Good looking people should be careful of the company they keep.  Hiding among you, the good looking, are the envious who feel they have missed out on promised greatness.  They are in perpetual despair because they failed in their beauty goals and are on a crusade against the attractive, motivated by the basic human emotion: jealousy, anger, despair. 

These characters work with their tongues, speaking of your attributes with the condescension of self-greatness despite no evidence of themselves being great.  What are their beauty qualifications?  They attempt to be the jurors of physical beauty despite never having been beautiful. 

These angry souls turn to action, working to eviscerate your outward attribute, and to have the poor beauty work they have done elevated to adoration.  

Part ways with the uninspired who do not pursue their own physical greatness—but want the rewards. Think of the cook who burns dinner but smiles as the defective meal is placed in front of you as though you do not notice it’s glaring error.  They seek praise for sub-standard work.

These wounded birds tug at our hearts.  You may see in them a sadness that will make you feel guilty and hold you back.  In some cases, they mean you no intentional harm, but their pain will become a weight you have to pull.  If treated incorrectly, they move into anger, and their goal becomes to define a world in which they do not participate. 

They work to dislodge the prevailing standard of beauty and replace it with a new description and a lower bar that may be manipulated, a bar that a  hippopotamus could hurdle.  Men and women who fit these descriptions are in every corner of society secretly seething at their exclusion.  They want the spotlight without paying the dues.

As may be interpreted, the belief, and sometimes the reality, is that the attractive of our world wield power and receive favor, but a lower bar would help the unattractive achieve those.  Indeed, there is a natural pecking order that exists in the human condition, and one of the large influences is attractiveness, whatever the current dominant standard of attractiveness may be. 

But how?  

Entertainment and media have been infiltrated.  From news outlets to sitcoms to film to musical performance, it appears that the bar is a lot lower.  The beauty purge has begun.

In male circles, the well dressed and groomed man will be met with ridicule by his peers. For women, in an apparent bid to appeal to a new wave of militant feminism, adoration of the attractive is scorned.  Faced with the empowered feminist, the promotion of women that men would describe as beautiful has ended, seen as submitting to patriarchal standards. 

Note that the reciprocal has not occurred: overweight, ‘short’, or ‘unattractive’ men will not be tolerated (unless rich).  Men who are attractive will be allowed entry only if they entertain and obey feminist ideals. 

“Feminism was created to give unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.” – Rush Limbaugh

This movement is comprised first and foremost of women or men who have not achieved their social goals. 

They attribute their lack of success to having been robbed by, or for the sake of, a ‘good looking person’.  Hardcore rainbow flag waving Lesbians are the backbone of this movement for obvious reasons.  Interestingly, gay men are rarely in this group—but only as long as the beautiful keep them as friends and emplace the gay male on the judge’s panel to decide who is beautiful.  Otherwise they will turn on you and slit your throats with social media knives.

Ironically, the rest of the beauty hating cadre does include a few attractive women and handsome well-dressed men who have been shamed by the other groups for their beauty, which is why I start off with ‘be careful of the company you keep’.  This group will be socially beaten until they lower their personal standard to that of those around them, victimized because they were not careful of the company they kept. 


Males targeted by, and if not careful are later associated with, the anti-beauty crusade are almost entirely men who have been shamed for liking what they like, and cave in when criticized for what they like.  To deflect criticism, these men date against their instincts, for fear of disappointing female colleagues and family members with their ‘shallow’ personal tastes.  Instead, they choose a mate based on those people’s social agenda, ensuring the consequence of later regret. 

The envious unhappy souls, not satisfied with their work ruining that group, next infiltrate social circles, whispering into the ear of empathetic people that the concept of beauty is unfair.  Rather than develop their own attractiveness, which requires personal effort, they attack beauty in general.  The beauty purge now opens a new front in their war.  Once the beauty standard has been lowered or destroyed entirely, they blend themselves in to the mainstream of society, with the tacit agreement that for them helping you today, you will nominate them as beautiful tomorrow.  On that day, they remove you, the good looking, to promote themselves and their standard instead.

“United Airlines was sued by two veteran flight attendants who wanted assignment to National Football League flights: a Black woman who has worked for the airline for 28 years and a Jewish woman with 34 years of tenure — say that they both tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to get assigned to work the charter flights.  They alleged that United ‘stacked’ the flights with ‘young hot blondes'”.  The beauty purge has a new angle of attack.  Assuming they began their flight attendant careers at twenty, that would make these two women forty-eight and fifty-four.  (Burnson/Bloomberg).

