Da GBFM On Why Women Vote For Leftist Governments

Da gbfm and yours truly are on the same lollzolzy page. From Le Chateau, circa 2008:

The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.

Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.

And here’s da gbfm, this week’s COTW winner, explaining the well-known connection between women and leftism:

hey hertaistetsts!! dA after much study nd reflectionsz like PLATO, da GBFM figured sometinsgz outs eiculicd logicalz!!

why do so many women vote for leftist governmentsz?

because leftist govenerments enforce da Alpha fux beta bucks system at gun point!!

obammasz tellz womenz “if you vote for me, you can ficky ficy and butthext all da thugsz, and i will criminalize white mensz for complimenting your hair in the workplace, and send da police state to grab and sconfisce da BETAs tax dollarsz zlzzlzloo and give them to you and your bastard chcildrenz, if yo vote for mez and da obammsz kangz lozlzoozolzozo”

So true it hurtslzlzlzllolz. Eunucho-tyranny.

more gbfm poetry,

once upon a time
teh great reformes said things like
“a chicken in every pot”
and
“A car in every garage”
and
“A family in every home”
todya the eneeoocn berenankerkieisi say, “lotsas cockas in every buttholeelllzlzolooloio lzozozl”

…and in every public bathroom.

PS There’s now a study which has confirmed (years late) both the Heartistian and GBFMian observations of the postmodern sexual/marital markets.

As predicted by a simple model of marital decision-making under uncertainty, we document that adverse shocks to the supply of ‘marriageable’ men reduce the prevalence of marriage and lower fertility but raise the fraction of children born to young and unwed mothers and living in in poor single-parent households. The falling marriage-market value of young men appears to be a quantitatively important contributor to the rising rate of out-of-wedlock childbearing and single-headed childrearing in the United States.

Two cardinal results help to weave these many empirical strands together. A first is that trade shocks faced by the U.S. manufacturing sector—which employs a disproportionate share of male workers—reduce the economic stature of men relative to women. Consistent with this pattern, shocks to male-intensive manufacturing industries are particularly destabilizing to marriage-markets. A second broad result, predicted by our model and strongly affirmed by the data, is that gender-specific shocks to labor-market outcomes have strikingly non-parallel impacts on marriage-market outcomes. Male-specific shocks reduce overall fertility, but reduce it by less among teens and unmarried mothers than among older and married mothers, thereby increasing the fraction of children born out of wedlock and living in poverty. Conversely, female-specific shocks have more modest effects on overall fertility but reduce the share of births to teens and unmarried mothers, thus raising in-wedlock births and reducing the fraction of children living in single-headed households. These patterns are consistent with our model in which a decline in the quality of male partners makes single motherhood a more attractive option to young mothers, while a decline in female earnings potential increases marriage rates conditional on fertility. Netting over the effects of secularly falling male earnings and improving women’s labor-market conditions during recent decades, our model predicts a reduction in both fertility and marriage, a rise in the fraction of children born out of wedlock, and an increase in the prevalence of children living in single-headed and poor households. These patterns are evident in the aggregate data and, moreover, hold as causal relationships within local labor markets when we isolate plausibly exogenous shocks to earnings opportunities overall and by gender.

Chateau Heartiste, January, 2008:

So why are women now the eager instigators of divorce? What changed in the culture? Four things, primarily: the pill, easy divorce, women’s economic independence, and rigged laws that make divorce a good financial prospect for women. The four sirens of the sexual apocalypse together have created the perfect sociological storm where a woman has every incentive in the world to ditch a husband to follow the whims of her heart once his usefulness has been exhausted.

Female economic independence is the default setting when labor shocks adversely affect the economic and job prospects of men. Single mommery and alpha fux follows from that. The Trump phenomena is as much about working and middle class men striking out against an unfair economic and immigration system deliberately arranged to leave them behind as it is about beta males expressing their subconscious displeasure with the regressive, death match sexual market that has inevitably taken form as they have lost a chunk of their SMV currency.

Read Full Post »

Study: Men And Women Have Different Regrets

*scraaaaatch*

*freeze frame*

Let me tell you why I preen so much. Because ¡SCIENCE! can’t stop slobbing the CH knob!

The Chateau was out there early laying realtalk on the stubborn ears of the eunuchracy about the male enthusiasm for no strings attached sexual release and the opposite female preference for sex swaddled in the comforting confines of commitment.

Now a study had rediscovered the wisdom of the ancients: Women regret one night stands, men regret not having more one night stands.

Feminists have striven for decades to emancipate women sexually, but when it comes to casual promiscuity, the female of the species is still more straight-laced than the male. And evolution is to blame.

The prime lie of feminism is that women are sexually and romantically wired like men. Therefore, the feminist goal of liberating female sexuality from any and all constraints will run headlong into the reality that women don’t do well pursuing the same sexual liberation that men take to more instinctively.

Only one in three women said they were happy about their casual sex experience, compared to more than 50 per cent of men.

However far more men regret saying no to a one night stand than women. Eight in 10 women said they were glad that they had said no to a recent opportunity for casual sex, compared to just 43 per cent of men.

FYI any aspiring womanizer should read this as evidence that it’s the smart move to push a woman for sex sooner rather than later. Waiting too long allows more time for her to rationalize reasons not to sleep with you. Use a Trump tactic and “flood her zone” (double entendre intended).

(The 43% of men who regretted their one night stands were the ones fucking fatties.)

“We’re not saying that there aren’t men who regret casual sex,” added Prof Kennair. “But it is far more common for women to regret saying yes. They are also less unequivocally happy about the experience.

“Women regretted having a one-night stand the most, but they weren’t sorry about saying no at all.”

High cock count sluts have that tell-tale thousand cock stare for a reason: they’re wracked with regret and a gnawing feeling of worthlessness.

Men in the study were also found to enjoy the actual sex more, with more men saying they had achieved orgasm than women.

Feminists BTFO……..by literally thousands of years of common human knowledge about sex differences!

“Due to selective pressure from the big difference in parental investment, one would expect men and women to regret different aspects of casual sex decisions: having casual sex with the wrong partner versus missing a casual sexual opportunity,” the authors conclude in the study published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology.

Men can theoretically father thousands of children and are only limited by the supply of willing, fertile women. In the past those who could reproduce freely could have so many children that it would not matter if some did not survive.

The “scatter-gun” strategy means that the quality of a sexual partner for men does not have to be as high as for women, the study suggests. Men who moved from woman to woman and got them pregnant would have scored best in the evolutionary race.

When Whites and Asians evolved in their high paternal investment environments outside of Africa and its particular selection pressures, the men picked up a stronger discriminatory taste in women because they would be sticking around to help raise their kids. So this evo psych assertion needs trimming to account for race differences in male mate acquisition. Black men honestly will fuck anything, and that simply doesn’t apply to nonblacks to the same degree.

However for women, partner quality is far more important and adding additional sexual partners does not increase their chance of reproductive success.

The BLEEDING obvious.

“Many social scientists expect that in sexually egalitarian cultures such as Norway, these sex differences would disappear. They do not. This fact makes the findings on sex differences in sexual regret in modern Norwegian people so fascinating scientifically.”

Nordic Feminism is a luxury of a decadent people who can afford to entertain lies and fantastical interpretations of human nature.

The researchers conclude that cultural changes since the 1960s have not altered underlying gender differences in how men and women view sex.

The God of Biomechanics laughs at your idiotic human ideals.

Read Full Post »

Ranking White Civilizations On The 1-To-10 Scale

Society is a racial construct, and reader Heinrich creates a parallel with the HB (hot babe) 1-to-10 scale,

If it is true what many scientists say that culture correlates with genetics, what does it mean in the real world? Can we sum it up like this:

– pure white civilization: A dream, you do not have to lock your car, you do not have to lock your house. If you happen to lose your wallet, there is a fair chance that your door-bell we be rung, followed by the words “Excuse me Sir, is this your wallet?”. Having sex with a HB 9 is equivalent.
– white civilization spotted with little dots made of people who either admire the host civilization or are at least friendly towards the host: Minor disruption WILL occur, for example Octopus being dried in the student dormitory. The piano student’s honest apology, her demure smiling will make life quality peak at 6 or 7
– white civilization enriched with dots made of people who either oppose the host civilization or are mortal enemies: hell on earth. Goats are being butchered in the dormitory’s bathtub. No excuses, no apologies, no trust, death threats, civil war. Andrea Dworkin is your wife. HB0.

It’s funny cuz it’s a paler shade of true. HB9 White civilizations would be Scandinavia (until recently), enclaves within the nations of Continental Europe (Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Holland, Germany, France), rural England, and parts of America (New England, the northern plains). The problem is that these are HB9s with a bad case of BPD. Crazy ingenues who are busy importing drama into their lives. Very self-destructive girls, so leave them before they leave your country a wreck.

HB6-7 White civilizations would be Scandinavia (now), urban France and England, large swaths of Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Belgium, heartland (read: cucked) America. I’ll include the East European nations here too, even though they are not very diverse. EEs are by nature more clannish and corrupt so you’ll have to lock your car door. The EE women are HB9s and HB10s relative to worldwide womanhood, so they have that going for them, which is more than nice.

The HB0 White civilizations are urban shitholes in America, large swaths of California and the Southwest, the black belt parts of the South, the asian-skype dystopias emerging in the technopolises, the banlieue of France, the MENA migrant settlements sprouting up all over Germany and Scandinavia, and London.

I’m sure I haven’t covered all the possibilities, but you get the idea. HB9 Whitopias are a vanishing sight, while the FUG0s of White civ are proliferating. Sex with Andrea Dworkin, forever, with the lights on, is the future of White civilizations. *shudder*

Read Full Post »

The Stupidity Of Intelligence Signaling

This is great article by Bruce Charlton, a must-read, because it explains so much about post-America shitlibbery. (For a complementary thread on the topic, try here.)

Executive Summary: what liberals have in IQ they lack in common sense. It’s an evolutionary trade-off.

In short, it has often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in ‘common sense’ – and especially when it comes to dealing with other human beings. General intelligence is not just a cognitive ability; it is also a cognitive disposition. So, the greater cognitive abilities of higher IQ tend also to be accompanied by a distinctive high IQ personality type including the trait of ‘Openness to experience’, ‘enlightened’ or progressive left-wing political values, and atheism. Drawing on the ideas of Kanazawa, my suggested explanation for this association between intelligence and personality is that an increasing relative level of IQ brings with it a tendency differentially to over-use general intelligence in problem-solving, and to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense. Preferential use of abstract analysis is often useful when dealing with the many evolutionary novelties to be found in modernizing societies; but is not usually useful for dealing with social and psychological problems for which humans have evolved ‘domain-specific’ adaptive behaviours. And since evolved common sense usually produces the right answers in the social domain; this implies that, when it comes to solving social problems, the most intelligent people are more likely than those of average intelligence to have novel but silly ideas, and therefore to believe and behave maladaptively. I further suggest that this random silliness of the most intelligent people may be amplified to generate systematic wrongness when intellectuals are in addition ‘advertising’ their own high intelligence in the evolutionarily novel context of a modern IQ meritocracy. The cognitively-stratified context of communicating almost-exclusively with others of similar intelligence, generates opinions and behaviours among the highest IQ people which are not just lacking in common sense but perversely wrong. Hence the phenomenon of ‘political correctness’ (PC); whereby false and foolish ideas have come to dominate, and moralistically be enforced upon, the ruling elites of whole nations.

That description sounds precisely like the basis for the cognitive and social schisms currently tearing apart Western nations. Self-segregating and supercharged-signaling “clever sillies” are running their homelands into the ground with overbearing government interventions to “close the gap” and open borders to “create more gaps”. This stupidity of intelligence signaling would be funny if it weren’t also so damned threatening to the continued survival of the West.

The over-use of abstract reasoning may be most obvious in the social domain, where normal humans are richly equipped with evolved psychological mechanisms both for here-and-now interactions (e.g. rapidly reading emotions from facial expression, gesture and posture, and speech intonation) and for ‘strategic’ modelling of social interactions to understand predict and manipulate the behaviour of others. Social strategies deploy inferred knowledge about the dispositions, motivations and intentions of others. When the most intelligent people over-ride the social intelligence systems and apply generic, abstract and systematic reasoning of the kind which is enhanced among higher IQ people, they are ignoring an ‘expert system’ in favour of a non-expert system.

For an immediately palpable example of SMRT shitlibs applying abstract and systematic reasoning to a social intelligence system, see their snarky “you’re more likely to be killed by falling furniture than by a Muslim terrorist” apples-to-oranges comparison. (Socially intelligent reply: “Sure but falling furniture isn’t getting on planes with me, patting me down after a two hour wait in the TSA line, or calling for death to all infidels.”)

Charlton goes on to explain why it seems like we are seeing more pajamaboy shitlib faces and cuckfaces in the West:

Indeed, I suggest that higher levels of the personality trait of Openness in higher IQ people may be the flip-side of this over-use of abstraction. I regard Openness as the result of deploying abstract analysis for social problems to yield unstable and unpredictable results, when innate social intelligence would tend to yield predictable and stable results. This might plausibly underlie the tendency of the most intelligent people in modernizing societies to hold ‘left-wing’ political views.

I would argue that neophilia (or novelty-seeking) is a driving attribute of the personality trait of Openness; and a disposition common in adolescents and immature adults who display what I have termed ‘psychological neoteny’.

Psychological neoteny is likely correlated, by the associative property, with physical and facial neoteny. Physiognomy is real, and it’s no accident that we often observe the silliest of shitlibs have very punchable faces devoid of any masculinity.

Shitlibs are, in essence, arrested adolescents, forever on the hunt for the next thrill to add meaning to their disconnected lives. Risk-taking and novelty-seeking are useful traits to have when one must impress a mate (usually a man impressing a girl) or broaden the pool of acceptable mates; but those traits are destructive when scaled up to the level of social policy and beyond the bounds of the life stage when mate acquisition is paramount.

In such an evolutionarily-unprecedented, artificial ‘hothouse’ environment, it is plausible that any IQ-related behaviours are amplified: partly because there is little counter-pressure from the less intelligent people with less neophiliac personalities, and perhaps mainly because there is a great deal of IQ-advertisement. Indeed, it looks very much as if the elites of modern societies are characterized by considerable IQ-signalling. Sometimes this is direct advertisement (e.g. when boasting about intellectual attainments or attendance at highly-selective colleges) and more often the signalling is subtly-indirect when people display the attitudes, beliefs, fashions, manners and hobbies associated with high intelligence. This advertising is probably based on sexual selection, if IQ has been a measure of general fitness during human evolutionary history, and was associated with a wide range of adaptive traits.

But we are now at the point when the libshit SMRT mate signaling has reached sexual market saturation; I predict, and in fact we can see it happening already, that deftly counter-signaling the leftoid equalism orthodoxy will be a powerful display of fitness, for what do women love more than a bad boy rule-breaker who can buck the system and not just survive, but thrive? As always, BALLS wins babes.

My hunch is that it is this kind of IQ-advertisement which has led to the most intelligent people in modern societies having ideas about social phenomena that are not just randomly incorrect (due to inappropriately misapplying abstract analysis) but are systematically wrong. I am talking of the phenomenon known as political correctness (PC) in which foolish and false ideas have become moralistically-enforced among the ruling intellectual elite. And these ideas have invaded academic, political and social discourse. Because while the stereotypical nutty professor in the hard sciences is a brilliant scientist but silly about everything else; the stereotypical nutty professor social scientist or humanities professor is not just silly about ‘everything else’, but also silly in their professional work.

I was convinced before reading this Charlton hypothesis that what’s happening in the AngloGermanoSphere is runaway “intelligence signaling”; that is, aesthetically disfigured and socially untethered White shitlibs of the West can only pride themselves on their abstraction smarts, and to stay ahead of their peers they have to signal hard against common sense, leading to xenophilia spirals (as well as degeneracy spirals and anti-White spirals).

(As a reader wrote, “Believing in a lie can require more intelligence; you have to know the truth to conceal it properly, plus the pleasing lie, plus the explanation why the lie is more true than the truth.”)

What’s happened is that common sense (or gut instinct, or mental sanity) has become associated with declassé opinions and flyover rubes. The cause of this association is complex, but it’s where we are today and it means that the shitlib clown-cognition signaling will continue until a cataclysm forces common sense on them. I doubt that increasingly insulated, credentialist suck-up shitlibs will rediscover the merits of common sense on their own.

Addendum: the Maul-Right is the next stage of human evolution: high IQ AND common sense. And that fact, more than any other, explains the hysterical response of the Left to dissident crimethinkers and to Trump; the Left knows a real threat to their rule when they see one.

Read Full Post »

More Mask Slippage: Sweden Edition

During a Florida rally, Trump commented that Sweden was having security problems with their self-inflicted migrant invasion. Swedish globalists (mutually exclusive terms in due time) rushed to snark-shame President Trump for implying migrants had brought any rise in crime with them into Sweden. (“Official statistics”, they huffed, showed no such migrant crime rate rise. Official Sweden statistics coincidentally also show Syrian migrants contributing to a massive increase in economic growth, world peace, and a boom in the nonconsensual fertility rate.)

So OK Swedish authorities (probably not for long) lie about their migrant problems and cover up crime associated with migrants. The data that lies outside “official statistics” clearly shows migrants have brought huge increases in crime with them to Germany, Sweden, and other NW Euro nations. Trump was likely referring to specific news stories about two Swedish police officers who blew the whistle on the Sweden government’s cover-up of migrant crimes. (One whistleblower is, incredulously, being charged with inciting racial hatred.)

The mask slippage in all this brouhaha is revealed in the words of the Swedish Foreign Minister (a woman, natch).

Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom appeared to respond to Trump on Saturday by posting on Twitter an excerpt of a speech in which she said democracy and diplomacy “require us to respect science, facts and the media.”

Did you catch that? “…respect science, facts and THE MEDIA”. Since when does democracy automatically require the media is lavished with respect? Respect must be earned. Is it not possible in the world of Sweden’s Foreign Menstruator that a lying, discredited media can coexist with a democracy? In fact, all the evidence to date amply demonstrates the case: advanced degenerating democracies coexist quite warmly and even symbiotically with corrupt, media indoctrination mills. There are now six megamedia companies in the US, and all of them are wholly-owned subsidiaries of globohomo oligarchs. Our vertical and horizontal is controlled by a handful of obscenely wealthy rootless cosmopolitans who love open borders, cheap labor and compliant consumer cogs.

The mask slippage reveals another great fear of the anti-White Left: their loss of the leftoid legacy media megaphone and the power to shape public sympathies through devious framing of stories and omissions of counter-Narrative facts. If the media is discredited as the VeryFakeNews that it is, then the Left will have lost a powerful ally in their demographic war to reduce White majority nations to White plurality or White minority nations.

We in the Maul-Right are getting very VERY close to the target now. You can hear the Left’s fear in the nervous scoffs of the foreign ministers and in the shrieks of indignation from the newspaper editorial boards.

The stuck pig squeals loudest, and by the sounds of it the globalist pig is stuck in the vitals.

Read Full Post »

Feminism Is The Final Shit Test

Women by their nature want to submit to a man; the only question is to which men they will submit.

Hint: It’s not weak yes-men who flatter feminists’ childish world views.

Canadian Friend winces with disgust at the wont of the fairer sex,

A bit off topic,

another submissive feminist,

take a look at the prime minister of Ontario ( population 14,000,000 ) a lesbian feminist, a strong independent woman who turns into a submissive woman and acts as if she is inferior to men the second she steps into a mosque

they made her wear a veil and sit separately from men, a woman who is in charge of 14 million Canadians, she became docile like a battered wife, like a battered dog in the presence of muslim men.

I’m looking for s stronger word than scandalous.

the photo alone is mind bogglingly shocking. ( first link large photo + second link details by Milo )

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/02/wynneing-57.html
https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/02/canadian-politician-mosque-corner/

“Wynne didn’t complain about degradation of women. Nor did she, although gay, say a word about the statements of the imam at the mosque she visited.”

Let’s just say the imam’s words would easily qualify as hate speech under the Berkeley code of acceptable discourse.

The GAYNADIANS are the most nauseatingly cucked of the Anglosphere nations. At the very top of GAYNADA power prances an effete SJW closet case, Justine Truvada.

Did the Russians hack the GAYNADIAN food supply and slip megatonnes of soy into the poutine and Horton’s hot beverages? The only grace that is saving GAYNADA’s bacon for the time being is their skills-based immigration system, but expect that to be challenged in short order and overturned in even shorter order.

But never mind GAYNADA, an afterthought of a country. The real issue illuminated by this story is the BIG MISTAKE it has been handing the reins of power over to women. And especially to lesbian ferengi-faced women. We can see in technirainbow glory how hypersignaling women are driving the West off a cliff, as they sneer at and belittle their own White men, (who can’t stop sucking up to feminist twats for POZitive press in the VeryFakeNews papers), while literally sitting shoeless and veil-clad in the mosque dunce corner at the demand of dumbfuck sand wops, submitting to the strong horse quicker than you can say “Obama is a secret Muslim”.

Feminism is the final shit test because if we men of the West don’t pass it — i.e., brutally ridicule and ostracize women like Wynne — then the West will fall into the hands of men who don’t pass shit tests….they give them. And feminists will happily, joyously, even relievedly, oblige their patriarchal supplanters.

Read Full Post »

Why Do Aging Ex-Sluts Hate Trump So Much?

One thing I have noticed (as has reader DoBA) is the incredible amount of hysterical bile flung at Trump by has-been ex-sluts, spinsters, cougars, and bitterbitch skanks whose salad days are receding in the rearview mirror. DoBA:

Re: Louise Mensch.

A lot of people don’t like Trump, but I’ve noticed a pattern in that the people who truly seem to DESPISE him with an obsessive fervor all seem to be aged ex-sluts. Examples among women I know: An old “rock club” slut who used to fuck metal bands passing through town; a former college friend who fucked almost the whole dorm hall and several professors; and the town slut who not only fucked but *dated* her high school bio teacher, then went on to be in countless wet t-shirt contests.

I could give more examples, but these are the most glaring. Why? Because they especially took offense to Trump’s pussy-grabbing comment. That’s right — the very women who were the first to actually get their tits out in their teens and twenties are now indignant in their forties that a man (OMG!) would actually talk about sex. Imagine that. How rude!

There has to be some weird psychological thing going on here. Resentment? Loss of power? Lack of control over the sexual market? All of the above?

I have three theories to explain the psychological motivations of ex-slut hatred of Trump (and by extension, hatred of Trumperica and its people).

1. Shame. Ex-sluts have to carry the burden of their sluttery and no matter how much they put on a brave grrlpower face, they HATE HATE HATE to be reminded that they joyfully acquiesced to alpha men like a young Trump using their youthful bodies for fleeting pleasures of the flesh and of the peak femininity.
2. The Wall. Ex-sluts try to ignore The Wall and their inevitable sex and romance-destroying impact with it. As with the shame of their sexual histories, ex-sluts don’t like reminders of their rapidly coalescing sexual (and marital) worthlessness. Trump’s well-known ALPHA MALE ENTITLEMENT in the company of younger hotter tighter women, and his implied DISAVOWAL of spending romantic effort on older women, is a constant needle under the skin of aging beauties for whom Trump is the visual embodiment of every man they secretly desire but can now no longer attract.
3. Social ostracism. Fact is, if Trumperica is realized in all its feminism-jettisoning, patriarchy-recovering glory, sluts and spinsters will have a hard go of it, especially in the marital market. A nation of beta males energized with a renewed masculinity and healthy male prerogative will feel less inclined to suck up to low value women or, worse, settle for them out of a misplaced sense of lack of options which have heretofore been drilled into their heads by the man-hating shrikegeist. Trumperica means the end of beta male thirst, at least as it is practiced today under the rules of our degenerate matriarchy: in public, with ostentatiousness and self-defeating white knight earnestness. The drying up of the beta male thirst pool will mean, blessedly, less attention lavished on fading cock hop stars by any man but the most desperately indiscriminate blacks. Ex-sluts will feel this social demotion in their bones, and they fight against its arrival — an arrival in the form of Trump and his aesthete army — with a passion they are no longer able to conjure in the bedroom.

I hope this clears up the matter!

Read Full Post »