Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

Since its inception, I’ve noticed that Facebook highlights stories that tend to slant left. I never recall it highlighting something that would make a right-wing politician or pundit look good. It prefers instead to bash people such as Donald Trump and Ann Coulter.

Gizmodo: Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.

Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially “inject” selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren’t trending at all. The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module.

In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values onto the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing—but it is in stark contrast to the company’s claims that the trending module simply lists “topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.”

These new allegations emerged after Gizmodo last week revealed details about the inner workings of Facebook’s trending news team—a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the “trending” module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site. As we reported last week, curators have access to a ranked list of trending topics surfaced by Facebook’s algorithm, which prioritizes the stories that should be shown to Facebook users in the trending section. The curators write headlines and summaries of each topic, and include links to news sites. The section, which launched in 2014, constitutes some of the most powerful real estate on the internet and helps dictate what news Facebook’s users—167 million in the US alone—are reading at any given moment.

“Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” said the former curator. This individual asked to remain anonymous, citing fear of retribution from the company. The former curator is politically conservative, one of a very small handful of curators with such views on the trending team. “I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.”

The former curator was so troubled by the omissions that they kept a running log of them at the time; this individual provided the notes to Gizmodo. Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. “I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news,” the former curator said.

Posted in Conservatives, Facebook, Journalism | Comments Off on Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

The Concept Of ‘Racism’ Didn’t Exist Before The 1930s

Ch9B-yWW0AQ_cOH

Posted in Race | Comments Off on The Concept Of ‘Racism’ Didn’t Exist Before The 1930s

‘Nothing good ever happens on Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd’

WABC: 2 SUSPECTS ARRESTED IN MURDER OF NJIT STUDENT DURING BURGLARY AT FRATERNITY HOUSE

NEWARK, New Jersey (WABC) — Police have made two arrests in the murder of a New Jersey Institute of Technology student killed during a burglary at a fraternity house near the school earlier this week.

The prosecutor on Friday announced murder, burglary and weapons charges against 18-year-old Irvington resident Nafee Cotman and 22-year-old Newark resident Taquan Harris. Cotman was arrested Thursday morning in Irvington, and Harris was arrested late Friday afternoon in Irvington. Both are being held on $1 million bail.

050616-wabc-njit-suspects-img

Police said burglars wearing masks broke into the back door of the house and encountered Micalizzi. They got into a struggle and Micalizzi was shot twice. He later died at the hospital. Police said the burglars took off and tossed their masks down the street.

Micalizzi was a second-year mechanical engineering major on the dean’s list at NJIT. He is originally from Freehold Township in Monmouth County.

“This house and the people in it are a great group of people, the NJIT TKE community. They are all really good kids, never had issues here or anything,” said Christian Tavares, an NJIT student.

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off on ‘Nothing good ever happens on Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd’

Trump Is Willing To Die For Our Sins

Are you willing to take the lord Donald J. Trump as your personal savior, to walk in his ways, to love him and to follow him?

Every form of personal redemption requires a path, a community and a literature.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I suspect Trump’s chances of death or serious injury between now and the election are greater than police officers, firefighters or military personnel overseas. He is literally laying his life on the line for his country.

* I think there have been attempts on him already. But you are correct, it is going to get worse. And as Steve wrote about that guy in Europe, well, he had it coming, right? Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Gonna get nasty…

* DONALD J. TRUMP RESPONSE TO LINDSEY GRAHAM:
“I fully understand why Lindsey Graham cannot support me. If I got beaten as badly as I beat him, and all the other candidates he endorsed, I would not be able to give my support either. Every time I see Lindsey Graham spew hate during interviews I ask why the media never questions how I single-handedly destroyed his hapless run for President. As a candidate who did not receive 1% in his own state – compared to my victory at nearly 40% with many others in the race – he has zero credibility. He was a poor representative and an embarrassment to the great people of South Carolina. Judging by the incompetent way he ran his campaign, it is easy to see why his military strategies have failed so badly — we can’t even beat ISIS!
While I will unify the party, Lindsey Graham has shown himself to be beyond rehabilitation. And like the voters who rejected him, so will I!”
Donald J. Trump

* Russell Moore was part of the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT), a project of Soros’ National Immigration Forum. The Evangelical Immigration Table was funded partly by Paul Singer (Rubio’s money man), by which I mean he paid for their ads promoting amnesty during the Gang of Eight battle, which was pretty much all that the EIT did.

* Clearly if the term “self-hating” can apply to Jews or gays who dissent from the identity-politics line, then Russell Moore is a “self-hating” Christian.

* Is Moore considered to be on the Left? He was one of the contributors to the notorious “Against Trump” hissy-fit at National Review. He was contemptible enough then; with this he sinks to a new depth.

It’s a great irony that the hysterical reaction to Trump among self-proclaimed “principled conservatives” has exposed how much they’ve always been in it for fame and money. I hope Moore got a thrill from his little NYT byline.

* “This Baptist Charity Is Being Paid Hundreds of Millions to Shelter Child Migrants

Since December, BCFS (Baptist Child and Family Services) has received more than $280 million in federal grants to operate these shelters, according to government records. On July 7, two days before Dinnin met Obama in Dallas, the Department of Health and Human Services awarded BCFS $190,707,505 in a single grant.

The federal grant money for sheltering unaccompanied children, provided by HHS’s Administration for Children and Families, has so far totaled $671 million during the 2014 fiscal year. BCFS has received 40% of those funds, making it the largest recipient of money disbursed to contractors to temporarily house unaccompanied children…

* Christianity is a strange kind of religion.

It is both nativist and anti-nativist.

It arose in a time of Jewish resistance against the Roman Empire. Collaborationist Jews just went along with the Romans. Patriotic Jews wanted to drive the Romans out by any means necessary.

Jesus was more a patriotic Jew and certainly not a collaborationist Jew. He respected the patriotic Jews who were idealistic and willing to die for God and their land.
He had no respect for the collaborationists who just went along to enrich themselves and live well and enjoy privilege.
But He fell out of favor with the patriots as well because He thought the Jews should just leave it up to God. The real battle was a spiritual battle. And vengeance would be God’s.
If Jews were to be very good and give up their wealth and choose holy poverty and prove their goodness in the eyes of God, then God would take care of things. God would send terror upon the bad folks and smite them. According to John, God would even send the 666 beask that was scarier than Godzilla and Mechagodzilla combined.

Jesus saw armed resistance as futile since Romans were so much more powerful in arms. Also, too many key Jews were collaborators. And Romans appointed Herod as king of the Jews. And Herod was a master builder and a mighty tyrant in his own right.

So, how could Jews win? Jesus relied on God. If Jews were really really good, God would take care of it. And for this to happen, Jesus had to be sacrificed as a the Perfect Man. He would not resist the torture and pain. He would take the whupping(though prolly not as horrible as in Gibson’s movie) and then die on the Cross. And then God would open up the heavens, send the angels of vengeance(like in Raiders of the Lost Ark), and kick some butt. But it didn’t happen that way.
Since God didn’t punish the evildoers when Jesus got nailed to the Cross, the idea was that it will happen some day. Who knows when?
The whole idea began as revenge for the Jews against Romans, but since the religion outlasted the Roman Empire, the revelation about Judgement Day took on new meanings. Ironically, even though Jesus wanted to see God smash pagan Rome, the Rome that got smashed was Christian, and the smashing was done by pagans.
Go figure.

Anyway, Christianity began as a religion of resistance. It was to resist the Roman imperialists and the Jewish collaborators. But unlike Zealots who wanted to be like the Viet Cong, Jesus was more into what Gandhi pulled later. Gandhi had numbers on his side. Jesus thought He had God on His side.

St. Paul was a collaborator who used to whup patriotic Jews for the Romans. But he had a change of heart. And he came to serve Jesus. And he wanted to win over Jews, but Jews told him to get lost.

This is when Christianity, which began as a Jewish-nativist religion(and was maintained as such by Peter and his followers), became an anti-nativist religion. Disappointed by his fellow Jews–who also kicked his ass a few times–, Paul decided to turn it into a universal religion for all folks, and to make it palatable to non-Jews, his version didn’t require men to slice off their weenie skins. (That sure helped in spreading the faith.) Paul turned against the Jews and even railed against them. He appealed to Greeks, Romans, Syrians, and other peoples. And when he went among Jews, he favored exile Jews in non-Jewish lands.

But Romans didn’t like it. Romans were for pagan universalism of Roman rule.
It was political universalism that placed huge areas under Roman authority. Religiously, Romans let others worship their own gods.

Romans didn’t like the idea of a new kind of universalism, a spiritual one based on the God of the Jews. Even as Paul appealed to Romans and excoriated Jews, Romans found him bothersome and dangerous.

It was spiritual universalism vs political universalism. Eventually, of course, the two merged under Constantine.

Christianity that developed was dual-in-nature. It was both anti-imperialist and pro-imperialist. To the extent that its originator was a Jew who resisted the Roman imperialists and was killed by them, Christianity was an anti-Roman-imperialist religion. Also, a kind of ‘slave religion’ that morally favored the wretched-of-the-earth, it favored the oppressed over the oppressors.

But on the other hand, Christianity could not have spread so easily if not for Roman Empire’s vast cross-circuitry of roads and trade routes. Paul traveled of foot and by sea all over. He was able to do this cuz of Pax Romana. Also, his Roman citizenship saved him a bunch of times. So, even as he was spreading the faith that originated as anti-imperialism, his very means of spreading it was made possible by the existence of the Empire. In a way, Paul was standing up to Roman power and Roman way. But he wasn’t pure of heart like Jesus. He could be diplomatic, savvy, political, cunning. He knew how to save his own skin. He worked like a salesman. Unlike Jesus, he didn’t seek martyrdom. He tried to avoid it as much as possible.
He knew there was much to gain from Roman power, Roman laws, Roman military power. After all, without Roman imperialism, there would just be chaos and violence all around.

Furthermore, Christianity had its own seeds of imperialism. If indeed Jesus is the Son of One and Only God and if His truth is the only true truth, it means that the entire world must be made to accept His truth. That was justification for imperialism for the Romans and later the Europeans. Indeed, even US slavery was justified along the lines of turning black heathens into Aunt Esthers. And Spanish justified their conquest of the New World on the basis of spreading the faith.

So, Christianity spread via imperialism even though it originated as an act of anti-imperialism. Not only did Christians make a pact with mighty military power(beginning with Romans) but the innate core of Christianity is a kind of spiritual imperialism(very much like Islam that came later). To save the world, the world has to be conquered, and all must be made to share in the faith in the Lord.

Indeed, Moore overlooks the fact that the Christianization of much of the world is the product of Western Imperialism. He also fails to understand that his hope for more Christians-of-color in the West is the product of reverse-imperialism, the invasion of the West by darkie hordes(most of whom will be converted more to rap music and thug culture than religion).

I reject such imperialism and globalism. Imperialism had value long ago when the West did have much to teach the world. Also, there was a time when so many peoples were isolated and had much to gain by being shaken out of their doldrums into the international system dominated by the West, the most advanced folks on earth.

But now, globalism threatens all nations, all cultures, all traditions. It is like a hurricane that threatens the integrity and identity of every nation and civilization.
And for every new Christian convert created by globalism, there are 1000 new fans of Miley Cyrus and other such filth. Besides, the main faith spread by global West is now homomania.

Let non-Christian peoples keep their own cultures and identities. And let Europeans and Americans keep theirs.

* The Liberals in the comments section of The New York Times just had an orgasm at London electing a Muslim for mayor.

It’s weird seeing a bunch of Godless Liberal Atheists who claim they hate religion, yet want to see more Muslims in positions of power.

Why do Atheists want so badly to be ruled over by Muslims? It must be a Cuck fantasy for Atheists to want to live in a society like Syria or Yemen.

Atheists who love Muslims remind me of Feminazis who say there is a war on women, yet they only date thugs or bad boys and do not give nice guys the time of the day.

* Moore is a good example of how the Cult of Compassion could shut off a man’s heart to his fellow brethren.

Moore’s Cult of Compassion is all about the Noble Negro(of To Kill a Mocking Bird). His childlike mind is stuck in the 50s of Jimmy Crow. He has no idea how much this nation has changed. He still seems to think white folks have it all and must share with all the world. He must live in a bubble and be disconnected from reality since so many white people are hurting, largely due to growing diversity.

He is so full of himself, his own goodness, his own precious holiness, and his self-righteous conceit that he is blind to problems faced by real Americans whose needs have been overlooked by idiots like him and other globalists who favor ‘more consumers for my brand(in his care, religion)’ than for what is good for my fellow countrymen.

Moore is too busy looking into the looking glass and muttering ‘mirror mirror on the wall, who is the goody-goodiest of them all’ to realize that America of today isn’t what it was 50 yrs ago. It is now an America where blacks routinely beat up and bully whites. It is a nation where blacks are far more likely to taunt and insult whites than other way around. I mean how many whites say ‘go back to Africa’? But just listen to rap music that is filled with filth.

Moore has too much pride, a bad thing in Christianity. His moral pride and preening holy-shmoliness blinds him to the fact that he’s a greedy sumfabitch who’s only interested in increasing members for his church than doing what is good for all Americans.
And more immigration and more diversity is NOT what this country needs.

Diversity is imperialism, imperialism is diversity. Roman Empire was diverse… because it was an EMPIRE!

If the West deserves to be invaded to make it diverse, then the corollary is ALL the world deserves to be invaded to make them more diverse.

* That Russell’s article would appear in the NYT is simply bizarre. Would they publish an evangelical Op-Ed about how “the majority of people who ever lived” were bound to not enter Heaven because they refused to accept Jesus as their Savior?

I doubt it. And I also doubt that many evangelicals even read, or respect, anything in the New York Times.

Posted in Christianity, Donald Trump | Comments Off on Trump Is Willing To Die For Our Sins

What is a Jew?

A goy writes: That question only sound provocative when a gentile asks it, I suppose. But being a curious person, who has read big chunks of the Koran and Bhagavad Gita and Tao Te Ching and Confucius and Plato and so on… I sometimes read about Judaism. I was thinking about ethnic-intermarriage, and I knew about the Jewish proscription against it, which I assumed was a rule mostly ignored by American Jews. But I googled something about it, and this entry on Chabad.org was the first one to show up.

Frankly, it seems unbelievably racist to me. Here’s my favorite section:

What, then, is a Jew?

After studying the matter for many years and having countless conversations with Jews of every degree of observance and belief, I think that the most convincing and coherent answer is that the distinguishing element of the Jew is the Neshamah (soul) that every Jew possesses. The soul of the Jew is different than the soul of the non-Jew. They have different characteristics, potentials and needs.

My goodness. Imagine a white person proclaiming–on a well-known mainstream public website, by the way–that the soul of a white person is different than the soul of non-whites. What do my fellow gentiles think of this? Do we give Judaism a pass on being flat-out racist? I mean, of course, I’m trolling a bit… and I get it: if Jews accepted intermarriage without hesitation, they would vanish as a people. But that’s true of any ethnic group, and it seems to me that if any of the rest of them avoided intermarriage–in 2016!–specifically out of an effort to maintain their ethnic in-group population, we would not hesitate to call that “racist.”

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on What is a Jew?

Are Men Off The Reservation?

Comment: This article brings up Hillary’s most disturbing quote to date:

To Camille this childhood explained this: Hillary’s anti-male subtext, to which so many women voters are plainly drawn, flared into view last week when she crowed to CNN’s Jake Tapper about her proven skills in sex war: “I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get off the reservation in the way they behave and how they speak….I’m not going to deal with their temper tantrums or their bullying or their efforts to try to provoke me.”

This is incredibly insulting to men, and I hope Trump’s fall ad campaign will highlight it. In Hillary’s mind, men are wild Indians who ride around tomahawking and stealing squaws and war whooping and they need a firm woman’s hand to put them back on “the reservation”.

This quote helped me understand why, with about 100 million adult Democrats, only Hillary Clinton was a suitable Democratic candidate for president. The country’s democrats have been duped into believing that Hillary has kept Bill on “the reservation” and that we owe her for this sacrifice.

In fact, Hillary kept Bill on the reservation in much the same way that George W. Bush kept us safe from terrorism. In other words, not at all. The Lewinsky matter was a disaster for Democrats. And I think that Hillary knew full well that Bill was a skirt-chasing horndog when she married him – because she could see that he was a one-in-a-million political natural.

As if Hillary would have refused to stand by her man. Everything that Hillary has ever gotten, she got from her marriage with Bill Clinton. This is the Truth that Donald Trump will reveal this fall, and when the scales fall off the eyes of millions of voters, Trump will trump.

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on Are Men Off The Reservation?

Trump’s Nationalism

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* The history of the Obama years will be written under a Trump administration. Something about that feels so right.

* All these conservative commentators seem to forget that Reagan was offering plenty of his own brand of kick-ass nationalism. Does anyone remember the Mickey Mouse “Hey Iran” giving the finger?

Also dwept down the memory hole is the significance of his breaking of the PATCO strike. Such a thing would be regarded as authoritarian today, as it was then. Notice his solution wasn’t some think tank BS – privatize the air traffic system or whatever, but to press gang military controllers into service.

* The biggest risk of a Trump administration would be the reemergence of a broad prosperous middle class in the U.S.

* The good thing about gridlock is that it does not much stop Trump from enforcing existing laws. And the existing laws say nearly all illegals may be deported. They also authorize roughly doubling our current border fence with Mexico, which simply has not been funded even though it is planned and authorized.

Trump can just raise fees on legal immigrants and divert this money to building the authorized wall. He can also appoint US Attorneys who will prioritize immigration enforcement and deportations.

* With regard to the risks of the Trump administration, a few scenarios:

Trump picks a mainstream VP like Newt, then gets impeached or worse, then the VP creates something like the Bush II administration.

Most of Trump’s time and energy is taken up by the numerous scandals which will be created for him by the media.

Trump acquires neocon advisers who steer him towards the policies of the Bush II administration. His understanding of the big picture has so far been amazingly accurate, but he doesn’t know much detail, and that creates an opening for liars and frauds to “supply” it to him.

Trump gets senile and/or his energy level falls, at which point the establishment picks up the reins.

If Trump manages to get his domestic agenda approved by Congress, the left will create a civil disobedience campaign. Soros is in his mid-80s, but there will always be someone to replace him. Zucky, for example. SWPLs will lie prostrate in front of excavators building the wall and blockade whoever is tasked with deporting illegals. They will try to create martyrs for their movement, and then use that to push impeachment. If that doesn’t work they could resort to terrorism (blowing up INS offices and the like) and false flag events.

Trump is successfully blackmailed into dropping most of his agenda. Who knows what he might have done in his long, wild life? The world finds out about it 30 years later from participants’ memoires or leaked surveillance data.

It turns out that Trump didn’t mean much of what he said. Not impossible.

* Social conservatism, which is largely concerned with morals legislation, is essentially dead, and has been since the Supreme Court Lawrence decision in 2003 (as Scalia correctly prophesied.) Thus anyone could have predicted the victory of SSM, and the discovery of all manner of rights in terms of sexuality, since, apparently, one’s membership card in LGBTQQIV2A is the only self-identification that means anything (not race, not religion, not language, not culture: just with whom and how you like to have sex: this includes asexuals of course, the “A” above: there’s another one for Allies.) So Ross can just give up on that. The same pertains to third trimester abortions or anything else, because virtually any attempt to police human conduct (except the ingestion of drugs, of course) can and will be carried into an argument about our innate right to do whatever we want.

Hawkish internationalism is also a dead letter, since we just had a decade or more of foolishly prosecuted wars, and one can (some cynically, I suppose) claim that with the most pressing issues for the DOD being the extension of selective service registration to women, and the integration of transgender drill instructors into the the Marine Corps Recruit Depots, it is highly unlikely that there will be any non-foolishly prosecuted wars in the near or far future.

Free market economics is also dead, since the American economy has already been heavily socialized by a variety of government controls, restrictions, and, most importantly, benefits, which the citizenry (at this point) cannot live without.

So Reagan is dead, so is Reaganism. The only question is what can we do to improve the lot of regular Americans, materially, and what can we do to generate some kind of purpose for our people and our nation. I’m not sure who can do that, but I cannot vote for either Hillary or Bernie, so that leaves Trump.

The bigger issue is seems to me is that the value of most all of our handouts, and our pensions, and our medical insurance, is keyed to the time value of money as generated in the stock market and also by the profits the stock market generates. Those are the real reasons, I think, why the wealthy turn a blind eye to the emergence of an ever large serf-underclass in this country (better to call peons, actually.) These people feed the growth and the future value described.

I’m not sure how to fix this, I get the sense sometimes that the underclass will keep growing and growing and growing, as long as people have active EBT cards and cheap flat screens and other goodies at Walmart. But it’s ultimately suicidal and when the shortages occur — they are bound to occur, even if we have a billion people in this country by then — it will be chaos. I hope not, but that’s how it seems to be shaping up.

Maybe the next president can talk about how to fix that.

* Imagine a Jew in the 1930s criticizing Hitler on his tax policy. Absurd, no? That’s modern conservatives. Liberals hate whites in a way that’s open and vicious, and they have no response but to argue that their economic ideas work better.

* I suspect that Trump has changed Republican politics for the better already, because others in the party will learn from the success that he has had with primary voters.

Trump won the Republican primary in a landslide against some of the biggest heavyweights in politics without spending very much money, using a threadbare staff cobbled together mostly from his real estate company, having zero institutional support in the party, and only a vague understanding of the delegate selection process.

The Republican party has been so starved for new ideas for so long that when someone finally came along with some actual new and appealing ideas, it immediately caught fire.

If you’re an aspiring Republican politician, why wouldn’t you try the “Build the wall/Ban Muslims/End unfair trade deals/Protect entitlements” strategy?

* Reagan’s speech laying down the law to the air traffic controllers is vivid in my memory (“they are in violation of the law and will be fired…”). I was only a kid, but I understood right away that Reagan had done something monumental, marking a serious change in the way the country had been going.

You’re right that this moment is underplayed, even ignored, today. Even conservatives prove only dimly aware of it when I recall it in conversation. But I can easily envision Trump inhabiting such a moment in his presidency.

* Reagan was the consummate golden-mean moderate on trade, as he had to be to placate his coalition.

That’s the best policy. Threaten free traders with protection, and protectionists with free trade. That way you can prevent both sides from taking advantage of you. As they are sure to do if permitted. Business is business.

By the way, that tariff that “bailed out” Harley also helped Honda and Kawasaki, who were already manufacturing motorcycles here and thus were not subject to it.

* What I would do is drop any explicit racial/religious stuff and go for policies that have the same effect. You don’t spend time calling Mexicans rapists–but you do campaign on the need to secure our borders and keep jobs for Americans. You don’t insult Hispanics–but you do enforce laws against illegal immigration and crack down on employers, since after all, you’re just enforcing the law, right? If I go to France and overstay my visa, they’re going to deport my butt back to JFK. You don’t say most of Islam hates us–but you do ban (or severely restrict) immigration from countries that have a history of terrorist acts against us or our allies.

You don’t hate any shade of person, you just want to make sure Americans have enough jobs and are protected from terrorists, and the laws are enforced.

* It makes no difference if you call out these policies explicitly or leave them implied. The press and the Democrats (the same thing really) will take you to task for your “racist dog whistles” anyway.

And essentially they will be right. The fight against “terrorism” is really the fight against Muslim terrorism. Saying otherwise means that TSA will be body cavity searching white grandmothers. The fight to “control our borders” means the fight to control the southern border – no one is worried about hordes of Canadians sneaking into Alaska.

Part of Trump’s appeal has been that he isn’t a slimy politician who speaks in circumlocutions – he is not afraid to say exactly what he means and you don’t need to read between the lines to discern the real meaning as if you were reading Pravda or a Hillary speech. If you ask Hillary what she had for dinner, you can see the little gears turning in her head as she calculates the optimum answer if she hasn’t already focus grouped it, which she probably has (Bill did the same but made it appear effortless). Trump will just tell you.

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off on Trump’s Nationalism

Making Friends & Influencing People

A friend in shul asked me to estimate various people’s IQs. Finally, he asked me to estimate his. “You’ve got a wonderful beautiful personality,” I said. “You’re funny. I like you. I’ll deport you last.”

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on Making Friends & Influencing People

Just how important is sex to a marriage’s success?

Economist: Ms Hicks and her colleagues found that although the frequency with which couples have sex does not have much correlation with how satisfied they claim to be with their partner, it correlates well with their automatic attitudes towards one another. Those who said they had sex with their spouse two or more times a week reacted more quickly to positive words and more slowly to negative ones after seeing an image of said spouse. The opposite was true for those who had sex once a week or less. None of these effects emerged after people saw an image of themselves, or during the initial control.

Ms Hicks’s result does not mean the no-sex brigade are lying when they claim it does not signify. They may genuinely believe what they say. But it does suggest they are fooling themselves. And that is not a matter of mere prurience. If things do start to go wrong in a relationship, and the participants want to patch matters up, then understanding where the real problem lies is important. This is only a single study, of course. But if it is successfully replicated, marriage-guidance counsellors the world over might want to take note.

Posted in Marriage, Sex | Comments Off on Just how important is sex to a marriage’s success?

Why do sex workers discriminate against black men? This is outrageous. The government should do something.

How long can we abide such unrighteous discrimination? All prostitutes should be required by law to service an equal percentage of blacks as their general makeup of the population. And if they can’t afford it, they should get it free because of the Holocaust.

I think this is the civil rights issue of the century.

The Jew will never be free as long as the black man is discriminated against. Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

Why hasn’t President Obama tackled this problem?

Archer86 writes: There’s a website called Backpage.com where you can find everything. On one section are escorts where you can break it down by specific city location. One day just teasing myself because I was horny as all unholy hell, I was browsing some of the local women in Indiana and Illinois and found quite a number of “escorts” who advertised: “No Blacks”, “Sorry, no African-Americans”, “No brothas” and so on. What’s worse is that even some black chicks placed the black man on the forbidden lists. The worst of all is that I never saw any other ethnic group prohibited by these women. I counted up in one city of 123 women, 34 refused to give service to blacks.

Answers:

* I was watching documentary on prostitution. In there, those women did not want to sleep with black men either. They cited too much size. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, a good fit is important. Now, there are plenty of women here who have the vaginal capacity to handle almost anything and I suspect there are escorts who can do the same.

* It could just be people being racist for no reason. Maybe they are not particularly attracted to black men and want to enjoy themselves as well. Maybe these women had a bad experience with a black man and don’t want to serve any more of them (though you could have a bad experience with anyone haha)

Maybe with what they usually have requests to do (oral, anal, whatever) they cannot accommodate men of larger sizes, and (I’ve never been with a black man) but people do say that they have the biggest d*cks.

It definitely seems strange, and there could be many reasons why they won’t serve black men (stupid reasons or otherwise), but at the end of the day, no one knows but them.

* Everyone is entitled to a preference, even personal escorts. It seems kind of dumb because they’re escorts and you’d think they just want to get it over with and get their money, regardless of what the guy looks like, but it happens.

Personally, I’m not into black guys either. I’m not racist. I have black friends and I treat them just as I do my white friends, but physically, I’m not attracted to most black guys. It’s just what I find attractive and what I find unattractive. You can’t deny that black guys are physically different from white men in facial structure.

* I read a book that said that mexican drug cartels wouldn’t sell heroin to blacks in a lot of areas, too. I was because they feared being killed by them. It may be that the hookers are around area where most blacks live in the inner city with high gang participation and crime rates.

It’s also likely that the gangs have their own prostitutes, as many do deal in that. The escorts may not want to take any chances of being forced into a different agency or of upsetting the wrong person by working in an area/with a customer/group that belongs to someone else.

Hooking isn’t about enjoying sex, it’s ONLY about money. The chicks bang guys they don’t find attractive as a job requirement. So the choice would be a business decision, not a sexual preference.

* Because you’re seen as disease-ridden, AIDS, disrespectful abusive types, and also cheap. I used to frequent a sex worker forum (no comment) and many of them would talk about how cheap black men are. they would complain often that many black customers would pay up front, and then snatch the money back when they were done having sex, basically stealing money from the prostitute and getting sex for free. Many of them really do not like younger black men because of the hip hop thing and you’re seen as ghetto, disrespectful lowlifes and are nasty. Even some black prostitutes say they don’t want to sleep with black customers and prefer other races because the money is better.

* I guess whites aren’t disease-ridden and don’t acquire AIDS. Must be great to be the superior race… give me a break… It is usually VERY easy to detect and/or spot a ghetto hood rat, oftentimes by the tone of his voice on the phone and his choice of attire. This is where skills of discernment come into play whereby gut feelings and an astute awareness will usually alert the sex worker as to who she’s dealing with. A black male who presents himself intelligently and uses the king’s English to communicate will most likely be very pleasant to deal with. As far as the “nasty” tag, that’s flat out racist. You wouldn’t believe how many times I’ve been in public restrooms and counted white men that exited a stall after grunting and groaning to push one out just to push the stall door open and walk out without washing his hands… anybody can be nasty. Those views need to be re-evaluated and reconsidered.

* It’s less to do with racist views than you’d imagine (which is why even some black women have this rule). It’s much more about CULTURE.

In “black culture” (i.e., urban/hip-hop culture), a culture where GETTING respect is an important keystone, GIVING respect is looked down upon, and that’s especially true for women. In this culture, women are routinely degraded, disrespected, and violence against women is accepted and even glorified.

And when dealing with honest-to-goodness whores, many black men feel that they have every right to treat them like crap. That may mean violence, it may mean attempting to steal them from their pimp, or refusing to pay/stealing back their money. It isn’t racism, but experience, that teaches them to avoid black men as customers, especially in certain areas of the country (you’ll note that you won’t find this rule everywhere).

I went to college to be an Audio Engineer, and I used to work in a venue that hosted all types of acts. This included big rock shows, metal shows, country shows, and even punk shows, but by FAR, the most dangerous shows were the R&B and hip-hop shows. They typically required triple the insurance, at least double the security, and there were still multiple incidents at every show. Not all of the people involved in these incidents were black, either, but they were all heavily involved and influenced by urban/hip-hop CULTURE, where respect of others is rarely given, where there is always an adversarial attitude towards authority, and where violence is used to solve even the smallest of problems or perceived slights, all in the name of “respect.”

The open market responded to these issues by charging more for the venue, requiring more insurance, requiring more security, requiring an on-site medical staff and sworn police officers, and so on. It’s not that the market was racist; they didn’t charge extra for Reggae acts, Jazz acts, or 50s/60s oldies acts with mostly all-black performers. But experience taught them that dealing with the black urban culture came with much higher risks, and so the prices went way up.

Prostitution is an equally open market, and it has likewise responded to the higher risk of dealing with men of this culture with it’s own rules and responses. It’s unfortunate that some folks get falsely grouped in with the problem elements, but at the end of the day, business is business, and risk vs. reward has to be observed.

* You leave them stretched out.

* They assume black men all have huge penises. It’s simply bad business. Kind of like renting a hotel room to a junkie – there is simply a risk that they will wreck the room making it difficult to rent out again.

Keep in mind that ‘escorts’ aren’t in it for the sex. They fake their enjoyment for your enjoyment. So a huge penis or anything ‘typically’ considered enjoyable to women is not their goal. Add that to anything that could risk putting them out of commission for a while, and you have your answer.

* Consider it a blessing, we shouldn’t be sleeping with these women anyways.

Two major reasons: 1) We will last the entire time, the goal of these girls is to make the client bust ASAP.

2) A lot of girls working for black men will be told not to mess with black men, strange but true.

* Because they always get scammed by black guys and black guys usually have no money in general?

* Sorry to burst your “Pretty woman” bubble..

But “preference” resides down towards the bottom in a long list of reasons for this phenomenon..

You have to understand the world these people choose to live in..

The basic premise is that the females’ body is a commodity..

These women who often have “managers”
Exchange this commodity for cash/tips

The amount of money required.. depends on the time/acts desired..

The “perfect” client for most of these women (who are often drug addicted and struggle with past abuse and esteem issues) is a client who requires the least amount of time for the most amount of money..

Regardless of race.. the men who frequent these women are referred to as “tricks” a VERY derogatory term..

The more ignorant and forthcoming with cash a trick is the more desirable he is as a client

Horrific things happen to these women during their foray into prostitution..

The least of which is an opportunist who robs a woman who generally won’t contact police or man who wants to enter a woman into his service (pimp)

It’s the pumps who manage these women.. or the women themselves that ad AA men to there list of clients who threaten there livelyhood.. add that to the fact that a virile make who wants to put high mileage on an item with a definite shelf life is more dangerous than a two pump chump who pays for a fantasy.

* Statistics on criminal activity. I’m no racist, one of my best friends is black, but he is openly aware and opposed to black culture, he is a highly intelligent graduate student in an “elite” scientific field. The self-degregating (excuse saturated) culture that continues to proliferate and segregate the African American community on their own terms continues to force a criminal mindset (mostly out of fear because they are raised under the assumption that police and the rest of the world is “racist”). The “providers” are not regulated (thus not subject under any equal-opportunity legislation) and therefore, and most likely out of fear, choose not to take any extra risk on themselves when they are already putting themselves at risk inherently by the choice of their profession.

* I don’t care, and I’ll come straight out and say that I seen many escorts in the past.(Im single, and i can do what the hell i want. If someone wants to judge me for it, whatever. We all have dirty secrets that we dont want people to know, so you ain’t any better than me. lol..) They all give me the same reasons when I ask why they don’t see black men. They tend to be rude and disrespectul, obnoxious and too rough of them. One girl named Char told me a story where she was robbed at gun point. Its not because their “dicks are too big” don’t try to throw that around! lol.. or because “they’re racist” because every girl i seen liked me, and I’m not white! These girls are still human beings, and they deserve the same respect anyone else does. Contrary to popular belief, they’re not all drug addicts and dirty whores.. theyre doing what they love, and need a living too. Obviously, this is a very good living, but also dangerous, and they do what they have to to protect themselves.

* One woman told me it’s the 3 Rs: Rape, Robbery and Really bad STDs.

* …after working for several years as a free land photographer and getting a bit of a niche in taking photos for these girls, I’ve gotten to know the industry pretty well. Most of the girls will not work for black men because of the standardized/stereotypical hip hop culture of young black men. They simply do not know how to treat women and generally are disrespectful as all hell. Young black men are told that women should be falling to their knees at a whim to service them, and the reality is most women wouldn’t get involved beyond a random, adventurous hookup. First hand I have photographed several young women who were beaten by black clients so the imagery could be turned over to the police (I was used as a local forensics photographer as well, fun times). It has absolutely nothing to do with dick size and has everything to do with how black men treat these women. Now most will entertain a mature black *gentleman* without hesitation, but in general deny services to black men just to protect against the disrespectful little shits that come out of the ghetto.

* It’s well known in the industry that black clients will beat up and rob the girls.

* I live in England, and I’ve seen that kind of discrimination too. Many prostitutes say it’s because they’ve had “bad experiences” with black men (which I guess means violence). If you look at UK online directories for escorts, you’ll see this quite often.

* If it were gay or trans discrimination, DoJ would be all over it.

REDDIT: What’s with the prejudice against black men? Are they really that bad as clients? I see it on practically every online ad. “No black men”. Is it their statistically higher rates of STDs? What gives?

* Absolute NO for providers is barebacking FS. If anyone asks, they are blacklisted. And of all the clients that have ever asked or tried to manipulate/trick me into BBFS, they were black men. That is enough to ban black men. Sorry.

* In this industry sometimes we have to generalize and stereotype when it comes to clients for safety reasons. For instance, if I don’t like the sound of my clients voice when we speak on the phone, I don’t see him. It costs me a lot of nice decent clients I’m sure, but if his voice makes me uncomfortable, then being around him will as well.
I used to not see black men, but in some scenarios I have spoken with a client, met with him and he turned out to be black (I don’t ever inquire about my clients race.) Even though I am not physically attracted to black men at all, I am ok with seeing them if they are clean cut and well spoken. If you call me and ‘sound black’ (thick ghetto accent, refer to me as boo, ask if you can holla at me….) I will hang up.

* I have been in the hobby for nearly 20 years and it depends. I have shown up for appointments and the providers freaks out and cancels when they see I’m a big black male. The same one that was articulate with good manners on the phone. I can only imagine many (not all) have had a bad experience at some point. Other I imagine are trying to avoid men that may run in their circles.
In Minneapolis I know there are a large number of West\East African men and their views on women.. well they are not very progressive. I have heard stories about how they treat their women. So here I see a LOT of “No Black Men”. Kinda lumps us all together.
The only time this “agitates me” is when I have to make a LONG trip (over an hour in traffic) for an appointment, I get there and she cancels. Sad but hey… life goes on.

* …many providers I have spoken to about it have had to cancel multiple appointments because of the dreaded “BBC” and how the man it is attached to had an ego to match. A couple have had to take extended breaks after the experience which didn’t sit well with their income or the possible partners in their personal life.

* i have asked some of the girls about this, and they told me it’s because they are cheap, (as anyone who has ever waited on them in a restaurant can tell you). also, they don’t like to wear rubbers, their dicks are too big and they hurt, and some of them try to become the girl’s pimp. of course not ALL blacks are the same, but let’s be realistic, in life you have got to play the percentages.

* Quote from a lovely young lady with whom I have been a client “They are cheap and their dicks are too big.”

* They are significantly more likely to be beaten and raped by black men then any other group.

* I was seeing Black women escorts and they preferred white men over black men. One of them told me “white men treat me better.” Came as a surprise to me also.

* It’s not that all black men are bad clients, it’s that more black men are bad clients than men of other colors. It’s not racism, it’s pragmatism.

* That is racism because they are assuming the next Black client will misbehave. Here’s the thing, when I’m on the phone. I raise my pitch, and I am polite. This way “I sound white.” as one provider told me as I walked in.
One hispanic provider told me she only opened the door because I was light skinned, yes she had the “no black men” on her ad. I went anyway, I’ve ignored it many times. To my knowledge, I am 100% negro. And it has worked every time.
I cum on their face, and then I leave.
It’s not racism, it’s prejudice, it’s not prejudice, it’s pragmatics, it’s not pragmatic ism, its realism. Keep it coming with your fallacies.
It’s racism, and that’s okay. Just don’t sugar coat it. That’s the only thing I find offensive about it because that’s an insult to everybody’s intelligence here.

* Its not in any way warm and fuzzy to be on the receiving side of racism, but to then out of spite behave like the Type of person providers try to avoid, is not helping one bit. When you speak politely on the phone, you do not sound white, you just sound like a decent and polite human being, the type that is not outright rejected. I have news for you. White people that behave disrespectfully also get rejected, and blacklisted. What can they blame it on?

HONEST COURTESAN: Even now, now, very now, an old black ram is tupping your white ewe. – William Shakespeare, Othello (I, i)

I couldn’t continue to call myself honest if I avoided a subject merely because it isn’t politically correct, and since I raised the subject in yesterday’s column it’s time to talk about it in full. Though I cannot speak for escorts in other cities, it is a fact that most of them in New Orleans dislike seeing black men. Please put aside your tired stereotypes about Southern racism before reading any further, because this aversion has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with the way many black men behave toward prostitutes. The strongest proof of this I can offer you is that while most white girls can be persuaded to see a black client if he is well-spoken and/or lives in an affluent neighborhood or stays in an expensive hotel, many black escorts will not see a black man under any circumstances; in the words of Tina (a simply gorgeous black girl who was Flavor of the Month for quite a while), “They’re too cheap, too rough and too full of themselves.”

Obviously, this isn’t true of all black men; I had several black regulars over the years (including a salesman who saw me about once a week for quite a while), and the only complaint I ever had about any of them was that one poor guy tried so hard to make himself agreeable to me that his skin always smelled and tasted like soap! But what about the rest of them? I’m afraid I have to agree with Tina; the majority do tend to be exactly as she described, and I think the reason they are that way has to do with their subculture. For reasons others are more qualified to analyze than I, the typical male role model for young black men is exaggeratedly masculine, physical rather than intellectual and tends toward violence; he is a sports star, a “gangsta” or a “bad-ass” action hero. And one doesn’t need to be a sociologist to recognize that this self-inflicted stereotype is related to a deep current of misogyny in the black community; it has become fashionable in recent years to blame “hip-hop” culture for all this, but that’s utter nonsense. The stereotype of black male physical prowess goes back as far as the legend of John Henry, the myth of the Negro as sexual superman goes back long before Mandingo, and the breakdown in gender relations in the black community started many years before anyone ever heard of “hip-hop”.

Because these warped ideals instill in young black men the notion that women will crawl to a “real man”, they come to believe that their maleness and sexual potency should be enough to attract all the women they want; this of course results in deep feelings of resentment when they find that it is no more true for them than for men of any other color. So when a black man (especially a young one) finds himself in the position of actually having to pay for sex, he is bound and determined to get as much for his money as possible in order to justify the expenditure. Their attitude is basically “If I’m going to pay for pussy, it had better be good!” Consequently, black men are well-known for trying to talk girls’ prices down and/or time requirements up, for trying to get every service they can think of included, and for using every last minute of the call in active sexual activity.

This resentment no doubt also fuels their excessive roughness; a man who is angry at a woman isn’t likely to treat her gently. The very fact that a woman has charged him is perceived as an insult to his masculinity and sexual potency, and this in turn engenders an “I’ll show her!” mentality. The typical black man seems to believe that the point of intercourse is to damage a woman’s sexual equipment as much as possible; I’ve heard more than a few of them say “I’m going to bust that pussy up!” and they constantly attempt to raise one’s legs up so as to penetrate as deeply as possible even if they’re already bottoming out. The most egregious example of this behavior is the bizarre technique I already mentioned in my column of August 16th, which involves the man constantly moving his hips from side to side, trying to enter the woman from as many different angles as possible, as though he were trying to distend or even puncture the vaginal walls. When the man who does this is of average size it’s merely uncomfortable, but if he is well-endowed it can be excruciating. And this, of course, brings us to Tina’s third complaint; if a woman can’t tolerate the pain of this strange activity and pulls away or asks him to stop, he concludes he is “too much man for her” and his ego is restored from the damage dealt by having to pay for what he needed.

I mentioned above that few black escorts would consent to see a black client, but it was rare that one ever got the chance to anyway; in the entire time I owned my service, I only once had a black client ask specifically for a black girl. Most of the time they ask for white girls, often for blondes, and occasionally for Asians, but never black girls. To a large degree white women represent a “forbidden fruit” to black men, something that was off-limits to them for a long time; and though society no longer prohibits interracial relationships a white sex partner still spells success to many black men, which is why so many wealthy ones (such as O.J. Simpson and Tiger Woods) marry white, usually blonde, women. Those who don’t request white women generally express no color preference at all; I suspect these are mature and experienced enough to have learned of the way hookers feel about black men and don’t wish to limit their chances of getting a woman to see them.

In my experience, intelligent black men do their best to offset the stereotype by being as generous and appreciative as possible; one of my favorite mid-career regulars was such a man. When I first spoke to him I was not even aware that he was black; he lacked either the dialectal accent or the characteristic vocal timbre of a black man. He lived in a large and beautiful house in an affluent section of town, and when he opened the front door the first words out of his mouth were, “I forgot to mention on the phone that I’m black, so if you don’t want to stay I’ll understand and pay your cancellation fee.”

I replied, “There’s a vast difference between a gentleman who happens to be black and a hoodlum from the projects.”

He was visibly relieved and said “I’m glad you feel that way; a lot of escorts don’t.”

Since it was obvious to me that he was an intelligent, reasonable man who would not be offended, I explained why many of them felt that way and added, “But you accepted my price without argument and it’s clear you don’t have an overinflated ego, so I don’t think you’ll be rough either.” He promised he would not be, and indeed he wasn’t.

As his house suggested, he was quite wealthy; he owned several fast-food restaurants around town, so he could afford to call me fairly often, and sometimes he tipped me with certificates for free food at his restaurants (which I appreciated, since I enjoyed that chain). He was a gentle, considerate lover who never did that weird hip-swiveling thing, and rather than insist on filling every minute with physical activity he enjoyed lying with me and talking afterward. There was not a trace of misogyny in his character, either; he respected my intelligence and would talk to me about an independent study he was making in order to expand into another business. He even took the trouble to let me know when he became seriously involved with a woman so I wouldn’t wonder why he had stopped calling me, and though I always hated to lose a good client I was certainly happy he had found someone to share his life with.

Whores are the most pragmatic of all women; I can assure you that if more black men were like this client most of them would have no more issue with black men than with white ones. I said at the beginning that I don’t know for sure that working girls in cities other than New Orleans feel the same way about black clients, but I suspect they do because the norms of American black culture which give rise to the offensive behaviors are the same all over this country, and I never noticed a difference between locals and tourists. If New Orleans Ladies are more sensitive to the problem than our sisters elsewhere, it is most likely because the city had a black majority and thereby offered more opportunity to discover it.

MODERN MANDINGO: A few bad apples can spoil the bunch, especially if those apples are black.

Discrimination against Black men is a common theme in the sex worker industry and there are many reasons for why it exists.

If you peruse the ads of female escorts, it’s normal to see them list their catering preferences towards a Gentleman or an Upscale Gentleman, in hopes of attracting clientele of a higher economic and social status. No Blocked Calls or Texts is another common restriction to screen anonymous callers or people who want to trade pictures and have lengthy text conversations that would be a waste of the worker’s time. And aside from mentions of things that should be part of a normal person’s daily hygienic regimen (a shower, fresh breath) there’s the list of services they will and won’t do.

Then it becomes racial.

No Black Men.

No African-Americans.

No Black Men Under 40.

I Don’t Date Black Men.

Sometimes there’s a ‘sorry’ at the end of the chosen disclaimer to lessen the blow of racial bias, but the apology doesn’t reduce the sting of discrimination for a decent Black man who wants nothing more than sexual satisfaction.

LINK: Sometimes it’s fun looking through your local backpage escort listings to see what the whores look like in your area. Maybe you recognize one as a dancer at your local club. One thing I’ve noticed is a lot of the prostitutes, 40-50%, say they refuse to see African-Americans or black men in their listings. It is not just the white or Hispanic escorts, even black hookers say things like “no black men”. So why don’t whores want business from a chocolate customer? Why the war on black men?

The Soapbox: What Online Prostitution Taught Me About Racism
by The Frisky

…That’s why I researched online prostitution in New York City for my college thesis. With the help of websites like Backpage.com and Craigslist.com, I became acquainted with the underground sex industry, where the value of a woman is in plain sight. Her worth is advertised without a hint of political correctness. No excuses are made about class, schooling or occupation. Every woman is simply a scantily-clad commodity who, with the click of a mouse, is deemed wanted or unwanted for purchase.

Although the playing field is leveled in that regard, race manages to be the biggest dividing line between the women who are highly prized and those who are practically worthless. I learned that online men are willing to pay the highest premium for “whiteness.” This is evident in the word choices white women use to self-advertise. The sex workers who charge the highest fees describe themselves as “blue-eyed,” “blonde,” “brunette,” “the girl next door,” “the Playboy-type,” or simply a “white girl.” Occasionally, white women refer to themselves as “hot” or “busty,” but more often they are “All-American.” These are the Barbies: perfect by definition and valuable.

Women of color, on the other hand, know that being black offers them very little bargaining power in the market. To compete in the online sex industry, black women use references to their assets to distinguish themselves from other minority women by describing themselves as having a “big booty,” being a “freak,” “exotic,” “mixed,” “curvy,” a “video-vixen,” “Caribbean,” “juicy,” “delicious” or “nasty.” I searched for descriptions that read anything along the lines of “All-American, black girl next door.” I didn’t find a single one in my research, nor do I expect to.

Escort Etiquette – I: Are Escorts Racist Against Black Men?

Over the years – and before I starting banging escorts – I have observed that many of the most elegant escorts, regardless of ethnicity, are not black male friendly. I have seen many ads which state “No black men”, “No black men under 30”, “No black men under 40”, “No thugs”, “Upscale gentlemen only”… You get the point. I have had several 5-star ladies this past summer and it turned out to be one of my best summers. Because I am highly discriminative myself, especially seeing how ugly-to-mediocre women get so much undeserved attention, in addition to witnessing women playing ugly games with men in the dating scene (especially on social networks), I can relate.

Granted, a percentage beautiful escorts actually lust black men while others don’t care about the guys’ ethnicity. As in this arena, it’s not about racism, but green-ism. I wouldn’t go as far as calling it ‘racism’, but essentially having standards. And I can understand, because for me, it takes a lot for me to like a black woman. Most black females are fucked up and I’m sure many will agree. Why are some of these women not too excited about black men? Well, the reasons vary. In many cases, brothers bring it on themselves.

The most commonplace excuses for black-male rejection is that many black guys are, by their own admission, ghetto. This includes acting extremely childish and immature and those who happen to be well-known braggarts (playing the numbers game), thieves, thugs, drug-addled, hygienically unconscious, not being groomed and are cheap, thus wanting too much for too little. Understandable, many people witness young black men doing stupid shit and it doesn’t stop there. Negative attention is also drawn due to simple over-exuberant acts, such as guys going to nightclubs throwing money in the air (an act called ‘making it rain’). I admit that, unfortunately – and not to stereotype – there are handfuls of black males who do fall in these categories, particularly if they reside in a major city. And it’s always one idiot or group of idiots who fuck it up for everyone else. Not to say that it is fair, but in life, what is? For this, there are even very few black escorts who will refuse to service black men.

Peculiarly, some of the women have boyfriends who are afraid they may lose their girlfriend to another man who is sexually superior to him. Speaking of which, I met a pretty Middle Eastern girl at an airport coming from a trip to Florida in the Summer, 2012. Turns out, she was an escort. “I don’t like niggas as my customers”, she stated. I ask why, as I found it rather odd since the love of her life is a black guy, who is currently in prison for murder. “They want too much for too little, they are too needy, they try to cheat you and they end up falling in love with you and I’m not looking for that.” Later, she admitted that most of the guys who frequent her are – as she put it – disgusting – and let’s face it, most female sex workers do feel that more than half of the men who frequent them are humans in their lowest form, though they have high-end professions. They are, without reasoning, labeled as “fat, hairy, ugly, stinking motherfuckers” while others sneak contraceptives off and hell-bent on taking pictures, making the ladies’ work stressful. She mentioned, “If I got with a black guy, it would be for the orgasm, because the other guys can never give me that. So, I just focus on taking their money.”

Another common excuse relies heavily on the stereotype of black men having large penises. A white escort may say “He’ll stretch me out and make me sore and I’ll have to take a week off. Black men are so rough and they’ll cause me to lose money.”

* Discrimination and Denial: Systemic Racism in Ontario’s Legal and Criminal Justice System, 1892-1961

Posted in Blacks, Prostitution, Race, Sex | Comments Off on Why do sex workers discriminate against black men? This is outrageous. The government should do something.