Two questions come to mind:
1) Do women really enjoy being raped?
They prefer more violent sex than men and consume more violent porn than men. Many report having rape fantasies, but I suspect this is mostly a fantasy of being so sexually irresistible that a handsome man (or billionaire CEO vampire werewolf) is compelled to forcibly have sex with them. Rape orgasms are fairly common, but I suspect they're mostly an involuntary physiological response; men can get boners when driving down rough roads, but that doesn't mean we want to have sex with roads.
2) How many of these purported "rapes" were just drunken sex with chad after which the woman felt used and abandoned?
False accusations are a dime a dozen, and women retroactively withdraw consent all the time. I suspect that few women who were, for example, dragged away in a park by some hideous goblin, beaten black and blue, secretly enjoyed their defilement and/or felt any positive emotions toward their attackers.
1) Do women really enjoy being raped?
They prefer more violent sex than men and consume more violent porn than men. Many report having rape fantasies, but I suspect this is mostly a fantasy of being so sexually irresistible that a handsome man (or billionaire CEO vampire werewolf) is compelled to forcibly have sex with them. Rape orgasms are fairly common, but I suspect they're mostly an involuntary physiological response; men can get boners when driving down rough roads, but that doesn't mean we want to have sex with roads.
2) How many of these purported "rapes" were just drunken sex with chad after which the woman felt used and abandoned?
False accusations are a dime a dozen, and women retroactively withdraw consent all the time. I suspect that few women who were, for example, dragged away in a park by some hideous goblin, beaten black and blue, secretly enjoyed their defilement and/or felt any positive emotions toward their attackers.
Having bizarre sexual fetishes correlates with porn use, promiscuity, transgenderism, homosexuality, and mental illness (to the surprise of absolutely nobody).
All of these relationships are genetically confounded and causality is likely bidirectional for many. For example, a person who has a bizarre fetish may watch more porn because they cannot satisfy their fetish in real life, and watching porn may introduce them to even more bizarre fetishes.
Images in order:
- Porn use frequency
- Body count
- White vs. non-White
- Troons vs. non-troons
- Gays vs. straights
- Mental illness
- Political alignment
- Men vs. women
Data from Aella's Big Kink Survey, which actually has a pretty unbiased sample.
https://thefetishmap.com/map/
All of these relationships are genetically confounded and causality is likely bidirectional for many. For example, a person who has a bizarre fetish may watch more porn because they cannot satisfy their fetish in real life, and watching porn may introduce them to even more bizarre fetishes.
Images in order:
- Porn use frequency
- Body count
- White vs. non-White
- Troons vs. non-troons
- Gays vs. straights
- Mental illness
- Political alignment
- Men vs. women
Data from Aella's Big Kink Survey, which actually has a pretty unbiased sample.
https://thefetishmap.com/map/
Forwarded from Thuletide
Popular Leftist myth:
Postwar decolonization was due to plucky brown Socialist rebels overthrowing their colonial overlords and sticking it to the evil White man. Western powers fought hard to defend their colonies because they were terrified by the combined might of Socialism and people of color.
Reality:
"Western powers" (now in the hands of globalists and libtards) supported non-White Socialist revolutionaries against their White governments in almost every anti-colonial revolutionary war, alongside the USSR and Communist China in many cases. Colonial governments didn't lose a single war but were forced to decolonize by combined economic warfare and political pressure from both Western and Communist powers. Some voluntarily decolonized to avoid war.
Postwar decolonization was due to plucky brown Socialist rebels overthrowing their colonial overlords and sticking it to the evil White man. Western powers fought hard to defend their colonies because they were terrified by the combined might of Socialism and people of color.
Reality:
"Western powers" (now in the hands of globalists and libtards) supported non-White Socialist revolutionaries against their White governments in almost every anti-colonial revolutionary war, alongside the USSR and Communist China in many cases. Colonial governments didn't lose a single war but were forced to decolonize by combined economic warfare and political pressure from both Western and Communist powers. Some voluntarily decolonized to avoid war.
Thuletide
I don't think declining fertility is a huge problem in and of itself, since most Western countries were overpopulated even before the era of mass migration. Our fertility-related problems are: 1) Mass migration forcing Whites into a breeding contest with…
Reminder: Europeans overwhelmingly descend from the Medieval middle and upper classes, not the peasantry.
The former outbred the latter by a significant margin. As higher status positions were of limited availability, the excess children of more successful people faced downward social mobility. The lower classes, who had sub-replacement fertility levels, were constantly demographically replaced for hundreds of years.
This breeding pattern continued until the turn of the 19th century. From ~1800 to ~1880, there was little difference in net fertility by wealth/class, and after ~1880, higher wealth/class became negatively associated with fertility.
The vast majority of your ACTUAL ancestors were not peasants.
See: A Farewell to Alms by Gregory Clark
The former outbred the latter by a significant margin. As higher status positions were of limited availability, the excess children of more successful people faced downward social mobility. The lower classes, who had sub-replacement fertility levels, were constantly demographically replaced for hundreds of years.
This breeding pattern continued until the turn of the 19th century. From ~1800 to ~1880, there was little difference in net fertility by wealth/class, and after ~1880, higher wealth/class became negatively associated with fertility.
The vast majority of your ACTUAL ancestors were not peasants.
See: A Farewell to Alms by Gregory Clark
Forwarded from Race Realism Channel
In Britain, most EU-citizen migrants from Western Europe are non-White.
Any nationalist immigration policy enacted in the West must be based explicitly on race and/or ethnicity, citizenship is now an irrelevant factor.
https://archive.li/https://www.economist.com/britain/2026/10/12/in-britain-european-doesnt-mean-white
Any nationalist immigration policy enacted in the West must be based explicitly on race and/or ethnicity, citizenship is now an irrelevant factor.
https://archive.li/https://www.economist.com/britain/2026/10/12/in-britain-european-doesnt-mean-white
Quackademics disingenuously lump highly divergent populations into one "African" category just to gloat about "African diversity."
Of course these populations are "diverse" if they separated 100,000 to 300,000 years ago. Homo sapiens diverged from Neanderthals 500,000 years ago and they're classified as distinct species!
Speciation is not tied to a specific timescale, but it's still sophistic to describe Eurasians as a "subset of Africans" (which they do, continually) when "Africans" are comprised of populations that had diverged into clearly distinct subsets long before the Out of Africa expansion.
Side note: Genetic research is proving that human origins are far more complex than previously understood. See, for example, David Reich's new paper on early Homo sapiens and Neanderthal interactions. The old Out of Africa model is not completely debunked, but it will be revised.
Map source:
African genomes are not a subset (2026)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168952526002155
Of course these populations are "diverse" if they separated 100,000 to 300,000 years ago. Homo sapiens diverged from Neanderthals 500,000 years ago and they're classified as distinct species!
Speciation is not tied to a specific timescale, but it's still sophistic to describe Eurasians as a "subset of Africans" (which they do, continually) when "Africans" are comprised of populations that had diverged into clearly distinct subsets long before the Out of Africa expansion.
Side note: Genetic research is proving that human origins are far more complex than previously understood. See, for example, David Reich's new paper on early Homo sapiens and Neanderthal interactions. The old Out of Africa model is not completely debunked, but it will be revised.
Map source:
African genomes are not a subset (2026)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168952526002155