Friday, July 17, 2015

Last Week's Social Matter Post + Preview for This Week's 8

Last week at Social Matter, I wrote on the delegitimizing of marriage that helped spur the snowball of gay marriage acceptance. It wasn't solely the Just Like Us propaganda but also the Marriage Is Crap propaganda. They control the media so they can hit you from all angles.

This week I will write on the Sinaloa Cartel. There is always talk about Mexican corruption and the weird control cartels have of Mexico, but little is ever discussed about the way America's federal government helps the Sinaloas. Similar to modern fundraising and bribes, the feds aren't necessarily an arm of the Sinaloas but it's hard to deny they act like one.


The top-down imposition of gay marriage is now in the rearview mirror for America’s leftward drift. Will it grant legitimacy to such unions?

No. Legitimacy comes from widespread acceptance, not from imposition. Negative referendums, brow-beating by the media and volunteer thought police and five Supreme Court justices are not the sign of widespread acceptance. William Safire was right over a decade ago when he wrote that this gay marriage push was all over one word “marriage” and the legitimacy and approval that it granted. Those shocked at how fast this all happened may point to gay propaganda, but it is not just that. The media and academia smeared marriage long enough to remove the sacredness of the institution.

Many point to the skyrocketing support for gay marriage that has occurred in recent years. There are large, well-respected polls going back to the mid ’90s that show support around 25% and even in the mid ’00s support around 35%. It was a minority opinion to support gay marriage, but the conceptual granting of some recognition was not a minority. Tracking right along those same polls that showed a majority against gay marriage, were polls that showed a near majority or clear majority supported recognition of civil unions for homosexuals. A couple of decades of ‘gay is okay’ and ‘just like us’ propaganda did help put gay marriage over the top, as did five Supreme Court justices and every major corporation not named Chik-Fil-A.

Eventually enough Americans who already felt okay with gays being granted civil unions gave in on the word marriage. The religious did not do so, and that is because they could foresee the eventual fight over religion in general. The irreligious middle did. The somewhat religious caved. The type of people who say, “Half of all marriages end in divorce anyway so why not?” pushed it along. Half is a lie, but a lie the media loves to push. The divorce rate for first time marriages is under 40% now, and depends on the socioeconomic and educational status of the bride. Marriage is not a 50-50 chance as much as a 70% chance of succeeding. A bride over 25 with a college degree has a divorce rate half of the average.

Divorce has become an underclass plague with heavy correlation to minority brides, but no one wants to discuss that because we cannot criticize our duskier underclass for dysfunctional behavior. It is another method of using poor decisions and life outcomes of the underclass to manipulate core, middle class Americans into accepting, condoning, and emulating bad behavior.

Hollywood, the greatest propaganda machine ever created, consistently pumps out a message that marriage is no longer sacred in our culture. Television shows featured divorced leads, unhappily married women, unhappily married men, and few stable, loving marriages to serve as anchors for their familial networks. The act of getting married turned became the focus, rather than spiritual bonding, with the wedding day turning into a wedding pageant. The average wedding costs over $25,000, but in reality, many couples spend less than $10,000. Still, the status race for bigger and better weddings has grown. Psychotic behavior by brides has become a joke to the point where reality television has wedding shows named Bridezilla or micromanaged wedding pageant contests like Four Weddings.

Lost in that is that the wedding signifies the public declaration and recognition of a sacred union between man and woman. This is lost in topping prior weddings for food, covered chairs, decorations, music and party favors. It is a show where the woman is the star and the man just has to show up.

The activists sold you on marriage just being a list of benefits married people enjoyed, so gays needed that equal treatment, too. There are all of these benefits, and our egalitarian society can never deny someone government gimmedats. No one would pause for a moment and note the concrete financial benefits that the federal and state governments provide to unmarried mothers versus married mothers, but gosh darn it, one time in some mythical hospital a gay guy could not visit his lover dying of AIDS. Civil unions could grant all of the same benefits, but that was not enough. The gays wanted the word marriage. They wanted to be able to say to mom and dad, “See my relationship is real, buy me an anniversary card!” The homosexuals needed to receive auspices for their unions, and if the churches were still going to frown upon them, then the government could grant them that legitimacy. They failed to see that all they earned was the right for the government to administer their break ups.

The media created a false debate “marriage or no” to paint a battle between the evil bigots and righteous crusaders. No one mentioned the civil union approach. That solution was junked quickly, tipping the real target for using gays: religion. The Supreme Court even mentioned granting dignity in the ruling, which is comical considered how smeared marriage has become. If marriage is an oppressive institution for women, why push gays into it? If it is old and archaic, why do gays want it? Humpty Dumpty leftism strikes again! Marriage is awesome right now for this tiny group!

They want it because despite the smearing, we know the value of it. The emotional connection between couples. A newer wedding reception tradition is the anniversary dance. All married couples get on the dance floor to dance to one song. Every ten seconds the host asks couples married under X years to leave the floor. Those younger couples create a circle around those left dancing, and the couples are whittled down until it is the married couple with the longest tenure left. The crowd claps for the 50, 60 or 65 years the couple has been together. Some people will get teary-eyed because they recognize what those years mean. Usually, that couple shuffling on the dance floor is the elder statesmen duo of the family, and this wedding and the crowd is the extended product of their union. Song ends, the old man kisses his bride, and the new bride and groom hug the old couple. That long lived couple is the hoped for future for the new couple.

Everyone present understands that communal moment. Those dances make for great Kodak moments, but you would never see Hollywood push that. The media will push as much programming as possible to get you to forget the spiritual element to marriage. The weak-willed, who will forget they cried as they saw their grandparents dancing at a wedding, made the jump from civil unions for gays to marriage for gays because “Who cares? Marriage doesn’t matter anymore.” That moment of past and future and the implications of children for a new generation to repeat the cycle is part of the sacred moment and public recognition of marriage.

That spirit and legitimacy could never be granted by a government in a contentious manner to homosexuals who cannot reproduce. This is lost on the egalitarian pushers, it is lost on the herd creatures who forget, but it is not lost on us.


peterike said...

Speaking of marriage, you gotta read this:

Son of Brock Landers said...

I saw it Peterike and believe the writer is a fake name they are using to push the open marriage meme. I tweeted last night some details that dont add up. I'll post next week.

nightboat2cairo said...

When my first kid went to daycare the teachers used the word "friends" to describe other kids. Every other kid was described as a "friend". It was creepy and didn't change the social dynamics one bit.

Then there was a point about ten years ago when there was a push to promote girls with pretty faces who were overweight. I noticed at that time that the Brits were using using "fit" to describe hot women. I loved it - you couldn't be a pretty fat chick and get the title "fit". You want to claim you're beautiful? Fine, but you're not fit.

Even if the word applies legally, it isn't enough to change acceptance. My grandmother remarried when I was a teenager and I remember thinking how silly it was. It wasn't any love or lifelong committment, just a title to show off to friends; a vanity marriage. You don't see a same sex couple and think they're like us. You don't necessarily think of them as better or worse, but they certainly aren't the same. And they look at us breeders with distaste too. I was once the only straight at a part of a gay friend and I was the "so called straight boy" and the other guests let their hair down. It was loud with a lot of showing off, laughing at breeders. And boy, did they hate lesbians.

I'm not sure where the labels for same sex marriage will go. Will people call it "gay married" the same way we have LUGs (lesbians until graduation) and gold star lesbians? Or come up with something like "family marriage" to describe a couple with kids? But I do notice a huge amount of propaganda to weaken the definition of family as well as of marriage. Maybe "Christian marriage" or "Biblical marriage"? Maybe "marriage" will apply to all and people will just think of different types differently without openly saying it, although the kids know things are different without us having to saying anything.

Elkman said...

"Speaking of marriage, you gotta read this"

I didn’t make it past the first paragraph. Yeah those guys are basically stealing from this part of the internet. Which is why i dox myself now and then: i want some credit, … and some money. Very possibly is going to be a civil suit from commenters who want part of the proceeds from monetized blogs, and they will only have a case if they “own” their internet handle. (Hmmm, did you say civil suit, … ?)

But that sort of article is tabloid journalism, and that there is such a thing as tabloid journalism that gets read by unsatisfied women with smelly old vagina, is not new, but that it is published in what is “supposed” to be a respectable mag? well to hell with them. From their article,

In this way, my masculine self-image was stretched but not broken. Diaper bag notwithstanding, I was still a Man. It wasn’t until my wife mentioned one evening that she’d kissed another man and liked it and wanted to do more than kiss next time that I realized how my status as a Man depended on a single fact: that my wife fucked only me.

No man not a fag or somehow otherwise broken would write that, it doesn’t pass the smell test (smell test? yuck). Every sentence from that article is cribbed from blogs like this and CH and MPC. In a way it is flattering, to know that it’s here that the action is. And but now that i said it, oh how it does not auger well and propitious! and please oh western wind of fortune and fate, ugh mercy please and a little leniency on the side or is that too much to ask?

PA said...

"Which is why i dox myself now and then: i want some credit"

I believe I made genuinely valuable contributions at Roissys in 2008 and at Chuck Ross's around 2011. Those contributions involved expanding what can be said and thought in racial subjects, in the right language, in fresh ways. That, I consider my gift to the bloggers and readers. I genuinely want to help, and to support the bloggers I value, because the stakes are, literally, life and death.

That said, commenting is for the birds, which means that that however interesting and insightful a commenter, he ain't much next to the blogger. He's just a guy hearing himself talk. I tried blogging. Started 2 or 3 blogs, but posted nothing. I had nothing to say, with a blank type field staring back at me.

By the way, Elk, you're my favorite commenter. I'd only encourage you to expand beyond the elegaic. What would you encourage me to do?

Elkman said...

I write with respect for the readers. About 10 or 12 years ago i started reading Sailer and Majority Rights, and was very impressed and intimidated by the intelligence on display, and knew right away that i would be better off keeping my mouth shut, which is why i stick to writing about the process, or about my own problems, because realistically those are topics on which my authority is legitimate.

“I'd only encourage you to expand beyond the elegiac.”

I appreciate this advice. I have wanted to do long-form book reviews, on a random assortment of books, and post it somewhere under my own name, but can’t seem to settle down enough and get around to it.

As for advice i would give to PA, or someone else, i can only think about what works for me. Any recognized commenter is talented enough with words, and they don’t need my advice about how to write - after all this isn’t second grade - but life advice is another thing. It is mostly about being outside, and not making excuses. For instance when i cut down that tree the other day, that was a real thing, and i had wanted to do it since last summer but was frankly scared, but then one day just got around to it and success. And it was a real accomplishment. No one told me how to notch a tree and then angle a cut from the other side, somehow that knowledge base was not passed on, but what the hell do it anyways. I’ve never been the most “mechanical” guy but have some talent for doing things like driving a boat or whatever. It took me a minute-and-a-half to learn to back up a trailer, i see some other people who can’t get it, but there often seems to be a divide between those people who can work on things as opposed to those who can work with them.

Elkman said...

So that is my strategy for being a better commenter, a better writer, is to have more meaningful life experience. Of course such talk as “oh wow i cut down a tree i am a big boy now!” opens up a person for ridicule, from people of a more rustic background, who perhaps grew up in the hinterland and were fishing for carp with their bows and arrows when they were five, … i don’t know. I think of some of those guys, kids from the neighborhood way back when, and they were older and had the upper hand back then, and i don’t forget that stuff. I know who has moved on and who has not. There is the American rootless-ness where no one knows the family history of the people in their neighborhoods because everyone is transient. I would like to go somewhere else, to a better place, but don’t have those options, at this point, so am stuck here in the suburbs. I don’t like America and i don’t like my neighbors and i don’t like myself, but in spite of that there is something to be said for playing the game. People who respect themselves require that you respect them too, if you’re going to be in the same space. Those are the people i want in this neighborhood, big strong guys (men) who respect authority. I will not mean-mug those guys and life will be better.

There was a gang of black kids walking down the street, about ten of them, between the ages of 10 and 14, and i thought about avoiding them but didn’t, and passing by one of them, their “leader”, said to me in a real done up smart-alecky way, “How are you doing sir?” It was sort of disrespectful but sort of not. But these kids were on the street and then walking up onto people’s lawns. Well some of those lawns belong to Harley riders, and it would appear that this set of those guys are the “real thing”, … but they weren’t at home, they were at work or the shop or wherever they spend the daylight hours. But i turned around and followed those kids, from a distance, and saw which house they disappeared into, and thought about what to do, and came up with nothing.

I know this is rambling, and don’t want to abuse the patience of the host, which is sort of what PA is implying about commenting versus blogging, but in my defense i think that there is some value in these random observations. The criticism about this modern life, in America in the suburbs but really it is not just here, is that we have no common culture because we don’t have a common experience because we don’t live together and do important things, of which the most important are working and raising children, which go together. That is my criticism about life, is that no one is telling me the story that i want to hear. There is a resurgent interest in the “narrative arts”, and talent is self-selected and will emerge; but it seems that the genre, the milieu, is missing; and yet this suburban landscape is where everyone lives, so how is that not represented in what people talk about.

The problem of course is metaphysical: stories can’t be represented in real time: they have to be experienced before they are told. But even still i would like to see more of my peers make an effort into putting out their stories. I’m not interested in your particular story, but rather that part of it that is in common. And again, here i am being explicit about things that don’t need to be said, things that might fall under the domain of “jewish common sense”, except that common sense is not so common anymore. A good challenging essay on the theme of stories and their meaning is by Tolkien called On Fairy Stories. Sounds kind of gay, but it’s not, and in the essay that’s his larger point, which is that these great stories got reduced and turned into fairy tales. This point, this reference used to be somewhat obscure and occult, but i think with the younger readers, starting with myself, it is more in the domain of common sense.