The “Gay Marriage” ControversyGreg Johnson
Translations: Czech, French, Greek, Spanish
Both the promoters and opponents of homosexual marriage share a common false premise: that the legalization of homosexual marriage overthrows “heteronormativity,” i.e., the idea that heterosexuality is normal and other forms of sexuality are not. But the idea that changing marriage laws can change heteronormativity is simply false.
What do I mean when I say that homosexual behavior is abnormal? I don’t mean that it is unnatural, since its exists in nature. It is even found in many species besides man. I don’t mean that it is a sin, i.e., something that displeases God. The idea of sin pretty much paralyzes the ability to think rationally about morals.
For me, the issue of abnormality all boils down to homosexuality being a non-reproductive, recreational form of sex. And if everyone had non-reproductive, recreational sex all the time, the human race would perish. Heterosexual behavior is normal, because only heterosexual sex can perpetuate our species, provided conception is not blocked by birth control.
So the real issue is not even homosexual versus heterosexual, but reproductive versus non-reproductive sex. That’s all there is to it.
Homosexual behaviors and tastes are older than the human race, but the idea of homosexuality as an identity is a rather recent phenomenon. People with exclusively homosexual tastes are a tiny minority in any society, no matter how permissive and decadent. Thus it stands to reason that no society has ever ceased to exist because the tiny homosexual minority doesn’t reproduce. Societies decline demographically when the heterosexual majority doesn’t reproduce, primarily due to birth control. Thus if non-reproductive sex is a problem because it does not perpetuate the human race, the bulk of the blame falls on selfish, hedonistic straight people.
Proponents of marriage for homosexuals think that heteronormativity is simply a social construct, a convention that can be changed through legislation, education, and relentless media brainwashing. But heteronormativity is based in nature, not in convention. Sexual reproduction has existed before human beings formed languages and conventions. Indeed, sexual reproduction existed before mankind evolved. The birds and the bees do it too. So heteronormativity is not a social construct and cannot be changed by society. It can only be covered up, lied about, and ignored — at society’s peril.
It is easy to understand why homosexual marriage proponents believe they are overturning heteronormativity. It is harder to understand why the opponents of homosexual marriage agree with them on this point. Yet the opponents of heterosexual marriage claim that legally defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is the key to preserving the institutions of marriage and family life.
This makes no sense for two reasons.
First, if heteronormativity is based in nature or divine commandment, not in law, then it cannot be changed by changing laws. (Human laws can, of course, strengthen natural laws by adding additional punishments and incentives to follow nature.)
Second, the institutions of marriage and family life have been pretty much destroyed already. But during the whole period that marriage and family life have been decaying, homosexuals have not been allowed to marry, and marriage has been defined as a union of a man and a woman. In other words, marriage and family life have declined with their heteronormativity entirely intact. Therefore, heterosexuals bear the primary blame for the decline of marriage and the family.
Since homosexuals are a tiny minority, and only a tiny minority of that minority wish to marry in any case, I think that homosexual marriage opponents owe us an explanation as to how, exactly, such a small group of people could mess up marriage any more than straight people already have.
If one really wanted to defend marriage and strengthen the family, one should do the following.
1. End no-fault divorce
2. Criminalize adultery
3. Criminalize alienation of affections
4. End child support for unwed mothers
5. Establish a legal presumption that unwed mothers are unfit mothers, so that giving up illegitimate children for adoption is the norm
6. End adoption by unmarried individuals
7. Institute positive incentives for high-quality individuals to marry and have families
8. Institute tax incentives for people to marry/disincentives to stay single
These policies would significantly strengthen the bonds of marriage and family life. And the burdens and benefits of these measures would fall on the heterosexual population, where they belong.
But none of our pro-family politicians and moral crusaders shows any interest in such measures. And that, to me, is the sign that the whole anti-homosexual marriage campaign is just another phony Right-wing con job: (1) scapegoating homosexuals for the mess that heterosexuals have made of marriage and the family, (2) and channeling the discontent, energy, idealism, and money of a certain segment of the Right (albeit a pretty hopeless segment, from my point of view) into just another dead end, a battle that, even it it were won, would do nothing to halt the demographic decline of our race.
I used to think that these mainstream Right-wingers were merely stupid and/or deluded. A lot of the rank and file are. But they are generally far better than their leadership. The ones on top are so consistently wrong-headed and ineffectual that it is hard to resist the conclusion that they are agents of the enemy, working to misdirect and dissipate Right-wing dissent lest it give rise to a genuine populism that would threaten the hegemony of our ruling coalition of Jews and raceless, rootless plutocrats. I think that the purpose of their campaigns may be to run out the clock until whites are a minority and there is no hope of change within the present system.
The only political issue that matters is whether the white race will continue to exist on this planet in 200 years. White Americans are increasingly aware of, and alarmed by, our demographic decline. But frank appeals to white racial interests are still taboo on the American Right. Instead, the mainstream Right at best offers us race-neutral proxies for racial interests (opposition to “illegal” immigration, libertarian individualism, etc.) and at worst promotes distractions (opposing gay marriage and flag burning, or promoting school prayer) or outright demographic suicide (opposing abortion). Thus I think that White Nationalism will never move forward until the mainstream Right is thoroughly defeated and discredited. I just hope that, by that time, it is not too late to save our race.
I have argued that homosexual marriage is an unimportant issue from the point of view of white demographics. The most important thing to do to increase white fertility and improve white parenting is to strengthen marriage and decrease non-reproductive sex among heterosexuals. I have also argued that the gay marriage issue is being promoted by the phony Right as a distraction from far more important issues. But I am not going to deal with the merits of demerits of homosexual marriage as a policy, because I need to devote more reading and thought to the matter. I do, however, want to end this piece by at least raising the possibility of a society that combines “heteronormativity” with tolerance.
The only real way to maintain high standards is to recognize that people will fall short of them in some ways. That means a certain amount of latitude and tolerance.
A society that cannot tolerate deviation from its norms will inevitably lower its standards to make it easier for more people to comply.
And the end of that process is complete nihilism, for if integrity to one’s values is the highest value, in the end, it will be one’s only value. For the easiest way to insure perfect integrity and to make hypocrisy impossible is to value nothing but being oneself at the present moment, i.e., to collapse any difference between the real and the ideal, to affirm that whatever happens to be real at any given moment is the ideal.
In short, the only way to always practice what one preaches is to preach nothing but what one practices. And that boils down to doing whatever one feels like from moment to moment, a kind of groundless self-affirmation which is pretty much the moral and cultural dead end toward which liberalism is leading.
Even if one maintains heteronormativity as the social ideal, it is still possible to like people who fall wide of the mark. Particularly in a White Nationalist society, where our fellow citizens are also our own extended family.
Why can’t we have a society in which parents of homosexual children say, “We’re sorry that you are not going to give us grandchildren. It is a misfortune. But we still love you as our flesh and blood, and we know you will still be a good son to us, a good brother to your siblings, and a good uncle to your nieces and nephews”?
Why can’t we have a society in which homosexuals accept that they fall short of the norm, rather than tearing down norms merely to feel good about themselves? Why can’t we have a society in which homosexuals are grateful to the heterosexuals who gave them life and glad that others are carrying on their families and their race as a whole?
I believe that there are already quite a few people who think this way. But their voices are not being heard.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 527 Machiavellianism & More
The Machiavellian Method
Enoch Powell, poslední tory
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 526 Cyan Quinn Reports from CPAC & More
Remembering Richard M. Weaver (March 3, 1910–April 1, 1963)
La Russie et l’Ukraine, à nouveau
An Open Letter to Scott Adams
Traditional pro-natal marriage was about providing a stable structure to bring up children. This form of marriage – and particularly it’s *purpose* – has been slowly trashed over the last 40 years or so. Gay marriage is just the last rites. Nationalists ought to fight over marriage but fight *for* a pro-natal form not over a symbolic side-issue of an already ruined institution.
The big thing about gay marriage is it illustrates the balance of power. We ain’t seen nothing yet.
Error in paragraph 7!
‘It easy to understand why . . . ‘
Quite a good piece in the main. But can we not add a bachelor/spinster tax to the Code as the Ancient Celts had? And many handsome brilliant men are Gay. Are we supposed to be sanguine about their genes being lost? About them having fun while we toil? I think not. Gays should marry women and suffer just as we do. It will lead to Wisdom as Socrates said of his hen pecking wife Xantippe. Gay Men who just cannot function with Women can have access to the sperm bank or other methods. Or perhaps a new institution can come into being – that of choosing a close straight friend to do the honors. All of this will bring Straight and Gay men closer together. Without it, I don’t think the Mannerbund has a chance. Gays will become some kind of Elite – even as they are now, but one unto themselves, not one Straight Men will care to follow.
A bachelor/spinster tax is a good idea. Single people should pay higher taxes. Add that to the list.
Greg, I think this is a very good article; and, in my opinion, sexual identity has been a source of unhealthy division. If homosexuals were given a cultural niche, where we were needed and wanted, yet expected contribute to the White organisim as a whole, then I think that more “gays” would help transform these goals into being.
I thought single people already did, if I’m reading my 1040 correctly.
I`d just rather pay the tax, and not be forced into something that would be miserable for both people involved. I think that by requiring exsclusive homosexuals into such an arrangement ceates a very unhappy marriage.
I don’t think that anyone who really did not want to marry would be induced to do so by tax incentives. But I do think that such incentives would help get those who are already inclined toward marriage to get off the fence and do it.
I know I praise these Counter-Currents articles a lot, but this was one of the best reads ever. This viewpoint has never been expressed anywhere this whole time the stupid marriage debate has been deluging us these past few years.
What this geffuffle shows, is the hegemony of fashion. Homo-erotic “marriage(?)” is an oxymoron — but it is a fashionable oxymoron.
What I expect from this is blowout “weddings” and blow-up divorces. And the rest of us will laugh — and soldier on.
Excellent article. It needs proof reading though. There are a few typos.
well proof away
This was a heart-warming article. I enjoyed it very much. I hope your vision becomes a reality one day, Greg. Internal strife is what ultimately destroys civilizations, and if the the white race is to survive they must reconsider and modify their views on homosexuality. I look forward to reading my copy of “The Homo and the Negro” from Amazon.
As a so-so “gay” person, I agree with every single word of your article, except these ones:
Proponents of marriage for homosexuals think that heteronormativity is simply a social construct, a convention that can be changed through legislation, education, and relentless media brainwashing.
No, not all of us think that at all, and, as a matter of fact, there are plenty of “gay” folk who are glad that heterosexual coupling is NOT a “social construct,” because it would mean that OUR bonding is also a “social construct,” which we know–and would have you know–that it isn’t either.
However, it was your warm and generous-spirited words at the end of your article that made me wish to respond.
I don’t have a problem with this, except there does need to be some sort of authority that looks at ‘irreconcilable differences’. Two people who marry in infatuation, can do alot of damage to children when they discover they hate each other. As Jung says children tend to live out the unlived lives of their parents. Children are very sensitive to this.
Just look at the stories of D. H. Lawrence. Just read his Rocking Horse Winner. When two people hate each other, they use the children to get their needs met. Just saying. I do think some sort of affinity/understanding has to be there. Perhaps those long engagements were very necessary after all.
Well in a system in which marriage is harder to get out of, people are probably going to be more careful about getting into it. Marry in haste, repent in leisure.
Ah, but there is no leisure when there is gas lighting, bullying, manipulation and deceit going on.
I would like to introduce my parents.
Like Johnson, I agree that homosexuality isn’t unnatural. However, the way I formulate the argument that homosexual behavior is abnormal is a little different. For me, homosexual behavior is abnormal because the vast majority of people don’t do it.
And further, most people engage in heterosexual sex which eventually produces children. Then, most of these people will settle down into families of some sort and raise those children. So, taken as a whole, heterosexual sex, plus heterosexuals living in families will all be far more commonplace than not, thus making “hetero everything” normal. That is, “heteronormative.”
On the face of it, gay marriage might not seem like much of a threat and indeed it’s true that heterosexuals have done more to destroy traditional marriage and the traditional family than homosexuals have, but I strongly believe that today’s gay marriage debate is part of the attack on and destruction of traditional marriage, the traditional family, and the notion of “heteronormativity.”
The pro-gay marriage forces do it by arguing that all marriages and all family structures are equal (but not polygamy, oddly). It’s part of a leveling they’re trying to do where gay marriage is no different from straight marriage which is no different from a divorced family which is no different from two people who had children and never intended to get married in the first place. If you have followed the debate you know that all this discussion about family structure has been hashed over in depth throughout the discussion of gay marriage. Gay marriage is a twofer for them – it grants a pet constituency some new right, and better yet, it is a pretext for opening debate over the wider social transformation they’re in the process of carrying out (a debate which they are winning quite handily, sadly).
By making all marriages and families equal they in turn make it objectionable and in fact bigoted to state proven truths like “traditional families produce the best outcomes for children” which support statements like “traditional marriage should thus be an institution exclusively, as much as possible, for the creating of traditional families.” For them, as postmodernists, changing language is to change reality. They’re right too. They are changing the world. It’s quite common among millenials to hear opinions like “what’s the point of marriage?,” “there are too many people in the world anyway,” “who needs men to have children?” etc.
If it were simply a matter of a few million gays getting married then it’s true, it wouldn’t matter much – but the debate over the issue has been a springboard for the cultural Marxist commissars to do their dirty work of spreading their toxic ideology, policing speech, and destroying dissent. It’s far from inconsequential in this sense.
The mainstream professional Right has been hopelessly ineffectual in countering this. I guess it’s possible that it’s because they’re counter-agents. I think it’s also largely an effect of academia being thoroughly politicized and taken over by the left. The PC left is winning the war of cranking out more and better quality thinkers. The debate should have been an excellent opportunity to talk about what makes for strong family life and healthy adults and children. Instead it turned into a rout in favor of the forces of neglected children, broken homes, dysfunctional blended “families,” underclass values and hedonistic, empty, consumerist lifestyle deviancies of all sorts.
