The Age Of Treason And Open Borders Genocide

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1
U.S. Constitution

Recently, the news reports that Tony Blair, the former UK Prime Minister who with George Bush and his neocon masters lied us into the Iraq War, had conspired with government officials to open Britain’s borders to mass immigration and keep it hidden from the public.

Tony Blair is accused of ‘presiding over a silent conspiracy’ that allowed two million migrants to enter Britain during his decade in power.

This is genocide by population displacement and dispossession. It’s a clear betrayal of duty to one’s nation and its people.

A new biography of the former prime minister by the celebrated investigative journalist Tom Bower claims Mr Blair ordered his Labour government not to publicly discuss the issue.

The book Broken Vows: Tony Blair – the Tragedy of Power alleges that the minister in charge of border control ruled against deporting failed asylum seekers because it would be too “emotional” to do so.

The feminizing of the West is its great undoing.

Mr Bower interviewed more than 200 senior civil servants, ex-ministers and insiders and claims Mr Blair told officials and ministers: “Don’t mention the advantages of immigration in public because they won’t even want that.”

The book claims that Mr Blair and his Government ‘cynically repackaged’ asylum seekers as economic migrants to the benefit of 350,000 asylum seekers.

It alleges that Barbara Roche, the immigration minister between 1999 and 2001, told a senior immigration official: “Asylum seekers should be allowed to stay in Britain. Removal takes too long and it’s emotional.”

Faces of evil:

The UN Convention on the Crime of Genocide lists under Article II the acts that would qualify as genocide.

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

A conspiracy by Western governments and their leaders to silently and extra-judicially permit the migration of millions of foreigners into their nations is an act of genocide as described in UN Article II, subcategories (b), (c) and possibly (a) and (d) as well.

Certainly, millions of migrants bring cultural, if not physical, destruction of the host nation. Mass invasion causes mental harm and societal fracturing. It can also be argued that mass invasion depresses the birth rate of natives, through economic hardship and demographic churn.

Even (a) is a legitimate allegation against the anti-White oligarchs and globalists. Muslims commit terrorist atrocities at a rate 4,000% higher than their total population ratio. Importing more of them increases the risk of killings perpetrated against members of the native people.

The Chateau proprietors assert in these esteemed pages that Tony Blair, Barbara Roche, Nicolas Sarkozy, George W Bush, Angela Merkel, Marco Rubio, and Downlow Soetoro have committed, and presently commit, acts of genocide against the native White people of the United States, France, Germany, and United Kingdom, and are condemned for their treason against their countries.

Read Full Post »

America, Then And Now

Then:

Now:

A reader identifies the relevant contrast:

A comparison to illustrate how much ‘change’ can happen in just over 100 years:

Theodore Roosevelt – Stoic, unflinching, deadpan, with a stare that could pierce diamonds.

Barack Obama – … dat gayface

Is it me, or does Teddy Roosevelt, minus the ‘stache, kind of look like Trump?

For an idea of just how far America’s leaders — and in general, men — have fallen, keep in mind that Teddy once gave a stump speech for ninety minutes… after getting shot by a would-be assassin.

Roosevelt decided the bullet could not have penetrated to his lung because he coughed no blood and, declining suggestions that he go to the hospital, delivered his scheduled speech. He spoke for ninety minutes, but sometimes managed no more than a whisper.

At least now we have a president who can snark like a teenage girl. Progress!

Read Full Post »

Study: No Consent Divorces Favor Women

Courtesy of reader BK, a link to an economic analysis of woman-coddling divorce laws.

CH, thought you would like this article – economist looks at how no consent divorces have changed savings rates and women’s leisure time – the result is that men are saving more to protect themselves and women are taking a lot more leisure time.

Quotes from the research paper:

By regulating when divorce can occur and how resources are divided when it does, divorce laws can affect people’s behavior and their wellbeing both during marriage and at divorce. Household survey data from the United States shows that the introduction of unilateral divorce in states that imposed an equal division of property is associated with higher household savings and lower female employment rates among couples that are already married.

This sounds like a legal backdoor to re-institute “barefoot and pregnant” as a family norm.

During the 1970s and 1980s, divorce laws were rewritten around the United States. Until then, mutual consent—the consent of both spouses—was often a requirement and upon divorce, property was assigned to the spouse who held the formal title to it; usually, this was the husband.

Then, profound state-level reforms brought about the so-called “unilateral divorce revolution.” Most couples now entered a legal system in which either spouse could obtain a divorce without the consent of the other and also keep a fraction of the marital assets, often close to fifty percent.

Here come the negative externalities! (which feminists always miss)

This study explores the impact of the reforms—unilateral divorce and equitable property division—on the economic behavior of couples.  In the US, these reforms affect no small number of people, as forty percent of married couples and about one-third of all people over their lifetimes are divorced. So how did the unilateral divorce revolution change the consumption, the labor supply decisions, and ultimately the wellbeing of married and divorced couples?

There are at least two ways in which we might expect the reforms to affect household behavior. First, because divorce is one of those events for which people cannot buy insurance, savings can act as self-insurance, allowing people to face some of the financial costs associated with marriage dissolution. Different ways of dividing property can affect the insurance role of savings. Second, even among couples that do not split up, a change in divorce laws can change a spouse’s options outside of the marriage. For instance, a property division regime change that favors one spouse can improve her position inside the marriage, particularly if she can obtain divorce without the other partner’s consent. This reallocation within marriage could result in changes in private consumption, savings, and labor supply.

Muh incentives and disincentives.

From this “difference-in-differences” exercise, two main facts emerge on the impact of unilateral divorce in states with different property division regimes. First, in states with equal division, households reported higher net savings (around 16%). Second, in such states, women who were already married became less likely to work, by approximately 5 percentage points. By analyzing additional time use surveys between 1965 and 1993, I find that the decrease in the labor supply of women was associated with an increase in the amount of leisure time they enjoyed.

So how is this result explained by the behavior of spouses in marriages operating under no consent divorce laws?

With these features, the model provides a qualitative explanation for the observed empirical patterns. In states with equal division of property, the law favors women at the time of divorce. When the equal division of property grants them more resources in the event of divorce than they are receiving in the marriage, unilateral divorce means that they can use the threat of divorce in their favor while remaining married, thereby increasing their leisure.

How’s that oppressive patriarchy working out for you feminists? Heh.

At the same time, married couples save more because spouses’ individual incentives to save are distorted because they cannot choose how to allocate savings between man and woman in the increasingly likely event of a divorce. Because mandated equal division of property does not reflect the allocation of resources within marriage, it ultimately distorts household saving behavior.

Influenced by the specter of no consent divorce law, marriage has moved from a “build a nest egg” model to a “build an insurance against property loss” model.

So how do divorce laws, which were passed when men and women’s economic outcomes differed substantially, affect wellbeing today? Simulations from the model suggest that, as intended by the policymakers who promoted it, the equal division of property gave more assets to women in the sample compared with a title-based regime that would grant them about 40% of household wealth. Thus, for couples that married before the 1970s, the reforms likely achieved the goal of supporting women through divorce. However, their effect is more nuanced if we believe that today’s couples may have a different, more egalitarian, distribution of resources within marriage.

Here’s a thought: How about crafting equitable divorce law that isn’t deliberately intended to favor women? There must be a word for favoritism in the law…. oh yeah, injustice.

Read Full Post »

A Father’s Desperate Bid To Stop His Daughter’s Mudsharking

Before I get to the grist of this post, a reminder about my feelings on the subject of coal burning:

On a case-by-case, practical basis, I don’t sweat it if the mudshark and her F YOU DAD boyfriend are only loosely affiliated to me. If the love is real and true (rare, but it happens), I’m not gonna rain on their charade. It’s the Equalist miscegenation propaganda, and the forced platitudes of shitlib miscegenators trying to justify their anti-Darwinian middle finger, that sticks in my craw. If the propaganda and the SJWistic glorification of dindu diving were to disappear tomorrow, I’d probably drop the subject because 1. there wouldn’t be a nonstop media assault of mixed race sproglet abominations to offend my aesthetic sensibility and 2. the risk of emotionally unstable White girls betraying their race’s heritage at the behest of subliminal media messages would be lower.

Now that that’s out of the way, PA provides an intro to the main subject:

Check out that Stephanie tweet. Dad threatens his mudshark daughter with disowning. She tweets the letter saying more or less that “racissss so sad it’s the current year.” Thank God I have sons, no daughters.

Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly, after the mudshark received the serrated side of the CH shiv), short-sighted Stephanie (not fat, looked pretty) deleted her Twatter account, so I can’t dig up the letter her despondent father wrote to his daughter and re-post it here.

But I can say this about that: Every father, every parent, has a perfectly justified and legitimate grievance when a daughter strays from the Good and White to slum it with vibrancy. In fact, I’d go so far to say that nonWhite parents are equally justified to fear their own daughters dating outside the race, and to try to thwart it.

The plain fact of it is that parents want children, and grandchildren, who resemble them and share their temperamental qualities; this is a deeply primal genetic imperative imprinted into the hindbrain. To deny this longing is to deny a piece of one’s divinely-inspired humanity. We can see how the denial looks on the faces of older patriarchs in family photos featuring a mudshark daughter and her dusky affront: blank, listless, sallow, hinting at a soul killed dead from suppressed grief. The eyes have a thousand-coal stare.

What miscegenation comes down to is defilement — of family, of thousands of years of irreplaceable genetic legacy, of Truth and Beauty. This is why, if people (including shitlibs) are honest, they will admit that the thought of their daughters getting fucked — yes, FUCKED… let’s not prettify the gutter rebellion with softened odes to intimacy — by a man of another race, especially of a genetically and phenotypically distant race, disgusts them to their very marrow.

(Oil drilling sons don’t elicit the same degree of disgust, but that’s because sons don’t carry the risk of burdening the family with a technicolor conception.)

mendo writes:

I checked that out and saw the all the people supporting her. There was even another girl that disowned her dad, for other reasons, and was glad she did.

Fucking parenting failure all the way.

Love how the dad had the suitcases on the ready and where she could find them.

greg adds:

Exactly… people forget that, back in the day, banning and shunning wasn’t just for outsiders.

Community integrity demanded that it be applied to one’s own family, if need be.

This is a good time to plug PA’s PSA on how to prevent mudsharking.

My sentiment is that White fathers have a MORAL DUTY to keep their daughters off the coal. To abandon this task, or worse to welcome the reproductive dispossession, is tantamount to betraying one’s own identity. It’s a scary prospect, but it needs consideration. If as a father you’ve given it all you’ve got, and you still lose your daughter to dinduville, then the option to disown is available. If you can’t save her, you can at least save yourself decades of humiliation concealing your torment for social approval.

I imagine the biggest concerns of new parents must be fear of a son growing up gay and a daughter landing in a relationship with a racial alien. This is about as harsh an ugly, un-PC truth as you’ll read anywhere, which is usually the case with truths that emanate from the id, where platitudes find no purchase. Whites currently constitute less than 10% of the total world population, and shrinking fast. Pretty White women are, by a global accounting, as rare as blue lobsters. Throwing that precious gift away and destroying thousands of years of evolved preternatural uniqueness to, in most scenarios, spite a parent or an ex-lover, is the height of folly and the banality of evil.

A Dark Future.

***

UPDATE

Here’s a web cache of the father’s desperate letter to his mudsharking daughter. And here’s a link to an incredibly faggy run-down of the story plus letter, written by Mustafa Gatollari (good lord). Representative quotes: “All right so it’s the year 2016. The civil rights movement happened.”…”Cops shoot suspects in the back just because of the color of their skin.”…”It’s the whole being super racist thing that’s the worst part. Best of luck to Stephanie and her man, and hopefully her dad will realize he’s totally on the wrong side of history,”…”What’s up with us as a country?”

What’s up Mustafa, is that Whites are WAKING UP to the occupation of their country by ingrate goat-humpers like yourself. If you think your feels are hurty now, just wait until the gloves are off. (Mustafa’s whine is so SJW-ish I wonder if it’s a parody.)

Getting back to the Stephanie business and her dad’s letter, one can’t help but think her dad’s words got under her skin, as she felt compelled to publicize his letter for wagon circling “atta girl”s from a small army of degenerate social media sluts.

A father can exert a lot of influence over his daughter by removing the credit card. Too bad Stephylococcus’s dad didn’t avail himself of that option. A woman will bend to a strong man’s will, and that includes daughters who have had their weekly allowance lifeline cut off. If that fails, the last thing left for a father is disowning. No money, no emotional support, no contact ever again. In most normal daughters, this will strike a deep fear and shame in them that may not become apparent to themselves until years later, which will be too late. Mudshark orphans are tragic lessons in preventable suffering that can serve as examples in what not to do for the others.

Read Full Post »

The Majority Of Rapists In America Are Democrats

Graphic and post title courtesy of Twatter squatters @LibrarianofHate and @SOBL1, respectively. Great job, boys. The number of Dinducrat rapists is even more starkly disproportionate than this graphic indicates (which is based on absolute numbers), once you realize blacks+beaners are (for now) still a minority of the total US population.

Anyhow, this post is what I call a Masterful Reframe. It takes the fight straight to the concave solar plexuses of shitlibs. This is the what I’m thinking of when I write about leveraging the power of dissident right COPROP. Don’t let up on the hot hot heat until your enemies are roasted to a crisp and their ashes used to top off their cats’ litter boxes.

Read Full Post »

president Three Snaps And A Butt Slap

It’s only a split-second long, but about halfway through this video of president Three Snaps taking a selfie he reveals what has got to be the GAYEST looking expression possible from a putatively heterosexual man.

The coy half-smile and chin dip need a sassy hand on the hip to complete the picture and send Three Snaps into DEFFAG 1 territory.

In one hundred years, Americans will either look back on this period as shockingly callow and degenerate, or America will have been long gone and thus left with no non-pozzed Americans to look back with clear eyes on anything.

Read Full Post »

Obesity And Declining Patriotism

A recent social science study found that female obesity elicits disgust in people.

This study examined the relevance of disgust to evaluations of an obese target person, and the connection between disgust and prejudice toward that person. Participants (n = 598) viewed an image of an obese or non-obese woman, and then evaluated that woman on a number of dimensions (emotions, attitudes, stereotypes, desire for social distance). Compared with the non-obese target, the obese target elicited more disgust, more negative attitudes and stereotypes, and a greater desire for social distance.

😆 “Get away from me you lazy-eyed fatty!”

Furthermore, disgust mediated the effect of the target’s body size on all of the outcome variables (attitudes, stereotypes, social distance). Disgust plays an important role in prejudice and discrimination toward individuals with obesity, and might in part explain the pervasiveness of weight bias.

It’s a good idea to not look like a monster who elicits disgust in others.

Randall Parker speculates,

Maybe people are becoming less patriotic because of the long term rise in obesity. Think about it.

I thought about it, and there’s something to it. Obesity – particularly female obesity – aggravates trends toward social atomization and community breakdown because it compels people to get the hell away from the corpulent company of modern day circus freaks. In some regions of the US, obesity is the NORM! That’s a lot of pent-up disgust.

If patriotism is in large part an organic expression of community, racial, and ethnic pride channeled through loyalty for the nation, then obesity, by severing localized social bonds all over America, will undermine national patriotism, as the repulsive forces incited by fatties are scaled up.

When humans turn themselves into monsters, it’s inevitable that their society becomes monstrous.

Read Full Post »