Individual sense-of-self is often at odds with the social/collective sense-of-community. One could feel pride in something as an individual, but society might officially deem it as shameful. Or one could feel ashamed of something as an individual, but society might deem it as something worthy of pride. (In ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST,
Billy Bibbit is cheered on for his sexual adventure by fellow inmates, and it becomes a point of pride. But when Nurse Ratched mentions how his mother might feel about it, he’s overcome with great shame. In pride and shame, it seems like Billy is responding to the approval or disapproval of others as he lacks a strong sense of self.) Sometimes, the individual could be right(or at least more right), and sometimes, society could be right(or more right). When that idiot Amanda Marcotte who writes for Slate had sex with a porn ‘actor’ and then bragged about it at work the next day, most of her co-workers weren’t enthused(though not exactly disapproving either; they were mostly indifferent). They didn’t high-five her about something she claimed to be so proud of. (By the way, if she’s such an independent-minded maverick, why did she feel a need to seek the stamp of approval by the community of her peers and then bitch about it when it wasn’t forthcoming?) In many cases, what someone is very proud of as an individual could be dismissed or disapproved by the larger community or official/dominant institutions. This has been very true in the field of arts & entertainment. An artist, writer, film-maker, actor, musician, or choreographer may be very proud of his/her work, but the critical community might mock or dismiss it, and the public might either ignore it or find it shameful and stupid. One man’s pride is another man’s shame.
Anyway, it’d be ridiculous to force people to share one’s sense of pride. If a film-maker thinks he made the greatest movie of all time but critics and/or the public think otherwise(to put it mildly), then there’s a huge discrepancy between the film-maker’s sense of pride and the larger community’s sense of shaming(that deems the work as something a sane and sensible person should be ashamed of). For all I know, Terrence Malick may think TREE OF LIFE is one of the greatest films ever made — if not the greatest — , but I think it’s shameful waste of imagination and talent(that Malick once possessed and still may possess but is being wasted due to megalomania). Malick and his defenders have no power and no right to enforce his own view of the movie on the rest of us. Of course, there are nutjob critics like
N.P. Thompson who were so reverent about Malick’s THE NEW WORLD that they sounded off as if they wanted to force the world to agree with them... or else. (SHOAH by Claude Lanzmann is another film that everyone in the cinephile community is force-shamed into admiring. Pauline Kael got a lot of hell — even from her admirers — for finding much of it turgid, boring, and self-important. Her reputation just barely saved her, but it’s possible that a lesser critic might have been shamed, fired, and blacklisted for similar opinions.) As we are accustomed to living in a free society, we don’t believe anyone has the right to force us to like or hate something. We don’t want to live in an Emperor-Wears-No-Clothes scenario where the people of the community are under pressure to praise everything about the emperor, even when he is virtually naked and ridiculous-looking. But there have been many unfree societies where the rulers could force the populace agree with the official truths. If Stalin liked something, you better have liked it too. If he applauded something, you better applaud it. If he didn’t applaud, you better be very careful about applauding. If Mao felt self-pride about something he said(no matter how ludicrous it might have been), you better agree with the Great Helmsman and applaud wholeheartedly. In an unfree society, the pride of rulers becomes the official pride of the masses who really have no choice. If you disagree and counter that what the rulers deem as ‘proud’ is really shameful, you can end up in the Gulag. You can be mind-tortured via ‘re-education’ and forced to love Big Brother. An unfree society imposes its notions of pride on everyone. So, if Stalin was proud to be the all-powerful and all-wise ruler of the USSR, you had no choice but agree with the official cult of pride. Same with Mao. If Hitler liked a certain style of art, you better like it too.
Leni Riefenstahl in the documentary film about her life and career said she was disappointed with Hitler’s artistic tastes(deemed as kitschy by her), but she kept her views to herself since Hitler was officially the visionary genius of Germany. If Hitler was proud of his artistic tastes/vision, you better agree, at least if you wanted any kind of successful career options in Nazi Germany. Those who were openly critical of Hitler’s cultural policy might not be imprisoned, exiled, or executed, but the chances of his or her success in attaining elite status in Nazi Germany would have dimmed considerably.
Today, in places like Cuba and North Korea — the two last communist holdouts — , people are still expected to agree with the official cult of pride as determined by the rulers. So, Cubans are still expected to hail Fidel Castro as one of the greatest people of all time. They are required to feel proud as Cubans-led-by-great-leader-Fidel. And if fat Kim thinks he’s hot stuff in North Korea — though, in reality, he’s just a stupid pig(apology to real pigs that are actually intelligent creatures) — , North Koreans better agree with his self-assessment because, otherwise, they can get in big trouble or even end up dead. Of course, children in both nations are drummed from an early age to worship their leaders and feel proud to be citizens of nations led by such towering geniuses(the kind the world has never seen). And their parents aren’t going to correct these idiocies taught in schools because the kids are also encouraged to rat on their parents(for incorrect thoughts), and that could spell big trouble for the entire family.
 |
| Fidel Castro - the Man Who Knows Everything |
 |
| Kim Jong-Un - the Boy Who Eats Everything |
In an unfree society, not only is the official cult of pride mandatory(and must be agreed upon, approved, and shared by all), but certain feelings of shame are not allowed. So, if an individual Russian during the Stalin Era felt shame in his participation in the communist order, he had to keep it to himself because an expression of shame could turn into a matter of life or death. (Of course, most people assent to authority for much less. Even the prospect of losing one’s job or the fear of being shunned will turn most people into jelly before the powers-that-be. Especially as the powers-that-be have the ‘dirt’ on everyone through extensive surveillance, even if one can legally/morally justify oneself on a particular issue, he can be destroyed on a host of other matters. Suppose someone stands firm and fights all the way against unjust abuse of power in America. Win or lose, suppose the powers-that-be havea record of his having opposed ‘gay marriage’. He can be turned into a non-person in the world of the urban Liberal gentry where most of the power, wealth, and privilege are concentrated. Power isn’t only about freedom but about reputation as all social orders are centered around taboos. One is free to oppose to ‘gay marriage’ by speech in America, but the attendant reputation is a destroyer for anyone seeking social elevation and promotion as ‘gay marriage’ has been turned into something sacrosanct by the Jewish elites. Today, most Liberals believe bakers ought to be sued and destroyed for not baking ‘gay wedding cakes’, and Conservatives are reluctant to come to the defense of bakers who stand firm on their convictions. The minds of most Americans are completely owned by dirty Jews who control and impose what is sacrosanct or taboo. As most people are mainly desirous of wealth, privilege, status, and popularity, they will do anything to be seek the approval of the powers-that-be. Most people are that weak and wussy when it comes to genuine moral principles. They go for privilege and status, and they justify their betrayal of truth by fooling themselves that they ‘evolved’ to a ‘higher truth’ when, in fact, the real motivating factor was lust for privilege and approval from the ‘better kind of people’. If most homos were untalented and living in trailer parks than associated with rich and powerful people, who would give a damn about ‘gay marriage’?)
Suppose Soviet authorities heard someone saying, "I feel shame as a Russian when I see my countrymen obey Stalin like cattle and lay ruin to their own heritage and culture." Such sincere feelings of shame borne of individual conscience would not be permitted. Or imagine a conscientious German during the Nazi era who openly declares that he’s ashamed to be German because Germans elevated a vulgar lunatic like Adolf Hitler to the position of supreme leader. Even if his shame is individualistic and his own, it would be disapproved and could get him in trouble. Imposed or coercive collective pride means that one isn’t allowed to feel/express shame in being a part of a community that one finds to be insane or evil. It’s like courageous Japanese individuals who expressed individual shame over Japan’s military aggressions in Asia would have been silenced, censored, or imprisoned during the militarist era. Though one’s assessment of pride and shame is subjective, true pride and true shame must operate on the individual level as a matter of personal conscience. If you feel pride or shame primarily out of social, political, or economic pressure, then you’re just one of the sheeple who lets others determine what is good and what is bad, what is worthy of pride and what is worthy of shame. There is no Real You since you just go with the flow. Joachim Fest’s father, as recounted in his son’s memoir NOT I, had a powerful individual sense of pride and of shame. Despite Nazi pressure, he was individually proud to have resisted the regime in his own personal way, however ineffective it turned out to be politically. And despite the maniacal collective hysteria of national/racial pride centered around Hitler’s cult of personality, Fest’s father felt individual shame as a German who witnessed his fellow countrymen surrender their critical faculty and moral compass in their mindless devotion to Hitler the sorcerer. Thus, his individual sense of pride and individual sense of shame were two sides of the same coin. He felt pride as a man who refused to comply with an evil system, and he felt shame as a member of a culture whose folks collectively lost their minds. He didn’t let the regime dictate to him what he should feel proud of and what he should feel ashamed of.
