web analytics
Homosexuality Zeus

Greg Johnson on homosexuality

In the recent, colorful thread of the article “Fuck Christianity!” in this blog, I expressed pretty heavy criticism about non-closet homosexuals in the white nationalist movement: those who unabashedly and aggressively boast their transvestite-like lifestyles to the general public. Today, Greg Johnson published an apologia of homosexuality at Counter-Currentsin French!

My essay-reply will appear in a subsequent entry. For the moment let’s just reproduce the article in English, originally published at VNN in 2002 under the pseudonym of F.C.I. Clarke:

Achilles tending Patroclus’ wounds from a red-figure kylix by the Sosias Painter from about 500 B.C. in the Staatliche museum in Berlin [image chosen by Johnson].

Homosexuality and White Nationalism: Two Arguments for Tolerance

I must protest Andrew Westphal’s “Homosexuality Ain’t Cool” and other examples of queer-bashing on VNN. I have two arguments for why this is misguided and for why tolerance is a good thing for the White Nationalist movement.

First, homosexuality is beside the point.

Because of the distorting lens of the Jewish media, it is easy to think that all homosexuals are promoters of the Jewish agenda. And leftist gays really are repulsive. So it is tempting to make disparaging comments about them just because it is so politically incorrect and because it pisses off the right people. But this is a serious tactical mistake.

White Nationalism should be a one-issue political outlook. White Nationalism is for the interests of Whites and against the interests of our racial enemies. Period. Anything else is beside the point. That means that White Nationalists must work to unite all Whites into a self-conscious racial community, rallying around our common racial interests. White Nationalism has only one message for homosexuals: White homosexuals have more important interests in common with other Whites than they do with non-White homosexuals. We have to resist falling for any form of the divide and conquer strategy used by our enemies to destroy our solidarity as a prelude to destroying our race. Battles between gays and straights, men and women, pagans and Christians, Nordics and Mediterraneans, Celts and WASPs, Germans and Slavs, etc. have no place in the White Nationalist movement. These will always be used by our enemies to divide and subvert us.

Intolerance of homosexuality does not just divide the White population, it divides the White Nationalist movement. Ernst Röhm was not the last homosexual to be attracted to White Nationalism. I have met a number of homosexuals in the contemporary White Nationalist movement, and I have my suspicions about a few others. All of these people, however, are intelligent and accomplished. They are real assets to the movement. Those without families are freer to speak their minds because they give fewer hostages to fortune. They also have more free time and more disposable income to devote to the cause. Quite a number of homosexual men do not fit the effeminate stereotype. They are masculine, and appreciate masculine things like facts, logic, and forthright action. And even effeminate gay men can make a real contribution. Pim Fortuyn was ideologically a mixed-bag, but he had the potential to move the Netherlands significantly to the Right, and his fruity persona only helped his cause. The media found it difficult to paint a flamboyant old fop who fussed over floral arrangements and doted over his lapdogs as the next Hitler.

A unified White Nationalist movement does not require that all the different White Nationalist subgroups follow the same strategy. That would be counter-productive. The more different strategies pursued, the more chance that someone will hit on a winner. It does not require that all groups co-operate with one another either. It does not require that they like one another. It does not require that gays and straights share pup tents and take showers together. The minimum requirement for White unity is simply this: We all must focus our energies on pursuing our common goal by whatever path we choose, and we must resist wasting our time and energy on squabbles that divide us.

Second, intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish.

Westphal is apparently a Christian. If you ask Christians why they think homosexuality is a sin, they cannot point to any saying of Jesus. Jesus saw fit to condemn divorce but not sodomy. Christians have to turn to the Old Testament, to the record of the Jews and their wanderings, crimes, superstitions, and hatreds. There we find homosexuality condemned as a capital crime. Why? The whole aim of the Jewish law is to set Jews apart from the rest of humanity. The Jews condemned buggery because they and all their neighbors were engaging in it. Homosexual pedophilia, which still remains a taboo in our culture, was widely practiced by the ancient Aryan peoples of the Mediterranean world. The Persians, Greeks, and Romans all practiced it, including some of the manliest men in history and legend, like Achilles and Alexander the Great.

Technically, the Greeks and others were not pedophiles, who pursue children, for they focused their attention on young men who were well past puberty and ready to begin military training. The ancients regarded homosexual relationships as completely consistent with marriage and family life, and they frowned upon men who formed exclusively homosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships were also bound by a host of rules and taboos. There was nothing of the modern amoral free-for-all. But there is no question that homosexual behavior was not only tolerated by ancient Aryan peoples, it was considered normal, in some cases even ideal. It was ascribed to the gods (Zeus and Ganymede) and lauded by poets, philosophers, and historians. It is hard to maintain hateful Jewish attitudes toward homosexuality if one really understands and appreciates the greatness of classical pagan civilization.

As poisonous as the Old Testament’s moral condemnation of homosexuality may be, it is based on a realistic conception of human nature. Judeo-Christianity condemns homosexuality as a sin. A sin is a matter of choice. And nobody is immune to sin. If a heterosexual is a person who is immune to homosexual attractions, then the Judeo-Christian viewpoint implies that there is no such thing as a heterosexual. If a homosexual is a person who cannot help but be attracted to people of the same sex and has no choice in the matter, then the Judeo-Christian viewpoint implies that there is no such thing as a homosexual either. There are just people, all of whom have the capacity to be tempted by homosexual attractions and to choose heterosexual attractions. Thus there is no room for moral self-righteousness.

Matters became worse in the late Nineteenth-Century, when psychologists — some but not all of them Jews — created a new paradigm for understanding sexuality. There were no longer homosexual and heterosexual desires, which can be found in all people and can be controlled by our faculty of choice. There were now homosexual and heterosexual people, and what made a person one or the other was generally thought to lie outside of our choice and control. One’s sexual proclivities suddenly became a whole “lifestyle,” a whole “identity,” giving sex an inflated importance in the scheme of things. It was not long before Freud started speculating that the whole soul can be understood in terms of sexuality. This new and false conception of sexuality has caused immense suffering and damage to our race.

First of all, it has created a great deal of anxiety for men and women who experience homosexual attractions at one time or another. In pagan societies, these desires could be acknowledged, understood, and even expressed if one chose to. In Judeo-Christian society, such desires were repressed, but their mere presence said nothing more about one’s identity than one is a sinner and subject to temptation — just like everybody else. Today, homosexual desires cause great anxiety and psychological anguish. People worry if they fall into a small and stigmatized sexual subspecies, totally different from the rest of humanity. A young man gets aroused wrestling with a friend and suddenly has a psychological crisis on his hands. He wonders if he is sick. He feels alienated from his family and peers. He wonders if he will have to move to the city and buy a feather boa.

Second, this anxiety has chilled same-sex friendships and male bonding, and it is the bonded male group, the Männerbund, that is the foundation of all higher forms of civilization, particularly Aryan civilizations. It is amazing to read accounts of male friendships from earlier centuries, for example in Augustine’s Confessions or Montaigne’s Essays. It was possible for men to frankly express their love for one another without fearing the stigma of homosexuality, because that was an identity that simply did not exist before the late Nineteenth century. (Today, these expressions of affection are read through the distorting lens of “queer theory,” and Augustine and Montaigne and countless other figures have been “outed.”)

Third, those who decide that they do not merely have homosexual desires, but are “homosexuals” are trapped by this self-concept into an exclusively homosexual lifestyle, which not only carries health risks, but also prevents them from affirming whatever heterosexual desires they might also have. It cuts them off from marriage and family life, which could be combined with homosexual relationships openly in pagan societies and on the sly in Judeo-Christian societies.

Fourth, it has created the heterosexual, who thinks he is immune from same-sex attractions. This allows some heterosexuals to fuse Jewish intolerance with self-righteousness, turning them into queer-bashing bullies like Westphal.

All these destructive consequences could be alleviated if we freed our minds from the legacy of Jewish hatred and intolerance. Queer-Bashers are in the grip of Jewry without even knowing it. White Nationalism requires that we de-Jew our thinking, but many White Nationalists have no idea of just what a radical change of outlook that requires.

