Click to Subscribe
‘The Hand that Rocks the Cradle’
Female Engagement with Masculine Hierarchies
© 2016 James LaFond
“The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.”
-Old Saying
The old saying above is one I had been told by my grandfather and which my guide, Ishmael reminded me of in a conversation coming down out of Wyoming into Utah through Echo Canyon. It is essentially the premise for A Dread Grace, that women have historically had a greater hand in war-making—in the process of deciding to go to war—than has generally been credited. Two examples of the mother in specific instances—rather than the repetitive instance of a Spartan woman handing her son his shield and saying, “Come back with it or on it,”—should suffice to make the point that this old saying, whatever its origin, speaks much truth.
The Two Greatest Conquerors in History
No man ever seized and held sway over a greater portion of extant civilization, of the known, literate world as conceived at the time, as Alexander of Macedon. His mother, Olympius, held great influence over him his entire life, instilled in him the mania that he was a god and that he must emulate Achilles, and most probably either had his father Phillip murdered, or influenced Alexander to arrange for the patricide of his father. Alexander was much under the sway of the ideal of motherhood—possibly linked to the legend of Thetis, the goddess who was the mythic mother of Achilles. In any case, he permitted himself to be adopted by two mothers during the course of his conquests. Matriarchal sanction was at the core of his conquering being. Alexander conducted at least 10 genocides to completion—and let us remember that Hitler [another mamma’s boy with a callous father] did not preside over a single fulfilled genocide—murdered numerous close companions, and, through his mania to become a living god, predicted our current deification of the atheistic state.
Genghis Khan, born Temujin, another son of a murdered father [done in treacherously by a rival chief], was taught unity by his mother—which did not keep him from killing his brother—and rose to become the greatest single conqueror in human history, to control more land than any modern nation state, more people than any pre-industrial ruler, and to supervise the slaughter of more people than were killed in WWI, and possibly more than were killed in WWII. The old axiom of the arrows in a bunch being unbreakable was attributed to her. What a tough-minded woman she must have been.
The greatest impregnator in human history, with hundreds of millions of direct descendents, Tamujin was weaned by a mother who did not play the role of the machinating Olympius to Alexander, but is proof positive that being raised by a fearsome female who is of a mind to work her will through a man, rather than rule herself, produces the most aggressive male conquerors.
This mechanism by which willful women have successfully worked through their male family members, was shopped out to suitors in the age of the European monarchs, with queens such as Elizabeth, working her will through men such as Hawkins, Drake, Raleigh and Grenville to gain rulership for her small nation over the seas, establishing the widest ranging maritime empire in human history.
These three cases of women working through proxy aggressors whom they encouraged to climb the male hierarchies of their age and nation in a quest for their approval, reflects the reality that women interact with, and import their will into, the most aggressive masculine military hierarchies through a masculine agent. These men also act as a filter, preventing the women who influence them from becoming crazed with power—as generally happens when the physically weak gain control over dominantly lethal proxy force. These men—none of them—were puppets, but willful, driven savages that ultimately followed their own heart, but they had been formed and set on their course by a woman, a woman whose will they modified to fit masculine action and interaction.
Recently, I have had numerous conversations with voters about the Unites States going to war with Islamic forces abroad. These break into three groups:
1. Men—some war veterans—who are strongly opposed to asserting the U.S. multi-national will and multi-cultural democratic celebrity ethics overseas through military action.
2. Men—some war veterans—who hold a wide range of opinion and mostly tend to be hesitant about the use of force abroad, often out of suspicion that the war will be another limited effort with no tangible victory condition.
3. Women, right and left, conservative and liberal, democrat and republican, who tend to think the U.S. should conquer every nation that can conceivable attack the U.S. and also engage in a worldwide military crusade to overthrow all Islamic governments that do not guarantee equal rights for their women. I seriously, have not found a woman that is not in favor of sending American men to fight in the Middle East, either to protect Israel, stop terrorism, stop the rape of Middle Eastern and African girls or feed starving children.
One will always [and I mean always] note, that among fans of combat sports, the ones screaming for blood, violence, more offense, more aggression are always those who have not fought in that sport, have not shed that blood, have not been injured or injured others in such pursuits. This is not exclusive to women. The most bloodthirsty little league soccer fans are the sissy fathers of girl athletes. This is the function of lack of proximity to the activity and the employment of proxy actors.
The more one can place the person who demands violence outside of the field of violence the more violence they will demand. There was rarely a group of people more against their sons going to war than veterans of the U.S. Pacific War of the 1940s, who generally told the younger men of their families not to go to Vietnam, with some even offering to front money for a trip to Canada.
The most consistently expansionist empires in history were not autarchies, for autarchies place the leadership in the hands of one man who identifies closely with the military, and, in ancient times, often took the field. But rather republics, democracies and one odious parliamentary monarchy:
1. The democratic city state of Athens committed more genocides than Nazi Germany, Great Britain and Turkey combined.
2. The Republic of Rome was far more predatory and expansionist than the Roman Empire that succeeded it.
3. Great Britain, ruled through its most expansionist periods by Queens and directed by a wealthy elite, held more flags under its empire then could be depicted on one page of a national geographic magazine from 100 years ago.
4. Unique among world superpowers, the United States, with heads-of-state elected by a majority female electorate, actually—and uniquely among all previous world powers—wages petty, meddlesome warfare on a grand scale. In my life time the United States has conducted only one kind of war, warfare to alter the internal structure of small nations who posed zero military threat to the U.S. Homeland or overseas military assets. This is gossip warfare, going to war in order to have the right to tell other peoples how to live, how to treat their wives, how to manage their economy.
Whether you are a creationist or evolutionist, you must realize, that throughout most of human history women influenced world events through the action of men they gave birth to, raised, married or flirted with, not directly. There was an aspect of this that should not be overlooked, that these men were warriors who molded the savage feminine desires of these women to fit the rational masculine reality. They also acted as a filter, informing the women who inspired them in the ways of men, modifying the female mania of the soft, small and weak to work wonders through influence over the hard, large and strong.
Our current Queen Apparent, has stated that she will go to war with Russia—the Number Three world military power, and one never picks a fight with Number Three, because that plays into the hands of Number Two [China]—over computer hacking, which is spying, which no male head of state will ever go to war over, as it is a demeaning part of the game that statesman play—the spies all expendable and reprehensible, essentially janitorial, in the eyes of the rulers. But to a woman, to a creature of gossip, the thought that another nation might be listening in on her private conversations, is cause for war! What is even more disturbing is that more women vote than men, a higher proportion of women vote than do men, and that women are far more likely to vote for war than are men.
If one currently looks to YouTube videos, it will become incredibly apparent that women are more aggressive and more violent than man, will fight cops at a higher rate, are more likely to attack men than are men, are more likely to attack women than are men, and are more likely to try and maim a downed opponent than are men. I suspect that this is because the male “filter,” the intermediary male relative through which the woman used to access the masculine force structure hierarchy—which remains functioning along masculine lines with hyper-aggressive female input, launching it into overdrive, as with the current Political Correctness tyranny—has either been removed or degraded, and that, for all our muscle, we remain a bitch nation looking for a fight.
The reader should not forget, that minus a few freaks like Charles “the Brat King” of Sweden [this dickhead invaded Russia with, I think 18,000-24,000 men in Autumn!] and Napoleon [who lost ten times that many men in the same idiot quest], that the men who headed European states in the Modern Era avoided war far more often than they sought it. This is a lesson learned by every sane man subject to a masculine hierarchy, whether he is a boxer in a gym, a king among fellow kings, or a soldier in a platoon, that committing to combat is nothing to be taken lightly. As far back as the hunters of the distant Ice Age, it has been ingrained in the male mind that one does not seek a lethal contest when it can be avoided. Among fighting men, such fools as Custer and maniacs like Alexander, will, on grim occasion, break these rules and serve as their own sanguine lesson when cut down before their time.
Such a sense is not ingrained in women, except through the fear of losing their mate [women have traditionally been more apt to approve of sending sons than husbands off to die] who is both a provider, protector and a loved one, where Junior is only loved. There are more records in ancient annals of men refusing to send sons off to fight for their master than women. [See Herodotus, on Xerxes and the vassal who asked that his son be spared death against the Greeks.] Of all of the numerous men who have told me their parents sent them, or offered to send them, to Canada to avoid service in Vietnam, all of these parents were fathers, not mothers. This complex of female aggression through proxy actors is at the core of our evolving world hive. I will spend the balance of A Dread Grace illuminating past cases of female inspired military aggression, before, hopefully, finishing with an operational theory.
Note, that balanced women, on the say-to-day personal scale, have traditionally managed their household—even influenced their husband’s opinion—by learning about power through him and her father and brothers. Part of the traditional role of the house wife in the mid Twentieth Century was as a confidant, and if she was able, as an advisor. In today’s state of spiritual gender-separation, men tend to lean on their friends in this fashion. But in the days of intact nuclear and extended families, women—whether they were able to influence their men or not, which was a matter of personality and relative strength of character—learned things about the workings of masculine hierarchies, as well as learning that the ways of men were sometimes beyond their ken.
In this sense, the great women of yesteryear—Elizabeth, Catherine the Great, Victoria, Thatcher, Eleanor of Aquitaine and FDR’s lesbian dame, knew much more of men and power and of the risks inherent with meddling by war, than any future female head of state will ever be able to fathom, no matter the army of advisors whispering in her ear. And the same may be said of the common woman. Rebecca Boone knew more about men, what they are, how they think and the things they do, than can any liberated woman of this Post-Masculine Age.
Books by James LaFond
To Be Mercifully Content
the man cave
An Excuse to Drink
into leviathan’s maw
the combat space
by the wine dark sea
your trojan whorse
barbarism versus civilization
uncle satan
broken dance
Sam J.     Sep 24, 2016

Women are the reason Sparta fell. The Men held up their end of the bargain but the Women just refused to have children. Sparta's population fell over and over until an earthquake caused enough damage that the few remaining Men couldn't beat the odds and they were whipped. They never slacked, there was just not enough of them.

What if the Spartans had this,

Baby mice created from sperm, without an egg

All the frustrated Men out there in 10 years or less if you had a Female cell you could fertilize it and the baby would be yours. Maybe you could get married but if the Women left then the baby is still yours. I bet there's plenty of Women who would sell cells for big bucks. Say $1,000 for a few cells.

This would drive Feminist batty beyond the belief of all battyness ever created on the face of planet Earth. I see Female suicide squads blowing themselves up in the cell clinics. White Women would start acting like BT1200's.
Nero The Pict     Sep 25, 2016

This piece reminded me of those abominable bitches...."The White Feather Girls":

Vile creatures that shamed British men who were not enlisted to fight in the meat grinder that essentially set Western Civilization on a path of self immolation aka WWI. These evil harpies would descend upon men wearing civilian clothes in public and present them with a white feather, a symbol of cowardice. Often times these men were home on leave from active service...Read the link above. Your blood will boil. Funny how human behavior never changes.
  Add a new comment below: