Mass and Marriage- Shifting Positions Among the Elite

There has been a lot of hullabaloo recently about the NYT article about the married and unmarried mothers. HBDers find it a compelling argument against mudsharking, feminists think it’s picking on the poor helpless saints/martyrs.

Whoever you are, you can’t deny the article has a powerful subtext. The reporters and editors of the NYT aren’t stupid- they know things mean more than they say, and they know those meanings are quite clear to anybody who isn’t really thick in the head. They have just published an article making it excruciatingly clear that getting knocked up when not married by an irresponsible black guy is going to really fuck up your life.

They are also smart enough to have left themselves a huge out of plausible deniability. Any argument or exposition using examples can be disregarded or dismissed with the counter argument that it’s just one case, and cannot be said to be representative, or in other words is “anecdotal evidence”. The clever can use this not simply to attack the arguments of others, but in self-defense. Bullies, in this vein, if called on their harassment will say they were “just joking” or “didn’t mean anything by it” and those correcting them should “relax, lighten up”. Plenty of people have accused the NYT of being hard on single mothers, but no one has accused them of racism. One, the article generalized from the examples given to the difficulty and undesirability of single motherhood, but not to the difficulty and undesirability of interracial relationships. Two, you can’t accuse the NYT of racism.

Had anyone accused the NYT of racism, their defense would have been simple- “We had to mention the race of the father of the single mother’s children. We showed pictures of them, so it was obvious anyway. But this is just one case, and you can’t generalize from one case! That would be using anecdotal evidence! We would never do that, and we are shocked that you are!”

Trouble is, people learn lessons and draw conclusions from examples, or anecdotes, all the time, and it is not unreasonable that they do so. Asking people to draw conclusions only from large samples is unreasonable. And when people do draw conclusions from large samples, the wrong ones, they are told they are wrong. If you point out that blacks behave badly quite often, you will be told that yes, some blacks behave badly, but not all, so you can’t draw any conclusions about blacks in general, assume anything bad about any specific black, or even judge any specific black on his actual bad behavior, rather than regarding it as an unfortunate anomaly obviously produced by racism.

The sadness of the article is not so much in the gross irresponsibility of the black father, but in the poignancy of the devotion and kindness of the white father. It mentions, for no particular reason, his height- 6’8″. Among upper middle-class people, a man’s size is of little consequence, since such people don’t resort to fisticuffs. They do know, however, that among lower-class people the ability to physically intimidate is an important resource, and that the kind of nasty and aggressive people that are frequently found in that environment will be strongly discouraged from messing with his wife and kids. This lady doesn’t have a knight in shining armor, but she does have a bouncer.

At the same time he’s a sweetheart. He mentions being motivated to finish college by the desire to marry his wife. Here he reflecting a value the upper middle-class understand well- marriage is the privilege of a certain amount of economic achievement. When his son starts crying on the camping trip, he doesn’t tell him to get a grip- a typical, not inappropriate father response- or comfort him, a typical, not inappropriate mother response- but challenges him to a game of tug-of-war, which immediately cheers the boy up. He seems to have a high degree of emotional intelligence as well, regarded as very important by the upper middle-class.

There are various ways the reporter or editor could have made this come out differently. They could have not shown the children of the unmarried mother, and not mentioned their names. They then would not have had to mention the race of the father. All this would have been quite reasonable on the basis of privacy. They could have said little about the white father, only mentioning his employment, salary and family duties. It would have made the article much less compelling, but it would have kept the focus on economic rather than emotional issues.

They can claim they didn’t mean to say it, but they said it. Don’t have kids until you are married to a responsible, caring man, even if he is not an exciting guy. Black guys are likely to be trouble. The gina tingles you feel as a 19 year-old will cause you grief the rest of your life.

This is all utterly obvious to the non-idiotic, but the official position- what you would expect to see in the NYT- has been just the opposite since the 70’s. Not married and pregnant? Single motherhood is great! Women can do anything! The government will take care of you, and will coerce employers to accomodate you! Married, with kids, but not feeling the tingle any more? Kick the bum out! No husband, no problem!

My feeling is that the elites look at what they have wrought, and are having second thoughts. They need a lower class which is incompetent, and not threatening to them, but is at least functional. The single white mother/mulatto children family functions poorly and is a drain on society. These people will always be net consumers of government services. They will support the system politically, but the system will support them financially. The white family is no threat, but the parents are functional and independent, and the children can be expected to be functional and independent in the future. Having encouraged single motherhood for 40 years, they realize maybe it is time to reverse the trend.

Here’s another example of the elite shifting positions- fat people. The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance has been around since 1969, the same year the homosexual rights movement started. In the 70’s, 80’s and into the 90’s the idea of fat people as an unfairly discriminated-against minority was taken quite seriously. Proposals were made to protect fat people from employment and other discrimination, although those haven’t gone anywhere. Fat people can be covered under disability laws though.

The idea that obesity is a horrible social problem is relatively recent. But now that is something you hear about every day. I was thinking about a sitcom episode in which a woman who has gotten fat and is getting crap about it makes it into a feminist issue- as in “Fat is a Feminist Issue”. The TV episode is from 1989, the slogan from a book published in 1978. But when is the last time you heard such sentiments?

Again, encouraging lower-class women to be fat- upper middle-class people never get fat, it’s a fundamental class marker in America, just as having illegitimate children is- was at one time seen as a good idea by the elite, but they realized they went too far, and want to reverse the situation, at least partly.

The elite does change their mind about things, or change their position depending on what they are trying to accomplish. A lot of things they do are ham-handed, insensitive and cruel, but they have some flexibility, which has helped them stay on top.


About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Mass and Marriage- Shifting Positions Among the Elite

  1. joetexx says:


    The elite are capable of recognizing that the attitudes they have encouraged for 40 years are doing massive damage. So they send up a trial balloon. They may or may not do anything to mitigate or reverse the actual situation. 

    This is no adverse criticism. I think you are almost certainly right. But your focus of interest is diagnosis, and mine is therapy, even if the moment it can only be palliative therapy. What can we do about it?

    My tentative answer is that we help the elite out, up to a point, by vociferously praising the new attention that the pathologies of single motherhood are getting. 

    Laud the NYT article and similar gestures to the skies; there are even ways of working in the racial angle. 

    Then point out, for those who can see – even if they can’t see right now – that the people who are decrying the situation are the spokesmen for those who caused it all along. 

    The non-idiotic, as you call them, already see the problems. But I don’t think they make the causal connection, and that’s where we can help them out. 

    I have mentioned Jehu before, at Chariot of Reaction.  His latest post on public vs homeschooling shows the kind  of strategic thinking that we need to employ on many issues. 

  2. Ryu says:

    Wow. What an article from the NYT. ‘Shark and you’ll end up poor, abandoned and single. Marry a white man and you can live the dream. I like how they break up the mudshark story to avoid connecting the dots too clearly.

    Whoever is driving this train is going too fast. We see this backlash over security at movie theaters and gun control. No one wants to go to movies if they are TSA’d during the process and if ticket prices get jacked up. It’s the same in many other areas. The rate of change is too fast, causing backlash.

    Anyway, I completely agree with the message to women: marry a white man, stay married, be a good wife and you too will be envied. Or, you can be a free independent woman, sleep with coons and get a McJob.

  3. mindweapon says:

    I sure hope so! This race mixing and single mom shit has gone way way way too far. Thankfully, a lot of White kids nowadays are disgusted by it and openly say so, at least in my experience.

    I think a major culture change is in the making. It won’t be on TV until it’s already happened — hence the old “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised” truism. Here’s a comment from

    Are we living in the last days of race-liberalism? The mind-boggling equality laws passed since 1954 are an anomaly in terms of history and human nature. McCarren pool, writ large, is unsustainable. Thirteen-year-old girls with noses broken by barely-human cratures spawned by the welfare state… multiplied by the victimized girls’ family members and friends, tally up.

    Western civilization’s psychotic sixty-year-long experiment in racial integration is nearly spent. Nobody really believes in it anymore. The breaking point will come when nobody will continue to *pretend* they believe in it. Race-liberalism’s reversal will be swift and unexpected.

    And a day later, when we are free, we will all forget that things were ever different. In 1987, no one had any idea that Communism is about to die.

  4. Heil Hizzle Mein Nizzle says:

    I find this blog simply Barbaric!!!!

  5. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You: 7-22-12: Holmes Killer Edition | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  6. Pingback: Daily Linkage – July 22, 2012 | The Second Estate

  7. Mudsharking has always been a declasse phenomenon. Celebrity mudsharking (Heidi Klum and Seal, Tiger and whateverhernameis) isn’t enough to counteract the mudsharking people directly experience. Women who date/marry black men are inevitably trashy. They are always some combination of overweight, skanky, ugly, and lumpenprolish. Even the mudsharking Mayella in the great anti-racist novel To Kill A Mockingbird is depicted as white trash.

  8. PA says:

    “Having encouraged single motherhood for 40 years, they realize maybe it is time to reverse the trend.”

    Yeah, there is that. But a change of mind is also coming from a more visceral place: the elites’ horror at the obliteration of human beauty that comes with the mixing of Europeans with others.

    Nineteenth century elites profited handsomely from the smoke and runoff pollution of factories. But then came national parks and environmental protection. Many species of animal that were hunted to near-extinction have made astounding recoveries.

    White man, be he right or left, radical or reactionary, has one quality above all others: he takes care of his things.

  9. Phil says:

    Who owns the NY Times? Not Puritans.

    “1896: The New York Times, Founded in 1851 by Anglo Saxon New Yorker Henry Jarvis Raymond, is purchased by German Jew Adolph Ochs. Ochs’ daughter marries Arthur Hays Sulzberger, who becomes publisher when Adolph dies. Och’s great grandson Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. is the publisher of the NY Times today.”

    My guess is that some powerful or influential people within the Jewish community are nervous about their own jewish grandsons and granddaughters marrying blacks. Look at how Israel is treating it’s own black african population- deportation. This is most likely about racial issues within their own Jewish community, which they hide by using European-American people as examples.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s