Tucker Carlson The Identitarian

Watch this video and you tell me if Tucker isn’t woke to the White Question.

Read Full Post »

Bannon!

Don’t write off Steve Bannon yet. The man is smart as a tack, and has the moral worldview the Left hasn’t had since abolition. Here he is talking about how social media empires debase “digital sovereignty”. Via:

“Central governments debase your citizenship, central banks debase your currency, and the central, technocratic state capitalism we have with Google and Facebook take your personhood, and basically take away your intellectual property, your digital sovereignty” Bannon continued.

“Right now, you’re serfs. You’re well-paid serfs, but you’re serfs. They’ve debased your currency, and so you’re continuing to underwrite debt for sovereign governments at zero interest rates, so you’re always on the spinning wheel like a little hamster, trying to get ahead,” he told the audience.

“Because they’ve destroyed the ability of thrift, of you to save, to get ahead. It’s the same thing on your digital assets, your intellectual property: They take it all for free.”

He added that Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg’s “entire business model” is based on these activities, “taking [your] data for free and monetising it, and then writing algorithms behind a wall that treat you like hamsters on a wheel.”

Barber was keen to steer the conversation to more comfortable topics, trying to suggest Bannon was an admirer of Fascist leader Benito Mussolini and proposing that U.S. President Donald Trump’s plans for a military parade in Washington D.C. made him a kind of latter-day Julius Caesar — but failed to land any telling blows.

Hold on, people.

Bannon….

is da GBFM!

It all makes sense now.

GBFM is Bannon drunk-poasting!

Read Full Post »

Cambridge Analytica And The Left’s Strange New Respect For The Social Media Menace

The latest shitlib outrage du jour is about Cambridge Analytica and their work unwittingly helping LITERALLY HITLER DRUMPPHPHPH win in 2016 through totally legal purchased access to data-mined Faceborg info for user sentiment. Suddenly, shitlibs have noticed that monopolistic social media companies have too much privacy-violating control of our personal details now that those Big Brother-esque companies and their willingness to sell user data have been exploited by Trump campaign hires instead of the Gay Mulatto campaign.

TJP recaps a surprisingly good National Cuckview article about the Left’s strange new respect for the Social Media Menace,

The moral panic over social media and the ‘misuse’ of information is ONLY about suppressing right-wing speech and taking away the tools of mass communication from people on the right.

That’s all it’s about and that’s all it’s ever been about. The Obama campaign quite literally wrote the book on social media manipulation and massive data harvesting. Nobody in the press or Silicon Valley cared, because he won.

Now that Trump won based on (largely organic) social media success, our democracy has suddenly been ‘corrupted’ by a ‘war’ of ideas and information that manipulates people into voting the wrong way.

The left had a monopoly on broadcast media for decades. They got to decide who was legitimate and who wasn’t. Then the internet came along and gave THE PEOPLE a voice — and surprise, it’s not working out so well for the left.

All these current social media recriminations are about is reestablishing the old order. Instead of the big-three broadcast networks where liberals decide what voices are heard, we’re headed into the big-three social media networks where, again, liberals decide what voices are heard.

Simply breaking up the big tech monopoly isn’t going to fix this — we need legislation binding tech monopolies to the Constitution. It’s the ONLY way we’re going to escape censorship.

Shitlibs are getting worked up over what are essentially targeted political ads because their side didn’t get to benefit from it this time. It’s a grab at maintaining their total control of the informational vertical and horizontal.

Countenance Blog writes,

I’m so old that I remember when the Democrat-left-media just LOVED the political data game.

Like, five years ago.

Exactly. I can recall the fawning articles delving into Gay Mulatto’s “big data” gurus and super savvy datanauts. It’s like the history-washing shitlib Left thinks no one remembers anything more than five minutes ago. Trump came along and his team basically co-opted lib battlefield tactics, and OUTMANEUVERED libs on their own turf! That’s gotta burn, so libs are in full hysteria mode trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes long enough to build a Fake Impeachment case against Trump. Russiahoax isn’t working, so it’s back to the well with Cambridge Analytica, and maybe Stormy Daniels as a last ditch effort.

The Big Four Socials — Goolag, Faceborg, Fapple, Twatter — along with the Biggest Technopoly, Scamazon, have to be broken up under existing anti-trust laws, and/or regulated as common carrier utilities. The shitlibs who run these companies have way too much power to censor and demonetize political opponents, (not to mention get employees like James Damore fired for speaking uncomfortable truths about the Diversity Racket). Big Data and the selling of personal user information to the highest bidder is an affront to a humanistic interpretation of civilization, and there really is a dire need to curb the power of the Dopamine Drippers and protect users’ privacy.

If it takes Cambridge Analytica to focus shitlib minds on the Social Media Menace, then so be it; just make sure your local indignant lib is continually reminded that regulating the socials means his tribe won’t be able to exploit them for narrative control or electoral profit any longer like they’ve been doing.

Unrelated, but too funny to wait for an appropriate post:

Read Full Post »

Port-au-Chicago

Welcome to the jungle. pic.twitter.com/priJqati91

— Normie (@NormieAnon) March 15, 2018

But remember, citizen, Diversity™ is our strength! And Black Lives Matter!

CAPTION CONTEST

“#ConanHaiti” (ref)

Read Full Post »

The Industrial Revolution And Its Consequences Have Been A Disaster For Overeducated Women

Hot off the presses, a criminally patriarchal research paper has concluded that men with higher income and status have more reproductive success than women with high income and status have in industrialized nations. First, to set the table, an excerpt from the abstract:

It is concluded that an evolutionary perspective helps explain reproductive patterns in modern humans and may thus make a valuable contribution in the assessment of urgent contemporary problems.

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all, across space and time.
– Le 156% Heartiste

Contrary to women, men still convert higher income and status into greater reproductive success in industrialized nations. https://t.co/FRdFvUDIka pic.twitter.com/7369Cq8WZQ

— Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf) March 13, 2018

Female hypergamy, female education, female economic self-sufficiency, low female fertility…choose any four.

In terms of social and economic status, men date across and down, women date across and up. Industrialized societies filled with overeducated careerist shrikes make it more difficult for both men and women to find long-term reproductive partners. What the West has done is weaponize female hypergamy, so that the only winner in this zero sum mating game are the HSMV alpha males who can serially date and marry increasingly younger women.

In the modren West, overeducated, careerist women are DARWINIAN LOSERS. They now join the lonesome ranks of fat women, ugly women, and old spinsters. Lean in? Try barren quim.

Low status beta and omega males are bigger losers in this new world order than they were before under the rock solid pre-femcunt patriarchal system, because the women who would be theirs under the old rules have decided to skip past them for a shot at 1. the high status alpha or 2. a tub of ben and jerrys.

The biggest DARWINIAN WINNERS are the charming jerkboy cads and the sociopath hedge funders.

Post-America alpha males enjoy not only reproductive success (in an environment in which widespread use of contraceptives thwarts the ability to convert bangs into bangbinos), but sexual success:

Also, men in industrialized nations still convert higher income and status into a greater number of sex partners and acts. https://t.co/wdojnFsnzm pic.twitter.com/XowOjUm4TF

— Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf) March 13, 2018

Potential fertility — that’s a nerdy way to say “sexiness”. Men with high social and economic status in industrialized and primitive nations alike — HSMV alphas — monopolize the hottest babes, and probably more than their fair share of the plain janes too. The Pill and condom don’t thwart the sex act; those things just thwart the consequence of the sex act, and incentivize women to liberate their sexuality (which in practice means liberating themselves from beta males). Imagine how many little snot-nosed Heartistes (heartots?) would be running around creating kindergarten mayhem if the Industrial Contraception Complex didn’t exist.

How unequally is sex distributed in industrialized jizztopias? Very:

In one point, he is definitely right: Sex is far more unevenly distributed than wealth.https://t.co/AwDyyW8tRq pic.twitter.com/mIsg1Absl3

— Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf) October 6, 2017

There are interesting eugenic/dysgenic possibilities to ponder from this knowledge. There is dysgenic selection pressure on high status women — at least as measured by income, social status, and their proxy, IQ — but eugenic selection pressure on their male counterparts, the HSMV alphas who are having more kids.

This isn’t a complete picture, though, because female mate worth is so much more tied into their physical beauty. Those HSMV alpha males are choosing less educated, less wealthy, lower SES “status” women who are younger, hotter, tighter, so by Darwinian calculation the end result is very eugenic: capable sons and pretty daughters. This is evidence that the West is beginning to pursue the patented CH BOSSS strategy of sexual market health and societal reinvigoration.

I’ve been warning about this stuff for a while, and I’m glad to see ¡SCIENCE! finally catching up with Heartistian observations. There was only ever going to be one effective response by men to the emergence of weaponized female hypergamy (and it wasn’t cuddly beta supplication).

Game will save the West….in one respect, by heightening its late stage contradictions and encouraging a change in course.

***

On the silliness of the “wage gap”:

A lot of people apparently, because that could be a component of the so called "wage gap", ie men have very important reasons to make more money/status.

— Παρρησιαστής (@pirpirikos) March 13, 2018

…and the silliness of the feminist narrative about the “patriarchy”:

It also goes against the feminist narrative that the patriarchy stops women from succeeding. No, men simply have more incentive to work high effort/high status jobs. Therefore the priorities of women and men are different.

— Marcel Arts (@Marcel_Arts) March 13, 2018

******

Some juicy excerpts from the paper linked in this post:

religiously homogamous couples have a significantly lower chance of remaining childless but a higher average number of children, even controlling for religious intensity…

***

In addition to the fact that close inbreeding carries genetic risks (discussed previously), this may also be the case (p. 485) for distant outbreeding, although the effects of outbreeding are far less clear…

***

…homogamy along certain characteristics has consequences as well. Particularly educational homogamy may be an undervalued risk factor, resulting in less permeability of social stratification and hence a stronger segregation of the social strata. This has negative consequences for “social cohesion,” increasing the tensions within a society.

***

In times of global mass migrations, the high prevalence of religious homogamy, together with its reproductive effects, may also have far-reaching implications because it may lead to the breakup of societies into “parallel societies,”…

Word of the day: Homogamy.

It is the secret Truth that shivs miscegenation propagandists dead.

…empirical evidence for a fitness advantage over generations by reducing the number of children and investing more in fewer children is minimal or absent. Evidence suggests that on the one hand, low fertility increases the progenies’ socioeconomic position, but on the other hand, it reduces long-term fitness.

***

In addition, different strategies of maximizing versus optimizing fertility may lead to a conflict between the sexes.

Aka the modren sexual market. The battle of the sexes has never been more pitched than it is now.

Read Full Post »

The Empathy Gene

I’ve teased in these pages the idea, buttressed by scientific evidence, that empathy may not be evenly, universally distributed. That the sexes are differently-empathic, and the races (whoa!) may not be equally empathic either. This is thought crime of the highest degree, because innate racial differences in empathy — some groups having tender feelz and other groups having an empathic response that seems developmentally stunted in the pre-adolescent stage — have huge downstream consequences in every aspect of our lives living in this Diversitopia.

Imagine the strains on our criminal justice system if the philosophy of the mind supporting it was overturned by the new knowledge that the criminal suspects of some races, on average, are less able to empathize with their victims and consequently have relatively less moral agency than the criminal suspects of more empathic races.

Well, on time and under budget, here comes my favorite whore ¡SCIENCE! to giggle and stroke my ego again with this latest finding:

Now scientists say empathy is not just something we develop through our upbringing and life experiences – it is also partly inherited.

A study of 46,000 people found evidence for the first time that genes have a role in how empathetic we are.

And it also found that women are generally more empathetic than men. […]

…in this new paper, published in the journal Translational Psychiatry, scientists looked to see if how empathetic we are can be traced to our genes.

Participants in the study had their “empathy quotient” (EQ) measured with a questionnaire, and gave saliva samples for DNA testing.

Scientists then looked for differences in their genes that could explain why some of us are more empathetic than others.

They found that at least 10% of the differences in how empathetic people are is down to genetics.

“at least”. It’ll wind up being a lot more than that once the genetic analysis data rolls in like an unstoppable tsunami, you can bet.

