Although the climate of cocooning leads most folks to stay inside all day, a decent number still go for a walk around the neighborhood. Whether they acknowledge and greet one another, though, seems to have less to do with being sociable vs. cocooning and more with whether they came of age in an accommodating vs. status-striving climate.
Some of the folks who say "Hi" you can tell are introverts and are simply making their best effort to fulfill the duties of neighborliness, while some who don't acknowledge the other pedestrians give off socially normal rather than spergy vibes. They're just too self-important to acknowledge unknown members of the community.
The strongest demographic predictor of who will initiate a simple "Hi" to strangers, or return the gesture if it's made to them, is generation.
If someone from the Silent Gen is walking around the neighborhood, there's a very good chance they'll act neighborly. Boomers too, especially the older ones. There's an abrupt shift with Gen X, though, who are about 50/50 or less likely to say "Hi" or even exchange a nod and eye contact. And some of those who have acted neighborly may have been very late Boomers who I mistakenly took to be early X-ers. The later-born the X-er, the less neighborly they are. And of course the Millennial adults are guaranteed to either stare straight ahead or down at the ground (or phone) when they pass someone.
I remember my Greatest Gen grandparents and others their age greeting others around the community, so put them in the neighborly group as well.
Silents and Boomers (and Greatest Gen) have always been more automatic to greet people in church or other civic places, whether they already knew the person or were welcoming a newcomer. Gen X and especially the Millennials have to be prodded by the leadership to meet-and-greet.
In fact, Silents and Boomers are more likely to acknowledge and start talking to strangers from the community no matter what the setting is. "What wonderful weather we're having today," said to a stranger at the supermarket parking lot. "My, that's a lovely sweater," said to the person standing in front of them in line at the drug store. And so on and so forth.
The earlier generations imprinted socially during a climate of accommodation rather than status-striving, roughly the Great Compression of 1920-1980. Back then, the norm in public spaces was to humble yourself by acknowledging and getting along with others. You see that even during the cocooning period within the Great Compression, like Mayberry or the world of Father Knows Best, where despite being more introverted they still stopped to say "Hi" to neighbors, ask how their day is going, etc.
This imprinting effect does not get over-written even if they later become more self-centered strivers, like the Me Generation of Silents and Boomers. Striving in their case is an acquired language, not their native tongue.
Gen X and Millennials, who went through adolescence and young adulthood during the '80s and after, imprinted on an environment marked by rising competitiveness and one-upsmanship. You lower your status by having to acknowledge others. For the striver, if others are to be acknowledged, it must come off as deigning to do so — a form of social largesse rather than social duty. In any case, it comes down to individual choice rather than obligation to others.
Mirroring the Me Generation, even those X-ers and Millennials who are acting to reverse the hyper-competitive climate still struggle instinctively when it comes to neighborliness in their own everyday lives.
We may not be able to undo the imprinting of our formative years, but we do have to be aware of it and make a conscious effort to behave more neighborly to our neighbors.
PS: These generational differences cannot be blamed on changes in the racial make-up of the environment that the earlier vs. later groups have imprinted on. Certainly growing up in a minority-white environment is more likely for X-ers and Millennials, and is more corrosive of neighborliness than a mostly-white environment. But you see these generational differences in all-white communities too, where racial changes are not a factor.
August 15, 2015
August 7, 2015
Fox News lobs bomb at Trump, bounces back, blows the face off of sell-out "right-wing" media
In case you missed the GOP debate, the cuckservative moderators failed to ask any substantive questions of Donald Trump, using the opportunity instead to try to snare him with petty, snarky "gotcha" questions about:
- Whether he's inflaming the War on Women by calling Rosie O'Donnell a fat hairy dyke?
- Whether he has a professionally lit cell phone video of the Mexican government nudging their undesirables over the border? And
- Whether he'll swear loyalty to the Republican Party rather than the American people?
On and on it went, the most shameful thing I've seen in a long while. The substantive questions went only to the empty suits who gave boring, dickless responses, all of them canned. Yet I sat through two hours of questions from a bitter bimbo and a leathery, closeted Jew (frat bro was OK, aside from the opening ambush about GOP uber alles), just to see if it would ever get good (it didn't).
That was the first and last time I'll willingly tune into Fox News. But I'm not part of their target audience, so big deal to them, right?
However, check out the comments at Fox News' Facebook page, or responses on Twitter. Those are coming from the large pool of regular viewers. Not a single person chimed in to tell them what a great job they did as media moderators between the public and the candidates. Every single one that talks about the debate overall is not only negative, but shaming of Fox News as a whole and the individual moderators too (mostly the airhead and the putz).
Even if these devoted viewers weren't all gung-ho for Trump, they were still disgusted by the flagrant set-up of the most popular candidate, and coming from what they had trusted as the only (quasi-)conservative news source in the mainstream media. Recurring comments to the effect of "Now we see your true colors," "Never watching again," and so on.
In fact, most reactions weren't in favor of this or that candidate's total performance, so the debate's effect on the polls may or may not be noticeable. Fox News failed at their goal of souring the conservative voters on Trump.
The main result of the network's debate was in fact to alienate and anger a YUGE segment of the party's base from the network itself. The consensus from the audience response is, "I don't know who won, but the clear loser was Fox News".
And so, not only is the Trump phenomenon breaking apart the corrupt Republican establishment, it has also led one of the central propaganda outlets to self-destruct. While flailing to wound Trump, the arrogant fool wields the blade so recklessly that it hacks off its own head.
Truly this campaign is the gift that keeps on giving.
- Whether he's inflaming the War on Women by calling Rosie O'Donnell a fat hairy dyke?
- Whether he has a professionally lit cell phone video of the Mexican government nudging their undesirables over the border? And
- Whether he'll swear loyalty to the Republican Party rather than the American people?
On and on it went, the most shameful thing I've seen in a long while. The substantive questions went only to the empty suits who gave boring, dickless responses, all of them canned. Yet I sat through two hours of questions from a bitter bimbo and a leathery, closeted Jew (frat bro was OK, aside from the opening ambush about GOP uber alles), just to see if it would ever get good (it didn't).
That was the first and last time I'll willingly tune into Fox News. But I'm not part of their target audience, so big deal to them, right?
However, check out the comments at Fox News' Facebook page, or responses on Twitter. Those are coming from the large pool of regular viewers. Not a single person chimed in to tell them what a great job they did as media moderators between the public and the candidates. Every single one that talks about the debate overall is not only negative, but shaming of Fox News as a whole and the individual moderators too (mostly the airhead and the putz).
Even if these devoted viewers weren't all gung-ho for Trump, they were still disgusted by the flagrant set-up of the most popular candidate, and coming from what they had trusted as the only (quasi-)conservative news source in the mainstream media. Recurring comments to the effect of "Now we see your true colors," "Never watching again," and so on.
In fact, most reactions weren't in favor of this or that candidate's total performance, so the debate's effect on the polls may or may not be noticeable. Fox News failed at their goal of souring the conservative voters on Trump.
The main result of the network's debate was in fact to alienate and anger a YUGE segment of the party's base from the network itself. The consensus from the audience response is, "I don't know who won, but the clear loser was Fox News".
And so, not only is the Trump phenomenon breaking apart the corrupt Republican establishment, it has also led one of the central propaganda outlets to self-destruct. While flailing to wound Trump, the arrogant fool wields the blade so recklessly that it hacks off its own head.
Truly this campaign is the gift that keeps on giving.
August 5, 2015
Another fag hag humiliated by her gay eunuch's adultery (Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale divorce)
This was brought up by DdR in the comments to an old post, but it deserves a post of its own.
Here is the link from Blind Gossip about Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale's divorce being caused by his continued adultery with other men, which was already discussed in an old no-longer-blind item here.
What's weird is that they were not a sham couple, with the wife knowingly and cynically bearding for a closet case. She truly believed he was "just" bisexual, rather than preferring rotted male buttholes over her own pussy, and that he could/would quit his old ways.
It's ironic because Gwen Stefani owes her pop icon status to a persona that blends streetwise savvy with girl-next-door wholesomeness. Turns out, she's just another clueless airhead who got conned by a promiscuous fudgepacker, contracting who knows what kinds of diseases via all the Sodomites her husband has taken loads up the butt from.
I was going to say, "At least our memories of '80s pop stars remain clean of this sort of stain." But then there's the dark-haired babe from Bananarama, who is in a 25-year arrangement with the other guy from Wham! Besides showing Peter Pannish gayface in every single picture, he was also in a duo with George Michael.
Checking google, they split up for awhile recently, probably because his twink-fiddling got a little too flagrant for her self-respect to stay intact.
It's disturbing to look at these cases of Strong Independent Women who date/marry a gay eunuch in order to preserve their public desirability ("power couple!") without having to actually pair-bond with a male. Such a strong signal of the growing divide in trust between the sexes.
Of course in the end, indeed throughout the relationship, she gets humiliated privately or publicly by reminders that her beau prefers diseased dude-rectums over what she felt was a desirable, spellbinding pussy.
I'll never understand how beards or even fag-hags can compartmentalize the fact that their gay BFF / closeted homo husband finds everything about their feminine sexuality and womanhood utterly revolting. I guess they perceive that threat to their self-worth as the lesser of the two evils -- she might have to risk dating and getting dumped by a man whose abandoning her could not be easily written off as "he's not into girls at all," rather than just not into her specifically.
In a way, then, the admittedly fringe trend of women bearding for homos or simply spending all their time fag-hagging with gay BFFs, is a sign of the trend among men to not stick around or pair-bond with women. It's obviously a clueless and unhealthy reaction, but they are reacting to something real.
Related: young women less and less likely to choose men as sex partners, since the early '90s. (That post covered data through 2010, but the decline continues up through 2014.)
Girls are not turning to other girls for physical reasons, as though boys can't pleasure them, but other girls could. Other girls can't fill her up. Instead, it seems like they're searching for an emotional bond during intimacy that their distant, checked-out, porn-scarfing, video-game-addicted male peers are incapable of providing them with.
As in the gay eunuch scenario, these girls are in for a rude awakening when they discover that bisexual and lesbian girls are just using the straight experimenter for a taste of fresh forbidden fruit, and have zero intention of emotionally bonding with her and sticking together long-term. Lesbos are convinced that straight experimenters will return to dudes sooner or later, and so don't bother getting emotionally invested with the bi-curious type.
While the young women themselves ultimately bear responsibility for these attempts to take the easy way out of the problem of men not committing to them, they are too childlike to be the target for reversing the trend. Children will always prefer what appears to be This One Weird Trick to solve all their complex problems, no matter how deranged it actually is.
The target, instead, should be young men who need to be shunned and shamed out of their porn-and-video-game cocoons. Parents can do their part by reversing the trend of over-protectiveness, which turns a blind eye toward their sons losing themselves in safe virtual worlds rather than going outside into the scary real world and interacting with their peers.
Real-life friends and girlfriends must be gained by committing to them socially, unlike the virtual world where their party members automatically join them at prescribed points during a video game journey where no one can ever die and go back to start, and where vicarious lovers can be customized and streamed with a few clicks of the mouse.
Training your children to be afraid of the outside world is setting up the next generation of men to fall back into the risk-free addictions of internet porn and video game grinding, which will in turn drive the next generation of women to disconnect from pair-bonding in all sorts of unhealthy last-ditch ways.
Here is the link from Blind Gossip about Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale's divorce being caused by his continued adultery with other men, which was already discussed in an old no-longer-blind item here.
What's weird is that they were not a sham couple, with the wife knowingly and cynically bearding for a closet case. She truly believed he was "just" bisexual, rather than preferring rotted male buttholes over her own pussy, and that he could/would quit his old ways.
It's ironic because Gwen Stefani owes her pop icon status to a persona that blends streetwise savvy with girl-next-door wholesomeness. Turns out, she's just another clueless airhead who got conned by a promiscuous fudgepacker, contracting who knows what kinds of diseases via all the Sodomites her husband has taken loads up the butt from.
I was going to say, "At least our memories of '80s pop stars remain clean of this sort of stain." But then there's the dark-haired babe from Bananarama, who is in a 25-year arrangement with the other guy from Wham! Besides showing Peter Pannish gayface in every single picture, he was also in a duo with George Michael.
Checking google, they split up for awhile recently, probably because his twink-fiddling got a little too flagrant for her self-respect to stay intact.
It's disturbing to look at these cases of Strong Independent Women who date/marry a gay eunuch in order to preserve their public desirability ("power couple!") without having to actually pair-bond with a male. Such a strong signal of the growing divide in trust between the sexes.
Of course in the end, indeed throughout the relationship, she gets humiliated privately or publicly by reminders that her beau prefers diseased dude-rectums over what she felt was a desirable, spellbinding pussy.
I'll never understand how beards or even fag-hags can compartmentalize the fact that their gay BFF / closeted homo husband finds everything about their feminine sexuality and womanhood utterly revolting. I guess they perceive that threat to their self-worth as the lesser of the two evils -- she might have to risk dating and getting dumped by a man whose abandoning her could not be easily written off as "he's not into girls at all," rather than just not into her specifically.
In a way, then, the admittedly fringe trend of women bearding for homos or simply spending all their time fag-hagging with gay BFFs, is a sign of the trend among men to not stick around or pair-bond with women. It's obviously a clueless and unhealthy reaction, but they are reacting to something real.
Related: young women less and less likely to choose men as sex partners, since the early '90s. (That post covered data through 2010, but the decline continues up through 2014.)
Girls are not turning to other girls for physical reasons, as though boys can't pleasure them, but other girls could. Other girls can't fill her up. Instead, it seems like they're searching for an emotional bond during intimacy that their distant, checked-out, porn-scarfing, video-game-addicted male peers are incapable of providing them with.
As in the gay eunuch scenario, these girls are in for a rude awakening when they discover that bisexual and lesbian girls are just using the straight experimenter for a taste of fresh forbidden fruit, and have zero intention of emotionally bonding with her and sticking together long-term. Lesbos are convinced that straight experimenters will return to dudes sooner or later, and so don't bother getting emotionally invested with the bi-curious type.
While the young women themselves ultimately bear responsibility for these attempts to take the easy way out of the problem of men not committing to them, they are too childlike to be the target for reversing the trend. Children will always prefer what appears to be This One Weird Trick to solve all their complex problems, no matter how deranged it actually is.
The target, instead, should be young men who need to be shunned and shamed out of their porn-and-video-game cocoons. Parents can do their part by reversing the trend of over-protectiveness, which turns a blind eye toward their sons losing themselves in safe virtual worlds rather than going outside into the scary real world and interacting with their peers.
Real-life friends and girlfriends must be gained by committing to them socially, unlike the virtual world where their party members automatically join them at prescribed points during a video game journey where no one can ever die and go back to start, and where vicarious lovers can be customized and streamed with a few clicks of the mouse.
Training your children to be afraid of the outside world is setting up the next generation of men to fall back into the risk-free addictions of internet porn and video game grinding, which will in turn drive the next generation of women to disconnect from pair-bonding in all sorts of unhealthy last-ditch ways.
July 25, 2015
Being local vs. being rooted
The rise of the "buy local" phenomenon is understandable given the omnipresence of chain stores across the nation and corporate control over the economy. Normal people distrust mega-sized entities having so much influence over their everyday lives. Supporting a local business, even if they sell mass market products, or purchasing local products, even if it's at a chain store, allows ordinary people push back against wealthy and powerful outsiders who are trying to gobble up the local ecosystem.
At the same time, we shouldn't mistake being local to a community with being rooted in that community. Depending on where you are in the country, a majority of the "buy local" businesses may not have been around for even five years, and may not exist another five years into the future.
This is part of the broader pattern where businesses catering to trendy upper-middle-class tastes go through a much more rapid and volatile churning, as yesterday's stairmaster farm gives way to today's yoga studio, or as one shabby chic design store becomes too predictable and gets replaced by another, more refreshing shabby chic design store.
These locally owned and operated businesses do keep outside corporate influence at bay, but they do not provide local residents with a sense of belonging to a community. Feeling anchored within a place requires that place to be fairly stable itself. No one can feel secure within a house that becomes unglued from its foundation and keeps shifting all over the landscape.
Chain stores, too, may be here today, gone tomorrow — especially if they're chasing after those with large disposable incomes. In one of the main shopping centers where I grew up during adolescence, there used to be a Whole Foods that arrived sometime during the 2000s, but has since moved 20 to 30 minutes away to a wealthier suburb. I don't think it lasted even 10 years.
As for places that are rooted, some may be local and quirky — such as the few mom & pop grocery stores still left — but others may be nondescript chain stores that have been there forever.
If it's been in place long enough, even a bland generic chain store may serve as an anchor for local residents' experiences and memories, in effect making it a one-of-a-kind and distinctly local place. Particular experiences of particular groups of people have unfolded there across several generations. Only to an outsider would the place look and feel "just like any other chain of its kind," blind to the social history within and around the built environment.
The inability to recognize one's outsider ignorance of local history and conditions stems from autism, which runs high among people who like to gab about architecture, geography, space, place, etc. And of course the handful of longtime residents who whine about nearby rooted businesses most likely never fit into the community in the first place.
"Why can't the city council just knock down those ugly two-story brick apartment buildings next to that lame barber shop and that useless hardware store? It could literally be a mid-rise tower with luxury condos above a Starbucks and a Panera on the ground floor. Oh wait, I forgot — the tacky locals here can't conceptualize how epic a mixed-use space would be. I swear, I'm getting out of this dump and moving to Minneapolis!"
It's disturbing to think of how much influence over commercial and civic life is wielded by this coalition of tone-deaf autistic outsiders and bratty local misfits.
Cohesive communities where folks have deep roots are not so easily destabilized, as the intentional lack of dynamism encourages the local brats to leave and makes it unattractive — BORING — as a target for colonization by trendoid transplants. Likewise, you can easily spot which areas to avoid living in, where none of the shops have been in place for more than five to ten years, mirroring the flux-driven anonymity among the residents.
On the practical side, how can these patterns be used to try to cement an otherwise rootless area? Rootedness would have to be an intentional plan at first. Start with something as "simple" as passing municipal legislation about turnover rates for commercial real estate. "Simple," assuming the will is there to begin with.
That would also go a long ways toward solving the problem of high turnover among residential real estate, as only those residents who prefer stability will stay or move in.
Attacking residential turnover is hard to accomplish directly. People will rightfully chafe at having their residency being regulated so closely by the government, even if it is in the best interests of communal stability. Regulating businesses for the greater community's interests is far more palatable politically.
Moreover, businesses, churches, libraries, and the like can remain in place indefinitely into the future and serve as anchors across the generations. A particular person living in a particular home cannot do that. Those who were closed to them may remember their house as "the house where Mrs. Baumgartner used to live," but that doesn't spread out too far as second-hand or third-hand knowledge, and will not be understood by future generations who don't know who Mrs. Baumgartner was to begin with. But they all may have worshiped in the same church, spent summer days in the same pool, and eaten at the same mom & pop cafeteria across the street.
At the same time, we shouldn't mistake being local to a community with being rooted in that community. Depending on where you are in the country, a majority of the "buy local" businesses may not have been around for even five years, and may not exist another five years into the future.
This is part of the broader pattern where businesses catering to trendy upper-middle-class tastes go through a much more rapid and volatile churning, as yesterday's stairmaster farm gives way to today's yoga studio, or as one shabby chic design store becomes too predictable and gets replaced by another, more refreshing shabby chic design store.
These locally owned and operated businesses do keep outside corporate influence at bay, but they do not provide local residents with a sense of belonging to a community. Feeling anchored within a place requires that place to be fairly stable itself. No one can feel secure within a house that becomes unglued from its foundation and keeps shifting all over the landscape.
Chain stores, too, may be here today, gone tomorrow — especially if they're chasing after those with large disposable incomes. In one of the main shopping centers where I grew up during adolescence, there used to be a Whole Foods that arrived sometime during the 2000s, but has since moved 20 to 30 minutes away to a wealthier suburb. I don't think it lasted even 10 years.
As for places that are rooted, some may be local and quirky — such as the few mom & pop grocery stores still left — but others may be nondescript chain stores that have been there forever.
If it's been in place long enough, even a bland generic chain store may serve as an anchor for local residents' experiences and memories, in effect making it a one-of-a-kind and distinctly local place. Particular experiences of particular groups of people have unfolded there across several generations. Only to an outsider would the place look and feel "just like any other chain of its kind," blind to the social history within and around the built environment.
The inability to recognize one's outsider ignorance of local history and conditions stems from autism, which runs high among people who like to gab about architecture, geography, space, place, etc. And of course the handful of longtime residents who whine about nearby rooted businesses most likely never fit into the community in the first place.
"Why can't the city council just knock down those ugly two-story brick apartment buildings next to that lame barber shop and that useless hardware store? It could literally be a mid-rise tower with luxury condos above a Starbucks and a Panera on the ground floor. Oh wait, I forgot — the tacky locals here can't conceptualize how epic a mixed-use space would be. I swear, I'm getting out of this dump and moving to Minneapolis!"
It's disturbing to think of how much influence over commercial and civic life is wielded by this coalition of tone-deaf autistic outsiders and bratty local misfits.
Cohesive communities where folks have deep roots are not so easily destabilized, as the intentional lack of dynamism encourages the local brats to leave and makes it unattractive — BORING — as a target for colonization by trendoid transplants. Likewise, you can easily spot which areas to avoid living in, where none of the shops have been in place for more than five to ten years, mirroring the flux-driven anonymity among the residents.
On the practical side, how can these patterns be used to try to cement an otherwise rootless area? Rootedness would have to be an intentional plan at first. Start with something as "simple" as passing municipal legislation about turnover rates for commercial real estate. "Simple," assuming the will is there to begin with.
That would also go a long ways toward solving the problem of high turnover among residential real estate, as only those residents who prefer stability will stay or move in.
Attacking residential turnover is hard to accomplish directly. People will rightfully chafe at having their residency being regulated so closely by the government, even if it is in the best interests of communal stability. Regulating businesses for the greater community's interests is far more palatable politically.
Moreover, businesses, churches, libraries, and the like can remain in place indefinitely into the future and serve as anchors across the generations. A particular person living in a particular home cannot do that. Those who were closed to them may remember their house as "the house where Mrs. Baumgartner used to live," but that doesn't spread out too far as second-hand or third-hand knowledge, and will not be understood by future generations who don't know who Mrs. Baumgartner was to begin with. But they all may have worshiped in the same church, spent summer days in the same pool, and eaten at the same mom & pop cafeteria across the street.
July 22, 2015
The Trump phenomenon
Finally, a populist candidate speaking truth to power. His campaign has only started to take off, so there will be plenty of interesting developments ahead. Here are a few observations so far.
There's always a worry with populist candidates that they'll back down or water things down once they're in office. Not with Trump, who is not a career politician. Being a winner to a politician means getting elected to the highest possible office for the longest possible time. Whether you do a terrible job or not doesn't matter.
Trump has little room left to climb on the status pyramid — why not shoot for leader of the free world? Well, what kind of status boost would it be to rule over an increasingly third-world shithole of a country? It would be an embarrassment. Trump's ego works in our favor, since he couldn't stand being known as the leader of a loser country, which is what we're going to wind up as if current trends continue. His megalomania wouldn't be satisfied until he made the nation something worth bragging about again.
Even if he ends up not winning the Presidency, his assault on PC bullshit of all types will have tremendous immediate results. It's like those classic experiments on conformity that Solomon Asch ran. You're asked which of two lines is longer, and one is very obviously longer than the other. However, before you get to answer, about a dozen other people give the wrong answer. Faced with the pressure of sticking out, a good portion of people (by no means all) will quietly go along with the wrong answer.
But when there's just one other person who speaks the truth before it's your turn, it completely shatters the conformity effect. You are guaranteed to give the right answer, ignoring all the other wrong answers and latching onto the single right answer. "Phew, so I'm not the only one who thinks everyone else here is nuts!"
Sure, there are a handful of people who will straight-talk like Trump in real life, but they don't have much of a megaphone and are not very numerous. They can shatter the conformity effect for a good deal of folks who they come into contact with, but not the entire society. And in case you haven't been paying attention, it's been a good 20 years (the culture wars of the '90s) since any major public figure made a point of declaring that the Emperor wasn't wearing any clothes.
The media and political establishment have no clue how to react, since Trump is pointing out a very clear and very public error that they've all made — all said that the shorter line was longer, and based policies off of that. They're used to everyone having drunk the kool-aid, and only arguing about, say, how much longer the actually-short line is.
Trump is not nitpicking within the range of the received error, he's pointing out that at the basic level, they've all got it backwards — that's the shorter line, dummy, not the longer one! What kinda moron can't see that? The establishment is either stupid, incompetent, blind, deceitful, lying, or something — how else can they explain failing such an easy question like illegal immigration or free trade deals?
What the whining classes take to be mudslinging and name-calling is just the opposite: it's revealing that the Emperor is wearing no clothes. They're used to a charge of "incompetent" meaning that the person bungled the job of flooding more immigrants into the country, or bungled the job of securing more power for corporations than for nations. The elites all have the same goals, and only name-call one another for not living up to their shared ideal.
Trump is interrupting the conversation to ask, point-blank, what the hell kinda ideal is that? — Mexican criminals pouring over the border, and manufacturing sent to China so we can buy a bunch of cheap junk? He isn't targeting a particular individual for failing to live up to an ideal that he shares with them. He's targeting the whole lot of them for sharing such a warped and twisted ideal in the first place!
Shifting the direction that society is headed in — what ideals it will pursue — is far more worrisome to the establishment than mere character assassination. Of course, they don't want to open up a whole debate about whether their ideals are worth holding or not, since hardly any ordinary citizens would take their side. They are left only with mud-slinging (something they do out of habit anyway), which only helps Trump out.
"Do you see? They know I'm right on the issues about where the country is headed, so they ignore that and try to attack my character instead. Cowards!"
Lastly, one common view is that the WASP-y founding stock here has grown too timid, bored, or brainwashed into liberalism that it will take someone on the periphery of white America to deliver us from the plague, a la Giuliani in New York during the '90s. No self-respecting Italian is gonna let some buncha darkie bums get in his way of cleaning up The City.
And yet ethnic / peripheral whites vote liberal. The Celto-Germanic mass of the population may be in a slumber, but they have a keen sense of how much has been lost from recent demographic changes. Italians, Poles, etc., may (or may not) be outraged at the influx of corrosive Mexicans, but that's more of a turf war over who makes a better group of immigrants. They aren't from the founding stock.
Trump is Scottish on his mother's side and Bavarian on his father's. His personality is certainly more on the Celtic side, and he's Presbyterian rather than Catholic. Hard to find a more mainline American candidate than that.
He's also born and raised in New York, where he has stayed into adulthood. That's way more than you can say for the rootedness of the likes of George W. Bush, a New England preppy who LARPs as a Texan, or John McCain, a DC-area native who took up his Wild West cosplay act in middle age. Yosemite Sam also chose his running-mate for cosplay points ("Alaska: The Final Frontier"), and all it did was prove to voters how flakey and shallow people are out West. Romney was born and raised in Michigan, but his heritage is Mormon — more weird Westerners.
I haven't voted since Nader in 2000 (volunteered during the campaign on campus, too), but now there's a far more likely populist candidate to get behind. I honestly never thought I'd be voting again until old age. Voting Trump in 2016 could be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to kick the Establishment right in the balls, and end their chances of reproducing.
There's always a worry with populist candidates that they'll back down or water things down once they're in office. Not with Trump, who is not a career politician. Being a winner to a politician means getting elected to the highest possible office for the longest possible time. Whether you do a terrible job or not doesn't matter.
Trump has little room left to climb on the status pyramid — why not shoot for leader of the free world? Well, what kind of status boost would it be to rule over an increasingly third-world shithole of a country? It would be an embarrassment. Trump's ego works in our favor, since he couldn't stand being known as the leader of a loser country, which is what we're going to wind up as if current trends continue. His megalomania wouldn't be satisfied until he made the nation something worth bragging about again.
Even if he ends up not winning the Presidency, his assault on PC bullshit of all types will have tremendous immediate results. It's like those classic experiments on conformity that Solomon Asch ran. You're asked which of two lines is longer, and one is very obviously longer than the other. However, before you get to answer, about a dozen other people give the wrong answer. Faced with the pressure of sticking out, a good portion of people (by no means all) will quietly go along with the wrong answer.
But when there's just one other person who speaks the truth before it's your turn, it completely shatters the conformity effect. You are guaranteed to give the right answer, ignoring all the other wrong answers and latching onto the single right answer. "Phew, so I'm not the only one who thinks everyone else here is nuts!"
Sure, there are a handful of people who will straight-talk like Trump in real life, but they don't have much of a megaphone and are not very numerous. They can shatter the conformity effect for a good deal of folks who they come into contact with, but not the entire society. And in case you haven't been paying attention, it's been a good 20 years (the culture wars of the '90s) since any major public figure made a point of declaring that the Emperor wasn't wearing any clothes.
The media and political establishment have no clue how to react, since Trump is pointing out a very clear and very public error that they've all made — all said that the shorter line was longer, and based policies off of that. They're used to everyone having drunk the kool-aid, and only arguing about, say, how much longer the actually-short line is.
Trump is not nitpicking within the range of the received error, he's pointing out that at the basic level, they've all got it backwards — that's the shorter line, dummy, not the longer one! What kinda moron can't see that? The establishment is either stupid, incompetent, blind, deceitful, lying, or something — how else can they explain failing such an easy question like illegal immigration or free trade deals?
What the whining classes take to be mudslinging and name-calling is just the opposite: it's revealing that the Emperor is wearing no clothes. They're used to a charge of "incompetent" meaning that the person bungled the job of flooding more immigrants into the country, or bungled the job of securing more power for corporations than for nations. The elites all have the same goals, and only name-call one another for not living up to their shared ideal.
Trump is interrupting the conversation to ask, point-blank, what the hell kinda ideal is that? — Mexican criminals pouring over the border, and manufacturing sent to China so we can buy a bunch of cheap junk? He isn't targeting a particular individual for failing to live up to an ideal that he shares with them. He's targeting the whole lot of them for sharing such a warped and twisted ideal in the first place!
Shifting the direction that society is headed in — what ideals it will pursue — is far more worrisome to the establishment than mere character assassination. Of course, they don't want to open up a whole debate about whether their ideals are worth holding or not, since hardly any ordinary citizens would take their side. They are left only with mud-slinging (something they do out of habit anyway), which only helps Trump out.
"Do you see? They know I'm right on the issues about where the country is headed, so they ignore that and try to attack my character instead. Cowards!"
Lastly, one common view is that the WASP-y founding stock here has grown too timid, bored, or brainwashed into liberalism that it will take someone on the periphery of white America to deliver us from the plague, a la Giuliani in New York during the '90s. No self-respecting Italian is gonna let some buncha darkie bums get in his way of cleaning up The City.
And yet ethnic / peripheral whites vote liberal. The Celto-Germanic mass of the population may be in a slumber, but they have a keen sense of how much has been lost from recent demographic changes. Italians, Poles, etc., may (or may not) be outraged at the influx of corrosive Mexicans, but that's more of a turf war over who makes a better group of immigrants. They aren't from the founding stock.
Trump is Scottish on his mother's side and Bavarian on his father's. His personality is certainly more on the Celtic side, and he's Presbyterian rather than Catholic. Hard to find a more mainline American candidate than that.
He's also born and raised in New York, where he has stayed into adulthood. That's way more than you can say for the rootedness of the likes of George W. Bush, a New England preppy who LARPs as a Texan, or John McCain, a DC-area native who took up his Wild West cosplay act in middle age. Yosemite Sam also chose his running-mate for cosplay points ("Alaska: The Final Frontier"), and all it did was prove to voters how flakey and shallow people are out West. Romney was born and raised in Michigan, but his heritage is Mormon — more weird Westerners.
I haven't voted since Nader in 2000 (volunteered during the campaign on campus, too), but now there's a far more likely populist candidate to get behind. I honestly never thought I'd be voting again until old age. Voting Trump in 2016 could be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to kick the Establishment right in the balls, and end their chances of reproducing.
June 29, 2015
Whites who are not transplants: Their prevalence across regions
To help us understand where different parts of the country are demographically, as well as where they're going in the future, we need a better picture than simply race.
Not that race doesn't tell us a lot -- we know the heavily white regions won't be plagued by as much violent and property crime as the heavily black and Hispanic regions.
But for a true sense of communal stability, the white people can't have all just shown up yesterday, from all over the country. Boomtowns that act as transplant magnets have shallow roots in the present, and may never develop roots into the future. Only if everyone there today stays put, and not too many newcomers flood in.
If the boomtown keeps drawing in wave after wave of latter-day gold-miners, it hits a great big reset button and never allows existing roots to grow. And if the boom goes bust, the place turns into a ghost town. Either way, merely waiting a long time is not good enough for roots to be put down.
I've combined these two factors into a single measure: of the region's population, what percent of them are non-Hispanic whites who are native to their region?
The data come from the General Social Survey, which asks where you were living at age 16. The question about Hispanic background was only asked starting in 2000, so the picture here is valid for the 21st century. I restricted the population to those aged 25 and above, since transplants tend to take awhile to finally move out to wherever they're staking a claim.
"Transplant" here means someone who's living in an entirely different region than where they grew up, not simply moving from L.A. to San Diego, or from New Jersey to New York. Small-scale migration won't be that destabilizing, but having a large share of your population coming from a different region does not bode well for local stability.
This chart ranks the Census regions by their share of non-Hispanic, white, regional natives:
Here is a map of which states are included in which region:
Far and away, the eastern part of the Midwest has the highest concentration of rooted whites. Quite simply, a large share of the population is white, and whites are most likely to be natives in this region. Plenty of folks may move out of Michigan, but nobody moves into Michigan.
New England and the western part of the Midwest also have highly white populations -- in fact, slightly more white than E.N. Central -- but they are twice as likely to be transplants (24% vs. 12%).
The Mid-Atlantic suffers from only 70% being white, although they make up for that somewhat by having the second-highest rate of staying put.
Southern Appalachia (E.S. Central) has a decent-sized white population at 80%, but over one-quarter of them are transplants.
The other Southern and Western states are all about tied for last place, for varying reasons.
The South Atlantic has a decent share of blacks and Hispanics, and about one-third of the whites are transplants. The greater Texas region has even more blacks and Hispanics, but their whites are somewhat less transplanted (over one-quarter).
The Mountain states suffer from the highest rate of transplant-ism among whites (barely 50% of whom are native to the region), although non-Hispanic whites do form three-fourths of the population. And of course the West Coast is bound to be dead last: just under 60% are non-Hispanic whites, and of these, only 67% are regional natives.
For now, I'm not going to use this geographic pattern to explain other patterns, or try to account for the present one. Before doing that, it's worth wrapping your mind around a simple description of which parts of the country have higher and lower concentrations of rooted white people.
GSS variables: regtrans (from reg16 and region), region, race, hispanic, age, year
Not that race doesn't tell us a lot -- we know the heavily white regions won't be plagued by as much violent and property crime as the heavily black and Hispanic regions.
But for a true sense of communal stability, the white people can't have all just shown up yesterday, from all over the country. Boomtowns that act as transplant magnets have shallow roots in the present, and may never develop roots into the future. Only if everyone there today stays put, and not too many newcomers flood in.
If the boomtown keeps drawing in wave after wave of latter-day gold-miners, it hits a great big reset button and never allows existing roots to grow. And if the boom goes bust, the place turns into a ghost town. Either way, merely waiting a long time is not good enough for roots to be put down.
I've combined these two factors into a single measure: of the region's population, what percent of them are non-Hispanic whites who are native to their region?
The data come from the General Social Survey, which asks where you were living at age 16. The question about Hispanic background was only asked starting in 2000, so the picture here is valid for the 21st century. I restricted the population to those aged 25 and above, since transplants tend to take awhile to finally move out to wherever they're staking a claim.
"Transplant" here means someone who's living in an entirely different region than where they grew up, not simply moving from L.A. to San Diego, or from New Jersey to New York. Small-scale migration won't be that destabilizing, but having a large share of your population coming from a different region does not bode well for local stability.
This chart ranks the Census regions by their share of non-Hispanic, white, regional natives:
Here is a map of which states are included in which region:
Far and away, the eastern part of the Midwest has the highest concentration of rooted whites. Quite simply, a large share of the population is white, and whites are most likely to be natives in this region. Plenty of folks may move out of Michigan, but nobody moves into Michigan.
New England and the western part of the Midwest also have highly white populations -- in fact, slightly more white than E.N. Central -- but they are twice as likely to be transplants (24% vs. 12%).
The Mid-Atlantic suffers from only 70% being white, although they make up for that somewhat by having the second-highest rate of staying put.
Southern Appalachia (E.S. Central) has a decent-sized white population at 80%, but over one-quarter of them are transplants.
The other Southern and Western states are all about tied for last place, for varying reasons.
The South Atlantic has a decent share of blacks and Hispanics, and about one-third of the whites are transplants. The greater Texas region has even more blacks and Hispanics, but their whites are somewhat less transplanted (over one-quarter).
The Mountain states suffer from the highest rate of transplant-ism among whites (barely 50% of whom are native to the region), although non-Hispanic whites do form three-fourths of the population. And of course the West Coast is bound to be dead last: just under 60% are non-Hispanic whites, and of these, only 67% are regional natives.
For now, I'm not going to use this geographic pattern to explain other patterns, or try to account for the present one. Before doing that, it's worth wrapping your mind around a simple description of which parts of the country have higher and lower concentrations of rooted white people.
GSS variables: regtrans (from reg16 and region), region, race, hispanic, age, year
June 25, 2015
New horizons on the dissection of deviance: latent transgenderism and female bisexuality
A couple years ago I solved the puzzle of what male homosexuality boils down to — arrested social-emotional development during childhood, while still undergoing bodily hormonal changes during adolescence. The end result is someone who's sex-crazed but still thinks, feels, and acts like a little boy, who of course finds girls yucky and directs his newly emerging libido toward the non-yucky sex (other boys). All other facets of the male homosexual syndrome stem from this psychological stunting mixed with hormonal maturation.
To review the evidence, search the older posts for terms like gay Peter Pan-ism, gay pedomorphy, gay neoteny, etc.
But gays are so 2013. This year it's time to dissect other sacred victim groups in order to see what they're really like, too.
Several upcoming posts will look into female bisexuality, where the upshot seems to be that it is the same kind of syndrome as male homosexuality, only lesser in severity and duration, perhaps owing to female biology being more robust against environmental insults. In other words, the same agent that causes male homosexuality causes female bisexuality, although females show a better prognosis just as they do when males and females both get infected with the flu virus.
This inverts the common but whacko conclusion that female sexuality is more easily disturbed or warped — more "fluid" — because it supports a continuum of hetero, bi, and homosexuality, whereas the supposedly more stable male sexuality is either gay, straight, or lying ("bi").
In fact, bisexuality in girls shows how much more relatively stable their nature is to perturbations from pathogens, toxins, or whatever else. They don't become full-blown gay, don't show the same level of deviance as male homosexuals, and largely recover back to heterosexuality during their 30s.
The dismissive way of describing this is that their bisexuality is just a personality phase they go through during their hormone-crazed youth. But why don't the majority of girls go through that personality phase? Clearly it's not just any old phase but a stage of a profound disturbance. It is more accurate and more humanizing to view it as an illness that they thankfully recover from fairly early.
The next area of deviance to be dissected will be what I term "latent" transgenderism, for lack of a better term. J Michael Bailey has already written extensively on the homo and non-homo forms of transgenderism that typically accompany transvestism (cross-dressing), where the person feels as though they have a distinct "gender identity" (which they may feel compelled to "come out" about to others). I'd probably have to dig down further in all of his writings to see if there's anything for me to add.
However, there seems to be a rising level of latent transgenderism, where someone has erotic fantasies about being a member of the opposite sex, with a partner of the opposite sex. That is, a guy's fantasy involving two or more girls — and not a single man — or a girl's fantasy involving two or more guys — and not a single woman.
These are the types of guys who masturbate to girl-on-girl pornography, and the types of girls who get off on reading slash fiction — two related genres that were virtually absent even within pornography and erotica just a few decades ago, when it was all male-female (or male-male for a gay audience, though not for a female audience).
Unlike overt transgender cases, the latent cases don't feel as though they have a distinct gender identity or sexual orientation, and therefore have nothing to hide from others, feel shame about, or have to confess / reveal / come out about. They aren't going to call together a family meeting and say:
"Mom, Dad, there's something I think you need to know about who I am inside... I've been struggling about how to formulate this, both to myself and to the rest of you. But there's no point in denying it any longer — I fantasize about being a hot nubile babe who gets to make out with other hot nubile babes. No, you bigots, I have no plans to dress up as a girl or try to pass myself off as one. That's a cross-dresser, or transvestite, you clueless old farts. I simply get off on the thought of being the girl in a girl-on-girl affair."
Whether it is the male or female case, the latent transgender seems to be primarily driven by a paralyzing fear of approaching, interacting with, and consummating a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, as a member of their own sex. That is to say, the prospect of a male-female courtship, mating dance, etc., scares them to death. However, they are still attracted to the opposite sex and have urges to be physically intimate with the opposite sex. The only solution, to their temperament, is to approach a girl as a girl, or a guy as a guy.
It is as though these guys think that girls will let their guard down around other girls, and (at least some of them) will be open to making out with their fellow girls, particularly if both are attractive, hormone-crazed, and novelty-seeking youngsters.
The emotional release comes not from the thought of penetrating and climaxing inside of the other girl — impossible when you imagine yourself as or identify with the first girl. Rather, it comes from the relief of not having to go through all the normal pas-de-deux moves, not having to overcome even the slightest set of obstacles. Granted, you only get to imagine yourself fondling, making out with, going down on, or circle-jercking the other girl, but this lower reward is more than made up for by the thought of not having to put any effort into the seduction.
It is thus a symptom of profound risk-aversion, crippling social awkwardness, and self-centeredness (not having to adapt, improve, or contribute anything of one's own in order to couple with another).
While normal male fantasies involve being a more attractive, charismatic, and aggressive version of yourself, latent transgenderism is a change of kind and not only an exaggeration of degree. If they were only driven by a desire for minimal obstacles in the way of getting laid, then they would fantasize about being the pretty boy lead singer of a famous rock band, who throngs of eager groupies would be throwing themselves to every night.
Instead, they are so sensitive to rejection that they fixate on not even being perceived as male in the first place — that way, the girl's behavioral shield will not go up, and her warning system will not alert her to yet another random guy trying to get into her pants.
For the latent transgender male, it is not enough for the girl to register that there's a guy wanting to get into her pants, yet wanting him to do so, as in the fantasy about groupies, or something more normal like one where that cute girl from math class reveals that she's always had a crush on you and wants you to make your move as the guy. His paranoia toward girls means that he must fly completely under the radar, requiring him to assume female form in his fantasy.
The same analysis can be applied to the female reader of slash fiction. She is too awkward, paranoid, and unattractive to fantasize about a normal boy-girl affair, perhaps one in which she's more pretty and confident than in real life. She fixates on the hot guy not even perceiving her as a girl, which might set off his warning system about some random girl trying to make a pass at him. If she were a hot guy herself, then she could slip right past his detection grid.
Naturally, not all guys will be open to experimenting, but that goes for the male fantasy about girl-girl hook-ups as well. They just need to fantasize about that one unusual girl who would make out with a girl, or that one guy who would make out with a guy.
This latent form of transgenderism is important not only because it is far more common than the overt form, but because latent fantasies may influence overt identity. Jerking off to girl-on-girl porno scenes is fundamentally a dream about achieving perfect sexual mimicry in order to deceive the target girl and reach climax without her suspecting that you had any sexual intentions on her all along.
Yet the more you fantasize about becoming a perfect sexual mimic, the more you are likely to incorporate distinctly opposite-sex traits into your own gender identity. Maybe that will lead only to a vaguely androgynous personality and set of behaviors, or maybe it will lead to a deeper dysphoria and anxiety that will disrupt their own life and the stability of those around them.
Such fantasies are seemingly banal because they don't involve transvestism, exhibitionism, or narcissism in the way that overt cases do. It would not even make sense to call these latent cases "trannies" since they don't make a point out of looking or acting like the opposite sex.
But the easily credible potential for latent transgender fantasies to gradually erode a normal and healthy gender identity and sexual orientation means that we ought to give them a more serious clinical look, again even more so when you consider how common they have become among young developing minds in the past generation.
To review the evidence, search the older posts for terms like gay Peter Pan-ism, gay pedomorphy, gay neoteny, etc.
But gays are so 2013. This year it's time to dissect other sacred victim groups in order to see what they're really like, too.
Several upcoming posts will look into female bisexuality, where the upshot seems to be that it is the same kind of syndrome as male homosexuality, only lesser in severity and duration, perhaps owing to female biology being more robust against environmental insults. In other words, the same agent that causes male homosexuality causes female bisexuality, although females show a better prognosis just as they do when males and females both get infected with the flu virus.
This inverts the common but whacko conclusion that female sexuality is more easily disturbed or warped — more "fluid" — because it supports a continuum of hetero, bi, and homosexuality, whereas the supposedly more stable male sexuality is either gay, straight, or lying ("bi").
In fact, bisexuality in girls shows how much more relatively stable their nature is to perturbations from pathogens, toxins, or whatever else. They don't become full-blown gay, don't show the same level of deviance as male homosexuals, and largely recover back to heterosexuality during their 30s.
The dismissive way of describing this is that their bisexuality is just a personality phase they go through during their hormone-crazed youth. But why don't the majority of girls go through that personality phase? Clearly it's not just any old phase but a stage of a profound disturbance. It is more accurate and more humanizing to view it as an illness that they thankfully recover from fairly early.
The next area of deviance to be dissected will be what I term "latent" transgenderism, for lack of a better term. J Michael Bailey has already written extensively on the homo and non-homo forms of transgenderism that typically accompany transvestism (cross-dressing), where the person feels as though they have a distinct "gender identity" (which they may feel compelled to "come out" about to others). I'd probably have to dig down further in all of his writings to see if there's anything for me to add.
However, there seems to be a rising level of latent transgenderism, where someone has erotic fantasies about being a member of the opposite sex, with a partner of the opposite sex. That is, a guy's fantasy involving two or more girls — and not a single man — or a girl's fantasy involving two or more guys — and not a single woman.
These are the types of guys who masturbate to girl-on-girl pornography, and the types of girls who get off on reading slash fiction — two related genres that were virtually absent even within pornography and erotica just a few decades ago, when it was all male-female (or male-male for a gay audience, though not for a female audience).
Unlike overt transgender cases, the latent cases don't feel as though they have a distinct gender identity or sexual orientation, and therefore have nothing to hide from others, feel shame about, or have to confess / reveal / come out about. They aren't going to call together a family meeting and say:
"Mom, Dad, there's something I think you need to know about who I am inside... I've been struggling about how to formulate this, both to myself and to the rest of you. But there's no point in denying it any longer — I fantasize about being a hot nubile babe who gets to make out with other hot nubile babes. No, you bigots, I have no plans to dress up as a girl or try to pass myself off as one. That's a cross-dresser, or transvestite, you clueless old farts. I simply get off on the thought of being the girl in a girl-on-girl affair."
Whether it is the male or female case, the latent transgender seems to be primarily driven by a paralyzing fear of approaching, interacting with, and consummating a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, as a member of their own sex. That is to say, the prospect of a male-female courtship, mating dance, etc., scares them to death. However, they are still attracted to the opposite sex and have urges to be physically intimate with the opposite sex. The only solution, to their temperament, is to approach a girl as a girl, or a guy as a guy.
It is as though these guys think that girls will let their guard down around other girls, and (at least some of them) will be open to making out with their fellow girls, particularly if both are attractive, hormone-crazed, and novelty-seeking youngsters.
The emotional release comes not from the thought of penetrating and climaxing inside of the other girl — impossible when you imagine yourself as or identify with the first girl. Rather, it comes from the relief of not having to go through all the normal pas-de-deux moves, not having to overcome even the slightest set of obstacles. Granted, you only get to imagine yourself fondling, making out with, going down on, or circle-jercking the other girl, but this lower reward is more than made up for by the thought of not having to put any effort into the seduction.
It is thus a symptom of profound risk-aversion, crippling social awkwardness, and self-centeredness (not having to adapt, improve, or contribute anything of one's own in order to couple with another).
While normal male fantasies involve being a more attractive, charismatic, and aggressive version of yourself, latent transgenderism is a change of kind and not only an exaggeration of degree. If they were only driven by a desire for minimal obstacles in the way of getting laid, then they would fantasize about being the pretty boy lead singer of a famous rock band, who throngs of eager groupies would be throwing themselves to every night.
Instead, they are so sensitive to rejection that they fixate on not even being perceived as male in the first place — that way, the girl's behavioral shield will not go up, and her warning system will not alert her to yet another random guy trying to get into her pants.
For the latent transgender male, it is not enough for the girl to register that there's a guy wanting to get into her pants, yet wanting him to do so, as in the fantasy about groupies, or something more normal like one where that cute girl from math class reveals that she's always had a crush on you and wants you to make your move as the guy. His paranoia toward girls means that he must fly completely under the radar, requiring him to assume female form in his fantasy.
The same analysis can be applied to the female reader of slash fiction. She is too awkward, paranoid, and unattractive to fantasize about a normal boy-girl affair, perhaps one in which she's more pretty and confident than in real life. She fixates on the hot guy not even perceiving her as a girl, which might set off his warning system about some random girl trying to make a pass at him. If she were a hot guy herself, then she could slip right past his detection grid.
Naturally, not all guys will be open to experimenting, but that goes for the male fantasy about girl-girl hook-ups as well. They just need to fantasize about that one unusual girl who would make out with a girl, or that one guy who would make out with a guy.
This latent form of transgenderism is important not only because it is far more common than the overt form, but because latent fantasies may influence overt identity. Jerking off to girl-on-girl porno scenes is fundamentally a dream about achieving perfect sexual mimicry in order to deceive the target girl and reach climax without her suspecting that you had any sexual intentions on her all along.
Yet the more you fantasize about becoming a perfect sexual mimic, the more you are likely to incorporate distinctly opposite-sex traits into your own gender identity. Maybe that will lead only to a vaguely androgynous personality and set of behaviors, or maybe it will lead to a deeper dysphoria and anxiety that will disrupt their own life and the stability of those around them.
Such fantasies are seemingly banal because they don't involve transvestism, exhibitionism, or narcissism in the way that overt cases do. It would not even make sense to call these latent cases "trannies" since they don't make a point out of looking or acting like the opposite sex.
But the easily credible potential for latent transgender fantasies to gradually erode a normal and healthy gender identity and sexual orientation means that we ought to give them a more serious clinical look, again even more so when you consider how common they have become among young developing minds in the past generation.
June 8, 2015
Gay take on erotic thriller genre reveals mental illness at root of homosexuality
Here are some comments I left at this review of a movie, Stranger by the Lake, that tries to homo-fy the erotic thriller genre. It touches on many aspects of the gay deviance syndrome -- Peter Pan-ism, power and humiliation, extreme negligence of personal health, etc.
The basic plot of the movie is that the main character is so cock-hungry toward a man whom he has secretly witnessed killing a previous lover, that he keeps coming back for more, despite the obvious danger to his own life. The tension arises from him, and us, not knowing whether the next time will be his last.
But the similarities with normal erotic thrillers are only superficial. The gay version is marked by its fundamentally abnormal psychology.
- - - - -
“The film also won the Queer Palm award.[5]”
I see they’ve gone and re-branded the Palm on the Underage Ballsack award. Is nothing sacred anymore?
About it being an erotic thriller — not at all, and its failings reveal the profoundly warped nature of male homosexuality.
In an erotic thriller like Basic Instinct, the tension arises from the male protagonist’s curiosity about a woman who seems as capable of violence as a man, and wanting to square off against her toe-to-toe. Her violent tendencies intrigue him rather than frighten him — it’s not like she’d be able to take on me.
He likes to scratch, she claws his back. He half-rapes his girlfriend, the killer babe ties him up in bed and aggresses against him. Worthy fucking adversary.
That’s the erotic thriller: alpha or usually wannabe alpha male seeks his thrills by competing against the femme fatale, uncertain of which combatant will ultimately one-up the other for good. It’s the guys who get a rush from taunting a girl to “hit me with your best shot, honey”.
The fraidy-cat twink in this queer-directed movie doesn’t play that role at all. He doesn’t see the killer as his equal, nor does he want to get his kicks from jockeying for position, as it were. He’s frightened by him, realizes he could be the next victim, but is so empty and desperate that he’ll pursue a quick fix at any cost, having to block out those rational fears for the couple of minutes it takes for the killer to blow his diseased wad up the sissy’s butt.
So, completely opposite of the contest between equals in the erotic thriller, the gay killer fantasy is based on one of them having total power and the other showing total submission, perhaps to the extreme of being killed by the other.
Dudes fantasizing about sexually wrastlin’ with women is shameful, but it’s not a sign of being severely fucked in the head. Gay fantasies, on the other hand, always reveal profound mental illness. The winner of the Queer Palm award is trying to romanticize what is soulless, and to aestheticize what is disgusting and ugly.
Thus it’s possible for the protag in an erotic thriller to be tragic, his downfall stemming from arrogantly tempting fate by daring the femme fatale to take off the kid gloves and hit him for real. I don’t know of an example that actually tries to make him tragic, let alone succeed at it, but at least it’s possible, and the basic idea comes across in any good erotic thriller, like Basic Instinct.
The victim in the gay killer fantasy flick is not brought down by any kind of hubris, but by an extreme form of negligence. He knows full well how violent the other guy is, how likely he is to wind up as his next victim, but he’s just gotta have his cock fix.
That’s no more tragic than some junkie continuing to shoot up knowing damn well what the substance will ultimately do to him. It’s pathetic, disturbing, and makes a normal person want to lock him up in a supervised facility where he can no longer harm himself.
We don’t respond that way to the arrogant tempter of the femme fatale — arrogance implies a certain degree of maturity, so it’s his own fault that he got killed by the psycho (“I tole you dat bitch crazy”).
But pretending that a real and imminent danger will somehow magically go away, is just infantile. Our reflex is that this person isn’t totally responsible for what’s happened to them, because their mental development has been arrested or retarded.
We don’t get satisfaction from seeing them met their demise — satisfaction in the sense of righteous vindication. Maybe we’re generically sad, maybe we’re just glad the junkie has kicked the bucket and won’t be around to bother us with his self-destruction any longer. Either way, there’s no happy ending to the gay killer movie.
The basic plot of the movie is that the main character is so cock-hungry toward a man whom he has secretly witnessed killing a previous lover, that he keeps coming back for more, despite the obvious danger to his own life. The tension arises from him, and us, not knowing whether the next time will be his last.
But the similarities with normal erotic thrillers are only superficial. The gay version is marked by its fundamentally abnormal psychology.
- - - - -
“The film also won the Queer Palm award.[5]”
I see they’ve gone and re-branded the Palm on the Underage Ballsack award. Is nothing sacred anymore?
About it being an erotic thriller — not at all, and its failings reveal the profoundly warped nature of male homosexuality.
In an erotic thriller like Basic Instinct, the tension arises from the male protagonist’s curiosity about a woman who seems as capable of violence as a man, and wanting to square off against her toe-to-toe. Her violent tendencies intrigue him rather than frighten him — it’s not like she’d be able to take on me.
He likes to scratch, she claws his back. He half-rapes his girlfriend, the killer babe ties him up in bed and aggresses against him. Worthy fucking adversary.
That’s the erotic thriller: alpha or usually wannabe alpha male seeks his thrills by competing against the femme fatale, uncertain of which combatant will ultimately one-up the other for good. It’s the guys who get a rush from taunting a girl to “hit me with your best shot, honey”.
The fraidy-cat twink in this queer-directed movie doesn’t play that role at all. He doesn’t see the killer as his equal, nor does he want to get his kicks from jockeying for position, as it were. He’s frightened by him, realizes he could be the next victim, but is so empty and desperate that he’ll pursue a quick fix at any cost, having to block out those rational fears for the couple of minutes it takes for the killer to blow his diseased wad up the sissy’s butt.
So, completely opposite of the contest between equals in the erotic thriller, the gay killer fantasy is based on one of them having total power and the other showing total submission, perhaps to the extreme of being killed by the other.
Dudes fantasizing about sexually wrastlin’ with women is shameful, but it’s not a sign of being severely fucked in the head. Gay fantasies, on the other hand, always reveal profound mental illness. The winner of the Queer Palm award is trying to romanticize what is soulless, and to aestheticize what is disgusting and ugly.
Thus it’s possible for the protag in an erotic thriller to be tragic, his downfall stemming from arrogantly tempting fate by daring the femme fatale to take off the kid gloves and hit him for real. I don’t know of an example that actually tries to make him tragic, let alone succeed at it, but at least it’s possible, and the basic idea comes across in any good erotic thriller, like Basic Instinct.
The victim in the gay killer fantasy flick is not brought down by any kind of hubris, but by an extreme form of negligence. He knows full well how violent the other guy is, how likely he is to wind up as his next victim, but he’s just gotta have his cock fix.
That’s no more tragic than some junkie continuing to shoot up knowing damn well what the substance will ultimately do to him. It’s pathetic, disturbing, and makes a normal person want to lock him up in a supervised facility where he can no longer harm himself.
We don’t respond that way to the arrogant tempter of the femme fatale — arrogance implies a certain degree of maturity, so it’s his own fault that he got killed by the psycho (“I tole you dat bitch crazy”).
But pretending that a real and imminent danger will somehow magically go away, is just infantile. Our reflex is that this person isn’t totally responsible for what’s happened to them, because their mental development has been arrested or retarded.
We don’t get satisfaction from seeing them met their demise — satisfaction in the sense of righteous vindication. Maybe we’re generically sad, maybe we’re just glad the junkie has kicked the bucket and won’t be around to bother us with his self-destruction any longer. Either way, there’s no happy ending to the gay killer movie.
June 2, 2015
Tranny fakeness revealed by Bruce Jenner's inauthentic nom de poon "Caitlyn"
I dropped by Blind Gossip to learn that Kim Kardashian is upset at someone named Caitlyn Jenner for upstaging her news about being pregnant again, on account of landing the cover of Vanity Fair.
"Caitlyn" Jenner? Never heard of that one before, let's just have a look and see why her cover shoot would be such an — OHHH MY GAAAHD.
Everybody's cracking jokes about the name because it's so ridiculously young for a 65 year-old. There was a Caitlin in my grade, but she was ahead of the curve; it's a distinctly Millennial name (so is anything with -lynn or -line).
If Bruce wanted to pass as authentic, why not choose some Boomer name like Brenda or Barbara? I'll bet he was thinking of Briana, another distinctly Millennial name, but thought better of making his new name sound too similar to the old one.
Choosing a currently trendy name is common among performers who are assuming an alternate persona.
Take '80s dance-pop singer Taylor Dayne — she has yet another distinctly Millennial name, but she was really born Leslie Wunderman in 1962. Taylor was a popular baby girl's name in 1987 when she hit it big. Leslie Wunderman wanted to sound young and trendy, so she jumped on the Taylor bandwagon.
Young women trying to make a name for themselves in porno also go with what's trendy, even if it means a 20 year-old having the name of a small child — Aubrey, Chloe, Isabella, etc. But all the action in naming fashions takes place among mothers of newborns, so striving for trendiness will make your name sound juvenile, even if you're already fairly young to begin with.
Back to Bruce Jenner, these other examples show that he's just acting out as a performer who's whoring for attention from an audience. It's all a great put-on, and he knows it.
If he had always truly felt as though he were female, he would've chosen a secret female name way back in the day, and it would necessarily sound old all these years later. But he picked "Caitlyn" yesterday, not when he was a kid.
For all we know, he's been cycling through secret female names for decades, swapping out the old ones according to fashion — Chrissy Jenner in the '80s, Lauren Jenner in the '90s, Ashley Jenner in the 2000s, and now Caitlyn Jenner. What a pathetically unconvincing fraud and weirdo.
"Caitlyn" Jenner? Never heard of that one before, let's just have a look and see why her cover shoot would be such an — OHHH MY GAAAHD.
Everybody's cracking jokes about the name because it's so ridiculously young for a 65 year-old. There was a Caitlin in my grade, but she was ahead of the curve; it's a distinctly Millennial name (so is anything with -lynn or -line).
If Bruce wanted to pass as authentic, why not choose some Boomer name like Brenda or Barbara? I'll bet he was thinking of Briana, another distinctly Millennial name, but thought better of making his new name sound too similar to the old one.
Choosing a currently trendy name is common among performers who are assuming an alternate persona.
Take '80s dance-pop singer Taylor Dayne — she has yet another distinctly Millennial name, but she was really born Leslie Wunderman in 1962. Taylor was a popular baby girl's name in 1987 when she hit it big. Leslie Wunderman wanted to sound young and trendy, so she jumped on the Taylor bandwagon.
Young women trying to make a name for themselves in porno also go with what's trendy, even if it means a 20 year-old having the name of a small child — Aubrey, Chloe, Isabella, etc. But all the action in naming fashions takes place among mothers of newborns, so striving for trendiness will make your name sound juvenile, even if you're already fairly young to begin with.
Back to Bruce Jenner, these other examples show that he's just acting out as a performer who's whoring for attention from an audience. It's all a great put-on, and he knows it.
If he had always truly felt as though he were female, he would've chosen a secret female name way back in the day, and it would necessarily sound old all these years later. But he picked "Caitlyn" yesterday, not when he was a kid.
For all we know, he's been cycling through secret female names for decades, swapping out the old ones according to fashion — Chrissy Jenner in the '80s, Lauren Jenner in the '90s, Ashley Jenner in the 2000s, and now Caitlyn Jenner. What a pathetically unconvincing fraud and weirdo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)