The Funeral of Michael Jackson King, Jr., or America in Melt-Down.

[No Bull Savage]

Celebrity culture is nothing new in the 21st century, but with the
exponential rise of mass media and high-tech gadgetry penetrating
deeper into our lives celebrity-dom is turning into a Hydra-like
monster. To be sure, not much technology is needed to create frenzied
mass devotion among a large segments of the population. (Indeed,
availability of technology also has a way of deflating the cult of
celebrity. In our ultra-connected culture, Big Brother and we are
watching Big Brother each other–and everyone else in between. Still,
it could be argued that even satire has become less an art than a
celebrity in its own right. As evinced by David Letterman’s jokes
about Sarah Palin, it’s less about the quality of satire than who says
it and how for the purpose of grabbing snarky attention.) Consider how
kings, queens, and prophets were adulated, admired, feared, loved, and
even worshiped in their own time long before the arrival of advanced
technology. Or, consider how the legends of men like Jesus or
Muhammad were transformed into grand myths. Rulers in the past had
less technological means to glorify themselves, but most people tended
to be superstitious, ignorant, and worshipful of the high & mighty. It
didn’t take high-tech of the 21st century to create the pervasive cult
of Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Che, Gaddaffi, or
Kim Il Sung. Among the most obnoxious personality cults in Latin
America has been that of Evita Peron.
Compared to some of these lunacies, the brouhaha over Michael
Jackson’s funeral may not seem all that crazy. And, it’s probably also
true that more people find Michael Jackson ridiculous than regal;
many people either don’t care about Michael Jackson or even think he
was some kind of a weirdo. But, it’s disturbing all the same because
the attention paid to Michael Jackson is so far out of proportion to
his actual accomplishment. Also, the media failed to mention the fact
that many people tuned in to watch the Jackson funeral out of
amusement or laughing derision than respect. I, for one, was in
stitches throughout, especially when a black Congresswoman promised to
introduce a bill honoring Michael Jackson as a great humanitarian.
These days, famous is synonymous with infamous. And, we mustn’t forget
that the media are a business and naturally operate with the same herd
mentality as the stock market. Notice that even people complaining of
the media coverage are only adding fuel to the fire. Pro or con,
everyone giving his 2 cents on the media coverage only made the bubble
grow bigger and bigger. Of course, everyone in the media will say he
or she was discussing the Michael Jackson story because OTHER people
were doing so, but OTHER people have the same excuse. Again, just like
the stock market. You buy because OTHERS buy, you sell because OTHERS
sell. You always explain YOUR behavior in relation to OTHERS, and
OTHERS do the same in relation to others, which would include you.
Even so, it was wacky because Michael Jackson was, all said and done,
just a pop star.
Evita Peron may have been a foolish person, but she was, for a time,
the closest person to the most powerful man in Argentina. People may
have worshiped her for all the wrong reasons, but she did directly
affect the lives of many people. But, what did Michael Jackson ever do
to merit such attention? Granted, up to 1985, he was a fabulously
talented composer and performer, an international star and icon. But,
he was hardly the only great talent in pop music nor the best. Many
rock artists–and other musicians–have died in the last decade, and
none of them received this kind of attention.
When we see stuff like this, we are inclined to agree with Europeans
about the stupidity of American culture and people. Only Americans
could be this vulgar, shallow, and trashy, right? But wait a minute.
The British went crazy over Princess Diana, a person even more
worthless than Michael Jackson(at least since the late 80s). And,
let’s not forget the celebrity-saturated culture and politics of
Italy. Berlusconi may be a man of the right, but he’s a sleazebag all
the same. And, Elvis was even bigger in Germany than in the US. And,
let’s not forget that in the 20th century, Europeans worshiped and
blindly obeyed mass murderers like Hitler and Stalin. And, was it
necessarily healthier for European youths in the 50s & 60s to have
deified the likes of Jean-Paul Sartre, Louis Althusser, Foucault, Che
Guevara, and Ho Chi Minh? Michael Jackson may have been a fool but he
didn’t order the deaths of millions nor did he apologize for regimes
that set up death camps or the gulag.
On the other hand, I suppose Europeans could argue that whatever the
evil of men like Marx, Lenin, or Hitler, they were serious individuals
with serious ideas. Good or evil, they were worthy of serious
admiration or contempt. But, what did Michael Jackson ever do in life
or art that’s been worthy of serious attention? Sure, his talent for
dance music was seriously real, but pop music is, after all, pop
music, not music for the ages.
But, if medium is the message, I can’t think of another personality
more suited for our mass high-tech media. I can’t imagine textual
tomes being written about Michael Jackson down the line–as has been
the case with more brainier artists like John Lennon or Bob Dylan–,
but everything about Jackson is perfect for the Cool Medium of MTV,
youtube, internet blogs, web shrines, myspace pages, and etc. It was
all about the glitz, the pizzazz, the slickity-slack.


To an extent, it could well be that our fixation with Michael
Jackson’s death has as much to do with his association with the
(relatively)older medium than with the newer medium. In our fast
changing world, anything pre-digital or pre-internet is old. Analog
is analogosaurus, a dinosaur. By that token, Michael Jackson was
biggest pop star at the twilight of analog technology and on the eve
of digital technology that led to dvd, ipods, and, most importantly,
the internet.


Celebrityhood just hasn’t been the same since the rise of the
internet. There’s more celebrity news than ever before but, as we all
know, familiarity breeds contempt, and today, we are indeed too-close-
for-comfort with our stars. In the movie ALL ABOUT EVE, a newcomer had
to patiently and deviously cajole herself into the world of famous
people to become famous; in today’s world, anyone can become a
celebrity(at least in his or her own mind)by gaining attention through
a Youtube vlog or Myspace blog. Not only can we access countless
photos, info, rumors, etc about our favorite stars and then some, we
can even grab much of their products for free through file sharing.
There used to be a time when we had to make a pilgrimage to record
stores, stand in line, and carry that special album back home to play
on our record players or when we had to stand in line to see a movie
or at least make a trip to the video store to see if the latest video
was available. Today, we can get it instantly off the internet, often
for free. Therefore, much of the celebrity mystique had vanished,
which may explain why newer stars feel a need to push the envelope in
outrage, shock, and stupidity to remain relevant or gain our
attention. In a world where TOO MUCH is passe, the entertainment
industry must give us TOO MUCH x 2. The other method of gaining or
maintaining celebrityhood is to play the anti-celebrity card, like
Sacha Cohen did with BORAT or Larry David with CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM;
this way, you get a taste of celebrityhood all the while pretending
you’re too smart for that crap. Steven Wright probably perfected this
before anyone else.

If Michael Jackson or even the Beatles had arrived on the scene today,
they would not have enjoyed the kind of success possible in the 60s
and 80s. With the internet, EVERYONE has become a celebrity, gaining
not only 15 minutes of fame but 24/7 fame, even if limited to a small
sub-community or make-believe-community in cyberspace.
Also, celebrities are less special for the simple reason that they are
less necessary as conduits through which people feel a sense of
community and/or get to know other people. Deadheads didn’t go to
Grateful Dead concerts just to hear the music; they wanted to meet
others like them, find friends and lovers, and feel a sense of
BELONGING. The fan community revolving around a celebrity or shared
interest has been an important pre-internet means for people to feel
connected, to meet other people, to feel part of a larger community.
A lot of diehard fans are probably lonely people, which explains their
need to lean on and worship a Great Star and belong within its orbit.
It is via the gravitational pull of the Celebrity Star that fans get
to know other fans or at least that others like themselves exist out
there, somewhere. In the movie MEET JOHN DOE, the social phenomenon
isn’t just about sympathizing with or admiring John Doe but using him
as the conduit to get to know other people and feel a sense of
community. The Church has always played this role, and in this sense,
Jesus Christ has been the greatest superstar of all time.
But with the rise of the Internet, the celebrity has become less
necessary as a star figure around whom people may develop a sense of
community. Today, people can connect with one another through the vlog
or blog or this or that internet site or page. Before the internet, a
fan needed to cling to a rock star, movie star, or some such celebrity
to know that he belonged to a community outside his little isolated
humdrum life. Even if fandom didn’t literally bring you close to the
star nor lead you to new friends, you at least you were part of a
shared community. With the internet, people all over the world can
link up, communicate, and relate to other peoples all over the
globe.
This explains the decline of professional criticism as an respected
artform. Prior to the internet, we had to rely on newspapers and
magazines to find the latest news on movies, books, and music. Only a
select few experts got to have their writings published. So, a rock
community might revolve around top rock critics who became
celebrities in their own right. Even if you never met the rock critic
or others who read his reviews, you knew that you were ONE OF THE FANS
who regularly followed him. Whether one agreed or disagreed with the
critic’s views, it was through the magazine or newspaper that ideas
and opinions revolved, spinning a imaginary sense of community. If
you were lucky, your letter to the editor might even be published on
occasion. The same could be said of talk radio. It is popular not so
much for the views expressed but the sense of community projected; the
radio personality serves as the conduit for all the angry, confused,
lonely, crazy, happy, sad, wild, shy, etc people out there.
But, with the onset of the internet, we don’t need rock critics or
magazines, for example, to share info and opinions about rock music.
We can directly express our own views and read/listen to views of
‘ordinary’ people like us. We no longer need ‘expert’ intermediaries
hired and hyped by the media owned and controlled by a few. Who cares
about Roger Ebert anymore?
When only the clergy owned sacred texts and could read, most people
could come nearer to God and join a spiritual community only through
the church and clergyman. But, with universal literacy and Bibles
available to everyone, the spiritual ‘expert’ has become less crucial.
Anyway, the point is Michael Jackson was one of the last great
celebrities in the Age of Analog and pre-internet age when the meet-
john-doe effect still operated very much throughout culture.



So, celebrities are no longer regarded as a special breed but simply
more successful versions of you or me. In Myspace everyone is a
musical artist, on Rotten Tomatoes everyone is a movie critic, and on
Youtube everyone is a filmmake or movie star. Celebrity culture had
always been aimed at the masses, but it was only relatively recently
that it has been democratized to the point where anyone could be an
instant celebrity via the internet.


As a result, the sense of royalty-of-celebrityhood has gone out the
window. Celebrityhood may be bigger than ever, but it is also more
vulnerable and vulgar than ever–because it is so accessible. With a
million blogs, vlogs, and indie news on the internet, new celebrities
are made faster than ever but also scrutinized and destroyed faster
than ever.
Prior to the internet, relatively few media empires dominated all the
news. Even with print or tv tabloid news, celebrities were somehow
untouchable, larger than life, knowable only through certain media
such as People Magazine or glitzy TV shows. But, with millions of
internet sites trading billion juicy tidbits, rumors, images, and
sounds on a minute-by-minute basis, it’s much more difficult to build
up celebrity gods like Elvis, Michael Jackson, or the Beatles.
Michael Jackson’s biggest success, THRILLER, was released at a time
when LP album still dominated the market. To own his music, you had to
buy the album. You couldn’t just download it off the internet
instantly. Too much of anything reduces its magic and appeal. (Suppose
everyday was Christmas!) Michael Jackson, along with Bruce
Springsteen and Madonna, was among the last of the breed to enjoy the
advantages of the LP market and old-school celebrity god status. CDs
soon replaced LPs, but it wasn’t long before people could burn cds.
Today, even cds are passe with instant downloads on the internet.


Michael Jackson was also special for he was the last of the great
black stars before the rise of ugly and detestable Rap music. Jackson,
for all his weirdness, had a certain style, class, and beauty as a
slick and polished pop star through music and on stage(at least up to
the mid 80s.) Since then, pop music has been taken over by stupid
retarded rap, ugly grunge, or rather airheaded techno dance music. Of
course, there has been plenty of the good music, but the main trend
has been negative in spirit and imagination. This isn’t to say that
Jackson’s music was particularly uplifting or ennobling. Far from it,
but even the sexual nature of his music was (at least up to Thriller)
without the raunchiness and pornography of so much that followed. And,
though Jackson could be swift and energized, his act wasn’t ugly,
thuggish, nor hateful..


So, it could well be that Michael Jackson’s passing has made us
suddenly aware of how much our world has changed since the time when
he was truly king of pop–change for the worse. Of course, Michael
himself changed too, also for the worse. This isn’t to suggest that
mid 80s was some golden era or that Michael Jackson was ever a noble
character, but it could be some people clung to the myth of Michael
Jackson because they didn’t like the socio-cultural changes that took
place in the post-Thriller era.



Many black entertainers emphasize how much Jackson had been part of
the African-American community, and many white people pontificate that
Michael Jackson was a kind of a rainbow bridge of hope, peace, and
love between blacks and whites(at least before the sexual scandals
broke and after Jackson died–as death of a famous person brings out
the mushy eulogy-prone sensibility from within our hearts). But, whom
are they kidding?
Though Jackson’s rise had connections to traditional Motown Soul
Industry, he was too eccentric and weird to fit the mold. Jackson had
something in common with Smokey Robinson and Lionel Richie–two black
entertainers of light complexion and feline smoothness with cross-over
appeal to white audiences–, but he didn’t merely want to cross over
but cross into whiteness or white-like-ness.
This may explain why Jackson was so eager to maintain good ties with
the black community. A part of him didn’t want to be black, but a
part of him feared of being called a ‘wanna-be’ traitor. So, even as
he became more and more white complexioned, he maintained strong ties–
financial and personal–with blacks to prove his ‘street cred’. We
often see this tendency among ‘progressive’ big time entertainers and
entrepreneurs. The more successful they become, the more leftist they
become. It’s as if to say, ‘yeah, I gained fame and fortune, but I’m
still a starving rebel artist, at least in spirit, blah blah blah.”
Why else would billionaires like David Geffen fund far leftist
agendas?


Michael Mania is all the more surprising when we take into
consideration Jackson’s inert and irrelevant artistic career since
Thriller. BAD was a disappointment, and everything that followed was
failed to live up to expectations. As with Mike Tyson, Michael Jackson
remained in the news for all the wrong reasons. They both got in
sexual trouble, with Tyson serving prison time and Michael Jackson
bribing his accuser to the tune of $20 million dollars. As if that
wasn’t enough, Jackson was in the news a second time for child
molestation. Though he wasn’t found guilty, it confirmed for many his
serious sexual problems or lack of good judgment and common sanity if
not much else.

.
What’s interesting is that even though those scandals were negative
for Michael’s image and finances, they kept him in the news and
spotlight. He never fell out of the radar as a result. There were
also various crazy stories about life in Neverland, his whitening
skin, strange marriages(Lisa Presley, Debra Rowe),masked children,
holding his baby from window ledge, etc. It was this freak show side
of Jackson that, I believe, led to the massive interest and outpouring
upon his death. Good or bad, Americans want celebrity news, and the
King of Tabloid News–rather than of pop music–material has died. What
a bummer!
Because he’d always remained in the News, he was still a fresh topic
when he died than a long forgotten figure who’d once been famous.
Indeed, suppose Jackson had been relatively normal. Suppose he didn’t
undergo weird facial surgeries after Thriller. Suppose his skin never
turned white and there were no scandals. Suppose he just faded from
the pop scene, and that was that. Suppose he’d just lived a quiet life
all these yrs. Would there have been this kind of attention and
interest in his death? Of course not. Had Jackson been a normal
person, his death would have been covered as the end of a faded pop
star whose peak had been over 20 yrs ago. There would have been much
fanfare, many tributes, and a big enough media coverage, but nothing
like what we’ve seen.
Also, though 50 isn’t exactly young, his death was shocking because
his public persona was that of someone still in his teens(and mentally
still in his childhood). He died prematurely but not as a young man,
but it still feels as though he died at the peak of youth!


Though many people were turned off by his oddities, it was the
oddities which kept him on the media radar. How ironic that the mostly
negative publicity since the late 80s may have been responsible for
the lionization of Jackson as a Great Hero, Great Humanitarian, Great
Saint, Great Artist, etc. Why should this be so? Perhaps, it’s
partly because we are so swept up with celebrity that we want to honor
the king of celebrities, and that was Michael Jackson. Even bad
publicity is publicity after all. Also, bad publicity has a way of
forging a stronger bond between star and his fans. The ever adoring
and protective fans feel obligated to defend their hero in distress
from all the nay-sayers and ‘witch-hunters’. So, whenever Michael was
in trouble, even as many Americans despised him, his fans grew even
closer to him and many people just had to follow the news.


Also, keep in mind that we live in the age of victimology. To an
extent, the children who accused Michael Jackson were also using the
victimological card to reap millions. In his death, it was time for
Michael Jackson fans and supporters to play the victimological card.
Suddenly, it was Michael who had been the victim of false accusation,
innuendo, misunderstanding, mockery, etc. Of course, this is pretty
ridiculous, but what are the media to do? Media are mostly owned by
liberal Jews who also own much of the popular music industry where
black entertainers are important. The liberal Jewish media have a
stake in protecting and promoting Michael Jackson and his ilk. Liberal
Jews don’t want to offend blacks who comprise some of their biggest
stars and audiences. But, even non-Jewish whites have been afraid to
say anything lest they be shouted down by the likes of Al Sharpton.
And, blacks have a tendency to stick together through thick and thin.
Though Michael Jackson turned white-looking in his later career, many
blacks still feel possessive of his legacy.


Also, many white people have a certain fondness for Michael because he
was a soft-spoken black guy than a threatening black guy. Better
Michael Jackson than Mike Tyson. If Mike Tyson fits the stereotype of
the beastly black thug, Michael Jackson fit the stereotype of the
kindly clean-cut black guy who was safe enough to play with your
kids... well, at least until the scandal broke.
If Mike Tyson conjures up images of rape and assault, Michael Jackson
stirred up images of innocence and family fun(again, at least until
the scandal broke). Tyson was brawny, brick-like, and brutal; Jackson
was subtle, supple, and seductive.
Before Jackson got too close for comfort with (mostly)white kids,
millions of white parents warmed up to him as cartoon character who
couldn’t possibly hurt or shame children. He didn’t fit the fearful
stereotype of the tough brutal black male. Michael didn’t talk black
but so sensitively.


There was also the symbolic value of Michael Jackson as a racial
uniter. In a nation still said to be divided along racial lines, the
liberals who rule the media simply couldn’t resist that theme. The
liberal hope for racial harmony has been such that Martin Luther King
Jr. (real name: Michael King) was forgiven his plagiarism, deceptions,
orgies, and assaults against women in order to build a bogus myth
around him. Though Martin King was a devious crook and a fraud, we are
supposed to worship him as a prophet. The Dream that King spoke about–
written by some nebbish leftwing left-wing Jew, by the way–was a fraud
from the beginning, but it has gained such potency in our culture and
politics that anyone who plays along to this tune is forgiven all his
trespasses.
In Christianity, it doesn’t matter how much you’ve sinned in This
World–raped, robbed, murdered, etc.– as long as you finally seek Jesus
and accept him as the Son of God. Then, you are forgiven all your sins
and ascend to heaven. But, no matter how good you’ve been in This
World, if you reject Jesus as the Son of God, you eternally burn in
Hell.
Well, something similar operates in the liberal moral cosmology. You
can be a lowlife piece of turd, but as long you sing pious hosannas to
liberal cliches and worship ‘progressive’ holy cows, you are forgiven
all your sins. So, it’s no wonder that someone as ridiculous as
Michael Jackson could be praised as a great humanitarian just because
he donated to some ‘progressive’ charities, showed up at some do-goody
events, spoke on the phone with Coretta Scott King–a stupid whore hag
who leeched off the false legacy of her loutish husband–, and sang to
starving kids in Africa.
Same was true of Princess Diana. Though she was nothing more than a
spoiled, indulgent, and bratty twit, the fact that she’d shown public
concern for African children and gays afflicted with HIV–spread by
filthy gay behavior of fecal penetration–meant she too had been a
great humanitarian.
This is how our liberal media work. Whether you’re a celebrity or
billionaire, you’re okay or even wonderful as long as you toe the
liberal ‘progressive’ line when it comes to politics or social
agendas. You could be a total scumbag in real life, but IF you support
‘gay marriage’, you are treated as a saint-hero. Bill Gates was
vilified in the 90s, but once he started to give the correct kind of
charities, he suddenly became the most wonderful businessman in the
world. Though George Soros leeched his billions through crooked
financial means, the liberal media–and even the radical left–praise
him because he funds ‘progressive’ causes. As long as you put your
mouth in the correct place, you can get away with murder. Even George
W. Bush earned reprieve from the liberal media when he pledged $50
billion for Africa!! The crooked Illinois governor George Ryan was
suddenly an international media hero when he gave amnesty to everyone
on death row.
Though Michael Jackson didn’t do much in terms of ‘saving mankind’–as
he was too busy living his fantasy life in Neverland–he made all the
correct symbolic gestures, and that was sufficient for our superficial
and celebrity-smitten liberal media to treat him as a wonderful
humanitarian.


