The Need for Homo Shame as well as ‘Gay Pride’

Individual sense-of-self is often at odds with the social/collective sense-of-community. One could feel pride in something as an individual, but society might officially deem it as shameful. Or one could feel ashamed of something as an individual, but society might deem it as something worthy of pride. (In ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST, Billy Bibbit is cheered on for his sexual adventure by fellow inmates, and it becomes a point of pride. But when Nurse Ratched mentions how his mother might feel about it, he’s overcome with great shame. In pride and shame, it seems like Billy is responding to the approval or disapproval of others as he lacks a strong sense of self.) Sometimes, the individual could be right(or at least more right), and sometimes, society could be right(or more right). When that idiot Amanda Marcotte who writes for Slate had sex with a porn ‘actor’ and then bragged about it at work the next day, most of her co-workers weren’t enthused(though not exactly disapproving either; they were mostly indifferent). They didn’t high-five her about something she claimed to be so proud of. (By the way, if she’s such an independent-minded maverick, why did she feel a need to seek the stamp of approval by the community of her peers and then bitch about it when it wasn’t forthcoming?) In many cases, what someone is very proud of as an individual could be dismissed or disapproved by the larger community or official/dominant institutions. This has been very true in the field of arts & entertainment. An artist, writer, film-maker, actor, musician, or choreographer may be very proud of his/her work, but the critical community might mock or dismiss it, and the public might either ignore it or find it shameful and stupid. One man’s pride is another man’s shame.
Anyway, it’d be ridiculous to force people to share one’s sense of pride. If a film-maker thinks he made the greatest movie of all time but critics and/or the public think otherwise(to put it mildly), then there’s a huge discrepancy between the film-maker’s sense of pride and the larger community’s sense of shaming(that deems the work as something a sane and sensible person should be ashamed of). For all I know, Terrence Malick may think TREE OF LIFE is one of the greatest films ever made — if not the greatest — , but I think it’s shameful waste of imagination and talent(that Malick once possessed and still may possess but is being wasted due to megalomania). Malick and his defenders have no power and no right to enforce his own view of the movie on the rest of us. Of course, there are nutjob critics like N.P. Thompson who were so reverent about Malick’s THE NEW WORLD that they sounded off as if they wanted to force the world to agree with them... or else. (SHOAH by Claude Lanzmann is another film that everyone in the cinephile community is force-shamed into admiring. Pauline Kael got a lot of hell — even from her admirers — for finding much of it turgid, boring, and self-important. Her reputation just barely saved her, but it’s possible that a lesser critic might have been shamed, fired, and blacklisted for similar opinions.) As we are accustomed to living in a free society, we don’t believe anyone has the right to force us to like or hate something. We don’t want to live in an Emperor-Wears-No-Clothes scenario where the people of the community are under pressure to praise everything about the emperor, even when he is virtually naked and ridiculous-looking. But there have been many unfree societies where the rulers could force the populace agree with the official truths. If Stalin liked something, you better have liked it too. If he applauded something, you better applaud it. If he didn’t applaud, you better be very careful about applauding. If Mao felt self-pride about something he said(no matter how ludicrous it might have been), you better agree with the Great Helmsman and applaud wholeheartedly. In an unfree society, the pride of rulers becomes the official pride of the masses who really have no choice. If you disagree and counter that what the rulers deem as ‘proud’ is really shameful, you can end up in the Gulag. You can be mind-tortured via ‘re-education’ and forced to love Big Brother. An unfree society imposes its notions of pride on everyone. So, if Stalin was proud to be the all-powerful and all-wise ruler of the USSR, you had no choice but agree with the official cult of pride. Same with Mao. If Hitler liked a certain style of art, you better like it too. Leni Riefenstahl in the documentary film about her life and career said she was disappointed with Hitler’s artistic tastes(deemed as kitschy by her), but she kept her views to herself since Hitler was officially the visionary genius of Germany. If Hitler was proud of his artistic tastes/vision, you better agree, at least if you wanted any kind of successful career options in Nazi Germany. Those who were openly critical of Hitler’s cultural policy might not be imprisoned, exiled, or executed, but the chances of his or her success in attaining elite status in Nazi Germany would have dimmed considerably.

Today, in places like Cuba and North Korea — the two last communist holdouts — , people are still expected to agree with the official cult of pride as determined by the rulers. So, Cubans are still expected to hail Fidel Castro as one of the greatest people of all time. They are required to feel proud as Cubans-led-by-great-leader-Fidel. And if fat Kim thinks he’s hot stuff in North Korea — though, in reality, he’s just a stupid pig(apology to real pigs that are actually intelligent creatures) — , North Koreans better agree with his self-assessment because, otherwise, they can get in big trouble or even end up dead. Of course, children in both nations are drummed from an early age to worship their leaders and feel proud to be citizens of nations led by such towering geniuses(the kind the world has never seen). And their parents aren’t going to correct these idiocies taught in schools because the kids are also encouraged to rat on their parents(for incorrect thoughts), and that could spell big trouble for the entire family.

Fidel Castro - the Man Who Knows Everything

Kim Jong-Un - the Boy Who Eats Everything

In an unfree society, not only is the official cult of pride mandatory(and must be agreed upon, approved, and shared by all), but certain feelings of shame are not allowed. So, if an individual Russian during the Stalin Era felt shame in his participation in the communist order, he had to keep it to himself because an expression of shame could turn into a matter of life or death. (Of course, most people assent to authority for much less. Even the prospect of losing one’s job or the fear of being shunned will turn most people into jelly before the powers-that-be. Especially as the powers-that-be have the ‘dirt’ on everyone through extensive surveillance, even if one can legally/morally justify oneself on a particular issue, he can be destroyed on a host of other matters. Suppose someone stands firm and fights all the way against unjust abuse of power in America. Win or lose, suppose the powers-that-be havea record of his having opposed ‘gay marriage’. He can be turned into a non-person in the world of the urban Liberal gentry where most of the power, wealth, and privilege are concentrated. Power isn’t only about freedom but about reputation as all social orders are centered around taboos. One is free to oppose to ‘gay marriage’ by speech in America, but the attendant reputation is a destroyer for anyone seeking social elevation and promotion as ‘gay marriage’ has been turned into something sacrosanct by the Jewish elites. Today, most Liberals believe bakers ought to be sued and destroyed for not baking ‘gay wedding cakes’, and Conservatives are reluctant to come to the defense of bakers who stand firm on their convictions. The minds of most Americans are completely owned by dirty Jews who control and impose what is sacrosanct or taboo. As most people are mainly desirous of wealth, privilege, status, and popularity, they will do anything to be seek the approval of the powers-that-be. Most people are that weak and wussy when it comes to genuine moral principles. They go for privilege and status, and they justify their betrayal of truth by fooling themselves that they ‘evolved’ to a ‘higher truth’ when, in fact, the real motivating factor was lust for privilege and approval from the ‘better kind of people’. If most homos were untalented and living in trailer parks than associated with rich and powerful people, who would give a damn about ‘gay marriage’?)

Suppose Soviet authorities heard someone saying, "I feel shame as a Russian when I see my countrymen obey Stalin like cattle and lay ruin to their own heritage and culture." Such sincere feelings of shame borne of individual conscience would not be permitted. Or imagine a conscientious German during the Nazi era who openly declares that he’s ashamed to be German because Germans elevated a vulgar lunatic like Adolf Hitler to the position of supreme leader. Even if his shame is individualistic and his own, it would be disapproved and could get him in trouble. Imposed or coercive collective pride means that one isn’t allowed to feel/express shame in being a part of a community that one finds to be insane or evil. It’s like courageous Japanese individuals who expressed individual shame over Japan’s military aggressions in Asia would have been silenced, censored, or imprisoned during the militarist era. Though one’s assessment of pride and shame is subjective, true pride and true shame must operate on the individual level as a matter of personal conscience. If you feel pride or shame primarily out of social, political, or economic pressure, then you’re just one of the sheeple who lets others determine what is good and what is bad, what is worthy of pride and what is worthy of shame. There is no Real You since you just go with the flow. Joachim Fest’s father, as recounted in his son’s memoir NOT I, had a powerful individual sense of pride and of shame. Despite Nazi pressure, he was individually proud to have resisted the regime in his own personal way, however ineffective it turned out to be politically. And despite the maniacal collective hysteria of national/racial pride centered around Hitler’s cult of personality, Fest’s father felt individual shame as a German who witnessed his fellow countrymen surrender their critical faculty and moral compass in their mindless devotion to Hitler the sorcerer. Thus, his individual sense of pride and individual sense of shame were two sides of the same coin. He felt pride as a man who refused to comply with an evil system, and he felt shame as a member of a culture whose folks collectively lost their minds. He didn’t let the regime dictate to him what he should feel proud of and what he should feel ashamed of.

Of course, supporters of Hitler had some legitimate reasons for feeling proud to be part of the new Germany molded by Hitler. Indeed, had Hitler avoided World War II and concentrated on less risky ventures, he might have gone down as one of Germany’s greatest statesmen. Fest himself argues as much in his biography of Hitler, i.e. had Hitler stopped his aggressions after the annexation of the Czech Republic, he would have been seen as an equal of Frederick the Great and Bismarck. After all, evil men can do good things, and good men can do evil things. Circumstances could force evil men to restrain their radical nature or force good men to take drastic measures. Had Hitler been genuinely afraid of the forces aligned against him in 1939, he might not have invaded Poland and instead might have resigned himself to playing the role of respectable statesman. It’s like even psychopaths can lead perfectly respectable lives if they believe they won’t be able to get away with their crazy acts. Hannibal Lecter killed and ate people because he was certain he could outsmart everyone else(especially as he enjoyed the game of cat and mouse with other humans deemed as intellectual and ‘spiritual’ inferiors). But if Lecter had been genuinely worried about getting caught, he might have repressed his sickness and worked as a brilliant psychologist; he would have been regarded as a first-rate doctor and scholar(and for valid reasons).

In a free society, one’s sense of pride or shame is a personal matter. Even if the elites say something is shameful, you might think it’s worthy of pride. Even if the elites say something is worthy of pride, you might see it as a matter of shame. Even if the majority feels pride in something, you might see it as something shameful. Even if the majority associates something with shame, you might see it as a point of pride. You may be right, you may be wrong, but your freedom to think and feel as you choose is tolerated and/or respected.
But does such a free society really exist? Or are all societies defined by pressures, subtle and not-so-subtle, that more or less compel most people to agree with the official cult of shame or official cult of pride? Especially when the official rules of shame and pride remain constant over a long period, they become almost second nature to most people. Most people don’t think about them and assume that all right-thinking people must and do agree. It is when the rules begin to change that we start to take notice of how these rules really work. What had been regarded as timeless and absolute truths are suddenly destroyed or made elastic to accommodate views and values that go against the original meaning. Rules usually change because the nature of elite power changes, because the social structure of society changes, and because changing trends lead to different habits of mind. A time of transition from one set of taboos to another makes for interesting dynamics.
As a society becomes more liberalized, old truths and taboos began to weaken, and there’s an opportunity for individual freedom and personal conscience to come to the fore and rebel against established conventions. So far so good in the development of a free society. But as time passes and as the new elites consolidate their power, the window of freedom narrows. Though the rules have changed, the dominance of the new elites leads to the establishment of New Truths and New Taboos. This is why the golden age of personal freedom/conscience is always when old truths of conservatism gives way to new truths of liberalism. Conservatism is no longer powerful enough to enforce the Old Truth, and liberalism is, as yet, not powerful enough to enforce the New Truth. Within that window of opportunity, one is allowed a wide spectrum of expressions ranging from the right to the left. Unmoored from old dogmas but as yet unanchored to new ones. It is a time when society has room enough for both the Archie Bunkers and the Meatheads of the world. It’s like the 60s, 70s, and early 80s were the golden age of free speech. Old censoriousness as favored by social conservatives and political patriots no longer held sway in society, and things that once couldn’t be said could be said in areas of politics, culture, sex, and lifestyles. And just about every liberal was for unfettered free speech, and two or three generations grew up believing in free speech as an absolute necessity of a democratic society. But since the late 80s, the Liberal Jewish elites began to consolidate their power in all institutions, and they used their power and influence to raise new generations of kids to believe that ‘hate speech is not free speech’, which really means that Liberal Jews should determine what does and doesn’t constitute ‘hate’. Not surprisingly according to the Liberal Jew elites, Zionism isn’t ‘hate’ but white nationalism is.

It used to be that homosexuality wasn’t only illegal but regarded as a form of sickness(by the medical community), sin(by the religious community), and depravity(by the moral community on both the right and the left). In truth, homosexuality is what one might call a Natural Abnormality. It is abnormal and dysfunctional — it’s about ‘sex’ involving men indulging in fecal penetration and women indulging in mutual-vagina-mashing — , but most homos are born homo. To be sure, a social order can make straight males carry on with the cult of homosexual practice, especially as rite of passage. This was surely the case with Ancient Sparta. The vast majority of Spartan men were not naturally homosexual as only 2% of the population are born as fruitkins. But assboy-ship became a hallmark of the Spartan rite of passage to manhood. When straight males — especially boys — are compelled to indulge in such kind of unpleasant behavior, they certainly aren’t enjoying it. So, why did such practice continue on down the generations in Sparta? It’s because the culture of abuse repeats itself generation after generation. It’s like abused children are more likely to abuse their own children. It’s like people who were corporally punished as children are more likely to use physical punishment on their own children. Even though they didn’t enjoy the violence done to them in their childhoods, it has become second nature to their way of assessing the rules of life. Also, they’ve subconsciously come to feel that such violence, however unpleasant it may have been, contributed to building their character and making them tougher and stronger. It’s like men who’ve been to the military and survived boot camp(with all its hardships and abuses) feel a certain pride in having gone to hell and returned. Thus, to-hell-and-back-ism or what-doesn’t-break-you-makes-you-stronger-ism becomes part of the training manual for a social order.
There’s something within the human heart that feels, "I shall do unto others what was done to me." In English boarding schools, incoming freshmen were abused and demeaned by older classmates. Given the nastiness, you’d think they themselves would act nicer to future underclassmen once they themselves moved up the academic hierarchy. But when they became the upperclassmen, they pulled rank and the same stunts on younger classmates.
In a freer social order, some might rebel and break such a cycle of violence-intimidation-humiliation, but the English school system was all about tradition, order, and honor — and society-at-large was in awe of such traditions, especially as it was practiced within elite institutions themselves. So, younger classmates were expected to suffer in silence and show their mettle by stoically handling the abuse(and wait for their own turn to wield the rod one day). And even though they were shamed and belittled, they were made to feel pride in the fact that they weathered the blows and taunts. As British society was defined by hierarchy, class consciousness, and lower members of society tipping their hats and saying "aye guv’nor" to their social superiors, it was understood by most people that the proper thing was to just grin and bear it. Paradoxically, lower classmates were forced to act like cowering servile wimps, but in their grin-and-bear-it stoicism of accepting such servitude, they might also feel a certain courage of taking the blows and whips without complaint. And when they finally made it to senior-ship, they could feel pride of having made it through the wringer and survived. So, it was finally their turn to act like the nasty upper-classmates in the film IF by Lindsay Anderson. They had paid their dues.

If... directed by Lindsay Anderson

Dazed and Confused directed by Richard Linklater

But then, there’s no guarantee that a freer society with less class consciousness will necessarily be nicer and more ‘humane’. Consider the hazing scene in DAZED AND CONFUSED. And there’s all sorts of nasty ‘classroom-and-shower-room politics’ in American schools, though a movie like CARRIE is certainly an exaggeration(unless the school is full of Negroes, in which case, it’s nothing compared to what the jafro-jivers are capable of). Still, it’s a bigger problem in authoritarian societies like Ancient Sparta or traditional Britain with its rigid class/caste structure. Or in old China where young women were married into the families of their husbands. In essence, the young wife was kicked around as a slave of the mother-in-law who herself had undergone and survived the same ordeal. Needless to say, the young wife would eventually grow old and become a mother-in-law herself and treat her daughter-in-law like a dog.

So, it’s not difficult to understand why Ancient Spartans carried on with the rite of assboy-ship even though most men were not homo. They were ‘abused’ homosexually by older men, and they internalized such unpleasantness as a rite of passage in becoming a ‘real man’. Since they survived the ordeal from older men who buggered their hynies, it was their turn to bugger a new generation of young boys to turn them into ‘real men’ too. (It’s interesting how a lot of these instances of unpleasantness involved sexuality. Homosexual abuse was a factor in English school system as well, and it often involved non-homosexual men and boys. Perhaps, the process of going from childhood to adulthood is traumatic because of the sexual changes that happen in the body, emotions, & drives, and such Rites of Humiliation may serve as means by which the burgeoning sexuality is tamed and put in order. With Ancient Spartans, the rite of passage involving ass-buggering was not a case of sexual libertine-ism but a matter of mandatory requirement. And there was much sexual taunting and shaming — of various nature — in the English school system. In the film IF... by Lindsay Anderson, a teacher is shown pinching and twisting the nipple of a boy who fails to provide the correct answer. And in the case of old China, young women were forced to suppress their sexuality and focus on familial duties. They were, of course, expected to have sex but only to provide a male heir than for any sexual pleasure or fulfilment.
The transition from childhood to adulthood is dramatic in both sexes. Boys start realizing that their balls produce jism that demands to be shot out all over the place. This is why SPIDERMAN is like pop culture Kafka-Freudianism. Not only does some guy turn into an insectodean creature, but he’s shooting white stuff all over the place from the masturbatory flick of the wrist. It’s like he’s cumming all over the city. David Lynch’s ERASERHEAD is about how inside every man is a jism-producing factory that keeps on cranking out spermic eel-like creatures.
And then you have girls who, in budding into womanhood, start bleeding from their pooters(though some say ‘cooters’) on a monthly basis. It’s all very gross if you think about it, which is why the pig-blood scene in CARRIE resonated so powerfully with young female viewers in 1976. (When I was in elementary school, girls of all ages couldn’t stop talking about it even though almost none of them saw it until it finally came on TV.) It’s as if heaven-as-hell menstruated on Carrie. If boys, in turning into men, begin to feel more aggressive as if a bundle of vipers are growing inside their balls and struggling to burst out and conquer the world; girls, in turning into women, feel as if they have a hog inside their belly that wants to be slaughtered and bled by a big hammer that would be the pud. Such urges and expressions/repressions seem gross and ghastly, which is why they make interesting subjects for horror or cult films by the likes of David Lynch, David Cronenberg, Brian DePalma, and John Carpenter.

London Slums

Though we modern folks often mock people in the past for their panics about sex and human biology, we need to understand that things were far less hygienic in the past. People lived far closer to bodily fluids of all kinds: female blood, men’s jism, animal body parts, feces, urine, and etc. And disease was rife, and sexual licentiousness often led to sexual diseases like syphilis that weren’t only incurable but drove people mad and killed them in horrible ways. It was a time when tuberculosis and other diseases were quite common even among the privileged. As dirt, grime, filth, and diseases were everywhere and as medicine had a long ways to go to come up with cures, behavior centered around fear and restraint mattered a great deal. Wrong kind of behavior could make one very sick. One wrong sexual encounter, and a person could ruin his or her life.
Also, it was a time when even rich folks didn’t have modern plumbing. Even the president of America took a shit in a commode. Abraham Lincoln got up every morning and squatted over a bowl in his bedroom and unloaded his feces and urine. And many folks disposed of shit and piss in rather unsavory ways. In many streets in France, many people just dumped the offal out the window. And as horses were the main means of transportation, there was manure all over the streets. And there were feral dogs with rabies. And of course, rats were everywhere.
In such a world, people were bound to be more ‘panicked’ and ‘repressive’ about human behavior. Even in rich families with access the best medical care, it wasn’t unusual for many children to die of diseases. Also, death in childbirth was far more common for women and babies. Since women in the past had more kids than women do today, there was a good chance that they would die of complications during childbirth. Indeed, a common misfortune mentioned in novels of the 19th and early 20th century involves women dying from giving birth. Ernest Hemingway’s most famous novel, THE FAREWELL TO ARMS, is about a woman dying while giving birth — and the kid is stillborn. As deaths from childbirths are far rarer today(especially with easy availability of birth control pills and abortion), something like Hemingway’s sad novel would be less believable if set in our times. (But maybe we still hanker for such tragic depths, and this may explain the explosion of the Orpheus-and-Eurydice narratives in films like SHUTTER ISLAND, INCEPTION, MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, and etc. Since women don’t die in real life, we have them die beautifully in movies.) So, we should be more understanding of the past instead of dismissing people back then as hopelessly panic-stricken or repressed or whatever. Effective cures for sexual diseases were still in the future. Condoms were not widely available, and there was no birth control pills. And the means by which women controlled their menstrual flow was far less effective then than now. Today, any woman can drive her car to the nearest drug store and buy any amount of tampons and such stuff. And disposable baby diapers are readily available to all, and garbage is regularly picked up and removed from residential, business, industrial, and recreational spaces. But things weren’t so clean and hygienic in the old days. A woman could be working in the fields and suddenly have blood flow down between her thighs. A baby would shit, and the same cloth/napkin would have to be cleaned over and over. And the fouled water from washing could be just dumped anywhere as there was no indoor plumbing. It was like the conditions of poverty seen in THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY. So, naturally, there were more taboos and repressions about human behavior since proper behavior might offer people with some degree of protection from the filth in the air, water, and in their own bodies trying to come out as urine, feces, blood, sweat, and etc. Today, many people shower everyday, but even people in the 1950s didn’t shower regularly, at least by our standards. (Ironically, even though social taboos and repressions served to protect people from indulging in wanton behavior that might lead to disease and/or death, they could sometimes makes things worse by sanctifying certain behavior via spiritual cosmology. India is famous for this. No sane person should bathe in the filthy Ganges, but Hindus see it as sacred, and therefore, millions go bathing in what is essentially an open sewage river; some even drink the water. Taboos can also be anti-rational and resist scientific advancement in medicine and hygiene. Also, especially in regards to sex, taboos can perpetuate ignorance about certain bodily functions that men and women need to know about in order to avoid dangers. Though sexual taboos exist to protect people from sexual problems, they can sometimes exacerbate the problems by silencing open discussion of urgent issues. The HIV problem in India is partly the result of socially coercive silence on the matter because official morality would have Indians believe that everyone is acting properly and not indulging in sexual practices such as prostitution. So, liberals have urged sexual education in schools. Not because they want to sexualize children from an early age but to inform the children about the truth and dangers of sex. But this also comes with a danger because once the discussion of sex is rendered casual and open, it can affect the culture as a whole to drop its hang-ups about sex. One result of the openness of sexual discussion/discourse is people being more informed about their decisions on sex, which is a good thing. The other result is a culture flooded with stuff like SEX AND THE CITY, GIRLS, and DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES that have ‘pornified’ the mainstream and put forth the prostitute-style as the sexual ideal. So-called ‘hook-up culture’ is a vile thing.)
Indeed, if people in the last several decades became more relaxed and libertine about sexual matters, it had something to do with how our scatological nature/content became more ‘repressed’ through commercial products like disposable diapers and tampons, widespread plumbing, antibiotics, and all sorts of other devices and contraptions. For our behavior to be freed, our fluids and waste material had to be better hidden and industrially ‘repressed’.
It’s like Steven Pinker’s idealized present in BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE was made possible by vast improvements in the efficiency and coordination of violence. For example, the modern means of killing and slaughtering animals, fishing the oceans, chopping down trees, dismantling entire mountains for minerals, drilling holes to suck out oil, and etc. have improved to such extent that there’s more goods for everyone(despite huge growth in human population) than in anytime in the past. When the means of violence were less efficient, people led tougher lives, and they were hungrier, thirstier, and wearier. If you wanted meat, you yourself would have to kill a rabbit and skin it — like the kid eventually does in KINGS OF SUMMER. Or you might have to take a sledgehammer and strike a sheep, pig, or cow in the head. At the very least, you’d have to twist off a chicken’s neck. But as our industrial means of killing and slaughtering is so efficient, it produces tons of meat for everyone. As our agricultural methods can plant and harvest produce from vast fields — and agriculture is a form of violent war on nature to grow food products desired by humans and livestock — , even poor people grow fat and feel satiated with full bellies.
Likewise, the improvement and wider accessibility of medicine, plumbing, hygienic commercial products, treatments, and etc. have improved so greatly that we’ve grown more complacent about our biological functions. In a less modern society, we have to be mindful of when and where we took a dump and pee.

Dotter Woman Pooing Outdoors

In India, 50% of the people still shit and piss outdoors, which means if you don’t watch yourself, you could be stepping on doo-doo. (This is a problem even in some communities in America where slovenly pet-owners allow their dogs to shit all over and don’t clean up afterwards.)
In the West, conditions have improved so much that even HIV-positive homos can lead reasonably healthy and decent lives. Magic Johnson, homo or not homo, is still alive and doing well. Andrew Sullivan, the fruitkin who got HIV from serving as an assboy to homo Negroes, is alive and doing well too. Though AIDS hasn’t been cured, they’ve found ways to control its worst symptoms, and this particular medical advancement has turned a sure death sentence into a life-sentence, which isn’t so bad.
But, when there was no cure for HIV in the 80s and much of the 90s, panic was the order of the day in the homo community, and rightfully so. (Of course, much of this has been whitewashed, and the Narrative would have us believe that only conservatives and hardcore Christians were in a panic/paranoid mode. Not true. It was the homo community that was most panicked because so many homos were dropping dead like flies. Furthermore, accusing the Right of ‘sexual panic’ is disingenuous because Liberals also accuse the Right of sexual indifference. You can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, Liberals say conservatives were flipping out during the AIDS crisis instead of being cool-headed and rational. But then they say conservatives were ‘indifferent’ and ‘uncaring’ instead of being impassioned about finding a cure. Same thing with this thing called ‘rape culture’. On the one hand, Liberals say conservatives are too uptight and repressed about sexual matters. They mock TWILIGHT movies for being ‘old-fashioned’ and repressive. But these same people say white college ‘conservatives’ — especially those in fraternities in southern universities — are totally out of control and whipping their dicks out to rape every college freshman girl. So, which is it? Are conservatives too uptight about sex or too wild & crazy? Were conservatives in the 80s too panicked or too indifferent about the AIDS problem? Needless to say, it’s Jews who use their immense media power to denigrate conservatives.)
Though Liberals, in their mindless worship of homos-as-holy-victims, have tried to whitewash homo ‘sexual’ behavior(that was indeed the main cause for the AIDS epidemic in the ‘gay community’) and blame the problem on ‘Reagan Era Indifference’, the fact is that people on the Right pleaded with the homo community to face the reality and act more responsibly: Either stop buggering one another in the ass or use condoms or be careful whose ass you boof. But, too many reckless homos gave the middle finger to Middle America, and they went about buggering one another all night long all over the place with all sorts of people. The fact that even homos of somewhat ‘conservative’ bent like Andrew Sullivan and Allan Bloom contracted HIV suggests that homos were into major buggering all around. If even ‘respectable’ homos act this way, just imagine how the more flamboyant homos were acting. They were boofing one another like crazy. Indifference or even hatred of homos didn’t spread HIV. I can be in the same room with a bunch of fruitkins and tell them I don’t care about them and even hate them. As long as they don’t bugger one another like lunatics, they will not get HIV. My feelings about them have nothing to do with their contracting the disease. But in another scenario, suppose I tell them that I care about them and suppose they bugger one another like crazy(and one of them happen to be HIV-positive); the chances are they’re all going to be infected with the illness. How I feel about homos has nothing to do with homos getting HIV. It’s like it doesn’t matter how I feel about Herpes. People will get it or won’t get it on the basis of their individual actions. Homos demanded the right to boof one another like crazy, and they paid the price for doing so because fecal penetration is a one helluva way to spread all sorts of filth and disease. So, the reason for the AIDS epidemic in the homo community had everything to do with ‘gay’ behavior of reckless ass-boofery. And such reckless was all too common. Roy Cohn was a Conservative Jew homo, but he got HIV. Worse, even when he knew he was HIV-positive, he buggered other homos. The leftist scholar Michel Foucault did the same thing. He continued to boof other homos despite the fact that he knew he was HIV-positive. Did Reagan force men like Roy Cohn, Michel Foucault, Andrew Sullivan, and Allan Bloom to go around boofing and getting boofed in the ass? Even if the funds for AIDS research in the 80s had been doubled, effective medical treatments would have been in the indefinite future. No amount of money could have found some magic cure there and then(and even today, AIDS can be controlled but not cured). It’s like despite the tons of money spent on breast cancer research, there’s still no magic cure, which is why Angelina Jolie opted for radical mastectomy. But homos, in their hissy-pissy, bitchy-witchy, tutti-fruity, and ta-ta manner, are incapable of facing up to the music and blaming themselves for the very problem that they caused. They are like old aristocrats who messed things up in their domain but always blamed it on others. Homos remind us of Jews like Jordan Belfort and Jack Abramoff who pulled every dirty stunt in the book but still try to blame others for what they’ve done. It’s like World Jewry ruined Russia after the fall of communism by aiding Russian Jewish oligarchs to swallow up most of the wealth. But do Jews take any responsibility for what they’ve done?
Indeed, why is it so difficult for liberal democracy to work in many nations? Because when they make a go of it, globalist Jews exploit the new freedom in that country to take over the media, banks, and even the government. How could Russian democracy work for the Russian masses when World Jewry colluded with Russian Jews to take over everything? Many African and Arab nations are understandably cynical about Western rhetoric about ‘democracy’ since it often involves Jews using their money and might to slip in Jewish influence along with the so-called ‘democracy’. The so-called ‘liberation’ of Iraq may have removed tyrant Hussein, but it gave Neocon Jews an opportunity to mess up Iraq via sectarian strife so that it will never rise again as a regional power. Though Iran is ruled by a miserable Islamic regime, it’s also true that certain ‘pro-democracy’ groups are bankrolled by Jews who would love to shove ‘gay marriage’ onto Iranians. Today, much of American pro-democratic rhetoric in Africa has to do with ‘gay rights’. Now, I can understand the West asking Africans to go easier on homos and to deal with violence against ‘gays’, but who the hell wants a democracy where bakers can be sued and fined and imprisoned for not baking ‘gay wedding cakes’? Who wants their children in fifth grade to be taught in schools about the joys of ‘anal sex’?

Modern Toilet - Wonder of the Age

Todd Bless the Plumber

Anyway, because we live with modern technology and amenities that can control, cure, reverse, or hide all the questionable things we do, we tend to be more easy-going about our behavior. We need not worry about garbage since the truck comes to pick it up and dispose of it. We need not worry about fecal matter since we merely need to flush the toilet. We need not worry about sweat and grime since we can shower everyday — and some people shower twice or more times a day. Women need not worry so much about ‘the period’ since it’s easy to carry appropriate products, and there are washrooms all over the place. We can be less ‘panic-stricken’ and ‘repressed’ about our social behavior because so much of our biological/scatological realities are ‘repressed’ and ‘hidden’ by our technology.
Indeed, we would be less panic-stricken about death as well if it could be reversed, as in EDGE OF TOMORROW. We fear death because it’s irreversible. If we fall off a cliff, it’s death for sure. We can die in a car crash. We can be shot to death. So, we still have great fears about death. If a loved one dies, there’s nothing we can do to bring him or her back to life. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett can spend all their money to revive a dead mouse, but it never live again. Death is sure and certain. So, death still frightens us like diseases of yesteryear once frightened us. But suppose there’s a reverse-death machine that can easily revive the dead. Suppose in a fit of anger, I shot someone. I would feel panicked about the arrest, prosecution, guilt, and conviction. And people who love the victim will be filled with sadness. But suppose I can push a button and bring back the person back to life. Suppose we had the power of Superman to turn the clock back as he did in the original movie where Lois Lane was brought back to life. That way, death would no longer frighten us so badly. It would merely be just another ‘problem’ that we can control, cure, or reverse. And murder would no longer be such a terrible crime since the murdered could be restored back to life. Would that be better for our morality? If indeed every dead person could easily be brought back to life, what would most of us think of murder? Why would murder be so bad when resurrection would be assured of the victim? If we had a reverse-death machine, the moral consequences of death would be lightened, even trivialized. Murder would not lead to irreversible death but only to a process of ‘healing’ whereby the dead person will be made to live again. It’s like in ZARDOZ where the Eternals cannot be killed permanently. Remember when Zed kills one of the Eternals in the opening part of the film. The Eternal, shot by Zed, seems to fall to his death, but he is reconstituted and alive again. So, murder isn’t a grave matter in the world of the Eternals. The creation of a reverse-death machine would be miraculous. How wonderful if a murder victim could be brought back to life. But then, if the murdered can so easily be ‘cured’, the moral burden of murdering someone would lose its meaning and substance.

In some ways, the advancement of science and technology makes us less moral since many of the problems we cause can be fixed, reversed, or controlled though modern means of convenience. Sexual misbehavior was weighted with greater moral sanctions and taboos in the past because the consequences were so grave and obvious. Women could easily become pregnant with the lack of contraceptives. So, the connection between personal behavior and moral choice could not be ignored. One had to mindful of the consequences of the loss of self-control. Today, women can indulge in all sorts of naughty behavior and just rely on pills, devices, and even abortion to reverse the consequences of their actions. Guys can sleep around and get all sorts of diseases, but then go to the doctor to be treated for VD. Even if VD cannot be cured, it can be controlled. Even HIV is now controllable in the West, therefore homos can relax once again about boofing each other in the ass. And as America is a rich nation, much of bad behavior can be alleviated through welfare, government programs, and increased benefits. In the past, nearly everyone had to work very hard to have enough to eat. With tons of excess food produced every year and with the Fed printing record amounts of money — and with cheap labor in Mexico, China, and India to offer products and services at depressed prices — , we don’t have to worry about inflation that usually accompanies massive printing of money. If in the 19th century some jive-ass Negroes and idiot ‘white trash’ acted like today’s idiot blacks and whites, they’d starve pure and simple. Back then, they had to be mindful about finding work, growing food, or doing something that served their needs of survival.Today, a jive-ass Negro can mess up in school, wear his pants down low, act like an ape, hump a lot of ho’s, and be a total idiot, but the government will take care of his needs. Just look at the useless scum of Ferguson, Missouri.

Jafro-Jivers Acting Negro-ish

Because of modern economy and technology, there’s plenty to go around, and even total idiots can be taken care of. Indeed, we are told that it’s a moral imperative to take care of those ‘poor’ people. But because today’s underclass no longer really suffer the consequences of their actions — since they are guaranteed the basics of survival and more no matter what they do — , the moral culture suffers as a whole. But for how long can such madness be sustained?
And it’s not just Negroes or ‘white trash’. Wall Street is packed with people with fancy degrees from top business schools. Many are as venal and unscrupulous as they’re smart and ambitious. But they needn’t worry much about ‘moral hazard’. Since the Great Depression, the US government has come up with new ways to handle economic crises, and in many ways, these improvements were necessary and for the good. But they also had a morally corrosive effect because the sharks on Wall Street now feel that they will be taken care of by the government(bought and paid for by Wall Street to a large measure) no matter how badly they mess up the economy through unfettered orgies of greed. If anything, the very Wall Street sharks who’d done so much to tank the economy in 2008 reaped the most rewards since the Recession. Under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, one needn’t be morally responsible to buy homes, morally responsible to make loans, and morally responsible to buy the loans, bundle them together with bad loans, and sell them all over all the globe. Lots of Wall Street Jews did this, but almost no one went to jail. If anything, the government bailed them out, and they are now richer than ever. We can pat ourselves on the back for having in place a system that managed and survived a great crisis, but doesn’t such a system also encourage us to be less moral since problems of immorality can be reversed, controlled, or contained(by means that some would call unethical to put it mildly)? Suppose Hitler had a button in 1941 that could reset everything like a video game if things didn’t go well. Like the Tom Cruise character in EDGE OF TOMORROW, Hitler could have done the GROUNDHOG-DAY-THING over and over until he got it ‘right’. The problem is not being offered a second chance. The problem is never having to learn the lesson since the ‘system’ will always take care of you or contain(or ‘correct’) your mistake. Worse, in the long run the ‘system’ could encourage people to act ever more irresponsible. The problems are compounded when special interest groups and hostile minorities dominate society. For example, in a sane society, girls would be instructed on the danger of fecal penetration, i.e. it greatly increases the chance of anal cancer, spread of disease, the distended bunghole syndrome, and etc. And straight guys would be instructed that it’s not healthy to have their penises smeared with fecal matter. But because Jews control America and since homos are the favored group of Jews(and since homo men indulge in fecal penetration), our society fails to instruct girls about the gross dangers of indulging in fecal penetration. Why, such information might be ‘homophobic’. Wall Street sharks brought down the economy, but when the Bush administration allowed Lehman Brothers to fail, the Jews didn’t blame themselves. No, they blamed the Bush administration for not doing enough. And to panic the government into acting, Wall Street Jews made the economic panic even worse. And they cleverly supported Obama to give the impression that a new kind of leader was coming into Washington to clean up the culture of greed. So, what did Obama do? He bailed out the big Jewish banks. Homos and Jewish bankers act the same. Homos spread HIV all over in the 1980s by spreading filth all around through fecal penetration, but they blamed the epidemic on Reagan’s ‘indifference’ than on their own actions. According to the homo narrative, the problem lay with what Reagan didn’t do than with what the homos did do, which was stick penises in the holes that doo-doo. It’s like someone burning down his own house and then complaining that the fire truck didn’t arrive soon enough. Even if the complaint is valid, why did he burn down the house in the first place? Such kinds of questions are anathema to hissy pissy homos and pushy-wushy Jews. Jewish bankers in the 2000s risked the entire global economy by spreading the filth of toxic derivatives all over the world, but when banks like Lehman Brothers began to topple, Jews blamed the government of indifference and not acting fast enough. Of course, the government was also to blame, especially since George W. Bush gave the green light on the crazy home loans in the name of creating a ‘ownership society’. If anything, Bush II was filled with so much compassion for non-whites without homes that he backed the homes-for-deadbeats program with Tex-Mex gusto. Even so, Wall Street was the main enabler of the crazy economic scheme. Also, since the late 1990s, it was telling the government and lobbying politicians to butt out and let Wall Street do as it pleases without much oversight or regulation. Wall Street went into bathhouse orgy mode as it wallowed in filthy finance capitalism. It did as it pleased, but when the shit finally hit the fan, it was bitching and whining that Bush II wasn’t doing enough to fix the problem that it created in the first place. It was like homos demanding that they be allowed to boof one another like crazy and then blaming Conservatives for not having done enough to find an instant cure for AIDS, especially so that homos could go on boofing one another like crazy as if there’s no tomorrow. Both homos and Wall Street lunatics sound like Albert Brooks’ character in LOST IN AMERICA. His wife blew their entire saving on gambling, but he wants the money back. He’s just some hapless boomer with midlife crisis, but today, entire industries and groups are shameless in their demand to do as they please and in their bitching that others or the ‘system’ clean up the very problems they’ve caused through their own excessive behavior. "We want our money back." It’s not "I did it my way, and I will suffer the consequences", but "I did it my way, and you better deal with the consequences." In schools, black kids act up and get suspended more, but neither they nor their parents are blamed. No, the blame is on ‘society’ or the ‘system’ for the ‘racism’ of punishing black kids disproportionately(while conveniently ignoring the fact that black kids disproportionately act out of order).
In many cases, many Americans — even or especially white Liberals — know all about the foulness of our (im)moral climate, but they have to maintain the political coalition, and since blacks are a key group(for both demographic and symbolic reasons) in the Democratic Party, their ‘noble victim’ shtick has to be sustained(even against all evidence that blacks are hardly saints and angels). Or consider illegal immigration. Americans didn’t force all those people to come here illegally. Americans didn’t force them to have kids in America. Illegals did so by breaking American laws. Yet, the moral burden is placed on white Americans for fixing the problem. Of course, the solution would have been simple. Send the illegals back and secure the border. But for some reason, that would be violating the ‘rights’ of illegal aliens to break American laws. So, just as homos did as they pleased but then burdened society with the blame for the problem and just as Wall Street Jews fleeced the entire world but then burdened society with the obligation to fix the economic mess, illegals caused the problems by breaking-and-entering in America but then burdened American society with the responsibility to solve the problem of their illegal status. But Americans didn’t forcibly drag them here illegally. They came here illegally. They broke the rules. Because America is very rich and bountiful, it’s been able to accommodate, forgive, and even encourage all such bad behavior. So, even though homos did so much to spread AIDS all over, they are now celebrated and even worshiped as a ‘race’ of ‘angels’. So, even though Jews have done more than any other group to steal from the world economy and mess up things in the Middle East and Ukraine, they are admired and praised as the godly race. And even though illegals broke American laws and leeched off America, we are told that amnesty is like Emancipation of slavery. If America were a poor dysfunctional nation, such lunacies couldn’t be indulged since there would be no way of paying for them. But because America can afford to indulge such lunacies, the moral climate of America gets worse and worse. Jews, homos, Negroes, and illegals get more blatant, nasty, arrogant, narcissistic, and unreflective in their behavior and demands.

Jews especially have a culture of evading all responsibility for their foulness. Consider how a lot of Jewish radicals were involved in espionage for the Soviet Union in the 1930s and 1940s. A network of Jewish spies including the Rosenbergs funneled atomic secrets to Josef Stalin. There were many Jewish radicals, communists, and fellow-travelers working to subvert the American system, send secret documents to the Soviet Union, and, of course, pull every dirty trick in the book to aid and abet Israel’s campaign of ethnic cleansing and terror against Palestinians. But Jews took no responsibility for their deeds and blamed all the problems on the anti-communist ‘paranoia’ and ‘hysteria’. Given the fact that so many communists and fellow-travelers had infested the US government, you’d think the real problem was that the anti-communists weren’t vigilant enough. After all, the secrets of the Bomb — as well as tons of other documents — did end up in Stalin’s hands. Oftentimes, thanks largely to Jewish agents, Stalin knew more about what was happening in the US government than American politicians did. But Jews take no responsibility. They take no blame. Instead, they just play victim and blame the ‘right’ for ‘paranoia’ and ‘hysteria’.
It’s no wonder that Jews and homos saw eye-to-eye about politics in the 1980s and 1990s.
Both groups think and behave alike. They are hissy, arrogant, hideous, and vile. They are narcissistic and self-righteous and see themselves as the center of the world. Tim Cook of Apple thinks he’s blessed by God because he has a ‘sexual’ predilection for sucking men’s cocks and having other men pump him in the ass. And of course, Tony Kushner the homo Jew conflated the story of the Rosenbergs with the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. Never mind it was Rosenbergs who gave Stalin the Bomb. Never mind that AIDS spread like wildfire because homos were out of control. Instead, both Jewish leftists and homo perverts play victim and say they were victims of right-wing ‘paranoia’ or ‘indifference’. Jews, homos, and Negroes demand that we never object to whatever they do, and so, they indulge in various forms of financial fraud, sexual lechery, and criminality, but if things go badly due to their excesses, WE are to blame for all the problems resulting from them. Jews messed up Russia after the fall of communism, but notice how they blame everything on Putin, even though the neo-oligarchic system was put in place by Jews before Putin amassed sufficient power to rein in the oligarchs to some degree. Jews, homos, and Negroes are vile groups that should never be heeded or trusted. Sure, like any other groups, they have their own histories of suffering and tragedies, but we should never let them own the morality narrative on account of their suffering since they feel zero sympathy for all the peoples who’d suffered from their actions. Since when have Jews ever apologized or atoned for what they’ve done? What have homos ever done to atone for their long history of collaborating with the oppressive elites all around the world? What have Negroes ever done to apologize for all the misery they’ve created over the ages and in all parts of the world through their thuggery and madness?

Anyway, the true pride and true shame cannot be coerced. We can be pressured to feign false pride and false shame, but that would only indicate that the socio-political order in question is unfree. In Cuba, people are made to feign pride in being ruled by Castro. Under Ceausescu’s regime in Romania, the masses were forced to feign pride at mass rallies. They had to pretend that they were living in a land of plenty and justice. And when the level of enthusiasm couldn’t be sustained, the regime used loudspeakers to add the sounds of applause. It was like adding laugh-tracks to TV comedy.
In the past, even homos who felt real pride in being homo were pressured to remain silent or were fired and blacklisted for daring to display pride in something that the official culture deemed as depraved. Back then, official culture had an elite component and a mass component, and both exerted great influence. Though liberals were dominant in elite positions — though not as much as Liberals are today — , much of America was still governed and defined by what might be called ‘community’ values rooted in family, ethnicity, tradition, religion, moral righteousness, and etc. And the ‘community values’ component of the culture was sufficiently powerful to elicit the respect of the liberal elites. It would have been crazy for the liberals elites to push something like ‘gay marriage’ in the 50s, 60s, or even 70s. Even at the height of the so-called ‘radical 60s’, much of America was powerfully governed by ‘community values’.

To be sure, liberals back then were not like Liberals today. Many, even most, liberals back then thought homosexuality was a sickness or perversion. Though more tolerant of homos than conservatives were, many liberals shared many of the moral and social assumptions of American conservatives. In terms of cultural habits, your average mainstream liberal in the 60s wasn’t all that different from an average mainstream conservative. The working men in HOFFA might be on the left economically, but their cultural values had nothing in common with what prevails among today’s urban gentry Liberals. Globalist Liberals revere Masha Gessen(who is like a dyke Ayn Rand) and endorse her vision of the future. Over 99% of American liberals would have found her demented and sick in decades past. Even many homosexuals would have been disgusted by her ilk. Today, Gessen-ism is the toast of the town in places like Washington D.C., San Francisco, New York, London, and etc.

Also, though Jews and homos were powerful among the liberal elites in the past, other groups were represented too, especially liberal white gentiles, and they stamped liberalism with some degree of mainstream values. But as time passed, Jews and homos took over the institutions of liberal elitism. And they increasingly felt little in common with ‘community values’ characterized by the tastes and assumptions of masses of white gentiles who tended to be relatively conservative(at least relative to the agenda of Jews and homos). If traditional liberalism was largely in sync with ‘community values’ — GRAPES OF WRATH is a leftist novel but strong on family values and humanist stoicism — , the neo-liberalism of the Jewish and homo elites found little in common with ‘community values’. (Traditional liberalism also favored ‘community values’ because blacks were seen as culturally backward and less sophisticated. Traditional liberals felt they must appeal to the common man/woman, and since the common man/woman wasn’t particularly well-educated, his or her decency was defined by something like ‘family values’. Consider Lorraine Hansberry’s play THE RAISIN IN THE SUN where the main character is a stout Negress who holds her family together with motherly virtues and faith in God. When her daughter acts too smart and says she doesn’t believe in God, she slaps her real good and compels her to say, ">"In my mother’s house, there is still God." Even the demon in THE EXORCIST would have run from the black mama’s fierce piety. The mama is no educated or cultured woman, but she has an intuitive and impassioned sense of right and wrong borne of experience, patience, suffering, hard times, and pride in work. And such folks were at the center of the traditional liberal imagination. Today, such a woman would be unwelcome in the Liberal community. Only if a chubby black guy puts on a dress and a blonde wig will he get any kind of love from today’s elite-effete urban gentry Liberals whose values are in sync with Gessen-ism. To be sure, the mama archetype of RAISIN IN THE SUN faded long before the rise of new Liberalism. When the Civil Rights Movement got started, many white folks put their faith and hopes in the noble black mama archetype. She may look like a big gorilla, but she has core values and basic decency. So, when white characters try to block the sale of the house in the play/movie, we can’t help sympathizing with the Negro family because the mama is such a good woman who done slapped her silly daughter yapping about there being no God — and I speak as an atheist. Also, as even traditional Liberals were afeared of Negro’s strength and power, they placed their hopes on Negro’s faith in Christianity as a dampener on Negro rage and wildness. The devout Negro who’s into God was preferable to wild-ass Negro into whiskey and guns. And this was also the appeal of MLK. He seemed so noble and saintly and godly. Little did white folks know that the punk was pulling a Trojan Horse or Brojan Horse trick. In time, the white liberal hope in the devout and decent Negro collapsed as cities began to burn in the 1960s. Negroes became wild and crazy, especially with the rise of sex, drug, and youth culture. Counterculture liberals supported the new black radicalism, but it blew up in their face as cities became inundated with urban blight and crime. So, what were new Liberals to do in the 80s and 90s? The devout mama archetype of RAISIN IN THE SUN was no more. A lot of blacks still went to church, but black churches had turned into boogie-woogie dance halls of apelike antics. As for the black radicals and allies, they just made a lot of noise without offering any constructive plan for Negro improvement. So, the new Liberalism fixated on immigration so that non-black arrivals would serve as buffer between whites and blacks. And new Liberalism favored homos, especially as homos could spearhead the gentrification — euphemism for driving-blacks-out — of cities.)
And yet, ‘community values’ defined the backbone of Middle Class America, and when radicals reared their crazy heads in the late 60s and early 70s, most of Middle America said NO, which is why Nixon won a landslide in 1972. Carter inched out a victory in 1976, but he benefited from the Watergate scandal and the colorlessness of Gerald Ford. Even with all the negatives against the GOP, the race was very close. In 1980 and 1984, Reagan won huge landslides. So, Middle America, the backbone of the American electorate, still preferred the idea of Mainstream Values over radical propositions. This was the case despite the fact that America by the late 70s and 80s had absorbed some of the attitudes and fashions that had emerged in the 60s, especially in relation to sex, drugs, and rock music. But as long as American liberalism was tagged with ‘radicalism’, it wasn’t going to win. This is where the lessons of Saul Alinsky sunk in. For the radicalism to be made acceptable to Americans, it would have to be sold as a form of Mainstream-ism. More crucially, Liberals realized that ‘community values’ and the ‘mainstream’ didn’t go very deep, i.e. most people, Conservative or Liberal, are vapid and shallow. What went by the name of ‘community values’ was more cosmetic than committed in its moralism. What the majority of Americans preferred was the appearance or semblance of moralism, righteousness, and normality than the real thing. So, if the abnormal could be packaged to look ‘normal’ & ‘decent’ and if the normal and decent could be packaged to look ‘extreme’, ‘odious’, ‘noxious’, & ‘divisive’, then a lot of people would favor the New Normal. It’s all in the packaging and selling. People are such pushovers.

Anyway, there was a time when homos were pressured to feel shame even when they, as free individuals, felt pride in their homosexuality. It would have been one thing if society, on the whole, deemed homosexuality to be shameful but nevertheless allowed homosexuals to exhibit individual pride. Instead, a homosexual, even upon expressing pride purely on an individual level, could be fired and blacklisted. And then for a time, there was freedom whereupon homos could express pride in their sexual orientation as individuals even if most of society found them perverted or weird. It was also a time when non-homos and anti-homos could express their conviction(of individual conscience or prejudice) that homosexuality is weird, putrid, or wrong, something to be ashamed of. But their disapproval no longer prevented homos from enjoying their individual freedom and rights as citizens. People could feel pride or shame about homosexuality based on their individual predilections, conscience, and preferences. And in the name of liberal democratic principles, this seemed the ideal arrangement for all involved. If individual homos indeed felt pride about being ‘gay’, they had the freedom to do so. They were no longer forced to hide their homosexuality or express shame about it. But then, no one was forced believe that homosexuality is something one should be proud of. No one was forced to praise homosexuality.

The Homo Style - They come to you nice and easy and 'plead' with you to support the 'gay' agenda. But it's really an OFFER YOU CAN'T REFUSE because if you say NO, homos will collude with Jewish elites to have you destroyed.

Today, we live in a very different society where all Americans are pretty much coerced to wave the ‘pride’ flag of homosexuality and transgenderism. And this coercion is applied not only to straight people and non-homos but on homos as well. After all, there are, even today, homos who feel ashamed of being homo, and there are transgender people who feel uneasy about being transgender. They don’t agree with the homo agenda that homosexuality is something one should feel proud of. Homo community denounces such homos as being akin to self-loathing Jews, and of course, Jews, the main allies of homos, agree. And such homos are rejected and endlessly harassed by other homos. It’s as if homos MUST feel proud of being homo. But is this justified? While expressions of ‘self-loathing’ may seem detestable to many people, isn’t it a matter of individual conscience and feeling? Tim Cook of Apple thinks that God blessed him with the desire to stick his penis into the fecal holes of other men. But some homos feel rather uneasy about the fact that they have weird ‘sexual’ tendencies, and such unease isn’t always religious or cultural. It’s a matter of individual conscience. I know this because I’ve known some homo people who, despite being Liberal and living in a wildly pro-homo environment, prefer to keep their homosexuality a secret because they honestly don’t feel at ease with it and aren’t proud of it. Though they want their anus to be pumped by other men’s puds and even though they want to suck dick, they find that stuff to be ‘wrong’ and putrid. It’s like some Evangelicals in the South might indulge in pornography and prostitution, but they still feel ashamed of it.
Now, why shouldn’t such people feel shame about their homosexuality if they really feel that way? And this applies to self-loathing Jews as well. According to most Jews, Norman Finkelstein is a ‘self-loathing Jew’, but he is honestly ashamed of the Jewish community complicity in the oppression of Palestinians. He finds the political exploitation of the Holocaust by the Jewish community to be contemptible. Agree or disagree with him, should he be denied work at a university — as he was at Depaul University due to pressure from powerful Zionist organizations — because he happens to feel shame about the Jewish community and how it aids & abets the inhumanity of Zionism as it is currently practiced against a powerless people, the Palestinians?
If it is wrong to force an individual homo to express self-shame when he really feels self-pride, isn’t it also wrong to force an individual homo to express self-pride when he really feels self-shame? Likewise, if it’s wrong to force an individual Jew to express self-shame when he really feels self-pride about his/her Jewishness, isn’t it also wrong to force an individual Jew to express self-pride when he really feels self-shame about his/her Jewishness?
This goes for a Japanese too. A Japanese far-rightist may feel a powerful sense of national pride, but should he have the power and means to force all Japanese to express a similar kind of pride even if they don’t agree with his feelings? A Japanese far-leftist may feel great shame about his country, but should he have the power and means to force all Japanese to express a similar kind of shame even if they don’t share his feelings? When pride or shame becomes a matter of collective coercion, the society in question is no longer free. Today, all German children are raised with coercive shame about Germany, indeed so much so that any German who exhibits any kind of virile pride in German identity, culture, and history is immediately suspect and even censured(and censored). According to the New German Narrative, all Germans must primarily feel shame, and if any pride is to be availed to Germans, it’s in their dutifulness in keeping the flame of shame alive. Germans are allowed to feel pride in committing racial/national suicide, but then, it’s a paradoxical kind of pride found on self-loathing shame. The harder a German works to dissolve his or her own Germanness, the more he or she is made to feel pride. It’s the pride of being a suicidal slave to World Jewry. Though what Germans did to the Jews during World War II was unspeakably horrible, what Jews are trying to do to Germany and rest of Europe is as evil because it means the demographic collapse and permanent destruction of the European race with all its glory, beauty, and dignity.
The evil of Jews seems less visible since Jews use the facade of ‘human rights’ and nice-sounding terminology like ‘inclusion’, ‘progress’, and ‘cosmopolitanism’, but the effect in coming years will be devastating. Furthermore, why is demographic invasion a good thing? Wasn’t the greatest Nazi evil the war against Russia? And what was that about? It was about the Lebensraum plan to displace Russian/Slavic people with Germanic/‘Aryan’ volks whose agenda was to reduce the native inhabitants to Russia into permanent slaves or serfs. Though there are some positive benefits from immigration, what is happening today in Europe must be called a massive invasion. Though some see it as just poor folks looking for a better life in the rich West, the fact remains that the gates were opened by the super-rich and super-privileged Jewish elites so that native whites will be swamped by masses of non-whites. Jewish elites do this because they want to play divide-and-rule forever among diverse groups of goyim.

True pride and true shame are individual matters. Some Christian individuals feel genuine pride in being Christian and in being part of the Christian tradition. They believe that the Christian community has every right to be proud of its history and accomplishments. Some Christian individuals feel genuine shame in being Christian and see Christian history as essentially one of betrayal. They, as ‘self-loathing Christians’, believe that Christians, for most of their history, have deviated from the teachings of Jesus Christ and behaved more like the agents of Satan. Therefore, they feel the main obligation of Christians is to feel shame about their history & identity and repent to the end of time for having failed Jesus, for having enslaved blacks, for not having stopped the Holocaust, and for having allowed ‘gay marriage’, presumably the #1 agenda of Jesus if you ask Liberals today. (For some reason, Christians feel no guilt or shame about the history of ‘cultural genocide’ against indigenous pagan folks of Europe, but then, I guess it’s okay to oppress and kill white folks of any stripe.) Anyway, if some nutball Christian individuals really feel that way, they should have the right to do so in a free society. We may disagree with them, but if that’s how they really feel about their faith and their moral obligations, who are we to prohibit them from doing so, let alone destroy their lives by having them fired and blacklisted? It’s like some fat people are proud to be fat, and some fat people are ashamed. It should be up to every fatso to decide if he or she is proud or ashamed to be a fatso. Fat folks may be a bunch of hippos, but they have the freedom to think and feel as they choose. And the same goes for the rest of us. If some non-fat folks think being fat is something to be ashamed of, that’s their honest opinion. If some non-fat folks think that fat people should be proud to be fat, that’s their business too. Jellybellies should have the freedom to decide whether they feel proud or ashamed, and they shouldn’t be penalized whatever their opinion may be. And we non-blimps should be free to size up fatness as a good or a bad. We shouldn’t be forced to condemn fatness or to praise fatness. That’s why we live in a free society. If a Frenchman in America feels proud to be French, fine. If he feels ashamed of being French, that’s fine too. If a non-French-American thinks France is most deserving of pride as a nation and culture, no problem. If a non-French-Americans thinks that France is a pompous-ass nation and that the French should feel ashamed for all the shitty things they’ve done throughout history, that’s fine too.

But, when it comes to Jews, Negroes, and homos, we are not allowed such freedom of opinion based on individual conscience, passions, preferences, experiences, and/or observations. All Jews, Negroes, and homos are pressured to fall in line and feel & display pride, righteousness, and more pride and righteousness. And the rest of us are pressured to conflate Jewishness with nothing but nobility, Negro-ness with nothing but wonderfulness, and homo-ness with nothing but sainthood. The dynamics behind this isn’t much different from what once prevailed in Nazi Germany and communist nations. And similar officially sanctioned mind-sets still prevail in Castro’s Cuba and North Korea. Though the West is still relatively a free place, on certain topics and subjects you better damn be careful because, even if they don’t send to you to Gulag or put a bullet in your head, you will be ruined in business, profession, and reputation by the Jew-run media, government, and court system that will come down hard on anyone who defies the Narrative or Narritivitz.

Suppose you feel that homos should have the right to pursue and succeed in professions. Suppose you collaborate with them at work with all the professionalism that is expected of you. But suppose on your twitter account, you say that you believe fecal penetration between homo men is gross and sickening. You will be targeted and fired. In the UK, you will even be arrested in the middle of the night and locked in prison. In the current order, all homos are required to feel pride in their homosexuality, and the rest of us are forced to either publicly praise homosexuality as something worthy-of-pride or shut the hell up. Indeed, even shutting-the-hell-up may not be enough as rallies, parades, gatherings, and mandatory meetings are organized whereby all politicians and professionals are defacto ordered to assemble in praise of homos. If you don’t attend, you could be targeted for future firing, just like a person in a communist nation who refused to attend communist rallies and parades came under suspicion. And even if you’re not outright targeted for destruction for refusing to attend pro-homo rallies, you will be marked as the ‘homophobe’, and various subtle and not-so-subtle means will be utilized to deny your promotion and contracts. Of course, they will come up with bogus excuses for shunning or demoting you, but then, it’s difficult to prove them wrong as anyone can cook up any excuse for doing or not doing something. It’s like there’s no law in the US government that says you MUST attend AIPAC rallies. But if a politician doesn’t, the Jewish elites will spread the word among themselves that the politician is lacking in proper ‘respect’ and ‘enthusiasm’, and they will then use their connections in the media, government, campaign finance, and other means to bring the politician down. So, there are extra-legal means to force what amounts to a defacto mandatory law. Subservience to AIPAC isn’t part of the US Constitution, but it’s part of the ‘underlaw’ that governs this nation. Just like there are lots of information that passes under-the-table and behind-closed-doors, there are certain realities in America that, though officially not the law, function almost as laws. And OBEY AIPAC is one of those unwritten laws of American politics and governance. Likewise, no matter what credentials you have as a journalist, if you’re known for anti-Zionist views, forget about being hired by the mainstream media. You can be as hardline pro-Zionist as you want if you want employment in the media, but if you’re anti-Zionist the chances of you landing a gig in the mainstream media is close to zilch. It’s one of those unwritten laws of American journalism that says you have to suck Jewish dick to get a gig. It’s like how things work in Hollywood. If you want work, you better get on your knees and suck Jewish cock or eat Jewish pussy — or bend over to homos. It’s an ‘underlaw’.

We can’t and shouldn’t force pride on anyone. Whether a German or Turk feels or doesn’t feel pride in regard to his history and heritage should be up to him. We shouldn’t force shame either. In today’s Germany, the collective cult of shame is FORCED on all Germans from kindergarten. Children who know nothing about history are driven into mass frenzy of tears and self-loathing. Though Germans do take pride in certain aspects of German culture, they are mostly made to feel that they are diseased with German-ness and can only really be cured via abolishment of their ethnicity, land, and heritage through massive immigration and blood-mixing.
In Turkey, on the other hand, there are laws that forbid expression of national shame over events such as the Armenian expulsions/massacres or ‘genocide’. Those who express what are deemed to be anti-Turkish views can be fined, imprisoned, and pressured to recant and express pride in being Turkish. Both the German way and Turkish way are wrong for neither allows the freedom of individual conscience that is the true wellspring of any sense of right or wrong, of shame or pride.
Likewise, a society that forces all homos to express pride in homosexuality and pressures all normal-sexuals or true-sexuals to praise homosexuality as something ‘wonderful’ and ‘blessed’ is unfree and wrong. It’s especially wrong because it’s forcing people to believe that 2 + 2 = 5.
In a free society, people shouldn’t even be forced to agree that 2 + 2 = 4. If people in the US want to believe that UFOs have visited farmers in Iowa, Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings, or some other wacko conspiracy theory, that is their right. 2 + 2 = 4, but if individuals genuinely believe 2 + 2 = 5, they should have the freedom to do so. This is why a free society allows freedom of worship. As far as science and reason know, there is no God or gods. There is only the ‘material’ universe made up of matter, energy, and dimensions. But if people wish to believe in God, Satan, angels, and miracles, that is their right.
But the right to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 doesn’t mean that everyone should be FORCED to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. Sadly, that is very much the case in the US, especially because of the power of utterly corrupt Jewish and homo power.
Jews do control America. It is a fact. It is a 2 + 2 = 4 truth, but we are forced to believe the lie that Jews aren’t particularly powerful or privileged. We are forced believe in the 2 + 2 = 5 lies peddled by the likes of Abe Foxman. We live in a society where Rick Sanchez was fired and blacklisted for noticing Jewish power, where Jason Richwine was fired and blacklisted for noticing higher Jewish IQ, and where Helen Thomas was fired and blacklisted for saying European Jews should go back to Europe. We live in a society where Brendan Eich of Mozilla was fired for believing in true marriage. We live in a society where Christian bakers are sued and driven out of business because they won’t bake ‘gay wedding’ cakes. But a Jewish oligarch like Sheldon Adelson proposes the nuking of Iran — a nation with no nuclear weapons — but is left alone by the media. Adelson gets to play kingmaker in US politics. But we better not notice that Adelson is a dirty Jew Zionist who acts like a gangster. We better not say that Adelson has been protected and enabled by the media that is overwhelmingly Jewish-controlled. And if any goy speaks out, he or she will be targeted, attacked, destroyed, and blacklisted. We live in a world where we are forced to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. And this isn’t happening in a totalitarian society but in a so-called democratic one. But then, while democracy is about people power in principle, the real power is held by those with control over the elite institutions in business, government, legal system, science-technology, education, and mass media. Politicians don’t need everyone’s vote to win. They only need buy up over 50% of the vote, and they have powerful donors behind them, and politicians handpicked by Jewish oligarchs are also favored by the Jewish-run media. Whatever one thinks of Ron Paul, he was snuffed by the Jewish-run media in 2012. Those without power have the power to gripe, but those with the power control the megaphone, and the great majority only hear what comes out of the big mike. Some place their hopes on the internet, but even most of the major sites on the internet are owned and shaped by Liberals. And if anything, most of these ‘alternative’ sites are even more radical in their anti-white-ness than MSM. Also, the biggest Conservative sites and blogs on the Net tend to stick close to so-called ‘mainstream’ politics as defined and dominated by Neocon Jews.

Anyway, in a free society, homos should be allowed to express shame as well as pride in their homosexuality. And if we honestly feel that homosexuality is a shameful act, we should also be free to share and express our views. Homosexuality must not become like the Other Jewishness. Jewishness is so powerfully protected and promoted in the US that we must all bow down before the Jew like the sheepish masses in Cuba and North Korea — last two communist nations — must unconditionally bow down before their ‘supreme leaders’. When the political psychology of a so-called ‘liberal democracy’ begins to resemble cuckoo-bananas communist states, it’s time to look in the mirror to reassess the nature of our social values and political principles.

Christian Baker targeted by vile fruitkin scum enabled by hideous Jews.

What Does It Mean to Win a Culture War? (And why homosexuals should be called ‘inversexuals’)

Topics: Culture War, 'gay marriage', millennials, Conservatives, Jew-Homo Cabal or Jomo Cabal, True meaning of marriage, Jews, Holocaust, Anglo-Americans, Ukraine, Russia, Cultural Revolution, China, Vanity of Homosexuals, French Revolution, French aristocracy, Israel, Conservative Cowardice, Inverse-sexuals or inversexuals.

Lately, we’ve been hearing a lot about how the homos won the ‘culture war’. Consider the vast expansion of Americans who are for ‘gay marriage’ or ‘same sex marriage’ or whatever it may be called tomorrow. Granted there are still many Americans, especially in certain regions, that continue to resolutely oppose it, but the homo issue has becoming the rallying cry for powerful Liberals who are led, funded, and guided by Jews, the most powerful people in the world.
In the past decade, the homo side has gone from victory to victory whereas the anti-homo-agenda side has gone from defeat from defeat, almost as pathetic as the French troops before the Nazi assault or the KMT before the communist advance in the Chinese Civil War. A foreboding sense of doom hangs over the conservative side, and craven opportunist cowards like Ross Douthat are begging for terms of surrender, as if the losing side gets to decide such terms. (Douthat, who vowed to stand firm and denounce the imaginary Cullens of TWILIGHT for turning Bella Swan into a vampire, is all-too-willing to bend over to the Jew-homo or Jomo Cabal on ‘gay marriage’. Just like Conservatives like McCain and Romney bark loudly at China, Russia, and Iran but whimper obediently before Jewish power, Douthat’s courage only fires up against fictional creatures but turns to perfidy before Jews and homos.) Basically, there are three kinds of Conservatives/conservatives on the issue of ‘gay marriage’. There are those who are avidly for it, arguing that it’s actually the victory of conservatism since homos are embracing conservative values of matrimony and since the cause is favored by the rich and privilege. American Conservatism fawns over the rich and seeks to win their approval. Then, there are Conservatives who don’t like it but have decided there’s nothing that can be done about it, especially as digging into the true nature of homo power will inevitably lead to discussion of Jewish power, and of course, that is a big taboo in American politics. So, like Charles Murray, they’ve decided to throw in the towel and support ‘gay marriage’ in the manner of "if you can’t beat em, join em." Finally, there are conservatives who oppose it but give up the fight without surrendering to the other side. Even though they still oppose ‘gay marriage’ in principle, they’ve decided there’s nothing that can be done about it. According to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, the war has been lost, so we might as well move on. But if that’s their attitude, why do they oppose abortion rights? Why not say abortion became the law of the land, that’s that, and it’s not worth fighting for anymore? Indeed, why did conservatives oppose any of the Big Government policies since the New Deal? Why did Reagan try to roll back government? Why not just throw in the towel and say there’s nothing more to be done? Why do Limbaugh and his ilk still rail at Obamacare? Why not just declare defeat? Of course, the real reason why the likes of Limbaugh and O’Reilly have decided to give up the fight on ‘gay marriage’ is because there are too many fancy homos among the rich and elite crowd. Vain and egotistical, they want to hobnob with the glitterati, and it just so happens that refusing a key demand of the neo-aristocratic class of homos(who are backed by the all-powerful Jews) just won’t do anymore if you want to belong to the inner circle of the rich and privileged. As for the masses of Conservatives who are braindead sheeple idiots, they too are being won over to ‘gay marriage’ or surrendering without a fight(even as they continue to oppose it). The people who took pride in defeating the mighty Soviet Union in the Cold War cannot even stand up to a bunch of homos. What a shame.

Liberals say they won the debate, but we know there never was any debate, especially an honest one. Through use of media and entertainment, Liberals attacked, mocked, and shamed anyone who opposed ‘gay marriage’ as akin to Westboro Church. When a beauty pageant said she didn’t support ‘gay marriage’, the Jew-homo or Jomo Cabal media dug into her past and exposed every embarrassing detail of her life. Individuals known for critical view of homosexuality have been silenced, banned, fired, demoted, or blacklisted from jobs in both government and private sector. Businesses that support traditional family have been banned from cities. Courts have enforced laws that force ‘gay marriage’ upon regions that continue to oppose it. Schools teach children that anyone who finds homosexuality weird or perverse is sick in the head with a ‘phobia’. Cities have given permits allowing homos to have massive parades. In such a climate of fear & intimidation and mania & hysteria, how could there have been an honest debate about ‘gay marriage’?

To be sure, the conservative side deserves a lot of blame. Being anti-intellectual, conservatives have abandoned the academia for decades. Being uninquisitive and uncurious, conservatives produce few journalists. Being uncreative, conservatives are generally absent in arts and popular culture that have profound impact on social values and public opinion. Being anti-government, conservatives are vastly under-represented in government bureaucracies. Being anti-rationalist, conservatives prefer tradition and spiritual explanations over science and reasoned debate. Therefore, the loudest voices against ‘gay marriage’ on the right have been religious folks who invoke the Bible. The Good Book may be a source of wisdom, but the US Constitution is a secular document, and American laws must be based on clear meanings and legal consistency.

Without any mention of religion or tradition, a sane, sensible, rational, and logical argument could have been made for the defense of true marriage. All words are exclusionary and discriminatory. No word can mean everything except maybe ‘everything’. Though all of us have some medical knowledge, the word ‘doctor’ refers to those with special training to be doctors. Though all of us have some legal knowledge, ‘lawyer’ refers to those with degrees in law and who practice the profession of law. Though all of us have taught something to others, ‘teacher’ and ‘professor’ refer to those who’ve gained credentials in their fields. No one expects a totally ‘inclusive’ meaning of ‘doctor’ or ‘teacher’.
Same should apply to ‘marriage’. Marriage is not everything and it’s not just anything. Though the term ‘marriage’ can be used metaphorically or analogically — as in ‘marriage made in hell’ or ‘marriage of convenience’ — , in the literal sense it has had specific biological and moral basis, meaning, and purpose. Indeed, marriage is meaningful because it is exclusionary and restrictive. Supposing marriage is just about love, then if a thirteen-year-old boy and a twelve-year-old girl fall in love in high-school and demand to be recognized as ‘married’, they should be regarded as such. One doesn’t have to be 18 to fall in love, after all. And plenty of kids under 18 have had sex. Or, suppose a popular athlete has girls clinging to him from all sides. He says he loves them all, and they say they love him. If marriage is only about bonds formed by love/lust, why not declare them all as married if they so wish? Why does marriage have to involve rituals, laws, documents, and etc.? Why not truly ‘democratize’ the meaning of ‘marriage’ and designate any relation where love plays a role as ‘marriage’? What can be more ‘inclusive’? That way, we can have Platonic marriages too. So, if two straight male friends love one another as friends, we might well say they’re married as friends. Indeed, why differentiate marriage from friendship? If marriage is just about bonds of love, we might as well say all friends are married by bonds of affection. And if a man and a dog feel love for another, we might as well say they’re married too. And people shouldn’t even need to ask to be married to be married. If marriage is defined ultra-inclusively as bonds of love, then any man and any dog that love one another are married regardless of whether they think they are or aren’t.

Surely, even homos would reject such all-inclusive definition of marriage. Surely, even homos know that not all bonds of affection equal marriage. Not any couple nor any group of teens who feel mutual love can be said to be married. There are rules to marriage. Age requirements, vows of commitment, rituals, and/or legal processes. So, marriage isn’t just about bonds of affection or love. And it’s not just about any kind of love. A grandmother and a granddaughter love one another in the familial sense, but it would be ridiculous for them to be married in the name of bonds of family affection. Marriage is about love related to sexuality. And it’s not just about lust-of-the-moment but sexual-desire-in-relation-to-long-term-commitment. If one defines ‘marriage’ as a legal union of adults who feel sexual love for one another, then there is no need to allow only ‘gay marriage’. By law, there should also be ‘incest marriage’ or ‘same-family marriage. There should also be polygamy or ‘multiple-partner marriage’. After all, an adult son can love his mother, an adult daughter can love her father, an adult brother can love his adult sister, an adult son can love his adult grandmother, a homo brother or sister can love his/her homo brother/sister. If the homo lobby insists that the US Constitution allows any group of adults who feel love for another should be allowed to marry, why does the current mania/hysteria only privilege homos to change marriage rules while such privileges are not availed to incestuous couples or polygamous ones? Since there are so many jokes about sister/brother sex in the South, you’d think ‘incest marriage’ or ‘same family marriage’ should be a priority there before ‘gay marriage’. And since Utah is Mormon country, you’d think polygamy or multiple-partner marriage should be favored there over ‘gay marriage’. And yet, all we hear is ‘gay marriage’, ‘gay marriage’, and ‘gay marriage’. And yet, most people who wildly and crazily demand ‘gay marriage’ would reject and oppose ‘incest marriage’ and polygamy? Why? If we follow their definition of marriage, such alternative marriages are no less valid than ‘gay marriage’ is? Besides, incest is far more common and natural in the animal kingdom than homosexuality is. And polygamy has been the feature of human cultures since the beginning of time. If diversity and tolerance of other cultures are essential virtues in the 21st century, why should the West deny people of different cultural backgrounds the right to marry incestuously or polygamously? This rank hypocrisy could have been pointed out by the Conservative side, but there’s been total silence. And why? Because the game has been fixed long time ago. As Conservative elites are whores of Jews and rich elites, and since Jews and rich elites decided to favor the homos with neo-aristocratic flair, Conservative elites have hatched a plan behind the scenes to slowly ease the Conservative masses toward accepting ‘gay marriage’. So, publications like the National Review and others will raise a few heckles here and there, but they are all caving in, step by step. It’s been a rigged game for a long time.
It’s like how American Conservatism did nothing to raise funds for the Communist Memorial in the Mall. As the Cold War defined the second half of the 20th century and as many American immigrants suffered under communism, a well-publicized fund-raising for a memorial to honor the victims of communism would have received lots of donations. But how come no one heard about it? Why didn’t the media promote it? Why didn’t super-rich Jews donate to it? Why didn’t super-rich conservatives donate to it? Why did it collect just enough nickels and dimes to set up that dinky little statue? Jews donated nothing to it because they don’t want communist victims to compete with the Holocaust narrative that would have Jewish victims of the Holocaust hog all the victim-glory. Also, Jews had played a decisive role in communist mass killing and espionage, and Jews surely didn’t want any museum to detail any of that sordid history. As Jews control the media, they did nothing to raise consciousness about a communist memorial. As for rich conservatives, they knew that donating generously to the communist memorial would put their names on the Jews’ enemies list, meaning that they would be targeted by IRS, courts, media, and myriad government bureaucracies, all of which are controlled by Jewish tentacles. So, they gave little or nothing. And publications like National Review just shrugged their shoulders and said, oh well, not enough funds came in and that was that. But the fact is even the National Review did nothing to promote awareness of it. Too busy serving the Jewish Neo-cons(of Trotskyite background), Bill Buckley and Co. decided to bury the whole idea of the communist memorial.

In contrast to the communist memorial, look at the scale of the Holocaust Memorial. Three to five million Jews died in the Holocaust whereas communism devoured at least 70 million lives — though estimates go as high as 100 million — , but Jewish lives matter more than gentile lives in American politics and power. Americans are so ignorant of history that they buy the BS spread by Jewish media that the current crisis in Ukraine is a replay of WWII and the Cold War with Putin as the new Hitler or Stalin or both rolled into one. Anyone who knows anything about the region — and its connections to American Jews of Russian/Ukrainian ancestry — knows that Jews played a decisive role in Soviet Communism and in the death-by-forced-famine of millions of Ukrainians. Dirty globalist Jews are merely using Ukraine as a bridge to gain control over all of Russia and Siberia. Jewish view of Russians is as contemptuous as that held by Hitler. Both Jews and Hitler see all that vast territory and feel that a bunch of drunken untermensch Russians don’t deserve to have it. The superior race — Germans or Jews — should gain ownership. Jewish Witzkrieg is more insidious than the German Blitzkrieg. At least the German war machine left no doubt as to the true agenda of the National Socialists. In contrast, Jewish supremacists speak of ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, and etc. but they’re really trying to gain power over Russia for Jewish domination. Anyone who doesn’t see this is an ignoramus fool, but then over 90% of Americans fall into that category as they’re addicted to Miley Cyrus, Jimmy Kimmel, Bill Maher, and trash on MTV.
With conservatives being so slavish to Jews who piss on them, is it any wonder that the homo agenda — favored and funded by Jews — would have made such huge gains? It’s each to score a touchdown when the defense isn’t doing its job, indeed not even picking up the fumbles. Some say this is the victory of the left, but the reason why rich Jews and their Conservative toadies push the homo agenda is because it undermines the real left. When American progressivism’s idea of sacred justice is pandering to a neo-aristocratic bunch of pansies who are closely aligned with Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and top corporations, what does it say about today’s so-called ‘leftism’? As Jews get richer and more privileged, they’d rather associate holy victim-hood with fancy-pants homos than with working class whites, left-behind blacks, or swelling numbers of Hispanics in the service industries. And of course, dirt-bag Conservatives will eventually come around to supporting anything that is favored by Wall Street and Big Business. Conservative politicians and pundits are no less craven than their counterparts on the Liberal side. Their primary concern is maintaining their status and privileges, and therefore, their idea of ‘conservatism’ isn’t based on any principles or what real conservatives want but on an understanding of what will be favored and tolerated by the Jews. It’s about conserving one’s status than conserving power, principles, and truth for the entire people. As long as the likes of John McCain, Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Chris Christie get theirs, they don’t care about anything else. Look how Limbaugh shilled out millions to have Elton John play at his wedding. The fat hippo piece of turd lives in a world of status and privilege, and the idea that he speaks for white patriots is a joke. THAT is why he declared the ‘gay marriage’ issue to be already lost and useless. His main priority is to dilly-dally with the rich and famous. He made his money from masses of dumb Conservatives, but the last thing he wants to do is hang around them. He wants to hang around the globo-neo-aristocrats. The fat pig will play at patriotic demagoguery by yapping about the ‘Chicoms’ but then praise Walmart to the heavens for expanding ‘free trade’ and globalism. Apparently, his avid listeners are too dumb to connect the dots and realize the Walmart wouldn’t have been possible without the evil ‘Chicoms’. Limbaugh is also into ‘new cold war’ mode, railing against Russia and Putin even though Russia is now a conservative country. With Jews being the most powerfully Liberal people in America, you’d think Limbaugh would rip into them as ‘Jewcoms’, but don’t bet on it. When it comes to Jewish power, he’s just a running dog like the rest of them.

Anyway, in a sane and sensible society, there would have been ample means and opportunity to push back the homo tide, especially as homos make up less than 2% of the population. But ours is not a sane nor sensible society. People are not raised to think, be rational, and truthful. They are brainwashed from cradle to grave to submit and obey the sacred truisms of political correctness. They are made to worship Jews and homos. If white, they’re instilled with irrational ‘white guilt’. They are bombarded with hedonism and orgasm-ism that makes them vulnerable to sensory manipulation perpetrated through the mass media. You will have noticed that everything in the so-called mass media are constructed, calibrated, designed, and executed not only to convey information but to work on your emotions. The production values and means of TV news aren’t much different from those employed in TV commercials. Both are fancy, glitzy, and polished, what with personable personalities chattering to the camera as if they’re your neighbors and friends. Talk Shows make you feel like you’re sharing a living room with the host and his/her guests. Reporters talk less like professionals than chums and popular kids in school. Substance matters less than style. The movie BROADCAST NEWS — like QUIZ SHOW — blamed rising superficiality on vapid Wasps who were depicted as all looks and no brains, but this new form of mind-control was perfected by Jews who’ve long controlled the news media and advertising — as well as many psychology departments in elite universities. Thus, ‘juvenilia’ and infantilism are pervasive in our culture.
An idiot like Ross Douthat designates the current young generation — known as millennials though ‘minions’ would be more like it — as individualistic, but he couldn’t have missed the mark by a wider margin. The current crop of minions are incapable of thinking alone, forming truly individual selves, and guarding their individualities. Their mode of thinking, perceiving, and feeling should really be called ‘selfism’ and ‘interconnectualism’. While millennial minions or millennions yammer much about freedom and liberty, they’re obsessed with stupid things like drugs and sex. Their idea of political/moral progress is waving the ‘rainbow flag’ and barking that it’s evil to oppose ‘gay marriage’. They have no clue that for ‘marriage equality’ to be viable, ‘incest marriage’ and polygamy should be allowed too. But that would require connecting the dots, using reason and logic, abilities that are no longer promoted in schools. They cannot figure out for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Though raised to revere Nelson Mandela for having resisted South African Apartheid, they feel zero sympathy for Palestinians who still live under Zionist occupation. They weep over 12 YEARS A SLAVE but know nothing(and would feel nothing even if they knew) about thousands of whites who’d been raped, beaten, tortured, and/or murdered in South Africa since the end of Apartheid. They see nothing wrong with eating pork and aiding/abetting the hogocaust even as they wail against the killing of whales. They are babyish idiots whose thoughts need to be thought for them by others, just like babies in primitive cultures need their mothers to chew the food before putting it into their mouths.
To be sure, most people in earlier generations never thought for themselves either, but millennions are especially brainless and clueless as they’ve been raised under the complete influence of PC. Worse — and downright pitifully — , they don’t even know that they are mind-bots because they’ve been sold on the cult of ‘radicalism’ and ‘rebellion’. Indeed, this is the genius stroke of late Liberalism. Conservative or traditional elites always sought to maintain control over the young ones by emphasizing order, obedience, discipline, sacrifice, dedication, and reverence. Therefore, young people tended to rebel — especially where the culture of youth rebellion took hold. But Liberal elites tell the young ones that their consciousness is being raised, that they’re being taught to be ‘radical’ and ‘subversive’, that they’re being prepared to ‘deconstruct’ the narratives of authority, and etc. Young ones are not only raised to be running dogs barking on command but to confuse their barks as cries of freedom. Whether it’s Hollywood, MTV, the Harvard Humanities Department, the Democratic Party, or some fancy club in NY, it’s the same shtick about how they’re all into ‘subversion’ and ‘radicalism’. Never mind that such labels are little more than brands favored by the rich and privileged vainly playing the ‘radical chic’ card. So, we have all these would-be-intellectual millennions who never had an original thought in their lives mindlessly and slavishly agreeing that, yes, Andy Warhol was a genius and that JEANNE DIELMAN is one of the greatest films of all time. (And among the idiot trashy millennions, I’m sure they think Miley Cyrus is an icon of ‘liberation’ and ‘empowerment’.) Without thought, they oppose whaling while munching on bacon, the meat of an animal as smart as any whale. Without thought, they champion ‘gay marriage’ in the name of ‘marriage equality’ while having no thought to push for ‘incest marriage’ or polygamy that should qualify no less than ‘gay marriage’ following the logic of ‘marriage equality’. Like mindless tards, they are sold on the idea that the rainbow has something to do with two guys ramming each other in the ass in fecal penetrative acts or with people having their perfectly healthy sex organs cut off to be replaced by fake ones.
This isn’t individualism. Millennions are full of conceit about themselves. They have an inflated sense of self but no sense of individuality. And it isn’t helped by social networking and smart phones that interconnect everyone with everyone 24/7. When the internet first appeared, it was a boon for individualism since everyone could access the kind of information and products he or she needed. It opened up grand vistas while maintaining the integrity of separateness and self-identity — except for fools who wasted their times in chatrooms. But with social networking and smartphones, countless millennions are interconnected at all times. Thus, their identities are interconnectual than individual. They’re always mindful that others are watching them, hearing them, approving them, disapproving them. So, despite all the conceit of freedom and choice, millennions are the biggest conformists in American history. Only a culture of mindless conformism could have spread something as ridiculous as ‘gay marriage’ at such alarming speed (Though PERKS OF BEING A WALL FLOWER takes place in the 70s, its lead male character is a perfect millennion prototype. Spineless, gutless, value-free, shallow, and vapid. The only driving force in his life is to win approval from the ‘special’ or ‘beautiful’ people. Perhaps, the development of such bland and gutless normality that craves abnormality for excitement and thrills owes to the excessive triumph of normality following WWII. There was a time when being normal meant having to work on the farm, drive cattle, shoot guns, and work like a man. Being normal meant being tough stuff. But in the post-war world of affluence, normality came to be associated with excessive leisure time, peace, and safety — especially in the suburbs — , and so, the normal life became boring. Being normal in the Wild West meant cutting down trees, working on the farm, using guns to kill dangerous animals, and defending oneself from bandits and Indians. But in the comfortable normality of the postwar era, being normal meant lying on the couch and watching TV Westerns. Such dull normality was bound to seek thrills somewhere, even if they were in the corrupting realm of abnormality.) Only a thoughtless hunger for ‘radical’ approval could have convinced so many idiots on the Sight and Sound Poll to select JEANNE DIELMAN as one of the greatest films of all time. Or taking the likes of Kanye West and Lady Gaga seriously. Mindlessness has been the hallmark of every generation as an aspect of the human condition, but mindlessness now travels to every corner of the world and into every neuron of every idiot at the speed of light via electronic gadgets that serve as virtual extensions of mind and body. Also, with the breakdown of family, community, and tradition, even kids who grow up in small towns have no sense of roots — unlike Loretta Lynn with the family and community from which she sprang, Martin Scorese with his profound sense of Italianness, and Woody Allen with his Jewish milieu. Though traditionalism and communalism may be at odds with individualism, they also shield the individual from the conformist pressures of mass culture and mass hysteria/mania. Indeed, most of life isn’t so much about individualism vs communalism as one form of communalism vs another form of communalism. How many individuals really think on their own, conceive their own ideas, create their own values, arrive at their own truths? Even most thinkers borrow from other thinkers or espouse a well-established -ism. Even the champions of Nietzsche lean on him as a crutch because they themselves are so lacking in selfhood. Indeed, when a person breaks out of his community and embraces so-called ‘individualism’, he is essentially positioning himself or herself to conform to the norms of another community. That experience of switching communities lends the illusion of individualism, but it’s only a bridge between one communal-conformism and another. It’s like moving from one town to another town makes one feel free(like when the mother and son travel to a new place in the film ALICE DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE), but the fact is one must settle down once more, find work, and get back to the daily grind. So, one really goes from one life of routine and drudgery to another.
In the past, the conflict between traditional communities(which still exerted considerable power) and modern modes of existence(with its greater choices) allowed for greater individuality as one felt the pull of both and had to form a sense of self in relation to and in resistance to both. Thus, Scorsese navigated between cultural loyalty to Little Italy and cosmopolitan libertine-ism of the movie industry. So, people like Federico Fellini and Woody Allen never forgot the places/communities whence they came even as they explored new freedoms as artists and celebrities. Today, with the ebbing away of tradition and the fading away of the family, there’s only mass culture, pop culture, and political correctness as the determinants of one’s identity and place in the world(and they are all controlled by Jews who use them to maximize their control over all of us). Even parents who stay together tend to be permissive or are desperate to win approval from their kids as being ‘cool’. They don’t want to seem ‘conservative’ but ‘hip’ and ‘progressive’. So, if ‘gay marriage’ is the hot item, many parents are eager to show that they’re ‘with it’ too since all the cool, rich, and popular people seem to be waving the ‘gay flag’. The fact that so many generation X-ers also cave into ‘gay marriage’ suggests that the loss of individuality was well under way in the 80s when coolness and conformism were fused into a new formula that lent the impression of freedom while encouraging adherence to the system and availing silly diversions as release valves for life’s frustrations. Alex Keaton the spineless and glib Conservative was the progenitor of the mindless and smug Liberal. Shallowness and lack of deep commitment define both types. (The fusion of the cult of ‘change’ and privilege of status resulted in something that might be called ‘status pro’. Traditionally, privilege was associated with the status quo, i.e. the rich and powerful opposed change since it might threaten their dominant position in society. Thus, wealth came to be associated with social conservatism, even though many rich people privately led lifestyles that were anything but traditional or socially conservative. Today, status is associated with ‘change’ or pro-gress, not least because so much new wealth and privilege have been created by high-tech in Silicon Valley and ‘creative finance’ on Wall Street. To be sure, since the rise of the bourgeoisie, great wealth was closely associated with innovation and technology, but the traditional bourgeoisie lacked cultural and social self-confidence and therefore modeled their style and manners on the well-established ways of the aristocrats, even going so far as to purchase aristocratic titles. Thus, even the fabulously rich families of the Gilded Age in 19th century America sought respectability by putting on aristocratic airs and imitating haute Europeans. Also, as Anglos dominated the upper classes in traditional America, they felt a certain affinity with the British upper classes despite the fact that America was founded on principles of political equality. But as the traditional aristocrats faded away into nothingness — rather dramatically after the debacle of World War I — and as the bourgeoisie gained greater confidence in their own power and status independent of aristocratic norms and opinion, the rich and powerful were less bound to notions of ‘status quo’. And yet, there were reasons why the Anglo-American rich continued to cling to cultural traditionalism. As Jews were gaining wealth and power rapidly, Jewish privilege came to be associated with ‘change’, ‘subversion’, and ‘urbanism’. To counter the Jewish challenge, Anglo-American privilege became increasingly linked to ‘status quo’, rural-ism — at least in rhetoric and style, as with the Bush family in Texas or the image of Reagan as a small town boy or as cowboy on a horse — , quasi-aristocratic greenery of golf clubs, and traditional values. But since the end of the Cold War, the victory of ‘status pro’ over ‘status quo’ has been near-total. Since power and privilege are now so closely associated with rapid changes in science and technology, the corollary effect in culture and values has been the conceit of positive ‘progress’ through social radicalism. So, we not only have the mania for ‘gay marriage’ but for trans-gender lunacy. It’s as if social activists feel the need to engineer society as rapidly as engineers working on computers and smart phones. One might say this is proof of the total victory of the power of ‘progress’ over traditional notions of power rooted in the aristocracy, and yet, what we have is a new kind of aristocratism, a neo-aristocratism that favors the alliance of Jewish geeks and homo freaks. It’s about a self-enclosed world of unprecedented power and privilege. Indeed, the globo-Jomo elites feel toward us as Mel Brooks as French Monarch toward his subjects in A HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART I.) Shallowness can be passionate to be sure. Think of the passion surrounding the Summer of Love with people singing the Beatles’ "All You Need Is Love". Think of the Nazi clowns who set up bonfires and burned books. Think of Red Guards who went ape-shit, chanted from the Little Red Book, and laid much of China to waste. But how deep were those passions? How long could they be sustained? There’s passion surrounding the ‘gay marriage’ issue, but how deep is it? When convictions and allegiances are deep, people cling to them even when the prevailing winds of power and media blow against them. So, even when Poland came under communism and religion was persecuted, many Poles remained faithful to Catholicism. So, even when so many young people were acting the hippie fool in the 60s, others remained sober and serious about their deeper commitments to family, tradition, and nation. Fashions can turn into passions, but shallow emotions eventually blow away. The deep ones rooted in genuine meaning and morality remain. The only reason why the ‘gay marriage’ issue is filled with so much passion is because the mass media, federal government, public education, entertainment, and the courts(all of which are controlled by hideous Jews) are fanning it, spreading it, and enforcing it. Like communism, it needs massive institutional support and vast networking to keep it aflame. When idiots are bombarded day in and day out with images of angelic homos and ‘evil homophobic’ villains, of course they are going to fall for the hype just like so many minions did under communism and Nazism. This is why Jews are so committed to bombarding us day in and day out with all this propaganda. They know that without such massive and hysterical support, the entire homo agenda has no legs to stand on. Innately and intrinsically, we feel ideas, values, and matters to be meaningful, true, and sacred. ‘Gay marriage’ is NOT one of them. It’s the sort of nonsense that has to be hyped endlessly to have any currency. (And since it cannot be justified on its own terms, it has to be associated with ‘equality’, ‘tolerance’, ‘rainbow’, ‘family’, the ‘new normal’, a perverted form of Christianity; it has to be associated with the Holocaust, mentioned alongside Jim Crow, and etc. Thus, if you oppose ‘gay marriage’, you’re like a Nazi or a radical Muslim. You’re no different from supporters of slavery in the South. It’s the same old Jewish trick of using fronts or suggesting ‘guilt’ or ‘innocence’ through association. Notice how Jews push Zio-Jewish supremacist policies all over the world but mask their organizations and programs with words like ‘democracy’, ‘progress’, ‘freedom’, ‘liberty’, and etc. Even organizations with explicitly stated Jewish interests prefer to use acronyms like AIPAC or ADL. The recent troubles in Ukraine were instigated by Jewish agents, but notice how the Jewish-run-and-funded organizations behind them go by names like ‘Foreign Policy Initiative’ when their real purpose is expansion of Jewish supremacism. All such organizations should really be called JSF or Jewish Supremacist Front.) And the reason why Jews and homos want to write homo privileges into law is because that is the ONLY way to secure it for the long run. As all this homo-worship is a fashion, people will eventually grow tired of it — just like they got tired of hippies and psychedelia. But if ‘gay’ privilege is written into law, even after people tire of it and see it for the trash it is, homos(along with Jews) will enjoy a special place in America as the only sexual deviants who got to change marriage laws, a privilege denied to polygamists and incest-sexuals/family-sexuals/insular-sexuals. So, even though cracking ‘gay’ jokes is now considered a ‘homophobic hate crime’, one can still use ‘incestophobic’ words like ‘motherfuc*ker’, and stand-up comics can say jokes like, "How do you castrate a hillbilly? Kick his sister in the jaw." But try cracking a joke like, "What do you call two gay Irishmen? Gerald Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzgerald."

At any rate, what does it mean to ‘win the culture war’? Jews and homos would like for us to believe that their position won our for all time, but are culture wars won permanently? There was a time when it seemed as though communists had permanently won the culture war against the Russian Church in the USSR. Churches were being closed while children were being drumbeat into communist orthodoxy. Total victory of Marxism-Leninism seemed at hand. But communism is gone whereas the Church remains(though perhaps one could argue that both have failed in a late modern world that has little use for grand systems of truth. Both Lenin’s Tomb and the Russian Orthodox Church live on as relics. One advantage that spiritual religion has over a materialist-based-secular-religion like Marxism-Leninism is that spiritual religions don’t have to justify itself with material evidence whereas the material religions do. Spiritual religions are defeat-proof, which was the genius of Judaism. Even in defeat, the shame is limited to man, not to God in Heaven. Marxism-Leninism could only succeed by creating a prosperous world of plenty and justice, which it failed to do. But suppose communism had succeeded in delivering the goods. The ideas and images associated with communism might still have great appeal today. In this sense, the failure of communism had more to do with the ideas’ failure to deliver than with the ideas themselves. In contrast, religions don’t have to deliver the goods since they’re cosmic and transcendental than historical and humanist in nature. God owes us nothing, and if the devout end up badly despite their faith, they can always blame themselves than God or see the defeat as a sign of new hope from God, which is why Muslims, even after getting clobbered over and over by the West, never lose faith in Allah. But communism, having no use for God, promised the people that the best-and-brightest leaders and technocrats would guide workers in creating paradise on earth. When something like communism fails, there isn’t much in the way of a safety valve. The ‘great leaders’ just seem more and more hollow and their promises sound like so much empty rhetoric. In contrast, even when God seems ‘wrong’, there’s always the sense of deeper mystery, as Job came to realize. The utter failure of Cuba and North Korea led to ever more desperate attempts to deify the ‘great leader’, but we know they don’t have lasting value in the scales of history). And what of China in the 1960s? Mao waged what was possibly the biggest culture war that ever was. He had literally millions of Chinese youths waging war on the ‘bourgeoisie’ — even though they no longer existed in China — , ‘capitalist roaders’, and whatever was deemed as part of ‘old culture’. The culture war or revolution unleashed by Mao was so violent and powerful that all the ‘class enemies’ appeared to have been swept away forever. But, where is China today and who reads the LITTLE RED BOOK or cares about the tenets of the Cultural Revolution anymore? In the 1970s and 1980s, radical feminism that sprouted out of the 60s seemed to be gaining a lock on American culture, with so much critique of how capitalist-patriarchy oppresses, exploits, and dehumanizes women. It was so powerful that growing numbers of women seemed to be coming together under its influence. As it happened, however, feminism’s neo-puritanical attack on popular culture was a threat to the industry(dominated by Liberal Jews). Besides, as Stalinist-style dour lesbians took over the movement, it grew ever more drab and dreary, and by the late 80s, a new kind of feminism was developing around Camille Paglia and madonna. The radical feminists who appeared to be gaining so much power were, within a few yrs, soundly defeated by ‘slut feminism’ that was especially favored by homo men(who had little use for drab neo-Stalinist feminism of the N.O.W. gang, especially as it came under the leadership of Patricia Ireland). The ERA or Equal Rights Amendment movement didn’t get very far in the late 70s and early 80s. So, these were all social and ideological fashions, and of course, ‘slut feminism’ and the current homomania are also fashions and pass away after people tire of saying ‘vagina, vagina, vagina’ so many times. Once the hysteria wears off, people will eventually see it for what it is. It’s like after the Mardi Gras in New Orleans or Carnival in Rio De Janeiro, people hung over from the excessive glitz of the previous night realize it’s the same crap city with all the same problems. In time, people will get tired of homomania and its cheesy association of homosexuality with the rainbow. However, once all this homo garbage is written into law, it will be inscribed into the culture even after people realize what rot it really was. (This is why Jews and homos are so eager to push legalization of ‘gay marriage’ now before the hangover comes into effect. It’s like the strategy of some sly women looking to hook rich hubbies. They are little more than slutty gold-digging hussies who shake their boobs and sway their hips. They use make-up, perfume, Ann-Margaret antics, and ‘boing’-inducing seductiveness to allure rich men. Some might use the facade of sophistication and ‘culture’ like Cate Blanchett’s character in BLUE JASMINE. Rich men get all excited and want to get it on, but they don’t necessarily wanna sign the paper and walk down the aisle. Doing so would mean that they are stuck with the worthless hussy or ‘husstler’ even after they realize she’s nothing but a gold-digging whore. This is why such women work extra hard to make the man sign the paper in the heat of passion. Same mentality is behind the homo agenda. Homos wanna make all of America accept the legal paper of ‘gay marriage’ when homomania is at its height, because, once people wake up and smell the coffee, they’ll realize the idea of ‘same sex marriage’ is a total perversion of the true meaning of marriage and the real sexuality between men and women. Jewish sluts and homo hussies are pressuring us to sign the paper and be wed to them so that we’ll be stuck with them by law even after we realize they’re nothing but a bunch of hideous geeks and venal freaks. It’s like Isabel Archer was a fool to fall for the Jew-homo or Jomo-like phony in A PORTRAIT OF A LADY. Marriage sealed her fate.)
While homos were created through natural processes — natural defects exist as do natural norms — and while homos need to be appreciated for their special contribution to arts, culture, and ideas, the ‘sexual’ nature of homosexuality simply doesn’t merit the recognition of marriage that has deep meaning only when it recognizes and fuses the true nature of sexuality with the moral commitment of men and women as parents to take responsibility for the children they create. While marriage is certainly more than about creating new life, it has genuine value only when it revolves around that principle. Otherwise, we might as well have Platonic friend-marriages between two straight guys or between two straight women. While homos do feel ‘sexual’ feelings for one another, it is gross and unhealthy among homo men — fecal penetration is never any good, but as the penis cannot have sex with another penis, homo men pretend that the fecal anus is a ‘male vagina’ — , and it is silly and ridiculous among homo women. The sane thing is to allow homos the freedom to do their homo thing, and for us to leave them alone and for them to leave us alone. But pansy-boy fruitkins, being naturally bitchy, vain, arrogant, narcissistic, and exhibitionist, don’t want to just to their own thing in their own world. They wanna parade around with ‘pride’ — as if fecal penetration among men is a matter of poo-ride or as if cutting off one’s penis to become a woman or carving out one’s vagina(and being fitted with a fake penis)to become a man is something marvelous — , sneer at us with aristocratic flair, look down on us as peasant serfs who must honor and praise them.
Though dishonesty is part of the human condition, homos tend to be especially(and even by nature)dishonest. Homosexuality is a trick/accident of nature that made for a ‘dishonest’ form of sexuality. Homo men are born with male sex organs but with female mentalities. Homo men are born with female sex organs but with male mentalities. They are the biological lies of nature. Among male homos and among lesbians, there are two modes of sexual leanings. Some homo men feel tutti-fruity effeminate and want to be taken like a woman by a man. But other homo men are homo for the exact opposite reason. They are so narcissistically ultra-macho that they prefer the company of other ultra-macho men than of women who are seen as soft and weak. Thus, homosexuality is a form of natural dishonesty, the product of nature having failed to ‘make up its mind’. And homo psychology in real life reflect this confusion, which, in some cases, leads to remarkable creativity and expressiveness since the very nature of art is to cheat reality with illusions. Due to the nature of homosexuality, many homos are prone to lie, cheat, connive, backstab, and pull all sorts of dirty tricks — like the fruitkin in THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY. They were born to conspire or connive, like the homo black guy in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION. Or consider Richard Kennedy, the British fairy who fell down the stairs and smashed his own face but has the gall to blame ‘homophobic’ thugs’. Would you trust a face like this?

Richard Kennedy - a lying British fruitkin

Indeed, consider the high percentage of homos who were serial killers and other degenerates. Of course, not all or even most homos are lying, cheating degenerates. Many are good workers, and one could argue that a certain amount of feminine traits in certain kinds of homo men make them better at working and negotiating with other people — as opposed to macho straight guys who tend to see everything as a pissing contest. Homos may connive and play dirty, but they are likely to do with greater patience and finesse that comes with their froopy-doo consciousness. Homos, with the naturally aristocratic flairs and weird ‘sexual’ obsessions, also tend to lack moral conscience. They care more about style than substance. They are more about the appearance of things than for their inner worth. It’s no wonder that Judaism, the most moralistic and substantive of ancient cultures, was most anti-homosexual, whereas the Greek culture, with its emphasis on beauty, tended to tolerate homosexuality. While style has value, it should never be mistaken for substance. Style can be substance in art, but it’s not the substance of life. Life is created through biological laws and sustained with moral rules. An artist can draw a horse in many styles, but only a male horse and a female horse can produce a another real horse, and only a horseman can raise it properly to perform horse duties. Homos created many great sculptures and paintings of men and women, but only the union of men and women could produce new life, and new lives should be raised with love and care by the parents who produced them. Thus, the very substance of life should not be confused with the style of expression. Most genuinely moral people understand this. (To be sure, many people who support ‘gay marriage’ are good people, but being good isn’t enough to be on the side of truth. Most Creationists are good decent folks who say howdy and help their neighbors in times of trouble, but that doesn’t make Creationism true. Most people who support ‘gay marriage’ wouldn’t want to harm others; they are decent neighbors and believe themselves to be supporting ‘gay marriage’ out of positive reasons such as ‘tolerance’ and ‘equality’. What such people misunderstand is that minor positives can misleadingly serve what is essentially bad or evil. After all, 80% of Americans who supported the Iraq War did so out of ‘good reasons’ of patriotism, fighting terrorism, removing a tyrant, liberating the people of Iraq, and destroying WMD. But they — including myself to some extent — failed to understand that all those good things were merely serving the venal agenda of Jewish-Zionist Supremacists.) Let marriage be for men and women who are aligned with the biological laws of life and respectful of the moral rules of parenting. Let homos do their own thing with their homo ‘sex’. As homo ‘sex’ cannot produce life, the only way homos can create something is through styles of art, and that’s one thing they can take pride in.
As it turns out, the vain and self-centered homo nature often cannot accept the laws of biology or rules of morality. In their preening narcissism, they think the entire institution of marriage should serve them than vice versa. If homos really care about marriage, they will recognize it for what it is. (It’s like if Mao had truly respected economics, he would have left economics to those who understood it. And if Hitler respected the military, he would have respected the decision of military officers. But both Mao and Hitler thought of themselves as the centers of the universe, as if economics and the military should serve their megalomaniacal know-it-all whims. Homos are like that with marriage.) If homos truly understood the meaning of marriage and valued it — as Camille Paglia does — , they will see it as a civilizational value. They will understand that even homos — indeed every homo that ever existed — were produced not through homosexuality but through real sexuality between men and women. Many straight people don’t get married, but they still respect the institution of marriage as existing for a biological and moral purpose. Indeed, many straight people don’t marry because they don’t think they are qualified to get married and play responsible roles as spouse and parent. If they were to get married, they want to do it right. That is showing respect for marriage. There’s a sense that marriage is bigger than any of us, just like all of time is bigger than any hour, week, month, year, decade, or century. Marriage should be supported not only by the married but by the unmarried because civilization carries on through the creation of new lives who are loved and taken care of by parents who decided to produce them.
But homos are too selfish, vain, and narcissistic to accept that marriage is bigger than them and exists for a purpose bigger than any homo whim or demand. Homos think they are the center of the universe and everything must be changed to cater to them. So, marriage must be unmoored from its deep and profound meanings just to please homos; it must consign itself to appease the shallow and vapid mentality of homos. Homos have little or no sense of something being bigger than they are. Everything is a toy that must be reshaped to give them pleasure. World must be their oyster, their snail.
Homos would have never pulled off such a cultural putsch, but they were advantaged with the backing and protection of the most powerful people in the world, the Jews. Homos aren’t trustworthy, neither when they’re in the closet nor when they’re on the pedestal. In both cases, homos are living a kind of a lie. In the past, homos who were forced to remain in the closet pretended to be straight and channeled their repressed energies through conspiracy, subversion, and infiltration. They were like natural-born CIA-KGB officers since they had to hide something essential about themselves from the public eye.

Nutty Fruitkin threatens Costner in NO WAY OUT(aka NO GAY OUT)

Many got married and lied to their spouses and children as to the true nature of their sexuality.
Since then, given that homos have been allowed to come out of the closet, you’d think homos today would be open-minded and easy-going. But as homos have been ‘welcomed’, ‘celebrated’, and put upon a pedestal, they now force us to believe that homosexual fecal penetration is the biological and moral equivalent of real sex between men and women. We are made to believe that there’s nothing wrong or sick about a man having his penis cut off or a woman having her breasts sliced off in order to be physically transformed into the opposite sex. Thus, one lie has been replaced by another lie. If in the past, homos were forced to lie about their true sexual nature, today, WE are forced to lie to ourselves that homosexuality is the biological and moral equivalent of real sexuality between men and women that produces life and serves truly reproductive functions. Homos weren’t merely content to come out of the closet. They became hellbent on vilifying all those who refused to celebrate homosexuality and continued to be critical of homosexuality; such people were declared mentally ill with ‘homophobia’ and deserving to be tarred-and-feathered and pushed into the PC closet. And this was enabled with the support of Jews who control the politicians, media, law courts, Hollywood, US government.

The Jomo Cabal

Real sex, even for the sake of pleasure than reproduction, is a reproductive act because sexual pleasure exists because organisms evolved to reproduce. Thus, even when birth control is used and no new life is produced from the sexual act, the drives and desires behind sex are rooted in reproduction. Therefore, when we are forced to espouse and spout the notion that homo ‘sex’ is equally valid — as if the fecal anus is like a ‘male vagina’ — , we are living a lie. The only way to be honest about homosexuality is to say it’s a naturally occurring defect — as there are natural norms, there are natural defects or abnormalities, such as being born deaf, blind, prone to diabetes or developing breast cancer, etc. — , and therefore, homos should be allowed to reject normal sexuality and do their homo stuff and not be persecuted for it. That way, both homos and straight folks can be honest about themselves. But as things stand today, we are forced — by law, culture, schools, businesses, and etc. — to believe that homosexuality is just as naturally normal, healthy, and meaningful as real sexuality. And those who disagree must go into the closet and keep their views of homosexuality to themselves as they will be persecuted, prosecuted, discriminated against, and blacklisted by the system rigged by Jewish oligarchs.
Rejecting the notion of ‘gay marriage’ is not to punish homos — no more than rejecting the teaching of Creationism in public schools argued in favor of ‘science equality’ is to ‘hate’ Christian Fundamentalists — but to say homosexuality doesn’t qualify for recognition by the institution of marriage that, in order for it to be meaningful, must be a fusion of biology and morality. The notion that a man and a woman using their complementary sexual organs to have and enjoy sex and possibly to produce children is no better and no more meaningful than two homo men sticking each other in the fecal holes with their penises is patently absurd to anyone with sense. A penis cannot have sex with a penis. A vagina cannot have sex with a vagina. So, a homo penis pretends that a fecal tunnel of another man is a ‘male vagina’. So a lesbian vagina can at best ‘kiss’ another lesbian vagina in ridiculous grinding motion; hole cannot enter a hole. Homo men and women should enjoy such acts if such give them pleasure, but why must we be forced to recognize the equality between sexual abnormality/deviancy and true sexuality that uses complementary sexual organs and produces life? (If homos were open-minded and decent, they would understand this, but being snotty, sneering, vapid, vain, bitchy, and narcissistic, homos regard any denial of their demands as ‘hateful’ and ‘anti-gay’. That’s like a child demanding a toy, and if it’s denied, throwing tantrums that her parents are anti-child and anti-toy. Of course, hideously pushy Jews act this way too. If we don’t support Israel 100% or praise Jews 24/7, we are said to be ‘antisemitic’ and ‘hateful’. It’s no wonder that white gentile politicians are rolling over like dogs and barking at Russia to please Jews. If not, they’ll be accused of being ‘anti-American’, which has become synonymous with ‘anti-Jewish’ as Jews now control just about all aspects of domestic and foreign policies to serve Jewish interests.) Not only does real sex produce normal men and women, but it also produces homos. Even homos depend on real sex for their very existence. No organism was ever produced by homo ‘sex’. And yet, we are forced to believe in the fiction of equality of true sexuality and homosexuality or inverse sexuality(or inversexuality). If homos had insisted on the freedom to be homo while also accepting their difference from biological and social norms, it could have been great for both sides. Both sides could have lived with truth and honesty. But two factors derailed such possibility. One is the fact that homos, by nature, tend to be haughty, arrogant, narcissistic, petulant, sneering, and aristocratic-like. Consider the fruitkin in THE LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN.

Homos and ‘aristocratics’ have something in common because both exhibit the combination of masculine and feminine traits. Aristocrats were men of higher status and finer manners who set themselves apart from the unwashed masses. Since masculinity is associated with roughness and femininity with fineness, aristocratic men were raised to affect effeminate styles of dress and manners. Even though the aristocracy developed out of the rough-and-tough warrior caste, their wealth and privilege made them collectors of fancy things and patrons of artists and designers, many of whom were whoopsy-doopsy fruitkins. Thus, the European aristocratic style increasingly became ‘gayer’ and ‘gayer’.

If the rise of America, the French Revolution and Napoleonic nationalism, and the progression of capitalism had one positive outcome, it was that the fruity aristocratic style gave way to a more robust, vigorous, honest, and masculine way of honor and dignity. The ‘gayish’ aristocrats had turned honor and dignity into a matter of tutti-fruity style as if one’s superiority depended on how effeminately one’s face was powdered, how daintily one’s pistol was held, or how ‘faggishly’ one’s hip was postured at a costume ball. This is why, even in our homomaniacal age, most people don’t want to see another version of THE THREE MUSKETEERS. Them fellas look too fruity. In contrast, manhood in America was defined not by froopy-doopy style but can-do spirit of hardworking men. And the French Revolution finally crushed the pain-in-the-ass aristocrats with their fancy ‘gayish’ manners even though the many of the Revolutionaries had something ‘gayish’ about them as well. It was Napoleon and his mass nationalism that really established a new kind of man in the French Civilization, one that was robust and hardy.
To be sure, there were many great glories associated with French aristocratic traditions. Indeed, the great irony of the eventual defeat of Napoleon was that it was accomplished by European monarchs and aristocrats who had been French-ized and were fighting to restore classical French culture. Even the far-away Russian monarchs and aristocrats were Franco-phone Franco-philes who were better versed in French literature and French ways than in their own cultures. Given that France had for so long been associated with its monarchical and aristocratic hierarchy/glory, the French Revolution and rise of French nationalism seemed to be anti-French. From this perspective, the French were fighting to spread anti-Frenchness all across Europe, and the rest of Europe was fighting to restore Frenchness in France. And with the failure of Napoleon, French aristocratism was restored in France even though the genie of the Revolutionary spirit and momentum could never again be put back in the bottle. The French since the Revolution have had an ambivalent relation with their aristocratic heritage. Too much of French glory, tradition, culture, and greatness cannot be appreciated apart from its monarchical and aristocratic traditions. It was a grand magnificent cake prepared for kings. And yet, the modern masses of the modern world called for bread, and the cult of ‘reason’ waged war on France-as-a-fancy-cakery in the name of France-as-mass-bakery. (Needless to say, homos today are making a huge fuss about ‘wedding cakes’.) Therefore, the French Revolution was about the grand cake worthy for kings vs bread for the masses. Though Marie Antoinette was mocked for the words, "let them eat cake" — something historians doubt she said, or if she said it, has been misunderstood — , the words proved prophetic because the French historical compromise decided on ‘cake for the masses’. The French simply couldn’t do away with their past monarchic/aristocratic glory, but they also had to appeal to the masses in the spirit inherited from the Revolution. Therefore, the French state has been trying to universalize the cake as available to everyone. So, after WWII, the French social-democratic system offered free admission to highbrow plays to the workers. A workers’ paradise where workers eat cake. Not surprisingly, universal cake-hood has proven to be extremely costly to French society, which is why its economy has been running out of dough.

Today, inversexuals are especially a pain in the ass because their innate haughty aristocratics is supported by — and imitative of — Jewish power that is no less neurotic, arrogant, hypocritical, and nasty. As people with sense may have noticed, Jews demand special privileges and honors for themselves. We all know that power in whatever form is hypocritical by nature. Great power and grand principles simply cannot be joined at the hip. The more power/wealth/privilege one accumulates, the more one has to play loose with principles to keep them. And to gain even more, one has to play the ‘game of power’, which is more about cunning and strategy than principles and consistency. Just look at Jewish behavior pertaining to the Middle East and Ukraine.
Given the hypocrisy at the core of all great powers, Jews shrewdly tore into Wasp power, Christian power, Russian power, white power, and European power in order to expose their big hypocrisies and shame them as phonies. Of course, Jews were right in pointing this out as the great gentile powers were indeed very hypocritical. But then, there hasn’t been a hypocritical civilization; and greater the civilization, greater its hypocrisy.
And this has been no less true of Jews than of other great peoples. Jewish history is filled with spiritual, moral, political, and cultural hypocrisies, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Given this fact, one would think that whenever a Jew points to a hypocrisy among gentiles, the gentiles would have return the favor(by pointing to Jewish hypocrisies), and indeed, this had been par for the course case prior to WWII. But due to the Holocaust, Jews crafted a clever narrative that associated the exposé of Jewish hypocrisy with ‘antisemitism’ which then was associated with the Holocaust. So, if Jews expose Wasp, German, Russian, Muslim, Iranian, Catholic, or Protestant hypocrisies, that’s speaking truth to power. But if gentiles point to Jewish hypocrisies, that’s an ‘antisemitic canard’ since any critical view of Jews is deviously associated by Jews(who control the media and academia)with the Holocaust. Thus, Jewish hypocrisies cannot be spelled out even as Jews never stop pointing to Wasp and gentile hypocrisies. Jews say, ‘Wasps claimed this and this but really did that and that’, but if Wasps said, ‘Jews claim this and this, but do that and that’, they would be slammed as ‘anti-Semites’ spreading false canards about Jews — as if, indeed, Jewish history and power have always been synonymous with principles, honor, trust, goodness, virtue, and decency. Jews think and feel this way, and with inversexuals taking their cues from Jews, they’re becoming no less painful and insufferable. Both sides judge others but tell the others to be non-judgmental toward Jews and inversexuals. As Jews control the politicians, media, and academia, they can get away with such rank hypocrisy.

Anyway, what does it mean to ‘win a culture war’? Jews and inversexuals think they won some epochal war between light and darkness, between good and evil, because they hoodwinked countless dumb, insipid, shallow, vapid, inane, and/or decadent Americans and Europeans into recognizing inversexuality as the biological and moral equivalent of true sexuality. They think they’re on the right side of history because sizable majorities in many Western nations now worship inversexuals. (It’s interesting how the argument for ‘gay rights’ began on minoritarian principles, i.e. just because the majority opposes it doesn’t mean that the majority is right. Today, what with so many Americans and Europeans having been duped into worshiping the homo, we hear the majoritarian argument for ‘gay marriage’. How can it be wrong when the majority are for it? Since the majority that is pro-‘gay marriage’ is so right, if you belong in the minority that still oppose it, you must be declared the ‘new abnormal’ and banned from public life. So, just like the issue of ‘free speech rights’, there are no principles involved in the promotion of ‘gay marriage’. When Jewish leftists were hounded by anti-communists in the 1950s, Jews were on the side of freedom of speech and against blacklisting people on ideological grounds or for espousing offensive views. Jews pretended to be oh-so-principled. Today, with Jews controlling the elite institutions, they want American laws to conform to European ones that forbid criticism of Jewish power and Jewish role in history. When the vast majority opposed ‘gay marriage’, Jews and inversexuals said the minority must be protected from the majority. But now that so many dumb Americans have been sold on ‘gay marriage’ and foam at the mouth over it — indeed, as one of the top 5 moral causes of all time — , Jews and inversexuals say that all of us must obey the majority since the majority is on the right side of history. Needless to say, most Conservatives are either craven cowards and majority-worshiping tards, which is why, one by one, they are lining up to bend over to the homo agenda or refusing to resist and fight back even as they continue to oppose ‘gay marriage’ in principle. If Conservatives are such pussies who cannot even do culture battle with homos, how do they expect to win any future conflicts? If Conservatives are truly serious, they need to go to the source of homo power. Homos draw their strength from alliance with Jews. It’s like Rudolf Hess was nothing about Hitler. It’s like Chiang Chang was nothing without the backing of Mao during the Cultural Revolution. It’s like Beria was vulnerable without Stalin’s support. It’s like George Harrison would have been nothing if not for Lennon and McCartney who really made the Beatles. Inversexuals would fall apart without the support of Jews, just like Tataglia was nothing without Barzini in THE GODFATHER and the Rosato Brothers in THE GODFATHER PART II relied on Hyman Roth.

Therefore, conservatives need to focus on Jewish power. Just as Jews browbeat gentile power by pointing out its moral hypocrisies, gentiles must go at Jews with the same kind of drive and determination. Jewish hypocrisies must be picked off one by one. As Jews are the most powerful people in the world, their power also happens to be the most hypocritical. Just look at Jewish role in finance, academia, foreign policy, media, entertainment, sports franchise, porn, politics, and etc. It’s an orgy of hypocrisy upon hypocrisy upon hypocrisy. But as we’ve been led to worship Jews as the angels of Holocaustianity, we lack a rational, factual, skeptical, and critical approach to Jewish power. We have Anne-Frank-as-Virgin-Mary stuck in our minds. When you worship someone, something, or some people, your mental faculties go out the window. It’s like God is full of contradictions, but the contradictions could not be addressed by the faithful since He was supposed to be perfect and it would have been blasphemous to doubt His infinite wisdom. Since Jews are not merely admired but downright worshiped, most gentiles in the West do not think rationally or critically about Jews. They just kneel at the altar of Jewishness and beg forgiveness even when Jews did them wrong. So, Jewish hypocrisies are not exposed. So, Jews, the most powerful and richest people in the world, still carry on like they’re poor helpless victims who need our love, compassion, and money to survive.
Jews say they need Israel for survival after the Holocaust, but then, Jews also say Israel is in a precarious position because it’s surrounded by evil Muslims who wanna carry out another Holocaust. Just think about the absurdity of such argument. Jews need a homeland of their own to escape from another possible holocaust in the future, and yet, they insist on maintaining their homeland in a region raging with hostile Muslims. Does that make any sense? Couldn’t all those rich Jews after WWII have persuaded the great powers to carve out a little piece of territory in some part of Africa, Australia, Canada, US, or USSR that was virtually empty of people? And if America loves Jews so much, couldn’t a piece of America been given to Jews? If not back then, why not now? Wouldn’t the Jewish state be safer as part of American territory than in a land teeming with hostile Muslims? But don’t expect any sense when discussing Jewish issues. Jews are always right, we are always wrong(unless agreeing with Jews). We can only be right by consenting to Jewish justifications and demands at every turn.(If Jews insist on the necessity of Israel in order to avoid future holocausts in gentile lands, what does it imply? That Jews don’t trust Americans, Australians, and Canadians? If Jews want their homeland among hostile Muslims who number in the hundreds of millions, it must mean they feel safer next to Muslims than next to Americans, Canadians, and Australians. It must mean Jews trust whites in America, Australia, and Canada less than they trust hostile Muslim neighbors. And yet, Americans, Canadians, and Australians — who are distrusted by Jews — praise and worship Jews.)

Jewish Geographical Logic of Self-Preservation

When we take a wider view of history, winning a ‘culture war’ doesn’t mean much. The ‘wrong’ side can win, or the ‘right’ side can win. But either way, nothing is for certain and forever because there’s always the chance of people seeing the light or falling into darkness. For many centuries, the Chinese thought foot-binding was a sign of the superiority of Chinese culture. So, foot-binders won the culture war and prevailed over vast expanses of time and space of Chinese history. But where is foot-binding now? During Roman times, gladiatorial entertainment were part of bread-and-circuses. The brutalists in Rome seemed to have won the culture war in the name of blood sport on a massive scale. But what became of Rome? There was a time when communist culture seemed to be the only game in town in Russia, Eastern Bloc nations, and China. Where is it now? Slavery once made sense to so many people in the American South. Serfdom made sense to the Russians until the 19th century. One could argue that the advancement of the homo agenda is part of the larger cultural-moral tidal wave favoring greater equality, liberty, tolerance, and ‘inclusion’; and indeed, to the extent that society came to acknowledge that inversexuals are born that way and should be left alone, it was a moral, social, and cultural advancement.
But that is not the core of the current radical homo agenda, for the homo community, backed up by Jews, demand that inversexuality be recognized as being of equal biological, moral, and social value as true sexuality between men and women. While homo demands made for greater freedom for all until the 80s, they’ve since grown corrupt and power-mad in association of Jewish power and, as such, insist that we bend over to their every whim. Homos now act like aristocrats who feel they have a right to push us around. And homosexuals, just like Jews, even as they snub and push us around, expect us to see them as poor helpless victims deserving of our sympathy. Homos have no sense of value or decency outside their so-called LGBT narcissism. They think marriage exists to serve homos just like Jews think gentiles exist to serve Jews. They think straight people exist to make life easy for homos. Homos think they are the center of the world. When homos insisted on being recognized for being born different, most people came to agree because the evidence was overwhelming. And even though most sane people have a natural aversion to what homo men do, they were willing to let homos be free to do their thing. But that was never enough for the selfish, self-centered, and self-aggrandizing quasi-aristocratic homos who demand that we honor, welcome, and celebrate homosexuality. Inversexuals are now so arrogant and deluded that they say something like "I Wasn't Born This Way. I Choose to Be Gay." In their demented minds, homosexuality is so wonderful that it’d be great for men to CHOOSE to be ‘gay’.

Now, what kind of a naturally normal man would CHOOSE to suck another’s penis? Or finger his anus? Or bend over and spread his ass cheeks so that his fecal hole can be pummeled by another guy? What naturally normal guy who feels no weird lust for another man would want to CHOOSE to bugger another guy in the fecal hole and have his penis smeared with feces? We might as well ask "what’s wrong with a straight guy CHOOSING to be a tranny?" So, a naturally normal guy should one day choose to have his penis cut off and be pumped full of artificial hormones so he can become like a woman.
So, homos first insisted that homos and trannies are the way they are because they were born that way, and that they can’t help it. And it’s wrong for us to expect them to CHOOSE to be straight. Next, the homos said being homosexual is just as biologically and morally valid as being true-sexual. So, even though homo-sex cannot produce life, homos should be allowed to adopt children as ‘same-sex parents’. Butt now, some fruitkins are beginning to say straight people should CHOOSE to be homo. (The New Republic is now totally in cahoots with Wall Street, Hollywood, and other elite super-privileged institutions in redefining leftism as a movement that primarily praises and celebrates homosexuals and ‘gay marriage’. It’s giddy with joy that the rise of ‘gay marriage’ was aided and abetted by super-corporate America and its media/advertising wings of crony capitalism with close links to corrupt lobbies in Washington D.C. With ‘leftism’ like this, who needs aristocratism?) What sane person would CHOOSE to be ‘gay’? It’s like choosing to be deaf or blind. Can someone imagine a normal guy waking up one morning and thinking, "Gee, I think I will trying sucking dicks today. Then, I’ll ask my buddy to ram me in the ass." Of course, what the fruitkin author of the article really wants is for straight people to put to the likes of him in the name of ‘experimentalism’. Since homos are less than 2% of the population, most people are out of reach of homo-lust. Even most guys who support ‘gay marriage’ will not kiss another guy, let alone be rammed in the ass by him. So, homos want straight people to be ‘open-minded’ and ‘open-anused’ and maybe try out the ‘gay thing’. It’s like how the Negro homo in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION smooth-talks a white Liberal dweeb into trying homo-sex, and the dumb white-ass succumbs to the Negro’s cum.

Paradoxically, hipster-bohemian-ism can turn people into earnest/square dupes, especially if they’re from a small town or the suburbs. A young person or a rube who may be so eager to accepted as ‘cool’ and ‘hip’ in the big city that he will go — or bend over — to any lengths to be accepted as part of the crowd. So, the white sucker in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, being a wanna-be-hipster-bohemian, was even willing to bend over and be rammed in the ass by a jive-ass Negro homo because that might be ‘cool’. It’s no wonder that so many suburban people flock to cities during the ‘gay pride parade’. Though they consider themselves to be ‘hip’ and ‘cool’, they are really earnestly conformist in their willingness to prove that they are ‘hip’ and ‘cool’.
This was what Bob Dylan understood. Though he grew up in a small town among ‘rubes’, he was sharper, wiser, and shrewder than even the ‘hip’ and ‘cool’ city-slicker folks who grew up in the big city. In NY, he played everyone and saw right through them. But most ‘rubes’ who wanna prove their bohemian credentials, upon reaching the big city, fall into earnestly embracing every vice and lice to prove that they are so cool as opposed to square. It’s no wonder that so many small-town people who go to places like NY or Hollywood ended up badly. They earnestly think being ‘cool’ and ‘hip’ means sleeping with everyone, indulging all kinds of drugs, and using lots of cuss words. Look at Iris(Jodie Foster) in TAXI DRIVER. She is corrupt but still ‘innocently’ naive and earnest. Strange men may be ‘balling’ her in the ass, but she thinks of herself as a ‘cool’ person with a stake in the city when she’s just used as a piece of meat. She thinks Sport(Harvey Keitel)cares about her. It’s like that song, "Poor Side of Town" by Johnny Rivers. A girl thought she was so ‘cool’ and special by going with some rich city slicker, but she was really just a toy.


The current mania for homos and trannies is the product of an alignment of many social, cultural, political, and economic forces and trends. There is the Jewish control of elite institutions. There is the convergence between Liberalism and neo-liberal economic policies that were achieved under Bill Clinton. There’s the Jewish abandonment of classic leftism based on class, the working poor, labor unions, and serious intellectuals(as opposed to mere cultural fashionistas). Especially as Wall Street went from Wasp GOP control to Jasp(Jewish Ashkenazi supremacist propagators)Democratic control, the new ‘progressivism’ tends to be elite-friendly, and what is more elite-friendly than the homo community with its fetish for fancy-pansy things? Homos love to work in fashion, design, arts, culture, and entertainment. They love to do the hair of rich women. They love to shmooze up to the rich. As male homos have an effeminate side, they have a fondness for the finer things in life.
As homos were seen as ‘oppressed’ outsiders, one might think they would have forged an alliance with the unwashed masses who were also, at least according to traditional leftism, oppressed and ‘exploited’ by the rich and privileged elites. But no such alliance formed for mutually hostile reasons. The unwashed masses — especially among blacks and non-whites — tended to see fruitkins as ridiculous ‘faggoty-ass motherfuc*ers’. And fancy-pants homos looked down on the unwashed masses as dirty, uncouth, vulgar, trashy, boring, and knuckleheaded. Similarly, Jews failed to form a meaningful alliance with masses of poor-or-working-class gentiles who tended to be more tribal and psychologically conservative(and wary of outsiders), as well as anti-intellectual. So naturally, both Jews and homos moved up the social ladder than marched alongside working class/poor folks of the world. And once they gained entry into the elite world, they forged alliances with other elites among the gentile or straight community. And as Jews control the media, they can shape hearts and minds anyway they want. Whoever owns a TV or goes to the movies is handing over his or her eyes and ears to the Jews. We think, "I saw this" or "I saw that", as if each of us makes an active decision of freedom. But in effect, it’s not so much "I saw this or that" than "Jews showed me this." While we do choose what movies and TV shows to see, the truth is almost of all of them are written, produced, and/or directed by Jews, homos, and/or Liberals. Therefore, we are pretty much surrendering our hearts and minds to be massaged, manipulated, and owned by Jews, homos, and/or Liberals. It’s no wonder that so many dumb young Americans are sold on the notion that inversexuals are angels, more decent than decent, cleaner than clean, more normal than normal. Utterly uprooted from family, tradition, community, and roots, they are sensually and intellectually owned by Jews, homos, and/or Liberals who own, run, and control the media and academia. And a lot of Conservatives are bending over too. Not only do Conservatives feel a morality deficit in accordance to Political Correctness, but they have a ‘coolness deficit’ since most music stars, movie stars, celebrities, writers, and artists are Liberal. So, Conservatives tend to turn to Libertarianism that at least has the likes of Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Or, Conservatives try to associate themselves with words like ‘radical’, ‘anarchist’, ‘Nietzschean’, ‘Dark Enlightenment’, or some such hokum to sound ‘cutting edge’. (Sensible people look to neo-fascism.) Since ‘gay’ is now ‘cool’, many Conservatives jump on the bandwagon(or fruitbasket)since they don’t want to appear ‘lame’ or ‘square’. But then, given that the Conservative Mind is essentially conformist and obedient, most Conservatives will cravenly accept the new order and embrace it as the ‘new conservative’. Just look how Conservatives kneel before MLK cult and suck up to Jews. One day, most Conservatives will bend over to the homo agenda. Given this fact about Conservatives, it’s doubtful that the Cold War was won by American Conservatives. How could a people who are so craven before a cabal of homos have stood up to the mighty USSR? After all, Richard Nixon sought to win praise from Liberals and Jews by betraying Taiwan and making peace with arch-communist Mao.
Perhaps, the strong anti-communist stance of Reagan and American Conservatives in the 1980s was paradoxically a sign of Conservative cowardice than courage, i.e. American Conservatives were willing to get tough with the USSR as compensation for their total cowardice when it came to Jews, Liberals, blacks, feminists, and homos. Since American Conservatives wetted their pants whenever they were accused of ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, or whatever-else-ism, they kept retreating and losing the social-and-political battles at home. Even Nixon’s social policies were ultra-Liberal that included expansion of ‘affirmative action’ to Hispanics and forced busing of white students into Jafro-Jive neighborhoods. Since American Conservatives were utter cowards when it came to fighting the domestic conflicts, they could only be tough against foreign enemies. So, the bulk of American Conservative machismo in the 1980s was expended against the USSR while Liberal social and cultural policies continued to gain dominance in American society.

And we see the same pattern today. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who are total cowards when it comes to domestic issues — and always caving into and serving their Jewish-and-homo masters — , bitch and bark madly when it comes to Russia and Vladimir Putin. It’s like, since dogs cannot bark at their masters, they bark at strangers and other dogs(at least those against whom barking is tolerated by the masters — after all, when did McCain or Graham ever bark about the Israeli bombing of Gaza that killed over a thousand women and children?) For this reason, we need to the reconsider the possible myth of Reagan as a courageous Cold Warrior. Conservatives remember Reagan as a strong and solid leader, but Reagan’s toughness against the USSR may have been merely compensation for his total weakness against Jews, Negroes, homos, and feminists — and illegal aliens whom he amnestied in the millions.
Furthermore, opposing the USSR by the late 70s and 80s was only doing the bidding of the Jews. With Jews having been disillusioned with the communization of Indochina and with Jews being ‘persecuted’ in the USSR, even most Liberal Jews had lost most of their fondness for the grand Soviet experiment that had once stirred up passions in the Jewish-American community. (Incidentally, Jews remind us of how the ‘affirmative action’ policies favoring Russians over Jews in the USSR were ‘discriminatory’ and ‘oppressive’, but the very same Jews insist that Jews, blacks, and Hispanics should gain via ‘affirmative action’ at the expense of white gentiles in America. Jews are defacto beneficiaries of ‘affirmative action’ since they count as ‘whites’, which means that white gentiles than Jews are sacrificed by ‘affirmative action’ to favor less qualified blacks and Hispanics.) Jews used American Conservatives to finish off the USSR and Iraq(in the Gulf War), and then used Clinton and New Democrats to finish off American Conservatism. But then, it is true that American Conservatism has long been pretty useless. It’s become the meeting place of stupidity and ignorance, pigheadedness and arch-prejudice, cravenness and cowardice, greed and snobbery, vulgarity and infantilism, thickskulledness and stagnation, and blandness and dullness. Whatever positive qualities Pat Buchanan has, his orthodox views on homos as ‘sodomites’, his arch-Catholic positions in a politically secular nation, and his demagogic style did much to alienate a lot of people — even if such had entertainment value on TV. Then, there are Conservatives who lack curiosity and feel a kneejerk hostility against anyone or anything that is different. Hating is understandable when justified by facts and truth. It’s reasonable to dislike Negroes because they are stronger and more aggressive, therefore a threat to the well-being of the white race. It’s sensible to distrust Jews since they’re smarter & cunning and use their power to undermine and subvert the interests of the majority. It’s natural to be wary of Gypsies or Roma since many of them are thieving louts. But many Conservatives sneer at things and peoples simply because they’re ‘strange’ and different. Though I’m not a fan of Muslims, what is the chance of Sharia Law taking over America? And yet, dumb Conservatives totally overlook the much greater danger of Jewish power and fixate endlessly on some idiotic nonsense about Obama being a stealth Muslim scheming to push Sharia Law on all of us. Many Conservatives crave this need to hate the Other, and today, the Other is Russians and Putin(who is said to be the new Hitler).

Because of this ‘we must blow them up real good’ mentality, Conservatives are the easiest and biggest suckers for Neocon war-drum-beating.
And then, there’s amoral greed that defines much of the Libertarian community around Grover Norquist for whom all of human relations is reduced to nickels and dimes, with everything up for sale or up for grabs. Then, there are the snobs who, like William F. Buckley, turn up their noses at the masses and think themselves so oh-so-fine.
On the other hand, since the masses have to be energized to vote for candidates handpicked by the rich, there is the cynical use of populism by the Conservative elites to fool us into believing that someone like George W. Bush — who was born with a silver spoon up his ass — is ‘one of us’. Or they get a political stripper like Sarah Palin to shake her ass in front of Neocon donors, and sure, she’s supposed to be ‘one of us’ too.
And then, there are lots of Conservatives who aren’t only nice but for whom niceness — and being liked and approved — is like their philosophy and religion. So, when times change, they change with the times in accordance with the ‘new nice’. Since it’s ‘not nice’ to oppose ‘gay marriage’, many of these spineless ‘nice’ Conservatives are bending over to the homo agenda. To be ‘nice’. While we can honor the likes of Pat Buchanan for not bending over to the homos, part of the reason why American Conservatism failed to formulate a reasonable position on the homo issue is because there’s nothing between modes of mean-spirited hostility and spineless ‘niceness’. For Buchanan and his ilk, homos are sodomite scum who should be denounced totally. For Kathleen Parker and her ilk, if supporting ‘gay marriage’ is what being ‘nice’ is all about, oh gee, why not just go along to get along? With such mindless dipshittery on both sides of Conservatism, it’s no wonder that America has become so ridiculous.

At any rate, culture wars are never won forever. It seemed Christianity won for all time, but look at its demise in Europe today. And look at the clown-show American Christianity has become, so much so that it can’t even effectively stand against ‘gay marriage’ and the hideous Jews.
But then, if a great religion steeped in tradition can be rendered meaningless almost overnight, what chance is there of homo worship lasting forever? Once the scales fall from their eyes, people will come to realize what a sham(and a shame) all this ‘gay pride’ cult really is. But as long as Americans’ eyes are covered with mass media cataracts of Jew-worship and homo-worship, they will continue with their stupid ways — until a major socio-economic crisis grips the nation. After all, it took the Great Depression to sober Americans up from the frivolities of the so-called Jazz Age.

The so-called ‘millennials’(aka millennions), having grown up in the age of Clinton, SOUTH PARK, FAMILY GUY, HARRY POTTER, Justin Timberlake, and Kanye West — and in a world of amnesia that is completely disconnected from the roots of white America that is, when mentioned, vilified by venal Jews — , are the shallowest and trashiest generation to have ever existed. At least the 60s generation, despite all the stupid things they did, had to struggle for their freedom(even if they wasted much of it on sex, drugs, Rock, and dumb politics). At least, they were striking into new territory and had to experiment. The ‘millennials’ grew up without struggle as their boomer parents(or boomer grandparents)paved the way for a world of permissive hedonism without guilt or shame. Millennions grew up like the self-satisfied jerks in the foul(albeit funny at times) Seth Rogan movie THIS IS THE END. Thus, there is no element of struggle among the millennions, as everything has been handed to them on a silver platter or iPad. Worse, they’ve been baby-fed on Political Correctness from the cradle, and so, millennials are incapable of thinking individualistically. While earlier generations were hardly free-thinkers, what’s truly galling about millennials’ conformism is the conceit that they are free-thinking individuals on the social libertarian and/or ‘radically progressive’ model. Millennials think if they drink a lot of booze and hook up to have casual sex(like Lena Dunham on GIRLS), they are ‘liberated’ and ‘empowered’. They think if they get together and smoke weed all night — like Harold and Kumar — , they are hip and cool. So much for originality and individuality. Millennions think if they ape their ‘radical professors’ in college and support ‘gay marriage’, they are cutting-edge and subversive in their ‘coolness’ and huggy-wuggy in their compassion, when, in fact, they are nothing but brain-addled minions and running dogs of their control-freak armchair-revolutionary professors and mavens of the elite media. And especially with all this social networking and interconnectuality, millennions tend to all sound like one another. It’s no wonder that ‘gay marriage’ is such a cause celebre among the millennions. It has the vibes of morality without true morality. It has the feel of radicalism while serving the interests of status and privilege. It comes with colors and celebrations that make it all very fun like TELETUBBY, the show they grew up with. It’s like ‘muppet radicalism’. And it feels ‘liberating’ since homos are not only coming out of the closet but publicly making a spectacle of themselves as proud fecal penetrators or penis-or-breast-cutters. In a world where the porn-ization of culture is seen as ‘empowering’, the ‘gay’ cause is a perfect partner-in-crime. The sham paradise of shamelessness where female politicians giggle with glee over their ‘transgression’ of having said ‘vagina’. So, this is the culture war that the so-called ‘left’ won. And they are proud of the fact that they won it with the help with the shallowest, trashiest, dumbest, most obedient, most conformist, most infantile, and most smug/glib/dweeby generation that ever existed? Granted, millennials cannot be blamed since they didn’t create the world they were born into. And in that sense, they need to be pitied.

In the long view of history, what we’ve witnessed is a culture battle, not a culture war. Something so silly as ‘gay marriage’ cannot be part of any long-term victory. It is a moral and biological lie, and lies begat and encourage other lies, and eventually all those lies lead to downfall. Is it any wonder that the proponents of ‘same sex marriage’ also push the notion of ‘undocumented immigrants’? Is it any wonder that the main controllers of current PC are the venal, hideous, and nasty Jews whose supremacism is unquenchable in its craziness, even stirring up trouble in Ukraine in order to use it as a bridge in the Jewish conquest of Russia? But how far can lies go? As long as social and economic conditions are bearable, many people will just go along to enjoy what they have. But lies and falsehoods undermine social and moral order in the long run. As the very meaning of marriage and family come under assault, as hedonism becomes the religion of the age, as braindead political correctness is confused with individuality and courage of truth, and as Jews gain ever greater power while playacting the eternal-victim, something has to give eventually. And until that time, the primary objective of all true conservatives, all true liberals(in the positive sense of being open-minded and free-thinking), all true race-ists(those who believe in the truth of races and racial differences), and all true patriots should be towards understanding that Jews have been the main force behind the destruction of Europe and white America. And then, the true culture war can finally begin. In the West today — and possibly in the entire world — , the only culture war that really matters is whether a people want to own their own destinies or allow Jews to hijack them for their own self-aggrandizement.