“A Nightmare on Elm Street” (1984) is about suburban invasion, and Freddy Kruger is a rapist. Suburban horror was a response to the 1950s idealism of “darn good people living in darn good neighborhoods.” While normally this type of cultural critique would annoy me, Progressives attempting to deconstruct a system that works for the majority, the foundation of horror is about the inescapable.
The suburbs, on their own, will not solve the problems of a damaged culture nor will they filter out the dangers inherent in reality; the suburbs are not walled, nor are they caged. Danger can find its way, and most particularly when the foundation of the family has been turned toxic.
Freddy Kruger is the Progressive response to Dracula. While Dracula played on the beta’s anxiety of being usurped sexually by the handsome and powerful Alpha, after the Sexual Revolution this anxiety was pushed below the surface (yet is still very real). If a woman has no restrictions on her sexuality, and realizing that sexuality in terms of selective promiscuity has become what defines the fully realized woman, fearing the powerful Alpha seducing women away from the pandering beta, and in-turn, ruining these women as prospective wives and mothers, must be redefined as the vile beta rapist.
Women have come to feel entitled to a night with sexy Dracula, regardless of what her future husband may think, but greatly fears the grotesque Freddy Kruger using trickery and force to steal and sully her sexuality.
Kruger forces intimacy by invading the safe-haven of her dreams, where she is at her most vulnerable. Kruger slowly teases and torments, slashing at her night-gown and frightening her. Kruger easily disposes of the men who could protect her. Kruger doesn’t use a knife, a knife creates more space than Kruger wants- Kruger uses knives fashioned into a glove because Kruger craves that intimacy. And while Kruger makes quick work of the sexually-available Tina, his real target is the virginal Nancy.
Unrestrained male-sexuality is the basis of fear on Elm Street; the suburbs cannot protect Nancy, nor can the toxified family- her dutiful yet distant father and her alcoholic mother. Nancy is alone to fight grotesque and invasive male-sexuality, and uses the power of good sense and personal-responsibility to defeat Freddy.
But what if Freddy Kruger were gay?
Progressives have a serious obsession that their entertainment align with their Progressive ideals; to the Progressive, ideology comes before all else. So a fun game to play with the Progressive is exposing something they likes as having a deeper, right-leaning core.
Iron Maiden’s “2 Minutes to Midnight” exploits the listeners expectation of heavy metal as loud, left-leaning gibberish, and delivers a thought-provoking song comparing the casual promotion of abortion to the massive destruction of nuclear war.
The Progressive understands war as toxic-masculinity and the exploitation of the powerless for the personal gain of the powerful; to the Progressive, this is immoral. The Progressive loves abortion, and recognizes it as a woman’s right to dodge responsibility for her own personal gain; this is freedom.
What separates one from the other is sophistry and language manipulation, and Iron Maiden is deliberate in their mentioning this “madman play on words.” The listener is challenged on issues of freedom, responsibility, and morality. Where does one draw the line?
Mention this to a Progressive and they’ll bang their hands on things while shouting non-sense.
The same goes for when you mention that “A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge” (1985) has its horror rooted in homosexuality as suburban invasion. Here Freddy is no longer interested in raping your virginal daughter; Freddy wants to turn your son gay.
Again, we look to the inescapable to play havoc on our anxiety and frighten us. Suburban idealism cannot exclude unrestrained male-sexuality, nor can it exclude the potential for male homosexuality.
“Freddy’s Revenge” carries the rare distinction of having a male protagonist; modern horror will almost always have a female lead. While Jesse has a rather attractive girlfriend, Freddy intervenes and leads Jesse down a path toward homosexual infection, as Jesse spends the duration of the film fighting this persuasion by Kruger (in the form of Freddy’s insistence that Jesse kill for him) while his girlfriend dutifully pleads with him to fight off these new-found urges.
However, Jesse’s insistence on a flamboyant lifestyle overwhelms him (maybe he got a look at @Nero’s Twitter feed), and it’s only when his girlfriend declares her love and kisses him that he turns straight and Freddy is defeated.
So, “Freddy’s Revenge” = Heterosexuality good, Homosexuality bad.
And since your typical horror fan is mostly-retarded and highly Progressive, this assertion, no matter how carefully argued and factually represented, will make her bang her hands on things while shouting nonsense.
It’s tough being a white woman in the modern western world. Her mothers, and grandmothers, and unsightly childless aunts, have constructed a system of selective sympathy reserved for only those who meet a floating-criteria of social victimhood. And since white women are the world’s aristocracy, it’s becoming an arduously difficult task to maintain her status as leader of the pack.
So they promote woman as inherently virtuous, evolutionary wish-fulfillment for the naive man, and on behalf of this omni-benevolence, she generously fights for victimized classes beneath her throne as long as they don’t compromise her supremacy.
The blueprint for this is laid out in the Progressive tome “To Kill a Mockingbird” (1960), where angry ugly Harper Lee uses black civil rights, and the inarguable right to due-process, as a Trojan Horse to fit-in her gender agenda.
White women love gay men as long as they know their place under the throne. If you watch representations of homosexual men in 1990s television and movies, gay men exclusively exist to act as comic relief and make white women feel fabulous. In return for this, women appear virtuous by acting as defenders of homosexuality through wielding accusations of homophobia against villainous white man.
But why would men care about not wanting to appear gay? What would an accusation of homosexuality disqualify a man from?
Women drive the sexual marketplace, and men stand in reaction to it. Men are challenged to compete with one-another for women under rules that are ultimately decided by women. If women were truly repulsed by masculinity and attracted to men who gorge on pizza and video games, even men who are inclined toward productivity would cancel their gym memberships and pick up a PS4. This is reality; sexual success is the biggest driver for motivation, as it should be- sexual success and productive mating are what build Civilizations.
An accusation of homosexuality immediately disqualifies a man from sexual success. Even worse, it’s calling attention to the potential reality of a trait which may appear feminine- something that will also greatly limit his sexual success.
So why shouldn’t a man be vehemently opposed to accusations of homosexuality?
Because on the other end of the spectrum, he’ll be called homophobic. He’s scared, he’s immature, he’s ignorant, he’s just a little boy.
Women will wield the accusation of homosexuality as a shaming-device toward heterosexual men, and when they resist by not wanting to be accused of homosexuality- and this may take the form of heterosexual men not wanting to be associated with gay men or homosexuality at all- women will use this resistance to paint a more greatly demonized picture of the hateful white male.
Take a look at how the male-sexuality narrative changes when considering the victimized homosexual. Women will shout at heterosexual men accused of homophobia, “just because they’re gay, it doesn’t mean they’re attracted to you!!!”
Which is exactly how they view hetero-male sexuality…. or, is it??
Aren’t women wonderful?
Like my post? I accept Bitcoin tips via ChangeTip @ killtoparty.tip.me/