My wife and daughter have been enthralled with the Olympics for the past week and a half, especially the pair’s figure skating.  Me, being an analytical sort, I am always looking deeper into people and ideas and interests for motivations.  I’m not a fan of the sport, but I do respect the skill and athleticism that is necessary to participate in it, let alone excel.  I’m not fond of the male portrayals, but to each his own.

I came to my own revelation of sorts as I got pulled into my wife and daughter’s excitement, watching as the event came down to Russian and Chinese skaters. They gasped as a Russian man held his female partner aloft with one hand as they glided across the Beijing ice.  I’ll call them Vladimir and Evgenia.  More gasps were emitted as Vladimir released her and recaptured Evgenia at his hip as she gracefully posed in a horizontal position, red lipstick smile prominent against the backdrop of her complexion and the ice.

How long had they practiced that move?  It must have been sixteen-hour days in an empty rink for weeks or months.  Being we’re discussing Russians; it was probably months.  How many times did he drop this poor woman on the ice, to be punished by tyrannical communist coaches?   It was amazing, I must admit.  Still not my sport, but I will never question the athletic ability of skaters.  Especially the men.

And that is where my revelation begins.  This required a man and a woman, working together intimately, like we’re supposed to in our lives.

I’m stating the obvious?

This would not work with two women.  Nor with two men.  Twenty years ago that would not need to be stated; today that’s not entirely obvious.  Vladimir was larger than Evgenia, his thighs almost as powerful as Barry Sanders.  Evgenia was petite and slim.  Each was built for their role, reversal is not possible: Evgenia is not going to hold Vladimir above her head, and he is not going to look good in a skirt and lipstick.  I present to you the obvious–A Man, and a Woman.


For my wife & daughter, their excitement was in the Vladimir and Evgenia working together, and in the female skater’s beauty, poise, and trust in her partner.  An illustration that the woman must trust the man.  Even after he may have dropped her in training.  I guarantee Evgenia knows how much work is needed to hold her up, and she’s not gibbering about ‘strong women’.  And I also guarantee that if Vladimir were gay and you sent a man out there for him to toss in the air, he would say, “No, go get Evgenia.”

I believe that is the disconnect between men and women today.  Evgenia had to train, and train hard.  Training for her started when she laced up her skates.  But for Vladimir to do his part, his training began LONG before she laced up skates.  Even if she was only one hundred pounds, when she jumped, Vladimir had to catch her, continue the momentum upward, and hold her aloft with ONE hand and arm, maintaining his balance gliding across the ice.

Lifting one hundred pounds one handed over your head is a herculean task for a man in a gym on rubber mats in sneakers.  This guy did it on skates!  The amount of physical conditioning that the male skaters endure must be relentless and brutal.  And THEN he has to train to skate just like her. 

Not one mention of what an incredible feat it was.  I had to point out that he was tossing the equivalent of a giant sack of potatoes in the air, catching it, and running with it over his head.  As Vladimir and Evgenia finished and took their bows, he was visibly exhausted.  Not one word from wife or daughter of the immense task Vladimir had to perform.

Women see the work men do as a given; we’re supposed to do what we do.  It just happens, and they are entitled to it.  Women have little appreciation of men and what men do to enable their survival and set the table for their excellence.

And that is a paradox that threatens our future—Men and Women NEED one another.  I’ve never met a man who did not value the importance of women.  From what I see of late in media and daily interactions, I do not think that view is mutual.

We must protect the relationship of Man and Woman.  And in that order.  There is a visible campaign by feminists to grab any and all young women and recruit them for the ‘strong woman’ crusade.  This is where the ‘wrote our own vows’ movement began.   

Hopefully they won’t poison Simone Biles, who accepted a marriage proposal from Jonathan Owens of the NFL’s Houston Texans.

I looked at their photos, and they look happy.  I mean really happy.  Where do you see that in our times, these times of desperate housewives and athletes with groupies and baby mommas.  I do not know the young man’s history so I’m going on a limb in saying he seems like a decent guy.  He’s not in the news for trouble or hanging out with rappers.  He dated Simone, then put a ring on it.  Simone is always smiling, doesn’t pop up in the gossip columns, and looks ecstatic.  She appreciates that a man wants to hold her high!  They are the embodiment of the themes portrayed by those figure skaters.

                                                                      I see a Man, and a Woman.


The hood gets to young girls early.  The wolves of ghetto life will watch your daughters and bite them early, infecting their unprepared minds.  The ravenous thugs that rule the ‘hood’ target young beauties and get to them ahead of more decent young men. By the time proper young men are fully groomed, and seek brides, their peer group of female candidates have already been bitten by the wolf pack.  A large number are already single mothers and/or seduced by street culture.

How does this happen?  Gang culture and the proliferation of the illegal drug economy (it is no longer just a trade).  Large amounts of illegal profit advanced younger males ahead of adult males, so that they hold all the monetary power to control the economic environment.  The addition of intimidation by the associated armed gangs confirms to the young girls/ladies that the street thug’s status is solid.  THEY control the immediate world about them–not adults. 

She seeks male attention and is presented with choice between an awkward honest young man who might have money for a movie, and not very smooth, or a young thug who has been indoctrinated ahead of his time into the local gang structure.  He can use a gun to threaten anyone who dares interrupt their fun–even adults.  He can splurge his illegally gained money on her to buy foolishness and weed.  For a young girl this is tantalizing.  Her choice is obvious.

These young men are clearly detrimental to the community, right?

Not for the bitten.  Once the hood wolves bite the hind leg of the young girls, they are like victims of a vampire and forever tainted. At an early age, they are seduced by a counterfeit lifestyle, and they continue seek the ease of that irresponsible life as adults.  They still crave the wolves who infected them for life.  In his world she can be irresponsible—anywhere else she is accountable and behave like a lady.  With him she can ‘pop off’ at the mouth and get her maniac street thug on you if you dare say something back. 

Expensive cars without the accompanying labor, faddish clothing that would not survive in a normal world, and celebrations every night when responsible people are resting for work the next day.  Who would say no to this?

Much like gangsters will brag, she can just point, and her armed and violent male pursuers will, “take care of that problem”.  She goes unchallenged.  Now you have an explanation for the belligerence so common to ‘hood’ women.  The violent streets are her vengeful husband, not any man.  And she will entertain ONLY those kinds of men, her identity and power come from that.  If she experiments with a ‘working man’ or upwardly mobile man, her disappointment will emerge quickly.  His long-term lifestyle is inconsistent with her short-term vision of day-to-day fun and/or survival.  Forever tainted, bitten by wolves.

Let these women go.  Do not attempt to rescue them or rationalize with them.  Later in life, they will complain about the men they chose and will not make the connection to the poison in them from their teenaged interaction with the ‘bad boys’.  They were bitten by the vampire and are forever his. 

If you name the most prominent and beautiful women in urban culture, none are involved with their proper counterpart.  Not one is with a man described as a ‘gentleman’.  Beyonce’ is with Jay-Z, admitted street thug and drug dealer— “I did e’ry bit a crime I writ in mine, ran so much coke, I could shit a dime” (from Funkmaster Flex mixtape vol II). 

Ciara famously married rapper ‘Future’ and became his THIRD(!) baby momma. Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, Alicia Keys and Swizz Beats (the producer of DMX and Rough Riders).  Foxy Brown, Nikki Minaj, Vivica Fox, etc. None of them sought black ‘gentlemen’.  They were bitten by the wolves “in them streets”.


This condition holds true ONLY in the Black Community.  No other community allows its youth to dictate its direction.

So why aren’t Black women warning their daughters away from the doo-rag/saggy pants/tattoo on neck/street talkin’ thugs?


Have they been bitten by the wolves?


Have you been bitten?


(I want to thank a female co-worker who I consulted for this topic.  She confessed that reading this was personal, it was like I followed her in her youth.  She is relieved that her own daughter has not been ‘bitten by the wolves’.)

Reviewing the word and concept of intersectionality, it seems well-meaning.  ‘We’ perceive that ‘you’ are being oppressed, and that your oppression similarly originates with our oppressors, or affects you a similar way.  Because what ‘you’ want may involve some of what ‘I’ want, or that the attainment of our different goals pits us against the same challenge/oppressor, we should then link arms and attack this ‘oppressor’ together. Like many modern inventions of language, it suggests progress toward a goal. The intersection of these efforts focuses on where two groups, or movements, or creeds meet.  Theoretically, after attainment of stated goals, each of us goes our separate way happy, or hopefully together forever happy.

Is that so?

When we look at paths that cross at an intersection, the point at which they meet are just that: a point.




The lines will continue along their original paths, to different destinations somewhere infinite.




Having fired a rifle at a target, I and anyone else who uses firearms will tell you that a variance of just one millimeter looking down the sights of your weapon results in missing your target by substantially more the further the round (line) travels.  At three hundred meters, you could be as much as one meter off target.

I suggest that this is occurring with the varying social movements.

Among the list of problems facing the Black community, and American life in general, has been the absence of fathers in children’s lives.  The current number is seventy percent of black children are born out of wedlock.  Almost fifty percent overall.  It is now irrefutable, that the single most harmful practice in the Black family, and black community, is the lack of black male leadership in the home and in the community. 

But, here comes the intersection.  The current wave of the feminist movement means well (?) in their support of Black equity/liberation movements and the like.

To state the feminist agenda simply (the list is LONG), it is the promotion of female autonomy.  A key part of this is destruction of gender roles and deemphasis of male leadership.

In contradiction, the black community needs male leadership, and Black families are in disarray because of the loss of gender roles and the observable chaos of African American female autonomy.  This is a conflict, the point at which both groups are fighting the same oppression is finite—while the vectors to their respective goals are infinitely divergent.

Black women who have ‘bought in’ to the recreated African community concept desire to have black men assume their place as ‘Kings’, thereby making them ‘Queens’.  In contrast, feminists who are supporting black movements would eliminate any semblance of a man as a king.  Both seem to be fighting the boogeyman of white supremacy, but for white women it is a fight against white MALE supremacy.

There is also a group of Black female historical revisionists who have introduced the idea that African tribes were matriarchal, and that recapturing their cultural roots includes repurposing men as servant army ants in their female-led ant colonies (ignoring that these female run tribes no longer exist–hmmm).

This is not a healthy alliance.  I suggest that black women who seek this link-up of movements fall into varying groups, of which I have identified two, neither of which may be trusted. There are more factions, but these are two that are most destructive to the black community’s future.

  • Group one seeks to form any intersectional relationship, anywhere, with anyone, and are totally ignorant of later conflicts of interest; Or, they are aware of the conflict but confident they/she can manipulate the situation to self-benefit at a later time.  For example, any black woman who has homosexual friends (either sex) is in this group.
  • Group two is feminist motivated and looking at the blueprint of white feminists and opportunities to intersection specifically with them.  They seek power and status and admire how white feminists stabbed their white men in the back and took their positions.  Their goal is to similarly advance Black men, through martydom (see George Floyd) to achieve voice and power, but when once achieved, seize the throne though destruction of imperfect men in power positions (see NY Attorney General Letitia James,).

An example of this is in current events.  The very same feminists who announced intersectionality with LGBT+++ movements are now complaining about transgender women who are coming up through female ranks.  Feminists tried to use ‘intersectionality’ to consolidate political voice and power, but the bomb they made blew up in their faces.  

Instead of a weapon against men, the transgenders used the feminists instead, and the former men are creating all sorts of headaches for the girl power movement.  They did not see this coming.  Men did.  That’s why we’re laughing.

Intersectionality equals using people.

The women who demanded that transgender persons be accepted unconditionally never considered that these males would enter their ‘female spaces’ and begin to push them out of their positions.

This is yet another threat faced by the Black Community.  African Americans need the men of the community to lead, but feminist promotion by definition is counter to that. White feminists are promoting their selfish needs and not what African Americans need.  And Black feminists, in their desire to have what white women have, are emulating their Caucasian sisters. 

If there is to be any erection of a strong black community, feminists must not be entertained.  ESPECIALLY BY MEN.

“You’re not responsible–but you are” – Paraphrasing Jordan Peterson

I picked up my sixteen-year-old son from the homecoming dance, and we talked during the drive home. He called me at 9:15pm saying it was ‘pretty much over’, but the event was not due to end until 10 pm. It’s been a long while since I’ve been sixteen, but some things don’t change, and one of those things is staying out as late as possible. Why did he pull the plug?

I navigate the high school parking lot, find him, and we get out of there just as the rain picks up.

“Boy, that ended early. Wasn’t expecting your call for another thirty minutes.”

“Yeah, by 9:15 it was pretty much over.”

“Why? Was it wack?”

“Yeah. The DJ didn’t have up to date music.” – Long pause – “How could he not have the latest music?”

So, having been a semi-professional DJ in my younger years, I recalled to him one of my frustrations of playing for young people:

“Teenager, here’s the problem. He probably had it; he just couldn’t play it. Music today is vulgar . . . I mean, not a little suggestive, or a curse here or there. Am I wrong?”


“The DJ is under instruction from the school not to play the vulgar stuff for you impressionable youth.  But . . . that’s almost every song. There’s little to nothing that he can play that is not offensive.”

“Yeah, ‘cause it was hot for like . . . two songs.  Then it was dead again.”    

“What songs would have kept the party live?”

“Like, some Pit Bull stuff . . . or Pop Smoke.”

“And I bet that music is really vulgar, full of cursing and/or violence.”


“There you go.”  I huffed. “Today’s artists feel like they have to do that to stay cool.  Or some just only think about themselves, there is no concern for the young who listen. They know what they’re doing and think it’s okay”.  I already knew the answer to the next question I was going to ask, but I did anyway: 

“Do you like all the cursing?”


The conversation moved to another topic, but this stuck with me all night.  When he was about ten years old, we were in our car and I had the radio on a R&B channel.  I can’t remember what song came on, but I didn’t feel it was appropriate for his young ears.  I switched stations.



“Why is it when we listen to the ‘black’ music, you always have to turn?”  I was stunned.  “I noticed that.”

“Is it every time?  Are you sure?”

“Yeah, like they’ll say bad words or something and then you have to turn.  The other radio station doesn’t do that, make you have to turn.  Why?”

“Well . . . I don’t think its right to say that on the radio, so I turn.  But I don’t know why the black-wait a minute, why do you call the radio station black?”

“Cuz they play music black people like.”

Listening to the now ever-present and famous Jordan Peterson on YouTube, I thought of one of his lectures wherein he presented this philosophical concept:  When something happens in the world, individually you’re not responsible—but as part of a group, you are.  We all contribute to our world and culture, and what we love flourishes, what we ignore dies.  If we push Dr. Peterson’s concept further out, we’re not all responsible–but we are.

Interpreting that, those of us who are responsible and caring parents do not make the music that is increasingly vulgar and violent.  But we help promote it.  Ask yourself, when your children were impressionable, what did you expose them to musically?  What music did you enjoy IN THEIR PRESENCE?  In my job serving the public, I witness cars cruising past elementary schools playing songs with lyrics that are heinous.  Fathers with their child(ren) wearing a screen-printed t-shirt with DMX or Biggie Smalls glorified on it.  Young mothers wearing t-shirts with Tupac’s image, sometimes holding two pistols.  

We are responsible for the environment that normalizes this.  I grew up watching Hip Hop music grow from birth, and I am guilty of promoting it.  It was always vulgar—get any of the early tapes of the pioneering groups from the late seventies and early eighties and the themes and drug references are thorough.  As is the glorification of violent street culture and sexual irresponsibility.

We are negligently assigning the label of creativity to music that is mentally debilitating.  Hip Hop music is a

celebration of dysfunction, but we allow it because it’s fun.  No one wants to stop their own fun, or the rapper’s money.  In an act of justification, we call it creative and tell ourselves that this is this generation’s art form equally as different as those before.  And so, just as we were seduced, now it has come to seduce and claim our children. Just like the Pied Piper.

If these artists are so creative, WHY are we accepting that they can’t make a single song without ‘b***h*ss’, ’n****r’, ‘f**k’, ‘p***y’, ‘s**t’, ‘m*****f****r’? 
I don’t accept it. 
They may be talented, but their talent is in pimp seduction, and they are wooing the youth like a pimp easing up on young runaways in a bus station.  And we allowed it. 

“We’re not responsible–but we are”

The ‘Boogeyman’ has existed since before the birth of everyone reading this.  Yes, he does exist.  For as much as this being is blamed for, his existence cannot simply be mass hysteria.  The Boogeyman is real.  Why would so many apparently competent people cower at his approach and hide from his arrival?  The Boogeyman’s name is just as known as any pop singer and as feared as Hitler’s Nazis.

The Boogeyman has a long track record of paralyzing supposedly strong people with fear.  Everyone fears the boogeyman, but interestingly no one can describe this menacing specter.  I’ve never seen an agreed upon sketch of his appearance nor heard an accurate description of his capabilities.  Be on the lookout for who or what?

I charge that the Boogeyman is a mental manifestation of our shortcomings.

Therefore, to describe the Boogeyman, look no further than one’s own flaws.  Are we prone to cowardice or unpreparedness?  Felled by ignorance or lack of skill?  We fear the boogeyman in dark spaces as an explanation of not knowing what is there and being unprepared to confront it.  Faced with the discomfort of this situational flaw, we assign this shortcoming of courage and ability to the boogeyman. 

Shortcomings may be a personal problem, a group problem, a human problem.  Upon discovery of a shortcoming, most people inwardly feel shame.  Maybe the reason one ‘came up short’ was a lack of ability.  Maybe a business or team came up short due to poor preparation.  Maybe the shortcoming was uncontrollable, a person’s physical flaw.

The reaction to this shame varies.  Some will claim responsibility for their dereliction and set about correcting themselves.  If the shortcoming is uncontrollable, an alternative solution may be found; “If I cannot be tall then I’ll be wealthy and ascend to a powerful position over others”.  A football team with a struggling quarterback might rely on a strong running back. 

But, for those who do not claim responsibility, or act, the Boogeyman appears.  They will ascribe their failure to everyone and everything but themselves.  Blame and reasons will spill out, and if done with enough emotion, will deflect ownership from themselves.   The desire is for there to be an amorphous explanation for their failure, a reason that can be easily named and readily feared, yet spongy enough to be applied in any situation.  Thus, they will blame the boogeyman.  Remember, the boogeyman has no real description or modus operandi, or clear limitations, so he can be blamed in a wide array of catastrophic failures.

What’s the point of all this?

A black woman I knew feared Barack Obama’s victory in the 2008 election, she felt guilty voting for him because she thought he would be assassinated, and her vote was sending him to his death.  Fearing the boogeyman.  I was annoyed to hear many black people say, “I never thought they would let us have a black president”.  They?  There’s that boogeyman again.  Amazingly, many whites I knew volunteered without my asking that they knew it would happen one day.  But the African American fears some boogeyman will steal the moment, or in the face of failure, blame the boogeyman for the shortcoming.

Our (the African American/black) shortcoming is the reticence to expand our horizons.  It may be out of an outdated worry that klansmen are going to ride up to the latest black achievement and burn it down.  There are blacks who sabotage their own growth and development with concerns about losing their Black identity or culture.   By not stepping outside the box of blackness that we keep ourselves in we only occasionally grow, and often fail.  If you doubt this visit any black owned business and in most cases the shortcomings are blatant.  But, in most cases, they are a reflection of their community, whose shortcomings are blatant. 

In black culture, we have the comfort of blaming the boogeyman.  All one must do is shout racism and attribute their failure to a white person(s), and sympathetic African Americans will nod in agreement with absolutely no investigation of the circumstances.  Lack of effort is explained away by, “. . .them white folks (boogeymen) ain’t gonna let you do that.”  When I listen to the up-and-coming cadre of black politicians or self-appointed black leadership, they manage to use the boogeyman to deflect shortcomings while portraying every success as a racial contest and having outplayed the boogeyman (“so and so is the first black to do this or that”, as if some wall has been climbed over.  Once we had a black president, the ‘firsts’ after that are moot).

White America is not being let off the hook by this essay.  The problem started and continued with them.  America employed half measures for a hundred years that never really addressed the problem of its kidnapped/human trafficked population.  The Southern population was let off easy after the Civil War and rather than humble themselves as the Christians they claim(ed) to be/are, they killed the President that made slavery abolishment his signature act.  They formed a domestic terror group that embarked on a brutal campaign to subjugate their dark-skinned neighbors who were struggling to get on their feet.  They created all sorts of local government policy to further cripple the former slaves for the next hundred years.  There is a LOT of good reason for the black community to fear boogeymen.

The problem is that laying out the above becomes an excuse for too many in the ‘Black Community’ to engage in self-destructive behaviors. Every move is punctuated by fears of the boogeyman.  Caucasians, the white man, ‘white supremacy’, white privilege–whatever awkward description we employ, are our boogeymen.  I suggest that some of us unconsciously need white men to be evil.  Their past crimes provide cover for black shortcomings.  How else do we explain that despite numerous exorbitantly funded liberal efforts a large percentage of the black population still wallows in poverty and dysfunction?  Their past racism/colonialism overshadows the African lack of preparedness, and the questioning of that, that never takes place.

Before this essay, where or when was the uncomfortable question asked, “Why was there no organized military and government in the African states to send away these European kidnappers?  The scientific fact that African men were first on this earth but so easily exploited by the follow-on races that came later I find embarrassing.  Therefore, our fear of boogeymen (white men) comes from being unprepared.  Our rage at the boogeyman is a result of him taking advantage of our unpreparedness.

I will never suggest that any of the ‘isms’ are completely extinguished, or that the boogeyman will no longer plague our worries.  What I am suggesting is that continued blaming of the boogeyman for tripping up black ascendancy makes him seem prolific and us (blacks) seem easily disrupted.  Any person, or group, or institution, or formation of actors, must conquer it’s shortcomings.  Doing so renders the boogeyman irrelevant.  Unless some of us are afraid of growth, or expansion, or ascendancy; in that case, then we still need the boogeyman . . .

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. 




There has been much speculation as to the cause of mass shootings, of violence, of the viciousness prevalent in everyday life in our nation.  Was it always there and with the growth of twenty-four-hour news and the internet we see events that years ago would not have appeared in your nightly one-hour newscast?  Or, maybe it really is getting worse, maybe there is a real growth in the lack of regard for one’s fellow person?  I suggest It is both of those and more.

It is our culture, or more accurately, the deliberate deconstruction of our culture.  A deconstruction that seems to have accelerated exponentially since the sixties and has quickened so frighteningly that I question the existence of the United States in twenty years.   The formidable array of agendas that all wish to hold America’s steering wheel are causing us to steer erratically, to lose control and skid, and I am not sure this skid may be recovered from.

It can be argued that in the absence of structure and culture, confusion and violence abound.  If so, then our nation is without a clear culture or effective structure.  Without those, the self-important individuals of the population are left to improvise, to come up with nonstructural solutions that are as varied as the flavors of ice cream.

But America does have a culture, of course there is a culture.  So, the question becomes, has that culture changed?  Has it evolved into belligerence and arrogance?  I contend that the Unites States of America was born of belligerence, that Americans have always been belligerent, and in most cases that belligerence has served us well.  From the moment a group of raggedy volunteers in 1775 took on the mightiest military in the world, the army and naval forces of Great Britain, belligerence was built into the national culture.  Belligerence, arrogance, self-importance are hallmarks of our identity and behavior

When offered an opportunity to surrender when facing a much more heavily armed ship, Captain John Paul Jones answered, “I have not yet begun to fight”, an act of belligerence.  During the American Civil War, the Confederate army was always outnumbered two to one, any war strategist could see their effort was doomed to fail, but the south knew man for man they were better Soldiers led by superior generals, and in that arrogance embarked on a ruinous war.  World War Two, the commander of the 101st Airborne division refused to surrender to a much larger German force that had his beleaguered unit trapped in Bastogne, Belgium.  American Bravery or American Belligerence? 

Again, our belligerence has mostly served us well, we beat the British (but with help from their attention to other priorities) and the American army broke out of Bastogne, thanks to General Patton, the ultimate belligerent.  Our belligerence made us successful in business, and it worked well for our national interests.  American belligerence boosted our pride so much we found a nice term for it— “a fighting spirit”.  This “fighting spirit” migrated to our everyday culture, from business to play, from entertainment to sports.  The adoration of belligerent behavior.

In business, we admire those who break the rules.  In our social lives we admire those who ‘break the norms’ to have fun.  In entertainment, we want our actors and singers to be rebels, in sports we like our tattooed players with ‘fighting spirit’.  For those described, once again, their belligerence served them well in competition.  But our admiration of them has allowed their culture to migrate into our lives, ignoring a commitment of civility to our neighbor.

The last twenty to thirty years of music has put belligerence into our ears.  What is more belligerent than Hip Hop music?  Hip Hop is the most potent dose of belligerence poison being consumed.  Do not leave out Heavy Metal/Speed Metal.  The favorite music of our youth and young promotes the nastiness that we complain is all around us.

That belligerence means never losing.  Ever.  Never accept defeat.  The US Army values include that phrase.  Well, isn’t that what caused Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese refusal to accept defeat?  Is that why street violence has gotten worse–because no one admits defeat?  What used to be rare fistfights between two men has evolved to regular public altercations “taking it there”.  I saw an outbreak of this recently, and even after a young man knocked another out cold, he felt the need to kick the unconscious man in the head twice.  Belligerence.


Our culture has lost regard for our neighbor and decency, for right and wrong, only what suits ‘me’ at this moment. 


Racing past churches on Sunday morning with loud vulgar music blaring; Cursing in public indiscriminately; offending people and calling them snowflakes when they complain; Smoking weed in public places just to annoy others;


In the midst of a pandemic refusing to wear a protective surgical mask because “I don’t want them telling me what to do!”; mouthing off at the police when they catch you doing something you weren’t supposed to be doing.

Belligerence has its place, but it is at the root of our gun problem, our race problem, our social problem.  The idea that one should admit wrong and stand down is unacceptable.

Nothing will get the popular approval of fellow Americans like belligerence.


I first heard this expression from an associate five years ago. He was ranting that when he was a part of a corporate entity, he vainly attempted to ‘educate’ his white peers about a lack of diversity of input when crafting advertising campaigns. His former employer had just made a very public faux pas that made the national nightly news. It even raised my skeptical eyebrows. Hearing my agreement with his indignation, he imagined I was on board and went pro-blackety black on me:

“They make these mistakes because there’s no one who looks like us in their boardrooms”. I remained quiet. “There’s no one to speak up and say, ‘hey that’s offensive’”.

Actually, President Obama rendered a version of this in 2013. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, infamously shot by George Zimmerman, the entire country was awash in debate. Blacks, and non-blacks sympathetic to Black issues, saw once again a young black man profiled for ‘suspicious behavior’. On the other side of the argument were those who saw a man tired of crime in his neighborhood, thought himself to be protecting his community, and made a error in judgement. As the argument swirled into every mainstream forum, it became unavoidable that America’s first black President address the issue. He said:

“. . . when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago”.

Fast forward to today, and it seems that every channel I turn to has a news show or cultural program or even simple commercial with a non-white person who uses this rhetorical association gimmick. ‘Looks like me’, or ‘people who look like me’.

What’s really being said is as old as America–people from my racial/ethnic/creed group or tribe.

As rhetorically silly as it is, I’m afraid that is valid until a better more credible expression is tabled.

The argument against prejudice is that it excludes people who may have value, based on their identity. Me, being a science buff, will quote Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of physics: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If whites are excluding people regardless of value just because they do not look like them, then it is also true that blacks are including people regardless of value just because they do look like them.


As the controversy has boiled around the names of military bases, the existence of certain monuments, even sports teams, I’ve heard some whites say: “This was never a problem before . . . why now?” Others have asked, “Where does this end?”

It was never a problem before because ‘people who look like me’ were not allowed in the room when the decision was made. (I would go a LOT deeper on that thought but that is a different essay)

To address the second question, it ends when whites include people who don’t look like them in decision making. Not just kidnapping one person from the group in question, get a wide population sample.

I encountered this with another associate, we are members of a semi-private organization. He explained to me that whenever he saw me at a meeting, “he was comfortable to see someone else who looked like him”.

Friends, make no mistake; this gentleman and I would never pass as relatives.

In our current lexicon, it seems as though every activist/wokester uses it–and it drives me up a wall. It suggests that if we look alike, we all think alike. And conversely that anyone that I do not look like shares no views with me. Anyone who knows me will frustratedly complain I do not think like most of my Black contemporaries. Consistently. You can take that check to the bank and cash it.

Peoples from a common culture will have some across the board similarities. But will they share every opinion on contemporary matters?

“People who look like me” suggests that by one’s mere presence in a decision-making space or part of a governing body, that some sort of list of interests is automatically addressed for whatever their originating group is. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I hunger for the day when ideas are tabled and argued by the thoughtful, not people who, “look like me”. I grew up in a South Bronx Housing Project with a thousand people who “looked like me”. It was a Ghetto Aristocracy that I still revile. And I’m sure they shared none of my worldview. But according to the wokees, “they look like me” (meaning they represent me and I them).

When looking at a person, tribal identity should be considered. But neither should it be defining.
Extra-tribal engagement should be sought, not dismissed.

But this . . . “People who look like me” — I brand it as a

catchy rhetorical gimmick.

Your opinion? hit reply below

Obama, Barack H. (2013) Remarks by the President on Trayvon Martin The

White House Office of the Press