Who Is the Real Victim of Black Sexual Conquest? The White Female or the White Male?

Many on the White Right paint a social portrait where black males are committing wave after wave of sexual crimes against white women. According to this narrative most sexual encounters between blacks and whites are violent, with black males brutally raping, beating, and even killing white women. White women are presented as the primary victims of black sexual aggression, and for that reason, white males are reminded of their duty to unite and save their mothers, sisters, and daughters from black ‘savages’.
There is some degree of truth to this, insofar most interracial or interracist sexual violence in this country is black male-on-white female. Government statistics are pretty grim, with black-on-white rape outnumbering white-on-black rape by a zillion to one.
　
But, there is a fundamental flaw and a repressed denial in the White Right interpretation. The fact is most sexual encounters between black and white are consensual, with white women as enthusiastic partners. White women seek out black men no less than black men seek out white women. Of course, this doesn’t apply to all white women nor even to the majority of them, but their numbers are growing, and among younger white girls, it’s very possible that their IDEAL beau is someone like Will Smith, Obama, or some other black celebrity.
　
Given this reality, one could argue that the REAL victims of black-white sex are white males, not white females. The real problem is not black males raping white women but increasing numbers of white women abandoning white men and going off with black men. And the taboo against such union is all but gone. Indeed, the new taboo is criticizing miscegenation–especially involving blacks–as detrimental to white civilization. A white celebrity going with a black guy can proudly declare her love for the Negro, but no famous white person would dare say white people should sexually stick together. He or she would be castigated, stigmatized, and tarred-and-feathered by the leftist Jewish and liberal Wasp-controlled media.
There had once been laws against miscegenation. Even after such laws were repealed, there had still been an unspoken taboo against white women going with black men; respectable, popular, cool, or good white girls just didn’t do that.
But, this taboo grew weaker and weaker as sports became more dominated by blacks. Given that sports is America’s National Pastime, those commanding the field became the new archetype of masculinity.
In the beginning of the movie PATTON, the eponymous general says "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser." He says Americans admire the toughest boxer, fastest runner, etc. Well, in the battlefield of sports–which Americas are obsessed with–, blacks were the winners and whites were the losers. Over time, white women couldn’t fail to notice that blacks were the hometown heroes to cheer for while white boys were the benchwarmers. Of course, whites owned many of the sports franchises, but many of these whites actually happened to be liberal Jews pushing a miscegenist agenda.
And in the realm of popular culture, black males seem to sing and dance better and have more commanding voices.
Even so, one could argue that white women were overwhelmingly sticking with their men until the late 80s and early 90s when two crucial things happened: the rise of hip-hop and the movie "Jungle Fever". Prior to the rise of hip-hop, black musical acts, though soulful and talented, had less appeal to young white people. Pre-rap black music wasn’t necessarily for young people but for all black people who wanted to boogie and dance. Therefore, most white kids stuck to white rock whose appeal was more brazenly youth-oriented and rebellious. But, hip-hop and rap changed all that. This was the music of black youth rebellion. It was nasty, vicious, badass, cool, hip, raunchy, and sexual. It had the assaultive rage of punk, the raunchy excess of heavy metal, and thuggish sneer of gangster movies. Hip hop caught on like a wild fire among young white people in the late 80s and 90s, becoming THE mainstream music among the majority of white kids.
　
Just as important was the movie JUNGLE FEVER by Spike Lee. Though we like to accuse Jewish Hollywood of promoting miscegenation, this wasn’t really the case prior to Lee’s movie. Sure, there had been interracist films such as GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER, but Hollywood in general maintained racial divisions.
Indeed, one of the biggest cultural phenomenon of the 70s and 80s was the Rocky movies where the Italian Stallion beat up black guys and won the devotion of the lovely Adriane. Hollywood, either out of fear of white backlash or market conformism, preferred not to touch the theme of interracism. And when it had, it was in cheap blaxploitation B-films that existed under the radar or in overly stuffy respectable movies like GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER, which was not a jungle fever movie at all but one that argued that white-black marriage is wonderful because a black guy is just a white guy with black skin. Sidney Poitier is unbelievably poised and dignified in that movie. GUESS totally ignored the darker and primal emotions at the base of black(male)/white(female) relationships.
　
Spike Lee didn’t ignore that reality but spilled the beans with jiveass boldness–though it must be said even Lee played it somewhat safe, presenting a scenario of a black male/Italian-American female sexual relationship than the more taboo-busting black male/blonde white female sexual relationship. There is a sense among both white and blacks that blue-eyed blonde women are the epitome of white beauty and purity, and therefore the greatest violation of whiteness is for a non-white male–especially black–to ravage the sacred hole of the blonde goddess that should be reserved only for the noble and proud ‘Aryan’ sexual spear. A dark-haired Spanish woman going with a Negro is less troubling to most white males than a blonde blue-eyed woman going with a Negro. Anyway, Spike Lee’s movie shattered taboos when it came to the issue of the true nature of black/white sexual relationships. His movie demonstrated that black/white lust was not color-blind but all about color or race. Black men are attracted to white women because white women are generally more feminine than black women, and white women are attracted to black men because black men are generally more masculine than white men.
　
Except for free thinkers like Steve Sailer, most white males have been afraid to address this issue in an honest way. It is too hurtful to their pride. So, they spin the narrative where all black males are brutes out to rape white women. It presents white women as helpless, duped, or naive victims of black sexual criminality or doomed consensual relationships because black men will almost always turn out to be abusive and sadistic.
So, David Duke has given us many stories about how an innocent white girl went with a black guy, only to be beaten and murdered in the most savage way imaginable. The suggestion is that the ONLY reason why white women would ever go with black men is because of Political Correctness or Jewish control of popular culture. Supposedly, PC fills white girls with racial guilt and self-doubt; therefore, they seek out non-white men to give birth to non-white babies, thus committing racial suicide in order to wash away the sin of white guilt. Or, Jewish controlled Hollywood and music industry brainwashes white women to go gaga over black dudes.
　
Though there is some truth to both assertions, it ignores a fundamental fact. The main reason for black male/white female sexual attraction is NATURAL and EVOLUTIONARY. Darwinism can be used to justify both racial unity AND miscegenation. Even if liberal Jews didn’t control the media and even if PC didn’t rule the land, there would be much natural attraction between black men and white women. Why? Because males naturally desire the prettier females–and white women are generally prettier than black women–and females naturally desire the more masculine males. Look at the natural world of animals, and males of any species are always fighting over three things: food, territory, and females. It’s all about ‘land and pussy’. And females ALWAYS go with the stronger males who triumph over other males. In the modern world, the competition among males take place in the sporting field and in popular culture. Black rappers have proven themselves tougher, meaner, and more badass than white rockers. Black movie stars have proven themselves more charismatic and commanding than guys like Tom Cruise or Bruce Willis. In politics, Obama defeated John McCain–and would have defeated others as well. In the Democratic Primaries, Obama defeated Hillary Clinton because he was, in the terms of the natural consciousness, the male buck while she was the female who should be humped by the top male. Obama first easily destroyed the white liberal pussyboy John Edwards. When it came down to Hillary and Obama, most liberals chose the charismatic male over the duck-like female. Though liberals take pride in their rationalism, enlighten values, and intellectualism, the real reason for their attraction to Obama was animalistic and instinctual. The herd submitted to the guy who seemed to have more leadership charisma as the alpha male. Of course, Obama came across as intelligent too. The animal side of us worships the strong guy, the modern side of us admires the smart guy. People look up to superstar football players and superstar computer geeks–like the boys at Google or Jewgle. If the problem of most black politicians was they were all tough noise and not enough brains, Obama carefully mixed black charisma with the geek chic he picked up from places like Harvard. He mixed black charismatics and Jew-esque intellectics. Jews, we all know by now, have destroyed the white gentile males in the arena of brainpower. Blacks have destroyed the white gentile males in the arena of muscle and musical power. So, it was clever on the part of Obama and his Jewish supporters to create the image of the new messiah based on the merging of badass black and radical Jewish characteristics.
　
