Defining Deviancy Down

Deviancyby Tim Jones5/25/16
The Slow-Motion Destruction of Taboos and How it Leads to Authoritarianism  •  Liberalism has successfully normalized taboos, everything from legalizing pot, pornography to sexual deviancy.

For anyone paying attention to what’s going on besides the presidential campaigns and upcoming general election in November, the transgender movement has taken over much of the news and the headlines.

One has to wonder why now this has become such an important issue to Obama and his administration. Since Republicans dominate both Houses of Congress, it’s clear he can’t do anything legislatively so he’s going to do everything he can to push the LGBT agenda, among others, via executive fiat (i.e., executive orders).

What could be behind this action? Ever since the Sixties and the beginning of the ‘Culture of Letting it All Hang Out,’ transgenderism, gay marriage and all of the other issues of their agenda, is the culmination of liberating the self from any kind of personal restraints, most notably sexual ones. Liberals have a clever way of inverting morality and taboos so that they become culturally accepted. They’ve dressed them up in the language of civil rights and personal freedom so that anyone who opposes their agenda can immediately be branded a bigot. One can’t devise a more perfect way of advancing their political and social agendas.

As usual they have their enablers in the legacy media. The Charlotte Observer publisher an editorial recently Taking the Fear Out of Bathrooms where it actually suggested that people get over the fact they might have to see men’s private parts in women’s locker rooms :

“Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms – and vice versa – might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort – with blacks sharing facilities, with gays sharing marriage – then realizing that it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined.”

This is truly an amazing statement and clearly is advocating the destruction of a society taboo of keeping the sexes separated in zones of privacy, especially when it relates to being in the company of strangers. The possibility of opening the door to perverts and sexual assaults has been kicked wide open.

From WND.com, the following story was recently posted: THE BIG LIST OF BATHROOM ATTACKS.  Many instances of men endangering girls, women:

“The perverts out there are actually targeting women and they know they get away with it.”

The American Spectator got to the root of the LGBT agenda in Obama, The Great Bathroom War of 2016, and The Cultural Revolution. If you’re not up on your Gramsci, you won’t know what’s happening”:

”Gay marriage and transgender bathrooms or public shower facilities are battlegrounds in a much bigger struggle over equality, or, more specifically, the meaning of equality. The left is redefining equality to mean sameness. This redefinition process also can be seen at work in delegitimizing income inequality whether equitable (merited) or not (privileged).”

Finally, with same-sex marriage now settled law and the transgender bathroom edict issued, the LGBT movement is not letting up. Polyamory will most likely be the next area to target for societal acceptance. It always starts small but grows incrementally. Here is an article that the Drudge Report posted: Inside New York’s polyamorous community headed by a real estate mogul who hosts open sexuality parties in his $12million converted church dubbed the ‘Taj Maharlem’:

“They are part of a polyamorous community who frequent swingers and open sexuality parties in the city.”

Everything that was once underground seems to eventually make its way into mainstream society. Pornography may be the best example. Once totally rejected by American society, it is a multi-billion dollar industry. It’s influence has resulted in the pornification of popular culture. One needs to look no further than any televised music awards show where performers show more skin with every passing year, especially females, revealing as much of their bare breasts is de rigueur while bumping and grinding as they sing that’s clearly sexual in nature. Their outfits are not much more than colorful bras and panties.

Liberalism has always been about the liberation of the self and removing any restraints, primarily moral, that get in the way. By relying on the State to lead the way, it is ceding guarantors of its freedom to an entity that only grows in its authority over individual behavior. And when the State decides the morality of an issue through legal means, those that stand opposed to it on principle will inevitably be criminalized. This is how so-called self-liberation and imposing equality becomes inverted into totalitarianism.

 • (1350 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Defining Deviancy Down

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    The Conservative Intelligentsia (the secret handshake club of those in the know…we have eight members represented in the club from StubbornThings) continually wonders what it will be that will shock people awake to the nonsense and destructive power of the Left.

    Blacks did not pass the test with all this “black lives matter” baloney. And now women are being tested. It’s been long passé the idea that men need to protect women. This has culminated in many recent incidents in Europe where men sat by while a woman was being beaten by a youth of unknown origin (aka “Muslim”).

    So we get it. We’re not to protect you, even from yourselves. Have fun, ladies. Try saying “no means no” to your attacker. (And lest you think I’m kidding, remember that stupid public service message put out by a Scandinavian agency a few months back that told women all they needed to do in the face of ther “unnamed attacker” — aka “Muslim” — was to hold their palm out in the “stop” position?)

    So, really, ladies. I’m serious. It’s up to you to protect yourselves. And if you happen to live in a place where you’re not allowed to carry a gun, then thank your own stupidity for that.

    So we of the secret-handshake Conservative Intelligentsia are taking bets and side bets on whether or not women (left, right, center, whatever) rise up and put an end to this transgender nonsense. There are women and there are men, and that’s it. The rest is psychology.

    Yours truly (secretary to this secret handshake intelligentsia, but don’t tell anybody), as little as two years ago, would have taken bets that the ladies would rise up. But no more. It’s a very safe bet that stupid white liberal women will be marching arm-in-arm toward the gas chambers before they ever do anything that could bring about the charge of “racist” or “sexist.”

    So have fun, ladies, with the various genitalia that you find dangling in your bathrooms. This battle is for you to win because us guys don’t really give a crap if the ladies (at least the good-looking ones) wander into the men’s room.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Remember, it hasn’t been that long since we’ve seen liberals who were victims of crime blaming themselves. As I noted, if a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged, then we no longer have that source for converts. Perhaps, at least for moderates rather than liberals, rape will do. But who will report the rapes and other abuses? Not the synoptic media. So only the victims (those who aren’t committed — appropriate word — to liberal ideology) will convert.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        We here are a moral crowd. Oh, good god, no, I don’t mean we’re saints, not sinners. But we parse the world at least partially through an objective right/wrong prism. And that’s not to suggest that environmental wacko-ism, gender bending advocates, and socialists don’t have a quite strident moral point of view. They do, although it’s more of a collective, politicized morality…a very movable target. And it becomes so moveable it’s difficult to define it as the same kind for morality. But it at least does spring from an innate human sensibility, but that may be about the only similarity with traditional right/wrong morality where things are considered to actually *be* wrong, and not subject to mere fashion and fad.

        We here are freaks, even anachronisms. There’s no call for purity, ideological or otherwise, from StubbornThings. We are not rigid and unbending dogmatists. But eventually someone has to stand up for the fact that 2 plus 2 equals 4. That’s us.

        But that is not the Progressive view nor the world we are living in now. Entertainment, self-flattery, pop-induced transcendence, and feel-goodism drive nearly everything. Serious discussions about serious issues are all but verboten. That is one reason for Trump. We have no stomach for facing our problems, let alone the solutions, so we are more than ready to listen to the various snake-oil salesmen.

        And let me tell you that I’m sympathetic to the Kumbaya feel-good, life-is-a-never-ending-party vision of the Progressives. God knows the tears shed by brutal humanity throughout its long history of barbarism. Throwing a little party, and being a little soft of some issues, is not the worst of crimes.

        But how much of this “softness” can we take before we collapse? That is the issue real conservatives have in mind. It’s not that we hate homosexuals, gender-benders, and fundamentalists in the Church of Global Warming. Although many of these factions purchase reasons for their derision, it’s the brick-by-brick incrementing to total unseriousness that is bothersome to conservatives (what few are left, I’ll grant you).

        You would think rape and men barging into the women’s rooms dangling their parts would be cause for un-fuzzified concern by the eternal partiests. But not so, at least not yet so. The vision of “sex any time, any place, with any one, and guilt free” requires a few trade-offs, even if this bargain is left unstated and unconscious by most. But it’s there. And if you are a woman, you have made great strides on the shtick of being the victim. And if you’ve cashed in on victimhood it just makes it that much more difficult to draw a line and say, “Yes, we’re a victim due special treatment, but not you.” The basic premises of victimhood, not to mention the entire party-on-garth sensibility, forbids certain categories of things being forbidden.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          This problem of incremental loads eventually putting too much pressure (“the straw that broke the camel’s back”) seems to be little-considered today on either side. Of course, there’s always the question of when it will come. But we shall see if women really don’t object to transgenders in their bathrooms and locker rooms. No one has polled the subject honestly yet. (An honest question would be, “Do you think males who say they identify as females should be allowed to use facilities for females instead of for males?”)

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      The Conservative Intelligentsia (the secret handshake club of those in the know…we have eight members represented in the club from StubbornThings)

      I think the national membership of this club is shrinking faster than the number of WWII veterans.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Did I mention that twelve is a quorum?

        I do believe the Trump nomination marks (not necessarily causes) the end of conservatism as a potent movement. But this has been coming for some time and can’t be blamed on Trump. He’s just there to secure the ratchets (at least one entire gear) to the Left and bolt them down firmly.

  2. Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

    This is not about gender wars. The left is getting desperate for new instances of grievance. That they have reached a new low is actually a positive sign that their reign is nearly over.

    In his latest Firewall, Bill Whittle looks into the fallacies involved in the latest product of the Progressive Synthetic Injustice machine.

  3. Lucia says:

    If a male cross dresser enters a women’s restroom and closes the door to the stall before using the toilet, who’s to know? Respect for privacy is the first rule obeyed in a women’s restroom. Women barely glance at each other and only enough to count the number of women waiting in line or whether or not there is room to maneuver around them. If the issue was only about bathroom use, there would be no outcry.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      If a male cross dresser enters a women’s restroom and closes the door to the stall before using the toilet, who’s to know?

      They have individual stalls in the ladies room? This feels like a Monty Python sketch. Who is brave enough to go on safari in a women’s room? Not me. I’ll just take at face value the tales I hear from the ladies. And I hear it is not only men that can leave such places a real mess.

      And if such stalls are private, then what is the bloody point of a man using them? Isn’t the real point of the mentally confused or politically pushy to MAKE DAMN SURE WE ARE CELEBRATING THEIR PERVERSITY? How can that happen if we’re not aware that they are breaking boundaries?

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The problem isn’t the transgender people, but the perverts who pretend to be transgenders to create an opportunity.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          That’s an interesting distinction. So you’ve moved the transgenders out of the pervert category. Let’s remember that transgenders themselves are pretending to be something they are not. You’re splitting some hairs there, Timothy.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I was using pervert here for sexual abusers of women. Transgenders, as a group, don’t do that (though some individuals probably do).

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              By any normal version of reality, if I show up here tomorrow as Editrix — in full dress, red-hot lipstick, stylish purse, and breast augmentation, and maybe with a bit of a lilt in my walk — I would be considered a pervert unless I was rehearsing for a Monty Python sketch.

              I just don’t accept “transgender” as normal under any circumstance, whether they are molesting people or not. They are at the very least molesting reality and good sense. And I no more believe that they should have their own bathroom any more than I believe there ought to be a separate bathroom or recognition for people (and there are a lot of them) who play Santa Claus. And at least Santa Claus does good and is an identity roughly based upon a saint, Nicholas. But if he shows up at my cake shop tomorrow and demands that I be jolly, he can take a hike, although I’ll treat this fellow with much more respect than this freak.

              • Rosalys says:

                I read somewhere the other day, that ole Brucie is experiencing remorse over his transitioning.

  4. Lucia says:

    Brad, I noticed that you didn’t mention doing up your hair or shaving your legs. I hope you weren’t planning on wearing a mustache with that dress. That would be too weird!

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Well, I did fairly recently shave off a beard that I had started in December. And I got a haircut just yesterday. All this hair stuff can’t be a coincidence! I’m also hair-trigger when it comes to talking to libtards. I may need some NAIR in my life, at least metaphorically speaking.

      I was in the waiting room of the hair stylist yesterday and thumbing through People magazine. There was a fluff piece (what other kind of piece is there?) On Prince Harry. And one photo showed him at his father’s side, and Charles was in a kilt. I don’t care how traditional it is, it still looks funny on a man. Or a prince.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Tell that to the Black Watch, an elite British unit that wears kilts. This can have consequences, as when they got sunburned on the backs of their legs at Modder River and Magersfontein.

        • Rosalys says:

          I saw the Black Watch in Providence a number of years ago, when they were on tour. Awesome!

          A couple of manly men doing a sword dance in their kilts? Now that turns me on!

      • Rosalys says:

        Now just one cotton picking’ minute there! Kilts are men’s clothing, they are not skirts, and women don’t look good in them. Those cute little pleated, plaid skirts, that women wear are not kilts. And men do not look good in them!

    • Rosalys says:

      “I hope you weren’t planning on wearing a mustache with that dress.”

      Actually, there’s precedent for that – and beards. Ugh!

      https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/this-transgender-woman-has-a-full-beard-and-she-couldnt-be-h?utm_term=.ucJM39z8k#.jhA46AQwE

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I’m glad I got rid of the beard.

        In the interest of research, I read most of that article about Alex “F’tang F’tang Bus Stop Biscuitbarrel” Drummond. There’s no getting around the fact that he sounds like a Monty Python sketch.

        His actual identity is crazy, not transgender. And apparently he’s a man still attracted to women, so therefore he identifies as a lesbian. It seems he could save a lot of mental confusion and just identify as a “man” and skip the nonsense.

        A lot of people are driven to a lot of things in this life by adversity, although his yet-another victim story of school bullying should be taken with a grain of salt. It’s become the license for any kind of craziness. You can hear Graham Chapman now talking to Michael Palin.

        Palin: Sir…or should I call you madam?…why are you wearing the bumper of a 1969 Cadillac on your head?

        Chapman: Well, you see, it’s quite simple. As a child I was bullied in school.

        Palin: And why the 1969 Cadillac grillwork?

        Chapman: I think it was a desire to express my inner chrome sensibilities.

        This Alex guy has learned the crazy talk of a sub-culture that revels in crazy-talk. No one is expressing their inner anything. They are outward rebelling in a way that gets them off the hook for seeking proper help. And in this culture it’s a way to gain attention, rub people’s noses in your weirdness, gain sympathy from the easily duped, and portray yourself as an eternal victim.

        Surely, you must be thinking (and don’t call me “Shirley”), no one would willingly subject themselves to such scorn. Surely they are expressing something that is really inside them. Perhaps. But it seems more likely that if there is a cause it is the brutal, non-stop, and ever-present diminutization of masculinity by the feminist shtick that runs all thoroughout our culture. At every turn now men and masculinity are put down. What’s a person to do other than to run away from what they are shamed for being?

        Also, surely we’re looking at the narcissism of attention-seekers. In a culture the values “being special” over all else, it is a shortcut for the weird and the wicked to “be somebody” — even if that somebody is an old joke from a 70’s Monty Python sketch.

  5. Lucia says:

    Wow, Rosalys, that was really too weird. It seems that the whole point of mixing the outward appearance of gender is to remove gender distinctions altogether, to create an illusion that everyone is equally genderless. It’s an in-your-face kind of insult that gays have been doing ever since it was cool to come out of the closet. But they can’t change their DNA, even if they get surgically physically altered.

    • Rosalys says:

      It almost makes one pine for the “good old days” when homosexuals were just guys who lusted after other guys! It’s gotten so bad, that in order for a pervert to get noticed, he/she/it has to get weirder and weirder.

      Check out this chick! Wow! She’s going to do us all one better! She claims to have NO gender! And then listen to President Obamination say he is PROUD of her.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-on-gay-rights-change-has-come-quickly-during-time-in-office/2016/04/23/1ff7fac0-0950-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html

      Oh, my dear, Father God in Heaven, my Lord and Savior, how long are You going to allow this crap to continue?!!?

      “The worst is not. So long as we can say, ‘This is the worst.'”

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I’ve noticed that liberals want an androgynous world (which is why their female leaders are allowed to be stronger than their males), so I suspect you’re right.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      t seems that the whole point of mixing the outward appearance of gender is to remove gender distinctions altogether, to create an illusion that everyone is equally genderless.

      You would think. But consider that identifying as either male or female is rather mild, boring, and unspectacular. With just two genders, if the point is to remove distinctions, that would be the way to go. But the point of the gender-perversion movement seems to precisely be about exacerbating distinctions and calling attention to oneself.

      And there is little doubt that this is “in your face” stuff. At the heart of this is the need to shame decent and normal people. There are people who get their jollies out of it. And there are plenty of stupid “compassionate” people who fall into this Orwellian trap and become accustomed to being “sensitive” when what is more appropriate is a little healthy derision.

      This Bruce Jenner thing is a perfect example. He is the culture-wide rat cage being put over the faces of all us Winston Smiths. We are being told that 2 + 2 = 5, and many will cave in because pop culture has become the center of their universe. If it happens on TV or in the pages of People magazine, who am I to disagree? How can I disagree?

      Instead of laughing and ripping off the cage, too many will exclaim that, indeed, 2 plus 2 equals 5.

      Also, we should have seen this coming, especially us bicyclists. “Identity” is all the rage these days. What do you need to bicycle from point A to point B? Surely you’re thinking (and let me remind you again, “Don’t call me ‘Shirley’”), all that you need is a bicycle and a pair of legs.

      But you’d be wrong, so very very wrong. What you need to do is first dress up like Lance Armstrong (sort of like this) and play the part of the professional bicyclist…even if you’re just riding to the corner to get a gallon of milk. It’s not enough to throw on an old t-shirt, pair of shorts, and just have at it. You must look the part.

      And haven’t we long seen this desire to dress up in otherwise quite heterosexual and normal football fans? Cheeseheads were only the tip of the iceberg. Now being painted and costumed is fairly normal. As David Puddy said, “Gotta support the team.” [This is my favorite part from the episode.]

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        And there is little doubt that this is “in your face” stuff. At the heart of this is the need to shame decent and normal people. There are people who get their jollies out of it.

        One should also remember that the people who act this way are exhibitionists. The generally do not have the talent to attract an audience in show business or such, so they resort to freakish appearance and/or actions to draw attention to themselves. They are, in fact, pretty pathetic people yearning for meaning through attention.

        This guy is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conchita_Wurst

        Do you think he would have even been in the contest, much less won it, had he performed as a normal male i/o of deviant drag queen?

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          They are, in fact, pretty pathetic people yearning for meaning through attention.

          Agreed, Mr. Kung. The three archangels of popular culture — Marx, Freud, and Darwin — leave little meaning for life other than “Look at me, me, me!” It used to be “I think, therefore I am.” Not it is “I’m ‘liked’ on Facebook, therefore I am.”

          We’re all human. It’s nice to have attention and ratification of who we are, what we like, and what we believe. This is all normal, natural, and can be very healthy.

          But it’s time for the Western thinker to carve out a place for himself or herself (only two “selves,” you see) away from the sewer. You can complain all day about Glenn Beck’s naiveté (really, it’s his need for emotionalism) and Facebook’s fraudulence and superficiality all day long, and you’re not going to change the nature of the beast.

          One of the severe problems with conservative media, in my opinion, is that it is not geared up to actually change anything. Other than a few such as Mark Levin, the conservative media functions as a way to bleed off energy. In effect, the conservative media is therapy for conservatives who have to live in an increasingly Progressive culture. We bitch and complain but we rarely change anything because change isn’t the point. The idea that, say, listening to Rush is useful is just a self-satisfying delusion that we are stumping for change when what we are most likely doing is just venting…in effect, learning to live in the Progressive culture.

          Well, I have to tell you, I’m as guilty as anyone in regards to this. But I’ve decided (really, it’s kind of been decided for me…some of this stuff is just too damn silly to ever join or give respect to) to live outside of Progressive culture. Let the monkies in their cages eat their bananas and throw their feces at each other. I’m opting out.

          Had you actually been interested in remedies, you ought to have voted for Ted Cruz or at least someone who is an enemy of the Left, Progressivism, and political correctness and doesn’t just pretend to be. Again, I see Trump as not so much an agent for change but yet another way for conservatives to fool themselves and to vent instead of actually changing things for the better.

          Does this mean I think disengaging from the culture and letting the inmates run the asylum is the way to go? Yes, in some cases. You’re an idiot if you pay one dime to send you child to a college other than Hillsdale College or something like that. I’d recommend donating to truly conservative candidates, speaking your mind in appropriate places, and even (heheheh) writing your thoughts about such things so that others can read and learn.

          But there’s something wrong with you if you wish to make peace with insanity. And I don’t think most of you here do. And, granted, if you work for someone, chances are you’ve been subjected to awful PC garbage that you couldn’t avoid, at least if you wanted your job. And I would say as long as you’re damn sure you know you’re doing what you have to do and will pick your important fights when they come, that’s all well and good. Conservatism isn’t a suicide pact.

          But the really nice thing about conservatism is conservatism. You have a whole smorgasbord of really good things to choose from. The only difference is, most of this stuff is older than 50 years. It’s not the stuff that is being daily vomited out of your TV or internet connection. But so what? Who really wants to keep up with pop culture? Good god, Facebook really is Satan’s urinal. In theory, you can “talk to the grandkids” and stuff like that and make common-sense use of it. In practice, it’s still Satan’s urinal.

  6. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    A very strange and alarming example where the State determines that parents have no control over their children. I bet the State will demand that the parents support the girl if her uncle tells her to get lost.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/02/german-court-rules-parents-of-15-year-old-girl-cannot-stop-her-h/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *