web analytics
Degeneracy Homosexuality

A question

One of the things that disappoints me in today’s white nationalist movement is that they are unwilling to pronounce value judgments about homosexuality. When they interview overt homos, just as Robert Stark recently interviewed James O’Meara (who must never be confused with Michael O’Meara), the questions are always respectful, as if Stark believes that the kind of behavior that James promotes is perfectly okay.

Greg Johnson will soon publish James’s book The Homo and the Negro for Counter-Currents (CC).

Johnson also included an essay of James in another book, the compilation of CC essays that has been released today and that contains no essay coming from the pen of the one who, in my opinion, was the best thinker among the writers that Johnson published in 2009-2011: Michael O’Meara.

My question:

Do you think that people like James are an asset to the movement? In Stark’s interview last week James mentioned his “wild boys,” the “heavy metal music” he loves, “drug induced mysticism” and said that all of this is compatible with “Aryan culture.” He also mentioned “androgyny”, “hermaphrodites,” “sexual rituals,” and that “all these are roots of Aryan culture.” James even spoke of “drugs creating Western culture” and that “the great opponent of that is the Jew,” who has hated “the horrible faggotry of paganism.”

(See my formal refutation of these sorts of claims in Gitone’s magic.)

In the comments section I’ve already mentioned James’ blog, Where the Wild Boys Are, with the arresting subtitle “Aryan Futurism, Heavy Metal Entheogenic Mysticism, and Pitiless Hordes of Adolescent Warriors in Rainbow Thongs.” Following next is what I already said at that comments section of my blog, some syntax corrected:

Who are the “warriors in rainbow thongs”? When James linked Johnson’s interview in his blog, he used a pic of a transvestite under the title “Shameless Public Posturing.” I guess James is trying to say that there’s nothing wrong with such posturing.

I consider myself fairly tolerant toward homosexuality. But tolerance is restricted to the homos who live discreet lives and keep their preferences in the privacy of their homes. Overt transvestite behavior crosses the line. And not only transvestism. Consider this:

James’ blog features the below image at the top of his blog (just as I feature the face of Botticelli’s Venus above). Note the blood/semen—whatever—running through the hairy legs, presumably of a male with rainbow butts.

The Wild Boys is a novel about the violent world of homosexual renegade boys. It was authored by William Burroughs, a well-known writer who despite marrying a Jewess he picked up boys in steam baths and moved in a circle of homosexuals and runaways. Something analogous without the overt sexuality can be said about the grotesque cheering that, in the commentariat section of CC, Jef Costello got for his review of Fight Club: another nihilistic novel written by another homosexual.

Am I living in a different cultural world from the one that white nationalists inhabit? Like the monocausalists who cannot see that Christian axiology is involved in the darkest hour of our civilization, nationalists seem to be clueless about the fact that some of them are part of the cultural movement that is driving our civilization straight toward the abyss.

This is the pic advertised in James’ “About Me” section of his blog. Does this look like a white nationalist to you?

Even a child could easily grasp the idea that nationalism means a nation for whites with hetero men enjoying the privilege to woo young females (see the first Max Parrish pic that I advertise in this blog) and found large families: an institution that, in the recent Stark interview, James seems to abhor. Yes: both James and I suffered from abusive Catholic upbringing. But unlike me James doesn’t seem to have come out in one piece after such upbringing (cf. my essay, “A woman chasing after her revenge” to see what do I mean).

Last February I watched a documentary of the Hassidic Jews in New York. Guess what? They forbid among themselves the sort of heavy metal music and “drug induced mysticism” that James so heartily approves; the kind of nihilistic films and novels that are reviewed at CC, and even the internet: the only way to convince all of their women to get married, according to the rabbi interviewed in the documentary.

Hitler and the Nazis saw it clearly too. They forbade non-closet, overt homosexuality and degenerate music. And male bonding among the Teutons was basically heterosexual. They ended up forming families—nothing of the sort found in the novels of outright degenerates like William Burroughs.

17 replies on “A question”

Starky is not a WN. He is more of a conservative.

The reason we don’t emphasize homosexuality so much is that it’s hard enough to get past interracial violence, immigration and the jews. When a man gets through that, he’s got other things like education, PU, and the MRM to learn about. This is a tremendous task.

Starky is not a WN. He is more of a conservative.

