DRAFT: On the Bottom

The lowest point of the unnatural Western emasculation that I’ve seen so far is the story of Karsten Nordal Hauken. The Norwegian politician describes himself as a ‘young Socialist Left Party member, feminist and anti-racist’. After he was raped in the bum by a Somali asylum seeker, he “self-medicated” his depression with alcohol and cannabis. When he learnt that his rapist would be deported, he had a “strong feeling of guilt and responsibility.”

 

It struck me as the lowest level of emasculation despite the stiff competition of men who accept and watch their women and children abused by grooming gangs or other criminals. The latter is much worse and there is no objective reason to believe that accepting one’s own rape is more immoral than the rape of others.

 

But I believe that I’m not the only man who thinks like this. I believe that our sense of masculinity is broadly based on evolutionary psychology. To have failed preventing others from raping your kin is bad, but it can happen to everybody. Even if you show cowardice and watch it while it happens, you can proof your masculinity and reestablish the moral of your community as soon as you get the chance for revenge. But once a man gets raped, things change. He has no moral reason to reestablish the moral rule again because his case would not become the decaying norm anyway.

 

Unless the attacker has much superior weapons it takes a lot of strength to brutalize another man. If a man cannot even fight off another man who exposes his most vulnerable parts, you cannot fight anyone and you lose all respect. This general sentiment can be observed in prison culture, too. Child rapists have it coming. Their position at the bottom of the hierarchy is messaged to them through their bottom. This is observed throughout history. To put somebody in his place via anal penetration is recorded in nearly all pre-modern cultures from the Spartans over the Romans to the Ottoman Empire. Both ancient Greek and ancient Roman law allowed for a cuckolded husband to publicly sodomize the man who slept with his wife.

 

I used to be a feminist and when I read magazine EMMA I saw many complaints from women over pornography. One thing that was repeated again and again by a variety of feminists was the anger over women who let themselve have it on their behinds. In other words, women seem to have a profound feeling of surrender and submission when they are taken like this. And I believe that these feminists think exactly what our ancestors thought: This feeling has psychological effects way beyond the bedroom. Was it the movie “Crazy for Mary” in which beastiality is given as an advice to dress the dog?

 

In war rape is a weapon to break the will of the opponent. The victims are usually  women. But sodomizing men is fairly common, too, because of the dynamics described above. A man unworthy of defending his bottom, is also unworthy of defending the community. A second common practice to deprive the opponent of his masculinity is castration. The ancient Hebrews excluded men from their religious assemblies if their manhood was crushed or cut off by force.

 

So if emasculation is a war technique and anal sex creates a profound feeling of submission, why do we dole out brochures to our school children sanctioning bottom sex? Shouldn’t we rather warn of the emasculating effect? The position also seems to spread STDs. One of the more spooky observations about gay culture is this morbid, submissive behavior that is generally hushed over in the public. There is a phenomenon called “bug chasing” with “bug” being aids. It is the ultimate submission under death for no reason but for the sake of submission.

 

Sometimes you hear whispers from the gay community that some gay folks feel also a bit uneasy about equating gay sex with anal sex. There are certainly other ways to help each other to orgasm and ejaculation. Why is our culture hell-bent to turn our men into bottoms? And why do men like soccer star Thomas Hitzelsperger come out as gay when they are not in love with a member of their own sex? At the same time: Why is gay identity suddenly questioned with “queer studies” for the sake of questioning heterosexual identity along with it? My suspicion is that we don’t just get defeated, we get fucked!

 

I remember a video by Youtuber “Black Pidgeon Speaks” in which he rages over the indifference of many women for their ingroup. Indeed many cultures seem to obsess over guarding women from straying to other populations. Biologically, women don’t care about your group or your character. As you toil along as a slave for the state and proxy-state employers, she desires and actually deserves a strong man. Even a wellfare-receiving, low-hierarchy alpha male has better chances to procreate than the nice guy. The more men present themselves as submissive and potential bottoms, the more she will look for the exotic macho. She is more likely to raise children in a stable home with an immigrant than with a job-obsessed career-slave Westerner.

 

The strongest factor behind the “welcome culture” was sexual lust and the folklore that the newbies are all coming from war-torn countries served the fantasy of hauling in real men, and that means hard men. As a group, people who uphold freedom and other hallmarks of civilisation, must play by the same rules and become attractive to women again.

 

Green party politician Canan Bayram said in 2013 before the parliament of the City State of Berlin:

When they ask me, “Do you really want that all of these people will stay here?”, I say to them:

Yes, that’s what I want because we need people. The ones who made it to us in Germany are the strongest and best.

 

 

ghj

 

 

 

Recent Articles by Writers Benjamin Goldstein follows.