Postscript of 4 March 2012

In his article Greg does not make the distinction I made in the hatnote between discreet homos and what in some places of Latin America are called Locas: the effeminate queers who aggressively boast their queerness publicly.

When Johnson wrote: “Battles between gays and straights…” the phrase immediately reminded me a former internet friend. In a now closed forum, Daniel Mackler used the phrase “gays and straights” iteratively as if homosexuality was… healthier than heterosexuality! (Elsewhere I have debunked Mackler, a New York Jew that predicates the idea that we should have no kids.)

There are several obvious fallacies in Johnson’s article that are easy to rebut. Yes: Ernst Röhm was homosexual and I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Führer’s tolerance of him. (In fact, I like Hitler’s repentance of having been influenced by Himmler’s innuendo and ordering Röhm to be executed in the Night of the Long Knives.) But Röhm was the perfect antithesis of the Locas. We could imagine what would have happen if some Locas organized a gay parade in the Third Reich!

Johnson mentions Pim Fortuyn. But Fortuyn was no white nationalist whatsoever. When I was involved in the counter-jihad movement I was amazed with a video of Fortuyn telling his audience that he had to stop the Islamization of Holland—because it reminded him the treatment of white women by male whites in the 1950s! Like his successor Geert Wilders, Fortuyn never escaped the liberal box.

Johnson mentions Achilles and Alexander the Great. What if I tell you that these guys ought not to be examples for contemporary whites? In Johnson’s own site recently a commenter pointed out that, even before Christianity, whites had been universalists with Alexander commanding his officers and soldiers to marry Persian women!

Furthermore, understanding Psychohistory dramatically changed my mind about Homeric Hellas. Achilles was a comrade in arms of Agamemnon in the Trojan war, the very one who sacrificed his daughter to the gods. Some sources even claim that Iphigenia was to be married to none other than Achilles. The late, Judeo-Christian exordiums against sodomy, the sacrificing of one’s own daughter or son to the gods, incest, cannibalism and other practices make much more sense to our modern mind than the milieu where Achilles and Patroclus flourished.

Johnson says that “intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish” and puts the example of Zeus and Ganymede. Well, there were times in some Greek cities that the abduction of adolescents by older adults was legal—as long as the parents gave permission to the abductor! (as in the terracotta statuette of Zeus carrying off Ganymede).

Again, that was a “psychoclass” distant from ours, and Johnson and the rest of the nationalists would do well to become acquainted with psychohistorical research.

I might try to delve deeper into this line of thinking in the promised article on homosexuality. For the moment, see the index to my latest posts of my book The Return of Quetzalcoatl, an introduction to Psychohistory for the nationalist community, here.

30 replies on “Greg Johnson on homosexuality”

Responding to the accusation that “intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish” requires an in-depth response, and the only way I can do that is, before writing the promised essay, reproducing here two translated chapters of my book on Psychohistory.

The Life Force dictates that humans breed and reproduce. Homosexuality is anti-evolutionary.

Every civilization has condemned and punished faggotry, even civilizations that never saw Jews.

The Vikings mocked their vanquished foes by forcing them to perform homosexual acts.

From your blog-description:

“We only have one agenda item: whites living normally among whites in a white country under white control”

… Ok, comes to mind that the description is incoherent as it’s not 1 but more objectives as it includes “normal” lives. With the rest I agree: White Republic.

Now if there are people whose ideas and actions you don’t appreciate: but these people 1) are white, 2) don’t import non-whites: how do you figure that they are not compatible with the White Republic?

Take Trainspotter’s ideas of some constitutional rules of a White Republic. If respected by those people you dislike: why a problem?

It follows that the White Republic is not your only objective but also a certain set of rules that are arbitrary: it’s your personal preferences.

Where you promote those rules and ideas, I would ask you to point out that it’s not in the interest of the White Republic but for your personal preferences.

One can even make a cause that your sticking with those preferences is harmful to the White Cause as it reduces the potential followership.

I don’t share those preferences of yours, and don’t join in the weakening ideas of yours.

Pit wrote:

“I don’t share those preferences of yours, and and don’t join in the weakening ideas of yours.”

Then you will be in the distinct minority and will be ushered out of the country along with your co-believers.


As I said in the other thread, I am tolerant of homos—Greg has a point there—as long as they live quiet lives and don’t disturb the normals with ostentatious, overt pro- “gay” behavior. Unfortunately, in recent decades they crossed the line way, way beyond it. As I said, a comprehensive reply to Greg’s article, and my philosophical input on the subject (you will be surprised to learn what I think), will appear in my essay later in this month.

By the way, have you read Devlin’s article I linked in the other thread (it’s also in the list of featured articles of this blog)? It pretty much summarizes my values on human sexuality.

Chechar, I did read it some time ago, I don’t remember it appeared too relevant to me. Interesting idea with pointing out the 2 different sexual utopia’s, the male, and the female. After that part, I found the text lost in quality… regardless… will reread and possibly comment.

To Mark,

So e.g. Greg Johnson represents a small minority? The possible West Coast-White Nationalism? Is that attitude the Arian free spirit, light, friendliness, tolerance, creativity?

Anyway I do have to ask the WNs of your kind to clearly disclose your objectives: You don’t just want a White Republic but a White Republic only for whites with very distinct concepts. So please always make clear what you are actually talking about so people don’t get the wrong idea from the statement that it’s about the White Republic because it’s clearly not.

I want a White Republic. I accept ANY white person no matter what and no non-white person no matter what. We are rational not arbitrary: no victim no crime. Drugs? No victim no crime. Homosexuality? No victim no crime.

White people live in self-determination and freedom, not in a set of arbitrary rules.

…ok, in the sense of self-claimed rationality I have to add that my version is of course also a White Republic with a distinct concept, just a different one (as it’s apparently not about the question of accepting any white person but how to judge forms of behavior).

Follows that WNs should clarify what version of White Republic they aspire.

We need more than just race in a new society. We need a unified spirit. Tolerance of homosexuality will not be a part of it.

Greg Johnson doesn’t represent anything! He’s an outsider trying to push his way into a healthy society that will never accept him. Yes, he may want to live in an area without non-whites, but that’s as far as it goes. He represents nothing in the WN movement except an unwholesome element.

Yes, I want a White folkish society with clear values and most people of any race anywhere in the world want clear values in their societies. Tolerance of faggotry will not be one of those values. I believe that I speak for all but a very tiny fraction of the WN community.

You want a different kind of White society than nearly all of the rest of WNs and you’ll never see it.

You’ll never see a healthy White folkish society where queers are openly queer. Get used to it.

If faggots are invisible, well, I guess they will be tolerated since we won’t know about them. But if they come out of the closet for any reason at any time, they’re toast.

Faggots have a political agenda. They want to be accepted in a world that has never accepted them as a group. They will always keep pushing the limits

It doesn’t matter whether faggotry is a choice or inherited. Either way it is a disease.

Faggots have no value in a healthy White folkish society.

Goes here as well: as to suppression, I have to suppress myself, in my response, to refrain from profanity.

I made a point: no victim no crime.

I’m sick of positions that can’t make a valid point but are just arbitrary. That’s my notion: that this is not Aryan thinking. As I said: I consider my Aryan heritage, and mental setup, as rational. For me, there is no rationality in your position.

Ok, you make a difference in the question of gay practise: public or non-public. That’s rational thinking. But then it continues that non-public practise would only be possible as it can’t be prevented. Not because it might be no goddamn business of yours… and here I lose my non-profanity…

And while anybody is free to present his idea of what the White Republic should be like, and you may or may not be right that the majority of aspirants rather share your view than something like my view, I keep saying: your thinking is not rational and that is not a decoration.

Pit wrote:

“I made a point: no victim no crime.”

That’s your criterion, not mine.

One of mine is: Maximize the solidarity of a folkish White society by minimizing its diversity. That diversity specifically includes faggotry and rooting it out and destroying it have top priority.

Whether a position is rational or not depends on one’s thinking. It only has to be rational to me and to my fellow soldiers. What you and your fellow queers think about it is irrelevant to us.

I know that you think that you are going to be able to come up with some slick argument to force your way into a wholesome White society, but you won’t be able to.

No White society has accepted faggotry unless that society was in its declining stages.

Can you tell us of any major WN figure who supports you ideas?

While at it, occurs to me a question referring to G. Johnson’s text: I’m baffled: so he holds the view that homosexuality is a question of choice!!?

Hetero men listen-up: who might just as well hump a guy? Anybody?

Apparently, there exist two ideas of homosexuality, a) by choice, b) congenital.

I admit that I never even considered an idea of homosexuality being a matter of choice.

From my idea, homosexuality as being congenital, I guess it’s clear that it can’t be a matter of virtue to be homosexual or not.

I’m curious what other readers think. Especially I would like to know about heterosexual men who might consider having sex with another man.

(I always felt that there is a very simple test for sexual orientation: go in a sex-shop and look the magazines. If you stumble upon a gay magazine and don’t vomit, you’re gay. So much to the concept of choice).

Pit, next time, if you like, you can use the “reply” button in the previous post: so that your resposes may appear threaded with the former comment.

“No victim no crime”

Pit, every single gay parade is a crime against the white people.

Remember the pic of the pink and blue, rainbow wild boys I uploaded in the other thread? Well, in cities like San Fran the visual experience of constantly watching on the streets such rape—that’s the exact word—of the beautiful San Francisco of yore (please, see Hitchcock’s films!) inhibits the white soul from having large families. This is exactly the same psychological phenomenon of watching swarms of Neanderthalesque browns throughout the state of California.

Elemental psychology…

Chechar, I see your point, also as you say that for you it’s a question of public visibility and presence. I guess this comes down to a question of “how”, not “if”.

So this is my take: first, these gay demonstrations are neither frequent nor ubiquitous. Second, IMO they are a result of a need to fight for their rights, and that means for their right of physical safety: just BECAUSE of thinking of e.g. above commenter Mark. It is easily conceivable that gays live a normal life without provocations (i.e. the provocation is not built-in into gaydom but a result of the need to fight).

I have to say, where I live, reasonably metropolitanly, or so: there is practically no gay provocation at all. So it really seems to be a manageable problem.

Some more thoughts:

* Why is gaydom wrong? Because it’s against nature. Why? Because it doesn’t produce children.

So: with the same arguing, you can argue against any sexual activity that doesn’t consist of intercourse with the objective to conceive. That is ridiculous. If you really want to kill the White Race, make that postulation obligatory for the White Movement, to reduce followership to a dozen.

So: that kind of thinking is deeply flawed.

* You can suppress sexual activity as little as you can suppress hunger and thirst. Anything else is a lie and pretence. Again: want to kill the White Race, build the movement on postulations to have sex only for procreational purposes. Followership sub10.

So: if someone is wired gay, he has to act gay or he can shoot himself. Ergo: he has to act gay.

It’s no use sticking to concepts that have no connection to reality. I consider such thinking certainly not as expression of Aryan intelligence but of ideological thinking that is not able to get rid of not-useful concepts and to describe the world in more appropriate terms.

Nothing wrong with plain straight vanilla sex. Maybe a solid majority wants just that. Just that I think that is has turned out that people have desires, obsessions, and those don’t go away. It’s impossible to suppress them. So you need to integrate that into the normal, familiar (marital) life, to communicate it openly, otherwise it will blow up the relationship.

That’s my point: in my opinion, it has turned out that it’s no use sticking with idealized concepts and not being honest about the feelings. If I’m wrong, if people are actually happy with their concepts, all the better. But unreal concepts make people uncomfortable and only delegitimize the concept and deter people from the whole thing. And the impression of unjustified and seemingly mindless restriction that is demonstrated by oppressing gays who don’t do harm (given they are not provocative) will do just that, make uncomfortable, and deter, as it provokes the idea that the same can happen to you for just as unjustified reasons.

Lastly, we are a race of freedom. Acting for no comprehensible reason, restricting yourself for the sake of restriction, doesn’t fly with Aryan people. We are here to explore and evolve, not to be restricted for no good reason.

In this context, I’ll reread the R. Devlin text and post my thoughts on that.

On second thought, better don’t read it even if he focuses on feminism, not on homosexuality…

“…these gay demonstrations are neither frequent nor ubiquitous”

I would like to set the record as straight as possible as to my views on the cultural rape perpetrated by “gay paraders” on my civilization.

Recently I re-watched Hitchcock’s Vertigo after decades of watching it for the first time. As I said in my anti-Christian thread, I lived pretty close to San Francisco. Re-watching Vertigo skyrocketed my dismay, and therefore my hate—real hate: genocidal mode, no kidding—, toward the cultural rapists that turned such a beautiful city into a nasty Gomorrah. It doesn’t matter that “these gay demonstrations are neither frequent nor ubiquitous”. If I had real political power—read: swastika banners all over America—I’d send the San Fran rapists straight to my trains with a one-way ticket you know where.

One of the reasons why I believe that American-style so-called “white nationalism” is phony is precisely because the whole movement is, at least partially, dissociated from the psychological viewpoint. For a nationalist of truly sound mind it would be more than obvious that the Gomorrahites that brought toddlers to the Sadomasochist Fair in San Fran would have to wear Rosa Winkel camp badges, and subsequently targeted for destruction in my Auschwitz II camps founded on American soil.

I am astounded that Greg, who lives in that city, has never complained about abominations such as the above one. But I would go as far as claiming that my genocidal rage before such event means that I, like the Nazis, have a sound mind whereas the mind of the Alt-Right-type “nationalists” is unsound precisely because, by following PC inhibitions, repress their legit rage.

Sorry, I don’t feel that your kind answer actually refers to my points. I’m kind of struck as your texts usually make a lot of sense to me, very commendable regarding the subjects (child abuse in middleclass families, psychohistory, parapsychology, abuse of psychiatry, abusive medication of children, and of course Jewish Question), all in a very clear and intelligent style.

Conversely, in the present discussion, I don’t get your position. Just doesn’t fly with me. I see that one can think like that but I myself have no connection to that thinking. Quite clear contrast.

So you’re angry. That doesn’t deliver from the duty to clear thinking. What’s that genocide stuff? It’s emotional. It doesn’t make sense to me. It’s uncalled for, factually, IMO. It’s politically unwise. I don’t see that it’s enforced by the circumstances.

Gays don’t multiply. They are not guilty of something (except possibly public appearance). Much different from browns and Jews whom we really have to get rid off.

It has always been my contention that the conservatives were quite wrong in most issues, women, gays, ecology and many other fields, and I wasn’t surprised about their defeat. Not that the left has it right, just that the opposite of the left is by no means correct either, all IMO. I see our ethnical human rights—rights, if you want, without the discredited and lying “human”—just as legitimate as I found the demands of women, gays et al (the latter only to a certain extend, of course). That’s why it appears to me that it should not be impossible to get them on board. Hence, to piss them off in extremely violent manner makes no sense to me.

From all that I conclude that you see us in a new stage where only the fighting style “death for all” can turn the tide for us. Well. You may or may not be right. As expression of a new stage, your positions may make sense. Factually they still don’t make sense to me.

I fear it’s not much use going on with the discussion (if ever you see use in continued input from my part, drop a note). So what… depending on the subject, I might still enjoy some or a majority of your articles.

“…in the present discussion, I don’t get your position. Just doesn’t fly with me. I see that one can think like that but I myself have no connection to that thinking.”

My position is clear, but cognitive dissonance makes you not seeing my point: Overt S&M Homo Fairs (I’d have said exactly the same of a S&M Hetero Fair) are extremely toxic for the mental health of a town.

“So you’re angry. That doesn’t deliver from the duty to clear thinking. What’s that genocide stuff? It’s emotional.”

In the other thread you talked a lot about Dionysian spirit in very positive terms, which is wholly emotional. Now that I behave like a Dionysius apprentice you say emotions mean no clear thinking?

“Gays don’t multiply. They are not guilty of something (except possibly public appearance). Much different from browns and Jews whom we really have to get rid off.”

How many times have I said that if homos kept their stuff in their closets I’d leave them alone? You continue to cognitively dissociate what I have said in these two threads about the destruction of San Francisco by the so-called “gay community”.

“From all that I conclude that you see us in…”

I don’t know who are you. Do you join “gay parades” or keep your preferences in the privacy of your home?

“I fear it’s not much use going on with the discussion…”


When I was a teenager, with a hetero pal from school we went to a “gay” bar and then to a private “gay” party (only adolescents do this kind of stuff!). It shocked me to learn stories of “gays” who liked exactly what is described by the black man in the video: the “fisting” or inserting the whole hand (and sometimes the beforehand!) into a male’s rectum…

I was… shocked! And it moves me to think that people like Greg Johnson should unequivocally condemn such clearly self-destructing behavior among the homosexuals in his own town of San Francisco, as well as those perverts who brought toddlers to the S&M fair in that very town.

I say self-destructing because even if “fisting” is unusual the AIDS epidemic is not!

Gays could have legal protection in a WN society under these conditions:

1: Beating up or murdering a gay because he IS gay would not be treated as a “hate crime” – simply as an assault or homicide, no different than the assault or homicide of a heterosexual individual.

2: No public demonstrations by gays would be legal. Arrest and imprisonment for those who violate this law would result.

3: No “rights” would be accorded to gays “as gays” – simply as citizens and individuals only.

4: Pursuit of a cure for homosexuality would be a goal of a WN government. With advances in bio-genetic engineering, it is realistic that such a cure can eventually be found.

With these provisions in place, homosexuality could exist in a WN society without disrupting it.

As I said in Gitone’s magic, “biopsychiatry is a fraudulent profession”, so I disagree with #4. And I proposed instead degrading overt, non-closet homos with Class-D citizenship, which means they would be doing the nastiest jobs in the white republic.

CheChar can you cite any published sources indicating that homosexuality was not accepted among the Indo-European and proto-I-E peoples? Because what I’m finding so far indicates it was accepted, and some time integral (in the form of mannerbund). Thank you for your time.

No: unlike them I am no expert on the homo subject. By the way, that term, “mannerbund” has been much abused by James O’Meara and other writers at CC.

Proto-Europeans are not a good example insofar as they also practiced human sacrifice. That was exactly Greg’s error: using Achilles and Patroclus as a paradigm for good whites.

IMHO, the good examples start to count after the West has an identifiable “Western” character. I mean, after whites quitted practicing human sacrifice—say, the post-Homeric Greeks.

With the exception of androgynous ephebes in today’s world (cf. my “Gitone’s magic”) I believe that extrovert, unpunished homosexuality in a Western society is a cultural regression.

Homosexuality isn’t anti-evolutionary, as somebody as asserted. It’s anti-evolution. If sodomites have always been among us, then why hasn’t evolution enabled them to reproduce?

Homosexuality isn’t a great boon to white kind as Johnson seems to be suggesting but a terrible curse. Any man that would much rather insert his penis in another man’s rectum than in an attractive woman’s womb has to be seriously deranged. This derangement is often reflected in homosexuals’ aggressive support of leftist causes, such as the pro-abortion movement and non-white immigration. They want to remake the world in their image, one where other forms of degeneracy, like pedophilia, are not only accepted but celebrated. This is because white Christian society rejects homosexuality for the aberrant and abhorrent practice it is. So the homosexual knows that the only way to change that is to make society less Christian and less white.

Procreation and the desire to procreate are the building blocks of white civilization, yet these normal, healthy desires are absent in homosexuals whether they be radicals or conservatives.

Any society that embraces sodomy is sounding its own death knell. That some civilizations have thrived for a time despite accepting sodomy, and that some sodomites have made important contributions to white society down through history, does not change the fact that sodomites by their behavior reject the very foundation of white civilization and, therefore, must be rejected outright by any and every sane white person who would see that civilization survive and flourish.

The good that some homosexuals do does not dilute the spiritual and moral poison they spread.

Greg Johnson’s approval of homosexuals in the movement is a disgrace and disqualifies him as a commentator of worth on matters pertaining to White Nationalism as far as I’m concerned.

Comments are closed.