Black Men – Sometimes the Plantation is in the Mind

Jemele Hill doesn’t understand black men.  Not surprising, given the fact she isn’t one.  Rather, Hill – the former ESPN commentator who was ousted after calling Republicans names – is a woman.  Of course, like many feminist women, she presumes to understand how men think and feel.

Here’s what Hill wrote in her most recent article “What the Black Men Who Identify With Brett Kavanaugh Are Missing” in the Atlantic:

On Tuesday night, I was in an auditorium with 100 black men in the city of Baltimore, when the subject pivoted to Brett Kavanaugh. I expected to hear frustration that the sexual-assault allegations against him had failed to derail his Supreme Court appointment. Instead, I encountered sympathy. One man stood up and asked, passionately, “What happened to due process?” He was met with a smattering of applause, and an array of head nods.

This event befuddled Hill.  And she goes on to not only explain to us why black men are wrong (because racism), but prescribe to them both what they should think and how they should feel.  In all fairness, from her own selfish point of view, she does want black men to focus on racism, because black men focusing on issues in modern day Western society that unfairly endanger men doesn’t help her.  However, men, regardless of skin color, see the danger in the current gynocentric state of affairs.

Kanye West’s recent remarks about the black family are a perfect example of this.  You can’t denigrate men and have a healthy, functioning community.  But that is exactly what has happened to black communities over the past century.  And the societal effects of that are clear.  This is an obvious problem for the Progressive agenda – it has regressive effects on the groups it is claiming to help.

It doesn’t empower them … it disables them by ascribing to a cult of weakness.   Or to paraphrase Kanye: sometimes the plantation is in the mind.


Hill’s jeering in response to all this highlights an important lesson: Groups of people have weird ideas about “the truth”.  Most of those ideas are based on what we know at any given moment, but what we know is almost always incomplete.  In hindsight, that is apparent.

In Italy, archaeologists recently revealed a “vampire burial” of a 10-year old child from the 5th century AD, who was buried with a large stone in its mouth to keep it from rising from the grave.  This all occurred during a large malaria outbreak in the area.  The locals at the time thought that malaria was caused by vampire bites apparently.  And so the stone was meant to keep the child from rising and biting others.

Obviously in hindsight, that seems like a ridiculous idea.  But groups of people can be egged on by beliefs and superstitions to a great degree.  Even people today.  That phenomena is the basis of mob behavior in humans.  Think villagers with torches and pitchforks chasing down Frankenstein.  Even though we like to think we are too smart for that, remember: every generation has thought they were too smart for that.  Every generation thinks: this time it will be different.  It is the modernist fallacy.

Jemele Hill is simply a present day example of this.  Which could perhaps be an apt definition for “progressive” these days.  Lighting a torch and raising a pitchfork to chase down something she doesn’t understand.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What would a World where we “Believe All Women” look like?

The Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination process over the last couple weeks has highlighted how much our culture has changed in terms of male-female dynamics.  As well as issues of whether we should believe every sexual assault allegation simply on the word of a woman, regardless of any lack of evidence.  Issues of due process and the like. However, that has been covered elsewhere ad nauseum, including an excellent article by John Kass in the Chicago Tribune.

I’m not going to beat that dead horse here.  I understand the point of many Progressives and Feminists is that we should Believe All Women.   So rather, my question here is this: What would a world where we “believe all women” look like?  What are the implications?  Most people spend all their time arguing about whether we should always believe the woman nowadays in these he-said, she-said situations … but would any of us actually want to live in such a world?

Let’s look at some potential consequences:

  • Suspension of Due Process – There would no longer need to be any evidence, and the rights for the accused, a hallmark of Western liberal society, would be suspended. Witch hunt standards would replace them.  Perhaps we would tie Kavanaugh to a stone, throw him a lake, and see if he sinks, like they used to try witches?  Either way, having any sorts of rights for the accused automatically interferes with our ability to believe the accuser 100% of the time, so they’d have to go.  The accused would not be able to defend themselves.
  • Men Would Become the Hunted – We would have to assume any accusation against a man, however outlandish, was always true. And women, this would include your beloved grandfather, father, son, brother, and so forth. If we truly were to believe 100% any accusation or other tale a woman told, then we would have to automatically assume any accused man was automatically guilty.
  • Women Would Be the Powerful Ones – In this scenario, a woman would have the ability at any moment to destroy a man’s life, livelihood, career, etc. At any moment, with just a word.  Do we want to live in a society where one group holds such power over another group?  It certainly isn’t a “liberal” policy.
  • Dating Dynamics would Change – Men would have to stop being the aggressors in dating interactions, because it would open them up to such accusations. No more asking women out.  Any romance would have to some sort of written consent before proceeding, and would have to be initiated by the woman.
  • Birth Rates would Significantly Decline – Women have a serious aversion to being sexual aggressors, asking men out, or to making the first move in general.  We could discuss why this might be the case, evolutionarily or otherwise.  But either way, the result of this combined with point above about changes in dating dynamics means we would see a serious decline in birth rates.  Oh wait, we already are seeing that in most of the West.  This would exacerbate the problem.
  • Men would lose All Parental Rights – Since women could simply make a false allegation of sexual misconduct at any moment that would have to be believed 100% of the time, then they would be incentivized to do so in any child custody dispute. And the court would be compelled to side with them, and against the man, every single time.
  • Zero Consequences for False Allegations ­– Which would likely lead to a significant rise in such false allegations.
  • Zero Accountability of Women – Women in this scenario would become even more reckless in future generations. Because once you disconnect consequences from the behavior, then positive or negative behavior ceases to mean anything.  Not exactly a recipe for individual excellence.
  • Men would have Less Incentive – Men would have much less incentive to innovate or sacrifice for society (e.g. volunteer for military service). All relationships are transactional in nature, even our relationship with broader society.  If we strip away the social contract that guarantees men something in exchange for their investing in society, they lose the incentive to do so.

There are of course many other potential consequences.  But I would simply leave the reader with this question:  Is it “liberal” to give a certain group the power to destroy a member of another group’s life with just a word?  Because when we are told to “believe all women”, that is what we are actually being told to do.  It is in fact odd to see some men, including many male reporters like Rex Huppke and Eric Zorn, arguing that we should believe all women.  What is clear is that they have not thought through the downstream consequences of their argument.

The long term implication of believing all women, no matter what, is that we will as a society be abdicating our responsibility to create an environment where individuals, women included, can be the best they can be.  This is neither in their best interests as individuals, nor that of society as a whole.  It is a complete violation of the very principles of classical liberalism.

The reality is that women are just people.  And people sometimes lie.  Let us not forget that.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Barbarians at the Gates – The Way of Men

For how incredibly smart many male scientists are, it is amazing how ignorant and brain-washed they are about male behavior and psychology.

In his recent book about ancient DNA and human population history, entitled Who We Are and How We Got Here, David Reich relates the story of early genetic work on the population history of the Indian subcontinent, which showed discrepancies between the mitochondrial DNA (passed down through mothers) and Y-chromosome DNA (passed down through fathers).  There was some sort of “event” or series of events several thousand years ago, which led to the maternal DNA being almost entirely drawn from native Indian populations that pre-dated that time, but the paternal DNA showing a large portion from western Eurasians.  Those western Eurasians, likely the same group known as the “Aryans” in Vedic literature, were descended from the same Indo-European lineages that settled Europe.  In short, modern Indians are largely a mix of native female lineages and immigrant male lineages from that period. 

Reich suggests that this discrepancy was deeply “confusing” for a long time, and didn’t make sense.  He goes on to suggest that they eventually realized that the female immigrants must have not left many children, and perhaps the discrepancy was due to male-female power imbalances, aka “the patriarchy”.

Of course, the simplest answer was that those “male immigrants” were actually invaders.  Barbarians at the gates.

It is very possible they brought few females along.  And after swarming into India, they gradually monopolized sexual resources for themselves.  In fact, one could easily argue that the manifestation of that process was Hinduism and the caste system that persists in India till today.  Particularly when you realize those western Eurasians would have likely been lighter skinned than most native Indians.  It is simply the process of male sexual strategy playing out.

But what is amazing about this is just how far off the radar scientists like Reich are, simply because they seem completely ignorant of the fundamental nature of male psychology or sexual strategy.  Brainwashed by modern Feminism to see those products of evolution as “evil”.  Unless one is a practicing scientist, you often don’t see how much dogma and prior beliefs can taint the findings of even the most brilliant scientist.  Even they are not immune to the realities and foibles of human nature.


There is interesting book by Jack Donovan, entitled The Way of Men, its central premise being that men have evolved to create gangs and “defend the border”.  This principle lies at the heart of male psychology in humans.  You can see similar behavior in our closest primate cousins, chimpanzees.

In Reich’s book discussed in the first section, he also points out several modern day examples of the “Barbarian at the Gate” phenomenon: 1) the fact that South American Latinos have a 50:1 ratio of their European DNA coming from males, or 2) the 4:1 ratio in African Americans of European DNA coming from males.  This phenomenon can be seen throughout history and the world.  The Yamnaya (a widespread ancient Indo-European culture that invaded Europe) had just a few male lineages but hundreds of female ones. The overwhelming presence of Bantu male lineages and local female lineages across African peoples.  The fact that nearly 1 in 10 East Asian men have Mongol heritage.  Ethnic Han Chinese male heritage has a similar out-weighted genetic dominance in China.

The point of all this is that this is exactly why men have an innate desire to form gangs and defend the borders.  Lest other men come in and take our women, and exclude us from breeding.  This is also the exact reason most men have such a visceral reaction against mass waves of immigrants in the modern West. At least those not brainwashed by feminism.

Those immigrants are the modern-day barbarians at the gates.  And, although exact numbers are hard to pin down, they are mostly male … with recent immigrants to Europe for instance anywhere from 62% (according to Time magazine) to 72% male (according to London’s Financial Times).  There are those who try to argue that is not the case, by cherry-picking data only looking at Syrian immigrants in a narrow time frame, but we’ll ignore that.

Despite the shaming about racism or white supremacy or other Progressive demagoguery, the visceral reaction of native born men in Europe and the United States to this wave of young male immigration is perfectly natural.  In fact, it is entirely in their own rational self-interest, from a classical liberal perspective.  Likely a response bred into them by millions of years of evolution, a psychology that made their male ancestors successful.  Because men who didn’t defend the border were largely washed away from a genetic standpoint. 

History tells us that lesson, repeatedly.  Indeed, from a scientific standpoint, the observational evidence is overwhelming.  But the real lesson here is the dangers of scientists applying modern day social mores to the realities of biology, evolution, and human behavior.  Not only does it cause misunderstandings, but it can have a punitive effect on people who buy into the dogma, with real-world consequences.

Even science can blur into brain-washing, if we are not careful.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Chains of Freedom – The Era of the Harlot and the Domesticated Man

Real “freedom” is not the freedom to choose to do whatever you want … it is the freedom to make good choices.  Our feral nature is as much a cage as any other.

On an individual level, we are raising women these days who don’t seem aware of the trade-offs, who don’t seem to realize the supposed “chains” they’re railing against are, in fact, the chains of freedom.  Because none of us are ever really truly free, only free-er.  We all live as part of some social contract … the question is what form that contract takes.  That is the price we pay for living as part of a functioning society, and all the opportunities such a society affords – there are some things we cannot do.  Forbidden, outlawed, taboo, frowned upon.

Yet it is often the very same things that bind us – these Chains of Freedom – which also enable us.

A society that permits anything, that has no social contract, is not a society at all.  It simply descends into a war against all, bellum omnium contra omnes.  Our feral nature comes to the fore.


It is interesting to see this clash play out in real time.  A quick way to do so is to date a lot of women in the modern West.

For example, over the last few years I’ve gone out with several Asian girls here in Chicago, whose parents were all first generation immigrants from places like China, Taiwan, and South Korea. Very Americanized ladies.  I’ve also dated a couple Asian girls who grew up in those countries and came over to the United States as young adults, still seeped in their traditional upbringing.

In fact, I just went out not that long ago with one girl in Chicago whose parent came over from northern China.  She grew up in DC and New York, went to college in Boston.  And she was about what you would expect.  Early 30’s, spent her younger years clubbing, has a few tattoos, fucked who knows how many guys at this point.  And she is still living down near the Loop in Chicago, delaying giving up that Sex and the City lifestyle till she’s 40.  Or maybe never, who knows.

I’ve also dated an Asian doctor in Chicago, whose parents came over from Taiwan.  And despite her seemingly “put together” upstanding professional life, her personal life was a little more sordid.  She had some very suggestive tattoos, and definitely a bit of a freak in the sheets.

All that to say, it is interesting to see how girls brought over as toddlers (or born here) from traditional countries with parents having those conservative Asian values – yet who grow up in our Western society – turn out so altered from their parents. So blunt. So masculine. So brusque. So sexual. So feral.

Embracing their harlot nature.

In contrast, the girls I’ve dated who grew up in Korea or China and came here later are very different.  More conservative. More feminine. Much harder nuts to crack either emotionally or sexually.  And some may say that would be good for an “undomesticated” man like myself, but in all truth I actually enjoy the challenge.  I know how to play the game.  Indeed, when I am forced to rise above my own feral nature to truly “conquer” a girl, then I am often at my best as a man.  Even if, in this promiscuous era, I know that such conquest will likely not last long.  She is not yours, it is just your turn.

To which I will posit this curious yet counterintuitive principle: to be free is to overcome our feral nature, not to embrace it.  And in that sense, haphazardly casting off the chains which restrain us makes us no more free.  Rather, it is those chains that allow us as humans to carve meaning out of a world where there is otherwise none.


Those Chains of Freedom have another curious side effect: they also force us to introspect more.  When we must work within constraints, we are forced to take a good, long hard look at our choices.  In contrast, when there are no boundaries, there is no need to question if, and why, we must cross them.

I made some similar comments on a recent post on the TRP reddit.  How, from a TRP perspective, there is no going back at this point, and it is incumbent for a Red-Pilled man to understand the current cultural landscape of the West and how to navigate it … but it is a fair question whether the trade was worth it.  As well as the question of whether generations of the future should embrace the values of the Baby Boomers – diversity, androgyny, progressivism, post-modernism, etc.

There was an article in the National Review last month, written by famed Russian novelist and communist critic Aleksandr Solzhenitzyn, about the reaction to the commencement speech he gave at Harvard University.  During the speech, Solzhenitzyn argued that the West’s dogmatic approach to sociopolitical changes and social justice have led it blindly toward an erosion of individual freedom and meritocratic principles.  And that such dogma raises an important yet rarely voiced moral question: who is it exactly we are helping?

Solzhenitzyn’s arguments echoed ones I made years ago: that in our efforts to empower the weak, we have in the end empowered no one.

They also raise the question of whether it is truly acceptable to be self-critical of certain “progressive” principles in the modern West?  Concepts like diversity, androgyny, progressivism, post-modernism, etc.  Or are we once again, just like the Christian hegemony of middle age Europe, caught in an invisible dogma apparent only from the outside?

We see the same principle in recent missives from the Heterodox Academy, which if you are unfamiliar with is an organization of professors, researchers, and other academics who hold “support for increasing viewpoint diversity – particularly political and ideological diversity – on university and college campuses.”  Currently it has over 2000 members and rapidly growing.

The emphasis for Heterodox Academy is how do we train students and young people in self-critical thinking and rationalism in the face of such invisible dogma?  Rather than just shouting down speakers or ideas they don’t like.  Or more acutely, how do we continually teach each generation that dogmatic thinking is like an ocean beating against our shores, eroding the sand, with rationalism our only beachhead to hold against.

Indeed, such invisible dogma is a seductive mistress, perhaps the greatest harlot of them all.  A siren of the sea.

It may be, much like stories of the Asian ladies I dated told above, that we find freedom is a thing derived from boundaries.  That there is no freedom without the chains of freedom.  That casting off those chains doesn’t make us more free, but less.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I Held a Protest for Poor White Boys From Appalachia – Nobody Came

I held a protest here in Chicago for poor white boys from Appalachia – nobody came.  Not the feminists.  Not the black folks from the south side who call cops murderers.  Not the social justice warriors who deplore the plight of brown children.  The progressives were nowhere to be found.

I am being facetious of course.  I didn’t actually do this.  But I make the example to raise a point: we are all bigots.  But more importantly, from a classical liberal perspective: we are all selfish.  Sure, we care about people … but we care about them more if they look like us, talk like us, think like us, or are our own children.  The difference is that classical liberalism knew that the key was to channel such rational self-interest, to align those selfish desires of individuals with the greater good for society.

A perfect example of this: recently here in Chicago there was a black barber shot by police on the southside.  The shooting launched a series of violent protests by blacks in those neighborhoods, aided by various white SJWs.  It was interesting to see the protests, with cops there ensuring the peace so they could go on, while those very same protesters screamed in their face calling the police “murderers”.  Of course, the police chief released the body cam footage of the shooting, showing the suspect clearly carrying a gun, pulling away from the police as they try to question him, ignoring commands, and reaching for the gun at his waistband attempting to draw the weapon.  Interestingly, the police trying to stop the man were a black cop and woman.  Yet somehow this is all about racism?

Contrast this with the Massachusetts cop shooting that occurred the very same day.  Brown guy grabs gun and shoots a cop 4 times during a traffic stop, as well as shooting and killing an innocent bystander.  All that to make this simple point: these are volatile situations, when a suspect is acting crazy who knows what they might do.  Cops are naturally afraid for their life too, ignoring that ignores human nature.  It’s important to put yourself in their shoes.

But the real aim of contrasting these stories goes back to point above about rational self interest.  Should we be surprised that black people are protesting the first example, even in light of the second example?  I would posit that we should not.  They are bigots, just like you and me.  They look out for their own.  That makes sense.

The problem comes when we as a society fail to appropriately channel those self-interests.  The result is anger, violence, fighting amongst groups.  This is why we see the outcomes we do in socialist societies, who attempt to temper the rational self-interests of some groups in order to create a false Equality of Outcomes.  A la Harrison Bergeron style.  This is the ultimate problem with things such as Feminism and Progressivism.  With countries like Venezuela.  With the misplaced outrage we see in the police shooting examples above.  It is a failure of society to adequately channel that selfishness.  A failure of a society that thinks it has the power to alter human nature.  A society that thinks it can overpower a raging flood, rather than build canals and dams ahead of time to control the floodwaters when they come. Or perhaps even put such floodwaters to good use like irrigation or a reservoir for the future.

The educated question then is how to we harness those rational self-interests … because if we are doing so then, from a Classical Liberal perspective, we are successful, despite the outcome.


The above issues are a perfect parallel with how we deal with women and Feminism in modern day society.  It would be easy to deplore women’s hypergamous nature, and their resource exploitation of men.  But like above, we should expect them to be selfish.  AWALT.  The issue is how we channel those selfish desires.

An interesting recent example comes from Sweden, where apparently feminists are now berating mothers in public parks for not putting their kids in daycare and going back to work.  Of course, Sweden has a 61.9% personal income tax rate to support that, due largely to policies pushed by Feminists and Progressives.  This is the flipside of generous maternity leave and state-sponsored daycare, women no longer have choices.  As Friedrich Hayek eloquently argued in Road to Serfdom , such “central planning” core to communal socialist states is a slippery slope to slavery and tyranny.  In this instance, Feminists have all but made normal motherhood an illegal, impractical choice.

In a broader sense, women and feminists generally expect men to act against their own rational self-interests, and there’s the rub.  Such a system only works if men are given certain privileges for acting against their own self-interest, such as respect and opportunities (what some people might even call “patriarchal”).  And if what is good for an individual man aligns with what is good for society.  That is the basis of classical liberalism.

Gynocentrism and Classical Liberalism, in that sense, are at direct odds.

Even on the individual level, we are raising women these days who don’t seem aware of the trade-offs, who don’t seem to realize the supposed “chains” they’re railing against are, in fact, the chains of freedom.  Because none of us are ever really truly free, only free-er.  We all live as part of some Social Contract … the question is what form that contract takes.

Indeed, many of the women I date these days only give me respect when I threaten to walk away completely, or make it apparent thru my behavior.  I suppose that is one way to channel women’s rational self-interest, to repeatedly slam the door in their face, so to say.  But such a last resort on the part of individual men bespeaks a misalignment of those desires with what is good for society. She wants the best available man (i.e. hypergamy), and I signal that I am such a man by showing I have options and can walk away at any time.  But she can never be sure, so she continues to push, until I ultimately do walk away.  Who wins?  No one.

And perhaps that misalignment is the ultimate failure of Feminism.

Striking parallel: what would happen if we started NOT policing black communities?  93% of blacks are killed in black-on-black crime, not police shootings.  Would those black folks prefer the cops not come around?  Because they are definitely not going to police those communities if guys like the one in the video can pull a gun on them.  I certainly wouldn’t.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

The Orwellian Curse – How the Democrats Became the Anti-White, Anti-Male Party

Totalitarianism is always a losing strategy in the long-run. Whatever power you may gain from it, will always come back to haunt you. Call it the Orwellian Curse.

I wrote about this  a couple years ago, when we watched the Boomerang Effect of identity politics come full circle to bite Hilary Clinton’s 2016 presidential election campaign in the ass.  Clinton not only lost to Trump amongst white men, she even lost with white women.  This is a stark shift in voter demographics from even just twenty years ago (see below). Which is of course fascinating on the surface since Hilary is actually a white woman.  But more importantly, it tells us something of the totalitarianism-based approach that underlies modern Progressivism and the identity politics that goes with it.

In short, Totalitarianism is defined as a political entity or group that attempts to completely control both the behavior AND thought of the society it inhabits.  It is an attempt to shape and control the dominant Cultural NarrativeThe problem is that once a society has been desensitized to using thought to punish/shame/exclude others, that subtle shifts in the narrative can eventually turn it on its own creators.  The real danger of such cultural narratives is that when one “single story” comes to dominate the discussion, then it warps our sense of right and wrong.  Political decisions and policy choices then become more about engaging in acts of social display, i.e. virtue signaling, than fact-based political discussions.  It becomes a race, a competition, to prove who is the most ideologically “pure”.

In fact, given the nature of societal mobs, it is almost a certainty this will happen at some point.  Like unleashing a dragon.

This is what we mean by the Orwellian Curse.  Indeed, Orwell’s book 1984 is not really a book about fascism or authoritarianism per se … it is a book about Totalitarianism. About political groups controlling and manipulating thought, and the dominant Cultural Narrative.

And so in many ways, one can argue that the Democrats and their progressive wing have really been the victim of their own success over the thirty or forty years in the United States.  From civil rights to gay rights to feminism to gender fluidity to white guilt, they have radically reshaped the cultural narrative in the U.S.  To the point that even suggesting that “diversity” or “equality” may not always be a good thing, that there may be downsides, is enough for shocked public outrage and humiliation.

In more recent years, this has meant many former allies of the Democrats, including the white working class (who still make up nearly 70% of the U.S. population) and many men, have become casualties of the Orwellian Curse.  The problem is that if they advocate for their own children, or god forbid themselves, they are seen as “ideologically impure”.  Try being an anti-feminist Democrat and let me know how that goes …


Social media lies at the root of a lot of this Orwellian Curse phenomenon in the modern West.  I would argue, in hindsight, that social media like Facebook are actually perfect tool to cause the over-fermentation of totalitarian social movements.  And that it in many ways contributes to the place Democrats in the United States find themselves now.  Let me explain.

It is easy to contend that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter lead to greater polarization and extremism in politics.  Friends share things with like-minded friends (that is why you’re friends in the first place, right?), and automated algorithms further mold and shape what you see based on what you react positively too.  A positive feedback loop that simply reinforces your prior beliefs and prejudices.  Or, in a nutshell, a Filter Bubble.  Facebook belatedly seemed to realize that after the 2016 presidential election, though only because foreign entities were able to manipulate the news feeds and narrative for their own purposes.

But the bigger problem is how social media normalizes radical positions and virtue signaling.  In fact, one could argue that social media is basically all about virtue signaling.  Unless all my friends are really living perfect lives??  Traveling the world and always taking that perfect candid photo??  But probably not.

Social media is in effect a market economy for virtue signaling, where the currency is dopamine hits people get from likes and shares and retweets.

The problem thus is clear, social media mixed with politics simply exacerbates the race for ideological “purity” and accelerates the Orwellian Curse.  Hell, there was an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune by Mary Schmich last week contending that Father’s Day is “outdated” because all her gay and transgender friends on Facebook think so, and all her straight friends rushed into agree so as to look like the most “progressive” of the Progressives (le sigh).  Covert Bigotry at its finest.  So if you are wondering how it seems like all the sudden in the last decade or so the Democrats have become increasingly anti-white and anti-male, well there you go.

Interestingly, if you go back to the first Clinton (Bill, her husband) who was president in the 1990’s, you will see that just twenty years ago Democrats virtually split Republicans on both the White vote as well as the male vote.  Food for thought.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments