Saturday, September 24, 2016

- The NY Times Demands Blood!

The NYTimes has a video up recorded by Keith L. Scott’s wife, in which she claims, (and the NYTimes implies) that Scott was unarmed. The video does not make this clear since the shooting itself occurs outside the frame. But the police have a gun in their possession with his prints on it recovered from the scene. He has a history of violence, and multiple arrests. I’m unpersuaded by the Times video, but no doubt many people who need the lie of Scott’s innocence preserved will be.

For me, this offer’s a thin excuse to talk about something I’ve referred to (though not in print yet to my recollection) as ‘the black woman’ problem.

Most American black women are from west African populations, and to my eye, they aren’t very attractive. They are squat, very heavy, and typically less intelligent than white or Asian women. Individuals will prefer a wide range of appearances and I bear those who find west African women attractive, absolutely no ill will. But the standards of beauty are, for lack of a better word, pretty standard. The objectivity of a beauty standard has been studied at some length, and reported at many of the red-pill sites. I’d recommend searching for “beauty standard” Chateau Heartiste if you’re interested in specifics.

But taking that as a given, this leaves American black women in a bit of a pickle. Their standard body and facial features are a long way from what science indicates is objectively beautiful. Add to that a typically dim mind prone to emotional outbursts, and the poor risk management skills that go with it, and you have a recipe for the girl that very few men, if any at all, will want.

This is not an excuse to ungraciously call black women ugly. It doesn’t matter to me what someone I’m not dating looks like. But it matters a very great deal to the women themselves.

Ask women what is important in life and you get a very different answer than when you ask the same question of men. While men will often talk about careers, and wealth, a Ferrari or to surf Mavericks (or whatever) virtually all women will say that a ‘meaningful relationship with a man’ is VERY high on their list. Their huge biological investment in childbearing pushes them toward mating in the same way that men’s testosterone pushes us toward sex. It’s innate, irrational, overpowering, and driven by the part of the female mind that lends itself to rationalization.

Men are the pursuers, and women are pursued, so their half of the mating equation is to find a way to persuade as many men to pursue them as possible. This is typically done by being as physically attractive as they can. If you take exception to that statement, this is the wrong place to argue the point (I refer you again to the Heartiste). The point I’m interested in here is, what happens to a woman’s psyche, when almost no one wants to pursue her?

If you prowl around the red-pill sites, you’ll see a frequent reference to the “Rationalization Hamster”. This is a paraphrase of sorts, but I think of this as referring to the way that women, rather than lying directly to others like men do, find it easier to lie to themselves and convince themselves that the lie is the truth. And it’s my experience that the less attractive a woman is, the more outrageous the lies she tells herself become. One recent example you may have caught wind of in popular media was when Lena Dunham showed up at a fashion show recently, dressed as a man, and honestly believed that the attractive sports star sitting next to her, who could have virtually any beautiful young girl he wants, should have been attracted to her instead.

This is ridiculous on it’s (her) face. But if you’re someone who looks like Lena Dunham, you rely on these lies to preserve your fragile ego. And when it doesn’t happen the way you expect, you don’t look in the mirror as you should, you look to change society and redefine the things that men find attractive. But the very process of entertaining that kind of solution reinforces the thought processes that requires it. The more you do it, the more you require it. Before long, you are, in an objective sense, honestly believing something which to others seems ridiculous.

A great many black women are no more attractive than Lena Dunham, and many are even less so. So as a group, they have come to rely on their ‘rationalization hamster’ to a much greater degree than other groups of women who have a higher average physical appeal, and therefore garner more male interest. They cope with this difficult fact by constantly lying to themselves about how they look, and the nature of the problem. They get accustomed to the process. They rely on it for what they honestly believe is the truth. It isn’t the objective truth. But it’s as much of the truth as they’re able to handle, which in many cases is almost none.

Culturally this has become a cliché. “My baby wasn’t no thug, he was a nice boy with a good heart! It’s that raciss cop who done wrong!” What I believe you’re hearing at a time like that is a woman convincing herself of a falsehood, in a way that she’s probably well practiced at. No one can really fault a mother who has broken no law, for mourning the loss of her child, however clear the evidence that he may have been guilty. But just because his mother believes it doesn’t mean the rest of us should.

In this case, what I believe we’re seeing is Scott’s wife convincing herself that Scott was unarmed. She cannot face the fact that he was, so she doesn’t. The NYTimes, eager to show white men as the villain, repeats as much of this lie as they can without making themselves an out and out laughingstock. They are not interested in the truth. They are interested in shattering the power structure. They want to inflame blacks in the hope that they can then be turned toward supporting Hillary Clinton, who desperately needs their votes.

That kind of thinking may seem, petty and shallow – as if I don’t give the Times enough credit. Surely they would never be so craven as to openly lie about a man’s death and create a riot and potentially an out and out race war, just to support something as transient as a political goal in a single election. But if you’ve been following along, you can see that they view the rise of Trump as a challenge to their core principles. They are in full on, Gulf Of Tonkin, Blue Dress, definition of “IS” freak out mode. The core lies of their entire belief system are being challenged now everywhere they look, and more evidence pours in every day. Their tools for cowing the right, accusations of racist and misogynist, are falling on tens of millions of deaf ears. So they are going to shout as loud as they have to as a last ditch effort to make them work. And if that means a few riots or even an all out race war have to happen, well it’s all for what they think is a good cause.

They’ll say “We’re just keeping the question open” Or “We want all the facts”. But that’s nonsense. They aren’t idiots. They know the potential consequences of their actions. But when measured against the recent threat to their leftist worldview – a worldview that each and every one of them is deeply, personally, invested in, they just don’t care. Journalistic ethics? Utter BS. This is just a demand for blood.


The first video analysis is rolling in. I have no idea if this sight has an agenda or not. (I've never heard of it before.) But it claims to show the gun in the video.


MikeCLT said...

I don't get how that video supports the family's claims that he was unarmed or that the shooting was unjustified. The wife clearly is yelling "Don't do it, don't do it" on the video at a point when she is speaking to her husband. Don't do what? I think it would be a huge stretch to interpret this as directed at the police.

Given the husband's finger prints and DNA on the gun I am leaning towards this being a justified shooting. But I will wait for the investigation to be completed before saying definitively. Would that the rioters had waited for the facts to come out before they started protesting so they could at least know what they are protesting. Maybe that is too much to ask of them but is it too much to ask of the NYT? Unless of course the NYT is just trying to angry up the black vote.

chess said...

And look to the future in the Washington mall. A GUN FREE ZONE~~The guy with the rifle who killed 5 must have missed that sign on the entrance door.It is the malls fault for not having a greeter to explain that to everyone entering.
Maybe the NYT will figure out why I shouldnt carry protection.

Muzzlethemuz said...

Tom - Excellent analysis. Fantastic. This is the first time I have ever read anywhere a critique of the west African aesthetic related to problems here in the US. I had this realization years ago after spending time with a population of Ethiopian emigres (whose women were absolutely stunning), who do not seem to have the problems their western brethren have and that the west African facial geometry and genetic predispositions have played as much a role in historic race issues in the US as actual racism, behavioral issues, intelligence disparities, etc. Objectively speaking, yup, there are definitely some issues there. Tied into feminism, the NYT's, unicorns and rainbows. Fantastic. Oh, the NYT's will get its blood. And they are the least prepared to deal with it.

Tom said...

David Bowie's widow Iman, is Somali - east African. Being in NYC, I happen upon recognizably Somali fashion models from time to time, and though they aren't really to my taste (I prefer tiny, curvy asian and mediterranean girls to tall skinny 'model' types) they are obviously leaps and bounds above our west African origin American black girls in terms of attractiveness. I've had a little experience with Kenyan women as well. Again, not typically my taste, but definitely more symmetrical and healthy looking than the hood rats of Harlem.

I have no idea if as a group they are more or less honest than American black girls. I'd bet it's an individual distinction. But since as a group they run from one to ten in terms of attractiveness, as opposed to the 1 to 6 attractiveness of American blacks, they are probably not quite as willfully dishonest with themselves.

Just my bet.

Tom said...

I'd also bet that since your Kenyan friends are less unattractive, they will receive less negative feedback from the 'white world' and therefore assimilate more readily into it. Think for a minute about the well socialized and assimilated blacks you know. I'd bet that they are all at least average looking. That's certainly true of my close black friends.

Just sayin.

Muzzlethemuz said...

My experiences with Ethiopians in particular were during OCONUS periods and in a completely different cultural context. Hard to know how that would all fall into place over here. Rush often comments that modern African immigrants to the US often scratch their heads trying to pin down where all the fabled racism and oppression is as they go about achieving what they could not in Africa. NYT's has no comment.

Muzzlethemuz said...

The advantages of the geometrically gifted, regardless of race, could constitute its own post on this site. The bigger issue is that of females in the US, in particular, who capitalize on their looks to the point of becoming what I would call, "flighty arrogant bitches (FAB's)." Normal guys often, and do, give up on chasing them, because the challenges of maintaining the qualities sought by such arrogant, flighty, bitches, simply aren't worth it. And identification of this issue alone does not constitute beta behavior nor does giving up on something so FABulous. We just move from pursuing the US 7 or 8 to going after the foreign counterpart. Better looks, better manners, they cook and in my opinion, the darker the meat, the better.