Granted, but the point I was trying to make is that “conservatives” like Stark are not supposed to be so tolerant of open faggotry. And by banning all discussion about the toxic aspects of homosexuality (e.g., what happened to his native San Francisco) true nationalists like Johnson seem to be placing “gay interests” above the 14 Words. It’s so obvious—at least to me—that “securing the existence of white children” means traditional hetero-sexual families, precisely the ones that James seems to abhor.

7. The loathsome perversion of homosexuality is absolutely unacceptable in any civilized society. It must be exterminated with fire and sword. This is not something that is subject to debate or argument. It is something that decent men simply do.

From RFN 123 excerpt of A Mighty Fortress, by HAC

I do not have any problem with homosexuality per se.

I just fail to comprehend how “the violent world of homosexual renegade boys” has anything to do with racial activism, and how “homosexual boys” could be an ideal to reach.

Frankly, it is getting a bit tiresome to discover, month after month, that WN leaders and WN writers, especially in the United States, have dubious characters, lives or ideas.

Even Guillaume Faye and Harold Covington, who are quoted on your blog, are the target of persistent rumours, perhaps fabricated, perhaps true, but undeniably problematic because left unaddressed: Faye is rumoured to be a pro-pederacy homosexual who has worked as a porn actor, and Covington is rumoured to be a diagnosed schizophrenic paranoid with a tendency to lie.

It is acceptable to have certain “vices” as an individual, but some are more grave than others, all should be left secret, and none should be erected as a model for society.

It is also true that “uptight” individuals unable to understand the concepts of modernity cannot find solutions to it or understand the youth, but there is a big difference between reluctantly partaking in the abyss and embracing it.

I don’t know about Faye, but, as far as I know, that Covington has been diagnosed psychiatrically is a calumny. I’m not sure if his brother originated it. But believe me: that family members like to psychiatrically diagnose those they strongly disagree with within a given family has happened countless times, as my research debunking psychiatry shows.

As to Greg, he has never stated that he’s homo. I’d leave him alone but the fact that he’s publishing printed books and printed essays by bloggers like James, who IMO have nothing to do with white nationalism, offends me.

Below is what Alex Linder said in 2009 in his his VNN forum. He responded I believe to an open email that Johnson sent to another well-known nationalist, republished at VNN.

Johnson wrote:

But you should know that Alex has no principled opposition to homosexuality, since he co-founded VNN with a lesbian and published my anti-gay bashing piece in the first place. [Chechar’s note: Johnson fails to state here that he published it with a penname and that Linder did not make the connection—I republished his essay here]

Linder responded:

It’s true I have no principled opposition to homosexuals as writers. I do have a principled opposition to them as editors and leaders. As I have said. You see how intelligent men suddenly forget how to make distinctions when it serves their interests.

It is true, as far as I know, that Regina Belser was/is a lesbian. She never hid it. The reason I worked with her was that she knew html, while I did not, and she was willing to post my daily writing on a website. At that point I did not know enough to set up a site and post my work, so, since she did, I thought it was best to have her do that. She was middle-aged when we started, and her sexuality really wasn’t relevant. Except in one way—and this was something I was not fully aware of when I started, and in fact is the basis of my position on homos today. My principled position, as opposed to the lies of the homosexual Greg Johnson.

Regina Belser was, in effect, my editor for a brief period of time. She bailed when we had our first legal run in, when Vanguard Financial Services tried to bluff us out of our URL. I told them to go fuck themselves, and nothing further was heard. The threat was enough to drive her off, however. That aside, during the period in which she was, in effect, my editor, she duly and professionally posted everything I wrote with one exception: she could not bring herself to post a spintro I wrote on the close association between homosexuals and pedophiles. [Chechar’s Note: Here Linder abuses language since pederasty is not pedophilia—but that sort of distortion is common at VNN] This was the first time I realized that queers, even females, are very, very worried about anyone making the basic observation that many of those blasted by the general media as pedophiles are in factor homosexuals (male homosexuals, almost always).

This discovery, again, brought on by her refusal to post my words, showed me that homosexuals have no place being editors of any publication that deals with politics [emphasis in the original]. That is my principled position today […].

I don’t even think Greg Johnson is his real name. Every other Ph.D. out there has his bio and his publications up front. With “Greg Johnson,” these are nowhere to be found.

Who is “Greg Johnson”? What is his background? What is his agenda? The answers to none of these questions are known.

It now looks to me that Johnson had a pro-gay agenda since the beginning. I remember reading somewhere he said that he told the sponsor that he would accept the job editing The Occidental Quarterly on the condition that the printed journal would not criticize homosexuality.

I agree with you, Panina, but also with the commenters who said in this thread that this sort of behavior cannot be allowed in the movement. I mean: just look at the pic James chose as an avatar for the spirit of his blog… and compare it with my Botticelli.

I don’t think either that Greg Johnson is his real name, but I have personally zero problem with the idea of staying anonymous: at this point in history, after the cataclysm of WWII and the absolute triumph of the Jews and their lackeys, clandestinity and secrecy should be our motto.

Those who believe that it is cowardice to stay hidden and avoid direct fight should get an interest in history, science and philosophy, and stop being an emotional 6-year-old, because cowardice can defeat enemies, and is the basis of most military tactics (should Otto Skorzeny have fought toe-to-toe and in a knight’s armor with the Italian Army during his Mussolini covert operation? According to some idiots on WN forums, he should have, and that’s where an emotional or chivalresque approach of problems can lead… defeat and death).

On Alex Linder, he strikes me as a bright fellow, very much my style in his rationalism and scientific approach of issues. But I’ve never understood his hostility toward secession projects, and especially against Harold Covington. According to one of his posts on VNN, his goal is to create a sort of “defence group” for Whites and to acquire wealth and influence. Why not? It is on the right direction. But I’m afraid it will take a lot, lot of time, and encounter persecution or problems along the road.

I agree with most of what Linder said but I think that we must completely reject any association with queers. Any ongoing contact is tacit approval of their disease and could be construed as encouragement. A healthy White society will never permit open faggotry and will hunt them down and kill them.

As a practical matter, when political/racial deaths start to occur several times a day in America and throughout the Whitelands you will not see any of these queers. They may have a bounty on their heads and will most likely be the victims of the hunters. You will see them on the Internet only.

All White people permitted to enter a folkish White society will be very carefully and thoroughly vetted and anyone who is pro, and probably even neutral on this question, will be weeded out.

James O’Meara is quite the…character. As a reader of his blog I’ll say the creepy aesthetic does a disservice to his writing. His serious work is concerned with the Männerbund, debunking the Talmudic economy, Evolan traditionalism, and yes evil shamanism or mysticism.

Yet, you’ve shamed me into giving up on the lost soul. Really. The man-woman-hybrid can write. But once more, there’s a layer of filth covering his blog that isn’t worth shoveling anymore. Hans Bluher, Fidus, and NS Germany did more for the Männerbund than James O’Meara ever could.

As an aside, what’s the deal with Greg Johnson? Why does he post movie reviews under a pseudonym on his own website?

As for Harold Covington, did you read the references on his Metapedia page? More or less every group he has dealt with loathes the man. Something is amiss with him. Yet he can write.

I’ve just left a message to the Metapedia editors (here) asking them if they have no objections for me to balance the Covington article. Yes: he has many enemies, especially within the movement.

There are very tangible reasons to stop associating with the “white nationalist” movement:

1) It is dead. Anyone with two eyes, a brain and enough courage can attest this fact.Though disappointing, it is understandable that it has not achieved a single victory in its entire history. What is far more problematic is that it is losing adherents and sympathizers at a steady pace instead of gaining new ones. This is a raw estimation, but I don’t think there are more than 50,000 active and declared WNs in the entire US territory as of now… That’s called a sect, a cult.

2) It is pathetic. Read Stormfront, the world hub of WNism, to understand what I mean. Who wants to associate with those who post there? I’d rather live among Hispanics or Asians than among the low-brow skinheads, mixed-race “Whites”, Slavs, feminist women and Christian creationists of Stormfront.

3) The term “white nationalism” bothers me because “white” is too vague. I’ve seen enough specimens of white Untermenschen in my life to understand that skin color alone is unfortunately not enough, in the time of accelerating dysgenism, to assert the nobility, intelligence and probity of someone.

i like the terms “realism” (since were are, in fine, observers and accepters of scientific truths), “white advocacy”, “pro-white” (which has a double meaning), or “new right”.

Interesting thread. What a dog’s breakfast this supposed “movement” is. And yes, who is “Greg Johnson?”

Addendum: Of course the “movement” is dead. As with the four people of his “family” (including a 16-month old child), J.T. Ready delivered a head shot to it.

Comments are closed.