Tag: Darkstream

Why Mothers Matter

The Darkstream tonight was inspired by some thoughts on Mother’s Day and the signal importance that mothers play in defending and sustaining Western civilization.

The 2007 column I mentioned, The Mother’s War, can be read here.

And since the verdict was distinctly pro-excerpt, I’m including one on a tangentially related topic from Innocence & Intellect, 2001-2005 (The Collected Columns). I figure I’ll try to do 2-3 per week. This 2003 column proved to be an extremely controversial one and got me invited on several radio shows after its publication, including a Canadian one where all the callers lined up to take angry shots at me. Good times.

EXCERPT:


Spiting their pretty faces
February 3, 2003

A recent story floating around the variety section of a newspaper I still read occasionally reminded me of a conversation I had with a college girlfriend about six months ago. She’s a pretty woman—slender, petite, well-educated and intelligent. She has an excellent, high-paying job and even owns her own house.

She is, in short, the epitome of feminist success. And yet, she is profoundly disappointed with her life. She has, in her own words, continued to stumble upwards while somehow missing out on the only thing she truly wanted—a husband and a family.

Nor is she alone, in anecdotal or statistical terms. Not only do the majority of women who were in our college social circle remain unmarried, but according to Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, author of “Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman”, a 30-something woman is three times more likely to be unmarried than her 1970’s counterpart. While some might argue that this is a good thing, most demographics experts would disagree, as would, it appears, an awful lot of those 30-something single women.

While Whitehead correctly identifies the general problem, she is as clueless as the next feminist as to how to go about solving it. Instead of recommending that individuals change the one thing within their power—namely, their behavior—she advocates altering the entire system of courtship. Given this typically fascistic feminist approach, I am, of course, shocked that her six 30-something daughters and nieces all remain available.

But, as I told my friend, the root of the problem is that the kind of man she wants is precisely the man who is smart enough to stay away from her. Smart, educated women aren’t willing to date down on the social scale, so the higher they rise, the more they cut down on their available pool of men.

Furthermore, the smarter a man is, the more he is likely to realize that being romantically involved with an intelligent, educated, upper-middle-class American woman steeped in 20 years of feminist indoctrination is about as desirable as being flayed alive and rolled in salt.

Consider the premarital professions of the women in my social circle, all of whom are now stay-at-home moms happily married to intelligent, successful men: Farmgirl. Nanny. Teacher. Office manager. Nanny. Pipeline worker. Professional student. Church volunteer. That’s eight quality men who won’t be marrying a high-powered career girl right there.

The advice I gave my friend was succinct: In any given dating situation, think about what your instincts are telling you—then do the opposite. It’s like football… if the run is getting stuffed, then throw the darn ball.

So, in the unlikely event there happens to be a 30-something single woman reading this, here are a few pointers which might be helpful while you wait for Ms. Dafoe Whitehead and company to change the dating culture:

  • Your rights are delineated in the Constitution. Everything else is a privilege.
  • Your family has to put up with you. For everyone else, it’s optional.
  • Southern belles always get what they want. Watch and learn, grasshopper.
  • Sex as an incentive is fair enough. Using its deprivation as a punishment will backfire hideously.
  • Mocking your man in public creates a no-win situation. He can either slice and dice you verbally, which is no fun for you, or keep his mouth shut and look like an idiot. In the case of the latter, it doesn’t mean that you’ve won, or that he’s forgotten.
  • Men love happy women. Act happy and you may discover how to be happy.
  • If there’s any doubt, choose the most optimistic interpretation. That’s what he meant.
  • Honey, honey, honey—a thousand times honey. Never vinegar.
  • Conflict is not passion. It isn’t any fun, either.
  • Limit yourself to five complaints and demands a day. If you’re not counting, you’re over the limit.
  • If no one ever taught you the traditional arts, find an older woman to be your mentor.
  • Your feelings and objectively verifiable facts may be different. Learn to distinguish between them.

Now, I’m not saying that applying these principles to your dating scene will turn frogs into princes or anything, but they will get you in the game. And if all else fails, just tell your next first date that you’re thinking of quitting your job and returning to your former career as an aerobics instructor.

He’ll be intrigued, trust me.

Darkstream: no vindication for the establishment

Even the media recognizes that there has been a massive shift in the political divide in Europe, as in the USA, from Classical Liberal vs Socialist to Nationalist vs Globalist.

A Le Pen loss, however, will hardly be a knockout blow for populism — or a ringing vindication of the establishment.

If anything, the French campaign has solidified the new fracture lines in modern politics, which bear little relation to the relatively modest differences marking the old left-right divide. Instead, the choice voters face on Sunday illustrates the profound new chasm in the West: between those who favor open, globalized societies and others who prefer closed, nationalized ones.

“What’s the common ground between Macron and Le Pen? There is none. What we’re seeing is historic: a choice between two completely different modes of organizing a society,” said Madani Cheurfa, a professor of politics at Paris’s Sciences Po.

This transcontinental political transition is still much closer to the beginning than it is to the end. I discuss this in more detail in my post-French election Darkstream.

Hitler did nothing wrong

In tonight’s Darkstream, I addressed one of the more historically retarded statements we hear from time to time from trolls as well as the sincerely ignorant.

It’s hard to overestimate the stupidity of the Alt-White, which frequently confuses German supremacism for trans-white nationalism and lionizes a successful rhetorician who failed to learn from either his early successes or his subsequent failures, and in doing so managed to transform Germany from a likely global superpower into a conquered US satrapy for 70 years and counting.

The list of things that Hitler did wrong is considerably longer than the list of things he did right. I mean, successfully bluffing the French and British governments, and stabbing the Soviets in the back first, hardly makes up for a) launching a two-front war by b) invading Russia, then c) unnecessarily declaring war on the most powerful industrial nation on Earth. Hitler wasn’t merely a complete failure, he was a guaranteed failure before the end of 1941.

I always find it amusing when people call me a Nazi. I have considerably more contempt for Nazis than the most sincere Nazi-hater. Those who hate the Nazis fear them and consider them to be evil and scary villains. I don’t fear them and I consider them to be inept, ignorant losers. I’m not counter-signaling here; I don’t counter-signal Communists or people with Down’s Syndrome either.

And for those who try to claim that it’s just rhetoric, yes, I am aware of its use in that capacity. The point is that the best and most effective rhetoric is rooted in truth, not ignorance and buffoonery.

The importance of morale

And why I don’t tolerate defeatism or defeatists. Last night’s Darkstream was well-received. As I mention, morale is the primary difference in the fighting effectiveness between the Waffen SS and the Regio Esercito, between the US Marines and the French Army circa 1940.

Those who reliably work to lower the morale of our side rather than the morale of the enemy should not be tolerated, even if their pessimism and despair happen to be honest. Everyone is prone to moments of doubt, and sometimes doubt is merited, but it is both foolish and counterproductive to tolerate those who pride themselves in wallowing in the expectation of failure and defeat.