How the right can absorb the rainbow people without losing its mind
The blood of our society has one side that will take them
The sexually divergent are some of the most creative of our society. Their art is objectively better, they’re often better thinkers whether they’re like Peter Thiel on the right or Natalie Wynn (from ContraPoints) on the left. The CEO of Apple is gay. Alan Turing was gay. David Bowie was just bisexual, but still.
The moment someone opts out of building families, all of the things that conservatives consider bad becomes acceptable. As long as you’re enjoying yourself and not hurting others, it’s hard to imagine how anything you do causes harm. For people who want families, it’s different. Distractions to family-building are abundant whether they be porn, video games, and even careers.
The problem with gay pride and celebration of sex over matrimony is not that it harms conservatives. It’s not even the propaganda that’s the problem.
To conservatives it certainly feels like globo-homo is getting push down our throats. I think what’s happening is far more terrifying: the product the left is selling is simply more fun. They promise pleasure without consequences. Focusing on the propaganda isn’t going to address the pull that attracts people to it.
The problem with the left isn’t that they’re fun, it’s that they don’t care about gay people. The left is accepting, which is unquestionably a virtue. People who support homosexuality say they were born this way – that it’s genetic. Ironically, it’s the conservatives who advocate the preservation of gay genes. Why else send gay people to conversion therapy? If anything, you’d think the right would be happy to root out the gays so the iniquity is purged from the earth.
If the left continues to have its way, they may soon be hemorrhaging homosexuals. The left simply can’t make them fast enough if it really is genetic.
Should we force gays to make babies? Seems a little extreme, doesn’t it? I’m not advocating for force. The past has wisdom on this. Western society went from being led by Hadrian, the gay Roman emperor, to a Christian one that believed homosexuality was as sin. How did this happen and was it for the best?
First, people shouldn’t be forced to have kids. One reason is that pro-natalist policies don’t have a good track record. Hitler was a pro-natalist. Romania tried to encourage population growth, which sort of worked, but they ended up with an explosion of orphans. The cure should not be worse than the disease.
There’s another reason why people shouldn’t have kids. If you’re sterile, but prevent an asteroid from destroying the planet, aren't you kinda passing on your genes? If we pull at this idea a little more we might discover something.
It seems monasteries were invented for this very principle. If you wanted to have a family, great. But if you didn’t, then you were sent to a monastery. This way you didn’t get to opt out of helping society. It encouraged bisexual or effeminate men to either make babies and thereby promote the future economy, or do isolated intellectual work to help society flourish in other ways. You weren’t given the option to live in service of personal pleasures. I suspect they made monasteries depressing intentionally. They wanted to make sure you were certain that you didn’t want to have kids.
Why would the ancient Christians try to preserve gay genes? It seems odd. I think the answer lies in the benefits of genetic variation. In small societies, everyone does everything themselves. As a town grows, it benefits from specialization. A city of millions can benefit from neuro-divergent brains. There’s a special kind of neuro-divergence that benefits all specialization, and it’s IQ. Low testosterone in men correlates with higher IQ. High testosterone in women means higher IQ. In short, men who are less than men are smarter. Women who are more masculine than normal are also smarter. You don’t want to euthanize these populations if you can avoid it. They’ll invent things that subsequent generations will use.
I wanna drive home the point that the LGBTQ crowd is essential. The Apple campus has a rainbow and their CEO is gay.
Apple’s first logo looked like this:
Google’s logo looks like this:
Let’s not kid ourselves about the creativity and work ethic of the LGBTQ crowd. They made some amazing pieces of technology. However, all of this creativity has been funneled into corporations driven by a quarterly cycle. They may say diversity is a moral virtue, but it’s clearly a profitable one. The problem is these companies need more people as they grow, or else the rest of the world and China will catch up. Elon Musk says China’s GDP will be 2-3x ours because of how quickly they’re getting wealthy. They’re able to do this partially because they’re taking ideas from the West and implementing them. He says the only way we can beat them is through innovation. Right now, we do not produce enough neuro-divergent minds. We have to import them or face a future where the world bends to China’s interests.
The existing left is pro-corporate and pro-LGBTQ. They’re also anti-natalist. A father with children will have less brain cycles to spend on helping the company than someone who is single, young, gay, etc. Companies promote LGBTQ rights, but not LGBTQ lives. They talk about “making an impact”, and being heard, and being seen as a human being. They fact is, corporatism isn’t their friend. Some companies do have pro-social effects. Others don’t.
Trans people are effectively euthanized. No amount of therapy helps them, and nor could it. The problems they’re trying to resolve can’t be solved with affirming words and medication. They need to know that they are loved and accepted. They want to know that their lives mean something. Most companies cannot in good conscience tell these people that helping selling more ads, soda, Gucci belts, etc is going to calm the war inside their soul. This is why I’m a strong believer in monasteries.
Maybe life in a monastery seems bleak, but by giving trans, gays, bisexuals a sacred safe space, they’ll be able to show us what they can do for humanity, and we’ll be in awe of the austerity they’re willing to put up with. Somehow they would seem to be sacrificing everything, and yet I believe we torture these people’s souls more with lack of purpose that even the dreariness of a monastery cannot compare.
I believe the trans and gays are the blood of our society. Just like red blood cells, they don’t reproduce on their own, and yet we need them. At their best, these people aim for the highest and most noble good, and they serve whoever will accept them. They are like blood cells in this too. Blood doesn’t have DNA, which is why blood transfusions are safe and organ transplants aren’t. Everyone’s DNA is different, but there’s only 4 blood types.
Chances are that conservatives can absorb the LGBTQ crowd. If not, I think the left will continue to outmaneuver them and we’ll all suffer as a result.
The line between acceptance as a virtue and permissiveness as a vice is interesting, and how tolerating hedonism can become a trap. You have great analogies for the value of queers, as red blood cells, as preventing an asteroid strike is its own continuation of genes, which I appreciate.
To be fair, the raucousness of queers predates Leftist acceptance and can be traced to non-Western third gender identities through the camp and drag of gays who were routinely harassed by cops before stonewall. The current "what about the children" and corporatization of Pride on top of this precedence distorts the causal chain, but this irreverence is innate to the queer disposition. It's not meant to be front in center in society, I understand, as it erodes the center, corrupts the straights whose reproduction is the necessary biomass for society to sustain itself and advance
To be "born this way" gay isn't necessarily just genetic. One genetic hypothesis is that the gay gene makes women more fertile, which evens things out. There's also lots of evidence that hormones in the womb shape sexual outcomes
The idea of gays entering monasteries for their work might not go over that poorly as it would allow for free sexual exploration away from normie judgment, unless you are suggesting a prohibition on this -- wasn't clear to me -- but then I wonder if the synergy of queers and straights working together hasn't been key to a lot of the success of queer men