The scourge of the bitter mother

I wanted to write about something for a while that really doesn’t help the right-wing and only appears to move Overton. I expect a lot of hate for this, but …fuck it. As you can see, it’s a taste of their own medicine. Judge not lest. 5,000+ words.

If you don’t like it, shake it off.

Nobody talks about it.

We all see it, nobody says a word.

Who are they?

The prissy mothers you see all over the internet, so full of scathing resentment of other women that it almost tinges the screen green. One of their favourite topics is rape. They will go on and on with a Just World fallacy a five-year old would balk at, victim blaming women for, basically, “asking for it”.


That… isn’t how it worked. Ever?

It’s like saying “don’t get burgled”, if they target you/r house, that’s it. The predator of man is man and the predator of woman is man and if men can’t fight off other men, what hope do we have?

Crickets from the women who think, genuinely believe, they know everything.

Their “advice” boils down to “don’t be attractive”… sorry, I didn’t realize I stumbled into a fat acceptance meeting?

With friends like these, who is the enemy, again?
Whatever you look like, the way men work, some of them will find it hot. Yes, even camo pants and bulky sweaters. Should I walk around in a three-piece suit like it’s sexual Kevlar? Some of us are so innately sexy, honey, whatever we wear looks good. Sorry???

Ah, but they’d find fault with that too, huh? The New Shrews.

Everything you do is bad and you’re a bad woman because they don’t like you.

No, fuck you. Fuck you and your abundance of time to tell other people how to live.

Some of us aren’t here for male attention and we were here first. Sit down, Sandra.

You hate femininity. It isn’t evil, it’s not sinful, it’s divine and beautiful and sensuality =/= sexuality.

The enemy pours poison in your ear to think otherwise. Genophilia is good too.

A woman in a nice red dress isn’t looking to steal your husband, calm down.
Everyone fears the Marilyns of the world (like Kibbe Romantics can help their bone structure!) but nobody suspects the real sluts, the Graces and Audreys and other yacht girls and homewreckers (true story). If you actually observed, the women who unapologetically dress like women (no hate) are typically the least promiscuous. What is there to gain, they’re already attractive. Do we ask men to hide their shoulders because a woman might fancy them? It’s absurd and socially oppressive. We aren’t savages and even they had greater freedom. Why would a natural, feminine woman want leftovers either, if they’re even looking for a man? However, desperate women (for sex or A Man or marriage) can’t get away with dressing for show because 1. it’s unnatural to them, 2. having no taste, they don’t know how and 3. they want less attention on their actions, such as sleeping around. This is common female experience and suggests to me these women never got out much. Or they’re veering to the mean girls end of the spectrum, like a clinical narcissist.

“If I can’t have it, no one can!” – crazy hoe

No contact lenses can hide those green eyes, babe.

They hate the signal (esp. of youth) because they don’t have it, not because it’s wrong.
This is the frenemy and we aren’t thick, we can sense it. They can actually gaslight women into feeling bad about their beauty, it’s sick. Nor does a beautiful girl or woman have a duty to sleep with anyone, it’s innocent visual pleasantness, what is up with American entitlement now? It’s obnoxious. Do they key sports cars too, are they these people? Do they stamp on daisies and kick puppies?

Your opinion has no basis in fact. Beauty is scientific and good.

It’s good for society and people who want to corrupt that innocence are the ones you should be denigrating.

As I read, and it always stuck with me, women were raped in a time of petticoats and no ankles, clothing has nothing to do with it. Predators go for body parts and it’s like saying we should ban kitchen knives because serial killers like them. In the First World we expect a basic standard of behaviour. This type of female, however, chooses to prod and cackle at the misfortunes of other (white) women. It’s cunty.
It puts people off the right-wing and makes all mother types look un-maternal (what compassion, such love), embittered and bored (constantly carping on about pop culture online). If all you do (80%+) is bitch, you’re a bitch – and this goes for the men too.
I’m tired of hearing the same strawman applicable only to middle-class American campus dwellers and Sex and the City groan-inducing comparisons. I’m sick of it. Please find a new fiddle and a different tune. The broken record is putting off me and I frequently shitpost on b.

Don’t make me meme you.
Get your ass to a therapist if other women (minding their own business) make you irrationally angry, that is insane. Misogyny is possible in women (self-loathing) albeit rare and racial loathing is presently more common but sexual, gendered loathing of the feminine (or of an action only when a woman does it) isn’t unheard of. The Bible calls it envy because it’s your in-group. God made femininity, who are you to say that’s wrong?

http://biblehub.com/mark/7-22.htm

greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness

All these evils come from within, and these are what defile a man.”

7/8 bitches. Off the high horse, time’s up.

Cut it out like a tumour before it kills you.

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/green-eyed-monster.html

Why green? It’s poison, these emotions will stress your body and harm you.
They won’t harm the object that triggered you this cotton-picking week.

http://www.sensationalcolor.com/color-meaning/color-words-phrases/green-with-envy-2109

You’re not helping, you know you’re not helping the rest of us but worst of all, don’t care. It’s all about dem feels. And male approval from strangers on the internet, which is exactly what instawhores do too?
So don’t act as if you’re better than them. You need your narc supply just like they do. They get it from tit pics, you get it from bashing the women posting titty pics. Where is the good here? Do men really need to be told up isn’t down? Repeatedly telling men the obvious like they’re a retarded toddler is the reason they avoid you or are otherwise rightly suspicious of your motives. Bitching doesn’t add anything to the conversation and most of you are incapable of rational thought. You add nothing. Shouldn’t you be enjoying your families than dedicating 50+ hours a month to online shitposting? What kind of example does that set to the little ones? Oh, a woman has a career and she’s happy? Wow, how awful. Cue laugh track, right? Spinsters didn’t exist in the 50s! And nuns aren’t real women because they didn’t breed! The longer we look, the more it looks like you oppose the latter rather than the former. Why do you care? It’s a literal waste of your time, take up canning. Be useful. I laugh at genetic suicides as much as the next edgykin but there’s a limit and that’s about half an hour a month. Yet… this is ALL you do, all you contribute? Nah, fam. I’m not having it. Considering the odds of collapse and unrest, you could pop them out like a rabbit, have fifty kids by IVF and they could still all die in the next ten years. You’re not immortal because you have a pussy. Your plan isn’t foolproof, you’re foolhardy. I bet the doctor who delivered your baby was a woman or certainly the midwife and God help you if you need the help of a female engineer one day to fix your machines. Women contributing to society isn’t the issue. The way we do it doesn’t matter, the fact we do it, does. We could all sit around taking welfare for period pain and we don’t. There is an almost autistic obsession in these harpy women that conforms to the baby cult for privilege points and it’s ridiculous in historical context. You’re still outnumbered, look at Asian and African demographics. Your sons could easily, easily die in the next war. There is no laurel to rest on, the pedestal doesn’t exist. The work isn’t done once the midwife hands you the baby. Woman is a lifelong career.
I expect emotional incontinence from SJWs but I’ve tolerated it from supposed “tradwomen” for long enough.


Clean house, you sluts.
Fun fact: a slut refers to a woman who keeps an untidy home and/or demeanor. You are the epitome of uncouth. This is the true reason women can’t be openly right-wing amongst themselves, women like you. You’ll smack ’em down like a bug for trying. Where is the class? No, there’s only shame for having simple dignity like having nice hair or dresses.

This is you.

Getting into slanging matches like the slag down the road isn’t persuasion. If it’s an easy target, stop and think. The seekers who typically find these women first don’t feel the slightest warmth from the very people who could help them (maybe) but would rather beat them when they’re already down. Stunning and brave.
Women need to help one another, that’s what feminism was supposed to be before they stole it. Hating men is backwards, hating other women is also backwards. Both sexes need one another or society dies.
When I can feel the toxic waves of victim blame (tell the little girls of Rotherham that, you’re just like the social workers who told them they were hookers) and jealousy that a woman isn’t part of the Mombot hivemind by native disposition, even I feel deterred from certain ideas. Burn the witch! Shun the outcast! There have always been exceptions – Captain Obvious. It is fundamentally off-putting. It’s totally negative and offers no useful, practical advice. They fill in the blanks of a stranger’s life with a catastrophic worst case scenario (clinically unhealthy). https://psychcentral.com/lib/what-is-catastrophizing/
e.g.

>I can see her skin/shape
>She must be a slut

Sorry, do you live in porn? Are you from Pornland, where that isn’t a non sequitur?
Move to Saudi Arabia if the sight of perky breasts offends you so.

You know what proves a woman’s character? Her actions!

Shocking, I know! It’s called integrity!

A woman can have hypothetical power over men and never, ever abuse it!
(Psychologically: They know they would in the same situation and project).

Some of us have a moral compass. Fashions are based on social norms, practicality, and not individual choice. There will be people who hate me and pre-judge me for wearing heels and other people who like me for the exact same thing. It’s a waste of time caring. Pleasing everyone is impossible.

A woman could walk around naked (and if you live in Sweden, in their culture it’s normal) but if she doesn’t sleep around, you can’t insult her! Because she doesn’t do the thing! You can’t call her a slut or other behaviour-based insults unless she actually does those things. Otherwise it’s called defamation (there were/are laws about slandering a woman’s sexual honour specifically because other women are the main culprits, think Medusa’s punishment) and you’re a nothing more than a jealous, vindictive cunt.

Fact you can take to the bank.
(Yes, men do it too, so? Everyone already knows they’re bitter about what they can’t have).

I heard from a man once some piece of witty gold. He overheard some women talking about me (my dress was knee-length, people!) and I was upset about it. To console me, because they were really jealous over the fact he was there with me and felt responsible, he said:

“How do you know a woman’s attractive – without ever seeing her?” he grinned, leaning down.

“I dunno, how?” I said, trying not to cry in public.

“All the other women hate her.”

I laughed and it’s never bothered me since. Great riddle. Great man.

