Donald Trump Is No Bitch

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* CNN’s comment at the end of the video clip: “Ramos refused to back down.” Bold, strong Ramos.

Most people would have said, “Ramos refused to shut up and wait his turn, but backed down when Donald’s security men confronted him.” Loud-mouthed, self-important and weak-kneed.

Trump had a much better sense of the visuals than the TV star, Ramos.

* Tony Rock who is Chris Rock’s brother, referred to Donald Trump as a gangsta on Red Eye. In the African American community it is considered a compliment to be referred to as a gangsta. It means you are the opposite of a bitch.

* Chris Rock’s latest movie “Take Five” wasn’t as good as I’d hoped it would be, but it was pretty iSteveish.

* This is why the Republican beltway consultant class of barnacles and parasites have it out for Trump most of all and have just about the biggest incentive to make sure he doesn’t win. For if he winds up being the Republican nominee, and does even just a wee tiny bit better among both blacks and Hispanics versus the Democrat nominee than Romney did versus Obama among them, then that ruins a whole lot of conventional wisdom and makes the consultants look like the deceitful frauds peddling political pseudo-science on behalf of donors that I already knew they are. Even if Trump does no better or even worse among NAMs, but wins the election based on more white voters, that ruins the beltway consultant narratives as well.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Donald Trump Is No Bitch


Chaim Amalek writes: “Also gay. Gay and black and gunning for whites. Not the narrative the MSM likes to have to cover (the victims were reporters, so they can’t ignore this):”

A man claiming to be Bryce Williams called ABC News over the last few weeks, saying he wanted to pitch a story, and wanted to fax information. He never told ABC News what the story was.

This morning, a fax was in the machine (time stamped 8:26 a.m.) almost two hours after the shooting. A little after 10 a.m., he called again, and introduced himself as Bryce, but also said his legal name was Vester Lee Flanagan, and that he shot two people this morning. While on the phone, he said authorities are “after me,” and “all over the place.” He hung up. ABC News contacted the authorities immediately and provided them with the fax.

In the 23-page document faxed to ABC News, the writer says “MY NAME IS BRYCE WILLIAMS” and his legal name is Vester Lee Flanagan II.” He writes what triggered today’s carnage was his reaction to the racism of the Charleston church shooting:

“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…”

“What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them.”

Ex-Employee Caught in Connection to On-Air Shooting
Alison Parker and Adam Ward, Slain Virginia Reporter and Cameraman, ‘Did Great Work Every Day’
What We Know About Suspect Vester Lee Flanagan in Virginia On-Air Shooting
It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act.

Later in the manifesto, the writer quotes the Virginia Tech mass killer, Seung Hui Cho, calls him “his boy,” and expresses admiration for the Columbine High School killers. “Also, I was influenced by Seung–Hui Cho. That’s my boy right there. He got NEARLY double the amount that Eric Harris and Dylann Klebold got…just sayin.'”

In an often rambling letter to the authorities, and family and friends, he writes of a long list of grievances. In one part of the document, Williams calls it a “Suicide Note for Friends and Family.”

He says has suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work
He says he has been attacked by black men and white females
He talks about how he was attacked for being a gay, black man
“Yes, it will sound like I am angry…I am. And I have every right to be. But when I leave this Earth, the only emotion I want to feel is peace….”

“The church shooting was the tipping point…but my anger has been building steadily…I’ve been a human powder keg for a while…just waiting to go BOOM!!!!”

Link to shooter video.

REPORT: A gunman killed a reporter and cameraman while they were doing a live TV news report in Franklin County, Virginia, Wednesday morning.

CBS News reports that the suspect is being identified by police as Vester Flanagan, who was also known by the name Bryce Williams when he was a reporter at the station, WDBJ-TV.

A first-person video of the shooting was posted on a Twitter account labeled @bryce_williams7 that has since been suspended.

Alison Parker, 24, and videographer Adam Ward, 27, were killed.

A work-related rant was posted on the Twitter account before the video:

Screen Shot 2015-08-26 at 11.24.06 AM

The incident took place at Bridgewater Plaza in Franklin County. Parker was interviewing Vicki Gardner, head of the Smith Mountain Lake Regional Chamber of Commerce, when gunshots begin to ring out. Parker and Gardner are seen running away while the camera, held by Ward, appears to be dropped.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has joined the manhunt, along with local authorities.

“We heard screaming and then we heard nothing,” Jeff Marks, the station’s general manager, said during the WDBJ broadcast.

The Roanoke Times reports that Gardner was shot in the back and is in surgery.

A still image of the suspect was taken from video that was recorded by a WDBJ camera:

Franklin County Shooter Image 2

Parker was in a relationship with station anchor Chris Hurst, while Ward was engaged to one of the station’s producers.


A 12-Step Review From An Orthodox Jew

I took a normie to a 12-step workshop last night. He later messaged me: “So here’s my review of the meeting. I likened it to going to shul. We had the silent prayer (Amidah), followed by announcements (too lengthy), about shabbotonim and shiurim. Most people came in pairs. We read from the Big Book (Torah) with plenty of meforshim, mentioning Bill (God) several times. A Pushka was passed around by a devout follower. We closed with a group prayer (Adon Olam). People felt spiritually uplifted, and spoke about the sermon afterwards.”

But there was no kiddish.

Normie: “The meeting was not as entertaining as I had hoped, but very insightful. Originally, I had envisioned you going there as a club, and you going there to watch the common folk squirm. But, I see you actually go there as a group therapy and healing session. I honestly don’t/didn’t feel you have as serious problems or addictions as the majority of the people there.You are the son of a “Rabbi”, which comes with a stigma, and a rebellion.”

“I looked at the crowd, not many blacks; what do you make of that?”

Luke: “It’s not congenial for them in general. They don’t like talking about their weaknesses publicly. More of a white thing.”

Normie: “When he hit the narcissist part of his talk he nailed you, even right before that.”

Luke: “What would you say I am on a 1-10 of NPD? I would say I have gone from a 7.5 to a 4 through my 12-step work. Therapy and meds don’t help with NPD.”

Normie: “You are definite lower [in NPD], that was my next question for you, how you rate yourself. But, I’m not sure you are on the inside what you portray on the outside. You say stuff, but I don’t know if it’s just words, sarcasm, or your real feelings.”

Normie: “You say stuff, but I don’t know if it’s just words, sarcasm, or your real feelings.”

Luke: “You mean I am healthier or sicker on the inside that what I post on FB?”

Normie: “But, I do believe even if you do mean it, if you keep using the words, eventually you will internalize it. You are an attention whore, do you now have a problem balancing getting attention vs being a good person?”

Luke: “I’m gonna save the white race. I’m gonna united the Anglo-Saxon tribes under my monarchy.”

Normie: “You better, cuz the Muslims are coming in force, to rid the world of us non-believers!”

Luke: “All the attention I need can be found in God.”

Normie: “That kind of phrase tells me you don’t buy in 100%. That’s why I don’t think your NPD is THAT much lower. Being evil is too much fun. Attention is human given, not God given.”

“First of all, you started higher than a 7.5. You started as a 9 or 9.5. You stole Herb’s starting point of 7.5. You are outwardly a 5.5, inwardly a 6.5. The more I think about it, you may be lower. I may be confusing exhibitionist and attention whore, with narcissism.”

“You definitely listen, appreciate and seem earnest about improving, and that’s what’s most important! But, not so much fun.”

Posted in Addiction | Comments Off on A 12-Step Review From An Orthodox Jew

Can Illegal Immigrants Be Stopped?

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Of course the flow of people can be stopped. But have you ever noticed that those who say it cannot be stopped are also the ones who get to make the rules regarding what methods are and are not acceptable to use? It really helps your side in winning the debate when you get to disqualify your opponent’s best weapons from the get-go. This would be akin to fighting a war with another nation and allowing that nation to dictate your order of battle. What nation would do that? Yet we allow our best defenses against this invasion to be systematically dismissed out of hand, and just bend over and take it on command. Ridiculous.

* Angela Merkel has, once again, demonstrated that the EU is, perhaps, the most ridiculous and lawless political organization on the planet. She has unilaterally decided to suspend the Dublin Agreements, whereby asylum seekers must apply in the first EU country they enter. Instead she has ordered German officials to process migrant applications and used the police to batter German citizens protesting her actions.

The United States, while not exactly ruthless in its efforts to deter illegal immigration, did not send out the Coast Guard to rescue and bring to the US Haitian migrants as the EU is now doing with the flood of refugees crossing the Mediterranean. Even our government officials knew what would happen if Haitians realized they had only to threaten to drown themselves to be allowed to enter the US. Our ships were deployed to intercept and return to Haiti those attempting to illegally enter the US. Why Europe is not doing the same is astonishing! You only have to do it a few times for the word to get out that paying a smuggler for a spot on a overloaded boat is a waste of time and money.

The EU, if it wants to help the Syrians ( or Afghans, Somalis etc) should offer military training to the men and tell them to go back and fight for their homelands instead of risking their families lives trying to escape to Europe. Shame them as cowards and offer humanitarian aid to their families only on condition that they do return to their homelands and fight to overthrow the tyranny they claim they are fleeing from.Oh, and pay Turkey or Jordan to keep the families in a Muslim land where the men can visit or summon their families home when they have won their war.

* I used to be a PSYOP soldier back in the day. One of the themes we could use to lower the enemy’s morale was “inevitability.” We would produce leaflets, handbills, posters, and broadcasts that reinforced the message that our march just could not be stopped. If the march can’t be stopped, there isn’t any point wasting lives and resources attempting to do so.

I think this is what’s going on here. I keep seeing the same message over and over again from various news sources. “Nothing will stop them.” “No fence will work.” It is obvious to me that this is a well coordinated psychological operation to get us to just give up and accept our “fate.”

The good news, if there is any, is that the existence of this psychological operation means that the bad guys believe we could stop it if we were determined enough.

* It’s just funny how few ever flee to Japan, China, India or heck even Australia these days.

It appears as Europe has become less Christian it’s become more maniacal in following it’s edicts where foreigners are concerned. The fact that these people turn up their noses at staying at the first peaceful country they enter should give EU leaders pause however the only venom they can muster are at people who protest taking in more.

Oh well Macedonia is doing the right thing. No use trying to stop them only for liberals to wag their fingers at you. Help them on their way to Germany.

* I have been reading Camp of Saints for the past couple of days. I highly recommend it. It is so freaking powerful in how prescient it was. Heck the guy even used the word “cuckold” in talking about immigration. And one of the characters calls all these Universalist men that facilitate this mad rush of these “immigrants” toward the west “Traitors”. All of these have been used by current Alt-right guys in the fight against immigration. And the speech given by some Hindu guy to the crowd at the point of embarkation remarkable resembles rhetoric produced today by pro-immigration people and current immigrants belittling westerners for not wanting more immigrants. This author was a genius.

* Israel’s border fences have sensors, cameras and are intensively patrolled and the Israelis will shoot at intruders. Few years ago I read how some Palestinians were just toying around with the fence and were shot.
Would we have shoot to kill at a Donald Trump border fence? Highly doubtful. We’ll just have to move ‘em on, head ‘em up (Rawhide) back to Mexico. And if you keep on trying you get thrown into an open air tent city prison for a few months.

* I think Israel is building fences along its Jordan border, too, just in case. It didn’t used to need an Egyptian fence because the Egyptian military government kept Africans away, but the short-lived elected government in Egypt stopped bothering, so Israel built a fence.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on Can Illegal Immigrants Be Stopped?

Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally

Comment to Steve Sailer: “If illegals are covered by the 2nd amendment, then the entirety of constitutional rights applies to them as well. This court has simply abolished citizenship.”

REPORT: MADISON, Wis. — People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from Mexico illegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th Circuit ruling. Now an adult, he was arrested in 2013 after a bar fight in Milwaukee. Police found a .22-caliber bullet in his shorts pocket.

Federal law prohibits people in the country illegally from possessing guns or ammunition. Meza-Rodriguez argued that the charges should be dismissed because the law infringes on his Second Amendment right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa rejected that contention on the broad grounds that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to people in the country illegally. Meza-Rodriguez was ultimately convicted of a felony and deported.

The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term “the people” in the Second Amendment’s guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally. The ruling, which applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, conflicts with opinions from three other federal appellate courts in recent years that found the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to people in the country illegally.

“We see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded,” Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote.

But the panel upheld Meza-Rodriguez’s conviction, saying the federal ban on people in the country illegally possessing weapons remains valid. Wood wrote that the right to bear arms isn’t unlimited and the government has a strong interest in preventing people who have already broken the law by coming to the country illegally from carrying guns.

