Bookmarks

You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

“Jesus, I thought. We’ve raised a generation of stone desperate cripples...The importance of Liking Yourself is a notion that fell heavily out of favor during the coptic, anti-ego frenzy of the Acid Era—but nobody guessed, back then, that the experiment might churn up this kind of hangover: a whole subculture of frightened illiterates with no faith in anything.”-Hunter S. Thompson

The subculture in question, the counter-culture as it were, is now mainstream culture. To quote Hal Jaffe, “The spectacle has metastasized.” In this spectacular future of hedonistic-yet-severely-repressed gender queers and trans-species activists, men, women, and beasts of burden must all be blended together to create an indeterminate ambulatory blob of cells. It doesn’t matter if it’s women’s mixed martial arts or the Miss Bum Bum contest, they ruin everything. On the one hand you have the “problematizing” of masculinity and the celebration of the feminization of males (but only for certain groups), with the New York Times declaring our present era “The Age of the Twink.” Quote:

Female body types have always cycled in and out of style; yet with men, alternatives to the ideal of imposing physicality have usually been ignored or lampooned. But as women continue to use their voices to undo that legacy of toxic masculinity, a different kind of change is taking place from within the culture: These twinks, after all, aren’t just enviably lean boys or the latest unrealistic gay fantasy, but a new answer to the problem of what makes a man.

On the other hand, you have the denigration of “typical female gender roles” and the celebration of the masculinizing of females. Eventually they might hope to meet in the middle, or maybe switch roles completely, or cross-breed with ponies and unicorns, I don’t know. Nothing would surprise me at this point. It is scientific fact that women who are forced to be the bread-winners and compete in the workforce experience elevated levels of endogenous testosterone, producing a virilizing effect and causing more stereotypically male behaviors. Conversely, stay-at-home dads and men whose partners out-earn them have seen their serum levels of estrogen rise and their testosterone fall. Couples in such a scenario have much less sexual intercourse, are less stable, and have higher rates of infidelity and divorce than those that are more traditional. And this makes sense—they are trying to force nature’s hand and she thusly compensates. As Christopher DeGrott points out, “Far more than any other animal, the human being is able to gain some control over nature. It is an extraordinary accomplishment.” Man has displayed a tremendous ability to manipulate, harness, and exploit nature, both human and environmental, but he cannot conquer it. As I wrote in “Evidence Over Experience”:

The high-fecundity blacks and browns have the lowest investment in parenting, so we have a situation similar to pack animals now, where the alpha cultivates what is essentially a harem, and the betas scrounge around the periphery of the pack, or are killed or exiled.

Pair-bonding and higher investment parenting is much more prevalent among whites and Northeast Asians (basically people from the Pacific Rim countries—many call them East Asians; I prefer John Derbyshire’s Northeast Asians label), which enhances cognitive development, diminishes a number of behavioral and psychological issues, and engenders greater societal stability. There are very clear consequences which are manifested at the societal and civilizational level, which makes sense as to why Marxists are so opposed to the institution of the family, as the family is the bed-rock of any worthwhile civilization when you drill down into it. It certainly forms the nucleus of Western civilization. My prior comment was not meant to imply that non-whites/NE Asians are animals, but that their mating behavior is less conducive to producing the kinds of high-trust, cooperative, and complex societies that are necessary to advance civilization past a certain point. In Moslem societies, polygamy has been standard practice for 1,400 years and has produced little but violence and the medieval rudiments of a civilization. The lack of pair-bonding is most pronounced among the PoC, but it is by no means confined to non-whites. Even Japan has wrestled with the consequences of the poisonous influence of Western feminism, though fortunately its society has not been consumed by it. As Mark Warschauer and Keiko Hirata wrote in Japan: The Paradox of Harmony:

Japanese society often has an unkind view of single women over 35 years of age…They are so-called “parasite singles” (a term coined by sociologist Masahiro Yamada) who do not seriously think about their biological clocks. Some conservative men (my note: and women as they mention earlier in the passage, not quoted) see single women as selfish and self-indulgent burdens on a society that ends up supporting them…The kodoku-shi (lonely deaths)…are the nightmare endgame of female singlehood: they live alone in urban apartments, with no friends, relatives, or close neighbors to rely on…The term “croissant syndrome” has come to refer to unmarried career women who, under the influence of the magazine [Croissant], once rejected traditional family lifestyles and never married or had children, but who then came to regret their decision in their forties, when it was already too late to bear children…Other books offer advice to single women, such as the best-selling Distant Howling of the Loser Dogs, which suggests that the unmarried over 30 should accept that they are “loser dogs” and, rather than howl or bluff, simply admit that they have lost the battle against married women with children (“winner dogs”).

At Ground Zero in the West, due to a combination of a larger non-white share of the population, the Cult-Marx assault on the family, and a desire for more “freedom” unleashed in the bacchanalian 1960s, human mating behavior is regressing. Consequently, because there are so many rejected men in today’s society, many of them are becoming women. There are few benefits to being male in today’s society—and plenty in being female—which at least partly explains the disparity in male-to-female transgenders versus female-to-male. Jim Goad agrees; in discussing the bonanza of MtoF trannies scoring big in local elections last year, Goad committed the unspeakable act of noticing:

While this is all undoubtedly cause for celebration, for joyously sniffing amyl nitrite and having unprotected felching parties far beneath manholes in urban sewers across this nation, are you noticing a pattern here? Yes, I am, too—all six of these winners were born men—or, if you prefer to sound like a crazy person, had the male gender assigned to them at birth—and decided one day through magical thinking and varying degrees of medical intervention that they were women…Eight trannies elected to office in one night? That’s good. Only two of them now identify as men? That’s bad—especially if one wants to pretend that gender is fluid. If one even dares to notice a firm statistical pattern that the roaring majority of trannies are men who claim they’re women, one risks subverting the entire Tranny Gospel. If, as the case seems to be nearly everywhere worldwide, the overwhelming majority of people who desire to change their sex are men who seek refuge in womanhood, this might suggest that our current cultural climate offers very few perks for men and plenty for women.

Tinder is 75% male and 25% female; the alphas have their pick of the lot, and typically have several women at once. If they forgo the sex-change business, the spurned lovers are otherwise mowing people down in the streets of Toronto as part of the incel insurrection, or otherwise waging jihad as an outlet for their sexual frustrations—in Paradise, they will have seventy-two virgins and 1,000-year orasms. I am waiting to see how the media responds to the inevitable “lone wolf” incel-Moslem terrorist attack. The streets are not paved with gold but they are bathed in the blood of the innocent. If this is indeed the Chad Holocaust, I’ve had a good run. “Trans,” though, offers a warm silicone-chested embrace, and a chance to opt out of maledom and into victimhood. It is entirely pathological and certainly a symptom of our age. As Christopher DeGroot writes:

Transgenderism is a prominent example of this phenomenon [the inability to recognize natural limits and tendency to solipsism], for its premise is the utter rejection of reality itself. Transgenderism depends on the belief that gender is not something we inherit, like race, history, and so much else. Rather, it is nothing but a “social construct.” Now, this is, of course, the product of a woman’s mind—namely, the lesbian feminist Judith Butler, whose personal despair is the source of the noxious concept… Butler assumes there is never anything prior to the “gendered” things we do, as if it were obvious that they are all just “social fictions,” as opposed to representations of something essential. Although the body is undeniably a biological endowment, its significance, we are to believe, is for us to determine. And it is here that Butler’s thought, so important for transgenderism, emerges as an intellectual disease. Butler has nothing substantive to say about biology, yet for all she knows, “gendered” customs actually reflect the biological realities that her work must ignore…Sex hormones have been found to influence thought, feeling, perception, judgment—indeed, virtually everything.

20180411_223400_0001

In his piece “Transgenderism is an Intellectual Disease,” DeGroot quotes Drs. Paul R. McHugh and Lawrence S. Mayer, who have written:

Gender dysphoria—a sense of incongruence between one’s biological sex and one’s gender, accompanied by clinically significant distress or impairment—is sometimes treated in adults by hormones or surgery, but there is little scientific evidence that these therapeutic interventions have psychological benefits. Science has shown that gender identity issues in children usually do not persist into adolescence or adulthood, and there is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of puberty-delaying treatments. We are concerned by the increasing tendency toward encouraging children with gender identity issues to transition to their preferred gender through medical and then surgical procedures.

Two salient points: 1) 90% of children and teens who identify as “trans” end up as the far less exotic “homosexual”; 2) the lifetime transgender suicide rate is a whopping 40%, and, this is very important, it does not decrease following re-constructive surgery and hormonal therapy. There is very obviously a mental health component that is not being addressed in today’s “trans” hysteria. Its underlying causes, its potential treatments for adults who do not “grow out of it”—neither is afforded any room in the discussion. Instead we get pearl-clutching about bathrooms and legal proscriptions against “mis-gendering” someone.

I really could care less if someone wants to have a weekend sex change , but the fact of the matter is that the human race is sexually dimorphic. You could be the most convincing trap on the planet, if you were born with male plumbing, you are a biological male. End of story. If you’re convincing enough, I have no issues calling you “she,” but you’ve got to put in the work to earn it, and I refuse to recognize any of the multitudinous Cult-Marx “genders.” Male and female, full stop. I realize this may well provoke much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, but you are not randomly “assigned” a gender a birth—you were born with either XX or XY chromosomes. A “female in a male’s body” doesn’t have “issues” with biology, they have a circle to square between their ears. It is a mental illness and the data bears this out. There is one exception to the sexually dimorphic nature of human beings, and they are called hermaphrodites. This is a condition where both male and female gonads are present and it is extremely rare in human beings.

Hermaphroditism is a normal condition among many taxonomic animals without separate sexes who produce male and female gametes, enabling a form of reproduction in which either partner can be the "female" or the "male." The majority of tunicates, pulmonate snails, opisthobranch snails, and slugs are hermaphrodites. There are also hermaphroditic plants—most flowering plants, or angiosperms—which are “bisexual” (monoecious). Perhaps I should have included these flora in my list of bio-mass soup in the piece’s introduction. Nevertheless, the shattering of any and all boundaries, including the very rational and quantifiably necessary, by the Cult-Marx commissars continues undeterred.

To quote Lothrop Stoddard;

“These grotesque perversions of science, with their resultant paradoxes worthy of Mr. Chesterton, are easily disposed of by genuine biologists and the underlying animus is clearly explained.”

The fervor with which Leftists at once denounce generally accepted and well-researched science in favor of hysteria about “trans” and all stripes of constructivism, relativism, et cetera is telling. Stoddard continues, “Proletarian ‘science’ having shown no signs of ability to meet real science in intellectual combat, we may expect to see the proletarian movement fall back upon its natural weapons—passion and violence.” People are not generally rational, especially when they’re in thrall to an ideology that is inherently anti-intellectual, and the degree to which your factual data conflicts with their uninterrogated acceptance of notions of corrupted liberalism can be directly measured by the level of “outrage” and invective leveled at you for daring to notice. Returning to Stoddard:

What seems certain is that science will become increasingly anathema in social revolutionary eyes. The lists are in fact already set for a battle royal between biology and Bolshevism…The more the Under-Man realizes the significance of the new biological revelation, the uglier grows his mood. Science having stripped away its sentimental camouflage, the social revolution will depend more and more upon brute force, relying upon the materialism of numbers and racial impoverishment to achieve final victory.

To quote Depeche Mode, “It’s a competitive world, everything counts in large amounts.” Just as modernity’s sexual proclivities preclude pair-bonding, its zeitgeist practices the cultural promiscuity of arm-chair multi-culturalism. Instead of traveling, the lazy modern Westerner decides to bring “diversity” into someone else’s backyard to view from a safe distance as if they’ve merely gotten a Netflix subscription. But unlike television, these decisions have consequences. Most Leftists are so ignorant they don’t realize offering safe haven to dissidents, apostates, Jews, and (in the few instances they are actually moved enough to care) Christians fleeing Moslem persecution from the Middle East and then flooding their countries with the same people persecuting them back home is a bad idea. And if apostates, dissidents, Christians, and Jews are fair game in the Moslem world, why would the Moslems suddenly call the whole thing off once they’re in Canada or Germany or Australia? Now thanks to the puerile worldview of the Left we get to experience what it’s like to be a Lebanese Christian or Jew, or a Turkish Kurd, or a Yazidi in Syria, or an apostate in Bangladesh! And of course these cultures’ regressive views on women and their often-lethal stance on gays and transgenders doesn’t stay at home, either .

For Butler, Andrea Dworkin, and other feminists, they are often incapable of perceiving the world from outside of the oppressor-oppressed paradigm of critical theory; I’m not above quoting myself, and I think this passage from my piece “The Rules of Attraction: The Intersectional Feminist’s Guide to the Modern Dating Scene” is here apropos to understand why the need to import millions of “grabby” Moslems:

Hegel…discusses the master-slave dialectic, which may be very familiar to some of our kinkier readers, but it goes beyond BDSM practices and into the very structure of society, whereby one subjugates another for recognition, and recognition, for Hegel, cannot be achieved without struggle. Therefore, these bimodal ways of organizing society are violent and oppressive, and in this idea we can understand how the Male Gaze is a kind of violation, itself penetrative, and thus, rape. This is why the burqa is empowering because it liberates women, especially women of color, from the Male Gaze, ergo, Islam most wholly embraces intersectional feminism. Date an Islamist.

There are few greater jokes than the “empowerment” put forth by feminism, an ideology that should’ve been moth-balled after the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Because we all know being used as a cum dumpster while simultaneously agitating for sharia law, of emasculating men and bringing in another batch of men far less concerned with notions of women’s rights than the last batch you just castrated, is empowering stuff. As the socialist Georges Sorel once wrote, “Man has genius only in the measure that he does not think.” Only such profoundly ignorant and arrogant individuals could set the chain of events we are now witnessing in motion, and only an ideology wholly tethered to the material and external could concoct such a perverse worldview.

As Patrick Bateman would neatly sum up: “All it comes down to is this: I feel like shit but look great.”

John Q. Publius

by John Q. Publius

John Q. Publius writes for Republic Standard and runs the blog The Anatomically Correct Banana.