Feed on
Posts
Comments

Single Moms Are Magic

Mar 29th, 2017 by

We at yo Momma House OMS GANG SLAYIN SH*T 😂😂💀 (Via @vonmar) @worldstar #WSHH

A post shared by WorldstarHipHop (@worldstar) on

Single mommery is cancer. Let’s hope her boy grows up to hate his mudskank mother with the heat of a thousand white hot suns and be so racially based he makes Pepe look like a cuckphibian.

On a related note:

White men
.control your women. Or your women will control the fate of your nation.

Degeneracy only needs to acutely infect the margins to poison the entire body politic. A few skanky single mom mudsharks at the point of infection will have trickle-up effects on the whole culture, enervating and dispiriting the nation. This is why it’s critical to suck out the venom from the bite before it reaches the nervous system.

Posted in Culture, Girls, Goodbye America, Misandry, Sluts, The Id Monster, Videos | 174 Comments »

Single White Women Are The Undertow Of Heritage America

Mar 28th, 2017 by

Betrayal is everywhere during the time of decline. This won’t come as news to some of you, it will certainly shock many others, and it will incense those who shirk from ugly truths about sex differences:

Single White women are the undertow dragging Heritage White America into the murky depths. Audacious Epigone teased out the 2016 election numbers and found that single White women OF ANY AGE were the outlier of all White voter demographics, significantly preferring thecunt to theTrump.

Single White men, married White men, married White women, any age: TRUMP COUNTRY

Single White women, any age: THECUNTRY

As the Bigly Epigone commented,

The Narrative was that white women betrayed “the sisterhood” by (modestly) preferring Trump.

The real story is that single white women betrayed white America and almost got away with it.

Thank you, single White ladies, sluts and spinsters alike, for showing your true colors this past election in your indomitable quest to drive America right over the cliff into Diversigeddon, because Trump’s tough talk hurt your feelings. Please feel free to menstruate your Fake Morality in some more airports with crayola signs welcoming rapefugees into your neighbor’s neighborhood. It’s clarifying.

Everything that’s happening is proving the wisdom of the CH maxims. Single White women unable or unwilling to marry and mother before the Wall makes the choice for them will vote gibs in the form of Daddy Government as substitute beta bux husband. The modern sexual market, deliberately stripped of the quasi-patriarchal organic rules that used to restrain it in White homelands, incentivizes a prolonged sexual precociousness among economically self-sufficient single White women, and embitters the older single White women who bought one too many tickets for the cock carousel and forgot to redeem them for a beta desperado willing to overlook the goods that are damaged.

All other Whites — INCLUDING single White men — voted for the preservation of their nation as a recognizable territory which honors them and their ancestors and promises their posterity the privileges of ownership.

This betrayal will only get worse, too, if the marriage rate among Whites continues to fall and the age of first marriage continues to rise, effectively increasing the relative total US population of single White women PRECISELY AT A TIME when the nonWhite US population is also increasing, amplifying and weaponizing the single White women political preference for psychocunts and mulatto misfits who brazenly advocate for the overrun of America by the nonmagical Dirt World.

Ok, Heritage America has identified the betrayers and subverters: Jews, gays, single White women, and nonWhites. The question that begs itself is this: how does Heritage America reclaim its inheritance from these usurpers within?

Runaway Jewish power can be slowed down by simply calling out their bad behavior and tribal antagonism in no uncertain terms. This won’t change their attitudes, but it will put a damper on their chutzpah if they know that they’ve lost control of the Narrative Megaphone to cow and silence their critics under fusillades of slickly sophistic legerdemain. Fortunately, there seems to me a small but growing chorus of sensible diaspora Jews who, however tentatively, have begun holding their co-ethnics to account for their rabid anti-Gentilism.

Homo power is also reliant on the Megaphone, but insinuates itself more thoroughly via cultural channels like the arts and social media. They, too, will never change their stripes but their electoral impact can be mitigated by culturally isolating them, which is accomplished whenever and wherever their diseased influence is spotlit and ridiculed with extreme rhetorical prejudice.

The above two groups have in cultural power what they lack in numerical power. Thankfully, there are limits to the effectiveness of anti-White propaganda; like hypnotists, you have to push your COGDIS agitprop to a partly receptive audience for it to take a strong hold on the nation’s psyche. Which brings us to
.

NonWhites. They have numerical power and a gluttony for anti-White hatred. Globohomo White-hating propaganda finds a cozy home in the nonWhite id. They won’t change, and they can’t be persuaded by the usual means of power politics. The best you can do is stop their invading forces at the border and reduce their numbers already here by keeping their families together and deporting mothers with their anchor babies. The goal is to reduce the nonWhite population in America to a manageable number, ideally less than 30% of the total, and sequestered on Democreep gerrymandered farms that have no chance of overriding the national will.

Finally, we arrive at the one anti-White group that is, theoretically, amenable to a change of heart, if for no other reason than that they, like their married sisters, brothers, fathers, and sons, must sail subconscious eddies that continually and insistently push them toward a blood and soil genetic reconciliation with who they are as a people. Are single White women capable of going the Full Betrayal and turning the homeland of their own people into a decrepit technosmut street bazaar? Or will they, at the last second, feel the pulse of ancient rhythms and stand with their tribe when extinction — the Final Wall — threatens to end their sex and the diversity funtime?

Single White women are the lovers of White men and the wombs of White nations. No matter how badly lunacy grips them in the voting booth, they can’t be stopped at the border, nor can they be sidelined to political irrelevancy. Their numbers are huge and growing, and their necessary intimacy with White men and shared formative years with married White women means that those of us with clear-eyed future-vision of idiocratic America understand there is no other option but to try and find a way to coax single White women back onto the preservation.

Repealing the 19th is unrealistic at this time. Long-term, only radical changes to the structure of mass society will thwart the compulsion of single White women to betray what is in essence their extended family. I’m talking a whiplash of decentralization, possibly triggered by another Constitutional crisis, that limits geographic and economic mobility and restores local community watchdog influence over the choices of unmarried women.

Short term, the solution is mockery. Single White women, more than any other White demographic, fear social ostracism. Identifying a few of their worst offenders and holding them up to public ridicule will serve as a lesson for the others; lemmings can have their suicidal neurosis rerouted to stampede in a more advantageous direction. Sexually dimorphic Trump Girls and the Trump men who playfully tease them are the wedge that can be driven into the single White women herd to separate the loser antifemmes from the White shivladies.

It is beyond arguing that suffrage pushed the country to the Left. Maybe this was a good thing in the distant past, but it’s stupid to believe that White women voting would push the country just a little Left, and then stop. What has occurred is that White women pushed it Left, and kept pushing. Unchecked, single White women seem destined to push Leftward until an unapologetic Rightward pimp hand applies a stinging rebuke. The ultimate female shit test — autogenocide — answered by the ultimate shit test neutralizer: alphatude.

It is by now an academic argument whether married White women vote like their White men because marriage selects for emotionally stable White women with a common-sensical approach to the future, or if marriage (and presumably childbirth) itself calms the emotional roller coaster of a woman’s mind and allows her a better comprehension of what is at stake. Whether cause or symptom, the solution to the betrayal of our single White women is to whisk them out of the anonymous, contraceptively padded, libarts degree-greased, urban foreplayground and into marriage and children sooner rather than later in life. The cock carousel spins in only one direction: centrifugal molecularization, until the center axle cracks and the ride is closed for repairs. Women dispirited by the ride are nevertheless chained to it by Darwinian compulsions beyond their ken. It’s up to men and wiser women to pull the brake and escort the single ladies off the pump-and-go-round before it becomes a hyperloop to self-destruction.

A reader passes along an old yet apropos Cheyenne saying:

“The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground.”

The women want to give their bodies to the conquerors.

If the men around them are feminized, they will seek out conquerors to give their bodies to.

Feminized men get masculinized women, and a weakening nation teetering on implosion.

Masculine men get feminine women, and a confident nation full of robust health.

Sexual polarity will make America great again.

Posted in Culture, Girls, GloboHomoBezos Ministry of Propaganda, Goodbye America, Ugly Truths | 279 Comments »

A Message For The Males Of Antifa

Mar 28th, 2017 by

***

File under Would Bang: Brittany PettiBONE and Tara McCarthy interview Ricky Vaughn (whom I would not bang, for the record).

Posted in Funny/Lolblogs, Tool Time, Videos | 132 Comments »

Two Old, Brown Men

Mar 28th, 2017 by

I like to take lunch at an outdoor patio. Nearly every time I go there, two old, brown men are playing chess. They seem to be friends (in the loosest interpretation of the word), sharing a comfortable familiarity. One brown man is straight from Aztec America casting, looking like he just strolled off the palm oil plantation. The other brown man is deeply Middle Eastern, similarly representative of his kind.

