A modest proposal on WWG

Seems Twitter is awash with talk on what the correct reactionary attitude towards gays, trannies and other sexual deviants must be.

Social conservatives have a range of opinions about what sexual deviancy is really about. Is it a curse? Just something people do out of lust and other sinful desires (which we should stop them from doing)? Or perhaps it is somewhat inborn or unchosen, yet disgusting all the same so we should make them hide it at least so we don't have to talk about it.

Then there's social liberals who just think sex is rad and people should be free to have orgasms however they like have them. The right side of the internet is also full of these sort of people, even among self-styled neoreactionaries. Blowhard comes to mind. He's even running a porn tumblr these days. Moldbug tended to avoid the topic, which is an intelligent thing to do when you live in San Francisco.

And of course progressives not only think sexual deviants should be free to do so; they must be worshipped as gods and every single fancy of them must be taught in public schools to entice primary school kids into participating eventually. Or not so eventually.

What to do? I have a proposal.

If I had to choose one, I'd call myself a social conservative. Progressives are evil and insane. Social liberals are also in my opinion misguided. Sex is not about orgasms. Ultimately it's about reproduction. And reproduction is about whose genes get to be present in the next generation. Personnel is policy, so sex must be regulated. It has always been so, for a reason. A basic principle of all civilized societies is that sex is not about fun, and people's mating instincts can't be left to themselves. Farming doesn't come naturally, agricultural civilizations less so; and so the patriarchy was invented to make it possible. That's a matter of history, of actual fact, not of ethical speculation. And history is more important and much more interesting than ethics. If you don't agree I don't want to talk to you. You should get yourself in a monastery.

However social conservatives also tend to miss the facts and let themselves be fooled by moral tradition. And that's wrong. Sexual deviancy is out there, and has always been, and wishing it out of existence isn't going to help. Tradition is about filtering out the inconvenient parts of the past. Well we have more data now. Greeks were into banging ephebes. Romans were into abortion and dysgenics. There's plenty of quite disturbing sexual practices in all of the Good Old Days.

The word reactionary conveys the idea that there are social arrangements from the past that are superior to those of modernity. But of course not all of them were. What modernity has, at least in comparison to the pre-Enlightenment period, is empirical science. So my proposal is:

Sexual deviants are to be objects of research. It's much more important to understand why homosexuality happens, than it is to suppress it. It is much more interesting to find out why a army veteran chooses to chop off his dick and call himself Jessica, instead of marrying a woman and making children with her. Cognitive science has advanced a lot, and this corner of the blogosphere owns as much to it as it does to genetics research.

So my proposal is: neoreactionaries must see sexual deviants as guinea pigs. Not as friends, not as enemies, but as fascinating broken brain which must be peeked into. We want to know why some men prefer to suck cock, why the daughter of a HK billionaire goes out with an ugly dyke, why Afghanis lust after 10 year old boys, why trendy american fags have lisps. Agnostic has been publishing his thoughts on this issue, and while his methods aren't very scientific, he has produced by himself more interesting insight than 100 Anissimovs and 500 Anarcho-papists in Twitter and all their followers combined.

So gentlemen: less ought, and more is. Let us strive to advance knowledge, else you're just yet another member of the chattering classes. And not a very good one at that.

Transgender: In the earliest days of the internet I used to read a blog called A.E. Brain http://aebrain.blogspot.com/ He was a computer programmer with a family but something was off about his picture. His face seemed overly effeminate. About 5 years into his blog he posted a picture from 10 years before and it was clear that his face had massively changed. He had been a strong looking and very masculine appearing guy. I had a hard time believing it was the same guy. He had finally gone to his doctor about the changes and it turned out that his body was producing too much of a hormone. At first he was going to try to get the problem fixed, but he suddenly decided to abandon his family and switch to being a women. He now calls himself Zoe Brain and the entire focus of his blog switched from computers and coding to transgenderism. His entire prescriptive became very warped. Now I chock this up to a malfunction body and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that other such people also have something wrong with their hormone levels. But instead of treating it, progressives allow or encourage them to become freaks.

"However social conservatives also tend to miss the facts and let themselves be fooled by moral tradition. And that’s wrong. Sexual deviancy is out there, and has always been, and wishing it out of existence isn’t going to help. " The purpose of traditions against sexual deviancy wasn't to push them out of existence. It was to suppress the open displays of them and to keep such people away from the levelers of power.

Yes. Reminds me of this talk by Yudkowsky, on how old Christian pastors used to argue that disease was Gods punishment and so shouldn't be cured. But of course we moderns are so much rational and superior to our forbearers. Wink wink. Now let's swing.

The quest for truth needs motivation. What does a reactionary do with the knowledge of the origins (I judge there are multiple causes) of deviant sexual impulses once he has it? For the biological origins, one could develop a cure! Or at least a test. Everybody's got to signal how much they tolerate and love sexual deviancy, but when you start offering vaccines or gene therapy or fetal hormonal stabilization therapies, then we'll see how many people will pay what prices to assure that their little darling turns out straight. Of course some people will decide to signal by purposefully making their kids gay. At what point is it child abuse? But once you have a cheap and easily accessible cure or a test I predict the amount of biological-origin deviancy to implode. Watch some progressive call my a genocidal 'eliminationist' Nazi now, but they're cool with sex-selective abortion (legal in California!) and my cure doesn't involve killing any human life. This is a great jurisprudential way to avoid trying to resolve the issue, just declare it moot for lack of a continuing cause of concern. Look, there are a lot of Christian religious conservatives and social traditionalists out there, and when combined that represents a vast amount of wealth and manpower. The poor are a gold mine. They have completely lost the war on the fronts of Politics and Culture, but they can still squeeze out a victory on the front of Science. They should totally raise a billion dollars and set up a research foundation. The BOM Institute - 'By Other Means'. Maybe FPF - Final Protective Fires.

[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]

You could even do 'race for the cure' 5k runs, and wear obnoxious little ribbons at fundraising events.

LOL! Awesome. SoCons need irony. The sincerity thing doesn't seem to be working.

The homosexualization of society is the final move by progressives to destroy and dominate. And yet, it's an overreach that will ultimately destroy them. The West today has close parallels with the late Roman Empire. Powerful by a once disciplined army now staffed by barbarian mercenaries, rich from looting the rest of the world and impoverishing its subjects and own citizens. A social desert from perversion and matriarchy. The letters of Paul are usually read as theology, but more clearly they are instructions to a population devastated by these things. "You live by the grace of God through Jesus Christ now. Ok, now honor God. No more faggotry, hookers, infanticide, man is in charge of the home, women behave themselves." Society regenerated itself from the bottom, as it will have to do now. There isn't any compromise or accommodation with these things.

Greg Egan proposed this in a scifi story 10 or 15 years ago. Well, not the right-wing research institute, but the soft genocide of the genetically gay through either embryo selection or gene modification, I forget which. The gay population plummeted and was ironically only replaced from the children of the Amish and other religious fanatics who didn't believe tampering with reproduction. I always thought it was a clever and likely idea, and I've been passing it off as my own insight in conversation ever since reading it.

Some regeneration that was.

This is where the techno-commercialists and religious-trads make a mutually beneficial trade. "Social Conservatism Through Free Market R&D." If we can't convince people to be traditional, we can literally build the people who will become the kind we need to get the society we want. You give us your vision for an ideal social equilibrium, we'll solve for the DNA. Custom Sociogenics, Inc. We make your Utopian dreams come true. With Science! Now someone just needs to give me a billion dollars to get my institute started. It's not the kind of thing you can put on Kickstarter.

One central feature of the reactosphere is pursuit of red pill truth, in light of the ocean of lies permeating from the left. For this reason alone, the reactionary position on matters of sex, gender and reproduction must necessarily adhere more closely to that of social conservatives. The content of the left in all of these areas is straight up falsehood: factually incorrect. Let us consider some factual untruths of the left on matters of sex, gender and reproduction: (1) "Your gender is what you want it to be." This is simply false, and I don't see how someone can claim to be a red-piller and accept whole cloth such a transparent fiction. The chromosome for gender was discovered 100 years ago, and it encodes 100 different genes, and we don't even know what they do. The penis and vagina aren't even the primary sex organs, they are the secondary sex organs. The primary sex organs are the testes and ovaries, and nobody even pretends to change those. Gender exists because of reproduction and reproduction is the central thing in the life of any organism. Anyone believing in (1) has no place in the reaction for at least two reasons. First, if they are so easily persuaded when the left weaves such a flimsy web, how can they pursue truth when it is harder to discern. Second, the only reason anybody believes in (1) is because they like thinking the 'hip' thing. Lovely. What a useless 'reactionary'. You have to be awfully eager to please the crowd to disbelieve your own eyes this much. (2) "Homosexuality is strictly innate" Is there any famous star who hasn't changed sexual orientations at least once? I exaggerate, but only a little. Think of Mick Jagger, David Bowie, Madonna, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan... All intensely interested in the opposite sex and all have been gay for stretches of time. I'd be able to name many more if I weren't so disinterested in celebrities. Prison populations seem to switch at will. The prevalence of homosexuality changes dramatically among different eras and even varies among different cohorts at present. A generation ago, male homosexuality was much more prevalent than lesbianism in America. Then came the AIDs scare for the men and lesbianism increasing in hipness for the women and now lesbianism is more common among younger cohorts. Disclaimer: Not saying genes don't matter, they do. But strictly innate homosexuality was not even an idea in recent history until it became a tool for leftist aims. And then it was added to the 'scientific' cannon with zero scientific merit, while twin studies suggest environment matters more. (3) "Gay 'marriage' is just like regular marriage" Human sexual pairing exists because of reproduction, and that is the only feature that remains in the long run. Everyone's actual family tree has mothers paired with fathers going all the way back, and when gays make kids, a man still must find an actual mother and a woman must still find an actual father. I can't imagine a red-piller could ever think that homosexuality is proper biological functioning rather than a biological goof-up. That is not hate. It also must be true that game afficionados or career driven people who have hetero sex but stop impregnation are biological goof-ups, as are men who prefer anal sex with women. If you fail biological prime directive number one, you are not fully healthy from the strict perspective of how science would evaluate the health of any biological organism, absent the emotional baggage. Gays who use artificial techniques have more or less come to terms with their biological malfunction are compensating. (4) "Sex is for fun" Try this: "Food is for fun." Obviously not. Because eating food is so important for the human organism, eating is great fun. Game types might be allies of reactionaries for telling the truth on some subjects, but they can never be proper reactionaries and exhalt childfree sex the way they do. The real historical sexual alphas are almost the opposite of game types. They were the leaders of tribes consisting of their own progeny! Or at least the patriarchs of clans. All of the kings, sultans, tsars and emperors all over the world, the historic alphas, were obsessed with their own bloodlines. Failure to produce an heir was almost the number one defect a king could have. How can a game type pretend to have the love of a woman when she will not have his children? All of the historical alphas would fall out of their thrones with laughter. I'll stop here in the interests of my own time although I have more to say. To summarize, the so-called 'reactionary' who adopts social leftism is swallowing and propagating many blue pill falsehoods on the topics most central to human ecology. And they are doing it for all of the leftist reasons of status-whoring and traditionalist-bashing.

Brin's wife was preparing the ground for that and look what it got her: divorced and regulated. Bad Karma.

In the final analysis, no matter how we may try to finesse the issue, Reaction has to reject the sexual revolution, or it will be destroyed from the inside, the same way "Movement" conservatism was destroyed. If you had told me even ten years ago that a highly popular writer would have been fired from "National Review" for insulting gays, I would have told you that you were nuts - but it happened. As Roissy himself has pointed out, human sexuality is the glue that hold a society together. When you mess with that, you are fiddling with the underpinnings of civilization itself. If Reaction is serious about reconstructing a viable social order, the sexual revolution has to go. That doesn't mean stoning homosexuals and adulterers or anything like it, but it does mean the reimposition of traditional Western Christian norms (many of which are actually pre-Christian). I don't particularly like this, but there is really no alternative. The P.J. O'Rourke program of "I want to roll back everything about the Sixties EXCEPT the sexual revolution" was pretty appealing to me back when I was in my twenties, for obvious reasons, but we now see where that gets us. It's all or nothing, kids. It's all got to go, or else we might just as well all take out subscriptions to NR so we can read about how gay marriage is actually a conservative institution, and how we need to impose it on Ukraine, or something...

A hilarious idea. At least 5-10 years too early, probably.

Nyan Sandwich has an interesting post that is useful for this discussion: http://www.moreright.net/pushback-on-the-purpose-of-reactionaries-and-social-conservatism/ He writes, "I’d offer the following: The main value of Neoreaction is in producing a novel, intelligent, uncompromised, and correct analysis of social and political science that is unafraid to contradict current political fashions and is unafraid to draw on non-contemporary or non-agreeable thought. " But that is just it. If you want to be correct, you have to really be correct. He asks, does it really matter that Justine Tunney is trans? That is not even a question that a reactionary should ask. Justine Tunney is not trans. No human being in history is trans, as mammals cannot biologically change sex. It can't happen. Does it matter that Justine Tunney lies about the reality of his own gender? Sure it does. If you are willing to not be honest on so basic a thing, how can you be trusted to be honest about other things. I stopped by his blog, and was not surprised at all to see an enormous amount of content that is factually incorrect. If neoreaction is foremost about truth-telling then it emphatically does not need tons of half truth tellers. Better to have fewer people that tell the truth all the time. People like Tunney also present a problem: is the fiction of transgenderism now off limits in the neoreaction, so as not to offend that dude? If truth-seeking is your goal, I can learn from smokers and drunkards, players and more. But I can't take seriously someone like Tunney who wraps himself in a lie.

Thanks for this, Spandrell. I've also been wondering about this, and keep a few gay friends around to watch them. Like I posted on nickbsteves' comment thread yesterday, a meaning it must have, or it would not be here. I also want a neoreactionary version of queer theory. Let's start by shocking ourselves and driving the socons away with some short stories. We can start with http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1mj4xt/gallery\_of\_nullos\_people\_who\_voluntarily\_chop\_of/cc9vv7j

Sex is [i]evolved[/i] for reproduction, which doesn't mean sex is not for orgasm. Most animals have sex for beauty/orgasm, reproduction is the side effect. Take away a mouse's capacity for orgasm and it wouldn't do sex. Homo/trans is a imperfection of matching of biologically evolved and psychological sexual role, but imperfection is part of the nature; there is no reason that the psychology developed with any gene and under any environment must match the reproductive organs' role. These worked in nature, but become a problem for human as contraception cancels the reproduction side effect, so the subjective meaning and evolutionarily role of sex are discoupled. Human's complex mind and rich environment make the psychology weight much more, to the point that psychological effect [whose disposition may be partly due to genes] is the dominant force in sexual choice. Psychologically people seek what they lack and need most, we may hypothesis that homo/trans, for whatever reason, feels that their sexual choice fills their psychological need.

Take away a mouse’s capacity for orgasm and it wouldn’t do sex.

Has that been tried? Imperfection is part of nature, but there's a pattern to it. Genetic abnormalities happen all the time, but with a given frequency, not more than 1 in several thousand. And anything that affects the reproductive function is more subject to selective pressures, so genetical abnormalities there should be less. As it is the math says that a genetic explanation for sexual deviancy makes no sense at all. I also don't know that contraception affects the subjective view of sex. If you read Huxley's novels on the British upper class they were all busy fucking each other's wives and daughters, homos doing sodomy and all that stuff. Without contraception, or even antibiotics. Psychologically people want to satisfy their desires, the point is why would a man desire a penis in his mouth, or to become a woman. If for some reason the gender identifying module in the brain is prone to failure, more than, say, the food identifying module or the motor coordination module, we must understand how and why. If it were only about orgasms everybody would be bisexual and open to have sex with animals.

I am old enough to just barely remember the early 1960s, when gay people did not have to be treated as special snowflakes. The issue came up back then, because my uncle and my dad's secretary were gay, and my mother was a painter and thus had a lot of art types come round, a group in which there were a lot of gays. As far as I could tell, the attitude of the adults around me was that homosexuality was a minor character flaw, definitely not something that should or would get you excluded from ordinary society. This is still largely how I view the issue, though I don't go around saying so, since saying homosexuality is a flaw is considered evil. Gays of my age or older who have found a way to thrive in society are often interesting and insightful, since they were forced to deliberate about issues that had pretty good default solutions for heterosexuals. This, along with a deep aesthetic appreciation of people of the same sex, and whatever offbeat brain function it is that causes gays to be overrepresented in the arts, is the plus side of it. The minus side is the greater exposure to disease, at least on the part of male homosexuals, and the obvious dysfunction you see at any Pride event. We owe them our kindness, and we owe ourselves the self-respect of exercising it. A partnership law providing clear property and visitation rights would seem to be in line with this. Political attempts to make homosexuality the equivalent of heterosexuality, on the other hand, seem like social vandalism. The problem is, after all, self-correcting on the generational level.