I saw the following heart-breaking headline a few days ago, that, 'Children are facing life alone after single mum, 48, dies suddenly on New Year's Eve', and, reading the details, it struck me as an exceptionally sad - and equally sinister - story.

The first obvious tragedy is that a comparatively young woman has lost her life decades prematurely, thereby leaving three children alone in the world, without close family support, and this is something we will see happening more and more. Not just a greatly increased incidence of 'sudden deaths' in healthy people, but children suddenly left alone in the world with no remaining family to turn to, because their parents (or parent) were all they had. It didn't used to be this way, and it has become this way, by design.

The attacks on supportive and well-integrated families and communities have been underway for a very long time, going back many decades and even centuries. They began with the assault on the extended family, when, in the industrial revolution, people were encouraged to leave the well-established and integrated country communities their families had thrived in for generations, to go and work in alien cities and faceless factories instead.

This heralded a huge change in the generally accepted definition of the word 'family', which used to mean, not just direct, immediate family, e.g. parents and children, but aunts and uncles, cousins, grandparents, great aunts and uncles and so on. However, when traditional communities began to disintegrate as people left the country for the cities, 'family' was redefined to mean two parents and their (increasingly few) children. This arrangement, the so-called "nuclear family" is not an optimal way for human beings to live, as we are communal creatures and are hardwired to require close, meaningful, regular contact with about a hundred people. That is roughly the size of community human tribes naturally grow to when left to their own devices, and when they get substantially bigger than that, the group tends to naturally divide. 

Our hardwiring for this kind of close, well-integrated community, where we are meaningfully involved in the daily lives of dozens of other people, accounts for the popularity of soap operas. If we are unable to have the frequent, real-world interactions with many friends and neighbours that we are wired to require, then watching them on the screen is the next best thing, and our social controllers know this. They have provided us with a rich cornucopia of absorbing and addictive soap operas, with a wide breadth of likeable and intriguing characters, so that we form attachments to them, rather than getting up off the sofa and knocking on the doors of our neighbours instead - which, in most neighbourhoods these days, would be completely taboo. 

The ruling classes have made it so that watching the made-up exploits of fictional characters on a screen, is infinitely more socially acceptable than forming real-world relationships with other humans you inhabit the same street as - a bizarre, and ultimately very sinister, social change. It wasn't this way in the 1950s and '60s when our parents were growing up, and knew by name every family on the street. It has been made to be this way. 

I had a sobering realisation of just how insidious this phenomenon has become when I heard the news last year that the Australian actor, Dieter Brummer, had died. Obviously, it is generally a sad thing when someone prematurely loses their life (he was only 45), but I felt actively, personally upset. Yet did I know this person? Had we ever had even the most passing and peripheral of interactions? No. I felt sad because I had formed an attachment to a fictional character he portrayed on a soap opera 20 years ago.

Surprised by my own reaction, I took this opportunity to re-watch a few episodes of 'Home and Away', the soap opera he appeared in, and, upon watching all the characters I hadn't seen for 20 years come back to life, I had a really strong emotional response, like I was attending a family reunion or something - but much stronger feelings that attending an actual family reunion, because the reality was that, as a child and adolescent, I - and many children - had stronger attachments to fictional characters on screens than to most of our wider families. We saw extended family a handful of times a year, if that. We saw soap characters every day (or sometimes, twice a day, with one of the most alluring aspects of getting a day off school being the opportunity to watch 'Neighbours' twice...). 

Well, why is this happening? Why has a situation developed whereby it is often infinitely easier and far more socially acceptable to form emotional attachments to fictional characters on screens, than to actual human beings?

The reason this situation has been engineered and pushed is because it so benefits the ruling classes, as the one thing they desire above all other things is control, and the best way to control people is to keep them as isolated and as cut off from one another as possible. The more supportive and productive relationships people have, the more autonomous and empowered they become. Fully aware of this, the ruling classes have invested a fortune into ensuring our natural predilection for community and relationships with many different people, are cauterised, and channelled instead into artificial attachments to fictional characters that they, the ruling classes, control (soap operas also being a hugely effective weapon in social engineering - whenever the overlords desire to induce a new social change, they just introduce it into soap operas).

So we now have a situation where most people are cut off from real community, with their needs for communal bonds channelled into watching soap opera instead, and where "a family" is no more than two adults and their children, with, typically, little or no meaningful support from other relatives, who may live hundreds or thousands of miles away or not exist at all. This is the norm now, and very few children grow up having close, frequent contact with a multitude of cousins, aunts and uncles, grandparents and so on, as used to be commonplace. There may be many good reasons for this - toxic families, families that live too far away, families that are in poor health or whom simply don't exist - and the point is not to cast blame on individual families, most of whom do their best in whatever circumstances they find themselves in, nor to discourage people from leaving toxic or abusive situations, which of course they should do. The point is that this situation, the comprehensive breakdown of the extended family and integrated local community, is an enormous social change, and an orchestrated one, which has ultimately made the individual weaker and the state stronger.

 The "ideal" type of household now pushed on us by the social engineers - a maximum of two adults and rarely more than two children - is pushed because that arrangement is far more vulnerable to governmental threats and tyranny than is a bigger unit, consisting of many adults, and many soon-to-be adults. While children require a lot of care whilst very young and so in that sense can make a family more vulnerable, they soon grow into capable adults who can be powerful assets to their families and communities, and fundamental in sustaining a community, which is why traditional communities have always had a lot of them. Not necessarily because all traditional people "just loved kids" - but because they recognised that, in order for a meaningful community and way of life to survive and thrive, there needs to be a continuous replenishment of strong, capable adults to carry it on - and to support and protect more vulnerable members. 

As the last thing the overlords want us to have are self-sustaining communities of strong, capable adults, they have pushed the "nuclear family" instead, whilst larger families and multigenerational living have been hugely stigmatised. I remember at the beginning of 'the pandemic', it was claimed that the main virus vector was intergenerational living, e.g. large Muslim and immigrant families where it is normal for multiple generations to all inhabit the same household.

The state attacks such arrangements because it wants to get rid of any obstacle between you and it, because - like any good psychopath - it requires complete control. The family has historically been the biggest protective barrier between the individual and the state, hence why it has long since been earmarked for destruction. Note that the 'elite' themselves all have large, extended families (is Boris on his seventh child now?), and that they work together and run family businesses, therefore generating and passing down generational wealth - but discourage this for all the rest of us, pushing "independence" (which often translates as atomisation and loneliness) as early as possible, and encouraging young people to move many miles away from families and to work for unrelated people to whom they have no meaningful connection - whilst living with no more than one other adult and relying exclusively on that one other adult for raising children and generating income.

This is just not an optimal way for us to live, because, just one bout of chronic illness or - as we see ever-more frequently now -  unexpected death, and that family unit is in acute jeopardy and will likely have to throw itself on the mercy of the state to survive. The overlords know all this, of course - that's why they push such a fragile and risky arrangement as the small and segregated "nuclear family" for us, whilst doing the exact opposite themselves. Check out any elite dynasty, and they all have large, extended families and work together on lucrative projects - the Royal family even calls itself 'the firm', whilst the children of moguls like Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch typically work for them, generating wealth and opportunities to pass down to descendants. The same is so for any wealthy and powerful dynasty. They know that to create and sustain wealth and power, it's vital to "keep it in the family". 

Leading on from that is the fact that, whatever threats exist to the individual as a result of the nuclear two-parent family, are magnified even more so when there is just one parent, as the tragic story referenced at the beginning of this article reveals. Proponents of the "nuclear family" may claim they're in favour of two-parent families, but in fact, this model makes it far more likely that single parenthood will result, as too much pressure is put on the two adults involved to do and be everything - for each other and for their children - and this "pressure cooker" environment often ends in separation. As they say, "it takes a village" - but not just to raise children - to give adults the integrated communal bonds that they need, too.

In our modern environment, the divorce rate is nearly 1 in 2 (higher for second marriages), whilst for couples who cohabit without marrying, over 90% have split up by the ten-year mark. That should be all the evidence we need that the nuclear family is not the optimal model. It may work for some, but very often, nuclear families set the stage for further family breakdown, because the nuclear family (a very, very new concept in human evolution) was contrived to suit the needs of industry, rather than of human beings, and so many couples react to this by becoming unhappy and ending the relationship. Yet in many cases (those not involving abuse or other extreme situations), it may not be the relationship itself that is the problem, but rather, the deeply unnatural and unsupportive circumstances in which the couple is expected to conduct it.

The social engineers push the nuclear family because it is fragile and vulnerable to splitting up, in a way a supportive, integrated extended family and community makes less likely - and fragile families leave the children more vulnerable to state control. Historically, if one or even both parents had died whilst their children were young - which, of course, has always happened and there have always been orphans - it wasn't necessarily an unmitigated disaster, since large extended families, who already had close and meaningful relationships with the children, were often able to step in.

But in the modern environment, where parents may have no extended family, or no meaningful connection with them, then, if anything happens to the parents (an even bigger threat where there is only one parent), children are therefore left with no remaining protection from the state and its agenda.

And that's been the endgame all along - to hack away at the family and the community more and more until, eventually, there are no more remaining obstacles between children and the state, and the state can have full dominance and control over what happens to them.

Whilst ordinary people plan in terms of weeks and months, the overlords plan in decades and centuries, and they have been playing the long game with gaining access to the children for a very long time. All the agendas pushed over the latter half of the 20th century - careerism, feminism, liberalism, "independence" - are ultimately about breaking down powerful, intergenerational, extended family and community bonds, so we get to the point we are now, where many children have so little remaining protection, the state is much more easily able to gain access to them.

In our modern environment, young adults are typically encouraged to move far away from their original families and communities, to eschew going into the family business in order to be "independent", and also to be independent from the other adult they live with, by having separate, unrelated careers, rather than beginning their own shared endeavour. This results in a situation where the constituent members of most households spend all day doing things that are completely unrelated to each other, which is historically bizarre and unprecedented, and again, completely by design, in order to weaken family bonds. Working together strengthens bonds (hence why people often have such close friendships with workmates), which is why the ruling classes do it themselves, but strongly discourage it for everyone else.

I remember having a very revealing conversation about this with a couple in their sixties about ten years ago. They ran a small, successful business together, and employed several members of their extended family and local community. They had been together since their twenties, which is when most of their friends had got married, too.

"And then in the nineties, everyone started getting divorced," the husband told me. "But, for some reason, we didn't, and we're basically the only couple we know who have stayed together."

He seemed genuinely perplexed as to why this was (luckily his wife was not in earshot!), insofar as, as far as he was concerned, these other separating couples hadn't been any less compatible than him and his wife, so how come they had all split up and he and his wife hadn't?

"It's because you run a business together," I said suddenly (and perhaps inappropriately...), and realised it was true. They had a tangible, meaningful shared project that both their lives pivoted around, long after their children had grown up. This meant the bond between them remained strong and vital - literally vital, as in making their living depended on it - and in a way that is much harder if couples spend all day apart, doing unrelated things.

The state wants people who live in the same household to live separate lives, and to have their own "independent careers", rather than to run a family or community business together, because then all government operatives have to do is take a single individual's job away (which they can easily do, via "lockdown", no jab no job mandates, or whatever other evil ploy they come up with next), and then that family is left largely helpless and reliant on the state for survival.

This, of course, is a central reason many have capitulated and taken the jab - because they must be able to provide for their family, since if they don't, no-one else will. And then there is the unspeakably tragic and tragically common result, where the jab severely maims or kills that person, and so the family is left destitute anyway - and the state can take the children.

What has been pushed by the social engineers and the media in the last 50 years as "independence" is actually nothing of the sort, it's really dependence on the systems that benefit the ruling elite - a boss, a supermarket, a bank. The machinations of the last two years have shown us that modern "independence" - e.g. working for a boss and being solely responsible for your bills and dependents - is often a very dangerous arrangement, as all the ruling classes need to do is stage an 'emergency' and they can instantly take this "independence" away. Real independence - which is independence from the state and ruling classes - only comes via communal interdependence with other humans you know personally and trust, and where systems run by the state are therefore not so central.

Please don't mistake this as an endorsement of conventional socialism or (shudder) communism, which are all about dependence on the state (whatever these terms mean in theory, that's always what they mean in practice - total, brutal state dominance and control). It's rather about self-reliance through productive and mutually beneficial bonds with others. The Amish, for example, are genuinely independent, self-reliant, and communal, but nobody would ever call them "socialists" or "communists" - since they do not rely on the state at all. They do not use state schooling, or take state benefits, or rely on state care for the elderly. They sustain themselves through powerful family and community bonds, and, therefore, they have been almost completely unaffected by the global tyranny of the last two years.

Obviously, there's no easy solution to any of this, as we are not Amish and we are all inured to the system to various degrees. We cannot hope to return to a pre-industrial age or to magic up integrated, productive extended families and communities overnight - but as we move forward, it's critically important to recognise how and why the ruling classes have engineered modern families and communities to be the way they are, and that the 'elite' are finally reaching the end-game of the very long systematic assault on the extended family and integrated community - because they know breaking down these bonds is how they 'win'.

The ruling classes have engineered modern family bonds to be often very fragile and brittle, to the extent that a difference of opinion over politics or current events - or even a contentious social media post - can sever them altogether. This is all by design and the overlords have certainly made much of the age-old war strategy, divide and conquer, by ensuring what fragile family bonds remain are constantly under attack via engineered, vicious feuds over Brexit, Trump, and now, of course, Covid.

Millions of families have been torn definitively down the middle by the Covid issue, with many family relationships - already weakened and undermined by decades of social engineering - now terminated completely.

And it's all by design to get you exactly where the state wants you: comprehensively under its boot with no protective barrier of family, extended family, or community left to shield you.

So as we begin to emerge from the current tyranny, it's vitally important we recognise why the state pushed "nuclear families" and "independence" on us, whilst having large extended families and family businesses for themselves. They do this to disempower us and to further enrich and entrench their own position.

Ultimately, if we reflect over our own lives, this is something most of us have already realised too. A nationwide survey was once done on graduates, asking them when in their lives they'd felt the happiest. Was it when all that studying paid off, and they got their dream job? Was it when they took a year off and went travelling the world? Was it marrying the love of their life, or the birth of a child?

No - the researchers were extremely surprised to learn it was, in fact, when they'd been at university. That was by far the most common response given. 

But you didn't have any money, the researchers pointed out. You lived in scruffy student digs and worked part-time in a pub. How can that have been preferable to the great job, the big house, the disposable income and three holidays a year you have now?

When they investigated further, they found the repeated reason people gave for feeling happier at university than at any other time in their lives was "the sense of community". For most modern people, being at university - sharing accommodation with several other adults, sharing household bills and responsibilities, and being part of a wider community of other people that one sees regularly - is the best time of their lives, because it's the closest they ever get to how humans are really designed to live.

The abandonment of that model - communal living and shared endeavours - in exchange for the "nuclear family" model - a maximum of two adults per household, who generally live separate lives - only ultimately benefits the ruling classes, and not the individual, who typically suffers profoundly from the lack of multiple close communal bonds that we are all hardwired to need (and to which there has recently been delivered another colossal blow with "WFH" policies, as the office often provided the framework of community that has been lost within many neighbourhoods). So, in emerging from the current global dystopia, it's so important to look at the ways of living foisted on us by the overlords that made their tyrannical takeover possible, to make sure that, as we move forward, we adopt models that genuinely benefit us instead.

Please note that I am certainly not an idealist and am well aware, as a veteran of the arrangement, that shared living comes with a wide variety of challenges and potential conflicts (as does any living arrangement). You need to choose who you live (and work) with extremely carefully, and even then, there are no guarantees, and there will be difficulties (including fall-outs and move-outs). 

Nevertheless: not including university, I have lived in four shared houses (where 'shared house' is defined as containing more than two adults), including a four-year stretch as a child, where, between the ages of eight and twelve, I lived with six adults. Prior to that, I had been living with my single mother and - as an only child especially - I much preferred the six adults (and two dogs and a cat), to one. As I recall, only one adult in that environment worked full-time - the others all worked part-time (and one was a student), as a shared house doesn't need six full-time wages to sustain it, therefore, instead of being forced to invest the bulk of their energy in the "working week" (which was set at 40 hours by the ruling classes, not because this optimises productivity or performance, but because it eats up enough of people's time and energy that they don't become too socially or politically active and start challenging the status quo), time could instead be invested in opportunities that more benefit the individual and the community. 

It's clear to see from various propaganda campaigns and dystopian predictive programming (and, of course, the last two years), that the ruling classes wish to completely isolate people from one another, by replacing real-world relationships with 'safe', SMART technology, and in so doing, ultimately replacing the real world altogether with the 'Metaverse'. They want us living this way because - as well they know - the alternative, i.e. integrated communal working and living, far better protects us as individuals from all forms of state overreach and government tyranny - and, crucially, it better protects that one thing the ruling classes are really after (what evil is always after) - the children.