Leaderboard

I have been with my husband for nearly 3 years. I'm beginning to think that we truly were a perfect match for one another. Our positives work very well together, and our dysfunctions do too, sadly. My ACE score is a 6, and I'm guessing his would be a 7. I am often in awe of his childhood. Our entire relationship was founded on very shakey grounds. I think I sought him out because he was emotionally distant and his anger and desire to control was something that I felt familiar with, and I could easily fall into "managing" my own emotions of sadness, anger, and disappointment. Of course there are lots of good things, too, but no one needs help figuring out how to fix the good. Now we have two very young sons. Most days, I feel that we are "alright," but I find that if he begins acting affectionate, sweet, or curious about me, I freak out and instantly do something that I know will make him angry and ruin the good mood. I think I'm just scared of getting my hopes up too high and then crashing even harder, so I'm pre-emptively wrecking things (our first two years together were fairly hellish, and we've really taken a turn for the better the past year). I desperately want to stop this because we have made SUCH good progress together, but feel like I need a mechanism, routine, or some sort of preparation for behaving in a way that is both honest and encouraging. I find that I typically am only able to stop doing bad behavior if I separate myself from my feelings, and while this seems to make everyone happy for a while, I'm worried that I haven't actually resolved anything and it's just a matter of time until I find another way to make sure that he is angry and overbearing and I am apologetic and the victim. We both still have enough negative emotions that I really want to be careful not to do anything to discourage us growing together in a healthy way. I have learned a lot from the FDR show, and it has really been quite eye-opening (and painful, tbh). I feel my heart doing this daily dance of growing and shrinking, and I am looking for a lifeline to save my sons and myself and my husband from silent misery and disconnect. I dream of the mutual joy and love that my husband and I at times share, and could share daily. Our family life has improved so very much with just me being more aware and purposeful, but I need guidance and don't trust any relationship advice from people around me or from the rest of the internet. Any tips for how to navigate this territory?

1. I wouldn't worry about the language issue as long as the government doesn't interfere, Switzerland are getting along perfectly fine, with 4 national languages, and with 1 lingua franca. I suspect polish won't be the lingua franca of the v4, and we can safely assume it won't be hungarian. For now, it is english, but it may become german, since pretty much everyone in slovenia and czechia is comfortable with german. My guess is that it will remain to be english. 2. As I said, the anglophone and francophone media have been silent on eastern europe for nearly 2 years. It may be extremely hard to get information. But he still doesn't seem curious, if you ask me. 1. Ok... There are a lot of misconceptions you have mentioned, probably hearing them from the leftist media that actually holds most of the power even in Hungary. Firstly, only 2 television networks are controlled by the government. The rest are pretty much bought and sold for by other interests of varying politics. Needless to say, I don't watch TV. 2. To your first point, the FIDESZ has been elected twice even before the migrant crisis, once with a majority, the second time with a supermajority. They may not have liked Orban, but they sure preferred him to everyone else. 3. The national debt is not increasing. It peaked in 2011 with 79.9%, in 2016 it was 73.4%. That is 1% decrease per year, better than most of the world. 4. I know many people who lest the country, and I wouldn't exactly say they are the most "skilled" or talented. This is just another leftist trope. In my view, the ones who love Hungary and are willing to work for results, they stay, while the leftist mob is leaving. 5. I'm going to have to see a lot of evidence for your claims written in bold, because I don't see it as the case. 6. I often hear lftist hungarians say that Orban just got lucky, or stole the memo from the Jobbik, or whatever. To be honest, it is getting annoying. The FIDESZ are criminals, sure, but they are still much better than everyone else in the EU. Unless you have an alternative, please spare your criticism of FIDESZ. I have an alternative, the return of the Habsburg Empire, but it is not too realistic for now. I still can't figure out why the V4 is not opting for secession. But maybe they know more than I do. It may be geopolitically dangerous to leave, either being threatened by Germany or Russia. Pretty sure there won't be a war over migrants, but the EU is definitely escalating.

@Goldenages Thanks, I appreciate your words and your constructivity. People like you strengthen my core belief. (make sure you don't bet on politicians, they're worse than greedy business people, at least they don't have the government as an older brother-bully to 'weigh in' on disputes. Always good to check if who you are going to vote for has actually made it independently, outside of politics, before having become a 'footsoldier' in a party.) Kind regards, Barnsley

About 3% of the population in the United States supported the Revolution. However, they didn't start from 0, there were institutions and relations in place before the actual revolution started. Pretty much like today, they had social networks where they shared ideas and organized themselves. The least you can do is to get in contact with people in your region that have a similar view, make connections and build up an infrastructure.

Its fun watching my own progression of ideas mirrored in honest and curious thinkers. I made the case long ago that an end cannot be achieved by means which contradict that end, but we should take care to really be sure what constitutes an actual contradiction. In the more dogmatic libertarians and anarchists, there is an interesting avoidance of history, of data. It tends to dwell more in ivory tower abstraction. I've had to point out numerous times the obvious to people, and this topic is one such time. People ask me how on earth I could ever "support" nationalism and still call myself an anarchist(I don't actually call myself that but it does derive from basic reasoning about morality). This is my answer: Suppose you were a peasant, or an early worker in the growing cities as industrialism overtook the artistocrats who could only institute poor houses as more and more people flowed into the cities during the 1600s. The promise of freedom grows as the will to enact it becomes more popular and acceptable in public discourse. Now also suppose you were a peasant of abnormal moral conscience, ahead of your time; you rejected all enslavement, not just your own. The slave trade would persist even as the monarchs fell away to the somewhat more limited democratic and constitutional republic governments on the horizon. Would you, a moral person, support the rise of western civilization out of serfdom even if what remained contained evil institutions? Would you reject the end of slavery and statist violence for many if a few still remained enslaved? Moral advancement does not come to humans in one giant leap from hell to heaven. Human history is an endless proof that we have come from evil origins to higher ground slightly less bloodied. We are crawling inch by inch over bodies to get to a truly civilized world. So, denying outright any choice that contains any element of evil as if it simply cannot bring us nearer to peace is to ignore all of human history. It doesn't mean any action is permitted, but it does mean we can't just categorically dismiss incremental improvement. So, as far as consequentialism is concerned, choosing nationalism in the face of globalism(and what is globalism but communism without the revolution?), cannot be categorically rejected. And we can also consider the logical case as well. Lets start with the assumption of the validity of the non-aggression principle, UPB, etc. Is there a contradiction in choosing a violent path? Not necessarily. Consider the annoying hypothetical of a train track with one person tied to one branch of a split and two people tied to the other. Some evil cartoon villain is forcing you to choose which will die by putting you in front of the switch as a train approaches. Are you commiting violence by throwing the switch to kill one person rather than two? No, you didn't set the events in motion that forced the choice upon you. It was the villain. And we aren't the ones putting us to the decision between the violent action of choosing nationalism or a multi-cultural banana republic. Maybe there is another choice but until it becomes apparant, I choose to do what I think gives us the best chance for a free and peaceful future.