Why England’s rulers are a bunch of whackos — boarding schools and Privileged Abandonment

This explains why Britain’s rulers are so cavalier about bringing third worlders into their country, and why the English aristocrats were the first Europeans to surrender to Jewish power (Nathan Rothschild in London in the Napoleonic era).

Boarding school kids don’t bond with their family, therefore they don’t bond with their country or their race. They probably envy the middle class and lower class kids who actually get to live with their families, and want to hurt them for it.

I had a very good friend in high school, and re-united with him by chance in college, who was a child of privileged abandonment. His father was the second in charge of a Fortune 100 household name company; he was worth 100 million back in the 90’s. He said his father told him, “Do what you want, just don’t embarass me.” My friend had an older brother who suffered from mental illness and was always trying to get himself killed, and he eventually succeeded crashing a car with the younger brother in it. They both died. They were White nationalists too, before I knew what a WN even was. The younger one, my friend, had a Dr. Pierce cassette tape. Had he lived, he could have funded the WN movement big time.

I lived with the brothers for two weeks. It was the most fun I ever had in my life. What was interesting was that we would cook and have sit down dinners, complete with cloth napkins and proper silverware. They were very much into creating the family life they never had growing up. The older brother should have been placed in the Betty Ford clinic, but the father was in denial. He had the younger brother take care of the older brother, and both ended up dying.

Elliott Rodger was also a case of privileged abandonment. Here’s some money and a BMW, kid, leave me alone and don’t embarass me. Rich people don’t want to bother with the work of parenting! Maybe they should pay a middle class, high investment parenting family to raise their kids. But in doing so, they’d have to admit that they don’t want to be parents.

Of course, young men and women of privilege are in a position to help us. To get influence over them, we would need to provide them with a semblance of family life and stability. This is not just an off the cuff observation; this is valuable information for those who have access to the privileged abandoned. Make a theater of family life for them; have sit down dinners, prod them to do something with their lives — get a job, study something, et cetera. The middle class is the best model of life — it is Aristotle’s Golden Mean. Middle class people are the most psychologically well adjusted and the most functional. This is a power we can leverage in dealing with the privileged.

Why boarding schools produce bad leaders
The elite tradition is to send children away at a young age to be educated. But future politicians who suffer this ‘privileged abandonment’ often turn out as bullies or bumblers. A psychotherapist explains why

In Britain, the link between private boarding education and leadership is gold-plated. If their parents can afford it, children are sent away from home to walk a well-trodden path that leads straight from boarding school through Oxbridge to high office in institutions such as the judiciary, the army, the City and, especially, government. Our prime minister was only seven when he was sent away to board at Heatherdown preparatory school in Berkshire. Like so many of the men who hold leadership roles in Britain, he learned to adapt his young character to survive both the loss of his family and the demands of boarding school culture. The psychological impact of these formative experiences on Cameron and other boys who grow up to occupy positions of great power and responsibility cannot be overstated. It leaves them ill-prepared for relationships in the adult world and the nation with a cadre of leaders who perpetuate a culture of elitism, bullying and misogyny affecting the whole of society.

Nevertheless, this golden path is as sure today as it was 100 years ago, when men from such backgrounds led us into a disastrous war; it is familiar, sometimes mocked, but taken for granted. But it is less well known that costly, elite boarding consistently turns out people who appear much more competent than they actually are. They are particularly deficient in non-rational skills, such as those needed to sustain relationships, and are not, in fact, well-equipped to be leaders in today’s world

I have been doing psychotherapy with ex-boarders for 25 years and I am a former boarding-school teacher and boarder. My pioneering study of privileged abandonment always sparks controversy: so embedded in British life is boarding that many struggle to see beyond the elitism and understand its impact. The prevalence of institutionalised abuse is finally emerging to public scrutiny, but the effects of normalised parental neglect are more widespread and much less obvious. Am I saying, then, that David Cameron, and the majority of our ruling elite, were damaged by boarding?

It’s complex. My studies show that children survive boarding by cutting off their feelings and constructing a defensively organised self that severely limits their later lives. Cameron, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Hunt, Andrew Mitchell, Oliver Letwin et al tick all the boxes for being boarding-school survivors. For socially privileged children are forced into a deal not of their choosing, where a normal family-based childhood is traded for the hothousing of entitlement. Prematurely separated from home and family, from love and touch, they must speedily reinvent themselves as self-reliant pseudo-adults.

