Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

A modest proposal on WWG

Seems Twitter is awash with talk on what the correct reactionary attitude towards gays, trannies and other sexual deviants must be.

Social conservatives have a range of opinions about what sexual deviancy is really about. Is it a curse? Just something people do out of lust and other sinful desires (which we should stop them from doing)? Or perhaps it is somewhat inborn or unchosen, yet disgusting all the same so we should make them hide it at least so we don’t have to talk about it.

Then there’s social liberals who just think sex is rad and people should be free to have orgasms however they like have them. The right side of the internet is also full of these sort of people, even among self-styled neoreactionaries. Blowhard comes to mind. He’s even running a porn tumblr these days. Moldbug tended to avoid the topic, which is an intelligent thing to do when you live in San Francisco.

And of course progressives not only think sexual deviants should be free to do so; they must be worshipped as gods and every single fancy of them must be taught in public schools to entice primary school kids into participating eventually. Or not so eventually.

What to do? I have a proposal.

If I had to choose one, I’d call myself a social conservative. Progressives are evil and insane. Social liberals are also in my opinion misguided. Sex is not about orgasms. Ultimately it’s about reproduction. And reproduction is about whose genes get to be present in the next generation. Personnel is policy, so sex must be regulated. It has always been so, for a reason. A basic principle of all civilized societies is that sex is not about fun, and people’s mating instincts can’t be left to themselves. Farming doesn’t come naturally, agricultural civilizations less so; and so the patriarchy was invented to make it possible. That’s a matter of history, of actual fact, not of ethical speculation. And history is more important and much more interesting than ethics. If you don’t agree I don’t want to talk to you. You should get yourself in a monastery.

However social conservatives also tend to miss the facts and let themselves be fooled by moral tradition. And that’s wrong. Sexual deviancy is out there, and has always been, and wishing it out of existence isn’t going to help. Tradition is about filtering out the inconvenient parts of the past. Well we have more data now. Greeks were into banging ephebes. Romans were into abortion and dysgenics. There’s plenty of quite disturbing sexual practices in all of the Good Old Days.

The word reactionary conveys the idea that there are social arrangements from the past that are superior to those of modernity. But of course not all of them were. What modernity has, at least in comparison to the pre-Enlightenment period, is empirical science. So my proposal is:

Sexual deviants are to be objects of research. It’s much more important to understand why homosexuality happens, than it is to suppress it. It is much more interesting to find out why a army veteran chooses to chop off his dick and call himself Jessica, instead of marrying a woman and making children with her. Cognitive science has advanced a lot, and this corner of the blogosphere owns as much to it as it does to genetics research.

So my proposal is: neoreactionaries must see sexual deviants as guinea pigs. Not as friends, not as enemies, but as fascinating broken brain which must be peeked into. We want to know why some men prefer to suck cock, why the daughter of a HK billionaire goes out with an ugly dyke, why Afghanis lust after 10 year old boys, why trendy american fags have lisps. Agnostic has been publishing his thoughts on this issue, and while his methods aren’t very scientific, he has produced by himself more interesting insight than 100 Anissimovs and 500 Anarcho-papists in Twitter and all their followers combined.

So gentlemen: less ought, and more is. Let us strive to advance knowledge, else you’re just yet another member of the chattering classes. And not a very good one at that.

Advertisements

57 responses to “A modest proposal on WWG

  1. Red May 30, 2014 at 10:48

    Transgender:
    In the earliest days of the internet I used to read a blog called A.E. Brain
    http://aebrain.blogspot.com/

    He was a computer programmer with a family but something was off about his picture. His face seemed overly effeminate. About 5 years into his blog he posted a picture from 10 years before and it was clear that his face had massively changed. He had been a strong looking and very masculine appearing guy. I had a hard time believing it was the same guy. He had finally gone to his doctor about the changes and it turned out that his body was producing too much of a hormone. At first he was going to try to get the problem fixed, but he suddenly decided to abandon his family and switch to being a women. He now calls himself Zoe Brain and the entire focus of his blog switched from computers and coding to transgenderism. His entire prescriptive became very warped.

    Now I chock this up to a malfunction body and it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that other such people also have something wrong with their hormone levels. But instead of treating it, progressives allow or encourage them to become freaks.

    • spandrell May 30, 2014 at 10:56

      Yes. Reminds me of this talk by Yudkowsky, on how old Christian pastors used to argue that disease was Gods punishment and so shouldn’t be cured.

      But of course we moderns are so much rational and superior to our forbearers. Wink wink. Now let’s swing.

  2. Red May 30, 2014 at 10:53

    “However social conservatives also tend to miss the facts and let themselves be fooled by moral tradition. And that’s wrong. Sexual deviancy is out there, and has always been, and wishing it out of existence isn’t going to help. ”

    The purpose of traditions against sexual deviancy wasn’t to push them out of existence. It was to suppress the open displays of them and to keep such people away from the levelers of power.

    • alabastrine excellence June 19, 2014 at 02:46

      That hasn’t worked. There are more homosexuals in political office now than ever before. The media is constantly presenting the viewing public with the cute, cuddly, witty, and oh-so-sweet faggot next door. The next step is to make NAMBLA’s wet dream come true–legalized pedophilia. The age of sexual ‘consent’ will be lowered to about six months of age, and we will enter into an era of ‘politically correct’ acceptance of man-boy love, just like ancient Greece. UGH. I say that we push them back into the closet and lock the door behind them.

  3. Handle May 30, 2014 at 13:43

    The quest for truth needs motivation. What does a reactionary do with the knowledge of the origins (I judge there are multiple causes) of deviant sexual impulses once he has it? For the biological origins, one could develop a cure! Or at least a test.

    Everybody’s got to signal how much they tolerate and love sexual deviancy, but when you start offering vaccines or gene therapy or fetal hormonal stabilization therapies, then we’ll see how many people will pay what prices to assure that their little darling turns out straight.

    Of course some people will decide to signal by purposefully making their kids gay. At what point is it child abuse?

    But once you have a cheap and easily accessible cure or a test I predict the amount of biological-origin deviancy to implode. Watch some progressive call my a genocidal ‘eliminationist’ Nazi now, but they’re cool with sex-selective abortion (legal in California!) and my cure doesn’t involve killing any human life. This is a great jurisprudential way to avoid trying to resolve the issue, just declare it moot for lack of a continuing cause of concern.

    Look, there are a lot of Christian religious conservatives and social traditionalists out there, and when combined that represents a vast amount of wealth and manpower. The poor are a gold mine. They have completely lost the war on the fronts of Politics and Culture, but they can still squeeze out a victory on the front of Science. They should totally raise a billion dollars and set up a research foundation. The BOM Institute – ‘By Other Means’. Maybe FPF – Final Protective Fires.

    • Handle May 30, 2014 at 14:31

      You could even do ‘race for the cure’ 5k runs, and wear obnoxious little ribbons at fundraising events.

    • Contaminated NEET May 30, 2014 at 16:46

      Greg Egan proposed this in a scifi story 10 or 15 years ago. Well, not the right-wing research institute, but the soft genocide of the genetically gay through either embryo selection or gene modification, I forget which. The gay population plummeted and was ironically only replaced from the children of the Amish and other religious fanatics who didn’t believe tampering with reproduction.

      I always thought it was a clever and likely idea, and I’ve been passing it off as my own insight in conversation ever since reading it.

      • Handle May 30, 2014 at 17:15

        This is where the techno-commercialists and religious-trads make a mutually beneficial trade. “Social Conservatism Through Free Market R&D.” If we can’t convince people to be traditional, we can literally build the people who will become the kind we need to get the society we want.

        You give us your vision for an ideal social equilibrium, we’ll solve for the DNA. Custom Sociogenics, Inc. We make your Utopian dreams come true. With Science!

        Now someone just needs to give me a billion dollars to get my institute started. It’s not the kind of thing you can put on Kickstarter.

  4. Pingback: A modest proposal on WWG | Reaction Times

  5. Thrasymachus May 30, 2014 at 16:42

    The homosexualization of society is the final move by progressives to destroy and dominate. And yet, it’s an overreach that will ultimately destroy them. The West today has close parallels with the late Roman Empire. Powerful by a once disciplined army now staffed by barbarian mercenaries, rich from looting the rest of the world and impoverishing its subjects and own citizens. A social desert from perversion and matriarchy.

    The letters of Paul are usually read as theology, but more clearly they are instructions to a population devastated by these things. “You live by the grace of God through Jesus Christ now. Ok, now honor God. No more faggotry, hookers, infanticide, man is in charge of the home, women behave themselves.” Society regenerated itself from the bottom, as it will have to do now.

    There isn’t any compromise or accommodation with these things.

    • spandrell May 30, 2014 at 17:04

      Some regeneration that was.

      • Thrasymachus May 31, 2014 at 15:24

        It worked fairly well from about 400 AD to 1970.

      • Red June 2, 2014 at 09:58

        It restored to the roman population to close to normal by 350AD. Downside is all the stabilization came from having the worst people in society do most of the breeding. They couldn’t fight, they couldn’t farm, and they couldn’t produce anything of value. After the fall the church coupled proper breeding with Paul’s teaching to build the west.

    • Zippy June 10, 2014 at 14:42

      Wait a second . . . how are we “rich from looting the rest of the world”? Yeah we’ve done all this warring, but Bush couldn’t even get that right. Where’s our loot?

  6. Dan May 30, 2014 at 17:29

    One central feature of the reactosphere is pursuit of red pill truth, in light of the ocean of lies permeating from the left.

    For this reason alone, the reactionary position on matters of sex, gender and reproduction must necessarily adhere more closely to that of social conservatives. The content of the left in all of these areas is straight up falsehood: factually incorrect.

    Let us consider some factual untruths of the left on matters of sex, gender and reproduction:

    (1) “Your gender is what you want it to be.”

    This is simply false, and I don’t see how someone can claim to be a red-piller and accept whole cloth such a transparent fiction. The chromosome for gender was discovered 100 years ago, and it encodes 100 different genes, and we don’t even know what they do. The penis and vagina aren’t even the primary sex organs, they are the secondary sex organs. The primary sex organs are the testes and ovaries, and nobody even pretends to change those. Gender exists because of reproduction and reproduction is the central thing in the life of any organism.

    Anyone believing in (1) has no place in the reaction for at least two reasons. First, if they are so easily persuaded when the left weaves such a flimsy web, how can they pursue truth when it is harder to discern. Second, the only reason anybody believes in (1) is because they like thinking the ‘hip’ thing. Lovely. What a useless ‘reactionary’. You have to be awfully eager to please the crowd to disbelieve your own eyes this much.

    (2) “Homosexuality is strictly innate”

    Is there any famous star who hasn’t changed sexual orientations at least once? I exaggerate, but only a little. Think of Mick Jagger, David Bowie, Madonna, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan… All intensely interested in the opposite sex and all have been gay for stretches of time. I’d be able to name many more if I weren’t so disinterested in celebrities. Prison populations seem to switch at will. The prevalence of homosexuality changes dramatically among different eras and even varies among different cohorts at present. A generation ago, male homosexuality was much more prevalent than lesbianism in America. Then came the AIDs scare for the men and lesbianism increasing in hipness for the women and now lesbianism is more common among younger cohorts.

    Disclaimer: Not saying genes don’t matter, they do.

    But strictly innate homosexuality was not even an idea in recent history until it became a tool for leftist aims. And then it was added to the ‘scientific’ cannon with zero scientific merit, while twin studies suggest environment matters more.

    (3) “Gay ‘marriage’ is just like regular marriage”

    Human sexual pairing exists because of reproduction, and that is the only feature that remains in the long run. Everyone’s actual family tree has mothers paired with fathers going all the way back, and when gays make kids, a man still must find an actual mother and a woman must still find an actual father.

    I can’t imagine a red-piller could ever think that homosexuality is proper biological functioning rather than a biological goof-up. That is not hate. It also must be true that game afficionados or career driven people who have hetero sex but stop impregnation are biological goof-ups, as are men who prefer anal sex with women.

    If you fail biological prime directive number one, you are not fully healthy from the strict perspective of how science would evaluate the health of any biological organism, absent the emotional baggage.

    Gays who use artificial techniques have more or less come to terms with their biological malfunction are compensating.

    (4) “Sex is for fun”

    Try this: “Food is for fun.” Obviously not. Because eating food is so important for the human organism, eating is great fun.

    Game types might be allies of reactionaries for telling the truth on some subjects, but they can never be proper reactionaries and exhalt childfree sex the way they do.

    The real historical sexual alphas are almost the opposite of game types. They were the leaders of tribes consisting of their own progeny! Or at least the patriarchs of clans. All of the kings, sultans, tsars and emperors all over the world, the historic alphas, were obsessed with their own bloodlines. Failure to produce an heir was almost the number one defect a king could have.

    How can a game type pretend to have the love of a woman when she will not have his children? All of the historical alphas would fall out of their thrones with laughter.

    I’ll stop here in the interests of my own time although I have more to say. To summarize, the so-called ‘reactionary’ who adopts social leftism is swallowing and propagating many blue pill falsehoods on the topics most central to human ecology. And they are doing it for all of the leftist reasons of status-whoring and traditionalist-bashing.

    • Red June 2, 2014 at 10:02

      “I can’t imagine a red-piller could ever think that homosexuality is proper biological functioning rather than a biological goof-up. That is not hate. It also must be true that game afficionados or career driven people who have hetero sex but stop impregnation are biological goof-ups, as are men who prefer anal sex with women.”

      Studies on identical twins shows only a 30% chance that if one twin is gay, then both will be gay. Hard homosexuality is disease of some sort.

  7. Toddy Cat May 30, 2014 at 18:25

    In the final analysis, no matter how we may try to finesse the issue, Reaction has to reject the sexual revolution, or it will be destroyed from the inside, the same way “Movement” conservatism was destroyed. If you had told me even ten years ago that a highly popular writer would have been fired from “National Review” for insulting gays, I would have told you that you were nuts – but it happened.

    As Roissy himself has pointed out, human sexuality is the glue that hold a society together. When you mess with that, you are fiddling with the underpinnings of civilization itself. If Reaction is serious about reconstructing a viable social order, the sexual revolution has to go. That doesn’t mean stoning homosexuals and adulterers or anything like it, but it does mean the reimposition of traditional Western Christian norms (many of which are actually pre-Christian). I don’t particularly like this, but there is really no alternative. The P.J. O’Rourke program of “I want to roll back everything about the Sixties EXCEPT the sexual revolution” was pretty appealing to me back when I was in my twenties, for obvious reasons, but we now see where that gets us. It’s all or nothing, kids. It’s all got to go, or else we might just as well all take out subscriptions to NR so we can read about how gay marriage is actually a conservative institution, and how we need to impose it on Ukraine, or something…

    • Red June 2, 2014 at 10:04

      Reaction has to reject more than the sexual revelation, it has to reject the puritan sexual outlook that forms the basis for conservatives own sexual standards.

      • Toddy Cat June 2, 2014 at 15:41

        I wouldn’t argue with that. In an odd way, puritanism is responsible for the sexual revolution.

  8. Dan May 30, 2014 at 23:36

    Nyan Sandwich has an interesting post that is useful for this discussion:

    http://www.moreright.net/pushback-on-the-purpose-of-reactionaries-and-social-conservatism/

    He writes,
    “I’d offer the following:

    The main value of Neoreaction is in producing a novel, intelligent, uncompromised, and correct analysis of social and political science that is unafraid to contradict current political fashions and is unafraid to draw on non-contemporary or non-agreeable thought.

    But that is just it. If you want to be correct, you have to really be correct. He asks, does it really matter that Justine Tunney is trans? That is not even a question that a reactionary should ask. Justine Tunney is not trans. No human being in history is trans, as mammals cannot biologically change sex. It can’t happen.

    Does it matter that Justine Tunney lies about the reality of his own gender? Sure it does. If you are willing to not be honest on so basic a thing, how can you be trusted to be honest about other things. I stopped by his blog, and was not surprised at all to see an enormous amount of content that is factually incorrect.

    If neoreaction is foremost about truth-telling then it emphatically does not need tons of half truth tellers. Better to have fewer people that tell the truth all the time.

    People like Tunney also present a problem: is the fiction of transgenderism now off limits in the neoreaction, so as not to offend that dude?

    If truth-seeking is your goal, I can learn from smokers and drunkards, players and more. But I can’t take seriously someone like Tunney who wraps himself in a lie.

  9. peppermint7889 May 31, 2014 at 01:16

    Thanks for this, Spandrell. I’ve also been wondering about this, and keep a few gay friends around to watch them. Like I posted on nickbsteves’ comment thread yesterday, a meaning it must have, or it would not be here. I also want a neoreactionary version of queer theory.

    Let’s start by shocking ourselves and driving the socons away with some short stories. We can start with http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1mj4xt/gallery_of_nullos_people_who_voluntarily_chop_of/cc9vv7j

  10. Baker May 31, 2014 at 09:23

    Sex is [i]evolved[/i] for reproduction, which doesn’t mean sex is not for orgasm. Most animals have sex for beauty/orgasm, reproduction is the side effect. Take away a mouse’s capacity for orgasm and it wouldn’t do sex. Homo/trans is a imperfection of matching of biologically evolved and psychological sexual role, but imperfection is part of the nature; there is no reason that the psychology developed with any gene and under any environment must match the reproductive organs’ role.

    These worked in nature, but become a problem for human as contraception cancels the reproduction side effect, so the subjective meaning and evolutionarily role of sex are discoupled. Human’s complex mind and rich environment make the psychology weight much more, to the point that psychological effect [whose disposition may be partly due to genes] is the dominant force in sexual choice. Psychologically people seek what they lack and need most, we may hypothesis that homo/trans, for whatever reason, feels that their sexual choice fills their psychological need.

    • spandrell May 31, 2014 at 09:42

      Take away a mouse’s capacity for orgasm and it wouldn’t do sex.

      Has that been tried?

      Imperfection is part of nature, but there’s a pattern to it. Genetic abnormalities happen all the time, but with a given frequency, not more than 1 in several thousand. And anything that affects the reproductive function is more subject to selective pressures, so genetical abnormalities there should be less. As it is the math says that a genetic explanation for sexual deviancy makes no sense at all.

      I also don’t know that contraception affects the subjective view of sex. If you read Huxley’s novels on the British upper class they were all busy fucking each other’s wives and daughters, homos doing sodomy and all that stuff. Without contraception, or even antibiotics.

      Psychologically people want to satisfy their desires, the point is why would a man desire a penis in his mouth, or to become a woman. If for some reason the gender identifying module in the brain is prone to failure, more than, say, the food identifying module or the motor coordination module, we must understand how and why. If it were only about orgasms everybody would be bisexual and open to have sex with animals.

      • Baker May 31, 2014 at 12:03

        > Has that been tried?

        I vaguely remember reading about some experiment along that line but my memory may be wrong. Basically by altering chemistry associated with sex drive the animal because disinterested in sex. Pretty straightforward hypothesis actually. It is reasonably to assume that low-level animal do not have the complex concept of “doing sex will result in reproduction and increase my progeny which feels desirable”, more likely sex is simply due to more direct sensory stimulation.

        Genetic imperfection is actually very prevalent, it is just that the mutation rate is low. The same set of gene inherently has some chance to express differently due to external/random factors. Human is already very imperfect. Given better genetic, we can be so much more smart and strong and healthy, but natural selection haven’t given enough pressure for it. Nature is inherently degenerative, the law of entropy, it only goes “good enough” to survive. Then there are trade-off selections, ie, some genes which is advantageous in some area causes a greater chance of defect in other area, eg. autism gene. If natural selection is so strict, why human has such a wide difference in IQ? Why there are retards who should have very low sexual appeal in natural environment? Unlike eating, the psychological and physical conditioning of sexual interaction is highly complex, and psychology is highly malleable. [sexual interaction and ritual, especially among human, is highly complex and require a lot “programming code” to simulate the full “normal” behavior]. I think genetic encoding alone simply cannot strictly enforce an evolutionary optimal sexual behavior. Even a genome has 5% homosexual expression rate, human reproduced more than enough in nature. Homosexuality is not rare in other animal species.

        There is also the difference between homosexuality due to lack of heterosexual choice and psychological/natural homosexuality.

        > I also don’t know that contraception affects the subjective view of sex.

        I didn’t mean that. I meant contraception allowed human to enjoy the subjective view of sex without the burden of the side effect of reproduction. There are other reasons to reproduce: to have children to support you in old age [becoming irrelevant due to government redistribution], and to fill the second half of life which can become boring and nihilistic after the adventures of youth are finished [the main reason people in developed countries are reproducing].

        > Psychologically people want to satisfy their desires, the point is why would a man desire a penis in his mouth, or to become a woman. If for some reason the gender identifying module in the brain is prone to failure, more than, say, the food identifying module or the motor coordination module, we must understand how and why. If it were only about orgasms everybody would be bisexual and open to have sex with animals.

        This would be very complex to discussion. “Orgasm” is just a metaphor, it is actually means “the full spectrum of psychological attraction and satisfaction to perform certain acts”. Psychology is very complex. I am no expert on sexual acts anyway, just throwing my 2 cents based on my understanding of mind.

        • spandrell May 31, 2014 at 12:22

          Unlike eating, the psychological and physical conditioning of sexual interaction is highly complex, and psychology is highly malleable. [sexual interaction and ritual, especially among human, is highly complex and require a lot “programming code” to simulate the full “normal” behavior]

          That is true, and an interesting topic. But it’s not true that homosexuality is prevalent in animals at the same rate as humans, not even close.

          But as you say it is a complex problem. All the more reasons to do some serious research on it, instead of framing as the great social justice battle for the right of people to mutilate themselves and have it reflected in the public registry.

          • Baker May 31, 2014 at 12:42

            I forgot to mention, genetic recombination has more effect than genetic mutation in individuals. With correct combination, two ordinary parents can produce a non-ordinary child.

            I think it is wrong to assume that human sexuality is controlled by some dedicated sexual gene. The better model is “certain genetic combination has certain chances to express in certain ways under certain environment.” This would explain the fuzzy nature of human sexuality despite evolutionary pressure, without resorting to some exotic hypotheses without evidence like the germ theory.

            • spandrell May 31, 2014 at 13:28

              Well you’re gonna have to produce some good citations for that if you wanna overturn Cochran’s intellectual authority here.

              • Baker May 31, 2014 at 13:42

                There is nothing to overturn. He proposed a hypothesis that’s all. When he actually found the germ that would be evidence.

              • Baker May 31, 2014 at 14:02

                Hypothesizing homosexuality has environmental factor doesn’t preclude the germ theory though, as the germ is an environmental factor. But then we will question that why animals haven’t developed high immunity to this germ as we to common flu, considering that homosexuality emerge young and almost guarantee infertility. Absent any evidence of causal correlation or trace of the germ, I don’t see much appeal in the germ theory.

            • spandrell May 31, 2014 at 14:11

              Well because the germ itself evolves too. That’s why there are all these germs around.
              I’m not convinced myself, but the math behind “certain genetic combinations” isn’t very persuasive. It doesn’t explain racial differences, for one.

              Anyway, more research is needed. Somebody tell me why no university in Hong Kong is studying all those butch lesbians around. Nobody is curious? Not a little bit?

              • Baker May 31, 2014 at 14:37

                > Well because the germ itself evolves too. That’s why there are all these germs around.

                Common flu evolves too, but it doesn’t kill at 4-5% rate as the rate of homosexuality. Infertility since young age is as bad as fatality in evolutionary math. Given enough time for adaption, it is unlikely a single disease kill off 4-5% of youngsters.

                > but the math behind “certain genetic combinations” isn’t very persuasive. It doesn’t explain racial differences, for one.

                Nothing to do with racial difference.

                > Somebody tell me why no university in Hong Kong is studying all those butch lesbians around. Nobody is curious? Not a little bit?

                Who wants to be a pigeon pig to be studied? That’s more insulting than saying homosexual is abnormal.

              • B June 3, 2014 at 08:38

                Historically, diarrhea killed off a larger proportion of infants than that, yet people have not managed to develop mass immunity or even adequate defense mechanisms to prevent fatal dehydration.

                Most gay people can and do sleep with the other gender when incentives are aligned. Look at the Arabs-gayer than hell, still making babies.

                I suspect that in Hong Kong, it’s not a shortage of willing subjects to be studied but a shortage of professors willing to risk a purgin’ that’s the issue. Generally, convincing people to be studied is not that hard, especially perverts who think the world revolves around their perversion.

    • Greying Wanderer June 14, 2014 at 08:35

      I think animals have sex because they are compelled to by sex hormones.

      And I think (not 100% sure) orgasm is necessary to numb the intense pain that would otherwise result from the sudden, massive contraction of the balls needed to expel sperm.

      That to my mind is/was the point/need of social conservatism, sex is a compulsive behavior whose source dates back to a time when people could pick their food off trees – but then things changed and they couldn’t just pick their food off trees and something needed to be done to control/channel the compulsion.

      As to the OP – I wouldn’t be surprised if it was something to do with all the sugar in the diet as that seems to be involved in everything else going wrong so

      high fructose corn syrup -> trannie

      for me that passes the scientific first hurdle of instinctively plausible

  11. Callowman May 31, 2014 at 10:31

    I am old enough to just barely remember the early 1960s, when gay people did not have to be treated as special snowflakes. The issue came up back then, because my uncle and my dad’s secretary were gay, and my mother was a painter and thus had a lot of art types come round, a group in which there were a lot of gays. As far as I could tell, the attitude of the adults around me was that homosexuality was a minor character flaw, definitely not something that should or would get you excluded from ordinary society. This is still largely how I view the issue, though I don’t go around saying so, since saying homosexuality is a flaw is considered evil. Gays of my age or older who have found a way to thrive in society are often interesting and insightful, since they were forced to deliberate about issues that had pretty good default solutions for heterosexuals. This, along with a deep aesthetic appreciation of people of the same sex, and whatever offbeat brain function it is that causes gays to be overrepresented in the arts, is the plus side of it. The minus side is the greater exposure to disease, at least on the part of male homosexuals, and the obvious dysfunction you see at any Pride event. We owe them our kindness, and we owe ourselves the self-respect of exercising it. A partnership law providing clear property and visitation rights would seem to be in line with this. Political attempts to make homosexuality the equivalent of heterosexuality, on the other hand, seem like social vandalism. The problem is, after all, self-correcting on the generational level.

    • spandrell May 31, 2014 at 11:20

      No, no fuck that. We do not owe them our kindness. A minor character flaw it might have been back then. The gays of your childhood might have been a pleasant lot but the gays of today are busy creating antibiotic resistant STDs through their massive sodomy, all while routing public money to research on their diseases instead of others that don’t affect them. Not to speak of public promotion of homosexuality in schools etc.

      Powerful minorities used to be object of bloody pogroms every odd decades by the angry commoners. The least homos can do is donate their brains to science.

      • Greying Wanderer June 14, 2014 at 08:41

        “The problem is, after all, self-correcting on the generational level.”

        I’m not so sure. I think they may take us down with them.

  12. Callowman May 31, 2014 at 10:48

    Also worth noting is that there are a wide variety of hypotheses about the etiology of homosexuality. One of the most plausible is Greg Cochran’s germ theory, which, if confirmed – and if there’s a way of preventing exposure to the germ – will end non-volitional homosexuality in a single generation. Some men will still want to put penises in their mouths, of course. Why? I refer you to an old joke:

    Q: Do does a dog lick his balls?
    A: Because he can.

    • Handle June 1, 2014 at 20:58

      If the Christians, social conservatives, and religious traditionalists were serious about winning the war against homosexuality, then they would take the chance that Cochran is right, raise a billion dollars, give it to me an institute, find the germ, and develop a vaccine.

      So perhaps they’re not really serious about it. Or maybe it’s just taken them this long to realize they’ve completely lost and been thoroughly outclassed in the cultural fights and that they can’t fight this war in any other way, and they haven’t been clever enough to think of active countermeasures instead of engaging in echo-chambers of perpetual ululating whining. Quit your bitching and get busy with the R&D you Christian soldiers!

      Yes, by that time, the Christians may have irreversibly lost a culture now permanently enthralled with sexual deviants, and their own religion may evaporate except for Mormonism, but it’s still worth it to get that parting shot in. If I’m going down, I’m taking all you homos with me too! Like that line in Moby Dick, “… to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.”

      • Handle June 1, 2014 at 21:19

        And by the way, it’s not like we’re not in a technological arms race. Look at them, they’ve synthesizing sperm so that lesbians can have biological offspring without a donor! Well, they still need a sperm donor so far, but only of the empty shells, and they can replace the genetic nucleus with some from an egg. Nothing the ‘save the nuclear family’ line! Jesus.

        • Dan June 1, 2014 at 22:04

          This is a long, long way off. As in, possibly never.

          Women lack a y-chromosome which apparently is kinda key to this whole thing. Here is a good snippet from a Telegraph article I am reading:

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1548492/Women-may-be-able-to-grow-own-sperm.html#source=refresh

          Reading down to the bottom you find:

          “Prof Robin Lovell Badge, of the National Institute of Medical Research in Mill Hill, London, said there were fundamental reasons why female bone marrow could not be converted into sperm.

          Men have a Y and an X chromosome (bundles of genes in cells), whereas women have two X chromosomes. Prof Lovell Badge said that a Y was essential for sperm while having two X chromosomes was “incompatible with making sperm”.

          “The only true defining feature of a germ cell is its ability to undergo meiosis – the form of cell division that leads to sperm or eggs having just one of each chromosome rather than a pair, as found in all other cells. The authors say they have not yet determined whether their cells can do this, but this is essential if they are to justify their claims.”

          He said the paper contained “several misleading statements”, cited a 2006 paper that was “questionable” and rested on the use of molecular markers to reveal the “putative” sperm cells, which is a long way from the ultimate test of using sperm made this way to create an offspring.

          It seems you need a Y to make a sperm according to the actual scientist who hoes his lonely row surrounded by social justice ‘scientists’ dabbling in the land of fairies and unicorns. So once again the fake science pushed by leftist usurpers rises decibles above the voice of actual scientists. We should not be surprised I suppose.

          These social justice scientists are nothing if not lazy, proclaiming success when they have hardly begun, presumably so that they can go off and get laid (the regular way of course) with the help of their new social justice status points. The same thing with transgender technology. Give a woman an inflatable skin flap and an old Air Jordans pumping ball, inject her with a little something so she can grow peach fuzz and call it a day. Don’t bother with even finding out what all lies on the Y-chromosome. Focus on your cute assistant who is all hot and bothered by how you break down walls in the name of Progress!

          • Dan June 2, 2014 at 01:05

            Correction, I meant to refer to the Reebok Pump:
            http://sneakerpedia.blogspot.com/2008/11/reebok-pump-omni-lite-reverse-dee-brown.html

            Mizz Tunney might just become a father if he hasn’t already discarded the family jewels. He has a zero percent chance of being a mother for the forseeable future.

            I expect trouble for these progressive charlatans in the future when people who had their anatomy lopped off as children decide they want to be parents and sue the people around them who should have known better than to have children sterilized.

            There is hope for a biological man to produce sperm without his package in the future, but even that more realistic ambition is not a reality yet.

  13. contemplationist June 1, 2014 at 23:32

    Infact you had combined the entirety of NRx into “less ought, more is” when you described it as an ‘analysis movement’ and I entirely agree. There’s so much to find out, analyze and process. Those who want to create political parties are free to do so.

  14. Dan June 2, 2014 at 02:50

    Social traditionalism as it speaks on men and women and their proper relation may be unhip but progressives have little to offer on this front. Liberals everywhere utterly fail to replace themselves. Gay ‘marriage’ is a reflection of the fact that marriage, far from being outdated, is utterly critical to success for most people and people want to emulate it.

    Similarly, belief in religion and an afterlife may be unhip, but atheists have nothing very comforting to say at any juncture in a person’s life.

    Thus, on the two major fronts of social conservatism, (a) sex and family and (b) imbuing life with meaning and hope, liberalism is almost a no-show.

    Social conservatism is totally victorious from an evolutionary perspective. That is to say, those bloodlines and civilizations that adhere to it simply replace those that do not.

    Evolution could care less about the monumental achievements of Europeans. If they throw out social conservatism, they are out. If Africans, with far less worldly achievement, manage to hold onto social conservatism, they win.

    Social conservatism wins. I say that without a smile on my face. I’d rather it were true that Europeans win, as I am a member of that tribe.

    I expect that before too many decades have passed, Europeans will get tired of losing.

    • spandrell June 2, 2014 at 03:01

      Nah. Liberals have been failing to reproduce for decades, yet there’s more of them than ever.

      Gay marriage is a reflection that gays don’t actually marry even after it’s made legal. It’s a boot stomping on your face forever.

      There’s no winning with a liberal boot on your face. And the boot has been stuck there for decades, and it’s using increasingly more force. Europeans seem to enjoy it!

      • Dan June 2, 2014 at 12:48

        There are not more liberals than ever. Look at Africa. Look at the Middle East. Look at China. Russia. India.

        If Europeans choose to structure their civilizations against social conservatism, they lose their civilizations which they had for thousands of years. Social conservatism will win even if civilization itself must be lost in the process.

        Something is stirring in Europe. ‘Far right’ won all over the place in these last elections, and the mainstream parties still have no ability to deliver growth. Growth can’t come in the face of demographic decline. Growth was the deal, the only card there was to play.

        • spandrell June 2, 2014 at 13:45

          China has more liberals than ever, as has Russia and certainly India.

          And the day all of those stop being liberal will be because the liberal American empire has fallen. And when that happens, all those social conservative Arabs, Indians and Africans are gonna starve so hard we’ll be going back to the middle ages in weeks.

          The European far right just wants to stop giving bringing Africans and giving them welfare; they have nothing against feminism, abortion, divorce or bastards galore. Hell FN is led by a woman.

          • Dan June 2, 2014 at 18:25

            Abortion was legalized in Russia in 1920. There is now a big push over there to ban it in all instances. Have you ever been to India? I have been three times and I didn’t see much liberalism there. Homosexuality was recently recriminalized. Women rarely operate motor vehicles and most often stay at home.

            China I admittedly don’t know enough about. But Communism is effectively over, the 1 child policy is ending, inequality is more or less celebrated, religion is allowed and growing fast. The camps are closed. All this from being a Marxist hell.

      • Dan June 2, 2014 at 13:36

        Liberalism is winning in the same way that collectivism and Communism were winning in the USSR.

        Total political power on the one hand, and failure in realm of human thriving on the other.

        Liberalism abolishes itself, as Handle said in the title of his April 5th post.

  15. Pingback: Who is the true enemy of Neoreaction: The Red Pill or Social Conservatism? Part 1 | Atavisionary

  16. Pingback: France Outlook: Metapolitics B+ / Politics F | deltakyklos

  17. Pingback: This Week in Reaction – The Reactivity Place

Please comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s