Returning to a Controversial Issue

 

Oh no! Mako-chan and Haru-chan have adopted a nomadic evolutionary strategy and are parasitizing on the commons with their sexy gayness! Someone must redeem them from their Rothbardian ways at once!

It is fairly easy to decide natural law on the matter of homosexual conduct, that it is lawful so long as it is voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, and free of negative externalities, and this is completely possible in every system I can think of allowing for both private and common property. Different commons (common property) allowing for the tolerance of different degrees of self-expression, and different ways of enforcing the limits of self-expression, may be produced contractually. How insurance companies and socialized healthcare handle the costs of the physical illnesses which homosexuals commonly acquire, to prevent them from creating certain negative externalities can be contractually enumerated. I think it is likely that a vaccine for HIV will be developed sometime in the next century, eliminating the need for the very expensive preventative measure PrEP.

Regarding the etiology of homosexuality, I think that it results from a systemic condition which affects organ morphologies, most often towards reversed sexual dimorphism. This hypothesis appears to be supported both by differences in facial contours (Wang and Kosinksi, 2017), which are determined by musculoskeletal development and for the structure of the brain (Savic and Lindström, 2008). This systemic condition could, in turn, be caused by genetics, and/or by hormones which affect gene expression in development. A correlation has been observed between childhood sexual abuse and reported homosexuality, especially in males (Friedman et al., 2011), but there is also a correlation between the childhood sexual abuse of males and gender-nonconformity regardless of the sexual orientation of the victim (Xu and Zheng, 2015). Given that homosexual males are more gender atypical in certain outwardly visible morphologies, habits, and neural activity (which influences personality) than heterosexual males (Wang and Kosinksi, 2017; Savic and Lindström, 2008), it logically follows why they would be at a higher risk for childhood sexual abuse than heterosexual males given these findings (Xu and Zheng, 2015). It is also difficult to argue that psychic trauma such as child molestation will lead to consistently different musculoskeletal morphologies, which is apparent in the consistently different facial contours of homo and heterosexuals (Wang and Kosinksi, 2017). As far as I can tell, the most parsimonious assessment of this information is that the development of sexual orientation is probably in-utero and that it precedes any psychic trauma, not the other way around.

Given the reversed sexual dimorphism present in at least a very significant number of homosexuals, many of them may simply be unsuited to take certain social and reproductive roles normatively taken by heterosexuals, and this must be understood by natalists. Notwithstanding, if homosexual individuals demonstrate abilities to act in the normal roles of mothers and fathers in heterosexual unions, and these unions can exist independent of romantic interests (practically impossible with the current social norms and divorce laws in the West), I do not argue for a prohibition against them taking such social or reproductive roles normally taken by heterosexuals.

Regarding the repeated claims associating homosexual male teleiophiles (i.e. homosexual men attracted to physically mature men) with pedophilia, a disproportionate number of male pedophiles may be homosexual pedophiles, but it does not follow that these homosexual pedophiles are simply a subset of homosexual teleiophiles. There is evidence based on genital responses to visual and auditory stimuli of 2,359 male subjects that teleiophilic homosexual men have no greater sexual attraction to children than teleiophilic heterosexual men do and that homosexual male pedophiles and hebephiles actually have less sexual attraction to adult men than heterosexual male pedophiles and hebephiles have to adult women (Blanchard et al., 2010). Very similar results, specifically regarding homosexual and heterosexual male teleiophiles, were obtained in an earlier study (Freund et al., 1973). Therefore, I see no reason to consider homosexual male teleiophiles inherently more likley than heterosexual male teleiophiles to be sexually interested in children. FYI: in the context of this article (the one you are reading right now), the word homosexual is shorthand for homosexual teleiophile, unless otherwise indicated.

Although no correlation between sexual orientation and an interest in propagandizing sexual behaviors to minors has been analytically determined to exist (to my knowledge), the stereotypes remain due to anecdotes of incidents with radical activists. Homosexuals and bisexuals must signal that they pose no such threat in order to cooperate. However, this is not enough for many conservatives, usually for religious reasons. If they are cognizant of one’s non-heterosexuality, the cost of attempting to cooperate with such religious conservatives is almost always greater than what might be gained from doing so. Therefore, such an attempt at cooperation, in that situational context, is not a rational course of action.

There are some individuals who do not want to merely refrain from cooperation with homosexuals but want to violently persecute them. Being an ethnic nationalist, I am often in disagreement with Dr. Jordan Peterson regarding politics. However, he articulates accurately that we all have a capacity for cruelty, what he calls a “shadow” or “dark side”. Homosexuals have often faced this dark side in bullies and authoritarians. Observing such a capacity for cruelty, I have realized that I must integrate my own “dark side”/shadow: my past failure to do so has caused me to lack self-respect and to feel vulnerable, resulting in my resort to rhetorical defenses which made me appear silly to some people. Later I realized the importance of integrating the shadow, as I heard Dr. Peterson explain it in roughly these terms: one must be able to be cruel, not because one wishes to be cruel but to avoid being a victim to those who are. Machiavelli was correct: “… love peace but know how to wage war” (Art of War: 1, 12).

Advertisements

On “Moral” Nihilism

WARNING: I am writing in “autistic” mode which most people will find counterintuitive.

I agree with JF that “moral” nihilism is a factually true position. But I also consider subjective valuations to be necessary for human life, and I think that societies cannot exist in a state of order when the subjective values of the populace are significantly divided. The claim that there is an objective axiology of good and bad may keep order both in a society and in an individual, even though it is a factually incorrect claim (as far as I can tell). [edited]

The problem with Stefan Molyneux’s argument for objective values of good and bad is the same problem as the consensus-based “traditionalist” argument for objective values of good and bad: the naive idea that all humans and all human groups have the same “moral” intuitions, when in fact they don’t, and this often shows itself in very non-trivial matters; moral intuitions differ with biological parameters such as intelligence, personality and evolutionary strategy — and this is one reason why it is not normatively preferable to force interpersonal association.

However, if we take the point of view provided by Curt Doolittle, then it seems that JF (and Ryan Faulk) miss something: that morality, operationally defined, is not valuations of “good and bad” but simply a fact of non-parasitism present in some behaviors. If Doolittle is correct, some behaviors can be objectively described as moral and others as immoral, but whether they are good or bad is a preferential value judgment. I ultimately side with Doolittle on this particular point, he does manage to maintain Hume’s Law in his concept of moral objectivism, but I would be willing to openly discuss this topic with JF and/or Faulk if I have time.

I should note before finishing that the notion of objective good and bad, as well as the Aristotlean understanding of telos, which inherently implies an ought that is an is, conflates normative and positive., i.e. violates Hume’s Law. [edit: It also seems to be an anthropomorphic mental error, as far as I can tell].

 

The Blog Post of Revelation

Being a determiner of values 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:

he-who-obeys-does-not-listen-to-himself          

Continue reading “The Blog Post of Revelation”

The Resilience of Japan

 

Jimmu, Japan’s first emperor according to legend. Supposedly lived 660-585 BC.

Japan. Japan. Japan. When will Elfnonationalist stop being such a weeb?

Well, not right now, apparently, but Japan is an interesting country to study because of its ability to preserve its monarchy, indigenous culture, and its ethnic homogeneity up to the present day, in combination with its relative prosperity and status as a first world nation. A good reactionary should be studying Japan just like a scientist would study a species that survived a mass extinction, to figure out what it did right.

First, it should be noted that the Japanese have a clear understanding of what it means to be of the Japanese ethnicity. The term ‘Japanese’ is not understood to mean simply an abstract concept or ideology, but that one is actually of Japanese descent; in fact, those who are only half Japanese descent are referred to as hafu. This is in contrast to the modern Western notion of a nation being only an ideology or culture, which allows people of different ethnicities to ‘assimilate’ and magically become just as ‘Swedish’, for instance, as the indigenous Swedes. This problem is also quite obvious in America, where the “nation” is defined by classical liberal ideology, and the term “American” is allowed to erase all authentic ethnic demonyms. This leads away from ethnic and societal integrity, and into flimsy abstractionism and ideology.

This solid Japanese identity also relies on the very ethnic nature of Japanese culture. While the Japanese have borrowed many things from neighboring Chinese culture, such as their writing system and Confucian philosophy, the Japanese still have an ethnic religion, Shinto, and an ancient ethnic monarchy. Part of the problem with the West, especially with the United States, is that it has been dominated by religions which are non-ethnic in nature. Ethnic Europeans throughout the Western world need religious communities which reinforce notions of ethnic identity and ethnic cohesion in order to prevent ethnic annihilation.

Perhaps this is only a stereotype, or perhaps not, but it also appears that women are less of a problem in East Asian cultures compared to Western ones. Confucianism helps East Asia combat the corrosive nature of feminism by establishing patriarchy as a cultural norm. This is important as history and current events have shown women to be more likely to betray their in-group compared to their male counterparts. For many women, the concept of in-group simply does not compute; it’s not how they’re wired. Unfortunately, the exacerbation of the current demographic crisis which Western feminism has contributed to may be the only way of revealing to the masses the necessity of patriarchy.

It should also be noted that Japan does not possess the same sense of national guilt for its own imperialism which many Western nations do for things such as the Crusades, National Socialism, colonialism, slavery etc. Japan, like other East Asian countries, possesses a shame-honor culture rather than a guilt-innocence culture as Western countries have. A shame culture implies that one only needs to react to a wrong one has committed if society reprimands and punishes you. A guilt culture implies that one must punish one’s self for a wrong even if no one else reprimands or punishes you. Guilt culture makes it possible for Westerners to spontaneously feel guilty and punish themselves even when they are not publicly reprimanded. In contrast, a shame culture would not require this; you would not suffer any punishment unless you yourself were observed to commit a wrong. Thus Japan may feel that its recovery of a positive outward image after WWII expiated its imperialistic shame, but Germany is still wrestling with Holocaust guilt long after it has recovered its positive image to the rest of the world.

As for where guilt culture came from, most sources point to Christianity. The author Ed West, featured in The Spectator news journal, considers guilt culture to be one of the primary reasons for NW Europe’s, particularly Germany’s, openness to accepting migrants from the Middle East. He also considers this expression of guilt culture to be “the silent triumph of Christianity” (link). However, not all Christian cultures are guilt cultures, and thus Christianity alone was probably not sufficient to produce guilt culture. Rather, it was more likely the result of Christianity (collective-moralism) in combination with liberal capitalism (atomization), resulting in atomized-collective-moralism, i.e. self-inflicted punishment for having disobeyed collective morality (guilt-culture). Whether or not the West will return to a shame-honor culture is somewhat unclear, though it may be likely as ethnic Europeans across the globe become more collectivist in the face of mass immigration. A primitive shame-honor culture is already emerging in the Alt-Right with shaming words like ‘cuck’ and ‘traitor’, and terms signifying collective honor such as ‘uncucked’, ‘red-pilled’, ‘fashy’, etc. If this becomes mainstream, the West will likely return to a  shame-honor culture.

Last but not least, as with all pathologies proposed on the dissident Right, there must be mention of *drumroll please* da Jooooooooooooz. Jews have had a much larger impact on Western history than East Asian history, and some will be tempted to say that Japan was saved because it had no Jews. This is an oversimplification. The thing about the Jews [the Leftist ones] is that they knew the weaknesses of Western Europeans, particularly inhabitants of the Anglosphere; the guilt culture, the reduction of “nation” to abstract ideology, the lack of ethnic religion, and the weakness of our patriarchy. In the words of Dr. Kevin MacDonald, they knew exactly “which buttons to push”. The leftist Jews were like a spark that ignited a very large and dangerous pool of gasoline. So let this be a lesson to us. Just as a human body must have a healthy immune system to prevent the spread of an infection, we must address the greater vulnerabilities in our own people to become resistant to the forces inimical to our existence.

 

Charles II, the Dionysian, and the Apollonian

Charles wearing a crown and ermine-lined cape

It seems widely known that the English Stuart monarch Charles II was a bit of a hedonist, and perhaps this is an understatement. He ascended to the throne in a restoration of monarchy from the Puritan dictatorship under Cromwell. I think it is safe to say that Charles II and the hedonistic culture that came with him were essentially a Dionysian reaction against the highly Apollonian Cromwell years under the Puritan regime. We might compare this event to the situation of the present day Right. The Alt-Right, with its romanticist notions of race, breaking of social norms, and sometimes blunt hedonism (for example from the pickup artist community), is likewise a Dionysian reaction against the strict Apollonianism of modern day Puritans of a variety of political persuasions.

I remember reading a book for my literature class in 5th grade, The Giver, which portrayed a totalitarian community completely engrossed in the Apollonian: most individuals saw the world in grayscale, pain and sexual passion were suppressed through medical means (euthanasia was commonplace, and pills were administered to suppress the sex urge), and ones’ parents were never ones’ biological parents. Instinct was considered obsolete. However, one man, the Giver, was selected by the community to keep the memories which happened to be Dionysian, of passion, vivid color, and pain, and transfer them to the next person in line through a mystical, almost sacramental means. If the Giver left the community or died without transferring these memories to a successor, the memories were transferred to everyone in the community. This is eventually what happened in the story when the Giver’s successor fled the community with this purpose in mind; he wished to overthrow the Apollonian order in the community.

One might compare the sort of exclusive Apollonianism of the community in The Giver to that of today. From the political Left and Center, ethnocentric instinct is suppressed, humans are mathematized into identical units, they are falsely understood as being capable of complete rationality (I blame Kant), and irrationality is considered to be an exceptional error even when it is evident in the suicidal nature of Leftist axiology. There is also, retaining the respect I have for Catholics reading this, the idea on the Christian Right which I call ‘eroto-rationalism’, where sex is considered to only have the rationalistic industrial purpose of procreation (sort of like in 1984) and no value for intimacy or release of bodily tension; we also see the idea from some conservatives that love itself, romantic or otherwise, can be reduced to a rational decision, that there is no inherently visceral aspect to it. These are examples of the Apollonian totally excluding the Dionysian.

As with the Giver’s successor, the Alt-Right has decided to exit the exclusively Apollonian fantasy land altogether and at the same time to give the Dionysian red pill to everyone still in the community, overthrowing the Apollonian hegemony. The internet enhances the efficiency of this process. It should also be noted that the non-sensual aspects of the Dionysian are present in the ‘Wotan’ archetype identified by Carl Jung, considered to reside in the collective unconscious of the Germanic people. Jung believed that a suppression of this archetype would lead to its reawakening, and this process appears to to be underway with the Alt-Right and Identitarian movements. All we need now is for this archetype to reemerge in more people so that enough charisma can be gained to reclaim ethnic homelands. (There was an interesting short video on this topic on Red Ice radio a few days ago: link)

Institutions which attempt to systematically combat the Dionysian, as Pentheus foolishly did in Euripides’ The Bacchae, will be destroyed in this attempt. While the Apollonian has always provided the necessary structure for civilizations to exist, attempting to undo the Dionysian attempts to undo the very primordial glue of instinct which undergirds these civilizations. This is something which the Alt-Right has grasped, perhaps unwittingly, has advantaged it. On the other hand, conservatives have gone through cycles of openly warring against the Dionysian, and then being destroyed by the Dionysian as it surfaces in uncontrollable ways. The Right must learn to carefully use the Dionysian to its own advantage instead of battling it if it is to win its battles.

To My Followers

Oftentimes I loose track of who I am following and mistakenly think I have followed blogs which I, in fact, have not (things get mixed up in my head a lot with my busy lifestyle). (edit: meaning, just because I have not followed a blog which is following me doesn’t mean I dislike its content)

Also, do not be alarmed if you totally agree with one article I write and absolutely disagree with another article I write (or sometimes just think I am writing crazy nonsense! — I have tried to minimize this in the last four months). This blog is one of the only places I can be honest about my opinions, and while I try to write with manners in mind (and will edit past posts if need be), I am ultimately someone very difficult to pigeonhole; I dislike atheism and Marxism, but I am not a Christian or a capital c capitalist; I am an ethno-statist, but I am not a Hitlerist ideologue; I am a rightist living in the United States, but I am not a ‘patriot’. Thus I am bound to disagree with the left and certain parts of the right — it is unavoidable.