Friday, March 21, 2014

What Does It Mean to Win a Culture War? (And why homosexuals should be called ‘inversexuals’)

Topics: Culture War, 'gay marriage', millennials, Conservatives, Jew-Homo Cabal or Jomo Cabal, True meaning of marriage, Jews, Holocaust, Anglo-Americans, Ukraine, Russia, Cultural Revolution, China, Vanity of Homosexuals, French Revolution, French aristocracy, Israel, Conservative Cowardice, Inverse-sexuals or inversexuals.

Lately, we’ve been hearing a lot about how the homos won the ‘culture war’. Consider the vast expansion of Americans who are for ‘gay marriage’ or ‘same sex marriage’ or whatever it may be called tomorrow. Granted there are still many Americans, especially in certain regions, that continue to resolutely oppose it, but the homo issue has becoming the rallying cry for powerful Liberals who are led, funded, and guided by Jews, the most powerful people in the world.
In the past decade, the homo side has gone from victory to victory whereas the anti-homo-agenda side has gone from defeat from defeat, almost as pathetic as the French troops before the Nazi assault or the KMT before the communist advance in the Chinese Civil War. A foreboding sense of doom hangs over the conservative side, and craven opportunist cowards like Ross Douthat are begging for terms of surrender, as if the losing side gets to decide such terms. (Douthat, who vowed to stand firm and denounce the imaginary Cullens of TWILIGHT for turning Bella Swan into a vampire, is all-too-willing to bend over to the Jew-homo or Jomo Cabal on ‘gay marriage’. Just like Conservatives like McCain and Romney bark loudly at China, Russia, and Iran but whimper obediently before Jewish power, Douthat’s courage only fires up against fictional creatures but turns to perfidy before Jews and homos.) Basically, there are three kinds of Conservatives/conservatives on the issue of ‘gay marriage’. There are those who are avidly for it, arguing that it’s actually the victory of conservatism since homos are embracing conservative values of matrimony and since the cause is favored by the rich and privilege. American Conservatism fawns over the rich and seeks to win their approval. Then, there are Conservatives who don’t like it but have decided there’s nothing that can be done about it, especially as digging into the true nature of homo power will inevitably lead to discussion of Jewish power, and of course, that is a big taboo in American politics. So, like Charles Murray, they’ve decided to throw in the towel and support ‘gay marriage’ in the manner of "if you can’t beat em, join em." Finally, there are conservatives who oppose it but give up the fight without surrendering to the other side. Even though they still oppose ‘gay marriage’ in principle, they’ve decided there’s nothing that can be done about it. According to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, the war has been lost, so we might as well move on. But if that’s their attitude, why do they oppose abortion rights? Why not say abortion became the law of the land, that’s that, and it’s not worth fighting for anymore? Indeed, why did conservatives oppose any of the Big Government policies since the New Deal? Why did Reagan try to roll back government? Why not just throw in the towel and say there’s nothing more to be done? Why do Limbaugh and his ilk still rail at Obamacare? Why not just declare defeat? Of course, the real reason why the likes of Limbaugh and O’Reilly have decided to give up the fight on ‘gay marriage’ is because there are too many fancy homos among the rich and elite crowd. Vain and egotistical, they want to hobnob with the glitterati, and it just so happens that refusing a key demand of the neo-aristocratic class of homos(who are backed by the all-powerful Jews) just won’t do anymore if you want to belong to the inner circle of the rich and privileged. As for the masses of Conservatives who are braindead sheeple idiots, they too are being won over to ‘gay marriage’ or surrendering without a fight(even as they continue to oppose it). The people who took pride in defeating the mighty Soviet Union in the Cold War cannot even stand up to a bunch of homos. What a shame.

Liberals say they won the debate, but we know there never was any debate, especially an honest one. Through use of media and entertainment, Liberals attacked, mocked, and shamed anyone who opposed ‘gay marriage’ as akin to Westboro Church. When a beauty pageant said she didn’t support ‘gay marriage’, the Jew-homo or Jomo Cabal media dug into her past and exposed every embarrassing detail of her life. Individuals known for critical view of homosexuality have been silenced, banned, fired, demoted, or blacklisted from jobs in both government and private sector. Businesses that support traditional family have been banned from cities. Courts have enforced laws that force ‘gay marriage’ upon regions that continue to oppose it. Schools teach children that anyone who finds homosexuality weird or perverse is sick in the head with a ‘phobia’. Cities have given permits allowing homos to have massive parades. In such a climate of fear & intimidation and mania & hysteria, how could there have been an honest debate about ‘gay marriage’?

To be sure, the conservative side deserves a lot of blame. Being anti-intellectual, conservatives have abandoned the academia for decades. Being uninquisitive and uncurious, conservatives produce few journalists. Being uncreative, conservatives are generally absent in arts and popular culture that have profound impact on social values and public opinion. Being anti-government, conservatives are vastly under-represented in government bureaucracies. Being anti-rationalist, conservatives prefer tradition and spiritual explanations over science and reasoned debate. Therefore, the loudest voices against ‘gay marriage’ on the right have been religious folks who invoke the Bible. The Good Book may be a source of wisdom, but the US Constitution is a secular document, and American laws must be based on clear meanings and legal consistency.

Without any mention of religion or tradition, a sane, sensible, rational, and logical argument could have been made for the defense of true marriage. All words are exclusionary and discriminatory. No word can mean everything except maybe ‘everything’. Though all of us have some medical knowledge, the word ‘doctor’ refers to those with special training to be doctors. Though all of us have some legal knowledge, ‘lawyer’ refers to those with degrees in law and who practice the profession of law. Though all of us have taught something to others, ‘teacher’ and ‘professor’ refer to those who’ve gained credentials in their fields. No one expects a totally ‘inclusive’ meaning of ‘doctor’ or ‘teacher’.
Same should apply to ‘marriage’. Marriage is not everything and it’s not just anything. Though the term ‘marriage’ can be used metaphorically or analogically — as in ‘marriage made in hell’ or ‘marriage of convenience’ — , in the literal sense it has had specific biological and moral basis, meaning, and purpose. Indeed, marriage is meaningful because it is exclusionary and restrictive. Supposing marriage is just about love, then if a thirteen-year-old boy and a twelve-year-old girl fall in love in high-school and demand to be recognized as ‘married’, they should be regarded as such. One doesn’t have to be 18 to fall in love, after all. And plenty of kids under 18 have had sex. Or, suppose a popular athlete has girls clinging to him from all sides. He says he loves them all, and they say they love him. If marriage is only about bonds formed by love/lust, why not declare them all as married if they so wish? Why does marriage have to involve rituals, laws, documents, and etc.? Why not truly ‘democratize’ the meaning of ‘marriage’ and designate any relation where love plays a role as ‘marriage’? What can be more ‘inclusive’? That way, we can have Platonic marriages too. So, if two straight male friends love one another as friends, we might well say they’re married as friends. Indeed, why differentiate marriage from friendship? If marriage is just about bonds of love, we might as well say all friends are married by bonds of affection. And if a man and a dog feel love for another, we might as well say they’re married too. And people shouldn’t even need to ask to be married to be married. If marriage is defined ultra-inclusively as bonds of love, then any man and any dog that love one another are married regardless of whether they think they are or aren’t.

