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.

The Problems of Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox

Fruitkin as Prom Queen

As many have surely observed, one of the strangest social phenomena is the level of intense enthusiasm/exhilaration over things that are odd, weird, perverse, and even obscene. Why would this be? Shouldn’t people feel a natural aversion to things that are so obviously weird, distasteful, abnormal, and/or obscene? At best, shouldn’t the reaction of most people be that of reluctant tolerance? But instead, we see people getting all nuttily enthused about stuff like ‘gay pride parade’, ‘gay marriage’, and the ‘gay male prom queen’. So, what is going on? Why is that some things that are naturally abhorrent to most people are being received and praised with so much mindless enthusiasm, exhilaration, and even worship?

Perhaps, psychology has a term for such a response, but we will call it the ‘aversion-exhilaration paradox’. It is paradoxical since some of the wildest enthusiasm seems to be reserved for something that is so obviously off-putting, weird, ridiculous, ludicrous, perverse, and/or obscene.
We know that some things are easy for people to get enthused about. Who doesn’t like ice cream? So, if you tell kids that they’re gonna get ice cream, they’re happy. They don’t have to MAKE AN EFFORT to get happy since they’re naturally happy. And since the happiness and enthusiasm for ice cream come so naturally, there may not be much in the way of intensity of enthusiasm. Okay, so they love ice cream, and they’re gonna get some. Yum, and that’s that.

Now, take something kids don’t like, such as spinach — personally, I like it or hate it depending on how it’s prepared, but that’s another matter. Kids have a natural aversion to certain foods, and spinach is one of them for many children. So, they will naturally be disappointed if their parents say they have to eat a plateful of it. But suppose kids are told that spinach is holy food — indeed food of the gods —, and that if you don’t like spinach, you’re a mentally unbalanced spinachaphobe, you are a hater, and you’re just an all-around bad, bad child. Since kids want to be liked and win approval, they will feel shame for not liking it. And yet, deep down inside, they still don’t like it. But they have to like it because they’ve been told they’re awful unless they like it. So, the enthusiasm for spinach cannot be natural. It doesn’t come easily. It requires a lot of effort. Indeed, EXTRA EFFORT is called for in order to overcome the natural aversion to spinach. And even more EXTRA EFFORT in order to repress the fact that, deep down inside, one doesn’t really like spinach. So, one goes about acting like Popeye, as if spinach is the best-tasting, most wonderful, most nutritious, and most magical food in the world. So, paradoxically, the natural aversion to spinach and one’s effort to overcome it(and repress one’s doubt about one’s strained excitement for spinach)can make one even more enthusiastic of something one doesn’t like than of something that one naturally likes.

Indeed, consider the black queer ‘prom queen’ at the high school dance. What would be the natural response of any sane and normal person to such a thing? Laughter, ridicule, and mockery. I mean it looks like parody, silliness, childishness, stupidity, retardation, a joke. But society, as governed by the Jewish elites and their mini-me allies the homos, teaches young people that it’s terribly ‘sinful’, ‘unjust’, ‘unequal’, and ‘hateful to not ‘welcome’ and ‘celebrate’ homosexuality. After all, it’s no longer enough to just tolerate homosexuals. One MUST exhibit proof of enthusiasm, exhilaration, devotion, and even worship in order to be labeled a ‘good progressive’ person who’s against ‘hate’. So, kids must repress their natural inclination to laugh and ridicule the notion of some funny-ass black jiver queer ‘prom queen’. But since such enthusiasm simply doesn’t come naturally, they must make an EXTRA EFFORT to repress their doubts and to express their obligatory enthusiasm. Also, one must repress the fact that one is a wimp who is cowering to the demands of the powers-that-be that imposes such a ridiculous notion as ‘gay pride’ — pride over guys doing fecal penetration one another or men having their penises sliced off to be fitted with artificial vaginas. What is a potent way to hide one’s shame? By exhibiting extreme enthusiasm. Therefore, the aversion-exhilaration paradox.

Aversion-exhilaration paradox is more common than most people might think. So much of what we feel great enthusiasm about is actually something we feel a natural aversion to. Consider TV talk-shows where some ugly, crippled, and wretched woman is paraded onto the stage. Our natural reaction is obviously revulsion since we prefer the healthy and the normal. But since society tells us to feel compassion for the unfortunate, we repress our feelings of aversion. So far, so good, as we should feel sympathy for the unfortunate. We certainly shouldn’t harass, taunt, or torment people like, say, the famous Elephant Man. But what if that’s not enough? If society defacto forces us to praise the notion of ‘cripple pride’ — i.e. it’s not enough for us to feel sympathy for the unfortunate but we must praise, celebrate, and worship them — , then we must not only suppress our natural aversion but force ourselves to believe that we genuinely feel enthusiastic about the ‘beauty’ of crippled people. Since such feelings are not natural, we must make an EXTRA EFFORT to convince ourselves of such emotions and display them, and so our show of enthusiasm for ‘cripple pride’ may actually be even more powerful than our enthusiasm for beauty. After all, it doesn’t take any effort to admire beauty. It comes naturally and easily. And we don’t have to make a collective show of it since every individual feels so naturally drawn to beauty. And it doesn’t have to be imposed with mass hysteria and punitive taboos since what is more natural than finding pleasure in admiring beauty?

If anything, we feel an aversion to anti-beauty, and this is why extreme Islamic societies suffer from aversion-enthusiasm paradox when it comes to feminine beauty. Muslim men, like most men, naturally admire beauty and wanna see more of it. But Islam says feminine beauty displayed publicly is sinful, shameful, obscene, dirty, sacrilegious, and pretty bad stuff. So, Muslim men must repress their natural love of feminine beauty, and they must embrace the naturally aversive notion that beauty-shown-publicly is vile and wicked. They must force themselves to believe that women draped and veiled in black look pretty good. But since such aversive feelings don’t come naturally, Muslim men must make an EXTRA EFFORT to be anti-beauty. In this sense, the logic behind the current Western worship of ‘gays’ — propagated by Jews — and the logic behind the Islamic suppression of feminine beauty share an element of the aversion-exhilaration/enthusiasm paradox. Both are enforcing onto the masses what is naturally aversive. Western folks have to be pressured to believe that there’s beauty and honor in men porking their penises into the fecal holes of other men, in men having their body parts mutilated and their veins pumped with massive amounts of artificial hormones, and in two guys pretending that they are ‘two daddies’ or ‘daddy and mommy’, indeed as if the anus or poo-sy is the same as pussy. The homo agenda would also have us believe that the rainbow is the symbol of male fecal penetration among homos, of two lesbians having sex by humping a hole with a hole(???), and of a black guy cutting off his penis and putting on a wig and calling himself a blonde lady.

Laverne Cox the Black Guy as Blonde Woman

This sort of thing used to be reserved for Mad Magazine and the Onion when this nation had a healthy sense of satire and irony. Today, you better accept and praise it with a straight face, or else, you will be accused and attacked as a ‘hater’ and be destroyed worse than any Stalinist, Maoist, or communist spy/subversive was blacklisted during the so-called ‘McCarthy Era’. (Btw, given that so many far-right and Nazi sympathizers had their careers destroyed during the WWII era, how come that period isn’t denounced as the sinister ‘Roosevelt Blacklist Era’? Of course, Jews and Liberals control the academia and media, and they’re only offended by blacklist against the far left but never against the far right. It’s the same today in places like London where a university banned a club because it discusses the ideas of right-wing philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. Welcome to the Jew World Order. Jewish defense of freedom of speech was always about opportunism, never about principles.)

Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox is also common among soldiers. After all, soldiers are humans, and humans naturally don’t want to get shot, torn to pieces, stabbed with bayonets, blown to bits, crippled, blinded, and etc., all of which happen all too often in wars. Also, many soldiers don’t want to kill civilians, even of the enemies. But soldiers don’t have a choice. Once drafted or volunteered into the force, they must shut up and obey orders as long as they are in uniform. Even in a volunteer army, one is free only when one volunteers. Once entered into the service, one is essentially an attack dog of the elites, and since US is run by Jews, American soldiers are nothing more than attack dogs of the likes of Victoria Nuland and other vile hideous Jews who send goy boys to do all the killing, dying, and getting maimed for Jewish supremacist interests.
Since soldiers must do as they’re told and must repress their fears, they must make an EXTRA EFFORT to convince themselves and others of their great fighting spirit and enthusiasm for war. Prior to the Iraq Invasion, American soldiers were shown clips of APOCALYPSE NOW and encouraged to rock to songs like ‘Rock the Casbah’ by the Clash. Soldiers must hide all their fears since it might seem wussy, dishonorable, and even treasonous on the eve of war. So, the very soldiers who are naturally sick in the stomach with fear and anxiety about battles-to-be-fight can seem the most delirious and passionate in their willingness to charge into the battlefield in order to die for ‘national glory’. Consider ‘Ron Kovic’ prior to be shipped off to Vietnam in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY. He tries so hard to convince himself that it’s going to be a great adventure where he gets to play the great hero. In a way, the aversion-exhilaration paradox is the basic idea behind SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. The film begins in a manner that is so harrowing that we feel a natural aversion to combat. Most viewers naturally feel, "gee, I’m sure I wasn’t there and I never wanna end up in combat." But the inspirational John Williams music, the Norman Rockwellian iconography of the soldiers-transforming-into-heroes, the uh-goshy patriotism and paeans to the virtues of sacrifice, and all that stuff make the audience feel guilty about feeling any doubts about the nobility of the men’s mission to fight the war and save Ryan. So, by the movie’s end, the audience is made to feel in terms of "Have I been a GOOD man?" Since ‘goodness’ is measured by one’s willingness to fight and die in a war to rid the world of the main enemy of Jews, the audience is ‘inspired’ — and emotionally manipulated, brutalized, and coerced — to repress their natural aversion to getting blown up in war and to replace it with great enthusiasm. Not surprisingly, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was soon followed by TV shows like BAND OF BROTHERS that lionized the ‘greatest generation’.

Overcoming aversion is necessary in any moral order. It’s even necessary for good health. After all, who wants to undergo surgery or take bitter medicine? Who wants to eat healthy food that tastes yucky? Who wants to wake up every morning and get stuck in traffic on the way to work? Who wants to risk his life by entering a burning house to put out the fire? But people must do all that in order to maintain social order and moral values.
Even so, there are good things we don’t like and bad things we don’t like. Spinach is good for kids, but most kids don’t like it. But when it comes to eating shit, we not only have an extreme aversion to it but our aversion is good and necessary for it’s unhealthy to eat da poo poo. So, if we have a fear of being forced to eat da poo-poo, it’s not a phobia but a naturally healthy response to a disgusting act — though there are some people with natural fetishes for eating disgusting stuff, including poo-poo; and some people seem to enjoy eating human flesh. (Maybe libertarians can champion cannibalism whereby the family of a deceased member can sell his body parts to cannibals. That way, no murder is committed, and it’s all about the freedom of choice. And maybe libertarians and ‘progressives’ should unite to legalize the eating of dogs and cats. After all, if it’s okay to kill and devour animals as intelligent as pigs because eating pork is a cultural norm in the West, isn’t it a case of ‘privileging’ western cultural norms over the Asian, American Indian, Polynesian, and some African ones where dogs are regarded as food? By golly, isn’t that ‘racist’ and ‘Euro-centric’? What about ‘culinary equality’ or ‘culinary freedom-to-choose’?) But suppose society says poo-poo is a form of sacred food and that those who find the practice of eating poo-poo disgusting are ‘poophobic’ and mentally sick in the head. Suppose children are educated from a young age that eating-da-poo-poo is wonderful, and since there is a small minority of people who naturally like to eat da poo-poo, eating da poo-poo should not only be tolerated but welcomed in the name of ‘food equality’. Of course, it’s difficult for most people to swallow poo-poo, so they won’t do it. But since poo-poo has been elevated to iconic/sacred status, they must at least show great enthusiasm for the glory of eating da poo-poo. So, at poo pride or poo-ride rallies, they show up and go crazy as floats are wheeled across celebrating the greatness of poo-poo. The thing is they must make an EXTRA EFFORT to be especially delirious in their support since they must repress their natural aversion to the idea of eating da poo-poo. Of course, to conceal the true nature of poo-poo-eating, the promoters of poo pride will wrap the poo culture in rainbow colors and other pleasant-looking imagery and glitz. If Wall Street could package so much worthless shitty derivatives and sell them around the world by packaging/stamping it with AAA-rated approval, then why can’t the elites sell something like the homo agenda or poo pride?

There are necessary things we must accept(even if unpleasant) and there are things we must necessarily tolerate even if they don’t hold much value for us. Because so much of life is about ‘no pain, no gain’, we must necessarily handle much pain and aggravation in all aspects of life. As for crippled people and people with low IQ, they may not be of much use to society, but as fellow humans, they have to be taken care of and/or treated with decency. But there’s a difference between making some effort to be more decent and making an EXTRA EFFORT to convince ourselves that what we must tolerate or acknowledge is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Consider the queer black prom queen pictured above. Yes, there are such people in the world. They are ridiculous, but they are what they are, and they shouldn’t be taunted or attacked. But notice how the school went overboard and convinced itself to pretend that such ‘sexuality’ is the greatest thing since baked buns. There is element of servility, condescension, and narcissism(both vain and moral) in all this. There is the servility to political correctness. There is the condescension in trying to boost the ‘self-esteem’ of some freak-as-noble-victim. (The condescension is racial as well as ‘sexual’, a kind of double ‘affirmative action’.) And there is the narcissism on part of the Negro queer ‘prom queen’ in actually believing himself to be beautiful when any honest person will say he looks ludicrous and ‘faggoty’, and there is the preening ‘moral’ narcissism on the part of the school that thinks itself sooooooooo pwogwessive because it upholds a very ‘anti-normative’ notion of beauty that happens to be oh-so-‘inclusive’. The whole thing stinks of bullshit.
Or consider the case where a school — actually two schools — secretly plotted a sports scenario where a retarded student would be helped to score a touchdown on the football field. Of course, the problem isn’t the compassion that the students felt for the poor kid. That much is to be lauded. It’s their over-enthused fantasy that what the kid achieved is a real touchdown. Now, kids feel a natural aversion to retarded children. Kids don’t want to hang around retards, and girls surely don’t want to date them. And long ago, perhaps such kids were too neglected, mocked, and mistreated. So, one could say it’s a good thing that kids have been raised to be more sensitive today — though, to be sure, the number of retards have been reduced thanks to fetal screening and selective abortion. But, the charade that the retarded kid is a some kind of student-athlete who actually made a touchdown, that is just bogus. Worse, though it seems to be about selflessness, it’s a form of moral narcissism, as if to parade oneself to the world that you are so caring and compassionate that you went so far as to make a retard feel good about himself. But the retarded kid has been sold on a lie. And the audience has been softly bullied into going along with the charade since people don’t want to be seen as ‘mean-spirited’, ‘uncaring’, and ‘hateful’ for calling out on the bullshit. We can treat unfortunate people with caring and decency without going out of our way to pretend that their misfortune is actually some kind of great fortune. We don’t need this Forrest-Gumpity BS which is a horrible fantasy about the world. Also, notice that the ‘moral’ pressure that forces us to pretend that the retarded kid scored a ‘real touchdown’ is much like our pretension that two lesbians or two homo guys can ‘have a child together’. Melissa Ethridge didn’t have a child with her lesbian lover. She had the child with David Crosby, but as in HANDMAID’S TALE, the real biological parent has to be nixed out of the equation while we must pretend that the woman had the child with another woman. We may over-enthusiastically pat ourselves on the back for our supportive compassion and applause for lesbians(as poor noble victims), but it’s all built on a lie that no honest person can take seriously.
So, even ‘good intentions’ can mask pathological amounts of deception and self-deception. It’s like the Housing Bubble under George W. Bush had so many enthusiasts on both sides of the ideological divide since they had to swallow and suppress so much bullshit to fool themselves that everything would turn out alright in offering no-interest home loans to so many people who live paycheck to paycheck or don’t even have any kind of steady income. People have a natural aversion to total bullshit, but if the bullshit is protected and promoted in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ — and of course, Wall Street greed — , then even the experts come under pressure to swallow and peddle the BS. And since their rational minds remain skeptical, they have to compensate by expunging their natural doubts with boundless enthusiasm. There is an element of cultist devotion and religiosity in all this, and indeed, Jews understood this very well as they are the masters of psychology.

Indeed, the aversion-exhilaration paradox is intrinsic to all religions, some more than others. Religions, especially the higher ones, cannot function without pressuring and even forcing people to overcome certain natural tendencies and aversions. The positive side of this is the civilizing effect it has on people as, after all, so many natural human tendencies and drives are ‘base’ and ‘animal’. Surely, any Jewish kid through the ages would have preferred to run around and play than sit at the feet of some mean-spirited hairy Rabbi who instructed him with ‘boring’ stuff, especially as the kid had to undergo much painful effort to memorize a lot of passages of text.
Much of Buddhism is about denial of what comes naturally to us. We naturally embrace the joys & pleasures of life while fearing poverty, disease, and death. But Buddha instructed people to reject pleasure as addictive illusions that filled one with ‘desire’ and ‘attachment’ that prevented people from separating and liberating themselves from the falsehood of the world. As for poverty, disease, and death, such should not be feared or regarded with aversion since they too are mere illusions.

Some Hindu yogis go out of their way to overcome their natural aversion to pain by sitting on cactuses or doing horrible things to their bodies. Naturally, fleshly pain is something we dread and try to avoid, but Hindu yogis seek to spiritually rise above the flesh by overcoming pain and agony. They may not embark on such with enthusiasm or exhilaration but still do so with extreme commitment in order to compensate for their pain and aggravation.
In some cases, doing something one dreads and fears most may pay off in some spectacular way at the very least. Most of us would be afraid to climb a high mountain or jump out of an airplane. But those who made it to the top of Everest surely felt as masters of the world. And once one masters the practice of parachuting, it can be exhilarating to be ‘floating’ up in the sky. And maybe Hindu yogis do feel a kind of transcendence once they master the practice of making their butts impervious to cactus needles.
But what is the payoff for most people when it comes to stuff like ‘gay marriage’ and the homo agenda? Do they really feel ecstatic in the knowledge that marriage has been associated with floopy-doo homo fecal penetrators with whiny voices and fairy-like demeanor? Do they really feel better as human beings by praising and worshiping the people with the styles of Liberace? What do most people get out of this homomania? It is precisely because homomania is so unnatural that the Jewish-Homo or Jomo Cabal must work so hard 24/7 to pump us day in and day out with the homo-cult, which comes in two flavors.
On the one hand, we are to accept homos because we are told that they’re just like us, a kind of ‘new normal’, ‘new mainstream’, and so clean-cut. They are the new ‘fathers knows best’ or ‘father blows best’. But on the other hand, we are also told that we must especially worship homos since they are so showy, so stylish, so special, so wild, so creative, so radical, so subversive, and etc.
Of course, the same shtick is pulled with Jews and Negroes. So, we are told that we must regard Jews as ‘just like us’. They must not be seen as the Other, as that would be ‘antisemitic’. But we must also worship Jews because they are so special, so exceptional(in achievement and suffering), so smart, so wise, so funny, so radical, so subversive, and etc.
Same with Negroes. On the one hand, we must see blacks as ‘just as normal and upstanding as respectable middle class whites.’ So, Sidney Poitier was, for a long time, the too-good-to-be-true Negro, a real credit to his race. Even in GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER, he seemed to be marrying a white woman not out of any jungle fever lust but because it was all about love and progress and doing the right thing. You’d expect the union is entirely social and idealistic and hardly sexual as Negroes are too upstanding to think about actual sex. And of course, Obama has been sold as this kind of straight upright Negro. So, how dare any white person stereotype the Negro as a sex-crazed, gorilla-powered, wild-ass, and funky mofo!
But there’s the other side of Liberalism that says we must especially revere and worship the Negro and Negress because they holler like baboons, have huge dongs and big juicy butts(that be twerking like mad), run as fast and jump as high as animals, and fight like savage chimpanzees. So, you see, Liberals love racial and sexual stereotypes AS LONG AS they can be spun positively. So, if BIRTH OF A NATION says that black men are more lustful, more aggressive, and wilder, and therefore, whites must unite and defend themselves from the Negro, that is ‘racist’ and evil. But if, Jewish-promoted Rap culture says that black men are more lustful, more aggressive, and wilder, and therefore, whites must surrender and put out to the superior and more masterful black race, that is so ‘progressive’ and wonderful. Both views are predicated on racial differences, but notice that the latter is welcomed by Liberals even as they insist, officially at any rate, that there are no racial differences and that racial stereotypes are evil.

It’s truly astounding how stupid white people are in being suckered this way. But of course, many white people do sense a lot of bullshit in all this. Naturally, many whites do fear blacks. Naturally, many whites are worried about excessive Jewish power, especially since Jews are only 2% of the population, so pushy & nasty, and so unpleasant in looks and behavior. Naturally, many whites, deep down inside, find the homosexual thing to be gross. But as they’ve been inculcated in schools and by media — and even at work — that they must defer to blacks, Jews, and homos or otherwise they are ‘racist’, ‘antisemitic’, and ‘homophobic’, white folks feel that they must repress their natural anxieties and aversions about Jews, blacks, and homos.
How else can we explain the Oprah craze? (And there’s Ellen Degeneris the degenerate who owes her success to the mere fact that she’s a lesbian as she has no discernible talent.) She may have a knack for hosting a TV show, but she is no more than a fat black entertainer. How did she become ‘the one’? Why are so many white folks crazy about her, as if she’s the daughter of MLK? Indeed, even the MLK myth is promoted excessively in part to suppress our natural aversion to his true character. The real MLK was a compulsively lying and cheating opportunistic punk who used to beat up women and laugh about it. But such truth goes against the myth of him as the prophet of peace, and so, we must shout and holler in our reverence for him in order repress our doubts about him. And same goes for the Mandela craze. In truth, whites during apartheid did great things for South Africa by building up its economy and infrastructure, none of which would have existed had blacks gained control of South Africa much earlier. Also, South Africa has been a hellhole since the black takeover. So, any rational assessment of South Africa would fill many people with aversion to and revulsion of black African rule. But we can’t have that since that would be ‘racist’. Since the myth promoted by Jews is that Mandela was the father to a rainbow society of bliss and harmony, we must go batty in our delirious over-praise of Mandela to drown out our doubts and misgivings about the experiment of black rule.
Same goes for Israel. Any rational observer would notice the fact that vicious Jews rule the US, and that they’re working in tandem with Zionist Israelis in their pitiless oppression of Palestinians. (True, Palestinians are no saints, and many of them are unpleasant people, but they’ve lost their nation with the full backing of the most powerful nations on earth.) Any honest broker should be able to tell that the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are snakes. But since Jews are cloaked with the holy Holocaust Cult and have the means to make or break anyone, all politicians go out of their way to bow down before Jews with wild enthusiasm.

Chris Christie - Fat Pig Running Dog of Jews

Surely, deep down inside, fatsos like Chris Christie know Sheldon Adelson for what he is — a vile and cretinous Jewish tycoon. But he and his ilk are goy dogs who must bow down to Jewish supremacism, and they know they will be destroyed for even the slightest criticism of Jews and Israel.
This is especially true of Republicans. As Democratic Party is so owned by Jews, one can be a Democratic and be mildly critical of Israel. But since the white right has traditionally been associated with the cardinal sin of ‘antisemitism’, they must make an extra effort to show that they’ve been healed, see the light, and are on the side of holy shmoly Jews. Since white Conservatives must repress so much of their natural aversion to Jewish foulness, they must make a SUPER EXTRA EFFORT to be pro-Jewish and pro-Zioinst, and this explains why the GOP is so mindlessly rabid in its support of everything Jewish. Republican pansy-boys act toward their Jewish masters like Mel Brooks-as-servant acts to his ‘master’ in TWELVE CHAIRS.

It’s all very sickening but such aversion-enthusiasm paradox is all too common among white people, and indeed, it’s becoming increasingly so since America has gone from majoritarian rule to minoritarian rule mode. Clearly, when the elites are markedly different in identity from the masses, they are going to be more nervous, anxious, and fearful of mass values, mass norms, mass passions, mass biases, and mass prejudices since the natural mode of most people is to want to be ruled by their own kind. Therefore, there will be more pressure from Jews and homos on the majority gentiles and straight people to suppress their natural tendencies, feelings, and values in favor of lionizing, revering, and worshiping the glory of Jews and homos, i.e. the ‘new normal’.
Given the nature of what has happened in America and EU in recent years, ‘antisemitism’ — though unpleasant and nasty at times — was very natural and even healthy in European history. What people would want to be ruled and manipulated by an alien elite with different looks and values? Why did the Chinese eventually overthrow the Manchus? Why did the Indians eventually bid the British farewell? Indeed, suppose Turks are only 2% of the Israel population but have the kind of economic, media, and political control that Jews have over US, UK, and even Russia. Jews in Israel would flip out and call out for Jewish nation for Jewish people under Jewish rule; Jews would be totally ‘antisemitic’ against the Turks. But Jews have been working so hard to make white people see ‘antisemitism’ as some kind of irrational disease of the mind when, in fact, the true disease is the notion that gentiles in America and the West should cower before the Jewish minority elites that, despite all their power and privilege, still go around whining like they are all poor survivors of the Holocaust. Consider the differential in power between Israeli Jews — who are backed by US, EU, Russia, and developed world — and Palestinians who have nothing and no support from the world community. Yet, we are to believe that Palestinians are the new Nazis and we must do everything in our power to save Jews from kids throwing rocks in Gaza at Israeli tanks and jet fighters. Anyone who knows anything naturally feels repulsed by such bullshit. But in America and EU, you don’t get anywhere without sucking up to Jews. And it’s not enough to tolerate Jews. Indeed, it’s not enough to welcome Jews. It’s not enough to praise Jews. We must worship Jews as holy victims of all eternity. Since this is so much BS, we must make a SUPER EXTRA EFFORT to repress all our doubts and to express our full enthusiasm for the Jews.

"Zionists are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings I've ever known in my life."

Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox is well-illustrated by the case of Jack Johnson. In truth, Johnson was a loathsome person. But seen in historical context, we can understand why he had special meaning to black folks. In a society where blacks were, at best, second-class citizens(and often not even that), it was natural for many blacks to feel pride when Jack Johnson beat up all the whites guys and won the championship. Even ‘racist’ white people should be able to acknowledge that much, i.e. even if Johnson was lowly in character as an individual, he was a great boxer and he overcame many social obstacles at a time when there was so much white antipathy to any notion of black pride and power. To be sure, there were white progressives back then who did promote black pride, but it had to be respectable, the sort that was a ‘credit to their race’ and approved by white society. Johnson’s counter-example stood for blacks defining their own brand of racial pride(even if it meant blacks would eventually fulfill the stereotype as gorilla-like thugs with big fists, big muscles, and big dicks).

Jack Johnson the Negro Champion

Ken Burns the white dork Liberal sap

This much, all of us can agree on. But among white Liberals like Ken Burns, there’s this quasi-religious need to be redeemed of ‘white guilt’, and this means that we must all overcome the problem of Johnson’s lowly character and elevate him to something like a super-hero of noble virtues and greatness. So, with the likes of Ken Burns, it’s not enough to acknowledge the social meaning of Johnson within the context of history. We must somehow repress our natural loathing of many of his characteristics and pretend that he was a hero of the ages. But the fact is, if we remove the historical and social context, there’s only the thug. If Johnson were alive today, he’d be just another trashy black athlete, just another black thug in the streets or in jail, or just another black loudmouth who are dime-a-dozen. It was the context that gave special meaning to his life and career, but for white Liberals the CONTEXT of one’s character matters more than the CONTENT. And so, many idiot white Liberals get all gushy about Johnson as if he wasn’t just some socio-historically significant athlete but some kind of prophet-saint of the righteous fist: a kind of one-man black Boxer Rebellion. Anyway, whites today must repress so much of their doubts and revulsion about the real Jack Johnson in order to believe in the culturally sanctioned myth that he was made of heroic stuff. In truth, he was just a thug who liked to beat up people. And although harassed by white society-at-large, he was a bully in the ring since he ducked black fighters — who might have beaten him — and stuck to beating up easier white fighters. If bullying is where the stronger picks on the weaker, Johnson was a bully since he refused to fight other black fighters as tough or tougher than him. When he fought all those white guys, it was like a man deciding to fight only women, as indeed, the difference between the black male and white male in athleticism is almost comparable to that between a man and a woman.
Though we divide the sexuality into male and female, males can take on feminine attributes and females can take on male attributes depending on the set and setting. So, women prison guards come to act like men in their use of force to maintain order among women prisoners.
In contrast, even seemingly tough males will turn wussy in the presence of much tougher males. It’s like an aggressive barking male dog will suddenly droop its ears, curl its tail, and roll on its back in the presence of an bigger and tougher male dog.
White males have been totally pussifed by black males, and of course, this is very humiliating. To the natural male instinct, such a fate is disgusting and intolerable. Why would the men of any nation or race want to be pussified into quasi-womanhood by another race or people? So, the natural white male response to their fate under the lordship of smarter Jew and stronger blacks would be anger and rage, but since they’ve been brainwashed to believe that any negative feelings about Jews and blacks is ‘racist’ or ‘antisemitic’ — ooh, so evil and wicked! — , they repress their aversion and go out of their way to show their enthusiasm for their submission to Jewish brains and black brawn. When Bill Clinton addressed a bunch of white students at a commencement ceremony and told them that their kind is fated to become a minority in America, why was he greeted with such ecstatic applause from whites? Surely, deep down inside, the white students must have felt some doubt and anxiety about the future of their own kind as a minority in the very nation founded politically, culturally, economically, and socially by their ancestors. But as they’ve been brainwashed that they can only redeem ‘white guilt’ by submission to Jews and blacks(and ‘undocumented immigrants’ of all color), they simply couldn’t admit to their aversions about the troubled future. So, they went out of their way to applaud Clinton with rapturous exhilaration to drown out their natural aversions and anxieties.
It was the same with the kids assembled at a Harry Potter convention. When the foul and disgusting J. K. Rowling said Dumbledork is supposed to be a homo, there was first a muted reaction, as if WTF. But as kids have been told that there’s no higher honor in life than worshiping homos — after Jews and MLK of course — , they drowned out their doubts with mindless non-stop applause.

This is how mindless most people are, and this is why the Enlightenment ideals centered around Reason don’t go very far. For the elites, the thing is not to educate the people to think as individuals. First, most people are incapable of individual/independent thought even with extensive education and training. But, even if it were possible to turn most people into free thinkers, why would the elites want such an outcome when it would mean free-thinking individuals thinking their own thoughts and speaking truth to elite power? Why would Jewish-and-Homo or Jomo elites want the vast majority of people who are not Jewish nor homo to think freely and speak truth to Jewish and homo power? So, the Jomo elites seek to use mass education, mass indoctrination, mass advertising, mass taboo-enforcing, mass delirium — so much the feature of ‘gay pride’ parades — , and mass ignorance to further their goals.
Also, since both the Liberal and Conservative elites have been bought, tamed, and chained to the globalist Jomo agenda, the masses have no alternative leadership that might offer alternative formulation of power. There is no Moses figure in America. Jews and Homos are the new pharaohs, and they’ve leashed and trained everyone who matters to be obedient.
The GOP establishment, totally under the thumb of Neocon Jews who are allied to Liberal Zionist Jews of the Democratic Party, have decided to surrender on ‘gay marriage’. Since the corporate class, academia, media, and finance controlled by Jews say we must have ‘gay marriage’, the GOP has decided it better go along. So, all those Americans who’d supported the GOP for socially conservative reasons have all been had. They thought they had a stake in the Republic, but their votes were merely exploited by weasel-GOP elites who are nothing but running dogs of the Jewish elites. Of course, GOP leaders don’t suddenly say that they are FOR ‘gay marriage’. They just say, oh well... um.. uh..., ‘gay marriage’ is inevitable and there’s nothing that can be done about it. Now, Orrin Hatch is an old man who grew up in a much more conservative time and place. You’d think he’d stand up for the real values, but he’s a politician first and foremost, and politicians are prostituticians who go where the power is. It’s like Sal in THE GODFATHER shaking Barzini’s hand since, well, it appeared as though the Corleones are finished and Barzini is the inevitable winner. So, why fight it? Just ho-de-do like a ‘house nigger’. A true conservative would stick up for his principles and fight to the last even if the cause seems lost. But these GOP elite scum have no scruples. They are really out for #1, which is themselves. Of course, the Jomos are cackling with hideous glee as they take notice of how cowardly, craven, and chickenshit most American Conservatives are. And of course, deep down inside, many American Conservatives who sell out this way know they are succumbing to something they naturally feel an aversion to deep in their hearts. So, what will happen eventually? Following the logic of the Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox, it won’t be long before the GOP loudly and ‘proudly’ proclaims that ‘gay marriage’ is the ultimate in ‘family values’. Yes, the GOP has learned to love Big Buttfuc*ing Brother.

Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox in Action:

Goyim repress their cravenness and shame with excessive enthusiasm for whatever Netanhayu says.



Commissars scared shitless of Stalin hide their fears by out-of-control non-stop applause.