web analytics

Homos & nationalists

Thanks to Richard Spencer’s Facebook page I realised that Andrew Joyce has produced “a powerful, definitive comentary on the homosexual question” in white nationalism.
Joyce wrote: “The fact that an ostensibly nationalist writer can openly praise a pederastic author who denigrated the reproductive relationships of normal, healthy families is a sign of a degenerative rot that has developed in the corners of this movement.”
It’s a long essay divided in three parts: here, here and here. In the comments section Joyce wrote—:

My advice to homosexuals is this:
1. Keep your mouth shut. Don’t pretend you’re better than normal people with some “elitist cultural” nonsense. Something went wrong in the womb or your childhood. You are an evolutionary dead end.
2. Don’t aspire to leadership.
3. Don’t promote your condition as normal or superior.
4. Don’t attack fellow nationalists because their religion is hostile to your condition.
5. Stay away from our youths.
6. If caught violating any aspect of the above conditions expect to be dealt with harshly.

I can only hope this indictment gains traction among white nationalists.

13 replies on “Homos & nationalists”

A commenter of the last thread nailed the subject this way:
Those who argue in favor of accepting homosexuals — whether they want to believe it or not — owe their arguments to a cultural context that is actively hostile to our people.
Had the Alt-right movement taken place earlier — even as short as twenty years ago — the homosexual question would not be nearly as controversial in our ranks. If we had dissenters at all, they would be few, or they would be silent. As recently as the 1990s there was much less expectation that homosexuality would, or even should be, accepted. While the narratives of homosexual acceptance were being propagated amongst the sexually normal by (((the usual suspects))), they had not yet taken hold in such a popular way. To use the LGBTspeak, there were still relatively few straight “allies”.
Thus, this very debate — the very fact that we have to arbitrate on this issue — is testament to how sick our society has become. Were the engines of our society’s sexual entropy not given the gas through a massive propaganda campaign, this conversation would not be necessary. Our instinctual repulsion and shaming of homosexuals would be intact, and the homosexual’s instinctual fear of reprisal would largely disincentivize their sexually dysgenic behavior.

Do we even have to discuss this?
I guess we must if homosexual intellectuals feel they can arbitrate discussions in the ‘movement’ while assuming they should be objective or considered … I can barely mention it … natural.
The fact of the matter is that homosexuals constantly seek attention. They are drawn to anything outside the norm in the hope they can insinuate themselves to be accepted, and thus ‘normal’. They seek association as surely as they prey upon young boys. Its a mental illness the markers of which become clear to anyone who has had the misfortune to work with them. They are also in the main petty, mean-spirited, and emotional, while replicating real men in their arrogance, lust, and narcissism. Its a combination of the worst attitudes of male and females together without the compensation of logic or empathy.
I mention this because they are by their nature destructive to any ideology, since vainglory and pride of place ruin practical tactics. (Which also explains why they are so prominent in the entertainment industry).
And our political opportunity has been harmed by them before, as everyone knows of the necessity for the “Night of the Long Knives” occasioned by the egotism of Ernst Rohm and his SA ‘pals’ who would have ruined Hitler’s hard-won opportunity to lead Germany had he not found the courage to be ruthless.
Ruthless is exactly the policy that should be instituted towards homosexuals because they can never be reasoned with. They only understand pain and fear. Give it to them and they will always hide in the tall grass.

To be fair with Röhm, Hitler had second thought about his decision to terminate him.
Joyce is not calling for murdering them, but to put them in their place (I added Joyce’s six points cited above today).

I do not understand the Röhm case and The Night of The Long Knives. Why did it happen? What was the situational context? Is there any good reading material to understand it? Thanks.

Anon- (Forgive me C.T. for my boldness …)
Most of my info about Ernst Rohm comes from John Toland’s bio of Hitler which is generally considered credible and objective.
Rohm was fundamental in the early success of the NSDAP because he organized rough-necks that protected Hitler’s opportunity to speak when the Bolsheviks would have disrupted any public meeting of someone opposed to their beliefs. ‘Antifa’ is their lineal descendant -and Antifa is minor compared to the extremism that Germany experienced from Bolsheviks after WW1, who actually revolted and formed ‘Soviets’ to radicalize Germany -subsequently put down by German soldiers returning from the war – one of whom was Capt. Ernst Rohm.
These street-brawlers became the SS, ostensibly to protect Hitler and the movement, but under Rohm strove for a socialist regime and a radical replacement to the Wehrmacht, contradicting the essential concept of Fuhrer-Princip.
Hitler in vain tried to reason with Rohm and a few other leaders of the SS … but when it became clear that they insisted on their own independence alienating the conservative elements in the army and industry, Hitler took them down in a sudden coup.
In doing so, it became clear that the rumors were true … many of the SS, at least at the luxury resort they were staying at when Hitler intervened, were homosexuals.

In the end, I was surprised by the final result regarding the opinions of the readers in the comments. The homo side was very strong, with more developed comments. Including commentaries endorsed by Millenial Woes, and sometimes even by the majority of the readers, especially in essay 2. Andrew Joyce proved to be a coward by erasing a bunch of them and supporting teenage trolls.

No, but I think it’s not inhibiting opinions that we’re going to be able to win anything. In your blog you have the power to inhibit anyone you want, but not outside. If we do not have good arguments to defend our positions against our enemies we will never win. Andrew Joyce shows that he doesn´t have good arguments.

Which problem you have with the point that, as long as they keep their preferences in the closet, we leave them alone (but if they cross the line as O’Meara and Donovan do, there will be consequences)?

I understand that it’s unpleasant that gays act in a gay way near heterosexuals. Discretion is the key. But if for any motive, I discover that someone is gay, I will not stop to respect that person just because I know he is gay. Even if he posts gay things to other gays. I just jump to another topic that interests me. That’s simple.

It is not that simple. First, “gay” is Newspeak. When I was a child it just meant “cheerful”.
Second, even if Donovan is talking with his ilk, any straight could see his online comments. A person like that (out of the closet) should never have been allowed to address the young in AmRen or NPI conferences (see Joyce’s 6 points above).

Comments are closed.