It’s true, they just want us to cover up and hide away. Is sleeveless banned? Are ungloved hands too pretty? A woman with good skin or even features must wear a face mask like some Harrison Bergeron costume party? What’s with the social acceptability of bitter individuals nowadays?

Another common, more overtly vitriolic one:
>own vagina
>expect to be raped


No. We fought wars over this. No. And does that mean men or little boys deserve it too? [No.]
In the onslaught of anti-white propaganda, the last thing women need is to be shamed for having tits by so-called allies. These snipes want other women to be ruined and traumatized for life because the idea makes them feel good. It’s twisted bullshit. It’s creepy how they salivate over fellow women’s hypothetical suffering “you’ll be sorry” style.
Were the women in Germany on NYE “asking for it”? No, STFU. Shit happens. You know who else thinks all white women are automatic whores? Muslims, straight outta the Muslim playbook (Koran). Such progress. Much culture.

If women are the greatest victims of this toxic culture, victim blaming is the last thing anyone should do. Does every woman have a man to protect her, family or husband? No. Funds to live somewhere safe? No. Money to buy clothing that doesn’t look High St i.e. a little bit trashy? No. They don’t care about the truth, they care about being sadists and stamping down women. I can’t be doing with control freaks, it’s so Mrs Grundy. I waited years to bring this up.

Slander is a cancer. It’s the hallmark of postmodern morals. Don’t do it.

If you’re going to take the moral high ground, you don’t get to sneer from it. People found you because they wanted help, not yet another woman-basher finger-wagging and trying to hide behind the pitiful criticism shield “as a mother”, the shit-tier right-winger’s As a Woman…

Being a mother takes nine months, being a woman takes a lifetime. Being a good woman comes before everything else. Is anyone else done with the Pharisee Matriarchs? I’m just fully done at this point.

I’d like to plop those women down in front of some of the infertile women I know and make them tell them, to their face, why they’re a bad person. To the women and wives who cannot afford children yet and refuse to be irresponsible burdens on the taxpayers or their husband. These are real people you humiliate in sweeping statements, like you know their life. How presumptuous and ugly. They don’t dare start on men, more worthy of scorn, who sit around drinking, hollering, deadbeating. No, start on the easy targets. You’ll really get women to look up to you that way…

Face it, you aren’t tall enough for this ride. Hop off the bandwagon before we chuck you.

These women have privilege, sure, I haven’t seen a single one of these women who isn’t firmly middle-class. Your comfort is not the norm and your assumptions are frankly embarrassing. You’re out of touch, how nice that you have an 18-acre farm and don’t need earning potential, but shut up and let your husband do the talking like the Bible says. By the way, I’m 99% sure he visits hookers on the side like most married “conservative” men who spend their time verbally opposing “degeneracy”. “We live in a society…” doesn’t really work when I can almost see your husband cringe behind you.

Twenty years ago, these women would just be bashing men. It’s only now white feminism has turned on their page 3 hating kind they magically find the right. How convenient. They’re so principled.

I’m waiting on one of them to eventually get sued for providing medical advice without a license and lawsuit insurance (all doctors have).
Telling people they have to have children could actually kill them, maternal death happens.
The “disclaimers” you put on videos and such don’t actually count? A judge would laugh at you. If you have a channel and hundreds of hours of footage devoted to guilt-tripping women into getting pregnant, yes, you knew what you were doing. There is a very clear motive.

Expert is that way of behaving, intending that people do exactly as you say. I’m very careful to look like a raving nobody despite having real authority. Crazy like a fox. How many fell since I started? Still here.

Showing is fine, telling is legally binding.

You wouldn’t tell them to go base jumping because oh, that’s dangerous!

It isn’t as if maternity services are lacking or non-existent, is it? IS IT.
It isn’t like labour is to women what war is to men. The most common cause of death or injury.

You can’t play leader without some real culpability. Yay for being treated equally!

It reminds me of the PUAs who think putting up a sign about recording in their bedroom legally counts, when porn actresses need to sign a model release (to record) and legal distribution rights contract (who gets to see the footage). Idiots don’t know their law and it’s your own fault. Arrogance is illegal in many forms.

The fact you filmed without legal consent means the whole interaction is unconsenting!

Back to the scourge.

Those women are not good mothers, I can tell you now. These women act like saints because they’ve pushed a baby out of their twat with an epidural. Your fertility is not an accomplishment and fertility is neither a sign of moral grace. “As a mother….” type, pretentious and sickening. It isn’t about the politics, it’s about the attitude. It’s ugly in lefties too.
I waited and waited, hoping for a natural evolution of the dialogue.

If all we can do is bitch about pop culture and insult other white people, we’re already dead.

Where is the prosocial focus, people? Where is the building one another up?

If a woman gets the instilled sense nothing she ever does is right, feeding that won’t make her listen.

Where’s the discussion of quality? You might be married yes, but to a piece of shit, we don’t know? Show us! Just getting a ring on your finger isn’t the status symbol of old, there are plenty of dirtbags buying a Moissanite ring and lie that it’s a diamond, as if that metaphor doesn’t show you how far we’ve fallen as a civilization . “Passing off” is illegal? That’s grounds for divorce, honestly. Traditions exist for a reason. Where’s the filter here? Crickets on the subject. Helpful. Don’t even bring up the savagery of lust matches, that might make unwise people question themselves and we can’t have that! Anything but that!
We don’t have the courtship rituals or family filtration anymore, plenty of trash get married in Vegas. There is no innate status to marriage anymore due to this ease, you aren’t necessarily a better person for it. In spite of this, oceans of smug.

Er…

Why?

Really, why?

I haven’t seen a single person address why. I’ve seen a lot of footage.
You just stand there, smug because you got married. No rhyme or reason.


Something that happened to you. All the agency of a stump. Lefties, at least, are smart enough not to be smug about a party that happened once. It isn’t a big deal. If you swore never to divorce, we might care.
Are you superior to Newton, Joan of Arc, Sappho or Tesla, then? They never got married and they’re more valuable human beings than most who will ever live.

It’s such a superficial way of viewing it.

Married = Moral.

No? Plenty of awful people are married. Your contribution isn’t that. It isn’t even children, no shortage of shitty parents in the world. And what do women do once the kids grow up, wither and die? Grow warts and become witches in the outback?
Is a woman’s only contribution her loin meat? Don’t children and older women contribute anything to society?

Crickets from the gobby girls. If it isn’t ALL about them and their “lifestyle”, they don’t care.

Like everything in the world will magically become good if everyone is married?
I don’t have to test your IQ to know it’s low if you really believe that.

Before somebody asks about the traditions, it’s logical proof of gender role success:

If a man can’t afford to get engaged, he can’t afford to get married. If a man can’t afford to get married, he can’t afford to “keep” a wife, as it was commonly well known. He certainly can’t afford to raise kids, plural, (3-4+) if a tiny diamond is out of reach. She isn’t working, right? Single income, just like you wanted.

h/t the snarky conservative with Dixon Diaz

And why diamond? Well, you intend to be married for life and pass on the stone to your daughter, don’t you? Everything else cracks. Americans don’t remember but Europe does. Look at the antique market. Plenty of diamonds, hardly any other stones. Emeralds, considered a coloured diamond, are rare choices because they scratch to buggery very easily. Try doing your research before vapidly deferring to “women are crazy”. I’ve had to help male friends shop for engagement rings and they were shocked it was so logical (always spring for the comfort band, guys).

There used to be entire books (h/t WM A Alcott) about how to be a good husband, it was a whole genre! Men would take decades, growing up and learning, training. And you think…. turning up?

~whispers~ I don’t think so.

Husband doesn’t mean what you think it means. There are plenty of good bachelors and plenty of adulterous scumbag husbands. Go outside once in a while.

These snooty housewives can be just as hypocritical as the SJWs, ignoring any data they dislike. Anything that’s complicated, unknown or hard to think about, they reject out of hand. It’s weak, I’m done sitting here silently waiting for women older than myself to get their shit together. They fawn over men for existing (sad) but hold women to impossible and contradictory standards. That is not healthy. It’s just as sick as the culture we grew up in. Get your act together and get over yourselves.
And they’re never great parents, always average at best. Like, if your life’s gonna revolve around something (or your ego): be dedicated to it. Read the research journals, cookbooks, encourage the best of both daughters and sons – don’t just do the bare minimum 50s housewife LARP in a frilly apron and act like everyone should kiss your feet for it.

They de-sexualise themselves like the Virgin Mary in a pathetic bid to get respect.
That doesn’t work. The fact you care so much about strangers’ opinions means you won’t get it.

I feel like posting tits or GTFO because they expect all the rapt male attention of jiggling D-cups and bring none of the substance. Okay, you …exist…

???

Now what?

Shouldn’t you be spending this time with your kids? Friends? Hobbies? Church?

You don’t see African women popping out eight kids acting like Gaia incarnate.
I saw a pregnant photo of Spencer’s Russian honeypot and I just burst out laughing.
She actually angled the shot so it looked like the sun was shining out of her belly.
That’s narcissism Beyonce would be proud of. I’m fairly certain it was heliocentrism, the Sun does not, in fact, shine out of your vag.
The Disney princesses aren’t married for a reason. You’re not important anymore.
This is an attitude problem which stems from callow pride and is also found among the ghetto. It isn’t classy, please stop.

“Oh, I cook my kids’ food!”

…. you’re SUPPOSED to!

The virtue signalling is obscene. “Well, I never had a one-night stand!” Neither have most women currently or in all human history. Your point?

They act as if pop culture is real. Look at the stats. No, it’s fake. Get out more.

Not that I let men off the hook. The man who acts like a hero for not being an alcoholic at the bar and spending his time with his children is literally doing the bare minimum also. Co-parenting is a trendy word for being.. normal. Children need a lot of time with both parents. Men don’t get to skip off to a club or hang around with their friends more than their wife. Neglect is a form of abuse, guys.

“The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” 1 Cor 7:4 When you marry, your time belongs primarily to your spouse. That’s the “commitment” part. I don’t get to take a job, turn up three days of five and wonder why I was fired.

Another common topic is clothing, as aforementioned. Because when the Queen wore that low cut coronation dress, she was such a skank. Because shaming the female figure is helpful for our purposes in encouraging women.
You disgust me. Unless you’re wearing a niqab, some man somewhere will find you attractive and according to the Bible, it’s his fault. Are you holier than the Bible too?

Before someone tries to @ me with a quote like I haven’t read it, should women have long hair?
I think a woman should have long hair as long as it wouldn’t be dangerous to her and as long as it’s more flattering. Now, how many men with #opinions on long hair, have never had it? You have to tie it up, you have to pin it back. Braiding is an efficient way of keeping it clean and neat. So when the Bible slags off braiding of the hair, what they mean is the three-hour updo with a solid gold pagan headpiece when your husband can’t afford it. [1]

Pictured: probably out of most budgets.

It does NOT extend to keeping it up out of food (she cooks, right?) or away from machinery so she isn’t scalped (you like her scalp, right?) or clean and not covered in baby vomit. The feminists don’t get everything wrong, you know. Just most things.
While I’m on my high horse for the season, the Bible does actually tell women they need to work. Stupid Yanks confuse this with taxable income. Per hour, housewives work more total hours than their husbands.
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/gender/chapter4/chapter4.html
Acknowledge the work women already do, because the State sure doesn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpaid_work
“In the United States, the latest available data from 2014 shows that women undertake 14.58 hours per week on household labor.” Gee, why are women entitled to alimony? Almost like wife is a job! It’s “free” conditional on the lifelong union, because home management is really a full-time management job, if you’re doing it properly, hence the jarring pricing once the union is dissolved (by the State, not God). Investments have value.
Women are supposed to work as hard as men, equally yoked, it’s in the Bible. (Proverbs 31:13 on) we must pull our own weight, independence isn’t some newfangled (Jewfangled?) invention from the 1960s, women entered the workplace always. If she’s going to do that work anyway (say, the increasingly popular flexitime from home) who are you to a tell a marital union you have no part of, that she can’t earn money from it? That’s between her and her husband, it’s nothing to do with some judgmental opinionated nobody whose only qualification is a vagina.

I don’t see them pining over the deep meaning of Timothy. “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Applies between women n’ all. That’s the job of her family. Even if you’re related to a woman, you probably don’t understand her situation from the outside and if you aren’t going to physically help, shut up! The nag talks and talks and pretends they’re helpful, really they’re emotionally venting and trying to look good. Das pride.

1: It is also important to dress and act your station. The modern obsession with dressing poor is rude if you aren’t because it makes your family look poor and your husband look like a failing provider. Read old books.

Corinthians also discusses why not everyone is suited for marriage “I want you to be free from anxieties…” and personally, I don’t think any of these women have a right to sneer on the celibate. No, your baby-making twat doesn’t make you morally superior to a woman who acts like a nun (and look at the stats, it’s common to not sleep around now). Defaming other women is expressly condemned throughout the Bible and it’s sick to see women calling everyone who isn’t exactly like them a whore, basically. God made your body, don’t be ashamed of it (just don’t flash anyone either). This isn’t complicated.

Would I want to be friends with most of these women, I think. And no is the inevitable answer, they are quick in temper and scorn without due consideration and reason.

“She does him good, and not harm,
all the days of her life.”
Shouldn’t we expect the kindest behaviour from woman to woman?
If you’re going to be a cunt, at least be somewhat practical and recognize the reasons and exceptions, Jesus Christ.

Jesus didn’t dropkick the fallen but you wouldn’t know from how they behave and give all of us righties a bad name.

Mommy blogs are the ideal: helpful, practical and sanctuaries from the reminder of degeneracy.

Up with Mommy blogs and fashion blogs and home decor blogs and hell, female DIY and natural science blogs. Down with preachy whiny Domestic Goddess nauseating delusions of superiority.

Speaking about good women like they’re shit is bad for the cause, shame on you, Brutus.
It only gives men and foreigners an excuse to treat us like it too. Judas got paid, Patreon whores.

They are obsessed with finding people they are allegedly superior to, I’m bored now.

“I’m not like the other girls tee hee hee” is over.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/my-xtmas-wish-for-you-please-please.html

Hatred is broadly speaking a waste of time, unless you need it to feel normal.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/the-red-pill-must-indeed-be-pill.html

“Those who talk most about themselves having-been Red-Pilled are examples of ‘false-awakening’: still asleep but merely dreaming that they have awoken”

I don’t think new readers quite understand how often I take the piss out of myself.

This is a shit blog and entirely pointless, we won’t change a thing. I know that. You won’t change a thing either. At least I don’t do the grandiose thing and put my hair in rollers to appear in a Youtube video with a face like a slapped arse.

We have limits.

Narcissism in the Family

The covert narcissist will pull others down to feel better about themselves. It ain’t right. This simply isn’t cricket, ya hear?

“Though the narcissistic father is a formidable bully, I suspect the narcissistic mother is, in many ways, often much worse, if for no other reason than that she can cunningly exploit the stereotype of the angelic, saintly mother who criticizes her victim only out of ‘concern’. Remember that while we normally think of narcissists as self-absorbed egotists, many can come across convincingly as selfless and altruistic, all for the purpose of gaining narcissistic supply from being thought of as such saintly types.”

http://unitycounsellingservice.co.uk/understanding-narcissistic-behaviour-narcissist-hates-others-happiness-joy/

They laugh at women for their special qualities, I think that was the obvious thing. Yes, there have been plenty of female geniuses, read a book and stop giggling about women “acting like men”, the brain doesn’t work like that. For example, IQ is more dependent on white matter organisation. Guess what women have more of?
You aren’t cool, you’re ignorant. You aren’t edgy for telling white women they’re dirt like the media does. None of this stuff is as simple as you make out, once you actually look.

Read something that isn’t a magazine.

The stereotypical housewife is an ignorant shrill cow and you’ll filling it to a tee. It’s a pox on the pro-natal right.

Quotes on women and misogyny

Warning: food for thought.

I was deeply dissatisfied with my final post of the year and figured I’d slapdash together something that is more intellectually stimulating, in a similar vein. It’s only mildly controversial if you’re interested in labels over substance.

“When women act like women, they are accused of being inferior. When women act like human beings, they are accused of behaving like men.”

Does that sound like a healthy civilization with any longevity?

What happened to all the meritocratic arguments to incentivize contributions in capitalist theory?

So we can accept racial differences and class differences and national differences and age differences but sex differences you can prove in a scanner or under a microscope are evil (well if God made…) and we must all be the same (the male standard is also shit) in misery and behavioural equality, the neuroscience be damned? Is that the world you want, putting power trip fantasies aside?

No society with catch 22s will survive, let alone thrive.
There must be two paths: to do, and to not do. There must be clear praise and condemnation and no blurring between those paths. No muddying the waters or blurring it for certain people. Either a thing is right or wrong, unless you are a moral relativist and then you believe in neither, for they’re absolute concepts.

The logic between sexes must be consistent also, it is no more right for a woman to steal than a man (Ten Commandments shout-out). It is no more moral for a man to assault, as they do, mathematically. Naturalistic fallacy is not an excuse, we are all biological and still retain the human quality of impulse control.

At the least, we ought.

We can uplift both sexes in a society without oppressing anyone. The technology exists now, where most of us can probably live in leisure most of the week. If we discussed it and developed it, i.e., cooperated together for mutual betterment! Where did you get the idea oppression has limits? It can’t be historical… Wealth is the hard cap but aside from that, men won’t be spared the same societal factors women would live under.

e.g. Employed singles of either sex still pay for the living of feckless breeders and the spawn without limit.

Misogyny is prominent when rich men wish to evade their intrasexual responsibilities and do so by blaming the women.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/12/10/da-wimminz/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/a-post-about-truth/

You can’t appreciate your fellows? Well, we don’t have a future then. Darwin always wins, darlings. Think of the tribe, we are not atomized, lonely individuals like the 20th century tries to force down our throats.

Where it exists, oppression spreads. Sadists work that way. It’s a betrayal whoever is on the receiving end, these circumstances predate our birth. Nobody living is fully responsible for this system, another red herring.

If we spent a little of our time wasted on the Third World that doesn’t want to change on improving our own lot, imagine what could be achieved. Immigration and multiculturalism are a deliberate ruse to throw off our resources, especially time, into establishing what used to be a norm. We’re stuck playing catch-up and tempers fray, stressed we lash out at the in-group, worsening our collective condition. It is no coincidence we replaced child labour with female. The economy will take its pound of flesh, I suggest we do robots instead of adult people. Society cannot ever again be ignorant of the female potential exemplified around the 1940s but bursting in brief lights long before. Can we afford to turn away our own kin for something minor as not being exactly like the current leaders, who, by the way, are clearly doing such a bang-up job of running things, aren’t they? /s

Do the foolish deserve to fail in any good society? How to deal with their complaints?
Failing men (and women) will complain about it. They’ll say the competition is wrong.
Obviously they will, never before have the dregs had such a loud voice. Nobody else has time to protest that much or write such long blog posts. ~glances at viewer and nods~ The antisocial and envious must be constrained from infecting everyone else like the emotional vampires they are.

They live better than Henry the Bloody Eighth. Prisoners do too. We are the grandiose brats of modern history. To compare farther back is sickening.

Again, there is no need to ban the un-competitive, they simply fall away in a fair contest. It’s obscure to claim a barrier, arbitrarily, in equal opportunity theory, either they misunderstand it or argue in bad faith.

Good for whites, bad for whites, you all say? We have a word for it, prosocial or antisocial. Use the proper terms, the Left will not. Accuracy is our strong suit.

