1,250 words
Spanish translation here
The Alternative Right is subject to occasional gay panics. Throughout most of human history, politics and war have been exclusively male occupations, and in those realms of culture where women took part — such as religion and education — the sexes were still separate rather than mixed. Since this is a political movement, it is naturally attractive to men. Since it is a dissident political movement, it also tends to scare off women.
However, in the present age, all predominantly or exclusively male institutions are routinely slurred as “gay.” The purpose of this charge is to lower trust and raise conflict within male groups and to encourage them to integrate women, whose presence will supposedly provide insurance against future charges of being “gay.”
Generally, this slur originates from the Left, where homosexuality is supposed to be a good thing. But gay panics presuppose “homophobia,” one of the Left’s sins. The Left is quite happy, however, to exploit such sentiments to weaken any male institutions that make individual men or society as a whole stronger, from male gyms and sports leagues to men’s clubs and the military — and now the guardians of the white race.
Unfortunately, the Left is not the only source of gay panics in our ranks. The most recent examples are self-inflicted.
For instance, after the Halloween 2015 National Policy Institute conference, the Two Matts, Parrott and Heimbach, made up the story that Heimbach was disinvited from NPI because a “gay mafia” disapproved of his Old Testament opinions on homosexuality. Their motive was narcissistic rage, and their aim was simply to harm NPI by starting a gay panic, a troll so divisive that it was eagerly promoted by the Southern Poverty Law Center which shares the same destructive agenda. Naturally, there followed a great deal of squeaking and spinning in the smelly hamster cages of the internet movement, which generated a great deal of distrust and ill-will but did nothing to stop or slow down our race’s programmed march to extinction.
The most recent gay panic agitation comes from Sinead “Renegade” McCarthy, whose black marks include linking White Advocacy to flat earth and anti-vaccine cranks, slurring people who think there is more to activism than crazy-eyed women passing out flyers (e.g., Richard Spencer, Angelo Gage, Nathan Damigo, etc.), and basically demanding that the movement capitulate to feminism. Her motives in pushing the gay panic button seem to be equal parts narcissistic rage and feminist entryism.
Which brings us to the question of the proper role of women in “the movement.” First of all, “the” movement is not unified and monolithic. There are multiple groups and platforms, and if you don’t like what is in the offing, you can create something more to your taste. Andrew Anglin thinks women have nothing to offer The Daily Stormer, and that is his right. At Counter-Currents I publish women like Savitri Devi, Juleigh Howard-Hobson, Margot Metroland, and Ann Sterzinger not “because they are women,” but because they do good work. I have done interviews with Lana Lokteff because she does good work. I am also grateful for female donors and organizers, again because they add value to the movement. Finally, I am increasingly intolerant of gamers, MGTOWs, and woman haters, because their ethos is no more compatible with the healthy sexual order we want to create than the feminism they oppose.
But I completely reject the feminist notion that gender parity should be a norm and that we should welcome women — any women, even women who add no value or who objectively detract from the cause — just because they are women. This is war, not ballroom dancing. In my corner of the movement, women who add something to the cause are welcome. I have no time for men or women who add nothing. And men who do nothing but harass or repulse women who do add something need culling.
Gay panics weaken the movement, so how can we armor ourselves against them? There are basically only two options: (1) get rid of all homosexuals or (2) stop caring about them.
The first option cannot work, for the simple reason that gay panics do not require the actual presence of homosexuals but the mere possibility they are present. A male group may be 100% heterosexual, but that cannot prevent a malicious and dishonest person from spreading rumors, making charges, and starting a gay panic anyway.
This means that the endless “purge” threads on internet forums are pointless.
- First, there is no point worrying about homosexual entryism, because they are already inside. When I first arrived on the White Nationalist scene in the year 2000, it was apparent that a number of discreet and open homosexuals like Martin Webster were already well-ensconced.
- Second, the most enthusiastic purgers are themselves “outsiders” and would-be entryists who are in no position to purge anyone.
- Third, the movement is not a monolithic, centralized, Bolshevik party, so talk of purges makes no sense anyway. Again, there is nothing to prevent people from creating their own groups and platforms according to their own ideological tastes.
- Finally, as I said before, even if the purgers get what they want, it still does not protect them against gay panics, because the problem is not the presence of homosexuals, but the specter of homosexuality, the mere possibility of homosexuality, which will never disappear.
This means that the only way to protect a group against gay panics is simply to stop caring about it. When someone tries to make an issue of Jack Donovan speaking at NPI or James O’Meara writing for Counter-Currents, nothing stops them deader than simply saying, “I don’t care.” Meaning: I’m not tainted by it. It doesn’t make me dirty. There is no guilt by association. You can’t catch cooties off the internet. So I just don’t care.
Of course, what makes most people care about homosexuals is the Bible, which treats homosexuality not just as abnormal but as an offense against God. This is the source of the intense and irrational anxiety and the sense of moral contagion involved in gay panics. Thus it follows that the more Christian an organization is, the more fragile it is in the face of gay panics. Which implies that the less Christian an organization is, the less susceptible it is to this form of subversion.
This also implies that the recent gay panics in the Alt Right might eventually strengthen it, or at least certain segments. If Parrott and Heimbach hoped their “gay mafia” slur would split those susceptible to gay panics away from NPI and attract them to Trad Youth, the net effect will only be to make Trad Youth more brittle and NPI more resilient. Because Trad Youth is overwhelmingly if not exclusively male too. Which means that they can be hoist by their own petard. (Someday some jerk is going to suggest that the dust up with NPI was merely a gay spat between bear and twink factions.)
This brings up the question of the proper role of homosexuals in “the” movement. Again, I can only control my little corner of the movement, but my view is that White Nationalism should be “straight but not narrow,” meaning that we should uphold and defend heterosexuality as the norm but also recognize that not everyone fits that norm. But as long as homosexuals uphold healthy norms and have something positive to contribute, they can and do make our movement stronger, if we stop worrying about it.
69 Comments
Remembering an old WN slogan/graffitto:
“If they’re white, they’re alright.
If they’re black send’em back”
So, if they’re white, they’re alright. Even more if they are supporting us.
“I’m sure Greg Johnson is being calm and rational about this because he’s secretly a homo who wants us all to be high off anal sex and AIDS cocktails!”
– a million internet commentors
Another example of the clear headed reasoning that puts Counter Currents ahead of the pack.
I think homosexuality is degenerate, but there is a vast gulf between homosexuals and the sewer dwelling so called “gays”. I can tolerate homosexuals in the movement, but gays have no place whatsoever.
I have no problem as a pagan, working with Christians, so long as they show the same courtesy to me, but the Heimbachs and Parrots dream of a Christian led movement is just that.
P.S. I veto their dream.
“Of course, what makes most people care about homosexuals is the Bible.”
I’m not that I agree with such an assessment. While it is undeniable that Christian morality is a significant factor in much of the anti-homosexual sentiment in white nationalism, I know many pagans, atheists, and agnostics who are far from fond or tolerant of homosexuality.
The rates of STD/HIV transmission, mental illness, substance abuse, and partner exchange are alarmingly high among homosexuals; one shouldn’t need to rely on Semitic religious doctrine to look disapprovingly upon this sexual practice.
With that said, I do agree that creating massive schisms in our movement over how to relate to homosexuals – an incredibly small percentage of our total population – is counterproductive.
Yes, heterosexuality should be the norm, and: “Straight but not narrow” is the adult and pragmatic approach IMO.
Completely agreed. I’m German, and therefore well acquainted with guilt by association. It’s what the left hounds us with. Don’t be fooled by this.
I’m .. Not a fan of homosexuality. However, agreeing with a gay person does not make you gay. If you’re clear about your own preferences, anyone claiming otherwise is just a troll, and not even a funny one.
It is absolutely possible for a person’s personal feelings and perceived needs to go against his own sincerely held beliefs. Think: gay rightists, or convinced libertarians on welfare. It’s just something they and we will have to deal with.
This is unclear.
Those that don’t fit the norm should recognize their shortcomings and abstain from Close personal relations – and sublimate all their sexual energy into an altruistic creative spritual force for the benefit of folk/community/nation? Like monks in convents idealistically should do?
Or is this stealth liberalism? It is OK if it is discrete?
Surely you wouldn’t disregard the wildly successful “White Man March?!” I mean there was like, several people there and every one of them got a flyer from a wild eyed flat earther I’m sure. Although to be fair, I believe she’s on to trapezoids now. Taking your cue from Louis Farrahkan, how could it not be a home run. Cheers.
Ike.
Well said Mr. Johnson. As Guillaume Faye indicates, the NR’s (or ND’s) critique of Leftist lies needs to be waged from a dazzling array of perspectives – including the voices of women, homosexuals, the working class, environmentalists, hipsters, mixed race individuals (such as Dieudonne), academics, and the handicapped (among others). The Left needs to be shocked and provoked by the loss of support from their “base,” and the Right needs to be strengthened by appealing to people from every imaginable walk of life and ideological perspective, so long as certain core values (allegiance to the Truth, Beauty, Excellence or the Good) and core principles (inegalitarianism, ethnonationalism) are maintained. A moral in-group based on these shared values (in addition to others) is what needs to coalesce in the current iteration of WNism. That’s how we take the moral high ground away from the Kosher Pied Piper, whose values are embodied by lies, ugliness, and the march to oblivion.
could not have put it better myself!
Homosexuality is prohibited in every religious tradition, and the author knows it.
Proof?
Relevance?
Interesting article indeed. I never gave the matter much thought.
“First, there is no point worrying about homosexual entryism, because they are already inside.”
I’d just like to formally go on the record here and wonder aloud if there wasn’t a better way to phrase that thought.
I really hope I never read those words grouped that way ever again.
Correct. I have been saying for months that the problem isn’t gays but rather the gay marriage movement. The gay marriage movement is probably as much of a product of straight leftists as it is gays. The gay marriage movement has distracted from the real maritial crisis: that of not enough straight white people marrying.
But whenever I make this point, for example on trs forurms , I get accused of being a jew who is trying to destroy the alt-right.
Go back in time little to the age before the Kikery at the American Phycological Association when homosexuality was treated as a neurosis. It is a curable mental illness. Once the sasoonery was over and the Trans-formation took place at the APA, being queer was normal, it was ok to be “gay”. Stop using that word “gay” because it don’t mean queer and you play right into the stinking rectum of the filthy degenerate jews who have twisted words and behavior in the most neurotic of ways. They are a sick,ill, debased tribe of usurers whose only interest is lying and destroying our race.
This:
“Again, I can only control my little corner of the movement, but my view is that White Nationalism should be “straight but not narrow,” meaning that we should uphold and defend heterosexuality as the norm but also recognize that not everyone fits that norm. But as long as homosexuals uphold healthy norms and have something positive to contribute, they can and do make our movement stronger, if we stop worrying about it.”
is exactly correct, imo.
I’m something of a Christian, but not a fundamentalist nor much of a theological traditionalist. I think Christianity, which has amended its doctrines in the past in light of scientific and other changes and advances, needs to be “updated” to reflect modern racial realities, both the growth of the scientific understanding of race, and the “troubles on the ground”. I personally find homosexuality distasteful, and I profoundly politically distrust homosexuals as a class, but, yes, if some gay individual is “fighting white”, and not trying to ‘disprivilege’ heterosexuality, then it would be folly or small mindedness to exclude him from the racial struggle. The same applies to women. No need to treat them as “second-class persons” (let alone sexually harass or demean them), provided they understand that in a healthy racial/sociobiological order (which the traditional Christian one is, btw) the leadership and warrior roles belong to men – and that excellence across society must never be compromised so as to be more ‘inclusive’ towards women.
I think Greg Johnson expresses these sentiments in the post above.
This would be a good time to put in a plug for Devlin’s Sexual Utopia In Power. Roger explains how modern society is twisting our lives and that men, reacting to feminism, turn to pornography and homosexuality for comfort. The women are as much victims as the men. Homosexuality is condemned by the Holy Scriptures but so is looking at women with lust, sex before marriage and sex after marriage if it is not with the woman you married.
I doubt if anyone in the WN movement knowingly commits sodomy as an act of rebellion (witchcraft) against God which is the sin with the capital S rather than a naughty little act committed by “the sick, the lame and the halt.”
I have never seen or heard of a straight man turning to homosexuality for “comfort.” I think that is pointedly absurd. As a straight man, I must admit the possibility that I am missing something, but I seriously doubt it.
Roger Devlin’s book is excellent, and I highly recommend it, though.
Many years ago Instauration stated that (from memory ) some study found something like .0000001 men are natural born homosexuals. Everyone else somehow acquires it. I object to homo bashing in WN circles for two reasons. The same names are always mentioned and these men are more productive than most and as long as they don’t advocate their way of life I really don’t care. The other reason is that many WNs object to homosexuality for biblical reasons which is fine but then they leave out fornication and cheating on your spouse. Homosexuality is usually classified with usury because they are both sterile and produce nothing. But pornography is sterile too. Instauration stated -way back when – that porn was $8 Billion a year industry so I hate to think what it is today. Rather than bashing the homos we should be bashing those sexual habits which are destabilizing society – and i won’t even mention divorce! But at least we both agree that Sexual Utopia in Power is an excellent book.
I read this rather smart article because of the cool picture of the panic button. A helpful explanaans, especially the point about blowing the fag horn as a ruse to lower group trust. Growing wittier now, for knowing that. I do tend to think of real queers as persons with fundamentally treasonous, or maybe merely seditious, natures. Ken Philby or whatever.
I think a bigger issue facing the pro-white movement are the 20-something autistic boys who act gay.
This article is needlessly antagonistic towards the Matts.
I, Scott Terry, am the one who speculated about the reasons NPI banned Heimbach from their conference. And I’m also the one with the OT ethical views. The SPLC got their coverage from the blog I wrote about the issue.
To say the Matts “made up” a story in an effort to smear the NPI and initiate some massive “troll” is patently false. If anything, they’ve bent over backwards to be accommodating and promote unity among our ilk. Anyone who knows them knows that.
Please update your post to reflect the truth.
Do you withdraw your claim as false, Scott?
I think a useful way to see homsexuality is through the ‘Gay Uncle Theory’. Homosexuality is something that, at this point in the 21st century, we are fairly sure is genetic. If it is genetic, then how did a gene that tells a person not to take part in the cycle of life survive this long? It had to have some sort of evolutionary advantage, and according to the Gay uncle theory, it is that a child with a gay uncle or aunty essentially has a third parent who devotes time, resources and protection to them.
I think that gay people have an extra responsibility in their lives to contribute to the greater good, and what greater good is there right now than our cause? The gay people who engage in degeneracy are therefore double guilty in their selfish and hedonistic lifestyle.
The Gay community has tremendous amounts of resources, time and energy, and when directed towards our cause it can exceed the efforts of those of us who have to spend time caring for children. Writers like Jack Donovan have been tremendously helpful to my self development, and in a way, a lot of his writings are helping men mature, so you can view his work as a manifestation of the Gay uncle theory.
The Greater Good is what matters, and we need to get there together, and not squabble like a bunch of (((lawyers))) over our movements by-laws. Greg Johnson is right. I don’t care (as Jack Donovan said in his similarly named essay).
(Full disclosure: I am a direct beneficiary of the Gay Uncle Theory in my personal life. A wonderful, non-degenerate, healthy male role model uncle in my life who has helped me develop.)
Sorry but that makes no sense for me. If “gayness” (i.e. total unambiguous homosexuality) is genetic, then how is it passed from generation to generation? Clearly whoever was carrying this gene wasn’t too gay to be making babies. Either that or society up until now has forced them to, thus inadvertently ensuring their survival. Me, I lean toward the thesis that all people are essentially capable of being straight or deviant (e.g. homosexual), with maybe some people being a bit more predisposed to one behaviour or the other (as Kinsey’s scale basically predicted). This explains both how such a behaviour can have survived for so long, and why certain sexual behaviours were/are more common in certain periods or places than in others (think of ancient pederasty, or “prefect-fagging”). The idea of “sexual orientation”, whereby you define your identity by your sexual proclivities is entirely a modern construct. Knowing this actually makes hetero-normativity all the more important. Actually this was all understood in the past.
Gay uncle theory doesn’t work – do the math. In a steady state population (each person has 2 children, on average), all the sisters of gay men would need to be having 4 children on average – twice times as many as everyone else – to maintain the presence of the “gay gene” in the population. They need to make up for the children their gay brothers aren’t having.
Compensating advantage theory also doesn’t work, for the same reason.
The sole study which claimed to support gay-uncle and compensating advantage theories found only a very small increased fertility effect among the sisters of gay men. If the sisters of gay men were regularly having twice as many children as everyone else throughout the period homosexuality has been known to exist, someone would have noticed.
Until recently the majority of gay men reproduced under the pressure of societal norms. That could have something to do with why any hypothetical “gay genes” haven’t died out. Now kids are pressured to come out young, without knowing the consequences, and then they’re told that a homosexual lifestyle is the only one available to them whether they like it or not. If they change their minds and want children, how many remotely conservative women would want a gay guy as a husband?
There supposedly is some evidence that homosexuality in males is related to a pathogen as per Jayman’s blog. I’m sure others have discussed this as well but I ran into this argument and evidence he cites there.
He of course is anti- white because he supports immigration restrictions for any reasons but group survival of whites. Oh and he explicitly doesn’t care if American southern whites survive.
While I disagree with your statement that “what makes most people care about homosexuals is the Bible”, I have to agree with the rest of your assessment. Personally, I do not understand the mentality of the “purger” types in this regard. There must be a lot of LARPing involved. If we can’t stop complete kooks and mental cases from “joining” then what do they think we could do against “queers” anyway? All we have now are writers and speakers who promote our cause. If you don’t like what’s being produced, then produce your own stuff. Simple.
It is a bit depressing to read this. Are people in our movement so easily distracted that they need to be told things so obvious? Probably, it is an American thing, since Christianity is still relevant in American politics. In Scandinavia, this would be a non-issue. My impression is that nationalists here object to the homosexual subculture, not homosexuals qua homosexuals — if an homosexual opts not to be a part of political homosexualism, that is his choice. As it should be.
However, allow me to challenge you a bit:
‘… my view is that White Nationalism should be “straight but not narrow,” meaning that we should uphold and defend heterosexuality as the norm but also recognize that not everyone fits that norm. But as long as homosexuals uphold healthy norms and have something positive to contribute, they can and do make our movement stronger, if we stop worrying about it.’
That is my view, too. But does James O’Meara really fit this criterion? Does he uphold and defend heterosexuality as the norm? I admit I haven’t read everything he has written, but I have the impression that he in fact does tend to espouse political homosexualism. He has good literary style (and good writing is valuable in itself), so I have enjoyed reading some of his pieces, but I can’t see that his writings come frome a politically healthy point of view or contribute much to our cause. He is a sort of Oscar Wilde of West Coast Nationalism: fun to read, but there isn’t much substance. Donovan is a different matter — I wouldn’t have known that he was a homosexual just from reading his essays. As it should be.
I guess I see this the same way you (and I) see Christians — they are acceptable in our movement as long as they spread our views among their co-religionists, but not if they evangelize among us, to the detriment of our movement.
Anyway, I don’t think that O’Meara detracts any value from C-C and I am not offended by his presence here, but I would like to hear your views on this.
O’Meara upholds healthy norms, and his writing first made clear to me how the insinuation that any exclusively male group is somehow “gay” is used as a tool of cultural subversion.
Fair article. I think most of this hysteria runs parallel to people saying that there can be zero non-whites, people of mixed-heritage, et cetera present in the various spheres which make up the movement as it were. Of course if specific organisations wish to set strict rules like that then it is their business, but it cannot be enforced for every one of the hundreds of groups, websites, networks, and so on — just like you mention, Greg, the movement is not some monolithic entity and there is no single clear-cut orthodoxy, but overarching non-arguments (which can easily become ones, exempli gratia defining “white” or arguing about religion.
I have a friend who is homosexual, but he is celibate and virginal by choice, he is an avid reader of Julius Evola and the like, is physically fit and is a very cultured man — a lover of Dante Alighieri’s <Divine Comedy particularly. To turn around on men like him and claim he has absolutely no place in any movement or organisation is absurd when he is so upright of character. Now, I am not mentioning him to say that every homosexual is like him — far from it (in fact good luck finding many heterosexual men nowadays like him) — but that individual virtue is rather divorced from sexual orientation; which is precisely what is overlooked by the people looking to instigate “purges” and so on. What should be tantamount should not be a man’s sexual desires, but his moral character; his actions and personality. Men who act in a destructive, regressive manner — homosexual or heterosexual — are a serious problem of bigger proportions than, dare I say, anything else. Inner strength, clarity, unity, self-knowing, honour, and so forth are what is lacking in today’s world more than anything, and the rekindling of virtue at the personal and thus collective level will solve more of our problems than lynching random gays ever will.
I agree almost entirely with this essay. The only thing I have some issue with is the claim that the only reason anyone is averse to homosexuals is “The Bible”, particularly the old testament. Although this is certainly a crucial element, I think it is more homosexual behaviour, at least that which is most visible to the public, which disgusts many in our circles so much. That homosexuals have been weaponized like Blacks as a proletariat against the White majority is demonstrably true, many WNs see this and apply it whole cloth to all homosexuals. A true instance of prejudice which reveals a hasty generalization. Thank you for writing this piece.
Most people, including myself, are repulsed at the sight of two men kissing. That said, homosexuality occurs in nature for whatever reason. I don’t nessasarily have a problem with the existence of it so long as it’s kept out of the public space. I think Covington said it best: private vice, not public virtue.
OT: Doolittle did an interview with RedIce. It’s excellent and it seems to me he’s shifted rightward. In the second segment they discuss violence, a taboo topic most are scared to broach. If you can, have another podcast with him.
I’m all for nature arguments when it comes to race, as they are self-evident. But nobody knows that homosexuality in animals means the same thing as it does in humans. In fact nobody really knows what homosexuality is at all in either humans or animals. Somebody posted below about ‘gay genes’ but the evidence of that is very weak, that’s not to say it has no physical basis, i.e developmental, possibly with an epigenetic component somewhere.
Sexuality is a private matter. The promotion of sexuality is degenerate & a violation of privacy.
Search: UN Migration Replacement or see the links on the discussion tab on my channel. Alongside the promotion of debauchery & poverty we have the smoking gun. White Genocide is official policy.
Every living thing among all the plants and animals reproduce except queers and lesbians. They just can’t no matter how hard they try. Case closed.
I’ve known many fellow homos who married and fathered children. My impression is that few of them were proper fathers to their children. Their marriages were deceptions that brought pain to the men, their wives, and their children. That’s not to say that homos can not be good fathers to their own children or the children of others. It’s a case by case matter. Homosexuality is not pedophilia although some homos are pedophiles too; I think it’s an infrequent occurrence but publicly known cases get a lot of attention.
By the way, one would expect that self acknowledging young homos contribute very little to teenage pregnancy numbers.
this article is another reason i support Counter Currents…
I think Greg’s approach is reasonable. But good luck trying to talk common sense in our movement. However I think the final reality may have to be simply omitting the gay question for the greater good between factions that are not going to agree on this issue and will in all reality never agree, but can put it to one side for the sake of the bigger questions like race.
But I don’t agree that Christianity is all to blame for anti-homosexual feeling. That’s a little similar to when Jewish groups say Christianity is to blame for historical antisemitism.
One last niggling thought I have about gays in the movement: Are they given more of a free pass on race and being critics of Jewish influence than straights by the ADL, SPLC, and authorities in European countries because they have more leftwing ‘capital’ ?
I think that more people than Christians are now reacting to the LGBT movement. When I first understood what homosexuality was at 13 or so in the early 1970s, it took me all of a few minutes to decide it was a non issue.
By 1980s when I had two sons and my husband was heavily involved in the arts, we were pretty much publicly accused of being evil homophobes. Presumably this was because we were a heterosexual reproducing couple with White sons. How awful.
I still don’t care who is or isn’t homosexual. They are not a potential partner for me either way.
However my tolerance for LGBT activism has completely left me. I’m hostile to that. Many of my gay and lesbian friends and acquaintances are also sick of it and say so openly.
Kind of like feminism, loud mouth obnoxious bullies put themselves in charge of others and the mainstream accepts that this is a reflection of reality for homosexuals or women or any designated group.
There is a western tradition of accepting homosexuality of a non exploitative discrete character. My father born in 1920s shared that he had a college friend who he knew was homosexual but he didn’t care because the fellow was nice and they shared similar interests. Many other men I know have maintained lifelong friendships with homosexuals.
“Of course, what makes most people care about homosexuals is the Bible.””
Sorry, No. I am not a Christian, and never have been, but I am increasingly intolerant of homosexuality. My reasoning is sociobiological, not religious.
Homosexual males are not restrained in their sexual behaviour by having to compromise with women. The norms of their relationships are corrosive of civilization – high partner counts, sex with strangers, non-monogamy, even in (what passes among gay men for) long-term committed relationships.
Any normalization or even toleration of homosexuality legitimises these norms in some way, corroding expectations for heterosexual relationships. Or, given that the ruin of heterosexual marriage was achieved long before the normalization of homosexuality, it complicates the task of restoring healthy norms for heterosexual relationships.
Yes there might be the odd exception, but there are always exceptions, you maintain strong norms because they work in most cases.
Solid points. I agree.
I’ve always found it a bit troubling that some of us would put their distaste/hatred of homosexuality before the survival of our people. If someone is contributing more to our cause then they are detracting from it, why would you be opposed to them? Why spend time and energy focusing on them?
It’s not like anyone’s asking you to let them babysit/raise your kids.
My general rule for allowing those in my circle of IRL Alt-Righr friends is: if I wouldn’t feel comfortable with them around my family and kids, I don’t want them in my group of friends. That doesn’t state that I would feel comfortable leaving my kids or family ALONE with them. There’s a difference. There’s plenty of good people I wouldn’t want to leave alone with my kids or family. My wife and family are my responsibility. I might have tremendous respect for someone and count them among my friends, but there would only ever be a handful of people I would truly trust with the care of my family. This is common sense.
As a tangentially related topic:
IMO, homosexuality comes about primarily because of
1. Molestation/sexual/psychological abuse.
2. Hormonal imbalances during pregnancy (see studies, David Duke’s book “My Awakening” actually discusses this a bit).
3. Other genetic factors (possibly related to hormone imbalances).
Numbers 2 & 3 help explain those kids you KNOW are gay from a very young age. Their brains literally resemble those of the opposite sex more closely. Any explanation that doesn’t include some reason why some young kids act and sound flamboyantly homosexual (and become so later in life) is lacking. I don’t think abuse can adequately explain this phenomenon.
To a much smaller degree:
4. Methamphetamine (in particular) and other drug use (look at studies that were presented to the US senate). This is interesting and scary.
5. I guess it is possible for those of relatively less sexual dymorphism to “choose” to be gay, but I have a hard time believing this makes up anything but a tiny percentage of homosexuals.
I am bi. I am a woman. I am a nationalist. I am white. Perfectly said article. Hetero norms should be upheld by all. No waiving rainbow flags or ass chaps allowed. But homos? Sorry we are here already and we have much larger issues we are up against as a group than identity politics. So calm down and focus people. How can we grow if we alienate segments of the movement? I think you can be both respectful and homo.
Is it just me or does the Alt right movement seem to be becomming more and more like an inversion mirrior image of the SJW nonsense? problem reaction solution anyone? “No mgtow” lol…..i’ll be going my own way now……bye.
We’ll still be here when you have grown up a bit.
Jew panics weaken the movement, so how can we armor ourselves against them? There are basically only two options: (1) get rid of all Jews or (2) stop caring about them.
The first option cannot work, for the simple reason that Jew panics do not require the actual presence of Jews but the mere possibility they are present. A white group may be 100% goy, but that cannot prevent a malicious and dishonest person from spreading rumors, making charges, and starting a Jew panic anyway.
This means that the endless “purge” threads on internet forums are pointless.
…Even if the purgers get what they want, it still does not protect them against Jew panics, because the problem is not the presence of Jews, but the specter of Jewishness, the mere possibility of Jewishness, which will never disappear.
This means that the only way to protect a group against Jew panics is simply to stop caring about it. When someone tries to make an issue of Michael Levin or Michael Hart speaking at Amren, nothing stops them deader than simply saying, “I don’t care.” Meaning: I’m not tainted by it. It doesn’t make me dirty. There is no guilt by association. You can’t catch cooties off the internet. So I just don’t care.
lol
One one level of course, this satire is right: people at AmRen don’t care about Jews, and so they are immune to Jew panics. I wish it were not that way, because Jews are not us.
On a deeper level, the analogy is flawed because Jews aren’t us, and there is no possibility that in every new generation of whites, a few Jews might pop up. However, white homosexuals are white, and there will always be a few in every generation.
I agree with your conclusion, but this isn’t true at all:
“Of course, what makes most people care about homosexuals is the Bible, which treats homosexuality not just as abnormal but as an offense against God. This is the source of the intense and irrational anxiety and the sense of moral contagion involved in gay panics.”
Accusations of being a homosexual was the main slur in many parts of the ancient world, especially Rome. Caesar was slurred long before Christianity came to power.
The fact is, homosexuality is a perversion of the ideal (as I think you yourself wrote not too long ago) and therefore some form of ‘homophobia’ is going to be innate in most people. It isn’t a big deal though if we’re honest and open about everything.
Yes, but we aren’t living in the ancient world, and ancient people are not living among us. When most people in America today go into gay panics, it is because they believe it is a sin against the Jewish god.
Caesar was mocked as the “Queen of Bythnia” because it implied that he played a passive role in homosexual intercourse. Nobody would have mocked him for playing an active role. This is very different from the claim that the Romans regarded such behaviors across the board as a sin in the eyes of God.
I can’t say for people who go into ‘gay panics’ since I don’t think I’ve ever been in one, but as many commentators have mentioned, there are plenty of reasons to disapprove of homosexuality besides Christian morals. And at the end of the day, I think most people everywhere have always been put off by it (especially in the modern sense of a man who refuses to adhere to standards of masculinity and heteronormativity) on a visceral level.
My objections to Homosexuality are empirically based.
Its mere presence lures other to do it; it is physically foul and spreads loathsome diseases. It breaks down the body in old age leading to Homosexual Bowel Syndrome. Homosexuals as a group appear sex obsessed and frequently attempt bizarre ways to heighten the sexual experience.
Homosexuals are clearly insane and should be either confined or exiled. It doesn’t hurt the Amish cause when they do this.
Have you, then, been lured to sodomy because of the “mere presence of homosexuality” in our culture?
There are plenty of homosexuals who don’t partake of anal sex at all, or often, let alone partake of the bizarre activities you mention. All that is a rather historically contingent subculture among certain populations. Oscar Wilde wasn’t wearing leather and taking poppers while asking Lord Douglas to get his fist in past the elbow; he wasn’t even engaging in anal sex. The problem is that we don’t see many of the non-freak homosexuals because the Jewish media promotes maximum degeneracy. Most of those non-freaks are equally repulsed.
I didn’t know that the Amish had much of a cause. Is that the future of the White race– living without technology, having to calculate consanguinity because of genetic diseases? Sounds like a Jewish Sabbath. Besides, no doubt there are plenty of homosexuals among the Amish, but they end up marrying and having children, as in most White societies until recently.
Wasn’t Oscar Wilde convicted for committing sodomy with another man? I also remember reading that Wilde was seen sleeping with underaged male prostitutes.
It seems that the man preferred oral and intercrural sex. By Victorian times “sodomy” was a term used to describe almost any sexual encounter between men.
I believe it was Revilo P. Oliver who quoted a top Nazi (Göring?) who had said something like this: “We don’t approve of homosexuality but we can’t control what goes on in peoples bedroom’s and as long as it stays there we don’t care.”
I agree with that.
Interesting article. I am a homosexual, but the path that led me in that direction is somewhat unusual. I lost my biological mother when I was around two or three and my dad remarried a woman who was repulsed by me and I was instinctively frightened by her. I turned to my grandfather who was very maternal with me and I associated him with safety and comfort (imprinting). This is somewhat reminiscent of the attachment studies done by Harry Harlow and the Rhesus macaques; I turned to what was available for affection. When I became a teenage and realized I had no attraction to women I was horrified; I spent years pouring over psychological books and periodicals looking for a cure and unfortunately was unable to find anything even relating to my situation let alone a fix. I could spend the rest of my life feeling sorry for myself but that would be a waste. I cannot be concerned if people find me repulsive, which is their right, because I am more concerned about preserving our culture, race, and natural environment. You will never know about my sexual orientation when I am around you because I blend perfectly with the heterosexual community; it is the homosexual community where I am the outsider. That being said brain scans of several gay men show that their brains resemble female brains. There is probably evolutionary benefits to this; the manifestation of homosexuality being an extreme variant. Regardless, the occurrence of homosexuality is not common enough to threaten a healthy heterosexual community which we must support first and foremost.
I think we can agree that it is good to be hetero-presenting. Maybe we can’t change sexual orientation, but I do believe we can enforce social norms concerning the gay lisp, voting democrat, decadence in fashion, gaudy materialism in interior design, etc. Gay men may have a female brain, but they, like heterosexuals of both genders, should be expected to be discreet, and not exempt from normal mores of civility. The flirtatious faggot is threatening to normal male in group formation, civilized gay men are not.
I made a test: I waited a few days to see how many comments were made on this article regarding homosexuality and those appearing directly before:Durocher’s Case for a Universais Nationalism, Sallis’ rhetorical statement: You Say you want a Revolution; Ostrogniew’s cut in the Left’s flesh and Johnson’s thoughts on Rienzi in Berlin garnered 7, 13, 9 and 7 responses, respectively, while Gay Panic on the Alt Right quickly produced 50.
It shows where a majority of people on the right draw their battle lines, expend their thoughts of displeasure and place the major fault for the disappearance of a livable world. If this to form a basis for an alliance of avantgardists, which is to become a movement leading away from all the implications the dissolution of every aspect of proven and human behavior in personal and policy matters will bring about, then this seems a perilously narrow common understanding.
I was there during the NPI “gay panic” on TRS, and it was stupid and cringeworthy, but I wouldn’t say the Matts were to blame for it. The SPLC warped Terry’s blog post, someone reposted it saying that apparently Heimbach was trying to stone gays, bible LARPers said Heimbach was right, and the whole thing devolved from there. The Matts were just grumbling about Heim being disinvited.
The real problem is the conservative Christian refugees from the latest GOP-purge trying to set up their “moral majority” camp over here. Treating homosexuality as a mental disorder was working fine, we don’t need “traditional morals” to fight “degeneracy” because your multiracial church voted to have gay priests and you’re mad.
Honestly Greg, I think you’ll find “traditionalism” to be a pit fall in the end. It means everything to everyone. It’s a smoke cloud.
Yes, the Matts were to blame for it. I do not believe Parrott’s and Terry’s protestations of innocence and attempts to reframe this. They aren’t honest, so they are personas non grata in my book.
The source of anti-homosexual feeling is actually “perceived effeminacy.” Anti-homosexual feeling and anti-“Metrosexual” feeling are essentially the same thing.
There reasons to oppose effeminacy in a group’s men are obvious.
A homosexual who is not flamboyantly effeminate, who does not promote effeminacy (which can often be hand-in-glove with radical Leftist politics) is not necessarily subject to this feeling from the typical man. I have never seem Jack Donovan promote anything like effeminacy; if anything, very near the opposite.
The question of whether gays can be white nationalists is similar to the question of whether the infertile or the voluntarily childless can be white nationalists.
My instincts say yes. Otherwise, you get into the absurd qualification by child count. But that’s neither here nor there. White nationalism absolutely requires white countries and white people who are capable of and want to reproduce. Of course those conditions must be met.
America’s problem is the Jews, and because America will never confront this problem, it won’t survive as a nation.
I’m kind of reminded of that old Chris Rock routine… “There’s a civil war going on, and there’s two sides: homosexual people and faggots… and faggots got to go!!”
My apologies Greg, let me elaborate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD34oMW0crA
yours truly,
Fred the Fish #10
I am neither a homossexual nor a biologist, and, for these and other reasons, not qualified to talk about the specifically sexual aspects of this subject. I would, nevertheless, like to make a modest contribution to this debate. I think that there is one thing that should be dealt with once and for all in all spheres of civilization, and this thing is the nefarious influence of some interpretations of Christianity on healthy living. This site has already published an excellent article on evangelicals as they relate to Zionism. The line of reasoning of that article should be pursued also regarding other aspects of living and politics, sexuality being possibly one of them. I do not recall one single line said by Jesus in the Gospels that is directly related to sexuality per se. It is obvious to me that it was not on his top list of priorities. The constant referral by evangelicals and, to a lesser extent, other denominations, to the Old Testament, is, in my view, a distortion of the essence of Christianity, a religion which I think is Socratic above all else.
I thank Odin and all my ancestral gods for the role Greg Johnson’s writing has played in leading me out of universalist monotheism and awakening to me to the existential plight of European people.
The idea that men in groups are inherently homosexual started with Leslie Fiedler, an academic literary critic who first published an article on the idea in 1948, and a full-length book in 1966.
The cornerstone of Fiedler’s thesis was his assertion Huckleberry Finn and Nigger Jim were in an implicitly gay relationship, and this was an unconscious expression of Twain’s repressed homosexuality. On this conceit he built an edifice of sophistry which eventually encompassed all of American literature. Fiedler was a Harvard fellow and a Fulbright scholar, and his theory was highly influential in academia. From there it’s trickled down into mainstream liberalism.
Being a true Freudian, Fiedler considered homosexuality a pathology. Today that particular facet of his ideology would put him in the camp of the shitlords. But in context it served its purpose, which was to impugn the heroic aspects of Anglo culture.
As a rhetorical weapon this bit of sophistry remains just as sharp sixty years on. Liberals still consider homosexuality bad when they’re leveling the charge at white men.
Fiedler was Jewish, and a long-time member of the Communist Party U.S.A. Facts which should surprise no one.