The Next Media Cycle To Expect After Trans*

What do our elites have cooked up next for us, socially? With the victory of gay marriage, elites have wasted no time pushing ‘trans’ on the public. It’s much more difficult to pull off, mostly because of feminist pushback and the idea of ‘transracialism,’ which further exposes tensions inherent in transgenderism as a concept. The media has also spent the last year promoting still weirder stuff as Weimerica reaches new heights for insane tolerance drives. Those are far harder sells.

The next frontier will be the further destruction of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

It is a cliche (but completely true) that the family is the building block of society. It is the mechanism for transmitting culture, social norms, and group mores. This is why progressive education has changed from the norms of yesteryear that focused on facts and figures and moved towards socialization and group programming. The goal is to separate the child from their family’s culture and to inject elite values in its place. Education is compulsory for a reason, even if it does not educate students.

They can take your kids for eight hours, but how do they get to you? They don’t have to hit all families–just enough to make a difference. The elite try to minimize the use of force in modifying beliefs. They prefer to brainwash you long enough to make you think you want it. Joe Biden was explicit about how gay marriage never would have happened without Jewish influence in the media. Not my words, his. A similar elite figure, Masha Gessen, also hinted at the coming change. Old Gollum herself said:

I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.

This quote alone is enough to banish her platform in a healthy society. Now that gays can marry with government sanction and legitimacy, the work moves to shifting how we view marriage in its entirety. Groups used by progs never really benefit; they just continue to be used as pawns.

The push is already here. Out Magazine quotes a NYC psychotherapist on the straight couples who are looking at the openness of gays to redefine how they view marriage.

But Malpas also says that, increasingly, the straight couples he sees are discussing polyamorous or open arrangements, or the possibility of such. This suggests that, perhaps as much as traditional marriage is conservatizing some gay couples, the increasing visibility of gay relationships is turning more straight couples on to the idea of some degree of openness, or at least of alternate ideas of what marriage can look like.

This is blatant distortion. This is using a sliver of one city’s married couples to extrapolate out to broader society. It is so patently false that it can hardly function as anything more than rank propaganda. How many of these couples is Malpas talking about? Five, ten, twenty? Nevertheless, his collection of haphazard case studies is sent through the megaphone and presented as if a broader swath of straight, married couples are going poly.

Remember, 20 percent of all gay men have HIV and a minuscule percentage of gay men are married, but the message being broadcast here is that straights–on a wide scale–are so taken by the association of gay-as-hip (and the need to be hip) that they will emulate gay behavior within an eons-old institution.

A revealing thing in Malpas’ quote is that it is in the context of “the straight couples he sees” that they discuss poly behavior. He is a psychotherapist. No healthy couple sees a psychotherapist. You see a psychotherapist when there are problems. Out is now using this as a way to frame it as though hip NYC couples are trying poly, as opposed to saying that broken, neurotic NYC couples are trying it. The other reveal: who are these gay, married couples that are influencing these straight couples? Gay marriage is a relatively new status even in New York, and of course very small in numbers. Are gay couples openly cheating already in year two? This makes little sense.

The push will widen for polyamorous and open marriages. Even the Washington Post is writing about poly as though it’s a positive thing. Wapo’s “human” example is already a failure, as she had a marriage end in divorce due to her cheating in her twenties, but now wants to cheat openly today as an older woman. This is public condoning of what was formerly considered risky or fringe behavior. It suits the prog government’s needs: weaken all bonds between people. This is such an old idea that Alduous Huxley put it into his progressive dystopia Brave New World. Everyone belongs to everyone.

This might seem like a hard sell, but this has some media push behind it going back for a few years. Multiple outlets have spotlighted polyamorous couples. The writer, usually a woman, is living or in a relationship with two men, usually all wretched looking but HAPPY with the arrangement. Some outlets have even tried to sell cuckoldry as some new, hot fad in the elite. The groundwork is there, so why not push for it to be in marriages?

Wait! There’s a useful media trick with gays marrying. See, gays have a hard time staying monogamous, and shucks, their marriages are often much more open and accepting of poly behavior. Media outlets have used the behavior of gays in marriage (the incredibly small number of gays who marry) as an example of how straights can learn from them and re-evaluate their traditional marriages.

Trans, bestiality, pedos, incest… these are rather tough pills to swallow. Weimerica can only devolve at so fast a pace. Those fringe kinks run into old taboos. While the media can find a random gay couple for a “Just Like Us” essay or advertisement, it is harder to do it with a man and his horse, or a daughter and her father. They will try. Reworking marriage entirely into a game of acceptable “it was just sex, you agreed, I love you” destroys a potential unit people can identify with outside government connections.

Pair bonding matters. Being roommates who sometimes sleep together is not as stable. Modern society has slung many arrows at marriage, and it is a shadow of what it once was, but the final push will be to remove any sacredness from it by making it a transactional relationship, a disposable relationship, something temporary. It helps the regime kill rebellions that start at the dinner table. In the Life of Julia Democrat video, Julia only came in touch with you if the government was the mutual friend.

Where are your bonds, who do you have allegiance to? Bowling Alone explained the destruction of civic bonds, but look closer. Private organizations are attacked, organized religion is attacked, diversity is pushed everywhere, but your connections to government are reinforced by each policy and each media article. You have no shared values with your Somali Muslim refugee neighbor, so resolving conflicts within the small neighborhood is impossible. The feds, however, are waiting and willing to sort out any dispute. Your church does not provide the safety net it once did, but your government does–if not directly, then through grants to your dying church. Your family is a port in a storm, but the government has its eye on that institution, as well.

Who cares who your dad is, your mom is, or whether they are alone, together, or decide to invite others in? All that matters is the one thing you all belong to and all come together for is your government.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. adios mi general June 21, 2015 at 3:55 pm

    It’s not quite there, /yet/ – yesterday on an SF Bay area NPR station there were philosophers debating gay marriage. One guy, as an attempt to show the gay’s principle of ‘love and commitment only’ could lead to bad things, brought up poly-* marriage (does your use mean the kleene star is mainstream, now?), and the gay guy objected, called it an attempt to derail the conversation. So, at least gays don’t feel secure enough in their gains, to want to be part of pushing it any further, or /that/ gay didn’t. Isn’t it funny, they/he wanted in on the /value and respect/ of marriage, and didn’t want to see it debased further, if you can generalize from one guy. Which actually makes sense and is touching, except that I think the logic will be remorseless.

  2. I expect better from Social Matter.

    This Poly thing will have limited impact.

    It will only appeal to low-T beta males in already progressive circles. Red blooded guys are not going to accept this kind of nonsense. In societies and groups where punches are still thrown this will get laughed out as weird and faggy. And there are actually quite a few of those left outside the nerd hubs some or NRx seem to live in.

    The attempt to subvert the monogamy men and women strive for has already happened in the working classes, single motherhood and government support has done that. In the middle and upper classes of the sane and normal people still get married, yes there are more divorces and feminism is messing that up but the notion suddenly they will buy into poly because a few shitty media articles are run on it isn’t likely.

    Poly will become a status signaler for the most progressive women and their men who are borderline faggots anyway.

    1. It isn’t a matter of being accepted. Most gay men do not accept gay marriage, nor do straight men. Yet here it is. There is no logical reason not to have polygamy based on the arguments from the gay marriage debate. To be logically consistent, one must support it. All it takes is one sympathetic media case, which the TV writers can cook up in droves.

  3. Laguna Beach Fogey June 21, 2015 at 5:47 pm

    Well said. The penultimate paragraph is key. We live in a totalitarian society. The goal of this project is the destruction of every form of tradition and community known to Western man. The ties that bind a man to God, a man to a woman, a man to his family, a man to his people, a man to his neighbour — all of these must be destroyed. Dependence on the state is all that remains.

  4. Laguna Beach Fogey June 21, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    OT: Who are those ogres in the photo? I find them vile-looking, and yet, at the same time, they resemble most White Americans I encounter these days.

  5. I’ve thought for a while, and admit lots of people have thought I’m mad for thinking this, but the evidence keeps stacking up, another potential reason for these ludicrous expansions on the definition of marriage is to widen the net of possible men to be enslaved in the child support scheme. Hear me out, prior to the sexual revolution access to women was regulated and expensive, and a man had to commit for life to gain access. The state played a very small role in it, if at all. After the sexual revolution access to women was made cheap, practically free, but the consequences of it (single mothers, out of wedlock births, parenting, child care, and the welfare of women in old age with no husbands) was outsourced to the government. So the government had to claw back those costs. Hence higher taxes for everyone, but also child support.

    In Australia, we have a welfare budget of about 20 Billion, of which about 5 billion comes from child support annually. So the more men who can be caught up in this, the better for the government. Look at it this way, for a father who provides for his family, where is the benefit for government? But a father separated, and with his money regulated via federal agencies, and distributed out to the various parties, a clip here, and percentage there, and the state can even go ‘cap in hand’ to the executive for more funds for their “crucial work”.

    Broken families are a win/win for progressives and rent seekers alike.

  6. While any, possibly all of these will come to pass, I think you’re missing the big one.

    In the next generation, it will become acceptable to kill those who oppose any of this.

  7. Whenever I think about this subject, I think about bootleggers and baptists. The example of bootleggers and baptists shows the weird alliances that happen in politics- both bootleggers and baptists are against legalizing- the bootleggers like their profits and the baptists like being against alcohol.

    Well, in all cases regarding state marriage, the bootleggers are lawyers. The progs are moralizers, after a fashion, so they are the baptists, and they won’t be able to get poly done, because the lawyers won’t want it. Multiple partners mean multiple claimants, and that means less money for the divorce industry. Marriage will stay monogamous just like in Roman times- because that’s how you maximize the number of divorces, and the amount of court enacted redistribution of money. You will very likely be able to marry a goat in a few years, because the courts can benefit from that, but it is doubtful we will ever see polyamory in law.

  8. Media cycles are downstream from elite NGOs, which are downstream from their donors. Watch for strategy docs like this to know the SJW future:

    1. Thanks for the link. They target traditional values under the guise of “rights.” Oddly, they single out Great Apes as a the only other group besides LGBT to have “rights.” Does this mean goats, camels, dogs, lions, tigers, armadillos, etc., have no rights? Maybe Great Apes are more human and can be included in a chain of rights.

    2. I’ve spoken on NGO’s in the past. They are truly the vermin nests that need to be fumigated. Notice that recently the Hungarian prime minister kicked all foreign NGO’s out of the country. NGO’s should be more accurately terms CTO’s – Cultural Terrorist Organizations. It is madness to let, especially foreign groups, come in and try to forcibly engineer the culture.

  9. Well, now we have reached the dizzying heights of trans-racialism which is guaranteed to play havoc with Affirmative Action, there is nothing to say poly and indeed pedo aren’t next. The thing about pedophilia is I doubt they will have any kind of similar campaign. The subject is too noxious. However, what we are seeing already is a growing acceptance of the practice among the elite. There’s no need to mass market it to the masses when they can rape children at TV studios and gay pool parties in Hollywood (as the X-Men director did). Part of me feels however that always in the common man’s mind, even if he doesn’t realize it, he knows this isn’t right. He might be friendly to a sodomite co-worker and support the ‘right to marry’ but in his head he privately thinks “this person is lesser than me, he’s had to fight to get what he wants because he doesn’t deserve it”.

    That seed that exists in the minds of common people I believe will be the ultimate downfall of the sexual minority revolution. Let’s be honest, these people are freaks. You only have to look at their behavior to see they belong in mental hospitals. Given the proper conditions and incentives, it will not be hard to turn people against them.

Comments are closed.