If it makes your skin crawl, there may be a good reason
January 19, 2015 § 19 Comments
In Kristor’s superb post Reality versus “Marriage” he observes:
The sad reality – sad for homosexuals, given how much they’ve poured into this campaign – is that once homosexual “marriage” is legal, everyone will look at them as they walk along together and know that their wedding rings signify that they are only “married,” because everyone will know, just as they now do, that they are homosexuals. Perhaps, then, the truly married will need no special sign. People will look at them, walking along, and know that they are heterosexual, and so their wedding rings will signal that they are married, rather than “married.”
Commenter JMSmith makes an observation I have often made myself:
I think it is only fair to point out that homosexuals aren’t the first to contract sham marriages.
That is what makes “gay marriage” into a kind of step backward for progressives. Unlike the heterosexual sham which came before, it is impossible for the homosexual sham to maintain outward appearances. Heterosexual serial fornicators can easily maintain the outward appearance of marriage, thereby partaking parasitically in its deontological status. Homosexual sodomites, not so much.
Homosexual “marriage” is the part where the hemorrhagic fever becomes so acute that the liquified interior starts bursting through the skin: where the bugs infecting the interior burst forth to crawl on the surface.
Well, nobody can say your imagery isn’t evocative.
[…] Source: Zippy Catholic […]
But I will take homosexual customers, married or not, any day. They have lots of extra cash, and so far, have never quibbled with an invoice.
You’re not thinking broadly enough.
Since the distinct appearance of men and women might make homosexuals feel uncomfortable, this will have to be abolished.
Next up, the war on “gender normative” clothing.
We should welcome such an attack. With about 80% of women refusing to identify with feminist because of its behavior, this would only further drive women away from leftist causes. Encourage left wing craziness in all shapes and sizes because it is so very, very hard for them to maintain the pretense of normalcy and most people don’t want to be associated with a freakshow that enthusiastically attacks things they like (fashion in the case of women).
Yes at first ordinary people will reject it, but after a while they’ll become afraid of being seen as intolerant, and will capitulate.
I think you have it precisely backwards. The more extreme the capitulation to be tolerant, the less likely people will be to bend. It’s easy to shut down racist thoughts when dealing with MLK and clean cut, peaceful black protesters passively taking police brutality. It’s nearly impossible to get that same level of change from people demanding you “see the perspective” of the Ferguson rioters and Al Sharpton. Similarly, the Seneca Falls Convention may seem reasonable to mainstream America, but as 3rd wave feminism becomes increasingly associated with the type of women dominating major feminist blogs, most women don’t even want to be associated with it.
To put it bluntly, if you asked a typical woman if she’d rather be perceived by men as Amanda Marcotte or as being Amish, she’d choose the latter because 3rd wave feminism is associated with being insane, anti-male shrew that is the kiss of death for ever getting more than a f#$% out of a man worth her time.
But what I’m saying is, that over time, it will become the new norm. Like how supporting gay marriage was once radical, but now the opposite is true.
I’m not much for making predictions, but I find AR’s scenario at least mildly more plausible. In general I am not impressed by the “Black Knight” approach: liberalism will as ever leverage its own contradictions to work around any confrontation with itself.
The difference is that rather than having zombie marriages in which the dead appear living on the surface, what we will have is visible worms and decayed flesh in a white dress and tuxedo.
Look, there is NAMBLA, Which agitates for pedophiles – (Wiki)
“The first documented opposition from LGBT organizations to NAMBLA occurred in the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington in 1979.
In 1980 a group called the “Lesbian Caucus – Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee” distributed a hand-out urging women to split from the annual New York City Gay Pride March because the organizing committee had supposedly been dominated by NAMBLA and its supporters. The next year, after some lesbians threatened to picket, the Cornell University gay group Gay PAC (Gay People at Cornell) rescinded its invitation to NAMBLA founder David Thorstad to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival. In the following years, gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA’s participation in gay pride parades, prompting leading gay rights figure Harry Hay to wear a sign proclaiming “NAMBLA walks with me” as he participated in a 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles.
By the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. Gay rights organizations, burdened by accusations of child recruitment and child abuse, had abandoned the radicalism of their early years and had “retreat[ed] from the idea of a more inclusive politics,” opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Support for “groups perceived as being on the fringe of the gay community,” such as NAMBLA, vanished in the process.”
There will be a re-preachment when the time is right.
Legal animal brothels in Germany!
We are beyond the thin edge of the wedge, we are getting the shaft now!
y the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. Gay rights organizations, burdened by accusations of child recruitment and child abuse, had abandoned the radicalism of their early years and had “retreat[ed] from the idea of a more inclusive politics,” opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Support for “groups perceived as being on the fringe of the gay community,” such as NAMBLA, vanished in the process.
It sounds like they learned about taqiyya from the Moslems.
The Mohammedans have lots of great inherently dishonest manipulative tricks for the brittle-minded. Sola Scriptura was a Moslem doctrine half a millennium before John Wyclif.
That’s not black knighting because it’s just letting them go from attacking real targets to jousting at windmills. When leftists start openly attacking female fashion to the point where simply dressing like a female becomes considered a “hate act” they’ll just end up throwing themselves off a cliff. There comes a point where people just throw out the entire program because the demands become so ludicrous that people say that if they can’t have a sane version, they’d just rather have literally none of it.
Not all forms of liberalism are created equal. Would you not prefer that the progressives and company push so far that a far more conservative version of liberalism becomes mainstream? Would that not constitute concrete progress to you? I think it would.
With respect to the point about race, anti-racists have gone so insane on opposition to racism that things that were considered racist a decade ago are now starting to become acceptable in hushed tones among whites and asians. Why is this? Because most whites and asians are starting to realize that anti-racism was never rooted in MLK’s vision of a color blind society, but is simply anti-white and to a lesser extent, anti-asian racism posing as tolerance. Seeing black or hispanic anti-white/asian racial attacks all over youtube and other places is starting to feed a steady destruction of the base for “anti-racism” and the demands that we consider people like Michael Brown victims of unjust aggression are starting to throw some real lighter fluid on the fire.
When the liberals begin this next campaign (or whatever their next campaign is), they will have a steady base of neoconservative stooges opposing it, on liberal grounds.
In this way, liberalism will (and does) feed off of its own outrageousness. Because the more outrageous liberal propositions are, the more strongly people will flock to “conservatives”, and as long as those “conservatives” are liberal, liberalism can never lose.
In this way, it is even more self-sustaining than Communism. In Communism, all traces of conservatism were destroyed, so when people opposed Communism, they weren’t effectively restricted to doing so on liberal grounds. Indeed, I imagine that had Communism been allowed to fall on its own, without western prodding, Russia would already have a Tsar, and the Soviet Commonwealth would be his vassals.
Communism only failed because of Western containment. Without that, it’s very likely that Communism would have triumphed globally. I can’t even imagine a realistic scenario in which Russian society would have accepted a return to a formal monarchy. It’s taken about twenty years to finally get a President who openly favors the Russian Orthodox Church and encourages it in policy. It’s very likely that Russia will take a few generations of these changes before the damage from Communist rule has been sufficiently reversed.
Yes, it may take a while, but the West isn’t exactly working to slow anti-Modern attitudes in Russia (and other Eastern European countries), rather it is exacerbating them with oafish neocon policies.
I think a real tipping point for Reactionaries will be the establishment of a truly Reactionary state somewhere, and perhaps Russia will be that state, though not under Putin: the man is too much of an opportunist and not enough of an ideologue.
When we have a foreign state that is ideologically Christian and anti-Western, there will be much greater resources for us to marshal as within our own states, we will become fifth columns subverting from within.
“Communism only failed because of Western containment. Without that, it’s very likely that Communism would have triumphed globally. I can’t even imagine a realistic scenario in which Russian society would have accepted a return to a formal monarchy. It’s taken about twenty years to finally get a President who openly favors the Russian Orthodox Church and encourages it in policy. It’s very likely that Russia will take a few generations of these changes before the damage from Communist rule has been sufficiently reversed.”
Liberalism and Communism both depend on a conservatism to “liberate” people from. The difference between them is that Communism is virulent enough to destroy all semblance of public conservatism, even of the pseudo conservative variety. Thus Communism is doomed to ultimately implode. And when it implodes on its own, it would seem that the most likely ideology to arise in its place would be conservatism, because why have knock off anti-Communism when you can have the real thing. I think that the only reason why they are not, is because the west pushed liberal “conservatism” on them.
[…] expanding on a comment I made here, I think there is a reason for this seeming contradiction. It is the absurdity and outrageousness […]