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.

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 […]

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Also worth noting is that there are a wide variety of hypotheses about the etiology of homosexuality. One of the most plausible is Greg Cochran's germ theory, which, if confirmed - and if there's a way of preventing exposure to the germ - will end non-volitional homosexuality in a single generation. Some men will still want to put penises in their mouths, of course. Why? I refer you to an old joke: Q: Do does a dog lick his balls? A: Because he can.

Infact you had combined the entirety of NRx into "less ought, more is" when you described it as an 'analysis movement' and I entirely agree. There's so much to find out, analyze and process. Those who want to create political parties are free to do so.

Social traditionalism as it speaks on men and women and their proper relation may be unhip but progressives have little to offer on this front. Liberals everywhere utterly fail to replace themselves. Gay 'marriage' is a reflection of the fact that marriage, far from being outdated, is utterly critical to success for most people and people want to emulate it. Similarly, belief in religion and an afterlife may be unhip, but atheists have nothing very comforting to say at any juncture in a person's life. Thus, on the two major fronts of social conservatism, (a) sex and family and (b) imbuing life with meaning and hope, liberalism is almost a no-show. Social conservatism is totally victorious from an evolutionary perspective. That is to say, those bloodlines and civilizations that adhere to it simply replace those that do not. Evolution could care less about the monumental achievements of Europeans. If they throw out social conservatism, they are out. If Africans, with far less worldly achievement, manage to hold onto social conservatism, they win. Social conservatism wins. I say that without a smile on my face. I'd rather it were true that Europeans win, as I am a member of that tribe. I expect that before too many decades have passed, Europeans will get tired of losing.

[…] “losers” of the genetic lottery and I will never be able to see their mere existence as avoidable given the mechanisms of biology and there is no risk of increase in their numbers since they do […]

[…] to happen. MLP is a strong independent modern woman, and her second in command is a non-Milo-ish homosexual. So these two are just not cut out for what lies on the […]

[…] miss Spandrell’s curmudgeonly Modest Proposal on what to do about sexual deviancy: Study it. (And stop talking about […]