Who Is This Whore?

And what’s she doing on the front page of my morning paper?

Damn, it hurts my eyes to even look at this broad. She looks like a filled in coloring book. Will someone get this whore off my morning front page? It's hard to eat breakfast and look at stuff like this.

And who is “Jesse James?” I thought he was dead. Who’s the reincarnation? Some Hell’s Angel? He looks like he just got out of prison. OK, I get it. He’s a White Trash biker with his own TV show.  What’s he doing above the fold every morning?

These are our celebrities these days? Back in the day, we called them White Trash.

“Racist!”

Note: This post is extremely long, at 108 pages, so be forewarned. However, it’s very good, and I think it’s well worth your time.

There is not a whole lot I can add to this seminal work by a University of Montana Professor of English named Paul Trout. The piece speaks for itself. Here it is, 15 years later, and not a single thing has changed,  has it? This means that serious forms of PC insanity have devastated our universities, and from there, spread, virus-like, into society at large for over two decades now. In the meantime, in the past 20-25 years, things have only gotten worse for non-Whites in general, Blacks and Hispanics in particular.

So, while a blatantly White racist politics has held sway over the nation, causing serious harm to various non-Whites as Whites attacked them, at the same time, an idiot PC Idiocracy has held a Dictatorship of the Idiotariot over society as a whole. One wonders what good this PC silliness does, other than just spreading even more stupidity and insanity through a society that has too much of both already.

The PC Idiot Class has not been able to prevent a White racist politics from gripping the nation, yet it has gone on a jihad against a bunch of a nonsense, and its most frequent victims were non-racist and even anti-racist Whites. One wonders how any of the incidents below affected any US Black or Hispanics polities as a whole in any real and meaningful way. They didn’t. So all PC madness is attack innocent Whites, usually, most perversely of all, the liberal ones who are friendliest to non-Whites.

The main conclusion that we liberal Whites draw from all this looniness is that minorities are nothing but trouble. Blacks in particular. Read the article below and I defy you to conclude that modern PC Blacks are anything but a heap of ridiculous problems waiting to blow up on you at any unknown time. The only sensible conclusion Whites, even non-racist ones, draw from PC madness is that minorities, particularly Blacks but to a lesser extent Hispanics, Amerindians and other Professional Victims, are just not worth the trouble and are best avoided.

If you read below, you will notice that the only sane people protesting the PC lunacy are conservatives, particularly White racist conservatives. Great. So White people can either be PC professional flagellants or they can defy it and be White racist jerks. Well! That’s certainly one Hell of a choice!

Conservatives are so crazy and wrong on most everything that anytime the conservatives are right, you know the Left must be catastrophically screwed up. It embarrasses me to no end that the only folks making sense below are the rightwing nasties at US News and World Report and the Wall Street Journal. Where are all the sane liberals? On vacation, I guess. Or, worse, afraid of being called racist.

Cruising around the Black blogosphere, you note that the PC nonsense below is the standard view on race at most intelligent Black blogs. This is a classical, and typical, example. And on many Hispanic blogs too. And, I am sad to say, it’s the standard view on most of the leftwing sites I read.

This piece was originally found on this site here. That’s a White racist site, and so is Nicholas Stix, probably, though I guess Nick has an excuse for being racist (he experienced a lot of terrible treatment by Blacks). One again, we see that the only folks promoting this eminently sane piece are racist Whites. How sad!

(This landmark monograph was originally published in 1995 in direct link nor the “Racist!” as an Epithet of Repression

Paul Trout

Dept of English

Montana State U – Bozeman

Montana Professor Journal

Fall 1995

Introduction

About the worst thing you can be called nowadays is “racist.” The word not only brands a person as intellectually and morally inferior but links him or her to hooded sickos who beat and lynch innocent minorities. And the accusation – whether merited or not – often brings stinging penalties, from shunning to firing. Ask Senator Conrad Burns, Andy Rooney, Jimmy the Greek, Marge Schott, or Christina Jeffrey. No wonder people who subscribe to liberal social and intellectual ideals, who abhor race prejudice, fear being branded with the scarlet “R.”

Since the term carries so much social opprobrium and can hurt a person’s private life and public career, it should be defined clearly and used cautiously. This is not the case, however, on today’s college campuses. The examples in this essay suggest that on college campuses across the country, the epithet “racist,” hard enough for dictionaries to define (see “Defining Racism,” Chronicles, August 1994, 46), has become alarmingly unmoored.

We have now reached a point where the term can be used, usually without explanation or justification, to stigmatize any policy, statement, symbol, statistic, outcome, word or expression that any minority member does not like, including all kinds of legitimate, scholarly, and protected material.

As Robert Hughes observes in The Culture of Complaint, the irresponsible and promiscuous use of “racist” has robbed the term of “whatever stable meaning it once had” (19). Even worse, since its use is sanctioned by the subjectivity of the user, there can be no false accusations of “racism.” In short, anyone accused of “racism” is ipso facto guilty.

As a result, the epithet “racist” has become a powerful weapon of intimidation, the contemporary equivalent of the 1950s charge of “communism.” Since nobody on campus wants to be labeled a “racist,” and since nobody knows what the term means, most people stay clear of saying or doing anything that some minority member may label as “racist.” Out of fear, most people – and especially Whites – studiously avoid touchy issues, provocative statements, or ambiguous symbols or behaviors.

Unfortunately, as the examples in this essay show, not everybody succeeds in avoiding trouble. An untoward statement, word, metaphor or observation, even an unpalatable research finding, can catapult a student, faculty member, or administrator, into the category of “racist” with regrettable results.

Of “Racist” Epithets There Is No End

Campus speech codes forbid and provide punishment for certain types of expressive behavior which causes an individual or group to feel demeaned or abused because of their racial or ethnic background (so long as they are non-White). Such codes are often said to be aimed at only the most outrageous ”ethnic slurs” and “racial epithets” (Cass Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, 198).

But anybody staying abreast of this issue knows that speech codes have been invoked to punish all kinds of acts and statements, from quoting upsetting statistics to evincing “disrespect” (see Rauch, Kindly Inquisitors, 26).

Part of the problem with these codes is that they do not emphasize the objective content of the behavior or language, but the subjective response of the self-proclaimed victim. So an “ethnic slur” or “racial epithet” is whatever that person deems it to be. Another problem is that these codes – remarkably – never list the epithets that they forbid.

What words or epithets are “racist”? The only right answer is, more and more of them. Now even the noun “Jew” is “racist,” according to WordPerfect 6.0’s Grammatik, which warns us to “avoid using this offensive term.” So is the verb “to welch,” according to the Welsh-American Legal Defense, Education, and Development Fund. So is “digger pines” (Pinus sabiniana), according to a curator at the California State Indian Museum, who claims it is a slur on Native Americans.

So is “spook,” as in “Spook Hill” (in Mesa, Arizona), according to the NAACP, even though it refers to ghosts who haunt the area (in Phoenix, there was a brouhaha over Squaw Peak).

Given people’s notorious and awe-inspiring linguistic inventiveness (see A. A. Roback’s Dictionary of International Slurs) and their exquisite sensitivity to grievance, the list of offensive epithets will keep going and going…It is already quite long.”

An author who gave a talk at Harvard on why liberals like Jack Kerouac were drawn to Black culture provoked protests by entitling his talk, quoting Kerouac, “Spade Kicks” ( CHE 10 June 1992). The phrase “playing goalie Kamikazestyle” was deleted from a story in a textbook because it was construed to be an ethnic slur (Campus Reports, December 1992).

Even the word “slave” is now dangerous to use. An Education Commission in New York recommended in 1991 that the word “slave” be replaced with “enslaved person” in all school textbooks. Students at historically Black Prairie View Texas A&M University complained that they were offended by the Latin term servitium, in the school’s motto Recercare, Doctrina, Servitium, because in the Middle Ages it allegedly meant slavery. Regents approved the following translation: “Research, Teaching, Service” (CHE, 3 August 1994, A4).

Murray Dolfman was fired for using this word. When no one in his University of Pennsylvania law class knew what the Thirteenth Amendment forbade, he said according to his version), “We have ex-slaves here who should know about the Thirteenth Amendment,” (in Kindly Inquisitors, 148-149). He also referred to himself as an ex-slave (as a Jewish ’slave unto Pharaoh’).

When several Black students complained after class, Dolfman apologized but that did no good. Black students invaded his class and read a list of accusations to Dolfman’s students. News of Dolfman’s amazingly clumsy remark convulsed the campus for weeks, and Houston Baker, the well-known scholar of Black literature, engaged in a little signifying by publicly denouncing Dolfman as an “asshole…unqualified to teach dogs” (Richard Bernstein, Dictatorship of Virtue, 112).

Dolfman’s contract was not renewed. Richard Bernstein draws this moral from the Dolfman affair: “In the era of political correctness and craven university administrations, the charge of racism, unsubstantiated but accompanied by a few demonstrations and angry rhetorical perorations, suffices to paralyze a campus, to destroy a reputation, and to compel an administration into submission,” (Dictatorship of Virtue, 114-115).

Other words one should stay away from include – according to the School of Journalism at the University of Missouri – ”shiftless,” “fried chicken” (“a loaded phrase when used carelessly”), and “watermelon.” In 1987 at Harvard, Stephen Thernstrom, a respected historian of race relations, was accused of “racism” by students because he used the words “American Indian” and “Oriental” (Maclean’s, 27 May 1991; Lingua Franca, April 1991, 37).

At the University of Virginia Law School, a hapless White guy got into trouble simply trying to be hip when he shot back at one Black student, “Can you dig it, man?” The next day an anonymous note called the teacher a “racist” and a “White supremacist,” without regard to his pro bono work for the civil rights movement, his membership in Klanwatch, and his work in recruiting minorities to campus (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 6).

At Antioch, Ralph Luker, an associate professor of History and a civil rights activist, was denounced as a “racist” when he said that in the eyes of the law, slaves in the antebellum South had the same legal status as domestic animals. Students thought that he was comparing Black people to animals and took over his class in protest (CHE, 17 June 1994, 4D; 22 June, A14). Afterward, he was denied tenure.

A political science professor at the University of British Columbia (my alma mater) said, during a discussion of apartheid, that “Blacks were at the bottom of the totem pole in South Africa,” (Globe and Mail, 6 August 1994, D7). One student felt the metaphor to be a “racist” appropriation of the sacred symbols of the Kwakiutl and the Haida.

And everyone in the country now has been alerted not to use “water buffalo” within the hearing of Blacks. One night in January, 1993, a group of Black sorority women were dancing and chanting outside a dormitory window at 3 a.m. Several dorm residents shouted for the women to be quiet, and apparently some racial epithets were exchanged.

One student, Eden Jacobowitz, shouted “Shut up, you water buffalo. If you’re looking for a party there is a zoo a mile from here.” (CHE, July 7, 1993, A32). (The women claimed he said, “Shut up, you Black water buffaloes,” and “Go back to the zoo where you belong!”; see “The Raging Water Buffalo” by John K. Wilson, in The Newsletter of Teachers for a Democratic Culture, 2 [2], Fall 1993, 11-12).

The five female students charged Jacobowitz with “racial harassment” under the university’s vague hate-speech code (Scott Shepard, “Penn: The Most Poisoned Ivy?” Campus 5 [1], Fall 1993, 6).

Jacobowitz, an Israel-born Yeshiva student, used the word “water buffalo” because it was the English translation for the Hebrew word “behemah” (there are various spellings for this word), which means “water oxen” and is used as slang to describe an inconsiderate or foolish person. “It was the furthest thing from my mind to call them anything racial,” he said (CHE, 5 May 1993, A39).

During preliminary hearings, Penn Judicial Inquiry Officer Robin Reed asked Jacobowitz if he had been “thinking racial thoughts” on the night his supposed offense took place. She also explained that “water buffalo” could be taken as a racial slur because it “is a dark, primitive animal that lives in Africa” (AP, 14 May 1993). Reed is wrong. The animal is native to southeast Asia.

Although several Black faculty members were asked to testify that “water buffalo” is not a racial slur (until now, at any rate), John Wilson has argued that the fact that the phrase “is not a common racial epithet hardly makes it immune from use in a racist way.” In other words, any word can be used as a “racist” epithet. Charges against Jacobowitz were eventually dropped.

Students and faculty must be especially wary of potentially “racist” color words nowadays. Recently, at Columbia University, “chocolate” and “vanilla” were held to be “racist” after two White students who worked for the escort service were overheard by a Black security guard referring to certain escortees as “chocolate” or “vanilla.” The students explained that chocolate merely meant “attractive” and vanilla “unattractive” or “plain.”

The director of the service, however, summarily fired them for uttering “blatantly racist” remarks (see Dogmatic Wisdom, 84).

In a similar vein, the U. of Missouri stylebook warns writers to stay clear of using the word “articulate” when describing Blacks, saying that it implies that most Blacks are not articulate. In other words, it could be “racist” to say to a minority student, “because you are extremely articulate, you will probably excel in my class.”

Hunting Indians, Minutemen, and other “Racist” Mascots

The Sherlocks of Sensitivity have found “racist” messages not only in the most neutral and honorific expressions but in all kinds of university logos, mascots, and icons.

American Indians have been particularly assiduous in finding “racism” in any and every use of Indian names and images. Over the last ten years or so, their campaign to get colleges to drop team names, logos, and mascots associated with Indian culture has been very successful.

This campaign took a new twist early this year when five students at the University of Illinois filed a complaint with the Illinois’ Human Rights Commission, claiming that the school’s mascot, Chief Illiniwek, causes a “hostile and abusive” environment for American Indians (Campus 6 [3], Spring 1995, 11).

The Commission noted that if the complaint were successful, it would set a precedent that would enable African-American groups to prevent showings of Birth of a Nation, Jewish groups to repress The Merchant of Venice, and Native Americans to prevent the screening of cowboy movies.

When Native Americans find these logos “offensive” or “insulting,” not much can be said, since these subjective terms are self-validating. But are these logos “racist”? That term should be applied to depictions that imply and promote contempt, even hatred. But the images of logos are honorific, usually connoting power, integrity, honor, and nobility.

The Ute tribe has, I think, understood this distinction. It recognized that the University of Utah, in calling its teams the “Running Utes,” was actually implementing (in a small way) the tribe and the state’s Native-American culture. So instead of campaigning against the name and logo, the tribe attempted to control them. All accouterments had to be authentic, all depictions respectful.

Some measure of just how touchy Indian activists have become is seen in the campaign to change the mascot of Fort Lewis College. The icon/mascot was not a Native American, but a White male, a mounted U. S. cavalryman carrying a sword.

Native Americans found the image offensive (CHE, 13 April 1994, 4A). In an effort to make the graphic palatable, the college first replaced the sword with a military banner (no good), then with an “FLC” pennant (not good enough), and then it removed the horseman’s rife and pistol, describing the figure now as “the Raider” (still no good). Finally it dropped the Raider entirely, replacing him with a golden eagle. The A.S.P.C.A. has not complained – yet.

While animals still seem to be a safe bet as logos and mascots, other images and symbols are sitting ducks for charges of “racism.” Any image of a White man is now automatically “racist,” the very term used to describe “Blaze,” the cartoonish Nordic warrior emblem of the University of Alabama. The logo of the University of Alabama – a White, gentlemanly, Colonel-Sanders type – was attacked as “racist” because it allegedly reminded some minority students of “plantation owners.”

Even the Minuteman mascot of the University of Massachusetts was decried as “racist” (it was also “sexist” for being male and violent for holding a gun). Said Martin Jones, the student who led the attack, “to have a White male represent a student body that is not exclusively White or male is culturally biased, and promotes racism.”

The university chancellor agreed, making the university, according to the president of the Republican Club on campus, look like a “politically correct wasteland” and the “laughingstock of the country” (CHE, 10 November 1993).

But after Jones did “some research” into the historic contributions of the Minutemen, and after the campus library was named for the founder of the NAACP (W. E. B. DuBois), he defended the image and announced his “mistake” in criticizing it. “These men, as the original liberators of America, have earned the right to be honored fully by Americans everywhere…Long live the Minutemen of Massachusetts,” (USA Today, 28 October 1994, 10A).

So far the “leprechauns” of the University of Notre Dame have escaped attack.

In these examples, images and logos are being called “racist” not so much for what they depict as for what they exclude – they don’t depict other races or ethnic groups. The Representation Police want school logos to look like Benetton ads, all cuddly rainbow inclusivity. That’s an awful lot to ask of a college logo. In “Mascot Studies,” a writer for The American Spectator (December 1993, 14) puts this foolishness into perspective:

At our universities, neither professors nor administrators apparently possess the discernment to distinguish between a harmless mascot and, say, a flaming cross on a hill…There is today on campus…an innocent assumption that any protester must have a point.

We have quite forgotten that familiar figure of the past, the malcontent. Past generations recognized these odious cranks when they commenced to bawl and took them cum grano salis. If by accident the malcontent had come upon a legitimate grievance, fine – the Republic initiated a reform and passed on.

Today the country is at the mercy of these disturbed people, and actually raises many to lifelong prominence…Worse, these grumblers have inspired thousands of common malcontents to take up a noble cause. Vexed debate over the campus mascot is but one of the unhappy consequences.

In other words, get a life.

Remove That Tattoo, That T-Shirt, and That Elihu Yale!

Official logos and mascots are not the only images on campus ‘under erasure’ for being “racist.” This section will overview a number of incidents in which harmless and relatively benign images and activities were proclaimed to be “racist” and then almost always punished. These incidents demonstrate once again just how unmoored and repressive the R-word has become on today’s college campuses. Let’s begin in the kitchen.

A dishwasher in a residence hall at Iowa State University got into hot water when students noticed he had a swastika and the letters KKK tattooed on his arms. He had neither said nor done anything “racist,” he just sported some old tatoos left over from when he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan (he explained that he repudiated the organization in a letter to the student newspaper).

Still, students demanded his removal. As one of them put it, “I’m for free speech. But…the KKK is wrong and has no place in a university environment.” What’s notable is that he had worked at the university for eighteen years before anybody noticed, or bothered to complain (U. Magazine, February 1994, 10). The university was warned by the state not to fire him.

Now to the infamous “racist” T-shirt at the University of California (Riverside). In 1993, Phi Kappa Sigma advertised its South of the Border Fiesta with a T-shirt featuring a figure in a serape and sombrero sitting on a beach looking at the setting sun and holding a bottle of tequila.

Next to the figure was a set of steel drums and a wooden Tiki head, in which was carved the word “Jamaica.” The lower half of the shirt shows a Rastafarian standing in the doorway of a Mexican cantina with a big smile and a six-pack of brew. This graphic was wrapped in a lyric from Bob Marley: “It doesn’t matter where you come from long as you know where you are going.” The shirt, according to the fraternity, was meant to show the ‘inclusivity’ of booze and partying down.

But campus Hispanic organizations charged the fraternity with “offensive racial stereotypes” and filed a formal complaint. Although the fraternity president, Rich Carrez, apologized to the campus Hispanic organization, the apology did no good. The fraternity was accused of being “racist,” even though it was the most racially diverse fraternity on campus (22 of its 47 members were non-White).

Carrez himself is part Native American, while the fraternity’s Vice President is Latino, and the student who designed the T-shirt is Hispanic. When this was pointed out, the Hispanic organization merely replied, “You should have known better.”

After a series of hearings, in which the fraternity was accused of launching a “racist” attack on the Latino community, the fraternity was forced to destroy all of the offending T-shirts, to write a letter of apology, to do 16 hours of community service, and to attend two sensitivity seminars on multiculturalism. But Hispanic students were still not satisfied, so the fraternity was also barred from intramural sports and rush activities, stripped of its charter and kicked off campus.

When the fraternity’s cause was taken up by the Individual Rights Foundation, the university settled out of court, agreeing to reinstate the fraternity, to drop all charges against it, and, in an unprecedented concession, to require two administrators to undergo sensitivity training in the First Amendment (see “Counter Coup: When Sensitivity Training is a Good Thing,” Heterodoxy 2 [3], November 1993, 12; “Campus Speech Codes Are Being Shot Down as Opponents Pipe Up,” WSJ, 22 December 1993, A1).

A similar graphic landed a student cartoonist at Portland State University in the gazpacho. In trying to point out that the American Free Trade Agreement was good for corporate America but not for the average Mexican citizen, the student drew a Mexican staring longingly at a display of beans, wondering if he could afford them. One would think that this would be received sympathetically by Hispanic students, but it wasn’t. All they saw in the cartoon was an implicit epithet: ‘beaner.’

The Chronicle of Higher Education sided with the thin-skinned students outraged by this scene, chiding the editors – “none of whom are Hispanic” – for not realizing that the depiction of beans could be construed as a “slur” (CHE, 17 November 1993, A39).

This spring, students at Yale demanded that the university remove a portrait of its founder, Elihu Yale, from its boardroom because it is “racist.” The painting portrays the school’s eighteenth-century founder seated in a chair with a young Black male (some think an Indian servant), perhaps kneeling, handing him a letter (CHE, 28 April 1995, A6).

Not nearly as exciting as the “Hovey murals” at Dartmouth, which feature drunken, scantily clad Native Americans, and which have been covered with panels since the 1970s because of protests that they were ”racist” (USA Today, 18 October 1993, D1).

At the University of Oregon, a banner depicting the faces of Michelangelo, Plato, Jane Austen, and eight other renowned, but White, figures was torn down by a group of students, who scrawled “racism” on it and painted some of the faces brown (CHE, 27 May 1992, A2).

What they did not realize, apparently, was that painting White faces brown was itself gravely “racist.” That was established in 1988, when a White Stanford student, to make a point, colored the face of Beethoven brown. The incident took place at Ujamaa House, Stanford’s “African-theme” dormitory.

One evening, a Black student claimed that Beethoven was Black. Several White students thought not. One of them found a big picture of Beethoven and, using a crayon, gave the composer an Afro and Black features and hung the poster outside the Black student’s room. When the Black student saw it, he was “flabbergasted,” and another was “outraged and sickened,” condemning the poster as “hateful, shocking.”

