It goes essentially without saying that sex, owing to our nature, is a principal attractor. However, the reverse of the coin is seldom discussed: it’s also a principal distractor. Clever sorts can use sex or parasexual matters to distract target audiences from what ought to be get their greatest attention, just as a stage magician uses physical flourishes to distract his audience from the setup for his next trick.
A refinement on that strategy uses blatant sexual behavior to induce a kind of shock in the audience: shock sufficient to paralyze (or numb) them, such that they fail to react to associated developments that, in other contexts, would draw not merely their attention but their outrage. This tactic can thwart the enforcement of public norms, including the norms of justice.
The Left has employed that method against normal Americans for some time now. This article provides an example.
It’s all about photographer Evan James Benally Atwood, who is a “queer, Indigenous artist.”
I’ll let you take a moment to peruse the self-portraits of Evan at the sourcelink. Warning: His assular area is hairy and he wants you to know it.
The Vice column is essentially a gushing puff piece on Evan, whose work is described as the undoing of “certain effects of colonialism – the desecration of stolen land, the imposition of a gender binary.” Evan’s photography, the article says, is a form of “visual sovereignty.”
Is that what you think when you look at his work? Because what I think is that Evan reeeeeeally wants us all to see his ass.
The Vice article leads off with Atwood’s sexuality. Why? What possible difference does it make to his subject matter? I can’t see it. But including – nay, emphasizing Atwood’s sexual variation provides the Left with a cudgel: If you find his opinions about “colonialism” to be stupid or vile, the Left will simply condemn you as one who hates fudge-packers.
Let’s pass in silence over Atwood’s hairy ass…no, wait: we shouldn’t. The depictions thereof, which are even less relevant than his “queerness” to his notions about “colonialism,” are an example of the shock tactic mentioned above. The point is to shock and dismay anyone who might take exception to his aggressive anti-Americanism. It would work on a large fraction of Americans…possibly a majority.
First the Left shocks us with sex and sexually related behavior. Then it mocks us for being shocked. If we persist in protesting, it labels us “haters” and says we just want to persecute those poor, misunderstood, harmless meat smokers and carpet munchers. The pattern is quite reliable.
Nearly every normal person understands that sex should be a private matter – that parading sex and parasexual behavior in public is socially destructive. By flaunting it, the Left implicitly proclaims itself socially and legally privileged. By inducing us to accept bizarre public sexual caperings in silence, it performs the most important stage in any campaign to subjugate a people: it humiliates us with our own cowardice.
Theodore Dalrymple noted that Communist regimes induce submission in their victim populaces by compelling them to repeat lies. No one can retain any respect for himself once he obediently parrots a blatant lie. It’s a quick and effective way to break a man’s self-regard. Indeed, we’ve known it since Orwell published 1984, if not well before that.
The blatant lie that perverts and pedophiles promulgate by parading their perversions in public – “We’re just like everyone else” — is cover for their political agenda. (“Everyone else” does not proclaim their sexual orientations in their Twitter profiles, or flaunt their naked bodies or their sexual preferences in the streets.) The “sexual Left” is almost entirely on the political Left. Their “haters” gambit is an underhanded way of saying “Tolerate what we do to you, or we’ll make your life hell with accusations and depredations of every imaginable kind.”
This is very much in the Communist tradition. Indeed, it goes beyond what the Soviets did. They never actually convinced the majority of the USSR’s populace that “the Jews” were conspirators out to enslave them. It was all too clear that the Communists had done that already.
Imagine public propriety restored: sexual behavior and proclivities removed from public view and returned to the privacy they deserve. Never again to hear whining homosexuals demand to know why they’re unwelcome in a Saint Patrick’s Day parade. Never again to endure a “Gay Pride” parade! (What are they proud of, anyway?) Never again to hear about some “photojournalist’s” preference for sodomy, or small boys, or mackerel! What would you say – or do – to achieve that result? Would it be worth some name-calling, some confrontation, perhaps even some public scuffles?
Your mileage may vary.