On Alisa Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand)

Alisa Rosenbaum (according to a biography) was among the first women to enter Petrograd University, when opened to women by the ardently atheist/feminist Bolsheviks, at the impressionable age of 16. As the Ayn Rand Institute openly concedes "she experienced [...] the takeover of the university by gangs of communist students."

"One of the greatest creations of the Russian Revolution has sprung up on the soil of the proletarian masses of Petrograd: The Petrograd Zinoviev University. More than a thousand students, proletarians without exception, are occupied here with the task of absorbing the knowledge offered by modern science, and of planting the seed of proletarian culture. Down to the last student they are all the sons and daughters of workers. [...] All are faithful Communists. They work just as seriously and systematically as in the highest bourgeois universities of Europe or America. The requirements of the syllabus are extremely high. There is no playing at study. And the spirit pervading the work is that of the class consciousness of the proletariat. [....] For these red students the International, the World Revolution, and the Proletarian Dictatorship, are no dreams of the future; for them these are the actualities of their life and work. [....] The future of the Russian Revolution and of the world revolution lies in the hands of this generation. It lies in good hands. [....] All students, male and female, live in the University. They form a single community. As government workers in the performance of their duties they receive board, lodging, and clothing. This red university fulfils with the greatest ease all the demands which the bourgeois school and high school reformers in Western Europe are striving for in vain." - The Communist, The First Workers’ University, 1922. (This is at the same time Rosenbaum was in college.)

She studied ardently Marxist social pedagogy majoring in history.

"Philosophy, history, economics, law all the social sciences — called for swift and radical revision. The science of history as developed in old Russia unquestionably had substantial achievements to its credit so far as the accumulation of factual material was concerned. But the treatment of this material, its interpretation, the theory of historical development applied to it reflected the interests of the nobility and the bourgeoisie. Much that was contained in this science called for revision and renewal. [....] The Soviet state devoted great attention to the schooling system. 'We can build Communism,' said Lenin, in his speech at the Third All-Russian Congress of the Young Communist League, on October 2, 1920, 'only from the sum of knowledge, organizations and institutions, only with the stock of human forces and means that were bequeathed to us by the old society. Only by radically recasting the teaching, organization and training of the youth can we ensure that the result of the efforts of the younger generation will be the creation of a society that will be unlike the old society, i.e., a communist society.'" - S. I. Vavilov, President of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1948.

Education at every level was weaponized by the Bolsheviks to eradicate religious belief from the populace.

"The programs of academic disciplines (social studies, literature, geography, natural sciences) were saturated and filled with anti-religious content. Anti-religious inserts and comments had a very obvious goal - to kill faith in God in the minds of Soviet children, to raise a generation of atheists. [...] The new communist morality was opposed to Orthodoxy, religious norms and values. The school teacher was obliged to be a militant atheist who must tear children away from the Russian Orthodox Church, expose church Sacraments, religious rites and holidays, and the Christian way of life. [...] The unfolding unprecedented anti-religious campaign also captured the Soviet school. [....] Programs and textbooks were [...] filled with propaganda interpretations and ideological comments in their content. [....] 

Nowhere in the new programs, filled with an anti-religious mixture, was there any place for the education of moral sense. Proletarian morality did not need the sanction of the eternal and consisted in the development of socialist (atheistic) culture. Let us turn to the 'anti-religious insert' in the subtopic 'Education of the Village', taught at the 1st level school in the 3rd year of study, which included the teacher’s coverage of the following issues: 'Pictures of previous teaching - the law of God, the Church Slavonic language, spiritual - moral books; the parochial school as a weapon of darkening the population, as a weapon of the class struggle of landowners, priests, and merchants of tsarism. The modern school is contrasted with the old: the absence of icons, the law of God, the separation of church and state, the fall of religion'.

The developers of the anti-religious program stated with regret that the majority of children came to school 'with a certain stock of family and everyday religious skills, superstitions, prejudices, with certain ideas and impressions of the traditional concepts that have developed over centuries about 'God, the devil, church, prayer.' [...] Some of the guys also wear a cross on their chest; almost every one of them knows 'the day of his angel,' Easter, Christmas, Trinity; I heard about 'evil spirits', heaven and hell." [...] Teachers were told that it was unacceptable to pass by this at school and not react to manifestations of religious inclination of schoolchildren, although parents often expressed concern 'that their children would be made atheists at school.' Family and traditions were seen by the program compilers as the main obstacles to the successful implementation of anti-religious education".

In schools of the second level, anti-religious inserts were designed to be more intense, corresponding to high school age. Social studies played a leading role in the anti-religious education of students. The goal of all work was to implement a triune task: 'exposing the class essence of religion, awakening in students the desire to fight religion and equipping them for this purpose with a materialistic worldview'.

There are numerous examples of negative references and characteristics of the Church (autocracy, monasteries, priests): The Church is a persecutor of schismatics and heretics; stronghold of the ideology of serfdom; a weapon of intimidation and deception of the working people (through the 'discovery of relics, revealed icons, excommunication, anathematization'); a weapon for inciting national hatred ('anti-Semitism, chauvinism, Jewish pogroms', the Black Hundred movement); a weapon of Russian capitalism ('the conversion of non-believers to Orthodoxy, Great Russian chauvinism, the fight against the liberation movement'); an instrument of betrayal and betrayal of the interests of the people in the reform of 1861; a tool for instilling religious education in old schools. [....]

Literature, which has always touched upon the metaphysical depths of the human soul and consciousness, has undergone a thorough revision in an anti-religious spirit. Its philosophical and religious intensity, if not denied, was grossly simplified and profaned.

If the ultimate goal of all work on anti-religious education in school was, in the words of the program compilers, 'to displace God from nature using the scientific data of physics and astronomy,' then social studies and literature were called upon to 'displace God' from the human head, from artistic creativity, from society, that is, to destroy the very idea of ​​the highest. Insertion of anti-religious content into educational programs became mandatory.

Other forms of anti-religious education were extracurricular club work in advanced schools, which were attended by older children and adults, as well as the organization of extracurricular events - anti-Christmas campaigns, etc., for social education schools with the mandatory active participation of students.

