The Consequences of Junk Food for the Body and Junk Culture for the Mind

 

The analogous relation between diet and culture in an artificial world saturated with additives and addictions.

One of the biggest stories to emerge from the last election cycle was the elevation of Robert Kennedy Jr. as an ally of Donald Trump, one of the true surprises in the American political(and cultural) landscape, along with the saga of Tulsi Gabbard. Part of the reason is the utter corruption of the Democratic Party as the dominant faction representing the Deep State, War Industry, Big Tech/Media/Pharma, and ‘wokeness’(as a ploy of Jewish Power to suppress any expression of white, conservative, and/or nationalist sentiments). Given the copious levels of corruption and degradation in the GOP as well, things must be really bad among the Democrats for certain of its key figures to have migrated ‘rightward’ to the center, even to the side of MAGA. Most likely, such shifts would have been inconceivable minus the Donald Trump phenomenon. After all, what would have been the point of going from the Party of Obama, Hillary, and Biden to the Party of Romney, Graham, and McConnell. In contrast, Donald Trump, for all his lies and betrayals, has struck a nerve in American politics(and society at large) that something has gone terribly wrong in America but most worryingly at the top because, as the saying goes, the fish rots from the head down.

To the best of my knowledge, RJK Jr. had stirred up controversy with issues pertaining to HIV and vaccine efficacy, but the Covid hysteria really placed him in the limelight, hero to many but villain to others. Regardless of the validity of his views on Covid, it brought him to prominence and provided a pathway for his political ambitions in 2024. When foiled by the Democrat bigwigs in his own party, he opted for an Independent run but finally decided to throw in his lot with Trump as the lesser of two evils. His gamble paid off.

But as crucial as the Covid mania was in the making of RFK Jr’s fortune(or notoriety), his success in winning the trust of a considerable segment of the population seems part of a trend, one sensing something has gone terribly awry in American Health in general. Indeed, his slogan was a play on MAGA: MAHA, or Make America Healthy Again.
Of course, given the nature of ‘democratic’ and/or ‘populist’ politics, the trick is to spare the people(and their preferred mass culture) of blame and instead dump it all on the Big Fish, the Food Industry and Big Pharma(and the Big Media that shill for them). It’s almost as if these Big Bad Wolf industries are driven by not only insatiable greed but malicious intent to do harm, as if they’re downright wicked.

But when it comes to health problems, there’s surely plenty of blame to go around, and it’s far from an ideological or partisan issue. Take the fate of Rush Limbaugh, the whole brouhaha about limiting the size of soft drinks in Michael Bloomberg’s New York, and the mockery of Michelle Obama’s proposed policy on the school lunch program. Limbaugh represented the individual liberty to satiate oneself, a celebration of hedonism against the scolds, aka Health Nazis. His overindulgence of satisfactions led to a host of health problems and an early death.
Michael Bloomberg drew the ire of many(and not just conservatives) for his proposal of the limiting serving sizes of soft drinks, and the popular reaction was understandable given most people don’t want to be told what to do. Besides, there’s a matter of slippery slope and statist overreach, as well as the matter of the law, but Bloomberg did raise a serious issue about the impact of excessive sugar intake and the related problems of obesity and diabetes that indirectly burden all of society in increased insurance premiums and government spending. But, instead of addressing those issues, too many ‘conservatives’ only barked about ‘muh liberty’.

Michelle Obama as First Lady took up healthy school meals as her pet project. Given some of the menu items and the banning of candy machines in schools, the backlash was predictable and understandable. But whatever the merit of the project, there was no getting around the fact that health problems for many Americans begin early.
Even in rejection of Michael Bloomberg and Michelle Obama, there was a need to address the problems of health, especially in a country with skyrocketing medical costs. But, for the longest time, the ‘conservative’ side pretended the problem didn’t exist. Given the popularity of fatso Michael Moore(and boastful obesity among black women), it wasn’t an urgent issue among the so-called ‘liberals’ either, the camp more ‘triggered’ by stuff like ‘climate change’, globohomo, and BLM(as if angelic Negroes are being gunned down by KKKops in the streets of blue cities).

A matter that many people prefer to overlook is how the obesity-and-diabetes problem may well be the product of a larger cultural trend fueled by hyper-consumerism as the byproduct of capitalism’s emphasis on hedonism. It isn’t difficult to notice the parallels between the current food culture and pop culture, or junk food and junk culture. Hedonism that favors immediate gratification and wanton pleasure at any cost and by any means is bound to result in a society where excess is the New Normal. Remove the element of shame(and the related mode of self-restraint), and people are prone to indulge in all manners of pleasure and thrills without much reflection on the outcome of such behavior.
After all, in a world where self-control is often a dirty word — you see, it stands in the way of full ‘liberation’ and its ecstasies — , one is regarded as a kind of Neo-Victorian for refusing to take the plunge. What one of the Founders called the “pursuit of happiness” has turned into playing-for-pleasure. Whereas ‘happiness’ connotes something broader and a tad meaningful — the happiness as reward for achievement after dedication and struggle, for example — , ‘pleasure’ simply means joy in the moment, anything from a child licking ice cream to a junkie snorting heroin.

So much of our ‘values’ and ‘principles’ are really centered on an over-emphasis on pleasure as liberty(favored by ‘conservatives’) and liberation(favored by ‘liberals’). Whether it’s glutton Rush Limbaugh poo-poohing Michael Bloomberg’s proposal for limiting the serving sizes of soda pop or some ‘slutton’ howling about ‘muh body’ in defense of abortion, much of the passion is really centered on pleasure-centrism, or orbism(as presented in Woody Allen’s SLEEPER).

Video Link

There’s a good chance that the great majority of ‘pro-choice’ women regard any restriction on abortion as a threat to their freedom to indulge in licentious behavior. Even if they haven’t resorted to abortion themselves, they see it as an option to end an unwanted pregnancy that interferes with their sexual indulgence. Of course, they wrap their position in the rhetoric of ‘rights’ and women’s safety, but notice they never emphasize the fact that so many unwanted pregnancies could be avoided with more responsible behavior; but then, such self-restraint would go against the spirit of ‘liberation’.

But then, it’s likewise with the conventional ‘conservative’ opposition to any regulation of the food industry. While some libertarian-minded folks may genuinely believe in the primacy of individual choice in defiance of statist intervention, it’s likely that many more view any restriction(or regulation) as a threat to the pleasure of pigging out. After all, it’s one thing to argue in favor of liberty but also to emphasize the necessity of self-control and responsibility. But, such wasn’t Rush Limbaugh’s brand of piggery that defined freedom as devouring copious amounts of food and drink to excess.

A truer conservatism would emphasize self-control to balance the excesses of freedom, as well as healthy living, but much of American Conservatism has been receptive than active, e.g. watching NFL(Negro Felon League) on TV as a couch-potato than engaging in, say, hiking or biking. Rush Limbaugh for one watched a lot of football sitting on his lardy arse devouring junk food. It’s no wonder Americans are sports-obsessed but so unhealthy. If the time they spent watching sports was expended in the gym or just going for walks, they’d be a lot healthier. It’s almost as if the American male psyche has outsourced physicality to the athletes. Sitting in front of the TV getting fatter and flabbier with snacks and soda/beer but feeling ‘manly’ by projecting oneself onto the game(dominated by blacks). Ultimately, feminist sluttony and populist gluttony are both expressions of ‘my body, my choice’, except one focuses on vagina/uterus while the other focuses on the mouth/stomach. Be a whore and eat more.

There are mixed signals from Donald Trump’s appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to implement the MAHA policy. Didn’t The Donald serve McDonalds burgers & fries in the final leg of his campaign? No doubt, Trumpism is an extension of Rush Limbaugh conservatism, one of populist excess, though, to be sure, for all his partiality for fast food and diet coke, Trump has been known to be a germ freak and teetotaler. For all his riches, he was never respected by the establishment elites and merely tolerated/indulged as an amusing figure who embodied the vulgar nouveau riche fantasies of the masses.
The last vestiges of old school conservatism as standard bearer of ‘bourgeois’ virtues of self-restraint and responsibility passed with the fading of George H.W. Bush’s generation. The rise of boomer-style modes of ‘liberation’ emphasized the self-indulgence of the moment over anything that could be ridiculed as ‘inhibited’, and the ‘conservative’ boomer outlook wasn’t all that different, as represented by such figures as George W. Bush the clown, Newt Gingrich, and, of course, Rush Limbaugh the pig.

Indeed, where was the demonstration of responsibility in Limbaugh who couldn’t even control his appetites, not only for food but for drugs? If Ron Paul’s libertarianism championed freedom on the assumption that most sensible people would say NO to harmful drugs and the like — perhaps delusional on his part but practiced in personal life — , the new libertarianism seemed to embrace the vices, not only as a matter of freedom and choice but as a celebration of abandonment to pleasure.
How can any meaningful conservative movement rely so heavily on industries such as gambling that really boils down to addicting people into throwing away their precious earnings to be raked in by Zionist moguls who feel nothing but contempt for the suckers? Granted, with the boomer takeover and makeover of values and attitudes, everything had to be ‘cool’ to obtain cultural cachet, and it’s no surprise that so many ‘conservatives’ were drawn to the libertarian paradise of the US as one big casino with room enough for Evangelicals and American Indians at the craps table. Consider the alliance of the religious right and the libertarians in the shameless saga of Jack Abramoff whose hijinks were the basis of the film CASINO JACK.

Video Link

One analogy between physical health and cultural health concerns the dangers of the process of refining(not to be confused with refinement as in haute cuisine or high culture, though that has problems of its own). This refining process is figuratively ‘chemistric’ in distilling those elements that seemingly possess the greatest potency for popular appeal. As such, the refined material has an instant, jolting or explosive, effect on the consumer. It’s the difference between a fruit and sugary drinks(including fruit juices that, while natural, essentially separate the sugars from the pulp that compose the bulk of the fruit). The sugary impact is instantly gratifying but also overwhelming on the body. When a fruit is consumed, the process of sugar absorption is slowed by the pulpy material that constitutes the bulk. Thus, the human body is better able to process and break down the sugars. In contrast, a sudden elevation of sugars in the bloodstream triggers an extreme reaction of insulin production to regulate the sugar level gone haywire. When this process is repeated over and over, it may lead to diabetes. And of course, many people become nearly addicted to sugary intakes, thereby unwilling to stop their dietary habit despite being aware of the harm.

Especially when children are allowed, even encouraged, to develop such habits, their over-preference for ‘junk food’ is likely to impede their appreciation of better kinds of foods. If one’s taste-buds crave only foods that are sugary, creamy, and/or crispy, they’re less likely to be curious and open to various dishes that are more varied in their ingredients and flavors. While fried chicken isn’t all bad, it’s very bad if it’s the only kind of chicken on one’s menu. Worse than the general run of ‘junk foods’(that nevertheless have some protein and vitamins) is the over-consumption of snack items. Ideally, snacking is something one does sparingly, like a donut here and there, some potato chips while watching TV. But for many Americans, the amount of snack intake equals or even exceeds their daily meals. And the dessert, far from being a bit of after-meal closer, comes in big portions. Clearly, things are out of balance. While the current nutritional pyramid promoted by the government and health institutions may not be ideal, the bigger problem is the prevalence of junk intake in the form of daylong snacking.

The body needs proteins, vitamins, minerals, fibers, and etc. and ideally those could be delivered in healthy dishes that are also rich in flavor.
While ultra-health-obsessed or ‘health nazis’ will obsess over everything and sound the alarm on 99% of available foodstuff as unhealthy or dangerous for one reason or another, the fact remains that the main dishes of most national cuisines are reasonably healthy and flavorful. But, even such savory and rewarding dishes may be rejected out of hand by those who crave something familiar and instantly gratifying(in the way illicit drugs are).
As so much ‘junk food’ was specifically formulated for its near-addictive appeal, the subconscious message for consumer-minds is that the ‘zinger’ is the essence of every meal. However, many dishes require some degree of time to appreciate, and that element of patience and delay requires a measure of cultivation. It’s easy to make children love ice cream and cookies, but it takes time for them to appreciate the richness of foods prepared with natural ingredients. If children are weaned on junk food and fast food culture without developing an appreciation for finer foods, it will likely be more challenging to correct their eating habits and preferences later.

What goes for food also goes for culture, and the problem is easily observable in a world saturated with pop culture. As with ‘junk food’, pop culture, most of which is junk culture, is the product of endless processes of refining. Over many generations, the popular culture industries have been refining their products to the point of distilling those elements that have the biggest and most immediate impact on the audience. Thus, certain contents and expressions are disproportionately favored over others.
Take the superhero blockbusters that, threadbare to begin with in terms of substance, increasingly emphasized the ‘rollercoaster ride’ thrills at the expense of whatever else. Some even brought together a host of superheroes in a single movie, leaving no room for anything but a series of wild spectacles(and lots of explosions) that left the product seem more like a videogame than a discernible narrative. It’s no wonder Martin Scorsese remarked that these movies are more like amusement park rides than ‘cinema’(as it came to be appreciated in the 20th century). Much the same could be said of Peter Jackson’s THE LORD OF THE RINGS movies that adapted little from the book but an endless series of action adventures, most of them done in the most outlandish manner. Compared to these, the SUPERMAN movies of the 1970s and 1980s seem downright ‘classic’. Silly as they were, they had something like characters and stories along with the special effects and outlandish moments.

Perhaps, part of the appeal of ‘wokeness’ to Hollywood has been as a shortcut substitute for true content, something of inspiration, originality, and/or meaning. If it’s too bothersome to imagine compelling scenarios and to create engaging heroes & villains, the easy way to feign ‘quality’ or ‘substance’ is by claiming that the work is ‘progressive’ or on the side of ‘social justice’, usually by the gratuitous casting of blacks and homosexuals or by featuring ‘girl power’. Thus, a work that excludes everything that makes a story worthwhile can, at the very least, claim to be ‘inclusive’. Take the new STAR WARS franchise from Disney, for example. George Lucas’ original saga was hardly a work of art but still offered something like an original vision and engaging storyline. The new iteration offered nothing that was new and sought to compensate for its utter vacuity with ‘virtuous’ claims of ‘diversity’.

What happens to the human heart and mind(or soul) when what is done with food is done with culture? When foods are overly refined to produce sugary-creamy flavors, we know it leads to diabetes, obesity, and a host of other problems. It makes people physically sick.
Might not something similar happen to the human soul when the culture is similarly refined/processed to offer maximum thrills and excitement at the expense of all else? THE FRENCH CONNECTION and TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. have some of the most exciting action scenes, but the violence happens within a social and moral(even philosophical) framework, thereby engaging our minds as well as our senses. Indeed, their action scenes are so powerful precisely because we are invested in the people and their situations. In second-rate works, there’s a bare minimum of ‘substance’ to justify the violence. But even more problematic are works that don’t even bother to rationalize the mayhem. And then, you have works that cast away all inhibitions and celebrate nihilism for nihilism’s sake.
The result is sensory overload that, in time, has a desensitizing effect. It’s been said of illicit drugs that people require ever higher doses to get the same high. And studies have shown that porn addiction leads to ever raunchier depictions of sex to maintain one’s level of excitement, resulting in young people, even females, getting hooked on something close to torture-porn. The saying ‘too much of a good thing is a bad thing’ applies here.
For example, brown bears love honey, but it’s no easy task as attaining it comes with bee stings. As terrible as the bee stings are, would it be better for the bear if it had limitless access to honey without pain? It would likely gorge on the stuff and grow sick from an excess of sugars. Instead of a piece of cake as dessert, imagine a dinner consisting of nothing but cakes and sweets. It’d be diabetes heaven.

The deterioration of physical health is readily observable, and despite the reverse-stigma on obesity — shaming those who shame fatness instead of shaming the fatness, which is celebrated in some quarters — , there’s a medical consensus that an excessively sugary/creamy diet is a health hazard, and of course, one would have to be nuts to defend diseases like diabetes, cancer, and heart problems.
But because the human heart and mind are harder to grasp as tangible entities, the cultural diet receives far less attention. (To be sure, cultural moralizers usually offer no alternatives as they tend to be disinterested in creativity and originality. Whether the ‘woke’ types or the religious crowd, they only know how to complain without forming ideas of their own.) And there are plenty of people who see no harm and no problem in the current state of narco-pornified popular culture.
To an extent, such a knee-jerk response is understandable given that the cultural moralists have tended to be like puritanical Church Ladies, spiritual hypocrites, or political opportunists. Who wants a bunch of church lady types telling us what we can’t read, watch, or hear? Who wants a sermon from Televangelist types, many of whom have been mired in drug/sexual scandals of their own? Who wants censorious BS from politicians who pretend to care about ‘family values’ or ‘community values’ when they’re just milking the anxiety of parents for easy votes?
The disdain for the public moralists come from both the libertarian types and the so-called ‘progressive’ types, of course depending on who’s doing the lecturing(or hectoring). When PC or ‘woke’ types say certain ideas or expressions are ‘toxic’, the libertarian types defend them on grounds of freedom of speech. When ‘conservative’ types raise the alarm, like when police organizations and Charlton Heston did in regards to Ice-T’s rap-metal song “Cop Killer”, the ‘progressive’ types cry ‘racism’ or, even as they admit the song is troubling, defend it on grounds of understandable black rage or despair.
But, one can totally defend the freedom of speech while also using that very principle to decry or denounce certain views. Indeed, harshly criticizing a view doesn’t mean that view should be banned from being voiced, but people often forget this and conclude that a denunciation is synonymous with censorship.

Sensation, violence, and thrill, these are all elements of storytelling. But a worthy story places them in a meaningful context. Why are the characters angry or hostile? What were the options other than violence? What are the odds involved? What are the consequences and the psychological toll of violence? Is it a contest of good vs bad or one between two or more parties, each of which feels equally justified? One gets a basic sense of these questions in John Ford movies(even if most of his Westerns were rather crude on the Indian issue). Prior to the growing permissiveness for violence and sex in movies, even lesser works had to focus more on story and characters because wall-to-wall bloodbath simply wasn’t an option.
But once the censorship faded, movie makers could emphasize thrill over all else. While greater expressive license could be used to powerful effect by genuine artists, it was an irresistible incentive for exploiters to draw in the audience by peddling little more than sexual vulgarity and violent kicks.

One wonders about the cumulative effect of all this over several generations. The degeneration of black music from blues to soul to rap is one troubling indication. The elementary qualities of blues are at least organic, a natural product of musical expression that developed in the absence of higher education and cultural sophistication. As such, it has genuine worth as folk art.
In contrast, hip-hop was quickly adopted by the industry and ‘chemistically’ processed for maximum instant thrills, which accounts for its global appeal, much like candy bars and soft drinks. Thus, unlike blues that retains the fiber of real experience and emotions, hip-hop has been ‘refined’ to the point where only the thrill elements remain.
Granted, given the crudity of the emotions often associated with hip-hop and related rap(especially gangsta rap), many have mistaken the musical genre as an expression of real life, of ‘survival’ in the streets. But the only emotion distilled in the musical process is childlike vanity, nasty petulance, disdain for any kind of self-reflection(and remorse), and infatuation with ignorance as knowledge. It’s all a stunt and strut. Saying that it’s the genuine reflection of life in the streets is like saying junkies and skanks are the truest messengers of da hood. After generations of fostering such hostile egomania with virtually zero counterbalance, is it surprising that the typical expression of blackness today is ‘twerking’? Likewise, when hard rock was caricatured into Heavy Metal and Punk, the young ones were disinclined to bestow value to anything that wasn’t the loudest and most outrageous, not a good cultural attitude for curiosity and patience(without which curiosity isn’t possible).
Darron Aronofsky was onto something in REQUIEM FOR A DREAM where various lives, from mother to son, are caught up in cultural consumption based on thrills of an addictive nature.

Video Link

As we believe in a free society, we should allow for all views, ideas, and expressions, but we shouldn’t refrain from raising alarm about their negative impact. To be sure, there’s a lot of alarmism, but it’s often misplaced, misdirected, or misconstrued. First, if criticism calls for the outright censorship of its target, it has lost the argument there and then by unwittingly acknowledging that it cannot prevail in a court of free discourse.

 Video Link

Also, one-way criticism is a form of dogmatism characteristic of a theocracy. Over the years, the most powerful moral criticisms have been centered on themes of ‘antisemitism’, ‘racism’, and ‘homophobia’. Christian church ladies are a thing of the past, but their ‘woke’ reiterations are everywhere. Nowadays, you don’t get in trouble for making fun of Jesus or mocking the Pope. You get in trouble by denouncing sodomy as gross, a grave ‘sin’ in the eyes of the church of Wokery. And there have been endless panics and hysterias about ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’.
Now, if indeed the KKK are on the loose and hanging innocent blacks from lamp-posts and if Cossack ghost riders are rampaging around Manhattan and running down Jews(and raping Jewish women as Woody Allen has joked so often), such outcries would be understandable. But Jews are the most powerful and privileged group in the US. And they’ve waged the biggest wars in the 21st Century that killed millions of people from Ukraine to Gaza. And blacks are by far the most violent and destructive group in the US. Entire city blocks(and even entire cities) have been decimated by Negrocalyptic behavior.
Yet, an endless array of movies, books, lectures, college courses, government pronouncements, and etc. have been about noble black victims and how we must all try to do better by them. And given what spews forth from the Jewish-run media, one would think homos are the nicest angels and finest saints.

It’s One-Way Criticism because we can condemn the purported failings of humanity in deference to Jews, blacks, and homos, but we better not criticize the problems of Jews, blacks, and homos in defense of humanity. BLM was premised on one-way criticism if there ever was one. We were all admonished to take the knee in worship of St. George Floyd who most likely died of drug overdose. And even though blacks routinely kill one another as well as members of other races, we were supposed to believe that innocent blacks were being gunned down by sadistic white policemen. And even though Jewish Power has made the US complicit in the horrible wars against the Arab/Muslim world over generations, as well as economically manipulating the system to concentrate wealth in the hands of Zion, we’re supposed to believe that one of the great pressing issues of our day is ‘antisemitism’, when clearly the moral failing of the current West is the mindless philosemitism that has the white race fawning over Jews as the rightful Chosen-Master-Race.

True criticism has to be a two-way street. We can’t have Bob doing all the criticism of Bill while Bill must always listen, nod along, and concede while never ever daring to criticize Bob in turn. One of the worst legacies of the faith in the one and only perfect God is the mental habit that some things that are deemed holy are never to be questioned(or blasphemed).
True criticism is most welcome. Not the kind that favors one side, protecting it from criticism from the other side. And not the kind where the range of debate is severely restricted, e.g. both the ‘right’ and the ‘left’ in the West having to conform to the official consensus imposed by Jewish Power that demands veneration (or at least excessive toleration) of Jews, blacks, and homosexuals — it’s no wonder that the Western Right has been so useless, compelled to defer to the very ethnic group, the Jews, that has been most hellbent on pushing the anti-white agenda. True criticism would air views not only from the National Review crowd but from the likes of David Duke, Kevin MacDonald, and Nicholas Fuentes as well.
Sadly, the establishment Right has been corralled and steered by people like Ben Shapiro. GOP politics is like one big cattle drive with Shapiro, his fellow Jews, and cuck goy henchmen leading the masses of idiot cons to their eventual demise.

The current West has all the visible signs of a Liberal Democracy with its electoral noise and incessant ideological buzz in media-space, but scratch the surface of all the ‘vibrant’ happenings, and it’s very much a rigged game where anyone who deviates from the official script is either censored or blacklisted or prevented from rising up the echelons of institutional power.
The fact that certain ‘notorious’ personalities have gained traction despite all the discouragement and deplatforming is a sign, a healthy one, that growing numbers of people, especially among the young, are wising up to the fact that much of what’s paraded as ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ in the West is a sham, a charade perpetuated by charlatans in service to globalist imperialist power.

In a way, one might argue that the current ideological diet has made the masses soul-sick or mind-sick in the way that overly sugary-creamy food has made the people body-sick. Just like sugars extracted from their original sources(which are otherwise discarded) have an overload effect on the bloodstream, the sensationalism of news coverage(that removes the complex fiber of context) results in junk news, which is usually ‘fake news’. For example, consider the sugary overload of the Ukraine War narrative, i.e. that the Russian invasion was ‘unprovoked’. Just like sugars are distilled from fruits & vegetables and processed & delivered by food companies to provide consumers with sugar highs, sensations(and insta-passions) are filtered from complex world events to serve and manipulate the cravings of news junkies.
Thus, stories from around the world are turned into easily digestible snacks of moral outrage, quasi-missionary fervor, heroic myths, and ideological comfort. Among the simplest formulas of this is to paint any problematic political figure in the world as the ‘New Hitler’. Or to demean someone who calls for a more balanced interpretation of events as an ‘appeaser’(and it’s Munich all over again). Or the media will tug at people’s heartstrings or push the buttons of instant moral outrage, thereby justifying American presence in Iraq or invasion of Syria to, for example, ‘save the Kurds’.

With such sugar-high media reports, it’s no wonder so many Western minds are ideologically diabetic, unable to reject the comic book ‘unipolar’ vision of the world in favor of one that regards other nations, cultures, and civilizations with a measure of empathy, curiosity, and respect.
For the idiots on the American Right, the only thing that matters in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the sugar high that Jews are a bunch of Anne Franks, a Holy Holocaust people, and rich & powerful as hell to boot, which is why it’s so enticing to suck up to the Zionists(even if engaged in genocide) in the hope of turning more Jews into Republicans. That’s the sugar-addiction among the Conservatives. Of course, these cuckservatives aren’t hoping that Jews will join them on an equal footing as Fellow Republicans; instead, they are hoping for Jews to take on the role of the master-race-overlords over white conservatives in the Republican Party — Netanyahu as Prophet Moses and King David of the GOP. It’s not “join us and stand by our side” but “lord over us, oh great Jew, aka super-white man.”

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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