If Homos Can't Help Being Homos, Normos Can't Help Being Normos — Therefore, Just Like Homos Should Be Left Alone to be Homo, Normos Should Be Left Alone to be Normo

We've all heard a million times that homos(and even trannies) are born that way, and nothing can be done about it. Even if we compel homos to repress their own deviant form of sexuality, it still impacts the way they feel, think, and act, especially on 'sexual' matters but in other areas of life as well. There was a time when most people adhered to the reigning religious, medical, psychological, and/or ideological explanations of homosexuality. Religious authorities said it was sinful, very likely soul-corruption by the Devil. Medical community regarded it as some kind of disease of the mind and glands. Certain schools of psychology deemed homosexuality as the result of childhood trauma. Ideologies on the Right regarded homosexuality as a subversive attack on society, and ideologies on the Left regarded it as the product of decadence & degeneracy as part and parcel of late-stage capitalism. It wasn't all that long ago when virtually all sectors of society regarded homosexuality with negativity and hostility. Even up to the 80s, it wasn't unusual for Liberal Hollywood to associate homosexuality with psychopathy and villainy, as in the Kevin Costner action movie NO WAY OUT(1987). There were also movies like WINDOWS, DRESSED TO KILL, and CRUISING that featured the dark & obsessive side of homosexuality. WINDOWS(written by Barry Siegel and directed by Gordon Willis) starred Talia Shire playing opposite a mad lesbian who will go to any lengths to own and control her. (In the original story idea, the psycho was a tranny.) Brian De Palma's DRESSED TO KILL featured a tranny as a serial killer. In William Friedkin's CRUISING, the victims are homos but so is the killer(s). Even though none of these movies go out of their way to condemn homosexuality or transvestites per se, there's a sense that individuals thus afflicted tend to be possess strange hangups or excessive neurosis. And of course, one of the biggest movies of the 1990s, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, had a tranny as a psycho-killer.



Given that sexual complex has often been used as the underlying motive for crazy, dangerous, or malevolent behavior in fiction — the murder in Otto Preminger's LAURA, repressed sexual memory in Alfred Hitchcock's MARNIE, the mad quest in THE GRADUATE, the attack on the prostitute in THE UNFORGIVEN, the bitter jealousy in RUSHMORE, the ugly tall man in MANHUNTER, and etc. — , it only seemed natural that storytellers would feature homosexuality or tranny-stuff as catalyst for neurosis, frustration, or strangeness that might trigger a chain reaction of horrors. Or, if homosexuality itself wasn't to blame, the burden was placed on the repression of homosexuality, as in AMERICAN BEAUTY where the reason for the abusive husband/father's fury & hostility turns out that he's really a homo who wants to suck dick. So, if many storytellers in the past used homosexuality or tranny-ness as the hidden motive behind anti-social, subversive, and/or dangerous behavior, later storytellers said the REAL problem derived from compelling homos and trannies to repress their true abnormal natures or 'abnature'(as homosexuality is 'abnatural' as it is abnormal, i.e. it is a part of nature to the extent that most homos were born that way BUT it deviates from the normal natural processes that make survival of organisms possible). Movies like AMERICAN BEAUTY and BOYS DON'T CRY suggested that what homos need to do is come out of the closet and embrace their true nature or 'abnature'. Then, they will be free of neurosis and will be honest with themselves and those around them, and it will be better for society as a whole since people will accept the reality of homosexuality — that some people are indeed born that way — and stop pretending that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE must be normal.


Well, we've seen how that theory played out. It's hard to think of another as wrong, but then, those who knew of the true homo nature warned us time and time again. It should be obvious to all by now that homos(and trannies) are NOT satisfied with mere social tolerance, individual rights, and acceptance of their 'abnature', namely that most Americans came to realize that most homos were born that way and it'd be as difficult to turn a homo into a normo as it would be to turn a normo into a homo. I can't imagine a real-sexual normal guy being conditioned to prefer men over women — though it may work in a few cases — , and it seems homos with their 'abnatural' predilections can't help being 'gay' either.
Now, some still argue that homosexuality must be conditioned than inborn because so many homos claim to have been molested as children. But the notion that childhood trauma can alter one's entire sexual proclivity for the rest of one's life sounds too much like a crackpot variation of Freudianism. Also, one wonders whether homos in their youth were really molested or invited such attention from older homos. According to Milo, he initiated the flirtation with an older man(a priest it turns out). And according to George 'Too Gay' Takei, he really got a kick out of being fondled and who-knows-what-else by his older adviser in the Boy Scouts. So, it is likely that homo kids tend to be sexually more voracious/adventurous and invite, by means subtle and not-so-subtle, sexual advances from older people; but when they grow up, they act like they were pure-as-snow victims, as when Milo changed his story from one where he was the seducer-predator to one where he was the hapless victim. One thing for sure, even if there are a good many homos who claim to have been molested as children, there are many homos who were never molested but are nevertheless 'flaming' in every way. Also, science tells us that we can often spot a fruitkin by his facial features and manner of speech. Science has shown that homos, far more than normos, tend to speak with a lisp and have girly voices. And when we look at a lot of homos, they tend to have a froolaloopidoopiness about them.

Anyway, once science established that most homos are born that way, it became less tenable for society to persecute or condemn them for what they didn't choose to be. They were 'chosen' that way by biology. And yet, most of society still understood homosexuality to be strange, deviant, and even perverse, especially as it involves men who indulge in homo-fecal-penetration. Also, homosexuality is often associated with a host of behavioral patterns that tend toward the obsessive, neurotic, hedonistic, vain, and/or nihilistic. To be sure, homosexuality comes with certain innate advantages in areas of design & craft. And some say that homosexuality is usually accompanied with few extra IQ points on average. But the CORE of homosexuality centers on a certain kind of 'sexual' proclivity, and objectively speaking, it cannot be good. After all, two vaginas grinding together isn't real sex and can never produce life. As for homo men doing sodomy, that is objectively gross and medically unsafe as it involves a sex organ penetrating a fecal organ. Gross.
So, even if society had to come to terms with the 'abnatural' fact of homosexuality, it still upheld a negative and dark perspective on such behavior. After all, science now seems to indicate that pedophilia is also a 'born' trait, which is why it is so difficult to reform and rehabilitate child molesters who can't help feeling their sick kind of desire. The closet-pedo father in Todd Solondz's HAPPINESS risks EVERYTHING to bugger his son's friend; despite the risk and perhaps even the realization that it's morally wrong, he still couldn't help himself. So, does that mean pedophilia is okay since some people are 'born that way'? Science also indicates that some people have greater natural tendency to be gluttons or alcoholic, but people still don't think pigging out or getting drunk is worthy of praise, let alone celebration, because it's so 'natural' or 'abnatural' with some people. There was a sane and serious time when society was willing to (1) accept the fact that most homos are 'born that way' but (2) nevertheless regard homosexuality as a deviance with a perverse streak. (Not only are some people born homo but such people tend to be far more risque about having multiple partners and experimenting in all kinds of excessive behaviors.) But, that compromise and consensus gradually and then dramatically faded as Jewish Power became absolutely predominant in the US(that controls all the West and most Westernized nations) and chose to use globo-homo-mania as substitute neo-cult for Christianity and proxy for promoting minority-elite-supremacism that would so nicely complement Jewish minority-elite-supremacism. If recent history taught us anything, it is that Jewish Hostility + Media & Finance Monopoly + Think Tank Domination + Power of Celebrity + Most People as Sheeple + Controlled Opposition(as US Conservatives are intimidated dogs of Jewish Power) = Social Madness. The West went from accepting the fact that homosexuality is a naturally occurring deviance to celebrating, revering, and near-worshiping homosexuality(and even tranny stuff) as what might as well be the second coming of bejesus.