Agree completely. The Left is profoundly sensitive to symbolism and Gay Marriage is an incredible coup. I don’t know how anyone can disagree and the Left will make the most of it leading to further demoralization on the part of the average person. And there are many practical consequences: law suits against bakers and hall owners who refuse to do business with Gay Couples, Church child placement services having to either conform and deny their own beliefs or go out of business, and of course teaching Heather has two mommies to four year olds and fisting (it happened in MA, google “fistgate”) to adolescents. There’s already a popular trend of electing Gay or Lesbian couples as Prom King and Queen. Do this a few years in a row and watch the Straight boys lose interest in the whole damn thing. As I said, Demoralization.
This was bold and well-handled. I couldn’t find much to disagree with at all. I’d like to see a world where marriage between men and women was more traditional and not so heavily weighted against the interests of men, as it is in our legal system today. I’d very much like to see men and women marry earlier, before they both get jaded by 10-15 years of the modern sexual marketplace. I’d like my pals with great genes to be happier and have little supermen. And I actually would like to see, as some commenters suggested, a society where men who were predominantly homosexual were encouraged to marry women and have kids anyway. But we don’t live in that society, or in anything near the kind of society where that would make sense. So man makes do in this mess in his own way.
Jack, women need affection. It is built into us. That is how we get duped. It is totally unrealistic to expect a woman to marry a man without it. Women who marry knowingly homosexual men have some other meaning in their life. Perhaps it is an intellectual affinity. But most women need to feel loved or it is not worth it and that unfortunately is what alot of career women have decided.
Many Gays adore Women and their partners have chosen to stay with them even after they came out. I’m sure there are cases where Gays did the right thing and came out before they married, and the Women still chose to go ahead. In terms of affection, not all Gays find Women’s bodies repulsive and are quite willing to give their wives what they need. Obviously, most Women can’t accept that they aren’t going to be “number 1” in his imagination, but that’s another question and not affection.
These are indeed very good points, but I think the traditional image and status of marriage and its meaning must be maintained. “Gay marriage” in the end is a mostly iconoclast act, serving an egalitarian ideology. It is not so much about bringing “heteronormativity” down (which is, as GJ says, not possible), but rather defiling it symbolically, and it is also about bringing down and subverting an institution (maybe I am thinking very much like a German here) (still also Gender Mainstreaming politics, which operates on the same level, did cause a lot of actual damage, because nature does need nurture, in male children probably even more so). It may very well be that this just puts the nail in the coffin. As Greg Johnson says, the fundamental problems run far deeper.
Known gays nearly my entire 50 years on Earth, and when I first heard about this, my first thought a stupid political stunt, and I have not changed my mind.
The precision and clearness of your logic is irrefutable, but it is the heartfelt warmth of your final two paragraphs that is so compelling to me…says a lot about who you are and the way we should all be.
A solid piece. The attitudes and ideas expressed in this essay are level-headed and make sense. Something I rarely encounter on the issue of homosexuality. I’m not sure about all the suggestions for strengthing marriage, but they’re interesting. I’ll have to think about them more before I express any opinions on them. Good food for thought!
Thanks for writing this, Greg.
“The only political issue that matters is whether the white race will continue to exist on this planet in 200 years.”
This is the correct context.
Understanding the correct context doesn’t make the forced homosexualization of white culture a good thing.
Sexual behavior is, or should be, a private matter. Why do homosexuals insist on thrusting their sexual lifestyles into our faces? Why must they define themselves by their sexual activity?
Sorry, I will never accept homosexuality as normal or natural. The only purpose it serves is selfish gratification much like pedophilia.
In what society has sexual behavior –always attached to publicly assumed and enforced sexual identity–ever been private? There are plenty of realistic grounds for criticizing gay culture and politics. That ain’t one of them.
Thanks for a well-written, concise examination of this issue, in what seems to be three essays in one; “gay” marriage, how to correct our social system’s “mistakes” concerning the institution of marriage, and one very insightful paragraph addressing the metaissue of these issues from a much greater perspective.
Greg Johnson in blockquote:
Singularly insightful. This explains why our politics seem to consist of little more than matters of Form, manufactured controversies designed to distract people from looking at the structural issues undermining their lives, and their nation, and matters of Substance, where the process of “democratic” institutions have been placed in the service of oligarchy, oligopoly, and Empire.
The quality of analysis Dr. Johnson has given us with this essay, among many others, is why is it of vital importance to send money to counter-currents, each and every month.
As another “gay” man, my beef –not the only one–with homosexual marriage is that it serves the larger feminist and “LGBT” agenda of destroying gender. It makes manhood both optional and replaceable and therefore trivial.
Gay marriage is also heterosexual drag for male-male bonding, at least the kind that I am capable of. Donovan and Miller’s Blood Brotherhood and Other Rites of Male Alliance shows a different and more natural paradigm.
But your larger point about the prior damage to marriage and family through the celebration of non-procreative sex is excellent. (You sound just like Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae!) As well, collapsing the ideal into the reality of the moment because of the ideology of integrity: very timely.
One of your best pieces: clear, smart, observant, pungent, to the point.
I do not think that Dominique Venner was representative of false right. The legal possibility of gay, interracial, polygamous etc. “marriages” in our civilization decreases value of institution of marriage itself. If you want to strengthen the status of marriage than you can not call “marriage” one night drunken sex or cases that I wrote above.
JM, Czech Republic
Venner was more interested in the social discontent and revolutionary potential of the anti-homosexual marriage demonstrations than he was with the issue per se.
You make a good point about interracial marriage: this is far greater an abomination than homosexual marriage, yet people who oppose homosexual marriage accept interracial marriage as long as it is between a man and a woman — i.e., as long as it has the potential to destroy the race by giving birth to mongrel children.
But you have to grasp that the main thing that has destroyed marriage and family as institutions in the West is the fault of straight people, who have lobbied for the liberalization of divorce laws and who practice birth control.
Until everyone sees that two straight people who marry and refuse to reproduce are a FAR GREATER threat to the future of the white race than homosexuals who have never been able to reproduce with one another throughout history, we are not going to be able to put the “gay marriage” issue in the proper perspective.
I would go further: if the main reason why marriage enjoys status and perogatives is that it provides a better framework for the reproduction of the race, then straight people who get married, enjoy the status and perks, but have no intention of reproducing have to be seen as the worst profaners of the institution of marriage.
I disagree with a few premises
Although heteronormality is genetic, there is still room for socialization since we are not mere animals ruled by our instinct; we can think and reason thus we can choose what to do with our bodies , to a certain extent, including going against our instincts.
As far as i know, homos in the past had no intention of imposing their abnormality on the general population, except for the intellectuals in Ancient Greece that asked sexual favors from young men in exchange for their knowledge.
There are a few respectable homos, like Jack Donovan, who do understand that they fall short of the norm (although Jack is more of a man than a lot of males today) , but most feel that they do not fit. This feeling is not because of discrimination, although it certainly plays a role, they blame society and heteros for it; this is the reason why they have revolted against normality and are promoting homosexuality among the general population.
Marriage, for white people, is a dead institution, so it doesn’t matter what is made of it. The thousands of abortion-happy young white women flashing their bosoms and snorting drugs in the Castro last night, in the name of homosexuality, is proof enough. Complete nihilism is already a near-universal fact.
Johnson and I both agree that homosexuality is natural if by natural we mean that homosexuals have always existed in human societies. The problem with this notion is that what makes a behavior natural within a societal context is better understood in terms of its effects upon a society’s ability to biologically thrive and advance culturally rather then just it’s mere existence. In practical terms I perceive behaviors to be socially natural to the extent that they secure the physical existence of a people and the promotion of that which makes a people unique. Given that the toleration of recreational non reproductive heterosexuality and miscegenation divorces the living generation from those that gave us life while denying an environment in which future in which Occidentals can have an organic society or even a physical existence means that such practices should be viewed as anti natural.
Homosexuality is like recreational and non reproductive heterosexuality and miscegenation and the widespread social acceptance of such behaviors is an indication that Occidental civilization has been replaced by an atomistic view of social relations. In practical terms all such predilections are driven by selfish, physical pleasure divorced from any sense of hierarchal responsibilities as well as a denial by the individual of any sense of purpose as a being that is endowed with a responsibility toward his own folk or the development of an organic civilization.
Johnson says that “the idea that changing marriage laws can change heteronormativity is simply false” is, to me, a remarkable claim. Rather, I would suggest that the acceptance of the legal equality of a recreational and non reproductive predilection that has been accompanied by a massive effort to promote such behavior as a lifestyle is at odds with the physical preservation of our people while advancing the Cultural Bolshevist establishment to greater strengths. I also can’t help but to notice that the dismantling of anti miscegenation laws and the dismantling of any legal prohibitions on sexual conduct and the consequences in the form of legalizing or even subsidizing abortion had also been accompanied by massive and prolonged efforts to normalize that which has promoted our demographic destruction. In short, all sexual libertine tendencies represent a unified front dedicated to our destruction and they should be addressed as such rather then selectively ignored or condoned.
While the promotion of yet another socially and biologically destructive lifestyle is deemed by Johnson to be ”an unimportant issue from the point of view of white demographics” the reality is what we are talking about is the normalization of yet another recreational and non reproductive sexual behavior that is promoted by our enemies because it advances our demographic decline. Since homosexuality is being successfully marketed to our youth as a hip, trendy lifestyle morally equal to, if not superior, to traditional mores it is sensible to view attempts to mainstream homosexuality as simply another demographic tool used to destroy us.
Johnson says “during the whole period that marriage and family life have been decaying, homosexuals have not been allowed to marry, and marriage has been defined as a union of a man and a woman. In other words, marriage and family life have declined with their heteronormativity entirely intact. Therefore, heterosexuals bear the primary blame for the decline of marriage and the family.” What Johnson seems to be asking is that we ignore certain manifestations of degeneracy and biologic decline while attempting to enact reforms that are unviable politically because of the climate of decay fostered by the broader trend of degeneracy being promoted by the homosexual movement and other allied forces that seek our destruction. How exactly heterosexuals in general bear the primary blame for the decline of marriage and family life rather then viewing said decay as an expression of the destruction of our society resulting from the power and institutional adroitness of our enemies isn’t addressed. Instead, that we are ask to accept such a notion which seems to be analogous to saying that the primary blame for the subjugation of our people rests with Occidentals rather then those that have dispossessed us. I would maintain that Pareto’s Circulation of the Elites provides a better account for our dismal state of affairs and that the long march through the institutions provides a better perspective on the collapse of Occidental marriage and family life then does the assertion that heterosexuals are the guilty party and the less then logical jump that we shouldn’t be concerned with the political power of the homosexual movement and what it means for the Occidental remnant.
That is not to say that Johnson isn’t overwhelmingly correct in his summation of what is wrong with the establishment right or that his suggestions for reversing our demographic destruction are anything but sound. However, to suggest that opposition to an obviously socially destructive trend promoted by our enemies isn’t worth opposing yet advocating the pursuit of reforms that simply can’t happen because of the advanced state of our societal decay that has been produced by the same forces that are promoting homosexuality seems misguided.
Given the reality that the main-streaming of homosexuality have and will continue to advance the aims of Cultural Bolshevism and demographic decline among Occidentals I can’t find much sympathy with Johnson’s notion that the advance of homosexuality among our youth should be greeted with moderate disappointment and support. Since such behavior is simply another manifestation of the death of tradition and our physical future, I find such lukewarm condemnations no different then expressing support and disappointment to Occidental youth that engage in miscegenation or any other form of selfish and destructive recreational sex. If heterosexuals are to be blamed for our current cultural miasma then such blame should be apportioned to the extent that such weak, pseudo criticisms are accepted by the advocates of our people. Accepting or not being concerned with an aspect of that which destroys us while attempting to resist our destruction in a broader context is every bit as much of a dead end in all senses as is the faux right we justly condemn.
Thank you for this very thoughtful and intelligent comment.
1. I think that homosexuality, like baldness, or diabetes, or myopia, is biologically natural, but also biologically suboptimal. I don’t subscribe to the Aristotelian identification of nature with telos, i.e., the identification of the natural with the optimal. Nature encompasses both optimal and suboptimal, normal and abnormal. Homosexuality is suboptimal because it cannot lead to reproduction. In that, it is the same as celibacy, masturbation, and birth control. Which of these problems, though, is the greater threat to the continuation of the white race? I think that birth control is #1, masturbation is #2, celibacy is #3 (and can it really be separated from masturbation, anyway?), and homosexuality a distant fourth. Practically all straight people use birth control and masturbate. Very few people are homosexual.
2. I agree that strengthening marriage in the ways that I outline will never fly within the current climate. But who made it so? The Left has created the intellectual and cultural climate in which their political proposals make sense and seem natural, normal, and right because they understand metapolitics. The Right has ceeded metapolitics of the Left and merely protests each new Left wing initiative — until they lose, bend over, and learn to enjoy it.
What does the Right need to do to break out of the pattern of the Left setting the agenda, the Right weakly protesting, and the Left winning? The Right needs to join the metapolitical battle, and that requires that we articulate a vision, including a clear sense of our own priorities. And my argument is that White Nationalists should be far more concerned with non-reproductive sex among the straight majority rather than non-reproductive sex among the homosexual minority. We need to be far more concerned with preventing the straight majority from getting out of marriage whenever they feel like it than preventing the tiny marriage-minded minority among the homosexual minority from getting into marriage.
I think one of the problems here is that the Right — today’s phony, loser Right — offers people an illusion of political agency. That may be its only purpose. I don’t have that illusion. Thus instead of merely reacting to Left-wing initiatives, I choose to think of what the initiatives and priorities of the Right should be.
3. Is blaming straight people for the decline of marriage a version of “blaming ourselves” rather than our enemies for our decline? I don’t think so. Marriage has been declining since the Reformation. Liberal individualism is the primary corrosive of marriage, and Jews did not invent that. However, it is certainly the case that Jews, after emancipation, hopped onto this degenerative trend, like all the others, and they have been promoting it to their own benefit. But I would wager that it was primarily straight Jews who were doing that too. I certainly would claim, however, that whites will never restore our sovereignty or a biologically healthy social order without confronting and destroying the ruling Jewish hegemony. They are not entirely responsible for getting us into this mess, but they are the ethnic, ideological, and political hard core of the opposition to us getting out of it.
However, it is certainly the case that Jews, after emancipation, hopped onto this degenerative trend, like all the others, and they have been promoting it to their own benefit.
I think you are on to something there Greg. The ship had already sprung a leak before the Jews gained control of it. An interesting paper for someone to write would be on how we sank our own ship and the Jews took the blame?
Jews are not “scapegoats.” They had to invent that notion because they are objectively to blame for so much evil in the world.
The leaders of the Jewish community are committing intentional genocide against our race. The fact that we are vulnerable to that, and that we made stupid mistakes that made us more susceptible to it, does not absolve our enemies of responsibility for the genocide they are committing.
“disincentives to stay single”
Whoa now, a bit much. What if I simply want to be alone? Why persecute me for that personal decision which ultimately harms no one?
Woa there, Breck. Is paying higher taxes than married people “persecution”? Your people need you.
Making selfishness the social default position is the essence of liberalism. Giving people the option to be selfish, if they pay the price, is as liberal as a serious society can reasonably go.
Magnus Hirschfeld and his disciple George Weinberg started this homosexuality is normal business, the former coined the word racisim and the latter coined homophobia.
Have you ever heard of Plato?
What if, for some, the decision to not procreate is not the result of some insidious social conditioning, but rather a personal choice one makes that is suitable for their life (not necessarily “lifestyle”)? You also need to address financial matters surrounding such an issue. What if it isn’t within their means to have kids? Children are expensive and not everyone can afford them, even those who would like to have some.
I am a eugenicist, so do not think that everyone has a duty to procreate. In fact, I would say that we all have a duty to contribute to the greater good of our race. For some, that will be through procreation. For others, that will be through not procreating (if they have genetic or psychological defects).
I do think that making family life affordable for the people who should reproduce is a central political priority: free day care, free high quality public education, family-friendly urban life policies (no more scary homeless people and vibrant “teens”), etc.
In particular, the number of women in today’s world who have very high IQs and children is vanishingly small. College and careers eat up their most fertile and energetic years. So how about a system that tells intelligent women: “You will get a free college education if you wait until age 30 to start college and before then have at least three children. Otherwise, you will pay full tuition.”
Ah, you have said it. High level women have their children first. Outrageous? Yes, in terms of today’s society. But absolute common sense in terms of Nature. And they will accept it if they are lauded for their sacrifice and rewarded handsomely as well.
Brutal social conditioning? No more so than todays. And since it accords with Nature, they will be Much happier for it. Nothing is sadder than over the hill career women trying to find a mate as their clock ticks down. They realize the Truth too late: marriage and children are the greatest happiness for the average woman. They will just tricked into juggling family and career in the wrong order.
And if we ever get our Economy back, Women who don’t want to work may not have to. A lot of Women would give their eye teeth for what Women in the 50’s had. But then it wasn’t a choice – we can improve on them by making it so. Of course it was a choice even then, but Women are very sensitive to social conditioning and most didn’t feel it as such. Instead of using this trait against them, we will use it for their and our greater happiness.
This is a great idea. The idea that everyone should go to university from high school is really crazy. Besides after having children, and maturing because you have to grow up and be the parent, one is more apt to get into courses you really want to study and forego alot of the stupid stuff. If society sanctioned waiting for post secondary education, more women would opt for it. The yearning for children and the quest for knowledge is the point at which women get confused by the social messages.
It’s true that high quality and intelligent women are vanishing certainly in the respect that they are not going on to get married and have children, or waiting until it is too late due to devoting themselves to schooling and building a career. This has been very difficult for me as a relatively young woman (I am in my thirties, but I think I’m pretty fit and attractive and look younger than i am) because it is so challenging to meet men who share my values and goals, especially as someone who is deeply committed to a “pro-white” stance (avid CC reader/lurker here). I live in a super liberal metro area and I don’t really see that changing any time soon mainly due to factors that are out of my control but I can confidently say that around here it is pretty much impossible to find a man who shares views even remotely similar to my own, and I do not see the point nor would I want to have a child with a man whose views are diametrically opposite to my own. For example, someone who believes it would be perfectly acceptable, or even encourage our children to grow up to date nonwhites, who believes that race is a social construct or some other such nonsense which is so common here and well, all over what’s left of the western world. The internet has afforded some freedom in terms of meeting likeminded persons but they are always prohibitively far away – negating the possibility of comfortably building a relationship and the rare few that I have met in the area (usually several hours away still) suffer from a number of serious problems that make a relationship too difficult – come to find out they wind up having some form of autism/out of this world weirdness, extreme religiosity, rage issues, alcoholism, etc. I know that a lot of men in the WN community bash women, stating that we are all corrupt and too far gone to bother with, but I would argue that modernity’s cruel blade cuts both ways. My family says that I’m being too picky about meeting a like minded man and that as a result, will end up being an old maid. I just can’t see myself sacrificing my values just so that I can have a baby with a man I do not like or love, who i above all else cannot talk to, at the end of the day. And this isn’t about money as I’ve dated a fair share of men who make less money than I do and it wasn’t an issue- it boils down to the shared values for me (although money is important too in the respect that really do need two incomes to raise a child nowadays unless you’re fabulously rich which most of us are not). It’s a lose lose situation for all and goes far deeper than the whole gay marriage debate or arguing whether homosexuality is normal or not. In any case, Greg, if you’re reading, I can only repeat what others have said in that this is a great essay, and that ironically, the only seemingly well adjusted and mentally sound pro-white men i have met in my life – one of which is a good childhood friend -are homosexual.
Thanks for your kind comment. I know a large number of CC readers in your area (based on your IP address), including a large number of men in their 30s to early 40s. I would be happy to arrange an occasion where you might meet some of them.
Why not structure this meeting as a Reading Society / Book Club type of thing, where an assigned reading is discussed by all. Great icebreaker, great way to learn how to get the NANR Mindset out there as a foundation for more, and better, things to come.
More value for your money from counter-currents!
Greg, if Homosexuality not to be judged as an abnormality in nature or by divine revelation as sin, that what is the matrix you use for judgment? In another phrasing of the same question, you reject Aristotelian telos and the divine revelation of the Magian (in Spenglarian terms) civilization than by what standard is homosexuality judged. You might say well it is anti-natal, well what if it is. If someone can get away with it and not be punished why not? Why is it ultimately wrong to be selfish, I am not advocating selfishness, but by what stand should the needs of individuals be subordinate to the needs of the community/race? It seems to me the preservation of the white race, but maybe there is more nuance to it.
