Going full woke? wow, they are going to lose so many donations.
According to UK law, charities also aren’t allowed to be political organisations. Campaigning for any political cause means they could be stripped of their charitable ((tax-free)) status.
They won’t commission indigenous people or local artwork, but they’ll go to a whole different continent and celebrate that? Not fit for purpose. Shut it down.
English Heritage has commissioned a series of portraits depicting six historic figures from the African diaspora whose stories have contributed to England’s rich history. Each artist has been supported by our curators and historians to creatively portray their subject, and the paintings will be hung at the English Heritage site connected to its subject.
African colony. They have colonised England, especially London. People did not want them here and still don’t. They have contributed absolutely nothing, ever. Even to their own continent. You didn’t build that, we did. We were down the mines, not you. We were slaves to the Romans, not you. You are leeches who came over largely after two world wars to suck off the new welfare state. You have no reason to be here and we keep voting for you to leave. What do you think the next step is? White people are nice – until we’re not. Tick tock goes the debt clock.
You copied and pasted the pose and just switched the face. We know because that’s a white royal pose. We all know the exact painting you ripped off. They really have no creativity, do they? She even copied most of the white woman’s features, erasing some of the blacker ones. What a damning testament. The bottom of the dress is unfinished and odd-looking because she ran out of things to trace. A race of tracers, apt metaphor. Also why the figure isn’t aligned properly. The tracing paper moved, did it? Should’ve used Photoshop or had a real artist do it for you on fiver.
We wuz Russian Princesses.
The second was a rape baby (slaves don’t consent). “We’ve always been here” – no.
Third enslaved white people “he attempted to subjugate the local tribes there” murderer of the natives, also code for rape. “That area of the world was so multicultural” a colony. It was colonialisation and slavery. You might as well have painted this, in blackface and a toga:
Fourth is white. He’s paler than a Greek. He was also Christian, which is skipped over. Oddly similar to other Saint paintings but that could be a style choice.
Fifth was another military import. Hitler also hired black people, and Muslims, I don’t think that’s a point.
“I didn’t see myself represented in it” because it wasn’t yours. You’re trying to appropriate it.
“black Europeans” oxymoron
Sixth was a ‘servant’. So nobody of any accomplishments? A chamberpot washer? That’s the best you could drag up? He lived in the 1600s but the dumb cunt painted him in later 1700s clothes. It’s supposed to be historical. She couldn’t do it, could she? Details are hard when you’re a diversity hire.
The GCSE tier art is literally the best they could find (with the Saint painting guy having the only talent). I could do better in primary school and I know others who could. That level of ‘talent’ is common which describes my whole attitude to this insult and the army of dislikers they hid.
“Mar, who represents the National Coalition For Men”
there it is, hardly an American name is it?
“and two individual men challenging the law”
let’s see names and faces of the gamma bitches who want women to die for them while they sit high and pretty as Secret Kings
draft those three and only those three
NO more male supremacy propaganda if you’re too weak to even sign up for a draft you claim doesn’t matter.
No more muh Patriarchy bullshit. You are males, not men. Men fight for what they believe in, and not just through a keyboard. You are not a real man by living to age 18.
Women don’t have the upper body strength to serve, end of story. Internal organs are different too, from the spine structure to the lung capacity. Women literally do not have military endurance. They also make great POWs, especially for rape, and if nuked, the infertility means winning the war cannot happen. Since the group is genetically dead. No instinct to protect their women > low T. Cowards like this were the reason we kicked boys out of the tribe at puberty, to let nature finish them off if they were yellow little snakes.
DO YOU WANT GENDER ROLES OR NOT?
NO WAH WAH WAH IT’S HARD. DYING IN BATTLE IS LESS PROBABLE THAN MATERNAL MORTALITY IN AMERICA, WHICH HAS GONE WAY WAY UP.
MRAs are just anti-white female, in the same way SJWs are anti-white male. It’s all anti-white and literally most white people are the women, sorry to tell ya.
Yet more genocidal mewling. Cultural Marxism claims everyone is biologically the same. Christianity doesn’t dispute this biological difference used by evolution/chromosomes, but adds God gave us equal yoking in spiritual value. So it’s anti-Christ, too.
Hillary Clinton wanted to pass this. Should tell you.
