Homosexuality, fascism, and the death drive

[Zed]

Indeed, at the heart of my polemical engagement with the cultural text of politics and the politics of cultural texts lies a simple provocation: that queerness names the side of those not ‘‘fighting for the children,’’ the side outside the consensus by which all politics confirms the absolute value of reproductive futurism. The ups and downs of political fortune may measure the social order’s pulse, but queerness, by contrast, figures, outside and beyond its political symptoms, the place of the social order’s death drive: a place, to be sure, of abjection expressed in the stigma, sometimes fatal, that follows from reading that figure literally, and hence a place from which liberal politics strives—and strives quite reasonably, given its unlimited faith in reason—to disassociate the queer. More radically, though, as I argue here, queerness attains its ethical value precisely insofar as it accedes to that place, accepting its figural status as resistance to the viability of the social while insisting

(No future: queer theory and the death drive, Edelman)

There are two potential answers to these questions: on one hand, I can rely on the biological aspect of the death instinct, the need for "reproductive cells [to] operate against the death of the living substance ... for what must seem to us to be potential immortality" (Freud 539); on the other hand, I can use the social aspects of the death drive, the "external, disturbing and distracting" influences driving an organic being to further complexity (Freud 492). These external forces merit further exploration, if-like the sexual instincts-the death instincts are purely biological, if "all organic instincts are conservative ...[directed] towards [the] reinstatement of something earlier," from whence comes the complexity ofhuman biology? If the goal of man's existence is a return to the initial inanimate state-a true "being-towards-death"-we cannot also possess the self-preservative sexual instincts (Heidegger 245). In fact, the sexual instincts would become superfluous-what organism, through a process of evolution, would become increasingly complex if the basis for all instinct is a return to the grave? Accordingly, is "deliberate transmission of HIV" the former, biological instinct, or a result of cultural interference?

(BAREBACK SUBCULTURE, REPRODUCTIVE FUTURISM, AND THE DEATH DRIVE, Harkema)

This final goal of all organic striving can be stated too. It would be counter to the conservative nature of instinct if the goal of life were a state never hitherto reached. It must rather be an ancient starting point, which the living being left long ago, and to which it harks back again by all the circuitous paths of development. If we may assume as an experience admitting of no exception that everything living dies from causes within itself, and returns to the inorganic, we can only say 'The goal of all life is death', and, casting back, 'The inanimate was there before the animate'.

(Beyond The Pleasure Principle, Freud)




There is a particularity to homosexuality that is often not remarked on. Social conservatives are fond of associating homosexuality with self-destructive social practices, but demonstrate a profound lack in the capacity to coldly analyze such things. By self-destructive - I note that I mean promiscuity, drug use, and other associated low-time preference and non-risk adverse behaviors. Romans 6:23 assures us that ‘...the wages of sin is death.’, but neither the bible (nor social conservatives) tend to expound on the nature of this correlation. Or - if they do - they are fond of advancing the idea that women act as essentially tethers to ensnaring mans natural excessive sexual exuberance by bounding it within a familial context. If we start from the modern perspective and disregard the language of sin - accepting homosexuality as nothing more than male sexual attraction for other men — it remains to have a proper accounting for the cause and nature of this self-destruction.

The (standard) queer theory explanation precedes from internalized homophobia. If you are culturally conditioned to believe that you are ‘less than’ and ‘wrong’ for homosexual desires, then you dutifully enact your own self-annihilation. You are wired to believe that you deserve to be punished, and so accept and embrace the punishment - and you may even seek it out. You have accepted, quite literally, that is your role to ‘Get AIDS and die.’ This is how leftist queer theorists approach debased behaviors such as bug chasing.

Some truth must be granted to this idea. From my own direct observations and exposure to LBTQ culture, there is a connection between trauma and self-destructive behavior ---certainly in self-destructive sexualities (masochism, cutting, and the ilk).



That said, the explanation remains unsatisfactory as the remainder of this thread will address.

I’ve long been fascinated by intelligent and right-wing gay men. I count several as friends and I actively follow and read the writings of several others. The archetype I will describe is not exclusively the province of right-wing homosexual men, but it encompasses a variety of homosexual artists too. I believe it would have applied to Oscar Wilde and Francis Bacon. In any case, you may have encountered the type:



Amongst such men, higher values are complemented with a strongly moral perspective applied to life. They embrace an ultra-romantic and aesthetic world frame, but one accompanied by a deep and profound nihilism urging a longing onto death. As we shall see, there is no dissonance present, but a perfect synthesis. They are almost never the low-time preference bareback gloryhole-appreciators that cluster in the dredges of the homosexual underworld. They are -  naturally - more aristocratic than that.



In them, one truly finds a sublime appreciation of beauty and aesthetics, paired with a longing onto a world infinitely more beautiful than our own. Yet beauty is ethereal and evanescent, it must pass with the movement of the seasons, as time tends eternally towards the season of rot. The beauty of the eromenos is such that the time for appreciation is short-lived. Of the fleeting things - What of love? Romance? What promise lies in the passage of the decades? Modernity has given the following offering:



Beyond this modern ugliness, there are two fates - death and lechery. I mean to write about death, but I should probably say something about lechery. The world has two mercies for such homosexuals, one is that the world has no shortage of beautiful gay teenage boys. The second is such gay boys desire older partners. The dark truth of pedarasty is that young boys actively seek out older men, far more so than the other way around. As such, powerful high status gay men can indulge a rotating palette of younge ones. In this way, the lecher rejects and overcomes the death drive maintaining a constant and fixed connected with proxied youth. This was the path of both Bacon and Wilde, as they became increasingly preoccupied and fixated upon their younger lovers. But it is half-measure - for the lecher too must eventually rot and die. He may not accept that and thus commit himself fully to a total rebellion against natural order. Such gay men exist, and I quote an interview with one of great note:

All that will be left for Thiel to do, entombed in this vault, is await the emergence of some future society that has the wherewithal and inclination to revive him. And then make his way in a world in which his skills and education and fabulous wealth may be worth nothing at all.

Thiel knows that cryonics “is still not working that well.” When flesh freezes, he said, neurons and cellular structures get damaged. But he figures cryonics is “better than the alternative”—meaning the regular kind of death that nobody comes back from.

Of course, if he had the choice, Thiel would prefer not to die in the first place. In the 2000s, he became enamored with the work of Aubrey de Grey, a biomedical gerontologist from England who predicted that science would soon enable someone to live for a thousand years. By the end of that span, future scientists would have devised a way to extend life still further, and so on to immortality.

Turning towards death. Consider the case of the submissive intelligent gay. At all points, he is ensnared by the fear of aging. Call it twinkdeath. Call it femboy death. I believe even the ancient Roman’s had a word for it. Then and now, it has always been nature’s promise. Discussion of it, specifically the fear of it, remain a common trend in every circle of gay men under the sun. They live against the knowledge and weight of time. In some ways, I believe that this accounts for a degree of the promiscuity. Subject to a belief that you have a very short peak, you must dance well the music is good. A variety of individuals have shared similar such sentiments with me.



All of that is practical, but the topic supersedes the practical and cannot escape being cast within an aesthetic formulation. Such is the nature of these men. As I alluded to earlier, the preoccupation with death synthesizes flawlessly with the appreciation of aesthetics. 

Do you see it in Bacon’s art?



Do you see it in the writings of Mishima?

The beautiful should die young, and everyone else should live as long as possible. Unfortunately, 95 percent of people get it backwards, with gorgeous people lingering into their eighties and hideous fools dropping dead at 21. Life never goes as planned; and we, the living, are cast into its comedy.

Greek mythology tells of how Achilles was forced to choose between a long life void of glory and a glorious young death. Without flinching, he chose the latter. Surely all but the most prosaic of men, if given the choice at the start of life, would do the same.

Each of us secretly hopes that our life story will be immortalized in song—or, for Alexander the Great, in stone. Per his decree, all statues were to be made only in the likeness of his 21-old self. As luck would have it, he died just after rounding 30, but if things had gone awry and he had lasted until 70, the discrepancy between the images left by his sculptors and the old man who left this earth would have made for a grim farce. Alexander was famous for his idolization of Achilles, and measured his entire life against his legend. He too dreamt of dying young, and knew that young death suited him.

There was a lot of talk about whether James Dean’s death was a mere car accident or a suicide. At the very least, I think we can all agree that no one who isn’t dreaming about death can ride a Porsche through every last red light on his way to a street race. To borrow a phrase from Hugo von Hofmannsthal on the tragic fate of Oscar Wilde, “It’s wrong to drag everything down to the level of a case of disaster.” I’m sure what Dean was gunning for was something he’d been after his whole life, something he was born to chase. His tragic death was in fact a consummate victory.

I felt the same pull. As a boy, I was deeply impressed by the young death of Raymond Radiguet. There was a time when I was sure I would die like him, at the age of 20, after creating a masterpiece to rival his, and was sure my death would be mourned as sorely. But I was mistaken, for this was not my lot. Only the rarest of novelists can get away with dying at 20. As it happens, nothing happened. I lived on, plodding my way through novel after novel, which has been a comedy in its own right, but if I’d died back then the comedy would have been irreparable. Somehow I was spared. It looks like I had a guardian angel, too.

(Yukio Mishima on the Beautiful Death of James Dean)

This is the synthesis. The purest form of Freud’s death instinct imaginable. One often wonders why a large number highly intelligent homosexual gays towards fascism or mannerbunds. The low-brow explanation is that fascism’s emphasis of masculine beauty acts as a kind of bait, alongside the desire to have spaces free of women. There is a truth to this - such spaces enable mate finding amongst such men. For another reason, one notes that intelligent homosexuals either disdain women or favor condescending to them. After all - it is woman who is permitted to love men, and she who is celebrated in her love for them. For this, she lacks the homosexuals appreciation for pure beauty and her aesthetic sense is inescapably bound to the superficial. In our theorized homosexual, her lack of depth inspires rage - it is her superficiality alone that excites the interests of most men. Her superficial beauty, her crudeness, and her domestic natures offend him - as they echo to the earthly/worldly, rather than onto the transcendent - the pure and true domain of aesthete:


(Bronze Age Pervert - Phora post)

What of the high-brow explanation? I believe the attachment is not reducible to either a desire for male beauty and male brotherhoods. It originates in the deeper aesthetic attachment to death. One may imagine the most generalized sexual fantasy for such men - two young soldiers in trenches of World War I — deeply in love — holding each other’s bodies as they choke to death on mustard gas. The tragedy wasn’t that Patroclus died, but that Achilles did not die with him. Note that death is inescapable in National Socialist imagery and symbolism. Though Hitler was not homosexual, the artist in him was romanticized death in similar terms. Recall that, on the eve of his defeat, he declared that the total annihilation of Germany was preferable to surrender.

One can triumph over death only through death : "If you retreat, you'll be shot! If you advance, you may save your skin!"

...(much later in Table Talk)...

When a man grows old, his tissues lose their elasticity. The normal man feels a revulsion at the sight of death—this to such a point that it is usually regarded as a sign of bad taste to speak of it lightly. A man who asks you if you have made your will is lacking in tact. The younger one is, the less one cares about such matters. But old people cling madly to life. So it's amongst them that the Church recruits her best customers. She entices them with the prospect that death interrupts nothing, that beyond our human term everything continues, in much more agreeable conditions. And you'd refuse to leave your little pile of savings to the Church? Grosso modo, that's more or less how it goes. 

(Hitler, Table Talk)

It is not the beauty of the NS regime that excites right wing gay men, but a symbolic and spiritual essence. It is the promise of battlefields strewn across Europe, cities drowned in seas of corpses, and the smoke arising from cremation chambers outside Buchenwald. it is the promise of a beautiful death in a liminal space where the boundaries between life and death cease to hold weight--- and I hold that this is the most pure representation of Freud’s death drive.

[synesth]

I don't really see the attachment of homosexuality, or the gay as in modernity, to fascism to be accurate. It's a certain type that may be tricked into being gay. That being said, the aesthetic of the rose and skull, the sensitive young man and fascism goes together. I see no reason to relate it to homosexuality, which as a modern concept and word gives associations which are not at all accurate, but rather it's a good point against the liberal rewriting of especially greek history in the name of modern failings. 

The sensitive young man turns gay if he fails to understand himself. But he is more lead towards it and tricked into doing it rather than it being an innate character trait, even though a character trait is what leads him to it.

This intuition of owned space comes on one very early: with eyes open, it’s like an evil spirit inhabits everything. I think there are many types of energetic and perceiving boys who reach this stage, who are turned off by the moral and biological self-castration of their conventional peers, who sense the suffocating limitations of modern space. The rest of this story is more particular to the boy who as response becomes a homo or trap, and Paglia is right about that part—masculinity rejected simply because of distance from other boys in general, mostly as a result of a certain native over-sensitivity. But then there is the added observation that when, late in adolescence or some time in youth, such boy decides he is “gay,” that is but the final act of self-misunderstanding. The drama of his spirit is reinterpreted on sexual terms. He has convinced himself that the feeling of suppression and dread that had accompanied him his whole life was because his sexual desires or “sexuality” had been repressed by “society.” He forgets how these sexual desires developed in the first place, that these desires themselves were a circuitous result of the truth that dawned on him in silence, the truth of the utter subjection and domestication of the space in which he found himself. In becoming “gay” he believes he is escaping that sense of primal limitation and subjection that he felt as a small boy: he has reinterpreted his entire drama as a maudlin story of sexuality suppressed or oppressed by retrograde social and political norms. In this he becomes an unwitting pawn himself of the very power that as a young boy he had intuited to be the enemy, the great and suffocating shadow of our time, that smothers all higher life out. The gay is the spiritual foot-soldier of the new regime, when he is born to be its enemy.

This is the unusual part of this realization, that some of the most sensitive and perceptive youths, those maybe imbued with spark of inspiration and a conquering, expanding spirit, end up becoming the vanguard of that which has smothered and broken them. In a previous age they wouldn’t have been gay at all in the first place. The story of such boy is story of all higher types in our time. Not all gays are of this origin—there is Jeffrey Dahmer, there are others. And of course not all higher types become gay, only a tiny minority. But all higher types in our age are afflicted by a similar drama of the spirit— what happens later, the sexualization of this alienation particular to this case, I use only as the most vivid example.

[turnip]

The "death drive" as a metaphysical principle is a kind of naïve realism reflective of life that is already in descent. One imagines that only the ego possesses life in a universe of lifeless, inert matter; but there is no denying that the ego exists only in order to die, so the end of all living must really be to lead us backwards, to collapse and dissipate back into the inert matter from which we first differentiated ourselves. Life is a writhing struggle to repress the chaos of the universe in order to maintain homeostasis of the ego, so that it may "die in its own way."

From this standpoint, perhaps it makes sense to rush toward death in the hope of sparing the ego - which apparently one's entire universe must revolve around - and this would also be the meaning of "everlasting fame in death." That is one perspective, but with this I do get the feeling that one has not understood e.g. the Upanishads, Tantrism, Homer, the Norse mannerbund, or fascism (at least if the Nazis were really pagan, or a resurrected Wotan cult). Is the yearning for "everlasting fame" a wish to preserve the ego, or the opposite, to ascend out of oneself, out of specificity and into generality? If the mind is a filter/disposable skin, it is only so that certain things may be enabled to pass through into a higher synthesis. What is it that really returns in the eternal return? 

I am currently too busy with school to compose a proper response probing these questions. I will say that I don't think "homosexuality" such as it may have existed in any of the aforementioned cases should be understood by reference to the modern tranimal gay. The latter are of a very different genealogy, and usually seem to be more suitably compared with something like Palestinian nationalism.

[anthony]

Allow me to expand upon the OP's treatment of this subject a little.



Yukio Mishima, speaking through a conversation between Gustav Krupp and Ernst Roehm in his play 'My Friend Hitler' characterised the extremist revolutionary element within Nazism like so

KRUPP: And so, tell me, what is the mission of your SA?
ROEHM: A revolution. A revolution that renews itself eternally. The SA is, as it were, a dredge, which is used to grab up the mud of the sea bottom with a gigantic, powerful crane and make that bottom deeper and deeper, so that ships far larger than those we have now may pass there.
KRUPP: You mean to grab up corpses along with the mud.
ROEHM: Occasionally, live human beings too, yes. Herr Krupp, you realise that we are reluctantly putting our powerful iron arm into this immoral, corrupt, reactionary, lazy, internationalist, most abominable mud. Until we dredge up every bit of all this, we'll never be able to stop.
KRUPP: So that larger ships may pass...
(They fall silent, crowd cheers for Hitler's speech in progress)
KRUPP: I now well understand that what is more important to you than anything else is an army such as you envision... but I wonder if Hitler thinks the same way...
ROEHM: In those days of battles, in Munich, he was my unmistakable war buddy. Look at him. He has become a bit too much of a dandy, but he's still my war buddy.

"So that larger ships may pass...". Roehm, a homosexual, is characterised in this work as, perhaps we could say, the purest of all the Nazis. You may know of the historic fate of Roehm, that he was murdered in the Night of Long Knives. The play dramatises the events leading up to the Nazi purge as an ideological struggle in which Hitler was torn between revolutionary purity and practical concessions.

The relevance to this thread being, the Nazis were all "Right Wingers" or "Fascists" but there was conflict. Conflict which could be broadly considered to have been over issues of purity. Mishima at least saw a vision of that in their struggle (he was of course thinking dramatically and in broader principles, in addition to historically. Obviously he saw parallels in the Japanese pre-war experience and power struggles and a general phenomena playing out between these like events).

Roehm, one could say, had less to lose, and was the more extreme character. But also, contrary to certain stereotypes, his homosexuality did not leave him feeling unaccountable towards the future. If anything he arguably cares more than anybody. At least as characterised by Mishima. He is impractical, bullheaded, idealistic and extreme.

Mishima's sympathies seem to lie mostly with Roehm in this work, and in his depiction of the progress of Nazism we see a spiritual decline that is repeated in his other works. Man feels like he has to meet the world at some point, and maybe he does. And in this meeting there is decay, disillusionment, stagnation, things lose their edge. Hitler's purging of the SA, like the marriage of his Sailor (the one who falls from grace with the sea), is a betrayal of the source of his own radiance. Mishima's Hitler is exhausted and withered with stress and guilt after the Night of Long Knives. But maybe it had to be done. There was the great mass of ordinary Germans who had to be met halfway if they were to be led to the future.

The idealistic and energetic homosexual can be a particularly pure actor. The most practical, grounding concern in the average man's life will be his family. Homosexuals on the whole we could say, tend to have far less to lose as a class of people. If a man's spirit is betrayed by safer, simpler temptations, then the homosexual is in many ways spiritually safer than his heterosexually inclined peers.

There aren't really safe temptations worth a lot to the gay man, yes. But a newer development that I think is relevant to the forum. What else is the world offering? What traps exist to ensnare the 21st century Sailor's soul?





If you're here then maybe you can agree with me that we're all Roehm now. Homosexuality is a tendency, not a requirement.

[Zed]

...

It is surely a form spiritual purity. Part of why I wanted to make this thread was to remark on the memetic cluster of ideas that tend to appear around it with great frequency: 

- Life as art/aesthetic experience.
- The desire for a romantic death.
- Revulsion towards domestication/family life.
- Attraction to grand ideal and visions.
- Predispositions towards radicalism (right *or* left).

Followers of BAP will have seen such takes with great regularity. And it is not that these traits belong exclusively to the homosexual, but the undomesticated man more broadly. We can call him sensitive (and that is often true), but undomesticated is a better word for it - at least to my tastes. 

Until recently, homosexuality was entirely the province of undomesticated men, for better or worse. It is very difficult to integrate such men into the socius, because most posses a great aversion to stability. Mishima's Roehm seems a testament to this - a revolution that renews itself eternally. Contrast such a Roehm with the very real Albert Speer, who autistically (many might say brilliantly) sought the perfect clockwork-mechanized society, every gear in its respective slot. 

In the long term, was there room enough in the Nazi party for both of them...? Would such a Roehm been satisfied in Speer's clockwork world? Or did he viscerally enjoy the fight, comradery, and brotherhood entailed in the fight for it?

To address some other posters - I do want to be clear that I'm not suggesting that fascists are homosexuals. Not merely because the take is trite - but really just is incorrect. Directionally, I'm interested in the question of why a non-trivial subset of homosexuals end up on the far-right. In part, because it often parses (at least on first-pass) as self-destructive. Eg: I feel a large degree of loyalty to other trannies. Even as I despise the vast majority of them, I cannot in good conscience advocate for anything that would hurt them. I also feel that towards whites though, if less acutely. Whatever sympathies I hold for the 'right' emerge from that latter sympathy, despite functionally being some variant of a centrist libertarian. For better or worse - my consciousness remains tied to the tribalized matrix.

Moving on, I want to offer another example of the archetype. This is a left-wing example, but I think I think it is a very useful one: Michel Foucault. I'll content myself with dropping some fragments/quotes - 

'What strikes me is the fact that in our society, art has become something which is related only to objects and not to individuals, or to life. That art is something which is specialized or which is done by experts who are artists. But couldn’t everyone’s life become a work of art? Why should the lamp or the house be an art object, but not our life?'

It is still debated whether Foucault knowingly transmitted AIDS to many men through unprotected sex. Sad too is his legacy at Berkeley, where he was known among students of the day as “that mad French leather queen who whips anyone who’ll let him at San Francisco gay bath houses.” Rodgers and Thompson write, “In the final year of his life, in discussing the risk of AIDS, he said, ‘Besides, to die for the love of boys: what could be more beautiful?’”

Q. Perhaps the problem is the age group of those who contribute to it and read it; the majority are between twenty-five and thirty-five.

M.F. Of course. The more it is written by young people the more it concerns young people. But the problem is not to make room for one age group alongside another but to find out what can be done in relation to the quasi identification between homosexuality and the love among young people. Another thing to distrust is the tendency to relate the question of homosexuality to the problem of “Who am I?” and “What is the secret of my desire?” Perhaps it would be better to ask oneself, “‘What relations, through homosexuality, can be established, invented, multiplied, and modulated?” The problem is not to discover in oneself the truth of one’s sex, but, rather, to use one’s sexuality henceforth to arrive at a multiplicity of relationships. And, no doubt, that’s the real reason why homosexuality is not a form of desire but something desirable. Therefore, we have to work at becoming homosexuals and not be obstinate in recognizing that we are. The development toward which the problem of homosexuality tends is the one of friendship.

Q. Did you think so at twenty, or have you discovered it over the years?

M.F. As far back as I remember, to want guys [garcons] was to want relations with guys. That has always been important for me, not necessarily in the form of a couple but as a matter of existence: how is it possible for men to be together? To live together, to share their time, their meals, their room, their leisure, their grief, their knowledge. their confidences? What is it to be “naked” among men, outside of institutional relations, family, profession, and obligatory camaraderie? It’s a desire, an uneasiness, a desire-in-uneasiness that exists among a lot of people.

The intellectual's role is no longer to place himself "somewhat ahead and to the side" in order to express the stifled truth of the collectivity; rather, it is to struggle against the forms of power that transform him into its object and instrument in the sphere of "knowledge," "truth," "consciousness," and "discourse. "(4)

In this sense theory does not express, translate, or serve to apply practice: it is practice. But it is local and regional, as you said, and not totalising. This is a struggle against power, a struggle aimed at revealing and undermining power where it is most invisible and insidious. It is not to "awaken consciousness" that we struggle (the masses have been aware for some time that consciousness is a form of knowledge; and consciousness as the basis of subjectivity is a prerogative of the bourgeoisie), but to sap power, to take power; it is an activity conducted alongside those who struggle for power, and not their illumination from a safe distance.

Sometimes, because my position has not been made clear enough, people think I'm a sort of radical anarchist who has an absolute hatred of power. No! What I am trying to do is to approach this extremely important and tangled phenomenon in our society, the exercise of power, with the most reflective, and I would say prudent attitude. Prudent in my analysis, in the moral and theoretical postulates I use: I try to figure out what's at stake.

It has been noted that Foucault struggled with his fame. After 1968 - that brief period where an excessive activist/revolutionary spirit peaked - he grew rather depressed in his role as a leading intellectual. Like many other post-Marxists disappointed jointly by reality of the Soviet Union and the shape of western capitialist states, there was no longer any real promise of something more beautiful to fight for it. It all died, at some point after May 68.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

In general I do not find these types of aesthetic arguments compelling since they're not easy to refute, but I will point out what I view as inaccurate:

There is nothing spiritually pure about the individualistic hedonism of the homosexual. Lust is a vice and a base, ignoble human urge. Even if modern marriage extinguishes a man's spirit, at least he is sacrificing his virtues for the sake of raising children. Homosexuals discard virtue for nothing but temporary pleasure. True spiritual purity in a fallen age would mean abstaining from both traditional marriage and degeneracy.

The beauty in a romanticized death comes from dying to achieve a greater purpose. Suicide (Mishima), dying in a car accident, or dying of an avoidable STD are not noble deaths (no Foucault, the rape of little boys is not an ideal worth dying for). A homosexual who chooses to risk death for a fascist nation or ideology has already disgraced it by their immoral sexual behavior.

Homosexuality is better characterized as a private hypocrisy that is more common than average among those who walk certain difficult and noble paths.

[Guest]

Foucault was a faggot who died of fag AIDS, Wilde was also a faggot who died of syphilis. Pretending that these people had any ounce of "spiritual purity" is a horrendous crime. The reason why they were right-wing is due to them knowing they were base and perverse, and trying to absolve themselves via seeking a pure cause. Mishima was the same, but unlike the rest, he was able to stave off his base impulses, making him somewhat noble. Your valorization of faggotry is disgusting, and the idea that these people should be idolized is even more so.

The sensitive young man is differing from homosexuals in that the latter seeks purity due to his innate dirtiness, while the former seeks purity because of his internal cleanliness. It's a fact that is difficult to discern from the outside, but not from the inside.

[Guest]

Foucault was a faggot who died of fag AIDS, Wilde was also a faggot who died of syphilis. Pretending that these people had any ounce of "spiritual purity" is a horrendous crime. The reason why they were right-wing is due to them knowing they were base and perverse, and trying to absolve themselves via seeking a pure cause. Mishima was the same, but unlike the rest, he was able to stave off his base impulses, making him somewhat noble. Your valorization of faggotry is disgusting, and the idea that these people should be idolized is even more so.

The sensitive young man is differing from homosexuals in that the latter seeks purity due to his innate dirtiness, while the former seeks purity because of his internal cleanliness. It's a fact that is difficult to discern from the outside, but not from the inside.

If you called someone a "sensitive young man" anyone not initiated would assume it's a euphemism for gay

[Guest]

If you called someone a "sensitive young man" anyone not initiated would assume it's a euphemism for gay

Completely irrelevant to our discussion. Who cares what normalfags think?

[Guest]

Nietzsche died mad drugged in an asylum. Hitler killed himself while enemy forces ravaged Germany. Mussolini was executed by communists and left hanging outside a Sheetz. Are we to condemn all three in the same manner you condemn Foucault (who I deplore) and Wilde (who I've never read a page of)?

If you called someone a "sensitive young man" anyone not initiated would assume it's a euphemism for gay

Completely irrelevant to our discussion. Who cares what normalfags think?

[/quote]
The point was that the medium in which SYM has developed has allowed for unjustified semantic drift. The distance you place between the two ideas collapses the moment it's exposed to irl scrutiny. Any argument to the contrary reduces your position to "good people are good and bad people are bad," which is true but nevertheless an empty tautology.

[Guest]

Nietzsche died mad drugged in an asylum. Hitler killed himself while enemy forces ravaged Germany. Mussolini was executed by communists and left hanging outside a Sheetz. Are we to condemn all three in the same manner you condemn Foucault (who I deplore) and Wilde (who I've never read a page of)?

It’s not that Wilde and Foucault died in embarrassing ways, it’s the fact that they died precisely due to their base perversions; in this case, sodomy. The point that I was trying to make was that Wilde, Rohm, and Foucault were not “spiritually pure”, as others have stated above (Mishima, on the other hand, is). They engaged in deeply base activities, and were of base natures. None of the men you have mentioned had deaths due to base natures.

The point was that the medium in which SYM has developed has allowed for unjustified semantic drift. The distance you place between the two ideas collapses the moment it's exposed to irl scrutiny. Any argument to the contrary reduces your position to "good people are good and bad people are bad," which is true but nevertheless an empty tautology.

Once more, this doesn’t make sense. Anthony has made a post in another thread discussing how trannies and SYMs are of a similar origin, but have different natures. Does this collapse under scrutiny? My point is very simple; fags chase pure ideals due to their spiritual impurity, while SYMs do the same due to their spiritual purity.

[Guest]

Nietzsche died mad drugged in an asylum. Hitler killed himself while enemy forces ravaged Germany. Mussolini was executed by communists and left hanging outside a Sheetz. Are we to condemn all three in the same manner you condemn Foucault (who I deplore) and Wilde (who I've never read a page of)?

It’s not that Wilde and Foucault died in embarrassing ways, it’s the fact that they died precisely due to their base perversions; in this case, sodomy. The point that I was trying to make was that Wilde, Rohm, and Foucault were not “spiritually pure”, as others have stated above (Mishima, on the other hand, is). They engaged in deeply base activities, and were of base natures. None of the men you have mentioned had deaths due to base natures.

The point was that the medium in which SYM has developed has allowed for unjustified semantic drift. The distance you place between the two ideas collapses the moment it's exposed to irl scrutiny. Any argument to the contrary reduces your position to "good people are good and bad people are bad," which is true but nevertheless an empty tautology.

Once more, this doesn’t make sense. Anthony has made a post in another thread discussing how trannies and SYMs are of a similar origin, but have different natures. Does this collapse under scrutiny? My point is very simple; fags chase pure ideals due to their spiritual impurity, while SYMs do the same due to their spiritual purity.

I don't think spiritual purity can be assessed accurately by reading someone's posts online. What does it mean if someone you believe to pure is revealed to be impure, or vice versa?

[august]

What else is the world offering? What traps exist to ensnare the 21st century Sailor's soul?
[...]
If you're here then maybe you can agree with me that we're all Roehm now. Homosexuality is a tendency, not a requirement.

I will say that I don't think "homosexuality" such as it may have existed in any of the aforementioned cases should be understood by reference to the modern tranimal gay.

I have always admired how a few icy queers of our own time refuse to play the boring games that today's women have pushed into the common culture. Ironically, they are more manly than most heterosexuals.

It seems though, that homosexuality is more a useful tool for some to achieve "life as art" than it is a principal support of such achievements.

I will be the one to say explicitly what I think each of you, correctly in my opinion, allude to but hold back from saying outright. The "death drive" may be relevant in some respects regarding the homosexual proclivity toward Fascism, perhaps more from various aesthetic tendencies. I'm thinking of the idealised notion of freedom that one finds in Romanticism—one's ability to effectively choose to stop living certainly has to be considered one of the ultimate displays of personal freedom. But there is probably a more compelling and less grandiose reason. Romanticism itself is often contradictory. Its notions of freedom and idealism will, ultimately, only ever lead everything back to the constraints that it set out to unshackle itself from in the first place (unrelated, but that's important for understanding various 'utopian' movements that sprang from these same notions). This is why—to the inevitable dismay of some here—Striped is probably correct about certain homosexuals being "more manly than most heterosexuals". Werther's suicide was in fact a tragically Romantic act, yes. But it was an irrational act taken because he was consumed by Woman Worship, which is what most of Romanticism places at its center. If you deny that his suicide was Longhoused, then you are a fool. At the end of the day, it's really just man's subjection to rule by woman; a retvrn, but not the one that some were hoping for. There's a few meanings to la petite mort after you ejaculate in a woman. The reason why I laughed at Mason's proposal of men abstaining from sex with women as a revolt against female nature a while back wasn't so much because it was ridiculous per se, but rather because that already exists, but not quite how he may have envisioned.

One can find many gays that are just as, probably even more, misogynistic than whatever caricature of a Straight White Male has been drawn up. What's more, my sources tell me that Whites are the elites that reign above the brown masses in Gay World. That's basically my point here: homosexuals are probably more driven to Fascism and the like because they rightly see it as a revolt against the Longhouse that satisfies their natural revulsion to the reality of true female nature (both physical and metaphysical) once that female nature is really unleashed. Homosexuality ends up being "a tendency, not a requirement", as anthony says. Also worth noting that I have only made reference to homosexuals because faggots will not be drawn to this. There is a big difference in these two words. It's why the other implication that the three posts above also make is just as important... Montherlant and whatever is depicted in the image below are almost just as different from each other as man is from woman.

[Zed]

...

Not that I disagree with you. This is essentially a variation of BAP's argument on gays (or a variation of Anthony's argument on trannies). But really, I'm trying to get an intuition I had a few years back that side-steps the framework. At the time, I was trying to get a common thread between Nyx's g/acc blackpaper and Bronze Age Mindset. On a superficial level, these two texts are really about the same thing - but from opposing ideological positions - the feminization of western man. But on a deeper level, both have a will towards annihilation in them. Here is a snippet of the g/acc blackpaper, where Nyx touches explicitly on a few similar ideas:

Some choose take the black pill resentfully, in the case of involuntarily and voluntarily celibate, and some choose it with a positive affirmation, in the case primarily of gay men. The queer affirmation of “no future” is perhaps most perfectly captured in the gay man, a nihilistic postmodern refusal of production. One that could very well turn from harmless symbolic castration into resentment, incel fascism, and eventually hyper-patriarchal Nazism in the case of various neo-masculine movements characterized by repressed homoeroticism and a desire to destroy civilization. It is important to realize after all that cis queerness is not a molecular queerness; the body remains the same, and humanism is still possible, even if it is a sad end-times humanism.

Cis queerness can, and very often does, impose this humanist purity of the body onto trans people in a highly fascist fashion (Trans Exclusionary Radical “Feminists” being the best example of this), and in the case specifically of gay men there is always the possibility of once again imposing reproductive futurity onto women and raping the productive potential of the female body. This was the case in Ancient Greece and Rome where women were treated solely as baby factories and household servants, and a nostalgia for these cultures in a good deal of neo-masculine movements (Bronze Age Mindset being the most prominent) should give pause to anyone who is insistent on identifying any masculinity, no matter how queer, as being aligned with gender acceleration. The best case scenario is a tense cold mutual hatred where the remaining males are deficient males who have the potential to reaffirm the masculine death drive, but don’t choose to.

Other males, however, must recognize that the era of testosterone is coming to an end, that being a man is not what it once was. That it is rapidly becoming an unpleasant and insane existence held up primarily today by exploitative and pseudo-scientific neo-masculine self-help fads — of sociopathic hypersexual pick-up artistry, of masochistic “NoFap” asceticism, of repressed homoeroticism, or of a wishful desire for everything to come crashing down and decelerate back into a state of humanist tribal hunter-gatherer societies. These other males, perhaps being the most evolved, perhaps being the most in-tune with the flows of technocapital, have chosen the pink pill. They have rejected the masculine in favor of the feminine. They have chosen the future.

The pink pill is to the black pill’s “no future”: “no future — for us.” Where cis queerness rejects the humanist reproduction of the same, trans femininity completes the circuit and introduces negentropy into the development of sentience. It both recognizes the obsolescence of a human future and aligns itself with the production of inhuman intelligences and an inhuman future. This makes the pink pill not merely the thrust of technocapital and futurity on a human scale, but rather a cosmic development that has its materialistic realization on the planetary micro level. It has its origins in myths at the foundation of world history, and comes to a head in geo-trauma. The masculine cracks open its stern carcinized exterior to reveal the smooth post-human feminine alien within. The phallus becomes the Acéphallus, the body is emancipated from the reproductive humanist death drive to become the Body without Sex Organs.

Nyx directly raises the question of the death drive and explicitly raises the mantle of her theory upon it. Now she doesn't overcome it beyond weak rhetorical manipulation, but the approach is interesting regardless as it speaks to a form of sublimation. That said - I reject her assertion existence of a general 'masculine death drive' - can one observe such a thing in Richard Spencer, Cernovich, Spandrell, or Jim? Barely - if at all. The death drive referenced is her own, suitably universalized. If BAP idealizes dying in battle, amongst a fraternity of brothers - Nyx idealizes her own death as a pre-requisite for emergence of post-human inhuman life. As such, one can ask: does she also want to be a crane paving the way, so that 'so that ships far larger than those we have now may pass there.'?

What really interests me is a broad line that runs between promiscuous gays who willing seek out HIV, the tranny teens who cut themselves and desire their own castration, and the resulting sublimation into ideology and aesthetics that occupies the higher spheres.

[obscurefish]

No admirable historical figure was "a homosexual" because no admirable figure is defined by their flaws, by definition. Homosexuality used to be categorized as a mental illness, and treating medical categories as fundamental principles of identity is as vacuous as saying that Julius Caesar was "a narcissist". In the future Science will find a cure for homosexuality and discussions of this type will appear quaint.

[Guest]

The idealistic and energetic homosexual can be a particularly pure actor. The most practical, grounding concern in the average man's life will be his family. Homosexuals on the whole we could say, tend to have far less to lose as a class of people. If a man's spirit is betrayed by safer, simpler temptations, then the homosexual is in many ways spiritually safer than his heterosexually inclined peers.

There aren't really safe temptations worth a lot to the gay man, yes. But a newer development that I think is relevant to the forum. What else is the world offering? What traps exist to ensnare the 21st century Sailor's soul?





If you're here then maybe you can agree with me that we're all Roehm now. Homosexuality is a tendency, not a requirement.

The Noble Faggot does not get weighed down by the simple, safe temptations of a wife and children! He just gets AIDS and dies if he doesn't get his government funded PrEP

[turnip]

 Also worth noting that I have only made reference to homosexuals because faggots will not be drawn to this. There is a big difference in these two words.

This is partly the point I wished to make, yes. Even Deleuze recognized that if there was such a thing as "primitive" homosexuality, it was of a completely different, non-Oedipal variety. This "homosexuality" was concerned with something else entirely - control of space, military order, distribution of wives, etc. It was a very different psychological phenomenon. We largely are not dealing with a timeless reappearing Gay Archetype. 

The larger point I wished to make is simply that there is no room for a "death drive" within vitalism (what Nietzsche understood to be the inner Aryan soul). A "death drive" emerges at a point in history where life is spent and there is nothing left to do but die. This can obviously appear in more or less noble forms, e.g. of the Schopenhauerian-Buddhist ascetic variety, but if there is a specifically modern homosexual AIDS-chasing death drive (and I don't deny this, I only think it's an illusion), then this is even further removed. This point is important, lest we find ourselves thinking that there is some kind of spiritual kinship between a neurotic self-mutilating tranny and Achilles. I remain unconvinced that the animating impulse of Fascism was really a death drive, either, let alone this kind of death drive.

Speaking of accelerationism, this is my problem with it as well. I don't think Nick Land actually understands vitalism, and this seems to be at the root of most of the errors of accelerationist thought; the inability to distinguish between things in ascent and descent. But that is another topic.

[Guest]

Homosexuality ends up being "a tendency, not a requirement", as anthony says. Also worth noting that I have only made reference to homosexuals because faggots will not be drawn to this. There is a big difference in these two words.

No there isn't. There is no difference between "homosexuals" and "faggots." Pederasts like you and Anthony continue to try and sanitize your disordered desires and promote them in these coys ways. You will all be executed like Röhm.

[Guest]

Gay poster continually puts his homosexuality into every topic. Junkies, gays, housewives and husbands. There is nothing to discuss.

[august]

No there isn't. There is no difference between "homosexuals" and "faggots." Pederasts like you and Anthony continue to try and sanitize your disordered desires and promote them in these coys ways. You will all be executed like Röhm.

It's a sign of a certifiably retarded person to take mere discussion of something as some kind of endorsement of what's being discussed. Perhaps that's how you operate, because you're insecure in your views and need to reaffirm them to yourself by shouting them into the ether all the time. I wouldn't want you to forget that 'faggots are le bad'... what might happen if you didn't constantly remind yourself of this? Uh oh! 

In any case, nearly all of the posts I've ever made here, across varying subjects, veil nothing about my "desires". There's nothing "coy" about them—it's not hard to pin down exactly where I stand on most things. Assuming you're very likely the same Guest as above that mockingly tries to characterise "The Noble Faggot" as a real thing that anyone here is referring to says a lot about you, though. Clear as a sunny day to everyone (except you, of course) is the difference between Hadrian and the puer delicatus. What's it say, then, that something that should be so intuitive is still lost on you? Maybe that you don't understand these concepts as well as you think you do... not even from an 'academic' frame (which is meaningless), but merely from experience in the world. If that's true, you're the most feminine one here, inserting yourself where you clearly don't belong in a desperate bid for attention. You've never conceptualised the malicious stupidity of the modern janissary female, nor experienced the feeling that comes from platonic relationships forged in all male spaces (i.e., athletics, military, etc.). These are safe assumptions to make because if you had done these things, you'd be able to easily spot the difference between the homosexual (as used here) and the faggot, even if you were the most heterosexual man in the world, which, for reasons that should be obvious but probably aren't to you, I doubt you are.