Serena Williams: Victim of sexism and racism?

According to Marc Bain, of, tennis player Serena Williams is underpaid, and underendorsed – because of sexism, racism or both. He writes:

The US Open begins today (Aug. 31), and Serena Williams has a chance to make tennis history. A win would put her at 22 career Grand Slam titles, tying Steffi Graf for second most, behind only Margaret Court. Her skill prompts arguments that she is the sport’s greatest female player of all-time, and currently the most dominant US athlete, of any sex or sport. Katrina Adams, the president of the US Tennis Association, recently opined that Williams is the greatest athlete ever—period.

Not everyone will agree on each of those points, particularly that last one, but there’s no disputing that Williams has been among the top handful of athletes on the planet for years now. Yet, on Forbes’ list of the highest-paid athletes, Williams ranks 47th. Of the seven tennis players on the list, she ranks last in endorsement dollars, with $13 million.

The top-earning male player, Roger Federer, will bring in an estimated $58 million in endorsements this year. The number-four ranked men’s player, Kei Nishikori, also brings in more than Williams, as does Maria Sharapova, who will rake in $10 million more yet hasn’t been a genuine rival to Williams for years. This gap has no logical explanation, except for long-held prejudices about female sports stars and how people feel they should look.

It seems to me that Bain is ignoring a basic supply-and-demand element of professional tennis. A while back, Human Stupidity wrote an excellent article detailing how female tennis players are overpaid, and over-promoted:

Women tennis players get  the same pay for less work (fewer shorter sets), lower performance (women are chanceless against any male top 500 player), less productivity (they have fewer spectators that pay less). In other words, women’s equal prize money gets subsidized  by the performance of the males.  Equal prize money actually leads to Wimbledon top 10 women getting higher pay then men. Women play shorter games, thus they have time to make extra money in more games, like doubles. Women also tend to get more sponsor money.  ESPN

Feminists manage to interfere in free market pricing of wages and prizes and enforce excessive pay for women.. Free market admission prices are lower for a spectator’s seat in women’s finals.

Venus Williams, the defending champion and three-time winner, said the women simply want to be treated equally.

“This is not just about women’s tennis but about women all over the world,” she told BBC Radio before Wimbledon’s announcement. “At Wimbledon we would like to have equal prize money to prove that we are equal on all fronts.” 2

The same Venus Williams that was annihilated by #203 in the men’s ranking!  Such demagoguery . If women are “equal on all fronts”, why do women need separate categories? Let them play against men, and whoever wins gets the prize.

Precisely! Professional sports is a product. Fans, and endorsing companies, are its customers. In the case of men’s tennis, the product is (for the most part) raw athletic performance. This is the entertainment that people are willing to pay money for. But female tennis players are selling two products: The beauty of their bodies (as evidenced by their skimpy outfits and the huge amount of attention their male fan base gives to the appearance of those players) and their actual performance. As Human Stupidity points out, female tennis players are inferior to male tennis players – so they capitalize on their sexy appearance to help make up the difference – and to have a viable product. It’s all about supply and demand.

But the Williams sisters are not as sexually attractive as their white female counterparts, and they don’t play tennis as well as their male counterparts. So it should come as no shock that they don’t get paid as much, and are not endorsed as much, as those who offer a better product.

To claim that Serena Williams is a victim of sexism is the same as claiming that ugly strippers are victims of sexism because they don’t make as much in tips as more attractive strippers. To claim she’s a victim of racism is akin to claiming that Asian basketball players are victims of racism because they’re grossly underrepresented in the NBA. In reality, ugly strippers and Asian basketball players are victims of nature – if they’re to be considered “victims” at all.

Posted in Africa and blacks, feminism and men's issues, human sexuality and morality | Tagged | 2 Comments

Donald Trump

Unlike so many of my fellow Americans, I don’t follow politics much. I don’t care what the president, or congressmen, say – because they only say what they say for political gain. After they’re elected, they do whatever moneyed interests want them to do.

But Trump intrigues me. Why? Because he dares to speak the truth about immigration, because he’s not beholden to political correctness, and because the media hate him. For these reasons alone, I’ll vote for him if given the chance.

But I just looked over the Council of Conservative Citizens website, and it seems to me that a lot of pro-whites are putting way too much stock in Trump. You’d think he’s the Second Coming. We should vote for him – as a protest vote. But I really don’t think he’s a bona fide pro-white, or that he’ll dismantle the Cathedral. Even if he wanted to, there’s only so much a president can do. Take Obama for example. The fact that there are still white people alive in the US is proof enough that his power is limited.

Posted in politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | Tagged | 7 Comments

Our rigid concept of time

I just finished reading E=MC2 by David Bodanis. It’s a fascinating book, and for the first time, I feel as if I can grasp some of the importance of this formula and its history.

One subject the book touches upon, though only in passing, is the relativity of time and its status as a dimension. This reminded me of how I used to struggle with the concept of “eternity” as a child. I wish I could have all that wasted time back, for it turns out that it’s one of those things that do not actually exist, but for which words were invented anyway. It’s cruel when that happens.

Many years ago, I studied at a Lubavitcher yeshiva (a Jewish religious school). The rabbi was teaching a class on the main esoteric book of the Lubavitcher Hassidic sect, the “Tanya.” At one point, while trying to emphasize a difficult concept (one that seemingly made no sense), he kept repeating, “It’s THERE, but it’s NOT THERE!” as he gestured dramatically. I thought to myself, “Wow. This is really deep.” Later I realized that the deepest concepts are the ones that are false. The reason we can’t understand them is that they really don’t make any sense. Sometimes, our most primal, instinctive gut reactions are the correct ones.

Sometimes science, though well-meaning, takes us on wild intellectual rides – that end up exactly where we started. For many generations, it was Greek philosophy that was considered cutting-edge science. This was the case in ancient Greek and Roman times, when Hebrew (representing a more primitive mode of thought) clashed with Hellenistic thought. Though traditional Jews were successful in holding back imperial Hellenistic forces, during the wars of the Maccabees (celebrated through the holiday of Hannukah), Judaism and Hebrew were transformed through their contact with Greek and Greek thought.

Hebrew took on many loan-words from Greek. The Talmud, with its overly analytical methodology, was clearly influenced by Greek philosophy.

As for the Hebrew language, it was fundamentally changed. Before Greek influence, there was no clear-cut concept of tenses. I’ll quote

there was no such thing in Hebrew as “Past Tense” or “Future Tense”. These are modern Israeli Hebrew terms. Originally it rather was “Perfect” and “Imperfect” aspects. It is the Perfect which gradually developed itself to be used as “Past Tense”, and that’s Imperfect which we treat today as “Future”.

This is well-known to scholars. Classical Arabic is the same way, and I’m told the same is true of classical Mandarin Chinese. It’s possible that ancient Semites didn’t perceive time the same way most of us perceive it today. Something that was to take place in the future was simply something that IS meant to be. “Yiqtol” now means “he WILL kill”, but in ancient times it meant “he is one who kills” or something to that effect. His status is the same today as it will be when he actually does the killing. As to the concept of eternity, Hebrew has no such word. The word that serves as a proxy, in classical Hebrew, is “le’Olam,” which literally means “for the world,” or “for a world.” In other words, for as long as it matters for those in the world.

The human mind is easily molded, and once we get used to thinking about things a certain way, it becomes extremely difficult to think outside of these terms.

Perhaps, through Einstein’s revolutionary grasp of time, as being relative, we have come full circle. The ancients (and even not-so-ancients) viewed time as simply an extended “present,” with the past and future holding no special status in everyday life. The Greeks, and modern Europeans (and those under their influence) enhanced the past and present into a rigid time hierarchy. This was useful for them, and helped facilitate modern society. Those who embrace this hierarchy most fully are those who can be more successful in modern life. The future is more real to them; they have less time-preference. Those who exist in an extended present are held back.

So, for all practical purposes, there is a rigid past-present-future procession. But, as a purely academic question, we can still ask: In the wider reality, outside of ourselves, does it really exist? If we do acknowledge its existence, does this not force us to confront impossible concepts – such as eternity?

Perhaps we can view the rigid procession of time as a human invention. One that is useful to us. As soon as we disappear, so does time. In that case, “eternity” exists only as long as humans exist. As soon as we’re gone, time disappears, and so does “eternity.”

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, language | Tagged | 8 Comments

The Diversity song

To escape the heat, I visited the coast today. It was rather crowded, and I was inspired by those crowds. And it’s about time; how long has it been since I’ve posted? Far too long. Anyway, I hope you’ll forgive me for this crude post. Unfortunately, if I were to omit the bad language, and crudeness from this song, it would not be true to this inspiration. It might offend some people, but it’s intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek. My intent is to disparage the concept of “diversity,” not the actual people described below.

What is the recipe for diversity? Here it is in song form, sung to the tune of Hava Nagila:


Retards and Mongoloids, knuckle-dragging nigger-oids

Amputees with hemorrhoids and lesbian androids!


Asians with slanty eyes, rag-heads with many wives

Malignant spics with dirty dicks and Africans with flies!


Legions of degenerates, feminists with saggy tits

Dot-heads with slurpee cups and chinks with skinny butts!


Mix them up and let them breed, fornicate and sow their seed

Celebrate as white girl bleed, diversity’s all you need!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Which do YOU prefer: Babes in bikinis or Idris Elba?

One of the pleasures of summer is the sight of hot babes in bikinis. But some women, who shouldn’t wear bikinis, insist on doing so anyway. I’d like to propose a product for them. It would come in a spray can, and it would cover up the parts most of us don’t want to see. It would be called: Spare-us-all spray (or “spareusol”). I’ll admit that some out-of-shape men expose too much as well. In either case, we can comment: “She/he needs a can of spare-us-all!”

Speaking of babes in bikinis, Maxim Magazine (famous for featuring scantily clad gorgeous women) has decided to break with its tradition and feature a man in its September issue:

If so (and it most likely is so), get ready to change your perception: The cover star of Maxim’s September 2015 issue is not only wearing a full-coverage top, but it’s … a man!

Idris Elba — full-time actor, part-time rapper, and future James Bond  —is officially the first-ever dude to cover Maxim U.S. without the presence of a woman. Who knew that (in this case, anyway) the fastest way to feminism was actually the absence of a female, altogether?

Yes, you read right. They’re making sure that the first featured man, on the cover of Maxim Magazine, is a BLACK man. Of course, no mention of this is made in the article. Few of the comments even point this out. Apparently, we are to believe that “racial equality” has progressed to such a degree that the race of the man on Maxim’s cover is not even an issue.

But of course it IS an issue. We see this over and over again. In the eyes of the hostile elites, black men represent the ultimate male figure, while white men (and Asian men) are failures. Sure, they’ll put up with us if we’re rich or famous, but all else being equal, our race works against us.

I hope this decision costs them enough subscriptions to put them out of business. I’m pretty sure that I speak for many when I say that, though I don’t hate black men, I’m sick and tired of having them shoved in my face at every opportunity.

I hope to send Maxim a can of spare-us-all, so they can use it on their magazine cover.

Posted in Africa and blacks, examples of propaganda | Tagged | 1 Comment

An Open Letter to Cuckservatives | American Renaissance

I’m too busy working and enjoying our fabulous (and hot) summer to post my own material right now. Instead, I’ll repost a beautiful article by Jared Taylor:

Dear Cuckservative,

You are not alone. Like you, Erick Erickson at, Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller, Taylor Millard at Hot Air, the blogger Ace of Spades, and Jim Harper with the Cato Institute are all squirming under the lash of this new coinage. They are squirming because a single word–cuckservative–lays bare the rot at the heart of your movement: American conservatism can conserve nothing if it cannot conserve the nation’s founding stock. I’ll put it bluntly: Nothing you love will survive without white people.

Do you stand for limited government and a balanced budget? Count your black and Hispanic allies. Do you admire Thomas Jefferson? He was a slave-holder who will end up on the dung heap with the Confederate flag. Do you care about stable families and the rights of the unborn? Look up illegitimacy, divorce, and abortion rates for blacks and Hispanics. Do you cherish the stillness at dawn in Bryce Canyon? When the park service manages to get blacks and Hispanics to go camping they play boom-boxes until 1:00 a.m. Was Ronald Reagan your hero? He would not win a majority of today’s electorate.

Do you love Tchaikovsky? Count the non-whites in the concert hall. Do you yearn for neighborhoods where you can leave the keys in your car? There still are some; just don’t expect them to be “diverse.” Are hunting and firearms part of your heritage? Explain that to Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor. Are you a devout Christian? Muslim immigrants despise you and your faith. Do you support Israel? Mexicans, Haitians, Chinese, and Guatemalans don’t.

To continue reading, click here:

An Open Letter to Cuckservatives | American Renaissance.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Bill Cosby and controlled-media hypocricy

Once again we see the corporate-controlled media pretending to be knights in shining armor, coming to the aid of crime victims. It was this self-same media that was responsible (in large part) for the Charlotte church shooting. It was their ongoing coverup, of black-on-white crime, that pushed the unstable shooter over the edge.

The bodies of that shooting are practically still warm, and now we see headlines such as this one (from New York Magazine):

white privilege

The article bemoans our “rape culture” as it tells the stories of 35 victims of rapist Bill Cosby. Almost all of these victims are white – yet the article directly under this one deals with “white privilege.”

This is the sort of blatant, in your face, hypocrisy that enrages so many people. Even as this article condemns Cosby for his hypocrisy, by opening with lines such as this one:

Consider the evidence of October 2014, when an audience member at a Hannibal Buress show in Philadelphia uploaded a clip of the comedian talking about Bill Cosby: “He gets on TV, ‘Pull your pants up, black people … I can talk down to you because I had a successful sitcom.’ Yeah, but you rape women, Bill Cosby, so turn the crazy down a couple notches … I guess I want to just at least make it weird for you to watch Cosby Show reruns. Dude’s image, for the most part, it’s fucking public Teflon image.

It was precisely media outlets, such as the New York Magazine, that created this “Teflon image.” Let’s look back a bit, to 1984, and examine what the New York Magazine was writing, about Cosby, back then:

The Cosby-Show is a Valentine to middle-class American family life; it sells fatherhood, reassurance, and Jell-O…

Cosby sells reassurance… you will find yourself doubting that Bill Cosby could ever really hurt anyone… nevertheless, tirelessly, Cosby reassures. Love goes on, even if it’s black. Children get his message, especially if they’re white. Cosby isn’t dangerous…

This is the message that the corporate-controlled media has been selling us for decades: Black men aren’t dangerous. They’re reassuring. They represent love, responsibility and old-fashioned American family values.

It appears that New York Magazine was right; white kids DID get his message – and as a result, over 30 of them got raped. Are they enjoying their “white privilege?”

Posted in Africa and blacks, crime and violence, examples of propaganda | Tagged | 8 Comments