Both look in their 50s or 60s, but they could be 25. You know how people from the Dirt World age badly. Anyhow, these two are a riot to watch together. Both adhere to their race’s stereotypical behavior with lavish enthusiasm. The Merchant from MENA constantly cheats, and when Apocalypto notices his cheating, he explodes in a fury, slapping the table with his open palm and accusing his friend of the vilest breaches of chess etiquette. The accusations fly even when the Merchant hasn’t cheated; Apocalypto has come to expect bad behavior from his dear friend.

Sometimes the fights escalate into shouting matches that can drag on for ten or more minutes; hands gesticulating wildly, faces contorted with rage and indignation, usually ending when the Merchant realizes he can’t soft-pedal his way out of getting caught for cheating (and his cheats are sometimes ridiculously blatant, like the time he tried a two-for-one swipe of Apocalypto’s chess pieces while pointing with his other hand at an imaginary woman he insisted was the most beautiful he had seen).

Despite the endless anger, these two always greet and leave each other with warm hugs. There’s an understanding between them that they don’t even recognize; it goes race-deep, to the bone. Plush SWPL shitlib Whites can’t imagine being close friends with an obnoxious bastard who cheats all the time or who sputters with juvenile rage at the slightest provocation, but amongst brownfolk the rules of friendship are different. They don’t have the same moral standards for friendships. Brownfolk have a tolerance for irritating shenanigans that would drive the typical White man to seek shelter in a gated galaxy far far away. This brownfolk tolerance for ethical lapses and emotional incontinence in friends is likely an inherited accommodation to growing up in a shitty environment where much worse things happen all the time.

It’s just another real world exhibition in the ways in which Equalism is a false religion for outbred, empathobesic Whites who can’t bear to accept the fact that the races of the world are fundamentally different and impervious to intervention.

***

Augustus Tilton wryly notes,

It’s like nordics are the only ones ever to beat the prisoner’s dilemma. If everyone refrains from cheating even when no one’s looking, you get a harmonious white society. It takes surprisingly few grits of sand in the gears to gum up the fine tuned machine. Not only do brown people bring corruption and discord, they actually prefer things that way.

Very true, and as another commenter added, the White man *has* to sink to the third worlder’s level or he is doomed to victimization. Assuming the fair play of corrupt peoples is a quick lesson in how to make an ASS out of U and ME.

Posted in Culture, Funny/Lolblogs, Ridiculousness, The Big City Life | 126 Comments »

The Low Self-Esteem Hottie

Mar 27th, 2017 by

A rare breed — the low self-esteem hottie — is a delight at the moment of capture in the wild, and a curse when thereafter responsible for her caged domestication.

Naked in a lover’s bedroom and sitting on her desk, one leg propped on the desk’s chair (feel free to picture this), I was fiddling with knick knacks, smiling at her equally naked form lithely upright on the bed, when she sheepishly pulled the bedsheet over her knees. Morning light struggled to pierce the heavy canvas curtain over the window and she seemed to retreat into shadow.

“I’m embarrassed. I don’t have a great body,” she said.

I studied her quizzically, deciding her segue, which was completely at odds with the fact of her great body, deserved a sincere reply. “Really, you have a beautiful body. You don’t need to feel embarrassed.”

The combination of her surprising vulnerability and the sound of my voice comforting her as it mouthed the words “you have a beautiful body” caused a rehardening of the dick-shaped diorama I had impertinently thrown across her desk and chair. The rehardening created a sublime scene in which my supportive words could not have been more blatantly affirmed by my exquisitely timed tumescence.

The ideal low self-esteem hottie is the girl who accepts your sincere affirmations without reservation, and grows with your guidance to become a less neurotic woman, bonding more strongly to you along your shared path. Unfortunately, I have met exceedingly few of these kinds of low self-esteem hotties (who themselves are a minority among the high self-esteem hotties). The typical low self-esteem hottie gets worse the longer one dates her; relationships or flings that are heading toward relationship status — and thus more security for the woman — have the opposite effect on the LSE hottie, nourishing her neuroticism and feeding a manipulative compulsion to sabotage the relationship with her self-doubt and obsessive demands for external validation.

In fact, my take is that the LSE hottie is an evolved female archetype whose purpose (unbeknownst to her) is to filter out supplicating men unable to resist her vulnerability charms and who are given to alleviating her self-doubt whenever she deems their services necessary. These weak men lose her interest rapidly. What she wants is the strong man who knows the right amount of comforting validation is the smallest amount possible without pushing her over the edge to self-cutting. This man — the alpha male — gives her a little, and takes from her more than a little, which has the effect of placing emotional guardrails around her urge for approval-seeking manipulations.

Posted in Girls, Inner Beauty, Rules of Manhood | 197 Comments »

Hope And Change

Mar 26th, 2017 by

Story. Swole White shitlord men — the loyal core of Trump’s Army — chased mystery meat antifa loser phagggots down like the street curs they are, and administered beautiful beatings. What we are seeing are the first musclefrog salvos of White men taking back their nation.

This is what real hope and change looks like; not that raggedy weak-sauce hope and change the gay mulatto tepidly ejaculated whenever he wanted to snark in tacitly ominous platitudes about his beloved brown hordes repealing and replacing Heritage White America.

The times, they’re changing. And it’s antifa and the rest of the anti-White loser misfits who are on the wrong side of history.

Posted in Hope and Change, The Good Life, Trumperica | 332 Comments »

Comment Of The Week: The Myth Of Ideology

Mar 26th, 2017 by

Joshua Sinistar walks off with the COTW by accessing his id-ware to sand-blast the pretty lies from politics,

Whilst the poindexters and moneyball probability numbers crunchers argue over trifles and split hairs, let me show you the Big Picture. Don’t miss the Forest for the Trees boys. Watch and learn. What this shows clearly is ideology is all hey squirrel, smoke and mirrors. Like Proposition Nation and Civic Nationalism, its all bullshit – all of it.
What we see here is not ideology or viewpoints. Its not capitalism or socialism. Its not Free Trade or Isolationism. No -isms are involved. ITS ALL INTERESTS. Whether its single people have no kids to worry about, or races sticking together to destroy US, ITS ALL INTEREST. No ideology, or economics past personal gains.
There you have it. Conservatism and every other -ism is a MEANINGLESS DIVERSION AND DISTINCTION. ITS ALL INTEREST. IS IT GOOD FOR ME AND MINE. The more kids, the more stake in the future. More White kids means more soldiers willing to fight OUR ENEMIES for their KIDS.

I would add it goes even deeper than interests, to sexual status. What’s good for me and mine is also good for the reproductive fitness of me and mine. The lesson is a simple one: while cucks and libs thumb-suck over ideology and moral purity, their future is surrendered to remorseless warriors with less inclination to lofty intellectual calisthenics.

Posted in Comment Winners | 62 Comments »

Leftoid Legacy Media Is Trying To Outwit Drudge

Mar 26th, 2017 by

The Drudge Report is the number two news source online, after MSN. That’s a lot of eyeballs. As an aggregator of right-of-center news stories, Drudge is an indispensable alternative to the leftoid legacy media (LLM), but he’s just a ripple in their ocean of Narrative dominance. We need twenty more Drudges on various platforms to come close to evening the playing field.

That full spectrum LLM dominance isn’t stopping shitlib media from acts of sabotage to reduce Drudge’s influence. I’ve noticed lately when I click on a Right-leaning headline at Drudge, it leads to a story that, just under the header, is full of liberal boilerplate news reporting. What libs are doing is enticing Drudge to link to their articles with Right-sounding headlines, then tricking ensnared Drudge readers to read their libshit effluvium.

Drudge is responsible for protecting his brand. He probably has a skeleton staff that rapidly scans headlines of news stories and links to the ones that appeal most to his readership, without bothering to read further and vet the stories for Realtalk as opposed to Shitlibsnark. Maybe Drudge could institute a flagging system that allows his readers to warn others if any of his site’s links lead to articles with misleading headlines that are nothing more than leftoid narrative enforcement.

Posted in Culture, Current Events, GloboHomoBezos Ministry of Propaganda | 26 Comments »

The Innocent Victims Of Feminism Are Boys

Mar 24th, 2017 by

Feminism is a disease that afflicts everyone, including women, but the twisted ideology’s truly innocent victims are boys. Reader Passer By links to a Carlos Slim Personal Blog article on the “decline of men”. He comments,

Btw, just learned about some interesting studies, posted at the (((NYT)))

Basically they argue that single motherhood weakened mostly the male children, because the sisters in such one parent families perform better in life than the brothers. In normal families, there is no difference or brothers perform better.

In other words, the lack of father harms more the male child than the female child. Therefore if you want to weaken men, push for single motherhood. No wonder jews try to destroy the family in the West, while simultaneously strengthening the family in Israel. There is deliberate push to decrease male influence in western society because jews feel threatened by white males, and by their innate nationalism.

So the next time a woman tells you that there aren’t enough good men, you can answer her: there aren’t enough good men because they were raised by women.

That’s a great truth Passer By wrote. There aren’t enough good men because they were raised by women. Trigger the shit out of any feminist or mangina lackey you come across on twatmedia with that stone cold shiv, and link to the relevant study.

From the CSPB article,

In a 2016 paper, David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., and four co-authors, measured academic and economic outcomes of brothers and sisters in Florida born in the decade between 1992 and 2002.

For boys and girls raised in two-parent households, there were only modest differences between the sexes in terms of success at school, and boys tended to earn more than their sisters in early adulthood.

Among children raised in single-parent households, however, boys performed significantly less well than their sisters in school, and their employment rate as young adults was lower. “Relative to their sisters,” Autor and his collaborators wrote, “boys born to disadvantaged families” — with disadvantage measured here by mother’s marital status and education — “have higher rates of disciplinary problems, lower achievement scores, and fewer high-school completions.”

When the children in the study reached early adulthood, the same pattern emerged in employment:

Employment rates of young women are nearly invariant to family marital status, while the employment rates of young adult men from non-married families are eight to ten percentage points below those from married families at all income levels.

Autor and his co-authors conclude that family structure “is more consequential for the skills development and labor market outcomes of boys than girls.”

This study is more interesting than the run-of-the-mill research recapitulating the detrimental effects of single mommery (a major cause celebre of mainstream feminism), because its structure seems to obviate any potential genetic influence into sex-differentiated life outcomes. That is, if genetics were the cause, then the sisters of brothers in single mom broken families would have similarly poor outcomes and behavioral problems. But instead what the researchers found was that single mommery disproportionately affected the life outcomes of boys, leaving their sisters largely untouched (at least as measured by SES outcome and delinquency rate) by the single mommery postindustrial complex.

This isn’t to say genetics aren’t a factor in the shitshow that is single mommery, but it does suggest environmental pressures inherent to single mommery are at least partly to blame for making life harder on boys.

It’s just more evidence that feminism has been, and continues to be, a Hate Machine dedicated to churning out Big Lies about the sexes and about their roles in society, with the express purpose of handicapping boys and men and lavishing extreme favoritism and government largesse on girls and women.

It’s silly to argue feminism is a symptom, rather than a cause, of a broken society when its agenda has directly contributed to so much social disruption, antagonism, distrust, resentment, and national decline. This is like arguing Marxism, Freudianism, Communism, SCALE, and GloboHomoism are symptoms of some deeper, underlying, corrupting force that bedevils the West. Large, society-spanning movements are as much cause as symptom of social degeneration. We’re splitting vellus hairs here.

If one wants to argue for a First Cause of the West’s decline, the most promising culprit would be Hajnalianism, but for some reason those who find SCALE objectionable rarely tackle the subject of inherited empathobesity.

Feminism as a distinctive movement really got started as a vanity project of masculinized or otherwise oddball women who were for various reasons uncomfortable in the world of women. Its leaders — and one shouldn’t neglect to mention the preponderance of feminist leaders were and are Jewish women and their co-tribal male suckups — were able to leverage their gripes to a wider audience of women who had become frustrated and flustered and, in plenty of cases, enthused, by the postindustrial revolution shocks to the social system that, critically, severed fecundity from sex and community from individual.

There was never a feminist movement that had its origins in widespread complaints about male discrimination against working women. That is a myth. Pre-20th Century Western women worked plenty, either on the home or off it. Wives working as apprentices to their husbands’ businesses was fairly common in Medieval Europe.

What feminism has been, and what it remains today, is a propaganda howitzer to mow down the natural order and replace it with an inverted dystopia in which the defining feature is the removal of all constraints on female sexuality and the maximization of restrictions on male sexuality. As in any social movement, the breath of its life emerges first from the sticky goo of the sexual market.

Lies have consequences, and the Big Lies of Feminism and Antiracism have destroyer-of-worlds consequences. They must be fought with a vengeance.

Posted in Culture, Feminist Idiocy, Ugly Truths | 288 Comments »

Greg Cochran Demolishes Mendacious Feminist Cordelia Fine

Mar 24th, 2017 by

Cordelia Fine, feminist, esq., wrote a book titled “Testosterone Rex”, which she padded with lie atop lie to bamboozle her readers into believing that there are no innate psychological differences between the sexes.

Greg Cochran decided to review the book, and a good thing too, because his destruction of Fine’s thesis is total and complete, and should in a sane world discredit her so badly that the media and academia stop providing her a public platform to propagandize her Femcunt Equalism lies.

She does not want her readers to believe that men and women have different natures – apparently because such differences, or belief in their existence, would prevent social equality of the sexes. Personally, I think the more important question is whether it’s true. But I would say that, wouldn’t I?

Rather than talk much about differences between the sexes, which would do her case no good at all, she talks about testosterone’s role in creating such differences. Testosterone is a strawman theory, here. Sex differences might be caused, in part or in whole, by biological factors other than testosterone: would disproving an incorrect testosterone-based theory make the differences go away? On the other hand, it might confuse people enough to reduce or eliminate belief in such differences. People are fairly easy to confuse.

***

There are psychological differences as well. Boys prefer rough-and-tumble play, girls prefer ‘intimate theatrical play’. Boys and girls have different toy preferences: boys like trucks, while girls prefer dolls. Interestingly, we see similar sex differences in play in other young primates, such as vervet and rhesus monkeys. Young chimpettes are known to carry a stick around, sticks that seem to be stand-ins for future babies – like dolls. Since other primates that are not exposed to anything resembling human socialization [they can’t talk] show similar play preference patterns, socialization is unlikely to be the driver of those patterns in humans, no matter how much Fine would like that to be the case.

***

Men are far more violent than women, far more likely to commit murder [and suicide], in every society. Obviously, if we see it everywhere and everywhen, the cause must be 
 climate change.!

***

Men take more risks, especially after puberty. Fine attempts to talk this away, as she often does. Her argumentative approach sometimes has a certain mad charm, as when she mentions her baby son rolling across the room to a power drill, juggling knives, and trying to plunge a running hair dryer into the cake mix. I guess that no truly educated person could believe in anything so obvious, so
 She also steps up to ” No true Scotsman “. She defines what must be the only correct definition of a risk-prone personality – someone that tends to embrace every possible risk – and if those correlations aren’t perfect, how could there be such a thing as a risk-prone person?

***

Almost all men are sexually interested in women, and the overwhelming majority of women are sexually attracted to men. I’ve heard that there are parallels in the animal kingdom. When you think about it, it makes a twisted kind of sense. Isn’t that a psychological difference? [ed: heh]

***

Fine’s fruit fly chapter is completely pointless. This lawyerly rhetorical technique, criticizing an early experiment in order to snipe at a well-established contemporary theory, was also used by S.J. Gould in The Mismeasure of Man, when he argued that Samuel Morton had skewed his measurements of skulls to fit his preconceptions. Which was untrue – but it wouldn’t have mattered a rat’s ass if Morton had screwed up, because the art has advanced very far since Morton’s time. Today we use MRI and CAT scanners to image skulls to millimetric precision.

***

Fine takes a stab at showing that there’s isn’t much point [in terms of extra evolutionary fitness] in men getting extra mates. She comes up with an unphysical and absurd example – mentioning how unlikely it would be for 100 one-night stands to generate an extra 100 babies. That’s totally irrelevant: all it shows is that she’s innumerate. Here’s the practical example: suppose some dude has a wife and a girlfriend next door. Suppose he has intercourse 50 times with each of them over a year – both are probably going to have a kid, while with just the wife , he would have had one. 2 > 1. Am I getting too abstract here? By the way, if sexual selection doesn’t really happen, what could explain men’s huge strength advantage? Eating Wheaties?

Cochran’s flaying of Fine goes on like this for a while. Fine (and Fine-ism) must traffic in an endless procession of lies if it is to have any reason for existence. These necessary lies make them easy targets for unruly realtalkers like Cochran. One might say, for masculine truthtellers.

Feminism (aka Sex Denialism) is one of the two pillars — the other being Antiracism — supporting the greatest lie ever told to Man: Equalism, the religious belief that man is interchangeable with woman and the races interchangeable with one another. Both pillars must be attacked and reduced to smoldering rubble if the White West is to have an opening to revitalize and become great again.

Live not by lies. Which means, live not by feminism and antiracism.

PS I highly encourage CH readers to spam Cochran’s review at Fine’s Amazon link to her Book of Lies. As usual, the reviews are all from agrrocunts and mincing phaggot male feminists giving it five stars. All it would take is one brutal predatory shiv of a bad review, like Cochran’s, to send that rabbit warren scurrying in all directions.

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Ugly Truths | 62 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion