I am a deeply closeted homosexual.
stop trying to peg me, woman
Closeted homosexuality is an ideology, or sexuality, which distinguishes itself both from modern gay and modern trad for a “secret third thing.”
I equivocate between sexuality and ideology on the basis of refinement and extreme radicalism. The adjective “closeted” implies a conscious, active decision to control and direct one’s own sexuality. This is in opposition with the passive attitude of “born this way.”
Modern gay believes he was "born this way"; sexuality for the modern gay is something like a “preference,” a soft and squishy passivity. I enjoy vanilla icecream; I enjoy gay sex. Sexuality is reduced to a sensual experience, devoid of ideological components.
Closeted homosexuality is Freudian; it believes that all heroic powers come from the repression and expression of the death drive and sex drive, which exist in a reciprocal relationship, in tandem. The ability to kill one’s self in battle is connected deeply with sex, as is the ability to sacrifice one’s identity for a work of art.
Opposed to this Freudian view, there is trad husbandry, which declares that “sex is a holy union between man and woman for the purpose of biological procreation.” This is a mediocre lie, but it is not a noble lie. Nobility means excellence, and there is nothing excellent about forcing all mediocrities to marry off and slop together a brood of 8 children each.
I am a feminist and a misogynist, meaning that I want to force conservative women into 9-to-5 jobs for the purpose of donating foreign aid to Africa. I am saying this in the silliest and funniest way possible, because nothing I say has any value if it is not entertaining, but it is also reflective of deeply held, true beliefs.
Trad women are materialists, in the lowest sense of the word. Their goal in life is to identify a worthy male, and then to browbeat him into submission, psychologically abuse him, neuter him, and castrate him.
This is a very practical thing to do, and very safe, and produces an effective slave society, but it is devoid of idealism and heroism. Modern gays are a radical extension of this feminine drive toward practical materialism.
When I say trad women, I referring to Steven Crowder’s ex wife, who claims that the highest duty of a man is to marry a woman and then do whatever she says. Ms. Crowder is a parody of the trad woman, but she is only saying aloud what many trad women secretly already believe.
Feminism, by contrast, is a relief from this slavery, because the feminist, with her short blue hair and unshaven armpits, is less seductive, less deceptive, less effective in entrapping and ensnaring men. Feminists, upon inspection, are porn addicts with the desire to be choked and spanked and abused in all sorts of violent ways. This is degrading and unpleasant, but it is morally superior to the trad woman.
There is a Biblical story wherein a Jewish woman, I think her name is Ruth, seduces one of the many enemies of Israel, while he is sleeping, he cuts off his head, or drives a nail into it. I may be confusing two different stories here -- the Bible is full of repetition. But the story is metaphorical for the way in which women will cut off the head of your penis, psychically, they will reduce you of all creative and adventurous impulses, and render you a headless “husband.”
The ideal husband has put aside all his ideals, all dangerous ideas. The meme term for this is “wifeguy.” I have seen many men, who were already quite mediocre in spirit, debase themselves to the level of slavery for their wives and children.
The ideology of the wifeguy is justified with the theology of tradism, which states that God wants mediocrities to reproduce as much as physically possible. This is a gross and disgusting ideology, and its adherents deserve only humiliation -- which they gladly receive, washing and sucking toes, making themselves into fools, speaking in tongues, being fat, engaging in hysterical conspiracists about globalists having sex with 17 year old prostitutes.
Humility and humiliation, for these people, are the same thing.
Noble Humility
The highest form of humility before God is a kind of naive faith, hope, and optimism, that of the young man who dreams of being superman. Humility in this sense is a kind of boldness and innocence, an openness to divine mysteries and revelation. To be humble before the Gods is to be open to blessings and prophecy. To listen humbly to the Gods means to not second guess everything with skepticism and the treachery and sin of despair.
What is not humble is to cast aspersions on every artistic impulse:
“What is the point? I'm so stupid; I can't do anything right; love is a lie; we're just chemicals in a vat.”
None of this is humble -- it is supremely arrogant, nasty, ugly. Atheistic cynicism comes from fear. Humility before God is the recognition that in any place, at any time, you might become possessed and a slave to higher powers, which compel you toward acts of insanity for some higher purpose, beyond comprehension... The most humble are the most open to salvation, and these men are heroes.
But the tradist has reduced humility to the 9-to-5 job, changing diapers, all sorts of other petty humiliations. The tradist worships biological children, and the wife, and the most absurdly vain repetitions. Theology is reduced to a series of lines and dogmas to be endlessly repeated. If you contest this ludicrous ritual, these sadists will condemn you to the fires of hell, to be tortured in semen and excrement eternally, by an “all loving God.”
Noble Marriage
The majority of people have always been lowly and evil, and so marriage has always had this humiliating, ludicrous quality for them. But the masses are excluded from good history, and so when we learn of the Greeks and Romans and Rigvedics1 and even the Israelites, we learn of marriages of a different quality.
When we read about these ancient peoples, we see marriages which did not inhibit the men who entered into them, but inspired them to great deeds. Specifically, the Mahabharata demonstrates the way in which wives were won through *contest*, the Swayamvar.
In the Ramayana, Rama completes a tour of duty, slaying forest dwellers, before he marries. In the Odyssey, the attempts to court the wife of Odysseus all involve contests and competitions, and Odysseus reclaims his throne by slaying all the other suitors.
The aristocratic form of marriage involves contest; there can be no marriage without it. The tradist conception of “marriage at 18,” preceding any great deeds or life-risking, is a utilitarian, pragmatic, and mediocre inversion of form.
In the aristocratic form of marriage, the woman is a judge of the contest. Alternatively, she is a victim of kidnapping, which itself is a ritualized contest, in which the noble man steals her away in his chariot, which is then chased by the police, and if he escapes, the woman is rightfully his. This is called Rakshasavivaha, sacred among the Rigvedic people, but later demonized by the Dravidian priests.2
Even if we see elements of “contest” in modern society, what follows is a deviation. The ancient marriages of Arjuna and Odysseus demonstrate a disregard for any norm of “cohabitation.” The idea that husband and wife should share a bedroom is absent; the idea that they should share a house or even a country is also neglected. The purpose of the wife is to be impregnated, and to raise the children.
The term “raise” here ennobles the woman as a Vaishya, meaning that she manages the rearing of the child through Sudra, workers, who provide nursing, tutoring, and instruction. When the child is old enough, he can join his father in battle, or the daughter can be married off for political gain.
The closest approximation to this idea today would be for a noble man to impregnate a woman, leave her, and pay child support for 18 years, with occasional visitations. This is the most aristocratic form of child-rearing: not the domesticity imagined by the tradists. There is nothing noble about changing diapers. No amount of shaming and hysterics and threats of hellfire will change this.
What complicates this vision today is that divorced women seek to remarry, so that they can extract two incomes simultaneously. This confuses the children by disrespecting the biological father and serves the selfish materialism of the wife.
Modern Gay
Having thoroughly attacked the tradist vision of matrimony, it would be good to also discuss the problems of modern gay. In contrast to the ancient Greeks, modern gays are weak, skinny-fat, obese, materialistic, fashionable, acne ridden, and diseased.
Not all, not all, not all, but most.
Modern gay has a very relaxed view of sexuality, and this is what closeted homosexuality seeks to remedy. Modern gay is loose; the deeply closeted are tight. Modern gay have a comical view of poopy butt sex; the deeply closeted view it as sacred, evil, dark, and dangerous.
Sexuality only has power and meaning insofar as it is secretive, hidden, restrictive, and taboo. The worst manifestation of sexuality is the marriage of Pete Buttigieg with his husband and his adopted children, reading coloring books and changing diapers.
I went to a gay pride event in San Francisco, and all the men were fat, weak, disgusting, and old. There were no handsome twink bodybuilders. There was nothing erotic at all. It was like walking into the YMCA locker room with a bunch of naked hairy boomers. A closeted homosexual will kill himself before he degenerates into that state.
Modern gay involves getting a college degree, working a job, earning income, living in a house, getting on grindr to satisfy the daily itch. They volunteer in the “community” and gossip about their neighbors. Closeted homosexuals are homeless wanderers, drifters, totally unmoored from “community.”
Closeted homosexuality is an antagonistic, self-hating view. I say deeply closeted, to make clear that there is no sex involved.
I lovingly watch videos of bodybuilders, because I am attracted to the male form. It is exciting and enjoyable to watch nearly naked men flex their oiled muscles. It is an erotic energy which is inspiring and motivating. But I do not masturbate watching this, and I do not go on grindr for casual encounters with men. Closeted homosexuality is a worship of the male form... It is a form of eroticism which transcends the sex act.
Closeted Porn
All forms of female domination are humiliations, and entirely unerotic. I joke about these things because I find them comical. I don’t care how many steroids a woman has taken -- the “dominant female” will always be misshapen and ugly in comparison to that of the dominant male. There is nothing erotic about female domination.
What is erotic is to watch a powerful, beautiful, and handsome man express his sexual power. But again, this is *closeted*, and specifically, it is a worship of the *dominant man.*
Homosexuals enjoy gay porn, where men kiss each other and sodomize each other. In kissing a man, the man becomes soft; in being sodomized, he becomes submissive. Both of these acts, kissing men and being sodomized by them, are humiliating. To see a man be humiliated is comical and not erotic. It has no place in closeted sexuality.
I would be happy to see my enemies sodomized, but this is because I wish to see them humiliated, not because I find the act to be erotic.
In closeted homosexuality, women serve the purpose of reflecting the male’s dominance; they are foils to his power. What is erotic is to see a beautiful man conquering and dominating a beautiful woman.
Lesbian porn is not erotic, because it does not feature men. Gay porn is not erotic, because it shows the humiliation of men. What is ideal is for a beautiful man to have sex with a beautiful woman, so that his power and strength can be most exemplified. The beauty of the woman acts to validate and contrast itself against the man, so that with the beauty of the woman, the value and worth of the man is proven. The woman serves to raise up and worship the man, submitting herself to him.
Rape Fantasies
Rape fantasies are for women. In a rape fantasy, the man is so desperate, so lawless, that he violates the woman. This is not closeted homosexuality. In closeted homosexuality, the man is so superior that the woman cannot hold the pretense of being raped. She clearly consents, because how could she not? He is the superior man.
Any porn containing the physical abuse of women is designed for the satisfaction of women, and it is disgusting. Women love this sort of thing, because they are disgusting. Closeted homosexuality has nothing to do with the rape of women.
I use the term “rape” to refer to a form of sex in which the woman is humiliated to the point of severe degradation, either through physical violence or disgusting excretions. If you see porn where women are being beaten or cut or abused in some painful way, this porn is viewed mostly by masochistic women, not by men. The movement to ban violent pornography is mostly pushed by feminists who are deeply confused, offended, and embarrassed by the fact that violent sex is more enjoyed by women than it is by men.
Narcissism
With respect to women, closeted homosexuality is narcissistic and androphilic. It has nothing to do with “self love” or “self acceptance,” but instead makes extreme demands, to the point of self-sacrifice. In this narcissistic view, women are regarded as validating the power of men.
Men who seek to be dominated in any way, such as with a dominatrix, or via sodomy, or some other form of submission, can either classify themselves as homosexuals or as heterosexuals, but they are not closeted. The term “closeted” means closed, shut, hidden, secretive. The closet is a temenos, a sacred space, a temple which cannot be entered. The closet is full of secretive desires, fantasies of grandeur and power, wishing to become a God and be worshipped.
Daphne is pursued by Apollo. She flees Apollo seeking to maintain her virginity. It is her chastity which gives her value. Some women do not understand this concept, and they freely whore themselves out, degrading themselves and making themselves worthless. OnlyFans is temple prostitution, and common man seems to enjoy it.
The true closeted case could never pay for sex, because the enjoyment he derives from sex is not the physical pleasure, but the feeling of power that comes from being desired and exerting control by the force of his own personality. For the narcissist, when a married woman flirts with him, he feels powerful, because he has overcome a social taboo. When he pays money for sex, this is a degradation, an admission of defeat. The true narcissist would rather die than pay for sex.
Rebuttal of “Bronze Age” Homosex
Both tradism and modern gay are forms of slavery. In the first case, tradism enslaves society to the rule of the mediocre, so that the median rules over the excellent, adventures are put to a halt, and domesticity rules over all. In some cases, it is possible to have some degree of tradism, so long as there are exceptions made. Spain during the period of the conquistadors had some normative tradism among the lower classes, but also dedicated billions of dollars to the adventures of single men.
Modern gay is a more severe form of slavery, since there is no escape from Buttigieg. One cannot flee across the ocean and lay waste to foreign shores -- Buttigieg will come for you, bearing human rights.
This sounds familiar, because you have heard all these arguments before, but from a critical angle. “We must support Vladimir Putin because he will free us from Victoria Nuland and Pete Buttigieg.” I have the opposite view.
In my view, the more severe form of slavery is good and necessary, because it is unsustainable, and will lead to an outbreak of aristocracy. On the other hand, Putinism is evil, because it only prolongs the stability of the tradists.
What I seek is a total enslavement of the human race, more total than anything which has ever been achieved, so that everyone will be crushed into a fine powder and converted into sludge and fed into the AI generators to make more slop. Total genocide of the human spirit. It is only against this absolute challenge, a kind of anti-Christ, that heroism and nobility can be resurrected. Nothing less will suffice.
Putinism is simply gay by other means, the tradist strategy. It is the same demographic replacement by Kazakh Muslims and Tartars, just at 50% speed. What is even more horrifying about this vision is that it is *palatable* and *tolerable*, and therefore could persist for thousands of more years. I shudder to think.
Homosexuals are my natural ally, as are feminists, because even if they are sometimes annoying, they further human extinction. I say this in spiritual terms, not in material ones. The idea that TFR will reduce to 0 is impossible, and I would rather have a world of 100,000 healthy humans than 10 trillion parasites.
When I refer to extinction, I am not speaking in material terms! I am referring to a spiritual crisis which must be taken to its logical conclusion, and not slowed with Putinist half measures. Yes, I am an accelerationist.
Temperamentally, I am annoyed by the lesbians, and the OnlyFans simps, the interior decorators, and Buttigieg. They are materialists and slaves. But the tradists are worse and more dishonest. They worship diapers and biology and mediocrity, which is worse than slavery. At least the feminist has the decency to not have children; it is the tradist which perpetuates the Down’s Syndrome favela.3
This is the meaning of “Deep Left,” a closeted homosexuality, whereby the left is a cleansing agent which is to be a great culling, McGenics, the end of tradism for good. This is “dark woke.”
Conclusion
It is a tradist lie to claim that the male form is not beautiful; it is a modern gay lie to claim that sex is “free and easy.” No, sex is torturous and evil, demonic and brutal. It is painful. There is no sex without love -- sex without love is mere masturbation. True sex requires tears, not of physical pain, but emotional pain. It is psychological, and concerned first and foremost with the soul.
I’ve exaggerated somewhat for effect. I am tired of women messaging me asking to peg me. This is deeply disturbing.
If I could give young men any advice, it would be to regard perhaps the first 6 months of a relationship as its limit, and to give yourself fully to love in that time, but to be honest about your destiny, which is beyond the limits of domesticity. The extent to which you can accept this is the extent to which you will be great.
If you do not believe in yourself, because you think you are too weak, too ugly, too submissive, not a genius, then of course this will fail, and you will fall into some domestic pattern which will sap you of your vitality and deliver you into mediocrity. This is the fate of most. Some overcome, some resist, most submit.
There are of course men who enjoy domesticity, the Vaishya, the managerial class, and they claim that marriage is an ennobling and vitalizing thing. This is a petty and impoverished view and can only be held by those who believe the highest calling is to be a shop keeper or plantation owner.
All great heroism requires Outsideness, going beyond, either physically or mentally or creatively. This is never conducive to domestic life, and this is why Herakles had to kill his family in order to perform his labors.
There may be some men who appear to be married in principle, but in practice, have little regard or time for their family. Stories of these men abound, if you look for their daughters, they will tell you stories of how dad was never around, how dad abandoned the family. If the man failed to become great, then it is a tragedy for everyone. But only by risking tragedy can man become great. Yes, you must abandon thy father and mother, and also thy wife and child, to become great. The rest are slaves.
Slaves are an important part of every civilization, and should be regarded with respect, just as we must respect and afford dignity to animals. I wish no slaves harm. I would pet and hug a slave just as I would pet and hug a baby goat or a kitten. I wish you conservatives all the best in your traditional marriages. I simply refuse to lie about the nature of heroism, least of all Jesus Christ, and claim that marriage is the highest spiritual good.
Men sometimes achieve great things, and then fall into middle age, and settle for domesticity. Since the limits of a man's working years is 65, the middle age is 33, to be clear. Anything after 65 is not life, but mere inertia. Nothing is truly accomplished past that age; everything which is done relies upon previous deeds. This is an average, of course, and there are exceptions, for but the average, 33 is middle age. If what I am saying sounds too harsh (that one should not be married), then the compromise is to try to achieve everything possible with youthly vigor, and then to settle into domestic life in middle age.
This is still difficult, since MGTOW and redpillers lie, and it is easiest to get married between 23 and 26, not at 33. This is because most women prefer a partner within 2 years of their own age, and by age 33, the dating market shrinks considerably to single mothers, harpies, anti-social hags, and women who for whatever reason failed to attract and hold a mate during their prime years (23 to 26). To date a younger woman, this requires overcoming certain hurdles. The kind of women who date older men are distinct from other women; whether this is good or bad, I will not say here.
But for young women, I will advise this: do not seek older men. Consider Mark Zuckerberg’s wife. She is nothing special. If she had waited very long, she would not have had the opportunity to marry a billionaire; there is too much competition. But she recognized his greatness when they were both young, and she used her abilities to ensnare him, and now they are secure. Buy your bananas while they are green, not when they are over ripe.
To conclude, the term greatness cannot apply ever to the majority, so to speak of greatness is elitist. Most rationalize away greatness because it is terrifying -- by the standards of the Gods, we are all pitiful worms. It is easier to demonize the concept of greatness and call it a “sinful temptation” than to be humble and embrace tragedy.
Icarus is a hero, and all those who die for the sake of their dream are heroes. The rest do not matter.
I use the term Rigvedic specifically to refer to a meat-eating cult of nomadic cattle herders who invaded India around 1600 BC. To call these people “Hindu” is to confuse their religion greatly, since over the centuries, the previous religion, the Dravidian Upanishads, subsumed the worship of Indra, and reduced him to humiliation. The Dravidians were not the original inhabitants of India either, and came from Iran.
Specifically, the character of Ravana is demonized for this practice in the Ramayana, in part because she was not a virgin, but already married to Rama.
I also disagree with “Bronze Age” Putinism to the extent that it regards Aryans as the progenitors of civilization. This was a credible belief prior to modern genetics and archaeology, now long debunked. Aryans did not invent the Upanishads, they did not invent agriculture, they did not invent metallurgy, or writing, or animal husbandry. India and Europe had civilization long before the Aryans. The Upanishads were a Dravidian tradition; the Rigveda is the primitive Aryan one. That they were both written in Sanskrit is irrelevant. The KJV being written in English does not make it less Hebrew. The Rakshasa are the real Aryans.
Why can’t you just be normal
What a precious, special mind