How Le Pen can win

https://www.thelocal.fr/20170427/heres-how-le-pen-can-mathematically-still-beat-macron

Her greatest foe is electoral fraud.

As with the false Labour polling that caused the BBC and Guardian to treat Ed Miliband as our next Prime Minister before he’d even won, there are four problems with the poll.

  1. They are commissioned, paid for. Conflict of interest, bias likely.
  2. They collect in urban environments, bias definitely.
  3. Many who say they will vote (usually the so-called centrist) do not. They don’t care who actually wins and can claim later to have voted even when they did not.
  4. The right wing habitually lie to the pollsters for fear of being harassed (Shy Tory phenomena). Any intelligent person talking to a survey-taker, will lie, regardless of political stripe. You want the enemy to overestimate their numbers (see Brexit’s Remain, cocky before the vote).

It’s so close, an investigation is probable.

The best polls are online and anonymous.

French warm up to another Revolution

Maybe if the MSM keep hitting the Nazi pinata, people might start listening to them again?

Jihad isn’t mentioned once.

This is indicative of what’s really going on.

The Communist isn’t called ‘far-left’ and her word about her sworn enemy (the right) is automatically believed.

These Frenchies don’t have Internalised Racism. They have genophilia.
It’s like none of those clueless people understand the reason the monarchy was toppled. They refused to listen to the people. It was about class, identity and stealing money with taxes for the lazy. The demographic leeches kept sucking.

I don’t think France will kick off first. Maybe Paris, but not France.

Probably Italy, somewhere nobody cares about like Denmark, Sweden would be funny.

Don’t forget who caused this mess. Brussels, I’m looking at you.

PC ‘culture’ [signalling] is a fake fantasy world. You can be anything you want except a happy, straight white man.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/27/analysis-finally-crystal-clear-clarity-in-french-election.html

“I’m not eating little cakes with a few representatives who, in reality, represent only themselves,” she sniffed.

Nothing to do with the Revolution, nope!

A shrink on sexual harassment “can’t you take a compliment?”

It’s odd how men will admit women are sensitive about their appearance then continue to attack us on it.

Yeah, that’s bullying. Even in school, that is not flirting.

A delightful, common sense explanation.

In before autism;

If you DON’T ‘believe’ in sexual harassment – go to a gay bar on a Saturday.

See how long you last.

That is a woman’s life.

Men are lecherous pigs, regardless of sexuality. What does a lecherous woman look like? A man.

Since any reading this and disbelieving are cowards, simply ask every woman you know and care about (assuming any stuck around you) about their experiences. There are always experiences, regardless of ‘age’ and seeming ‘fuckability’. Don’t talk over them excusing it, just ask the question, shut up and listen.

Actually, 9/10 male rudeness is the inability to shut up and listen. There are studies.

OT Rape accusations imply guilt. A totally honest man needn’t fear them.

https://www.jeunesepayne.co.uk/single-post/2016/11/07/Sexual-Harassment-%E2%80%9CCan%E2%80%99t-you-take-a-compliment%E2%80%9D

“When someone shouts across the street at me “show us your cunt”, or even just wolf-whistles, it’s not because they think it’s going to make me feel good.

It’s a reminder that they could overpower and attack you. R-types don’t care for rule of law, Ks are respectful (either ignoring you in public or getting introductions the decent way).
I saw a very right-wing blog post an article about how the author could easily rape any woman he likes.
In quite graphic detail and practically frothing at the prospect. I don’t read that blog anymore.
This was supposed to scare us all straight (and into agreement with him).

Rape isn’t funny to women, it appalls us (ESPECIALLY the conservative ones), it’s worse than murder. Imagine getting castrated, male power stripped and stolen. Rape is worse for women, at the very least for the conception aspect. A man joking about rape is an r-type trying to pass for K (strong). Those are the worst.

When women see a man seriously laugh (not from shock, but enjoyment) at domestic abuse or whatever sexual ‘prank’ is going on, it would be like watching a woman laughing at a man gored on barbed wire in WW1. Our thought is always the same: what if that were me?

This is why women choose compassion in mate selection studies.

Which sex has the blacker humour?

“Can’t you take a joke?”

Is civilization a joke? They make me wonder.

This is why the right wing’s reputation suffers. Manwhores cosplaying Patriarchy. They seem to think it means concubines and slavery, rather than monogamy and industry.

As for the genuine conservatives…

If they can’t fuck it or kill it, they’re probably going to insult it.

