Monday, July 16, 2018


Addressing the issue of buttsecks, even starting through an MSM lens as we did in Climbing on the Backs of Queers, can help us think so much deeper and tighter about MSF relations, evolution of the human organism on Terra, and the meaning of life itself. Much as we can draw inferences about the nature and character of people by their overwhelming majority desire to rub genitals and swap fluids and thereby reproduce, which they quite often do without being ignorant of the consequences of said fluid swapping, and which they sometimes but not always do for the express purpose of both the presumed means and the presumed ends, the prevalence of buttsecks is nearly as indicative, or at least 10% as much, as indicative of human traits as standardized mating-sex. Similarly, if buttsecks is gross, so is normal secks, and the fluid swapping and genital rubbing prove a major source of disease and expression of violence in the world, though maybe not running on as high a percentage per encounter as buttsecks, but still of historical note for as long as people have been recording things. Ergo our own consideration of anal sex per se need not be considered, nor be actually, vulgar or inappropriate, nor limited to some type of salacious sex-specific inquiry, but as reflective and insight-laden as the common desire to eat messy calorie-rich food or jump into a public pool on a hot day despite 37 little kids having peed in there and 3 gross adults having gone in there without wiping well and 142 people having been grossly sweaty when they got in. Also, people eat sashimi and we can talk about that, so as they say, "Be mature." Because buttsecks is a fact of lives, even if not of yours.

MSF Buttsecks

One of the most common turn-ons, per the porn industry, which would have all the male actors in dinosaur costumes if that increased viewership, is anal sex. Which means it's a primarily male turn-on, and that's part of the ongoing career cycles of poor pretty white chicks getting into porn, wherein they start with solo dances and playing with themselves, move on to sex with white-appearing male actors, then maybe group or a black dude, and somewhere in that latter phase of development they're doing anal, which hurts at the start but gradually becomes routine, and then it's retirement to teaching jazz dance classes, or desperately trying to book a couple years more doing bukkake or double-penetration or group black.

Human literature on sex speaks often of this anal attraction, and it's maintained its consistency over decades of filmed porn, as well as centuries of salacious literature, both porn and not. Case in point, the Marquis de Sade's Juliette makes extensive use of MSF and MSM anal, Juliette's own career in sex really specifically telegraphing the modern porn actress' career, starting out with masturbation and girl-girl scenes, then the same tame pairings with one male partner of the same ethnicity as the recipient, where one is supposed to be aroused merely by Juliette getting cummed on, then moving on to sex with groups and burly foreigners, where mere coitus isn't interesting any more since we've already seen her do it. Since everyone in the story is bi-curious, and since the author was secretly way more interested in dudes than in chicks, Juliette's orgies often include her getting nailed next to some dude getting nailed, and the combination is hot for some, even if the dudes have been described elsewhere as rather dumpy and pudgy and old. Juliette and a long, similar succession of works aside, though, the modern porn industry evinces a colossal demand for anal sex, with most porn websites including anal as a proliferate category, with supply such as to indicate men more appreciate watching some chick take it in the ass than the pussy--completely straight men, who'd evince zero cerebral or erectile response to being shown dude-only porn, and who'd die before touching someone else's you-know-what, and who are in every way heterosexual and only heterosexual: not just the normal ways, but the really objective scientific ones that could catch some nervous weirdo who had lied.

Ergo, in every way since written history, buttsecks has not been a wholly nor even primarily MSM, which is to say queer, thing. And this causes great trouble with the way we think about homosexuality and heterosexuality, because given the numbers of each predilection on the planet, there are likely far more buttsecks-interested straight people than there are queers.

Evolution comes in here, too: why would straight males, sons of a long and unbroken succession of successful breeders, have buttsecks with girls as a turn-on or an interest of any kind?

Access Theories

One theory about anal sex is that it's interesting to men because it indicates access to the woman, and thereby is related to vaginal access, ergo reproduction. So, the logic goes, if she'll let you do that--or you have the power to get that, you have the luck to take that, et cetera--then it has such a strong correlation with eventual reproductive sexual access that it is itself a turn-on. That theory doesn't work, though, because being a billionaire is way more likely to get you reproductive access than taking her in the butt first, and if you hook men up to penis bloodflow sensors and show them two films, one about a man winning a billion dollars in a game show, and the other about a man doing a gorgeous chick in the butt, the former will produce zero erections, the latter erections at over a 90% rate of test subjects. Similar results would be achieved by many other "access to womb" tests, such as "video of winning Nobel prize versus doing cutie in the ass" and "video of being voted hottest American firefighter of the year versus hot chick in a chastity belt waggling her naked butt at the camera and saying dirty things about what you should do." The billionaire example should be decisive, but any other similar comparison could be made, from 2018 to caveman days, and the instinct for a man to be more turned on by the chick taking it in the butt is erectively decisive in any test you could run. Even weird male moralists who pretended they disapproved of such things would have to rip the wires off and storm out of the testing room if the "hot chick waggling butt" scene came on and threatened to make them think they were bodily hypocrites; they wouldn't be hypocrites, of course, anymore than people who didn't believe in murder would be able to maintain the appearance of their moral principles if they watched a 4 hour film of some dude happily torturing children and small animals. Avid dieters who don't break their diets still salivate, pacifists still feel the primal urge to defend justice even if they don't act on it, and so forth.

So, the "access theory" fails. If you were already doing her in the butt anyway, it is so much more evolutionarily effective to switch holes, rather than to stay in the butt and feel like an evolutionary winner because you've definitely proven you have access. The access theory is, simply put, stupid.

Pleasure Theory

Because the woman's anal opening is tighter than her vaginal opening, and because the friction that either opening can produce on the male penis is pleasurable to him--which pleasure is completely validated by evolution--another theory of the prevalent interest in anal sex is that it feels better. It's kind of a stupid theory, since people watching porn and jacking off receive the same physical stimulation whether or not the video is of anal or vaginal or some dude fucking a silicon toy, but it's not as stupid as access theory because maybe fantasy just works that way.

However, pleasure theory fails because the female anus is not the most frictive hole to fuck. A proper male or female manual grip can exceed the anus in the strength of its friction, as can countless other things. Yet people don't want to watch a video of some dude fucking the tightest ever silicon sphincter, or some lab-grown orifice, or some bodybuilder's squeezing hand, even if accompanied by racy pictures or clips of naked chicks; even if something about the male interest in females being buttsecksed derives from some ancestral memory of friction, friction is clearly not the only, nor the decisive, nor even a marginal, draw to the act, because people wouldn't just watch a video of some dude fucking a silicon orifice and like it a little less than the chick one; they would completely not pay-per-view. So no one would make that video. No one would want it; no one would care. Men might buy a million of those silicon orifices for themselves, but they would use them while watching hot chicks take it in the butt, because they were interested in the hot chick taking it in the butt and not in viewing the presumed friction. They'd similarly prefer to do a hot chick in the butt than to be left alone for an hour with the tighter silicon product, even were the product mounted on a pole or mounted on a machine that provided pushback. Something that transcends the sensual realities of the act is far more important.

Semen Health

One really dumb, but really scientific-sounding, theory that's occasionally been floated about non-vaginal sexual acts is that any form of insertion of semen into the woman's body accustoms her to that semen, and makes it more likely that said semen will survive inside her after it's splooged in during normal vaginal sex, thereby making successful insemination more likely. Viewed this way, anal sex is like "pre fertilization," or improving the odds, and therefore men like anal sex because it's improving their chances at reproduction.

This theory is dumb for many reasons, but the primary one is the most decisive: imagine two men and two women, and they're in a reproduction contest, "survival of the fittest" style. The first couple has anal sex for a month, then switches to vaginal, and when her eggs come down, they achieve pregnancy. The second couple has regular sex during the first month. Repeat times a thousand couples, or times the same two couples trying to have more offspring during the female's reproductive years. Who ends up with more offspring total?

Obviously, the second couple. If the first couple has some kind of reproductive problem, where a subtle reduction in the woman's vagina's natural hostility to foreign fluids permits that one lucky spermatozoon to survive, maybe their month of anal practice betters their work, but across large populations, assuming similar variance in reproductive-capable and reproductive-impaired people, some kind of anal practice is detrimental, not beneficial, to attempts at reproducing. The couples that pump away at the butt are, by definition, going to produce zero percent offspring during those acts, and the slight increase in the small percentage of "can't get pregnant" couples' successes are offset by the delay of months in the healthy couples working on building anal-based sperm tolerance.


Ergo the "semen health" theory fails also. It should be obvious, but for those amazingly desperate to blend their faith in randomized evolution with some kind of rationale for people's extremely powerful and pervasive non-vaginal sexual interests, they can take such audacious steps, much as someone who's sporadically intelligent can think they believe in the Jewish Bible as a series of metaphors which can be interpreted in an immeasurable number of ways rather than the literal way that's already been disproved to their satisfaction. It's a ridiculous argument, and a ridiculous attempt, like the attempt to hold together random mutation with observable worldly phenomena, but "it's a metaphor" at least can put off the acknowledgement that it was some old lies and nothing more. In the face of organisms as we study them today, or human sexual desires, desperate random evolution theories, mostly theoretical or speculative in the manner of Big Bang "research," about acclimating the semen to the partner's rectum have been floated, but moreso, vaguely hypothetically researched ones (on really small samples, and without mixing the male partners across the females because good science is eww gross I'm not doing that!) has reached unsupported conclusions that ejaculating into a woman's mouth, and her swallowing it, achieves not a rectal, but a gastrointestinal, benefit to sperm survivability, making blowjobs equally, or more, effective in producing more successful breeding later.

Like the theories of rectal training, the idea that men like to have their penises mouthed by women because of instinctive desires to produce later reproductive success are, like the endless succession of rationales for why students of a Chinese-American heritage always score better on math tests than students from a Mexican-American heritage with desperate parental over-involvement, from the same zip code, stupidly inane. Who reproduces more? The dude who gets sucked off 1/3 of the available nights, or the dude who fucks pussy 100% of the nights? Amazingly, and similarly for any male interest in handjobs or between-thigh fucking or foot fetishes or "jacking off onto her face" or any other non-vaginal-intercourse sexual behavior, removing the penis from the vagina is a reproductive loss, and the full panoply of human sexual behavior is 99% an evolutionary fail. Like access theory, the theory that such behavior encourages or leads to sex is fundamentally flawed, because the penis fucking the vagina, or at least ejaculating into it, is the only way to produce offspring prior to those weird dudes in California who use tubes and injections, and all they're doing is improving the process of ejaculation anyway. Human sexuality, above and beyond dudes screwing dudes, is a vast and non-reproductive thing, and like so many other aspects of humans, is so colossal in size and complexity that it cannot be accounted for by the desire for reproduction alone. The occurrence of similar fetishes across widely separated population groups--such as, sub-Saharan Africans wanting to screw hot chicks in the butt just like northwestern Europeans do--shows a commonality of development that can't be explained by (locally popular randomized) human evolution, and the anti-reproductive nature, yet almost total dominance, of certain numerous, perhaps completely innundating, traits, tells us more about the inferiority of our guesses at randomized development than perhaps anything else, since we can feel the effects, and we can know that they don't produce offspring.

So many other things are easily explicable to the male human. You want to be rich, you want to be famous, you want to be strong, you want a fast car, you want a harem--all completely understandable within the context of random evolution. But where the hell does wanting to fuck some chick in the ass come in? If you're not male, or if you're broken there, or if you're not turned on by that--like, the bloodflow monitor wouldn't show any activity down there if you watched some hot chick taking it--that doesn't matter, since the bulk of the world's trackable male population has shown their interest. Overpoweringly. The Japanese have porn about it, the pygmy women give their men blowjobs, the Inuit, the Siberian Americans pre-Columbus, the Renaissance Europeans...all of them would be laughing at Dawkins, if they could stop sucking dicks and filling asses long enough to have the time.

Dominance or Submission Shows

Another potential reproductive benefit from anal sex or blowjobs could be the use/display of, or social awareness of, the male's dominance, whereby he is assumed to be really socially prominent, and thus more deserving of mating that does produce offspring, if he takes chicks in the butt or the mouth. Like, "Wow, I heard Zeke buttfucks all these chicks, I so want to bear his child more than I did before!" But, like so many other pitiful attempts at rationalizing non-reproductive sexual interests, it conflicts with the fact that fucking a butt or mouth means not fucking a vagina. Even if it adds more sexual prestige to a male individual to fuck a butt than to father a child, the time and effort spent gaining that prestige subtracts from time and effort spent inseminating fertile females, and the comparative math of both routes is clear.

It's possible that some weird perverted take on patriarchy makes the protracted desire for oral or anal a dominance show in other regards, but patriarchs who only fucked fertile pussies should have exceeded in number, and driven to extinction, patriarchs who fucked butts and/or mouths, but this apparently didn't happen, despite the purported competition for survival of the fittest. Similarly, the argument could be made that chicks who like anal do so out of confusion, because they can feel the penetration through into other passages, or it makes them feel desired or cared for or whatever, but again, those who coupled only vaginally should have gifted themselves, and their partner's offspring, with a success vastly outstripping those who tolerated anal sex or oral sex or you can just jack off on my feet that's so hot or whatever.

There are certainly other aspects of social prestige and dominance that make sense, like being a known ultra killer or mob boss or richie, but all of those things have tangible benefits to a kept woman or to offspring, regarding protection or provisioning thereof, whereas saying, "My dad once fucked ten chicks in the ass!" does not provide to the germ line nearly the same benefits as ten, or one, additional sibling(s). No presumed prowess nor imaginary social status can explain how a desire for buttsecks could have survived, ergo again, the development of traits through random mutations selected for utility does not, and cannot ever, explain human sexual desire nor behavior for non-fertile-vaginal intercourse.

MSM Buttsecks

We've looked at the amazing depth and recurrence of MSF sexual activity, here, and now queers don't seem quite as, well, queer, because the non-reproductive things they do are, if cycle-timing or just birth-repression drugs are taken into account, actually the distant minority of sexual perversions happening regularly on this planet. The amazingly "unnatural" natural habits of normal straight people over the centuries are no more likely to produce offspring than a bunch of sick queers, and yes, there is a huge difference, but what constitutes that difference, really? If a MSF couple has 6 blowjobs and 1 special anal reward night and 8 normal vaginal sexual encounters per month, but she's got an IUD anyway, is it something spiritual or holy that makes them more straight than a couple of queer dudes who have buttsecks with faceless nobodies at the club 4 times a month, and swap handjobs another 20 times a month? Yes, but spirituality, or some form thereof, is the only real difference, as far as being a clump of human cells here and using other cells to get mental titillation of physical pleasure in ways that aren't even remotely performed in contemplation of offspring. God or evolution or whatever apparently designed the human body with a pleasure center, the prostate, up the male butt, which apparently some queers like and say they can cum from, and whether or not you join this one in thinking that's fucking gross no way ever over my dead body you sumbitch, the inexplicable quirk of wasting resources for growth and survival by putting a bunch of touch-sensitive nerve endings down there, of all places, suggests under a "random mutation, evolution by natural selection" rubric that, somehow, MSM buttsecks is a benefit to mankind. And it's clearly not, under our modern evolution religion, but nature doesn't make mistakes and what the fuck man? Just the recurrence of homosexuals in human society should be enough to make all the points this article has already made, because this apparently random mutation keeps coming back no matter what, not being eliminated but apparently tolerated and nurtured and sometimes enthroned by various human societies, but showing its face over and over again. It's almost enough to make you believe that there really is a perverted Sky Man who designed that gross temptation just to see if people would violate his commandments by doing it, good grief what a filthy trick, that is one sick Sky Man, but at least then homosexuality would make sense, since even the bonobos who want to fuck dudes also want to have 40 children with chicks just because they like genital rubbing.

Why Sex?

Sex is easy to understand from an evolutionary perspective. You make a life of suffering, use different degrees of suffering or relief therefrom to motivate things to survive, and provide pleasure for things conducive to survival, like eating or resting or producing offspring. The motivation for individuals to then use pleasure loci for non-survival, non-reproductive functions, is then discovered, because pleasure is of inherent worth and, per evolution faith, people are motivated to seek it out for no reason other than that it's pleasure, so you have people overeating ice cream or jacking off three times a day at home alone, thereby costing themselves years or mates, thereby pleasure is counterproductive, yet...well, our evolutionary faith doesn't explain that, anymore than it does the appearance of lungs suited to Earth air, oh wait it does it's random aren't we lucky.

The confluence of so many acts of incredible, mathematically impossible if you round to the 100th digit, features of life here is explained not by random mutation, but by evolution, or real evolution to contrast with the Random God way it's usually presented in 2018 Terra. Part of what you do as a human is learn about what it means to be a human, of course, and part of that is private existential angst and part of that is interacting with other humans, a component of which is often sexual interaction. And in fostering that process, that desire to expand light not only in your "self" but light in general, you have the desire to reproduce, and also the desire to learn and explore, and part of that often expresses itself sexually, particularly while you're in this body with these functions and these possibilities. People's shifting moods and preferences, in foods and partners and parts, are not always or ever explicable here, but that is why people desire sex with no reproductive purpose, with or without a touch or a dollop of mutuality or togetherness, and so forth. Exploring humans, and gaining knowledge of the relationship of other bodies to your own, is more of a primary function of being here, in the self-ish sense, than even reproducing, which is why the childless are still human, and why some of them don't end up honestly, privately traumatized about it. Ergo humans have this drive to explore one another and try things out, whether or not they're necessarily more pleasurable, whether or not they advance the interests of a competitive species. View the diversity of sexual desire as a demonstration of an (more general, not always specific) essential "human character," or at the very least, view it as a disproving of the local evolution religion's sacred texts and a chance for you to conjecture your own theories about why these hominids on this planet would have any, let alone many, inherent desires to participate in physical acts that are not related to reproductive success, caloric imbibing or accumulating, grooming, strengthening of social bonds, or anything else that would theoretically result in survival or reproduction. Ergo, logically, these bodies were designed for some other function than "surviving and reproducing on Terra," since they have all these recurrent traits among really unrelated individuals.

So, ultimately, something as seemingly garish as buttsecks can join a vast line of human traits in demonstrating greater care in construction than Bangism alleges. Existential despair can be likened to an evolutionary accident, where these increasingly more sophisticated minds evolved accidentally to increase chances of a certain species' survival and reproduction, and the thoughtful minds then began worrying about other things, but like the historical dearth of incomplete organs designed for processing resources found on other places shows that such organs were never "randomly" designed, the instinctive and proliferate drive for buttsecks teaches us, strangely, that there is some greater purpose in existence than our wisest wise men have yet been permitted to speculate. Something loaded stuff into our brains that the Random God cannot explain. Therefore, there is hope beyond the "accumulate pleasure for one life then void forever" of our popular religion.

Sunday, July 15, 2018

Climbing on the Backs of Queers

In Alexander the Twink, this one said:
The Jewish crimes against humanity are many, which is easily known, yet more varied and discriminatory than are commonly known. African American urban violence in the twentieth century, for example, is a "but for" situation, where the civil rights movement changed communal focus from whatever it might have been to a fruitless blaming that spiraled to microaggressions, and there was nothing left but shooting your neighbors. The Jews climbed upon the backs of homosexuals and transsexuals also, directing all community and public attention toward a focus on mostly illusory victimization where the opportunity for self understanding and self improvement was destroyed.
We'll look here more specifically at the ways in which predominantly or wholly Jewish staged rebellions, or civil rights movements, used as their fodder the people they were supposedly trying to help, and how the perpetuation or establishment of problems in those fodder groups both assisted ethnic Jewish causes directly and indirectly.

Fungible Brains

Much of our dissonance throughout these topics will be caused by people's arrogant belief that showing kids things doesn't change them. There's a whole separate sordid history there of Jewish movie-salesmen being recognized as poison peddlers early in the twentieth century, and occupation governments staging several Trump-like deflections of popular anger by pretending to do things that were worthless, ergo "ratings" keep society perfectly safe, because a bunch of stupid Europeoids get so vindicated that a movie with a bare ass or the f-word gets a certain "rating," and thereby all the smarter, subtler things slip into little Billy's mind, and he suddenly hates borders and doesn't understand what it means when X hundred, then X thousand Siberian invaders are driving drunk with no insurance and crashing into mommies and kids.

But the influencing of the young is paramount. People know that kids exposed to a language sufficiently will learn it, but what's left of Europeoids doesn't believe that about children; doesn't understand it like the k'arash do. So many adults nowadays live in this dream-haze of assumptions about who they are, and where they've come from, and what problems the world faces, based upon the things they've watched on movies and television, and to a lesser extent on the propaganda they were exposed to in school. School history is basically, there was a revolutionary war, a bunch of people in wigs and stockings signed some important stuff, then first Abraham Lincoln, who really wasn't racist but was just a man of his time, and Saint MLK liberated the Congoids from a weird oppression whites had created, and then came modernity and we're going to fulfill their mission. Oh, and there were evil Nazis in Europe and the one good thing America did was kill them, but then Civil Rights and we must vigilantly work on that. And TV and movies reinforce this, without which a bunch of pale-skinned dullards would probably forget who was bad. And there's really very little we can do convincing the dullards of this, because the TV tells them they're informed and empowered, and all the infrastructure is in the Enemy's hands, and that battle was, sadly, lost long ago.

The point is, children get massively influenced by things that happen around them when they're children. They trust adults, and they hate Nazis not because they have an understanding of the history of the time period, the history of the world, the history of the species in the world, et cetera, but primarily because all the people they respected and relied upon have indicated that they should. And in large part, that is supported by TV and movies, but that's a separate subject. It's also a subject that's not itself important here, because what we're going to consider here is how the meaning of the world, as told to children, makes various social movements more influential after they happen, and are rubbed into growing brains, than while they happen. When a 25-year-old marches for sandwich service, it affects him much less than a 5-year-old 50 years later hearing about how good the march was and why it had to happen.


A subtle change in the perception of discrimination against (LGBTQ+, let's just say "queer" for purposes of discussion, because at least unlike the media-nurtured crime of linguicide evinced by the use of "gay," the term "queer" is linguistically sensible and embraces diversity and is literally true since everyone is weird in some way anyway, but you know what this one means when this one types "queer") queers has been the Hollywoodian pretense that queers were in some way lynched or persecuted in violent ways before there were twentieth century campaigns to teach everyone to love them. In American Beauty, where Evil Military Man kills a man because he secretly wants him and loathes the idea of queer culture, and Brokeback Mountain, where weird white hillbillies cheat and group-kill a queer just because they don't like queers, carrying on the trend of trying to make young people believe that Europeoid culture has not merely decided not to hire or move in near queers, but to actively hunt them down and kill them for no reason other than an irrational, violent dislike for their sexual behaviors--and it's so irrational, that repressed queers might kill you even if you're straight (American Beauty) so everyone's concerned and you can't sit this one out and you have to let them kiss and groin-grab openly in the military or else you're only just hurting yourself. And queers were always in militaries, and did just fine, and it's such a degrading insult to thousands of years of that to bring the modern western ones into flagellatory celebration as emblematic of anything related to that history, but that's a separate subject. Which is to say, a hundred generations of men who bravely and stoically performed various duties that they and others thought honorable, while not making their bedroom preferences a remote part of the process,

Without a primer on the developing human mind, and on minds of similar complexity found here, it would be difficult to make an argument that should be obvious to anyone who has ever been a child that things about the world form an essential part of the peripheral character of your self on Terra. There exists a substantial literature on this which often but not always avoids touching what is thought of as political, but those who understand how components of their character, or of their underlying worldviews, were shaped by childhood experience, may understand this. And everyone else understands it, too, which is why the Christians are not okay with all children sent to godless liberal indoctrination camps until ten years of age, with the belief that God will redeem them once they're older--a few of them, yes, but playing by the numbers, letting the enemy educate your young--as the Europeoid has conceded to the Jews these many years--produces a predictable aggregate effect.

This is what has happened with cultural perceptions of queers in the latter half of the twentieth century. Whereas Congoids were actually lynched sometimes in U.S. history--with discernible, though modern media-hated, reasons for why dead Nu Euros would've mobbed and actually done something--queers were not. In Jewish controlled Manhattan in the 1960s, their mayor told their police to conduct a series of raids on some queer fuck clubs, and some anti-police riots were staged, all to create a plausible veneer of "physical conflict" that could be at least one citable reference of some petit violence between the queer community and those supposed exemplars of Europeoid society. Further attempts to stoke riots and disagreements failed, so fifty years passed, and they made Brokeback Mountain, but the historical record of "anti-gay lynchings" never filled itself out, even with false flags and ample motivations, because Europeoids had things they would rather do than kill the queers among them.

And yet, the media fostered this "queer lynching" presumption so assiduously that, despite its utter absence from European and American history--and there's a very good, very obvious, very specific reason that the Christian community and faith leaders never did well at fostering anti-MSM stuff despite the supposed wishes of their Jewish god--it became an understood, if erroneous, assumption, and helped foster a lot of "gay rights" legislation to make Europeoids wonder "why even bother?" about having children.

On the Backs of Queers
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
The great social concern over this imaginary violent battle between queers and repressed mainstream Europeoid society took a terrible toll on actual queers. Conceptualizing what was done, and how it hurt its supposed beneficiaries perhaps the most--besides wounding one of the only human societies to ever tolerate their open, independent existence, and certainly the most powerful--can help in understanding the concept of "pro whatever" movements actually hurting the whatever.

There are lots of existential concerns implicated by being a queer, even if just the boring "has sex with same sex" type. The combination of desire for buttsecks with however many billions of years of sexually reproductive evolution is a tough one, and the social assumption, sometimes but not always correct, that the desire for MSM buttsecks correlates 100% with the negation of the fundamental desire to reproduce and live on through offspring, is a nasty social implication. For an actual individual human being, times however many million, the enforced social turning of a blind eye toward that fundamental aspect of character is a dirty act perhaps worse than a mere occasional lynching by some random asshole who gets the chair but has a handful of internet supporters through the trial. Some churches will, at least, try to pretend they'll heal you of the earlier condition, but there's a complete dearth of social acknowledgement of that desire, whereas there's a massive megacorp-funded set of counselors ready to teach you that buttsecks is great and all your problems are caused by people who are irrationally prejudiced against buttsecks. Since the existential agony, the conflict, is known by the afflicted individual to be personal, the "let's support each other against the evil haters" line just doesn't satisfy--and the pretension of legacy by joining the ranks of the proud butt-screwers doesn't satisfy either, and like not ever eating nor defecating nor doing other natural stuff, the absence of reproduction can hurt in a deep mortal way that, we're taught, just doesn't matter.

The disregarding of transsexual feels is similar, in the sense that it denies the individual's feelings and identity in favor of the Glorious Struggle against prejudice, as though if you're passable or just time things well or stay in a certain part of town when you dress anyone ever even notices, let alone gives a shit. As with MSM and FSF queers, we'll never know the true numbers of people who committed suicide or watered down their lives because of the social hostility toward the concept of their having an internal problem at all, versus blaming everything on some hypothetical haters of the past who conducted imaginary lynchings (and if we think there's some kind of coverup of a shameful history, remember how proud people were to report their involvement in the lynching of Congoids, almost at though, if a wrong act and there wasn't really a rape white wimminz epidemic after the Civil War like there still is today, they didn't have 2018 morals. Ergo if there had been lynchings, people at the time wouldn't have covered it up, ergo the dearth of evidence proves--like the missing gas chamber bodies in empty Europe--that there were no such killings, or that they were so small in occurrence as to be historically negligible).

Acknowledging that someone has some weirdness in their genes, or some other aspect of character, was for years, and may still be, utterly taboo, which is apparently deadly serious to many transsexuals, since they know something is weird inside. And the social mandate to pretend it's all due to the discrimination of magical lynching gremlins, to pretend that everything's all right, and to ignore the reality of the really complicated set of personal issues actual transsexuals have, is damning. Even trackable suicide rates are higher, whereas those caused by people who would express some different identity but don't want to be socially pigeonholed into a victim group with pre-designated non-remedies, no doubt double or triple that number, and the thousand small crimes of "pride" organizations can never be countenanced nor counted. The social denial that there is not anything wrong nor deviant, when it's obvious even to the shemales themselves (whether or not they get off on it, but probably more relevant to us here if it's the ones who don't) that there is, is such a callous, pretentious lie that it's far more hateful and othering and self-denying than some random powerless dude at a bar making explicit rude comments. And since it's supported by government and teevee and movies, it's a pervasive force that cannot be denied.

(The private hells of queers are dark, scary places, particularly if you're Bangist and believe in random mutation and natural selection, but also embrace buttsecks or rugmunching or similar. Hat tip where it's due, I know some queers who have dealt with those issues, and come to terms with themselves in them, sort of similar to a lonely old sixty-year-old in a trailer park who probably could've gotten married and had kids if he'd had different priorities, but who made his bed and accepts that now he's sleeping in it, and his younger brother has kids, and it seemed to mean something to mom and dad years ago, and what's it all about, aw hell, but he still has friends at the bar and he has shows he likes and Davey's in Nebraska and they talk sometimes and life sorta works out okay for him, but there are plenty of people in that type of situation for whom it never quite feels right no matter how many honies you've known, and it's really characteristically callous of our society to not only deny that there can be inner qualms, but to pronounce it definitively wrong that there should be any inner qualms. We all find our own meaning in life, or we don't, and it's a kick when we're down to pretend that certain qualms simply don't exist. Because on the other hand, I also know some queers who haven't weathered the storm well, and suddenly decide at fifty that they actually have to have kids, they're gonna vanish without a trace, not even the trace everybody else gets to have, and it is so fucking callous of modern society that the "cure" for this is some kind of make-believe pride. Woe to us if we come up with a social movement where we celebrate the coming hell for young straight people deciding not to reproduce, or wait, we already have, all those childfree articles, so maybe everyone except Muslim immigrants can share the hell, but they'll get theirs when some half-Jewish sultan is encouraging them to accept pygmy immigration or something hilarious like that. Haha, when it's down to one population they'll just let stagnation kill us, and we'll totally deserve it. Anyway, the point was, there are a lot of queers, and they tend to be the ones who don't answer surveys or participate in pride marches, for whom this permutation of civil rights was really harmful. As with so many other fuck-ups, America did it double, trying to "cure" queers with electric shock therapy, then to "help" queers by denying that anything was actually weird about them. And aside from the required social evolution, or even with that, there are still private dark moments in a supermajority of individuals where it's not funny, it's scary and it's hell, and they know something is a little off about them compared to standard Terran humans, they can feel it, and it's a filthy lie that they can be cured by pain, or that nothing is wrong nor different about them. That doesn't mean "wrong" in the sense of morals, just "wrong" in the sense of weird little changes in the brain that the original template was presumably not designed for. Terra will have to develop some alternate evolutionary theory eventually if it means to engayen more people, but until then, the queers are smart enough to see that the two pieces don't match, and a supermajority of them have the emotional strength to begin considering how or why their own self fits into that. But the ones who don't were and are utterly betrayed by the society that pretends they don't have anything to talk about but "prejudice.")

Maybe those are all the queers' problems and normal people don't have to worry about them, except that it really does cost billions of dollars a year to maintain this cruel facade, and extract millions a year from otherwise-"normal" marks to perpetuate it, and the problems caused socially by all the inner-qualm-denying pro-queer organizations are the annoying facets of life that are now, for many people, assumed to be the inherent problems of people who like buttsecks rather than the inherent problems of people who like getting donations for made-up causes. Ironic, again, in typical Nu Euro fashion, that the existence of anger is correct and healthy, but it's been misdirected again: the Nu Euro "conservative" should not be angry at the queers, but at the sick fucks who are hurting the queers more than they're hurting everyone else. Because the teevee images of how queers are supposed to act and feel are as damaging to actual queers as the innuendo is to impressionable kids. Yeah, maybe 1/10 kids had a little genetic distortion to have MSM buttsecks already, and the movie they show in class helps him embrace his identity, but then it's twenty years later and he kills himself in sorrowful despair, instead of growing up and getting a job and marrying someone and having three kids and a few times in his young life having a racy experience at a gay bar that he never tells anyone about except his doctor when he has those tests and is nervous and won't even kiss his wife until the results come back oh thank God I swear I'll never do that again. Both paths have trackable costs to people who don't want to go near the local gay bar, and one path is much more expensive and the other produces much more benefit to an enduring society. Ergo not for some weird inverted faux-moral reason, but for the most practical and genetically selfish financial one, should a conservative-minded or traditional-minded person be against the gay groups and support a quiet, careless attitude toward whoever someone else wants to fuck. GRIDS and other gross, expensive stuff can handle the nastier particularities, but humanity has always done all right with a few fags, and focusing on it, negatively or positively, only spoils privacy for everyone else and makes everything loads more expensive. Because if those are afflictions and someone has those afflictions, you want them to be a normal productive citizen and not either a marcher in a thong nor a suicide at 16, but just a normal boring productive person who either ignores it like you ignore your desire to kill that lady driving on her cell phone, or occasionally has a gross secret tryst that affects your life zero percent. That's how it was in Europe before Judaism came, and even after, disregarding the church scooping most of them up into male only, child-access environments, that's how it continued to be.

It's a separate irony to watch today's Nu Euro suddenly embrace and scathe queers in such a way, because before Judaism came to Europe, the forest pagans had a much more sensible stance toward homosexuality. Women being sapphic, don't care, but you still gotta get married and have kids at childbearing age, and sometimes there are weird witches who gather or wise women who never get married but have herbs, and that's a socially acceptable role and a known fact and you just don't worry about it, and actual lesbians are okay with that and still have a place in society if they want one. And if someone molests a child, you bog them, and if a couple hunters like hunting together and are sometimes gone for a long time together, well, everyone knows it's not just a hunt but who cares, get your kids your own meat. And things work out well.

Not piddling; not minor. A lot of lives, straight and queer, would've been different if the giant homo crusade of the twentieth century hadn't been carried out. The attempt, which was supported but not even conceived of as plausible by the first "gays" to support it, to shove buttsecks down the cultural throat, created itself a lot of the animosity that would later be claimed to have justified it. Along with stealing or denying any kind of background cultural acceptance that queers had and would have had, and purloining countless billions of dollars in resources contributed by well-meaning people who would have given the same level of support to good causes if they hadn't been crowded to death by weeds, the various forms of "gay rights" crusades also, like so many military bases in Saudi Arabia, inspired an enmity that wouldn't have been there otherwise. The things that spawned these crusades benefited greatly from them, and got to be considered real humanitarians, so they were a benefit to someone, many someones, but not to queers as a class.

The conquests of Caesar, and then of the popes, changed all the traditions of Europe. Suddenly the pedofag priests are everywhere, backed up with military support and the nationalized "aristocrats" installed like mini-EUs, one sphincter to rule them all, and the pedofag priests are initiating the children of the people who surrender-survived the initial invasions, and of course Rome falls, it's served its purpose like many later empires and doesn't need to maintain its form...and society suddenly gets really perversely interested in who's buttsecksing who, and eventually the circle is now complete and there are queer reverends explaining how Judaism really is about embracing love not lust and forgiving child molesters and so forth. Paganism is dead, old Europe is dead, and the Nu Euros develop this aforementioned weirdly perverse interest in sexuality that they are then guided into making a beloved sick interest rather than the previous incriminating one. If you want to see the way Judaism is evolving on this topic, watch one of the gay Christian movies here. There are still some old-fashioned, perversely interested worshipers who resist, but the trend, particularly among young Christians, is clear. As Christianity embraced the incredible human and fiscal costs of immigration and colonialism, it will come to embrace buttsecks.

We've discussed here how the twentieth and twenty-first century "gay" movements have actually been far more harmful to queers than helpful, and along with that harm goes the forestalling of energies being used for actual help, which a Europeoid society would have probably given if not misdirected. We know it's natural to Europeoids to not give a damn, and natural to many other human species or cross-breeds also; the Indians and the American Siberians had castes or designated social roles for their queers, and the Arabs had a social role for their cross-dressing buttsecksers too, and before Yahweh and Allah got them, that was all okay, and still persists in some forms and some places (token Wiki on hijra if you wanna read). It's all safe and healthy, completely trumping full Europeoid methods, because not only does it give all the social support to the queers, it also clearly identifies them so they can be completely avoided by those who want that. Cheap, sustainable, healthy, and massively rewarding to a society. Imagine an America where you could eliminate fifty years of the bullshit, the priests raping kids and the burgeoning trend in discrimination lawsuits, and legislative and executive and judicial debates, and take all the billions of dollars in wasted sinecure salaries and teevee specials and damage awards and invest it instead in, I dunno, space exploration or infrastructure.

Maybe more important, maybe not--you be the judge--is the issue of lives, in the sense of people not being able to perform useful functions well for fifty years, or not at all because they kill themselves for reasons they think no one cares about. Whether or not you care, you can view these wasted lives as a consequence of the Jewish-backed diversity whining, which at the very least--even if you don't think they were smart enough nor malevolent enough to have planned it--changed society in a way that pretended to care about, while also utterly dismissing, queers. Sparking and teevee-covering (and writing in textbooks about) the Stonewall Riots did not create the not-present history of anti-gay violence that just wasn't endemic or even, in most cases, there even one out of a hundred K, and queers knew that from their day-to-day experience, and although movies can help you imagine things and see real things in that imaginary light, you know you can't blame your deepest inner struggles with who you are and what it means to be here on invisible gremlins. Yet you must, says society, and so you're left alone with that struggle. The founders of various anti-discrimination groups thought your pain was worth far less than donations and the social effects of pretending it was only the gremlins. And the millions of well-meaning people who wanted to help were misdirected, and will not help, because they're stupid, and they think giving money to fight gremlins, and to support movies telling you how good your buttsecks is, will automatically resolve the questions and difficulties you feel inside.

(Not every priest was a pedofag by any means, of course, but the pollyannaish stupidity of forgoing family and reproduction inside a society, and instead talking to and about Sky Man every day, is so irresponsible and biologically stupid that the label is appropriate as an insult even for those who didn't rape children and just thought the selfish life all about yourself + Sky Man was worth more than contributing in a real way to one's people and country and world. The modern psychological trauma of "finding yourself," along with innumerable other Plain Stupid or selfish trends we might notice, stem from the notion that a celibate priest disconnected from the world and focusing all on how he can know Jesus better and share his enlightenment with others was a respectable profession and a good idea. Like David Cameron in a no holds barred match with a 2nd century Viking chieftain, the comparison between respected wise men of pre- and post-Christian Europe is a no contest, laughable victory for the pre-Christian role model--and not only in terms of kicking ass in physical combat, but in the enduring quality of their life and quality of assistance and contributions to their people over the course of a lifetime.)

(In a separate but related note, Judaism has always been against sexuality, because appreciating one another, and sharing the joys of mortal youth, is part of developing here, and the k'arash are driven to shut that down like everything else good when they clear a planet. That is why Jews enshrined child genital mutilation, and why they created the first expressly anti-homosexual religion on the planet, and why they spent thousands of years perversely investigating people's private relationships and violently enforcing ridiculous rules about who fucked who and how they fucked, which did indeed sometimes mean killing the two weird dudes who lived in a cabin all alone. Not actually ironic, but superficially so, that the group which, in modern times, has spent so much money stealing and repressing social support for people who drew the perhaps-unfortunate genetic combo to enjoy MSM buttsecks, also spawned the original mendaciously divine commandments to stone queers. The over-hyping of sexual conduct, and the Jewish porn connection, is similar to the murder-by-immigrant/reproduce/murder-by-immigrant mandate in conquest and post-conquest Europe, in which gaining control of some aspect of life was used to lend an appearance of support to the positive aspect of the process that was, earlier and later, destined for doom. Given the massive Jewish porn connection of modern times, it can be difficult to see how they are, and always were, against sex, as a good and intrinsic part of life, but other than modern porn coupled with a better understanding of porn, or just looking at every other historical era, the aversion to and hatred of sex can be seen. And there are a thousand little things you can put together about porn in the modern world, from men jacking off alone to unrealistic expectations about the one in a million cross-bred Jewish actor who's really hung and loaded with stimulants while the six white girls fawn over him in amazement, but that's a separate subject. More important historically speaking is to understand the way anti-sex leagues of some form, including the murdering and outlawing of some pagan communities that used orgies for reproduction and then took very seriously their high quality and meaningful and in-group-bonded communal parenting, are a longstanding technique of the group you call here "Jews." Every LGBTQ+ person who rankles at the presumed hundreds of years of discrimination and meanness, or just at the local assholes at some small church who think you're gross, needs to trace it back to Judaism, the source. And of racism and sexism too, but again that's another subject.)

Saturday, July 7, 2018

Alexander the Twink

Introducing the Alexander Topics

On the issue of Alexander the Great, this one alluded to his sexuality and its relationship to "his" history and, more importantly, our perception of it tinted by the lens of what salacious thoughts we want to, or are supposed to, think about sexuality. Consider the mentioned allusion:
[as though] Alexander the Great made all the plans and not some otherwise-straight general who desperately liked traps and tried to make the best he could out of some spunky little dude in a metal skirt in a time before makeup and hormone replacement therapy.
Alexander's easily accessible choice in lower-body wear is not the issue here; rather, we focus on a great conundrum that was received with excitement by then-modern Americans before they decided to drop gay stuff almost completely in favor of protecting fag-roof-tossers' rights to move in next door. In realistic sense, it's perfectly plausible, although mathematically minimal ("unlikely"), that a male homosexual would've been a great military figure in the "accomplishes things" sense rather than the "attains rank" sense. Alexander's sexuality throughout history has been a naughty little itch, as people who are more familiar with homosexual males and with militaries realize there is a problem with Alexander's gayness, want him to be a hero because militaries are cool and Western Civ 1 is cool, but don't want him to be gay, so there's a long and embarrassing tradition of people covering up and willfully ignoring and discouraging junior scholarship leading to the obvious and inevitable conclusion about that aspect of who the historical Alexander was. The desire to out him as the twentieth century advanced was, unsurprisingly given the known liars involved in creating the historiography and popular image, nearly as flawed as the older perspective. A school of little wooden buildings teaching children in 1800 about "just straight" Alexander defies source material, intellectual then-standards of honesty, and immemorial decency itself to assign a false identity to a favored character; a school of big televisions teaching children in 2000 about "just gay" Alexander similarly offends source material, its own currently purported standards of honesty, and immemorial decency yet again. It is not surprising to find, say, modern Europeoid people building and worshiping an elaborate web of purportedly well-cited lies, so if one is interested in what actually happened or who people actually were, one is wise not to rely on whatever their popular model currently is. (Not to imply that any other group of Terrans is even marginally as capable or as honest in crafting their stories; just speaking objectively about our local believers and most prolific constructors.)

Gay Straight Pride?

That conundrum, of Alexander's homosexuality, is solidified by the fact that he was said to have won battles and led armies and not broken down in weird spastic fits that ruined everything he supposedly wanted to do--he may have done that, perhaps certainly did it and it's verified, but whatever he did, it didn't keep the armies from doing what they historically needed to do. The late twentieth, early 21st century depiction of male homosexuality in popular culture suffers greatly from its borrowing from the early twentieth century version of lying flattery which Jewish filmmakers used to ensnare and further deceive Europeoid, then worldwide, audiences; e.g., the hero is rugged and tough and independent and a free thinker unlike everyone else, and when gayness was added, he is identical but likes to fuck dudes in the butt. This was and is oft-celebrated, despite its stripping of aspects of character from the supposedly lionized heroes, because it presented a useful agenda toward civil dominance to argue indirectly that sexuality was a negligible component of character, when traces of understood association between sexuality and character, which were personally and scientifically visible, had not yet been stamped fully out of acceptable discourse. Of course, as with "trans rights" and so many of the other social justice crusades in which America has led the way in the 20th and 21st centuries, it was terribly harmful to the people purportedly being saved, too. If American society honestly addressed transsexuality, it would be better able to handle the drastic change in suicide rates for that group, whereas pretending it's all normal leaves those problems to fester unknown.

(Similarly to other uses of dialogue decrying discrimination, there were very intelligent people who knew that "discrimination" wasn't the reason transsexuals killed themselves so much, but threw the bone to the idiot Europeoid public to distract the issue for another few decades, letting transsexuals keep dying because it furthered the cause of anti discrimination stuff. As with feigned attempts to give African Americans more job skills by fighting the "discrimination" that was keeping them from doing well on math tests, the Congoids themselves were expendable means to an end, like so many Parisian communards in latter years. The exploitation, derision, and destruction shown toward people of Alexander's type is similar, though not nearly as intense. The Jewish crimes against humanity are many, which is easily known, yet more varied and discriminatory than are commonly known. African American urban violence in the twentieth century, for example, is a "but for" situation, where the civil rights movement changed communal focus from whatever it might have been to a fruitless blaming that spiraled to microaggressions, and there was nothing left but shooting your neighbors. The Jews climbed upon the backs of homosexuals and transsexuals also, directing all community and public attention toward a focus on mostly illusory victimization where the opportunity for self understanding and self improvement was destroyed. For example, the local community center has forums where LGBTQ+ may discuss being discriminated against, but not the utterly private and socially untouchable moments of doubt in self identity and what to carve or not that lead so many shemales to the lonely pistol, and, like an angry young black man feeling he needs revenge on some amorphous white mass for his inability to even apply to trade school, s/he is left culturally ignored by definition, as to the things that really drive the decision to swallow or point at convenience store clerks the nine millimeter. It is the choice, the responsibility, of the individual to perform the action, and perhaps it could and should have been done better, but the media and cultural context which the Jew has long provided its victim have been necessary and sufficient conditions to drive so much of the mess we've seen.)

The Importance of Identity in Identity

Attempting to present someone as a type of thing with an identity, an individual history and a shared history as part of a group one probably doesn't nor cannot choose, and so forth, is vital to a better, or even a marginally accurate, representation of that person. It was once not thought of as crude or insulting for a historian to point out that someone had a womb and ovaries and certain hormone levels that are proven to affect behavior, anymore than it was considered improper to point out that someone was loaded with testosterone and thought the most important thing to do--ever.--was to fuck hot chicks a lot. Understanding that someone was a childless female in her late 30s, or a male in his mid teens, plays a vital role in understanding the complexity of their personality or motivation in a biographical sense. Modern Terrans hate doing this, because as heretics of their own violently preferred religion--belief in Bangism, or the Genesis-style creation story coupled with random mutation creating random variance in planetary organisms--they also like to believe, very strongly, in the fact that their entrapment by evolution can be trumped by their participation in a greater culture of believing in things that somehow transcended everything else that they said they believed in.

Though all humans, male humans and female humans, hale humans and physically crippled humans, young FDR and polio FDR, humans currently standing on top of skyscrapers surrounded by armed men aiming guns at them and humans standing on solid ground alone, have different aspects to their situation, and their characters, than humans doing otherwise from an infinite set of possibilities, their circumstances affect their behavior and perspective, and it is ludicrous to pretend they don't. So too their sexual identity and motivation(s) during their primes. If we're too embarrassed to admit that our own molecular frame affects what we do while we're in it, we may try to argue that others are similarly unaffected; poor scholarship on sexual identity is largely a component of this, where people pretended Alexander was straight in order to pretend that their own personality was unaffected by what they thought about that underage waitress that one time they worked hard to forget. Our recent and lustful tradition of saying otherwise characterizes the failure of our pretense at accepting identity by denying it, and it will be one of many tragedies for the study of human sexuality that we, ironically, tried to pretend it wasn't important even as we tried to pretend it was important.

Which raises the question, since we know Alexander was probably homosexual, was he a bottom or a top? It's a sexual detail we're not really willing to talk about, because even when Nu Euro liberals cared more about gays than they did about the Muslims' rights to throw them off roofs, they were squeamish to get into details. So, too, was history, which can reveal friendships that were way too close through clever reference in discussing other topics, permitting scribes to note that Alexander was a fag without coming right out and saying it; in such glaringly obvious, but always defensible as innocent, ways can someone record history truthfully without actually saying explicitly what happened, such as "Alexander and Cretoss consulted about the terrain long into the night without tolerating the interference of any others of the soldiers, as they had begun doing of late as the terrain changed." It's not the whole truth, but it's the truth and nothing but the truth, and it's rather a polite way of recording what happened, and anyone who's not trying to cover it up or isn't just dumb or ignorant or whatever would be able to read the real story, but free of squeamish detail. Much classical and modern scholarship has been the discussion of Alexander's hard work evaluating the terrain so often, like a bunch of morons who couldn't read between the lines; of course they probably could, but didn't want to, read what the sources were saying, and people who didn't read the sources suffered ignorance from their trust. We do that now, too, as a different set of people with different desires reads the same lack of meaning out of the source material.

The Utility of Sexual Identity to us Moderns

Alexander's status returns as a question, then: bottom, or top? Alexander's history doesn't make much sense if "top," but in the current era of scholarship, it's evil and completely wrong to say that, because it suggests that you can know a lot of gay couples and notice differences between them that seem to correspond to their sexual role, personal lol because of this one gay dude I knew who somehow turned his rainbow-painted custom Beetle sideways in the garage and panicked and had to call for help, it was seriously stuck and in retrospect it's amazing he was able to turn such ridiculously tight mini-corners in the garage that was closed when he was theoretically trying to drive out of it considering all the crap that those hoarders kept in the garage. (Jesus, it reportedly took almost twenty tiny three point turns to get the damn thing out and amazingly no statues were knocked over.)

(And there's room, maybe only there, for a component of positive socialization, because that was a story I first heard from his partner, and he just told it to me as a story, without doing any more to introduce them, but then we were friends and he'd also told me, "Oh, by the way, I'm the top," not in those words but cleverly, since the Beetle-story could've only been generated by the "bottom," and he didn't need to be crass or vulgar to convey that information, but merely to share an anecdote that could only be explained if he were the "top" and his partner were the "bottom." Whereas straight couples where you can identify the sex at first glance already have that basis covered, "gay" couples do not, and since they might meet a lot of people who can't tell, having a Beetle story really helps make it clear at the outset. So if anyone's LGBTQ etc., they should really appreciate how acknowledging sexual roles, in a polite but maybe indirect way, can really make the process of socialization easier. Gay couples meeting gay couples don't have that problem, since they have all sorts of insider knowledge of subtleties everyone else would miss, or maybe local or temporal signals about it, down to the level of who introduces whom or tone of voice--which is often so obvious that otherwise-oblivious straight people can pick up on it, too--but if we're ever going to have a civil society where the occasional buttsecks couple can be a weird couple instead of a couple of forgotten suicides that cost everyone more money overall, that kind of permissible acknowledgement is going to be necessary. That kind of lighthouse also serves great for people who hate, or merely don't like, or merely try to avoid, gay people or gay couples, because the kinds of things you worry about a "top" doing around kids are different than those subversions which have a greater degree of risk of coming from a "bottom." For example, certain types of young males may be more vulnerable to being raped, others to trying fingernail polish, others to spending all their weekends at the local vintage theater becoming Audrey Hepburn fans and buying $6 bags of period popcorn and spending way too much time with the local gay community, and "tops" and "bottoms" have different presumed risk levels for such things. Protecting, or guiding, boys and young men in such situations, is similar to the way that, in modern society, protecting and guiding girls and young women in potentially harmful situations can no longer rely on pre-emptive social vetting rituals unless you give a lot of money and time to Jesus and lie to yourself that Hollywood is impotent; knowing who people are is perhaps the only way this can really be accomplished without an insular community that people say you can't preserve in the modern world anyway. Ergo it really helps everyone out to have a Beetle story, even if it just disgusts you anyway. If you can be friends with that, it improves it, and if you're really averse to that, it's a warning sign, maybe the only one you can ever get without going Muslim with the roof-tossing.)

Season that thought with your own personal experiences if you have them, and many do, such that even Hollywood has been embarrassed into designing sexual roles into the gay characters they like to portray. Even in their ultimate "White America is bad, marriage and children detract from nature, but homosexuality is good and natural and pure" Brokeback Mountain, where the homos were also physical ass-kickers in other scenes, they had to admit the interpersonal dynamic of top/bottom in the scenes actually about the characters' relationship.

Alexander could have certainly been a top, except for the aforementioned way that he got emotional about "his own decisions" to switch "advisers" or change plans or stop or start, and it really does him and his lover(s) a disservice to make him or them responsible for everything that happened, that could have happened, or that should have happened. The battle plan and achievements associated with that particular army, but consistently linked to Alexander as a ruler in full awareness and control of his own functions and legacy, tell a story that doesn't match with a top. And, this must be said--for Alexander was most likely a "bottom" in his most private and intimate partnership(s)--there are plenty of male homosexuals, perhaps in contravention of a lot of others but still there, who prefer homosexual activity but only in the context of their version of sexual dominance, and can be smart and well-ordered and not freak out in insane perceived (rightly or wrongly; just blame them for being chauvinists with bad opinions if you don't want to think that they're right) feminine-like or feminine-imitating ways, and not stand out unless they get lucky with some dude and someone really clever notices. The perverse, identity-less liberal version of homosexuality has often blended this thin slice of reality with story, wherein movie homosexuals are tough, sensible, unemotional everymen who just happen to like fucking dudes on the side.

Shunning the Bottom

Unfortunately for gay advocates and the movies, Hollywood's interest in portraying gays Just Like You And Me has been a wash in the sense of the attempt to force acceptance of gays on the unwilling general public by conflating the identity of gays and then-popular figures. This has resulted in "top" figures in entertainment media being presented as the ideal gays, where a dude who drinks tea with his pinkie up but also is a martial arts instructor who lifts heavy and has great deltoids is presented as the gay ideal, and that underlying disapproval of the "bottom" is still there. That's a longstanding thing in the gay community, back to prehistory, where the dude who takes it in the butt is adeemed less worthy than the dude who fucks the butt--and there are maybe obvious, maybe disgusting, maybe rational, maybe objectively true and eminently understandable reasons why humans who did know about or participate in homosexual activity may have currencied the bottoms and given more social respect to tops. It's a bitter pill for gays and gay activists that it was and is this way; it's a skeleton in the closet for people, gay or "straight" or straight, who wanted to pretend the culturally accepted MSM buttfucking lined the way to paradise. There are gay-specific, gay-targeted, gay-loving articles and essays about this condescension of tops toward bottoms, and about the non-gay-communication of social missives, so it's not like only straight people have noticed, even though movies and teevee sometimes try to pretend that there's nothing to notice. So it isn't just straight people who have noticed this within the blinders of their weird prejudice against men consensually rubbing genitals in the tail end of the digestive system. And there is a long and well-understood tradition in non-blindered society that you can expect certain behaviors from the top and the bottom, make certain social demands or assumptions about them if you socialize with them, et cetera, to which some are completely blind and which many others take completely for granted, just like there's a whole church subculture(s) in small-town America that performs similar social ordering functions for certain kinds of women based on marital status and displayed freneticism or moderation which influences, like or dislike aside, how a committee would decide to assign potluck requests and carnival tending.

The shunning of the gay bottom is, perhaps, a private shame for the organized gay community that wants to pretend gays are so virtuous they never notice things, but in its own way, mirrors the relationship of feminism to human history. Yes, gay bottoms are treated as more likely to freak out, to be emotional about random stuff, to be sensation seeking, to change their affections at random rather than retain them based on an honor-like system of loyalty, and so forth: essentially, they're presumed to have more feminine behavioral patterns. In employment, sports, socializing in mixed groups that don't also have orgies, et cetera, these behavior patterns tend to fit gay "bottoms" even when sex isn't an issue at all. The right cocktail of character traits that makes a functioning human female seems similarly predominant in people who could stand to play that role without actually being a reproduction-capable female, and we see such behavior patterns dominate in plenty of other non-reproducing human societies also, where the most tender-looking girl in preschool, or the sweetest old gal at the senior dance, or the terminal ward counseling group, shows that it actually isn't about making babies that perceptions of "male" and "female," or "more like whatever masculine means" and "more like whatever feminine means" made a difference to how human beings treated and protected and perceived one another.

Back to Alexander

Returning to Alexander, then, we consider the modern historical view that a likely gay bottom/receiver was responsible for everything "he" supposedly did. And obviously, standard history makes no sense if he'd been a bottom, and it is really callous of us to pretend for centuries that he wasn't interested in screwing dudes, rather serving them in that way, and then to come to terms with it but pretend he was a gay "top," rather crushing and disregarding and otherizing a major component of his self-realized character. That's disempowering and discriminatory and regressive and all that, like so many of the terribly loaded but supposedly enlightened things we do now, and more importantly for our purposes, it sticks with the standard self-reported lie-history of the Nu Euros who took only two thousand years to invent the train and the airplane while killing themselves as fast as they could.

Alexander's being gay, and not dominating some single bottom or little covey of receivers, makes it unlikely he was a sexually dominant male who also pouted and risked things emotionally like he is said (by his contemporaries, not his later fans) to have done. Read up on stock Alexander history and note his moods, his spurts of deciding things should be done and not done, and more importantly, the way he relies so heavily on his "advisers" to tell him not only how something should be conquered, but if it should be conquered at all. More likely, Alexander was a flighty little sexually-submissive gay man whose conquest was driven by someone else who was fine with letting his little pretty boy take all the credit, because rather than caring about appearing in history books with his face on everything, he was fine with really being the one who took the territory, driving the point home, accomplishing the trackable goals, and not being displayed as the one who had. Considering the shameful, cowardly nature of that historical audience--humans in, say, 1944--he had nothing to lose. Considering also how modern societies, perhaps all societies, and modern economies, have been designed, perhaps fatally, perhaps amorally, around taking credit rather than what really happened, it's perhaps too confusing for the modern to contemplate, but if you can imagine any kind of truth or goodness that transcends "the Big Bang" or "things happen randomly and then die forever" religion, or at least are willing to contemplate that someone else could be that wrong and insane because of a lack of well funded public schools, you can imagine them serving a different master.

That's an interesting dynamic, and a wistful tale about whoever it was. Again, read the stock history of Alexander's career, and try to figure out which occasionally mentioned adviser or less important lord who showed up now and again, was topping him not just in an occasional way, but in a consistently controlling way that would explain the story. There are a lot of possibilities, which raises separate questions about how much and when exactly, and increases the potential drama level to who really owns him? A really clever dude would've probably been nameless, just one of the many presumed historical hangers on, but like a real version of the black holes bending light where you can see it without seeing it. "I wish I could quit you, Alexander." Lol, as though such a mastermind would've been dissuaded by weird inner qualms caused by his struggle with turmoil over whether he should or shouldn't, because during the period, there was a noticeable percentage of dudes fucking other dudes but still having lots of kids and being respected community patriarchs and giving orders lots of people had to follow to cause historical events to happen that we now think of as significant. That history is tainted by the twentieth and twenty-first century western sickness of wanting to make all male friendships presumed sexual, which is sick and sad and wrong in its own way, but the classical pederasts who did it together for way too much time can be safely presumed to be at least occasional lovers who left their mark on history, making Alexander's proclivities no longer so rare-sounding. And despite our molecularly-denialist wishes, the male body is undeniable in the way that testosterone disproves all feminist theories; since each male possesses only one dick and one butt, the mechanics of the act have to create social "tops" and "bottoms," and appurtenant social roles that will be sought out and will affect the people who adopt them, giving us something to work with. Find who really drove the conquering with Alexander for a figurehead if you want; it would be cool if there's a book somewhere that mentions the right name, but it's equally probable the name never appears, because Alexander and his lover knew the score, and Alexander knew how to play his role, and perhaps a plurality even at the time had nothing more than suspicions about how that moody little twink could keep accomplishing things in between pouting fits. Plenty of female CEO-types have played that role for their husbands since feminist industrialism, theoretically free to fly off the handle and start making weird, independent decisions, but smart enough to play their role so well it wasn't even really a "role," like the Chinese-American woman I knew once who owned like sixteen small businesses with her name on everything, and often showed up and smiled at people and stuff, but acquired and sold and merged per her husband's own nefarious plans and was really a living emblem of their success at both having an inherent understanding of reality which included fulfilling current social roles as part of it, a responsibility as serious as dealing with a flood or a drought.

And a wise woman would do that: would express her husband's business acumen while protecting her husband from feminist bullshit, thereby being a better feminist than the feminists, taking the secret to her grave so that her "woman managed" stuff would be stronger for her daughters to inherit. And yes, I have personally known women who've had a better sense of that sort of thing than their husbands, but in statistical terms, that's irrelevant, because if you can get featured in some crappy local paper with ten thousand readers for being a female business, and if you can have the Women's Studies department at the local university feeding an extra twenty students a year to order dinner with you at least once, it's a smart opportunity, and a good businessperson, male or female, takes advantage of it if there is a way to: and sometimes, that means throwing the feminists a bone, just like you don't headbutt people in American football because it causes extra brain damage and reduces player ability fast. It doesn't mean you're stupidly prejudiced against the head. In the 1950s, maybe you pay some pretty girl to sit at a desk and talk effusively to clients when they arrive, and in the 2000s, maybe you put some ball busting woman who looks joyless in the corner office and work from home. Disaster preparedness, people.

As a human being, rather than as a general, Alexander's purported achievements are greater than the official version, and it's shameful that our story of ourselves could never acknowledge it, but had to make everyone a "top" after so long of pretending everyone only liked chicks. We presume Alexander's real lover wouldn't have appreciated being rhetoricized as a receiver, and that's maybe why it's best we've forgotten his name and have no paintings of his likeness to offend by our disgusting, offensive assumption that behavior does not give a line on identity.

'Zander's Story

Let's try a more realistic take on the Alexander story. Young heir to the country of Macedon born in 356 B.C., grows up without distinction, gets raised by a couple of traveling nurses, and does the famous story where a horse trader brings his father a horse too nervous to ride, but Alexander feels touchy feely toward the horse and soothes it into accepting being ridden by men. He goes to an all-boys boarding school where he is bullied and initiated and meets several lifelong male friends that he later appoints to his army, his father sends him to tag along with some existing armies as the nominal commander, but Alexander brings in his male friends from boarding school to advise and comfort him, pissing off his dad for some reason.

Alexander's father feels like his existing family isn't serving him, finds a second woman to marry, Alexander is conflicted about his identity since such an heir would be fully Macedonian by blood rather than his merely half, and Alexander pouts and leaves the city with his mother whom he is very close to and they cry and fret about why father is so horny and interested in heirs. Father Philip gets mad at all Alexander's slutty relationships and exiles four of his male friends. A vengeful dude kills Philip publicly and some of Alexander's old male friends show Alexander how they can slay the killer when the killer trips. Alexander becomes king at 20, and he sorta continues his father's ongoing, incomplete military campaigns with his collection of manly generals shepherding him.

Around this time, after 336 B.C., Alexander starts following the advice of some very commanding presence(s), and butchers his other family members so they won't divulge whatever they think they know. At some point, little skirty boy, whose coterie artists keep portraying nude in hunts and battles for some reason, stops the party lifestyle and goes on a sudden, inexplicable campaign that we all know about: in sustained fashion, these aren't the actions of a deferring, spastic receiver, but rather, one whose primary relationship has gotten more serious. The easy temptation is to assume that his childhood companion, Cleitus the Black, was finally reaping what he'd sown, in the military realm this time, and was the mastermind behind this sudden decision of Alexander's to have a life plan other than hanging around the capital being gifted and appreciated by his reliable entourage of boyfriends. Whether Cleitus or some other faceless "top," though, skirty boy was being put to use outside the bedroom, and the big campaigns started, and whoever was riding him managed to use peer pressure and socially expected image to keep the train rolling. Although the stigma for or against homosexual behavior was not then what it has been, respectively, during other phases of human history, some discretion was clearly practiced, because Alexander's tendencies kept making it into the historical record, the certain identity of his one true top never did. Speculation abounds, but at this point in Alexander's life, we face the conundrum of a twinky party boy figureheading an expansive military campaign, in utter defiance of his character and ambitions previous.

The cool real unknowable stories here would've been great. Late one night, someone hears something, he's finally got them this time, it's not right for a king to...what's in the tent Gherossus, I think you know what's in the tent Gherossus, stab, it's okay, you can come out now, he won't be talking, go over there, I'll get some men and clean this up. And another embarrassment is spared from dirtying the little twink's hide. It is somewhat famous that Alexander died without any children or other heirs, and that when asked to whom he wanted to leave his kingdom, he said, "tôi kratistôi," or "to the strongest," which was probably his passion, and probably an understanding that, whoever his favored top was whom he'd been docilely fronting that entire time, that person could not be given the kingdom, and would face a lot of strife from all the lesser men who'd been hovering around Alexander since the beginning, but that he had confidence or hope (you be the judge) that his "top" could do well in any such struggle, or at least a recognition that he couldn't give his kingdom to who it really belonged to, without him there to take it for the team of two. After his death, some chick claimed to be carrying his son, and that threw an interesting playing piece into the wars of succession, but Alexander's likely self-chosen role as a gay "bottom" rather than a top is reaffirmed by his rather ludicrous choice, if he were presumed to be a top, to not mount a chick at least once, or a few times, to pump out some kids. Not only his sexual preferences, but his preferences in self-imagery, are expressed in that choice, for many a gay "top," whether or not engaging in everything in which they'd like to engage, can also top a human female without much trouble, whereas the twink often feels it would be too indicative of an acceptance of undesired responsibility, a fuller manhood, and a thousand other little factors that are embarrassing for our supposedly gay-embracing societies to consider. If we weren't so full-throttle on our fantasy of completely accepting all gays as manly tops, we could graph the proportions and percentages through which gay "bottoms" have and raise children, date and marry women, and why they do or don't--but Alexander himself gives and lives for us a suitable example, even when our scholars are too squeamish to do so.

Novelize it. Posit the rather fantastic, if rather gross, story of this expansively minded military man wanting a boy so bad he takes him, and then spends years controlling him for their joint benefit, ceding every social and historic mantel to his little pet in exchange for real results. Who had to get beaten, who executed, and who simply sent away to avoid breaking the narrative? And, was it even unknown, then? Perhaps the past was not so embarrassed as the present, and perhaps there's a really tumultuous love story worked in there where Alexander slutted around his old advisers until the field could finally be narrowed, through threat or the ill winds of war, down to a point where things could stabilize.

So many problems of Alexandrian history are solved by being able to re-conceptualize him as having the social role records of him describe. And in theory, that's what we're supposed to do with history, rather than make of it a story that validates our current sexual preferences. We've failed miserably, which is why "straight Alexander" predominated for so long, and then "huge top Alexander" or maybe "topping from the bottom Alexander," all contravening evidence so that we could use a trope we thought was good to match a trend we thought, at the time, was good. Matching character to circumstance, and demanding that both conform to our desired image of Alexander, ignores the real evidence and slays, as far as our historical memory goes, any traces of the real Alexander that remained. Again, it's ironic that such a pro-homosexual culture would be so prejudiced, right? Against a sexual preference? Yet it's not really ironic; our weird militarism in the occupied West and our natural aversion to MSM buttsecks, coupled with our belief that we are so potent that nothing which disgusts us is actually disgusting--our quest to dominate even ourselves, regressing our most intimate thought processes so we never have to get to know ourselves--has combined to put us in this historical period where it's acceptable to notice some things but not others, all homosexual men are burly big top Everyman who can drive cars fast and just might casually fuck a woman better than you can, they are not and never have been vaguely effeminate in any of their mannerisms that is just a stupid prejujdice how dare you suggest that everyone may choose their own identity but not that one not that one no no no no. In fact, our extended and ironclad history of cascading aversions to this or that identity, which might be called "childish" or "embarrassing" or just "stupid," makes it a good bet to play the odds that western scholars have fucked up again.

The moodiness; the hints of turning back that are never quite realized until someone who knows the army really well "insisted" that he (accepted that he finally got his wish that he'd been dreaming about for what'd felt like eons) read the men differently and shifted his mood; the forced lionization of this one particular prize, like someone didn't want to take the credit but wanted to make sure someone special to him did--it's a great drama. We can imagine a hundred little times where someone cried or had a fit, he patted his shoulders and wiped his tears and stood him up, you're the king dammit, these men need you, are you sure it's right hombre, why can't we go home, I'm going to bring you into history my little Alexander, come with me, tell them we march in the morn, whoever he was maybe he thought his prize was so enjoyable, enjoyed the mild intrigue or the naughty escapes so much, or just wanted to be a real conqueror the opinions of a bunch of twentieth century schoolkids that it was his pretty doing the work be damned.

MSM buttsecks may be rilly gross, but if you can endure the reference, there were likely some really steamy stories in there, where the interpersonal dynamics of who actually fed the commands to the armies, told the king what to say, and yet who had to deal with him ending up repeatedly in some other officer's tent (officers who often disappeared shortly thereafter--thanks, ancient writers, for putting it in boring prose we're able to allow ourselves to digest), his spasmodic fits about whether we'd keep going or stop or turn back, and trying to balance an image that would keep the army moving, which depended on someone completely incapable in these realms but you can't tell the men the truth or this is all over come on get up get up people are counting on you!

Friday, July 6, 2018


Playing alien Scrabble on a planet where you don't know the language. The lighting is dark blue so you can't see the features of your opponent in this game nor any of the hundreds of people on folding chairs in the surrounding audience, who actually seem to like spectating this alien Scrabble and follow the moves with desperate attention. You don't know the language, so you set tiles down at random, and your opponent challenges them all the time. Some sort of shadowy official with a giant dictionary comes out, looks up the gobbledygook word you played, and he already knows it's not a word, but he goes through the ritual of pointing out its absence in this or that part of the alien dictionary. He raises a large fishy-slimy hand up high and brings it down heavily on the board, somehow not disturbing any of the tiles except the ones you've just placed for your errant move, sending them hopping inches above the board's surface and then nimbly catching them in that fishy-slimy hand while his other arm is busy folding the dictionary under that elbow. Every time he catches you making a bad move, everyone in the audience, every single one of them, pulls out this double-board clapper that they hold in a single hand. Thrusting them forward, they give them small swings side to side, and the wood panels hit each other, and they shake them punitively at you for your bad move and for being caught in the making of that bad move. More than half your turns, the official comes out with the dictionary and cancels your move, and each time the audience produces its wooden clappers and rattles its wooden disapproval of you, and your opponent is prepared and he makes a triumphant move but they never use the clappers to celebrate his move, you only see them when it's your turn and you've made a mistake you don't understand and never will understand. When he makes his move the air to your left of the table lights up with projected runes, has to be the score, yours must be zero, it's zero right, but you swear your side used to be slightly different so maybe that move you made with two tiles however many turns ago was real, how long have you been here in this dark blue light with that judge coming to void your moves and why did you why would you have agreed to this game it's impossible. Why are they even watching it, spectator Scrabble makes no sense and obviously they can tell you don't know the language am I drawing bad letters every time and I should waste a turn to switch I just don't know there's no way to tell, it's crazy to think that some of them might be better or worse for me than others, I have no way of knowing and it's stupid to think that one kind of random would be better than another, it could be worse too it's a risk either way and why do they follow this game so intensely isn't it boring to them?

And then suddenly you lay down some random tiles in a random place on the board and the crowd hoots in a vocal expression of pleasure. Your opponent moves his arms angrily and the dark blue light reflects all around in weird patterns and the glowing projected runes reappear and suddenly you have lots of runes, was it zero before or was it something, no way to tell. Your opponent looks nervous and fumbles his tiles on the next move and drops them on the floor and out come the audience's wooden clappers, they rattle punitively at him this time and he can't take the pressure and drops the tiles on the floor again and the judge comes over I guess to scold him or something, his hands shake and he plays a word but a buzzer sounds and the judge brings over the dictionary. You know that walk and you know the position of that book at readiness like he can already tell of course he can tell it's his language if you played "zort" in Scrabble in your own language it doesn't take a book to prove you failed. And sure enough the judge inspects your opponent's new word and slaps the board and those tiles jump and he catches them and the crowd brings its rattlers back out to shake their disapproval of his move and you start to sweat worrying that now they'll expect you to be good and what in the world they had to have figured out before you didn't know what you were doing it feels like they think they're now watching some kind of verbal expert when they watch you what if you let them down and they mob you and kill you when you can only play gibberish. The judge retreats and you lay out a random selection of tiles with twisted runes on their faces and it happens again, the projected scoring runes light up and change and your score goes way up like you got a nine-times score or something oh my goodness are you winning now that is completely ridiculous. But you have driven your opponent to some kind of despair, he drops his tiles and they shake the rattlers at him, all around the room wood clacking, wood clacking, a drowning sea of clacking wood, it used to be only for you but now it is his and he doesn't like it, you don't even know the language and you can see from the shaking of his fish-slimy hands that he's setting down complete nonsense, building shapes out of the tiles and stacking them double and doing other things that makes the judge respond fast and angry and that makes the wooden clackers come back out oh my goodness are they going to kill him? The rattling wooden panels are getting closer on all sides and the clacking is getting louder and your next turn you use every tile you have left and somehow it's a word or at least they don't challenge it, you have so many runes now the person adding up the score has to be padding the number doesn't he, how can you have a four digit score, no, there's a fifth digit, how can you have a five digit score in Scrabble, what are the rules what are the numbers how does their numbering system work I wish I could speak the language oh goodness put the clacking clackers away I can't stand the clackers don't you know what they mean to me a reminder of my failure what if there is a rematch or a challenger after this one I would never agree to play competitive Scrabble especially not in front of a studio audience that's allowed to express its opinions. When my opponent plays his next move a loud buzzer sounds and the dark blue lights are even darker all I can see is wall panels far away but I can feel the presence of the audience, the judge returns and hits the board but this time all the tiles fall off the board is sideways in midair I actually feel disappointed that the image of the words I played, the great words, is not saved for gaming posterity, what in the world I actually remember it well no don't think that they're trying to draw you into their sick reality you don't actually care about any of this that happened, the clackers just keep rattling punitively and your opponent has suffered his last failure, they are hitting him with the clackers oh my goodness it's really happening like that they close around him and the clacking intensifies and you can't believe those things once looked like a fun way to increase audience engagement maybe when they brought them out the first time you messed up. The judge approaches you rapidly, you twitch and recoil but people are everywhere and his fishy-slimy hand grips your arm and raises it overhead in an unmistakable expression of triumph, wait, the clackers were supposed to be for bad things so why are they rattling them now at you the winner and why do they seem to be praising your victory oh light I never even learned the language what if they figure it out later rather than sooner and they're mad and think I deceived them it was obvious I didn't know the game?