Posted in Guns, Immigration | Comments Off on Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally

Serena Williams and Sailer’s First Law of Female Journalism

Steve Sailer writes: The New York Times Magazine has a giant article on tennis player Serena Williams by Claudia Rankine (pictured at right) that serves as yet another illustration of my observation that while many female journalists routinely crusade on the surface against sexism, racism, etc., a close reading of their most passionate articles suggests that their highest priority in demanding a cultural revolution to overturn society’s oppressive values is that they want to wind up being considered hotter-looking.

The Meaning of Serena Williams
On tennis and black excellence.

… There is a belief among some African-Americans that to defeat racism, they have to work harder, be smarter, be better. Only after they give 150 percent will white Americans recognize black excellence for what it is. But of course, once recognized, black excellence is then supposed to perform with good manners and forgiveness in the face of any racist slights or attacks. Black excellence is not supposed to be emotional as it pulls itself together to win after questionable calls. And in winning, it’s not supposed to swagger, to leap and pump its fist, to state boldly, in the words of Kanye West, ‘‘That’s what it is, black excellence, baby.’’

Right, as you can see how black NFL defensive players never visibly celebrate after tackling somebody for just a two-yard gain. The white power structure forces black football players to merely hand the ball to the ref with an aw shucks look. Similarly, LeBron James could dunk the ball, but white society thinks it’s overly abrasive to humiliate your opponents like that, so LeBron just gently lays the ball in the basket.

… Imagine that you have to contend with critiques of your body that perpetuate racist notions that black women are hypermasculine and unattractive.

But it’s also racist to wonder if Serena’s giant muscles aren’t wholly the result of black genes. Some people, who look at Serena compared to her older sister Venus, wonder if maybe Serena represents not just black nature but advanced nurture too.

But thinking that is racist as well, so just stop thinking.

Serena’s grace comes because she won’t be forced into stillness; she won’t accept those racist projections onto her body without speaking back; she won’t go gently into the white light of victory. Her excellence doesn’t mask the struggle it takes to achieve each win. For black people, there is an unspoken script that demands the humble absorption of racist assaults, no matter the scale, because whites need to believe that it’s no big deal. But Serena refuses to keep to that script. Somehow, along the way, she made a decision to be excellent while still being Serena.

It’s like how Muhammad Ali could have exulted over the fallen Sonny Liston, but instead white culture forced him to be impassive.

Similarly, deep down Tiger Woods might like to pump his fist after making a good putt, but he knows that white country club golfers lynch blacks who get uppity, so he’s never done it (pumping his fist, that is; never making a good putt is only recent).

When Serena was a little girl, she was so timid about expressing emotions that her sister Venus once said what a miracle it was that she could summon the courage to speak at all, usually just to ask for food when she was hungry though. She innately sensed that racism was real, immanent, and suffocating. As her body grew, her emotions grew too. Tennis became an outlet for those emotions, an outlet for her humanity. Years of quiet shyness or just fear bloomed forth into an amazing athlete, no one could deny. Suddenly she started to speak, especially on the tennis court, or as her father adoringly dotes, “My little grunter.” …

She would feel what she feels in front of everyone, in response to anyone. At Wimbledon this year, for example, in a match against the home favorite Heather Watson, Serena, interrupted during play by the deafening support of Watson, wagged her index finger at the crowd and said, ‘‘Don’t try me.’’

She will tell an audience or an official that they are disrespectful or unjust, whether she says, simply, ‘‘No, no, no’’ or something much more forceful, as happened at the U.S. Open in 2009, when she told the lineswoman, ‘‘I swear to God I am [expletive] going to take this [expletive] ball and shove it down your [expletive] throat.’’

Fight the Power! Don’t the let the White Male Power Structure (embodied, in this particular case, by a tiny Asian lady) keep the Black Man and Black Woman down!

… To accept the self, its humanity, is to discard the white racist gaze. Serena has freed herself from it. But that doesn’t mean she won’t be emotional or hurt by challenges to her humanity. It doesn’t mean she won’t battle for the right to be excellent. There is nothing wrong with Serena, but surely there is something wrong with the expectation that she be ‘‘good’’ while she is achieving greatness. Why should Serena not respond to racism? In whose world should it be answered with good manners? The notable difference between black excellence and white excellence is white excellence is achieved without having to battle racism. Imagine.

Two years ago, recovering from cancer and to celebrate my 50th birthday, I flew from LAX to J.F.K. during Serena’s semifinal match at the U.S. Open with the hope of seeing her play in the final. I had just passed through a year when so much was out of my control, and Serena epitomized not so much winning as the pure drive to win. I couldn’t quite shake the feeling (I still can’t quite shake it) that my body’s frailty, not the cancer but the depth of my exhaustion, had been brought on in part by the constant onslaught of racism, whether something as terrible as the killing of Trayvon Martin or something as mundane as the guy who let the door slam in my face. The daily grind of being rendered invisible, or being attacked, whether physically or verbally, for being visible, wears a body down. Serena’s strength and focus in the face of the realities we shared oddly consoled me.

That Sunday in Arthur Ashe Stadium at the women’s final, though the crowd generally seemed pro-Serena, the man seated next to me was cheering for the formidable tall blonde Victoria Azarenka. I asked him if he was American. ‘‘Yes,” he said.

‘‘We’re at the U.S. Open. Why are you cheering for the player from Belarus?’’ I asked.

‘‘Oh, I just want the match to be competitive,’’ he said.

After Serena lost the second set, at the opening of the third, I turned to him again, and asked him, no doubt in my own frustration, why he was still cheering for Azarenka. He didn’t answer, as was his prerogative. By the time it was clear that Serena was likely to win, his seat had been vacated. I had to admit to myself that in those moments I needed her to win, not just in the pure sense of a fan supporting her player, but to prove something that could never be proven, because if black excellence could cure us of anything, black people — or rather this black person — would be free from needing Serena to win. …

I was moved by Serena’s positioning herself in relation to other African-Americans. A crucial component of white privilege is the idea that your accomplishments can be, have been, achieved on your own. The private clubs that housed the tennis courts remained closed to minorities well into the second half of the 20th century. Serena reminded me that in addition to being a phenomenon, she has come out of a long line of African-Americans who battled for the right to be excellent in a such a space that attached its value to its whiteness and worked overtime to keep it segregated.

Serena’s excellence comes with the ability to imagine herself achieving a new kind of history for all of us. As long as she remains healthy, she will most likely tie and eventually pass Graf’s 22 majors, regardless of what happens at the U.S. Open this year. I want Serena to win, but I know better than to think her winning can end something she didn’t start. But Serena is providing a new script, one in which winning doesn’t carry the burden of curing racism, in which we win just to win — knowing that it is simply her excellence, baby.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* The problem with Women’s tennis is the same problem with many women’s sports, namely a little amount of testosterone gives you a big edge and the bigger and stronger you are – aka the more you’re built like a man – the better your chance of winning.

The end result is a lot of “female” champions who’re built like men or who take dangerous drugs. And of course, since people are genetically programmed to like feminine looking women this hurts the sport. At least among normal men and women. I can’t speak for liberals.

Or look at it this way, if it wasn’t a strongman like Serena bulling her way to a championship it’d be some other big, strong jawed lass with a good doctor.

* “But Serena is providing a new script, one in which winning doesn’t carry the burden of curing racism, in which we win just to win — knowing that it is simply her excellence, baby.”

Can anyone parse this? I guess editing her work would be a micro-aggression.

Posted in Blacks, Feminism, Journalism | Comments Off on Serena Williams and Sailer’s First Law of Female Journalism


F. Roger Devlin writes:

It is a cliché of political philosophy that the less self-restraint citizens are
able to exercise, the more they must be constrained from without. The practical
necessity of such a trade-off can be seen in such extraordinary upheavals as the
French and Russian Revolutions. First, old and habitual patterns and norms
are thrown aside in the name of freedom. When the ensuing chaos becomes
intolerable, some group with the requisite ambition, self-assurance and ruthlessness
succeeds in forcibly imposing its own order on the weakened society.
This is what gradually happened in the case of the sexual revolution also, with
the role of Jacobins/Bolsheviks being assumed by the feminists.

Human beings cannot do without some social norms to guide them in their
personal relations. Young women cannot be expected to work out a personal
system of sexual ethics in the manner of Descartes reconstructing the universe
in his own mind. If you cease to prepare them for marriage, they will seek
guidance wherever they can find it. In the past thirty years they have found it
in feminism, simply because the feminists have outshouted everyone else.
After helping to encourage sexual experimentation by young women,
feminism found itself able to capitalize on the unhappiness which resulted.
Their program for rewriting the rules of human sexual behavior is in one way
a continuation of the liberationists’ utopian program and in another way a
reaction against it. The feminists approve the notion of a right to do as one
pleases without responsibilities toward others; they merely insist that only
women have this right.

Looking about them for some legal and moral basis for enforcing this novel
claim, they hit upon the age-old prohibition against rape. Feminists understand
rape, however, not as a violation of a woman’s chastity or marital fi delity, but
of her merely personal wishes. They are making use of the ancient law against
rape to enforce not respect for feminine modesty but obedience to female whims.
Their ideal is not the man whose self-control permits a woman to exercise her
own, but the man who is subservient to a woman’s good pleasure—the man
who behaves, not like a gentleman, but like a dildo.

But mere disregard of a woman’s personal wishes is manifestly not the
reason men have been disgraced, imprisoned, in some societies even put
to death for the crime of rape. On the new view, in which consent rather
than the marriage bond is the issue, the same sexual act may be a crime on
Monday or Wednesday and a right on Tuesday or Thursday, according to
the shifts in a woman’s mood. Feminists claim rape is not taken seriously
enough; perhaps it would be better to ask how it could be taken seriously
at all once we begin defining it as they do. If women want to be free to do
as they please with men, after all, why should not men be free to do as they
please with women?

Indeed, the date rape campaign owes its success only to the lingering effect
of older views. Feminists themselves are not confused about this; they write
openly of “redefining rape.” Of course, for those of us who still speak traditional
English, this amounts to an admission that they are falsely accusing men.
One might have more sympathy for the “date rape victims” if they wanted
the men to marry them, feared they were ruined for other suitors, and were
prepared to assume their own obligations as wives and mothers. But this is
simply not the case. The date rape campaigners, if not the confused young
women themselves, are hostile to the very idea of matrimony, and never
propose it as a solution. They want to jail men, not make responsible husbands
of them. This is far worse than shotgun marriage, which at least allowed the
man to act as father to the child he had sired.

And what benefit do women derive from imprisoning men as date rapists
apart from gratification of a desire for revenge? Seeing men punished may
even confirm morally confused women in their mistaken sense of victimhood—resentment
tends to feed upon itself, like an itch that worsens with
scratching. Women are reinforced in the belief that it is their right for men’s
behavior to be anything they would like it to be. They become less inclined to
treat men with respect or to try to learn to understand or compromise with
them. In a word, they learn to think and behave like spoiled children, expecting
everything and willing to give nothing.

Men, meanwhile, respond to this in ways that are not diffi cult to predict.
They may not (at fi rst) decline sexual liaisons with such women, because the
woman’s moral shortcomings do not have too great an effect upon the sexual
act itself. But, quite rationally, they will avoid any deeper involvement with
them. So women experience fewer, shorter, and worse marriages and “relationships”
with men. But they do not blame themselves for the predicament they
are in; they refuse to see any connection between their own behavior and their
loneliness and frustration. Thus we get ever more frequent characterizations
of men as rapists and predators who mysteriously refuse to commit.

Indeed, the only people profi ting from the imposition of the new standards
are the feminists who invented them. The survival of their movement depends
on a continuing supply of resentful women who believe their rights are being
violated; one can only admit that the principles which buttress the date rape
campaign are admirably designed to guarantee such a supply. Feminism
is a movement that thrives on its own failures; hence, it is very difficult to

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, eleventh edition, lists the first
recorded use of the term date rape as 1975. Within a few years we find Thomas
Fleming of Chronicles, for example, employing the expression as uncritically as
any feminist zealot.4

A second instrument of the feminist reign of sexual terror,
“sexual harassment,” similarly made its first appearance in 1975. In less than a
generation this has become a national industry providing a comfortable living
for many people. Yet again we find this revolutionary concept blithely accepted
by many male traditionalists. They are content to accept without argument
that there exists a widespread problem of men “harassing” women, and that
“something must be done about it.” My first thought would be: What did
the Romans do about it? What did the Christian Church do about it? How
about the Chinese or the Aztecs? The obvious answer is that none of them
did anything about it, because the concept has only recently developed within
the context of the feminist movement. Is this not cause for suspicion? Why
are men so quick to adopt the language of their declared enemies?
The thinking behind the sexual harassment movement is that women are
entitled to “an environment free from unwanted sexual advances.” What sort
of advances are unwanted? In plain English, those made by unattractive men.
Anyone who has been forced to endure a corporate antiharassment video
can see that what is being condemned is merely traditional male courtship

The introduction of harassment law was accompanied by a campaign to
inform young women of the new entitlement. Colleges, for example, instituted
harassment committees one of whose stated purposes was “to encourage
victims to come forward.” (I saw this happening up close.) The agitators wanted
as many young women as possible accusing unsuccessful suitors of wrongdoing.
And they had considerable success; many women unhesitatingly availed
themselves of the new dispensation. Young men found they risked visits from
the police for flirting or inviting women on dates.

This female bullying should be contrasted with traditional male chivalry.
Men, at least within Western Civilization, have been socialized into extreme
reluctance to use force against women. This is not an absolute principle: few
would deny that a man has a right of self-defense against a woman attempting
to kill him. But many men will refuse to retaliate against a woman under
almost any lesser threat. This attitude is far removed from the feminist principle
of equality between the sexes. Indeed, it seems to imply a view of men as
naturally dominant: It is a form of noblesse oblige. And it is not, so far as I
can see, reducible to any long-term self-interest on the part of a man; in other
words, it is a principle of honor. The code of chivalry holds that a man has no
moral right to use force against women simply because he can do so.
An obvious difficulty with such a code is that it is vulnerable to abuse
by its beneficiaries. I had a classmate in grade school who had heard it said
somewhere that “boys are not supposed to hit girls.” Unfortunately, she
interpreted this to mean that it was acceptable for girls to hit boys, which she
then proceeded to do. She became genuinely indignant when she found that
they usually hit back.

The special character of noblesse oblige is that it does not involve a corresponding
entitlement on the part of the beneficiary. On the traditional view, a
man should indeed be reluctant to use force against women, but women have
no right to presume upon this. The reluctance is elicited by a recognition of
women’s weakness, not commanded as a recognition of their rights…

What happens when a contemporary woman, deluded into thinking she deserves a moviestar husband, fails not only to fi nd her ideal mate, but any mate at all? She does not blame herself for being unreasonable or gullible, of course; she blames men. A whole literary genre has emerged to pander to female anger with the opposite sex. Here are a few titles, all currently available
through Why Men Are Clueless, Let’s Face It, Men Are @$$#%\c$, How to Aggravate a Man Every Time, Things You Can Do with a Useless Man, 101 Reasons Why a Cat Is Better Than a Man, 101 Lies Men Tell Women, Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them, Kiss-off Letters to Men: Over 70 Zingers You Can Use to Send Him Packing, or—for the woman who gets sent packing herself—How to Heal the Hurt By Hating.

For many women, hatred of men has clearly taken on psychotic dimensions. A large billboard in my hometown asks passing motorists: “How many women have to die before domestic violence is considered a crime?” One is forced to wonder what is going on in the minds of those who sponsor such a message. Are they really unaware that it has always been a crime for a man to
murder his wife? Are they just trying to stir up fear? Or are their own minds so clouded by hatred that they can no longer view the world realistically?

Internet scribe Henry Makow has put forward the most plausible diagnosis I have yet seen, in an essay entitled “The Effect of Sexual Deprivation on Women.” Apropos of the recent rape hysteria, he suggests: “Men are ‘rapists’ because they are not giving women the love they need.” In other words, what if the problem is that men, ahem, aren’t preying upon women? All that we have just preying upon women? All that we have just said supports the theory that Western Civilization is now facing an epidemic of female sexual frustration. And once again, the typical conservative commentator is wholly unable to confront the problem correctly: He instinctively wants to step forward in shining armor and exclaim “Never fear, tender maids, I shall prevent these vicious beasts from sullying your virgin purity.” If women need love from men and aren’t getting it, this is hardly going to help them.

Posted in Dating, F. Roger Devlin, Feminism | Comments Off on FROM SEXUAL ANARCHY TO SEXUAL TERROR

The Image Of God

* Friend: “Stop looking at chicks! You’re an Orthodox Jew.”
Luke: “I was seeking the image of God in her.”

Daniel de Porto: Hot chick: “Uh, excuse me, but my image of God is up here!”

* A friend of a friend wanted to borrow $145,000 for three weeks from his brother to send to a king in Nigeria in exchange for $11.7 million in gold bullion. So my friend sent him a list of these Nigerian scams and his buddy replied: “You’re always ruining my financial opportunities. How do you know this one isn’t real? I’ve been speaking to his attorney in Nigeria.”

The same guy who fell for the Nigerian scam was fired from his volunteer position with a suicide prevention hotline.

* I live on a knife’s edge! “As soon as I find somebody crazier than you, I’m history baby. Relationship over!”

* Can we tell racist and sexist jokes at 12 step meetings, like at shul? It depends on your audience.

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on The Image Of God

Jewish Media Going Nuts Over Trump

The Jewish media is really going after Trump with guilt by non-association. They are panicking that they have lost control. This is a very typical Ashkenazi smear, one goyim rarely use. Dave Wiegel and Evan Osnos are doing it. The SPLC is being referenced, as people don’t realize that it is a Jewish nationalist organization, but they should, only Jews reference it. Soon we’ll hear from the other Jewish nationalist organizations such as the ADL, MOT, etc. They hate nationalism for any group but Jews.

Anytime a Jewish journalist in mainstream media references the SPLC as proof of authority, ask, “Do you have a non-Jewish nationalist authority to back up what you are saying?” Then add “This is the [name of pub], not The Jewish Week!

Good thing the new ADL isn’t afraid to play the Holocaust card on the immigration issue: Next is dis­crim­i­na­tion, which in turn sup­ports bias-motivated vio­lence, includ­ing hate crimes like the tragic one in Boston. And in the most extreme cases if left unchecked, the top of the pyra­mid of hate is genocide.

Chaim Amalek: “Given that 100% of its leaders support Israel as the JEWISH state, this is an exceptionally dangerous issue for them to get involved with. And actually, it is madness.”

Regarding the new ADL chief? Meet the new Jew-claw, same as the old Jew-claw.

Would the ADL be open to specifically demanding equal hate crimes implementation for minority on majority crime?

Since they are the ones pushing for this it’s an important question since they have declined such inclusionary policies in the past
and their language suggests this will again expand coverage but not to those who need it the most: the majority population from minority assailants, the ones the Jew media has left behind. Doesn’t the ADL want to help those victims most in need of protection? I hope Mr. 3G will consider that.

Noticing things is a big crime these days:

SOUTH WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. (AP) — ESPN removed Curt Schilling from its broadcast team for the Little League World Series on Tuesday because of an anti-Muslim tweet.

Schilling retweeted a post that said, “Only 5-10% of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How’d that go?” The post was soon removed from his Twitter feed.

The network said the tweet was unacceptable and that it “made that point very strongly to Curt.” ESPN said Schilling was removed from the Little League World Series assignment “pending further consideration.”

Chaim Amalek: “In our world, the truth does not matter.”

Oh, look, another Jew (Jeremy Diamond) thinks it’s news that David Duke has an opinion about Trump. Is this a disconnect between Jewish journalism and Americans?

Hey @JDiamond1, what about writing for a local Federation paper instead of @cnnpolitics?

Even Jews are tiring of Jewish smears against Trump: DaveWeigel: “Coming soon to Breitbart (I assume): How the media is coordinating a “Trump is a white nationalist” attack.”

* Maybe in Mexico they don’t wait their turn to ask questions and that’s why Jorge Ramos thought it was okay to just start shouting out his question.

If so, the liberals and the cucks are right — Trump should have been more culturally sensitive.

* Noah Smith, so you consider Israel fascist? Israel has enacted many of the policies Trump pushes.

Kvetcher: “Libertarian open borders types and SJWs use the term “fascist” the way teenage girls use the term “like”.”

* The more the latino and Jewish media beat up on Trump, the more white people will love him.

Posted in ADL, Donald Trump, Jews | Comments Off on Jewish Media Going Nuts Over Trump

Diversity Harms Share Values

From Chateau Heartiste: Diversity lowers a firm’s market value. Most likely share values drop when a firm’s board adds more women because investors are discounting the future rate of return of the firm based on two unflattering facts about the Diversity Danegeld: one, that a company which moves its focus to social justice adventurism loses focus from its profit-making ability, and two, an increase in female board members will result, given time, in a decrease in firm performance. (Hi, Carly!)


Posted in Diversity | Comments Off on Diversity Harms Share Values