Why Do Women Love Felons?

From the Chateau: The usual Hivemind-approved rationalizations are given for why women LOVE LOVE LOVE incarcerated lowlifes (“emotional manipulation”, “forced intimacy”, “savior mentality”, etc), but really the answer is the most Occam-y of the hypothesis razors: dangerous men make women’s vaginas wet with arousal and their hearts flush with yearning.

Scathing ridicule aside, let’s keep something in perspective. Women fawning over hardened inmates and opening their pussies to criminal cock is an insult to the families of the victims of these killers. SHAME. SHAME. SHAME.

But that is female nature for you. Instead of ignoring that nature, or hand-waving it away under a shitstream of sophistry, we should all confront it and accept it as an unchangeable fact of life. Then, we as a nation need to have policies which recognize and synchronize with the reality of female sexual nature rather than attempt to defy it or mold it into something alien. So here’s an eminently reasonable suggestion that will be dutifully tut-tutted by our equalist overlords: ban women from working at male prisons.

Perhaps Trump can bring this up on his victory parade to the White House.

Posted in Sex | Comments Off on Why Do Women Love Felons?

What Lesbians Teach Us About Straight Women

From the Chateau:

Lesbians are repulsive to look at. To gaze upon a lesbian is to scoop out one’s retinas as an offering to the sun god who will burn them to a crisp. Almost all of them are fat and ugly with bad skin and worse clothes. The “lipstick lesbian” is a trope of porn-addled dweebs; sure, they exist, (I’ve come across a few) but their numbers are vanishingly small set against the IMMENSE majority of lesbians who are the furthest thing from bangable any man could imagine.

The general impression of lesbiandom is blobbiness. Lesbian couples are two extra large pastry puffs meiotically becoming one super sized pastry puff. Or two circling gas giants gravitationally stripping each other of a pleasing personality.

Yet they Find, Meet, Attract, and Close…. looking as they do. Clearly, lesbians care not, or care very little, for appearance. Looks are somewhere below “can breathe without mechanical assistance” on the lesbian ledger of acceptable mate criteria.

Lesbians, then, tell us something true about straight women. Retention of crucial psychosexual characteristics of the heterosexual standard is common in both lesbians and gay men. Just as gay men behave sexually like straight men, except with damaged target designators and no female gold-plated pussy obstacles to outmaneuver, lesbians behave sexually like straight women with no need to arouse visually-oriented straight men.

In the heterosexual sex market, the opposite sex is like a check on each other, placing constraints on just how much a person can express his or her sexual nature. Women can’t let themselves go without risking solitude and men can’t satisfy their urge to sleep with thousands of women without achieving a high social or material status or a degree of skill in the crimson arts.

These opposite-sex constraints are missing or greatly mitigated among homosexuals. Gay male libido is just as visually-oriented as that of straight men’s, but is allowed to fully express because gay men are less protective of their cheap sperm than straight women are of their expensive eggs. Ugly gay men have it rough, but for most it’s a sexual circus with no safety net.

Think of straight women as boots on illegally parked straight men; a straight man with T levels above manlet metadeath would love to park in the tight space of every pretty girl he sees every day of his life. He can’t because the cooch collective has bolted the boot on his hot rod. If he manages to park in one of those spots, he’s staying there for a while. Gay men, otoh, are free to park their hivvy pork wherever they like and come and go as they please; very few gays will put the boot on gay boner. The gay male sexual market is a parking lot of receptive rectums*.

Lesbians, likewise, are essentially unconstrained straight female sexuality hypercharged, or rather hypocharged, to its inevitable conclusion in lesbian bed death (and tremendous levels of domestic violence). Dyke Fright is real because women, straight and homo alike, just don’t care as much about a sex partner’s looks as do straight and homo men about their sex partners’ looks.

Lesbian dishevelment and apparent apathy toward improving their appearance to please other lesbians is indirect proof that straight women place less emphasis on men’s looks than men place on women’s looks (and less than gay men place on other gay men’s looks). The difference between straight women and lesbians is that the former aren’t trying to find love with other women who will care as little about looks as they do.

Posted in Homosexuality | Comments Off on What Lesbians Teach Us About Straight Women

Amazon Doesn’t Consider the Race of Its Customers. Should It?

