More Skittles Behaving Badly (And As Usual The Anti-White Media Plays “Look over there!”)

Five people were shot dead in a Burlington, WA mall by a skittle who had migrated from his home country of Turkey to the US. Naturally, the leftoid anti-White media hatemachine has mostly ignored the story except to report the most banal details (“five shot dead at mall”), preferring to focus their rhetorical firepower on anti-Trump narratives and the police shooting of a google in Charlotte, NC.

A commenter adds,

From Eric Simpson’s post on that link:

“Add another one to the list:
Orlando shooter: CHILD of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants.
San Bernardino shooter: CHILD of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants.
Boston bombers: CHILDREN of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants.
Fort Hood shooter: CHILD of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants.
Chelsea bomber: CHILD of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants.
Washington Mall shooter: CHILD of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrant.”

Don Trump Jr’s Skittles analogy was spot on. Leftoid freaks squealed like stuck pigs and desperately tried to “debunk” the analogy with vapid cross-references to White crime (as if anyone on the realtalk right claimed White crime doesn’t exist) but all their efforts did was draw everyone’s attention to the elephantine skittle in the room: when there’s a mass shooting or other terror-related crime spree, odds are good the perp will be a skittle, and those odds are damning when one considers that skittles only constitute 1% of the US total population (at least until thecunt and her master soros fuck the US border eight ways to Sunday).

We used to have a media for the purpose of calling out traitorous government and corporate officials for pushing lies and propaganda. We now have a media that is a fully functional propaganda arm of those same officials. With those forces arrayed against the common man, what chance does he have?

He has this: Everyone’s cards are on the table. The battle lines are clear. Now the fighting can begin without the crippling handicap of doubt or guilt.

Read Full Post »

Men Invade, Women Invite (Into Their Vaginas)

The “Calais Jungle“, a decrepit third world outpost established in Calais, France by their traitorous elite and housing disgusting “””refugees”””, has a secret to divulge. (It’s not much of a secret to enlightened Chateau guests.)

Volunteers in the Calais Jungle have been accused of sexually exploiting refugees and even child migrants.

The Independent has discovered a serious row has broken out among some unpaid charity workers at the camp in northern France, with some believing forging sexual relationships with adult refugees is natural in such circumstances, while others say it breaches all usual codes of conduct.

Wait for the twist ending.

One man who raised the alarm was later subjected to a barrage of online abuse.

Have you guessed it yet?

The man wrote: “I have heard of boys, believed to be under the age of consent, having sex with volunteers. I have heard stories of men using the prostitutes in the Jungle too.

“I have heard of volunteers having sex with multiple partners in one day, only to carry on in the same vein the following day. And I know also, that I’m only hearing a small part of a wider scale of abuse.”

Sex with underage boys? Multiple migrant partners? Maybe you’re thinking this is a homosexual meeting place.

The man added that the majority of cases in question involved female volunteers and male refugees – which he claimed risked the objectification of women volunteering in the camp.

Bleeding heart (and bleeding bush) Frenchwomen are lining up to fuck the rapefugee dregs of humanity….in a romantic setting that looks like this:

Contrast: There are White beta males at this very moment paying for dinners and nights out in glittering cities to impress unenthusiastic dates, while women make pilgrimages to the Calais Sex Camp to volunteer as eager holsters for penniless, smelly migrant meatsticks. The Crimson Pills don’t get harder to swallow than that.

PS LMFAO at this revealing betaboy blurt:

He wrote: “Female volunteers having sex enforces the view (that many have) that volunteers are here for sex. This impression objectifies women in the camp and increases the risks.”

How cucked, craven, and pusillanimous do you have to be to reinterpret women’s freely choosing raw dog refugee sex as some nebulous patriarchal assault leaving an “impression” that “objectifies women”. NO DUH IT LEAVES AN IMPRESSION. Just not the impression that this micropeen of a male thinks it leaves.

His comments prompted accusations of sexism and misogyny from female members of the group. One commented on the post: “I find this attitude incredibly patronising and paternalistic with added sexism and racism.

“There is a serious point in here among all the moralistic bullshit but I find it very off-putting. I find the assertion that women choosing to have sex encourages rape quite frankly disturbing.”

She’s right, of course, but her rightness is self-damning.

Weak beta males have a studied aversion to placing any blame for women’s ill-conceived romantic choices on women themselves. To do so, in the beta male mind, would mean having their puritanical romantic idealism dashed against the rocks of the bitter reality of primal female desire. The weak beta male suffers his morbid prostration to the pussy pedestal gladly, and is loathe to have it detached from his pursed lips. For if the day comes that his precious pussy pedestal is gone from his life, he’ll have no celibate space to retreat to for self-pitying comfort, and will be forced to deal with women as they are, not as they materialize unsullied in the brainscape of his sentimental daydreams.

tl;dr it was a big mistake to give women the vote.

Read Full Post »

Is It Fat Shaming If An Innocent Child Wields The Shaming Shiv?

This story had me laughing. A little boy who didn’t know any better drew a picture of his fat mom looking like a blob.

But the turning point came in February 2014 when her son Thomas proudly came home with a picture he had drawn at school.

Meryem added: “It was a family portrait with all members as stick figures except for me who he’d drawn as a round blob.

“It really upset me when I saw it but I didn’t have the heart to tell Thomas, I just went upstairs and cried.”

That, combined with an incident on holiday when Meryem couldn’t take part in activities because she was too out of breath, inspired a change.

She said: “My children called me ‘fat’ because they couldn’t fit their arms around me when giving me hugs. It was very upsetting.”

😅 Obesity destroys quality of life. Obesity kills romance dead. Obesity will not escape the merciless judgment of children. Not even a mother’s own son. A son who, by the way, has earned a Shiv of the Week accolade for his expert artistic rendering.

Can a child fat shame if he doesn’t know he’s doing it? He sure can. The shame burns the same — maybe even burns worse — when it’s unintentional. Is a fat mom going to rationalize her son’s fat shaming as “insecurity”, or as being “intimidated by strong fat women”? Will she oink in protest that her little boy isn’t a “real man” who “loves curvy women”?

Haha, no. She’ll cry herself to sleep and then, like this mom, push away from the table and lose a hundred pounds, slimming down to human form. Realtalking kids who shame without remorse can save lives.

Read Full Post »

A True Word On Sexual Consent

A couple of serial rapists are profiled by The Daily Fembeast because they had accounts on the Real Social Dynamics seduction arts forum. The bitter feminist cunts smelled chum in the water and are working double time to smear good-natured ladies’ men through guilt by remote association with a few random bad seeds (whom I’d never heard of until I read the article).

Since PUAs and consent are in the hivemind news, I figure this a good time to recap the Chateau crib sheet on what does and doesn’t qualify as sexual consent. Stripping out all romantic context (sometimes a woman’s breathlessly whispered “no” really is a surreptitious arousal-amplifying invitation to the man to continue resisting her coyness), the legalistic basics of hookup look like this:

If a girl is drunk and she says yes to sex- it isn’t rape.
If a girl is sober and she says yes to sex- it isn’t rape.

If a girl is sober and she says no- it is rape.
If a girl is drunk and she says no- it is rape.

Fleshing out the above basics to conform more closely to the reality on the ground that hookups take two to tango, here are the additional by-laws governing the validity of rape accusations should a sexual congress occur:

• If the girl and man are sober and the girl angrily says “no”- it is rape. (the vast majority of (white) men can tell, and will heed, when a girl is sincerely uninterested in further intimacy)
• If the girl is blackout drunk and the man is sober- it is rape, if the rape was initiated while the girl was unconscious.
• If the girl is drunk but conscious and situationally aware and a willing participant, and the man is sober- it isn’t rape. (this is a not uncommon occurrence for the simple reason that it takes more drinks and a longer time for men to reach happy drunkenness; thus an early-evening sexual intimacy can start with the girl more drunk than the man but wind up a couple hours later with the man equally as drunk as the girl)
• If the girl is so drunk she can’t give consent AND the man is so drunk he can’t know whether or not the girl consented- it isn’t rape. (sorry, femcunts, the drunkenness sword cuts both ways)
• If the girl is sober and the man is too drunk to understand or give consent- how the fuck is his johnson working?? and why is she sticking around at his place when she could easily leave while he’s in a stupor on the floor?

The mythological rape culture that feminists secretly wish would come to fruition is actually a projection of their desire to see a world in which women are exempted from personal responsibility and men bear all the burden of any female regret for romantic trysts that don’t end in two kids and a house in the suburbs.

This is why feminists (of the lite or heavy genus) strive so mightily to protect women’s prerogatives to drink like Russian poets and slut it up like two dollar street whores. Feminists don’t want women to even THINK about the necessity of taking a modicum of personal responsibility for limiting their alcohol intake or curbing their skank signaling; to admit to that much would, in the feminist worldview, concede that the sexes are innately biologically different (they are regardless of heated denials to the contrary) and that men aren’t the only sex capable of transgressing moral norms. As CH previously wrote,

if you are a woman who is afraid your inner slut might escape to have sex under the influence with a man at a party who is also under the influence, it’s up to you to refrain from drinking a lot or attending that party. The responsibility to remain sober — or at least avoid getting lights out drunk — should not rest solely with the man.

If feminists are truly interested in not being treated like morally undeveloped children under the law, they will agree to my definition of rape. But since feminism is about power dynamics and not at all about fairness or justice, they will never agree.

In a female sexuality-liberated market it’s a secularist sin worthy of livelihood destruction to advise women to stop drinking like they’re fraternity pledges trying to prove something. But if feminists are truly interested in decreasing the incidence of late night drunkenness rape (aka morning after regret rape) they’ll counsel women to be careful how much they imbibe while out on the town. Since they don’t counsel that, and in fact advocate the opposite that women should be free to drink as much as they want in sexually charged public venues, it’s obvious feminists aren’t really interested in reducing rape rates.

The sticking point for feminists, of course, is that “stopping short of drinking to oblivion” and “dressing a little more modestly than a ghetto hooker” harkens the return of a “patriarchal” culture that “places demands” on women. Well, yes. Demands are placed. It’s called adulthood. Maybe feminists could live up to their female empowerment bloviating and leave the childishness of immunity from moral agency behind.

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 »

From A Time When Women Knew The Score (Or Men Were Less Beta)

Reader Mister Bicks digs up a very old tune (originally written in 1917!) with a message that’s more honest than you’ll hear from any singer today.

Thinking about your assertion that looks aren’t as important as charisma (for lack of a better word at the moment), I think of a great song The Andrews Sisters called “Oh Johnny” (written in 1917). Please read the lyrics, noting especially that in the song, even though Johnny is NOT handsome, the girl wonders why she is so infatuated with him. Well, it’s because he’s “very very bad” and he knows about love.

People back then knew well what we try to avoid today.

***

Oh, Johnny! Oh, Johnny!
How you can love
Oh, Johnny! Oh, Johnny!
Heavens above
You make my sad heart jump with joy
And when you’re near I just can’t sit still a minute
I’m so, Oh, Johnny! Oh, Johnny!
Please tell me dear
What makes me love you so?
You’re not handsome, it’s true
But when I look at you
I just, Oh, Johnny!
Oh, Johnny! Oh!
Da-da-da

All the girls are crazy for a certain little lad
Although he’s very very bad
He could be oh so good if he wanted to
Bad or good he understood about love & other things
For every girl in town followed him around
Just to hold his hand & sing

Americans, and women in particular, from a century ago were a lot more aware of, or at least a lot less antagonistic towards, ugly truths about the sexes and romance. It seems as if there was this pre-post-America age when Realtalk™ wasn’t a rebellious act of defiance but a normal, gentle undercurrent governing the flow of human society.

The explanation for this is multivariate, but I’ll stick to one that I believe is a major contributing factor that doesn’t involve an endless stream of propaganda by the gynocratic hivemind: American women were more “red pill” a long time ago because their contemporaneous American men were less beta. When men are alpha and in control of their nation’s public spaces and curators of their nation’s heritage, they’re giving women more of what women want (whether they’re consciously aware of it or not). Women in that kind of sexual market have daily reminders of how admirable and yes even sexy men can be, as opposed to Thee Current Year when American women are getting daily reminders of how contemptible, effeminate and anhedonic their men have become.

Women (and men) have forgotten about sex differences partly because the sexes have shed their dimorphic sexuality to conform to a unisex amorphous androgynous blob of mood-killing homoplasm. Women are now the aggressors and men the deferential lapdogs. Our cultural messages reflect this sorry sexual devolution and, not coincidentally, our native stock birthrate plummets as we import less progressive barbarians to fill the womb void.

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 »