Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

Tucked deeply into an effluvium of UGH WHITE SUPREMACY HATE HATE INTERNET HATE in the Washington Host, we observe the classic evasive behavior of the Slithery Reptile™ (subspecies, Marc Fisher).

Although the reptile’s conflation of the idea of “supremacy” with “realtalk” is typical for its swamp-dwelling genus, where we observe its natural behavior most clearly is the refusal to confront straightforwardly the details of the claims to truth made by the hated hateful hater “supremacist” groups.

“Frankly, this movement is in such disarray,” said Johnson, the 61-year-old American Freedom Party chairman, who traces his involvement to his support of George Wallace’s 1972 presidential bid. “You cannot expect there to be no retaliation by certain disaffected portions of white society when you have crime after crime by blacks against whites. People are going to rebel, and that’s what this young man did.”

Violent crime across the country has dropped to near-record lows over the past two decades; the national crime rate is about half of what it was at its peak in 1991, according to the government’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. Despite that, polls repeatedly indicate that Americans perceive crime to be on the increase.

Did you catch The Slithery Reptile’s™ flick of the forked tongue? He allows a brief airing of the hated hateful hater enemy’s legitimate grievance, only to answer it with a slithery evasion that does not address the core of the complaint. The Slithery Reptile™ knows that absolute crime numbers and disproportionate black crime are two separate and distinct phenomena, but he’s hoping you won’t notice his color change as he camouflages himself in the pattern of a faggy talk show snarkmeister and redirects your attention to a fat red herring flopping near at hand.

But we’re on to you, Slithery Reptile™! You may feel free to classify this as hate. I prefer to call it… The Shiv.

Read Full Post »

The Wickedest Links

1. “…a culture saturated with vulgar freedomism…” Must-read. An interview with a philosopher (white male privilege alert) who blessedly makes his cogent points without the usual philosophy major linguistic legerdemain. And in that pussy protection program known as National Review, too. :shock: Briefly: The FUCK YOU DAD rotten fruit of the Enlightenment project that lifts the autonomous individual above all other aesthetic and moral considerations is destroying the West. A corporate-government alliance is the new Church. Best insight: Marx will be warmly revisited by conservatives (as opposed to cuckservatives) for his early years wisdom and prescience about our current decline.

2. Diversity + proximity = white on white war, too. I think this is true until such time that the Diversity™ is so great and its curses so obvious that a sine qua non white identity emerges and a new, if temporary and reactive, white racial alliance forms.

3. “Detachment cultivates human alienation, which draws more people to answer to the call of the mass state’s [ed: and globo-corporation’s] mob.” How to escape the age of mass delusion.

4. Millionaire tech nerds don’t know how to talk to women, news at 11.

5. GoodWhite SWPLs who smugly pride themselves on living in vibrant, diverse cities aren’t really living with diversity. Next time you’re at one of their hipster warehouse parties, tell them Anchorage, Alaska is more integrated than their beatific gentrified hood. Sure to liven the mood. Well, your mood at any rate.

6. Age of Reason. Peter Frost is one of my favorite “big picture” writers.

7. Men are abandoning marriage, and it’s fair to lay some of the blame on women.

8. Related: The bitter harvest of feminism.

9. The American media are corrupt, malign, dishonest, incompetent and perfectly OK with all that. They are discredited. Response? Disengage.

10. A Yankee Loses His Shit. Great rant. Spot on. Yankees are insufferable pricks. And nothing worse than a smug prick whose identity is wrapped up in ten layers of ego-assuaging lies.

Read Full Post »

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.

What about all categories of violent interracial crime?

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.

Tim Wise lives in an almost racially pure neighborhood.

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.

Read Full Post »

Remember that unfunnygirl who performed a social science experiment up to the rigorous standards set by academic feminists everywhere, an experiment in which her results were presented as evidence men don’t want casual sex any more than women want it? Femcunts rejoiced, because femcunts will rejoice at whatever slender reed of feels gives succor to their pretty lies.

Dr. Jeremy, from Psychology Today, responded, vindicating the original Clark and Hatfield study finding that men are fantastically more agreeable to the prospect of casual, NSA sex than are women.

The difference between actual social science research and these pseudo-experiments is that, with real research, there are experimental controls put in place to reduce bias and alternative explanations for the findings. For example, the original Clark and Hatfield (1989) study standardized what was said by the experimental assistants to ask for sex, so that each participant received exactly the same believable message. Specifically they said, “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?”

Additionally, Clark and Hatfield (1989) used multiple experimental assistants to control for differences in attractiveness. Also, the assistants were asked to only request sex from believable partners (college students, relatively the same age, and attractive to them). Finally, participants were approached during times when they were most likely to have free time for sex (weekdays and not between class periods).

We see none of these experimental controls in the pseudo-experiment video. The woman is inconsistent with her approach and how she asks for sex. Sometimes she is laughing, uncomfortable, and clearly not serious in her request. She also approaches many men who are not plausible sex partners for her, who are busy with their day, or who are otherwise unavailable for immediate sex.

Nevertheless, when she does approach men that she finds sexually attractive, who are plausible sex partners, who are available, and her request to them is more complementary and believable, then she more often gets a yes (for example, see video at 1:54 with guy in blue shirt). In fact, simply taking the men out of the analysis who are clearly considerably older than her (10), state they are too busy to go with her immediately (9), say they have a girlfriend and cannot have sex with her (12), or tell her they are gay (3), begins to increase her probability of getting a yes to sex (28/66 = 42%). If she only approached men that she actually found sexually attractive, used a standardized and believable request for sex, and hid the camera too, then it is quite possible that her rate of success would be even higher and better match those of actual studies that used such experimental controls. In fact, more recent experimental studies, following those controls and protocols, have indeed found similar results as the original Clark and Hatfield (1989) experiments (for more, see Hald & Høgh-Olesen, 2010).

Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39-54.

Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behaviior, 31, 453-458.

Feminists — ah, fuck it, let’s just say all women — will never be convinced by logic or reason to accept that there are deep, abiding differences in the psychology of the sexes. Women are built by evolution to fool themselves as much as fool men to their true natures, because complete enlightenment and the pained introspection that would follow could sabotage the Darwinian prime directive to attract and monopolize the top alpha sperm and resources.

Read Full Post »

A bevy of armchair psychologists (including yours truly) have attempted to explain Rachel Dolezal’s motivation for renouncing her white race to pass as a high yella black woman. Among the theories: She’s an average-looking white woman but a striking black woman, and she wanted to look sexier by whatever means available; she was gaming the System for affirmative action college and career freebies; she was an acute sufferer of a culture-wide manifestation of Stockholm Syndrome; she has a legitimate mental illness which, for obvious reasons, Narrative-subsumed psychologists are loath to classify or investigate; she loved the outpouring of sympathy and deference she got as a black woman; she was exacting a perverse vengeance on a white ex-boyfriend she never got over.

But, I think reader Laguna Beach Fogey gets closest to the prime impetus for Dolezal’s twisted Sybil self-erasement,

Observing her Christian missionary parents doting on their black babies and converting the noble savages in Africa, eventually young Rachel came to equate being black with being loved.

What a fucked up family. Could you imagine this poor girl, who in her girlish youth could have yodeled from atop a Swiss Alp, having to compete for her parents’ affection with a swarm of third world megafauna? I suppose the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, but the tree can provide a lot of cover for the fallen apple to rot unmolested on the ground.

Read Full Post »

In a normally functioning social dynamic, less attractive women (and lower status men) behave more deferentially toward their betters than do hotter women (and higher status men) toward their lessers, because the beta of each sex seeks to gain social standing by ingratiating herself or himself to pack leaders, (and because threatening the social hierarchy carries great risk).

But sometimes the behavioral properties of the pecking order get scrambled, as often happens when intersex feedback loops are introduced, and we observe contingent social phenomena occur such as when less attractive girls act bitchy when they believe beta males are making advances on them.

Reader Colonel Spartak illustrates this well, with an anecdote that reveals much about the female ego and its response to different sexual market stimuli.

[Beta males] get bitter about women because the women they hit on are much more likely to be bitches. As you have said previously, the 8s and up are hit on less regularly than the 5-7s who the lower smv value males hit on. These 5-7s are often bitchy, partially because they are suffering from the cuntishness endemic to the western womyn and partially because they are bitter themselves.

Case in point. Last weekend a DJ friend of mine took me with him to a club which was filled with 16-19 year olds. We were there for an hour, so I took off to the dance floor to make some conversation with the resident poon. The first girls I talked to were a group of straight 6s who were standing watching the dancing, and I asked them if their parents knew they were out. The one girl replied to me ‘how old are you, 47?’ and not in a playful way, in full on viper mode (I’m a youthful 37), so I told her I was 72 and my old age home had given me a free coupon to the club. I left them and 10 mins later approached two solid 9s at the bar and said exactly the same thing. I struck up a conversation with one of them, who was really friendly and kept asking me how old I was. I wouldn’t tell her and eventually she guessed I was 28.

That’s not the first time I have experienced savage put downs by unattractive women both irl and on Tinder. Some lower smv women prop up their self esteem by being bitches to men who approach them because in some way it must allow them to feel like they are emulating the behaviour of women with higher smv and like they have choices (ultimately they don’t). Higher SMV women have less to prove to themselves and others.

That last paragraph gets to the heart of the matter. Quite often, LSMV girls will act bitchy toward men, even high value men, because this is their only chance to feel, for a very short moment in the sun, the thrill of being an in-demand hot babe with the consequence-free privilege of rejecting suitors left and right. The LSMV girl is, through the egoistic palliative of her phony bitchiness, playing the role of the beautiful girl with tons of options and the self-entitled, my-shit-don’t-stink attitude that goes with all those options.

Of course, the put-on is self-defeating. An LSMV girl bitching out an alpha man leaves him no worse for the wear, especially when higher quality poon is a few feet away and willing to treat him nicer. Beta males don’t lose much, either, for they have avoided entanglement with a cranky bitch who will never stop resenting any beta she settles with into aromantic despair. The real risk to beta males is the growing bitterness that will gradually erode their self-confidence and strip from them any latent natural charms they could develop, for few betas can endure without ill-effect a constant stream of bitchiness from sub-par girls with bruised egos.

The biggest losers are the middling girls who engage in this sort of temporary, impulsive ego gratification at the expense of beta males too nice and generous to know when they are being played for a cunt’s ego prop. These bitterbitches will spend their fleeting prime nubility years in loveless pump and dump scenarios, in the last alone and wondering where it all went wrong, or having to settle far lower down the male desirability scale than they would have if they had ditched the bitch act and got serious about cultivating that sweet, feminine woman inside before youth abandoned them.

Emulation of alpha behaviors really only works for men; ugly girls can emulate the behaviors of cute girls till the cows come home, but because their raw appearance is the alpha and the omega of their desirability to men (at least at the first few meets), such alpha female emulation by fugs will land with a thud at the retreating feet of men rightly casting them off as that most loathsome of creatures: the screwed-up bitch who’s outer ugliness amplifies her inner ugliness.

For men who want more choice in women, and value the crimson pill knowledge that will help them deal with the phony puffery of plain janes icing their player vibe, the first thing to know is never to take an NB4’s bitch facade personally. You aren’t the only man upon whom she’s unloaded her species’ peculiar psychological issues, and you won’t be the last. Water off a duck’s back.

Understanding will increase your confidence as well. Accepting women for what they are, you’ll come to appreciate those times when you’re the target of a homely woman’s nastitude as evidence that you’re far above her lay grade. It’s like a shit test; when you get one, you know the girl is grappling with a bean-budding arousal for you.

Second, know too that a bitchy mediocrity can be leveraged into romance with a pleasant hottie. If the bitchy NB is part of a larger group, calling her out with wit can intrigue the better girls in her company. “I’m sorry, you must have me mistaken for a man who broke your heart.”

Even a mediocre bitch can be turned, if for some strange reason you relished the challenge of notching a night of mediocre sex. Playfully evading her taunts, reframing, and finally gently chiding her for hiding her true feelings under the mask of a tough girl really crying out on the inside for someone who “gets her”, is a (painful, laborious, four-hour) formula for seducing the nasty NB5 of every man’s fantasy.

***

Mr GS passes along the story of the battle-toad.

I was out last summer and my friends and I were flirting with whatever female passed by. Anyways, a plump (-5454085/10) girl walks by and hears our hilarity ensue with the females we are joking around with; I’m still not sure, but I think she might have known these women we were speaking to? Anyways, to be friendly I jokingly flirt with her as well to keep things moving, and without a pause she says “You are the most disgusting thing I’ve ever seen” to which I fire back “Well my mother would disagree with you;” the two girls we were initially joking around with laugh and kind of look at this plump-porker in a weird “are you serious?” way.

A warpig of this calibur is not going to get me down with her comment, but in this scenario, where two good-looking men (I’d say my friend and I fall into the 8-9 category looks wise), it seemed out of place. The warpig persisted, “No seriously, you guys are just fucking lame. You are just disgusting.” This battle-toad swung her axe and was trying to cut deep; “did a guy who looked like me molest you or something?” Miss Piggy’s donut-scanners widen and she stares at me in shock (I don’t care if I seduce these other females now, Miss Piggy ruined my fun). “Really???” the battle toad exhales in disgusted awe, “you shouldn’t joke about people getting molested!!” I smirk, “well I’m sorry you got molested.”

Anyways, I can continue my story, but the point is the last paragraph is spot on. I assume her two relatively good looking friends (if they even fucking knew her since they were distancing themselves from her) made her jealous that she was not a part of the fun, and she decided to reject before she could get rejected.

Preemptive rejection is a favorite tactic of the left-behinds. The battle-toad would rather swing her axe than suffer another second of invisibility.

Read Full Post »

They weren’t born that way, they were made that way, by repeated failure with women in the sexual marketplace. Their romantic failure is a consequence of their inexperience, lack of game, and their poor understanding of female sexual nature, each reinforcing the other in a feedback loop of infinite incel, until marriage at 33 to a dumpy hausfrau (and they are legion).

But there’s another, even crueler and more invidious, reason why beta males become bitter about women:

Women treat beta males worse for no reason other than that they aren’t alpha males!

As we learned from yesterday’s post, a study has found that women who are rejected by an alpha male experience a surge of bitterness and bad feelings that they then dump onto any beta males unlucky enough to be next in line for the faire maidens’ hands.

Now, a question for the tough guys who like to dump on the bitterbetaboys (and CH stands accused along with the sadistic rabble): If women are autonomically treating beta men like shit, through NO FAULT of the beta males’ own, might it stand to reason that a legitimate explanation for beta male bitterness and romantic failure is their parallel sexual market reality in which they have to deal with cranky, bitchy, demeaning women who are pissed off that they didn’t get the alpha male of their dreams? Just sayin’.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,269 other followers

%d bloggers like this: