Part One surveys the general state of modern sexual propaganda and examines a few aspects of homosexuality in light of the European literary and philosophical tradition. Everyone's favorite gay Jewish alt-right leader makes several appearances. Subsequent parts will discuss two topics that are confusing for ordinary conservatives; cuckoldry and normative heterosexuality. Now stop staring at Zeus and Ganymede.
THE NEW VICTORIANS
American normies of the current year hold a title of dubious value; they are the New Victorians. And not the good, world-bestriding, empire-building, European cultural imperialist Victorians either; no, the revival of Victorianism is unfortunately limited to matters pertaining to sex. There is an apocryphal story of a Victorian lady who fainted at the sight of uncovered piano legs, so refined was her sense of decorum and so artificially wide the gulf between nature and polite society. Queen Victoria herself had nine children, so the reality of 19th century sexuality was far more fecund than the stereotypical view of the Victorians as repressed and awkward individuals. But what the Victorians are in stereotype; hypocritically prim, ignorant of and frightened by nature, desperate to hide or ignore the realities of carnal love; all this Westerners, particularly Americans, have become in reality.
It is the sad fate of the brainwashed dupes of Hollywood and academia to both fail to understand what the title New Victorians means and to be offended by it for the wrong reasons. The bonds of historic and cultural memory have been severed so completely that John Q. Public is incapable of being proud of the truly worthy achievements of his ancestors and in fact thinks the worst of them, if he is aware of them at all. Progressive education has inculcated a double defense against European cultural revival. The average citizen knows next to nothing about the past, and his only pride is a chronological snobbery that makes him feel superior to his ancestors in exactly those points of modern culture that are most degenerate.
No area of life admits more scope for degeneracy than sexuality. Sex is universal, primal, and critically important in both personal and civilizational terms, so it is naturally a battlefront where Leftists spread confusion and lies. The lies of the Left and the consequences of publicly disagreeing with them mean that most Americans are unwilling to even honestly discuss sex, preferring to just bury their heads in the sand and hope no one molests them.
Closing eyes to obvious and important truths is not unique in history, particularly with regard to sex, but it has become a refined art form in the current year. Romance novels are consistently top circulating items in libraries, but good liberal librarians are embarrassed by this déclassé phenomenon. They would scoff if Chateau Heartiste ever explained to them, for instance, the dichotomy between the kind of man women want versus the kind they say they want, the reality of sexual market value, and the significance of female youth and beauty and male strength and confidence. Naive ignorance has been a hallmark of normie political discussions for years, but active promotion of falsehoods now predominates on television and social media.
Brainwashing on the matter of sex is so complete that now anything is permissible except the truth. If we proposed putting pictures of vaginas and penises on restroom doors in place of stick-figures in dresses and pants to reinforce the notion that biological sex, not 'gender identity', determines which bathroom one must use, many average citizens would consider those images more crude and offensive than just letting transgenders use whatever bathroom they like. Those SJW's offended by the mere concept of biological normativity are happy to advocate for literally deadly policies like allowing gay men to donate blood or adopt little boys. On one level these people know absolutely nothing about the nature of the world, but in another sense their policies are precisely calculated to destroy some of the most fundamental institutions of white European civilization.
One of the few redeeming features of the Milo-pedo debacle was the momentary lifting of the veil so all could see the confusion of current politically correct sexual dogma. Milo said gay men like young boys, not pre-pubescent but perhaps below the legal age of consent. The Left summoned up shock and outrage that they do not really feel because Milo is anti-SJW. Milo actually deserves the ire of the Left for his inadvertent, untimely exposure of a degenerate lobby that already succeeded in normalizing homosexuality and needed just a few more years of tactical silence to get the transgender and pedophilia agenda accepted as well. The cuckservative reaction pathetically revealed how thorough the gay victory over the minds of ordinary Republicans has been. Cuckservatives lambasted Milo for insulting homosexuals, who, they were quick to tell us, would never dream of casting their eyes upon an underaged partner. As we all know, gays are indistinguishable from monogamous heterosexuals, unless perchance more virtuous and heroic.
Cuckservatives, in addition to making hollow statements about family values that now apparently include gays, often attack the alt-right on sexual matters as well. CPAC's Dan 'they are racist, they are sexist' Schneider and Rick 'anime porn' Wilson are both tiptoeing around a fundamental issue of which they know nothing. If you have bought into the modernist egalitarian lie, the alt-right seems obsessed with race and sex. If you hold to the opinions of the previous 1000 generations of Europeans, it is jarring to realize that cuckservatives truly do not see why sex and race are so significant or why homosexuality, cuckoldry, and gender equality are dangerous to civilization.