What’s appalling about the whole Michael Jackson affair is the amount
of deceit, fantasy, delusion, and mendacity rolled into one. We know
that most of it’s a lie, but most of us are somehow afraid to come
forward and expose the BS for what it is.
Most troubling is that our fixation with the Michael Jackson myth says
volumes about our own addiction to lies, deception, and delusions.
After all, we are all guilty of collective BS.
This BS actually goes back to the Jackson’s peak years. The so-called
Reagan 80s are remembered as a great time by many Americans,
especially conservatives. But, look at the decade more closely and
what we find are many layers of deceptions. True, Reagan had
greatness, but he was not the small government & small town values
conservative that many conservatives remember him to be. And, there
was a good deal of fraudulence in his mythic rise as well. He
sometimes seemed to be clueless as to what was happening in his very
administration. Many businessmen around him were crooked. The yuppies
who rose to economic prominence in the 80s were crass, superficial,
and materialistic–and they would become Clinton supporters in the 90s
and rotten parents raising their even shallower kids to become the
Obama generation.
Though Reagan spoke of small-town virtues, his Free Trade policies led
to rust-belt towns all across America. Reagan often relied more on
symbolism than substance. Americans did feel renewed confidence in the
80s, but confidence in what? In superficial patriotism of Rambo
movies. The 80s generation was the stupid MTV generation. 80s also
gave us Rush Limbaugh, a bloated clown filled with arrogance,
contempt, and greed–stereotypical embodiment of the conservative as a
fat, lazy, boorish, uncaring know-nothing know-it-all. Also,
Reagan’s unbound optimism as America-as-a-City-on-a-Hill led to
reckless policies such as amnesty for illegal aliens, which led to
current immigrant mess. Also, the simple-minded notion that the
Afghani Mujahadeen were noble freedom fighters taking on the Evil
Empire(like ragtag muppets vs the Empire in RETURN OF THE JEDI) later
came to bite us with 9/11.


Of course, we now speak with the benefit of hindsight, and it would be
wrong to blame Reagan for all that went wrong since his presidency,
and it’s true enough that Regan was one of the great presidents of the
20th century. Even so, conservatism of the 80s turned out to be
superficial and short-lived indeed. The coalition built around
numbskull Evangelical Christians, over-zealous neocons, trashy blue-
collar Reagan Democrats, and Wall Street big shots would eventually
lead to the meltdown presidency of George W. Bush. And, the somewhat
anti-intellectual legacy of 80s conservatism–Rambo crazy, yuppie
materialistic, Bible Thumping, etc–laid the groundwork for the rise of
someone as stupid as George W. Bush or pitifully unqualified as Sarah
Palin. I don’t deny that there are qualities about Bush and Palin that
may have appealed to many red-white-blue Americans. Bush was supposed
to be like a ‘beer drinking buddy’ and Palin was supposed to be like a
hockey mom. But, come on, people, US is the richest, most powerful,
most complex nation in the world. Its steward cannot be a frat boy who
later cynically found religion or a woman who, for all her fine
qualities, lacks basic knowledge to run a nation. Folksiness can be a
virtue but it can’t be the blueprint for running a nation, anymore
than a banjo belongs in a symphony orchestra.
This culture of stupidity goes partly back to Reagan. Reagan was not
a stupid man. For a politician, he was rather wise and insightful.
But, the false image and hope that surrounded him fooled many
conservatives into believing that all a politician needed was ‘family
values’, making government smaller(which never happened, by the way),
and saying pledging’s one’s allegiance to the Flag.
How often have conservatives belittled Carter for his book smarts and
intelligence? While it’s true that intelligence and book knowledge
alone aren’t enough for good leadership, they are in and of themselves
good things. Unless the GOP embraces the culture of intelligence, it
will end up with guys like Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, and Sarah
Palin. Not that Democrats are any better–indeed they are worse for
the knowledgeable among them embrace the wrong kind of knowledge–but,
conservatives should be for good knowledge than no knowledge. Al Gore
may be a fool to embrace Global Warming, but it would have nice if Dan
Quayle knew how to spell ‘potato.’



Americans–indeed people all over the world–have a natural preference
for delusions over reality because reality is harsh and depressing.
Delusions are fantasies, lies, or at best, half-truths. Though all
people have this problem, it may be especially acute among Americans
because America is land of excess–land, freedom, promises,
opportunities, wealth, violence, poverty, achievement, historical sin,
etc–packed together tight in a span of a few centuries. Amnesia is
our national past time. America could be called Amnesiarica. We are
always so busy grabbing, shopping, praying for, or resting our hopes
on something new that we have little sense of our history. Sometimes,
we become acutely aware of our hectic and mindless present-ness and
futuristic anxiety and so we hanker for the past, and the result is
someone like Eisenhower or Reagan. But, even our conservatism is never
true conservatism. After all, people rejected Carter not because he
was moving too fast into the future but because the nation’s economy
and military power seemed stalled under his term. Paradoxically,
Americans went with the ‘traditionalist’ Reagan so that America could
be charging into the Future again. It’s no wonder that conservatism
under Reagan amounted to little more than yuppie libertarianism.
Reaganism wasn’t about reconnecting with America’s true past but
exploiting the mythic nostalgia to fill people with enough (false)
confidence to make believe, for awhile at least, that we were again
charging into the future like pioneers of the West during the era of
Manifest Destiny.
If some societies are too heavily weighed down by history, tradition,
and culture, the problem of America has been we are always charging
ahead without a compass or map based on past experiences. For Italian
Fascists, Futurism was an ideal, but it is America that perfected it
into practice. Much of the change are negative or corrosive, but we
keeping moving toward something new even before we’ve digested the
meaning of what happened.
If too much thinking leads to paralysis–as evinced by sclerotic
Europe–, too little thought leads to paroxysm. America is a hyper
nation. Though the 80s are remembered as a conservative decade and
though conservatism is supposed to be about roots, amnesia was crucial
to the success of Reaganism. We were supposed to forget that much of
the 60s and 70s ever took place, as if they’d just been a bad
nightmare, an anomaly in American history that would go away if we
listened to Reagan’s bedtime stories and nibbled on cookies and sipped
warm milk.
Whether they were good or bad, a thoughtful conservative must wrestle
with historical events, search for meaning in them, and learn the
lessons of history.
As it turned out, most of the people who bothered to look back and
analyze the 60s were people of the Left. The Right just ignored or
dismissed that history–as with much else. It’s one of the great
ironies of modern times that conservatives, who stress the importance
of the past, show little interest in it. Indeed, most history majors
are liberals or leftist, not conservatives. Modern conservatism has
become shallow, a matter of ‘leave me alone to earn my money, hug my
gun, and grow a fat ass as I listen to Rush Limbaugh.’ Reagan did
invoke the past, but it was a simplified false past, a hagiography of
small town America that never quite existed in Capraesque form.
To be fair, we can’t expect politicians to be historically accurate in
the manner of historians, but many people really seemed to think the
warm and glowing embrace of Reaganism would heal all wounds, redeem
all of America’s history, and redeem the future. (In this sense, there
is a link between Reaganism and Obamaism. If Obama supporters drank
too much Kool Aid, Reagan supporters sipped too much warm milk or
ovaltine. This isn’t to say Reagan was a lowlife slimeball punk like
Obama. Indeed, he was a good decent man, and many of his policies were
patriotic and sound. My point is rather that the MODE of Reaganism
required too much faith over reason, a problem of American political
culture in both parties.) But, the City-on-the-Hill fantasy didn’t
really materialize during or after the Reagan’s presidency. During
George H. W. Bush’s presidency, LA riots broke out, and Bush was as
flustered as his son would be 10 yrs later with Katrina. During the
80s, the favorite movie genres among youths were the slasher movie and
the horny teenager movie. Many Reagan-loving young conservatives were
really shallow, trashy, hedonistic, and crass libertarians. None of
these were Reagan’s faults, but many conservatives seemed to think
that Reaganesque wishful thinking would reverse the tide of the Gay
Movement, illegal immigration, crass yuppie materialism, Hollywood
fantasy of blood and mayhem, and the sorry decline in conservative
thought and culture.
In the 80s, the majority of academics were liberal but there were
still an important contingent of conservatives. Today, the left-right
imbalance in the media and academia is bigger than ever, and this
state of affairs cannot be blamed solely or even mostly on liberals.
The fact is conservative culture has not supported, patronized, and
shown interest in ideas and culture–except in glibbest of ways.
For a while in the 80s, it was not so much that conservatives
politically won as liberals lost. Liberals had gotten too ambitious
with their programs and agendas in the 60s and 70s and turned off a
lot of people. Disgust with liberalism led to Nixon victory in 68 and
Reagan victory in 80, but the people never really embraced
conservatism because it was dull-as-hell and mostly unappealing to the
most intelligent segments of American society. The intelligent people
who were attracted to conservatism were entrepreneurs, but once they
made their millions, they felt empty and discovered that ‘man doesn’t
live on bread alone’. These people didn’t turn to religion or
conservative ‘family values’ because such as defined by conservatives
were so Dumb. They were bound to fall under the influence of
mendacious but intellectually engaging liberalism and leftism.


So, in this sense, Michael Jackson and Ronald Reagan were icons of the
same decade and shared much the same qualities as public figures.
Though they were total opposites in terms of sexuality, ideology, and
whatnot, their rise had much to do with our penchant for choosing
dream over reality. This isn’t to deny their Real talents and virtues,
which were many. Reagan was serious about a freer economy, patriotism,
and fighting communism; one can say his presidency was largely
successful, at least when compared with others in the 20th century.
And, for a time, Michael Jackson was indeed the prince or king of pop
with real talent and shoes to burn. The problem is they turned into
myths, both by themselves and by our longings & delusions. That’s when
things got perilous. In time, Jackson really had a hard time
discerning reality from fantasy. And, if you listen to conservatives
today, you’d think Reagan wasn’t a politician but Moses. Reagan’s
decline in his final yrs was truly sad and heart-wrenching, but
Alzheimer seemed fitting in a way, for Reagan’s America regained its
confidence mainly by forgetting history. And how fitting that Michael
Jackson died at the age of 50, the perfect expression of half-ness.
Half a century of life for a man who was half this, half that, half
everything, half nothing.


Though Reagan was a politician, he had a background in entertainment,
and though Jackson was an entertainer, his life took on socio-
political significance. Reagan had something in common with Jackson in
the way that he embraced an almost fabricated image of his own life.
(It’s no wonder that the biographer who’d been personally closest to
Reagan gave us DUTCH, a book that mixed fact and fiction.) If Jackson
went out of his way to be impossibly abnormal, Reagan went out of his
way to be impossibly normal. But, both immersed themselves in false
lives. Reagan the social conservative had divorced his first wife. His
children were not his own and seemed to care little for ‘family
values.’ How could a patriotic conservative raise a daughter like
Patti Reagan or the bratty & insipid Ronald Reagan Jr.? Reagan must
have been neglectful as a parent, or perhaps those who knew him up
close were too aware of his superficiality. Though he tirelessly
spoke of individualism and independence, he’d been frontman or
spokesman of organizations and companies built and run by other
people. There was something of this in Reagan’s presidency. He stood
for Big Ideas, but when it came to details Reagan seemed a clueless
incompetent–something shared by George W. Bush. This lack of attention
to detail led to Iran-Contra scandal, the horrendously miscalculated
amnesty for illegal immigrants, the rise of finance capitalism devised
and controlled by ‘free market ideologues and geniuses’ who were
presumably so intelligent that we need only to put our faith and
savings in them, and the Iraq War under George W. Bush, a man who
identified himself as the New Reagan.


Reagan didn’t succeed much in Hollywood nor set up a successful
business himself. He made himself useful as the handsome face to other
men who could build up a business and actually run things. Everything
about Reagan was supposed to be normal, straight, and solid, but his
ultra-normality was partly an armor or shield from the wounds of life–
his alcoholic father, inadequacy as an actor, lack of empathy or
imagination when it came to changing times. There was something strait-
jacketed about Reagan’s style and demeanor. He could be warm and
gentle, but his firmness sometimes primarily masked his rigidness.


Michael Jackson too tried to shield himself from reality. He didn’t
want to be associated with his uncouth family, didn’t want to be snub-
nosed and nappy-haired, didn’t want to give birth to nappy-headed
kids, didn’t want to own up to his probable homosexuality, etc. So,
he chose a theme park reality for himself just like so many Americans
sought theme-park reality through Reaganism? In Jackson’s theme park
‘reality’, he would never grew old, and so sexuality could forever
remain ‘innocent’. An innocent sexuality is neither heterosexual nor
homosexual. It was supposed to be pure. His nearest friends became his
animal pets and children.
It is in this area where Reagan’s conservatism and Jackson’s
convolutism intersected. Reaganism pretended that social and
historical complexities didn’t exist if we just cheered for the
Gipper, and Jacksonism pretended that one’s life could be a G-rated
Disneyland fantasy no matter how perverse one really was. Through
Reaganism, conservative Americans could wish away the tortured
complexities of American history and society, and through his own
fantasy, Jackson–and his fans–could believe that there really is a
Never Land of the heart and mind.
No two figures were more different yet more alike than Reagan and
Jackson. So, as we ponder the crash-n-burn descent of Jackson’s career
since the early 90s, we need to consider the same problems of
conservatism.
Fantasy is not reality. The positive reality of Reagan was that he
pushed some good economic policies and, in hindsight, did the right
things necessary to bring the Cold War to an end. But if we are to be
fully honest and truthful, it must also be said that Reagan was very
lucky. He benefitted from Carter’s bad luck, and he was fortunate to
have a counterpart in Gorbachev, a conscientious communist who
genuinely wanted to reform the system. There is a lot of merit to
Reagan’s presidency, but we must careful not to turn it into myth. He
was a man, not Superman.
As for Jackson, who can deny the power and even beauty of Off The Wall
and Thriller? But any honest assessment would have to conclude that
Jackson was washed out soon afterward. Paradoxically, hunger is the
best nourishment for success, and hunger fueled Jackson to great
success. But once he reached the top and became satiated with all he
could afford, there was no more hunger in his life. He spent the rest
of his days lost in a dream than chasing after a dream. It’s also
possible that the mega-success of Thriller burned him out. How can
anyone top a success like that?


But, before we go on about the problems of Reagan or Jackson, let’s
take a good look at ourselves. How comfortable are we with reality? If
we are so sane and well-adjusted, how come so many of us are living
under a mass or a personal delusion? How do we account for all the
nutty vlogs on youtube or myspace? All the celebrity wanna-be’s, all
the messiah wanna-be’s, all the grab-attention-anyway-I-cannabe’s,
etc? How do we account for the success of people like Britney
Spears, Christina Agorilla, Paris Hilton, and Barack Obama? How do we
account for the bogus Oprah and Rick Warren phenomena? How do we
explain the craziness of ‘gay marriage’? How can so many Americans
believe that ‘hate speech’ is not free speech? How can we be for
‘affirmative action’ in the name of creating a colorless society? How
is it so many people can fool themselves that Sarah Palin has the
skills to run a country? Or that Obama could be trusted with
anything? And, let’s not forget we had 8 yrs of George W. Bush, a
complete fool. But, we are not alone as many other nations are even
crazier than we are. Iran still has many people supporting the
lunatics running its government, and Venezuela is headed by the
clownish thug Hugo Chavez. Israelis are still living in a fantasy
that they haven’t oppressed Palestinians, but they carry on with their
fantasy as long as the US supports it 100%. US is, of course, a nation
that believes in the fantasy that Jews are entirely flawless, noble,
and wonderful no matter what they did, do, or shall do. So, the
great success of the Reagan myth or Jackson’s popularity had as much
to do with our own penchant for foolishness as the foolishness on the
part of those men.


Michael Jackson was also significant as a 80s icon for it was the last
decade in which whites dominated mainstream culture. The big name
musical acts of the 80s were mostly white–Springsteen, U2, Madonna,
Cyndi Lauper, Van Halen, Dire Straits, etc. The biggest movie stars
were Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Eastwood, Cruise, etc. Interracism in
movies or TV was nearly unheard of. Most black actors in movies played
secondary or sidekick roles. If black males fell in love, it was
almost always with black females. Though Mike Tyson dominated boxing,
the favorite boxing champion for many people was Rocky Balboa of the
sequels. In Rocky III, Rocky put an uppity black guy in his place.
Battered Mr. T. resurfaced as a nice Negro on the A-Team. Eddie Murphy
was a big star but as a comedian than an action star or romantic
lead. Most black roles were like the ones in Ghostbusters–as a
sidekick afterthought. MTV was mostly white. Though the biggest TV
show of the 80s was THE COSBY SHOW, it was more like a white family
that happened to be black than truly black family. Two of the kids on
the show were more white looking than black looking. THE COSBY SHOW
was as delusional and fantastic as the Reagan myth or the Michael
Jackson fairytale.
During the latter half of the 80s, as the Cold War wound down, some
Big Thinkers even entertained the fantasy of End of History. This
implied an end to ideological battles all around the world. It was as
though a moderate center-rightism would be accepted by nearly all the
people sooner than later, and eternal peace would prevail around the
globe.
But, then came the movies “Do the Right Thing” and “Jungle Fever”.
Though trashy, they did have the useful effect of throwing water or
setting fire to the false fantasy of End of History. Then came the
Iraq War and all the ensuing problems that finally led to 9/11 and
Iraq War. And, there was the catastrophic LA riots. 90s also saw the
Oklahoma bombing. There was also the rise of gangsta rap. There was
the OJ circus. But, there were also economic growth led by internet
boom and cheap imports too, and for awhile in the late 90s, people
again pretended that End of History was just around the corner as the
new millennium approached. With welfare reform, balanced budget,
rising government revenues, tougher anti-crime measures, and low
employment, all seemed well. But, much of the wealth created in this
period turned out to be inflated paper assets, and history was wobbly
ever since until the House of Cards finally came tumbling down with
the meltdown of the Iraq War, the burst of the Housing Bubble and the
bust of International Finance built on holy instruments of the Church
of Free-Markets-Will-Solve-All-Problems.


Anyway, back to the 80s. Michael Jackson was special and acceptable to
mainstream America in the 80s when most whites and blacks still
preferred virtual segregation in cultural affairs. Whites generally
liked white music and blacks stuck to black music. White women mostly
stuck with white men. 80s also gave us Larry Bird, an All-American
boost to white pride in a sport dominated by blacks. (Celtics at one
time even had Bill Walton, Danny Ainge, and Kevin McHale, the dream
team of white athletic prowess). In this climate, it was phenomenal
that Michael Jackson became a superstar among the white audience. For
like Oprah–who also got her start in the 80s–, Michael was an exciting
but ‘non-threatening’ black guy. He was fast and slick, but he was
well-mannered, shy off stage, and soft-spoken. If much of black social
reality was a horror movie for white folks, Michael Jackson’s Thriller
offered the groove without the gruesomeness. Though Jackson’s music
was inflected with elements of soul, it was closer to white pop-rock
in style and sensibility.


Jacksonism is far from dead when we think of success of guys like Will
Smith, Tiger Woods, Obama, and John McWhorter who also navigate
between blackness and mainstream acceptableness. But, Jacksonism also
came to be eclipsed by a raunchier, crazier, and more aggressive kind
of blackness in popular culture and sports(two realms which feed upon
each other)–and even whites such as Christina Agorilla have come to
imitate this negative and hateful model.


One of the reasons for white liberal support for Obama had to do with
the fear of the rise of crazy blackness defined by rap music, gangster
culture, and demagogues like Al Sharpton and worse. Obama-ism for many
white liberals offered the promise that the public image(if not the
reality)of blackness would be restored to something closer to Sidney
Poitier–black guy with class–, Michael Jackson–well-mannered black
guy, or the Cosby Show–middle class blacks. Of course, there’s also a
slightly edgy cool cat quality to Obama, which he carefully tweaks as
too much will threaten whites while too little will make him bland as
Colin Powell–colorless Uncle Tom. Obama, like Oprah, are masters of
psycho-politics or cultural psychology. They’ve mapped the white mind
and connected the dots of white fear, guilt, hope, despair, anger,
fascination, disgust, etc regarding blackness. So, they’ve cashed in
economically or politically by offering white people the fantasy of a
harmonious utopia where racial problems would vanish IF we kiss
Obama’s Presidential toes and kiss Oprah’s celebrity ass. Why are
whites, the majority of Americans with most of the wealth, so fearful
and apprehensive of a minority with lots of poor people? It’s because
whites in the latter half of the 20th century have been on a crusade
to cleanse themselves of their sins, especially following the hell of
the Holocaust and due to the liberal Jewish domination of institutions
controlling what we read, see, and hear. Also, the Cold War pitted The
West and The East in a moral struggle to win the hearts and minds of
the Third World. In this fight, white America could only win by
proving that it had gotten rid of ‘racial prejudice’. By the time the
Cold War ended, white Russia had been bled dry and white America,
though rich and triumphant, had been made defenseless against the
rising tide of blacks and illegal immigrants from Mexico.


Anyway, though most conservatives disdain Michael Jackson, he was very
much a Reagan 80s icon. There was something Joe Louis-like about him.
Inside the ring, Louis beat up all the whites, but outside the ring,
he was a gentle guy–as far as the public could see. Michael Jackson
was the feverish king of pop on stage, but offstage, he was such a
well-mannered Negro. It’s no wonder that even some conservatives have
a soft spot for Jackson’s stardom in the mid 80s since the black
culture that took hold of America soon afterward turned out to be so
negative, ugly, hideous, and corrosive–not to mention deeply and
ruinously damaging to the white community where white males lost much
of their pride while white females started to hanker after Jungle
Fever.


To white fans in the 80s, Michael Jackson was a fascinating and
oddball, almost asexual, character. White guys didn’t want to become
like Michael Jackson nor were they threatened by him. And, white girls
loved him more as a fairytale prince than as a Negro Stud. He was
Peter Pan than Mandingo. But, the rap music that dominated the pop
charts after the Jackson era goaded many white males to worship blacks
and act like a bunch of ‘whiggers’. Also, white girls were suddenly
buying and listening to cds like ‘niggaz for luv’ and having sexual
fantasies of being gang-banged by Big black guys. With the rise of
rap, American culture became Afro porn-ized. It was raw, raunchy,
lewd, and graphic. Sexuality had long been the subject of popular
music, but it had generally been suggestive in most of mainstream pop.
But, Rap turned pop music into pure porn.


And, even the nature of porno industry changed. I used to work part-
time as a video clerk in the 80s, and most of the porn was white. But,
by the late 80s, more and more titles featured black males and white
females. By the 90s, interracial titles crowded out mono-racial ones,
and they were almost entirely black male and white female. What
surprised me is that most porn videos preferred by most white women
featured black male-white female sex, which means, from my personal
observation at least, that a good number of white women were having
major sexual fantasies with black males. Oddly enough, a good many
white guys also rented out black male/white female videos. I suppose
they enjoyed a certain degree of masochism in watching a Real Man f__k
the blonde babe who had never felt such pain & pleasure(closely linked
in kinky sex). I suppose it’s the same kind of pleasure white guys
get by watching Muhammad Ali beat up a white guy or an all-black
basketball team win ball games. There was a time when white males
resisted the rise of black maledom, but many white males have become
so accustomed to and admiring of black male athletic, sexual, and
musical prowess that they’ve become kind of ‘pussified’. These metro-
sexualized white males want to be like Negroes themselves, but since
that isn’t possible, they choose to become like wussy cheerleaders of
blackness themselves.
I even struck up conversations with regular customers I’d gotten to
know well. White female fans of interracial videos said they got a
kick out of watching a well-built well-hung black guy ram his thing
into the ‘virginal’ white woman.
Watching such porn, the white woman felt a powerful blend of
liberation and oppression, both of which fueled their kinky pleasure.
The liberation aspect implied that a repressed white woman who’d long
been a sexual property of white men suddenly discovered true sex, fun,
pleasure, and ecstacy through sex with a Negro. She was liberated from
white patriarchy by animal magnetism of the Black Stud who penetrated
deep into her and excited her senses like no white man could. (This
theme was expressed pretty effectively in Lars Von Trier’s movie DEAR
WENDY, where a white guy relies more and more on rules and regulations
in order to maintain his authority vis-a-vis the naturally more
powerful and charismatic black guy.) So, a white woman watching
interracial sex feels liberated from stuffy white patriarchal society
through the thrill of Jungle sex. I’ve often been told by white
female friends who had interracial sex that their orgasms with black
men were many times more powerful than orgasms with white men. But,
part of the excitement is also psychological as there’s long been a
spoken and then an unspoken taboo among white folks against
interracial sex, especially between black males and white females. So,
it’s like Forbidden Fruit in the Feverish Jungle. She feels like a
musical instrument(a saxophone perhaps) that had previously been only
played by whites males in a subdued, hoity-toity, or lame manner
suddenly in the hands and lips of a Negro who found grooves, hooks,
and curves unknown in the hands/lips of white musicians. So, just as
black musicians pull/squeeze out louder and denser sounds out of a
saxophone, they presumably can make white women moan louder and feel
more crazy ecstasy.


But, the excitement of interracial sex for white women also has
something to do with fantasies of oppression. Though feminist
platitudes about equality is everywhere, there is still something
within the female psyche that wants to be swept off the feet and
carried away by masculine stud who shows her who’s really boss. How
many romantic novels are about women being swept off their feet by a
sensitive computer geek or Mr. Nice Guy like Phil Donahue? No, the
fantasy males are often muscular types, dark and handsome sea pirates
who abduct a virginal damsel from the clutches of civilization and
ravage her until she’s begging for more, more, more. Though women
want social and political equality, in the bedroom they want to be
conquered by a Real Man because that’s the nature of the sexual DNA.
Precisely because our society has become so politically correct, there
is a secret hankering among women to rediscover their primitive whore-
self. There was a book called WOMEN WHO RUN WITH WOLVES, but there
might as well be a book called WOMEN WHO WANNA BE WHORES SURRENDERING
TO NEGRO DOGGS. So, interracial sex with black men promises both
liberation and oppression. The white female is both liberated and
conquered through sexual contact with the Negro.


Surprisingly enough, even white male fans of interracial videos said
they got bigger orgasms from watching black men do white women. It was
as if nature meant it to be this way. In the wild, the toughest males
beat the weaker males and get the prime females. In sports, blacks
dominate sports as the toughest athletes while white girls dominate
cheerleading as the most attractive females. We see more and more
black athletes and celebs married to blonde ‘Aryan’ women. We see more
and more white women wishing to be groupies of black men.
In the 80s, there was still an unspoken social taboo against
interracial dating. I recall that in the 80s, some of my friends were
asked if they would be interested in dating black guys by someone I
knew. My friends immediately said NO. But, I’ll bet if they had
grown up in the 90s, they would have readily said YES. It’s the cool
thing to do these days. Going with a black guy is seen as preferable
by media, schools, and culture than for a white woman to go with a
white guy. Indeed, it is like a badge of honor for a white girl to go
with a black guy, as if to say “I found a REAL MAN(and proved that I’m
not a ‘racist’to boot)while most white women settle for soft flabby
white dorks for boyfriends or husbands.” I’ve also noticed that this
mentality seems to operate among Asian-American girls, though they
mostly prefer whites. (White guys are to Asian girls what Black males
are to white girls. A sexual step up.) I asked an Asian girl dating a
white guy if she would ever date an Asian guy, and she said NO WAY.
Dating a white guy for her meant that she was attractive enough to be
accepted by the ‘higher race’. If she dated an Asian guy, it would
mean that white society didn’t find her pretty enough and so she had
to settle for some scrawny, geeky, short Asian guy with a nasal voice
and small penis.
All these details may sound vulgar and off-putting to some people, but
I’ve always sought the truth, no matter how ugly, than the lie, no
matter how pretty.


Anyway, Reagan and Jackson both fit into this theme of truth and lies
because both fooled us in the 80s that America could be a center-right
white-dominated society of stability and happy optimism. The
conservative domination of the 80s proved to be illusory and short-
lived. And, Michael Jackson’s brand of blackness became passe as
Gangsta Rap become the hot item in the late 80s.


Pat Buchanan warned that even though the Right won some of the
political and economic battles in the 80s, it was losing the more
crucial Culture War; as we all know or should know, culture outlasts
politics and economics. He was right, but he failed to understand
something more important. To win the culture war, you must create
culture. To win wars, you must build tanks, planes, and bombs. To win
culture wars, you must create books, movies, music, drama, etc, etc.
Being artistically, intellectually, and culturally inert and
unproductive, the ONLY weapons of the Right in the culture war was the
moralistic or reactionary shield. Producing nothing new, compelling,
or original that could capture people’s imagination or the hearts of
the ‘creative class,’ it just invoked nostalgia & moral values and
defended them with the Iron Shield. But, a war cannot be won by
defense alone. The Left, the Jews, the gays, and blacks won the
culture war because they were creative, inventive, adventurous, and
productive–even if much of what they created had a corrosive effect on
society. (It should be noted that even in communist nations, most of
the intelligent and effective dissent came from the left than from the
right.) In both popular culture and high culture, the left has long
been many more times engaged than the Right. Also, the Left has shown
far greater interest in history, cultural heritage, and artistic
treasures of the past. The Right accuses the Left of undermining
Western Culture and Civilization, but the sad fact is that your
average liberal is more likely to have listened to classical music,
read Shakespeare, studied the Bible, etc than your average right-
winger whose concept of culture is Ted Nugent, country music, Nascar,
collecting guns, and waving Stars and Bars. The Left–especially the
Jewish left–may indeed be anti-Western, but at least they show great
interest in the culture they are trying to destroy(if indeed that is
true). Much of the Right has no interest in what it’s supposed to be
defending. For many on the White Right, ‘Western Civilization’ is just
a codeword for ‘white power’ and not much else. Look at most cultural
journals and art magazines, and almost everyone who cares about that
stuff are liberals and leftists, a good many of them Jews. It should
also be said that one’s interest in arts and culture shouldn’t be
based solely or even mainly one cultural, national, or racial pride.
It should be a genuine appreciation of creativity and should be broad
enough to admire the creative genius of other cultures.


Michael Jackson oddly fitted within the prevailing racial formula of
the 80s defined by integrationist liberalism smoothed out by
conservative sentimentality. The decade gave us TV Shows like
Diff’rent Strokes and Webster, both of which gave us cute cuddly
adorable black kids raised by Nice White People. This too was part of
the Reagan era fantasy, a funny and disingenuous blend of old-
fashioned stereotypes and liberal pieties. It was old-fashioned in the
sense that good many white people embraced the image of the harmless
and childlike black. Having been disturbed by the racial enmity of the
60s and 70s, it’s as if both conservative and liberal white America
withdrew inside a cocoon fantasy where blacks never grew into
problematic adulthood. Consider that both Gary Coleman and the kid on
Webster had medical conditions that kept them physically–and perhaps
emotionally–childlike or immature.
There was a parallel of this in Michael Jackson. What was striking
about Michael Jackson’s persona wasn’t his youthfulness–we all want to
remain young–but his childlikeness. Jackson wasn’t trying to18
forever but 8 forever. So, even though Jackson was an abnormal freak,
he fit into the Reaganesque fantasies of the 80s where blacks would
remain innocent, childlike, and non-threatening to whites.


But, this fit into the liberal paradigm too since liberals had been
shocked and appalled–after the initial exhilaration–by social/racial/
sexual developments of the 60s and 70s. On the one hand, they saw much
that was good and necessary, but they were also dismayed by the upturn
in crime and downturn in race relations. Even liberals wanted to
embrace the notion of the lovable and harmless black. Even liberals
wanted to go back to more innocent days before Negroes became angry
mobs screaming for ‘Black Power’ and burning down city blocks. Alf,
though about TV show about a puppet, was fit into a similar vein.
Another popular show was Gimme A Break, a forerunner to the Oprah
phenomenon. Like Diff’rent Strokes and Webster, it pandered to both
conservative and liberal sensibilities. It was conservative in
presenting the traditional image of black woman as a fat mammy was so
kindly and nice to white folks. Indeed, she worked and lived among
whites, and her main worth as a human being seemed to be her
usefulness to white folks.
But, it was also liberal, at least in the sense of teaching white
folks to love and hug the kindly and noble Negress. But, it too was a
fantasy ignoring the reality of what was really happening in race
relations. Though liberals may blame Reagan conservatism for social
dishonesty, the fact is that Hollywood(which gave us those TV
fantasies) was fully in control of liberals.
Anyway, it’s no wonder that Spike Lee’s DO THE RIGHT THING had such a
major impact when it was released at the end of the decade(just as
PLATOON was wildly greeted and over-praised as a necessary antidote to
the fantasies of Rambo movies) . DTRT wasn’t a particularly good movie
or even a very honest movie, but it focused on themes ignored,
suppressed, or neglected by the media and entertainment industry for
too long. It was an IMPORTANT movie at least in lifting the veil of
cultural correctness. Prior to the 90s, there had been many blacks on
the TV and movies, but much of the representation had been idealized,
romanticized, wishful thinking, stereotypical, or fantastic. Though
DO THE RIGHT THING a dishonest movie, it went to the streets to
grapple with realities that Hollywood either ignored or
sensationalized through stuff like Death Wish movies.


There was a certain pattern to the most popular black entertainment in
the 80s. Success was determined largely by their acceptability to the
white community which wanted to acknowledge blackness as something
positive and enjoy its colorful & cool qualities BUT didn’t want to
feel threatened by it. Diff’rent Strokes and Webster were huge hits
because conservative whites wanted to see the black race as a cuddly
harmless child and because white liberals wanted to believe in the
fiction that blacks were oh-so-lovable(if only we would open our
hearts and wallets.) And GIMME A BREAK’s appeal was the based on a
black woman’s devotion and attachment to a WHITE family. (BENSON was
another show in this vein.) The show not only peddled the liberal
fantasy of black woman as the noble earthy salt-or-soul-of-the-earth
but also satisfied the conservative notion that All Had Been Forgiven
regarding black-white history of slavery, segregation, and
discrimination.
If a fat soulful black mama could feel so happy and at home in a white
family, what was there to worry about? And, Oprah ran with this
idea. Though people praise her as a black this & black that, the real
secret of her stardom has been her significance to white people. Had
she only appealed to a black audience, she wouldn’t have become the
soul-mother of the entire universe. Like the woman in GIMME A BREAK,
Oprah implicitly promises white people forgiveness and reconciliation.
But, there’s a catch to Oprah’s forgiveness. It’s offered at a steep
price. It is a soft moral blackmail. To win and maintain her
forgiveness, white people must constantly glorify her, feed millions
into her purse, kiss her behind, and wet their panties at the mere
sight of her face or mere sound of her voice. She is the BILLIONAIRE
MAMMY.
And, Obama’s rise owes to the same well-known secret of racial
manipulation–or is it moneypulation? His success owes not to his
significance for blacks but for whites. Or rather, Obama’s
significance to black people accords to the wishes of white people; he
is what white people want a black role model to be for blacks.
(Implicit in the rise of Obama-thru-white-support is the notion that
blacks are incapable of governing themselves and choosing their own
leaders in the best interests of the black community–and in relation
to other communities. Just as the Western Imperialists handpicked
local ‘leaders’ to ‘rule’ over the dark-skinned populations–since the
alternative would be rise of dangerous demagogues fanning the rage and
resentment of ignorant and boorish masses–, the powerful liberal
Jewish and Wasp forces in this country went with Obama not so much to
boost black power but to control and steer it in the direction that
they desire.) Obama is both a black guy put atop a pedestal by
sheepish white liberals and a black role model imposed on the black
community by weasel-ish Jewish liberals.



Many white people–liberals and conservatives–are really afraid and
intimidated by blacks, or at least by many criminal, angry, demagogic,
bullying, corrupt, and jiveass blacks. Many white people want genuine
racial peace and even want to like black people, but there are too
many Al Sharptons and thuggish lowlifes. Though more and more white
people are embracing raw blackness in popular culture–just look at the
shameless white skanks on FLAVOR OF THE MONTH–, many white people are
still turned off by blackness and its moral/cultural impact on
society.
So, how do you change the nature of black culture and society? Since
blacks don’t listen to white people or to ‘uncle toms’, the hope of
many whites–mostly liberals but even some conservatives–is that a
figure like Obama(and Oprah and Will Smith)will steer most black in
the right direction. If we promote Oprah as the template of female
blackness, maybe most black women won’t be angry, disgusting, and
skanky trash. Maybe if we make Will Smith the number one star in
America, black males will be nicer and friendlier. Maybe if we make
Obama president, black kids will study harder and be less resentful
and enraged. In some ways, the fantasies of the Obama Age are even
more fanciful and pernicious than the fantasies of the Reagan era, but
both are connected through certain political and cultural themes–and
Michael Jackson’s life and persona embodied this link better than
anybody else. Of course, there are still black-ish elements in Obama,
Smith, and Oprah which may be off-putting and intimidating to white
folks, but those elements are tailored matters of style than the core
substance of their persona. They are necessary signifiers intended to
suggest, “I may be a part of the system but I still be black!” White
people see this style as necessary because blacks will not identify
with successful blacks who act totally white.


Not all problems nor fantasies are in the same league. No country or
man has even been utterly true with itself/himself, and fantasies and
falsehoods have been the very stuff of American history.
Nevertheless, we seem to be developing a collective mentality where
fantasy is replacing than merely interfering with reality. This may
explain why many of us were could fool ourselves that our national
economy was getting better and better–and we were all getting richer
and richer–in the past 12 yrs thanks to rise of stock market bubble,
real estate bubble, and/or spending money we don’t have by taking out
extravagant bank loans or living on credit. We are not even ashamed of
declaring bankruptcy anymore; indeed, those declaring bankruptcy act
like innocent victims of evil collection agencies–just like ‘illegal
immigrants’ proudly march in the 100,000s as ‘persecuted victims’ of
immigration agents and white ‘xenophobia’ and ‘racism’. Americans and
illegal aliens are becoming proud and defensive of their VICES. And,
blacks cannot tell the difference between thugs and heroes. When
psychotic idiots like Tupac Shakur and Biggie Small are glorified as
role models by mainstream black community(and by white liberal
community), what the hell is going on? And, though HIV epidemic was
spread by the crazy behavior of many gay men, the gay community has
been acting like they’ve been a victim of something akin to the
Holocaust!! And, when rich white liberals adulate Che Guevara–who
would have robbed them of their property and freedom–, it gets more
surreal still. The Left pretends to be anti-greed, but victimology is
the worst kind of greed. It’s the greed of the financially
irresponsible, illegal aliens, and criminal elements to demand what
they do not deserve in the name of ‘social justice’. It’s as though
everyone is ENTITLED to violate borders of another country and break
in OR to live like a hog on borrowed money and then whine about how
creditors/collectors are trying to take one’s house or car away. Poor
baby! Forget moral hazard; we have moron hazard. Even if you’re a
victim of your own irresponsibility or stupidity, you can always find
politicians or ‘credit solution’ businesses who paint you as a poor
victim of Bigger, More Powerful forces. Isn’t it funny that
conservative talk radio runs so many ads by ‘settling your debts’? If
conservatives are so responsible, why do they need such services?
This is clearly not just a liberal, black, or illegal problem.


So, the lies, deceptions, and delusions surrounding the Michael
Jackson shouldn’t come as a surprise to a nation bursting at the
seams with lies and delusions–and worst of all, self-deception.
Today, we can believe or fool ourselves that Jackson–in-the-role-of-
father was ‘not strange’, that Al Sharpton is a ‘civil rights leader’,
that those two white kids are Jackson’s own kids, that Jackson was a
paragon of ‘black pride’, that Jackson was a ‘good Christian’, that he
was both ‘the Little Prince’ and ‘the King’, that he was a great
humanitarian, that he did SO MUCH for mankind, that he was a central
figure in Civil Rights struggle, that his music magically brought all
races together in a spirit of peace, that he was the greatest artist
that ever was, that he was the Messiah, and blah blah blah. Why not,
in a nation infatuated with Barack Obama as the Second Coming of
Jesus?


And, there’s something for everyone in the myth of Michael Jackson.
For the Gay Agenda people, Jackson is a hero of sorts for his feminine
qualities.
If much of black culture became ultra-macho and viciously anti-gay
with the rise of Rap, Jackson was the embodiment of other, lighter
side of black music. Also, Michael Jackson had oddball ‘marriages’ and
was the ‘father’ of kids who weren’t his own. This is all welcome to
homos who push for ‘gay marriage’ and pretend that kids in a gay
household are the children of the gay couple–a biological
impossibility. Since a gay couple cannot have kids, they must rely on
the Great Lie. They settle for the heterosexual procedure to procure
the child but then live the fantasy that the child is the product of
the homo couple. And, the children in the ‘gay family’ are fed this
lie as they grow up, just like the two white kids raised by Michael
Jackson were told that they’re the children of Jackson. I wonder who
their real parents are and how they feel about their kids being raised
in such a freaky world. But, what does it matter? The politically
correct gay fantasy ‘reality’ would have us believe real ‘old-
fashioned’ parenting is so passe, and we should all embrace the Brave
New World. We live in an age when a mainstream publication like
Newsweek put out a cover with Melissa Etheridge and her lesbian ‘wife’
with the captions: “They Are Having a Baby”. These are the same
liberals who say they’re for science as opposed to false Creationism.
Though they laugh at the notion of Earth being 6,000 yrs old(and
humans having co-existed with dinosaurs), they fool themselves that a
Gay Couple had a child together!


For the interracist pro-miscegenationist people, Jackson was a hero
because he supposedly demonstrated that it doesn’t matter if you’re
black or white. Indeed, one could argue that Michael Jackson underwent
the first Race-Change Operation. Perhaps he would have eventually
undergone a sex-change operation as well had he lived. But, no matter
how white his complexion became, we were supposed to see him as a bona-
fide ‘black’ or ‘African-American’ entertainer.
Just consider the double layer of lies. As if it weren’t BS enough
that a black guy turned white, we were supposed to believe that the
black-guy-turned-into-white-guy was the same Michael Jackson.
The extent of the deceit–and self-deceit–is almost beyond
imagination.
On the one hand, we are told that it doesn’t matter that Michael
Jackson was black or white since we should see beyond color and look
at the soul and not the skin color of the person. If so, why do
blacks insist that, all said and done, he was BLACK and not white?
Also, why did Michael Jackson spend so much time and money turning
himself into a ‘white-like’ man if it skin color doesn’t matter?
Following the logic of color-blindness, why wasn’t Jackson blind to
and/or satisfied with his own color? Why did he feel a need to change
his color and his facial features-and the texture of his hair?
Clearly, color and other racial features mattered a great deal to
Michael since he wasn’t content with the DNA he inherited. Indeed,
for all the sanctimonious preachment about Jackson’s harmonious unity
of male/female, white/black, reality/fantasy, human/animal, and child/
man, what really sticks out is not the harmony but the conflict within
Michael Jackson’s troubled persona. The more he tried to harmonize and
unify the contrasting elements, more they stuck out like a sore thumb,
like a freakshow display. Though Jackson may have pursued his
fantasies with genuine innocence, they just seemed grosser and more
perverse as they neared completion. Indeed, it was the blend of
innocence and freakiness that made it all the more perverse. It was
rather like Georges Franju’s EYES WITHOUT A FACE where an apparently
loving father showers his disfigured daughter with special care by...
stealing the faces of other women; the horror derived from the sick
marriage of fatherly love and ruthless vanity. At the end, Michael
looked like a man and woman, human and mouse, adult and child, black
and white, real and cartoon-like. For all the professed harmony, he
was living a giant lie. Yet, many people still sympathized with him
because, like Holly Golightly of BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S, he was a
‘real phony’ then a ‘phony phony’. Michael Jackson really seemed to
believe in his own fantasies–just as Reagan once convinced himself
that he’d actually been there at the Nazi Death Camps.


Though Jackson was an extreme case, many people surely identified or
sympathized with him because people want to be what they are not–
hardly surprising since every race has drawbacks or disadvantages,
most individuals have imperfections of some kind. Some people can
sing but are ugly. Some are gorgeous but can’t sing. Some have nice
bodies but ugly faces. Some have nice faces but gross bodies. Blacks
have great physique but nappy hair and flat noses. Japanese are
elegantly built but flat-assed or nasal-voiced. Jews are smart but
hook-nosed and (often)funny-looking. Everyone has a secret ‘Aryan-ish’
fantasy which doesn’t necessarily mean blonde-and-blue-eyed. Some
blacks and many Asians want to look more white, while more and more
whites want to be more black. Of course, people tend to be selective
in an eclectic way. In terms of physique, non-blacks may want to be
black. In terms of facial structure, non-whites may want to be white
(or blonde). In terms of exoticism, white men may seek out Asian
females and want their children to possess ‘exotic’ features.
Look at Japanese animation, and many Japanese fantasize about being
white, or at least white-like. Look at black hair products and they
promise to straighten out nappy hair. In India, looking whiter is all
the rage. In China, many women have surgeries to make their eyes look
more ‘western’. In the West, many Jews have nose-jobs to unhook their
noses.
Though our politically correct culture denounces Nazism, the Cult of
Beauty is more powerful than ever. Our Beauty Cult may be more
‘inclusive’ and democratized, but it too comes with an hierarchy. In
color and facial features, whiteness is favored. In terms of physique,
blackness is favored. In terms of personality, Jewishness is favored,
especially for its wit. In terms of style, Latinos are favored. In
terms of exoticism, there is the allure of the Oriental.


According to the politically correct miscegenationist crowd, the human
race–at least in multi-racial nations like the US–will grow more
intelligent, beautiful, and blah blah through racial mixing. The
advantages of each race will mix with the advantages of other races,
and we’ll all end up with the best qualities of each race combined in
every individual. But, what if many people end up with the worst
traits of each race? Look at mixed race Brazil. Are its people
necessarily smarter, more beautiful, and nobler than mono-racial
Swedes or Japanese? Race mixing can lead to superior specimen in
some cases if the outcome is a special genetic blend impossible within
mono-racialism. Surely, we’ve seen some mixed-race people who are
stunning beautiful or remarkably talented. This may even be true of
intelligence. One wonders if the high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews
was the product of a special blend of Semitic genes and European
genes. It could be that Tiger Wood’s superior golf skills owe
something to both black and Asian blood. The black blood could have
provided him with the physicality while the Asian blood favored
calmness, concentration, and self-control. And, if there is indeed
something special about Obama–which I doubt–, it could be the result
of white genes and black genes. He could be like the Reese’s Peanut
Butter Chocolate Bar. If whites are too bland and blacks are too
wild, perhaps Obama won people’s imagination as a person with black
intensity restrained and refined by white self-control.
It’s no wonder that the miscegenationist crowd has been delirious
about Obama. He is their prototype of Future America where everyone
shall be and should be like him. In this post-racial utopia, there
will be no whites, no blacks. We’ll all be Obamas. Michael Jackson
was born all black, but he clearly wanted to be something more or
other than black. He wanted to keep his black vocal talent and his
physical power and dexterity, but he wanted to look whitesque. Since
he didn’t have white genes, he could only achieve his goal surgically
and chemically. As the yrs passed, it looked as though doctors sucked
melanin out of his skin, and maybe that accounts for his declining
musicality. Maybe Leonard Jeffries is right. Melanin accounts not only
for black skin but black soul. .


Jackson’s ‘parenting’ of white kids also goes to the heart of the
inter-racist miscegenationist agenda. Adoption or the kind of
artificial insemination conducted by Obama is seen as the Future–not
only by interracists but by racists(meaning race + ist, that is
someone who believes in racial differences) who believe that the only
way to preserve the ‘purity’ of race is through bioengineering,
cloning, and other artificial means.
Today, many ‘progressive’ white parents adopts kids from around the
world. If Michael Jackson raised white kids as his own, we have
Hollywood celebrities and rock stars who adopt African or Cambodian
kids. Madonna and Angelina Jolie have been famous as mothers of black
adoptees.
At a time when white people aren’t even having enough kids to maintain
white populations at replacement level, the rich and famous go around
the world to adopt non-white kids. Partly, it is a do-gooder project,
as these kids tend to be poor and desperate–in some cases, orphaned–,
but partly, it’s part of the miscegenationist agenda to mix all the
races together. So, if we can believe that Madonna is the mother of
African kids, we can believe that Michael Jackson is the father(or
more like mother) of white kids. Of course, Jackson went much further
than white people who adopt black kids. He created white kids from
scratch with sperm and eggs he got from white people. Then, he
convinced himself and others that those white were really his kids
through some kind of black magic voodoo genetics. He couldn’t face the
fact that his genes might create nappy headed flat-nosed children. He
wanted to see himself as a pure prince, like Lohengrin the Swan Knight
or something or the other. He had to live the fantasy that his sperm
created good looking darling white kids like the ones he saw in Disney
movies. Though Jackson grew up in the black community, he found it
intimidating, bawdy, aggressive, and crazy. It was too much for a
sensitive closet-homo soul such as his. He wanted to be white-like and
female-like, but he was too steeped in black culture to openly declare
those things. So, even as he turned more white and feminine, he
officially remained a member of the black community.


He didn’t see much good in his own family as his father was a beastly
bully and his brothers were older and probably bossed him around. He
hated the big industrial smoke filled city of Gary. He found solace in
the world created by crypto-fascist dreamer Walt Disney. And, he
didn’t just want to live in the dream world but pass down this dream
through his cream(sperm). In his fantasy ideal, his sperm would not
produce nappy headed flat nosed black kids but kids who looked like
Peter Pan, Snow White or Alice in Wonderland. Of course, he didn’t use
his own sperm, but it didn’t matter as his ability to believe his own
fantasies was boundless. After all, Michael Jackson fooled himself
that he only had two facial operations and that his skin turned albino
due to some disease. Michael Jackson was his own Lolita fantasy, and
this fantasy extended to ‘his’ children. Jackson was not alone in
developing weird relationships and fathering kids under unusual
circumstances, but he sure took the cake. We know that Lennon hooked
up with the weird Yoko Ono and had Sean. We now know that Dylan
married a black Gospel singer in the late 80s and had a mulatto child
or two. But, those merely interracial whereas Jackson’s case was
interstellaracial–pure science fiction. It’s for this reason that the
final gathering of the ‘family’ on stage at the funeral seemed so
jarring. There was the Jackson family which looks very black. Amongst
them were the two white kids as part of the Jackson clan, but....
but... but.. Ohhhh Baby! Jackson sang it doesn’t matter whether one
is black or white, but the people on stage made it obvious that it
does matter. Most people are one thing or another and remain that way
whatever their fantasies may be.


Michael’s racial longing, fantasy, tragedy, farce, comedy, poetry, or
whatever struck a chord for there has long been a fascination of
whites regarding blacks and blacks regarding whites. White men have
both feared and envied black men. Feared the black man’s thicker
muscles, superior strength, greater intensity, more commanding voice,
and bigger sexual organ. This fear can lead to hatred but also produce
envy which can lead to fascination which can morph into admiration
which can turn into worship. If most white men in the past resisted
the rise of black male power, today the majority of white men have
turned into sappy white boys eager to bow down before black power and
imitate everything black.
If blacks in the past tried to imitate whiteness, today’s whites try
to imitate blackness. White men haven’t been too crazy about black
women, but many white men do like black female singers and dancers.
White women feel even great fascination with both black males and
females. More and more white women lust after black men as the
Superior Man, as the charismatic stud who can show her pleasures she
can’t gain through a white boy. This racial-sexual ideal has spread
throughout our culture. Even the majority of white men are
increasingly at peace with black men taking white girls. Besides, what
are ‘white boy’s going to do about it? If white males complain, they
are accused of racial bigotry, jealousy and resentment, or inadequacy
by political and media figures. And, if a white guy insults a black
guy with a white woman, the black guy will kick his butt and the white
girl will be even more excited with her black stud. (Though
interracism is justified in the name of equality and anti-racism, the
real reason for white women’s desire for black men has everything to
do with the white women’s perception of black male’s racial-sexual
superiority. So, a white woman going with a black male can have the
cake and eat it too. She enjoys, at once, the mantle of racial
equality and sexual-thrill-derived-from-the-black-male-superiority.)
Personally, I see more and more black male/white female couples all
around where ever I go, and their body language speaks volumes. The
black guy struts around with a swagger as if to say, “I got your
woman, faggotyass white boy and you aint gonna do shit about it
because I’ll kick your punkass if you complain.” And, the white woman
has a look on her face as if to say, “I’ve gone black and there’s no
going back. I have a REAL MAN unlike most white girls who still have
flabby dweeby funny voiced white boys.”
The interracist virus is spreading. ‘Mud sharks’ are now glorified in
the media, and they tell all their friends how great it is to be with
a Negro stud. Gossip is the #1 past time for females, and in our
sexually liberated ‘Vagina Monologue’ age, more and more women openly
speak about their sexual fantasies, experiences, and etc. As a
result, more and more white girls get all excited hearing about wild
sex with black men. The culture and education at large are also
encouraging them to ‘Go Black’. This is the Jewish revenge against
white ‘Aryans’ for the Holocaust. If Nazis tried to destroy Jewish
‘ugliness’, the liberal and left-wing Jews are trying to destroy
European ‘beauty’ through the promotion of race mixing and subversion
of white male pride. Just as Jews were deliriously happy when Joe
Louis destroyed the ‘Aryan’ Max Schmeling, Jews today are happy to see
white men lose their women to black men. These women will give birth
to little Obamas–and we all know Obama’s megabucks and favorable media
coverage were provided for by the liberal Jewish community(close to
90% of Jews).


If Michael Jackson wanted to raise white kids, many white women today
want to raise mixed-race kids, especially half-black kids. Many white
women see blacks are nobler, more charismatic, sexier, more spiritual,
etc. White women don’t want to give birth to a squishy pale white baby–
especially a male–who’s supposed to be the embodiment of all the evil,
oppression, and bad vibes in the world. If a white woman has a mixed-
race black baby, that means her white DNA and ‘racist’ white vagina
have been cleansed by multi-cultural sexual-baptism. According to
feminism, white male patriarchs had owned and used the vaginas and
wombs of white women to create more and more white males who
conquered, oppressed, and exploited all the noble people-of-color
around the world.
Just as Western liberals feel that the ONLY way to their sinful and
‘racist’ past is by allowing hordes of people-of-color into their
nations, liberal ‘progressive’ white women believe that their
whiteness can only be forgiven and redeemed by using their wombs and
vaginas for creating non-white babies. Liberal Jews especially love
this because they perceive their greatest enemy to be white
nationalism–as it periodically led to violence against Jews,
culminating in the Holocaust.


Parts of this racial-sexual neurosis are based on historical guilt,
political correctness, and Jungle Fever–the most important element.
After all, whites horribly mistreated American Indians and Chinese-
Americans, but there isn’t much interest among white women for
American-Indians or Chinese-Americans. There is some interest among
white males for Asian females, but that has to do with exoticism or
the supposed ‘demureness’ of Asian women. It’s not because white men
find Asian women better looking than white women.


There is another reason why blacks and whites don’t want to dwell too
much on Jackson’s obsessions. These obsessions are discomfiting to
both sides. For blacks, it’s a reminder that too many of them–despite
all their yammering about Black Pride–still prefer certain white-ish
features. Notice that black men prefer white-looking black women or
white women to Negro-ish black women. Most black men prefer half-
white Halle Berry to full black Whoopie Goldberg. And, most black
female TV news reporters look more white than black. This is something
most blacks prefer not to talk about though it does become a subject
of discussion once awhile.


But, Jackson’s obsessions are also embarrassing for whites because the
classic liberal explanation for black-kid-prefers-white-doll-syndrome
blames the legacy of slavery and race oppression. We’ve all been told
that it was white oppression which made blacks hate themselves, loathe
themselves, and reject themselves. Malcolm X wrote that his father
beat up all the dark skinned kids but never laid a hand on him because
he was light-skinned. And, it’s often been reported that blacks have
often characterized problematic blacks as ‘black-skinned niggers’.
So, Michael Jackson’s obsession to look white and his self-loathing
blackness could be seen as the legacy of slavery, i.e.the fault of
white historical crime.
There is probably some truth to the black-kid-prefers-white-doll-
syndrome explanation, but it’s not true enough. After all, Japan and
China were never invaded or enslaved by whites(at least not in the
same way), YET the most popular comic books in Asia feature white
looking characters. Also, some of the most popular Asian stars have
Western-ish looks.
In the case of the Ottoman Empire, though Turks ruled over white
Greeks and other Europeans, that didn’t lead to white-kid-prefers-Turk-
doll-syndrome or white racial self-loathing in those regions.


But, there is some truth to the liberal charge to the extent that as
blacks become more prominent in music, sports, and movies, more whites
want to look black, talk black, walk black, and sing/dance black. Some
of them even toast their hair into a nappy head of cheetos. And so,
the crazy national-racial story goes on.