JOSH writes:

I’ve been a long time reader of Lawrence Auster and have had the pleasure of lurking your site for six months or so after he made your writing known to me.

At root of both the “feminist” movement and its modern mirror, the men’s rights movements, is radical homosexuality (devout dykism), i.e., radical sexual autonomy. Radical sexual autonomy is the biological “goal” of liberalism and the easiest way for a “default elite” to stay in power after convincing a populace to deny Supremacy. A populace in a state of anti-Supremacy and willing to embrace homosexuality is a self-annihilating populace.

The core message of the men’s rights movement (MRM) is to avoid marriage and kids and that Christianity is the liberal juggernaut. This is de facto homo-ism and anti-Supremacy. It has, contrary to the naïveté of many of its followers, the same effect as “feminism.” “Feminism,” of which nothing feminine can be discerned, is merely euphemism for a devout dykism that entails the rejection of Supremacy, hatred of Alpha Man and the aversion for children. The MRM is no different. The anti-Supremacy, Eve-hate and aversion for children is the radical homosexual nature. As your husband said, “Men don’t do that.” Meaning, there is no men’s movement. There is really only Man’s movement. And with the tolerance for anti-Supremacy and the embrace of de facto homo-ism, the MRM is doomed to fail because it is a radical homosexual movement attempting to define Man out of existence, much like its partner, devout dyke, is attempting to do to Woman.

Laura writes:

Could you elaborate on what you mean by denying “Supremacy?” 

I’m a little confused about your description of the men’s movement as homosexual. That is extreme. I gather you mean it’s homo-erotic, a form of spiritual homosexuality.

Josh writes:

The MRM is at root a liberationist movement. Like all liberationist movements, it seeks to dissolve all relations and destroy all impediments to its autonomy. In short, all liberationist movements seek a radical autonomy (think Paul Elam and his true motivation for rape trial nullification). But this existence must manifest in the physical world. The two most primitive liberal manifestations are atheism and homosexualism, i.e., anti-Supremacy and SELF-sexualization, respectively.

In the West, Man has been euphemized. Western Man can be anything.  Man can be a homosexual anti-Supremacist. The practical effect is clear, Western Man is equal to anti-man. Living is equal to self-annihilation. This “equalizing” mechanism found in all liberationist movements is evidence of Liberalism AS anti-Supremacy. “Equality” is the euphemism. The MRM is largely seeking “equality” with female “supremacy” in a “system” stacked against “them.” But the fundamental truth of the MRM is that they are attempting to liberate from the oppressiveness of having to be God-fearing Western Men. In the West, all liberationist movements have as its grand oppressor, God-fearing Western Man. This believer in Supremacy and therefore, quite logically, seeker of Supremacy is the root of the problem for most in the MRM. Female “supremacy” (another self-denial as female waywardness is not supremacy, but degeneracy) is just the devout dyke’s proxy.

The MRM is merely a MALE liberationist movement largely driven by atheists and homosexuals. It is “feminism” (euphemism for devout dykism) for males.

Josh adds:

I think our common understanding of homosexuality is a false one and it is easy to see why. Homosexuality is, first and foremost, sexual aversion with the “same-sex attraction” merely filling the void. More specifically, male homosexuality and devout dykism are sexual aversions to female and male, respectively. With this aversion and before the “attraction” is homo-sexuality, i.e., self-sexualization, a radical form of autonomy. A homosexual is one that is averse to the Other and attracted to self. He is a radical autonomist and ultimately a self-annihilator.

Laura writes:

Homosexuality involves an aversion to the other sex as much as an attraction to the same sex. This cannot be stated often enough. The issue of same-sex marriage, in particular, reveals that the homosexual movement is essentially about freeing individuals from the opposite sex’s claims on freedom and personality. The insistence that homosexuals are “denied the right” to marry can only make sense in this way. Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry anymore than heterosexuals are. The requirement that they marry the opposite sex cannot be  a serious problem if there is no positive aversion to the opposite sex?

As far as your points about the men’s movement and feminism,  I agree that in both movements there is an aversion to the opposite sex, to its claims on freedom and personality, an aversion that also typifies full-blown homosexuality and its glorification of self. This does not mean feminists and men’s advocates are actually homosexuals, but that they are often homo-erotic, gazing into the mirror and approving of everything they see. We especially see this at a site like Roissy, where men are positively glorying in self-adulation and sexual conquest. The fact that the men’s movement makes very valid criticisms of feminism and society, and attracts reasonable and sane men, does not matter wherever there is this reigning sense of moral untouchability and demonizing of the opposite sex.

                              — Comments —

Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:

Concerning homosexuality – the homosexual, whether male or female, is, quite as Josh suggests, someone whose psychic foundation is an aversion, namely to the paired or “opposite” sex. Quite probably the attraction to the same sex is epiphenomenal to the aversion. (A “filling in of the vacuum,” as Laura says.) But it occurs to me that homosexuality entails another aversion, namely to the future. In eschewing the paired sex, the homosexual also eschews reproduction and continuity. That homosexuals – especially lesbians – have gained the privilege of adoption or that they inseminate themselves artificially only underscores the way in which the homosexual lifestyle is parasitic on what it loathes and rejects and never ceases to vilify. Plato referred to procreation as “mortal immortality.” Eroticism without even so much as the possibility of procreation – and with the deliberate intention not to procreate, ever – would therefore qualify as merely mortal, with the emphasis on mortality, or death. A society that exalts homosexuality (as distinct from one that acknowledges it but disapproves it and, without persecution, confines it in private) is therefore a society that exalts death. In this way, exalting homosexuality and making a secular sacrament of abortion (which our elites and institutions ceaselessly do) are signs of a society that celebrates death and non-futurity to life. They are signs of a society dedicated to its own extinction.

John E. writes:

There seems to be something dead-on about your and Josh’s assessment of the MRM. Like Josh, I also appreciate your posting of your husband’s pithy and common-sense comments about the MRM. I have come to similar conclusions of the MRM without being able to articulate exactly what it is that I find, really, repulsive about the movement. I can best describe my disposition toward it by my reading of The Spearhead since its inception until now (or until I couldn’t take anymore of a regular reading of that site). At first I appreciated the insights and criticisms of feminism offered there, but it only took a little while until the regular reading of the site became insufferable, as it is overly and embarrassingly introspective of the male sex, yes, to the point of a self-adulating naval-gazing. While acknowledging that there are still good insights articulated there at times, and that there are quite a few exceptions to what I say, the site is largely devoted to all that is wrong with typical women, while highlighting all that is right with typical men. If it is not quite as unbalanced as the feminist movement, it is close to it.

Vanessa writes:

I think that Thomas is making a very interesting point about homosexuality and the avoidance of procreation. It is well known that contraception leads to abortion and promiscuity, but the more subtle damage it wreaks is rarely pointed out.

By severing the link between sex and procreation, contraception removes much of the stigma from homosexuality. Once large portions of the heterosexual population are sterile, one of the major downsides of sodomy (including of the heterosexual variety) and other forms of homosexual sex — namely, it’s sterility — becomes a moot point.

Furthermore, contraception killed the idea of “conjugal rights.” Once sex is generally acknowledged to be a form of recreation, or merely an “expression of love”, rather than a means to reproduce, why should a man have any right to have sex with his wife? The fact that a wife who denies her husband sex is also denying him the opportunity to procreate, can be completely ignored. After all, if she’s on the Pill, then the sex is sterile either way. She is then only refusing him a form of recreation, and with the widespread availability of promiscuity, prostitution, and pornography, he will be told that there are plenty of other places for him to find a fitting substitute.

That all of these forms of sex are generally sterile, that they weaken the marriage bond (and are therefore not unitive), and that he opens himself up to prosecution if he engages in them (divorce or arrest), is also tossed aside as unimportant. Rather than saying “Let them eat cake,” they are told “Let them masturbate.” The message is different, but the general air of contempt and indifference to deprivation is the same.

That a man who is routinely turned away by his wife is denied not merely a form of recreation, but also the ability to have legitimate children, is something that needs to be recognized. Although most men marry women they love, most of them marry for their future children’s sake. If men are no longer guaranteed that their wives will participate actively in providing them with such children, it will greatly weaken their resolve to marry. They would have to give up the chance at illegitimate sex in order to gain neither sex nor legitimate reproduction.

John P. writes:

While I agree with most of your comments on homosexuality I have to say that aversion to the opposite sex does not seem typical of homosexuals in my experience. It does seem typical of lesbians. Every homosexual I know gets along very well with women and has many women friends. Many of them have been married and had reproductive sex with women. What is Dr. Bertonneau’s basis for his assertion on this matter?

Laura writes:

The friendships homosexual men have with women do not contradict this aversion to the opposite sex. These friendships mimic the alliances between women, not relations between the sexes. The men distinctly refrain from being men and become girlfriends. Women are eager to show their love for girl-men out of openness, sympathy, and the regressive longing for men who are more like women. That does not mean, by the way, that these friendships never involve real love and companionship. 

Thomas Bertonneau replies:

John P. writes: “Every homosexual I know gets along very well with women and has many women friends.”

Some do, but not all. Even the ones who do get along with women nevertheless omit to lie with women, as the Bible puts it, and they therefore never procreate. The aversion to what one can only call nature’s arrangement for the continuity of the species is what is in point here, not a general (and quite superficial) social affability. I too have known homosexuals and I have been present when they discussed women. “Breeder” is the long-current homosexual term-of-contempt for Woman in her sexually complementary and procreative role. It has never sounded to me like a term of endearment, but always like the divulgence of a powerful repudiation. 

As to the homosexual man who marries and begets children, he often does so because he is closeted and wants the “cover” of marriage. This is a difficult situation to assess. One might say, “Bravo, he bows to social pressure in spite of himself and participates in the continuity of the species.” Oscar Wilde is a notweworthy example. On the other hand, supposing that, while married, our hypothetical divided man also engages in sex with male partners, then he is, in simple, an adulterous betrayer of his wife and of his children and an offender against marriage generally. John P.’s statement that, “many [homosexual men] have been married and had reproductive sex with women,” is therefore less than pertinent in context. 

I also harbor suspicions about women who deliberately and habitually seek the society of homosexuals (the brutal term, coined by homosexuals, for such a woman is “fag hag”). This attraction strikes me as neurotic on the part of the woman, a kind of masochistic endorsement of the psychic disposition that, indeed, cannot come to terms with natural sexuality and rejects the female at the deepest, most meaningful, and most positive level.

Josh writes:

My answer to John P. is that radical autonomy has manifested itself in many different ways in our increasingly autonomized society. That we have no definitive genesis or understanding of true homosexuality is by design. Both the choosing of “homosexuality” (the attraction) and the belief that homosexuality isn’t chosen (the aversion) falls under the liberal belief system. There are those homosexuals who are firm believers in the “biological mandate” (I was born THIS WAY, so I MUST BE this way) and find ideological allies in the HBD movement. But of course, the “biological mandate” is false as we are ALL imbibed with God-ordained free will and with it the ability to exercise maximum moral autonomy. There is no, “I MUST BE this way.” On the “opposite” side are those “homosexuals” that John speaks of. These “homosexuals” choose their homosexuality as they have no sexual aversions to compel them to do so. To be able to choose one’s sexual orientation WITHOUT coercion, compelling or impediment is to be radically autonomous and fundamentally to exist in a liberated state.

But the question remains the same. What are the mechanisms behind Western Man’s self-annihilation?

That we find “equality” in the middle of all this tells us something very simple to understand.

When Western Man seeks “equality,” he is seeking to be less. He is seeking to live in a state of anti-Supremacy. That he then embraces and exalts homo-sexuality is clear-cut evidence that such “man” has embraced the most primitive form of eugenics.

Please follow and like us: