Ethan Ralph just published that Nick Fuentes was an active part of a tranny chat group and groypers in the replies are already pretending there's nothing to see here.
I don't find it fascinating anymore that Nick is gay, but it is really weird that his followers seem to have no limit to the mountains of gayness they can excuse. The America First movement is tradcon Catholic, so they're already holding unpopular views in an adverse climate, including anti-homosexuality. If you're willing to pay the social price for those opinions then why would you be OK with Nick running a catboy channel on his discord and streaming a date with a fag wearing cat ears who likes to lick dildos?
"That doesn't prove anything" "the catboy is based" "AF is the future" It just seems like groypers are a bunch of lost zoomers with such an acute need for a parasocial relationship that they signed onto a cult. The devotion recalls less a political movement and more a kpop fanbase. These aren't ideological convictions, or rather those convictions don't come first. It's just the joy of belonging filtered through the faggy mutated zoomer twilight zone on social media.
Jewish right-wing gimmick accounts like Bronze Age Pervert and Raw Egg Nationalist are also up to homo antics. I don't know, it seems like anyone involved in online politics is gay.
I don't think it's simply a matter of population distribution.
Society is so saturated in media and advertising that the concepts of sexual attractiveness are becoming more abstract. Think about the way that women find wealth sexually attractive. Wealth is not even a secondary sexual characteristic. Now consider how absolutely fake today's image of an attractive woman is. When the male population has been programmed to be attracted to makeup, extensions, fake eyelashes, fake tits, and fake ass... it starts to not matter who they're installed on because it's the fake elements themselves eliciting the attraction.
Then you have feminism encouraging women to act like men, removing a social differentiator. You've got physical characteristics that are less specific to women, social characteristics that are less specific to women. "But only women carry children." Okay but now everyone is just getting pets because prolonged adolescence and phobia of responsibility has rendered a generation incapable of seeing themselves as adult enough to raise a family, removing that from the equation.
That's bad enough but then you take into account the huge advantages that women are given legally that makes them hazardous.
In light of all that, of course we're seeing the shifts we are. The less women have to offer and the more dangerous they are to interact with romantically, the more fuckable the cute twink in a skirt becomes. And the window keeps sliding.
Traditionally masculine men aren't spending their time terminally online.
What about hormonal changes via estrogenated water and soy diets? We are collectively lower T than we’ve ever been.
It's probably all related. Finding out the degrees of all the causes and effects would require actual scientific study and "the science" is only allowed to find permitted results these days.
Surprised there hasn't been a push of "low T is a good thing" articles. Or maybe there was and I missed it.
Amusingly, I have seen left-wing media outlets start to acknowledge it, only now after the microplastic stories have been coming out. They'll still fail to connect all the dots though I'm sure.
This is where my mind went to as well. That and alex jones ranting about chemicals in the water turning the friggin frogs gay. It was a meme, but it was also very serious; what if the frogs were more sensitive to the chemicals than us (they are), and that was a 'canary in the coal mine' moment we ignored as a species?