They’ve convinced the population that there is an unfair advantage that is unconsciously applied to the beautiful, that not all are able to achieve their social goals due to the limits of their attractiveness.  Their envy directs them to suggest that by being attractive, you are participating in, or if you appreciate beauty you are cooperating with, a bourgeois power structure.  Then, you are guilted until you accept that your attractiveness or like thereof is conceit or shallowness on your part, you should like what they feel is important. 

The beauty standard has been lowered to accommodate them.  They have given up on establishing their own beauty, they seek to discredit yours.





Is this beautiful animal a Blue Jay?

We appreciate beauty in animals, but what about people?










And so, aspiring Social planners and socialists have strategized unseating the attractive.







































As she stood in a building built by men, using products made by men, purchased in an economy created by men, she proudly proclaimed the independence of women from men.  That the thousands of years of subjugation to men and their wants was now over, same as the culture that she says women feel trapped within.  She would no longer work to appeal to men; take me as I am.  Me and my sisters, accept us as we are.  Any unwanted sexual attention from men is malevolent and demeaning, any acceptable sexual attention is a tool to be leveraged.  This is an escalation in hostilities–The war of the sexes has intensified; this a communique’ from the battlefield.

Talent makes the difficult look easy.  Men are extremely talented.  After ages of survival and protecting, of men building and manufacturing and creating, seemingly with ease and overnight, the works of the male appear to be simple.  That apparent simplicity, emphasis on apparent, lends to the interpretation that the world a man builds is not actually his work but a transferable bestowment.

Not recognizing the struggle of protecting and building, particularly for ‘her’, the contemporary American female addresses men as though the male is on easy street and his presence in decision making is unearned.  The world he built for her and dedicated to her is a naturally occurring phenomenon that he is fraudulently taking credit for. She figures, “if I am just as strong, I can do what he does and have what he has”.  Men have performed so well for so long that women take it for granted and see the physical and societal infrastructure surrounding our world and culture as a lassiez fare concoction that may occur just as easily without the jurisdiction of men. 

The male is a victim of his own success.  Now that civilization has been built, he may be guilted into imbecility for the aims of women who think like teenage girls.  The male must be deconstructed.  Due to his deference to ‘happy wife, happy life’ she is now divorcing him, and all women are divorcing all men, with the world men built as the alimony.  Clueless as to what men do to bring a complete world to them, the message seems to be that women are tortured by the existence that was created for them. 



Perhaps she is angry at men; but not malehood. 


Or she likes men, but not male culture.  The male must be deconstructed.










Observing female same-sex couples, lesbians who embrace the touch of another woman proceed to imitate their perception of malehood.  It is no secret, nor does it require a statistical analysis–when observing lesbian couples at least one will tend to adopt ‘male’ characteristics. Therefore, the problem is not with malehood, which they adopt readily; the problem is particularly with men.

Observing the feminist, she wishes to sit on a throne like a man, and have men serve her like drones with no clear explanation of why they would participate in this.  She leverages the existence of men, but not the accompanying patriarchal culture that built her hive, built her throne, and won the war that ensured her survival.  In her eyes those are naturally occurring amenities, not the result of patriarchy.  Her problem is not with men–her problem is male culture.

And so, the female either:

  • aspires to assume malehood and replace men with themselves (women can be better men than men),
  • or she rejects malehood but accepts men, because she intends to graft feminine identity onto every male in sight (the future is feminine).

The first woman is lying to the universe and herself.  The second woman is a sixteen year-old girl in perpetual rebellion.   They are both tragic combatants in the war of the sexes, the deconstruction of men, the masculinization of women.

The first woman has no use for men, she only wants validation that she has met the requirements of membership to malehood, and can be ‘one of the guys’, or even The man.  She seeks masculinization.  The second woman has no use for malehood, she seeks elimination of male culture, but not necessarily men.  Her goals require the deconstruction of men.  She sees men as interchangeable pieces in some sort of controllable machine.  These are the Queens of the Beehive who hunger for the power of the man—but not his responsibility. 

Angry at her female position, she also wants to possess what the male owns, which is power.  This desire neglects that male power comes from the requirements of malehood, and its composition of men, not its mere existence.  The male has done it for so long, and made it look so easy, that women believe being a man is a costume that may be put on for fun or personal gain.  I direct you to the trailer of any feature film of the last five years.  The advertised popular culture seeks to demonstrate that anyone can be a man—failing to mention this fantasy exists in the safety of a realm built by men.

That is the covet nature.  The very nature that bit of the fruit of the tree, seeking to eclipse the role of the father.  And then led a man to disobey his father, to follow the woman rather than lead the woman, a man who insisted, ‘Happy wife, happy life’, as she led him to the Fall.  The masculinization of women, the deconstruction of men.

Her anger is in loss of the throne that she never was in line for.  She fantasized sitting in a position of superiority to dictate to the masses, for sure she thought she was wiser than the men whom she had been at the mercy of and their warlike world.  She would set the kingdom right, rebrand it a ‘Queendom’, and even one day knock the spiritual father off his heavenly place, declaring that all along it was a non-submissive woman who made the earth, from horizon to horizon, from sunrise to sunset.

There are few expressions that generate the level of vitriolic ridicule as the above title.  Being one of this group of political rarities, and pariahs, I and those I will discuss fit into the statistic of only 5 out of 100 blacks are Republican. Most of this political block consists of well-educated and accomplished individuals from all walks of life.

If one had compared the resume of President Barack Obama to those of Colonel Allen West, Businessman Herman Cain, JC Watts, Michael Steele, or Doctor Ben Carson prior to Barack Obama’s election, he would not have measured up to the other men named.  President Obama’s only distinction was that of an unknown democrat senator from Illinois less than a year into his job.  He was an affirmative action hire. 

But yet, he was hired, and supported, and protected.  In contrast, at each moment of choice, everyday Republicans passed on their opportunity with each of the Black Republicans listed.  Somehow we picked Mitt Romney.  Somehow we put Sarah Palin on the fight undercard.  There was the Bob Dole experiment.  Admittedly, I was a Steve Forbes fan with his flat tax. 

Meanwhile, a man with no resume was moved to the front of the line and put in the White House.  Liberal thinkers proved a point, maybe rightfully so.  The Democrat party beat us to the inevitability of a Black man one day being voted president.  I wanted my party, the Republican party, to be first up that mountain.

Senator Obama was identified and groomed.  He was not equipped for every aspect of the job, so they helped him.  Not only was he elected, but his party also assisted him and propped him up.  His failure was not an option.  It is as if they were jumping off roofs yelling, “ITS ALL FOR YOU DAMIEN!” 

The Democrat party ensured he did not trip, they put their best around him, protected him, and today brag openly that he completed eight years successfully and with no (proven) scandals or embarrassing failures.  Democrats now stand on the moral high ground, cheering to the countryside, “SEE!  WE’RE NOT RACIST!” and point at Republicans, “–LIKE THEM!”.  Then, to stomp on our graves they returned with a semi-black woman to do it again.  That is why highlighting Joe Biden’s gaffes and errs and inappropriate ethnic comments fell on deaf ears.

Donald Trump did endorse John James, United States Military Academy graduate and combat tested Iraq war helicopter pilot, who ran for Senator in Michigan.  The endorsement came eleven days out and this black man went home empty handed after his second attempt at the job.  A West Point man, he was clearly more impressive than Barack Obama.  Yet, I do not recall any national promotion from the party frequently accused of being unfriendly to blacks (In a later blog post, I will be holding the Black community’s feet to the fire for this same crime, not promoting our stars).

For the year before and during Donald Trump’s presidency, a black radio talk show host with a solid corporate background and obvious skill at media campaigned for Donald Trump daily.  He expressed his loyalty to conservatism, and even voiced his willingness to be a White house press secretary—As far as I know, Kevin Jackson received no job offer.  If he did, correct me.  Kevin Jackson funded and produced a film titled “Bleeding Blue”, supporting law enforcement.  No mention from the Republican party.  A Black man supporting Law Enforcement should have been promoted.  Aside from his radio show, I’ve never heard the film mentioned.  He used to be a contributor to Fox News, but was banned after a nasty comment about Kristine Blasey Ford, the woman who and accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of rape almost forty years ago.  No spoken outrage anywhere at Kevin’s treatment.

President Trump’s nominations of competent Black persons were not advertised.  A mostly Liberal media propaganda complex plays a large part in that.  However, Republicans when they did have the spotlight, only occasionally touted Ben Carson and Surgeon General Jerome Adams. 




President Trump’s appointment of the United States Marine Corps first Black female one-star General, Lorna M. Mahlock  went unnoticed.





In 2017, Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) wrote the tax plan presented by President Trump.  This plan included ‘Opportunity Zones’ (OZs), “. . . a brand new federal tax incentive to drive private investment into our nation’s most distressed zip codes”.   The plan included incentives for 47 Historically Black Colleges/Universities. His now retired partner Senator from that state, Trey Gowdy, stated: “Senator Scott is the future of the Republican party”.  I hope to hear the louder and more powerful Republican voices assign Mr. Scott such acclaim.

President Trump’s public affinity for Blacks seemed restricted to the confusing or bizarre: Steve Harvey, Kanye West, Omarosa Manigault, Diamond & Silk, etc.   

The Republican party occasionally will position an African American for apparently cosmetic purposes, most recently Michael Steele as chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC). Granted, his conservatism was inconsistent and perplexing. It may be better stated he was more a Liberal Republican rather than a Conservative.  To address dissatisfaction with Steele’s confounding political positions, Ian Walters of the American Conservative Union admitted, “We elected Mike Steele as chairman because he was a black guy, that was the wrong thing to do.”  He probably meant to say that Steele’s race was considered before his politics, and that this was their version of outreach, but that may have been almost as bad.  He could have expressed displeasure by saying, “I/we should have looked more closely at his policy beliefs”, but that would admit bad decision making on his/their part.  By saying Steele’s race was a factor infers that the choice of Michael Steele is not really their fault, but the fault of making a public appeal. 

And so, the RNC placed a black man in a position whose chief role is to expand membership and raise funds.  I am going to go out on a limb and forecast that any republican outreach to blacks will require spending funds—not raising.  For instance: if any of your major oil/gasoline companies initiated an African American (not minority, not immigrant) partnership and assisted black men in gas station ownership, they would never have to fight the anti-fossil fuel movement again.  Black people getting financial reward from gas stations?  Black people would beat the pee out of anyone getting in the way of drilling for oil.

And if that partnership happened, the Republican pro-business platform would have much more credibility.

Turning toward the debate over gun ownership, was there any outreach to Antonia Okafor, outspoken second amendment advocate and national spokesperson for ‘Gun Owners of America’ (GOA)? 




Mrs Okafor gave the keynote address at the National Rifle Association-Institute for Legal Action forum and convention.


Have Republicans reached out to Candace Owens and began a grooming process? Mrs Owens converted from democrat to republican, and along with Brandon Tatum initiated the ‘BLEXIT’ movement, ‘Blacks exiting the Democrat party’.  This position has made her a pariah in the Black community.

There have been some disappointing Black Republicans.  Don’t make the mistake of thinking I don’t share frustration with

General Colin Powell, (USA)

past efforts to enlist Colin Powell as our nominee; he let me down also by not accepting the overtures.  And, despite the admiration bestowed upon him, he threw jabs at us in return.  But, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out, aside from the revelation he was a registered and voting Republican, and a President Bush pick, which Republican policies did he champion?

A number of years ago I listened to the Rush Limbaugh show entertaining callers on “call in Friday”.  I had convinced a few of my African-American peers to tlisten that day.  When Rush, the champion of conservatism said “Hello, you’re on,” the caller responded in a gleeful southern accent: “HI RUSH, THIS IS _____ CALLING FROM THE LAASST CUNFEDERIT CAPITOL!!!”  I could hear Rush sigh, and I could also visualize those who I had convinced to give conservatism a try walk away.  This romantic view of the Confederacy and the accompanying revisionist history is killing us.  I know it is not purely Republican, but the desire to promote the southern American ideal will from time to time put you in bed with this mindset.  If you’re okay with that, that’s your right.  But don’t expect me or other Blacks to get in that bed with you two.

I have supported this party most of my voting life.  I was too young to vote for Reagan, but I liked his economic ideas and how he handled Russia (“trust, but verify”).  I voted for H.W. Bush the first time, but he lost his way and in 1992 I voted for H. Ross Perot.  I also liked Steve Forbes and his flat tax.  When we needed to dethrone Bill Clinton, I spent my vote on the unsuccessful Bob Dole.  I voted for George Bush who refused to fight back against his detractors for eight years.  On and on. 

Today, the only things Republicans living conservative ideals have to show for our vote, efforts, and voice are the celebrations of our political opponents. 

I am not dining at a table prepared for me in the presence of my ideological enemies.  It is THEIR bellies that are full, THEIR beaks that are wet.  We who sacrificed all, are pariahs for our effort.  We are like the South Vietnamese watching Americans climb the embassy stairs to a waiting helicopter; while we are left to face the hordes empty handed.