Why Do Western Feminists De-Emphasize Islamic Oppression of Women?

In politics the enemy of your enemy is your friend. We need to remember this if
we are to understand why Western feminism for the most part turns a blind eye
to the mistreatment of women in the Islamic world.
It isn't so much that Western feminists approve of the culture and values of
the Islamic world. It's that they see Western Patriarchal-racism-imperialism-
capitalism to be their main enemy. Though feminism developed in the West, it
was usurped by radicals whose ethnic origins were largely Jewish. Also, even
non-Jewish feminists came to take their inspiration from the Jewish ones like
Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Katha Pollitt, Martha Nussbaum, and
others. Everyone past infancy should know that most
Jews are on the Left and committed to bringing about the decline of white gentile power.
Jews are thus obsessed because Jews are smart and
talented, thus hungry for near total elite power. Since white gentiles are their only
real rivals, Jews want to weaken their power as much as possible. Jews use all sorts
of methods to undermine white power. Not only socio-economic networking
but employing the media and academia to portray white gentiles as
historically sinful and collectively stained with the evils of 'racism', 'sexism', imperialism,
and whatever-other-ism.

Jews hate Muslims too, especially in regard to Israel. However, the fact is anti-Islamism
in the West is essentially a stance taken up by the Right. Since the Right exploits
anti-Islamism as a political issue, the Left--of which feminists are a part--cannot jump
on the bandwagon. It's not so much that feminists are okay with Muslim mistreatment of women. They just can't stand the fact that the issue has become a political weapon of the Right.

Of course, the Right isn't exactly pure-hearted on this either. Rightists are not anti-Islam because they really care about Muslim women. No, the Right uses this issue to push for rightist causes. One is anti-immigrationism. By highlighting Islamic evils, Western white rightists argue
immigration from the Third World is a bad idea. Or by emphasizing how the Western
treatment of women is far superior to Muslim treatment of women, the Western Right
absolves itself of any guilt in the area of sexual inequality or repression. By pointing to
what's wrong in the Muslim world, the Western Right smugly feels superior, the implication
being that progress is no longer necessary in the West since 'we' are so much more advanced
than the Muslim 'ragheads'.
Anti-Islamism has also been used by the Right--especially neocons--to justify American foreign intervention, especially in the Middle East. Bush and neocons emphasized how much the Muslim world had to gain by having advanced Western values and ideals shoved down their throats and up their arses. Anti-Islamism, in other words, has been used to justify Western 'neo-imperialism'.

So, the Left isn't wholly unjustified in seeing anti-Islamism as a political ploy on the part of
the Western Right to push its agendas. Just consider the issue of gay politics. The Western Right opposes the gay agenda but is eager to point out that Western treatment of gays is far superior to Muslim treatment of gays. In other words, we no longer need any more progress on the gay issue since we are so much better than the Muslims. At least we don't hang gays.

This is why the Left don't want to fall into the trap of anti-Islamism. By pointing out how
backward and brutal the Muslims are, the Western Right can simply rest on its laurels and
argue that the West no longer needs progress since it is better than Muslims or whomever.
Of course, given the 'progressive' agendas proposed by the Left, I can only sympathize with
the Right for resisting 'change' cooked up by perverted gays, sicko feminists, aggressive and hateful blacks, and obnoxious illegal aliens. But, I must admit it is somewhat disingenuous
on the part of the Western Right to argue against progress solely on the basis that we
are so much better than the Muslim world. This would be defending child labor on the basis that 'at least we don't use our children for human sacrifice like other cultures do'.

Feminists agree that Muslim world is unfriendly to women, but as they live in the Western world and deal with Western rightists on a daily basis as their main enemies, they don't want
to be distracted by the issue of Muslim barbarism.
Similarly, the Western Right doesn't want to hear too much about poor needy starving Africans
since the Western Left uses that particular issue to argue for more aid to Africa, more immigration from Africa, more investment in Africa, etc.
The Western Right is very much aware of the hellish conditions in Africa but merely want to acknowledge them in order to argue against closer ties to hopeless Africa. They don't
wanted to reminded night and day about how poor Africans are so desperate and in need of our
love and compassion. The politics of compassion--whether for Muslim women or for African children--is really a weapon used by both sides. By pointing out how terrible things are in the Muslim world, the Western Right stokes Western pride and glory. By pointing out how terrible
things are in Africa, the Western Left fuels Western guilt and redemption.

Consider the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. You'd think feminists would embrace her since she's for women's freedom and liberation from the oppressive clutches of Islamic male oppression. But,
feminists have been cool to her because she's forged an alliance with elements of the Western
Right that is anti-immigrationist, anti-Third World-ist, and anti-feminist. This is all very ironic.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls for feminist rights for Islamic women but she's embraced by the anti-feminist Western Right but rejected by the feminists of the Western Left. The Western Right
embraces not Ayaan's feminism but her critique of the non-Western world. A black Muslim
women saying that the white Western world is so much better and more humane than the black/Muslim world is music to the ears of Western Rightists. But, it's poison to the ears of the Western Left and feminists. They may agree with her views on freedom for women but they cannot forgive how she has allowed herself to be 'duped' and 'exploited' by the Western Right.

Politics is really funny business.

--P. N.

Problems of the Failure of Reason to Predict Emotions.

We value the ‘rational’ life because there’s a certain logic and consistency to reason. We prefer order to chaos–well, maybe not in rock music and sports(though they too require basic order or form at the core. Thus, we have a tendency to project reason onto emotions. Since it may be possible to predict result B following from action A, there is a temptation to believe that action A will not only lead to result B but produce emotion B. But, the emotional side of the equation has its own logic–or illogic, as the case may be.
　
Long ago, I had a friend who took home a stray puppy. He intended to take care of the pitiful creature marked by much suffering. But, the puppy had too many behavioral problems, and my friend gave up on the dog. So, he thought the most humane thing would be to take it to the anti-cruelty society and have it put to sleep. He figured or rationally predicted he wouldn’t feel so bad since the dog would be peacefully laid to rest and suffer no longer.
It didn’t turn out that way. His emotional prediction had been way off the mark. He went into a deep funk. He thought he was doing the wretched dog a favor–since he’d saved it from homelessness and sent it into eternal sleep–, but he was overcome with grief and guilt the moment he called the anti-cruelty society and confirmed what happened. It was no surprise that the puppy would be put to sleep since it had behavioral problems. Indeed, his mood was rather upbeat prior to the phone call. But, the news made his emotions spiral downward. He got me worried because he called me everyday to talk about it for like 3 months. It got me depressed too–if only because I had better things to do than emote over the phone with some whimpering dude. At any rate, his rational prediction about his emotional state proved to be utterly wrong.
　
I knew of a similar case involving a young woman who had an abortion. She was one of those annoying liberal types, but I’d known her pretty well in college, and we kept in touch for awhile. She was working, doing okay, and living the sex-and-the-city lifestyle before the stupid show even aired. Anyway, to make things short, she got pregnant from unprotected sex and decided to abort the child. She asked me for advice, and I didn’t really offer any except to say she ought to do what she felt was right. She figured she was too young to have a kid–and besides she didn’t really care for the guy and vice versa–, and the smart(and modern) thing seemed to be rid of the kid. Of course, she knew it would be an unpleasant experience but still thought she would get over it quickly. Now, it is true that many women–especially Negresses and white trash–suffer no great emotional pain following an abortion, but in the case of my friend, the emotional prediction had been the equivalent of an air ball. Like the guy who had the puppy put to death, she was overcome with severe depression and guilt-borne trauma for a long time.
　
Now, consider feminism and all that it promised. The radical new order would liberate women, raise their consciousness, bring forth new happiness, and so on. But, how did a lot of women really end up feeling in the feminist and post-feminist era? They found out that life is still what it is–a bitch–, and there is no pot of gold–nor even potted ham–at the end of the rainbow.
Many women had thought they would do just fine without men and children, but approaching their 40s they looked around and grew envious of women with family. They began to feel alone, isolated, and dejected. They thought they would be young and vibrant forever and surrounded by ‘sisters’, but not only were their youth passing away but many ‘sisters’ had gotten married and were busy with their own families. ‘Liberated’ women tried to compensate for their loneliness by striving for more money and power, but they felt emptier and emptier. (Besides, the fact remains that only a tiny percentage of the population–male or female–will make big bucks or gain major power. Most people, despite their effort, will remain working stiffs–even if relatively well-paid working stiffs.)
The point the emotional aspect didn’t work out as the feminists had predicted. Feminists had been convinced of the ideological and rational infallibility of their movement and thought that human–or womyn–emotions would follow suit upon changes in the socio-economic realm. In truth, emotions, though connected to and shaped by the rational mind, swirl in a deeper and darker pool.
Emotions have a way of overriding, violating, subverting, or defacing ideological or rational justifications and certitudes. Thus, no ideology or thought system–including religions–can map out or predict human emotions perfectly. There are predictable emotions to be sure: if you lose all your life savings, you’ll be very upset–no shit. But, more often than not, ideologies or rationales tend to repress or deny certain deep or basic emotions that make up our inner souls.
Thus, communism did not bring forth happiness for all ‘comrades’ as it had predicted. Thus, a man who thinks money and/or power brings happiness may find misery upon success. Thus, a woman who chooses a career over home & hearth may not be happy in the rat race. Conversely, a woman who tells herself that she will be content as a simple housewife may end up feeling depressed and trapped.
The important thing is to know that different people have different personalities just like no two cats or dogs are ever alike. Thus, what may be true of one person may not be true of another person. Different people feel varying degrees of sensitivity, guilt, self-doubt, confidence, and so forth. Ideologies or rational systems argue that there is a universal or collective one-size-fits-all for all people or for everyone within the group. This simply isn’t so.
　
Richard Nixon thought his political career was over when he lost to Kennedy and then the gubernatorial race. In 1968, he saw his star rise again and CONSCIOUSLY+ thought he would be truly happy and grateful IF he won the presidency. Yet, he was not a happy president, and his emotional instability led to the catastrophe of Watergate. He–and those closest to him–had thought the presidency would make a new person out of him, but it didn’t. He turned darker and more morose.
　
In 2008, many Americans thought a bright new era would be upon the nation with the election of Barack Obama. They didn’t merely support Obama politically but emotionally invested their heart and soul into Obama-ism and Obama movement. Many educated and intellectual people who prided themselves on their rationalism THOUGHT Obama would change everything. If people who take pride in their rationalism ‘think’ and feel like this, what does it say about the relation between the mind and emotion? Not only is the mind often wrong about the future of one’s emotions but what passes for rational thought is, as often as not, drugged by emotions.
Indeed, even if Obama had done everything to the delight of stupid white liberals, many ‘progressives’ were bound to feel let down by the fact that Obama there is no happy ending in life.
　
Sometimes, emotional letdowns follow rationalist promises because promises are often not forthcoming–true of communism and other radical ideologies–, but even when the promises are delivered the emotions one had expected fail to materialize or may even be eclipsed by opposite emotions. Why do so many dream marriages fall apart? For example, celebrities get all excited about marrying someone equally famous in a glamorous star-studded ceremony, but the minute it’s over, it’s a downer. Or, consider the movie "The Graduate" where Benjamin Braddock thinks he’ll be happy forever if he wins the girl, but he feels empty when he does. This is all common knowledge, but in the realm of politics we keep foolishly dreaming of Hope and Change, the City on the Hill, or some kind of Deliverance. Even the most secular, well-educated, and rational people think higher happiness can be attained through utopianism. Perhaps, the Founding Fathers were wise to talk of ‘pursuit of happiness’ than happiness itself. They didn’t promise happiness to the American people through government or ideology. They only said people should be free to pursue their own happiness, with an added implication that happiness is really in the chase than in the destination of which there is no final one.
　
Perhaps, there’s something in the human psyche that thinks and feels this way. Maybe, evolution favored this kind of trait. After all, those who get all excited about the prospect of great victory, triumph, happiness, and riches are more likely to be motivated to go out and achieve something. Upon reaching his goal, he may feel an emotional letdown as his emotional expectations hadn’t materialized, but the letdown may motivate him to pursue yet another Great dream, vision, or idea. Consider that Alexander the Great didn’t initially plan to conquer the entire world. But, every time he conquered a new piece of land, he felt empty, a kind of ‘been there, done that’ before a Roman coined the term. Thus, he had to keep looking for newer conquests. Alexander learned that the happiness was in the searching, in the expectation of great things. Same must be true of politicians and businessmen. They seek the dream of happiness by pursuit of ever greater power or wealth, and they gain our support or money by promising us greater happiness if we vote for them or buy their products/services. Things nearby look commonplace while things far away–in time or distance–seem alluring. So, you go for new discoveries, conquests, or progress, but once you have them and the initial novelty passes, they too become commonplace or depressing. Thus, you set out for yet newer discoveries and conquests. Genghis Khan was probably motivated by a similar kind of mindset.
In this sense, it is our profound unwisdom–search for the impossible El Dorado–which drives us toward newer and greater(and sometimes reckless and dangerous)possibilities. Of course, even if we were to find an actual El Dorado, we shall never find an emotional El Dorado for human nature turns gold into lead upon contact. King Midas got his wish, and everything he touched turned into gold which became common as lead and burdensome as chains around his legs.
In a way, this is necessary for our minds need to achieve emotional equilibrium upon finding happiness or pleasure. If we were excited or thrilled by our achievements or acquisitions 24/7, our neurons would burn up from too much ecstasy. A star that shines brightly burns out quicker. If a person had a non-stop orgasm, his or her nerves would turn to cinder soon enough. Why do meth addicts deteriorate so quickly? Meth heightens their sense of pleasure, in the process overcharging and frying out the nervous system and much else.
　
Anyway, the thing is to know that what you think you’ll feel and what you’ll really feel are two different things.

Rational Explanation Not Necessary to Know Why Homosexuality Is Weird, Even Offensive.

Advocates of ‘gay marriage’ keep demanding rational reasons as to why we oppose it, but they don’t realize that our views on ‘gay marriage’ goes beyond Reason. Humans are essentially emotional beings, and our use of reason relating to social matters are premised on our basic emotions. These emotions must be controlled and guided by reason, but we should not deny them. Denial of basic emotions leads to an unhealthy repression of emotions. We not just physical beings controlled by mechanical reason but creatures fueled by powerful emotions. Indeed, the same could be said of non-human physical reality. Physical reality is not made up of neutral matter in which every piece acts and reacts the same. All forms of matter have different levels of energy and react to one another in accordance to the amount or the nature of energy they possess. If all atoms were the same and if energy operated the same way at every layer of reality, physical reality would just be a mass of undifferentiated blob. The reason why different atoms exist and form into different molecules which then form into different kinds of matter is because energy has varying qualities and intensities among different kinds of matter. For instance, you cannot start a fire by rubbing any two elements together. And, chemical energy isn’t the same as physical energy. The energy produced by fusion of two forms of matter cannot be produced by other forms of matter.
Similarly, humans are not just walking blobs of matter or perfectly/uniformly reasoning machines. We are feeling organisms; we are fueled by powerful natural emotions which determine our likes and dislikes. Why are we sexually attracted to other humans(mostly of the opposite sex) but not to warthogs? Why do most of us find a deer to be more beautiful than a toad? It’s about our natural likes and dislikes fueled by emotions. Our use of reason must be in accordance with our basic emotions so crucial to our health, well-being, and survival.
Without emotions we wouldn’t be human. So, we cannot deny our emotions. But, we can’t simply go with our emotions either because we would be no better than animals whose actions are ruled largely by primal instincts. So, humans find a middle ground between emotions and reason, between instinct and laws. For instance, we have a natural territorial sense. If we heeded this territorial instinct on a primal level, we would be like wolves or tribal savages–or gang bangers of inner cities. We would be battling over every piece of turf. So, we have government and laws that ensure peace and order in the land. And, we have the concept of private property that says you must not interfere with another man’s property.
We seek to tame the territorial instinct, but we MUST NOT deny it. We seek a middle ground between the basic instinct and our social ideals. If we go to either extreme, things break down. Pure emotionalism or instinctualism revels in animal passions while pure reason based on ideology represses natural healthy emotions–resulting in repressed primal emotions resurfacing in distorted, ugly, and twisted ways.

One of the hallmarks of being civilized is civility, which is to be friendly, polite, and ‘nice’. To maintain this niceness we can’t be honest or emotionally raw most of the time. There is a need to lie, to deceive others, and even to deceive ourselves to some degree. If everyone was totally honest, we would end up with a very bad state of affairs. For instance, suppose a fat ugly girl asks you, ‘do I look nice?’ If honesty is ALWAYS a virtue, you would say, ‘you’re an ugly disgusting-looking pig!’ That would be honest, but the person would feel bad, and you would have acted cruelly. Kids, less cultivated in ways of civility, are often more likely to say what’s on their mind. Suppose there’s a room full of people among whom one blows silent nasty fart. Suppose everyone knows who did it. The fart is mighty unpleasant, but most people pretend not to notice for the sake of niceness. Inhibition is necessary for there to be social order. To maintain the order, we must sometimes sacrifice raw honesty in favor of social order. (The problem in the black community is the lack of inhibitions. As blacks are naturally more hormonally charged, aggressive, and outspoken, they are more likely to say what’s on their mind, much of which happens to be obnoxious and self-centered, honest or not. This leads to a great deal of social conflict between men and women, between adults and children, among badass dude and badass dude. It’s no wonder African political systems have to resort to great brutality to maintain order. If you allow freedom among blacks, there’s too great a chance of craziness getting out of hand. But, this naturalness on the part of blacks can sometimes be refreshing and charismatic since inhibited ‘niceness’ and social order can be stuffy and stifling–like in "Lilies of the Field". So, we like to see black entertainers who are saying what many people dare not say. If blacks have been civilizationally disadvantaged due to their overt uninhibitedness, Japanese have had the opposite problem. As Japan is an oppressively polite and ultra-inhibited society stressing order, unity, conformity, and submission, many Japaense don’t have the guts, courage, or the balls to say what must be said. Each Japanese is afraid to stick out like the odd nail in a society that says ‘hammer the nail that sticks up’. So, though Japan has been able to build up civilization through social order and politeness, it’s been slow to change and reform when compared to the West because most Japanese are too inhibited or afraid to upset the social order.) But, if a kid were in the room, he might be likely to blurt out, ‘mister, you blew a nasty fart; it sure stinks!’ We need to maintain ‘niceness’, so we don’t say what we really feel on many occasions. We don’t want to hurt people’s feelings, and they don’t want to hurt ours. So, to some degree, we feel a need to repress truth. But, we must NOT DENY truth, and there are times when we MUST put aside ‘niceness’ when bad people take advantage of it. Suppose there’s a room where a guy blows one nasty fart after another just for hell of annoying everyone else. He’s stinking up the entire room, and it’s getting mighty nauseating. Would it make any sense for people in the room to pretend that fart odors are not filling up the air and making people feel sick? They must tell the gleeful farter to quit with the disgusting act.
Sometimes, we need to suppress the truth for the sake of ‘niceness’, but we must also confront that which is willfully offensive. If there’s a dumb student in class who can barely read, the teacher must be understanding and ‘nice’; the teacher must not be harsh on the naturally dumb kid and certainly shouldn’t say stuff like, ‘hey kid, you’re a moron!’ even if it’s true. But, if there’s a kid who knows nothing and causes problems in class because he’s willfully lazy and rude, then the teacher must put aside ‘niceness’ and confront the lowly behavior of the student. ‘Niceness’ can aid civilization if it promotes goodwill among decent people, but it can be anti-civilizational if it turns into defenselessness on the part of good people against bad people who willfully seek to offend and transgress against meaningful social norms.
For example, there are lots of ugly people in the world, and that’s just how it is. It’s not nice to go up to an ugly person and say, ‘HEY, YOU’RE UGLY!’ . That may be truthful, but so unnecessary and hurtful. But, suppose some ugly hag makes a spectacle out of her ugliness like Barbra Streisand or Sandra Bernhardt does all the time. When confronted with such in-your-face ugliness, we have a right and duty to say, ‘Go jump in the lake, dogula!’

Because we don’t want to hurt people’s feelings, we shouldn’t make too much of the fact that many people are ugly. We need to repress some of our natural feelings–aversion to ugliness–and try to be nice. We sometimes even need to lie. So, if an ugly girls feels sad and lonely, we tell her that she’s pretty or say stuff like ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’. But, all said and done, we know there is beauty and there is ugliness. They are not one and the same. There may be no pure beauty and pure ugliness, but we know some things are generally more appealing than other things. We know that Greta Garbo was more attractive than Shelly Winters. It would be stupid to equate prettiness with ugliness just for the sake of ‘niceness’ or the ideology of egalitarianism. (There are two reasons why the standards of beauty have been under attack. One is Jewish and the other is black. Though many Jews are very attractive, the ugly ones tend to be spectacularly, almost unbearably ugly. An ugly white gentile is just plain ugly but an ugly Jew can be howlingly ugly. Many smart Jews tend to be the ugly than good-looking. Due to their mad neurosis of self-loathing ugliness, radical Jewish intellectuals have been trying to destroy the concept of beauty. Just like Alberich in Nibelungen tried to destroy beauty in a world where blonde Rhine maidens wouldn’t have him, lots of ugly Jews–especially the hag feminists–have been trying to destroy beauty they could not attain. Jews also know that Nazism was an extreme Beauty Cult which depicted ‘Aryans’ as noble and beautiful and Jews as ugly and gross. So, whether it was Betty Friedan or Naomi Wolf, there has been an ideology of anti-beauty in the radical Jewish community. This, in no way, suggests that all Jews are ugly or that white gentiles are generally handsome; most people of all races are plain homely or near ugly. It’s simply to point out that Jewish ugliness can be especially gross. I don’t know why, but it’s just a fact. Lots of Jews look like goats with sheep wool for hair. Of course, there are Jewish beauties like Susan Sontag. Lauren Bacall, Simone Signoret, and many others–and they happen to be more European looking in general. But, it’s been the agenda of ugly Jews to destroy beauty. The problem is that many Jews are not only ugly but smart. Most ugly gentiles are dumb as well as ugly, so they don’t get very far in the academic or cultural world. But, many ugly Jews, being highly intelligent, creative, and/or original, have gained a tremendous amount of respect and admiration as thinkers and artists. Woody Allen and Norman Mailer are specimen of Jewish ugliness but Woody is funny as hell and Mailer was a great writer–due to their high IQs. Just as Jewish radicalism instilled moral guilt and self-loathing in the hearts of white goyim, Jewish-led feminism/leftism filled good looking goyim with lots of self-loathing for being good-looking. The Cult of Beauty turned into the Guilt of Beauty.. ‘Broadcast News’ says that Jewish men are smarter and more principled, but good-looking white goyim got all the break. This kind of argument effectively made good looking white goyim feel worthless for having succeeded in the world. The idea was that whereas Jews achieved success through hard work and merit, goyim gained success through looks–or connection. Robert Redford and Jane Fonda became leftists due to the influence of Jewish intellectualism. Being white and handsome was said to be an ‘unfair advantage’. So, even though Redford and Fonda succeeded in the business due to their good looks, they felt a moral imperative to push an agenda favoring the ‘ugly’ minority over the ‘pretty’ white majority. "Quiz Show" was made by Robert Redford, but the moral of the story is the same as the one in ‘Broadcast News’. Pretty white goyim got an unfair advantage over smarter albeit ugly Jews. The other factor in the undermining of our standards of beauty came from blacks. Though black men are not particularly pretty, they are big, muscular, and strong. Sexually, many women feel more attracted to big strong men than to pretty boys. And, many guys admire big strong men over nice looking dandies. So, even though whites generally have better looking faces than black men do, the black physique has been admired more. Among females, though white women are prettier than black women, black women have the moves and voice that white women don’t. So, even though white women are more attractive and feminine, black women have been known to be FUNKY and SEXY. Though black women aren’t liked by most men, their style and groove are imitated by women all over the world. The black challenge to the traditional white standards of manhood and femininity overturned certain assumptions about beauty.)

Anyway, let us now look at the issue of homosexuality. As with other matters, we must recognize our natural feelings about homosexuality and balance that recognition with the need to maintain a civilized society made up of civil people. We must seek the middle ground between feelings and ideals. The natural feeling of heterosexual or normosexual people regarding homosexuality is that it’s weird, freaky, or downright disgusting. Personally, I find gay sexuality–homosexuality between men–gross and repugnant, not least because men who act like girls are irritating and because the practice of fecal penetration is sickening. As for lesbianism, I find it ridiculous-to-weird but not gross like gay male sexuality because lesbian sex is at least physically clean. Also, women acting like men is less ridiculous than men acting like sissies. I’d rather be among a bunch of tough girls than among a bunch of pansy guys. There is an elemental quality in maleness–toughness, strength, standing-tall-ness, etc–that works for both males and females, whereas femininity is more restrictive to a single sex. When a woman dressed up like a man, she still has the qualities of a woman and looks normal. But, when a man dressed up like a woman, that’s just silly. Joan of Arc as knight is surely more acceptable than Rush Limbaugh in a ballerina outfit. In Monty Python skits, it’s funny to see men dressed up as women, but is it so funny to see women dressed up as men? (That said, I will admit gay men have been among the most creative people in history and have contributed significantly to arts, culture, and ideas; therefore, I recognize there is some cultural benefit to society from homosexuality. Still, this doesn’t mean that homosexuality is necessarily good or decent in and of itself. Consider for instance that many great artists have been semi-madmen. Normal folks generally don’t become GREAT artists. But, does that mean mental illness should be praised because it may, on occasion, lead to creativity in the arts? Heck, there are some autistic kids with a genius for certain skills, but who would say autism is a good thing? Autism Pride Parade, anyone? )

Anyway, our negative feelings toward homosexuality are essentially natural. All cultures have a problem with homosexuality, from the most simplistic-savage-tribal to the most highly civilized. Some societies have been amused by gayness and have tolerated it to some degree. Other cultures, namely that of Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, have been severely anti-gay. To be sure, Christians had less of a problem with gays than traditional Jews and Muslims because Greco-Roman paganism(relatively tolerant of gayness) and Christianity became closely entwined since the Renaissance(or earlier). Anyway, the point is one doesn’t have THINK in order to find gayness strange, weird, or offensive. Paradoxically, our antipathy toward gays is the result of our ability to feel a great deal of empathy for other humans and imagine what they do and feel. (Animals, with far less capacity for empathy, wouldn’t be disturbed by gay-ish behavior among others of their kind.) Every human being senses a kind of shared experience/feelings/behavior with other human beings if only through imagination. He senses that other people would understand his likes and dislikes as he would understand their likes and dislikes through the capacity for empathy.
So, a guy who likes ice cream senses/thinks that others will like ice cream too. If he sees another guy eating something and liking the flavor, he senses that he will probably like it too. If a guy loves the scenery of a beautiful lake and mountains, he expects most people to like it as well. We know that we are not alone in our natural likes and dislikes. Sure, we all have different variations and degrees of likes and dislikes, but there are general perimeters to our emotions.
So, there’s a kind of empathy of mutually shared likes and dislikes. So, if you like fried chicken at a certain joint, you might buy some for your friends or family members, expecting them to like it too. You know this because most of us share certain common preferences and tastes. So, if I say, "I love ice cream" and if you say, "I like ice cream too", we understand one another. But, suppose someone says, "I love eating dog shit." That freaks us out. Why? Because we are naturally empathetic creatures, we imagine what it would be like for ourselves to eat dogshit instead of ice cream; we immediately feel grossed out. We don’t even need to think about it rationally. It just appalls our natural sense of what is good and bad. We naturally feel that it’s disgusting to eat.
Sure, a pro-dog-shit person may argue RATIONALLY that dogshit is not without nutrients. Indeed, we sometimes see dogs eating the shit of other dogs and cats. And, who’s to say just because dog shit is offensive to us, it’s necessarily offensive to everyone? What if some people really like the smell of dogshit and really enjoy eating that stuff? Why shouldn’t they? (Besides, it could be argued that we eat oyster shit when we eat oysters and lobster shit when we eat the green/orange stuff inside the lobster, so why not eat dogshit as well? Also, all cereal products have some degree of rodent, bird, and insect shit mixed in. Also, the food we eat have been reprocessed from fertilizers made from shit material, so all food is really reprocessed shit. So, from a RATIONAL point of view, we can make a case for shit as food.) To that, I would reply, there should be no law banning adults from eating dogshit if they so desire. Besides, sugar and shortening aren’t much better for our health anyway. But, should the rest of us be forced to accept dogshit as FDA approved food?
Why is it that the story of Gandhi drinking his piss grosses us out? Again, it’s because we’re naturally empathetic and can imagine ourselves drinking piss. Just the thought makes us go blah! There’s no need to think or use reason on issues such as this.. We naturally have an aversion to eating shit and drinking piss. We might do it if driven to hunger or thirst, but we prefer not to. Similarly, we feel the same way about gay sex. Guys acting like pansies, sucking each other’s dingdong, and sticking their penises into fecal holes is disgusting to us. We need not think about it. We naturally sense it. All a straight guy has to do is empathetically imagine himself kissing another guy, sticking his penis into some guy’s fecal hole, or having some guy sticking his penis into his own fecal hole. Who needs to think about this? It’s so naturally obvious that it’s gross and gay! The capacity of empathy allows a straight guy to imagine what it would be like to be gay, and that’s enough to emotionally turn him off to gayassness.
And, this natural sense is good because fecal penetration is disgusting. It’s disgusting between men and women, and even more disgusting between men and men because the very male-male relationship is so biologically weird. Of course, some straight men may be driven to fecal penetration in extreme situations as in prison. In a society made up entirely of men who are horny but can’t get no poon, some of them may indulge in fecal penetration just to get off.

So, when a gay agenda freak asks us what are our RATIONAL reasons against ‘gay marriage’, all we really need to say BECAUSE GAY SEX IS DISGUSTING, PERIOD! Indeed, if REASON is the iron rule for every situation, why shouldn’t we allow cannibalism? What is the rational argument against it? Why can’t we have cannibalism-as-long-as-it-doesn’t-involve-murder? Suppose a child gets hit by a car in an accident and dies. Suppose some people with a taste for human flesh want the corpse to make into human stew and roast. Suppose the parents of the dead child are willing to sell the corpse for $1,000. What RATIONAL case can be made against it? The kid is already dead. Whether it’s buried or eaten, it will never live again. His flesh is filled with proteins, vitamins, and other good stuff. Why let it go to waste by burying it six feet under or cremating it? Why not sell it to people who wanna pay for it and eat it? Or, why not chop it up, process it, can it, and send it to starving people in poor countries who will eat anything? We use all sorts of body parts from cadavers for replacement surgery anyway. Why not allow people to EAT some body parts if they so wish and willing to pay good money for it? I’ll bet a child’s liver has lots of vitamin A. The same can be said for all the aborted fetuses. They are dead tissue like any piece of meat. They are full of protein. They can be used for dog food or cat food. There could even be a market for fetus meat among prospective cannibals. Why not market fetuses that way? If liberals, who are mostly pro-choice, argue that fetuses are NOT human beings, we should be able to treat fetuses like any other kind of meat. From a purely RATIONAL point of view, this should be true.
But, we don’t allow such things, and WHY NOT?? Because of our NATURAL FEELINGS OF AVERSION to cannibalism(notwithstanding the fact that some savage societies have practiced it)!!! We don’t need to explain the RATIONAL WHY as to our aversion to cannibalism. Most healthy and normal people just find that sort of thing GROSS!!! Of course, rationalist-cannibals can argue that no one will be directly or physically harmed if neo-cannibalism only allows the marketing and consumption of flesh of accident victims or fetuses. But, what would such thing say about our society as a whole if we allowed it? Do we want that degree of RATIONALITY or do we want to trust some of our natural, healthy, and normal feelings? Because our feelings our so crucial to our humanness, our natural aversion to homosexuality should be enough for us to reject crazy ideas like ‘gay marriage’. We don’t need to come up with some arch RATIONAL argument against ‘gay marriage’. We should stress our feelings about homosexuality, especially how our negative feelings about it are not only natural and normal but healthy.


Of course, that doesn’t mean we should make homosexuals feel less-than-human. This is especially true in the West since much of the flowering of Western culture owes a good deal to the brilliance and genius of gay men and even some lesbians. Totally denying homosexual achievements/contributions would be tantamount to denying much of Western art and culture itself. We don’t need nor want the ultra-moralistic injunctions against homosexuality as developed by the Hebrews nor the ultra-antiseptic hostility against homosexuality stressed by National Socialism. Perfection or purity is impossible in the human world, and we should reject both moral and biological puritanism.

However, we must still maintain values, norms, and hierarchies. There is a place for homosexuals in our society as citizens and individuals with equal rights, but we cannot acknowledge, accept, nor legitimize homosexuality as normal or healthy. Such extreme egalitarianism too is a kind of puritanism and radicalism. It is a politically correct moral puritanism devoted to the ideology of absolute egalitarianism. Radicals are crazy because they–regardless of ideology–have a single-minded devotion to one idea, one truth, one agenda. For example, there’s a difference between people who call for humane treatment of animals and crazies at PETA who really can’t tell the difference between man and a rat. We shouldn’t needlessly inflict pain on any animal, but it makes sense to value the lives of certain animals more than those of others. But, PETA, as we know, is devoted to the morally puritanical and ultra-egalitarian ideology of absolute equality among all living beings. Similarly, the ‘gay rights’ agenda seeks total equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality(aka normosexuality). And, with the aid of the liberal Jewish media, the gay agenda is becoming the mainstream of America.

Now, one may ask how could ‘gay marriage’ turn into a mainstream idea IF most people have natural feelings of aversion to homosexuality? Doesn’t the tidal wave of change in our social attitudes toward homosexuality proof enough that all moral values and social norms are purely cultural. In other words, previous generations were anti-homosexual because education, movies, and tv depicted homosexuals as deviant freaks whereas many young people today think homos are perfectly fine because ‘progressive’ education and culture weaned them away from ‘prejudice’ and ‘homophobia’. After all, if feelings of aversion to homosexuality are natural among most people, how come over 50% of white people in California are for ‘gay marriage’?
Nice try, such is a false argument. For starters, the depiction of homosexuality has not been honest in education and culture. Many movies and tv shows idolize and idealize gays as perfect saints, noble martyrs, funny lovable people, or pleasant folks who are, in most respects, more normal than we are. Also, depiction of homosexuality tends to be Victorian, almost never showing the disgusting aspect of its bio-sexual functions. Also, just as handsome goyim have been recruited to play Jewish characters, handsome and virile straight actors have been cast to play gay characters. So, we don’t really see gay people truthfully as gay people or the gay world truthfully as the gay world. We see a very idealized vision of gayness and gaydom.

Of course, books and movies in the past simplistically vilified or mocked gays in ways that weren’t realistic either. But, the falsity and delusions of old culture haven’t been replaced by honesty and truthfulness of new culture but by political correctness which romanticizes and idealizes gays.
Indeed, isn’t it odd that when we explain why we oppose the legitimization of homosexuality–by describing the nature of its sexual/physical acts–‘progressives’ turn up their noses and act all grossed out and offended. They act like priggish Victorian ladies who simply cannot stand any discussion of sexual biology. But, these people are utterly specious because, on the one hand, they say homosexuality is perfectly healthy and wonderful, BUT on the other hand, if you describe the nature of gay sex, they get so uncomfortable and offended. Though all we are describing is the homosexual act itself–as practiced by real homos–, the progressives act like we’re saying something vile and disgusting. If what we are saying is vile and disgusting, it must be because the act itself is vile and disgusting. But, ‘progressives’ blame the messenger than the ASS-injure. So, if a gay guy sticks his penis–a reproductive organ–into a fecal-stained anus, ‘progressives’ have no problem with that. But, if you say, ‘gay men stick their penises into the fecal holes of other men’, then ‘progressives’ act all grossed out.
We see the same pattern when it comes to radical leftist politics. So, when it was outed that Obama had associations with radical figures like Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright, the burden wasn’t on Obama for having associated with such people but on the people who pointed it out. So, according to the liberal media, it’s not shameful to hang out with leftist terrorists and demagogues, but it is shameful to point it out. Of course, if a politician hung out with far right white nationalists, the liberal Jewish dominated media would go all out to destroy him.
This double-standard has long been the game played by the Left since the 50s. Therefore, ‘Red-baiting’ is considered worse than being a Red. If someone’s a communist, no problem. And, if you point out that he’s a communist, YOU are the ‘paranoid hater’.
Similarly, speaking truthfully about gay sex is offensive but gay sex itself is not. It’s possible that in their egalitarian delusions, many liberals have really fooled themselves into thinking that gay people are as normal as the liberal media have made them out to be. Why not? The liberal white media in the 50s and 60s pretended that most American Negroes were the nicest people, a fantasy swallowed by many white liberals hook, line, and sinker.

Anyway, IF a ‘progressive’ says that our description of gay sex is disgusting, our reply must be, "BUT, ALL I AM DOING IS DESCRIBING IN NEUTRAL LANGUAGE THE ACTUAL HOMOSEXUAL ACT. IF WHAT I DESCRIBE IS DISGUSTING, THEN THE ACT ITSELF MUST BE DISGUSTING."
Similarly, suppose someone eats dogshit and you tell other people about it. Now, what is more disgusting? The act of eating dogshit or describing the act of eating dogshit? Of course, it’s the dogshit eater who is disgusting. Indeed, the person describing the act isn’t disgusting at all. All he’s doing is bringing to light a disgusting act of the dogshit eater.

Though we all have normal and natural feelings, it’s possible for masses or entire populations to become swept up in unnatural or anti-natural prejudices and delusions, even through centuries or millennia. We need only to consider the history of Christianity which instilled generations of people with the belief that the flesh is filthy, sex is dirty, and so on. Christianity allowed marriage, but even sex-in-marriage was seen giving in to the sinful flesh. The ideal male was modeled on Jesus and his disciples who remained ‘pure’. And, the ideal of womanhood was Virgin Mary, who conceived the God-child without sex with a man. They were seen as figures who’d triumphed over flesh and reached the level of pure spirit. So, even though sexuality is a natural feeling in all humans, entire generations of Christians came to think of sex as dirty and filthy. It led to all forms of psycho-pathologies. Catholic priests weren’t even allowed to masturbate, and their balls got overloaded with stale semen–often leading to testicular cancer. Or, Catholic priests, with brains poisoned by toxins produced by overloaded testicles, began to do funny things to little boys. And, there was a dark and drab puritanism in Northern Europe where men and women wore black garb and were afraid of every kind of sensual stuff. This extreme and repressive Christianity led to witch burning and destruction of much pagan art and culture.

In the Muslim world, the ideal of pure womanhood led to the practice of lopping of clitorises in some communities as sexual pleasure for a woman was thought to be filthy and sinful. Also, though women naturally want to show off their beauty, many parts of the Muslim world demand that women cover their heads and even faces. These customs have become so pervasive among Muslims that many Muslim women have come to deny their natural feelings(of wanting to look good in public) and embrace the anti-sensual puritanism that looks askance at women who show off their beauty.

