1,517 words
In my last article, I discussed the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I pointed out that according to estimates placing the risk of transmission of HIV per act of (1) anal sex (2) without a condom, (3) with someone who is HIV positive at a mere 0.5%, this statistic would entail that “for every single person who catches HIV, there are 200 people having condom-free anal sex with HIV-infected people and getting by just fine.”
With this in mind, I pointed out that the only reason HIV “disproportionately affects ” homosexuals is because extreme sexual promiscuity is absolutely rampant across the homosexual population as a whole. I cited a 1978 study on this point that found that 43% of gay male respondents estimated more than 500 lifetime sexual partners, with 28% estimating more than 1,000.
To the extent that HIV has become less socially destructive or likely to end in death, it is because of the vast amounts of time resources we’ve expended as a society to research how to save sexual degenerates from their own self-destruction. The lifelong cost of administering PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) to a single HIV-infected individual to allow them to continue having high-risk sexual activity despite their infection is $400,000—and this cost ends up eaten by society as a whole through insurance and other forms of subsidy.
Furthermore, one “man who has sex with men (MSM)” has already managed to transmit HIV despite adhering well to a daily PrEP regimen by having somewhere between an estimated 175 and 675 anal sex partners in a mere 9-month time span. And unlike its (plenty degenerate enough) heterosexual counterpart Tinder, the gay app Grindr actually has to have checkboxes to allow users to mark their HIV status and whether or not they’re taking PrEP. While heterosexuals on degenerate hookup apps like these are marking whether or not they smoke cigarettes or diet when they create their profiles, homosexuals actually have to sit there clicking checkboxes about HIV/AIDS.
However, I can’t help but wonder how much of all of this is because homosexual men truly differ from heterosexual men, and how much is because homosexual men are simply freed from the sane limits that are placed on male sexual desire in heterosexual pairings by womens’ choosiness. I probably can’t even remember the number of times I’ve heard heterosexual men express in passing that they wish they could be gay because of the sex life they believe this would allow them. Take this stand-up comedy bit from black American actor Donald Glover, for just one example.
Personally, sexual degeneracy is a topic that I care about a lot—and it’s one of the key points that attracts me to the New Right as a whole. There’s been a lot of discussion about what our policy should be towards homosexuals. But we need to keep this in perspective. Heterosexual degeneracy matters a lot more to me than homosexual degeneracy ever will.
Were I to have a daughter, it would be the degenerate heterosexual who bears the greatest risk, by far, of trying to infect her with an STD of some kind. Degenerate social norms aimed towards heterosexuals from the media and society in general would bear the greatest risk of subverting her progression into healthy adulthood and teaching her to waste away her most valuable years riding what Chateau Heartiste calls “the cock carousel” only to later try to salvage her socio-sexual market value and find a relationship appropriate to her worth when it’s far too late. A heterosexual degenerate like Harvey Weinstein would bear the greatest risk of sexually abusing or manipulating her.
Meanwhile, these degenerate norms promoted towards and increasingly established among heterosexuals are what will destroy the pool of worthy, dateable, marriageable women for my son to engage with and eventually choose between over the course of the next twenty or more years.
That matters to me a lot.
In comparison, homosexuals are a mere, tiny ~4% of the population that—as long as I’m not forced to subsidize the worst excesses of their behavior—would have extremely little impact on either my future or theirs. In comparison to the damage that can be done to my and my childrens’ future by heterosexual degeneracy, even being forced to sit through the occasional rainbow dildo parade is a trivial inconvenience.
So, what should our policy be? Let’s leave aside any question of the morality of homosexuality and just focus on tactics and strategy for a moment.
One significant difference between the “Jewish Question” and the “gay question” is that white Europeans aren’t going to randomly spew ethnic Jews out of their own genetic bloodlines. Ethnic Jews reproduce more ethnic Jews, ethnic Blacks reproduce more ethnic blacks, and ethnic whites reproduce more ethnic Whites. But every homosexual who ever existed was birthed by a heterosexual couple—and homosexuals, if they remain lifelong homosexuals, don’t reproduce.
Meanwhile, Jonathan Haidt’s research finds that conservatives score much higher on valuing what Haidt calls “loyalty” than liberals do. My experience is that the New Right basically takes all the ways conservatives differ from liberals on Haidt’s scales and exaggerates them: even farther below liberals than conservatives are on “caring,” even higher above liberals than conservatives are on “purity,” and so on and so forth. I personally score a solid five out of five for loyalty on Haidt’s scale—and it’s the only value I land a perfect score on. At a basic level, when a liberal evaluates the morality of a situation, his mind asks: “Was anyone hurt?” And it essentially asks that question only, boiling everything down to that one singular metric. But mine asks: “Was loyalty demonstrated between parties who owed it to each other?” in a very similarly emphasized way.
So it wouldn’t be a surprise if the kinds of high-loyalty individuals we want to attract were to side with their own families before they would side with us, were we to force them to choose, when they discover that relatives they care about might be homosexual. Just to be clear, I myself am a married heterosexual with a child, who has no homosexual relatives. But whatever else you may think about homosexuality, building our movement on blanket stigmatization of a phenomenon that is inevitably going to crop up in our very own families—through no one’s fault or decision at all—probably just isn’t good strategy for growing our ranks and optimizing our ability to reach a wider society with our core message. And we need to win the advancement of our core message far more than we need to remove every single person who might have a homosexual orientation from our ranks.
Again, we have to keep in mind how important human biodiversity is to the ideology and worldview of the New Right as a whole. The very same twin studies and adoption studies whose methodology we use to prove the existence of average IQ differences in different ethnic population groups also show us that homosexuality has a very high degree of heritability. This isn’t said to excuse homosexuality “because it’s natural,” but because if your argument is that homosexuals ought to learn to suck it up and reproduce in heterosexual marriages, then you are actually ironically only promoting the long-term spread of homosexuality throughout the human population. And how long will your stay-in-the-closet ethic stay in place when homosexuals grow from ~4% to increasingly larger proportions of the human population?
That actually does sound like a biologically-guaranteed way to turn the world into a giant bathhouse over enough time. Also, congratulations: you’ll be happy to know you’re repeating an argument that Milo Yiannopoulos made at Breitbart back in 2015.
To my mind, the deepest problems that come along with homosexuality aren’t simply the existence of homosexual orientation as such, and to simplify the issue in this way is actually to trivialize just how deep the real spiritual and relational problems currently present in Western society actually go.
The obvious problems are that flagrant extremes of sexual degeneracy are dramatically more normalized among homosexuals than they are among the heterosexual majority of the population, that political correctness prevents us from acknowledging distinctions like these and dealing with reality as it is, and that homosexuals themselves tend to cluster in identity group voting blocs to support such politically correct censorship and force the rest of society to deal with issues like AIDS with blinders on.
Homosexuals who truly oppose all of these things will be exceedingly rare—especially in the current milieu. But on the occasion we do find homosexuals who could get on board with banning “hookup” apps as well as prohibiting degenerate BDSM-gear dildo parades and interracial threesome “sexual health” posters from the public square; redirecting the massive social resources spent to save sexual degenerates from their own self-destruction through self-inflicted sexual disease into research on serious health conditions like, say, cancer and heart disease; and otherwise doing what needs to be done to revive Western civilization’s culture instead of allowing it to continue devolving into nihilistic and hedonistic decay, it seems clear to me that we have nothing at all to gain from spurning their help, and plenty to gain from working with them.
11 comments
Why White Nationalists believe outrageous claims and tall tales from establishment bodies rammed with people who utterly despise them is beyond me. There’s a sexually transmitted demon that kills you a decade after you have sex! Any bogeyman they can get under your bed.
Disease is a good introductory subject because it’s objective. For me (and the author alludes to this, perhaps coming soon), the emotional component is also incredibly important. It’s important to me that the sex I have with my wife is the best she’s had, and even if it is, doubt will intrude if she’s had many sexual partners before. I imagine women have a mirroring fear abandonment if her man has sexual-emotional ties and history with other women, and dismissing either of these basic fears as mere “insecurities” to be overcome is unempathetic to a degree that feels borderline sociopathic.
As a married man with a kid on the way, I’m learning that marriage is wonderful but difficult, and couples older and more experienced than I have come terrifyingly close to divorce – perhaps the single best way to ensure your children’s misery. You need all the trust you can get, and while a little bit of jealousy seems to stoke the fires of passion, acute or chronic jealousy only leads to suspicion, detachment, and resentment.
Edit: to be laughed or mocked away, not overcome. The prevailing attitude towards masculinity in the institutions is that it is a kind of quaint but useless carryover from the stone age, a cute affect that is arbitrary and so can be done away with, not as a psychological reality. Women with traditional tastes don’t have it mich easier.
The Jews know better than anyone how to distort and exploit sexuality, and they know better than anyone that what leads to the perpetuation and strength of the white race is the stable, large, nuclear white family.
Therefore everything they do is directed against this, with homosexuality being a useful red herring.
Their attack points are:
-encourage the prudish not to have sex (nerds, masturbation to porn, etc.)
-encourage the sexy to have sex without reproducing (birth control, the single lifestyle, fake celebrity sex, etc.)
-encourage miscegenation, and any thoughts to the contrary are racist
-encourage strange pairings like the young and old
-encourage homosexuality merely because it’s a dead end issue, and a dead end pairing
Therefore, nothing is addressed until you address the Jewish question…which Americans never will.
As a gay man, I am constantly disparaged by the anti-gay rhetoric coming up these days from the altright. To me preserving white nations for white people is absolutely necessary and just, and more important than my sexual desires. There is the constant meme that, fundamentally, gay men can’t be altright or be conservative. It’s utter tripe. I am a tall “straight acting” attractive young man, and I get away with dropping red pills like its nothing. I can understand the Internets incredulity to believe I am what I say I am, because in real life it’s a shock to anyone to find out I am gay, and more over that I’m very conservative as well. All this being said, degeneracy is in fashion, and gay men direct fashion. If there were a place that welcomed gays in from the lies that the left tells the artistic expression for traditionalism would become pervasive. This doesn’t mean a return to Christian morals, we aren’t going to be able to rewind the tape, and even if we were able to, it would only hinder our current technological advancements and deliver us to where we are now somewhere down the road. As for the dailystormers wet dream of annihilating all of us, Mao thought it was morally right to kill the sparrows.
I too have become irritated in much the same way you have at anti-gay rhetoric on the alt-right. I got into NRx about a year ago because I thought it would be less “homophobic” than the alt-right, only to find it had become an implicitly Catholic movement [see Social Matter] which had a bizarre obsession with blaming gay men for almost anything and everything. To make matters worse, the pagans/polytheists are often just as anti-gay.
I think much of this has to due to a difference between agrarian and suburban values; which is not anything new; ever since civilization arose, there has long been the field and the polis, and different values espoused in each. There is simply more room in a suburban or urban [sans violent gangs] environment for the individuation of virtue; not everyone needs to be the physically huge “alpha” defending his territory with five kids to till the fields.
What is odd is that the anti-gay rhetoric in the alt-right appeared to suddenly increase in the year 2017. Part of this may be that the movement naturally had to grow, but it is not that appealing to most suburbanites.
I myself recently wrote a blog post objecting to anti-gay attitudes on the alt-right and NRx. I revealed that I am a bisexual male and that I have never had sex before. I am a young man very busy getting biochemistry degree. I think it is hard to argue that parenting is the cause of homosexuality since it has occurred in a variety of cultures with different parenting styles. As far as the science is concerned with the origins of homosexuality, I do not think the cause has been nailed down exactly yet, but I think it is hard to argue that sexual orientation is a “choice” or manipulable.
In fact, some Jews have played an influential role in the Christian “ex-gay” movement, sometimes coming from JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality). This article written by a normie is quite revealing of this: http://prospect.org/article/my-so-called-ex-gay-life
Read it and one will see that the names “Cohen” and “Goldberg” are among those who have had a leading role in promoting ex-gay rhetoric.
I appreciate your response and see truth in many of the things you say. But I must disagree on some points. Some people are just anti gay. Not damn thing you can do about it. Simple as that. Being a sexual minority we are at the mercy of the majority. And studying the rises and falls of “gay rights” throughout history. We are just an opinion to the straight majority. An opinion that has changed rapidly and with blood and pain in the past. I am not so optimistic at the future. I wish it were a passing phase of the vast increase in anti-gay articles coming from the alt-right but this is just a sign of things to come. If the gov doesn’t shut you down for being prowhite, and the blm/antifa don’t beat you up for being white, if you escape the rest of the gay community’s ire for being republican you still will have to face an onslaught of altright anti gay murderous people. I am at the point of not caring at all anymore. I want to defend whites and promote traditionalism. But I’m losing no matter which way I go.
Yes, perhaps I overanalyzed. I think you summed up the current situation pretty well.
Sometimes things get so bad that I am tempted to drop traditionalism for either total existentialism or nihilism.
I’d say keep your beliefs, just enjoy freedom while we still have it. And buy guns to defend yourself. Best of luck
The inability to exercise self control in the face of ones appetites is a great failing, particularly when it comes to sexual matters. And I agree that for straight men who operate without the benefit of a strong moral code, the only restriction on their sexual activity is availability. Let these guys loose in a brothel with an open tab and they would make pigs of themselves as well.
This need to indulge ones every desire is distasteful to me and is more important than the homosexual question itself. We have a problem with lack of temperance before we have a problem with any subset of perversion.
Thanks to H.H. for two thought-provoking posts.
My only countervailing point here would be that I don’t think we should give too much weight to the “science” done over the last 50 years on homosexuality. An interesting development within the Alt-Right has been this kill-the-gays fervor that now embraces Jewish-Left studies that say homosexuality is genetically determined. Thus White Sharia roof-tossing memes are oddly aligned ideologically with Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way.”
I think it’s worth taking a step back from this. We now know, sadly, that our scientific work on just about every topic is tainted by universalist, egalitarian, feminist, and cultural marxist politics, and I doubt this topic is an exception.
I think homosexuality is more a parenting issue than a genetics issue, and considering the current state of parenting and gender relations, I think this is something worth looking into for the sake of the next generation. I’m not a scientist, but as our real scientists have failed us, I have a feeling we’re going to have to try to sort this out ourselves.
In the 1970s, it was common for pediatricians to lecture young mothers over their parenting. In some cases (I have a relative who worked for one of these pediatricians) they flat out told these mothers they were going to turn their toddler sons into “fairies.” In general, this was women who “mothered” their sons to death. Today, we’d probably term this Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) behavior, of which there is an epidemic.
Joseph Sciambra, an “ex-gay” Catholic traditionalist activist, is one who has written/vlogged about this. Generally the idea is that women showing antagonism to a little boy’s assertiveness, roughness, competitiveness — i.e., his maleness — cause developmental problems. Such women, you can imagine, aren’t fond of maleness in general, thus if there are adult men in the child’s life they are generally of the cowed nu-male variety. In children of a particular temperament, it’s said this is expressed as homosexuality. Sciambra defined his homosexuality feelings dualistically as an urge to express the maleness he was not allowed to show as a child as well as a desire for male camaraderie also lacking in his childhood.
The problem as I see it is that this kind of damaging mothering is what I see all around me. Looking ahead, how will their children turn out? This is a very unpopular topic, even for the far right, as it requires telling women not only that they are wrong, but wrong in a way that affects their children.
Still, I think this is a large part of the homosexual degeneracy problem, that left unchecked, may affect more than 4% of the future population at a time when we need more courageous men who father many healthy children.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.