Afua Hirsch, and other Tyrants of Equality, create “shadism” to objectify their fear of human nature.

October 22nd, 2017 by Socially Extinct


Crusaders for social justice and tyrannical equality the globe over appear bent on overturning the innate backbone of human nature.


At The Guardian, writer Afua Hirsch bemoans one of the indomitable traits of human nature: that all ethnicities and races, subtly and openly, embrace light skin as a mark of beauty and physical appeal. Conversely, the darkest shades of skin are generally a source of repulsion. This is a human perception trait that has instilled itself into our mentality for most of our evolutionary time line.


Still, Hirsch fights reality stubbornly, like so many other shamans of the left. Unscientific and liberally superstitious, these people are willfully blind in matters of biological pragmatism. They virtue signal against human nature. They detest human nature because its utilitarian core has no compulsion to assuage against the harsh (and unequal) realities of biology and the evolution of the human creature.




Afua Hirsch, fulfilling all stereotypes




Hirsch laments.




Now I have visibly fairer skin, making me feel younger,” declares the Nigerian actor Omowunmi Akinnifesi in an advert for a new face cream. The ad, for the global skincare brand Nivea, was only ever intended to reach a west African audience, but predictably – has Nivea heard of the internet? – it has been watched and shared millions of times around the world including in the UK, where most of us live in blissful ignorance of the fact that some of our most popular brands openly promote the idea in other markets that white is right.


Nivea says the ad was not intended to offend, but offence is not the point. The global market for skin lightening products, of which west Africa is a significant part, is worth $10bn (£7.6bn). Advertising has a long and unbroken history of promoting and normalising white beauty standards, and if Britain built its empire as a geopolitical and ideological project, the advertising industry commodified it. Soap brands such as Pears built a narrative that cast Africa as dark and its people as dirty, the solution to which – conveniently – was soap. Cleansing, lightening and civilising in one handy bar.



Shadism, pigmentocracy – the idea of privilege accruing to lighter-skinned black people – and other hierarchies of beauty are a complex picture in which ads such as Nivea’s are only the obvious tip of an insidious iceberg.



In countries such as Ghana, the intended audience for the Nivea ad, and Nigeria – where an estimated 77% of women use skin-lightening products – the debate has so far, understandably, focused on health. The most toxic skin-lightening ingredients, still freely available, include ingredients such as hydroquinone, mercury and corticosteroid. It’s not unusual for these to be mixed with caustic agents ranging from automotive battery acid, washing power, toothpaste and cloth bleaching agents, with serious and irreversible health consequences.




Does Hirsch not find it telling that people are willing to swim in toxic brews for the sake of having fair skin? It strokes her narrative to turn human nature into a glib artifact rather than the immutable psychological foundation that it truly represents.



As such, Nivea’s ad with its clever Natural Fairness branding is bang on trend. The product itself may be safe to use, but the messaging that sells it is as deeply poisonous as ever.




The message is not an accident nor does it create perception. Like all advertisement, it merely exploits latent human behavior motivations. Equality tyrants, unable to defeat human nature, seek to legislate it out of existence and to collectively shame it in the court of public opinion. But at the end of the day…light skin remains intuitively preferable to most people, from all countries and economic classes, including those that people like Hirsch seek to “protect” from the purveyors of “shadism.”







“Uranium Bob” Mueller cannot skate by the citizen’s press.

October 20th, 2017 by Socially Extinct





From Infowars, an eye-opening encapsulation of the MSM’s willful ignorance, aka negligence, in the matter of Robert Mueller and the ghosts of his Russian interactions Past.


Attorney Gregg Jarrett is calling on Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein to resign from the investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump administration having themselves been complicit in Russian collusion by approving the sale of 20% of US uranium reserves to Russia.


Mueller and Rosenstein were on the CFIUS committee that approved the sale despite knowing that, as The Hill reported, “Russian nuclear officials were engaged in a racketeering scheme involving bribes, kickbacks and money laundering,” that also ensnared the Clinton Foundation.


Hillary was also on the committee that rubber stamped the deal while her husband was receiving huge speaking fees from Russian officials as millions in “charitable donations” poured into the coffers of the Clinton Foundation from Russia.



The Senate Judiciary Committee has now launched a full scale investigation into the bribery scandal, although as The Hill columnist Joe Concha points out, the bombshell story is being ignored by the media.


“This important & explosive story from Solomon and Spann of The Hill received exactly zero seconds of airtime on the evening newscasts,” he tweeted.



My initial reaction to this was that, as contrasted with the minimal attention this story has received from the MSM now in our post-digital era, it has nevertheless received “a lot” of coverage from the citizen’s press which has been hastened in by the internet and all forms of digital communication and interaction. This is something that certainly would not have been possible in the pre-digital era and the story would most likely have languished invisibly.


But…would the Mueller/Russia story have “languished” in the old days?”


The pre-digital-era MSM was composed of many solid journalists who took their craft, and its pledge of objectivity, very seriously. The same could be said of news organizations which took their “Third Estate” role seriously. Influenced less (proudly so) by political stripes and ideological allegiances, the journalistic profession believed its duty was to truth, transparency, and the education and awareness of the citizenry.


We didn’t need the citizen’s press then. Or perhaps, it’s the ascendance of the citizen’s press (the online world of communication) that weakened journalism and created a void that transformed it into a collection of political shills lacking the faintest glimmer of integrity.






In a reversal of Chinese food chain, is the dog coming to the rescue, or for dinner?

October 19th, 2017 by Socially Extinct

Watch the dog.



The dog noticed, thought he could help.  Thought to himself, “This is China, fuck it, peace out.”


Or, “Tasty bitch!  Now you’re my special combo plate!” before being chased off by the guilt-ridden driver.





Weiner’s laptop was Huma’s cloud server (2,800 documents later)…

October 17th, 2017 by Socially Extinct





In the latest bureaucratic “development” in the long, painful campaign on the part of Judicial Watch to tease out the trove of emails between ex-sweethearts, Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin, word came through today that the FBI found 2,800 such documents on Weiner’s laptop, all which have been sent to the State Department. Lest you get your hopes up, this most likely  presents yet another agonizing, futile step in the mining of subterranean transactions among corrupt upper level Clintonian brass.


The FBI reportedly found 2,800 government documents on disgraced former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner’s personal laptop computer that were related to his estranged wife’s work as Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff during her tenure as secretary of state.


The conservative group Judicial Watch reported Tuesday that the State Department received the documents from the FBI after Judicial Watch sued the department when it failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.


The documents were sent to Weiner’s computer by Huma Abedin, a revelation that came to light in the closing days of last year’s presidential campaign.


“This is a disturbing development. Our experience with Abedin’s emails suggest these Weiner laptop documents will include classified and other sensitive materials,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “When will the Justice Department do a serious investigation of Hillary Clinton’s and Huma Abedin’s obvious violations of law?”


Judicial Watch initially sued the State Department in May 2015, after it failed to respond to a request to produce all official emails sent or received by Abedin using a non-government address.


In a court filing, the State Department said it expected to review and produce the entire cache of 2,800 documents by the end of this year. However, the government filing also suggests that some of the material is “duplicative” of other records that have already been made public.


Last month, Weiner was sentenced to 21 months in prison after pleading guilty to sending sexually explicit texts across state lines to a 15-year-old girl. Similar indiscretions, first as a congressman and then as a candidate for New York City mayor, had scuppered Weiner’s political career.


Abedin filed for divorce from Weiner earlier this year.




Yes, let’s see which scraps we’re left after the State Department’s coyotes anxiously devour the carcass of all damning evidence. Pages of blank redacted space, brittle, meatless skeleton.






Harvey Weinstein, the Monster, will be wielded as a distraction by the elites who don’t want us digging deeper.

October 15th, 2017 by Socially Extinct


On October 5, shortly after the New York Times published its eye-opening exposé detailing Harvey Weinstein’s depraved misadventures, the subject of said exposé sent the newspaper a “statement” which I suspect was penned without anticipation of the shitstorm that was about to be unleashed by writers Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey. The statement was a rote brush-off knee-jerk apology soaked in crocodile tears and stinking of quasi-apologetic platitudes. If Weinstein had realized, before composing the letter, the vast network of shenanigans that would be revealed as a byproduct of his mainstream exposure, his apology would have worn quite a different tone.


As it was, his statement concluded with an egregious dose of aggressive virtue signaling that frankly appears to be an oblique SOS targeted at the powers that be which had assiduously enabled and cloaked his behaviors in the past.  A past which is now dead and gone and Harvey is on his own.






Weinstein could not anticipate the unfolding narrative which would envelope him in a pall of sinister and repugnant moral darkness that would alienate all his longstanding “allies.”  The “rescue flare” he embedded in his statement intended for his coastal Leftist enablers went unheeded.   The shame of all matters Weinstein sent friends and political affiliates and business partners scurrying.  Everyone sought to extricate themselves from Harvey Weinstein in any way possible.  No one dared come to Harvey’s aid.   It is doubtful he expected things to escalate as they did.   Welcome to the new digital economy, Harvey.  Thirty years ago the matter would have been batted about by the news networks and would have receded as surely as the network bosses needed to deposit  their next paycheck.  In 2017, the news torch is never simply snuffed out;  it is passed from one social media hand to the next, and the matter becomes inflamed and the coil of public opinion and curiosity energizes it beyond any humanly means available to extinguish.


Instead, he issued a statement that was a naked, pitiful attempt at deferring to old modes of Weinsteinian escape that were simply no longer available.


His virtue signals were abandoned by everyone and thus laid bare for all to see.


Apparently leftists seek catharsis through the act of opposing conservatives rather than seeking to raise the principled interests of liberalism.  Did a man in his position deserve to channel anger so much as he needed to channel a constructive escape plan?  Anger?  Is that how Harvey Weinstein reacted to the breaking story?


The Right should keep this in mind.  The MSM and liberals will increasingly focus on Weinstein, The Monster, as a deflection.  H. Weinstein is “insignificant” in that he is only the representation of a deep, malevolent self-perpetuating society that is affixed, parasitically, to the core of our culture.   Weinstein is a symptom, not the phenomena;  in the same way Father XXXXX was merely the symptom of a corrupt Catholic Church…not the distorted hierarchy itself.


Beware long journalistic treatises which focus on making the Weinstein narrative a distractive sideshow, when in fact we should pay attention to the beast, the cultural structure, which spawned and sustained him and the rest of his crooked ilk parading behind the guise of “liberalism.”