Who's Responsible for the Real War Against Women?

In the 2012 election cycle, the Democrats picked on the theme of 'War Against Women' against American conservatives. Why? Because American conservatives oppose the idea of free birth control  for American women, especially affluent ones who could easily afford it themselves.
The poster-slut for the 'War Against Women' hysteria was Sandra Fluke, a chubby privileged Georgetown university student who expects others to pay for her birth control pills. So, according to New Feminism, there has to be War against economic and moral sense in order for America to be a safe place for women! Unless Fluke gets her free sex soma, a war is being waged on her ilk by evil American conservatives.

More serious is the issue of abortion. Though most conservatives are not hardline anti-abortionists, there are people like Todd Akin who want to ban abortion in all cases and say utterly stupid things about rape. I suppose such idiots do wage a kind of war against women's interests, especially since I'm one of the biggest advocates for abortion for the sake of eugenics. Spending $500 to abort the low-IQ child of a poor dumb woman is better than spending $500,000 to raise a kid who will likely turn out to be no good and useless, even criminal.

Of course, there are sound moral reasons for being made against abortion. In a perfect world, there would be no abortion. No matter how one looks at it, it is a taking of human life or near-human life. But I don't subscribe to the notion that all lives are sacred or equally valuable, and evidently neither do liberals, especially considering that black women perform the disproportionate number of abortions. Despite all the liberal talk of the evils of 'racism', liberals are only too happy to oblige dumb black women to abort their kids. Feminists defend abortion as a woman's right, but in fact, most educated and privileged women tend to be responsible and intelligent enough NOT to end up with unwanted pregnancies. Those who are burdened with such problems tend to be low IQ black and 'white trash' women, and feminists are only too eager to facilitate the killing of their children. If dumb Democratic women want to kill their own kids, I say let them.

Of course, many conservatives are sincerely moral in their opposition to abortion, and their view that unborn lives are the sacred blessings of God isn't evil nor meant to be a 'war on women'.  There are, to be sure, some men who want to ban abortion and restrict women's access to birth control because such choices facilitate greater sexual freedom among women. Even so, it would be a stretch to call it a 'war against women'.  Liberals, after all, want to restrict our freedom to eat certain kinds of food, but it would be ridiculous to call it a 'war against eaters'. While anti-abortionists and anti-junk-food people can be over-zealous in their desire to control how we live, they don't see it as waging war against sections of humanity. Conservatives think women shouldn't abuse sexual liberties, and liberals don't think we should abuse our eating freedoms. Both are costly to society when people mess up.

That said, there is a Real War Against Women in America, and most of it is not coming from the conservative side. Most of the real war against women--of all races--are committed by black men. Black men rape lots of black women, white women, Hispanic women, and Asian women. Look at statistics, and black men--nearly all of them Democratic--are the main perpetrators of sexual crimes in this country. And Rap Music is saturated in the language of hatred toward women. Women are called 'hos' and demeaned as prostitutes. Black men are also more likely than others to get women(regardless of race) pregnant and run off to have sex with yet more women. MLK himself was notorious for this. His drunken war against women was relentless. He would sometimes get sloshed, beat up women, and then later brag about it. Black men, almost all of them Democrats, are more likely to beat up their spouses or girlfriends. The Knoxville Horror Case involved black men doing horrible things to a white woman.

And in a case in Texas, over 20 black males raped an 11 yr old Hispanic girl, but of course, the Jewish-controlled media tried to minimize the extent of the horror. Indeed, the liberal media have a double-standard when it comes to the coverage of War Against Women. In the case of the Duke Lacrosse Team rape hoax, the media jumped to conclusions and accused white males of raping a black stripper. But in the case below involving a real rape of a white girl by a black thug, the media all but covered up the story. So, there is no doubt that the liberal Jewish media also take part in the Real War Against (mostly)White Women:


And in female to female violence, there is a good amount of War against white women committed by black women. Black women, who are bigger and stronger, will often push around, intimidate, and beat up white women. Of course, most of the victims are 'white trash' than affluent white girls who live in their safe communities and remain blissfully ignorant of all the black-on-white violence.

Hispanic men also tend to be neglectful toward their women. Many Hispanic males get women pregnant and run off, leaving the women and children to be raised by welfare paid for by white tax payers, many of whom are conservative. Conservatives are forced to pay for so much of this Real War against Women, but it's conservatives who get blamed for the 'war on women'.

Jews are also notorious in their War Against Women. Jews run most of the porn industry that degrades white women as into sex meat to be penetrated through every orifice. There is no dignity in porn, no empowerment. It's just Jewish promotion of interracism and miscegenation in order to demoralize and commoditize the white race into sex objects to be packaged and sold. This is why Jews love Marilyn Monroe; she was the symbol of white beauty turned into commodity to be marketed by Jewish men. How did she end up, by the way? Indeed, how do so many porn stars end up? And how do many young white women who enter Jewish-controlled Hollywood end up? They are turned onto drugs, fast & easy life of self-destruction(as with Lindsay Logan), and many of them die young or end up messed up for life.
Also, Hollywood movies and pop music culture promoted by liberals encourage young girls to dress like whores, act like fools with drugs/alcohol/sex, and take wild chances that lead to all sorts of trouble. Worse, by encouraging men to act like apes, liberal popular culture has encouraged a lot of young men to act thuggish, and that can't be good for women.

And despite feminism's claim to be for women's rights and interests, the culture of hostility it stirred up between men and women has been negative for both sides. Men and women prosper and find happiness together, but the bad blood instilled between the sexes by radical feminism has led to much social tension and unease. And liberal popular culture, by encouraging males to never grow up, has robbed women of mature partners in love.

As for Great Society and other big government programs, it has encouraged dependency on government among poor women who raise their children as 'single mothers' without need of husbands; morally and emotionally, it's bad for the women and the children. And the erosion of traditional values and the suppression of the culture of shame has liberated men to act like sex fiends, especially in the black community where too many black males act like punks who go from sack to sack without any shame.

So, we need to ask... who committed the Real War Against Women?

Atlas Shrugged? Or Huggy-wugged? Are Rich Leftists and Liberals the True Rand-ians.

Today, many libertarians and conservatives recommend that we read Rand’s ATLAS SHRUGGED to understand the true meaning of freedom, individualism, American values, and capitalism. They argue that our society is burdened by big government and an elite that simply does not appreciate the power of capital, enterprise, ambition, risk-taking, and innovation. You’d think that American society is divided into big government socialists on the one side and individualist capitalists on the other. We have this impression of unimaginative and resentful socialists, liberals, leftists, and government bureaucrats manipulating resentment of the masses in order to undermine the Promethean greatness of the enterprising capitalist class. Perhaps, this was closer to reality back in the days of Rand when much of the capitalist class was none to happy with the New Deal and less burdened with the culture of social and historical guilt. . But, this hasn’t been the case for quite some time. The problem today is not the absence of Randians–as there is no shortage of super-capitalists–but, the nature of the capitalist elite.

In practice, economic competition is as ruthless as it had always been. The best students still strive to enter into top universities. Even if most of them play by the rules–as they should–they want to get ahead of the pack. They don’t want to be like the rest-of-humanity. And, once they get into top schools, they want to get all A’s. They want to graduate with honors. They want to be better than their peers. Out of college, they look for the best jobs that offer the most money, power, prestige, influence, pleasure and/or whatever that they find most fulfilling. They want to come up with the new idea or technology that will earn them not only millions but billions. The point is today’s creme de la creme never practice egalitarianism. Some of them may see themselves as promoting or fighting for equality or ‘social justice’ but want to do so from above. Among those really interested in money, there is brutal competition. These are not ‘nice guys’ but ruthless competitors. Being ruthless doesn’t necessarily mean one is unethical or evil, but it does mean that one is hungry, even mad, for power. So, there is no lack of Randians in our society. Just look at business, government, and other endeavors, and they are filled with people who want more money, power, influence, prestige, honor, etc. They are all Randians in practice.

If so, why is the majority of the most successful people in the US liberals or left-leaning? It’s because Randianism isn’t fulfilling as a professed philosophy. It’s one thing to go after great power, money, fame, honor, and etc, but it doesn’t feel noble to claim such self-obsession. The more convenient way to feel morally satisfied and good about oneself is to claim compassion for mankind. So, we have Angelina Jolie who obviously loves being glamorous, rich, narcissistic, making millions per movie, being on magazine covers all the time, and so on–and is utterly ruthless in the Randian school about it. Yet, she’s also holding and kissing African babies and acting like Mother Teresa. It’s not Atlas Shrugged as much as Atlas Hugged. Contrary to what conservatives think, many liberals and leftists are not sheepish or dorky tree huggers or people too beset with guilt to compete and rise in the world. Indeed, the smartest liberals often tend to be far more ambitious, ruthless, cutthroat, driven, power-mad, and money-crazy than most conservatives. A good many conservatives may love guns, rugged outdoors, and manly stuff, but they are no match to the likes of Rahm Emanuel who’s one of the most ruthless operators around. Rahm will do anything to win. He’s no liberal softie. Or, look at Bill Gates or all those liberals in Hollywood or Silicon Valley. You can’t get any more cutthroat or blood than they.
Sure, they say ‘nice’ things and appear ‘soft’ in public–at times anyway–but, they love power and money and have done anything and everything to get it. If we judge people by what they do than what they say, Randianism is alive and well among the liberal elite.

Sure, there are many wimpy gimpy liberals, but they are not the successful ones. The successful liberals often have bigger balls than most conservatives. Conservatives may love to hunt, but that’s easier than what some liberals like to do–mountain climb, cross an entire continent on a bicycle, and travel all around in dangerous countries. Notice that some of the most daring and big-balled journalists have been leftists and liberals. Conservative journalists generally like to stay close to home and spout opinions. Liberal and leftist journalists like to venture into the jungle world of international politics with heavy equipment. It’s no wonder that liberals and leftists dominate the way we see the world. They got the balls to go where most of us will not.

Woodward and Bernstein had big balls. And, look at some of the most daring artists in the modern era. We may hate Oliver Stone, but the fact is he had the balls to go to Vietnam, see the reality up front, and then go to film school and fight his way up the ladder to make the films he wants to make. In practice, he’s been one helluva a Randian even if his politics is closer to Marx. Conservatives and libertarians talk of how daring, free, and gutsy they are, but in practice, the toughest and most badass people in business, technology, arts, media, and etc have been liberals and leftists. Consider the fact that many liberal bitches have the balls to do something wild, daring, and crazy. They’ll travel the world, climb mountains, go to places where even most of us guys will not dare go, and so on. In contrast, your average conservative girl would rather stay home, watch tv, and hug her bible. Who’s more Randian in practice? Of course, not all liberal women are like this. A good many of them are sheep–reasonably successful but not daring or original. And, they have very naive understanding of society since they don’t come in contact with real reality. But, this is true of most conservative women too.

Anyway, there is a ballsy and gutsy side to liberal and leftist Randians–in practice. Many conservatives think liberals and leftists are for internationalism and trans-nationalism largely of white guilt. There is something to this, but it’s equally true that leftists and liberals–the successful ones anyway–support the dissolution of national borders because they figure they’ll always be #1. They figure they are so smart and so great that no matter what happens to America, they will looking down on all of us. In contrast, it is conservative Americans who are insecure and afraid. Conservatives feel that, as middle Americans, they’ll have to compete with newcomers and would prefer not to since most of them don’t have the brains, talent, or balls to rise above the rabble. In contrast, Randian liberals and leftists feel that they and their kids–blessed with higher IQ genes and good schooling–will always be #1. Come to think of it, I don’t think Rand was ever an American patriot. It was not America–its flag, people, heritage, etc–that inspired her as how America could be used as her pet ideological project. She wanted America to lead the way with super-capitalism but she saw it as something for ALL mankind. Her main loyalty was not to America but to her ideological concept of America which was not only radical individualist but radical universalist. It was a blueprint for the whole world. She though Great Men everywhere should be primarily committed to their own supremacy than to their country and people. And, liberals and leftist billionaires feel this way, live this way, and think this way. Of course, what they say is something different. (In a way, she was no more American than she was Russian. Compare her with Solzhenitsyn who had suffered under the communist system a 1000x more. He too came to America, but he always felt a great love and devotion to Russia despite all he had suffered under the communist system. He was born, lived, and died a Russian patriot. Rand felt no love or nostalgia for Russia though she’s been born there. As an American, she tried to impose HER idea of what American should be on all of us than try to learn what America really was. Rand tried to remake America as much as Lenin tried to remake Russia. Lenin tried to remake Russia into a post-national socialist state, and Rand tried to remake America into a post-national playground for her mythic individualist-capitalists. Granted, her ideology was bound to be far less dangerous because it didn’t seek to gain total state power)

So, the dichotomy that libertarians have in their silly minds is all wrong. The world is really not split between the freedom loving, masterful, competitive individualists AND dull, unimaginative, and jealous socialists and their mass followers. Rather, today’s Randians are the ‘socialists’.

But, this is nothing new since rich and powerful people in the West have been Christians for most of European and American history. The rich and powerful are like you and me in this regard–they wanna have the cake and eat it too. They want all the power and money yet they wanna hog the morality and compassion too. When Bill Gates made his billions in the 80s and 90s, people just saw him as the Rich Guy. That wasn’t enough for him so he set up a mega-foundation to dole out money to this cause, that cause, and buy the respect and appreciation of mankind. He makes his money the Randian way but uses it the socialist way. That way, he can be rich/powerful and noble/caring. Of course, acting the savior-of-mankind is just another way to win power and influence. Powerful liberals in government are less likely to inspect his dirty ass, and leftists are less criticize and condemn everything he does. It’s one way of buying off the opposition.

But, I don’t doubt Gates’s ideological sincerity since everyone gets their view of the world from people who write books and the news. And, who controls the mind of the nation? Mostly liberals and leftists, a good many of them Jews. Since Jews are intelligent, even their falsehoods, distortions, exaggerations, and fantasies have a way of sounding true or brilliant. It’s no wonder that so many of the smartest people in the world were taken in by people like Trotsky. They admired Trotsky and favored him over Stalin not so much because Trotsky was less of a radical but simply because he sounded more intellectual and smarter than the ruffian-like Stalin. It’s the cult/conceit of brilliance. Jared Diamond, for instance, is a very brilliant Jew. He’s a lying leftist ideologue and lowlife asshole, but his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" was provocative and seemingly profound. People like Gates read it–and the books of Jeffrey Sachs–and found a convenient explanation of the world–why parts of it work, parts of it don’t.

On a related subject, one should consult here:

http://groups.google.com/group/neo-fascism/browse_thread/thread/ba8731fc430914dc/3d344ac6e82a6421?hl