One of the biggest problems young people are facing today is that it is impossible to ram your penis into your own asshole.

You need an older man to do the anal ramming.

Finally, someone is attempting to connect teen boys with older men to ram their anuses.

The College Fix:

Teenagers who struggle with gender confusion or homosexual inclinations can get an adult mentor online — without their parents knowing.

University of Nebraska-Lincoln Professor Katie Edwards created the pilot program with the help of $203,050 from the National Institutes of Health.

She is a professor of educational psychology and works at the Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families, and Schools, a university initiative.

This program differs from others that are in-person and require the permission of a parent or guardian, according to the grant summary.

A flaw in other programs for other LGBT teens is they “often require guardian permission; generally occur in person via community organizations which precludes TGMY in high stigma, rural areas of the United States from accessing such programs.” This pilot instead will “complete feasibility and pilot testing of a synchronous, group-delivered eHealth mentoring and skill-building program.”

The program will recruit 140 LGBT youth from social media sites and LGBT organizations. Half will then be paired with a mentor, while the other 70 will be put on a waitlist as the control group.

The College Fix contacted Edwards twice via email in the past several weeks to ask about the vetting and recruitment process for mentors but she has yet to respond.

Same state, same look

Edwards also studied “intimate partner violence” and its link to a campus’s “Pride Index.”

An ethicist at the Ethics and Public Policy Center raised concerns about the program, particularly because it does not require parental permission.

“Deliberately pairing adult strangers with children without parental knowledge, let alone consent, is a bad idea especially because these adult mentors are to be recruited online and are apparently not required to have any special training or skills other than a transgender identity,” Nathanael Blake told The Fix.

Typically, mentoring programs are unable to function without guardian consent, as most parents are continually aware of the location of their child. However, the virtual design of this program allows it to function secretly.

According to Blake, the program could encourage “damaging” procedures. “Encouraging children to transition is encouraging them to engage in self-harm … puberty blockers, wrong-sex hormones and surgical transition [which] are all physically damaging. Furthermore, transition does not address the underlying reasons why a child hates his or her body.” Blake told The Fix.

This is not the only taxpayer-funded research Edwards has on her plate. She also has a $771,707 grant from the NIH to study “sexual minority men” and why their peers sexually assault them. One reason why homosexual men might sexually assault fellow gay men, according to the grant, is because of “internalized homonegativity.”

It’s…

You know.

It is what it is, I guess.

It’s a thing that’s happening.

USA birth rate has been below min sustainable levels for ~50 years pic.twitter.com/v5PSLbvEAE

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 24, 2022

Contrary to what many think, the richer someone is, the fewer kids they have.

I am a rare exception. Most people I know have zero or one kid.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 24, 2022

Population collapse is the biggest threat to civilization https://t.co/ZrHN5DsrVB

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 24, 2022

Elon Musk is touching the third rail and discussing the white birthrates.

He’s making a lot of people very mad.

I hope he has a good plan here. He’s going to need a good plan.

There’s no backing down now.

BC women can control their own bodies now. Or could, until the Republican Party downgrades our citizenship to breeding property.

— Rachel Bitecofer 📈🔭🍌🇺🇦 (@RachelBitecofer) May 24, 2022

It's actually the opposite. Birthrates are highest in the poorest countries.

— Shan (@Shan49995423) May 24, 2022

Its not! Have you ever flown in an airplane? Have you seen the amount of land unoccupied! Your TV has shown things you want to see!

— Dr. CryptoSaurus 🦖 (@DrCryptoSaurus) May 24, 2022

I wonder what part the vaccinations plays in it. 3 shots of a vaccine that was pushed through faster then anything before in history.

— JpLipp (@JpLipp) May 24, 2022

This is what happens when killing babies becomes a “health care right” to the left….

— Graham Allen (@GrahamAllen_1) May 24, 2022

I’m sure this was not a contributing factor… pic.twitter.com/25HVNTlWYq

— Dyllin Roberts (@dyllin_r) May 24, 2022

Let’s also consider that divorce rates and single family homes have increased over those 50 years.

Family values and family unit sustainability in total are on the decline.

— Babe on the mewn (@artbyjaimefaith) May 24, 2022

This is the fault of women 🤷🏻‍️

— Jack of all Things Sports (@acti0nflacks0n) May 24, 2022

I’m not a supporter of sentimentality, as a general rule. I consider sentimentality a weakness. It is certainly in opposition to realism, which I’ve built as the core of my personal identity – and for that matter my professional identity (the dichotomy between personal and professional identity – the places where the two overlap and the places where they should not – is an important topic for another time). Sentimentalism is a fundamentally feminine trait.

Nostalgia can probably exist without sentimentalism, in theory, though this is some kind of emotional gymnastics. In general, we should be dealing with the present, and how we can use the present to shape the future. That is certainly something that should be true in personal and professional life equally. The past is relevant only insofar as you can learn from it, and nostalgia can, in theory, be a method for reflecting on the ways that the present is different from the past, and where things went wrong.

This having been said, after hearing a parody of a 1990s Blink 182 song on The Ralph Show, it was probably primarily sentimental nostalgia, rather than a desire to learn, that led me to download and listen to 1997’s “Dude Ranch.” Blink 182, along with, most prominently, Green Day, was a band that took certain elements of 1980s punk music – highly melodic, primitive three chord high-energy music – and combined it with high-production pop music techniques, and removed the edginess, to make it palatable to a mainstream audience. This sort of music became popular among the youth after Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain killed himself, and the culture needed a picking up.

For the record, Nirvana was a much more interesting and talented band than Blink 182. But it’s telling that the drummer from Nirvana, Dave Groul, used his position as having been a member of that number one selling drug-depression band to pivot into the pop punk scene, forming the Foo Fighters.

I was 13 when Dude Ranch was released, and it had an effect on me. Regrettably. It was fun and high energy, but going back and listening to it today, it is clear that this was just more pussy-worship music, which is something I am highly opposed to. It was also the diametric opposite of “challenging,” which is something I think influential music should always be (at least mostly always).

