A visceral kind of @nausea always gripped me when reading over the daily set of racepill diatribes. At their best, they are no better than appeals to victimhood built on a shaky foundation of limited data, at worst racebaiting chimp-out litter that accumulates in festering heaps under the slumbering eyes of derelict moderation. I was never able to call into form a definite picture of my distaste, though, beyond expressing a half-developed skepticism of fetishized “peer-reviewed studies” and the suppositions on which their conclusions rested, as well as noting the congruity of the ideas with the grift practiced by and for the benefit of the “marginalized”, the ceaseless parading of resentment against the spiritually healthy, that execrable pastime of bugmen, failed normies, and holes. Of course, every contention fell on a sea deaf ears, much as I expect their elaborated forms here will. Reason, logic, and evidence are employed to justify conclusions, not to reach them. No one is just a disinterested observer and the only people who will take anything from this are those who would agree in the first place. “Feelings don’t care about your facts”.
This post was inspired by a trip I took today to a forum I used to visit, one of those that retarded my intellectual growth throughout high school and early college. It used to be a place where people would share stories about Punk Rock shows in the 80s and 90s, with many of the posters having been involved in some capacity. Now, it’s no secret that “hard music” subcultures are filled with defective, GRIDS-devastated degenerates and suburban waifs whose interests here are an outgrowth of the same neurotic sensibility that informs collectors and “fans” from comic books to anime. Soyboys, to be brief. As the forum’s original purpose faded into the shadows and the grounded members left around 2012-2014, it slowly became a dozen-member sewing circle for nearly-concentric Venn diagrams of male feminists, failed academics, trannies, homos, rablibs, bobos; any breed of bastard you can imagine. I headed back to see what kind of stale Chapo Penthouse-lite takes were blooming grotesquely in the dawn of the 2020 Democratic primaries and happened upon this post in the “Hall of Fame” (jfl):
https://www.electricalaudio.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17231&start=1100#p2029510
Presumably, the discussion arose out of some scandal regarding Liam Neeson and raysizz’m. The post struck me like a bolt out of the firmament as being the perfected form of the “racepill”, the apotheosis of “racepill science” as a capsule feeding postmodern-constructivist-liberal ideology to gaping and eager mouths. This shitlib cope post, coming from a dyed-in-the-wool male feminist, would have likely elicited cheers of “High IQ” from half of the people here, communicating in essence “it’s over 4 ethnic” dressed up with some brown bodies jargon. Moreover, I am almost sure that the fag who crossposted this would make jokes about incels (unless maybe they’re of the brown body variety. “Is that right guys? Who’s more marginalized, strong wymyn or browpipo?” One dogpile later and it’s obviously the holes.) This brings me to what I want to address, with attention given to one of the papers cited, though there are plenty more that could probably serve just as well:
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/682749
Where did the delusion come from that “no one talk about the racepilk, it’s is too powderful for normbies”? The racepilk is just a simple permutation of the same impulse stoked day by day in certain quarters, supported by every institution with real power (you know, the same ones abhorring the pervasiveness of systemic racism/sexism, which somehow always finds room to exist within the interstices of their universal control; “marginalization” broadcasted from the gargantuan towers of the center), of seeking “redistributive social justice”, i.e. the promise of wringing resources out of places where they probably don’t exist (whether White incels gibz kowtow to “currycel” male models or White proles gibz respirationz to Morgan Freeman) directly into your hands. There’s no carrot at the end of the stick though. Now that you’ve gotten the lowest stratum stratified further, you find yourself only second to last on the victim queue; you’re still hundreds of steps down and you’re not getting a whore out of it anytime soon. Your resentment merely distracts you and is weaponized against legitimate dissent.
This should become at least somewhat clearer if you read the paper (you should at least be able to see the abstract). A choice line:
Prioritizing individuals as romantic partners in a way that reinforces ideas of racial hierarchy or stereotypes, what I call “sexual racism,” is unjust.
The upper-caste, non-ugly Indian author who penned this linguistic wrist flip (I grow more and more weary of the “currycel” meme, with Brahmins being some of the most committed grifters in the Kwa. No one loves to lecture fentanyl-addicted laborers about White privilege quite like the holes belonging to the highest-income ethnic group in America) deploys just about every tool of the feminist academy in his service. “Hithtorical legathy of –ism”, “intimate”, “justice”, “problematic”. Evidence of mind slavery to hegemonic notions of what constitutes a “real” privilege is nicely found in this passage:
Two interrelated claims motivate this thesis: one, sexual racism limits an opportunity that is a social primary good and a capability central to human dignity, and two, unlike sexual discrimination based on other characteristics like height or weight, racial discrimination invokes a category with social and historical importance.
“Social and historical importance”. This cocksucker would have it that it’s fine to be denied this “social primary good” if you’ve got cystic acne, are 5’2”, have elephant ears, whatever. But “racism” is more badderer than all of those, so it gets special consideration. Race is at the same time a “social construct” and there is no “real” way to tell any two people apart, and yet is used relentlessly to “discriminate” against certain people, all of whom happen to look the same way.
Brushing aside the claims of novelty, “racism” is lookism. No one, certainly not in the minoriteehee-worshipping Kwa, ends up rejected just for being x. “Socially constructed beauty standards” didn’t inculcate particular kinds of carnal lusts in people. The problem is quite clearly that civilizational exhaustion, technological advancement, and implicitly feministic laws (and therefore the “values” of every GoodCitizen) have enabled holes to take most of their picks from a very limited set of men with absolutely no accountability to the rest, to the point where they’re allowed to parade their sow bodies in front of the impoverished and be defended for it. Whether more of them are “White“ doesn’t count for shit; there’s plenty of room below the attractiveness threshold set in the “human” female – room for pipo of all colors
.
(As an aside, there is an opportunity to raise another point here, maybe even meriting its own thread. Twitter posts from sluts talking about “being the White man’s whore” is, like the asymmetrical economy of online dating, fairly obviously for Chad’s benefit and Chad’s only. Together with this are WOC activists getting “exposed” as lusting after White Chad behind screeds against White people. But are these screeds to be taken as meaningless posturing or simple reaction formation? It seems to me that the sting of being rejected by Chad is spat back at ugly White men and has the consequence of them being the target of every spurned cunt’s wrath. Hence all the journoscum articles about “Alt-Right incels” and “America’s straight White male problem”. It does them incredible pleasure to imagine themselves as getting back at White men by affirming and reaffirming how many of them they hate and reject. A convoluted way of saying “it was my choice, Chad!” Ugly White men suffer at the hands of holes who only want Chad, much as “Just Be White” is a way for ethneesells to castigate someone because whywoman passed them up in favor of Chad.)
People might claim that there’s an outsized focus on holes and gays in the mainstream understanding of the racepilk (not without reason, as the author of this very paper opens with the perspective of a stronk womxn of color), but it all comes from the same place. Talk of race is a cheap way to get people worked up, all the more so as they become more and more indistinct and fungible, stoking racial consciousness as a way for people to affirm some kind of individual subjectivity. Race is considerably more than biology (not a “social construct”, but not crude zoological taxonomy either) and represents fertile ground for the play of conflicts. To talk of race is to obfuscate and confuse what actually happens: looks and social integration are the only criteria for selection. Moreover, it allows you to be lead around like a dog by the priests of –ism theories, who act in the interests of the same feminist system that wants you kept confused and impotent.
I see racepilking as a bait to become the janissary of entrenched power. I see it as the vise grip of shifting, rootless, deracinated (“White” and “ethnic”) liberalism. I see it as a wedge and as an obstacle occluding your vision of what’s actually in front of your eyes. It is a tool of normification and a mirage.
Is racepilking so important to you that you’re willing to become a detestable footsoldier of hegemony to do it? If you play their games just so you can cope cheaply, more often than not with an unsubtly masochistic bent, if you degrade and beat yourself and the people around you hoping someone else will suffer, you’re acting like a homo; worse yet, a hole. You are doing exactly what is wanted of you by malign forces, joining their ranks as pawns at the lowest level. The racepilk doesn’t destroy IT, whores, or Chad; the racepilk doesn’t destroy hypocrisy and the contradictions of sexual liberalism
The racepilk destroys you
Too long; did not read: only comment if you have something of substance to say
This post was inspired by a trip I took today to a forum I used to visit, one of those that retarded my intellectual growth throughout high school and early college. It used to be a place where people would share stories about Punk Rock shows in the 80s and 90s, with many of the posters having been involved in some capacity. Now, it’s no secret that “hard music” subcultures are filled with defective, GRIDS-devastated degenerates and suburban waifs whose interests here are an outgrowth of the same neurotic sensibility that informs collectors and “fans” from comic books to anime. Soyboys, to be brief. As the forum’s original purpose faded into the shadows and the grounded members left around 2012-2014, it slowly became a dozen-member sewing circle for nearly-concentric Venn diagrams of male feminists, failed academics, trannies, homos, rablibs, bobos; any breed of bastard you can imagine. I headed back to see what kind of stale Chapo Penthouse-lite takes were blooming grotesquely in the dawn of the 2020 Democratic primaries and happened upon this post in the “Hall of Fame” (jfl):
https://www.electricalaudio.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17231&start=1100#p2029510
Presumably, the discussion arose out of some scandal regarding Liam Neeson and raysizz’m. The post struck me like a bolt out of the firmament as being the perfected form of the “racepill”, the apotheosis of “racepill science” as a capsule feeding postmodern-constructivist-liberal ideology to gaping and eager mouths. This shitlib cope post, coming from a dyed-in-the-wool male feminist, would have likely elicited cheers of “High IQ” from half of the people here, communicating in essence “it’s over 4 ethnic” dressed up with some brown bodies jargon. Moreover, I am almost sure that the fag who crossposted this would make jokes about incels (unless maybe they’re of the brown body variety. “Is that right guys? Who’s more marginalized, strong wymyn or browpipo?” One dogpile later and it’s obviously the holes.) This brings me to what I want to address, with attention given to one of the papers cited, though there are plenty more that could probably serve just as well:
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/682749
Where did the delusion come from that “no one talk about the racepilk, it’s is too powderful for normbies”? The racepilk is just a simple permutation of the same impulse stoked day by day in certain quarters, supported by every institution with real power (you know, the same ones abhorring the pervasiveness of systemic racism/sexism, which somehow always finds room to exist within the interstices of their universal control; “marginalization” broadcasted from the gargantuan towers of the center), of seeking “redistributive social justice”, i.e. the promise of wringing resources out of places where they probably don’t exist (whether White incels gibz kowtow to “currycel” male models or White proles gibz respirationz to Morgan Freeman) directly into your hands. There’s no carrot at the end of the stick though. Now that you’ve gotten the lowest stratum stratified further, you find yourself only second to last on the victim queue; you’re still hundreds of steps down and you’re not getting a whore out of it anytime soon. Your resentment merely distracts you and is weaponized against legitimate dissent.
This should become at least somewhat clearer if you read the paper (you should at least be able to see the abstract). A choice line:
Prioritizing individuals as romantic partners in a way that reinforces ideas of racial hierarchy or stereotypes, what I call “sexual racism,” is unjust.
The upper-caste, non-ugly Indian author who penned this linguistic wrist flip (I grow more and more weary of the “currycel” meme, with Brahmins being some of the most committed grifters in the Kwa. No one loves to lecture fentanyl-addicted laborers about White privilege quite like the holes belonging to the highest-income ethnic group in America) deploys just about every tool of the feminist academy in his service. “Hithtorical legathy of –ism”, “intimate”, “justice”, “problematic”. Evidence of mind slavery to hegemonic notions of what constitutes a “real” privilege is nicely found in this passage:
Two interrelated claims motivate this thesis: one, sexual racism limits an opportunity that is a social primary good and a capability central to human dignity, and two, unlike sexual discrimination based on other characteristics like height or weight, racial discrimination invokes a category with social and historical importance.
“Social and historical importance”. This cocksucker would have it that it’s fine to be denied this “social primary good” if you’ve got cystic acne, are 5’2”, have elephant ears, whatever. But “racism” is more badderer than all of those, so it gets special consideration. Race is at the same time a “social construct” and there is no “real” way to tell any two people apart, and yet is used relentlessly to “discriminate” against certain people, all of whom happen to look the same way.
Brushing aside the claims of novelty, “racism” is lookism. No one, certainly not in the minoriteehee-worshipping Kwa, ends up rejected just for being x. “Socially constructed beauty standards” didn’t inculcate particular kinds of carnal lusts in people. The problem is quite clearly that civilizational exhaustion, technological advancement, and implicitly feministic laws (and therefore the “values” of every GoodCitizen) have enabled holes to take most of their picks from a very limited set of men with absolutely no accountability to the rest, to the point where they’re allowed to parade their sow bodies in front of the impoverished and be defended for it. Whether more of them are “White“ doesn’t count for shit; there’s plenty of room below the attractiveness threshold set in the “human” female – room for pipo of all colors
.(As an aside, there is an opportunity to raise another point here, maybe even meriting its own thread. Twitter posts from sluts talking about “being the White man’s whore” is, like the asymmetrical economy of online dating, fairly obviously for Chad’s benefit and Chad’s only. Together with this are WOC activists getting “exposed” as lusting after White Chad behind screeds against White people. But are these screeds to be taken as meaningless posturing or simple reaction formation? It seems to me that the sting of being rejected by Chad is spat back at ugly White men and has the consequence of them being the target of every spurned cunt’s wrath. Hence all the journoscum articles about “Alt-Right incels” and “America’s straight White male problem”. It does them incredible pleasure to imagine themselves as getting back at White men by affirming and reaffirming how many of them they hate and reject. A convoluted way of saying “it was my choice, Chad!” Ugly White men suffer at the hands of holes who only want Chad, much as “Just Be White” is a way for ethneesells to castigate someone because whywoman passed them up in favor of Chad.)
People might claim that there’s an outsized focus on holes and gays in the mainstream understanding of the racepilk (not without reason, as the author of this very paper opens with the perspective of a stronk womxn of color), but it all comes from the same place. Talk of race is a cheap way to get people worked up, all the more so as they become more and more indistinct and fungible, stoking racial consciousness as a way for people to affirm some kind of individual subjectivity. Race is considerably more than biology (not a “social construct”, but not crude zoological taxonomy either) and represents fertile ground for the play of conflicts. To talk of race is to obfuscate and confuse what actually happens: looks and social integration are the only criteria for selection. Moreover, it allows you to be lead around like a dog by the priests of –ism theories, who act in the interests of the same feminist system that wants you kept confused and impotent.
I see racepilking as a bait to become the janissary of entrenched power. I see it as the vise grip of shifting, rootless, deracinated (“White” and “ethnic”) liberalism. I see it as a wedge and as an obstacle occluding your vision of what’s actually in front of your eyes. It is a tool of normification and a mirage.
Is racepilking so important to you that you’re willing to become a detestable footsoldier of hegemony to do it? If you play their games just so you can cope cheaply, more often than not with an unsubtly masochistic bent, if you degrade and beat yourself and the people around you hoping someone else will suffer, you’re acting like a homo; worse yet, a hole. You are doing exactly what is wanted of you by malign forces, joining their ranks as pawns at the lowest level. The racepilk doesn’t destroy IT, whores, or Chad; the racepilk doesn’t destroy hypocrisy and the contradictions of sexual liberalism
The racepilk destroys you
Too long; did not read: only comment if you have something of substance to say
Last edited:
