Sunday, June 4, 2017


Is there anything more elusive than what constitutes sexual attraction? It comes in a great variety of types, sometimes simple, sometimes complex, and not infrequently indeterminable, undefinable, with an inscrutable etiology. That we do not understand how it operates in others is perhaps not all that surprising, but that we do not understand it in ourselves, as can be the case, surely is.

Let me start with an obvious source: hair color. We recall the books “Men Prefer Blondes” and “But Marry Brunettes.” But what about the distinguished German professor and writer I knew who declared that, for him, blonde hair wasn’t hair at all—a woman’s hair had to be dark? And for how many men, myself included, a woman’s hair had to be on the long side, a boyish haircut being a turnoff.

I myself have been attracted to and involved with far more brunettes than blondes, but that, I firmly believe, had nothing to do with my mother’s hair color than with happenstance: I came across with so many fewer blondes than brunettes interested in me, but to some of the few that were I responded to just as strongly.

One woman I was involved with insisted that men were divisible into those that go for legs and those that go for asses. I myself went equally for both but not principally for either. To some men face matters most; to others, figure. I could not fully respond to anything less than both.

Years ago it was asserted, I don’t know how validly, that American women depilated their armpits, whereas French women nurtured hairy armpits, both according to what their men went for. Some few men even dislike pubic hair and insist on shaved pudenda. Muslims consider hair so erotic that their women must go about with it covered. Religions prescribing this for mere seemliness presumably do so disingenuously.

Some men apparently even like their women bald—how else explain women with shaven heads? In the musical “The King and I,” Yul Brynner, long the king’s seemingly perennial interpreter, was bald, probably because the historic king was hairless, but perhaps also—I can vouch for it— because Yul looked more interesting  without hair.

Some men, like the actor Victor Mature allegedly, scored with an extra large penis, but haven’t women, other things being equal, been just as satisfied with a normal-sized one? Japanese men, I have been told, cherish especially the back of a woman’s neck, or is that only because doggy-fashion sex is preponderant? We are told that for centuries Chinese women’s feet were kept small by foot binding, allegedly so as to make it harder for women to run away from their men. But that is clearly nonsense; it surely had to do with men’s wanting to fondle and toy with a woman’s diminutive, plaything-like feet.

In some societies, e.g., the Minoan, women went about bare-breasted, I assume not so as to advocate their wherewithal for suckling babies. One sees them in paintings, but always with firm, shapely breasts , never with unsightly, pendulous ones. Even in puritanical Britain, you could see stage performers with exposed breasts, provided only that they stood still, presumably because that made them works of art, like statues, so often semi-nude.

All this by way of introduction to an article in the June 3rd Times entitled “In the World of the Sapiosexual, the Hottest Body Part Is the Brain.”  The reference is to men and women who fall sexually for a person of the opposite sex for his or her intelligence rather than anything external. We read: “Darren Stalder, an engineer in Seattle, appears to have coined the term ‘sapiosexual’ in 1998 to describe his own sexuality. He is quoted as having written on a social network “I don’t care too much about the plumbing . . . . I want an incisive, inquisitive, insightful, irreverent mind. I want someone for whom philosophical discussion is foreplay.” The paper goes on to say “Sapio, in Latin, means “I ‘discern’ or ‘understand.’” Actually, the primary meaning is “I know.”

The sapiosexual stimulant is allegedly either intellect or intelligence (there is a difference), which manifests itself in a person’s conversation. Already there is a problem: conversation is a special, independent gift, not necessarily contingent on a person’s intellect or intelligence: some great minds are fairly inarticulate; some much lesser ones, very articulate.

But, fundamentally, what really is intelligent conversation? It can apparently be all the things cited by Stalder as components except, notably unmentioned, subject matter. Someone can be absolutely riveting about baseball or philately, but be totally ignorant about physics or metaphysics—how intelligent or intellectual is that person? Oceanography and metallurgy may be sporadically fascinating topics, but how fulfilling in the long run?

And, in any case, may not so-called sapiosexualists be deceived about others and, notably, about themselves? It is interesting that the two pictures that accompany the Times piece are of a good-looking young black man, Aboubacar Okeke-Diagne, and an attractive young white woman, Teresa Sheffield, a comedian asserting “What I connect most with and value most as a sapiosexual is emotional intelligence and comedic intelligence.” Whoa! Comedic intelligence is a fancy way of saying sense of humor, but heaven knows what is meant by emotional intelligence. Isn’t that rather like white blackness?

