Black predisposition to violent criminality well above the rates for other races receives all the focus as evidence of innate racial differences and incompatibility with White culture, but crime rate is only one of the myriad ways — albeit a very sensationalist way — in which the black and white races fundamentally differ.
Culturally, mentally, morally, behaviorally, and temperamentally, the group characteristics of blacks are different than those of Whites. The exceptions to these race-based generalities are uncommon enough to compel people to take special notice of them.
One non-crime related difference springs to mind: Blacks are more demanding than Whites. This black personality quirk expresses itself unmistakably when a black person wants information from a White person. The black will rarely say “Excuse me” before politely asking a question, preferring instead the grill-to-grill direct approach: a loud and abrupt assault, often taken from an angle that maximizes the element of surprise, on the personal ear-space of the White, demanding this or that service rendered. Examples of the genre: “YO YOU GOT THE TIME?”, “WHICH BUS THIS IS?”, “FIVE DOLLAR FOR A HAMBURGER. NO? ALRIGHT THEN, PEACE TO YOU”, “YOU GOT A QUARTER FOR THE METER?”, “WHERE THE BATHROOM AT?”, “GOT A PHONE ON YA? MINE’S BUSTED. I GOTTA CALL SOMEBODY.” (like I’m gonna hand my phone over to a ghetto fabulous rando on the street).
Compared to their love of murder, this specialty of blacks is small potatoes, but the little, annoying, black ways of doing things add up to make their Section 8s and District 9s unlivable shitholes for even White libs who profess a love of Diversity and speaking in a steady stream of euphemisms.
And blacks aren’t the only players in town. All the nonWhite races differ in multitudinous ways from Whites; some of these differences are amusing, some are aggravating, and some are downright menacing. Which is why John Derbyshire was correct when he wrote that Diversity should be a seasoning, never the stew.
This week in Chicagoland, four Feral-Americans — two males and two females — kidnapped and tortured, live on film uploaded to Facebook, a mentally disabled White 18 year old man, cackling gleefully as they had him drink toilet water, nearly scalped him, and made him recite “Fuck Trump” and “Fuck White people”. The kidnapping and torture dragged on for nearly two days. One of the HBzeroes, Brittany Herring, narrated the torture-fest. It’s as chimptastic as you’d surmise.
The “mainstream” (not for long) media reacted with their predictably unbiased and swift coverage that they bring to any violent crime in which the perps are black and the victim White: they reported nothing when they weren’t actively censoring news about the incident at their social media monopolies.
That is, they stuffed the story until their crabbed hands were forced to report on it from the pressure applied by a small army of alt-right shitlords mass spamming and shivving the freethought channels with the unvarnished truth.
What can be said about the leftoid media’s reaction to this depraved anti-White hate crime that hasn’t been said the million other times the media blackwashed and memory-holed similar crimes because those stories violated the Stop Noticing Narrative? So far, the media and government reaction has been:
YouTube scrubbed the video.
NPR refused to identify the races involved.
CNN ignored it (until late today), and finally confronted the story with a bunch of shitlib talking heads fretting over ten heavily-edited seconds of a thirty minute video.
The Chicago police chief jupmed ahead of the message machine and said it wasn’t a hate crime, and “kids do bad stuff sometimes”. (Would he say the same thing about Dylann Roof?.)
Although President-elect Donald Trump was mentioned, Chicago Police do not believe the crime was politically motivated.
“I think some of it is just stupidity, people just ranting about something that they think might make a headline. I don’t think that at this point we have anything concrete to really point us in that direction, but we’ll keep investigating and we’ll let the facts guide us on how this concludes,” Supt. Johnson said.
The Gay Mulatto, NATURALLY, has said nothing. (Trump hasn’t either, afaik, but in his position, that’s a wise move. Let your enemies hang themselves with their own rope.)
Miraculously (possibly because they are sensing a shift in the winds that could mean their DOTR is closer than they think), the NewYorkBetaTimes actually used the words “anti-white” in their coverage of the kidnapping.
Porter had the best take on the craven and by now banal media handling of the story:
If the Chicago kidnapping races were reversed, about seven Hollywood films would currently be in pre-production.
Here’s the video, if you can stand watching it. (Check here if YouTube censored this copy (they’ve been busy)).
The reason white shitlibs excuse or sugarcoat the depraved violence of blacks is because they don’t really believe blacks have moral agency. And frankly, they’re right. The races don’t share equal reserves of empathy, and blacks by their astounding level of dysfunction prove over and over that their moral compass doesn’t quite point as true north as that of Whites’. The issue with shitlibs is their rank hypocrisy and bad faith; instead of facing the reality of race differences, they choose instead to heap lies, libel, and calumny on other Whites for, apparently, the sin of insufficiently ignoring stunted black morality and for pilfering blacks of their moral agency through the alchemical magic of White privilege and racism.
Lawrence Auster (RIP) once astutely noted that blacks are a sacred object to white shitlibs, whose religion is anti-White Equalism (don’t bother squaring that circle). And the one thing you don’t do to a true believer is desecrate their sacred objects, or even just reveal them to be mere vessels of fallen man. White shitlibs are undergoing a heretical threat to their religion like none they’ve experienced before; and you know from history that when a zealot is cornered and disillusioned, and his icons thrown to the ground, he will lash out in rage and demand the heads of the infidels.
But soon, the infidels will outnumber the Equalist zealots, and their grand vision will be crushed and blown away, in the end disappearing without a trace, as gossamer and insubstantial as the ideas and beliefs which founded their crooked worldview.
There are posts buried in the CH archives discussing the phenomenon of sexual polarity and its importance to relationship health. Masculine men match well with feminine women. Yin and yang. Quim and wang.
What about gender oddities like feminine men and masculine women? The Law of Sexual Polarity — or what some have called the Law of Gender Conservation — states that the masculine and feminine must balance out in any relationship, in whichever sex those essences are primarily contained. So that means feminine men match well with masculine women. And if you’ve seen the wedding photos of Jezebel manjaws and their shlubby, uptalking, no-T, chinless beta hubbies, you’ll respect the perspicacity of the Law of Gender Conservation.
Which brings us to John Scalzi. If you wonder why I shiv this magnificent mangina so hard, you need look no further than the reason for his internet fame: a craven, dorky, shitlib virtue signaling post on his inane Whatever blog that likened Whiteness to playing at the lowest difficulty setting on a video game.
This lumpy hypocritical doughgoon who lives in a 98% White town deserves every bit of contempt coming his way. He is the androgynous embodiment of everything that is physically and psychologically deformed in the White leftoid race.
With that as context, Scalzi’s marriage — which he loves to boast about on Twatter, always (naturally) casting himself in the egregiously self-deprecating role of the anhedonic willfully emasculated doofus beta bitchboy raising an empowered feminist daughter and licking the boots of his warrioress wife — is revealed to be the PERFECT example of the Law of Gender Conservation in action.
CAPSLOCK HUSTLA nails this smug phaggot nerdo to the wall:
SCALZI PROVIDES EXAMPLE # AD INFINITUM FOR THE LAW OF GENDER CONSERVATION: IN EVERY COUPLE, ΣMASCULINITY = ΣFEMININITY.
Did he marry the love child of the Refrigerator and the Mountain? But for real…
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME
you find a quisling White mangina begging for acceptance into the Amanjaw Marcuntte man-hating club, there’s a she-ggoth glowering over him.
Cerebral scalzied is filth. His brand of contemptible cowardly virtue whoring self-neutering is emblematic of the shitlib mind rot that’s sweeping through the White West. It’s good to call him out as the pathetic whipped cur he is, putting not just him on notice, but any other impressionable Whitelings who may be tempted to comfortable prostration by his sickly siren call.
These degenerated freaks have only just begun to feel the crunch of the Fourth Turning grinding its gears into motion.
Sluts do not come “in all shapes and sizes”; they fall into archetypes that are noticeable to even the untrained beta goober eye. This post briefly profiles the stereotypical slut appearance and behavior, with the caveat that these observations by yours truly are broad (heh) generalizations. Plenty of exceptions to the rules exist, and this is so because nature has deemed it beneficial to bestow women a valuable coin of the reproduction realm: skill in the art of deception, of others and herself.
For instance, despite my general impression that ultra-feminine girls are less slutty than mannish girls, there are certainly very dainty, coquettish, eternal ingenues who play men like a fiddle for their resources and pack on a surprising amount of cockage over the years as man-eaters in pixie’s clothing. So the wary (or opportunistic) man reading this post would be wise to use it as a loose (heh) guide rather than a precise schematic.
FYI, “cock count” is a lovingly scientifical term to describe how many sex partners a woman has had in her life to date.
Why do masculinized, liberal women have higher cock counts? My theory — one that will no doubt be validated by SCIENCE! in a few months’ time — is that the key variable isn’t the intensity of female horniness but rather the presence of female disinhibition. Masculine women, like men, skew toward risk-taking and have fewer inhibitions than feminine women. They are less coy about their wants and (probably) less regretful about fulfilling those wants (at least during the immediate aftermath of their hookups). And liberal women, like liberals generally, have a stronger novelty-seeking compulsion and higher disgust thresholds, which together mean they aren’t as prone to existential crises about noncommittal casual sex as are conservative women.
I don’t see that feminine, conservative women are any less horny than masculine, liberal women, but they are certainly less inclined to act on their horniness with the perfunctory freewheeling attitude that your garden variety slutty urban SWPL chick brings to the bedroom.
Men can do one of two things with this darkly dank information: help them identify which women will go all the way right away… or which women would make good LTR girlfriend or wife material. The two goals are mutually exclusive in the whole (allowing for overlap at the margins).
Be careful with this knowledge. There’s no free munch. Long-term, low cock count women are a much better bet for relationship stability (and hence, for paternity certainty and divorce theft avoidance). But those low cock count women come with a price: lower sexual drive. If you like to bang, and bang a lot, you may become unhappy with a chaste low N girl who’d rather dream of babies and gossip with her girlfriends than ride you through the night into the morning. One mitigating advantage men with aggressively high horny levels have at their disposal, should relationship stability be their primary concern, is that, as a reader has reminded, on average men have a higher sex drive than women anyhow, and it’s “better to ‘work [a low cock count woman’s libido] up’ (probable) than to ‘tame [a slut’s vivacity] down’ (not possible)”.
Men care more about any particular woman’s cock count in proportion to the length of time they want to spend with that woman. A woman’s cock count cutoff for a man is highly dependent on his intentions with her. ONS? No cutoff. Fun fling? A cock count higher than twenty will gross a man out (even if he won’t admit it). Marriage? Any number over ten will seriously make a man question his decision to nuptially shackle himself. Ideally, most (non-black) men would love to marry a woman who’s a virgin, or more liberally (given current sexual market realities) who has accumulated no more than three cocks in her lifetime.
One of the illest feelings in the world for a man is to find out post-cock ergo cocker that the woman he loves and committed himself to has a sexual history that would rival Genghis Khan’s. This feeling will percolate no matter how much his woman loves him presently or swears her fidelity to him in future; these are primal attractions and repulsions that modern society with its platitude carpet bombing and gogrrl glorification and emasculation affirmations will never banish from the hindmind of man. That’s why it’s so critically important that alpha males teach beta male buddies, and shitlord dads teach pre-brainwashed sons, how to identify sluts and exploit them for pleasure biding or avoid them for patriarchy building.
Has Skittles Man met his aloof and indifferent match in the form of Pencil Sketch Man, or is this just a try-hard underemployed hipster beta male placating his demanding girlfriend on the cheap?
My favorite comment was from someone who zoomed in on the boyfriend’s self-portrait and wrote “when u nut but she keep suckin”.
My initial reaction is ALPHA. Pencil sketches are part of a school of seduction that emphasizes the value of small, cheap, unique, sentimentally romantic gifts to girls over large, expensive, hackneyed, commercially romantic gifts. But is Pencil Sketch Man as ZFG towards his beloved as Skittles Man was to his lovely? (Recall that Skittles Man gave his girlfriend a bag of Skittles for her birthday, and she loved him so much for it she put finger to keyboard and revealed to the world that more than one woman loved her Skittles Man.)
I’d normally hesitate to put someone like Pencil Sketch(y) Man in the same tingle-manufacturing league as Skittles Man — after all, it requires more effort to sketch even a creepy child-like facsimile of your girlfriend than it does to buy her a bag of candy — until I read this from the girlfriend’s sister:
“i think she was super cool about it which makes it all the more puzzling.”
Puzzling….for her. Not at all puzzling to regular guests of the Chateau.
VERDICT: Gina tingles activated.
***
tteclod adds,
If the sketch is remotely accurate, then I don’t know why he invested the effort.
This would be a strong case for demoting Pencil Sketch Man from the Skittles Hall of Game.
We show that promotions to top jobs dramatically increase women’s probability of divorce, but do not affect men’s marriages. This effect is causally estimated for top jobs in the political sector, where close electoral results deliver exogenous variation in promotions across job candidates. Descriptive evidence from job promotions to the position of CEO shows that private sector promotions result in the same gender inequality in the risk of divorce.
Commenters at the Cheap Chapulas grease truck have lots of theories to explain the results of this study, but it boils down to a basic understanding of female nature. When women advance in their careers, their husbands, should they not equally advance in theirs to keep up, are “left behind” on the occupational status ledger that women subconsciously consult when evaluating a man’s mate worth. (Among 463 other male mate value ledgers that women have at the ready.)
Female hypergamy is real, is different from male “dating up” (which is closer to polygamy in nature), and has consequences in the aggregate on marriage and divorce rates. Women want to look up to higher status men; men want to look *at* beautiful women. In our rapidly de-masculinizing, anti-White male, pro-tankgrrl culture, men are in a status free-fall. Knowing this is all you need to explain why women initiate 70% of divorces.
A woman who has a lot of male friends is bad news, for three reasons. First, her battalion of beef buddies is a leading indicator she’s an attention whore who won’t give up her whore ways just because she’s added a “serious” boyfriend to her roster of men.
Second, there’s something off about a woman who has as many, and more, male friends as female friends. She’s not comfortable with the company of her own sex because the demands of her avaricious sexuality, sumptuously fed by her male orbiters, has the opposite effect on women. It’s a good idea not to place your trust in a woman, or a man for that matter, who won’t, or can’t, cultivate same-sex friendships with the same care and enthusiasm shown toward opposite-sex friendships.
Finally, and most importantly, odds are she has slept with at least one of her male friends, and he laughs at you. Laughs? Yes. He pounded that pussy for free when it was younger, hotter, tighter while you pay exorbitant relationship fees to keep an older product past its obsolescence date. In fact, every time you’re at a social function with your heavenly angel and her twenty male friends, they’re all inwardly smirking that they tapped that twat before you got close to putting just the tip in, and counting their blessings that they’re not the schmuck forswearing all other pussy for the opportunity to lock down a social circle slut.
There was a good reason our high T forefathers and high E foremothers discouraged young women from hanging around “with the boys”. They knew it was bad for a girl’s reputation and her romantic prospects.