Surely, even homos would reject such all-inclusive definition of marriage. Surely, even homos know that not all bonds of affection equal marriage. Not any couple nor any group of teens who feel mutual love can be said to be married. There are rules to marriage. Age requirements, vows of commitment, rituals, and/or legal processes. So, marriage isn’t just about bonds of affection or love. And it’s not just about any kind of love. A grandmother and a granddaughter love one another in the familial sense, but it would be ridiculous for them to be married in the name of bonds of family affection. Marriage is about love related to sexuality. And it’s not just about lust-of-the-moment but sexual-desire-in-relation-to-long-term-commitment. If one defines ‘marriage’ as a legal union of adults who feel sexual love for one another, then there is no need to allow only ‘gay marriage’. By law, there should also be ‘incest marriage’ or ‘same-family marriage. There should also be polygamy or ‘multiple-partner marriage’. After all, an adult son can love his mother, an adult daughter can love her father, an adult brother can love his adult sister, an adult son can love his adult grandmother, a homo brother or sister can love his/her homo brother/sister. If the homo lobby insists that the US Constitution allows any group of adults who feel love for another should be allowed to marry, why does the current mania/hysteria only privilege homos to change marriage rules while such privileges are not availed to incestuous couples or polygamous ones? Since there are so many jokes about sister/brother sex in the South, you’d think ‘incest marriage’ or ‘same family marriage’ should be a priority there before ‘gay marriage’. And since Utah is Mormon country, you’d think polygamy or multiple-partner marriage should be favored there over ‘gay marriage’. And yet, all we hear is ‘gay marriage’, ‘gay marriage’, and ‘gay marriage’. And yet, most people who wildly and crazily demand ‘gay marriage’ would reject and oppose ‘incest marriage’ and polygamy? Why? If we follow their definition of marriage, such alternative marriages are no less valid than ‘gay marriage’ is? Besides, incest is far more common and natural in the animal kingdom than homosexuality is. And polygamy has been the feature of human cultures since the beginning of time. If diversity and tolerance of other cultures are essential virtues in the 21st century, why should the West deny people of different cultural backgrounds the right to marry incestuously or polygamously? This rank hypocrisy could have been pointed out by the Conservative side, but there’s been total silence. And why? Because the game has been fixed long time ago. As Conservative elites are whores of Jews and rich elites, and since Jews and rich elites decided to favor the homos with neo-aristocratic flair, Conservative elites have hatched a plan behind the scenes to slowly ease the Conservative masses toward accepting ‘gay marriage’. So, publications like the National Review and others will raise a few heckles here and there, but they are all caving in, step by step. It’s been a rigged game for a long time.
It’s like how American Conservatism did nothing to raise funds for the Communist Memorial in the Mall. As the Cold War defined the second half of the 20th century and as many American immigrants suffered under communism, a well-publicized fund-raising for a memorial to honor the victims of communism would have received lots of donations. But how come no one heard about it? Why didn’t the media promote it? Why didn’t super-rich Jews donate to it? Why didn’t super-rich conservatives donate to it? Why did it collect just enough nickels and dimes to set up that dinky little statue? Jews donated nothing to it because they don’t want communist victims to compete with the Holocaust narrative that would have Jewish victims of the Holocaust hog all the victim-glory. Also, Jews had played a decisive role in communist mass killing and espionage, and Jews surely didn’t want any museum to detail any of that sordid history. As Jews control the media, they did nothing to raise consciousness about a communist memorial. As for rich conservatives, they knew that donating generously to the communist memorial would put their names on the Jews’ enemies list, meaning that they would be targeted by IRS, courts, media, and myriad government bureaucracies, all of which are controlled by Jewish tentacles. So, they gave little or nothing. And publications like National Review just shrugged their shoulders and said, oh well, not enough funds came in and that was that. But the fact is even the National Review did nothing to promote awareness of it. Too busy serving the Jewish Neo-cons(of Trotskyite background), Bill Buckley and Co. decided to bury the whole idea of the communist memorial.
In contrast to the communist memorial, look at the scale of the Holocaust Memorial. Three to five million Jews died in the Holocaust whereas communism devoured at least 70 million lives — though estimates go as high as 100 million — , but Jewish lives matter more than gentile lives in American politics and power. Americans are so ignorant of history that they buy the BS spread by Jewish media that the current crisis in Ukraine is a replay of WWII and the Cold War with Putin as the new Hitler or Stalin or both rolled into one. Anyone who knows anything about the region — and its connections to American Jews of Russian/Ukrainian ancestry — knows that Jews played a decisive role in Soviet Communism and in the death-by-forced-famine of millions of Ukrainians. Dirty globalist Jews are merely using Ukraine as a bridge to gain control over all of Russia and Siberia. Jewish view of Russians is as contemptuous as that held by Hitler. Both Jews and Hitler see all that vast territory and feel that a bunch of drunken untermensch Russians don’t deserve to have it. The superior race — Germans or Jews — should gain ownership. Jewish Witzkrieg is more insidious than the German Blitzkrieg. At least the German war machine left no doubt as to the true agenda of the National Socialists. In contrast, Jewish supremacists speak of ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, and etc. but they’re really trying to gain power over Russia for Jewish domination. Anyone who doesn’t see this is an ignoramus fool, but then over 90% of Americans fall into that category as they’re addicted to Miley Cyrus, Jimmy Kimmel, Bill Maher, and trash on MTV.
With conservatives being so slavish to Jews who piss on them, is it any wonder that the homo agenda — favored and funded by Jews — would have made such huge gains? It’s each to score a touchdown when the defense isn’t doing its job, indeed not even picking up the fumbles. Some say this is the victory of the left, but the reason why rich Jews and their Conservative toadies push the homo agenda is because it undermines the real left. When American progressivism’s idea of sacred justice is pandering to a neo-aristocratic bunch of pansies who are closely aligned with Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and top corporations, what does it say about today’s so-called ‘leftism’? As Jews get richer and more privileged, they’d rather associate holy victim-hood with fancy-pants homos than with working class whites, left-behind blacks, or swelling numbers of Hispanics in the service industries. And of course, dirt-bag Conservatives will eventually come around to supporting anything that is favored by Wall Street and Big Business. Conservative politicians and pundits are no less craven than their counterparts on the Liberal side. Their primary concern is maintaining their status and privileges, and therefore, their idea of ‘conservatism’ isn’t based on any principles or what real conservatives want but on an understanding of what will be favored and tolerated by the Jews. It’s about conserving one’s status than conserving power, principles, and truth for the entire people. As long as the likes of John McCain, Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Chris Christie get theirs, they don’t care about anything else. Look how Limbaugh shilled out millions to have Elton John play at his wedding. The fat hippo piece of turd lives in a world of status and privilege, and the idea that he speaks for white patriots is a joke. THAT is why he declared the ‘gay marriage’ issue to be already lost and useless. His main priority is to dilly-dally with the rich and famous. He made his money from masses of dumb Conservatives, but the last thing he wants to do is hang around them. He wants to hang around the globo-neo-aristocrats. The fat pig will play at patriotic demagoguery by yapping about the ‘Chicoms’ but then praise Walmart to the heavens for expanding ‘free trade’ and globalism. Apparently, his avid listeners are too dumb to connect the dots and realize the Walmart wouldn’t have been possible without the evil ‘Chicoms’. Limbaugh is also into ‘new cold war’ mode, railing against Russia and Putin even though Russia is now a conservative country. With Jews being the most powerfully Liberal people in America, you’d think Limbaugh would rip into them as ‘Jewcoms’, but don’t bet on it. When it comes to Jewish power, he’s just a running dog like the rest of them.

Anyway, in a sane and sensible society, there would have been ample means and opportunity to push back the homo tide, especially as homos make up less than 2% of the population. But ours is not a sane nor sensible society. People are not raised to think, be rational, and truthful. They are brainwashed from cradle to grave to submit and obey the sacred truisms of political correctness. They are made to worship Jews and homos. If white, they’re instilled with irrational ‘white guilt’. They are bombarded with hedonism and orgasm-ism that makes them vulnerable to sensory manipulation perpetrated through the mass media. You will have noticed that everything in the so-called mass media are constructed, calibrated, designed, and executed not only to convey information but to work on your emotions. The production values and means of TV news aren’t much different from those employed in TV commercials. Both are fancy, glitzy, and polished, what with personable personalities chattering to the camera as if they’re your neighbors and friends. Talk Shows make you feel like you’re sharing a living room with the host and his/her guests. Reporters talk less like professionals than chums and popular kids in school. Substance matters less than style. The movie BROADCAST NEWS — like QUIZ SHOW — blamed rising superficiality on vapid Wasps who were depicted as all looks and no brains, but this new form of mind-control was perfected by Jews who’ve long controlled the news media and advertising — as well as many psychology departments in elite universities. Thus, ‘juvenilia’ and infantilism are pervasive in our culture.
An idiot like Ross Douthat designates the current young generation — known as millennials though ‘minions’ would be more like it — as individualistic, but he couldn’t have missed the mark by a wider margin. The current crop of minions are incapable of thinking alone, forming truly individual selves, and guarding their individualities. Their mode of thinking, perceiving, and feeling should really be called ‘selfism’ and ‘interconnectualism’. While millennial minions or millennions yammer much about freedom and liberty, they’re obsessed with stupid things like drugs and sex. Their idea of political/moral progress is waving the ‘rainbow flag’ and barking that it’s evil to oppose ‘gay marriage’. They have no clue that for ‘marriage equality’ to be viable, ‘incest marriage’ and polygamy should be allowed too. But that would require connecting the dots, using reason and logic, abilities that are no longer promoted in schools. They cannot figure out for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Though raised to revere Nelson Mandela for having resisted South African Apartheid, they feel zero sympathy for Palestinians who still live under Zionist occupation. They weep over 12 YEARS A SLAVE but know nothing(and would feel nothing even if they knew) about thousands of whites who’d been raped, beaten, tortured, and/or murdered in South Africa since the end of Apartheid. They see nothing wrong with eating pork and aiding/abetting the hogocaust even as they wail against the killing of whales. They are babyish idiots whose thoughts need to be thought for them by others, just like babies in primitive cultures need their mothers to chew the food before putting it into their mouths.
To be sure, most people in earlier generations never thought for themselves either, but millennions are especially brainless and clueless as they’ve been raised under the complete influence of PC. Worse — and downright pitifully — , they don’t even know that they are mind-bots because they’ve been sold on the cult of ‘radicalism’ and ‘rebellion’. Indeed, this is the genius stroke of late Liberalism. Conservative or traditional elites always sought to maintain control over the young ones by emphasizing order, obedience, discipline, sacrifice, dedication, and reverence. Therefore, young people tended to rebel — especially where the culture of youth rebellion took hold. But Liberal elites tell the young ones that their consciousness is being raised, that they’re being taught to be ‘radical’ and ‘subversive’, that they’re being prepared to ‘deconstruct’ the narratives of authority, and etc. Young ones are not only raised to be running dogs barking on command but to confuse their barks as cries of freedom. Whether it’s Hollywood, MTV, the Harvard Humanities Department, the Democratic Party, or some fancy club in NY, it’s the same shtick about how they’re all into ‘subversion’ and ‘radicalism’. Never mind that such labels are little more than brands favored by the rich and privileged vainly playing the ‘radical chic’ card. So, we have all these would-be-intellectual millennions who never had an original thought in their lives mindlessly and slavishly agreeing that, yes, Andy Warhol was a genius and that JEANNE DIELMAN is one of the greatest films of all time. (And among the idiot trashy millennions, I’m sure they think Miley Cyrus is an icon of ‘liberation’ and ‘empowerment’.) Without thought, they oppose whaling while munching on bacon, the meat of an animal as smart as any whale. Without thought, they champion ‘gay marriage’ in the name of ‘marriage equality’ while having no thought to push for ‘incest marriage’ or polygamy that should qualify no less than ‘gay marriage’ following the logic of ‘marriage equality’. Like mindless tards, they are sold on the idea that the rainbow has something to do with two guys ramming each other in the ass in fecal penetrative acts or with people having their perfectly healthy sex organs cut off to be replaced by fake ones.
This isn’t individualism. Millennions are full of conceit about themselves. They have an inflated sense of self but no sense of individuality. And it isn’t helped by social networking and smart phones that interconnect everyone with everyone 24/7. When the internet first appeared, it was a boon for individualism since everyone could access the kind of information and products he or she needed. It opened up grand vistas while maintaining the integrity of separateness and self-identity — except for fools who wasted their times in chatrooms. But with social networking and smartphones, countless millennions are interconnected at all times. Thus, their identities are interconnectual than individual. They’re always mindful that others are watching them, hearing them, approving them, disapproving them. So, despite all the conceit of freedom and choice, millennions are the biggest conformists in American history. Only a culture of mindless conformism could have spread something as ridiculous as ‘gay marriage’ at such alarming speed (Though PERKS OF BEING A WALL FLOWER takes place in the 70s, its lead male character is a perfect millennion prototype. Spineless, gutless, value-free, shallow, and vapid. The only driving force in his life is to win approval from the ‘special’ or ‘beautiful’ people. Perhaps, the development of such bland and gutless normality that craves abnormality for excitement and thrills owes to the excessive triumph of normality following WWII. There was a time when being normal meant having to work on the farm, drive cattle, shoot guns, and work like a man. Being normal meant being tough stuff. But in the post-war world of affluence, normality came to be associated with excessive leisure time, peace, and safety — especially in the suburbs — , and so, the normal life became boring. Being normal in the Wild West meant cutting down trees, working on the farm, using guns to kill dangerous animals, and defending oneself from bandits and Indians. But in the comfortable normality of the postwar era, being normal meant lying on the couch and watching TV Westerns. Such dull normality was bound to seek thrills somewhere, even if they were in the corrupting realm of abnormality.) Only a thoughtless hunger for ‘radical’ approval could have convinced so many idiots on the Sight and Sound Poll to select JEANNE DIELMAN as one of the greatest films of all time. Or taking the likes of Kanye West and Lady Gaga seriously. Mindlessness has been the hallmark of every generation as an aspect of the human condition, but mindlessness now travels to every corner of the world and into every neuron of every idiot at the speed of light via electronic gadgets that serve as virtual extensions of mind and body. Also, with the breakdown of family, community, and tradition, even kids who grow up in small towns have no sense of roots — unlike Loretta Lynn with the family and community from which she sprang, Martin Scorese with his profound sense of Italianness, and Woody Allen with his Jewish milieu. Though traditionalism and communalism may be at odds with individualism, they also shield the individual from the conformist pressures of mass culture and mass hysteria/mania. Indeed, most of life isn’t so much about individualism vs communalism as one form of communalism vs another form of communalism. How many individuals really think on their own, conceive their own ideas, create their own values, arrive at their own truths? Even most thinkers borrow from other thinkers or espouse a well-established -ism. Even the champions of Nietzsche lean on him as a crutch because they themselves are so lacking in selfhood. Indeed, when a person breaks out of his community and embraces so-called ‘individualism’, he is essentially positioning himself or herself to conform to the norms of another community. That experience of switching communities lends the illusion of individualism, but it’s only a bridge between one communal-conformism and another. It’s like moving from one town to another town makes one feel free(like when the mother and son travel to a new place in the film ALICE DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE), but the fact is one must settle down once more, find work, and get back to the daily grind. So, one really goes from one life of routine and drudgery to another.
In the past, the conflict between traditional communities(which still exerted considerable power) and modern modes of existence(with its greater choices) allowed for greater individuality as one felt the pull of both and had to form a sense of self in relation to and in resistance to both. Thus, Scorsese navigated between cultural loyalty to Little Italy and cosmopolitan libertine-ism of the movie industry. So, people like Federico Fellini and Woody Allen never forgot the places/communities whence they came even as they explored new freedoms as artists and celebrities. Today, with the ebbing away of tradition and the fading away of the family, there’s only mass culture, pop culture, and political correctness as the determinants of one’s identity and place in the world(and they are all controlled by Jews who use them to maximize their control over all of us). Even parents who stay together tend to be permissive or are desperate to win approval from their kids as being ‘cool’. They don’t want to seem ‘conservative’ but ‘hip’ and ‘progressive’. So, if ‘gay marriage’ is the hot item, many parents are eager to show that they’re ‘with it’ too since all the cool, rich, and popular people seem to be waving the ‘gay flag’. The fact that so many generation X-ers also cave into ‘gay marriage’ suggests that the loss of individuality was well under way in the 80s when coolness and conformism were fused into a new formula that lent the impression of freedom while encouraging adherence to the system and availing silly diversions as release valves for life’s frustrations. Alex Keaton the spineless and glib Conservative was the progenitor of the mindless and smug Liberal. Shallowness and lack of deep commitment define both types. (The fusion of the cult of ‘change’ and privilege of status resulted in something that might be called ‘status pro’. Traditionally, privilege was associated with the status quo, i.e. the rich and powerful opposed change since it might threaten their dominant position in society. Thus, wealth came to be associated with social conservatism, even though many rich people privately led lifestyles that were anything but traditional or socially conservative. Today, status is associated with ‘change’ or pro-gress, not least because so much new wealth and privilege have been created by high-tech in Silicon Valley and ‘creative finance’ on Wall Street. To be sure, since the rise of the bourgeoisie, great wealth was closely associated with innovation and technology, but the traditional bourgeoisie lacked cultural and social self-confidence and therefore modeled their style and manners on the well-established ways of the aristocrats, even going so far as to purchase aristocratic titles. Thus, even the fabulously rich families of the Gilded Age in 19th century America sought respectability by putting on aristocratic airs and imitating haute Europeans. Also, as Anglos dominated the upper classes in traditional America, they felt a certain affinity with the British upper classes despite the fact that America was founded on principles of political equality. But as the traditional aristocrats faded away into nothingness — rather dramatically after the debacle of World War I — and as the bourgeoisie gained greater confidence in their own power and status independent of aristocratic norms and opinion, the rich and powerful were less bound to notions of ‘status quo’. And yet, there were reasons why the Anglo-American rich continued to cling to cultural traditionalism. As Jews were gaining wealth and power rapidly, Jewish privilege came to be associated with ‘change’, ‘subversion’, and ‘urbanism’. To counter the Jewish challenge, Anglo-American privilege became increasingly linked to ‘status quo’, rural-ism — at least in rhetoric and style, as with the Bush family in Texas or the image of Reagan as a small town boy or as cowboy on a horse — , quasi-aristocratic greenery of golf clubs, and traditional values. But since the end of the Cold War, the victory of ‘status pro’ over ‘status quo’ has been near-total. Since power and privilege are now so closely associated with rapid changes in science and technology, the corollary effect in culture and values has been the conceit of positive ‘progress’ through social radicalism. So, we not only have the mania for ‘gay marriage’ but for trans-gender lunacy. It’s as if social activists feel the need to engineer society as rapidly as engineers working on computers and smart phones. One might say this is proof of the total victory of the power of ‘progress’ over traditional notions of power rooted in the aristocracy, and yet, what we have is a new kind of aristocratism, a neo-aristocratism that favors the alliance of Jewish geeks and homo freaks. It’s about a self-enclosed world of unprecedented power and privilege. Indeed, the globo-Jomo elites feel toward us as Mel Brooks as French Monarch toward his subjects in A HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART I.) Shallowness can be passionate to be sure. Think of the passion surrounding the Summer of Love with people singing the Beatles’ "All You Need Is Love". Think of the Nazi clowns who set up bonfires and burned books. Think of Red Guards who went ape-shit, chanted from the Little Red Book, and laid much of China to waste. But how deep were those passions? How long could they be sustained? There’s passion surrounding the ‘gay marriage’ issue, but how deep is it? When convictions and allegiances are deep, people cling to them even when the prevailing winds of power and media blow against them. So, even when Poland came under communism and religion was persecuted, many Poles remained faithful to Catholicism. So, even when so many young people were acting the hippie fool in the 60s, others remained sober and serious about their deeper commitments to family, tradition, and nation. Fashions can turn into passions, but shallow emotions eventually blow away. The deep ones rooted in genuine meaning and morality remain. The only reason why the ‘gay marriage’ issue is filled with so much passion is because the mass media, federal government, public education, entertainment, and the courts(all of which are controlled by hideous Jews) are fanning it, spreading it, and enforcing it. Like communism, it needs massive institutional support and vast networking to keep it aflame. When idiots are bombarded day in and day out with images of angelic homos and ‘evil homophobic’ villains, of course they are going to fall for the hype just like so many minions did under communism and Nazism. This is why Jews are so committed to bombarding us day in and day out with all this propaganda. They know that without such massive and hysterical support, the entire homo agenda has no legs to stand on. Innately and intrinsically, we feel ideas, values, and matters to be meaningful, true, and sacred. ‘Gay marriage’ is NOT one of them. It’s the sort of nonsense that has to be hyped endlessly to have any currency. (And since it cannot be justified on its own terms, it has to be associated with ‘equality’, ‘tolerance’, ‘rainbow’, ‘family’, the ‘new normal’, a perverted form of Christianity; it has to be associated with the Holocaust, mentioned alongside Jim Crow, and etc. Thus, if you oppose ‘gay marriage’, you’re like a Nazi or a radical Muslim. You’re no different from supporters of slavery in the South. It’s the same old Jewish trick of using fronts or suggesting ‘guilt’ or ‘innocence’ through association. Notice how Jews push Zio-Jewish supremacist policies all over the world but mask their organizations and programs with words like ‘democracy’, ‘progress’, ‘freedom’, ‘liberty’, and etc. Even organizations with explicitly stated Jewish interests prefer to use acronyms like AIPAC or ADL. The recent troubles in Ukraine were instigated by Jewish agents, but notice how the Jewish-run-and-funded organizations behind them go by names like ‘Foreign Policy Initiative’ when their real purpose is expansion of Jewish supremacism. All such organizations should really be called JSF or Jewish Supremacist Front.) And the reason why Jews and homos want to write homo privileges into law is because that is the ONLY way to secure it for the long run. As all this homo-worship is a fashion, people will eventually grow tired of it — just like they got tired of hippies and psychedelia. But if ‘gay’ privilege is written into law, even after people tire of it and see it for the trash it is, homos(along with Jews) will enjoy a special place in America as the only sexual deviants who got to change marriage laws, a privilege denied to polygamists and incest-sexuals/family-sexuals/insular-sexuals. So, even though cracking ‘gay’ jokes is now considered a ‘homophobic hate crime’, one can still use ‘incestophobic’ words like ‘motherfuc*ker’, and stand-up comics can say jokes like, "How do you castrate a hillbilly? Kick his sister in the jaw." But try cracking a joke like, "What do you call two gay Irishmen? Gerald Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzgerald."
At any rate, what does it mean to ‘win the culture war’? Jews and homos would like for us to believe that their position won our for all time, but are culture wars won permanently? There was a time when it seemed as though communists had permanently won the culture war against the Russian Church in the USSR. Churches were being closed while children were being drumbeat into communist orthodoxy. Total victory of Marxism-Leninism seemed at hand. But communism is gone whereas the Church remains(though perhaps one could argue that both have failed in a late modern world that has little use for grand systems of truth. Both Lenin’s Tomb and the Russian Orthodox Church live on as relics. One advantage that spiritual religion has over a materialist-based-secular-religion like Marxism-Leninism is that spiritual religions don’t have to justify itself with material evidence whereas the material religions do. Spiritual religions are defeat-proof, which was the genius of Judaism. Even in defeat, the shame is limited to man, not to God in Heaven. Marxism-Leninism could only succeed by creating a prosperous world of plenty and justice, which it failed to do. But suppose communism had succeeded in delivering the goods. The ideas and images associated with communism might still have great appeal today. In this sense, the failure of communism had more to do with the ideas’ failure to deliver than with the ideas themselves. In contrast, religions don’t have to deliver the goods since they’re cosmic and transcendental than historical and humanist in nature. God owes us nothing, and if the devout end up badly despite their faith, they can always blame themselves than God or see the defeat as a sign of new hope from God, which is why Muslims, even after getting clobbered over and over by the West, never lose faith in Allah. But communism, having no use for God, promised the people that the best-and-brightest leaders and technocrats would guide workers in creating paradise on earth. When something like communism fails, there isn’t much in the way of a safety valve. The ‘great leaders’ just seem more and more hollow and their promises sound like so much empty rhetoric. In contrast, even when God seems ‘wrong’, there’s always the sense of deeper mystery, as Job came to realize. The utter failure of Cuba and North Korea led to ever more desperate attempts to deify the ‘great leader’, but we know they don’t have lasting value in the scales of history). And what of China in the 1960s? Mao waged what was possibly the biggest culture war that ever was. He had literally millions of Chinese youths waging war on the ‘bourgeoisie’ — even though they no longer existed in China — , ‘capitalist roaders’, and whatever was deemed as part of ‘old culture’. The culture war or revolution unleashed by Mao was so violent and powerful that all the ‘class enemies’ appeared to have been swept away forever. But, where is China today and who reads the LITTLE RED BOOK or cares about the tenets of the Cultural Revolution anymore? In the 1970s and 1980s, radical feminism that sprouted out of the 60s seemed to be gaining a lock on American culture, with so much critique of how capitalist-patriarchy oppresses, exploits, and dehumanizes women. It was so powerful that growing numbers of women seemed to be coming together under its influence. As it happened, however, feminism’s neo-puritanical attack on popular culture was a threat to the industry(dominated by Liberal Jews). Besides, as Stalinist-style dour lesbians took over the movement, it grew ever more drab and dreary, and by the late 80s, a new kind of feminism was developing around Camille Paglia and madonna. The radical feminists who appeared to be gaining so much power were, within a few yrs, soundly defeated by ‘slut feminism’ that was especially favored by homo men(who had little use for drab neo-Stalinist feminism of the N.O.W. gang, especially as it came under the leadership of Patricia Ireland). The ERA or Equal Rights Amendment movement didn’t get very far in the late 70s and early 80s. So, these were all social and ideological fashions, and of course, ‘slut feminism’ and the current homomania are also fashions and pass away after people tire of saying ‘vagina, vagina, vagina’ so many times. Once the hysteria wears off, people will eventually see it for what it is. It’s like after the Mardi Gras in New Orleans or Carnival in Rio De Janeiro, people hung over from the excessive glitz of the previous night realize it’s the same crap city with all the same problems. In time, people will get tired of homomania and its cheesy association of homosexuality with the rainbow. However, once all this homo garbage is written into law, it will be inscribed into the culture even after people realize what rot it really was. (This is why Jews and homos are so eager to push legalization of ‘gay marriage’ now before the hangover comes into effect. It’s like the strategy of some sly women looking to hook rich hubbies. They are little more than slutty gold-digging hussies who shake their boobs and sway their hips. They use make-up, perfume, Ann-Margaret antics, and ‘boing’-inducing seductiveness to allure rich men. Some might use the facade of sophistication and ‘culture’ like Cate Blanchett’s character in BLUE JASMINE. Rich men get all excited and want to get it on, but they don’t necessarily wanna sign the paper and walk down the aisle. Doing so would mean that they are stuck with the worthless hussy or ‘husstler’ even after they realize she’s nothing but a gold-digging whore. This is why such women work extra hard to make the man sign the paper in the heat of passion. Same mentality is behind the homo agenda. Homos wanna make all of America accept the legal paper of ‘gay marriage’ when homomania is at its height, because, once people wake up and smell the coffee, they’ll realize the idea of ‘same sex marriage’ is a total perversion of the true meaning of marriage and the real sexuality between men and women. Jewish sluts and homo hussies are pressuring us to sign the paper and be wed to them so that we’ll be stuck with them by law even after we realize they’re nothing but a bunch of hideous geeks and venal freaks. It’s like Isabel Archer was a fool to fall for the Jew-homo or Jomo-like phony in A PORTRAIT OF A LADY. Marriage sealed her fate.)
While homos were created through natural processes — natural defects exist as do natural norms — and while homos need to be appreciated for their special contribution to arts, culture, and ideas, the ‘sexual’ nature of homosexuality simply doesn’t merit the recognition of marriage that has deep meaning only when it recognizes and fuses the true nature of sexuality with the moral commitment of men and women as parents to take responsibility for the children they create. While marriage is certainly more than about creating new life, it has genuine value only when it revolves around that principle. Otherwise, we might as well have Platonic friend-marriages between two straight guys or between two straight women. While homos do feel ‘sexual’ feelings for one another, it is gross and unhealthy among homo men — fecal penetration is never any good, but as the penis cannot have sex with another penis, homo men pretend that the fecal anus is a ‘male vagina’ — , and it is silly and ridiculous among homo women. The sane thing is to allow homos the freedom to do their homo thing, and for us to leave them alone and for them to leave us alone. But pansy-boy fruitkins, being naturally bitchy, vain, arrogant, narcissistic, and exhibitionist, don’t want to just to their own thing in their own world. They wanna parade around with ‘pride’ — as if fecal penetration among men is a matter of poo-ride or as if cutting off one’s penis to become a woman or carving out one’s vagina(and being fitted with a fake penis)to become a man is something marvelous — , sneer at us with aristocratic flair, look down on us as peasant serfs who must honor and praise them.
Though dishonesty is part of the human condition, homos tend to be especially(and even by nature)dishonest. Homosexuality is a trick/accident of nature that made for a ‘dishonest’ form of sexuality. Homo men are born with male sex organs but with female mentalities. Homo men are born with female sex organs but with male mentalities. They are the biological lies of nature. Among male homos and among lesbians, there are two modes of sexual leanings. Some homo men feel tutti-fruity effeminate and want to be taken like a woman by a man. But other homo men are homo for the exact opposite reason. They are so narcissistically ultra-macho that they prefer the company of other ultra-macho men than of women who are seen as soft and weak. Thus, homosexuality is a form of natural dishonesty, the product of nature having failed to ‘make up its mind’. And homo psychology in real life reflect this confusion, which, in some cases, leads to remarkable creativity and expressiveness since the very nature of art is to cheat reality with illusions. Due to the nature of homosexuality, many homos are prone to lie, cheat, connive, backstab, and pull all sorts of dirty tricks — like the fruitkin in THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY. They were born to conspire or connive, like the homo black guy in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION. Or consider Richard Kennedy, the British fairy who fell down the stairs and smashed his own face but has the gall to blame ‘homophobic’ thugs’. Would you trust a face like this?
Richard Kennedy - a lying British fruitkin
Indeed, consider the high percentage of homos who were serial killers and other degenerates. Of course, not all or even most homos are lying, cheating degenerates. Many are good workers, and one could argue that a certain amount of feminine traits in certain kinds of homo men make them better at working and negotiating with other people — as opposed to macho straight guys who tend to see everything as a pissing contest. Homos may connive and play dirty, but they are likely to do with greater patience and finesse that comes with their froopy-doo consciousness. Homos, with the naturally aristocratic flairs and weird ‘sexual’ obsessions, also tend to lack moral conscience. They care more about style than substance. They are more about the appearance of things than for their inner worth. It’s no wonder that Judaism, the most moralistic and substantive of ancient cultures, was most anti-homosexual, whereas the Greek culture, with its emphasis on beauty, tended to tolerate homosexuality. While style has value, it should never be mistaken for substance. Style can be substance in art, but it’s not the substance of life. Life is created through biological laws and sustained with moral rules. An artist can draw a horse in many styles, but only a male horse and a female horse can produce a another real horse, and only a horseman can raise it properly to perform horse duties. Homos created many great sculptures and paintings of men and women, but only the union of men and women could produce new life, and new lives should be raised with love and care by the parents who produced them. Thus, the very substance of life should not be confused with the style of expression. Most genuinely moral people understand this. (To be sure, many people who support ‘gay marriage’ are good people, but being good isn’t enough to be on the side of truth. Most Creationists are good decent folks who say howdy and help their neighbors in times of trouble, but that doesn’t make Creationism true. Most people who support ‘gay marriage’ wouldn’t want to harm others; they are decent neighbors and believe themselves to be supporting ‘gay marriage’ out of positive reasons such as ‘tolerance’ and ‘equality’. What such people misunderstand is that minor positives can misleadingly serve what is essentially bad or evil. After all, 80% of Americans who supported the Iraq War did so out of ‘good reasons’ of patriotism, fighting terrorism, removing a tyrant, liberating the people of Iraq, and destroying WMD. But they — including myself to some extent — failed to understand that all those good things were merely serving the venal agenda of Jewish-Zionist Supremacists.) Let marriage be for men and women who are aligned with the biological laws of life and respectful of the moral rules of parenting. Let homos do their own thing with their homo ‘sex’. As homo ‘sex’ cannot produce life, the only way homos can create something is through styles of art, and that’s one thing they can take pride in.
As it turns out, the vain and self-centered homo nature often cannot accept the laws of biology or rules of morality. In their preening narcissism, they think the entire institution of marriage should serve them than vice versa. If homos really care about marriage, they will recognize it for what it is. (It’s like if Mao had truly respected economics, he would have left economics to those who understood it. And if Hitler respected the military, he would have respected the decision of military officers. But both Mao and Hitler thought of themselves as the centers of the universe, as if economics and the military should serve their megalomaniacal know-it-all whims. Homos are like that with marriage.) If homos truly understood the meaning of marriage and valued it — as Camille Paglia does — , they will see it as a civilizational value. They will understand that even homos — indeed every homo that ever existed — were produced not through homosexuality but through real sexuality between men and women. Many straight people don’t get married, but they still respect the institution of marriage as existing for a biological and moral purpose. Indeed, many straight people don’t marry because they don’t think they are qualified to get married and play responsible roles as spouse and parent. If they were to get married, they want to do it right. That is showing respect for marriage. There’s a sense that marriage is bigger than any of us, just like all of time is bigger than any hour, week, month, year, decade, or century. Marriage should be supported not only by the married but by the unmarried because civilization carries on through the creation of new lives who are loved and taken care of by parents who decided to produce them.
But homos are too selfish, vain, and narcissistic to accept that marriage is bigger than them and exists for a purpose bigger than any homo whim or demand. Homos think they are the center of the universe and everything must be changed to cater to them. So, marriage must be unmoored from its deep and profound meanings just to please homos; it must consign itself to appease the shallow and vapid mentality of homos. Homos have little or no sense of something being bigger than they are. Everything is a toy that must be reshaped to give them pleasure. World must be their oyster, their snail.
Homos would have never pulled off such a cultural putsch, but they were advantaged with the backing and protection of the most powerful people in the world, the Jews. Homos aren’t trustworthy, neither when they’re in the closet nor when they’re on the pedestal. In both cases, homos are living a kind of a lie. In the past, homos who were forced to remain in the closet pretended to be straight and channeled their repressed energies through conspiracy, subversion, and infiltration. They were like natural-born CIA-KGB officers since they had to hide something essential about themselves from the public eye.
Nutty Fruitkin threatens Costner in NO WAY OUT(aka NO GAY OUT)
Many got married and lied to their spouses and children as to the true nature of their sexuality.
Since then, given that homos have been allowed to come out of the closet, you’d think homos today would be open-minded and easy-going. But as homos have been ‘welcomed’, ‘celebrated’, and put upon a pedestal, they now force us to believe that homosexual fecal penetration is the biological and moral equivalent of real sex between men and women. We are made to believe that there’s nothing wrong or sick about a man having his penis cut off or a woman having her breasts sliced off in order to be physically transformed into the opposite sex. Thus, one lie has been replaced by another lie. If in the past, homos were forced to lie about their true sexual nature, today, WE are forced to lie to ourselves that homosexuality is the biological and moral equivalent of real sexuality between men and women that produces life and serves truly reproductive functions. Homos weren’t merely content to come out of the closet. They became hellbent on vilifying all those who refused to celebrate homosexuality and continued to be critical of homosexuality; such people were declared mentally ill with ‘homophobia’ and deserving to be tarred-and-feathered and pushed into the PC closet. And this was enabled with the support of Jews who control the politicians, media, law courts, Hollywood, US government.
The Jomo Cabal
Real sex, even for the sake of pleasure than reproduction, is a reproductive act because sexual pleasure exists because organisms evolved to reproduce. Thus, even when birth control is used and no new life is produced from the sexual act, the drives and desires behind sex are rooted in reproduction. Therefore, when we are forced to espouse and spout the notion that homo ‘sex’ is equally valid — as if the fecal anus is like a ‘male vagina’ — , we are living a lie. The only way to be honest about homosexuality is to say it’s a naturally occurring defect — as there are natural norms, there are natural defects or abnormalities, such as being born deaf, blind, prone to diabetes or developing breast cancer, etc. — , and therefore, homos should be allowed to reject normal sexuality and do their homo stuff and not be persecuted for it. That way, both homos and straight folks can be honest about themselves. But as things stand today, we are forced — by law, culture, schools, businesses, and etc. — to believe that homosexuality is just as naturally normal, healthy, and meaningful as real sexuality. And those who disagree must go into the closet and keep their views of homosexuality to themselves as they will be persecuted, prosecuted, discriminated against, and blacklisted by the system rigged by Jewish oligarchs.
Rejecting the notion of ‘gay marriage’ is not to punish homos — no more than rejecting the teaching of Creationism in public schools argued in favor of ‘science equality’ is to ‘hate’ Christian Fundamentalists — but to say homosexuality doesn’t qualify for recognition by the institution of marriage that, in order for it to be meaningful, must be a fusion of biology and morality. The notion that a man and a woman using their complementary sexual organs to have and enjoy sex and possibly to produce children is no better and no more meaningful than two homo men sticking each other in the fecal holes with their penises is patently absurd to anyone with sense. A penis cannot have sex with a penis. A vagina cannot have sex with a vagina. So, a homo penis pretends that a fecal tunnel of another man is a ‘male vagina’. So a lesbian vagina can at best ‘kiss’ another lesbian vagina in ridiculous grinding motion; hole cannot enter a hole. Homo men and women should enjoy such acts if such give them pleasure, but why must we be forced to recognize the equality between sexual abnormality/deviancy and true sexuality that uses complementary sexual organs and produces life? (If homos were open-minded and decent, they would understand this, but being snotty, sneering, vapid, vain, bitchy, and narcissistic, homos regard any denial of their demands as ‘hateful’ and ‘anti-gay’. That’s like a child demanding a toy, and if it’s denied, throwing tantrums that her parents are anti-child and anti-toy. Of course, hideously pushy Jews act this way too. If we don’t support Israel 100% or praise Jews 24/7, we are said to be ‘antisemitic’ and ‘hateful’. It’s no wonder that white gentile politicians are rolling over like dogs and barking at Russia to please Jews. If not, they’ll be accused of being ‘anti-American’, which has become synonymous with ‘anti-Jewish’ as Jews now control just about all aspects of domestic and foreign policies to serve Jewish interests.) Not only does real sex produce normal men and women, but it also produces homos. Even homos depend on real sex for their very existence. No organism was ever produced by homo ‘sex’. And yet, we are forced to believe in the fiction of equality of true sexuality and homosexuality or inverse sexuality(or inversexuality). If homos had insisted on the freedom to be homo while also accepting their difference from biological and social norms, it could have been great for both sides. Both sides could have lived with truth and honesty. But two factors derailed such possibility. One is the fact that homos, by nature, tend to be haughty, arrogant, narcissistic, petulant, sneering, and aristocratic-like. Consider the fruitkin in THE LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN.

Homos and ‘aristocratics’ have something in common because both exhibit the combination of masculine and feminine traits. Aristocrats were men of higher status and finer manners who set themselves apart from the unwashed masses. Since masculinity is associated with roughness and femininity with fineness, aristocratic men were raised to affect effeminate styles of dress and manners. Even though the aristocracy developed out of the rough-and-tough warrior caste, their wealth and privilege made them collectors of fancy things and patrons of artists and designers, many of whom were whoopsy-doopsy fruitkins. Thus, the European aristocratic style increasingly became ‘gayer’ and ‘gayer’.
If the rise of America, the French Revolution and Napoleonic nationalism, and the progression of capitalism had one positive outcome, it was that the fruity aristocratic style gave way to a more robust, vigorous, honest, and masculine way of honor and dignity. The ‘gayish’ aristocrats had turned honor and dignity into a matter of tutti-fruity style as if one’s superiority depended on how effeminately one’s face was powdered, how daintily one’s pistol was held, or how ‘faggishly’ one’s hip was postured at a costume ball. This is why, even in our homomaniacal age, most people don’t want to see another version of THE THREE MUSKETEERS. Them fellas look too fruity. In contrast, manhood in America was defined not by froopy-doopy style but can-do spirit of hardworking men. And the French Revolution finally crushed the pain-in-the-ass aristocrats with their fancy ‘gayish’ manners even though the many of the Revolutionaries had something ‘gayish’ about them as well. It was Napoleon and his mass nationalism that really established a new kind of man in the French Civilization, one that was robust and hardy.
To be sure, there were many great glories associated with French aristocratic traditions. Indeed, the great irony of the eventual defeat of Napoleon was that it was accomplished by European monarchs and aristocrats who had been French-ized and were fighting to restore classical French culture. Even the far-away Russian monarchs and aristocrats were Franco-phone Franco-philes who were better versed in French literature and French ways than in their own cultures. Given that France had for so long been associated with its monarchical and aristocratic hierarchy/glory, the French Revolution and rise of French nationalism seemed to be anti-French. From this perspective, the French were fighting to spread anti-Frenchness all across Europe, and the rest of Europe was fighting to restore Frenchness in France. And with the failure of Napoleon, French aristocratism was restored in France even though the genie of the Revolutionary spirit and momentum could never again be put back in the bottle. The French since the Revolution have had an ambivalent relation with their aristocratic heritage. Too much of French glory, tradition, culture, and greatness cannot be appreciated apart from its monarchical and aristocratic traditions. It was a grand magnificent cake prepared for kings. And yet, the modern masses of the modern world called for bread, and the cult of ‘reason’ waged war on France-as-a-fancy-cakery in the name of France-as-mass-bakery. (Needless to say, homos today are making a huge fuss about ‘wedding cakes’.) Therefore, the French Revolution was about the grand cake worthy for kings vs bread for the masses. Though Marie Antoinette was mocked for the words, "let them eat cake" — something historians doubt she said, or if she said it, has been misunderstood — , the words proved prophetic because the French historical compromise decided on ‘cake for the masses’. The French simply couldn’t do away with their past monarchic/aristocratic glory, but they also had to appeal to the masses in the spirit inherited from the Revolution. Therefore, the French state has been trying to universalize the cake as available to everyone. So, after WWII, the French social-democratic system offered free admission to highbrow plays to the workers. A workers’ paradise where workers eat cake. Not surprisingly, universal cake-hood has proven to be extremely costly to French society, which is why its economy has been running out of dough.

Today, inversexuals are especially a pain in the ass because their innate haughty aristocratics is supported by — and imitative of — Jewish power that is no less neurotic, arrogant, hypocritical, and nasty. As people with sense may have noticed, Jews demand special privileges and honors for themselves. We all know that power in whatever form is hypocritical by nature. Great power and grand principles simply cannot be joined at the hip. The more power/wealth/privilege one accumulates, the more one has to play loose with principles to keep them. And to gain even more, one has to play the ‘game of power’, which is more about cunning and strategy than principles and consistency. Just look at Jewish behavior pertaining to the Middle East and Ukraine.
Given the hypocrisy at the core of all great powers, Jews shrewdly tore into Wasp power, Christian power, Russian power, white power, and European power in order to expose their big hypocrisies and shame them as phonies. Of course, Jews were right in pointing this out as the great gentile powers were indeed very hypocritical. But then, there hasn’t been a hypocritical civilization; and greater the civilization, greater its hypocrisy.
And this has been no less true of Jews than of other great peoples. Jewish history is filled with spiritual, moral, political, and cultural hypocrisies, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Given this fact, one would think that whenever a Jew points to a hypocrisy among gentiles, the gentiles would have return the favor(by pointing to Jewish hypocrisies), and indeed, this had been par for the course case prior to WWII. But due to the Holocaust, Jews crafted a clever narrative that associated the exposé of Jewish hypocrisy with ‘antisemitism’ which then was associated with the Holocaust. So, if Jews expose Wasp, German, Russian, Muslim, Iranian, Catholic, or Protestant hypocrisies, that’s speaking truth to power. But if gentiles point to Jewish hypocrisies, that’s an ‘antisemitic canard’ since any critical view of Jews is deviously associated by Jews(who control the media and academia)with the Holocaust. Thus, Jewish hypocrisies cannot be spelled out even as Jews never stop pointing to Wasp and gentile hypocrisies. Jews say, ‘Wasps claimed this and this but really did that and that’, but if Wasps said, ‘Jews claim this and this, but do that and that’, they would be slammed as ‘anti-Semites’ spreading false canards about Jews — as if, indeed, Jewish history and power have always been synonymous with principles, honor, trust, goodness, virtue, and decency. Jews think and feel this way, and with inversexuals taking their cues from Jews, they’re becoming no less painful and insufferable. Both sides judge others but tell the others to be non-judgmental toward Jews and inversexuals. As Jews control the politicians, media, and academia, they can get away with such rank hypocrisy.

Anyway, what does it mean to ‘win a culture war’? Jews and inversexuals think they won some epochal war between light and darkness, between good and evil, because they hoodwinked countless dumb, insipid, shallow, vapid, inane, and/or decadent Americans and Europeans into recognizing inversexuality as the biological and moral equivalent of true sexuality. They think they’re on the right side of history because sizable majorities in many Western nations now worship inversexuals. (It’s interesting how the argument for ‘gay rights’ began on minoritarian principles, i.e. just because the majority opposes it doesn’t mean that the majority is right. Today, what with so many Americans and Europeans having been duped into worshiping the homo, we hear the majoritarian argument for ‘gay marriage’. How can it be wrong when the majority are for it? Since the majority that is pro-‘gay marriage’ is so right, if you belong in the minority that still oppose it, you must be declared the ‘new abnormal’ and banned from public life. So, just like the issue of ‘free speech rights’, there are no principles involved in the promotion of ‘gay marriage’. When Jewish leftists were hounded by anti-communists in the 1950s, Jews were on the side of freedom of speech and against blacklisting people on ideological grounds or for espousing offensive views. Jews pretended to be oh-so-principled. Today, with Jews controlling the elite institutions, they want American laws to conform to European ones that forbid criticism of Jewish power and Jewish role in history. When the vast majority opposed ‘gay marriage’, Jews and inversexuals said the minority must be protected from the majority. But now that so many dumb Americans have been sold on ‘gay marriage’ and foam at the mouth over it — indeed, as one of the top 5 moral causes of all time — , Jews and inversexuals say that all of us must obey the majority since the majority is on the right side of history. Needless to say, most Conservatives are either craven cowards and majority-worshiping tards, which is why, one by one, they are lining up to bend over to the homo agenda or refusing to resist and fight back even as they continue to oppose ‘gay marriage’ in principle. If Conservatives are such pussies who cannot even do culture battle with homos, how do they expect to win any future conflicts? If Conservatives are truly serious, they need to go to the source of homo power. Homos draw their strength from alliance with Jews. It’s like Rudolf Hess was nothing about Hitler. It’s like Chiang Chang was nothing without the backing of Mao during the Cultural Revolution. It’s like Beria was vulnerable without Stalin’s support. It’s like George Harrison would have been nothing if not for Lennon and McCartney who really made the Beatles. Inversexuals would fall apart without the support of Jews, just like Tataglia was nothing without Barzini in THE GODFATHER and the Rosato Brothers in THE GODFATHER PART II relied on Hyman Roth.

Therefore, conservatives need to focus on Jewish power. Just as Jews browbeat gentile power by pointing out its moral hypocrisies, gentiles must go at Jews with the same kind of drive and determination. Jewish hypocrisies must be picked off one by one. As Jews are the most powerful people in the world, their power also happens to be the most hypocritical. Just look at Jewish role in finance, academia, foreign policy, media, entertainment, sports franchise, porn, politics, and etc. It’s an orgy of hypocrisy upon hypocrisy upon hypocrisy. But as we’ve been led to worship Jews as the angels of Holocaustianity, we lack a rational, factual, skeptical, and critical approach to Jewish power. We have Anne-Frank-as-Virgin-Mary stuck in our minds. When you worship someone, something, or some people, your mental faculties go out the window. It’s like God is full of contradictions, but the contradictions could not be addressed by the faithful since He was supposed to be perfect and it would have been blasphemous to doubt His infinite wisdom. Since Jews are not merely admired but downright worshiped, most gentiles in the West do not think rationally or critically about Jews. They just kneel at the altar of Jewishness and beg forgiveness even when Jews did them wrong. So, Jewish hypocrisies are not exposed. So, Jews, the most powerful and richest people in the world, still carry on like they’re poor helpless victims who need our love, compassion, and money to survive.
Jews say they need Israel for survival after the Holocaust, but then, Jews also say Israel is in a precarious position because it’s surrounded by evil Muslims who wanna carry out another Holocaust. Just think about the absurdity of such argument. Jews need a homeland of their own to escape from another possible holocaust in the future, and yet, they insist on maintaining their homeland in a region raging with hostile Muslims. Does that make any sense? Couldn’t all those rich Jews after WWII have persuaded the great powers to carve out a little piece of territory in some part of Africa, Australia, Canada, US, or USSR that was virtually empty of people? And if America loves Jews so much, couldn’t a piece of America been given to Jews? If not back then, why not now? Wouldn’t the Jewish state be safer as part of American territory than in a land teeming with hostile Muslims? But don’t expect any sense when discussing Jewish issues. Jews are always right, we are always wrong(unless agreeing with Jews). We can only be right by consenting to Jewish justifications and demands at every turn.(If Jews insist on the necessity of Israel in order to avoid future holocausts in gentile lands, what does it imply? That Jews don’t trust Americans, Australians, and Canadians? If Jews want their homeland among hostile Muslims who number in the hundreds of millions, it must mean they feel safer next to Muslims than next to Americans, Canadians, and Australians. It must mean Jews trust whites in America, Australia, and Canada less than they trust hostile Muslim neighbors. And yet, Americans, Canadians, and Australians — who are distrusted by Jews — praise and worship Jews.)
Jewish Geographical Logic of Self-Preservation
When we take a wider view of history, winning a ‘culture war’ doesn’t mean much. The ‘wrong’ side can win, or the ‘right’ side can win. But either way, nothing is for certain and forever because there’s always the chance of people seeing the light or falling into darkness. For many centuries, the Chinese thought foot-binding was a sign of the superiority of Chinese culture. So, foot-binders won the culture war and prevailed over vast expanses of time and space of Chinese history. But where is foot-binding now? During Roman times, gladiatorial entertainment were part of bread-and-circuses. The brutalists in Rome seemed to have won the culture war in the name of blood sport on a massive scale. But what became of Rome? There was a time when communist culture seemed to be the only game in town in Russia, Eastern Bloc nations, and China. Where is it now? Slavery once made sense to so many people in the American South. Serfdom made sense to the Russians until the 19th century. One could argue that the advancement of the homo agenda is part of the larger cultural-moral tidal wave favoring greater equality, liberty, tolerance, and ‘inclusion’; and indeed, to the extent that society came to acknowledge that inversexuals are born that way and should be left alone, it was a moral, social, and cultural advancement.
But that is not the core of the current radical homo agenda, for the homo community, backed up by Jews, demand that inversexuality be recognized as being of equal biological, moral, and social value as true sexuality between men and women. While homo demands made for greater freedom for all until the 80s, they’ve since grown corrupt and power-mad in association of Jewish power and, as such, insist that we bend over to their every whim. Homos now act like aristocrats who feel they have a right to push us around. And homosexuals, just like Jews, even as they snub and push us around, expect us to see them as poor helpless victims deserving of our sympathy. Homos have no sense of value or decency outside their so-called LGBT narcissism. They think marriage exists to serve homos just like Jews think gentiles exist to serve Jews. They think straight people exist to make life easy for homos. Homos think they are the center of the world. When homos insisted on being recognized for being born different, most people came to agree because the evidence was overwhelming. And even though most sane people have a natural aversion to what homo men do, they were willing to let homos be free to do their thing. But that was never enough for the selfish, self-centered, and self-aggrandizing quasi-aristocratic homos who demand that we honor, welcome, and celebrate homosexuality. Inversexuals are now so arrogant and deluded that they say something like "I Wasn't Born This Way. I Choose to Be Gay." In their demented minds, homosexuality is so wonderful that it’d be great for men to CHOOSE to be ‘gay’.
Now, what kind of a naturally normal man would CHOOSE to suck another’s penis? Or finger his anus? Or bend over and spread his ass cheeks so that his fecal hole can be pummeled by another guy? What naturally normal guy who feels no weird lust for another man would want to CHOOSE to bugger another guy in the fecal hole and have his penis smeared with feces? We might as well ask "what’s wrong with a straight guy CHOOSING to be a tranny?" So, a naturally normal guy should one day choose to have his penis cut off and be pumped full of artificial hormones so he can become like a woman.
So, homos first insisted that homos and trannies are the way they are because they were born that way, and that they can’t help it. And it’s wrong for us to expect them to CHOOSE to be straight. Next, the homos said being homosexual is just as biologically and morally valid as being true-sexual. So, even though homo-sex cannot produce life, homos should be allowed to adopt children as ‘same-sex parents’. Butt now, some fruitkins are beginning to say straight people should CHOOSE to be homo. (The New Republic is now totally in cahoots with Wall Street, Hollywood, and other elite super-privileged institutions in redefining leftism as a movement that primarily praises and celebrates homosexuals and ‘gay marriage’. It’s giddy with joy that the rise of ‘gay marriage’ was aided and abetted by super-corporate America and its media/advertising wings of crony capitalism with close links to corrupt lobbies in Washington D.C. With ‘leftism’ like this, who needs aristocratism?) What sane person would CHOOSE to be ‘gay’? It’s like choosing to be deaf or blind. Can someone imagine a normal guy waking up one morning and thinking, "Gee, I think I will trying sucking dicks today. Then, I’ll ask my buddy to ram me in the ass." Of course, what the fruitkin author of the article really wants is for straight people to put to the likes of him in the name of ‘experimentalism’. Since homos are less than 2% of the population, most people are out of reach of homo-lust. Even most guys who support ‘gay marriage’ will not kiss another guy, let alone be rammed in the ass by him. So, homos want straight people to be ‘open-minded’ and ‘open-anused’ and maybe try out the ‘gay thing’. It’s like how the Negro homo in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION smooth-talks a white Liberal dweeb into trying homo-sex, and the dumb white-ass succumbs to the Negro’s cum.

Paradoxically, hipster-bohemian-ism can turn people into earnest/square dupes, especially if they’re from a small town or the suburbs. A young person or a rube who may be so eager to accepted as ‘cool’ and ‘hip’ in the big city that he will go — or bend over — to any lengths to be accepted as part of the crowd. So, the white sucker in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, being a wanna-be-hipster-bohemian, was even willing to bend over and be rammed in the ass by a jive-ass Negro homo because that might be ‘cool’. It’s no wonder that so many suburban people flock to cities during the ‘gay pride parade’. Though they consider themselves to be ‘hip’ and ‘cool’, they are really earnestly conformist in their willingness to prove that they are ‘hip’ and ‘cool’.
This was what Bob Dylan understood. Though he grew up in a small town among ‘rubes’, he was sharper, wiser, and shrewder than even the ‘hip’ and ‘cool’ city-slicker folks who grew up in the big city. In NY, he played everyone and saw right through them. But most ‘rubes’ who wanna prove their bohemian credentials, upon reaching the big city, fall into earnestly embracing every vice and lice to prove that they are so cool as opposed to square. It’s no wonder that so many small-town people who go to places like NY or Hollywood ended up badly. They earnestly think being ‘cool’ and ‘hip’ means sleeping with everyone, indulging all kinds of drugs, and using lots of cuss words. Look at Iris(Jodie Foster) in TAXI DRIVER. She is corrupt but still ‘innocently’ naive and earnest. Strange men may be ‘balling’ her in the ass, but she thinks of herself as a ‘cool’ person with a stake in the city when she’s just used as a piece of meat. She thinks Sport(Harvey Keitel)cares about her. It’s like that song, "Poor Side of Town" by Johnny Rivers. A girl thought she was so ‘cool’ and special by going with some rich city slicker, but she was really just a toy.

The current mania for homos and trannies is the product of an alignment of many social, cultural, political, and economic forces and trends. There is the Jewish control of elite institutions. There is the convergence between Liberalism and neo-liberal economic policies that were achieved under Bill Clinton. There’s the Jewish abandonment of classic leftism based on class, the working poor, labor unions, and serious intellectuals(as opposed to mere cultural fashionistas). Especially as Wall Street went from Wasp GOP control to Jasp(Jewish Ashkenazi supremacist propagators)Democratic control, the new ‘progressivism’ tends to be elite-friendly, and what is more elite-friendly than the homo community with its fetish for fancy-pansy things? Homos love to work in fashion, design, arts, culture, and entertainment. They love to do the hair of rich women. They love to shmooze up to the rich. As male homos have an effeminate side, they have a fondness for the finer things in life.
As homos were seen as ‘oppressed’ outsiders, one might think they would have forged an alliance with the unwashed masses who were also, at least according to traditional leftism, oppressed and ‘exploited’ by the rich and privileged elites. But no such alliance formed for mutually hostile reasons. The unwashed masses — especially among blacks and non-whites — tended to see fruitkins as ridiculous ‘faggoty-ass motherfuc*ers’. And fancy-pants homos looked down on the unwashed masses as dirty, uncouth, vulgar, trashy, boring, and knuckleheaded. Similarly, Jews failed to form a meaningful alliance with masses of poor-or-working-class gentiles who tended to be more tribal and psychologically conservative(and wary of outsiders), as well as anti-intellectual. So naturally, both Jews and homos moved up the social ladder than marched alongside working class/poor folks of the world. And once they gained entry into the elite world, they forged alliances with other elites among the gentile or straight community. And as Jews control the media, they can shape hearts and minds anyway they want. Whoever owns a TV or goes to the movies is handing over his or her eyes and ears to the Jews. We think, "I saw this" or "I saw that", as if each of us makes an active decision of freedom. But in effect, it’s not so much "I saw this or that" than "Jews showed me this." While we do choose what movies and TV shows to see, the truth is almost of all of them are written, produced, and/or directed by Jews, homos, and/or Liberals. Therefore, we are pretty much surrendering our hearts and minds to be massaged, manipulated, and owned by Jews, homos, and/or Liberals. It’s no wonder that so many dumb young Americans are sold on the notion that inversexuals are angels, more decent than decent, cleaner than clean, more normal than normal. Utterly uprooted from family, tradition, community, and roots, they are sensually and intellectually owned by Jews, homos, and/or Liberals who own, run, and control the media and academia. And a lot of Conservatives are bending over too. Not only do Conservatives feel a morality deficit in accordance to Political Correctness, but they have a ‘coolness deficit’ since most music stars, movie stars, celebrities, writers, and artists are Liberal. So, Conservatives tend to turn to Libertarianism that at least has the likes of Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Or, Conservatives try to associate themselves with words like ‘radical’, ‘anarchist’, ‘Nietzschean’, ‘Dark Enlightenment’, or some such hokum to sound ‘cutting edge’. (Sensible people look to neo-fascism.) Since ‘gay’ is now ‘cool’, many Conservatives jump on the bandwagon(or fruitbasket)since they don’t want to appear ‘lame’ or ‘square’. But then, given that the Conservative Mind is essentially conformist and obedient, most Conservatives will cravenly accept the new order and embrace it as the ‘new conservative’. Just look how Conservatives kneel before MLK cult and suck up to Jews. One day, most Conservatives will bend over to the homo agenda. Given this fact about Conservatives, it’s doubtful that the Cold War was won by American Conservatives. How could a people who are so craven before a cabal of homos have stood up to the mighty USSR? After all, Richard Nixon sought to win praise from Liberals and Jews by betraying Taiwan and making peace with arch-communist Mao.
Perhaps, the strong anti-communist stance of Reagan and American Conservatives in the 1980s was paradoxically a sign of Conservative cowardice than courage, i.e. American Conservatives were willing to get tough with the USSR as compensation for their total cowardice when it came to Jews, Liberals, blacks, feminists, and homos. Since American Conservatives wetted their pants whenever they were accused of ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, or whatever-else-ism, they kept retreating and losing the social-and-political battles at home. Even Nixon’s social policies were ultra-Liberal that included expansion of ‘affirmative action’ to Hispanics and forced busing of white students into Jafro-Jive neighborhoods. Since American Conservatives were utter cowards when it came to fighting the domestic conflicts, they could only be tough against foreign enemies. So, the bulk of American Conservative machismo in the 1980s was expended against the USSR while Liberal social and cultural policies continued to gain dominance in American society.

