If there's one thing you can count on its that sex elicits interest, and so it was with my previous post. Some people have reached out to me by way of email etc., who wanted to discuss what I said, and others would like to start a discussion. I have been thinking recently of expanding my thoughts into something more coherent and elaborate, but Deo volente...
Anyway, I want to touch on something somewhat related. I was thinking about how every generation thinks that they have finally figured out things that the previous one(s) were not able to. Over the past two generations this often meant the discarding of sexual mores, taboos as they dismissively classified them.
In my YouTubery I see that a lot of young people are caught up with the gender identity thing, much like when I was a teen we were caught up with whether you were a skater, a headbanger, a jock, or whatnot. These young people talk about being pan-sexual, asexual, transsexual - and the million other esoteric terms - and consider these things to amount to a discovery of real knowledge, of which their parents knew nothing. Let's ignore the fact that its prima facie unlikely that young people know things that their elders don't. Let's ignore the fact that young people today are virtually totally uneducated - compared to teens 50 and a 100 years ago, or those in South Korea today. The teens who talk about these things are functionally illiterate, have no knowledge of history, literature, logic, etc. They know a smattering of math.
The kinds of kids you see on YouTube using terms like spectrum and gender fluidity are the kinds of kids that talked about Guns n Roses when I was a kid, the Tet Offensive a generation before that, the kind that talked about 'the people' and 'workers' in the 19th century - functional idiots, but I will add - useful idiots.
That's what I want to talk about here, how these "gender fluid" people have been produced by Marxists, albeit unintentionally. The Marxists - the kinds of people David Horowitz talked about in this astonishing video, created these teens, though as a by-product of what they more directly intended. The Left is about change, undermining traditional structures, which they hate. To do so they need total power, and it is necessary to undermine traditional structures in order to possess total power over others, because these structures attract (and thus divide) people's allegiance. Thus they actively campaign against tradition in all its forms. They got us to think about abuse and women's lost opportunities when we think about marriage; they got us to think about slavery when he hear about the American Founders and the Constitution; they got us to think about Japanese internment when we think about WWII; they got us to think about the poor when we think about Space exploration; they got us to think about Antisemitism, the KKK, and the Crusades when we think about Christianity; they get us to think about black liberation rather than violent Marxism when we think about Nelson Mandela; they get us to think about heroism rather than sexual exploitation when we think about J. F. Kennedy; they get us to think about King Leopold rather than the doubling of native African lifespans when we think about colonial Africa.
1. The political operators behind these 'emphases' don't care about women, the poor, Africans, Jews, Muslims, etc. They are first driven by hate of the Western Christian Tradition (i.e., their dads). Second by power and wealth (for Hillary after about age twenty-five this was her number one; it was always Bill's number one, next to his libido).
2. The layer below them are the passionate leftists, the ones that honestly believe in the cause and care about the poor, black people, etc. They are the most precious commodity for the political operators. They do all the heavy lifting for them - these are the Young Turks, the Buzz-feed people. These people are 110 IQ people, with undergraduate degrees, who pay attention to the news. They are, yet, mere putty in the hands of the first level people.
3. Below them still are the Trigglypuffs and the Blacklives Matter rank and file. People tend to call these the useful idiots, but both levels 2 and 3 are mere creatures of the first level. This is where people like the gender fluidity YouTubers sit, of course.
It suffices to say that (1)s did not intend to create (3)s. They did intend to create (2)s. They created them in the universities. The (2)s then created things like MTV and Buzzfeed, which led to the creation of (3)s.
And so we get the (3)s who are so utterly confused. They don't know up from down, front from back.
The relationship between the (1)s and the (3)s is always interesting, but because the (2)s run interference for them by means of their control of the media, their confrontations are rare and rather diffuse. (Picture those BLM protesters grabbing the podium from Sanders.) The (3)s hardly notice that Hillary gives a speech about poverty while wearing a $20,000 suit, and Sanders just purchased his third house.
However, the mental gymnastics is fascinating. I don't mean the way Hillary lies about everything. I mean how the 'philosophy' of the elite trickles down to the (3)s. We have to bear in mind that this 'philosophy' is not mentally rigorous to begin with, but the way it transmutes on the way down is the interesting part. The (1)s make grand statements, the (2)s give them a veneer of intellectual or cultural respectability, and the (3)s accept them and transform them in their own way too. But if a doctrine is created to control people, it stands to reason that it would undergo transmutations on the way down. It begins, "accept all lifestyles" with homosexuals in mind; the clevers on down the line change that into the 60 genders we are suppose to recognize now. The (1)s don't need 60 genders to destroy tradition, they only need one 'outside' group to do that, the homosexuals. But 59 were added by the others. So what do the (1)s actually think about the other 59? In other words, are they happy with the world they have created?
To get to know the answer with respect to someone like Hillary, we can look at someone who is now a part of the historical record, a story that has ended. I am thinking of Stalin. Stalin began as a believer in Marxism, but by the end of it, it didn't really matter whether he did or he didn't. For many people life goes this way. You get caught up in the details and so the grand design loses its importance. Anger, power, revenge, and hatred take the place of everything else; they get caught up in the little victories more than the single great one. Leftism is now just a device for Hillary. But my impression is she once believed in it. Maybe baseball becomes this way for the commissioner of MLB? Maybe evangelization becomes this way for some/many pastors?
It is this kind of detachment that is most criminal. The political operators (1s) don't care about the results, what they have created. They don't care what their climb to the top has meant for the poor, especially the black urban poor upon whom they preyed. You know they don't care because they are not willing to reconsider the policies they championed which have so obviously failed. Rather, they double-down on them.
And now we will have a trail of destruction in all these poor children who have been led to believe that they have learned the secret knowledge hitherto concealed about gender fluidity, being a party to which makes them feel special.
There is a generational divide here too, between the (1s) and (2s) on the one hand and the (3s), on the other. The shift from 1 alternate gender to 59 manifests the generational divide. The baby-boomers were selfish individualists; the millennials etc. are desperately seeking meaning. The boomers could be selfish because they trusted that there parents would do the moral things for society, to ensure that society as a while was lawful, civic-minded and safe. But once the greatest generation died off, a panic set in, because the millennials saw how empty and selfish their parents were. Homosexuality was pushed by boomers because it was about freedom of choice and their allowances to the homosexuals meant that their divorces were not immoral. The 60 genders is what you get when there is no reasoned standard to rebel against (i.e. the Christian civic-mindedness of my grandparents), but utter moral chaos. The fact is, the (2s) and (3s) still frantically hope that a parent with commonsense will snap them back into line before they do something truly outrageous. Every one of these gender iterations is a kick against your bedroom door, hoping that your parents will yell at you before you wreck the door. These 60 gender people are acting out. The problem is, the boomers have no moral compass whereby to discipline them, that is to say, to give to these young people meaning and direction.
So this is my account of how Marxism has led to 60 genders. Both Marx and Stalin would be surprised to hear about how things turned out. And yet Stalin, clever as he was, would have known how to use it to his own advantage. People like Hillary just kind of look at it and don't know what to say. How they look at Bill and Carlos Danger.