894 words
Some points in response to Counter-Currents.
Greg Johnson has reposted two essays on gay marriage. I have one disagreement, followed by general agreement.
Where I disagree is here:
Why not call it “marriage”? Because of a deep conviction that marriage is a more serious institution, because it provides the best framework for begetting and nurturing the next generation. Therefore, marriage should enjoy a higher dignity and status than mere domestic partnership. Gay marriage advocates have a ready reply to this: straight people who cannot have children, or who choose not to have children, are allowed to marry. So marriage is not about reproduction. There is no real reply to this argument. Yes, some anti-natal couples may change their minds and choose to have children. But that is not possible for sterile couples, who still can marry. Gay marriage advocates also point out that sterile straight couples can still have families by adopting children or using surrogate parenting — and so can homosexual couples, which opens a whole new can of worms.
I disagree. I will argue that a sterile heterosexual marriage is qualitatively different from a homosexual one. I argue thus. Any population group has a vested interest in promoting heterosexual relations, since those lead to reproduction. Societal stability is enhanced when that reproduction takes place in a monogamous marriage. Thus, heterosexual marriage should be promoted and celebrated in a society. People who are intentionally childless should be frowned on, since they set a bad example and degrade the biological value of marriage; they promote the wrong image. But, if young enough, they can always change their mind, the potential for reproduction is there.
What about the sterile? While they cannot have children, by marrying they are participating in the societal norm of heterosexual marriage. They help reinforce and legitimize that norm through their own choice and commitment to be married. They enhance the social conformity in favor of heterosexual marriage. Further, if we want to encourage such marriage to the masses, we need to market it as having benefits other than reproduction (even if, as racialists, that is our real intent).
We need to celebrate the various benefits both husband and wife derive from marriage (easier to do of course in more traditional times than today, but the argument still holds). A sterile heterosexual married couple, by their marriage, affirm to all who see them, their belief that this form of marriage has benefits, it is good, it is desirable, it is special, it is something that all (heterosexual) adults should aspire to. By marrying, such people help promote the institution of heterosexual marriage and hence promote the reproduction of their race by contributing to the societal “common good” of stable man-woman pair bonds.
So-called gay marriage does not of this, it cheapens the institution of marriage, it further divorces it (no pun intended) from children and family. A childless (especially not by choice) heterosexual marriage still supports a pro-natalist institution. At best, gay marriage is neutral to that, if not destructive.
On the other hand, there is much I agree with here.
The decline in heterosexual marriage has little to do with homosexuals, and more to do with overall degeneration, the Judaification of our culture, and feminism. Johnson’s prescriptions for improving heterosexual marriage are for the most part sound.
I also agree that when considering homosexuality (a subject that in general I have little interest in), a “give and take” attitude can be constructive. A degree of tolerance can be given to gays, in exchange for them to stop allying with the Left to wreck race and civilization, and an admission from their part that they are abnormal, analogous to a disability. For example, I don’t hate people who are deaf, but if they attempt to declare deafness as normal, desirable, the same as hearing, if they also declare a “deaf culture” (and some do) and refuse treatments for themselves and (especially) their children (if deaf as well), then I do have a problem. The same goes for the blind, and also considers that accommodation can only go so far: we cannot have blind brain surgeons, taxi drivers, or airplane pilots, regardless of how “unfair” that is. Homosexuals need to accommodate the needs of the larger society in exchange for tolerance. They are abnormal regardless of how one wants to define that – either based on frequency or biological fitness. But if they defend their family and ethnic genetic interests, that is all to the good. One can argue that homosexuals (and anyone who does not personally reproduce) have a relatively greater interest in their race’s genetic continuity (as well as that of their family), because that is all they have to work with to improve their inclusive fitness. They also need to understand that many heterosexuals find the idea of homosexual relations repugnant and would – especially if they value genetic continuity – be greatly displeased if their children were homosexual and did not find some way to reproduce (as opposed to adopt). Of course, childlessness of heterosexual children would have the same negative effect on their parents’ fitness, but without the aesthetic disgust toward homosexual acts.
Having said all of that, better a homosexual racist than a heterosexual liberal. Better gay than a race mixer. I’ll take Ernst Rohm as a comrade over John Derbyshire any day.
Source: http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-gay-marriage.html
27 comments
A simple way of putting this is that even sterile male/female unions preserve the public metaphor of marriage as the union of these principles, while same–sex couplings cannot.
Your basic point is valid. I think that gay marriage is offensive because it is a parody of marriage. But there does come a point, as in the case of the Duchess of Alba, when heterosexual marriages without possibility of issue cease being a tribute to marriage and start becoming a parody themselves.
A sterile marriage may seem like a parody to some, but it doesn’t come anywhere near the absurdity of gay marriage, even though you can argue that they are both a reproductive dead end. If two septuagenarians fall in love and want to be together, what alternative is there to marriage? Cohabitation outside of wedlock is still shameful to some.
For example, I don’t hate people who are deaf, but if they attempt to declare deafness as normal, desirable, the same as hearing, if they also declare a “deaf culture” (and some do) and refuse treatments for themselves and (especially) their children (if deaf as well), then I do have a problem.
That’s all we need: the government legislating that refusal of treatment for deafness is a punishable offence. I assume you would make it so if you were in power, if you want to shoot people who refuse vaccinations.
It has gotten to the point where parents who disagree with a child’s questioning his own sex (and wanting a sex change) can be overriden by the state.
If we just keep the g.d. government from getting its fingers into these kinds of issues, you will find that things sort themselves out.
There have been cases where deaf parents have refused to have their deaf children get treatment to restore hearing in order to preserve “deaf culture.” Now, no where in my post did I talk about government coercion. To conflate my positions on these issues with child transgenderism (which I view as mutilation and abuse) is pathetic. However, I morally object to that choice.
My views on these issues are the same on smoking. Rights and responsibilities flow in both directions. if someone chooses to smoke, if they want the right to smoke, then they must be completely responsible for the health consequences and they must ensure that their smoke does not bother non-smokers. Amazingly enough, non-smokers have the same right not to choke on fumes walking down a sidewalk behind a smoker as does the smoker have the right to “enjoy the cigarette.”
Those who enjoy their hearing disability, and refuse treatment, then have the responsibility to navigate through life with ZERO accommodation from society. Those who are deaf through no fault of their own should of course have reasonable accommodation. If we value hearing as normal and deafness as abnormal, withholding treatment from a child is abuse. On the other hand, transgenderism is abnormal, supporting such for a child is also abuse.
Those who believe they have the right to refuse vaccinations also have the responsibility to live out the consequences of their choice. Why should society accommodate them? Fine, let’s not shoot them in a White ethnostate. Instead, they should be shunned and quarantined, and they can live out their lives in small villages, far from civilization. Society has no obligation to accommodate them, to treat their illness, or to risk infection to those who have legitimate reasons for not being vaccinated (age, immune deficiency) or for that minority vaccinated who did not develop immunity.
Libertarian types are funny people. Like Coloreds, they rant about “rights” but never about responsibilities. The same with gays and gay marriage. One thing not mentioned in my essay is the health issue. A major reason for the spread of HIV in America was the spectacularly promiscuous lifestyles of (at least male) homosexuals. After which, they demanded their rights that a large portion of American biomedical research be dedicated to that disease. You see, on their end, all the rights to do as they please, and the burden to deal with the consequences lies with society. Or, like Big Business and their immigration – internalize the benefits and externalize the costs.
Getting back to gays – are gays in gay marriage going to be monogamous? Sure, I know married heterosexuals fool around (I read rates in France are very high for adultery), but there is a big difference between an expectation of monogamy (heterosexual) and the expectation of “let’s have this big campy wedding and thumb our noses at society and then continue to sleep around as before” (homosexual). What homosexuals need to explain is why they NEED marriage, instead of a “civil union” that would provide the same legal benefits. It’s because they DEMAND validation. Just like Bruce Jenner and his very public masquerade as a woman – all the abnormals, the freaks, those who are different, DEMAND that society accommodate and celebrate them. It’s borne out of a bizarre combination of insecurity, arrogance, and resentment. It’s not enough that people do X,Y, Z. All the rest of us not only have to accept it, but celebrate it.
But if they have the right to X,Y,Z, others should have the right to shun X,Y,Z.
Society has no obligation to accommodate them, to treat their illness, or to risk infection to those who have legitimate reasons for not being vaccinated (age, immune deficiency) or for that minority vaccinated who did not develop immunity.
You are laboring under the delusion that vaccinations, especially of babies and children, have no serious side-effects, and provide a true form of immunity. Have you ever looked into those who claim otherwise? I mean a serious, thorough look. I would “sleep with” an AIDS-“infected” man (provided he was handsome enough) with no “protection” to prove my point. I know I would not “get” AIDS. There is so much more to this business of “infectious” disease, so very much more. But the medical/science world is on the hunt for an AIDS vaccine. Ha ha ha! Suckers all.
Your blithe ignorance regarding the dangers of vaccinations suggests that you have willfully swallowed the indoctrination force-fed us by the public schools, the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry (which controls the FDA), and the allopathic medical establishment (now essentially dominated by Jewish money).
Statists of your ilk are why some of us might prefer a more libertarian White society which focuses government on the common defense, the administration of justice, and the impartial settling of disputes and in which we could take responsibility for our own choices and not have others’ bad choices forced upon us. This is after all how humans learn, grow, and evolve.
If government would just leave us the hell alone in such matters, White Men would would work them out to everyone’s satisfaction much more quickly than bureaucrats and politicians.
My response:
http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2015/06/of-rights-and-retards.html
and enough with that.
Interesting that a post about homosexuality, which used deafness (and not vaccines) as an example, gets hijacked by the anti-vaxxers and their hysteria. As Shakespeare would say, “doth do protest too much.” In today’s America, no one forces you to be vaccinated. Stop complaining. It’s the rest of us, who must live amongst you, who should complain.
California has just been subtracted from “today’s America” by Jerry Brown’s forced vaccination bill. And where California goes, the rest of America tends to follow.
The litmus test for any “conspiracy” (of course, science and reason have their place too!) should be: does Israel do it? We all know Israel puts the health and safety of their (Jewish) citizens above all. If vaccinations are truly harmful to health and psyche Israel would allow no vaccinations. Israel does not have mandatory vaccinations, expect in times of “medical emergency,” but that is because the politically active Ultra-Orthodox have religious objections to such a law. Secular Israelis are vaccinated the same as us goyim.
Thank you for that. I hadn’t thought of that, but it’s a great point. No doubt the vast majority of American Jews, as well as America’s treasonous Gentile elites, also get vaccinated. Doctors get vaccinated, they have their children vaccinated. So, either it is:
a) a conspiracy so vast and evil that all the Jews and elites are willing to sacrifice themselves for it, or
b) all these people – who are the real rulers of the Earth – are deluded, and just “don’t know the facts.” Instead the “facts are known” by Jenny McCarthy, mothers for whom “vaccination just doesn’t feel right,” and herbal medicine salesmen.
But, wait, let me fan the flames of paranoia with the following third choice: there is actually a special pill which one takes that makes vaccines safe and effective. This pill is reserved only for Jews, elites, doctors, and other members of the conspiracy. The masses are denied use of this pill! A plot!
Now excuse me I have a pill to take.
By the way, the California law is, as far as I can tell, requiring vaccinations for attending school (and it allows legitimate medical exemptions).
Parents who object can homeschool or move out of California. Regardless of “American following” most states do not have such laws and it is unlikely all will pass such laws in the immediate future (unless more epidemics start).
I agree with every word of Ted’s original post and his follow-up comments. I would also add that I find it insulting to have to pretend a homosexual marriage is ‘no different’ to a real marriage. I will never accept anything so self-evidently idiotic no matter how many laws are passed.
On the other hand, I will readily agree that the right makes far too much of the gay marriage issue. And far right anti-homosexual militants infuriate me no end – these people are every bit as sick as the worst of the gay parade exhibitionists.
A homosexual marriage cannot reasonably be considered a marriage, and marriage is a sacrament, so offering this blessing to perverts is obscene. Ultimately, there can be no compromise between homosexual and normal traditional society. It will either be our society or theirs. One of the most important issues for me is that ZOG is now trying to force clergy people to conduct marriage ceremonies for homosexuals, which is a violation of our religious freedoms. http://vikingalthing.org/article/why-odinists-put-childrens-rights-above-homosexual-rights-and-why-i-shall-not-be-performing-the-sacrament-of-marriage-for-same-sex-couples/
Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is a system of regulating sexual behavior to encourage healthy reproduction, optimal child rearing, and family stability. Marriage assigns responsibility for offspring to the procreative couple making virginity and fidelity necessary to ensure that offspring are those of the father. Likewise, the marriage vows present the expectation that each partner is committed for life to their bond and to their children. Sexual behaviors that interfere with healthy reproduction, child rearing, and family stability have been discouraged by taboo, proscription, and/or civil law: rape, incest, adultery, premarital sex, pornography, prostitution, sodomy, miscegenation, pedophilia, contraception, abortion, and infanticide. We have generally accepted these rules in part because we have an instinctive revulsion toward dysgenic practices and the people who practice them. Even those who find taboo and pornography sexually arousing see the need to protect their children from all alienated sex. Marriage is a regulatory system that gives societal support for our healthy instincts to procreate, nurture, protect, and educate our children. Sodomy is one of the many perversions of those instincts making it antithetical to marriage.
This argument Greg about fertility is facile (I forgot to mention this in my reply to the original article.) The scope of the court’s competence (or the law’s) does not encompass the unique fertilities of each individual citizen – it addresses itself to an abstraction which is a legally idealized form of the natural relationship. Otherwise, if you would have the court’s competence extended, then infertility simply becomes a cause of action in divorce. If you would go one step further and say that once a couple was found infertile the state should step in and forcibly dissolve the marriage of two otherwise willing male and female partners, I would suggest that a healthy white yeomanry would not tolerate such parsimonious legal rigidity.
It’s just them “shaping the culture going forward” ~ David Brooks
https://buelahman.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/acceptable-unacceptable.jpg
>>A degree of tolerance can be given to gays, in exchange for them to stop allying with the Left
Who cares what faction homos ally with? I mean, really? They are, at most, 3% of the population – a 3% that parades (metaphorically and actually) their bedroom activities as a defining feature of their “personhood” and character. At the end of the day, I don’t think that such a base and sex-driven faction is of any help to us as “allies.” If we are going to tolerate a movement based on bedroom activities, why not further marginalize racialism by promoting our ‘tolerance’ toward BDSM, hetero anal sex, swingers, etc.?
Like the Jews, homosexuals may be a small percentage of the population, but they are over-represented among elites and have a greater-than-expected impact on culture. Certain Renaissance figures are alleged to have such “tendencies,” and then there are the Ancient Greeks. They seem to be well represented in various “artistic” endeavors today. And, like the Jews once again, they show solidarity and hence influence politically. Further, since most homosexuals do not have families, they also have greater-than-expected disposable incomes, children being (truth be told) a drain on finances (but necessary for genetic continuity, hence worth the cost).
Do not misunderstand. I am not a proponent of “gay rights.” They should go back ‘into the closet.” But, I’m realistic. Homosexuality has always been with us, and, presumably, will continue to be with us, whether we like it or not (and I do not). This being so, exchanging minimal tolerance within the limits of a more traditional society (pick whatever past society you wish, homosexuals existed in it) for a racially-positive attitude, seems to me reasonable.
Again, this is coming from someone who views all sexual perversions (hetero or homo) with extreme distaste.
Like Jews they’re 3% of the population with large amounts of (expendable) income, and social capital. Multiculturalism will end all tolerance of homosexuality in the US and Europe, and put gays in mortal danger. If the majority of gays realized this they would not be so quick to defend it. You don’t have to like or condone their lifestyle to reap the benefits of their support. Hell, as a movement, we don’t even have to acknowledge their sexuality. We just need to acknowledge we share a racial bond, and a vested interest against multiculturalism. Let’s build an ethnostate, and then we can come up with a solution to the gay question.
I think the issue is a lot deeper than the definition of marriage as producing children. Gay men and lesbians are not infertile. They do produce children. Technology, free from any moral considerations is way ahead of the game. Brave New World indeed.
That is true, but it is reasonable to presume that those children, in general, become worse members of the people/race compared to the natural offspring of heterosexual unions; and that they are are also more likely to become burdens on the people.
Why is it reasonable to assume they would become worse? That is an assumption. The argument that would be used on the other side is that the child would not be confused especially if he or she was of the same sex for the same sex parents would model that sex’s ideal. I am not sure how to form an argument for opposite sex children with same sex parents. Some lesbian feminists have argued that boys should be given to the men and girls to them. They go into law and are very forceful. (Catherine McKinnon) They have called into question the Ideal and they have used the law to do it. I would not call that a low IQ.
If George Bush’s man could use the law to create a law that allowed torture, we are in new territory and even if we think it is unreasonable or unethical, it does not matter to them.
‘ I will argue that a sterile heterosexual marriage is qualitatively different from a homosexual one’
Yes. Indeed. They maybe ‘sterile ‘ yet the framework in which the adoptees (often not easy children to bring up) would provide the qualities of the male and female marriage , and they would be an example of how the children they bring up would see the framework that they may thus later brng up children. Who knows maybe the adopted children, would foster the desire for children of their own, once the adopted children leave their care.
By the way Johnson when I send emails to you and other alt right people regarding my efforts in .creativity, I would appreciate some feedback.
Yes, I laughed. http://www.nytimes.com/live/gay-pride-parade-updates/jewish-group-with-hired-protesters-opposes-the-parade/
“Family values rotting in the fields because we can’t find Mexicans to defend them.”
“I also agree that when considering homosexuality (a subject that in general I have little interest in), a “give and take” attitude can be constructive. A degree of tolerance can be given to gays, in exchange for them to stop allying with the Left to wreck race and civilization (…)”
Apparently my first attempt at addressing this subject was not of sufficient quality for posting. Nevertheless, I still want to know if any gays or anti-gays would be amenable to a simple solution on the issue of gays and gay rights in a hypothetical White nation.
I contend that it is an objective truth that gays have contributed significantly to Western civilization. Since gays *will* be born within a White nation it is impossible to fence them out, and anti-gays must accept this reality. Since gays will exist in a White nation, a reasonable way of dealing with the subject must be found so that we can turn our attention to more pressing matters. My assertion is that any gay individual who subscribes to White Nationalism, reasonably adheres to traditional social behavior, and recognizes the primacy of male-female White procreation should be welcome in a White nation. That gays often display good financial sense, relative intelligence, and strong skills in media and networking should be given some weight.
Gays who do not subscribe to WN or reasonably traditional social behavior would plainly not be welcome, just as White anti-racists would not be welcome. In a hypothetical White nation there would exist no Jewish-led rainbow coalition seeking to turn gays against their racial kin. I feel that this should mitigate most of the major concerns of anti-gays.
With hopes of better understanding the concerns of gays and anti-gays, I propose this short list of hypothetical rules for a hypothetical White nation:
• Gays (and everyone else) should respect reasonably traditional public social behavior.
• No public sex, bathroom stall hookups, etc. (same goes for straights)
• No pushing of a subversive gay agenda (such as gay sex ed in public schools)
• No gay adoption
• No crypto-gay priesthood or anything of the like
• Legal gay unions will be allowed and respected, with the term “marriage” reserved for male-female unions.
I’d very much like to know how WN gays and anti-gays view this proposal. To create a viable movement, any given person will need to make small concessions for the greater good. I’m particularly curious how gay WN’s feel about the adoption issue. Kindly share any thoughts.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.