Your Guide To University Of Cincinnati: Chief Diversity Officer Candidates

1) Sabrina Gentlewarrior: Misandrist lesbian with a ridiculous made-up changed name. Spent the last decade as a sexual examiner, acting out her hatred of men by accusing random guys of rape while getting her jollies by fondling women's privates. Her keystone work is "Transgender Survivors of Sexual Violence".

2) Cheryl Nunez: La Raza Feminist with a massive inferiority complex who graduated Harvard 30 years ago yet has no documented work experience other than six months at Xavier. Likes to deliver speeches about how she thinks women earn less than men for the same work (the reverse is true) because she's upset she's too stupid, lazy and ugly to pull down the six-digit salary she thinks she's entitled to.

3) Keith Borders: Do-nothing who washed out of the DOJ, washed out of Macys, then spent the next 20 years playing politics and spouting buzzwords at the notoriously dysfunctional Sears chain.

4) Bleuzette Marshall: Another misandrist lesbian with a ridiculous made-up changed name. Spent 10 years whoring herself out for UC donations. Now bitches that women are persecuted by society because she has nothing else to bring to the table but her body.

How Feminism Caused The Rise Of Nazism

Some time ago I promised to explain this contention of mine. And today - here you go. I invite the harshest criticism of my thesis. Challenge me on any and all claims.

Feminists offer a lot of different explanations for the origin and purpose of their ideology, all of them wrong. There is, however, a correct answer: Feminism found its origins in World War I.

Proto-Feminists had existed before the war - since the beginning of time, really - but they always were (and in their institutional state today, still are) unnatural perverts and malcontents who hate women, men, children, and society - prime examples being the ominous seamstresses in "A Tale of Two Cities", or historical figures like Jiang Qing or Theodora - crazy women driven by nihilistic rage. It was the turbulence of World War I and the succeeding triumph of the social and moral aberration that is Capitalism that allowed Feminism to finally get a foothold in society.

Something like eight million Western European men died in the Great War. Many times that number were crippled, lost a limb, or had what we would now call very extreme PTSD. Because of this, they could not hold jobs, marry, or be family men.

In the world of the early 20th century, marriage was an institution equated with social legitimacy, for both men and women. To be unmarried was to not be socially respectable. World War I created a massive deficit in the supply of men, and as a result, tens of millions of European women found themselves shut out of respectable society.

There was another serious consequence. Women, like men, really like having sex. In the society of the time, people were expected to be monogamous for life. But due to the shortage of eligible men, tens of millions of European women were also being told they could never have sex. Ever.

Faced with this impossible situation, countless women simply said, "No social respectability, AND no cock? Well... Well... SCREW YOU!!!" And so began the drug- and alcohol- infused Roaring Twenties. Remember that the war disproportionately claimed the lives of those fit to fight: able-bodied, law-abiding members of mainstream society. Those unclaimed, were disproportionately the physically or mentally infirm, the disreputable, the socially abberrant. So due to the shortage of cocks, during the 20s, the same few cocks had to fit many more vaginas. Women, disaffected.with the impossible demands of society, got knocked up by criminals, lowlives and even homeless people.

Drugs are mostly illegal today, but they are also known variables. Weed or meth or cocaine or whatnot are not strange or mysterious to us; we know what they are and what they do, whether we do them or think they should be legal or not. In the 20s, however, drugs flooded into a society completely unaccustomed to them. The result was madness.

Because all the men were dead, crippled or insane, women flooded into the workplace. The rise of American capital and the crushing cost of the war to infrastructure further depressed the economy and reduced the number of available jobs. With the flood of women into a much reduced job market, countless men found themselves unable to get work.

Into this crazy, chaotic world of women coming home knocked up by homeless people, hordes of demented men who knew how to do nothing but kill, unemployed masses and the looming power of the overpowered American economy - with tremendous natural resources, unfettered by the costs of war - churning out vast quantities of goods far more cheaply than Europe could hope to (much like contemporary China) - into this, stepped Adolf Hitler.

The rise of Hitler is widely misunderstood. It had almost nothing to do with anti-Semitism or poverty, conditions that had been widespread in Germany at various times. About a hundred thousand Germans had starved to death during the war and even after - the embargo against Germany was not lifted until 1920.

What ultimately was decisive in Hitler's rise to power was the profound social chaos of 1920s Germany. Britain and France suffered similar problems, largely overlooked in the shadow of Hitler. But they also had far greater resources to deal with them, and had not lost nearly so many men in the war.

We must understand the enormous impact of a specific bias in the historical record here. Sex and how it affects human motivations is fundamental to the human condition, but the people of the time had absolutely no socially appropriate way of describing its impact on them as individuals or as a society. There just wasnt the means to come out and talk about what i just described...so the dialogue was about other things, never mind the 800kg gorilla in the room - sex-driven social chaos.

This is why this thesis of mine has no place in the historical record - proof being that in fact there is very little talk of any kind about the actual social conditions or sex lives of interbellum Westerners.

A key element of the Fascist and Nazi platforms largely overlooked by historians was the demand for traditional gender roles. Both the Fascists and Nazis actively forced women out of the workplace, and back into the home.

It is too easy to conflate this with Nazi atrocities such as the Holocaust and world domination. To be bigoted is to refuse to understand - what must be understood here are the social conditions that drove these policies, and also, that the policies were largely successful in fixing the problems. Men had jobs, women were safe, and children were cared for.

And so it was there was never a Nazi Rosie the Riveter - women never entered the Nazi workforce for these ideological reasons, even though having men and not women work kept those men off the front, to the detriment of the Nazi war effort. The very few exceptions - Leni Riefenstahl and Hanna Reitsch - served to prove the rule; both had grossly abnormal sex lives and seemed to direct their sexual affection onto the regime or Hitler personally.

Anyway, after the war, Europe and America settled on different answers to the question of labor and sex that had been up in the air since the start of the century. Europe developed democratic socialism, defusing the gender conflict by externalizing the cost of unemployment and child-rearing to the state. A decent compromise.

In postwar America, however, tremendous wealth flowed into the economy, from exports to Europe, the strong dollar, and the exploitation of the former colonies. At the same time, automation put huge numbers of men out of work. America became a nation run by the free market like never before, with the control valves - the power of labor and scarcity of capital - removed.

This undermined the man's role of breadwinner and gradually forced women into the workplace to ensure positive cash flow and the ability to compete with the spending power of two-wage households.

Women, however, are physically weaker, less aggressive, and less technically oriented than men. In an atomized, everyone-for-themselves society - and the vacillation of the male breadwinner with the end of monogamy and mass automation - women were forced head-to-head against men.

The founders of the feminist movement were sick people - mostly petty criminals and "alley cats" - mentally ill women too crazy, too histrionic, too out-of-control to survive in mainstream society. Like street thugs, they lived in packs and resolved their differences through catfighting. Many of the mores and institutions of feminism today can be directly traced back to women's prisons. Women's prisons today are still strongholds of lesbianism; women who are inclined to become bona fide lesbians are invariably people basically hostile to civil society.

They were also all white. The feminists were, and are, overwhelmingly white, middle-class Anglo-American, because the reality is that the most fundamental social divisor is not gender, but economic class, followed by race/nationality, followed by physical/mental/emotional strength, and then, possibly, by gender. It is so, and it has always been so. A rich woman has infinitely more power than a poor man, even if the fortune is in her husband's name. A white woman has more power than a black man. A smart, or educated, or strong, or attractive, or pious, or willful woman, has more power and credibility, is more employable, than a man lacking in those qualities.

So feminists claimed to speak for all women. But really they spoke for only a very few: Anglo-American white women from middle-class backgrounds, unwilling to accept the lot in life of a poor or black woman or man. Only a small minority of English-speaming women, and probably not even 1% of women worldwide.

After failed attempts at making waves through terrorist attacks (blowing up shoe stores) and pseudo-Marxism, in the late 60s the feminists hit on the idea of enlisting more white women in the service of their cause by way of a simple stratagem:

They would promise white women the moon.

Feminists voted themselves into academia and systematically spun a web of lies about oppression of women, with one target audience: other, more mainstream, white middle class Anglo-American women who wanted more stuff in life. They created a perverse system of incentives to enrich themselves through the destruction of men, through "family law", harassment/discrimination suits, breast cancer research (a giant moneymaking scam) and various forms of rackeetering involving "consulting services".

Planned Parenthood makes headlines for "killing babies", but the true dark secret of the organization and many like it is that its spending on medical care versus administration and publicity is worse than any other public or private medical service provider. Planned Parenthood doesnt make its money by killing babies, it does it by billing governments and individuals outrageous fees for services then pocketing most of it. This can be easily verified by browsing PP's financial statements, which, per US law, are in the public domain.

Feminism is what it has always been: a sort of cult with a few "in the know" hardcore constituents and a wider cadre of individuals somehow sucked into the movement by way of its sales of moon pie. It is a scam that will come undone as it loses credibility and its inability to construct a viable social model becomes apparent.

I lay the blame for this not on women, but on the evil that is Capitalism, how it forces people and classes into conflict rather than cooperation and degrades man to an economic object rather than a moral being. Feminism is a pillar of capitalism, feeding on the blood money of fiat dollars and Chinese imports, to keep the corrupt and evil system going through patronage.

Feminists like to claim that women have skyrocketing rates of employment in business and law because women are "empowered". In reality, the truth is the opposite. Institutions today prefer to hire women because they are easily controlled. A fundamental difference between men and women is that the male world view is fundamentally cosmic while the female world view is fundamentally social.

Men compare themselves against everything and anything, ("because it is there"), while women define themselves through the social matrix. This is also why women instinctively resort to the insult "creepy" - it is a denial of that which they most prize, social legitimacy. It is also for this reason that there have been only a few female scientists and leaders - and absolutely no female philosophers or explorers. (Ayn Rand and Sacajawea are the exceptions that prove the rule).

And it is for this reason, our Capitalist status quo finds as its most ardent defenders those who build their entire reality around whatever the status quo may be. Feminism, in the final analysis, is properly understood as the ultimate front for Capitalist tyranny.

Why The World Wars Were Really England's Fault - And Why It Matters Today

Most people today perceive the World Wars as Germany's fault, identifying the wars as precipitated by the arrogant, blustering Wilhelm II's use of an unrelated issue to justify an invasion of Belgium. Most people today are still stuck in the Anglo-American biases that are also the cause of most of the world's present problems, and fail to consider the broader scope of history.

For most of its history, England has been a poor, backward country, largely irrelevant to continental Europe and all but unknown to the rest of the world. While continental Europeans were doing amazing things, from building cathedrals and aqueducts to inventing sheet music, chivalry, philosophy and science, the British got pretty much nothing done (besides inventing calculus, and that only because a genius happened to be born to a wealthy family). It is worth noting that although the British frequently made a point of meddling in continental affairs - the Spanish/Dutch Wars, the Hundred Years' War, the Crusades, the Napoleonic Wars - Europe, for the most part, left England alone.

The story of England, like every culture, is contained in its epics: Robin Hood, Shakespeare, Milton. The basic theme of all those epics, and is really what British culture is all about, is England's stifling class system. The wealthy aristocracy has a stranglehold on England, its economy and society, and everyone else struggles to get by.

The reality described in Robin Hood really hasn't changed a thousand years later, except that Sherwood Forest was cut down to make furniture and pirate ships. Milton and Shakespeare were brilliant writers, but the themes they wrote about were the only song the British know: plodding obeisance to the unquestioned wisdom of the status quo (Henry VIII, Caesar, or God). Even writers like Hobbes or Locke or More or Smith don't really offer any brilliant insight into human existence the way continental writers do - there is no real philosophy there. Smith and Hobbes justify the way things are (the "market mythos"), and Locke and More wish the "how things are" just happened to be perfect. Orwell complains about the dangers of Communism, but he doesn't have any ideas either; his cliche observation that "the world would be decent if people were decent," is nothing more than "bah humbug" by other means.

Again, that's not to say that any or all of those writers didn't have brilliant insights or were geniuses in their own right. It's simply a fact that a culture's destiny lies with its values, and for the British, their values have always been positively banal.

England finally began to become relevant and powerful in the 18th century, due to two things: the invention of more effective sailing ships, and the Industrial Revolution. Both were ultimately products of England's class system: the wealthy investing in a new way of extracting more wealth from an impoverished people and exhausted land, and new ways of importing wealth and exporting poverty.

While England polluted its land and enslaved or exported its own people to further enrich the aristocracy, France and Germany solved their problems, or at least made a passable attempt to deal with them, through revolution - questioning "the way things are" - or through further refinements to the aristocratic system, demanding discipline and service to society from the privileged few, and granting a significant degree of meritocracy and improvement in living standards for the many.

Calgacus (who was British) might have well been describing his descendants' empire when he said:

"...the yet more terrible Romans, from whose oppression escape is vainly sought by obedience and submission. Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace..."

Such was the story of the British Empire. Through violence and skullduggery, the British robbed India, Ireland and Egypt of their wealth, and flooded America and Australia with their starving millions. England, like present-day Mexico, preferred to export the problems it refused to solve.

So what does this have to do with the World Wars?

The answer is really quite simple. One cannot build an empire on racism, violence and exploitation, then deny others the right to do the same.

England's entire quarrel with Germany, was that the Germans dared try on the British, what the British had done to the rest of the world. So it was that Gandhi made his glib remark that he didn't think Hitler "was as bad as they say": what's it to the enslaved Indian that the butcher of countless Native Americans and Irish should now find a bully a few pounds heavier than him?

So what does it matter to us today? The British Empire is gone, the World Wars are long over, so why should we care who enslaved who?

The reason we should care, why it matters to understand the dysfunctional nature of British society and how their problems were exported on such a scope that they ultimately engulfed the whole world in war, is that those basic problems are still with us today.

The British Empire is gone. No longer able to survive by exploiting the rest of the world, England is gradually going back to being what it has always been: a poor, backward country, looking jealously across the Channel. Meanwhile, France, Germany and the rest of continental Europe are gradually working their problems out. No shortage of grief along the way; yet slowly and surely, Europe is on course for "Anywhere But Here".

This is also why although the British Empire is gone, England insists on sticking to the Pound Sterling instead of adopting the Euro: because the pound-based financial architecture, the inefficiency and barriers to commerce it creates, along with powerful domestic institutions, is the once and future stronghold of the British aristocracy.

Nothing has changed since the days of Mary Poppins. The British aristocracy knows that if England joins the Euro, their control over the country will broken by influxes of capital from more efficient economies on the continent, buying up their factories, their estates, the talents of the British people. With nothing to offer their country or the world at large, the British aristocracy will sink to the level of everyone else. And yet the British people remain lost in their own banal jingoism, so the class system, an albatross around the windpipe of the British people, will ensure for yet another generation.

The difference - the big difference, that makes all the world of difference - between the continental Europeans, and the British, that is the basis of England's stagnant class society, three-party government, and jingoistic outlook, and continental Europe's multiparty parliaments, socialist societies, and the founding of the EU, is the unwillingness of British and willingness of Europeans to turn "how things are" into "how they should be". It is a fundamental difference in attitudes & values - the fork in the road to destiny.

We Americans should care, because, 300 years ago, we landed on what was a virgin continent, brought Anglo-American civilization with us, and now we are well on our way to recreating England and all its problems here. Same tired old story; class divisions emerge, exhausting natural resources, foreign wars to enrich the wealthy, refusal to invest in the land or the people, the steady downhill spiral into third-world status that is the historically and mathematically guaranteed natural outcome of the Anglo-American outlook on life.

There is no difference at all between American poor white trash or ghetto blacks, or British degenerates hanging out on Dole St., dressed in ridiculous clothes, barely able to form a sentence, keeping themselves amused with hoodlumery and unprotected sex. Both are the natural end result of a society that refuses to invest in itself. If you have seen one, you have seen the other. It is that simple.

Britons and Americans react in the same ways to the same spectacle: Social Security and the dole; "bah humbug", and similarly dismissive American remarks; complaining everything would be well if they would just be willing to "work hard", as if the world's wealth is wanting for hard work.

Although it is not obvious, this is also why Feminism is a uniquely Anglo-American phenomenon. While other cultures have more or less "gotten over" Feminism - achieved female enfranchisement without political intrusion into daily life - radical Feminism maintains its singular hold on Anglo-American societies. Not for nothing was Germaine Greer Australian.

Feminism is a sibling ideology of Libertarianism and the direct lineal descendant of Capitalism. The common element to this ideological gens, is Anglo-American society's stubborn efforts to treat human beings as individual economic units, who should live their lives in service to their economic needs and themselves, rather than natural creatures who depend on each other and social conditions to ensure their well-being.

It is that STUBBORN REFUSAL to re-examine the flawed premise at the root of Anglo-American society - that humans are individual economic units who should be looking out for themselves; and that the best thing is slavish acceptance of the status quo - that is the basic cause of both the failure of British and American society, and the rise of Feminism.

As Hobbes observed, human beings will not accept a world at odds with their nature; and since Anglo-Americans will not accept socialist policies or fundamental re-examination of society, Feminism and Imperialism split the difference - offer flawed compromises to preserve those things that cannot be done without, the profit motive, and the protection of women & children.

Bismarck (and later FDR, who is tolerated in American history only because of WW2) defeated Communism by yanking the carpet out from under its feet. Ideologies of evil, like Communism, Feminism, Nazism and Imperialism, always, always, draw their vitality, their legitimacy, from unaddressed social ills. (It is worth noting that an oft-overlooked historical fact, is that Feminism, and not World War I or anti-Semitism, was the true cause of the rise of Nazism - this will be explained in greater depth later).

The message I wish to leave readers with is this: The only way forward for America (and England, "as if"), is to evolve our society and its underlying values beyond its present limitations. Americans must reject their deterministic view of life and society and adopt an "in it together" mentality.

I use phrases like "society investing in itself", or "in it together" a lot. What does that mean, in tangible terms? Does it mean tax the middle class then cut checks for corporate and poor welfare recipients? No. What I mean is, the planting of forests (to provide cheap raw materials, prevent flash flooding, retain groundwater, protect agriculture), building road and rail, nationalizing power, water, telecom and banks (basic utilities that don't need to be run efficiently, they just need to make their services available as inexpensively as possible so the secondary aspects of the economy, where enterprenurialism can wreak its magic, can thrive), and making medical care, meritocratic education, quality food and well-adjusted entertainment available cheaply.

The connection between free skate parks and free medical care and social mobility is not immediately obvious. To grasp the connection, one must observe poor degenerates, understand what makes them different from people who are capable of overcoming life.

More significant to a man than his body or mind, is his personality. What is common to people of a given culture, a given social class, is not their strength or skill or intelligence, but their confidence, their outlook on life. The cause of both crime and enterpreneurialism is a sense, or absence, of social enfranchisement. The thing one notices most about criminals - or people who live in high crime areas - is that crime is not seen as socially stigmatic. This is the natural and logical result of man's social character - the flip side of the Hobbesian coin. The perception of society as guarantor of health, safety, security, and sociability, itself defeats crime, by establishing criminal acts as "against the grain". This perception is not created by police presence, or by welfare (although they can blunt outpourings of mass rage, at least in the short run), but by social institutions. Hence the necessity of entertainment, healthcare and meritocracy to reform the minds of the people - to change the culture - and in doing so, guarantee national prosperity.

I again make reference to observation of degenerates who are not criminal. Poor people are typically physically ugly because they do not get proper medical care, and they suffer from preventable diseases and tooth decay. How this affects humans is best understood by observation of other animals, such as rats and dogs. Animals that have had a raw existence can never be socialized or domesticated, because as with humans, physical condition has a profound impact on psychodynamics. Creatures that have spent their lives perceiving the world as adversarial, can never break out of the "ghetto mentality". The bromide of the "Prince and the Pauper" still applies.

Going back to my observations about the nature of Anglo-American society, it is for this reason that Americans are unable to solve the riddle of "what exactly it means to be Middle Class" in this country. What being Middle Class in America truly means, is a series of social mores and expectations that are dependent on certain social conditions. Because of the continued economic and social degeneration of this country, those conditions - security, stability, ease of life, personal freedom, etc - are unstable, and hence our descent into mass poverty, White suburbia giving way to White favelas.

And that is why, for America to prosper, to overcome its "test of a culture", the lesson contained in my initial observation - why the World Wars were really England's fault - must be internalized.

I really hope someone bothered to read this =P who cares I like to write...

On Feminazism - And Why Feminism Is Doomed

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/rebellious-new-feminism-returns-to-german-social-discourse-a-904100.html

The article broaches two elements of Feminism (in America, where Feminism has been much more successful in changing society for the worse, it is disparagingly referred to as "Feminazism") which betray the true nature of the movement.

First, the observation that Feminists are typically college-educated. This is a half-truth.

Although Feminists tend to be college-educated, they invariably specialize in the softest of soft majors. In America they have even invented the field of "women's studies", then demanded subsidies and salary equalization legislation (the "sue everybody" bill) when the major proved so abtruse and so irrelevant that those who pursued it proved unemployable.

Feminist academics are invariably ignorant individuals with slovenly mental habits. The remarkable resemblance between the debate style of Feminists and the debate style of Adolf Hitler is what has earned them their appellation as "Feminazis" (and no, this is not a "Godwin", because the comparison is relevant).

Like the historical Nazis, the Feminists are apt to rely on the methods of repeating the same lies again and again until even otherwise reasonable people are prepared to accept they are at least partially true; using the mantle of victimhood to justify victimizing others; relying on emotion, shock value and mass mobilization over intellectual sophistication; an intense and unequivocal hostility towards family, business, religion, and anything and everything that exists outside the movement; the creation of an entire pseudoscience of bigotry; and the belief that critical thinking is an ideological contaminant (because only through unadulterated emotion can ideological purity can be achieved).

One of the more ominous patterns that "Feminazis" have in common with the historical Nazis is the efforts of ideologically minded individuals to usurp the mantle of academic prowess in fields they are not qualified of. I remember in college I encountered a Feminist who presumed to claim a doctorate in Classical Studies, lectured to an audience of 200 undergraduates about the Spartans (a supposedly more gender-correct society, which actually isn't true since the apex of Spartan society was military service which was by definition exclusive to men) then left them breathless when she was revealed ignorant of the "helots".

Second, the topic of racism and Feminism.

Race is obviously a much more problematic issue in America than Germany, and I would like to point out to our German friends that (without taking occasion to blame the German nation for the atrocity that was the Holocaust - I personally am Jewish) we Americans haven't taken occasion to conveniently remove the problem for future generations by eradicating our unpopular ethnic minorities. The point is, race is an ongoing issue in American society, which, like every society, is a work in progress; therefore, Germans should be well to consider American experiences instructive and not merely testament to the barbarism that is American society.

Anyway, American Feminists are invariably White, and almost always of Protestant descent. (Many Feminazis pretend to be Jewish, as their modus operandi is to associate themselves with legitimately persecuted groups, seek legitimacy in the social strata they claim to disdain, and to appeal to the Protestant perception of Jews as intellectually superior - the classic behaviors of the chronically insecure). This is so for a very simple reason. No Black American woman would seriously believe that her gender is more of a social handicap than her race. The Feminist movement is a White women's movement, a way for the serially over-privileged to continue to claim privilege over other groups in society.

The Feminazis talk about race. But all it is, is lip service. They have absolutely no interest in correcting racial issues in society, only in allying with other politically minded groups to persecute White males (who are by now an extreme minority in American society and the only group it is legal to discriminate against without legal repercussions). This evil policy has not managed to close the race/gender gap, or even narrow it - it has widened it - because it does not resolve the underlying problems, lack of access to education and life progression.

What Feminazism has instead created is women like those seen in the picture in the article. Confused, angry, hormonal women who are very much cut from the same cloth as the confused, angry young men who felt their masculinity flattered by historical Nazism 80 years ago.

Perhaps the most poignant parallel between historical Nazism and Feminazism is what happens to the loyal-unto-death after "the party is over". They become old, burned-out individuals who spend the remainder of their lives as grifters and pensioners, alone and forgotten amidst a world that has moved on.

Women who were like these individuals back in the 60s (and never learned to hold a job, keep house, or wash their hair) can still be seen at bars, lesbian cafes, flea markets, and drug alleys - the slag heaps of society.

Perhaps that is the greatest evil perpetrated by Feminism. Dooming these young women to that bleak future.

Why Misha Collins and George Takei Are Human Shit

Many people adore Collins and Takei, but do not understand them. They look at the (always popular) causes they support, but they refuse to see what they are really doing and why.

Let's get one thing straight about George Takei. He's not a good actor. He's not even a good actor in the sense that DiCaprio or Reeves were - they could do ennui, the emotional lacuna, staring at the camera with jaw slack and a vacant look on their face.

Absolutely no one would pay to look at Takei, because Takei is a flatly bad actor. So Takei's entire career has been being a minor supporting character on classic Trek, half a century ago, and since then, doing the occasional Troy McClure-style has-been Hollywood bits.

Takei's incompetence at acting is perhaps most noticeable in his appearance in Command & Conquer 3, as the Emperor of the Rising Sun. The antagonists of previous C&C games - Anton Slavik (Frank Zagarino) and Alex Romanov (Nicholas Worth) - were played by actors who had great emotional depth and variety.

As Slavik, Zagarino could appear by turns fierce and determined, surprised and hopeful, fearful and depressed, obsequious and subservient. His actions, from shooting people to delivering speeches to simple dialogue with the other characters, were dealt with just the appropriate inflection and facial movement that imparted pathos and suspense into his every move, made him amazing to just watch. This is the same gift for subtlety that makes Reeves, who is otherwise an unremarkable actor, fun to watch.

Romanov, unlike Slavik, was a comic villain. Yet Worth, again, demonstrated great emotional diversity and spontaneity that made him fun to watch. A good actor is never boring to watch - his every gesture brims with pathos, with suspense, keeps the viewer on seat's edge.

Takei has none of that charm. Takei is a one-trick pony. Takei does the super-stoic overaffected Asian dude thing, which itself is a superficial and tasteless appeal to racist caricatures, and he does it badly. Everything Takei says and does, he does with the same inflection, same word pacing, same over-affected facial immobility that makes him dreadful to watch. When a viewer watches Takei, the first thing he can think is "get the hell off the screen" - and even in his best moments, e.g., Star Trek VI, that is the role he is cast in, a bunch of eight-second intermissions (mostly telling people to go away). This is also why the "You Are A Total Asshole" clip of Takei has its appeal; Takei is good at nothing so much as driving viewers away.

As the Rising Sun Emperor, Takei could only affect facial immobility, pseudopathos, grating false bravado and a very bad impression of a Japanese accent that betrayed only Takei's total reliance on White racism and not any insight he possessed into the Japanese culture for his presentation as a Japanese. Perhaps most importantly, he lacked what the Japanese call "tsundere" - the shadow of the "stoic Asian" archetype, the ability of a stoic and unapproachable character to reveal depth of character. Even in scenes that seemed to call for it, Takei proved incapable of breaking his monotone, making the slight grimaces and eyeblinks that are the magic of a skilled actor.

There is Star Trek: Shattered Universe, an obscure PS2 game featuring Sulu as the main character. The game's cutscenes are poorly scripted but even more dreadfully narrated. The cutscenes seem to drag; through the ups and downs of the plot, Takei never breaks his monotone. Compare the quality of the cutscenes and narration to, say, Starfleet Command I: even the tutorials are interesting because the narrators have good inflection. Even the Romulan tutorial, narrated in the stereotypical super-stoic Romanesque style, entertains the listener.

The latter comparison, though, touches on what is Takei's real weakness. A Hollywood-grade thespian must have not only excellent acting skills, but also a willingness to work with the director and stage manager, to critique plots and casting, and to alter the script to fit his skills. This is a skill that both Shatner and Stewart had in abundance - almost all episodes of OS/TNG deviate substantially from the final script, because the actors would say, "I don't like this, it's awkward", or "I have a better idea". This is perhaps best demonstrated in the dialogue between Picard and Sarek in "Unification", a powerful scene that is substantially different on screen than in the script.

And this is also why Takei has what Shatner (who is, admittedly, both an uxoricide and a self-centered douchebag) described as a "psychosis" regarding his person. Takei is psychotically jealous of not only Shatner's skills and prestige, but also his assertiveness on the stage that is necessary to turn otherwise unremarkable productions into memorable entertainment. Original Trek was tedious and poorly written, and whatever else may be said of it, Shatner was the only reason anyone could stand to watch it.

For half a century, Takei held a pathological grudge against Shatner - snubbing him at reunions, making public statements about perceived slights, complaining that the talents and personhood of the star of the show were a particular affront to one of several dozen supporting actors, that is to say, George Takei.

All of which brought Takei to the GLBT movement. Takei says he's gay, he's been in a relationship for 18 years. Maybe. By that estimate, however, Takei began the relationship in 1995, when he was already 58 years old and the GLBT movement was well "over the hump", the movement had broad support and being gay was not only accepted but even seen as trendy.

Trek's flirtation with the GLBT movement began before Roddenberry died, with the rather unremarkable TNG episode "The Outcast", an allegory about homosexuals' desire for freedom of lifestyle. Through TNG, at least half a dozen TOS stars were given guest appearances at their request, but Takei made no such request to appear in "Outcast", demanding to be the main character for a movie or series of his own -hence "Shattered Universe".

Gay or otherwise, gay advocacy was never Takei's interest - only self-promotion.

The gay rights' movement achieved its legitimate aims in the 90s, but the radical GLBT crowd, which wasn't, hasn't ever been, interested in real equality, began to exert its influence on the franchise via crypto-feminists like Jeri Taylor, who began to ascend in the franchise after she wrote an episode, "Suddenly Human", about the divorce industry. The episode was written before Roddenberry died, and its script is a contrived, bizarre mix of pro-family values and stereotyped misandry. Tellingly, the episode itself is not even considered one of the worst, but most forgotten.

It was Taylor who contrived the character of Ro Laren (Michelle Forbes), whom Taylor conceived as a misandrist lesbian butch, but was softened into a troubled young woman seeking to find her place in the world, and actually turned out to be one of the most well-balanced and compelling characters in the series. Ro was to be a main character in DS9, and with Roddenberry dead and the power struggle at Paramount over, Taylor intended to remake the character closer to her initial notions, but Forbes refused to play the character as Taylor intended it and left the franchise.

So Kira Nerys' (Nana Visitor) character was conceived. Kira was the character Taylor wanted - a misandrist butch whose stock MO was waving a pistol around, shooting at walls, ranting and raving at nonplussed white males, and holding her hands akimbo while doing her best to puff out her torso and shoulders (to which padding was added in some early episodes) in a classic "womyn" pose (best example: DS9, "Shelter"). In classic feminist/GLBT style, Kira was consistently associated with motherhood, while never actually being a mother herself; a histrionic, confused woman who only appeared sexy for the purpose of deceit and never out of actual desire, a schizoid icebox the rest of the time. And of course every woman in her field of vision was a natural victim.

Kira the Butch was such a repulsive character it nearly killed DS9 before the first season was out; so once more pressure came in on Taylor to moderate her misandry. So Kira the Butch became Kira the Tuff Girl - a swooning heterosexual porcupine who beguiled stoic characters to confusion, and her life and career came to mirror Jeri Taylor's own self-image: delusions of violent oppression by arrogant males, finally bested and only by gaining the mantle of some naive higher authority not interested in her personal demons. Taylor went on to miswrite Voyager, which needs no mention here.

Through all this, Takei continued to occupy himself with his own non-career. Never interested in going to any trouble for anyone or anything but himself, the talentless, grasping, disgrunted has-been finally managed to ingratiate himself with a cast of similarly inept and disreputable and seek the attention he craved with the demagogical and piratically minded GLBT movement.

And Misha? Well. I'll get to him later. =)