To be sure, evolutionary impulses can be contradictory. There are plenty of white women loyal to white men, and this devotion could be explained in terms of evolutionary instinct too: a kind of herd or tribal mentality to the survive as a group. But, another kind of evolutionary instinct seeks to pass down the genes of the toughest and most virile males.
Suppose there is a deer herd dominated by a certain male. The females in the herd are bound to the toughest male and sexually give themselves to him. But, suppose another male appears, fights the leader of the herd, and defeats him. The female deer will NOT remain loyal to the defeated male who had once been their sexual master. They will give themselves to the new master. So, to a certain extent, the rising tide of black male/white female unions is a part of process rooted in evolution. When blacks were non-existent, invisible, or marginalized in white society, white women admired and were attached to the apparent superiority of white men. But, when blacks gained greater freedom in a modern democracy committed to EQUALITY FOR ALL REGARLESS OF RACE, CREED, OR COLOR, they began to demonstrate that they can defeat the white men in spheres that most arouse the sexual passions of women–sports, music, performance, and etc. Thus, the sexual migration of white females to black males is not only something engineered and approved by Organized Jewry but the product of evolutionary impulses. If whites were a sizable minority in Japan, much the same would happen. Many Japanese women would likely and NATURALLY prefer the taller and beefier white males to the short and scrawny Japanese males. Indeed, though there is no Jewish control of the media in Japan, a lot of Japanese women fantasize about white males and black males. Why? Women prefer the more masculine male.
Of course, humans are more than animals. Most women will not simply prefer a mindless brute over a weaker guy. Women also look for qualities such as decency, sensitivity, intelligence, knowledge, judiciousness, integrity, etc. After all, even most white women who sow their wild oatesses by jumping into bed with black men will eventually marry a more stable white guy as marriage is NOT ONLY about sex. Madonna may have f***ed the entire NBA, but she settled down with a white guy. Even so, at least 1/3 of sexuality is still animal, brutish, and elemental.
　
So, we need to ask again, who is the real victim in this sexual equation? White males or white females? If white females are indeed the primary victims of black male sexuality, how come far many more white males are opposed to interracism than white females are? Though there is legitimate and sincere white male anger at black criminal acts against white females, the GREATER anxiety and anguish is over that many white women have WILLINGLY thrown themselves at black males. Just look at all the white girls who will stand in long lines just to bed down with a rap star, basketball player, or Tiger Woods. Just look at all the white women who wet their pants over Barack Obama. Indeed, black women are less impressed with Barack as the black men they know in their lives are many times more ‘charismatic’ and badass. White girls, in contrast, perceive and measure Barack in comparison to the white males in their lives, and Barack somehow comes across as more masculine, cool, self-assured, and etc.
Indeed, white male anger over black/white sexual unions is seen by white females not as a sign of toughness or manhood but of insecurity, frustration, fear, and resentment.
　
Though the white right talks endlessly about the danger posed to white women by black thugs, the greater fear is that many white women might be perfectly happy or happier with black males than with white males. Stories of black male assault on white women are, perversely enough, kind of reassuring to the white right as confirmations of black-as-brutal-beast. Also, white rightists may take some pleasure in the idea of a white woman getting her comeuppance by betraying the males of her own kind–since the skanky white whore willingly chose a black guy, good for her if she got beaten to a pulp by the ‘black ape’.
　
But, when white women find happiness, pleasure, and stability in relationships with black men, it is truly threatening to the racial position of the white right. They have less of a rationale to argue against miscegenation. This is the REAL danger and threat of interracism.
It is, indeed, the PSYCHO-SEXUAL RAPE of the white MALE. When a black male struts his stuff and the white female willingly chooses him over the white guy, the white male has been pussified and left high and dry. He has been betrayed and abandoned. They can either sulk in impotent white right rage or celebrate the black male/white female union as the way it should be for both natural and historical reasons. Natural, because the sexier and tougher black males should get the top females by the rules of the jungle. Historical, because the ideology of liberal white guilt says that since white males had conquered and exploited the peoples-of-color, it is now time for the reverse to happen. Thus, pussyboy Ken Burns has become the posterboy of a good darling liberal white boy who defers to black superiority in athleticism, sexuality, and creativity–JAZZ and UNFORGIVABLE BLACKNESS.

Are Black Problems the Product of White Conditioning?

Many white people complain that black tend to be lazy, dependent, criminal, loud, aggressive, and anti-intellectual. Black people complain that this is due to the centuries-old legacy of white slavery and discrimination that followed. They say that black people were ‘bred’ this way by white folks. So, if black students don’t take their studies as seriously as white students, it’s because white people had long tried to keep blacks illiterate and ignorant in the past. If black people tend to be dependent and lazy, it’s because they weren’t allowed to develop a work ethic.

But, are these complaint really true? Are black problems solely or mainly the product of white wrongs done to blacks? Was it because whites ‘bred’ and/or conditioned blacks in ways that proved to be destructive or dangerous? Upon close inspection, there’s a problem with what we shall the Bred Theory. "I gots no bread cuz the way I was bred."

If blacks today are the way they are because white people ‘bred’ them that way, two questions are in order. Did white people really ‘breed’ or condition blacks that way? And, if blacks act in the way they’ve been ‘bred’ by whites, why are the results so uneven and haphazard?

For instance, let us assume that blacks don’t care about studying because they weren’t allowed to read and write when as slaves and also because of inadequate educational facilities provided to them after Emancipation. Let us assume this is all true, the implication being that is it very difficult if not impossible for a people to break out of habits ‘bred’ into them. But, why are blacks so good at sports and funky music? Though blacks were made to mostly perform manual labor, they were discouraged and even forbidden from athletic endeavors. Whites felt threatened by black physicality and tried to prevent the rise of black champions in boxing, for example. White boxers went out of their way to duck a fight with Jack Johnson. When Johnson finally became champion, whites desperately looked for the Great White Hope. In baseball and football, blacks were kept out for much longer. So, if white folks had one message to blacks, it was "STAY OUT OF SPORTS, NIGGER!" Yet, even though white folks had tried to ‘breed’ blacks away from athletic professions, blacks have long been passionate about and outstanding in the field of sports.

Then consider the area of funky music. White slave masters forbade Negroes from owning or beating on drums. Negro drum music was seen as crazy and savage; worse, they could be used as means of communication by slaves readying to flee or rebel. Also, whites wanted black to be orderly and obedient, so blacks were not encouraged to be funky and wild-ass. In other words, blacks were ‘bred’ to be gentle, kind, obedient, and even noble in an innocent way–like the Negro singing "Old Man River". Even in the famous anti-slave novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Negro is a suffering saint who takes his beating as a kind old soul.
IF blacks are supposed to act the way they were ‘bred’, how come they are so wildly into funky music, aggressiveness, uppityness, and etc? How is it that blacks have easily over-ridden all these conditioning
and effects of ‘breeding’ but cannot overcome the supposed aspects of conditioning that keep blacks down. Whites never ‘bred’ blacks to rape white women, but black men seem to specialize in that field. How come? White people never conditioned blacks–at least not until the late 60s–to be uppity, wild, or aggressive. Yet, a lot of blacks are uppity, wild, and aggressive. How come?

There’s a great contradiction in the black charge against white people. On the one hand, blacks claim that whites robbed them of their culture, and therefore, American blacks have forever been torn from their rich roots, and this is why they are spiritually, morally, and soulfully lost. (Funny that Africans with their roots intact are worse off, poorer, still practicing witchcraft, tribal warfare, and even cannibalism.) Yet, at the same time, blacks take pride in music such as blues, jazz, soul, and rap(and even rock) as a proud and inextinguishable continuation of their African roots and soul. Which is it? Did white people cut them off from their roots or are those roots still alive in funky music? Can blacks break out of white man’s conditioning or not? Supposedly, they can’t break out but they can break dance. Did white masters who wanted their slaves to remain docile encourage them to dance like wild crazy lunatics?
Of course, one could argue that white masters did enjoy blacks dancing and ho-de-do shuffling as a form of entertainment–and also to keep blacks childlike and innocent. But, I suspect this was tolerated because blacks naturally seemed so pent-up and restless with rhythm and oogie-boogie beat regardless of their social situation. Masters probably thought it was better to let wild black slaves release their excess jungle energy through shuffling ho-de-do dancing because it might explode in dangerous ways if completely repressed. The fact that Spanish masters in Latin America didn’t have the equivalent of oogie-boogie shuffling/dancing slaves of indigenous origin tells us that blacks were naturally than socially conditioned to be restlessly funky in one way or another–shuffling ho-do-doing docile manner or rapping fist-pumping aggressive manner. Though Mexican mestizos and Indians like to fiesta, they don’t git down and funky!!!! The natives of the Americas were originally Asiatic and tend to be inhibited and ‘lame’ than like their racial cousins across the Pacific.

Now, let’s look at how white people really ‘bred’ the blacks. It’s true that white people conditioned blacks to be ignorant and illiterate. So, let us say that is the reason why blacks are intellectually lagging in America. But, whites also conditioned blacks to be hardworking and thrifty. Surely no white slave owner in the South or a white factory owner in the North wanted a lazy black. Also, whites wanted blacks to be thrifty because a wild Negro who drank too much and got wild was no good for work on Monday morning. White people also ‘bred’ the Negro to be respectful of law and order. White folks also ‘bred’ Negro men to stay away from white women. White folks also ‘bred’ blacks to not act uppity, aggressive, hostile, or angry. Some of these conditioning could be said to be bad, some of them good. At any rate, most white people wanted blacks to emulate Booker T. Washington than Jack Johnson.
Now, if the main problem blacks face is the difficulty of breaking out of their ‘breeding’ or conditioning, why is that blacks found it SO EASY to break out of so many areas of conditioning while they seem incapable of breaking out of others? For centuries, white people didn’t ‘breed’ or condition blacks to be aggressive, criminal, loud, brash, uppity, jive-ass, howling-all-the-time, threatening, sexually promiscuous(though some black families were sadly separated by their members being sold off to other masters, most black families remained intact because white slave-owners wanted it that way. It was generally thought that a slave with a family made a happier and better worker).

On the one hand, blacks say they cannot break out of the mold that white folks put them in. On the other, blacks are always yapping, boasting, and howling about how they control their own destiny and don’t give a shit about what white folks told them for centuries. Though whites tried to rob black men of their manhood for a long time, black men today flaunt their manhood and often put white men down as ‘white boys’. Yet, these very same blacks say there’s NO WAY they can break out of the mold of the ‘dumb nigger’ that the white men put them in. Aint it strange how certain forms of conditioning are so easy to violate, break, and overturn while others are so impossible?

If blacks have used the history of white conditioning as excuse for their economic failure, Jews have done the same to explain their economic success. Jews will say they excel as lawyers, bankers, and businessmen because white folks forbade them to own land. Unable to work as ‘dumb’ farmers, Jews were forced to excel in business and finance, leading to their great success. There must be some truth to this, but why isn’t it true with gypsies who were also forbidden from owning land? And why is that so many Chinese, Japanese, and Germans, the majority of them formerly of peasant background, turned out to be fine businessmen? Both blacks and Jews are falling back on the paradigm of White Guilt, according to which blacks are not economically and intellectually successful because of white oppression while Jews are economically and intellectually successful because of white oppression. This way, if anyone complains of Jewish power, wealth, and influence, Jews can say their success is merely the product of their victimization at the hands of white gentiles!! Yes, Jews are a very clever people. No wonder they make good lawyers. Indeed, even many of the excuses used by blacks today were actually developed by Left wing Jews. (By the way, if social or historical conditioning is so absolutely crucial, how come Jews have come to excel in music and art when their religion forbade them to dabble in such fields for millennia? I do not discount the significant impact of history and social factors and indeed recognize them as important. Rather, my point is they are insufficient in answering all the questions often raised today.)

To find the truth, we need to look at biology as well as history. Blacks today are largely the way they are mainly due to biology. In the past when they were not free, they had to suppress their own biological nature–or face the wrath or hostility of whites. Today, they are free, and thus every generation of blacks has been able to express its TRUE NATURE to a greater degree–thus reverting to their ‘jungle’ origin. (If reactionaries hark back to monarchy, reversionaries hark back to savagery. How ironic that the most technologically advanced nation on Earth has as its dominant mainstream culture a form of music that is utterly reversionary.) What is black biological nature? They are stronger, more aggressive, more colorful, wilder, and etc. Those factors, rather than history, account for the way blacks are today.
Same is true of Jews. It may well be that Jews, driven to professions such as usury by Christians, did develop finer financial skills than most other people. But, the level of Jewish success and power in America cannot be explained by that alone. We must take into account Jewish genius. Of course, most Jews are not geniuses. If the average Jewish IQ is 115, it means your average Jew is only bright. It also means that there is a fair number of dumb Jews. But, the smart ones are VERY SMART, and in a free meritocratic nation like the US, the sky is the limit. These Jews make billions, create networks, and help others in the Jewish community. Trickle Down Effect tends to be ethno-centric or racial among all peoples. Rich Jews help less rich Jews out. Rich blacks help less rich blacks out. Rich Irish help less rich Irish out. Rich Poles help less rich Poles out. Of course, it is politically incorrect or ‘racist’ for rich Anglos to help less rich Anglos out. Because supersmart Jews are so smart and become superrich and super powerful, the less smart Jews are likely to benefit much more than less smart gentiles whose top members aren’t as talented. This is especially true in the black community where many of its elite achieved success through politics than through business. Black elite gained power through the art of leeching off others than through the art of creating and producing.

This is a topic that needs more consideration however.