The White student explained that he did it only because disliked what he called “ethnic aggressivity,” and the campus obsession with race. He was also upset by a Black student who insisted that she would never marry anyone but another Black (a “racist” comment?). So he defaced the Beethoven poster “to show the Black students how ridiculous it was to focus on race.” He said the poster was “satirical humor.”

Threatened by members of an exceedingly hostile crowd of outraged Blacks, the White student apologized, but to no avail. Two days later, all the White students in Ujamaa – about 60 – found anonymous notes under their doors telling them to move out. In the photo display of the freshmen in Ujamaa, all the White faces had holes punched in them. Soon signs appeared that read: “Avenge Ujamaa. Smash the honkie oppressors!” (Chronicles, January 1990, 51-53).

And don’t even think about painting your own face Black! If you think Ted Danson got into trouble for his Friars Club routine, try it on campus. A number of frat boys have, and have been swatted with suspensions and hefty fines. No matter what the intent or context, painting your face Black is always a “racist” act, even when no Black person is present to be offended. The only problem is, that punishing people who do this is unconstitutional, even on campus, as a federal judge ruled in a case involving George Mason University (CHE, 4 September 1991).

At Brown, an art professor had to cancel a long-planned screening of the classic film Birth of a Nation when the local branch of the NAACP denounced it as “racist” (Commentary, September 1989, 22).

At Harvard, a government professor was forced to cancel a showing of It’s a Wonderful Life when Black students protested that its depiction of the household maid, which was both dignified and accurate, was a “racist” stereotype (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 217).

At the University of Pittsburgh, a professor of public relations scrapped the showing of a Nazi propaganda film, The Eternal Jew, when some Jews called it “racist” and “anti-Semitic,” which it is. But it was to be shown to instruct students about how the mass media could be misused (CHE, 13 November 1991). The logic that prevailed in these cases would forever cut us off from the past to avoid discomfiting the most thin-skinned.

Classroom movies aren’t the only thing that can provoke a charge of “racism.” In 1994, a French professor of psychology was roundly attacked as a “racist” for asking students taking a final exam to give the “clinical reasons” why the majority of Jews saw deportation between 1939 and 1942 as their “inexorable fate” (Chicago Tribune, 28 June 1994, 10).

This year a physics professor at MIT also got into trouble for an exam question: “You are in the forefront of a civil-rights demonstration when the police decide to disperse the crowd using a water cannon. If the cannon they turn on you delivers 1,000 liters of water per minute, what force does the water exert on you?”

After apologizing in print, the teacher explained that the question was intended to make physics come alive and to honor the courage of activists. A Black student responded that the question revealed how badly all faculty members needed sensitivity training (CHE, 3 March 1995, A33).

Another professor was called a “racist” for reading aloud in class from Moral Panic, 230). Apparently, David Mamet’s Oleanna is not an exaggeration.

In the censorious climate that prevails today on many campuses, even statements that are supported by observation, common sense, or statistics can be tagged as “racist.” A candidate for a university presidency did not get the job when it was learned that he had once said, perhaps after watching the Tom Brokaw special on “Black Athletes–Fact and Fiction” (1989), that “a Black athlete can actually out-jump a White athlete.” This occurred just before a movie enshrined this truism in its title (White Men Can’t Jump).

As Jared Taylor remarks, “Whites are not supposed to speculate about a possible Black superiority in athletics because to do so could be construed as a suggestion that Blacks may also have a natural inferiority in other areas. The tennis champion Arthur Ashe, however, is allowed to think Blacks may be specially talented at running because he, himself, is Black,” (222).

At Harvard, a memo distributed to students by the instructor was claimed to have created a hostile environment because it reported scholarly findings on negotiating styles that grouped Blacks and women as “low risk-takers.” A Black student said, “Just on the face of it, the memo is offensive,” (The Wall Street Journal, 30 October 1992, B1).

The prevailing assumption is that any generalization – favorable or unfavorable – about any minority that someone does not like is by definition “racist” and deserves to be suppressed – as long as it is said by a White person. Minority diversity consultants, in contrast, can parade, without a shred of empirical evidence, the grossest racial and ethnic stereotypes with virtual impunity.

Even statements about matters that are not directly racial are likely to be denounced as “racist” when they conflict with reigning groupthink. When Yale College dean Donald Kagan urged a group of freshmen to study Western Civilization, arguing that the freedom and civil liberties enjoyed by the West have led to a tolerance and a respect for diversity unknown in most cultures, the student newspaper denounced him as “racist, sexist, and out of touch,” (Campus Report, July/August 1993, 5).

In 1993, students at Cornell managed to free the epithet “racist” from all objective constraints. Someone spray-painted graffiti over an exhibition of art by Hispanic students. Although the graffiti contained not one “racist” slur, the students charged that the act was “racist” anyhow (CHE, 1 December 1993, A4). In short, even what is not “racist” is “racist.”

This perverse logic also governed the handling of a celebrated incident at Bowdoin College involving four fun-loving Asian students. What these students did was to dress themselves in White togas, wear bandannas around their heads, and march around the quad playing mandolins and harmonicas, holding candles and chanting, and throwing Toastee-Os breakfast cereal.

Incredibly, some students alleged that this was a “racist” demonstration. Because the togas were predominantly, but not exclusively, White, these students claimed that this was like having the Ku Klux Klan parading around campus – that they were, you guessed it, “intimidated” and “offended.”

While the Dean of Students conceded that these four festive Asians did not purposely set out to intimidate or offend anyone, nevertheless, the groups was charged with the Orwellian offence of being “grossly insensitive to the implications of their actions.”

The frolicsome foursome had letters of reprimand placed in their files, were forced to write an apology, to hear multicultural lectures on “issues involving racial sensitivities,” and to create an educational program on the conflict of freedom of expression with multicultural sensitivities (Campus, Winter 1992). Who better to speak from experience about the results of such conflicts?

Since anything can now be attacked as “racist,” it should not be surprising that this epithet has been hurled even at posters and exhibitions meant to combat racism. At Pennsylvania State University, a well-intentioned poster that listed almost fifty offensive slurs (“There’s a nasty name for everyone. Including you. Think about it.”) was itself attacked as “racist” (Campus, Fall 1991).

The same fate befell an art exhibit at Passaic County Community College attacking racism by depicting the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis and the epithets they hurl. The administration removed the paintings from a campus gallery when some students complained that they were “racist” (CHE, 8 December 1993, A6).

An exhibition at Johns Hopkins meant to honor the abolitionist movement unintentionally committed a ‘hate crime’ when it included material on James and William Birney, White abolitionists who released their slaves to demonstrate their anti-slavery commitment.

Blacks would have none of this sly “racist” endorsement of slavery. “This stuff will not be tolerated,” said Paul Brown, one of the Black students who staged a sit-in. “There are plenty of resources in the library if you just made a half-ass attempt to find something.” The library director who failed to make the half-assed attempt did manage the obligatory abject apology: “Personally, I deeply regret any offense given by the exhibit of abolitionist material,” (Heterodoxy, March 1993, 3).

This incident brings to mind the notorious attack on Jeanne Cannizzo, the University of Toronto anthropologist who curated the Royal Ontario Museum exhibit “Into the Heart of Africa” (1990), a well-meaning indictment of the humiliating way in which colonialists treated Africans.

Although no Whites protested this “insensitive” presentation of their forebears, some Blacks denounced the portrayals of vanquished African warriors as “racist.” According to this logic, any depiction of the victims of oppression must be “racist.” The protesters advised the museum that it should have exhibited only works of great African art.

Protesters mounted demonstrations not only outside the museum, but they invaded Cannizzo’s classroom, hurling insults and epithets at her. On one occasion, according to an eye-witness, “a large Black male chased Cannizzo down the hall.” Administrators and faculty did nothing to stop the defamation and assaults, abjectly afraid to oppose the will or criticize the behavior of campus minorities (“The Silencers,” Maclean’s, 27 May 1991, 63).

Cannizzo, shattered by this experience, left the university and eventually emigrated to England. All this, for organizing an exhibition that attacked racism!

This section ends where it began, in the kitchen. A group of dining-hall workers at Harvard wanted to have a “Back to the Fifties” party. But the Minority Affairs Dean denounced them for being “racist,” arguing that it was wrong to feel nostalgia for a decade that included segregationist sentiments (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 217; Newsweek , 6 May 1991).

A far more notorious incident occurred at the University of California-Santa Cruz, where the swampy multicultural atmosphere that now chokes ‘cutting-edge’ campuses led to a menu being found “racist.”

Two semi-autonomous colleges on the campus share a kitchen. Merrill College caters to ‘multicultural’ students; Crown appeals to science and economics students, many of whom are Asians. The incident began innocuously enough with the Crown kitchen staff deciding what to serve at a monthly College Night dinner.

Weeks earlier Merrill had chosen an Asian theme, but a Crown staffer, a Japanese-American, noticed that the dinner happened to fall on December 7, Pearl Harbor Day. Thinking this might appear to be by design and be misinterpreted, she chose a non-ethnic menu instead. While Crown students munched on chicken and spare ribs, a rumor spread at Merrill College that Crown had refused to serve Asian food because it blamed Asians for the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Soon fliers littered the campus denouncing the Crown administration as “racist.” Crown staff members were besieged by groups of angry students, angry phone calls, and even death threats. Meanwhile at Merrill, students and faculty, gloating at the troubles of their colleagues, issued a public statement about Crown’s “overt and covert racism” and calling the decision – keep in mind that it was made by a Japanese-American – ”the racist unconscious at work.”

After months of turmoil, the staff at Crown was forced to attend sensitivity workshops, which Crown’s provost, Peggy Musgrave, described as “brainwashing perations…humiliating experiences where people have to bare their souls and expose their innermost thoughts.” Musgrave was forced to resign. Crown’s bursar was so distraught and exhausted by the controversy that he was forced to take extended medical leave. Other Crown staff resigned.

All this bloodletting began, remember, over an allegedly “racist” menu (see Barbara Rhoades Ellis, “A Day of Infamy at UC Santa Cruz,” Heterodoxy 1 [3] June 1992, 6).

Muzzling the “Racist” Student Press

Unmoored charges of “racism” have sanctioned far more serious and repressive attacks on free expression and debate than the ones mentioned so far. The epithet “racist” has been used with particular effectiveness to intimidate and silence the student press. According to an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, during the academic year 1992-93 there were 38 “major trashings of publications” on campus.

At the University of Maryland, students stole 10,000 copies of the Diamondback, alleging that it is “racist” for misspelling the title of W. E. B. DuBois’s book The Souls of Black Folk (which came out The Sales of Black Folk; CHE 17 November 1993, A39). Most often, the accusation of “racism” is invoked to discredit opinions that minority members find uncongenial or embarrassing.

At Duke, the Duke Review was denounced as “racist” and summarily trashed by a Black student because it dared to criticize the Black Student Alliance as wasteful and monolithic (Campus 5 [2], Winter 1994, 13; 5 [3], Spring 1994, 12).

At the University of Iowa, Black students “filled the offices”– as the Chronicle of Higher Education euphemistically put it – of The Daily Iowan to protest the publication of a political cartoon comparing the Blacks who almost killed Reginald Denny to members of the Ku Klux Klan. Apparently the White editors had not heard that Blacks cannot be “racists” – by definition.

At the University of South Carolina, the student newspaper was threatened with a funding review by administrators when it published a student’s poem satirizing then presidential candidate Jesse Jackson (Illiberal Education, 145).

At Virginia Commonwealth University, Black students stole the entire press run of the student newspaper to punish it for running “racist” editorials charging that Black student groups receive disproportionate funding from the school: “We find you guily [sic] of several counts of vandalist, slanderist, racist, scandalist journalism. Therefore we are shutting you down.” The Black student newspaper complimented the thieves for “staging a courageous and peaceful protest,” (Campus Report, 10 [3], April 1995).

At Vassar, the student newspaper was called “racist” after it proclaimed Black activist Anthony Grate “hypocrite of the month” for espousing anti-Semitic views while denouncing bigotry against Blacks. The newspaper quoted Grate as saying “dirty Jews” and “I hate Jews.”

When the Spectator publicized the hypocrisy and racism of this Black leader, the Vassar Student Association attempted to suppress the offending issue, and then, when that failed, withdrew its funding. The newspaper had to be punished, according to VSA, for “unnecessarily jeopardiz[ing] an educational community based on mutual understanding,” (D’Souza, Ibid. 10).

On most campuses, it is presumptively “racist” to point out minority “racism.” The editor of the student newspaper at the State University of New York at Stony Brook provoked a tirade of abuse when he wrote that his experiences on this multicultural campus had “taught me to be wary, distrustful, and, at times, downright revolted by African Americans.”

In a column, Stony Brook Teaches Reactive Racism , the student wrote: “In one particular Africana Studies class I was called a ‘kike’ by one Black student, while another yelled out, ‘You! You Jew. You raped my people!’” The student, who is Jewish, said that other White students had told him that they also had been victims of racism by members of minority groups.

After the column was published, Black students didn’t apologize, as so many White students have been coerced into doing, but engineered a boycott against businesses that advertised in the paper. Although the student editor was physically threatened, the president of this “inclusive community” did not denounce Black racism or even investigate the charges – he denounced the column (CHE, 9 March 1994, A33).

At the University of California-Riverside, it is unhealthy even to criticize gangsta rap! The trouble for Mark Hardie, a Black 22-year-old senior, began when he wrote two columns in the student paper, one denouncing ‘gangsta rap’ and the other calling Afrocentrism a “racist” concept. Hardie was forced to resign his position as a staff writer and columnist because retaliation was promised if he stayed on.

Police had to provide Hardie with security escorts on campus because Black students threatened to kill him. One caller to a campus radio program said: “Ya know, he’s a victim here, he’s gonna be a victim. I’m waiting outside. I’m gonna kill him. I swear to God I’m gonna kill his family,” (Campus Reports 9 [4], April 1994, 3).

At the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Black students occupied the offices of, and temporarily closed down, The Massachusetts Daily Collegian when the White staff replaced three minority editors (others still served). Another grievance was that the paper refused to run an editorial condemning the first verdict in the Rodney King case. During the attack on the office, demonstrators broke a plate glass window and a stereo, and ripped up files, photographs, and documents.

When the student editor criticized the demonstrators in the Boston Globe, one Black student protester invaded the student-newspaper office armed with a baseball bat and attacked the newspaper’s photo editor, dragging him out of The Collegian office to the main floor of the Campus Center (CHE, 14 October 1992).

To also show their displeasure, the protesters confiscated or trashed most of the 19,000 copies of the press run. Although the theft of the papers was arguably a crime and certainly a violation of First Amendment rights, the administration refused to condemn, or even comment on, this act.

Throughout the controversy, the administration, as Gary Brasor points out, tacitly approved unlawful acts it deemed compatible with its multicultural agenda (for a blow-by-blow account, see Gary Crosby Brasor, “Weimar in Amherst,” Academic Questions, 8 [2], Spring 1995, 69-89).

At DePaul University, the DePaulia was recently denounced as “racist” and shut down by Black students who didn’t like the DePaulia correctly reporting that several DePaul students arrested for fighting at a campus “Bootie-Call” party were Black. In the story, the DePaulia quoted the police report, which described those arrested as “M/Bs,” police shorthand for male/Blacks and one of several routine abbreviations used by police to describe people either arrested or victimized.

According to the protesters, however, the abbreviation is “offensive” (Chicago Sun-Times, 12 April 1995, 11). Their leader said that the mention of race was “disrespectful” and contributed to negative stereotyping of Blacks on campus (Chicago Sun-Times, 11 April 1995, 13). In other words, quoting directly, quoting accurately, and having the facts straight are now “racist” if the truth discomfits minorities.

Predictably, DePaulia staffers will receive counseling about “cultural sensitivity” but the Black protesters will not receive tutoring in the First Amendment. And, of course, no reprimands for those who trashed the office and shut down the paper.

Perhaps the most outrageous attacks on a student paper occurred in 1993 at the University of Pennsylvania during the tenure of Sheldon Hackney, the Poster Boy of Invertebrate Administrators.

Gregory Pavlik, a politically incorrect columnist for The Daily Pennsylvanian, had criticized Martin Luther King for being a plagiarist and adulterer, Malcolm X for being a pimp, and racial preferences for being “racist.”

Pavlik wrote a column in March of 1993 that criticized university officials for expelling two White freshmen who dumped water on Black members of the Onyx Senior Honor Society who were holding an initiation/hazing ceremony under their dormitory windows at 2:30 a.m. (Maybe Penn’s code should tell students when to go to bed.)

Pavlik provocatively claimed that the two students were suspended because they were White, and that the Onyx Society was the real culprit and should be punished, even though Black.

The column ignited a firestorm. The university’s Judicial Action Office filed 32 charges of “racial harassment” against Pavlik, despite the fact that the newspaper is financially and legally independent of the university. In the most wonderful doublespeak, the Judicial Action Officer said she filed the complaint because she was “afraid for [Pavlik’s] safety” (Campus Report, 8 [5], May 1993, 4).

To protest the “blatant and voluntary perpetuation of institutional racism” at the newspaper and on campus, a number of Black students removed nearly all 14,000 copies of one edition from campus distribution sites (CHE, 28 April 1993, A33). 202 Penn Blacks signed a letter justifying the act.

A university report on this incident found that the theft of the newspapers was a “form of student protest and not an indicator of criminal behavior,” and that the campus police who arrested demonstrators caught in the act were wrong (see excerpts in WSJ, 26 July 1993, A10, and editorial). They should have contacted “Open Expression Monitors” to study the students actions (I am not making this up).

The police were sent to sensitivity training seminars to have their sense of fair play adjusted. The chief of security for a campus museum, who nabbed two protesters sneaking out with plastic garbage bags, was officially reprimanded for “racial harassment” and suspended. He too had to undergo sensitivity training. The Black students who threw away the entire press run of the newspaper were not punished (see “Penn Report Faults Campus Police for Response to Students’ Taking Papers,” CHE, 4 August 1993, A27, and 22 September 1993, A35).

In July 1988 – before many of these incidents had occurred – Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, issued a prescient statement:

We are extremely concerned about incidents…which we believe reflect a growing wave of campus censorship inflicted under the guise of fighting racism. Faced with a real concern about an important issue, universities appear to be accepting the misguided notion that viewpoint suppression is an appropriate means to their end.

We note with some irony that this same means was used a generation ago against students who were advocating equality and desegregation (in Illiberal Education, 145).

Suppressing Debate about Public Issues

As the previous section makes clear, the term “racism” has been used on campus to squelch debate about a number of crucial social issues. The term has proven particularly effective in silencing debate about racial preferences. “On virtually every campus,” writes Dinesh D’Souza, “there is a de facto taboo against free discussion of affirmative action or minority self-segregation, and efforts to open such discussion are considered presumptively racist,” (Illiberal Education , 238).

Jennifer Imle, a junior at Southwestern University in Texas, displayed in her room a poster attacking admissions policies based on race. She was soon attacked as a “racist” and ridiculed by her professors during class. The Dean of Students took one look at the poster and said “This must go!” circulating a memo that said the poster smacked of White supremacy.

Imle resisted the effort to suspend her First Amendment rights, and arranged to have Dinesh D’Souza and a campus advocate of racial preferences debate the issue before 350 students eager to hear the issue publicly and honestly discussed.

Other stories don’t have such happy outcomes. At one major university, an associate dean was asked to resign because of his candid opposition to affirmative action and multiculturalism (Lingua Franca, April 1991, 37). At another, an assistant vice chancellor of academic personnel was fired, and escorted by police from her office, when she pointed out that a new affirmative-action plan violated the university’s stringent guidelines for faculty search procedures Heterodoxy 2 [10], October 1993).

At Harvard, a professor got into trouble merely for defining affirmative action as “government enforcement of preferential treatment in hiring, promotion, and college admissions.” Black students denounced the phrase “preferential treatment” as “racist” (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 199-200).

In 1987, at UCLA, a student editor was suspended for printing a cartoon ridiculing affirmative action. In the “intolerably racist” cartoon, a student stops a rooster on campus and asks how it got into UCLA. The rooster responds, “Affirmative action.” When another editor at a different school wrote a column criticizing UCLA officials for suspending the editor – and reproduced the cartoon to support his argument – he too was suspended.

The newspaper’s adviser, an assistant professor of journalism no less, said that his crime was publishing controversial material “without permission.” Incredibly, other editors agreed with her, clucking that the student journalist had learned “a valuable lesson in common sense,” (Dictatorship of Virtue, 209).

As John Leo put it, “Whenever the curtain parts and the public gets a peek at what is really going on in college admissions…voices are raised to expel the student who released the data, as well as the college editor who printed them. This kind of defense of furtiveness is routine,” (“Endgame for affirmative action,” U. S. News and World Report, 13 March 1995, 18).

The most outrageous example of denouncing a critic of affirmative action as a ”racist” involved Timothy Maguire, a law senior at Georgetown University Law School. After working as a clerk in the admissions office, Maguire wrote an article reporting that Georgetown admits Blacks with lower LSAT scores than Whites (a routine practice throughout the country).

The article provoked outrage, with one White student characterizing it as “assaultive.” “People were injured. I think that kind of speech is outrageous,” (in Hentoff, Free Speech for Me, 219). Black students accused Maguire of being a “racist” and demanded his expulsion (CHE, 29 May 1991).

When the law school prosecuted Maguire for revealing “confidential” admissions data (he named no names), lawyers refused to defend him out of fear of being called “racists” (Jared Taylor, Paved With Good Intentions, 1992, 181). The two who did were not only accused of being “racists” but placed on probation at the D. C. School of Law (Hentoff, 223-27).

Clearly, the safest way to express opinions about affirmative action on campus is anonymously, on the internet. At Yale recently, a posting contended that affirmative action should play no part in the selection of editors for The Yale Law Review, and defended using anonymity because “self-identification could lead to personal harm.” The law school dean determined that this posting had to go (CHE, 7 April 1995, A36).

Strategic interventions of the word “racist” have discouraged debate on other crucial issues as well. The University of Charleston refused to renew the contract of a conservative scholar after he criticized “diversity” standards for accreditation (National Review, 1 February 1993, 14).

