by Michael O’Meara
Homophilia and feminism are the most important children of the cultural revolution. They share, as such, much of the same ideological baggage that denies biological realities and makes war on the family. Mr. Guillaume Faye claims that in the late 1960s, when homosexuals began demanding legal equality, they were fully within their rights. Homosexuality in his view is a genetic affliction affecting fewer than 5 percent of males, but he does not object to homosexuals practices within the privacy of the bedroom. What he finds objectionable is the confusion of private and public realms and the assertion of homophilia as a social norm. Worse, he claims that in much elite discourse, homosexuals have quickly gone from being pariahs to privileged beings, who flaunt their alleged “superiority” over heterosexuals, who are seen as old-fashioned, outmoded, ridiculous. Heterosexuals are like women who center their lives on the care of children rather than on a career, and are thus something bizarre and implicitly opposed to liberal-style “emancipation.”
Mr. Faye, who is by no means a prude, contends that female homosexuality is considerably different from and less damaging than male homosexuality. Most lesbians, in his view, are bisexual, rather than purely homosexual, and for whatever reason have turned against men. This he sees as a reflection on men. Even in traditional societies, women who engaged in homosexuality retained their femininity and so were not so shocking as their male counterparts. By contrast, male homosexuality was considered abhorrent, because it violated the nature of masculinity, making men no longer “properly” male and thus something mutant.
To those who evoke the ancient glories of Athens as a counter-argument, Mr. Faye, a long-time Graeco-Latinist, says that in the period when a certain form of pederasty was tolerated, no adult male ever achieved respectability if he was not married, devoted to the interests of his family and clan, and, above all, was never to be “made of woman,” i.e., penetrated.
Like feminism, homophilia holds that humans are bisexual at birth and, willfully or not, choose their sexual orientation—as if anatomical differences are insignificant and all humans are a blank slate upon which they inscribe their self-chosen “destiny.” This view lacks any scientific credibility, to be sure, even if it is professed in our elite universities. Like anti-racism, it denies biological realities incompatible with the reigning dogmas. Facts, though, have rarely stood in the way of faith or ideology—or, in the way of secular 20th-century ideologies that have become religious faiths.
Despite its progressive and emancipatory pretensions, homophilia, like sexual liberation in general, is entirely self-centered and indifferent to future and past, promoting “lifestyles” hostile to family formation and thus to white reproduction. Homophilia here marches hand in hand with anti-racism, denying the significance of biological differences and the imperatives of white survival.
This subversive ideology now even aspires to re-invent homosexuals as the flowers of society: liberators preparing the way to joy, liberty, fraternity, tolerance, social well-being, good taste, etc. As vice is transformed into virtue, homosexuality allegedly introduces a new sense of play and gaiety to the one-dimensional society of sad, heterosexual males. Except, Mr. Faye insists, there’s nothing genuinely gay about the gays, for theirs is a condition of stress and disequilibrium. At odds with their own nature, homosexuality is often a Calvary—and not because of social oppression, but because of those endogenous reasons (particularly their attraction to their own sex) that condemn them to a reproductive and genetic dead end.
In its public displays as gay pride, homophilia defines itself as narcissistic, exhibitionist, and infantile, thus revealing those traits specific to its abnormal condition. In any case, a community worthy of itself, Mr. Faye tells us, is founded on shared values, on achievements, on origins—not on a dysgenic sexual orientation.
See also “On homosexual marriage” by Hajo Liaucius. In that July 2013 article I added today the following note:
It is pathetic to see conservatives invited to speak on Fox News trying to criticize yesterday’s Supreme Court decision to uphold so-called gay marriage with no other argument than “it is a sin” according to the Bible (YouTube clip: here). In contrast to the argument offered by Liaucius, the complete lack of secular arguments among American conservatives is due to the fact that very few in our times are willing to challenge the civil religion of our days—egalitarianism—and, therefrom, its epiphenomenon: the principle of non-discrimination.
2 replies on “On homosexuality”
Reblogged this on vikingbitch's Blog and commented:
I know I am a woman and much of the readership here will not address me, but oh well I am going to reblog this post.
When I first was made aware that there were people were people out there that were gays and lesbians, at first I really did not care as long as they did not push their preference on me.
Not my flavor, but thanks 🙂
Anyway, as time wore on into the 90’s, I realized just how militant the gay agenda is. Gays and lesbians are not unlike the mud invaders from Mexico and elsewhere in that they do not wish to assimilate but dominate.
When gay marriage first came on the scene, I could have cared less, but really, what gay and lesbian marriage is about is MONEY.
America’s faux morality = money. Money talks. If a person has more money, he or she can buy his or herself out of legal troubles. So many banksters have gotten away with robbing everyday people in this country. Why aren’t they in prison? Yet back in the late 80’s, if a poor welfare mom sold a dimebag of weed, she was locked in prison for decades (See Rockefeller Laws…).
Marriage in the USA = Double Income = More Money = WE are better than YOU!
It does not matter to the populace here in the USA if fags or dykes marry, hey, just do not be single parent , because [GASP!} then that means you will be poor.
See link: http://www.babble.com/mom/gay-families-now-more-accepted-than-single-moms/
As far as O’Meara’s stance that lesbians are less damaging than homosexuals, it depends on how one assesses damage. I think women generally tend towards more backbiting and underhandedness so their crimes may be less glaring. Just my 2 cents here…
I think lesbians have been very damaging as far as the straight women go. Many of them were in the radical feminist circles that degraded housework and running a household as REAL work, a profession. Well look what has happened to the West now that homelife and housewivery has been dismantled, spit upon, and looked upon as less than. Bands or roving kids without discipline coupled with love roam the neighborhoods, some preying upon other kids via sexual abuse – which is one of the reasons why aftercare programs have become instilled in the public schools.
If anything, lesbians have created rifts within the ranks of women and are behind women infighting versus us unifying to take back our homes, our families, our children from the Tentacles of the State.
A side note: Porn over the last few decades has been instrumental in destroying the erotic template of men and women. Since the early 90’s, anal sex has exploded in heterosexual porn as a means to slip the pill in the oatmeal so to speak to normalize homosexuality. Porn has a traumatic edge to it and really one could say that over the last three decades or so with the normalization of porn has come a subtle sexual abuse of white men, women, and children, as well as the minority masses. I know several men who turned to hetero porn initially that got so wrapped up in it that they later came out as gay.
There is a lot of damage out there. It is hard to steer clear of it.
I have no problem with your commenting here.