Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

Cuckservatives, leftoid equalists, and feminists all share a mental disorder in common: the habitual denial of human nature. The ways in which these groups deny human nature are far too numerous to list in one blog post, but commenter Tempus Fuckit (heh) tangentially reminds us of one way that often escapes the notice of even steely-eyed realists.

This. Hit. Hard.

My oneitis is currently on a career tankgrrl rampage (she’s 22)..

“My mom told me not to rely on a man for money.”

..to the grave.

The cultural embrace of the iconic gogrrl careerist femborg isn’t just a feminist and equalist rallying cry; one will often hear cuckservatives mouth the very same “encourage our young women to succeed in the workforce” platitudes that animate their supposed ideological opposites.

And now mothers. If the denial of human nature is a barometer of societal illness, then the wholesale acceptance and advocacy of the careegrrl lifestyle by mothers forecasts the arrival of some seriously inclement weather.

Platitudes like “don’t rely on a man for money” have a way of gripping less agile minds and taking hold for life. Superficially, it sounds sensible; one may convince oneself, “if men won’t commit and ‘man up’ for women, then women should take the necessary precautions against indigence and establish self-sustainable careers for themselves.”

The problem with this simplistic formulation originates in the faulty premise that men and women are alike in all ways but the genitalia. This flawed premise allows for the psychological projection of the female-specific predilection for receiving material support onto men; it tacitly assumes, in other words, that women are as comfortable providing for themselves (and for others) as men are, and that men will promptly abandon their intrinsic role as resource providers as soon as women agree in principle or practice to be dependent upon men.

The core plank of modern feminism — careergrrl empowerment — rests on a horrible misunderstanding of human, and especially male, nature. It’s a misunderstanding, deliberate or deluded, that follows from an arid, de-sexualized, transactional view of relations between men and women.

“If/Then” algorithms are shaky substitutes for human sexual market feedback loops. While transactional analysis of human behavior has some usefulness as a predictive model, it quickly reveals its limitations when we draw comparisons between the decision-making processes of the sexes. An error in thinking of this magnitude will result in wrong conclusions like the one above: That men are as fickle and uncertain about providing for women as women are about providing for men, and therefore women ought to ensure their own economic self-sufficiency.

The reality is much different once we account for continuously operating SMP feedback loops. The vulnerable unemployed or underemployed young woman arouses the natural instinct in men to provide for her and protect her against hardship. As long as she has the requisite physical attributes to catch men’s eyes, there will be more than enough (white or asian) men happy to share their hard-earned material abundance with her in implied exchange for her sex and love and fidelity.

This is what feminists, cuckservatives, and Narrative-soaked social scientists don’t get about the sexes: What one sex may do in response to a given stimulus is not necessarily what the other sex would do. Men possess a moral sense, (or a character trait, if you prefer less loaded language), that compels them to provide generously for pretty young women who prove their sexual loyalty and low partner count. Women don’t have this moral sense, not in the way it is used here. Women are eager to provide many things to the men they love — most of all their bodies — but they aren’t psychologically driven to transfer their own material resources to indigent men the way men are driven to lavish largesse on indigent, comely women. Women may do this when circumstances align just right, but it won’t come from a place of deep personal fulfillment from the act of doing so. It will come from a place, instead, brewing with resentment and confusion.

So, the career tankgrrl’s mom is wrong. Tankgrrl, assuming she has the goods to attract a sufficient number of decent resource-ready men, should rely on men for money, because men are happy, indeed driven as if by some otherworldly force, to give to women for whom they feel intense physical desire and love.

Once Tankgrrl has stopped relying on men for money… once she has traveled far down the road of invulnerable feminist empowerment, leaning in the whole way… she should not be surprised to find that fewer and fewer men along each mile marker are waiting and willing to give to her what she has already given to herself.

Feminism, in this way, becomes a self-fulfilling whine. The more feminist a woman gets, the more men will retreat from her, and the more her feminist man-hating will seem like the appropriate response to her romantic failures.

There will be exceptions, of course. There always are when human nature is the topic. Ugly or old women may really have no choice but to become financially viable on their own, and for them a healthy society recognizes their need of taking the “feminist” path. But a healthy society would never elevate those exceptions to a 24/7 propaganda blitz, insisting that every woman follow the same life script as those poor unfortunate souls who have no choice in the matter.

As always, it comes down to exalting beauty, rejecting ugliness, and living not by lies.

Read Full Post »

Another sign that we are living in the r-selected age of a rising cad/tramp society (and a declining dad/damsel society) is the perception among women that having a low marital market value (LMMV) won’t hurt their long-term romantic prospects or rebound to their eventual unhappiness.

Reader duderino writes,

I broke it off with a fuck buddy a while back and she posted this popular meme, directed at me.
“I’m not the girl you’re going to marry, but I’ll be the one you’ll be thinking about 20 years from now when you’re having polite sex with your boring wife who fakes her orgasm to make you feel better about your receding hairline”

Try-Hard Level 99: Unlocked.

It’s weird to live in a time when girls brag about not being wife material. To me this (and the weird new pop songs) is a defense mechanism. Girls are giving it up without even a realistic chance of commitment now, and this was their post rationalization they had any power in the situation. In the time society tells them they are supposed to be empowered, most of them are feeling cheap and used.

That’s why women have to keep telling themselves they are expensive and factory fresh. The more reality harshes their mellow, the bigger the toke they have to take off the anti-reality blunt.

She wasn’t anything special, for the record.

Duly noted, and duly unsurprised. (You will hardly ever hear exquisitely beautiful and exceptionally self-possessed women trash talk in this manner. IM THE TOWN HO YOU’LL BE JERKING OFF TO IN TWENTY YEARS is the pained oinking of mediocre m’ladies and bitterbitch spinsters.)

A lot of this is sour grapes. A girl who has a shitty personality and little in the way of looks to compensate will find it psychologically comforting to pretend to herself and others that she never wanted those juicy wedding day grapes hanging just out of her reach. The best thing to do with girls like this is set phasers to “ignore”. The butthurt attention whore fears social isolation more than anything. If you want to twist the cosmic shiv a little before departing her presence, answer her womanly rant with a curt “gay”.

Donning the CH sociological omniscience cap for a moment, the turn by women away from selling themselves as worthy marital properties (and a concomitant turn by men away from selling themselves as dutiful provider betas) is a totally expected emergent sexual market phenomenon when marriage rates are down, age of first marriage is up, fertility is down, the Pill is up, and women can generally get by economically supporting themselves and their bastard spawn through SJW enforcer jobs or government largesse (itself redistributed from the efforts of reviled white beta males).

The devil is in the details. It’s the little things like this — woman crowing about their low MMV — which escape datanauts and statisticians combing through coarse sociological signposts for theories about where we are and where we’re all heading. In time, the little details of societal collapse add up to an epic story of shit, and an ending no one can confuse for fiction.

Read Full Post »

A California assisted-suicide bill was shelved because of opposition from heavily mestizo districts.

Now personally, I’m in favor of assisted suicide at any age for leftoids in whatever physical condition. But one has to laugh at the irony of Diversity Park™ undocumented citizens bitch-slapping their effete white liberal patrons. You asked for it, now you’ll get it, good and hard.

I’m sure SCROTUS will find a Constitutional right to assisted-suicide in the near future, which is spelled out in the Constitution as clearly as the right to gay marriage, but in the meantime enjoy the cognitive dissonance.

Score: Invading aztecs: 1, white California liberals: 0. Shiv of the Week award goes to La Raza, for giving us all a glimpse of the unified, glorious future of America made stronger and happier by all her Diversity.

Read Full Post »

A player’s paradise — aka a cads and tramps society — would have distinguishing features that wouldn’t be found, or wouldn’t be quite as pronounced, in a beta male-ruled — aka dads and damsels — society.

1. More sexualized women.

Is T&A the order of the day? Do culture-amplifying mediums like advertising and entertainment try to get away with displaying the maximum amount of skin and minimum amount of clothing on their female messengers? Are women (especially women in the limelight) all too eager to comply with the zesty zeitgeist?

In a playa’s paradise, we can expect to find more sexualization of women because women will be more interested in short-term hookups with sexy, charming, dominant men. These men have dating market options, and as any man with options will do he’ll demand more sexual license and physical perfection from his considered conquests. Women will respond to this male-centric romantic preference by advertising themselves as sexual, sexy objects to be devoured in a bonerbath of contraceptively-safeguarded desire.

2. Less sexual dimorphism.

It seems counter-intuitive, but there is cross-racial evidence for the CH hypothesis that cad/tramp societies are less sexually dimorphic than dad/damsel societies. For instance, in the world’s OPP (Original Playa’s Paradise), Africa, the women are more masculine and less feminine than woman from dad/damsel societies. Even within the dad-centered West, a swing toward more cads/tramps is associated with less feminine (where feminine = coy, slender, and estrogenically curvy) women. Female athletes are the best example of this trend… all narrow boyhips, flat chests, and scowling countenances hitched atop glass-cutting manjaws.

Why? Best speculation: There are two processes happening that reinforce each other. One, girls with more masculine features and personalities tend, on average, to be more open to the idea of casual, NSA sex, and probably have, as well, stronger, more insistent, libidos than feminine women. Two, men seeking easy flings probably target, subconsciously, women with “sexually aggressive” phenotypic traits, and that may include women with bodies and desirous leers primed for piston-like pumping.

In a cad/tramp society, men will prefer good-to-go, low investment pussy properties, because there’s less paternity assurance (and less emphasis on paternity assurance by both sexes) and because there’s less expectation that any romantic liaison will lead to a long-term, sexually faithful, commitment. In a dad/damsel society, men are expected to commit before receiving the poon goodies, (and likewise women are expected to avoid riding the cock carousel before receiving that treasured commitment). Therefore, men under these conditions will prefer take-it-slow, high investment pussy properties, which means more feminine, prettier, coy women.

3. More feminism.

Recall the CH maxim regarding feminism:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Feminism can be seen as both a happy allegiance to, and a bitter backlash against, a cad/tramp society. On the former, feminism advocates a social order that opens the short-term, sexual field to women, with the intent of allowing women the shameless pursuit of those few sexy, fly-by-night alpha cads who give them womb-shaking tingles. On the latter, feminism wishes to institute draconian, anti-male, anti-human rules of conduct that serve to straitjacket the romantic prerogatives of unsexy beta males. In this latter instance, the gimping of beta male courtship preferences — that is, the discouragement of beta males taking advantage of their sexual market strengths (shy, deliberate courting with long-term focus) — helps cad-chasing women avoid the awkward solicitations of any men other than those men who are skilled at the art of the approach.

4. Hatred of traditional sex roles.

A cad/tramp society should see more expressed hatred of the traditional sex roles that predominate in a dad/damsel society. This hatred will be found strongest among women who most benefit from the loose sexual and romantic expectations of a cad society: The middling 4s, 5s, and 6s who would rather enjoy five minutes of a higher value man scrubbing out their dirty dick holsters for a few weeks than the enraptured commitment of a lower value man offering financial and emotional commitment that these economically and egotistically self-sufficient women no longer need.

Cads themselves will also shit and piss on traditional sex roles, but they’ll mostly do this through their actions instead of the typical female strategy of verbal tumblrrhea designed to police thought boundaries and enlarge the conformist suck-up circle.

5. Hatred of beta provider males.

Concomitant with the above predicted observation, beta provider males will really take it on the chin. They are the biggest losers in a cad/tramp culture. Romantic failures, and hated for their romantic failure, beta provider males will have to find succor in waiting until their early 30s to marry a road-worn, cock-scarred cougarette on the make for a suburban sap she can latch onto for her obligatory 1.5 IVF-aided snot-nosed brats at the low low cost of once-a-year half-hearted birthday blowjobs.

6. More aggressive sexual signaling.

A cad/tramp society will teem with girls signaling their availability for hot sex from the right man. You would expect to see more tattoos, more body modifications, and more behavioral tics that transparently suggest the girl under consideration is DTF if you enter the correct all-access key code into her id-box.

Interestingly, on this matter, men will divide into two competing camps: The players and wannabes who emphasize their sexy male attributes at the expense of their latent romantic idealism, and the hardened betaboys who will cling ever tighter to their emotional tampon/orbiter game in the belief, usually mistaken, that at least one girl, at one point in their miserably incel lives, will tire of the cads and swoon for the beta’s earnest niceness.

7. Disproportionately higher STD rates among women.

A sexual market with cads and tramps at the top of the hierarchy would be sex-skewed in favor of the cads, for the simple reason that the female hypergamous impulse to mate with higher status men is more powerful and less malleable to compromise than the male impulse to fornicate with the prettiest girls. (In layman’s (heh) terms, men are more willing than are women to slum it once in a while.)

A consequence of female hypergamy is that once it is unleashed from cultural constraints, women will gravitate to a de facto polygyny, sharing the top 10-20% of men during their prime fertility years (15-25). What you’d find then, is a few cads spreading their venereal love to the larger number of women who lay with them. And that is what the data point to:

Overall prevalence of chlamydial infection was 4.19% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.48%-4.90%). Women (4.74%; 95% CI, 3.93%-5.71%) were more likely to be infected than men (3.67%; 95% CI, 2.93%-4.58%; prevalence ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.63). The prevalence of chlamydial infection was highest among black women (13.95%; 95% CI, 11.25%-17.18%) and black men (11.12%; 95% CI, 8.51%-14.42%); lowest prevalences were among Asian men (1.14%; 95% CI, 0.40%-3.21%), white men (1.38%; 95% CI, 0.93%-2.03%), and white women (2.52%; 95% CI, 1.90%-3.34%).

8. More women acting out like men.

Female teachers banging their underage and overhorny charges will be rampant in cad/tramp environments. So will women cursing like sailors, women posturing like drunken frat boys, women pretending to enjoy their slutty lifestyles, and women refusing the chivalric interventions of well-meaning old skool men.

Why bother cultivating the feminine traits when their usefulness has expired?