At the University of Oregon, faculty members who had raised questions about a proposal to increase the number of required multicultural credits were called “racists” in a full-page ad published in an alternative campus newspaper. The ad listed the professors’ names, class schedules, and office telephone numbers (CHE 30 June 1993, A27).

Diane Ravitch was called a “racist” for criticizing “racial fundamentalism,” the notion that children can learn only from people of the same race. She has also been physically threatened: “‘We’re going to get you, bitch. We’re going to beat your White ass,’” (New York Magazine , 21 January 1991).

At the University of New Mexico, the contract of a part-time instructor was not renewed after she was charged with “racism” by a Hispanic graduate student for saying in class that “there are six generations of South Valley residents who cannot speak English. There’s no excuse for that since they have many opportunities to learn. There’s just no excuse for that if they want to stay in this country, and if that’s the case, as far as I’m concerned, they can go further south.”

Although the professor denied saying these words, no formal hearing was ever held, and she was not interviewed before she was released (NAS Update, 4 [1]).

At Chico State University, a professor got into hot water when he published a letter in the local newspaper arguing that demands for Indian teachers were unrealistic because there were not enough qualified candidates. He went on to say that Indian students ought to be on campus “to get the best education…not have their sensibilities stroked and grades of ‘A’ doled out on the basis of their race or correct politics.”

Native Americans across the country attacked these comments, and the Chico administration informed the professor that he had violated the school’s racial harassment policy, which calls for expulsion of faculty or students who create “an atmosphere of intimidation and hostility.” When the professor threatened to sue, the university dropped its charges (Heterodoxy 2 [4], December 1993, 3).

A similar incident occurred at the University of Alaska, when a Harvard-trained expert on Native American education was charged with “racism” and “discrimination” for saying that a teacher-education program at the university was under “equity pressures” to pass Alaskan Natives through the system.

Angry faculty and students organized demonstrations against her, and the Fairbanks Native Association filed a complaint with the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. The OCR eventually determined that the professor’s remarks did not violate the rights of students (CHE, 23 September 1992; see also Steven Wulf, “Federal Guidelines for Censorship,” Academic Questions, 8 [2], Spring 1995, 58-68).

To avoid being stigmatized as a “racist,” it is best not to say anything that might disturb a minority member.

At Iowa State University, a White African-American history professor disagreed with a Black student about the role of Afrocentric theories in the course; the student, a member of the Nation of Islam, called her a “racist liar” and threatened her with a “jihad” (CHE, 20 October 1993, A5; 1 December).

At the University of Illinois a feminist scholar was removed from her course in women’s studies when she said of one Black student who “snickered” and trivialized rape that he fit the profile of a Black male rapist – a remark he found “racist.” She, of course, condemned the university for being “sexist,” (CHE, 7 October 1992).

At the University of Michigan, a White professor of sociology and the nation’s leading expert on the demography of Black Americans was denounced as a “racist” after he read a passage from the Autobiography of Malcolm X in which the author describes himself as a pimp and a thief. Black students called for a person of color to teach the course (and perhaps to re-write the Autobiography).

The professor stopped teaching the class and observed that several of his colleagues intended to drop any discussion of various important race-related issues from their courses, for fear of being accused of “racism” (Chester Finn, “The Campus: An Island of Repression is a Sea of Freedom,” Commentary, September 1989, 19).

One of the most notorious instances of intimidation was directed at two eminent, and exceedingly liberal, Harvard professors who co-taught a course on American history and demography. In 1987, both were attacked in the Harvard Crimson for being “racially insensitive.”

Bernard Bailyn’s crime was reading an exculpatory passage about slavery from the diary of a southern planter without giving equal time to the recollections of a slave.

Richard Thernstrom’s crime was assigning a book that defined affirmative action as “the government enforcement of preferential treatment in hiring, promotion and college admissions,” and endorsing Patrick Moynihan’s thesis that the breakup of the Black family is an important cause of persistent Black poverty (John Taylor, New York Magazine, 21 January 1991, 33-34).

As a Black student put it, “I am also left to question his sensitivity when I hear that Black men get feelings of inadequacy, beat their wives, and take off” (in Illiberal Education , 195-96). Thernstrom’s defense, that he “presented factual information in an objective and dispassionate way,” is beside the point; the facts hurt the feelings of Black students, and that, by definition, proves “racial insensitivity.” Thernstrom wrote:

Teaching in a university in which a handful of disaffected students can all too easily launch a smear campaign…one must think about how many times one wants to be a martyr. I love to debate historical interpretations, but what I experienced…was not public discussion of the validity of my ideas but an indictment of my character and motives. I am not alone in deciding to avoid yet another irrational and vicious personal attack like this…

I know of other scholars who have censored their courses by dropping any treatment of touchy topics such as the disintegration of the Black family. When I was an undergraduate in the 1950s, the menace to academic freedom in America came from the right.

Academic freedom is again under attack today, this time from leftist students…who believe in “no free speech for fascists” and think mistakenly that all the fascists are on the right ( Harper’s, February 1992, “Letters”).

Given this repressive climate on campus, it is now dangerous even to report widely accepted facts, if those facts are unwelcomed by, or embarrassing to, minorities and their protectors. At the University of Michigan, a professor of statistics (for 37 years) was accused of “promoting racism” and temporarily suspended after he noted in class that minorities average 55 points lower on the SAT than Whites (Campus 5 [2], Winter 1994, 12).

As Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer points out, “We have to deal with some very bad news when we talk about Blacks…We have to talk about unpleasant matters, matters that Blacks will find upsetting and depressing, and that can only make them unhappy.” If universities choose to have a curriculum that includes African-American Studies and courses on race, then universities, as Dinesh D’Souza argues, have a responsibility to make sure that professors and students are free to talk about these issues without intimidation (Illiberal Education, 201).

Suppressing “Racist” Research

The effort to discourage and suppress ’social risk’ research has a long and ignoble history (recall Bruno and Galileo). During the 1960s and early 70s, this urge took on a ‘humanitarian’ guise. The goal was to protect minorities from “racist” research that might harm the interests or psyches of minorities.

Why is it “ignoble” to suppress allegedly “racist” research? Jonathan Rauch provides an elegant answer in Kindly Inquisitors (1993). Rauch argues that the only way that liberal science can effectively work to find truth and establish consensus is to presume that any and all subjects are open to competent investigation.

To do otherwise would require authoritarian control of vast proportions, and countries that have tried to exert such control have suffered grievous social, political and economic deprivations as a result. The knowledge-making enterprise itself, with its checks and balances, is the only agent that can fittingly determine who and what is competent and when a case has been “proved.”

Liberal science, according to Rauch, “declares that the issue of race and intelligence should be explored by any researcher who cares to explore it and who will follow the rules,” (144). Whatever one thinks about this research, amateurs must leave it to experts and the processes of free intellectual debate to determine if and when it can be added to our body of knowledge.

Research that cannot withstand the vigorous fact-checking and error-finding that drives our knowledge-making enterprise will eventually be discredited and marginalized. Research that can withstand such scrutiny will be incorporated into the mass of data, findings, theories, etc. that we call knowledge. Once there, other agencies and forums can debate and deal with its political and social implications.

This crucial processes of testing can only occur, obviously, on research that has already been done and made public. To prevent research from being done, no matter how risky it may seem at the time or to some members of society, could rob society of potentially useful insights, and would likely, in the long run, lead to the undermining of the most successful and beneficial collaborative and international enterprise in the history of humanity.

Let me illustrate the truth of this observation. Back in 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan broke the silence on the problems facing Black culture with his book, The Black Family: The Case for National Action. Noting a sharp rise in the number of single-parent Black families, he forewarned that this trend posed a threat to Blacks’ social progress and to society at large.

For his efforts, he was vilified for “blaming the victim” and accused of “crypto-racism” (Joseph G. Conti and Brad Stetson, “The New Black Vanguard,” Intercollegiate Review , Spring 1993, 34). But as Adam Walinsky has recently pointed out, Moynihan’s dire predictions have come true; vilifying his “racist” research only served to blind people to the “long descending night” of violence which he foresaw and which is now upon us (“The Crisis of Public Order,” The Atlantic Monthly, July 1995, 48-49).

As Rauch has shown, humanitarians continue to attack scientific and social research that threatens to lead to findings that some minorities, and indeed some Whites, might find disturbing, especially if true. At the University of Michigan, for example, an administrator called for the suppression of “theories” that might conflict with a multicultural agenda, since “harassment in classrooms is based on theories held by teachers,” (Kindly Inquisitors, 136).

The notion that some credible scientific theories and findings are, in and of themselves, “racist” has spread to undergraduates, with dangerous implications for academic freedom. “An amazing 38 percent” of students evaluating a teacher’s lecture on the genetic contribution to intelligence felt that this was not an appropriate topic for a psychology course.

When these students were asked about the professor’s motives for presenting this material, “24 percent specifically mentioned ‘racist,’ ‘racism,’ or notions of ‘racial superiority’” (Stanley Coren, “When Teaching Is Evaluated on Political Grounds,” Academic Questions , Summer 1993, 77; reprinted in The Montana Professor, 5 [1], Winter 1995, 12-14). Clearly, scholars working on touchy subjects – and the list of these keeps growing and growing too – run their own risk of being label “racists,” no matter how valid their findings.

At the University of California-Berkeley, a professor of physical anthropology who argues that crime, intelligence, and other human behaviors are influenced by genetic factors and that there is a relationship between race and innate abilities, was prevented from teaching his class when 75 students marched into his anthropology class and drowned out his lecture (CHE, 4 March 1992; Russell Jacoby, Dogmatic Wisdom, 137).

Trouble befell a similar course taught at the University of Denver. Charles Murray, of Bell Curve fame, who studies the relation between race and IQ and how intelligence traits can be inherited and measured, was to lecture for half the course on intelligence and public policy with the other half reserved for his critics.

Not good enough. His critics at DU think his “racist” ideas were not worthy of any discussion and demanded that the course be canceled (Campus Report, June 1991; CHE, 16 January 1991). Fortunately for academic freedom, the university disagreed.

At the University of Maryland, a “thoughtfully organized” conference on genetic components in criminal behavior, which reviewers said did “a superb job of assessing the underlying scientific, legal, ethical, and public policy issues,” was canceled by the National Institutes of Health when Blacks said it would promote “racism.” The Committee to Stop the Violence Initiative, formed at Howard University, said of the conference, “It is clear racism. It is an effort to use public money for a genocidal effort against African Americans,” (CHE, 2 September 1992).

At the University of Delaware, two researchers were prevented from accepting funds from a private foundation some administrators deemed “racist.” The campus African-American Coalition claimed that the research threatened “the very survival of African-Americans,” (Campus Report, May 1992). An arbitrator, saying that the university based its decision on perceptions rather than on facts, overturned the ban (CHE, 4 September 1991).

Both researchers had already endured years of institutional harassment and character assassination for publishing the results of their research on race-norming (As a result of this work, race-norming was banned in 1991). After the Department of Educational Studies denied major credits for their courses and defined their publications and investigations as “non-research,” they filed a federal lawsuit to gain relief from the persecution and won an out-of-court settlement in 1992 (Campus Report 9 [2] February 1994, 6).

This humanitarian effort to restrict “racist” research can wind up inhibiting research by Blacks that could help the Black community! At the University of Chicago, a Black sociologist encountered all kinds of opposition to his research on racial integration, especially when he found that Black schoolteachers were less prepared than their White counterparts (Lingua Franca, April 1991, 37; CHE , 21 November 1990).

Other Blacks at the same school have also complained about the pressures they face to avoid research that might reflect badly on Blacks or bring unwelcome news. Professor William Julius Wilson observed, “There has been a tendency in our field not to discuss issues that are unflattering,” (CHE, 30 October 1991).

Personally, I very uncomfortable with the theories of Philippe Rushton and Michael Levin, who argue, as I understand them, that on average Blacks score lower than Whites and Asians on intelligence and most other tests, and that these results may have something to do with genetic endowment (see Jared Taylor, Paved with Good Intentions, 123-182 for an overview of comparative test results in many fields).

I am also offended by the notion that Whites may be, on average, less intelligent than Asians, or that, as Leonard Jeffries incredibly argues (he is not a researcher), Whites, as “ice people,” are not as nice as Blacks, who are “sun people.”

I, like many others, worry about how any of this information may affect immediate human behavior and long-term social policy. But I first want to know if it is true, as truth is consensually defined by the experts in the appropriate fields. If it is not true, then I can dismiss it as I dismiss horoscopes no matter how flattering. If it is true, then we have to determine how this information bears upon the way we live together.

We must allow social-risk research to be done because we cannot know beforehand if the risks will materialize or not, or if the research will benefit some of us in unexpected ways. After all, most knowledge entails social “risks” for some group or other. The only way to avoid such risks would be to profoundly curtail through authoritarian fiat the knowledge-making enterprise of Western civilization. This program of repression, however, would entail the gravest risks of all.

Conclusion

I have tried to show that the epithet “racist” is often used irresponsibly to punish and suppress a wide range of words, images, statements and findings – from innocuous metaphors to unwelcome facts and theories. I am not arguing, of course, that the term “racist” is only or always used this way, but I do contend that it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish legitimate uses of the term from exaggerated, promiscuous, and repressive ones.

It is time for responsible students, academics, and administrators to discountenance all heedless, negligent, and intolerant invocations of this word. The use of repressive and stigmatizing epithets has no place in a community of fact-gatherers, truth-sorters, knowledge-makers, and opinion-shapers.

How did campuses get into this fix? Why do so many students, teachers and administrators make, or treat seriously, patently preposterous accusations of “racism”? To understand this phenomenon, let me invoke a concept recently used by John Fekete in another context: the concept of “moral panic.” A moral panic emerges from the impulse to root out all moral evil and to prevent its germination.

Driven by a “zero-toleration” mentality, a campaign of moral panic feeds on itself, always expanding its boundaries (and thus enemies) and intimidating its adherents into ever more fervent demonstrations of compliance and support.

Many on campus – both minorities and non-minorities – apparently believe that such a panic is good for the “racist” souls of White folks. In Paved With Good Intentions, Jared Taylor explains why:

It is widely assumed that if the struggle against racism is not maintained at fever pitch, White people will promptly relapse into bigotry. Thus a great deal of the criticism of Whites is justified on the grounds that it will forestall potential racism…The process becomes circular.

Since Whites are thought likely to turn racist if not constantly policed, it is legitimate to denounce acts of racism they might commit as if they had already done so. In this climate, all charges of racism must be taken seriously because they are potentially true (107).

A couple of years ago, a Black student at Emory reported being racially harassed, eventually falling into silence and curling up into a fetal position. Emory’s president solemnly denounced “renascent bigotry” and imposed new speech-code rules. An investigation proved, however, that it was all a hoax concocted by the student to divert attention from her cheating on a chemistry test.

But today, even hoaxes are defended as being morally true, given the assumption of rampant White “racism.” What does it matter if Twana Brawley was really raped or not by five White New York politicos? The truth is that every once and a while a White man does rape a Black woman. Of the Emory hoax, the head of the Atlanta NAACP said, “‘It does not matter whether she did it or not, because of all the pressure these Black students are under at these predominantly White schools,” (Campus Report, July/August 1993, 5).

In the perfectionist and puritanical climate of a moral panic, even trivial, trumped-up, or absurd charges of “racism” can have valuable political and therapeutic effects. Since racism is a bad thing, the more opportunities to condemn it the better. As a result of this deranged view, “charges of racism can be made with the same reckless impunity as were charges of communism at the height of the McCarthy era,” (Taylor, 23). To ask for the facts supporting the charge is to expose one’s own “racism” and to invite more accusations.

Campus culture provides a fertile field for the flowering of moral panic. The campus equity bureaucracy plays a crucial role in fomenting baseless and capricious charges of “racism.” The income and careers of these people depend on the discovery and extirpation of White“racism.”

Each accusation, no matter how idiotic, is interpreted as evidence of the increased racial tensions on campus; increased “racism” justifies the existence of – and the increased power of – the race-relations experts who must spring into action to avert campus race war.

This readiness to believe any accusation colludes insidiously with the desire of activist minority groups to “mau-mau,” as the insightful Tom Wolfe phrased it, campus flak catchers. “Blacks learned long ago that Whites can be silenced and intimidated by accusing them of racism. White acquiescence has made the charge of racism into such a powerful weapon that it should be no surprise to find that a great many Blacks cannot resist the temptation to wield it,” (Taylor 61).

In short, minorities enjoy assaulting the dignity of ‘Whitey.’ To push an absurd accusation to a successful conclusion is the perfect way to do it and to demonstrate, and thus increase, one’s clout. The equity bureaucracy doesn’t oppose such shenanigans because almost every successfully prosecuted accusation of “racism” results in the hiring of more minorities and equity-specialists, thus driving up their price and increasing their clout.

Even White adminstrators are seduced into this game. By responding to all minority complaints, White administrators, most of whom seem riddled with guilt, can demonstrate their oneness with oppressed peoples, salve their conscience, and placate menacing groups of minority students (with their sun glasses, hooded parkas and military fatigues). Lending credence to every accusation also serves to strengthen the hand of administration.

Administrators like stringent speech codes not only because they testify to the purity of their motives but because these codes generate accusations that help intimidate the majority of students and faculty on campus, making them more dependent upon the intercessory goodwill and power of administrators.

Meanwhile, administrators, being insulated from classroom teaching and most direct interaction with students, are usually able to escape the pernicious effects of the repressive codes they champion. When they can’t, as in the case of Francis Lawrence, they call in their chits and hang on until the tempest blows over.

Countenancing trivial, baseless, and absurd charges of “racism” carries a terrible price.

First of all, it trivializes real racist incidents, which get lost in the moral panic over innocent logos, innocuous words, and legitimate research data.

Second, it sours even good-willed Whites on tolerance and diversity. If they are “racist” by virtue of their skin color, and if almost anything they do can get them into trouble anyhow, why try?

Third, it creates for Whites an intimidating and hostile educational environment. Those in favor of prohibiting the use of words that demean and victimize members of the campus community might want to consider adding “racist!” to their hit list.

Fourth, trivial and baseless charges of “racism” inevitably embitter many Whites, more and more of whom are sick and tired of their ritual role as “racists.” Even the Washington Generals got tired of being programmed losers, and they got paid for it.

And fifth, the moral panic over “racism” has led to outrageous double standards harmful to both Whites and Blacks. As Jared Taylor points out, “Whites are held to a system of ’sensitivity’ requirements that do not apply to Blacks,” (Taylor 217).

Whites are monitored, pestered, and punished for preposterous reasons – for a look, for an innocent word, for wearing a T-shirt, for expressing a plausible argument – but Blacks can say almost anything with perfect impunity. The wording of many speech- and conduct-codes explicitly sanctions such double standards, protecting only certain, privileged minority groups, not all students.

Taking the hint, many minorities advance the absurd but self-exonerating claim that they cannot be “racists,” and then feel free to expound the most absurd and vilificatory racist nonsense ever heard on campuses.

No doubt some Whites, angered by this punitive duplicity, are provoked into “racist” thoughts and acts that would not have occurred to them in a more tolerant and even-handed environment. Moral panic over “racism” may create racists, not eliminate them.

Nor is the moral panic surrounding “racism” good for Blacks and other minorities. The climate of moral panic generated by exaggerated and unfounded accusations of “racism” only serves to dangerously reinforce “an already exaggerated sense of grievance in Blacks,” (Taylor, 87). This is not good for race relations. It encourages Blacks to mistrust all Whites and to see themselves as saintly victims of a system in which they cannot prosper.

Phony or trivial charges of “racism” may seem harmless enough in their particular contexts, but cumulatively they gnaw away at freedom. The argument Catharine R. Stimpson made to defend art is relevant here: “Higher education cannot delude itself into thinking that the arts can lose a little freedom here, the humanities a little freedom there, and everything will still be manageable…For academic and cultural freedom is like air: Pollution in one zone spreads to another,” (CHE, 26 September 1990).

In Fahrenheit 451, that remarkably prescient book, censorship does not come from the top down, but from the bottom up, and it comes through a thousand ostensibly minor restrictions on freedom in the name of humanitarian good will.

There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick… You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can’t have our minorities upset and stirred… Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin . Burn it (Valentine, 53-4).

There are many ways to deal with false and trivial accusations of “racism,” but the one that seems most effective is to sue.

When something Eric Shane, the art historian, had written was said by another scholar to be open to a “racist construction,” Shane threatened to sue for defamation of character and libel.

The chastened critic, and her publisher, took out an ad in several major literary periodicals saying that the “slur” was “wholly unwarranted and [that they] deeply regret[ed] that the suggestion was made.” The ad went on to say that they were “pleased to have this opportunity to withdraw unreservedly this unfounded suggestion and to apologise most sincerely to Mr. Shane for the considerable distress and embarrassment which he has been caused,” (The Times Literary Supplement, 18 November 1994).

Given the moral panic that prevails on many campuses today, threatening to sue may be a more effective way of discouraging the irresponsible use of intimidating epithets than, say, appeals to this country’s principles of due process and free expression that still remain the envy and goal of so many people throughout the world.

More articles by Trout: Disengaged Students and the Decline in Academic Standards & Flunking the Test: The Dismal Record of Student Evaluations.

Some Commenters Just Don’t Get It

Some commenters are saying that the rightwing is not being racist or using racial rhetoric against Obama, or that anyway, even if they are, the Left does it anyway.

One commenter noted that I have used the phrase “feral Blacks” before, and that’s racist.

Well, I used that phrase to refer to a certain type of thuggish ghetto-type Blacks. Blacks themselves make similar comments all the time. If I implied that all Blacks, or Blacks in general, were feral, well, that would be racist.

But what the rightwingers are doing is saying the equivalent of “feral Blacks” and then tying that in with Obama and his supporters, implying that Obama and his supporters are some sort of gangsta thugs. It’s a lie, and that’s racism.

The difference is that they are using this racially charged language to attack Obama! Why? Because he’s Black? See? And that’s racist.

