The Duped and the Duplicitous. The Secret of Obama’s "Popularity"

There are several reasons why Obama has won over many Americans, but I shall consider two. There are two kinds of Obama supporters. There is the genuinely duped, the kind of people who really look at him as the messiah of CHANGE and HOPE for whatever pitiful reason–ignorance, sappiness, guilt, fear, anxiety, etc. But, there is also the duplicitous, the kind of people who know exactly who and what Obama is and feel that they know the Grand Game Plan. It is the combination of images of radiance(for the duped) and of radicalism(for the duplicitous) that has fueled Obama to power. Unless one understands this duality, one cannot grasp the essence of the Obama phenomenon.

We have seen countless images of swooning crowds at the feet of Obama. He is their Jesus, their Leader, their Lord, their Prophet. He might even be their Will Smith or Oprah. Many of these people tend not be well-informed nor too bright. Many of them are young, which means they are impressionable and prone to social and cultural pressure. (Though young are said to be rebellious, most happen to be slavish to peer pressure; even oddballs who take pride in their deviation from The Norm are acutely aware of their social exile, and as such, even their rebellion is a form of emotional slavishness. They need to prove themselves out of a sense of inadequacy.) Many of these people surely heard of reports of Obama’s sleazy Chicago politics or his many lies. But, they are essentially emotional people who respond to images and sounds than think rationally about issues. Once they’ve latched onto Obama, he’s their ‘rock star’ hero; and, whenever in doubt, they go into the ‘say it aint so, Joe’ mode. They WANT to believe that Obama is the savior. This desire is so powerful that evidence to the contrary doesn’t make much impact. The ONLY way they can be woken out of their doldrums is if the media finally do their job and go after Obama for all his lies and expose and shame him. Only if the authority higher than Obama–the liberal Jewish-run media–says he’s no good will the sheeple who worship him finally come to realize he’s a false god. Many of these people are good people, fine people. They are like the dupes in "MEET JOHN DOE". They so desperately want to believe in hope and change and a bright future where everyone gets along–especially whites and blacks–that they don’t want to know the truth about Obama. It would break their hearts and force them to think and use their brains–something they are not equipped to do. As they happen to be intellectually limited, they would rather believe in mantras and symbols. Whenever they hear bad things about Obama, they pray,‘say it aint so, O’. ONLY IF the media seriously go after Obama and expose him in a serious way will the minds of these people change. Remember that in "MEET JOHN DOE", the rich and powerful had to unite and expose Doe as a ‘fake’ before the minds of people finally changed. Obama supporters are just like that.

This of course raises a question. How can so many people be so stupid? Well, they just are. Why do so many Americans prefer stupid TV shows and movies to serious literature and art cinema? And, this is a problem in both camps. Remember that conservatives went with the mediocre George W. Bush because he promoted himself as a pious man of God and a ‘regular guy’–though he was born with a silver spoon his mouth. Many people are dumb.
But you may ask, ‘but, how come so many intelligent and well-educated people also support Obama?’ Why did 50% of upper middle class people vote for Obama? Why did the majority of very rich people support Obama? Why was Obama’s support so overwhelming among the Ivory Tower crowd in the academia.
There are many reasons for this, and let me run them down as fast as possible. (1) Higher education these days means higher indoctrination where thinking CORRECTLY counts for more than thinking FREELY. (2) People with most education tend to come from the privileged class, which means they have had little contact with REAL reality, and as such, are prone to be more naively idealistic. (3) The rich, at least white gentile kind, tend to feel a degree of guilt and ‘social obligation’ since this country was founded upon Christian ethos which says ‘greed is evil’. So, one could argue that even intelligent and well-educated people can be duped or can dupe themselves. They are human after all.

But, there’s another reason why well-educated people–often in influential or powerful positions–support Obama. It’s not so much that they are duped but that they are duplicitous. Conservatives sometimes wonder why so many well-educated and intelligent people aren’t troubled by the fact that Obama is of the Saul Alinsky school. Anyone who has paid attention to the news knows that Obama’s intellectual influences and political associations are pretty radical. We know that Alinsky-ism isn’t open and honest but subversive, cunning, and deceitful. It is the strategy of shrewd and devious ‘progressives’ manipulating the gullibility and stupidity of Middle Americans. Alinsky deviated from other radicals and came to the conclusion that Middle Americans had to serve as the clay for revolution. America didn’t have masses of poor, and the classic working class was shrinking. So, no great social change could be achieved without the support or involvement of the vast Middle Class. Alinsky-ism was about playing to Middle Class anxieties, fears, doubts, guilt, naivete, and hope. This didn’t mean that Alinsky-ism was pro-Middle Class or embraced American Middle Class values. Instead, it sought to change Middle Class values by pandering to Middle Class fears, anxieties, and hopes. Radicals would cut their hairs, act all-American, put on respectable three piece suits, and go among Middle Americans, work through mainline churches, and penetrate Middle Class culture. Through control of education and media, they would gradually persuade Middle Americans that there was something fundamentally lacking or wrong in their lives and in America. This missing element could be economic, spiritual, moral, or psychological.
Alinksky-ism is the most dangerous kind of subversive-ism as it comes with a hug and a smile, flowers and chocolates; it is radicalism made(or feigning to be) respectable and ‘safe’. Just as some radical leftists in the US served international communism by pretending to be for PEACE, Alinsky radicals served their hidden brand of radicalism by pretending to be for Middle Americans. (Of course, some of these radicals were indeed very much into Middle American life and fooled themselves about being radicals only to add some socio-intellectual spice to their humdrum lives. How much cooler if a suburban or yuppie couple flattered themselves as being part of some intellectual underground!)
We know that Obama and his close IDEOLOGICAL associates don’t care for Middle America. Obama is, at heart, a black internationalist and a stealth Marxist. He wants to take white wealth and give it to ‘exploited’ people-of-color around the world, mostly to black Americans and black Africans. Of course, Obama knows he can’t do this overnight as people will wake up and see his black ass for what it is. So, he’s in the Jackie Robinson mode of politics. He knows that national politics still has a long way to go to catch up to the NFL and NBA level, which are so black-dominated that blacks can say and do as they please. Recall that when blacks first entered professional sports, they were met with fear and suspicion from white players and fans, and so they had to act like they were nice gentle fellows who simply wanted to play ball and get along. So, we had guys like Jackie Robinson as the face of Integration in sports. Whites were assured that some nice Negroes would come and play, and that would be that. Well, look at the NBA and NFL today!
Obama knows that national politics is still in the age of Jackie Robinson, so he smiles a lot and acts partly like a nice and polite ‘House Negro’. But, it’s all just an act.

Now, good many educated people must know what Obama is really about. They read books, watch the news, read magazines, and etc. Even if the media are slanted to the Democratic Party and favor Obama, anyone with any brains and knowledge should know what he really is, what he really stands for, and where he came from. So, why do intelligent and well-educated white liberals and leftists go along with a man who built his career on deception, manipulation, two-faced-ness, and shrewd cunning? It’s because they find it all very exciting and feel that they themselves are IN on the Big Lie. This may sound crazy. One may indeed ask why intelligent and well-educated people would find pleasure or seek pride in participating in a Grand Lie. It’s because radicalism has long been very chic and hip among well-educated folks. You and I may see radicals as a bunch of extremists, but educated folks and intellectuals think RADICALISM is where real truth(or the spirit of truth) is, what the grand future holds, where real values lie, where real courage and purity can be found, where no compromises are made. For radicals, subversion is the necessary weapon against a society that is all too compromised–and requires everyone to compromise and conform to the oppressive Middle Norm to get along. (According to the Frankfurter left-wing Jewish intellectuals, Middle America offered false freedom, sham liberty, and a form of oppression that fooled people into thinking they were free through commodity-centric consumerism and socially normative conformism where one gauged one’s worth by keeping up with the Joneses. Though leftist and radical, this theory expressed the contempt and snobbery of European elite culture toward ‘materialistic’ Americans. For European intellectuals, materialism was a philosophy for understanding the world as it really operated. For Americans, materialism was a way of life where one’s happiness and ‘freedom’ were measured by how much material wealth one accumulated and enjoyed like silly little children. So, even as Frankfurter School intellectuals were egalitarians, they exhaled elitist contempt for mass society. According to Marxism, capitalism was supposed to make the masses poorer, and intellectuals were supposed to lead them to freedom. But, in America, the great masses had no desire for revolution since they ‘never had it so good’. Through the prism of Marxist theory, it was not acceptable that American capitalism had improved the lives of workers and ordinary people and expanded their freedoms. Since Frankfurters couldn’t find open oppression, they looked for invisible oppression in the hidden structures of society and people’s thoughts. From this arose Radical Feminism which argued that housewives were psychologically like Holocaust victims and Alinksy-ism which said Middle Americans were slaves but just didn’t know it because they ‘had it so good’. Since Middle America could not be convinced that their lives were horrible based on material evidence, the left had to play on emotional and psychological issues, which was why Marxism and Freudian psychology merged in the social sciences dominated by the Left.) Since subversion is deceitful, it merely pretends to compromise while concealing the radicalism within. Real compromise in a democracy is where two people openly and honestly come to an understanding and accept the compromise as just. Leftist radicals don’t think or act this way. Alinsky told his students to act as if to compromise, all the while gaining more and more power until the day arrives when they can take total power. For people who really believe in democracy, compromise is a worthy goal. For radicals, it is merely a means in order to gain greater and greater power untilthey can grab ALL the power. Salvador Allende of Chile was that kind of radical. So is Hugo Chavez. The reason why Chavez moves gradually is not because he likes to compromise and work with the other side. Instead, he wants to make it seem(especially to outsiders) as though the people democratically granted him ALL the power. Similarly, Hitler was a radical with a purist ideology who employed democratic compromise only as a tool in order to gain more and more power so as to eventually do everything his way.
We must never confuse compromise-as-goal with compromise-as-means. The former is made in good faith, the latter in bad faith. People who embrace compromise-as-goal regard it as a hallmark of a true democracy. People who employ compromise-as-means look forward to the day when they no longer need to compromise since they will have ALL the power. US is moving in that direction, not necessarily because of the rise of Obama but because of the increasing power of the liberal and left-wing Jews. Consider an average white goy whose total wealth may be around $30,000 in the bank. Compare that to people like Michael Bloomburg who’s worth $15 billion. That means that Michael Bloomburg’s net worth is equal to that of 500,000 white goyim. One rich liberal Jew = half a million white goyim. There are many liberal Jews with that kind of wealth and power, and they’ve come to own all the networks. Even the so-called conservative movies are made by liberal Hollywood, which means the profits made from conservative ticket buyers go to liberal Jews just the same. Many conservatives appreciated Spielberg’s "Saving Private Ryan" as a patriotic movie, and 100s of millions of dollars flowed into Spielberg’s coffers. So, how did Spielberg the liberal Jew honor this country that did so much for Jews? He helped elect Barack Obama, the stealth Marxist. Nearly half of all billionaires in the US are Jews, and most of them are liberal. Even so-called conservative businesses like Walmart are largely managed by top Jews, most of whom are liberal. Same is true of Fox News. We can grumble all we want, but the fact is Jews are smarter. Worse, conservative culture is largely stupid, un- and anti-creative, and simple-minded.

Anyway, affluent whites grew up watching movies, listening to popular music, and getting fancy education. All those things inculcate and celebrate radicalism as cool, cutting-edge, badass, heroic, exciting, far-out, and groovy. Some got radical chic or radical hip through Matrix movies, some got it through punk music, some got it through Che t-shirts, some got it through Rolling Stone magazine, some got it from their highschool teachers, some got it from books, some picked it up in college.
Frankfurters were wrong about Americans not being free, but they were right about American popular culture producing mental and spiritual zombies, gimps, and airheads. Intellectually vapid and spiritually empty in a vast pop cultural and consumerist wasteland, many Americans–everyone from college students to housewives glued to the Tube–were bound to be won over by at least certain aspects of radicalism. This transformation also involved many conservatives. After having grown up in the staid or banal culture of Christian fundamentalism, small town hick values, or colorless suburbia, many kids raised as conservatives found meaning in radicalism.
Generally, leftists own radicalism, but there’s also radicalism on the right, especially libertarianism and Ayn-Rand-ism. Libertarianism’s main attraction is its purity and un-compromised ideologic. Though libertarianism will never gain power, it makes a lot of rightists feel good about their un-compromised ‘integrity’. Libertarians don’t seem to understand that their brand of radicalism is useless for gaining power because it is anti-statist. How can you gain political power if you’re anti-government? Just as anarchism lost out to the communism, libertarianism always loses out to liberalism. All libertarianism can do is appeal to people to be more self-reliant, but truth be told, many people don’t want to be self-reliant as it means not only more freedom but more responsibility. They would rather shove the burden and cost to government. Of course, some people choose libertarianism precisely because it has no hope of ever coming to power. Some radicals want power, but some radicals just want to feel nobler-than-thou and pretend that the reason why power is denied them is because they are just too good, too smart, too pure, and too deep for the stupid crass world. Lost-Cause-Libertarianism is really just a form of intellectual-moral-narcissism.

Anyway, the reason why so many intelligent and well-educated people support Obama is they see themselves not as dupes but as the dupers or ones participating in Obama’s dupe-a-rube routine. They see Obama, a student of Alinsky, as their leader and comrade in hoodwinking the entire nation, especially Middle America. But, one may ask, "didn’t many of these smart and well-educated white Americans come from Middle America? Aren’t they subverting their own world and their own power?" Yes and no. Yes, many of them are indeed the products of Middle America. But, there is Middle America as economic status and Middle America as heart-and-soul. Many economic Middle Americans are culturally, spiritually, and politically ‘radical’ since they grew up on stuff like Matrix, rock music and its related politics, liberal or leftist education. Just as many rich people have been leftists and many poor people have been rightists, it is wrong to think that economic status = political/spiritual/cultural identity. If such were the case, Karl Marx, born and raised in privilege, would not have become a radical socialist. Entire generations of kids have been raised on left-colored music, movies, magazines, textbooks, teachers, media. Though Hitler is said to have been evil, evil, and evil by our media and academia, the same has not been accorded to the mass killers of the Left. Though Stalin and Mao are remembered for their evil, the general liberal line is that they committed evil because they betrayed their leftist principles. In other words, Hitler was evil because he was indeed a true rightist whereas Stalin and Mao were evil because they weren’t properly leftist. So, rightism is evil for what it is whereas leftism can be evil only for what’s done in its name. In and of itself as an idea, leftism is supposedly of the highest moral order.
Marxism has a place in the West similar to that of Christianity. Christians feel that they cannot live up to the highest principles of Christianity and that trying to create a Christian utopia may actually do more harm. They reject theocracy not because a world ruled by God’s laws would be bad but because man cannot be trusted to rule the world according to God’s wisdom. Even so, Christians believe that Jesus was a perfect man and that it would be nice IF INDEED we could all live in a perfect Christian world. In other words, the problem is not in the ideas of Christianity but in the sinful nature of man who makes a mockery of those ideas.
Liberals and leftists feel the same way about Marxism. Though they acknowledge the miserable history of communism and accept the fact that communism failed as a totalitarian or ideocratic system, they believe that Marxism as an idea still holds the highest principles of Human Justice. In other words, it’s no so much that communism failed mankind but that mankind failed (to live up to) communism. Liberals and leftist reject communism or Marxism not because they think it’s a bad idea but because they think it’s an unattainable Great Idea. In contrast, fascism is regarded as evil in both ideology and practice(as opposed to communism which is supposedly good in ideology but was bad in practice–because stupid man couldn’t live up to its noble and demanding ideals).

So, even as liberals and leftist reject classic communism, they spiritually long for the Marxist promise. This isn’t surprising since man is naturally ‘spiritual’ and seeks something to cling to with his deep emotions and prophetic imagination. Christianity isn’t enough for their spiritual needs because (1) liberals and leftists are supposed to be rationalist and scientific and immune to ‘superstition’ (2) Christianity is 2000 yrs old, too old for modern people with a fetish for the New. (Though Marxism too is pretty old by now, it’s been repackaged time and time again as a fresh idea. Consider that with the recent financial collapse, some liberals are pushing Marx as relevant again (3) much of Christianity is culturally associated with the Right.
So, liberals and leftists prefer Marx to Jesus. Even liberals and leftists who readily admit that Marx got it wrong maintain that he was a man of the highest intellect, moral character, seriousness, noble intentions, and so on. Just as Moses has been revered by Jews for having led the way despite his major flaws, even ‘progressives’ who now admit that Marx had been wrong on crucial issues and ideas still revere him for what he stood and strived for. They believe that even if Marx ultimately proved to be wrong, his bold and determined search for Truth should be the template for all true intellectuals with a moral stake in the world.

What appeals to many liberals and leftists about Marx is his total devotion to the radical calling. Marx chose the life of a ‘starving radical’ through and through(though, to be sure, he had rich patrons who supported him time and time again). Most liberals and leftists feel that they ‘sold out’ and feel guilty and compromised as a result. They grew up with fancy ideas about justice and saving-the-world by gaining wealth and power, but most of them turn out to be affluent and privileged professionals or businessmen. And, even the less successful spend a lot of time scrambling to make more money and get ahead in life. There’s nothing wrong with this per se, but something in their education and cultural experiences/preferences informs them that it’s so lame and a waste of a life to be a privileged materialistic yuppie who lives the Ugly American lifestyle. They long to be AUTHENTIC, and you can’t attain that brand by being a middle class middle of the road white yuppie!! The only way you can buy some Authenticity is by supporting some ‘radical’ cause, listening to Afro-pop and calling for more aid to Africa, going on travels to less developed places around the world where pristine cultures haven’t yet been spoiled by rich materialistic Western people–as opposed to ‘caring’, ‘sensitive’, ‘cool’, and ‘progressive’ Western people such as themselves.
Just as materialistic and compromised Christians attend church on Sunday and seek forgiveness for their sins and trespasses, modern liberals and leftists pray to Marx and Martin(the Noble Negro) for their compromises with the materialist ‘greed’.
Che Guevara is also very appealing to modern liberals and leftists because he, like Marx, supposedly went all the way and compromised nothing. If Marx was intellectually 100% committed and courageous, Che was physically 100% committed and courageous. He died in the jungles of Bolivia, and attained the status of new Jesus for the New Left. Of course, most actual liberals and leftist are more like Naomi Klein. They want their yuppie privilege, fancy condos, fine dining, expensive coffee, travels and tourism to exotic places, and etc. Though politically, culturally, and spiritually raised to be leftists, they are the beneficiaries of the ‘capitalist-imperialist’ system. So, they latch onto something that gives them meaning and assures them that they are indeed involved in the radical revolution, if only indirectly or in spirit. Some affluent ‘progressives’ find radical redemption by vacationing in Cuba, smoking Cuban cigars, going to rock concerts where the star-as-saint yammers between songs on saving the rain forest/feeding the hungry in Africa/impeaching George W. Bush.

Anyway, the point is that many leftists and liberals know what Obama is about and up to. They know all about his Alinsky past and his far left sympathies. They know that Obama is a subversive radical. But, this excites than disturbs them since they too grew up with the notion that being ‘radical’, ‘revolutionary’, ‘subversive’, and so forth is cool. Indeed, being straight and forthright are considered white, middle-class, and lame. Educated people who listen to NPR and watch PBS prefer slick and sly jazz to straight-forward country music or even sober & dignified classical music. Obama is a radical slickster and jive-master, but being a subversive, he also knows how to feign earnestness. He knows how to pull the Will Smith schtick in ‘Six Degrees of Separation’.
That’s what makes him subversive as opposed to people like Malcolm X who were radical and anti-mainstream but not subversive. Malcolm X was straight forward in everything he said, regardless of whether they happen to be true or false, sane or insane. In contrast, Obama always wears masks, and he must be understood in terms of an actor in a blockbuster movie financed and written by liberal Jews. He’s their Will Smith in politics.
Anyway, though ‘subversive’ has negative connotations for conservatives, it’s a badge of honor for leftists and even many liberals. It means being cutting-edge, daring, cool, exciting, rebellious, slick, tricky, witty, and brilliant. Just as con-men take pride in their ability to trick people, many ‘progressives’ take pride in fooling and hoodwinking the lame, banal, bland, and dull white middle class. ‘Progressive’ subversives also take moral pride since they believe their deviously naughty fun will bring about ‘social justice’. (It’s a matter of having the cake and eating it too. They get to have fun playing bad boys and girls rebelling against The System, but miraculously the end result of all this conceited and contrived game is supposed to be the Better Future. Of course, there has long been a connection between the super-rich and the radicals, not least because the super-rich are vain, narcissistic, and want to share in the fun of being ‘progressive’ and ‘revolutionary’ in the locomotive seat of history. So, it’s not surprising that many rich people have tried to appropriate the radical style, rhetoric, outlooks, and manners. In a way, the rise of Obama is the product of an understanding between the liberal super-rich business class and the super-privileged Ivy League radicals. Obama is like the most expensive political doll built or bought by the super-rich class who, having amassed tremendous fortunes in the past 30 yrs, want to play at being big government socialists by pulling the (purse)strings of their toy radical puppet. In this sense, Obama is to the rich liberal Jews what Will Smith is to Hollywood Jews.)
It’s surprising that many ‘progressives’ come from the white middle class, but it’s not hard to understand why that is. Having come from Middle America, they feel lame and inadequate(as middle class America is depicted that way by popular culture and higher education), and many seek meaning and excitement though radical politics, subcultures, or avant-garde intellectualism. Look on youtube and you find a whole bunch of bedroom philosophers and kitchen table revolutionaries speaking into the digicam to prove that they are not just another lame middle class person but a member of the avant garde or some cool secret society or movement. And so, when conservatives point out Obama’s Alinsky past, many ‘progressives’ think it’s so cool that Obama is a subversive, wink wink.

Of course, there is genuine awe and admiration for Obama on the part of many liberals and leftists, among both the duped and duplicitous. But, how can the duplicitous who know what Obama is really about look upon him as a ‘shining prince’? It’s because the human mind is infinitely complex and can fool itself in countless ways. Yes, it’s possible for even cynical and subversive duplicitous individuals to fall under the spell. Man is half intellect, half emotions.
‘Progressives’ have long sought a racial healer or a deliverer who embodies the positive qualities of Kennedy, King, FDR, Lincoln, Oprah, and Malcolm X. So came Obama, the master of many masks. (Even makers of masks can fall for their own masks, just like liars can come to believe in their own lies, and fabulists can fall for their own fantasies. It’s like the spider is forever the prisoner of the web it spins.) Also, no matter how subversive or cynical ‘progressives’ may be, their deepest core is enervated by a naive quasi-religious view of world salvation. Leftists may be tricky and sly on the outside, but their inside hugs-n-tugs an innocent child who wants the world to be perfect. So, strange as it may seem, not only the duped but even the duplicitous can get carried away by the Obama cult.
This was true of communist movements as well. In Stalin’s Soviet Union, many communist members were subversive, ruthless, hard-nosed, and pitiless. But, many of them did indeed believe in the shining myth of Stalin EVEN WHEN THEY KNEW that Stalin gained and maintained his power through the dirtiest and the most sinister of means. All people need something to stake their faith in, especially idealists. Therefore, even people who would later be crushed by Stalin died believing in the noble myth of the all-knowing Big Brother.
Similarly, on the one hand, many ‘progressives’ are deeply skeptical, sly, cynical, and cunning people. They are subversive. On the other, they are naive and quasi-religious idealists intoxicated with faith in a Better Future. They have this powerful need to attach onto some Great Theory or Great Personality. So, even those who know Obama for what he is are willing to project onto him their hopes and delusions. Even the duplicitous are capable of duping themselves. Obama, of course, knows this, how it works, and how to manipulate it. He knows that many of his followers are the duped while others are duplicitous. But, he also knows that even the duplicitous have a certain psychology that needs to cling to a Great Faith or Myth, and he knows how to play to those emotions. Even the smartest person responds to the world rationally only 50%. The other 50% is affected by sights, sounds, rhythm, texture, the groove and style, etc. This is why a man as smart as Einstein could fall for socialism or delude himself that Gandhi is a great saint.
Jesus said man doesn’t live on bread alone. It’s also true that man doesn’t live on ideas alone. The ideas he espouses must be attached, embodied, and expressed by a personality. Personality gives life to ideas. So, the "I Have a Dream" speech was just an idea from the pen of a Jewish writer. It came to life only with the delivery by Martin Luther King. King gave Life to those ideas, and in a way, became the very embodiment of or even bigger than those ideas. Today, his message of Love and Peace mean nothing to most blacks who listen to rap music and demand racial favoritism. But, the cult of King-the-personality is bigger than ever. Ideas become personified, and the person becomes mythified. In the end, the meaning of the ideas takes a backseat to the Myth of those ideas as embodied by The Great Personality. Same is true of what has become of Mao in China. Chinese no longer care for his communist ideas but still revere him as a symbol of Chinese unity, glory, pride, and power. Maoism isn’t no longer about actually following Mao’s ideas by the letter but celebrating the spirit of those ideas by adapting them into symbols of nationalist power and glory.
Similarly, blacks embrace Martin Luther King personality cult not because they believe in color-blindness or peace but because the cult guarantees them automatic moral superiority and racial pride. White ‘progressives’ cling to the King cult either out of opportunism, naive idealism, or radicalism. Scared conservative opportunists want to use the King cult to argue against racial favoritism(‘content of character’ over ‘color of skin’) and to persuade blacks to choose peace over violence. Liberals cling to the King cult in the hope that some kind of racial harmony may prevail. Radicals want to use the King cult as a Trojan Horse tactic to fool white people into dropping their guards against the rise of black and Jewish power.

Anyway, just as King imbued white liberal ideas of 60s with Music and Charisma, Obama aims to do the same today. Again, we see a similar set-up and pattern. Most of the writers are Jewish. Jews have great intellect and cunning but not much in the way of charisma. Blacks have that hormone charged intensity but aren’t much for ideas. We saw this in pop music too. Brill Building was largely made up of Jewish songwriters, but many of the singers were black. Jews supplied the songs, and blacks delivered the performances. Of course, Jews did this with whites too. Jewish Hollywood came up with screenplays but found big tall handsome goyim to bring the pages to life. Ayn Rand the Jewess wrote the novel and screenplay of "The Fountainhead" but big tall handsome Gary Cooper brought it to life. Milton Friedman was the funny looking yoda-like man of ideas behind Reaganomics, but Reagan was the man who gave it a face that inspired millions. Jews are brilliant, smart, and/or cunningl but tend to be gnome-like and funny looking. They need to partner up with the ‘Aryan’ or the ‘Negro’. In the past, Jews used ‘Aryans’ like Charlton Heston to popularize their artistic ideas and political values. Today, ‘Aryans’ have been vilified and dehumanized while Negroes have been elevated in their place. But, the people who are still financing this and writing the script are the Jews. Even in the conservative movement, the writers have often been people like David Frum, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, etc.

Many white liberals and leftists see themselves as people of brilliance, knowledge, intelligence, and ideals. But, they feel that they themselves lack either charisma or the moral right to preach to the world about a Better Future. After all, leftist history says white people are to blame for all the evils in the world. Of course, Jews are exempt from ‘white guilt’ but good many of them tend to look funny and have annoying public personas. Anyway, most white people feel that they don’t have the right to be moral leaders or exemplars because of the morally stained history of white people.
With white liberals, the problem is compounded by the fact that they’ve also burdened also themselves with American guilt, whereby Americans are supposed to apologize to the rest of world, especially to Europeans, for being too powerful, being too rich, and consuming too much.
Therefore, many ‘progressives’ have wanted a ‘person of color’–innocent of the sins of Western History–to lead the way, but most blacks turned out to be crazy and unfit for this role. Even Martin Luther King, observed closely, was a scumbag in private life. Liberals felt they had the message but not the proper messenger nor the ‘perfect storm’ through which their ideas could be embraced by most people. Of course, conservatives too had a similar problem for a long time before Reagan finally came along during the Perfect Storm of 1980.
Conservatives felt they had strong and solid ideas but suffered an image problem in the 60s-70s. There was the granite-faced not-very-likable Goldwater, the dark and shadowy Nixon, and the inept Ford. The great conservative moment came when Reagan arrived on the scene just when the Carter administration was in total free fall. The Great Communicator had the physical and charismatic instruments to deliver those ideas to the public at large. He had a way of making conservative theories sound simple and accessible, even inspirational. He persuaded people as to why America needs a strong military and how that could restore American pride and power.
Just as a bomb, no matter how well-conceived, is useless without a missile to deliver it to its target, an idea is useless unless there is a personality that can deliver it far and wide to the public. Otherwise, it remains a just another intellectual idea or policy proposal. Conservatives really had to wait until 1980 for a man like Reagan to arrive.

Democrats thought their star had arrived with Clinton, but Billy boy turned out to be too rascally and childish(and out of control). Clinton let everyone down. So, Obama is the New Hope. If Clinton was the first black white president(prone to reckless self-destruction), Obama is like the first white black president(disciplined in terms of what he needs to do). Therefore, many liberals are crazy about Obama for this reason for the Messiah of the Great Liberal Message has finally arrived.
Obama is the great missile that white liberals–especially the Jews–have been waiting for all these yrs to carry their message all the way to the Moon. He is the political equivalent of the Final Frontier. He’s the (Rock)Star Child of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

White liberals have had Grand Ideas they’d wanted to implement for a long time but all their missiles proved to be duds or faulty. Duds were Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. The ambitious but ultimately flawed missile was Clinton. There was Hillary with the Great Healthcare Plan but she lacked the charisma and ‘character’ to deliver it on target to the American public. Many people just didn’t warm to her nor trust her. They saw her as overly shrewd, cold, arrogant, and calculating. (Obama is no different but he knows how to seem different, at least to all the dupes out there.)
But, liberals now have Obama, perfect in the age of Will Smith, Oprah, and Hip Hop(when most young white people are more into blackness than whiteness). He’s supposed to be the super missile that delivers all the Neo-New Deal ideas right on target. Liberals are further emboldened by the fact that 2008 has been a year of the Perfect Storm. 8 yrs of Bush made the white male unfashionable. Bush was a poor missile who never hit the target; his public persona was especially a disaster. His words seem to drip out of his mouth like saliva. The Iraq War as long, painful, and costly. The economic meltdown of 2008 played into liberal hands since the blame usually goes to the party in power. McCain had the wrong image–weak voice, old face, wobbly body, etc–in a nation that’s into hip hop culture and youth narcissism. Also, Obama as a missile could rely on support of the launching pad and airspace–liberal Jewish controlled media and academia.

Anyway, when white liberals and leftists see Obama, they don’t just see a fellow duplicitous subversive radical, but the deliverer that has finally arrived to take the liberal (Jewish) ideas to their intended targets. He is the giant mythical bird that has finally arrived to take liberal ideas to the promised land. He’s supposed to finally finish what FDR started, what Kennedy failed to achieve due to the assassination, what LBJ failed to accomplish due to Vietnam War, what King failed to reach due to assassination, what Robert J. Kennedy failed to bring forth due to assassination, what Humphrey failed to do thanks to 60s out-of-control radicalism, what Carter failed to do due to his incompetence and bad luck, what Clinton failed to do thanks to his self-destructiveness, what Gore failed to do thanks to GOP having ‘stolen’ the election. In the liberal Grand Narrative, history was stolen from them by tragedies, accidents, bad luck, recklessness, etc. Obama is supposed to embody the perfect balance between white and black, between religious and secular, between national and international, between elitism and egalitarianism, between intellectualism and populism, between confidence and humility, between hip and the hop. So the stupid liberals think in their Hollywood-induced fantasies, as though mankind can be redeemed by mindless social engineering and pop-political gimcracks.

No less funny was the delusions of the Bush administration and many gentile whites in this country. White gentiles still seem to think they control America when they do not. The rulers of this country are liberal and leftist Jews. Liberal and leftist Jews dominate Ideas, Education, Information, Knowledge, History, and what we see, hear, and read. NY, the financial and intellectual capital, is mostly Jewish. LA, the pop cultural capital, is mostly Jewish. Northwest Coast, the center of high-tech billionaires, is dominated by Jews. Pharmaceutical companies are dominated by Jews. Most Jews are liberal or leftist. Most of the powerful lawyers are Jewish.
Yet, people like Bush and McCain still act as though white gentiles have all the power and therefore must be generous, kind, and tolerant of other people WHEN IN FACT the real people in power are the liberal and left-wing Jews(and their brainwashed goy allies and puppets)whose determined goal is to destroy and bring down white power, white interests, white unity, white pride, and the white race.

There’s a weird relationship between gentile whites and Jews, especially in the GOP. Though Jews are the most powerful people in this country, the political charade between white gentiles and Jews requires that white gentiles pretend that they have the power(and therefore must be overly kind and generous to others) in exchange for Jewish financial and intellectual support.
We have pretty much the same situation in Hollywood where Jews have the money and power, but they put forth bigshot gentile stars who give the false impression that Hollywood is dominated by people like Tom Cruise or Angelina Jolie. As the public face of Hollywood, gentiles are supposed to act like they rule and control Hollywood(and therefore be exposed to endless scrutiny and accountability)whereas the truly powerful Jews remain behind the scenes and amass bigger fortunes and gain greater power without any scrutiny whatsoever. We can see this with guys like Charlie Rose too. Having Charlie Rose as interviewer gives the impression that WASPS still control the media, but he’s just a puppet of Jews who really control the media. Well, that’s just how it goes.

The (Human)Sacrificial Aspect to Soviet Communism’s Mass Killings.

It’s often been asked why communism killed so many people if the goal was to liberate mankind. In a way, this question answers itself. Any war, crusade, or revolution seeking to change the world is an act of violence. Consider the fact that America was on the ‘good guy’ side of the Good War–WWII–yet killed millions of civilians through aerial bombings and other methods. US even dropped two big ones on Japan. It’s not out of the ordinary to do ‘bad things’ for ‘noble’ ends. There was an element of communism that was indeed war-like. What is a revolution but war waged on Old History to create New History? People were bound to get killed. This has been the case all throughout history. All nations were unified through violence; the ‘higher good’ was achieved through much bloodshed. For example, the rise and spread of Christianity and Islam necessitated war and suppression of peoples, cultures, ideas, and values out of sync or opposed to the New Spiritual Order. In this sense, one may indeed wonder if communism was any worse than other historical movements.

Communism was a totalitarian ideology and movement, and therein lied its danger and power. It was a unified system that purported to have connected all the dots of history, science, arts, spirituality, economics, culture, politics, philosophy, morality, and etc. Communism was a total way of life, a totalistic way of understanding the world–its past, present, and future. It was archaeology, it was sociology, it was prophecy. As such, communists tended to be more fanatical, blind, ruthless, and cocksure in their beliefs and assumptions. They were convinced 200% of their correctness.
Though the Far Left is often associated with Liberalism–not least because both had been allies during the era of the Popular Front–, communism has always been proudly anti-liberal. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao all saw liberalism as a promise of false freedom, a fiction of freedom procured and projected by bourgeois liberals for the purpose of fooling themselves and the masses that the capitalist order was essentially decent and just. Communists spoke of True Freedom, True Liberation, True Equality, True Truth. Marx–the man, the methodology, and the myth–was so awesome to his adherents that many leftists just took it on faith that he must have been right. Most communists never read Das Kapital and even those who did understood little of it. Most communists were only familiar with communism through the Communist Manifesto, slogans, speeches, marches, posters, and lots of singing. It was a religions movement. Just as illiterate people all over the world were crazy about God and Jesus(or Muhammad), communists were crazy about Marx. Indeed, the very difficulty of works like Das Kapital made Marx’s star rise higher. It was as though the man was so great, wise, and brilliant that most people simply couldn’t understand his divine genius. You just had to take him on faith. Most people understood the ideas in "Communist Manifesto", but that alone could not have created the religion of Marx. No, it required Das Kapital, the magnum opus that was purported to have demonstrated beyond any doubt that every assertion made in "The Communist Manifesto" was totally true. Just gazing at the thickness of Das Kapital(in three volumes) and being overwhelmed by its dense writing were enough to convince many people that this was godly wisdom.

So, it’s not hard to understand why so many people fell under the spell of communism and why it came to be so dangerous. Communism, like Christianity, had two aspects to it. On the one hand, its core ideas and central tenets were simple enough for a child or an idiot to understand. Even an illiterate could understand slogans such as ‘land, bread, justice, equality, death to oppressors’. That was the populist side of Marxism.
But, there was also an intellectual side as Marx had been a thinker and writer all his life. One could be a scholar in a university and study Marxism and use it as a methodology for economics, literary studies, history, or etc. for the rest of your life.
This dual aspect of Marxism filled its adherents with spiritual meaning in their lives. Ignoramuses felt they’d gained a degree of ‘intellectual’ seriousness by embracing Marxism. Many working class or lower-class people felt more serious, more knowledgeable, and smarter by claiming to be communists. Being a communist meant that one wasn’t just another working class slob but a humble thinker who understood how society really worked. As for the privileged and educated who had no direct connection to The People, Marxist studies meant that they were ideo-spiritually connected to the ‘oppressed’ masses. Marxism also made leftist intellectuals feel that they were leaders of the masses, at least in their own delusional minds. Marxist intellectuals persuaded themselves that a crass and exploitative capitalist structure stood in the way between the people and themselves–the rightful savior-leaders of the masses.
So, Marxism’s appeal was both to the slobs and the snobs. It was an ideology that claimed to resolve the natural tensions and divisions that existed between the two camps. In this sense, Marxism had much in common with Christianity and Islam. Both religions had mass appeal. Anyone could convert instantaneously by accepting Jesus as one’s savior or Muhammad as one’s prophet. Even the dumbest person could learn and understand the core beliefs and values of either religion in a single day. But, both religions also have complex, profound, and extensive texts that could be studied, pondered, and debated by scholars forever. Christianity would have been just a cult if not for the intellectual contents in the New Testament. Though Christianity spread among the impoverished and illiterate masses, it is doubtful that it could have eventually attracted the Roman elite(that came to adopt it as official religion) had it not been for the fact that Jesus and his followers were actually intellectually formidable men who left behind an impressive body of texts. There were many philosophical and spiritual ideas as profound or as deep as Christianity through history, but as they couldn’t be easily understood by the masses, they failed to develop into Great Movements or Schools of Thought. And, there were many cults with great mass appeal, but they faded away because they failed to produce sacred texts that could engage the spiritual and philosophical fascination of the intellectual class.

Other than the appeal of righteous victimhood on the part for the masses and cutting-edge intellectualism for the elite, Marxism had another appeal: that of the dedicated warrior. As Marx said, a philosopher’s duty was not only to understand reality but to change it, or to understand history for the purpose of changing it. A Marxist warrior could be a soldier, a spy, a subversive, or a secret agent. This added an element of excitement, adventure, thrill, and romance to the calling. A Marxist intellectual or academic, as opposed to most kinds of intellectuals, could take pride in being part of Active History. The idea of a philosopher understanding history in order to change it is like the concept of the fusion of mind and body, of the pen and the sword. (One of great appeals of Jesus as a revolutionary spiritual leader is the fact that he united body and soul in his search for higher truth. Buddha is another great spiritual figure but has been less appealing because he was all mind and not much body; he was more like a draft dodger from the troubles from the world. Jesus, on the other hand, didn’t merely seek inner or spiritual peace but put the pedal to the metal in the real world. He was a warrior in that sense and exciting for that reason. As extreme as Mel Gibson’s "Passion of the Christ" is, its version of Christ’s journey has a certain legitimacy. The mythic aura of Jesus derived not merely from his moral vision but his physical courage. He took the beatings not because he was weak or a coward but because he was the toughest guy in the world. And, the appeal of Che Guevara has been similar. Considering that most communists have been either paper shuffling bureaucrats, bookish intellectuals, or brutal executioners/soldiers, it was remarkable to many leftists that Che seemed to embody both the mental and physical aspects of Marxism. He wasn’t just a man of ideas but a man of action. He also looked good, which cannot be said of most communists.)
Intellectuals throughout history felt lacking in masculinity. They were ‘geeky’. Marxism offered the intellectual the promise or at least the conceit of being a Real Man. Through Marxism, even a geeky leftwing Jew could flatter himself that he was a tough warrior. It’s no wonder that so many Jews admired Leon Trotsky, who lived most of his life as a writer/thinker/political activist but also played a key role in building up the formidable Red Army during the Russian Civil War. For many leftist intellectuals–especially Jews–, Trotsky was proof that one could be an intellectual AND a badass. And, many Jewish communists were ruthless in their roles as executioners as if to prove that they were not only big thinkers but tough guys.

The element of The Warrior was appealing to the masses as well. Christianity too had a militant/military wing. It had its Warriors for Christ, the Crusades, the Teutonic Knights, and etc. Even so, Christianity aimed its arrows at the enemies of Christendom or against other denominations. But, WITHIN the Christian order, the people were told to submit to and accept the social hierarchy as natural, just, and divinely ordained. In other words, even as Christianity was for The People, they were told to obey the kings and nobles. The people had to be humble and meek. For salvation they were told to look to the Next Life. Christianity was appealing because people were told that Jesus loved them so. But, Marxism had an added appeal. It too was for The People, but it promised happiness and fulfilment in this world. It also promised power in the hands of The People. Marxism didn’t oppose the ethos of Christianity but rejected its spiritual assumptions and its uses by the powers-that-be in exploiting the ignorance of the masses. Marxism told urban workers and landless peasants that they can fight for and attain Justice. During the Russian Civil War, even peasants who knew nothing of communism gravitated toward the Reds because "land and bread" sounded better than God and Tsar. Because of the militant aspect of Marxism the masses of adherents found great excitement in the movement.
For most of human history, the warrior caste or class had been limited to relatively a few people, the nobility. Most of the people had to bow down before the kings, nobles, or emperors. The French Revolution fundamentally changed this notion, especially with its People’s Army made up of millions of ordinary people. Marxism went even further because it challenged the very concept of class altogether. Many ordinary people gravitated toward communism for it gave them arms, uniforms, and warrior pride. Of course, even prior to communism ordinary people had served in the military in all nation-states, especially following the French Revolution. Even as the Revolution and Napoleon were eventually defeated, the Western world was fast changing. Nation-states became the new norm, and masses of people were drafted into huge national armies; and even people of humble background could rise up the ranks to become colonels and generals, especially in the US. Even so, prior to the Marxist concept of Revolution, people fought for the nation, for the king, for their officers, etc. It was Marxism which gave people the notion of fighting for The People or The People’s Future. Outside Marxism, one could be a warrior only IN the military. Within the Marxist sphere, one always felt like a warrior because The Revolution was constantly at war with Old History.

Anyway, let us consider the reason why communism came to kill so many people. There was the radical faith in New Future. There was the arrogance of possessing the highest and truest from of scientific rationalism. There was the warrior cult which said one must not only be a thinker but a soldier willing to shed blood ruthlessly to create a Better World. Also, the nature of communism was monopolistic, which is to say that the state came to own and rule everything. It controlled government, the economy, education, media, and all else. So, there were no checks on government power. Communist ideology justified total control since (1) the government was supposed to be a dictatorship of the proletariat ruled by and for the people and (2) private property was associated with the exploitative bourgeoisie. In the name of the freedom of The People, the freedom of individuals was forbidden or seriously proscribed(lest some individuals grow rich and ‘exploit’ fellow man).
But, that alone doesn’t quite explain the scale of killings by communist nations. Here, we must consider the concept and practice of human sacrifice, especially like the ones carried by the Aztecs and ancient pagan civilizations. This may sound ridiculous since human sacrifice was spiritual and elitist in essence whereas communist killings were carried out in the name of rationalism and egalitarianism. But, observed closely, both human sacrifices and communist killings have something eerily in common. Both sought to placate some higher force, greater truth, grander concept.
Communists didn’t believe in God but they worshiped their conceptualization of History and had total faith in The Future. On the one hand, they CONFIDENTLY believed History was on their side, but on the other, they ANXIOUSLY worried that History might deviate from Marx’s prophecy. (Communists were never sure whether to regard Marx’s vision of the future as a prophecy or blueprint. During the Great Depression of the inter-war years, Marxism seemed prophetic, but in the post-WWII era when communism underperformed vis-a-vis the Free World, it became more a blueprint. In other words, it no longer seemed that History would naturally or inevitably ensure the triumph of Marx’s vision; rather, the future had to be COERCED into the Marxist model. Proletarian-ism turned into Procrustean-ism.) Communism was an ideology and movement of both iron conviction and extreme anxiety. Paradoxically, the two went together. Since communists believed that Marx(and Lenin) were so absolutely correct, they were convinced that History must validate their Great Truths. Communism didn’t just produce belief but inspired faith. Communism wasn’t merely a prediction but a Grand Prophecy. Their whole lives, beliefs, and values were linked with how History turned out. So, they were willing to do anything for the sake of History. They were willing to do everything and then some to show that History-as-God was on their side. In this sense, communist killings were carried out in the name of and to serve the God of History, of which Marx was seen as Moses.
Of course, communists didn’t consciously think this way. They told themselves that they were killing class enemies, kulaks, the evil rich, spies and saboteurs, and other lowlifes. But, on a subconscious level there was something strikingly religious and spiritual about the entire communist enterprise. It was carried out by a men of great conviction and great anxiety. Greater the conviction and confidence, greater the anxiety. Conversely, greater the anxiety, greater the conviction. This was the paradox of the communist mentality.
Imagine a boxer who convinces himself–and is egged on by his fans–that he is the greatest and the most invincible fighter on the planet. This fills him with conviction and confidence. But, because his very worth and essence are now linked to being Champion of the World, he becomes more anxious about his fights since a loss would destroy the mythic grandeur of his greatness. Those who step into giant shoes realize the smallness of their feet. Confidence and anxiety go together.
Titanic wasn’t just another ship, and its sinking wasn’t just another disaster. It was Tragic because the Titanic was regarded as the Ship of Human Ingenuity, Power, Mastery, and Invincibility that could not be sunk. Marxism was supposed to be the Great Locomotive of History. It was supposed to travel the fastest and sweep everything aside. Its hype was such that it didn’t care how many people it mangled or sliced under its wheels. Yet, this confidence also filled it with anxiety and desperation. The communist faith was so total that communists were terribly afraid that the ideology on which they staked everything might prove to be false. To convince of themselves of the Absolute Correctness of communism, they were willing to go to extreme lengths. (We can also see this is the passions of extreme Japanese nationalists in WWII. They were so convinced of the invincibility of the Yamato spirit that they thought they could triumph over the US. But, despite the blind faith and bluster, there was also great fear and anxiety buried in their souls. When it seemed as though Japan may indeed lose the war to the mighty US, many Japanese wished to commit national suicide along with their Emperor than own up to the fact that their gods were on the wrong side of History or non-existent. They were willing to sacrifice the entire nation than admit that their gods had failed.)
If iron conviction inevitably leads to anxiety–since reality never lives up to one’s fantasies or expectations–, anxiety calls upon conviction for renewed confidence and morale.
This is a proto-spiritual trait at the core of man. When early man was faced with grim reality, he often had nothing to rely on but blind faith. So, when communism didn’t work out as it was supposed to in early communist Russia, Bolsheviks hardened their hearts and convictions even further. As they couldn’t find evidence of success in reality, they had to find meaning to carry on within their iron hearts. The nature of radicalism being what it is, most communists were simply not willing to admit that they may have been wrong or accept the fact that History cannot be remade overnight based on set of intellectual theories. Communists had spent their entire lives with the Iron Conviction. Faced with the anxiety of reality, communists only hardened their convictions(though there were interludes such as the New Economic Policy). They couldn’t let their God of History fail, and they were convinced that the God of History would sustain, justify, and ultimately validate them. To serve this God of History and in order to receive its blessings, communists were willing to sacrifice as many people as possible to bring forth the Great Shining Future.
There is a parallel of this in Aztec human sacrifice. The Aztecs needed the regularity of seasons for bountiful harvests. They were also a fiercely warrior-like people and believed that their victories in battle required the blessings or approval of the gods. They were a people of great ruthless conviction and great neurotic anxiety. The combination of conviction and anxiety led to the psychotic practice of mass human sacrifice. The Aztecs dared leave nothing to chance. They wanted to be 100% certain that the gods were on their side; they wanted to make sure that gods were pleased with the utter devotion of Aztecs elites and warriors who were willing to sacrifice any number of people.
In this sense, one could argue there was an element of Human Sacrifice to the whole communist enterprise. And, it may also explain why so many communists were willing to let themselves be sacrificed as well. Though they were proud to be communist-warriors, the God of History was what really mattered most. If individuals–including yourself–had to be sacrificed for the God of History, so be it. It didn’t matter if individuals were personally guilty or innocent–anymore than it mattered if those offered to the Aztec gods were ‘good’ or ‘bad’ Even communists who knew that they’d been falsely accused and sentenced to death made peace with their own fates since they believed their God of History would triumph with or without them. In a war, you may be accidentally, wrongfully, or negligently killed by ‘friendly fire’, but you can find comfort in believing that your side may win the war. The WAR is bigger than you, a mere soldier, a cog in the machine; as a soldier, your very essence is to bear any amount of sacrifice in order to win the war; soldiers are, by nature, expendable. Communism was not only the God of History but God of Justice and God of War. However bitter the falsely accused communists may have felt about their fates, many found comfort in the conviction that their comrades and children would eventually see the Revolution to its just and great conclusion. Besides, unlike capitalism which is premised on the idea of individualist self-interest, communism was founded on the notion of collective sacrifice.

Another reason why communism led to so many deaths is due to another paradox. Communism was based on total trust and on total subversion. Communists believed in using whatever subversive means to attain their goals. So, communists believed that the enemy must be weakened from both within and without before the fatal blow could be dealt. There are two ways to weaken your opponent in a fight. You can slip drugs or toxins into his food and drink, whereby he will feel dizzy or sick during the fight. And, if he’s too tough to KO in the early rounds, you weaken him by body blows whereupon his legs grow weary. Once his legs are immobile, you can prepare for the KO blow. The communist strategy was along those lines. Communists knew that it was near impossible to bring on the revolution overnight. So, they had to look for ways to weaken the bourgeois-capitalist-imperialist-feudalist or whatever kind of order. Communists believe in lying, cheating, spying, fooling, and all that stuff. Undercover activity, espionage, and subversion were nothing new in history, but communists took it further than ever before. They felt such contempt for their enemies that all ‘bourgeois’ notions of fair play or honor went out the window.
Christians had also been into subversion, but Christianity also said, ‘love thy enemy’. Communism said the enemy must be totally exterminated. Also, communists rejected traditional morality, notions of honor and respect, and all that crusty ‘bourgeois’ stuff. As far as communists were concerned, there was only Justice and Power. Those who were for Justice deserved to have all the Power. So, communists felt no pangs of guilt whatsoever in lying with a straight face, betraying non-communists who sympathized with them, and even in destroying fellow communists who happened to follow the wrong line. Communism’s strategy for gaining power was right out of the Machiavellian-Mafia handbook. It was essentially subversive, whether the concept was ‘cultural hegemony’ ala Antonio Gramsci or employing tools of capitalism to serve the interests of communist revolution ala Armand Hammer. This even developed into a kind of nihilistic and cold romanticism, an iron-grey knife-in-the-back fetishism. In some cases, there was even an erotic element(though communism itself was puritanical and repressed/repressive) for the duty of the radical subversive was often to SEDUCE the well-meaning, naive, or foolish western bourgeoisie with flattery and sophistication. FDR fell for communists big time! We can see communism’s seductive power in the opening scenes of East/West, the French film about travails of duped French leftists in Stalinist Russia.

But, there was another element to communism. It was also based on profound Trust. Indeed, without trust the whole enterprise was hopeless. Communists needed to trust one another and have total trust in the justness of The Cause and Revolution. Communism couldn’t become a social, national, let alone an world movement without the trust and camaraderie among themselves. The rule of communism said, ‘be totally trusting and supportive of fellow brethren’ and ‘be totally subversive and deceitful to your class enemies.’ This radical paradox in communism was bound to lead to paranoia and bloodshed in almost every case.
Though communism was about creating a New World of Trust, it could only be achieved through deceit and subversion. (We even have variations of it in American Democracy, with Obama having used Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky to become president.) In this sense, every communist activist had to be an expert liar, cheater, and subversive. Though subversion was only supposed to serve as a means to gain power against enemies, the subversive mindset remained intact in the communist order. It’s like those who spend their entire lives lying for the higher good end up habitual liars with no real sense of true or false. Communists sought to make history out of subversion, but subversion made liars out of communists. So, communists couldn’t really trust one another.
Especially as communism is a radical ideology with a clear-cut and unambiguous notion of Truth, there couldn’t be many forms of communism. Deviations or heresies weren’t tolerated–not for long anyway. Everyone eventually had to unite under a single tent, a single interpretation of ideology, and a single strategy. But, the fact is many communists had different ideas as to ‘what must be done’. It was only natural that many communists were tempted to use the very subversive means that brought them to power against rival communists. In the USSR, no one was a bigger master of this than Stalin. The bookish and intellectually vain Trotsky was no match for the Man of Steel whose inner core had been forged through a long personal history of violence, terrorism, and murder. Trotsky was just as ruthless if not more so, but he thought the weight of his ideas and intellect would carry the day. He was very wrong.

Anyway, the Ideal of Total Trust paradoxically led to mass paranoia in the Soviet Union(and other communist countries). Under communism the contradictions among men were supposed to fade away. All men were supposed to be comrades under the Sun. But, distrust remained and even intensified. Communists had come to power through ruthless and deceitful means. Stalin well understood the true nature of communists. For all their highfalutin words about unity and trust, most communists wanted power and to do things their way.
In a perfectionist system, even a blemish can seem like a terrible stain. Communism believed in Perfect Trust among men. Yet, it was led by men of deceit, subversion, power-lust, ruthlessness, and total self-righteousness. Stalin and others couldn’t help but feel that there were other would-be Stalins, would-be Trotskies, would-be Lenins. Each would-be Stalin, Trotsky, or Lenin surely sought power and were willing to use most the devious and ruthless means to attain it. Though much of this paranoia was psychotic, it wasn’t totally unjustified as Stalin was the living proof of the conspiratorial nature of communism. Would Lenin have been paranoid had he purged and executed Stalin and all his associates in the early 20s? Historians today might say Lenin acted out of paranoia, but we know that Stalin was indeed a ruthless radical who’d wanted total power. So, it was natural that Stalin feared other Stalins-in-the-making. More one loves oneself, more one fears others like oneself. (Stalin was always looking the mirror asking, ‘mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the greatest communist of them all?’) In one way, Stalin was killing his enemies and rivals. In another way, Stalin was killing himself in the form of fellow communists who might have wanted to take his place. Stalin had to be the bright Sun that extinguished all the other stars from the sky. He could only tolerate planets revolving around him, not other suns that might challenge his singular authority.

As to the question WHY SO MANY WERE KILLED UNDER COMMUNISM, it must be remembered that the communist order, fearsome and fearful, produced a world of great secrecy. In a democracy, you can easily tell who’s the enemy, who’s the friend. Opponents are not afraid to protest, make trouble, speak out, and give the middle finger. Under a totalitarian system, everyone is fearful. So, even the enemies, rivals, and heretics remain utterly silent and act as though they are with the program. Though communism sought to wipe out all the enemies, its ruthless radicalism paradoxically blurred the line between friend and foe. Well aware of the ruthless and murderous nature of communism, the ‘enemies’ and critics of the state and the rivals within the Party learned the fine art of silence and going along. As a result, Stalin and his cohorts couldn’t really tell who was ‘good’ and who was ‘bad’, who was ‘trustworthy’ and who was ‘untrustworthy’. Everyone was afraid to come right out and say what they believed or felt.
So, there was only one way to make sure that everyone got the message loud and clear that THE STATE IS NOT SOMETHING TO MESS WITH(or something to even think of messing with).
An all-out campaign of Terror which would arbitrarily target entire populations or establish quotas for class enemies to be arrested and shot became the Law of the Land. In the early stages of the Revolution, it was easy to tell who could be trusted and who couldn’t. The Tsar and people around him were bad. The capitalists were bad. The big landowners were bad. The Whites were bad. The Tsarist military was bad. But, when the Revolution triumphed and once the communists won the Civil War through the most ruthless means, Russia became a State of Total Fear. The remaining ‘enemies of the revolution’ all hushed up or joined the system. Stalin could never truly trust these people; in many cases, he didn’t even who ‘they’ were, where they were hiding, or whether they were in the government, military, or other institution. Were ‘they’ truly convinced of the rightness of communism or were ‘they’ cunning opportunists in the new order? Worse, were ‘they’ closet-reactionaries patiently plotting a coup to destroy the Revolution–just like the revolutionaries had destroyed the Old Order–or were they ‘heretical’ communists biding their time to overthrow Stalin?
This explains why Stalin had so many military officers killed in the 1930s. Though they joined the Red Army, Stalin wasn’t sure where their loyalties really were. After all, they were men who’d sworn eternal allegiance to the Tsar yet switched sides to the communists. How could they be trusted?

Stalin was also aware of the fact that he’d only gradually come to consolidate power in the 1920s and early 1930s. It could be argued that Stalin didn’t achieve ABSOLUTE power until 1935 though he was the most powerful man in the Soviet Union by 1929. Though the Communist Party came to regard Stalin as the Supreme Leader, Stalin knew that many in the party had backed Trotsky. He knew that Kirov was more popular than he prior to the assassination.
Think of the American political primaries in 2008. Though the entire Party eventually consolidated around Obama, we know that many Hillary supporters were bitter about what had been done to their candidate. On the GOP side, though McCain eventually won and the Party united around him, we know that many conservatives loathed McCain. Similarly, though the Communist Party united behind Stalin by 1935, he understood quite well that he had not been the preferred leader for many communists. Many had backed Trotsky or others. As powerful as he was, Stalin couldn’t read what was really in the hearts of men, and as the Soviet Union was a state of fear, no one dared to speak out against Stalin once he gained total power. Communism promoted the ideology of Total Trust but ruled by Absolute Fear. Fear among the underlings and populace reflected the fear of the supreme leader who always suspected he didn’t really have the Real Trust of the people. So, he had to rely on Fear–his own and that instilled into the hearts of everyone.
In the mid 50s, Mao would smoke out his ‘enemies’ and critics through the Hundred Flowers Campaign which encouraged the people to speak out against the Communist Party. But, Stalin wasn’t willing to take any such risks. His strategy was to use pervasive, widespread, and random fear among the populace to send a bone-chilling message that YOU COULD BE NEXT. Since anyone could be accused of being the enemy of the state–even the most loyal and ardent among his supporters–anyone who had the slightest doubt about Stalin’s power or wisdom was careful to suppress it completely and pledge total allegiance.
There are surely other reasons for the massive bloodshed that took place in the Soviet Union and other communist states, but those are for another day.

Evolutionary Explanation as to Why Women Tend to be More Liberal.

In some ways it’s not hard to understand why women tend to be more liberal than men. Indeed, it is also true that effeminate or metro-sexual men also tend to be more liberal. One could argue that liberalism is soft and feminine(matriarchal or nanny-ish) while conservatism is hard and masculine(patriarchal or guardian-ish). It could well be that women tend to be kinder, gentler, and more compassionate; therefore, they feel more at home in the world of liberalism whose values are tolerance, inclusion, and so on. Also, liberals and the Democratic Party have been more involved in expanding opportunities for women in fields that had been the domain of men. Since women had to challenge the male-dominated order, it’s understandable that women gravitated to the Democrats. As women gained more independence and economic power, they wanted to consolidate and expand their power, and they found the Democratic Party to be their natural base.

Women were likely to be more affected because women are naturally more likely to follow orders of The Great Authority and go with the flow(due to evolutionary development). The feminist narrative is that all the women spontaneously and individually rose up, demanded ‘liberation’, and brought about the New Order. In fact, this is a lot of crock. Women had disadvantages in the 50s and 60s, but they were not oppressed. And, things were changing naturally because of the great rise in affluence, opportunities, and possibilities made possible by technology. Women would have achieved more advantages and opportunities, feminism or no feminism. What feminism did was to instill in the minds of women that they were being terribly oppressed by THE GREAT EVIL MALE(mostly white). The feminist grand narrative said that women realized this, figured out what must be done, and they all got together to start a grass roots movement–and they just all happen to realize at the same time that Betty Friedan and her Ugly Hag Sisters were right about everything! In fact, feminism was a top-down affair. It was not the rise of the oppressed, the poor, and downtrodden. It was the ideology imposed and pushed by rich, powerful, deranged, and crazy Jews at the top in NY, LA, and in the academia. Many women bought into this because they naturally tend to be less skeptical, confrontational, and questioning than men. Also, the hook was that women, by submitting to the tyranny of Big Sister, were being liberated from men–just like workers were fooled by communism that they were being liberated from evil capitalism; communism too was a revolution engineered from the top, not really understood by the people at the bottom. As a result, many women bought into the feminist narrative: they were being liberated from evil male patriarchy, and they did it on their own, which is to say they freely, naturally, and inevitably came to worship Betty Friedan as the savior of all the Sisters in the world. Yes, it was all very natural, not artificial–as in being manipulated and browbeaten by the mainstream media and entertainment dominated and controlled by the left-wing Jews. We can find this crockpot narrative in Jane Campion’s worthless dimwit adaptation of the rich and ironic Henry James novel "Portrait of a Lady"; the stupid movie begins with a bunch of modern women gathered together as flaky New Age pod people zombies. (You won’t find a strong-willed Camille Paglia among that sorry looking group). Or, you can find this sort of narrative in Toni Morrison’s "Paradise". Gag!!!! Though all these feminist tracts pretend to offer freedom and liberation to women, but what they really do is call on women to submit to the new authority of Big Sisterhood. It’s not about individual liberation but ‘group liberation’. A woman is told that she can be liberated from the Evil Male Order only if she joins the Big Sister Order. It’s kind of like Christians or Muslims saying you can be saved from pagan tyranny only by submitting to Christian or Islamic tyranny. It’s like Idi Amin telling his people that they can be saved from white man’s imperialism only if they submit to his uga-buga African tyranny. The simple fact of the matter is that women are inherently less individualistic than men and more in need of group inclusion, approval, and acceptance. So, feminist liberation is really just another form of submission.

Of course, there is a problem with feminist tribalism as stated above. Women on their own cannot sustain a community. Swedes, Chinese, or Eskimos on their own can last forever as long as the men and women in those groups produce offsprings ad infinitum. But, women on their own or men on their own cannot sustain themselves beyond the life spans of the members. The core unit of(or unity within)society is Man and Woman, not All-Women-Society or All-Men-Society. A single man and a single woman can produce offsprings, create a family, and serve as the basis for a large future community. Women on their own can only practice lesbianism which doesn’t get them anywhere reproductive-wise. This was the problem of radical feminism, which is why its impact was limited. Too many women were naturally attracted to men and wanted to be part of a family than to the Sisterhood. Many women felt in their hearts–even if their minds had been told differently–that their main loyalty should be to their Man and Children. Radical feminists hissed at this and seethed with contempt, and called women who settled for home life ‘traitor bitches’, ‘slaves’, or ‘whores’. As radicals took over the feminist movement, it became less and less relevant and appealing to more women. Feminism just sounded shrill and puritanical(like some conservatives today who want to drive out all moderates).

But, feminism wasn’t just eclipsed by the bio-cultural need on the part of women for romance and family life. Because feminism tended to be puritanical in world saturated with pop culture, many within the younger generation were bound to rebel against their feminist-oriented mothers who insisted on rigid and drab ideological purity. The rise of black hip-hop culture especially confounded the feminists. On the one hand, it represented everything feminists hated–macho male attitudes and women-as-whores–, but it was black culture, and feminists were not supposed to criticize or condemn black culture as such would have been deemed as ‘racist’. When the main ‘misogynists’ of rock were heavy metal white guys, feminists attacked them tooth-n-nail. But, feminists couldn’t muster enough courage to go all out and attack rap music and hip-hop; as ugly and hateful as most of this music was, the leftist narrative said they were expressions of the ‘disenfranchised’ filled with ‘righteous rage’. Since white and Jewish feminists couldn’t go after rap and hip-hop, they wished that black feminists would, and some did. But, most didn’t because blacks–women as well as men–believed in sticking together. And, though rap degraded women, many black women were proud that a Black Thang was gaining such power, force, and popularity in America and around the world. Also, many black women distrusted white and Jewish leftists as spoiled, bratty, whiny, privileged bitchass fools making bullshit complaints when they had it so good. Also, black women didn’t like the part in feminism about race-mixing because black women were getting BY FAR the worst end of the deal. Non-black men didn’t like black women, so black women could only hope to link up with black men. But, many black men happened to be criminal, useless, dangerous, unreliable. Worse, well-educated fancy Negro males often seemed to go with white females. This made many black women feel bitter, which is why even the best educated and richest black women were deliriously happy when OJ Simpson got the ‘not guilty’ verdict for killing ‘that white whore’.

Anyway, radical feminism was too crazy and it was also upended by the rise of black rap and hip-hop which transformed the generations–of all ethnic and racial groups–since the late 80s into macho-thug-wanna-be’s or skankass-ho-wanna-be’s. Also, the fact is too many women wanted to meet guys and settle down and have a family. Only radical feminists wanted to spend their entire lives hanging around Women’s Studies Department(or English Department which became the same thing) with other ugly haggish looking or lesbian women without humor. Not all feminists were of this Stalinist Big Sister ilk; some were genuinely independent, individualistic, and original. But, we are talking of generalities here. It must also be said too many women sought to succeed in the free enterprise and corporate economy, and whatever their political ideology they had to make peace with capitalism. (It may be that many women are into ‘gay marriage’ and other radical causes because of pangs of guilt for having ‘sold out’ to the ‘male-dominated’ ‘patriarchal’ capitalist-corporate order. The most successful people tend to be ones who are most educated, and the most educated also happen to be the most indoctrinated by the Left. So, this creates a contradiction in the hearts and minds of the most successful. They’ve been intellectually molded to be left-wing, much more so than your average American, YET, as the best educated people, they climb to the top in the capitalist-corporate order. This can only lead to a sense of guilt, self-loathing, or obligation. Since they betrayed leftist ideals by succeeding in the capitalist order, they must make amends by supporting leftist agendas like ‘gay marriage’ and multi-culturalism.)

So, the tactics of feminism changed. It went from hag-witch-Stalinism to big-hen-Oprahism. The iron-clawed Big Sisterhood had sought militancy and demanded women to join the war, get in line, ‘man’ the trenches, and be very angry and nasty(and hysterical 24/7). Though women have a groupthink mentality, this form of feminism was too unappetizing, off-putting, and crazy. It ended up alienating a lot of women. This is the danger of any ideology or organization. Members who happen to be most ruthless, strong-willed, committed, and bullying–fanatics and the radicals–take over the movement and turn it into an asylum. What happened to feminism is similar to what had happened to the SDS in the 1960s. For various reasons, this kind of radicalized feminism became less and less relevant.
Yet, the need for groupthink and shared-emotions remained among women as it was hardwired into their DNA.
This aspect of womanhood is inborn but also socially cultivated. Boys are more likely to play at games where they clash with one another; boys play together by playing against one another, with each boy trying to be king-of-the-hill. (Even male bonding arises from male butting.) Though girls also play sports, girls prefer to do girly things and these activities bond the girls together emotionally and socially. Consider playing with dolls or comparing clothes. There is a spirit of competitiveness among girls and women, but it’s not so brutal and blatant as among boys and men. There is more camaraderie than competition among girls and women whereas there’s more competition than camaraderie among boys and men. Girls like to have slumber parties. Girls often hug one another and speak in cutesy tones. They love to giggle together. Most women are huggy-tuggy and higgly-giggly. Even many feminists are like this. In highschool, you often see girls greeting one another by hugging and goo-goo chit-chatting. All that ‘oh, that’s sooooo cute’ crap and etc.
Boys don’t act this way. Boys and men are always measuring each other up. No matter how civilized and peaceful the human race may have become, boys and men are always thinking, "I wonder if I can kick that guy’s as". This goes back to evolution. In most species, females don’t fight one another for the right to mate with the males. No, males fight one another to for the right to mate with the females. So, males go head to head against one another while the females all huddle together and wait to see who is the winner.
The fact that sports are dominated by blacks, that white boys are afraid of black boys in the schools and streets, and that Obama won the majority of white female vote all show that black males are winning the war-among-men-for-the-right-to-mate-with-the-top-female. Since white females are the most prized in our society, their sexual tastes and behavior are the best barometers of which males are winning the war-for-sex. Black males are whupping the white males. What’s truly pathetic is that even white males are increasingly becoming pussified and welcoming the victory of the black males. More and more white males are becoming metro-sexualized and ‘faggot-ized’, and these males are willingly accepting their pussyboy status in the new order.
So, Ken Burns, a dorky and ‘faggoty-ass’ white liberal boy made the documentary on "Jack Johnson" which celebrates the big strong negro who beat up white men, destroyed white male pride, and took white women. Ken Burns wasn’t in any way offended or threatened by Johnson and other such black males because he has no white male pride to defend. He is a white liberal pussyboy, and it’s as though his testicles have been cut off from birth. Of course, Ken Burns and other such white boy liberals convince themselves that their respect for guys like Jack Johnson is all about sympathizing with a people who’d been mistreated, exploited, and oppressed in the past. There is an element of truth in this because black people were discriminated and humiliated in demeaning ways in the past. But, this white liberal male rationale misses the larger picture because blacks are not just another race. They are the stronger, more aggressive, and more dangerous race. Though whites used their technological and organizational superiority in the past to keep down the black man, the black man is now using his fist and penis to beat down and humiliate the ‘white boy’ in a world where whites are not allowed to use their racial advantages for their own racial interests and survival. Whites on the Right have pride and are willing to fight for the most fundamental things for men of any race–their land and women. But, white males on the Left have been pussified and think it’s noble to kiss the negro’s ass and work against their own racial interest. (Generally, white liberals can play this self-loathing game because they happen to be wealthy and live in safe neighborhoods, which means they never really suffer the consequences of their stupid ideas. In other words, Ken Burns isn’t living in some Negro area in Philadelphia or Atlanta but in a mostly white, safe, and wealthy college town or fancy part of the city.)

Anyway, the female mindset is what it is because evolution made it that way. Women are more likely to be group-oriented, more likely to be conformist, more likely to follow, more likely to submit, more likely to be huggy-tuggy and higgly-giggly. So, women are more likely to bend with whatever wind that happens to be prevalent. So, my argument is that women have turned more liberal not out of their own rebellious volition but because the elite cultures of this nation have been taken over by liberals and leftists. Since those with the POWER have spread liberal ideas and values, women were likely to fall for liberalism more than men were likely to. Women are more liberal because they are more conformist, not because they are more rebellious. People may not notice this because liberalism, leftism, feminism, and other such -isms are supposed to be anti-normative, counter-cultural or counter-mainstream, and so on. So, there is the AURA of rebelliousness, individualism, and independence attached to the Left. But, look carefully, and these ideas didn’t arise from womankind by independent thought, rational inquiry, or maverick attitude.
No, leftists took over the TOP ECHELONS of power and then used their great power in media, academia, and culture to IMPOSE their agenda of correctness on people through schooling, pop culture, serious culture, news and information, etc. The Left often gave up on making rational arguments but used moral bullying, witch hunts, political correctness, ostracism, and threats of various kinds. The Left cooked up an entire vocabulary where people could be denounced for their ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘anti-semitism’, ‘Islamophobia’, ‘Tacophobia’, etc. Of course, there have always been crazy and extreme bigots and lunatics on the Right(and the Left). But, the Left tried to snuff ALL debate. So, even if a good, decent, and serious person like James Watson said he wasn’t optimistic about Africa because blacks are less intelligent, the Liberal Media denounced and destroyed him as a so-called ‘racist’. Watson didn’t call a black person a ‘nigger’. He didn’t say blacks are apes. No, he said what he believed as a scientist based on a lifetime of research and study. And, he would have rationally and seriously explained his statement IF the so-called rational liberals and leftists were willing to sit down and let him explain. But, no, the liberals just labeled him a ‘racist’ and said he must not say such things, and he must be fired and locked up in a funny farm. End of Debate.

So, even though the Left still maintains the AURA of being contrarian, rebellious, skeptical, and challenging of orthodoxy–and it’s true enough that historically, the Left stood for new ideas and freedoms–, the Left today has the most power in the institutions that matter the most; the Left controls the mainstream. The Left deems some ideas too dangerous even to discuss or debate–even if or especially if the Right can rationally and scientifically demonstrate that the Leftist assumptions are false–, and prefers to clamp down research and discussion altogether.
The Left is now in the position to defend the Holy Lie against the ‘ugly truth’. There was a time when the Right was the defender of the Holy Lie whereas the Left stood for the ‘the truth, however ugly and distressing it might be’. When Darwin arrived on the scene, the religious right defended the idea of God and his creations. Some people on the Right actually thought Darwin had a good theory and good argument, but even such people wanted to snuff our Darwinism because the ‘ugly truth’–that noble man descended from hairy apes–was deemed too dangerous to the moral and social order; so, these men did their best to maintain the Holy Lie of God’s existence and His Creation of the world and especially of Man. (Given the rise of Darwinist Nazism, perhaps the religious right did have a point, at least in the sense that even true ideas can be distorted and misused by extremists.)

Nowadays, the Left is in the position of defending the Holy Lie. They are totally invested in the idea that races don’t exist, that all races–if indeed such did exist–are equal(in intelligence, temperance, physical strength, etc), and that most differences between men and women are social than biological; as such, the Left cannot accept new data that seems to indicate otherwise.
The Left, like the religious right in the 19th century, may have a point in embracing the Holy Lie. We live in a diverse society, and we would like to believe that ‘we are all created equal’. We have enough social and cultural problems as it is, so why exacerbate the problem by revealing the uncomfortable truths about racial and sexual differences? But, truth is truth, and all people committed to the truth must accept it. Also, avoiding this truth can be even worse and lead to even direr results. For example, we know that blacks are the most dangerous and thuggish race. So, an immigration policy that brings in many blacks is not good for a nation. If a nation bases its immigration policy on equality of races, it might unwisely bring in a lot of black Africans, Carribean Negroes, and other problematic people. Just look at the problems that black African and Carribean Negroes are causing all over Europe. Having a few Negroes who may be absorbed in due time is no problem. But, large numbers of Negroes is bound to cause social chaos. Just look at American cities or suburbs where there are too many Negroes. Same thing happens over and over. So, if speaking truthfully about race can lead to ‘racist attitudes’, ignoring racial truths altogether can lead to racial suicide. I would rather be racist and survive as a people in a stable, healthy, and functional civilization than be racially suicidal by pretending that blacks are just like whites, letting them grow in numbers and bring down civilization itself as they’ve done all over Africa, the Carribean, US cities, and in South Africa. By the way, if white and Jewish liberals are so concerned about Negroes, why they all be living in affluent mostly white neighborhoods? This is true especially of the rich liberal Jews. They talk the talk but never walk the walk.

My guess is the Left clings to the issue of evolution not mainly because of the fear of the Christian Right but because of the desperate need to remind itself that it is still on the side of science. We know that the Left’s rejection of human races is unscientific. (Indeed, evolution is not possible without the creation of races. Development of new species can only follow the preliminary development of new races.) Because of the Holy Lie that pervades much of human sciences, the Left has been losing ground in the scientific debate. Even liberal and left-leaning scientists increasingly stress the importance of genetics in the talents and behavior of individuals and racial groups. So, whenever a liberal rationalist says stuff like, ‘race is a myth constructed by society’, he is either lying through this teeth or he is desperately trying to fool himself with a politically correct lie. Though liberals and leftists take pride in their anti- or non-religious outlooks, they too grew up surrounded by quasi-religious iconography and a spiritualist reading of history with their own secular versions of demons, angels, gardens of Eden, Noah’s ark stories, prophets, saviors, messiahs, sins, redemptions, etc. In the liberal secular-spiritual telling of history, the Americas and black Africa were Edenic gardens where men lived in harmony with nature. These people were not spoiled by the evil hierarchies that arose mainly in Western societies. The great Fall took place when devilish whites invaded and brought with them the evils of slavery, disease, exploitation, feudalism, colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, sexism, ‘homophobia’, coca-cola, and worst of all, ‘racism’. The story of the slave trade is like several Biblical stories bundled together–Noah’s Ark, slavery under the Egyptians, Babylonian captivity, etc. Then, you have the prophets and saints in Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, Dubois, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X. And you finally have the Messiah in Obama, the half-white, half-black dude who’s supposed to be 1/4 King, 1/4 Kennedy, 1/4 Malcolm X, and 1/4 Oprah.
And what about the whites? Since white folks are stained with the Original Sin of slavery, imperialism, colonialism, spreading-disease-ism, sexism, feudalism, capitalism, ‘racism’, coca-cola, and whatever else that the stupid academia dreams up next, the ONLY way they can be saved is by (1) relinquishing their white identity, pride, and power (2) begging forgiveness from ‘people of color’ (3) going for ‘jungle fever’ among white girls and acting pussyboy-ish among white males (4) and doing everything to perceive‘people of color’ as moral superiors. So, we have many stupid white women with shrugged shoulders worshiping someone as ridiculous as Oprah, the billionaire mammy. Or, we have all those wimpy white boys peeing in their pants and weeping with joy over the ascendancy of Obama. It’s as though white folks have no moral worth unless they look up to and gain approval from ‘people of color’, especially from blacks.
Problem for many liberals–and even increasingly dorky conservatives–has been that there aren’t many decent blacks they can look up to though they’ve been waiting for such a creature for a long time. People like Oprah and Obama understand and know how to exploit this ‘spiritualist’ need of white liberalism. Man is by nature religious. Those who reject religion seek spiritual sustenance from something else, and liberalism, we must admit, is really just another religion with its icons, holy texts, sacred narratives, and prophecies.
There is no other way one can understand a phenomenon as phony and stupid as Obama-ism. It’s been possible because white liberals fooled themselves that Obama is The One, just like stupid Christian Right folks have fooled themselves that most televangelists are good decent Christians.

Anyway, the point is that white liberals are only selectively rationalistic. They are FOR SCIENCE only on topics and matters that serve their ‘spiritualist’ world view. When a reality like human races stand in their way, they go into witch hunting mode. They carry out their own version of the Spanish Inquisition and don’t care how many careers and lives they ruin or destroy. Of course, they wrap their views in the language of science, but it’s always very selective.
To be sure, the far right has given them good ammo because the race science of Nazism was so miserable, false, and idiotic. Of course, the notion that races don’t exist or that races are all equal is just as baloney, but in our society of egalitarian-Christian-democratic-Marxist ethos the idea of racial equality is an easier sell than even the valid theories on the existence of races and racial differences. In a nation like Brazil or the US, people simply don’t want to discuss racial differences because we put such a premium on everyone getting together. Of course, blacks haven’t gotten along well with non-blacks, but we don’t want to discuss why this is so: (1) Blacks are physically stronger and more aggressive, therefore a threat to other races and (2) blacks are less intelligent, and so tend to achieve less.

Anyway, let us return to female psychology of conformism, and why that’s been crucial as to why women tend to be more liberal. If indeed most women have a group-centered or conformist psychology, the majority of them will go along with whatever the Big Sister(Left) or Big Mother(Right) says. So, the real question is who has control of the schools and media: Big Sister or Big Mother? Friedan, Steinem, Ireland, and others have been Big Sisters. Phyllis Schlafly has been a Big Mother(or Big Wife).
Why have Big Sisters gained greater influence than the Big Mothers?
They had an initial advantage in the 1960s because a new era was dawning, and women were demanding that more doors be open to them. But, it’s also true that most women found the radical feminists crazy and extreme. So, why did liberalism and even leftism gain the upper-hand among women in the long run? We have to look at culture and ideas, both high and low. We know that women entered the academia in ever greater numbers in the post-war era. Today, women outnumber men on campuses. In other words, increasing numbers of women came under the influence of professors, 90% of whom are liberal to leftist(and often radical and Jewish). Since girls are more likely to conform to figures of Authority, young women were more likely to be influenced by academic and intellectual theories in higher education pushed by the Professoriate. There was, of course, another element that ensured that more white women than white men would fall under the influence of leftism. A white woman has a place of ‘victimhood’ within the leftist spectrum. Though white, she can claim nobility as victim of the evil white males. There is no such place for white men–unless one happens to be gay–in the leftist spectrum. The ONLY option for a white guy within leftism is to loathe oneself, hate one’s own people, despise one’s own ‘privilege’, and actively work against one’s own interest. A white male can succeed in leftism only by seeking to fail. To be sure, white liberal males argue that they are only trying to make things equally fair for ALL people; but, look all around and who can deny that liberalism and leftism are destroying the white race altogether, and stuff like affirmative discrimination targets white males for their race.

Anyway, white women, because of their naturally conformist personality and a morally advantageous place for them at the table of leftism, were likely to come under the influence of liberals. (Some people will argue that women are more liberal because they are naturally more compassionate and caring, but a woman’s sympathy can be familial or tribal as opposed to being universal. A woman’s capacity for compassion may be stronger than that of a man, but it may also be more emotional and less idealistic or abstract. She may have great love for her family and children but almost no feeling for strangers. So, woman’s compassion isn’t necessarily more liberal; it can be the basis for even greater conservatism. After all, a mother bear or lion cares for HER young, not those of others.)

But, it wasn’t just the influence of higher education and intellectual culture. There was also pop culture. Though serious culture and pop culture are miles apart, there is a very complex inter-relationship between the two especially since the demise of the high-brow vs low-brow dichotomy in the 60s. Many ‘serious’ artists and thinkers have taken their cues form pop culture; think of people like Susan Sontag and Zizek. Also, pop culture is largely controlled by corporations, and corporations hire people who graduated from top colleges to manage and run the industry. So, the producers, designers, writers, and directors of TV shows are actually the products of the elite university system. These talented people work in pop culture because they want to make lots of money and ‘succeed in life’, but they are also products of leftist higher education. As such, they’ve been influenced by the leftist culture and ideals so pervasive in the academia. Though they work in the arena of capitalism, they are ‘spiritual Marxists’–just as past generations of capitalists were spiritually Christian. Andrew Carnegie loved making money, but his actions and deeds were also shaped by Christian ethos. In the realm of higher education Marx is the new Jesus, even if or especially because of the fall of communism. With the Fall of Communism, Marxism has been freed from the murderous regimes it helped create. It is now a form of spirituality. Suppose an iron-fisted Christian theocracy collapsed. Would that be the end of Christianity? No, Christianity might even become stronger as a free flowing spiritual force. The fall of Christian Rome only made Christianity stronger in the long run, and Islam will be as powerful as ever if the theocracy in Iran crumbles. It’s like in "Star Wars" when Darth Vader kills Ben Kenobi. Turned into pure spirit, Kenobi becomes even more powerful against the Empire.

So, even though pop culture is seemingly stupid and apolitical, it is not created by dumb people but by smart people with certain ideological convictions. These smart and well-educated people know they are creating, marketing, and selling crass mass culture. They feel somewhat guilty for working in such a greedy business. Some people in the industry make the money but set aside time and profit for worthier artistic projects. Orson Welles worked this way. He would do a lot of stupid films, make money, and then work on his personal projects. John Cassavettes worked this way too. Some people make money in pop industry but make huge donations to leftist causes to redeem their greedy souls.
Others seek to redeem the crass material itself as an instrument for gaining ‘cultural hegemony’. The trick here is to give the masses the crap they want but infuse it with politically correct and/or ‘progressive’ messages. So, ‘Shawshank Redemption’ teaches people to Love-the-Noble-Negro. Or, many stupid sitcoms teach kids to Respect-the-Gay-Boy. (These pro-gay agenda sitcoms ought to be called shit-cums.) And, this has had a huge impact on how people, especially the young, see and regard society. Gradually, new ‘norms’ arise based on what people see on TV. TV has long been the Mind Control Machine, all the more dangerous because it’s largely been monopolized by the left-liberal cabal, mostly Jewish. A term like ‘homophobia’ gained currency only because TV repeated it over and over. So, many young people have come to think that opposing the Gay Agenda is ‘homophobic’. They use such terms without thought, just as people use ‘racism’ without thought. Women are more likely to be influenced by such things because women tend to be more conformist. This is all the more complicated because leftism and liberalism promotes itself as non-conformist and pro-diversity. There was indeed a time when liberalism championed the freedom of individuals to be different and think his/her own thoughts. But, today’s non-conformism is just another form of conformism. It’s not a skeptical person or a maverick’s ideal or concept of eccentricity but an all-pervasive dogma of ‘diversity’ where people are not even allowed to question the dark sides and disadvantages of The Agenda. The Gay Agenda says you must approve of and accept ALL ASPECTS of homosexuality. It’s not just about need for tolerance but about compelling people to accept a monstrosity like ‘gay marriage’. It’s not just about making things fair for people of all races in the US but about using discrimination against whites to promote the interests of non-whites and Jews; it’s about opening up our borders to millions of illegal migrants every year. Though the stated goals are said to be liberal, the methods and results are actually radical, repressive, and destructive. It’s not about making an argument for organic diversity but forcing radical diversity down all of our throats.
And, there’s a fundamental contradiction within liberalism and leftism. On the one hand, they say we need diversity because different races, cultures, sexes and sexual orientations, and ethnic groups have something unique and distinct to bring to the table. In other words, whites cannot do what blacks can, blacks can’t offer what the Chinese can, Chinese are not good at what Jews are good at, and so on. BUT, if you try to discuss the differences among races and cultures, leftists and liberals tell you to shut up because to dwell on such differences is ‘racist’. And, in order to win hearts and minds, they hide their repressive tyranny behind gooey rhetoric that gushes about ‘how we are becoming more intelligent, more beautiful, more moral, more spiritual, more everything through greater diversity and race-mixing’. If so, why do so many liberal Jews support the Jewish state of Israel? (Why not allow more Arabs into Israel so Jews and Arabs can all mix and create a better race?) If so, why do so many affluent Jewish liberals segregate themselves from Hispanic, working class white, and black communities? And, is Peru or Brazil really more intelligent and beautiful than Sweden or Norway because of greater racial diversity? Is your average Mexican–a mix of white and Indian blood–more intelligent than a pure-blooded Chinese or Irishman? But, all this gushy liberal goo goo talk goes a long way with children and with women who tend to be more gullible and conformist. Though feminists bitch about how women are associated with children–as mother/child or in mental/emotional capacity–, it is a sad fact that women and children are the easiest to fool with gushy wushy talk.

Due to the nature of women, it’s not difficult to understand the great power that Oprah has over them. Oprah is both her own person and a tool of the liberal Jews. She is also the object of worship of white women who espouse the secular spiritualism of liberalism. They feel that they can be redeemed and saved through Faith in Oprah. She is their Marian Luther Queen. But, Oprah is bigger than Martin Luther King in some ways. MLK’s personae was rather one-note–noble saint Negro leader. Oprah offers a much wider variety of goodies to satisfy the spiritual appetites of white liberal women.
Yes, she plays the soulful my-ancestors-were-slaves-but-I-am-so-noble-that-I-forgive-you-white-folks(that is if you kiss my fat black booty and make me a billionaire!) card. But, that alone would have gone only so far. So, she also invites movie stars, stand up comics, rock stars, etc on he show. And, to be ‘intellectual’ once in awhile she has her Book-of-the-Month thing where she invites authors and discusses Art and ‘serious’ matters. What is the impact of all this on womenkind? Huge!!! In 2000, Bush and Gore’s poll numbers went up and down depending on who was on the Oprah show last. And, if Oprah had not called Obama ‘The One’ and had invited Sarah Palin on her show and treated her with much affection, the majority of women might well have voted for McCain/Palin. Women across America didn’t reject Palin mainly because of a few bad interviews or her policy positions. It’s because the Big Sister network in the media–dominated by liberal Jews and fronted by the likes of Oprah, Barbara Walters and The View gang among others–spread the message far and wide that Sarah Palin is ‘creepy’, ‘strange’, ‘not one of us’, ‘crazy’, etc. The message was sent out to women across America that ‘you are strange, stupid, ignorant, and not-one-of-us-cool-liberated-women IF you like or support Sarah Palin.’ Also, many white women had been raised with the notion that blacks are moral superiors to whites, so given the choice between a ‘liberal’ black guy and a conservative white women, many women went with the former. Also, the dominant feminist ideology in the media insinuated over the years that a conservative woman is an Auntie Tom. Since women have been told by the liberal feminist media/academia that they are ‘victims’ of Evil White Male Patriarchy, the notion developed that women can ONLY find freedom and self-worth as liberals. A conservative woman came to be regarded as comparable to Uncle Tom Negro who shuffles before his massuh.
Sarah Palin obviously blew away all those stereotypes. She was a proud, strong-willed, and accomplished woman. She also came from a working-class background. She was proof that conservative women are the best women in America. So, the feminist and liberal media decided to attack her as ‘crazy’ and ‘creepy’. Liberal women, sheepish and conformist despite their conceit of individualism and freedom, bought this Grand Narrative. They flattered themselves that they were so hip, sophisticated, intelligent, intellectual, and so on... unlike that stupid, dumb, crazy, and creepy hick Sarah from Alaska. Especially the powerful liberal Jewish bitches pushed this line; it became SO powerful that even conservative women like Kathleen Parker–dirty fuc*ing stupid bitch–went with Obama. And, Anne Applebaum the Neocon Jewess also went with Obama because, as an ‘intelligent’ and ‘sophisticated’ woman, she didn’t want to be associated with Sarah Palin.

This is all very funny since who can be more All-American and decent than Sarah Palin? Instead, the truly creepy, ugly, trashy, and disgusting hags and bitches like Whoopie Goldberg, Barbra Streisand, Madonna, Barbara Walters, Rosie O Donnell, Roseanne Barr, and Margaret Cho have been promoted as wonderful and decent by the Big Sister media. As a result, females all across America came to believe it must be so.
And, what about Michelle Obama? She’s been an anti-American, anti-white, privileged, entitled, stupid, and shitty bitch all her life. Yet, the Big Sisterhood media whitewashed and promoted her as proud, decent, intelligent, all-American, and accomplished. Here was a woman who got into Princeton through Affirmative Discrimination. She did nothing but bitch and whine about, well, how nicely white liberals treated her!!! Her dissertation was a long whine about ‘I feel like a lonely black turd floating in a sea of whiteness’. That got her into Harvard!!!! Later, she ended up in a job where she raked in $300,000 by promoting Affirmative Discrimination against white people(yes, all in the name of ‘diversity’). Yet, this low-down scum bitch was promoted by the liberal media as America’s New Shining Heroine. And, so many stupid women fell for it. This is so pathetic that I can understand the arguments made by men in the past as to why women’s suffrage is a bad idea.

Anyway, the point is we can understand why women are largely liberal by studying TV, the content of which is indirectly influenced by the academia since the writers, actors, directors, and producers tend to be products of the academia–often Ivy League schools. (Prior to the 60s, many people in movies and pop culture weren’t products of universities but had worked themselves up through an apprentice or on-the-job system. As such, they were less likely to be influenced by ideological correctness taught in elite institutions. Almost all of today’s Hollywood writers, directors, and producers are recruited from top universities.) What kind of shows for women have aired on TV since the late 60s and early 70s? We had stuff like the Phil Donahue show. Donahue was a liberal schmuck, and his show was the template for stuff like Oprah later. Millions of women were glued to this stuff. Donahue was the mainstream pop cultural conduit of intellectual ideas of the Left. Sure, he invited some conservatives on his show too, but his show was tipped 70/30 in favor of liberals and radical leftists. Over time, shows like these were bound to have more impact on women than on men. Paradoxically, stay-at-home wives/mothers might have been more affected because they were home watching TV. Women were made to feel ‘oppressed’, ‘repressed’, ‘aggrieved’, ‘misunderstood’, and so on. Donahue was like a pop cultural version of Ibsen. Instead of Doll’s House, it was Doll’s TV. And, there were a whole bunch of TV docu-dramas about evil men beating up women and about how women can find justice only through Big Government and Sisterhood.
Though women felt ‘liberated’ watching this stuff, they were actually conforming to the New Orthodoxy of Big Sister feminism. These talk shows were more appealing to women than to men because women are naturally more group-oriented(as in the primitive tribal past). I’m not suggesting a strict dichotomy of man-as-individual vs women-as-member-of-group. Surely, men like do stuff together too, and there is much conformism among men too. But, men have a clearer grasp of the distinction between what has individual worth and what has group worth. Because of the softer and gentler ways of women, individuality and group-ness tend not to stand apart from one another in clear outline. The distinction between individualism and group-orientation is solid among men but liquid-like among women. (Though most men are not tough, the toughest individuals are male; as a result, there is the male ideal of the maverick individual. In contrast, women could never be the toughest individuals in society. They always relied on cooperation and the system for their security and power. Indeed, this may explain why Asian-Americans tend to be the most ‘feminine’ of all groups. Asian men, unlike white or black men, cannot hope to the toughest or ‘baddest’ individuals in society. Asian power and pride, even among males, is always dependent on unity and cooperation. In some ways, this may work as an advantage to Asians. Since they know they cannot be #1 as individual toughs, Asians are less likely to waste their energy on trying to be the ‘toughest baddest dude’ in town. So, they hit the books instead and seek success through the System. Asian success in education is akin to rising female success in education. Both Asians and females know they cannot be the toughest/roughest as individuals. They can only make it or advance by working diligently within the system.) As such, they–individuality and group-orientation– morph into one another among womenfolk. Female individuality, for what it’s worth, is greatly shaped by group-think.
This is why the female-ish kind of tyranny can be far more dangerous in some ways. Because of its soft, maternal, and matriarchal nature, the tyrannical elements become wrapped and hidden in warmth and softness. Male-ish tyranny lunges at you and wrestles you to the ground; the brutality of such tyranny is easy to identify. The female-ish tyranny acts as if to embrace and hug you. But, once you’ve fallen into the grip, you’re as helpless as a deer in the winding clasp of a python. (In some ways, this was why communism was more dangerous than Nazism in some ways. The brutal nature of Nazism was plain to see, but the inhuman nature of communism was shrouded in all the talk of ‘universal justice’. Communism was more feminine than Nazism.)
There are two ways women can gain control over men. Gorgeous and sexy women can do as the Sirens did in Greek mythology. Seduce men to their destruction. But, hags have another way of gaining control over men. They act like they want to hug the entire world with love, affection, compassion, and fairness. But in fact, ugly feminists are trying to blanket the whole world under political correctness. This kind of tyranny is represented by the Anna Quindlan the ugly hag and her Big Sister ilk. It’s a soft tyranny which takes away our freedom in the name of ‘compassion’, ‘understanding’, ‘inclusiveness’, and caring for the ‘the children.’ . There was this aspect in Christianity itself, especially with Jesus being somewhat androgynous and there being something funny about the Virgin Mary myth.

Who controls TV and Pop Culture determines what most people think and especially what women think since women tend to be more conformist to the mainstream norm. The mainstream of pop culture has long been dominated by liberals and the left, and as such, women have come to conform more to liberalism.
Of course, pop culture can also go against the interests of the Left since pop culture thrives on giving people what they want, which often goes against what leftists espouse. Pop culture is essentially consumerist, and consumerism is a part of capitalism. Consumerism is also ‘materialistic’, crass, and hedonistic. It can also be nihilistic. Though we think of 60s pop culture as having undermined and destroyed the good solid conservative culture, it also wreaked havoc on the radicals themselves.
Many radicals got too involved in drugs, rock music, movies, and other distractions and lost sight of the revolution itself. Revolutionaries of previous generations didn’t have this problem; they tended to be intellectually more serious and more determined/focused in their objectives. In the 60s, especially with the rise of a separate youth culture, many radicals in the West simply wanted to ‘party to the revolution’ instead of respecting their radical elders who’d paid their dues. It was loud, brash, and fun, but it really went nowhere because they lacked focus and discipline. They were affected by the hedonism and nihilism at the core of pop culture.
Another way consumerist pop culture undermined 60s radicalism is that the great majority of young people preferred the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Hollywood movies, and TV over militant revolution and radicalism. Even radical college students wanted to be movie makers or singer-songwriters than soldiers in the revolution. The Black Panthers were more into posing for photographs, making empty noise, using drugs, and dancing than making revolution.
Feminists were angry at the rise of pornography, the use of women as sex symbols on TV, the popularity of beauty pageants, rock music scene with its studs and groupies, and etc. But, most girls preferred Charlie’s Angels and Wonder Woman–which marketed women(even a powerful women) as sexy and gorgeous creatures.
In the 80s, Madonna arrived on the scene, and the feminists initially had a heart attack. It was only as the 90s came along that feminists decided to make peace with pop culture and try to use it than go against it. So, "Thelma and Louise" embraced the women-as-sex-symbol and guns-are-cool tropes BUT in the name of anti-white-male feminism.
This is how the Left truly became resurgent in the late 80s and 90s. In the 60s and 70s, many leftists had tried to create a new art, personal or popular, that was truer to the spirit of liberation and revolution. But, when most of these experiments were rejected by the masses who preferred Jaws and Star Wars, leftists eventually decided to go for the mass-appeal formulas too, all the while infusing them with ideological content.
Leftist artists all have different origins. Some were ideologues who came around to pop culture while others were pop culturalists who came around to ideology. Since the academia–meeting place of intellectualism and creativity–are liberal or leftist, even non-ideological creative people eventually came around to leftism. My guess is that the Wachowski brothers(of Matrix fame) grew up with stuff like Jaws, Star Wars, and the like. They grew up loving mindless Hollywood junk. But, as they grew up reading film magazines and attended universities, they probably picked up all the leftist and radical notions, poses, and conceits from professors, writers, and artists.
So, there are leftists who really feel disdain for pop culture but see it as a useful tool for shaping popular opinion, and there are pop culture fanatics who later discovered the religion of radical ideology.
In either case, there’s something perverse afoot because it’s a case of anti-capitalist leftists mastering and using the tools of capitalism. The overall effect is conflicted and contradictory. On the one hand, the audience are told that the West and capitalism are bad(at least if controlled by white males), but on the other hand, the audience gets the impression that crass, consumerist, materialist popular culture is the greatest thing since it’s so fun and entertaining. For all their anti-capitalist and anti-corporate message, Matrix movies are great advertisement for capitalist materialism. It offers a narcissistic, vain, rave party revolution. Matrix movies are also a great advertisement for fascist aesthetics since they’ve been greatly influenced by anime and Star War films which were great influenced by the fascist and militarist aesthetics of Leni Riefenstahl and other monumentalist directors.

If you want to control the minds of women, you have to first understand the nature of the female mind. Though women come in all shapes and sizes and in all temperaments and inclinations, certain traits are more common than others. In other words, though there are women boxers, most women don’t go into that sort of thing. And, though there are women fans of Rush Limbaugh, most women don’t like him much, not least because he’s boorish, pushy, aggressive, and fat & ugly.
To understand what most women are like and what they like most, we need think of how they interacted and found happiness in primitive tribal societies long ago. When men went out to hunt, women gathered to work together weaving, collecting food, taking care of each other’s children, chit chatting, gossiping, huddling close together, and all that stuff. Sure, there were bitches, bad girls, and oddballs, but most women were plain-faced go-along types who wanted to be liked, wanted to belong, and wanted to be approved of. This is something that Oprah understands so well, and she cashed in on it big time. And, this is something The View understands as well, though it made the mistake of including crazy bitches on the show. Indeed, notice what happened to the crazy bitches like the fat black whore who turned skinny overnight or Rosie O’Donnell. They got canned by Big Sister Hen Barbara Walters. Though I think Rosie is gross, ugly, and offensive, she was kicked out because she made trouble for The Group. Women don’t like other women making too much trouble, at least within their own roost. So, you never ever see a woman on Oprah show challenging the wisdom of Oprah. And, it’s obvious that Barbara Walters will not tolerate anyone who challenges her authority. And, most women seem to accept the fact that there must be a Big Sister to set the agenda for all the little sisters.
In a primitive tribe, the Big Man was determined by his physical strength; as such, man has a clear-cut understanding of where things stood in terms of hierarchy and what the nature of power was. But, the top matriarch in a primitive tribe wasn’t determined by which woman was the biggest or strongest. Instead, her status was determined by other factors, like age, connection, or some subtle factor. Of course, age mattered a lot for men as well and increasingly became more important as civilizations developed more complex.
But, the point is that the power structure among women tended to be more tyrannical even if less brutal or precisely because it was less brutal than among men. Among men, who-is-on-top was determined by who is toughest. So, the male-dominated order, though brutal, is unstable in the sense that the new kid on the block can become the new king of the hill by pushing off the old one.
In the female order, because power is determined less by such brute strength, it’s harder to challenge and topple the existing authority; power is understood and revered than feared and challenged. Compare Morton Downey Jr. Show with the Oprah Show. On the Morton Downey Show, it was a matter of who could scream or push the loudest. When Downey lost his strength and stamina, his show was toast. Oprah’s power, on the other hand, tends to be more ‘spiritual’ and ‘magical’. She is the Big Hen, the Big Sister. Her authority simply IS; it cannot be challenged.
Ever so clever, Oprah blended the role of the conservative Big Mother with the role of the liberal Big Sister. As such, she became both Big Mother and Big Sister. In time, even conservative women were afraid to challenge her authority since she became Maternal Goddess as well as Powerful Feminist.
If Oprah or her handlers learned one thing from the demise of radical feminism, it’s that most women don’t like being crazy bitches screaming and throwing fits all the time. So, Oprah blended the concept of Big Sister feminist power with Big Mother maternal authority. She became appealing to all women, to liberals but also to many conservatives–even to the dorky boys who are now prevalent at the National Review.

Given this fact, conservatives won’t have much luck with women voters as long as TV is controlled by the left and liberals. Conservative style is to point the finger at you and tell you what to think. Oprah’s style is to suggest that she wants to extend her arms and embrace you and hold your face closer to her massive mammaries. The end result is that you end up sucking on her chocolate teats and being ‘nourished’ with her feelings and ideas.
Conservatives come at you with issues, ideas, and etc. Oprah comes at you with her feelings, bodily warmth, and soulful gaze. Most women go for this kind of crap. This is why Dr. Laura never had much of a chance. Neither does Ann Coulter with most women. Your typical girl sees them as bitches or bad girls. They remember those ‘nasty bitches’ in high school. Dr. Laura reminds them of those mean teachers who assigned too much homework, never graded on a curve, and were always critical and demanding. Such women may have been good teachers but they were never likable teachers. As for Ann Coulter, she reminds most women–who were neither pretty nor ‘popular’–of the crazy bitch who wanted all the attention, wanted to be prom queen, and treated ugly and homely girls with sneer and contempt.
Oprah, in contrast, reminds most women of the kind of teacher they had who was always understanding, kind, gentle, and handing out A’s even to C students. And, Oprah-as-successful-woman makes all those loser women(and most women are loser women) feel like the fat-and-uglies-shall-inherit-the-earth. Even pretty, popular, and successful women like Oprah because the egalitarian ethos of our society remind us that we must be ‘fair and nice’ to all. Pretty women want to prove to others and to themselves that they are not ‘mean bitches’ but nice people. Looking up to Oprah supposedly absolves them of their guilt since Oprah is fat and ugly yet rich and famous–as if to suggest that our society is so wonderful and ‘inclusive’ that even a fat, stupid, ugly black woman can succeed. Oprah is the ultimate Ugly Duckling. So, if rich, pretty, or smart women watch or support Oprah, it means they are good at heart instead of being nasty bitches like Ann Coulter.
On the one hand, our society is very narcissistic and look-oriented. On the other hand, it’s puritanical and egalitarian, suspicious of the idea of superior beauty. This explains why Oprah and millions of women have tried to fool themselves that Oprah is actually a good looking woman. This way, Oprah can be both a member of the plain faced womankind AND a Cinderella story. We’ve also seen this with Sarah Jessica Parker, a truly gross looking Jewish broad. On the one hand, we’ve been told that the ‘beauty myth’ is evil and Nazi-esque. On the other hand, Sarah Jessica Parker has been hailed as a great beauty, a kind of blonde haired Aryan Jewess.

Anyway, if conservatives want more women on their side, they must understand the Big Hen Theory. Ultimately, it’s less a matter of ideology than psychology and personality. Understanding and gaining power over women is really a matter of coming to know what kind of personality/psychology most women have. Most women don’t feel comfortable with a ‘crazy bitch’ like Ann Coulter, ‘bitch bully’ like Dr. Laura, or ‘haughty bitch’ like Phyllis Schlafly. For all the feminist denunciation of motherhood, most women still long for the Big Mother figure, even if or especially if they’ve put off motherhood themselves. Many black women grew up under crazy bitch single mothers and look up to Oprah as the mother-they-wished-they-had. Many white girls grew up under cold, dry, overly intellectual, distant white mothers and look upon Oprah as the warm and kind mammy on whose shoulder they could cry on. Similarly, many liberal and leftist women are into ‘saving the kids around the world’ because they’ve put off motherhood and don’t have kids of their own; their repressed maternal instinct morphs into a social/international agenda of saving All The Children! Oprah touches on all these issues. She is really a big fat ugly charlatan, a disgusting pig, a selfish ruthless bitch, a snake-oil saleswoman, BUT can you blame her for taking advantage of all the stupid people in the world to make her billions? She’s guilty but no more than televangelists who sucker people with all the Jesus-loves-you talk. Oprah Show is televangelism for secular liberal women.

But, no matter how gross and disgusting Oprah is, the truth is people are dumb. Just as feminists eventually learned to accept reality and the game of ‘if you can’t beat em, join em’, isn’t it about time conservatives came up with the same kind of Oprah-esque schtick?