Saturday, December 26, 2015

Joyce on Sexology, 12/16/15

Some comments and criticisms.

Who is responsible for the outpouring of modern degeneracy?  Do we really need to ask?

Kevin MacDonald has noted that the Frankfurt School categorized healthy Western norms, nationalisms, and close family relationships as an indication of psychiatric disorder. By contrast, in the last few decades of the nineteenth century Jewish intellectuals began championing Western society’s outcasts and non-conformers. Using these outcasts, Jewish intellectuals could fight a proxy war against Western homogeneity, and wage a clandestine campaign for the acceptance of pluralism.

By subtly supporting the position of the socially and sexually deviant, these Jewish figures could gain acceptance or inconspicuousness in the newly atomized society, while simultaneously undermining the very health of the homogenous nation.

Remember that the next time some HBDer starts rhapsodizing over the wonders of Jewish IQ.

An excellent example of this nightmare becoming reality is one of the latest terms concocted within our atomized society:  Otherkin. According to Google, Otherkin are people who identify as partially or entirely non-human. Some say that they are, in spirit if not in body, not human. In any normal, healthy society this nonsense would be regarded as puerile or insane, and it certainly wouldn’t be indulged. But today, in the wake of Frankfurt School victory, the Otherkin community is just one of several growing realms for the bizarre.

Equally, in a society that has succumbed to Frankfurt School ideology one would expect to find that those most markedly different from the normal and healthy would be held up as alleged examples of the best of humanity.

Particularly relevant to our contemporary society, Ellis also astutely pointed out (206) that “there seems to be a certain relationship between the social reaction against homosexuality and against infanticide. Where the one is regarded leniently and favorably, there generally the other is also; where the one is stamped out, the other is usually stamped out.” Ellis’ astute remarks on the context behind the Jewish outlawing of homosexuality, and the use of violence against it by ancient cultures such as the Peruvians, bear further reflection. This is particularly the case given that there is a strain of inverts within our movement who propagandize their cause by weakly arguing that antipathy towards sexual inversion is due to the influence of “Judeo-Christian morals” rather than ethnically universal concerns around demographic health.

I agree with Joyce’s skepticism toward that “strain” in the “movement.”  It’s not that we are saying “no homosexuals allowed” – it is more of “can you stop talking about it, directly or indirectly, all the time?"  I remember back in the early 2000s when Yahoo groups were starting. I was interested in racial nationalist groups.  In my searches I came across one that asserted that they were “serious gay national socialists.”  A few minutes of analysis of their site confirmed that their “gay national socialism” was all about dressing up in Nazi uniforms and advertising such serious political activism as “U Piss I Drink” (no joke; that was one theme).  It’s one thing for an activist to keep their private life private, in the closest so to speak.  It is another to confuse racial activism with homosexual activism.  If nothing else, a sincere concern for EGI would mitigate against any attack on traditional sexual morality.

But, let us be consistent.  What about other destructive strains?  Should we promote miscegenation, including and especially with those wonderful yellow and brown Asians?  Should we denounce Poles while embracing “Sikh shopkeepers?”  Should we accept mendacious Desis “in our movement” who pose under false ethnic identities and start promoting intra-European feuds? In my opinion, a sincere homosexual of our race is infinitely better than a lying Ganges “family man” trying to turn Whites against one another.

This demographic concern was vital to the interpretations and views of non-Jewish sexologists. Since homosexuality, permitted to spread via fashion, leading to “acquired perversion” in the young, is socially linked to acceptance of abortion and infanticide, it acts to “check the population” and should thus be controlled and quarantined in a state that wishes to improve its demographic health.

The means of quarantine suggested by Ellis were not harsh or unreasonable. Society should refrain (215) from crushing the subject of abnormality with shame but, in an eerie premonition of the “Pride parades,” he argued that society should never allow the invert to “flout his perversion in its face and assume that he is of finer clay than the vulgar herd.” Since the genetic dead-end facing inverts was, in Ellis’ view, penalty enough, society should confine its approach to the sexually abnormal to the “protection of the helpless member of society against the invert.” Essentially, Ellis’ advice was to decriminalize the behavior of inverts and end societal shame surrounding it, but also to prevent inverts from flouting their abnormality, and from having physical, pedagogical or ideological access to children. Such was the approach of a broad swathe of opinion in mainstream (non-Jewish) sexology up to Weimar period. And this is largely the position taken by the Russian state today.

That is essentially a correct stance to take.

For Ellis as an evolutionist, a good indication of the pathology of homosexuality is that it is a reproductive dead end. Homosexuality has always been a puzzle to evolutionary biologists given that same-sex attraction would tend to lower reproductive success. However, since homosexuality has generally been stigmatized in historical societies, men with homosexual tendencies often married and procreated in order to avoid the penalties of being publicly homosexual…

What’s interesting is that many homosexual men have, throughout history, been able to father children.  This means they have been able to be sufficiently physically aroused by a woman to perform.  Should these men be more properly termed bisexual?  Or is homosexuality sufficiently “plastic” than even men who profess no sexual attraction to women are still able to perform with women?  If so, is their homosexuality truly genetic?  One wonders about the reverse?  I would think that – System propaganda about “most people are bisexual” aside – very few heterosexual men would be able to perform homosexual acts if required by social convention.  And yet, the argument by Joyce and other traditionalists is precisely that:  societal acceptance of homosexuality promotes its practice by those who otherwise would not be so inclined (and Ancient Greece is brought up as a possibility).  I actually agree with this latter view, which complicates my analysis.  

One may speculate a combination of genetic and environmental influences, resulting in a spectrum of types. Thus, a majority of today’s population (I say nothing about Ancient Greece) is strongly heterosexual, with no “invert” possibilities. Some fraction of the population however is weakly heterosexual – these are people who would conform to societal expectations of heterosexuality in a traditional society, but who may become homosexual or at least bisexual in a more permissive society. There may be a small fraction, very small, who are strongly homosexual and who would be unable to function with a member of the opposite sex. This is all hypothesis, and needs to be evaluated in an objective manner (unlikely in today’s pro-deviant climate).