How could so many people, from educated elites to unwashed masses, from people on the 'left' to people on the 'right', so quickly fall for the Jewish snake-oil? This amazing truth about humanity is both exhilarating in its madness and dispiriting in its implications. One thing for sure, it totally destroyed the Conceit of Rationalism. It is now quite evident that even if rationalism is the ideal way, too many people are incapable of facing facts and knowing the truth. And too many people who do know the truth would rather not speak out lest they lose in the social competition for status. One thing for sure, individuals don't decide what is good or bad based on reasoning. Rather, the decision is made at the top by the elites and then disseminated by the mass media, via which the Jewish Message enters every private space via electronic devices. We purchase and own the hardware, but most of the sounds, images, and words have been created by Jews and those mentally colonized by Jewish Power.

Jewish Power has proven that one can fool the masses that 2 + 2 = 5. Not by demonstrating it is true mathematically but by associating the formula with fanfare, music, song & dance, and bedazzling stories of how those who believe 2 + 2 = 5 are so very cool, awesome, or 'inspiring'. This is how Jews pushed the tranny business. Honesty and good sense tell us that a man is NOT a woman simply because he insists he is, but so many have been led to believe otherwise because trannies are promoted with such affection, hype, and even reverence by the Jew-run media. So, 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't have to be proven to the people. It can be promoted as 'true' by emotional and sensory appeals, like a movie that makes us suspend disbelief and revel in the excitement of watching a caped hero flying over clouds. Meanwhile, the absolute truth of 2 + 2 = 4 can be made 'false' in the hearts of many. How? Again, never mind that it can be proven true and instead associate it with negativity, such as spreading the message that 4 is a 'hate number' or having hacks as 'experts' all saying in 'unison' that 4-as-answer has been debunked and only BAD people still believe it. It's like Conservatism Inc. will not answer pointed and valid questions about the impact of demographic transformation on the American political landscape and about the duplicitous & often hypocritical role of Jewish Power in American narrative and politics. Unwilling to deal with facts, Con Inc merely goes about smearing such manner of inquiry as 'racism', 'Nazis', or 'Antisemitism'. If emotional/sensual appeals can fool so many people with the pseudo-science that a man can be a 'woman', then the same can be done to make people favor 2 + 2 = 5 over 2 + 2 = 4. It is distressing to believe that people can be so stupid, but that's humanity for you. If Jews did us one favor in the 21st century, it was in exposing how utterly stupid(or craven) most people can be.

Anyway, homos and their supporters have argued that, because homos are born-that-way and can't do anything about it, all good and reasonable people should accept the 'abnatural' facts of homosexuality and stop regarding homosexuals as willfully immoral degenerates. (Granted, if the natural inclination is nevertheless deviant and prone to danger, it should be the moral obligation of those who are afflicted to curb, restrain, or at least moderate their behavior, a lesson all too neglected in the homo community that is so vain and narcissistic — common traits among homos — that it never faced up to its responsibility in the HIV epidemic that killed so many fruitkins. That said, it seems the HIV epidemic had an effect on the homo community similar to the effect of drugs & radical violence on the Counterculture. Those most prone to abuse of drugs and political violence either burned out or were weeded out by circumstances, leaving the more cautious, organized, and bureaucratic radicals to take power. Similarly, it seems the HIV epidemic weeded out the most brazen & adventurous 'cowboy' homos, thus handing the leadership of the Community to the 'accountant' homos.) If homos are born-that-way and can't help it and if, for that very reason, we must make peace with homos and accept the facts of how they feel and behave, then the same demand must be made from the normo-sexual or real-sexual side. Just like it's impossible to turn a homo sincerely into a normo by therapy or some treatment — though, to be sure, progs keep telling us 'gender' is a social construct and not based on biology — , it's impossible to change a normo-sexual's true feelings about homosexuality. Sure, under heavy dose of indoctrination, propaganda, and intimidation(especially with loss of job & status), normos can be browbeaten into praising and even celebrating homosexuality and tranny-ness. Especially as people are loathe to admit they conformed or consented to something out of cowardice, the cucked normos often go out of their way act the 'more evolved' true-believer in globo-homo, just like John McCain, a pathetic dog of Zionist power, went out of his way to convince himself that he really and truly believed there is no greater honor than kissing the Jew's ass and sucking his cock.

Still, the fact that the Power feels a need to push globo-homo 24/7 suggests it knows that, minus the endless conditioning and propagandizing, most normos will eventually revert to the natural tendency to regard homos and trannies as weirdo deviants, freaks, or even degenerates worthy of derision. We know from history that tremendous anti-homo social pressure compelled most homos throughout the ages to either hide their sexual orientation or repress it as best they could, which would be like an natural alcoholic or glutton trying desperately to convince himself that he doesn't want a drink or another serving of cake. Throughout history, many homo men and homo women remained in the closet and led seemingly normal lives... just like in our time, so many normos keep their true feelings about homos hidden in the cabinet and pretend to be so hip and cool with globo-homo. It is here that the 'rainbow' flag has been so useful to the Agenda.
After all, people automatically visualize everything, and if there wasn't a potent deflective 'gay' symbol, a visual shield, as the main focus of our attention, most normos thinking of homosexuality, pro or con, would form images of guys sucking each other off or porking each other in the ass. Even for normos sympathetic to the homo agenda, it wouldn't be very pleasant for them to visualize homosexuality in terms of blowjobs and sodomy among fruiters. But if there is a colorful and happy symbol associated with homos and trannies, one need not think of penis-up-the-poopchute or a doctor slicing off a penis to mold a fake 'vagina'. Indeed, nowadays, so many fools seem to think homosexuality and tranny-business are all about fanfare with happy 'gay' colors. Consider the advertisement for food with 'gay' colors. No sane normo wants to think about homo-fecal penetration or tranny penis cutting while he's eating, but so many people purchase 'gay'-colorized food products because they think being 'homo' is mainly about these bright and sassy colors.

That way, one can nibble on 'rainbow-homosher'(the new kosher) oreo cookies while pretending that one is celebrating happy colors than an orientation involving guys sucking cocks and doing homo-fecal-penetration on each other. People are so easily fooled by packaging. For example, why do women spend so much money on clothing and hair-dressing? Because they think a different outward presentation will make them beautiful. Consider all those big fat black women who think they will be sexy if they get nails done in some exotic way. Or how their children will be special with 'creative' names like Mo'nique, Skankisha, and Bitchasshope.

Now, the argument that normos should put forth is as follows: Just as Homos cannot help feeling their 'abnatural' desires because, after all, they were only born-that-way, we must accept the fact that Normos can't help feeling the way they do about homosexuality and tranny-stuff because they were born-that-way. Normos have a natural revulsion, distaste, disgust, and attitude-of-ridicule about homosexuality and tranny-stuff. Just as it was cruel to force homos to reject their true homo self and pretend to be 'normal' out of fear of social opprobrium or worse, it is cruel, repressive, and corrupting to force normos to pretend that they are really hip and cool with a form of pseudo-sexuality involving homo-fecal-penetration or tranny-penis-cutting by Frankenstein Medicine. What is most cruel, ugly, and vile is the defamation that natural normo-sexual feelings about homosexuality or tranny-stuff are 'homophobic' or 'transphobic'. No, phobia is a medical term that means panicked reaction and extreme fear/dread of something harmless and safe. Normo-sexuals are naturally and rationally turned off by homosexuality that is sexually useless and physically gross. There is nothing phobic about such reaction. Just as people are grossed out by people eating feces, normo-sexuals find it gross that some men would have 'sex' by inserting their penises into the poopholes of other men. And when normo-sexuals honestly ponder what really happens at a 'sex reassignment' surgery, of course they would be freaked out.

Why wouldn't they be when it involves mutilation of a perfectly healthy organ to make for an ugly-looking fake 'vagina', especially one that smells like poop? If there is any phobia in our culture, it is Normo-Phobia that has inverted all sane, natural, and rational modes of humanity. We are to believe that men buggering one another or cutting off genitals is about PRIDE; in contrast, normo-sexuals or real-sexuals finding homosexuality or tranny-business to be odd, perverse, deviant, gross, or laughable are said to be suffering from a 'phobia'. It'd be like saying "Drinking urine is worthy of pride BUT those who express disgust over it are showing signs of phobia, or pissdrinkophobia to be exact." (By the way, if progs really believe that people with anti-homosexual feelings are 'homophobic' or suffering from a medical condition, they should show sympathy for them because people who suffer from phobias can't help themselves. If indeed 'homophobia' is a real phobia, then the affected are as helpless as those with arachnophobia, acrophobia, or ophidiophobia, extreme fear of all snakes, even harmless ones. But even as progs accuse anti-'gay' people of being inflicted with a 'phobia', they BLAME them of moral failings. But if people who oppose the 'gay' agenda are truly sick in the head, they should not be blamed for what would be a clinical malady.) The fact is real-sexuals normally feel a natural revulsion toward homosexuality and find stuff like tranny-business to be ridiculous. Just like homo men can't help wanting to suck each other's cock and bugger each other's ass, real-sexuals cannot help feeling queasy about what homos and trannies do. This is NOT a phobia of any kind. Nearly ALL normo-sexuals or real-sexuals don't have panic attacks or freak out over someone being homo. Instead, what they feel is a naturally derisive sense that the homo guy is either too effete/pansy for a man or that he indulges in gross pseudo-sexual acts.

Normality naturally favors the conventional, the standard, the usual. Now, there are exceptions. Beauty is rare, and normal people who are neither ugly or beautiful but average in looks prize beauty like precious gold. Elite athletic ability and high intelligence are also rare, and normal people admire the naturally gifted who happen to be far stronger or smarter than the average. (It could be, precisely because most people aren't exceptional in intelligence, looks, or athleticism, they now seek to be special in ways that are far more accessible, such as tattoos, piercings, and green-colored hair. If you can't be outstanding, be stand-outish.) Even so, normality generally prefers what is common and familiar, and this explains the penchant for certain negative attitudes even toward those with prized traits. For example, the overly big and strong person has often been caricatured as 'moose', more beast than man. And beautiful women have often been associated with vanity, vapidity, narcissism, self-absorption. Most people aren't rich and would love to have more money, but there is also the negative caricature of uber-rich people as snobby, stuck-up, crass, greedy, and soulless. And even as we admire intelligence, we can't get enough of the negative stereotype of the 'aspergy' geek or nerd who is all brains & bundle of neurosis and no body & life. Though 'fag' is now a dirty word, 'geek' and 'nerd' are not, and stereotypes of such are commonplace. Justified or not, the normal feels a certain disdain even for people with rare gifts, abilities, or good fortunes that most people would like to have. There is a sense that, in having those 'extreme' qualities, the 'special' people have become walking-talking caricatures than well-rounded people. Consider the cult of the artist that is both positive and negative. There is the romantic notion that, being different and special, he's devoted his entire life(and even sanity and health) toward creating a great work of art for the ages. But there is also the perception of self-indulgence, madness, and sickly obsession to attain, via a Faustian pact, the creative power of the gods.
Now, if normal people could feel naturally negative feelings about positive and much-prized traits, just imagine what they might feel for extreme manifestations of negative, useless, and/or harmless traits. If even great beauty or intelligence can be objects of mockery, imagine how most people naturally feel about extreme ugliness or extreme retardation. Now, out of kindness, most normal people, being decent ladies and gents, will not go out of their way to mock ugly or dumb people. Most of us take pity on the main character of ELEPHANT MAN and harbor no ill feelings toward the mentally retarded. But most normal people don't want to be around hideously ugly people and don't want to be friends with seriously low-IQ people. Likewise, for most normal people, homosexuality and tranny-stuff seem like extremes in negativity. We know that not all men are masculine, but certain froopy-doop tootkins are off-the-charts in pansy manners. And trannies who are men-pretending-to-be-women just look ridiculous.


And the idea of a fake 'vagina' is gross to most people, which is why even PC-addled proggy men who say all the token 'woke' things will NOT date or have 'sex' with trannies. They can tell themselves that a 'woman' can have a penis or that an artificially created 'vagina'(via Frankenstein medical surgery) is just as good as a real vagina, but something elemental in their nature says "NO, that is freaky as hell... Ewwwww." Just like people feel a natural revulsion toward gluttonous people who are grossly obese or lazy unkempt people who are overly filthy, people naturally disdain homosexuality and tranny-stuff that come across as extremes in negativity. It's one thing for men to have some feminine traits but to the extent that fruitkins do? It's one thing for men to dress a bit pretty and look elegant but put on a wig, wear makeup, and put on female dresses & high heel shoes? When confronted with such, most normal people feel revulsion or ridicule(that often turns into laughter). And such response among normo-sexuals is natural, no less than it is 'abnatural' for a homo to want to suck dongs and take them up his anus. If the natural feelings of homos are so overwhelming that it's near-impossible for them to refrain from blatantly odd(and even harmful) behavior such as 'cock-sucking' and homo-fecal-penetration(and even fisting in some cases), then we shouldn't demand that normo-sexuals refrain from natural feelings of revulsion & disdain about homosexuals and trannies. If it's unhealthy for homos to repress their true nature and keep it all bottled up, it's equally unhealthy for normo-sexuals to deny their true nature and self-censor honest responses to what they deem to be odd, strange, and deviant.

Now, a compromise has been possible whereby homosexuals do their own thing in their own space while normo-sexuals express their naturally negative feelings about homosexuality in their own space. There is no need for normo-sexuals to insult homosexuals as 'fags' and the like, but there is also no need for homos and trannies to demand that normo-sexuals honor, praise, celebrate, and even revere the attitudes and behaviors of homos and trannies as quasi-spiritual and 'rainbow'-like. But under the current Jewish Supremacist rule over the West, we don't have a sound compromise that is possible. The diva-like homo/tranny character, being naturally vain and narcissistic, isn't content with tolerance and mutual recognition with the other side. Rather, homos want to hog the stage of culture, politics, and even spirituality and present themselves as something akin to a quasi-race-of-angels. Therefore, they no longer just want their own spaces to do their homo things. They want to take over all public spaces, schools, banks, businesses, governments, and even churches to spread what could only be called Homomania or Queertianity.
Of course, homos(and especially trannies) on their own couldn't have accumulated such power in a million years. But having the full backing of venal Jews, the most powerful people in the world with control of finance, media, and much else, homos have been able to pull off an idolatrous neo-satanic takeover of Western culture, politics, and even spirituality(as so many churches fly the homo flag, as if indeed Jesus died so that His followers could celebrate sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting). As a result, even though we are told that it's cruel, unjust, and dishonest to force homos to repress their true nature of being homos, we are also forced to believe that real-sexuals must repress their own normal and natural feelings about homos and trannies on account that such are 'unnatural', 'irrational', and downright 'phobic'. So, while homos are so naturally homo that they can't help being 'gay', we are to believe that normos have harbored anti-homo feelings all through the ages AGAINST their own 'normal' nature.
In other words, current PC says it's natural and (new)normal for normos to have the most positive feelings about homos and trannies. To shore up their specious line of 'reasoning', PC commissars may point to the current West and remark how so many normos now celebrate homosexuality, but that is to totally ignore the fact that (1) most of the world media are controlled by venal Jews (2) people, young and old, have been bombarded with endless homo propaganda via education, entertainment, and advertising, and (3) Jews and their cuck-commissars have created means of purging and lawfare whereby anyone who deviates from the current dogma and 'idology' is swiftly smeared, character-assassinated, demoted, blacklisted, and/or fired.
Therefore, even though so many people seem happy-crazy about 'gay' stuff, it's really part of a ceaseless campaign of artificially manufactured hype, euphoria, and fear-mongering. History has shown that such madness isn't difficult to achieve IF the power is concentrated in certain hands. Consider the mass mania of Germany that blindly worshiped Adolf Hitler that drove them to ruin. Or consider the madness of Maoism that once engulfed the entire nation. Or consider the nutball lunacy of North Korea with its mindless displays of pageantry to sustain the mythic grandeur of the Kim clan. Looking back, we may one day wonder, how could so many seemingly normal people have been so duped and swayed into such feverish stupidity? We like to pride ourselves for living in a democracy with freedom and rational thinking, but most hearts and minds are shaped by slogans, mantras, idolatry, and dogmas pushed by institutions and industries that are really about concentration of power and control.

Now, some homos may object to the notion that homosexuality amounts to a negative extreme like obesity. Homos could argue that while there is nothing good to be said about obesity, there is much to be credited to homosexuality. For example, even though Orson Welles, Jean Renoir, and Sergio Leone were great film-directors, their success probably owed nothing to their considerable girths. There have been many successful fatty-fatkins, but it'd be quite a stretch to attribute their talents to their appetites. However, the same cannot be said of tooty-tookins. While most homos are hardly special in talent, there have been too many remarkable homos in the arts, design, fashion, music, and letters to dismiss the possibility of a link between homosexuality and certain kinds of creativity. And therein lies the difference between obesity and homosexuality. While some people have much bigger natural appetites than most people do — just like homos have a natural leaning to be fruity — the achievements of successful fatsos probably have nothing to do with their massive craving for More Food.

Thus, the (lack of)worth of obesity can be judged by its most obvious external manifestation. A fatso is fat, and that isn't good, and he should lose some weight. In contrast, there is MORE to homosexuality than its obviously grotesque and gross behavioral manifestation in the 'sexual' arena that involves fecal penetration and a generally nihilistic surrender to depravity. If such were the ONLY feature of homosexuality, we could dismiss it as a mere sexual deviance that leads to perverted behavior. But apparently, homosexuality has connections with certain brain functions and allows for nimbler use of fingertips. And this has led to homos making considerable contributions to the arts, letters, and design. Also, as homos are not burdened by family — even with 'gay marriage' as law of the land, most homos don't have children — , they can work 24/7, something impossible for men and women who seek to balance work and family. That means homos have created lots of things of great appeal to countless straight people and have been especially committed to tirelessly working as advisers and managers. And that means they've accumulated a great deal of cultural capital, social capital, connections with powerful people, and insider knowledge. Thus, there is more to being a tooty-tootkin than a fatty-fatkin. While, outwardly speaking, homosexuality does seem gross and grotesque to many/most honest normo-sexuals, there is no denying that there are facets and permutations of being 'gay' that have led to considerable and even crucial contributions to civilization and power.
In that light, we can understand why homos in the past felt so frustrated. They, as closeted fruits, made many contributions to society but hardly got the credit. So many normo-sexuals with disdain and hostility toward homosexuals were actually enjoying and/or benefiting from the fruits of talented homos. Also, most normos felt they were benefiting from the achievements of straight people since most homos remained in the closet and pretended to be straight. Homos felt like Cyrano de Bergerac. They made the poetry but the credit went to someone else. (Some even say 'Shakespeare' was a mere front for a genius homo playwright.) Therefore, unless homos came out of the closet and declared their talents, they would never get the credit and respect that they really deserved.

And yet, paradoxically enough, in our age when Homos have not only come out of the closet but out of the bedroom into the streets with their homo-stalinist banners, their creativity has mostly turned to trash. Perhaps, the formula for homo success wasn't simply innate homo talent but the social repression of homosexuality. In other words, too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Consider what black self-indulgence did to black musical culture. In an earlier cultural climate, homos felt a need to mold and channel their natural narcissism and vanity in service of something broader and deeper than "I'm so gay and pretty." After all, what makes a great actress isn't simply beauty and/or acting chops but the willingness to subsume her own considerable ego into an empathetic portrayal of another character. Thus, even as she is indeed feeding her own ego as a star(or star-wanna-be), she is also restraining and remolding her own ego in service to a portrait of another person. After all, nothing would be more boring and insufferable than an actress whose entire shtick is "Look at me, I'm pretty, I can show off all kinds of emotions." Julianne Moore was just awful in MAGNOLIA with a look-at-me performance. When homos were closeted, it was unfair that they didn't get the credit they deserved, but their creativity was enriched, deepened, and even ennobled by serving something far greater than a narrow bandwidth of ego or group identity. In our time, homos seem to do little but use their creativity to fill TV shows & movies with endless(and often irrelevant or gratuitous) homo propaganda; or much of the energy seemed devoted to making yet more advertisements about how we should consume Oreo cookies and guzzle Sprite soda because they are so 'woke' with globo-homo hysteria. So, when homos can be openly creative, they are actually less creative, or at least less meaningfully creative.

Anyway, one thing is for sure. Even if there is more to homosexuality than sodomy and poon-to-poon-grinding, its most defining feature and characteristic are not good and cannot be good. There is absolutely nothing good about homo-fecal-penetration, which is gross, disease-prone, and disgusting. As for poon-to-poon-grinding, while not physically gross from a clinical angle, it makes zero sexual sense. To the extent that most normo-sexuals are not interested in arts & culture(in which closeted homos played a key role in the past) and have a more basic and elemental understanding of humanity, they have every reason to be psychologically and physically put off by homosexuality. After all, if you asked any guy, "How would you like to have someone stick his dick up your ass?", his natural, normal, and healthy response is going to be, "What the fuc* are you, some kind of a faggot?" Indeed, what do normo-sexual men fear most about ending up behind bars? There's a good chance that their bungs will be torn apart by Negro dongs. Of course, if Milo ends up behind bars, he will probably have the time of his life. Now, is it 'homophobic' for normo-sexual men to be so put off by thoughts of homo behavior? Of course not. It's a healthy, natural, normal, and rational reaction(and defensive mechanism) to something that is so obviously gross and grotesque. Humans are naturally empathetic — the ability to put oneself in another's shoes — , and when normo-sexual men try to imagine themselves as fruiters being rammed in the ass or ramming their dongs inside the poopchutes of other men, their immediate natural reaction is Ewwwwww and for good reason. So, let homos be 'gay' since they were born-that-way, and let normos be 'nay' in their naturally visceral dislike of homosexuality. There used to be such an understanding/compromise, but today, homos and trannies are encouraged to strut their stuff in the streets and even in the presence of young school-children, whereas even the slightest negativity expressed by normo-sexuals on the matter of homosexuality leads to rabid hysteria, witch-hunts, and mania to tar-and-feather the heretic who then must be burned at the stake for all to see to send the message loud-and-clear that we must all worship globo-homo as the proxy of Jewish Supremacist Power.

From Extreme Virtue-as-Vice to Extreme Vice-as-Virtue: The Pathway to the Fall of the West

Many of us would like to live in a world of virtue. But utopias have failed time and time again. It is a hubris to think that we can create heaven on earth. People are not saints, and too often, the Rulers of Virtue have proven to be fanatical, arrogant, corrupt, and/or cynical. Che Guevara and Osama Bin Laden were purists committed to the Cause but pathological like Robespierre. Others talk the talk of virtue while grabbing everything for themselves. Communist regimes all came to be ruled by people not unlike the corrupted pigs at the end of ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell. The problem isn’t just disagreement as to what constitutes the best virtues or the ideal utopia. Even if everyone were to agree 100% on theory and blueprint, the problem of ego and vanity often get in the way of achieving the dream.

Therefore, even though it’s necessary for people to be as good as possible, we mustn’t be perfectionist in our expectations and execution. There must be leeway for failings and mistakes, a chance for redemption and improvement. Also, even good people are still animals and, as such, always under the temptation to deviate from the straight and narrow path of virtue. They need to blow off steam at times and even get a bit wild. The wild-animal side of us will always be there, just like a well-trained dog remains an animal and feels the urge to run wild and free once in a while.

This is why theocracies and ideocracies don’t make ideal societies. Theocracies may be committed to God and the Holy Truth. And its leaders may stress piety and sanctimony. And the masses may go along or pretend to. But man cannot know the mind of God. Sacred texts serve as guide but can’t ascertain what God wants us to do at every moment. There are innumerable ways to interpret God and sacred texts. Also, if we were to follow certain texts to the letter, it may well lead to our demise. Imagine what would happen if the West decided to truly live by the letter of Christianity, "Turn the other cheek" and all that. Also, crazy people can believe they have a special rapport with God. A crazy person is dangerous enough but when claiming to be the spokesman of God, all the more dangerous. More often than not, people just project their wishes onto God and then say God told them so-and-so. And we know from Televangelists that there is no shortage of charlatans and lunatics who use religion to turn people into suckers or fellow looneys.

Also, even if all the leaders and all the people of a theocracy may be good, decent, and virtuous, much of human progress comes not from virtue but from violations of norms. In other words, we must give Devil his due in stoking our egos, greed, vanity, and narcissism to seek further, strive harder, reach higher, and push it to the limit. So many of the great feats of mankind couldn’t have been achieved without hubris, greed, obsession, and/or megalomania.
Indeed, even religious prophets had something of the madman. Hubris is self-defeating in the end, but the reason why the West achieved more than other civilizations is it made greater room for egoism of the individual for whom enough was never enough(in fame, fortune, knowledge, discovery, and/or daring). Trying to climb Mt. Everest may have been foolish and egotistical, but someone did it because of the sheer audacity to do the impossible. Same with going to the Moon. So, there is a Faustian side to human progress, something that tends to be suppressed by theocracies that stress piety and humility before the Great Truth.

There is also the problem of violence and cruelty in theocracies and ideocracies. Being intolerant in their insistence on virtue, they tend to be brutal in suppressing dissenters, dissidents, and deviants. People who are perceived to be ‘different’ aren’t deemed only wrong or incorrect but evil or wicked. Therefore, so many people were burnt at the stake as witches. So many people were stoned to death for blasphemy. So many people were sent to the Gulag or shot in the head. Or they were made to sit through grueling sessions of re-education that was like mental torture. All such may have been done in the name of virtue(and sincerely too), but the sheer intolerance made for a repressive and fearful social order. Also, because such orders favor mediocrities who stick to dogma, there develops a pathological hatred for anyone who exhibits individual streak or spark. People who think or act differently are hated not only for being incorrect or impious but for having the audacity and daring to step away from the herd and assert his self-worth. Such courage makes the rest of the herd look craven and cowardly, and therefore, the man of daring is attacked not only for heresy but for heart. A repressive social order creates a community of cowards. But cowards don’t want to admit to their cowardice, which masquerades as collective conviction. And when a man of real courage comes forth and speaks otherwise, the cowards are triggered by his nerves and cooperate to silence and break him, not least to win approval from their masters. As such, a society committed to extreme virtue could actually turn into an inadvertent world of vice.

Therefore, even though virtue is to be valued, we don’t need a Virtutopia or Virtuocracy. People need to be more-or-less virtuous, and society must be governed by men of some virtue, but we can’t expect heaven on earth. We mustn’t be perfectionist with humanity, and we have to allow for differences, deviance, and even failings. Of course, society must stress virtue and use all its institutions, from family to education to government, to maintain a world of virtue. But society mustn’t expect heaven-on-earth of humble saints ruled by angelic sage-kings.

Now, what are the virtues and truths that make for a good society? Virtues warn against excesses of our natures. Everything good can become bad when pushed to excess. Appreciation of food, a necessity for survival and health, can turn into gluttony. The joys of sex can turn into out-of-control lust than basis for marriage and family. (Billy Boy Clinton is a classic example of a man unmade by excessive lust.) Even industriousness can turn into a kind of sickness, as with workaholic Ebenezer Scrooge. Even saintliness can become a vice-of-sorts. Surely, a man who is overly generous and selfless will be exploited by others. And being so busy giving to and living for others, he will never have a family for himself or have the urge to defend his own people and culture. This is why Christianity is a problematic religion. If not for the notion of Jesus as the Son of God, His excessive selfless devotion to mankind could be seen almost as a vice that did more harm than good. Christianity as a practiced religion is workable only because Jesus is said to be the Son of God, so He could go all the way in being perfect in virtue. However, it would be foolish for most of us to try to be like Him because we are not the Son of God and will just get whupped real bad without the resurrection and all that stuff. This is why it is said Jesus died for our sins. He did what we can’t be expected to do because we are not the Messiah. Most likely, we’ll end up like the guy in the Luis Bunuel film NAZARIN.
Furthermore, it must be stressed that Jesus’ message was NOT about saving the World or Humanity as a collective. Rather, it was about saving souls, and souls are individual possessions. Each person has his or her own soul, and each soul can be saved only on the individual level. Your people cannot be blessed or saved as a collective. You can’t ride on the good qualities of your people, just like you are not to be condemned by the bad qualities of your people. When it comes to Christian salvation, you must open up your own heart. Just because most people in your community are deemed good by God and will go to Heaven, it doesn't mean YOU get to hop on some collective magic carpet ride. The question is, "has your individual soul made a sincere effort to be nearer to God?"

For non-believers like most people on the Neo-Fascist Nationalist Humanist movement, it’s neither here nor there because we don’t believe in the godly and spiritual. Still, for those who do consider themselves as Christians on basis of faith, belief, or conviction — those with conviction may not literally believe in the Christian mythology but embrace what Jesus and Disciples stood for — , they need to remind themselves that Christianity was never meant to be about saving the world or humanity. Souls can only be saved on the individual level. It’s like what Jesus said to the crucified persons next to Him. They were all in the same boat. All crushed by the Romans. But Jesus offered salvation to the repentant but not to the repugnant. The problem with current Christianity is it goes for collective blessing and redemption. So, because blacks were slaves in the past, they are supposed to be holy as a collective. Christianity doesn’t work that way. You could have suffered a lot, but if you’re a lout and punk, you will not be saved. Indeed, Jesus was a very pessimistic figure and didn’t think highly of humanity and the world. He didn’t think either could be saved in its entirety or as a collective. The only thing that could be saved were individual souls that would repent. He would be the spiritual ark that would save them from the flood of puss and take them to Heaven. At any rate, the faithful can believe Jesus had such power because He is the Son of God. But even the most devoted Christian would be stupid to try to be like Jesus because he would get his ass whupped and that'd be that.

Anyway, let me try to illustrate why Moderate but Firm defense of Virtue with Tolerance for Vice is better than Extreme Virtue but then how the worst thing is Extreme Vice, especially when it pushes itself as the New Virtue. Consider the following options:

1. Extreme Virtue with zero tolerance of Vice. Theoretically, this sounds like the best possible world. An Eden where there is no evil. After all, what is wrong with a world where there is only good and no evil? The problem is we live in reality, not in theory. We heard of Eden and other Golden Ages in religions and mythologies, but we never saw one in reality. If there is to be Eden, there has to be an all-knowing God. We can conceive of such a Being, but we are not Him. And we can never know what He really wants and intends for us. Only God can create Eden or some utopia. Also, even the Bible says that man, being what he is, ruined Eden. And in Buddhism, it is said that the 'perfect' world in which Siddhartha grew up was just an illusion.
So, we can’t have Eden or utopia. We can work towards the Better but we don’t know what perfection is. Also, good people can be filled with doubt, whereas bad people can be full of conviction, like in the poem "The Second Coming" by Y. W. Yeats. The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Now, putting aside the possibility that the satanic can pose itself as angelic, let’s assume the world is to be ruled with an iron-fist by the best and the brightest. Let’s say these people are genuinely intelligent, good-hearted, fair-minded, morally serious, courageous, and filled with integrity. Why shouldn’t such people have total control and use draconian means in favor of virtue against vice? But even genuinely good people are not all-knowing. They too could make mistakes. Even the most brilliant minds cannot foresee the future or understand the full consequences of their actions that seem good and sound at the moment. If the sincerely virtuous stick to the tried-and-true, society will never change and make progress. It will not grow. If the sincerely virtuous are so sure of their reforms, there’s the danger of radicalism. Robespierre was a sincere revolutionary, a man of true integrity and courage. But in the end, he was blinded by his own virtue. His virtue turned into hubris.
It may well be that many of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionaries were sincere men of virtue who sought to transform Iran into a Republic of Virtue in tune with Allah’s wisdom and in opposition to the soulless and materialistic West. Surely, there were among them many men of courage who’d survived persecution and torture. But the righteousness of virtue can easily turn into self-righteousness, and it can blind people to other views and perspectives that, if not equal in value, are nevertheless of some value.
Many communist revolutionaries of Russia, China, Vietnam, and Cuba were men of sincere commitment to the revolution and the creation of the New Man. And they truly believed that Marxism provided the template for creating a new classless order in which all humans would be equal in value and virtue. But in the end, the moral spartanism of communism turned into a prison of body, mind, and soul.
This is why even most Muslims don’t want to live in a Muslim theocracy. And even most Christians don’t want to live in a Christian theocracy. In the end, Theocracies are not ruled by God but by men who claim to speak for God. But some of these Men of God turn out to be corrupt and cynical. Others turn out to be kooky, like the current Pope. Some turn out to be sincere in conviction and seriousness, but that leads to self-righteousness that turns into an iron-fist. Who wants to live in a world ruled by Martin Luther or John Calvin? They were sincere men, but their hearts beat like hammers.

2. Moderate but Firm Virtue but with Tolerance for Vice. This formula sums up the Bourgeois West of the late 19th century and much of the 20th century. This was the basis for Liberal Democracies or Enlightened autocracies. Such an order has a general sense of The Good. Centrality of family, respect for tradition, respect for religion, acceptance of progress based on science and facts, respect for responsible use of reason, admiration for creative talent, appreciation of manners and good habits, meritocracy & Rule of Law, need for duty & diligence, and freedom + responsibility for one’s freedom. This Order of Virtue didn’t claim to have ALL the answers or The Truth. It didn’t claim to speak for God. But based on tradition, reason, caution, and experimentation, it had a general sense of the Good as opposed to the Bad.
And yet, because we don’t know All the Good and All the Bad, it was willing to be tolerant of new attitudes and modes of behavior that may seem ‘bad’ at the moment but might prove to be good or have some worth later. After all, if the History of Art teaches us anything, it’s that the contemporaries often failed to appreciate the seminal works of their time. The most famous example may be Vincent van Gogh, though this idea has been corrupted of late, what with every atrocious and untalented hack being praised to heaven as someone ahead of his or her time(which is total nonsense since much of the Art World is nothing but a hype machine). Because even the most intelligent, well-meaning, and well-intentioned elites can’t know everything about everything, it would be foolish for them to decide what is ACCEPTABLE and what is NOT. They may pass judgement but shouldn’t have the power to say certain expressions should be banned. They could be right at most times, but there is the odd chance that they could be wrong. What they see as ‘vice’ may actually be a new kind of virtue or, even if not a virtue, a thing of some value. The works of Picasso can’t be said to add to moral or social virtue of a civilization but they do have value as works of originality and genius and, as such, add something of value to civilization.

Also, in a liberal democracy, we must accept the fact that some people have different orientations, and we should take a live-and-let-live attitude AS LONG AS people keep it personal and private. So, if homos want to bugger one another or if Paul Johnson the historian wants to be spanked in the ass by a dominatrix, it’s not my business. Or if guys want to get together and drink too much and act the fool over a weekend, let them... as long as they are mindful not to cause harm to others.

3. The Rise of Vice and Tolerance of Virtue. This is very problematic and increasingly became the mode of the West beginning in the late 1960s, culminating in the 1990s. We went from the Bourgeois Order to the Boomer Disorder. There is some good things to be said about the boomers and counterculture. They found their parents to be overly materialistic & ‘plastic’. Flush with new prosperity following WWII, too many of the ‘Greatest Generation’ folks focused on keeping up with the Joneses. It’s like the upper-middle class folks in THE GRADUATE and THE SWIMMER. Naturally, young people wanted to say NO to ‘plastic’ and YES to authenticity. But their mode of self-discovery got enmeshed with indulgence with too much sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll, like with the daughter in PEOPLE NEXT DOOR, the forerunner of THE EXORCIST.

The defining culture of the Boomer generation was Rock Music steeped in reckless hedonism, leering sexuality, youthful exuberance as middle finger to maturity & responsibility, and cool-centrism that favored style over substance, the image over the thing itself, and the instant over longevity. Thus, Vice pushed Virtue to the sidelines. After all, Vice is cool whereas Virtue is square. The nihilistic Eastwood of Spaghetti Westerns and amoral & suave James Bond of 007 movies were cooler than Classic Westerns and other Hollywood Classics steeped in moralism. (If moralism lived on, it was in anointing blacks, Jews, and later homos as new sacred icons.)

Even so, Vice didn’t take the place of Virtue. It was still understood that Vice should not be confused with Virtue. It was just that Vice was a lot cooler. It’s why the young kid wants to follow the egotistical libertine band in ALMOST FAMOUS. His mother might be right about the negative influence of Sex, Drugs, & Rock n Roll, but THAT happens to be central cultural mode of the kid and his friends(as is the case with the high schoolers in DAZED AND CONFUSED by Richard Linklater). There’s no greater failing among these boys and gals than being ‘square’ and ‘lame’. But even though Vice was prized as more fun-and-cool than Virtue, there was still a grudging respect for Virtue and Tradition. The Counterculture may have cooked up JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, a Rock opera version of the Gospels, but Jesus was still the ‘superstar’ of Truth, not John Lennon or Mick Jagger.

4. Vice as the New Virtue and the Intolerance of True Virtue.

The Age we live in is truly sick and degenerate. Over-emphasis on Vice is bad enough. Still, a world of sinners conscious of their fallen-ness is still a world that knows the difference between virtue and vice. In such a world, degenerate gamblers in Las Vegas, at the very least, know they are indulging in vice. But imagine a world where gambling is seen not so much as regulated vice but the New Virtue, one that even provides ‘historical justice’ for American Indians and ‘rejuvenates’ local economies. Imagine a world where the supposedly conservative political party depends on donations from a casino mogul, someone like the loathsome Sheldon Adelson. Imagine a world where pornography isn’t merely tolerated as popular Vice but as the New Virtue of female empowerment? And maybe prostitution too(though pornography is essentially videotaped vicarious-prostitution). Imagine a world where homosexuality isn’t merely tolerated as a sexual deviance of those born with weird sexual predilections but something wondrous, miraculous, and rainbow-like, indeed something so glorious that children must be acculturated to adore and admire homos and trannies from the youngest possible age. Imagine a world where it’s perfectly wonderful for people to emotionally(and even intellectually) grow up backwards, becoming less mature and more infantile with each passing year. So, we often find women in their 30s and 40s with pink-or-green hair, tattoos, and piercings acting dumber and sillier than when they were 10 or 12. A world where people emerge from colleges looking, feeling, and acting more childish than when they entered. After all, PC infantilizes the mind. Imagine a world where women baring their breasts, buttocks, and vaginas in public is justified and championed on grounds of liberation, emancipation, and progress when it’s just mentally deranged women acting worse than apes.

Such is a world far worse than the Counterculture world of boomers, an experimental moment of excitement and uncertainty and transition. In the 60s and early 70s, there were many contending ‘schools’, and none of them had gained the power of Political Correctness. Also, much of the Vice unleashed by the 60s was defended as relatively harmless vice. The argument was that most people were not saints and even saints had flaws. So, just as utopia is impossible, so is virtutopia. Also, the idealized images of Americana, such as LEAVE IT TO BEAVER and FATHER KNOWS BEST, were TV fantasies and didn’t reflect the reality that was far darker and more complex. So, the idea was that people should develop a live-and-let-live way. Be more tolerant, even of vices and flaws in people.

But our world is radically different from the BAD-NEWS-BEARS culture of tolerance(and slovenliness) of the 70s. Ours is an era when so many people are convinced that Vice is the New Virtue. Having been inculcated thus by PC and Pop Culture, we live in a world where people believe in ‘gay marriage’ as a quasi-spiritual triumph and pretend that BLM garbage has moral value as the New Civil Rights Movement. At the very least, when black riots exploded in the 60s, even Liberals understood blacks had gone bonkers. Even as they continued to feel sympathy for blacks, they knew that those burning down cities weren’t just innocent babes. The Radical Chic infatuation that lent support to Black Panthers and other radical groups was seen as foolhardy by most Liberals, and the Democratic Party was deeply divided on the race issue. But fast forward to today, and BLM is a totally manufactured lie, a ‘Hate Hoax’ on a massive scale. And yet, the Mass Media, Academia, and the Government pretended as if it is some tremendous moral movement. (This is especially disingenuous since the reason for tougher policing in big cities was the globo-proggy-yuppie desire to revitalize urban areas by clamping down on black crime.)
As for Jewish Vice-as-Virtue, it is the queen bee of them all. Jews control the media and pushed the BLM narrative. Jews have also been most responsible for the elevation of Homomania as a neo-religion, a form of Satanic-Jewish-christianity or SJC. It was part of their design to destroy Christianity as the predominant cultural and moral value system of the West. To Jews, Christianity will forever mean "goyim stole our God thanks to renegade Jesus and Paul" and "goyim, armed with God and Jesus, feel more ‘evolved’ and righteous than us Jews." The New Testament says the Son of God was killed by Jews, and He was resurrected. This is why Jews at Google will NOT acknowledge Easter, but they will run theme after theme about homos, trannies, and the like. Queertianity or Satanic-Jewish-christianity(SJC) is owned and controlled by Jews, and that is why anyone who comes under its sway becomes the tools of Jews. This way, God comes to belong only to Jews whereas dumb goyim are led to worship the holy homo anus. Now, there are Jews who also sincerely believe in Homomania and don’t care about real religions, but the REAL REASON why so many rich and powerful Jews got behind Homomania was its likely effect on goyim, especially white Christian goyim. If those dumb goyim could be made to worship holy homo anus or Bruce Jenner’s penis-as-vagina more than God and Jesus, then they’ve been stripped of moral pride. After all, Homomania has no moral depth and relies solely on hype and hysteria. Remove all that Wall-Street-Las-Vegas-Hollywood-Silicon-Valley financing, and Homomania will collapse overnight because there is nothing there, nothing that is real or meaningful. It’s the delirious make-believe that what homos do with one another has equal biological or moral value as what men and women do in acts of Real Sex. Homomania would have us believe that homo fecal penetration is worthy of being associated with the rainbow and of serving as the basis for ‘marriage’. It is not about tolerance of homosexuals(and even trannies) but celebration, elevation, and deification of homos and trannies as holy angels. This is why proggy parents want their kids to be led by homos in Boy Scouts or spend time in kindergarten and pre-school with trannies. They believe their children will be blessed by 'angels'. This is why so many people feel better about themselves if they can claim to have a ‘gay’ friend(or a black or Jewish friend).

Since homos and trannies aren’t merely to be tolerated but sanctified, anyone who says NO to Homomania is deemed a heretic and to be destroyed. Thus, a decent, moral, and courageous baker who will not make a ‘gay wedding cake’ will be targeted, demeaned, dehumanized, fined, and bankrupted. Those who gleefully call for such a person’s destruction aren't secular libertarians motivated by ‘equal treatment under the law’ but rabid & virulent crazed neo-religious types whose faith is Homomania. For them, a decent and moral baker who won’t cave to the degeneracy of ‘gay marriage’ is a heretic, witch, and devilish monster who must be burned at the stake. Their foaming-at-the-mouth and lunatic rage cannot be explained in terms of legal matter or rational argument. They are true-believing fanatics who, being empty souls devoid of genuine morality and faith, have had their spiritual vacuum filled with degeneracy-fitted-with-angel-wings. Sick souls gravitate toward degeneracy, but even sick souls long for some kind of meaning and validation. So, nothing is more appealing to such people than vice-as-virtue. This way, the sick souls can wallow in vice and degeneracy while, at the same time, believing themselves to be morally and spiritually superior to those who refuse to come onboard and must therefore be stoned or burned at the stake in ritualized PC madness.
A world where Vice is more prevalent than Virtue is bad enough, but a world that mistakes Vice as New Virtue and wages war on Virtue as the New Vice is a truly demented one. It is the one we are living in because the world is controlled by the West that is under the power of EOJ or the Empire of Judea. We are living in a world where the Lie is the New Truth.

Imagine a game of 2 + 2. We all know that 2 + 2 = 4. An excessively virtuous world of 2 + 2 = 4 would force all people to adhere to the truth that 2 + 2 = 4... or else. Such a world would be virtuous but not very free. After all, even if 2 + 2 = 5 is false, why shouldn’t people have the freedom to say what is wrong? Shouldn’t freedom tolerate falsehood? Also, how can society move beyond 2 + 2 = 4 IF people are made to fear being wrong in their calculations. Progress in mathematics, like in everything else, came about through many mistakes, trial-and-error, and theorems that failed. If an order excessively insists on the truth of 2 + 2 = 4, people will fear being wrong, and that will make for a dull, fearful, and less experimental society. While many calculations other than 2 + 2 = 4 may be wrong, some might lead to new possibilities that arrive at greater formulas.
Now, imagine a society that tolerates a mistake like 2 + 2 = 5. The calculation is plainly wrong, but a free society should tolerate mistakes and even falsehoods AS LONG AS those with the truth can rebut and correct the lies and delusions. So, a world where people can say 2 + 2 = 5, 2 + 2 = 10, 2 + 2 = 100, 2 + 2 = 900, and etc. is indeed a free society. It would still maintain the truth of 2 + 2 = 4, but it would allow for people to make mistakes or say something ludicrous for the sake of freedom. So, if you want to say 2 + 2 = 1,000,000, so be it. It’d be fantastical, but fantasy can be fun... like James Bond falling out of an airplane but somehow managing to land safely on a yacht with a woman in a bikini.

But then, imagine a world that has come to accept 2 + 2 = 5 as a Holy Formula. It cannot be challenged or questioned because anyone who does so shall be denounced and/or destroyed as a five-o-phobe, a ‘hateful’ 4-ist, or ‘intolerant’ 4-centrist. So, even people who know that 2 + 2 = 4 dare not voice their views and remain mum while the powers-that-be in media, academia, entertainment, and government instill so many minds that 2 + 2 = 5 = rainbow = happy faces = coolness = holiness. This is truly a kind of hell. Not only has falsehood been tolerated but elevated to the status of New Holy Truth. Since the sacred hates the profane, the New Sacred Formula of 2 + 2 = 5 cannot tolerate the Formula of 2 + 2 = 4 that, as long as it is allowed to be muttered, could challenge and discredit the falsehood of 2 + 2 = 5.

Did the Rise of Educated Parents Lead to Political Correctness?

We generally associate more education and higher learning with expansion of discourse and thought. The idea is that educated people tend to be liberal(in a good way) and more open to new ideas and contrasting perspectives. Such assumption is surely valid to some degree.
But, we must ask... Is current education-in-general more about open-mindedness and critical-thinking or about ideological dogmatism, secular idolatry, and political conformity? If the former, it’s very possible that more education will lead to greater exchange of ideas and honest discussion of power. But if the latter, more education could very well make people closed-minded and judgmental in their conformity to the prevailing Political Correctness.

Prior to the boomer generation, only a small section of Americans got higher education. Even the Greatest Generation, with their G.I. Bills, focused on learning skills to get jobs. It was with the boomers that a burgeoning number of young people went to college to expand their minds. However, the 60s were a time of extreme ideological and racial polarization, and many boomer students spent their college years getting radicalized than intellectualized. Their youth became defined and qualified by the level of commitment, determination, and self-righteousness. Even though they were more libertine in their socio-cultural attitudes(in regards to church, manners, and sexual mores) than their parents, they were more judgmental in their ideological views. In contrast, their parents were more uptight about sexuality and more likely to respect traditional manners, but because they were less educated, their views on politics tended to be less radical. Sure, parents of boomers could be political like Archie Bunker in defending the flag or hating communism. But because of their relative lack of education and ‘sophistication’, their attitudes were more about patriotism and sentiment. It was knee-jerk stuff. Because they didn’t have elaborately intellectual rationale behind their political views, they were less likely to be radical about it. After all, radicals are ideological extremists. For one to be truly ideological, there has to be intellectual pedigree behind one's commitments. The parents of boomers simply didn’t have a complex thought system behind what they believed. Also, even as they disagreed with their boomer kids radicalized by college and media, they thought maybe the kids knew better with their superior education. After all, they worked hard and raised their kids to get the kind of college education that they didn't get or got an inferior version of during the Great Depression or the crude era of G.I. Bill mass education. Parents of boomers felt patriotic feelings but lacked a thought-system. In contrast, their boomer kids were instilled with mind-systems to support their radical views. While political emotions ebb and flow, the cold steel of ideology is always present among those who've adopted an intellectual(or pseudo-intellectual) thought system. Even though both Archie Bunker and Meathead are prone to outbursts, the difference is Archie runs on emotions & sentiment whereas Meathead is energized by an ideology & agenda. Also, because Meathead is better educated, he is so sure that he ‘knows everything’. His intellectual supremacism leads to moral supremacism. In contrast, even though Archie Bunker is very sure about some things, he sees himself as a servant of God, nation, and tradition. He doesn't think HE himself knows everything.

Even though Archie Bunker disapproves of much that Gloria says and does, he left her alone to develop her own mind. Not being a thinker or intellectual, he played the conventional role of father, letting Gloria to develop as a person on her own by way of education, entertainment, and experimentation. Bunker trusted that the institutions would do a good job filling his daughter with the right kinds of ideas. He didn’t hover over her at all times. He saw himself as a undereducated man, so his main role was to provide for Gloria so she would get real knowledge from school and media. So, despite his cantankerous nature and abrasiveness, Gloria didn’t grow up under his shadow. She developed on her own.
In contrast, well-educated Meathead believes he knows all there is to know since he read so many books, got a college degree, and settled in an intellectual position as teacher. As such, he plays a much bigger role in the raising of his child. He’s not content to play the role of father who tells funny stories and provides food on the table. He wants to steer his son to think like him and judge the world as he does. And since there is no God as higher authority, there is only the power of ideology as the final word.

Thus, we end up with a conundrum. It’s possible that more free-thinking kids will come from undereducated parents and less free-thinking kids will come from overeducated parents. Undereducated parents don’t know much and leave their kids to learn stuff on their own. Now, it’s possible that these kids will come under power of PC at school. But because they are not under ideological domination at home, they are likely to develop a more libertine attitude about things. In contrast, kids of overeducated(which is to say over-indoctrinated) parents will get PC not only from school but at home from their parents. So, they got double-whammy PC. One thing I noticed is that many of my peers who grew up in the 70s and 80s were left alone by their parents when it came to ideological matters. Most of their parents were around 30 yrs old in 1967, so they were too old to be part of Counterculture(though too young to be part of WWII generation). These parents were not overtly ideological(for the most part) and left the kids to develop freely.

But things have changed over the years with new batch of parents, especially among the upper-middle-class and above, being very well-educated(which is to say well-indoctrinated). These parents are not content to just provide a nice and loving environment for their kids. They insist on instilling their children with their own self-righteous ideology and iconography(mainly around Magic Negroes, Holy Homos, and Wonderful Jews). This ideological domineering is all the more effective because of the passive/aggressive style of parenting. Parents prior to boomerism weren’t very ‘nice’, huggy-wuggy, and friendly with their kids. So, kids grew apart from their parents with the passing of years. But, the PC parents want to be ‘nice’ and ‘understanding’. This bonds them closer to their children and makes the children want to please their parents more. So, if the parents are boo-hoo weepy-poo about MLK and ‘racism’, the kids want to play along to please their ‘nice’ and ‘understanding’ parents.

And things have gotten much worse due to the rise of PC. At least throughout the 70s and even 80s, the prevailing value among many Liberal parents and teachers was freedom of speech. Consider the Liberal support of Salman Rushdie when Iranian clergy put a Fatwa on him over SATANIC VERSES. Back then, despite the campaign against ‘racism’, Liberalism was strongly defined by ACLU-style libertarianism that defended free speech and expression as a good in and of themselves. (Also, culture hadn't gone totally bonkers with stuff like 50 genders and homomania.) But with the rise of PC, the correctness of views became more important than freedom of speech or individuality. Also, because PC has become such a determinant in careerism — consider the fate of James Damore at Google — , ambitious parents who want their kids to attend elite schools and have successive careers apply extra pressure, consciously or subconsciously, to make their kids assent to the rules of PC.

So, what is the solution? The ideal of the less-educated parents? No, that would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Instead, we need to create a new intellectual culture that favors freedom, honesty, and truth over correctness, self-righteousness, and craven opportunism.