web analytics

Pseudomen in white nationalism

At Counter-Currents, today Greg Johnson did not let a comment of mine pass through (slightly edited below). Apparently, frank criticism of overt homosexuality is not allowed in his forum:

In previous entries I expressed my dismay about the degenerate musical tastes so common among white nationalists. And today I felt disappointed about the cheers that Jef Costello’s latest article has received here.

Last January, in his review of Fight Club Costello wanted us to believe that a film that starts with rock music, based upon a nihilistic novel authored by a homosexual author, Chuck Palahniuk, when properly interpreted deals with rebellious, healthy fascist moods that could lead our young toward masculine identity. Similarly, in today’s article Costello favorably reviews the book of another overt homosexual, Jack Donovan, again as exemplary to inspire the young on how to become more masculine.

Hello? I mean: Am I living in a different planet? How on Earth a nationalist site that purports to defend traditional, white interests ends up promoting the views of out-of-the-closet homosexuals?

41 replies on “Pseudomen in white nationalism”

He’s quite a product of modernity with his deviations from tradition. Whether its music or homosexuality, something’s rotten in Denmark.

A product of Jewish modernity to a much greater degree than he thinks. He, and his Ilk, promote a lot of deviant and destructive isms.

I don’t know what is Greg thinking! Perhaps like Donovan he simply believes that homophobic sentiments are graciously disappearing and that the white community has given him the ok to promote “healthy” authors like Donovan, whose target audience in a previous book was the “gay” community.

Greg wrote a great review of the Northwest Quartet. Surely he read that separatists plan to expel all overt homos from the ethnostate. (Incidentally, I’ve stated several times that I would leave homos alone as long as they don’t aggressively advertise their homosexuality as something healthy: something that both Donovan and James O’Meara do.) Does Greg think that such anti-homo sentiments are just going to miraculously disappear only because he seems to be tolerant of “gays” at San Fran, where he lives?

Greg has never declared himself to be gay and the whole affair makes no sense; except if he’s repressing it in his mind without addressing the issues even to himself.

This month I took the trouble to address and rebut, in that long Gitone article, Greg’s arguments defending homosexuality among grown-up, masculine, coeval adults. If Greg was valiant enough, he would have published my piece at CC and, if the WN community were valiant too, my article would have already received from 200 to 250 comments.

But they’re not valiant.

Donovan lives in Portland, one of the cities that will comprise the Northwest Republic in the coming decades. I am curious to know what would the likes of Greg are thinking—that someone like Donovan, who is not even a white nationalist properly, will be spared because he has published a couple of fancy articles at AltRight and CC? I’m sure not only Greg, but the broader “nationalist” community (with quotation marks since they’re not revolutionaries) repress what could happen to overt homos that presently are publishing in featured WN sites after the balloon goes up.

Costello’s article on Donovan speaks about “honor” and “courage” as proverbial masculine qualities, and they believe that physical strength is part of it. Well, I am a skinny guy. But I got an internal fire that would easily scorch any of these muscular types after the rule of law collapses. How could Costello and Donovan talk about “honor” and “courage” when they don’t even mention, as Sebastian does, the revolution that is just around the corner (the dollar will crash within five years or so). That’s not a “manly” approach to life at all. That is, and let’s be frank here, intellectual cowardice.

I am disappointed of the so-called white “nationalist” movement. It’s a pity, but the only blogsite that now appears in my blogroll list is Uncle Harold’s…

The growing tolerance of homosexuality in the WN movement parallels the solidified tolerance of homosexuality in mainstream society. As Nietzsche said, those who gaze into the abyss risk the abyss gazing back into them – which it certainly has done, judging by recent WN commentary that now asserts that “anti-homosexuality is a Jewish plot to subvert what is a ‘natural’ urge”.

Why has this happened?

