The Handmaid’s Tale series: a politically correct soap opera, subversive victimization porn, and electric brain cancer

Much like with The Stepford Wives, the Black Pilled channel hit another home run on their propaganda analysis.  This next one is called “Soap Operas that Wash Your Mind”.  The only thing the creator of these videos could be doing better is making it a little clearer in the titles what show is being picked apart.  This one is about The Handmaid’s Tale series.

A brief overview of The Handmaid’s Tale

Originally this began as a novel by Margaret Atwood.  It got a massive amount of publicity back in the day.  The literary establishment promoted the hell out of it, for the fairly obvious reason that it suited the ideological inclinations fashionable with publishers and critics.  I’m not saying it lacks artistic merits or is badly written.  What I am saying is that surely it helps that the book promotes certain narratives.

A movie was made of it too.  Hollywood spinoffs are one of the side benefits that come from being hugely popular with the literary establishment.  Lately the story was serialized and essentially became a soap opera.  These spinoffs are one of the ways the MSM can leverage their conglomerates to  signal-boost messages they like.

It’s no mystery why feminists ate it up like candy.  Basically, the plot happens in Gilead, a dystopian version of the future USA where the evil patriarchy is in control.  Their religious beliefs are even more extreme than the Westboro Baptist Church douchebags.  Basically, it’s an over-the-top exaggeration, though not too far from what lots of liberals think typical Christians actually believe.  They enslave the women because we men are a bunch of dicks.  The protagonist was shanghaied and turned into a concubine, which is a common and accepted practice in Gilead.

Why it misses the mark

Dystopias usually have an underlying premise.  What if all the wonderful feminist progress since the late 1960s got rolled back suddenly?  That seems to be what the theme is driving at.  The message is something like, “We’d better be vigilant and put a stop to the Religious Right.  People like Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority are dangerous.”  The book implies that if people like them get in charge, The Patriarchy will enslave the women and make them concubines.  That’s none too subtle, of course, though it’s not too different from what lots of radical feminists actually believe.

The problem with all that is that it’s too hard to take the premise seriously.  America in the 1950s certainly didn’t look like Gilead.  Neither would it be an accurate portrayal of society in the late 1860s, a time that actually was patriarchal and very devout, and a century before feminism started going full retard.  It’s not even a fair representation of the Middle Ages, at least in Western society.  Therefore, The Handmaid’s Tale is less plausible than The Hunger Games being an accurate prediction of the future.  America wouldn’t turn into Gilead even if Pat Robertson somehow became President – or dictator, for that matter.

All that seemed like an exercise in feminist scarum-shouting about fundamentalists.  Although I don’t regard Christianity as the only game in town – much less the Protestant evangelical version – I don’t have any particular quarrel with it.  I certainly don’t hate fundamentalists; most of them are nice people.  It’s possible to like someone even if you don’t agree with everything he or she believes.  I wish more liberals realized that.  Most of them are nice people too, but many were conditioned to believe that the rest of us are scary boogeymen.

Moreover, criticism of fundamentalism in practice isn’t always about religion.  Sometimes it’s more like a sneaky jab at cultural conservatism without bothering to try to refute it on its own terms.  This is just as putting down Christianity (more broadly) is often a proxy attack on Western civilization.  Things like that tend to set off the alarm bells with me.  I might add further that you don’t have to believe that the world was created 6000 years ago to realize that feminism was a disastrous social engineering project based on flawed utopian premises.

The maker of the following video about The Handmaid’s Tale noted that it actually was based on Islamic treatment of women.  This is a pretty good reason why it’s so unrecognizable in terms of Western society.  Then why didn’t Atwood depict a heartbreaking drama about a Muslim country where Quran-thumpers do the shit to women that they already do in the name of Sharia law?  Then the story would’ve been much more plausible.  However, as I noted in Deplorable Diatribes:

[M]odern feminism became a branch of critical theory, including its “academic discipline” of women’s studies. Consequentially, in practice it’s explicitly anti-Western, almost as much as it is anti-male. They criticize our own society bitterly and incessantly, but with comparatively few exceptions, they don’t have much to say about some truly dreadful things that happen to women routinely in many Third World countries. (It’s rather cruel that these downtrodden women abroad mostly are ignored by the activists who could help the most.) Western feminists actually could do a lot of good if they stopped complaining about “manspreading” and instead focused more than a token effort on real problems. However, that would mean admitting that First World women don’t have it so bad after all. Furthermore, calling out Third World societies would contradict their anti-Western agenda, which is more important to them than actual women’s liberation (in places where they actually need liberating). Therefore, their rhetoric is almost entirely pearl-clutching about their own First World problems.

Later I read Atwood’s Oryx and Crake.  That one is another dystopian novel, this time about almost-there biotech coming into fruition, vast stratification of wealth, global warming, and some generic New World Order tropes.  Actually, it’s a pretty decent leftist critique of globalism.  I’ll have to say she mostly was on point with that.  However, this doesn’t mean that Atwood has wandered off the plantation.  If only she had followed the cookie crumbs a little further, she might be pretty horrified by the globalist shmucks who call the tune in today’s progressivism.

After reading Oryx and Crake, I realized that this one was biting satire.  (I write that way too sometimes, though from a rightist perspective.)  So at that point, I realized that perhaps The Handmaid’s Tale had more to do with satire than presenting a plausible near-future scenario, though still unfortunately saturated with moldy Second Wave feminism.  The problem is that satire should be a caricature, rather than something so distorted that it’s unrecognizable.

The Handmaid’s Tale as a propaganda soap opera

I haven’t seen the series.  I could pirate it, but I’ll give that a miss.  The Black Pilled commentators did all the analysis.  So after my long-winded intro, here it is:

He said the “fast forward” button helped a lot.  The series is larded up with perspective shots and melodramatic music.  With filler like that, they can drag it out for a long time without taxing their screenwriters too much.  The soap opera formula is that it builds up to a weekly finale on Friday, and then throws in a cliffhanger microloop for next Monday to keep the vidiots watching.  Worse, it looks like the producers had the indoctrination dialed up to 11.

He recapped the first two episodes.  He begins with some meta-commentary, first about what kind of target audience this show has.  (For propaganda analysis, that’s a good point.)  Going into the details of the plot, the psychological associative conditioning shticks are pretty plain.  For a few examples:

  • If you’re concerned about declining fertility rates, then you’re an evil patriarchal right wing fundamentalist
  • If you don’t like birth control, then you’re an evil patriarchal right wing fundamentalist
  • If you don’t like abortion, then you’re an evil patriarchal right wing fundamentalist

One of the scenes showed an abortionist who had been hanged by the evil patriarchal right wing fundamentalist regime.  Other invitees to the necktie party were a priest (presumably Roman Catholic) and a gay guy.  Way subtle, right?  Fundamentalists want to hang heretics!

To digress a bit, what would happen if a reality TV show ever depicted what abortionists actually do, including a picture of the bloody bucket with the baby parts?  Every feminist who didn’t suffer from a mind-crippling case of cognitive dissonance would be crying uncontrollably and overcome with horror.  That’s why you’ll never see anything like that on the idiot box.

Other than that, the video describes the anti-White bias in the series.  It doesn’t state outright how that ties into the depopulation agenda, though the connection is pretty clear.  Indeed, this is what the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan is about.  At the 22 minute mark, he gets more specific about the target audience, and indicates that the show is geared to women of childbearing age, who are exactly the people they want to brainwash with the depopulation messages.  An interesting discussion follows about how the globalist establishment wants to manipulate the human genome to make people more docile, and this soap opera seems to be more agitprop geared to encouraging these trends.

That’s why they’re promoting lifestyles and mental disorders that result in fewer or no offspring from the groups they see as threats.

That’s a great one-sentence summary about the purpose of the degeneracy that’s been promoted for decades, especially aggressively for the last two.  It’s all about the social engineering.

Other than that, it isn’t too hard to read between the lines here, now is it?  Then the ones pushing this on everyone wonder why they’re so unpopular and keep getting blowback.  It doesn’t have to be that way – they should just stop doing that.

Interestingly, this depopulation agenda is almost exactly what the mad scientist character in Oryx and Crake does through genetic engineering.  He created a tribe of humans modified to be docile and clueless, and meanwhile he killed off the rest of the world with a plague.  However, surely it would take a major epiphany for Margaret Atwood herself to put together the pieces about how the globalists want to do fairly similar things to us for real.  Still, if she ever does wander off the plantation, then the literary establishment would never publish another one of her books.

Finally, the commentary has an excellent ending:

The Handmaid’s Tale is just this subversive-to-the-core victimization porn.  And quite frankly, if you have loved ones that are watching this electric brain cancer, this shouldn’t be tolerated.  You should just tell them no.  It’s time to be a man and start putting your foot down and being at least half as effective as the boogeymen that their propaganda makes us out to be.

Preach it, Brother!  Can I have an “Amen”?

The Handmaid’s Tale series: a politically correct soap opera, subversive victimization porn, and electric brain cancer

One thought on “The Handmaid’s Tale series: a politically correct soap opera, subversive victimization porn, and electric brain cancer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.