Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Ford View Post
Yep. Muh dik is a traditional nigger art mainstay.









If one has noticed Greek, Roman, and later Italian art of the Renaissance, you'd see Spartan warriors, Roman nobles, and Michaelangelo's David in the nude with a rather small muh-dikk. The Greeks believed in fighting, in an earlier way, nude, and they called that "heroic nude". They minimized the focus on the penis size; they called Persians barbaric for supposedly having large muh-dikks. It's as if to say, we are civilized, we have gone away from the animal into a human, instead of being ruled by lust, we can control our thoughts.

Michaelangelo's David follows the same presentation. Again, the triumph of being a rational human, over the urges of the little head. Brilliant, if you ask me.

Contrast with nigger "art". Always muh big dikk. Is it any wonder why they're still more animal than human? Their art is but an extension of carnal lust, and nothing else. That's why it's not art, it's nigger trash. Of course, if I put forth this as the hypothesis for my Ph.D dissertation, I'm sure I'd be kicked out for being such a racist. I won't even have the 1st Amendment right to present and defend it, so as not to offend the apes.

Niggers, nothing but savage beings hundreds of thousands years behind!