Irrational Propaganda Is the Best Weapon of 'Rational' Liberals.

Liberals often complain that irrationality is rife on the American Right, and they are not entirely wrong. American Right has many elements that tend to disdain rational thought, empiricism, science, and intellectualism. Indeed, the cult of anti-intellectualism is one reason why the GOP has failed to attract sufficient numbers of very smart people. While American conservatism has its share of smart people, it has few intellectual giants. Worse, in the name of MLK worship and fighting 'racism', American conservatism has been more outspoken against men like Arthur Jensen and James Watson than against people on the Left. (Remember how Rich Lowry thanked Al Sharpton and Mother Jones magazine for alerting him about 'white racists' at the National Review.)  And there is no love lost between 'rightist' Darwinists and Evangelicals(and other believers in Biblical Truth).

There is the libertarian wing of the American conservative movement, but libertarians are accidental 'conservatives', i.e. they happen to be the conservative camp because they oppose Democratic big-government-ism. People who write for publications like REASON have little in common with most American social, cultural, and religious conservatives. They are even often at odds with American 'crony capitalists' of the GOP. Libertarians are such purists in their convictions that they live in their own bubble.
Though many affluent and well-educated conservatives have no time for Evangelical nonsense, they've been muted in their criticism of Fundamentalist Christian ignoramuses because they need 'social conservative' numbers to win elections. Just like the global capitalists of the BJP struck a bargain with the Hindu nationalists to form a mass voting bloc, the rich secular conservatives of the GOP have pandered to the irrational ignorance of religious conservatives in order to win votes. Of course in the South, race is the bigger factor, but then, its voting patterns are really no different from voting patterns in places like Boston, Chicago, NY, St. Louis, and etc.  Where there's a lot of racial 'diversity', tribal politics tend to rule. So, even if big cities tend to be dominated by Democrats, whites will vote for the white Democrat and blacks will vote for the black Democrat. And in NY and Chicago, whites, Jews, and gays have formed alliances to keep the power among themselves than give it up to blacks or Hispanics.  So, all this stuff about 'racist white Southern voters' is really just a case of projection on the part of 'liberal' Jews, whites, and gays. What chance of Democratic Jews voting for a Muslim-American candidate in NY even if the latter were a true blue Democrat? How many NYers really want another Dinkins? How many white Chicagoans really want to hand over the city to the likes of Luis Guiterrez or Bobby Rush? How much do white liberals in Cincinnati really love their black neighbors?

Anyway, we tend to associate Reason with liberals, not least because, especially since the French Revolution, the political debate has been seen as one between secular rational universalist egalitarians vs religious sacramental particularist hierarcheans. This was more the case in the Old World than in the New World of America as religious freedom and mass religiosity became a part of the American democratic process. As America didn't have a state religion, churches weren't seen as part of the Establishment. (Though the Catholic Church was part of the Establishment in Italy, it wasn't as reviled by the Left as in other European nations because of its extensive involvement in charity and its anti-capitalist ideology. Indeed, many leading Italian artists and intellectuals were both Catholic and Marxist. Anti-religious feelings were stronger in Spain and France because of the Church's alliance with Franco in the former and because the French Revolution had ideologically laid the foundations of anti-clericalism, a hostility that never went away.)

The Left vs Right dichotomy couldn't be easily resolved in the West because both sides were rife with all manner of inner contradictions. For example, the Left was said to stand for reason/rationalism, universalism, equality, and secularism. But reason/rationality meant the primacy of intelligence, and that meant the intelligent people would rise way above the less intelligent. It could end up creating inequalities even wider than before, something Marx understood about capitalism. Capitalism was a rationalist/materialist ideology, but it favored the ruthless, resourceful, and intelligent: the bourgeoisie, the elite class that would use its formidable skills and privileges to gain ever more wealth and power while the rest of population got poorer and poorer. Marx's main enemy wasn't the old aristocracy/monarchy. He firmly believed that the old order would be wiped away by the new order of capitalism dominated by the ruthless bourgeoisie. The real battle would be between the pauperized proletariat and the privileged bourgeoisie. Marx saw the bourgeoisie as far more dangerous than the old aristocracy. If the old elites inherited their power and privilege, the bourgeoisie rose through cunning, talent, and intelligence. Though the old aristocracy had lots of power, it didn't necessarily have much talent or intelligence. In contrast, the bourgeoisie rose to great heights with their high intelligence and ruthless ambition. It is no wonder that Marx closely associated bourgeois power with the rise of Jews and believed that the Jewish Problem could only be resolved by the extermination of capitalism. It was capitalism that allowed smart, cunning, and ruthless Jews to rise about others. Get rid of capitalism--a form of ruthless meritocracy--and, Jews will be like anyone else. And Soviet Union and Iron Curtain nations were proof of this. Though Jews played an instrumental role in the creation of communism, they were eventually sidelined by less intelligent gentiles. And without the ability to accumulate great wealth, Jewish talent and skills went untapped in communist nations. Jews were forced to be like everyone else.

This contradiction on the Left hasn't been resolved to this day; if anything, it seems to be getting more intense. As yrs go by, Jews and smart white gentiles get richer and richer while the rest get poorer and poorer. Charles Murray wrote extensively about this in COMING APART.  More freedom and mobility among Americans hasn't led to more equality but to more divisions and hierarchies. Places like NY, Chicago,and San Francisco are economically more divided than ever. Working class dwindles and middle class feels the pinch, but the affluent 'creative' globalist class gets richer and richer. Even during the 'Great Recession', there's lots of good times in the core gentrified downtown areas of big cities. We've also seen the rise of 'whitopias' in places like Portland and Seattle. White, Jewish, and gay liberals who speak for 'equality' have themselves become less and less equal and more and more privileged. American politics is funny business where the 'egalitarian' superrich liberals lecture non-rich white conservatives about the evils of 'greed'.

Or consider higher education. What are among the most exclusive educational institutions in America? Harvard and Yale. And yet, they are the ideological bastions of 'equality'. There is 'affirmative action' for blacks and Hispanics, but who are the sacrificial lamb to make room for the likes of Barack and Michelle Obama?  Middle class whites, lower middle class whites, working class whites, and poor whites. Rich and affluent Jewish and white liberals maintain their grip on higher education by sacrificing the less privileged whites in the game of 'diversity'. But even with 'affirmative action' for blacks and browns, Harvard and Yale favors the creme of the crop of the black and brown community. So, rationalism and equality have never been bosom buddies. At best, there's the ideal of equality of opportunity, but given the biological differences among individuals and groups, this only creates new hierarchies. When blacks were given equal opportunity in sports, they dominated many of them and indeed many races are defacto banned or biologically discriminated in certain sports such as basketball. When the L.A. Lakers win the championship, countless Mexican-Americans pour into the streets to celebrate, but how many Mexicans are there in the NBA? Lots of Mexican-Americans and Asian-Americans love the NFL, but how many Mexicans and Asians are there in football?

The ideal of universalism hasn't worked out for the Rational Left either. Universalism means common/shared truth for all people in the world, but greater the universalist/globalist reach, greater the problems of diversity. The Soviet Union and Communist Yugoslavia, by creating multi-ethnic states, laid the foundations of all sorts of cultural and ethnic strife. Though the conflicts were suppressed under the iron heel of communism, they never went away and exploded with the end of communism. The fires still burn in many former republics of the USSR. And in the West, the leftist ideal of universalism has morphed or surrendered to the ideology of 'multi-culturalism' and the cult of 'diversity'.  The Left used to see diversity as an obstacle to the universal truth. Indeed, 'culture' was critiqued mostly as superstitions and 'atavistic' customs standing in the way of progress of universal truth. So, Soviets smashed countless churches, and in Red China, most Chinese had to wear the same blue Mao suits. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao sent Red Guards to wage a war on Old Reactionary Culture. And in the Spanish Civil War, the radical Left waged wars of destruction on all symbols of Old Spain.
But in time, the Left came to realize that culture and race don't simply don't go away. So, the new leftist politics was increasing racial and ethnic consciousness--called Identity Politics--among non-white groups and turning it into a united anti-white force. Leftism also came to disdain universalism because European Imperialism had often used the 'universalist' argument to rationalize and justify their invasive actions around the world. Europeans would claim to be spreading the universal truth of God and Jesus or the universal values of human rights that were, oddly enough, unique to the West. And communist record of cultural violence and suppression in non-European nations also disgusted the Left with radical universalism. There was also the romanticism of anthropology that romanticized non-Western cultures--more primitive the better--as Edens that shouldn't be spoiled by the 'cancer' of white rationality and modernity. (That is one reason why only whites get blamed for slavery. It is assumed that since black Africans were primitive, their lived in a kind of Eden, and therefore, even their practice of slavery was very warm and loving.) And it dawned on the white leftists in the 60s that blacks couldn't be recruited to become colorblind warriors of progress. Black Panthers and other such groups insisted on their own racial or ethnic pride. They weren't just gonna lock arms with white liberals and sing 'We Shall Overcome'. And so, the new mode became radical cult of 'diversity'-ism where cultural identities would be encouraged but as a weapon against white power and privilege. (But this has created new contradictions within the Left that is now a coalition of self-loathing white ethnophobes and non-white ethnocentrists.)

Also, rational science of the human mind and behavior hase uncovered the strong possibility that humans are irrational and 'spiritual' by nature. Some liberal scientists now say that some people are born with 'liberal' genes and some are born with 'conservative' genes. Ironically, anti-religious Reason has discovered that man--or at least most people--cannot be rid of their 'religious nature'. So, if religion is banned, mankind will merely find something else to worship. It's no wonder why people like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Lennon, Oprah, and Obama have been revered and worshiped as substitute gods. You will notice that their greatest devotees are 'secularists' or those who claim to be 'spiritual but not religious'.  In the absence of God or some spiritual figure to worship in their lives, they worship new 'gods'. And people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, in their refusal to worship 'new gods' simply worship their own egos with an arrogance worthy of the old gods. If Reason proves that human nature is not rational, what is to be done? Perhaps, it means that the 'progressive' elites must manipulate the masses as if they're little children or Pavlovian dogs. This is markedly different from behaviorism of B.F. Skinner who focused on human action, or outward behavior. The new manipulation seeks to manipulate the 'ghost in the shell', or the 'soul'.

Of course, communists understood this. Though the ideal of Marxism was to use rational appeals to win over the Proletariat to the 'scientific' truth of class struggle, it became  quite apparent to communist intellectuals that most of the unwashed were pretty dumb and hopeless. Lenin had no respect for the Russian masses. Trotsky had even less. Stalin saw most people as 'the horse'--like in George Orwell's ANIMAL FARM. And in truth, Marx was able to pontificate about his fantasy idealism because he lived in his own intellectual bubble and refused to rub shoulders with the real members of the Proletariat. When Engelsl offered him a tour of a factory, Marx declined and refused to see reality that might undermine his theoretical view of everything.
So, how were most people won over to communism? Same way most people were won over to Christianity. Throughout Christian history, most converts were illiterates who never read the actual words in the Old and New Testaments. And even most people who could read weren't exactly thinkers or intellectuals.
Most people were won over by the pageantry, the songs and music, the rituals and ceremonies, the hype and taboos, the feeling of rapture that came with conversion. And their children were raised into Christianity as the 'one and only' True Faith.
Similarly, very few people who became communists read DAS KAPITAL or other works by Marx. A good number may have read THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, but that was communist theory boiled down to cops-n-robbers. What really won over most people were the parades, the songs, the pageantry, the marches and rallies, the iconography of the 'great prophets of progress', the endless propaganda, the slogans about 'land, peace, and bread', the feel-good easy scapegoating or demonization of the 'bourgeoisie' as the source of all evils, and its new set of sacramental taboos that made the movement seem almost holy and 'spiritual'. Most communists never read much of the COLLECTED WORKS OF LENIN, indeed not even the much shorter COLLECTED WORKS OF STALIN.  Though communism was anti-capitalist, it was more 'sold' than told.

Same goes for Nazism. How many Germans really read MEIN KAMPF? Indeed, if more had read it, more would have opposed Nazism or would have seen it as a crazy and crashing bore. Nazism kept gaining popularity because Hitler, along with Albert Speer and Joseph Goebbels, had a keen understanding of the power of hype and 'marketing'. So, National Socialists came up with slogans, parades, pageantry, iconography, songs, rituals, and sacramentics to match those of communists. National Socialists also intentionally appropriated the color red on their flags to steal fire from the communists. This is what turned on the Germans. Faced with economic depression, national humiliation, and an uncertain future, Germans needed something to inspire them, and for a growing number of Germans, the pageantry of National Socialism was irresistible. Also, just as communism has the arch-demon-villain in the 'bourgeoisie', the National Socialists had the easy scapegoat in the International Jew. We know from the popularity of action movies--and countless legends and myths through the ages--that people love to see the world in terms of 'us versus them' and 'good vs evil'. This was equally true of Marx and Hitler. For communists, there was the vile enemy in the form of the bourgeois capitalist, the oppressor of honest working men of the world. For National Socialists, there was the vile enemy in the form of the subversive Jew, the mortal enemy of the Aryan Race. (Incidentally, National Socialism could have triumphed if it hadn't such a hostile view of Slavs. If Hitler's view had been more like that of Mussolini, he could have gotten rid of leftist Jews while winning the loyalty of patriotic German Jews. And he wouldn't have waged on the USSR, and even if he had, he would have summoned and welcomed the support of Slavic anti-communists. But the moment his invading armies convinced the Slavs that Nazis were gonna be even worse than the communists, Hitler's fate was sealed.)

Though 'intelligent' and 'rational' liberals today laugh at dumb conservative morons who believe every word in the Bible--and though liberals warn of the theocratic danger posed by the Christian Right--, the fact is America is moving towards a secular theocracy ruled by liberals. Though there are plenty of sane rational liberals, those who hunger for power don't care about telling the truth or even knowing the truth. They want to own and control the 'Truth' that is to be propped up with pageantry, hype, iconography, ritualism, sacramentalism, and taboos.The whole MLK myth is a pernicious and obnoxious means of social control. Smart liberals know the truth about MLK. They know that he was NOT a man of peace but only used the cult of peace to fool Americans. Jewish liberals who used and manipulated him know this. So, why the hype and why the taboo? Because such are effective as means of social control of the masses. If a rational argument was made for MLK, it could be countered by rational arguments against him. To forbid any such argument, King is turned into a godman, and so, it becomes taboo to even say anything negative or critical about him. As even American conservatives have succumbed to this myth, MLK is the new religion of the land. Of course, embracing irrational superstitions comes naturally to many conservatives. What is truly sad is that so many so-called secular liberals have fallen for it as well.

Liberals say they are for open debate, open discussion, and free argument, but they are lying. They are for open debate only on issues of their preference and approval. So, we can have an open debate on 'why white privilege is evil' but we cannot have an open debate on 'why physically stronger blacks are attacking whites' or 'why smarter Jews have hogged so much power and wealth in America'.  Any criticism of black evils would be counter to the spirit of MLK faith, and so, it must be taboo!  And since the bigger modern faith is Holocaustianity, Jews are never to be criticized or opposed. Though America still allows free speech, we have defacto 'hate speech' regulations against honest discussion of black problems and Jewish power because anyone who dares to do so is effectively blacklisted, shunned, disgraced, shamed, and destroyed.
The new habit among liberals is not to open up more debates and discussions but to tell conservatives what can be discussed and what cannot. Instead of Political Argument, we have the new cult of Political Silence. Of course, liberals say they're advising conservatives for the own good, i.e. liberals are the smart doctor and conservatives are the sick patient, and so, liberals should apply anesthetics to  'relax' the patient in order to draw out the toxic blood within the conservative vein. It's the new political medical treatment of 'bleeding' the patient. The last I heard, 'bleeding' killed George Washington.

The most obnoxious use of pageantry and iconography in recent times has been with Obama and 'gay marriage'. How some political pimp from Chicago got elevated to messianic status may seem outrageous to some, but it's hardly surprising. Most people are easily manipulated, and it's easier now than ever. With the erosion of traditional values and bedrock certitudes, we all live in a world of flux. Especially among white people, there is no racial identity, racial pride, national identity, national pride. Christianity as a Western tradition has faded away among many white people. Instead of  pride and identity, there's likely to be shame and anti-identity for white Americans and Europeans. Having being severed from their roots, the Western tree is wobbly and shaky. And so, it looks for new causes and commitments and mistakenly sees the very ropes pulling it down as new supports. Jews are committed to felling the Western family and cultural tree, but when Jews toss ropes at the White Tree, it thinks Jews are lending a hand to make the Tree better. The White Tree doesn't know that the ropes are being tied to the trunk and branches to be pulled down--like the Tsar statue in Sergei Eisenstein's OCTOBER.


White liberals--and even white conservatives--are easy targets for Jewish liberal manipulation because they have no core values. They only have peripheral values like Tolerance and Cult of Diversity. My point is not that we should doggedly remain rooted in a fixed set of ideas. We should be open to new ideas and listen to all sorts of arguments and discussions. And if some old  ideas or values are proven to lack real value, we should discard them and adopt new ideas and new values.
Traditionally, liberalism at its best sought to do just that: put forth new ideas and new arguments in an open-minded way. Who can deny with Clarence Darrow's fight for freedom of speech for the teacher who wanted to teach evolution? In the past, liberals were indeed on the side of progress and social improvement. For greater liberty and freedom. For more civil liberties. And as rationalists and secularists, they argued for logic and empirical proof. Of course, there were also plenty of dumb and deceitful liberals, but there was indeed a golden age of liberalism when smart and serious liberals did put forth logical and fact-based arguments for greater freedom and truth.

That ideal is gone for good. While there are genuinely scientific liberals in the media and academia, the liberals in power in all institutions have a dual attitude when it comes to truth. They now feel that there is 'elite truth' and 'mass truth'.  It's like in the Soviet Union, the elites had the freedom to discuss all sorts of topics and had access to Western media, but the Soviets masses were denied such freedom and access since they were deemed too stupid and dumb. What was okay for the elites was not okay for the masses. Elites could access and discuss certain truths but the masses had to stick to official propaganda and official news. Though  communist elites justified such restrictions on the basis that the masses are too dumb and gullible, therefore liable to fall for capitalist-bourgeois lies and propaganda, the real fact of the matter was the elites feared that the masses weren't so dumb after all and might realize that capitalism and freedom are better than communism and totalitarianism(the basis of elite communist power).

The liberal ideal used to be that the educated and intelligent elites should have faith in the masses and use reason, logic, facts, and open-minded exchange of ideas/opinions to raise the knowledge level among the people. Thus, truth--and I mean real truth--would spread out across the populace.
Today, elite liberals think entirely differently. They believe that certain truths are just too dangerous, and therefore, people shouldn't be allowed to even know about them or discuss them. Since most of the media and academia are controlled by liberals, liberals now have the power to restrict information and news they don't want the masses to know about. Also, even the so-called conservative media mostly go along with this since it will be economically destroyed by the liberal elite.
There is still freedom on the internet, but liberals are working overtime to end free debate and open discussion by pushing for 'hate speech' laws. In Europe, people can be fined or jailed for writing things on the internet that are deemed 'hateful' and 'intolerant'. Elite liberals are pushing such laws in the US on the basis of protecting minorities like blacks and gays. This is very funny since most of the 'hate crimes' in the US are actually committed by blacks. Since blacks are stronger than other races, almost no one goes up to blacks and says, "Hey nigger". Not only will the black guy beat up the offender but our cult of MLK will ostracize and condemn the 'racist'. Just look what happened to Don Imus for joking about 'nappy-headed hos'. And gays are among the most powerful people in America, and they have the power to intolerantly destroy the lives of people who don't bend over to the gay agenda. The real reason for 'hate speech' control is not to protect the powerless but to shield the powerful. Jews control America, and what Jews fear most is that there will come a day when gentiles--of all color--will call out on Jewish power, Jewish privilege, Jewish influence, Jewish abuses, Jewish oppression, Jewish history of exploitation, Jewish mendacity, and etc. This is what 'hate speech laws' are really about. It is to protect Jewish Supremacism from criticism.

Jewish intellectuals once used to call for open debate and freedom of speech. Even Jewish communists who supported all manner of tyranny and mass murder taking place in the Soviet Union wrapped themselves around the American flag and the Constitution and demanded total freedom of speech. Had liberals, leftists, and Democrats held political power all throughout the 1950s, these liberal Jews would not have called for free speech and civil liberties for all. They would have called for government and institutional clampdown and purge of all 'hateful' and 'reactionary' elements. How do I know this? Did Jewish liberals and leftists care one bit about the 100,000+ Japanese-Americans locked up by FDR? Did Jewish liberals show any disdain for the movie MISSION TO MOSCOW by Michael Curtiz(the Jew who directed CASABLANCA) that rationalized and justified every one of Stalin's crimes? No.  The Jewish support of Civil Liberties was purely accidental and tactical.
With the rise of anti-communism(and return of Republican power) in the late 40s and early 50s, many Jewish radicals came under pressure and some were blacklisted for a few yrs. This is why Jews embraced total freedom of speech. It was to serve tribal interests. Under the guise of total commitment to freedom of speech, Jews were able to outmaneuver McCarthy and pose as defenders of civil liberties of ALL Americans.
But it's been some time since anyone or any group dared to take on Jewish power. Jews have control over all the elite institutions. They can do whatever and get away with it. They no longer need the protection of civil liberties and freedom of speech since they have control over media, academia, law firms, courts, Wall Street, Hollywood, both political parties, advertising, government, and etc.  What Jews fear is the awakening of gentile consciousness against this Jewish power, and so the Jews are trying to prevent/preempt any such phenomenon by enforcing 'hate speech laws' that will prevent anyone from speaking out about Jewish Power. Such is the nature of the Jew.

So, we now live in the era of 'dual truths'. Jewish elites are good enough to access, know, and discuss the truth, but WE are not good enough. We must stick with the Official Truth. So, elite Jews in their own clubs and societies will discuss racial differences and the nature of their power--and what they must do to expand it and keep it forever--, but we are not supposed to know or think anything about it. To be sure, some Jews are just so goofy and filled with chutzpah that they accidentally spill the beans.
One of the funniest is Joel Stein's HOW JEWISH IS HOLLYWOOD?
The article starts:

"I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe 'the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,' down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood."

Though Jewish control of the media/Hollywood/Wall Street has exponentially increased since 1964, Americans today believe Jews don't control the media. It goes to show that truth is less important than the medium of truth. Those who control the flow of information, the symbols of inspiration, the dogma of official truth, and the fear of taboos control what is and isn't "truth". Though Jewish power increased since the 60s, Americans today think Jews are less powerful!!
Yes, this sort of thing can happen in a so-called democracy where information is supposed to flow freely and teach people the truth. Joel Stein, a clownish character, probably thought he was just being funny, but ever since that article has been picked up by 'anti-Semites' like Kevin MacDonald and David Duke, it appears he's been disciplined and pressured to lay low and remain silent; he's been effectively disappeared as a 'bad boy Jew'. On the other hand, maybe some Jews thought Stein's way of breaking the news in a funny matter could be beneficial to Jewish power. If Jewish power is sold as something funny and hilarious, maybe people will laugh about it than fear it--even though it has tremendous impact on all facets of their lives, from information to education to finance to foreign policy.

Anyway, the fact that Jewish power increased from 1964 to 2008 but Americans thinks Jews are less powerful today says something about the the problem of 'dual truth' in America. Jews are allowed to discuss and work to increase Jewish power in their elite inner circles, BUT we are not supposed to know about it, and even if we did know, we are not supposed to discuss it openly lest we lose our jobs.
The failure of American conservatism can be glimpsed in this too. Conservatism cannot exist without memory, yet American conservatives--most of them anyway--seem to have no knowledge of the change in Jewish behavior and strategy since the 50s.  If American conservatives had a real sense of memory, they'd know that Jews argued for government censorship during the FDR yrs but then argued for civil liberties when Jewish leftists came under attack by anti-communists--and today, they are arguing for 'hate speech' laws that would effectively silence all criticism of Jewish power. In other words, Jews have no principles, only strategies. Their own principle is tribal power.  Most elite Jews believe that most of us 'cannot handle the truth', which really means we'll handle it TOO WELL and realize that Jews have been behind white deracination, dispossession, and demise. Jews see us as stupid little children. We are to live with the 'noble lie' while Jews in their closed elite institutions get to secretly discuss issues about racial differences. It's just like ANIMAL FARM with smart pigs owning the house and us working in the fields.

Now, some of you may think that  my assessment of Jewish power is exaggerated. After all, there are lots of superrich non-Jews. But huge wealth isn't sufficient power to challenge Jewish power. After all, there are many very rich people in China, but their wealth and status can be destroyed overnight by the Communist Party. No matter how rich you are in China, the fact is the law courts, media, police, and military are dominated by Communist Party oligarchs. You don't mess with the real overlords with control over the institutions. Similarly, no matter how rich you are in America, if you cross Jews, Jews can use their institutional power to destroy you almost overnight. Jews get to decide who is okay and who is not okay. Plenty of black rappers and white rockers have said and done outrageous things, but they get millionaire dollar contracts from the Jewish-controlled entertainment industry. But when Mel Gibson got drunk one time and said, "Jews start all wars", he was effectively blacklisted from the film industry. If you're a filthy Zionist and support Israel's right to possess 300 illegal nuclear weapons, you're A-okay and given all sorts of favors. But no matter how rich you are, if you argued for Iran's right to possess nuclear weapons, you're gonna lose a lot of powerful friends and connections--and protections--right away. Jews have such a lock on the key levers of power that even the superrich who dare challenge Jewish power are toast overnight. Suppose George Lucas made a film about the oppression of Palestinians. Think of all the friends and connections in the film industry he would lose almost immediately. And Jews in government will send an army of goons to audit Lucas's tax files and prosecute him for the most minor infraction--while the grand Jewish crooks on Wall Street get to do as they please.

Returning to the matter of irrational appeals, just consider how 'gay marriage' became such a hot issue. It wasn't through rational debate, reasoned discourse, morally logical appeals, or any kind of real sense. It was through the power of pageantry, iconography, hype and sensationalism, sanctification of gays and lesbians and even cross-dressers as holy angels, the vilification of decent people as 'odious, noxious, and toxic homophobes'--yes, so-called 'tolerant' people use such strong adjectives against people they don't agree with--, parades, rallies, advertising, sacred threats, and veiled threats, and etc. I say 'veiled threats' because brazen threats give the game away that we are being pressured and brow-beaten to bend over to the Jewish-supported radical gay agenda.  People don't like to feel that they are being forced to do something. So, Jews and gays come to you with a smile and ask you to support 'gay marriage' while hinting that if you don't comply, you're gonna go down. Since you fear being shunned, shamed, and destroyed, you support 'gay marriage' and in order to convince yourself and others that you did it out of conviction than cowardice, you express an overly zealous support of the gay agenda. It's like a dog barking extra-loud while serving its master. Though being ordered by its master to attack, it makes believe that it's in control of its own emotions by barking like crazy. But no matter how much all these converts express their support for 'gay marriage', we know they acted out of cowardice. They really had no choice since if they don't support it, they'll be disgraced, shunned, and rejected from polite, hipster, and cool society. And so they hide their shame of cowardice with rabid support of 'gay marriage'.

Bullies come to you and shake their fist at you. But not all bullies are so brazen. In AGE OF INNOCENCE, we see how polite society with fine manners could use all sorts of subtle pressures to force a man to marry a woman he doesn't love and abandon the woman he really loves. Similarly, the neo-haute society of today has all sorts of ways to make you go along 'reasonably' by applying all sorts of subtle and not-so-subtle pressures. Jews and gays don't want us to think that we've been forced to go along with their agenda. And so, they employ all sorts of nudges and appeals to our irrational emotions to make them go along with the 'gay agenda'. As many people are dumb and ignorant, they are pushovers for such manipulation. Even so, many people still resist the ridiculous gay agenda. What to do with such people? Since they can't be fooled, they must be pressured. One way is with money and bribery, and this is especially effective with politicians. Notice how NY Republicans were bought over to voting for 'gay marriage'. Politicians should really be called prostitucians. Even so, there are still people who refuse to fall for the bogus bullshit of 'gay marriage' that says it's healthy and wonderful for men to practice fecal penetration and insert male sexual organs into organs meant for defecation of waste material. Since Jews and gays don't want to be exposed as brazen bullies, they use all sorts of hidden bully tactics. They use all sorts of hints and send all sorts of signals that if certain people are not with the gay agenda, their reputations will be smeared, they may lose 'friends', they may not get promotion, they may be turned into the butt of jokes and mockery. And if there are still holdouts to accepting 'gay marriage', there is the looming 'hate speech' law that aims to fine or imprison anyone who speaks out against such filth.
'Gay marriage' is of course the real hate crime against real marriage. It offends the fundamental dignity of the meaning of marriage. The idea that a penis entering a fecal hole is the biological and moral equivalent of real sex is vile, hateful, and disgusting. It's like saying eating a plateful of feces is the same as eating a plate of pizza.

There never was a sane rational argument for 'gay marriage'. Indeed, all arguments made for 'gay marriage' could just as easily be used to champion polygamy, group marriage, and same-family marriage or incest marriage. If marriage should allow anything demanded by adults of consenting age, it can be just be just about anything. Indeed even 'friend marriage' between two heterosexuals who wanna get married ONLY to share benefits from work. It's ridiculous.
Jews and gays are the neo-aristocrats,  and just like the upper classes in AGE OF INNOCENCE, they are really out for their own privilege. Gays are so vain and greedy that they are willing to subvert the entire meaning of marriage just to serve their own perverse ego. And that isn't enough. Gays and Jews are working to ban any speech that is 'hateful' or 'contemptuous' of gays or the homosexual act. So, if you say 'gay sex is unnatural and gross', you should be fined, sent to sensitivity training, or locked up. Just like aristocrats used 'polite power' to get their way, Jews and gays use all sorts of subtle ways to send a message that we better not mess with their agenda or challenge them since they have the power to destroy reputations, careers, and lives.

So many Americans are such pushovers or bendovers. Think of the rainbow flag and homosexuality. Now, what does the beautiful and miraculous rainbow have to do with two men sticking their penises into fecal holes or with fat hairy guys who put on lipstick and wear dresses? NOTHING. But by hyping and advertising homosexuality as a kind of rainbow, so many Americans have been made to feel that there's nothing more heavenly and wonderful than homosexuality.  Gee whiz, gays must be angels, and that being true, who are we to deny them 'gay marriage'?

Just like most Christians were converted to the Faith through emotional appeals, many Americans have been won over to 'gay marriage' through irrational appeals that sanctified and beautified the gay world. Just like most Americans think Jews don't control Hollywood due to Jewish manipulation of truth,  many Americans associate gayness with rainbow colors, cool/hip/funny characters on TV, and all the other crap we see due to media manipulation. And of course, just like movies have good guys and bad guys, the Jewish media present opponents of 'gay marriage' in the most unflattering and demeaning manner. While the media  suppresses all the unpleasant facts of gays and show only their nice side, the media ignores all the positive side of supporting real marriage against 'gay marriage' and feature only the most deranged voices that denounce 'gay marriage'. So, the impression that Americans get is "gays are so perfect and angelic, and their enemies are so ugly, old, and vile."

But we see the same thing with Israel and Iran. Both nations have their good sides and bad sides, but Israel is featured as some perfect democracy in the Middle East whereas Iran is featured as a totally crazy nation that 'wants to wipe Israel off the map'. And we hear so often that tiny little Israel, as the outpost of Western values, is surrounded by all those barbaric and hostile Muslim nations that want to destroy it. Using that logic, why didn't the West support apartheid South Africa as the final tiny outpost of Western Civilization on a Dark Continent filled with murderous black savages out to rob, rape, and murder whites?  Well, it just so happens to be the case that Jews control the media in the West and get to decide what is what.

Unless American patriots take on Jewish power, nothing is possible.

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 Is Unnecessary 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.