The outright assault on the traditional family structure continues. This time, Father’s Day, an annual day set aside to appreciate the healthy father figure in people’s lives, but even this couldn’t stay pure for long.
Good Morning Britain tweeted that:
“Is it time to ban Father’s Day? With a rise in single parent, blended, and same-sex families, is it time to get more inclusive and appreciate parents all year round?”
With a total disregard for the science behind a non-traditional family structure, the mainstream media is bashing a symbol of stability, success, happiness, and wellbeing.
The negative effect of non-traditional families on human wellbeing is astonishingly understated, as I will explain.
85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
Boys who grow up in fatherless homes have significantly lower testosterone levels than average.
Children born to single mothers show higher levels of aggressive behavior than children born to married mothers.
71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes.
71% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
Stefan Molyneux, a popular philosophy YouTuber, covered the effects of female-headed/single mother households and the associated poverty rates. In every example poverty rates were above that of the average poverty rate and the poverty rate of married couple families.
Welfare rewards and encourages social instability and boosts dependence on the state/big government.
Molyneux also discussed in the video below that in the West the introduction of welfare has subsidized irresponsibility by taxing stable, good income families and redistributing the resources to keep single mother households afloat. The effect of this is placing pressure on responsible members of society and encouraging social instability by funding the lower-end of society and helping it flourish.
Molyneux argues that because society is accustomed to the “safety net” guarantee of welfare, it feels at liberty to make irresponsible decisions and involve itself in marriages, decisions and partnerships that are dysfunctional rather than practical.
Welfare has broken apart the strength of strong, effective families and replaced it with an irreverence towards forging lasting, stable relationships — which form the bedrock of society.
To take things further, the deep state economists and legislators are perfectly aware that subsidizing bad decisions will equal more bad decisions. In fact, it’s their goal; suppress social stability and cohesion in the masses, promote fragmentation, atomization and encourage an unhealthy dependence and allegiance to a nanny/provider state, that, by extension, gets to call all the shots and direct all policy-making unhindered.
Feeding a cancer helps it to grow — the welfare state is a powerful fertilizer for the social cancers that afflict western civilization.
More welfare emboldens the weak, erodes the stable middle class, and empowers the deep state.
Words are an undisputed facet of sociological soft power; if you sweep a pattern of language throughout a population, it will rule over itself and become a self-regulating hive mind, our exposure to something (such as language) correlates with our resulting subconscious identity, to change the social landscape is to get people accustomed to it and become part of it whether willingly or not, and then to defend it as an extension of themselves.
Soft power is: “a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economic or cultural influence.”
“Wordier” language and verbosity is associated with knowledge, intelligence, professionalism, and the scholarly — as a result, flowery language is used liberally in masking areas that officials don’t want public meddling, they’ll also refer to “the professional opinion” as if to encourage viewers to let the “professional” do the thinking for them on the issue. Unsurprisingly, this “professional” spokesperson is often cherry-picked to back their angle on the information.
What you can’t properly understand you can’t begin to control or influence meaningfully.
On the other hand; simple, immediately accessible, well-articulated language is plastered over information that officials want to rapidly permeate social consciousness, it comes attached with key sociological catalysts; the emotional hook; a palatable story travels very far.
There is no topic complex enough that it cannot be taught in simple, understandable ‘layman’s’ terms that offers meaningful insight, yet simple stories for mainstream media remain too simplistic and unavailing in their delivery, mostly offering an entry-level insight with an authoritative tone, one that asserts affirmative information with no basis to make such a claim.
They can get away with this, build up the false reputation, the suits and ties, the “working studio” backdrop, these people look like professionals — and by professional, I really mean yes-men taught to write persuasively, acting as well-trained, domesticated mouthpieces for the elites.
Obfuscation has been notably used in the vaccine industry controversy, Jon Rappoport explains,
“For example: shuffling various disease and disorder labels; studies claiming there is no link between vaccines and autism; the hoops the government makes parents jump through, in order to try to obtain financial compensation for their damaged children; the legal deal allowing vaccine manufacturers to avoid law suits; the invented cover stories claiming autism begins in utero or is a genetic disorder; the pretension that autism has even been defined-
All lies. All avoidances.
A child gets a vaccine. The child suffers brain damage. That happens.
Then why does the government say, over and over, that vaccines are safe? Because they want to lie.
Vaccine damage is being called autism.
It diverts attention from the grave harm vaccines are causing.
Autism is essentially any kind of severe neurological damage a child suffers from ‘unknown’ causes.“
There is not a day that goes by without the media reminding us about who and what type of people we should be afraid of (and who we should trust), this authoritative tone is how they choose to deliver their language.
Likewise, complex terms in the mainstream are wordy, yet just as simplistic as the former, saying a lot but actually explaining very little; sophistic. This inflationary use of language permeates all mainstream media.
Hence — economics for example, money (the exchange process upon which human civilization depends) is shrouded in jargon, inaccessible, dense language that dissuades the curious mind — to crush our diction, a deluge of simpleton’s language sweeps into our consciousness day in, day out, via social media, TV, and other platforms of mainstream manufactured media (they actively demand simple, stripped-down language in all journalistic writing).
George Orwell’s 1984 spoke of the ‘destruction of words’:
“It’s a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well – better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good,’ what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words – in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,” he added as an afterthought.
By curtailing frivolous and “fighting” words, the Party seeks to narrow the range of thought altogether, such that eventually, thoughtcrime will be literally impossible.
Words are the hallmarks of our thought.
The soft power of inhibiting and centralizing a population’s vocabulary goes a long way in limiting the scope of that population’s thought — word control is thought control, if you can’t fathom the words to express how you feel, or the patterns of language in your head are repetitive and hypnotic; drawing upon language for an original & critical insight becomes difficult.
When all you hear is the same story repackaged on the many media outlets (all owned by the same few companies) your conscious recall can only think to draw from their small pool of hyper-centralized, dumbed-down, echo-chambered information. Most of mainstream ‘news’ is the weather, unimportant bulletins, and sports, ad nauseam.
The conscious mind is flooded with trash, the unconscious mind (where individual thought happens) is, as a result, overridden, the compartmentalization of thought by repeating the dimensions of accepted reality each and every moment of each and every day.
Like the brutally revolting, inarticulate minimalism of post-modernist architecture, the simplification of language is making the linguistic cultural landscape equally ugly and inexpressive; the death of individual expression is upon us.
Read any book from pre-WW2 era and the language is an expressive display of terminology and diction. Every word a gateway to yet more information, a whole new topic for each term — modern language glosses over this for the sake of ‘minimalism’, it argues that simple is better (true in some cases, so long as there is actually meaningful expression).
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.” — 1984, George Orwell
The rise of “text speak”, memes, and emoticons/emojis is another indication language as we know it is declining into irreverence. This slackened speech has brought about a situation where people don’t want to write to express themselves, apathy has risen to dangerous levels — formality itself has lost its role outside of the workplace, as a society we cannot seem to take issues seriously on an individual basis outside of paid work, we quickly relapse into the clutches of memes and sound-bite news feeds; all fast food for language comprehension and engagement.
Mumble rap is a prime example of the cultural degradation of language, a form of music that involves poor lyrics and slurred, nearly inaudible speech; the elites are pulling strings to get this trash over-represented in our culture; popularity and fame is an illusion today, if you buy into it without your own independent assessment of the cultural landscape, you help to perpetuate this controlled cultural decline.
LGBTQ, compelled speech, and political correctness.
With the rise of major social group-think in the latter part of the 20th century through to the present day, the inability to even use certain words, phrases, and lines of thought is worrying.
Off-limits topics such as race realism, critique of Israel, the major banking families & their associated power structures, questioning the Holocaust, migration, advocating nationalism, and so on, has produced a fearful population unable to step ‘outside of the box’, we have been cornered into a mental prison.
The postmodernist bubble lacks a value structure, it lacks structure full-stop, it’s a deconstructionist ideology aimed at liquidizing Western culture and Western social and political structures that get in the way of establishing a world order. The sooner we all can realize this, the better.
While I am principally an individualist, unlike most sworn individualists (who often see all people as intrinsically, unequivocally equal; “the sanctity of the individual” and so on) and proportion their politics to this maxim, I believe that at a certain level of heritable intelligence (namely biological IQ: intelligence quotient) a person’s predisposition towards individualism declines sharply — and therefore the need for benevolent collectivism is an (inevitable) necessity in swaying these groups of people of lower intelligence that are going to take on the beliefs of someone or something sooner or later — the crux of my argument is that lower intelligence people are an ideological power vacuum — Why? It’s simple enough — they lack the reasonable individualistic capacity to be resistant to, and critical of malevolent, monolithic, collective thought and its resulting politics — they, quite simply, are lacking the intelligence to discern and exercise sensible, pragmatic individualism: an important factor in holding together a civilization and ensuring its sustainability. The history of these populations’ civilization concurs with this assertion.
The need for parity between ruler and ruled.
If an electorate lacks the intelligence to “connect the dots”, sees only its own interests (due to lack of creative and/or empathetic vision to see benevolent collective goals) — it both lacks comprehension of itself and others and falls prey to predatory politicians and rulers in all their forms.
These are rulers who will outclass such an electorate in intelligence, knowledge, practicality, conscientiousness, time preference, and just about every other trait that is a reliable predictor of success and influence in its numerable forms.
We are seeing this more and more, the Ashkenazi Jews currently rule over whites and all racial groups beneath measured by genetic IQ.
I believe, unlike the absolute assertions of Jordan Peterson that suggest it is only intelligence that accounts for Jewish influence, that, at least some element of Jewish in-group consolidation is the reason the highest echelons of power are dominated by them. There are simply too many smart non-Jewish ethnic whites for this to go unaccounted for me to believe Jewish dominance has no environmental causes whatsoever.
This, mixed in with the fact Jews came to occupy influential financial positions first before anyone else (due to Christian Europeans being unable to partake in usury historically) this helps to explain why Ashkenazi Jews dominate today — they got into positions first due to the lucky societal circumstances, and then consolidated their positions, with an element of persecution and the fact Jews were relatively ostracized, these positions likely were passed on in a nepotistic way; more so than not with the in-group in mind.
Also, most of the immoral, extraordinarily powerful so-called “Jews” are actually Judeo-Masonic, Solomonic adherents — by extension, Satanists, this has served to totally mischaracterise Jews altogether. The people who are responsible for the Globalist agenda are not real Jews, they may identify as Jews publicly, but they have Masonic inspiration. For example, their very non-Jewish symbol, the “Star of David”, is a Satanic, Masonic symbol, many half-Jews have fallen for this false non-biblical imagery and have followed the so-called state of “Israel”; thinking it is a Biblical revelation.
See how the Judeo-Masonic elites are obsessed with Israel for non-Jewish reasons.
Stop opposing the broad ethno-religious group that is Judaism, it’s simply not the case that a broad group of some multi-million Jews are colluding against the world, to suggest so makes little sense. More accurately, a small sect of Solomon-praising, Satanic-Masonic “Jews” are to blame for the sheer misrepresentation of the Jewish community, and all conspiratorial behavior that has seemingly come from a broadly “Jewish” establishment.
“Masonry is a search after Light. That search leads us directly back, as you see, to the Kabalah. In that ancient and little understood medley of absurdity and philosophy, the Initiate will find the source of many doctrines; and may in time come to understand the Hermetic philosophers, the Alchemists, all the anti-Papal thinkers of the Middle Age, and Emanuel Swedenborg. Everything scientific and grand in the religious dreams of all the Illuminati, Jacob Boehme, Swedenborg, Saint-Martin, and others, is borrowed from the Kabalah; all the Masonic associations owe to it their Secrets and Symbols.”
— Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, 33° freemason and founder of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.
This so-called “light” is, in essence, reverence of Lucifer not as the devil, but as a liberator, a guardian or guiding spirit, or even the true god as opposed to God (YHWH).
Judeo-Masons are obsessed with Israel in the context of Solomon; but look at how Solomon was addressed in the Bible:
“The Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel.” — 1 Kings 11:9
The charge against Solomon was that ‘his heart was not perfect,’ or wholly devoted to the YHWH, that he ‘went not fully’ after the YHWH. His was a case of halting between two opinions, or rather, of trying to hold both at once. He wanted to be a worshiper of YHWH and of these idols also — It is clear to see how Satanic Freemasonry is a combined religion of pagan Gods and the Judaic God, this is why the elites identify as “Jews” today, but aren’t truly so.
Jewish Mysticism is not true Judaism, it’s a non-biblical offshoot of what is sanctioned in scripture. The entry of the Kabbalah— developed roughly around the 12th century, derived from the heretical, non-inspired text, the Talmud.
Solomon the Wise was an Israelite, he was a Jew, but he turned away from God (YHWH) and pursued Satanism. Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, a Goddess connected with fertility, sexuality, and war. Her symbols were the lion, the horse, the sphinx, the dove, and a star within a circle indicating the planet Venus. Pictorial representations often show her naked. She has been known as the deified morning and/or evening star (Luciferian symbology). Solomon also began to praise Moloch/Milcom/Molech (as the Judeo-Masonic Elites do annually at the Bohemian Grove). Solomon built a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
Judeo-Masonic Ashkenazi “Jews” closest competitors, those most genetically similar to them, are Caucasian European whites. If whites are removed from the equation as a major demographic, then the genetic (and thus influence) gap will become wider than ever — this is what those in power are attempting to do; diminish “whiteness” in all its forms — they know the significant predictive role of race in political influence and socioeconomic systems, and are (understandably) putting all of their money into brainwashing people to be blind to this reality while carrying out their dysgenic agenda behind the scenes.
As a result of this agenda, such a dysgenic electorate will be more susceptible to emotional arguments, logical fallacies, compartmentalization, designed dialectics, irrationality, superstitions, hysteric trends, and so on — the funny thing is, we can already see how these “minority groups” are already predisposed to all of these things, yet are protected groups nonetheless — and, right before our eyes, are rapidly replacing whites in Western nations as the new dominant population with an army of liberal “progressives” employed to assure us that this will “enrich” us, all the evidence points to the contrary.
Varying intelligence: why collective thought will always have a place in human society, whether we like it or not.
It’s about mitigation — rather than hoping for a sociopolitical Utopia, I believe reasonable mitigation and sensible policy-making is enough to deliver a society that can flourish.
TL:DR — Just as individual thought will always exist relative to collective thought and vice versa; it’s a seesaw based on aforementioned factors. The further towards base consciousness a population gets the more negatively collectivist it becomes, taking on often bad ideas in lieu of their own.
The role of benevolent collectivism (such as the group-think religiosity of cultural and ethical Christianity) for susceptible groups is deliberately overlooked in postmodernist society — because certain globalist forces want to unilaterally over-represent in society genetically and/or culturally limited “individuals” that, on average, simply lack said mental faculties, know-how, background etc (due to numerous factors including historic inbreeding among many others) to represent themselves as capable individuals, and thus are more receptive to collectivism and the centralization of the state. They’re bending over backwards to represent these people: granting copious welfare, slanting society to the their defense against all sensibility, bringing in compelled speech and taboos, white guilt and so forth — it’s quite simply a bubble for a protected group, that, without such an outrageously preferential bubble – would not get very far at all.
The globalist elite want us to believe that “everyone is equal” to all other concerned citizens regardless of significant civilization-defining traits such as intelligence. Hence the ideological over-representation of Cultural Marxist ideology across all institutions owned by the trendsetters.
In lower IQ people — traits such as gullibility, a lack of receptiveness to rationality, and a predisposition towards unthinking group-think collectivism abounds, all this has a biological basis in race. Populations that operate at a more basic consciousness, i.e. concerned with R-brain matters such as sex, domination, resources on the group or individual basis, lacking the empathetic foresight to perceive and act upon wider concerns.
It is not entirely environmental as the Jew-funded Cultural Marxist institutions will insist.
Guess what? Europe will become a continent dominated by low IQ “individuals” that have just as much of a right to vote as rational, moral, and savvy individuals — the UK alone will become a Muslim country by 2050 if current demographic trends persist due to the proliferate compound nature of R-selective populations: by which point, proxy-totalitarianism will have a firmer foothold than ever.
This is bad news for the individual but great news for the centralized state.
If we look back to the societies that are today deemed “antiquated” and the “wrong side of history”, we can see various successful, influential classical societies and groups that practiced eugenics, Rome, Ashkenazi Jewry, ancient Greeks incl. Sparta, and so on. Even one of the Godfathers of philosophy, Plato, suggested the benefits selective mating to produce a guardian class.
Furthermore, we can see how Western Christian societies averted dysgenics by making legal provisions against birth of inferior human beings, this was notably promulgated in Western European culture by the Christian Council of Agde in 506, which forbade marriage between cousins. Something dysgenic populations never really did to an effective extent, the genetic rift thus widened.
Up until the mid-late 20th century, genetic discrimination such as compulsory sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, specifically, segregation and genocide of races perceived as inferior was a wide societal norm, the accepted norm was that there are differences between certain groups of humans, whether we wanted to accept that or not for humanitarian reasons was, quite rightly, a secondary matter.
This article, while cautious to frame such practices and conventions as supremacist, malevolent, or otherwise, hopes to illustrate that a dysgenic society will lead to more suffering and conflict than a society with eugenicist practices ever will; and the evidence supports it.
Drawing the line as to what defines an “individual” in relation to sociopolitical systems.
Because a comprehensive system of natural selection no longer exists, (even culturally now) — the distinction between genetics that are passed on by merit and genetics passed on with the help of welfare and so on — is nonexistent, we have R-selective groups being able to pass on their genes where in a truly open, decentralized society this wouldn’t be able to happen.
In simple terms in application to political systems — smart people are often more individualist (thus, conservative and nationalistic), lower intelligence groups are less individualist (more predisposed to group-think, socialism), the role of mass-indoctrination may be able to net some fringes of higher intelligence groups but generally the core principle remains.
I propose we can relatively reliably categorize people into “capable individuals” and “incapable individuals”, largely reliably on the five racial groups and dysgenic/eugenic traits, gender, background, but also (albeit somewhat less reliably) within these groups based on class. (Cultural Marxism is all about denouncing the terms “categorical” or “general” but these are perfectly fine terms, used in the correct context).
While these assertions of justifiable partition certainly sounds collectivist and an affront to individual rights — race realism and the taxonomic significance between biological groups is founded in science; and a factor worthy of serious consideration when regarding any system of social and political arrangement.
I’ve written a whole article (called “the truth about racism”) detailing the significance of race and intelligence, so I won’t go into too much detail here, but here are a few points that help illustrate my argument:
Sub-Saharan Africans are the only group of people without detailed mythology or creation stories.
If we cannot see the influence of race and IQ on upholding individual representation, we will fall to absolutist collectivist politics, especially as the “migrant crisis” rapidly undermines Western population of capable (higher IQ) individuals with incapable (lower IQ) individuals.
Representing the voting rights of incapable (low IQ) people is dangerous, I propose an IQ and general/applied knowledge test for eligibility to political vote. While this kind of test cannot determine moral character, at least it can determine intelligence.
Lower intelligence groups are almost always going to organize towards the characteristics of the mob, fragmentation, and group-think, whereas higher intelligence groups tend to represent their own thoughts and interpretations and have awareness of benevolent collectivism, thus shaking-off most inclinations to representing monolithic thought.
They will almost always make irresponsible, hysterical, passionate, and irrational decisions with their rights to liberty, democracy, and self-determination, by extension empowering the state; not themselves or the wider capable individual.
At a higher level of intelligence, the ability for someone to think for themselves increases, hence the commonality of individualism and democracy in Western nations occupied by races of higher overall IQ (even if Western democracies and systems that champion the individual are often subverted — the general attitude towards individualism is more common in people of higher intelligence than without).
In my opinion, this is where the role of independent collective thought such as the Bible comes in, while you can absolutely take on the teachings on your own terms, regardless of your intelligence — the importance of casting a collectivist thought process that engages with several fundamental principles such as “do not not steal”, “do not kill”, “do not lie lie”, etc based on the threat of eternal damnation is the only way to communicate to a group of people not (easily) able to operate on a rational level of thought, the Bible does this exquisitely, it uses the threat of death mixed in with something that cannot be possibly tangibly understood (a deity), the perfect enforcing combination for keeping susceptible populations in line.
The decline of Christianity as a (mostly) positive force of collectivist thought has spelled disaster for the West.
As Christianity has been mocked and destroyed in Western culture at the hands of Jewish influence, we see susceptible (lower intelligence) populations previously protected by the positive collective standards of the Bible now become receptive to new “progressive” hive-mind ideas, it really is one religion exchanged for another more materialistic one, this new nihilistic religion as Christianity’s replacement lacks any direction.
Instead, it opens vulnerable populations up to sophistic ideas that, ultimately, reduce essential liberties, that, without the safeguarding ideals of collectivist Biblical faith, have now been able to infiltrate and infect Western culture.