Yes. I’d make this a foundational chapter rather than merely a cleaned-up version of the blog post. The important thing is to preserve your original insight while making the argument strong enough to carry into the later Trump/PopCULTure chapters.
Chapter: The PopCULTure Thesis
Liberalism IS PopCULTure
I have always worked in the presumptive.
I know what I know. I know what I don't know. And in that space between the two, I trust intuition—but I don't leave intuition alone. I subject it to logic, reason, deduction, and experience.
That is where this idea began.
Long before the political world began openly talking about the enormous power of culture, I became convinced that something fundamental had changed in America.
**Politics was no longer driving the culture.
The culture was beginning to drive politics.**
And more specifically, PopCULTure was becoming the vehicle through which political ideas were normalized, popularized, and eventually accepted as conventional wisdom.
That distinction matters.
Because political movements don't necessarily begin in the voting booth.
They can begin in a movie.
A television show.
A song.
A celebrity.
A comedian.
A university classroom.
A sports arena.
A magazine.
A phrase that suddenly everybody knows.
A behavior that, yesterday, would have been considered unacceptable—but today is presented as sophisticated, enlightened, fashionable, or simply "what everybody does."
That is the power of becoming popularized.
And that is the power of PopCULTure.
Politics > PopCULT influence > PopCULTural Domination
The traditional American understanding was relatively straightforward.
Politics attempted to influence government.
Government operated within a culture.
And that culture was sustained by institutions and traditions outside government—family, church, community, schools, local associations, and inherited customs.
Those institutions were not perfect.
They never were.
But they provided something extraordinarily important:
a competing source of authority.
The family taught one thing.
The church taught another.
Parents possessed authority.
Teachers possessed authority.
Community standards possessed authority.
History possessed authority.
And the individual was expected to develop judgment within that framework.
Then something changed.
The institutions themselves became targets of cultural transformation.
Family was increasingly portrayed as restrictive.
Traditional morality became old-fashioned.
Religious authority became suspect.
Parents were increasingly told that they did not necessarily understand the new world.
Traditional values were reclassified—not necessarily as wrong, but as embarrassing.
And in their place came something extraordinarily powerful:
the desire to belong.
The IN Crowd
Human beings are social creatures.
We want acceptance.
We want recognition.
We want to belong to something larger than ourselves.
That is not a political phenomenon.
It is human nature.
But once that instinct is connected to mass media, entertainment, celebrity, advertising, music, television, and eventually the internet, it becomes something much larger.
The individual no longer has to know the people he wants to emulate.
He only has to see them.
The teenager watching television can feel connected to an imaginary community.
The young person listening to a famous musician can begin adopting not merely the music, but the worldview associated with the musician.
The movie star becomes a cultural authority.
The comedian becomes a political commentator.
The athlete becomes a moral spokesman.
The entertainer becomes an interpreter of society.
And eventually the question changes from:
"Is this right?"
to:
"Is this what people like us believe?"
That is an enormous psychological shift.
The desire to be IN can become more powerful than the desire to be right.
And once conformity is attached to popularity, the mechanism becomes self-reinforcing.
Go along to get along.
Become part of the IN crowd.
Don't be the person who doesn't understand.
Don't be the person who is "behind."
Don't be the person who doesn't know the latest cultural language.
Don't be the person who objects to what everyone else has already accepted.
That is the hook.
"Don't Trust Anyone Over 30"
The counterculture of the 1960s understood this instinct extraordinarily well.
Its message was not simply political.
It was cultural.
Question authority.
Question parents.
Question teachers.
Question institutions.
Question tradition.
Question religion.
Question the morality inherited from previous generations.
The famous countercultural slogan, "Don't trust anyone over 30," captured the spirit perfectly.
The old world was allegedly incapable of understanding the new world.
And the new world was increasingly being defined by the young.
Music became more than entertainment.
Fashion became more than clothing.
Sex became more than sexuality.
Drugs became more than drugs.
Rebellion became more than rebellion.
They became cultural signals.
They told you who you were.
And, perhaps more importantly, they told you who you were supposed to be.
When Values Become Entertainment
This is where my PopCULTure argument begins.
Entertainment does not have to give you a political speech to influence your politics.
It can accomplish something much more subtle.
It can change what feels normal.
And once something feels normal, defending the old standard begins to feel abnormal.
That is enormously powerful.
A movie doesn't have to say:
"Change your morality."
It can simply portray a behavior differently.
A television program doesn't have to announce:
"Your traditional values are obsolete."
It can simply make those values look ridiculous.
A song doesn't have to present a political manifesto.
It can celebrate rebellion, sexual liberation, individualism, drugs, anti-authority attitudes, or contempt for convention—and make those attitudes cool.
The audience absorbs the message without necessarily experiencing it as political persuasion.
That is precisely what makes popular culture so effective.
**You don't feel like you are being instructed.
You feel like you are being entertained.**
The Great Cultural Reversal
There was a time when popular entertainment largely reflected the existing culture.
Life imitated art—but art also reflected life.
Traditional American entertainment often reinforced recognizable ideas about family, responsibility, courage, sacrifice, community, patriotism, and right and wrong.
Then the relationship began to reverse.
Instead of culture determining what entertainment would celebrate, entertainment increasingly determined what culture would celebrate.
That is the reversal.
**Pop Culture stopped merely reflecting culture.
It began manufacturing culture.**
And once it could manufacture culture, it could manufacture the boundaries of acceptable political thought.
That is the connection between PopCULTure and politics.
Liberalism IS PopCULTure
This was the provocative conclusion I reached:
Liberalism IS PopCULTure.
Not because every liberal person belongs to some organized conspiracy.
Not because every artist, actor, musician, professor, or journalist consciously participates in a coordinated political operation.
And certainly not because every cultural change is inherently political.
The argument is more fundamental.
Liberalism becomes powerful when its assumptions become culturally popular.
When the ideas are no longer experienced as political ideas, but as the ordinary assumptions of respectable society.
That is the real achievement.
Once an idea becomes conventional wisdom, the political argument is largely over.
People no longer debate the premise.
They debate only the details.
Who Defines Conventional Wisdom?
This brings us to one of the most important questions:
Who gets to define what is "normal"?
Who decides what is acceptable?
Who decides what is offensive?
Who decides what is compassionate?
Who decides what is enlightened?
Who decides what is racist, sexist, progressive, backward, hateful, tolerant, sophisticated, or ignorant?
These words are not merely descriptions.
They are cultural weapons.
Control the language and you influence the argument before the argument even begins.
If one side gets to define itself as "progressive" and the other side as "regressive," the battle has already been tilted.
If one side becomes associated with "tolerance" while the other becomes associated with "hate," the factual merits of individual arguments become secondary.
The labels have already done the work.
This is why PopCULTure matters.
It helps determine the vocabulary through which society understands itself.
The Artists
There is another important element.
Artists do not generally think of themselves as political leaders.
They think of themselves as artists.
But artists have something politicians desperately want:
attention.
A politician can give a speech to ten thousand people.
A successful musician can reach millions.
A movie can reach hundreds of millions.
A television character can enter the living rooms of an entire country.
A popular comedian can make a political idea feel like a joke—and once an idea becomes a joke, opposing it can make the opponent look ridiculous.
That is power.
Artists don't necessarily have to tell people what to think.
They can tell people what is worth thinking about.
They can determine who is admirable.
Who is ridiculous.
Who is heroic.
Who is evil.
Who deserves sympathy.
Who deserves contempt.
And perhaps most importantly:
what kind of person you want to be.
That is cultural power.
The Media Multiplier
Then came the merger of entertainment and mass media.
Hollywood.
Television.
Music.
Advertising.
Journalism.
Universities.
Eventually the internet and social media.
The walls between these institutions became increasingly porous.
The actor becomes an activist.
The activist becomes a celebrity.
The journalist becomes an entertainer.
The comedian becomes a political analyst.
The politician becomes a media personality.
The media personality becomes an influencer.
And the influencer becomes a political force.
The cycle feeds itself.
**Culture creates the message.
Media distributes the message.
Popularity validates the message.
Politics eventually responds to the message.**
That is the PopCULTure machine.
The Circular News Cycle
There is another mechanism that amplifies it.
The modern media system can create a circular feedback loop.
One outlet reports something.
Another outlet repeats it.
Television discusses it.
Social media reacts to the television discussion.
The reaction becomes another news story.
Politicians respond.
The response becomes another headline.
The original assertion has now been repeated so many times that repetition itself begins to feel like confirmation.
The public hears:
"Everybody is saying this."
But "everybody" may simply mean that the same small collection of cultural institutions is repeating the same story to one another.
Popularity becomes evidence of truth.
And that is dangerous.
Because popular does not mean true.
The Frankfurt School and the Larger Argument
The intellectual history behind all of this is complicated.
There were genuine Marxist intellectual traditions that examined culture, power, institutions, class, ideology, and mass communication. The Frankfurt School was part of that history.
But the argument should not be reduced to the simplistic claim that a secret group of intellectuals somehow sat down and designed modern America.
Reality is almost always more complicated.
Ideas migrate.
Institutions adopt them.
People reinterpret them.
Movements modify them.
Artists popularize them.
Businesses commercialize them.
Journalists normalize them.
Universities intellectualize them.
Politicians eventually discover that they can use them.
That process does not require a conspiracy.
It requires something much more ordinary:
incentives.
People follow what works.
Institutions reward what succeeds.
Audiences consume what entertains them.
And political movements learn to exploit whatever cultural mechanisms already exist.
The Twisted Rope
The danger is not any single cultural change.
It is accumulation.
One strand by itself may appear insignificant.
Another strand seems harmless.
Another is merely entertainment.
Another is simply fashion.
Another is only language.
Another is only a television program.
Another is only music.
Another is only a university course.
But eventually the strands become twisted together.
And what began as separate cultural developments becomes a powerful rope.
Once the rope is twisted tightly enough, pulling on one strand affects all the others.
That is what I mean by PopCULTural domination.
The culture no longer merely entertains.
It establishes the boundaries of acceptable thought.
The Moral Inversion
And eventually something even more profound can happen.
The question of right and wrong gets replaced by the question of accepted and rejected.
The standard becomes:
"What does PopCULTure say?"
Not:
"What is true?"
Not:
"What is right?"
Not:
"What kind of society should we build?"
But:
"What do people like us believe?"
Once that happens, morality itself becomes fashionable.
And fashion changes.
So morality changes with it.
That is the trap.
The American Culture Beneath It All
America has always changed.
America has always argued.
America has always contained competing visions of freedom, morality, religion, individualism, government, capitalism, race, class, and social responsibility.
That isn't the problem.
The problem is when Americans stop making those judgments for themselves.
When the family no longer provides the primary cultural reference point.
When the community no longer provides a common standard.
When religious belief is treated as inherently suspect.
When history is regarded as something to be rewritten rather than understood.
When parents are replaced by celebrities.
When teachers are replaced by influencers.
When moral judgment is replaced by popularity.
Then the culture becomes extraordinarily vulnerable to whoever controls the cultural megaphone.
And Then Came Trump
This is where the argument eventually takes an unexpected turn.
Because if PopCULTure had become the dominant language of American politics, then someone was eventually going to figure out how to fight inside that language.
And that person was Donald Trump.
Trump did not invent PopCULTure.
He did not create celebrity politics.
He did not create television politics.
He did not create the cult of personality.
He recognized what was already there.
And he understood something many traditional politicians did not:
politics had become entertainment—and entertainment had become politics.
Trump understood the spectacle.
He understood branding.
He understood television.
He understood conflict.
He understood repetition.
He understood celebrity.
He understood that attention itself had become a political resource.
And most importantly, he understood something that the political establishment failed to recognize:
you could not defeat PopCULTure by pretending it didn't exist.
You had to enter it.
You had to understand it.
You had to speak its language.
And eventually, you had to beat its masters at their own game.
That is where the story changes.
The argument that began with "Liberalism IS PopCULTure" eventually leads somewhere I could not have fully seen in 2015.
Because the man who entered the PopCULTure battlefield was not merely another politician.
He was a PopCULTure phenomenon.
And that phenomenon would eventually challenge the very cultural establishment that had spent decades defining what was acceptable, respectable, fashionable, and politically possible.
**The culture had become political.
Then politics became PopCULTure.
And eventually, PopCULTure itself became the battlefield.**
This gives your original 2015 material a much stronger role in the book: it becomes the intellectual starting point for the later “Trump Phenomenon” argument, rather than looking like an isolated old blog post.
Black Power IS Islamism..... #blackpower #islamism
The Venuti Theorum
My
first exposure to this issue came in 1971 while I was incarcerated.
Over the next fourteen years, in twelve different prisons, I observed
many inmates converting to Islam. From my perspective, these conversions
were often influenced by practical considerations as much as religious
conviction. Some inmates found that adopting a new faith provided
structure, community, improved access to resources, or simply made
prison life more bearable.
As I
watched this trend spread from prison to prison through 1985, I
couldn't help but wonder what its long-term effects might be. Looking
back today, I still believe those years shaped my concerns about the
influence prisons can have on people's beliefs, identities, and future
political or social activism.
When
I hear discussions about Black Liberation Theology, political activism,
or religious movements, I sometimes think back to what I witnessed
decades ago behind prison walls. Those experiences continue to influence
how I interpret current events, even though others may reach different
conclusions based on the same facts.
I
also recall President Barack Obama's 2012 statement, "The future must
not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam." That remark
received considerable attention and sparked debate about America's
relationship with the Muslim world and the balance between religious
respect and freedom of expression.
My
concern is that we should not ignore what happens inside our
correctional institutions. Prisons can become places where
ideas—religious, political, or ideological—spread rapidly among
vulnerable populations. Whether those ideas ultimately benefit or harm
society deserves careful examination and open discussion.
These
are my observations based on personal experience, and I believe they
warrant thoughtful debate rather than dismissal. We should be willing to
examine prison culture, religious conversions, rehabilitation, and
their possible long-term effects without fear of asking difficult
questions.
Been watching since "71" while in Prison....and through to 85....how
many Black Prisoners converted to Muslim "religion"....I saw this
coming.....
Obama 2012: ‘The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander The Prophet of Islam- Video clip.
they will be the ARMY within.....
When you hear Black Liberation Theology...think Islam and see if you can see what I see...
Yes. I’d add it to the book, but I would not preserve “Black Power IS Islamism” as an unqualified factual claim. Your strongest material is actually your firsthand observation from 1971–1985, and that gives the chapter a much more defensible foundation.
I’d frame it as a section along these lines:
The Venuti Theorem: When Political Identity Becomes Religious Identity
My first exposure to this question came in 1971, while I was incarcerated. Over the next fourteen years, in twelve different prisons, I watched a remarkable number of Black inmates convert to Islam.
I wasn't conducting a sociological study. I was watching it happen around me.
What interested me was not simply the conversion itself, but why it happened and what happened afterward. For some inmates, Islam appeared to provide discipline, structure, brotherhood, identity and a sense of belonging in an environment where all of those things were in short supply. Prison can be an extraordinarily fertile environment for movements that provide a person with meaning, community and a new identity.
I watched this phenomenon spread from institution to institution through 1985.
That experience left me with a question that has stayed with me ever since:
What happens when a religious identity becomes intertwined with a political identity—and that political identity eventually becomes part of a larger cultural movement?
This is where my thinking about Black Power, Black Liberation Theology, Islam, political activism and PopCulture begins.
I am not arguing that Black Americans who embrace Islam are therefore Islamists. That would be an enormous—and unjustified—leap. Nor am I arguing that Islam itself is synonymous with political radicalism.
My observation is narrower:
Movements can provide more than beliefs. They can provide identity, community, language and a framework through which people interpret the world.
And prison taught me to pay attention to that process.
Years later, when I watched the emergence of increasingly intertwined racial, political and religious movements in American culture, I recognized something familiar.
I had seen the mechanism before.
That is the part of the story I believe deserves examination.
The question I kept asking
When I hear the phrase “Black Liberation Theology,” I don't automatically hear Islam. I hear a much larger question:
What happens when liberation becomes an identity—and identity becomes political power?
That distinction matters.
My argument is not that every participant shares the same ideology. It is that ideas travel through institutions, communities and culture, and that prisons can be one of those transmission environments.
I had been watching that process since 1971.
By the time the subject entered the broader American political and cultural conversation, I wasn't seeing it for the first time.
I had been watching the seeds being planted for fourteen years.
That is why I say:
“I saw this coming.”
Not because I possessed some special prediction—but because I had already witnessed one part of the process firsthand.
The Venuti Theorem:
Watch what happens when identity,
ideology, community and political purpose converge. The movement that
results may become considerably more powerful than any one of those
elements alone.
This fits very naturally with your earlier PopCulture → ideology → political power thesis. It also makes the book stronger because you're presenting what you personally witnessed separately from the broader conclusions you draw from it.
I’ve got the full 2015 post. What would you like me to do with it?
For example, I can:
-
Thoroughly rewrite it in your original voice while making the argument much clearer and more powerful.
-
Extract the central thesis and show how the different sections connect.
-
Update the argument to 2026, preserving your original concept of “POP-CULTURE → POPULARIZED” and applying it to today's political environment.
-
Fact-check the historical claims—for example, the role of the Mickey Mouse Club, Queen for a Day, Cultural Marxism, Critical Theory, and the development of political correctness.
-
Compare the 2015 thesis with what has happened since, identifying which predictions or observations appear supported, contradicted, or still debatable.
-
Or, perhaps most interestingly, combine this 2015 piece with your recent “Trump Phenomenon” argument about politics becoming downstream from—or ultimately taking control of—Pop Culture.
If your goal is the last one, I can see a potentially strong 2015 → 2026 evolution of your central argument: the older piece argues that pop culture creates social conformity through the desire to belong, while your newer Trump argument appears to argue that Trump recognized and disrupted that mechanism by making himself the dominant pop-cultural phenomenon rather than merely another politician operating within it.
The Presumptive Philosopher
I work "in the presumptive"...I know what I know, I know what I don't know.
I trust in my intuit, and allow logic, reason and deduction, guided by experience on the dark side to be the only Master.
Thursday, December 14, 2023
I AM Sexist, I AM Heterophiliac, I am a Nationalist and other FALSE NARRATIVES...Now that this is OUT of the WAY, ..."Can we talk?"
https://comunistmanifesto101.blogspot.com/2019/08/i-am-sexist-i-am-heterophiliac-i-am.html
Lets just cut to the chase...Lets get right down to brass tax...
I am who I am, YOU are who YOU are...
and that's simple FACT...
Now for the discussion
I am a Sexist, Proud and Loud.
It's Nature, Naturally....Stupid!
Men talk about woman, woman talk about men.
the battle of the sexes, a man's perspective @1:17:00 into the show
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tony-venuti/2010/09/06/the-tony-venuti-venue-1
I AM a Sexist, standing proud, speaking LOUD.
I Believe Woman nurture, Men protect & Provide....I am...
a sexist.
The Presumptive Philosopher
I am a Sexist, Proud and Loud. It's Nature, Naturally....Stupid!
I am A Sexist.
Men talk about woman, woman talk about men.
the battle of the sexes, a man's perspective @1:17:00 into the show
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tony-venuti/2010/09/06/the-tony-venuti-venue-1
*** I AM a Sexist, standing proud, speaking LOUD***
I Believe Woman nurture, Men protect & Provide....I am...
a sexist.
| image |
|---|
| Celebrate the Human Condition or at your own PERIL become the re-Conditioned HUMAN |
I Believe our Mothers and our Sisters serve the Family NOT the MILITARY, I AM a sexist.
I Believe that the UNIVERSE is a violent place where Men and Woman have different roles...I am a Sexist.
I Believe that Family is an equation of one man + one woman makes ONE together making "another" one IS Family, I am a Sexist.
I believe that Woman is EQUAL to MAN, but NOT the SAME, I am a Sexist.
I believe that Trial & ERROR over 5,000 years demonstrated that
FAMILY is how a Society becomes and maintains a CIVILization. I am a
SEXIST.
I believe a Man who treats his WIFE like a PRINCESS had a Queen for a Mother....I AM....
A SEXIST...
imagehttp://presumptivephilospher.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-war-on-men-and-tonys-response.html
)
About Me
a self-proclaimed Know it all, and Philosopher. I speak in the Presumptive, as one who knows what they know and more importantly knowing what one doesn't know....This qualification allows me to state "I AM a KNOW it ALL."..
Transgender is a BEHAVIOR not a belief idiots....
see FETISH-Mental Illness
Is Perversion a mental illness?
is Mental illness simply a manifestation OF perVersion?\
Critical Theory commands all things "bad" is mental illness, "where ONLY professional (liberals) can diagnose
#38 & 39 Communist Manifesto dog whistle...
Here's how it works...when Pervs are allowed "normalcy"...and come into the social arena...good people who ARE offended will STAY away....see #displacement of GOOD Behavior with Sick STUFF
***https://comunistmanifesto101.blogspot.com/2012/11/45-points-of-communist-manifesto.html ***
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
*** Xenophobia or Islamophila?***
*** https://comunistmanifesto101.blogspot.com/2014/09/black-power-is-islamism-venuti-theorem.html***
Agree? Prisons in America....Muslim training ground. FACT....everywhere ....
=
Black Power IS Islamism..... #blackpower #islamism
The Venuti Theorum
Black America, Black Democrats/Communists IS ISLAM...
AntiWhite Mentality Explained-great clip
http://youtu.be/UEAZP_6JeLU
Black Power is Islamism....the Prison Islamic training ground.....
my first experience ...1971...12 prisons later...through 1985...I saw it everywhere..
they used, food, clothing, and other "lifestyle" changes in the name of "islam" to make them more comfortable...
others saw it...and the race was off....
many conversions to aid and comfort while IN PRISON>
Been watching since "71" while in Prison....and through to 85....how many Black Prisoners converted to Muslim "religion"....I saw this coming.....
I AM Sexist, I AM Heterophiliac, I am a Nationalist and other FALSE NARRATIVES...Now that this is OUT of the WAY, ..."Can we talk?"
https://comunistmanifesto101.blogspot.com/2019/08/i-am-sexist-i-am-heterophiliac-i-am.html
Lets just cut to the chase...Lets get right down to brass tax...
I am who I am, YOU are who YOU are...
and that's simple FACT...
Now for the discussion
I am a Sexist, Proud and Loud.
It's Nature, Naturally....Stupid!
Men talk about woman, woman talk about men.
the battle of the sexes, a man's perspective @1:17:00 into the show
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tony-venuti/2010/09/06/the-tony-venuti-venue-1
I AM a Sexist, standing proud, speaking LOUD.
I Believe Woman nurture, Men protect & Provide....I am...
a sexist.
The Presumptive Philosopher
I am a Sexist, Proud and Loud. It's Nature, Naturally....Stupid!
I am A Sexist.
Men talk about woman, woman talk about men.
the battle of the sexes, a man's perspective @1:17:00 into the show
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tony-venuti/2010/09/06/the-tony-venuti-venue-1
*** I AM a Sexist, standing proud, speaking LOUD***
I Believe Woman nurture, Men protect & Provide....I am...
a sexist.
| image |
|---|
| Celebrate the Human Condition or at your own PERIL become the re-Conditioned HUMAN |
I Believe our Mothers and our Sisters serve the Family NOT the MILITARY, I AM a sexist.
I Believe that the UNIVERSE is a violent place where Men and Woman have different roles...I am a Sexist.
I Believe that Family is an equation of one man + one woman makes ONE together making "another" one IS Family, I am a Sexist
I believe that Woman is EQUAL to MAN, but NOT the SAME, I am a Sexist.
I believe that Trial & ERROR over 5,000 years demonstrated that
FAMILY is how a Society becomes and maintains a CIVILization. I am a
SEXIST.
Absolutely. I see what you were doing with this piece: you were deliberately taking the word “sexist,” reclaiming it, and then forcing the reader to distinguish between biological sex differences, traditional sex roles, and actual discrimination.
The underlying argument is much stronger than the original presentation makes clear. The repetition, old formatting, broken links, and some of the wording obscure the philosophical point.
Here is how I would thoroughly rewrite it while preserving your basic argument and provocative voice:
I AM A SEXIST, A HETEROPHILIAC, A NATIONALIST — AND OTHER “FALSE NARRATIVES”
Now that we have THAT out of the way… can we talk?
Let's cut to the chase.
Let's get right down to brass tacks.
I am who I am.
You are who you are.
And that is a fact.
The real question isn't whether we are different.
The real question is whether we are allowed to acknowledge those differences without being condemned for doing so.
So let's talk.
I AM A SEXIST.
Proud and loud.
It's nature, naturally… stupid.
Men talk about women.
Women talk about men.
And somewhere between the two exists one of the oldest conversations in human history:
The Battle of the Sexes.
Not because men and women are enemies.
Quite the opposite.
Because men and women are different.
And those differences have consequences.
They influence attraction.
They influence behavior.
They influence relationships.
They influence family.
They influence civilization itself.
Pretending otherwise doesn't eliminate those differences.
It merely makes it harder to talk honestly about them.
I BELIEVE WOMEN NURTURE.
I believe men have traditionally been protectors and providers.
Does that mean every woman must nurture?
No.
Does it mean every man must provide?
No.
Human beings are individuals.
But patterns exist.
Sex differences exist.
Biological realities exist.
And throughout thousands of years of human experience, societies have developed expectations around those differences.
I am willing to acknowledge that.
Therefore, apparently, I am a sexist.
So be it.
I BELIEVE OUR MOTHERS AND SISTERS SERVE THE FAMILY — NOT THE MILITARY.
That isn't a declaration that women are incapable of serving.
It is an observation about what I believe civilization has traditionally asked of its women:
Protect and nurture the next generation.
Men have historically been disproportionately sent into the dangerous places — hunting, fighting, defending territory, confronting physical threats.
Why?
Because nature doesn't distribute physical characteristics randomly.
Men and women are equal in human worth.
But they are not identical biological organisms.
That distinction matters.
I BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE IS A VIOLENT PLACE.
And human beings evolved within it.
Life survives through competition.
Predators eat prey.
Territories are defended.
Resources are contested.
Species reproduce.
Children must be protected.
Civilizations must defend themselves.
And throughout human history, men and women have frequently occupied different roles in meeting those challenges.
That doesn't make one sex more valuable than the other.
It makes them different.
I BELIEVE FAMILY MATTERS.
For thousands of years, the fundamental human reproductive arrangement has been remarkably simple:
Man + Woman → Child → Family → Community → Society → Civilization.
You can argue about the countless forms families can take today.
You can debate social policy.
You can debate culture.
But you cannot erase the biological fact that human reproduction requires male and female reproductive cells.
That isn't ideology.
That's biology.
And civilization developed around the biological reality that children require extraordinary amounts of care, protection, teaching and resources.
Family wasn't invented by a politician.
It emerged from human nature.
I BELIEVE WOMAN IS EQUAL TO MAN — BUT NOT THE SAME.
This may be the statement that causes the most trouble.
So let me make it unmistakably clear:
Equal does not mean identical.
A man and a woman can possess equal human dignity, equal rights under the law and equal moral worth while still possessing measurable biological differences.
That's not an insult.
It's not hatred.
It's not oppression.
It's reality.
The mistake is believing that recognizing difference necessarily requires establishing superiority.
It doesn't.
A difference isn't automatically a hierarchy.
TRIAL AND ERROR CREATED CIVILIZATION.
Human beings didn't sit around 5,000 years ago and invent civilization from a blank sheet of paper.
They experimented.
They adapted.
They failed.
They succeeded.
They reproduced what worked.
They abandoned what didn't.
Generation after generation, societies developed institutions around the realities of human nature.
And one of the most persistent institutions in virtually every civilization has been:
FAMILY.
Why?
Because children are born helpless.
They require enormous investment.
They require protection.
They require teaching.
They require resources.
And they require adults willing to sacrifice their own immediate interests for the survival and success of the next generation.
Family is not merely a political construct.
It is a survival mechanism.
AND THAT BRINGS ME BACK TO “SEXIST.”
If by sexist you mean:
I recognize that biological sex exists.
Then guilty.
If by sexist you mean:
I recognize that men and women can have different biological characteristics, tendencies and traditional social roles.
Guilty again.
If by sexist you mean:
I believe men and women possess different strengths and weaknesses while still possessing equal human worth.
Then yes.
I'm guilty.
But if by sexist you mean:
I believe one sex should be denied basic human rights or treated as inherently inferior simply because of its sex…
No.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
THE QUESTION ISN'T WHETHER MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT.
They are.
The question is whether we have become so frightened of offending someone that we can no longer discuss those differences honestly.
Perhaps we've confused equality with sameness.
Perhaps we've confused tolerance with agreement.
Perhaps we've confused compassion with denial of reality.
And perhaps we've forgotten something very simple:
WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS.
Male.
Female.
Different.
Equal in dignity.
Dependent upon one another.
And, whether we like it or not…
connected by nature itself.
So I'll say it one more time.
I AM A SEXIST.
Proud and loud.
Not because I hate women.
But because I recognize women.
Not because I believe men are superior.
But because I recognize men.
And not because I want to turn back the clock.
But because I believe civilization has something to learn from human nature rather than something to fear from it.
Celebrate the Human Condition —
or at your own peril become the Re-Conditioned Human.
Data analysis isn't available right now. Do you want to continue without it?