9. More men acting out like women.

This one is the mortal shiv in the heart of Western dad/damsel culture. What do you get when you (de)couple sexually focused, short-term thinking, masculine women with weepy, romance-starved, long-term focused male feminists?

Spite. Bitterness. Resentment. Contempt. Decivilization.

The difference between manlets and manjaws is part motivation, part exogenous insult. Manjaws (unfeminine women) would suffer in a dad/damsel society where men were more discerning about which women they’d choose for commitment, but in a cad/tramp society vulgar, leg-spreading manjaws don’t take too big of a hit to their ability to find horndogs on the one-night-only prowl.

Manlets, in contrast, suffer a big hit whether they operate within a cad/tramp or a dad/damsel context. However, one could argue the hit they take is smaller in the dad/damsel milieu. So what motivates manlets in a cad/tramp society to stick to their feeble, flaccid guns? Perhaps their bitterness as SMV rejects creates a negative feedback loop exaggerating their impetus to unmanly posturing. Sort of like how a bullied kid will retreat deeper into solitude and fantasies of self-actualization.

But the reason may be more concrete than that psychological trawling. Post-America Manlettery (PAM!) could be the consequence of an all-out, all-points environmental estrogenic assault by the chemicals and Hivemind propaganda we all profoundly breathe and ingest on the daily.

Bottom line: Masculine women and feminine men are 100% bad box office. A 7-2 offsuit hand. A cosmic affront. A middle finger to the god of biomechanics. It won’t end well.

So, you tell the CH audience… are we living in a playa’s paradise?

Read Full Post »

Politicians know European-Americans are more diverse in their voting habits, often splitting their votes 50-50 between the two parties (or 40-30-30 between three parties). They also know blacks and mestizos are less ideologically and psychologically diverse, the former going 90+% Democrat and the latter 65-70% Democrat every time.

This is why all European-Americans must cast a wary eye toward legislation or legal rulings that attempt to curtail gerrymandering, the practice of dividing districts along racial lines to create “voting blocs”. Simple math illustrates why anti-gerrymandering disfavors European-Americans.

In a perfectly gerrymandered state, District 9 is 100% black, and District 8 is 100% white. From this partly-artificial (but only partly) political arrangement, we can expect District 9 to reliably vote Democrat nearly 100% of the time, and District 8 to vote GOP 52% of the time and Democrat 48% of the time.

Let’s also assume for the sake of clarity that the populations of both districts are the same.

Now this is what happens when anti-gerrymandering is forced on the districts, and they are redrawn so that, say, 25% of the blacks have moved (representationally) into the white district, and 25% of whites have moved (representationally) into the black district.

Those 25% of blacks continue voting 100% Democrat, while those 25% of whites continue splitting their votes 52-48% GOP-Dem. What is the end result? Well, where before (in the gerrymandered scenario) District 9 enjoyed the benefits of Democrat local governance and District 8 the benefits of Republican local governance, now District 9 still votes Democrat while District 8 has started to vote Democrat more as well.

The 25% of GOP-leaning whites have barely budged the Democrat advantage in District 9, lowering the Dem vote total from 100% to 87%.

[(o.75×1.00DEM) + (0.25×0.48DEM)] = 0.87DEM

But here’s what happens to the slight GOP advantage in all-white District 8 with the population shift to 25% black:

[(0.75×0.48DEM) + (0.25×1.00DEM)] = 0.61DEM

Did you see that? Don’t look away, because it happened quick as lightning. All-European-American District 8 went from voting for Democrats 48% of the time to voting for Democrats 61% of the time after their population was forced to politically accommodate 25% blacks.

End game: Both District 9 and District 8 become, for all practical purposes, Democrat strongholds.

And the Dem grip on those districts only becomes more pronounced as Diversity™ increases and the share of European-Americans, and the districts they control, decreases.

Now some of you are principled sorts and therefore are repulsed by the anti-democratic notion of gerrymandering as a way to “keep the peace” by making Dindugeld payments, and their consequences, more centrally located and removed from European-American scrutiny.

But we don’t live in an American Utopia of 90% European-American demographics (that time passed somewhere around mid-20th Century), when such a principled stance against gerrymandering could work in practice. We live in Diversity World™, and in this world high-falutin’ White Man privileged principles bow deeply to the blood-fueled pragmatism of tribalism. In Diversity World™, we don’t get the luxury of ideologically diverse whites arguing about street widths and weekend park rules; we get instead Everyone Not White driving drunk and shitting in the parks while ganging up on the few remaining Whites to fork over ever larger taxed remittances from their paychecks.

The elite know all this, which is why, next time you hear them lamenting gerrymandering, what they’re really opposing is a place where BadWhites enjoy the blessings of self-determination.

Read Full Post »

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 »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,327 other followers

%d bloggers like this: