This week I discuss the phony nature of the new progressive soldiers like Sarkeesian, Deray, Ben Crump and most importantly Rachel Dolezal. Dolezal's work is not important, but a curious case of transracial fraud is. They are even more fraudulent than the prior generation. They have turned the job into a work of performance art.
Last week's SM post...
What do our elites have cooked up next for us, socially? With the victory of gay marriage, elites have wasted no time pushing ‘trans’ on the public. It’s much more difficult to pull off, mostly because of feminist pushback and the idea of ‘transracialism,’ which further exposes tensions inherent in transgenderism as a concept. The media has also spent the last year promoting still weirder stuff as Weimerica reaches new heights for insane tolerance drives. Those are far harder sells.
The next frontier will be the further destruction of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
It is a cliche (but completely true) that the family is the building block of society. It is the mechanism for transmitting culture, social norms, and group mores. This is why progressive education has changed from the norms of yesteryear that focused on facts and figures and moved towards socialization and group programming. The goal is to separate the child from their family’s culture and to inject elite values in its place. Education is compulsory for a reason, even if it does not educate students.
They can take your kids for eight hours, but how do they get to you? They don’t have to hit all families–just enough to make a difference. The elite try to minimize the use of force in modifying beliefs. They prefer to brainwash you long enough to make you think you want it. Joe Biden was explicit about how gay marriage never would have happened without Jewish influence in the media. Not my words, his. A similar elite figure, Masha Gessen, also hinted at the coming change. Old Gollum herself said:
I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.This quote alone is enough to banish her platform in a healthy society. Now that gays can marry with government sanction and legitimacy, the work moves to shifting how we view marriage in its entirety. Groups used by progs never really benefit; they just continue to be used as pawns.
The push is already here. Out Magazine quotes a NYC psychotherapist on the straight couples who are looking at the openness of gays to redefine how they view marriage.
But Malpas also says that, increasingly, the straight couples he sees are discussing polyamorous or open arrangements, or the possibility of such. This suggests that, perhaps as much as traditional marriage is conservatizing some gay couples, the increasing visibility of gay relationships is turning more straight couples on to the idea of some degree of openness, or at least of alternate ideas of what marriage can look like.This is blatant distortion. This is using a sliver of one city’s married couples to extrapolate out to broader society. It is so patently false that it can hardly function as anything more than rank propaganda. How many of these couples is Malpas talking about? Five, ten, twenty? Nevertheless, his collection of haphazard case studies is sent through the megaphone and presented as if a broader swath of straight, married couples are going poly.
Remember, 20 percent of all gay men have HIV and a minuscule percentage of gay men are married, but the message being broadcast here is that straights–on a wide scale–are so taken by the association of gay-as-hip (and the need to be hip) that they will emulate gay behavior within an eons-old institution.
A revealing thing in Malpas’ quote is that it is in the context of “the straight couples he sees” that they discuss poly behavior. He is a psychotherapist. No healthy couple sees a psychotherapist. You see a psychotherapist when there are problems. Out is now using this as a way to frame it as though hip NYC couples are trying poly, as opposed to saying that broken, neurotic NYC couples are trying it. The other reveal: who are these gay, married couples that are influencing these straight couples? Gay marriage is a relatively new status even in New York, and of course very small in numbers. Are gay couples openly cheating already in year two? This makes little sense.
The push will widen for polyamorous and open marriages. Even the Washington Post is writing about poly as though it’s a positive thing. Wapo’s “human” example is already a failure, as she had a marriage end in divorce due to her cheating in her twenties, but now wants to cheat openly today as an older woman. This is public condoning of what was formerly considered risky or fringe behavior. It suits the prog government’s needs: weaken all bonds between people. This is such an old idea that Alduous Huxley put it into his progressive dystopia Brave New World. Everyone belongs to everyone.
This might seem like a hard sell, but this has some media push behind it going back for a few years. Multiple outlets have spotlighted polyamorous couples. The writer, usually a woman, is living or in a relationship with two men, usually all wretched looking but HAPPY with the arrangement. Some outlets have even tried to sell cuckoldry as some new, hot fad in the elite. The groundwork is there, so why not push for it to be in marriages?
Wait! There’s a useful media trick with gays marrying. See, gays have a hard time staying monogamous, and shucks, their marriages are often much more open and accepting of poly behavior. Media outlets have used the behavior of gays in marriage (the incredibly small number of gays who marry) as an example of how straights can learn from them and re-evaluate their traditional marriages.
Trans, bestiality, pedos, incest… these are rather tough pills to swallow. Weimerica can only devolve at so fast a pace. Those fringe kinks run into old taboos. While the media can find a random gay couple for a “Just Like Us” essay or advertisement, it is harder to do it with a man and his horse, or a daughter and her father. They will try. Reworking marriage entirely into a game of acceptable “it was just sex, you agreed, I love you” destroys a potential unit people can identify with outside government connections.
Pair bonding matters. Being roommates who sometimes sleep together is not as stable. Modern society has slung many arrows at marriage, and it is a shadow of what it once was, but the final push will be to remove any sacredness from it by making it a transactional relationship, a disposable relationship, something temporary. It helps the regime kill rebellions that start at the dinner table. In the Life of Julia Democrat video, Julia only came in touch with you if the government was the mutual friend.
Where are your bonds, who do you have allegiance to? Bowling Alone explained the destruction of civic bonds, but look closer. Private organizations are attacked, organized religion is attacked, diversity is pushed everywhere, but your connections to government are reinforced by each policy and each media article. You have no shared values with your Somali Muslim refugee neighbor, so resolving conflicts within the small neighborhood is impossible. The feds, however, are waiting and willing to sort out any dispute. Your church does not provide the safety net it once did, but your government does–if not directly, then through grants to your dying church. Your family is a port in a storm, but the government has its eye on that institution, as well.
Who cares who your dad is, your mom is, or whether they are alone, together, or decide to invite others in? All that matters is the one thing you all belong to and all come together for is your government.