Skip to comments.Why Conservatives Should Celebrate Hugh Hefner
Posted on 09/29/2017 10:19:27 AM PDT by drewh
He was the kind of person American conservatism seeks to enable the self-made man; the radical, pajama-clad individual; the author of his own destiny. And he idealized women as women, in a way the left no longer allows.
Ironically, when given the choice of going full-throttle into hard-core pornography, and creating the kind of content the market now demanded, or bowing to mainstream traditional standards that shunned nudity on supermarket shelves, Playboy made the more conservative choice. Even in the battle to survive commercially, there were lines Hugh Hefner would not cross. He thus took his place alongside the very conservatives he once mocked earlier.
That does not mean Hefner was a conservative. But Hefner personified the famous promise at the heart of the Declaration of Independence that this Republic would be devoted to the pursuit of Happiness. He pursued that ideal in an age when the left insisted on grievance and misery. He lived an eccentric life. But in the end, he gave up the thrill of girlfriends for the love of one wife. He challenged social conventions, but he also, perhaps despite himself, affirmed the eternal truth that women are women, and there are moral limits.
Hefners victory came with a loss namely, the institution that was Playboy itself. Our culture now rejects the ideal of feminine beauty that Playboy once promoted, regarding it as a form of oppression rather than liberation.
But that feminine ideal lives on not in the pages of Playboy, but in the imaginations of millions of quietly dissenting adults in the world Hefner helped create. However he is judged, Hefner changed us all.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
What the hell is up with Breitbart?
While I have some issues with Hefner it is also true feminists hate him therefore there are things that must be right about him...
He idealized certain aspects of women divorced from some aspects that are inseparable from aspects he claimed to idealize. For example, morning sickness.
[The Architects of Western Decline: A Study on the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism]psy·cho·sissīˈkōsəs/noun
- a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.
- [The Architects of Western Decline:
- A Study on the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism]
"According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages.The first stage being "demoralization". It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism.Most of the activity of the department [KGB] was to compile huge amount / volume of information, on individuals who were instrumental in creating public opinion. Publisher, editors, journalists, uh actors, educationalists, professors of political science. Members of parliament, representatives of business circles.Most of these people were divided roughly into two groups: those who would tow the Soviet foreign policy, they would be promoted to positions of power through media and public manipulation; [and] those who refuse the Soviet influence in their own country would be character assassinated OR executed physically, come Revolution. "--KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov--Soviet Subversion of the Free Press (Ideological subversion, Destabilization, CRISIS - and the KGB)
Anyone with rigor mortis lasting more than 4 hours needs medical assistance immediately, because of the risk of tissue damage which could cause permanent loss of potency.
Nope, of going to buy it. He started the hedonistic movement against women. He made his fortune using women.
Although Hugh Heffner was certainly a liberal or at least a liberal leaning libertarian, he was never afraid of open debate or of printing opposing views, he asked many conservatives, including William F. Buckley and Rush Limbaugh to write stories for Playboy. That puts him one step above the “shut down all opposing views” special snowflake liberals of today.
I don’t get this. We should be happy with Hefner because he didn’t go too far? Because his pornography was not the so called hard core?
Needs more barf alert.
[Nope, of going to buy it. He started the hedonistic movement against women. He made his fortune using women.]
Women weren’t forced to pose for the magazine. It was a choice they made. They weren’t “used”.
Many went on to lucrative modeling or acting careers.
Others crashed and burned on their own.
Hey, I understand “Why Libertarians Should Celebrate Hugh Hefner” —
People make choices. Women who want to model, men who want to look at stuff, people make choices. Some choices are bad. Some really sad situations can develop. “But I don’t care because I’m a Libertarian and I just want to do what I want to do.”
But the headline is “Why Conservatives Should Celebrate Hugh Hefner”. And there is absolutely, positively no reason for a Conservative to celebrate this man.
Why would be glamorous smut merchants?
That’s not a case of having the right enemies.
Sure, because casual sex, gay marriage, the drug culture, feminism, the abortion industry, the minority grievance culture, and basically any and all forms of hedonism have been such an improvement for America....
All of the above and more were endorsed and promoted by Hefner.
Hugh Hefner was in the vanguard of the left’s campaign against the American culture that existed before the Sixties. The Sixties won. The ‘Repressive’ America that had a residual though unofficial christian culture lost.
He was the kind of person American conservatism seeks to enable the self-made man; the radical, pajama-clad individual; the author of his own destiny. And he idealized women as women, in a way the left no longer allowsHorse-poop. He was exactly the thing that the left was about: destruction of the family by objectifying, hypersexualizing and dehumanizing women, and promoting sex outside marriage as well as implying that marriage is by definition sexless.
There is always collateral damage where freedom exist.
At the same time no one made anyone look at playboy.
And women, who posed naked, had a choice.
Would you please refute at least one of the first four reasons given?
If I get in trouble someday I want to hire the PR firm that wrote the talking points that were used by the author of this article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.