They aren’t just criticizing Blacks. That’s one thing. They are attacking Obama by playing into White racism, and that’s messed up. And yeah, that’s racist. See, when Clinton was in, we didn’t see all this racially charged language on the Right. Now that Obama is in, we see it, though Obama is just like Clinton really. Well, that’s the definition of racism.

Let’s look at the language bit by bit:

Rush Limbaugh: “We need segregated buses… In Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, right on, right on, right on….”

Wow! Rush needs to start writing for American Renaissance! Segregated buses? Yeah, that’s racism all right.

Fox News’ Glenn Beck went a step further to declare that President Obama “has a deep seated hatred for white people, or the white culture…”

Obama does not hate Whites or White culture. There are Blacks who do, but this law professor – millionaire is not one of them. This is straight out of American Renaissance. The White nationalists are always screaming, “The Blacks are racists who hate us all!” Funny coming from them, since they are racists. Are they opposed to racism, or only when Black people do it? Obama hates White culture. He does? Like Hell he does. That’s racism.

Bill O’Reilly told his viewers that “the left sees white men as a problem” and sees putting women and minorities in power as the solution.

This is a lie when talking about Obama. The Left wingers who talk like that are PC Leftists. Obama is just a liberal Democrat. Liberal Democrats don’t go around talking like Sociology profs who say Whites are the enemy. O’Reilly is saying that Obama is Tim Wise. He’s not. And that’s racism.

Rightwing blogs still abound with charges that a campaign reference to his own grandmother as a “typical white person” reflected anti-white racism on Obama’s part.

It wasn’t racism. I say the same thing about White people all the time. Once again, Obama is not an anti-White racist. He’s more an Oreo who spent his whole life sucking up to the White man.

Accusing Obama himself of being a racist who is deliberately advancing policies that are meant to help people of color at the expense of white people, and foreigners at the expense of Americans is their biggest line of them all.

But it’s not true. There are Black racists, but Obama is not one of them. That’s racism.

Thus, when Jimmy Carter spoke the obvious truth that some of the hostility directed at the Obama presidency is a reflection of racism, the Right went nuts and demanded that Obama disavow these comments.

Denial of racism is one of the techniques that racists use to legitimate their racist bullshit. Denial one’s racism is racism.

Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” remarks were taken out of context to imply that she was some kind of ethnic supremacist, and Tancredo and Limbaugh called her a racist.

Sure, there are Hispanic racists, but she is not one of them. Calling Sotomayer an Hispanic racist is racism.

Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, slammed another potential Obama judicial nominee, Deval Patrick, the African American governor of Massachusetts, as “a racialist extremist and judicial supremacist.”

Deval Patrick is some kind of dashiki-wearing Black nationalist? Give it up, man.

Glenn Beck, for example, has insisted that every single policy initiative that the Obama administration is trying to advance in Congress is grounded in the president’s supposed obsession with getting white Americans to pay reparations for slavery, or as Beck put it, “settling old racial scores.”

This is not true. Obama is opposed to reparations. Accusing Obama of pushing reparations is racism. Really, the whole reparations debate is shot through and through with White racism. There’s a non-racist way to oppose reparations, but they ain’t doing it.

When economist Robert Reich testified that stimulus funds should benefit not only white construction workers but also other groups of workers, some right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin wrongly suggested that the Obama administration was plotting to keep stimulus funds away from white construction workers altogether and have them sent instead to “[Rep. Charlie] Rangel’s pet constituents.”

See, that’s racism. They aren’t going to take money away from White construction workers and give it to inner city Black welfare layabouts. The implication was that all ethnic groups of workers should benefit from stimulus funds. Saying that Obama wants to fire White construction workers and take their paychecks and give them to Black ghetto leeches is racism.

At the recent How to Take Back America conference session on voter fraud and ACORN, Republican activist Kris Kobach, who is running to be Secretary of State in Kansas, asserted that in America nowadays no one is disenfranchised because of the color of their skin; it is now voters like those in the room who are disenfranchised when their votes are canceled out by the supposed voter fraud carried out by ACORN and its allies.

Yeah right! “Voter fraud” perpetrated by ACORN (ACORN Blacks that is) is disenfranchising Whites! First of all, there is no ACORN “voter fraud.” Many people have taken this apart long ago. ACORN paid people, often inner city Blacks, to register new voters. A lot of the registerers were not exactly model citizens. So they made up fake registrations to pad their numbers and collect more money from ACORN.

None of these Mickey Mouses or Donald Ducks are going to be registered to vote, and John Wayne is not going to show up at the voting booth on voting day. All these fake regs are going to be disqualified; none will result in fake new voters. What happened here was ACORN themselves were being ripped off by their own workers.

Saying that ACORN is engaging in voter fraud by falsely registering fake Blacks, or worse! To disenfranchise Whites the same way that Blacks were disenfranchised by poll taxes and whatnot, that’s racism. Straight up, 100 proof.

On right-wing pundit Michele Malkin’s blog, a commenter responding to her Obama is ACORN. ACORN is Obama diatribe, wrote, “Now as President B. Hussein Obama he has credibility as a Marxist, black nationalist and Chicago street hustler/organizer but little else. He could no more disown ACORN then he could Jeremiah Wright or his Typical White Grandmother.”

See, Obama is not a Black nationalist, he is not a Chicago “street hustler” – racist language falsely applied to Obama. Implying that Obama is, among other things, a sleazy Black “street hustler” (What’s that? A pimp?) from the gritty streets of Chicago when he’s not, well, that’s racism.

Investors Business Daily and Fox Nation teamed up to portray health care reform as “affirmative action on steroids” and to suggest that reform is actually a back-door way to implement reparations for slavery:

The racial grievance industry under health care reform could be calling the shots in the emergency room, the operating room, the medical room, even medical school. As Terence Jeffrey, editor at large of Human Events puts it, not only our wealth, but also our health will be redistributed.

See what they are doing? Health care reform is affirmative action in health care. Sick White workers will be tossed out of emergency rooms to make way for worthless inner city Black leeches. Saying that Obama will throw dying Whites out of emergency rooms to die to make way for worthless ghetto Blacks is racism.

At the recent How to Take Back America conference organized by far-right doyenne Phyllis Schlafly and her heir-apparent, right-wing radio host and activist Janet Folger Porter, a panelist attacked health care reform saying it would amount to a reenactment of slavery by our first black president, this time with doctors being enslaved.

But Obama is not re-enacting slavery, this time being a Black slavemaster who is enslaving White workers to supply his welfare Black plantation owners. Equating Obamacare with slavery, except this time it’s Black bums enslaving White workers. That’s racism.

Bishop Harry Jackson, the Religious Right’s favorite African American minister, has denounced health care reform proposals that he claims would divert health care resources from wealthier to poorer Americans as “reverse classism.”

See, this Black guy is playing into anti-Black racism here. He used the phrase “reverse classism” which is a play on reverse racism. Since Whites are wealthier and Blacks are poorer, health care reform is reverse racism, taking money from wealthier White workers and giving it to worthless poorer Black bums. That’s racist language.

Before the election, Bishop Harry Jackson and others suggested that voting for Obama would be voting against God.

Why is it voting against God? Because Black people are evil, the spawn of Satan, devil children. That’s the language of racism, straight out of White Nationalism. Whites have been calling Blacks satanic and evil forever.

But because America did elect Obama, the nation is now living under a curse, declares Janet Porter, and America must repent. Religious Right leaders insist that Obama’s election has put the nation under a “curse” and ask Black Christians to repent for putting “race over God.”

It’s under a curse like a voodoo curse, implying that Obama practices voodoo, a Black religion. He doesn’t. He’s a Christian. That’s racism.

The “birther” movement – the ongoing theory and ludicrous legal campaign alleging that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and therefore not a legitimate president – is all about portraying the president as an African usurper, not one of us.

See? That’s racist. Blacks are not one of us, they are not White people. Black people came from Africa, a foreign continent, you know, like Obama, from Africa. They are not Americans, they are Bantus. This line is straight out of American Renaissance.

Still another theme is the return of “states’ rights” on steroids, such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry earlier this year suggesting that Texas should consider seceding.

But the states rights thing was all about White racism and opposition to integration. For this guy to bring up states rights and secession in the context of a Black President, well, that racism, straight out of 1861.

On MSNBC, commentator Pat Buchanan suggested recently that white Americans are now suffering “exactly what was done to black folks.”

Yeah, right! Blacks are enslaving us, and putting us under some “liberal Jim Crow” regime. Come on! That’s racism.

Republican strategist and commentator Pat Buchanan has complained that presidential candidate John McCain didn’t “drape Jeremiah Wright around the neck of Barack Obama, as Lee Atwater draped Willie Horton around the neck of Michael Dukakis.”

Yeah but see, that Willie Horton thing was a blatantly racist tactic that Bush used to win the election.

“Women Cry For It – Men Die For It!” by Alpha Unit

The 1930s were a volatile time, internationally. The world was moving inexorably toward the deadliest conflict in history, one foreshadowed by conflicts like the Spanish Civil War and the Italian occupation and annexation of Ethiopia. Germany, Japan, and Italy were tightening an alliance against the Soviet Union.

The world had been in a severe economic depression since about 1929, and this depression was partially to blame for a lot of the political upheaval that was taking place on just about every continent.

But all of this pales in comparison to what a certain group of Americans feared around 1936. Forget high unemployment and economic downturn; never mind German troops marching into the Rhineland. What scared the hell out of these people was something far worse, far more sinister and pressing.

The film Reefer Madness laid it all out for parents (obviously the White, middle-class parents) of America.

Over its typically melodramatic 1930’s opening soundtrack of swirling violins and somber horns, its foreword cautioned:

The motion picture you are about to watch may startle you.

Why? Because of its unsettlingly accurate depictions of the effects of “marihuana.”

It would not have been possible, otherwise, to sufficiently emphasize the frightful toll of the new drug menace which is destroying the youth of America in alarmingly-increasing numbers.

After calling marihuana “a violent narcotic,” “an unspeakable scourge,” and “The Real Public Enemy Number One,” the filmmakers inform the viewer of what happens to people when they smoke the stuff.

Its first effect is sudden, violent, uncontrollable laughter…

If you’re ever around a bunch of kids and they suddenly start laughing violently and uncontrollably, they’re probably high. On pot. Next:

Then some dangerous hallucinations – space expands, time slows down, almost stands still…fixed ideas come next, conjuring up monstrous extravagances…

What, exactly, are these fixed ideas and monstrous extravagances? Whatever they are, they are followed by:

…emotional disturbances, the total inability to direct thoughts, the loss of all power to resist physical emotions…

This sounds bad enough, but it’s nothing in comparison to the end result: “acts of shocking violence” and “incurable insanity.”

And then, of course, they proceed to illustrate the corrupting effect of reefer on clean-cut young Americans.

They end up in attendance at parties where there are exuberant piano-playing and out-of-control dancing, which lead to lasciviousness and people dropping onto beds or being taken against their will on sofas. Or, worse yet, killed.

The stress of these events and their aftermath lead to an even more obsessive demand for “reefers” and, eventually, to sheer madness.

It was all part of a campaign to keep America’s children safe from a ubiquitous, noxious, soul-destroying weed. But whose campaign it was remains mysterious. Often you will read that it was financed originally by some kind of “church group,” whatever that means – but sometimes it is suggested that it was produced by the U.S. government, or, specifically, the U.S. Army.

It fell into the hands of people whose main affection was for American dollars. They laced it with some suggestive scenes, gave it its famous title, and made cult film history.

It’s been making people laugh – sometimes suddenly, perhaps uncontrollably – ever since.

Homicidal Music

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Numk9kXDV1o]

Really, is there anything better than homicidal music? I don’t mean better than anything. Of course homicide itself is way more fun than just listening to songs about it, but unfortunately, most of us lead sheltered lives and can’t let our darkest fantasies run wild.

This is a great song, “If I Had a Gun” by a great new singer. Her name is Diana Jones, and she’s 45 years old. She has an interesting history. She was adopted and never knew her real parents. Moved around the Northeast a lot as a kid, ran away from home at 15 and lived on the streets for a while, then to dead-end jobs, and finally she got accepted at a major university.

She got a degree, then went into an MFA program at another university. Later she wandered around Europe, the whole time painting and playing folk songs trying to sound like Bob Dylan and Joan Baez.

Around 10 years ago, she decided to look up her birth parents. It was hard to do, but she finally found them in Tennessee. She went to visit them, and there they were, people who looked just like her, mountain people. Her grandfather took her to Great Smoky Mountains National Park where they have a redone old village.

There they bought an Alan Lomax album. Alan Lomax was an interesting guy. He was a professor at a university, a musicologist who wandered around recording “forgotten music,” especially folk music.

They were listening to the songs, called mountain music, on the way home, and to her surprise, her grandfather knew them all. Turns out he had been a mountain music musician. That got her interested in the genre, and she has been recording mountain music ever since. The phrase mountain music is hardly known, but this type of music is better known as “old-time music.”

This is is the original American folk music.

It goes back to the early 1800’s and possibly even prior. Its roots were generally in English, Scottish and Irish folk music, and you can hear some of that in this song. The banjo is an essential instrument in this genre, and it has an interesting history in the US.

Most of us think that the Black contribution to US music began at the latest in the early 1900’s with Ragtime. Not the case. The banjo in the US was originally a Black instrument, modeled after some sort of an instrument used in Africa.

In Appalachia, Black musicians introduced the banjo in the early 1800’s. There are not many Blacks in Appalachia now, but there were more back then. There were few if any slaves there, even though most of the Appalachian states were slave states. In the Appalachian parts of these states, there was no use for Black slaves.

Many Black slave runaways probably ended up there after taking off from plantations in Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee. Once you got into the mountains, probably nobody was going to find you anyway, and the mountain folk didn’t care about runaway slaves. These areas were very isolated. Many people never left their small Appalachian town in their lives, and most outsiders never went there.

Old-time music was biggest in Appalachia, but it was also present elsewhere, such as in New England, the Midwest, the South and the West. Since these other areas were less isolated, old-time music tended to go out as people were exposed to newer styles, but the remoteness of Appalachia allowed the music to continue on into the 20th Century relatively unchanged.

Old-time music is folk music, but it is not country or bluegrass music. But! Both country music and bluegrass music came out of old-time music. What’s fascinating is that we never think of all the all-White, redneck country and bluegrass music as being even remotely Black-influenced, but if they both came out of Black-influenced old-time music, there is even Black influence in the Whitest of American music.

I’m not too wild about folk proper, and a lot of bluegrass leaves me cold, but this song is killer! I’ve never heard a woman write a song about murdering her abusive husband before – what a great topic!

Her guitar? A 1967 Gibson. What else?

Further, it’s an excellent rejoinder to “Hey Joe,” the great song by Jimi Hendrix.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mBjG9chIFw]

Another great homicidal song is “Violence” by Mott the Hoople. Mott was only one of the greatest rock bands of all time, but almost no one has heard of them these days. They were a pretty big underground band in the 1970’s, and their albums Mott and The Hoople were pretty big hits, but then they broke up. Ian Hunter later went solo.

Viiiii-o-lence, viiiii-o-lence, it’s the only thing that’ll make you see sense!

Well, of course. Once you’ve experienced violence up close and personal, you will respect if for the rest of your life. That’s how it makes you see sense.

I’m a missing link, poolroom stink, I can’t talk (Well that’s too bad) What’s going on, something’s wrong, I can’t work Can’t go to school, the teacher’s a fool, the preacher’s a jerk (Well that’s such a drag) Got nothing to do, street-corner blues, and nowhere to walk Violence, violence It’s the only thing that’ll make you see sense Gotta fight, nothing’s right, livin’ nowhere (That’s so sad) Watch out for the gun, snake on the run, hide in my hair You keep your mouth shut, or you’ll get cut. Haha – I like to scare (Bet you’re so mad) I’m a battery louse, a superstar mouse, I don’t care Get off my back or I’ll attack, ‘n I don’t owe you nothin’ (OK) Head for your hole, you’re sick and you’re old ‘N I’m here to tell you something Violence, violence It’s the only thing that’ll make you see sense

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2LbujFtaUQ]

From the punk era, there was “Homicide” by 999. Great song!

I believe…in homicide!

Resign to it…

Yo!

Sorry for this morbid post, but I was in a killer mood tonite and I could not resist.

Americans = Idiots

I’ve done a few posts here on how we are a brainwashed nation. I really believe that we are about as brainwashed as your average North Korean. Maybe not as frightened, but probably about as brainwashed.

You really don’t need a totalitarian state to brainwash a populace.

Following Gramsci, all you need is Ruling Class control over the media. Check, done, long ago. Actually it has gotten much worse in the last 60 years. After WW 2, we had a large labor press in the US. It’s been decimated and for all intents and purposes no longer exists.

Next you need Ruling Class control over the political parties. Check, done that, especially since 1980 or so.

Combine the political system with the media and you end up with something called “culture,” once again following Gramsci. The Ruling Class, using its political-media monopoly, then takes over the culture. “Popular culture” the lived world of you and me, then in essence becomes Ruling Class Culture. Even the poor and the workers talk like millionaire oligarchs. If a computer’s a dumb as a rock and it only knows what it’s been taught, then so’s a human. We only know what we’ve been taught.

Exhibit A for how exquisitely this system works in praxis:

From a Gallup poll asking an admittedly loaded question, but nevertheless:

“Is Iran a critical threat to U.S. vital interests?” 6

“Is Iran an important threat to U.S. vital interests?” 2

I certainly hope there were more choices than that!

In other words, 9

Unless they’ve figured out that “US vital interests” means “US imperialism,” in which case, I would have answered yes myself.

What do these poor deluded fools think? Do they actually believe that Iran is going to lob a nuke at us and commit national suicide? They don’t even have a nuke, and they won’t sacrifice millions of Iranian lives even if they get one.

"Liberation," by Alpha Unit

Henry Miller wrote a novel over seventy years ago in which the narrator spoke fondly and admiringly of prostitutes – and low-rent prostitutes at that. One of them was quite exuberant in her whoredom – “a whore all the way through,” the narrator says proudly, because she acted the part “with feeling,” even though it was a part she acted for anybody. The novel was Tropic of Cancer. The narrator is an expatriate American writer, committed due to circumstance to live in the present, with a focus on the satisfaction of bodily needs, sort of the way animals live (at one point, he declares himself, happily, to be “inhuman”). The descriptions he gives of how these needs were satisfied – especially those satisfied by prostitutes – shocked and mortified several states and the U.S. Post Office, leading to an obscenity trial that eventually produced a ruling in the publisher’s favor in 1964. I’ve read the opinion that this ruling ushered in what some call the Sexual Revolution – a distinction it shares with some other cultural shifts in post-World War II America. At the very least, it was part of a trend toward more and more openness in the discussion of sex in the United States. Those who came along in the generations after Tropic of Cancer was published sometimes applauded it as an example of a modernistic, stream-of-consciousness style of literature that broke through convention in the same way some earlier novels had. But a lot of people were impressed with it in a different way – they were appalled by the graphic descriptions of sex acts, in the context of sordid encounters, and by the way Henry Miller wrote about women. Women were “cunts.” If they weren’t “cunts” they were “sluts” or “bitches.” But they were mainly “cunts,” whether they were whores or respectable. Feminists have long had a problem with Henry Miller, n’est-ce pas? Seen as some kind of maven of sexual liberation (and perhaps excess), Miller was interviewed during the 1960s by Esquire magazine and others. Naturally, he was asked for his assessment of the “new” sexual climate in America. The interviewer David Dury asked Miller if he was bored with sex – referring to the openness with which Americans could speak of it and partake of it. Miller responded:

One can’t get bored with sex. But one is bored with making such a tremendous issue of it. This constant harping on sex all the time is so immature, not just sexually, but socially and politically. It’s as though we’re a race of adolescents.

Dury tells Miller, that it is he, Miller, who harps on it in his books, but Miller’s not having it.

I harped on trying to get at the whole truth of one man: myself. Sex was a big part of that, but no matter how you add it up, in pages or print or words or volumes, it was only a part. It just happened that this was the part that had shock value.

Miller agrees with Dury that all the talk about sex is better than the old ignorance and secrecy that once prevailed. He adds:

But because in the past we have been so Goddamned backward about sex, this revolution is causing sex to become a preoccupation. This I find sad, and even deplorable in many ways.

According to Miller, sex is now a commodity, but what’s worse is that women were becoming commodities. There is a lot of promiscuity, but no passion or vitality. Miller lets Dury in on what things used to be like in the “bad” old days:

During my time, the girls were so shut in, and you were always watched. Now everybody’s free about sex, but they’re shut in in other ways. In the old days the great difference was that when we were committing these – What are they calling them? Adulteries? Fornications? Illicit sex? Ridiculous words! When we did it, we did it! We didn’t sit around and talk about it first, intellectualize it. There was always pleasure involved. I mean, great fun! For everybody! Joy, do you see? That’s the big difference, that element of joy! Joy in sex! You’d have to be a blind man not to see it. In my time, either they weren’t having any sex because of too much guilt, or they were having wonderfully joyous sex. Now everyone’s having sex, the guilty ones probably more than anyone – but it’s so joyless, so much of it.

Dury asks Miller, “Do you consider sex without love to be harmful?” To which Miller replies:

There’s nothing wrong with sex without love. But much more is needed, because just to have a good sex fling isn’t enough, there has to be something more. A man has to fall in love. He has to want something more of the woman and see more in her than an object to be used.

Does this sound like any misogynist you know? The next question is, “What exactly do you think men are missing in the way they relate to women sexually now?” I love Miller’s response, as most women probably would!

They’re missing a lot of things. For one, there’s no adoration for women! Now there’s another word I would like to emphasize – adoration! Where do we have any adoration today in our talk about women and sex? I believe in adoration, not only in relation to women, but in relation to men as well, where the man above you is someone you adore and admire and want to emulate, the adoration for a master. This is completely lost in our society today. Instead of adoration for women, men seem to be just always on the chase.

This was all from a man who was seen as someone who despised women and saw sex as nothing but an outlet for a crude impulse – a conclusion people arrived at on the basis of a work of art. Miller gave this interview back in 1966. I can only imagine what he would think of the way a lot of men see women today. The contempt with which some of these pickup artists speak of women would probably be gravely disturbing to him! But, as always, the problem is not that simple. The feminism that opened so many doors for women and created so many opportunities for them – a development Miller looked upon favorably – has contributed enormously to the disgust so many men exhibit toward women. In another interview with Dury, Henry Miller expressed a fear that the sexual revolution was “masculinizing” women – something that would be to their detriment. With foresight, he told his interviewer:

These aggressive females, particularly the American type, aren’t improving their situation vis-a-vis the male…I am sincerely convinced that a woman’s greatest reward comes from the role of – what shall we call it? – stimulator and comforter. Now if she takes the greater independence and equality necessary for her own development, and becomes masculinized by it, then she is the tragic loser, as much or more than the man. She loses her powers as the seductress, when she becomes masculinized…She’s best when she’s that way. And it’s also best for the man. It brings out all that is masculine about him.

But Dury isn’t giving up entirely on the idea of female independence and equality. Couldn’t these make the woman a better seductress? Miller answers:

Yes, it really should. But if it makes her equally aggressive in the male sense, instead of truly seductive, then it will be like two machines coming together…put a coin in the slot and bang! bang! You see? The poetic prelude and the art of it all will be gone. Just get it over with, bim-bam! I still believe a man really wants to woo a woman. It gives him great satisfaction, don’t you think?

Henry Miller dismissed the idea that he had ever set out to be some kind of expert on sex or love. But for someone who for decades endured a reputation for being some kind of hypermasculine woman-hater, the truth about him is quite refreshing. Could it be that lurking inside your average latter-day misogynist is a romantic who, sadly, has given up?

References

Miller, H., Kersnowski, F. & Hughes, A. 1994. Conversations with Henry Miller. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.

“Liberation,” by Alpha Unit

Henry Miller wrote a novel over seventy years ago in which the narrator spoke fondly and admiringly of prostitutes – and low-rent prostitutes at that. One of them was quite exuberant in her whoredom – “a whore all the way through,” the narrator says proudly, because she acted the part “with feeling,” even though it was a part she acted for anybody.

The novel was Tropic of Cancer. The narrator is an expatriate American writer, committed due to circumstance to live in the present, with a focus on the satisfaction of bodily needs, sort of the way animals live (at one point, he declares himself, happily, to be “inhuman”). The descriptions he gives of how these needs were satisfied – especially those satisfied by prostitutes – shocked and mortified several states and the U.S. Post Office, leading to an obscenity trial that eventually produced a ruling in the publisher’s favor in 1964.

I’ve read the opinion that this ruling ushered in what some call the Sexual Revolution – a distinction it shares with some other cultural shifts in post-World War II America. At the very least, it was part of a trend toward more and more openness in the discussion of sex in the United States.

Those who came along in the generations after Tropic of Cancer was published sometimes applauded it as an example of a modernistic, stream-of-consciousness style of literature that broke through convention in the same way some earlier novels had.

But a lot of people were impressed with it in a different way – they were appalled by the graphic descriptions of sex acts, in the context of sordid encounters, and by the way Henry Miller wrote about women. Women were “cunts.” If they weren’t “cunts” they were “sluts” or “bitches.” But they were mainly “cunts,” whether they were whores or respectable.

Feminists have long had a problem with Henry Miller, n’est-ce pas?

Seen as some kind of maven of sexual liberation (and perhaps excess), Miller was interviewed during the 1960s by Esquire magazine and others. Naturally, he was asked for his assessment of the “new” sexual climate in America.

The interviewer David Dury asked Miller if he was bored with sex – referring to the openness with which Americans could speak of it and partake of it. Miller responded:

One can’t get bored with sex. But one is bored with making such a tremendous issue of it. This constant harping on sex all the time is so immature, not just sexually, but socially and politically. It’s as though we’re a race of adolescents.

Dury tells Miller, that it is he, Miller, who harps on it in his books, but Miller’s not having it.

I harped on trying to get at the whole truth of one man: myself. Sex was a big part of that, but no matter how you add it up, in pages or print or words or volumes, it was only a part. It just happened that this was the part that had shock value.

Miller agrees with Dury that all the talk about sex is better than the old ignorance and secrecy that once prevailed. He adds:

But because in the past we have been so Goddamned backward about sex, this revolution is causing sex to become a preoccupation. This I find sad, and even deplorable in many ways.

According to Miller, sex is now a commodity, but what’s worse is that women were becoming commodities. There is a lot of promiscuity, but no passion or vitality.

Miller lets Dury in on what things used to be like in the “bad” old days:

During my time, the girls were so shut in, and you were always watched. Now everybody’s free about sex, but they’re shut in in other ways. In the old days the great difference was that when we were committing these – What are they calling them? Adulteries? Fornications? Illicit sex? Ridiculous words!

When we did it, we did it! We didn’t sit around and talk about it first, intellectualize it. There was always pleasure involved. I mean, great fun! For everybody! Joy, do you see? That’s the big difference, that element of joy! Joy in sex! You’d have to be a blind man not to see it.

In my time, either they weren’t having any sex because of too much guilt, or they were having wonderfully joyous sex. Now everyone’s having sex, the guilty ones probably more than anyone – but it’s so joyless, so much of it.

Dury asks Miller, “Do you consider sex without love to be harmful?” To which Miller replies:

There’s nothing wrong with sex without love. But much more is needed, because just to have a good sex fling isn’t enough, there has to be something more. A man has to fall in love. He has to want something more of the woman and see more in her than an object to be used.

Does this sound like any misogynist you know?

The next question is, “What exactly do you think men are missing in the way they relate to women sexually now?” I love Miller’s response, as most women probably would!

They’re missing a lot of things. For one, there’s no adoration for women! Now there’s another word I would like to emphasize – adoration! Where do we have any adoration today in our talk about women and sex? I believe in adoration, not only in relation to women, but in relation to men as well, where the man above you is someone you adore and admire and want to emulate, the adoration for a master.

This is completely lost in our society today. Instead of adoration for women, men seem to be just always on the chase.

This was all from a man who was seen as someone who despised women and saw sex as nothing but an outlet for a crude impulse – a conclusion people arrived at on the basis of a work of art.

Miller gave this interview back in 1966. I can only imagine what he would think of the way a lot of men see women today. The contempt with which some of these pickup artists speak of women would probably be gravely disturbing to him!

But, as always, the problem is not that simple. The feminism that opened so many doors for women and created so many opportunities for them – a development Miller looked upon favorably – has contributed enormously to the disgust so many men exhibit toward women. In another interview with Dury, Henry Miller expressed a fear that the sexual revolution was “masculinizing” women – something that would be to their detriment.

With foresight, he told his interviewer:

These aggressive females, particularly the American type, aren’t improving their situation vis-a-vis the male…I am sincerely convinced that a woman’s greatest reward comes from the role of – what shall we call it? – stimulator and comforter.

Now if she takes the greater independence and equality necessary for her own development, and becomes masculinized by it, then she is the tragic loser, as much or more than the man. She loses her powers as the seductress, when she becomes masculinized…She’s best when she’s that way. And it’s also best for the man. It brings out all that is masculine about him.

But Dury isn’t giving up entirely on the idea of female independence and equality. Couldn’t these make the woman a better seductress? Miller answers:

Yes, it really should. But if it makes her equally aggressive in the male sense, instead of truly seductive, then it will be like two machines coming together…put a coin in the slot and bang! bang! You see? The poetic prelude and the art of it all will be gone. Just get it over with, bim-bam! I still believe a man really wants to woo a woman. It gives him great satisfaction, don’t you think?

Henry Miller dismissed the idea that he had ever set out to be some kind of expert on sex or love. But for someone who for decades endured a reputation for being some kind of hypermasculine woman-hater, the truth about him is quite refreshing.

Could it be that lurking inside your average latter-day misogynist is a romantic who, sadly, has given up?

References

Miller, H., Kersnowski, F. & Hughes, A. 1994. Conversations with Henry Miller. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.

Interesting Take on the Outrageous Supreme Court Decision

When these clowns Roberts and Alito came up for nomination for the Supreme Court under ultra-rightwing George Bush’s Administration, the few of us who are sane were saying all along that these guys were a nightmare in waiting. Almost none of my “liberal” friends believed me. After all, I’m Chicken Little. The Democratic Party completely caved in to the ultraright radicals that Bush nominated, saying in effect that they were just fine. Alito in particular was outrageous, lying for days on the stand.

Now we’ve come full circle and as usual, Chicken Little me was right and my liberal friends and the idiot Democratic Party were dead wrong. Perhaps you have heard of the Citizens United vs. FEC case (full court brief)that was decided on January 21, 2010. First of all, the case is the most egregious case of judicial activism. Based on in stare decesis, the Court is supposed to allow lower court rulings to stand, in this case an appellate court ruling. Further, the finding that the court ruled on was one that the plaintiffs had already agreed to drop in lower court.

In order to overrule the lower court, there must be a clear, present and immediate public need involved. What is the clear and present public need in overturning all of our campaign financing laws?

It’s much worse than that. We are now not allowed to put any limits whatsoever on campaign contributions by the corporations and the rich. Medical lobbies spent $1.5 million/day during the Heath Care Reform debate to kill progressive reform. There are now estimates that we could see lobbies spending up to 30-50 times as much as they are currently spending. That’s a tsunami of campaign cash.

Those of you who don’t live in the US don’t know what it’s like. Especially during election season, you are bombarded with an endless barrage of big-money and corporate commercials on the TV. Turn on the radio and it’s similar. Open your mailbox and and an avalanche of corporate brochures piles into your lap. Open a newspaper and there are huge big money and corporate full page ads all through our biggest papers.

Never mind that nearly all of the TV and radio stations, large newspapers and newsmagazines are already more or less exact mouthpieces of these same corporate and big money interests.

In every way that makes sense, America is now an oligarchy. Like similar oligarchical shitholes scattered all of over the ruined Third World, the class interests are foreordained. On my Maoist list, a Maoist recently said that it is the position of the moneyed classes everywhere on Earth to be ultraright.

This is their logical position. They can’t be blamed for it anymore than a shark can be blamed for attacking a swimmer. In the ruined Third World, the rich and the upper middle classes and sadly often the entire business class always lines up with the most ferociously reactionary wing of the oligarchy.

Tragically, much of the middle class often does the same. Recall that Marx said that the middle classes always ally themselves with the rich. In the US, typically once anyone gets any money at all, they usually move into this ultra-right position. This is particularly true if they make their fat cash working for a corporation.

So this is what we’ve become. A wealthy version of a Third World oligarchical ultra-right shithole. The stolen elections are already here. The oligarchs have a death grip on the media. Civil liberties are winding down. So what’s next?

In the event of any profound Left uprising, even unarmed such as Guatemala 1954, El Salvador 1980, Aristide in Haiti, Chavez in Venezuela, Allende in Chile, Morales in Bolivia, Correa in Ecuador, Dominican Republic 1965 or Brazil 1964, I would assume the US would quickly witness military coups, death squads and possibly even armed guerrillas on the Left as a response. If a Left regime came to power, we may well see armed contras, probably funded by the rich and the corporations.

The law shreds 100 years of laws by state and federal governments that attempted to limit campaign contributions. David Souter dourly noted this in his dissent.

The following is an interesting argument from a website I’m a member of suggesting that the decision was treason. Reason being that the court refused to say that foreigners could not also spend as much as they wanted to influence US issues and elections. This means that the only way to stop foreigners from flooding our political debates and campaigns with cash to buy their way to control over our nation is for the Congress to stop them by passing a law.

But such a law can never be passed because an openly treasonous party, the Republican Party, will never pass any law limiting foreigners right to spend whatever they can to influence our debates and elections. So we’re screwed.

Many are suggesting an Amendment of the Constitution. This will not work. We need 67 votes in the Senate, and we don’t have them. Then we need 7

By any fair legal definition, the decision yesterday by The Supreme Court 5 constitutes nothing less than an act of treason against the people of the United States. Having read and analyzed the entire 183 page decision and all of its concurring and dissenting opinions ourselves, we are fully prepared to support this accusatory conclusion.

Having so grossly abused its jurisdiction by presuming to decide a question expressly waived by the petitioner in the Court below (p 12), this rogue Supreme Court ruled for the first time that no corporation can be constrained from unlimited influence over our elections.

And even assuming that the Court intended the decision to only apply to American corporations, the Court expressly declined (pp 46-47) to reach the question of whether foreign ownership stakes in American corporations should likewise be given carte blanche to put their thumbs on the scales of our democracy.

Thus, until Congress further acts (and it must, though it could not have escaped the attention of The Supreme Court 5 that the current Republican minority has vowed to obstruct anything of consequence that Congress might try to pass), there is now nothing to constrain foreign nationals, even our most sworn enemies, from usurping what even the most die hard Tea Bagger takes as an article of faith, that the rights of citizenship of this country are only for Americans.

This must be construed, within the four corners of our Constitution, as deliberately and knowingly exposing the United States of America to harm in the interim, by giving “aid and comfort” to our enemies (Constitution Article 3, section 3), should our enemies now wish to take advantage of this unprecedented and rash decision. In simple constitutional terms . . . treason!!

The fact is that we now live in a world of giant transnational corporations, with allegiance to no sovereign government, let alone our own, sworn only to exploit the most vulnerable and desperate workers they can find in any country of the world. How does The Supreme Court 5 propose parsing which of these extra-national legal artificialities should be allowed to corrupt our democratic election process? Apparently in their minds, all of them.

So what is it that we can and must do? The first and most prominent proposal we heard yesterday, and which we of course support, was to amend the Constitution to clarify that corporations have no such rights as people (which is to say U.S. citizens).

While this certainly could not hurt, and would obviously help (assuming such an proposed amendment could garner 67 votes in a Senate already stalemated by obstructionism, let alone be ratified by 3/4 of the states, including many “red” ones), what we must first assert is that there is nothing wrong with our Constitution, and demand that Congress do whatever it can to protect it.

Because just as importantly, we are on ominous and clear notice that there is no further outrage these 5 gangsters in black robes are not gleefully and arrogantly capable of. Indeed, in his dissenting opinion (that the majority did not go far enough), Clarence Thomas characterized the decision as only a “first step” (Thomas opinion p. 1).

It is worth nothing that the authorship of the majority opinion is claimed by Anthony M. Kennedy, heretofore generally considered the least wing nutty of the 5. Therefore, the immediate and unavoidably necessary recourse must be impeachment for all five, treason already being a high crime, otherwise the horrors yet to issue from their treacherous minds is too terrible to contemplate.

Does a Higher IQ Make You Superior?

There’s a debate raging in the comments section about race and IQ. I’m staying out of it, but if you’re familiar with this blog, you know very well how I stand on this issue. In some ways, I feel that the less said about it the better, although it’s true I do talk about it a lot on here. That’s because I’m trying to fashion some sort of a progressive response that’s fair to all ethnic groups out of the very un-PC facts on the ground. I’m more interested in raising IQ on this blog. That’s why you see all these posts on the Flynn Effect. Anyway, enough about me.

In the debate, Tulio makes an interesting observation:

Many people feel that if you say one group is collectively less intelligent than another, that is akin to saying that group is “inferior”. After thinking about it though, I’m not sure why someone being of less intelligence makes them inferior. No matter how smart you are, there is always someone smarter. Do you feel that you are inferior or less human than that person? I don’t. Do White Gentiles walk around with an inferiority complex to Jews? Or feel that they are inferior? I’ve never seen it.

Why does being smarter make someone superior per se? We don’t think that on an individual level, so why on a racial level? It just means they’re better at abstract reasoning on average. It doesn’t say whether you have common sense, whether you’re a nice person, a hard worker, a loyal friend, sociable, obey the law or gazillion other qualities we judge people on. Doesn’t say anything about them having superior humanity.

Tulio makes an excellent point. In ordinary society, the one I live in, no one cares about brains. I just went to the drug store to fill a prescription. There were mostly Hispanics in there, and I know some of them. A few poor Whites too. One thing I can tell you for sure: Not one of those people in that store gives two shits about IQ! Or even intelligence, really.

As someone with a genius IQ (over 140), I can tell you, it’s not so great.

You know how many people in Meatspace think my stratospheric IQ is cool? Just about zero!  It doesn’t benefit me in life. One more thing. You know how many chicks in Meatspace think that Chicago Tower of an IQ is cool? Just about zero! It’s been this way my whole life. No one cares if you’re a brain. Definitely, no one has ever thought that that made me a superior person! I did, sure, but who cares what I think? What matters is society. Society does not treat us brains like we are superior! If anything, it’s the opposite.

So in the real world Meatspace of ordinary humans, no one gives two shits about IQ or even intelligence really. Although I have done extremely well with women in my life, nevertheless, all my life, females have been abandoning and scorning us brains in favor of blockhead dumbass hulking caveman, thug and jock types. I don’t chicks don’t even want to screw brainy guys unless they have something else going like Game or Looks! They want to screw double digit IQ caveman with a club types.

So what good is a high IQ? Sometimes I wonder. But in general, society does not treat a higher IQ group, not to mention individual, as superior to a lower IQ group or individual, assuming the low IQ folks are not so dumb that it’s obvious that something is wrong.

In Meatspace, if you bring up IQ, you get resentful stares and attempts to change the conversation. Please don’t think this is something that happens to me a lot. I don’t do this very often because I know how people think. I do bring up my IQ in Meatspace sometimes, but 9

However, I do bring it up on the Web, but not very often either because I know how people think. But I have brought it up a few times on this site. And why not? This is an IQ blog after all where we talk about IQ as one of our main subjects of interest. But I can’t bring this up at all on the Web. I get slammed all the time for discussing my own numbers on here.  Now I don’t think discussing your own achievements is bragging – bragging is more in how you do it. What is interesting though is that I have “bragged” about quite a few other things on here, and no one cared, or I got nothing but praise. But IQ? Nope.

It’s funny a guy can go on and on about his achievements with women, in business, in sports and in building up his bank account, and the chicks will shower him with propositions and flirtations like confetti at a parade. But dare mention those two upper case letters denoting intelligence quotient, and most females will start screaming at you and calling you a braggart.

They’re lying, but women always lie. Thing is, women don’t care about braggarts; if anything, they like them. The biggest braggarts get the most and best women. It’s just that to women, they only give you pussy points for bragging about certain things, like the size of your damned wallet! The size of your IQ has no importance to a female in terms of their libido (in fact, it probably cools them down), so they raise a hissy fit if you bring it up.

Even around a bunch of White people, IQ even in general, leaving your own numbers aside, is not a popular subject. People start squirming in their chairs and trying to change the subject. Why? Because as far as IQ goes, even most Whites don’t have a very high one! So they resent the whole conversation. Even Whites with IQ’s around 115-120 or so or resent it, because they’re insecure, and they think that’s too low.

If you tell Whites that Blacks have lower IQ’s than Whites, most have never heard of it. Some are intrigued.

“Really?”, they ask, eyes twinkling with intrigue.

“Yep, it’s true.”

Then they sort of chuckle and say, “Well, that figures,” or “I always thought so.”

But then they move back into the “Yeah, but IQ means nothing” thing.

If you tell Hispanics, at first of course they don’t understand the whole subject (What do you expect?), then they mildly disagree.

“No way, it’s not true.” But they’re not agitated, just dismissive.

Then you convince them that it’s true.

Then they say, “Yeah well, so what? Who cares?”

The White nationalists and cognitive elite types have a dream. If they keep pounding away at this race-IQ thingie, at some point the evidence will become so overwhelming that Joe Sixpack White Guy will put down his beer, say, “Niggers ain’t got no brains!”, vote to rescind the Civil Rights and Fair Housing Acts, affirmative action, and all anti-discrimination laws, then I guess shave his head, and what? Move to Idaho?

Forget it! Your average White person is not that smart and resents the whole IQ subject and debate for that very reason. This issue will never resonate with average White people.

The charming folks hoping to spark the Great White Revolution would do better to focus on Black crime, an issue that resonates much better with average Whites.

"What's Eating Rufus Griswold?" by Alpha Unit

Rufus Griswold is a fascinating character, but hardly anyone has ever heard of him anymore. Most of the events below were happening in the 1830’s and 1840’s. He was part of the Young America movement along with Longfellow, Thoreau, Emerson, Lowell, Bryant and some others. This movement sought to create a real American literature rooted in the continent. Logically, it also sought to break away from Britain. There was also a big debate about Classics in education at this time. Classics had always been a big part of education in Britain, if not in Europe as a whole. The new American literary crowd sought to do away with or reduce the level of Classical study by US students. Studying the Classics was also an Elitist thing, since the son of your average American worker or farmer could hardly understand Homer or Juvenal. So getting rid of Classics was a way to democratize education. AU touches on Griswold’s lies about Poe’s character. These lies continued in almost every Poe biography for the next 100 hundred years, but finally historians got the truth mostly sorted out from the fantasies. It’s interesting that Poe’s fans loved these scurrilous and character-assassinating lies, since they made him seem “evil,” and they wanted to see Poe as an evil man, the better to go along with terrifying stories. The part about mourning his dead wife is incredible. I think he must have set a Guinness world record for Greatest Mourner of all Time. He was a defamer and character assassin, variously described by contemporaries as a liar, “irritable,” “vindictive,” “an ass.” He was a forger and a cheat. A licensed clergyman who was, by all accounts, as thoroughly un-Christian as they come. He was Rufus Wilmot Griswold, newspaper editor and literary critic. He adored and detested with a passion. And nothing could excite him more than his intended target’s demise. Griswold is usually given credit for being one of the first influential people to push the teaching of American poetry alongside English poetry in American schools. He is also usually noted for publicly supporting copyright law at a time it was being considered (his reputation being that he shamelessly stole from other writers). But if not for his association with the American poet Edgar Allan Poe, no one would probably know or care who he was. It was in his dealings with Poe that he achieved lasting notoriety. Poe’s death became Griswold’s shining moment, in a sense. Both Griswold and Poe were writers with backgrounds in journalism. Poe submitted poems to Griswold for inclusion in an anthology of American poetry; Griswold included several of them. Poe then arranged to write a review of the anthology. Poe’s review included some mild criticisms of the book; but even these were evidently too much for Griswold. In addition, Poe expressed his true feelings about the book in private letters. In one, he called it “a most outrageous humbug,” and, in another, he divulged his belief that Griswold’s help in getting the review published was intended as a bribe for a favorable review. These events were the opening salvo in a war of recriminations between Griswold and Poe, a war that outlasted Poe. Once Poe was departed, Griswold’s hostility toward him took on a new and almost surreal twist. He pseudonymously published an obituary of Poe that amounted to character assassination. But Griswold was just getting warmed up. He subsequently made the claim – a dubious one, it appears – that he was Poe’s literary executor and was therefore authorized to edit a posthumous collection of Poe’s works, for the supposed benefit of Poe’s survivors. Poe’s survivors didn’t see any of the profits from the collection. If that wasn’t enough, a third volume included more attacks on Poe. According to one account:

[Griswold] even forged letters from Poe to exaggerate his own role as Poe’s benefactor and to alienate Poe’s friends. Poe’s choice not to return to the University of Virginia became expulsion for wild and reckless behavior. Poe’s honorable discharge from the army became desertion. Once again, Poe’s friends came to his defense, but Griswold had done his work well. For every magazine that carried a condemnation of Griswold’s infamy, three repeated his titillating slanders.

Talk about an inability to “let it go.” There was no escape, apparently, from being the focus of Griswold’s passions, not for Poe, but also not for his first wife, Caroline, who might have elicited more devotion from him in death than she ever had while alive. Upon being informed that both she and their third child had died not long after delivery, he became the soul of despondency.

Deeply shocked, Griswold traveled by train alongside her coffin, refusing to leave her side for 30 hours. When fellow passengers urged him to try to sleep, he answered by kissing her dead lips and embracing her, his two children crying next to him. He refused to leave the cemetery after her funeral, even after he other mourners had left, until forced to do so by a relative. Griswold had difficulty believing she had died and often dreamed of their reunion. Forty days after her entombment, he entered her vault, cut off a lock of her hair, kissed her on the forehead and lips, and wept for several hours, staying by her side until a friend found him 30 hours later.

A colorful character, and one who apparently attached some significance to doing something for 30 hours. One scholar who has documented some of Griswold’s behavior suggests that Griswold was mentally ill. He does come across as obsessive. And those he felt strongly about couldn’t even be the focus of attention upon their deaths. When I review some of the descriptions of narcissism, it’s very tempting to go through a checklist and say,”Yep – that’s Griswold, all right!” But does diagnosing him really make him any more sympathetic? Isn’t anybody just a good old-fashioned son of a bitch anymore?

“What’s Eating Rufus Griswold?” by Alpha Unit

Rufus Griswold is a fascinating character, but hardly anyone has ever heard of him anymore. Most of the events below were happening in the 1830’s and 1840’s. He was part of the Young America movement along with Longfellow, Thoreau, Emerson, Lowell, Bryant and some others. This movement sought to create a real American literature rooted in the continent. Logically, it also sought to break away from Britain.

There was also a big debate about Classics in education at this time. Classics had always been a big part of education in Britain, if not in Europe as a whole. The new American literary crowd sought to do away with or reduce the level of Classical study by US students. Studying the Classics was also an Elitist thing, since the son of your average American worker or farmer could hardly understand Homer or Juvenal. So getting rid of Classics was a way to democratize education.

AU touches on Griswold’s lies about Poe’s character. These lies continued in almost every Poe biography for the next 100 hundred years, but finally historians got the truth mostly sorted out from the fantasies. It’s interesting that Poe’s fans loved these scurrilous and character-assassinating lies, since they made him seem “evil,” and they wanted to see Poe as an evil man, the better to go along with terrifying stories.

The part about mourning his dead wife is incredible. I think he must have set a Guinness world record for Greatest Mourner of all Time.

He was a defamer and character assassin, variously described by contemporaries as a liar, “irritable,” “vindictive,” “an ass.” He was a forger and a cheat. A licensed clergyman who was, by all accounts, as thoroughly un-Christian as they come.

He was Rufus Wilmot Griswold, newspaper editor and literary critic. He adored and detested with a passion. And nothing could excite him more than his intended target’s demise.

Griswold is usually given credit for being one of the first influential people to push the teaching of American poetry alongside English poetry in American schools. He is also usually noted for publicly supporting copyright law at a time it was being considered (his reputation being that he shamelessly stole from other writers).

But if not for his association with the American poet Edgar Allan Poe, no one would probably know or care who he was. It was in his dealings with Poe that he achieved lasting notoriety. Poe’s death became Griswold’s shining moment, in a sense.

Both Griswold and Poe were writers with backgrounds in journalism. Poe submitted poems to Griswold for inclusion in an anthology of American poetry; Griswold included several of them. Poe then arranged to write a review of the anthology.

Poe’s review included some mild criticisms of the book; but even these were evidently too much for Griswold. In addition, Poe expressed his true feelings about the book in private letters. In one, he called it “a most outrageous humbug,” and, in another, he divulged his belief that Griswold’s help in getting the review published was intended as a bribe for a favorable review.

These events were the opening salvo in a war of recriminations between Griswold and Poe, a war that outlasted Poe.

Once Poe was departed, Griswold’s hostility toward him took on a new and almost surreal twist. He pseudonymously published an obituary of Poe that amounted to character assassination. But Griswold was just getting warmed up. He subsequently made the claim – a dubious one, it appears – that he was Poe’s literary executor and was therefore authorized to edit a posthumous collection of Poe’s works, for the supposed benefit of Poe’s survivors.

Poe’s survivors didn’t see any of the profits from the collection. If that wasn’t enough, a third volume included more attacks on Poe. According to one account:

[Griswold] even forged letters from Poe to exaggerate his own role as Poe’s benefactor and to alienate Poe’s friends.

Poe’s choice not to return to the University of Virginia became expulsion for wild and reckless behavior. Poe’s honorable discharge from the army became desertion.

Once again, Poe’s friends came to his defense, but Griswold had done his work well. For every magazine that carried a condemnation of Griswold’s infamy, three repeated his titillating slanders.

Talk about an inability to “let it go.”

There was no escape, apparently, from being the focus of Griswold’s passions, not for Poe, but also not for his first wife, Caroline, who might have elicited more devotion from him in death than she ever had while alive.

Upon being informed that both she and their third child had died not long after delivery, he became the soul of despondency.

Deeply shocked, Griswold traveled by train alongside her coffin, refusing to leave her side for 30 hours. When fellow passengers urged him to try to sleep, he answered by kissing her dead lips and embracing her, his two children crying next to him. He refused to leave the cemetery after her funeral, even after he other mourners had left, until forced to do so by a relative.

Griswold had difficulty believing she had died and often dreamed of their reunion. Forty days after her entombment, he entered her vault, cut off a lock of her hair, kissed her on the forehead and lips, and wept for several hours, staying by her side until a friend found him 30 hours later.

A colorful character, and one who apparently attached some significance to doing something for 30 hours.

One scholar who has documented some of Griswold’s behavior suggests that Griswold was mentally ill. He does come across as obsessive. And those he felt strongly about couldn’t even be the focus of attention upon their deaths.

When I review some of the descriptions of narcissism, it’s very tempting to go through a checklist and say,”Yep – that’s Griswold, all right!” But does diagnosing him really make him any more sympathetic? Isn’t anybody just a good old-fashioned son of a bitch anymore?

Racism and Opposition to Heath Care Reform

I haven’t written much about health care lately because the whole reform process is so sickening. They’re about to kill the public option and that means no reform. The “reform” is going to be to force every American to buy overpriced evil private health insurance, and if you don’t, the IRS will come after you. Great! Some reform! It will be the biggest shift in income from working non-parasitic human Americans to corporate parasitic shitballs in the history of America.

Why? All so Black people don’t get free health care! Way to go racists! Way to skin your own asses to save your racist hides.

This would have been a Euro-socialist country decades ago were it not for tens of millions of racist White Americans. If you want to be a racist, that’s your problem, but I have issues with White dickheads who have turned a great country into a wealthy version of a banana republic just to “stick it to the niggers.”

Found on the Internet. Oh no! Opposition to health care reform, which will benefit tens of millions of White workers, has nothing to do with race! Those anti-Obama crowds of 100,000 where 9

How Much IQ Gain Might We See in Africans Transplanted to the West?

This is an interesting question that we have been discussing in the comments threads.

I haven’t taken an official position on genetics and IQ yet, because I don’t want to say that some race or another, particularly, say Blacks or Hispanics, is genetically inferior to some other race. It’s not something I want to believe, much less say. At some point, the evidence will become so overwhelming that one will look like a kook if you deny that, but we are not really there yet.

I deeply fear that this may be the case though. Nevertheless, the evidence is not yet so clear-cut that one is almost engaging in pseudo-science to deny it, hence it is still safe to hedge one’s bets and be an IQ agnostic.

One of my principal agendas on this blog, though, is to fight the (what I call) pseudo-science that says IQ and other intelligence tests are meaningless in terms of measuring brainpower; that is, I advocate that IQ tests are indeed meaningful and real measures and are not culturally biased or whatever.

This latter is still a common position, especially in the softer sciences, but increasingly I feel that it needs to be called out as BS. One can certainly be a Leftist and believe in the reality of IQ and other psychometric tests. An acquaintance of mine, James Flynn (discoverer of the Flynn Effect), is a Leftist who very much believes in the reality of IQ.

Deep inside though, I really do fear that genetic Black IQ may be as low as ~70, possibly ~67. That’s what it is in Africa. Caribbean Blacks with a bit of White in them and maybe a better environment only score ~71. I really think that the true genetic IQ of US Blacks ought to be ~72.5, just going by their African + White mix.

What is very strange though is that the US Black is so unaccountably high, why it is ~87 and not ~72.5, where we would expect it to be on account of their genetics. In other words, US Black IQ is way too high to be explained by genetics alone.

No one really knows why this is. Either they engaged in some eugenics while here in the past 100 years or so to select for higher IQ’s, or the nutrition and extremely advanced environment of the US has jolted the IQ up. Anyway, the evidence seems to suggest a gain of about 15 IQ points in US Blacks, relative to Whites in about 100-125 years.

Concomitantly, we have seen a massive increase in head size in US Blacks. The head size changes seem to be due partly to nutrition but also partly to genetics.

The only way they could be due to genetics is if US Blacks have been eugenically selecting for IQ somehow in the past 125 years. At the same time, the US Black phenotype has become much more progressive and much less archaic, particularly with regard to prognathism. That is, in the past 125 years, US Blacks seem to have been selecting for both more progressive features and higher IQ. This makes sense since more progressive phenotypes tend to have higher IQ’s.

So Blacks closed the B-W IQ gap in the US by about 15 points in the past 125 years. Now that right there is quite shocking!

Then we have Britain. Several lines of evidence suggest that Anglo-Jamaican IQ in the UK ought to be ~72. That’s what is in Jamaica. Nevertheless, Jamaican Blacks have about the same IQ’s as US Blacks (86 to ~87 for US Blacks).

This is very odd, but it lines right up with the evidence from the US, and suggests that merely moving Blacks in an advanced Western environment results in an IQ gain of about 15 points. In Black kids, it’s even higher. Black kids in the UK and US have IQ’s as high as 95 (age 5). It does plunge back down, but once again, that looks like the Western environment is jacking up Black kids’ IQ’s by up to 25 pts.! Now that does drop to a 15 pt gain with adulthood, but still.

I think this is hopeful. To me this suggests that if you move Africans into a Western environment, by the second generation, their IQ’s could well gain up to 15 pts. If the average African IQ is 67, that would give them IQ’s of 82. That’s not great, but it’s probably workable. India and Pakistan have IQ’s in that range, and they more or less function.

What worries me is the possibility that Blacks in the West can only achieve about a 15 point IQ gain on account of the improved environment. After that, they might ceiling out. I’d rather see them close the gap altogether.

Now the US Black IQ of ~87 is not low by world standards. That’s the same IQ, approximately, as many Latin Americans, Arabs, Polynesians, Micronesians, Melanesians and Filipinos. Most of those folks seem to be able to create more or less functional societies. I’m aware that US Blacks can’t even seem to run Detroit, much less a whole country, but whatever the reason for that is, I don’t think it’s because they’re stupid.

Now even an ~87 IQ may not be so great in the West. Here in the US, Blacks possibly have one of the lowest IQ’s of any major group, despite the fact that an 87 IQ isn’t all that low. In advanced Western societies, the key term is group competition. If there’s a tiger after you and me, I don’t have to outrun it, I just have to outrun you. And here is the rub. If even at an ~87 IQ, US Blacks are outcompeted by most other groups, the relatively higher IQ will be less meaningful since they will still tend to fall behind the competition.

“Perverts” Are Adaptive

Since the evil feminist Cunts and their wussy mangina counterparts say that any older man (over 47 or so) going after a much younger woman is automatically a “pervert,” not to mention a “pedophile”, a “creep” and a “weirdo”, I would like to point out a new study showing that older men (over 50) who reproduce with young women are actually good for humanity.

As the researchers put it, “It turns out that older men chasing younger women contributes to human longevity and the survival of the species.”

I just met a guy, homeless guy, hiking in the national forest. He had been hiking all the way through Yosemite at age 57. He’s in good shape. Although he’s a working class guy (works every day when he can), he’s still homeless. I gave him a ride and dropped him off at the mission.

He told me that two years ago in Carson City, Nevada (he travels all over the West), he had a 22 year old girlfriend. She was surrounded by all these guys her age, all hardass and tough, but she thought they were all a bunch of morons, so she wanted a guy who was a little more mature. I had always heard that teenage girls think the guys their age are idiots, but I didn’t know it extended up into the 20’s.

I met a 20 year old college girl a few years back (no dating, just friendship, but she used to send me risque pics of herself). She said, “All men are boys up until age 40.” Well, it’s probably true, right? I mean, I was, sort of, anyway.

Anyway, this 55 year old guy, with nothing going whatsoever, got a 22 year old chick! Hear hear! Don’t listen to the bitches or these punk kids. Go for it, my Brothers! If you want a young woman and you can get one, go ahead and go for it, even if you have to grab a gang of hardened criminals (Joke!) and rob a trainfull of Viagra to keep it going.

As a result, Puleston said, older male fertility helps to select against damaging cell mutations in humans who have passed the age of female menopause, consequently eliminating the “wall of death.”

I don’t really understand this, but the authors felt that theory helped to explain why human survive past the age of female menopause (We do.). There’s never been a good explanation of why.

One theory, the Grandmother Hypothesis, suggests that we need to keep older women around to show everyone else the ropes. It’s interesting, but I never liked it all that much. This theory seems to make a lot more sense, though I don’t completely understand it either.

There are a lot of cool comments at the end. The usual stuff about young women being repulsed and sickened by older guys who commit the horrible crime (worse than serial homicide for sure) of looking at them. And then some cool comments from the Brothers trashing these silly young bitches for being the mean, vicious, selfish, vain, empty-headed vessels of extreme fertility that they are.

It’s interesting that most of the commenters can’t punctuate, spell or write a coherent sentence. This seems to be true whatever the age or sex. I guess they are just typical American dumbfucks.

It’s really sad that we live in a society that allows males and females to become successful, acquire good jobs, buy nice homes, get good high paying jobs, pile up a lot of nice possessions, etc., when they are so fucking stupid and uneducated that they barely write better than a hillbilly in a shack. What a sick society.

You can accumulate all the money and fancy shit you want, while having the education and skills of a fucking backwoods Moonshine maker. I have more respect for the hillbilly. He lives in a shack, has no car, and barely gets by. He doesn’t pretend to be what he isn’t. But I wouldn’t give him a $50,000/year job.

Only in America. We need to seriously consider that a lot of high-paid Americans are dumber than a bag of hammers or a box of brick shit. It’s pretty common that you meet a person from another country who makes far, far less than their American counterpart yet who has education, class, style and erudition. They keep up on current events and are proud of the skill with which they write in their cultivated native tongue.

America is a land of rich, fat, overpaid ignoramuses and dumbfucks with no class, no taste and no youth style other than shaved pussies, nipple rings and more tattoos than a cannibal.

What a disgrace. I hope at least the stylish Europeans kick our fucking asses. I just met a few busloads of French tourists in town. A fine example of what White people could be if they weren’t aspiring to be backwoods hillbillies with $50 haircuts and new model cars. They put these fat, stupid, ignorant American slobs to shame. I was embarrassed for my people.

Flaws in the Genetic View of Racial Behavior

As you can see in this horrible article, Blacks in Zaire*, including all parties in the war there, think it’s pretty cool to kill Pygmies and eat them for food. They’ve even set of Pygmy Meat stalls in the local market so you can pick out the choice cuts for yourself and save yourself a Human Hunting Expedition. The article is six years old, but I understand that this behavior is ongoing. This is part of a long-standing slow-motion genocide against the Pygmies that the Bantus have been waging against them since they conquered them 2,000 years ago. Bantus have also been slo-mo genociding the Khoisan in Southwest Africa for about 800 years ago. That’s also ongoing in places like Botswana. Blacks in West Africa have also been eating their enemies in the recent wars there. It seems to be sort of an Africanism to eat your enemies in wartime. Actually, this is common tribal behavior not just in Africa but in New Guinea, the Philippines, Polynesia, Melanesia, the Amazon and probably other places. White nationalists on sites like American Renaissance love articles like this and always use them to point out the innate depravity of Blacks. I think this theory is in error. Perhaps if you want to make a case for the innate depravity of African Blacks, you might be on slightly better grounds, but even there, the theory would probably bite the dust. A good example of why theory is flawed can be seen in US Blacks. Racist posters on Amren are always talking about how American Blacks “would probably try to eat you” after they killed you in some street crime assault. This is faulty thinking because it conflates US Blacks with African Blacks and assumes that the behavior of both is identical because it is genetically encoded. But as much as we complain about US Blacks here, but they don’t do stuff like those below, and they probably never will. But if US Blacks had never come to the US and were still in Africa, they would probably still be running around: 1. Consuming other humans in backyard barbecue get-togethers, 2. Slaughtering each other by the millions in insane, cruel and stupid wars, 3. Killing other humans to cook up their body parts as voodoo recipes, 4. Burning witches, 5. Launching pogroms against albinos, 6. And all sorts of other charming and highly evolved behaviors. It’s not only US Blacks, but all Blacks in the West that don’t do this stuff, including Blacks in the Caribbean and South America. But as I’ve noted, the Western Hemisphere Blacks would probably be doing all this sick stuff if they were still back in Africa. Why? Because that’s what Blacks do in Africa. And why don’t they do it here? Because Blacks in the Western Hemisphere have lost a lot of their African traditions and have become culturally a part of Western Hemisphere cultures instead. So, the reason US Blacks don’t do 1-6 above is because they are Americans, and Americans don’t do things like that. Have they genetically changed in America, and is this the reason they don’t do these things? Probably not. But they have culturally changed, and that culture change has been so long-lasting that behaviors like 1-6 above have been wiped out in the US for centuries. Using this behavior as an argument for the innate depravity of Africans is also difficult. Because quite a few of the folks doing 1-6 above will quit doing it at some point if you take them out of Africa and put them in, say, the Western Hemisphere. Racialists are always bashing culture, but it’s much more important than you think. They bash culture at their peril. *The Blacks in Zaire cannibalizing the Pygmies include many Rwandans also. There’ also a long tradition of cannabalism in the Congo, dating back centuries.

The LA Punk Rock Scene – Why Are These People Still Alive?

Repost from the old site. Did you know the Germs got back together and are playing again, and there is a new movie about them? They’re like 50 years old (my age)! Still up there playing like kids. Weird. Lorna Doom and Pat Smear look fantastic too, like they spent the last 25 yrs in a health spa (check this pic). They look healthy (mentally and physically) and happy. Check out this pic and great interview. At 50, I’ve concluded that there’s no alternative to those three. No way can you keep up that lifestyle for long. Don Bolles had a hard life with drug addiction and alcoholism, but he’s doing OK too. Darby Crash is dead, but they’ve got some famous actor, Shane West, to take his place. I was into that early LA punk rock scene, and I saw the Germs live on the last day of the 1970’s at the Hong Kong Cafe in downtown LA. The lead from 45 Grave, Dinah Cancer, is back playing again, and she looks great too (photo from 3 years ago), although she was on heroin for about 12 years as I recall. She must be 50! 50 years old and still running around all dressed up like a ghoul. Haha, Morticia, here we come. She got married a couple of times and had a kid. I knew her husband Paul Cutler (he played in 45 Grave) – nicest guy you’ve ever met. I also knew Darby Crash a bit, and my brother knew Don Bolles (he said Don was a really nice guy). What’s weird is a lot of those really insane, craziest of the crazy hardcore punk rocker maniacs were really nice people if you got to know them. A lot of them were on star trips – they could be like, “Who are you? I’m a rock star! Why should I say hi to you?” But if you could get past that, most of them were really cool. They weren’t mean, cold, nasty, unfriendly, arrogant, or anything like that. Their fans could be real idiots though. Lorna Doom (she is really lovely in this pic) is really famous for opening the way to females in punk rock music. I also knew Ann DeJarnett and the rest of the band from Mnemonic Devices, who later went on to release a couple of albums solo. I also know still looks good today. Both Jane and Gina have gone on to acting careers, and the Go-Gos still play around. John Doe of X has gone on to a like this at the time – beautiful young women! I also knew Chuck Dukowski of he looks now. He looks pretty good too (new band), and he’s a father with four kids. That’s hard to believe. Honestly, I was into that scene from early 1979-on and I can’t believe any of those people are still alive. The whole scene seemed almost suicidal. Hell, I can’t believe I’m still alive. I drink two glasses of wine a day, and my only vice is coffee. I’ve pretty much given up dope, except I smoke weed once in a while (but haven’t in some time). I work out, I’m a health food maniac, fast regularly, take supplements and herbs, etc.

WTF Is the Matter With You? Part 2

Repost from the old site. That question is directed to Thistle Harlequin. I won’t upload the movie, and I think it’s copyrighted anyway. It’s pornographic, and we don’t host porn on the site. Rarely, we link to it, if there is some artistic or political reason. In this case, it’s more art or performance art than porn per se. It’s called Putrid Sex Object, a movie performed by Thistle Harlequin (adults only, and don’t watch unless you want to be horribly grossed out). This is part of what my artist brother calls the new art – “that gross, sick, fag shit.” He says this is the new thing in art, because everything else has been done already. Examples include Aliza Shvarts’ abortion jelly exhibit where she gave herself repeated miscarriages via morning-after pills after inseminating herself and then filmed the miscarriages, bottled them and exhibited them in an exhibit. Except the whole exhibit never came off, but that was part of the performance. Our very own Who Dares Wings is an artist in Seattle who makes Disasterware and something called Spone Funerary Ware – granulated calcified human cremains (cremated bones of dead people) over a porcelain slip in a riff on the time-honored tradition of bone china, which was made in part with ground human bone. He also makes things like porcelain vases and teapots with Hitler’s face on them with things like “Forgiveness” inscribed below. There was a guy in New York who was doing some of this art using dead embalmed bodies. He would take the bodies and then pose them in all these weird positions and then take pictures of himself intermingled with the dead bodies. The cops finally had enough of the publicity and raided the guy – I guess what he was doing was illegal. He was getting the bodies from Mexico. Along the same lines are Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ, a crucifix photographed in a jar of urine. There is another fellow, Hermann Nitsch, who takes cow carcasses, slits them open, then makes himself look like a crucifix with the cow carcass as a “cross” background. He ends up covered in blood. His friends stand around him and they all get covered with blood too. There’s blood all over the ground and they shoot a photo of the whole thing and voila, instant art! Women are bottling their own menstrual fluid and using the blood to make blood paintings. It’s called menstrual art. Along the same lines, in Putrid Sex Object, Thistle Harlequin, a gay man, plays a woman who is wandering through a haunted house at night getting more and more frightened. Finally, she comes into a room where they are some severed cow’s heads on the floor. She falls to her knees, starts licking the cow’s head and then starts playing with it, getting blood all over her body. Then he pulls out a penis and it turns out it’s just some fag drag queen. He then puts his penis in the cow’s head and fucks it for a while, pulls out, and jacks off while covered with cow entrails. That’s it. That’s called art I guess. Wow, we really are reaching the end of civilization, are we not? My opinion on all this sick art is much the same as my brother’s. I’m not impressed. This is just gross, sick, fucked up stuff. Art is supposed to make you react, and in a way, it is supposed to be “beautiful.” It’s not supposed to be ugly, sick, repulsive and nauseating. Yes, we are all familiar with shit, puke, wet farts, mucus, snot, piss, blood, dead stuff and dead people, menstrual fluid, on and on. Why frame it up and call it art? Color me confused. Plus it’s not even funny; it’s just gross. Truth is, modern art has just clean run out of ideas. There’s nothing left to do. This is all that’s left, pushing the final boundaries. After this? I have no idea. Kill people? Kill yourself? Who knows. Seriously, there’s nothing left. Buy a famous sculpture, call the cameras in, gather around you and your artist friends, and smash it to bits? Done. The Surrealists were doing this stuff back in the 1930’s. Duchamp made a sculpture of a toilet and then he shipped it to a museum. He called it “Toilet” or something dumb like that. Along the way, it got partially destroyed via shipping. The museum called him up all apologetic and said, “Oh, we are so sorry that your sculpture got so messed up.” He rushed over to the museum, looked at his ruined sculpture and said, “NO! This is perfect! Better than the original!” It went on to become a famous sculpture. Surrealism was always a bit of a joke. The destroyed sculpture is better than the real one – OK, that’s funny. The Surrealists would run out in the streets of Paris in the 1930’s and assault priests walking by in their habits. Assault them, with fists and kicks. No one got seriously hurt, but the Surrealists called that Performance Art – assaulting a priest in habit. OK, that’s funny too. There are artist – musician types out there now who hold “concerts” where they show up on stage and then lower these sound speakers from the ceiling. The speakers dangle about ten feet above people’s heads, just out of reach. Then they turn up the speakers really loud with this extremely annoying noise playing right out of reach of the audience. The audience gets more and more angry while the performer stands up on stage, laughs at them and insults them. OK, I have to admit, that’s pretty funny. I believe there are similar artists out there who will schedule a show and advertise all the cool stuff they are going to do during the show. They cover the stage with all these props and it looks like a good show is going to happen. The theater fills up with suckers who shelled out $20/ticket. The performer’s not there. After a bit, someone comes out and says that the performer was delayed but will be there shortly. This goes on for a bit, and the big gag is that the performer never shows up. On purpose. The audience slows drifts away angrily over about an hour demanding a refund, but there will be none. That was the show. No artist. You got burned. Performance art! I have to admit that’s pretty humorous. Man Ray would have looked at that and said, “Two thumbs up.” I saw the Germs at the Hong Kong Cafe on December 31, 1979. It was Darby Crash on vocals, Pat Smear on guitar, Lorna Doom on bass and Don Bolles on drums. Joanna Went, performance artist, opened for them. She came out looking totally nuts, all made up like a clown, wearing some stupid outfit. Shrieking, “Catatooooonic! Schizophreeeeeeenic!” (that’s all I remember), etc. etc.” with these really wild eyes. She had on what looked like a football jersey on top with what looked like shoulder pads. She tore open the shoulder pads while screeching incoherently. Inside, the shoulder pads were packed with vast quantities of shredded cheddar cheese. Then she started to throw it at us, the audience. We threw it back at the bitch. I went to the bathroom. Darby Crash came in, saw me, and asked in this totally gay faggot voice, “Heeeey, you got any Tuuuinols?” Tuinols are a depressant pill. I thought for a second, looked up and said, “No, but I have some Tuinol cigarettes. Want to buy any?” He got this sneering smile on his face, and snorted, “Tuinol cigarettes!?” and walked away. That was my only encounter with the famous Darby Crash. Pretty soon, the Hong Kong Cafe was full of flying shredded cheese and you could hardly even see anything. Through it all, Joanna was screeching away. OK, that was pretty funny. The Germs played next. They all wore black leather jackets with a blue circle on the sleeve – that was their emblem. They were out of this world, of course. Darby Crash was crouching at the back of the stage with a sneer on his face. Everybody was throwing stuff at him – that was the idea – throw stuff at Darby. We took the ice out of our drinks and threw ice at Darby Crash. He crouched down at the rear of the stage like a tiger, loving the abuse and singing like a maniac. Re-formed band, The Germs Return. Don Bolles turned into an alcoholic and goes to AA meetings with his alcoholic girlfriend. He has a long history of drug abuse and run-in’s with the law. Darby killed himself (see below). Pat Smear went on to form the Foo Fighters. Lorna, Don and Pat re-formed the band, with actor Shane West as the new Darby Crash, and they go on tour. Here’s the new band, and Lorna is as beautiful as ever. Myspace page. They must be pushing 50 now. Punks til death. Heck, why not? Later, Darby Crash deliberately OD’d on heroin as part of a suicide pact with some idiot punk chick. I never hung around with these nuts, but some people I know did. They would do stuff like get drunk and hit people over the head with beer bottles – supposedly Pat Smear did that once. Great article on the Germs from the Orange County Weekly. We were leaving the Hong Kong Cafe at 2 AM on January 1, 1980. The LA punkers, drunk and menacing, were outside the cafe throwing beer bottles against the wall and watching them smash. We moved away quickly. We were walking through an alley back to the car, drunk and stoned. Someone came reeling behind us, walking very fast. We turned around. There was a young man about 25 years old. He had glasses on, but he had been hurt somehow. One of the glasses lenses was smashed over his eye. He was holding his eye with the smashed glasses lens, and there was blood pouring out of the area around his eye as he reeled drunkenly down the alley. We didn’t know if he had gotten beat up while drunk, or if he was really drunk and had fallen down, but he was in bad shape. We got out of his way before he would have crashed into us. He moved past us, careening back and forth down the alley, dripping blood all the way. “Let’s help him,” I said. “No way!” We looked at each other and both said, “Wow! Let’s get out of here!” We hurried to the car and drove home on the empty LA freeway, dodging the drunken vehicles along the way. It was the end of the Seventies, but it may as well have been the end of the century.

American Vice: Mapping the 7 Deadly Sins

Here, a fascinating series of maps. Your assignment, just to piss PC Idiots off, is to analyze the maps in terms of demographics and race. Greed is highest on the East Coast, in California, in Washington State and Oregon, in Arizona, in Texas and around Chicago, in lower Michigan, in Florida and in the Rust Belt. These are all places where there are concentrations of wealth. The measure was based on “Average income compared with number of people living below the poverty line.” What this means is that this is where extremes of wealth and poverty exist. They exist in Arizona, California and Florida because of mass Hispanic immigration. Hispanics can probably only create societies with extremes of wealth and poverty, and the Hispanic elite which has settled in Florida has created the most outrageous and reactionary mirror of a Latin American banana republic shithole you could imagine. Why? Because that’s what they do. That’s what they create in Latin America, so that’s what they are going to create when you import them to the US. In California and Arizona, there are still a lot of rich people, mostly rich White people. This has recently been combined with the insanity of importing millions of Mesoamerican urban poor and peasants with an average 5th grade education. Predictably, they have created mass poverty and slums wherever they have settled. Combine this with the rich Whites you get greed on the map. I have no explanations for the high greed coefficients around Chicago, lower Michigan and the Rust Belt, but there is a lot of Black poverty and there are a lot of wrecked cities in this region. I can’t understand the high readings on the liberal White East Coast or in Washington State/Oregon either. Interestingly, the South, including the Black Belt, scores low on greed. Maybe there is not much money to go around? The next map is Envy, or the Ripoff Map. It’s a map of theft. Predictably, it’s high in Arizona, central California and Washington State. Extremes of inequality cause tons of crime, especially theft, but you can never get a conservative to admit this basic fact of human nature. The South, including the Black Belt, has tons of theft. Presumably, Blacks are doing a lot of this stealing, but I am curious to what extent Southern Whites are thieves too. I have always heard that Southern Whites also have a high crime rate. In that respect, Southern crime may be more of a regionalism than a race thing per se. Also lots of ripoff in lower Michigan and Rust Belt. We do have lots of Blacks there, lots of wrecked cities and abandoned industry, along with extremes of wealth and poverty. That sounds like a recipe for Ripoff Central. Also quite a bit of ripoff in eastern Oklahoma and NE Texas, which I cannot explain. The Wrath Map, or violent crime map, is most interesting. Once again, high rates in Central California which are not explainable. Arizona has lots of violent crime, possibly due to Hispanics. So does New Mexico, and I cannot explain that. So does Southern Missouri, East Texas, Eastern Oklahoma, Tennessee, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and  Southern North Carolina. Yet Mississippi has little and Alabama has much less than the rest. One is tempted to say “Black Belt”, except that I have always heard that those wonderful Southern White folks have always had a very high violent crime rate. In particular a high homicide rate. And it’s been that way for 200 years or so. I chalk it up to culture. Southern Michigan has some violent crime, but the Rust Belt does not. Go figure? There’s also quite a bit of violent crime being committed those White redneck mountain men in far Western Montana. Huh? So much on these maps hardly makes sense. Next up we have Sloth, and this map doesn’t tell us much except that Americans are not particularly sloth-like, nor are they all that workaholic. In the Yellowstone region, we find the laziest folks of all, what with all that elk hunting and flyfishing in the rivers. That includes Western Montana, where the homicidal herds of Whites roam. I guess when they are not shooting each other, they are practicing on elk and deer? The Gluttony map tells us little except that Texas is full of fatties, steer-shaped guys and gals wearing outsized beltbuckles and deep fat-frying anything no longer moving. Appalachia is full of unhealthy eaters and so is the Washington DC area, except for Michelle’s organic garden I guess. Now for my favorite subject: Lust! This is a VD map, unfortunately, not a Get Laid Map. One would think that wherever you have lots of queers you have tons of  VD, but it doesn’t show on the map. Instead we get the South. And indeed, it does look something like the Black Belt. I know Blacks like to screw a lot, but how about Southern Whites? Are they all prim and proper, going to Church every Sunday and Bible Study during the week? One wonders. There are some strange anomalies on there – the Black Hills, NE Arizona, until one realizes that these are Indian reservations. Indians like to screw a lot? I never knew. I thought Indian maidens were all shy and reserved and proper. We also have tons of uncontrollable sex maniacs in East Central New Mexico and across the border in West Texas (Bible Belt). I don’t understand this one at all. Once again, we have lots of evil, this time Sex Evil, in NE Texas, which I don’t understand. Lot of Black folks there? Lot of screwing in southern Michigan, once again a lot of Blacks. Thaaat’s all, folks!

George Sodini Videos

Wow, I had no idea this guy left videos, oh my God. Here is his Youtube page. His name is MOSB46PBH, whatever the Hell that means. I subscribed to his page. Congratulations, George, you just hit 100 subscribers! Then I noticed he didn’t have any friends. I figured that’s why he was so damned lonely and he went and shot up all those poor women, so I clicked to box to be his friend! Maybe that will make him feel better, even in death, and maybe his spirit won’t come back to haunt more guys into mass-murdering women. Turns out George has to approve my friend request. Damn! Guess that ain’t gonna happen! I so wanted to be this guy’s one and only, man, I swear, you coulda cried on my shoulder anytime, bro. You could even call me anytime you wanted, you could pour a drink in your place and me in mine, and we could talk about how fucked up women are and how hard it is to get laid if you’re not rich, or young anymore, or an alpha asshole. This is one of George Sodini’s videos. How George Pittsburgh Lives is just sad. Sodini takes us on a tour of his house. Over and over, he keeps saying, “I’m sure the woman will be happy with this.” But there’s no woman coming over, not one, not ever. He had his cologne, matching furniture, huge speakers, 32 inch color TV, nicely made-up bedroom, clothes, everything, all set up for the Woman Who Never Came. The dining room was particularly poignant. There were table mats and places set for two people, but you just knew the guy was going to eat alone again that night and every night. I almost cried when I saw that and I’m getting choked up as I reread it. The video was made 5 months before he went on his spree. Once again, he has that creepy tension, violence and even aggression in his voice. A lot of guys come off like that, but they’re not scary. Once again, you get the feeling you’re listening to a human volcano. At one point, the camera pans to a book called Date Young Women. Turns out Sodini had taken PUA (pickup artist) courses from some tool named R. Don Steele – that’s who wrote the Date Young Women book. I don’t give a damn about the PUA community one way or the other. But since tens of millions of American females really, really, really hate the PUA community, I figure the PUA guys must be onto something good. Here is a video of George Sodini at at one of R. Don Steele’s workshops (the guy in the white shirt). The guys there are all different ages, young to older. Steele himself must be 70. At first the workshop isn’t bad, but the more you learn about Steele, the less you like this oily snake of a man. There are young women there, paid by Steele, to talk to these guys, etc. and everyone says the women are miserable getting paid to talk to “old losers.” I didn’t get that impression at all. Fact is, the anti-PUA feminist community are the haters –  haters of men! In the video, Sodini looks quite stiff and awkward when he greets one of the women. It’s as if his limbs are made of wood or steel. That’s not good. I don’t do that. I have the appearance, expression, attitude and voice of some guy who sat down in a room at the beach full of surfboards, wax, incense, beer cans and Aerosmith albums at age 20 and smoked joints nonstop for a couple of weeks, and here he is, 31 years later, and the weed still hasn’t worn off. I’m permastoned, and I don’t even need any bud anymore. I don’t know well that works, but it’s got to be better than the Tin Woodsman. According to this ridiculous over the top feminist blog, appropriate titled Feministe, the PUA artists try to teach guys who are AFC (average frustrated chump) uberbetas to be, as she puts it, “asshole womanizers.” Having spent many of my younger years as an “asshole womanizer”, and then having spent quite a few other years (such as my middle age) rewriting the AFC book from early adolescence, I’ll have the Asshole Womanizer Special with soup and salad on the side, thank you very much. Thing is, I don’t think that’s what the PUA guys do. I think they are just trying to show guys how to feel better about themselves so they can get girls. Right? As far as my life nowadays, I had so much sex when I was younger that I can pretty much die happy now even if I never do it again. I probably slept with more women than most guys will in 10+ lifetimes, and most of them were attractive to beautiful. I can live off my memories until I die like an emphysema patient lives off his oxygen tank. My sex drive is going down anyway, and girlfriends have told me that many to most of their girlfriends at 50 are in sexless to near sexless marriages. So a lot of guys my age aren’t getting any anyway, and that’s not counting the 2 Middle age is the time to write a book, build a house, work on your car, read a lot of books, drink lots of good coffee, play music in your room, cook manly meals for yourself, have great conversations with smart and interesting people, take as many trips as you can, play at Renaissance Man, laugh til you drop and drink lots of red wine. The race for the money is through, and things are all settled out. You’re either rich or poor or somewhere in between, and that’s what the future looks like too. Everyone’s more or less happy with their monetary situation, and the guys are hardly fighting anymore. A lot of males your age look awkward, nervous, depressed, nerdy, fat, lame or idiotic. It’s like every year past 45, their confidence getting Hiroshima’d one more time. I assume the effects are cumulative. At that age, if you’re still a cocky, swaggering conceited bastard like me who walks around like he’s King of the World, a lot of people will hate you. But a lot of others will be amazed. Look at that guy! He’s over the hill, he’s got nothing going, he’s broke, and he’s prancing around like an aging rock star. What the Hell, man? How does he do it anyway? They figure you must have earned it somewhere along the line, and there’s a sort of (O.G) respect that goes with that. Sodini said women never give him a second look. Too bad. Women look at me a lot, and they ignore me a lot too. When I’m in my best moods, strutting around like Mick Jagger, the most beautiful women can around turn and smile great big huge smiles. Women my age, old ladies, 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, teenage girls, even 12 and 13 year olds, look at me and steal glances. That’s worth something right there. There’s no sex involved, but it keeps me from shooting up aerobics clubs. There are lots of American guys who are not getting any at all. I’ve known plenty of them. I know a guy now (call him Joe) who hasn’t had sex in 19 years. When he was younger I think he won Player of the Year several years in a row, so I’m not sure if he cares he’s turned into a fucking monk. When I was 19 or so I had this friend, Steve, a surfer. This guy would date like 3 or 4 women or girls every day. Morning date, afternoon date, evening date, then midnite he’d climb into some girl’s window at her parent’s house. He’d have sex with all of them. He always had 3 girlfriends at any time, and they shifted all the time. Plus whatever he could get on the side. Females didn’t hate him at all; they all knew what he was up to, and no one cared. Mostly they were just lining up at his door, taking numbers, waiting to be called for their appointments, and walking away happily afterward. In the summer, Steve and his incorrigible friends would rent a house on the beach. The keg was always full, and there was always a pound or so of pot in the place, since they were always dealing. They lived off salt water, surf wax, acid rock, beer and Thai weed. Women and girls were circulating through that place all day and nite. Steve might sleep with 100-300 females in a summer at that house. The guy was my idol, but I could never come close. Anyway, Joe lived something like Steve back then, and I don’t think he cares that he’s dry now. I knew another guy, campus cop, totally normal and very good looking, no sex in 13 years. He was a hard rightwinger, so I figured he got what he deserved. I’ve known other guys, 5 years, 3 1/2  years no sex, that’s just what they own up to. I know a guy, prison guard, who’s over 50 and never had a date. Nothing wrong with him, just incredibly shy. I know a guy at 50 who’s never had sex. Until the recession, he made $75,000/yr as a salesman. He’s completely normal, except he’s a depressive. Man, women hate him so much for that! That Sodini was 48 and trying to date young chicks is absurd right there. After age 47, I can barely look at young women without them giving me dagger eyes and acting like they are going to call the cops. Around 47+, a man is going to have a hard time getting a young woman, especially a pretty one (assuming he doesn’t formally buy one). They don’t want us old farts. If you have a lot of money, you can maybe pull it off. Maybe if you’re famous. Maybe if you have some status – think college professor and young coeds. Maybe if you’re a semi-celebrity in a little crowd – think artist locally known but not exactly famous or rich. If none of the above, you can try looks – if you still great for your age, maybe. Charisma, especially the extreme charisma of the Steve types above, could maybe help you if you lack all the rest. But you’re paddling against the rapids. People have hacked Sodini’s account and found he was doing Internet searches for “Avoidant Personality Disorder.” A lot of these guys hardly have any sex at all. You can’t be this way. Life’s full of rejection. You might think I’ve been successful in life if you read above, but I’ve also been rejected by females 100’s of times minimum. One thing that’s really creepy about the Sodini Phenomenon is he seems to be getting a weird fan club. There are all these guys leaving comments on his videos, cheering him on, acting like he’s their idol, saying “RIP!”, “He went out in style!” “Good shooting!” or saying he’s their hero. Others are saying they feel sorry for him. On the other side, the feminist blogs are raging. “No one owes you guys a thing! No one owes you a date! No one owes you sex! You’re tools!” Wow, breathtaking. So all us guys have the inalienable right to be lifetime celibates and waste our lives away. Fuck you. Seriously. You bitches. Fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you. On the other side, George Sodini Fan Club is cleaning their guns in the armories of their minds, peering through their scopes in their dreams, having reveries of the Big Dead Hottie Day. Something isn’t working out. While you’re chewing that fat, check out Female Misogynist. Yeah, it’s written by a woman. Incredible reading, and scary too.

George Sodini's Webpage

George Sodini’s Webpage. Sodini, of course, is the guy who shot up the gym club, specifically targeting young women. He killed 3 women and wounded another 9. He felt rejected by women in his life, and indeed, it appears that women had been rejecting him. I think for most of his life he was not a bad person, but he was a sad person. At the end of his life, he became a sad, bad man, and he committed an act of unspeakable cruelty. Then he took his own life. He said that for most of his life, people had always been saying what a nice guy he was. That’s because he was a nice guy. He acted nice towards others, even towards women. The reason women said he was a nice guy is because he was one. Women don’t think you’re a nice guy unless you are one. A lot of the comments about Sodini are saying that this guy was a weirdo, filled with hate towards women for most of his life, and a social bastard. I doubt it, if he was a social bastard, he would have had to climb over the naked women in his bed every morning to go to work. Social bastards often don’t lack for sex, and women love a meanie. What do women hate? They hate nice guys. Nice guys and wimps. Sodini was a nice guy, and he came off like a wimp. Women hate that, so they rejected him. In his online diary, he notes that he went to a social function, and a woman asked him out of the blue if he had been picked on a lot in school. She asked him that because those are the vibes he gave off – victim, loser, wimp. He hadn’t been laid in 19 years, and he hadn’t had much sex in his whole life. Comments from females about that aspect are deriding him. All he wanted off women was sex, they bitch. Guess what, ladies? That is what we want off you. We also fall in love, sure, sometimes, but mostly men want and need sex from women. The comments are saying, “These guys are evil. Their whole goal in getting to know a woman is to have sex with her.” You got it, babes. That is our goal. If we fall in love along the way, nice, but it’s not a necessity. We are after sex. That’s perfectly normal. When we want to eat, we head to the fridge. When we want to sleep, we flop down on the sack. When we need to go, we plump ourselves down on the can. When we want sex, we try to screw a woman. We are mammals, after all, and sex is one of the highest drives in man, up there with food. Western females, driven insane by feminism, have issues with this fact of nature. No one faults a human for heading for the fridge, so why do we fault a hungry guy for trying to get laid? It’s all the same. In Third World countries not yet wrecked by feminism, females understand this, and no one thinks men are evil. Everyone knows men are sex-crazy bastards who will do anything for pussy, and women are guarded around men accordingly. They like us, but they know what we are all about. They guard their jewels, as Mohammad ordered. When appropriate, they trade their jewels for stuff, marriage, love, whatnot. Feminism has told Western women that males acting like the male mammals they are is evil, sick, twisted and even woman-hating behavior. So Western women are all pissed off at guys. By acting like normal males, they say we sick, evil, and insane woman-haters. The George Sodini’s don’t do this in the Third World. Most guys get married, and a woman doesn’t expect much from a man. What’s he there for, anyway? He’s a good provider, doesn’t drink, gamble, chase women or beat her. In the Third World, that’s called a “good man.” Most guys like Sodini probably get married. Those that don’t aren’t furious about their lack of sex. I’ve talked to male virgins in India and Egypt, aged 23-38. They were not bitter at all. They’d never married; of course they’d never been laid. Over there, women don’t give it up unless you marry one, pretty much. What’s to be bitter about? Sometimes I think this is a better arrangement. In that world, the Sodinis get married, if not young, then sooner or later. In marriage, the guy gets plenty of sex. Who knows if the woman likes it or not? For my Mom’s generation, it was a “marital duty” to be tolerated, and it was assumed you would not like it much. Husbands knew this, figured she didn’t dig it much, but didn’t give a damn. As long as he’s getting his head wet, who cares whether she digs it or not? That’s her problem, right? So the guys mostly marry, and mostly get all the sex they want in marriage. Women put up with the sex, or like it, or whatever, at any rate get supported, and everyone’s more or less happy. In the West, we expect unmarried guys like Sodini to get tons of sex. But why should he? In the Third World, most people would assume he’s never getting laid. I mean, he’s not married, right? You want sex, go get yourself a wife. We’ve also given single women sexual freedom, but they don’t want to use it like guys do. Human females are as picky, cruel and fickle as any other females in the animal kingdom. They select the best, dump the rest, and don’t worry their pretty little heads about any of it. Single women in the West don’t want to be giving it up all the time, and they want something coherent out of the deal. Money, commitment, marriage, a job, a passport, stuff, support, whatever. So the Western single females are having all the sex they want, for the most part, but their male counterparts probably are not. A few are, but most single guys are having dry spells at best. A few guys are cleaning up, just like in an elephant seal harem. I’m a sexual liberationist, but something is wrong with this picture. Why do we expect the single Sodinis of the West to all be screwing like Hefners and deride them as losers if they are not? That doesn’t make sense. Like with so many modern things, we have thrown out the old way, honed through tens of millenia. Not perfect, yet time-tested and definitely workable. The “modern and progressive” counterpart frankly goes against human nature and the history of our species, so of course it doesn’t work that great, yet everyone assumes it’s newer and better. What makes us assume newer is better? I have an old corkscrew, the kind they don’t sell anymore. I’ve bought several new ones, some rather costly, and none of them work worth a flying fuck. When it comes to sex, love and marriage, is newer better? George Sodini said no, guns blazing, and now four people are dead.

Thaddeus Stevens, American Hero

I had never even heard of this guy, but a post over at the White nationalist site Occidental Dissent condemning him as one of the worst Americans of all time stirred my interest. I expected a fanatic. Not that I mind, after all, I’m a big fan of John Brown (even though he was a nut) and even Thaddeus Stevens page, there’s little if anything to dislike. He went beyond mere liberalism to all-out radicalism, championing the Underground Railroad and even running a waystation in Pennsylvania. He lived with a mixed-race (mulatto) female servant, and they may have had illegitimate children together. Almost all graveyards were segregated back then, and he demanded to be buried in one of the only integrated graveyards around. His headstone even showcases this demand. He set up a university that was one of the first with an explicit non-discrimination clause, even for Muslims! As the leader of the Radical Republicans, sure the Southerners hate him. Southerners need to get over it. You lost, we won.* It’s over. Time to move on. Not only did you get your asses kicked, but you weren’t even fighting for a legitimate cause. Southerners are just flat out nuts. They were nuts during the Civil War and they still are nuts to this day. They’re basically a bunch of fanatics. Fanatical mostly because they are still mad over losing the stupid war they started, and still angry at “the Nawth” for handing their great grandfather’s asses to them. Towards the end of the war, Southern fanatics experimented with poison gas in an attempt to gas a room full of top US government officials. Experiments were carried out on cats in an enclosed glass case. With the war almost over, Southern fanatics still would not give up. There were many fanatical plots, including assassination plots, at the end of the war. I believe that all these nuts were caught. After the war, in a typical show of Yankee magnanimity, I believe all were released. Southerners rant about General Sherman burning down Atlanta and other cities, but he was actually pretty civilized about it. History has not served Sherman well. Typically he was surround a city and not let anyone out. Then his men would go door to door and try to clear out all the Southerners. Most able-bodied men would be gone, and there were just women, kids, old men, and maybe some Blacks. Union soldiers went house to house trying to evacuate the place. I’m not sure if they gave people a chance to gather up belongings. A lot of Southerners knew what was up and insisted on going up in flames in their homes. Typically these clowns were dragged out of their homes kicking and screaming. There were a few deaths, but considering the scope of the scorched Earth operation, it is incredibly humane. I believe that only White homes were burned, and Negro homes were spared. I also believe that mansions of the slaveowners were targeted. Anyway, Sherman’s campaign was sheer genius. There were hardly any deaths, but a lot of Southern property was up in flames. The opposite of a neutron bomb. Sherman was driven to this rage because the South, though beaten, would not say uncle. His March was the last straw. Radical Republicanism has come in for a lot of criticism, but much of it is undeserved. The South deliberately tried to throw a monkey wrench in Reconstruction after the War and tried to bring back slavery in all but name only. Black rights were restricted in every possible way, necessitating the passage of the 13th15th Amendments, also despised by White nationalists. They hate the 14th Amendment most of all. What’s it about? Equal protection under the law. Horror of horrors. In some ways, Reconstruction was idiotic. Blacks were put in charge of law enforcement, courts and local governments. They were well-meaning but often illiterate, had no education and were worse than incompetent. As a result, local government on most levels was a comedy of errors. Freed Black slaves, illiterate and never having worked a day of paid labor in their lives, wandered the roads aimlessly. Many drifted back to the plantations where they had been enslaved and set up camp there. They weren’t exactly asking to be enslaved again, but it was almost something like that. Slavery had been torn down, and nothing had been erected in its place. Within a few years, the KKK was a huge force raging across the South and sowing terror. This was a response of a beaten White South to its burned mansions, destroyed, crippled and wounded manhood, widowed womanhood, newly empowered and sometimes vengeful Blacks, the idiocy and incompetence of Black rule and Federal military occupation. It was all too humiliating to Southerners raised on super-masculinity and the pride that grew from that. The North had little stomach for the long-term military occupation that Stevens rightly proposed and didn’t want to take on armed and outraged White Southerners. The War was over. Andrew Johnson practically rescinded Reconstruction, pulled most US troops out, and basically threw in the towel on the South. The North had fought a bloody war with the South and had no stomach for more fighting. The Feds basically said the Hell with the South, we’re out of here, and went home. After 1868, things got much worse for Blacks as the KKK ruled the South and Jim Crow began to be cemented, but the US government was tired of fighting Southern White men and adopted a see no evil, hear no evil attitude. Nevertheless, Reconstruction was right and proper and did not go on for long enough. The South’s defiance of the terms of surrender after defeat was outrageous and violated the basic human rights of Blacks. By 1868, Stevens was dead, and Reconstruction was headed out. The name of Thaddeus Stevens, American hero, is one more US schoolkids ought to know. Good summary on Stevens at the link. *I had relatives who fought on both sides of the Civil War. Some owned slaves too. One relative freed his slaves in the 1830’s. Another relative nearly joined the KKK in the 1920’s until his wife heard about it and said, “No you won’t!” I’m supposedly related to Stonewall Jackson, great Confederate general. My anti-Southernism and pro-Yankeeism in terms of the Civil War is typical of Californians. I’ve never met a Californian who supported the Confederacy in the Civil War, and you will never see a Confederate flag in this state.

Appalachian English

I’m not ready to split off English dialects into separate languages yet, as my previous forays into this area have pissed people off enough as it is. As a general rule, I can understand almost anyone speaking any dialect of US English. I lived in a tourist town near Yosemite National Park for many years, and we had tourists coming in from all over the country. Never once did I have a hard time understanding anyone, and I think I heard them all, the dialects that is. In my previous piece on this subject, I suggested that African American Vernacular English (AAVE) or Ebonics, probably deserves to be called a separate language from US English. Many if not most US linguists who have an opinion seem to agree, but I think no one wants to touch it since the rightwingers not to mention the White nationalists would go stark raving berserk. However, I recently spent a couple of hours with a couple of local Black women who were speaking AAVE. It might as well have been Greek. They could also switch on a dime over to a perfectly intelligible US English, so they were effectively bilingual. But damned if that wasn’t the nastiest and hardest to understand US English dialect I have ever heard firsthand. I mentioned in the other piece that a guy came out to the mountains here in California recently from New York. He was a young Italian-American guy from Queens, New York. Queens is one of the holdouts for the hardest of hardcore New York English dialects. The guy spent three or four months here hardly being understood by a soul until he finally figured out how to speak California English and make himself understood. There were a couple of clues that he was speaking a foreign language and not a US English dialect. First of all, he was unable to moderate or tone down his lect of make it more intelligible, even after months in the area. That’s a good sign that you’re dealing more than a mere dialect. Dialects are typically adjustable, separate languages much less so. Another sign was that even after 3-4 months of listening to him, a lot of the people he was talking to could not understand him any better than they could on Day One. This is also a good sign of a foreign language and not a dialect. With a US English dialect, usually we can adjust to it pretty quickly after hearing it a bit, and then we can get most to all of it. Therefore, I would split off AAVE and hardcore New York English into separate languages, but I won’t do so in an official post as I have enough enemies as it is. I would like to add one more extremely nasty US English dialect to the mix though. This is something like Appalachian English, though I am thinking in particular of that spoken in a couple of locales. I am not sure where they are doing the mountaintop removal mining in the hollows of West Virginia. But I recently heard a radio report on that, and while I could understand company spokespeople pretty well, once they started interviewing poor folks down in the “holllers”, I kept having to turn the radio up and I still wasn’t getting a lot of it. I recently heard another radio report about a tribe called the Monacans in Virginia. I assumed they would be easy to understand like most Virginians, but this was one of the nastiest US English dialects I’ve ever heard. The Monacans live in Appalachian Virginia, north of Lynchburg near the town of Amherst and then northwest of Lynchburg near the Natural Bridge and the towns of Goshen, Lexington and Glasgow.  The terrain looks something like this. The Natural Bridge area is more forested. The spokeswoman for the Monacans was an assimilated woman speaking an intelligible Southern or maybe Appalachian English. However, they also interviewed several tribe members, older women who lived in very rural areas and recalled how they used to practically live off the land down there. I was missing a lot of what they said, and it was one of the hardest-core English dialects I’ve ever heard. The tribe is said to be somewhat Black-White-Indian mixed, and for this reason, they have had a hard time getting recognized. I am not sure how their mixed nature plays into this dialect, or how many other folks around there talk the same way. I suspect that the real hardcore lect is with older people, rural people, and possibly females. Females often have the hardest core dialects since males have to work. In having to work, they often have to tone down their hardcore dialects or languages and either learn a majority tongue or speak a more assimilated dialect. Traditional women are just in the home and in a lot of parts of the world, they stay monolingual and don’t learn the majority language of the country. I’m not sure how the rest of Appalachian English sounds, but at least the speech of some parts of Appalachian West Virginia (this area is in the Blue Ridge Mountains) and Virginia is incredibly hard to understand. The dialect spoken by the Monacans seems to be one of the Southern Appalachian dialects. These are the dialects that are said to resemble Shakespearean English. Though this is not Shakespearean English (this is an urban legend) these dialects to contain many Elizabethan English words from 1550-1600 which are no longer used in Modern English. They also have strong influences from Scots and North Ireland Scots English, along with some influences from Welsh. Wikipedia says that Appalachian English is one of hardest to understand English dialects spoken in America.

What Is White Culture?

In the comments section, Alpha Unit asks, “What is White culture?” I’m not sure what the answer is, but I will try to partially answer that question. I don’t know how to put this into precise words, but as a general rule, a city over 9 I have lived in these places all my life. The places I lived in had almost no crime. You could walk up and down the street at 3 AM. Indeed, I would would see attractive teenage girls walking on the street alone at 5 AM. Sure, they look at you when you drive by with a possibly worried look on their face, but they are out there walking. I used to see that quite a bit as a matter of fact. In a recent book by Robert S. Griffin, Living White: Writings on Race, 2000-2005, one man described the 9 Whenever a tree fell, an Irish guy would come and plant a new tree. Everyone had white picket fences they maintained in the same way just for appearance sake. There was almost no crime. No one was afraid to walk the streets at any time. Further, when people added onto their homes, they did so all in a manner that was consistent with a “style of the city” that the city had developed. There was active civic life. The schools were good and safe. There were no gangs. The drug problem was controllable, at least, people did not stand on the corners and sell dope. The cops were so bored that it was almost a problem; they harassed teenagers because the police had nothing else to do to fill their time. There was little trash or littering. If someone littered, people yelled at you or gave you dirty looks. Then the place started turning. It wasn’t that big of a deal until it hit the proverbial “tipping point,” which is often around 30-4 The city is still 5 Thefts are very common, and there have been some muggings and of course, the rapes. Perpetrators are young Black males. The cops are quite busy. The Irishman is gone, and when a tree falls, no one bothers to plant a new one. Civic life is shot. Everyone knows this story, but people don’t talk about it that much. There’s a reason why Whites, even White liberals, prefer to live in White communities. Even Blacks prefer to live in White communities. They’re a nicer place to live than Black communities, and any Black with a brain has figured that out. Problem is that a certain percentage of Blacks moves in (the tipping point varies), you don’t have that nice White town anymore. You have the beginnings of a Black town, which is frankly what those same Blacks were fleeing. At some point, the place is almost all Black, and it’s more or less a ghetto, at least in parts. Even the Blacks want to move on. I call this process “Black flight.” And so the process begins anew. The Hispanic tipping point is a lot higher than Blacks. Instead of the 15-4 It’s not the same. The process is much slower and not nearly as marked as what happens when a city turns Black, but you would have to be an idiot to say that what took place was not a general decline. Even at 6 There is trash everywhere – Hispanics are notorious litterbugs. There is an increase in crime, most noticeably theft, often petty theft or minor theft. There are a lot more drugs around. There aren’t that many rapes, and women are fairly safe, but there is an increase in sex crimes. There is a lot more drunken driving, and drunken Hispanics start crashing into your cars. Here in California, we are even seeing “Hispanic flight.” The Hispanics with the money sometimes start fleeing to Whiter towns nearby, but they are embarrassed to admit it. Whites? They just keep running. I’m not sure if this has much to do with money. I’ve lived in a poor White town and a poor Hispanic town, and the White town was vastly better. I can’t imagine what a poor Black town must be like. It sounds horrible. Of course, this whole thing is grist for the White separatists, but they are still a tiny minority. Most Whites are still not buying and never will. They will just keep running and running until there’s no place left to run. One solution is integration. I wrote about my old friend Avram Davidson recently. He was a great writer, but he was a bit of a racist too. He used to say, “A Black a block. Spread em out and civilize em!” That’s sounds nasty and racist, but realistically, how can you call an integrationist impulse racist? A few Blacks in a largely White or Hispanic area seem to do all right. Even the ghetto types seem to try a lot harder. Around here, I think some of the Blacks try to compete with the Whites and Hispanics to out-succeed them. I am convinced that these same folks would be ten feet under in a ghetto. Detroit was still a very nice city at about 15-2 Now look at it.

Middle Aged White Woman On Why She Only Dates Black Men

Great article. Frankly, these Black guys can have these bitches. We don’t want em! Take them and keep them, please. Better yet, move them out of our neighborhoods so we don’t have to deal with them anymore. The article sums up exactly what I have been saying on this blog. In a multicultural America, White women will increasingly turn down White men. And Asian women will increasingly turn down Asian men. Why? In Asia, Asian men are plenty masculine. But in the multicultural US, compared to White guys, they are going to come up short. Asian women in the US complain that Asian guys look like women, seem unmasculine and don’t treat them right. That’s only because these Asian women are comparing them to White guys. Over in Asia, these guys would seem just fine. And in Asia, as far as not treating them well, the women don’t have much choice, do they? An Asian man or none. In an all-White society, White males are plenty masculine. I grew up with masculine White guys in a mostly-White society. But in a multicultural US, White women are going to compare us to Black guys, and as the White woman in the article does, we are going to come up short, seem wimpy, lame, depressed, awkward and unmasculine. No way can we White guys compete with Black guys in the masculinity department. Forget it, don’t even try. This will particularly be the case if we are talking about middle-aged White guys. We middle-aged White guys definitely wimp out hard. I see them all the time. We look depressed, defeated, out of shape, and miserable. Our self-esteem is shot. Young White men do all right, but I don’t know what happens to us White guys as we age. We just seem to lose it hard. Correspondingly or perhaps in reaction, White women get more masculine, and are often seen carping at their cowering middle aged White partners. White nationalists scream and yell about miscegenation, but then they turn around and say it barely exists. Doesn’t make much sense. 4 I run a Yahoo group that is full of middle-aged White women. The These women often love to partake in “ball-busting” where they attack proud, masculine White men and try to emasculate them as best they can. I’ve seen this sorry spectacle quite a few times. They seem to hate masculine and defiant (Who won’t take any crap from women) White men most of all. They’re nearly homicidal towards these guys. They claim they love soft, almost wimpy guys (though they don’t describe them that way – they call them sensitive) but as soon as they get a hold of one, they make mincemeat out of his balls. Why are these women dating Blacks? I’m not sure, but let’s look at the article:

A white woman past forty is often passed over by her white-male contemporaries. She goes younger or ethnic or foreign-born or down the socioeconomic scale or darker or she spends lonely nights at home with her cats. Black men are happy to get the babe they couldn’t have when she was twentysomething and fertile.

So this provides a clue as to why these women in my group are dating Black. They say that White guys don’t want them. However, some of them could clearly get a White guy – they just don’t want one. Some were extremely attractive for their ages – 50-62. I think they are going Black because they think we middle aged White guys are a bunch of wussies. I also think they are furious at White men. One of the ways that liberal White women, especially older ones, retaliate against all the White men who wronged them in life is to date Black. It’s the ultimate f-you to the White man. “I’m dating a nigger*! What are you going to do about it, pussy!?” I recall 25 years ago when I was embroiled in a passionate affair with an older White woman. We were screwing so much we barely had time to eat, drink or go to the bathroom. Nevertheless, she still thought I was a wuss. You can’t fuck your way to manhood. How do I know she felt this way? She more or less out and out told me. It’s true, I have the mild-mannered professor demeanor of a Noam Chomsky – I don’t seem macho at all. One time it was Saturday morning and we were recovering as usual from our nightly Sexual Olympics. She announced she was leaving for the weekend. We had an open relationship, I was a broke student, she had lots of money and paid for everything, so I didn’t care. But she was trying to get my goat. Worse than that. She was trying to get beat up. No, she was trying to get murdered. I yawned. “Yeah? Ok, no problem.” She jumped up and was dancing around in front of me like a boxer in the ring. “I have a date!” I raised my eyebrows a bit. You can’t faze me. I was getting tons of sex anyway, what did I care? I shrugged. She was trying to piss me off and it wasn’t working. “It’s with a Black guy!” She was practically shouting and had a look on her face like she was defying me to punch her. “And I’m going to be gone all weekend!” Her voice was getting shriller and shriller. I still didn’t care, but I don’t know why. Actually, I should have said, “Take lots of pics and show them to me,” but I didn’t. In olden days, a woman saying such a thing would get hit, or possibly even murdered. It’s one thing to make your man a cuckold, but it’s quite another to delightfully do it in front of his face, cackling diabolically the whole time. Overcivilized, we’ve quit justifiably murdering our women for this crap, and now look at ’em, dammit. Think about that while you read that article. As far as me, I’ve had enough bitches for fifty lifetimes. Who needs this? Life’s tough enough without some dominatrix trying to kick me in the balls. White women over 40 are losing their looks, so they need to be nice to have at least one redeeming feature. Guess not. In that case, I’m looking hard at Latinas and Asian women. *Used sardonically. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)