Tuesday, 1 December 2009

The street rats are mostly Balls' bastards

Ed Balls is either a very stupid man or one blinded by ideology to the evidence of the effects of family background on children. The evidence that children who grow up without their biological fathers are not only likely to be damaged but likely to damage others is overwhelming. For the sake of balanced, healthy, achieving children and for the sake of society as a whole we should be doing everything we can to promote stable families that retain both biological parents, and marriage is the best mechanism for formalising those bonds. What doesn't Balls understand?

Somewhere in the Sundays over the weekend was a story that surfaces from time to time, of the desire for an equalities counter-reformation. All the things that should have liberated women into a new equal world - the pill, employment rights, the outlawing of taste discrimination - have actually left women worse off, the piece stated, and for every ladette happy to fight their way up the career ladder there was a potential housewife happy to care for home and children, but the latter lifestyle choice had become increasingly difficult.

And of course our tax and benefits system must support not just the best evidential relationship structure for our children, but the most moral also - for without a common morality our laws, our social structure, our respect for the rights of others are nought but dross.

The next government will still have to deal with the underclass, with the street cohort of violent, illiterate young men dealing drugs and murdering each other for the pettiest of reasons, young men whose life expectancy doesn't stretch much beyond their forties, and half of that spent in prisons, care homes or young offenders institutions. These street rats are Ed Balls' bastards; they are the product of Labour's 'any lifestyle choice is good' policy that eschewed fatherhood for State co-parenting. And Balls, like all men who get bastards and flee, will leave it to everyone else to pay to solve his problem.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I understand where you're coming from, Raedwald, and I broadly agree with you. The place I part company is in the assumption that biological fathers (or, indeed, biological parents in toto) are always good for the children.

On a lot of council estates across this country, there are two-legged vermin who live with their children, raise their children and effectively train their children to be feckless, shiftless benefits-claimants.

The issue at stake is not the issue of who contributes gametes to the child. The issue is that the people raising the child should be decent human beings - honest people who will contribute to society and will raise their children to work, to learn and to contribute.

Living in a house with two idle drunken biological parents who've never worked a day in their lives and subsist on your and my tax contributions will not help children to grow up to be decent members of society. So, before we worry about bastardy and single-parent families, we have to slay the beasts of welfare dependence, idleness, entitlement, criminality and narcissistic amorality that stalk so many "communities" in this country.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

I refer you to - and recommend - an essay called "Childhood's end" by the great Dalrymple. You can find it on the city journal website.

Forgive me for quoting a whole paragraph:

"I suspect, however, that the main consideration inhibiting elite criticism of MacKeown* is that passing judgment would call into question the shibboleths of liberal social policy for the last 50 or 60 years—beliefs that give their proponents a strong sense of moral superiority. It would be to entertain the heretical thought that family structure might matter after all, along with such qualities as self-restraint and self-respect; and that welfare dependency is unjust to those who pay for it and disastrous for those who wind up trapped in it."

[*NB McKeown is the woman whose 15-year-old daughter was murdered in Goa after her mother abandoned her to the care of a much old local man whom they had hardly met.]

I think he nails it quite well.

Krauser said...

Welfarism is inseperable from Feminism, as the former is merely cuckolding write large upon the tax-payer.

The sexual apocalypse is led by:
1) the Pill
2) no fault divorce
3) urban anonymity
4) independent female income

Taken together they unleash the female Id as it trends towards hypergamy and resulting soft polygamy. Women can sleep around without getting pregnant or slut-shamed, released from the need to find a breadwinner-provider, and able to take any such White Knight to the cleaners in a divorce if she so decides.

The net effect is Nice Guys get no women while (in aggregate) women cock-hop from thug to thug, rearing thugspawn.

It's no surprise society degenerates. Every matriarchy is a stagnant violent cess-pit whether it's Black American ghettos, White UK sink estates, or almost the entirety of West Africa.

This will only stop when women stop rewarding thugs with pussy. They will only do that when they fear the consequences.

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/decivilizing-human-nature-unleashed/

Anonymous said...

The net effect is Nice Guys get no women

Please - this is meant to be a serious blog post and a serious discussion about the deleterious social consequences of funding the feral underclass through welfare. It should not be turned into "Krauser's Lament because welfare stops him getting laid".

I'm sure you're a wonderfully "nice guy" and not at all socially inept, ugly, fat, creepy or a general failure at life. I'm also sure that your inability to get casual sex is entirely due to government policy and nothing to do with you personally. I'm sure there's nothing unhealthy about the fact that you're obviously targeting female members of the underclass as potential mates. However, I'm very sure that your "Boo-hoo! Nice guys can't get pussy!" whining has exactly fuck-all to do with Raedwald's post.

Krauser said...

Way to go anonymous. You ticked pretty much every box in the list of female shaming language.

http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/2007/03/01/the-anti-male-shaming-tactics-catalog/

Actually it's not Krauser's lament. As a player, the unleashing of hypergamy has personally benefited me. However, because I care for the future of my country I would've much rather pandora's box had never been opened and would love to see a reversal of all the welfarist programmes Raewald notes.

Anonymous said...

You ticked pretty much every box in the list of female shaming language.

What does that even mean? Speak English and stop trying to impress us with puerile "Kool Kid" jargon that you've made up.

http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/2007/03/01/the-anti-male-shaming-tactics-catalog/

Why are you spamming Raedwald's blog with bizarre links?

Actually it's not Krauser's lament. As a player, the unleashing of hypergamy has personally benefited me.

A player? Jesus wept. Anyone who can, with any degree of seriousness, describe himself as "a player" has clearly not known the touch of a woman at any point in the last decade.

I repeat what I've said before: this is a post and a discussion about the societal, political and philosophical consequences of welfare and the family amongst the underclass. It is nothing to do with your self-loathing, your self-pity, your craving for sex and your pretensions to coolness.

You are a very, very silly man. You have nothing worthwhile to contribute; you embarrass yourself with everything you say; and you have not responded to the point that you, being aware of your own shortcomings, are seeking lower class women as partners because you expect that they will have lower standards.

I think you should depart this blog and head over to 4chan. They're much more your speed, no?

Anonymous said...

Anyone over 65 years of age could have told you what would happen . But would have been ignored.
Luckily for you all the solution is not only at hand but inevitable - sharia law.