Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Style vs Substance of Freedom and Independence

Among young people who grew up with ready access and networking via the internet, a mind-set seems to prevails whereby the style of freedom is often confused with the substance of freedom. On countless Youtube ‘vlogs’ hosted by young amateur commentators, there’s no paucity of spontaneity that is, furthermore, spiced up with a series of jump-cuts. What was once revolutionary in Jean-Luc Godard’s BREATHLESS is now part of the visual grammar, indeed so much so that most don’t even take notice. And as video software has made the process of editing simple, Youtubers just snip away all the flaws & pauses(and questionable material) and produce a finished product in which disjointedness is part of the verve and charm(at least for those partial to such a thing). Because video-production-and-editing has been made easy, most ‘vloggers’ don’t even bother to prepare what they mean to say. Instead, they just blurt out whatever pops into their heads in front of the camera with the foreknowledge that the chaff will be removed from the wheat later through editing. It makes for a style that comes across as direct and personal, free and independent. But is it really?

It may be that young people nowadays tends to confuse the style of freedom with the substance of freedom. They think if they get up-front and in-your-face, speak loud and fast, use a lot of F words, call viewers ‘hey guys’, act goofy or childish, laugh a lot, and etc., they are being free in mind and spirit. In truth, style is easy to imitate whereas substance takes time and effort to develop. Furthermore, there’s a certain paradox in the relation between free spiritedness and free thoughtfulness. More often than not, what one thinks of as a spontaneous thought or expression turns out to be formulaic and cliched than personal, independent, or different. While some people can be spontaneously original and eccentric, most people end up spewing out the same old same old when speaking off-the-cuff. It’s like when a dog is allowed to bark freely, it only makes the same sounds for the usual reasons. It just likes to bark at strangers and other dogs.
Due to natural traits, cultural conditioning, and personal experiences, much of our world-view happens to be pre-set in our subconsciousness. So, when we push the spontaneity button, what usually comes out isn’t anything new or different but the already prepared and pre-cooked meals of thoughts and emotions. And this is validated on Youtube ‘vlogs’ where everyone thinks he or she is being special, different, or original because he or she just speaks off-the-cuff and blurts out ‘whatever’, when, if anything, most of what they say is just same old same old. Furthermore, even most of the style on display tends to be imitative and cliched. Some imitate the hipster style, some the hip-hop style, some the California teenager style, some the neo-Valley-Girl style, some the radical narcissistic style(that spills over with contempt and disdain for anyone or anything that doesn’t match one’s hyper standards of looks, money, power, allure, and privilege; if classic narcissism is content to look good in the eyes of others, radical narcissism — in the US, usually a blend of rap arrogance, porny exhibitionism, and globo-haute materialism — taunts and sneers at whatever or whomever is regarded as inferior or unworthy). The overlords of Political Correctness surely value the cult of style of freedom(over the substance of freedom) because young ‘millennials’ are under the impression that they are free because they indulge in the style of freedom while being blind to the fact that they are nearly zero in the substance department. Also, in a world where the cult of spontaneity is favored over the practice of contemplation and reflection, it’s hardly surprising that most young people just shut off their minds and blurt out whatever PC cliches have been stuffed into their heads by teachers and pop culture(controlled by Jewish elites). But then, because young people are so sure of their own freedom and independence as the result of their immersion in the style of freedom, they never stop to ask if whatever that’s spewing out of their silly mouths really amount to anything other than the silly barking of PC dogs.

We like to think in terms of "I think this" or "I think that", but most of our thoughts aren’t so much thought by than regulated by the "I". At all times, certain images, sounds, emotions, and words swirl around within each person and try to push themselves to the surface(of consciousness and expression), and what the ‘I’ does is try to rearrange, reorder, repress, realign, and regulate them into cohesive thoughts. More often than not, thinking is usually a regulative than a creative process. The raw materials that emerge from within us and are regulated into meaningful thoughts are the stuff of personality traits, natural drives, memories, and conditioning/training by society. Some remain hidden and inert while others keep growing more potent despite our efforts to repress or control them. Some burst out like the monster baby from the stomach of John Hurt in Ridley Scott’s ALIEN.

