Neoreactionary theories of homosexuality are interesting, but underdeveloped. I, for one, am not convinced that the possibility of homosexuality being caused by a virus or pathogen of some kind necessarily rules out that some people will be more or less inclined towards the behavior based on genetic factors (which yes, absolutely could dictate susceptibility to whatever theorized pathogen [pathogens?] might influence such behaviors).
One thing the virus theory doesn’t handle too well (in my opinion) is the existence of bisexuals. This isn’t a big sticking point, but it’s one that perhaps ought to be dealt with if Neoreaction is seriously going to contest the claim that non-heterosexual behavior is solely (or even majorly) caused by genes.
Given the material incentives regarding divorce (and the general passivity and apathy of the modern, effeminate man), sleeping with married women is arguably the least-risky path for someone looking to pass on his genes.
For the unscrupulous man who doesn’t care to put in the optimal paternal investment, it makes a lot of sense to knock up someone else’s wife (whether the type of people most inclined to do this should be breeding at all is a different question…after all, we live in interesting times).
From a marginal utility standpoint, it only makes sense to support a sports team if it wins most of the time, given how our change in total happiness is more affected by a loss than a win of equal quantity. This would suggest that it is rational to support teams like the Alabama Crimson Tide, which win frequently and suffer few losses (if any).
This, of course, implies that rooting for one team or another is a rational decision, not an irrational one. Still, it does make one wonder about the various ways to make people switch teams.
For what it’s worth, we fly the blue flag here at The Legionnaire, and have been doing so through thick and thin since 1995.
The expansion of presidential powers will be justified in the future by legal aides who will “discover” new powers under the law. These justifications will not always be released to the public, and Congress will become increasingly irrelevant compared to the executive.
Anyone know if there’s a catchy word for “Rule by Lawyers?”
“To put it in perspective, imagine if Russia orchestrated the overthrow of the Mexican government (which is every bit as corrupt and shady as the former Ukrainian government was) and installed a pro-Russian puppet who promptly sent all of Mexico’s gold reserves to Moscow and placed Russians on the corporate boards of its oil companies? Do you think the USA would respond in as limited a fashion as Russia has?
Remember, Putin does not have to be a good guy in order for Obama to be the bad guy.”
Majority groups tend not to protect their own because there is too much to be gained from labeling other members as “low-status”. Minority groups find themselves forced to protect their own because it is necessary for group survival.
There are a few interesting implications here. The first is that given a sufficient time frame, majorities will always find a way to tear themselves apart. From this, it follows that ruling majorities will always and inevitably degrade themselves and erode their power through infighting.
It also implies that ruling minorities will be much more internally cohesive, as they are forced to stay tribal to retain their hold on power.
Now, does this imply that ruling elites will always begin to classify themselves as the in-group and the ruled as the out-group? To what degree does ruler/ruled tribal warfare arise from this dynamic? To what degree will some form of class warfare emerge as a constant in any society with this dynamic?
If anyone with any knowledge of game theory wants to take a crack at all this (disproving it or otherwise), I’d be very grateful.
The more bizarre and labyrinthine the laws of your country, the more that people good at finding loopholes and navigating abstract frameworks will be able to get around them. As time goes on, the laws of a country will become more complex and difficult to navigate. If it is true what I have postulated before that verbal IQ helps one navigate rules and legal structures, than over time, people with high verbal IQ will gain more and more advantage over those with lower verbal IQ.
Radix Journal put up a thought-provoking article earlier this week about the role that the synthesis of paganism and Christianity played in developing Europe. One of the really good points it that Chrisitanity provided a common thread that was able to tie Europeans together in a shared culture (something that paganism was never quite able to do).
Paganism is without doubt dead, and even though I think neo-paganism can be an optimal belief system and source of ritual for certain individuals, I greatly doubt that it can ever be revived from the dead.
That said, I am also skeptical of the chances that Christianity has in resuscitating itself and re-emerging as a powerful cultural force (though it would be foolish to suggest that it does not have far better chances than any kind of neo-paganism).
Something new is needed, but I am doubtful that the solution is anything that could be engineered by a council of eldars, no matter how smart those on the council might be. Any feasible solution is going to have to emerge and evolve on its own.
That doesn’t mean, however, that we can’t seed some memes and see what fruit comes to bear. Think of it as a panspermea for a new religion. Who knows what ideologies might evolve?
“To know how to dissimulate is the knowledge of kings.” – Cardinal Richelieu
“History is written by the victors.” – Unknown, attributed to Winston Churchill
“In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” – Erasmus
Connect those dots as you see fit.
LEGES SINE MORIBUS VANAE