Paradoxically, they then struggle to properly mature, since the child who was not allowed to grow up organically gets stranded, as it were, inside them. In consequence, an abandoned child complex within such adults ends up running the show. This is why many British politicians appear so boyish. They are also reluctant to open their ranks to women, who are strangers to them and unconsciously held responsible for their abandonment by their mothers. With about two-thirds of the current cabinet from such a background, the political implications of this syndrome are huge – because it’s the children inside the men running the country who are effectively in charge.

Boarding children invariably construct a survival personality that endures long after school and operates strategically. On rigid timetables, in rule-bound institutions, they must be ever alert to staying out of trouble. Crucially, they must not look unhappy, childish or foolish – in any way vulnerable – or they will be bullied by their peers. So they dissociate from all these qualities, project them out on to others, and develop duplicitous personalities that are on the run, which is why ex-boarders make the best spies.

Now attached to this internal structure instead of a parent, the boarding child survives, but takes into adulthood a permanent unconscious anxiety and will rarely develop what Daniel Goleman calls emotional intelligence. In adulthood he sticks to the same tactics: whenever he senses a threat of being made to look foolish, he will strike. We see this in Cameron’s over-reaction to Angela Eagle MP, less than a year into his new job. “Calm down, dear!” the PM patronisingly insisted, as if she were the one upset and not he. The opposite benches loved it, of course, howling “Flashman!” (the public school bully from Tom Brown’s Schooldays), but they never take on the cause of these leadership defects.

Bullying is inevitable and endemic in 24/7 institutions full of abandoned and frightened kids. Ex-boarders’ partners often report that it ends up ruining home life, many years later. Bullying pervades British society, especially in politics and the media, but, like boarding, we normalise it. When, in 2011, Jeremy Clarkson ranted that he would have striking public-sector workers shot, he was even defended by Cameron – it was apparently a bit of fun. No prizes for guessing where both men learned their styles. And no wonder that the House of Commons, with its adversarial architecture of Victorian Gothic – just like a public school chapel – runs on polarised debate and bullying.

Strategic survival has many styles: bullying is one; others include keeping your head down, becoming a charming bumbler, or keeping an incongruently unruffled smile in place, like health secretary Jeremy Hunt, former head boy at Charterhouse. In a remarkable 1994 BBC documentary called The Making of Them, whose title I borrowed for my first book, young boarders were discreetly filmed over their first few weeks at prep school. Viewers can witness the “strategic survival personality” in the process of being built. “Boarding school,” says nine-year-old Freddy, puffing himself up, putting on his Very Serious Face and staring at the camera, “has changed me, and the one thing I can do now is get used [to it]”. This false independence, this display of pseudo-adult seriousness is as evident in the theatrical concern of Cameron as it was in Tony Blair. It displays the strategic duplicity learned in childhood; it is hard to get rid of, and, disastrously, deceives even its creator.

The social privilege of boarding is psychologically double-edged: it both creates shame that prevents sufferers from acknowledging their problems, as well as unconscious entitlement that explains why ex-boarder leaders are brittle and defensive while still projecting confidence. Boris is so supremely confident that he needs neither surname nor adult haircut; he trusts his buffoonery to distract the public from what Conrad Black called “a sly fox disguised as a teddy bear”. On the steps of St Paul’s, Boris commanded the Occupy movement: “In the name of God and Mammon, go!” Was it a lark – Boris doing Monty Python? Or a coded message, announcing someone who, for 10 years, heard the King James Bible read in chapel at Eton? Those who don’t recognise this language, it suggests, have no right to be here, so they should just clear off.

This anachronistic entitlement cannot easily be renounced: it compensates for years without love, touch or family, for a personality under stress, for the lack of emotional, relational and sexual maturation. In my new book, Wounded Leaders, I trace the history of British elitism and the negative attitude towards children to colonial times and what I call the “rational man project”, whose Victorian boarding schools were industrial power stations churning out stoic, superior leaders for the empire.

Recent evidence from neuroscience experts shows what a poor training for leaderships this actually is. In short, you cannot make good decisions without emotional information (Professor Antonio Damasio); nor grow a flexible brain without good attachments (Dr Sue Gerhardt); nor interpret facial signals if your heart has had to close down (Professor Stephen Porges); nor see the big picture if your brain has been fed on a strict diet of rationality (Dr Iain McGilchrist). These factors underpin Will Hutton’s view that “the political judgments of the Tory party have, over the centuries, been almost continuously wrong”.

With survival but not empathy on his school curriculum from age seven, Cameron is unlikely to make good decisions based on making relationships in Europe, as John Major could. He can talk of leading Europe, but not of belonging to it. Ex-boarder leaders cannot conceive of communal solutions, because they haven’t had enough belonging at home to understand what it means. Instead, they are limited to esprit de corps with their own kind. In order to boost his standing with the rightwingers in his party, Cameron still thinks he can bully for concessions, make more supposedly “robust” vetos.

His European counterparts don’t operate like this. Angela Merkel has held multiple fragile coalitions together through difficult times by means of her skill in relationships and collaboration. Though deadlocked at home, Barack Obama impressed both sides of British politics and in 2009 entered the hostile atmosphere of the Kremlin to befriend the then-president Dmitry Medvedev and make headway on a difficult disarmament treaty. In a subsequent meeting with the real power behind the throne, Obama invited Vladimir Putin to expound for an hour on what hadn’t worked in recent Russian-American relationships, before responding. Despite their elitist education, and because of it, our own “wounded leaders” can’t manage such statesmanship.

To change our politics, we’ll have to change our education system. Today, most senior clinicians recognise boarding syndrome, several of whom recently signed a letter to the Observer calling for the end of early boarding. Its elitism ought to motivate the left. The Attlee government intended to disband the public schools, but not even Wilson’s dared to. There’s a cash problem: boarding is worth billions and has a massive lobby. Unlike most other European countries, our state does not contribute a per capita sum towards private education, so dismantling these schools, which still enjoy charitable status, would be costly. But can we really afford to sacrifice any more children for the sake of second-rate leadership?

Wounded Leaders: British Elitism and the Entitlement Illusion – a Psychohistory is published by Lone Arrow Press, £20

Advertisements

About mindweapon

A mind weapon riding along with Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.https://en.gravatar.com/profiles/edit/#
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Why England’s rulers are a bunch of whackos — boarding schools and Privileged Abandonment

  1. PA says:

    Very insightful post. Let’s not forget about the alleged buggery for which the boarding schools are notorious.

    • donwreford says:

      Great article and is what the more enlightened suspect, a group of men who have been groomed and are victims of a culture of being disconnected, they are dangerous to the British public and are the terrorists of British society, the ability to come to power for all the wrong reasons, to some extent the British public are guilty, refusing to acknowledge they are culpable in conspiring with these freaks, and empowering them.

  2. Peltast says:

    You can blame the “West” current situation on the British, the Rothschild headquarters still is London, Churchill knew very well that the Bolshevik revolution in Russia was caused by the jews but he still chose to be a loyal buttboy to the chosenites.

    The American ZOG model is a British import.

  3. HerewardMW says:

    Take anything The Grauniad says with a pinch of salt, especially when it amounts to “Tories are crazy”. They might be, but I wouldn’t trust the mouthpiece of the leftwing establishment to work out why.

  4. banned56 says:

    I’m an old La Leche League Leader.
    A simple fact is, the first three years of a human’s life are unique.

    Reading the article linked in the above article http://crookedtimber.org/2006/05/04/sue-gerhardt-on-why-love-matters-daycare-revisited/ resonated with me.

    How many working-and-pumping moms have I counseled that “were losing their milk”? The simplest answer to the dilemma is, quit the dam* job, go snuggle with the baby and let him nurse.
    Because not only is the lack of nursing due to separation from the baby causing babe to lose the invaluable nutrition of human breast milk, he is losing the chance to learn to TRUST, which must be developed in the first year — or never.

    Still, when the mother insisted she “can’t afford” not to work, my next-best answer is, ok, sleep with the baby.
    Invariably the response is a horrified, WHAT, as if I’d just suggested trimming the food budget by eating the cat.

    And yet, those few working moms who DID take baby to their own bed (or a sidecar arrangement — whatever allows baby to have unrestricted nighttime access to the breast) almost universally later told me that not only did the milk supply come back up, but the poor daycare-d baby displayed fewer of the avoidant-attachment behaviors of his daycare peers. Because for some reason, having mommy in the dark makes up for some of the daytime daycare horrors he endures. Nighttime is a particularly efficacious time for a baby to learn to trust and love.

    Sleep with the baby and be astonished what an independent, self-confident and socially competent older child (who sleeps all night in his own bed), teen and adult results.

    • Since I did not give birth to him, I was unable to breast feed my oldest. I also had to work, and I wasn’t going to listen to him scream for three hours until he learned not to cry once he had been put down in his own room.

      So, I let him sleep with me even though part of me was scared witless that I’d roll over and suffocate him, because I was such a deep sleeper. I strategically arranged the pillows and blankets to prevent that. But Nature has a way to make you even unconsciously attuned to a little child.

      I might add that, for whatever reason, I didn’t buy any parenting books by experts like Dr. Spock. I figured the kid would tell me what he needed and I let him take the lead. So, if he was hungry, I fed him. If he was dirty, I changed him. If he was fretful or tired or just wanted to be held, I held him.

      Though BFing was out of the question, the breasts did come into play as far as bonding was concerned. He liked to sleep on them and when it was a little chilly, he’d find a way to slip under the collar of my night gown and burrow between them. So, my heart was beating right underneath his ear. A friend of mine took a picture of us like this.

      Of course, the result was like a bizarre Fellini take on Madonna and Child, but what can you expect with the Feminazi, Cly AKA the aspiring Cat Lady?

      I would say of all the children throughout my extended family, he has the largest sense of family. He remains close to my brothers, my father, my late husband’s father, and he also found a way to connect with his biological father and quickly formed a bond with him, his other children and stepchildren, not to mention his paternal biological grandfather.

      He created this extended kinship network. His paternal side stepped up and helped to foster/mentor my younger sons and it’s like we’ve become more of a clan than just another atomized family (which is how I view the modern nuclear family). I like it, because they provide trustworthy masculine guidance to help them to find their own way.

      I think that, because he lost his birth mother so young and then he got thrown into the lap of a confirmed spinster lady that what I like to think of as The Divine Spark gave my oldest the ability to form strong bonds quickly. Although I like to think the Magical Mammaries had a little to do with it, LOL.

  5. Of course, young men and women of privilege are in a position to help us. To get influence over them, we would need to …

    I volunteer to seduce a wealthy young woman of privilege and get her to fund our cause.

    • mindweapon says:

      Accepted. Now go to New Orleans and AMOG Kate R0ths$ch|ld away from J@y Electron!ca (dashes inserted to foil google)

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2568763/Kate-Rothschild-heiress-rap-star-lover-photo-thats-alarmed-friends.html

      Report back when the Daily Mail is showing pictures of you and Kate coming out of a nightclub.

      • Report back when the Daily Mail is showing pictures of you and Kate coming out of a nightclub.

        We want a check, not celebrity, right?

        So first you’d have to avoid any hint that you knew who she was. Meet her “accidentally” somewhere and build up rapport as if she was just a random person.

        So this girl is obviously a partier and if she’s hanging out with black guys at nightclubs, you arrange to meet a mutual friend then hang out at a party. She obviously has “daddy issues” and the mudsharking means she likely responds easily to aggressive sexual banter.

        Get her on a drug binge for a week then right when she’s about to take a break, lay on some heavy and dramatic emotional stuff, then bring drugs again. Rinse and repeat. Then you both go to sober up, and while she is in a suggestive state from pharmaceuticals, start implanting the WN stuff. At this point, you tell her your little brother died of something or other and you always volunteered at such and such charity (our cover) – always bring it up after sex, when she’s listening to you chatter about whatever semi-emotional stuff.

        Invite her to a fundraiser as your date. When she won’t go, get angry, fuck her, then suggest she just write a check to the charity then. Storm off.

        Make an appointment for an STD test.

      • mindweapon says:

        That’s fucking hilarious, Hipster! Wow you sure did live a life that I didn’t!

        Yeah, K@te is just an example. An anonymous heiress would be fine. When you get one, start telling her visions of Mindweapons families with foreign language nannies and violin teachers from the Moscow Conservatory. I will make a post about KGB illegals. Put the vision in her head ofe raising illegals from birth whose job it is to infiltrate the halls of power and “do good.” Get her freaking out about Global Warming and then say we need to breed children who are smarter than teh TV zombies of the world and infiltrate them into the govenrment to stop Global Warming. She need not know your real agenda.

  6. Wyandotte says:

    Virtually all western leaders are no better than the ones specifically named in that article. I’m not saying that boarding schools are good, they’re not. Everyone’s equally f*cked up nowadays. You don’t need a boarding school to do emotional damage. Just stick baby in a crib in a separate room and let him cry himself to sleep every night til he gets the message to shut up and let Mummy & Daddy get their beauty sleep. I know a boy whose father bragged how he let the baby scream for 3 hours til the baby fell asleep, exhausted, and never cried at bed time again.

    It’s not just the rich anymore. Down to the poorest of the poor, it seems just about everyone’s got the urge to behave like royalty.

    • I saw this reality show called “Wife Swap” where a Poor Mom who helped support her family by driving a school bus and had a wood-chopping business on the side changed places with a Rich Mom who was so into her “Me Time” she never spent any time with her own children.

      The reaction of Poor Dad to Rich Mom was predictable but a little comical. The reaction OTOH of Rich Dad to Poor Mom was tragic. He couldn’t believe she got up so early asking her if she threw a paper route. He was shocked to find that Poor Mom quickly got bored by Rich Mom’s routine and did not covet Rich Mom’s life at all. But most of all, he was nonplussed when Poor Mom gave his three children’s four nannies paid time off and wanted him to come home early and have dinner with his kids.

      He was all petulant and pouty until he just basically refused to cooperate. What was so poignant was that his children were so happy and hopeful over the idea that he’d be spending more time with them. His own eyes were so filled with panic at the idea of dealing with his own children that he couldn’t see the love shining out of theirs for him simply because he was their Dad!

      I can picture this guy in a couple of decades being all cynical and resentful of these kids because by then they will regard him as nothing more than an ATM machine. He’ll be clueless as to the reason why, because he pays more attention to his stock portfolio investments than his genetic investments.

      If both men go completely bankrupt in a couple of decades, I’m pretty sure that Poor Dad can count on his children to provide him with a roof over his head and a place at the table. I can’t say the same about Rich Dad.

      What gets me is there was blog on this show at Daily Kos and if anyone was expecting a “Eureka!” moment from these folks, forget about it. They sneered at the show for implying that being rich was not better than being poor! They totally missed the point of a parent (no matter how high their income level) investing time into their own children. Weird.

  7. Sam says:

    Hipster Racist this sounds a little like this.
    How pimps turn girls into prostitutes

    You know it just came to me that the way they are raised in public schools is EXACTLY the way Spartans were raised. Separation at 7 years old and harassed by peers. Only the Spartan method was more severe. This would tend to bury human emotions and make you more psychopathic.

  8. Wally D. says:

    Wealthy elites wanting to hurt their middle class racial kin, is indeed a sickness unto death. It is akin to Jews wanting to destroy whites.

  9. enderby says:

    I normally don’t comment but this post reminded me of an NPR interview I recently heard with an aristocratic British author who grew up wealthy. He claims his father regularly raped him starting at 5 years old (or maybe 7 I don’t remember). Anyway his family sound like a bunch of upper class psychopaths. If you want a link I’ll look up the interview (it was on loony lefty ‘Fresh Air’ with Jewish host Terri Gross).

    • mindweapon says:

      Enderby,

      Thanks for delurking! Please do link the Gross interview!

      • enderby says:

        I’ve been using a mobile device to surf the net which makes it a pain to comment and hard to post a hyperlink.
        Sorry!
        The author is Edward St Aubyn. His acclaimed autobiographical books are “The Patrick Melrose Novels” which apparently describe his rapes by his father.
        The NPR Fresh Air interview aired on May 20, 2014.

      • mindweapon says:

        Thanks Enderby!

  10. Reblogged this on Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar and commented:
    Attachment issues, intergenerational resentment and strong Stockholm Syndrome.

  11. Just so you know, the purported bad effect of these British boarding schools is called “toxic masculinity” by feminists. You’re taking a boy from his mother and “making a man of him” by developing his aggressiveness and toughening him up by putting him in a competitive environment. This then leads to their feelings of “entitlement” or “male privilege” due to the “boys will be boys” attitudes towards misbehavior.

    Kevin MacDonald wrote about the “householder system” in parts of Europe where children would be sent as apprentices to work with another family. This is one of the mechanism by which European culture became less clan based and de-emphasized biological ties in favor of communities of shared values. This has been said to reduce corruption and nepotism. In the British boarding school model, their community of shared values is essentially the Good Old (White) Boys Club, their espirit de corps. Their entitlement is that of aristocrats, those born to rule. Really, boarding schools are a form of ultra high investment parenting, but parenting done by the/a community institution as opposed to the mother and father. In theory, it could develop a ruling class that is loyal to the race, that was pretty much the original idea. Empires tend to multiculturalism and globalism, though.

    There very well may be a lot of truth in this analysis, and abandonment issues are obviously a lot more general than this particular case, but as said above, it’s the British liberal establishment saying the conservative Tories are crazy and have mommy issues. In Freudian terms, they are saying they want to fuck their mothers. It’s essentially calling them “motherfuckers” in a way meant to sound “scientific.”

    As flaming White Nationalist James O’Meara says, these mannerbunds – these factories of White Male Privilege – will always be attacked as homosexual in some way. If they can find actual homosexuality, they will point to it. If not, they will simply label these men’s groups “homoerotic” which is the way a respectable liberal calls someone a “fag.” Probably related, there is supposedly a deep connection between “slut shaming” and classist attitudes. This is exactly the communist/Reich analysis of “fascism” and “fascist personalities” and even “patriarchy.”

    The article has some handwaving about neuroscience but the analysis is mostly that of a therapy culture which is most assuredly not neuroscience.

    Seven seems to be the earliest acceptable age for boys to start being segregated from girls and introduced to male culture, by puberty it is usually widely accepted (sports etc.)

    As far as White Nationalist Sim City, I’d take a middle of the road approach. You need a mannerbund, save the buggery, probably keep the boys living with mom until at least 12, not 7. Children need far more unstructured activities to truly develop their creativity, but when a boy hits about 12, he’s going to start fighting and fucking and you have to channel that into something productive until he is old enough and mature enough to understand the ramifications of fighting and fucking.

    • VRW says:

      the “householder system” is a big part of the Icelandic Sagas

    • mindweapon says:

      Hipster,

      What persuaded me about this article is that the boarding school experience seems to stunt the development of emotional intelligence, and I’m a big believer in EQ. It sounds reasonable.

      Also, my father’s side are cold and distant Protestants, my mom’s side are warm and familial Irish Catholics.

      Both sides practice low investment parenting, but the Protestants are contemptuous of the results of their low investment parenting, while the Irish Catholics accept their kids and continue to believe in them. So I like the Irish Catholics better.

      Now that I’m a parent, I have earned the right to say what a bunch of pieces of shit the generation before me was. Not just my parents, but lots of parents. They do an absolute shit job of parenting, and then they are all contemptuous of their own offspring when their offspring turn out to be failures.

      If the WN Movement should focus on anything, it should focus on training people to be proper parents. High investment parents and parents who are emotionally independent of their children, while providing an emotionally rock solid environment for their kids. The kid can say, “I hate you and wish you would die,” and you’re answer is, “yeah, whatever.” THe kid will hate you a lot of the time, because you are preparing him for the real world. It won’t be a big surprise to him when people don’t want to wait on him, or defer to him or her. Parents (fathers) need to prepare kids for that. It’s part of emotional intelligence that so many kids lack.

      We should focus on what is most severely lacking, and what is most severely lacking is proper parenting. The liberals sure as hell don’t have it — liberals got to be the WORST FUCKING PARENTS EVER. THe only good parenting advice ever to come from libs was when Amy Goodman had Gabor Mate on her show to talk about his book “Hold On To Your Kids; Why Parents need to Matter more than Peers.”

      http://www.amazon.com/Hold-Your-Kids-Parents-Matter/dp/0375760288/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403316235&sr=1-1&keywords=hold+on+to+your+kids

      I was friggin’ amazed that she was promoting this book. It’s extremely anti-liberal, culturally speaking. Liberals want to influence teenagers to make bad decisions before they fully develop sound judgment, fuck up their lives, and then they’ll have a statist-minded and parasite-minded liberal slave for the rest of their life. The textbook case being the mudshark welfare momma with mulatto bastards, starting at age 13. That’s what liberals LOVE. Hopeless and destroyed, genetically contaminated and morally depraved, anti-white, communist statists, dependent on a liberal welfare check adn “independent” (LOL) of men and of their parents’ guidance. That’s Amy Goodman Planet.

      A strong and healthy parenting relationship will naturally prevent this outcome. But lots of liberals think they can be a little bit conservative, here and there. They want conservatism for their own lives, but liberalism for the world out there. Because they think they are superior enough to be conservative, but teh world must be tolerant and subsidizing of the poor inferior defectives, who provide professional jobs for Liberalz Paychex now that manufacturing is gone and unions are gone with it. Liberals destroyed that, so social services is the new labor unions to keep liberals in Paychex.

      My kid knows I’m always there for her. But I’m a ball buster. If she slacks off, I tell her, “I’ll still love you even if you end up an assistant manager at Burger King.” And I mean it! Believe it or not, this is like the worst possible thing I can say to her! She goes ballistic when I make a remark of this nature. But she ends up studying harder as a result.

      I have seen parents who functionally abandon their kids, and who are emotional parasites on their kids. But what I haven’t seen are parents who are there for their kids without having a personal interest, without trying to get something out of it for themselves besides the continuation of their genetic line.

      And that’s the crux. You need to have a Game of Thrones view of your kids — they are your genes. You want them to go in the world and kick ass and find eugenic mates and give you superior Aryan grandkids. They aren’t your emotional crutch; they aren’t a burden to say, “just go and don’t embarass me, I don’t know why I had you in the first place and I’m at a a loss as to what to do with you.” Your bond to your kids is Darwinian. It’s primal but not emotional. Your job is to help them kick ass in the world.

      THe number one parenting job is to raise your kids to be able to beat up the world, rather than get beaten. iF your kids win rahter than lose, they will respect you, their parents. if they go out and lose, they will regard their parents as losers.

      Quick story – I’ve told it before so my apologies if you read it before. One example of why my kid respects her parents. She went on a class trip to New York City. They were in a fancy clothes store and there was a very pretty Russian speaking store clerk. My daughter heard her accent and chatted her up in Russian, much to the amazement of her classmates. In the back of her mind, she couldn’t help but think <"my parents are friggin' awesome. THey gave me this." So I got 2 rules:

      1. Be emotionally available for your kids, while not seeking any emotional or any other benefit from them. It's a one way street. You must never be needy to your kids, that’s fucking gross and sick. Pay attention to Emotional Intelligence. It’s so important. More important than IQ. A lot of the school shooters and other failures in life have high IQ’s. High EQ people are almost universallly successful.

      2. Raise your kids to dominate the owrld. Raise your boys to beat up every boy in town if necessary. I remember a very kind hearted Italian boy named Kevin in my town who was naturally athletic but didn’t have a mean bone in his body. A little twerp like me could have gone up to him and insulted his mom and he wouldn’t have done anything. He was getting bullied by some aggressive and mean kid, and it got back to his father what was happening. His father was a typical mill town bar fighting ruffian. So he beats up Kevin every evening for dishonoring him by letting himself be bullied. One morning before school he drags Kevin into his car, drives him to the bus stop where the bully is, and threatens him — you beat up that bully or I will BEAT YOUR FUCKING ASS EVERY NIGHT UNTIL YOU LEAVE HOME! Kevin knows it’s not an empty threat. Dad has been beating the mean into him for a week already. Kevin gets out of the Olds 88 or Buick or whatever 8 cylinder boat it was, and goes up to the bully and brings the pain, big time.

      Of course I’m not saying to raise kids to be bullies. Bullies are low EQ. But I’m saying to raise kids to WIN. IF they win rather than lose, they will honor thier parents. Loser kids despise their asshole shit parents, as well they should.

  12. hardscrabble farmer says:

    The single most important reason we decided to become farmers and turn our back on the lifestyle we previously lived was because of our children. They are the most important thing in our lives right now because they represent the future. They work with us, play with us, eat with us and live with us because we are the best role models we know and we love them as a bonus. As difficult as it is to have to stand up to their imprecations when a friend goes to Disney and we say no, it pays us back in spades. Life is not about recreation, fun and frivolities, it is about creation, endeavor, focus, knowledge and physicality. I am not averse to fun or rest- these are a constant in our life as a matter of fact- but they are not the purpose of life. They are a by-product of the hard work, the learning, and the day in day out dirty work of living by your own efforts.

    Our relationship with our children is solid. Do they pitch fits, mope, whine and wheedle? Does a bear shit in the woods? That is what they do when they are looking for the limits, the boundaries in life set by their parents and a good parent does not cave, reward or in other ways make those behaviors pay off because it is easier to do so. A good parent looks for the cause, remedies the problem and builds up the emotional muscles that will become the character of that child somewhere down the line.

    When our children misbehave we make them do penance. It is a chance for them to reflect on their behavior, to learn something while they reflect and most importantly to blow off the steam that led to the incident. Yesterday the oldest son got into a fight with his younger sister and it was intolerable. The daughter was made to walk the entire perimeter of the low pasture and to count the fence posts (426) and report back. She left angry and sulking and returned smiling and happy and with the exact count. She then told us about the fox she saw near the pond, asked questions about the electric fence, sat down and estimated how far she had walked based on the number of posts and the spacing and then resumed her day with joy. In NYC that probably counts as abusive behavior, but on the farm it is loving discipline dedicated to the crafting of a decent human being. The older son was made to wash out slop buckets which he dislikes a great deal, but he finished it without complaint and when his sister returned from her penance he apologized to her genuinely and they wound up playing scrabble together before bed of their own accord. We could not have asked for a better outcome.

    • Wyandotte says:

      The manner in which your daughter ultimately reacted to her “punishment” is determined by her genes/basic tendencies/unknown factors. There are other children who would not have reacted in such a healthful way.

      • When you protect your kids from unhealthy outside influences such as Disney, their teen years are much easier to deal with. Much of teen rebellion is a result of the brainwashing.

      • mindweapon says:

        Disney is horrible. I see 5 minutes of it and realize that they are teaching children to disrespect their parents.

