On the first of this month I commented on an interview that a liberal dude with his hair painted blue did this year with Richard Spencer. Sometimes you need to have the patience to watch such things just to probe what is wrong not only with today’s liberals, but with the racial right. Exactly the same can be said of those who complain about the Woke monster and who, at least for now, YouTube allows them to air their grievances. The best known are people like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh for the latter’s documentary What’s a Woman? But other voices are interesting to listen to because all these people don’t realise that they themselves are involved in the genesis of Wokism.
Yesterday I watched a YouTube conversation between a homosexual Englishman, Andrew Doyle, and the American Peter Boghossian.
If we take into account what Tom Holland says in Dominion (for those who don’t want to read the whole book I have highlighted some crucial sentences in bold), which resonates with what Alexis de Tocqueville predicted of the US (that the principle of equality always demands more and more equality), I find it incredible that these people don’t see the elephant in their room.
Doyle for example, who looks like an individual with a higher than average IQ and who has a broad literary and European culture, twice or three times mentioned the Nazis repeating the eternal slogans of our time (and he errs in saying that David Irving is a holocaust denier in his books). While Doyle acknowledged that Woke people don’t understand art and that Greek and Renaissance statuary is superb, he said that our age has moved beyond the way the ancient Greeks treated women (i.e., he tacitly endorsed the feminism of our age). Doyle doesn’t like Huckleberry Finn being taken off library shelves for its racist language, but he believes that today’s West has moved beyond the racial prejudices of the past. I could cite more double-think examples, but the talk between homo and hetero is rife with such things.
But what Peter Boghossian, the straight American, does is a thousand times worse than what the homo said. At the beginning of the conversation I was unaware that Boghossian, a well-known figure in the circle of critics of trans activism, had adopted a Chinese baby. That kind of behaviour is what I have called on this site the sin against the holy spirit of life: an unforgivable sin. (At least the English homo is not causing irreparable damage to the next generation with cuckoldry-like behaviour: raising a child of a foreign race!)
What can be learned from the surreal conversation between the homo and the hetero? While Christian racialists are also scared of the Woke monster, none of them has the slightest insight. To Christian racialists I would remind a passage from gentile David Skrbina quoted in the Neo-Christianity PDF linked above, a few words I highlighted in bold: ‘You Gentile Christians don’t even know what you’re worshipping—which in fact is us [Jews]’. That is: conservatives are afraid of the monster but fail to realise that they fed the monster until it finally grew up. It originated like a mustard seed with Paul’s letters and now the tree is so huge that even birds nest among its branches not because of Jewish subversion, but because whites have given themselves over to evil by believing the Jews who wrote the Bible. Indeed, Holland’s book shows how the seedbed of Christianity grew into the baobab that, following that metaphor from Saint-Exupéry’s book, grew to burst the planet of the little prince.
In the conversation embedded above, the homo and the hetero agree that the Woke tolerate no debate. But do they, the homo and the hetero tolerate it with people to their right, say questioning anti-racism, feminism and the anti-Nazi narrative of the time (e.g., here)? And what about today’s racialists: are they capable of responding to Skrbina or Holland? At least Kevin MacDonald reviewed the former’s book, but the strength of my latest PDF shows how the egalitarian virus of Christianity mutated into the super-egalitarian virus of neo-Christianity (Holland’s book).
When will white nationalists debate these issues?
8 replies on “The homo and the hetero”
Hi Caesar, is not related to the topic, but what do you think about the drop on birth rates due to the covid scare and vaccines?
Here is a video explaining how in developed countries vaccines messed reproductive system on women and men alike:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruRQ8diztzw
The corona people don’t seem like the kind to have kids anyway. It’s funny to see the idiots in the comments clamouring about a “population reduction agenda”. Don’t we wish that were true? But instead, the Muslims and Ukrainians are largely unvaccinated.
“Doyle acknowledged that Woke people don’t understand art and that Greek and Renaissance statuary is superb…”
César, I do wish you would acknowledge what I have said repeatedly about this over the years. Pre-20th century depictions of women are highly masculinized. I’m not talking about chest hair and muscles. I’m talking about protuberant facial features and flat chests. I often attribute this to the Christian obsession with modesty and the pathologization of the sexual, but it was actually the Ancient Greeks who were the originators of the large nosed, large chinned, regressed mouth archetype ubiquitous throughout classical antiquity. I think the Christians simply continued using it because it happened to be conducive to their own puritanical views about beauty and sex. These depictions, being inherently unfeminine, would not inspire the dreaded sin of lust. As we know, there has always been an agonised struggle within Christianity regarding how to reconcile beauty as a manifestation of God’s grace with beauty as a manifestation of vice, vanity, temptation and sin. But the simple biological fact is that female beauty is inseparable from the sexual, and this is why classical statuary and paintings fail to capture white female beauty.
It took time and effort writing this, so please let it pass. Not only pass, in fact, but actively engage with it. Maybe even make a post about it. You know all too well how excruciating it feels to never have your arguments addressed, or bypassed in favour of far less interesting ones.
Oh, and you may remember that essay I began writing years ago (The Historical Absence of Feminine Facial Morphology in European Art and Culture). It is still ongoing, but I have paid less attention to it over the last year, in favour of my other projects. It will be completed eventually. I am currently transferring a lot of the heavy philosophical and political exposition over to The Aetiology of Wokeness, where I think it feels much more appropriate. I understand now why the task of editing is often outsourced. Being your own editor is damn hard work!
Why do you insist on revisiting a subject that, a few years ago, I told you I wasn’t interested in discussing (the representation of women in classical statuary)?
By the way, when comments are long, I hardly read all of them.
Well I’d appreciate it if you did read them, since I make the effort. It has been several years and I do not recall what you said before. I don’t think you have ever addressed the matter satisfactorily. If you had, I doubt I would be bringing the matter up again. I get the impression that you don’t like me pointing out the problem with the depictions, perhaps because you yourself never noticed what was (very obviously) wrong with them. I can only speculate what you might think, because you resist discussion. It does remind me of the Right’s refusal to address the Christian Question. It feels like a deliberate evasion.
Don’t be autistic: it’s just lack of time and motivation to address every inquiry visitors drop in the comments section.
But I am autistic, César. I wish with all my heart that I wasn’t, but I am. Anyway, do you think you could make a post addressing this soon? I would like that. If you do, you can use my comments here as a guide for addressing specific points. Thank you.
The fact is that Greco-Roman statuary depicts penises smaller and thinner than one might see on a nude beach, and the same can be said of Greco-Roman depictions of women’s unpretentious breasts. Both were stylistic considerations in that art, and it does not bother me. But that doesn’t mean that I have interest to write a specific article on the subject.