bioweapons are not one thing, they are also made in different batches so as to test for different effects, both in the disease progression itself and the subjects it affects e.g. targeting young people, targeting military age men in particular. A disease that wipes out the enemy army e.g. ONLY WHITE, young men, is priceless. Global domination in a bottle. But keep simping for Chicoms. I’m sure they love you really. Like they love their own children, enslaved in factories. BTW USA still pays them foreign aid. Land of the chicuck, home of the globalist simp.
Isn’t a black guy creeping on a minor ‘problematic’?
I TOLD YOU THEY WOULD DO THIS.
I HEAR THEIR MARXIST PLANS AHEAD OF TIME.
THE NEW THING IS RE-WRITING WHITE HISTORY (to brainwash kids) AND APPROPRIATING OUR ANCESTRY AS A “”SETTING” (then claiming it’s fiction/fantasy – no?) AND OUR WHOLE CULTURE AS JUST A COSTUME.
Our culture is not a costume, stop fetishizing it/us. Throwing on a cravat doesn’t make you a gentleman and wearing a long dress doesn’t make you any less a thot. The white fever is disgusting.
The ‘historical expert’ tumblr bitches on youtube are marxist agents. I don’t discuss someone without reason. Youtube is pushing them for that reason, while white-run channels are pushed down. The Cold War psyops was Red Scare, this is Purple Hair Scare.
Spot the common denominator, gatekeeping white people from discussing our own culture.
Duh? Nothing to do with women, who always worked. That was a false flag by Peterson, who curiously didn’t show any data (because that data does not exist). Women always worked, even in pre-industry, except the royalty and certain aristocrats. That is nowhere near most women, let alone all. Contrary to Peterson’s nagging, Western incomes are still high internationally, so what would explain the 60s-00s replacement of the working class, but globalisation broadly and international competition from mass immigration locally? Naturally his lefty politics won’t allow him to finger the true culprit because that raises uncomfortable questions for his age group.
Missionaries violated the Bible by giving gibs to heathens, as in ‘those who will not work, shall not eat’. https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php But y’know, that’s just actually looking for the DATA. UK average income $42k. Meanwhile places with an intact culture (relatively) and plausibly more K-family units (read: high marriage rates) have super low incomes and larger families as the norm still. e.g. Poland $15.2k Croatia $14.9k Russia $11.2k Serbia $16.1k Hungary $7k since you all have such a hard-on for the EE nations
so it’s a blatant FALLACY to conflate income with family formation in white people
with ONGOING data to prove it decisively (no muh 21st century is different)
losers: “it’s all about the money! that’s why women don’t want me!” sure
and population has gone up steadily e.g. Russia. https://www.worlddata.info/europe/russia/populationgrowth.php The data is out there but the fake redpill refuse to admit immigration is the problem and always has been (because literally most of them are immigrants, Magic Dirt men playing hello fellow white man). They wish to foment mutual white hatred (r-select impulse, the spiteful mutant) and what are the two biggest demographics in any race? Men v. women. Men stop protecting the women, women are easy prey. Divide, conquer. Cowardly but dysgenic.
The rise of the East has killed the West and the traditional breeding stock of the working class. Globalisation kills. Blaming the in-group is what the Globalists want, it produces further sterility and prevents you from questioning them (political triangulation), see: SJWs salivating over causing a gender war and larping as white women when they aren’t (religiously).
Did women get the vote in 1995, ya morons?
example of this all with EE nations again:
Poland has one of the lowest birth rates in the EU (as covered before, the r-women don’t want kids when asked) but even their population has been holding steady despite emigration and low incomes. https://www.worlddata.info/europe/poland/populationgrowth.php Blaming ‘women’ for working is plain ignorant of history! Did they think their grandmothers all twiddled their thumbs? What would they prefer? Living on welfare? Starving? Working until their eggs are all gone? Those are the only options, all demographic death. Women cannot fix this and shouldn’t be blamed for it. At some point they need to man up and admit men need to correct the ‘mistakes’ of their forefathers i.e. globalisation, immigration, multiculturalism.