If you only read male philosophers, sorry, but you haven’t read the subject. This isn’t like novels where they’re basically all the same, you get a pass on that for preference. Still, I didn’t skip out on male poets because that would’ve been sexist, you should be fascinated to hear the other side of humanity to which you may never belong. Unless a person really can change their sex? ….Thought not.

Violent crime statistics. MRI studies of psychopathy. Appeal to history (which cannot be demonstrated when called upon, because it never existed in fact, it was a helpful societal myth from around the Enlightenment era). Concepts like Patriarchy are unfalsifiable both ways. However, when I see Husband Selling like they’re subhuman chattel, I might believe in a Matriarchy. If you whine, do it with a smidgen of self-awareness?

Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud and a little bit of Nietzsche.

If you had a loving wife and children, you wouldn’t feel the need to rage at wombs.

#wombenvybites

Do you want us to try equally hard (effort) or are we allowed to be lazy, pick ONE.
Don’t give us shit for doing as you asked us to…?

That left-side of the bell curve… we all have stories, men don’t really think twice about it though. The sexual prevalence of obnoxious people doesn’t strike them, which is convenient and annoying.

Maybe we need studies.

They don’t even notice the abundance of Men Doing Stupid Shit stories in the newspapers, it’s like a goldfish noticing water. You don’t get to pin a badge on your chest reading Accomplished because you have a Y-chromosome. Arrogance is a male quality in all the myths for a reason, men over-estimate themselves in studies vastly more frequently. Arrogance is not esteem, far from it, nowadays it’s called narcissism. Men need to be the slightly simpler sex, because otherwise they’d have never taken the stupid risks to survive once kicked out of the tribe at the time they hit majority age (otherwise incestuous rape with female relations was a possibility, plus they needed to find a mate by travelling to other local tribes and passing their tests). Shall we bring back that rite of passage, if we want strong men again? You can’t have strength of character without the fatally high stakes that turn boys into men. Courage and stupidity are blurred but while shouting about the former, they literally deny the latter…. which rather suffices to prove our point.

Relevant so included. The mediocre ones are easier to control/rescue from life-risking stupidity that ends up ruining your whole family along with their misplaced sense of arrogance. Other men used to check them in youth but that isn’t happening soon. Average evolved as a sexual preference.

Original form of “the map is not the territory”.

It’s strange they’ll go on about Rand but only the economics and ignore De Beauvoir’s existentialism.
By strange I mean completely intellectually dishonest.
Arguments from bad faith, a certain moral cowardice common in young men at present.
Maybe some slice of laziness where they assume there’s nothing worth reading, but recall, they aren’t misogynists, somehow…
Well, if that prejudiced disdain of anything female isn’t a misogynist, what is?
She pre-empted Dawkin’s Selfish Gene: “Life is occupied in both perpetuating itself and in surpassing itself; if all it does is maintain itself, then living is only not dying.” If you care so much for truth, why not credit? It’s also a sweeping condemnation of hedonism.

If quoting a woman makes you feel insecure, women aren’t the weaker sex.

A little on metrics before I go.

Once the priming effect and other systemic, proven problems in all academic testing are accounted for, women are beginning to score objectively better than men on the blind-marked IQ test.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2174528/Yes-women-higher-IQ-men-thats-Ill-make-prediction-enrage-them.html
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. HBD doesn’t tell you what you like, it tells you what is possible.
The narrow definitions of IQ have never been legitimate, and this goes for verbal, for instance, that women score better on overall. It’s a global metric of all-round functioning as ‘g’ or invalid to be counted as the theoretical construct.

IQ is originally a learning ability test and since learning requires obedient following of instructions, you would expect women to do better on it. Learning is feminine-oriented, as an activity. It isn’t a marker of human superiority the way America has tried to make a genius idolatry a form of hero worship over Hollywood. There are no ‘celebrities for smart people’, scientism is old. The Hollywood people actually have to do something – other than exist?
Paper genius is bullshit. They sell the official piece of paper to ditzy parents.

However, IQ and other metrics correlate to life outcomes, it is useful scientifically.

Identification (with celebrities) should inspire you to act, not live vicariously like a stage Mom but claiming involvement in the glamours of STEM work (anyone can get involved, go clean test tubes).

Wilson: “And a second very big question is, since, women are as intelligent as men, or more so, why did feminism take so long, historically, to get started?”

That one is easy, compulsory schooling about 150 years ago, universities places about 60-80 years ago, in living memory women were forbidden from competing fairly. He goes on to make the classic error of assuming men haven’t changed too. They don’t try at school, porn is a distraction during school years and schools are mixed when evidence says that reduces scores. A blend of exam and coursework is best, not to avoid favour – although this too – but because the more metrics of knowledge, the better the qualification in the market.

And isn’t that the point? These aren’t vanity academics.

Boys were pulled off the farms in the middle ages in the first schools, same boom of intellectual achievement happened then too… since it pre-empts the mythical Enlightenment time period, atheists do not wish to discuss that priests might’ve done something right, to the collective denial of male work ethic and social mobility. The middle class sprang up and families were liberated.

Simone on the decline:

“Whatever the country, capitalist or socialist, man was everywhere crushed by technology, made a stranger to his own work, imprisoned, forced into stupidity. The evil all arose from the fact that he had increased his needs rather than limited them; . . . As long as fresh needs continued to be created, so new frustrations would come into being. When had the decline begun?

The day knowledge was preferred to wisdom and mere usefulness to beauty. . . . Only a moral revolution – not a social or political revolution – only a moral revolution would lead man back to his lost truth.”

You don’t read this stuff, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Remember the original feminists objected to the idea that former slaves would be treated better than them, relatives of the men drafting the laws with demonstrable intellect and accomplishments. It has a history soaked in race realism. We can pick and choose the structures from history that suited us best then and apply now. Nobody is doing this. The scientific approach. Machiavelli would be disappointed.

I hope Odin brings you plenty of shiny Asian-produced crap this year.
It’ll break by February, much like my patience on the topics that are life/death to conceited white people. We are all human and all flawed and all riding in the same, sinking boat.

This is a post I’m proud of.

xoxo

p.s.

“Like all dreamers I confuse disenchantment with truth.” Sartre, her lover.

Elegance or decadence?

5 min. Male designer speaks.

There’s a line, isn’t there? Think how much we spend on clothing today. Think how little is any good. If anything, it ought to be better. In menswear you see a lot of circulation, for instance, the gilet is a doublet.
A related discussion in vintage or re-enactment circles is the glamour/beauty debate.
Beauty is natural but human beauty never has been. Primitive tribes had shell necklaces and the torc or crown were made alongside spears. This is something we are so immersed in we cannot see it, there is a hierarchy of style and the modernist love of minimalism (it’s been almost a century now! come on!) came from an American urge to distance themselves from Europe and carve out what is ironically a more rugged, romantic* standard.

Boomers were defined by the hippy look, androgyny that mimicked the political shift.

People wore wigs in most centuries for decency reasons, like hats, they wore heels and girdles, eyeliner was medicinal. Male watches, wristwatches, were originally ladies’ bracelets. To this day, the face is too large for the male wrist, they go overboard to make it look manly with a chunky appearance. If humans put effort in, and since wearing clothing is legally required, they naturally want to express who they are and where they come from and that art form shouldn’t be dismissed. The utility belt began as female, with its height in the chatelaine. Men would only have things strapped to a military uniform from the shoulders, where their muscles could take the weight. Heavy belts help women, whose strongest muscles are our thighs.
The 1950s makeup aesthetic was heavily painted, more than some looks now. There was a full face of foundation and a lot of powder. These days, with HD cameras, it would look cheap as Hell.
Men forgoing makeup is modernist, inspired by the Romantic* philosophers because it was au naturelle.

To this day, many of you don’t know where this sudden squee over the working class came from.
https://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/09/19/3-archetypes-of-american-manliness-part-iii-the-self-made-man/

Yes, it was totally your idea… like the American eagle that isn’t Napoleonic that isn’t Roman…. calling it, Empire = eagles. Sciencey.

The Romantic poets had a fetish about the countryside and farmers, this continued on into Vincent’s art but began around the 17th century with still life and paintings of farmers and cooks. The simple life to contrast the urban “Enlightenment”. Industrialization got the Romantics down, they thought machines were replacing men and making them more effete, dependent. Actually, how many men can stitch a button?

There’s a physical component to gendered presentation, the scale of masculine to feminine.
Modern looks are androgynous, even for men. Denim is andro, cotton, andro, jeans, andro, boots, andro, ties, andro, scarves, andro, t-shirts, andro, it’s all andro-andro-andro-andro!

For real.

Look around and see for yourself.

Women aren’t dressed like men, men are dressing more like women. Do you need a loose fit of maternity wear? Think back to 1980s suits to now, picture the silhouette. Modern men cover up way too much skin, historically. Why? Well, they don’t fight, there’s no body heat being lost. Sports replaced wars. The wealthy areas tend to be cold or polluted, so we cover up. Powerful men are in vogue, fewer dandies and more fat old men, who tend to cover up.

Long coats are Byronic, like long sleeves. Cravat and tie are basically the same thing in French. Grooming became more important, they didn’t just drop a standard so telling women to forgo makeup would be like telling men exactly which hairstyle to wear regardless of face shape and job and climate and whether or not they were allowed a beard, absurd in any time period. Makeup, like hair style is also cultural. You can see comparisons on Youtube of say, French and American makeup. Men couldn’t have beards in the upper classes until soap and good hygiene became the norm. There were reasons for the aristocratic fashions and all grooming is good grooming, with the exception of anal bleaching.

That would be masochism.

Suits, for instance, change how a man walks. Other men don’t notice, we do.
If a man can’t buy a good pair of shoes, do we trust him?
The effect on manners and a sense of personal dignity cannot be under-estimated.
As one man I know put it, he recently got into vintage and said “I know now that I felt like shit because I looked like it.” People responded to that insecurity signal. Depression is linked with unemployment but also sloppy dressers.
Why is there an envy of the stylish? They look happy. We imagine them contented.
It’s different to pin what caused what and I’m not a man so your feels aren’t my beeswax.
When we picture a utopia, what do we spotlight? What they wear. Instinctively, you care. Cosplay is all about the style and the feel of an era, what it represents. Living history, I’ve heard it called, like recipes and music.

They build up on skills and those traditions are rooted in history, in a country and time.

20m. German lady.

A critical aspect of femininity is presentation and expression.
It isn’t limited to women, however, men gain a collective identity more.

It affects how you carry and identify yourself. Think military uniforms.
This concept was floated in NRx years ago but I figured I’d bring it up again.

6m. French designer.

There’s a distinct pride element, whether it’s class, sex, nation, occasion (we still dress up for weddings..) and think how many aspects of appearance are banned or frowned upon (up to the English flag, because it might offend).
SJWs themselves cannot resist the siren song of a uniform but the blending is childish, Monroe catseye glasses with a Betty fringe and Audrey shirts, they signal an ignorance of feminine style. It’s pure fashion and poorly crafted as a look. There is no style.
How many people dress like hoodrats and chavs that wouldn’t dream of it ten years ago? Thanks to Anonymous making it middle class rebellion.
How did wearing Mom Jeans become Tech Guru status? Apple smartphones.
Why don’t men wear hats and spats and carry canes?
Where did all the petticoats go?

These sound superficial but the fabrics follow the philosophies. Designers respond to demand.
We dress cheaply because clothing is made cheaply. That makes us cheap people. History will view us as such. Trends set in LA temperatures look ridiculous in Europe. I said it.
Please can men discuss this because obviously I don’t want to tell you what to wear but women notice. We note the expression and effort, why else do you think the gay best friend thing came about?

This isn’t superficial, aesthetics is critical. It’s the ultimate emotional appeal (looking good) and, no offense, but the signal of sophistication and elegance is one few people could ever make. Natural beauty is genetic but style is a level playing field. The dress-up montages in film and anime are a token marker of stepping into a social role (think Iron Man suiting up) and mature responsibilities.

I’ve noticed one particular thing I want to point out before I set this festive post on a timer: PC culture has risen as appearance has gotten more sloppy. With weak signals from look, the verbal mannerly side has gone into overdrive.

Jordan Peterson: “Sex is dangerous”

There are people who don’t know this?

Have you read any history books, ever?

Where did syphilis come from, huh?

The original position of misogyny is that women carry disease.
Women are evil for making us lust (dude, look away).
Now we know it’s quite the reverse, women are more exposed to male vectors.
Women suffer higher infertility and more reproductive cancers than men.
However, men still need high awareness of the risk, a very real, fatal risk.

Here’s a law, which I’m gonna call Scholar’s Law:

If you assume the opposite of any typical Boomer position, it is likely to be correct.

e.g.

Technically, sex should classify as the most extreme sport, if we are foolish enough to consider it as exercise at all!

The Spanish Flu pandemic was also caused by soldiers. Slutty, slutty soldiers. I’m sure the weakened immune systems didn’t allow their vaccines to mutate….

https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-swine-flu-vaccine-1976-casts-a-giant-shadow-5788

They cared more for their boots keeping clean than their penis.

A Critical Review of Genius Famine’s Review

Because it’s been years since I read the book, (it actually came out in 2014-2015, moron) I’m going to ‘review’ (rip to shreds cruelly) this review. [tldr: Y’ALL NEED HBD, JESUS.]

5,000-ish words. Putting the shit into shitposting.

Because I can.

I feel I’ve lost YEARS off my life doing this, like the machine in Princess Bitchin’ Bride.

That’s its name now.

They’re bigging up Charlton because so many others (including yours truly) did first. Happy little lemmings of the online trend.
I’m happy for him and his co, Genius Famine is a solid 4-star book. It’s actually K-selection, that missing puzzle piece, a norm of religiosity is a part of it, not the other way around. Also, excess religion kills everyone. Massive hypothetical problems right there. MOVING TAYLOR SWIFTLY ON.

I need another yacht party, preserve me in Russian Standard.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-genius-famine-the-death-of-religion-will-lead-to-the-death-of-genius-and-the-death-of-civilization

WE NEED HARDER SCIENCES. It’s a little like porn, the soft stuff is never enough.
“intelligence is negatively correlated with genetic signs of high mutational load–such as an ‘asymmetrical’ (ugly) face”
I linked to that the other day lately, and I’m basically the ONLY person round these parts who calls it mutation load when the correct scientific nomenclature is ‘genetic load’. I thought mutation/al was more descriptive. I am one literary bitch. WHO is stealing my shit?
Naturally, the only solution to an unnatural, manmade boom is artificial eugenics. I digress. There isn’t even a bar cart in sight. It’s my inner alcoholic.
Charlton tries so sincerely to answer an HBD question with philosophy, applying religion to (a problem of) evobiology is one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard. My linking to his blog was intended as a supplement, not the substantive meal. For that, look up key HBD authors. If God himself came down on a fluffy cloud and zapped people with lightning bolts like a rock star Zeus, it still wouldn’t change the fact DNA exists and evolutionary genus have undergone speciation. If God created everything, why is any of his creation a bad thing to you? Where is your faith? Why wouldn’t He want us to understand all the incredible detail He threw into this video game? He’s got the whole world in his hands. So technically, God is cupping your balls. Respect Him.
The Industrial Revolution is fingered in A Troublesome Inheritance (uncited) but the evidence to support it is limited. Sharing the technology seems to have been the problem, the profit motive. Releasing certain technologies puts them in the hands of the low-IQ by default. This doesn’t end well, see the concepts of game theory and the arms race for further details.


There were actually two sexual revolutions before the one we know of the 1960s. Boomers are not the pivotal generation of history. The 60’s finale is the nail in the Western coffin with the Long March Through the Institutions, as the brilliant minds of the prior century finally died off.
1 – The Romantic Movement of the early 1800s. You’ve heard of it, Byron? Suddenly feelings were more important than facts and everyone realized what a special snowflake they were.
2 – The Belle Epoque and a little beforehand. The lifetime of Oscar Wilde fits it neatly. Again, the postwar generosity of K-types to struggling unfit societies in the name of God is the problem. Yes, I posit that Missions from God are demonic. When you consider everything they spawned to the outgroup is suffering – from the continued spread of leprosy, booming and starving populations, the rise of HIV, NGO child rape scandals and various tribal wars over scarce resources, the do-gooders of the 19th century killed it for the whole world of the 20th onward, who have had a dependent child in the guilt over the Third World it created ever since. Prove me wrong, internet. I know you can’t.

There’s an academic book, about 500 pages, called Pathological Altruism if you wanna know the mindset behind dumb white people who selfishly think the whole world should aspire to be Just Like Them. As if that’s possible or desirable. It’s written by a woman though, so I don’t expect it to make the same splash in this part of the internet, that constantly complains there aren’t enough women (while insulting and ignoring our contributions, bc thinking tits are terrifying).

HBD answers the concerns about inter-class fertility/fecundity, because class is rather constant based on your genome down the centuries. As in, social mobility has its limits. You can look all this stuff up in your own sweet time, you are literally online to be reading this, you’ve got no excuse.
This is forbidden science because it is predictive. The current paradigm of equalism is not.
The factors mentioned in this article precisely fit into other topics.

e.g.
Family size – time preference, present and historical age at marriage, cultural expectations, national wealth and debt. Therefore, you’d expect Western(er) fertility will NEVER rise until national debt is removed as a dysgenic pressure. Not one of you wankers boo-hooing over the future has mentioned this. Clarey got close.

Not as random as it sounds.
I say Westerner because Magic Dirt isn’t real and we don’t want to bring up fertility in the West using non-Westerners, who have their own homeland to despoil. People are not interchangeable cogs, personality is genetically heritable too! You can’t build high-trust healthy societies with people who prefer to marry their child cousins and rig elections.
DNA PROVIDES.
Luther, while based AF, not so much, on these topics.

The word dysgenic isn’t used in these conversations either. Atheism may be dyscivic but agnosticism is a human right. The Pope hates this.
Personality metrics are as important as IQ. Plenty of the world’s leaders are above-average IQ, they know what they are doing. These are the Fifth Column.
By chance alone, they couldn’t keep doing exactly the wrong thing for the People.
There are many myths about Christian fertility. If you breed beyond your ability to provide, another tenet of the religion, then all the children and the entire family die. This happens quickly or slowly, with reduced prosperity and poor marital prospects in times of K-selection, that either cause no marriage to occur, sub-standard fertility in the non-assortative pair match, excess labour and no creative production (bad for epigenetics) and/or mutation accumulation. Time preference correlates to industriousness and what we now call grit but is essentially prudence.
It’s tempting to claim Idiocracy! because listing pop culture in place of papers is part of the dumbing down you so despise but first you must understand what an Idiocracy is = r-selection.
The K-shift we are undergoing is a prelude to the Malthusian contraction of population better known as the Malthusian trap. Think the big toothy metal things in cartoons.
You cannot describe demographic patterns without the Malthusian trap.

Nobody cites the meme “demographics is destiny” when that’s obviously the topic too. If you’re trying to make the complex easy to remember for simple readers. I just use GIFs to break up the text. Evidence of too much thinking intimidates them, y’see.

Get with the clickbait times, grandpa

The best argument I have seen on the spread of upper-class genes by the death of the lower orders was the spread of Black Death. This happened in bursts that appear to correspond to social and cultural leaps. It also targeted the urban leeches.
It is not a coincidence.
The strangest regressive trend is the spread of STDs, which are not purely r-selected, since the species must reproduce in K-types too and spouses do cheat. In the era of premarital sex, they may have brought the infertility or birth-defect causing pathogens (by mutating development) into the marriage itself. Religion happens to prevent these problems e.g. no prostitution, keep celibate, it doesn’t answer them. The strongest candidate for a shift after Black Death is the probable damage caused by Syphilis. I noticed this but I haven’t found anyone to explicitly study it.
There is also the matter of atheist scientist superhero. It’s a myth of scientism. There is social pressure. Anonymously, plenty of scientists identify as non-atheist, something else. The atheism probability exists on a bell curve of one to two standard deviations; beyond this, belief in the supernatural and faith in bizarre, paranoid delusions also increases greatly.
That’s why they tend to go a bit ..loopy at the end. Especially the mathlete Olympiads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Grothendieck

There’s a shocking lack of historical (OLD, dusty-ass) case studies (Freud did this! If Freud can do this!…) and historical or cultural asterisks on the (largely but hardly acknowledged personality) theories of Genius Famine, but the bare bones is correct.

Here’s where I go off on one.

“The emancipation of women only worsened this fall in IQ, argue Dutton and Charlton.”

There is no evidence and quite the opposite, as child IQ conforms highly to maternal IQ and there is growing evidence about the benefits of delaying motherhood, at least until after the teenage years, once the body has stabilized and ceased to grow. Men traditionally delayed fatherhood too but don’t expect parity in discussion because questioning your priors is so sissy apparently.
The suffrage was universal, as the most cursory reading of history will confirm. Women could actually vote in many places before it anyway. ‘Women’s suffrage’ is a feminist myth.
I’ve covered this and so have others, in extensive detail. Modern young woman is more conservative than the average young man and in Charlton’s own country, women now vote more conservatively than men. This is a mathematical trend you can take to the sperm bank. Calm down.

Fridge horror. Did nobody bother to look this all up?
Where is the intellectual curiosity in intellectuals these days?
You don’t just get to proclaim an opinion because of your name or its letters, or else we’d take Lena Dunham’s advice on the biology of abortion. This is called an appeal to authority, emotional children.

 

It’s also another reason I go anon. I don’t want to get attacked IRL for stating basic truths any asshole could point out with five minutes and an internet connection. You are already in the place you need to be, I’m crudely drawing a map.

“They have far fewer children than less intelligent women, who are more likely to become pregnant young and by accident”

That is a failing of the Sexual Revolution, availability and attitudes to contraception, the abandonment of fathers and all those things combined that caused the monolithic rise of the modern welfare state. These are the true culprits of the issue, not voting. Most socialists are men, for example. Cthulhu swims Left. The voting is splintered far more by race than it ever could be by sex, and not one of them has the stones to finger ‘race’ as an issue. Try studying Voting Behaviour 101. See the recent election of Trump, where white women mostly voted for him and hardly any non-white. It’s a racial composition matter.
On a finer note, I’ve yet to see a modern civilization that isn’t white in root or base. I don’t see civilization as a bad thing either, it depends what you consider Peak, a question the NRx keep bitch-slapping over, especially in the Catholic blogs, that I feel Brucey would enjoy.
It is also strange to note that they deny intelligent women exist – until it’s tempting to criticize us for our responsible breeding habits.[But if we’re irresponsible, we’re also evil single mothers? Because all conception is intentional, right? And the father will definitely marry them, huh? And finding a spouse is so easy for anyone, m/f, not-dumb? And they have magical solutions for all these conflicts of the postmodern with the biological? Without actually going into the biology of it? ] Intelligent women breed far more often than intelligent men, if you look historically. They do not. There is no comparison of the sexes upon which to make these snide remarks. They fixate on one half of a whole problem. Blame Women! as your standby is literally sexist (and stupid, these are societal issues). As would be Blame Men! be sexist, and stupid for similar, anti-natal reasons. I proffer Blame R-types, since they are exactly the problem here. It doesn’t stroke the ego but it settles the mind.

Women discuss family problems far more than men, you just don’t look for us.
Family politics is literally our domain, the home.
You don’t get to pretend this is your area. It shows. Low EQ and SQ.
Men crowd around a table and discuss money, women discuss socially.
Maybe ask mumsnet how easy raising babies is today?
IF so, why no more stay-at-home dads and let her do the ‘hard work’?

The looming factor post-IR isn’t mentioned once. The world wars were incredibly dysgenic.
The healthy and young and brave died. The cowards and feeble and corrupt remained safe and plump and sexed at home, to later provide for their children (Parental Investment Theory) and give them an advantage over war widows (the reason for our welfare state).
Draft limitations are a problem not one man has the courage to mention.

You spared the genetic detritus. Darwin is laughing at you.
Might I impose that this selective blindness is an arrogant bias, on part of a sex who wishes fully to blame the Other?
Where geniuses do breed, they do not mention the potential for dead-end mutations e.g. Goethe’s children.
I suppose they mustn’t know? That’s encouraging.

Not to mention the female germline is more stable. The male is prone to mutations, because it’s constantly regenerating. So any problems with homosexuality, for instance… yeah, that isn’t on women. Infertility in men is literally measured by their mutations. Little X-men swimmers. The superpower is schizophrenia.

The American Model of collegiate academia killed the Medieval University of Europe. Chief among the concerns is tenure. There is no sound reason for tenure, a form of academic welfare. Naturally, I expect too much for academics still in the Matrix-like system to admit this. Universities have too much money and hence waste their time. It’s affluenza on the level of an organisation. I do not expect that idea to be popular, but it is the truth. If Harvard couldn’t be left money in donations and wills, would it be so arrogant? Would the conceit spread to its founders? Why is the state teat extended to these people? They have become like the modern church, with the same problems e.g. tax exemption. The Bible says ya gotta pay taxes. The Vatican gets around this by being the State. Again, I don’t expect these problems to magically wax into focus given the bias of the writers, I have to mention it.

And someone’s going to act like it can afford to go unsaid.

“Academics contribute to this by getting funding, publishing frequently, and attending conferences.”
The social scene is poison. There, I said it. It’s populated by the midwits Vox Day complains about. They think they’re clever because they all mutually agree. Aren’t they lovely? Good in front of a camera, bad thinkers.

It is a little sexist to call the model of fault Head Girl when her role is often second to Head Boy and anyone British knows what a massive kiss-up the Head Boys are. Most of the leading academia they complain of is still generally male, so I wonder how they can square that circle…

The obedience of school is the Prussian model. It’s based on the male military complex. Before that, the rote form to teach monks. ..Were they girly too?
Boys’ schools do not magically produce geniuses on par with Tesla. Women and femininity are not the problem and assuredly not a weakness. This is a cheap, trivial argument. The problem is sub-par management, which, if you look at politics too, is decidedly male. Is the masculinity a problem? No. Gender has nothing to do with it. The people running the show are simply incompetent, due to generations of suck-ups getting promoted, largely thanks to credentialism.
I fear they may be a little intimidated by the findings that girls’ scores have exceeded boys’. Well, if we stopped grading on a curve, used a mixture of testing metrics (papers and exam because there are problems with both), in an anonymous exam condition it’s the same paper, either you know your stuff or you don’t. If we stopped grading on a curve, male grades would slip further down because they don’t care, they’re kept in education beyond vocation age (13-14). Girls are more receptive to any instruction, including education. Blame the white matter, learning is a social experience. Maybe in one-on-one tutor setups boys would do better, but good luck getting state funding for that!
Also, why do grades need to be an intersex competition? Curriculums have always been crap, you’re meant to go beyond it.
“This person will be excellent at playing the academic game and will make a great colleague. But they won’t innovate; won’t rock the boat.”
The problem there is a culture called collectivism, it is the opposite of Western individualism and dampens creativity. Snuffs it, kills it dead. It’s prevalent in Asia, not female-only spaces. You also cite a personality trait called agreeableness and another, conscientiousness. Personality types are not wrong per se, they have a place. Bad academics were hired there by other bad academics who slipped through the old net and now academia is bad. Where is the XX in this, specifically? There were all-good female colleges and still are, same with boys’. Don’t grasp for simplistic bullshit.
If you knew as many stories about Catholic boarding schools as I do, you’d know godly obedience is not the norm. Have you heard of St Trinians? If anything, the veil of religion is an excuse to misbehave, because you can just go out on Saturday and confess to a priest on Sunday and it’s all fine with The Big G by Monday.
Naturally, I don’t expect two men to know this. However, it’s their job to check.
Part of the rationale of mixed sex schools was to reduce rebellion caused by sexual frustration, by channeling it socially. It has been moderately successful, except class sizes present a new issue.
The above incompetent management issue applies to religious schools for boys as well, that also have rampant abuse (fagging), pedophilia and homosexual problems... don’t ask the ‘hard’ questions though, guys. Very manly.

“Once upon a time, they note, a ‘country vicar’ had lots of free time to research” –botany, no
You can’t build a quantum tunnel in the average English garden. Stop it. Citizen science is dead barring medical trial subjects.
Ironically, those botanical studies led to the theory of evolution. It is strange to read a man who clearly doesn’t believe in evolution, make references to biology that stands on it.
There were also scientific nuns. They do not get a look-in (ever) although they meet the criteria of being both heavily religious and scientific….
Moreover, the search for Adam and Eve led to fossil studies. It’s almost like you can’t suppress epistemic truth and this upsets idiots.

“The genius has no institution to nurture him and his potential will not be fulfilled.”
He has never needed one, he needs a shed.
Scholarly pursuits didn’t begin in the Middle Ages!

Let’s wrap this up a little.

The problems are thrice:
1. if everyone is equal, nobody is special and there’s no such thing as genius. We don’t need to worry about it or nurture it because we must deal with the dullards and dunces, who need us the most, say the low-IQ themselves, who want to feel superior to someone.
2. if geniuses can’t get credit and funding, they can’t do anything. Duh. Science has a price tag.
3. if geniuses somehow happen to succeed, society looks for any way to tear them down out of envy, from claims about mental illness (currently, autism) to political reasons or simply Tall Poppy Syndrome.

Obviously.

“But we have reached a point where our lives are so secure, and where death is so remote, that we no longer believe that our lives, or our society, has eternal significance.”
All Cultures Are Equal lies. PC censorship, yes, we know about.
Punishment of in-group preference.
I mean, these concepts aren’t hard to research.
Most exist on wikipedia, for beginners.
“Western society is selfish; the human race is damaging the Earth.”
Those are two separate points. Europe is the only continent below replacement level.
We are the only sustainable continent. No conversation on sustainability can be had until we address population. The Left thinks it owns the environment as a topic, but they’re really retaining ground so we cannot discuss this in the mainstream, public spheres (denying a platform?)…
“In addition, our high level of comfort means that the problems with which a genius may now grapple are either too theoretical to care about or too long-term to think about now.”
Lie.
“He will cause offence and question the dogmas which give us the comfort of certainty all for the sake of a problem so distant that most of us can postpone thinking about it.”
Lie. I’m sick of these sweeping statements that pretend to be scientific. You get some jumped-up upper-middle class white prick who thinks he’s the next Hitchens because he ‘cares’ about XYZ topic (right-wing virtue signalling). Hitchens read books before mouthing off. For many years. Go back to reddit if you want delusions of grandeur.
“In this context, of life not being serious, we would expect the genius to be pilloried.”
How is life less serious now for anyone paying attention? Literally how? Where is my surfboard to coast?
It’s more serious and seriously depressing than ever!
Sweeping statements!
Geniuses are not insulted, they are denied. They are disqualified so as to be ignored! The findings may as well not have happened!
The cultural message is Noblesse Oblige is dead. We don’t need you, we haz iPhones.
Unmentioned goes the fact that most illustrious scientists were members of the aristocracy. I guess Neoreaction slices a little too close to the nerves!

Academia just replicates the environment of aristocracy – badly.
Look up the story of ‘snob’.

“And geniuses are more sensitive than most.”
In themselves, yes. Externally? Have you read the stories about Newton? He was a Grade A pillock socially, a total misanthrope who neither cared about nor sought approval. It was awesome.
He was worse than House. #herogoals
But I suppose the author wants to self-identify (Hello, Millennial) with Illustrious Status Group by the convenient emotions of existence. Why? If what you’ve written in that very paragraph is true, you’d be signalling anything you could that you were anything BUT a genius, if they’re so openly reviled!
Common sense, there is not.

“Life will become harsher and simpler and, eventually, more religious.”
This is already happening with economics and I linked to Jaymans exemplary coverage of liberal fertility being a feature, not a bug.
They tend to assume all religion is good for science though, when clearly it’s just the one (Protestantism) that allows it.
Not one big Mormon scientist, is there? Catholicism literally killed people for doing maths during the Renaissance. We could be living on other planets and piloting flying cars by now if the Pope weren’t a thing (and nothing in scripture says we need one). The Bible actually says to beware of false prophets who try to replace scripture and that God wants his followers to be happy and prosperous. That would be an easier sell, huh? Human rights aren’t really negotiable if you want someone’s labour so persuasion is the trick.
“At the moment, it seems that there’s nothing we can do to stop this short of a horrendous reversion to pre-Industrial levels of child mortality.”
We won’t stop magically knowing how child-rearing has evolved, this kind of knowledge isn’t academic. It’s preserved in the matrilineal line. This is obvious.
No blackpills unless they’re real.

“But if we could better nurture genius then somebody might come up with a solution before it is too late.”
Almost sounds like the entire point of eugenics. And do you want historical reversion or progress? Biblical living standards or First World ones? Decide. Pick one.
Also, way to pass the fucking buck. You want it? You do it, prick.

These people say they’re So Smart (complete with IQ claims) …but not smart enough to get off their arse and actually do something.

Sure thing, kid. And they call us damsels.

Your armchair philosophy is gonna Save Da World.

Adults in the room, inwardly:

Why should a Feynman work for you?… There is no sane answer to this question. Rand’s stake of a point in the heart of greedy vampire societies that don’t appreciate the people who make it so good. Marx said who do you work for? Rand says WHY.
God-damn the entitlement of normies to the hard-earned property of the intellectual.
Fruits of one’s labour, a human right. Read your philosophy, child. Sowing, reaping…

It justifies the homesteading and other stuff you advocate when civilization ‘dies?’ If tribes in the middle of nowhere can acknowledge this, the higher IQ should be able to wrap our heads around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property#Exclusive_ownership_and_creation
Anything less is slavery. It’s a theft of one’s LIFE-TIME.

It is evil. Bible says a man who will not work, should not eat.

Aaron Clarey has actually covered this, there is no greed, there is only theft. It’s well-known in economics that anything less than a choice is force. That’s left-wing, isn’t it? All working [no leisure, no robots] … according to his abilities…[like you can work above them?] in a kind of commune [rejects family]… that contains everyone [supranationalism, no borders, open borders]… for universalism, a value. [we call this multiculturalism, still]
A little on the theft and self-ownership angle. This isn’t egalitarianism in the modern variation that doesn’t work, it’s from humanism, originally.
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/curr-students/IB/IB-lecture-notes/ib-p7-plt-handout-1.pdf

At most, they the producer get to choose to limit it to potential consumers as they see fit – exclusive to themselves, genetic kin…not everyone. This is Polyanna stupidity, Bill Gates has kept most of his fortune and he’s meant to be the nice one. As stated above, taking things from geniuses is part of the Problem TM. No regulation, no oversight, no Nanny State. Control is part of the ownership conditions. I don’t get to decide to sell your house. They got to that point, you didn’t – they earned the right to tell you to fuck off and build your own spaceship.

Pearls of wisdom are not for the herd of swine. Nope.

“The genius will combine this very narrow intelligence with very narrow interests.”
Hahahahahaha, you’ve never met one, have you?
They take time to decide on topics and between those, they rove. See von Neumann.
Don’t believe the Hollywood trope of a man in slacks sitting in front of a blackboard screaming WHYYYYYY? at the air (or God?) and throwing balled-up pieces of paper at his coworkers who JUST. DON’T. UNDERSTAND. Like that’s *their* problem. The tortured genius is trite and over-used as a metaphor for teenage angst.

STAHP.


“He’ll also be socially awkward and eccentric.”
Define this. Everyone is a weirdo once you get to know them for a few years.
Do you mean autism?
Rain Man wasn’t autistic.
Stop.
Being.
Stupid.
Question.
Your.
Assumptions.

Priors. Whatever fancy fucking name you want. If it makes you feel clever, delta/gamma-tier.

I proceed, insulting nobody in particular.

“They tend to be useless at everyday things”
I knew. I just kneeeew the digs would come in eventually. Point three.
Do you mean all of these people are savants?
No.
And you don’t technically need to be autistic to have savant or splinter skills.

Do they look this up?

*whispers* NO.

INTELLIGENCE IS NOT A DISEASE.
DO NOT PATHOLOGISE IT.

WHY AM I YELLING.
BECAUSE IT’S THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN THIS CRITIQUE AND I LIKE YELLING, IT’S 5AM HERE.

If you actually want a society led by people better than you (some kind of aristocracy cmon), to care and take care of you, then don’t play into the enemy’s mind games.

“they are very fragile people and they are not usually interested in money”
Are they children? Can they not develop? Well, if you’re basing that last on the tenured….
“They need long-term security so that they do not have to worry about ordinary things, which they not interested in and are no good at.”
I feel basing this on mathematical niche SWPL men of the 20th century America is a method flaw.
Einstein is not the prototypic genius. Read more.
He became famous as a meme. The tongue meme. You know the one.

“If we can make these changes, insist Dutton and Charlton, then in spite of declining intelligence, it is possible that a genius may be produced who can develop a solution to this problem”

And I must scream.
What problem.
Define the problem.
HOW.
Use your four operational brain cells.
IF no geniuses = problem, how can we sprout one like a magic beanstalk of N-IQ?
IF intelligence is declining, surely plug the leak in the boat before you begin to bail?
IF there are geniuses, give them the media platform. Give them power. The media platform is the biggest problem because it encourages the stupid. Stop the comedies and MTV reality shit, even the ones you like you must give up America. It’s like taking a dummy from a baby, for much the same reasons.
IF academia is the problem, it isn’t geniuses then, is it? It’s the Cultural Marxist structure that is hostile to anyone that tells the truth.
IF someone had a solution, none of you would listen. That’s your own point, by the way!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Being lectured about degeneracy from a resident of New York.
The irony is five miles deep into Chomsky’s rectal cavity.

I quit this topic, for like… five months, until I’ve forgotten why I hate it again.

I already know the default reaction to this post, for example.

How shitposty do I have to be for you to listen to me? This is proof of what I mean, you complain everything spoonfeeds but then throw the rattle when someone dares break it down because it wasn’t how you’d do it. That’s the purpose of teaching, dumbass. You can’t yet. It wouldn’t work.

It isn’t personal, it’s societal. Not everything is about you.

Get new rhetorical strikes, please. Buy some. Get a GF pillow and a sense of humour too.
Next there’ll be a series of E-books on How to Save Western Civ and step one is grab the testes’ cream…
None of this will be glib, for we are truly the damned. How can you fix people who brag about being broken? How can you save what you can’t find? How can you cooperate with people who turn everything into a WWF match?

World War Three?

You might think this is an eerie kind of fanfiction…

it is not.

Just bear with me here. Listen a little. 2,000 words.

What if the EEC, later known as the European Union, were in fact part of a long line of Empires? A chain stretching back into Ancient times? Now, every kind of society has a maximum size, and various points of failure, like a building.

The function of each of these Empires is simple – labour. Slavery in its brutal form but productivity nonetheless.

The only means by which this can operate is control. A series of levers and social ‘memes’ that keep the whole machine ticking over, because humans must be entertained. It’s not bread and circuses, it’s hot dogs and reality TV. Consider every Empire, by size or density of its population, an experiment. A living experiment with humans much like Calhoun’s rats.

With the same dismal end.

You could relate this to the circling of the degenerate drain known as r-selection.

I’m afraid it’s a little broader than that, you’d need HBD, biohistory and various other theories including psychiatry for a complete picture.

For example, I covered the probable role of syphilis and especially neurosyphilis in the formative modern history of the West. Then there comes the obvious selection pressures of war, Black Death and various toxins, released deliberately in many cases.

The Romans probably fell in IQ due to the cumulative brain damage of lead in their piping.

The Victorians later had problems with cholera.

Basic sanitation is a key vector of disease transmission, ironically. This would relate to water fluoridation in the modern water supply, I’ve linked to its neurotoxic state, acknowledged in science.

Population control can also be achieved by sterilizing STDs, the most recent being Ebola in that is sterilizes via death. Before that, the mysterious origins of HIV and the unusual number of strains, including those tested by militaries. Naturally, this would only work if you pushed some kind of Sexual Revolution to increase the transmission potential but kept it low for your own group.

I’m getting off topic. Let’s keep to certain facts.

Each Empire was doomed to fall, based on its sheer volume of inhabitants.

This is a rule of history.

The EU has already failed based on metrics alone. Its currency has failed.

With the Euro gone, there is nothing to prop it up.

Even the human labour doesn’t exist in both the numbers and the quality (IQ) required. The fall of the EU isn’t an achievement so much as inevitability. The dysgenics put in place for the world wars guaranteed any such plan was doomed.

Much like taxation of the wealthiest (most productive within a year), you can only push so far because people break. They’ve long been suffering the slow death of inflation. This changes a person, it alters the amygdala at least. People seem less polite, more crass and less content with whatever comforts or luxuries their money buys them.

Social power never existed, it’s a polite post-war lie to cover armament for military might.

Considering all of these facts, how can I explain recent events?

Russia is not the danger. The USA is a defanged hound.

It’s China.

A war with MENA is good for the money-lenders, based entirely on the resources found there and nowhere else. How dare those pesky locals demand to be paid for what’s in their country?

Hence, open borders aka NO borders.

It’s Communism with other nation’s resources.

A war with China, however… they don’t believe China has the balls.

Oh, it does. It’s been preparing since WW2 for the next match.

It produces most goods in the world. How quickly would it win, owning all the equipment? They understood Marx well, you cannot produce tanks without a Means of Production.

This isn’t by any stretch all. To keep this short.

There are many economic unions in the world. Only the EU gets attention.

They are temporary alliances, that shall evaporate upon trial.

Nobody wants to upset China, because they’ve been selling their people’s labour at the price of slaves. To foreigners, no less! Some of the most racist people in the world! But why?

As part of a long-term plan to overthrow the West using capitalism, its own invention. Capitalism’s weakness is the honesty of white men, also why ‘free trade’ is BS. Other races prize lying to outsiders, whether you call it taqiyya or etiquette, where they suddenly stop inviting you round if you get fired. The people who seem most polite are lying, they’re hiding something.

It’s been gagging for this shot since the Industrial Revolution, and two world wars weakened us all nicely.

To sacrifice a few generations in the name of their collectivism, indulge in the West goodies but be not of it. To send some r-types overseas to settle and become key figures in politics (this is happening in America as we speak, a Red tide rises) and I already linked to the Economist ages ago predicting WHEN, not IF, but when China will overtake the US economy.

Most people would read that and go back to crying in their cornflakes about feminism.

It’s all connected. Would there be any Yellow Fever, without anime porn?

Would Western men who think they’re too smart for Hollywood porn, be so useless and lotus-eating, like the parasite single (bachelor) men of Japan, without it?

Back to the economy. When any country becomes a dominant power, it gets to play world police aka start as many wars as it likes.

Ask yourself: Is China more bloodthirsty than the US?

Has it dogmatically enforced its own culture, unlike the USA?
Has it tortured its own people to achieve?
Which tries to be the fairer?

What are the signs, you ask?

They learn Western culture e.g. the violin, religiously, to blend in.

But they do not expand the canon.

They punish their children to achieve at any cost, and top the league tables.

This allows them access to the prestige western schools, to befriend future politicians and observe any blackmail material firsthand.

What does a war need? Money and bodies.

Well, there’s a story that they could march all their fighting age men and encircle the world. They have the largest self-sustained population in the world. An excess of men. Anyone read on history knows there is only one means to get rid of a surplus of men. Who can sustain greater losses, all of the West or China?

OK, but what about one baby as a rule?

Why did they make that rule? They knew in their culture it would lead to a surplus of men. Why would a government obsessed with military investment need a huge stock of men to outnumber their main capitalist competition? They’re being trained, and not in factories.

Asia is obsessed with STEM and the military.

Why? Well, engineers and doctors are the two occupations critical to any war effort.

Ideally, you want to train your people overseas, use up their resources while building connections to exploit as informants later, and then extract them back home, depriving the enemy of key workers to subsistence peace-time level.

Gee, which race has a near-monopoly on those two occupations?

But people who read foreign papers will know they changed the baby rule recently.

Again, I ask you.

Why?

Two babies. This is interesting. It means the fighting age culled population will have sufficient females (baby 2) to breed with. It all fits.

The Marxism of China still encourages child-bearing, but the grandparents retain a prominent role to care unlike the West aka Baby Boomers.

People have been spoiling for a war since the 80s, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, all just paper targets.

There are many economic unions and these libertarian experiments (inc. the EU) are, whether they know it or not, pawns in a wider game, the leagues before WW3. You need the upper hand before the game starts, and that’s why nobody wants to start it. The US is not the strongest player, it’s the UK because we can push the US based on our unique geography and naval supremacy. However, the US doesn’t know which enemy will rise up next, or believes in arrogance nobody will dare challenge it (naive) based on two wars it lucked out of. They can’t attack everyone.

That’s why Hitler lost.

Russia and China are in an economic alliance together, I forget which one. The US is not.

That is why both Russia and China have been buying up gold.

You only need that for one thing as a nation.

A gold standard.

China has been faking its gold exports, look up the ones pictured with a Panda hallmark.

Why do that? Aren’t they our friends?

They’ve been taking over cyberspace too. Most hacks now come from Asia, not Russia.

Why need gold practically? It can be used in electronics, especially high-tech war equipment.

They have a lot of men to equip.

If they run out, they can always use some older women. Thanks, feminism!

If China announces it’s moving to a gold standard, the USA will be forced to default.

I believe this may be the black swan you’ve all been looking for?

The EU is backed by the IMF, whose traders include Deutsche Bank, close to open failure.

Like Lehman Brothers in 2007.

UK gilts are bought off the backs of nothing, you’re supposed to trade heavily in gilts during times of war. As in, we’re fuck out of options.

The bubbles accruing on top one another for decades, sped up since ’08, will go at once like dominos. Where do we owe this money, ultimately? Not so much the Jews, although yes historically. All roads lead to China, they keep buying up Western debt, ostensibly for ‘social power’ and out of the goodness of their commie little hearts.

I wonder if we can learn anything about massive indebtedness from the Weimar Republic.

These people poison their own baby formula and don’t withdraw it from the market. They don’t care about one another (beyond direct blood relations) and they hate us.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/china-shipping-human-flesh-cans-8217761

Russia wants to be able to trade with them. This requires gold. People like Putin watch commodities over the Forex.

I don’t often talk shop or economics but this next piece is illustrative.

What’s the immigration rate of China?

So, if a series of riots were to take place based on new, entitled ‘citoyenne’ … we’d be too busy dealing with civil war (4th generation) to consider the mere possibility of another.

Does Crimea make more sense now?

How about in light of the fact that China’s greatest enemy, the Japanese, are being antagonized by North Korea as China’s bitch?

Why do that on their behalf, draw fire like that?

It doesn’t many any sense. If you’re too close to the people who hold a grudge like the Middle Eastern population only with slightly more common sense.

Which countries have retained their culture, yet appeared right-on to embrace multiculturalism?

Even Israel can’t claim that, they’re losing key demographic territory to Palestine. They’re over. Finished.

China, meanwhile, has about a billion. It can afford espionage, brain drain to export and cuddle up to the natives.

It spreads all sorts of rumours about how superior their women are, truly feminine (fake).

India will side with whoever pays them, it has a surplus of men, China has been purchasing Africa in such a ballsy colonialist move I’m astounded nobody has mentioned it.

Africa is key territory for manufacturing weapons. That’s why British Empire.

Natural resources, vital elements.

I do know more, much more, but alas, I can’t really say atm. This is all quite easy to check. The Red Scare is aimed at the wrong target, the Russians are broadly white, Christian and share our culture, including our art.

Who retains their own ‘art’ but appropriates Western culture down to our clothes and eyelids?

..Who sells the dinghies to the ‘refugee’ invasion?

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2093030/rickety-boats-used-smuggle-migrants-europe-made-china

http://www.reuters.com/article/europe-migrants-china-idUSL4N1I62PD

CHINA.

I’ll drop this for now. I’ve been working on these premises for a long time, they’re accurate. I am still here and still thinking, just longer term than the stark majority of shitposters.

Look around. All I ask of you.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/08/21/chinese-ships-planes-hold-war-games-sea-japan.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/05/08/Chinese-coast-guard-sails-near-Japans-Okinawa-Senkaku-Islands/5641494268445/

I’ll just leave these here. No reason. It’s all a coincidence.
http://www.thetower.org/article/chinas-deepening-interest-in-israel/
http://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/israel-china-relations/
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-china-relations
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2080572/china-and-israel-vow-deepen-relations
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-investment-israel-idUSKBN187080?il=0
“”China’s international surge of state-driven investments in emerging technologies should put the United States and our allies on notice,””
“”Once we became a portfolio company of these Chinese investors, they helped with opening doors in China … where the business community really relies on connections you build there.””
“”We are not worried to take Chinese money over U.S. money,” said Bar-Zeev of IronSource. “If you can deliver, there are endless opportunities.””
The EU is a distraction. The future flag is…

The G8 is nothing.

Alliances are everything.

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?