      • Sam says:

        I agree with Wyandotte and Maureen Martin, Aryan Street. I read a paper that said high investment didn’t change children’s outcomes that much. Wish I could. I actually don’t like the outcome of the study but there it is. I do believe that high investment can be very influential in the teen years. I believe that as we get older our genes are more important. We become more of who we are. The twins studies can not be ignored. The VAST. almost unbelievable, similarities of twins that never met is profound.
        I want to add I believe close contact and guidance for your children is just as good for you as it is for them. Even if it doesn’t matter and yes I know that’s illogical.

      • Sam, I would like to read this study. I find it hard to believe that nurture doesn’t matter at all.

  13. Reading this blog reminded me of a Rich Mom-Poor Mom episode on Wife Swap. Poor Mom drove a bus and had a wood cutting business to help Poor Dad make ends meet. Rich “Me TIme” Mom did nothing but shop, hit the gym and get her hair and nails done. In the beginning of each Wife Swap episode, each Exchange Mom reads the other’s routine.

    What stands out is that Rich Mom is appalled by all the chores Poor Mom has to do, but Poor Mom reads how Rich Mom’s kids never see or even eat with their parents and are tended to by five nannies. Poor Mom starts to cry and says, “Those poor kids!” After one day of Rich Mom’s routine, Poor Mom was bored out of her gourd.

    Of course, there is a Rules Change where the Exchange Mom starts doing things her way. Rich Mom makes Poor Dad do more of Poor Mom’s chores. Poor Dad honors his promise to the show to do things her way and complies, BUT:

    Back in Manhattan, Lynn is horrified by Jodi’s lifestyle and the way both Spolanskys indulge themselves and neglect their children. Steven, a master-of-the-universe businessman, finds Lynn’s folksy homilies annoying and mocks her openly. When it is Lynn’s turn to set the rules, the first thing she tells Steven is that she is sending all the nannies away. ”Are they taking the children with them?” he asks.

    And carries on like a pouting, petulant, BRAT until he realizes he’s an adult MALE so then behaves like a defiant adolescent rather than honor his own word to follow Lynn’s rules.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/15/arts/television-swap-my-wife-please.html?src=pm&pagewanted=2

    But if you are expecting SWPLs to watch this episode and have a “Eureka!” moment about the importance of strong family bonds, well …. just forget that crazy notion:

    At no time, apparently, did it occur to the makers of the show, the people in it or the people reviewing it, that what the show really demonstrates is how much better it is to be rich than to be poor. Or perhaps one should say not that the show ignores this point but that it is devoted to denying it, and that it succeeds so completely (this is its brilliance) that we find ourselves believing that run-down shacks in the woods are just as nice as Park Avenue apartments, especially if your husband remembers to thank you for chopping the wood when you get home from driving the bus.

    The idea the show likes is the one Tom Wolfe and company like: that the problem with being poor is not having less money than rich people but having rich people “look down” on you. And the rich husband is bad because he does indeed look down on the poor people, whereas the rich wife (the one who has never done a day’s work in her life and who begins the show by celebrating her “me time,” shopping, working out, etc.) turns out to be good because she comes to appreciate the poor and even to realize that she can learn from them. The fault here is not in being rich but in thinking that you have better taste – more generally, in thinking that…you are a better person.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/09/01/581566/-Wife-Swap-Conservatism

    While I found Poor Dad’s reaction to Rich Mom amusing and predictable, I was really struck by the scenes that Rich Dad was forced to share with his own children after Rules Change. He couldn’t see the love for him simply because he was their Daddy shining out of the eyes of his happy, hopeful children when Poor Mom dismissed the nannies. Also, his assholery to Poor Mom couldn’t conceal the visible panic in his own eyes over having to deal with them.

    I walked away from this episode thinking what a tragic figure Rich Dad was, like most clueless people, because when it comes to his stock portfolio, he puts more thought over his investment than in his own flesh and blood. Ten or fifteen years from now, he is going to have to face the fact that his children will only see him as nothing more than an ATM machine. If Poor Dad ends up with nothing, his children will at least give him a roof over his head and a place at their table. If Rich Dad goes bankrupt, where will his children be?

  14. Reblogged this on Revolt of the Barbarians and commented:
    Rich man’s war, poor man’s blood. The more things change…..
    “Nevertheless, this golden path is as sure today as it was 100 years ago, when men from such backgrounds led us into a disastrous war; it is familiar, sometimes mocked, but taken for granted. But it is less well known that costly, elite boarding consistently turns out people who appear much more competent than they actually are. They are particularly deficient in non-rational skills, such as those needed to sustain relationships, and are not, in fact, well-equipped to be leaders in today’s world.”

  15. Sam says:

    “…Wish I could find it…”

  16. flyingcuttlefish says:

    Reblogged this on flying cuttlefish picayune and commented:
    explains a lot …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s