Comments:

* The same-day delivery gap. In this case, I doubt there’s any racist motive, but this is an another example of how more and better data, can actually lead to more and “better” levels of discrimination, i.e. profit-relevant profiling that can exacerbate “disparate impacts” for particular groups; which in this case means residents of certain majority-black neighborhoods having to wait twice as long to receive their Amazon purchases.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on Amazon Doesn’t Consider the Race of Its Customers. Should It?

The Most Important Thing About This Election

William S. Lind writes: The most important question in this election is what the peasants do when the election is over and they are again shut out. Many may simply give up on politics and go home. Others may remain politically engaged as the equivalent of Cleveland Browns fans, whose motto is, “There’s always next year.”

But many from both parties may stay angry, stay involved, but realize that neither party offers a way forward. Those people have the potential to create what usually happens when a corrupt and incompetent Establishment endlessly clings to power: a pre-revolutionary situation.

Pre-revolutionary situations do not necessarily involve mobs in the streets carrying torches and pitchforks, though they certainly can. Both the Trump and Sanders campaigns to some degree reflect a pre-revolutionary situation. My great if slender hope, following Establishment victories in both parties’ nomination contests, an independent Trump-Sanders ticket, would clearly manifest a pre-revolutionary situation. Post-election manifestations could include a variety of politically-oriented mass movements, including one for a constitutional convention.

The most likely direction such a pre-revolutionary situation would take, I think, is one for devolution: the movement of power away from Washington to state and local levels. This would not be a “mother-may-I”, hat-in-hand request to Washington for devolution, but concrete actions at state and local levels to seize power. On issues ranging from gay “marriage” to the use of GMO seeds, states and localities, through their governments or through direct action, would nullify rulings coming out of Washington. Should the Left obtain a five-vote majority on the Supreme Court, nullification by state governments might become a powerful movement in itself. State National Guards, forced to choose between home and Washington, might decide to take orders from home.

A wise Establishment, faced with a pre-revolutionary situation, would accommodate it with Constitutional devolution, which is to say a return to federalism. Life in South Carolina would again be allowed to differ from life in Massachusetts, as it did when our republic still followed its Constitution.

But falling Establishments are seldom wise. It may turn out that the question of who sits in the White House come January, 2017 is about as important as who became Roman Emperor in 450 A.D. favicon

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Most Important Thing About This Election

Chinese police officer texted: “I hate that beaner, but I think the nig is worse.”

Scott Glover and Dan Simon, CNN, April , 2016

“I hate that beaner,” one text reads, “but I think the nig is worse.”

“Indian ppl are disgusting,” proclaims another.

“Burn down walgreens and kill the bums,” a third message states.

These and numerous other racist and homophobic text messages were allegedly sent by a San Francisco police officer at the center of an ongoing scandal that is the most recent disturbing revelation for the beleaguered SFPD.

CNN has exclusively obtained a list of dozens of offensive texts sent to and from Officer Jason Lai. {snip}

Lai resigned from the department earlier this month, according to a police spokesman.

In addition to disparaging blacks, Hispanics and Indians, Lai used coded language to talk about gay officers, according to a source, and made a blanket statement impugning residents of the city’s largely minority and low-income Tenderloin district.

“They’re all drug dealers in the TL,” his text stated.

{snip}

In the messages, Lai makes a disparaging joke about President Obama and says he hates basketball player LeBron James.

“F— that nig,” he says.

{snip}

Lai, who was identified as Chinese by his attorney, makes several references to “hock gwai,” apparently a misspelled reference to the Cantonese “hak gwai,” a derogatory phrase for African Americans.

In a series of texts sent last June he describes an incident involving a “bunch of hock gwais shooting each other.”

“Sprained my ankle over these barbarians,” he says.

One of the suspects “went to the hospital after he got shot lol,” the officer texted.

“Too bad none of them died,” he added. “One less to worry about.”

{snip}

In another exchange referencing African Americans, Lai wrote: “They’re like a pack [of] wild animals on the loose.”

The exchange happened during a night of civil unrest in Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray. Gray, an African American, died after suffering head and neck injuries in the back of a police van.

Posted in Race, San Francisco | Comments Off on Chinese police officer texted: “I hate that beaner, but I think the nig is worse.”

Neocon: Hold Donald Trump’s voters accountable, too: They are embracing a demagogue with eyes wide open

Gabriel Schoenfeld writes April 9:

Even before he entered the political arena, it was evident to most anyone with eyes that Donald Trump was a moral disgrace.

Philandering, misogyny, fraud, bankruptcy and tackiness were almost synonyms for his name. To all that, as a candidate for the presidency, Trump has added serial lying, racism, religious bigotry, slander and the outright encouragement of violence, with threats of more violence should he be deprived of the delegates needed to clinch his party’s nomination.

Yet many people with eyes — millions of them, in fact — have cast their votes for this creature from the cesspool. What are we to make of these fellow Americans?

For obvious reasons, they are being treated by Trump’s rivals with tender solicitude. Trump’s followers remain important players in the ongoing battle for votes in the Republican primaries that remain. And whoever ends up as the Republican nominee will need them to show up at the polls in November to defeat Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

What is harder to excuse is the fact that more than a few conservative commentators, including many who revile Trump himself, have addressed his supporters with sympathy. The conservative columnist and Cruz supporter David Limbaugh has appealed to Trump’s followers as “patriots,” telling them, “I understand and share your frustration” as he implores them not to vote for their candidate of choice.

Michael Scheuer responds:

Well, if collective punishment for Palestinians, and Muslims generally, is acceptable, why not for pro-Trump Americans?

America’s flagship voice of disloyalty, Israel-First, and Neoconservatism — Commentary Magazine — has unleashed one of its key staff Gauleiters, a man named Herr Garbriel Schoenfeld, to demand that all Americans supporting Donald Trump be held “accountable” for disagreeing with their Israel-First superiors.

Herr Schoenfeld characterizes Trump as “this creature from the cesspool” and Trump’s voters as losers who are “beleaguered economically” and have been left behind by “globalization” and “de-industrialization”. (NB: The only U.S. human cesspools I know are the three found in meetings of the writers, editors, publishers, and owners of Commentary, Weekly Standard, and the post-W.F. Buckley National Review. I strongly suspect Trump is not invited to those events, and so he could not have come from America’s only known human cesspools. Mr. Schoenfeld, of course, swims in that stinking pool among his fellow champions of the republic’s demise.)

This is just the start of Schoenfeld’s barely disguised wish — apparently shared by the editors, publishers, and owners at the New York Daily News, which printed his essay — to visit some kind of a holocaust on Americans holding views not approved by Israel-First. The following is from the Gauleiter’s diktat. It calls for the collective punishment of pro-Trump, legal , and loyal U.S. citizens — perhaps bulldozing their homes or smothering them with pillows, a la another nation’s security service? – who refuse to repent and intend to vote other than as demanded by Israel First.

“Yet however much Trump voters have grievances, this does not absolve any one of them of personal responsibility for their political choice. We are not only speaking here of those who engage in violence or shout vicious chants at Trump rallies, or the innumerable others who spew anti-Semitic and racist bile across the Internet.

All Trump voters can and should be held to account for embracing a candidate whose character is so dubious, and whose plans for the country — among them, singling out a religious group for a ban on an entry to the United States — amount to an assault on the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

Followers of notorious dictators of the past also no doubt had legitimate grievances, yet this hardly spares them from the condemnation history has rightly heaped on them.

It is particularly rich to attack critics of Trump supporters as “condescending intellectual snots” — [Dennis] Saffran’s words — when Trump himself flagrantly treats his acolytes with condescension and contempt. He has exulted in their low attainments, declaring after his victory in one primary that “I love the poorly educated.” Remarking on his disciples’ mindless loyalty, he has said that he “could stand in the middle of 5th Ave. and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”

As a practical matter, Republican political candidates may need to court Trump voters. As a moral matter, the rest of us should not close our eyes to the fact that those who pine for a strongman, and who would have us all follow Trump into the abyss, are in the best case willfully ignorant, and in the worst case knowingly endorsing a dangerous demagogue.”

If you read this Goebbels-esque quote again slowly, you may hear a chorus quietly singing behind the Gauleiter as he writes the words and feels the pain caused by those who disagree with his genius, the whole story of which he surely must be jotting down in a diary likely to be entitled “My Struggle”. I could not tell if the words were being sung in German, English, or Hebrew, but the melodies seem to sound very much like “Die Wacht am Rhine” and “Das Panzerlied”. Which tune, do you suppose, would go better with the physical punishment Schoenfeld apparently wants inflicted on all “Trump voters [who] can and should be held to account”? (2) One wonders what Schoenfeld knows about the activities of his Neocon and Israel-First friends — perhaps on the Internet or at rallies? – that are meant to identify Trump voters. Whatever they are up to, Schoenfeld writes with certainty that the ballots of pro-Trump voters will not be secret, so they “can” be identified and “held to account“.

What the Gauleiter is suffering so much angst over is not, of course, Mr. Trump, but rather his and his kind’s growing awareness that Trump appeals to many Americans of all races who work for a living, raise families, pay for their kids’ schooling, are good, community-minded citizens, and who deeply resent that they are the half of Americans who pay income tax to support the idleness of the other half of their eternally freeloading fellow citizens. Herr Schoenfeld and his disloyal associates are even more alarmed to be learning that these same Americans hate having their exorbitant taxes, and often their soldier-children’s lives, given to worthless-to-America foreign entities — which also are often America’s enemies — including Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Arab tyrannies, any number of the thieving tyrants who govern in Africa, and the galaxy of tax-eating/wasting international organizations.

People like Schoenfeld, the Neocons, most senior Democrats and Republicans, and the Israel-Firsters have no patience with the temerity of those they snidely look down on as left-behind and under-educated Americans. How dare this ignorant American rabble, think Schoenfeld and his stern gang of fellow haters, challenge their au courant and Ivy League-educated betters?

Well, whether or not Schoenfeld and his gang like what they are hearing, the American citizens they hate are demanding that their voices and votes be heard and counted, and that their taxes be used not to support domestic slackers, illegal aliens, and war-causing foreigners, but to rebuild the republic’s infrastructure, feed the 25-percent of American kids who are hungry, find shelter for the homeless, control borders and end illegal immigration, and begin reducing the ever-growing national debt, much of which is the product of the bipartisan U.S. governing elite forever giving away their tax payments — and with them their kids’ future economic welfare and the nation’s security — to slackers at home and utterly expendable nations and organizations abroad.

Gauleiter Schoenfeld, et al. ought to listen intently to what Mr. Trump and his supporters are saying. And they should keep in mind that however much they dislike what they now hear, they will like much less what they will hear if they, the rest of the arrogant and corrupt governing elite, and the media block Mr. Trump from getting the nomination by procedural tricks, delegate stealing, the denial of citizen voting, election-night misinformation, media lies, or simple bribes. I would suggest that if Mr. Trump is defeated in that manner, the angry words Herr Schoenfeld and his fellow Brownshirts will hear are nearly certain to be accompanied by the lilting, but subtly ominous strains of “The Chambering of Rounds Concerto in F.U. Major”.

Posted in America, Donald Trump, Neoconservatives | Comments Off on Neocon: Hold Donald Trump’s voters accountable, too: They are embracing a demagogue with eyes wide open

Haaretz: A Screenwriter, a Hasidic Mother of Seven, and a Sex Poet

From Haaretz:

Marilyn Wennig, 36, uniquely combines the two estranged worlds of an ultra-Orthodox lifestyle with secular Israeli film and literature.

A day after Marilyn Wennig was interviewed on Channel 2’s late night news show about the Oscars, she asked her parents how they liked the show. “You’ve put on a lot of weight,” they told her.
In our interview she explains how in the secular world and the family in which she was raised in particular, appearance is a very important and competitive matter. This diverts attention from what is important, from the interior, says the lecturer and researcher of movies, screenwriter, poet, activist and film critic who became religious some 15 years ago.
The mother of seven is a member of the Belzer Hasidic sect. For Wennig, covering one’s head and dressing modestly is a kind of rebellion. Discovering religion is also a feminist step.
Wennig, 36, bursts a lot of myths in our interview. In fact the preconceptions collapse even before you meet her, just by reading her latest poetry collection, “So What Do We Have Here.”
In the poem called “Purity,” she writes: “Do Haredi women touch themselves/ By mistake, with excitement, without noticing.”
A poem about sex is not exactly what you would expect from an ultra-Orthodox Israeli mother. But Marilyn Wennig doesn’t do the expected.
She was born in Australia to Israeli parents, and the family returned to Israel when she was three. As a child she wrote for childrens’ newspapers, appeared on children’s television shows and went to the Experimental High School in Jerusalem. She did her military service with the IDF magazine Bamahane.
Her husband Erez Hever was her first boyfriend. They separated and then reconciled at 21, got married and became religious. But whereas Hever is a full fledged yeshiva student, Wennig lives between worlds. In her Jerusalem home she is a Belzer Hasid, her children learn in Yiddish at Hasidic schools. In Tel Aviv she meets with film industry people and moves in an entirely different world. 
“Every day I go to Berlin,” she laughs.

Read more.

Posted in Haredi, Hasidim, Israel | Comments Off on Haaretz: A Screenwriter, a Hasidic Mother of Seven, and a Sex Poet

Ramzpaul: ‘I reject the notion that you have to hate others to be a nationalist.’

Richard Spencer responds: “You’re being rather silly, Ramzpaul. First, as a phenomenon, nationalism has clearly been about hatred, in one way or another.”

“In The Current Year, people love to denounce “hate.” They beg the question whether hatred is human & can be justified.”

“Liberals are incapable of real hatred, and thus incapable of love.”

“In America, the Left-Right dialectic is about whether you’re are a secular universalist liberal or a godly one.”

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off on Ramzpaul: ‘I reject the notion that you have to hate others to be a nationalist.’

The Decline Of Free Speech In The West

From the Gatestone Institute:

The West has capitulated on freedom of expression. Nobody in the West launched the motto “Je Suis Avijit Roy,” the name of the first of the several bloggers butchered, flogged or jailed last year for criticizing Islam.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, sided with the Turks. She condemned the German comedian’s poem, called it a “deliberate insult,” then approved the filing of criminal charges against him for insulting the Turkish president.

The West is veiling its freedom of speech in the confrontation with the Islamic world: this is the story of Salman Rushdie, of the Danish cartoons, of Theo van Gogh, of Charlie Hebdo.

Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, just released an interview with Italy’s largest newspaper, Il Corriere della Sera, where he suggested a kind of grand bargain: We Iranians will discuss with you our human rights situation, if you Europeans suppress freedom of expression on Islam.

Last week, Nazimuddin Samad sat at his computer at home and penned a few critical lines against the Islamist drift of his country, Bangladesh. The day after, Samad was approached by four men shouting “Allahu Akbar!” (“Allah is great!”) and hacked him to death with machetes.

These killings have become routine in Bangladesh, where many bloggers, journalists and publishers are being killed in broad daylight because of their criticism of Islam. There is a hit list with 84 names of “satanic bloggers.” A wave of terrorism against journalists reminiscent of that in Algeria, where 60 journalists were killed by Islamist armed groups between 1993 and 1997.

But these shocking killings have not been worth of a single line in Europe’s newspapers.

Is it because these bloggers are less famous than the cartoonists murdered at Charlie Hebdo? Is it because their stories did not come from the City of Light, Paris, but from one of the poorest and darkest cities in the world, Dhaka?

No, it is because the West has capitulated on freedom of expression. Nobody in the West launched the motto “Je Suis Avijit Roy,” the name of the first of these bloggers butchered last year.

From Bangladesh, we now receive photos of writers in pools of blood, laptops seized by police looking for “evidence” and keyboards burned by the Islamists. We receive images reminiscent of the riots in Bradford, England, over Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses in 1989, ten years after the Ayatollah Khomeini had revolutionized Iran into a stronghold of Islamic extremism.

Yet the stories of these bloggers from outside Europe remain shrouded by a ghastly transparency, as if their death has been only virtual, as if the internet had become their grave, as if these fallen bloggers did not deserve the virality of social networks.

There is also the case of Raif Badawi, in Saudi Arabia, sentenced to 1,000 lashes, ten years in jail and a fine of $270,000 for blogging thoughts such as, “My commitment is…to reject any repression in the name of religion…a goal that we will reach in a peaceful and law-abiding way.” The lashing order added that he should be “lashed very severely.” In addition to that, Badawi’s human rights lawyer, Walid Abu al-Khayr, was sentenced on July 6, 2014, to 10 years in prison. He was accused of: “inciting public opinion,” “disobedience in matters of the sovereign,” “lack of respect in dealings with the authorities,” “offense of the judicial system,” “inciting international organizations against the Saudi kingdom” and, finally, for having founded illegally, or without authorization, his association “Monitor of Human Rights in Saudi Arabia.” He was also forbidden to travel for fifteen years after his release, and fined 200,000 riyals ($53,000) according to Abdullah al-Shihri of the Associated Press.

Also in Saudi Arabia, in a clear violation of international law, according to Amnesty International, on March 24, the journalist Alaa Brinji was sentenced to five years in prison, an eight year travel ban and a fine of $13,000 for a few tweets allegedly “insulting the rulers,” inciting public opinion,” and “accusing security officers of killing protestors in Awamiyya,” the kingdom’s eastern province where the oil fields and the Shiites are.

Unfortunately, Western governments never raise Badawi’s case when they visit Saudi Arabia’s rulers, and turn a blind eye to the way this country treats its own citizens.

Look also at what happened not in the poor and Islamic Bangladesh, but in the wealthy and secularized Germany, where a comedian named Jan Böhmermann mocked and insulted Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan on a television show. The prosecutor of Mainz just opened a case against Böhmermann under paragraph 103 of the German Penal Code, which provides up to five years in prison for insulting a foreign head of state. Chancellor Angela Merkel sided with the Turks. She condemned the comedian’s poem, called it a “deliberate insult,” then approved the prosecution against him.

Meanwhile, the German public television station, Zdf, removed the video from their website, and Böhmermann raised the white flag by suspending his show. The comedian, after Islamist death threats, got police protection.

The West is veiling its freedom of speech in the confrontation with the Islamic world: this is the story of Salman Rushdie, of the Danish cartoons, of Theo van Gogh, of Charlie Hebdo.

Read more.

Posted in Censorship, Islam | Comments Off on The Decline Of Free Speech In The West

Smart People Have Fewer Sex Partners

Psychology Today: “Intelligence is negatively associated with sex frequency,” says Rosemary Hopcroft, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. “It’s a bit dismaying.”

And people with higher education levels generally have lower numbers of sexual partners. The latest National Survey of Family Growth shows that, for example, men with college degrees are half as likely to have had four or more partners in the last year as men with a high school education alone. (Or at least, they’re half as likely to admit it, points out Anjani Chandra, a health scientist and demographer at the Centers for Disease Control.)

Why? “It’s hard to pick apart,” Chandra says. But the sexual habits of teens might offer a clue. Carolyn Halpern, a professor at the UNC School of Public Health, found a high concentration of teen virgins at the top of the intelligence scale. She thinks the smartest kids might hold off on sex because they’re thinking through its potential consequences.

But that doesn’t tell the whole story: The same bright teens are just as likely to postpone relatively innocuous activities like kissing. “It’s hard to imagine a 15-year-old wouldn’t kiss a boy because she’s worried about getting pregnant,” she admits. “You have to ask: Are these choices or questions of opportunity?”

She’s not implying that gifted kids are homely rejects—Halpern, along with other researchers analyzing the link between sex and intelligence, controls for attractiveness, personal grooming, and affability, and the observed effect still holds. It might be a question of priorities: “Pursuing education takes up a lot of time,” Chandra says.

That’s fine for scholarly teens, but why are the brightest adults still getting the least action? Life history theory, which examines how species have evolved different reproductive strategies to survive, offers a possible explanation.

People with high executive functioning—in judgment, decision-making, and impulse control—usually have what’s called a slow life history strategy, notes Aurelio José Figueredo, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Arizona: They tend to have fewer partners and less sex but more resources (such as money and status) to invest in potential offspring.

Geniuses hoping to lead lives of passion and promiscuity might be disappointed, but it’s not all bad news—at least for men. “Money, not intelligence, helps men have more sex,” Hopcroft says. “In and of itself, intellect won’t do the trick. But intelligence helps them get money.”

Posted in IQ, Sex | Comments Off on Smart People Have Fewer Sex Partners