Thanks to Billy, over on Dalrock.
Thanks to Billy, over on Dalrock.
This is a contribution from the aptly named “Seventies Jason”
I was born too late, I sweartagawd…
There is a one-line summary to the political question in the USA, in 2018. It is that the Democrats are learning from their mistakes, while the Gay Ol’ Party is committed to burning down headquarters, rather than ceding another inch to the voters who elected them.
While I was traveling for business purposes, an article appeared on Dalrock entitled Waning Pussy Power. The author concludes that:
I suspect an even bigger problem with the messaging is that the women trying to capitalize on the power of the pussy are making the very image seem ugly, not to mention downright frigid.
The blog often features brilliant rhetoric, but shallow analysis, and this is a good example. I suppose no one knows all the details about what’s really going on in D.C., unless he’s one of the key players, but we can make some educated guesses and get a fair picture of the inner machinations.
The Democrats are abandoning sexual/identity politics at the same time they elected their first Alabama senator in a couple of decades. This is not a coincidence. The Democrats won in Alabama by refusing to run a hostile bulldyke or weird tranny for office. Instead they promoted a sensible populist candidate named Doug Jones. The GOP arrogantly ran an oddball Ted Cruz type, who prayed into the microphone for a revolution after he was soundly defeated, and who has a long history of questionable sexual behavior. The Democrat is already voting along populist lines, proving himself more of a friend to President Trump than his GOP challenger likely would have been.
Both before and after the election of President Trump, the GOP trotted out George W Bush, to condemn Republican voters as bigots and fascists. To be sure, the Democrats did that for a few weeks, too. Unlike the Republicans, they aren’t total idiots, and are rapidly self-correcting.
Here’s Bernie Sanders, in Reading, PA, a few weeks ago. (Skip ahead to about 52:00)
Bernie is now filling auditoriums to capacity, and I’ve seen a couple of these rallies. They’re all possessed of the same energy Donald Trump harnessed before the election, which he has now abandoned. Bernie seems to specifically address the voters who elected Donald Trump, telling them directly that they aren’t motivated by race hatred. They had real concerns that he identifies with. Occasionally, liberal ideologues or antifa in the audience will catcall Trump supporters. Bernie always makes a point to stop speaking, and tell the hecklers to shut the fuck up. He goes on to say that he understands why people elected Donald Trump, and uses soundbites to remind the audience of the promises Trump made, before the election. Things like universal health care, a commission to resolve the student loan crisis, hardball negotiations with big pharmaceutical corporations, reducing the wasteful size of our military footprint, and cutting freebies to defense contractors.
A year into the Trump administration, and we don’t have a border wall. We don’t have universal health care. We don’t have a moratorium on refugees. Trump did negotiate lower prices on some too-expensive jets with Lockheed Martin, but that seems to have been largely theatrical. He also managed to pass an almost universally hated tax bill, which benefits nobody but the large corporations he promised to go into battle with. Had Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Hillary Clinton been elected, it’s doubtful there would be any meaningful differences today.
Bernie is largely free of the horrendous optics of the Clintons, a couple consisting of a hateful dyke, married to a serial rapist (who lately looks about as healthy as Matthew McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club). He also has a track record of speaking out to secure the borders, and limit attacks on the second amendment. These are the reasons that he is out leading the rallies to revive his party.
Speaking of the Clintons, Donna Brazile authored a book entitled Hacks, which is a pretty good read. It exposes the sleaze, corruption, and parasitism of these grifters, condemning their takeover of the Democratic party, and urging reform. In response, structural changes are underfoot to slash the number of superdelegates, and bind their votes. The Republican party is also rigged (as Donald Trump said himself), but no such self-awareness is visible there. The GOP party leadership is made up of nepotistic lackeys (including a couple of Mitt Romney’s relatives) who promise business as usual.
To the extent that there remains a mainstream/business wing of the Democratic party, it’s likely going to be led by someone like Barack Obama, rather than Hillary Clinton. This is also a positive change. Barack Obama was never an America Firster, but he was elected twice on populist merits. His first victory was against a foul-mouthed degenerate named John McCain, who promised to launch a nuclear first strike against Russia. His second victory was against Mormon trash-person Mitt Romney, who arrogantly told the working-class that they didn’t matter. This misconception remains inexcusable, as Mitt Romney has never done a day of productive work in his life.
I suppose that “conservatism is dead” is a vacuous truth. To the extent that there is a conservatism in America, it has ceased to be a motivator for Americans; yet, the word has always been a floating signifier. There has never been a conservative manifesto, nor has there been any consistent positions, other than perhaps serving the interests of the super rich, the energy industry, and big agriculture.
Populism is inevitable, as Sanders’ rallies demonstrate. Sanders isn’t going to give nationalists everything they want, but that shouldn’t matter, since the GOP has promised to fight Trump voters to the bitter end, and leave them with nothing. Trump voters are wise to this sort of thing, and I predict big Democrat victories in 2018, as they make the sensible choice to ally and make deals with people who are open to at least talking to them honestly.
A few months ago, some batshit crazy wimminz baked two of her four kids in the oven. She shot video of it, and sent it to the father. Amazingly, the New York Post broke protocol, and quoted the poor guy.
Now, we can scoff at Jameel’s poor grammar, and talk about the objectively bad choices he was making, as he chose this skank-ho cunt to be the mother of his two children; but, everyone’s a genius in hindsight-analysis, and it’s hard for me to feel anything but pity for him.
I could easily see Mr. Penn as a dumb but earnest young guy. He may have been raised by a similar feral skank-ho wimminz, who taught him to hate all men (including himself). In other words, he coulda been me.
Jameel probably knew this bitch was nuts, but like all wimminz, I’m sure she put on a good show until she (oops!) got pregnant the first time. By the time the first boy was born, Jameel may have thought this bitch was the best he could do. Maybe he saw the writing on the wall, but figured his genes were already expressed, and he wanted to be around for as long as he could, so he jumped through the bitch’s hoops for a while, and knocked her up with a second baby. In a world with no good choices, I might have done the same. It seems likely that Ja’Karter’s birth gave the murderess no further use for Mr. Penn, and he was kicked to the curb with her old tampons.
On a more general note, there’s always the old saw about journalists being corrupt sociopaths, who lie for pageviews/ad revenue/copies sold. I don’t know what would sell more copy than this real-life horror story… yet it has been effectively buried. Maybe the Atlanta press reported on it. I never heard about it. Front page headlines, candlelight vigils and national conversations are safe space for feminists, and this doesn’t fit the profile of one of their approved stories to harp on ad nauseum.
Mizz Williams will likely be let out of prison in a few short years, and if she does get any national attention, it will be to call for better funding for single moms, so that this tragedy never happens again. She will be made into the victim, while Jameel is reviled. Rinse and repeat.
Young men need to fully internalize this process, because while it’s not common, it does happen. In an age where wimminz like this one exist, it’s imperative that it not happen to you or your kids. That entails using your very best judgment before entanglement occurs.
A while back, I ran across a paper entitled Women as Proactive Transmitters of Culture. This is a work by an identifiable student, so I won’t be addressing the author or the contents directly. There is really no need to do so, because a whole genre of poorly-conducted, stupid pseudo-research exists, authored by similar feminists, who propose that worthwhile culture is transmitted through mothers to children, fathers being unnecessary.
Is this true?
It’s not true, but, we should begin by acknowledging that we are painting in broad strokes (unlike the feminists who usually posit the contrary position) and exceptions exist. Even so, a general trait specific to human females is a narrow focus on the here and now, with little energy left to worry about cultural transmission across generations.
I believe that human beings were designed this way on purpose. Unlike most other members of the animal kingdom, the human infant spends a prolonged period of time totally helpless, and its brain develops outside the womb. This has a number of specific advantages, but it also requires an intact family to see it through to adulthood. Men and women were designed to pair up and mate (whether they were created by a God to do this, or wired up by natural selection to do it, is really beside the point).
Men and women are designed to survive and raise children in social groups, with a father and mother as the minimal core. This is the optimal way to live and survive in a hostile world, and it’s the best way to transmit one’s genes across time. The differences that men and women exhibit (both physical and behavioral) are meant for expression in this context. As husband and wife bring different skills to the table, they find life easier.
Even so, some of our complex behaviors are not hard-wired in the way that our instinctual drives to mate and couple up are. Culture is defined by complex behavior, and the absence of this core social group, a father and a mother, working together, derails cultural memory and transmission entirely.
Women tend to exhibit no interest in transmitting cultural norms into the future, because that tends to be inborn in men. Women tend to better than men at many things (short-term memory, immediate verbal acuity, etc.) but this is not one of them.
The evidence for this is anecdotal, as no serious institution dares to challenge the feminist “fathers are worthless” rhetoric. Even so, we need only venture into the ghetto housing project or the trailer park to see the sort of “rich culture” and “complex behavior” which is transmitted by single-moms to their children.
In my experiences as a white dude, who has occasionally lived in the midst of a bunch of white single-mothers, the racial differences so important to the manosphere do not compensate for lack of a father. White kids who are raised by single-mothers overwhelmingly turn out to be emotionally stunted, shiftless idiots. They’re much more likely to be into escapism (drugs and alcohol), truancy and petty crime at adolescence. Some of them become “nazi skinheads” in an effort to give their mindless rebellion an abstract meaning, but this is cosmetic. One of the Stormfront kids who used to commit car burglaries in my old neighborhood had a black girlfriend. Hilariously, neither he nor his crew seemed to realize the contradiction.
Black or white, fatherless children tend to resemble other species of apes, more than their civilized human counterparts. They’re violent, unable to delay gratification, incapable of effective communication, and unable to concentrate for more than five minutes.
The feminists who read this will immediately trot out some high-profile counterexample – usually the child of some millionaire celebrity single mom. It is true that in isolated cases, fatherless children can grow up without significant problems, but I’ve found these specimens always came from homes with the income to outsource the father’s job to various surrogates: coaches, scout-leaders, etc. Most single mothers do not have the means to approach this level of output, and most of them aren’t self-aware enough to know that it’s necessary, thanks to the feminists who constantly tell them that they can do it on their own. Moreover, it’s a horribly inefficient way to raise children. All a woman has to do is to marry a good earner, and she saves hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime, for the process of civilizing and enculturating her kids, which comes naturally to such men.
Thanks to our brother Honeycomb, who brings us this inspiring story of an empowered single mother, who brutally tortured her two children to death, before having the decency to save the taxpayer the cost of a trial. From Daily Fail:
A North Carolina woman killed her two young children and then took her own life by leaping from a bridge onto an interstate highway over the weekend.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department says they were called at around 5.40pm on Saturday after the woman landed onto Interstate 485.
Christina Elizabeth Treadway, 34, was pronounced dead at the scene after jumping from the Old Gun Branch Road bridge.
Setting aside the obvious question, as to why we have to turn to reporters in the UK for a domestic story, (blackout, anyone?) we will note that, as is the custom among American media, the father of these children is not interviewed in the piece. He’s not even named. Why not?
Police have classified the incident as a double homicide-suicide. The father of the slain siblings has been notified and he is not considered a person of interest.
It seems to be an absolute standard never to acknowledge the surviving victims in these too-common incidents.
The fact that dad has been ruled out as a suspect so quickly can lead us to some interesting conclusions. My guess is that he has been out of the picture for quite a while. Most likely, he was told by a faggot judge at the divorce courts to get lost, after the state had divided his entire estate between itself and his violent skank of a wife. He likely lives hours away, and probably had very little contact with his own kids.
Christina Treadway: Just another proud single mom, doing her best…
Alienation takes many forms, and one of the most pronounced happens at the level of the family group.
In 1850, before industrial capitalism changed the social and political landscape, most Americans lived on small farms, in large nuclear families. This correlated to living in close proximity to other, closely related, large nuclear families.
If you grew up in 1850, you were likely to have four or five siblings. The families would likely settle on neighboring (or, at least, approximate) farms. When you reached marrying age, around the time of the civil war, you’d have four to six kids yourself, as would your other four or five siblings. Thus your own kids would likely have twenty-five cousins, living at most a day’s ride away.
Cooperative networks were formed between kin. This was an important bit of social insurance that immunized the individual from all manner of risks, even as it constrained him from giving way to his baser instincts (at least in public).
Graphic courtesy of qz dot com.
Today, even as we are infinitely more mobile, the average family has two children, and it is unusual to find a family with five children.