The dysfunction of modern Greece and Italy (relative to the Northern European norm) leaves many to wonder how it was the distant ancestors of Greeks and Italians — presumably, the same lineage of people — accomplished so much and built empires when their present-day descendants are mired in corruption and crushing debt. What happened between then and now?
Here’s an answer to that riddle: Maybe the ancient Greeks and Romans weren’t anything like modern Greeks and (southern) Italians. It could be that the ancients were a different ethnicity/race — Northern European.
Nobody really talks about the race of ancients Greeks or Romans. It’s assumed they were swarthy Southern Europeans like the people who live there today. But if they weren’t, if they were instead races created from migrations of pale-skinned, blond-haired Northern Europeans, then that would upset a lot of blank slatists. It would affirm, once again, that genes matter. That the same genetic heritage which allowed the 19th and 20th century Germanics to invent practically the entire edifice of the modern technologically advanced civilized world is the heritage that propelled the world-beating achievements of the ancient Greeks and Romans.
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.
Commenter Lars Viker (great name, btw) writes,
It’s a really complicated issue, but here goes:
– Only 11% of Norwegians identify as feminists. But the ones who do are very loud and visible. Same goes with political correctness. And it’s becoming less popular and voices are much more frequent than just a decade or two ago, but there has yet to be a real paradigm shift.
– There are plenty of hard guys and feminine women in Norway, they just don’t pose in the media. For example, Norway is the only country that consistently gets more than one olympic gold per million people. Norway, with 5 million people, leads the winter olympics by a mile historically, and usually wins it or ties for first place even today (sure, the whole world doesn’t compete, but Canada, Russia, the US etc. do). Norway’s elite forces are some of the world’s best, and they’re drowning in recruits. Norway’s strongmen and powerlifters are some of the world’s best per capita, although beaten by Iceland (who are almost exclusively emigrated Norwegians). During the nazi occupation, some joined the nazis, and were considered the most fanatical of all the nazi forces, much more than the SS. During the end days of the war, when all was lost, the Wiking brigde wanted to fight until death on the Eastern front. They only unwillingly retreated back to Norway when ordrered by the nazis under penalty of execution.
– Norway is really conform. It scored the highest of all countries in Milgram’s conformity studies. Basically, if leaders decide to say something stupid, there’s a lot less of a chance that someone will object, no matter what the stupidity.
– Outbreeding has affected people. After Norway was christened, marriages within the seventh link (first is your brothers and sisters, second is your cousins etc.) were forbidden. This was done to consolidate power in the hands of a king instead of many clans. Inbreeding creates in-group attitues and ethnocentricity, outbreeding the opposite, extreme altruism.
– Norway was always altruist, but now the altruism has been increased and perverted from the group (Norwegians/Europeans) to include leechers (non working immigrants).
– It’s always been welfare orientated (dwarves have been found to reach old age in the Viking era), but now the welfare state has exploded in size and power.
– Norway has always had a lot of rights for women (rights to inheritance for example), but with feminism that’s been perverted beyond reasonable size too.
– Norway is wealthy, everyone earns a decent wage (or gets money from the state), social security is good, education is free, and there are few problems for most people. It forges a non violent, complacive attitude. War, muscles and guns are expensive. It’s more efficient to produce high technology until shit really starts to get deep. Even if you put together all immigrant crimes, Norway is very peaceful. There are usually around 40 murders a year in the whole country, always less than 1 in 100.000 people. Except for that one year, of course.
More from CH’s Scandinavian contingent. Reader Wachtmeister adds,
This isn’t the first time CH ponders about the scandinavian, or Swedish, madness. I have also thought about why my nation behaves this way many a times, and I beleive I have narrowed it down to a few critical points. This post became very long, but I was gonna write it somewhere sometime anyhow.
Anyhow, the reason why we are like this requires historical background and modern analysis.
War and hard times breeds harder people. This is known. Some here falsely argues that christianity is the reason of the meekness of the west, which is a dumb idea, probably stemming from that hitlequote that if germanics were islamic they would rule the world yada-yada. If anything, europe was never more aggressive than during the heigt of christianity. In the 1600’s alone, there were solely 2 years of absolute peace in Europe. Christianity didn’t end the vikings. Swedes kept crossing the sea to wage war for centuries. Swedish aggressiveness shaped the northern geography of Europe, the warrior-druids of the asatro simply switched to christianity and became warrior-priests (Yes, we had warrior priests). Sweden was ruled by Warrior-kings who unlike most western kings actually fought with their men on the battlefield, like Gustaf Adolf the second who waged the thirty year war (that reduced germanys population by ~30%). Or Karl the 12th, who in the Great northern war alone Sweden fought Denmark, Poland and Russia singlehandedly, and defeated the first two but ended up losing to the Russian winter, a prequel to Napoleon and Nazi germany. Christianity didn’t end the Vikings, Vikings just switched appearance.
However, since 1809 Sweden has been at peace. While, Denmark, Norway and Finland were invaded in the wars of the 20th century Sweden managed to stay neutral by skillfull diplomacy and a humble treaties. Sweden exported its iron ore resources to Nazi germany and let Germany transport troops on its railways. It must be asserted that before WW2 Sweden had closer cultural ties with germany than the anglosaxon west, it was more common to speak german as a second language than english.
This neutrality and cooperation with nazi germany would be used as a tool in the post-war era by the radical left to shame the right and move towards political correctness. In the 1960’s, Sweden was the fourth richest country in the world in total grodd domestic product, NOT COUNTING PER CAPITA, while being one of the smallest population wise. While the rest of Europe was ruined by the war Sweden had profited and was now enduring a golden age, we prevailed in sports (Sweden still has most gold medals per capita in the world), music (Abba, etc), and industry. We had all this money but we gained it trough supporting nazi germany.
The effect is clearly apparent, Out of all the scandinavian nations, Sweden is by far the most politically correct. Sweden takes far more immigration than the other countires per capita, if u think Norway is bad, Swedish journalists portray Norway as backwards racists who won’t embrace multiculture.
Sweden has been at peace of 200 years, and it has rendered us spoiled, ignorant and meek. While the other countries aren’t as bad, compared to a country like poland that lost 30% of its population in WW2 they were relatively untouched by the war. How large islamic immigration do you think Poland have?
2. Long, dark winters
Scandinavia has long harsh winters, a clear environmental difference compared to the rest of Europe. Harsh winters, in opposite to peace, creates hard people (and beautiful) people, though the effect is gone in modern times. Yet it also breeds a empathic, communal, cooperative culture. If the farmer next door has a bad season and is unprepared for the winter, what do you do? You give him some of your proviants, so that he can support you in the future if your harvest would fail, family or not. Harsh winters forced people to cooperate to endure. Take this is indifference to China, which lacks philantropy outside the family. There is always rice somewhere and there are so many people that helping someone and expecting return is asking for parasitism, families who fail to supply themselves cannot blame or expect support from anyone else. Sweden have a history of a very communal, cooperative history.
In fact, the same mechanism is why blonde hair stems from Scandinavia. If you have a harsh winter and food only enough for one of your women to make it trough, you save the one with the golden hair becuase her value is greater. If you have food only for one of your kids and you are blonde, you save the blonde kid becuase there is a greater chance it is your offspring (men can never be 100% sure).
This communal culture has created a strong bond among the Swedes. Gustaf Adolfphus could switch to protestantism relatively easily, as soon as it was established among the king and priests, people followed suit. It is the reason why Sweden was so succesfull at war, Swedish kings could drain more men and drain the economy of the nation more than other nations, creating armies that could count for 5-10% of the total population. When Sweden lost at Poltava, approximately 100,000 people were lost in a country that only included about 2 million people, including Finland.
The long dark winters has worked as a mechanism both for strong evolutionary development and altruistic, communal culture. Swedes follow suit. When political correctness and progressivness hijacked social democracy and became the established ideology, Swedes followed suit.
3. Social democracy and the political class
The two reasons described have another consequence that is worthy of its own point. The communal, altruistic culture combined with long periods of peace made scandinavia a fertile environment for social democracy. In its early days, Social democracy was merely class warfare of the workers done democratically, and they won. Before the war, social democratic politicians were mostly a mix of workers from all over the country, each representing the workers movements at their hometowns. Nation, patriotism, homogenity was praised among these men. As Tage Erlander stated in 1965 in response to the American race riots: “We Swedes live in such a eternally more lucky situation. Our countries people is homogeneus, not only in terms of race but also in many other aspects”
However, the post-WW2 birth of political correctness would create a new generation of politicians, the so called 68-generation. 68 was the peak of socialism, and those students inevitably replaced the old. They did not get their seats becuase they were the most competent, increasingly the power fell to the ones that were best at embracing the already dominant culture, in this case, progressiveness or political correctness. Women were brought in not becuase of their competence, but becuase they were women who claimed to represent other women. The introduction of the TV and mass media gave power to rhetorics and appearance rather than competence and results. Inevitably, the 68 generation would inevitable replace the old, and with it came the cancer.
Most tops in the party these days are there becuase they joined the youth organization at a very young age, started making connections at an early age, or had parents with the connections for them. All they had to do next was embrace the already dominant ideology and they were set. People who chose opposition on the wrong questions were doomed to not have a successfull political career. Me being a student at a world top 100 university, I have friends of friends who are now entering parliament becuase of their parents making them join politics at an early age combined with pure nepotism. These people live far from the ghettos in the most white neighbourhoods, yet embrace mass immigration more than anyone else. The argument is simple, there is war and horror in the world while we live in peace and prosperity, how can we deny refugees?
In the 80’s Sweden received about 30 war refugees from vietnam for integration, that was a big happening at the time. In the 90’s the balkan war started, and suddenly immigration were in the number of thousands. In 2014, we broke the record yet again with 116 00 immigrants, officially. Bear in mind, Sweden only has 10 million people, so a decade of this level of immigration is 10% of our population.
Just like in the US but more so, there is a political class in Scandinavia that has embraced political correctness and “progressiveness” strongly becuase of historical shame and cultural affinity for it. The right has never been as strong, since Scandinavia doesn’t have the same tradition of classical liberalism, and had were smaller countries with a more entrenched scene of democratic class warfare.
Id like to write this to give some hope. Last month, the Swedish democrats, which youth organization made a very un-apologizing video that CH actually linked last year (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR-lAGj_dlQ), became the countries second biggest party in the polls. The current social democratic governments support is plummeting rapidly. 10 years ago they could claim 45% of the voter base, last month they scored 22%. In fact, the nationalist party is already the greatest party among members of the workers union, the LO. Even though every paper and media institutution, including the states insitutution, is unofficially or officially against the nationalist movement, it just keeps growing. Confidence for the journalist and politician proffession have never been lower in the polls.
The swedish people is waking up, and as some people said previously, we swedes are somewhat an all or nothing nation. We have a history and affinity for embracing the dominant ideology and stay togheter. We embraced political correctness more than anyone else.
We can do the opposite, too.
Wealth, peace, and extended outbreeding make a Viking man soft. Really, these environmental changes make any white westerner soft. Is the solution hardship, war, and arranged marriages?
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…