web analytics
Conservatism Heinrich Himmler Homosexuality Kali Yuga Real men

Lefty River


On the Supreme Court & homo marriage

This is my response to Mr. Deutsch’s comment in the previous post:

Yes: at midnight I glanced thru it and the one that Matt Parrott wrote on Sebastian Ronin, and also Andrew Hamilton’s take on the Nazi film “Victory of Faith,” so I didn’t pay special attention to Greg Johnson’s article on homo marriage. He doesn’t want to say that the Supreme Court decision is a marker of how corrupt, evil and degenerate Western culture has become. He even uses Newspeak words like “gay” that I would never dare to use.

Let me put it this way:

Since the 1960s the whole Western culture, and I mean the whole Western culture including so-called conservatives, started to shift to the Left.

lefty river

Imagine a river that took a very wrong turn to the Left. Those who fancy themselves “white nationalists” are deceiving themselves, for in some way or other they are navigating that river too.

In the previous entry that features the painting about the Horatii family I stated that I would like to be a revolutionary, and that most “white nationalists” are mere reactionaries. But sometimes they’re not even genuine reactionaries who want to change the course of the river toward the Right: they simply navigate the Lefty River as many other liberals and conservatives do.

I even stopped listening to Harold Covington’s revolutionary radio shows when he introduced two women as co-speakers. You can imagine how diluted Hitler’s voice would have appeared in the 1930s had he added the voices of women during his inflammatory speeches… In other words, nowadays even revolutionaries are, in some ways, navigating that Lefty River.

To be perfectly honest, I feel uncomfortable with the female voices in the “white nationalist” blogosphere. There are some subjects (cf. the entry “Lycanthropy” in this blog) about which you cannot speak out with brutal honesty if a cute Little Red Riding Hood, however intelligent or committed to the 14 words, is present. I actually believe that a genuine white or ethno-nationalist movement should be a Boys only Club, with Little Reds in a completely separate location, as in National Socialist Germany.

Going back to Greg Johnson’s article on the recent Supreme Court ruling. I don’t see it as a specific Johnson problem. I see the big picture from above, like a pic on the river taken from the air. What Johnson did is fairly common in the “white nationalist” movement. In this Lefty River that every nationalist navigates in some ways, may I remind you that Robert Stark and Tom Sunic didn’t ask tough questions to James O’Meara during their respective interviews of this homosexualist.

No, you cannot deliver a speech like the one that Himmler delivered about faggotry if Little Reds or non-Lycanthrope males are present. Their Aryan female pity completely overwhelms their sense of morality and not even “nationalists” would tolerate sending the fags to the concentration camps. In our Empire of Yin, as Takuan Seiyo called today’s West, even pro-white activists—think of the site Alternative Right—have become so feminized, that their sense of pity is undistinguishable from that of our Fair Ladies. Compared to Commander Rockwell all of them are, in one way or another, navigating the Lefty River, increasingly distancing themselves from the Yang side of the Aryan psyche.

That’s why, as implied in my previous entries, our only hope is the convergence of currency and energy catastrophes that will wipe out both the current anti-white System and the feminized males in the movement.

My pedagogy is hard. What is weak must be hammered away. In my fortresses of the Teutonic Order a young generation will grow up before which the world will tremble. I want the young to be violent, domineering, undismayed, cruel. The young must be all these things. They must be able to bear pain. There must be nothing weak or gentle about them. The free, splendid beast of prey must once again flash from their eyes. I want my young people strong and beautiful.

That way I can create something new.


38 replies on “Lefty River”

I thought Johnson’s argument was incriminating by the absence of a rebuttal of gay marriage. He was running circles because he doesn’t want to come out and just say that he supports gay marriage.

This isn’t a complex issue.

At Alt Right James O’meara was pushing the theory that gays had been lauded in ancient cultures, to which I responded:

“There’s a difference between homophilia and tolerance. I agree that the Christian world is necessarily intolerant of homosexuality, but that does not mean that your lifestyle should be celibrated on the same level as heterosexual relationships or that homosexuality is historically relevant.

I am not familiar with Eastern culture or history, but I have a feeling that you are cherry picking. I had a lesbian professor, former nun, who tried to push the same sort of rhetoric you are.”

You could have linked my essay on classic pederasty that neither him nor Greg have responded. I cannot do it because I promised at AltRight that I’d never again visit their site after they published a diatribe against our Fuhrer.

In the Levant, fags are killed; similarly, in ancient Jutland. Cherry-picking is exactly what pro-Sodomites like J. O’Meara and Johnson are doing.

We need to get the fags and put them against a wall and shoot them.

The culture has been rotting for a long time. But I think this ruling shows the rot has entered a new phase.

I haven’t had a chance to read them, but I don’t think it means anything other than people agree with what he wrote. In my experience at CC, Greg Johnson allows critical comments as long they’re civil.

Then why hasn’t he said a peep about my 7,000-word piece that I recommended you the other day? Try posting a comment at CC asking, “Hey, Greg, what do you think of Chechar’s long article about Greco-Roman pederasty?” and you will see what happens.

While that has some truth to it, it’s a counterproductive phrasing. A more true statement would be: if men lead, women will follow. Men do not and should not need women to participate in anything political. Men should be capable of deciding what needs doing on their own, setting about organizing themselves to do it, and creating the situation they desire to bring about. Such men will not need to concern themselves with attracting women; it will happen on its own.

Concerning one’s self (as I have heard Covington do a few times) with what women think, and taking actions to pander to that, is de facto granting them veto power over male action, which is a big part of what has put the civilization in its current state in the first place.

There is however no need to be abrasive about stating the facts. It should be something good, something that both men and women can take comfort in, knowing their own natures and how they fit together and into society. “Women back in the kitchen!” is the sort of gratuitous shove that makes people want to shove back out of contraryness.

(I have to say that some of what the book-review woman on Covington’s show has talked about has been interesting. It would fit better into a cultural programming hour or something, though. Or maybe a school.)

I agree with what you say of Gretchen, the book-review woman at the Northwest, but the point is that, desperate as I am in the Empire of Yin, I can only tolerate revolutionary discourse by natural-born killers (something that women are not). If the ethnostate were already formed and secured, my need for Yang wouldn’t be as intolerant of Yin as it is during the Empire of the latter.

Greg Johnson states that homosexuality is not unnatural because it exists in nature. This is a very simplistic naturalism, and one that avoids the issue of morality inherent in human action. First, not every “thing” that exists is natural, nor can every thing be said to exist “in nature.” If it were so, then the word “natural” would not have significant meaning. Nature, or natural things, necessarily excludes artifacts, and abstractions such as universals and mathematics [compare De Anima 402a4-10]. In this context, sexual activity is not a thing, such as a plant or a rock, but rather exists as a drive or inclination toward an end that can be meaningfully said to be either natural, or unnatural. Sexual activity can be deemed natural inasmuch as the act participates in achieving its inherent or essential end, or purpose. It is unnatural to the degree that it deviates from this natural end. The question to ask, then, is what is the natural end of sex? Johnson himself understands that its principal end is procreation. Therefore, he acknowledges that the principal end (or nature) of sexual activity is necessarily heterosexual. If so, then we must conclude that homosexual activity is most certainly unnatural or, to use another word, perverted. It is so because to use sexual organs in the act of homosexual activity is a perversion, i.e. an unnatural use, of the organ’s natural function.

[As an aside, to state that an act is natural because someone may at some time exhibit the act is to therefore argue that any conceivable act is, or could be, natural. Some men are pedophiles, and some men have sex with sheep. To state that bestiality, or sexual attraction to young girls, is natural is to completely deny the idea of nature.]

In any discussion of sexual function one can discern a hierarchy of manifestations. A normal sexual act leads to the possibility of procreation. Even if one or both of the heterosexual partners is unable to produce offspring (for instance, because of infertility), the heterosexual coupling is still normal because the union of the male and female is consistent with the natural end and function of the sex organs. On the other hand, auto-eroticism is not consistent with this end, and is therefore judged to be unnatural, in spite of the fact that most men, and some say that many women, engage in the practice. Democracy is not the arbiter of nature.

Morality, or right behavior, is action consistent with natural law, and known through the natural light of reason. We find this codified through tradition. Johnson sidesteps the issue of morality, and argues that the “real” issue is reproductive versus non-reproductive sex. He states that that is “all there is to it.” But it is not all there is. There remains the moral question of why homosexuality has been condemned from tradition. While he does not address this, it is nevertheless of the most importance. Spiritual tradition always understood the interplay of the active male and passive female soul [or animating principle]. In order for the social dynamic to work in harmony these two “forces” must maintain equilibrium. They must maintain what is natural, or proper for them. Symbolism shows this in, for example, the Taoist figures of the spinning Yin/Yang conjunction. Whenever the balance becomes upset, degeneration manifests. We can see many examples of this resulting disjunction, for instance within our feminized educational system. Our military will soon be destroyed in the same way.

Through traditional social orders in both the East and West, orders that were adapted to the natures of those respective civilized peoples, the active male principle has for the most part been adequately checked, and channeled through the social institution of marriage. In this context it should not have to be said that from tradition, marriage has always been between male and female. Here we must unequivocally state that unchecked male sexuality is always destructive to whatever discipline is imposed by traditional social restraints, and homosexuality represents a hyper instance of unrestrained male sexual degeneration. Anyone who has had the misfortune to live in a city where homosexuality is “celebrated” as an official event can understand. Parades with men on floats wearing only their underwear, gyrating to negro inspired music, and other acts of uncivility are common. Disease follows the homosexual “community.” And so on and so forth.

Johnson is correct to cite the breakdown of traditional marriage as a problem for society, and his solutions for the maintenance of heterosexual relations are sound. He lists 8 principles that should be supported by government. But in the realm of sexual morality and mores, he should also cite the criminalization of public shows of homosexuality, because homosexuality is at its core anti-family. And law should always support the family as the principal foundation or means of propagating the race.

His talk of affirming the real as the ideal, and the integrity of one’s values as the highest value, etc., are for the most part simply words that may sound good, but lack much substance within his context. Here, we must face the fact that most people cannot become moral by or through themselves. Tradition demonstrates that external force is always necessary, and discipline in both personal and societal matters can only be maintained through coercion. Johnson is correct that homosexuals ought to fully support the natural heterosexual order. But the way they must do it is to renounce their public homosexual demands, and to move their aberrant behavior back into the privacy of the closet. There, home alone, they can be left alone. If they do not, they are guilty of assisting in the destruction of civilization.

Have you tried to post such comments at CC? If your comments don’t appear there, Would you agree that I post your above comment as an entry for WDH?

I presume that Mr. Johnson reads your blog. That should be enough. Feel free to use it as you like. My commenting days seem few and far in-between. Sometimes, as one gets older, it is better to just go underground and let others who are younger take over the good fight.

Johnson simply does not follow your idea of “natural law”: he is not a Catholic, after all 🙂 He takes “natural” as merely descriptive, just like science describes the universe. He uses “normal” vs “abnormal” in the moral evaluation of sexual behaviour. To me this seems neat and concise.

You must be frank to confess here that you have been a militant pro-homo WN on such forums as Counter-Currents and The Occidental Observer.

Covington’s “women” sound computer generated. Unrelated, but I agree about the need for revolutionary voices. Lately I’ve been listening to Tom Metzger’s radio shows to counteract the reactionary rubbish being spewed by “WNs” in the alt-sphere.

Recently one of those NWF women betrayed Covington; became anti-white, and started to defame the Old Man in her brand new website. She is a GUBU freak, a body-builder masculinized female and a porn star; and the Old Man should have know better since he himself coined the acronym “GUBU”.

“Axis Sally” was her pseudonym, right? The one with a Hitler tattoo doing porn with negroes? Gross. Uncle Wolf, were he alive today, would be the first man to order all these clowns into work camps.

Chechar, if you quote the Führer please give the source for your quote. I believe this quote is made up by Hannah Vogt and the used by Alice Miller. It would also sound rather incongruous with the FÚhrer’s own behaviour, which was often quite affectionate towards his followers.

Oops! I always suspected that the epigraph of Miller’s For your own good was phony. Thanks for telling me (I’ll now delete the attribution)!

The work of Alice Miller has fascinated me for a long time. I believe that parental cruelty is indeed a much overlooked explanation for many personal problems. However, Miller has lost a lot of credibility in my eyes with her explanation of anti-semitism. She is a typical Jew, blaming the gentiles, without even considering Jewish behaviour. For her, cruel gentile education is the culprit for creating an irrational hatred of those innocent Jews. Moreover, she does not consider the effects of cruel parenting by Jews. What kind of parent are you if you think it acceptable to cut the penis of your baby?

In fairness to Miller, once liberated from the Nazis she refused to go back to her roots, and to her tribe. And she does criticize her abusive mother, presumably a Jewess.

Chechar, what do you consider to be a militant pro-homo WN? My opinion is that manly virtues are courage, loyalty, strength etc., not his sexual proclivities. I am not in favour of the “gay” political agenda. If that makes me a militant pro-homo in your eyes, then so be it.

Even so, my remarks about using normal-abnormal instead of natural-unnatural still stand. This concept of “Natural Law” is typical for Catholic theology.

Well, the impression I got there is that you weren’t hetero. Several commenters at CC are stating openly that they are homos, and as to the women commenting there approving that behavior I don’t take them seriously because they are women.

Well, if you really want to know, I have had some affairs with both women and men, but I am celibate since many years now. How does that define me? I do not believe in sexual identity. Hetero sex is normal, but a sexual act does not define who you are. Virtue is the essential: courage, loyalty, discipline, strength etc. I can understand your distaste for homosexual acts, especially considering the story of your life, though.

If you read (linked at the sidebar) my “Gitone’s magic” you’ll see that I don’t disapprove all sorts of homosexuality; only those between grown-up adult males: unfortunately what is fashionable in today’s West. Esthetics is my sole parameter.

Hi Chechar, I have read your essay on Gitone, and I found it quite moving. I agree that beauty is the only redemption in this world.

I also despair of the noise that people call music nowadays. The best that can be said of it is that we may reach young white men through it.

Since WO II the image of the ideal man has also very much deteriorated. Compare Fred Astaire with Sylvester Stallone, for example.

What I do not understand is how your revulsion for ugly erotic is only restricted to men. Older women are often also quite repulsive. They do not remain beautiful ballerinas, but become fat cougars. In fact, more men than women age gracefully.

What I do not understand either is that you seem to feel more at ease with crude “homophobes” like Linder or Covington, than with more subtle minds like Johnson. Is your revulsion for “bear sex” not driving you towards some very strange bed fellows (sorry, I could not resist the pun)?

My disapproval is not restricted to men; lesbianism can also be civilization-destroying.

Fat, grotesque harlots are repulsive too. An image of a fat woman in a Fellini film comes to my mind in this moment. The difference is that they are not promoting their grotesqueness as something beautiful, which is what infuriates me in the homo movement of today. (Remember that phrase in my Gitone essay where I compared these ugly homos with the Australopithecus that became narcissist in a parallel film to 2001?)

Covington and Linder may be rednecks, but they have a more honest understanding of these issues than Greg in his sophisticated town of San Fran (see for example my latest entry as to date: Hunter Wallace’s take on this very subject).

Comments are closed.