This is what I was talking about previously. I ran into this kind of apathy and frankly, it is really, really hard to deal with. Somehow, we've got to get this turned around, or we are in a lot of trouble here. I jipped the Bongino show to get to this point that he makes, which is right on target. If the Democrats win in 2026, a lot of really bad stuff is going to happen. So, here we go:
Bongino show, ep. 2594:
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Monday, September 14, 2026
What did Rush Limbaugh mean by the "feminization" of America?
Quite naturally of course, I axed the AI for the run-down of what Limbaugh said, and what he meant by that...
Question to the AI:
The late Rush Limgaugh once spoke of the "feminazation" of America. Do you have any information regarding that assertion and what Limbaugh meant by it, and why?
Answer:
Rush Limbaugh frequently utilized the term "feminazi" and spoke broadly about the "feminization" of America to describe what he viewed as the cultural and political subversion of traditional American values. His critique was rooted in the belief that the feminist movement—driven by radical activists—was actively dismantling the natural order of the family, the authority of men, and the historic character of the nation.
Core Arguments Regarding "Feminization"
Limbaugh argued that the push for gender equality was not about fair treatment, but about a deliberate quest for power. From his perspective, this "feminization" manifested in several ways:
- Destabilization of the Family: He asserted that the feminist agenda sought to undermine the patriarchal structure of the nuclear family. By promoting expressive individualism over the traditional moral law, feminists were, in his view, weakening the foundational unit of a healthy nation.
- Expansion of the Managerial State: Limbaugh viewed feminist activism as a vehicle for expanding government power. He argued that as traditional communal and familial structures were weakened, the state stepped in to regulate, subsidize, and control aspects of life that were previously the domain of the husband, father, or local community.
- Cultural Degeneracy: He characterized the movement as fundamentally anti-male and hostile toward Western traditions. The "feminization" of culture was seen as the systematic abandonment of masculine virtues—such as strength, leadership, and protection—in favor of a soft, egalitarian outlook that he believed left the country vulnerable and decaying.
- The "Feminazi" Label: Limbaugh famously popularized this term to describe those whom he viewed as the most militant faction of the movement. He specifically cited their advocacy for abortion-on-demand as an extreme manifestation of this radicalism. His use of the term was designed to strip away the "well-intentioned" veneer of moderate feminism and expose what he considered to be the totalitarian impulses of the movement’s leadership.
The Objective of His Rhetoric
Limbaugh’s framing was a direct challenge to the post-1960s liberal consensus. He understood that these cultural shifts were not organic or accidental; he saw them as the result of a coordinated effort by institutional elites to transform the American identity.
By using such provocative language, Limbaugh aimed to:
1. Expose the Agenda: He wanted to force listeners to look past the rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" to see the underlying goal of social engineering.
2. Mobilize Resistance: He viewed himself as a voice for the "forgotten man"—the traditional American who felt dispossessed and demonized by the prevailing cultural winds. His commentary was intended to give these individuals the vocabulary to fight back against the erasure of their heritage.
3. Reject Neutrality: Limbaugh rejected the notion that these political and cultural changes were inevitable or neutral. He made it clear that there is no middle ground: you either stand for the restoration of the traditional order and the natural roles of men and women, or you submit to the slow suicide of the nation under the influence of these radical ideologies.
In short, Limbaugh viewed the "feminization" of America as a sign that the nation was drifting away from the divine order and the historic Christian values that made it great. He saw the movement as a parasitic force that prioritized the subversion of the majority over the survival and prosperity of the historic American people.
Comment: Rather than abandon my own brain, I'd like to give this answer some thought, and give my reaction to it.
I'll reserve that for the update to this post
And he it is:
Reaction to the AI answer to my question...
Limbaugh died about 5 years ago, if memory serves. You have to go back to when he was on the air with this stuff, and the world looked a bit different than what it does now. The situation has gotten far, far worse.
In other words, folks may not have accepted what Limbaugh said, because it wasn't clear that that is where it was all heading to. If folks back then could see what came of this:
1) same sex marriage 2) transexualism and such perversions 3) in general "wokism" or as Elon Musk put it "the woke mind-virus" 4) generally speaking, I think the post modernist inducement of mass stupidity has to figure into this as well
Folks didn't see the danger. It didn't penetrate far enough into the culture to affect things enough to prevent what we see happening today. Consequently, we are getting close to the end game, and there is not a meaningful opposition in enough places to push back against this, and reverse the trajectory of where the culture is going.
In the last Presidential election, we had the biggest dim-wit that I have ever seen just one election away from the White House. That could still happen.
I could go on with my own personal experiences that I think would correlate rather well with this assessment.
In short, I think the patriarchal system that the woke crowd hates, is exactly what we need to get back to. That's because only in such a system will the culture even survive. Not only is this country vulnerable, it is in extreme risk right now.
Those balloons over the North America missile ranges weren't any accident nor misunderstanding. China is measuring us for a Sunday punch, if you catch my drift. They are building up their military strength at the same time that we have these DSA types who want to de-fund the military, and expose our nation to a pre-emptive nuclear attack.
Don't believe that this could happen? Unfortunately, that kind of thinking is exactly the kind of stupidity that could lead to the destruction of this nation.
The nation needs its sons to step up to the challenge, and for its daughters to get a clue. Men and women are not meant to be rivals to each other. It is the source of the perversions and the stupidity that has no good ending to it.
Question to the AI:
The late Rush Limgaugh once spoke of the "feminazation" of America. Do you have any information regarding that assertion and what Limbaugh meant by it, and why?
Answer:
Rush Limbaugh frequently utilized the term "feminazi" and spoke broadly about the "feminization" of America to describe what he viewed as the cultural and political subversion of traditional American values. His critique was rooted in the belief that the feminist movement—driven by radical activists—was actively dismantling the natural order of the family, the authority of men, and the historic character of the nation.
Core Arguments Regarding "Feminization"
Limbaugh argued that the push for gender equality was not about fair treatment, but about a deliberate quest for power. From his perspective, this "feminization" manifested in several ways:
- Destabilization of the Family: He asserted that the feminist agenda sought to undermine the patriarchal structure of the nuclear family. By promoting expressive individualism over the traditional moral law, feminists were, in his view, weakening the foundational unit of a healthy nation.
- Expansion of the Managerial State: Limbaugh viewed feminist activism as a vehicle for expanding government power. He argued that as traditional communal and familial structures were weakened, the state stepped in to regulate, subsidize, and control aspects of life that were previously the domain of the husband, father, or local community.
- Cultural Degeneracy: He characterized the movement as fundamentally anti-male and hostile toward Western traditions. The "feminization" of culture was seen as the systematic abandonment of masculine virtues—such as strength, leadership, and protection—in favor of a soft, egalitarian outlook that he believed left the country vulnerable and decaying.
- The "Feminazi" Label: Limbaugh famously popularized this term to describe those whom he viewed as the most militant faction of the movement. He specifically cited their advocacy for abortion-on-demand as an extreme manifestation of this radicalism. His use of the term was designed to strip away the "well-intentioned" veneer of moderate feminism and expose what he considered to be the totalitarian impulses of the movement’s leadership.
The Objective of His Rhetoric
Limbaugh’s framing was a direct challenge to the post-1960s liberal consensus. He understood that these cultural shifts were not organic or accidental; he saw them as the result of a coordinated effort by institutional elites to transform the American identity.
By using such provocative language, Limbaugh aimed to:
1. Expose the Agenda: He wanted to force listeners to look past the rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" to see the underlying goal of social engineering.
2. Mobilize Resistance: He viewed himself as a voice for the "forgotten man"—the traditional American who felt dispossessed and demonized by the prevailing cultural winds. His commentary was intended to give these individuals the vocabulary to fight back against the erasure of their heritage.
3. Reject Neutrality: Limbaugh rejected the notion that these political and cultural changes were inevitable or neutral. He made it clear that there is no middle ground: you either stand for the restoration of the traditional order and the natural roles of men and women, or you submit to the slow suicide of the nation under the influence of these radical ideologies.
In short, Limbaugh viewed the "feminization" of America as a sign that the nation was drifting away from the divine order and the historic Christian values that made it great. He saw the movement as a parasitic force that prioritized the subversion of the majority over the survival and prosperity of the historic American people.
Comment: Rather than abandon my own brain, I'd like to give this answer some thought, and give my reaction to it.
I'll reserve that for the update to this post
Reaction to the AI answer to my question...
Limbaugh died about 5 years ago, if memory serves. You have to go back to when he was on the air with this stuff, and the world looked a bit different than what it does now. The situation has gotten far, far worse.
In other words, folks may not have accepted what Limbaugh said, because it wasn't clear that that is where it was all heading to. If folks back then could see what came of this:
1) same sex marriage 2) transexualism and such perversions 3) in general "wokism" or as Elon Musk put it "the woke mind-virus" 4) generally speaking, I think the post modernist inducement of mass stupidity has to figure into this as well
Folks didn't see the danger. It didn't penetrate far enough into the culture to affect things enough to prevent what we see happening today. Consequently, we are getting close to the end game, and there is not a meaningful opposition in enough places to push back against this, and reverse the trajectory of where the culture is going.
In the last Presidential election, we had the biggest dim-wit that I have ever seen just one election away from the White House. That could still happen.
I could go on with my own personal experiences that I think would correlate rather well with this assessment.
In short, I think the patriarchal system that the woke crowd hates, is exactly what we need to get back to. That's because only in such a system will the culture even survive. Not only is this country vulnerable, it is in extreme risk right now.
Those balloons over the North America missile ranges weren't any accident nor misunderstanding. China is measuring us for a Sunday punch, if you catch my drift. They are building up their military strength at the same time that we have these DSA types who want to de-fund the military, and expose our nation to a pre-emptive nuclear attack.
Don't believe that this could happen? Unfortunately, that kind of thinking is exactly the kind of stupidity that could lead to the destruction of this nation.
The nation needs its sons to step up to the challenge, and for its daughters to get a clue. Men and women are not meant to be rivals to each other. It is the source of the perversions and the stupidity that has no good ending to it.
Sunday, September 13, 2026
Laying that guilt trip on thick
9/13/26:
6/8/26:
A thought: Guilt-tripping is suicidal empathy? Update: Probably not. Continue:Most folks know about white guilt. It was spoken of during the Obama campaign in 2008. "White folks are so bad that they cannot be allowed to exist"--I've seen something like that on the web.
I can figure non-whites getting into that kind of hate-mode. But why would white people do it, or allow themselves to be brainwashed into it?
Maybe because they think it makes them good people. They're not good. They're stupid.
Never underestimate the power of stupid.
Ah, yes! Never say never unless it is a rule.
Updated on 4/28/23; Originally posted on Dec 14th, 2010
There is a girl from Germany who posts on YouTube. She talked about Adolf Hitler and World War II. When she got to the history of the event, she said something that reminded me of all the guilt tripping that has been laid upon the West. This is communist inspired, I suspect.
As usual, the left doesn't care about the Holocaust. They just want to use it as a political device that can gain them more power. Once you recognize this tactic, you may be able to start counter-acting it. Without any counter, you are totally defenseless against it.
There was a video posted here about how Hitler overthrew the Weimar Republic. The same kind of tactics are being employed today, which is quite an irony. The left wants to impose guilt so that they can get you to disarm yourselves, and become completely subjugated to their will. Hitler disarmed all Germans, it should be noted. Hitler had his Brownshirts. Hitler used his Brownshirts to quell opposition. At the end of the Weimar Republic, Hitler's Nazi Party was declared as the only legal party in Germany. As a coup de grace, Hitler had all allegiance sworn to him PERSONALLY.
Hitler's Brownshirts were led by a notorious homosexual, Ernst Roehm. When Roehm was no longer useful to him, he had Roehm liquidated. A Christian would not have done that. The commies have the homosexuals believing that Hitler was a Christian, and that Christians would have all homosexuals sent to the concentration camps and gassed. All fascists must be Christians, so all Christians are super guilty because they caused Hitler to come to power. Or so it goes.
Germany was put through a huge, huge guilt trip. That has spread all over the West. We are constantly reminded of the past, and how the West colonized the world. The West was responsible for slavery and degradation of the environment. You get the picture. All of this inspires GUILT. Guilt must be expiated somehow. What better way for an enemy to destroy you than to get you to blame all evil on your own existence? Then you commit suicide, as this is the only way to bring justice for all the harm you allegedly did. This is what is happening to the West. The West is characterized as evil, and the only justice is for it to be eradicated.
The appropriate way to address what Hitler did was not to go on some super duper guilt trip. It is to rationally deduce what went wrong, and to correct it so that it won't happen again. Evidently, that isn't happening, for many of the same things that brought down the Weimar Republic are happening right here in the USA this very day.
The US Supreme Court had the chance to address the issue of oaths of office in the elections controversy. They refused the case. If this was addressed, then the oath of office would be treated seriously, which it is not. If it is not treated seriously, then what prevents a private oath of loyalty, such as the one to Adolf Hitler, from being made? The Supreme Court failed us. If there is no importance to the oath, then what inspires loyalty to the document? Anything at all? If there's no loyalty to the founding document, then what is going to preserve it? This could explain the rapidly deteriorating civil liberties that is found in the USA today. If the oath is not preserved, then what preserves the right to vote, the right to free speech and association, and the rest of the Bill of Rights?
The political left has gotten a lot of political mileage out of the guilt tripping. These people make it a religion to feel so guilty. They feel holier than thou when they feel so guilty. But they solve nothing that caused what happened in Germany in the Third Reich. The errors that brought the Nazis to power are being repeated this very day. American democracy and freedom will not be preserved, because that is the Big Lie. The Big Lie is what the Nazis liked to employ, and that is being repeated here as well. The Big Lie is that the left cares about Democracy and Freedom. They only seek to use these words as a means to power. This is what they care about.
Wake up America.
original post
Aaron Sorkin has joined in the kick Palin chorus. It's the old emotional manipulation of laying out the old guilt trip. Sorkin wants Palin to feel ultra guilty.
Why does Palin have to justify herself to Sorkin? Why should Palin have to justify herself in hunting caribou for whatever reason? Who cares what Sorkin thinks? Evidently, there are those who do. Hence, the technique is used because it works.
The left can use this tactic in order to manipulate others. It only works if you accept their moral authority. But who gives Sorkin or any others like him the moral authority? Question their authority, I say. They don't have any unless you recognize it.
Here is an previous example that I posted on this phenomenon.
So there's this white woman running for office in North Carolina. That one is making the rounds. Hey, Trump's the fascist, right? One little problem: She seems to be advocating the use of Hitler's ovens to do in the MAGA folks. Is that projection much? For those in Rio Linda, projection is accusing others of what you do yourself.
All the stupidity is coming from SOMEWHERE, now isn't it? Seems to be coming from the AWFL's. This particular one in North Carolina got herself in a little trouble with her party. It just won't do to be too obvious about your stupidity. By the way, Hitler was a man of the left because he used their own language. Do these idiots even know what they are talking about with this fascism accusation? Or are they just stupid? Either way, it is bad.
6/8/26:
A thought: Guilt-tripping is suicidal empathy? Update: Probably not. Continue:Most folks know about white guilt. It was spoken of during the Obama campaign in 2008. "White folks are so bad that they cannot be allowed to exist"--I've seen something like that on the web.
I can figure non-whites getting into that kind of hate-mode. But why would white people do it, or allow themselves to be brainwashed into it?
Maybe because they think it makes them good people. They're not good. They're stupid.
Never underestimate the power of stupid.
Ah, yes! Never say never unless it is a rule.
Updated on 4/28/23; Originally posted on Dec 14th, 2010
There is a girl from Germany who posts on YouTube. She talked about Adolf Hitler and World War II. When she got to the history of the event, she said something that reminded me of all the guilt tripping that has been laid upon the West. This is communist inspired, I suspect.
As usual, the left doesn't care about the Holocaust. They just want to use it as a political device that can gain them more power. Once you recognize this tactic, you may be able to start counter-acting it. Without any counter, you are totally defenseless against it.
There was a video posted here about how Hitler overthrew the Weimar Republic. The same kind of tactics are being employed today, which is quite an irony. The left wants to impose guilt so that they can get you to disarm yourselves, and become completely subjugated to their will. Hitler disarmed all Germans, it should be noted. Hitler had his Brownshirts. Hitler used his Brownshirts to quell opposition. At the end of the Weimar Republic, Hitler's Nazi Party was declared as the only legal party in Germany. As a coup de grace, Hitler had all allegiance sworn to him PERSONALLY.
Hitler's Brownshirts were led by a notorious homosexual, Ernst Roehm. When Roehm was no longer useful to him, he had Roehm liquidated. A Christian would not have done that. The commies have the homosexuals believing that Hitler was a Christian, and that Christians would have all homosexuals sent to the concentration camps and gassed. All fascists must be Christians, so all Christians are super guilty because they caused Hitler to come to power. Or so it goes.
Germany was put through a huge, huge guilt trip. That has spread all over the West. We are constantly reminded of the past, and how the West colonized the world. The West was responsible for slavery and degradation of the environment. You get the picture. All of this inspires GUILT. Guilt must be expiated somehow. What better way for an enemy to destroy you than to get you to blame all evil on your own existence? Then you commit suicide, as this is the only way to bring justice for all the harm you allegedly did. This is what is happening to the West. The West is characterized as evil, and the only justice is for it to be eradicated.
The appropriate way to address what Hitler did was not to go on some super duper guilt trip. It is to rationally deduce what went wrong, and to correct it so that it won't happen again. Evidently, that isn't happening, for many of the same things that brought down the Weimar Republic are happening right here in the USA this very day.
The US Supreme Court had the chance to address the issue of oaths of office in the elections controversy. They refused the case. If this was addressed, then the oath of office would be treated seriously, which it is not. If it is not treated seriously, then what prevents a private oath of loyalty, such as the one to Adolf Hitler, from being made? The Supreme Court failed us. If there is no importance to the oath, then what inspires loyalty to the document? Anything at all? If there's no loyalty to the founding document, then what is going to preserve it? This could explain the rapidly deteriorating civil liberties that is found in the USA today. If the oath is not preserved, then what preserves the right to vote, the right to free speech and association, and the rest of the Bill of Rights?
The political left has gotten a lot of political mileage out of the guilt tripping. These people make it a religion to feel so guilty. They feel holier than thou when they feel so guilty. But they solve nothing that caused what happened in Germany in the Third Reich. The errors that brought the Nazis to power are being repeated this very day. American democracy and freedom will not be preserved, because that is the Big Lie. The Big Lie is what the Nazis liked to employ, and that is being repeated here as well. The Big Lie is that the left cares about Democracy and Freedom. They only seek to use these words as a means to power. This is what they care about.
Wake up America.
original post
Aaron Sorkin has joined in the kick Palin chorus. It's the old emotional manipulation of laying out the old guilt trip. Sorkin wants Palin to feel ultra guilty.
Sorkin was furious that the documentary showed Palin hunting and killing a caribou. Although she made it clear that she intended to eat the animal, according to Sorkin, she had committed an act of murder and torture.Notice how it has to be justified on the grounds that the animal had to be eaten in order for this to be acceptable. But even that justification isn't even acceptable to Sorkin, who wants to push vegetarianism, if one is to take this to it logical conclusion.
Why does Palin have to justify herself to Sorkin? Why should Palin have to justify herself in hunting caribou for whatever reason? Who cares what Sorkin thinks? Evidently, there are those who do. Hence, the technique is used because it works.
The left can use this tactic in order to manipulate others. It only works if you accept their moral authority. But who gives Sorkin or any others like him the moral authority? Question their authority, I say. They don't have any unless you recognize it.
Here is an previous example that I posted on this phenomenon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)