Friday, August 20, 2010

Ethnics (?)

The whole China abortion thing...

Yes, it seems that the Chinese didn't think it [population control] through, when it comes to gender ratios.

But the important part is that they thought about it at all.

That is what separates them from the US led west.

They didn't kiss it up to make believe forces (ie god) or ask the confused horde (after the horde has been cajoled by various questionably anti social interests [media/"activists"] who strain the idea of equality/freewill/choice to say the least). They observed their population trend and resource (food supply) trend and attempted an Age of Reason, enlightened solution to a problem. It was not enlightened enough apparently. (Note that solution [population reduction] is what prevents them from invading you.)

-The baby(fetus) itself doesn't feel anything. And there is always Lidocaine etc. (Which we should demand be used!)

-And Chinese abortion is not like western birth control [modern abortion being simply the latest trick in that bag] where the capricious girl is given the power to put more "notches in her lip stick case" (ie given more power to mind fuck and play "games" with the men in her life). It is state policy, not a girl's mind-fuck shit test unlike in the "free" west.

The American right is far to the left of Chinese society (as amer right is to the left of the russian sovs too). Simplistic nationalist conformity impulse (of you all-- the confused horde) prevents you from seeing that [with the useful-idiot-exploiting media laughing all the way to the bank at your expense].

Bad things about the Chinese et al are not abortion or high table attempts to rationally solve contingencies deemed problems(eg population and food trends). Bad things are like the oriental tendency to still torture [though I hate people too, but still]. And I don't like the lead poisoning thing they are (purposefully?) doing. (Though war is war. ...C'est La Guerre... It's a sneaky game america plays too in different ways. All those problems need to be solved at the gate, not just blamed on one or the other.)

The females in islam are being punished LESS severely than the males are. (The whole breed over there is simply rough.)

You simply believe in "pu$$y pass" for all females everywhere and use yuck factor tricks to achieve your ends.

You believe males who don't allow pu$$y pass are "immoral".


The tribal hill people of the world are the victims not the perpetrators. Europe's own romance tales explain this very eloquently (eg Braveheart, last of the Mohecians etc); though people are too dense to get it.

These hill people are being eliminated by the matriarchy that is western culture. The spreading disease.

Those like you are confused useful idiots. You might think you are oppositional to it (the matriarchal herpes sore run amok) --the same as the capitalist nonsense does-- but you are its brainwashed and long since conformed muscle; bred to the bone to be conformed to it --ie domesticated, like a dog breed culled from the wolf.

You all are too simple --ie stupid, genetically-- to get it.


Some German or Austrian Nationalist said it simply: "[it is not islam per se. But it is that they are devoted combatants --the only forth right ones-- to the mammonistic west.]"


When white men have one tenth the ball sack, then they will be appealed to by the likes of me. For now you're just useful idiots for our actual enemies; enemies you call master --like the bred dogs you are.

A point about traditional western values. When a western traditionalist demagogues against islam he is demagoging against his own traditionalism. He just isn't smart enough to know this. Hence me calling him a useful idiot.

Conservatives are typically at "cross purposes" when it comes to fighting for liberalism's global crusades. But dogs of war are not good at self analysis (as I have explained elsewhere). They simply bark (motivated by instinct to bark at all things). Those that hold the leashes --the domesticators-- get the power that comes from having guard dogs.

If you do your jobs well you will be head patted and then put back in your cages without your nuts.

"traditional western values". ...Which traditional western values? Viking capture and "rape"? Graeco Roman Law(which phase)? American romanticized frontiersmen polygynists and "child molesters"?

I don't have a problem with the above. I don't think traditionalists are "child molesters" or "rapists." But modern western traditions now do say they are. That was the point I was making.


The battle cry for western expansion is mostly stuff that is 1970's liberal extremism which has now been conformed to by the dolts of conservatism.

Conservatives resist change until it becomes "common wisdom". Then they embrace it as cosmic truth and impose it with prejudice.

As they are doing to the 3rd world now with napalm.


I am sick and fucking tired of people who try to stop feminism by evidencing how it is bad for females. I DON'T CARE IF IT IS BAD FOR FEMALES. Get that whole way of thinking --the trained /bred dog-way-- out of your heads. Then we wouldn't have feminism in the first place. duh.

Here's a thing that is important: conservatives refuse to see that their western traditional values LOST. And by their own hand, they did. They are gone and ain't ever coming back. Never. Especially in this political, economic system.

more more more.


Rape is already a crime according to American law. American law has evidence procedures and punishments.

The college seeks --the wimmins studies commissars of that college seek-- to go around those procedures laws and punishments. They do this by saying the college is a private club that the accused voluntarily joins. Like a golf club is a private club.

But since college is not just a private club but rather a very publicly funded vector into economic and social etc success, duke can not legally create burdens that go above the surrounding laws of the land --especially if these burdens fall on only certain classes, races and genders more than others.

Remember, rape is already against the law according to american law. This duke thing is not about rape or sexual assault. It is about discriminatorially putting tariffs on men who joined the duke club (a club the college calls private but which is actually a publicly funded institution).

Not to mention the duke "rape" policy's premise is rooted in assumptions which rely on gender behavior _stereotypes_, sexist curricula and sexist interpretations of men and wimmins (sexist, regardless of how well couched) and therefore the premise violates duke's or any colleges' PC hate speech codes. The gender behavior _stereotypes_ and sexist curricula etc which (undergird the duke 'rape' bylaws) create a hostile, discriminatory psychology damaging environment for all men whether accused of a breech of by-law etiquette (eg duke "rape") or not.

Pro fem will say that american society is unfairly stacked against rape accusers and therefore duke "rape" by-laws are necessary since wimmins can't just go to state authority and receive 'justice'. But that is simply a made up contention. (Made up by political activists, note.) There is plenty of evidence that american society is governed by a ceiling painting that is actually very much biased in _favor of females_. It is also irrelevant.

[Some dame above] or whoever said "the duke punishments for "rape" are more lenient than the polices'.

Ludicrous sophistry. The duke punishments(confiscating tuition, blackballing from certain career paths etc) are for made up crimes--_NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE_ as rape-- which duke's wimmins studies religion simply calls "rape". Any punishment for duke "rape" is more harsh than any the state COULD impose _since the state couldn't impose any for "duke "rape""_. If a real crime was committed the school would call the state authorities.

I don't know how to do or even say what I'm getting at above. But that is still the approach one would take when suing. Duke (like any college) favors itself a club which wants people to sign away their constitutional rights; the new rights duke then seeks are unconstitutionally biased based on race and gender. Duke (like any college) pretends it is private and therefore able to create what ever membership criteria it wants. But it is actually a public institution which people must go through to achieve crucial goals which can only be achieved through that institution and also it is publicly funded and therefore subject to the actual laws of the land.

Just like a state can't make a law that subverts a larger federal law, a college can not take away constitutionally protected rights just by hiding behind this shiftable lie that college is a private club.


[A new] plan [to hide the accused rapist's identity] would prevent other victims of serial rapists from coming forward.

Miss Harman said the move would 'turn the clock back' and send a 'devastating message' to rape victims that they should not be believed.

'By making rape defendants anonymous you are going to make it harder to bring rapists to justice.'

feminist pressure groups, ...said it would tip justice and public opinion in favor of the defendants.

Did anyone think to ask her for evidence for those claims?

The answer of course is 'no'.

...Reason number 17 million, six hundred and forty five thousand, 7 hundred and 42 why democracy is no good.

Also the purpose of anglo world juris prudence is not to make it easier for the accuser of any crime. The point is to protect the citizens --especially innocent ones-- from unfair burden and conviction and state tyranny. So therefore even if the bald faced contention by Harmon et al was accurate in and of itself (which it is not and has no legitimate evidence) it doesn't matter anyway for the purpose is to protect the innocent from state power not to make it "easier" for wimmin or any accusers.

Did anyone think to say that in rebuttal to her?

Again, the answer of course is 'no'.

...Reason number 17 million, six hundred and forty five thousand, 7 hundred and 43 why democracy is no good.


A lot of WNs see anything white culture has done as a cosmic-ordained truth that must be spread virulently as god's ordination. (It is all part of the conformity module that makes the conservative male a conservative at the bio determinist level.)

Since feminism (nee chivalry) is a white culture thing it is therefore an example of white "betterness".

(Note that conservatives have now embraced 1970's divorce culture as their white male battle cry, along with other feminist rally-cries such as gender legal appointments etc. Note what the west imposes in iraq and afganistan: female judges shipped in from the west.)


[Some conservative guy] saw a Frontline documentary on sex slavery.

Lo fucking L.

Behold a conservative.


What did CNN and MSNBC tell you about sex slavery? Better wait for sweeps month though so you'll get better low angle camera work. You dolt.


You mean "fuck her".

You have conformed to the feminist definition of rape, like the git you inherently are for genetic reasons.

Why should "Men'sRightsActivists" be concerned about that conformity to feminist/chivalrous epistemology: "Rape" [in Capital note, LOL, you dolt].

I'm far more concerned about boys in western culture than whores from the 3rd world. And too boot, the boys in western culture (be they under the single fem parent or in the compulsory eduction system) did not aspire to this system in any way, unlike whores who are low IQ lying whores (probably vicious too --though weaklings) for genetic reasons (similar to your daughter as I mentioned).

Boys are not low IQ whores who aspire to giving blow jobs for a living being catered to by a species that constantly defers to their needs and desires.

You should immolate at once. It is the chivalrous thing to do.


The phony men rights groups are there to trick noobs into falling into the wrong group. It attempts to "hijack" the naive and make them useful idiots.

The phenom is seen with the pro feminist 'men's rights' groups (where males are admonished for not helping females solve their problems), that popped up after real anti feminist men's rights groups started to appear.

People are mostly not self aware; they respond to inner compulsions


That expos`e against aspects of WN doesn't change the fact that the jews are parasitic racists. They exploit the goy as useful idiots accordingly. Whether jews know this or not about themselves and the dynamic they are a part of is irrelevant to the fact that that is the way it all goes down in the eyes of "Darwinism".

I as a white male certainly know about this racism every time I go to a doctor or lawyer or govt building. ...I'd be better off as an Amer Indian going to the cavalry doctor to have my bow arm healed.

And WWII was not fought to stop hitler from "invading the world-in the name racism and eugenics" (falsely defined as "putting people-in camps"). You idiot sheep. Americans and anglos were just as racist as the germans (if not more so) and had a policy of racist culling-expansion long before hitler made one annexation speech about the pined for austro hungarian empire (a living memory grievance from WWI). You dolts for genetic reasons.

(The jew mode average IQ(112?) is higher than the average of whiteness(99)--the moron disaster that classical liberalism (and civilization in general) keeps alive. 112 to 99: Almost 1 standard deviation[ca 15 IQ points] --the same between blacks and whites [blacks at 87, whites at 99]. If white belief is so and so against blacks cause the blacks are dumb what should the whites allow the jews to do to whites, I ask.)  


A salient feature about the SC nom is that she is a bushite when it comes to wiretapping and the like (jew hypocrit). This is the 2nd obvious time obama put a chicken hawk in posts: Both that saber rattling ass dick holbreck** (jew) and now her. But I would never ever say she was ugly --she has been hurt enough by the non self aware horde she seeks to get back at. I might say she's got matt broderick's eyes/genes. (And she does.)

(**Obama appointed holbreck on the day obama was sworn in, with special-called press conference about it (a message to someone). Or was it the night he was elected that he held a special press conference about it!!?? Everyone knows I aint the conspiracy monger type but that strains credulity! The republicans won't point it out 'cause they are glad he put a war hawk on the job.)

This frog minister situation... Her salient feature is pure hypocrisy. Painting with a broad brush/stereotyping men; sexism and state run discrimination; denial of core left tenet of "nurture syndromes --often institutional/systemic(ie culture wide prejudices)-- make people the losers they are"; and more hypocrisies I am too weak to see without reading the thing again. Somebody else should point them out, staying on message.

And then there is the media's hypocrisy, where they will black ball a bob metzger (WAR : "white aryan resistance") type outright but then put the prejudiced bigots-towards-men-- feminists-- on the toob saying that it needs to be seen so people will know. BS! Just Black Ball the feminists outright too.


User LSP is very very correct when he says that classical liberalism --capitalism and the utopian runt parade (as though the Georgian court and English parliament back then weren't already runty enough)-- are the root problem and the reason "we" can't get ourselves out of this mess. The fact you all can't see it for yourselves(even after it is explained) doesn't bode well.


...What's the best thing that ever happen to a wimmin's self esteem?... Morning Wood. (Yes you may use that joke for a reasonable remittance of royalty.)

More too.

Mediocre stuff here. It isn't long for this world.

When a fem deems you rational /acceptable... It comes under the point I made about a dog humping the leg of politeness. The dumb beast can't separate niceness from weakness; she can't tell whether we are "rational" or not-- she lacks the processing power for congenital reasons. Therefore if she thinks we are rational and not "[wimmin] haters" and stuff she means she finds us non threatening. [As such, she will continue to hump.]

Some strains are simply incorrigible and need to be "put down". Even though I am a big proponent of "it's all nurture syndrome", some strains needing to be put down is simply the easy truth. At the very least, in order to make an omelet (ie the future utopia[tm] where we think-all-things-through including nurture syndromes), we need to break a few eggs.


You can't see it the other way. It is female supremacy in its most quaint (and dangerous) form. Princess and the pea.


females cheat rampantly. And they do lots of other things to hurt their mates in relationships. Why doesn't feminism advocate fault based divorce again if the females are under siege in marriage? (ahem, cricket, cricket.)

And "burdensome" is relative construct. The princess complained about a pea 13 mattresses below but it was not really a burden; and babies cry for free milk on instinct. Alas so do wimmin.

And the "current economic welfare of the west" is a huge, huge topic. To just say "it can't exist without wimmin getting these privileges" is balderdash. Number one we don't need this giant "economic welfare". So therefore even if disenfranchising wimmins hurts the west, big deal--GOOD. And number two most of the social expenses of the "economic welfare of the west" are female based; so fewer "independent" females generating western economic welfare equals fewer payoffs to "independent females". Duh. And most of the non social expenses--ie infrastructure and military--are here to make it safe for "independent" females and protect the west from anti feminist enemies.


"...Mothers raise their sons to be creatures that they themselves would not be attracted to if it wasn't their son and rather just some prospective lover…"

This "the product of my female labor belongs to me the female creator" is another empty horseshit thing to say which the cunts and their society have no intention of applying consistently.

Mother raises children badly often and therefore should be prevented from doing it whethee their "property" or not.


I find the single fem environment horrible to the psychological health of male children and the school system also.


A bad vibe she has is: "[the pussy is given out for free these days: be happy [ie don't complain]]"

She is a female supremacist who believes males are dufuses to be manipulated _with impunity,_ controlled and owned.

And ya know what: she is right! After centuries and centuries of western males culling each other based on movements where anybody who was better is vulnerable to ousting, we are left with a culture led by males who are bonobo-like infantile numbskulls and females who are tuned-in, en-fanged top-down above it all types.

(These dames are like me in reverse actually; but I'm a rare throw back _and marginal._ And also these above it all females lack real scope of thought which I have [haughty snort]; they are only wise when it comes to social manipulation of the infantile gitdom that is the west. They don't actually understand anything deep or profound; nor are they self aware.)


Adoption is often no good. (Trust me I know. My mother is an adopted creature.) Parents need to sense their children; not just feed them and house them. It is one thing to foster a foundling or orphan. But to make more of them --just pretending that the creature will be raised right and their won't be unique problem snowballs multi generationally setting in --is ABSURD.

If all people were clones--aptitude and character wise-- and if parenting was done according to a schematic list (of dos and don'ts in detail) which achieved predicted outcome that could be tested for then maybe adoption and other surrogacy programs could work.

You know what happens when a dumb(95-100), needy labor class German woman (happy to just finally have any "bundle of perfection that can do no wrong") adopts an approx 130 ish IQ manipulative colicky girl?

Hell on earth.

Hopefully I can give you a little taste of Hell before you all die natural deaths. And I do mean that. That's called consequence: something most need to learn first hand.


{I actually do not always hit the target for the same reason a lion doesn't get a tommy gazelle--it's all chase but little meat: we are two different planes of creature.}



A mounted aristocracy took over most of north Eurasia in the last 6000 years, as the horse was domesticated. (Some might have found horse proto-domestication as far back as the early teens; Spain. But maybe not ridden. Eaten, like Finland's reindeer?)

Tunics"[barbarians]. "Togas"[civilized]. Kilts [Barbarians Mk 1].

Only worn in conservative (ie old fashion) ceremonies.


Penguin Books 'atlases of history' from when I was younger and still gave a fuck about book 'learnin.