Conservatives cling to a family values schtick that has failed because the Left successfully inverted the scale of sexual values. Things currently deemed laudable were sources of great shame to our ancestors and those now shameful were sources of pride. Mercifully, there is still a written record, however obscured in academia and media, of the actual words of our forebears. A wealth of formerly common knowledge about sex, knowledge now held almost exclusively by the numerically puny alt-right, is just waiting to be rediscovered by normies. Read poetry or prose; epic, lyric, or drama; anything written before the 20th century contains truisms about sex that are as unavoidable as unmistakeable. The following observations represent an infinitesimal fraction of the Western Canon, but they contain enough Crimethink to drive any Leftist insane and make any cuckservative blush with embarrassment.
The two distinct layers of legitimacy in sexual relationships are biological legitimacy and social convention. Social conventions are adaptable depending on circumstances. It is understandable that most people oppose teen marriages under modern social conditions since age of consent laws are based on our particular view of childhood and psychological maturity, not immutable laws of nature. In the 17th century and earlier, teenagers were regularly married and bearing children because their life expectancy did not allow for delay, as is made abundantly clear to the 14 year old protagonist in Romeo and Juliet.
Well, think of marriage now; younger than you,
Here in Verona, ladies of esteem
Are made already mothers: by my count,
I was your mother much upon these years
That you are now a maid. Romeo and Juliet 1.3.75
There is nothing outlandish or disgusting about a foreign set of social conventions, so long as everyone understands the rules and plans for them. The jailer's daughter in Shakespeare's The Two Noble Kinsmen is very clear about her desires when she falls in love with an aristocratic prisoner, "To marry him is hopeless; To be his whore is witless. Out upon ’t! What pushes are we wenches driven to When fifteen once has found us!"1 Milo wants to eliminate social conventions like age of consent laws that currently restrict relationships, and, though unpopular and ill advised, this is his least objectionable position. Where Milo and all other gays become incoherent is on the more fundamental issue of biological legitimacy.
Biological legitimacy is difficult to thwart and hard to discuss dispassionately because it cuts uncomfortably across social conventions. John Derbyshire, when he was still allowed in polite company, was reprimanded for writing unpleasant true things about biology and sex. It is not popular or tactful to say, as Derbyshire did, that women are most attractive between the ages of 15 and 20, but nature is no respecter of social conventions; the biological dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate sexual relationships is the ability to reproduce. It is socially taboo but biologically understandable for an older man to be attracted to a teenage girl. It would be a bad idea to remove all restrictions on May-December romances, but we must recognize that those restrictions are superimposed on the natural order. Radical feminists want to overturn not just social conventions, but biology itself. The Left wants to delegitimize all non-interracial male attraction to females, and legitimize every unnatural form of sexual attraction.
Biologically unnatural sexual relationships include any inherently barren sexual unions. No matter what social convention may say, no matter how public attitudes may shift, all sexual attraction to prepubescent children is biologically illegitimate, as are all homosexual relationships. Sperm donors, In Vitro Fertilization and the travesty of gay adoption are coping mechanisms adopted by the Left to mask the obvious and literal fruitlessness of their favorite sexual practice. This is precisely where libertarian libertines such as Milo lose their way.
It is untenable to argue that some biologically illegitimate inclinations, like pedophilia, should remain taboo while others, like homosexuality, should be treated as normal. This is to place all of the responsibility for sexual ethics in the unreliable hands of public opinion. We currently tolerate gays and hate pedophiles, but if those two positions ever flip, a libertarian has no basis for opposing the change. All of the talk about pedophilia being different because children cannot give informed consent is nonsense. Liberal parents are currently being nudged toward starting hormone treatments on their allegedly transgender children. Eventually a six year old who comes home from school and says she wants to have sex with the gym teacher will be seen as a civil rights pioneer.
The sexual conundrums relating to homosexual attraction and age were described in some of the earliest parts of the Western Canon. The tradition of homosexual relationships featuring an older partner and a youth is a common theme in Plato's dialogues. The Left loves this seeming inclusion of homosexuality at the very beginning of Western Civilization (which, when they are not using it to justify degeneracy, they insist was either stolen from Africa or else was a very bad thing, or maybe never even existed at all). When Milo tried to cast his own sexual experiences in a positive light, he appealed to the same high-minded ideal of mutual benefit expressed in Plato's Symposium.
"[W]hen the lover realizes that he is justified in doing anything for a loved one who grants him favors, and when the young man understands that he is justified in performing any service for a lover who can make him wise and virtuous—and when the lover is able to help the young man become wiser and better, and the young man is eager to be taught and improved by his lover—then, and only then, when these two principles coincide absolutely, is it ever honorable for a young man to accept a lover." Symposium 184e
Call me cynical, but I doubt that that standard is met very often in the private quarters of Catholic priests. Then again there is a first time for everything, so maybe Milo was a rare exception. As one reads the Symposium, it becomes clear that Plato is addressing men of philosophical depth and high moral standards, not the common man. Plato's conception of an appropriate homosexual relationship is vastly different from what passes for love in our modern context. Like so many of the notions presented in Plato, this social scheme is idealized to the point of impracticality if applied to any but the small fraction of exceptional men.
"If only there were a way to start a city or an army made up of lovers and the boys they love! Theirs would be the best possible system of society, for they would hold back from all that is shameful, and seek honor in each other’s eyes. Even a few of them, in battle side by side, would conquer all the world, I’d say. For a man in love would never allow his loved one, of all people, to see him leaving ranks or dropping weapons. He’d rather die a thousand deaths! And as for leaving the boy behind, or not coming to his aid in danger—why, no one is so base that true Love could not inspire him with courage, and make him as brave as if he’d been born a hero." Symposium 179a
This imagined city technically requires either another class of heterosexuals or bisexual men to produce the next generation, unless the ancient world had adoption agencies as eager to signal their LGBT friendliness as our modern ones. The ideal of self-improvement through gay partnerships demands long term commitments from lovers who seek the beauties and excellencies of the soul. Even with this unconventional definition of appropriate relationships, rare enough in themselves, the Symposium cannot entirely evade the creepy aspect of homoeroticism.
Plato describes the virtuous lovers thus, "[T]hose who are [moved purely by this Heavenly Love] do not fall in love with little boys; they prefer older ones whose cheeks are showing the first traces of a beard."2 If these older boys are just showing traces of a beard we are already down around the age of puberty; how much younger could the little boys be without taking us right to the edge of pedophilia? In any case Plato is at pains to separate the good lovers inspired by Heavenly Love from the common lovers inspired by Earthly Love. Heavenly Love required such careful articulation because the majority of couples in the ancient world were inspired by more carnal desires. Most fell into the category of vulgar love, the kind necessary for procreation and social stability. We get a sense of how ethereal and rarified Plato's ideal of love is because heterosexual attraction is categorized along with those homosexual unions that are merely physical.
"This, of course, is the love felt by the vulgar, who are attached to women no less than to boys, to the body more than to the soul, and to the least intelligent partners, since all they care about is completing the sexual act. Whether they do it honorably or not is of no concern. That is why they do whatever comes their way, sometimes good, sometimes bad; and which one it is is incidental to their purpose." 181b
Modern homosexual relationships, the media narrative of monogamy notwithstanding, tend more toward the vulgar, "who loves the body rather than the soul, the man whose love is bound to be inconstant, since what he loves is itself mutable and unstable. The moment the body is no longer in bloom, “he flies off and away,” his promises and vows in tatters behind him."3 After delineating the noble and base forms of love, Plato illustrates his point with a story about the virtue of Socrates. In Symposium 216b and following, Alcibiades recounts his youthful and unsuccessful attempts to woo Socrates with private philosophy lessons, wrestling matches, and seductive dinner dates. There is a farcical ready-made comedy here in the tradition of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum if only Hollywood were capable any longer of laughing at gays.
Unlike so-called edgy entertainers today, the ancient Romans in particular despised flamboyant, effeminate homosexuals and had no problem mocking them. Cicero ridiculed the effete city boys of Rome in his orations on the Conspiracy of Catiline; these men lacked the Roman virtues and thus were dangers to the state.
"This is Catilina's special treasure, his picked elect, formed from his own beloved cronies and bosom friends. You can see them about, lovely young men with elegantly combed hair, either beardless or bearded to excess, wearing tunics that reach down to the wrists and ankles, and togas which look more like veils. Their entire interest in life and all the alertness they can muster are squandered on parties that last all night long. In these gangs are to be found every gambler, adulterer, debauchee and sensualist who exists. These soft and pretty boys are experts at making love and having love made to them, and they know how to dance and sing; but they have also learnt to wave daggers about and sprinkle poisons. Unless they depart from this city, unless they die (and this remains true even if Catilina himself should die), you can rest assured that this hotbed of future Catilinas will continue to fester in our midst...Yet what are these wretched characters after? I cannot believe that they are really proposing to bring their fancy women into the camp. Yet how on earth will they be able to get on without them, especially on nights like this? How will they manage to endure the Apennines and all that frost and snow? Or perhaps they imagine that their habit of dancing naked at parties will give them useful experience for enduring winter conditions? Catilina's praetorian guard of pansies is certainly going to add to the terrors of the war. Second Catilinarian 2.22
Even Julius Caesar was derided for his alleged effeminacy in becoming the love toy of King Nicomedes of Bithynia rather than the dominant partner in a relationship. Suetonius's second paragraph in his Life of Julius Caesar recounts the youthful indiscretion of Caesar's first military campaign, "he dawdled so long at the court of Nicomedes that he was suspected of improper relations with the king; and he lent colour to this scandal by going back to Bithynia a few days after his return, with the alleged purpose of collecting a debt for a freedman, one of his dependents." Whether the stories were true or merely exaggerated by his rivals, Caesar was unable to shake the allegations for the rest of his life. Suetonius recounts the best quips without giving total credence to all of them.
"There was no stain on his reputation for chastity except his intimacy with King Nicomedes, but that was a deep and lasting reproach, which laid him open to insults from every quarter... I pass over, too, the invectives of Dolabella and the elder Curio, in which Dolabella calls him "the queen's rival, the inner partner of the royal couch," and Curio, "the brothel of Nicomedes and the stew of Bithynia." I take no account of the edicts of Bibulus, in which he posted his colleague as "the queen of Bithynia," saying that "of yore he was enamoured of a king, but now of a king's estate." At this same time, so Marcus Brutus declares, one Octavius, a man whose disordered mind made him somewhat free with his tongue, after saluting Pompey as "king" in a crowded assembly, greeted Caesar as "queen." But Gaius Memmius makes the direct charge that he acted as cup-bearer to Nicomedes with the rest of his wantons at a large dinner-party, and that among the guests were some merchants from Rome, whose names Memmius gives. Cicero, indeed, is not content with having written in sundry letters that Caesar was led by the king's attendants to the royal apartments, that he lay on a golden couch arrayed in purple, and that the virginity of this son of Venus was lost in Bithynia; but when Caesar was once addressing the senate in defence of Nysa, daughter of Nicomedes, and was enumerating his obligations to the king, Cicero cried: "No more of that, pray, for it is well known what he gave you, and what you gave him in turn." Finally, in his Gallic triumph his soldiers, among the bantering songs which are usually sung by those who followed the chariot, shouted these lines, which became a by-word:
"All the Gauls did Caesar vanquish, Nicomedes vanquished him; Lo! now Caesar rides in triumph, victor over all the Gauls,
Nicomedes does not triumph, who subdued the conqueror."
Life of Julius Caesar Chapter 49
Progressives cannot joke about gays; they instead manufacture validation for their degeneracy out of fanciful accounts of ancient homosexuality, despite the Greeks not treating homosexuality as an exclusive identity and lifestyle the way moderns do. Men were warriors and husbands in a more fundamental sense than they were gay. The tradition of sexual attraction between Achilles and Patroclus, for instance, is no where to be found in Homer, developing only in later Greek literature. As even a lesbian can observe, androgyny and proud effeminacy accompany social and spiritual decline. Modern liberals display a less subtle understanding of the ancients than Shakespeare does, "A woman impudent and mannish grown Is not more loathed than an effeminate man In time of action."4
Even the realms of medicine and science the current year regresses to a level below that of the 17th century. Modern scientists know the dangers of gay sex, but they prefer not to say anything about them. Knowing and not informing the public is at least as bad as not knowing at all, and it is distinctly inferior to the Shakespearean public health lesson given gratis in Troilus and Cressida. Here is the description of venereal disease given by Thersites the Fool to Patroclus, lover of Achilles:
"Why, [you are] his masculine whore. Now, the rotten diseases of the south, the guts-griping, ruptures, catarrhs, loads o' gravel i' the back, lethargies, cold palsies, raw eyes, dirt-rotten livers, wheezing lungs, bladders full of imposthume, sciaticas, limekilns i' the palm, incurable bone-ache, and the rivelled fee-simple of the tetter, take and take again such preposterous discoveries!" Troilus and Cressida 5.1.16
Preposterous discoveries roughly means degenerate perversions, but beyond that modernization one need not even delve into the exact conditions described to have a better grasp of anal sex than the average LGBTQ rights activist.