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

[No Bull Savage]

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.


Even so, one can make an equally strong argument that feminine
qualities tend to be naturally conservative while male qualities tend
to be liberal. There is more than one kind of liberalism or
conservatism. It could be argued that men are naturally more liberal
because men tend to be more daring, experimental, innovative in
spirit, reckless, and adventurous. In most relationships, it’s the man
who’s more likely to cheat on the spouse and ‘experiment’ with new
relationships. In science, arts, and social behavior, most of the new
ideas and revolutions have come from men. In contrast, even with the
expansion of social/economic opportunities and popularity of stuff
like ‘Sex and the City’, there is a conservative longing for the
Sacredness of Home in the hearts of women. Men are the guardians of
the home but women are the keepers of the home. Women tend to be
emotionally more rooted whereas men tend to be more rootless. Women
tend to be more committed to their spouses and their kids. A mother’s
attachment to the children is often stronger than the attachment
between father and the children. Because women’s psychology is rooted
in home and family, there is a conservative soul at the core of all
women. Even many feminists who try to deny this nature eventually come
around and feel a strong need to put down roots with spouse, children,
and home.


Men, on the other hand, are likely to desire more sexual partners.
Womanizing isn’t necessarily liberal, and one could denounce it as a
form of male-chauvinist-piggery, and indeed in many male-dominated
societies, men fool around while women stay home. In the modern West,
a loose and open lifestyle is embraced by liberals more than by
conservatives–as long as both men and women get to fool around. But,
the fact is even if both sides are given equal opportunity to fool
around or indulge in ‘free love’, men are likely to take advantage of
this freedom much more than women.


Also, because women are the weaker sex, they are more likely to
benefit from a law-and-order society where the weaker elements(women
and children) are protected from criminal elements(men). Law-and-order-
ism is very conservative. Without law and order, society breaks down
and the strongest–young males–rule over everyone else. Elders are
robbed, women are raped, teachers are attacked by students, and so
on. Only in a society where laws are respected and enforced can women
feel safe and free. Freedom without law is oppressive except for the
young male punks who prowl the streets. We need only consider the
reality in the black cities.


So, conservatism could have great appeal to womenfolk. As long as
conservatism upholds the concept of equality and freedom under the law
for both sexes, there’s no reason for women to hate conservatism.
Indeed, the emphasis on law-and-order, safe streets, protection for
wives and mothers, and such stuff–conservative values–should be
appealing to women. Also, as long as conservatives don’t extol the
virtues of wifehood and motherhood at the expense of women’s
individual freedom, there should be no reason for women to reject
conservatism. (Feminists, in their stupidity, often denounced wifehood
and motherhood in their championing of ‘women’s liberation’.) If
politics is about voting according to your best self-interest, there
should be much that is appealing to modern conservatism to women which
(1) believes in equality and freedom under the law for women (2)
importance of home and family life which is dearer to women than to
men (3) law & order and safe streets so that women can move around
without fear and enjoy freedom in a safe way. So, why are so many
women liberal and Democratic than conservative and Republican? There
are several reasons.


First, let’s start with the problem of white liberalism. Again, if
politics is about voting according to your or your group’s self-
interest, white liberalism violates this principle. Though the word
‘liberal’ is used to describe Democratic Hispanics and blacks as well
as Democratic whites, minority groups aren’t really liberal. They only
support WHITE liberalism because it’s the soft spot in the white
community they can exploit and penetrate for their own tribal
interests. Liberalism is universalist and mutualist, but blacks think
only in terms of black power and Mexican-Americans only think in terms
of Mexican power. Blacks and Mexican ‘liberals’ are mere ideological
poseurs who appreciate white liberals because the latter are a bunch
of suckers. It’s the same reason that Muslims in Europe side with the
white leftists and liberals. ‘People of Color’ understand that white
liberals and leftists function, wittingly or unwittingly, as a fifth
column in the bastion of white power, interests, and influence. So,
let us agree that white liberalism is an anomaly in politics. It’s not
about fighting for the power and interest of your people or your side
but for the interests of other peoples.
Now, liberalism can be noble and decent IF its purpose is to extend
equal rights and protection to all people, white or non-white. This
kind of liberalism wouldn’t favor non-whites over whites but only
offer fair enforcement of democratic laws in a free society. So, we
can’t fault the liberals who wanted to end segregation and offer equal
(as opposed to preferential) opportunities to minorities. But,
liberalism of today is not what it was back in the 1950s or 1960s.
Today, Mexican Illegal Aliens brazenly break the law, make speeches
about ‘reconquista’, wave the banner of Hispanic radicalism, and spout
Anti-Gringo diatribes. These are arch tribalists. Now, I don’t mind
Mexicans being fierce nationalists in their own country. I don’t even
mind Mexican-Americans preserving their culture and heritage in
America as American citizens. After all, German Americans remember
their ancestry, food, and culture. Jewish-Americans too. Italian-
Americans as well. The problem is that increasing numbers of Mexican-
Americans and Mexican Illegal Aliens are saying much of the US should
really belong to Mexico, that they want it all back, and so on. This
is a dangerous development. And, we have a similar problem with blacks
in America. Though we can understand the injustice of forced
segregation and all the racial laws that had kept the black man down,
the social developments since the Civil Rights Era have proven that
problems with Negroes go deeper than history or society. Blacks are,
by nature, physically stronger, more aggressive, and less intelligent.
They are not a people who are really suited for civilization. If a
demographic critical mass is reached where there are too many blacks,
society and civilization begin to crumble, turning into another
Jamaica, Haiti, or African country.


Anyway, if white liberalism is anything, it is guilt-ridden, piously
moralistic, naively generous, self-loathing, and even suicidal. In
this regard, we must make a distinction between white female
liberalism and the bogus ‘liberalism’ of non-whites. Black women, for
instance, think of themselves as black first and female second. They
vote Democratic and side with political liberalism for different
reasons than white females do. White feminism is both victim-tribal
and victor-guilty. By ‘victim-tribal’, I mean that white feminists,
like ‘peoples of color’, see themselves as victims of Evil White
Males. So, there is the idea that the ‘downtrodden’ Sisters must
tribally stick together. At the extreme of this ideology is militant
lesbianism which looks upon women who get married as ‘traitors to the
Great Sisterhood’. (Of course, feminism as a form of tribalism is
stupid because women around the world belong to different cultures and
because women cannot form a self-contained community like the various
races or nationalities can. Chinese can choose to live only among
themselves, yet there will be Chinese civilization forever. But, women
cut off from men will all die off in a generation. Sexual tribalism is
just nonsensical. A single race can be whole and self-sustaining
without other races, but neither males nor females can be self-
sustaining on their own..) Anyway, there is the victim-tribal aspect
to white feminism.
But, there is also the victor-guilt aspect. Since white women are also
members of the Evil White Race, white feminists feel a degree of guilt
as ‘white folks’ in regard to non-whites(both males and females). This
all gets very confusing. If all women are victims of men, then white
women are victims of all men, white and non-white. But, if all non-
whites are victims of whites, even non-white men are victims of all
whites, men and women. The only people who are not allowed to bitch
and whine about victimhood are heterosexual gentile white males. (This
isn’t such a bad thing because the last thing I want is white men
reduced to a bunch of bitching and whining crybabies demanding
apologies and handouts.)


Anyway, the point is white female liberalism or white feminism has two
aspects. It is both morally righteous in terms of victimhood and
morally guilty in terms of white racial imperialism. Black feminism,
in contrast, is all about victimhood. It’s about victimhood of blacks
under whites. It is also about victimhood of women under men. It is
also about ongoing sexual victimhood of black women under white women
(who are seen by Da Sistaz as stealing the most eligible black males
who regrettably prefer white women.) White feminism is partly about
“OUR POWER AND OUR INTERESTS AS SISTERS” but it’s also partly about
‘We privileged white girls must apologize for the oppressed people-of-
color around the world and work in THEIR POWER AND INTERESTS to redeem
our ugly white souls’. In contrast, black feminism is all about OUR
POWER AND OUR INTERESTS. Black feminism doesn’t have a single element
of collective guilt in it.



Why do white people feel so much guilt? Christian tradition is partly
to blame(or credit). There is also the history of black slavery and
imperialist domination over non-white peoples which had its dark
sides. Also, the Jews took control of the media and have been cleverly
guilt-baiting the gullible and impressionable white goyim. Also, the
wealth and privilege of white liberals have enabled them to grow up in
safe and affluent surroundings which makes them feel very rosy, gooey,
idealistic, and naive(especially since most of modern education is
really a form of politically correct indoctrination.) Just imagine a
privileged white family that grows up without want or worry. Streets
are safe, food is plentiful, and life is so very good. These white
kids grow up like the young prince Siddhartha. They think the world is
a splendid place. But, as they grow older, they hear about poverty in
other parts of the country and around the world. Their idyllic
notions of bliss are broken and violated. Worse, teachers, TV shows,
movies, books, and even their own liberal parents fill them with guilt
and imply, ‘you have it so good because other people have it so bad
and etc’. So, the white kid who grows up in privilege feels that he
must do something about the world. On the one hand, he loves his
riches and privilege, and a good life is the only reality he knows.
And since he most likely has a good set of genes, goes to good
schools, and will head to top university, he knows his future is going
to be pretty promising, even spectacular whether in business,
profession, academia, media, etc. He wants all that good stuff but he
also wants to fix the world since he’d come to realize that ‘the world
is poor because I am rich.’ So, he tells himself that he will become
involved in politics, enter culture and entertainment to spread the
gospel of ‘social justice’, or will ‘crassly’ make a lot of money and
then eventually use that money to promote ‘progressive’ causes. He
wants to have the world and save it too. Of course, he’s also
attracted to leftism because it promises glory(as heroic saint
warrior), power(as the leader of the new order), and excitement(as a
Promethean radical who thinks up New Ideas!). Siddhartha grew up in a
life of privilege and didn’t have a care in the world. But, when he
found out about human suffering, he rejected all ideas of power,
privilege, and self-interest and went off to find perfect
enlightenment. There is something of the SIDDHARTHA COMPLEX among
today’s privileged young whites. Of course, most of these young ones
don’t want to go as far as the Enlightened One as they happen to be
addicted to cars, cellphones, computers, loose sex, and fancy
restaurants in the big glittering city. But, they want the
‘spiritual’, the ‘meaningful’, and the ‘authentic’ in their overly
compromised and materialistic life. Some indeed do seek out Buddhism
or some other Eastern Mysticism. Some turn to secular religions like
the Global Warming Faith. Some turn to newer manifestations of Marxism
or fall for the Che Guevara cult of personality. Or, they fall for The
One, the jiveass Barack Obama who figured out the workings of the
stupid gullible naive white liberal mind works and manipulates it for
his own power and satisfaction. Obama’s nirvana was not otherworldly
but brotherworldly. He understood, very much like the Will Smith
character in “Six Degrees of Separation”, how to toy with the white boy
(and white girl). White liberals are so stupid that they are even
grateful for being toyed with. Though “Six Degrees of Separation” was
written by a white liberal playwright John Guare and exposes the black
guy as a fraud, the jiveass dude is still depicted as more authentic
and truer(and worthier) because he lied and cheated in appreciation of
the Good Life that spoiled white people only take for granted.


Nevertheless, there is something good to be said about the Siddhartha
Complex. A person who never looks outside his bubble and is merely
content in his little world lacks imagination, poetry, vision, and
ideas. Such person is a turtle inside a shell. It doesn’t matter if
he’s a gung ho individualist if his individualism amounts to little
more than bigger cars, more fun, more crass pleasure, etc. Rush
Limbaugh is your typical Ugly American who talks of freedom and
independence but whose concept of liberty amounts to little more than
chopping down an entire forest to build another golf course or eating
10 Ruth Chris steaks in one sitting. I’m all for individual choice and
freedom, but freedom without imagination, poetry, and vision is
Limbaugh-ism or Ann-Coulter-ism. It is freedom without meaning,
beauty, imagination, and creativity. All it amounts to is “I want
money, I want power, and I want freedom to live as a rude, crass
pig.”. This has become the face of conservatism dominated by George W.
Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and his dittoheads.
Then, there is the conservatism that has meaning but tends to be
dogmatic. It’s all about crusty and dry received wisdom, all about
blind faith(Catholic Church doctrine) or populist passions(mega-mall
churches and Southern Baptist Churches). Such meaning isn’t
adventurous, poetic, searching, expansive, and probing.
In contrast, there is a spirit of adventure, poetry, and vision on the
Left, which is why arts and culture are dominated by leftists and
liberals. Take the story and the movie of “Into the Wild”. Maybe the
kid was a loon. Maybe Sean Penn is a jerk. But, in both the personal
story and in the filmmaking, there is an element of going beyond
conventional knowledge and experience.
Conservatism is about knowing your roots and the trunk as the central
structure of the tree; it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t grow long
branches and sprout a hundred leaves and produce fruits and flowers.
Unfortunately, modern conservatism has the roots and the trunk but
isn’t bearing any leaves and fruits, the colorful stuff of arts and
culture. Worse, the roots of conservatism are not even sucking up
meaningful nutrients from the soil but the toxic artificial fertilizer
of ultra-individualism, hedonism, and infantilism(as embodied by fat,
lazy, stupid, crass, and arrogant Rush Limbaugh and bitchy Ann
Coulter). Today’s mainstream conservatism has neither depth nor
meaningful connections to the past–literature, music, values, etc. It
has no imagination and vision to face the ever-changing future.
Mainstream conservative tradition amounts to waving the flag, munching
on corn on 4th of July, and throwing hissy fits about your right to
buy the Biggest SUV and eat as many steaks cooked in transfat to make
your fat ass fatter. No real connection to the richness of the past,
no real creativity to shape the future. Just money grubbing, gun
hugging, Bible thumping(as opposed to carefully reading and thinking
about the scriptures), and drinking beer at Nascar. George W. Bush
embodied the worst aspects of modern conservatism: shallow faith,
Bible thumping dogmatism, money grubbing worship of Mammon, cowboy
Major Kong foreign policy, etc. Enough already. We need Christo-Pagan
neo-fascism(a democratic reformed fascism) that rejects evil men like
Hitler and rediscovers Carl Jung and other great thinkers and prophets
of the New Right.


Anyway, let’s get to the evolutionary reason as to why women tend to
be more liberal. As I demonstrated above, womanliness isn’t
intrinsically nor necessarily more liberal nor more conservative. It
has aspects of both. We need to introduce a Control into this
experiment. We shall discuss only white women because, as I’ve
explained above, non-white women tend to be ‘liberal’ or pro-
Democratic for reasons unrelated to women’s issues. So, why are white
women more likely to be liberal or Democratic than white men?
I would argue that there are two main factors. First, there is the
obvious factor of the media. Though the media and entertainment
industry are generally liberal, products aimed at women are more
liberal than products aimed at men. This is not necessarily by
intention but by the nature of what men and women prefer in culture
and entertainment. Men like action movies which are, by their very
nature, right-wing EVEN WHEN the message is leftist or liberal. Take
the Bourne Trilogy movies. Yes, the message is liberal or leftist, but
the main attraction was the violence, the action scenes, the fist
punching, gun packing mayhem. Despite its ideology, its actual message
came down to ‘survival of the toughest and fittest’. So, even when the
message is leftist, the very nature of entertainment targeted for men
tend to be essentially right-wing, celebrating the values and virtues
of the warrior, the tough guy, the badass, the macho honcho.

In contrast, movies and TV shows made for women tend to be less
violent. As such, the ideological message or intention comes across
with fewer distractions(of macho action and gung ho violence). In
male-oriented action movies, it doesn’t matter what the ideology is;
the winning side is determined by whoever has the greater power,
greater determination, greater ruthlessness, greater stamina. (The
implication of this is closer to the right-wing view of the world).
In the less violent movies made for women, you get the impression that
problems of the world can be solved by the power of ideas and moral
persuasion. So, even if both movies-for-men and movies-for-women are
equally left-wing in terms of message, the movies-for-men tell the
audience that power decides the fate of the world whereas movies-for-
women tell the audience that ideas and persuasion can change the
world.


But, there is another aspect to why women tend to be influenced in a
more liberal way by the media and entertainment. It is due to the
nature of female psychology. Look at any primitive society, and women
tend to act more collectively, socially, and cooperatively. Sure, men
hunt together and must work together to fend off the enemy. Even so,
even in primitive and traditional societies, there is still room for
men to establish themselves as leaders of the pack, the special breed,
the man of extraordinary magnitude–as individuals. A hunter of a
tribe could be honored and admired as a man of special power. A
warrior seeks glory in combat, and if triumphant, he is seen as a
great man above the rest. Individual women too be could prized for
their beauty, personality, or special gifts–dancing or singing–, but
even special woman sought the attention of men; she was seeking not to
stand tall on her own but to belong to the special man.
Most women, at any rate, not only led collective lives but embraced
the collective ideal because of the nature of their work. Though
hunting done by men was cooperative, there was a measure of freedom
that allowed a degree of individual ambition and improvisation. But,
women who stayed behind were involved in activities where all had to
work closely together. So, the women in the female group tended to be
more tightknit, more conformist, more sensitive of group norms, and
more fearful of being shunned by the community than men in the male
group. A man could maintain a degree of self-worth and individuality
even as an outcast from the tribe; such possibility developed from his
experience as a hunter and warrior. But, a woman cast out of the group
was a zero. She only had an identity as a member of the group.



I would argue that this psychology is still very much with women
today. We may not notice it because of the freedoms and choices that
we enjoy and because of the loud rhetoric of women’s liberation and
freedom and so on. Yes, women are freer in the US and the West than at
any other time or place in history. And, women have gained economic,
social, and political power. But, being free isn’t the same as
thinking freely. Even in a state of freedom, many choose to think like
sheep, like slaves, like servants. And, there has developed a kind of
schizoid-ness among modern women. On the one hand, there’s all this
talk of women standing up to the ‘old-boys-network’, the ‘patriarchy’,
the white male power structure, male chauvinism and so on. But, the
groupthink submissiveness among women have not gone away. Instead,
women have merely become submissive to new powers, institutions, and
systems of thought. Liberation from something doesn’t necessarily mean
liberation from submissive habit itself. For instance, people under
communism were said to have been ‘liberated’ from aristocratic and
bourgeois oppressors, but they maintained the culture of submission in
eagerly or sheepishly accepting the (much worse)tyranny of the new
order. And, many non-white folks who were ‘liberated’ from western
imperialism were still not liberated from their own culture of
oppression, which is why democracy rarely succeeded in non-white
nations(following the fall of imperialism) and why such peoples
submissively accepted native tyranny. We also saw this in Russia after
communism. With the fall of the USSR, Russians were politically free
but their souls were still not free. Their souls were still anxious
and in need of a strong leader to guide the nation.


Same thing happened with modern women. They overcame ‘patriarchy’ or
‘male dominance’, but most women were still not free thinking
individuals. They still had the basic female personality that had
developed through 100,000s of years of evolution. Women still felt a
need to belong to a group, a community, a something or another. To be
sure, all people have this need. Men also organize into gangs, clubs,
organizations, tribes, etc. But, men tend to be ½ individual and ½
member of a group in feelings and thought. Women tend to be 1/4
individual and 3/4 member of a group in feelings and thought. If a
club or organization threw a man out or shunned him, he might be
lonely but a part of him will shout back, ‘the hell with you then’.
But, if a woman meets a similar fate, she’s more likely to feel hurt,
cry, feel lonely and worthless, and etc. A woman is far more afraid
of rejection, dejection, and exile than men are. Of course, we are
speaking.


This need to belong to a club, organization, or community isn’t
necessarily liberal nor conservative. Community pressures can be
conservative–as in an Amish or Orthodox Jewish setting–or it can be
collectivist in the leftist sense–like in liberal social engineering,
communitarianism, or Israeli Kibbutz-ism. The reason why women’s
penchant for group-thinking and group-orientation leans liberal is
that the Big Sisters who control the academia and media–establish the
Sacred Laws–tend to be on the Left. If the media and academia were
controlled by the Right, women are likely to be more conservative than
men.
Men are more likely than women to say, ‘what a lot of crock’ when the
Lords of the Media and Academia try to shove the Sacred Truth down
their throats. Women are more likely to listen and obey and swallow
what is told them. Women are more eager to become part of The Order,
whatever its orientation, than men are.
Feminism didn’t gain power because women rose up en masse against men.
It happened because the liberals and leftists–mostly Jews–gained power
in the media and academia and used the mighty tools of TV, movies,
magazines, newspapers, pop culture, etc to impose the New Thinking on
the women. Most women didn’t freely think on their own but merely came
to obey and submit to the Truths and Demands presented by Big Sister.
Women didn’t liberate themselves but were ‘liberated’ top-down from
above. Feminism wasn’t a movement of the people but a revolution
imposed and disseminated from the top.
NY has long been the center of US news, information, and opinion, and
LA has been the center of pop culture, fashions, and etc. Both NY and
LA–run mostly by liberal and leftist Jews(many of them ugly, bitter,
and envious–but intelligent and talented–Jewish women)used their great
power to shape the minds of American women(just like media domination
in communist nations allowed the central government to control how
everyone thinks; this is why leftists and feminists love Castro’s
Cuba; it’s was always a purely top-down ‘revolution’ where ‘progress’
and ‘truth’ are monopolized and determined by the radical
intellectuals and bureaucrats at the top; this is why the Left prefers
correctness over freedom; correctness allows them to shape the nature
of freedom and coerce all people to accept ONLY their ‘freedom’; so
‘hate speech’–speech of the Right–isn’t free speech. So many young
people–again, especially women–have fallen for this; the Left cares
less about freedom than power and correctness; freedom is important to
them as a concept or a cover than as a real practice). The academia
also came to be controlled by the smarter Jews who happened to be far
more liberal, leftist, or downright radical than non-Jews. With this
massive and mighty power the liberal Jews, both male and female,
imposed a New Order–in ideology, culture, values, etc–on all of
society.


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?