And we see the same pattern today. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who are total cowards when it comes to domestic issues — and always caving into and serving their Jewish-and-homo masters — , bitch and bark madly when it comes to Russia and Vladimir Putin. It’s like, since dogs cannot bark at their masters, they bark at strangers and other dogs(at least those against whom barking is tolerated by the masters — after all, when did McCain or Graham ever bark about the Israeli bombing of Gaza that killed over a thousand women and children?) For this reason, we need to the reconsider the possible myth of Reagan as a courageous Cold Warrior. Conservatives remember Reagan as a strong and solid leader, but Reagan’s toughness against the USSR may have been merely compensation for his total weakness against Jews, Negroes, homos, and feminists — and illegal aliens whom he amnestied in the millions.
Furthermore, opposing the USSR by the late 70s and 80s was only doing the bidding of the Jews. With Jews having been disillusioned with the communization of Indochina and with Jews being ‘persecuted’ in the USSR, even most Liberal Jews had lost most of their fondness for the grand Soviet experiment that had once stirred up passions in the Jewish-American community. (Incidentally, Jews remind us of how the ‘affirmative action’ policies favoring Russians over Jews in the USSR were ‘discriminatory’ and ‘oppressive’, but the very same Jews insist that Jews, blacks, and Hispanics should gain via ‘affirmative action’ at the expense of white gentiles in America. Jews are defacto beneficiaries of ‘affirmative action’ since they count as ‘whites’, which means that white gentiles than Jews are sacrificed by ‘affirmative action’ to favor less qualified blacks and Hispanics.) Jews used American Conservatives to finish off the USSR and Iraq(in the Gulf War), and then used Clinton and New Democrats to finish off American Conservatism. But then, it is true that American Conservatism has long been pretty useless. It’s become the meeting place of stupidity and ignorance, pigheadedness and arch-prejudice, cravenness and cowardice, greed and snobbery, vulgarity and infantilism, thickskulledness and stagnation, and blandness and dullness. Whatever positive qualities Pat Buchanan has, his orthodox views on homos as ‘sodomites’, his arch-Catholic positions in a politically secular nation, and his demagogic style did much to alienate a lot of people — even if such had entertainment value on TV. Then, there are Conservatives who lack curiosity and feel a kneejerk hostility against anyone or anything that is different. Hating is understandable when justified by facts and truth. It’s reasonable to dislike Negroes because they are stronger and more aggressive, therefore a threat to the well-being of the white race. It’s sensible to distrust Jews since they’re smarter & cunning and use their power to undermine and subvert the interests of the majority. It’s natural to be wary of Gypsies or Roma since many of them are thieving louts. But many Conservatives sneer at things and peoples simply because they’re ‘strange’ and different. Though I’m not a fan of Muslims, what is the chance of Sharia Law taking over America? And yet, dumb Conservatives totally overlook the much greater danger of Jewish power and fixate endlessly on some idiotic nonsense about Obama being a stealth Muslim scheming to push Sharia Law on all of us. Many Conservatives crave this need to hate the Other, and today, the Other is Russians and Putin(who is said to be the new Hitler).
Because of this ‘we must blow them up real good’ mentality, Conservatives are the easiest and biggest suckers for Neocon war-drum-beating.
And then, there’s amoral greed that defines much of the Libertarian community around Grover Norquist for whom all of human relations is reduced to nickels and dimes, with everything up for sale or up for grabs. Then, there are the snobs who, like William F. Buckley, turn up their noses at the masses and think themselves so oh-so-fine.
On the other hand, since the masses have to be energized to vote for candidates handpicked by the rich, there is the cynical use of populism by the Conservative elites to fool us into believing that someone like George W. Bush — who was born with a silver spoon up his ass — is ‘one of us’. Or they get a political stripper like Sarah Palin to shake her ass in front of Neocon donors, and sure, she’s supposed to be ‘one of us’ too.
And then, there are lots of Conservatives who aren’t only nice but for whom niceness — and being liked and approved — is like their philosophy and religion. So, when times change, they change with the times in accordance with the ‘new nice’. Since it’s ‘not nice’ to oppose ‘gay marriage’, many of these spineless ‘nice’ Conservatives are bending over to the homo agenda. To be ‘nice’. While we can honor the likes of Pat Buchanan for not bending over to the homos, part of the reason why American Conservatism failed to formulate a reasonable position on the homo issue is because there’s nothing between modes of mean-spirited hostility and spineless ‘niceness’. For Buchanan and his ilk, homos are sodomite scum who should be denounced totally. For Kathleen Parker and her ilk, if supporting ‘gay marriage’ is what being ‘nice’ is all about, oh gee, why not just go along to get along? With such mindless dipshittery on both sides of Conservatism, it’s no wonder that America has become so ridiculous.

At any rate, culture wars are never won forever. It seemed Christianity won for all time, but look at its demise in Europe today. And look at the clown-show American Christianity has become, so much so that it can’t even effectively stand against ‘gay marriage’ and the hideous Jews.
But then, if a great religion steeped in tradition can be rendered meaningless almost overnight, what chance is there of homo worship lasting forever? Once the scales fall from their eyes, people will come to realize what a sham(and a shame) all this ‘gay pride’ cult really is. But as long as Americans’ eyes are covered with mass media cataracts of Jew-worship and homo-worship, they will continue with their stupid ways — until a major socio-economic crisis grips the nation. After all, it took the Great Depression to sober Americans up from the frivolities of the so-called Jazz Age.

The so-called ‘millennials’(aka millennions), having grown up in the age of Clinton, SOUTH PARK, FAMILY GUY, HARRY POTTER, Justin Timberlake, and Kanye West — and in a world of amnesia that is completely disconnected from the roots of white America that is, when mentioned, vilified by venal Jews — , are the shallowest and trashiest generation to have ever existed. At least the 60s generation, despite all the stupid things they did, had to struggle for their freedom(even if they wasted much of it on sex, drugs, Rock, and dumb politics). At least, they were striking into new territory and had to experiment. The ‘millennials’ grew up without struggle as their boomer parents(or boomer grandparents)paved the way for a world of permissive hedonism without guilt or shame. Millennions grew up like the self-satisfied jerks in the foul(albeit funny at times) Seth Rogan movie THIS IS THE END. Thus, there is no element of struggle among the millennions, as everything has been handed to them on a silver platter or iPad. Worse, they’ve been baby-fed on Political Correctness from the cradle, and so, millennials are incapable of thinking individualistically. While earlier generations were hardly free-thinkers, what’s truly galling about millennials’ conformism is the conceit that they are free-thinking individuals on the social libertarian and/or ‘radically progressive’ model. Millennials think if they drink a lot of booze and hook up to have casual sex(like Lena Dunham on GIRLS), they are ‘liberated’ and ‘empowered’. They think if they get together and smoke weed all night — like Harold and Kumar — , they are hip and cool. So much for originality and individuality. Millennions think if they ape their ‘radical professors’ in college and support ‘gay marriage’, they are cutting-edge and subversive in their ‘coolness’ and huggy-wuggy in their compassion, when, in fact, they are nothing but brain-addled minions and running dogs of their control-freak armchair-revolutionary professors and mavens of the elite media. And especially with all this social networking and interconnectuality, millennions tend to all sound like one another. It’s no wonder that ‘gay marriage’ is such a cause celebre among the millennions. It has the vibes of morality without true morality. It has the feel of radicalism while serving the interests of status and privilege. It comes with colors and celebrations that make it all very fun like TELETUBBY, the show they grew up with. It’s like ‘muppet radicalism’. And it feels ‘liberating’ since homos are not only coming out of the closet but publicly making a spectacle of themselves as proud fecal penetrators or penis-or-breast-cutters. In a world where the porn-ization of culture is seen as ‘empowering’, the ‘gay’ cause is a perfect partner-in-crime. The sham paradise of shamelessness where female politicians giggle with glee over their ‘transgression’ of having said ‘vagina’. So, this is the culture war that the so-called ‘left’ won. And they are proud of the fact that they won it with the help with the shallowest, trashiest, dumbest, most obedient, most conformist, most infantile, and most smug/glib/dweeby generation that ever existed? Granted, millennials cannot be blamed since they didn’t create the world they were born into. And in that sense, they need to be pitied.

In the long view of history, what we’ve witnessed is a culture battle, not a culture war. Something so silly as ‘gay marriage’ cannot be part of any long-term victory. It is a moral and biological lie, and lies begat and encourage other lies, and eventually all those lies lead to downfall. Is it any wonder that the proponents of ‘same sex marriage’ also push the notion of ‘undocumented immigrants’? Is it any wonder that the main controllers of current PC are the venal, hideous, and nasty Jews whose supremacism is unquenchable in its craziness, even stirring up trouble in Ukraine in order to use it as a bridge in the Jewish conquest of Russia? But how far can lies go? As long as social and economic conditions are bearable, many people will just go along to enjoy what they have. But lies and falsehoods undermine social and moral order in the long run. As the very meaning of marriage and family come under assault, as hedonism becomes the religion of the age, as braindead political correctness is confused with individuality and courage of truth, and as Jews gain ever greater power while playacting the eternal-victim, something has to give eventually. And until that time, the primary objective of all true conservatives, all true liberals(in the positive sense of being open-minded and free-thinking), all true race-ists(those who believe in the truth of races and racial differences), and all true patriots should be towards understanding that Jews have been the main force behind the destruction of Europe and white America. And then, the true culture war can finally begin. In the West today — and possibly in the entire world — , the only culture war that really matters is whether a people want to own their own destinies or allow Jews to hijack them for their own self-aggrandizement.


  1. Hey, did you like the Serb folk music? Get a slight dopamine buzz?

  2. Hoboken, NJ

    Does that ring a bell?


    Signed: you-know-who

  3. Does no one have vision?

    Someone does, apparently.

  4. I think I understand the vision, but I was short on time...I had to read it all in a "master race". Allow me to make a quick summary:

    The author demands a logical debate on Gay Marriage, who better to have a debate with than a straw man who can't talk back? Beginning the debate was an attack on the nasty, all encompassing, never argued for, inclusive marriages i.e., that fag in Berkely who marries his dog. But hold up, the debate was on Gay marriages! Not insane ones? What dafuq we were arguing about? The author forgot too...

    Because the next section was an ironic harangue about people being brainwashed from cradle to grave to believe something....then the author saying something personally believed from cradle to grave. Read Tony Judt's Postwar History of Europe...It will give *ahem* facts to the completely abused (and unsolicited) references to Nazism, Bolshevism, etc. Also, did you know S. African Apartheid was not "anti white" I think you had a typo. Then I think there was a seizure, because you mitigated the effects of 200 years of not only abysmal slavery, but segregationist laws in the American South.

    Can we please get on to Gay marriage? Author made an interesting point...Jews have an influence with elites. Reminded me that the only way Blacks won their fight was the elites became on the same page so to speak. So yes, elites became more friendly to gays, just as they have blacks. This Nation's History has been a continuous struggle and victory for inclusiveness regarding, "who can be elite?"

    Please let's have this rational debate on Gay marriage? I'm not calling names, I'll stick to premises whose truth imply a conclusion. more rationality...instead author takes a crude imaginary image...from a Mel Blanc film, to reaffirm what is thought to represent 1000+ years of European aristocracy. Then through the perspective of the present, author judges the past...which if anyone has ever lived life, you know you simply can't judge the past based on what is known in the present. Whatever...powdered wigs were gay...whoop de doo...

    All that is left in the article is emotions, stereotypes, wrong stereotypes, and a bizarre set of questions about choosing to put fingers and mouths near cocks and asses.
    Conclusion: A) Not enough logic to overturn the Supreme Court case which invalidated this shit article with no sources, facts, or evidence.
    B) Gays are not on a pedestal. Bullshit sentiment like what's found in this article actually increases their rate of suicides/depression/anxiety.
    C) All you had to do was give a logical reason why the constitution would allow a state to discriminate against one set of marriages different from another. You couldn't because of the 13th amendment.
    I wish this blog well, I hope this criticism helps its future. But I am never returning.