squarely on BLM.

BLM, Incorporated has asserted in its goals, which are easily found on the BLM website: "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another[.]"

BLM desires to "disrupt" this structure and replace it with a neighborhood community that would raise the child.  To the average nuclear family, this would mean giving up the raising of their child to a neighborhood community.  The idea that parents would do a worse job of raising their own child than a non-related neighbor community is objectively false.  Does anyone think a non–biologically related neighborhood community would do a better job of raising his child?  If that is the case, I would ask: just how dysfunctional is your nuclear family?

How is it objectively false?  Compare the fate of nuclear family's child to the fate of a child raised by the state in a state orphanage — or even single-parent homes, or a foster child in non-adopted settings.  By any measure — economic status after ten years after being thus raised, crime and incarceration rates, poverty rates — the child raised by an intact nuclear family does a better job of raising his own children.  So the idea of a non-biologically related neighborhood community will almost certainly be yet another failure with tragic results for the parents and the children thus raised.

The sooner everyone understands and acts on the fact that BLM is a socialist organization that aims to destroy our capitalist-democratic system and replace it with its own (dysfunctional and dystopian) socialist system, the better.