Starting to think God made women bear children because many men would’ve been too cowardly and opted out, making us go dodo. Men are fonder of abortion in surveys, not wanting to ban it in case god forbid they’re held responsible for once in their lives.
“If the court agrees to hear the case, it wouldn’t be deciding whether women have to register, just whether the current system is constitutional. If it isn’t, then it would then be up to Congress to decide how to respond, either by passing a law requiring everyone to register or deciding registration is no longer necessary.”
So it’s an offshoot of tranny stuff. Great.
“The issue of who has to register for the draft has been to the court before. In 1981, the court voted 6-3 to uphold the men-only registration requirement. At the time, the decision was something of an outlier because the court was regularly invalidating gender-based distinctions in cases about other areas of the law. Many of those cases were brought by the founding director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who became a justice in 1993.”
Unpatriotic scum gonna be unpatriotic. You’re on Ginsburg’s side of history.
Women are the national security, securing its literal biological future.
“The case about the draft is National Coalition For Men v. Selective Service System, 20-928.”
I think I’ve posted this before and I know I’ve recently spotlighted the dying demographic nations like Poland (lowest fertility rate in the EU).
But let’s look again and wonder how such steep changes could happen, shall we?
“Population growth in Eastern Europe is now negative, and Southern Europe is projected to join it with zero growth around 2005.
Western and Northern Europe, in contrast, are expected to maintain positive growth until around 2025 and 2040, respectively (figure 36). Declines in growth not only come earlier but are also much sharper in Eastern and Southern Europe than in Western and Northern Europe. Were international migration eliminated, zero growth in Western and Northern Europe would come instead much earlier, around 2005. With no migration, the growth trajectories for Western, Northern, and Southern Europe would still be roughly similar but would be pegged at a lower level, but the growth trajectory for Eastern Europe would be little changed. Looking beyond 2050, one sees each region return gradually to zero or slightly positive growth.”
But by all means think voting and anti-marriage propaganda will help…. It’s like demographic Santa. Babies can be wished into existence! What incentives? Also, EE, this is why you don’t traffic and pimp out your nubile young women to rich Arabs and STD-ridden tourists. You ate the demographic seed crop. If you continue to betray your women (fact: most white people are women) then you deserve to die out. Misogyny (as with misandry) are anti-natal. Figure 35 shows the wages of sin is death i.e. treason = extinction. The MRA/MGTOW anti-natal propaganda is largely the rejected gamma trying to genetically murder those above him (the coward’s way, Wormtongue) by fish bicycle logic. Surely you’re smarter than that? SJWs perform the same gamma/spiteful mutant function among women.
“The United Kingdom dominates Northern Europe demographically, with 64 per cent of regional population. Its growth trajectory is about 0.1 points higher than that for Northern Europe as a whole. The region also includes three small Baltic countries with economies in transition: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Their growth trajectories are radically different, being even more negative than that for Eastern Europe. The remaining European countries with economies in transition are all in Eastern Europe, except for Albania and the successor states to Yugoslavia, which are in Southern Europe. However, growth in Albania and the former Yugoslav republics is not that different from, and actually slightly higher than, growth in Southern Europe as a whole. Southern Europe is dominated by Italy and Spain, whose projected slow growth is reflected in the regional trajectory.”
Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. Reprobate mind? Sexually decadent cultures?
“Projected fertility trends are consistent with the growth trends. Some initial fertility decline further below replacement is expected in this decade, except in Western Europe, where fertility is believed to have hit bottom in the early 1990s and has risen slightly since then (figure 38).” That’s Labour immigration policy.
“Each region is then assumed to reach total fertility of 1.85 by 2045-2050, with Northern and Western Europe progressing along a higher trajectory than Southern and Eastern Europe. Within the following quarter century, fertility is then expected to rise further to replacement level, with Southern Europe lagging behind the other regions.”
Yet I find it hilarious that Eastern Europe is taking the most degenerate of white trash immigrants, the PUAs. They’ll soon learn it isn’t even race of the immigrant, it’s whether they’ll render your local population infertile with STDs and cause local disruption with their carousing. Like the Vikings, they’ll take your women. It’s the rule. And if the local women refuse, like Taharrush, they’ll be forced. I’d expect druggings to become commonplace (including alcohol spikings) whenever PUAs move into an area.
Sort your incitement to rape laws NOW. Protect your culture. Don’t become like NY or London. Do not let the sexual locusts eat your nubile seed crop. r-types emigrate.
“Fertility stays at current levels in the constant projection scenario, which leads to incredibly large numbers for world population. For the European population, however, it leads instead, in the long run, to startlingly low numbers. By 2300, Western, Southern, and Northern Europe would each have only 28-30 million people, and Eastern Europe would have only 5 million. The European Union,which has recently expanded to encompass 452-455 million people (according to 2000 or 2005 figures) would fall by 2300 to only 59 million. About half the countries of Europe would lose 95 per cent or more of their population, and such countries as the Russian Federation and Italy would have only 1 per cent of their population left. Although one might entertain the possibility that fertility will never rise above current levels, the consequences appear sufficiently grotesque as to make this seem improbable.”
95 per cent or more of their population
and party countries like Italy and the world’s strip club Russia:
only 1 per cent of their population left
“sufficiently grotesque” is code for effective genocide folks
Also: You don’t judge whether something is POSSIBLE by emotional appeal.
See, you don’t need to kill everyone, just most of them, to prevent a functioning economy, especially the young people, and if you can keep them bachelors so much the better, because white people need to marry first before they breed. Distractions include careerism, the gym and notch counting.
“These changes take a century. Quicker societal adjustments are necessary when demographic change is rapid in the short-run, though such demographic changes tend to be more difficult to predict. Table 9 shows the highest and lowest growth rates expected for each country in any period between 2000 and 2300. Most of the largest positive growth rates appear in 2000-2005, while fertility is still high in various countries. The largest negative growth rates appear close to 2050 or beyond 2100, when countries enter a period of below-replacement fertility. European countries tend to show slowest growth earlier, African countries later, except for some Southern African countries where slow growth appears around 2020-2030 because of HIV/AIDS.”
or a SARs bioweapon.
Yet the anti-natal channels on Youtube are the only kind exempt from the so-called ‘redpill’ ban hammer.
Makes ya think. Activates the almonds. Rustles my jimmies. I wonder (((why))). They hate white males and they’re telling them to nix their genome with the snip or race mixing. I wonder why those channels are up? Why are so many pick-up artists non-white? And yes, that includes the Jews. When do we get the AQ – the Asian Question of them inserting themselves into our culture and policies? Hello fellow hwyte male. Let them slice your balls.
That’s the Boomer fallout, the consequences of all the dysgenic policies, from abortion to the Pill to free love/hook-up/whoredom to Asian and African immigration/invasion. I know some of you didn’t vote for it, it still exists. I’ll be considered generationally along Trigglypuff so deal with it.
TABLE 8 is a sobering read.
e.g. Croatia, millions of population, -27 by 2100, maximum 0% change. Stop importing degenerates.
Israel 63M by 2100, curious. 70% + max change. Almost like they knew.
Poland -33M by 2100. By all means, let degenerates immigrate. Make it worse.
BY contrast, Somali 658 million. Not a typo.
Serbia, -26 million by 2100. Were the shekels worth it?
I’m sorry I base my opinions on data.
By comparison, so-called cucked Sweden minus 8 million by 2100.
So Eastern Europe is literally worse off than the Swedes. Nobody says anything. Controlled ops.
UK gains 10M, mostly non-Anglo, I’d wager. The native pop is suppressed by (economic) factors and anti-marriage propaganda.
America gains 53M, mostly mystery meat if you look at new births and white deaths. Thanks, Boomers.
Yemen gains 700M. Not a typo.
“In 2000-2005, 56 countries, out of 192, have total fertility of 4.0 or higher. By 2045-2050, the number will be zero. Instead, 139 countries will have total fertility under 2.0. Beyond 2050, however, the progression is not unilinear. The number of countries with fertility below 2.0 will fall, as more and more countries return to a replacement level just above 2.0. But fertility levels of 2.2 or higher are not expected to return.”
So Marxism of any kind (including precious socialists) will go the way of the dodo. The production simply won’t be there to leech from.
You read the rest. This century, the white man dies. If they endorsed anti-natal practices, it’s deserved. Revenge is mine, saith the LORD.
We need exogenic wombs, it seems. Because there won’t be enough fertile women to go around.
If you want blood of the indigenous our leaders fucked up, try the Irish. We literally sold to foreigners the ample food supply we had (happens now with China and domestic food prices for us, as covered) and let them starve to death, including the women and children. Who needs a Holodomor when you have… whatever this is? Free trade is practically slavery, pass it on. Technically, arguments could be made for agrarian treason. We paid for those farmers to labour and toil for our plate, with our taxes. Monarchies have noblesse oblige. France learned the hard way. As I always said, we need national (loyal) capitalism, to protect the workers and People.
Do you really own your country if the CCP is buying up your precious farmland? Estate agents were despised for this reason, historically. They’ll sell you from under your very feet, no care for wars and national loyalty.
nb How is soaking a flag with blood, NOT incitement? What’s next, burning a Guy? He was white so….? I guess Catholicism was the first religion of pieces, technically. Which is the best kind of correct. Just like the Munster rebellion had the first religious rape gangs in Europe, under the guise of E Q U A L I T Y. The Left are seldom original.
Shouldn’t you be in a kitchen, not talking? Also, is nobody else able to tell just by the face? Why do you think YT pushes her videos? Elizabeth comments “I used to get ads for her channel all the time and I literally blocked her channel and they still didn’t go away” I wonder who’s behind that? They all have the same pinched snippy solid 5 look because they’re all so inbred.
Bold for a woman with a hunky manjaw, narrow eyes and a tranny double dip chin to comment on white women being unnatural?
I agree with the initial premise that they’re arguing in bad faith, but if you have to strawman SJWs, your arguments must be pretty shit. There’s a self-righteous Pharisee vibe with those women, either some codependent disorder (they always cheat, eventually) or NPD, where a man/woman gets incredibly …. SMUG, all caps, after marriage, like /notlikeothergirls like getting married is a personal accomplishment or testament to the quality of your vagina. The Bible says none of that, Jesus never married? Are you more Christian than Jesus? Bloody Hell. They wear thot makeup, slutty perfumes, attention-seek in videos and show their shoulders and legs, while ‘judging’ other women for doing the same in a style they dislike. That sounds like envy to me. Proto-Karen larping as Christian. Jesus warned us about the Pharisees, fixated on self-righteous indignation and I want nothing to do with that arrogance. Most left-wingers are mild and leave me alone so I’m fine with them just existing, they’re not all Marxist bastards trying to stab me with my own crucifix nor smother me with a burqa – but I feel like Abby would, for a distinctly Talmudic interpretation of modesty and fucking through a hole in a bedsheet. These glorified CHINO sugar babies are trying to act like they’re all oppressed when they’re not.
WHO is oppressing you?
woe is me I married a rich man – okay Ivanka?
Oh, somebody DARE to disagree with your lifestyle? So? Grow up. They’re not trying to legally block you nor impose theirs. Disagreement is not HATE. I repeat: DISAGREEMENT DOESN’T MEAN THEY HATE YOU. Then they wonder why other women swerve them. You’re not high IQ, you’re Becky. You’re so bland you’re claiming oppression from a nice house paid for by hubby, after moving out of a nice house paid by Daddy. You are not an adult. You’re a womanchild. Married or not. Getting married doesn’t mean you ever grew up, or needed to. I know a womanchild in her seventies, it is horrifying. Everyone avoids her. She sounds like a teenager. People are ignoring them like they do Big Red – because they’re making up bullshit to complain about. Woe is me pity parties are sad from grown men and women. At some point as an adult you become 100% responsible for your own life. Without Christianity, they’d have no life and no personality and that isn’t healthy. Without being married, what would they have to talk about? Nobody forced you, don’t be a Boomer. Muh cultural norms r oppressing me! Please. I know we like to bash lefties here but there’s a growing number of fake K-types, paper Ks with the same toxic patterns and I am not turning a blind eye to it. Such people make awful parents, we need to smoke out their entitled bullshit. Like they’ll criticise women for ‘not making the effort’ but turn a blind eye to the fact women may not be safe walking around in a dress and heels in most multicultural areas of the West. Most white people don’t have the money to live in gated communities.They also need to leave the house sometimes! The peasants buy their own food! They are just as out of touch as Huffington Post writers. Women don’t always have men around to keep them safe like ‘Daddy’, or self-defence weapons legally, and rape or acid attacks or murders happen all the time. The victim blame is disgustingly anti-white, that’s what Marxists do! One happened the other week by a police officer so we won’t go running to them either. It’s like talking to a five year old. Meanwhile they have this pseudo-mature judgey intellectualism fallback like ‘oh I read War & Peace’. And? This isn’t school. You cannot social commentary the real world when you’ve never lived in the real world. I blame the simps, whom they attention-whore for. It’s like political onlyfans. They never say anything critical of the men (who are not their husband!) paying them; not about deadbeats, adultery or manwhores. God forbid you have Christian standards, so they are PC, just conservathot PC. They are worldly. These people represent nobody but their own ego. Christian white women aren’t a hivemind like SJWs, sorry? We don’t do cult of personality. It’s idolatry.
comment, Francois writes “The natural way for humans to live is in nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes of around 20 to 30 people, with a life expectancy of about 35, infant mortality of around 50% and being on the menu of most large predators living alongside us. I doubt very much Abby would be ok with returning to that level of “natural”.”
These women are making people like me look stupid and I’m pissed about it. I had a hard life and earned everything I have and these vapid cunts swan in complaining that ‘feminists’ (they mean prettier white women) are stopping them from living in some of the best economic conditions in all of human history, in some of the richest empires/countries the world has ever seen and they DARE blame being a Christian.
Bitches, we used to get gang-raped by Vikings and burned alive by Romans! You are NOT oppressed.
YOU WOULD KNOW. Where may I file a complaint? They’re hardly selling their lifestyle since they STILL complain!
Kristen writes “Appealing to nature has to be the weakest argument to tell someone to live or not live a certain way.”
Off-putting classism aside (NOT EVERYONE IS RICH), why are they still working? Why are they putting off having kids? Married Catholics can’t use contraception, especially chemical abortifacients – and you know they are. I won’t name names.
comment “Abby should’ve just delete her channel because obviously she’s gaining more than her husband now. Cus no “classy woman” should do the man’s job.” ^ She’s acting like a preacher, yes. I follow no Christian channels for this reason, I just go to the Bible. They don’t actually listen to women. They talk over us. Stop gaslighting women on what they want from life. We’re not all the same, some want kids, others don’t. You don’t own her womb. She might literally die. Jesus at no point told off the women following him for ‘wasting their fertile years’ because that’s a Darwinist argument. In theology, the world will end anyway so demographics don’t matter? What genetic survival is possible, remotely, after the End Times? How are they this stupid and still alive? Then dishonesty it must be. Emma writes “The economy and high cost of living is why I can’t afford to pop out three kids by age 27. Not feminism.” Caused by globalisation, since women always worked – even in factories. There is photo and video. The problem is international hiring suppressing domestic wages since the hippies voted it all in – Immigration act in the 60s, diverse hiring etc. Nay, never discuss it! Women always worked outside the home, long before there was a home. Did they think cavewomen were sweeping a hearth? Utter midwits, eloquent but vapid. Women worked in the fields into the Victorian era. Not ‘family values’ enough? Kids worked too but ignore the ones down the mines, they were the wrong colour to care. Replacement is caused by Third world nations over-populating, nothing we do can stop it. I have covered the basic primary school mathematics.
They seem like spoiled brats imho. “It’s natural for women to stay home” So Abby would clearly be ok with the free the nipple mindset right? Like bras aren’t natural and if she’s all about being natural there’s no problem! But wait, she’s not a fan of that? Then maybe this isn’t about nature….” Exactly you can’t pick and choose cultural norms. Initially only prostitutes liked wearing underwear as a layer to show off their assets. In Jesus’ time women wore zero underwear. A cause I support. And what of male modesty? They’re so two-faced, clearly using any simp in a seventy mile radius to extract funds. Is that not prostitution?
Some people never want kids – and that’s okay. Or they can’t have them and other life purposes are fine. This is so toxic and bigoted. HBD suggests it’s better if left-wingers don’t have kids, since partisanship is genetic. The Lord works in mysterious ways and the oddly controlling nature of such women suggests they’re miserable. Just go be happy being married, surely? Sod off.
comment “I went to a high school in a wealthy neighborhood and a lot of my friends were really rich. These kids living in houses costing like 3 million would be like “But it’s not my money it’s my parents money” and I, who had grown up just above the poverty line, was like yeah, it’s your parents money, that they’re using to pay for you to go to Harvard. Your parents money that they’re paying your car insurance with. Your parents money that’s going to buy you an apartment in New York City. You can’t discount your class privilege just because you’re not getting a cut of your parents’ salary. That’s the issue that a lot of people like Abby have, they don’t see the fact that not everyone’s families can afford to take care of them or let them live at home. I honestly doubt Abby could’ve supported herself on her career alone, given the fact that she’s in an arts career and she’s probably used to a certain kind of lifestyle, so a lot of her words here feel so empty because she has the luxury of working simply because she loves her job, and not because she has to. So much ignorance had to have gone into thinking that everyone has that option.”
Anna comments on the arrogance, she is a big-nose alright: “Can’t people literally just mind their own business? The thought of carrying on the way she does, sticking my nose into other people’s perfectly happy lives makes me cringe so violently. It’s unthinkable to me. Unless someone asks me to involve myself or needs my help. That would be the only exception. It makes me so angry, the actual audacity of people like Abby. How dare they? What I do or don’t do with my uterus or my life is nobody’s business but mine. I’m sorry, rant over 😂🤣 They just infuriate me.” They must hate their life and regret their life choices, it does beg that question. Meddlesome people always do. They never discuss studies or listen to anyone outside their echo chamber, like, maternal mortality in America increased? Why would sane women with a choice there have kids now? And complaining about women not having kids when men are at record low levels of proposal and marriage? Sheer hypoagency blame-shifting. This is Gender War psyops. They are inciting hatred onto real Christians by doing this. Judge not lest ye be judged? She’s trying to put off white women from starting a family by heaping on all sorts of additional non-rules based on her controlling nature. This is a spiteful mutant, folks. False dichotomies abound.
Eva writes “I feel like conservatives are like “FEMINISM MEANS THEY WANT MEN TO BE FEMININE AND WOMEN TO BE MASCULINE” because they can’t fathom a belief system that doesn’t force anybody into categories and limitations” Yep, strawmanning. The economic arguments are easy to check, and the marriage rates… unless they want women to be single mothers? Judgy proto-Karens.
I feel like even the middle-class now doesn’t see how rich they are. Telling working class or under-class people to ‘just work harder’ doesn’t mathematically work, they didn’t have rich parents putting them years ahead in the race at every turn. Are women supposed to live at home, magically meet the right man and pray he marries them? When do they learn adult responsibilities like keeping a home? Paying bills? Never, according to these people. Sick.
American Christianity is insane Puritanism, no other Christians like them, we hate them. They’re not real Christians mostly, they’re weird on a global scale and weirdly pedantic. Like I heard they tell women not to masturbate (not men though….? Onan, anyone?) when erm, women do that in their sleep? Anatomically they need to*, to keep the muscles toned for childbirth? Did they not know, how? HOW? Did they just lie and think it was only them? Likely. We all know for certain during red week, don’t lie, and you know how showers work. To keep clean down there as a pre-teen you know what it is** and it isn’t the ‘devil’s doorbell’, God put it there for a biological reason or become a Muslim and get parts of it cut off? No? Thought not. Liars and hypocrites. Minus masturbation, men get nocturnal emissions. Do they deny that biology too? Nowhere in the Bible does it speak against masturbation prior to marriage. It speaks about other things multiple times. Nowhere that. Yanks are being weird Puritans again. Do they think this sleep effect only happens to men, are you fucking serious? You should have to pass a sexual biology class before being allowed to lawfully marry, sorry. Do you also think periods are about blood, rather than clots or uterine chunks? Midwits make us all look bad. They are educated dunces who think batting their eyelashes at losers is an argument. *Vaginal prolapse happens when you don’t, in the long run, as does vaginal atrophy in the very short-term (months). Even nuns masturbate, you dumb cunts. I read this in a Victorian gynecology textbook in a blase (yes, needs must) tone so yes our ancestors definitely knew and if you doubt that, nun’s dildos still exist in museums and such. Some were made of rubber and shot out milk. Not everyone has a dry vagina, ironically touching yourself more often would help with that and probably solve your marital woes. I’ve asked many doctors socially and they all agree, any woman who wants kids has to keep things toned down there. It is a MUSCLE. Wait, is that why so many American women are dying? Poor muscle tone > baby gets stuck > baby gets brain damage from lack of oxygen in the vagina > heart attack from strain > mother dies? I can see why ‘hysteria’ was such an issue, unique to America. Never take female health advice from a man – unless he’s literally a gynecologist. SMH.
**women have to clean their prepuce, just like men? I am worried you lack knowledge of basic hygiene over there. How else do you get the menses out of the area? Women have folds, you know? …Or do you? Like I’m genuinely fearful now.
Zelda writes “Ugh. I stayed home years ago ( I’m a grandmother now). It was a mistake. Sure, I enjoyed my child, but in the long run it wasn’t the right choice for me.” Paternal and maternal feelings vary in both sexes, why does this type push misery at home as normal, unless they are? How about preventing suffering, since the Bible advised not to wed, there’s NO Christian duty unless you ‘burn in sin’, and prevent child abuse while we’re at it? What you do to the least of these, you do to me? I hate CHINOs. Abby Shapiro isn’t even white, are we sure this Jewess isn’t larping in Marxist disguise to make us look dumb and out of touch? Are we sure? Sus. Lady bits aren’t a horror movie, they’re not inherently scary, the self-loathing for the way God made you is repulsive. If you have so much Jewish guilt, you shouldn’t have murdered Jesus. Talking down to the white working class people who make your brattish lifestyle possible is deviant. They always play the victim, every – single – time. We’re sick of being told we’re doing Christianity wrong by the people who murdered our messiah. F off forever. Every passing year, I understand the 30s better.
I’m happy to let them continue down this path, morbidly curious to see what happens.
I mean, I was raised in a socialist schooling system and look how I turned out.
Notice race! But don’t you dare notice race! Identify as your race! Identify everyone else as their race! Categorise people by their race! Be colourblind! Never be colourblind! Always notice race! What does whiteness mean to you? How do you benefit by whiteness? How is your racial identity part of your history?
I mean wow, they are literally recruiting for the trads, aren’t they?
You wanna open the psychological Pandora’s box?
Asking the questions doesn’t mean you get to control their conclusions.
Isn’t the concept of white ‘privilege‘ arguing for biological white differences?
Isn’t it literally the scientific, given premise of white supremacy? The othering of whites from the species?
The premise of innate, biological and unshakeable is the same. The intended conclusion alone varies: pride or shame.
Even if you consider surrendering being gifted or special, would any normal human? They try to guilt trip, emotionally abuse and gaslight us into a kind of racial masochism (whether such talent/ability surrender is possible or not) but pathological altruism has strong survival limits.
Recall what happened the last time white people got pissed at another race – Hiroshima
Do you want to wake a sleeping giant? The medieval bloodlust in us hasn’t gone away, it’s suppressed. If you keep bringing it up, well… they assume we won’t change in our behaviour. That’s facile.
And if the problem is white culture, simply vacate white homelands? White people have a right to be white in cultures we founded, that is the builder race’s right. Found your own culture instead of projecting racial parasitism as the issue of the host. Guest right terminates at destructiveness. We needn’t tolerate hostiles any more than furniture should tolerate termites. And false flagging as in-group can only work for so long before even the dullest wake up to it.
It’s like they’re trying to piss us off.
White norms ARE the framework, they ARE the civilization and society, made by the collective genetics. Behavioural genetics is finding increasingly that culture is genetically based. Where white people are, we cannot help but make white culture. So what do they think we could do, other than deport the rogue element that prefers other cultures? That’s the only peaceful solution.
But the goldfish (citizens) would diewithout the bowl (productive white people) protecting the water (white social structure, civilization and gibs). We have turkeys arguing for Christmas.
The problem with gibs isn’t even the free stuff, it’s the lack of discrimination in why you get it. If you give people money for all behaviours, you encourage vice ones. Gov grants would be fine if they actually helped the little guy, cronies should be hanged. Deterrence must exist or corruption continues. Middle-class corruption is no less a crime, it’s actually a collective mugging. In their metaphor, will the water magically float? If you want to stop relying on white people, simply refuse their tax money, or we’ll never, ever start taking you seriously. If you act as our dependents, we correctly view you as children. Unproductive white leeches get the same treatment e.g. the chav, the grant-chasing academic. They are correctly resentful of their dependent role but THEY chose that, and continue to. We dislike it, we didn’t want it. Nobody wants white man’s burden but should we seek to shake it off, white man’s rejection, also complaints rise there too. They don’t wanna drop the learned helplessness, the convenient incompetence routine. They could just go home if they want to be among their own kin, but if you come to multiculturalism or the American (raceless) republic expecting personal segregation, you must be retarded.
replace meme text with white identity, from their perspective
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.
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.