Leadership, Submission, and the Neoreactionary Social Order

The two terms which best describe our Modernist-Liberal age are ‘rebellion’ and ‘inversion’; the most obvious example of this is the breakdown of healthy sexual relationships, thanks to the rejection of traditional values, not just by society, but also by many of the churches; Dalrock and Sunshine Mary explore this thoroughly.  But as important as sex is (not only does it perpetuate the species, it’s also our number one raison d’être, after all) our inversions and rebellions go far deeper than just the advocacy of feminism and promiscuity.  In fact, the foundational mythos of our civilization has become an over-turning of natural law and the natural order of things, and by this point in history it has us circling the drain.

Let’s start with the microcosm of marriage.

The natural, neoreactionary, and Christian prescription for marriage can be summed up by: “Husbands, love your wives; wives, submit to your husbands.” This is how you make a marriage work, and ensure that both parties are as happy and healthy as possible.  But that word ‘submission’… it fills us with a visceral aversion, doesn’t it?  Despite it being the accepted wisdom for thousands of years.

So much aversion, in fact, that your typical TradCon or Churchian Preacher – despite claiming to support traditional ways – finds themself unable to embrace what the Bible actually says.  They wind up reflexively inverting it.  Sometimes they get the roles completely backwards, telling wives that they need to lead their husbands; this completely ignores human nature.  A woman’s natural instinct is to seek out a man who can be strong and protective of her and her offspring, a man who’s naturally dominant; for her to want to dominate a lesser man speaks of deep-seated emotional issues.  A male, meanwhile, who doesn’t demand respect is likewise a twisted up little creature, revelling in his own debasement, while secretly resenting his betters.

Female-headed households are black pits of mutual- and self-abuse.

Other TradCons and Churchians don’t go quite so far, but they still get the equation backwards; they demand that their congregations “Man Up!” and earn the leadership role; they take all of the modern female misbehaviour, and drop it at the doorsteps of the men in the congregation.  Often they conflate the Cads with the Dads (hint: if they’re listening to your sermon, they’re not one of the Cads), but even when they’re speaking exclusively to the Dads, the lesson is inverted: the Bible doesn’t say that men need to lead their wives it says that women need to submit so that the men can lead them.

Let’s take a break from marriage for a moment, and consider the Principles of Leadership:

7. Develop the leadership potential of your followers. A corollary to this, is that to be a good leader you must be a good subordinate. Leadership is all about keeping the Green Machine (or in your case, the Blue Machine) oiled and working. It’s not some sort of messianic practice – Leadership is about being the best damn soldier you can be. Peons are the worst possible subordinates to have – you want thinking, intelligent, creative and responsible people under you. You want leaders.

For any organization to operate effectively, subordinates need to have faith in their leaders; they need to show submission to the hierarchy.  As expressed in the above quote, this doesn’t mean unquestioning obedience; quite the opposite.  It means thinking, questioning obedience.  The best subordinate you could hope for is one who knows your failings, and helps to cover for them, one who stays faithful to you and the mission, one who doesn’t use every little mistake as an excuse to start in-fighting.

Good subordinates are becoming increasingly hard to find.

The progressive celebration of rebellion subverts true leadership; rather than military service being every man’s duty to Queen and Country, the military is the home of the brainwashed baby-killers.  In 1961 Kennedy tried to remind the world, “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Today that sounds downright totalitarian.  In 1970, Clint Eastwood disobeyed his lawful commander, but could trust on the loyalty of his subordinates in the film Kelly’s Heroes; today, you play a modern war shooter, and the Secret Villain is your own General.

Progressives just keep progressing, I guess.

Authority is a chain, with love and care going down, and trust and respect going up; at least, that’s how it’s supposed to be.  We live in an inverted age, after all.

A mother demands obedience from her children, which she earns through obedience to her husband, who himself earns it through obedience to a higher calling.  Rather than weakness, a woman’s submission is a display of womanly strength; she recognizes that the marriage and the family are bigger than herself, that her husband is likewise making sacrifices in consideration of her – loving her when she’s irrational, just as she loves their children when they’re bratty.  If – after discussion and consideration – the husband still puts his foot down, and says no to something she was arguing for, she will display the strength of character to bite her tongue and trust in him.

And later, if she’s proven right, she’ll resist the urge to say “I told you so”; she has the wisdom to know that even imperfect leadership is better than the alternative.

The locus of power has moved away from strength, however, it’s now allied with weakness: children no longer need to be obedient, they now have rights.  Wives no longer have duties, they have entitlements.  Men no longer have obligations, they have ‘freedom.’ And the result of all of this?  A positive feedback loop, spinning out of control.

As I wrote about the necessity of obedience and submission earlier, I could hear the questions in my head: “Wait, didn’t the Liberals demand self-sacrifice and obedience to Obamacare?” and “But surely, Clint Eastwood was in the right to rebel against that incompetent officer…” and “Haven’t you yourself said that modern companies don’t deserve loyalty?” This is all true, and it proves my point: rebellion and inversion don’t remove the power structure – they just replace it.

You simply can’t get rid of structure and hierarchy; all you can do is make them ugly.  As I described in my video The Corporate Boyfriend, “Woman, you shall be ruled over by a man,” isn’t prescriptive, it’s descriptive.  It’s in women’s nature to be ruled, and if isn’t a loving husband, it’s going to be something else.

In traditional society Women are called on to submit to their husbands, because that’s what’s required for the husband to lead: he can’t be the one to make the first venture, not the way the TradCons would have it.  A rebellious woman is un-leadable, and she makes herself unloveable.  The Alpha Male who could dominate her wouldn’t; he has other options.  She still wants to be dominated, but she won’t allow an ordinary man to dominate her: where does she end up?

She winds up with the Omega Sexual Degenerate: the Cad, the Player, the PUA.  The travelling salesman, or the exploitative CEO.  To her own chagrin, she eventually realizes that she’s being used, and blames it on the man who used her. “Surely,” she writes in the Huffington Post, “Isn’t this just further proof that men are abusive?  Isn’t this just further proof that we need freedom to divorce?  All the men I’ve met are the problem, so surely the problem is men?”

My honey, you shut yourself off from all of the Good Men long ago.

Don’t be too quick to laugh at her, though, for the rest of us are no different: in rejecting the whole notion of authority we’ve left ourselves wide-open to the exact same form of shysterdom. “This leader isn’t perfect,” we say, “so I refuse to follow him.” We put heroes under the microscope, and magnify each of their failings. “Arnold Schwarzenegger?  Bah, he cheated on his wife; plus, he’s just an actor.” No heroes, then, so we’re free to be degenerates – but we still crave a hero, don’t we?

And that’s when he strolls in: the shyster with the slicked-back hair.  The preacher with an impeccable track record.  The Narcissist who pulls you into his psychodrama, whom you worship as a God… only to find out that he’s a Fallen Angel.

This is where we wind up, folks, when you turn against hierarchy, when you denigrate submission, when you become a perpetual iconoclast and rebel: we wind up as a bunch of crabs in a bucket, pulling each other down.  Hierarchy still exists, as do abuses of power, but now there’s no Hope or Beauty left: we’re all ugly, we’re all evil, we’re all freaks in the freak kingdom.  The modernists tried to destroy power-imbalances and make everybody equal, but it turns out that some people are more equal than others.

We used to have a hardworking farmer.  All we have now is a pig in a top-hat.

I’m pretty sure this is what Paul meant when he said that “The wages of sin are death.”

 

Share Button

Davis M.J. Aurini

Trained as a Historian at McMaster University, and as an Infantry soldier in the Canadian Forces, I'm a Scholar, Author, Film Maker, and a God fearing Catholic, who loves women for their illogical nature.

You may also like...

31 Responses

  1. “…the Bible doesn’t say that men need to lead their wives it says that women need to submit so that the men can lead them.”

    This has made me question the wording in a recent post of mine. Another fine read.

  2. Aurini says:

    Without a doubt, men really need to shape up these days and untie their mothers’ apron strings – but if I meet a woman who isn’t willing to be submissive as a principle, she’s nothing but a one night stand in my eyes.

  3. Rachael says:

    Female lead house holds are not just pits of mutual and self abuse they are utter chaos and a breeding ground for unhealthy behaviors, which compounds. All these post-modern ideals are based off of pure emotion and do not work in reality as is easy to see logically. It is hard for women to get over their socially tainted versions of pride and selfishness to work towards what is best for the family unit. In the end though it ends up better for them as well. You did a very good job of pointing out that women push away the possibilities of this type of healthy dynamic and then blame “patriarchy” once again when they end up with deviants who want to conquer them instead of submitting to a good patriarchal figure who is the best fit.

  4. Rachael says:

    You got right to the core of the problem and hit it dead on… “The locus of power has moved away from strength, however, it’s now allied with weakness: children no longer need to be obedient, they now have rights. Wives no longer have duties, they have entitlements. Men no longer have obligations, they have ‘freedom.’ And the result of all of this? A positive feedback loop, spinning out of control.”

  5. Aurini says:

    Stingray has a post on a very similar topic here: http://verusconditio.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/it-comes-down-to-trust/

    “5. Make sure that your followers know your meaning and intent, then lead them to the accomplishment of the mission.”

    Subordinates must know the overall mission and objectives, but that doesn’t mean orders come with explanations.

  6. Glenfilthie says:

    What you are talking about are rules to live by – and the first thing stupid people will do is point out the exceptions and think they can be the exception too.

    To wit: homosexuality – younger men are indoctrinated that homosexuality is a valid, alternative lifestyle that should be tolerated. Hell, I used to think that way myself until they started getting militant. Then my own daughter ‘came out’. The closer I looked at these people, the more I saw that the majority are angry, marginal, unhappy people. Sure, there were the exceptions – but they WERE exceptions. For the vast majority of us homosexuality will not and cannot work for us. It definitely isn’t for my daughter, but feminism and political correctness demand that nobody state the obvious. I now have earned the wrath of many because I am no longer silent either; I think homosexuality is unhealthy and promotes unhappiness. Ditto for feminism, promiscuity, and divorce.

    Classical marriage is a far better deal for most people than the alternatives.

  7. Sean says:

    Since the topic has come around to homosexuality, I think it’s a good time to interject. In my experience, most of the gay people I have met who are unhappy subscribe to the feminist/progressive victim narrative. I have literally talked to gay men who ask me, “Aren’t you afraid to walk out of the house?” If you think that everyday activities are going to end with you getting gay-bashed, your personality is obviously going to be crappy. Gays who reject the feminist/progressive victim narrative, like myself, are much happier and more grounded.

    Tying in to the subject of the post, male/male relationships that follow a leader/subordinate dynamic seem to be more stable and happier than male/male relationships that follow other dynamics. I think this is because men are inherently hierarchical creatures. The thing about leadership elevating subordinates reminded me of the Coach/jock relationship dynamic: the “Coach” is the leader in the relationship and helps the “jock” to physically better himself and to mentally and emotionally mature. I have seen incredible transformations in guys who enter relationships of this nature: going for tactless fat slobs to true gentlemen with amazing physiques.

    I think part of the reason why male homosexuality is viewed so negatively by some is, ironically, because of the liberal vilification of “submission.” Men do it naturally with each other all the time, but have unconsciously adopted the liberal “sexual submission is evil” idea.

    On a side note, what rank (Alpha, Beta, etc.) would you assign to a man who does not actively seek leadership and prefers to be a follower, but is frequently given leadership positions and steps in to fill leadership vacuums when he does not see a more competent candidate?

  8. Shenpen says:

    Dear Aurini, this is a very good post, but like almost every traditional Christians I know (like the wise fellows at the Orthosphere), you somehow ignore the psychological reasons behind this kind of emotional NEED to destroy authority and fear obedience and submission.

    A Buddhist would call this simply a “big ego”, and a psychologist would call it probably Narcissism. I am not sure what is really the proper term for this, but you folks really need to focus more on it!

    Let’s call this personality disorder or psychological problem now as a working project name, not a final name, the problem of The Egalitarian Personality. (This is a bit tongue-in-cheek to the infamous The Authoritarian Personality book.)

    So I propose let’s invest some work into researching The Egalitarian Personality – where it comes from, what are the signs, how it affects people in everyday life etc. etc.

  9. patriarchal landmine says:

    every area of modern life is hostile to men. feminism, feminist laws, tradcons and their laws, non-feminist women, some “moderates” and pretty much every stripe of politician.

    the best option is to not get involved.

  10. sunshinemary says:

    Excellent job tying together how the breakdown of the natural hierarchy of authority in marriage mirrors the breakdown of obedience to proper authority in society.

    O/T
    Mr. Aurini, I’d like to add you to my blogroll, if you don’t mind. I’m trying to decide how to categorize your site – would you fit best under Neoreactionary – Christian or Neoreactionary – Secular?

  11. Sean says:

    Sunshine, I would categorize Davis according to his religious views. Which, unless I am mistaken, is Nonreligious. Granted, he does have such a good understanding of traditional Christian morality and theology that one could be forgiven for thinking he is Christian. It really is a pleasure hearing a thinking atheist offer his take on Christianity. It has really opened my eyes to some things that I, a former Catholic, had never noticed before.

  12. Davis, for an atheist, you have one of the best grasps of theology I’ve seen. That’s probably because your other disciplines allow you to make it practical rather than devotional. Great post.

  13. Aurini says:

    Secular; when I look at religion, it’s from an outsider’s perspective, which is part of the reason why I’m able notice aspects which are too close for somebody within the religion.

    But for that matter, small-s secular. For one thing, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem demands an impossible answer, as does Koanic Soul’s Philosophical Proof of the Supernatural (well, not *his* proof, but he’s the one who introduced me to is): http://www.koanicsoul.com/blog/mathematical-proof-that-the-supernatural-exists/may-19th-2012-archive-of-mathematical-proof-that-the-supernatural-exists/

    I find it more than a little irritating when Atheistkult raises up modern rule-of-thumb assumptions to an “Ideology”, or when Skeptics pat themselves on the back for Debunking! some silly belief system. Taking on the frauds is one thing, and some of the California Woo winds up being physically dangerous, but a majority of it is – at worst – a bunch of placebos mixed in with the occasional Vitamin C pill.

    Atheistkultists and “Bible Thumpers” – the sort of people who want to shout at anybody making the slightest canonical misstep – are both missing the point in the exact same way.

    I’m essentially of the opinion that the Bible is the best historical record we have of the ancient past, and it’s full of timeless wisdom, wisdom which hasn’t changed with cell phones and science (science being the direct result of a belief in a loving and consistent God – a God who wants us to understand his created world, one created on natural law – but I digress). I’m also open to the fact that the world is potentially *much* weirder than we think it is, and I strongly suspect (though I’m not able to prove) that the higher-level patterns which occur in mathematically complex systems are more than just accidents.

    Treating the question “Does the mind arise solely from the physical processes in the brain?” as a binary Yes/No misses the point, in my opinion.

    Heh, I’m a determinist who believes in free will, and I see no contradiction with that.

  14. Aurini says:

    @Glenfilthie & @Sean

    There seems to be a distinct group of homosexual men whom you never notice; they aren’t the ones showing up at Gay Pride (ironically because they actually have some Pride and self-respect), and unless you know what you’re looking for they’re incredibly hard to identify; they blend in with normal people, and don’t act like satyrs 24/7.

    They also seem to be realists – taming the male urge to promiscuity and avoiding the Bath House culture, more or less, they actually seem to be able to form emotionally healthy long-term relationships – they’re the ones who *could* get married, but generally don’t support gay marriage (though I do think that some sort of Civil Union would be a good idea, for the purpose of bedside hospital-visitation and property inheritance).

    Because they’re so off the radar, though, I have no idea what’s going on with them.

    The GLBT movement tends to scream mental illness, however. Sexuality is somewhat plastic – more so in women, but plastic in men, as well – and childhood abuse combined with pro-GLBT ideology can warp a young man. The “Freak and Harries, Dykes and Fairies” you see screaming the loudest are almost certainly the sufferers of childhood abuse, fallen into a co-dependence movement which only exacerbates this.

    This is an extremely interesting study on transexualism: http://couragerc.net/Transsexual_Issues/Sex_Reassignment.pdf

    Oh, and this comic is absolutely hilarious (it’s a bit strawman, but you notice that the homosexual in it reacts with a very masculine sort of anger, not a mincing whine?): http://imgur.com/Fh6Wkjq

  15. Sean says:

    Wow, Davis. You’re description of the “invisible gay man” is me to a tee. Every person I have ever come out to (and it’s been precious few) have all had a “never seen that one coming” reaction.

    Speaking to our cultural and political status, I have no idea. Some of us have probably been co-opted into the GLBT movement, but the majority of us are probably silent, even with other gays. The reason is because we don’t fit the narrative: the pop singer adoration, the fashion consciousness, the cattiness, the promiscuity; all have been canonized as intrinsic attributes of the “gay lifestyle.” Declaring yourself “masculine” or “straight-acting” gets you mocked and ostracized as self-loathing.

    I can say for certain that we really have no organization. Jack Donovan is the closest thing we have to a leader, and he has stated that he doesn’t really discuss homosexuality anymore because his own orientation distracts from his message. If there was a way for us to organize, maybe we could mount a serious challenge to the GLBT machine. But it would be a matter of getting guys who are too scared or too private or whatever to go public. And there would be a whole lot of stupid coming at us from all sides.

  16. Aurini says:

    A buddy of mine started attending a gym a while back, and after a couple of months he suddenly realized that it was the “gay gym,” full of folks like yourself, Sean. He still attends, never has any problems.

    (I think a lot of the homo”phobic” anger has to do with the GLBT guys who think it’s perfectly fine for them to sexually harass guys.)

    Here in Calgary I’ve heard that there is a bit of a gay mafia – formed by the decent gay men, not the GLBTs. An informal favour-trading network. I think it’s because we’re socially liberal/Libertarian, but economically conservative – this is a working province. Nobody cares about sexuality, but there’s a lot of disdain towards parasites.

    As the economy worstens, however, we’re having more lefties from the east- and west-coasts move here, and start spreading their SWPL garbage and poor driving habits.

  17. will says:

    Its funny that in the era when homosexuality was stigmatized and before the inception of the LGBT movement. None of the homosexual men engaged in anal sex. Because it was too much like treating one of the partners like a woman.

  18. Sean says:

    Yes, it is interesting the increase in the prevalence of anal intercourse among homosexuals. Granted, there has also been an increase in anal intercourse among heterosexuals, so I chalk it up to better hygiene techniques and safety measures.

    I honestly think the “no lying with men as with women” bit in the Bible originated as a specific prohibition against male-male anal sex, which, considering how risky it can be even today, must have been particularly hazardous when the Torah was written. Most of the prohibitions in the Torah that are not legal are hygienic: male-male relations in the Bronze Age would have been messy and hazardous, surely. Just as with eating pork and sea food: trichinosis and dinoflagellates, anyone?

    While 60-70% of gay men polled report engaging in anal intercourse, these men report having anal intercourse in only 30-40% of their sexual encounters. So it is prevalent, but not frequent. And is it any wonder, when oral sex and frottage are much easier (and medically safer) to do?

    There is a big stigma on “no anal” gays, mostly because anal sex is seen as “part of the package.” On gay cruising sites, you are either “top,” “bottom,” or “versatile.” There is no “no anal” option. Ironically, the GLBTs are as obsessed with its members’ sexual practices as the straw man Christian denominations GLBTs hate. There are some groups of homosexual men (they are typically “invisible gays” who dislike the word “gay” for its connotations and associations) who flat-out refuse to engage in anal sex. They tend to be isolated and a little high-strung, but considering who they are rebelling against, wouldn’t you be the same way?

  19. will says:

    “Yes, it is interesting the increase in the prevalence of anal intercourse among homosexuals. Granted, there has also been an increase in anal intercourse among heterosexuals”

    I see this as evidence of the increasing degeneracy of modern heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.

    “They tend to be isolated and a little high-strung, but considering who they are rebelling against, wouldn’t you be the same way?”

    Please elaborate.

  20. Sean says:

    Gay men who completely avoid anal sex only make up something like 16% of the gay male population. Hence, their isolation: they are few and far between. The high-strung temperament is extrapolated from sites that advocate frottage: long and rambling paragraphs, very passionate language, constant vilification of both the “buttphuckers” and the “fundamentalists.” Very desperate and angry.

    One of these sites even goes so far as to suggest that, in order to restore Grecian-style pederasty (Grecian sexual mores are the basis of their sexual standards), relations between boys who are 14-17 and men who are 18-24 should be perfectly normal. I don’t know about you guys, but the thought of a 14-year old and a 24-year old really gives me bad feelings.

    Frot has gained more acceptance among gays, but I don’t know if it is going to become the norm for male sexual activity. And with people like this advocating it, I’m not sure if it should.

  21. will says:

    @Sean

    I agree. Do you have any solutions? Or are you going to enjoy the decline?

  22. Sean says:

    @ will

    Please clarify. How do you agree, and by “solutions,” what is the problem?

    I think the concept of frottage itself is great: it’s easy and painless, it is one the safest sexual acts in regards to HIV, and from what I’ve heard, it feels great. The problem comes from some of its proponents and their ulterior motives. A lot of states have the age of sexual consent at 16, but the idea of college seniors or grad students coming on to high school boys to “help them sort out their feelings” is just plain creepy to me. Especially in an institutionalized format. I’m all for Romeo and Juliet (or would it be Romeo and Mercutio?) laws for the benefit of relationships that do organically grow between two teenaged boys whose age difference presents a problem, but I see tons of potential for abuse of legalizing ephebophilia on that scale. And apparently, so did the Greeks: the boys in pederastic relationships had to sign off on a man before anything happened, and the boy was able to end the relationship if the man did anything inappropriate (by their standards).

  23. Glenfilthie says:

    I admitted there were exceptions to the rule, Aurini. And I admit that homosexuals CAN function normally otherwise – but the large majority do not. An admission is in order here – my daughter is gay and I suppose she could easily pass for the type of gay you are referring to – unless you know her intimately like I do. She treats men with derision and contempt in environs where she feels safe to do so – and reacts with rage and anger if that contempt is reciprocated. Then she plays the victim after having lost a fight she’s picked. She is the graduate of a fine arts program and figures that degree makes her a moral and intellectual authority. If you do anything to pop that bubble she will get nasty.

    How would you know about any of that, Aurini? If you met her at a bar or passed a few moments of idle chatter with her you probably would not notice the deeper character flaws. I do agree with you about the gender benders – those people are howler monkeys and more than a few need serious medical intervention.

    I hold ALL gays to account for their rancid attacks on the church and on free speech up here in Canada. The damage those cretins have done to our law and our culture is staggering – they are attacking our very freedoms and rights. There are places where if we were to talk like this openly we probably could suffer legal action as a result.

    I am not drinking the koolaid, Aurini. Although I want to see them get a fair shake – that community has to do something about the over sexed exhibitionist pigs in the parades and the bath houses and the courts. I will render unto the queers what belongs to them but I will not bow down to them.

  24. Sean says:

    @ Glenfilthie

    Sounds like your daughter got indoctrinated early on. I’m sorry if I’m being presumptuous, but my guess is that your daughter started looking into the gay community as a teenager behind your back and got bombarded with the Leftist propaganda. Not having any organized way to refute it and hearing placating half-truths, your daughter probably swallowed the GLBT party line whole. And then when she was pursuing her fine arts degree (she chose… poorly), she got exposed to even more Leftist doctrine from her peers and professors and regurgitated it to gain social acceptance on campus and success in the classroom, and then came to fully believe it the more often she heard and repeated it.

    Trust me, you have my sympathies. I despise the gay community as a whole, even if I can get along with individual members. Here in the states, you could fit all of us into the state of Georgia, but look at the insane amounts of cultural and political clout the GLBTs have amassed for themselves. And yet, their cultural contribution has been to either recycle, appropriate, or pervert any conventions and institutions that suit their purposes.

    The gays who could do something will never organize until we collectively rebel against the GLBT establishment, and we will never rebel against the GLBT establishment until we organize. The nightmare of organizing a rebellion.

  25. Aurini says:

    @Glenfilthie

    Oh, I’m not disagreeing with you; this would definitely be the exception that proves the rule.

    Also, I’m pretty strongly in agreement with “Chasing Amy” on the nature of Lesbianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTKTh2MRm-w

    I hope your daughter manages to cool her anger before she gets much older, and meets a nice guy who’s willing to wife her up. On the plus side, she hasn’t been running around with the bad boys at the club – they’ll do more damage than a hairy dyke will.

    Not my place to tell you what to do, but if you want my advice, I’d suggest being firm and loving with her, and not getting into political arguments. Give her the space to come back, and don’t demand a massive mea culpa.

  26. Sean says:

    @ Davis Aurini

    The “Chasing Amy” clip is hilarious. And I wonder how true it is. Back in the day, if I remember correctly, lesbianism used to be considered a result of women directing their sexual appetites at each other due to lack of a husband to help her out. More of a phase than a condition. That’s why only a handful of lesbians were sent to concentration camps in Nazi Germany: it was an unfortunate side-effect of sexual frustration that would be remedied the second she got with a good strong Aryan man.

    @Glenfilthie

    I think that fear of familial rejection is what sends a lot of homosexual/bisexual/confused young people running into the arms of the GLBTs. Let her know she has a place to come back to. The GLBT community is a lot like a beach at high tide for fish: it’s fun for a while, but if you’re not careful, it’ll leave you high and dry. One day, she’s going to need someplace to go. Make sure it’s home.

  27. will says:

    @Sean

    There are those with homosexual attraction that because of their religious conviction manages to overcome their addiction to promiscuity as well as even reduce homosexual attraction or turn it into heterosexual functioning. They seem to get a lot of vitriol from the GLBT community.

    But many run into the arms of the GLBT community in the 1st place because of mishandling.

  28. lurker says:

    @will
    They get hate because they ruin the mythology that sexuality is somewhat fixed. Another thing, is that the culture right now is so polarizing that gay community has a us v.s. them mentality.

    @sean
    I don’t agree with everything the glbt community does, but I feel like you’re painting them all with a broad brush. There different types of people in the glbt community. The guys that I hang out aren’t the sterotypical gays that act crazy and slutty at pride parades. Most of them are just decent people trying to live their lives.

  29. Sean says:

    @ Lurker

    Being a homo myself, I use GLBT to refer to non-heterosexuals who espouse the Leftist politics that predominate the GLBT community. And I can assure you, the GLBT community can be quite monolithic. Sure, there are multiple subcultures of GLBT, but generally, in the end, they are variations on a theme: gender deviance. There are subcultures that buck this trend and do strive for genuine masculinity/femininity, but gay men who try to be masculine or “straight acting” can expect to be verbally savaged by the queen and fairy majority.

    The guys you know may not be socially or politically involved in the GLBT community. I would say that a majority of homosexual men are either closeted, out but not obnoxious about it, or think that they choice of sexual partner is nobody else’s concern. But there aren’t many homos who have conscientiously rejected both the GLBT community and its politics.

  1. November 28, 2013

    […] This is where we wind up, folks, when you turn against hierarchy, when you denigrate submission, whe… […]

  2. December 3, 2013

    […] submission, and the neoreactionary social order. Related: The value of feminine virtue, part 1. Related: Against backleading. Science: Women […]