The incompatibility of the religious worldview with state ideology and large-scale changes in the economy pushed the authorities to intensify the ideological indoctrination of the population. And the best place for the formation of atheistic beliefs was the school, as the most important social institution, which had at its disposal all the necessary educational means and tools. Therefore, through anti-religious education of schoolchildren, the authorities hoped to change the worldview of not only children, but also the adult population. And for this purpose, non-religious education was replaced by anti-religious education. In this matter of national importance, the most important role was given to the work of changing the content of education, filling all academic disciplines with material on anti-religious education. A special role in the implementation of the policy of replacing non-religious education with anti-religious education was played by new curricula and textbooks aimed at instilling intolerance towards faith in God. The programs provoked a conflict between the school and the religious family, and a negative reaction of the population to school education. [...] And the result of anti-religious education and anti-religious campaigns, the collection and burning of icons, etc., became a split consciousness among many schoolchildren, a conflict between the Soviet education system and a religious family, which led to a moral drama that sometimes ended tragically or did not find its resolution throughout the life of an adult, and formed a tendency towards insincerity, hypocrisy, and closedness." - Sinelnikov S.P.

Western atheists today incessantly dispense identical sentiments to those of the Bolsheviks above, openly advocating for the complete separation of church and state, the purging of religion from schools, and the abolition of religious "indoctrination" of children by their parents/family.

While it's not my contention that Rosenbaum was a card carrying member of the Communist Party, her personal philosophy conspicuously bears the hallmarks of the Marxism to which she was exposed as a youth, being an atheist feminist that chose career over family, that cuckolded her husband and bore him no progeny, and believed women should hold public office.

Where could Rosenbaum have gotten the notion women should be in positions of leadership and hold public office?

Soviet Propaganda. On left: "Servant of God." (Women kneeling in prayer; i.e., thralls of religion.) On right: "Communist Party candidate." (Woman depicted as elevated/empowered by Communism, being saluted by other Communists for abandoning theistic gender roles, and seeking to govern.)

On left: "Without God." (Women depicted as liberated from the home and taking part in government.) On right: "Life with God in the Godly world." (Woman depicted in the home being beaten by an abusive husband; how virtually all feminists portray patriarchy, Biblical/traditional gender roles, etc.)

(Women depicted as a "workers.") Below: "So many womenfolk and not one of them is praying."

Top: "Good and Evil are Crying Together." Bottom: "Women used to support us quite a lot, but now even they went over to the Soviets." (Jesus and the Devil weeping because Communist women are atheists and no longer believe in them.) 

On banner: "Woman/The Soviets."

Top: "Picture puzzle." Bottom: "Which one is an atheist?" (The woman on the right depicted as a Communist "worker" is the atheist. The woman on the left, depicted in the home, is not.)

The above are examples of with what young women (and all Russians) were being indoctrinated by the Bolsheviks. But according to Rosenbaum's acolytes, she's the first person in human history who (as a young impressionable girl) wasn't influenced by her environment, and developed her own philosophy completely independent of such. They'll argue this with a straight face even as young women go to college and come out ardent Marxists by the millions in this country. They all concede Christianity is a result of religious indoctrination, but atheism (indistinguishable from Bolshevism) is not a result of Communist indoctrination, and happens completely independently of such (essentially an effect without a cause).

Westerners simply don't grasp the depth of atheistic fervor that gripped Communist Russia, and scope of Communist influence that resulted as Communism subsequently spread across the globe, via various revolutions and clandestine subversion. All atheism (and feminism) today, as illustrated above, is a product of Marxist theory.

Mainstreaming Depravity

This is an article written by two sodomites in 1987 describing how to manipulate heterosexuals into accepting sodomy.

THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICA

By Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill

The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.

At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full "appreciation" or "understanding" of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America. And any campaign to accomplish this turnaround should do six things.

[1] TALK ABOUT GAYS AND GAYNESS AS LOUDLY AND AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE.

The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one's fellows doing it or accepting it. One may be offended by its novelty at first--many, in times past, were momentarily scandalized by "streaking,'' eating goldfish, and premarital sex. But as long as Joe Six-pack feels little pressure to perform likewise, and as long as the behavior in question presents little threat to his physical and financial security, he soon gets used to it and life goes on. The skeptic may still shake his head and think "people arc crazy these days," but over time his objections are likely to become more reflective, more philosophical, less emotional.

The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality. Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve the purpose of desensitization so long as "respectable" gays are front and center to make their own pitch. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.

And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere!

Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message--of normalcy. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past ten years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films (though often this has been done to achieve comedic and ridiculous affects). On the whole the impact has been encouraging. The prime-time presentation of Consenting Adults on a major network in 1985 is but one high-water mark in favorable media exposure of gay issues. But this should be just the beginning of a major publicity blitz by gay America.

Would a desensitizing campaign of open and sustained talk about gay issues reach every rabid opponent of homosexuality? Of course not. While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency. Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed "secular humanism"). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here.

[2] PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS.

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our "gay pride" publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia-"They are all around us!"--on the other.

A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower it's guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note -- North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)

Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: "As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary - it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!"

Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be given no extra excuses to say, "they are not like us." To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards, completely unexceptionable in appearance--in a word, they should be indistinguishable from the straights we would like to reach. (To return to the terms we have used in previous articles, spokesmen for our cause must be R-type "straight gays" rather than Q-type "homosexuals on

display.") Only under such conditions will the message be read correctly: "These folks are victims of a fate that could have happened to me."

By the way, we realize that many gays will question an advertising technique, which might threaten to make homosexuality look like some dreadful disease, which strikes fated "victims". But the plain fact is that the gay community is weak and must manipulate the powers of the weak, including the play for sympathy. In any case, we compensate for the negative aspect of this gay victim appeal under Principle 4. (Below)

The second message would portray gays as victims of society. The straight majority does not recognize the suffering it brings to the lives of gays and must be shown: graphic pictures of brutalized gays; dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, and public humiliation: and the dismal list goes on.

"... In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector."

[3] GIVE PROTECTORS A JUST CAUSE.

A media campaign that casts gays as society's victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness. Few straight women, and even fewer straight men, will want to defend homosexuality boldly as such. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, to some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society. Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws-these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.

It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle.

[4] MAKE GAYS LOOK GOOD.

In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know--this trick is so old it creaks. Other minorities use it all the time in ads that announce proudly, "Did you know that this Great Man (or Woman) was _________?" But the message is vital for all those straights who still picture gays as "queer" people-- shadowy, lonesome, fail, drunken, suicidal, child-snatching misfits.

The honor roll of prominent gay or bisexual men and women is truly eye popping. From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman, from Sappho to Gertrude Stein, the list is old hat to us but shocking news to heterosexual America. In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.

Along the same lines, we shouldn't overlook the Celebrity Endorsement. The celebrities can be straight (God bless you, Ed Asner, wherever you are) or gay.

[5] MAKE THE VICTIMIZERS LOOK BAD.

At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace-it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. (This will be all the more necessary because, by that time, the entrenched enemy will have quadrupled its output of vitriol and disinformation.) Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream's self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the "fags" they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.

A campaign to vilify the victimizers is going to enrage our most fervid enemies, of course. But what else can we say? The shoe fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all of America watching.

[6] SOLICIT FUNDS: THE BUCK STOPS HERE

Any massive campaign of this kind would require unprecedented expenditures for months or even years--an unprecedented fundraising drive.

Effective advertising is a costly proposition: several million dollars would get the ball rolling. There are 10-15 million primarily homosexual adults in this country: if each one of them donated just two dollars to the campaign, its war chest would actually rival that of its most vocal enemies. And because those gays not supporting families usually have more discretionary income than average, they could afford to contribute much more.

"... We intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types."

But would they? Or is the gay community as feckless, selfish, uncommitted, and short-sighted as its critics claim? We will never know unless the new campaign simultaneously launches a concerted nationwide appeal for funding support from both known and anonymous donors. The appeal should be directed both at gays and at straights who care about social justice.

In the beginning, for reasons to be explained in a moment, the appeal for funds may have to be launched exclusively through the gay press--national magazines, local newspapers, flyers at bars, notices in glossy skin magazines. Funds could also come through the outreach of local gay organizations on campuses and in metropolitan areas. Eventually, donations would be solicited directly alongside advertisements in the major straight media.

There would be no parallel to such an effort in the history of the gay community in America. If it failed to generate the needed capital to get started; there would be little hope for the campaign and l little hope for major progress toward gay rights in the near future. For the moment let us suppose that gays could see how donations would greatly serve their long-term interest, and that sufficient funds could be raised. An heroic assumption.

GETTING ON THE AIR, OR, YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE.

Without access to TV, radio, and the mainstream press, there will be no campaign. This is a tricky problem, became many impresarios of the media simply refuse to accept what they call "issue-advertising" -- persuasive advertising can provoke a storm of resentment from the public and from sponsors, which is bad for business. The courts have confirmed the broadcaster's right to refuse any "issue advertising" he dislikes.

What exactly constitutes "issue advertising"? It evidently does not include platitudinous appeals to the virtues of family unity (courtesy of the Mormons) neither does it include tirades against perfidious Albion courtesy of Lyndon LaRouche); neither does it include reminders that a Mind-Is-a Terrible Thing to Waste (courtesy of the United Negro College Fund); neither does it include religious shows which condemn gay "sinners"; neither does it include condemnations of nuclear war or race discrimination--at least not in Massachusetts. Some guys get all the breaks.

What issue advertising does include these days is almost any communiqué presented openly by a homosexual organization. The words "gay" and "homosexual"' are considered controversial whenever they appear.

Because most straightforward appeals are impossible, the National Gay Task Force has had to cultivate quiet backroom liaisons with broadcast companies and newsrooms in order to make sure that issues important to the gay community receive some coverage; but such an arrangement is hardly ideal, of course, because it means that the gay community's image is controlled by the latest news event instead of by careful design--and recently most of the news about gays has been negative.

So what can be done to crash the gates of the major media? Several things, advanced in several stages.

START WITH THE FINE PRINT

Newspapers and magazines may very well be hungrier for gay advertising dollars than television and radio are. And the cost of ads in print is generally lower. But remember that the press, for the most part, is only read by better-educated Americans, many of who are already more accepting of homosexuality in any case. So to get more impact for our dollars, we should skip the New Republic and New Left Review readers and head for Time, People, and the National Enquirer. (Of course, the gay community may have to establish itself as a regular advertising presence in more sophisticated forums first before it is accepted into the mass press.)

While we're storming the battlements with salvos of ink, we should also warm the mainstream up a bit with a subtle national campaign on highway billboards. In simple bold print on dark backgrounds, a series of unobjectionable messages should be introduced:

IN RUSSIA, THEY TELL YOU

WHAT TO BE. IN AMERICA

WE HAVE THE FREEDOM

TO BE OURSELVES...

AND TO BE THE BEST.

Or

PEOPLE HELPING INSTEAD

OF HATING--THAT 'S

WHAT AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT.

And so on. Each sign will tap patriotic sentiment, each message will drill a seemingly agreeable proposition into mainstream heads - a "public service message" suited to our purposes. And, if heir owners will permit it, each billboard will be signed, in slightly smaller letters, "Courtesy of the National Gay Task Force" - to build positive associations and get the public used to seeing such sponsorship.

VISUAL STAGE 1: YOU REALLY OUGHTTA BE IN PICTURES

As for television and radio, a more elaborate plan may be needed to break the ice. For openers, naturally, we must continue to encourage the appearance of favorable gay characters in films and TV shows. Daytime talk shows also remain a useful avenue for exposure. But to speed things up we might consider a bold stratagem to gain media attention. The scheme we have in mind would require careful preparations, yet it would save expense even while it elevated the visibility and stature of the gay movement overnight.

Well before the next elections for national office, we might lay careful plans to run symbolic gay candidates for every high political office in this country. (Such plans would have to deal somehow with the tricky problem of inducing gays and straights to sign enough endorsement petitions to get us on the ballot.) Our 50-250 candidates would participate in such debates as they could, run gay-themed advertisements coordinated at our national headquarters, and demand equal time on the air. They could then graciously pull out of the races before the actual elections, while formally endorsing more viable straight contenders. (With malicious humor, perhaps, in some states we could endorse our most rabid opponents.) It is essential not to ask people actually to vote Yea or Nay on the gay issue at this early stage: such action would end up committing most to the Nay position and would only tally huge and visible defeats for our cause.

Through such a political campaign, the mainstream would get over the initial shock of seeing gay ads, and the acceptability of such ads would be fortified by the most creditable context possible; and all this would be accomplished before non-electoral advertising was attempted by the gay community. During the campaign all hell would break loose, but if we behaved courageously and respectable our drive would gain legitimacy in and case and might even become a cause celebre.

If all went as planned, the somewhat desensitized public and the major networks themselves would be 'readied for the next step of our program.

VISUAL STAGE 2: PEEKABOO ADVERTISING

At this point the gay community has its foot in the door, and it is time to ask the networks to accept gay sponsorship of certain ads and shows. Timing is critical: The request must be made immediately after our national political ads disappear. Failing that, we should request sponsorship the next time one of the networks struts its broad-mindedness by televising a film or show with gay characters or themes. If they wish to look consistent instead of hypocritical, we'll have them on the spot. But the networks would still be forced to say No unless we made their resistance look patently unreasonable, and possibly illegal. We'd do just that by proposing "gay ads" patterned exactly after those currently sponsored by the Mormons and others. As usual, viewers would be treated to squeak-clean skits on the importance of family harmony and understanding --this time the narrator would end by saying, "This message was brought to you by --the National Gay Task Force." All very quiet and subdued. Remember: exposure is everything, and the medium is the message.

"... Exposure is everything and the medium is the message."

The gay community should join forces with other civil liberties groups of respectable cast to promote bland messages about America the Melting Pot, always ending with an explicit reference to the Task Force of some other gay organization. Making the best of a bad situation, we can also propose sympathetic media appeals for gifts and donations to fund AIDS research--if Jerry Lewis and the March of Dimes can do it, so can we. Our next indirect step will be to advertise locally on behalf of support groups peripheral to the gay community: frowzy straight moms and dads announcing phone numbers and meeting times for "Parents of Gays" or similar gatherings. Can't you just see such ads now, presented between messages from the Disabled Vets and the Postal Workers Union?

VISUAL STAGE 3: ROLL OUT THE BIG GUNS

By this point, our salami tactics will have carved out, slice by slice, a large portion of access to the mainstream media. So what then? It would finally be time to bring gay ads out of the closet. The messages of such ads should directly address lingering public fears about homosexuals as loathsome and contrary aliens. For examples, the following are possible formats for TV or radio commercials designed to chip away at chronic misperceptions.

Format A for Familiarization: The Testimonial.

To make gays seem less mysterious, present a series of short spots featuring the boy-or girl-next-door, fresh and appealing, or warm and lovable grandma grandpa types. Seated in homey surroundings, they respond to an off camera interviewer with assurance, good nature, and charm. Their comments bring out three social facts:

1. There is someone special in their life, a long-term relationship (to stress gay stability, monogamy, commitment);

2. Their families are very important to them, and are supportive of them (to stress that gays are not "anti-family," and that families need not be anti-gay.)

3. As far as they can remember they have always been gay, and were probably born gay; they certainly never decided on a preference one way or the other (stressing that gays are doing what is natural for them, and are not being willfully contrary). The subjects should be interviewed alone, not with their lovers or children, for to include others in the picture would unwisely raise disturbing questions about the complexities of gay social relations, which these commercials could not explain. It is best instead to take one thing at a time.

Format B for Positive Associations: The Celebrity Spot.

While it might be useful to present celebrity endorsements by currently popular gay figures and straight sympathizers (Johnny Mathis? Marlo Thomas?), the homophobia climate of America would make such brash endorsements unlikely in the near future. So early celebrity spots will instead identify historical gay or bisexual personalities who are illustrious and dignified...and dead. The ads could be sardonic and indirect. For example, over regal music and a portrait or two, a narrator might announce simply: Michelangelo (an art class), Tchaikovsky (a music class), Tennessee Williams (a drama class), etc.

Format C for Victim Sympathy: Our Campaign to Stop Child Abuse.

As we said earlier, there are many ways to portray gays as victims of discrimination: images of brutality, tales of job loss and family separation, and so on. But we think something like the following 30-sccond commercials would get to the heart of the matter best of all.

The camera slowly moves in on a middle-class teenager, sitting alone in his semi-darkened bedroom. The boy is pleasing and unexceptional in appearance, except that he has been roughed up and is staring silently, pensively, with evident distress. As the camera gradually focuses in on his face, a narrator comments: It will happen to one in every ten sons. As he grows up he will realize that he feels differently about things than most of his friends. If he lets it show, he'll be an outsider made fun of, humiliated, attacked. If he confides in his parents, they may throw him out of the house, onto the streets. Some will say he is "anti-family." Nobody will let him be himself. So he will have to hide. From his friends, his family. And that's hard. It's tough enough to be a kid these days, but to be the one in ten... A message from the National Gay Task Force.

What is nice about such an ad is that it would economically portray gays as innocent and vulnerable, victimized and misunderstood, surprisingly numerous yet not menacing. It also renders the "anti-family" charge absurd and hypocritical.

Format D for Identification with Victims: The Old Switcheroo.

The mainstream will identify better with the plight of gays if straights can, once in a while, walk a mile in gay shoes. A humorous television or radio ad to help them do this might involve a brief animated or dramatized scenario, as follows.

The camera approaches the mighty oak door of the boss's office, which swings open, and the camera (which represents you the viewer) enters the room. Behind the oversized desk sits a fat and scowling old curmudgeon chomping on a cigar. He looks up at the camera (i.e. at the viewer) and snarls, " So it's you, Smithers. Well you're fired!" The voice of a younger man is heard to reply with astonishment, "But--but--Mr. Thomburg, I've been with your company for ten years. I thought you liked my work." The boss responds, with a tone of disgust, "Yes, yes, Smithers your work is quite adequate. But I've heard rumors that you've been seen around town with some kind of girlfriend. A girlfriend! Frankly I'm shocked. We're not about to start hiring any heterosexuals in this company. Now get out." The younger man speaks once more: "But boss, that's just not fair! What if it were you?" The boss glowers back as the camera pulls quickly out of the room and the big door slams shut. Printed on the door: "A message from the National Gay Task Force."

One can easily imagine similar episodes involving housing or other discrimination.

Format E for Vilification of Victimizers: Damn the Torpedoes.

We have already indicated some of the images which might be damaging to the homophobic vendetta: ranting and hateful religious extremists neo-Nazis, and Ku Klux Klansmen made to look evil and ridiculous (hardly a difficult task).

These images should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the "bracket technique." For example, for a few seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is seen pounding the pulpit in rage about "those sick, abominable creatures." While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to pathetic photos of gays who look decent, harmless, and likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher, and so forth. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating.

"...it would portray gays as innocent and vulnerable, victimized and misunderstood, surprisingly numerous, yet not menacing."

Format F for Funds: SOS

Alongside or during these other persuasive advertisements, we would have to solicit donations so that the campaign might continue. Direct appeals from celebrities (preferable living ones, thank you) might be useful here. All appeals must stress that money can be given anonymously (e.g. via money orders) and that all donations are confidential. "We can't help unless you help," and all that.

The Time Is Now

We have sketched out here a blueprint for transforming the social values of straight America. At the core of our program is a media campaign to change the way the average citizens view homosexuality. It is quite easy to find fault with such a campaign. We have tried to be practical and specific here, but the proposals may still have a visionary sheen.

There are one hundred reasons why the campaign could not be done or would be risky. But there are at least 20 million good reasons why some such program must be tried in the coming years: the welfare and happiness of every gay man and woman in this country demand it. As the last large, legally oppressed minority in American society, it is high time that gays took effective measures to rejoin the mainstream in pride and strength. We believe that, like it or not, such a campaign is the only way of doing so anytime soon.

And, let us repeat, time may be running out. The AIDS epidemic is sparking anger and fear in the heartland of straight America. As the virus leaks out of homosexual circles and into the rest of society, we need have no illusions about who is receiving the blame. The ten years ahead may decide for the next forty whether gays claim their liberty and equality or are driven back, once again, as America's caste of detested untouchables. It's more than a quip: speak now or forever hold your peace.

"Representation" = Cultural Marxism

My previous contribution primarily focused on Cultural Marxism in business and advertising. But it's hardly exclusive to such. Cultural Marxism is also now ubiquitous in entertainment among other things (like education). The recent controversy surrounding the He-Man remake is a prime example. 

The endeavor bore overt indicators of Marxist subversion from the outset it seems. The original cartoon was named "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe." But the new production was titled "Masters of the Universe: Revelation" with the "He-Man" portion conspicuously absent. And there's a reason for that. He's basically promptly discarded and replaced with a "diverse" (white/Latina/black) assortment of strong, independent women, two of which are in a bi-racial "same sex" relationship. 

Because "representation" means that 1-2% of the population should comprise anywhere from 25-50% of all film and television roles. Basically, the "revelation" in "Masters of the Universe: Revelation," is that "diversity" (Cultural Marxism) makes Eternia (the show's setting) stronger through sodomy, matriarchy, and bad haircuts. Conveying that leftists destroy imaginary worlds in precisely the same fashion they do the real one.

As seen with Teela's "transition" from a relatively normal (if not attractive) young woman (left), to a misandrist butch Karen purged of all femininity (right). At one point she stands at the bow of a ship, with another "strong/independent" female named Evil-Lyn, lamenting how they've been held back by men all their lives. And now that those men are gone, they're free to achieve their dreams, etc. (You'd think being a "strong" woman requiring the absence of men epiphany inducing. But no.) The dialogue is an inadvertent intimation at the enviousness, covetousness, and malice inherent to the Marxist worldview. 

Leftists simply can't accept the reality of the world or their own physical limitations. (Some of them literally butchering their bodies in vain attempts to transcend such.) Instead they seek to impose their own misperceptions onto everyone around them, and efface anything that serves to contravene that misperception. Basically, they don't bend their beliefs into conformity with reality, so much as try to bend reality into conformity with their beliefs. Except the latter can't be done. They can't change reality. (You can't turn a man into a woman.) But they can impair how others perceive it. (You can make people believe a man is a woman.) So they devote virtually all of their energy to the latter; waging psychological war against the minds of their fellow man.

It would be no exaggeration to say that the leftist worldview (as evinced by things like "transgenderism") is a form of psychosis, and the leftist "agenda" is a campaign to establish a mass psychosis into which all human minds have been annexed. There's a reason leftists are so aggressive in their proselytization and often have paroxysmic reactions to their beliefs being challenged as such. You don't just have a "different opinion," you're an existential threat to their subjective reality, the preservation of which requires your silence or elimination. So if you're a woman that thinks you're as "strong" as a man, for example, stronger men will by merely existing in your proximity serve to contravene that misconception. Thus the solution is to either remove them (diversify the labor pool), or if that's not an option, implement policies that handicap them and/or compel them to affirm your delusion by endorsing or adopting "feminism." You cannot be strong as they are, but you can through brainwashing and enervating policies, hold them down to preserve your delusional "equality."

You will almost certainly never see someone born a "woman" lift a 1,400 lb log. Men are simply stronger, and not by a little bit. The female world records for squat and log press for example are nearly doubled by their male counterparts. Despite working out for most of my life at this point you'll never see me do it either. I have no problem with the fact Hafþór Björnsson can do it and I can't though. He wanted it. He worked for it. And most importantly of all, he was born with a body that made it possible. I wasn't. If I were a leftist however I'd want the rules changed to my benefit and his detriment, to compel him to acknowledge me as his "equal," or his removal altogether (perhaps on some fallacious charge of racism, sexism, phobia, etc.) so that he, and others like him, couldn't "hold me back" from becoming a weight lifting champion myself, and subsequently demanding "equal pay" and accolades for inferior performance. That's how the solipsistic Marxist mind works. It doesn't conform to reality, it conforms reality to itself. And you'll see this in practice with any number of leftist causes, e.g., "transgenderism," whose adherents likewise refuse to conform to reality and instead expect all of society to conform to their psychosis.

Terminator: Dark fate is another great example of a film that sought to prop up "strong" female characters in the same fashion as Masters of The Universe.

Here in the real world strength and femininity are on opposite ends of the masculine/feminine slider. As one increases the other decreases. Why is that? Because of things like testosterone, which in modern films, increasingly has little or no significance or doesn't exist at all. "In men, the testicles primarily make testosterone. Women’s ovaries also make testosterone, though in much smaller amounts." Despite what we're being told by leftists today, women don't have testicles, and therefore have much less testosterone than men. And we're all, if only subconsciously, aware of this biological fact. Thus, breasts and skinny arms don't convey strength, and body hair and large muscular arms don't convey femininity. The solution of the filmmakers to this quandary was a gender dichotomy (rampant in modern entertainment) that ends up conveying neither strength nor femininity. And being leftists, and therefore morons, they're completely at a loss as to why most people find that repulsive.

“If you’re at all enlightened, she’ll play like gangbusters. If you’re a closet misogynist, she’ll scare the fuck out of you, because she’s tough and strong but very feminine.”

That's director Tim Miller describing the blonde in the wife beater above. Despite all of their specious rhetoric, they knew if they cast a tranny in a prominent role, this film would bomb (even worse than it did). So their solution was to take an attractive girl (Mackenzie Davis) and make her unattractive (butch her up). She was too pretty, scrawny, and glabrous to convey strength, so they dressed her like a boy, gave her a boy's haircut, and had her do boy things ("tough and strong"), but named her "Grace" ("very feminine"). A conspicuously geriatric Linda Hamilton was decked in "tactical" accouterment, to counteract the subconscious recognition that osteoporosis, not futuristic murder machines, is the greatest threat to her health. Latina character so "diversity" box can be marked off.  

I opined upon this at some length when the initial trailers for Dark Fate released. About how it's yet another example of a character being incongruent with the premise and setting in which they're placed. The character of Grace, who's basically been enhanced into a super soldier, makes zero sense. By enhancing a male you'd get a super solider that's superior in virtually every way; stronger, faster, etc. They'd be a better protector of the asset, and pose a greater threat to the enemy. Using a male would also be imperative if you've got diminutive resources; i.e., you can only produce one for whatever reason. Under those circumstances, not only should you select a man, but a man that's exceptional among men. Imagine being able to upgrade the performance of any car you want for an upcoming race and picking a Honda Civic over the McLaren. That's what the remnant of humanity known as "the resistance" did in this film. (No wonder they're losing.)

As I've articulated in the past, in reference to this character and others like her, there are highly situational applications in which a woman would be preferable.

"Women, simply by being women, have the potential to infiltrate and subvert in a manner men typically cannot. History is replete with examples, such as the story of Samson in the Bible, of women using their feminine wiles to ruin or destroy men. So I've no problem with a female assassin exploiting a man's natural inclination to be a defender of women, or lasciviousness, etc., to be his undoing."

But the antagonist in Dark Fate is not a man. It's a machine. You can't feign attraction, or exploit its morality or lack thereof, to facilitate betrayal. It can't be manipulated in that fashion. It's not subject to human emotions or impulses like love or lust. And if it was you'd want to send an attractive seductress, or someone who conveys weakness to elicit a protector response, not an androgynous termagant that may be found repulsive or threatening.

Arnold reprises his role, though as a more sensitive and caring variant of the original model, the Low T-800. He's deftly blended into modern western society, by taking a wife and supporting some other guy's kid, passing himself off as an average beta male. Much like He-Man the iconic male characters of the franchise have either been discarded, or relegated to an ancillary role that serves to prop up the "strong" women in the film.  

Terminator: Dark fate (unintentionally) illustrates the psychosis and danger of the Marxist world view. It doesn't make men and woman better. Rather, it produces men and women who have the flaws of both sexes, and the strengths of neither. And makes clear that should the fate of humanity ever wrest in the hands of leftists, "diversity" and "inclusion" will utterly supersede pragmatic concerns, and someone like Lena Dunham or AOC would be sent back in time to save the world.

The worthless hacks behind Teela and Grace could learn a lot from the master class (by comparison) on female characterization that is Naomi Nagata.

Naomi is, unequivocally, one of the best female characters in all of modern fiction. Unlike Teela and Grace she retains her quintessential feminine attributes. She's nurturing, loves the men in her life, and often places their wellbeing over her own. Her character isn't obsessed with, nor even seems to care about, things like "strength." And yet she's played a pivotal role in literally saving the world. Not because she's a Mary Sue like Rey (from the Star Wars sequels), who inexplicably possesses an adroitness that surpasses all of the men around her, but because she has specific knowledge and skills that she's acquired, organically, as a consequence of the idiosyncratic circumstances of her life. She was born in space, she's lived on ships her entire life, and consequently knows a lot about how they function and maintaining them. 

In the last season she's trapped on a ship in which the navigation and communication controls have been sabotaged. She goes through the painstaking process of repeatedly donning a space suit with no oxygen, to enter a compartment with no atmosphere (a vacuum), to send out a message using Morse Code. She's alone, she's tired, she's hungry, she's thirsty, and she's afraid. But her strength is her perseverance. Not some farcical quasi-masculinity.

Don't get me wrong. The Expanse, while being arguably the best Sci-Fi show on television right now (which isn't saying too much given the competition), is not perfect and contains plenty of SJW garbage. There were numerous times I just skipped (fast forwarded through) certain parts (e.g., the "lesbian" religious leader). But the writing is of a caliber that makes it far more palatable than vacuous schlock like Masters of the Universe or Dark Fate.

That being said I feel compelled to state that well made shows are the most dangerous, because they're the ones to which you'll repeatedly expose yourself, and be more inclined to share with your children. It's extremely difficult to get people in the west today to understand that something can be entertaining, funny, aesthetically pleasing, etc., and yet not be good for you.

"The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. [...] So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past ten years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films (though often this has been done to achieve comedic and ridiculous affects). On the whole the impact has been encouraging." - The Overhauling of Straight America.

The left heavily uses "comedy" to surreptitiously advance its agenda. Because laughter makes people feel good. If you can get people to laugh at something bad or perverse, it will in time condition them to associate that (good) feeling with the (bad) thing, and mitigate its negative perception if not induce a positive one. 

Anyway, He-Man and Terminator are merely illustrative tools, and not themselves the focus of this contribution per se. They're cited merely to convey how the excrement of Cultural Marxism now pervades virtually everything in the west. Movies, television, video games, comics, the media, education, etc. For a time it seemed video games and comics were spared, but those too have now succumbed, as Marxists have ascended to positions of prominence in those industries as well (and begun implementing "diversity" initiatives). They now exhibit the same conspicuous symptoms of subversion as all the rest: hyper-racial/cultural eclecticism, the substitution of lead male characters with female characters, the traditional feminine/beauty aesthetic of those female characters being replaced with ugly, or androgynous, if not gender contrary attributes, a drastic increase in the number of sexual deviant characters, an obsession with racial/gender issues, etc. Take Resident Evil for example. A video game in which all of the characters (to my recollection) were originally white. Here's the cast of the upcoming Netflix (same company behind He-Man) series.

Care to place bets on the sexual preferences, and issues near and dear to the hearts, of some of the characters? This is how utterly predictable, and therefore boring, leftist devised entertainment is. I've seen talking head after talking head lament the fact these shows aren't even entertaining. And what they don't get is that they're not meant to be. They're not "entertainment." They're Marxist indoctrination masquerading as entertainment. The film, show, video game, or comic is merely a vehicle to that end. They're being used as Trojan Horses to disseminate Cultural Marxism, and old franchises from your past that you remember fondly make the best Trojan Horses. (That's why they keep remaking them.) You wouldn't watch a new show, with new characters, titled "You were Born Racist and Misogynistic and Always Will Be." But if Luke Skywalker is your childhood hero, and he's changing his "pronouns" and has a boyfriend now, you'll hopefully be mere amenable. You'll be more likely at least to expose yourself, and potentially come back for repeat exposures, to the indoctrination. (This is why the He-Man marketing prominently featured He-Man and not Teela. None of the fans would have watched a show about lesbo Teela and her girlfriend. They needed He-Man to expose you to lesbo Teela and her girlfriend.) New IPs by contrast tend to have a much harder time gaining access to and traction with older folks.

It's a new comic. It's bad. But he doesn't really understand why. He discerns the symptoms but not the source. As illustrated in my last contribution the ugliness to which he alludes could have very well been the result of a "board meeting." A board the head of which is a Communist Compliance (Diversity/Inclusion) Officer, or just outright packed with Marxist subversives whose mission is to:

"Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to 'eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.'" - The Naked Communist, Current Communist Goals.

It's no surprise to me he doesn't like it. These movies, TV shows, video games, and comics, are not for the "fans." Which is something their fandoms consistently fail to grasp, even though those that produce them at times outright say as much. Again, their purpose is not to entertain, but to indoctrinate. (If they happen to entertain anyway, it's usually just fortuitous.) And to that end who they're "for" is far more sinister. Your children. They're just exploiting your indifference or nostalgia to get to them.

The left is, and has always been, playing the long game. They hope Trojan Horsing this excrement within "entertainment" will result in it reaching your children, most of which will grow up consuming it in the same manner you did, unsupervised and without context. If you're a leftist yourself that outcome is guaranteed. If you're not odds are you'll just set your child in front of this garbage, assuming its the same thing or similar to what you know and love, and leave your child to it as you occupy yourself with other things. They don't really care about you. You will be dead soon. You being subverted by it just a bonus, because you'll assist them in subverting your children. The real payoff comes in twenty years when your child, who's been groomed into an intellectual and moral cripple by years of assiduous exposure to Cultural Marxist "entertainment," becomes another cog in the Marxist hegemony.

Virtually all of the traditionalists, or at least non-lunatics that produced the decent content of your childhood, are gone. They've either been subverted themselves, gradually replaced, driven out, or forced into tacit acceptance (to keep their jobs) by "diversity/inclusion" restructuring. These movies, television shows, video games, and comics are now being produced by people with a radically different worldview, who are themselves often the product of that worldview (which they're now amplifying). They're being produced by people that support transvestites reading children's books to toddlers under the pretext of advancing literacy, and teaching children about things like "fisting" in programs that are ostensibly for the purpose of "education." If you think they would never stoop to using cartoons or comic books as a Trojan Horse, you're either hopelessly deluded or hopelessly oblivious.

Which brings me to one of the far more insidious and repugnant aspects of Cultural Marxism. Its crusade to normalize sexual deviancy of all kinds, including pedophilia. As illustrated by prominent Marxist German "sexologist" and pederast, Helmut Kentler, who was allowed to foster children (which he molested), and place children with other pedophiles to be fostered (who were also molested), through a program sanctioned by the Socialist state. And their justification for this? Basically, if you oppose it, you're a Nazi.

"In the late sixties, educators in more than thirty German cities and towns began establishing experimental day-care centers, where children were encouraged to be naked and to explore one another’s bodies. [...] Kentler inserted himself into a movement that was urgently working to undo the sexual legacy of Fascism but struggling to differentiate among various taboos. [...] A few years later, Germany’s newly established Green Party, which brought together antiwar protesters, environmental activists, and veterans of the student movement, tried to address the 'oppression of children’s sexuality.' Members of the Party advocated abolishing the age of consent for sex between children and adults." - The German Experiment That Placed Foster Children With Pedophiles.

I'm not going to duplicate that entire work here. I've provided the source if you want to read it (and you should). But basically it delineates numerous parallels between the leftist movement for "sexual liberation" in Germany and the U.S., both of which construe any opposition to untrammeled hedonism as fascism/Nazism, and promote the sexualization and grooming of children. Something plainly increasing as our society becomes more "Socialist."

The notion that "sexual repression" (opposition to sexual deviancy) and an aversion to critical race theory, is associated with and/or a product of "fascism," has been a rather conspicuous component of Marxist thought for (at least) decades (e.g., the Frankfurt School). And we're seeing the ascendency of that notion here in the U.S., signified by growing if not complete destigmatization of such beliefs and behaviors, and less need for predators (both ideological and physical) to groom children personally, because the cultural hegemony, and even the parents, do it for them. The U.S. is becoming a place where parents either surrender their children to others to be mentally/physically molested, or do it themselves at the behest of the "experts" (Helmut Kentlers) ostensibly comprising the "scientific" establishment.  

Today's "entertainment" and "science," has "liberal" white "ally" mom mind raping her children at home, in addition to their daily indoctrination by the tube and the schools.

"Black women, uh, from what I've learned, uh, have done nothing but ever fight for, um, our liberation, um, th-th-that's like, those are facts. Those, those are literal facts." - Karen, lesbian POC whisperer.

I suppose she's right in a sense. Last year in Seattle, for example, black women were among the Marxist revolutionaries leading the "historic" charge to liberate white people from their homes.

You know, when they weren't dispensing protracted diatribes in which they essentially declared that they're okay with destroying our entire civilization and killing us all. (But we're the "fascists.")

It's no coincidence we've seen an exponential increase in sexual deviancy, white guilt, and the number of virtue signaling soy boys promoting women's issues, and neon haired Karens ardently defending "POC." They're merely doing what they've been told to do, from every direction, for most of their lives at this point. The creator of the new He-Man show, Kevin Smith, doesn't realize he's a perfidious iconoclastic scumbag. (Or likely doesn't anyway.) He thinks he was just being a good "ally" when he increased the "representation" of women in his show (i.e., his workplace).

"Another major obstacle to working-class unity is capitalist class–promoted misogyny and male supremacy. Misogyny, the hatred and disrespect of women, wage discrimination, employment segregation, and male supremacy must be fought by all—full unity will be built only when substantial numbers of working-class men participate in the fight for full equality and against misogyny and male supremacy. [....] They should speak out when they see gender discrimination and advocate in a way that wins other men to the fight for gender equality. They should take an initiating role in combating all instances of sexism and male supremacy in the labor and people’s movements as well as in the family." - Communist Party Platform, The Road to Socialism.

Karen was just being a good "ally" when she denounced, and sided against her own people, in defense of "POC."

"Members of the working class who are white must take an initiating and leading role in combating all instances of racism and national oppression wherever and whenever they occur and provide support to people of color." - Communist Party Platform, The Road to Socialism.

She doesn't know she's crazy. Everything she sees and hears, virtually every day, is encouraging her to denounce white people, to denounce herself, her country, etc., and defend people who hate her, and seek only to exploit her, before discarding her. (She'd probably love Masters of the Universe: Revelation.)

Kevin, Karen, and those like them are products of Cultural Marxism, euphemistically peddled as "critical race theory," "representation," "diversity & inclusion," "LGBTQ rights," etc., by virtually every government agency, form of entertainment, and media outlet in the west. The coalescence of which comprises a comprehensive and assiduous brainwashing apparatus, that produces people so deluded they care about nothing that actually matters, and so obsessed with and terrified of specious, hyperbolic, and outright illusory crises like "white supremacy," "patriarchy," "climate change," "germs," "gun violence," et al., they're willing to accept (and even demand) the complete regulation of every facet of human life for the ostensible purpose of extirpating them. Racism, they surmise, would be vanquished if we passed another law. The "climate" would stop doing what it's always done and will do (changing) if we passed another law. We'd all be safe from germs if we passed another law. Murder ceasing to exist? Another law. 

The perfect society is (forever) just one law away. Achievable only through the interminable accretion of arbitrary power in a centralized state run by unaccountable bureaucrats. And thus any obstacle to that goal (like your freedom) must be eliminated. Anyone who would impede the reification of this noble objective? A monster that must be swept aside. And to do that they need to silence and disarm you.

It needs to be understood the left, despite what it says, despite what your stupid "liberal" friends say, has no interest in dissent or coexistence. "Racial justice" is the name for fascism among the ignorant and dimwitted. And "balancing free speech with racial justice" is Marxist code for suppressing speech in disparity with the Communist Platform. Notice the raised clenched fist salute by the way.

"The clenched-fist salute [...] has been the official salute of all Communist Parties throughout the world." - John Lautner, Communist Party USA, 1970.

So shut up, and give up your guns, you racist. Give up your companies, your jobs, your homes, your dignity, etc. This is what "critical theory" looks and sounds like. Interminable criticism of anything and everything about your enemy. 

People see things like this and think it's crazy or silly. It's not. It serves a purpose. Remember what the Communist cell was told above. Replace beautiful things with ugly things. Elevate mediocrity by promoting stupidity, ugliness, vulgarity, immorality, etc. Discourage excellence by attacking and shaming substance, beauty, eloquence, piety, etc. Fit, healthy women, are attractive. Make them sick and ugly.

Lower standards. Make everything so ugly, vacuous, and perverse, it destroys any basis for individual or collective pride (demoralizes them), Make them ashamed of their history, and who they are ("critical race theory"), and they won't fight to defend it or themselves when attacked. They won't risk their lives to defend a heritage, culture, and country of which they're deeply ashamed. They'll even be driven by (white) guilt or delusion to help destroy it.

Before going I'll say one more thing. Leftists portray themselves as the virtuous downtrodden banding together to fight the evil privileged. They're not. That portrayal is a lie. Which should be obvious given how quickly and easily these people (e.g., AOC), once placed in positions of prominence, become comfortable with lives of power and privilege. A more accurate analogy would be a bunch of weakling thieves, banding together to overpower and rob a larger, stronger man. As I've said before, Socialism is theft, masquerading as altruism. It is the ideology of thieves. (Lenin and Stain were bank robbers.) The left is a movement of deadbeat thieving losers banding together to destroy and rob those against which they can't compete.

These people don't even want to get jobs. They can't build wealth. They can't build and run companies. They only way they can achieve these things is by taking them from someone who did. Because redistribution of wealth, jobs, privilege, etc., is the Marxist way. They cannot compete with you on a level playing field. They have to change the rules to handicap you. They cannot win the debate. They have to silence you. They cannot defeat you in open conflict. They have to disarm you. Etc., etc., etc. Socialists are thieving losers. Never forget that.

Anyway, that's enough for now. Perhaps more in the future.