From the ABC in Australia: An 18-year-old Victorian man has blamed rough surf and strong winds for a series of alleged assaults against girls and women on the Gold Coast.
Police allege the man assaulted eight girls and women as they swum between the flags yesterday afternoon at Surfers Paradise.
It is alleged the girls and women, aged between 15 and 24, were assaulted in a half-hour period.
They complained about the man to lifeguards, who called police.
The Pakistani national was charged with two counts of attempted rape, seven counts of sexual assault and four counts of common assault and appeared in the Southport Magistrates Court this morning.
The court heard the man allegedly sexually assaulted two of the females through their bikini bottoms.
His lawyer told the court that winds and big waves pushed her client into the women, who were swimming between the flags in separate groups.
But Magistrate John Costanzo said the man’s explanation that heavy surf and wind conditions caused the alleged assaults seemed implausible.
“The Crown will argue that’s the most unfortunate conspiracy of circumstances in history,” he said.
Mr Costanzo denied the man’s bail application because he was an unacceptable risk of re-offending.
“My view of the facts in this case is the Crown case appears to be quite strong in the allegation of eight separate, brazen and repeated sexual assaults and attempted rape,” he said.
“It’s an indication of a person having great difficulty controlling their sexual instincts.”
Posted inAustralia|Comments Off on 18yo Pakistani charged with sexual assault of women in surf blamed rough conditions, court told
Bloke1: “How come we have only heard about gentrification over past couple of decades?”
Luke: “There was an explosion of land use regulations in the 1970s, taking a lot of land off the market, and making development increasingly difficult. This dramatically spiked real estate prices in nice white areas. Whites who can’t afford to live in these places any more but still want to stay in Los Angeles or the Bay Area or New York or Washington DC have to move into black and hispanic areas. Gentrification means making a place white.”
Bloke2: “I see that 90035 is one of the few places in Los Angeles becoming more white.”
Luke: “More Jewish. More Jews move in here every week.”
Bloke1: “I’m hispanic and I can’t think of any neighborhood that’s been improved by a bunch of Mexicans moving in.”
“What do you think of asians?”
Luke: “They understand racial pride. Us vs them is the most normal thinking in the world.”
REPORT: This article briefly describes Lynn’s view on what makes modern populations rise and fall. It then provides a demographic analysis of what happens to modern sub-fertile high-IQ Western populations when Internal Relaxation of Darwinian Selection (IRDS) combines with External Relaxation (ERDS, in the form of super-fertile low-IQ non-Western immigration) into Double Relaxation of Darwinian Selection (DRDS). The genotypic IQ decline will ruin the economic and social infrastructure needed for quality education, welfare, democracy and civilization. DRDS is currently unopposed politically, so existing fertility differentials may eventually lead to Western submission or civil resistance.
Posted inImmigration, IQ|Comments Off on The decay of Western civilization: Double relaxed Darwinian Selection
As I pointed out right after the 2012 election, Romney-Ryan did very poorly with blue-collar whites in the numerous states around the Great Lakes that the GOP lost fairly narrowly in the Electoral College. I noted on VDARE on November 12, 2012:
The other six states in this region, however, all slipped through [Romney’s] fingers: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
In each of these Slippery Six states, Romney won at least 45 percent of the vote. But he still wound up a cumulative 0 for 80 in Electoral Votes. If Romney, rather than Obama, had won all six, he’d be President.
The Slippery Six are states with old-fashioned white and black voting demographics, still with a smattering of old time unionized factory workers. Hispanics, much less Asians, are, for the moment, still a minor matter politically.
According to Reuters, Romney lost the Slippery Six states because (exactly as VDARE.com warned repeatedly while digging white share data out of reluctant tracking polls, see here and here and here), he did badly there among white voters—winning only 52 percent, six points worse than nationally.
Most notably, Romney did terribly among the white working class in these six states. Thus he did only two points worse among whites with college degrees in the Slippery Six than he did nationally. But among the white “some college” component, he came in six points worse than nationally. And among the white “no college” voters, he performed 11 points worse than across the country—finishing tied with Obama.
In fact (although sample sizes are getting small), Romney even appears to have suffered the ignominy of a reverse gender gap among no-college whites in the Slippery Six—winning 51.4 percent of the women, but only 48 percent of the white working class men.
The Media and the GOP Establishment famously took the opposite lesson: that the winning strategy in 2016 would be for the GOP to jettison the interests of working class whites by promoting more Mexican and Central American immigration.
After all, in the swing state of Florida there is nothing that Cuban and Puerto Rican voters care more about than the travails of their Mexican hermanos. And picking up a few more Mexican votes in California and in Texas would, while doing nothing in the Electoral College, make the popular vote margin look better in 2016. I mean, you can’t argue with Political Science.
N0w, however, what Peter Brimelow has long called the “Sailer Strategy” seems to be ascendant, since the collective wisdom of the Republican Establishment, embodied in the implicit promise of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio to “¡Make America more like Latin America!” has proved so unedifying to likely Republican voters in polls. From the Washington Post:
By Philip Rucker and Robert Costa January 13 at 6:00 AM
MANCHESTER, N.H. — … Their encounter illustrated the urgent imperative of Republicans — historically the party of business, money and power — to broaden their coalition with many more white working-class voters. As the nation diversifies and the GOP struggles to adapt, the presidential hopefuls see this demographic bloc as the key to taking back the White House.
“Some of them have never voted,” Cruz campaign manager Jeff Roe said. “It’s staggering. If they can be convinced to come out and vote, we win.”
There has been a debate within the party — and the political class — about whether Republicans need to diversify to win or whether it just needs to attract more of its core constituencies. So far in 2016, led by Cruz and Donald Trump, the election has moved decisively toward the latter. The exceptions, such as Jeb Bush and Lindsey O. Graham, are either out of the race or on the edges of it.
Trump is making the most visceral, raw appeal to people who feel left out of the economic recovery and ignored by the political establishment. He espouses hard-line views on immigration that border on nativism, protectionist trade policies and a tough approach with countries like China, Japan and Mexico that he portrays as thieves of U.S. manufacturing jobs.
Cruz, a Texas senator, is taking a similar tack, especially on immigration, airing a provocative television ad last week that depicts illegal immigrants racing across the U.S. border in suits and high heels to steal jobs from Americans.
By contrast, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida is trying to connect with working-class voters through policy ideas.
Obviously, advocating more restrictionist immigration and trade policies aren’t policy, they’re just nativism.
He advocates expanding vocational education and sings the virtues of manual labor. Bush’s aspirational economic message echoes Rubio’s.
Aspirational hoo-ha about American exceptionalism is policy. Concrete proposals about immigration and trade are hate.
COMMENTS:
* It’s only a matter of time before the term “Sailer strategy” is being used on cable talk show panels. Someone may even point out that a candidate only has to increase his share of the white vote a fraction of what he’d have to increase the hispanic vote since whites are still a large majority of voters, rebutting the nonsense that minorities decide national elections.
* Not just the slippery six, but also Maine, New Hampshire, Washington, and Oregon have similar demographics and voters. With the slippery six it’s over 100 electoral votes.
Key indicator in my mind- they are not particularly religious and are turned off by the Republican Evangelicals. Will they warm to Trump?
* It worked for Nixon and Reagan. And Eisenhower, too. Nothing new here.
Posted inRepublicans, Whites|Comments Off on Republicans Embrace The Sailer Strategy
Multiple explanations exist for Donald Trump’s popularity, but one stands out above all: his willingness to violate that taboos of Political Correctness and speak the unvarnished truth on such hot button topics as immigration and Islam. Nearly all Americans are angry at being lied to and having to watch themselves as if they lived in Stasi-run East Germany. Who wants to risk ending a career by admitting that some groups are more crime-prone or intelligent than others? Or announcing that men are naturally better suited to combat than women and having this self-evident pronouncement treated as an embarrassing gaffe that requires immediate groveling and begging forgiveness? In a nutshell, Trump is unafraid to speak truth about the overly sensitive, easily offended groups protected by the mendacious “establishment.” Now, at last, millions of potential voters long starved for honesty have a champion.
As Trump refuses to fold, it is inevitable that his rivals (and perhaps the Democratic nominee) will grasp the benefit of similarly embracing this anti-PC view. We can already see hints of this copycat strategy in the new “tough” Jeb Bush commercials.
But while it is all too easy to be anti-PC in the abstract, the proof of a candidate’s seriousness can only be displayed in the specifics. With that in mind, let me propose a five-question test to assess a candidate’s aversion to PC that could, in principle, devastate a political career. Destroying careers is not, however, our aim; rather, the goal is to calibrate the sincerity of those who condemn PC on the cheap. We do not expect perfect frankness; more important is how they hem and haw and run for cover when asked “offensive” questions.
The list is tentative and I invite suggestions.
One: Everybody from university president to military generals and corporate CEO’s insist that diversity is America’s strength. Do you agree? Can you provide specific examples of how government-imposed diversity, notably affirmative action and court-mandated school integration, has made us a stronger nation so as to compete with our foreign rivals?
Two: Is Islam a religion of peace, and if you agree, how do you explain the enduring, horrific internecine violence in the Middle East? Can this sectarian brutality be explained without recourse to the religious principles of Islam?
Three: For nearly half a century the governments at all levels have spent hundreds of billions to close the racial gap in academic achievement. Can this gap ever be closed? Given that all previous remedies have failed, what new solutions would you propose?
Four: America is currently experiencing massive immigration and to take a hypothetical example of how this impacts ordinary Americans, would the arrival of 1000 Hispanic immigrants improve the quality of life of a small Midwestern town of 5000 residents? Would community life be better or worse post arrival?
Five: Despite countless laws and endless litigation, women remain under-represented in top corporate jobs. Is this disparity due to sexism and discrimination, and if so, can the federal government create gender equality? What is the role of innate biological differences in this gap?
Jared Taylor, a leading white nationalist known for his academic-sounding deconstructions of multiculturalism, has been an ardent supporter of Donald Trump since the earliest days of the billionaire’s presidential campaign.
The professorial Taylor–who speaks with a formality that verges on the pedantic–admits that he’s not a big fan of Trump’s raw, confrontational style. But he calls himself a “one-issue voter”–and that issue is Trump’s bread and butter: Immigration.
“I think what he’s done is a very important thing,” Taylor told The Washington Post. “He’s the first candidate in decades to say almost explicitly that immigration should be in the interest of Americans and not just immigrants.”
He added: “He’s attractive to many Americans who see their country slipping through their fingers. You don’t want to end your days living in an outpost of Haiti or Guatemala do you?”
Last weekend, Taylor–editor of the white supremacist magazine American Renaissance–lent his voice to a robo-call recording urging registered voters in Iowa to back Trump. Those potential voters, Taylor told The Post, are part of a silent majority who are tired of being asked to celebrate diversity but are afraid of being labeled bigots.
“I urge you to vote for Donald Trump because he is the one candidate who points out that we should accept immigrants who are good for America,” Taylor says on the recording, which was paid for by the American National super PAC. “We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.”
{snip}
Does Taylor think his plea will resonate with Iowans?
“We’ll see how the vote goes,” he said. “I think that most official Republicans have no idea how betrayed ordinary white people feel by their country bring turned into something else. Ordinary white folks are sick of having to press 1 for Spanish.”
Taylor said he cited Muslims in his message because Trump has been resoundingly criticized for saying the United States should bar Muslims from entering the country.
“I have yet to hear from anyone the benefits that Muslims bring to this country,” he said.
{snip}
Taylor has previously said Trump “may be the last hope for a president who would be good for white people.”
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Hear a White Nationalist’s Robocall Urging Iowa Voters to Back Trump
Crime rose dramatically in Los Angeles last year, according to Los Angeles Police Department data. Homicides were up 10%, shooting victims up 12.6%, and aggravated assaults up 27.5%, compared with 2014. Violent crime overall was up nearly 20%. Property crime increased more than 10%.
Los Angeles’ crime victims are not alone, however. The city’s crime increase is part of a nationwide trend. Homicides are up about 16% in the 60 largest U.S. cities, compared with 2014. Baltimore’s per capita killing rate is now the highest in its history. Shootings in Cincinnati were up 30% by mid-September 2015 compared with the same period in 2014. Homicides in St. Louis were up 60% by the end of August. Shootings in Chicago were up 17% and homicides up 15%. Sacramento had the bloodiest 12 months last year since 2008.
This national crime increase is a reversal from the first half of 2014, when violent crime dropped nearly 5% across the country. Shootings and homicides nationwide began rising in the second half of the year, leaving 2014’s violent crime tally a wash. The increase continued through 2015. In response, Atty Gen. Loretta Lynch convened an emergency meeting of 100 police chiefs, mayors and federal prosecutors in October 2015 to strategize about the growing violence.
The likeliest reason for the crime surge is what I and others call the Ferguson effect: Officers are backing off proactive policing, and criminals are emboldened. Since the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in August 2014, the Black Lives Matter protest movement has routinely labeled cops murderers and bigots. Activists and politicians denounce pedestrian stops and public-order enforcement as racist. Arrests in urban neighborhoods have become dangerously fraught, with bystanders cursing at officers, throwing things at them, and sometimes interfering with their lawful authority. Cops worry that if they have to use force against a resisting suspect, an incomplete cellphone video that fails to convey the suspect’s resistance will put their careers in jeopardy.
Official spokesmen deny that policing practices have changed, but there is evidence that cops are responding to this political and street pressure by doing less of the discretionary policing that has come under such fire. An officer who works on Los Angeles’ Westside told me recently: “The topic of Ferguson has been heavily discussed [among cops]. It’s had a chilling effect in terms of how line officers perceive their work and how aggressively they approach it. Veteran officers say they now let a lot of things slide that they would not have in the past.” An officer from South Los Angeles reported: “Gang members are emboldened by what is happening. They’re constantly … putting phones in our faces, and yelling racial epithets. At some point, especially at night, that phone will be a gun.” L.A. officers are advising one another that it’s crazy to get out of their cars, unless it’s a 911 call, another cop said.
Arrests in Los Angeles were down more than 9% in 2015 compared with 2014, and down 17% compared with 2013. Arrests decreased further in police divisions where tensions run particularly high. In the Newton Division, arrests are down 13% compared with 2014 and down nearly 28% compared with 2013. Newton was where Ezell Ford was killed by Los Angeles Police Department officers in August 2014 after Ford tried to grab an officer’s gun. Homicides in Newton rose 80% in 2015, violent crime was up 25%, and shooting victims, up 31%.
FBI Director James Comey has seconded the Ferguson effect, influenced by conversations with police chiefs and officers across the country. Officers in one big-city precinct described being surrounded and taunted “the moment they get out of their cars,” Comey said in a speech in October. “They told me, ‘We feel like we’re under siege.’” Comey concluded: The “chill wind blowing through American law enforcement … is surely changing behavior.”
California’s Proposition 47 is probably contributing as well to the state’s crime increase. That ballot measure, which went into effect in 2015, downgraded many property and drug felonies to misdemeanors. Criminals are doing a fraction of the time they once were, if they are being arrested at all.
But reaction to anti-cop vitriol is the biggest driver of the crime increase in Los Angeles and nationally. None of the factors usually blamed for crime — poverty, income inequality, the availability of illegal guns — have significantly worsened over the last year and a half. The one thing that has changed is the relentless, virulent discourse about the police.
Posted inCrime, Los Angeles|Comments Off on The Ferguson effect in Los Angeles – more crime
Piggybacking on the previous post (and perhaps modifying it), here is a research paper (h/t Irving) authored by Chateau VIP guest Satoshi Kanazawa which uncovered some ugly truths about sex differences in xenophilia (pathological love of foreigner).
For foreign conquest and alien rule, the evolutionary psychological perspective suggests that women should fear alien rule much less than men, but only so long as they are reproductive, because they then have a good chance of being spared by the conquerors and have the option of marrying into them. Accordingly, the analyses of the Eurobarometer data show that young women are much less xenophobic than young men, but the sex differences disappear around age 50. […]
Interestingly, a separate analysis (not shown) demonstrates that the interaction term between sex and age in a combined sample of all ages is not statistically significant, except for religion. It means that, at least for nationality and race, women do not gradually and linearly become more xenophobic over the life course. They suddenly become qualitatively more xenophobic sometime between the ages of 40 and 50.
The entire paper is a great read, beyond the salient finding quoted above. Kanazawa is a skilled messenger of evolutionary psychology, even when putting forth theories that are more speculative in nature than established fact. Kanazawa’s basic contention – that wars are fought ultimately for access to, or protection of, pussy – dovetails with the CH premise that the sexual market is the one market to rule them all.
Anecdotally, I have heard far more support for rapefugees, and more generally for open borders, from young White women than I have from any other group of people. (The men I know don’t bring it up, but a few of them, when forced into a conversation about it, hemmed and hawed or meekly cosigned their girlfriends’ opinions. Even the alphas are susceptible to this inglorious path of least resistance.)
The women might not truly believe what they claim to think about letting in Muslim refugees — CH Maxim [X] explicitly advises watching what women do instead of listening to what they say, for the two are quite often at odds, especially in a mate market context — or they might believe it only insofar as they are signaling their conformity to GoodWhitethink, and otherwise don’t feel very strongly about helping rapefugees and throwing open the borders to the third world.
Whichever it is, there is no doubt young, single women (and yes, this includes single White women) vote IN DROVES for the antiWhite leftoid candidate on the presidential ticket. Kanazawa would appear to be onto something regarding the evolutionary psychology underpinning the easy acquiescence of young fertile women to invasion by foreign conquerors. And, as is becoming dishearteningly more obvious, when invasion isn’t looming on women’s horizons, invitation extended to the foreigner to traipse into their White homelands will substitute nicely.
To swipe a page from the Alinsky playbook and pin a suitably baneful term on the phenomenon: women suffer from ignorant xenophilia, and the cure is (*smarmy liberal voice*) education.
I hope that I’m getting a skewed impression of women’s true feelings regarding border control and White demographic displacement, because if I’m not then the fate of our White nations is sealed, barring repeal of the 19th Amendment.
Alternately, a YUGE increase in the population of marrieds and decrease in the age of first marrieds would also improve the electoral prospects of proto-nationalists, because married women tend to vote like their shitlord husbands. Care of children and preservation of family has a way of focusing female minds.
On a hopeful coda, data analysis of profiles on the OKCupid online dating website tangentially contradict Kanazawa’s finding that maximally fertile White women fetishize foreigners more than do men. If dating preferences can be extrapolated to immigration preferences, then White women want to import swarths as much as they want to date swarths… which is to say, not much.
COMMENTS:
* These past three days it’s been interesting seeing CH’s take on women’s sexual and maternal motivations for The Invading Hoards hoards, as they dovetail with my own views quite a bit. The sexual motivation translates to more competition between men (though she may not necessarily give up her sweet Tang to the invaders, she knows that all they need is a sniff to get the competition rolling)
The maternal motivations seem to translate to Mutterly Merkels and U.N. “Goddesses” being overcome with compassion for the poor unfortunates. (basically childless wall-tards and slut-tards and lib-tards focus on other “children” when they have none of their own to worry about)
I wouldn’t rule out feminist motivations either: take CH’s maxim “the goal of feminism is to maximize female sexuality and to limit male sexuality”. Inviting hoards does both. Also, it seems to really really annoy the local males. A win, win, win for feminism.
* If a people are conquered then the woman can quickly accept alien rule. This perhaps isn’t the best example because of the similarity between the ethnic groups, but when the Germans quickly swept through western Europe in WWII a lot of women swooned for them. In Norway,10% of young women were reported to have a German boyfriend. Fast forward to the German defeat and those same women were pariahs and their mixed children outcasts. One thing about the Germans though is that they didn’t go Mongol on western European women. Eastern European women didn’t share the westerner’s views on German men.
An important factor when considering attitudes about breeding with outsiders is how the resultant children will be treated. From what I’ve seen mixed kids are not treated as well, that has to give a non-retarded women pause for thought. On the other hand why would a guy give a damn whether a kid he is going to abandon anyway is not as well accepted as a full breed.
Another thing is novelty. If 2 different races exist together and one of those races is quite rare then women might see that rarity as enticing, but as the population of that group increases the novelty wears off.
So, if a women’s people are conquered she can adapt, but I don’t see any reason to believe that they would want them conquered.
As far as women supporting the invasion, I don’t think it’s because the invaders are making their loins slick. I don’t hear any news about German women lining up to get gangbanged. Instead I here about invader parties being thrown and German women being aghast at the degenerate invaders behavior. And invaders being excluded from nightclubs for being as grabby as I was when I was 12 years old.
I think the invaders might have provoked a maternal instinct. Women are more concerned when a creature is presented as being victimized and the media and government has been cramming that propaganda down the German people throats for a long while.
* CH is my Wellness Space, in which my soul is soothed by the righteousness of free opinion. But spare a thought for our German brothers and sisters being crushed beneath the jackboot of Reichsfuhrer Merkel, who made a deal with Google and Facebook to keep the German people from speaking their minds, and whose Gestapo cracks down on German patriots while ignoring invading rapists.
Germany, you haven’t been gang-raped so hard since Versailles. If only you knew your own strength, you would stand up and end it.
* This is butt hurt talk. Women are like children and easily misled, pressured, and fooled into doing individually and collectively self destructive things. It’s not a matter of payback and it’s not like these guys are only targeting the most liberal, activist girls. Even if they were, those girls are simply being stupid and childish and their “wants” need to be ignored. Without white women, we have no white children and no white civilization. They need to be protected . . . from others and from themselves.
* We cannot condemn them for their hard wiring, but must just install the right programs onto their hard drives.
Long ago there probably lived women who preferred death to submission. But they were an evolutionary dead end. The story of man is the story of conquest and chaos, and in such circumstances, evolution favors those women willing to smile at the victor over the fresh corpses of their husbands. So after a thousand generations of warfare, only the genes of morally-adaptable women have survived.
So are women immoral? It’s irrelevant. Just be the victor.
* Children have been raped. Gang-raped. Slim White sluts are still OUR sluts. Even the blue-haired manatees are the butts of OUR contempt– not for theirs.
If Western women deserve punishment, what sort of pussies would offshore that job to feckless hordes of shitskin scum?
Justice for Europe means compiling a death list of every foreign rapist who has passed unscathed through the courts (180 hours of community service!) and hanging them. Which is a nonnegotiable. These black and arab and whatnot Muslim scum must not live in peace, must not die in peace.
Really Laguna, I’m surprised at you. You’ve been for joining the Foreign Freikorps, and now you would acquiesce to letting Muslims take over and destroy Christendom forever just so you could vicariously wallow in the shameful false gloat of seeing party girls get their colons perforated by filthy infidel scum? Lara Logan probably was no paragon of what we would like to call journalistic integrity (as if such a thing has existed in a hundred years) but apparently she will never shit straight again. I wish this fate on no one– not even the prolapsed pozzers. But I DO wish, very much, to hang all those who groped her or any White.
And after that George Romero clip of a White female being pulled into the subway abyss, you and all of us should be Hatelifting and mentally stewing in righteous thoughts of getting our Spetsnaz on.
Killing Muslims even to protect fallen White women is not white-knighting. We make the rules, we set the basement on what civility means. Which, being White and Christian, is thankfully a lot higher than what it means for goatfucking Bedouin.
And no faggotry could surpass the faggotry of allowing our women to be broken, just to sit around playing backgammon with fleabitten semites and mouthing false prayers five times a day. Recall yourselves! Destroy the invader, restore the family!
* It’s taken some time for me to reach this point, but it dawned on me recently that I genuinely don’t care what women think of the Muslim horde, or the BlackLiesMatter bowel movement, or the Eskimos, or any of it.
I’m not upset by what women think about these issues. I do not care.
At some point it just dawned on me that, as a White man, it is my civilization, and that of my fellow White men, whether it stands or falls.
Yes, we need good women and they are at the heart of our civilization. But it is a civilization built by White men, for White men and women and children to share, and it has been and still is opposed by competing civilizations owned by competing men of the Other. For some of the Others, we may ally with them; others we may directly oppose; still others we may live side-by-side with in a truce.
But these White women — bluehaired fatties and all — are Ours. If there’s justice to be doled out, it is White men who should be doing it.
It’s like that Chrisopher Walken bit from the video “The Lion” that’s been posted here a few times: the lionesses start coming up to the resting lion and “making trouble,” giving the jackals and hyenas the idea that the lion is weak and that it’s time for them to move in to the lion’s domain. The lion doesn’t sit around and watch the jackals and the hyenas kill and eat the lionesses and the little lion cubs thinking “serves her right!” or “I told you this would happen!” No, he just gets up and tears the shit out of them. Then afterward he probably smacks the lionesses around, fucks them and makes a few more lion cubs, and, seeing things are once again set to rights, kicks back again.
* Yes, women are adult children and need to be treated as such. Giving them total control and complaining about the result is silly.
Merkel belongs in the kitchen with the rest of the SJW princesses, not at the helm of Germany, that’s the real problem. It is our job to put them back there, whatever it takes.
You may as well let your dog drive your SUV and not talk to him for a week because he crashed it. He’s growling at you because he doesn’t know WTF he’s doing and he needs help.
I do not give one single sh1t about dating women at this point but I still hate the people who hate me. This ain’t about ding dong tingles, this is about our future.
Men who cannot rise above their base desires are not worth much more than the women.
To acquire the kind of discipline needed for the fight we need to un-j@w ourselves and re-learn stoicism.
* The sight of them being molested and raped irritates me, sure, but I remain largely unmoved. What we are witnessing is justice in action. It’s payback time.
Before you go white-knighting abroad, ask yourself what you get in return.
What have you asked of White women in return for defending them? What will they give you? What are you fighting for? After the smoke clears, are you going to accept the same feminist social order that got us here in the first place? If not, have you negotiated it with white women? Have you signed a contract?
Don’t be a fool. If there’s anything we have learned at the Chateau, it’s that never make woman your mission. Women aren’t worth it.
We go to Germany to fight for God, Germany, Europe, liberty, our ancestors, honor, glory, revenge, justice. We go to test ourselves, to push our limits, to fulfill our duty.
Love and pussy are incidental to our primary mission.
* One of the first objectives of the coming Nationalist revolution and civil war in Europe should be the elimination of voting rights for females.
If the White femcunts and their white-knighting beta-boys don’t like it, then fuck ’em.
* Women’s suffrage is a core milestone of decline.
Women votes = Feels > Facts
Votes by feels = liberal decay, cucks, mudslime invasions, J3ws exploit, Miley Cyrus and Bruce Jenner heros, …and on and on…
* Men evolved to protect the perimeter against males from other (mainly patriarchal) tribes (chimps do the same). Having women make decisions about the perimeter results in what we see – open borders, multiculture, diversity, “tolerance”.
Women, for the most part, care about resources and smoothing conflict over. They evolved to fill that role. Stockholm Syndrome is more pronounced in female captives. Women were frequently taken captive by (or in some cases traded to) other groups, and so they evolved to smooth things over with distant groups (whereas their male kinfolk were simply killed)
So, women tend to vote for resource redistribution and being nice to everybody (including those who aren’t in their group), and for helping everybody in need, regardless of their group (say hello to refugee crisis).
Studies shows that women tend to support everybody in need, while men tend to help only those from their ingroup. They show that women favor outgroups more than men. Thus, we can expect an ingroup with high levels of female influence to be very interested in helping refugees from other groups, and to be more foreigner friendly. (say hello to refugee crisis)
Unfortunately the forum software does not allow me to post the links for all the scientific studies. You could try to Google for the data.
“Men exhibit a stronger tendency to favor the in-group over the out-group than women”
“Moral identity importance tends to increase donations to out-groups, and not to in-groups. How-ever, this occurs only for consumers with a feminine gender identity. For consumers with a masculine gender identity, moral identity importance increases donations to the in-group but not the out-group.”
“Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives”
“Women are more supportive of affirmative action and efforts to achieve racial equality.”
“Women are more egalitarian than men.” (Definition of egalitarian: Someone who believes in the equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life, and advocates for the removal of inequalities among people).
“Women are less conservative, less “racist”, and less punitive than men.”
This is how we can explain the spread of tolerance and the demise of nationalism in western countries. As female influence grew, nationalism became unpopular. The nationalist countries are only those with lower levels of female influence. (Japan, China, Russia, Arab countries, Israel, Eastern Europe, etc.)
Women are less xenophobic than men. Therefore, a society with high levels of female influence will be less xenophobic, and more open to foreigners.
So this is why jews are supporting feminism – a feminized society will not be a nationalist society, it will be tolerant society, and will be blind for the jews in it’s midst.
Women are also more mainstream. They do not like extremes. So you will rarely see them taking political positions where they risk being called a bigot. Women prefer safer and non-confrontational political positions, where society will approve their behavior and pat them on the back.
In Scandinavia for example, women vote for the pro-immigration parties, while men vote for the anti-immigration parties. In Sweden, women were only 35 percent of those who voted for the anti-immigration party, the Swedish Democrats party.
The only major political party in Norway that has voiced any serious opposition to the madness of Muslim immigration is the rightwing Progress Party. This is a party which receives about two thirds or even 70% male votes. At the opposite end of the scale we have the Socialist Left party, with two thirds or 70% female votes. The parties most critical of the current immigration are typically male parties, while those who praise the Multicultural society are dominated by feminists.
Fjordman,argues that Swedish feminists, by popularizing victim mongering behavior, quotas/affirmitive action, by supporting the welfare state, and by being against “bigotry” and “hate speech”, created an environment that is particularly well suited for the spread of other parasitic groups who also, like the feminists, behave like victims, demand quotas/special treatment, demand more welfare handouts, and want to silence criticism and free speech.
Scandinavia is currently the most egalitarian area in the world. It strives for equality – income equality, gender equality, etc. There are major cultural differences between the Nordic countries and the US. In the US, capitalism is King, and income inequality is very high. On the other hand, Scandinavia is the area of the world with the lowest income inequality, and with the lowest gender inequality. It is the area of the world with the largest foreign aid budgets (as a percentage of gdp). Scandinavia is in top ten of the Good Country index. Sweden and Norway took more refugees per capita than many other countries such as Britain, Canada, or the US. Sweden is number one in the world for imported refugees per capita, it beats everyone else.
Sweden is a good example of a feminized society. It is the country with the highest level of female influence in the world. So it strives for equality for all, it is more altruistic, and it is more friendly towards foreigners and refugees. Just the way women are.
More male influence in society = more xenophobia. More female influence = less xenophobia, which leads to better environment for jews, and other minorities as well.
So the problem with feminized society is that it leads to very low levels of xenophobia (dislike for ethnic outgroups), and very high levels of foreigner acceptance, which leads to liberal society, “tolerance”, refugee crisis, foreign infiltration (the increase in female influence leads to increase in jewish influence, and vice versa, those influences reinforce each other), illegals crisis, lack of ethnic unity/cohesion/solidarity in the feminised group, etc.
* An alpha doesn’t have either Snapchat or Instagram, and if he does even have a Facebook, he never comments on girls’ pics, and rarely elsewhere. It’s too much like being the lone male hanger-on in an all-female group.
* This Freudian effort to turn everything into something sexual ignores the bigger issue of survival. Women will acquiesce more to power because they can’t fight back like men can. If Kan’s theory was right then women would always approve more of immigration, but they don’t. In a nationalist society women are more nationalist. Women are always more approving of the ruling orthodoxy, and now the West is controlled by Jewish media owners who push immigration and destroy any politician who opposes them, so women become more approving of immigration. Also, at all times women are more prone to choose the option that leads to less conflict, and when immigrants are already in the country they will be more prone to listen to those who talk about managing the situation instead of reversing it, which would mean war.
* So, yesterday in DC another gang of dindus “randomly” attacked a White couple waiting on the subway platform. No pre-attack encounter, nothing robbed, just a “random” beat down. Barely a mention in the media, just one local news article about it . . . move along, nothing to see here . . . say a prayer to St. Trayvon of Skittles that the victims feel privileged.
Here’s the bit that caught my eye, a quote from the White woman on the receiving end of the beat down:
“At this point, I just feel like if someone wants to attack me, they can,” said the female victim. “I don’t really feel safe on the Metro anymore.”
Maybe, just maybe, she’s waking up to the fact that, yes, Virginia, if “someone” wants to attack you, they can. And they will. The only thing that’s standing between you and hordes of feral mudskins are White men and the civilization we built and (for now) keep running.
Posted inFeminism|Comments Off on Study: Women Are More Xenophilic Than Men
Fred Silverstein may be the country’s most experienced flooded-timber hunter. He has hunted the last 60-plus duck openers and has no plans of stopping—not when his camp is full of kids, grandkids, and in-laws who can’t wait to hunt beside him…
For the first time in years, things weren’t looking good for Fred Silverstein’s opening-day streak. Earlier that morning he’d borrowed a shotgun from the USO in Seoul, hitched a ride on an M35 deuce-and-a-half cargo truck, and whistled for a stop in the Korean countryside when he saw ducks dropping from the sky. Now he stood at the end of a dirt path, in front of a small stick hut, flapping his arms with his thumbs tucked into his armpits, and gesturing toward ricefields a couple of hundred yards away. The stooped, elderly farmer who’d answered his knock wasn’t sure what to make of the skinny Tennessee boy in Army fatigues, holding a shotgun and quacking like a duck. That was in 1962, and Silverstein hadn’t missed an opening-day duck hunt in 14 years.
As a kid, he hunted with his dad on Tennessee’s famed Reelfoot Lake. Through high school and college, he stalked the green timber and riverbottoms of west Tennessee and Arkansas. And as a soldier stationed stateside, getting a weekend pass to go home to duck country was no big deal. Then came the Bay of Pigs incident, and the 22-year-old Morse code specialist was shipped to the U.S. Army’s base outside Anjung-ri, South Korea. Duck hunting got significantly more difficult.
“He had to wonder what this idiot was doing,” Silverstein says, recalling that morning half a world away. “He pointed and said, ‘Go.’ At least, I took it as go, so off I went. No duck call, no decoys—but I was going to hunt. There was no such thing as a duck season over there, but it was opening day for me.”
If you give Silverstein credit for his South Korea opener, then this soft-spoken grandson of German immigrants, businessman (he still runs a large bathtub and shower manufacturing enterprise in west Tennessee), and lay rabbi has hunted 65 opening days in a row. He may have the longest, deepest, and most historic résumé of green timber hunting in America, especially in the lauded woods of Arkansas. He has hunted most of the most famous pieces of timber—Hurricane Hole, Bayou Meto, TNT, Bayou DeView. He has leased duck ground from the Cache River to the L’Anguille to the Hatchie River of west Tennessee. Silverstein hunted timber before anyone called it timber hunting. Before Duck Dynasty, $200 duck calls, and spinning-wing decoys. Before flat ground in Arkansas was worth more filled with water and ducks than soybeans and corn. Before hunting green timber was duck hunting’s big deal.
And at 74 years old, Silverstein is still hard at it. Most days during duck season, he’s in the woods with his extended family. The man knows the past and present of green timber hunting like few others. It’s the future that has him scratching his head.
Posted inJews|Comments Off on Fred Silverstein – Lay Rabbi, Duck Hunter
* I also think a parallel read of Peter Dale Scott’s book on the Deep State would make a good companion piece. His view is less trusting than Lofgren’s, and focuses on Continuity of Government (COG) plans, which, while a low probability of occurring, represent the hard steel behind the expensive velvet glove that Lofgren describes.
I find the Old Right Libertarians (think Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard) the best on Deep State studies. Their examinations of the power elite make for excellent reading. A recent book on John Foster Dulles by David Talbot had that community a-twitter; as the head of the CIA (and de facto head after he was canned by JFK) Dulles had his hands in many pies, many of them downright nasty. These examinations deserve study by curious folks like us.
Your review to Lofgren’s books sounds like it makes for an excellent intro book for those not already curious of the Deep State’s presence, but it may a bit benign by a half. The US gov’t deep state’s foray into Iran-Contra, torture, the Bay of Pigs, JFK’s murder, etc. show it’s not all just a bunch of people w/ clearances living high off the hog; there are consequences in the form of blowback to these actions. Ask Gary Webb, for example, how things can get downright deadly when one discovers the plans of our nation’s intel/deep state services.
Finally, the idea (espoused by Mencius Moldbug) that their are factions of the Deep State that don’t always agree is a fine one, too. The red side (DoD, NSA) holds the bases and the information, the blue side (State, CIA) the diplomatic reins. One just needs to read Sy Hersh’s latest on DoD having enough of the CIA’s BS w/ ISIS and giving away their positions to “Friendly foreign militaries” to pass to Syria to see that divisions can and do occur in our apparatus.
The solution to this insanity is to defund as much of it as possible. But as Steve said, a country as rich as America w/ people as smart as we possess…well, that seems neigh impossible. I’d say congressional oversight, but LOL, come on, who the hell are we kidding. In the meantime, I’d say sunlight is the best disinfectant along with a healthy skepticism of the words that come from our media who often serve as their mouthpieces.
* Search Google News on a regular basis and her name pops up all the time in the foreign press and little, out of the way American papers. When she first popped up during the Ukraine Provocation she seemed to be assigned to eastern Europe, but now she’s involved with Syria and the European immigration fiasco.
As DCThrowback notes, the CIA and State Department are in an alliance with each other. The Iraq war, Benghazi, Operation Fast and Furious all seem to ties these two entities together. A lot of the State Department officials involved like Nuland, Stevens and Sean Smith all have murky pasts that scream CIA.
If Trump gets the nomination it will be interesting to see how the Deep State reacts. He’s the first president since Nixon who has the potential desire, strength and intelligence to challenge them. The MSM doesn’t take him seriously, even though he’s the front runner. It almost seems like they think someone will ‘take care of him’.
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
