Saturday, September 20, 2008


What did Bruce Willis and Humphrey Bogart have in common? They had style, both have starred in some epic slices of pure entertainment, both were ruggedly handsome white boys and both married into “Generalized Set” or more accurately, generalized set got into them…and who could blame “em? Not me for starters…I mean when I was a kid, I was in love with Lauren Bacall, and she epitomized everything that I thought was heavenly about women. She was stylish, had that seductive, coy, sleazy demeanor and a voice that “schmoozed” like a honey pot. As for Demi Moore, not really in the same league, just another fine piece of Hollywood tush.

So there I was watching “Key Largo” thinking that I too would endure hurricanes and gangsters just to get Lauren into a dinghy and sail off into the sunset, if only I could be cool….way cool like Bogey and just sit it out! Many years later, I am looking at a picture of Lauren in her halcyon days and I’m still finding my self “going to pieces.” But something has changed. Now I’m looking at Lauren and she is not only old and albeit graciously old, but behind the sweet, innocent Jewish girl, there is an unmistakable degree of “generalized set.” Poor Lauren or poor me? Lauren’s had a good run and she’s pulled off the greatest Tyke conjuring trick of all, the one that makes every Tyke emphatically believe in his own superiority over the other races, reinforces his belligerence and his unquestioning resignation to his perpetual endurance within and without the white race. The trick of course is the “snaring of the righteous white boy” using the “schmoozy”, seductive guile of the female Tyke.
If we have a quick glance at the Picture “Generalized Set (a)” your first reaction would be “I’d rather romance a sewer rat than even spend a second looking at that abomination. O.K….No surprises there!! That’s 110% “Generalized Set.” But as I have already discussed, Generalized Set or (GS) comes in various degrees. Consider the picture “Generalized Set (f) (left). Hollywood sure does a fine job disguising (GS). From this angle, the eyes appear to have no (GS); in fact the eyes are from the European side of the bloodline. The nose has an ambiguous disposition and shows only faint traces. The ears are the give away in this case, although not hideously positioned as in the case of a Greenspan or a Spitzer…but it’s there never the less. Either way, even the most accomplished Royal Arch Yidhunter would not pick Demi for a Tyke at first glance. But now have a look at the picture of Demi with Ashton Kutcher (a sycophantic white boy shmuck and a disgrace to his community) with Demi and Bruce’s Kids. Can you see not only a greater degree of “Generalized Set” in Demi but also notice that each of the Kids has some degree of (GS).

Now I happen to think that Bruce is a pretty cool looking dude. He’s also cashed up and has good secure employment. So how the fuck does a guy like that fall into the Yid’s play pit? Well, let’s be fair and say that “Love is color blind.” Love transcends all—even “Generalized Set.” But Demi has pulled off the greatest coup of all. She has ensnared the rich White boy, got his chromosomes well planted in her and has the offspring to show to the world.
Now, the kids will benefit from Bruce’s genes because he is tall, athletic and has a good head. But they will suffer at the hands of Demi’s veiled "Generalized Set" because it is not only her latent ugliness implanted in her children which will become more pronounced as the years roll by, but the strong possibility that the “throwback” genes of Demi’s Tyke ancestors will also make an appearance.
Remember, Jewish-ness is measured by the “FEMALE LINE.” Effectively from the genetic point of view, the Tyke men are expendable…. So there you have it!! Tyke women can sure as hell be alluring but they are always looking for the “handsome, tough, athletic, creative Anglo Saxon whose genes can only serve to reinforce the defective Yid genes but will invariably not corrupt the “essential Tyke within.” Finally, I don’t profess to be a relationship counselor, a Shrink or any other type of professional sociopath, but I implore all of you guys to read about “Generalized Set,” and how to detect it.

1 comment:

anarchore said...

Fascinating stuff. What is the origin of the term 'generalized set' as you use it. A google search reveals it is a math term.