Old man angry he made a stupid investment

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/millennials-stop-banging-on-about-your-box-set-bore-athons-and-g/

It’s just so wrong.

Multiculturalism has killed clubbing. White women don’t want to go to a dark place full of white fever fetishists who are so uncivilized they think they can ignore the word ‘No’. If you’re harassed or assaulted by a savage, YOU might get arrested for being a white woman and rejecting them/reporting them. One of their first tactics is to accuse you of “racism” so …yeah. They’re that entitled and creepy. You can try to deny this but women vote with their feet.

We’re using what little freedom of association we still have to white flight out of a scene which PRESUMES you wanted to be attacked.

If no isn’t respected as an option, we nope out of there. Men get attacked by foreigners too.
The low IQ do not know the rules or feel exempt and nag and nag and have all sorts of ‘tricks’ they think are acceptable to get in your way. They think white women are whores and clubs are the brothel. They ask to “borrow” money from white men, like, everybody’s avoiding the Rotherham types.

Being targeted for our race and sex is racist but the police are ‘diverse’ and probably related to them.

We don’t drink there (it’s also a date rape drug, good luck getting a jury to listen to you), we don’t like the music and you can’t have a conversation. Then there’s the middle-age guys acting like an abusive stepdad, trying to get you drunk purely to rape you – who pretend it isn’t rape*, they just want you nice and weak… Let’s line up to be felt up by aged Peter Pans!

Yay, let’s spend hundreds like the stupid American rappers buying bottle service!

This is an IQ test.

Private parties and member’s clubs are thriving because it’s basically allowed to be natives only.

Genophilia is a human impulse and right, genocide involves not allowing an assembly of a group with its own kind.

The Race Relations Act killed London. We have freedom of association in public and clubs, for example, are not public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Relations_Act_1965

If we could all legally consent to avoid the anti-white predators, clubs would be more popular than ever.

“which extended the legislation’s remit to cover employment and housing”

The acts of statute are invalid because the native’s natural right to freedom of association and property rights are inviolate.

According to this, you don’t actually own your company or house. The government has taken the right of ownership to tell you who you must include.. but the Garrick still excludes women, this is just a race thing.

The thing they claim doesn’t exist.

We’d go to pubs if the Muslims stopped getting them closed. Why is there social housing in London? Why are taxpayers forced to commute in?

*If they don’t want you sober, they don’t want you. That isn’t courtship, it’s predation.

Political correctness will hunt you down

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-15/french-schools-replace-mother-and-father-parent-1-and-parent-2

What genocide?

You’d need proof of dehumanization.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-15/california-nightmare-over-half-people-living-state-wish-they-could-leave

K-shift.

But you get the politicians you voted for, for years.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-14/socialized-healthcare-reality-exposed-30000-dead-due-record-long-hospital-waiting

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-15/if-socialism-so-good-why-are-people-moving-away

People evading responsibility, including marriage.

Socialists can’t run a business, a church or a creepy hybrid of both.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-06/no-free-lunch-panera-shutters-socialist-pay-what-you-want-restaurant

You can put security guards at a socialist cafe or walls at Rowling’s mansion property, but don’t you dare guard the borders of the country!

Why do security guards exist if everyone can be trusted?

Why did no-fault divorce actually happen?

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5145-mnookin-and-kornhauser—1979—bargaining-in-the

Ironically, to enforce the Bible, in places.
Specifically the places where it wasn’t working. [1]

“Divorce was granted
only after an official inquiry by a judge, who had to determine
whether “appropriate grounds”-very narrowly defined in terms of
marital offenses-existed.6 When a divorce was granted, the state asserted
broad authority to structure the economic relationship of the
spouses and to maintain regulatory jurisdiction over the children
and their relationship to the parents.7 Doctrines such as collusion,8
connivance,9 and condonation’0 were meant to curtail the degree to
which parties themselves could bring about a divorce through agreement;
the procedural requirements reflected the view that everyone
was “a suspicious character.”

Among other things, no-fault divorce is also responsible for a lower spousal suicide rate, probably homicide (harder to measure) and certainly lower rates of domestic abuse. Overturning it requires an open admission these things do happen, one or both parties can be absolutely awful at their job and they still maintain the right to decide their intimate business over whatever State they happen to be stuck in. Appealing to tradition doesn’t really work when some of those values were very poorly aligned with the law at the time, to keep up Pollyanna appearances. To go back to all the old laws, men would have to prove good character (what is that? nobody would get married) and women would be able to press charges for seduction (rape by fraud is already historically present in the law books, i.e. nobody would get married). A lot of the modern “dating” process would also be swiftly made illegal.

Funny they never mention that.

And if men were the sex wriggling to get away, it begs two questions. Firstly, why the fuck did they propose? Second, wouldn’t that constitute abandonment on his part? A grave matter, severely punished, we all know of deadbeats who’d be whipped into shape by a return of fault laws. No-fault divorce treats men equally to women (justice is blind ‘n all), because they’re given the benefit of the doubt where they could be abandoned too.

A list of unisex faults and standards of proof are required, rooted in the post-Reformation Bible, instead of a reversion to a system that blatantly did not work. Two ruined lives plus children is not a success. For example, allowing divorce but banning re-marriage would silence many vocal oppositions. If there’s a limit on abortion and insurance claims, there should logically be one on an oath including “til death do you part”. These faults should be acknowledged in the marriage contract itself, along with ways to avoid them, and an expanded edition to make sure both parties really intend to follow through on their oath (which should be set in stone for legal reasons).

1 https://www.compellingtruth.org/grounds-for-divorce.html

“In the Old Testament, God allowed divorce if a man’s heart became so hardened against his wife that she was actually better off without him

…That isn’t rare. Calculate the odds of marrying anyone with mental problems nowadays. Any mental problem.

Unhappy wives used to hire men to fake affairs and “accidentally” get caught until the 30s when the only common American grounds for divorce was adultery. Your system needs work. Increase your marriage age to 18 for starters, you monsters. Child brides are both a Muslim and an American thing.

If you have a problem with keeping the age of consent at the age of adulthood…. what about voting?

Some simple changes and why:

  1. a hard limit on the number of times anyone can marry excepting widowhood.
  2. a grievance period for widows where marriage is not allowed, depending on how long they were married.
  3. if someone’s sexuality changes, they’re considered to have defrauded the other party of their agreed companionship.
  4. long engagements only, 6-12 months?
  5. one party letting themselves go completely is taken as a clinical indicator (already is) of passive-aggression or depression
  6. no addicts, taking up any addiction is grounds for no-fault divorce on behalf of the other party due to the brain damage effectively killing the person they married and rely upon
  7. marriage is not considered a license to any form of abuse, higher conduct is expected compared to strangers
  8. abandonment includes social, you agreed to be there for one another not at the club/bar/party
  9. romance must go both ways
  10. if someone turns out to be a psychopath (the only condition that can fake it until the wedding), divorce is allowed and the proven psychopath’s influence over the other party limited to account for their condition (ideally you test before marriage?)
  11. 18+, I hope this one is obvious.
  12. if one party works from home it is counted as work for the marriage
  13. real Christians only, married in a Christian ceremony
  14. complaining about their marriage online illegal (other people’s marital status or marriages too) – privacy law
  15. no atheists (think of the divorce risk), they don’t need a “piece of paper”, remember?
  16. adulterers can be sued again, but per act and depravity – would branding be too far?
  17. all bastard children from adultery aborted (risky but I’ll put it, it spares the legitimate children their rights)
  18. no adulterous unions could wed (because obviously they can’t be trusted with it)
  19. a cap on how much weddings can actually cost because... Jesus….
  20. earnings prior to marriage not counted in divorce proceedings, including inheritance, which skips over the spouse to the children.

I flatter myself these are common sense.

War on sugar now war on chocolate by Big Brother

Can we kill the Nanny of the State already?
The politicians who push these laws through and the teachers who search kid’s bags for sweets like they’re guns (illegal but happens) are ALL lard-arses.

Chocolate bars ‘to shrink by 20%’ in bid to tackle child obesity

fine, I won’t buy those bars, neither will anyone else

adults have the money and won’t buy supposed child portions

communists can’t do market forces
nothing to do with currency devaluation, to pay for the newcomers, I’m sure
war on chocolate, never a war on alcohol, which contains the most natural sugar and empty calories without any balancing ingredients
name and shame companies providing what is promised? trading standards anyone?
ooh some cuck penpusher is mad at you, better run and hide those profits because they can smell money and it makes them angry
irony is working class children used to gorge thousands of calories in chocolate during the industrial revolution, to have the energy from the cheap chocolate to work; it’s actually antibiotics, GFS and carbs like bread making them fat

omg shut up stupid dumb idiots argh ahhhh hiddleston facepalm deep blue sea

Use it as marketing, proud to rebel against our insane and FAT civil servants.

authoritynutrition.com

coffee and tea are worse for you
Fuck, why not go back to rations?

wait that would include champagne you socialist scum

If it’s about the sugar, ban it in restaurants, especially fast food – but noooooo they won’t do that. Ban butter too, processed bread and so on.
That would affect them.

Paper: The population cycle drives human history

http://www.v-weiss.de/cycle.html

No, it’s an actual paper.

The biggest problem with this population stuff is an emphasis of maths (quantity) over quality (HBD). The premise is false. Again, the premise is false:
HUMANS ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE COGS.

…Humans are not much different from animals. If one promotes the reproduction of farm horses, one receives farm horses and no racehorses. As outlined before, the power of a people depends upon its percentage of intelligent and efficient ones.

I have posted about economic prosperity and national IQ. http://wp.me/p10lxG-1t5

These cannot be produced by school and education according to demand, but they must be born before, like racehorses. It is the erroneous belief of the politically correct that ill and weak descendants, if only they are well fed and educated, would be able to uphold the high level of Western civilization or even develop it further….

cool mocking shades yes peace

#mike drop#

…Myrdal (1940, 188ff.) wrote far‑sightedly: “The basic principle for population policy in a democratic country … is, that a very large number of births must be regarded as undesirable. … In a democratic society we cannot accept a way of things whereby the poor, ignorant, and inexperienced maintain the stock of population. … .The deepest dilemma of democratic population policy is that we do not desire … a reversal of industrialization and rationalization. … The general method of population policy can be described as a transfer of income from individuals and families without children to families with children. … In a democracy a population policy is a contradiction in itself. … It is not, like much other reform policy, the relatively simple question of inducing a majority to tax a minority for its own benefit. It is just the contrary: to ask a majority to tax itself severely in favor of a minority. For the majority of every population … consists of citizens who are either unmarried or have no child burdens at all, or only very light ones. [DS: We are already taxed AWAY from having children by high rent, utilities, clothes etc, why is it this way around, the anti-social way?]… For the overwhelming majority of every people, distributional reforms in the interest of the reproducing families mean economic sacrifice.” Until now, nowhere can such a policy or even a eugenic one be maintained in the necessary long run required for any chance of success….

Taxes are supposed to punish poor social grace, being childless by choice is anti-society, since you want everyone else to pay for your stuff in old age, why shouldn’t it tax you? At least for your pension and other costs? Or might people exempt themselves from future societal benefits if they chose to be childless? I might agree with that.

This says it all:

When the insight began, it did not immediately produce the expected consequences, and once the consequences eventuated, any effective policy is mentally handcuffed by egalitarian ideology.

And what about assistance for those with children who couldn’t have the foresight to wear a condom? Nobody ever thinks of cutting it because ‘think of the children’ but they fail to see those people chose to be reckless, yet keep their kids. Any other type of recklessness is punished.

If you’re old enough to consent, you’re able to take full legal responsibility for the child.

Over to John Stuart Mill;

“Every one has a right to live. We will suppose this granted. But no one has a right to bring children into life to be supported by other people. Whoever means to stand upon the first of these rights must renounce all pretension to the last.”

Video: How to destroy the world

Stefan is knocking it outta the park recently. Highest quality redpill stuff.
Who turned him onto us? Anyone know?

wow omg likey

TLDW: Social engineers are child abusers.

In one word, it comes down to Legacy. The legacy is the future.

You either have one, or you don’t. You eat the cake, or you keep the cake.
But it doesn’t last forever. Never kick the pup because the pup grows up.
We are reaching that tipping point. I saw a comment, I think it was on Vox Day’s blog, pointing out that by recreating the conditions of Weimar Germany in every system, it’s predictable what would happen next. But neolibs don’t listen to history, they’re on the Right Side… *snicker*

I treat you as a sentient intelligent lifeform. Objections?

He’s right that the quality of men dropped before the quality of women. I feel the manosphere forgets there is another half to the equation. Post-WW, the few surviving men lived it up. Then the Sexual Revolution just happened on by shortly thereafter because women felt left out and wanted some of the attention. Men lost their motivation because sex is practically all they want from women and…. yup, that’s pretty much it. This causes the economy to tank eventually and we’ve been building up bubbles ever since (look at the time you went off the Gold Standard to cover for it, LOOK) because men buy most of the shit needed for a family from a position of surplus and women, while easier to sell to, must buy on credit.

The manosphere mocks women for saying “Where have all the good men gone“? Answer: They’re Peter Pans at home playing video games and watching porn, the Lost Boys, which hardly reflects well on men as they think it does, while all the time most of their discussions feature “Where have all the good women gone“? without a trace of self-awareness. Answer: Pump and dumps, pretty much. Not Asia. Not S. America. You chucked them, or some other guy did, and now they’re psychologically ruined by it.

n.b.

Maternal instinct isn’t a myth. It’s much like paternal drive in men. Some have it, some have it strongly and some do not have it at all. Women are dumb enough to freely admit where they lie there, oblivious to how it affects their long-term value: are you pro-choice? They can only answer for themselves and only the women who state the rape/cancer exception are permissible.

p.p.s.

Gold Standard in America: 1971. I’m sure that’s a maaaa-ssive coincidence.
UK: 1934. WW1 made us broke. However, we had similar problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_national_debt#1970s

The crisis was seen as a national humiliation.