We Have Met The Fascist, And He Is The Gay Mulatto

What the shitlibs bleating about “fascist Trump” don’t understand (or don’t care to understand) is that our president, Gay Mulatto, fits the criteria of a fascist dictator using the government as a tool to exact petty revenge on his political enemies.

Peter Thiel crossed Gay Mulatto and Gawker, (in my book Thiel’s role in destroying Gawker elevates him to a genuine American hero), and now it’s payback time. Recall this is the same spiteful, “peevish princeling” [ed: credit PA]  Gay Mulatto who sicced the IRS on conservative political groups. And who ordered Eric Holder to make an example of an innocent White cop in Ferguson.

Gawker and the rest of the shitlib media whore websites are octopus arms of the Democrats and their Muslimist leader, tasked with properly indoctrinating Americans to accept without question the inevitability of the White-hating Diversitopia. When Thiel cut an anti-White propaganda arm off, and supported the man (Trump) best positioned to forever tarnish the Gay Mulatto’s legacy, his transgression was too great an affront against the leftoid hate machine. Thiel must suffer. Here’s hoping he has the fight in him to take on the beast so directly.

Gay Mulatto is a petty tyrant, the exact sort of petty tyrant liberals bemoan Trump will be once in office. And thecunt’s pettiness, should she achieve power, will make his seem tame by comparison.

It’s shitlib psychological projection all the way down. If you wonder whether we’ve yet hit bottom, there’s always a deeper pit to excavate as long as the sworn enemies of White civilization remain free to scheme and indulge their hatreds.

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Why Do The Elite (And Disproportionately The (((Elite)))) Promote Miscegenation?

You’d have to be living under a rock to miss the active and accelerating Western elite propaganda campaign to promote miscegenation, particularly of the White woman-black man variety. So the question becomes, why are the elite doing this?

A Twatterer (@JamesGaius) gets to one of the prime motivations, in my opinion:

Perhaps that is why (((they))) promote miscegenation. Produces more rootless people who don’t understand populism.

The elite fear populist revolts, as they should, and they intuitively know that populism is racial identity by another name, so in their globalist whore minds it makes sense to decouple their current nation of residence from its racial roots. Miscegenation is a permanent and devastatingly complete decoupling, forever severing the race ties that emotionally bind a people to their land. In this way they hope the resulting mulatto mudslide (which they will not allow to pollute their own families, of course) will bury any idyllic sentiment for heritage America, ushering in a glorious epoch of transnational progressivism managed by a hyperwealthy technocratic asborger consortium selling low quality baubles and “upgrades” to a mass of deracinated morons unable to mount effective countermeasures to preserve an Historic America culture that is now more foreign to them than the farthest-flung corners of the earth.

Other, mutually reinforcing motivations for elite (and sub-elite) promotion of mongrelization:

• virtue signaling for upper middle class peer approval
• backwards rationalization to accommodate a family member who has miscegenated
• suppression of natural feelings of disgust toward miscegenation
• moral posturing by comfortably untested Christians eager to prove their godliness
• necessity driven by sexual choices
• ego assuaging driven by the past sexual choices of one’s current lover
• hostile outsider subversion cultivated by historical grievance toward the majority native stock
• feels good man

The elite promotion of miscegenation has had mixed results; succeeding in ostracizing opponents and creating a social expectation of full-throated approval, but failing (until recently) to significantly change what really matters: mate choice in the free and liberated sexual market.

The social expectation pro-miscegenation successes of the elite War Against Nationhood are seen in late stage America surveys showing consistent and high White support for homophilia and miscegenation. But these public surveys are like negatives of people’s true feelings. A public poll inquiring for opinions on what is essentially one’s social status in the modern sexual market is likely to produce the opposite of privately-held truths and behavior. In reality, every parent secretly fears their kid turning gay or marrying out of the race. Even the shitlib parents fear it, (though they would never admit it to anyone, including themselves, but they will feel a limbic eddy of revulsion just the same).

In contrast, the mate market failures of the elite miscegenation project are evident in the historically very low rates of interracial dating and intermarriage, especially between Whites and blacks. The heart and the loins are not easily moved to desire what they don’t.

HOWEVER, there is Census Bureau data that proves the aggressive, malevolent, and unrelenting elite promotion of miscegenation (primarily via TV, movies, advertising, and mass importation of nonwhite migrants altering the demographic equation) is beginning to have its intended effect on the real world, practical romantic choices of Whites. In 1980, the share of intermarriages from the total married population was 3.2%. In 2010 it hit an all-time high of 8.4%.

Despite the interracial dating and marrying trends, the raw numbers for White race preservationists still look manageable. In 2010, only 9% of American Whites outmarried to a nonWhite, the lowest intermarriage rate of all racial groups in the US, (keep in the dankest part of your mind, this says nothing about interracial patterns of premarital fucking). However, the trends are unmistakable, and intermarriage is rising relatively quickly for all races in America, including Whites for whom their share of newlywed intermarried couples rose from 8.9% in 2008 to 9.4% in 2010.

My thinking is that a large nation can tolerate some crossing of the jizz streams at the margins of society. What it can’t tolerate is a full-scale, weaponized, anti-White, pro-miscegenation propaganda assault that year by year carves out a higher share of Narrative-duped Whites willing to commit the ultimate disloyalty of abruptly ending their genetic, cultural and aesthetic lineage. Perhaps love can conquer all….or, more likely, a politicized love can temporarily soothe the misgivings and percolating regrets that inevitably follow in the wake of racial seppuku.

Read Full Post »

Crooked Cunt Update

Hillary Clinton (née thecunt) has been tits-deep in corruption for so long she’s probably lost the ability to discern when she’s breaking the law. The latest Crooked Cunt dispatch is a howler (and in a sane world would DISQUALIFY her from the Presidency): Her IT guy logged into a subReddit tech forum seeking advice on how to strip VIP email addresses from emails.

She’s going down in a landslide in November, but even if by some demonic intervention Her Heinous steals her way into the Black House, her reputation is now so tarnished she’ll spend the next four years putting out fires and appearing before special prosecutors. Here’s to hoping she strokes out during the debate and Trump offers her a mischievous “get well” wish.

Read Full Post »

The Three Cultures Theory

Healthy culture: Alpha men, deferential women

Unhealthy culture: Entitled men, entitled women

Dying culture: Deferential men, entitled women

America is a dying culture. Trump is the last chance to meme more life back into America.

Read Full Post »

The Aggrocunt Period

The Daily Mail wonders if we Westerners are living through a time period when the numbers of aggressive, unfeminine, caustic, ball-busting battle-bitches are on the rise.

I think we are. And I’ll tell you why it’s happening. First…

So seemingly serene is the 51-year-old that she even soothes others in the course of her career as a reiki therapist. [ed: wtf?] But, like an increasing number of respectable women, Jo has become so consumed by rage that even a simple trip to buy the weekly groceries can lead to frighteningly aggressive outbursts. Recently, she completely ‘lost it’ when another driver tried to take the space she wanted in a Tesco car park.

Jo’s response was instant, and utterly disproportionate. ‘I was there first. So I got out of my car as he approached and shouted: ‘F*** you, a*******, I’m staying here until I get this space.’

‘The driver was a man much bigger than me, but I wasn’t intimidated. I told him we’d be stuck there all day if he didn’t move — which eventually he did.’

There’s the problem right there. If the Gynocratic State didn’t leash men, women wouldn’t be testing men’s patience like this cunt did.

Worryingly, it would seem this is a dangerous trend, seen by many as yet another dark side of equality.

Equalism is a false prophet heralding decay, misery, and eventual capitulation to nonbelievers.

Stories of professional women drinking themselves into ill health, trying to keep up with male colleagues are well documented.

Nothing good comes from reversing the sexual polarities.

But they are now matching men on the aggression front, too, putting themselves in physical danger — risking their good name, career prospects and relationships. In 1957, men were responsible for 11 violent offences for every one perpetrated by a woman — today, that is four to one.

Some of this shift towards more female violence (if accurate) is owed to the race replacement pogrom in Western countries. White women are fairly pacifist by world woman standards.

Add to the mix long hours, pressure juggling work and family life, plus fluctuating hormones caused by the menopause, PMS or childbirth and it’s no wonder so many women are exploding with rage.

I would’ve said “childlessness”. Failing at their most important life job has got to make careerist tankgrrls feel a little peeved.

Indeed, earlier this month it was reported that Oxford-educated Jocelyn Robson, a company director, 40, etched the word ‘c***’ in capital letters on two of her former boyfriends’ cars after they broke up.

“Oxford-educated”. “company director”. I guess it would be redundant to add “Maestro of Manjaws”.

And last month BBC presenter Jeremy Vine released footage of a woman — smartly dressed and driving a top-of-the-range car down one of London’s most expensive streets — who swore at him to ‘get the f*** off the road’ and allegedly kicked his bicycle.

These are the kind of women that men pump and remorselessly dump. And then these masculinized women have the gall to wonder why they have trouble finding a husband.

Research has also found that women are significantly more likely to be verbally and physically aggressive to men than vice versa — something physicians are seeing more of in their clinics.

Correction: BETA men. Since it’s obvious to anyone who has trawled a social media account that the ranks of weepy supplicating beta males in the West is at an all-time high, it’s no wonder women are lashing out at them. Weak men are like fat women: each defies the opposite sex’s romantic needs.

‘We are treating more women than ever who are struggling to regulate their emotions and express themselves appropriately,’

Sounds like the typical problem of men. This is what it looks like when the modren woman’s estrogen level are as low as the modren nümale’s testosterone level: bitterness, spite, aggression, acting out from an uneasy feeling that the world ain’t right.

And why is this anger afflicting so many upstanding women, the sort you might hope would be immune to, or too ashamed of, having outbursts?

“Upstanding” translated from the equalist leftoid mewlspeak means “over-credentialed careerist shrew”.

Some experts suggest women believe that such outward displays of aggression allow them to seize the initiative from traditionally dominant men.

NOPE. That’s not it. The usual feminist answer to these sorts of social changes is never the right one.

The right answer is that power abhors a vacuum. And nobody abhors the loss of male power more than a woman, who will rush in to fill it with nagging, passive-aggressive bitching, and closed legs.

Whether it’s in the workplace or around the dining table, shouting, swearing or throwing things are increasingly viewed as valid methods for women to assert themselves.

Aggrocunts aren’t interested in asserting themselves. What they’re doing is crying out for a chance to be a feminine woman again who doesn’t have to assert herself.

Such outbursts can also become addictive, a form of almost animalistic release.

Women who are regularly dicked by a self-entitled ZFG jerkboy feel no need for further animalistic release.

ADVERTISEMENT

But as well as this rush, Jo also admits to feeling under constant pressure to provide for her family.

Economically self-sufficient gogrrls betray the essence of their sex.

Thankfully Steven who works with disabled children,

Nümale pussy.

has learned how to cope with her outbursts. As mild-mannered as Jo is volatile, he’s found that the best thing to do is to walk away and let the tantrum burn itself out.

Wrong answer.

Right answer: SHUT THE FUCK UP JO *readies pimp hand*

Her stepchildren, too, have learned to walk away from her outbursts.

Mix-and-match broken family. Cunt stepmom. Shit writes itself.

‘Our relationship is still strained, which is a shame, but I feel convinced she is as much to blame as me.’

Pathologically narcissistic BPD supercunt spotted.

And when, last year, she decided a driver was too close behind her as she kept to a 30mph speed limit, she braked suddenly and got out of the car. ‘I asked the driver, a young man, what the hell he thought he was doing driving up to my bumper,’ she says. ‘My heart was pounding as he called me a bitch and drove off.’

A young shitlord, to be precise.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, she has upset family and friends with her behaviour. In restaurants, she has embarrassed loved ones by high-handedly sending back food she considers isn’t good enough.

By the way, if a woman ever does this on a first date, you have complete license to exit through the kitchen and leave her with the bill.

Executive Summary:

DIVERSITY + FEMINISM = UNLOVABLE CUNTS

Read Full Post »

A Sexual Market Oddity

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.

That’s a classic Chateau maxim. But reader Daffyduck thinks there may be evidence of a Current Year contradiction of the maxim.

My question to the proprietors is this: if the sexual market is the primary market, why do so many women (the vast majority of women where I live in the UK), do everything they can to lower their SMV? Tattoos, obesity, single mummery – all so ubiquitous now it’s close to impossible to find a woman that doesn’t have some dire self induced SMV cratering characteristic. Thank you.

On the face of it, this does strike one as a refutation of the primacy of the sexual market. But digging a little deeper into the mechanics of mate acquisition in postmodern Western societies, we find that the maxim holds as true as ever.

It’s a fact that obesity lowers every single fat chick’s SMV, often dramatically. 99.9% of men would choose a slender babe over a fat chick if they had the option to do so. (78.4% of black men)

Tattoos generally ding female SMV, although this self-induced body modification has mixed results depending on the woman sporting them. On hot babes, tattoos that don’t occupy much skinscape have a neutral to occasionally positive effect on their SMV. And don’t neglect the handicap principle, which postulates that prime nubility girls get tattoos as a way to advertise they have excess SMV to spare (The “Look at me, I’m so hot I can afford to defile my body and you’ll still love me” whore’s brag.)

Single mommery lowers female marital market value (similarly, their long-term relationship worth). As with tattoos on hot babes, single mommery won’t detract much from a woman’s SMV, but it will severely penalize a woman’s value as a long-term partner.

So as we can see, of the three SMV-altering inputs, only obesity reliably craters a woman’s SMV. Tattoos and single mommery are best avoided, but if a woman has a super tight bang-able body, most men won’t let a butterfly tat or a screaming sprog stop them (at least for the night. heh).

Here’s where we get to the grist explaining the source of Daffyduck’s confusion: Sexual markets are vulnerable to changes in the incentives for paternal investment. (Paternal investment itself is a crucial aspect of the sexual market.) As women become more economically self-sufficient and sexually liberated their mate acquisition algorithm begins to emphasize the targeting of men for sexual and romantic validation and to undervalue men who would make dependable resource providers.

Likewise, men who are less interested in commitment and family formation would seek out women primarily for sexual thrills rather than their maternal instinct or faithfulness.

If this is the operative sexual market, then tattoos and single mommery would not only have little effect on women’s SMVs, they may very well raise their SMVs by advertising a greater willingness to go all the way right away, (and to not make much of a fuss when she’s dumped post-chaste).

Now ask yourself, where do you see women with lots of garish tattoos and bastard spawn? The lower classes. And where do you see less dependable fly-by-night men? The lower classes. In the upper classes single mommery is still rare and tattoos, though more common than they once were, are tastefully inconspicuous. Obesity, too, is rarer among upper class women.

So it’s in the lower classes (now gradually expanding into the working and middle classes) where the sexual market has responded to the changing incentives and women have resorted to more “slut signaling” accoutrements like tattoos, skimpy trashy clothes, and yes even bastard spawn (a single mom is a slutty mom).

In the upper classes, paternal investment is still important, so we see less of this among the women who have kept to the traditional SMV norms of their sex: slenderness, clear skin, and childlessness.

Ok, you ask, if tats and single mommery are slut cues to men on the make, what about obesity? No man wants to boff a blob if he has a choice.

Female obesity does present a difficulty for the theory of sexual market primacy….until we realize that very very few women voluntarily choose to be fat (unlike the many who choose to get tats or bear the devil bastards of one night stands). Most fat women want to be thinner, so they know, whether they admit it to anyone or drown their egos in a vat of fat acceptance platitudes, that fatness kills their SMV dead.

Larger societal and chemical forces have conspired in modern societies to accelerate and amplify the gaining of many pounds of fat. Unless you’re careful and actively avoid sugars, grazing and processed foods (all of which increased exponentially sometime in the mid-20th century) then you will likely get fatter than your ideal peak performance weight. (Reminder: For women, peak SMV performance is a 17-23 BMI, 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio, and an age that is roughly half the age of gogrrl feminists looking to conceive their first and only autistic child.)

The relatively recent explosion (heh) of obesity among Westerners suggests that the existence of all these female fatties is not a refutation of sexual market primacy theory, but is rather evidence of a rapidly changing input variable that is causing immense (heh) volatility in the sexual market, as men respond by “dropping out” to amuse themselves with acceptable substitutes that are better than sleeping with a fat chick: porn, controlled substances, video games, and now even gainful unemployment.

So if you notice a lot of tattoos, obesity, and single mommery in the sexual market, you can deduce the following dynamics are in play:

1. Men have less leverage and fewer mate options (due to sex ratio skew or female emancipation from needing to rely on men to provide for them).
2. Women have utterly given up trying to find a husband and have settled for finding a cock notch or a sperm donor.
3. Sluts are ascendant.
4. Men are dropping out and tuning into substitutes for female companionship.
5. Enormous upstream social forces are streaming down and wreaking havoc on the normal functioning of the sexual market.

None of the above redact the primacy of the sexual market. They are instead first responder symptoms of a sexual market in dire flux. In the final analysis, SMV remains king of human society, and any secondary markets (economic, social, political) that exert downstream pressures on the sexual market will eventually be reconfigured, even corrupted, by the unstoppable feedback loops unleashed by a primal sexual market convulsing from rapid transformation of the individual players and the higher order systems those players design.

Read Full Post »