Shame them, beat them, parent them.

Apparently there exists a social climate in the Americas wherein (some ? many ?) parents are afraid of reprimanding their children in public for fear of themselves being reprimanded. Since this is just so much insanity-on-a-stick, let’s peel a few layers off and see if we can’t find the molten core from which this madness radiates.

Let’s set the stage: a family with two children is at the local playground. The older son is picking on random kids, throwing sand in their eyes, screaming at the top of his lungs like a terrorist, and stealing toys that don’t belong to him.i The parents, quite rightly, want to teach their son that it’s not okay to do this, so the father grabs the son by the scruff, pulls him off to the edge of the playground, bends him over and gives him a good spanking while the misbehaved twerp cries quite a lot, only to be spanked even harder for crying so much.

Now, in a sane society, the other parents at the playground would applaud the father for taking charge of the situation and putting an end to his little fuck’s rampage. In an insane society, however, as seems to presently be the case in the socialist west, the other parents pick up their cell phones to call the police to report “abuse” or “unnecessary violence” or some such.

This present state of affairs, wherein both physical and psychological discipline is so wretchedly unfashionable, should be worrisome for the marked degree of sociological damage that it points to. A situation wherein parents cannot parent by any traditional (or practicable) definition thereof tells us that the meek, in their efforts to inherit the earth, have duped a great number of folks into thinking that it’s only those unfair mean people who give their kids a chance at success.

Yes, that’s what disciplining your child does, it teaches them what kind of behaviour is adaptive and what kind isn’t, and yes, kids who’ve been taught this have a chance at success, though certainly no guarantee. By extension, if you haven’t been taught this, and therefore haven’t been taught anything useful at all, there’s no way in hell you should have an equal opportunity at anything, much less an equal outcome, despite the current fashionability of the contrary.

The notion that only the weak and the timid, those specifically incapable of the agency necessary to assert their dominance over their inferiors, be that their own children or otherwise,ii, can magically become imbued with enough agency to shame anyone other than themselves, just because they’ve “progressively” coalesced into a seamless blob, is beyond laughable (even if this is the exact premise of full-franchise democracy).

Those unencumbered by individuation telling those imbued therewith that displays of power are “sociopathological”iii is beyond backwardsiv and can only be the result of a full generation of castrating and nigh-on-totalitarian socialism.

Children like shiny things, sugary things, safe things, and all kinds of other nonsense. And if children aren’t taught that there’s more to human life – that is, free human life – than an endless supply of bubble-wrapped candy bars, then it’s going to be pretty well impossible for society to function in any meaningful way,v – much less create art.

Incredibly, in the Americas today, where functional parenting, much like words, are taboo, there exists a state of affairs wherein the black community, once the US’ fungible biodiesel, is the shining beacon of hope and sanity. To wit:

Got a kid who’s raising hell? Afraid the police will be called if you break out the belt? A suburban Atlanta barbershop may have a solution for you.

Three days a week, parents can take their misbehaving kids to A-1 Kutz in Snellville and ask for the “Benjamin Button Special,” which Russell Fredrick and his team of barbers are offering — free of charge — to parents who want to try a novel form of discipline.

The cut involves shaving hair off the child’s crown until he begins to resemble a balding senior citizen, inviting that unique brand of adolescent humiliation that can only come from teasing classmates and unwanted attention.

Supporters say it’s the perfect punishment for misbehaving kids who want to “act grown.”

So some black barbers and some black parents are bold enough to admit that their kids are stupid until proven otherwise and need to be put in their goddam place when they get a little big for their breeches. What a concept! This must be national, nay, global news!vi More than it being news, however, it demonstrates that it’s now the “progressives” who are the dumb nigs and the blacks who have the upper, more adaptive, hand. I’d bet a bitcent on the black kids coming out ahead in the long-run. I have to admit that the shameful haircut thing is a pretty creative solutionvii given the toxic sociological environment.

As we can well appreciate, there’s more than one way to skin a cat, beat a dog, and raise a child. Just as long as the parent does the teaching.
___ ___ ___

  1. No, the child isn’t “exercising his freedom” nor “expressing himself.” He’s being a little shit and needs to be reminded that he’s not some all-powerful dictator, he’s just a little twerp. []
  2. Yes, children are lesser than adults, and for biologically imperative reasons too. If you let the slowest kid in class teach the smart ones math and then let the retard-in-chief shame the bright bulbs for not grokking 2+2=11, it’s going to be pretty hard to have a functioning society when the sum of two integers is “open to interpretation.”

    Parents have an appreciation for culture, art, math, science, and language. Children don’t. This being a function of time, it’s not debatable unless you’re up for first approaching the philosophical existence and human-driven purpose of measured time. And if you choose to walk down that path, you’ll hopefully find a grey-haired version of your future self, ready with a walking cane in hand with which to whack you across the head for wasting the best years of your finite life being led around by the nose by a bunch of neotenic ninnies who desired nothing more than to bring you down to their base and powerless level. Old Man You knows a thing or two. You should listen to him.

    []

  3. This is what sociopathy is : what the scum of the earth currently calls its betters. It may unfortunately also include a vanishingly thin sliver of actually insane individuals, but for better and for worse you can rely on the notion that whoever calls you a sociopath is paying you the best compliment his limited intellectual abilities allow him to. You’re, as far as he can tell, a magical alien dragon of pure energy.

    From MP’s The definitive tract on sociopathy. []

  4. It’s like that dumb fat slut Meghan Trainor (of “All About That Bass” one-hit-wonderage) telling fat girls that “every inch of you is perfect” while trying vainly to shame “those skinny bitches” as if such a thing were even in theory possible. Seriously, WTFBBQSAUCE. On what planet is being an land whale cool or sexy ? It’s definitely not this one.

    If you think that “being an unkempt and self-loathing slob is okay now because we’ve progressed beyond discrimination and junk food is just as good as real food” or some shit, then you need your head checked. Let’s just call a spade a spade and say that the western world is chock-a-block full of low-class people who talk lot, eat a lot, and say very little, fair ? []

  5. By which I mean: last for more than a generation or two, the 20th century’s upper bound for pulling the wool over tradition’s eyes. Mind you, years pre-computer times were a bit slower and less compressed. []
  6. At this point, what with the Internet and everything, you’ll notice that there really is no such thing as national news anymore. There’s local news, like missing dogs and knife fights at bars, and there’s global news, like… this. No wonder small is the future for states. []
  7. Shame is powerful. Just ask anyone who ever cried their faces off just because their parents were “disappointed” in them. []

28 thoughts on “Shame them, beat them, parent them.

  1. mh says:

    Rewind the scenario a bit and look at why the little shit is throwing sand and bullying other kids? Might there be other reasons than a lack of beating? (loosely observing I think those kids that do get beatings are the worst little shits of them all).

    Another scenario: Let’s say, we’re at a party, you start acting up, bullying some of the other guests. I (and many other guests) think you are over the line – especially because you had a few too many.
    I’m clearly physically superior to you, so I drag you outside by one hand and your half-empty glass in the other. I proceed to give you a plenty good whack, pause for a moment only to spit in your drink, kindly asking you to drink it, which you refuse, but only for a moment because my slappings convince you to gargle it all down. I pat you on the head and say I expect you to be a good boy from now on, and drag you back in to the party.
    then what?

    Emphatically – whacking over the head (or killing as in the case of twitter/antonopoderps) can happen in many ways.

    • Rewind the scenario a bit and look at why the little shit is throwing sand and bullying other kids? Might there be other reasons than a lack of beating? (loosely observing I think those kids that do get beatings are the worst little shits of them all).

      The kid being a bully when his parents aren’t around may well be the one getting the most beatings at home, but you’d better believe that he’s going to keep his fists sheathed when he knows that his dad’s watching from the edge of the park. I agree that those who are picked on are inclined to find inferiors on whom to “repay the favour.” This being a function of the initial beatings being without apparent cause or reason, which can only lead to the development of coping strategies, though not necessarily productive ones.

      Beatings are far from a perfect solution to all known behavioural problems and they can certainly have unintended consequences when misused (just as, say, giving credit to poor people can), which is why the carpenter has a saw, hammer, screwdriver, etc. so that each problem can be addressed with the appropriate solution. New parents, particularly those from less than healthy homes, are more inclined to treat every problem like a nail needing a hammer, but a good many parents are craftier than that.

      Another scenario:

      Then I’ve been put in my place and I behave like a more reasonable adult ? Or, ashamed, I call a cab and leave the party altogether ? Though if I’m a little more skilled in hand-to-hand combat, I might show you who’s really in charge, despite my apparent “physical inferiority,” and go back to my obnoxious behaviour while you tend to your broken arm.

    • mh says:

      “Beatings are far from a perfect solution to all known behavioural problems and they can certainly have unintended consequences when misused (just as, say, giving credit to poor people can), which is why the carpenter has a saw, hammer, screwdriver, etc. so that each problem can be addressed with the appropriate solution. New parents, particularly those from less than healthy homes, are more inclined to treat every problem like a nail needing a hammer, but a good many parents are craftier than that.”

      I think we agree. My point is that too many times it is hammer/nail approach. I argue that most times there is a superior way of “resolve” – and putting yourself in the position of needing to strike is because you as a parent has painted yourself into a corner earlier. It’s not necessarily that I’m against striking per se, it’s that I see it as a inferior tool in the tool-box.

      “Then I’ve been put in my place and I behave like a more reasonable adult ? Or, ashamed, I call a cab and leave the party altogether ? Though if I’m a little more skilled in hand-to-hand combat, I might show you who’s really in charge, despite my apparent “physical inferiority,” and go back to my obnoxious behaviour while you tend to your broken arm.”

      But you see. That was my point entirely.

      Eventually the kid will figure out that dad is just a stupid idiot with loose fists, who can’t solve issues in a more long-term manner and sometime when far into adolescence the grudge will still be strong and the kid might just look for a weak moment to put dad in his place.
      If the kid still holds his old man in high regard and have respect it’s likely not because of beating(s), but in spite of it.

      I surmise You wouldn’t leave the party feeling “put in your place and respecting me”. You would leave the party with a grudge and maybe even plotting for revenge of how to hand it to your master of the night.

      And I do acknowledge that one day one will run into one’s superior and he will hand it to one – left, center and right.

      And just so we’re clear, I’d very likely enjoy your company (and would very surely be amused rather than annoyed :) ).

    • My point is that too many times it is hammer/nail approach. I argue that most times there is a superior way of “resolve” – and putting yourself in the position of needing to strike is because you as a parent has painted yourself into a corner earlier. It’s not necessarily that I’m against striking per se, it’s that I see it as a inferior tool in the tool-box.

      Your own hang-ups are colouring this a bit, and you’re denigrating the wrong thing as a result. Anything that’s a measure of last resort is in fact superior to those measures used afore. Nuclear weapons are superior to handguns is scope, range, and lasting effect, for example. Striking is also superior in its effectiveness, but like a nuke, renders the target and anything within 100 miles desolate if used in excess. Just because we don’t like things, doesn’t make them materially inferior. In fact, as power is often a frightening force in the eyes of the relatively meek, it’s quite the opposite.

      And I’m sure I’d enjoy your company as well :D

    • mh says:

      “Your own hang-ups are colouring this a bit, and you’re denigrating the wrong thing as a result. Anything that’s a measure of last resort is in fact superior to those measures used afore. Nuclear weapons are superior to handguns is scope, range, and lasting effect, for example. Striking is also superior in its effectiveness, but like a nuke, renders the target and anything within 100 miles desolate if used in excess. Just because we don’t like things, doesn’t make them materially inferior. In fact, as power is often a frightening force in the eyes of the relatively meek, it’s quite the opposite.

      And I’m sure I’d enjoy your company as well :D”

      I understand your argument from a Markov Chain perspective?

      I argue that if you are a little shit beatings will only make matters worse, and you won’t understand the connection between those beatings and greatness. You might just end up as a neo-nazi calling people whom entertain and steal spotlight at parties for “one of those with numbers”, because putting someone down is all you know.

      On the other hand, if you’re great, physical beatings as a kid won’t have attributed nor been the source of your greatness. I surmise probably even detracted. Beatings (challenges?) in life, otoh, is another matter entirely. A thing that pops into my head is how many times a kid hears “no … ” in his life compared to “yes…”.

      When has a nuke beat someone into submission? Recalling WW2 history Japan didn’t surrender because of nukes. That’s a USG fable entirely.

    • You might just end up as a neo-nazi

      You might. Or you might not. It seems altogether improbable but the odds certainly aren’t zero.

      In any event, I think we’re diverting from a discussion about discipline to a discussion about repeated and random beatings, the sort that small-dicked men resort to when they feel powerless outside of their own home. Disciplining is a tool, beatings are, as you said, adversity.

      Recalling WW2 history Japan didn’t surrender because of nukes. That’s a USG fable entirely.

      Now I’m interested in your reading of how the war on the Pacific front ended!

    • mh says:

      “Now I’m interested in your reading of how the war on the Pacific front ended!”

      Yes, we’re straying now, but just as US was far from being the saviour of Europe in WW2 (equally as they weren’t as instrumental in rebuilding it either with the Marshal plan as is told), and it was mostly Stalin doing the Nazi-ass-kicking, it seems that Soviet also played a more pivotal role in the Pacific.
      Japan was already on her knees (put there by Stalin) before Truman dropped the bombs. Hence, I suppose, why many question the reasons for the drops. It’s likely it was more of a message to Soviet (and domestic US?) – especially remembering how the Nagasaki bomb was utterly unnecessary from a military point of view. It was also the start of the Truman Doctrine, Cold War and all that deliciously expensive arms-race.
      I’m, very evidently, not a historian. I am however trying to remember who the storyteller is and the narrative that comes from that.

    • Go figure that Fox News would have a five-year-old article describing exactly this. For posterity:

      As the United States dropped its atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, 1.6 million Soviet troops launched a surprise attack on the Japanese army occupying eastern Asia. Within days, Emperor Hirohito’s million-man army in the region had collapsed.

      It was a momentous turn on the Pacific battleground of World War II, yet one that would be largely eclipsed in the history books by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the same week 65 years ago. But in recent years some historians have argued that the Soviet action served as effectively as — or possibly more than — the A-bombs in ending the war.

      Now a new history by a professor at University of California, Santa Barbara seeks to reinforce that view, arguing that fear of Soviet invasion persuaded the Japanese to opt for surrender to the Americans, who they believed would treat them more generously than the Soviets.

      Japan’s forces in northeast Asia first tangled with the Russians in 1939 when the Japanese army tried to invade Mongolia. Their crushing defeat at the battle of Khalkin Gol induced Tokyo to sign a neutrality pact that kept the USSR out of the Pacific war.

      Tokyo turned its focus to confronting U.S., British and Dutch forces instead, which led to the Pearl Harbor attack on Dec. 7, 1941.

      But following the German surrender on May 8, 1945, and having suffered a string of defeats in the Philippines, Okinawa and Iwo Jima, Japan turned to Moscow to mediate an end to the Pacific war.

      However, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had already secretly promised Washington and London that he would attack Japan within three months of Germany’s defeat. He thus ignored Tokyo’s plea, and mobilized more than a million troops along Manchuria’s border.

      Operation August Storm was launched Aug. 9, 1945, as the Nagasaki bomb was dropped, and would claim the lives of 84,000 Japanese and 12,000 Soviet soldiers in two weeks of fighting. The Soviets ended up just 50 kilometers (30 miles) from Japan’s main northern island, Hokkaido.

      “The Soviet entry into the war played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow’s mediation,” said Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, whose recently published “Racing the Enemy” examines the conclusion of the Pacific war and is based on recently declassified Soviet archives as well as U.S. and Japanese documents..

      “The emperor and the peace party (within the government) hastened to end the war expecting that the Americans would deal with Japan more generously than the Soviets,” Hasegawa, a Russian-speaking American scholar, said in an interview.

      Despite the death toll from the atomic bombings — 140,000 in Hiroshima, 80,000 in Nagasaki the Imperial Military Command believed it could hold out against an Allied invasion if it retained control of Manchuria and Korea, which provided Japan with the resources for war, according to Hasegawa and Terry Charman, a historian of World War II at London’s Imperial War Museum.

      “The Soviet attack changed all that,” Charman said. “The leadership in Tokyo realized they had no hope now, and in that sense August Storm did have a greater effect on the Japanese decision to surrender than the dropping of the A-bombs.”

      In the U.S., the bombings are still widely seen as a decision of last resort against an enemy that appeared determined to fight to the death. President Harry S. Truman and U.S. military leaders believed an invasion of Japan would cost hundreds of thousands of American lives.

      American historian Richard B. Frank has argued that as terrible as the atomic bombs were, they saved hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and millions of Japanese troops and civilians who would have perished if the conflict had gone on until 1946.

      “In the famous words of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, (the bombs) were the ‘least abhorrent choice’ of a dreadful array of option facing American leaders,” he said in an interview. “Alternatives to the atomic bombs carried no guarantee as to when they would end the war and carried a far higher price in human death and suffering.”

      Frank, who is writing a three-volume history of the Pacific war, said he continued to disagree with Hasegawa on the relative importance of the Soviet intervention and the A-bombs in forcing the surrender decision.

      But he said they agreed that ultimate responsibility for what happened lay with Japan’s government and Hirohito, who had decided in June to draft almost the entire population, men and most women, to fight to the death.

      “Since no provision had been made to place these people in uniform, invading Allied troops would have not been able to distinguish combatants from non-combatants, effectively turning each village in Japan into a military target,” Frank said.

      The impact of the lightning Soviet advance comes through in the words of Japan’s wartime prime minister, Kantaro Suzuki, urging his cabinet to surrender.

      He is quoted in Hasegawa’s book as saying, “If we miss (the chance) today, the Soviet Union will take not only Manchuria, Korea and Sakhalin, but also Hokkaido. We must end the war while we can deal with the United States.”

      V-J Day, the day Japan ceased fighting, came on Aug. 15 (Aug. 14 in the U.S.), and Japan’s formal surrender followed on Sept. 2.

      Dominic Lieven, a professor of Russian government at the London School of Economics, said anti-Soviet sentiment in the West tended to minimize Soviet military achievements.

      Also, “very few Anglo-Americans saw the Soviet offensive in the Far East with their own eyes, and Soviet archives were not open to Western historians subsequently,” he said.

      More surprising, even in Russia the campaign was largely ignored. Although the scale of the Soviet victory was unprecedented, 12,000 dead against Japan hardly compared with the life-and-death struggle against Nazi Germany, in which 27 million Soviets died.

      “The importance of the operation was huge,” said retired Gen. Makhmut Gareyev, president of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences, who took part in the 1945 campaign. “By entering the war with militarist Japan … the Soviet Union precipitated the end of World War II.”

  2. […] where the black swans live,i that’s where the monsters and magical alien dragons of pure energy live, that’s where your demise […]

  3. […] quite evidently is or else she’d be getting on with the show by now, would no doubt be some unparented niggers. Putting The Economist, or anything equally pseudo-intellectual, much less anything warranting […]

  4. […] to look very far to see this bedeviling manifest, and increasingly so since the spotlight of “shame” was shone on the large US banks following the 2007-2008 bailouts.ii In the past seven […]

  5. […] mircea_popescu: [Simmins article] << This is fucking insane. “Federal employees are not overpaid because Federal gov’t is a business except it’s not a business, and other businesses that are businesses skew the business average data!!!! Federal employees are not overpaid by comparison to federal employees, in fact there’s a perfect 1:1 correspondence”. Where the fuck do these idiots go to school ? Clearly it must be a special venue. pete_dushenski: The lulzy thing about Federal, and other gov employees, is that they think they’re underpaid! mircea_popescu: Well they ARE doing a great job at fucking shit up. pete_dushenski: They imagine that private contractors, who charge millions of dollars for various and sundry services, are making mad bank. mircea_popescu: That’s not the problem. pete_dushenski: While the private CEOs might be, the average gov employee is better paid and works less than the private contractor. mircea_popescu: They imagine that if they were in the private sector, they’d be contenders for VP of JPM. Rather than struggle to make it as a janitor at McD’s. pete_dushenski: Lol right. The only published salaries for private employees are 7 figures. mircea_popescu: Just like pansy ass middle class priss imagines if she were a street hooker she’d dazzle everyone with her charms. And on it goes. pete_dushenski: And they imagine that their 6 would become 7 if only they were paid what they’re worth. And yet, they don’t leave. mircea_popescu: Part of the problem is that they have plenty of time to daydream, which is how bad ‘regulations” come about too. pete_dushenski: ‘This is how it COULD work.’ They’d be better off writing children’s books. mircea_popescu: As long as no children actually read the abominations. pete_dushenski: Which, I suppose is what gov regulations really are. They’re for the child-at-heart-and-at-head. So ‘think of the children’ is perfectly valid in this la-la-land because it equates to ‘think of me’ and what child doesn’t think that they’re the centre of the known universe ? Hint: one without parents. […]

  6. […] There will always be situations you felt you could’ve handled better, there will always be means of discipline you wished you’d chosen instead, and there will always be more you could’ve done for […]

  7. […] inside the Yeshiva, the public and transparently logged nature of the venue allows for shame to be used as a motivating force, a powerful and fiercely effective tool now stripped from the […]

  8. […] tell which way is up, for the simple reason that reading, thinking, and reflecting are hard and really can’t be taught any other way.i Just the way of the world, it […]

  9. […] of all this isn’t to make any kind of difference in the world, oh no, that’s what sociopaths and those godforsaken “career women” do. No, these caring, loving, dutiful mothers of […]

  10. […] some parents neither beat nor shame their own children ! I mean, how much must they despise their own spawn to neglect them so ?! […]

  11. […] dicked sex, this sorry state of affairs isn’t at all unlike the situation presently facing parents […]

  12. […] bar to set. Bestowing 10% or 50% of your wealth on your children is as liable to corrupt them as not spanking them. Giving them a taste of wealth (not comfort) – as well as a bit of a financial boost, that […]

  13. […] combined,xi but this LFA factory tour lays bare the cultural chasm between the Japan’s shame-driven culture, the mega-dedicated takumi craftsman that result, and the spear-chucking neanderthals that have the […]

  14. […] in the comfort of my own home no less, I didn’t even have the satisfaction, or salvation, of education. There was nothing I could’ve done differently. But there I was in the middle of the forest, […]

  15. […] but my natural inclination is to say that the idiots trying to create Internet 2.0 weren’t beaten, shamed, and humiliated enough as children. Too many gold stars for participation, not enough cracks across the knuckles for talking out of […]

  16. […] however are based on environmental and genetic considerations, like whether your father beat some sense into you at any point, and whether he was an ordained priest as his father was and his father […]

  17. […] pretty offensive behaviour from a company selling a pretty offensive idea. Seriously ladies, shame is motivational. You should try it sometime. […]

  18. […] a paltry embarrassment compared to those of even the average Republican that I’m regularly ashamed, which I blessedly find motivational more than anything else. And it’s a sweet, sweet […]

  19. […] “post-modern” even, what’s a self-determined man to do ? There’s no one to beat him into shape, but then again if he needed such things he wouldn’t be very self-determined now would he ? […]

  20. […] is so repugnant is only – and I mean only – because their lamentable parents found actual parenting even more repugnant. So the lot of ‘em made their beds and they can now lie in ‘em. […]

  21. […] days when teachers still gave their kids the strap, back when adults could possibly be bothered to give a shit about the next generation ? I’d like to think so. As far as I can see, any other form of […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>