Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Not-So-Great Reasons for Patricide

Watch out the next time your cat kicks a hardened poo out of the litter pan, or the dog decides to use an indoor plant as a territorial marker … it could be just the excuse your family needs to shoot you in the face while you sleep.

I draw this conclusion from the sloppily written shock pieces out today that declare something to the effect: A 13-year-old girl, living in animal excrement, shot her father in the face.

It seems this Matthew Booth, 34, had his life terminated over his poor housekeeping ability. At least, that’s the conclusion to be drawn from the taglines of articles such as this one at CNN.com:
Girl, 13, charged with shooting father to death
Girl shot father in the face while he was in bed
Home was overrun with animals and filth, police said
Neighbor: Girl said she killed father because she "couldn't take it any more"
Girl, 13, charged as an adult with criminal homicide; ordered held without bail

Do you see the progression? Father was shot + house filled with animals and filth + daughter couldn’t take it anymore = daughter charged as an adult with criminal homicide.

Its forehead-slappingly stupid, but since, according to the same article “The Associated Press does not identify victims of possible sexual abuse.”, the animal filth angle is all they’ve got, and boy did they run with it.

The Booth Home, where neighbors often heard exclamations of "Young lady, this not an outhou...oh well, I guess it is."

Some pseudo-journalism was done locally, and broadens perspective on the story from extreme to moderate myopia, but the verdict is already rendered in the press. The house was rundown + there was animal poo everywhere = the father physically and mentally abused his children and therefore was justifiably shot in the face.

Here are some questions journalists need to ask, based on the mother’s claims that the children were abused and lived in squalor, and that she called child welfare –
1) What did the state do for these kids?
2) Where the fuck was the mother while this was going on?
3) Why wasn’t it the mother shooting the father in the face if she knew this was going on?
4) Did it ever occur to the children to get a fucking mop, bucket, broom, and dustpan and clean up the house a bit before turning to homicide?
5) Is it possible there is another side to the story – that the girl was a problem kid in a broken, dysfunctional home, never sexually abused, but disturbed enough to commit murder?

I’m not saying questioning will change the ultimate reality, but it should be the duty of journalists to question, just in case.

Between now and the trial, coverage will wane while truth steadily emerges. The picture will never be as cut and dry as it is now. It will be proven that the system, the mother, the community, the schools, and the neighbors all failed. Regardless of the monster the father was or was not, all others will be absolved and blame will rest with him as the immediate failed caregiver. The child will continue to suffer, now at the hands of a dispassionate judicial system, an exploitative media, a neglectful mother, and a community that will forget about her as soon as the media bores with the story.

Obligatory racial angle: I now open the floor to enlightened WN debate that the family was a bunch of niggers and niggers are known to live in filth. Of course, the strongest indication that the family was not black was that the father was the custodian of the children. We all know Nigger males never raise their kids.

Monday, July 30, 2007

Michael Vick: Kunta Kinta with a Dead Pitbull?

Let’s have fun with words.

By now all two of you, the two that visit me daily, undoubtedly know about the Michael Vick dog-fighting nonsense. The media have picked up this magic fumble and made an end run for the basket…hoop…goal…spot…like a drunk cheerleader on…a…field goal…winning streak…trophy. Allright, I’ll just admit I don’t understand sports well enough to construct an articulate sports analogy.

At any rate, the following might be another aspect of sports that I don’t understand, so give me a hint. First read this quote from Michael Vick:

"I know I've put the city through a lot. My owner, Arthur Blank, who I love sincerely, I've put him through a lot. And you know it's hurt me to put him through these situations to have to deal with that because he shouldn't have to."

As inarticulate as that mess may be, correct me if I am wrong, did he just say he was owned by Arthur Blank?

I see several possibilities here:
1) Being owned by another man is some sort of sports expression that is just as acceptable as a firm, man-hand cupping of one another’s backsides and the snapping of locker room towels across same naked backsides.
2) Slavery is alive and well in America.
3) “Owner” was an unfortunate slip of the tongue, part of an altogether rambling and disjointed pseudo-apology. There is no way that someone would actually say that in the 21st century.

A cursory search of the internet has revealed that the answer is (1)!, but let’s run with this...
Imagine if you will that Arthur Blank had said: “As Michael Vick’s owner I would like to say…” Think of the headlines!
Remember that radio host who called Condoleezza a coon?

I prefer to think of this "my owner" crap as a race memory Vick is bringing to the surface during a difficult time in his life. Like calling a nurse mommy on one’s death bed. Here we see Vick asking Massa for help when Vick gets caught by the local lynch mob. The fact that Arthur Blank is a wealthy Jewish billionaire only deepens the irony.

My point is that is Michael Vick can use that kind of language, and everyone must realize that it is meaningless so no one utters a question over it ... but then why is accidentally calling Condoleezza a coon some sort of Freudian slip revealing systemic racial hatred that is "unacceptable, reprehensible and unforgivable" in the words of the station manager who immediately fired the host guilty of the utterance?

Actually, I am surprised that the WN movement hasn’t picked up on this black-on-dog crime as a potential recruiting tool. After all, WN spend most of their day mentally masturbating over the latest black-on-white crime, believing it to be the strongest recruitment tool they have. If that is so, we should see a surge in dogs joining the KKK now that this story is receiving so much press.

And to the mother of Christopher Newsom (the male victim linked in the horror story above...a man who was anally raped and then murdered by Negro convicts who also kept his girlfriend alive for a time to [prepare to rub your limbic centers all you WN crime freaks] orally, anally, and vaginally rape before they stuffed her lifeless body in a garbage can) who is quoted in that article as saying "It may have started out as a carjacking, but what it developed into was blacks hating whites. To do the things they did, they would have to hate them to do that." I pose this question: Is it safe to assume your check is in the mail to your nearest WN organization, you know, the only people who made raised their voices when your son was murdered? ...Didn't think so...

Check this quote from an article about the family of Chris Newsom:
"We hate them every time we see them [the perpetrators], more and more," Mary says.
But now, their son's murder is being used as a tool for white supremacist's groups, decrying black on white crime.
"I don't like that at all and I know Chris and Channon would not want to be a part of that. That's not what they stood for," Mary says.

So you hate them...You believe they hated your son and his girlfriend for being white...You believe your murdered son was the victim of a hate crime...But its wrong for we evil white racists to denounce the crime, even though white racists were the voice in the wilderness trying to get someone in the press to pay attention to the atrocity perpetrated upon your son and correct the media silence that followed. If white people are this brain dead, even after something like this happens to them, they deserve to die. They deserve to be raped, tortured, murdered, and stuffed in a garbage can along with the criminal niggers they so adore. If they still won't stand up as a race and look after their own first - they deserve what they get.

To any WN who may read this article - stop wasting your time trying to save these lemmings. They will NEVER wake up. Stop fearing to be called supremacists and haters - they will never consider you anything but. LOVE to HATE. Think evil, do evil, be evil. Their evil is our good.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Equality, eh?

Go here and meet your equal. He's JUST like you.

That commercial is from the 1980's. I remember it vividly from my childhood. Just today I recited it verbatim to someone around my age and she remembered it as well. It's so simple. It was replayed ad nauseum amidst syndicated afternoon cartoons. I still hate retarded people. It's not so much the people, as it is the hyper-loving, downright fawning admiration of the retarded as brave souls who MUST be loved by all. It's all the effort that is made to make them a vital and vibrant part of society, when society is constantly shitting on people like me. It's the memory of a drooling, wheelchair-bound cripple grabbing (more like clamping down with his deformed paw upon) a normal girl's boob while she was tutoring him in a math class he was 5 years too old for. It's the memory of the scary 20-something cretin who lived in our neighborhood and would torment his family dog and smash things joyfully, without any apparent reason. It's that dreadfullllllll Corky show from the same decade.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

I am so sick to death of this shit...

You may remember the story of the Bulgarian nurses held in Libya for the past eight years over charges that they conspired with a Palestinian doctor (at the behest of the Mossad) to infect 460 Libyan children with HIV. Today, hundreds of headlines circulate the web all with the same report:

Libya frees Bulgarian Medics

What those headlines should read is:

Libya extorts 460 million dollars from Europe and the United States


After Eight Years of Torture, Rape, and False Imprisonment in Libya, Bulgarian Nurses Exchanged for Cash

That’s because the United States and EU have agreed to pay one million dollars to Libya for every child infected with HIV. For a grand total of 460 million dollars. The filthy, greedy, stupid Moslems of North African have never been able to give up piracy. And the weak-willed West has never tired of paying protection money to sand monkeys.

In the coming days, expect to hear all sorts of stories about how the West is experiencing its greatest relations ever with Libya.

There is probably a secret clause somewhere that prevents the victims from ever suing the Libyan government for the misery they endured at the hands of the Libyan pirates.

Once again: What a world of filthy fucking hypocrites. The West condemned Saddam Hussein for his torture cells and rape rooms, for his victimization of fellow Moslems. The West was willing to invade and depose him. But when it came time to defend fellow Westerners, victimized by an Islamic dictator, we paid 460 million dollars to get 5 women back.

To hell with all of you cowardly dogs. The West deserves to die along with the rest of the shit-skinned, HIV-infected thugs and whores they love so much. The injustice is staggering.

On a side note, why does Qaddafi always dress like one of the Golden Girls? Has he got some transvestite grandma fetish going on or what?

More Jewish Hypocrisy

In this New York Times article, a Jew speaks of the racist exclusion of his Korean wife and half-breed children from the goings-on at his Orthodox High School. It seems that he and his gook were not included in the class reunion photo, and that announcements about the birth of his children were excluded from the community newsletter, while his peers had their pure-blooded kike spawn acknowledged. The Jew barely laments the prejudicial treatment he has received from his kind.

Now consider: Where is the SPLC? Where is the ADL? Where are the myriad anti- groups that dog we White racists? Where are the slurs of bigot, hater, evil supremacist? Where are the forces of integration, the government mandated inclusiveness, the lawyers, social services, the mass media machine, the protestors, the rioters?

Hypocrites. Digusting, sniveling, kikes and kike-worshipping hypocrites, the lot.

Further along in the article, the misceginating kike has some fascinating insights:


Even as we students of the Maimonides School spent half of every school day immersed in what was unabashedly a medieval curriculum, our aim was to seem to outsiders — and to ourselves — like reasonable, mainstream people, not fanatics or cult members.

This ambition is best exemplified today by Senator Joe Lieberman. His run for the vice presidency in 2000 put the “modern” in modern Orthodox, demonstrating that an Orthodox Jewish candidate could be accepted by America at large as essentially a regular guy. (Some of this, of course, was simply the result of ignorance. As John Breaux, then a senator from Louisiana, so memorably put it with regard to Lieberman during the 2000 campaign, “I don’t think American voters care where a man goes to church on Sunday.”) Whatever concerns Lieberman’s Jewish identity may have raised in the heartland seem to have been moderated, rather than stoked, by the fact that his chosen Jewish denomination was Orthodox — that he seemed to really and truly believe in something. His Orthodoxy elicited none of the half-whispered attacks that Mitt Romney’s Mormonism has already prompted in this electoral cycle, none of the dark hints that it was, in some basic sense, weird.


The teacher reported that he had himself heard from his own rabbi, a leading modern-Orthodox Talmudist associated with Yeshiva University, that in violating the Sabbath to treat a non-Jew, intention was absolutely crucial. If you intended to save the patient’s life so as to facilitate good relations between Jews and non-Jews, your actions were permissible. But if, to the contrary, you intended to save the patient out of universal morality, then you were in fact guilty of violating the Sabbath, because the motive for acting was not the motive on the basis of which the rabbis allowed the Sabbath violation to occur.

Later, in class, the teacher apologized to us students for what he said to the doctor. His comments, he said, were inappropriate — not because they were wrongheaded, but because non-Jews were present in the audience when he made them. The double standard of Jews and non-Jews, in other words, was for him truly irreducible: it was not just about noting that only Jewish lives merited violation of the Sabbath, but also about keeping the secret of why non-Jewish lives might be saved.
The Stratification of Trust
- the truth of human relationships.

There exists stratification in human interactions, in what is permissible behavior betwixt individuals based on the commonalities between same.

Mate (trust between sexual partners)
Offspring (trust of biologically related children)
Extended Family (trust of blood relatives, but not offspring)
Close Friends (a stage of friendship in which the friend assumes a familial level of trust)
Friends (trust for exceeding social requirements, granted for mutual benefit)
Acquaintances (trust among peers with equal protection within society)
Citizens (trust among strangers with equal protection within the society)
Guests (trust of an outsider tolerated and protected by the society but not a part of it)
Foreigners (outsiders tolerated but not trusted, nor permitted within the society)
Enemies (outsiders neither tolerated nor trusted)

Dysfunction can exist at any level. Dysfunction is treating an individual of one tier as if they are an individual of another tier. Dysfunction may be entirely one way, or it may be two-way, but it is still provoked by one party. Whereas trust is greatest at the top strata, it is least at the lowest strata. How much one feels he or she may trust another is the primary factor in defining where a relationship lies in the stratification. The stratification is a ladder, not a slide ruler. There are no degrees between the rungs. The stratification exists in all societies, all cultures. Differences in implementation, in how rigidly the stratification is obeyed, are not a matter of cultural choice or of diversity to be respected. Differences in implementation are a measure of the level of dysfunction within a society. The stratification of trust is not artifice, not a construct of the civilized mind. The stratification of trust is a rigid, biological imperative that exists among all life forms that rear their young. Social constructs such as marriage, ritual ceremonies of initiation, rites of passage, gift giving, meal sharing, legal proceeding, and more, exist to define and enforce the stratification. Relationships between individuals change, especially with familiarity, but when there exists discord in how two people treat one another in respect to the stratification, dysfunction exists. The health of the people at any level of the stratification depends on how rigidly they cling to the level of trust appropriate to that tier, not to how aggressively they defend relationships at an existing level rather than adapting to changes. Jumping levels prematurely, not responding to violations of trust that require downgrading of relationships, and not rewarding trust appropriately are all manifestations of dysfunction.

Again, it must be emphasized: Dysfunction is the measure of the health of any tier and the individuals of that tier, and collective dysfunction is the measure of the health of all people within the stratification. Crime, abuse, madness, illness, and death are the consequences of disobedience to the stratification.

One may believe this stratification self-evident, or criticize it as contrived, but if either is true, why do so many people fail to obey the simplest and most evident consequences resulting from existence of stages of trust? Why are violations of trust so common? Why does radical social change always attempt to rectify social injustice by violating the stratification, by awarding trust and brotherhood equally and without merit, and just as surely as it attacks the stratification, why does it collapse into anarchy and chaos? Adherence to the stratification may not cure social injustice, but that was neither its design nor its intent - just as one’s ability to satiate one’s own hunger pains does not equate to filling every empty belly in the world. The stratification exists as an inborn defense mechanism against the predations of others. Awareness of the stratification is the first step to acknowledging that it is the nature of living things to compete for resources, to take advantage of weakness, to satisfy their own needs before considering the needs of others. Yet, it is also the recognition that such behavior cannot exist among bloodlines and permit life to continue. Further, there comes an understanding that the answer to the predatory nature of life is neither treating everyone as an enemy, nor everyone as a brother, but in awarding trust on the basis of merit. To believe that such management of trust is complicated enough to be beyond the capability of humans is to place humans beneath all other social animals that everyday implement the same stratification. It is the radical leftist, the social Marxist, who naively claims that the stratification is the entrenchment or even source of systematic predation, rather than evolution’s answer to the predatory nature of life. When these same leftists attack the family, attack society, attack all natural barriers between humans, the result is always the same: chaos, riots, anarchy, and the aforementioned symptoms of societal dysfunction: crime, abuse, madness, illness, and death.

To evidence that it is disobedience to the stratification of relationships that is the source of social misery, let us examine the stratification, and by way of example and thought experiment consider how adherence to the stratification and violation of the stratification impact our lives.

There are three needs compelling biological action, and providing the sources of conflict that arise as a result of the predatory behavior necessary to fulfill these needs. The stratification of trust exists because of the need to provide access or conversely security for these three things. The three compulsions are: Resources, Reproduction, and Territory. In modern parlance, for we civilized humans, we may express these as money, sex, and shelter. There is no better proof for the existence of the stratification, as well as the need for the stratification, then consideration of these biological compulsions.

At its most basic, consider where the sharing of money, sex, and shelter exists on the stratification. All three require high levels of trust before sharing will be met with anything but exploitation and predation.

Ask yourself, would you share a bank account with: Your mate? Your offspring? Your sibling? Your best friend? A friend? An acquaintance? A stranger? A foreigner on vacation in your city? A foreigner in another country? An enemy combatant?

Ask yourself this time, who would you share your body with?
Now ask yourself, who you would let sleep under your roof?

There is actually a correct answer to each question. The correct answer to each question crosses all time, all civilizations, all nations, all generations. The answer that you give, that your society gives, may or may not be the correct answer. The answer is not made correct because you or your society give it. It is not made correct by the number of people who give it, or made incorrect by the number of people who disregard it. The answer is not relative. It is not situational. It is not open to debate. The answer has always existed, and has always been the same. The health of a society, and of each individual within that society is solely dependent on giving the correct answer. Dysfunction exists when trust is given or withheld inappropriately. Let us proceed.

The answer to the first question, trust with the household economy extends only to your mate and not beyond. It is inappropriate to withhold this access from your mate, and it is inappropriate to give this access to anyone else. For elderly or infirmed people who may need a caretaker, be it a child, other relative, or stranger, the caretaker should not be working from the ward’s bank account. For business partners, a joint account is held separately and does not contain the funds for household economy. If this is not self-evident, and you are willing to give access to your bank account to anyone but your mate, you are taking an unnecessary risk. And conversely, if you cannot trust a mate with your bank account, you shouldn’t trust your mate with your body.

This brings us to the horrifically dysfunctional issue of sex. No greater inroads have been made by social Marxism and the forces of the left in destabilizing our lives than in promoting sexual chaos in the name of sexual liberation and gender equality. No one, absolutely no one, can witness the changes in sexual behavior in the later decades of the last century and not bear witness to a vast increase in open promiscuity, and a concomitant shift in where sex is permissible within the stratification of trust. This is not to say that sex has not always been engaged in outside of marriage, or with strangers, or in deviant ways, it is to acknowledgement that acceptance of all three of these behaviors is at an all time high in our civilization. The consequences of these behaviors are engineered, and the detriment to society inherent in violating the stratification of trust is considered acceptable for the sake of pleasure and liberty. Birth rates below replacement rates resulting in declining populations, abortion on demand, pharmaceutical management of widespread infectious STDs, widespread divorce, single parent households, sexual experimentation among increasingly younger people – to many these are not concerns, they are acceptable alternatives. These are not consequences weakening our society, afflicting us individually, destroying lives and corrupting youth, they are the acceptable price to pay for libertine adventurism. A president receiving oral sex from an intern in the oval office becomes an acknowledgement of how far we have come as a civilization, not how low we have sunk.

When asked, “Who would you share your body with?”, the correct answer is with your mate, not your mate of the moment. To have reached such a level of trust should be a remarkable thing, not something handed out for convenience. That a mate would not have to have reached the status of a best friend before copulation is a shocking, absurd, risky behavior suitable for lower life forms that needn’t concern themselves with raising the next generation. It is the behavior of the spawning fish, who will be dead before the hatching. It is symptomatic of our dysfunction that, in the name of sexual liberty, this level is jumped so readily and strangers become mates. Ask yourself, if you wouldn’t trust your bank account to the person you just slept with, why would you trust the person you slept with to be free of disease, to not cheat on you, to not steal from you, to not lie to you, to not have used you? And thus children are raised without two parents, babies are left in dumpsters on prom night, fetuses are flushed down the drain, infectious diseases are exchanged like phone numbers, marriages dissolve almost before they begin, and the courts are clogged with sexual partners who trusted too much and now want a judge to help them get their furniture back from a cheating boyfriend, or compensation for their girlfriend having sold grandma’s silver as an act of revenge. Don’t delude yourself that predators greatly benefit from systematic derailing of sexual taboos.

For the final question, “Who would you let sleep under your roof?”, the answer to the question encompasses the upper four tiers. It is reasonable that a close friend is invited to sleep over after years of friendship. It is unreasonable that anyone on a lower tier would be trusted thusly. To take in anyone less familiar is a risk. With trust beyond kinship comes the issue of sharing, whether the sharing is something tangible like resources, or the trust that one’s sexual partner and one’s territory will not be violated. To permit someone into your home while you sleep is to expose oneself to all manner of abuse. Yet, to extend trust to one outside the kin group can yield benefits of reciprocity. Here we encounter the bizarre phenomenon of religious charity. Here we encounter exhortations to feed and clothe and house the indigent, the sick, and the needy. Here we encounter exhortations to trust all humankind as your brother, to give and not resent when more is taken than what is offered. In this matter, the religious authorities and the social Marxists walk hand in hand as they violate the stratification of trust, though they would fight doggedly against one another should an issue like sex, marriage, homosexuality, abortion, crime, or war be brought up.

Religion can be an incredible threat to humans when it demands violation of the stratification of trust, especially if it demands level jumping as a means to spiritual salvation. The ultimate manifestation of the dysfunction caused by religion is the cult. The family is usurped, sexual mores are disregarded, goods are supposedly held in common but exploited by a dictatorial stranger, even life itself may be terminated at the whim of the predatory creature whose will shapes the cult. Religion has a use as a social construct to affirm the stratification of trust. In this function it sanctifies marriages, ceremonially initiates newborns into the protection of the society, and encourages adherence to law and equality before the law. However, when it works against the stratification of trust, it is a destructive, insane force, wielded by predatory agents. Whether it is Catholic priests abusing the children entrusted to their care, Protestant ministers sanctifying homosexual unions as God’s will, Imams calling for suicide bombings, or rabbi’s lauding the merits of settling in disputed territories, in each case we see the predatory, selfish creature abusing the stratification of trust while wielding religion. It should be remembered, religion is the construct, the artifice, while the stratification of trust is the natural protection. Predatory religion would have you try to cure lepers by laying on hands, rather than putting on gloves and administering medicine. An artifice that reinforces that order of the stratification of trust is useful. An artifice that attempts to destroy the stratification of trust leads to crime, abuse, madness, illness, and death.

If one applies knowledge of the stratification of trust to daily life, social misery can be avoided for that individual. The stratification of trust is the ultimate self-help. It will not permit you to cure the woes of others. If others would obey the stratification of trust, they would eliminate the social misery that afflicts them. To concern oneself with sheltering the homeless, helping starving foreigners, curing the addicted, is ultimately self-destructive. It is true, there are those who cannot help themselves, but what makes you think you can play God and fix their lives for them? What makes you think perpetuating their misery is the answer? Starvation cures overpopulation. Overdose cures addiction. Freezing to death on the street cures homelessness. The stratification of trust prevents you from being taken down with the rest. It provides an immediate support network of trustworthy people who can help one another in times of distress. To violate the stratification of trust is to eliminate your safety net. Societies can establish all the safety nets they want, but they will not catch everyone who falls. You are nothing more than a hypocrite to deny the truth of the stratification of trust, to denounce it as evil and selfish, then cross the street the next time you see a pan handler. Embrace the truth, without guilt. Otherwise you will destroy yourself in a futile effort to save others. Recognize that if more people would attend to their own problems, rather than trying to fix everyone else’s problems, the world would be a better place. To embrace everyone as a brother is to clearly tattoo upon one’s forehead in capital letters: USE ME.

P.S. Since race must creep somewhere into every post on this blog, I shall place race firmly on the stratification in the position of granting acquaintanceship to all strangers of the same phenotype. Whether you consider race a biological reality or a social artifice, it is useful in assessing the potential threat of outsiders. Racial profiling works. You do-gooder social Marxists know this to be true as well – after all, if the natives had not trusted/tolerated the pale skins stepping off the great canoe that washed up on their shores in 1492, the history of the Americas would be very different.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Open the door for your … Mystery Rape.

Let’s play a game!!! It's called Mystery Rape.
Get ready for hours of tears and recriminations as you try to answer the question: Who the fuck raped you?!?

While on vacation, you are the victim of a violent sexual assault perpetrated by a man armed with a knife. Before the sicko left, he cut out your eyes and took them with him as a souvenir. There is no DNA evidence because the perp wore a condom. The police have four suspects, the only men in the hotel at the time of the assault. One of them is definitely the rapist. The correct choice for this case is highlighted in red; it could change during any round of the game.

Here are the four suspects:

The politically correct police ask you some questions:
Did he have a mustache and/or beard? No.
Did he have any scars or moles? No.
What color and style was his hair? Black, short.
What color were his eyes? Black.
How old was he? Around 30.
What was his build, his height? Average build, average height.
What color was his skin? Brown.

Finally, Adolf von Grüff, the racist nazi crime dog asks:
What race was your rapist?
Your answer is:
a) White.
b) Black.
c) Asian.
d) Latino.
e) Race doesn’t exist!

Now switch up the red highlight. Select any of the four men for your mystery rape. Does your answer change? What does this reveal about you? What does it reveal about the chances your rapist will be caught?