Bloody Shovel 3

We will drown and nobody shall save us


There's a lot of odd, deeply odd, profoundly strange things about modern society. Things that would make any hypothetical man traveling through time to our day from the past to have their heads explode in bewilderment. Perhaps one of the most salient characteristics of modernity, if not the most, is the presence of sexual identity groups. Sexual orientation, as they call it.

(This essay will be sprinkled with some completely random pictures and quotes I found on the internet to support my argument)

Traditional societies, according to the information they have, believe there are men, and there are women. Man and women marry and have sex (sometimes in reverse order) and have children and so on.

There are obvious differences in average behavior between men and women, which we can call masculinity and feminity. But there's also quite a lot of variation there, as in every single human trait, from size, to eye shape, to smell, to metabolism speed, you name it.


Some men are quite extreme in their masculinity. Some are rather closer to the middle of the spectrum. There's even some (a very little) overlap there. A woman in a million has a thicker beard than one man in a million. But still. Men are men, even effeminate men, and women are women, and that's it.

Now and then there are freaks who are *way* out of the spectrum. Again it happens in many other traits. Some men are taller than others, on a Gaussian distribution. Then a tiny few are midgets. Some people have more powerful legs than others. Some are born with a limp. Some men are manlier than others. Some are really girly. Some even pretend their are women or try to have sex with men. We call those homosexuals.

屏幕截图 2018-08-26 23.48.12

Now that's quite of a problem. Sex is very important. Sex is the basis of society, the prime motivator, especially for men. Sex must be channeled and controlled if a society is to stick together.

Human societies reacted differently to the existence of homosexuals. Some ignored the issue, taking care of individually troublesome cases but generally ignoring the phenomenon as a whole. That's the case of East Asia. They're good at that. "If it stinks, cover it", as they say in Japan. 臭いものに蓋. It worked for them.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 00.02.21

In others, perhaps a majority of human societies, behavior was given priority. So if a man insisted in having sex with men; well that's what women do. So you're a woman. Yeah, you might look completely like a man. Have male genetics, we'd say today. But if you behave like a woman, the looks aren't what matters the most. We'll take care of your appearance. And so in Iran, for example, homosexual men are forced by the state to undergo "gender reassignment surgery". That is, they try to shape them as much as possible into women, then given legal female status. And out they go. They aren't very good looking women, but there's plenty of unfortunate men around who will be happy to tap them now and then. They can't have babies of course, so marriage is not likely, but they'll have to accept their lot. The same way midgets do.

I do wonder what they do with obstinate lesbians, if there's some creative Islamic solution to have them to have penises. I suspect that given the legal environment, women who are into women find a way of not being too obnoxious about it. But I digress. Muslims, Indians, Southeast Asians, to my knowledge all take this sort of strategy. And it works for them.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.47.18

In the modern West, for some reason, we chose to give appearance priority. So if you look like a man, you are a man. You may be very girly. You may like to wear female clothes. You may like dolls and make-up. You may talk like a fag. You may have sex with men. But if you look like a man, you are a man. A different sort of man. A gay man. Certainly not a woman!

The same applies to women who happen to behave like men. They aren't men. They are women. Just odd women. Lesbians, we call them. This way of categorizing outliers on sexual behavior slowly crystalized in the West around the liberal revolutions. So in a way it grow exactly with modernity, and as I argue here is indeed perhaps the most characteristic aspect of modernity.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.42.21

The operating principle here seems to be that choice of sexual partner is this one part of one's character, some kind of taste, not dissimilar from taste on food or drink. That men who have sex with men (MSM, as the medical bureaucracy puts it) happen to be effeminate in pretty much every aspect of their lives was not noticed very strongly, especially at the beginning. I guess it just happened that when gay men became a thing in 19th century England, middle and upper class homosexual men were socialized strongly enough into English masculinity that they just didn't come out as women trapped in male bodies. Oscar Wilde was homosexual, and he was kinda odd, but he didn't come out as being girly. For all the people of his time, he was just this bloke with weird sexual taste.

So perhaps because of this empiric lack of correlation among the elite (i.e. the people who shape the culture), or because Christianity doesn't contemplate sexual change, or because of Benthamite liberalism determining that all human behavior is about taste and pleasure and the most evil thing is to notice strange things about people's behavior (Bentham had good reasons to dislike people noticing his behavior); or perhaps because 19th century elites had low fertility and didn't want to lose the few boys they had even if they happened to behave like girls; at any rate, we in the West alone decided that homosexuality is about sexual taste, and not fundamental gender dysphoria.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.49.24

Now this was a momentous decision. Never before in the history of the world, homosexuals, men and women, were given each a name, an identity. Names are no laughing matter. Names are socially approved categories. They are a social license to exist. Gay men now exist. Lesbians now exist. They never did before, but now they do. And since we gave them a name, Western society created categories of people where none existed before. And that has had very notorious consequences. Perhaps fatal consequences.

I should add that interpreting homosexuality as a sexual choice and not inborn gender dysphoria doesn't fit the scientific evidence we have, nor the historical evidence of what most of humanity has thought of the issue. For a very informative, and extremely readable book on the issue, look to Michael Bailey here. Here's my take on the book.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.54.08

Whatever your take on what homosexuals are and how they came to be, one thing is clear, by their own admission. Gay men generally want to have sex with heterosexual men. But heterosexual men by definition won't have sex with men. So homosexuals have two choices here. They can undergo a sex change, either surgically complete (as they enforce in Iran), or some half-way (as its easy to see in Thailand), and try to convince heterosexual men to take them as women. Or they can give up on heterosexual men and have sex with fellow gay men.

Neither choice is very satisfactory. Most homosexual man can't pass as an attractive woman, even after extensive extensive surgery. And sex with fellow effeminate gay men requires industrial amounts of LARPing, having to make oneself look like a tough man when they really want to wear dresses, and empirically not a small amount of drugs. It is a tough life either way. No good solutions. It must be irritating, which is why gays tend to look irritated and often driven into extreme self-harming behavior.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.53.34

Lesbians have it easier, if only by women having a much lower sex drive. Pretty women are out of reach, which sucks, but heterosexual women are much more open to persuasion in general, so it's orders of magnitude easier to get an average girl to date a lesbian than it is for a normal man to have homo sex. Women are just more into LARPing as a general rule, and as real manly lesbians tend to be much fewer than homosexual men, lesbianism seems to be an out of control mass-LARP game of women trying to play a game that nobody remembers who started and has actually very few real players in it.

Again, the key point here is that homosexuals don't want to have sex with each other. They want to have sex with heterosexuals. Which won't, by definition. The logical solution here would be for homosexuals to change their sex, which is again a very old and empirically attested solution practiced in many societies.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.51.54

But mandatory sex-change has its drawbacks. You look like a freak, for one. And letting homosexuals keep their bodies unchanged also has many advantages. Not in the sexual realm, sure. But gay men in modern society get to choose whether to share their sexual choices. They may not come out of the closet, as we say, and just pass as a normal heterosexual man. That has many advantages. They get thus to dwell among heterosexual men; which they supposedly enjoy. And they also get to function as an effective secret society, helping each other covertly, promoting each other in jobs, giving each other businesses, covering each other's backs. Blackmailing each other. The Gay Mafia. It's a real thing.

They also get to influence men, persuading them into behaving in ways advantageous to homosexuals, while ostensibly offering advice as just one more man, one who happens to have a peculiar perspective on things.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.51.26

It is by no coincidence that gay men are extremely overrepresented in political parties or in the mass media, or as public intellectuals. Perhaps the enjoy the rather effeminate nature of the jobs' activities (talking a lot, sounding pompous, frequent parties and public gatherings, gossip and conspiracies, etc.). At any rate they are everywhere, in a way which would not be possible if they were forced or strongly induced to change sex. Although ladyboys are everywhere in Thailand too, so who knows. But still, stealth obviously has some advantages, enough advantages to make the rather unnatural and contradictory gay-man lifestyle be bearable for them.

Note that the same applies for lesbian women, perhaps even more so. Lesbian women have been extremely active in influence operations since more than a century ago. The case can be made that every single feminist movement was started by lesbians, for two purposes. One, to push society to allow them to behave as men, which is what they crave by their own nature as women born with masculine brains. The second, perhaps unintended consequence, is to push women, by persuading them to advocate feminist causes and raising their standards of acceptable male behavior, to become so unfeminine, annoying and obnoxious to men that no men can bear their companionship, and thus drive what were perfectly fine and fertile women into the arms of lesbians.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.52.10

Note that women weren't just fooled by a small bunch of tiny lesbians. Well, they kinda were, but they were fooled for a reason. It's like the old argument about the Jews hijacking Western society with their socialism and other destructive theories. Well, yeah, but you need two to dance. Jews sold a product because there was a market to it. Lesbians too sold their feminism because there was a market of eager buyers. The arguments were quite compelling, and they came with perfect timing, just as the modern industrial economy was giving women more economic opportunities, and thus more bargaining power versus men. And the lesbian feminist arguments were very useful for women at a moment they wanted to increase their bargaining power. And you can't blame them for it. Everyone wants to get a better deal.

On hindsight, the war has been extremely destructive to both sides, but that's the nature of war. Humanity has been waging war forever, knowing perfectly well that it is destructive to both sides, but we keep fighting, because one side at the beginning often think it has much to win.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 12.40.39.png

Now of course this this doesn't absolve lesbians (or Jews) from blame from selling toxic ideas. Every society has conflicts and contradictions of some sort. But the infighting tends to be limited by traditional norms of conduct which go by the personal ties between people. A highly motivated, hostile outside group can break that traditional balance, selling ideological drugs in a market which might be open to it, but also traditionally expected some restrain from the suppliers. When the suppliers, not being an integral part of it, are motivated to destroy society in their benefit, that breaks the traditional balance of debate, and chaos ensues.

You might be asking yourself now: sure, there is a stealthy Gay Mafia, notoriously in politics or the Catholic Church. But while lesbians have been indeed obviously (if not quite openly) agitating for feminism in academia and literature, what have gay men been advocating for? Sure plenty of them have been openly advocating for gay rights, "pride", sometimes even for legal changes to allow pederasty and other abhorrent behavior. But where have gay men been stealthily nudging heterosexual men into their camp, using cleverly packaged rhetoric that seems to increase the bargaining power of men, the way lesbians have been trolling heterosexual women into feminism as a pathway to lesbianism?

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 12.43.43

I will elaborate on the next post. On the meantime there are some hints hidden here, somewhere.


Leave a Reply
  • I have been waiting for someone to articulate my thoughts on this matters for what feels like forever. Thank you. Eager to see the next post.

  • Have always been amazed at the mental gymnastics people do to assure themselves that Bronze Age Pervert, the guy who obsesses over pictures of hot men online every single day, isn't gay

    • It's interesting how people who have reviewed BAP's book eschew from calling him gay. Of those I've read, only Mike Crumplar at the Jacobite magazine really went there.

    • Coming from parts of the internet where BAP is less well known: wait, it isn't a gag? I thought the whole running joke was he's OBVIOUSLY gay, everyone pretends not to notice, and he flames even harder in response. Reading the first bit of the book, I thought the punchline would be "this is the Principia Discordia crossed with Conan the Barbarian, and it's all about how VERY GAY BAP is", so I left it there.

    • Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that somebody who chooses to take the Nom D'internet of "Bronze Age Pervert" might not be wholly orthodox in his sexual tastes. Or maybe "he's" actually a chick - anything is possible today.

  • BAP is probably "old school gay", like the Sacred Band or the lower classes in early 20th century America before that flipped ("The crusade against the “lavender menace” (I’m not making that phrase up, by the way) was one of the pet causes of the same Progressive movement responsible for winning women the right to vote" - John Michael Greer) Speaking of bad ideas it's interesting to track how the "masculine homosexuality isn't real" meme formed and who benefits from it; "Queers United Against Straight Acting Homosexuals published a often cited article in their newsletter in 1993. Titled; "Assimilation is Killing Us Fight For a Queer United Front." Bioleninist ghetto-enforcement. Looking at your other post, Bailey's book is fine but not the whole story, there's more than one kind of male non-heterosexuality, different strategies (or accidents, like germs or trauma). It seems you can't imagine how they would be strategic... Consider some flocking birds have homosexual vanguards (skilled and suicidal, no offspring to care about) or how masculine women make better sons (heirs instead of better daughters to marry into another lineage), not to mention bonobos... My hypothesis; There's a "current" or strategy for lack of a better term of masculine non-heterosexuality that is strongly supressed by Abrahamic lineages and their progeny, as was written:

    • I think that's correct, but the pattern Bailey studied is the vast majority of homosexuals. Everything else is weird outliers with a variety of mental handicaps, inborn or induced.

      • In my experience there's plenty of sane, low-key opportunist bisexuals (I'd go as far as calling it the natural condition) that somehow never make it to those studies. What's your take on the Sacred Band and homosexuality in ancient militaries, hunting trips and similar contexts? I guess one could simply not consider this homosexuality like the ancients probably did but that's begging the question.

        • We must refine our terms. A sex-starved Arab or Afghan who buggers a teenage boy "opportunistically" is not bisexual. He'd bang a sheep if he didn't have boys to bugger, and that doesn't make him sexually oriented towards animals. Sexual orientation is what people do given ample choice. I don't think bisexuality is common in those conditions. Ancient Greece was very, very strange. I don't believe you see anything like it anywhere else in human history. As for why Greece was so full of fags, I've no idea.

          • I've read that it was full of fags because they kept women secluded and guarded their 'honor' jealously, therefore, little opportunities for having extramarital fun without risking violent death. You know, like present day Afghanistan, without the burkas, though I'm sure ancient Greek women wore at least headscarves or something. Spartans who let their women own property in rare circumstances and generally gave them a bit of freedom were seen as perverting nature or something.

          • I'm not convinced Athens was as full of fags as we believe nowadays. Yes, it was remarkably full of pederasts; that there's no denying. But how full is 'remarkably full'? I put it at ~1-10%. Why? Because it was a high enough percentage for them to get a huge reputation for it, that's for sure. And 1-10% is plenty high enough for that; at that point the behaviour looks nearly universal to an outsider, especially when the behaviour is so shockingly unnatural. However, it was a low enough percentage for the Athenians themselves to still feel it was a vice. Sophocles, Plato, Aristophanes all make jokes about it - Aristophanes most of all, of course, but Plato's Symposium definitely comes off as a kind of ancient Rocky Horror Picture Show rather than played straight. (There are many other examples of Plato using this vice for transgressional comedy - the Lesser Hippias, Meno, etc.) Don't get me wrong: socially, 1-10% is huge percentage. American society probably has somewhere around a few tenths of a percent of actually practicing homosexuals.

  • On gays lusting after straights: Not an expert, and without fully agreeing or disagreeing, this seems more nuanced than presented here. First, we know that many gay men seem to prefer the "twink" type, and that pederasty is among the most common expressions of homosexuality through history. One thought I have is twink-preferring men are not as "fully gay" as some other men, that they're more likely to view twinks as a substitute for women than as an absolute preference. It does seem that gay men don't hit on straight men all that much. Though they likely know that straight men will tend to respond with visceral disgust, delivering a brutal, perhaps even violent rejection. In addition, gay men (unlike lesbians) are highly sex-motivated, so the potential for easy gay sex that same night means gay men aren't very motivated to pursue the longshot of "converting" a straight man, even if they fantasize about doing so. Gay men certainly hope that certain straight men are secretly gay. Every male celeb above a certain attractiveness threshold will have gay rumors around him, likely the fantasizing of gay men. Of course, the sheer number of straight men ensures that the far right tail of attractiveness will be dominated by straight men. I've heard gay men insist that they prefer the gay look, that gay men are more attractive and better put together on average. Maybe this is wishful thinking, who knows. But I'm inclined to think the majority of gay men might prefer the median gay man over the median straight man, while at the same time the top 10-20% of men they fantasize about are mostly straight.

  • The case can be made that every single feminist movement was started by lesbians, for two purposes. One, to push society to allow them to behave as men, which is what they crave by their own nature as women born with masculine brains. The second, perhaps unintended consequence, is to push women, by persuading them to advocate feminist causes and raising their standards of acceptable male behavior, to become so unfeminine, annoying and obnoxious to men that no men can bear their companionship, and thus drive what were perfectly fine and fertile women into the arms of lesbians. I think the second purpose is much more straightforward and intentional. The 60's feminist movement promoted lesbianism as a political act heavily, and as for contemporary feminism, here's a quote straight from a horse's mouth: Coursework in a women’s studies class today might cover issues of race, sexuality, gender expression and identity, sexualization and socialization of women, global women’s rights and various international diaspora, history, art or peace. Women’s Studies remains an interdisciplinary field, making its name all the more difficult to decide on. Is it Women’s History and Theory, or is the program really Lesbo Recruitment 101?

  • I thought BAP's whole message was: "You Are Gay. I might post endless jpgs of muscular men but you are the real fag with your office job and every trace of masculinity drained out of you" It's a pretty funny troll tbh. Perhaps the person behind the BAP account is a homo, but ultimately it's his sycophant followers who are the fags. Posting screenshots of their Amazon purchases of his book like paypigs to get "likes" - that whole twitter scene is, well... gay.

    • That pretty much hits it right on the mark. Some commenters above have implied that MGTOW pushes effeminate crypto-homosexuality by mimicking feminism, in which case BAP is the anti-MGTOW. He promotes active involvement instead of withdrawal, espousing a masculine military bisexuality.

  • Ancient men conquered cities & put them to the sword and fire, meanwhile you go to WINE BAR with “gf” & enjoy tasteful banter. YOU ARE GAY!!

  • Tbh if he fucks abrahamic boys but helps us Conquer Thotdom & Destroy Islam Idgaf. I'll stab him & pull his heart out if he acts openly gay in the Band||

  • As for the answer to your question in the last paragraph, is this too blatant or what you had in mind? On a totally separate note, I'd be interested to hear about your experience learning Chinese and Japanese. You probably know this, but fluency in English, the previous two, and whatever European language you grew up with is very uncommon. Memorizing thousands of Hanzi/Kanji is no small task, especially when the equivalent words or ideas are very rarely similar sounding like with germanic or romantic languages.

  • I've "known" BAP for a long time, long before he became famous on right-wing Twitter, going back to when he would post on old forums like those in the screenshots above. Is BAP gay? That's kind of a pointless question because we are talking about an internet persona. We would never know for sure. He could announce on Twitter tomorrow that he's gay, and we would never know if he was just trolling us. Now obviously at least part of the gay stuff is a troll and a gag. But that also applies to the rest of his commentary, which is mostly warmed over Nietzschean philosophy. At least part of his outlandish comments and Nietzschean stuff is a troll and a gag. However, while he may be trolling and may not literally believe all the outlandish comments he makes for shock and entertainment value, it seems unlikely that he would have absolutely no affinity for the Nietzschean philosophy and ideas that underlie the comments. By the same token, it seems entirely possible that, while the gay and homoerotic stuff is indeed a troll, it's not entirely so. The degree, extent, and duration of BAP's gay stuff and homoeroticism is greater than normal. He's been doing this for a long time, more than a decade, before social media and his fame and notoriety on right wing Twitter. Every guy knows that making gay and homoerotic jokes with other guys is normal, but if a guy makes too many such jokes, too often, and seems to enjoy them too much, other guys are going to think that he's weird and probably somewhat gay. BAP is kind of in that territory. In fact, I'd say he's even beyond it because in real life, there are limits to gay and homoerotic jokes you can make with other guys before provoking a physical fight. Whereas on the old forums, BAP used to spam threads and chatrooms with pictures of naked guys, copy/pastes of excerpts from gay pornographic literature, and he would get into fights with other members with aggressive gay and homoerotic provocations. In real life, you can't do that without starting a fight or getting your ass kicked. Naturally, the "cool" response on those old forums, just as today, was not to consider BAP's antics as anything more than a troll and a joke. To question some of the tendencies behind the persona and trolling was uncool and obviously meant that you were actually the gay one.

  • I bet a lot of BAP orbiters are just repressed homosexuals, how many straight guys actually fall for his gimmick?

  • spandrell asks "where have gay men been stealthily nudging heterosexual men into their camp, using cleverly packaged rhetoric that seems to increase the bargaining power of men" We find out in the next post. But given the quoted passages, my guess is, gay men will be found guilty of promoting misogyny.

  • Given the great amount of gays (often very fit ones) that exist and their extreme willingness to have sex with other gays, trying to pervert/convert heterosexual males seems like a supremely inefficient strategy. Only an extreme desire to bugger heterosexual men could justify such an investment. But this begs the question: Can a man who willingly engages in buggery be heterosexual? I doubt it.

  • Lesbians are always angry; thwarted in their early desire for a man, they turned to each other for sexual and emotional and sexual sustenance, but were shortchanged. Who can say what lesbians really feel? Their lives are dotted with mistakes, both gargantuan and simple, and they don't really bring much to the table for each other. Angry, misguided, and probably directed toward self-harm, their lives are crash-ups on the side of the interstate where gawkers pass by and nobody stops to help. Shado.

    • "Lesbians are always angry; thwarted in their early desire for a man, they turned to each other for sexual and emotional and sexual sustenance, but were shortchanged." Certainly some truth to this, Shado. Even many radical lesbians admit that they find sex with men more satisfying, on those occasions when they can get it. As I recall, even Camille Paglia admitted this.

  • Premise: Homosexual behavior is genetically linked. Homosexuals themselves tell us they are "born that way". Essentially all major behaviors are affected by genetics; nurture can affect the details of how they are expressed, but not the underlying tendencies. In the past - in traditional societies - there was strong social pressure to behave normally. So a significant fraction of the homosexual population pretended hetero tendencies, which permitted their genes to be passed on to future generations. For example, King Edward III of England - who kicked off the Hundred Years' War - was the son of a homosexual. Now, that social pressure has entirely evaporated; and with it, all incentive for homosexuals to engage in the biological mechanisms that pass their genes on to new human beings. Therefore in a hundred years or so the proportion of homosexual genes in the general gene pool will have experienced a catastrophic and potentially irreversible decline. (If this does not happen, we may consider the premise disproven. The experiment is certainly interesting.)

    • Homosexuality's twin concordance is way too low for it to be entirely or mostly genetically-determined.

      • No. All that proves is that other factors are required for the behavior to be activated. It doesn't prove there is no genetic underlying factor. Modern society is going out of its way to enable anything and everything that might qualify for those other factors.

        • > No. All that proves is that other factors are required for the behavior to be activated. It doesn’t prove there is no genetic underlying factor. I didn't say there wasn't. Some alleles are sure to increase risk and others are sure to decrease it, just as it is with e.g. malaria and sickle-cell mutations. What the twin concordance data is saying is that it's not primarily genetically determined the way sickle-cell anemia or certain forms of colorblindness are genetically determined, and that population-average-wise "other factors" are way more important than the genetics. This is enough to completely undermine the usual "born that way" position. > Modern society is going out of its way to enable anything and everything that might qualify for those other factors. Then twin concordance for homosexuality should be high and increasing towards 100%, instead of rattling in low double digits. You're saying that "other factors" are no longer important factors because everyone is exposed to them. That leaves genetics to do its job alone.

        • There are genetic factors around resistance or vulnerability to malaria that are a hell of a lot easier to find than those which probably do influence resistance or vulnerability to homosexuality, but nobody gets malaria without an injection of Plasmodium. Positing genetic factors that influence vulnerability to something is trivial and obvious; the question is whether there is a strong genetic cause or not. And the answer is perforce no, since the stats don't add up.

      • Yes, this is a settled issue. Cochran has laid it out, no genes that make one a homosexual could get to the frequency we see today, it’s worse on fitness than deafness or dwarfism or baldness. It’s most likely a pathogen.

        • First sexual experiences are highly formative of a person's sexuality. It probably helps with pairbonding. I think nonreproductive sexualities are mostly a side effect of this capacity to imprint on different things.

  • >Some ignored the issue, taking care of individually troublesome cases but generally ignoring the phenomenon as a whole. That’s the case of East Asia. They’re good at that. “If it stinks, cover it”, as they say in Japan. 臭いものに蓋. It worked for them. The Nipnongnese in particular had an additional answer - which also happened to be part of their answer to the sexless single men question as well - which was, prostitution was legal, but only males could be prostitutes (or performing actors in general). ( Thus the modern anime trap was born.

  • Aren't gay men just using their influence to increase their access too boys/young men they would like to turn gay?

  • So, reading your post, I’m finding myself in agreement with, what I perceive, the main point: Male homosexuality (the recipient side) is, generally, a gender dysphoria. Female homosexuality (both the giving and the receiving sides) are, mostly, an epiphenomenon of a political stance — an combo of ideological and status posturing. If this is what you’re indeed saying, I agree. I’d like to add that, IMO, when it comes to the male “donor”/sodomizing side it’s probably a combination of indiscriminate sexual arousal and status seeking (with sexual arousal being correlated with the latter). Maybe, as you noted, some top/donor male homosexuals are, in actuality, recipients that are LARPing as tops, but I don’t know what the percentage is. As to females, the recipient side is pretty clearly a status-seeking political stance (ie “biologizing” feminism). The giving side is, probably, along the same lines — just uglier and/or desperate and/or more high-testosterone, biologically. But, again, not too different from the receiving counterpart in other respects.

  • "It’s like the old argument about the Jews hijacking Western society with their socialism and other destructive theories. Well, yeah, but you need two to dance." Beware the egalitarian trap. Not everyone's capable of forming rational decisions - a large majority of humans, even in high IQ, high agency, low time preference societies, were born to be led. The strategy that worked for Jews was to infiltrate the organs of information. The way in was individualism, the original Whig revolution of personal rights and freedom from coercion. This is JQ 101: the Jews are, in the West anyway, a diaspora people, so it's better for them if the society's tolerant, open-minded and takes everyone on his individual merit. It also benefits a small group to have strong ingroup preference, otherwise they're rapidly bred out of existence. This is why Jews lie and cheat and practice nepotism and hypocrisy. Once you have an institution based on individual rights and meritocracy, it's easy for relatively high IQ Jews to gain a foothold. At that point, they're apt to further promote those same values that served them so well, but they're NOT apt to forget about their people. Indeed "forgetting about their people" is the last thing any Jew would ever do. Examples abound, from Steven Pinker the atheist liberal using Yiddish terms as a mark of respect to his heritage through to Felix Mendelssohn passing over his friend Schumann for a co-tribalist to succeed him at the Gewandhaus, leading to four more Jewish directors before control could be wrested back to the Saxons who built it. All we need for the current ZOG system is a culture of Whiggery 1.0 (classical liberalism, libertarianism, meritocracy, liberal democracy) and a diaspora group with relatively high IQs. It didn't have to be the Jews and there's no inherent reason why they should have turned out to be such destructive liars, pushing everything from pornography to prostitution to abortion to opioids to usury to endless war to transgenderism to gambling to ugliness to crass consumerism..... but thanks to the Enlightenment providing an unconscious genetic niche, that's how they've ended up. If I were one myself, I'd turn the tables: look what you turned us into, goyim!

  • 2 pingbacks

©︎ Spandrell 2011-2020 All rights reserved