The dam is bursting on the curators of acceptable discourse. The direction of discovery is rapidly and remorselessly aiming toward more genetic influence, and less cultural influence, on human cognition and behavior. The Blank Slate thesis is badly wounded, and in our lifetimes it will be killed and laid to rest and the world will change forever from that point onward.

***

A reader says one reason the shitlib elite like their spanish-speaking brown help is because they have nothing in common, so they can’t empathize with them and therefore it’s easier to boss them around. I wonder if, ironically, it’s those of us who warn against diversification of a nation’s people who are the most empathetic by nature, because we see the damage diversity does to social bonds and how it robs us of the small victories of being able to share an emotional and psychological connection with our neighbors and laborers.

Read Full Post »

Neocons, Free Trade, Open Borders (Choose Any Three)

Ted Colt notices,

One needn’t look further than a Wikipedia article describing NeoConservative history to comprehend the connection between neocons & free trade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

EVERY! FUCKING! TIME!

If your Alt-Right brand isn’t “anti-semitic” then you’re not alt-right

I prefer the more accurate term of art “countersemitic”. (The ADL, unsurprisingly, does not.) We are countering the malicious agenda of a hostile minority intent on drowning us in foreign invaders, trite consumerism, backbreaking debt, endless interventionist wars, and basically anything that destroys the historical and cultural bonds of the majority’s community, neighborhood, town, and nation.

Free Trade is practically a euphemism for Open Borders. The underlying motivation of the neocons and their useful signalers is One World Deracination. Neocon Globalists love free trade because they love open borders, cheap dispensable labor, and a terrorformed society that restricts the ability of Whites to act as a bloc and petition for their own interests. Arguing from the relatively benign premise of free trade allows the shift to “free movement of labor” rhetoric, which is the real goal of the Nation Wreckers.

Most fortunately for the Nation Saviors, “free trade” has become justifiably saddled with negative connotations, so this neocon sleight of rhetoric no longer works as well as it once did (there are still GOPe cuck hold-outs, but they’ll bend the knee to Trumpism in due time). Tariffs, for example, are immensely popular, and support cuts across voter demos. The latest poll has 80% of Americans supporting Trump’s tariffs.

Neocon Globalists pull more than their weight, but they aren’t acting alone. The universalist strain runs deep in neoliberal Gentile Whites.

Ovidiu Stoica notices,

It is a continuation of the liberal project of modernity which started in the 18th century but got trapped inside the national state because of nationalism. The goal is universal individualism and contractual only relations between individuals- no non-commercial (not chosen) community ties&bonds which would limit the individual.

Pure transactionalism is, ironically, dehumanizing of the individual, because we didn’t evolve in a social vacuum. There are those who would like us atomized and vacuum-sealed, but they don’t have the majority’s interests at heart, so it’s smart to dismiss their agitations as the effluvium of tribal spite, and to stop pretending they are worth heeding and that they know what’s best for us.

Twinkie notices,

I think Amy Chua is right in one way – the condition she describes may be objectively true. But she is wrong in another way. Some groups (e.g. Jews, blacks) could never be the majority and, yet, for some reason appear to harbor an irrational hostility toward the existing majority. Therefore, given the choice between living under that majority comfortably and stably or Balkanizing the society so their relative power improves vis-à-vis that majority, despite the increase in general instability, they seem to favor policies that lead to the latter.

For me, not only is the dominant Angl0-American culture (and the native white majority that enables it) appealing and desirable, it is also objectively beneficial for non- and part-whites who live in it, so it’s also in the interests of non-whites to want to maintain the native white majority.

So I find the political behaviors of these groups irrational, short-sighted, and quite incomprehensible.

Why? is a great question, and “social status striving” left to stew in a cauldron of envy and in-group favoritism is the answer. Status striving to feed an insatiable ego is a powerful force, powerful enough in some successful but implacably resentful minority groups to convince them to destroy the country they live in to spite the majority. As well, this particular group (and others who have evolved a similar temperament) may be better able to handle the societal instability their spite creates, and so for them the increase in their relative power vis-à-vis the shrinking majority is worth the comparatively smaller decrease in their well-being caused by the consequences of their monstrous Babelic creation.

PS Svigor has a great comment on this important topic. His other comments in that thread are worth reading, too (the same can’t be said for Fred Reed’s post which inspired Svigor’s thrashing of him).

***

Commenter Watson notices,

“It’s Okay to be White”

“My Borders, My Choice”

We should have one for trade. Maybe, “Don’t Trade Away our Wealth”. Or something else.

Even AFL-CIO gave a statement strongly in favor of Trump’s tariffs. Imagine that, a liberal-dominated institution strongly favoring a Trump policy:

“”For years, we have called attention to the predatory practices of some steel exporting countries. Such practices hurt working people and cheat companies that produce in the U.S. We applaud the administration’s efforts today to fix this problem.”

“Some steel exporting countries.”

Context: China produces 53% of the world’s aluminum and 49% of the world’s steel. (There was a time when most of the world’s aluminum came from Rhodesia, before that nation was destroyed.) Is half the world’s steel located in China? Of course not, it’s spread across the world. But their government finances the mining so they can dump prices in order to bankrupt Western steel producers. And they cut costs to a level where they every year have mines caving in and killing people.

AFL-CIO knows this. Everyone knows this. Politicians who pretend not to know are simply traitors, and that’s not an exaggeration.

There’s a nationalist issue here aside from saving business for economic reasons. And that’s this: Control of production = control of policy. Example: Nations are afraid of officially recognizing that Taiwan is a country because they don’t want to lose trade with China.

China knows that production is power, so they demand that those who export to China have to build factories … in China. Where they are easily controlled in future confrontations. (And also give jobs to Chinese.) How about we demand the same? “No, that would be a blow against free trade! Except when China does it!”

For liberals and cuckservatives who want to oppose Trump, this tariff policy would be a very foolish hill to die on. It’s much like the Black players who refuse to stand for the flag: Trump identified an issue where he can win easily.

Control production, control policy. That should be a go-to Maul-Right meme. And Watson is right; the preponderance of our ruling elite are traitors, in the very traditional sense of the word and with all that it retributively implies.

Commenter meistergedanken’s friend notices,

A friend of mine wrote on FB:
“I already pay thousands of dollars more to live in the suburbs instead of the pleasantly-scaled, walkable mill town nearby. Why? Because the mill that supported the town closed after NAFTA and is now a dangerous slum. I pay more in gas and vehicle wear-and-tear because I can’t walk to anything. I drive all around town for work, groceries, hardware, church, and school. Utility upkeep–including roads, sewers, electrical, cable, etc.–costs more because the supply lines are spread over hundreds more acres of sprawl.

I pay more in taxes because people on the lower end of the intelligence distribution curve no longer have a source of stable, adequate employment. The schools require more resources to manage malnourished and emotionally damaged children from broken homes–well, that comes out of my property tax too. I give more time and money to local charity to help my community cope with waves of drug addiction and homelessness. I’m told that this endless, crushing social illness affecting every corner of American society is just part of the price we pay for living in a global economy.

That it’s all part of the price of “free” trade.

So I’ve always wondered what, then, is the price of protectionism? Surely if I’m willing to pay all this just to keep my shelves lined with unlimited Chinese plastic, the cost of tariffs must be truly backbreaking.

Wait, what? It’s three cents per beer can? Three fucking cents?”

Globalism is evil. Globalist cheerleaders are full of malice for Heritage America. And now we know. The curtain is finally pulled back.

williamk notices what rick the strapon within refuses to notice,

strapon: “US consumers paying more for things”

No proof this actually happens. Prices are set to maximize PROFIT. Raising production costs doesn’t automatically raise the price. If you lose more customers by raising price, price stays put, tariff or not.

Microeconomics is more complicated than “durr drumpf tariffs bad”

williamk is right and, as usual, strapon is wrong. There’s very little evidence that tariffs nontrivially raise prices on consumer goods. There is evidence that tariffs lower corporate PROFITS but what that means is a hit to stockholders and fat cat CEO take home pay. So tariffs REDUCE INCOME INEQUALITY, which you would think a shitlib goon like strapon would be all in favor of….except perhaps when it’s her nemesis Trump proposing the egalitarian policies. Strapon never misses an opportunity to remind everyone that she is disingenuous as a matter of habit.

Read Full Post »