The beatings of cuckservatives shall continue until they self-deliver in a pyre of cleansing sacrifice.
Reader Jarl passes along a story from Norway that is truly vomitous in scope.
This guy may not be a cuckservative but he sure is an idiotic cuck. Just thinking of this Norwegian guy Jorgen Ouren today. Mohammed is now the most common name for men in Oslo. Jorgen Ouren of Statistics Norway said: “It is very exciting”. Perhaps lost in translation, most likely not.
One of the most stupid statement in the last few years.
I traveled across Norway a few years ago. One of those old wooden stave churches has a museum attached to it. The church was hundreds of years old. Within there were photos of congregations from the late 1800’s, early 1900’s. Not Norwegian myself but looking at those faces staring into the camera I felt great affinity with them. Farming people, living hard lives in a harsh climate. Doppelgangers for my own ancestors. Anyways, pathetic how things have turned out for all of us.
“It is very exciting.”
If only that ur-cuck had added the necessary contextual clause.
“It is very exciting to watch Norway’s White population displaced by Middle Eastern lunatics and Norway’s white women raped by the tens of thousands by these vibrant newcomers.”
That’s the thing with race rucks. They ambulate through life sealed in a feels balloon that is easily punctured with a quick slash of the semantic shiv.
On a more (less?) somber note, what the hell is wrong with Scandinavians? Was the fight culled out of them so thoroughly by the loss of their sterner viking brothers to adventures afar that today they LITERALLY welcome their civilization’s cucking on a mass scale?
Darwin said survival was genetic directive #1. How would he explain this? I’m open to the possibility of covert biowarfare or an unknown natural parasite infecting and damaging the minds of northern european weak whytes.
Reader ATC forwards a link to a Christianity Today article about the dark side (heh) of the Christian adoption scene. Apparently, there are lots of white Evangelical Christians who think it is their God-given calling to rescue the world’s orphans from lives of destitution, and race-cuck their own families in the process.
You have to read between the lines in theses stories for the full impact of what’s being discussed, but thankfully the context is so obvious that your inference skills don’t need to be particularly sharp.
At a church-sponsored adoption event, passionate servant-leaders unpack the clear and resounding call from the Holy Scriptures to care for orphans. Whether speaking one-on-one or in front of the larger group, they eloquently raise awareness of the plight of millions of orphans worldwide. They tell stories about the 100,000 kids in U.S. foster care who need permanent families.
Away from the crowd during a break, these same leaders talk with one another in muted tones about their real lives at home with kids whose backgrounds are filled with suffering, abuse, neglect, abandonment and deprivation.
AKA “normalcy” back in the adopted kids’ homelands.
They recount incidents of violence and hours-long raging.
Lil’ Shitavious slapping his white momma around.
They discuss the anguish of needing out-of-home care and the accompanying emotional agony and guilt. They lament the plight of healthier siblings [ed: white siblings] who aren’t getting the attention they need.
They note the stress that is added to their lives by extended family members who can’t or won’t understand and don’t help.
Here’s a clue: Psychologically normal people don’t like sacrificing their time, energy, and love for unrelated children who don’t look or act anything like themselves.
They nobly attempt to soft-pedal the grief they feel when their church families offer a quick “atta boy” but nothing more practical.
“atta boy” = “lord have mercy on them, that household is a banana republic”.
They talk about the strain in their formerly strong marriages, and the list goes on. Sleep deprivation. Secondary trauma. Hopelessness. Failure. And the feeling of being alone—so very alone.
Not to worry. Christ will reward you in the afterlife for throwing away your present-life on a doomed quest to recreate Mystery Meat Theater 3000 in your living room.
But they try to remain thankful to the One who will never leave them or forsake them.
Even as they are being left and forsaken. Triumph of delusion over stone cold experience.
They are trying to count it all joy.
They are begging God for help, for healing for their children.
And God replied, “I’m spiritual intervention. You want something more practical than that you’ll have to talk to the guy who runs biomechanical intervention. Be careful, though. He likes to cut deals.”
They pray for strength to get up and do it all over again—day after day.
I can sorta understand desperate childless couples putting themselves through this self-imposed hell, but couples with their own children, adding misery to their happiness and to their biological children’s happiness? wtf? That’s child abuse.
They don’t like who they become at times, when the stress and fatigue take their toll—but they see no other way forward.
The cops who patrol inner city ghettos agree with this sentiment.
They want to be filled with the fruit of the Spirit,
Turn your backs for a minute and your daughters might get filled with the fruit of the jungle spirit.
but survival mode is the order of the day, every day, and it can go on for years.
Suicidal Tendencies: When Separation Isn’t Possible.
While their church friends talk about sports and college and music, they talk about individualized education programs, 504s, therapists and psychiatrists.
And sleeping with their guns under the pillow.
All the adoptive families they know have versions of the same story.
The families may change but the dindu remains the same.
They love their children. They choose to love them with everything they’ve got. It would just be so much easier if they didn’t feel like they were doing it alone.
Translation: “You will love my adopted third worldlet with the same fervor as I love him, or you are evil. EVIL!”
But no matter how much they talk about their need for the help of the community around them, the help doesn’t come.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reader YIH adds his .01 cents.
Here’s what that $1 you give to ”help the starving children of Africa” (or other
.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…
Disingenuous nation-wrecker Alex “Cheaper Chalupas” Tabarrok linked to a horribly flawed study which concluded that mass immigration doesn’t reduce the host nation’s economic freedom.
The Anti-Gnostic, as per usual, SPANKED him hard in the comments,
These people have no idea; they string together some macro statistics to get the conclusion they want. The net-immigrant countries are Anglo-European with a classical liberal tradition and strong, centralized states. The city-state of Singapore is actually quite authoritarian. Incidentally, Renaissance/Enlightenment city-states used to ban individuals.
Immigration is political and cultural suicide for libertarians. Alex is speaking from an affluent academic bubble, itself enabled by a huge government footprint in financial and education markets. For the schleps, immigration means lower wages, lower property values, and corroded social trust. The academics are just banking on being on the right side of the fence from the favelas.
Mass non-white immigration to white countries erodes social trust, which decreases the support for wealth redistribution to groups of swarthies who act and look very differently than your friends and family, hence increased “economic freedom”. I’m not sure what this Tabarrok-rimjobbing study is saying except that “economic freedom” means whatever an open borders nation-wrecker wants it to mean.
Related: A reader forwards this ROK piece by Roosh,
The Western elite, especially in Europe, got into power by pushing peace, harmony, equal opportunity, and multiculturalism, but beneath these feel-good concepts includes the blueprint for destruction of the very force that threatens their power: nationalism. Introducing massive numbers of Muslims, Mexicans, or destitute Somalian refugees into your nation reduces the likelihood that you will look to your neighbor and see someone like you, a brother-in-arms who can help you rise up against the cyclical inevitability of a corrupt government ruling over you.
Now that you see a dozen different colors surrounding you on the subway and in the Starbucks, some of whom are looking at you suspiciously, you feel distrustful of these outsiders because they have a different background and belief system than you do. You find yourself in a diluted world culture with standardized gadgets, entertainment, and government-friendly talking points conveniently disseminated by all media outlets. Now instead of looking to your neighbor to help fight against governmental oppression, you will seek comfort in your own amusements, Facebook feeds, internet memes, and legalized marijuana. You turn inwards to satisfy your hedonistic needs while allowing the government to run over your rights and push policies that you feel increasingly helpless to fight in your social isolation.
This is all done by design. The liberal governments of the West will allow the collateral damage of terrorist acts because they need those immigrants to defeat the greater threat to their power: national identity. Destroy the culture and you remove a citizen’s motivation to fight for a nation he would have given his life for not three generation ago. Immigration must not stop because the liberal elite must maintain their power, and the useful idiots in the media and academia will continue spinning the narrative required to ensure that happens. The death of twelve lives or 1,200 is inconsequential.
Leftoid elites think they have outwitted history. For a while, maybe. But their short-term gain will seem a gossamer dream once the long-term punishments come home to roost.