Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

Tucked deeply into an effluvium of UGH WHITE SUPREMACY HATE HATE INTERNET HATE in the Washington Host, we observe the classic evasive behavior of the Slithery Reptile™ (subspecies, Marc Fisher).

Although the reptile’s conflation of the idea of “supremacy” with “realtalk” is typical for its swamp-dwelling genus, where we observe its natural behavior most clearly is the refusal to confront straightforwardly the details of the claims to truth made by the hated hateful hater “supremacist” groups.

“Frankly, this movement is in such disarray,” said Johnson, the 61-year-old American Freedom Party chairman, who traces his involvement to his support of George Wallace’s 1972 presidential bid. “You cannot expect there to be no retaliation by certain disaffected portions of white society when you have crime after crime by blacks against whites. People are going to rebel, and that’s what this young man did.”

Violent crime across the country has dropped to near-record lows over the past two decades; the national crime rate is about half of what it was at its peak in 1991, according to the government’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. Despite that, polls repeatedly indicate that Americans perceive crime to be on the increase.

Did you catch The Slithery Reptile’s™ flick of the forked tongue? He allows a brief airing of the hated hateful hater enemy’s legitimate grievance, only to answer it with a slithery evasion that does not address the core of the complaint. The Slithery Reptile™ knows that absolute crime numbers and disproportionate black crime are two separate and distinct phenomena, but he’s hoping you won’t notice his color change as he camouflages himself in the pattern of a faggy talk show snarkmeister and redirects your attention to a fat red herring flopping near at hand.

But we’re on to you, Slithery Reptile™! You may feel free to classify this as hate. I prefer to call it… The Shiv.

Read Full Post »

U.S. agencies still collect crime data by race. That will end soon, because the data is unfriendly to the Equalist Narrative and is falling into the hands of the Rebel Alliance. For now, a rich trove of anti-antiracism Realtalk is yours for the hatebrowsing at various government websites.

From the 2013 FBI Crime Report:

Although blacks only constitute 12% of the total US population, they murder nearly as many whites as the number of whites murdered by other whites, who are 64% of the total US population.

This website is running a tally of black-on-white and white-on-black murders in the year 2014. The numbers currently stand at 348 BoW murders to 4 WoB murders.

What about all categories of violent interracial crime?

But in fact, white-on-black crime is a statistical rarity. According to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), an estimated 320,082 whites were victims of black violence in 2010, while 62,593 blacks were victims of white violence. That same year, according to the Census Bureau, the white and black populations in the U.S. were 196,817,552 and 37,685,848, respectively. Whites therefore committed acts of interracial violence at a rate of 32 per 100,000, while the black rate was 849 per 100,000. In other words, the “average” black was statistically 26.5 times more likely to commit criminal violence against a white, than vice versa. Moreover, blacks who committed violent crimes chose white victims 47.7% of the time, whereas whites who committed violent crimes targeted black victims only 3.9% of the time.

FBI stats show that blacks are 50 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites than vice versa.

John Derbyshire combs National Crime Victimization Survey data and does the math, finding that any given black was almost fifteen times more likely to have killed a white in 2013 than any given white was to have killed a black.

Derbyshire also responds to slithery reptilian leftoid critics who claim that the disproportionate black-on-white crime rates are simply a consequence of population ratios and nothing else.

The argument here is that blacks move among whites much more than whites move among blacks. We encounter blacks much less frequently than they encounter us, so of course we commit fewer crimes against them! If we moved among blacks more, we’d commit more crimes against them!

Er, possibly: but wouldn’t they also commit more crimes against us? And are we sure that the whites who avoid moving among blacks (why?) are just as criminally inclined as those who mingle?

Derb goes on to explain the math underlying the disparate black-on-white crime stats. Short story: Tim Wise can’t do math. But he sure can do sophistry, that rascally bloodsucker!

The arid “population ratio” argument against the idea of blacks deliberately targeting whites in racial antagonism crimes strikes me as specious for another reason. How often do upstanding members of the criminal class of blacks encounter whites in real life? Blacks are fairly concentrated in their rural and urban enclaves. (Even middle class suburban blacks tend to live in majority black neighborhoods.) For a benign “population ratio” argument to have any merit, you’d need to have conditions on the ground that greatly increased the actual encounter rate between blacks and whites. The crude population ratio number doesn’t accurately reflect the real world daily encounter rate between the races.

This is damning, because if the black-white encounter rate based on nothing but raw population ratio is much lower in actuality, it means the higher rate of black-on-white violence is even more shockingly disproportionate. It means black criminals are sometimes going out of their way to hunt for white prey, away from their monoracial districts.

Pussy cuckservatives often crouch into the defensive posture when the topic is black crime, reflexively bleating about “blacks killing other blacks, that’s the real problem”, preferring to ignore the low level race war of black-on-white violence. Yes, blacks kill other blacks far more prodigiously than they kill whites, but that skew is mostly a function of target availability and racial disposition toward impulsiveness; the great majority of liberal SWPL whites are smart enough to avoid living in the thick of the urban (and rural) ghettos, and to limit their exposure to black criminal predation. Even within city boundaries that have dense black populations, whites (and hispanics) sequester themselves into city sectors that are psychologically and economically, if not geographically, distant from the core black urban crimeclass.

Tim Wise lives in an almost racially pure neighborhood.

It’s no secret that criminals prefer soft targets. If you walk a certain way, (i.e., like an alpha male), you can reduce the chance that you’ll be the target of street crime. It is likely the case that black criminals perceive the supple SWPL whites who live within prowling distance of them as soft, juicy targets of opportunity, made more inviting as hated prey objects by the whiteness of their appearance. Once a doughy white is in the black’s crosshairs, the racial hate instinct percolates from the subconscious into consciousness, often driving the attacker to a frenzy of depraved, intertribe violence. This is why it’s wrong to assume only premeditated interracial violence is classifiable as racially motivated hate crime; race hate does not abide exquisitely legalistic timelines. Hatred for racial outsiders can simmer for years or it can explode on sight in the heat of the moment.

Smartly, most whites have the good sense to segregate themselves from blacks, establishing themselves in “dindu buffer zones” that are geographic, technological, or economic in nature. It is what whites do, and especially what GoodWhite liberals do, (whether or not they admit to it), to provide themselves a measure of protection from the wildly disproportionate chaos and feral race hatred of black criminality.

So, yes, there’s a guerrilla race war happening in this country. It just isn’t the one you’ll hear about ad nauseam by our media, corporate, government, and academia Hivemind gatekeepers of information. They prefer you stay ignorant, self-flagellating, powerless, and victimized for the Great Globo-Equalist Cause.

A part of me hates writing posts like this one, as it really kills my chill vibe, but some lies are so dangerous and, worse, so humiliating to good people that I’m roused to action from my poolside lounge. And that is the worst crime of all.

Read Full Post »

How do you game a girl who has received twenty solicitations for sex and fifty compliments on her beauty all before 11AM? This is the problem that men face in the electronic ego validation age, when Tinder and Facebook and sundry dating websites serve as mediums for the uninterrupted fluffing, however superficial, of the tumescent self-perceptions of every halfway bangable girl with an internet connection or a mobile data plan.

This is no minor obstacle to love and romance. The ego is the enemy of intimacy, and female egos that have been inflated to the bursting point are a neural (and neurotic) bunker between you and a girl’s heart. Evidence of this mass female ego inflation comes directly from men’s testimonials and indirectly from data showing trends in how couples meet.

Every inception source of romance is down over the past 70 years except for bars and online. What happens in bars and online that doesn’t happen in the normal course of events when couples meet through the more traditional routes? That’s right: Intense, relentless, and usually charmless come-ons by drunk and socially clumsy men, that pump girls full of themselves. We’ve entered the age of the narcissistically-charged woman who houses in the well-marbled fat of her skull ham a steroid-injected, Facebook-fed hamster spinning its distaff vessel’s place in the world as the center of existence.

The catalyst for this post was a question by reader Culum Struan, regarding a girl affecting a pose of boredom who wasn’t “biting” on his attempts to connect with her.

I never got through to her emotionally. Even my best stories barely got a mild emotional response – these are GOOD stories and I have a lot of practice. It was just flat. What do you do with these girls?

YaReally, responding, suggests putting the girl in the defensive crouch, qualifying herself to Culum.

Stack disqualifiers lol make fun of her basically. If she isn’t interested in your stories about yoursef then turn the tables and put the spotlight on her instead and put her on the defensive because she likes that more than she likes yapping about her own stories. Drop the stories and go for her emotional jugular and get her qualifying herself and thinking you’re a bit of an asshole but then a nice guy but then an asshole etc etc giving her an emotional rollercoaster ride.

Think of it like you’re entertaining a 5yo with a book but they’re not paying attention or don’t seem that into it. Instead of sticking with the book and it might be a great book that most kids love, calibrate to this kid and throw on an exciting movie instead. Or play a game with them. Engage them on a different level.

What Culum describes — girls who seem impregnable to emotional engagement — is a problem that grows in proportion to the amount of ego validation girls are rewarded with online. The more a girl has her ego stroked by a phalanx of online dating desperadoes, the less she’ll feel the urge or the need to devote her full attention to any individual man unlucky enough to take her on a real world date. What results is a growing brotherhood of men finding they share experiences dealing with selfish, classless American women of mediocre appearance who act like the stereotype of haughty swimsuit models. It’s gotten so bad that actual swimsuit models are proving to be more pleasing dates for men with the balls to ask them out.

Since social media ego validation isn’t leaving us anytime soon, a man must learn the skills that will help him master the polluted dating market moonscape. YaReally continues in this vein, linking to a Mystery seminar video and explaining the concept of “conversational stacking” as a technique designed specifically to deal with egotistic, ADHD, mortally validated girls.

Try stacking it to increase her obsession, 3:57 in this vid.

For anyone who’s checked out the Julien PIMP vids I’ve linked about devalidation stacking, this is the multiple threading concept juliens shit is based on. It’s basically this concept but combined with negs/devalidation. Strongest chick-crack I’ve ever seen, makes the girl obsessed with qualifying herself and correcting your impression of her. Planning to do a write up about it in depth sometime. It’s the first legit evolution of classic MM to adopt it to the social media over-validation/over-entitlement era that I’ve seen.

The value of devalidation in the age of ego validated chicks cannot be overstated. To penetrate a girl’s Tinder-spackled ego fortress, you must first show an active disinterest in her world, and one powerful method to accomplish that attitudinal cue is the veering, shallow, self-amusing, multi-threaded conversation style. As Culum says,

So if I understand right – stacking and changing conversational threads (MM style) is good because it shows lower investment on your part plus creates conversational tension the girl will want to resolve. Julien’s devalidation basically puts the girl into a “box” and that creates tension that the girl will want to resolve by climbing out of the box (hence why we make statements about her and not ask questions). But if you combine the two, you multiply the effect of both strategies – is that it?

Recall the formulation “statement-statement-question“. This is the foundation you want to begin your career in active seduction. (Active seduction simply means you, as a man, aim to have choice in the women you date, rather than drearily accept the fate of the majority of beta males who take what they can get, which is usually an overweight hausfrau.)

Ultimately, the best weapon against internet-abetted female ego validation is LOWER MALE INVESTMENT. If a man must deal with a woman’s hypergonadal ego, (and consequently her revved-up hypergamous impulse), his first order of business must be neutralizing the influence and unclogging the romance-blockage of her ego. This, in practice, means FLIPPING THE SEDUCTION SCRIPT as soon as possible, and creating the perception that you are the chased and she is the chaser. Tactics that work include:

– refraining from asking a girl too many questions,
– skipping around topics of conversation (less investment in any one topic signals that you aren’t much interested in her input, and aren’t seeking her approval),
disqualifying her as a romantic prospect, and
– treating her with amused mastery, as if she’s a precocious nuisance you could take or leave.

Once you have the girl hooked, you can switch gears and start to qualify her as a possible sex interest and drive for deeper rapport by asking her more open-ended leading questions with sexual undertones.

This isn’t your Greatest Generation’s dating market. Prairie farm ladies aren’t waiting at home for a battle-weary man to rescue them from spinsterhood. Women aren’t effusively grateful to men for giving them the opportunity to exit the singles market. The sexual market has, in sum, devolved from a K-selected one to an r-selected one, and all that goes with such a cataclysmic change. The era of High Male Investment and Low Male Sexiness courtship signaling — poems and flowers and punctuality and appeasing her parents and stressing your financial stability and lavishing her with promises of eternal devotion — is OVER. Or, at least, its effectiveness greatly attenuated. We are now in the era of Low Male Investment and High Male Sexiness, or altered perceptions thereof.

What economically self-sufficient and Pill-freed women want now is a man who can make them FEEL again, and that means, in essence, giving women back the opportunity to do what they used to do without prompting: Making an effort to please men.

A woman is lost, adrift on a murky ocean of her undifferentiated emotions, when she’s robbed of that special female duty to please men. Game — the art and science of learned charisma — can give back to women that which massive social changes and the sexual revolution have wrested from them. Game can save women’s souls.

Read Full Post »

If the data and personal observation are accurate and America is filling up with sociopaths and psychopaths, then the best advice a person could get is how to spot psychopaths and either avoid them or defend oneself against their charming predations.

As a recipient of the wicked love of one or two suprasexy sociopath chicks, I can tell you that unless your state control is rock-ribbed and your sexual market options plentiful, you’ll get shredded to ribbons under the stiletto shiv of a femme fatale.

And having had the distinct displeasure to work and socialize alongside one or two male psychopaths, the danger to your well-being is a hundredfold worse.

You could say, “It takes one to know one, right CH?” Eh, maybe. Or maybe my keenness is a gift from the forces of Light, and the wisdom gathered from my experiences meant for bestowal upon the benighted as part of a pay it forward karmic redemption. Yeah, I’ll go with that.

Good news for people with functioning empathy centers of the brain: Psychopaths (and their lesser cousins, sociopaths) have tells, just like sluts have tells. If spaths (socio- + psychopath) unintentionally announce their evil disorder before they get their hooks in you, avoidance is possible.

Here’s a “psychopathy checklist” of twenty traits that are common in psychopaths. The biggest spath tells are lying, charm, and self-entitlement.

In essence, psychopathic predators can come across as socially adept, likable – at least at first – and the life of the party. Even after getting to know them, normal people often have the sense that something is wrong, but they don’t know what, because they aren’t use to thinking in terms of predatory behavior that will never change. Psychopaths, 99% of the time, are not reformable, and normal people who get in their way often spend considerable effort and energy into reforming them, which makes the normal person all the more vulnerable. […]

Glibly charming people who lie pathologically or who have been caught stealing should be like a flashing red warning light.

Perusing that psychopath trait list, I can’t help but notice at least a few of those traits are distinctive of successful, and psychologically healthy, womanizers who simply love the romantic company of (a variety) women. There’s a fair amount of overlap between psychopathy and tight Game. For instance:

glib and superficial charm
grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
need for stimulation

As any good player knows, chicks dig overconfident, charming men with exciting lives.

cunning and manipulativeness

Players can be manipulative, but so can women in their own ways. It’s fair to say a little bit of manipulation is normal and healthy in seduction. Legit psychopaths take that talent for manipulation to levels that would dismay even lifelong womanizers.

A spath red flag I’ve encountered is when a person (usually a man) puts his hand on your shoulder anytime he punctuates a joke he told or an opinion he delivered unsolicited. This is a domination move that forces a fast-tracked intimacy, a classic psycho charm+power offensive. If anyone pulls this on you, physically remove their hand while keeping eye contact. They won’t do it again.

Another red flag that will help you distinguish spaths from regular guy charmers: A charming, normal man will piecemeal his charm during a conversation, delivering doses of his charisma at opportune moments. A spath will come right at you with both charm guns a-blazing, even before he’s shaken your hand and gotten to know your name. The quick draw spath is employing one of his domination moves, attempting to lead and monopolize the sympathies of the social group. If you suspect you’ve got one of these psychos in your mixed company, (and you recognize the threat that he’ll captivate the women in your group), the best defense is a good offense. Treat the spath like an AMOG and tease him for his try-hard efforts to win everyone over.

Read Full Post »

What kind of economy do women prop up, and propagate? A reader forwards an unintentionally funny, and portentous, chart.

Women in their 20s, 30s, and beyond flock to nonprofits for work. There are three reasons for this:

1. Women are psychologically much different than men and have a sex-based preference for work in the “helping” and “schoolmarm” industries. If a woman gets to tell you what to do, and also gets to enjoy a sanctimonious glow from the thought that she’s bettering the world, she is a happy clam.

2. Nonprofits are post-scarcity economy work that appeals to people who want to “self-actualize”, the preponderance of these people being women. Profit maximizing and corporate ladder climbing are icky to women, unless that greed and self-aggrandizement occurs in the context of a do-goodism NGO.

3. Nonprofit work requires little to no UGH MATH CLASS IS HARD education or skills. Women have both less mathematical acumen than men (on the whole), and less desire to do work which involves the rigors of logic and maths.

A job that lets a white woman write jargony word salad all day, get paid for it, AND status whore about uplifting Africa’s women and children (men? what men?)? Hole-y twat tingles, sign her up!

Most nonprofits are a waste of human capital. 99% of them do nothing for their causes, or actively harm their clients and the donors duped into believing the equalist PR. The growth of nonprofits — and the rush of women into their ranks — is a hallmark of a pre-implosion empire.

You may think, “Aren’t nonprofits a luxury, and therefore proof that the society which can accommodate them is a wealthy and self-confident society able to afford a grandiose (and futile) amount of charitable giving?”