Of course, supporters of Hitler had some legitimate reasons for feeling proud to be part of the new Germany molded by Hitler. Indeed, had Hitler avoided World War II and concentrated on less risky ventures, he might have gone down as one of Germany’s greatest statesmen. Fest himself argues as much in his biography of Hitler, i.e. had Hitler stopped his aggressions after the annexation of the Czech Republic, he would have been seen as an equal of Frederick the Great and Bismarck. After all, evil men can do good things, and good men can do evil things. Circumstances could force evil men to restrain their radical nature or force good men to take drastic measures. Had Hitler been genuinely afraid of the forces aligned against him in 1939, he might not have invaded Poland and instead might have resigned himself to playing the role of respectable statesman. It’s like even psychopaths can lead perfectly respectable lives if they believe they won’t be able to get away with their crazy acts. Hannibal Lecter killed and ate people because he was certain he could outsmart everyone else(especially as he enjoyed the game of cat and mouse with other humans deemed as intellectual and ‘spiritual’ inferiors). But if Lecter had been genuinely worried about getting caught, he might have repressed his sickness and worked as a brilliant psychologist; he would have been regarded as a first-rate doctor and scholar(and for valid reasons).
In a free society, one’s sense of pride or shame is a personal matter. Even if the elites say something is shameful, you might think it’s worthy of pride. Even if the elites say something is worthy of pride, you might see it as a matter of shame. Even if the majority feels pride in something, you might see it as something shameful. Even if the majority associates something with shame, you might see it as a point of pride. You may be right, you may be wrong, but your freedom to think and feel as you choose is tolerated and/or respected.
But does such a free society really exist? Or are all societies defined by pressures, subtle and not-so-subtle, that more or less compel most people to agree with the official cult of shame or official cult of pride? Especially when the official rules of shame and pride remain constant over a long period, they become almost second nature to most people. Most people don’t think about them and assume that all right-thinking people must and do agree. It is when the rules begin to change that we start to take notice of how these rules really work. What had been regarded as timeless and absolute truths are suddenly destroyed or made elastic to accommodate views and values that go against the original meaning. Rules usually change because the nature of elite power changes, because the social structure of society changes, and because changing trends lead to different habits of mind. A time of transition from one set of taboos to another makes for interesting dynamics.
As a society becomes more liberalized, old truths and taboos began to weaken, and there’s an opportunity for individual freedom and personal conscience to come to the fore and rebel against established conventions. So far so good in the development of a free society. But as time passes and as the new elites consolidate their power, the window of freedom narrows. Though the rules have changed, the dominance of the new elites leads to the establishment of New Truths and New Taboos. This is why the golden age of personal freedom/conscience is always when old truths of conservatism gives way to new truths of liberalism. Conservatism is no longer powerful enough to enforce the Old Truth, and liberalism is, as yet, not powerful enough to enforce the New Truth. Within that window of opportunity, one is allowed a wide spectrum of expressions ranging from the right to the left. Unmoored from old dogmas but as yet unanchored to new ones. It is a time when society has room enough for both the Archie Bunkers and the Meatheads of the world. It’s like the 60s, 70s, and early 80s were the golden age of free speech. Old censoriousness as favored by social conservatives and political patriots no longer held sway in society, and things that once couldn’t be said could be said in areas of politics, culture, sex, and lifestyles. And just about every liberal was for unfettered free speech, and two or three generations grew up believing in free speech as an absolute necessity of a democratic society. But since the late 80s, the Liberal Jewish elites began to consolidate their power in all institutions, and they used their power and influence to raise new generations of kids to believe that ‘hate speech is not free speech’, which really means that Liberal Jews should determine what does and doesn’t constitute ‘hate’. Not surprisingly according to the Liberal Jew elites, Zionism isn’t ‘hate’ but white nationalism is.
It used to be that homosexuality wasn’t only illegal but regarded as a form of sickness(by the medical community), sin(by the religious community), and depravity(by the moral community on both the right and the left). In truth, homosexuality is what one might call a Natural Abnormality. It is abnormal and dysfunctional — it’s about ‘sex’ involving men indulging in fecal penetration and women indulging in mutual-vagina-mashing — , but most homos are born homo. To be sure, a social order can make straight males carry on with the cult of homosexual practice, especially as rite of passage. This was surely the case with Ancient Sparta. The vast majority of Spartan men were not naturally homosexual as only 2% of the population are born as fruitkins. But assboy-ship became a hallmark of the Spartan rite of passage to manhood. When straight males — especially boys — are compelled to indulge in such kind of unpleasant behavior, they certainly aren’t enjoying it. So, why did such practice continue on down the generations in Sparta? It’s because the culture of abuse repeats itself generation after generation. It’s like abused children are more likely to abuse their own children. It’s like people who were corporally punished as children are more likely to use physical punishment on their own children. Even though they didn’t enjoy the violence done to them in their childhoods, it has become second nature to their way of assessing the rules of life. Also, they’ve subconsciously come to feel that such violence, however unpleasant it may have been, contributed to building their character and making them tougher and stronger. It’s like men who’ve been to the military and survived boot camp(with all its hardships and abuses) feel a certain pride in having gone to hell and returned. Thus, to-hell-and-back-ism or what-doesn’t-break-you-makes-you-stronger-ism becomes part of the training manual for a social order.
There’s something within the human heart that feels, "I shall do unto others what was done to me." In English boarding schools, incoming freshmen were abused and demeaned by older classmates. Given the nastiness, you’d think they themselves would act nicer to future underclassmen once they themselves moved up the academic hierarchy. But when they became the upperclassmen, they pulled rank and the same stunts on younger classmates.
In a freer social order, some might rebel and break such a cycle of violence-intimidation-humiliation, but the English school system was all about tradition, order, and honor — and society-at-large was in awe of such traditions, especially as it was practiced within elite institutions themselves. So, younger classmates were expected to suffer in silence and show their mettle by stoically handling the abuse(and wait for their own turn to wield the rod one day). And even though they were shamed and belittled, they were made to feel pride in the fact that they weathered the blows and taunts. As British society was defined by hierarchy, class consciousness, and lower members of society tipping their hats and saying "aye guv’nor" to their social superiors, it was understood by most people that the proper thing was to just grin and bear it. Paradoxically, lower classmates were forced to act like cowering servile wimps, but in their grin-and-bear-it stoicism of accepting such servitude, they might also feel a certain courage of taking the blows and whips without complaint. And when they finally made it to senior-ship, they could feel pride of having made it through the wringer and survived. So, it was finally their turn to act like the nasty upper-classmates in the film IF by Lindsay Anderson. They had paid their dues.
 |
| If... directed by Lindsay Anderson |
 |
| Dazed and Confused directed by Richard Linklater |
But then, there’s no guarantee that a freer society with less class consciousness will necessarily be nicer and more ‘humane’. Consider the hazing scene in DAZED AND CONFUSED. And there’s all sorts of nasty ‘classroom-and-shower-room politics’ in American schools, though a movie like CARRIE is certainly an exaggeration(unless the school is full of Negroes, in which case, it’s nothing compared to what the jafro-jivers are capable of). Still, it’s a bigger problem in authoritarian societies like Ancient Sparta or traditional Britain with its rigid class/caste structure. Or in old China where young women were married into the families of their husbands. In essence, the young wife was kicked around as a slave of the mother-in-law who herself had undergone and survived the same ordeal. Needless to say, the young wife would eventually grow old and become a mother-in-law herself and treat her daughter-in-law like a dog.
So, it’s not difficult to understand why Ancient Spartans carried on with the rite of assboy-ship even though most men were not homo. They were ‘abused’ homosexually by older men, and they internalized such unpleasantness as a rite of passage in becoming a ‘real man’. Since they survived the ordeal from older men who buggered their hynies, it was their turn to bugger a new generation of young boys to turn them into ‘real men’ too. (It’s interesting how a lot of these instances of unpleasantness involved sexuality. Homosexual abuse was a factor in English school system as well, and it often involved non-homosexual men and boys. Perhaps, the process of going from childhood to adulthood is traumatic because of the sexual changes that happen in the body, emotions, & drives, and such Rites of Humiliation may serve as means by which the burgeoning sexuality is tamed and put in order. With Ancient Spartans, the rite of passage involving ass-buggering was not a case of sexual libertine-ism but a matter of mandatory requirement. And there was much sexual taunting and shaming — of various nature — in the English school system. In the film IF... by Lindsay Anderson, a teacher is shown pinching and twisting the nipple of a boy who fails to provide the correct answer. And in the case of old China, young women were forced to suppress their sexuality and focus on familial duties. They were, of course, expected to have sex but only to provide a male heir than for any sexual pleasure or fulfilment.
The transition from childhood to adulthood is dramatic in both sexes. Boys start realizing that their balls produce jism that demands to be shot out all over the place. This is why SPIDERMAN is like pop culture Kafka-Freudianism. Not only does some guy turn into an insectodean creature, but he’s shooting white stuff all over the place from the masturbatory flick of the wrist. It’s like he’s cumming all over the city. David Lynch’s ERASERHEAD is about how inside every man is a jism-producing factory that keeps on cranking out spermic eel-like creatures.
And then you have girls who, in budding into womanhood, start bleeding from their pooters(though some say ‘cooters’) on a monthly basis. It’s all very gross if you think about it, which is why the pig-blood scene in CARRIE resonated so powerfully with young female viewers in 1976. (When I was in elementary school, girls of all ages couldn’t stop talking about it even though almost none of them saw it until it finally came on TV.) It’s as if heaven-as-hell menstruated on Carrie. If boys, in turning into men, begin to feel more aggressive as if a bundle of vipers are growing inside their balls and struggling to burst out and conquer the world; girls, in turning into women, feel as if they have a hog inside their belly that wants to be slaughtered and bled by a big hammer that would be the pud. Such urges and expressions/repressions seem gross and ghastly, which is why they make interesting subjects for horror or cult films by the likes of David Lynch, David Cronenberg, Brian DePalma, and John Carpenter.
 |
| London Slums |
Though we modern folks often mock people in the past for their panics about sex and human biology, we need to understand that things were far less hygienic in the past. People lived far closer to bodily fluids of all kinds: female blood, men’s jism, animal body parts, feces, urine, and etc. And disease was rife, and sexual licentiousness often led to sexual diseases like syphilis that weren’t only incurable but drove people mad and killed them in horrible ways. It was a time when tuberculosis and other diseases were quite common even among the privileged. As dirt, grime, filth, and diseases were everywhere and as medicine had a long ways to go to come up with cures, behavior centered around fear and restraint mattered a great deal. Wrong kind of behavior could make one very sick. One wrong sexual encounter, and a person could ruin his or her life.
Also, it was a time when even rich folks didn’t have modern plumbing. Even the president of America took a shit in a commode. Abraham Lincoln got up every morning and squatted over a bowl in his bedroom and unloaded his feces and urine. And many folks disposed of shit and piss in rather unsavory ways. In many streets in France, many people just dumped the offal out the window. And as horses were the main means of transportation, there was manure all over the streets. And there were feral dogs with rabies. And of course, rats were everywhere.
In such a world, people were bound to be more ‘panicked’ and ‘repressive’ about human behavior. Even in rich families with access the best medical care, it wasn’t unusual for many children to die of diseases. Also, death in childbirth was far more common for women and babies. Since women in the past had more kids than women do today, there was a good chance that they would die of complications during childbirth. Indeed, a common misfortune mentioned in novels of the 19th and early 20th century involves women dying from giving birth. Ernest Hemingway’s most famous novel, THE FAREWELL TO ARMS, is about a woman dying while giving birth — and the kid is stillborn. As deaths from childbirths are far rarer today(especially with easy availability of birth control pills and abortion), something like Hemingway’s sad novel would be less believable if set in our times. (But maybe we still hanker for such tragic depths, and this may explain the explosion of the Orpheus-and-Eurydice narratives in films like SHUTTER ISLAND, INCEPTION, MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, and etc. Since women don’t die in real life, we have them die beautifully in movies.) So, we should be more understanding of the past instead of dismissing people back then as hopelessly panic-stricken or repressed or whatever. Effective cures for sexual diseases were still in the future. Condoms were not widely available, and there was no birth control pills. And the means by which women controlled their menstrual flow was far less effective then than now. Today, any woman can drive her car to the nearest drug store and buy any amount of tampons and such stuff. And disposable baby diapers are readily available to all, and garbage is regularly picked up and removed from residential, business, industrial, and recreational spaces. But things weren’t so clean and hygienic in the old days. A woman could be working in the fields and suddenly have blood flow down between her thighs. A baby would shit, and the same cloth/napkin would have to be cleaned over and over. And the fouled water from washing could be just dumped anywhere as there was no indoor plumbing. It was like the conditions of poverty seen in
THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY. So, naturally, there were more taboos and repressions about human behavior since proper behavior might offer people with some degree of protection from the filth in the air, water, and in their own bodies trying to come out as urine, feces, blood, sweat, and etc. Today, many people shower everyday, but even people in the 1950s didn’t shower regularly, at least by our standards. (Ironically, even though social taboos and repressions served to protect people from indulging in wanton behavior that might lead to disease and/or death, they could sometimes makes things worse by sanctifying certain behavior via spiritual cosmology. India is famous for this. No sane person should bathe in the filthy Ganges, but Hindus see it as sacred, and therefore, millions go bathing in what is essentially an open sewage river; some even drink the water. Taboos can also be anti-rational and resist scientific advancement in medicine and hygiene. Also, especially in regards to sex, taboos can perpetuate ignorance about certain bodily functions that men and women need to know about in order to avoid dangers. Though sexual taboos exist to protect people from sexual problems, they can sometimes exacerbate the problems by silencing open discussion of urgent issues. The HIV problem in India is partly the result of socially coercive silence on the matter because official morality would have Indians believe that everyone is acting properly and not indulging in sexual practices such as prostitution. So, liberals have urged sexual education in schools. Not because they want to sexualize children from an early age but to inform the children about the truth and dangers of sex. But this also comes with a danger because once the discussion of sex is rendered casual and open, it can affect the culture as a whole to drop its hang-ups about sex. One result of the openness of sexual discussion/discourse is people being more informed about their decisions on sex, which is a good thing. The other result is a culture flooded with stuff like SEX AND THE CITY, GIRLS, and DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES that have ‘pornified’ the mainstream and put forth the prostitute-style as the sexual ideal. So-called ‘hook-up culture’ is a vile thing.)
Indeed, if people in the last several decades became more relaxed and libertine about sexual matters, it had something to do with how our scatological nature/content became more ‘repressed’ through commercial products like disposable diapers and tampons, widespread plumbing, antibiotics, and all sorts of other devices and contraptions. For our behavior to be freed, our fluids and waste material had to be better hidden and industrially ‘repressed’.
It’s like Steven Pinker’s idealized present in BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE was made possible by vast improvements in the efficiency and coordination of violence. For example, the modern means of killing and slaughtering animals, fishing the oceans, chopping down trees, dismantling entire mountains for minerals, drilling holes to suck out oil, and etc. have improved to such extent that there’s more goods for everyone(despite huge growth in human population) than in anytime in the past. When the means of violence were less efficient, people led tougher lives, and they were hungrier, thirstier, and wearier. If you wanted meat, you yourself would have to kill a rabbit and skin it — like the kid eventually does in
KINGS OF SUMMER. Or you might have to take a sledgehammer and strike a sheep, pig, or cow in the head. At the very least, you’d have to twist off a chicken’s neck. But as our industrial means of killing and slaughtering is so efficient, it produces tons of meat for everyone. As our agricultural methods can plant and harvest produce from vast fields — and agriculture is a form of violent war on nature to grow food products desired by humans and livestock — , even poor people grow fat and feel satiated with full bellies.
Likewise, the improvement and wider accessibility of medicine, plumbing, hygienic commercial products, treatments, and etc. have improved so greatly that we’ve grown more complacent about our biological functions. In a less modern society, we have to be mindful of when and where we took a dump and pee.
 |
| Dotter Woman Pooing Outdoors |
In India, 50% of the people still shit and piss outdoors, which means if you don’t watch yourself, you could be stepping on doo-doo. (This is a problem even in some communities in America where slovenly pet-owners allow their dogs to shit all over and don’t clean up afterwards.)
In the West, conditions have improved so much that even HIV-positive homos can lead reasonably healthy and decent lives. Magic Johnson, homo or not homo, is still alive and doing well. Andrew Sullivan, the fruitkin who got HIV from serving as an assboy to homo Negroes, is alive and doing well too. Though AIDS hasn’t been cured, they’ve found ways to control its worst symptoms, and this particular medical advancement has turned a sure death sentence into a life-sentence, which isn’t so bad.
But, when there was no cure for HIV in the 80s and much of the 90s, panic was the order of the day in the homo community, and rightfully so. (Of course, much of this has been whitewashed, and the Narrative would have us believe that only conservatives and hardcore Christians were in a panic/paranoid mode. Not true. It was the homo community that was most panicked because so many homos were dropping dead like flies. Furthermore, accusing the Right of ‘sexual panic’ is disingenuous because Liberals also accuse the Right of sexual indifference. You can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, Liberals say conservatives were flipping out during the AIDS crisis instead of being cool-headed and rational. But then they say conservatives were ‘indifferent’ and ‘uncaring’ instead of being impassioned about finding a cure. Same thing with this thing called ‘rape culture’. On the one hand, Liberals say conservatives are too uptight and repressed about sexual matters. They mock TWILIGHT movies for being ‘old-fashioned’ and repressive. But these same people say white college ‘conservatives’ — especially those in fraternities in southern universities — are totally out of control and whipping their dicks out to rape every college freshman girl. So, which is it? Are conservatives too uptight about sex or too wild & crazy? Were conservatives in the 80s too panicked or too indifferent about the AIDS problem? Needless to say, it’s Jews who use their immense media power to denigrate conservatives.)
Though Liberals, in their mindless worship of homos-as-holy-victims, have tried to whitewash homo ‘sexual’ behavior(that was indeed the main cause for the AIDS epidemic in the ‘gay community’) and blame the problem on ‘Reagan Era Indifference’, the fact is that people on the Right pleaded with the homo community to face the reality and act more responsibly: Either stop buggering one another in the ass or use condoms or be careful whose ass you boof. But, too many reckless homos gave the middle finger to Middle America, and they went about buggering one another all night long all over the place with all sorts of people. The fact that even homos of somewhat ‘conservative’ bent like Andrew Sullivan and Allan Bloom contracted HIV suggests that homos were into major buggering all around. If even ‘respectable’ homos act this way, just imagine how the more flamboyant homos were acting. They were boofing one another like crazy. Indifference or even hatred of homos didn’t spread HIV. I can be in the same room with a bunch of fruitkins and tell them I don’t care about them and even hate them. As long as they don’t bugger one another like lunatics, they will not get HIV. My feelings about them have nothing to do with their contracting the disease. But in another scenario, suppose I tell them that I care about them and suppose they bugger one another like crazy(and one of them happen to be HIV-positive); the chances are they’re all going to be infected with the illness. How I feel about homos has nothing to do with homos getting HIV. It’s like it doesn’t matter how I feel about Herpes. People will get it or won’t get it on the basis of their individual actions. Homos demanded the right to boof one another like crazy, and they paid the price for doing so because fecal penetration is a one helluva way to spread all sorts of filth and disease. So, the reason for the AIDS epidemic in the homo community had everything to do with ‘gay’ behavior of reckless ass-boofery. And such reckless was all too common. Roy Cohn was a Conservative Jew homo, but he got HIV. Worse, even when he knew he was HIV-positive, he buggered other homos. The leftist scholar Michel Foucault did the same thing. He continued to boof other homos despite the fact that he knew he was HIV-positive. Did Reagan force men like Roy Cohn, Michel Foucault, Andrew Sullivan, and Allan Bloom to go around boofing and getting boofed in the ass? Even if the funds for AIDS research in the 80s had been doubled, effective medical treatments would have been in the indefinite future. No amount of money could have found some magic cure there and then(and even today, AIDS can be controlled but not cured). It’s like despite the tons of money spent on breast cancer research, there’s still no magic cure, which is why Angelina Jolie opted for radical mastectomy. But homos, in their hissy-pissy, bitchy-witchy, tutti-fruity, and ta-ta manner, are incapable of facing up to the music and blaming themselves for the very problem that they caused. They are like old aristocrats who messed things up in their domain but always blamed it on others. Homos remind us of Jews like Jordan Belfort and Jack Abramoff who pulled every dirty stunt in the book but still try to blame others for what they’ve done. It’s like World Jewry ruined Russia after the fall of communism by aiding Russian Jewish oligarchs to swallow up most of the wealth. But do Jews take any responsibility for what they’ve done?
Indeed, why is it so difficult for liberal democracy to work in many nations? Because when they make a go of it, globalist Jews exploit the new freedom in that country to take over the media, banks, and even the government. How could Russian democracy work for the Russian masses when World Jewry colluded with Russian Jews to take over everything? Many African and Arab nations are understandably cynical about Western rhetoric about ‘democracy’ since it often involves Jews using their money and might to slip in Jewish influence along with the so-called ‘democracy’. The so-called ‘liberation’ of Iraq may have removed tyrant Hussein, but it gave Neocon Jews an opportunity to mess up Iraq via sectarian strife so that it will never rise again as a regional power. Though Iran is ruled by a miserable Islamic regime, it’s also true that certain ‘pro-democracy’ groups are bankrolled by Jews who would love to shove ‘gay marriage’ onto Iranians. Today, much of American pro-democratic rhetoric in Africa has to do with ‘gay rights’. Now, I can understand the West asking Africans to go easier on homos and to deal with violence against ‘gays’, but who the hell wants a democracy where bakers can be sued and fined and imprisoned for not baking ‘gay wedding cakes’? Who wants their children in
fifth grade to be taught in schools about the joys of ‘anal sex’?
 |
| Modern Toilet - Wonder of the Age |
 |
| Todd Bless the Plumber |
Anyway, because we live with modern technology and amenities that can control, cure, reverse, or hide all the questionable things we do, we tend to be more easy-going about our behavior. We need not worry about garbage since the truck comes to pick it up and dispose of it. We need not worry about fecal matter since we merely need to flush the toilet. We need not worry about sweat and grime since we can shower everyday — and some people shower twice or more times a day. Women need not worry so much about ‘the period’ since it’s easy to carry appropriate products, and there are washrooms all over the place. We can be less ‘panic-stricken’ and ‘repressed’ about our social behavior because so much of our biological/scatological realities are ‘repressed’ and ‘hidden’ by our technology.
Indeed, we would be less panic-stricken about death as well if it could be reversed, as in EDGE OF TOMORROW. We fear death because it’s irreversible. If we fall off a cliff, it’s death for sure. We can die in a car crash. We can be shot to death. So, we still have great fears about death. If a loved one dies, there’s nothing we can do to bring him or her back to life. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett can spend all their money to revive a dead mouse, but it never live again. Death is sure and certain. So, death still frightens us like diseases of yesteryear once frightened us. But suppose there’s a reverse-death machine that can easily revive the dead. Suppose in a fit of anger, I shot someone. I would feel panicked about the arrest, prosecution, guilt, and conviction. And people who love the victim will be filled with sadness. But suppose I can push a button and bring back the person back to life. Suppose we had the power of Superman to turn the clock back as he did in the original movie where Lois Lane was brought back to life. That way, death would no longer frighten us so badly. It would merely be just another ‘problem’ that we can control, cure, or reverse. And murder would no longer be such a terrible crime since the murdered could be restored back to life. Would that be better for our morality? If indeed every dead person could easily be brought back to life, what would most of us think of murder? Why would murder be so bad when resurrection would be assured of the victim? If we had a reverse-death machine, the moral consequences of death would be lightened, even trivialized. Murder would not lead to irreversible death but only to a process of ‘healing’ whereby the dead person will be made to live again. It’s like in ZARDOZ where the Eternals cannot be killed permanently. Remember when Zed kills one of the Eternals in the opening part of the film. The Eternal, shot by Zed, seems to fall to his death, but he is reconstituted and alive again. So, murder isn’t a grave matter in the world of the Eternals. The creation of a reverse-death machine would be miraculous. How wonderful if a murder victim could be brought back to life. But then, if the murdered can so easily be ‘cured’, the moral burden of murdering someone would lose its meaning and substance.
In some ways, the advancement of science and technology makes us less moral since many of the problems we cause can be fixed, reversed, or controlled though modern means of convenience. Sexual misbehavior was weighted with greater moral sanctions and taboos in the past because the consequences were so grave and obvious. Women could easily become pregnant with the lack of contraceptives. So, the connection between personal behavior and moral choice could not be ignored. One had to mindful of the consequences of the loss of self-control. Today, women can indulge in all sorts of naughty behavior and just rely on pills, devices, and even abortion to reverse the consequences of their actions. Guys can sleep around and get all sorts of diseases, but then go to the doctor to be treated for VD. Even if VD cannot be cured, it can be controlled. Even HIV is now controllable in the West, therefore homos can relax once again about boofing each other in the ass. And as America is a rich nation, much of bad behavior can be alleviated through welfare, government programs, and increased benefits. In the past, nearly everyone had to work very hard to have enough to eat. With tons of excess food produced every year and with the Fed printing record amounts of money — and with cheap labor in Mexico, China, and India to offer products and services at depressed prices — , we don’t have to worry about inflation that usually accompanies massive printing of money. If in the 19th century some jive-ass Negroes and idiot ‘white trash’ acted like today’s idiot blacks and whites, they’d starve pure and simple. Back then, they had to be mindful about finding work, growing food, or doing something that served their needs of survival.Today, a jive-ass Negro can mess up in school, wear his pants down low, act like an ape, hump a lot of ho’s, and be a total idiot, but the government will take care of his needs. Just look at the useless scum of Ferguson, Missouri.
 |
| Jafro-Jivers Acting Negro-ish |
Because of modern economy and technology, there’s plenty to go around, and even total idiots can be taken care of. Indeed, we are told that it’s a moral imperative to take care of those ‘poor’ people. But because today’s underclass no longer really suffer the consequences of their actions — since they are guaranteed the basics of survival and more no matter what they do — , the moral culture suffers as a whole. But for how long can such madness be sustained?
And it’s not just Negroes or ‘white trash’. Wall Street is packed with people with fancy degrees from top business schools. Many are as venal and unscrupulous as they’re smart and ambitious. But they needn’t worry much about ‘moral hazard’. Since the Great Depression, the US government has come up with new ways to handle economic crises, and in many ways, these improvements were necessary and for the good. But they also had a morally corrosive effect because the sharks on Wall Street now feel that they will be taken care of by the government(bought and paid for by Wall Street to a large measure) no matter how badly they mess up the economy through unfettered orgies of greed. If anything, the very Wall Street sharks who’d done so much to tank the economy in 2008 reaped the most rewards since the Recession. Under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, one needn’t be morally responsible to buy homes, morally responsible to make loans, and morally responsible to buy the loans, bundle them together with bad loans, and sell them all over all the globe. Lots of Wall Street Jews did this, but almost no one went to jail. If anything, the government bailed them out, and they are now richer than ever. We can pat ourselves on the back for having in place a system that managed and survived a great crisis, but doesn’t such a system also encourage us to be less moral since problems of immorality can be reversed, controlled, or contained(by means that some would call unethical to put it mildly)? Suppose Hitler had a button in 1941 that could reset everything like a video game if things didn’t go well. Like the Tom Cruise character in EDGE OF TOMORROW, Hitler could have done the GROUNDHOG-DAY-THING over and over until he got it ‘right’. The problem is not being offered a second chance. The problem is never having to learn the lesson since the ‘system’ will always take care of you or contain(or ‘correct’) your mistake. Worse, in the long run the ‘system’ could encourage people to act ever more irresponsible. The problems are compounded when special interest groups and hostile minorities dominate society. For example, in a sane society, girls would be instructed on the danger of fecal penetration, i.e. it greatly increases the chance of anal cancer, spread of disease, the distended bunghole syndrome, and etc. And straight guys would be instructed that it’s not healthy to have their penises smeared with fecal matter. But because Jews control America and since homos are the favored group of Jews(and since homo men indulge in fecal penetration), our society fails to instruct girls about the gross dangers of indulging in fecal penetration. Why, such information might be ‘homophobic’. Wall Street sharks brought down the economy, but when the Bush administration allowed Lehman Brothers to fail, the Jews didn’t blame themselves. No, they blamed the Bush administration for not doing enough. And to panic the government into acting, Wall Street Jews made the economic panic even worse. And they cleverly supported Obama to give the impression that a new kind of leader was coming into Washington to clean up the culture of greed. So, what did Obama do? He bailed out the big Jewish banks. Homos and Jewish bankers act the same. Homos spread HIV all over in the 1980s by spreading filth all around through fecal penetration, but they blamed the epidemic on Reagan’s ‘indifference’ than on their own actions. According to the homo narrative, the problem lay with what Reagan didn’t do than with what the homos did do, which was stick penises in the holes that doo-doo. It’s like someone burning down his own house and then complaining that the fire truck didn’t arrive soon enough. Even if the complaint is valid, why did he burn down the house in the first place? Such kinds of questions are anathema to hissy pissy homos and pushy-wushy Jews. Jewish bankers in the 2000s risked the entire global economy by spreading the filth of toxic derivatives all over the world, but when banks like Lehman Brothers began to topple, Jews blamed the government of indifference and not acting fast enough. Of course, the government was also to blame, especially since George W. Bush gave the green light on the crazy home loans in the name of creating a ‘ownership society’. If anything, Bush II was filled with so much compassion for non-whites without homes that he backed the homes-for-deadbeats program with Tex-Mex gusto. Even so, Wall Street was the main enabler of the crazy economic scheme. Also, since the late 1990s, it was telling the government and lobbying politicians to butt out and let Wall Street do as it pleases without much oversight or regulation. Wall Street went into bathhouse orgy mode as it wallowed in filthy finance capitalism. It did as it pleased, but when the shit finally hit the fan, it was bitching and whining that Bush II wasn’t doing enough to fix the problem that it created in the first place. It was like homos demanding that they be allowed to boof one another like crazy and then blaming Conservatives for not having done enough to find an instant cure for AIDS, especially so that homos could go on boofing one another like crazy as if there’s no tomorrow. Both homos and Wall Street lunatics sound like Albert Brooks’ character in LOST IN AMERICA. His wife blew their entire saving on gambling, but he wants the money back. He’s just some hapless boomer with midlife crisis, but today, entire industries and groups are shameless in their demand to do as they please and in their bitching that others or the ‘system’ clean up the very problems they’ve caused through their own excessive behavior. "We want our money back." It’s not "I did it my way, and I will suffer the consequences", but "I did it my way, and you better deal with the consequences." In schools, black kids act up and get suspended more, but neither they nor their parents are blamed. No, the blame is on ‘society’ or the ‘system’ for the ‘racism’ of punishing black kids disproportionately(while conveniently ignoring the fact that black kids disproportionately act out of order).
In many cases, many Americans — even or especially white Liberals — know all about the foulness of our (im)moral climate, but they have to maintain the political coalition, and since blacks are a key group(for both demographic and symbolic reasons) in the Democratic Party, their ‘noble victim’ shtick has to be sustained(even against all evidence that blacks are hardly saints and angels). Or consider illegal immigration. Americans didn’t force all those people to come here illegally. Americans didn’t force them to have kids in America. Illegals did so by breaking American laws. Yet, the moral burden is placed on white Americans for fixing the problem. Of course, the solution would have been simple. Send the illegals back and secure the border. But for some reason, that would be violating the ‘rights’ of illegal aliens to break American laws. So, just as homos did as they pleased but then burdened society with the blame for the problem and just as Wall Street Jews fleeced the entire world but then burdened society with the obligation to fix the economic mess, illegals caused the problems by breaking-and-entering in America but then burdened American society with the responsibility to solve the problem of their illegal status. But Americans didn’t forcibly drag them here illegally. They came here illegally. They broke the rules. Because America is very rich and bountiful, it’s been able to accommodate, forgive, and even encourage all such bad behavior. So, even though homos did so much to spread AIDS all over, they are now celebrated and even worshiped as a ‘race’ of ‘angels’. So, even though Jews have done more than any other group to steal from the world economy and mess up things in the Middle East and Ukraine, they are admired and praised as the godly race. And even though illegals broke American laws and leeched off America, we are told that amnesty is like Emancipation of slavery. If America were a poor dysfunctional nation, such lunacies couldn’t be indulged since there would be no way of paying for them. But because America can afford to indulge such lunacies, the moral climate of America gets worse and worse. Jews, homos, Negroes, and illegals get more blatant, nasty, arrogant, narcissistic, and unreflective in their behavior and demands.
Jews especially have a culture of evading all responsibility for their foulness. Consider how a lot of Jewish radicals were involved in espionage for the Soviet Union in the 1930s and 1940s. A network of Jewish spies including the Rosenbergs funneled atomic secrets to Josef Stalin. There were many Jewish radicals, communists, and fellow-travelers working to subvert the American system, send secret documents to the Soviet Union, and, of course,
pull every dirty trick in the book to aid and abet Israel’s campaign of ethnic cleansing and terror against Palestinians. But Jews took no responsibility for their deeds and blamed all the problems on the anti-communist ‘paranoia’ and ‘hysteria’. Given the fact that so many communists and fellow-travelers had infested the US government, you’d think the real problem was that the anti-communists weren’t vigilant enough. After all, the secrets of the Bomb — as well as tons of other documents — did end up in Stalin’s hands. Oftentimes, thanks largely to Jewish agents, Stalin knew more about what was happening in the US government than American politicians did. But Jews take no responsibility. They take no blame. Instead, they just play victim and blame the ‘right’ for ‘paranoia’ and ‘hysteria’.
It’s no wonder that Jews and homos saw eye-to-eye about politics in the 1980s and 1990s.
Both groups think and behave alike. They are hissy, arrogant, hideous, and vile. They are narcissistic and self-righteous and see themselves as the center of the world. Tim Cook of Apple thinks he’s blessed by God because he has a ‘sexual’ predilection for sucking men’s cocks and having other men pump him in the ass. And of course, Tony Kushner the homo Jew conflated the story of the Rosenbergs with the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. Never mind it was Rosenbergs who gave Stalin the Bomb. Never mind that AIDS spread like wildfire because homos were out of control. Instead, both Jewish leftists and homo perverts play victim and say they were victims of right-wing ‘paranoia’ or ‘indifference’. Jews, homos, and Negroes demand that we never object to whatever they do, and so, they indulge in various forms of financial fraud, sexual lechery, and criminality, but if things go badly due to their excesses, WE are to blame for all the problems resulting from them. Jews messed up Russia after the fall of communism, but notice how they blame everything on Putin, even though the neo-oligarchic system was put in place by Jews before Putin amassed sufficient power to rein in the oligarchs to some degree. Jews, homos, and Negroes are vile groups that should never be heeded or trusted. Sure, like any other groups, they have their own histories of suffering and tragedies, but we should never let them own the morality narrative on account of their suffering since they feel zero sympathy for all the peoples who’d suffered from their actions. Since when have Jews ever apologized or atoned for what they’ve done? What have homos ever done to atone for their long history of collaborating with the oppressive elites all around the world? What have Negroes ever done to apologize for all the misery they’ve created over the ages and in all parts of the world through their thuggery and madness?
Anyway, the true pride and true shame cannot be coerced. We can be pressured to feign false pride and false shame, but that would only indicate that the socio-political order in question is unfree. In Cuba, people are made to feign pride in being ruled by Castro. Under Ceausescu’s regime in Romania, the masses were forced to feign pride at mass rallies. They had to pretend that they were living in a land of plenty and justice. And when the level of enthusiasm couldn’t be sustained, the regime used loudspeakers to add the sounds of applause. It was like adding laugh-tracks to TV comedy.
In the past, even homos who felt real pride in being homo were pressured to remain silent or were fired and blacklisted for daring to display pride in something that the official culture deemed as depraved. Back then, official culture had an elite component and a mass component, and both exerted great influence. Though liberals were dominant in elite positions — though not as much as Liberals are today — , much of America was still governed and defined by what might be called ‘community’ values rooted in family, ethnicity, tradition, religion, moral righteousness, and etc. And the ‘community values’ component of the culture was sufficiently powerful to elicit the respect of the liberal elites. It would have been crazy for the liberals elites to push something like ‘gay marriage’ in the 50s, 60s, or even 70s. Even at the height of the so-called ‘radical 60s’, much of America was powerfully governed by ‘community values’.
To be sure, liberals back then were not like Liberals today. Many, even most, liberals back then thought homosexuality was a sickness or perversion. Though more tolerant of homos than conservatives were, many liberals shared many of the moral and social assumptions of American conservatives. In terms of cultural habits, your average mainstream liberal in the 60s wasn’t all that different from an average mainstream conservative. The working men in HOFFA might be on the left economically, but their cultural values had nothing in common with what prevails among today’s urban gentry Liberals. Globalist Liberals revere
Masha Gessen(who is like a dyke Ayn Rand) and endorse her vision of the future. Over 99% of American liberals would have found her demented and sick in decades past. Even many homosexuals would have been disgusted by her ilk. Today, Gessen-ism is the toast of the town in places like Washington D.C., San Francisco, New York, London, and etc.
Also, though Jews and homos were powerful among the liberal elites in the past, other groups were represented too, especially liberal white gentiles, and they stamped liberalism with some degree of mainstream values. But as time passed, Jews and homos took over the institutions of liberal elitism. And they increasingly felt little in common with ‘community values’ characterized by the tastes and assumptions of masses of white gentiles who tended to be relatively conservative(at least relative to the agenda of Jews and homos). If traditional liberalism was largely in sync with ‘community values’ — GRAPES OF WRATH is a leftist novel but strong on family values and humanist stoicism — , the neo-liberalism of the Jewish and homo elites found little in common with ‘community values’. (Traditional liberalism also favored ‘community values’ because blacks were seen as culturally backward and less sophisticated. Traditional liberals felt they must appeal to the common man/woman, and since the common man/woman wasn’t particularly well-educated, his or her decency was defined by something like ‘family values’. Consider Lorraine Hansberry’s play THE RAISIN IN THE SUN where the main character is a stout Negress who holds her family together with motherly virtues and faith in God. When her daughter acts too smart and says she doesn’t believe in God, she slaps her real good and compels her to say,
">"In my mother’s house, there is still God." Even the demon in THE EXORCIST would have run from the black mama’s fierce piety. The mama is no educated or cultured woman, but she has an intuitive and impassioned sense of right and wrong borne of experience, patience, suffering, hard times, and pride in work. And such folks were at the center of the traditional liberal imagination. Today, such a woman would be unwelcome in the Liberal community. Only if a chubby black guy puts on a dress and a blonde wig will he get any kind of love from today’s elite-effete urban gentry Liberals whose values are in sync with Gessen-ism. To be sure, the mama archetype of RAISIN IN THE SUN faded long before the rise of new Liberalism. When the Civil Rights Movement got started, many white folks put their faith and hopes in the noble black mama archetype. She may look like a big gorilla, but she has core values and basic decency. So, when white characters try to block the sale of the house in the play/movie, we can’t help sympathizing with the Negro family because the mama is such a good woman who done slapped her silly daughter yapping about there being no God — and I speak as an atheist. Also, as even traditional Liberals were afeared of Negro’s strength and power, they placed their hopes on Negro’s faith in Christianity as a dampener on Negro rage and wildness. The devout Negro who’s into God was preferable to wild-ass Negro into whiskey and guns. And this was also the appeal of MLK. He seemed so noble and saintly and godly. Little did white folks know that the punk was pulling a Trojan Horse or Brojan Horse trick. In time, the white liberal hope in the devout and decent Negro collapsed as cities began to burn in the 1960s. Negroes became wild and crazy, especially with the rise of sex, drug, and youth culture. Counterculture liberals supported the new black radicalism, but it blew up in their face as cities became inundated with urban blight and crime. So, what were new Liberals to do in the 80s and 90s? The devout mama archetype of RAISIN IN THE SUN was no more. A lot of blacks still went to church, but black churches had turned into boogie-woogie dance halls of apelike antics. As for the black radicals and allies, they just made a lot of noise without offering any constructive plan for Negro improvement. So, the new Liberalism fixated on immigration so that non-black arrivals would serve as buffer between whites and blacks. And new Liberalism favored homos, especially as homos could spearhead the gentrification — euphemism for driving-blacks-out — of cities.)
And yet, ‘community values’ defined the backbone of Middle Class America, and when radicals reared their crazy heads in the late 60s and early 70s, most of Middle America said NO, which is why Nixon won a landslide in 1972. Carter inched out a victory in 1976, but he benefited from the Watergate scandal and the colorlessness of Gerald Ford. Even with all the negatives against the GOP, the race was very close. In 1980 and 1984, Reagan won huge landslides. So, Middle America, the backbone of the American electorate, still preferred the idea of Mainstream Values over radical propositions. This was the case despite the fact that America by the late 70s and 80s had absorbed some of the attitudes and fashions that had emerged in the 60s, especially in relation to sex, drugs, and rock music. But as long as American liberalism was tagged with ‘radicalism’, it wasn’t going to win. This is where the lessons of Saul Alinsky sunk in. For the radicalism to be made acceptable to Americans, it would have to be sold as a form of Mainstream-ism. More crucially, Liberals realized that ‘community values’ and the ‘mainstream’ didn’t go very deep, i.e. most people, Conservative or Liberal, are vapid and shallow. What went by the name of ‘community values’ was more cosmetic than committed in its moralism. What the majority of Americans preferred was the appearance or semblance of moralism, righteousness, and normality than the real thing. So, if the abnormal could be packaged to look ‘normal’ & ‘decent’ and if the normal and decent could be packaged to look ‘extreme’, ‘odious’, ‘noxious’, & ‘divisive’, then a lot of people would favor the New Normal. It’s all in the packaging and selling. People are such pushovers.
Anyway, there was a time when homos were pressured to feel shame even when they, as free individuals, felt pride in their homosexuality. It would have been one thing if society, on the whole, deemed homosexuality to be shameful but nevertheless allowed homosexuals to exhibit individual pride. Instead, a homosexual, even upon expressing pride purely on an individual level, could be fired and blacklisted. And then for a time, there was freedom whereupon homos could express pride in their sexual orientation as individuals even if most of society found them perverted or weird. It was also a time when non-homos and anti-homos could express their conviction(of individual conscience or prejudice) that homosexuality is weird, putrid, or wrong, something to be ashamed of. But their disapproval no longer prevented homos from enjoying their individual freedom and rights as citizens. People could feel pride or shame about homosexuality based on their individual predilections, conscience, and preferences. And in the name of liberal democratic principles, this seemed the ideal arrangement for all involved. If individual homos indeed felt pride about being ‘gay’, they had the freedom to do so. They were no longer forced to hide their homosexuality or express shame about it. But then, no one was forced believe that homosexuality is something one should be proud of. No one was forced to praise homosexuality.
 |
| The Homo Style - They come to you nice and easy and 'plead' with you to support the 'gay' agenda. But it's really an OFFER YOU CAN'T REFUSE because if you say NO, homos will collude with Jewish elites to have you destroyed. |
Today, we live in a very different society where all Americans are pretty much coerced to wave the ‘pride’ flag of homosexuality and transgenderism. And this coercion is applied not only to straight people and non-homos but on homos as well. After all, there are, even today, homos who feel ashamed of being homo, and there are transgender people who feel uneasy about being transgender. They don’t agree with the homo agenda that homosexuality is something one should feel proud of. Homo community denounces such homos as being akin to self-loathing Jews, and of course, Jews, the main allies of homos, agree. And such homos are rejected and endlessly harassed by other homos. It’s as if homos MUST feel proud of being homo. But is this justified? While expressions of ‘self-loathing’ may seem detestable to many people, isn’t it a matter of individual conscience and feeling? Tim Cook of Apple thinks that God blessed him with the desire to stick his penis into the fecal holes of other men. But some homos feel rather uneasy about the fact that they have weird ‘sexual’ tendencies, and such unease isn’t always religious or cultural. It’s a matter of individual conscience. I know this because I’ve known some homo people who, despite being Liberal and living in a wildly pro-homo environment, prefer to keep their homosexuality a secret because they honestly don’t feel at ease with it and aren’t proud of it. Though they want their anus to be pumped by other men’s puds and even though they want to suck dick, they find that stuff to be ‘wrong’ and putrid. It’s like some Evangelicals in the South might indulge in pornography and prostitution, but they still feel ashamed of it.
Now, why shouldn’t such people feel shame about their homosexuality if they really feel that way? And this applies to self-loathing Jews as well. According to most Jews, Norman Finkelstein is a ‘self-loathing Jew’, but he is honestly ashamed of the Jewish community complicity in the oppression of Palestinians. He finds the political exploitation of the Holocaust by the Jewish community to be contemptible. Agree or disagree with him, should he be denied work at a university — as he was at Depaul University due to pressure from powerful Zionist organizations — because he happens to feel shame about the Jewish community and how it aids & abets the inhumanity of Zionism as it is currently practiced against a powerless people, the Palestinians?
If it is wrong to force an individual homo to express self-shame when he really feels self-pride, isn’t it also wrong to force an individual homo to express self-pride when he really feels self-shame? Likewise, if it’s wrong to force an individual Jew to express self-shame when he really feels self-pride about his/her Jewishness, isn’t it also wrong to force an individual Jew to express self-pride when he really feels self-shame about his/her Jewishness?
This goes for a Japanese too. A Japanese far-rightist may feel a powerful sense of national pride, but should he have the power and means to force all Japanese to express a similar kind of pride even if they don’t agree with his feelings? A Japanese far-leftist may feel great shame about his country, but should he have the power and means to force all Japanese to express a similar kind of shame even if they don’t share his feelings? When pride or shame becomes a matter of collective coercion, the society in question is no longer free. Today, all German children are raised with coercive shame about Germany, indeed so much so that any German who exhibits any kind of virile pride in German identity, culture, and history is immediately suspect and even censured(and censored). According to the New German Narrative, all Germans must primarily feel shame, and if any pride is to be availed to Germans, it’s in their dutifulness in keeping the flame of shame alive. Germans are allowed to feel pride in committing racial/national suicide, but then, it’s a paradoxical kind of pride found on self-loathing shame. The harder a German works to dissolve his or her own Germanness, the more he or she is made to feel pride. It’s the pride of being a suicidal slave to World Jewry. Though what Germans did to the Jews during World War II was unspeakably horrible, what Jews are trying to do to Germany and rest of Europe is as evil because it means the demographic collapse and permanent destruction of the European race with all its glory, beauty, and dignity.
The evil of Jews seems less visible since Jews use the facade of ‘human rights’ and nice-sounding terminology like ‘inclusion’, ‘progress’, and ‘cosmopolitanism’, but the effect in coming years will be devastating. Furthermore, why is demographic invasion a good thing? Wasn’t the greatest Nazi evil the war against Russia? And what was that about? It was about the Lebensraum plan to displace Russian/Slavic people with Germanic/‘Aryan’ volks whose agenda was to reduce the native inhabitants to Russia into permanent slaves or serfs. Though there are some positive benefits from immigration, what is happening today in Europe must be called a massive invasion. Though some see it as just poor folks looking for a better life in the rich West, the fact remains that the gates were opened by the super-rich and super-privileged Jewish elites so that native whites will be swamped by masses of non-whites. Jewish elites do this because they want to play divide-and-rule forever among diverse groups of goyim.
True pride and true shame are individual matters. Some Christian individuals feel genuine pride in being Christian and in being part of the Christian tradition. They believe that the Christian community has every right to be proud of its history and accomplishments. Some Christian individuals feel genuine shame in being Christian and see Christian history as essentially one of betrayal. They, as ‘self-loathing Christians’, believe that Christians, for most of their history, have deviated from the teachings of Jesus Christ and behaved more like the agents of Satan. Therefore, they feel the main obligation of Christians is to feel shame about their history & identity and repent to the end of time for having failed Jesus, for having enslaved blacks, for not having stopped the Holocaust, and for having allowed ‘gay marriage’, presumably the #1 agenda of Jesus if you ask Liberals today. (For some reason, Christians feel no guilt or shame about the history of ‘cultural genocide’ against indigenous pagan folks of Europe, but then, I guess it’s okay to oppress and kill white folks of any stripe.) Anyway, if some nutball Christian individuals really feel that way, they should have the right to do so in a free society. We may disagree with them, but if that’s how they really feel about their faith and their moral obligations, who are we to prohibit them from doing so, let alone destroy their lives by having them fired and blacklisted? It’s like some fat people are proud to be fat, and some fat people are ashamed. It should be up to every fatso to decide if he or she is proud or ashamed to be a fatso. Fat folks may be a bunch of hippos, but they have the freedom to think and feel as they choose. And the same goes for the rest of us. If some non-fat folks think being fat is something to be ashamed of, that’s their honest opinion. If some non-fat folks think that fat people should be proud to be fat, that’s their business too. Jellybellies should have the freedom to decide whether they feel proud or ashamed, and they shouldn’t be penalized whatever their opinion may be. And we non-blimps should be free to size up fatness as a good or a bad. We shouldn’t be forced to condemn fatness or to praise fatness. That’s why we live in a free society. If a Frenchman in America feels proud to be French, fine. If he feels ashamed of being French, that’s fine too. If a non-French-American thinks France is most deserving of pride as a nation and culture, no problem. If a non-French-Americans thinks that France is a pompous-ass nation and that the French should feel ashamed for all the shitty things they’ve done throughout history, that’s fine too.
But, when it comes to Jews, Negroes, and homos, we are not allowed such freedom of opinion based on individual conscience, passions, preferences, experiences, and/or observations. All Jews, Negroes, and homos are pressured to fall in line and feel & display pride, righteousness, and more pride and righteousness. And the rest of us are pressured to conflate Jewishness with nothing but nobility, Negro-ness with nothing but wonderfulness, and homo-ness with nothing but sainthood. The dynamics behind this isn’t much different from what once prevailed in Nazi Germany and communist nations. And similar officially sanctioned mind-sets still prevail in Castro’s Cuba and North Korea. Though the West is still relatively a free place, on certain topics and subjects you better damn be careful because, even if they don’t send to you to Gulag or put a bullet in your head, you will be ruined in business, profession, and reputation by the Jew-run media, government, and court system that will come down hard on anyone who defies the Narrative or Narritivitz.
Suppose you feel that homos should have the right to pursue and succeed in professions. Suppose you collaborate with them at work with all the professionalism that is expected of you. But suppose on your twitter account, you say that you believe fecal penetration between homo men is gross and sickening. You will be targeted and fired. In the UK, you will even be arrested in the middle of the night and locked in prison. In the current order, all homos are required to feel pride in their homosexuality, and the rest of us are forced to either publicly praise homosexuality as something worthy-of-pride or shut the hell up. Indeed, even shutting-the-hell-up may not be enough as rallies, parades, gatherings, and mandatory meetings are organized whereby all politicians and professionals are defacto ordered to assemble in praise of homos. If you don’t attend, you could be targeted for future firing, just like a person in a communist nation who refused to attend communist rallies and parades came under suspicion. And even if you’re not outright targeted for destruction for refusing to attend pro-homo rallies, you will be marked as the ‘homophobe’, and various subtle and not-so-subtle means will be utilized to deny your promotion and contracts. Of course, they will come up with bogus excuses for shunning or demoting you, but then, it’s difficult to prove them wrong as anyone can cook up any excuse for doing or not doing something. It’s like there’s no law in the US government that says you MUST attend AIPAC rallies. But if a politician doesn’t, the Jewish elites will spread the word among themselves that the politician is lacking in proper ‘respect’ and ‘enthusiasm’, and they will then use their connections in the media, government, campaign finance, and other means to bring the politician down. So, there are extra-legal means to force what amounts to a defacto mandatory law. Subservience to AIPAC isn’t part of the US Constitution, but it’s part of the ‘underlaw’ that governs this nation. Just like there are lots of information that passes under-the-table and behind-closed-doors, there are certain realities in America that, though officially not the law, function almost as laws. And OBEY AIPAC is one of those unwritten laws of American politics and governance. Likewise, no matter what credentials you have as a journalist, if you’re known for anti-Zionist views, forget about being hired by the mainstream media. You can be as hardline pro-Zionist as you want if you want employment in the media, but if you’re anti-Zionist the chances of you landing a gig in the mainstream media is close to zilch. It’s one of those unwritten laws of American journalism that says you have to suck Jewish dick to get a gig. It’s like how things work in Hollywood. If you want work, you better get on your knees and suck Jewish cock or eat Jewish pussy — or bend over to homos. It’s an ‘underlaw’.
We can’t and shouldn’t force pride on anyone. Whether a German or Turk feels or doesn’t feel pride in regard to his history and heritage should be up to him. We shouldn’t force shame either. In today’s Germany, the collective cult of shame is FORCED on all Germans from kindergarten. Children who know nothing about history are driven into mass frenzy of tears and self-loathing. Though Germans do take pride in certain aspects of German culture, they are mostly made to feel that they are diseased with German-ness and can only really be cured via abolishment of their ethnicity, land, and heritage through massive immigration and blood-mixing.
In Turkey, on the other hand, there are laws that forbid expression of national shame over events such as the Armenian expulsions/massacres or ‘genocide’. Those who express what are deemed to be anti-Turkish views can be fined, imprisoned, and pressured to recant and express pride in being Turkish. Both the German way and Turkish way are wrong for neither allows the freedom of individual conscience that is the true wellspring of any sense of right or wrong, of shame or pride.
Likewise, a society that forces all homos to express pride in homosexuality and pressures all normal-sexuals or true-sexuals to praise homosexuality as something ‘wonderful’ and ‘blessed’ is unfree and wrong. It’s especially wrong because it’s forcing people to believe that 2 + 2 = 5.
In a free society, people shouldn’t even be forced to agree that 2 + 2 = 4. If people in the US want to believe that UFOs have visited farmers in Iowa, Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings, or some other wacko conspiracy theory, that is their right. 2 + 2 = 4, but if individuals genuinely believe 2 + 2 = 5, they should have the freedom to do so. This is why a free society allows freedom of worship. As far as science and reason know, there is no God or gods. There is only the ‘material’ universe made up of matter, energy, and dimensions. But if people wish to believe in God, Satan, angels, and miracles, that is their right.
But the right to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 doesn’t mean that everyone should be FORCED to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. Sadly, that is very much the case in the US, especially because of the power of utterly corrupt Jewish and homo power.
Jews do control America. It is a fact. It is a 2 + 2 = 4 truth, but we are forced to believe the lie that Jews aren’t particularly powerful or privileged. We are forced believe in the 2 + 2 = 5 lies peddled by the likes of Abe Foxman. We live in a society where Rick Sanchez was fired and blacklisted for noticing Jewish power, where Jason Richwine was fired and blacklisted for noticing higher Jewish IQ, and where Helen Thomas was fired and blacklisted for saying European Jews should go back to Europe. We live in a society where Brendan Eich of Mozilla was fired for believing in true marriage. We live in a society where Christian bakers are sued and driven out of business because they won’t bake ‘gay wedding’ cakes. But a Jewish oligarch like Sheldon Adelson proposes the nuking of Iran — a nation with no nuclear weapons — but is left alone by the media. Adelson gets to play kingmaker in US politics. But we better not notice that Adelson is a dirty Jew Zionist who acts like a gangster. We better not say that Adelson has been protected and enabled by the media that is overwhelmingly Jewish-controlled. And if any goy speaks out, he or she will be targeted, attacked, destroyed, and blacklisted. We live in a world where we are forced to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. And this isn’t happening in a totalitarian society but in a so-called democratic one. But then, while democracy is about people power in principle, the real power is held by those with control over the elite institutions in business, government, legal system, science-technology, education, and mass media. Politicians don’t need everyone’s vote to win. They only need buy up over 50% of the vote, and they have powerful donors behind them, and politicians handpicked by Jewish oligarchs are also favored by the Jewish-run media. Whatever one thinks of Ron Paul, he was snuffed by the Jewish-run media in 2012. Those without power have the power to gripe, but those with the power control the megaphone, and the great majority only hear what comes out of the big mike. Some place their hopes on the internet, but even most of the major sites on the internet are owned and shaped by Liberals. And if anything, most of these ‘alternative’ sites are even more radical in their anti-white-ness than MSM. Also, the biggest Conservative sites and blogs on the Net tend to stick close to so-called ‘mainstream’ politics as defined and dominated by Neocon Jews.
Anyway, in a free society, homos should be allowed to express shame as well as pride in their homosexuality. And if we honestly feel that homosexuality is a shameful act, we should also be free to share and express our views. Homosexuality must not become like the Other Jewishness. Jewishness is so powerfully protected and promoted in the US that we must all bow down before the Jew like the sheepish masses in Cuba and North Korea — last two communist nations — must unconditionally bow down before their ‘supreme leaders’. When the political psychology of a so-called ‘liberal democracy’ begins to resemble cuckoo-bananas communist states, it’s time to look in the mirror to reassess the nature of our social values and political principles.
 |
| Christian Baker targeted by vile fruitkin scum enabled by hideous Jews. |