There was data going round, mentioned by Academic Agent, that if only women voted in the UK since WW2, no left wing government would’ve ever gotten into power since. I’d like a video on that. Shan’t hold my breath but if enough people pester him he could trigger some broflakes because the sloth of r-men votes socialism due to lower T, r-women want to work. Americans need to look at data before complaining. Why are no major MGTOW/MRA channels removed from youtube? The plan is anti-white family, duh.
Besides, adopting pure r, we physically could not outnumber them by over-breeding, they’re generations ahead of us. The baby cult cannot flatten r-numbers.
“The global fertility rate fell from 5.25 children per woman in 1900, to 2.44 children per woman in 2018. The steepest drop in this shift happened in a single decade, from 1970 to 1980.” When Boomers gave the Pill to unmarried couplesand factories moved overseas.
“The overall decline in fertility rates isn’t expected to end anytime soon, and it’s even expected to fall past 2.1 children per woman, which is known as the “replacement rate”. Any fertility below this rate signals fewer new babies than parents, leading to an eventual population decline. Experts predict that world fertility will further drop from 2.5 to 1.9 children per woman by 2100. This means that global population growth will slow down or possibly even go negative.” All socialist/Marx models rely on rising population, that’s why all their policies e.g. Sex Ed, single parent gibs, no criminal punishment for adultery, all have the same outcome. They’re breeding chattel for their pension pot. Socialists oversee the breeding of their own slaves. Dark, huh?
As Darwin suggested, evolution is a race for life, and until the overseas threats are dealt with, local solutions are null and void. The ship is sinking, stop your enemies from blowing more holes in the boat. K-selection requires a fair i.e. closed system for operation. Globalists hate this because one such system would easily outcompete them. R-types pouring into the same territory exploiting shared resources will starve all Ks.
Going by the historical definition, nations such as Finland, Sweden, Ireland, and Switzerland were Third World countries. Based on today’s definition, these would not be considered Third World countries. Instead, what many now interpret “Third World” to mean encompasses economically poor and non-industrialized countries, as well as newly industrialized countries.
The international economic order has changed in the last 40 years and will no doubt go on changing, as leading economist, Angus Maddison, explains.*
In 1962, we usually divided the world into three regions. The advanced capitalist group was then known as the developed world. The second was the “Sino-Soviet bloc”. Countries “in course of development” were the third world. The China-USSR split occurred in the early 1960s; most of the communist regimes collapsed around 1990, and the hostility of the cold war has largely faded away. The income gap between the former communist countries and the advanced capitalist group has become very much wider than it was. For this reason, a tripartite division of the world economy is no longer appropriate.
For rough comparisons, it is now useful to divide the world in two and compare developments in the advanced capitalist group with the aggregate for lower-income countries – designated as the “West” and the “Rest” in our tables. On average, the West increased its income per head fourfold from 1950 to 2001 – a growth rate of 2.8% a year. In the rest of the world there was a threefold increase – a growth rate of 2.2%. In both cases this was much better than earlier performance. From 1820 to 1950, income grew 1.3% a year in the West and 0.6% in the Rest. Though the gap in income level was still increasing, the acceleration in performance was bigger in the Rest.
Population of the West rose by half from 1950 to 2001 (0.8% a year), about the same pace as in 1820-1950. In the Rest, the situation was very different. Population grew by 2.0%, compared with 0.6% in the earlier period. This reflected a major improvement in welfare as mortality declined and life expectation rose from 44 to 65 years in 2001 – much faster than in the West. In the past two decades birth rates have fallen rapidly – a demographic transition which happened earlier in the West.
The West is now a relatively homogeneous group in terms of living standards, growth performance, economic institutions and modes of governance. Over the past five decades there has also been significant convergence in most of these respects. This is not true of the Rest. There are more than 180 countries in this group. They have nearly all increased their income levels significantly since 1950, but the degree of success has varied enormously. Most of Asia is experiencing fast per capita income growth. Most African countries are fairly stagnant. Most Latin American countries found it very difficult to keep a steady trajectory of advance in the 1980s and 1990s. Population growth is fastest in Africa, a good deal slower in Latin America and slower still in Asia. Life expectation and levels of education are lowest in Africa, better in Latin America, and better still in Asia.
Between 1950 and 2001, the Asian group increased per capita income fivefold and narrowed the relative gap between their incomes and the West. In other regions there was no convergence. Latin American income rose more than twofold, in the former command economies of Eastern Europe and the USSR less than twofold and in Africa about two thirds.
The divergence was even more striking in 1990-2001. In this period the Western group increased their income by a fifth, the Asian group by half, Latin America by a sixth, Africa stagnated and in the former communist countries per capita income fell by a quarter. [DS: WHYYYYYYY]
American policy since 1973 has been much more successful than that of Western Europe and Japan in realising potential for income growth. The incidence of unemployment is now about half of that in Western Europe, whereas in 1950–1973 it was usually double the European rate. Labour force participation increased, with employment expanding from 41% of the population in 1973 to 49% in 1998, compared with an average European rise from 42 to 44%. The percentage drop in working hours per person was half of that in Western Europe. These high levels of activity were achieved with a rate of inflation which was generally more modest than in Western Europe.
US policymakers have been less inhibited in operating at high levels of demand than their European counterparts. Having the world’s major reserve currency, and long used to freedom of international capital movements, they generally treated exchange rate fluctuations with benign neglect. The Reagan administration made major tax cuts, and carried out significant measures of deregulation in the expectation that they would provoke a positive supply response that would outweigh potential inflationary consequences. The US operated with more flexible labour markets. Its capital market was better equipped to supply venture funds to innovators. Its economy was as big as Western Europe but much more closely integrated. Demand buoyancy was sustained by a stock market boom in the 1990s.
The United States was a major gainer from the globalisation of international capital markets. In the postwar period until 1988, US foreign assets always exceeded liabilities, but thereafter its net foreign asset position moved from around zero to minus $1.5 trillion (more than 20% of GDP). Thus the rest of the world helped to sustain the long American boom and financed the large US payments deficit.
The table provides a quantification of growth performance of eight major regions of the world economy and some very tentative projections for development up to the year 2015.
The demographic projections are those of the United Nations Population Division, and indicate a continuing decline in the rate of population growth in virtually all parts of the world. Nevertheless there will still be a very striking difference between the advanced capitalist group and Africa. At 0.33% a year it would take 210 years to double population in the first group. In Africa it is likely to happen within 32 years. [forcing all white people to marry would not work]
In making per capita GDP projections, I assumed a continuance of 1990-2001 rates of performance in Western Europe and Japan and a mild slowdown in the USA, where the information technology bubble of the 1990s has burst, and where the capital inflow which financed its trade deficit seems likely to slacken substantially. Aggregate per capita growth in the “West” seems unlikely to slow down very significantly, but combined with the demographic slowdown, it means that aggregate GDP growth would be about 2% a year. This pace would be similar to that in 1913-1950. Growth momentum transmitted by the “West” is likely to be more modest than in 1870-1913 and 1973-2001.
Asia (excluding Japan)
The most buoyant part of the world economy since the early 1970s has been Asia (excluding Japan). These economies have grown faster than those of the West and their buoyancy has been sustained in great part by their own policies. Their weight in the world economy is much larger than any other non-Western region. I assumed that their per capita growth 2001-2015 will be at the same pace as in 1990-2001.
These economies are catching up with the West and are still at a level of development where “opportunities of backwardness” are unlikely to erode. The combination of high investment rates and rapid GDP growth means that their physical capital stock has been growing more rapidly than in other parts of the world. The East Asian economies also have a high ratio of employment to population. This is due to falling fertility and a rising share of population of working age, but also reflects the traditionally high labour mobilisation of multi-cropping rice economies. In all cases which are documented they had high rates of improvement in education and the quality of human capital. Equally striking were the rapid growth of exports, the high ratio of exports to GDP, and a willingness to attract foreign direct investment as a vehicle for assimilation of foreign technology. These characteristics of China, South Korea and Chinese-Taipei have made for super-growth, but there is a second tier of countries whose growth is accelerating rapidly. The most notable case is India which has the potential to join the super-growth club. There are other economies where prospects are more problematic, but these are only a sixth of the Asian total. The projections assume no substantial change in their performance.
Latin America is the second largest non-Western region with about 8% of world product and a slightly bigger share of world population. Until the 1970s, economic policy was different from that in the advanced capitalist group. Most countries never seriously tried to observe the fixed rate discipline of Bretton Woods. National currencies were repeatedly devalued, IMF advocacy of fiscal and monetary rectitude was frequently rebuffed, high rates of inflation became endemic. Most countries reacted with insouciance to the worldwide explosion of prices, and governments felt that they could accommodate high rates of inflation. They were able to borrow on a large scale at negative real interest rates to cover external deficits incurred as a result of expansionary policies.
However, the basic parameters had changed by the early 1980s. By then, the OECD countries were pushing anti–inflationary policy very vigorously. The change to restrictive monetary policy initiated by the US Federal Reserve pushed up interest rates suddenly and sharply. Between 1973 and 1982, external debt increased sevenfold and the credit worthiness of Latin America as a whole was grievously damaged by Mexico’s debt delinquency in 1982. The flow of voluntary private lending stopped abruptly, and created a massive need for retrenchment in economies teetering on the edge of hyperinflation and fiscal crisis. In most countries resource allocation was distorted by subsidies, controls, widespread commitments to government enterprise and detailed interventionism. Most of them also had serious social tension, and several had unsavoury political regimes.
In the 1930s, most Latin American countries resorted to debt default, but it was not a very attractive option in the 1980s. World trade had not collapsed, international private lending continued on a large scale. The IMF and World Bank had substantial facilities to mitigate the situation, and leverage to pressure Western banks to make involuntary loans and legitimate a substantial degree of delinquency.
In the 1980s, the attempts to resolve these problems brought major changes in economic policy. But in most countries, changes were made reluctantly. After experiments with heterodox policy options in Argentina and Brazil, most countries eventually embraced the neoliberal policy mix pioneered by Chile. They moved towards greater openness to international markets, reduced government intervention, trade liberalisation, less distorted exchange rates, better fiscal equilibrium and establishment of more democratic political systems.
The cost of this transition was a decade of falling per capita income in the 1980s. After 1990, economic growth revived substantially but the process was interrupted by contagious episodes of capital flight.
My projections for Latin America assume some modest improvement in per capita performance in 2001-2015.
Africa has nearly 13% of world population, but only 3% of world GDP. It is the world’s poorest region. Its population is growing seven times as fast as in Western Europe. Per capita income in 2001 was below its 1980 peak. African economies are more volatile than most others because export earnings are concentrated on a few primary commodities, and extremes of weather (droughts and floods) are more severe and have a heavy impact.
As a result of rapid growth, little more than half the population is of working age. Almost half are illiterate. They have had a high incidence of infectious and parasitic disease (malaria, sleeping sickness, hookworm, river blindness, yellow fever). Over two thirds of HIV-infected people live in Africa. As a result the quantity and quality of labour input per head of population is much lower than in other parts of the world.
European powers became interested in grabbing Africa in the 1880s. Twenty-two countries eventually emerged from French colonisation, 21 from British, 5 from Portuguese, 3 from Belgian, 2 from Spanish. Germany lost its colonies after the First World War, Italy after the Second. The colonialists created boundaries to suit their own convenience, with little regard to local traditions or ethnicity. European law and property rights were introduced with little regard to traditional forms of land allocation. Hence European colonists often got the best land and most of the benefits from exploitation of mineral rights and plantation agriculture. African incomes were kept low by forced labour or apartheid practices. Little was done to build a transport infrastructure or to cater for popular education.
Colonisation ended between 1956 and 1974. In South Africa, the mass of the population did not get political rights until 1994. Independence brought many serious challenges. The political leadership had to try to create elements of national solidarity and stability more or less from scratch. The new national entities were in most cases a creation of colonial rule. There was great ethnic diversity with no tradition or indigenous institutions of nationhood. The linguistic vehicle of administration and education was generally French, English or Portuguese rather than the languages most used by the mass of the population. Africa became a focus of international rivalry during the cold war. China, the USSR, Cuba and East European countries supplied economic and military aid to new countries viewed as proxies in a worldwide conflict of interest. Western countries, Israel and Chinese-Taipei were more generous in supplying aid and less fastidious in its allocation than they might otherwise have been. As a result, Africa accumulated large external debts which had a meagre developmental pay-off.
There was a great scarcity of people with education or administrative experience. Suddenly these countries had to create a political elite, staff a national bureaucracy, establish a judiciary, create a police force and armed forces, send out dozens of diplomats. The first big wave of job opportunities strengthened the role of patronage and rent-seeking, and reduced the attractions of entrepreneurship. The existing stock of graduates was too thin to meet the demands and there was heavy dependence on foreign personnel.
The process of state creation involved armed struggle in many cases. Many countries have suffered from civil wars and bloody dictators. These wars were a major impediment to development.
In many African states, rulers have sought to keep their positions for life. In most states, rulers relied for support on a narrow group who shared the spoils of office. Corruption became widespread, property rights insecure, business decisions risky.
A major factor in the slowdown since 1980 has been external debt. As the cold war faded from the mid-1980s, foreign aid levelled off, and net lending to Africa fell. Although the flow of foreign direct investment has risen it has not offset the fall in other financial flows
The challenges to development in Africa are greater than in any other continent, the deficiencies in health, education and nutrition the most extreme. It is the continent with the greatest need for financial aid and technical assistance. The per capita GDP projections assume that these kinds of aid will be increased and that per capita growth will be positive. However, it is unlikely that African countries will, by 2015, be able to establish a trajectory of rapid catch-up such as Asian economies have achieved.
In Eastern Europe, the economic system was similar to that in the USSR from 1948 to the end of the 1980s, and so was economic performance. In 1950-1973, per capita growth more or less kept pace with that of Western Europe, but faltered badly as the economic and political system began to crumble. From 1973-1990, it grew at 0.5% a year compared with 1.9% in Western Europe.
The transition from a command to a market economy was difficult in all of the countries. The easiest part was freeing prices and opening of trade with the West. This ended shortages and queuing, improved the quality of goods and services and increased consumer welfare. However, much of the old capital stock became junk; the labour force needed to acquire new skills and work habits; the legal and administrative systems and the tax/social benefit structure had to be transformed; the distributive and banking networks to be rebuilt from scratch. The travails of transition led to a fall in average per capita income for the group from 1990 to 1993, but it rose by over 3% a year from then to 2001. My projection assumes that this pace of advance can be maintained at least until 2015. In fact, these countries can probably do better than this if they can be integrated into the European Union with better access to its goods, labour, and capital markets, its regional and other subsidies, than they have thus far enjoyed. Present real income levels are only a third of those in Western Europe. Wages are also much lower, but the disparity in skills is much less. The Eastern economies are therefore capable of mounting a catch-up dynamic similar to that of Asia if the integration takes place.
Successor states of former USSR
Fifteen successor states emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In all of them, there was already a very marked deceleration of economic growth in 1973-1990. There was colossal inefficiency in resource allocation, a very heavy burden of military expenditure and associated spending, depletion and destruction of natural resources.
Capital/output ratios were higher than in capitalist countries. Materials were used wastefully. Shortages created a chronic tendency to hoard inventories. The steel consumption/GDP ratio was four times as high as in the US. The average industrial firm had 814 workers in 1987 compared with 30 in Germany and the UK. Transfer of technology from the West was hindered by trade restrictions, lack of foreign direct investment and very restricted access to foreign technicians and scholars. Work incentives were meagre, malingering on the job was commonplace. [but UBI and pensions will make it better /s]
The quality of consumer goods was poor. Retail outlets and service industries were few. Prices bore little relation to cost. Consumers wasted time queuing, bartering or sometimes bribing their way to the goods and services they wanted. There was an active black market, and special shops for the nomenklatura. There was increasing cynicism, frustration, growing alcoholism and a decline in life expectation. [so like America now?]
Soviet spending on its military and space effort was around 15% of GDP in the 1970s and 1980s, nearly three times the US ratio and five times as high as in Western Europe. There were significant associated commitments to Afghanistan, Cuba, Mongolia, North Korea, Vietnam and Soviet client states in Africa.
In the 1950s a good deal of agricultural expansion was in virgin soil areas, whose fertility was quickly exhausted. Most of the Aral sea was transformed into a salty desert. Exploitation of mineral and energy resources in Siberia and Central Asia required bigger infrastructure costs than in European Russia. The Chernobyl nuclear accident had a disastrously polluting effect on a large area of the Ukraine.
In 1985-1991 Gorbachev established a remarkable degree of political freedom and liberated Eastern Europe but had no coherent economic policy. From then to end 1999, Yeltsin broke up the Soviet Union, destroyed its economic and political system and moved towards a “market” economy. The economic outcome was a downward spiral of real income for the mass of the population. On average, GDP was nearly 30% lower in 2002 in the 15 republics than in 1990. Fixed investment and military spending fell dramatically, so the drop in private consumption was milder. There were very big changes in income distribution. Under the old system, basic necessities (bread, housing, education, health, crèches and social services) had been highly subsidised by the government or provided free by state enterprises to their workers. These all became relatively more expensive, the real value of wages and pensions was reduced by hyperinflation, and the value of popular savings was destroyed. There were major gains in the income of a new oligarchy. [i.e. cancelling Marxism cannot be overnight]
The new “market” economy is grossly inefficient and unfair in allocating resources. There has been legislation to establish Western style property rights, but in practice accountancy is opaque and government interpretation of property rights is arbitrary. Many businesses are subject to criminal pressure. Property owners such as shareholders or investors are uncertain whether their rights will be honoured. Workers are not sure their wages will be paid.
*This article is an adapted extract from Angus Maddison’s chapter, “The West and the Rest in the International Economic Order”, in Development is Back, OECD Development Centre, 2002.
Jeremiah warned of this. What you gain with lies abandons you near the end.
All this globalisation and immigration has produced NO net global wealth?
Imagine my shock.
Re-arrange the deck chairs with REITs, I’ll be in the life boat keeping it warm.
Almost like you can’t change national IQ, that predicts GDP.
And as IQ tanks….. since we’re living in the dysgenic Idiocracy….. not good.
Well, we look down on old people at slots or lotto, but now it’s Robin Hood retailers.
When everyone is trying to retire early, NO ONE gets to retire early. The retire abroad lot will fail due to the arrogant inability to STFU. No, they just HAD to ‘share their secrets’ in blog posts, on forums, in e-books, programmes and poncy videos.* Indices like S/P 500 are grossly over-valued, we have an index bubble based on 20th century price analysis studies, cherrypicked and prone to normalcy bias. It happened in their lifetime, it must continue in ours – nope. When everyone has the same information, everybody fucks up the same way. What worked for the Boomers will NOT work for us**, and generational timing is everything. It isn’t about the price WHATSOEVER, but when you buy-in and when you retire. Buy low, sell high is about your generational time, idjits. Different generations merit a different theory. This will be the social media caused collapse of prices. Classic lemmings case study used in future.
No surprise. Dumb money is lazy. Most of the index gain is bandwagon jumpers on the e-book crooks.
And all nations will charge expats eventually, especially if bitcoin is the global currency (no running).
*Retirement is only possible if a minority is doing it, chucklefucks. The maths no longer works, it went kaput. At least socialists cut to the chase and don’t bother to work for it, a rare instance of logic.
**the 401k systems by law caused their bubble, not even a true gain, the switch over they benefited from as a large demo – no other is as large
Something like a bearish ETF may rocket in value when a market crash occurs from debt collapse, but if the dollar or other common currencies such as Euros become worthless, then you won’t be richer for long. All this is to feed the very upper crust of the incredibly wealthy cabal who see themselves as world citizens entitled to become living gods. They want the Earth, immortality, and full control over all life. What’s happening was prophesized a very long time ago. They likely won’t be successful for long after doing up Great Reset and move to neo-Feudalistic totalitarian one world order. Hi fellow serf. lol
global citizen = one of Them, trust no ho predicted in that book I posted a while back, about the death of ‘aryans’ written by the ‘jew’
I guess it’s to include everyone still alive, but on their knees begging for safety and world peace after the big WW3 event happens. I don’t believe anyone on the surface of Western countries are going to fare well, but only Westerners (filthy rich cabal) hiding inside the mountains of Switzerland will be the only remaining white people. They don’t want keep us unwashed masses around now that the many decades of work in developing the New World Order is almost complete. They don’t want to keep democracy around nor keep telling us what we want to hear for they don’t need us nor want us calling them out on their crimes.
Zoomers are smug sitting ducks, absolutely quackers. ‘We’re not like the Millennials’ no, you’re like us pre-GFC. Much worse.
I remain insouciant.
Biggest disappointment this week is sell-out Swift, who went from being a 4channer to promoting witchcraft and white genocide with Asians in her latest video. If I call her a rice cooker, am I jealous too?
Or will you notice China has been funding a theme in media? It has FA to do with me.
https://psychologydictionary.org/anticathexis/ They push down their innate racism with anti-racism. The supremacist feelings are re-directed from national pride to classism over the in-group. Think about it, the people over-breeding in Idiocracy were all depicted as white. If terms like ‘white trash’ were banned, they couldn’t differentiate themselves to the out-group. Reversing in-group preference is quite a feat. This is why the SJWs can never address classism (and Marx tried*) and it’s free real estate. They replaced race with the broader power dynamic of class and it shows. Class seems cuddlier but isn’t. Class will become more contentious when it never has been in our cultural history, due to demographic heterogeneity. Boomer-bashing: white middle-class, Karens: white middle-class and working poor, empty accusations of misogyny: rich white men. Class conflict will ramp up, mark my words.
*Marx would have succeeded with his uprising if the natives were troubled by multicultural conflict and unrest. An all-white nation was just too comfortable, that’s why Frankfurt school suddenly decided mass immigration and genocidal replacement was ‘necessary’.
It also explains MRAs, pushing women away because they’re lonesome.
except women are not selfless or babies would die from her under-eating etc. Men are the sacrificial sex, in addition to bravery and kin loyalty. A common error to ascribe to women for being passive. A selfless woman does not have children, she cares for the family she already has. SJWs are broken because they divert maternal drive to non-kin offspring and aid to non-kin competition (with their kin). ie. selflessness in women is pathological altruism. Women must be selfish to privilege the in-group, like a protective lioness. SJWs attack white women for being ‘selfish’ in myriad ways e.g. destroying the planet by existing, polluting the world with their children and being ‘evil’ for wanting their kids to succeed.
Meanwhile, any so-called matriarchy in terms of child-rearing would likely exert a k-effect, all else being sane; https://psychologydictionary.org/vandenbergh-effect/ all else being equal. This is why women traditionally raise the kids for the tender years. Too many creepy stranger men around throws the population off, which only happens under deadbeat (mother abandonment) conditions, in nature.
Capitalism implies we keep our capital i.e. the fruits of our labour, made with our body. What we live under is socialist serfdom, a strange hybrid that naturally attracts Third Worlders, accustomed to one and allured by the other.
https://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk “The truth however is much worse, factoring in all liabilities including state and public sector pensions, the real national debt is closer to £4.8 trillion, some £78,000 for every person in the UK.” So we pay the Government to take a cut after they already took a cut multiple times, to invest money for us into the same markets we might invest in ourselves? Is that so? Socialists will promise you a pound at the cost of two. Deal of the century. If every citizen had that money in credit, we wouldn’t rely on Gov for ‘retirement’. Funnier still is all the government cucks expecting they’ll actually be able to cash this out, once the time comes. I recall some Boomer, age 59, saying in the Guardian she was ‘too young’ to think about retirement. The comments rightly pointed out it is the duty of all adults to provision themselves if they can avoid being dependents, especially on children they never had. Useful idiots but nobody called them racist (to their face). They slaved for the Man into their grave, to fight Patriarchy.
Note they do not show liability by age range? Indeed, they NEVER show obligation by age range… why?
“At the end of 2014-15, the real national debt stood at £8.6 trillion, over £320,000 for every single household in Britain” Likely ten by now. Let us assume at least 400k pp. Does that buy our freedom? Would that in credit purchase retirement?
Can the low national IQ people ‘immigrating’ as ‘brain drain’ earn that much to bail us all out?
“over a third of your time working is slaving away for people who don’t want to.”
To quote a choice section for the lazy and apathetic: IF 50y ‘career’, THEN
15.75 years working like a slave because Barry the Boomer won’t get off his arse.
I am this way because of statistics and facts.
I crunched the numbers one day and the results were in, literally Hitler.
“Young people can’t marry, move out, have kids, because lazy bastards didn’t want to work for the last 40 years of their life, preferring to abort their kids or make immigrants pay for them. We all literally know people who’ve been retired longer than they worked, fiscally impossible to justify.
One lazy generation who didn’t even fight a war for us is disabling the future existence of our people and culture.”
So if you HYPOTHETICALLY intended to work from 20-70, you could ACTUALLY take off ages 20-35 to get married/have kids IF you didn’t live under a socialist dictatorship enabled by leeches.
No wicked man knows happiness, and least of all the seducer of others.
The Hollywood-worshiping whores are shameless, do not pity any of them. They chose to be alone, often in foreign lands. The manosphere constantly fails (in its stated goals) because it also sells a delusion of equality, but exclusively to men. It denies men their manhood in masculine competition with one another. With nothing to prove or reach for, they are pulled down into the bucket by their own crabs of apathy and nihilism, with a smattering of genuine misogyny at times, to further cast off blame for the fruits of their manly agency (really shades of cowardice). They play themselves.
All in all, looking at photos like that, I understand my elder male relatives: we need a good war. Such decadence cannot endure long, degeneracy never lasts. It is the rule of history. “We’ve” had the greatest rise in history so I fear our collective downfall. As one party of many latter generations who shirked the poison chalice, this is frustrating. It doesn’t matter if you were AT the party if they were personally trashing your house (the West). The libertarian arguments of social harm (muh individualism) are sociopathic and atomistic, they don’t scale up to a village, let alone nation or race. They are anarchists in suits, moral relativists on the fence with a calculator. Fine, be free to do drugs as you please, and equally free to die from them, yes? No bailouts, no manmade exceptions to natural law. No synthetic sin-eating like antibiotics for slags. No exceptions at all for pity’s sake. And if men wish to leave the West, deserters in our time of demographic crisis, we must respect that r-select impulse by banning their return. A house divided and all, no man may serve two masters (or nations).No anchor babies, anchor wives or anchor dual financial lives.
The cucks must be shucked.
The thirst after fame is greater than that after virtue; for who embraces virtue if you take away its rewards? – Juvenal
The Hollywood siren song has been going for a long time. Everyone falls for it, whether or not we act upon it. It’s pre-critical (Piaget) childhood programming. So-called incels should attack Hollywood. Why is the Tony Stark playboy stripper pole stuff in a KID’s film? Why do twelve-year olds need to see a foursome? 18:41 Subtext nobody dare address: successful men must be a slut. Is that true to reality? No. Quite the opposite, it’s insulting and demeaning to agency, but they own Trojan stock and other corporations (read: penicillin shots) that would go bankrupt if the moral bankruptcy stopped. The anti-capitalists oddly never point this out.
How wrong would that one scene seem, if the sexes were reversed? Our natural reaction is dulled by repetition, and children viewed this.
Refrain from doing ill; for one all powerful reason, lest our children should copy our misdeeds; we are all too prone to imitate whatever is base and depraved.