The “182” in the name comes from the number of times Al Pacino says “fuck” in Scarface. Which is arguably the most interesting thing about the band. It had two singer songwriters, which was rare at the time. Mark Hoppus and Tom DeLonge were both in their mid to late twenties when the album was recorded, and yet all of the songs were about high school sex drama. Clearly, the target audience was high schoolers, but I believe they were both marijuana smokers. If you start smoking marijuana habitually, your emotional development stops, which is why you might someday run across a 65-year-old boomer hippie who has the emotional and psychological state of a 15-year-old. So I think the duo were pretty qualified to write about high school sex drama.

They would have been in high school in the mid-80s, and I don’t think it was much different than in the mid-90s. What I am interested in here is how much different it is now, compared to then.

The core track of the album is called “Dammit,” and it may be worth suffering through  to get an idea of what we’re discussing here. (Alternatively, you can check the lyrics.)

(Note: this was before the somehow still-famous drummer Travis Barker joined the band. Drums are such a big part of this kind of music, given that the guitar and bass are always so juvenile, that I do think he, as a better than average drummer, improved the quality – or at least the complexity – of the music. Yet due to the time of the release, Dude Ranch was the most influential album on me. By the time Barker joined, I can say with pride and dignity, I was getting into slightly more challenging indie rock, industrial music, and boomer rock and folk. I got really into Modest Mouse.)

The Sexual Situation of 1990s High Schools

In the 1990s, high schoolers were definitely sexually active, even in the midwestern all-white upper-middle class suburb I grew up in. But things were much different than they are now, due primarily to the technological situation.

Smartphones did not exist, most people did not even have “dumbphones,” and the internet was mostly just available on computers at school. This was the age of the CD-ROM mass mailing program of America Online (which inexplicably used the acronym “AOL”), where you got 40 free hours of internet browsing through your telephone line, and would then have to pay by the minute.

What the smartphone did was give women the ability to get unlimited attention from unlimited numbers of men. More importantly, it allowed women the sexual freedom of “hooking-up” with guys who were outside of their friends circle, which meant that they could have unlimited numbers of sex partners in secret.

When I was in high school – the high school age that Blink 182 sang about – women were compelled to have “boyfriends.” There were certain girls who believed that every girl and boy should have a boyfriend or girlfriend, and they would plan to arrange these relationships. It should also be noted that at the time, high schoolers were not fat. Most of us played sports, or were involved in skateboarding or bicycling, and the food was just a lot better. So although there is always an “attractiveness curve,” by the nature of physiology, everyone was more or less “normal.” So it was possible for everyone to be “hooked up” with someone of equal attractiveness. For girls, obviously this we are speaking entirely of physical attractiveness, whereas with boys, being “popular” as a result of sports achievement or being “cool” as a result of fashion and access to drugs, influenced their attractiveness level.

What a woman did not want was to be considered a “slut.” This was very bad. Everyone would mock them, to the point where in the era, there were quite a few suicides by girls who were brutally mocked as overly sexually promiscuous, if they had sex with boys who were not their “boyfriend” or would switch from boyfriend to boyfriend at a rapid rate. Unlike now, everyone knew everyone, and word of sexual dalliances spread quickly. If a girl did not want the label of “slut” and the severe social shaming that went along with it, she could not operate as women currently operate on social media. As far as I’ve been able to observe, and I’m sure there is a lot of older sociological research (now banned) that would back up the assertion that “slut-shaming” is something that both men and women naturally do to promiscuous women, as we instinctively recognize it as a threat to the social order.

Looking back, it’s clear that it was technology that interfered with the mating process at the time. Sex before marriage is a sin, but illicit high school sex was happening in the “pure” age of the 1940s and 1950s as well. As soon as you had sex-integrated schools, a large portion of teenagers were not going to be able to control their raging hormones, and were going to find a way to have sex with each other. The problem in the 1990s was that there were condoms and birth control, as well as abortion. In the 1940s, if a girl got pregnant by her “high school sweetheart,” it meant that there was almost certainly going to be a marriage forced on them by both sets of parents. This isn’t ideal, and as a Christian I do believe that in an ideal world, sex should be within the bounds of marriage. But as a practical reality, a teenage girl getting pregnant and then being forced to marry the father, is not a totally broken social system.

This situation actually did happen to a few people I knew in high school – a girl got pregnant, refused the abortion, and the couple ended up getting married. Of course, they are all divorced now, because divorce is legal in America (because our country is run by Jews who feel threatened by the existence of healthy families).

The target of outrage at the time among conservatives was “teen promiscuity” and the target of liberals was “teen pregnancy.” As I’ve described, “promiscuity” was something of a misnomer, given that it was socially impossible, in a social circle where everyone knew everyone. It was actually “premarital sex” that would have been the complaint, as most teens were limiting their sexual affairs to one person.

In actual reality, neither of these things were very serious problems. Again, an ideal is an ideal, and sex after marriage is an ideal, but in reality, if it were not for birth control, abortion, and the legalization of divorce, upwards of 90% of the people I went to high school with would currently be married to the first (or maybe second) person they had sex with in high school. My generation is pushing 40 now, so that would mean that the current generation of teenagers would be raised by married biological parents.

Instead, you have this:

If you parse out that data, for millennials in the “married” category, of that 44%, about half of the women are married to men who are not the father of their first child. (That data is available, but I can’t find it right now – but you all know it’s true from your own experience. The number I have in my head is that 23% of millennials are married and living with children they produced together – and most of them will be divorced in the next 5 or so years.) For the record, my opinion on men who marry single mothers is that they should be taken out behind the barn and beat to death with a shovel.

This has been a process that began when women were given the right to vote. Women have no conception of society, or that something could be good or bad for society, they have only a concept of what is good for them personally. So if you give them rights, you enter the downward spiral.

(Note: I don’t advise anyone listen to Nine Inch Nails. But it is relevant both in terms of content and the 1990s nostalgia intro.)

Incelism and You

Needless to say, most young men are now incels. They might not want to use that word, but it’s just a fact.

There are various types of incels, but the underlying causes are all of those listed above, to wit:

• Birth control and abortion
• The ability of technology to enable female promiscuity without social shame
• The inability to sustain marriage, due to the legalization of divorce (primarily no-fault divorce, but really just divorce in general)

Most intelligent men have simply given up on attempting to make a relationship work, because it is clearly impossible, due to to progressive stacking of the deck against men being able to successfully couple.

There are different types of giving up. Some men let themselves go and get fat and play video games all day. Some just try to go on with their lives, and live for themselves in as health a way as possible, working and making money, staying healthy, having fun with their bros.

Other men are still chasing women. They are the largest group, probably. They are still harboring romantic dreams that they will find “the one,” or they are at least hoping that they can get a “hook-up” here and there. No one is really doing the former. Marriage simply does not work anymore. The woman has all the power, given that she can end the marriage at any time for no reason and take the money and the kids, which means that the man that keeps his marriage is the one willing to be a slave to a woman.

The likelihood of “hooking up” is increasingly impossible. Not only are women able to choose which men they want to have sex with from a buffet on social media – where they will inevitably choose the top 5% most attractive, but women are actually having less sex. Due to the massively lower levels of testosterone in women, they simply have nothing approaching the male sex drive. What they have instead is a desire for attention. So they can get thousands of “likes” on pictures they post on social media, and feed their dopamine receptors, and they can go on dates from social media, have the man pay for everything, then say “well, I have to go home now.” The man thought he was paying for sex, by buying the food and the drinks, spending maybe hundreds of dollars, but the woman feels she is under no obligation.

(Note: women become horny for about 72 hours per month when they are ovulating. This is when they will do a “hook-up” on an app with a man who is more attractive than them, who would never agree to marry them. Even if the overly attractive man did form a relationship and agree to marry, she would just divorce him in about five years, cash in, and move on to the next mark.)

Whether you want to admit it or not, you are an incel or you are have serious emotional problems. You do not have the option of forming a permanent relationship, no matter how successful or attractive you might be.

If you are not attractive enough to actually convince a woman to marry you, which is most of you, but you do hit the occasional “hookup,” you are still an incel, in the same way that a homeless man who is able to break into a abandoned building and sleep for a few nights before being evicted by the police. You’re still homeless, you just got lucky and got to sleep in a building for a few nights. When you’re kicked out by the police, you’re back on the streets.

Any non-incel decision is an absurd waste of your time and resources, and is deeply personally humiliating. If you get married and have everything taken from you through a grueling process, you’ve played yourself. If you get lucky on an app and get a hook-up, you’ve wasted how much time and emotional resources that could have been spent on making money, learning skills, studying, and doing things that are actually enjoyable, in exchange for a few minutes of sexual release.

If you are one of the few who manage to find a woman and stay married, then you are serving as a slave, without any power at all, waiting for the woman to get a feeling she is “not happy” and it’s time to cash out. This can happen in your 40s or even your 50s. Any married man is simply rolling the dice, every single day, hoping that the woman doesn’t say “we need to talk” and tell you she is “not happy.” Or, as has happened to more than one person I know personally, doesn’t even say anything to you, changes the locks on your house, and has the divorce papers sent to you.

If you are a “live-in boyfriend” – now often goofily referred to as a “fiancé,” then the situation is about the same, though it will cost you less money when she decides she is “not happy.”

Women are not logical. They can not be talked out of things. They make decisions purely based on emotions, and all of their emotions are based on the premise that they are personally the center of the universe and that everything that exists in the universe exists for the purpose of making them feel happy.

That’s just what they are, that’s what they’ve always been. It’s the first story in the Bible. A woman’s desire for excitement is what destroyed paradise.

Where we are now, all of their worst instincts have been unleashed, and they are rewarded for embracing these worst instincts. They do not need you for sustenance anymore. Technological society, and the welfare system, feed, house, and clothe them. Therefore, you are obsolete, unless you are capable of being entertaining or otherwise feeding her ego.

This is the system we live in. We didn’t volunteer for it. But this is where we are, and we cannot change it as individuals.

With every single thing stacked against you, the only logical path for any man is to be an incel.

Don’t Say “Volcel”

I have seen a lot of people on the internet – faggots, in fact – who try to draw a distinction between an “incel” and a “volcel.” That is, a man who is involuntarily celibate vs. a man who is voluntarily celibate.

Firstly, hookers do exist, so no man is technically “involuntarily celibate” in the strictest sense. Every man has the ability to order an escort, even in countries where prostitution is banned. So, the word “incel” actually doesn’t refer to a man who isn’t able to ever have sex under any circumstances, because technically, any man has the ability to order a hooker for sex.

But nothing about the sexual landscape we currently suffer under was “voluntary.”

None of us “volunteered” for a society that allows:

• Birth control pills
• Abortion
• Social media sex hook-ups
• No-fault divorce
• Family court settlement systems

So, if you make a choice not to participate in that, you are an “incel,” even if you could technically do a hook-up or get involved in some horrible slave marriage or “live-in boyfriend” situation.

Women in the Workplace

Just to round this off, the entire “women in the workplace” phenomenon needs to be mentioned, as it often gets the blame for a lot of this. However, women in the workplace is more of a side-effect than a core cause of the problem. If women could not prevent pregnancy through all of these different means, they wouldn’t have the option of joining the workplace.

It’s likely that the social pressure for women to “have a career” is part of why they choose to have abortions. It is unlikely that if you polled most 13-year-old girls before this massive brainwashing campaign that many of them would say they dream of being a bank manager rather than a stay-at-home mother. But the birth control/abortion system enables this.

The system of welfare for single mothers and just women generally also enables this. But really, “women in the workplace” is a form of government welfare, via the affirmative action programs. The only real job that a woman can do and make money comparable to that of a man, without an affirmative action program, is prostitution. And the period in which a prostitute can work and make good money is relatively short.

(She can spend money on plastic surgery to extend her shelf-life, but that’s probably only going to lead to breaking even. One fact of reality is from the age of about 24, a woman begins making a rapid transformation into a beastly monster like something out an cursed swamp.)

It’s all tied together as part of an anti-natal program implemented by the Jews who run our society, setting the social norms first through their control of academia and then through their ability to manipulate public opinion and to influence government policy.

Obviously, women should not be in the workplace. But I would not identify that as a root cause of the current social collapse, but rather a symptom of it.

The Failure of Christian Churches

At the core of the disaster is the failure of Christian Churches – which, not too long ago, had a lot of influence – to push back against this agenda.

If churches in the 1950s and 1960s would have taken a hard line against feminism, none of this would be happening. Churches should have actively pushed not only for a ban on contraception and abortion, but on divorce, and on women being allowed to go to college and enter the workplace.

Imagine that churches were at least at the time teaching that sex before marriage was wrong. Yet they were supportive of women going to college and getting jobs before marriage, which would mean that they would be expected to lose their virginity at what age? 28? 32? This is plainly nonsensical.

It’s far from difficult to make the argument from the Bible that women’s place is in the home, having children. In fact, it is virtually impossible to make any other argument. Yet the churches didn’t do this, save for perhaps the Mormons (who are now backing off of that like every other church).

Saint Paul, who is for all intents and purposes the founder of the religion of Christianity (Jesus was more of the basis of it than the founder, although I don’t want to get into semantics), said explicitly that the only way a woman can be saved is through childbirth.

Not exactly mincing words there.

By refusing to push back against feminism, and in fact largely embracing it, the churches destroyed their own selves, creating generations of godless youth raised by vicious and megalomaniacal women.

“How can God exist if the world is run by women?” is a very good question. The answer is easy – because the people abandoned God and his plan for them. But that is a hard answer for people to come to. Or it was. It seems this answer is becoming less difficult for young people to reason out.

“So You’re Saying We Shouldn’t Marry and Have Kids???”

Every time I write about this topic, this is a gang of simps and morons who come at me claiming that I am arguing against marriage and family. Intelligent people are able to see that I’m arguing the opposite.

I’m the metaphor man. Let’s do this.

Imagine we’re on a plane that crashes on a remote island in the Pacific somewhere. We have binoculars, and we can see that we are in the middle of nowhere. There is nothing but sea around us, in every direction. We have a source of fresh water. We have food. There are fruits and we can fish, there are even some wild pigs we’ve figured out how to trap. Someone says “I’m going to just swim out into the ocean and try to find land.” Having become the de facto leader of the crash survivors, I say “are you insane? You’re just going to drown. You can’t swim for hundreds of miles.” The smug person then replies: “so you’re saying we should just stay on this island forever????”

You get it? 

To extend the metaphor: we might be rescued. There is a good chance of rescue. If we’re not rescued, we will make do. We will survive.

Just so: there is a very good chance that with the rate society is changing, and the high probability of some kind of societal collapse, the current sexual dynamics will change drastically, and we will be able to reestablish workable sexual dynamics in the ashes of a dead empire.

This system can’t last forever. And when it ends, there will still be white people. The white race is not going to go extinct. You sacrificing your entire life to try to chase an impossible dream of a world that no longer exists is not going to save the white race. Your energies would be much better spent following the cliche of “becoming the change you want to see in the world.”

Stand up and fight for your birthright. Don’t go around scrounging for crumbs that fall from the table of your illegitimate masters. In trying to make a family work in this modern society, you are effectively begging the Jews to just let you have one thing you want. The Jews have no incentive to give you that.

They are in power. They are in complete power to the point where they have already legally effectively labeled us all terrorists simply for disagreeing with them. We are in the middle of a civilizational scale crisis.

You don’t have the option to choose the kind of life you want to live, because you are a slave. If you want to choose the kind of life you want to live, your only option is to stop being a slave. Otherwise, your masters decide for you.

Loopholes

Whenever this conversation comes up, someone tries to bring up some kind of loophole. “Oh, I could become Amish” is probably the most extreme (and probably most likely to be successful, I guess, if the Amish let you join them, which I think is impossible). But there’s also “meet a girl at church,” which completely misses the entire point and shows a total lack of understanding of what is happening right now (according to statistics, Christians have a higher divorce rate than non-Christians, though that’s probably due to income gap rather than religiosity).

There are also dumb arguments about how “it’s not really that bad.” Someone will bring up the alleged divorce rate. Firstly, go look at how divorce statistics are measured. They use different methods, but none of them make any sense, because people don’t get married at the same time they get divorced. Furthermore, most people who are currently not yet in the divorce statistics who are under the age of 40 will be in the divorce statistics soon enough. That also doesn’t acknowledge the fact that “common law” marriages (i.e., “live in boyfriend” situations) are extremely common, and virtually always end in “divorce.”

There is no loophole, there is no solution, it is as bad as it looks. You can go look around you, you can go look at the con artist gurus telling you they know how to make your marriage work. In fact, I encourage it. Go look at everything, and come to your own conclusions.

Of course, it is possible that you’ll find a woman, get married, have kids and grow old together, happily. It’s not impossible, it’s just statistically impossible. This is like saying “you could play the powerball and win $200 million.” Intelligent people do not play the powerball.

Bottom line: there is nothing you can do to make a divorce less likely. Literally, nothing. You can be kind to her, you can “neg” her and try to control her, you can be reasonable with her, you can be a raging abuser – none of that is going to affect the outcome.

The only thing that is statistically measurable that can change the outcome of a marriage is how much money you make, in particular, in comparison to how much money she makes. But I don’t really know that I even believe that statistic.

If you believe you are more desirable, “more alpha,” and more able to control a woman than:

• Brad Pitt
• Vladimir Putin
• Johnny Depp
• Jeff Bezos
• Bill Gates
• Kanye West
• Ben Affleck
• Donald Trump
• Elon Musk
• etc.

Then you are profoundly delusional, if not literally clinically insane.

Ending up in a successful marriage is like winning powerball. It is completely based on random chance, and the chance is very, very low.

Chasing after this is masochistic. You are destroying your own life, wasting all of this energy, putting yourself through unimaginable pain, seeking something you will never get.

Give Up on Women

Women are the greatest possible distraction for all of us, due to the biological reality of the drive to reproduce (that’s what the sex drive is, by the way – it’s not about pleasure). The fact that a healthy relationship with a woman is officially impossible, this is killing our ability to live meaningful lives.

Meaningful life as a slave is resisting slavery, fighting back against the slave masters. We can only do that with God.

Here’s my advice:

• Don’t be fat
• Forgive your mother
• Stop pitying yourself (no one cares)
• Respect yourself
• Do things that give you self-esteem (work! Whatever it is, just work!)
• Learn to pray

I don’t have a solution to how to make a relationship with a woman work, because there is no solution to that problem. Look around you. This is self-evident.

You are not special. You are not going to beat the house, you’re not going to pull some kind of trick and win the game everyone else who plays it is losing.

You didn’t volunteer for this society, but this is where you are.

You are an incel.

This fact should not hurt you, but liberate you. This drive for women, these are chains on our souls. Break them, and free your soul. Then, we shall get to the business of freeing our bodies from the Beast.

The biggest losers of the coronavirus hysteria are going to be white men, as they are going to lose their jobs and have their families destroyed when they become unable to provide. But of course, we are not going to hear about that. Just like we have to hear endlessly about how the fake pandemic is disproportionately affecting the blacks, we also have to hear about how it’s disproportionately affecting women.

BBC:

Less than a month since Europe came to a near-standstill, it is too soon to see the full impact on gender violence from official statistics.

But in abusive households, experts see a potentially devastating combination of emotions brewing. Women fear the aggressor inside the home and the virus outside.

Stress makes abusers even more volatile, while heightened privacy gives them a feeling of impunity.

In Spain, Kika Fumero traces it back to the state of alert declared on 14 March.

“From that moment I knew that what was good for stopping Covid-19 was going to be horrible for those women and their children who were in a violent situation at home,” the head of the Canary Islands Institute for Equality told the BBC.

She had seen the spikes in abuse from periods of confinement before, when women were forced to spend more time with their partner during floods or holidays.

The framing of the issue as it’s being discussed in the media is “domestic violence,” and they claim that men who were previously “abusers” are now upping their power level, going into ultra-abuse mode. This is a really dumb framing, because what would make more sense is that men who had previously not been abusive were becoming abusive due to the stress. However, if you said that, you would have a number of different problems, to wit:

1. If men who don’t normally beat women are beating women because of stress, then the men are also victims of the lockdown.
2. “Abusive men” are supposed to be a special category of men, who are evil, and the idea that circumstance could drive a man to become abusive destroys the mainstream media melodrama of “pure good versus pure evil.”
3. You would have to acknowledge that the lockdown itself is extremely harmful to society, instead of something being exploited by evil people to commit evil acts.

This issue of “rising domestic violence during a lockdown” has been mentioned a lot, and I’ve written about it before. I’m a supporter of domestic violence, and strongly believe that women deserve to be beaten. It’s a simple fact of reality that if you don’t beat women occasionally, they will think they can get away with anything, and will eventually go completely off the rails.

“I told you not to move the stuff on my desk!” 

That having been said, there is a kernel of truth that is being hinted at with these articles about rising domestic violence under a lockdown: this situation is extremely hard on families.

If you are permanently locked in your house with someone – while also suffering from the stress of people telling you you’re going to die of a disease – your relationship with that person is going to be very strained. And honestly, though I’m very critical of the media narrative about “domestic violence,” it is just obvious that such a situation is going to lead to extreme negative emotions, which will lead to those emotions being taken out on the others you are trapped with.

“I told you to clean the litter box!” 

Far from some form of dark evil, this is no different than if you’ve had a really stressful day and you end up being rude to someone who you shouldn’t have been rude to. We have all experienced that, and hopefully most of us have gone back to the person we were unnecessarily rude to and said “I was under a lot of stress and shouldn’t have said that to you.”

That dynamic of treating others badly as a result of increased pressure that is unrelated to that person is something we all understand, but the extreme form that this will take during something like this lockdown could obviously result in a lot more than mean words – it could result in physical violence, both from the woman and the man (90% of the time it would be the woman).

You can call that “abuse” if you want, though the connotations of the term make it almost useless.

“I told you to put the toilet seat back up!”

That is real, and maybe it’s an issue, but the bigger problem is that what goes on during the lockdown is going to lead to long-term resentment between families. You combine that with the coming economic pressure, which is already the number one cause of divorce, the fact that men are not going to be able to provide for their families because they won’t have work, and you’re going to have an absolute disaster.

We are going to see the biggest spike in divorce in all of history when this lockdown ends.

Peace is not just the absence of war. Many women under lockdown for #COVID19 face violence where they should be safest: in their own homes.

Today I appeal for peace in homes around the world.

I urge all governments to put women’s safety first as they respond to the pandemic. pic.twitter.com/PjDUTrMb9v

— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) April 6, 2020

I’m extremely critical of claims of “domestic violence.” I’m also extremely critical of statistics presented by the UN. But this report is worth noting.

NPR:

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, citing a sharp rise in domestic violence amid global coronavirus lockdowns, called on governments around the world to make addressing the issue a key part of their response to the pandemic.

Speaking late Sunday, Guterres said “violence is not confined to the battlefield.”

“For many women and girls, the threat looms largest where they should be safest — in their own homes,” he said, appealing “for peace at home — and in homes — around the world.”

“We know lockdowns and quarantines are essential to suppressing COVID-19, but they can trap women with abusive partners,” Guterres said. “Over the past weeks, as the economic and social pressures and fear have grown, we have seen a horrifying surge in domestic violence.”

The secretary-general said in some countries “the number of women calling support services has doubled” while “healthcare providers and police are overwhelmed and understaffed.”

“I urge all governments to make the prevention and redress of violence against women a key part of their national response plan to COVID-19,” he said.

Of course, they always claim it is “women and girls” who are victims, when in fact, the system admits that men are almost as often victims of domestic violence.

If you study up on the issue, most cases of women getting hit by their husband or boyfriend are instigated by the woman. The woman hits the man and the man hits her back, or pushes her, or grabs her and shakes her to try to get her to stop. And then she calls the cops and the cops say “you should be ashamed, you’re stronger than her, you have to go to prison forever.”

If you include cases where the woman is following the man around the house nagging him, and won’t stop when he asks her to stop, then virtually 100% of “domestic violence” is instigated by the woman.

But I don’t care about women getting beat up, and in fact I believe they deserve it. What I want to speak on is the larger issue here: this virus lockdown is certainly destroying an untold number of marriages and de facto “live in girlfriend” marriages.

A whole other wave of them are going to be wiped out when the quarantine ends, and the families have to face the new economic realities.

Most women will leave a man who loses his job, and more or less all men are going to be losing their jobs. We saw divorces shoot up in the last recession a decade ago. And that was just a little baby compared to what we’re going to be facing here in a couple of months when they let us out of our houses.

Families are going to be absolutely wrecked by this. You’re going to see the biggest divorce rate probably in all of history. Neither parent is going to have anywhere to live, and children are going to become wards of the state in a lot of cases.

Again, we can talk about how in theory, the total collapse of the West is going to be a good thing for future generations. After the federal government finally breaks apart, we will rebuild. But the human cost of this is going to be unbelievably massive.

On some level, we can take comfort knowing that this is better for the people who will come after us, who will be able to live in a society free of child trannies, feminism and all of the rest of this hell. And we can take comfort in the fact that people who have lost everything are going to be a lot more open to listening to what we have to say with regards to what caused all of these problems.

Who created an economy this fragile.

But for most of us, our primary focus is simply going to be on surviving from day to day in a new type of hellscape that none of us can even imagine from where we are right now.

I keep saying “imagine what your life would look like if you only were able to spend 25% of what you spend every month now.”

But I think that might not be fair.

I think it might be a whole lot worse than that.

I was condemned yesterday by many as a supporter of baby murder for sympathizing with Rowan Baxter, the man who killed his wife and three kids, then himself, in response to her divorce-raping him and stealing his kids from him.

Of course, my position was not extreme, and is being expressed by the police themselves as a valid position to take on the event.

news.com.au:

An embattled Queensland detective whose comment on the murder of Brisbane mother Hannah Clarke and her children sparked outrage among domestic violence campaigners has been removed from the investigation.

Detective Inspector Mark Thompson was widely condemned over his choice of words at a press conference yesterday, as police updated the public on their investigation into the horrific car fire that killed Ms Clarke, 31, Aaliyah, 6, Laianah, 4, and Trey, 3.

“Our job as investigators is to keep a completely open mind,” he said.

“We need to look at every piece of information and, to put it bluntly, there are probably people out there in the community that are deciding which side, so to speak, to take in this investigation.

“Is this an issue of a woman suffering significant domestic violence, and her and her children perishing at the hands of the husband?

“Or is it an instance of a husband being driven too far by issues that he’s suffered by certain circumstances into committing acts of this form?”

Of course he was removed from the case, condemned and will probably be run out of his job and banned from getting another job.

Because there is nothing on earth worse than suggesting that maybe the actions of women can lead to negative consequences. And of course, saying that this woman did something wrong to cause this situation is basically saying that all women deserve this, because all women will do what this woman did and leave a man who is having financial problems and take his kids.

The problem that women now face is that many men look at this situation, as horrific as it is to kill little kids, and come to the conclusion: “well, what was he supposed to do?”

Because all women destroy their own families in the way that this woman did, all women are looking at this murder-suicide and saying “oh my god that couldn’t happen to me could it??? I just want to do what makes me feel good and always feel happiness forever!!! That’s my right!!! I shouldn’t have to worry about potential negative consequences resulting from it!!!”

This is the situation that the empowerment of women has wrought: when a man lights his wife and three little kids on fire in a truck, killing them all, at least half of men are going to feel that he was justified – and even the cops will publicly say that he might have been justified.

By the way, it has been confirmed that the woman was living with another man and had taken the kids to the house of the new boyfriend and was preventing Rowan from seeing them.

The media is using this as an opportunity to berate men as being pure evil, and I believe that is going to backfire, and simply lead more men into sympathizing with Rowan.

A lot of people are soft, and will see this and just feel sad because it’s of course sad when anyone dies, and that’s understandable.

But for many of us, this man was in a war, and with no other options available to him. He acted in an extreme way, and it is his wife and society who should be held responsible for all of these deaths – including his own.

The fact that we are at the point where normal people are saying that dead kids are the wages of feminism should make everyone ask if this has gone too far, and if maybe it won’t be sustainable long term to allow women to simply destroy the lives of men on a whim.

Of course, nothing is going to change and men, women and children will continue to have their lives ruined and continue to die as a result of this massive social engineering program designed to destroy men and their families.

For my part, I will continue to side with the men, and with families, as I do not believe that anything can ever justify the destruction of a family, and I do not believe that anything done in response to the destruction of a family can ever be wrong.

And if you think that makes me a monster, I’m willing to accept that.

One of the messages that the media/education system tries very hard to spread and ingrain is that having children is somehow something that ends one’s life and turns existence into some kind of slavery that removes all of the freedoms and pleasures of the adult world from people’s reach.

It turns out that the people who ignore that message and produce lots of kids tend to be happier because of it.

Daily Mail:

A couple who planned to have just a few children but went on to have ten offspring, have insisted that it’s the best thing ever to happen to them.

Cassanda, 32, and Jacob Morrise, 35, from Utah, who laughingly remember feeling they had ‘enough children to last a lifetime,’ when they reached two, revealed they kept changing their minds and only felt their family was complete when baby number ten was born in July 2019.

The couple’s huge brood includes two sets of twin boys, who were born one after the other.

And there is only one girl among all the siblings, their ninth child Lily, who was born in April 2018.

Entrepreneur Jacob has a business designing and selling household gadgets in 2018, meanwhile Cassanda is a stay-at-home mother.

The mechanical entrepreneur said: ‘I wouldn’t change having such a big family for the world. By baby number two we thought we’d had enough. But turns out we hadn’t, and it was the best decision we ever made.

It should come as no surprise that doing a good job at reproduction would make someone happy. After all, reproducing is perhaps the strongest need present in all living organisms.

But we live in a culture that shuns offspring while it celebrates engaging in the means to produce it.

Everyone’s obsessed with having sex but not with having a big family.

‘At the end of the day, we’re just normal parents who happen to have 10 kids. Yes, the fact we have 10 might make us slightly less normal, but we love each and every one of them just the same.

‘We do get the odd comments like, “You’ve got your hands full”, or, “You must be some sort of day care center”.

‘And some people say we’re irresponsible for having so many kids, but we just brush the comments off.’

Raising Steven, 10, Christopher, nine, identical twins William and Ryan, both seven, non-identical twins Spencer and Max, both five, Thomas, four, Henry, three, Lily, one, and Peter, six months, efficiently, but with plenty of love and affection, has made Cassanda confident she has the experience to give fellow parents solid advice.

‘People just assume we’ve got a bunch of unruly kids who rule the roost, because there’s so many of them – but that’s just not the case,’ said Cassanda, who launched her blog with Jacob in June 2019.

‘Being part of such a large family is actually good preparation for children, as they have to learn how to compromise and deal with different personalities. It’s actually made our children better behaved.

Contrary to popular belief, it’s better for kids to interact with other kids on a daily basis than to interact with glowing screens in solitude.

It should be common sense, but nowadays nothing common makes sense.

‘The blog offers advice to other parents and also gives us a way to document all the memories we make.

‘I try and keep it real, but I also put a positive spin on every day and if one other mother can benefit from reading about how I stay on top of my laundry routine, then it’s worthwhile.’

The couple who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints faith, which permits contraception, but encourages big families, claim that having a big family can be easier than just having a couple of children.

Cassanda said: ‘I speak to people who have one or two kids and they’re like, ‘I have to entertain my kids and play with them all the time.’ I’m like, ‘Well, I don’t.’

‘We’ve got so many children that they entertain and play with each other. We’re also really lucky because the older kids dote on the younger ones.’

Jacob and Cassanda met at Brigham Young University in Idaho in January 2008. They embarked on a whirlwind romance and tied the knot in August the same year, and have revealed having such a big brood was not their initial plan.

That is healthy and natural.

Parents are supposed to be parents, not clowns.

‘I write lots of tips about how to stay on top of chores and how to run a household with so many children,’ Cassanda said.

‘When it comes to mealtimes, I like to be organised and I make a monthly meal plan, so everyone knows what they’re getting in advance.

‘Our kids aren’t fussy, and they don’t have any allergies either, so dinner times aren’t so bad – we keep it simple and cook lots of soups, or pizza, enchiladas and salads.’

And the self-professed ‘thrifty’ shoppers only spend $250 per week to feed all 12 of them.

‘We’re savvy shoppers and save coupons or buy things on discount,’ Cassanda said. ‘Sometimes, people think we’re having some sort of party and always ask ‘Why do you need so many bananas?”

I wonder if “because I have ten kids to feed” would be a more shocking response than “because I’m vegan and eat about 50 bananas a day in order to not die from veganism” nowadays.

Those are breast implants, by the way

Monthly meal plans are actually a good idea even for people who have no kids to feed though.

Also, the seven oldest children are expected to help with the household chores.

Cassanda said: ‘They have to do one chore every day.

‘They each get given a room they have to tidy. It shouldn’t take them longer than 10 minutes, because it’s just picking toys up or wiping down the sides – it’s not a deep clean.

‘Some of the kids are done within 10 minutes, but others can take half an hour, because they spend most of the time crying about how hard it is!‘

That’s true for adults in general too.

The average American gives up on their new year’s resolutions by February 1, according to a recent study.

Doing stuff is hard, goy. Staying still is easier.

Why work hard on your big family and on your new year’s resolutions when you can just sit back, relax, and enjoy some Netflix?

British parents are barely spending any time with their kids, and from what can be seen on a day-to-day basis, we could assume this is also generally true for the rest of the Western world.

Study Finds:

The concept of a close-knit family is quickly becoming an antiquated notion. A recent survey of 1,000 British parents found that the average parent spends a mere five hours per week communicating face-to-face with their children.

More than half of surveyed moms and dads with children under the age of 18 said they feel “distant” from their kids. In all, 43% blamed their measly family time on their kids spending too much time in front of the television, with another 51% saying their kids spend too much time in their bedrooms. Another 44% said their familial disconnect is a result of their kids logging inordinate amounts of time on their phones during traditional “family time” in the evening.

Before trying to blame their kids, parents should ask themselves these questions:

1. Who put a television in front of their kids?
2. Who allowed the television to be watched without parental supervision?
3. Who put a phone in the hands of their kids?
4. Who allowed the phone to be used during family time?

Kids spending too much time in their bedrooms are likely to be watching television and using their smartphones or their computers.

Five hours a week of face-to-face communication means that these families don’t even spend an hour together every day, which in turn means that even if they have dinner together, they’re not really having dinner together.

They’re not even having breakfast together.

They may eat at the same time, in the same place, but they’re not really together.

Each of them is somewhere else — somewhere reachable only through screens.

The study, commissioned by Cadbury Heroes, also found that the average youngster starts to really avoid his or her parents around the age of 13. A significant 73% of respondents said their relationship with their children really changed once their sons and daughters became teenagers.

Nearly half (46%) of surveyed parents said they only talk to their kids for a maximum of four hours each week. Meanwhile, 54% said they would love to spend more time with their children.

To rectify this problem, over 80% of parents have taken an active interest in their children’s favorite activities in an effort to reconnect. For example, 20% of parents have learned how to play the popular online video game Fortnite, while 39% said they have gotten involved with their child’s hobbies. Another 33% have listened to their child’s favorite bands or musical artists in order to bond with them.

Absolute cringe. What’s next, fathers injecting estrogen and switching gender with their sons?

Kids in the West don’t need their parents to be “friends” or “pals.” They need their parents to be parents; to guide them, to lead them, to set them straight, to protect them.

“Your parents are your peers” is one of the most damaging messages that the media/school system has been putting out for decades. The whole portrayal of fathers as dumb and kids as smart in television shows and movies, schools defying parental authority, and other such things are all intended to make children easier to manipulate.

Parents who play along with that are facilitating the dick-cutting of their sons and the defilement of their daughters.

Lads, I’m sure I don’t have to tell you this, but there is a point of no return. There are some levels of retardation that there’s absolutely no coming back from.

These uh… progressive people who work at Google… there’s no rehabilitating them back into sane society.

Daily Caller:

A Google executive sparked a fierce backlash from employees by using the word “family” in a weekly, company-wide presentation, according to internal documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Many Google employees became angry that the term was used while discussing a product aimed at children, because it implied that families have children, the documents show. The backlash grew large enough that a Google vice president addressed the controversy and solicited feedback on how the company could become more inclusive.

But it gets worse/better.

The letter in question:

This is a diminishing and disrespectful way to speak. If you mean “children”, say “children”; we have a perfectly good word for it. “Family friendly” used as a synonym for “kid friendly” means, to me, “you and yours don’t count as a family unless you have children”. And while kids may often be less aware of it, there are kids without families too, you know.

The use of “family” as a synonym for “with children” has a long-standing association with deeply homophobic organizations. This does not mean we should not use the word “family” to refer to families, but it mean we must doggedly insist that family does not imply children.

Even the sense, “suitable for the whole family”, which you might think is unobjectionable, is totally wrong too.It only works if we have advance shared conception of what “the whole family” is, and that is almost always used to mean a household with two adults, of opposite sex, in a romantic/sexual relationship, with two or more of their own children. If you mean that as a synonym for “suitable for all people” stop and notice the extraordinary unlikelihood of such a thought! So “suitable for the whole family” doesn’t mean “all people”, it means “all people in families”, which either means that all those other people aren’t in families, or something even worse. Use the word “family” to mean a loving assemblage of people who may or may not live together and may or may not include people of any particular age. STOP using it to mean “children”. It’s offensive, inappropriate, homophobic, and wrong.

Every single sentence is juicy and well-worth your time to read and savor.

It reads like a parody of what something a coastal-dweller might say written by a right-winger, but no, it’s the real deal.

Roughly 100 other Google employees upvoted the post, signaling their agreement. Other Google employees also echoed their displeasure with the term. “Thanks for writing this. So much yes,” one wrote.

This can’t be fake because that’s literally how they talk. If they added the phrase, “this is everything” to the letter or comment, it would have been cinched it. Millennials love to make grossly over-exaggerated qualitative statements about very average things in UpSpeak. I think it helps them to deal with the gnawing existential angst they feel in their souls at the knowledge that they’ll never be able to own property in this life.

Boomers again to blame.

“Using the word ‘family’ in this sense bothers me too,” wrote another employee, who felt excluded by the term because she was neither married nor a parent.

“It smacks of the ‘family values’ agenda by the right wing, which is absolutely homophobic by its very definition,” she wrote, adding: “[I]t’s important that we fix our charged language when we become aware of how exclusionary it actually is. As a straight person in a relationship, I find the term ‘family’ offensive because it excludes me and my boyfriend, having no children of our own.”

“My family consists of me and several other trans feminine folks, some of whom I’m dating. We’re all supportive of each other and eventually aspire to live together. Just because we aren’t a heterosexual couple with 2.5 kids, a white picket fence, and a dog doesn’t mean we’re not a family,” another employee added in agreement.

Yeah, but deep down, don’t you wish that you could be? Don’t you wish your mom taught you how to be feminine and graceful and not fat and slutty? That your dad took an interest in your life and helped you set a nest up when you were young? Somewhere green and safe with a backyard for the Golden Retriever to run and frolic around and keep you company while you waited on your first child…

Another employee wrote that “using ‘family’ to mean ‘people with kids’ is also annoying to me as a straight-cis-woman who doesn’t have or want kids. My husband, my parents, and my pets are my family.”

That’s pretty fucked up. Leftist women apparently just straight up hate kids. These are the same people who preach about love and tolerance. But not for little children – who apparently can get fucked lol.

This is a company that claims it doesn’t censor conservatives. 

 I’m going to call “hmmmmmmm” on that

Anyone who says that Google isn’t biased against Conservatives would be livid if they found out that Google isn’t biased against Conservatives and start demanding that the company do more to censor people who don’t practice UpSpeak and hate the concept of families and white children like they do.

It’s sick and absurd that this is even the debate.

These companies will never NOT censor conservatives. Their own college-grad employees would riot if they didn’t play along with their SJW demands. Regulations might help, but breaking up the Big Tech monopolies is the only real solution to not being ruled over by these freaks. There has to be competition. There have to be alternatives.

Only then can we ‘let the free market decide.’ 

Substance abuse and social media ruin women.

Add a new low to the epidemic of female teachers banging their underage male students. In this case, a married 40-year-old woman brought a high school student over and was screwing him while her husband and kids were upstairs.

Apparently, this stupid whore has been doing this with multiple students for a while. Judging from the report, she is apparently still married despite her husband knowing all the facts.

I am noticing that men are becoming increasingly tolerant of women cuckolding them.

The law should allow for men to brutally beat their wives for infidelity, but since this isn’t the case, at least throw her ass out in the street!

Is male acceptance of cuckoldry the future of “relationships” in Weimerica? All arrows are pointing to that. The modern man is a pathetic feeb.

New York Post:

A former Indiana substitute teacher, who admitted having sex with a 17-year-old student at her home while her husband and children were upstairs, has been jailed again after she was accused of violating her probation for a second time.

Kisha Nuckols, 40, was taken into custody Sunday after Hancock County prosecutors requested a warrant for her arrest on Jan. 3, saying she failed to register a cellphone number with the Sex Offender Registry, Fox 59 reported.

…

Nuckols was sentenced to two years of probation and two years of home detention in 2016, after prosecutors said she sent a 17-year-old student explicit photos of herself before the two later had sex in her home several times. According to court records, Nuckols admitted having inappropriate relationships with multiple students while working as a substitute teacher at Mount Vernon High School.

It seems that social media played a big role in this woman’s malfeasance. Most women 40 and under have been ruined by the limitless well of undeserved attention garbage like Instagram and Facebook gets them.

This isn’t an unintended consequence, it is by Jewish design. Tech Jews like Justin Rosenstein who helped (((Zuck))) create Facebook have publicly admitted that they knew the science of addiction, and designed their products to exploit it.

The comparison Rosenstein has made is the brain mechanism casino’s tap into with their slot machines. While men are more likely to be pathological gamblers than women (due to increased risk-taking tendencies), women tend to be addicted to slots rather than cards or roulette.

As the cultural cancer metastasizes, men in America will soon be given only two choices: be a “polyamorous” cuckold or go MGTOW.

A stable monogamous relationship with children is a fleeting pipedream for a shocking number of young men. This is a social time bomb – bad for society. Unfortunately the manosphere is riddled with libertarian type of aloofness which is politicized impotence. Men must impose themselves on women once again or not even bother.

Any Nationalist revolution must not only confront racial and economic issues, but also provide an antidote to the sexual revolution.