Yes, but no. Nonprofits are a luxury, but luxuries often foretell coming hardships. Pride cometh before the fall, and so do nonprofits. A tired, self-doubting, enervated culture will, contrary conventional liberal wisdom, often turn en masse to helping outsiders because, one, it has lost the will to enrich itself materially and spiritually and two, turning one’s energies outward can serve as a psychological balm for personal failings. Nonprofit work functions as a kind of palimpsest, underneath the veneer of which we spy scribblings of social unrest.

UPDATE

Reader YIH adds his .01 cents.

Here’s what that $1 you give to ”help the starving children of Africa” (or other
charity) does:
.80 – Fundraising: The phone banks and all those ads (What? You didn’t know those were paid for? LOL)
.10 – Administration: The lawyer (on staff, comes in handy), Accountant (gotta document what comes in and what goes out don’cha know) and the guy (or gal) in the suit behind the desk.
.09 – The costs to transport the ‘aid’ and the ‘aid workers’ plus all needed supplies as well as round-the-clock armed security for them. Not to mention the spokesperson and the cameraman – those ads don’t make themselves y’know!
,01 – That’s how much ‘Starvin’ Marvin’ gets – plus those nice t-shirts telling them that the Seahawks just won their second Super Bowl.

Liberals just have to learn to accept that inequality is a part of the human condition — perhaps a necessary and beneficial part — and…

Read Full Post »

It seems hard to believe, immersed as we are currently in a miasma of equalist lies, that there were ever times in America’s rapidly receding past when people shared a generally realistic appraisal of the sexes. But there were. And America’s fruited plains were once populated with Realtalkers. A reader forwards a link to Realtalk, 1920s-style. The subject is “Petting Parties”, which were all the rage during that time.

Soon the lovey-dovey wingdings were popping up all across the country. Southerners sometimes called them necking parties. They were called mushing parties in the West; fussing parties in the Midwest and spooning everywhere, the United Press noted later in 1921. Eventually some flappers began referring to party-petting as snugglepupping.

It’s almost weird to read about a time when America was so culturally unified, and this despite massive waves of Eastern European immigration happening then.

A game-aware nugget of Realtalk is tucked into the story:

“Girls like to be called snuggle-puppies,” one school administrator told the reporter. “They grant the boys liberties. Encourage them to take them and if the young chaps do not, they are called ‘sissies’, ‘poor boobs’ or ‘flat tire.’ ”

Heartiste Poon Commandment XIII: Better to err on the side of too much boldness rather than too little.

The beta male orbiter was known to women long before our time. He was that “sissy” — an apt description — who couldn’t bustamove when it most counted. That 1920s beta male stumbled and fumbled and waited patiently for unmistakeable signals from the girl until she grew bored with him and alighted for a better man who knew how to travel the landscape of her hindbrain.

Related: Fat women were never attractive to men. The “perfect woman”, according to an 1890s leaflet, was slender and feminine, not a hint of fupa or manjaw on her. America the Beautiful, where have ye gone?

Read Full Post »

Are white male Millennials the most craven American generation ever? Is the white male Millennial the new “nigger of the world“? Reader PA encounters evidence for the proposition.

Slice of life observation. A young (maybe 23 y.o.) white man is sitting in a public waiting area. He is tall, sportingly dressed, athletic, good looking. I’m standing nearby. A middle aged black man returns to that seat to pick up a small item he left there. Seeing him approach, the young white guy apparently thinks he wants that seat he’s sitting in. So he jumps up and in apologetic voice starts to say something but the black guy in a friendly manner tells him he’s just grabbing something he forgot. The young white guy stammer some some apology and says “thanks man” submissively and the older black guy goes away.

I thought about telling the young man something along the lines of “I understand its a reflex but there was no need to be this obsequious.” But then I decided not to. You know how when a pussy whipped boyfriend can cower before his girlfriend but will go defcon 5 on a third party male who discreetly suggests to him that he shouldn’t take that kind of crap from a woman? It’s likely that the young man in my anecdote may also get in my grill or tell me to fuck off, a compensation for his submissiveness to the black guy. [ed: yup. that’d be my bet.]

Millennials. I can’t relate to having been taught white guilt since birth.

The white male faggotry is nearing an epic meltdown.

In eras when cultures change much quicker than genes, the gene-culture co-evolution process is amplified. We are in one of those eras now, (and have been since, oh, 1960). What new breed of white American male is about to be set upon the world? Or, rather, set upon the world’s lubed strap-on?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,258 other followers

%d bloggers like this: