Older Moms And Divorced Moms Raising Generation Of Psychopaths?

Adam Lanza, the school shooter, shot his divorced and single mom — the mother who raised him — four times in the head before embarking on his journey of mental disassociation from reality. Her face must surely have been rendered a mash of unrecognizable pulp.

Four times. Point blank. In the head. You don’t do that unless you possess some serious unresolved rage against the mother. This kid hated his mom with a passion, and we can only guess why now that he’s dead. But clues abound.

First, older moms are more likely to spawn autistic kids. Most autistitards are harmless, but some with severe handicaps to relate as normal human beings are powderkegs in an increasingly atomized society that they find impossible to manage or even comprehend.

Second, the mom was divorced. Children of divorced parents and female-headed homes are at much higher risk for delinquency, jail, and violent crime. Lanza’s pop was paying his ex-wife a tidy some of money (which she did not earn, let’s not forget) to keep her spendthrift ass afloat. We can surmise that the mom was so fucking crazy that the father had no choice but to get away from her, or that he was SO BETA she pulled the trigger on the divorce and cast Adam’s father to the modern equivalent of the icy wastelands. Single moms be warned: If your kid thinks you gave his dad a raw deal, he is going to resent you for life. Maybe a few of those kids of divorced moms lack the normal social outlets to release that building resentment, and it comes out all at once in a violent episode.

As the child of a divorced, single mom, Adam Lanza had the deck stacked against him.

Studies cannot prove conclusively that fatherlessness—or any other factor—actually causes people to commit crimes. For that, you’d have to do the impossible: take a large group of infants and raise each of them simultaneously in two precisely equivalent households—except one would be headed by a father and mother and the other by a lone mother. But by comparing criminals of the same race, education, income, and mother’s education whose primary observable difference is family structure, social scientists have come as close as they can to making the causal case with the methodological tools available.

This isn’t entirely a story about genes, either. Single momhood has skyrocketed in the last forty years, and there is no allele that can account for that. Such a rise in a short time is driven by cultural and social pressures.

The answer to the Adam Lanzas of the world is not gun confiscation, that fool’s panacea so beloved by the cathedral leftoids who would like nothing more than a completely defanged white middle class and working class. (Hint: Adam acquired his guns illegally.) The answer is not easy, but it is within sight. A multifactorial approach that re-institutionalizes the primacy of the two-parent biological nuclear family and the social nee genetic cohesion of the nation, and which discourages late-in-life strugglepreggers by aging SWPL moms is some of the harsh, potent medicine that will begin to fix the ailing body politic.

I won’t be holding my breath for any member in good standing of the snarkerati to grapple with this medicine in any meaningful way. Which is why I remain, respectfully, toes a-dippin’, poolside.

Read Full Post »

How To Reframe Against Leftists (And Women)

A commenter at Mangan’s linked to a recent 60 Minutes segment which discussed study findings that babies are born with a moral compass and innate biases against people (or things) not like themselves. In short, it would appear that in-groupism, and hostility to the Other, is inborn in all of us.

Favoritism for one’s own kind and racism are, not to put too fine a point on it, a property of human nature and not something “taught” or constructed out of whole cloth by mean parents, the KKK, or afrocentric studies professors. This property can certainly be amplified or dampened by cultural intervention, but it cannot be eradicated or wished away.

In-groupism has evolved for a reason, and that reason likely led to an increase in reproductive fitness for those humans who had the gene(s) for in-groupism. In-groupism is, from the gene’s point of view, a GOOD THING. Now whether in-groupism is still as fitness maximizing today as it necessarily has been throughout human history is another question, but no one can seriously argue that it’s a pointless emotional reflex only designated “bad people” (read: working class white men) possess. If you need the dots connected, tribal favoritism is as natural as love.

As I am a person who generally prefers to not make life miserable for the mediocre masses who are just trundling by trying to eke out a slice of joy without stepping on my toes, I instinctively recoil at those self-righteous social engineers who would attempt to reprogram certain classes of people (read: working class white men) to betray their essence as human beings in order to more properly mouth the hypocritical bleatings of the gated-community pompous elite. So, inevitably, when some malevolent leftists seize on these studies and deliberately misconstrue the message they should be taking from them to further their anti-human status whoring agenda, I draw my sword and level it at their throats.

Since beheading of one’s ideological enemies is not yet (again) in fashion, we must settle for the weapon of our words, and no verbal artillery is more powerful in today’s snark-soaked society than the insouciant reframe. A successful reframe will win friends and influence people, and, best of all, it will drive your foes insane with impotent rage.

To wit: the commenter at Mangan’s worried that our leftist overlords would misuse this study for their nefarious ends, instead of taking the proper lesson from it that their unpracticed worldview is a mile high pile of horseshit.

Babies are born to be biased against the other. And to listen to these PC Marxist Professors going ‘Oh no, we have to train these people out of this’. Instead of saying wait a minute–maybe I’m wrong about political correctness.

How would your typical ankle-grabbing rightie like, oh, say, Rich Lowry, reply to a ruling class leftist who asserted that any proof of hard-wired racism meant that emotionally torturous reeducation must continue until morale improves? Likely, he would comply that steps must be taken to reduce the chance that inborn racism would lead to immigration restrictions, but that we must also be careful not to place any blame on [white men] for their regressive views because, after all, they were born with this original sin, blah fucking blah.

No doubt the mass of mainstream “””conservatives””” would fall right in step with their leftie tormentors’ frames, presenting their chafed rumps for yet another humiliating ramming.

Now how would this conversation go if the ruling class leftie had to confront an aloof asshole like yours truly who didn’t give a shit about clinking glasses with rancid anti-white leftoids at stiffly polite cocktail parties?

Leftoid: “Oh no, we have to train [white men] out of this.”

Demon’s Herald: “Sure, and while we’re at it, what do you think of training gays out of their homosexuality? It’ll cut down on the AIDS if the studies are to be believed.”

The masterful reframe uses the momentum of your enemy’s thrusting knife against him. Your goal with any reframe should be to either divert the withering mockery of the audience toward your opponent, or to ensnare your opponent in a logic trap which forces him to defend whatever blithe inanity he intones to lubricate his limbic folds.

It is similar in function to seductive reframes with women: you either redirect a woman’s alpha probing into self-conscious insecurity where she will revert to defending her attitude and become psychologically conditioned to perceive you as higher value than herself, or you make her feel the burn of mockery that is the undercurrent of teasing foreplay leading to sexual relinquishment to your obvious dominating presence.

Here’s another example. A commenter at Larry Auster’s accurately imagines what a typical anti-white leftoid (in this case, John Podhoretz) would say to a realist schooled in the facts of intransigent human nature and the evolved preference for tribalism:

You [Auster] wrote:

“But humanity does not consist of universal individuals. It consists of various cultures, ethnicities, and races all of which have particular identities, characteristics, ability levels, values, and agendas which are different from those of the host society. As a result, the mass presence of those different groups in the host society, far from advancing right-liberal equal freedom, empowers their unassimilable identities, characteristics, ability levels, values, and agendas, and thus changes the host country from a right-liberal society into a multicultural, left-liberal, racial-socialist society whose ruling principle is equality of outcome for all groups.”

To which Podhoretz pere et fils would surely reply, “Why do you hate freedom?”

How does a weak-willed, supplicating, betaboy “””conservative””” like, oh, say, Jim Geraghty, respond to this all-too-realistic, imagined Podhoretz coercive frame? Probably something like this: “I don’t hate freedom! Really, I don’t! Look, some of my best friends are freedom lovers. And I promise never again to use the word slut, no matter how applicable it is. Be kind to me?”

Lame. Podhoretz owns the frame, and Geraghty is just playing within its bounds.

Now how would this imagined yet highly probable conversation go if Podhoretz were trying to box in a mischief maker like yours sincerely?

Pod: “Why do you hate freedom?”

Demon’s Padawan: “Why do you fellate goats?”

Leftoid’s frame destroyed, razed by brutal and vicious ridicule, and, should the demonic horde so choose, seamlessly replaced with a frame of their comfortable choosing.

Some GOP operatives who shall remain unnamed have written here asking for ideas about reframing against the media-dominated leftism that rules the airwaves and the shit channels. Well, here are some ideas. I could give more, but I don’t feel much like it, mostly because I have my suspicions that the lot of the mainstream right isn’t really interested in LISTENING and WAKING THE FUCK UP, but instead would prefer the glass-clinking route until either the whole thing goes down in flames or they can grab the coattails of a truly brave leader and say “See, I was right there with you all along!”

Fucking puling waterboys. Ass-lapping company men.

Anyhow, I leave you with this final thought: Mockery.

Mockery.

And more mockery.

This is the age of superficiality, of winning through intimidation, and the only way the right is ever going to defeat the left in any meaningful manner is to mock them relentlessly, mercilessly, sadistically. You cannot defeat snark — the leftoid’s debate tactic of choice — with logical exposition or appeals to civility. You only kill it by turning it on itself. If you think this is a sorry turn of events… well, it is, but it’s the world we live in. Abide reality, or abort. The reality is that three huge branches of mind massaging — the media, academia, and government — are in control of the discourse, and it is blatantly against your interests as a realist thinker and lover of truth and beauty.

Appeasement is a luxury of winners.

Even then, even if the right took all my advice and gamed the shit out of their media cockblocks and the LJBF electorate, there may be no saving this sinking ship. Even the tightest game is no match for a demographic tsunami that is constitutionally wedded to the idea of Big Daddy State and Bad, Beta White Man.

As always,

yours in poolside.

Read Full Post »

Why Single White Women Vote Overwhelmingly For Democrats

I left this comment over at GL Piggy’s, on a post about election predictions. I think it is worth reprinting here (with additional commentary) because of its timeliness.

PA: “In reality, young white women’s pro-Obama leanings are a factor of their feminine/nurturer pity for a omegas for which “poor blacks,” “inner city single moms” and other such are a stand-in in their minds.”

There is this. In actuality, I think it is a confluence of three psychological factors that pushes a huge majority of single white women into the arms of Dem pols. (Single NAM women follow the gibsmedat principle almost exclusively.)

1. As PA states, women have an inborn disposition toward nurturance, and the pity is strong in them. I think women get off a little on feeling pity and sympathy for others, and feeling needed by the less fortunate. This is why so many women flock to work in the human despair services fields, like nursing or teaching. Married women also have this nurturance instinct, but it is redirected to their own families, which turns their moral focus inward to the center ring of the concentric rings of genetic distance and moral regard. This in effect makes them more GOP friendly (and more sane from a societal perspective), and we see this reflected in the polls.

2. As Whiskey states (well, speaking on the record, as *I* originally stated), single women’s prime directive is to fulfill their hypergamous impulse for the highest possible status man they can coax into long-term commitment. The party that is perceived as being pro-unrestricted female sexuality, anti-male sexuality, and anti-drone beta male is going to get their vote. You would probably not be surprised to learn that not only do single white SWPL chicks just automatically ASSUME everyone in their social circle is an Obama cultist (yours truly gets a pass because CHARMING BASTARD), the first thing that pops in their heads when you ask them why they’re voting for Obama is usually something along the lines of “Romney wants to take away my birth control”. Yeah, these are educated women saying this. Thanks suffrage!

The fact is, marriage advocacy (and earlier marriage) is bad for young women’s sexual market value leverage, (but good for older married women’s SMV leverage who, it should be noted, were the original pro-monogamy constituents and advocates). A party that embodies the single and seeking alpha cock in the city lifestyle will appeal to them. The party which is perceived (facts don’t really matter in politics) as pushing women to settle down early with a reliable company man and start popping out future video gamers is anathema to the single, economically self-sufficient, white woman sensibility.

3. Finally, and perhaps most saliently, single white women see Big Daddy State as a beta provider husband substitute. This has nothing to do with pity for the downtrodden masses and everything to do with “how much money and services I can redirect my way with an assist from the white knight contingent”. The single white woman who delays family formation finds herself battling her ancient subterranean limbic rhythms which always and everywhere guide her to seek out potential mates who could provide resources for her and her children, particularly when she is burdened by pregnancy and mostly unable (at least as would have been the case in the ancestral environment) to fully provide for herself. The single white woman, lacking the beta provider hubby (ironically, mostly by her own hand) seeks to fill his absence with the alternative — the looming Big Man tribal leader, which in modern America is the federal government, and its shaman is Obama. Women are naturally redistributionist because women are naturally self-aggrandizing and self-entitled, as befits their higher reproductive worth. And, more controversially, a very bad man like myself would say that women are naturally comfortable in quasi-harem arrangements, which is what the single woman concubine-government alpha provider relationship amounts to. And just like an alpha provider/protector, the government is very good at forcibly extracting tribute from the beta male masses.

On this last factor, the American growth industry of single moms is certainly pushing the country in a more redistributionist direction, because no demographic outside of blacks, gays and Hispanics is more generally and reliably pro-government handout than the single mom with kids to feed and no dad around to help out.

Alert the media! The stereotypes are true! Sanitization Protocol… activated.

In effect, Big Government is at once the alpha male tribal leader and the beta provider sucker who happily assumes the cuckold role as step-father to the single mom’s cadbaggage.

Now, the final, and most emotionally laden, variable in this equation is the black man angle. Both sides in this long-running debate have their points. My take from ground-level recon is that the people claiming single white women love alpha black men are overstating their case, and the people claiming single white women would never think of hooking up with “lower class, less accomplished, thug” black men are overstating theirs. White women do find plenty of black men physically exciting. And smarter white women do hesitate to date black men because of a very reasonable fear that, should a warpling issue from the union (this is always in the back of women’s minds, despite the easy availability of contraceptives), the black man will be less likely than the white man to stick around and care for her in her time of need.

As far as a I can tell, contra white nationalist hopes and dreams, single white women have ZERO concept of loyalty for their white men. Try to explain to your typical single white woman about the importance of loyalty to her men and of the idea of genetically preserving the white race’s unique winning attributes, and you may as well be a Martian spurting goo all over her. Now, in practice, one could argue that unmarried white women exercise a de facto loyalty to their men, because most white chicks date white men, and studies have shown that white women are the most resistant to dating outside their race. But how long will this hold? Census data points to a slow but inexorable increase in out-marrying and out-dating by white women (and white men). If there is some subconscious racial loyalty or primal preference acting to steer the tingles of single white women (and I believe there is), it is showing signs of withering under a coordinated cultural assault that has made even broaching the topic the equivalent of condemning oneself to the social gulag.

Btw, from a tingles-first perspective, a lot of white women thought Bill Clinton was way sexier than they currently think of Barack Obama’s sex appeal. This isn’t a looks or race thing… Bill just had more sensual, oozing charm than Barry. Chicks dig charming mofos.

Barring total collapse, I don’t see this trend:

…ending anytime soon. (Nice battering ram arms, Fluke.) So you may as well recline poolside, while the pool is still filled with water and chlorinated.

PS My election prediction:

It’s a toss-up, so I won’t bother picking a winner. I predict the popular vote and electoral college vote will split, with all that entails (yay, riots!)

I will confidently predict that most of the demographic vote ratios will remain roughly the same as they have for the past few election cycles.

Single white women will vote 60-40 Obama.
Single moms will vote 75-25 Obama.
Blacks will vote 98-2 Obama.
Hispanics of Amerindian ancestry will vote 65-35 Obama.
Asian-Americans will vote 70-30 Obama.
Ruling class elites will vote 70-30 Obama.
Libertarians will vote 70-30 Obama (such independent free-thinkers, those libertarians!).
Self-professed feminists will prove their non-conformist bona fides by voting 100-0 Obama.
Single beta males will vote 55-45 Romney (still beta, still white knighting).
Married white men will vote 80-20 Romney (this shift will be bigger than polls are currently projecting).
Married white women will vote 55-45 Romney.
Pickup artists will not vote. They got better things to do.

A lot of white men and white married couples are going to break for Romney, but the social and racial and familial demographics of the country are moving with such force in the opposite direction that the white man vote, no matter how consolidated, is going to eventually get swamped by the undertow and rendered irrelevant for many, many election cycles to come (assuming there will continue to be a country in existence that is capable of holding elections). When the white man “wakes up” to this fact, I predict secession movements will sprout up all around the country, descaling the nation to more socially and tribally congenial entities. But most of us reading this will be dead by that time. And it will be too late, regardless. In the meantime, expect populism to rise again, and tariffs to become the talk of the townhall. A billion Chinese is a lot of surplus cheap labor to churn through before wages equilibrate. There will be blood in the interim.

Read Full Post »

“What Does It Matter To You?”

“What does it matter to you?” is a common refrain of indignation you’ll often hear from equalists and their phylum. It’s part of the remedial school of philosophical thought that says if a personal action is not directly hurting anyone else, then no moral opprobrium can apply to it. So typically if you get into a debate with a feminist or manboob, it will go like this:

You: Feminist action or behavior [X] is stupid, counterproductive, and rife with externalities.

Equalist felching champ: It’s not hurting anyone, so what does it matter to you?

For a prime example of the genre, here’s a comment by aneroidocean (so pretentious) complaining about the post on mannish female Olympians:

So what is a woman [to do] that wasn’t blessed with wider hips and narrower shoulders? Die quietly?

Gotta love the reductio ad absurdum. A classic leftie feint. You could parry by employing simple logic — “pointing out the fact of masculinized female athletes is not the same as arguing for the prohibition of women in sports” — or you could rightfully conclude that simple logic would zoom right over the heads of such emotional crybabies and choose the mockery route instead:

“No, they should die screaming in agony forced to listen to your pussy whining.”

What does it matter if she competes in the Olympics?

Wuss, there it is. “What does it matter to you?!??????? Somebody call the whaaaambulance! A feeling has been hurt!”

The issue being raised was never about how much it personally mattered to me, or affected my own life. That’s the problem with you unthinking liberals — you always want to reframe an argument you find distasteful, or you find yourself on the losing end of, into a personal matter, a position from which it’s easier for you to morally strut and preen and preach fire and brimstone from your tawdry little masturbatoriums.

The morality, or lack thereof, of manned-up women competing in the Olympics is not the point of the Olympic female athlete post. No one’s rights are abridged if some manly swole she-beast hoists 400 lbs above her head, nor is any moral law du jour violated. The point here is to remind the losers and equalists and assorted anti-realists that there is nothing inherently empowering about female sports participation unless one defines empowerment as “becoming more man-like”. It is also to address, honestly and truthfully, the obvious fact that a lot of female athletes are just quasi-men, in appearance, musculature and temperament. Therefore, the encouragement of women by the media industrial complex into elite sports mostly rests on a foundation of denying women their feminine essence. A nation that wasn’t fucked in the head with an overload of kumbaya horseshit would not shy away from this bald truth of the reality of sex differences, and would realign its cultural incentives so that a proper balance was restored, reflecting innate biological reality, until sports programs and funding return to what they once were: mostly geared toward men. At the very least, the feminist propagandizing of female sports empowerment has to end, and hand-wringing over “equal representation” needs to become a shameful relic from this ugly, god-willing bygone era.

Read Full Post »

Why Women’s Sports Get Less Primetime Coverage

The sports in which women compete that aren’t silly and that are actually fun to watch suffer from the problem of going head-to-head with a much better viewing alternative: namely, the men’s versions of those sports. Because, let’s just cut to the chase, at the elite level of sports (and, really, at all levels of sport except pee-wee), men are, on average, simply faster and stronger than women. Why the hell would anyone of sound mind want to watch a gimped version of his favorite sport when a more electrifying version already exists? This elementary logic escapes the feminist hivemind.

Furthermore, many of the sports in which women compete and men don’t, and which are tailored to women’s particular strengths, are unwatchable by dint of being retarded. See: synchronized swimming. There are only a handful of female-oriented “””sports””” that women compete in at a pro or semi-pro level which garner fairly large, if transient, audiences on par with the audiences that men’s sports regularly achieve. Figure skating is one example (and that mostly because women like the fact it is set to music and colorful, bedazzled costumes are worn).

Really, the only reason men choose to watch women’s sports at all is for prurient reasons, such as the exciting but rare glimpse of a wardrobe malfunction, or the slo-mo replay of pertly bottomed volleyball players diving into the sand. Otherwise, men will pass up women’s sports as long as a men’s sport is on another channel. The dirty little secret is that, among the subset of women who legitimately like watching sports, most of them will also prefer to watch the male versions of their favorite events.

I’m not anti-female athletics. Women should compete in sports, especially femininity-sharpening individual sports rather than competition-emphasizing team sports, primarily to sculpt their figures into beautiful, sexy visages that will help attract the attention of alpha males. Stay focused, ladies.

Read Full Post »

The Ideology Of Powerlessness

In a post over at GLPiggy about “The Soapboxroom” and Aaron Sorkin’s deliberate distortion of gun control statistics, a thought occurs about the mentality of the type of people whose natural reflex is to default to excusing thugs and disarming potential victims.

This mentality is the ideology of powerlessness. When faced with a threat, a person with this child-like psychological profile instinctually resorts to finding ways to strip power from himself and others, and to elevate helplessness to a noble virtue. People who think this way share commonalities with equalists, some liberals, leftists and women. Stockholm Syndrome is an extreme manifestation of the powerlessness ideology.

Those pointing to statistics purporting to demonstrate the downsides of power — in this case, the power inherent in owning a gun and its implication in accidental shootings — miss the point: the downsides of power are still better than the downsides of powerlessness. Do you want to leave your fate in the hands of the powerful, who often don’t have your interests in heart, or do you want power for yourself so that you may exert a measure of control over your own life?

Anyone who wants more control and power over the trajectory and outcome of his life needs to avoid powerlessness peddlers like the plague.

Read Full Post »

Do Conservatives And Liberals Have A Look?

“Certain people look more leftist than others,” Breivik said in his final day of testimony at his trial for the murder of the 69 victims on Utoya and eight others in a bombing in Oslo. “This person appeared right-wing, that was his appearance. That’s the reason I didn’t fire any shots at him.

“When I looked at him I saw myself.”

This story about Norway mass murderer Anders Breivik claiming he could tell which of his targets looked like leftists got me thinking about something I’ve noticed as well: liberals and conservatives, at least in America, do seem to have a look specific to their ideology, and this look goes beyond just their style of dress. The faces of lefties and righties are, as a very general rule, different looking. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly how they differ; suffice to say, this is an inexact science, and whatever association there is between facial structure and politics is probably a weak one with plenty of overlap, and likely breaks down along race.

Nevertheless, there’s something there to the observation. Pressed to provide detail, I might say that leftist men look softer, have bigger eyes and fuller lips, and weaker jawlines. Righist men look tougher, have narrower, opaque eyes, thinner lips and heavier jawlines. The critical difference is in the eyes; the stand-out feature of lefties are their limpid, watery eyes, always looking on the verge of weeping. Visualize Barney Frank or Al Franken vs Clint Eastwood or Mitt Romney.

If you think this description of leftist men makes them seem more feminine or more intelligent, well… draw your own conclusions.

Here’s a pic of the guy Breivik thought looked like a rightie dude (foreground).

Read Full Post »