The Avuncular Function: a possible explanation for homosexuality and other paraphilias

Homosexuality is a perversion because it’s not reproductive.  That in itself is not a commentary on whether or not it is natural, which I don’t consider a practically useful avenue of inquiry anyway.  One could point to other non-reproductive familial relationships, such as mother and son and brother and sister, but the point of those relationships isn’t to divert somebody from reproduction and family life – they reinforce family life and reproductive imperatives and are epi-reproductive.  Of course, somebody could be a homosexual and reproductive at the same time – that’s perfectly obvious – but my point is equally obvious: that encouragement of such relationships diminishes family life and weakens whites genetically and epigenetically.  It doesn’t follow from this that I think nobody should be allowed to be homosexual - clearly that would be an unrealistic view, and in private, people can have whatever relationships they like – but what I object to is encouragement of certain types of relationships and interactions, brief or permanent, that damage us.  

By normalising homosexuality, we influence young people into it and other sexual perversions.  One may say that, from a Darwinian point of view, that’s a good thing: let the unfit die out, as this strengthens the race in the long run.  I take the point, but disagree on the basis of an important caveat to the applicability of Darwinian laws among humans: an impressionable young person who falls for the orthodoxy is not necessarily unfit, just immature.  Moreover, some of our most intelligent young people will be the ones who fall for it because the more intelligent tend to be more susceptible to brainwashing in their younger years, due to their tendency to absorb information efficiently at a pre-critical stage of their lives.  (This habit of information-absorption often doesn’t leave them in adulthood due to its pay-offs, which may also explain why left-liberal people are often more intelligent than conservatives).

Anecdotally, I have noticed that homosexual, bisexual and transgender men, etc. tend to be quite intelligent and often intellectual, and it would not surprise me if there is some formal study that reveals a positive correlation between sexual perversion and IQ.  This leads me to ponder whether homosexuality serves some sort of evolutionary purpose (a perversion can also be natural).  An important caveat to this is that to speak of ‘purpose’ in evolution, even in the evolution of meta-conscious species like humans, is possibly clumsy.  We tend to think of evolution as non-teleological and not meta-conscious, and mostly it is.  But I would link homosexuality to what I call the Avuncular Function.

What I mean by the Avuncular Function is that certain men within a given primitive community followed a slightly different evolutionary trajectory from the norm.  Men who were highly intelligent may have bred at a significantly diminished rate or not at all, instead performing a masculine version of the female nurturing role despite being sexually normal - in particular, they may have had an important mentoring influence on the maturation of adolescent boys.  My working theory is that homosexuality and bisexuality and other paraphilias are a perverted off-shoot of Avuncular Man and an epigenetic consequence of, first, civilisation and urbanisation, then industrialisation and the financialisation of capital. 

English National Socialism

I am an English National Socialist - which, as I consider it, means that:

(i). within certain parameters, I am pragmatic for what is best for the British people and British Heritage Peoples and believe they should be put first;

(ii). I dislike rigidly ideological solutions and prefer embracing philosophy, organicism and complexity; I reject the Blatchford idea of 'English National Socialism' - i.e. nationalistic social-democracy.  Instead, I see 'socialism' as a recognition of the essential symbiosis for tribalism and nationalism to work, and inherent in this is philosophical pragmatism;

(iii). I acknowledge the English 'special way', which I believe is liberal reactionary, i.e. a fusion of modernism and pre-modernism, including: a minimal state, patriarchy and masculinism, tribalism, nationalism and traditionalism, maximum liberty, mass land ownership, etc.;

(iv). I believe in aristocracy, a masculine Leader culture at all levels of society, and observing the Natural Order.  I view mass democracy with disdain; at the same time, I believe there has to be a political or quasi-political element to society – some organising class – to give a people direction and to encourage some things, like eugenics, and restrain and discourage others;

(v). in economics and commerce, I favour neither pure free trade nor autarky; I accept the principles of Ricardian free trade and some of the insights of the Austrian school, but I reject the neo-liberal outlook that sees economics as central to everything and puts business and economics before the folk;

(vi). I believe in Social Darwinism as a broad truth, I am an atheist and accept evolutionary theory, and in my case, I believe the principles behind these perspectives should be applied as human ecologism and separate development.  I suppose eugenics, but on a voluntary and natural basis through the encouragement of healthy instincts, rather than programmic eugenics, which I would consider dangerous and even counter-productive.

Pragmatism

If someone were to ask me, 'What do you believe?', I would reply: 'It depends'.

It depends on the circumstances on to which I must project beliefs.  It's not that I lack principles - existential relativism itself embodies the principle of being relativistic, or at least, underlying principles that manifest in the intellectual habit - it's more that beliefs change with the situation.  They have to.  Relativism a consequence of evolution.  It is evolution.  Evolution is progressive.  It is not regressive because those who have regressed are not here to report back.  We change with the environment to survive, implying that we adapt to What Works.  Not necessarily Whatever Works, since we have moral agency, aesthetic sense and discrimination, but the survivor is a pragmatist - and pragmatism is, in itself, a philosophical principle.

Pragmatism is not the same as moderacy.  An Islamic terrorist is a pragmatist, just of a particularly ruthless kind.  In his view, terrorism is What Works.  However, there is a relationship between pragmatism and moderacy, in that an evaluation of What Works must take account of viability, and viability in turn reflects - among other things - the present environment as well as an imaginative understanding of the present dynamics that will shape the future.

Things become 'isms' when What Works is abandoned for Whatever Works.  Progressive becomes progressivism.  Conservative becomes conservatism.  Social becomes socialism.  In much the same vein, pragmatism can be a coinage for weakness and accommodation.  In other words, natural approaches involving adaptation and insight that, in the past, healthy, normal people would pursue because they are What Works have become dogmatic creeds in which an Ideal or Object is posited and Whatever Works is acceptable to achieve the Ideal or Object.  This happens because people lose touch with reality.  They live in bubbles - what we call civilisation, a situation in which there is no immediate appropriate reciprocation for one's actions and omission, with the result that the mind abandons reality.  Virtual reality is not a new concept, it has existed for as long as civilisations have existed.

Policy Wish List

What follows is a working list (I'll change it from time-to-time) of 'real world' policies that I would like to see enacted.  These do not reflect any longer-term vision, rather it's immediate stuff that - if I had the power - I would seek to implement within one or two parliaments as part of a 'revolution-from-the-middle'.  The list reflects leanings that are generally towards libertarian-ethnonationalism (for want of a better description):

Leave the EU, the Single Market, the EU Customs Union and Euratom.

Leave the ECHR.

Abolish the Monarchy, restore the hereditary House of Lords, and following a transition period, select the President from the Lords for two-year terms.

Abolish the BBC.

Leave NATO and change British defence doctrine to defence of the Home Islands, the Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories.

End immigration from Moslem countries.

Enact a new Bill of Rights, limiting the intervention of Parliament and the scope of statutory law-making and restoring the primacy of common law.

Close down 75% of central government bureaucracy.

Reform local government in England into local commissioning bodies.  Privatise most services.

Abolish the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales and replace with greater powers for local government and assemblies selected from local government and the relevant central government offices.

End all unskilled immigration.  Limit skilled immigration to areas where there is a provable skill shortage and where migrants can be secured from western EU countries (Zone 1) or Australia, New Zealand or Canada (Zone 2).  Limit immigration from other countries (Zone 3) to tourism and business visits, except where an individual is white and can demonstrate white British heritage.

Retain the NHS and ensure it is properly funded and well-staffed with white British clinicians and staff.

Restore the Eleven Plus and the tripartite system.  Encourage low-cost private schooling.

Require that the ‘new’ universities convert back to polytechnics. Provide funding for foundation degrees for people who have completed apprenticeships or have equivalent experience.

Restrict grant funding to top 15% of A-level students under a National Scholarship Scheme.

#RealBrexit #PaperBrexit #KeepTheresa

I am of a similar view to Dr Sean Gabb on the Prime Ministership question. I strongly dislike Theresa May, but this woman was the best available choice as leader. It was, I think, very wise of the parliamentary Conservative Party to select a Remainer, and contrary to what is being now said, she did have a strong record in government.

At first, that might seem like a paradoxical thing to say: why would I want a Remainer leading the government during Brexit negotiations?

It's the old 'puppet on a string' idea. If they had selected a Leaver, especially a hard core one, there would have been no proxy through which to unite the party. The upside of May's leadership is that she keeps them together (barely) and what we have is a functioning (albeit incompetent) government outfit. A Leaver would not have been able to achieve any sort of unity and under those circumstances, the whole Brexit project could have been fundamentally jeopardised.

I still want #RealBrexit, but I also want Theresa May to stay in place until at least the end of March 2019. If the price is that we only achieve a #PaperBrexit, then so be it - that's still a massive leap forward politically from just a few years ago. And it will also mean that the Tory Party will continue to be riven with splits and feuding - another plus.

What Is Libertarianism?

What is libertarianism?  Can we even speak of a doctrine of liberty, a ‘liberty-ism’?

Is liberty a universal value? Can it be? Can it ever be?

As argued by Hoppe, is libertarianism just a euphemism for liberalism, adopted at a time when the liberal moniker has been corrupted by the Left? Or is libertarianism in fact something distinct, a radical reactionary outgrowth from the wayward and corrupted liberal trajectory?

To my mind, libertarianism – rather like conservatism – is a disposition, a habit, an attitude, a state of mind, not a fixed market-based dogma. I also think libertarianism is particularist, in that it has its home in England, which is not to say that non-English traditions lack a comparative understanding of liberty, but is to say that libertarianism is derived from an insular ontology that is socially and politically reactionary; prioritises individual freedom; minimises morally-privileged authority; puts the state (such as it is) at the service of the individual; and, holds to private institutions like the family as the basis of community and society.

I reject the idea of a universal human ethical, social and civic sensibility. In my view, liberty and freedom cannot be universal, and also cannot be considered meaningful unless examined ontically and socially. In other words, there is no free-floating, cultureless concept of liberty that could realistically work in practice on a global basis. All notions of freedom are ontological in the ultimate sense, however, I do not refer here to a mundane ‘ontology of need’, but rather to a more sophisticated ‘social and communal ontology’: to factors that are human-imposed, that transcend naive individual choice and are formed at the social and tribal level, and are ontological in nature and thus inhibit absolute agency and freedom of action in ‘human’ terms.

Certain implications follow that are uncomfortable for purist liberals who would have it that libertarianism is, in effect, a credo of a human specieal ontology or similar and somehow reflects universal human values, based either in some kind of a priori human grammar or which can be imposed as such.

Another, related, difficulty with genuine self-governing philosophies is that not everybody is suited to live ‘wild’.  It is unclear whether this is simply due to human nature and therefore axiomatic (and inevitable) or a result of the imposition of civilisation (intensified by industrialisation and urbanisation). I’m conscious that herding people into cities and factories is going to introduce an evolutionary dynamic and that political and social movements such as feminism and statist social democracy may be a manifestation of novel human evolutionary influences. At the same time, one would have to ask how the relevant structural changes could have occurred in the first place unless a section of the population is always susceptible to them. I do regard ideologies to be a result of natural selection and different human ‘types’ can be assorted into different ideological types: for example, communism would tend to favour those with a highly collectivist mindset.

The Limitations of Jordan Peterson

Not that I necessarily agree with the whole thesis of psychopathy, which seems to me rather unscientific, but Peterson here fails to take account of socially-sanctioned psychopathy. Or rather, he is too ready to dismiss the possibility a priori.

A psychopath can be behaviourally normative and still act in a thoroughly psychopathic manner. If this short clip is anything to go by, Peterson also seems to be equating psychopathy with anti-social behaviour, but the two are not synonyms. The possibility of social framing seems to elude Peterson: i.e. either that a psychopath can actually behave according to normative standards because the system itself is psychopathic or the psychopath is working within an institutionally psychopathic organisation. Examples abound and I need not labour the point.  I assume the reader has eyes to see and ears to hear.

Maybe this is harsh of me, but Peterson comes across as somebody with quite a naive understanding of the world, you might even call his worldview ‘quaint’. That observation is not particular to Peterson however: increasingly, as I age, learn and read more, I become less impressed by these ‘expert’ talking heads; indeed, experts of all kinds look less impressive to me, and not just in the social sciences.