Idiocracy will make people uglier, too

Thought-provoking article.

The result of this confluence of factors is simple:  The current amount of beauty is a bubble, it will pop, and the world will get uglier.  There are cynics who would say that with our government subsidized high carbohydrate diets and sluts with short hairdos and tattoos aplenty, the peak of our beauty bubble is already in our rearview mirror.  They may have a point.

Facts: beauty is rare (minority) and proportionately esteemed, beauty is based in fertility cues and lead to objectively better outcomes on all good measures, European fertility is infamously sub-replacement thanks to feminism. We acquired the term “good-looking” from the association between handsomeness and civilized behaviour.

As earlier;

But not so fast.  Blue-eyed blondes with heart shaped asses are not an infinite largesse bestowed upon us by a higher power.  We are all of woman borne, and if you understand heredity you understand that beautiful girls must, on average, have mothers that were also beautiful.  That is to say, to keep this current beauty spigot flowing the world needs beautiful women to have daughters.

Nature is self-correcting. The slappers, as we call them here, likely gained those looks by genetic randomness their improper behaviour doesn’t support, since the most beautiful women tend to be least promiscuous, as they can demand commitment from men and need not lure them in with sex as an easy bait. However, they are smart enough to use this value to lock down a good man while in low notch numbers. Sluts hate them for this, they get the big prize, so the sluts try to argue their experiences of being used up like a sex toy were positive.

I know it’s anecdotal, but I’ve seen most sluts are 4-6, tops. I am being kind with that estimate.

The article is correct, there will be far fewer beautiful people in the future, male and female. Good-looking men are cautious with contraception and are putting off conceiving too, perhaps indefinitely. There are no rewards for the old family model. On an infinite timeline? A recursion.

Thousands of winters of scarce, sparse prey and harsh terrain culled a significant percentage of men.

This would probably be a few recessions without welfare keeping the r-type brats in iPhones. More and more people, competing against fewer and fewer beautiful people (and notice the right-wing tends to be hotter than the left? no coincidence). The effect is threefold: 1. ugly women try to promote ugliness as a new standard. 2. most men go without and stay at home with porn. 3. beautiful people interbreed, creating an aristocracy, as they make more money, keeping child N small because they’re usually k-types. Or as point three is known now “growing income inequality”.

The ugly women went barren and beauty flourished.

Notice these strong, independent women aren’t going to sperm banks en masse? Seems men aren’t so replaceable. They can’t chase the Government if their welfare check stops. Children are a burden to them.

By decoupling sex and reproduction, it is selecting for those who really want kids.  Will beauty survive?  We’ll have to wait and see.

I believe it will, but it will take a long time to recover and lessons will be learnt e.g. feminism is for ugly women to drag down pretty ones, while faking the signs of the pretty and denying the very existence of pretty.

And what of designer babies? No one, and I mean, NO ONE, will choose ugly ones. We’ll soon find there’s a beauty standard to white, blue-eyed and physically fit. The Viking marauders chose to rape the best and stab the rest, what we see in modernity is the fruit of their eugenic process, and extremes of cold in Northern Europe are a great survival test for good genes.

Practical Deconstructions

Highly logical. I do something similar. If _a_, then _c_ because _b_. Assuming each link in the chain is correct, it cannot be refuted.

The point of the guide is to provide an onslaught of material efficiently packaged. Each one of these modules can be expanded out into multiple essays—books, even, but they’re sufficient for brutal effectiveness. Apply liberally. Some of them are more serious than others. Some are just plain ridiculous—don’t begrudge me my fun….

In other words, you can’t deconstruct on a ‘perfectly accurate level’ if they can’t comprehend what it is you’re deconstructing because they don’t fully comprehend their own ideology.

I’d compare it to a verbal sparring of ideological entrapment.
You win when you can say “Aha!”

Examples, my favourites;

-Seek admission: Marriage has always been heterosexual Point out: Homosexuals trying to participate in the institution of marriage Conclusion: This is cultural appropriation, and it is problematic.

-Seem admission: Genetics determines height, eye color, predisposition to diseases, and predisposition to mental illnesses (gosh, this might be a lot to ask for) Point out: Why think genetics is only implicated below the shoulders? Conclusion: Genetics determines intelligence.

-Seek admission: Animals can be bred for different attributes. That’s how we have different dog breeds, for example Point out: Humans are animals Conclusion: Humans can be bred for different attributes.

-Seek admission: Sexuality, like homosexuality, is inborn, and so it’s okay Point out: Pedophilia is sexuality Conclusion: Pedophilia is inborn, and so it’s okay.

-Seek admission: High suicide rate among homosexuals Point out: Other groups with far worse persecution and societal receipt of hatred don’t have high suicide rates Conclusion: Homosexuals really are weak and mentally fragile.

-Seek admission: Gender is totally fluid Point out: You cannot go from homosexual to heterosexual Conclusion: Either gender is not fluid, or you can go from homosexual to heterosexual.

-Seek admission: Gentrification is really bad because it disrupts culture Point out: Third world immigration disrupts culture Conclusion: Third world immigration is really bad.

-Seek admission: Gays are a persecuted minority with little power Point out: Gays are one of the highest income demographics on the planet Conclusion: Someone is fucking lying.

-Seek admission: Feminism as we know it arose out of western culture Point out: Immigration will gradually eliminate western culture Conclusion: Immigration will gradually eliminate feminism.

Paper: The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness

Click to access w14969.pdf

The more feminist policies and lifestyles introduced, the more unhappy the women.

Both men and women in the U.S. have faced some other challenging societal trends in the past 30 years as well. While the male-female wage gap converged over this period, income inequality rose sharply through the 1980s and has continued to rise, albeit more slowly, in recent decades. Moreover, the real wages of many men fell during much of this period. In particular, real wages for men with less than a college degree fell from 1979-1995 (Autor, Katz, & Kearney, 2008). Many households experienced only moderate growth in household income, with those in the bottom half of the income distribution experiencing real growth of less than 0.5% a year from 1973 to 2005 (Goldin and Katz, 2007) and much of this increase was due to the additional earnings of wives. Along with this rise in income inequality has come concerns about increasing income volatility, and a more general concern about households bearing more health and retirement risk (Hacker, 2007). While these trends have impacted both men and women, it is possible that the effect of these trends on happiness has differed by gender.

Even if women were made unambiguously better off throughout this period, a richer consideration of the psychology behind happiness might suggest that greater gender equality may lead to a fall in measured well-being. For example, if happiness is assessed relative to outcomes for one’s reference group, then greater equality may have led more women to compare their outcomes to those of the men around them. In turn, women might find their relative position lower than when their reference group included only women. This change in the reference group may make women worse off or it may simply represent a change in their reporting behavior. An alternative form of reference dependent preferences relates well-being to whether or not expectations are met. If the women’s movement raised women’s expectations faster than society was able to meet them, they would be more likely to be disappointed by their actual experienced lives. As women’s expectations move into alignment with their experiences this decline in happiness may reverse. A further alternative suggests that happiness may be driven by good news about lifetime utility (Kimball & Willis, 2006) . Under this view, the salience of the women’s movement fuelled elation in the 1970s that has dissipated in the ensuing years. …

Our contribution in this paper is to carefully document trends over several decades in subjective well-being by gender in the United States and other industrialized countries, collecting evidence across a wide array of datasets covering various demographic groups, time periods, countries, and measures of subjective well-being. …

However, the relative declines found for Europe and the US lie within a 95% confidence interval of 125 of the 147 we countries we examine.


CDC cover-up MMR vaccine-autism 2004 link story

A study published earlier this month re-analyzing data put out by the CDC in 2004, claims to have found a statistically significant association between autism and the age at which the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is given to infant African-American boys. 

  • A so-called “whistleblower” alleged that the CDC covered up this data and chose to focus the 2004 study on other findings, ignoring this one. 
  • Since this more recent study claiming to associate an increased risk of autism after vaccination, more information about the study author, the whistleblower and the CDC’s original intent has come to light.
  • This more recent study was also removed from the journal, which cited ”serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions.”
  • Others criticized the study and the allegations of a CDC cover-up as well. 

A lot of money in this. Billions and Bill Gates.
If it truly was nothing, as they claim a decade after they hoped no one would ever find out, and they were being scientific as their public duty requires, they wouldn’t have hidden this finding. Instead, they buried it. The rationale to a scientist is clear: they didn’t want follow-up studies.

Here’s the study archived;


Full abstract backup; Translational Neurodegeneration 2014, 3:16  doi:10.1186/2047-9158-3-16


A significant number of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder suffer a loss of previously-acquired skills, suggesting neurodegeneration or a type of progressive encephalopathy with an etiological basis occurring after birth. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectof the age at which children got their first Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine on autism incidence. This is a reanalysis of the data set, obtained from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC), used for the Destefano et al. 2004 publication on the timing of the first MMR vaccine and autism diagnoses.


The author embarked on the present study to evaluate whether a relationship exists between child age when the first MMR vaccine was administered among cases diagnosed with autism and controls born between 1986 through 1993 among school children in metropolitan Atlanta. The Pearson’s chi-squared method was used to assess relative risks of receiving an autism diagnosis within the total cohort as well as among different race and gender categories.


When comparing cases and controls receiving their first MMR vaccine before and after 36 months of age, there was a statistically significant increase in autism cases specifically among African American males who received the first MMR prior to 36 months of age. Relative risks for males in general and African American males were 1.69 (p=0.0138) and 3.36 (p=0.0019), respectively. Additionally, African American males showed an odds ratio of 1.73 (p=0.0200) for autism cases in children receiving their first MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age versus 24 months of age and thereafter.


The present study provides new epidemiologic evidence showing that African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis.


Forbes: Are Stocks heading for a Crash?

At the start of last month, I published a piece in which I showed twenty-three charts that I believe prove that the U.S. stock market is experiencing a classic speculative bubble that will end in a crash or severe bear market….

As we head into the fall – a historically weak season for stocks – it is a good time to reiterate the need for caution as stocks trade near all-time highs. Some of history’s worst stock market crashes, including the crash of 1929, 1987, and 2008, occurred in September and October after rallying in the spring or summer. I must emphasize that I am not actually predicting a crash this fall (thought it certainly could happen), but rather discussing the risks and potential sell-off catalysts to be aware of…..

Interesting read.

England already HAS a Bill of Rights

The next step of control in the UK is making sure this fact stays buried.
Please, if you are in a position, share this fact, even if it does not link to me. Freedom depends on it.

The direct proof:

Further proof:…/Bill_of_Rights_1689.html

Why is this important?

The European model of “human rights” is dangerous. It is a model which we should be fighting tooth and nail to prevent taking hold in this country. It is based upon the premise that as a starting point, humans have no rights. The only rights that humans have at the end of the day are those written in legislation, whatever the source of that legislation might be.

To reiterate, then: the basis of human rights law is that humans have no rights except those the political elite decide to grace us with.

The Guardian is imploding

and the left liberals are cannibalizing one another over Rotherham.

Calling it: The Guardian is finished. This is the turning point.

Bastion of British nuttery is past it, print circulation is down, this is the start of the downward spiral.
What they seem to forget are their demographics. All of their fucking around free love means the middle-aged and Baby Boomers who make up the core readers have children who, thanks to their parent’s belief system, are probably left in the care of many Muslim males without supervision. Parental instinct can occur in the Left, too, they aren’t complete traitors to their nature.

Article 1/2 – reading it in full so you don’t have to.


They banned so many comments. Can you blame them with ‘writing’ like this?

But can it really be true – as the tabloids and the right robustly claim – that a significant contributor truly was political correctness; the fear of officials that by intervening appropriately in cases where the suspects were Pakistani Muslims, they themselves would be castigated as racist? If it is, it is outrageous. [DS: withering look] It is also ludicrous.

Political correctness – if we are to persist with that hackneyed term – required members of a diverse society to accord to others the level of dignity they would want for themselves.

No. Special legal status.

The right conflated its meaning so as to describe any prescription on its behaviour that it didn’t like. Everything, from the description of coffee to adoption policy, became “political correctness gone mad”. Perhaps the idea was to discredit the concept by hoisting it into the realm of absurdity. But even then, the concept never, ever required anyone to turn a blind eye to the mass abuse of the vulnerable by criminals.

Hate speech imprisonment. Dunno before then.

And anyway, to do so on grounds of political correctness would never have made sense.

Higher paid jobs than private sector and gold-plated pensions.

If a backlash was feared, where would it have come from? There is no minority lobby for criminals and paedophiles.

Rotherham has been a Labour stronghold the entire time. Paedophile Information Exchange, advocated by Labour.

…If senior managers truly encouraged their juniors to hold off in the name of political correctness, they took the path of least resistance and should be brought to book. But that would have been such a mass dereliction of duty that I’m loth to believe it happened on such a scale. I know that if called to account, I’d much prefer to say, “I wanted to intervene but was terrified by political correctness”, than “I messed up”, “I didn’t think it was that serious” or “I couldn’t be bothered”.

I agree with the bolded.
So PC DOES exist, as an excuse for criminal behaviour, but only for the Left when they fuck up?

In no other sphere does PC and its terrors prevent the authorities taking action against minorities.

Proof? How would you know?

We’re over-represented in courts and prisons at one end of the social scale, overdisciplined and marginalised in the professions at the other.

Do you behave differently to deserve that? More crime and misconduct, for example?

If it is true that political correctness prevented the authorities from using their powers against minorities for fear of giving offence, that’s a scandal. It would also be a first.

The first to break – of many. The seal is broken, the fruits of multiculturalism aren’t going back in the can.


Here’s the second, by a white guy; Should be fun.

Political correctness used to be a joke.


…Whatever its origins, not many are laughing now.

Is that…? Is that what I think it is? Is that a child rape joke?

The Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan – said to be the intellectual guru to Ukip’s Douglas Carswell – argued that “these children were victims of ‘anti-racism’”.

No comment from Unite Against Fascism’s thugs.

He recounts a personal story seeing natives grieving pelted by “Asians” where the police did nothing and cannot connect the dots across the country. Normally I’d click close at this point because he’s obviously a no-hoper working for them, he denies it when he sees it with his own eyes.

One officer told those who’d been hit he’d like to go after the offenders but he couldn’t: “It’s the Human Rights Act.”

That sounds laughable now [no], so obviously an excuse for inaction. But I’d go further. In a subtle way, such a claim – and indeed similar invocations of political correctness – represent a kind of racism. For what is being implied when a council or police force say they cannot stop a ring of men raping children? It is that there is a class of people who are different from the rest, a category that sits somehow outside, if not above, the law because of their race. [in opposition to the Equality Act section on race] That was the message of the policeman who told that frightened group [of pensioners] in east London that his hands were tied: the usual laws don’t apply to that lot.

It’s…. it’s ALIVE!!!!!

At the very least, the effect of such talk is racially divisive. [close enough to hate speech] It pits one group against another. It says to white people in Rotherham: “We’ll come after you, but we can’t go after them. Thanks to the PC brigade, that lot are untouchable. They are different.” So in reaching for a handy excuse for their own incompetence, the authorities of Rotherham have sprinkled petrol onto an already incendiary situation.

No, the Muslim rapists did that bit with the petrol, that wasn’t funny or clever. Back to 0 points.

If that’s what they believed, that only makes it worse.

For what low opinion must you have of those of Pakistani heritage to think that they, or Muslims more widely, would be offended by the prospect of violent paedophiles facing justice for their crimes? Posing as cultural sensitivity, such a concern betrays contempt: by presuming they would stand by the abusers and torturers in their midst it damns an entire community for the vile behaviour of a few.

You know, there are some real victims just over here if you’ll only turn your head. Real victims > imagined ones. Forget it, he’s a braindead Zombie.

…cast a large, disparate cluster of communities as some kind of single, seething mass ready to turn violent at the slightest provocation.

You seem to have put a lot of thought into that. Have you read the Koran? Or just watch the news lately?

Our starting assumption should be not that the overwhelming majority will be offended by action against the beheaders and child abusers, but that they will welcome it. To presume otherwise is guilt by association, and the laziest form of prejudice.

Where are the protests? They knocked one together about Gaza, not a single group of them against this? What may we assume from that omission? Palestinian possible victims > English actual victims, to them.

…including the insinuation that “everybody with brown skin is a suicide bomber or closet rapist”.

Hello Mr Scarecrow! Oh wait, it’s a vacant straw man.
He finishes;

 That’s not just political correctness gone mad. That’s political correctness gone racist.

I shall leave you with this jovial tune on my lips;