, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Shortly after the LA Clippers race ‘scandal’ hit the headlines; the television uber-personality Oprah Winfrey was quick to nominate herself as a qualified commentator.

“We’re not going back to the plantations.” She remarked to a waiting pack of reporters in her poorly ventilated, pre-op baritone voice, “Those days are over.”

Her comments were then duly reported across the world as if a whole new layer of meaning had been laid upon the story.

The comments under the article on the Daily Mail were dominated by the enquiry – Why?

Oprah Winfrey must be unique as a modern phenomenon. She is a billionaire, with uncountable books, television hours and celebrity connections to her name, and yet her renown and source of affection is limited entirely to her country of birth. No Englishman, Frenchman or (despite her laughable ‘tour’ down under) Australian has any regard for her whatsoever. Her success is an enigma; an American peculiarity – and the usual attempts at explaining it only seem to render it more foreign.

What distinguishes Winfrey from any other woman with the ability to read an autocue, expose straightened teeth and regurgitate ghost-written pleasantries?

In truth, Oprah is the longest-standing beneficiary of the racket of Affirmative Action. She has no disernable talent or charisma. Her personality is as multi-faceted as a plank of wood, and her physical appearance couldn’t be less photogenic. But none of this matters. She is clad in a suit of ebony privilege and arrived on the scene just as that privilege was beginning to grow in value. Now as it spikes, she is showered with more money that she knows what to do with.

This might be OK if Winfrey was merely vapid, but she isn’t. She is culturally damaging. The billionairess has built a well-earned reputation for being mentally shallow and ticklishly responsive to any passing trend, even to the point of self-contradiction. Through her talk show, she has endorsed just about every new philosophical or ‘spiritual’ fad under the sun, supplying each with the same rehearsed enthusiasm.

One could (as many do) dignify this tip-toed poise as open-mindedness. Didn’t Nietzsche remark that one’s thoughts should remain light and changeable and only tiredness lets them degenerate into convictions? Well yes, but he also had something to say about blindly following the herd.

Winfrey wastes no time in applying this malleable sense of loyalty to the field of politics. In her time, she has been friendly to both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. Only one aspect has remained constant, and that is her dedication to the theme of Black victimhood and the perennial nature of White guilt. Her jingoistic involvement in ethno-politics (like that mentioned above) is truly nauseating, as is her scumbag hypocrisy in amassing obscene wealth and preaching social justice.

Thankfully there are still some commentators with the balls to take issue with the Winfrey cult in public:

…But they are far from numerous.

The truth be told, I prefer America to my own country. I would gladly fight for America in a military conflict. But Winfrey gives me genuine cause for concern. Political correctness has sanded away the sharp edges of Europe. Affirmative Action has within it the same corrosive potential.