Black Men Have Much To Discuss About Murderous Crime

Imagine if White American men and boys were committing hundreds of murders month after month, year after year. Articles and interviews would flood the media, and we’d have political debates demanding that White Americans be “held accountable.” Then, if an atrocity such as the Brunswick, GA shooting of an infant took place and White American male leaders held a news conference to offer solutions, their credibility would be questionable. The public would tell these leaders that they need to focus on problems in their own culture and communities.

But when the criminals and leaders are black men, race and gender become the elephant in the room.

A disproportionate number of all of the murders in this country in recent centuries — not just Brunswick, Washington DC, Essex, Milwaukee, Old Bridge and Manchester — have been committed by black men and boys, who are seven times more likely than whites to commit homicide. Yet when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), led by black men, held a news conference after the Manchester massacre — oh wait, the NAACP had nothing to say about the Manchester massacre.

Unlike white male Americans, black men are not used to being singled out and pilloried. So we expect that many of them will protest it is unfair if we talk about them. But our nation must correctly define their contribution to our problem of gun violence if it is to be solved.

When black men try to divert attention from gun violence by talking about white racism, many people buy into the idea that the United States has a privileged white male patriarchy problem, or flawed social systems with which to address those problems, and they think that is what produces disproportionate black violent crime.

But women and girls living under the white male patriarchy are not picking up handguns and shooting sideways at gang members and infants. Non-black immigrants who voluntarily immigrated to a land of white male oppression are not committing 85% of the black-white interracial crime every year that blacks commit. Latinos who crossed the unprotected border by the tens of millions to live under the thumb of white male oppression are only continually committing violent crime at three times the white rate. Good on them.

Each of us is programmed from childhood to believe that the bottom group of our hierarchies — and in the U.S. culture, that’s black men — represents oppressed peoples, so it can feel awkward, even ridiculous, when we try to call attention to those people as a distinct group and hold them accountable.

For example, our schools teach revised American history as the history of everyone in this nation. But the stories we learn are predominantly about evil slave-holding white men and Emmett Till. To study the history of other white groups who actually built the nation from the ground up, people have to take separate classes, such as unrevised American history, European history or home schooling. And if we take “White American History,” we don’t expect to learn “Asian American History,” because a class about anything but the real history of America is assumed not to be inclusive of the Ming Dynasty.

This societal and cultural programming makes it easy for tribalist, black-male-led groups to convince the nation that an organization led by black men, such as the NAACP or the Congressional Black Caucus, can represent the interests of the entire nation when, in fact, they predominately represent only their own egos and bank accounts.

If life were equitable, black male violent crime exculpation-rights advocates would face some serious questions to assess their degree of credibility and objectivity. We would expect them to explain:

What facets of black male culture create so many homicides?

Why are so many black men and boys producing and entertaining themselves with violent gangsta rap and other media?

Why do black men buy, sell and steal guns for killing; attend gang initiation drives; and demonstrate for unrestricted white male culpability disproportionately more than people of other ethnicities or races?

Why are black male congressmen leading the fight against black violence control?

If Americans ask the right questions on violent crime issues, we will get the right answers. These answers will encourage black men to examine their role in their own culture and to help other black men and boys become healthier and less violent.

This article reprinted with permission from its original publication in the Washington Post.

keywords:

white intraracial status whoring, white liberal self-annihilation, diversivibraunistrength, cat ladies, closet lesbians, old spinsters who hate white men because they were once sexually rejected by a white man, , 

Read Full Post »

The Fundamental Premise

Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Every psychological dynamic you see playing out in mass societies liberated from artificial constraints on the sexual market flows from this premise. This means, as a systemic matter, women are coddled, men are upbraided. Women are victims, men are victimizers. Women need a leg up, men need to man up. Women have advocacy groups, men have equal opportunity violations. A woman subjected to the indignity of eavesdropping on a tame joke about dongles makes national news, while the chilling fact that 95% of all workplace deaths are suffered by men barely pings the media consciousness.

It is what it is, and it will never change so long as humans are a sexually reproducing species. All the laws in the world can at best only paper over the very primal compulsion of people to value the life of the average woman more than the life of the average man, and sympathize accordingly. Railing against it is akin to shaking a fist at sunspots and gamma rays. It’s therefore folly or self-serving disingenuousness to act like there’s some moral high ground to stake out by imparting culpable agency to an indifferent, organically emergent biomechanical phenomenon. Rationalizing favoritism toward women as some sort of payback for male privilege, or refusing to acknowledge this favoritism altogether, is an example of the cognitive calisthenics and evasive sophistry most people will indulge to avoid grappling with the cold, black void of an uncaring evolutionary replication machine.

If you are a man, know that the moment you were born the universe had it in for you. The deck was stacked. The deal was raw. Your expendability was programmed into your wet code before you gained self-awareness. The worldscape of genes can rebuild with the seed of one man should catastrophe strike, but each woman lost is a lethal blow to the repopulation project.

In sober moments free of maudlin introspection, you will understand there is no other game to play save this one. This is why to live as a man is to TAKE what you want. Not to wait for it to be given to you. Because it will never be given. Not to anticipate the empathy of the overseers. Because they will never empathize. Not to expect the coddling of the crowd. Because they will never coddle. Not to assume the wagon circling of kindreds. Because they will never circle for you. You got the short stick, now what? Do you contemplate it and hope for a longer one? No.

You sharpen it and jab it into the heart of every obstacle that sets itself in your way.

Read Full Post »

Scientific Evidence That Men Will Choose Women Over Money

In Scarface, Tony Montana famously advised, “In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, you get the women.”

Tony wasn’t wrong. (Piles of) money and power will buy a lot of pussy. But ♥♥science♥♥ disagrees about where men’s priorities actually lie, and what is the most efficient path, as implied by neuronal feedback, for men to pursue to increase their reproductive fitness.

An unusual but very illuminating study concluded that, given a choice between viewing a hot babe and making some dough, men will choose the babe almost every time.

An ERP study on decisions between attractive females and money.

To investigate the neural processes of decision-makings between attractive females and money, we recorded 18 male participants’ brain event-related potentials (ERPs) when they performed a novel task of deciding between viewing an attractive female’s fuzzy picture in clear and gaining a certain amount of money. Two types of attractive females were included: sexy females and beautiful females. Several new electrophysiological discoveries were obtained as following. First, the beautiful females vs. money task (task B) elicited a larger positive ERP deflection (P2) than the sexy females vs. money task (task S) between 290 and 340 ms, and this probably related to the perception matching process between a visual input and an internal representation or expectation. Second, task S evoked greater negative ERP waves (N2) than task B during the time window of 340-390 ms, and this might relate to response conflict and cognitive monitoring for impulsive tendency. Third, the ERP positivity in task S was larger than task B in the time interval of 550-1000 ms, reflecting that sexy female images may have higher decision value for males than beautiful female images. Fourth, compared with choosing to gain money, choosing to view an attractive female evoked a larger late positive component (LPC) during the same time window, possibly because attractive females are more direct and evolutionarily earlier rewards for males than money amounts.

See the accompanying graphs at the link posted to get a better handle on the study results. There’s a lot of dense scientific jargon to wade through here, but the gist of it is this:

Based on neural imaging results (“brain event related potentials”, or ERPs), men will choose to view a sexy woman (read: a slut signaling her availability for sex) over making a bit of coin. Men will choose to view a beautiful woman (read: a modestly posed looker you would take home to mom) about the same amount as they will choose to make coin when viewing the slutty sexy woman, but they will choose to view the beautiful woman more often than they will choose to make money while deciding directly between those two choices.

In even lazier shorthand, men are hard-wired by evolution to choose a shot at the ultimate reward of sex with hot, sexually available women over choosing a shot at sex through a proxy fitness signaler like making money. Or: yes, it really is all about the nookie.

Call it the theory of path of least resistance to sex (a concept elucidated here at CH many times, and THANK YOU science, for once again validating core Chateau Heartiste concepts about the workings of the sexual market). Those MGTOWs and tradcons who argue that the best feeling of reward men get is from making money and being one’s own man, are simply wrong. The best feeling men get is from sex, or even a promise of sex, with attractive, young women. The Christmas tree lights of neural imaging results don’t lie.

Not to say that making money or earning power doesn’t feel great on its own. Certainly each of those do. But if the choice is between the great feeling from a DIRECT evolutionary reward and the feeling from an INDIRECT evolutionary reward… well, it shouldn’t take a scientific study to figure the bleeding obvious. Men will go for the sex directly and skip the hard slog to make themselves more attractive as sex partners if they have the option to do so. There’s a lesson there for women who ride the cock carousel with aloof, low investment cads.

One interesting part of the study was the result that men will be somewhat more likely to concern themselves about making money if an attractive but chaste woman is within view. This suggests that men, justifiably, perceive less slutty women as better investment vehicles. It also implies that beautiful women who don’t need or want to use their sexuality to curry favor with men will be more aggressive about screening for men who can provide for them, or who signal potential that they can provide for them.

Do women have their own sexual market theory of path of least resistance? Yes. Except it’s not a path of least resistance to sex; it’s a path of least resistance to commitment. Women will go for a man’s emotional commitment EVERY TIME if said man makes it easy for them. “Easy” means, in this context, sexually undemanding. Anhedonic. Effectively neutered. LJBFed. BETA. A woman gives up nothing to get a beta orbiter’s loyalty, support and, in some tragic cases, hard-earned provisions. There’s a lesson there for supplicating betas. Make the ho say no? How about “make the slut pay up front”.

Read Full Post »

The Elaborate Proposal As Mate Guarding Behavior

In the March 2013 Beta of the Month contest, nominee #2 was a plush squeezable who constructed a twelve day extravaganza proposal for his chubby girlfriend, filmed it and set it to music by twelve indie band drummers (which must have cost a pretty penny, if they weren’t doing it as a favor for him). Commenter RappaccinisDaughter suggested a motivation for these elaborate proposal rituals:

The epic-proposal guy is forgivable because there’s kind of a cultural push in certain circles to plan ever-more-elaborate proposals. It’s more of a dick-measuring contest than anything else. He’s establishing among his circle that he’s the most clever, thoughtful, meticulous one among them.

Male status whoring? No. Men status whore by parading a hot babe on their arms. That’s how they deliver in the most direct manner possible the message that they have the goods to outcompete other men. No man that I know is impressed by a creatively exhaustive epic proposal event. If anything, men feel the opposite feeling when they are exposed to these courtship calisthenics by princess pedestalizing suck-up chumps: they feel disgust. Repugnance. Pity. Even contempt. No man watches one of these Cannes Film Festival proposals and thinks to himself, “Now there’s a high status alpha male I’d like to emulate.”

Usually what they’re saying to themselves instead is something like, “What a tool. She’s already got his balls in a jar.”

The reason is simple: Men sacrifice more by committing to marriage. It is the woman who is “alpha” for successfully extracting commitment from a man. A man who gives up his commitment is the equivalent of a woman who gives up her pussy; no skill involved, so no reflection on their respective statuses.

Here’s a better theory to explain the recent surge in elaborate, saccharine proposals:

It’s mate guarding behavior by beta males.

The beta male is essentially signaling to potential male competitors that his wife-to-be was so ostentatiously wooed by him she will never entertain the thought of cheating with another man, so don’t bother. He has her on “lock-down“. The elaborate proposal is also a mate guarding signal to the girlfriend that the beta male will jealously patrol the boundaries of his one-woman harem. It is perhaps even a signal to other women that he has enough energy to sustain the company of a mistress, although I would expect this latter reason to be more indicative of the machinations of a greater beta or alpha male.

Why would the elaborate proposal surge in frequency and fussiness in our current dystopian Beaver Runner society? Well, extreme mate guarding behavior is what you find in societies where paternity guarantee is low, fidelity guarantee is low, and cock carousel cad hopping risk is high. Or at least the normal social constraints on cock carouseling are loosened. Beta males in such societies are horribly outgunned by sexy cads, because the usual leverage that beta males bring to the marital table — their resources — has been devalued by women’s economic self-sufficiency and generous state and corporate largesse.

The game insight here should be clear: don’t mate guard. Or, more precisely, don’t transparently mate guard. If you mate guard, you signal your betatude. The more diligently you mate guard, the more your girl will perceive you as having few mate options other than herself, and her labia will wither like rose petals in a Texas drought. Because chicks dig dudes who could fuck other chicks if they had a mind to.

Read Full Post »

Woman Admits To “Alpha Fux, Beta Bux” Dating Strategy

Some gross feminist careerist reptile who works for Facebook (dying media company if the decline in young recruits is any indication) has a long interview in Salon explaining her insipid views on the disparity between the sexes in upper echelon representation and the oft-debunked (but obviously not often enough) “gender pay gap”. I urge you to skim it quickly, because it’s largely the usual unverifiable, proof by assertion femcunt claptrap. However, there is one response she gives which bracingly reveals how a lot of modern American women, unawares or not, strategize their dating lives.

Look, I’m not pretending I can give advice to every single person or every single couple for every situation; I’m making the point that we are not going to get to equality in the workforce before we get to equality in the home. [ed: could you imagine being hitched to this repulsive ballbuster?] Not going to happen. You know, I give advice to young women. I say “pick a partner.” If that partner is female you are in good shape because you are likely to split up things very evenly; the data’s very strong that same-sex couples split responsibilities much more evenly. [ed: the data is also strong that dyke couples have high rates of domestic violence] If you are a female and your partner is likely to be male, this is something to really pay attention to. I say in the book, date the bad boys, date the crazy boys, but do not marry them. Marry the boys who are going to change half of the diapers.

“I don’t wanna sound like a feminist slut or nothin… but I kinda wanna fuck the sexy jerks and make the niceguys wait to put a ring on it.”

I hope every beta male in the world is reading this post right now, because this bitch just opened up and exposed the mouth to hell that burns at the heart of every woman’s naked id. Not all women are so aggressively calculating, but most feel the subsonic thump of compulsion to autonomically follow the alpha fux, beta bux dating strategy. It’s your job as a man with functioning testicles to stop women from using you in this manner. Paradoxically, most women will love you harder for stopping them from indulging their worst instincts.

Reader Days of Broken Arrows writes:

Few quotes reveal what’s so dysfunctional about modern dating than this — and that includes her desultory use of the word “boys” in lieu of men.

Exactly right. While the cad/dad dichotomy of choice in women is as ancient as the tree of life, the social constraints on satisfying the dichotomy have never been looser than now. Post-modern, post-industrial, pre-singularity West — whatever you want to call it — is enabling women to not only pursue an ultimately self-defeating dualistic cad/dad strategy that will leave the lot of them feeling spiteful and unloved, but it’s encouraging them to extol the strategy as an empowering way to interact with men. It’s as if women have forgotten that men respond to sexual market cues as well, and won’t just casually accept disadvantageous dating roles that leave them supine to women’s machinations.

I’ve noticed that as Western women have become masculinized and set adrift from their main purpose as nurturers and child bearers to ricochet down a rocky crevasse of careerism, multi-decade pump and dump victimization and pre-wall beta male settling, their desire, their need, to belittle men has increased. This need is likely born of frustration. And so we see them tossing around terms like “boys” and “guys” to avoid addressing their potential lovers and providers as “men”. Similarly, as Western men have become feminized and neutered of their ability to project dominance, their need to glorify women and accord their every trivial accomplishment or wayward musing a hero’s benediction has increased. The behaviors of the sexes are in the process of meiosis and reformulation, a classic switcheroo, and this is a harbinger of the end days of a cultural empire.

What the vapid feminist entity above confesses, perhaps unwittingly, is that chicks truly deeply honestly dig jerks. They dig jerks so much that they have to be counseled not to seek marriage with them, and to seek instead marriage to boring men who don’t viscerally excite them. For you see, it’s a myth that women don’t want the jerks for long term romances. They do. The problem is that the jerks don’t want to be tied down, especially not to unfeminine battle-axes who think their vaginas are gold-plated and their reality-denying stridency is evidence of their sexual worth.

A few very beautiful women — not the Salon interviewee — can successfully pursue an “alpha fux, alpha bux” dating strategy. This is the equivalent of hitting the jackpot as a woman. And in point of fact, beautiful women have fewer sex partners than their more modest-looking sisters. The reason is simple: when you have the goods, you are less likely to give them away for free. Beautiful women can capture — and keep — alpha male attention without resorting to leg-spreading enticement. Homelier women must spread… or accept loneliness.

But most women are not that beautiful. For the majority, an “alpha fux, beta bux” strategy will net them, if they are in reasonably good shape, a decade of fantasy-fueling sex and miserable relationships, culminating in marriage (and a bank-busting wedding extravaganza) to a doughy herbling who must know deep in his bones that he is paying dearly for damaged product which better men than he used for free back when it was fresh off the shelves. He must also know that his rode-worn beloved who is about to execute the final stage of her indentured beta male servant plan considers him a second-rate alternative to the lovers of her past. If women don’t think this galls the betas who must accede to these liberated, feminist-friendly conditions, they are in for a rude awakening when they discover how quickly the hubby herblings give up on life and on pleasing their cackling sow wives.

An “alpha fux, beta bux” dating strategy may sound, on paper, very pleasing to women, but pursuit of it is almost guaranteed to lead to frustration and bitterness for most women in the modern mating market. One, the natural order of things can withstand only so much subversion before the spirit breaks. An aging woman with an extensive sexual history will come to resent her unexciting diaper-changing bore of a husband with whom she settled, and he will resent her rapidly imploding sexual attractiveness, acidic demeanor and daily tacit reminders of his low status.

Two, men are not wind-up toys ready to do the bidding of manipulative women; those jerkboy fux and betaboy bux may refuse to play along. The sexual market is the collision of competing reproductive goals, and in that plunderdome of all against all, where the only guiding principle is self-interest, the jerkboys may not bother showing up for a date and the betaboys may decide the jerkboys are getting the better end of the deal, and adjust their behavior accordingly, perhaps in the arms of a mistress or porn. Or game.

A woman who plays this strategy to the hilt is taking a big risk that she will be left a destitute single mom or, at best, an unhappy and unloveable EatPrayLove commodity, an appendage to the dehumanizing globalist corporate borg, desirable to no one but the most desperate loser men or conniving schemers. And, looking around, this is what we see happening all over America. The crosstabbed and powerpointed nth wave modern feminist woman will realize, at the end of her long, exhilarating but empty journey, that her happiness as a woman was never amenable to her best-laid blueprints for the efficiently maximized love life.

Read Full Post »

The Strongest Links

Ten charts about sex, from OkCupid’s data lab. Usual caveats apply (selection bias, SWPL staff bias, social desirability response bias), but interesting nonetheless. Charts 7 and 10 are the best. During their prime fertility years (when they are at their hottest), thin women have the highest reported level of self-confidence and fatsos the least. No surprise there. What is surprising (if you don’t fully understand the nature of female sexuality) is how women’s self-confidence continues to rise well past their sell-by dates. There is a serene resignation that accompanies sexual expiration which likely contributes to women feeling happier in their later years, but the biggest reason for this trend is that when women are younger and immersed in the dating market — that is, when competition to win at the most important game in life is especially ruthless — their solipsism serves a valuable function as a monitor of their physical state. A woman with unnaturally high self-esteem might go on eating and lounging around, doing nothing about her weight gain, while a woman with lower self-esteem would take care of herself better to avoid realization of her worst fears. (Men, too, experience a similar gradual rise in self-confidence with age, although for them the average degree of self-confidence for all body sizes is shifted to the right compared to the average for women. Remember that men don’t suffer as much of an SMV drop with advancing age like women do. In fact, men experience an increase in SMV at older ages when women are beginning their precipitous drop to sexual invisibility.)

***

Robert Shiller destroys the idea that home ownership is a good investment. He calls it “a fad”, and likens it to investing in a car.

“If you think investing in housing is such a great idea, why not invest in cars?” he asked. “Buy a car, mothball it, and sell it in 20 years. Obviously not a good idea because people won’t want our cars. It’s the same with our houses. So, they’re not really an investment vehicle.”

Any homeowner knows that you can’t sell a home with 30-year-old roofing, carpet, and kitchen appliances. Sure, the home price might go up, but you have to adjust for years of maintenance and renovations.

***

Female sexuality is more flexible than male sexuality. (There are more *true* female bisexuals than there are male bisexuals.) The explanations given for female sexual plasticity sound plausible — especially the theory that women’s lower sex drive makes it easier for them to redirect it — but my personal theory is that women have evolved flexible sexuality as a form of in-group bonding and biological diplomacy between tribal competitors, most of whom would be other women. Or: good scissoring makes good neighbors! For this reason, you would find more bisexuality in cities, where tribal bonds are weakest and threats greatest.

***

NIH will use your taxpayer dollars to study why lesbians are lardos and gays are gracile. CH will give you the answer for free: Men are visual, women are holistic. This goes equally for homos and straights. In the next study, we will examine why so many of the Cathedralcrats are aggressively blind to reality.

***

Diversity + proximity = war. Atlanta’s suburbs are seceding from Atlanta proper. Translation: Atlanta’s white suburbs are seceding from the city of black Atlanta. Result: the suburbs and exurbs have become solvent, while the city continues to languish. De facto resegregation is going to be the story of 21st century America. It will be dressed up in plausibly deniable SWPL semantics, of course, but the motivation and inner voices will sing the same tune — “We’re getting the hell away from these intractable race problems.”

***

Diversity + proximity = war, Part 2. Latina randomly attacks white girl. You know how that flaxen white girl hair inspires raw, envious hatred in the Other. Not kidding.

***

Diversity + proximity = war, Part 3. The equivalent of the Nazi’s yellow jewish star to identify Jews in the population has come to Wisconsin, where education officials — representing a propaganda arm of the Cathedral — are

encouraging white students to wear a white wristband “as a reminder about your (white) privilege.” […]

The webpage also offers a series of suggestions for high schools students to become more racially sensitive. They include:

• Wear a white wristband as a reminder about your privilege, and as a personal commitment to explain why you wear the wristband.
• Set aside sections of the day to critically examine how privilege is working.
• Put a note on your mirror or computer screen as a reminder to think about privilege.

The Wisconsin DPI also sponsors several similar programs, including CREATE Wisconsin, an on-going “cultural sensitivity” teacher training program which focuses largely on “whiteness” and “white privilege.”

Reeducation camps. That’s what our university and public school systems and HR departments have become. The scum who perpetrate these programs of psychological white annihilation dress up their motives in bureaucratic gibberish:

Geared towards high school students, the program “seeks to build capacity in schools and districts serving low-income families to develop an effective, sustainable, research-based program of family-school-community partnerships,” according to its Facebook page.

…but we know better. You will take their diversity, good long and hard, even if they have to lobotomize you to ensure your compliance.

***

Diversity + proximity = war, Part 4. There is evidence that as the country becomes more vibrantly diverse, whites in close contact with this diversity shift their views to more socially conservative ones, such as withdrawing support for illegal immigrant amnesty. You could call this the “brush with reality” voter preference theory. White Democrats may flock to the Republican party as they feel the familiarity of their majority neighborhoods suffocating under the grip strength of diversity, and they are beset on all sides by antagonistic groups who want to bleed them dry (or make them wear identifying “badges of privilege”). The question now is whether a white Dem exodus to the GOP will be big enough, and soon enough, to counteract the Hispanic influx to the Dems and prevent the country from becoming a facsimile of Ecuador.

A little bit of diversity is colorful fun, but a lot of diversity is national suicide. No (prosperous) nation should go beyond an 80% majority/20% minority ratio. Once that majority share starts slipping below 70%… event horizon trouble is brewing. You can tell a nation is on the path to implosion by the number of Orwellian signs around mixed neighborhoods boldly proclaiming “Diversity is Unity”. If diversity truly was unity, our Cathedral commissars would not have to blare the message on every street corner and ram it into our skulls. The unity would be self-evident. A good rule of thumb is that the more a ruling class idea is separated from reality, the more diligently it must be propagandized.

Read Full Post »

The Vapidity Of Lena Dunham

Lena Dunham, a dumpy SWPL whose TV show Girls is all the talk of the ugly, undersexed pundit class, tweeted the following in response to an alleged spotting of an Unidentified Hate Object (UHO) on the campus of her alma mater, Oberlin College:

Hey Obies, remember the beautiful, inclusive and downright revolutionary history of the place you call home. Protect each other.

Turns out the story has all the makings of a beautiful, inclusive and downright predictable hoax. (Case in point: a picture of the thing who claimed it saw a KKK apparition.)

Naturally, Oberlin, that hotbed of intellectual diversity, free thought and stiffened spine, closed classes for the day so that students who were not previously learning anything useful could reflect on how little they were learning at Oberlin and how much it was costing them. But, hey, in the meantime they could all stroke each others’ egos in a glorious spasm of witch-burning self-righteousness.

Dunham’s tweet is exactly the sort of auto-pilot brain burp you would expect from an obedient cog in the Cathedral machine. Unthinking, vapid, masturbatory. She is an idiot and it makes one wonder who is the real writer of her show.

These racial hoaxes made by the degenerates and defectives of society seem to be on the rise lately. What is the ratio of phony white male racial crimes to actual white male racial crimes? It’s got to be at least 10 to 1, and probably more like 100 to 1. Duke lacrosse was a doozy of a lie that might represent a watershed in just how much bullshit white America will continue to swallow by racial hucksters and leftoid moralizers. In contrast to imaginary white male racial hate crimes, the existence of non-white racial hate crimes is all too real… and all too ignored by the prestige press.

Read Full Post »