When people are prone to blurt stuff out, much of the expression is either animal("me so horny") or politically conventional("‘racism’ is bad"). And because so many young people are little more than barking dogs who confuse their loud barks with freedom, they are easily swayed by Political Correctness that has conditioned them to bark at ‘this hate’ or ‘that hate’. Without even thinking or asking about what is truly at stake, young people just go into mad barking mode, as in the case of students at Duke University when the Lacrosse hoax scandal broke and at UVA soon after Rolling Stone magazine ran a fake story about a ritual rape. The perpetrators of PC mania are so sure of their righteousness that they feel justified even when they act out of false premises and attack the innocent. All that matters is that certain groups are always ‘guilty’ since PC says white males monopolize this thing called ‘white privilege’ that supposedly enables white males to get away with anything.

We tend to think of PC in terms of its dogmatic and institutional power, but its true ingenuity lies in the fact that it has fused mind control with the cult of spontaneity. When practiced as a form of loud and lewd theater, political correctness makes people feel that they are liberated and free-willed with righteous and spontaneous emotions. In this, it owes something to religious cults that have urged people to abandon their inhibitions in their devotion to God. So, there are churchgoers who speak in tongues, go into rapturous fits, and holler like crazy. They think they are being spontaneous and spiritually liberated when, in fact, they’ve come under the control of a cult-like religion. While crazy emotions often make a person difficult to handle, they can also loosen the person’s sense of self-control and defense mechanism, thereby making it easier to win over. Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong amply demonstrated this in mass rallies where people were encouraged to lose their minds and act crazy... in their utter devotion to the Fuhrer or the Great Helmsman.
One aspect of PC urges young people to sit quietly and absorb all the iron dogma without questions. Critical mentality is neutralized via encouragement of radical self-righteousness among ‘victim groups’ and radical self-hatred — centered around notions of ‘white guilt’ and ‘white privilege’ — among white people. Why would non-whites be critical of PC when it flatters them that they’re so wonderful and noble? Why would whites be critical of PC when any criticism of PC tenets leads to accusation of ‘racism’ and ‘white privilege’?
But then, the other aspect of PC is to make brainwashed youth bark up a lot of ‘spontaneous’ noise in their roles as the aggrieved, redemptive, and/or righteous. As PC can be vulgar and encourages its minions to spice up their rhetoric with foul language, it creates the illusion that PC cliches are spontaneous, personal, and natural than manufactured and programmed by powerful institutions(mostly controlled by Jews). A lot of PC minions don’t know they’re being PC because their style has all the trappings of freedom. It’s like F-Bombs for Feminism. Young girls who know nothing and could easily be made to believe in anything — politicization of children is indeed the last refuge of scoundrels, really — are made to believe that they are speaking freely and independently because they speak lewdly, flippantly, crudely, and nastily. People may believe that being more ‘natural’ and animallike is being more free, but they overlook the fact that animals are easier to tame and control than critically minded humans.

Of course, it is true that excessive restraint and suppression of spontaneity can lead to rigidity and stiltedness in thought. This was one reason why the casually styled American thinker sometimes thought more freely than their British counterparts for whom the propriety of thought was more important than the substance of thought itself. But then, just letting it all hang loose and going into verbal diarrhea mode doesn’t do much for thinking either. PC has the system pour dogmatic pablum down the throats of young people whose mental stomachs are incapable of breaking down & processing what has been ingested and instead pass them out the other side as mental diarrhea that is confused as ‘free thought’. But despite all the noise, tantrums, and theatrics, it’s just PC going into one end and coming out of the other.
PC is all the more dangerous because being ‘different’ has been branded into a casual matter of style. Consider the practice of tattooing. It was once considered an extreme practice, and therefore, one needed some kind of justification to get a tattoo. If one went to hell and back in a war and got a tattoo, that would at least be understandable. It’d be like a badge of honor of one’s toughness and survival. Tattooing is an extreme behavior since tattoos cannot be removed — and even if they can, not easily. What is tattooed in a moment will stay for a lifetime. Tattoo is more permanent than marriage, another thing one shouldn’t do just casually as a matter of style. So, it’s not something anyone should do thoughtlessly in the spur of the moment. But tattooing has become ubiquitous in our culture. Some might hail it as the triumph of freedom and eccentricity, but I see it as the rise of a new disingenuous form of conformism and stupidity. When so many young people get tattoos because others get it, what does it say about their individuality? Aren’t they getting tattoos as a short-cut to being ‘different’ and ‘special’? It’s all about style than substance. After all, any idiot can flash a tattoo on his arm or butt. Even the cachet of eccentricity has been lost since so many people casually get tattoos — and in similar styles in the same body parts — as a form to illustrating that they too ‘belong’. When extreme behavior has been made thoughtlessly casual, it isn’t serving freedom.
Prior to the internet, when a thought popped into our minds, we couldn’t upload and share it right away with the world. So, we had to keep it in our heads and mull it over before presenting it as a coherent thought. Writers and critics couldn’t immediately share their views and thoughts on Twitter or Facebook. They had to sit in a room and expand on their thoughts in articles that were then sent to the publisher who carefully pored over it before it went to printing. Now, a kind of ‘tweet or perish’ mentality has come to define our culture. There’s far more instant and spontaneous sharing of views and opinions, but the ideas tend to be underdeveloped.

Below are some examples of ‘vlog’ culture where style of free expression substitutes substance of free thought. Ironically, the ‘vlog’ style of ‘difference’ seems almost identical from vlog to vlog. Not that anyone should go out of his or her way to be different for different’s sake. After all, the cult of difference can be stupid. If everyone says 2 + 2 = 4 but you say 2 + 2 = 5 just to be different, everyone will be correct but you. Though being contrarian can inspire fresh ways of seeing things, willful contrarian-ness leads, more often than not, to stupidity. But there’s nothing more annoying than people who try to be so ‘different’ when in fact they are just conforming to the prevailing standard.

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

The Left Is Deader than the Right under the Influence of the Sacro-Decadent Globo-Oligarchy

The New 'Left'
I often find myself annoyed by people referring to Liberals — notice the capital ‘L’ than the little ‘l’ with general meaning — as the ‘left’ because the real left has been almost totally routed and virtually vanquished. What now goes by the title of the ‘left’ is just a marketing brand created by the decadent minions funded and/or bought off by the globalist oligarchs consisting largely of Jews and their mini-me homos(who should maybe be called ‘inversexuals’).
The real left, as it developed in the late 19th century and through much of the 20th century, was about the interests of the people, the masses, the workers, the farmers, the poor, and ‘marginalized’ or oppressed minorities. Of course, there was always an elitist leftist culture dominated by intellectuals and radical artists. And some very rich people, especially Jewish tycoons, have also funded leftist/communist movements around the world, usually more out of tribal than ideological interests.
In the West, especially America, the radical left failed to come to power, and what developed as the mainstream left revolved around labor unions, increased government programs, agrarian populism, and the like. There was always a rift between the well-educated and intellectual elitist left and the populist left made up of less well-schooled(and often less intelligent) workers, farmers, underemployed, unemployed, and/or ‘disenfranchised’ minorities. Though both sides might be roughly agreed on economic agendas, the populist left tended to be culturally conservative with firm commitment to family, community, culture, and church — more out of habit and cultural norms than for any philosophical reasons — , whereas the elitist left was generally more cosmopolitan, anti-traditionalist, and socially/culturally experimental.
Even so, when push came to shove, the elitist leftist placed the needs of the workers and the masses ahead of elite-leftist hangups. Indeed, especially in the first half of the 20th century, plenty of leftist intellectuals believed that art should serve as propaganda tools to serve the interests of the masses. Or it should reflect the world of the suffering workers and raise consciousness about ‘what is to be done’. Several films of Sergei Eisenstein were political propaganda, though their originality and brilliance attained the rightful status of art.

While there were plenty of elitist and/or bohemian leftists who found leftist orthodoxy rigid and dogmatic as pertaining to free thought and expression, most still placed the Cause before all else, which was why Jean-Paul Sartre, though valuing his freedom in republican France, served as apologist for Stalin’s USSR. Leftists such as he didn’t see the conflict around the world as one between total good and total bad but one between necessary-for-human-justice/progress and obstacle-to-human-progress. So, there could be much about the former that was bad and much about the latter that was good, but overall, as the party line declared that the future of mankind lay with Marxism/communism, a moral person had to choose sides and commit himself to her the Cause. It’s like during World War II, there were good things about the Axis and bad things about the Allies, but a decent person(in the West) was expected to commit to the cause of the Allies because the Grand Conflict was one between one side that, despite its flaws, recognized(even if only ideologically) the equal worth of all humans AND the other side that, despite its virtues in certain respects, was essentially about the unholy right of one people to tyrannize and rule over other peoples deemed less than human. After WWII, people like Sartre applied to the same logic to the conflict between the US and USSR. True, there was much that was good about the US and much that was horrible about the USSR, but nevertheless, the USSR was understood as ideologically and morally standing for the equality of all men whereas US stood for neo-imperialism via capitalism that, despite its productivity and progress, was philosophically based on the economic exploitation of workers by the propertied class of capitalists.

Though never a communist, I used to subscribe to the general philosophy of the left, that is until I came to realize that communism is an evil and not only for practical reasons — it doesn’t work and has been costly in lives to say the least — but for philosophical reasons, i.e. even if it worked, it could only produce a vast prison where people are forced to be ‘equal’.

Anyway, whatever one thinks about the left(the real left, that is), what goes by the title of the ‘left’ in our times is NOT the left. Not even close. If anything, the real left is deader than the American Right. True, there are still Marxist scholars on college campuses. Also, the media hail the likes of Thomas Piketty as the ‘new Karl Marx’. Noam Chomsky, a real leftist, is much admired by many who claim to be on the ‘left’.
But seriously, the main discourse on the so-called ‘left’ isn’t about class issues, the people, the workers, the farmers, the masses, the poor, etc. If such groups are mentioned at all, it’s less as the main constituents of the left but as mere pawns on the political chessboard so that certain elite groups could maximize the power and privilege even further by claiming to be for ‘the people’. American politics is essentially an elite vs elite affair, with the Democrats claiming to represent the people against the super-rich and the Republicans claiming to represent Middle America against the ‘urban elites’ and the growing underclass(especially those who are not white). But it’s really about two groups of elites(who are agreed on lots of things)merely fooling the masses to get the votes so that they serve their super-rich masters. This is to be expected when the true bastions of the so-called ‘left’ are Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, super-yuppified Washington D.C., gentrifopoleis like Seattle and Portland, Ivy League universities(where the only real game in town is narcissism of power and privilege), and urban ‘gay’ districts populated with snide, sneering, preening, hissy-bitchy queers and queenies. When Jews and homosexuals were indeed minorities without all the rights and equality of access enjoyed by the ruling elites(especially of Wasps), one could make a leftist case for minority rights. But are today’s Jews and homos really about equal rights for minorities or for special powers/privileges for minority elites who are vastly and disproportionately represented in the upper strata of top institutions, businesses, and governments?

It’s oft-been noted that the Chinese Communist Party is only communist in name and really has been, since Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, essentially a state-capitalist nationalist party. Likewise, what goes by the title of the ‘left’ has almost nothing to do with the real/classic/traditional left. Of course, causes and movements change and evolve over time, but when the changes are as drastic and fundamental as those that have swept over American ‘progressivism’, it is time to call it by another name. This isn’t to suggest that what goes by the ‘left’ should be called the ‘right’. If we define the ‘right’ in terms of excessive wealth, privilege, power, and obedience to the prevailing orthodoxy, then I suppose one could argue that today’s ‘left’ is indeed the ‘new right’ since its power and privilege are centered in the biggest and richest cities in America and EU and because it’s so slavish to the cult of Political Correctness. But the new ‘left’ is too decadent and frivolous to associate with any meaningful sense of the ‘right’. Though the much reviled Koch Brothers are said to be on the ‘right’, they are actually completely onboard with the so-called ‘leftist’ globalist agenda of open borders, ‘gay marriage’, and other lunacies. The only real difference is the Koch Brothers believe in lower taxes and less regulation. Libertarianism may ally with the Right, but it cannot serve as a genuine foundation for the Right as its values(or lack thereof) are glaringly shallow, trashy, or outlandish(in your typical Ayn-Rand sort of way, which may be good for entertainment but not for any assessment of reality).

There is still a real left and a real right in America, but I would argue that the real left is deader than the real right. The real right tends to be impervious to PC dished out by the ruling elites of this country. It has a sense of core values founded in tradition, religion, love of nation, and/or love of race. As mainstream Conservatives(who might be called ‘false rightists’) tend to be generally under-represented in the media, entertainment, and academia, their overall effect on the real right is limited. In contrast, the real left sees itself as the ideological cousin of mainstream Liberalism that does control most of the top institutions in this country, along with Hollywood, music industry, glitziest urban areas, and etc. If the real right has a knee-jerk tendency against what it deems to be the pernicious influence of mainstream Liberalism, then the real left at the other end of the political spectrum, despite its trepidations, feels somewhat obligated to find common ground with mainstream Liberals who control Hollywood, advertising, fashion, music industry, TV, and universities(where scholars prefer to bitch about ‘cultural’ matters than economic or class ones).
Thus, the real left is far more impacted by mainstream Liberalism than the real right is impacted by mainstream Conservatism. To be sure, some on the real left go along with stuff like ‘gay marriage’ for purely cynical reasons to subvert the social order, thereby hoping to pave the way for the eventual Revolution. Nevertheless, the problems of the real left is far more complicated than the problems of the real right because the real right tends to be mostly white and essentially agreed on the preservation of Western heritage and the power/unity of the white race. In contrast, the dynamics of the ‘real left’ is more difficult because US is very diverse and because the real left claims to represent all groups. But the various groups in the real left tend to see things differently depending on their racial/ethnic perspectives. To what extent are real leftist Jews motivated by ideology or by Jewish interests? To what extent are real leftist blacks motivated by common cause or by black identity? Same goes for every racial or ethnic group in the real left. If each group is motivated primarily by ethnic/tribal interests, can it be said to be part of a ‘real left’? Or are they really all versions of mini-rightist-tribalism hiding behind the mantle of leftism to make common cause against white gentiles who are perceived, especially due to Jewish control of the media and academia, as The Enemy? In a homogeneous nation, the real left might be about specific economic issues as it’d be a given that everyone shares the same national and cultural identity. But in a diverse nation(growing ever more diverse) like the US, it’s difficult to ascertain what the real left is about? Jewish elites love diversity not only because it undermines the white right but because it undermines the real left. As most Jews are rich or even very rich, they no longer believe in the class politics of the real left, even though, on occasion, they make gestures to that regard to fool the suckers.
If American leftism consists of various racial, national, and ethnic groups, how can they agree on anything? In California, we witnessed how even the bulk of Asian-American Democrats opposed ending the ban on ‘Affirmative Action’. For Asian-Americans, ‘Affirmative Action’ is about tribalism because it unfairly favors less qualified blacks and Latinos(and even whites) over yellows. For blacks and Latinos, the current system is unfair because certain racial or ethnic groups are woefully under-represented in top California colleges. So, which side is right? And there are many black leftists who aren’t too keen on open borders. While increased diversity means the victory of the Democrats over Republicans, it also means the brown and yellow populations increasingly eclipsing black America.
With all such divisions, it’s no wonder it was relatively easy for rich elite Democratic Jews and homos to elevate ‘gay marriage’ and nonsensical stuff like ‘transgenderism’ as the main ‘leftist’ issues of the day with, of course, the full backing of billionaire oligarchs in Wall Street, Washington D.C., Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and etc. With so much bickering among various racial and ethnic groups on the Democratic side, why not push for something so outlandish(thereby taking people’s minds off thornier and more difficult issues of race and class)? Maybe the outlandishness will be welcome as a distraction from real divisions that cannot be solved. Besides, ‘gay marriage’ is an issue of ‘faith’. There is nothing to solve. One merely needs to believe in the sanctity of homos and fool oneself that two guys who bugger one another are worthy of marriage. Jewish-Homo War on Marriage has been more ‘successful’(or suck-ass-full) than the War on Poverty by Lyndon Johnson. It ruined the meaning of true marriage, but ‘gay marriage’ became law of the land, and that’s that. It’s easier to shower rich homos with privileges than fix deep-rooted problems of the American underclass. And since everyone is hooked on junk/trash pop culture, surely all the Liberals and ‘leftists’ can be made to agree that ‘gay marriage’ is cool since Oprah and all the cool celebrities are for it.
Martine Rothblatt - Radical Narcissism
So, what should the new ‘left’ be called? As it is decadent, its adherents should be called ‘decadents’. But that doesn’t quite capture the true character of what goes by the name of the ‘left’ in our times. Until recently, decadence wasn’t justified on moral grounds. It was enjoyed or indulged as a form of pleasure, aesthetics, dream-life, opiate, thrill, and/or experimentation. Its appeal was in the loosening of social conventions and bonds that made for a stuffy, rigid, and/or ‘bourgeois’ society. But it was well-understood that decadence couldn’t be morally elevated as the new norm. Its dangers were well-understood as it diverted the focus of human attention from core matters of morality and spirituality to peripheral matters of frivolity or fantasy.
For some, it was something worth risking — even at the cost of social dissolution and moral degeneracy — because it opened up new vistas in imagination and possibilities. Some turned to opiates, some turned to loose sex, some turned to art as religion, some turned to subversion as a game. But it was understood that such indulgences couldn’t constitute the moral core of any social order, at least not in the long run.

