- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 15
Gayness is not what most think it is. Having sex with other men is only superficially gay, and there are masculine men who do do that (think the Spartans and sailors). However, modern powers have re-branded gay to mean a style of feminized man that is put before us as though something that we of course should accept (and that all past people's were crazy intolerant of it as well, and only we are tolerant). However, it's instead a mechanism for control and for reducing the power of sexual identities. A type of new-age propaganda. I've talked to very few people about this belief, because it is one that very quickly attracts people to other you. But maybe here is an okay place to talk about it?
I know it sounds like an obvious question (and also potentially highly polarizing, but let's try and be rational here), but think about it for a second: masculinity goes far, far beyond ones physiognomy, and is much more based on ones relationship to their "masculine group". Gay "men" undermine the masculine group, which is a big part in why Russia (and most societies) is so harsh towards them -- because they are active agents of depolarization. I personally get along with gay people, yet not because I accept the attempted redefinition of masculine as being also immature and/or feminine, but because I simply don't consider them men, and in fact pity them for falling for the propaganda. I generally just ignore them, actually, but the more I grow as a man the more I realize that they are inadvertently having an extremely negative impact on Western society, and that ignoring them is tacit complicity with the weakening of both poles of sexual energy, which is the core of creative (and, as a side note, revolutionary) energy. But perhaps if more and more people change their perspective of what is a man, the problem of men tricked into remaining immature will be alleviated to a degree? The solution would be systematic change, yet systems are wrought by the minds of people, which makes things problematic, since, you know, the power behind mainstream media etc etc.
What do you think? Should we consider gay people men, or is it better to simply gently treat them as a neutral third type, similar to how ladyboys are currently treated in parts of Asia?
Mani
I know it sounds like an obvious question (and also potentially highly polarizing, but let's try and be rational here), but think about it for a second: masculinity goes far, far beyond ones physiognomy, and is much more based on ones relationship to their "masculine group". Gay "men" undermine the masculine group, which is a big part in why Russia (and most societies) is so harsh towards them -- because they are active agents of depolarization. I personally get along with gay people, yet not because I accept the attempted redefinition of masculine as being also immature and/or feminine, but because I simply don't consider them men, and in fact pity them for falling for the propaganda. I generally just ignore them, actually, but the more I grow as a man the more I realize that they are inadvertently having an extremely negative impact on Western society, and that ignoring them is tacit complicity with the weakening of both poles of sexual energy, which is the core of creative (and, as a side note, revolutionary) energy. But perhaps if more and more people change their perspective of what is a man, the problem of men tricked into remaining immature will be alleviated to a degree? The solution would be systematic change, yet systems are wrought by the minds of people, which makes things problematic, since, you know, the power behind mainstream media etc etc.
What do you think? Should we consider gay people men, or is it better to simply gently treat them as a neutral third type, similar to how ladyboys are currently treated in parts of Asia?
Mani
