The Worst Week Yet:
May 22-28, 2022

Posted By Jim Goad On In North American New Right | Comments Disabled
[1]

Nancy Crampton Brophy, a writer who claims that the fact that she once wrote a blog post entitled “How to Murder Your Husband” has nothing to do with the fact that she actually shot her husband to death.

2,336 words

“Malevolent” Ram Kills African Woman, Gets Three Years in Prison

In a shocking case of ram-on-black violence, an unnamed adult male sheep [2] in South Sudan recently attacked a 45-year-old black woman named Adhieu Chaping, killing her almost instantly. At press time it remains unclear what the ram’s motivation was — it could have been for money, or due to unrequited love, or simply a manifestation of the interspecies hatred and violence that have plagued the sprawling, worthless Dark Continent for millennia now.

A certain Major Elijah Mabor told South Sudan’s Eye Radio [3]:

The ram attacked by hitting her ribs, and the old woman died immediately. . . . Our role as police is to provide safety and [to] separate fights. The ram was apprehended and currently under custody at a Police Station of Maleng Agok Payam. The owner is innocent and the ram is the one who perpetrated the crime so it deserves to be arrested then later on the case shall be forwarded to customary court where the case can be handled amicably.

The case was recently settled in a South Sudan court, which found the ram guilty of murder — but, curiously, not guilty of a hate crime — and sentenced the “malevolent sheep [4]” to three years’ confinement in a local military camp, after which it will be released into the custody of the family of the woman he savagely murdered.

According to reports [4], “It is unknown if the animal has expressed remorse for his crime.”

Author of “How to Murder Your Husband” Convicted of Murdering Her Husband

If one accepts the premise that all women are crazy, it’s not much of a leap to presume that all female romance novelists are murderers.

Nancy Crampton Brophy [5] is a hideous Oregon-based self-described “romantic suspense writer” responsible for such Meisterwerke as The Wrong Brother [6], The Wrong Cop [7], The Wrong Hero [8], The Wrong Lover [9], and, most notably, The Wrong Husband [10].

Last week, she was found guilty [11] of murdering her 63-year-old husband Daniel Brophy [12] in a botched attempt to collect $1.4 million in insurance policies from her deceased hubby. In June of 2018, Ms. Brophy drove to the Oregon Culinary Institute, where her husband worked, and shot him dead with two bullets.

In 2011, Ms. Brophy had written a blog post titled “How to Murder Your Husband [13].” Despite its title, the essay provided almost no instructions as to how to kill one’s husband, but listed several reasons why a woman might feel compelled to snuff out the life of any man foolhardy enough to wed her. Topping the list of motivations was money:

Financial (this is big): Divorce is expensive, and do you really want to split your possessions? Or if you married for money, aren’t you entitled to all of it? The draw back [sic] is the police aren’t stupid. They are looking at you first. So you have to be organized, ruthless and very clever. Husbands have disappeared from cruise ships before. Why not yours?

Brophy added, “But the thing I know about murder is that every one of us have [sic] it in him/her when pushed far enough.”

When grilled by prosecutors as to whether she thought it was true that anyone could be “pushed” far enough to kill their spouse, Brody made the mistake of saying, “Absolutely.”

In court, prosecutors played a recording made only four days after Daniel Brophy was murdered in which his wife asks a police detective to write an affidavit clearing her of all suspicion in her husband’s murder, which would enable her to cash in all those life-insurance policies.

Much of the prosecution’s case rested on the fact that prior to the murder, Brophy had purchased gun attachments that allegedly prevent a bullet from being traced to the gun that fired it. The defense did not deny she bought these gun parts, but they insisted she’d only done so as background research for another novel she was writing.

The novel was about a woman who was purchasing the gun parts so she could get away with killing her husband.

Study: Accusing Whites of “White Privilege” Makes Whites Defensive

[14]

You can buy Jim Goad’s Whiteness: The Original Sin here [15].

In yet another case of “we could have told you this if only you’d listened,” researchers have completed a study that suggests the very term “white privilege” makes white people less supportive of measures aimed to fight “racial inequality.”

The study, “How the term ‘white privilege’ affects participation, polarization, and content in online communication [16],” was conducted by researchers Christopher Quarles and Lia Bozarth, who quizzed 924 US residents about whether colleges should rename campus buildings named after allegedly racist historical personages. The respondents were split into two groups and asked one of two nearly identical questions:

Should colleges rename buildings that were named after people who actively supported racial inequality?

. . . or . . .

Should colleges rename buildings that were named after people who actively supported white privilege?

By a factor of more than 2 to 1, respondents of all races supported renaming any building named after a supporter of “racial inequality.” But they were evenly split when “racial inequality” was replaced with “white privilege.”

According to the researchers:

Using the term white privilege in the question decreased the percentage of whites who supported renaming. In addition, those whites who remained supportive when white privilege was mentioned were less likely to create an online post, while opposing whites and non-whites showed no significant difference. The term also led to more low-quality posts among both whites and non-whites. . . . Overall, mention of white privilege seems to create internet discussions that are less constructive, more polarized, and less supportive of racially progressive policies.

In other words, non-whites responded almost identically to the question despite whether the phrase “racial inequality” or “white privilege” was used. The difference was almost entirely among whites — who either withdrew from the discussion due to the “spiral of silence [17]” effect or who engaged in heated discussions with opponents because they experienced “social identity threat [18],” and felt as if the term “white privilege” was a personal indictment of their character:

We found that the term can increase online political polarization and lead to lower quality conversations on social media. In particular, the term drives some whites who would otherwise support efforts toward racial equality away from online conversations. . . . In addition, we found that many of the supportive whites just chose to avoid the conversation altogether. While they might have expressed their support for stopping racial inequality, they wouldn’t join a conversation about white privilege. . . . The people who remain are then more likely to share extreme views. They create online posts, and the cycle continues. . . . The result is social media dominated by outrage and extremism, rather than respectful discourse.

Why did it take a research study to conclude that when you tell someone “You’re bad,” they either walk away or punch you in the face?

The Frankenstein Monster’s Criminally Degenerate Brain

An intriguing essay in Psychology Today [19] suggests that the 1931 film Frankenstein was a product of the “scientific racism” that flowered in the late 1800s and peddled the bigoted notion “that some people were born with ‘defective’ or ‘inferior’ brains.”

The essay distinguishes between the 1931 film and Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel because the movie added a sequence in which Dr. Victor Frankenstein instructs his hunchbacked assistant Fritz to fetch a normal brain from a local medical school. As famously parodied in Mel Brooks’ 1974 Young Frankenstein [20], the hunchback accidentally dropped the normal brain on the floor and substituted it with one belonging to “Abby Normal.”

The article cites Amariah Brigham, a predecessor of modern psychiatrists who in an 1832 book titled Remarks on the Influence of Mental Cultivation argued that

insanity is a disease of the brain, and whatever excites this organ may so derange its action as to produce derangement of the mind. Sometimes this disease is occasioned by blows or falls upon the head, at other times by inflammation or fevers, which produce an unusual determination of blood to the brain.

It notes that by the time Frankenstein rolled into movie theaters, there were eugenics laws in several states forbidding people with “degenerate” brains from marrying. It cites a 1927 Supreme Court decision upholding a compulsory-sterilization law in Virginia in which Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., argued that “three generations of imbeclies are enough.”

According to the article:

The idea that monsters are made from “degenerate” brains fits in with a longer, and ongoing, process of labeling and stigmatizing “types” of humans — be they sufferers of mental illness, the intellectually disabled, members of “nonwhite” races, the gender [21]-nonnormative, or people coming from certain parts of the world. . . . Bigotry was bad science in 1931 and remains a bad tendency today. Perhaps we are looking for the wrong monsters.

Sounds to me as if Psychology Today labels and stigmatizes types of people into two categories: bigots and good people. Instead of conceding that neurology plays an immense role in human behavior, perhaps they were looking for the wrong monsters in their unscientific quest to blame “bigotry” for all the world’s ills.

Racially Motivated Urination Incident Rattles South African University

After all that South Africa has been through as a nation, and despite the fact that living conditions there have plummeted ever since the apartheid regime was crushed, the fact that white students pee on the belongings of black students every few years is proof that the country still has a “broader cultural problem.”

A white freshman at Stellenbosch University named Theuns du Toit [22] was recently caught on video [23] peeing on the books and laptop of a black freshman named Babalo Ndwayana [24]. Once video of the racially motivated urination incident went viral, the campus went into a frenzied state of collective conniptions. On May 20, responding to the idea that many black students were so traumatized by the idea that white students still feel entitled to pee on their books and laptops that it might cause them to fail their exams, university administrators decided to delay examinations by a week, perplexing, confounding, and angering several parents and students who’d already made travel arrangements to coincide with the original exam date.

Even more traumatizing was the fact that officials claim this isn’t the first time that a white student peed on a black student’s personal space at the school. Stellenbosch University spokesman Martin Viljoen said, “The University can confirm an incident dating back to 2018 in which a student urinated in the passage and in front of a closed door of another student in the Eendrag Residence.” As with the more recent Hate Peeing incident, both students were freshmen.

South Africa’s higher education minister Blade Nzimande [25] says that the two incidents of racially-motivated pissing stand as proof that racism is still alive and well in South Africa: “If it is the case that no person is born racist, as former state president Nelson Mandela correctly argued, where does such behavior stem from?”

This is a woefully ignorant statement, seeing as it ignores the literal millions of South African students of both races who have refrained from peeing on one another since the fall of apartheid nearly 30 years ago.

Will You Please Stop Shoving All These Fake Penises Down Our Throats?

A generation or so ago, the irredeemably deviant and incurably sneaky homosexual community insisted that their only goal was to keep government out of their bedrooms. Over the years, as they accrued power, they flipped the script to insist that they will drag you into their bedrooms and force you to watch under threat of being called a homophobe if you refuse.

These days, as the abominable practice of man-on-man sex that is clearly forbidden in both the Old and New testaments has metastasized into the transgender delusion, one risks career death if you dare to aver that women don’t have penises and that men can’t get pregnant. Such is progress.

In “How Ben Got His Penis [26],” The New York Times wastes 7,388 words on a woman from upstate New York and her bold struggle to saw off her tits and receive a phalloplasty to feed her psychosis that tells her she’s actually a man. It includes this absolutely disgusting passage about how an Asian doctor tested Ben’s new robo-cock:

Zhao pinched the bottom of the pump a couple of times, and Ben’s penis stiffened. He moved the skin back and forth a little bit, to show how robust the whole mechanism was. “Now let’s try to deflate it,” Zhao said. Ben squeezed the pump inside his scrotum with his right hand. With the left, he began to compress his shaft like an accordion, pushing the saline back into the reservoir. Zhao said he should feel a “whooshing” sensation. After a few seconds, he gave a final push, and the penis flopped over, triumphantly flaccid. . . . “I believe that Liberace had one of these,” Zhao said.

Mind you, this is all supposed to be inspirational.

Tarjit Singh [27] looks like a black man to me, and I’m certain that the 32-year-old Londoner born Hannah Walters would be pleased as punch to hear it. Singh was recently convicted of “assault by penetration [28]” after tricking three separate biological women into having sex with her between June 2010 and March 2016. The first sign that something may have been awry is the fact that Walters never disrobed during her amorous trysts with the three women. Singh told one of her three victims that she’d been born male, had surgery to become a woman, but then wanted to become a male again. Another started to doubt Singh’s entire narrative when she found a prosthetic strap-on penis among Singh’s personal effects.

Amid the musty racial heat of the O. J. Simpson murder trial, black defense lawyer Johnnie Cochran famously told the jury, “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” In the same spirit of dopey rhyming banter, I believe our legal system should enact a policy of, “If the penis is fake, a prison sentence you must take.”

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:

Paywall Gift Subscriptions

[29]If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:

To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.