Has Median Household Income Really Gone Up? (Answer: Not Likely)

A week ago, the liberal media outlets (but I repeat myself) crowed about a Census Bureau report claiming that the 2014-2015 percentage increase in median household income was the largest since 1998.

A commenter at the Census Bureau blog, Dr. Noman, throttles the claim,

“I would also appreciate any comments from the Census Bureau that elucidate the “one-off” uniqueness of this rate?”

Don’t expect one. The Census Bureau has pulled a fast one here just before the election. A lot of the increase is due to the redesigned questioning for median income and they know it. Google search ‘2013 redesign census’ and follow the PDF links especially.

Or look at a previous blog post here:
http://blogs.census.gov/2015/09/15/comparison-guidance-income-and-poverty/

Their own studies show that the redesigned questions inflate median income figures, and they’ve mentioned in the fine print several places that comparisons for median income for now prior to 2013 should be made with caution, but they didn’t mention it when pitching these numbers to the press, and they didn’t exercise that caution on their own.

That’s why the note about the recent increase not being significantly different than 1997-1998 is there. It’s cover.

So the Census Bureau has proved itself another corrupted wing of the Equalist Leftoid State, pulling a globalism-monger shenanigan intended to hurt Trump and nationalist spirit and aid the legacy of the Gay Mulatto and thecunt’s election chances. The anti-Whiters want so badly to say, “See? Diversity really IS our strength! Median household income is up as Whites are down!” And the Narrative-ensconced Census Bureau has stepped in to help them assert their lie with a patina of plausibility.

Welcome to low-trust America. We hope you enjoy your stay in a nation run by people who actively lie to you, day in and day out, because they hate your guts and dream of ushering a nightmarish deracinated America subsumed in total to the mystery meat market of the world.

Read Full Post »

This Washington Post-Op Analysis Charting “Radicalization” of the Alt-Right Was Thoroughly Debunked (but will anyone care?)

The Wash Post-Op anti-White propaganda blitz by Jonathon Morgan.

The debunking.

Will the Post-Op issue a retraction?

Not holding breath…

Read Full Post »

More Skittles Behaving Badly (And As Usual The Anti-White Media Plays “Look over there!”)

Five people were shot dead in a Burlington, WA mall by a skittle who had migrated from his home country of Turkey to the US. Naturally, the leftoid anti-White media hatemachine has mostly ignored the story except to report the most banal details (“five shot dead at mall”), preferring to focus their rhetorical firepower on anti-Trump narratives and the police shooting of a google in Charlotte, NC.

A commenter adds,

From Eric Simpson’s post on that link:

“Add another one to the list:
Orlando shooter: CHILD of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants.
San Bernardino shooter: CHILD of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants.
Boston bombers: CHILDREN of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants.
Fort Hood shooter: CHILD of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants.
Chelsea bomber: CHILD of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants.
Washington Mall shooter: CHILD of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrant.”

Don Trump Jr’s Skittles analogy was spot on. Leftoid freaks squealed like stuck pigs and desperately tried to “debunk” the analogy with vapid cross-references to White crime (as if anyone on the realtalk right claimed White crime doesn’t exist) but all their efforts did was draw everyone’s attention to the elephantine skittle in the room: when there’s a mass shooting or other terror-related crime spree, odds are good the perp will be a skittle, and those odds are damning when one considers that skittles only constitute 1% of the US total population (at least until thecunt and her master soros fuck the US border eight ways to Sunday).

We used to have a media for the purpose of calling out traitorous government and corporate officials for pushing lies and propaganda. We now have a media that is a fully functional propaganda arm of those same officials. With those forces arrayed against the common man, what chance does he have?

He has this: Everyone’s cards are on the table. The battle lines are clear. Now the fighting can begin without the crippling handicap of doubt or guilt.

Read Full Post »

Hunting The Hunters

The monopolistic social media tech giants have declared open war against “trolls”, aka memetically mischievous truth-tellers who have found the thermal exhaust ports of the globalist oligarch traitors and are happily dropping protip bombs down the shaft.

Google has really outdone themselves these past few weeks. As if their new terms of service update that would see several YouTubers lose monetization for their videos wasn’t enough, just two days ago, YouTube launched “YouTube Heroes“, a program that encourages users to mass report and flag videos for deletion. But it gets worse; Google just launched a new AI (Artificial Intelligence) program known as “Jigsaw Conversation”. The purpose of this AI is to find, delete and block comments and posts deemed as offensive. These includes comments that are “sexist, racist, transphobic, anti-immigration, Islamophobic….etc”.

The AI works by detecting keywords and terms related to offensiveness. Typing words like “Nigger, Faggot, Tranny, Kike…” etc, will get you flagged and labeled a harasser. YouTube videos, search results, emails and basically everything you do online including those words will get you in trouble. Blog posts that contain these words will not show up on Google search results (This article you’re reading right now will not appear on Google search, because I technically used those words). In short, Google just declared a war on Trolls.

The Trumpening has had the salutary effect (among others) of smoking out the anti-White Narrative enforcers. These enforcers — SpoogleFaceborgTwatter Inc — have been pushed into a conspicuous war-footing by the Realtalk Rebellion crashing their gated comboxes. The globohomogarchs see the storm rising and events swirling out of their control, driving them to desperation. War declared, they reveal their malevolent intentions and identify enemies of the global order for thoughtcrime liquidation.

But the rebellion is not so easily crushed. What has fueled the accelerating and amplifying successes of the shiv-right (and heralded the humiliating failure of the cuck class) is a taste for the fight. And not just any fight. The fight of the perennially hunted who have learned the path to victory is to hunt the hunters.

And so from the ranks of the troll berserkers of 4chan a counterattack is devised, an assault on the very heart of the Globohomo Hivemind that could end their wicked reign forever.

Since this is a war on Trolls, it sounds to reason that the greatest Trolls online, 4chan, weren’t going to take the news very well…

It was from that thread that the idea came from. If Google wants to block offensive words, then they are going to give them the most offensive word to block: GOOGLE.

The plan has already taken root on 8chan’s /pol/ board and several other 4chan boards. Every time they want to use the word “Nigger”, they’re going to use “Google” instead. Let Google block that […]

And it seems to be working so far, searching “Google rapes white woman” gives you similar results to what you’d expect when you search “Black guy rapes white woman”.

In paradigm shift parlance, this is a kill shot. From now on, it will be Chateau Heartiste policy to substitute the word “Google” as a term for the primary protected class of the Equalism Underlords: blacks.

“A gathering of googles”

“google-on-white crime”

“he a good boy, he google nothin”

“googles have a higher incidence of the MAOA violence alleles”

Likewise, “Facebook” and “Twitter” will substitute for….well, I’ll leave that as an exercise for the readers.

#HuntTheHunters

#MAGA2016

#TheTrumpening

Read Full Post »

Trump’s Nod And Wink To The Alt-Right

Pay attention at the 0:14 mark for a coy cryptogram carefully inserted into this Trump campaign ad.

That’s Sam Hyde and Pepe, two Notorious A.L.T. figures in the flourishing shiv-right rebellion.

Reader plumpjack writes,

a Donald Trump campaign app ad that subtly features Sam Hyde and Pepé. just a coincidence, right?

from DS:
“An ad like this is not done at random. Each frame is composed carefully. They had to select the tweets being featured by hand.

It doesn’t seem like the media has caught on to this like wink at the Alt-Right yet, but our friends at TRS were quick to notice.

It’s interesting to see what’s going on regarding Trump and the Alt-Right; the Glorious Leader himself has never made any open references to us, all the while Clinton made a whole speech on the subject. Instead, he makes all these small references, with plausible deniability. These are enough to whip the Jewish media into a frenzy, however, but they look completely unhinged conspiracy theorists when reporting about it.”

Let’s face it, popularizing a cute frog as the avatar of unauthorized crimethink was a brilliant marketing coup. At once serving as a potent, open air symbol of resistance to the equalist leftoid hivemind while sabotaging the enemy leftoid agit-prop machine reduced to ponderously assessing the risk level of a cartoon frog. Win-win. Alinsky would be proud if his psy ops weren’t being used against him and his schlock troops.

Read Full Post »

Crazy-Eyed Hillary

Hillary’s id emerges for a romp in this video: a scolding, entitled, screeching, mentally unhinged, hysterical, stilted, crazy-eyed sociopathic harridan with late stage parkinson’s.

