If something is called “mainstream”, imo it describes thought under siege. Whatever the designated mainstream is, you can believe it is a narrative issued by and approved of by a controlling and calculated element. Mainstream is to accept that narrative without question and march along blindly with sheeple who obey and believe whatever is being tossed their way.
“Ordinary, orthodox, conventional...” is how the dictionary describes “mainstream”. I do not consider that superior or appealing in any way. “Common, conformist...” the definition goes on and in no way will that ever describe me.
Most often mainstream mentality will never dispute anything challenging the status quo and parrots whatever the controlling authority has to say. Why am I even pondering this? Because I am often taunted with accusations I am not a part of the “Valentino mainstream”. I say thank God for that.
Why would I ever want to be part of a herd of sheep bleating in agreement? Renato and I discovered amazing things about Rudolph Valentino and backed it up with years of documentation and proof. Because our presence and work threatened the authority controlling the “Valentino mainstream”, we were vilified and still are... and I am called a “madwoman”.
Why would I ever want to be part of a mainstream; swept along by blind acceptance, fearful of appearing insubordinate to some tired old orthodoxy? I proudly consider myself far, far outside of that “Valentino mainstream”.
To those of you who attempt feebly to insult me by saying I am not part of the “Valentino mainstream”, I say that is more praise than insult....Bleat on obedient sheep.
As the beat poet Henry Rollins wrote, "Swimming in the main stream, is such a lame, lame dream..."
