Monday, July 20, 2015

Like Thomas Jefferson

I don't actually believe in equality. But unlike him, I'm willing to be pretty clear about it.

I don't believe that the races are "equal," or the sexes. Or the sexual orientations. I don't believe in the disaster of universal suffrage. Or the theocracy imposed by The State Church of Non-Discrimination.

Just to show how fair-minded I can be, let me be clear that I don't believe that same-sex relationships are as important as (male-female) marriage relationships. I know this is shocking and horrific, but how could it be otherwise?

How could the domestic arrangements of far less than 3% of a population be comparable in weight to those of the 97%?

And, to put it bluntly, if same-sex eros were to disappear from the human species, the race would cook along just fine.

This raises the pre-PoMo question, "What are homosexuals for?" The fact that nature keeps making us now and then does not answer that question well. Nature also keeps making schizophrenics and, well, Africa.  
The excellent question raised (but flaccidly answered) by Giles Herrada's massive The Missing Myth: A New Vision of Same-Sex Love, is: what is the mythic role of homosexuality? He points out that homosexuality --especially the modern variety*-- lacks a mythic image or voice or role. In Jungian terms, this leaves it soulless, and Herrada reads a lot of gay pathologies as flowing from this hole. 
ExC has opined that the LGBT grasping onto straight marriage as the vessel for gay love represents not a victory but a massive failure both of imagination and of self-respect. It is actually a ridiculously ironic form of the famous "internalized homophobia."
Certainly heterosexuality at present is no stellar success, but its fundamental and world-shaping role in the human soul is beyond question. Us kweers, though...what are we really for?

One way to look at what our society has become under Cultural Marxism is that honor-shame plays a huge role in it, in ways that it formerly did not in the West. In an honor-shame society, how you and your group (usually family or tribe) are perceived by others is of paramount importance. That's why parents in these cultures kill their own daughters if they shame them in the eyes of strangers. It's all about public persona. And in a media saturated world, it's on steroids.

The Official Sacred Victim Groups play the role of tribes now. It is their group ego to which we must all be attentive and deferential. Worshipful, even. PC is just Victim Ego writ large. Donald Trump recently insulted Mexicans. In our sick culture this is A Big Issue. Really? Why? What's so special about Mexicans? Screw 'em. If you press just a little, you'll find they have zero love for us Gringos and view their invasion of America as just so much payback. So why worry about their "pride?"

If Classical Marxism (aka Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist-PolPotist Communism) proved that a classless society was an evil mirage, then a race or gender blind society is even less likely and also evil.

So, Equality For All?

No. Not hardly. Not hardly.


*With very few exceptions, most cultures have shaped same-sex eros along the lines of male-female eros, trans-gendring the thing so that a same-sex dyad echoed the dominance-submission and the gender style of men and women. What is novel about post 20th century "gayness" is its attempt to assert equality between same-sex dyads and a continuing claim to the gender status of one's birty. It's sputtering out now, as gays themselves --iconically, by folding themselves into the genderist Yugoslavia of LGBTQism-- revert to the traditional idea that a homosexual man is actually a kind of female.

1 comment:

-A said...

Herrada reads a lot of gay pathologies as flowing from this hole.


Anyway, I am of the opinion that most men can be lead to gain pleasure from other men. I am also of the opinion that homosexuality as a strong preference(which likely has to be hardwired into the man in question to develop that way) is an overexpression of an immunity boosting behavioral trait, which can also boost the likelihood of procreation in many ways. It could even be related to throw back behavioral traits which favor savvanic non-culture. There is also the fact that men can feel incredibly strong feelings for each other, admire each other deeply and have connections to each other that no matter how much the insist otherwise, women could never have among their own sex.

When boys spend long amounts of time with each other in close quarters, they begin to look like each other. This carries over into manhood. This is the by-product of immunity sharing. Viruses are created by eukaryotic cells all the time. A person can literally infect you with their transgenetics though, like most viruses in general, it is often benign or meaningless. Step up this trait of closeness, which some men simply do not have, you get the tendency to "wrastle" a lot. Next step, frequent affection in resting periods. Next step, group sex with females present and "experimental sex" which usually has a female present. Next step, experiments without female present. Next step, bi-sexuality. Final step, wholesome gay.

I am of the opinion that faggotry comes from pedophilia, ephebophilia, hebephilia, penis envy and fetishizing reversal of power structure. Immunity traits being shared among men is not the sole cause of the plethora of likely behavioral traits which overexpress to make homosexuality: it is the desire to become mate-worthy. This can often lead to men idolizing men who master traits of masculinity which can improve their likelihood of mating.

For the same reason that men will pursue mastery and honor for reasons that have nothing to do with women, it is possible that the intellectual and emotional nature of men leads them to having sex with each other and finding men preferable to women.

It should be noted that in animals such as the albatross, pedophilia is exhibited by birds (male and female) which did not get the opportunity to mate. Their usually coitus free sexual advances are also often violent and abusive.

On a final note, I have a possible answer to a an old quandary of yours: What should homoerotic men call their significant others? Might I recommend the old word Were, which was the original alliteration to wife? It has already been associated with homoeroticism through the 19th Century trend of writing about wolf-men or werewolves. Men often "married" through Pagan magic to the spirit of a male wolf. As for what the dykes can call themselves, who cares? Lesbianism isn't even real. All women hate each other. Mother, daughter, sister, friend, co-worker, niece, aunt...they all hate each other. Deep, deep down. There is only envy and suspicion.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...