Spanky, spanky

“You’re mommy’s little angel, aren’t you? You’re mommy’s good boy—aren’t you? You’re not a bad boy, you wouldn’t do a bad thing, now would you? If you do a bad thing, it makes mommy very, very upset.” Imagine this is said with the mother bent down to eye level with the child, little Timmy say, and, if he continues to be wilful, perhaps she says, “Well, if that’s the way you want to be I’ll just leave—do want that? I’ll just leave and let you do it on your own. Because I’ve had enough—I’ve had enough of this.”

Man is obsessed with status—so the corporal punishment debate is about status. In our society it is high-status to be feminine, to be a woman—it is low-status to be masculine, to be a man. Hence corporal punishment is considered bad—and is largely outlawed—because it is masculine.

All the arguments you marshal as to whether or not corporal punishment “works” or is “effective” flow from this state—if you find yourself filled with a desire to make a case against it then you have been feminised, you watch too much Netflix or too much BBC News (those flashing lights and patterns are hypnotic, you know). It has nothing to do with the “actual merits” as such, man doesn’t make decisions based on “the actual merits” or “reason”—if you think that way, you work in a progressive thought frame (“rationalism”).

The other day I said Christianity is a feminine religion while Islam is not. It’s the same as corporal punishment: Christians work, predominately, in the medium “if you don’t convert, baby Jesus will cry”, “we’re praying very hard for you, because we love you so very very much”, and “your father works so hard for this family, he crucifies himself so we can have all these nice things—so you better be grateful, like you’re grateful to Jesus”. You can see the basic approach gels with the mother above (I do not refer to the Virgin Mary).

Islam, by contrast, offers you the masculine option—convert or die (if you’re a pagan); or, if you belong to “the people of the book”, pay a higher tax band. This is “corporal punishment”—minimal psychological manipulation, maximum physical manipulation. The options are put before you in a clear way, the punishment is clear—there’s no getting inside your mind and making you feel ashamed to have “the naughty thoughts”.

Western societies are feminised, so it is expected that we should discipline children in a feminine way—through psychological manipulation. Forget the various arguments for or against the different ways to discipline children—all methods have their pluses and minuses (and perversions—like some public school Latin master who salivates over the prospect of spanking bare bottomed boys and afterwards has to “conjugate some verbs” in the staff lavatory). There are perversions in all punishments—but it is in a decadent society that one form of punishment is outlawed altogether.

A few summers ago, I got off the train at my station and there were three little thugs—aged 9-12—throwing things at everyone who walked past: orange peels, drink cartons, and so on. People just dodged past them and pretended to ignore them. When they threw something at me, I turned, stared at them, and then spat at their feet. I then walked round the corner—the oldest thug followed me and threw a full plastic bottle of Coke at my back, he threw it hard (hard enough I still felt it hours later).

Now, here we have the problem. Sixty years ago, I could have gone back and clipped them all round the ears—perhaps put the youngest over my knee and spanked him. Today, if I did that, the police would come—not the local bobby (we don’t have those, just a robot in a fluorescent jacket)—and I would be investigated for “child abuse” (per the checklist they program them with—“Safeguarding Protocol”, or similar).

If I were a respectable middle-class professional, I might end up on the local newspaper front page or neighbourhood WhatsApp group as “an abuser”. It is very doubtful the law would be on my side—perhaps it would be, but the risk is too great for most middle-class people because their reputation could be ruined even if they weren’t prosecuted.

“He hit me kiddies,” screams the dole scum mother—in fact the concern over “paedophiles” is isomorphic with the refusal to clip kids round the ears, it’s about hysterical sentimentalisation of children; and the very concept “paedophile” is a feminist invention itself.

Yet what those young toughs needed was precisely to be clipped round the ears—and, probably, sent to some boxing gym run by a former Parachute Regiment man called “Sergeant Johnson” or some such who would whip them into shape. As it stands, their conceit and selfishness and narcissism are all rewarded—go unpunished; they can make life miserable for others, have their fun, and nothing happens.

Sure, they technically assaulted me—yet am I really going to wait for the police to arrive, by which time they’ve run off, and then go through a huge complicated court case that wastes my time over a trivial incident? No (and that’s why it should be resolved, with common sense, with a clip round the ears). It’s not symmetrical, you see—some young thug has endless time just to call the police and say “the big nasty man abwused me”, while the man with things to be doing doesn’t want to waste his time on this trivia.

Plato noticed this thousands of years ago: he said that in a democracy the young rule the old. We live in a democracy and, just as he said, same as it ever was, the young rule the old—and wives rule their husbands (because to spank your wife is domestic abuse). The democracy is feminine, the democracy is a collective hysteria—which is why democracy always turns to tyranny, because the hysterical mass, like a woman, yearns for a good beating (which she doesn’t get in a democracy in a moderate way but is made up for in a perverted way in a tyranny).

This is why corporal punishment is not allowed at the moment—and yet there are many people who need it, particularly certain types of boys who go off the rails without it, and, in its absence, it contributes to the arrogance, narcissism, and self-conceit that characterises the democracy.