3. The social macrocosm of the anti
Suppose we had two conflicting movements, in fact correlating with each other.
Suppose - hypothetically - that kids were being sexualized and "children's sexual rights" were being pushed by a certain element.
Is it not expected that we should see a pushback movement from the LGBTQ mainstream, from parents and...well, from everybody normal?
Of course it is.
That's a natural and unavoidable part of pushing the envelope.
(I'm leaving this hypothetical for now, to flesh out in the next post.)
Even many GLs have some anti in them >>29141
That's the way it is.
Degeneracy being "balanced" with virtue, is precisely what enables normal people to tolerate
an expanding window without resorting to physical violence.
It provides an emotional outlet.
>A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down
The anti-pedo movement gives people a focal point, placation over the increasing sexualization of kids in schools, clothing, TV, etc. Society is in some ways a macrocosm
of the hypocritical anti.
Moms will buy certain clothing for their daughters, because in the back of their minds they know "we're killing all the pedos", so it's safe. One movement balances the other, allowing the public to feel some sembalance of homeostasis.
The public proclaims pageants horrible, but then overwhelmingly upvotes lewd dance performances on YT.
>Murrieta Dance Project - Barbie Girl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsyY_hC4giA
> 78 million YT viewers
> 82% upvoted
>Roxy Brennan - Covergirl (3 years old) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPaFz-UrFdc
> 18 million YT viewers
> 85% upvoted
> "Things that never happened in 1920" for 500, Alex.
Science suggests the most vocal antis may actually be the most guilty / fighting themselves internally.
>Lashing out may ultimately be an indicator of the person's own internal conflict with sexual orientation.
Paedophile hunters are often abusers trying to reinvent themselves as 'good people', says former police chief
The MSM reaction to "Islam is RIGHT about women" (branding it 'fear mongering') tells you the insane congnitive dissonance people are able to live with, up to the moment they become honest with themselves
Having two conflicting movements is NOT AT ALL a bad thing, considering that in this case people tend to convert
only in 1 direction. Whatever you see on the surface, the conflict ultimately boils down to a war of attrition.
Playing both sides of an issue is a timeless technique in persuasion - COINTELPRO, good cop/bad cop, 'consensus cracking', ...
Giving someone what they want / going with flow is the Jiu-Jitsu of social influence.
You have to do it.
Take for example the New York Times' "balanced" piece on pedophilic attraction, recently.
They introduced the article in way to appease antis, but closed the article
with sympathy and understanding for pedos.
The first word creates the opening, the final word
sticks with you. It was a calculated piece IMO. (Source in next post.)
To recap so far, we've seen:
- Plausible elite motivation to destigmatize their proclivities
- Understanding why an "anti" movement develops as pushback, and how it's instrumental - even critical
- in widening people's window of tolerance.