There is a variation of this in feminism as well. In the 70s and 80s, many feminists argued that women who wanted to look good were just sexual toys or puppets of evil and oppressive patriarchal men. Women who dressed well, used makeup, and looked sexy were said to be hussies. In a sense, there is a link among feminists, Christian puritans, and Muslim fanatics.
It’s no wonder that many feminists in the West have been muted in their criticism of Islam. Though Western feminists believe in freedom and liberty for women, many of them still tend to be puritanically anti-beauty and anti-sensual. Though most Western feminists use makeup and privately care about their looks–natural feelings can be repressed and denied but cannot be expunged–, many of them still cling to the ideal of women liberated from the Beauty Ideal. As long as the Beauty Ideal exists, feminists feel that women will be subservient to men in trying to look appeal to and please the man. It’s no wonder that many Western feminists admired communism. Under communism, men and women often wore the same drab clothes of uniform color, shape, fit, and texture. It supposedly eradicated the ‘unjust inequality’ between man and woman.
Indeed, there is an moral and ideological zone where communism and Islam see eye-to-eye. They are both universalist, morally puritanical, and repressive of the sensual/natural. As such, the term ISLAMO-FASCISM should really be ISLAMO-MARXISM. Isn’t it interesting that Muslims in Europe are far more closely linked with the European Left than with the European Right?

Anyway, civilizations have long suppressed and denied natural feelings, and the latest attempt to normalize and legitimize homosexuality is simply the latest in this effort.
Civilization is created by taming and suppressing many of our natural feelings as I’ve stated above. Furthermore, societies produce certain ‘high ideals’. There is some natural tendency in Man to take ideas and values to their ‘logical’ extreme. (There is a HAL computer or Big Brother in each of us.) Just as an alcoholic feels a need to drink more and more until he gets smashing drunk or just as a piggish eater feels a need to eat more and more until there’s nothing left to eat, a thinker or leader in any given society feels a tendency or temptation to push his idea or agenda to The Limit. Christians at one time tried to set up a Holy Christian state. Muslims sought to do the same. Communists tried to create a pure communist state. Nazis tried to create a pure ‘Aryan’ civilization. The first emperor of China tried to set up a perfect ‘legalist’ totalitarian state. And, conquerors like Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan never wanted to give up until they conquered everything and united all under heaven. This aspect of man can be positive and negative. On the plus side, it makes Man keep pushing on and on, like when European navigators sought to go further and further, or when scientists push their theories further and further to find the deeper truth. On the minus side, it can blind people to everything but The One True Idea or Agenda. It can lead to tunnel vision.
There is also a natural tendency in people to submit to such totalizing systems or Great Leaders.
Man, like wolves, developed as a social animal, and for societies to be powerful and cohesive, people had to unite under the same flag, same values, same principles, and same leader. As such, there is something natural in man that seeks to commit to One Single Truth or Power.

So, it’s natural that radical ‘progressives’ should try to push their version of Truth and Justice to its extremes. Like anyone else, they too have the radical or totalist bug in their psycho-spiritual system.
But, this natural tendency toward totalism has a way of repressing and denying other natural feelings, impulses, and instincts. So, though a puritanical Christian’s absolute faith in his creed is a natural tendency, he comes to regard other natural tendencies–such as sexual feelings and other pleasures of the flesh–as evil and sinful.

The demands of culture can even make people want to choose death, the ultimate case of how society can turn people against their natural tendencies. All organisms have a natural fear of death and cling to life, but many warrior cults created the ideal of the fearless warrior. Vikings were supposed to hurl themselves toward sure death laughing and howling. And, samurai warriors were supposed to be impervious to pain. They were supposed to be willing to give up their lives for their lords for the sake of HONOR. Having grown up under a brutal and/or strict regimen, such warrior folks were taught to suppress or deny their life-affirming emotions and exult in the culture of Death.

We saw this even as late as 1970 with the ritual suicide of Yukio Mishima. Steeped in Japanese culture and the samurai code, Mishima convinced himself that he wanted to die, indeed had to die. He even had a young devotee follow him to death. But, suppressed and denied feelings don’t go away. They remain somehow and somewhere within the human soul. So, Mishima died miserably and agonizingly by all accounts. And the kid that were scared stiff, failing even to fully plunge the blade into his belly before his head was lopped off. Alas, FEAR remained in both of them. And, we all heard of the Kamikaze in WWII and how they were happy and willing to die for the nation and Emperor. But, what did many of the pilots really cry out when they dove down to strike the American ships? "MOM!!!!" True story.
All religions and ideologies try to simplify or escape from the reality of natural tendencies. Hindu yogis do horrible things to their bodies to overcome pain and achieve spiritual meaning, and in some cases, do achieve something of note(though I don’t know what.). But, more often than not, such denial and repression of pain is ugly and grotesque. These are all cases of taking the civilizational idea TOO FAR. Whether it’s a hindu yogi seeking to obtain perfect spirituality, Japanese samurai seeking to achieve pure warrior-hood, a communist seeking to establish total equality, or a Muslim seeking to set up a pure sacred order or blow himself with bomb, too much of the natural is destroyed within their souls in the name of ideological, spiritual, or social purity or perfect justice/equality.

This is the danger of all systems developed by Man. Man is, by nature, both accepting of hierarchy and seeking of equality. Man is, by nature, both in need of order and need of freedom. Man needs more than one idea or one tendency, natural or not. The problem with all radical or extreme or purist ideologies or theologies is they choose one idea and elevate it above all else. So, communists cannot tolerate economic hierarchy. So, anarchists cannot tolerate institutional order. So, libertarians cannot stand any government beyond the most minimal. So, Christians and Muslims couldn’t stand pagan or infidel culture. So, Nazis couldn’t stand Jews or certain non-Aryans. So, ancient Hebrews couldn’t stand any gays. And, the radical gay agenda cannot accept anything other than TOTAL equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality. In some ways, gays are insisting that homosexuality is SUPERIOR to heterosexuality, much in the same way that Jews have traditionally felt that they are better–‘chosen’–than other peoples. Though Jews are 2% of the US population, they often act like they are the most important and valuable people in this country. And, though gays are less than 2% of the population, they act like their lifestyle is equal in every way to the other 98% whose sexuality produces life and makes biological sense.

So, we’ve arrived at yet another mass delusion, much like the delusion in the Middle Ages which equated sexuality with sin, filth, and nastiness. The new delusion is the idea that gays are modern saints and their sexuality is just the most wonderful thing and IF YOU DISAGREE, YOU’RE ROTTEN, LOW-LIFE, DISGUSTING ‘HOMOPHOBE’ WHO SHOULD BE BURNT AT THE STAKE–OR AT LEAST BLACKLISTED FROM GOVERNMENT JOBS, UNIVERSITY POSITIONS, HOLLYWOOD, AND MUCH ELSE.
If this goes on, the US military will not discriminate against gays but against ‘homophobes’. Already, government, universities, and many private companies are less likely to hire or promote people opposed to ‘gay marriage’ than people who’ve jumped on the gay agenda bandwagon.
Though people have a natural aversion to gayness and gay behavior, this aversion is targeted and shamed from an early age. This natural and healthy aversion to homosexuality is said to be a phobia–an intense, pathological, irrational, and unnatural fear of something harmless. So, aversion to homosexuality is said to be like hydrophobia–rabies–or claustrophobia. If the medical institution decades regarded homosexuals as mentally sick, today it considers people with aversion to homosexuality–‘homophobes’–as mentally ill. Richard Hofstadter in the 40s and 50s said conservatives all suffered from ‘paranoid tendencies’–as if conservatism was a mental disease–and, today, liberals believe that those opposed to ‘gay marriage’ are the ones who are mentally sick.

So, if a bunch of kids laugh at a gay joke or make a negative remark about gay people, the teachers or politically correct parents will shame them. Kids are forced to repress their natural aversion to homosexuality. (It’s one thing to teach kids that it’s wrong to mistreat or abuse gays, but it’s quite another to teach kids that they must think well of homosexuality or else be considered sick-in-the-head and even possibly in need of re-education.) Kids are made fearful of using ‘gay’ as a pejorative since doing so would be ‘homophobic’. And, there’s also the influence of popular culture which is dominated by the liberal Jewish media elite and by artists and creative people who, for all their talent and brilliance, lack honesty, truth, and moral fiber. To the extent that creative people in the modern world are committed to an hostile and rebellious stance against the mainstream, they tend to knee-jerkedly side with fringe groups and the ‘freaks’ of society. It’s gotten rather pointless since all of mainstream culture has now become dominated by political correctness and ‘fringe’ sensibilities. When the screenplays of gay Hollywood writers and jungle beat of inner city hoodlums dominate as mainstream culture, how truly fringe is fringe, how truly oppressed are the ‘oppressed’?

But, there is actually a sane middle ground between our natural feelings and the need for civility. The current gay agenda is confused, crazy, and contradictory. On the one hand, gays tell us their sexuality is their business, and we should not interferet. Okay, fair enough. But, then gays insist that we MUST acknowledge gay sex and behavior as not only normal, healthy, and decent but as noble, saintly, and heroic. Though the AIDS epidemic was spread by disgusting and promiscuous behavior among gay men, the gay community would have us look upon every AIDS ‘victim’ as the equal of Jesus Christ. Naturally expressive and exhibitionistic, gays also love to parade their dysfunctional sexuality all over big cities. So much for keeping their gayness to themselves! They make it our business by pushing it out into the open and interfere with our meaningful moral institutions, YET they accuse us of interfering with their sexual lifestyles when we explain why gayness is neither suitable nor worthy of marriage.

Gays are among the most selfish people on Earth. It’s no wonder there’s such a close link between the American Jewish community and the gay community. Just as the Jewish community only remembers the Holocaust but neglects the history of Jewish involvement in communism, gays flaunt and parade their gayness(gay pride!) before our eyes but get all hissy and pissy when we tell them that their sexual and ‘moral’ exhibitionism childish, repugnant, and disgusting. When two guys kiss each other out in the open, how is it gays minding their own business? When cities have gay parades where guys clad in tight leather and other sexual garb flaunt their thing, aren’t they forcing gay garbage on all of us?
Of course, many non-gays participate in such parades too, mostly as an act of moral narcissism. They want to flaunt how ‘tolerant’, ‘progressive’, and ‘open-minded’ they are. Many white people are so pitifully lacking in normal and healthy white sense of white identity and heritage–mocked and attacked as whitebread 50s suburban conformism–that the ONLY means for them to gain any kind of moral worth is by championing the causes of minorities or deviants. So, if black guy can say "I’m proud as a black guy" and if a gay guy can say, "I’m proud as a gay guy", a straight white guy cannot say "I’m proud to be a straight white guy." The only way he can win moral credits in the politically correct world is by saying, "I, as a dweeby guilt-ridden straight white guy, bow down to you black guy or to you gay guy or to you Illegal Mexican guy." His moral pride lies in the exhibitionism of his shame.


How pathetic! Meanwhile, we ignore the meaningful middle ground. What would be that middle ground? It would be one that takes into account the natural feelings of all of us and devises laws and values that most sanely and productively serve them. What are the natural feelings of the 98% of the population which isn’t gay? They have a natural aversion to homosexuality. It can be repressed through political correctness but it cannot be expunged–even if they desperately try to fool themselves otherwise. Just as a Catholic priest who convinces himself that he’s beyond sexual lust is only fooling himself and just as a Kamikaze pilot who steels himself to die for his country is only denying his natural desire to live, a straight person who convinces himself or herself that gay sexuality is all fine and dandy is just fooling himself or herself.
Such mass delusions are not healthy for society, just as extensive sexual repression in the Christian world–and currently in the Islamic world–has been unhealthy. Such denial of true feelings deforms souls. Well, at least Christians and Muslims denied or repressed sexual feelings in the name of moral redemption. Straight people who suppress their natural aversion to homosexuality may think they are doing it for ‘progress’ and ‘justice’, but they are doing it for lack of courage, moral fiber, and in the service of moral decline. (Truth is the greatest moral value of civilization. Truth cannot always be spoken as it can be intemperate or discomforting, but when truth is sacrificed in favor of correctness, civilization begins to rot at the core.) Straight men who repress their natural aversion to homosexuality pretend that gayness is okay for the sake of ‘progressive’ correctness. They are like the white boy character in the movie SIX DEGREE OF SEPARATION who is exploited and cheated by the gay Will Smith character. The slick black gay boy Will Smith toys with the do-goody liberal emotions of the straight white guy who’s not only robbed of his cash but is persuaded to be sodomized by Will Smith. (Sounds like what Obama has done to white liberal men across this country and in Europe.)

The middle ground we need is to accept that homosexuals were born as homosexuals, a fact that should be undeniable to all honest people. We must let them be gay and do their gay stuff in their own world. We mustn’t force them not be gay. But, we must also acknowledge the fact that homosexuality is an aberration of nature and a form of sexual dysfunction. It must not be put on the same pedestal as heterosexuality or normosexuality which is healthy, productive, and naturally functional. The old extreme used to ban homosexuality altogether and persecute homosexuals as mentally sick people. Today’s extreme seeks to equate morally, biologically, and socially the meaning and purpose of heterosexuality with homosexuality while persecuting those who oppose the gay agenda.
That’s like saying people born deaf are just as functional as those born with hearing. We must make our society ‘nice’ to gay people and deaf people, but let us not, in the name of radical purist egalitarianism, pretend that deafness is as wonderful and functional as the ability to hear or that homosexuality–as an emotion or behavior–is the moral or biological equivalent of heterosexuality.

I Like the Term ACTRESS!!!

I'm sure all of you have realized that the term 'actress' has become something of a dirty word. All the actresses in Hollywood now refer to themselves as 'actors'. They think they are standing up for new freedom, justice, equality, and progress but they are only lobotomastically toeing the latest Politically Correct Party Line. So much for originality.

Now, I can understand why some women want to get rid of words like doctoress, professoress, acountantess, bus driveress, and whatever.

Those are sex-neutral roles. A woman doctor does the same work as a man doctor. There are no special rules for a female accountant than those for a male accountant. So, sexual identity doesn't or shouldn't matters in many professions. Specifying that a person is a WOMAN is irrelevant and even dismissive. It's as if to say a male accountant is THE accountant whereas a female accountant isn't quite up to par.

BUT, the issue is different in acting because 99.9% of acting roles are sex-specific. A man or a woman can be a doctor, but in most cases, men play men, and women play women. Audience look for, want, and expect different qualities from male actor and from female actors--aka actresses. Even when women play traditionally male roles--especially in action movies--, we respond to their toughness differently. We see female action heroes as HOT SEXY BABES than merely as tough killers. Because acting roles are sex-specific, it makes sense to distinguish between an actor(male) and actress(female). Of course, 'actor' can have a general meaning denoting anyone in the profession of acting. "Man" and "mankind" can be used the same way. Even so, when we get down to the nitty gritty, males take on actor roles and females take on actress roles. Sure, a man CAN play a female role and a woman can play a male role, but that's usually for comedy--we realize right away how funny it seems. (and, thank god guys no longer play female roles in shakespeare plays. that must have been so gay).

By the way, if radical feminists are so intent on getting rid of -ess to denote woman, why not get rid of wo- as well. Why should we distinguish between MAN and WOMAN. Maybe women should be called 'man' too. If differences between sexes were purely artificial constructed, then even the concept of 'man' and 'woman' are flawed. There are only men and that would include those with penises and those with vaginas.

Finally, conservatives and libertarians complain of political correctness, YET THEY USE THE TERM 'GENDER'. 'Gender' connotes that sexual differences are NOT real but merely the construct of culture. So, if they use the term GENDER, they've already given into PC. So, the term to use is 'sex' and 'sexual', not 'gender'. (Worse, 'gender' sounds so soft goo goo.)

I would agree that culture does play a significant role in defining what is masculine and feminine BUT I disagree with the LEFT in a fundamental way. It's obvious that cultural differences are rooted in genuine and verifiable BIOLOGICAL DIFFERNCES. Culture rises from biology. Culture can be used to restrict OR expand a man or a woman's freedom of choice in relation to nature. For example, men are generally stronger than women, so men have naturally been warriors and women have been homemakers. So, this division of the sexes has been based on biology. But, some women are stronger than men and would probably make better warriors, a biological fact. But, if a culture commands that ALL women must be homemakes, even tough women must make home while even wussy weakling men must go into battle.

So, culture can be a curse or blessing when it comes to freedom. Culture, by establishing a world of ideals and laws, can liberate us from brutal biological constraints. Or, culture can oppress us from realizing our natural aspirations by forcing THIS group to only do THIS while THAT group must only do THAT. The Left follows the Roussean line that Nature is benign and wonderful, and therefore, all the oppression we see in the world are the result of CULTURAL oppression. The Left argues that if we get rid of cultural hangups and return to nature--like in Woodstock--, there will be peace and harmony. The Right is fearful of human nature and therefore looks to cultural restraints to keep the Beast-Within locked inside the cage.

Anyway, isn't it funny how the Left tries to have it both ways. On the issue of men and women, they say the differences are mainly cultural, therefore they insist on the term 'gender'. As with the issue of race, they reject the notion of biological differences or factors.

BUT, when it comes to the issue of HOMOSEXUALS, the Left adamantly claims that HOMOS were born that way, their orientation has NOTHING to do with culture, and that's that. (I agree that's true in 99% of cases.) The LEFT operates in BAD FAITH but is comfortable doing so because it flatters itself on being SUBVERSIVE and JAZZY in toying, fooling, and messing with lame-square society. What's really funny is that many white leftists are really lame square boys and girls who think they are so cool, subversive, and avant-garde because they listened to some jazz, kiss Obama's ass, and read Chomsky. What a bunch of sorryass lame square losers who ONLY think they are so hip, cool, and radical.

Evolutionary Explanation as to Why Women Tend to be More Liberal.

In some ways it’s not hard to understand why women tend to be more liberal than men. Indeed, it is also true that effeminate or metro-sexual men also tend to be more liberal. One could argue that liberalism is soft and feminine(matriarchal or nanny-ish) while conservatism is hard and masculine(patriarchal or guardian-ish). It could well be that women tend to be kinder, gentler, and more compassionate; therefore, they feel more at home in the world of liberalism whose values are tolerance, inclusion, and so on. Also, liberals and the Democratic Party have been more involved in expanding opportunities for women in fields that had been the domain of men. Since women had to challenge the male-dominated order, it’s understandable that women gravitated to the Democrats. As women gained more independence and economic power, they wanted to consolidate and expand their power, and they found the Democratic Party to be their natural base.

Women were likely to be more affected because women are naturally more likely to follow orders of The Great Authority and go with the flow(due to evolutionary development). The feminist narrative is that all the women spontaneously and individually rose up, demanded ‘liberation’, and brought about the New Order. In fact, this is a lot of crock. Women had disadvantages in the 50s and 60s, but they were not oppressed. And, things were changing naturally because of the great rise in affluence, opportunities, and possibilities made possible by technology. Women would have achieved more advantages and opportunities, feminism or no feminism. What feminism did was to instill in the minds of women that they were being terribly oppressed by THE GREAT EVIL MALE(mostly white). The feminist grand narrative said that women realized this, figured out what must be done, and they all got together to start a grass roots movement–and they just all happen to realize at the same time that Betty Friedan and her Ugly Hag Sisters were right about everything! In fact, feminism was a top-down affair. It was not the rise of the oppressed, the poor, and downtrodden. It was the ideology imposed and pushed by rich, powerful, deranged, and crazy Jews at the top in NY, LA, and in the academia. Many women bought into this because they naturally tend to be less skeptical, confrontational, and questioning than men. Also, the hook was that women, by submitting to the tyranny of Big Sister, were being liberated from men–just like workers were fooled by communism that they were being liberated from evil capitalism; communism too was a revolution engineered from the top, not really understood by the people at the bottom. As a result, many women bought into the feminist narrative: they were being liberated from evil male patriarchy, and they did it on their own, which is to say they freely, naturally, and inevitably came to worship Betty Friedan as the savior of all the Sisters in the world. Yes, it was all very natural, not artificial–as in being manipulated and browbeaten by the mainstream media and entertainment dominated and controlled by the left-wing Jews. We can find this crockpot narrative in Jane Campion’s worthless dimwit adaptation of the rich and ironic Henry James novel "Portrait of a Lady"; the stupid movie begins with a bunch of modern women gathered together as flaky New Age pod people zombies. (You won’t find a strong-willed Camille Paglia among that sorry looking group). Or, you can find this sort of narrative in Toni Morrison’s "Paradise". Gag!!!! Though all these feminist tracts pretend to offer freedom and liberation to women, but what they really do is call on women to submit to the new authority of Big Sisterhood. It’s not about individual liberation but ‘group liberation’. A woman is told that she can be liberated from the Evil Male Order only if she joins the Big Sister Order. It’s kind of like Christians or Muslims saying you can be saved from pagan tyranny only by submitting to Christian or Islamic tyranny. It’s like Idi Amin telling his people that they can be saved from white man’s imperialism only if they submit to his uga-buga African tyranny. The simple fact of the matter is that women are inherently less individualistic than men and more in need of group inclusion, approval, and acceptance. So, feminist liberation is really just another form of submission.

Of course, there is a problem with feminist tribalism as stated above. Women on their own cannot sustain a community. Swedes, Chinese, or Eskimos on their own can last forever as long as the men and women in those groups produce offsprings ad infinitum. But, women on their own or men on their own cannot sustain themselves beyond the life spans of the members. The core unit of(or unity within)society is Man and Woman, not All-Women-Society or All-Men-Society. A single man and a single woman can produce offsprings, create a family, and serve as the basis for a large future community. Women on their own can only practice lesbianism which doesn’t get them anywhere reproductive-wise. This was the problem of radical feminism, which is why its impact was limited. Too many women were naturally attracted to men and wanted to be part of a family than to the Sisterhood. Many women felt in their hearts–even if their minds had been told differently–that their main loyalty should be to their Man and Children. Radical feminists hissed at this and seethed with contempt, and called women who settled for home life ‘traitor bitches’, ‘slaves’, or ‘whores’. As radicals took over the feminist movement, it became less and less relevant and appealing to more women. Feminism just sounded shrill and puritanical(like some conservatives today who want to drive out all moderates).

But, feminism wasn’t just eclipsed by the bio-cultural need on the part of women for romance and family life. Because feminism tended to be puritanical in world saturated with pop culture, many within the younger generation were bound to rebel against their feminist-oriented mothers who insisted on rigid and drab ideological purity. The rise of black hip-hop culture especially confounded the feminists. On the one hand, it represented everything feminists hated–macho male attitudes and women-as-whores–, but it was black culture, and feminists were not supposed to criticize or condemn black culture as such would have been deemed as ‘racist’. When the main ‘misogynists’ of rock were heavy metal white guys, feminists attacked them tooth-n-nail. But, feminists couldn’t muster enough courage to go all out and attack rap music and hip-hop; as ugly and hateful as most of this music was, the leftist narrative said they were expressions of the ‘disenfranchised’ filled with ‘righteous rage’. Since white and Jewish feminists couldn’t go after rap and hip-hop, they wished that black feminists would, and some did. But, most didn’t because blacks–women as well as men–believed in sticking together. And, though rap degraded women, many black women were proud that a Black Thang was gaining such power, force, and popularity in America and around the world. Also, many black women distrusted white and Jewish leftists as spoiled, bratty, whiny, privileged bitchass fools making bullshit complaints when they had it so good. Also, black women didn’t like the part in feminism about race-mixing because black women were getting BY FAR the worst end of the deal. Non-black men didn’t like black women, so black women could only hope to link up with black men. But, many black men happened to be criminal, useless, dangerous, unreliable. Worse, well-educated fancy Negro males often seemed to go with white females. This made many black women feel bitter, which is why even the best educated and richest black women were deliriously happy when OJ Simpson got the ‘not guilty’ verdict for killing ‘that white whore’.

Anyway, radical feminism was too crazy and it was also upended by the rise of black rap and hip-hop which transformed the generations–of all ethnic and racial groups–since the late 80s into macho-thug-wanna-be’s or skankass-ho-wanna-be’s. Also, the fact is too many women wanted to meet guys and settle down and have a family. Only radical feminists wanted to spend their entire lives hanging around Women’s Studies Department(or English Department which became the same thing) with other ugly haggish looking or lesbian women without humor. Not all feminists were of this Stalinist Big Sister ilk; some were genuinely independent, individualistic, and original. But, we are talking of generalities here. It must also be said too many women sought to succeed in the free enterprise and corporate economy, and whatever their political ideology they had to make peace with capitalism. (It may be that many women are into ‘gay marriage’ and other radical causes because of pangs of guilt for having ‘sold out’ to the ‘male-dominated’ ‘patriarchal’ capitalist-corporate order. The most successful people tend to be ones who are most educated, and the most educated also happen to be the most indoctrinated by the Left. So, this creates a contradiction in the hearts and minds of the most successful. They’ve been intellectually molded to be left-wing, much more so than your average American, YET, as the best educated people, they climb to the top in the capitalist-corporate order. This can only lead to a sense of guilt, self-loathing, or obligation. Since they betrayed leftist ideals by succeeding in the capitalist order, they must make amends by supporting leftist agendas like ‘gay marriage’ and multi-culturalism.)

So, the tactics of feminism changed. It went from hag-witch-Stalinism to big-hen-Oprahism. The iron-clawed Big Sisterhood had sought militancy and demanded women to join the war, get in line, ‘man’ the trenches, and be very angry and nasty(and hysterical 24/7). Though women have a groupthink mentality, this form of feminism was too unappetizing, off-putting, and crazy. It ended up alienating a lot of women. This is the danger of any ideology or organization. Members who happen to be most ruthless, strong-willed, committed, and bullying–fanatics and the radicals–take over the movement and turn it into an asylum. What happened to feminism is similar to what had happened to the SDS in the 1960s. For various reasons, this kind of radicalized feminism became less and less relevant.
Yet, the need for groupthink and shared-emotions remained among women as it was hardwired into their DNA.
This aspect of womanhood is inborn but also socially cultivated. Boys are more likely to play at games where they clash with one another; boys play together by playing against one another, with each boy trying to be king-of-the-hill. (Even male bonding arises from male butting.) Though girls also play sports, girls prefer to do girly things and these activities bond the girls together emotionally and socially. Consider playing with dolls or comparing clothes. There is a spirit of competitiveness among girls and women, but it’s not so brutal and blatant as among boys and men. There is more camaraderie than competition among girls and women whereas there’s more competition than camaraderie among boys and men. Girls like to have slumber parties. Girls often hug one another and speak in cutesy tones. They love to giggle together. Most women are huggy-tuggy and higgly-giggly. Even many feminists are like this. In highschool, you often see girls greeting one another by hugging and goo-goo chit-chatting. All that ‘oh, that’s sooooo cute’ crap and etc.
Boys don’t act this way. Boys and men are always measuring each other up. No matter how civilized and peaceful the human race may have become, boys and men are always thinking, "I wonder if I can kick that guy’s as". This goes back to evolution. In most species, females don’t fight one another for the right to mate with the males. No, males fight one another to for the right to mate with the females. So, males go head to head against one another while the females all huddle together and wait to see who is the winner.
The fact that sports are dominated by blacks, that white boys are afraid of black boys in the schools and streets, and that Obama won the majority of white female vote all show that black males are winning the war-among-men-for-the-right-to-mate-with-the-top-female. Since white females are the most prized in our society, their sexual tastes and behavior are the best barometers of which males are winning the war-for-sex. Black males are whupping the white males. What’s truly pathetic is that even white males are increasingly becoming pussified and welcoming the victory of the black males. More and more white males are becoming metro-sexualized and ‘faggot-ized’, and these males are willingly accepting their pussyboy status in the new order.
So, Ken Burns, a dorky and ‘faggoty-ass’ white liberal boy made the documentary on "Jack Johnson" which celebrates the big strong negro who beat up white men, destroyed white male pride, and took white women. Ken Burns wasn’t in any way offended or threatened by Johnson and other such black males because he has no white male pride to defend. He is a white liberal pussyboy, and it’s as though his testicles have been cut off from birth. Of course, Ken Burns and other such white boy liberals convince themselves that their respect for guys like Jack Johnson is all about sympathizing with a people who’d been mistreated, exploited, and oppressed in the past. There is an element of truth in this because black people were discriminated and humiliated in demeaning ways in the past. But, this white liberal male rationale misses the larger picture because blacks are not just another race. They are the stronger, more aggressive, and more dangerous race. Though whites used their technological and organizational superiority in the past to keep down the black man, the black man is now using his fist and penis to beat down and humiliate the ‘white boy’ in a world where whites are not allowed to use their racial advantages for their own racial interests and survival. Whites on the Right have pride and are willing to fight for the most fundamental things for men of any race–their land and women. But, white males on the Left have been pussified and think it’s noble to kiss the negro’s ass and work against their own racial interest. (Generally, white liberals can play this self-loathing game because they happen to be wealthy and live in safe neighborhoods, which means they never really suffer the consequences of their stupid ideas. In other words, Ken Burns isn’t living in some Negro area in Philadelphia or Atlanta but in a mostly white, safe, and wealthy college town or fancy part of the city.)

Anyway, the female mindset is what it is because evolution made it that way. Women are more likely to be group-oriented, more likely to be conformist, more likely to follow, more likely to submit, more likely to be huggy-tuggy and higgly-giggly. So, women are more likely to bend with whatever wind that happens to be prevalent. So, my argument is that women have turned more liberal not out of their own rebellious volition but because the elite cultures of this nation have been taken over by liberals and leftists. Since those with the POWER have spread liberal ideas and values, women were likely to fall for liberalism more than men were likely to. Women are more liberal because they are more conformist, not because they are more rebellious. People may not notice this because liberalism, leftism, feminism, and other such -isms are supposed to be anti-normative, counter-cultural or counter-mainstream, and so on. So, there is the AURA of rebelliousness, individualism, and independence attached to the Left. But, look carefully, and these ideas didn’t arise from womankind by independent thought, rational inquiry, or maverick attitude.
No, leftists took over the TOP ECHELONS of power and then used their great power in media, academia, and culture to IMPOSE their agenda of correctness on people through schooling, pop culture, serious culture, news and information, etc. The Left often gave up on making rational arguments but used moral bullying, witch hunts, political correctness, ostracism, and threats of various kinds. The Left cooked up an entire vocabulary where people could be denounced for their ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘anti-semitism’, ‘Islamophobia’, ‘Tacophobia’, etc. Of course, there have always been crazy and extreme bigots and lunatics on the Right(and the Left). But, the Left tried to snuff ALL debate. So, even if a good, decent, and serious person like James Watson said he wasn’t optimistic about Africa because blacks are less intelligent, the Liberal Media denounced and destroyed him as a so-called ‘racist’. Watson didn’t call a black person a ‘nigger’. He didn’t say blacks are apes. No, he said what he believed as a scientist based on a lifetime of research and study. And, he would have rationally and seriously explained his statement IF the so-called rational liberals and leftists were willing to sit down and let him explain. But, no, the liberals just labeled him a ‘racist’ and said he must not say such things, and he must be fired and locked up in a funny farm. End of Debate.

So, even though the Left still maintains the AURA of being contrarian, rebellious, skeptical, and challenging of orthodoxy–and it’s true enough that historically, the Left stood for new ideas and freedoms–, the Left today has the most power in the institutions that matter the most; the Left controls the mainstream. The Left deems some ideas too dangerous even to discuss or debate–even if or especially if the Right can rationally and scientifically demonstrate that the Leftist assumptions are false–, and prefers to clamp down research and discussion altogether.
The Left is now in the position to defend the Holy Lie against the ‘ugly truth’. There was a time when the Right was the defender of the Holy Lie whereas the Left stood for the ‘the truth, however ugly and distressing it might be’. When Darwin arrived on the scene, the religious right defended the idea of God and his creations. Some people on the Right actually thought Darwin had a good theory and good argument, but even such people wanted to snuff our Darwinism because the ‘ugly truth’–that noble man descended from hairy apes–was deemed too dangerous to the moral and social order; so, these men did their best to maintain the Holy Lie of God’s existence and His Creation of the world and especially of Man. (Given the rise of Darwinist Nazism, perhaps the religious right did have a point, at least in the sense that even true ideas can be distorted and misused by extremists.)

Nowadays, the Left is in the position of defending the Holy Lie. They are totally invested in the idea that races don’t exist, that all races–if indeed such did exist–are equal(in intelligence, temperance, physical strength, etc), and that most differences between men and women are social than biological; as such, the Left cannot accept new data that seems to indicate otherwise.
The Left, like the religious right in the 19th century, may have a point in embracing the Holy Lie. We live in a diverse society, and we would like to believe that ‘we are all created equal’. We have enough social and cultural problems as it is, so why exacerbate the problem by revealing the uncomfortable truths about racial and sexual differences? But, truth is truth, and all people committed to the truth must accept it. Also, avoiding this truth can be even worse and lead to even direr results. For example, we know that blacks are the most dangerous and thuggish race. So, an immigration policy that brings in many blacks is not good for a nation. If a nation bases its immigration policy on equality of races, it might unwisely bring in a lot of black Africans, Carribean Negroes, and other problematic people. Just look at the problems that black African and Carribean Negroes are causing all over Europe. Having a few Negroes who may be absorbed in due time is no problem. But, large numbers of Negroes is bound to cause social chaos. Just look at American cities or suburbs where there are too many Negroes. Same thing happens over and over. So, if speaking truthfully about race can lead to ‘racist attitudes’, ignoring racial truths altogether can lead to racial suicide. I would rather be racist and survive as a people in a stable, healthy, and functional civilization than be racially suicidal by pretending that blacks are just like whites, letting them grow in numbers and bring down civilization itself as they’ve done all over Africa, the Carribean, US cities, and in South Africa. By the way, if white and Jewish liberals are so concerned about Negroes, why they all be living in affluent mostly white neighborhoods? This is true especially of the rich liberal Jews. They talk the talk but never walk the walk.

My guess is the Left clings to the issue of evolution not mainly because of the fear of the Christian Right but because of the desperate need to remind itself that it is still on the side of science. We know that the Left’s rejection of human races is unscientific. (Indeed, evolution is not possible without the creation of races. Development of new species can only follow the preliminary development of new races.) Because of the Holy Lie that pervades much of human sciences, the Left has been losing ground in the scientific debate. Even liberal and left-leaning scientists increasingly stress the importance of genetics in the talents and behavior of individuals and racial groups. So, whenever a liberal rationalist says stuff like, ‘race is a myth constructed by society’, he is either lying through this teeth or he is desperately trying to fool himself with a politically correct lie. Though liberals and leftists take pride in their anti- or non-religious outlooks, they too grew up surrounded by quasi-religious iconography and a spiritualist reading of history with their own secular versions of demons, angels, gardens of Eden, Noah’s ark stories, prophets, saviors, messiahs, sins, redemptions, etc. In the liberal secular-spiritual telling of history, the Americas and black Africa were Edenic gardens where men lived in harmony with nature. These people were not spoiled by the evil hierarchies that arose mainly in Western societies. The great Fall took place when devilish whites invaded and brought with them the evils of slavery, disease, exploitation, feudalism, colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, sexism, ‘homophobia’, coca-cola, and worst of all, ‘racism’. The story of the slave trade is like several Biblical stories bundled together–Noah’s Ark, slavery under the Egyptians, Babylonian captivity, etc. Then, you have the prophets and saints in Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, Dubois, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X. And you finally have the Messiah in Obama, the half-white, half-black dude who’s supposed to be 1/4 King, 1/4 Kennedy, 1/4 Malcolm X, and 1/4 Oprah.
And what about the whites? Since white folks are stained with the Original Sin of slavery, imperialism, colonialism, spreading-disease-ism, sexism, feudalism, capitalism, ‘racism’, coca-cola, and whatever else that the stupid academia dreams up next, the ONLY way they can be saved is by (1) relinquishing their white identity, pride, and power (2) begging forgiveness from ‘people of color’ (3) going for ‘jungle fever’ among white girls and acting pussyboy-ish among white males (4) and doing everything to perceive‘people of color’ as moral superiors. So, we have many stupid white women with shrugged shoulders worshiping someone as ridiculous as Oprah, the billionaire mammy. Or, we have all those wimpy white boys peeing in their pants and weeping with joy over the ascendancy of Obama. It’s as though white folks have no moral worth unless they look up to and gain approval from ‘people of color’, especially from blacks.
Problem for many liberals–and even increasingly dorky conservatives–has been that there aren’t many decent blacks they can look up to though they’ve been waiting for such a creature for a long time. People like Oprah and Obama understand and know how to exploit this ‘spiritualist’ need of white liberalism. Man is by nature religious. Those who reject religion seek spiritual sustenance from something else, and liberalism, we must admit, is really just another religion with its icons, holy texts, sacred narratives, and prophecies.
There is no other way one can understand a phenomenon as phony and stupid as Obama-ism. It’s been possible because white liberals fooled themselves that Obama is The One, just like stupid Christian Right folks have fooled themselves that most televangelists are good decent Christians.

Anyway, the point is that white liberals are only selectively rationalistic. They are FOR SCIENCE only on topics and matters that serve their ‘spiritualist’ world view. When a reality like human races stand in their way, they go into witch hunting mode. They carry out their own version of the Spanish Inquisition and don’t care how many careers and lives they ruin or destroy. Of course, they wrap their views in the language of science, but it’s always very selective.
To be sure, the far right has given them good ammo because the race science of Nazism was so miserable, false, and idiotic. Of course, the notion that races don’t exist or that races are all equal is just as baloney, but in our society of egalitarian-Christian-democratic-Marxist ethos the idea of racial equality is an easier sell than even the valid theories on the existence of races and racial differences. In a nation like Brazil or the US, people simply don’t want to discuss racial differences because we put such a premium on everyone getting together. Of course, blacks haven’t gotten along well with non-blacks, but we don’t want to discuss why this is so: (1) Blacks are physically stronger and more aggressive, therefore a threat to other races and (2) blacks are less intelligent, and so tend to achieve less.

Anyway, let us return to female psychology of conformism, and why that’s been crucial as to why women tend to be more liberal. If indeed most women have a group-centered or conformist psychology, the majority of them will go along with whatever the Big Sister(Left) or Big Mother(Right) says. So, the real question is who has control of the schools and media: Big Sister or Big Mother? Friedan, Steinem, Ireland, and others have been Big Sisters. Phyllis Schlafly has been a Big Mother(or Big Wife).
Why have Big Sisters gained greater influence than the Big Mothers?
They had an initial advantage in the 1960s because a new era was dawning, and women were demanding that more doors be open to them. But, it’s also true that most women found the radical feminists crazy and extreme. So, why did liberalism and even leftism gain the upper-hand among women in the long run? We have to look at culture and ideas, both high and low. We know that women entered the academia in ever greater numbers in the post-war era. Today, women outnumber men on campuses. In other words, increasing numbers of women came under the influence of professors, 90% of whom are liberal to leftist(and often radical and Jewish). Since girls are more likely to conform to figures of Authority, young women were more likely to be influenced by academic and intellectual theories in higher education pushed by the Professoriate. There was, of course, another element that ensured that more white women than white men would fall under the influence of leftism. A white woman has a place of ‘victimhood’ within the leftist spectrum. Though white, she can claim nobility as victim of the evil white males. There is no such place for white men–unless one happens to be gay–in the leftist spectrum. The ONLY option for a white guy within leftism is to loathe oneself, hate one’s own people, despise one’s own ‘privilege’, and actively work against one’s own interest. A white male can succeed in leftism only by seeking to fail. To be sure, white liberal males argue that they are only trying to make things equally fair for ALL people; but, look all around and who can deny that liberalism and leftism are destroying the white race altogether, and stuff like affirmative discrimination targets white males for their race.

Anyway, white women, because of their naturally conformist personality and a morally advantageous place for them at the table of leftism, were likely to come under the influence of liberals. (Some people will argue that women are more liberal because they are naturally more compassionate and caring, but a woman’s sympathy can be familial or tribal as opposed to being universal. A woman’s capacity for compassion may be stronger than that of a man, but it may also be more emotional and less idealistic or abstract. She may have great love for her family and children but almost no feeling for strangers. So, woman’s compassion isn’t necessarily more liberal; it can be the basis for even greater conservatism. After all, a mother bear or lion cares for HER young, not those of others.)

But, it wasn’t just the influence of higher education and intellectual culture. There was also pop culture. Though serious culture and pop culture are miles apart, there is a very complex inter-relationship between the two especially since the demise of the high-brow vs low-brow dichotomy in the 60s. Many ‘serious’ artists and thinkers have taken their cues form pop culture; think of people like Susan Sontag and Zizek. Also, pop culture is largely controlled by corporations, and corporations hire people who graduated from top colleges to manage and run the industry. So, the producers, designers, writers, and directors of TV shows are actually the products of the elite university system. These talented people work in pop culture because they want to make lots of money and ‘succeed in life’, but they are also products of leftist higher education. As such, they’ve been influenced by the leftist culture and ideals so pervasive in the academia. Though they work in the arena of capitalism, they are ‘spiritual Marxists’–just as past generations of capitalists were spiritually Christian. Andrew Carnegie loved making money, but his actions and deeds were also shaped by Christian ethos. In the realm of higher education Marx is the new Jesus, even if or especially because of the fall of communism. With the Fall of Communism, Marxism has been freed from the murderous regimes it helped create. It is now a form of spirituality. Suppose an iron-fisted Christian theocracy collapsed. Would that be the end of Christianity? No, Christianity might even become stronger as a free flowing spiritual force. The fall of Christian Rome only made Christianity stronger in the long run, and Islam will be as powerful as ever if the theocracy in Iran crumbles. It’s like in "Star Wars" when Darth Vader kills Ben Kenobi. Turned into pure spirit, Kenobi becomes even more powerful against the Empire.

So, even though pop culture is seemingly stupid and apolitical, it is not created by dumb people but by smart people with certain ideological convictions. These smart and well-educated people know they are creating, marketing, and selling crass mass culture. They feel somewhat guilty for working in such a greedy business. Some people in the industry make the money but set aside time and profit for worthier artistic projects. Orson Welles worked this way. He would do a lot of stupid films, make money, and then work on his personal projects. John Cassavettes worked this way too. Some people make money in pop industry but make huge donations to leftist causes to redeem their greedy souls.
Others seek to redeem the crass material itself as an instrument for gaining ‘cultural hegemony’. The trick here is to give the masses the crap they want but infuse it with politically correct and/or ‘progressive’ messages. So, ‘Shawshank Redemption’ teaches people to Love-the-Noble-Negro. Or, many stupid sitcoms teach kids to Respect-the-Gay-Boy. (These pro-gay agenda sitcoms ought to be called shit-cums.) And, this has had a huge impact on how people, especially the young, see and regard society. Gradually, new ‘norms’ arise based on what people see on TV. TV has long been the Mind Control Machine, all the more dangerous because it’s largely been monopolized by the left-liberal cabal, mostly Jewish. A term like ‘homophobia’ gained currency only because TV repeated it over and over. So, many young people have come to think that opposing the Gay Agenda is ‘homophobic’. They use such terms without thought, just as people use ‘racism’ without thought. Women are more likely to be influenced by such things because women tend to be more conformist. This is all the more complicated because leftism and liberalism promotes itself as non-conformist and pro-diversity. There was indeed a time when liberalism championed the freedom of individuals to be different and think his/her own thoughts. But, today’s non-conformism is just another form of conformism. It’s not a skeptical person or a maverick’s ideal or concept of eccentricity but an all-pervasive dogma of ‘diversity’ where people are not even allowed to question the dark sides and disadvantages of The Agenda. The Gay Agenda says you must approve of and accept ALL ASPECTS of homosexuality. It’s not just about need for tolerance but about compelling people to accept a monstrosity like ‘gay marriage’. It’s not just about making things fair for people of all races in the US but about using discrimination against whites to promote the interests of non-whites and Jews; it’s about opening up our borders to millions of illegal migrants every year. Though the stated goals are said to be liberal, the methods and results are actually radical, repressive, and destructive. It’s not about making an argument for organic diversity but forcing radical diversity down all of our throats.
And, there’s a fundamental contradiction within liberalism and leftism. On the one hand, they say we need diversity because different races, cultures, sexes and sexual orientations, and ethnic groups have something unique and distinct to bring to the table. In other words, whites cannot do what blacks can, blacks can’t offer what the Chinese can, Chinese are not good at what Jews are good at, and so on. BUT, if you try to discuss the differences among races and cultures, leftists and liberals tell you to shut up because to dwell on such differences is ‘racist’. And, in order to win hearts and minds, they hide their repressive tyranny behind gooey rhetoric that gushes about ‘how we are becoming more intelligent, more beautiful, more moral, more spiritual, more everything through greater diversity and race-mixing’. If so, why do so many liberal Jews support the Jewish state of Israel? (Why not allow more Arabs into Israel so Jews and Arabs can all mix and create a better race?) If so, why do so many affluent Jewish liberals segregate themselves from Hispanic, working class white, and black communities? And, is Peru or Brazil really more intelligent and beautiful than Sweden or Norway because of greater racial diversity? Is your average Mexican–a mix of white and Indian blood–more intelligent than a pure-blooded Chinese or Irishman? But, all this gushy liberal goo goo talk goes a long way with children and with women who tend to be more gullible and conformist. Though feminists bitch about how women are associated with children–as mother/child or in mental/emotional capacity–, it is a sad fact that women and children are the easiest to fool with gushy wushy talk.

Due to the nature of women, it’s not difficult to understand the great power that Oprah has over them. Oprah is both her own person and a tool of the liberal Jews. She is also the object of worship of white women who espouse the secular spiritualism of liberalism. They feel that they can be redeemed and saved through Faith in Oprah. She is their Marian Luther Queen. But, Oprah is bigger than Martin Luther King in some ways. MLK’s personae was rather one-note–noble saint Negro leader. Oprah offers a much wider variety of goodies to satisfy the spiritual appetites of white liberal women.
Yes, she plays the soulful my-ancestors-were-slaves-but-I-am-so-noble-that-I-forgive-you-white-folks(that is if you kiss my fat black booty and make me a billionaire!) card. But, that alone would have gone only so far. So, she also invites movie stars, stand up comics, rock stars, etc on he show. And, to be ‘intellectual’ once in awhile she has her Book-of-the-Month thing where she invites authors and discusses Art and ‘serious’ matters. What is the impact of all this on womenkind? Huge!!! In 2000, Bush and Gore’s poll numbers went up and down depending on who was on the Oprah show last. And, if Oprah had not called Obama ‘The One’ and had invited Sarah Palin on her show and treated her with much affection, the majority of women might well have voted for McCain/Palin. Women across America didn’t reject Palin mainly because of a few bad interviews or her policy positions. It’s because the Big Sister network in the media–dominated by liberal Jews and fronted by the likes of Oprah, Barbara Walters and The View gang among others–spread the message far and wide that Sarah Palin is ‘creepy’, ‘strange’, ‘not one of us’, ‘crazy’, etc. The message was sent out to women across America that ‘you are strange, stupid, ignorant, and not-one-of-us-cool-liberated-women IF you like or support Sarah Palin.’ Also, many white women had been raised with the notion that blacks are moral superiors to whites, so given the choice between a ‘liberal’ black guy and a conservative white women, many women went with the former. Also, the dominant feminist ideology in the media insinuated over the years that a conservative woman is an Auntie Tom. Since women have been told by the liberal feminist media/academia that they are ‘victims’ of Evil White Male Patriarchy, the notion developed that women can ONLY find freedom and self-worth as liberals. A conservative woman came to be regarded as comparable to Uncle Tom Negro who shuffles before his massuh.
Sarah Palin obviously blew away all those stereotypes. She was a proud, strong-willed, and accomplished woman. She also came from a working-class background. She was proof that conservative women are the best women in America. So, the feminist and liberal media decided to attack her as ‘crazy’ and ‘creepy’. Liberal women, sheepish and conformist despite their conceit of individualism and freedom, bought this Grand Narrative. They flattered themselves that they were so hip, sophisticated, intelligent, intellectual, and so on... unlike that stupid, dumb, crazy, and creepy hick Sarah from Alaska. Especially the powerful liberal Jewish bitches pushed this line; it became SO powerful that even conservative women like Kathleen Parker–dirty fuc*ing stupid bitch–went with Obama. And, Anne Applebaum the Neocon Jewess also went with Obama because, as an ‘intelligent’ and ‘sophisticated’ woman, she didn’t want to be associated with Sarah Palin.

This is all very funny since who can be more All-American and decent than Sarah Palin? Instead, the truly creepy, ugly, trashy, and disgusting hags and bitches like Whoopie Goldberg, Barbra Streisand, Madonna, Barbara Walters, Rosie O Donnell, Roseanne Barr, and Margaret Cho have been promoted as wonderful and decent by the Big Sister media. As a result, females all across America came to believe it must be so.
And, what about Michelle Obama? She’s been an anti-American, anti-white, privileged, entitled, stupid, and shitty bitch all her life. Yet, the Big Sisterhood media whitewashed and promoted her as proud, decent, intelligent, all-American, and accomplished. Here was a woman who got into Princeton through Affirmative Discrimination. She did nothing but bitch and whine about, well, how nicely white liberals treated her!!! Her dissertation was a long whine about ‘I feel like a lonely black turd floating in a sea of whiteness’. That got her into Harvard!!!! Later, she ended up in a job where she raked in $300,000 by promoting Affirmative Discrimination against white people(yes, all in the name of ‘diversity’). Yet, this low-down scum bitch was promoted by the liberal media as America’s New Shining Heroine. And, so many stupid women fell for it. This is so pathetic that I can understand the arguments made by men in the past as to why women’s suffrage is a bad idea.

Anyway, the point is we can understand why women are largely liberal by studying TV, the content of which is indirectly influenced by the academia since the writers, actors, directors, and producers tend to be products of the academia–often Ivy League schools. (Prior to the 60s, many people in movies and pop culture weren’t products of universities but had worked themselves up through an apprentice or on-the-job system. As such, they were less likely to be influenced by ideological correctness taught in elite institutions. Almost all of today’s Hollywood writers, directors, and producers are recruited from top universities.) What kind of shows for women have aired on TV since the late 60s and early 70s? We had stuff like the Phil Donahue show. Donahue was a liberal schmuck, and his show was the template for stuff like Oprah later. Millions of women were glued to this stuff. Donahue was the mainstream pop cultural conduit of intellectual ideas of the Left. Sure, he invited some conservatives on his show too, but his show was tipped 70/30 in favor of liberals and radical leftists. Over time, shows like these were bound to have more impact on women than on men. Paradoxically, stay-at-home wives/mothers might have been more affected because they were home watching TV. Women were made to feel ‘oppressed’, ‘repressed’, ‘aggrieved’, ‘misunderstood’, and so on. Donahue was like a pop cultural version of Ibsen. Instead of Doll’s House, it was Doll’s TV. And, there were a whole bunch of TV docu-dramas about evil men beating up women and about how women can find justice only through Big Government and Sisterhood.
Though women felt ‘liberated’ watching this stuff, they were actually conforming to the New Orthodoxy of Big Sister feminism. These talk shows were more appealing to women than to men because women are naturally more group-oriented(as in the primitive tribal past). I’m not suggesting a strict dichotomy of man-as-individual vs women-as-member-of-group. Surely, men like do stuff together too, and there is much conformism among men too. But, men have a clearer grasp of the distinction between what has individual worth and what has group worth. Because of the softer and gentler ways of women, individuality and group-ness tend not to stand apart from one another in clear outline. The distinction between individualism and group-orientation is solid among men but liquid-like among women. (Though most men are not tough, the toughest individuals are male; as a result, there is the male ideal of the maverick individual. In contrast, women could never be the toughest individuals in society. They always relied on cooperation and the system for their security and power. Indeed, this may explain why Asian-Americans tend to be the most ‘feminine’ of all groups. Asian men, unlike white or black men, cannot hope to the toughest or ‘baddest’ individuals in society. Asian power and pride, even among males, is always dependent on unity and cooperation. In some ways, this may work as an advantage to Asians. Since they know they cannot be #1 as individual toughs, Asians are less likely to waste their energy on trying to be the ‘toughest baddest dude’ in town. So, they hit the books instead and seek success through the System. Asian success in education is akin to rising female success in education. Both Asians and females know they cannot be the toughest/roughest as individuals. They can only make it or advance by working diligently within the system.) As such, they–individuality and group-orientation– morph into one another among womenfolk. Female individuality, for what it’s worth, is greatly shaped by group-think.
This is why the female-ish kind of tyranny can be far more dangerous in some ways. Because of its soft, maternal, and matriarchal nature, the tyrannical elements become wrapped and hidden in warmth and softness. Male-ish tyranny lunges at you and wrestles you to the ground; the brutality of such tyranny is easy to identify. The female-ish tyranny acts as if to embrace and hug you. But, once you’ve fallen into the grip, you’re as helpless as a deer in the winding clasp of a python. (In some ways, this was why communism was more dangerous than Nazism in some ways. The brutal nature of Nazism was plain to see, but the inhuman nature of communism was shrouded in all the talk of ‘universal justice’. Communism was more feminine than Nazism.)
There are two ways women can gain control over men. Gorgeous and sexy women can do as the Sirens did in Greek mythology. Seduce men to their destruction. But, hags have another way of gaining control over men. They act like they want to hug the entire world with love, affection, compassion, and fairness. But in fact, ugly feminists are trying to blanket the whole world under political correctness. This kind of tyranny is represented by the Anna Quindlan the ugly hag and her Big Sister ilk. It’s a soft tyranny which takes away our freedom in the name of ‘compassion’, ‘understanding’, ‘inclusiveness’, and caring for the ‘the children.’ . There was this aspect in Christianity itself, especially with Jesus being somewhat androgynous and there being something funny about the Virgin Mary myth.

Who controls TV and Pop Culture determines what most people think and especially what women think since women tend to be more conformist to the mainstream norm. The mainstream of pop culture has long been dominated by liberals and the left, and as such, women have come to conform more to liberalism.
Of course, pop culture can also go against the interests of the Left since pop culture thrives on giving people what they want, which often goes against what leftists espouse. Pop culture is essentially consumerist, and consumerism is a part of capitalism. Consumerism is also ‘materialistic’, crass, and hedonistic. It can also be nihilistic. Though we think of 60s pop culture as having undermined and destroyed the good solid conservative culture, it also wreaked havoc on the radicals themselves.
Many radicals got too involved in drugs, rock music, movies, and other distractions and lost sight of the revolution itself. Revolutionaries of previous generations didn’t have this problem; they tended to be intellectually more serious and more determined/focused in their objectives. In the 60s, especially with the rise of a separate youth culture, many radicals in the West simply wanted to ‘party to the revolution’ instead of respecting their radical elders who’d paid their dues. It was loud, brash, and fun, but it really went nowhere because they lacked focus and discipline. They were affected by the hedonism and nihilism at the core of pop culture.
Another way consumerist pop culture undermined 60s radicalism is that the great majority of young people preferred the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Hollywood movies, and TV over militant revolution and radicalism. Even radical college students wanted to be movie makers or singer-songwriters than soldiers in the revolution. The Black Panthers were more into posing for photographs, making empty noise, using drugs, and dancing than making revolution.
Feminists were angry at the rise of pornography, the use of women as sex symbols on TV, the popularity of beauty pageants, rock music scene with its studs and groupies, and etc. But, most girls preferred Charlie’s Angels and Wonder Woman–which marketed women(even a powerful women) as sexy and gorgeous creatures.
In the 80s, Madonna arrived on the scene, and the feminists initially had a heart attack. It was only as the 90s came along that feminists decided to make peace with pop culture and try to use it than go against it. So, "Thelma and Louise" embraced the women-as-sex-symbol and guns-are-cool tropes BUT in the name of anti-white-male feminism.
This is how the Left truly became resurgent in the late 80s and 90s. In the 60s and 70s, many leftists had tried to create a new art, personal or popular, that was truer to the spirit of liberation and revolution. But, when most of these experiments were rejected by the masses who preferred Jaws and Star Wars, leftists eventually decided to go for the mass-appeal formulas too, all the while infusing them with ideological content.
Leftist artists all have different origins. Some were ideologues who came around to pop culture while others were pop culturalists who came around to ideology. Since the academia–meeting place of intellectualism and creativity–are liberal or leftist, even non-ideological creative people eventually came around to leftism. My guess is that the Wachowski brothers(of Matrix fame) grew up with stuff like Jaws, Star Wars, and the like. They grew up loving mindless Hollywood junk. But, as they grew up reading film magazines and attended universities, they probably picked up all the leftist and radical notions, poses, and conceits from professors, writers, and artists.
So, there are leftists who really feel disdain for pop culture but see it as a useful tool for shaping popular opinion, and there are pop culture fanatics who later discovered the religion of radical ideology.
In either case, there’s something perverse afoot because it’s a case of anti-capitalist leftists mastering and using the tools of capitalism. The overall effect is conflicted and contradictory. On the one hand, the audience are told that the West and capitalism are bad(at least if controlled by white males), but on the other hand, the audience gets the impression that crass, consumerist, materialist popular culture is the greatest thing since it’s so fun and entertaining. For all their anti-capitalist and anti-corporate message, Matrix movies are great advertisement for capitalist materialism. It offers a narcissistic, vain, rave party revolution. Matrix movies are also a great advertisement for fascist aesthetics since they’ve been greatly influenced by anime and Star War films which were great influenced by the fascist and militarist aesthetics of Leni Riefenstahl and other monumentalist directors.

If you want to control the minds of women, you have to first understand the nature of the female mind. Though women come in all shapes and sizes and in all temperaments and inclinations, certain traits are more common than others. In other words, though there are women boxers, most women don’t go into that sort of thing. And, though there are women fans of Rush Limbaugh, most women don’t like him much, not least because he’s boorish, pushy, aggressive, and fat & ugly.
To understand what most women are like and what they like most, we need think of how they interacted and found happiness in primitive tribal societies long ago. When men went out to hunt, women gathered to work together weaving, collecting food, taking care of each other’s children, chit chatting, gossiping, huddling close together, and all that stuff. Sure, there were bitches, bad girls, and oddballs, but most women were plain-faced go-along types who wanted to be liked, wanted to belong, and wanted to be approved of. This is something that Oprah understands so well, and she cashed in on it big time. And, this is something The View understands as well, though it made the mistake of including crazy bitches on the show. Indeed, notice what happened to the crazy bitches like the fat black whore who turned skinny overnight or Rosie O’Donnell. They got canned by Big Sister Hen Barbara Walters. Though I think Rosie is gross, ugly, and offensive, she was kicked out because she made trouble for The Group. Women don’t like other women making too much trouble, at least within their own roost. So, you never ever see a woman on Oprah show challenging the wisdom of Oprah. And, it’s obvious that Barbara Walters will not tolerate anyone who challenges her authority. And, most women seem to accept the fact that there must be a Big Sister to set the agenda for all the little sisters.
In a primitive tribe, the Big Man was determined by his physical strength; as such, man has a clear-cut understanding of where things stood in terms of hierarchy and what the nature of power was. But, the top matriarch in a primitive tribe wasn’t determined by which woman was the biggest or strongest. Instead, her status was determined by other factors, like age, connection, or some subtle factor. Of course, age mattered a lot for men as well and increasingly became more important as civilizations developed more complex.
But, the point is that the power structure among women tended to be more tyrannical even if less brutal or precisely because it was less brutal than among men. Among men, who-is-on-top was determined by who is toughest. So, the male-dominated order, though brutal, is unstable in the sense that the new kid on the block can become the new king of the hill by pushing off the old one.
In the female order, because power is determined less by such brute strength, it’s harder to challenge and topple the existing authority; power is understood and revered than feared and challenged. Compare Morton Downey Jr. Show with the Oprah Show. On the Morton Downey Show, it was a matter of who could scream or push the loudest. When Downey lost his strength and stamina, his show was toast. Oprah’s power, on the other hand, tends to be more ‘spiritual’ and ‘magical’. She is the Big Hen, the Big Sister. Her authority simply IS; it cannot be challenged.
Ever so clever, Oprah blended the role of the conservative Big Mother with the role of the liberal Big Sister. As such, she became both Big Mother and Big Sister. In time, even conservative women were afraid to challenge her authority since she became Maternal Goddess as well as Powerful Feminist.
If Oprah or her handlers learned one thing from the demise of radical feminism, it’s that most women don’t like being crazy bitches screaming and throwing fits all the time. So, Oprah blended the concept of Big Sister feminist power with Big Mother maternal authority. She became appealing to all women, to liberals but also to many conservatives–even to the dorky boys who are now prevalent at the National Review.

Given this fact, conservatives won’t have much luck with women voters as long as TV is controlled by the left and liberals. Conservative style is to point the finger at you and tell you what to think. Oprah’s style is to suggest that she wants to extend her arms and embrace you and hold your face closer to her massive mammaries. The end result is that you end up sucking on her chocolate teats and being ‘nourished’ with her feelings and ideas.
Conservatives come at you with issues, ideas, and etc. Oprah comes at you with her feelings, bodily warmth, and soulful gaze. Most women go for this kind of crap. This is why Dr. Laura never had much of a chance. Neither does Ann Coulter with most women. Your typical girl sees them as bitches or bad girls. They remember those ‘nasty bitches’ in high school. Dr. Laura reminds them of those mean teachers who assigned too much homework, never graded on a curve, and were always critical and demanding. Such women may have been good teachers but they were never likable teachers. As for Ann Coulter, she reminds most women–who were neither pretty nor ‘popular’–of the crazy bitch who wanted all the attention, wanted to be prom queen, and treated ugly and homely girls with sneer and contempt.
Oprah, in contrast, reminds most women of the kind of teacher they had who was always understanding, kind, gentle, and handing out A’s even to C students. And, Oprah-as-successful-woman makes all those loser women(and most women are loser women) feel like the fat-and-uglies-shall-inherit-the-earth. Even pretty, popular, and successful women like Oprah because the egalitarian ethos of our society remind us that we must be ‘fair and nice’ to all. Pretty women want to prove to others and to themselves that they are not ‘mean bitches’ but nice people. Looking up to Oprah supposedly absolves them of their guilt since Oprah is fat and ugly yet rich and famous–as if to suggest that our society is so wonderful and ‘inclusive’ that even a fat, stupid, ugly black woman can succeed. Oprah is the ultimate Ugly Duckling. So, if rich, pretty, or smart women watch or support Oprah, it means they are good at heart instead of being nasty bitches like Ann Coulter.
On the one hand, our society is very narcissistic and look-oriented. On the other hand, it’s puritanical and egalitarian, suspicious of the idea of superior beauty. This explains why Oprah and millions of women have tried to fool themselves that Oprah is actually a good looking woman. This way, Oprah can be both a member of the plain faced womankind AND a Cinderella story. We’ve also seen this with Sarah Jessica Parker, a truly gross looking Jewish broad. On the one hand, we’ve been told that the ‘beauty myth’ is evil and Nazi-esque. On the other hand, Sarah Jessica Parker has been hailed as a great beauty, a kind of blonde haired Aryan Jewess.

Anyway, if conservatives want more women on their side, they must understand the Big Hen Theory. Ultimately, it’s less a matter of ideology than psychology and personality. Understanding and gaining power over women is really a matter of coming to know what kind of personality/psychology most women have. Most women don’t feel comfortable with a ‘crazy bitch’ like Ann Coulter, ‘bitch bully’ like Dr. Laura, or ‘haughty bitch’ like Phyllis Schlafly. For all the feminist denunciation of motherhood, most women still long for the Big Mother figure, even if or especially if they’ve put off motherhood themselves. Many black women grew up under crazy bitch single mothers and look up to Oprah as the mother-they-wished-they-had. Many white girls grew up under cold, dry, overly intellectual, distant white mothers and look upon Oprah as the warm and kind mammy on whose shoulder they could cry on. Similarly, many liberal and leftist women are into ‘saving the kids around the world’ because they’ve put off motherhood and don’t have kids of their own; their repressed maternal instinct morphs into a social/international agenda of saving All The Children! Oprah touches on all these issues. She is really a big fat ugly charlatan, a disgusting pig, a selfish ruthless bitch, a snake-oil saleswoman, BUT can you blame her for taking advantage of all the stupid people in the world to make her billions? She’s guilty but no more than televangelists who sucker people with all the Jesus-loves-you talk. Oprah Show is televangelism for secular liberal women.

But, no matter how gross and disgusting Oprah is, the truth is people are dumb. Just as feminists eventually learned to accept reality and the game of ‘if you can’t beat em, join em’, isn’t it about time conservatives came up with the same kind of Oprah-esque schtick?