The Blog Post of Revelation

Being a determiner of values, an Overman, or perhaps what Evola would call a spiritual solar man, is difficult and in publishing this post I take a calculated risk. I will probably be kicked out of the reactosphere (de jure, but perhaps not de facto) for what I say here. However, the reward of self-rule is great. I have consulted Machiavelli and Nietzsche before making this decision, and drawn particular inspiration from the quote on the bottom right:


So why am I waiting?

Alea Iacta Est!

My own experiences have shown that I have some attraction towards both sexes so I might be referred to as falling somewhere in the category of bisexual. There is also an emotional aspect to these attractions, neither are mere brute impulses.

As I write this I am still a virgin at the age of 20; I have never had any kind of sex with anyone. I have not even had my first kiss yet. It may be a result of above average intelligence (something I will discuss soon), as indicated by this study.

I was never molested, and I think my sexual orientation is likely biological in origin, resulting directly from in utero conditions. There are other signs of this: my index finger is a bit longer than my ring finger, I have always been more emotionally sensitive than most other males, and my verbal intelligence, when formally tested at the age of nine, was in the 99th percentile (my general intelligence was between 125 and 130; I do not know what it is now). I have also been more active in the arts and sciences than in sports; I did well in the high school orchestra (and met some other non-hetero guys there). I have always made myself appear in the same manner as the average straight male, and this has always felt natural, so my sexual orientation is only obvious to those who carefully observe my social and emotional behaviors. I have also had a hard time understanding homosexual promiscuity, though from what I have read, it is often due to treating sex as a social act rather than one of monogamous intimacy, and I have always associated sex with monogamous intimacy.

I know that I have displayed some animosity against Abrahamism, particularly Christianity. This is partly because I perceive that Christianity wasted much of my own time. I spent several years in adolescence as a conservative Protestant Christian (I was also intellectually familiar with Orthodoxy and Catholicism) and though I had crushes on certain guys since I was 13, I struggled to accept the reality of my sexual orientation until eventually, almost two years ago, during my first semester of college, I finally concluded that Christian scriptures possessed some inherent errors and biases. The Genesis story and other tidbits present a plainly inaccurate cosmogony and cosmology. There is textual evidence that Abrahamism did not start out monotheistic as Christians (as well as Jews and Muslims) claim (link). The origins of Abrahamic religious norms as a group evolutionary strategy has been explained by Dr. Kevin MacDonald, and even before this, it was still clear to me that the Israelite religion was intended to create a tribal identity separate from the Egyptians and Canaanites. I also watched some DVD lectures by the one and only, the infamous Bart Ehrman and found many of his observations and conclusions to be valid. Thus I see Christianity as a collection of myths and rituals, with some metaphysical truths embedded in them. It still amazes me how much the Christian right can get so zealously buried in its own superstitions that it is never able to seriously consider the idea that its religion is not true.

I don’t place the entire blame on Abrahamism for preventing my own self-acceptance; I also place some blame on the left. The left used homosexuality for its own purposes by turning gays and bisexuals into pawns through victim statuses. I did not want to be a pawn of the left or of feminists or join with the crazy people who run around like maniacs in the streets at parades. This parade “mania”, fortunately, died down a little after same-sex marriage was legalized in the US, in 2015. The calm after the storm gave me a chance to conceptually separate sexual orientation from politics and bad aesthetics and to become honest with myself about my desires.

The following (second) semester of college I contacted a former classmate of mine on campus, whom I was attracted to. He was a bit older than me and seemed perfect; he was hot and adorable and sweet. I felt unusually warm and elated on the inside when I sat next to him in class; I wanted to cuddle (and more if possible). I think he was the first person I had actually fallen in love with. He was perfectly fine that I was physically attracted to him but when I asked if I could hang out he suddenly grew cold, said that he was busy and that I hadtumblr_llmuq0mcXM1qbetjlo1_400 waited too long to contact him, and called me ‘sketchy’; I then decided to socially separate from him to avoid worsening the situation. I got really upset and cried a lot, my sexual drive dropped to zero for three days, and I was in a state of dull emotional pain for many months after. Although my bond to him was never physical, it felt as though he took part of me with him. My grades did not suffer much at all; I have a way of persevering like that, but it was emotional torture. This experience led me to believe that love possesses an inherently painful, Dionysian (in the Nietzschean sense) side. Somewhat to my comfort, I did meet an attractive female during that time period: my chemistry lab instructor; she was very pretty and sweet, but she made it clear to us that she was engaged, as though she knew all of us guys had a crush on her.

From Free!

That summer after my freshman year of college, around the time I started this blog, I began watching Free! (swimming anime, set in Japan) because I could relate to its homoerotic interpersonal dynamics and because I appreciated the contemporary non-leftist homoeroticism found therein. Some of my earliest blog posts were written about this anime. The following school year I fell for another guy in almost the exact same way as the earlier one. He was fine with me liking him, and we are still friends who communicate on facebook, but he’s straight, so a dead end romantically speaking. Then just a few weeks ago I saw in person the earlier guy who rejected me when I was a freshman, and I had a friendly conversation with him. After that happened it felt as though a dark cloud which had been looming over my head for two years had suddenly disappeared. I am not obsessed with him anymore, but I still think he’s kind of cute.

I know some of you who have been reading my blog for a very long time know that I came out of the closet online about a year ago … and then I deleted that post and rushed back in the closet to develop better networks with other reactionaries. I did not like conforming to this rule (the restriction of my speech for others’ pettiness). I saw how many people went into hysteria at the non-homophobia of Greg Johnson, Black Pigeon, and The Golden One. I found that there were consistently two types of homophobes: conservative Christians, and some authoritarian ideologues. It is easy to understand the Christian objection, though I disagree with it, as I see morality as a naturalistic, operational concept of non-parasitism. As for the certain authoritarian ideologues, these appear to be individuals who have often left Christianity and desire a replacement ideology which maintains the same conflation of norms, law, and morality. Sometimes it seems like bashing non-heterosexuals is a type of cliché on the right, or perhaps simply an outlet for excessive angst. At other times I have observed ludicrous statements that homosexuality did not exist before the late 20th century, or that it has always been considered immoral minus a few exceptions.

(edited:) I entered “Neoreaction” thinking it was a non-hierarchical free exchange of ideas, only to find homophobes on the hub site Social Matter possessing a great deal of clout, and basically running the place. One person even made the ridiculous extrapolation that the divides between empire and nationalism and paganism versus Christianity (in NRx) could be attributed to different sexual desires. More recently the homophobia culminated in a Social Matter podcast labeling homosexuals as mentally ill, and there was a link below to a tweet in which Nick B. Steves called for a purge of gays. After seeing this, my patience was spent. I realized that I needed to speak up and publish this post sooner rather than later, even if it meant being kicked out. So, Social Matter, this post is your punishment. You have to deal with the fact that I am both bisexual, and sexually self-controlled, and have shown the depth and sincerity of romantic love which can occur from one man to another. You may purge me as you wish. We clearly do not see eye to eye.

Now having read this piece, you should know why, in times past, I said that I do not know if I fit into the Alt-Right or Neoreaction, and why I have gotten a little obsessive about Free!, and science, and have shown a wariness of despotism.

On Biology

(In short: I do not agree with Aquinas, and just because as a straight man you cannot understand liking another man that does not mean it is a mental illness)

One might predict homosexuality to have a very negative effect on the reproduction of the species; this is a rationalistic assumption, not a scientific theory. If this were true, natural selection would prevent (edit: or drastically reduce to near nonexistent levels) the occurrence of homosexuality after a certain period of time, but this does not happen for some reason.

  2. Sexual antagonism theory for male homosexuality:                                     ,
  3. Increased fecundity of female relatives in the maternal line of bisexual men:
  4. The failure of ex-gay movements: link 1link 2, link 3.
  5. The mechanism for inheritance may be genetic (link 1, link 2), and/or epigenetic; epigenetics seems a likely reason for the difference of sexual orientation which sometimes occurs between identical twins (link 3).

Given the above data, and the fact that homosexuality is as common as it is in a variety of human cultures since time immemorial, and in non-human animal taxa (link 1, link 2) there is every reason to believe that there is some indirect net benefit, or “use”, to the reproduction of the species, for energy expended on it. Still, gay and bisexual men should use condoms and lube to prevent disease transmission during intercourse (and PrEP in certain cases, though ideally, this should not be necessary). The alternative is to do what the ancient Greeks did before these technologies: non-anal sex practices. Believe it or not, not all gay and bi men like anal sex.

Even in the statistics available, homosexual promiscuity does appear to be steadily decreasing since the issue was first studied in the 1970’s. Another thing to consider (if you click the link) is that many of those studies did not do a good job at sampling in the broadest scope possible, from different geographic regions containing different cultures and subcultures. Opportunities and incentives for promiscuity will vary widely according to these, and as homosexuals are de-ghettoized and dispersed, these factors are bound to change.

*Biologically, man is an animal. If one wishes to see other friendly, intelligent, cooperative animals, observe cetaceans, elephants, or bonobos. In order for the “but animals are cannibals” argument to work, one would need to systematically show that every species engaging in homosexual behavior also cannibalizes its young.

** Even if there is a self-reported change in sexual desires, the only way to know if a change has occurred is via physiological reactions to stimuli (pupil dilation works well). If a change truly has occurred, that does not mean sexual orientation is in our control. Physiology can, and does change during one’s lifetime without the change being intended, or even controllable through ordinary means.

On Commenting

Angry homophobes should not comment, unless they are simply giving me the memo that I have been purged, in which case, that is all that needs saying; no five paragraph essays wanted. If anyone should misbehave, I reserve the right to delete comments, close the comments, and mark comments as spam.





10 thoughts on “The Blog Post of Revelation

  1. From what I gather, the trad perspective is that all members of the tribe are obligated to couple, reproduce, and raise their offspring to do the same. Whether that’s done in the context of a romantic relationship does not really seem to be important. From a historical perspective, most marriages were arranged and most romantic love was incidental or outside that sphere. I’m not much of a trad myself, but in as much as that approximates the “generous trad,” position, I don’t find it terribly hostile or unnecessarily repressive. A more rigid interpretation is likely to have you black listed from Social Matter in particular, but I’d be surprised if the majority of you readers were so inclined.


    1. I decided to reflect more on what you said.
      I do not find the basic trad position extremely hostile either, and it is completely possible that I will one day marry a woman and raise a family. Social Matter takes this ethic to an extreme though which would have been unheard of in Rome, or Athens, or Sparta prior to Christianization. Why Social Matter has this fetish for demonizing homosexuality is mysterious; I guess they just have too many Christian traditionalists grumpy about the same stuff, and too little intellectual diversity.


  2. You’re just literally autistic. It’s linked to homosexuality, but the high intellect sealed the deal.
    Or maybe you just had and have chronic low testosterone throughout your life/development. Are you used to exercise or sunbath?
    Try experimenting things. Actually, go fuck a whore, you’re young and life is short.


  3. You know, I actually ended up stopping being a Christian. I was already taking Catechism class, but then stopped them. I realized that I was into Christianity for the wrong reason (Deus Vult!) and the highest values of Christianity, while I personally appreciate, are still deficient for me. So I am going off alone again, searching for some higher ideals not seen before on this Earth. I am neither reactionary nor progressive, but just someone searching for answers.

    I think it’s fine for people to live with whichever partner they choose to. My only concern is that people in general do not become promsicuous. Gay or straight is not a big deal to me.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’ve come to the same conclusion. I’m grateful for what I learned in the reactosphere (and from when I was a libertarian), but I’ve always tried not to get my identity invested in the community for this exact reason.

      I guess that once you get a nuanced perspective, you will eventually walk alone again in search of answers, find another community, learn from them and repeat it until you find your place.

      Either way, my only concern is in getting people to organize in a way that can work in the long run, because the way things are going right now will lead us right into the abyss.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Sexual attraction is not the same as emotional impulses or thinking someone is cute. Puppies are also cute and we “like” them without any sexuality being involved. Homosexual attraction is undifferentiated and confuses different spheres of soul-life.


    1. I never said sexual attraction was the same as emotional impulses.
      Have you never heard a heterosexual man call a woman whom he is attracted to “cute”, or vice versa?
      “cute” is just an adjective which has a slightly different meaning in different contexts.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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