Also I think you are a bit premature in condemning celibacy out right, read HL Mencken’s “In defense of Women” where he details the academic excellence of celibates like Newton, Spencer and Kant. If they had had children as Mencken wishes they would not have had the time to specialize in their science/philosophy and would have had their work diluted. Even Plato, had to be a lousy father and husband to do ‘good’ philosophy.
I think that homosexuality, celibacy, masturbation, miscegenation, etc. need to be judged by nature-based criteria, namely the natural purpose of sex, which is reproduction of the species or subspecies in question. So the criterion is nature. But it is too crude to say that these phenomena are “unnatural” when one really means that they are “natural but suboptimal.” There are all kinds of perfectly natural ways that we can fail to be optimal: diseases, for instance.
For me, the great divide is nature versus convention: things that exist by human choice and things that do not; things that exist objectively and things that exist subjectively or intersubjectively. To say that something is not natural means, to these ears, that it exists as a matter of convention or as a subjective notion. And that is obviously not true of homosexual behaviors, which exist in species other than man.
Selfishness is wrong ultimately because the individual self is not metaphysically that important. The most important thing is the race, but there are smaller groupings than that that as well: families, clans, tribes, nations, civilization, etc. which are borne along by individuals and passed on to the next generation.
I do not think that celibacy is always bad. There are different ways of contributing to the larger good. Not everyone can or should have children. For some people, the greatest gift they can give their race is NOT to pass along certain genes, and that should be honored as well. Others who have no children can serve the greater good by taking care of their kin, educating them, enriching them culturally and materially, etc.
By nature what exactly do you mean? I understand your use of suboptimal in nature, but for example we have the Natural Law of Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas the moral law that is discernible to man’s reason alone. Or due you have in mind, I hope not, Marquis de Sade’s view of nature as seen in “Yet Another Effort, Frenchmen, If You Would Become Republicans”. Or a more Darwinian view of nature such as the Social Darwinist’s such as Spencer and Galton, where by the ‘good’ in nature is the preservation of the race. Or may be some admixture of them?
“things that exist by human choice and things that do not; things that exist objectively and things that exist subjectively or intersubjectively.”
Are you saying that a good society would be one that is based not on human convention (wishing nature were other than it is), but on what we observe in nature itself? Or something like Machiavelli when he says that we should perform politics under the assumption of what man actually is rather than what we wish him to be?
“Selfishness is wrong ultimately because the individual self is not metaphysically that important.”
By ‘not metaphysically important” what do you mean exactly? I could see how a Platonist or a Christian might say such a thing; God/forms are higher and above you and you should conform to them. You might say that race is higher than any individual and hence lays a certain claim on him, but seems to be race a materialistic concept and I find it difficult to understand how a materialistic concept could place metaphysical necessity on individuals, other than by a crass resort to force.
Lastly in reference to Plato’s Republic with Thrasymachus and Glaucon why should one not be selfish and harm the whole if, being able to escape judgment (see Ring of Gyges)? Plato seeks to answer Glaucon’s objection be a recourse to maximizing happiness by contemplating the forms. The good man is the happiest man, but that all depends on ones view of good and happy. Maybe Stalin was the happiest man, but I rather hope not. Selfishness in the long term would of course be detrimental to the species/race, but again if one, say a Liberal/Libertarian, valued individuality and died before the racial extinction in terms of pleonexia he has maximized his pleasure and won the game of life. In short, if the selfish man dies before racial extinction than what reason would he have to seek to preserve the race?
I don’t think my use of nature requires that I buy into any of the heavily metaphysically freighted notions you are discussing.
The individual is less important than the race, because the invididual comes out of the race, is sustained by the race, and when he or she dies, she enjoys some sort of afterlife through continuing the race and also contributing positively to its history.
You wrote, “ I don’t mean that it is a sin, i.e., something that displeases God. The idea of sin pretty much paralyzes the ability to think rationally about morals.
It is too bad that the word “sin” has gotten so loaded with all kinds of baggage. I have to agree with the evangelicals on one thing – they understand what is meant by “sin”. They say, “We aren’t sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners.” In other words, imperfection is in our nature.
I have no problem with homosexual marriage. I also have no problem with a man marrying his pet chicken, either. But the fact that where a man shoves his tool is such a ridiculous fixation of so many – especially the Christian right – is frankly disturbing. As such, this is an issue that normally holds no interest for me. However, after all is said and done, I do not want to live in a society where the savage mockery of homos is not legally permitted, where their practices cannot be targeted by the most vicious satire, and where the most virulent anti-homosexual rhetoric can be used to drive a homosexual from political office or other position of power, if one so desires. For it is the attempt by all cultural marxist societies to portray all of its citizens as no more and no less than all the rest – which is simply fraudulent.
Am I alone in observing that tremendous changes that are guaranteed to inspire social (Christian) “conservatives” into paroxyms of wrath seem remarkably timed to distract people from noticing otherwise much more important issues, like the collapse of their economy, or the transformation of their economic system into one that supports Empire at the expense of the Republic?
Can it be that the “gay marriage” issue is a useful distraction, more of a sideshow than a matter of substance, that can be used to make the Christian conservatives more amenable to the transformation of America into Mexico with snow, with the de facto amnesty of more than forty million illegals?
Can it be that their “leaders” will focus more on “gay marriage” and how this horror can be fought, while softly supporting amnesty for the illegals?
Can it be that the sudden critical mass of widespread media coverage and political support for “gay marriage” is not by accident, but complements a larger, more sinister, political agenda?
Of all possible issues, why this one, and why now?
One of the reasons I’ve practically given up following the news media is its deluge of propaganda on issues which seem to have been largely manufactured and used to divert attention from larger issues. If I read a newspaper or watch a news program, I feel that I’m within a fog, that the real issues are being obscured, that something is being withheld from me. Reading a different newspaper or changing the channel doesn’t change things in any material way. As Julius Evola neatly put it, all Jewish roads lead to Jerusalem.
If we’re to take control of our destiny, we need to start setting our own agenda, to step out of Plato’s cave, to step outside of the Jewish cinema complex (or, even better, raze it to the ground). Instead of living in a simulacrum of Jewish lies, fantasies, and illusions, in a world mediated by Jews, we need to explore and conquer the world in which we live. (Given the role of Jews in the mass media, the role of Jews as middlemen and gatekeepers, and the intoxicating effects of the media upon its victims, the verb “mediate” can be given several meanings in this context.) Instead of sailing with maps drawn up by Jewish cartographers (which would have us believe that, if we travel too far, we will fall off the edge of the world), we need to sail according to maps that we have drawn for ourselves.
Allow me to apologize ahead of time as a college student perhaps too naive about the world to enter this discussion. Mr. Johnson, your works in addition to that of your colleagues have been far more illuminating than anything and everything I’ve received at my university. This site has solidified my long felt racial feelings so that they are now beyond question. So it is with this respect, and this 97% on-the-same-pageness that I share with you that I proceed.
Earlier this year, I wrote a research paper regarding gay marriage and the definition of marriage that, like your article, sharply contrasted with all the mainstream assertions on the matter. It was strongly against gay marriage, but did not operate on the basis of morality, or social utility (are gays suitable parents, how will we reproduce, etc.). Rather I approached it from an existentialist angle. My purpose was to find the essential premise behind marriage throughout Western history.
The first thing I scrutinized was the claim of marriage being a ceremony of love. Though those you love are of course the optimal candidates to be married to, I indicated how the early Christians (pre-Constantine) would recognize romantic unions of both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Straight union was regarded as marriage as the two fiancees were called spouses afterwards, but after a gay union, the fiancees would be called “brothers” or “sisters”. Thus not all love was marriageable. We also find that in arranged marriages (which a mainstay social practice in feudalism) a perfect acceptability of loveless marriage. Though we find a bevy of social critique for people being forced into loveless marriages, there is no denial that these are marriages, even if inhumane ones. So love is not the foundational element.
The next meme which I tackled was that of marriage being promoted as a yielding functional unit for reproduction. Let me quickly say that I am not refuting that it is, but rather that I’ve come to believe that this is not the core basis of it. I focused on the ostracism of bastards throughout our civilization, and found this at odds with this definition. Even if it is presumed that married parents are better than unwed ones, and thus you can place a taboo on the latter, this does not explain the negative treatment of the offspring. If there is such concern that the children will not be raised effectively, then you’d expect society to intervene in the children’s lives to ensure that they are brought up correctly. Every bastard should have been celebrated as another man or woman to be, and concern for their upbringing had. Their ostracism seems at odds with a supposed pragmatic focus on reproduction. Gearing ourselves to the present, we find plenty of people today feeling the need to get married but who have no desire to reproduce; we also find straight people who are not a fertile couple getting married. Would your conception of marriage, or anyone’s here, prompt annulling the unions of people failing to produce children after a number of years, or proving to be medically incapable of reproduction? I’d wager not. So like love, reproduction may be a desirable facet of a marriage, but it is not the basis for it.
After stRiki-Eiking off these two premises, I tried to find what remained common throughout history. We’ve had times when homosexuals were considered morally obscene, we’ve also had times when they were accepted and could engage in recognized union (like the early Christians). We’ve had alternate forms of homosexual intimacy, such as Athenian pederastery. But regardless of what views of homosexuality where at any point in time or space, one thing has remained constant. Marriage was something only straight people did, simply because they were straight. they might or might not have been in love, they might or might not have produced children (and if two straights did produce children, the fact that there weren’t married shot down the entire family). We find marriage to be nothing else but an expression of heterosexual identity.
The marriage ceremony is a symbolic celebration of the two opposite sexes uniting. We call marriage perpetual union not simply because it ideally is never discarded, but (as I can’t help but fathom) it indicates a pledge to always be united with another. neither the groom or the bride will ever be single and not in a relationship again, thereby never being a lonely half ever again. They will perpetually be together and are the highest expression of the sexual nature which tugs at them. How does a contemporary marriage take place? The groom and bride are up at the alter, with the family and friends of each being separated in accordance with allegiance. At the end, the newly weds exit the church, and the two family/friend groups merge into a single file line going back out into the world as one, being led by the united newlyweds.
We may certainly find an implication of reproduction in this ceremony, but it is only an implication, not a guarantee. Marriage is a celebration of existential identity by the community, and this explains why bastards would have been shunned. They are the products of a permanent union (consecrated in a biological being rather than a ceremony) which the couple never bothered to involve their community in. By producing children out of wedlock, they essentially told the community that they were not invited to this huge transcendental event, and that the community does not matter to them. The bastard is a walking insult to his countrymen, a line of prodigal activity by which the culprits turned their backs on their fellow people. This is what marriage is about: existential identity. Every other consideration is ancillary to it.
I will close this by saying that it is somewhat following this basis that I find more in common with straight people without committed relationships than I do with gay people in committed relationships. The most hedonistic straight person is eternally more in touch with me by our common sexual natures than the most noble gay person. I also do not have a problem with the free and unbound sexual practices that many straights engage in, and even actively support it, but that is a matter for another day. Regardless of what your opinion will be of what I’ve just written, I thank you for your characteristic scholarship and wisdom, and this site’s regular exhibition of them to me!
Interesting reaction! I would indeed concur that marriage is not essentially about love, and not even about procreation as such. Marriage is meant for children, but only for LEGAL children. They become a link in the family chain through the ages.
Marriage is the fundamental building block of the extended family, of the clan and ultimately of a people. That is why marriage is closely regulated by the law of a people. It is also why it is celebrated publicly. In this celebration not only the couple, but also the wider circle, the clan, and even the people, are celebrated.
However, you draw from this valuable insight exactly the wrong conclusions. They reflect the official narrative about identity and therefore about bonding, solidarity and tribal feelings. You give preference to the “sexual tribe” over the “family tribe”.
The official narrative refuses to talk about identity in terms of a clan or a people, at least when whites are concerned. To fill the existential gap caused by this lack of folk identity, the narrative comes up with all kinds of Ersatz identities, of which “sexual identity” is a prime example. Further down this road to superficiality we meet the consumerist, vulgar adagium: you are the things you buy.
“Sexual identity” is a product of pure modernist, liberal thinking. In earlier times sexual acts were described and evaluated as such. A medieval knight might “bugger” his servant, but in no way would this define him. For the Church he only had to repent his acts. He was not a distinct kind of being, just a sinner like everyone else.
There is neither such thing as “homosexuality” nor a “homosexual tribe” (the fake tribe better known as “gay community”). There are only sexual acts, and these acts do not define you. Woo unto him who defines himself as belonging to the worldwide “gay community”. He is like Jack in “Fight Club” who seeks identity through the IKEA
furniture he buys (the “IKEA family”!).
Nowadays you are supposed to feel more bonding with a black ‘hetero’ from Nigeria than with your own nephew who engages in homosexual acts. This of course plays completely in the hands of the forces of atomization and globalisation.
Although I respect how you feel about homosexual acts, I find it rather crass that you find bonding easier with a low life than with a noble man if the former engages in the same sexual acts as you. How important is nobility to you? Do you also prefer ‘hetero’ blacks to ‘homo’ whites? How important is your race to you?
This question is all the more pressing as I think that our movement definitely lacks the bonding and solidarity one should expect from a tribal movement. Where is the tolerance with which we listen to a boring old uncle at the family dinner table? Or the support we give to a crazy aunt? We need not only convince the ‘others’, we need to build up our own community. Any contribution is welcome, from engaging in protests to a weekly dinner club. Even engaging in friendly online discussions counts…
I certainly agree about sexual orientation-based tribal feelings as stupid. I probably should have went an extra step in my post and explained marriage is not some straight pride event, as it operated for centuries and millenia under the premise that the human way of doing things was the straight way. That homosexuals were either curious outliers (as was probably the view in Antiquity) or monstrous abominations (under Christianity).
Let me also say that of course I would never choose a black hetero over a white homo. Race is the first principle, it is kinship which drives my sense of community. It’s just that once living in a homogenous society, I would then find commonality with any straight over any gay due to the latter being an abnormal defect. This doesn’t mean I would prejudicially disregard any achievements or character traits of said gay, but that our different sexual drives obviously engage us with the world in totally separate ways.
” Legal children”? Is there such a thing as illegal children? I mean kids are born out of wedlock all the time these days and it’s not like there is any social stigma to it. Common Law marriage is assumed in most states where the parents live together for even a few years….My youngest is technically a ” bastard” since I refuse to go to the trouble to marry her father and because I think the whole thing is just a piece of paper…….It has never affected her or the family in any negative way that I can remember.
For me, the issue of abnormality all boils down to homosexuality being a non-reproductive, recreational form of sex.
That may be the issue for you, but believe me kind friend, if you are equating homosexual behavior with, for example, a post menopausal heterosexual woman having normal sex with a man because they are both non-reproductive and therefore purely recreational, then you are living in a fool’s paradise. That is pure abstraction. The reality is that nobody who considers homosexual behavior to be abnormal is bothered by the fact that no babies ensue from two men or two women trying to simulate sexual intercourse anymore than they would be bothered by an older woman having sex. Our distress goes much deeper at the contemplation of homosexuality.
Nobody cares about old people having sex for the fun of it, as long as the rest of us don’t have to watch. And nobody should care if homosexuals have sex, as long as the rest of us don’t have to watch. The race will not perish because people who can’t have babies have sex, but because people who can have babies refuse to allow conception. The demographic problem is needs to be blamed squarely on the straight people who don’t want to reproduce. Nobody is forcing women to take the pill and men to wear condoms. People choose birth control and abortion and non-reproductive sex because they are selfish and hedonistic, liberal and individualistic.
I don’t think this is a bad article, and I certainly don’t disagree with its take on the mainstream, “right wing” political elites. However, I do think that the concept of homosexual marriage is complete nonsense. A prohibition on homosexuals being able to marry and adopt children should be part of any strategy that a healthy society adopts to “defend marriage and strengthen the family”. As much as I like a lot of Greg’s writings, I simply cannot accept homosexual marriage, even within the context of an all-white society or state.
Dear Justin, why do you think that Johnson approves of “gay marriage”? I can find no basis for that idea, neither his article nor in his comments.
Hi Donar. From what I can tell, Greg doesn’t say if he approves of “gay marriage”. He says something to the effect that he’s still considering its merits and demerits. For me, there is nothing to consider. I think it’s insane. I think gay couples adopting children is even worse.
Gay adoption sounds like a bad idea under any circumstances. Children ideally should have parents of both sexes for the best psychological development.
I’ll certainly be linking back to THIS a lot. Clarifies the issue profoundly. Quoted, linked, and riffed on here:
Mr. Johnson, thank you for giving my comments the benefit of your thoughtful reply. My last two attempts to post retort haven’t worked so hopefully this one will make it. Here is my response:
As I am a Zyrian and the situation here has little relation to that of America I feel that some of the differences between us may be accounted for with a bit of explanation on my part. Since telos fails to offer a suitable foundationalism regarding the formation of an Organic expression of Occidental civilization so I don’t see the need to address it within this context. Instead, since Organicism is a requirement for Occidental survival I find that Jose Manuel Alves Fifth, DeMan, Othmar Spann, Ugo Spirito and provide Labriola much of the foundationalism for the Revisionist Integralist movement while Spann, M.P. Follett, Drexler, and R.A. McCain provide much of the practical application that guides my compatriots.
As an Integralist I don’t see homosexualism as biologically sub-optimal but instead as a biological and spiritual element within the Dissipationist Movement. It would appear that you are speaking of mere homosexuality which is like Autoandrophilia, Biastophilia, Coprophilia and paedophilia which have always been noxious aberrations within the Occidental world but rarely have they been serious forces of Dissipationism. The homosexual movement is something rather different as it represents the logical development of Dissipationism and it’s elevation to a protected, fashionable, legally recognized and privileged social force with the goal of destroying any possible Occidental restoration by redefining family away from the cornerstone of any civilization worthy of the name into vile inversions of those things.
The various manifestations of Dissipationism (such as egalitarianism, liberalism, anti racism, class warfare, feminism and recreational heterosexualism) have incrementally instilled the current anti culture and have given rise to the homosexual movement. The casual dismissal of the reordering of family to suit Dissipationism is a rejection of Permanence and wholly at odds with Occidental Restoration and Integralism. Homosexualism is atomistic individual liberalism taken to it’s nihilistic, yet logical conclusion in service of our own destruction. The homosexual movement is a particularly serious biologic threat as a result of its trendiness among our youth and it’s institutional strength.
It is said that family life is dead and that as a result the latest form of societal destruction (that is to say, homosexualism) should be ignored and the more common forms of sexual decrepitude should command our attention. This is a convenient, lazy prescription for selective inaction coupled with a wish that the broader forces of Dissipationism can be reversed and reflects an unwillingness to understand and act in a way that represents the surrender of the metapolitical realm to our enemies. Yet even in within the degenerate post Occidental world relatively healthy families are still common and any potentially regenerative elements will overwhelmingly arise from them as they represent the only element of organicism left. The prescription that the homosexual movement’s campaign against marriage should be greeted with disappointment and blase support is simply capitulation disguised as pragmatism. Not recognizing the homosexual movement within its broader context as has often been seen within this discourse while laying the blame for societal disintegration on heterosexuals is fully analogous to blaming Occidentals for our dispossession in that it fully consistent with ceding the metapolitical sphere to our opponents in the same manner as alleged conservatives have.
As to what I suppose is commonly termed “the right” be it of the neo, paleo, transhumanist or white nationalist varieties they jointly represent, at best, healthy if vague dispositions based upon foundationalisms that have easily been co-opted to serve Dissipationism or an ineffectual and constantly retreating faux resistance. As I’ve detailed the specifics in metapolitical and operational terms elsewhere, I’ll leave those larger issues for another time.
However, as we both understand that the regenerative policies you suggest are not practical in the current clime a practical suggestion as to what to do now needs to be made. Although I am a distant observer of the American “racialist scene” it appears that no ideological consensus exists amongst Occidental advocates outside of paleo-conservatism. The only alternative seems to be the Northwest Territorial Imperative which I feel needs significant ideological development but has a great advantage in that it at least has a prescription for action that can be implemented in the current environment in a limited fashion.
I still think that you are basically locked into a reactionary conservative hand-wringing position in which toughness boils down to remonstrating against every new agenda item of the Left, then losing.
April, legal and illegal or bastard children has to do with inheritance laws. In Britain, the oldest son inherited all and the rest were beholden to him. A bastard child who was older got nothing. Bastard or illegal meaning not out of wedlock. So, the mistress’ child was out of luck, unless the patriarch was of a generous nature. So it goes.
Delightful article with bold insights.
As far as strengthing the family and natalism I would add prohibitions on abortions, limiting of birth control, and a system of deadbeat father penalties to your list.
Any legitimate culture must promote a clear national mythos that masculinity par excellence is defined by the creation and care of children.
The present culture of hedonistic homosexuality by its very nature cannot achieve these ends. I cannot see any reason why the homosexual lifestyle would not be culturally pilloried in a nationalist society.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment