The Opposition to the Homo Agenda should have been Secular and Rational at the Core — The General Impression that the Opposition to Homomania was Mainly Religious created the Illusion that the Homo Agenda was Rational and backed by Science

Unfortunately, there was hardly any non-religious opposition to the Homo Agenda except on willy-nilly libertarian or legalistic grounds. Hardly anyone mentioned the facts of biological hierarchy, i.e. real sexuality is meaningful, purposeful, and essential whereas homosexuality is a deviance in organic terms and perversion in moral terms. The secular and rational counter-homo arguments were heartless and bloodless, utterly failing to recognize the Homo Agenda as a war on biology and morality that it really was. As for the religious component of the opposition, which had long predated the half-hearted secular opposition(not least because the Bible adamantly commands that homosexuality is a sin), it simply didn’t have the means to summon up the kind of arguments that could persuade modern educated people. (Perhaps, the secular opposition to the homo agenda was weak because it was so unprepared for such a challenge. After all, most of human history, religious or not, had taken as granted the wrongness of homosexuality. There was no need to argue against it since it was understood that EVERYONE knew it was sick and gross even if not wicked and sinful. Perhaps then, it will take some time for a truly effective secular opposition and immune system to the homo agenda, which has metastasized into full-blown Homomania, to develop. As things stand, Homomania is the HIV of Western morality and culture. It is eating away at everything.)

At any rate, nothing in a republic/democracy like ours can be based primarily on religious doctrine or dogma. We can’t say “Evolution must be banned because it is an affront to God’s Creation.” Likewise, we can’t let religion decide matters on law and sexuality. We can’t ban or deny something on the basis of "God said so".

But then, opposition to the homo agenda didn’t need God on its side. Upon close scrutiny, it should have been obvious that a merely secular opposition had not only sufficient truth but all the truth on its side. What is this truth?
Truth is that some people are born homo and can’t being what they are. Therefore, okay, let homos be homos and do their own thing in their own spaces. However, homosexuality cannot some kind of ‘new normal’ but will always be a deviance that has no biological meaning or sexual purpose. That is also the truth about homosexuality. Among men, homosexual acts are downright gross and putrid. It’s about homo fecal penetration.
That said, we can acknowledge certain cultural benefits of homosexuality. Not in what homo do ‘sexually’ but in how they see and feel things that opens up new creative possibilities. Homosexual sensibility has certainly left its mark on arts & culture.

But homosexuality has no value in biology and family. Homosexuality cannot produce life. That is a truth. Marriage is a fusion of biology and morality. It must be based on the truth of life and the necessity of moral values. ‘Gay marriage’ is based on a lie. It makes believes that homosexuality has equal value with real sexuality. It makes believes that Tim Cook’s anus has the same value as his mother’s vagina that birthed him. Another observable and undeniable fact about homosexuality is that ‘gays’ tend to be vain, narcissistic, and self-centered in their ego. So, they have no sense of limits in terms of ‘sexual’ excess or self-aggrandizement. Homos have even pushed ‘gay rights’ into Gay Rites. They went from secular demand for ‘equal right’ to a quasi-spiritual demand to be worshiped as new angels and saints. Homos have even made ‘pride’ synonymous with homosexuality. They are so vain that they want to claim and own entire terms for themselves. And their chosen symbol hogs all the colors and associates homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting with the miraculous rainbow that used to be primarily associated with the story of Noah where life is preserved by saving male/female pair for each animal.

Indeed, the Homo Agenda won not by rational argument but by the irrational appeal of sensual-sacro-propaganda. TV shows and Movies featured an endless parade of saintly homos were so well-groomed and more-normal-than-normal. Even as Progs generally mock 1950s culture of FATHER KNOWS BEST and the DONNA REED SHOW, homos were given a GAYS-KNOW-BEST make-over.
Homos won by having at their disposal the power of advertising, fanfare, spectacle, parades, and etc. It’s like communism mainly cast its spell with songs, music, pageantry, rallies, and etc. Its success owed more to the appeal of the irrational. It is no wonder that homos soon targeted churches and sought to associate everything holy & sacred with homo colors, which are intrinsically ridiculous since what does the rainbow have to do with homo fecal penetration or lesbian poon-mooshing? Or tranny penis-and-testicle mutilation?

Most importantly, the main reason the Right failed to oppose the Homo Agenda was due to its slavishness to Jews and the Rich. As many homos became rich, powerful, and well-connected, more and more money-worshiping members of Conservative Inc. began to suck up to Homo Lobby. It became a status-thing to be pro-homo in elite circles. Consider how S.E. Cupp broke down with tears of joy when ‘gay marriage’ was forced on the entire nation. Look how the kids of the Bush family are all crazy for homo, homo, homo. It’s what fancy elites go for, so anyone who aspires for higher status must follow along and flash the same cues. (Also, homos built up a network of spying, gossip, and blackmail. If anyone opposed their agenda, they would be ‘outed’ and scandalized. Look how the homos and their allies in the media dragged Carrie Prejean’s name through the mud when she opposed ‘gay marriage’ at a beauty pageant. They dug up all the dirt on her and attacked her to send a warning to all women what will be done to them unless they comply with Homomania. Homo men are especially foul in personality. They have male aggression plus female bitchiness and hysterics, like with the homo guy in MEAN STREETS.)

As the GOP became slavish to everything Jewish, Conservatives dared not voice any real opposition to homosexuality lest Jews get upset. Jews sent out a message, “the homo agenda is OUR baby, and we’ll be very very displeased if YOU oppose. Saying NO to the Homo Agenda is saying NO to us wonderful super-Jews”. So, Conservatives only pretended to sort-of-oppose it while effectively doing NOTHING to expose and condemn the sick, perverse, and evil agenda of Homomania. Look how even Ross Douthat(the so-called Catholic) and Charles Murray caved. That bald-headed lowlife bent over to Tinkerbell Curve.

The failure was due to the lack of courage to handle truth and facts on a rational and moral basis. After all, marriage is a primarily a Moral Institution rooted in proper biology. Morality must be based on truth and justice, and it is neither truthful nor just to pretend that what homos do to each other has equal biological purpose and moral value as what men and women do in their practice of proper sexuality. Or that what trannies constitute health of mind and body. Since when is using Frankenstein medicine to remove perfectly healthy organs to be replaced with fake organs of the opposite sex a sane or moral act?

We have spineless idiots on the Right. But then, the Evangelicals and Mormons are so eager to suck up to Jews and Money that they’ve also muted their opposition to Homomania. Mormons will do ANYTHING to have Goldman Sachs build more office in Salt Lake City. And Evangelicals will do ANYTHING to please Zionists and prove it is not filled with ‘hate’. Since Jews say, "If you’re not with homos, then you are against us Jews", the craven Mormons and childish Evangelicals have decided to add Homo-Worship to their liturgy.

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.

Should Conservatives Give Liberals 'Gay Marriage'?

I think the idea of 'gay marriage' is sick, demented, and ridiculous. On principle, I would oppose it forever. But tactically, it may be a plus for conservatives if liberals got their wish with the 'same-sex marriage' business. Though the sheer intensity of this issue given the impression of liberalism powerfully on the march, it may well be that the 'gay marriage' issue is really a sign of liberal political desperation and ideological exhaustion.

One main difference between conservatism and liberalism is the former has meaning even if it sits still whereas the latter has meaning only in restless movement. A conservative is like someone who stays put on his land and takes care of the garden. He doesn't have to venture to new territories to find meaning. He can find meaning by tending his own garden.
In contrast, liberalism is premised on the notion of change and adventurousness. It has to search for new things, new meanings, new values, and etc. An artistic traditionalist or conservative can find meaning and beauty in classical art and older forms of representational art. An artistic liberal or experimentalist favors something like modernism and post-modernism. He or she needs new expressions.

There is an advantage to the liberal spirit as long as there are meaningfully new things to find and do. But once liberals run out of new adventures and new crusades, it sort of becomes useless. Look at the state of modernism and post-modernism in art today. It is at an utter deadend. Modernism, as a rebellion against traditionalism, had great meaning and potential in the late 19th and the first half of the 20th century. But in painting, sculpture, and music, modernism and then post-modernism pretty much burned themselves out. And modernism in cinema lasted to up about the early 1970s.  Nowadays, 'radicalism' in art is something of a joke. No one really cares, and the art world is essentially a zone of insider trading among rich collectors who have nothing better to do with their money and cynical 'artists' who try to be the new Warhol in making pseudo-art or anti-art for big bucks and fabricated 'notoriety', which too has become something of a brand. (Indeed, Ai Wei Wei is blessed because he has to deal with censorship. It gives him the cachet of being a true dissenter. Western artists aren't so lucky.) In other words, too much of a good thing has led to its own demise. It's like yeast eventually kills itself in the wine. They feast on the grapes but the alcohol produced by the fermentation kills the yeast. Similarly, the indulgence of modernism and post-modernism killed those movements. What had once been 'different', 'subversive', 'radical', and 'revolutionary' became dime-a-dozen mannerisms in every art school. When even teenagers at community colleges make 'surreal' collages with various junk, who cares anymore? Similarly, sex and violence in films have lost their edge and meaning. Whatever controversy and meaningful discussion were stirred up by films like STRAW DOGS, DIRTY HARRY, and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, no one is shocked by violence and sex in movies anymore. What had once been a great cultural crusade came to a deadend.

Now, let's consider politics and culture. There was the golden age of liberalism that took off with the rise of FDR. Like him or not, he connected with many Americans and laid the foundations of the modern America we are living in today. As America was becoming bigger, more complex, and more industrialized--and as most Americans could no longer live self-sufficiently off the land as in the past--, a whole new bureaucracy was created to manage and oversee the new order. And in time, Republicans came to adopt this model too. Though conservative purists like Buckley in the 50s opposed even the government role in building highways, more pragmatic conservatives like Eisenhower understood the new reality. Having fought in the biggest war in world history, Eisenhower appreciated the advantages of modern management and organization. And in a way, he understood American progress as a kind of peaceful constructive war. Thus, army engineers built dams and bridges. For a vast new America to be built, private enterprise couldn't do it alone. Governments had to play a bigger role in educating children, in building infrastructure, and etc.

This was a boom time for the American working classes, and the great majority of Americans embraced FDR's vision of new America, and despite all the conservative gripes, they too accepted the new system. Eisenhower built the great highways. Kennedy would start a program to send men to the moon. Public universities were expanded so that many more eager young men could attend college. These were great times, and liberalism had a muscular role to play in the creation of the new order.
And then, there was the Civil Rights Movement. Today, we know that the black problem is much more serious since so much of it is rooted in biology than in history or social reality. But many people didn't know this in the 1950s, and liberalism stepped into to bring legal justice to blacks. If the US Constitution calls for equality for all men regardless of race, creed, or color, then it wasn't right for blacks to be discriminated because of the 'color of their skin'. Many whites were naive back then--as they still are today due to politically correct education--, but they sincerely believed that the racial problem could be solved by offering equality and a helping hand to blacks. In RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, even Pat Buchanan says that as a young man, he was deeply impressed by MLK's speech in the Mall in the early 60s; he called it the golden age of liberalism. That was great boon for liberalism, and Johnson was re-elected in 1964 in a sweeping landslide.

But then, things began to go wrong due to the Vietnam War, the true nature of blacks, and youthful hedonism. Vietnam War pitted patriotic anti-communist liberals against radicals, progressives, and peace liberals. The true nature of blacks showed them to be aggressive, wild, and dangerous. Crime begin to skyrocket once blacks(who turned out be physically tougher and more aggressive) got freedom and equality. Even white liberals began to run from integrating neighborhoods; Howard Stern says even his ultra-liberal Jewish mother soon wanted OUT of the blackening neighborhood.
As for youthful hedonism, it turned to drugs and excess.

To be sure, there was silver linings in all three of these problems. Anti-War movement gave birth to a whole new kind of liberal idealism that defined a generation. And black rage and black politics gave meaning to black identity politics. And youthful hedonism produced some great popular music and styles & modes of life that seemed 'groovy' and 'far out' as long as the music, drugs, and youth lasted.
But black rage could only go so far. Eventually, even sympathetic white liberals got annoyed(and scared) with blacks howling all the time. And the anti-war vibes evaporated the minute Nixon got rid of the Draft. And there were soon too many bad trips with excessive music, sex, and drugs among 60s youth. As Peter Fonda said in EASY RIDER, 'we blew it'.

As black rage, youth hedonism, and anti-war rhetoric began to fade, liberalism sought new meaning in feminism and environmentalism. Those causes also had some great themes to them. Though feminism soon became stupid, there was meaning to women wanting equal opportunities. And through feminism, many women began to question and critique what it meant to be a woman in her own right than merely in relation to men. And despite some of its excesses and mania, environmentalism did clean up many rivers and the air. It also had great themes and meaning. But as women gained equality and EPA became national policy, they all began to lose the element of thrill and excitement. In time, even conservatives were for stuff like "women's rights", "cleaner air", and all the other nice-sounding stuff that liberalism put on the table. What had once been urgently new issues became part of the same old same old landscape.
If conservatives had one great issue during this period, it was anti-communism, and Reagan ran with it to victory and triumph.

Anyway, that was then, and this is now. Are there any great liberal themes or causes left? With a black guy as president and president-re-elect, with gays in the military, with open borders and Mexicanization of California, with the permanent demise of the GOP as a national party, and etc, etc. what is left for liberals?

There's 'affirmative action' and 'disparate impact' on the books. Wasp power is gone, and liberal Jews pretty much own the nation along with the gay cabal. Even big tobacco was defeated in the 90s. So, what is there left for liberals?  Liberals, with their slogan 'Forward', need something to look forward to and get excited about. So, what is it? There is 'gay marriage', but suppose 'gay marriage' becomes law of the land in all 50 states. Then what?

Liberals are now scraping the bottom of the barrel. They had their great period, but they got nothing left that is meaningful anymore(though, I suppose there is "let's elect a woman president", "a Hispanic president", "gay president", "lesbian president", "cross-dressing president", "a mental retard"). Unlike conservatives, they lack core values with which they can feel at peace. Liberals always have to find new things to get all worked up about.  With FDR, it was jobs for Americans. With Obama, it's more food stamps. With Eisenhower and Kennedy, it was equality for blacks. Now, it's the silly notion that Obama is 'black gay jesus' who sends thrills up some white news anchor's legs. Media tell us that gays are angels, and Americans now seem to love gays. And Fluke and other silly sluts got their free birth control pills. And feminists are proud to be 'sluts' and shout 'vagina' out in the streets. Golly gee, they finally defeated the evil 'war against women'. They even got socialized healthcare and amnesty with Obama.
I mean it's getting pretty desperate for liberals to find new things to get excited about. Even creatively, liberals are at a deadend in literature, cinema, and music.  The fight for 'gay marriage' is the last big thing they got going for them. So, suppose we let them have it. They'll be celebrating like crazy for one night.. and then realize they got nothing more to fight for. Sure, they cook up more crises, but you can cry wolf only so many times. It's like conservatives got to cry "MUSLIM TERRORISM" after the Cold War, but it soon got stale. Especially with the looming deficits, the whole house of cards may come tumbling down for liberals, and all their silly new conceits may come to naught. And in time, many liberal causes that once sounded meaningful will be exposed as decadent, trivial, and trashy.  Liberalism is the victim of its own success. So was anti-communism. Once conservatives won the Cold War, they were at a loss as to what great crusade to find next. George H. W. Bush thought war with Iraq would get the patriotic juices flowing again, but it wasn't long-lasting. Conservatives had a silver platter handed to them with 9/11, but Bush II botched it real bad.

But liberalism is also at a deadend. I mean a movement is scraping the bottom of the barrel when the great moral crusade it can come up with is 'gay marriage'. It's so silly that like the housing bubble, it's supported not by substance but hype about gays as perfect angels and darlings whose blessing you must earn if you wanna go to Cool Heaven. It's MTV liberalism. But once liberals have it, what is the next big cause? Diversity? But it's here already. The re-election of Obama means the tipping point has been reached, and it's the end of 'evil racist white America'.  Since the evil white GOP has been defeated, what is there to hold the Democrats together? The great war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan held the coalition of Nationalist China, Soviet Union, UK, and US together. With the defeat of the Axis, how could those nations stay in the same camp? Their alliance became the victim of its very success.

Conservatism may have lost, but it still has core meaning for conservatives because conservatives find meaning in their hearts. Liberals have to find meaning in new stuff. It's the difference between a person who's content with clothes in her closet and a woman who has to keep buying new stuff. After all the fashions have been purchased and tried on, what is there for the liberal ideological shopper to buy anymore? Liberalism too is at an end. The real End of History is not some happy final destination. Such is impossible with liberals since they need new kicks and thrills. But when there is nothing new that's meaningful to be found, liberals will settle for trivial issues and causes, and they will lead to decadence and ridiculousness, to self-parody and comedy. The party of FDR now swoons over  Obama as 'gay black jesus' and think 'gay marriage' is the biggest moral issue of the day--and they're blind to how ridiculous they've become. If they get 'gay marriage', they'll have a "what's next?" moment, and the fact is there's nothing more left but gimmicks. Indeed, 'gay marriage' itself is a gimmick.

One thing that should be clear to all conservatives. The alliance with Jews is over. It should have been seen as hopeless from the start.

How 60s Boomer Liberals and Radicals Grew into Conservative Style.

Though we still tend to see politics in terms of Left vs Right, there really isn't much of the Left anymore. The group most closely identified with the Left in American politics is the Jews, but Jews are the most powerful and privileged people in America. They have vast fortunes to protect and unprecedented control of society. To be sure, leftist ideologues can comprise the establishment in a society--consider Stalin in the USSR or Mao in Red China--, but today's 'leftist Jews' are no more socialist than today's Chinese Communist Party members are communist. Jews are simply too rich and privileged to count as genuine leftists. And if leftism means universalism and equality, that is not what Jews are after in America. Jews seek to safeguard their special privileges and powers, and they prefer multicultural diversity to play the game of 'divide and rule' among the various gentile groups. Though Jews are the richest, they hide as 'whites' and then blame 'white privilege' for the problems of blacks and Hispanics. By 'white privilege', Jews imply wasp or white gentile privilege, not Jewish privilege. Though Jews are richer than white gentiles, Jews pose as the compassionate allies of poor oppressed blacks and Hispanics. This is all just a ploy for Jews to keep the power and privilege. Jews are experts at the con game.

The academia is full of leftist, neo-Marxist, and socialist Jews, but these Jews don't want the end of capitalism. They know that their own privilege depends on it. They critique capitalism in order to extort money and support from capitalists. They are willing to be bought off by the rich, and the rich are willing to gain moral/intellectual capital by allying with 'radical' intellectuals. Similarly, 'radical' and 'subversive' artists want to be bought off by rich art collectors, and rich art collectors want the cachet of 'culture edginess' by associating with 'radical subversives'. It's all a symbiotic relationship.
Jews know history. They know communism didn't go well for Jews. Soviet communism favored gentile machine politics--Stalin was like the Mayor Daley of old of Russia--over Jewish genius and brilliance. For Jews to have to power over gentiles, they need capitalism and individualist meritocracy. But Jews also know that Jewish success can breed resentment among gentiles, and therefore, rich Jews ally with leftist intellectual Jews and together they make a lot of noise about 'social justice'. And so, a billionaire Jewish liberal is more likely to berate a white conservative hillbilly for his greed than vice versa. The Jewish liberal has billions while the white hillbilly is afraid of losing his lowly job to a less qualified black or Hispanic, but super-rich Jew plays Mr. Compassion while the hillbilly is said to have a cold cold heart.

Jewish leftists want to lead a life of privilege by reading and writing books, attending cocktail parties, teaching in colleges, traveling around the world to various conferences, and etc.  As such, they must play the role of social critic, and so, leftism is their natural mode. And some do pose as genuine 'radicals'. But in fact, they don't want to live in a real communist or socialist system. In a communist/socialist system, the government has to do all the heavy lifting in commanding the economy. Why not leave all the heavy lifting to capitalists and then soak up some of their wealth through grants, non-profit organizations, think tanks, and etc.? This way, capitalists serve as the goose that lays the golden egg that provides funds to leftists to live their 'life of the mind'. It's like what Richard Posner said about 'success': it should be encouraged so that the 'greedy' will work hard and pay taxes so that intellectuals like Posner can lead the life of a prophet-intellectual.

Since true leftism is dead and since liberals now make up the most of the super rich--and affluent urban class--, what goes by the name of progressivism is mostly trivialities like 'gay marriage' and 'slut pride'. Or empowerment via 'vagina' talk.  Since the tradition of leftism is 'fighting against oppression' and since there is no oppression to fight against, the 'new left' cooks up new hysteria to make believe that they are still resisting some great evil.  So, if conservatives think affluent women should buy their own birth control pills, it's 'war on women'. If sane people think 'gay marriage' is ridiculous, they are evil 'homophobes' of the new grand inquisition. And if a restaurant chain donates to Christian organization that stands for traditional marriage, cities like Chicago vow to ban the company from operating in the city. In this day and age, the great evil oppressor is some chicken restaurant whose owner believes in traditional marriage. As many gays are part of the new global aristocracy, this drive for 'gay marriage' is really an elite or elite-serving issue. It has no bearing on most people, especially poor people.

Anyway, the amusing thing about the 'new leftism' or new progressivism or whatever you call it is that it's so 'conservative', at least in style. This is why the notion that liberalism finally triumphed over conservatism is partly true, partly false. Even if this was part of the Saul Alinsky trick to sneak in radicalism by the guise of 'conservatism'--like Obama sold as the New Reagan--, the 'radicals' have accumulated too much power, wealth, and privilege to really upset the system.
What goes by liberalism today is so different from liberalism of yesteryear. What goes by 'leftism' has no resemblance to leftism of yesteryear.

Consider gays. Homosexuality used to be seen as a decadent bourgeois disease by leftists, but today, gay issues make up the main core of 'new leftism'. If most gays were poor or oppressed, this might have a leftist ring to it. But gays are the most powerful and privileged people in America after the Jews. If anything, gays have long been favored in many elite positions by other gays and by liberals and Jews. Indeed, Jews, the most powerful people in America, have made gays their #1 allies. Obama and his mulatto crew essentially take orders from Jews and gays.
Most people are, of course, sheep. Though blacks have been among the most anti-gay people, many have almost overnight switched to supporting 'gay marriage' because brotha Obama done it. This is how most people think and act, and this is as true on the Right as on the Left. Look how so many conservatives blindly supported many of George W. Bush's anti- or non-conservative programs simply because a 'conservative' guy happened to be president. American conservatism used to be critical and suspicious of Jewish power, but ever since neocons entered the party, the GOP is a bastion of Jew-love-fest. And if Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were to come out for 'gay marriage', it will be only a matter of time before most conservatives sheepishly follow along. If you change the head, body will follow. Most people don't know how or what to think. They need others to do the thinking for them. They may initially resist new ideas, but as long as their leaders insist on them, they will follow along soon enough. Today, the likes of Rand Paul and Rich Lowry weep when they listen to MLK's silly pompous speeches.

Anyway, consider the triumph of the 'conservative style' among the new liberals. Gays in the 60s and 70s used to be wild, flamboyant, and scandalous. They used to emphasize how they were different from mainstream conservative square society. They defined themselves by rejecting social norms. Today, gays go for a style that is often more conservative and square than that among many conservatives. Many gays go for respectability, middle-class-ness, green lawns, and tidiness. Partly, this was the result of the AIDS epidemic, but it also had to do with the maturing of the gay movement. Everything goes through a wild youth phase. Eventually, it grows up, and gays today are more into finding a stable place in society than rocking the order. Though 'gay marriage' is ridiculous and undermines fundamental moral principles, the fact is gays want to adopt the conservative style of 'family values'.

And consider feminists. In the 60s and 70s, many refused to wear make up. Some were said to have burned bras though that may be an urban legend. Many wore grungy clothes and tried to look as unsexy as possible. Look at the old picture of Hillary. They refused to be 'sex symbols' or 'sex objects'. This was a time when John Lennon was lauded by feminists for his song, "Woman Is the Nigger of the World". Carole King on the cover of TAPESTRY looked down-to-earth. She sang "Natural Woman", a quasi-hippie sentiment that rejected womanhood as defined by cosmetics and dresses.
Feminism also used to be anti-capitalist and anti-male. It was about the Sisterhood in Overalls. But this hardline radical neo-puritan feminism lost its appeal, and the new feminism defined by Camille Paglia, Naomi Wolf, Susan Faludi, and others emphasized new interests and concerns. Wolf who denounced the 'beauty myth' later came out with a book saying it was great to want to look beautiful and sexy. It was okay to be a sex symbol.
The Anita Hill trial and the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal both undermined old feminism.  Most people weren't impressed by Anita Hill, and feminists who'd howled about 'sexual harassment' had egg on their faces as they tried to defend Bill's many sexual abuses in high office. But more importantly, the rise of Rap made it difficult for feminism to bitch about 'misogyny'. It was one thing to denounce white rocker misogynists, but it might be 'racist' to denounce blacks. Also, rap was seen as the vehicle of interracism and pro-miscegenation--as were the likes of madonna. All such things were raw, trashy, and pornographic, and feminists had to make peace with them in order to maintain the alliance with blacks and to pander to new generation of young girls who were into pornographic pop music.

Today, feminists have no objection to shows like SEX AND THE CITY. It's about women as sex objects, but I suppose they are 'empowered' sex objects since they are 'independent' and sleep with lots of men. In the 70s or even 80s or 90s, it might have been racy to erect the Marilyn Monroe statue in Chicago, but there's been no opposition from feminists today.
Of course, pro-sexualism isn't necessarily conservative. Many traditional conservatism have a low opinion of overt sexuality. On the other hand, if 'male chauvinism' and 'sexism' are right-wing, the new feminism has made peace with the 'objectification' of female sexuality. It is to be marketed and sold like meat. There is pride in being a 'slut'. It's okay for women to talk about what to do with their vagina than what to do with their brains. And new feminism is all about looking good, narcissism, make up, and wearing sexy clothes. It's also very pro-capitalist despite the lingering 'leftist-socialist' rhetoric. While the likes of Sandra Fluke want free birth control pills, their real goal is to land a gig in the private sector and make lots of money and get hitched to some rich guy.

Now, consider blacks. Though much of the black community is still dysfunctional--and will likely remain that way forever--, the new black elites have molded themselves on the 'conservative style'. Obama is really the posterchild of this. He is faithful to his wife, indeed even more so than many white conservative males. Though he sometimes plays black politics, he is careful not to fall into the trashy hostile mode of older/other black leaders and politicians. Obama isn't ideologically conservative and hates white conservatives, but his style isn't 'radical' or 'black nationalist'.
Look back to the 60s, a time of the Black Panthers, Muhammad Ali, Stokely Carmichael, the giant Afro, and etc.  Blacks back then were going out of their way to show how they were different from white society. While in many ways black community is still divided from the white community, a new leadership of the black community has arisen that is more willing to work with and cut a deal with the white community. Jesse Jackson Jr. is a piece of booger but not the hothead bigshot his father was. Al Sharpton has considerably toned down his style after seeing what 'going along' has done for Obama. Though a lot of blacks are too dumb and backward to take part in this new black privilege, the new 'conservative styled' blackness as defined by Obama is having an impact on the behavior and attitudes of the new black elites. Instead of pitting themselves against all whites, they figure they have much to gain by going along with Jewish elites, gays elites, and SWPL elites.  Who would have thought that we'd see a day when even big tough black athletes would get on their knees and apologize to gays for saying 'faggot'? Ironically, the conservative-stylization of blacks is being achieved by the way of 'conservative styled' gay power. Wild crazy gays of the past and wild crazy blacks of the past were happy to be wild and crazy. But the 'conservative styled' respectable gays of today use their power to tame blacks to act more 'conservative' in their demeanor. Black rappers may still talk trash, but they are more careful than in the past about the shit they say. In a way, I suspect all the brouhaha about Don Imus's 'nappy headed ho' remark was a roundabout way to tone down black rappers and the like. By making a big stink about the awfulness of such 'racist remark', the media was sending a message to the black community as well that to talk in such manner isn't very very bad.

And there are the Jews.  Jews today may be as liberal as in the past, but they are not radical-liberal in style. We don't see the kind of fireworks once spewed by Dershowitz. The Woody Allen style of the crazy neurotic Jew is out. Instead the big Jew of the 90s was the yuppie-ish Seinfeld. The Jewish style has become more hunkered down, milder, friendlier. Sarah Silverman is more an anomaly than the rule. In this age of political correctness--a form of 'leftist' conservatism to control behavior and enforce 'community standards'--, we don't have free speech loonies like Lenny Bruce anymore. If anything, most Jews are eager for 'hate speech' laws. Such laws are not conservative in substance--if by 'conservative' we mean white conservatism--, but it is conservative in style and spirit. Jews, having gained great power, are trying to preserve/conserve their elite status by creating a new order of ideological conformism and consensus. As Steven Pinker said in his new book, we need ever more social controls to tame mankind into 'better angels'. Cass Sunstein is working in the same spirit with the method of 'nudging'. Whatever happened to the anarchic freedom-loving Jews of old.

But then, none of this should be surprising. Though Jews still profess to hate 'fascism', they've adopted fascist modes for the preservation of Israel, and they've used the fascist aesthetics to formulate the new blockbuster product in Hollywood. Look at all the superhero war porn movies. And 'new leftism' isn't so much about 'fighting the power that be' as 'empowering oneself via the will to power'. Jews are anti-fascist in substance but have adopted fascism as a marketable narcissistic style. Funny world we are living in.