They Must Have the Negatives

Guest Post by Eric Peters

You have probably heard about Paul Stanley’s reasonable, rational “Thoughts on What I’m Seeing” – regarding the current evil fad of promoting the fungibility of sex, especially to children. Stanley is, of course, the lead singer of the famous rock band, KISS. He – and KISS – have been rich and famous since the mid-1970s.

He wrote, in part:

“There is a BIG difference between teaching acceptance and normalizing and even encouraging participation in a lifestyle that confuses young children into questioning their sexual identification as though some kind of game . . .” 

Laudable, because true. Because humane. Because it is evil to confuse young children about something they’re not yet capable of understanding fully or even partially. Stanley took a stand.

And then, he didn’t.

Within a day of posting his Thoughts, he posted new Thoughts, as follows:

“While my thoughts were clear, my words clearly were not. Most importantly and above all else, I support those struggling with their sexual identity while enduring constant hostility . . .”

Italics added.

“Constant hostility”? Well, yes – to this evil business of pushing “sexual identity” on anyone, especially kids. And it’s not even the sex, per se. It is the derangement and chaos it seeks to further, especially among the young who haven’t yet formed their identities. The latter being a process that (ideally) ends when one becomes an adult. At which point, it is up to the individual to decide what their “identity” will be. What Stanley objected to – correctly – is the hard-selling of “identities” to the impressionable and not-fully-formed by evil people.

Bravo.

And then, not.

They must have the negatives. They must have something. It isn’t money – or fame. As the lead singer of one of the most successful rock bands ever – KISS – Paul Stanley is very famous. And very rich. He does not need the money. And even if KISS never played another gig, Paul Stanley will remain famous long after he dies, which might be any day now as he is in his 70s.

So, why?

What made Stanley do the step’n fetchit routine?

It is possible he’s craven. Many celebrities cannot bear to be unloved by the mob. Even if it’s just a relative handful of Woke hysterics. It is more likely than not that the people who like KISS – who buy KISS records and tickets to KISS concerts – are people who like what Stanley said.

And do not like what he subsequently said.

Of a piece with the embarrassing Dylan Mulvaney-Bud Lite business. People who drink Bud Lite do not like drinking from cans festooned with the image of a fey man pretending to be a “woman.” It disgusts and annoys them. But it is perhaps even more disgusting to them to see Bud Lite do the step’n fetchit routine, after sales of Bud Lite tanked on account of lots of people deciding not to buy beer from a company that festooned its cans with the image of a fey man pretending to be a “woman” that then engaged in a transparently frantic walk-back.

People understand that Bud Lite is purveyed by a company that is their enemy. They are not fooled by the suddenly macho counter-advertisements. Once you see, you cannot unsee.

And so it goes.

No one admires a pussy. Especially if it has (nominally) a dick.

People see that Stanley isn’t brave or principled. Or at least, that he isn’t brave enough to stand by his principles, if the mob is offended by them.

It is either that or it is something worse.

Is it possible they have something on him? Something that could result in much worse (for him) than annoying the Wokester mob – which doesn’t like KISS anyhow – and alienating the people who buy KISS records and tickets to see KISS in concert?

It would make sense, certainly. More sense than the explanation that Stanley is afraid of being seen as “mean” – and wants to be petted as politically correct. He’s a rich – and elderly – rock star who has very little to lose by speaking his mind and sticking to it.

At one time, rock stars were expected to buck orthodoxies rather than lick the boots of those who push them.

It’s inexplicable, unless there is another explanation. Of a piece with the “conservative” Supreme Court Chief Justice – who has a job for life and so no longer has to worry about losing his job – finding it “constitutional” to force Americans to pay money to private “health insurance” mafias.

Do they have the negatives?

They must have something.

If not, these people are nothings.

It’s hard to decide which is the worse.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise