LAT to the party

I read The Guardian most days (as a public service, so you don't have to), in order to assess the "left-wing" variety of cynical propaganda being thrown at us that day (I read The Daily Mail for the "right-wing" version, and then my go-to conspiracy theorist, Henry Makow, for the truth). And, I must say, the experience has become rather more enjoyable recently, because The Guardian has become so increasingly (if unintentionally) comedic...

Behold this paragraph from The Guardian yesterday dispensing, er, "relationship advice":

"We treat monogamy as the barometer of a successful relationship, rather than, say, comfort, or having a laugh, which for some raises the bar so high the relationship is destined to fail. Nothing is natural, not monogamy or nonmonogamy – there are huge variations in how humans form relationships, but the thing that makes the best ones succeed I guess, is trust and mutual integrity."

So have you got that? You should cheat on your partner, because fidelity is unrealistically idealistic and so to expect it will probably cause your relationship to fail... but simultaneously, you ought highly value trust and mutual integrity..! This actually made me laugh out loud (almost as much as the time The Guardian declared, "Masculinity is a trap - which is why more men should wear skirts').

Only The Guardian could come up with such ludicrous, Orwellian doublespeak as this, and it's not surprising, given the titular concept of the article - LAT. That stands for, 'Living Alone Together'.

This, alleges The Guardian, is the hottest new trend in modern relationships - following transgender polyamory, which already seems to have become a bit old hat, because, after all, these "throuples" actually commit to the antiquated and oppressive idea of living together, and that, The Guardian is here to inform you, is on its way out.

"A growing number of couples, a new report says, are Living Apart Together – “LAT.” So: this is when you maintain both a romantic relationship and your own private home... Who wouldn’t want their own house just so, their bathroom untouched by other feet, unlittered with half-empty bottles of Head & Shoulders shampoo? Who would honestly say no, if money were no object, to a room of their own and all the nudity, slobbiness, collecting of curios and war rugs that implies?"

Well, erm, 'tempting' as that sounds (war rugs?), isn't this a terribly tone-deaf article for The Guardian - ostensibly a left-wing paper of the people and champion for the underprivileged - to promote?

We are in a cost of living crisis, rents are exorbitant, wages are stagnating, and for the vast majority of ordinary people - certainly ordinary working-class people whose interests The Guardian pretends to be concerned with - maintaining two separate homes in a relationship would be wildly out of the question.

Ordinary couples who live together are typically not doing so purely to indulge some idyllic romantic fantasy, but because it's much more affordable to split the bills with someone else rather than to maintain two separate residences.

Given that that is so obviously so, The Guardian reveals its true agenda, which has never (or at least, not recently) been to represent ordinary working people, but rather, to shape and control the minds of some of those who appear to be the most susceptible to state propaganda: the affluent, mainly white, middle-classes. Don't forget, this is the group who most readily took up "the vaccine", donned their muzzles, and dutifully ate their Scotch Eggs.

Less affluent communities and ethnic minorities were all far less likely to be compliant than the white middle-classes (and please note, these are just general demographic observations, obviously there are always exceptions to trends within groups).

So, that's The Guardian's real readership, and therefore, The Guardian is targeting this particularly suggestible demographic with a scenario - "living alone together" - that is plausibly affordable for many of them.

The Guardian, like all newspapers, pretends to report "the news" and "organic" social trends, but what it is really doing is social manipulation and programming of the mass mind, in the direction the social controllers most want it to go.

While I have occasionally heard of long-term couples living separately, it's usually for obvious practical reasons, such as being in a long-distance relationship, or because there are children from previous relationships still living in the home, and "blending" step-parents and step-siblings would be overcomplicated. In these situations, separate living makes sense.

But these are specifically not the scenarios The Guardian is outlining: rather, it is targeting midlife adults whose children, if they had any, have already left home and strongly encouraging them not to live with a partner, even if they live near each other - and it is presenting this scenario as if it is already very fashionable and widespread.

This is exactly what social engineers do when they want to galvanise a radical social shift: they use the media to present a given scenario as if it is already happening on a mass scale, and heavily insinuate you are behind the times and a bit of a fuddy-duddy if you don't get with the programme.

This was exactly how they mainstreamed the sexual revolution, as I've commented on before: high-profile magazines like Cosmopolitan would publish entirely fictional 'case studies' about single, aspirational young women who eschewed traditional relationships and instead slept with powerful men to help advance their careers, with the devious editorial team behind 'Cosmo' knowing their impressionable readership would simply mimic the described behaviour, believing "it's what the cool people are already doing". That's how human psychology works on its most basic level - we look to others to gauge what is normal and aspirational, and we copy it. Monkey see, monkey do.

The Guardian now wants its readership to believe the coolest, most aspirational lives are being led by people who LAT - who "live alone together" (and who aren't necessarily faithful to one another).

Now, why would The Guardian be pushing this?

To answer that question, we can look to two other very revealing articles published on the same day by the other notable left-wing newspaper, The Independent (known as 'The Indy' by its advocates and 'The Sindy' by its detractors...).

'AI isn't coming for your job, it's coming for your relationship', and:

'Celibacy is revolutionising people's sex lives'.

(I have been much-mocked for my prediction that the overlords are going to ban sex, but I am really serious.)

I think we can easily see what the common theme is here: the overlords are determined to sever human bonds and have us all living abstinently alone with only AI for company, and that - if we absolutely insist on being in a relationship with another human being - then they want us living apart, and unfaithful to each other, to ensure the bond is as weak and easily superable as possible.

It couldn't be clearer, really, could it?

That's the desired endgame, us all living alone in pods, only interacting with screens, as was so eerily depicted in the predictive programming vehicle, 2149: The Aftermath, and as was also outlined in 1993's Demolition Man (the parallels between this film and the Covid chapter having been observed by many). Note Demolition Man not only features a "sex ban", but also showed us an early version of 'Zoom', where a meeting consisted of a room of empty chairs and screens with digital faces where people's heads should be.

It's taken the social engineers a long time, diligently chipping away at human bonds, to get us to the point where this dystopian vision could be a plausible reality, and what they are now doing is weaponising the problems they have created in the first place, to further undermine and weaken us and get us closer to their goal.

The Guardian's article about 'LAT' is very sly and devious in how it exploits the reality that a lot of people are really struggling in their relationships at the moment. A lot fell apart during "Covid", and many more are now on their last legs (I am woken up most mornings by my neighbours having a virulent screaming match next door).

The solution to this, The Guardian suggests, is to stop living together and consider that "relationships are not made of stone, that they are plastic and can be moulded or broken into brand new shapes".

Well, that couldn't be more explicit, could it? "Broken". If something is broken then, well, yes, technically it is a new shape. But it also no longer functions.

The real solution to epidemic relationship struggles is, in fact, quite the opposite to what The Guardian suggests (the solution to any problem is usually quite the opposite to what The Guardian suggests).

First we have to consider where the idea of long-term monogamous, marital-type relationships came from, because - as The Guardian is so eager to trumpet at every given opportunity - these are not strictly 'natural' (but then, neither is living in centrally-heated houses, driving Teslas, or shopping at Waitrose, so unless and until the journalists of The Guardian are prepared to fully eschew all of these pursuits too, I'm not really going to take their 'not natural' arguments very seriously).

The history of monogamy is an incredibly interesting story, and it's not an exaggeration to state that modern ideas of advanced civilisation are based on these kind of relationships. To quote from an anthropological study on 'the puzzle of monogamous marriage' (and take 'marriage' to mean long-term, marital-type relationships, whether or not the couple has the officiating piece of paper):

"[T]he norms and institutions that compose the modern package of monogamous marriage have been favoured by cultural evolution because of their group-beneficial effects-promoting success in inter-group competition. In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses.

By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide."

To sum, monogamous, marital-type relationships have spread around the world as the expectation and the ideal for interpersonal relationships - not because this is the most "natural" way for human beings to structure their personal relationships - but because, for every indicator of success you care to mention, all data consistently shows monogamy is the best way (it's also the one thing social engineers determined to 'liberalise' our attitudes to relationship have failed to talk us out of: while most people are now accepting of non-traditional arrangements such as unmarried or same-sex couples living together, the overwhelming majority of people continue to insist that monogamy is essential in a relationship).

If you want a safe, stable society where men, women, and children have the best chances of maximising their potential, then you want a society based on monogamous, long-term relationships. Polygamy (now repackaged as 'polyamory') is nothing new, it's been around for thousands of years and the results are always the same: it doesn't work nearly as well as monogamy does (not least because it inevitably results in large gangs of single men unattached to any women or family groups, and this is extremely dangerous and destabilising for any society, as we increasingly see with the "asylum seekers").

Yet despite monogamy unequivocally being shown as the superior arrangement, more people than ever seem to struggle to maintain it and relationships are frequently falling apart: why is this?

It's because monogamous relationships developed in the context of much more stable and less transient societies than we have now, where families, extended families, and wider communities were much more entwined and interconnected.

It is only a fairly recent invention that "family" came to mean the nuclear family - mother, father, 2.4 children (or 1.5 these days) - and it was the redefinition of family after the industrial revolution, when people left their countryside communities and intergenerational family bonds to toil in the city's factories and live in isolated nuclear family units, that the problems started to creep in.

Human beings, as deeply social creatures, are hardwired to have close, regular interactions with about 150 people. That is why soap operas have become so popular: people possess the primal wiring to be deeply invested in the day-to-day activities of many people around them, but if there are no people around them (because they live hundreds of miles away from family, work from home, don't know their neighbours, etc), they see out surrogate replacements via their screens.

In previous versions of our societies, we didn't need screen-based "soap operas", because we were all living our own versions of them, and had close, personal relationships experienced on a daily basis with the people directly around us.

It was within that context, within that kind of connected, multi-layered society, that people would embark on long-term monogamous relationships: when they already had a stable core community of relationships with all sorts of different people. Of course, none of these relationships have ever been perfect and presented all sorts of challenges as human relationships always do, but the point is, historically, people weren't going into romantic relationships expecting their partner to be "it" - the sole supporting force in their life where it comes to day-to-day tasks, emotional intimacy, childcare, and so on.

When these more stable, supportive communities began to break down due to societies becoming more mobile and it becoming more the norm to leave your hometown to seek opportunities elsewhere, an increasing amount of pressure became exerted on "the couple" to provide everything for each other, and their children, with no meaningful outside support.

Human beings are not built for this, to rely on just one other person for everything, hence the pressure becomes too much for many couples and they split.

Hence, the obvious solution to this is to look at ways society can be restructured so people's lives are more peopled and more supportive, not less, with the latter bering exactly what The Guardian and Independent articles are pushing: "other people are too much trouble. Eject them from your life as much as you can".

And why are The Guardian and Independent doing this?

Because they are deeply subversive cultural saboteurs who exist only to fulfil the agendas of the evil, anti-human psychopaths who rule over our societies, and who want to do everything possible to undermine and weaken us, because that makes us easier to control (and ultimately overthrow).

Strength is in numbers, and a lot of other cultures still know this: I mentioned earlier my screaming neighbours, who are a young, white couple aged around 30 (no children, two dogs). But my neighbours on the other side are a Muslim family who live inter-generationally. There are at least five working-age adults in the house (50-something parents, three adult children, and there's a converted flat in the basement where more adults - cousins or uncles - live too), plus one school-aged child and one elderly woman.

We must ask, of my two sets of neighbours, who is in a stronger position if difficulty hits - illness, job loss, etc?

Well, the answer is obvious. One lost job or bout of ill health for the inter-generational large family isn't a disaster, as multiple other people are still earning so the bills can still be covered. A sick child or elderly parent requiring care doesn't present an irresolvable crisis putting the household's solvency in jeopardy, as there's always at least one person around to help at home whilst others go out to earn money.

And because all the pressure in that household isn't on the central couple, they are notable by the fact they are not always (or ever, as far as I've noticed) screaming at each other. I'm sure they have their ups and downs as all couples do, but the difference between the two sets of neighbours really could not be more stark.

I don't think my rowing neighbours would resolve their relationship issues by living alone in separate houses. I think that would make their difficulties worse, because it would be exacerbating the fundamental problem, which is that they lack sufficient social support and are thus too reliant on each other, and so frustrations frequently boil over.

Living separately may superficially take some pressure off and reduce the quantity of arguments, simply because they are spending significantly less time together, but it is not addressing the root cause of their problem.

I know that other people can be annoying to live with, I can be annoying to live with, we all can. Yet as deeply, fundamentally social creatures who thrive on social connectivity (and on whom loneliness and isolation has as bad or worse effects as obesity, smoking, or taking no exercise), it is incumbent on us to learn how to overcome our differences and work out how to live alongside each other, not race towards the overlord's hideous vision of us all alone in self-indulgent sensory prison-pods where we never have to deal with the "hassle" of another person.

I also know that many people end up living alone through no fault of their own, and have to find ways to adjust - and that some choose it and thrive, because there is no arrangement that works for 100% of people 100% of the time. So this is not to "judge" individual situations or tell people what they should and shouldn't do. I think people should be free to live as they choose and certainly the state shouldn't be interfering.

Rather, the purpose of my article is to analyse prominent cultural propaganda and why vehicles like The Guardian and The Independent are so heavily promoting the virtues of living alone, being celibate, and swapping real relationships for ones with AI. There's always an agenda with such aggressive, coordinated propaganda pushes, and it's never one that's in our interests.

"They" want to isolate us for one reason and one reason only: because isolated people are easier to control. That is why all psychopaths endeavour to do it, and that's why they worked so hard to break down family and community bonds during "Covid".

Furthermore, when it comes to defeating the overlords and their endless efforts to propagandise, weaken, and control us, we have to look at - not what they tell us to do - but what they do for themselves.

Do the "elite" live alone ("together")? Do they encourage their children to leave home instantly upon turning 18 and move hundreds of miles away so communities are immediately fractured? (I lived in my hometown for 23 years and yet no longer have a single contemporary left there as they have all left.)

No, they do not. The elite prize intergenerational family dynasties and loyalties, passing down businesses and opportunities so, with each successive generation, the family becomes wealthier and more powerful. That's how you attain and maintain success over generations - so that's why they tell you not to do it (and that's why your family pays inheritance tax, but the Royal Family doesn't). Because they don't want the competition: loneliness and LAT for thee, intergenerational success and powerful dynasties for me. That's their message.

So this is why I find it very important and instructive to study The Guardian regularly (and not just for the comedic factor...): because it gives us very clear and revealing insight into exactly what we shouldn't be doing.

(And seriously... what the hell is a 'war rug'?!)

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly here or via Patreon

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.