Did you enjoy my thread deboonking softcore gay porn movie Dead Poets Society, showing you that Neil’s father is the true hero of the story? Well I’m about to deconstruct another American favorite, one that looms even larger in the cultural memory… OH YES
Dirty Dancing, apart from one or two appetizing scenes, is a hideous flick that, like almost every movie made in the last 60+ years, is a propagandistic ode to gynocratic GNC flavor so-called “liberalism”, which is more aptly called something else, but I cannot discuss this now.
There is the obvious low hanging fact that the plot hinges on the “need” for an aboorshun, which the viewer is expected to assume and accept. Why not force Yale Med student Robbie Gould, the father of the unborn child, to choose between responsibility for child or death?
This would be truly trad. But I digress. The real nefariousness has to do with the main character, Baby’s, dealings with the two male protagonists: stallion dance instructor Johnny, &her father, old fashioned values American doctor, likely WWII vet, quintessential good man, Jake.
In the opening scene, Baby informs us of two crucial details: a) she is in love with her father (“I thought I’d never find a guy as great as my dad”) and b) she is a communist (“I’m was going to join the Peace Corps”). More evidentiarily, her sister later accuses her of using
“Which side of the Ho Chi Minh Trail” a man is on as her sole dating criteria. Her development arc hereafter is from naive virginoid to sexy, confident not-quite-femme-fatale. The story is 1960s female bildungsroman, from girl to woman, replete with its sexual implications
In the course of this narrative, Baby marshals her newfound sexuality to bring not only her lover (Johnny) but, crucially, ALSO HER FATHER to sociopolitical heel.
Now, the “virgin tames the wild man” archetype is as old as story itself, but here we see something different:
At the beginning of their clandestine dance lessons, we see Johnny as authoritative and serious: in a word, manly. He unsympathetically barks instructions and critiques at a visibly flustered Baby. Their relationship develops, and eventually they have sex0rz on a rainy afternoon
…when baby appears at Johnny’s bachelor pad cabin unannounced. The fact that this happens at all is transgressive to Johnny’s character: up until now we have not known him to be sexual at all. Despite the erotics of his Latin dance routines with former rockette, Penny,
We quickly discover that he has a brotherly, protective relationship with her, and is not the father of her unborn child, contrary to earlier suspicions and implications. In short, he is in control of his sexuality, and it is Baby who has to make the first move on him.
In the next scene after sex0rs, we see their roles reversed. Suddenly, Johnny has become a total simp, unable to concentrate at dance practice, a slave to his sexual desires for Baby. She repeats his earlier dance instructions back to him. He has let the cat out of the bag, twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
And Baby is now squarely in charge of their dynamic. The implications of this famous scene are amazing: he is literally reduced to an amateur dancer by his sexual incontinence. Having ceded spiritual power, his maleness itself (ie his dancing prowess) follows quickly on its heels
So that’s Johnny. What’s even wilder is what happens to Baby’s father, who can be understood as simply an older, more white collar version of Johnny. A serious yet compassionate man, characterized by old world values and self-understanding.
In the final utterance of the movie, after Baby has performed the Pachanga with Johnny on stage at the final farewell, complete with the famous “lift”, Jake tells her, “you looked wonderful up there”, with a certain glint in his eye. All prior indication of the father’s character
Is that he, at best, would turn a blind eye to such a performance by his daughter, especially given how unimaginable it would have been for the girlish version of Baby at the outset. But, like his young döppelganger, Johnny, he cannot resist the allure, and admits to its charm.
The whole thing amounts to a useful cautionary tale of the Trojan Horse that was and is the sexual revolution, offering men seemingly cost-free indulgence in their natural desires, on the ultimate condition that they but give up their role as drivers of society. Longhouse ensues.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you are GenX or younger, you probably unwittingly grew up straddling a large contradiction. On the one hand, you most likely loved nature and her beauty: animool, birb song, lovely green trees and flowing river. Maybe being outside made you feel good and calm, at peace.
But on the other hand, you were also fed, through school, scouting, or other programs, a particularly environmental ideology, prior even to the climate change narrative. This is that of “leave no trace” “reduce your impact” “minimize your carbon footprint”, etc
There is scene in River Runs Through It where Brad Pitt character shows awesome prowess and commitment to catching huge fish, floating halfway down the river and almost over giant waterfall. His onlooking brother, the narrator, then says, “I knew then I was witnessing perfection https://t.co/Vpxualz07a
…but just as surely that life *is not a work of art* and the moment could not last.” I often juxtapose this scene, which I’ve always found moving and maybe truthful, with BAP mishimian exhortation: MAKE YOURSELF A WORK OF ART!
It makes me think favorite lines from Brothers K, which basically says that everything that is, living and inert, actually *is* a work of art—infinitely complex and perfectly ordered and inexhaustibly intelligible—everything except for man, whose default tends to mar the canvas
Been thinking more about this today. Do you realize that, ultimately, the bioleninist regime will have remove all interactions you may have with animool and plant? This is because their very existence contradicts their most base assumption: that creatures’ nature is malleable
The regime’s agricultural system already prerequires the nuking of vast acreages in order eliminate enough life to be viable. China solar panel carpet mountain landscape. You see beaver build dam and think, is nature for beaver to build dam, what is nature for me to do?
If you think this thought you’ve already transgressed a regime piety, by implying that some human nature or essence exists outside of our random whimsies and fantasies. They want you to believe that your essence is determined by whatever bizarre pathology pops into your head…
Complete and total lie, and such a basic lie that it is impossible to imagine that it is being uttered in ignorant good faith. Wherever it is too dry for plant matter to decompose (most of the world’s land), the removal of animals CREATES bare ground (desertification)
It’s not complicated or difficult to understand. Succession requires decay which requires moisture. On most of the world’s land, the only place moist enough for cellulose to decompose is inside the rumens of herbivores.
This isn’t to say that overgrazing isn’t just as bad as undergrazing. It makes perfect sense that they should both be equally bad, and both should result in the death of plants. because the impact of the cow is neither positive nor negative. What decides is *management*
Alright, fight fans. Be careful what you wish for, because now you’re all DOOMED: it’s finally time for the long-awaited, much-anticipated GOOD. WILL. HUNTING. DEBUNKED & BEDUNKED. THREAD. Strap in, anon. It’s time to “go see about a girl.”
As far as libtard fetishes go, this flick has it all. I mean, it’s a movie about THERAYP. But not just that. It’s about upward mobility. It’s about human… MOTILITY. And most of all it’s about a man’s ABILITY… to allow a woman to final soften his childhood abuse-hardened heart.
On that note, let’s start with the end. Will takes the-rapist’s—serial villainous shitlib Robin Williams (deceitful tr00n in Mrs. Doubtfire, perfidious queer in Birdcage)—advice to abandoned friends and homeland to GO WEST in hot pursuit of his MID British doctor girlboss gf,
Wokeism is nothing more another sorry attempt by subaverage but rhetorically exploitative minds to address the universal human condition, which is the experience of alienation from a centralizing human essence or special nature, which no other creature observably shares.
There many other such attempts. Only one (premodern Christianity) is and ever can be successful, because only it can address the root causes. Wokeism addresses neither cause nor effect of this condition: its strategy is to postulates that no such condition, or alienation, exists.
It does so by asserting that a human essence can be accessed through each person’s unique individuality. The trouble is that it sets no standard or structure for what an individual should be. This is why all adherents of this ideology eventual melt into obese, amorphous blobs.