It’s not a well-intended or genuine interaction. They’re not even under some misguided impression that such comments will make me want to have sex with them.

Some are truly that stupid.

Thought process as follows:

If I make her hate me, it’ll remind her of my mother/her father.

Presuming all fathers are incompetent (r-selected) as his. Another layer of insult.

Resent women? No! I simply happen to crush and abandon them all by sheer coincidence!
Distrust women? Sure! They made me leave them! Projection’s only real when women do it!

It’s simply an exertion of power. The aim is to get approval or laughter from others, and discomfort or gratitude from me.

That is better known as sadism.

It is caused by degenerate media, especially the supernormal stimuli of HD streaming online porn.
I guarantee you 100% of those males are porn addicts, the female leches too. The testosterone has to go somewhere, they lack the impulse control (hypofrontality) and time preference to do something good with it.

A compliment is something you would feel comfortable giving a man, woman, or child because you believe it would make them feel good. You’re not boosting anyone’s self-esteem by reminding them that, by society’s standards, “you look acceptable enough for me to fuck”.”

There is always the insult that your primary value is whether they’d use you as their whore.

They’re calling you a whore.

That’s what no woman will admit.

You’re soliciting women on the street. As a whore. But at least whores can charge.

They refuse to accept they’re being rude but they wouldn’t say it if children were present. They desperately want attention but project this onto the provocateur (and looking good isn’t an excuse for anything, is it?) although differing tastes apply, so you can’t even hide your attractiveness since they’ll always be someone Into That. [cough pervert cough]
In conclusion, blame porn. Speaking to people like that (a whore) might not even be acceptable in a purely sexual, private interaction. If they’re smart, they’d leave immediately. It’s demeaning, dehumanizing and morally bankrupt, like the source.

Provocateur is a word I use deliberately… it’s never applied to men, is it?
There’s no such thing as Adam Teasing and Taharrush ‘games’ go after… which sex?

Misandrist women avoid men but misogynistic men seek out women.

Hello, the bulk of MGTOW.

They seek women out to punish them [1]  for what is perceived (projection) as the other’s wrongdoing. It’s never them, never examine the self!!!

Sexual predators, sexual sadism.

I guess womb envy comes into it somewhere but mention that after they play the feminist ‘Penis Envy’ record for the millionth time and suddenly the concept might be shaky? [SJWs lie, r-types lie, logic is a lie to them, thinking is K]

1 Who are you? You can’t lose the chub and get a good job, get out of anyone’s face. At least join a church or Greeenpeace or something. A useful Crusade.

I know, I know.

“Yes, but –

What about men?”

…What about the men?

Where are the men when this happens? [2]

Women exist, women are the fair sex. Women will be sexually harassed as long as we live. Men need to police other men, we certainly can’t.

Think too of the racial and class angles.

Is this acceptable as a way to treat people in the first world?

2

Sign of an r-type male: when you defend a woman from attack (and attack it is), you get accused of White Knighting. Yes, but White Knights are a good thing (Ks) and protect other Ks from monsters…

They never speak to men that way, knowing the odds of an altercation. Cowards to boot. Sexual competition makes the rabbit flee. At times, they’ll use the term incorrectly (in defense of another r) as a compliment of her sexual quality (lie) to get her into bed. It uses triangulation, the common manipulation tactic. Are those men crazy? Probably male borderline, it’s under-diagnosed. It would explain their romantic or intimacy issues that can be masked socially to some extent. R-types fear intimacy because it leads to responsibility and commitment, turn-offs. R/K does neatly align with attachment conditions (anxious-avoidant, secure)…. with the Mother (Freud wins).

Another sign “why are women so easily offended?” [3]

Only the ones around you.

Hm.

Yes, it’s definitely us…

all three billion of us, currently. And they say women can’t do maths?

3

Prelude to gaslighting, All women are crazy bullshit. Pathologizing a problem makes it go away!

See also the classic “why won’t women-” do whatever Lord Fauntleroy wants?

Narcissistic entitlement brewing up to rage. Histrionic, effete rage.

Video: not an argument

People miss how beautiful that expression is. However, in specific cases, they should be able to break it down precisely why or they themselves have no reply, no argument, simply an assertion.
You have no requirement to answer a non-question, it’s a habit of socializing that we speak upon the completion of a sentence, it doesn’t require that sentence have merit. The Burden of Proof rests on the initial speaker, still.

Yet it can’t be used to outright deny or dismiss without having a specific reason why.


Meanwhile, the only way to effectively deal with r-types, ignore them, however loudly they scream.

See Best Post.


You only protect your own, but they have made it clear they are against you. Don’t lift a finger.
They say strength is bad until they want you to use it on their behalf.

Hey, if they’re so strong without their weapons, if their arguments have the same calibre as a bullet, go right on ahead and let them stand independently, you oppressive shitlord, and die that way if necessary. It’s what they would’ve wanted.

If evil imports evil, what is there to save?

Yourself, is the answer to that question.

Self-interest is rational. Pathological altruism is insanity.
You help those who would help you, the other side of the golden rule. Darwin’s rules. Sacrifice for people who would sacrifice you is patriotism dialed up to the incredible level of a cartoon character.

I swear most of Molly’s job is talking down the autistic from their pedestal of self-righteous stupidity.
If anyone deserves the Rasputin treatment, it’s a terrorist. Thankfully, your taxes go to pay people with guns already. The Parliament attacker guy? Shot, if memory serves, by a white guy with glasses. In a country that stupidly restricted guns. Even we don’t need you, Gun Bro. If the State can’t do the basic thing of shooting the bad guys for us…

I’ve never, ever heard of a liberal defending a conservative from any attack, ever.
Anyone?
They are not like you. They do not like you. Partially because you would defend them, implicitly stating they’re too weak to do it themselves. If you respect them as adults, leave them be. Let them live (and die) free. You are not their precious State, you have no duty to them, you are not getting paid, that is not your job ~z-snap~. You can’t play hero to two villains. They have engineered this setup on purpose. By importing violent left-wingers, they get the distraction to sneak off (reward of cowardice: survival) and the claim to victory (reward of victory). They literally do not lose.

If they don’t value their own safety, why should you?
America is too diverse to be united. You have the Diverse States of America.

He’s wrong about signalling (thinking) as a sign of tribe. Anyone can signal, its value is nil. How many of those diverse callers would help him, if he needed it? The odds are against, aren’t they? There are plenty of r-types signalling K as the idea spreads to new groups and creeps into mainstream awareness. The other day I heard a random cafe-owner say, “I want to protect this country, I’m like a wolf.” R-types invade by signalling. It’s a social invasion, they’re the fifth column, the barbarians sacking Rome from the inside, a swarm of locusts crying out as they hit you. History has taught us the hard way that ideological unity comes from genetic homogeneity.
The culture war is one of ideas. The weapon is a meme. A tiny little piece of information, a snippet of truth.

Signallers are, more often than not, liars.

They signal whatever ‘virtue’ is powerful, hoping for scraps from that table.

They are the begging dogs of society, asking you to hunt for them. It’s like every time Roosh calls for “someone! do something!” and his little internet boyfriends scurry to rescue the damsel and White Knights whatever he asks for. What are you, his wife? At least “think of the children!” defends the helpless. Adults have no business defending other adults. They rise and fall on their own merit, raised or dashed on their own petard.
K-society says: They do it themselves or it doesn’t get done.
R-society? It’s very espionage, ultra deceptive.
They offer you friendship while holding a knife in their other hand. They extend an olive branch first because it’s less effort, not because they like you or believe in the healing power of metaphor. There is a bargain they author, that you never asked for, and if you don’t like it, the carrot, they’ll ‘offer’ the stick. This is called a con. Con artists rely on confidence and trust. Virtue signallers rely on confidence and trust…

They want control over you, that is their power, to wiggle you like a little puppet.

In a victim culture, they are the biggest victims. In a K-shift, they are magically K-leaning.
Occam says: It’s all a lie.

I warned you, years ago. I knew these interlopers would pop up like fleas.
They don’t mind you dancing the right-wing jig as long as it’s to their exact tune.

Guess which is which.

If your friends are your enemies, you’ll never succeed. How to test?

A k-type invented the expression: actions speak louder than words. Until I see you sacrifice for this tribe, it owes nothing to you. If all you have are words, speak to the birds.

Just because someone is smoke-signalling your tribe doesn’t mean they’re on your side. Indeed, this makes it less likely, a friend doesn’t feel the need to keep reminding you they’re not a foe, not a threat, like they’re anticipating something…

DO NOT TRUST A DODGY SIGNAL.

The incongruence should ping to you. What’s in it for you?

In the super-complex theories of strategy, this is called A Trap. It’s a primitive form of distraction by claiming Ally while wearing the coat of your enemy to cuckold him for whatever reason before attacking when factors are on your side and you can turn your coat back and show your true colours. This is the problem with games like chess, where the colours never change sides because they were bribed or got bored. You never get betrayed in chess because the enemy never falters and it’s all very polite and open, two equal lines fairly opposing one another with Queensberry rules. That was 2nd generation warfare, we’re on four. Then again, maybe it’s a commentary on the reality that a leopard can’t change its spots. Who knows? I certainly don’t.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/226350.html
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.”
They don’t fully quote it for some strange reason. The Bible is actually very witty.

Ask – why do they want your trust? Why aren’t they doing literally anything else? What’s their game? 

It’s a great way to buy time when you know you’d lose in a fair fight.

aka cheating

If this was the 15th century, a ship running up your flag is probably pirates.

And they won’t kill you with rum.

Newsflash: BAD GUYS LIE. THEY LIE OR THEY WON’T FOOL YOU LONG ENOUGH TO WIN.

Back to terrorism. All the way back, centuries and centuries and centuries, like the ideas.

Self-proclaimed liberals have a lot in common with the mythological ‘moderate Muslim’; that is to say, they will claim to be loving and giving until they have power and numbers to be the opposite of those things.

The ‘American Indian’ only gave with the expectation of receiving more in future.

A liberal is a dictator waiting to happen. Biding their time until everyone else has disarmed and made nice.
They know exactly what they are doing. That is what guys like these do not get. Everyone else is slowly waking up. We make memes.

comment
“So if I’m understanding Stefan’s argument correctly it is: “While you certainly have the right to defend yourself, you have zero obligation to defend anyone else against a threat.” Is that the argument you are taking issue with? If so, what is your counterargument? If there is an obligation to defend others where does it come from?”
They want all conservatives to rush to protect them, like the police. While we are occupied, they survive and screw over the next batch of rueful idiots. The type who, at the Gates of Saint Peter, would claim the moral victory is more important.
The self-styled ‘liberals’ scoff at loyalty to children, nuclear family and country… until it comes to discussions of noblesse oblige (without class???), pensions, the social contract and human rights (without property rights). Then it’s all about universalism, collectivism and helping those who can’t/won’t help themselves. They are morally relative, liberal with logic ….wrong, in bad faith (100% deliberate). What they say is usually ‘not an argument’ because it comes from a hypocrite (no-proof), a deceiver (valid use, not ad hominem) and they argue it from bad faith, really pushing something else entirely under the radar.

They are loyal to their own body, especially the neck. They don’t want to save the pandas, they want to save their own skin.

In common speech here, they’re ‘trying it on’ i.e. they know they’re lying to get what they want and disappear when their half comes due, but they’re hoping you don’t know that.

All their virtue signals are overt pleas to get, without giving. 

Argument and clause. Devil and detail. Plan and plot.

Essentially it’s;
>HELP THE OUTGROUP! THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOTHING TO THE GROUP! SACRIFICE AT ALL COSTS!
>…STOP DEFINING THE INGROUP! THAT MODEL IS REDUNDANT AND EVIL!
and that, my friends, is why we mock them.
See: Why mockery?

It is also why you shouldn’t trust ambassadors. 300 was right.

That diverse cast of people calling into Molyneux are attempting to appease him while he gains power (they smell a whiff and cannot yet crush him) and then to advise him to his destruction once he has gained it (and after they have gained his trust). That is what high-IQ r-types DO. The toxic friends of the world. The fairweather traitors and degenerate preachers.

Clinically, they have many names. Sociopath tops the list.

Question a normal person: #crickets

Question a sociopath: you are (lie), (lie) and (lie), evil person! Appease me! Account for your sin!

They’ve found a scapegoat to slaughter.

Sociopaths especially detest those who describe their tactics to the masses for protection.

You can’t defame the truth, though, can you?

Racial differences accounted for in beauty science [face only]

I have noted the Marquardt mask before and the frequent misconceptions about it. I glossed over one valid criticism because I couldn’t find the data on hand at the time and didn’t want to say ‘just trust me’. #dodgyAF
I’m not going to insult anyone because that’s for people who lack empirical proof. I never met someone who chose to be ugly and we cannot help what we are born.

I’m not going to make cross-comparisons because that would be mean and likely biased to certain ascribed values.
Instead, this is how they vary by pure mathematics from the universal template for the human species.

There are only female masks and examples here and I do admit there needs to be equal research on male beauty.
Please, believe I want this as much as the next woman.


Here are the European, Asian and African variations.

Try to claim ‘cultural standards’ now, chewing on humble pie.

European example, frontal/anterior view.

Description given, italics mine because ‘slightly’ on this scale is huge: “EUROPEAN VARIATION FROM RF MASK Slightly vertically thin upper and lower lips Flat eyebrow (very little arch) Slightly wider nose Lateral border of the face slightly wider than the Mask Possible: Narrow eyes, longer vertical chin, longer nose.”
For example comparison, here’s the Asian prototype. A blind man could feel the difference. Yellow fever is creepier than White fever because Asian women resemble children, with faces most like babies (see, bust size, band size is fairly objective) whereas European women tend to resemble teenagers.

Description given, italics mine: “ASIAN VARIATION FROM RF MASK Medial epicanthic fold Lateral epicanthic fold Lateral border of the face significantly wider than the Mask Eye brows slightly superior to that of the Mask with shorter tails Slightly wider nose and nostrils (nasal ala and nares extend laterally) Superiorly positioned nasal columella creating a longer upper lip.”

Note: there are differences and the legal contrivance of a portmanteau ‘Caucasian’ is a myth based on geography (see the MRH), there is as much distinctiveness as between, say, European and African. As with all Asians, if you split by the demographic of sex as well, there would be greatly reduced sexual dimorphism (the men and women look more alike than Europeans by the same token comparison). This explains the great lengths the cultures go to, to distinguish themselves (makeup and what I and others consider fake femininity).

Further note: nobody meets the universal human standard. Nobody. This isn’t a point of so-called white supremacy, but white raced-women tend to conform to more of it on average, by chance.

Bear in mind, facial beauty is a reliable indicator of Darwinian fitness (see The Mating Mind) and positively, quite strongly correlates to IQ. That’s right – hot people are smarter too. The smart thing to do in an age that despises intelligence is to hide it.

Why don’t I make more scholarly posts?

1. The data isn’t collected to parse. 2. The data is suppressed (publication bias, left in the metaphorical drawer). 3. It’s behind a paywall or similarly hidden from sharing, meaning you’d have to trust my word and discussion, being less reliable and a general waste of everyone’s time. 4. These posts are literally my least popular but the most true. C’est la vie, mon amis.

What am I forced to do? Post gifs for every occasion and go under-appreciated.

notyourtypebeautifulthoughtshide

Was mass immigration a conspiracy?

aka

Why did Labour lose the last two elections? Not just the one after Rotherham?

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressArticle/83

The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour’s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.

Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the  deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration’.

That’s beyond gerrymandering into outright voter fraud.

He was at the heart of policy in September 2001, drafting the landmark speech by the then Immigration Minister Barbara Roche, and he reported ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

Instead it’s proven Enoch correct.

Multiculturalism has failed.
Swedish feminists are moving out of No-go zones full of Muslims they voted to welcome.

That seemed, even to him, a manoeuvre too far.

Tony Blair removed the death penalty for treason……

look it up…….

The result is now plain for all to see. Even Blair’s favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), commented recently: ‘It is no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country.’

Passports*

easily taken back

they leave as soon the economy properly tanks

or they’re drafted into a war

whichever comes first

the interesting part will be going after what they owe this country, once they’ve left

never piss off the white people, it’s world war or nothing

yet they treat us like simpering ninnies

like the colonies thing was a coincidence

It is not hard to see why Labour’s own apparatchiks supported the policy. Provided that the white working class didn’t cotton on, there were votes in it.

Now they’ve lost the WWC.
The response?

Not to earn the core voter base back.

But to continue betraying them by importing rapists for their daughters.

The WWC is proud, in a word. They do not forget grudges over generations.
WWC votes are often the Kingmaker in FPTP. That’s why Labour backed altering it.

Research into voting patterns conducted for the Electoral Commission after the 2005 general election found that 80 per cent of Caribbean and African voters had voted Labour, while only about 3 per cent had voted Conservative and roughly 8 per cent for the Liberal Democrats.

The Asian vote was split about 50 per cent for Labour, 10 per cent Conservatives  and 15 per cent Liberal Democrats.

That meets all the criteria for treason.

Giving people citizenship on the probable basis of how they’ll vote.