Yeesh. Dat awkwardly artificial pitch change at 0:10. This is the look of desperation. Scott Adams on the clip: “the election is over“. Hillary’s voice and mannerism are crypt-onite to straight White men. I can’t listen to her for more than 30 seconds before I want to punch a hole in the wall. She’s distilled post-menopausal evil.

Read Full Post »

A True Word On Sexual Consent

A couple of serial rapists are profiled by The Daily Fembeast because they had accounts on the Real Social Dynamics seduction arts forum. The bitter feminist cunts smelled chum in the water and are working double time to smear good-natured ladies’ men through guilt by remote association with a few random bad seeds (whom I’d never heard of until I read the article).

Since PUAs and consent are in the hivemind news, I figure this a good time to recap the Chateau crib sheet on what does and doesn’t qualify as sexual consent. Stripping out all romantic context (sometimes a woman’s breathlessly whispered “no” really is a surreptitious arousal-amplifying invitation to the man to continue resisting her coyness), the legalistic basics of hookup look like this:

If a girl is drunk and she says yes to sex- it isn’t rape.
If a girl is sober and she says yes to sex- it isn’t rape.

If a girl is sober and she says no- it is rape.
If a girl is drunk and she says no- it is rape.

Fleshing out the above basics to conform more closely to the reality on the ground that hookups take two to tango, here are the additional by-laws governing the validity of rape accusations should a sexual congress occur:

• If the girl and man are sober and the girl angrily says “no”- it is rape. (the vast majority of (white) men can tell, and will heed, when a girl is sincerely uninterested in further intimacy)
• If the girl is blackout drunk and the man is sober- it is rape, if the rape was initiated while the girl was unconscious.
• If the girl is drunk but conscious and situationally aware and a willing participant, and the man is sober- it isn’t rape. (this is a not uncommon occurrence for the simple reason that it takes more drinks and a longer time for men to reach happy drunkenness; thus an early-evening sexual intimacy can start with the girl more drunk than the man but wind up a couple hours later with the man equally as drunk as the girl)
• If the girl is so drunk she can’t give consent AND the man is so drunk he can’t know whether or not the girl consented- it isn’t rape. (sorry, femcunts, the drunkenness sword cuts both ways)
• If the girl is sober and the man is too drunk to understand or give consent- how the fuck is his johnson working?? and why is she sticking around at his place when she could easily leave while he’s in a stupor on the floor?

The mythological rape culture that feminists secretly wish would come to fruition is actually a projection of their desire to see a world in which women are exempted from personal responsibility and men bear all the burden of any female regret for romantic trysts that don’t end in two kids and a house in the suburbs.

This is why feminists (of the lite or heavy genus) strive so mightily to protect women’s prerogatives to drink like Russian poets and slut it up like two dollar street whores. Feminists don’t want women to even THINK about the necessity of taking a modicum of personal responsibility for limiting their alcohol intake or curbing their skank signaling; to admit to that much would, in the feminist worldview, concede that the sexes are innately biologically different (they are regardless of heated denials to the contrary) and that men aren’t the only sex capable of transgressing moral norms. As CH previously wrote,

if you are a woman who is afraid your inner slut might escape to have sex under the influence with a man at a party who is also under the influence, it’s up to you to refrain from drinking a lot or attending that party. The responsibility to remain sober — or at least avoid getting lights out drunk — should not rest solely with the man.

If feminists are truly interested in not being treated like morally undeveloped children under the law, they will agree to my definition of rape. But since feminism is about power dynamics and not at all about fairness or justice, they will never agree.

In a female sexuality-liberated market it’s a secularist sin worthy of livelihood destruction to advise women to stop drinking like they’re fraternity pledges trying to prove something. But if feminists are truly interested in decreasing the incidence of late night drunkenness rape (aka morning after regret rape) they’ll counsel women to be careful how much they imbibe while out on the town. Since they don’t counsel that, and in fact advocate the opposite that women should be free to drink as much as they want in sexually charged public venues, it’s obvious feminists aren’t really interested in reducing rape rates.

The sticking point for feminists, of course, is that “stopping short of drinking to oblivion” and “dressing a little more modestly than a ghetto hooker” harkens the return of a “patriarchal” culture that “places demands” on women. Well, yes. Demands are placed. It’s called adulthood. Maybe feminists could live up to their female empowerment bloviating and leave the childishness of immunity from moral agency behind.

Read Full Post »