My personal theory is that homosexuals themselves have infiltrated WN to such a relatively large degree that they now feel it safe to speak out – either directly or by proxy. This is a danger, in my view, in that it further opens the door to the infiltration of the liberal-mindset of the gay movement, which stands for all things that have proven destructive to Euro-ethnic societies.

I wish I could end on a positive note, but there isn’t one. Unfortunately, not a single effort by American WN’s have turned back a single Mexican illegal, nor is legitimizing homosexuality likely to change this.

Last year Greg allowed comments about the coming guerilla war in the Pacific Northwest. But now he forbids frank discussion about the homo issue.


Greg’s site sometimes reminds me of Commander Rockwell’s words “Europe is like one big France—all empty shell, fine words, pretty songs, and dead men” and of Linder’s bashing of Taylor, Edwards and Spencer (who are not homos).

I mean: besides Covington and Linder where are the men, the real men, in the movement? If nowadays the movt. tolerates homos who advertise their “preferences” so openly with featured articles, then I am starting to believe that we’re on a dead-end street.

Just look at how Costello paraphrases Donovan at Counter-Currents. Donovan advices young men to form male “gangs.” Is he implicitly suggesting that now that homos are increasingly accepted in the movt. that we should make associations with a few of them?

And listen to what a commenter said recently in that thread: “Give it [Donovan’s book] to every teenage boy.” A commenter responded: “I have a nephew of 18 who needs to read this book…”

Was the latter commenter a mum? Then an openly female commenter added: “Good article, I’ll definitely have to buy this book. As a woman…” Still another commenter, ignoring the implicit gay message in Costello’s essays, said: “Excellent. I’ve been advocating for White ‘gangs’ for years…”

So Greg is now allowing silly women—even feminists (see what April Gaede is now saying at another CC thread)—to comment, but at the same time forbids my frank discussion on the subject of homosexuality?

What’s wrong with this picture? Why aren’t other blogsites complaining? As IFA said above, this man seems to be quite a product of Jewish modernity “to a much greater degree than he thinks”.

He doesn’t want a discussion where he would read disparaging and naysaying remarks. It’s his website and he has the right.

We should start our own collective effort. I’m being quite serious.


But that’s precisely why, unlike this post, in Gitone’s magic, which link I sent to Greg, I addressed his article defending homosexuality with no despairing remarks of Greg, so that he would not find it offensive but willing to respond.

But he did not even reply to a philosophical piece: and I don’t believe that he has the moral “right” to delete legitimate commentariat discussion, such as the comments of yours that he has removed, while at the same time he lets the likes of April Gaede pass thru.

Again: something is wrong with this picture.

Yes, Chechar, but that’s his forte, as subjective and heterodoxical as it is.

So if I phrased my respectful critique accommodating to his forte, why hasn’t he responded? I mean: not even thru email (excepting a notification that he got my link).

Answer: Because he doesn’t want to discuss his apology of adult “gay” behavior with someone who is above his league on this very issue (modesty apart…).

The fact there has always been a disproportionate amount of male homosexuals in pro-White movements across history is well-known and a subject of jokes in European countries. Whether you’re talking about Spanish fascism, French collaboration or pro-Algérie Fançaise movements.

It has nothing to do whatsoever with the so-called “homo-erotism” of Nazi art and other jewish journalistic bullshit.

It has everything to do with the fact being pro-White is the only rational choice for homosexuals. Only in White cultures are homosexuals tolerated and even understood. In Negroid cultures, whether Sub-Saharan or Arabic, they are bullied to suicide or stoned to death.

Even dumb European gays are notoriously turning to the Right after having been for a long time on the Left, due to bullying coming from the new “residents” of the mainland.

As to homosexuality itself, if it is, like I believe it to be, of genetic origin (probably recessive characters), it is a non-issue.

I never understood the fixation “conservatives” have on the issue, and it is in fact probably because they believe homosexuality is acquired, not inborn. They are afraid their children may “catch the ghey” if gayness becomes mainstream.

With the exception of The Day of the Rope, I don’t want to repress homo behavior after The Day as cruelly as Muslims do every other day. But I get distressed every time that a notable author like Donovan, whose first book sold many copies among the so-called “gay community”, is now advertised in featured WN sites as something cool—with white moms crying to get signed copies for their teenage kids.

Also, I don’t believe in the “genes are destiny” quack-science at all: one of the recent fads to excuse degenerate behavior. See what Rollory said in another WDH thread here.

And out-of-the-closet, aggressive homosexual behavior is an issue. See what I said about how the wildest homos in the city San Francisco inhibit our desire of having large white families in still another thread, and especially what I said about Hitchcock’s beautiful town here.


It seem like there is an effort to include queers in the future of White Nationalist society, doesn’t it? That will never happen because WN is a movement of life and in any armed struggle, which there must be for the resulting population to be strong and worthy, the queers, along with any bossy women, will be consumed in its flames.

In other words, once civil war is under way the above two groups will be considered enemy combatants. You will not see them squawking like they do now on WN websites. There will be blood everywhere.

So I think that a lot of the talk of this thread is theoretical/hypothetical.

After the smoke clears there will be no queers identifiable as such and there will be no bossy women anywhere. Those to be included in any folkish White society will be very carefully screened. The men will be tested in ways very similar to those in The Turner Diaries. Perhaps they will be tested multiple times.

Only the most submissive and compliant women will be admitted and all of those will be of child-bearing age—preferably later teens and twenties to accommodate our race rebuilding efforts. Maybe a few will have some kind of “career”, but those careers will not be of the type placing them in competition with men, and even then they will only be allowed to pursue these “careers” after having produced four or five healthy White children. Their main careers will be childbearing and childrearing. For them everything else will be secondary.

From the survival point of view they are dead-end, living fossils. They are everywhere, even amongst WN. Their powerful lobby is second only to jewish lobby.
Could they be useful? We could use them as cannon-fodder, they could be our useful idiots.

I wholly concur. I was a bit taken back, and am often when they promote these movies! There is nothing redeeming, nor worth the matter they are produced upon. Hollywood should be the last place, and preferably not at all where we look for inspiration!

Under the penname of Trevor Lynch, recently Greg republished his own review of Pulp Fiction. You can see the strong complaints he got in the threaded discussion there! I find that love for Pulp Fiction so bizarre that your comment has moved me to copy and paste, in a whole new entry, our complaints in that 2011 CC thread.

Now I am starting to see that Costello is just a charlatan being promoted at CC. Boss Hogg said recently at another Costello article:

Perhaps I’m misreading the intent of the essay (otherwise well-written) but it seems to be saying that “real men” can only become “real men” by engaging in criminal/amoral/immoral/or evil acts. Take this sentence:

“The new Walt is tough, strong, courageous, and masterful. It doesn’t really matter that these virtues are deployed toward unlawful and often destructive ends.”

It doesn’t matter? Well, that’s where you’ve lost me. If we accept this at face value, then Jews who conduct themselves in unlawful and destructive ends are nothing any of us should complain about, since “it doesn’t matter” anyway, and besides, they’re being “real men”.

Perhaps I’m the lone dissenter here, but to me it does indeed matter. You see, if our best men are those who are nothing more than criminal scumbags (albeit brave and manly) who among us can really give a shit anymore – about anything or anyone? I sure couldn’t. So, I hope that these TV observations are not trying to signal to the rest of us that “admirable MEN” are those who “bravely” engage in macho-man criminal activities, while some quiet white scientist working to develop a virus capable of wiping out negroids across the face of the planet is viewed as nothing but a simpering whimp. As far as the main character goes, I think such a man should be taken out behind the nearest woodshed and dispatched with a 9mm bullet to the brain and then shoveled into a shallow grave.

No hero-worship of criminal scum will save the white race, in my view. Only men of high intellect, high integrity, and high courage – while also standing atop the moral highground, will do. For those who believe otherwise, I’d say the fat lady has sung and we ought to go back to watching…TV.

Jef: You’re an excellent writer. I enjoy your many articles. And all I’m offering here is an opinion.

Excellent, perhaps: but you missed his charlatanism. And again, what the hell is Greg doing by featuring charlatans at CC?

Masterfully written. A brutish masculinity will not save us. We need paladins, noble martyrs.


And now AnalogMan has responded to Boss:

I have to agree. I never watched much TV at the best of times, and I no longer even have a set. But I remember the Sopranos; I saw less than an episode, and thought: “These thugs are the heroes? No, thanks.” Switched off, permanently.

But Counter-Currents, the crème de la crème in WN as you called it, keeps the switch on…

Just chiming in with a few thoughts:

My knowledge of Donovan isn’t all that extensive but I clearly remember him saying on Tom Sunic’s show that he advises against homosexuals engaging in homosexual sexual relationships (not all that strongly though) & that he has participated in such himself (IIRC) but no longer does. Has he changed his position?

I’m about a quarter of the way through “The Way of Men” as we speak. He did say at one point that many of the men who are defficient in the strength aspect often compensate for it (some more than compensate for it) with “mastery” in other areas.

I think the male “gang” is a reality & natural (safety & strength in numbers et al). Young working-class Whites are forming them increasingly where I’m from. The only problem with it is obviously the need for good leadership & direction from a brain or a head, which is forbidden from forming. You all know all this, of course.

So far I’m not getting the impression that he wants a world of roving bands of rapers & murderers. The tone is a bit like your great “Lycanthropy” piece I just finished reading i.e. it’s chilling my spine something awful. I’ve felt this kind of talk resonating in me for quite a while now. For example I can’t watch Lucius Vorenus on HBO’s Rome without feeling profoundly ashamed of myself.

I wish Greg Johnson wouldn’t censor so much too. I think he’s fantastic though.

Oh and Jeff Costello & James O’ Meara are both homosexuals???

I clearly remember him saying on Tom Sunic’s show that he advises against homosexuals engaging in homosexual sexual relationships

Really? Could I have gotten it all wrong? I thought in his site he simply sided the “gay community” as something cool and normal. I’ll definitively need to look it further…

Oh and Jeff Costello & James O’ Meara are both homosexuals???

James confesses this openly in his blog. I’m not sure about Jeff but I find repugnant his film and book reviews of masculine homos; and I fail to see anything “nationalist” in his writing.

By the way, if I’m wrong about Donovan, Greg should have allowed a debate on homosexuality in his site to clear his pal from accusations of letting the young going astray.


I’m glad that you liked the “Lycanthropy” article. 🙂

Yes, it would have cleared up the whole thing.

From what I can remember from the Sunic interview Donovan is actually quite a critic of the gays (he makes a distinction between gay & homosexual). He’s definetely not your typical homo & his is one of the better interviews Sunic has on his site. It’s worth checking out.

What I don’t like about him is that the masculine values that he so much advertises have everything to do with his “sexual preferences” (I hate that expression!) and nothing to do with actual racial preservation, or genuine manliness. I mean: pre-revolutionary activity, or at the very least advertizing white nationalism to the masses of whites who are still sleeping in the Matrix and prepare them for the coming civil war. I don’t see any of this in Donovan’s agenda. Am I wrong? (Don’t take me wrong. I am not talking of doing stupid, violent things now but of pre-revolutionary activity. Are you familiar with the Northwest Front?).

In my opinion, a true white man is defined as the one who’s willing to put his life in jeopardy in a fight to save his race. Are Costello, Donovan and many other so-called tough guys enamored of masculinity on this category? I don’t think so.

I believe they’re charlatans, and it speaks ill of an editor who repeatedly features articles of such people at the expense of the truly manly authors whose articles he rejects.

In a nutshell, I would say that George Lincoln Rockwell, not anyone of these charlatans—including the silly commenters who said at CC that they love these filthy films and homo books—, should be the paradigm of what a true man really is.

“Donovan is actually quite a critic of the gays (he makes a distinction between gay & homosexual)”

There’s also a distinction between macho straight men and non-macho straight men. Nevertheless, both kinds of men like women, and that is their crucial connection. Likewise, “gay” men and “homosexual” men both like it up the ass (to put it bluntly) so who cares if there are some subtle differences in meaning between the two terms? The struggle we face should not be about subsidiary issues, such as “gay rights” or religion or capitalism vs socialism or anything else.

Hold Back This Day

Why don’t the both of you read the book and judge it on its own merits? It’s short and plainly written so it won’t take too much of your time. It’s really not my place to argue on his behalf. To be honest I was more uncomfortable reading Chechar’s own writings on homosexuality than I was by reading anything of Donovan’s.

Ward, I was glad to hear you bring up the Chinese during your discussion with Tom Sunic. The scenario Chechar paints in his Lycanthropy piece completely ignores the Chinese factor. Will they, like us, be in chaos after the collapse of the dollar? If not then I’d imagine our predicament is truly nightmarish?

Dillon, I did not write most of the “Lycanthropy” piece. And I never read “gay literature” by the way (I don’t consider Plato or Xenophon “gays” as the term is understood today).

I was more uncomfortable reading Chechar’s own writings on homosexuality…

Do you mean pederasty in the classical world in my essay “Gitone’s magic”? If so, you felt more uncomfortable because that’s a really alien world to us—precisely what gives the lie to the rainbow apologists of today that want to use Greco-Roman history to rationalize their perversions.

And incidentally, I don’t consider perverted what Plato or Xenophon said in their homoerotic writing. But to me it’s extremely disgusting to see someone as masculine as Donovan admitting he fancies… other masculine men.


I’m now about half way though the book & there’s nothing remotely “gay” in it at all as far as I can tell. It’s not “gay literature”. Aren’t you relying on hearsay to guide you as to what to read? How’s that sensible?

As it happens I read Costello’s “Untouchables” article today & I can see what you mean. Donovan’s “The Way of Men” isn’t like that so far. It could have been written by any of the hetero CC or Occidental Observer crowd. Then again I’m only half way through so I should really keep quiet.

I was going to re-read your “Gitone’s Magic” et al regardless as I found it quite a difficult read. I have a lot to learn about the homosexual question so I won’t be weighing in on the subject properly any time soon.


I already knew that Donovan is not making a “gay” scene in that book. I already said that what bothers me is CC’s selling of masculinity as if masculinity = manliness.

It’s not the same thing, Dillon.

I also said that I am skinny, not masculine at all; and that that doesn’t mean that I lack manliness.

IMHO Donovan and Costello lack manliness. Unless you can demonstrate that they are willing to put their lives and/or their property at risk in the coming fight to save the white race from extinction, I won’t read another page from their desk.

Are they (or will they) willing to do that?

If they don’t pass this elemental litmus test for manliness, I’d label them phony men—especially if, like “gay guys”, they narcissistically like to boast their muscles as “proof” of manliness.

Look at the series of articles about Harold Covington’s Quintet in this blog. Or, if you don’t like Covington, read William Pierce’s seminal novels.

That’s a good paradigm of what real mean are.

Today Greg posted still another piece by Costello that I won’t read.

Am I a little paranoid? It looks to me that Greg has an implicit, lunar-like—i.e., non-Aryan—, pro-homo agenda for CC. One is left to wonder how many featured CC authors are homos? Is Costello, so enamored of masculinity instead of real manliness, a homo? And what about an email I received last month: that there’s a San Francisco group of males of dubious reputation around CC? Could that be true or just hearsay?

I wouldn’t have posted these entries had Greg allowed debate on these issues at CC or elsewhere (as I said before, recently he refused to respond Robert Stark’s question about “gay marriage”). He exposed his non-Aryan, lunar ways by publishing his essay defending homosexuality… in French! And he did not say a peep about my 7,600-word response.

The fallacy of confusing masculinity with genuine manliness should have ringed an alarm of the CC commenters. It didn’t, and the fact that they did just the opposite, praising Costello et al as superb writers, only corroborates what I suspected:

Unlike Rockwell, Pierce and Covington, the new breed of New Right poseurs, AltRight types and even VOR podcasters are not men of honor (unlike Stark, Jim Giles would have pressed Greg to respond to the “gay marriage” issue). That’s why today I added Linder’s worldview to my list of featured posts.

But even some Stormfronters are too coward to see the obvious. See the Stormfronters’ responses to my “You better be prepared psychologically to receive our unwelcome bite, turning yourself into Canis lupus…” here and here.

P.S. of April 10

Oops! Stormfront has closed the second thread.

One of my mental characteristics is a curiosity about things I have been told I should not know. So for the past week or so I have been visiting White nationalist sites. A world, small I think, quite different from the one I am used to. But interesting.

A belated comment about homosexuality and Jack Donovan. I suppose that for some of you, his homosexual eros puts him beyond the pale no matter what else he says or does. Fair enough. You guys get to describe your own limits.

But I have read his books and listened to him and this is my addition:

His first book, Androphilia, was a pro-male manifesto against “gayness”, the current shape that homosexual men are supposed to embrace. He rejected its group victimism, feminist-driven ambivalence about men, and its left-wing politics. He was making a case for men with same-sex eros to distance themselves entirely from that culture and start to looking toward classical masculine values, and associations. He wanted to separate same-sex desire from the current prepackaged identity it has become. His new one, The Way of Men, is a search for the primal and universal shape of masculinity, which he seed as rooted in the gang, and in the masculine virtues of strength, courage, competence and honor. He hardly mentions sexual orientation at all.

And I doubt he counseled homosexual men, on Sunic, not to have sex with each other. His point is for homosexual men to stop creating social ghettos of their own kind, but to bond –nonsexually and in friendship and cameraderie– with other men and learn from and grow up with guys.

His big interest and issue is men and masculinity, globally. Race comes further down for him.

It’s been a fascinating look into the WN world.

“I suppose that for some of you, his homosexual Eros puts him beyond the pale no matter what else he says or does.”

No, Polemeros. It’s not that simple, as anyone who has read my essay “Gitone’s magic” in this blog knows.

Had you read other threads you will see that the problem is not Donovan, but the platform that liberal white nationalist webzines and sites give to the likes of him (who is not precisely a WN) at the expense of genuine WN who are willing to sacrifice their lives in the fight to form an ethno-state.

No, Polemeros. It’s not that simple, as anyone who has read my essay “Gitone’s magic” in this blog knows.

That’s precisely why I wrote “some of you” rather than “all of you”.

Having read some –some– other threads, some commenters do have a problem with him simply because of his sexuality. No surprise. As for the rest, I am sure you’re right since you know the turf and I am just a passing visitor.

Donovan has been a featured guest at important WN sites such as Voice of Reason, Counter Currents and Alternative Right. My displeasure is not with him, whom I’ve not read, but with those sites (see my latest entry where I continue to explain the whys of my displeasure with these guys).

This article is explicitly gay, while pretending to not be, just in case anyone sees through it:

A while back I found myself in a bookstore flipping through a book of photographs from WWII. Many of them depicted soldiers, sailors, and marines relaxing or goofing around. What was remarkable about many of these pictures was the affection the men displayed for one another. There was one photo, for example, of a sailor asleep with his head in another sailor’s lap. This is the sort of thing that would be impossible today, because of fear of being thought “gay.” [link]

They can’t discuss the gay issue, because then everyone would know that certain attitudes-like promoting “affection” among young men-are just a way to encourage homosexual and anti-family behavior in their young male readers.

Comments are closed.