March 7, 2018

Would you self-defend me? I'd self-defend me: The crypto-tranny appeal of gun-nut girl propaganda

One of the major changes that the NRA has made in their propaganda over the past few years is to feature women rather than men as the empowered subjects. They've also made some of them black women, but the change is strictly on gender rather than race, as they have not featured black or Hispanic men wielding guns -- probably not the image the NRA wants to associate itself with.

At first I wrote these ads off as typical cuckservative appropriation of liberal frameworks -- true female empowerment, true women's liberation requires owning guns, or else you're easy prey for the predatory men always roving around out there.

But in the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting, and the deluge of gun nut messaging that kicked in to prevent any talk about gun control, I've noticed that their "girl with a gun" message is something different. It is not aimed at women, but at men.

First, the typical spokeswoman is attractive and portrayed in a highly sexualized and almost fetishistic way -- not a pretty girl in common everyday clothing, or a Plain Jane. The eroticized portrayal clearly appeals to men rather than women.

Second, the guns are typically large rather than the supposed handgun that a woman might realistically carry on her for protection. That appeals to men, who get off on bigger guns.

Third, women rarely indulge in elaborate revenge fantasies about those who have harmed them -- or self-defense fantasies, which are a sub-class of revenge fantasies, where the person fantasizes about preventing the harm that the offender was trying to do to them.

And to the extent that women do think about these scenarios, it does not involve guns, let alone assault-style guns featured in the gun nut propaganda -- maybe poisoning, character assassination, or hiring a hitman if guns must be used. Women do not get that psychically invested in direct violent confrontation. That's men, especially those who get picked on or are easily intimidated.

Fourth, men are overwhelmingly the customers for guns, and therefore also for gun-related propaganda. They are more likely to live in a household where there's a gun (37% vs. 29% for women, during the 2010s), and are more likely to own the gun in households where there is one (84% vs. 34% for women). Data are from the General Social Survey.

The number of guns owned is a heavily skewed distribution, where a very heavily armed 3% of the population owns 50% of the guns, and most of the remainder of gun owners only have a few. We can be sure the heavily armed are men. So, manufacturers will be targeting men (a certain kind of heavily armed man) when they seek to sell the most products, and club operators will be targeting men when they seek to recruit heavily armed enthusiasts.

Thus, ad campaigns that feature eroticized attractive women carrying AR-15s who are fantasizing about getting revenge or preventing the bully from beating them up, belong not to the genre of "We can do it!" feminism, but to the genre of "butt-kicking babe" masturbation material, where the guy fantasizes about being an erotic girl who gets off on violence in a male-typical fashion.

I call this type of sexual deviance "latent transgender" or "crypto-tranny," and detailed the profile at length here and here. They are similar to the autogynephile types of trannies, who are heterosexual but who don't want to get physically involved with women -- either from awkwardness or total narcissism -- and who therefore view themselves as the object of their own lust, requiring them to take on both male and female sexual attributes. Unlike overt trannies who cross-dress, wear make-up, and otherwise try to "pass" as women, these crypto-trannies do not, even in secret.

The explosion of the crypto-tranny phenomenon has not been appreciated or discussed much at all. If its symptoms are noticed, the observer tends to write it off as a woman who the guy fantasizes about fucking, rather than a woman who the guy fantasizes about being -- and perhaps also fucking, in that autogynephile way of thinking. They aren't just looking for a tomboy who can hang with the guys, and who happens to be sexy -- they are looking to be that sexy tomboy themselves, and play with themselves.

These are the kinds of guys who unironically confess to fantasizing about "If I were a girl, I'd stay at home all day and play with my boobs in front of a mirror," while feeling aroused in their male sex organ. In their fantasy, they have both huge tits and a hard dick.

Here is a typical example of gun-nut girl propaganda, with NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch:

The eroticized rather than a no-nonsense portrayal of the woman speaks for itself, and the large gun gives her a masculine persona. But more than that, they clearly portray the gun as a dick -- it could not look more phallic in the upright position with the base at hip level, nor could the eroticized way that she's holding it.

"Hands off my gun" would be a sexual double-entendre for a man, not for a woman: "This is my rifle, this is my gun; this is for shooting, and this is for fun." It does not represent some kind of sex toy that she would use on herself, since she would be using the gun on someone else. Getting a thrill from spraying bullets out of the tip is clearly more like an ejaculating dick than a toy that women might use on themselves.

What could make better bait for crypto-trannies? How about being a woman who had not just one but two big dicks to stroke while staring at her large breasts in the mirror as she fantasized about violent revenge against bullies?

Or the favored fantasy of crypto-trannies that involves someone other than themselves -- girl-on-girl, where the guy does not project himself into the place of a stand-in male, but into one of two or more babes:

Earlier posts here and here examined the rise of female bloodsports and butt-kicking babe roles in movies as a kind of pornography for the crypto-trannies. Now we can add "gun nut girl" propaganda.

A recent post showed that gun nuts are libertarians rather than conservatives, so it's not surprising to see that they are more likely than the average person to have sexually deviant fantasies -- certainly more so than the average conservative. Libertarianism implies tolerance of all forms of deviance, as part of the larger laissez-faire prohibition on prohibitions.

Like, as long as no one else gets harmed or defrauded by it, then go on ahead and fantasize about being a long, dark-haired babe with big boobs, rocking a red dress and stiletto heels, fondling your big black gun as you anticipate the cathartic thrill of spraying a stream of bullets from its tip. Especially if it's to get back at those bullies who keep messing with you.

Gun nuts never fantasize about vigilantism in the service of a conservative cause in the sexual domain, like shutting down a pornography studio, a brothel, a strip club, a dirty magazine / movie vendor, a sex toy shop, or a gay nightclub. That would fit into their overall fantasy of filling the void left by an ineffectual law enforcement system, only standing in for the police's role as vice squad enforcers. But then libertarians do not recognize the legitimacy of vice laws, so what is there to stand in for, in their minds?

The last popular persona of a gun nut who became a vigilante for a conservative cause was Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, who shut down a brothel and freed an underage prostitute. He was disgusted by cross-dressers and other deviants he saw every night -- he did not share their fantasies about being a woman or anything weird like that. He just wanted to be the nice protector-and-provider male for the alluring girl-next-door Betsy.

That was right as the gun nut culture was emerging, though, in the later part of the 1970s, when the libertarian approach to politics (deregulation of laws, including gun laws) and morality (consenting adults) began to take over.

We will know that the zeitgeist is returning to the conservative morality of the Midcentury when NRA ads return to themes of being a responsible provider-and-protector male, with scenes of hunting, confronting burglars, and patrolling the neighborhood with a posse when bad guys are on the loose.

Degeneracy will still prevail as long as the ads convey themes of solipsistic masturbation as you imagine yourself to be a babe staring at her own boobs in the mirror while fondling your dick-gun.

GSS variables: owngun, rowngun, sex, year


  1. Ironically, Dana Loesch is a tranny. Albeit, still in the closet, but she is definitely trans. Those other two girls look pretty transpicious as well.

    1. Several months ago she was bullied on Twitter by a mob led by some losers who looked like they had tranny fantasies.

  2. Andy, Dana Loesch is married with 2 sons so no

    Now as to this ramble, that kind of outside of the abortion issue that kind of Conservatism is long gone.

    You are spot on in saying its more Libertarian. Most of the Rebel Right (think the late Sipsey Street, Western Rifle Shooters crowd) wan't to go back to the founding fathers Republic essentially minarchy and they want to dismantle most of the federal government and much of the States as well

    Worrying about other peoples sex lives so long as everyone is of age of consent is not important, caveat abortion

    Also the reason you see of the old Conservatism is that is was a White Christian Guy thing and those guys long since abandoned the cities where it goes on.

    Also a lot of the businesses don't even exist, almost all porn on line and increasingly amateur filmed by some schmucks in someones house, brothels are replaced by perfectly legal tinder mostly and sex toys are acceptable even to prudes these days

    Its not the 1950's and that "restricted information/urban Conservatism" is liable to be a dead letter. Its not coming back thank goodness even when the population grows personally a bit more conservative

    This is a net positive and the only people liable to be bothered are blue nose types, anti abortion nutters and the Omar Mateens of this world

    As for attractive or sexy women. It gets attention doesn't it? While there are deviants out there and pathetic men, they aren't numerous

    Also most people are single so it makes sense to show single women as a group, It attracts men and doesn't repel single women . Family formation won't be default before people hit their 30's for decades and Gen Y thank goodness may not reproduce much at all

    And yes Mrs Loesch is good looking and shapely but the dress she is wearing is quite discrete actually. I suppose you could complain its a bit tight but so what

    Women also are a fast growing market for firearms, why not push them. Glock had an ad a few year back with R.Lee Ermey and a hot red head that caused a stir. Bet it sold Glocks galore

    Lastly Blacks and Latin

    The NRA has a black spokesman now, Colion Noir . He's widely liked and pretty effective

    They don't yet have a Mestizo guy but Mestizos are't really a political force yet in terms of having an agenda

    Its starting though and in not that many years the US will have two parties, White People Party (Republicans) everyone else party (Democrats) with some crossover as its typical for multi ethnic societies

  3. Do you think these chicks (esp. Loesch) are M-to-F trannies trapped in female bodies?

  4. AB, if you wonder why all your gun rights will be gone in less than 10-20 years, come back and read your psychotic rantings. Gun nuts could not possibly be more alienating to the middle, Independents, and other non-partisans.

    Yeah, no biggie if we're not going to use our guns for pro-social purposes, or even socially neutral purposes, but only to prep for the threats that the whole rest of society outside our nuclear household poses to us constantly.

    A real ringing endorsement of your neighbors and fellow citizens -- they won't give a fuck about taking away all your guns at that point, not just the AR-15s.

    They'll see them as all of a piece, a gun nut building up a private arsenal because he thinks everyone outside his own home is out to get him. They'll have you committed on top of it.

    Seeing how warped the gun nuts' sexual fantasies are will only convince them more. "Getting off to the thought of being a big-titted babe with an ejaculating gun-dick? Lock 'em up!"

    The gun nuts' job was to convince normies that you guys are normal, too. The more freakish and deviant you prove yourselves to be, openly and unaware of how awkward it looks in public (like these crypto-tranny ads), the more you lose the public's trust and goodwill.

    I see some kind of compromise, where people will be allowed to own a small number of guns if they live in places below a certain population density -- to allow rural hunters and recreational shooters to have their fun.

    But given how weird and psychotic the non-rural gun nuts are -- and most of these deviants *do* live in the suburbs of a major metro area, possibly in the city proper -- I don't see the people letting them have anything beyond 2-3 pistols and a few non-"assault style" rifles.

    If you want to preserve gun rights, you'd better bombard the NRA with demands to make their propaganda normie-friendly, and not just porn for crypto-tranny talk radio junkies. And make a concerted effort personally to not sound like such a raving psycho when discussing the issue with other people.

  5. The heavily skewed distribution of gun ownership misleads people into believing that the psychotic NRA propaganda appeals to normies.

    Most people don't own any guns, and most of those who do, own at most a few, and are not deeply invested in them as fetishes or symbols of their persona.

    So, what way do normies have to push back against the bizarre apocalyptic crypto-tranny ads from the NRA? They already "vote with their dollars" by not buying guns, or buying at most a few. Or by not paying dues for an NRA membership.

    At most, they'll make a passing remark about how weird the ads are to their friends, or on a Facebook post. But probably they'll just keep the thoughts to themselves. They tolerate the ads themselves, although they don't endorse the worldview being promoted or the policy proposals that it's advocating.

    The gun nuts, however, will respond by donating more to gun rights groups, spending more per gun and buying more guns, getting more heavily involved in gun shows, deluging the phone lines of politicians and other groups on behalf of laissez-faire gun laws, and so on and so forth.

    The propaganda has an intensifying effect on the nuts, which translates into observable behavior -- and because gun nut behavior is so skewed, just a few of them can make a large difference in how much the profits of manufacturers rise this year, how many more dollars in donations come in to NRA-aligned pols, etc.

    But it has a numbing effect on everyone else, and does not translate into behavior.

    The gun nuts look at their takeover of the issue in this way and see it as having convinced the middle and Independents -- they aren't piping up, are they? They aren't calling out our weird crypto-tranny fetishes, are they? Winning.

    They don't notice how wide the disconnect between the nuts and the normies has continued to grow, and will not notice until a breaking point is reached. Maybe that's the Parkland shooting, maybe it'll be something else in the Trump admin.

    The nuts won't see it coming because they don't notice how weak their framing and trust from the public has become. They'll only figure it out when the relationship is put to a major stress test -- and then the normies are going to say, "OK, that's enough of this gun nut shit -- take them all away!"

    There will be some kind of compromise, but in the context of having lost the goodwill of all society except for the 3% who own 50% of the guns, it will seem to the nuts like a total rout and totalitarian confiscation.

    Your job in the meantime is to narrow that gulf with normies, re-gain their lost trust, and win a better outcome when the great compromise happens within your lifetime.

  6. once your eyes are opened it's everywhere, especially online, like you say

    look no further than the alt-right poster girls
    "would you save the white race with me? I'd save the white race with me"
    after all, who needs modern women aka roastie sluts when you can have a cute red-pilled trap gf or be one yourself

    alienating the largest amount of people and pinning your hopes on the most outlandish and deviant ideas

    I don't wanna be too harsh because I understand people become this way by experiencing so much alienation themselves

    so the top priority is to make society social, dare I say "collectivist" AGAIN and see most psychosocial ills evaporate, instead of "managing" them technocratic-autistically

  7. I'm actually not a gun guy agnostic

    I read both your replies and understood them but the political context was so far outside of what I actually said they were of no value. It sounds like loopy gobbledygook gun control propaganda to me.

    You also completely misunderstand why people own guns these days, most people who own a gun or two or so own them for self defense. Basically no one owns them for "farming" or for hunting at all and they aren't planning to give them up. Registration is off the table as well, 20% compliance at absolute maximum

    Although the many guns/few guns stat is dubious, lots of people own a couple of guns, cheap shotgun or handgun or Americas top selling rifle an AR15 which can be had for $400 or so ...

    They don't need to see the lies, refusal to prosecute crimes or refusal to defend the population issue in Florida to know that they are on their own. When the seconds count the police are minutes away (or from another county in Florida)

    That's not gun nut agit-prop. Its exactly what happened at that school . FBI wouldn't act, Police didn't act and people died,

    expecting anyone to trust after that is nonsense and the more the system lies the less people trust. Its going so people go up to the street corner ranter and say "tel me more"

    This has diddly to do with cocooning or any of that. Its a product or a Weimar style social collapse , something that's been noted on Right and even Left (Camile Paglia discusses it at length)

    Its fixable but its going to require all truth all the time for years on end good luck with that!

    You might try seizing them or banning ammo but this might provoke a war . It won't come unexpected though. A lot of people expect it and plan to resist .

    No one knows how many but it it reaches 10% of gun owners, the Republic is over, 3% is enough to ruin the country.

    You can read all the stuff yourself but its not wank, its public warning by people who know how to do this stuff and what will happen

    No matter what though the anon at 3/8/18 isn't getting his happy collectivist state or the authoritarian social democracy y'all want we'll be very lucky to have even rudimentary social democracy after the Boomers die

    Not a bad chance that we'll move to minarchy and nearly everything from the Roosevelt to Clinton era will be dismantled . we rolled it back (under Clinton) and we can do it again

    All that aside, raising the age to buy guns to 21 might happen though its pointless and maybe some state will prohibit magazines over ten rounds or cosmetic features but all this is useless.

  8. (Cliff Arroyo from

    I don't own a gun (and don't want to) but I am concerned about gun control excesses for lots of reasons. I grew up around guns and learned how to shoot and gun safety as a child so I don't fantasize or fetishize guns in either a positive or negative way, they were part of the landscape growing up and they have their uses but that's it.

    And agnostic is completely right in saying these adds and images do not appeal to normies at all and for better or worse that's were political change comes from.

    I'm not a normie and I'm not a libertarian (despite some leanings that way) and I find the weird gungrrrl fetish of many libertarian types to be very off-putting and skin crawlingly tone deaf and if the NRA throws in its lot with those weirdos then it will fail in its mission.

    Very few women are interested in guns at all and most of them aren't interested past a basic utilitarian threshhold. Convincing normies that the NRA's (or Libertarians') goals are to have a bunch of mannish women dressed like sluts slinging massive guns around like pseudo dicks is the most self-defeating strategy possible. They should just cut out the middleman and start making she-male ρoηr videos and use those instead.

    Repeat: The NRA needs to focus on winning over middle class normies, none of whom are reassured by tranny-looking gun sluts and most of whom aren't interested in gun ownership themselves (or are only minimally interested).

  9. I did some more GSS queries inspired by your post here.

  10. Gun nut is not the same as gun owner, similar to confusion between "dog person" and "dog owner".

    Ideally, study those who had more than some threshold number of guns, who subscribe to multiple clubs / mailing lists / magazines / etc.

    At the least, nuts must be from SRCBELT(1-4), meaning from cities or their suburbs, not small towns or rural areas. That's the distinguishing feature of nuts -- not hunters or recreational types, but those prepping for an urban apocalypse in self-defense.

    GSS has some questions that get more at being a gun nut, like whether you support semi-auto guns being available to everyone or only to military and police (SEMIGUNS).

    Restricting to metro-dwellers, no matter if you put in race as well, the most puritanical on porn laws (porn illegal to all) are those who want to ban assault rifles. Among gun banners, 34% puritans; among gun nuts, 19% puritans.

    The most libertarian on porn laws (porn available even to minors) are those who want to allow assault rifles for the general public. Among gun banners, 3% let kids see porn; among gun nuts, 10% let kids see porn.

    Sample sizes get too small if you also check to see if these pro-assault rifle people do in fact own a gun or not. But at least by their support for extremist gun rights, what I said is true about nuts being more lax on conservative morality.

    You can also look at gun ownership and other measures of being a nut -- GUNLAW asks whether there should be police permits before buying a gun, and GUNIMP asks how important the gun issue is to you.

    Generally speaking, the most puritanical on porn laws are people who do not own a gun but who are not heavily invested in the gun issue.

    So, if you don't own a gun and that's a big deal to you, you're morally liberal and don't mind so much porn being available to kids.

    But the most puritanical are those who don't own guns, and who don't attach much importance to the issue -- moderates on gun rights.

    You could run these comparisons for the other measures of conservative morality / behavior.

  11. Sex is somewhat a moderating variable on the link between supporting semi-auto guns and supporting porn availability, where women are more likely than men to want to restrict both porn and assault rifles. But the differences remain even when controlling for sex.

  12. Thanks, I've updated the post to include a SEMIGUNS table.

    I wonder which one my dad would fit in your categorization. He was raised in a rural area in a family of hunters & NRA members (I had a free year of membership as a teen because it was free). He raised us in the suburbs and commuted to work in the city before retiring to a low-density village. He would definitely qualify as a gun collector, with a couple of semiautomatic handguns (one of which was a family heirloom) which mostly gathered dust, but mostly a constantly shifting set of vintage breach-loading shotguns for hunting & clay targets (people focused on the latter tend to prefer over-unders, while he goes for side-by-sides), with particular attention to engravings by long-dead artisans rather than new features to avoid planned obsolescence. So definitely a pro-gun hobbyist, but rooted in sport rather than self-defense (which I can't recall him discussing much, not that we ever lived in unsafe neighborhoods). Of course, if someone was concerned with self-defense, a revolver would likely be handier than a semi-automatic rifle (which I don't recall him ever owning).

  13. I have always liked your writings, Agnostic, but is it fair to go all Freudian phallic interpretation about "crypto-trannies" while then labeling broadly all maybe too eager gun enthusiasts and home defense hobbyists as "gun nuts"??? one could say that you are the nut for thinking Sandra Bullock was born a man. You don't exactly represent the average person either... you're a little out there yourself...

  14. Non-ironic use of the term "home defense hobbyist" shows how warped, paranoid, and anti-social that mindset is.

  15. "You don't exactly represent the average person either... you're a little out there yourself..."

    Lame personal attack.

  16. "Doomsday preppers" or "home defense hobbyists" (which is a term I don't know if it's real or not). My relatives were always hunters and had a gun cabinet filled with rifles. Blame technology for making AR type rifles cheap and in fashion. If they had been before they'd have been in gun cabinets of the past. Also, I believe guns have really went up in value as a stable investment. Some claim they're even more stable in value than gold. I think it's wrong to try equate most of these people with militia types who are trying to build an army. People are just weird in general in post-modernity. People collect all kinds of things now because they never have been able to before. Even when the economy is bad, we are still extremely wealthy. There is paranoia today over gun control much like there was paranoia over nuclear war back in the day. There were homemade fallout shelters and preppers for that too. It's outrage culture to psycho-analyze the collectors of inanimate objects. Even if someone had a closet full of combat dildos.

    Also, Curtis, it sounds as if so, but it's not. I really really like Agnostic and the website. I would heap more compliments on the guy than I ever could criticism or personal attacks. He has one of the best blogs in this sphere. But isn't saying that Dana Loesch is acting like she wants a dick (by her gun advocating / propaganda) a personal attack or isn't saying that regular Joe's who see those memes / propaganda pieces also have a deep seeded tranny lust because they don't realize it's dick that they truly desire or to have tits themselves a personal attack on average people who this couldn't be further from the truth about? And okay say that these people do sense something in the wind and preparing for a doomed militia stand against the government.. are rebel groups collecting arms, out of some fear, really just going through Freudian mishaps reaching for their dicks because of some psychological inadequacy? That sounds like rhetoric from a far left authoritarian viewpoint.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."