Anyway, may not these attractive young individuals really appeal through their looks, which the attracted person tries to elevate into, and justify by, something more dignified, more refined? I wonder whether there is such a thing as a truly homely, unattractive person making it on telling jokes or quoting Aristotle.

One specific example in the Times article is a woman named Jacqueline Cohen, 52 and resident of the Upper West Side, claiming to be attracted even as a teenager by intelligence or even the mystery around someone’s intelligence. Now a divorcee or widow, she cites as example a date who, without being her physical type, unexpectedly recited poetry by Rilke. She says, “I was amazed at how fluid the whole conversation was . . . I could feel something happening inside me.” On the next date, the man takes her to an art exhibition and gives her “all of Rilke’s books,” since when Rilke has been one of her favorite poets.

I find this suspect for several reasons. First, did the man recite Rilke in German? There is, I speak from knowledge, no such thing as a fully satisfactory Rilke translation, indeed none seems possible of such preponderantly musical poetry. And all of Rilke’s books? Much of that Rilke’s prose output even, including volumes upon volumes of letters, mostly to women, remains untranslated. For “all” of his books in German, a full supermarket cart would be necessary, hardly suitable for visits to an art exhibition. So utter, unsapient balderdash.

Another unanswered question: how new is this supposed phenomenon? Was it there, though unmentioned, throughout history, or was engineer Stalder the first to practice it, or at least first to name and record it in 1998?

We have all known couples where one or both were physically unattractive, and God only knows what made the attraction sexual--or could there perhaps be a platonic sapiosexual attraction? I can just imagine them discoursing, preferably wittily, about the most recondite matters conceivable, and immediately thereupon falling into bed  for exemplary sex. They would not be put off by anything, not even the man’s name, Aboubacar Okeke-Diagne—one could, after all, call him Abu.

On the bottom of the Times front page, there is a small color picture of a beautiful woman I take to be Teresa unbuttoning her red blouse. I cannot envision a man for whom that would not be a greater come-on than her fluidly quoting Santayana or Schopenhauer at length.


  1. Sex article? From of all places The New York Times? No wonder that rag's going out of business! Where is Hugh Hefner when we need him?

  2. One wonderful thing about sexual attraction is that the older you get, the less choosy you get. I can be attracted to a woman nowadays that thirty years ago I wouldn't have given the time of day to.

    There's a single woman who lives on the corner in my neighborhood. She's approximately 60-65 years old. I drove by her house and she was working in her garden on all fours. As I passed, I was able to see straight down her open blouse. She looked up and gave me a big smile and waved. I almost swerved into the opposite yard. She has a very nice rack. I assume this will continue until the day I die. Good news.

  3. That the the word "sapiosexual" was coined in 1998 and is suddenly a thing in 2017 strikes me as a way for a wily reporter to keep working the gender identity angle. Simple, just go out and find a couple of people who could use some free publicity and give them the premise, and tell 'em they'll get their picture in the paper. And easy enough to dig up some "sexual health educator and professor of applied health science" desiring tenure who will give you the money quote: "Scientists consider sapiosexuality less a sexual orientation than an identity." Bam!

    Also suspicious: Darren Stalder, the coiner of "sapiosexual," has that prankster look, on the order of Penn Jillette.

    1. I love the Emeril reference. He's a sapiosexual freak.

    2. I was thinking "money shot." I didn't know Bam! was associated with Emeril. I just know he's a chef. Now I'm curious.

    3. Live at Yankee Stadium!
      Kirky on lead guitar! Whittaker on drums!

    4. "The Essence of Emeril" and "Emeril Live" Two of the greatest TV shows of all time. I was hooked on both. I was just learning to expand my cooking skills when I discovered Emeril and some of the other Food Network guys. Bobby Flay--Mario Batali. All of the Iron Chefs were fantastic. Not really a big fan of the network these days, but back then it was super.

      To this day, when I toss some spices into a dish, I yell "BAM!"

    5. @Scott, here you go.

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. Me so culinary

      The very opposite of sapiosexual
      Seems to me to be Emeril,
      Practicing an art quite tactile,
      And, like real sex, ephemeral.

      On what day are relations
      Toward uncles most forgiving,
      Of their booze-fueled insinuations,
      Than on food-dulled Thanksgiving?*

      *any resemblance to uncles living or dead,
      the author included, is purely coincidental.

    8. An oldie but goodie (but then I'm partial):

      Each partner should be the key
      That fits the other partner’s lock--
      Great beauty could be essential,
      Or it could be a superfluous crock--

      For varied are the aspects
      Of a healthy human creature--
      Solicitude, the meeting of needs
      Matter more than fairness of feature.

    9. Very true.

      Nooch, check out this website. Kinda cool. Enroll today!

    10. Thanks, U.K.!

      Here's another one:


      "Do you find it endearing, or kin to infection,
      When she ends ev’ry phrase with an uptalk inflection?"

      "The smile, the shine, the smoothness of the walk!
      And then…oh God…she began to talk…"

  4. Is there such a thing as a SUPERIOR RACE? A Thought Experiment of Race as a Sexual Product.

    Is there a superior race? Here's one way to look at it.

    In the end, the women decide, at least in our open and libertine world of free movement and choices.

    Before anything is possible, race must exist. Without existence, one is nothing. So, existence is the foundation of superiority because something is superior to nothing, or what exists have superiority over what doesn't exist.
    Everything exists because it came into being. It didn't always exist. So, if conditions favor the coming-into-being or the birth of something, then it has superiority or priority over what failed to come into being.

    So, race and racial identity depend largely on whom women choose to have babies with. That decides which men will spread most of their seeds and genes. Men who are not accepted by women cannot spread their seeds and genes. Deemed inferior as mates, their genetic codes will not pass down.

    At the basic animal-sexual level, what are women most attracted to? Muscularity, height, penis size, and musicality.
    On this animal basis, globalist formula is as follows: black men > white men > Asian men.

    And stats bear this out, even though some white guys are in denial because they feel ashamed to admit sexual defeat. In the past, women had far less freedom and were sexually repressed. So, there was less animalist factor in sexual behavior. Things were more moral and restrictive. Women had to maintain their reputation of being a 'good woman'. Also, most women found one man and married him and had sex only with him. That was part of being a 'good woman'.
    Also, as men had most of the jobs, women relied on men for support. Today, women are employed more than men, and they can support themselves. Some choose to marry, but many just spend money on self-pleasure, and that means sleeping with lots of men in hookups. Some become single-mothers with men who don't hang around.
    There was a time when candid talk of sex was deemed uncouth and vulgar among women. Today, young girls are raised on GIRLS(Lena Dunham), SEX AND CITY, and lewd standup comedy. Women now openly talk about male genitalia, and women brag about how 'my guy has a bigger dick than yours and more muscle'. It's even on prime-time TV.

    1. Today, women are free to choose, allowed to be sexually uninhibited, and to have sex with tons of men.
      So, animal drives come into play, and women are most turned on by height, muscle, musicality, and penis size.
      So, from an animal-instinct viewpoint, black men are superior to white men who are superior to Asian men because women deem black men more manly than white men and deem white men more manly than Asian men.
      And, we have more and more white women(raised on rap music, black dominated sports from high school to pros, interracial porn, etc) going black and using their wombs to create babies for black men.
      And we have near-majority of Asian women in America rejecting Asian men as inferior and choosing to have 'white kids' with white men(or with other men). So, women decide which race is superior in our libertine globalized world. In many cases, Asian women prefer to have kids with white or black men who don't stick around than with Asian men who are willing to stick around. Asian women would rather be a single mother with children of superior man than a married woman stuck with an inferior Asian man and his inferior children.

      Black men colonize white wombs, brown wombs, and yellow wombs. Plenty of white women are now single mothers with black babies. And plenty of Asian women only date white or black men and choose to be single mothers with babies with non-Asian men. And Asian American women with 'loser Asian men' feel envious and ashamed for being stuck with such 'losers'. So, Asian-American women almost feel ashamed to be stuck with Asian men. Their female friends with superior white or black men will put them down. Having an Asian man is like having the 'cooties' in the West. It means, while your friends are bragging about how manly their men are, you are stuck with some Asian loser.

      In past Asia where all people were Asian, Asian women only knew Asian men and didn't see them as inferior. But Asian-American women compare Asian men with other men, and they see Asian boys as 'losers'. Asian boys are so desperate to be cool that some imitate blacks or hang around blacks to prove they got 'street credit'. Whites and blacks laugh at such yellow dog-like behavior, but yellow boys pursue their fantasies. A black guy or white guy doesn't have to associate himself with yellow guy to be 'cool', but yellow guy feels a need to hang with blacks or be with whites to score 'cool' points.

    2. Asian immigrant children have Asian father and Asian mother. Their Asian mother married their Asian father in Asia where most people are Asian. Indeed, the chances are that Asian-American immigrant children wouldn't have even come-into-being IF their mothers had grown up in the US. If their mothers had access to non-Asian men --- taller white men or black men with bigger penises --- , their mothers would likely have partied and had loose sex with lots of men in 'shameless' American society than settle down with some Asian man who, by American globalist standards, is a 'loser male' whom NO ONE wants on Tinder. So, unless Asian boys have SAFE SPACE for sexual culture, their women will be raided and taken by other men in huge numbers. There's a saying among white women, "if you go black, you don't go back." This means that once white women have black men with bigger penises and more stamina, they can't find satisfaction with slow lame inferior white boys. Furthermore, Jews(who control media and academia) promote this trope in sports, music, Hollywood movies, TV, pornography, and propaganda. So many white males are demoralized, turning to drugs, and committing suicide. This partly accounts for White Death.

      Some white men find compensation by taking women from Asian men. So, black men conquer white women from white boys, and white men conquer yellow women from yellow boys. Sexual imperialism with black men as masters and yellow men as slaves is the growing fact of globalism.

      Anyway, once Asian girls go white or black, they just can't go back to Asian boys.

      Race is a sexual product. A white person is the product of white woman choosing to have kid with white man. If she prefers black man, then she will produce a black baby from her white womb that will be colonized by black sperm.
      If you are white, you are white because your white mother chose a white man. But if she'd gone black, her white womb would have spawned a black kid and the white-kid-that-could-have-been will effectively have been afro-aborted or 'afroborted'. Even white women who do marry white and have white kids believe there would have been nothing wrong if they'd chosen to have black kids. They have no sense of racial loyalty. So, your white mother feels she could have gone black and it would have been just fine if she'd had black kids than a white kid like you.
      White women having black babies are increasing because whites worship blacks in sports, music, and sex. Whites admire black race as the superior race when it comes to sex, and THAT is crucial because all life is created by sex, or one's father fuc*ing one's mother.
      And since Asian men are seen as unmanly, Asian women reject them as inferior and use their yellow wombs to create 'white'babies for white men(who are deemed superior) or black men as almost all black-asian pairings are black male and white female.

    3. So, which is the 'superior race'? Before all else, a person of certain race must exist in the first place, and that means he must be born. And that means some guy has to fuc* some woman as all people are born of sex. Existence trumps all and is the foundation of superiority.

      Indeed,existence is the first foundation of superiority. No matter how much a man claims to be superior, if a woman rejects him and chooses another man to have kids with, the OTHER man's sperm will have superiority. (For example, based on IQ scores, Asian men can claim superiority over some races. After all, East Asian IQ is higher than that of blacks. But being sexually unattractive in a world where Asian women now have free sexual choice, East Asian claim of superiority based on 'geek' IQ is often useless since women don't want Asian sperm. Asian men may be superior 'geeks', but women with 'liberated' and 'sexually-revolutionized' animal lust prefer the studs, not the duds. So, even as Asian geeks may be superior in science and math, they fail at the fundamental level of reproduction. They can multiply numbers but can't multiply their genes through children. In the end, the men who spread most sperm is the superior from evolutionary vantage point. And current social setup of female choice and libertine sexuality favors black men over white men and white men over Asian men. Because Asian men are seen as unattractive, they must make lots of money to attract women, and some Asian boys work hard to make money. A news article says American women will marry Asian men ONLY IF they make $300,000 more than white men.) And all people are born through women. So, in a free and animalized society, superiority is judged by the raw sexual desire and sexual choices of women. Asian-American women watch stuff like SEX AND THE CITY where women put down men with smaller penises. Though it's not racially spelled out, it means the Modern Globalized women will admire black men most and dismiss Asian geeks since Pop Culture tropes present the black guy with big penis and yellow boy as dork. Some may blame Liberal Jewish Hollywood for such stereotypes, but most stereotypes have some basis in fact. Some Asian boys are so desperate to be cool that they almost pretend that they are honorary blacks. They shuck and jive and take up black cause. They are yellow Shaun Kings.

      As Asia itself becomes globalized by increased travel, internet, and mass immigration and emigration, even Asian women in Asia are waking up to fact that their sexual value is much higher than that of their men whose value is zero, a globalist joke. And Asian-American women with white men or black men contact their friends in Asia and brag about how they got superior men. They tell Asian women in Asia that they too should come to America and have sex with better men than being stuck in Asia with inferior Asian men. As for loser East Asian men, their only option down the line is to marry low-IQ poor women from Philippines and Southeast Asia who might marry a Japanese or Korean guy just for three meals a day.

    4. In the case of K-pop, it goes to show that Korean women want to look white and want to have white-looking babies. They even want blonde hair. They even get plastic surgeries to look white, and their parents don't protest. Japan and Korea are like land of Asian Michael Jacksons who fantasize about being another race, one more superior to Asian.
      Since globalists know that Asian men may resist the massive threat to Asian malehood in Asia, they spread homosexual fashion among young Asian boys to turn them 'gay' even if they are straight. Thus rendered into castrated eunuchs, they are less likely to resist the globalist pussification of Asia as the vagina of the world. Asian homos trained in the West now work for globalists to turn Asian males into wussy-boys. What is happening to Asia is of cautionary significance to the white race since it is threatened by black sexuality. One could argue the white race is being 'Asian-ized' vis-a-vis blacks. White men sexually lose to black men, like Asian men lose sexually to white men.

      White men will increasingly lose to black men(who are arriving by the millions to Europe to white women addicted to rap culture and jungle fever) and Asian men will lose to white and black men because Asian women, once given a globalist choice, prefer non-Asian men as superior to inferior Asian men who are seen as dorks. The only way Asian men can remain sexually-genetically secure is by staying in Asian and banning sexual access to their women by other men(who Asian women will prefer if given the choice).

      For most of human history, women didn't have a choice. Also, they were expected to be faithful to one man for their entire lives. Even most men didn't have choice since many marriages were arranged by parents. Also, prior to imperialism and globalism, most races lived in separation from others.
      But now, at least in modern parts of the world, women get to choose the men. And they have a wide choice from all races since all societies are getting filled with diversity.
      Even Japanese women often go with white men and black men because they find their own men to be inferior. Look at Ms Japan, product of black man and Japanese woman. and three Japanese athletes in the Olympics were result of Japanese women rejecting Japanese men and going with black men.
      And we see more and more white women not getting married and just having lots of loose sex with blacks. In colleges, tons of white girls got jungle fever for black athletes(who are worshiped as heroes by cucky white boys). Indeed, college coaches and recruiters attract black athletes with the lure of jungle-feverish white girls.

    5. Asia, gone globalist, will now import black African athletes who will beat up Asian boys in sports and conquer and colonize yellow wombs that will reject yellow men. Even though it's about black racial-athletic superiority and domination over Asians, this will be promoted and sold as 'progress' and 'equality'.
      All this globalism is done in the name of equality and 'anti-racism', but the result is totally about sexual inequality among races and the racial-sexual superiority of some men over others. After all, Asian nations are importing black athletes on the basis that blacks are SUPERIOR to Asians. Asians are so tired of being inferior in sports that they want to have blacks play for Asian nations and then pretend that some 'Asian' won. But in fact, it's just black supremacist domination over wussy Asians. Imagine if Cambodia got a Nigerian runner to win the gold medal and then claimed that a 'Cambodian' won. LOL.

      So, what is the superior race? In today's globalized world where women have the freedom to choose, racial superiority is determined by whose seeds women choose to receive. Each year, black seeds impregnate not only black wombs but white and yellow wombs. But each year, fewer Asian men are chosen for their seeds since Asian women are now free and 'liberated' and have choice to choose from the whole world. And they reject Asian seed. So, East Asian men are least successful in the West and even in the East where Asian women hope to get out to have sex and babies with superior men.
      White men need to learn from this racial-sexual dynamics affecting Asia since millions of young black African males are headed to Europe to sexually colonize white wombs. The large numbers of black men, jungle fever among white females, hedonism, feminism, and 'anti-racism'(that actually promotes blacks as defacto superior race) will lead to the Afro-colonization of white wombs on a massive scale. It is already happening in so many parts of Europe. Also, even as PC says 'race is a social construct', it also says mixed-race people are superior in beauty, intelligence, and everything. PC says black men and white women will produce superior-babies.

      Now, we can be PC and say all races are equal or 'race is just a social construct', but the fact is women DO NOTICE race. And they choose based on race. And that means race is, above all, a sexual product.

      So, that seals it. Asians are racially inferior since they fail at the competition of coming-into-existence. Asian seed is undesired. And Asian wombs will prefer to be colonized by white seed or black seed. In turn, white wombs will be colonized by black seed since white women, raised on vulgar libertine-ism, see black men as superior to white men on the basis of raw factors like muscle, aggression, and penis size.

    6. I dunno, the Chinese seem to do well at "the competition of coming-into-existence." But you're right, the western world was propagandized for decades against breeding, yet much of the rest of the world didn't get the memo. Oh well, the future belongs to those who show up for it.

  5. Afro-Colonization of White Wombs(ACOWW) has been facilitated by White Achievements and Power in Electricity and Electronica that magnifies and amplifies Black Prowess

    Many nationalists blame the rise of feminism as the main cause of West's downfall.

    Feminism is a big problem, but it alone can't do much harm.
    After all, prior to mass immigration, feminism was just a headache in Sweden, not an 'existential' matter.
    But feminism or no feminism, the real danger is due to racial biological differences.

    After all, the white underclass is hardly intellectual or into stuff like 'feminist' ideology. But we see more and more 'white trash' women breeding with black men than with white men... which only adds to white male depression and White Death, esp as white-have-nots have no leadership or protection from white elites. If anything, they are condemned for 'white privilege' more than the white elites are. White elites ameliorate the burden of 'white guilt' by fancy virtue-signaling. Look how far Tom Brokaw, Bill Clinton, and their ilk got by mixing privilege/success with self-serving displays of 'conscience'.

    Even anti-white-ness may not be the main problem. After all, white women are not attracted to American Indians -- legit 'victims' of US history -- despite the Narrative that morally advantages Indians over whites.

    The problem is electronica and Afro-funkery.

    Paradoxically, the greatest achievement and strength of a people can end up serving the power of another people. It's like the roads built by Romans. They were meant to expand Roman power and domination. But in the end, it made the invasion of Rome much easier since the barbarians could use those very pathways to head to Rome and sack it. So, what the Romans built to ensure their domination over others facilitated the domination by others over Romans. It ended up being 'host' to invaders. It's like a dog's mobility is a great advantage, but it also enables the spread of parasites much more effectively. Dog's speed allow dogs to hunt and run from danger. But it also means dogs will run all around and spread fleas and ticks to other dogs and mammals. Dogs unwittingly serve as the hosts and carriers of the very creatures that feed on them. It's like the Alien creature in Ridley Scott's movie uses humans as host-carriers of their eggs.

    1. Prior to white development of mass travel, mass communication, and electronic media, blacks were nothing more than primitives in their own world. Though physically powerful and aggressive, they lacked the intellect and temperament to develop the kind of technology necessary for world domination. They mostly chucked spears at hippos and then yelled 'run like a mothafuc*a'. They beat on bongo drums and shook their booties and told folktales about how someone's grandma was an antelope. So, no matter how physically powerful and wild they were, they were stuck in their own world and meant nothing to the rest of the world.

      So, how did Afromania spread(indeed, even before homomania)? It was due to white achievements in electricity and electronica. Electricity allows the development of electronica, the gadgets, especially of media and entertainment, that AMPLIFY and MAGNIFY human expression, showmanship, and prowess. Before electronica, it took an entire orchestra or a big chorus to make loud sounds. With electronica, a skinny Mexican like Carlos Santana or dufusy Briton like Jimmy Page could create thunder with a guitar on par with Wagner's operas. Rock music wasn't possible without electricity. Prior to electronica, black music could be loud and raucous. But when bluesmen went electric, they sounded 1000x more powerful.
      Even without electronica, people can express themselves powerfully but the impact was limited. Electronica amplified powerful expressions 100x and spread the images and sounds to millions and even billions of people.

      Now, blacks had NOTHING to do with modern science. White folks did it all, just about. Even non-white achievements by Japanese were micro-improvements on white paradigms. So, the power of electricity and electronica are the achievements of white power to serve white power.
      The problem is the power of electricity and electronica may favor the expressions of another people, even ones that may pose harm to the very people who developed those technologies. It's like Japanese companies like Sony and Toshiba made lots and lots of TV sets and sold them around the world. So, did Japanese TV's spread Japanese culture and prestige? No, for the most part, what people around the world watched on those TV sets were Hollywood and American culture. So, if Japan sold a 100 million TV sets, they did little to spread Japanese prestige or enhance Japan's cultural influence. What really mattered was what was shown on TV, and it was mostly American sports and entertainment and movies and music.
      So, all those Japanese TV's were really serving the American Sound and Image.
      In the end, who developed printing and runs the printing presses is less significant that what kinds of ideas and thoughts are conveyed through those books and magazines.
      I mean a person in some part of the world with a Sony TV doesn't think when watching a movie, "I'm watching a TV set made by Sony. Gee, those Japanese make good TV's. Good workmanship. Nice technology." No, he ignores all that and just gets excited about what is coming through the Tube, which is far more likely a Hollywood product than a Japanese movie or TV show. If Jews were to make all the TV sets but if Palestinians were to make all the TV shows, which side would gain the advantage? Will people pay more attention to and show more appreciation for the fact that Jews made the TV sets OR will they pay more attention to and show more appreciation for what is being shown on the TV sets?

    2. So, when white folks feel assured of their power because so much of Human Achievement was about white genius, white brilliance, and white innovation, they are not seeing the bigger picture. Much of white achievements in technology are merely useful. People don't pay attention to the technology itself but what it can deliver or convey. How many people know what really goes into a TV, smartphone, computer, internet, or video game? They just like the sight-and-sound, the fun stuff relayed by such technologies. Thus, so much of white genius and white-human-achievement goes undetected and invisible. When people flush the toilet, they don't think of the important historical figure who came up with modern plumbing and sewage system.
      People are still organisms, and most organismic needs are basic and functional. People do them because they must. It's like taking a urine, taking a dump, drinking water, getting some sleep, cleaning and bathing, and etc. People do them not because they want to but because they must. The body needs them. What people fixate most on are things of pleasure. Not just any food but sugary-creamy food. Music and dance, related to sex culture, as music and sexuality light up same parts of the brain. And human organisms still have that warrior-hunter instinct, which is why people, esp men, still love sports and action movies and video games.

      As for culture, elite arts has no chance against pop culture. Elite culture had prestige when the world was ruled by aristocrats with fancy airs. They were patrons of high art. Also, the power of religion emphasized themes of grace, dignity, transcendence, and redemption over ones of wantonness, excess, vulgarity, and shamelessness. For most of human history, most people had humble folk culture and family lore. Elites had high culture. But in the democratized world of mass consumption, pop culture is the only dominant culture, and it is driven by profits that are determined by 'base' animalistic drives of masses of human organisms.

      White people developed the power of electricity and invented electronica on a massive scale. Today, even tribesmen in Africa have smartphones that connect with all the world. Since white folks developed the technology and since East Asian nations make a lot of these gadgets, one would think the power of electricity/electronica would favor whites above all and Asians second. But, the controllers of much of globalist media and entertainment are Jews who generally happen to have their own ethno-organismic interests that tend to be hostile especially toward white gentiles(but also against Muslims and Asians). So, movies like GET OUT, DJANGO UNCHAINED, and 12 YEARS A SLAVE are financed by them(but nothing about the Nakba).

    3. Also, in our culture of shameless thuggery and lasciviousness, blacks have a decisive advantage in entertainments with greatest reach for masses around the world: pop music, sports, vulgar comedy, pornography, increasingly sexualized dance forms, and art of hollering(like in rap battles, though when used well, it can lead to impressive oratory, as with MLK).
      Blacks always had these traits, but they were contained in Africa. Someone in Mexico, India, China, Turkey, Iran, or Hungary wouldn't have known about black volume or wildness prior to mass communication. But with the spread of electronic networks all around the world, blackness in sports, music, dance, sex, and hollering is spread all over. And this is leading to a kind of Afro-mono-culture. Now, global electronic networks can, theoretically or ideally, spread all sorts of cultures and expressions around the world. And this spirit does exist in the Art Film Community where people still show interest in different films and stories from around the world. But these films make minuscule amount of money. Look at any Variety box office charts, and it's rare for a foreign or indie film to make more than $100,000 at box office in the US, no matter how good the film is. Most make much less than even that.
      Especially in a world culture that is increasingly shameless, infantile, savage, and vulgar, people don't have patience or interest in anything but what gives them a quick fix or high, like crack or smack. Also, sports is a zero-sum game. People only care about top winners and no one else. Blacks dominate sports because they got more fast-twitch muscles, making them faster and more explosive. Also, blacks have tougher bones and faster reflexes. Evolution made for racial differences in physical advantages. Since blacks are most wild and dominant in the culture of mass thrills --- even coming up with a dance called 'twerking' --- , World Culture is going Afromaniacal. Long ago, French pop music was unique. While it borrowed elements from other musical styles, it maintained a distinctive Frenchness. But go on youtube and check the top 10 hits of France last year, and it's just French version of Afro-funkery and rap. And look at the French soccer team. Almost all black.

      This means that the most advanced part of the world, the West, has done most to promote and disseminate the attitudes and (lack of)manners of the most primitive, aggressive, and troublesome race on earth, the blacks, whose racial nature has made a total mess of Africa, Haiti, Detroit, parts of Baltimore, and etc. Whites built computers and the internet. Blacks had nothing to do with it. But black expressions are spread to all corners of the world via the internet.

    4. Afromania may be sold as 'diversity', 'feminism', 'progress', or 'tolerance', but it is really Afro-colonization of the world via the CARRIER of white technology. Even though technology was created by high intellect, great discipline, and much learning, their purpose is to make things easier and simpler for most people. Initially, technology was to ensure better survival and production of basic goods like automobiles and laundry machines. They were not about pleasure but necessity and convenience. But once people's basic needs were met, they relied on technology more and more for pleasure, especially with the rise of youth culture in the 50s and 6os when hedonism became the main mode, even to the point of infecting leftism, whereby May 68 in France was ignited by French male students being angry for lack of easy sexual access to coeds.

      The masses find most pleasure in sports as form of neo-tribalism, pop music, dance as horny expression, comedy & culture of vulgarity, pornography & other forms of sex culture, and narcissism & celebrity(to the point that even fat homely Lena Dunham imposes herself on us as 'hot stuff), and etc. And blacks have gained dominance in many of those. And because US media spreads all around the world and because internet connects all the world, it means Euro-power in electricity and electronica have come to serve as midwife and carrier to savage Afromania. And this may be a destructive force, not least because modern technology not only allows mass communication but mass travel. In the 50s and 6os, white Britons may have listen to black music and drawn inspiration, but most black Africans had little chance of making it to UK. Also, there were far fewer blacks back then in Africa. But modern medicine and food vastly increased black population in Africa. Also, air travel is low enough that any well-off African can fly to any part of the world. Also, breakdown of borders and loopy redefinition of 'western values' means that Africans can willfully endanger themselves at sea to be dragged into Europe, whereupon they can trek from Italy or Spain to northern parts of Europe. And since the 80s, European women have been dosed on madonna-ism, the ideal of white ho having orgy with entire NBA. This leads to the Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. And if you have trepidation about any of that, all of EU, from top to bottom, have been mentally-colonized to condemn you as 'racist'. A people who are only territorially conquered can still survive as a race. Poles and Kurds have been conquered this way, but as most of their women had children for their own men, the people and culture survived. But when the women of a race are womb-colonized by another people, it leads to something like mestizo-ization. The Hispanic colonization of native wombs in Latin America forever destroyed the identity and pride of Meso-Americans who still linger as strangers in their own land, or strangers in a familiar land.

      At the current rate, the white race is going from boomers to doomers. Not only do more and more white women invite their wombs to be colonized by black men but white men, as sappy cucks, have embraced their own inferiority and fitfully virtue-signal their 'anti-racism' for having accepted the black man as the superior race more deserving of possessing and enjoying white female beauty. Paradoxically, white 'progressives' who rhetorically reject the notion of racial differences actively behave in ways that are premised on racial differences. After all, why would white women go with black men unless they believed black men are superior as savage-warrior-hunter-studs over sappy white loser males? And why would white males seek comfort and compensation in Asian women for having lost white women to black men?

  6. It’s no secret that most men only want one thing, right?

    Well it turns out that’s not only wrong, but may actually be the root of many failed relationships.

    In fact, the one thing men are universally obsessed with...

    Is actually a feeling he’s been chasing his whole life.

    It’s an elusive combination of emotion and biological drive that’s rarely satisfied in life or love.

    ===> If he’s shutting you out, here’s what’s missing... <=====

    And when you know how to satisfy this life long obsession...

    He will make it his life long mission to cherish and please you...

    And he will pursue your love to the ends of the earth.

    Here’s a video you won’t want to miss that shows you how to become your man’s deepest obsession:

    ===> (The most powerful emotion for men) - (Men fall in love with women who do THIS): <=====