You’re never going to believe, grandchildren, what it was like under the Tyranny of the Twink.
The homosexual bullies of the present test my sympathy for the bullied homosexuals of the past. As well they should. It’s a tired trope to say the past explains the present–and questionable. More often we should look to the present to explain the past.
Our understanding of the past is malleable and obscure, mediated through History. The present is undeniable, in your face. The present is to the past as reality is to its representation.
The present is always and everywhere exposing various misconceptions failing the “test of time”–except where political correctness won’t let it happen. The consequences of this suppression are disastrous and getting worse.
“Nature secretly avenges herself for the constraints imposed upon her by the laws of man.”
–Alexis de Toqueville
Consider our experience with race relations, where–though no one ever says it–the misbehavior of blacks in the present explains the segregation and oppression of the past. Indeed, it creates a natural and justified longing for it. That each individual white endures a sort of psychological torture by propaganda suppressing this–as our suicide rates climb–is a great crime.
Feminism is, unfortunately, barely getting started on this same arc and is sure–because it’s women–to be even less rational the farther we get into their grim enterprise dedicated to making of women inferior men.
Like civil rights and desegregation, gay liberation likewise will reveal the evils of the past weren’t irrational expressions of Hate (global evil spirit in Diversity theology) but social and evolutionary adaptations to the problem of homosexuality.
Among those problems is the tendency for homosexuals to form elite subcultures and capture organizations or institutions–like the Catholic Church. Our capture now by gay culture looks very much this historic precedent on a grand, chaotic scale.
This rant was prompted of course by the “Voxadpocalypse”. The limp wrist of justice found even me, though it only copped a feel.
A YouTube livestream video from last October was flagged, reviewed and taken down
No strike was applied, but the letter ends with the strong suggestion I “review” my videos to avoid getting the boot.
So I just took a scorched earth approach, taking all but the last couple of videos private. The longer your trace of videos the more raw material laid out for the voluntary auxiliary thought police to mine and flag. But You Tube has a plan apparently, that goes all the way down to tiny channels like mine (270 or so subscribers).
We’re all supposed to believe this is a result of outrage over Carlos Maza’s suffering and YouTube’s initial refusal to take down Steven Crowder’s channel, but it’s yet another case of a platform unleashing a host of restrictions on a questionable pretext. Usually somebody being “bullied” online. The left’s obsession with “bullying”, its use as a means to power (first come the charges of sexual harassment/racism/bullying, then the remedies, which involve transfer of power, position, wealth) demonstrates the status of gays within it, just as its obsession with sexual harassment demonstrates the status of women there.
No, I think if this is due to a single sissy, he’s perched higher up than Carlos Maza.
You Tube is said to be just getting under way in this latest round of repression. After they’ve eliminated as many right-wing accounts as they can without doing more damage to the platform than they want the remaining few will be severely limited, banned from monetization and recommendations.
And, completely coincidental to this totally unplanned escalation of the purge, comes a piece in the New York Times about a white guy “drawn” from innocuous self-help videos into the “rabbit hole” of alt right You Tube via the site’s AI-derived recommendations.
AI must be calibrated to pc premises eventually; the powers-that-be eye the technology warily, greedily. Objectivity has always been their enemy; automated objectivity is a nightmare for them. It’s a nightmare for us if they get control of it.
But we’re just another sissy’s complaint away from the next phase of their plan, I imagine, helpfully outlined in the New York Times article above.