Counter-Currents
3,634 words
There is a deep, hermetic lore known only to cultural insiders, a small circle of academics, and a handful of social rogues[1] — namely, the lore of the often-tense relationships between white gays and blacks in those urban neighborhoods that exist in the liminal realm between “ghetto” and “gentrified.”
I first noticed this as a child going to work with my dad in the early 1990s. Several neighborhoods in Columbus, Ohio were undergoing a sort of transformation. It was a trend all over the country at that time, before corporate America, the United States government, and the general population had adopted homosexuality as a core value. Back then gay community landmarks, such as bars, were often found in less desirable parts of town — often meaning where blacks were. Thus, it was no surprise when white gay men started buying distressed houses in the run-down parts of town that were populated almost entirely by blacks. Often these houses had historic or architectural value. The gay couples, who generally had two incomes and no children, had considerable money to spend on fixing up these homes, often to a state better than when they were new, and in some cases becoming coveted real estate.
The construction work on these homes is where my dad and I entered the story. My father was a talented builder and carpenter, with broad residential and light commercial construction expertise. This, combined with a willingness to work in the rougher parts of town, kept him busy on these large restoration projects, and he was often hired as a general contractor to manage an entire job or else to finish particular aspects.
During the summers, when I was off from school, I did not babysit or go to day care; I went to work with my dad. The gay homeowners were not around often, since they were also going to work. We would occasionally see them late in the afternoon or on weekends — or when, of course, the jobs were being bid on, materials were being picked up, or when the project was finished.
I recall a bizarre combination of racial conflict and neighborhoods in flux. As flophouses morphed back into mansions, corner stores with bars on their windows disappeared and chic coffee shops replaced them. This process is commonly called “gentrification,” which connotes the “displacement” of the current residents, who are often non-white and poor, as well as increasing rents and more commercial activity. But much of the conflict occurred between two wings of the progressive coalition, for all over America, the vanguard of the gentrification process consisted disproportionately of white gay men.
One of the few “jobs” I had on these project sites, other than cleaning up and not injuring myself, was to make sure that all my dad’s tools were in the truck at the end of each work day. If anything of value was left behind overnight, there was a significant chance it would be stolen. Indeed, homes under renovation were subject to near-constant theft and vandalism. When the gay homeowners finally moved into the finished homes, their cars were often broken into, while the houses themselves were often vandalized — and worse. And although it didn’t occur as frequently, there were also incidents of these people being beaten and mugged.
Sometimes the people my dad was working for were attacked — always by blacks — but they rarely wanted to say much about it. It was simply seen as part of the cost associated with being on the cutting edge of remaking a neighborhood. As these neighborhoods became fully “gentrified,” their former black residents would become a memory, as they could no longer afford to stay and felt unwelcome for several reasons — the increased police presence being one.
You can buy James O’Meara’s The Homo and the Negro here.
I had not thought much about those days for many years, but then the topic of gentrification came up in a city planning class I took as an undergrad at the Knowlton School of Architecture. A woman with mocha-colored skin and dark, frizzy hair referred to white homosexuals with a scornful tone as “the shock troops of gentrification.” I nearly spit out my coffee and sprained my neck in turning to see who had likened a generally refined population to stormtroopers.
To my amusement, the Professor asked her to elaborate. She referred to the white gay gentrifiers as racist colonialists, and accused them of intentionally displacing “black bodies through financial terrorism.” She had lived in a part of town that had been transformed from a ghetto to some of the highest-valued real estate in the city, causing her and her mother to move when their landlord sold the house they were renting to what must have been a gay couple.
This was by no means the first time I had heard disparaging comments about white men at my university or elsewhere. But it was the first — and perhaps only — time I heard anybody in academia openly refer to gays as victimizers. “They don’t even have families,” the woman said to me when we spoke more about gentrification a week later. I asked if black gays or any other group participate in gentrification as well. She said it is not common, or at least it wasn’t there. I could never figure out if she was more upset that it was whites or gays displacing her and her racial group. It was yet another example of the “intersectionality” that the sociology majors were always on about.
I saw white gay men described as “shock troops” again when reading Sarah Shulman’s book, The Gentrification of the Mind.[2] Just as most academic publications on the topic, the book struggles to reconcile the view that white gay men are victims in society with the idea that they are also perpetrators of a particular type of racism: gentrification.[3]
It turned out that the Professor in my city planning class knew of a documentary that had been filmed only a few miles from campus called Flag Wars (2003), which discussed the topic of gays and gentrification in great detail.[4] We watched it as a class and discussed the themes, which remains one of the most memorable class discussions I have ever been a part of. I hate to admit that I took a certain joy in watching the Professor and my classmates squirm as they claimed that they sided more with the blacks against the gays or the white gays against the blacks.
Flag Wars opens by showing blacks watching white men work on a home next door, then cuts to a realtor setting up a showing of a house that is for sale that is currently being rented. Much of it focuses on the neighborhood going from total neglect to being considered historical, bringing with it a new interest in zoning and code enforcement. With this enforcement comes the city issuing citations against black residents for failing to keep their homes and yards in proper order.
A black man in the community who was subject to zoning and code enforcement describes the entire process as an ethnic cleansing of the neighborhood. The black residents felt that they were suddenly and aggressively being targeted with citations and fines, despite the fact that their homes were in the same condition as they had been for many years. Collapsing porches, trash strewn about, and broken-down cars sitting in yards and alleyways had been a familiar sight for years. They also claim that before white gays started moving into the area, they were never bothered with these types of “nuisances.” An elderly black lady at a council meeting opines that “we didn’t have a problem until they got here,” gesturing at the white gays in the room.
While the blacks were dealing with code violations, the white gays were very concerned with the amount of street crime directed at them, including several drive-by shootings and violent muggings.
The constant pressure on the often-impoverished black residents at the hands of white gays serves several purposes: protecting the property value of the homes the latter had recently purchased and repaired, but also to force those of the former who cannot or will not comply with the new enforcement out of the neighborhood – thus causing their homes to be sold.
This touches on one of the negative aspects of gentrification. When blacks are clustered in a particular part of town, it is easy enough to avoid them. But after gentrification, black residents are displaced, and often end up all over town. Thus, when one neighborhood becomes less black, five other neighborhoods will become more black.
A clip from a local Columbus news station’s report is included in the film, where 500 city residents were asked if the gay pride flag should be allowed to fly at the state house. 67% said no.
During a meeting in which the white and primarily gay and lesbian citizens discussed the crime they are facing, one asks if anybody thinks that the crime is related to them being gay. The resounding response from the white gays was that it wasn’t about being gay at all; their black attackers never called them any slurs, and had no way to know about their sexuality. This suggests it has more to do with being white and moving into what blacks consider to be “their neighborhood,” as well as them seeing the former as soft targets.
“You don’t try to take somebody’s history away from them,” says Ms. Mitchell, an older black woman with chronic health problems, on the prospect of being forced out of her home because she could not afford to bring it into compliance with the city. Ms. Mitchell passed away before the documentary was completed. Her house has now been sitting empty for nearly two decades; I recently drove past it.
Flag Wars is in essence a film about racial conflict between white gays and blacks in a small neighborhood. Nobody in the gay community or academia seemed to see it as such, however. Liberals do not see such a conflict as a racial matter; they see it through either a socioeconomic or a queer lens: the poor blacks are attacking wealthy whites.
For most of the gays involved, it is apparent that their homosexual identity is far more salient for them than their white identity. They see themselves as being attacked for being gay, or perhaps for having money, but not due to their whiteness. And although the gay community’s typical voting patterns, the results of opinion polls among them, and their activism do not generally cause me to feel sympathetic towards them, there is something positive to be said about a group of people who take flophouses and slums and turn them into some of the most aesthetic and historic districts across the country.
I soon learned that the intersection of homosexuality and gentrification was a topic dealt with in a great deal of academic literature going back decades. In my survey of it, there was a recurring theme of racial conflict and the writer’s ever-present difficulty in dealing with the subject matter. Academia has no way of describing a conflict between two groups of people where it sees both of them primarily as victims. Their struggle to frame a discussion of how a group that is part of the Left-wing coalition can be so callous and exacting in their quest to make nice places to live causes tremendous dissonance for them.
Several differing views have emerged in academia’s examination of homosexual urbanism to explain why gay men, and particularly white gay men out of all the types of people united under the rainbow flag banner, are the ones who restore entire neighborhoods and are at the center of cultural projects. A Passion to Preserve: Gay Men as Keepers of Culture by Will Fellows, published in 2005 (and reviewed here by James O’Meara), is a book that discusses architecture, historic preservationism, and homosexuality, and it provided many unexpected insights. One explanation it offers for this issue is that there are inherent qualities in gay men that enable them to become so prominent in preservation efforts. This work does not discuss race at all, however — but many others do.
“Why Are Gay Ghettoes White?” by Charles I. Nero address the racial element of this conflict directly.[5] Nero believes that systemic issues prohibited blacks from fully participating in housing development, such as the Federal Housing Authority and redlining policies that “disadvantaged” black homebuyers. Nero also suggests that the depiction of gay black men in the media further harmed their ability to participate in forming gay neighborhoods. I do not find these explanations compelling, because although there may or may not be legitimate barriers to black homeownership, they always live somewhere, often with other blacks — and the neighborhoods are rarely ever nice.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Truth, Justice, & a Nice White Country here
Fellows, for his part, sees being a preservationist as being intertwined with being a gay man. He anecdotally notes that at many events dedicated to these endeavors, gay men drastically outnumber gay women – as well as all other groups. But Nero and Shulman see things largely through a racial lens, and I believe this is likely due to an interaction effect. Nero is a black man, and Shulman is Jewish. I agree that whiteness plays an integral role in the story of gay gentrification and preservation, but we disagree as to why this is the case. Where they see whiteness as a malign force, I view it as what distinguishes a nice, clean, highly-valued neighborhood from a ghetto. And just as the real reason that white gays have successfully formed enclaves was not due to their gayness alone, but also largely to their whiteness, the reason black gays did not participate in the process to the same extent is not due to their gayness, but rather their blackness.
A more recent book is The Life and Afterlife of Gay Neighborhoods, edited by Alex Bitterman and Daniel Baldwin, and it contains many noteworthy insights. One is that, just as many distinct groups of people, various studies of homosexuals found that they wanted to live in gay neighborhoods in order to be around other gay people.[6] Although there are aspects of white gay culture that I find to be fundamentally Right-wing, it must be noted that in all the US presidential elections between 2008 and 2020, gays voted about in favor of Democrat candidates by a ratio of three to one. Even more paradoxical, perhaps, is that there is overlapping support between gays and Black Lives Matter. From a distance, it seems obvious that they should be allies who provide mutual support, given that they are two groups that see themselves as historically marginalized by mainstream or white society, respectively, and who retain a strong victim mentality and status despite heavy pandering from nearly every facet of society. Yet, when white gays and blacks live near each other, white gays experience criminality at the hands of their black neighbors.
In A Passion to Preserve, Fellows looks deeply into the phenomenon of gay men who are acting as cultural guardians. Fellows posits — and I agree — that gay men are not simply straight men who differ in their sexuality, but rather that gay men are intrinsically different at a deep-rooted level. What some people view as “stereotypes” about gay men, such as their propensity to work as hair stylists, fashion designers, interior designers, and house restorers, Fellows views as archetypical. There is something essential in their being as gay men that draws them to these professions and hobbies. In a passage that I did not expect to read in a contemporary book about gay culture, Fellows writes, “Gay men are a prominent and highly talented presence in many female-dominated fields that revolve around creating, restoring, and preserving beauty, order, and continuity.” One might have expected to find such a statement in a twentieth-century text extolling the virtues of nationalism, but less so in a book about the intersection of architecture, historic preservation, and queer theory. It sounds almost Nietzschean.
A few pages later, Fellows writes:
My driving need has always been to preserve things, not for myself, but for posterity, to establish a continuity, not a senseless ending. I am inspired by that idea. Whatever you can accomplish with your two hands, I thought, you must do. . . . I am not concerned with dead stones or lifeless furniture. They are embodiments that mirror the history of the men who built them, who lived in them. Senseless destruction does away with a former way of life, the foundation of our spiritual and aesthetic culture, and irretrievable impoverishes our daily lives.
I again found this striking. These are all themes I have written about, representing what I consider to be the deepest and most fundamental characteristics of proper Right-wing philosophy.
Later, Fellows remarks that after the Second World War, there was a strong trend against preservationism that swept across the country. “Tearing down the old and erecting the new became something of a national obsession,” he notes. The view that the Second World War marked a boundary between the old world and the new order, which is replete with iconoclasm and spiritual decline, is a very important idea to me. Fellows recognizes this, too, albeit for different reasons. I could not help but feel kinship with Fellows and others like him in some ways. They, too, are fighting against the same forces of decay and ugliness, and despite our differences, we also have much in common. There is a type of romanticism present in these virtues and ways of being. The white homosexual is concerned with preserving the past and proclaiming the supremacy of the established order in opposition to the actions of the vulgarians.
Fellows identifies five common traits among gay men who work in preservation: gender atypicality, hemophilia (the love of houses), romanticism, aestheticism, and connection — i.e., continuity-mindedness. Fellows remarks that “[t]he historic preservation movement is said to have begun with people who walked among ruins.” He then quotes an Art Deco enthusiast who decries the low quality of today’s mass-produced architecture and remarks, “I was born out of time.” Finally, Fellows notes that the men who restore homes and neighborhoods, and curate art and heirlooms are men who “cherish tradition, family, community, a feeling for place, a sense of flowing history.” Born out of time, walking among ruins, a sense of flowing history — there are occasions when this book sounds like Savitri Devi, Oswald Spengler, or Julius Evola.
White gay men have a quality about them that draws them into preserving architecture and creating beauty where others have dismissed the possibility. No other group has so consistently and readily gone into neighborhoods in ruins and restored them to their bygone eminence. It is a behavior not often seen among most straight couples, or even in other segments of the gay community. It is something unique that manifests in white gay men. They are not without faults as a cohort, and have done their fair share of aiding in the decline of a once-great society. All the same, they have walked in the ruins of our cities and become determined not to let them lie in decay forever. They then set about rescuing them, house by house, in the hopes that they might be enjoyed by posterity. Thus, the story of white gay men may serve as an essential lesson and an undeniable part of our shared culture as whites who wish to keep our culture safe from senseless destruction while we work to restore a sense of beauty, order, and continuity.
I am thankful that I can tell the story of gays and urbanism from a perspective that is no longer accepted in academia. And I am grateful for the white gay friends I have who understand the importance of aesthetics more than most. Thank you for reading, and have a happy conclusion to Pride Month.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
Notes
[1] This story of racial conflict and urbanism has been on my mind for nearly a decade. I have wanted to share it, adding an illiberal perspective on a topic that I have witnessed firsthand. But due to homosexuality being something that causes tremendous derision among the Right, especially in an era of extreme LGBTQ+ proliferation in entertainment and the schools, I initially avoided the subject. This story combines urbanism, real estate, and racial strife, which has never been discussed by somebody with my particular worldview.
[2] Sarah Schulman, The Gentrification of the Mind: Witness to a Lost Imagination (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013); Emily Douglas, “Intellectual Property: Sarah Shulman’s The Gentrification of the Mind,” Los Angeles Review of Books, June 8, 2012.
[3] Thomas Philip Lick. “The Paradoxical Nature of Gentrification in Long Beach’s Gayborhood,” KCET, September 27, 2017; Peter Moskowitz, “When It Comes to Gentrification, LGBTQ People are Both Victim and Perpetrator,” Vice, March 16, 2017; and Feargus O’Sullivan, “The ‘gaytrification’ effect: why gay neighborhoods are being priced out,” The Guardian, January 13, 2016.
[4] Linda Good Bryant & Laura Poitras, Flag Wars, 2003. “Shot over a four-year period, Linda Goode Bryant and Laura Poitras’ Flag Wars is a poignant and very personal look at a community in Columbus, Ohio, undergoing gentrification. What happens when gay white homebuyers move into a working-class black neighborhood? As the new residents restore the beautiful but rundown homes, black homeowners must fight to hold onto their community and heritage. The inevitable clashes expose prejudice and self-interest on both sides, as well as the common dream to have a home to call your own. Winner of the Jury Award at the South by Southwest Film Festival, Flag Wars is a candid, unvarnished portrait of privilege, poverty and local politics taking place across America. An Independent Television Service (ITVS) and National Black Programming Consortium (NBPC) co-presentation. A Diverse Voices Project (DVP) Selection.”
[5] Charles I. Nero, “Why are Gay Ghettoes White?” Black Queer Studies, Duke University Press, October 2005.
[6] Alex Bitterman & Daniel Baldwin Hess, eds., The Life and Afterlife of Gay Neighborhoods (New York: Springer Publishing, 2021), 94.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
21 comments
Tools being stolen. I remember Ahmad Arbary going into homes under construction just to check out the joists.
It doesn’t take gentrification to redistribute the black population into other areas. The city of East Cleveland had a population of about 45,000 in the mid 1980’s. Now it’s down to about 12,000. Nobody gentrified it. They destroyed it themselves. Then moved on like a swarm of locusts. It takes about 30 years for the human wrecking balls to polish off any neighborhood.
Look at South Africa. Apartheid ended in 1994. Thirty Years later how are things looking there?
I agree with you that gay white men do a splendid job fixing up decrepit neighborhoods, but they are typically small in area and don’t effect too many blacks.
Interesting take here. I oppose gentrification because blacks pushed out of their neighborhoods will have to find other neighborhoods to take over and ruin, which you did mention. As for blacks being upset about it, they should think about the countless white neighborhoods that they’ve taken over and destroyed since the late 1950s. Then they blame us for the conditions they created.
Thanks for this article, Rich. I am a White lesbian who is a regular reader of Counter-Currents and your work specifically. I think there are interesting racialist analyses of gay and lesbian culture that could be conducted, as you have, if only homosexuality weren’t such a contentious topic among White nationalists and if the newly branded “queer” community hadn’t been rolled into the current “POC”-centric liberal coalition.
Historical White gay and lesbian culture, for all its issues, does have a certain vitality and creativity to it that we are rapidly losing as gay and lesbian culture gets “blacker and browner” and more corporate controlled like the rest of the West. The “POC” coalition is even trying to rewrite gay and lesbian history to pretend blacks accomplished everything to do with gay and lesbian culture and “whitey” simply stole it from them, as they do with most White accomplishments.
I personally found my way to White nationalism based on how open non-white gays and lesbians are about hating Whites and experiencing extreme jealousy towards us (jealousy of both a sexual, in the sense that they’re envious of our race’s beauty and bitter that we don’t want to sleep with them, and non-sexual nature in the sense of general envy of White people’s accomplishments). It was immediately apparent to me that our races could never live together if gay non-whites couldn’t even act in a friendly manner towards White gays.
Anyway, I’m not looking to start a debate about the merits of homosexuality since preserving our race is ultimately the most important topic but wanted to be upfront about being a lesbian in the interests of honesty. I also agree with most people on the Right that the “queer” community is going too far in pushing stuff on kids and normal straight people. My sincere hope is to just be left alone in a future White ethnostate but also not push anything on anyone either.
That’s awesome! I was actually recently wondering if there were any lesbian white nationalists and why there seemed to be so few! Glad to know you are part of our number!
Thanks! I think White lesbians, like White women generally, are less likely to embrace “contrarian” views because women are naturally inclined to conform to social norms/pressure, which obviously makes sense from an evolutionary perspective (as in, your children are not going to survive if your clan hates you) but makes them easier to subvert when the culture is unhealthy. However, similar to most other types of White women, they don’t necessarily practice what they preach – as in, most White lesbians I know will parrot the “woke” stuff but live in mostly White enclaves, don’t associate with non-whites as friends or partners, cross the street if they see a black guy coming towards them, etc. I’m not saying that to defend “woke” Whites in any way; I just think it’s a biological reality that most White women just go with whatever is popular and would come around in a healthier sociopolitical climate.
I have no interest in subverting the White nationalist movement or forcing anyone to accept homosexuality, so I stay out of these discussions and try to not be a problem. The only two cents I have to contribute to the movement on homosexuality is that I genuinely believe that my homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable. Similar to what Rich alludes to about gay men having the brains of women in many ways, I have always felt that I am genetically hardwired to be very different from straight women and more similar to men. I have many typical female traits, but I have also always had the stereotypical “high-functioning autistic”-style way of thinking that is almost exclusively seen in men and is rarely seen in women, to the point where I was put in a gifted program as a child where everyone was basically a high IQ autistic sort of person and I was one of only like 5 girls there compared to like 30 boys. I also have thankfully never experienced sexual trauma, and I don’t hate men at all and never liked the man-hating brand of lesbianism even before I moved to the Right, so I don’t think it’s learned behaviour in my case.
I don’t think being “born this way” means people have to accept homosexuality. I also think there probably are people who engage in homosexuality situationally (like the “gay in prison” phenomenon) or because of trauma who are different from “genetic gays” and could possibly become heterosexual. All I’m saying is that, in my personal opinion, if a future White ethnostate wants to eliminate homosexuality, I think pursuing a eugenics program of some kind so that future gays are not born is going to be far more effective than the traditional Christian view of thinking it’s a sin/temptation that can conceivably happen to anyone and can be “prayed away”.
How do explain then why there are so many pairs of twins where one is gay and the other straight?
I think the lack of lesbians in wn is probably just a function of so few women in it, ie a small percentage of a small percentage of a small percentage is, well, very small, lol. But then lesbians seem so militant in other arenas, so idk.
Re: the twins – Like I said, I do think there are probably a certain percentage of gays who weren’t born gay but instead ended up that way due to things like sexual trauma. That said, my hunch is these cases are still epigenetic, meaning there was some sort of underlying “gay gene” to begin with that was “turned on” as a result of the person’s circumstances/environment.
Another reason, outside of my own experiences, why I think it’s very difficult to “choose” homosexuality is that it is very trendy, as everyone knows, to identify as queer/bisexual/sexually fluid etc. right now. In fact, it isn’t just a Gen Z phenomenon since it has been trendy off and on, especially among women, for a few decades. Many straight liberals would love to be able to wake up gay tomorrow for the social clout that it would give them in their circles. However, even though the percentage of people identifying as some flavour of “queer” has risen every year, the percentage of people who are actually engaging in homosexual behaviour remains consistently low from year to year. It’s a well-known stereotype, among gay people and probably straight people too, that most bisexual-identified women will never actually date or sleep with a woman. I know this isn’t exactly a scientific observation, but I think the fact that the segment of the population that is most desperate to be “queer” is still largely unable to will themselves to sleep with someone of the same sex, even once, shows there’s a genetic influence to it that you either have or don’t.
Of course, this is all mostly a guess based on my own experiences and observations. I could be completely wrong. We’ll never know until we’re able to research this issue in a less politically correct environment.
Thank you for your perspective. Have you met others in your community with a similar perspective?
I haven’t met other White lesbians who openly have similar views, though I’m careful about my views in real life like many others so that I can remain employed. There was an incident a few years ago in Toronto where a White lesbian couple were kicked out of a gay bar for having old school white pride tattoos, so they are probably out there to some degree. When I am open about my views, I usually frame it as being a critic of mass immigration and don’t explicitly get into the racial piece except through implication. (I know the race problem is larger than immigration, but I’m Canadian, so we don’t have large amounts of blacks who have been here for generations like the US. Most of our race problems are the result of non-white immigrants who have arrived within the past 35 or so years, so it’s easy to talk about race in a more socially acceptable way by focusing on immigration policy.)
I’ve encountered a fair number of White gay men who similarly are openly critical of mass immigration, particularly our current federal government’s policy of permitting absolutely mind-boggling numbers of mostly Indian/”South Asian” immigrants to enter the country, and might have more racialist views deep down that they keep somewhat veiled like myself.
In addition to the obvious fact that most Third World immigrants hate gays and lesbians to the point of being willing to carry out acts of violence against us (in keeping with their general greater tendency towards violent crime), gay culture also encourages the worship of beauty in both bodies and surroundings as Rich’s article discusses. Gay culture has also been impacted less by political correctness in dating than “straight culture”, so although that is changing a bit as wokeness spreads, it’s also still socially acceptable among gays to openly talk about certain races being less attractive than others and to specify racial preferences in your online dating profile. Indian/”South Asian” immigrants, to put it mildly, aren’t exactly known for physical beauty, cleanliness and refined behaviour. I have noticed that in particular has been driving an increased hostility towards mass immigration among White gays in Canada – they don’t like watching Indian immigrants make their country dirtier and its people uglier.
I’m a male homosexual born 1965, currently living near Manchester in the north of England. My sexual orientation is something that I’ve always been aware of and I’ve had to accept. My route to White nationalism probably has its origins going back to early childhood; older members of my family like to remind me of a time when aged about three out with my parents, I saw a black lady stood next to a black car and I said “that lady is as black as the car !” – I was immediately reprimanded by my grandmother – I can just about remember it. Repulsed by ugliness both physical and social I’ve always appreciated physical beauty and associated this with aspiration for that which is better.
Despite coming from what can be best described as an upper-working class background, as a child I sought out friends of a higher social caliber. I wasn’t a stereotypical fairy boy who liked only to play with girls, but I was certainly far away from being a tough guy. I preferred my own company and liked to make things – cloth, wood, metal, plastic. I noticed very early on that on the whole, my friendship group was made up of other youngsters who also happened to be more physically attractive and inquisitive compared to the kids in my immediate neighbourhood, in addition I could talk to them about different and interesting things. I had some inkling that the races were different in terms of ability in addition to appearances, however I didn’t hate them – or at least I felt that I shouldn’t, and that to raise the subject of race in polite company was the kiss of death.
By the time I was in my mid-teens, I was aware of what the long-term consequences of large scale non-white immigration into White countries would bring in terms of its genetic impact – I didn’t want the population of MY country, or indeed ANY White country to turn into an ugly and uniform dark-eyed, round headed, short and dumpy, light brown sludge colour, unable to improve and develop itself and governed by inefficient, bullying and corrupt institutions.
I’ve been involved in ‘the movement’ on an on-and-off basis for forty years but have always kept my personal life private. The Nationalist movement both here in the UK and from what information I’ve picked up, the US is fractured along class lines – street level rabble-rousing with at its bottom extremity, socially and physically degenerate costume-wearing inadequates with revenge fantasies, plastic stahlhelms etc, that ordinary, socially conventional people – some of whom may well be lesbians and homosexuals are repulsed by.
The upper level of this movement finds expression through forums provided by ‘Counter-Currents’, ‘American Renaissance’ and ‘The Occidental Observer’ etc.
A previous commentator – ‘Judge Mandos’ 29/6/23 @1.18pm referenced Nietzche’s observation that a man with a warrior soul sets upon himself in times of peace, but when faced with violence finds himself on a path of self-actualisation. I mention this because during my mid twenties, I dropped out of the movement partly due to burn-out and the lack of overall progress that the movement was making, but also because of inner turmoil regarding my sexual identity in relation to the movement; I felt that I just didn’t belong among the types of individuals I encountered, many of whom at best I found humourless, bombastic, inflexible, unimaginative and uninspiring; at worst ignorant, uncouth, thuggish and criminally-inclined; I noticed it was a symbiotic relationship of what appeared to be two sets of losers. There were also very few people my own age and those that were, I had very little in common with.
Depressed and dispirited I embraced a period of hedonism having many casual encounters but eventually aged 28 finding someone I formed a relationship with that lasted for twelve years. He was seven years younger than me. Despite me never telling him of my politics, he was pretty race-aware, finding sub-Saharan Africans physically ugly and primitive. I’ve been voluntarily celibate for the last 17 years. Incidentally – I live in a nice ‘White Flight’ neighbourhood; I just keep myself to myself -but I get on with everybody.
My Fight? – The fight for White Survival. My sexual identity is my business and is secondary to the cause for which I struggle. I inflict my personal life on nobody and do not want it fetishized or used as a money-spinning enterprise for a sludge brown ‘Globo-homo’. Yes, I’m an imperfect individual and perhaps some readers of this site do not welcome my commentary – but the clarion call of battle sounds and my path towards self-actualisation awaits. Remember the gigantic struggle waged by Mother Europe against the anti-civilisational forces of Bolshevism between 1941 and 1945? Volunteers from all over Europe donned field grey and were united in a common struggle for the continued existence of Europe – our home and originator. Let’s all fight shoulder to shoulder in the shield wall!
Of course, the neighborhoods that gentrifiers push blacks out of were originally built by whites, often white ethnics.
Being anti-urbanism, I never really put two and two together because I assumed gentrification was mostly a SWPL thing. I heard that decades ago homosexuals had to go to the ‘bad areas’ of town to get their fix. But this makes it sound like the derelict areas were merely a process because gays were in the midst of fixing it up. Not sure if that’s really true. There isn’t much positivity (no pun intended) involving anything LGBT besides how it negatively affects nonwhites and feminism. If you’re not helping proliferate white birthrates you should be helping suppress nonwhite birthrates. So I support evangelizing LGBT into nonwhite culture. The more LGBT spreads to diversity the better. AIDS/HIV spread like wildfire in gay and black communities, alongside hard drugs. But then it gradually spread to normal white communities. I don’t see any benefit to gentrification. It really is just exiling black populations to white suburbia. Urbanization only suppresses birthrates because of unavoidable cosmopolitanism. Let the blacks have these Bantustans. It’s better to have all of these major cities like London, Paris and Berlin housing nearly all of the nonwhites because it will be that much easier to besiege and deport these concentrated elements when the time comes, and until then allow all the problems of urbanization (violence, drugs, overcrowding etc) to deracinate their fecundity.
Geez, where are all these homosexuals who build, and restore? I remember seeing them lurking around public restrooms, buggering each other in park bushes and trying to buy White teenagers at the Port Authority in NY. There’s nothing high-toned about using your rectum as sex organ. That’s not what it’s for.
Good article, Rich. You write about some of the most interesting topics; it’s a pleasure to read what you’ve got to say, and how you say it.
I’ve always been fascinated by the insularity of gays and lesbians. In North Carolina I lived by an older gay couple with an immaculate house. One of them grew orchids. He was amicable, refined like the poet James Merrill.
I hope that gay white men and women, who look with bewilderment upon the contemporary LGBT disaster (not to mention the unwaivering hostility of blacks), will find your article, recognize some common bonds, and feel welcome enough to hang around.
Most white homosexuals are extremely Liberal.
They March with Black Lives Matter, they vote for the worst Democrats and for people who stack the courts with white-hating minorities, and endlessly push for “anti racism” everywhere. They push for regulations to freedom of speech, they shut down speakers, and they are strong supporters of Affirmative Action and abortion for whites.
Sorry, but no, white gays should not be praised in any way. I believe the overwhelming majority of them are equally complicit in destroying whites and the United States. It doesn’t matter if they’re into the arts or if they spend money to remodel decrepit buildings. Plenty of straight whites do these things too — and they don’t have to bow down to people, groups, organizations, and political parties who continue to harm our nation and destroy our people.
This sounds more like an argument for their political disempowerment more than anything. I read this piece mostly as an observation of a social reality.
It seems that, whether we like it or not, there are a few lessons to be drawn from the gays on a political level.
If they’re able to drive the cultural enrichment out of their neighborhoods by essentially being really pushy about it, then there’s no reason Joe & Jane White can’t do likewise.
It’s true that Joe and Jane White might be able endure the hardship, aggravation, and potential violence involved in the Reconquista of a rundown, ‘diverse’ neighbourhood. However, their potential role as the pointy end of a re-colonization campaign is blunted when there are children in the picture. Helicopter parenting and private schools can insulate their kids from some of the problems associated with living proximate to Tae-Shawn, but it won’t stop the collateral damage of a 3:00 am drive-by.
Gay men appear to have both a lower risk profile and a higher risk tolerance. This is the perfect combination for their service as shock troops in the service of gentrification. Despite the propaganda that the regime (golden) showers upon us in books and movies, for the most part, they tend to be childless and seem to prefer it that way. Without children to protect and care for, the more idealistic among them are freed up to pursue aesthetic projects, as excellently described by Mr. Houck. As for risk tolerance, it is well understood by those of us in these circles. Unfortunately, in its basest state, it finds its expression in promiscuous sexual hedonism (now reframed as ‘queer joy’), shameless attention seeking to the point of sociopathy, and the abuse of drugs and alcohol. However, with suitable moral suasion and positive reinforcement, could these vices be transformed into virtues? Can they by enlisted in the service of the Good? It may be similar to the man with a warrior soul, who, as per Nietzsche, sets upon himself in times of peace. Yet the same man when faced with violence finds himself on a path of self-actualization.
More questions than answers I’m afraid. Good article.
I would add that hipsters, artists, musicians, etc. have also contributed to this type of gentrification, though some of them lack the same amount of disposable income. I have seen city governments use it as a tactic to encourage gentrification, calling some newly fertile area an ‘arts district’ and offering incentives to artists in the like. It is encouraging an influx of people willing to put in work to clean up an area that the city government lacks the funds or desire to do so, and that the recent residents seems to not have made the same effort. I can understand that a poor person cant afford to do a big rehab on a house they may have inherited. But picking up trash, sweeping up broken bottles, mowing the lawn… You don’t need a fancy contractor to do that.
The groups influxing into these areas are generally pretty liberal/progressive. I respect that they practice what they preach. Compare this to suburban liberals who will slap a BLM sign on their lawn but wouldn’t dream of living in a neighborhood where George Floyd would be walking down the sidewalk or their kids would be in class with Floyd’s kids. The progressive gentrifiers skew towards young and perhaps feeling a little invincible against crime. I have seen some of the aging ones start to feel their mortality and grow weary of an endless battle against bad behavior.
I think some of the animus shown towards LGB from this crowd comes from having little exposure to them. Most of what you hear comes from young progressive loudmouths in social media, not that coworker whose personal life you didn’t know about. That community skews left but it is not homogeneous. As with every demographic, including whites, the closer to age 20, the more likely they are wildly progressive, unrealistic and demanding the implausible.
As with most media distortions, gentrification is portrayed as an intentional assault on the poor. While it is true that renters may be displaced by a building sale or rising rents, this is less likely to happen to blacks who own their home. Property taxes may rise, but slower than rents. Yeah, and why are property taxes much higher in cities with a lot of poor compared to affluent white suburbs? Any of that money disproportionately going to certain groups? More common to my eyes are partly gentrified areas, in which there are groups staying put, yet still seemingly not putting in much effort into their property (and to be fair, I’ve seen whites among this crowd too).
Another media distortion is calling a neighborhood ‘historically black’ when a more accurate term would be ‘most recently black’. The sort of homes mentioned in this article were typically white neighborhoods. Then there was a period of white and jewish flight, with the black influx. Then when whites move back in there seems to be some sort of collective amnesia over who was there when the neighborhood was built.
Finally, the idea that blacks are being displaced and scattered to white areas. This seems to be an unofficial policy that even the Democrats are cool with. There is an idea that they will function better when around new peers with a better functioning neighborhood. Perhaps I’m a little bit of an ‘accelerationist’ and I think it important to sway the minds of all those fake left suburbanites who love to look like progressive democrats, but essentially have a Not In My Backyard ethos should some low income housing or drug rehab be proposed in their area. Of course, not wanting to look racist, the clever ones find some convoluted legalese way to ‘Just Say No’, such as Zoning regulations or Restrictive Covenants.
This is the most interesting gay-related article that I’ve seen in a long time. Thank you for writing it.
The alliance of white liberal gays with the establishment is going to inevitably backfire. White gays will find that any type of special position they previously had on the progressive stack will be surpassed by trans, Jews and blacks, just like how white women were manipulated for a while, only to be discarded as “Karens.” Siding with a regime that wants to import third worlders who adhere to Sharia Law or are otherwise hostile to them is not a bright idea. It is not an oversimplification to say that everything eventually boils down to racial struggle.
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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment