This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Imagine, if you will, an island of dogs. (No, not the Wes Anderson film Isle of Dogs.) This island is inhabited by three dog breeds: the sleek and meek Shiba Inu, the proud and elegant Borzoi, and the large and aggressive Rottweiler.
This is Year 1 of Dog Island. It doesn’t matter how the three dog breeds arrived to the island, but they’re all there now. The dogs do as dogs do, wandering the island, drinking from streams and killing small prey to stay alive. At first, most of the Shiba Inu breed with the other Shiba Inu, and the Borsoi with the Borsoi, and so on. But our dogs, since they are not redlining segregationists or hardcore Nazi racists, begin to breed with one another. The runts of the Rottweilers and the Borzoi run off to mate with the Shiba Inu. The biggest Shiba Inu girls, lacking an appropriately dominant Shiba mate, run off to get boned by the smallest of the Borzoi or Rottweiler dogs. Before long, the mostly Shiba Inu pack comes to be a mixture of the bulk of the Shiba Inu and some of the smaller members of the Borzoi and Rottweiler packs. The Rottweiler pack eventually becomes a mixture of the largest and most dominant Rottweilers and their Borzoi and Shiba concubines. The Borzoi pack, with their recessive genes, soon become dominated by the beta Rottweiler dogs who are more aggressive than the Borzoi.
Into Years 2 and 3 of dog island, all of the dogs continue to interbreed. Generation 1 is still around, the legacy purebred Shibas and Borzoi and Rottweilers, all surrounded by their interracial progeny. In this situation, the male Shiba Inu and the female Rottweilers are the least attractive mating partners.
Now, why does sex operate this way? It is not downstream of racism or even a socially constructed popularity contest. These are dogs. Instead it is downstream of sex itself. Now I will speak from experience. I am a gay man. I have had sex with a fair number of men. When you are having gay sex, you are assuming either a dominant or submissive position with your partner. This is not only true of anal sex but of oral sex, of frotting, even of kissing or of hugging. One of you is dominating, and one of you is surrendering to the other. When it comes to penetrative anal sex, you must be erect and genuinely attracted to your partner, and most importantly, you must believe you can dominate your partner. It is not that you must understand you have their permission, but you must understand that you have the physical power to dominate your partner. This should turn you on alone. This is the power to procreate. If you do not believe you are bigger than or better than your partner, you can not penetrate them. As a top it is a far easier task to dominate a smaller, younger partner than it is to dominate a larger, older man. Never mind the ridiculous situations that porn depicts- It is a perversion of reality to see a younger smaller man dominate an older one. Similarly it is strange and unnatural to see a male Shiba Inu dominating a female Rottweiler. It is embarrassing for both partners.
You may have already gathered this, but my Dog Island exposition is not really about dogs at all. As much as human nature rages against it, we too are animals bound by physical constraints of reality. The three dominant branches of humanity today can be described in modern American terms as Blacks, Whites, and Asians. (There are other branches of these people, as well as Australian Aboriginals who are usually categorized separately, but for illustrative purposes I am sticking with these three.) Blacks are the original stock of humans who evolved in Africa. Asians branched off from Blacks at a certain point, moving into the Eurasian landmass and heading East. Several thousand years later another migration resulted in Whites who moved West into Europe (as well as South Asians who moved into South Asia.) This is a broad simplification but is my understanding. Both Asians and Whites bred with Neanderthals after migrating out of Africa and most Sub Saharan Africans today still have no Neanderthal DNA in contrast with the rest of the world who do. I mention all this because it is important to understand that the races have been genetically isolated and distinct for many generations. Gemini tells me that modern dog breeds are only 50 to 80 generations apart from each other. 50 generations in human years equates to only 1500 years at the high end. Everyone from casual pet owners to hardcore communist scientists will insist that dog breeds have certain behavioral traits and habits that are hard wired into their beings. (I actually suspect the degree to which dog breeds are said to have certain divergent traits is overestimated by many of these people, and can to some degree be a result of the projection of the observer or their imagination of what different looking dogs seem to be in relation to the observer, but I am not a dog expert so perhaps it’s all accurate.) The human races have far more than 50 generations or 1500 years separation between them, but we are told any behavioral traits or habits of perceived difference between them is purely an environmental product rather than any innate trait developed by natural selection or selective breeding over the years. I am not convinced of this.
Now that I’ve proposed that sex is downstream of biology, I would like to propose that politics are downstream of sex. I can’t help but notice that the immigration opinions of people tend to match their sexual prospects. In crude terms: Large and unappealing women support the immigration of more dominant men into their societies. Smaller and less dominant men support the migration of themselves into populations of smaller and more sexually appealing women.
When you are a young gay man, you do not have the experience of being a dominant male. You have likely spent your whole life under the wing of a father, of grandfathers, of older brothers or cousins, and of older men down the street from you. So it follows, that your experience with sex is likely that you are being dominated by older men, unless you are the type of boy who likes to dominate younger boys, which will just get you in trouble. So you start out in a submissive role with older men. I too had this experience, and until my mid 20s I was somewhat uncomfortable being more dominant with other men, though it would sometimes hurt my ego if I found myself submitting to an unworthy man. Regardless, my politics were broadly aligned with this situation, as I was ambivalent at best regarding immigration into my community. As a white American Midwesterner, I imagine most “foreigners” who might move into my community as Muslims from the Middle East or as Black guys from the other part of my city. As a younger man dominated sexually and socially by older men, an influx of more dominant males wasn’t irritating to me. But ten years later, the thought of more sexually dominant men coming into my community is an irritating prospect that I’d rather avoid. As a younger man if I’d had the foresight to imagine I would ever be in the position to be socially dominant over some portions of the men around me I’d probably be quicker to dislike immigration, but lacking the experience I didn’t imagine the situation I’d find myself in today.
I love reading old fairy tales. One of the most common tropes in these old stories boils down to, basically, telling girls and young women not to hold out or run off to find a suitable partner. That she is better off staying close to home and finding a suitable mate nearby. We may imagine the immigration situation to have arisen in the past 20 years but apparently it’s such a deeply ingrained impulse that medieval storytellers had to weave it into their tales centuries ago. We may spend a lot of time on TheMotte complaining about a certain type of woman- often characterized as a liberal feminist- who is broadly unfriendly toward men around them and more fond of outgroup males. Unfortunately for you, she is behaving rationally. In my experience, she is often the type of woman who is more outspoken and physically larger than many of the men around her. (My sympathies to tall women who are quite feminine but struggle to find suitable men larger than them.) In other words, this type of woman has looked around, found the majority of the men around her unsuitable for her self, and instead of focusing on the 1 or 2 chads who could top her, and who are more likely to screw Snooki down the block than her, seeks- perhaps subconsciously- for more dominant males outside of her group to mate with. So this type of woman is in favor of increasing her pool of suitable mates, and she isn’t a racist, so she’s not looking for 6 foot tall Nordics who are a bit too fey anyway- she wants her own Mamdani next door.
Of course, some of these women are strange dominating women as well. I have a certain bourgeois friend who owns a shop in a city in the USA. The shop is in a very woke hipster part of the town, they have a sort of “toxic niceness” vibe when you go in there. She happens to be about 6 feet tall and wears, I don’t know, a men’s 3XL t-shirt. She is fashionable and presentable but simply a large woman. Her husband is a meek “performative male” a good 6 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter than her. We went on a vacation together one time and I heard her yelling at him in the bedroom. I felt so bad for both of them. It’s nice to imagine a couple like this could be happy but it is so rare in my experience.
There too are men who want to be dominated by women, but I see this as a cope and inversion of their true desires, which is to dominate women, and is borne out of a perception of this being impossible. It could also be evolutionarily advantageous for beta males to imagine themselves dominated by women, as it frees the more dominant men to actually have sexual access to women instead of the beta male.
By the way, does Asian hate exist? In my experience, it really does. The most vocally anti-Asian person I know, was a white guy I knew in college. I’m going to call him Brad. He was a strange person- a gay man, but quite a jock, sort of like a slightly less attractive, stocky Abercrombie model type. I didn’t know he was gay until he told me. He was also very liberal politically. His best friend was a Black woman and he would constantly repeat forced liberal ideals he regurgitated from his grandfather who raised him. Despite his masculine demeanor, he was also a total bottom. In college, we were on a trip to London together, and he immediately met an Italian man a few years older than us, and they immediately became inseparable. Anyway, like I said, this guy is also the most anti-Asian person I’ve ever met. How does this fit with his liberal world view? Imagine the goals and desires of Brad. He wants to be topped by dominant men. So he needs to compete with bottoms. The average trait of an Asian man, compared to the average trait of a white man, is as follows. The Asian man is likely cuter and smarter than the white man. Brad, being a masculine jock, is not very “cute,” so he’s going to lose. He is also not very “smart,” so if your top wants someone with brains, he’s also going to lose. Asian men are also much more discreet and mindful of saving face compared with white people who have a certain habit of stating the quiet part out loud in an obtuse way. Brad, on some level, understands his mating success depends on outcompeting certain types of people, has written off Asian men as unfair competition.
I suspect many races of women have a similar view of Asian women as Brad. Many of the trad larpers on shadier parts of X like to imagine white women as the pinnacle of beauty or screwability but are frankly mistaken. I have spent quite a lot of time in Asia, and every time I do, I am shocked when I see a white woman on the train. After your eye adjusts to Asian women, white women look bizarre, with very large bones, and they really stick out compared to Asian women in an unappealing way. The opposite is true as well, I must say: after spending time in Asia, I am often struck by the handsomeness of any random Middle Eastern or white man I see on the train. It is not that Asian men are unattractive to me at all, on the contrary I am happy to date Asian men and do find them attractive, but they are getting so mogged by every other type of guy that I can’t unnoticed it.
Asia is a bit weird from an evolutionary psychology perspective. Imagine a continent full of petite, beautiful women, and autistic weird nerdy guys and basically no chads. You’d imagine they’d go extinct in a generation, but instead the hot girls all mate with the nerds. Fascinating. I suspect that’s what Western Europe is like too in eras where they’re not being invaded by Sea Peoples. Indeed East Asia seems like the baboon utopia I once read about where all the alpha baboons ate poison trash and died and then they became a peaceful Chad-free society. Why are we importing violent Chads into western society?
That question wasn’t rhetorical. I’ll ask it again: Why are we importing violent Chads into western society? Many people here will probably reject the framing. I’ve had pushback on themotte before from people who insist that anyone Black or brown is not a chad and not a threat and your perfect White face isn’t getting mogged by anyone darker than a swarthy Swede. Sadly you’re wrong! Let’s go back to evopsych to explain.
Look at Aaron Hernandez. He is one of the hottest men to have ever lived in my opinion. I don’t care that he is a murderer, he is beautiful. The fact that he went to prison makes me like him more, if anything. His body is fine and thinking about him smiling at me makes me melt like I’m a schoolboy again. And yet, seeing his brother, DJ Hernandez, broke my brain. He is not more beautiful than Aaron. He is not hotter. He is not even taller than Aaron. And yet, because he is about 15% more masculine than Aaron, my brain tells me I’m supposed to mate with DJ. If I’m a woman and I’m stuck on an island with just Aaron and DJ, I’m mating with DJ. Aaron’s children will be annoying and not want to work, I can just tell. DJ’s children will be tough and dutiful. My procreative intuition tells me this. DJ is mogging Aaron despite everything I love about Aaron. I don’t even like DJ’s looks that much. I could imagine mating with DJ for the kids but staying with Aaron for his beauty and the chaos he’d bring. I am saying this to illustrate how deeply ingrained our reproductive intuitions are and how fundamentally biological they are. My brain can tell me to bone Aaron all day but as soon as I have to consider the hardiness of my children and the propagation of my bloodline I’m picking DJ.
You may think this example is strange, or unrelatable coming from a gay man projecting his feelings onto the mating impulses of a woman. But I believe that all men including straight men are completely aware of this hierarchy of men as well. If you don’t believe me and are a man, go outside and walk around until you see a man. Walk so that you are in his way. Do not cede the ground to him. If he is shorter or weaker than you, he will cede the ground and may even apologize, even though you were the aggressor. If he is taller and bigger than you, see how long you can get in his way before he begins to threaten or get mad at you. I’ll give you about 1.5 seconds. I distinctly remember coming to realize the way this works in about 7th grade, that I suddenly had to be aware of the physical hierarchy of other boys at this age. I don’t know if it was because I suddenly found myself shorter than many other boys my age, whereas I had always been taller earlier in life, or if there is something that changes in the brains of boys at this age, but it became something I had to consciously be aware of. It is so powerful that by a few years later, you forget this entirely and we all submit to the more dominant male subconsciously at all times In order to protect ourselves and keep the peace.
Male awareness of hierarchy is very interesting. I have had a handful of instances where straight men smaller than me have fawned to me in the presence of their girlfriends. This is extremely strange to me and I never know how to take it. I wonder if it is an ingrained sexually eugenic impulse. It is as though they are cucking themselves in the presence of a more dominant male. Once this happened to me on an airplane, when a guy I was sat next to had his girlfriend right next to him. He was a shorter guy who I found really cute, and he was sort of ducking and fawning around me, which is not really that common for me to experience. I thought this must be humiliating for the girlfriend to see your boyfriend doing this to a strange man, but I guess there could be some child preservation instinct on display if you’re good at fawning to more dominant men that you could be better at protecting the child, and projecting a willingness to submit rather than pick fights with a larger man I guess is a strategy. But I don’t understand why the woman wouldn’t simply pick the aggressor to mate with instead of the fawning cuck boyfriend. I have experienced similar situations with female friends’ boyfriends acting the same way, which I can understand slightly better as these female friends were people who respected me as friends and I can see how the boyfriend would want to be seen as friendly toward me, but both times it crossed over into a slight homoerotic vibe that I couldn’t quite understand. (One of them, an immigrant from Western Asia, I later found swiping for men on tinder. I don’t think one should underestimate how many Muslim men who immigrate to Western society are gay, by the way, when considering the immigration patterns of people.)
There seems to be some correlation between diversity of ethnicity and diversity of gender presentation. When I think of the most trans countries on earth, my instinct is to think of Thailand and USA. Interestingly, these are two of the most prominent countries with a less dominant population coexisting with a more dominant male population. Thailand is a very diverse place now, especially Bangkok, where decades of immigration has brought white men, Arabs, Indians, Black men, and so on, all more dominant males compared with the majority Thai (and Chinese) people. America is a once mostly white country, increasingly dominated by nonwhite people. You probably already know that Ladyboys are prominent in Thailand. The last time I was in Thailand, I was riding a ferry near Pattaya, and noticed a woman who I thought was incredibly beautiful. I genuinely thought to myself, that is one of the prettiest women I have seen in ages. She was wearing a bikini and had a very basic Australian boyfriend. After we got off the boat, my boyfriend pointed at that woman, and told me she was a ladyboy. I couldn’t believe it, but he said he noticed a bulge in her pants. I was shocked. I know that many people on the right like to imagine trans women as weird men like Chris Chan, but in my experience most trans women are men who are too small and meek to compete as men, and are better off competing sexually as women. Both boys I grew up with who became trans women were this way. I don’t know why they should be forced to compete as men when they’re better off competing as women. I can even empathize with this impulse, it wasn’t until I was in my 20s that I became more comfortable with my size and masculine traits to be confident enough to use my masculine traits to assert dominance sexually. Regardless, making this type of effeminate boy socialize with men of a more dominant race can only increase the impulse to choose the nuclear option for gaining sex and love: becoming a woman, competing as a woman, rather than facing the humiliation of being a very undesirable man. Perhaps if they were socialized only with men of the same race, or men of a smaller race, they’d see no need to transition to women at all.
By the way, I don’t think that being trans is or should be a left wing phenomenon. On the contrary, when I look at beautiful trans women like Andreja Pejic, or even very effeminate androgynous people like Jeffrey Star, I feel what they’re going for is much more akin to a King Ludwig II or Henry Ford or Kanye West or other great men of history, and in fact the entire “trans movement” of the 2010s was essentially leftists trying to harness the energy and power of effective great men of transgenderism and gender diversion into the insular and unproductive world of leftist politics. People like Arca intrinsically have a massive power on society thanks to their gender diversion, and the left could not leave that power unchallenged, lest it be used against them, and so made an incredible noise of adopting it for themselves. (They did the classical Narnia Witch thing of promising them rooms full of Turkish delight while bringing them nothing but a huge amount of fatigue from the general public and a weird coddling from condescending women and the healthcare industry.)
Anyway, the masculinity or femininity of races is consequential, is what I am trying to say. You may believe white genes are superior but nature doesn’t even think white genes are superior. Blue eyes, blond hair, white skin, these are all recessive traits! They are helpful in extreme polar environments with cold climates, but not even necessary (see Native Alaskans for example.) White genes may be appealing when women display them, and if anything it is good for the ego to believe that your whiteness is a good thing, but that’s because you are elevating weakness in the face of the uncaring and tortuous reality of nature.
Speaking of elevating weakness in the face of the uncaring and tortuous reality of nature: What is society? What is the purpose of having something we humans create as an alternative to nature? Imagine we are all nomadic Mongolians on the Steppe. Every day we are faced with challenges from nature: The changing of the seasons, the fluctuations of weather, sickness in the herds, attacks from foreigners, reproductive difficulties, impending death, you could go on and on. Inside the ger (tent), however, we have peace. We have remedies for every challenge in nature: We have calendars to consider and plan around the weather fluctuations and seasonal changes, we have medicine and quarantine from sickness, we have weapons to protect ourselves from foreign tribes, we have chants and folk ways to deal with social problems. In other words, the social world inside of the ger exists to bring us comfort and safety from the outside world of chaos. Imagine how quickly the peace of the ger breaks down when we begin to bring in the outside world of chaos. The calendar is thrown away, we’re at the mercy of the seasons and the weather. The medicine goes bad, we are at the mercy of sickness again. The weapons break and aren’t replaced and the girls want to breed with the foreign tribes. Chaos reigns.
Modern society today is not unlike the world of the ger for the Mongolian nomads. What is culture but a reaction against the horrors of nature? Isn’t every social construct ultimately a luxury provided against the things that can hurt us? What happens when we begin to misidentify threats and instead invite them in? Chaos reigns.
Why does this happen? Why can’t we respect the constructions of man in the face of the horrors of nature? The answer is simple: human arrogance.
Explaining arrogance to modern Western people is like explaining water to a fish. It is so ubiquitous that most people are unaware of it in themselves and even when they encounter it in others. Ancient myths and legends are so full of cautionary tales against arrogance, which we repeat with an air of understanding, then act as arrogantly as if we hadn’t read them at all. And yet humility is the most important quality needed to protect ourselves and society. Arrogance leads us to see foreign threats as no problem at all. Arrogance invites unconquerable problems into the ger. Arrogance is also a profoundly white trait. There are nearly no Asian countries today with the arrogance to invite millions of dominant males into their societies. White countries today can’t do anything else. It is white arrogance that declares everyone a universal equal, while believing themselves universally superior in secret.
If you are unconvinced of the whiteness of arrogance, or of the arrogance of whiteness, just look at any “fish out of water” tale of the past 50 years, from Piper in Orange is the New Black to Timothy Chalamet in Dune. Inevitably, the white hero encounters poor brown people who immediately chide them on their arrogance and entitlement. Never mind that the brown and black people are often as arrogant as our white heroes, it is only the white person who must struggle with overcoming it.
Despite the decades of denazification within our hearts, white people still see ourselves as the most superior people on the planet. I have come to believe this from a sort of reverse logic of the modern western framing. Since, as I explained, society is a refuge from the overwhelming power of nature, that intrinsically puts the weak at the top of the hierarchy as an opposing force of nature itself. That is, we humans in nature are weak and at mercy of the elements and things outside of our control, but to invert that is to create society. And so within society, according to western though, we must continue to invert the power structure, so that women are more righteous than men, so that children are more protected than women, and that the weak and the infirm are the most sacred people as they are symbols of both our inversion of and power over nature, and our great moral righteousness to put the lesser above the superior. There is no righteousness in putting the strong over the weak- this is barbaric at best. And so, when we must elevate Black voices, when we must hear the experiences of marginalized communities, when we must prostrate ourselves in Kente cloths like Nancy Pelosi, what we are doing is asserting the underlying natural superiority of White people over everyone else. We are doing the fundamentally Christian act of elevating the weak over the strong.
This is the very problem. The arrogance of white people to assert themselves as superior to black people. This is white supremacy. This is borne out of a rigidity of thinking and an inability to imagine a world outside of the ger where the truly powerful reign supreme. It is this shortness of insight into humanity that leads white leaders to be entirely confident in their recognition of Black and brown experiences. These are the beliefs of people who see themselves above nature, rather than subject to it, who believe they can rewrite the fundamentals of interpersonal society because they read critical theory and have had to see the very real suffering of Black and brown homeless and impoverished people on their urban rides to their positions of power. You insulate yourself from nature at the risk of inviting nature in to destroy your insulation. Society rots from the inside out.
Another way to frame the inversion of the dominancy hierarchy I mentioned above is that of class. Class, unfortunately, is evil. It is an illusion of arrogance that we believe we can be better than nature. We are not better than nature, we are a part of nature. The most powerful movie I have ever watched is called The Tale of the Princess Kaguya. It is a Studio Ghibli film from 2013. The story is about an elderly couple who have no children of their own. One day the man finds a tiny baby while cutting down bamboo. He takes the baby home to his wife, and the baby quickly grows up. The baby is a gift from deities who live on the moon. The deities send them gold and treasures to pamper the baby. They are gifted with so much money that the father has a grand palace built in the capital. The baby has grown into a young girl who enjoys playing with neighbor boys and being in nature. The whole family is happy. The father, in his good intentions, wants to give his family a better life, one better than what nature can provide alone, so they all move to the capital. From this point on, the girl is beaten down and indoctrinated into the ways of society. She is made up in the ugly fashions of the time, given a proper education, and lives like royalty. She also stops growing at this point, and the whole family becomes melancholy. She is humiliated at a coming of age party by someone of a higher class. There is a dream sequence where she runs out into nature, sheds her clothing, and cries out in horror at what’s happened to her. Before long, she is called to return to the moon, and the deities come back to retrieve her. Everyone is sad. The tragedy is that her father’s best intentions ruined the peace and comfort that nature had afforded them. It is his arrogance that led to their downfall.
——————————
When I think of the most unequal places on earth, I think of hideous New Delhi, corrupt Manila, and the slave-built skyscrapers next to shanty towns of Dubai. Postwar era Japan and 1950s America are so well loved and functional because of the inherent dignity and equality among people. I am broadly very right wing but the thing that disturbs me the most among right wing people today is the impulse to assert class privilege as a good thing. Some people are better than others, they insist! But this is bringing the horror of nature into the ger. The only righteous ideal to strive for, truly, is equality, but it is tricky to get this right. We must treat people with equality and dignity that they deserve. It truly is good to care for the weak and elevate their needs when it can be done without hurting the rest of society. It is not good to do so when it leads to the suffering of others. There must also be the understanding and acknowledgment that things are being done as they are out of a sacrifice of the powerful to the benefit of the weak, and never take the sacrifice of the powerful for granted.
Since I pointed out earlier, that all politics are downstream from sexual selection and mate selection, I can continue this strain of thought to explain communism. There are two types of communists from my experience. The first is the beta male who believes communism will afford him an equal opportunity to have sex with a woman by adopting female positions in politics. The second is the alpha male who believes he is a beta male who needs to use communism to afford himself an equal opportunity to have sex with a woman by adopting female positions in politics. The first type is an idiot because as soon as communism is tried in sex, it fails. The second type is an idiot because he is suffering a humiliation ritual he could opt out of for a more gratifying experience which is to dominate women as a man with his own beliefs rather than to dominate women as a man with insincere beliefs. The second man may succeed with a woman but it is on false pretenses, he is misunderstanding the conditions of his success with this woman, and invariably she grows to resent him.
The underlying promise of communism is that if everyone is equal, we can all have sex with whoever we want, because the least dominant man is as good as the most dominant man. Unfortunately, even the most communist woman alive is extremely sexually selective and will not choose to mate with a man in a lower class than what they believe they can get. Many women will choose not to procreate if they can not find a suitable mate. Communism is kinder to women among women, who have less variance across their own population, and for whom equality is more rewarded. They push for equality because it benefits them, but once it is applied to men, they suddenly despise the idea. This is why men should not be communists: because you can treat every man the same in principle but a communism of male sex is impossible.
However, there is a way that a kind of sexual communism is possible. If we were all living in medieval style villages, where all the men around us came from the same stock and looked just like we did, and there were not foreign and exotic bands of men from far away, we would all have a certain life path for ourselves. We start out as boys, the older men help us grow and become men, we replace the men, we retire satisfied as old men eventually. There is an understanding that we may not be one of the most dominant males right now, but if we lead good healthy lives we can eventually rise to that position. Modern society floods our immediate environment with men who are impossibly more dominant than we are, we see them and know we can never be a better mate than they are, and we are left with despair and malaise.
Ideally, every man should have a small group that he is able to dominate. Modern society pushes us into giant groups of people, of millions. When you have a group of 10 people, there is one most dominant male. When you have a group of 100 people, there is only one most dominant male. When you have a group of 8 billion people, there is only one most dominant male. During covid, I stayed in a suburban area for about 2 years. Finally, I was able to leave the country, and I went to London. I had been to London a handful of times before, as a younger man, but this time, the experience on the airplane and being in London was such a disorienting and dystopic experience for me. When I was in my suburban setting during lockdowns, I didn’t have to worry about very many other people, and the ones I did were people I saw often- my family and neighbors. Suddenly at the airport and in the city, I was surrounded by dominant men, but dominant men who all acted subverted by the world around them. It was as though the presence of millions of other larger men were subverting the domination of every man I saw including myself. To have seen a taller stronger man acting weaker and submissive broke my spirit and my hope of being a powerful man myself.
Now, because I dislike meandering tomes that point to problems and offer no solutions, and because things like that often invite the reader to imagine solutions the writer implied but did not enunciate, I will try to offer some prescriptive measures for the state of things. I do not think we can solve any problem until it is correctly diagnosed, so the most important thing to do is to openly and honestly discuss things and to get a clear and grounded understanding of reality. This should be an understanding that works across disciplines from evolution and biology to philosophy and history. Class often acts as a barrier to description- it is not very Chanel to talk about race or how Black men are cucking you out all the time. I am not proposing a genocide on our Isle of Dogs, I think that would be a tragic solution. I think any solution that involves lying to people is doomed to failure. I believe we can explain anything to any person when it’s done from a place of love- for those close to us and for those far from us. We must also love ourselves enough to quit lying to ourselves.
Ultimately, the point I am trying to make is that we are not above nature and that we are part of it. To believe anything else is hubris and arrogance and invites evil every time. We insulate ourselves from reality to our own detriment. Throughout history, aesthetics change, but the fundamentals of nature never do. We can learn from this or suffer the same fates as every other failed society.
I’ll leave aside most of this, but I’m curious. You describe gay sex almost like the top/bottom role is something that varies through life - so like, as a young twink, you were a bottom, then you became a top, then maybe in old age, you become a bottom again if you can get some younger, stronger man to fuck you? I suppose this maps to a kind of Ancient Greek or Russian military understanding of homosexuality among predominantly bisexual men in strict hierarchical male environments, but that isn’t a universal thing.
But most gay men aren’t vers, many stick with a sexual role through their lives. Take some very wealthy old gay man who has topped through his life, is he really suddenly going to get his hired men to fuck him in his twilight years? That seems…unlikely? Maybe not! I don’t know. Similarly, it’s not uncommon for aging twinks to hit the gym, get ripped, whatever to remain sexually attractive, but do they stop being bottoms? Again, I’m not sure. I doubt it, at least for many of them. If anything, a lot of the anguish for aging twinks seems to be precisely about the fact that they don’t want to top, if they did then being a hot 40 year old masculine male would be just fine.
More generally, you seem to have that very wistful, romantic view of male sexuality, camaraderie and competition which is common to almost all intelligent gay men on the right (Mishima etc). But is this a unique insight, or motivated reasoning?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link