This is where the new Decadence deviates from the classic decadence. Jewish and homo — or Jomo — elites are hellbent on forcing down our throats the notion that the New Normal is the New Morality. It’s like saying black is the new white, and white is the new black. It’s like saying shit is the new gold, and gold is the new shit. Ridiculous as it is, the Jomo elites are determined to persuade us that something like ‘gay marriage’ is an absolute moral value and that there’s nobility in a man wanting to have his perfectly healthy bodily organs amputated or mutilated so as to become a ‘woman’. It used to be that sodomy or fecal penetration was just some deviant or decadent ‘sexual’ behavior of homos or weirdo sexual experimenters. Now, school children are told that the male anus is as much a sex organ as the female vagina. Never mind the veracity of biological facts when Jewish and homo masters — and their gutless, brainless, and/or spineless collaborators — possess the power to turn the matter of facts into a matter of ‘New Facts’. Just as the New Normal would have us believe black is the new white or white is the new black, the rules of New Facts only depend on who has the power of the megaphone, blackboard, and TV to decide what is and isn’t true. Though the Rolling Stone magazine of the UVA rape story ultimately fell apart, that dung-pile of lies came dangerously close to being embraced as the truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth with the full complicity of the national media owned by Jews that were all-too-willing to push the bogus story as the New Fact. Whether something is declared as ‘true’ or ‘untrue’ in today’s world is more about WHO has the power to assemble and disseminate the Truth and WHAT are the risks for those who dare to disagree. (Notice that even genuine conservatives who oppose ‘gay marriage’ generally remain silent out of fear of WHO has the power to destroy them for WHAT they may say, especially out loud.) As the power of PC prefers New Facts(even if they aren’t factual) over real facts(that may undermine the politically correct Narrative), what really matters is power over facts than power of facts.
Anyway, because the New Decadence isn’t content to dare and challenge the Core Morality but to replace it wholesale as the New Morality, it isn’t just a case of decadence but a case of SACRO-decadence. Decadence has been ‘sacralized’ into a form of morality, indeed the highest form of morality. And that is now the core ‘value’ of the new so-called ‘left’. It’s about rich homos hanging with Jewish oligarchs in the toniest parts of big cities. It’s about elite college graduates thinking they are morally superior to everyone because their hero or heroine happens to be some freak by the name of Laverne Cox. It’s about privileged urban girls getting their ‘values’ from the likes of Amanda Marcotte and Lena Dunham. It’s about the New Western Values being represented by mental cases like Masha Gessen and the Pussy Riot whose members stuff their vaginas with raw pieces of chicken.
Sacro-decadence is about radical narcissism, a demonic and evil form of self-obsession where nothing matters than one’s hyper-preening sense of wealth, privilege, style, and self-pleasure. And this filth is being spread around the world, as US serves the fashion-and-trend-setter for the entire globe. When people become this self-absorbed and self-obsessed with glitz, image, and attitude(one that is utterly lacking in any interest, curiosity, or respect for anything outside one’s own ridiculously inflated ego), how can they mature into real humans with a sense of history, heritage, roots, and responsibilities? We can’t brush off poison like this as mere entertainment because the dehumanized expressions of plastic emotions are too aggressive, insistent, and demanding of attention and respect it doesn’t deserve.

It appears Rolling Stone magazine isn’t content to promote porny filth and junk in the US but hellbent on encouraging its spreading all around the world. It cheers on Pussy Riot in Russia, promotes the ‘gay’ agenda in Africa, and encourages Koreans to act like Whoreans, advice Koreans hardly need since acting like whores comes naturally to those dog-eating copycat attention-and-approval-hogs.
Still, it’s rather rich coming from Rolling Stone since it ran the hyped up bogus ‘rape culture’ story about some satanic sex ritual at UVA. The magazine is with the nutjob feminists on hyperventilating about ‘rape culture’(that doesn’t exist in most colleges), but it’s also with all the demented obscene sluts and skanks whose idea of pop music/culture is to blur the line between entertainment and porn so that it’s no longer possible to tell which is which. As the world capital of radical narcissism or demonic narcissism, US has become an evil nation. Of course, it’s still the richest nation with its big cities getting richer and filling up with oligarchs and neo-yuppies who think they are so hot and righteous because they stuff their mouths with over-priced sushi and wave the ‘gay rainbow’ flag. It fools a lot of people whose only values are vapid materialism and inane narcissism. But what a sick world: