by Hajo Liaucius
Editor’s note:
– an update of 27 June, 2015 –
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 that “it is a sin” according to the Bible. In contrast to the argument offered by Liaucius below, 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.
Liaucius’ piece was chosen for my book compilation of articles The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (see sidebar). See also “How the sexual revolution is destroying the West,” a review of Guillaume Faye’s Sex and Perversion.
* * *
Greg Johnson and I both agree that homosexuality is natural if by natural we mean that homosexuals have always existed in human societies. The problem with this notion is that what makes a behavior natural within a societal context is better understood in terms of its effects upon a society’s ability to biologically thrive and advance culturally rather than just its mere existence. In practical terms I perceive behaviors to be socially natural to the extent that they secure the physical existence of a people and the promotion of that which makes a people unique. Given that, the toleration of recreational non-reproductive heterosexuality and miscegenation divorces the living generation from those that gave us life while denying an environment in which Occidentals can have an organic society.
Homosexuality is like recreational and non-reproductive heterosexuality and miscegenation and the widespread social acceptance of such behaviors is an indication that Occidental civilization has been replaced by an atomistic view of social relations. In practical terms all such predilections are driven by selfish, physical pleasure divorced from any sense of hierarchal responsibilities as well as a denial by the individual of any sense of purpose: as a being that is endowed with a responsibility toward his own folk or the development of an organic civilization.
Johnson says that “the idea that changing marriage laws can change heteronormativity is simply false” is, to me, a remarkable claim. Rather, I would suggest that the acceptance of the legal equality of a recreational and non-reproductive predilection that has been accompanied by a massive effort to promote such behavior as a lifestyle is at odds with the physical preservation of our people while advancing the Cultural Bolshevist establishment to greater strengths. I also can’t help but notice that the dismantling of anti miscegenation laws and the dismantling of any legal prohibitions on sexual conduct and the consequences in the form of legalizing or even subsidizing abortion have also been accompanied by massive and prolonged efforts to normalize that which has promoted our demographic destruction. In short, all sexual libertine tendencies represent a unified front dedicated to our destruction and they should be addressed as such rather than being selectively ignored or condoned.
While the promotion of yet another socially and biologically destructive lifestyle is deemed by Johnson to be “an unimportant issue from the point of view of white demographics” the reality is what we are talking about is the normalization of yet another recreational and non-reproductive sexual behavior that is promoted by our enemies because it advances our demographic decline. Since homosexuality is being successfully marketed to our youth as a hip, trendy lifestyle morally equal, if not superior, to traditional mores it is sensible to view attempts of mainstreaming homosexuality as simply another demographic tool used to destroy us. Johnson wrote: “During the whole period that marriage and family life have been decaying, homosexuals have not been allowed to marry, and marriage has been defined as a union of a man and a woman. In other words, marriage and family life have declined with their heteronormativity entirely intact. Therefore, heterosexuals bear the primary blame for the decline of marriage and the family.”
What Johnson seems to be asking is that we ignore certain manifestations of degeneracy and biologic decline while attempting to enact reforms that are unviable politically because of the climate of decay fostered by the broader trend of degeneracy being promoted by the homosexual movement and other allied forces that seek our destruction. How exactly heterosexuals in general bear the primary blame for the decline of marriage and family life rather than viewing said decay as an expression of the destruction of our society resulting from the power and institutional adroitness of our enemies isn’t addressed. Instead, that we are asked to accept such a notion seems to be analogous to saying that the primary blame for the subjugation of our people rests with Occidentals rather than those that have dispossessed us. I would maintain that Pareto’s “circulation of elite” provides a better account for our dismal state of affairs and that the long march through the institutions provides a better perspective on the collapse of Occidental marriage and family life than does the assertion that heterosexuals are the guilty party—and the less than logical jump that we shouldn’t be concerned with the political power of the homosexual movement and what it means for the Occidental remnant.
That is not to say that Johnson isn’t overwhelmingly correct in his summation of what is wrong with the establishment or that his suggestions for reversing our demographic destruction are anything but sound. However, to suggest that opposition to an obviously socially destructive trend promoted by our enemies isn’t worth opposing yet advocating the pursuit of reforms (that simply can’t happen because of the advanced state of our societal decay that has been produced by the same forces that are promoting homosexuality) seems misguided.
Given the reality that the main-streaming of homosexuality has advanced the aims of Cultural Bolshevism and demographic decline among Occidentals, I can’t find much sympathy with Johnson’s notion that the advance of homosexuality among our youth should be greeted with moderate disappointment and support. Since such behavior is simply another manifestation of the death of tradition and our physical future, I find such lukewarm condemnations no different than expressing support and disappointment about miscegenation or any other form of selfish and destructive recreational sex. If heterosexuals are to be blamed for our current cultural miasma, such blame should be apportioned to the extent that such weak, pseudo-criticisms are accepted by the advocates of our people. Accepting or not being concerned with an aspect of that which destroys us while attempting to resist our destruction in a broader context is every bit as much of a dead-end in all senses as is the faux right we justly condemn.
After the above comment was approved in the webzine, Liaucius added a second comment:
Mr. Johnson, thank you for giving my comments the benefit of your thoughtful reply. My last two attempts to post retort haven’t worked so hopefully this one will make it. Here is my response:
As I am a Zyrian[1] and the situation here has little relation to that of America, I feel that some of the differences between us may be accounted for with a bit of explanation on my part. As an integralist I don’t see homosexualism as biologically sub-optimal [Johnson’s term] but instead as a biological and spiritual element within the Dissipationist movement. It would appear that you are speaking of mere homosexuality which is like autoandrophilia, biastophilia, coprophilia and paedophilia which have always been noxious aberrations within the occidental world but rarely have they been serious forces of Dissipationism. The homosexual movement is something rather different as it represents the logical development of Dissipationism and its elevation to a protected, fashionable, legally recognized and privileged social force with the goal of destroying any possible occidental restoration by redefining family away from the cornerstone of any civilization worthy of the name into vile inversions of those things.
The various manifestations of Dissipationism (such as egalitarianism, liberalism, anti-racism, class warfare, feminism and recreational heterosexualism) have incrementally instilled the current anti-culture and have given rise to the homosexual movement. The casual dismissal of the reordering of family to suit Dissipationism is a rejection of permanence and wholly at odds with occidental restoration and integralism.
Homosexualism is atomistic individual liberalism taken to its nihilistic, yet logical conclusion in service of our own destruction. The homosexual movement is a particularly serious biologic threat as a result of its trendiness among our youth and its institutional strength.
It is said that family life is dead and that as a result the latest form of societal destruction—that is to say, homosexualism—should be ignored and the more common forms of sexual decrepitude should command our attention. This is a convenient, lazy prescription for selective inaction coupled with a wish that the broader forces of Dissipationism can be reversed, and reflects an unwillingness to understand and act in a way that represents surrender to the metapolitical realm of our enemies.
Yet even within the degenerate post-occidental world, relatively healthy families are still common and any potentially regenerative elements will overwhelmingly arise from them as they represent the only element of organicism left. The prescription that the homosexual movement’s campaign against marriage should be greeted with disappointment and blasé support is simply capitulation disguised as pragmatism. Not recognizing the homosexual movement within its broader context—as has often been seen within this discourse, while laying the blame for societal disintegration on heterosexuals—is fully analogous to blaming occidentals for our dispossession.
As to what I suppose is commonly termed “the right”—be it of the neo, paleo, transhumanist or white nationalist varieties—, they jointly represent, at best, a healthy if vague disposition based upon foundationalisms that have easily been co-opted to serve Dissipationism or an ineffectual and constantly retreating faux resistance. As I’ve detailed the specifics in metapolitical and operational terms elsewhere, I’ll leave those larger issues for another time.
Liaucius’ final comment about the Johnson affair was not meant to be published at Counter-Currents, only on this blog:
In the past I had heard plenty of claims that Greg Johnson was a homosexual but ignored them because of the great virtues found in much of his writings and because I believed that I shared a broadly similar ideological framework with him.
When I first read Johnson’s essay on homosexual marriage I wasn’t concerned since I presumed that he was engaging in an intellectual exercise that was sincere, if deeply problematic, which didn’t reflect a defense of homosexuality or an endorsement of homosexual marriage. What I did find worrying was that self-identified homosexuals defended the article along with several apparently healthily Occidental advocates who overlooked numerous, serious flaws with the rationales behind Johnson’s missive. These concerns had been partly alleviated by Johnson’s polite response to my initial retort although I was starting to realize that the ideological chasm between Johnson and myself was far wider than I had previously thought. Still, it seemed that he was dealing with the topic in good faith and I certainly wasn’t ready to view him as a sodomite or harboring a Weltanschauung at odds with the cause of Occidental restoration.
My second retort was met with the standard Dissipationist tactic of decrying me as a reactionary combined with a cursory bit about how I was a faux tough, ceding the metapolitical ground to our enemies and doomed to failure. My subsequent attempts at responding were met with censorship and the thread being closed before Johnson created a new essay praising undefined moderates for accepting the soundness of homosexual civil unions and decrying those that disagree as hateful. Seeing an alleged Occidental advocate parroting left-wing agitating was clearly a sign that something was radically amiss with Greg Johnson.
When D. McCulloch correctly pointed out that—:
Marriage is the working out of metaphysical truth. That truth (as traditionalists see it, broadly) is in the incompleteness of either the masculine or the feminine principle instantiated by itself. We marry and then work together in order to become whole, i.e., to become fully human, for want of a simpler term. It is an effort to restore, in a minor way, the primordial condition. Society sanctions that effort for the dignity and fulfillment of both sexes. At bottom, the reasons for marriage, as it were, are entirely metaphysical. All of those sodomite questions and challenges for which you think there are no good answers, are, if fact, easy to answer if you understand the principles involved: the principles that you are supposed to be defending. So, no. The agenda of the forces of dissolution, i.e., anti-tradition, including the radical politicized sodomites, should be opposed in its entirety with no quarter given.
—the extent of Johnson’s reply was to dismiss what was said as “made up rationales for justifying coupling” which demonstrates a shallow, mis-educated view regarding traditionalism and an open contempt for Occidental folkways and mores that in no respect differ from any generic proponent of our destruction. Interestingly, D. McCulloch was permitted an elegant reply [at Counter-Currents]. That Johnson lacked the ability or willingness to counter such an obvious truth wasn’t a surprise to me. More importantly, the exchange confirmed that Johnson’s thinking on this topic is fundamentally in opposition to Occidental renewal and that he mimics the rhetoric of our enemies and the reasoning of the American Supreme Court.
Donar van Holland capably demolished Johnson’s argument that “couplings” should be considered strictly in terms of the prima facie position that allows marriage to be divorced from reproduction. As expected, Johnson didn’t even acknowledge van Holland’s position but focuses upon legalistic sophistry and the notion that all biologically unproductive “couplings” are functionally equivalent because he says so.
In essence, one is concerned with Occidental humanity to the extent that one seeks to preserve and strengthen that which makes our folk unique. Promoting the legal and institutional recognition of “homosexual couplings” can’t serve such an aim even if family life has been utterly decimated as Johnson claims. Realistically speaking, Johnson is wrong as tens of millions of healthy families exist in the Occidental world; so a central element of his argument is fallacious.
He never really provided any support for his contention that the decline in family life is the fault of heterosexuals, yet even if one accepts that assertion he still provides no reason to believe that accepting the institutionalization of homosexuality can benefit our people. In fact, the alleged utility of such a policy is left unmentioned let alone supported.
As to what Johnson describes as “heteronormativity,” it is true that it can’t be undermined insofar as it’s natural in every meaningful sense of the term and will always appeal to most people. Regarding the homosexual movement in social/tribal and biologic terms (which is what those of us that care about the preservation of our people should be focusing upon), it’s detrimental for all the reasons detailed by myself and others. Johnson recognizes that his prescriptions for strengthening real marriage aren’t viable in the present clime yet he promotes the agenda of the homosexual movement which is detrimental to our people making one doubt his motivations and/or his intellectual foundations.
Is Johnson a homosexual? I don’t know and I don’t think it matters since regardless of how he lives he perceives that the very building blocks of any civilization worthy of the name (i.e., families) can be divorced from biology. He attempts to reconstruct marriage in legalistic-institutional terms which only make sense within the context of deracinated, social atoms that “couple” purely because it fulfills individual needs. That any “coupling” should be accepted socially and legally as equally valid as heterosexual marriage reflects a Dissipationist rather than an Occidental way of thinking that must be condemned.
In short, Johnson has demonstrated that he has fully embraced a key aspect of Dissipationism to the point of adopting rhetoric indistinguishable from any generic libertarian or leftist establishment proponent, meaning that he can’t be seen as an Occidental advocate.
_______________
[1] People in the northeastern European part of Russia. The squared brackets in this article are interpolations of the editor.
31 replies on “On homosexual “marriage””
Can someone explain the nuances of the term “dissipationism”?
See the previous two Liaucius entries here and at the Addenda.
The concept of Dissipationism is an aspect of a broader metapolitical weltanschauung known as Integralism or Organicism and its successor movement which accurately are termed Revisionist Integralism/Organicism.
Dissipationism is a force that is manifested as a range of social movements animated by a utilitarian reason that serves the ascendance of the Transience ideal. In practical terms Dissipationism is appositional to Burkian notions of prejudice, prudence and civilization as a consequence of biologic uniqueness formed by the confluence genetics, geography and history.
Examples of expressions of Dissipationism include feminism, globalism, egalitarianism, anti-racism, organized expressions of libertine lifestyles, liberalism and trans-humanism. Transience as an ideal is effected when social relations have wholly, or nearly so, dispensed with any sense of communion between the descendants and ancestors of the living in favor social propositions that are not resultant from anything uniquely attributable to a genetically distinct folk.
The diametrical ideal to Transience is Permanence which when effected entails the ordering of social relations resulting from the confluence of genetics, geography and history so as to provide a continuity of uniqueness and purpose to a genetically distinct folk expressed in terms of an organic state and society. Forces that are Generative are in effect when the ideal of Permanence is in ascendance or dominates social discourse. When the Transience ideal is in ascendance or dominates social discourse the oppositional forces are said to be Regenerative.
Do you have a link that would go into further detail about these concepts?
The fellow that asks about a link that expands upon the Revisionist Integralism/Organicism weltanschauung will be disappointed as to the best of knowledge the school doesn’t bother with the internet. I suppose I could point you toward some authors although most don’t write in English. Various journals do exist as well but none are in English that I am aware of. For the most part, proponents of the school are active in street level advocacy which is where most of my time not allocated to work and family is directed. I will attempt to post some material explaining the school in greater detail as time allows which may be of some interest to a few English speakers.
Greg Johnson is an infiltrator, why? Let’s take his articles on Occidental Observer.
In “The Christian Question in White Nationalism” he says he only half agrees that Christianity is the problem, on the other half he believes that Christianity may offer a solution.
My opinion: This line of thinking is insane, either something works, or it does not, something can’t be half a problem or half a solution.
My answer: Christianity itself should be abandoned, but aspects of it, like it’s theology and arts may be European enough to be saved, but it will be saved in the context of another religion, not Christianity. How about this quote from the article:
My opinion: Notice how he divides use into Christians and non-Christians, what, doesn’t Greg have a religion of his own? No, Greg is a postmodern sack, of course he wants to work together with Christians, he wants to work together with everyone who wants a white homeland, (except people that don’t support the gay agenda, those guys are just not enough of the left.)
My answer: Again, something half-assed like Christianity can only be reinterpreted in the context of a new religion, similarly to how Egyptian culture war reinterpreted in a Grecian context, and Grecian culture with a Medieval context.
The last quote I am going to post:
My opinion: Let’s be open and frank and tie ribbons in our hair, and dance the balalaika, while Yiddish musicians are playing and then we can give each other big sloppy same sex kisses. muah!. That is what Greg is advocating here.
My answer: The nature of Arian ideals: Pro-Race, Pro-Beauty, Pro-War, Pro-Science, Pro-History, anti-gay, anti-jewish, anti-asian, anti-african, anti-feminist, anti-conservative, anti-liberal, anti-vegan, anti-hedonism… etc.
Those who do not fit this frame are our enemy.
I firmly agree with your position regarding Johnson on homosexuality. I am no Christian and I also agree that Christianity is an enemy of the white race. However, I do not think that Christians are our enemy. For example, I come from a Christian family. The only reason my family is Christian is because that is the “traditional” religion of our people in their opinion. We both know that to be factually inaccurate, but consider the bigger picture…Tradition is important to the white race. My father is a Christian because his father was. He does not practice the faith for any other reason than to preserve the memory of his father. My father is proud of his race and history. He is proud of his nationalism. He despises the stain of homosexuality. He despises the Jewish media. His head is in the right place.
I don’t say that to even disagree with what you posted, only to add to it. My father brought us to church when we were younger to further instill what he believed to be “positive” guidance. The stigma is that Christians are good people and I don’t think a man can be faulted for trying to raise his kids in a good and moral way. For his part, he succeeded. His children universally despise laziness, theft, oppression, race-mixing, homosexuality, and dishonesty. We stopped attending church as a family when I was around 14 years of age. My dad said he didn’t like the “collectivist” messages he believed the church had devolved into. My view is that he had abandoned the faith of his father, but he never wanted to admit that openly out of respect for the positive aspects the tradition provided us.
Christianity is a system for the weak and strong alike. There is no excuse for remaining under its spell after actually looking into it. However, I think we should (as white nationalosts) agree that the religious debate should fall second to the bigger issue at hand. Our race has been targeted for eradication. The best tool to dismantling Christianity is exposure of its Jewish roots. Logic will take care of the rest. Then they will see that the “good” Christianity provides comes from the European’s good nature in spite of the Jewish teachings. It’s hard to separate a man from his beliefs. It is easy to unite with those who share your beliefs. The more that we focus on the Jewish problem, the quicker our success at breaking the chains of the Christ-myth. I firmly believe that even if it never goes away entirely, we will get to a point where it is the fringe among our race.
Once again, I say none of this to cause any division between us. We are on the same side. If we have a difference in our opinions, may it be dwarfed by our similarities in our beliefs, kinsman.
I agree and I think one of the main problems is the fact that Christianity really is a mixed bag, at it’s truest core it is evil, like a Evangelical or Jehovah’s pamphlet claiming to have the truth, posting beautiful drawings of racemixing couples in heaven and inviting the reader to a spiritual orgy of praising the Jewish God.
On the other hand, if we where to just kill Christianity and throw all it’s works in the flames, we would tear our own souls apart. We would have to destroy cathedrals, masses, literature and many basic moral rules, that have become associated with Christianity.
That is why we have to violently rip the Arian parts from the main-body of Christianity and graft them to the body of proper Arianism, uniting two lost souls. One day many beautiful old churches will become Churches to the Arian, and we will sing hymns with there lyrics changed.
When that day happens and the Christian Arians, become true Arians and revoke there faith in Jesus Christ, then there will only be the true Christianity of Semites and we can attack what is left with impunity.
Strength and Joy.
Who are you trying to con here? Tell us about the ‘good nature’ of Europeans pre- Christian times. The whole reason Christianity spread like wildfire was because a high proportion of Men at the time were likely born slaves along with the extreme lack of human dignity that comes with it.
Of course, I’ll be very interested to see how Western societies behave once the ‘threat’ of meta-judgement is removed from the equation. My faith in humans (White or otherwise) just isn’t that high.
@RogII
I think slavery is jolly, when the slaves are all people like you,
In answer to the article’s title: NO!
Personally I think people should allow Johnson his right to dissent on the question of homosexuality. What if he is homosexual? How would you expect him to view the issue? To me, although I didn’t agree with all his points, his outlook was reasonable enough. Maybe I need to reread it. It didn’t sound to me like he was supporting the “gay agenda” or gay marriage, but rather domestic partnership among same sex couples. I agree with the notion of domestic partnerships because homosexuality exists and it isn’t going away so some legal provision should be allowed for couples that are the same sex. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not fond of “gay” culture. I like Putin’s responses to it. But for an couple of homosexuals that want some legal rights for things like hospital visit, inheritance, and even health care, I don’t see a big issue to the broader one of White survival.
You haven’t watched the video I linked yesterday. The fact is that you can choose your way back to normality. You are asking a question from the POV of our enemies: that you are born with that condition and that you cannot do anything about it but join the so-called gay agenda.
Bad call.
And there’s the rub. If you can chose your way back to normality, and if an ethnostate will be founded on normality (and not tolerate willful abnormality), the fact that no right will exist to inherit your “partner’s” goods will be an incentive to give up your abnormal ways.
In my essay “Gitone’s magic” I advanced the idea that this society could tolerate homoeroticism only in cases of androgynous ephebes (who are almost nonexistent), and that if I had a teen son that looked like a leptosomatic ephebe, the society rules would be clear enough: You better start dating girls by your twenties and make serious plans to marry heterosexually by your early thirties or the inheritance is gone. Zippo. Nada.
Something akin to this happened in the Italian film Ernesto, also mentioned in my essay. I would recommend those who are under the impression that I am an anti-homo bigot to watch the film and see what’s the only kind of homosexuality that I tolerate. The only one.
Chechar, I don’t agree with your outlook on homosexuality. You can have that outlook. It is expected some people will have that outlook, but there really isn’t much evidence that people who are attracted to their same gender can be coaxed back to not being attracted to that same gender. People can no doubt be intimidated into abstention but to remove the desire is doubtful. And I don’t think any state should involve itself in such a program to begin with. Giving the state, any state, such warrant is overreach of the state’s legitimate powers over the individual. Any WN program that contains such warrant won’t have my support.
You are forgetting that this LGBT movement is a new animal; the West dealt perfectly well with the problem throughout the whole past. Even in the Greco-Roman world no thing existed as passing on entire inheritances to a same-sex partner enforced by the state.
Not if you use Wikipedia’s “reliable sources” as the data that supports such claim. Since I have some experience with people with mental disorders I can say that homo drives are about the same of compulsive drives. Even if it’s hard to fix it you should consider it a pathology. Overeaters should not be legalized by the state as a “protected minority” that can pass their estates to other overeaters when dying. That would be insane.
The same with homosexuality.
It is possible, and even likely, that Johnson is a homosexual and if that is the case his defense of the institutionalization of his “couplings” is understandable. However, if you actually read the various retorts that I posted to his arguments you should be able to understand why giving institutional recognition to “homosexual couplings” is a bad idea.
I understand that homosexuality will exist regardless of such behavior being legally sanctioned. The fact that such behavior exists doesn’t mean it’s socially or biologically benign or beneficial or that it is somehow equal to marriage. Again, I suggest that you actually read what I said in the various posts here in order that you may grasp the reality that yes, Johnson is promoting the public policy agenda of the homosexual movement and why that is undesirable if you care about Occidental humanity.
I have been visiting the WN boards since 2009 and have witnessed how Johnson has been asked repeatedly whether he is homosexual or not.
He has never answered the question but he himself confessed that before accepting the job to edit The Occidental Quarterly the condition was that no articles criticizing homosexuality would be published under his watch.
The experience I have had with him is that he prioritizes homo interests above white interests in the same way that white “advocates” Larry Auster and Polish-born Takuan Seiyo, a half-Jew, prioritize Jewish interests when a conflict of interest between Whites and Jews arise.
The big trouble I see with Johnson is best illustrated if we indulge ourselves in a little thought experiment.
I once tried to post a comment on CC stating that one of his featured authors, homosexual Donovan, lived in the Northwest and that if revolutionary activity started there he could become a target.
Obviously Greg did not let the comment pass but the genuine question arises: If the fun starts in the Northwest who will he side: the homos or the Covington-inspired NVA?
It is a very, very serious question: what would happen in Greg’s mind if one of his pals happens to be in the wrong bar when a NVA bomb takes his life (and the life of other homos)? Will Greg side the NVA or will he denounce it at CC?
I think we know the answer: No one can serve two masters. For Greg will hate one and love the other.
It is not hard to consider homosexual drives a pathology. What is difficult is to believe that such drives can be eradicated through therapy. Then there is the whole issue of enforced therapy through state sanction. That is a cure worse than the disease. When it comes to the sexual drives that individuals find themselves straddled with I don’t see much hope that any of them can be eradicated at the level of desire. Do you believe that pedophiles, for instance, can be cured of their pathology at the level of desire and still go on living? I doubt it. Well actually there is one cure many of these sexual pathologies, other than death, and that being castration. Castration is a possibility for pedophiles, but that aside, whether two adults choose to sleep with one another isn’t the business of the state. The gay agenda, on the other hand, is the business of the state, in my opinion. Putin’s program is pretty good, so far as I can tell.
I don’t believe in therapy. I have written a huge text claiming that therapy is wrong. What I propose is legislation. Either you marry normally or you lose inheritance. Simple.
I have more knowledge of this problem that you can imagine. Of course it can be cured.
Nonsense. In the Muslim world child marriage is pretty common. Even Mohamed married Alisa, a 9-year old, according to their sacred texts. If you want to eradicate pedophilia in the Muslim world you got to destroy Islam itself.
As for the question of Greg Johnson being one of us… I remember that once a turk asked him whether WNs would consider him to be “white” and that Greg replied that some might have reservations but that it would be fine according to him if that turk moved into Europe to marry a european woman.
I thought that might interest you. Unfortunately I didn’t save a link to that article, so it would be tedious to find. But I remember it clearly and it’s probably still out there if the article or comment section wasn’t deleted and would just require a little effort to dig out.
For now I could only find this link on another site and user that mentions his stance on the issue:
That alone means that I could never consider GJ to be one of “us”, although I find some articles on counter currents quite interesting at times.
I think I remember that CC article. IIRC it was a discussion of Turkish phenotype vs. genotype. Was it an Andrew Hamilton article? If they look sufficiently white, it’s white.
No serious problem with that position but… in the first or second generation a child might be born that doesn’t look white at all because the Turk had contaminated blood.
I remember I didn’t like Johnson’s position but it did not bother me. What bothered me was the fact that quite a few commenters said that a dark-looking Spanish actor born in a Canary island was white. Lots of WNsts ignore that many so-called white Mediterraneans are not genuine white Mediterraneans but a mixture of races because of the close contact with North Africa through the millennia.
Genuine white Mediterraneans are almost extinct in Europe.
“Nonsense. In the Muslim world child marriage is pretty common. Even Mohamed married Alisa, a 9-year old, according to their sacred texts. If you want to eradicate pedophilia in the Muslim world you got to destroy Islam itself.”
“Nonsense” that castration might cure a pedophiliac’s desire for sexual contact with children? Why is it nonsensical? It may not in fact work, but it might. What does the Muslim world have to do with the discussion? It struck me as a nonsequitur that you should provide that as an answer to the straightforward question, “Can a pedophiliac’s desire be eradicated?” I doubt it seriously. Once a pedophiliac, always a pedophiliac. At least so far as desire is concerned. They may not act on the desire, but the desire would be there. The only likely cure would be castration, as already said, and execution.
Why non-sequitur? The fact that lots of Muslims are marrying pre-pubescent girls means that the pedophilia problem is cultural, not “biological”, “innate” or “incurable”.
As to psychology, I am fed up of the current Western paradigm advanced by the Left that wants everything biological as a step to acknowledge that poor people can do nothing about it (homosexuality, etc).
Lock them up if you want, but castration is Orwellian and monstrous. You’d need to castrate hundreds of thousands of men in the Muslim world that married girls.
As to the West, I am familiar with literature of serial killers of children. A German serial killer of kids was precisely castrated in Germany, but the whole exercise was pseudoscientific. Why? Because the drive to kill of this monster had nothing to do with sexual drive. He was displacing the anger he felt toward a female parental figure onto innocent scapegoats. The ill-identified as “sexual” drive continues there even after castration. That’s why it’s nonsense.
I am admired of the ignorance of millions of Americans who get their worldview from TV. Television is full of shit as to the psychological root cause of evil acts. Full of it! The only way to have a reasonable discussion on this subject is (1) that my interlocutor has had no TV for decades, or (2) is familiar with genuine psychological profiles of these pedophiles.
As far as I know that doesn’t exist even in the academic world, as the trauma model of mental disorders (see the article I started on that subject in Wikipedia) is the most serious heresy in the psychology and psychiatric departments.
Chechar, please fix this dunce’s spelling lest someone thinks inmates from the asylum are posting here.
An infiltrator, no point in talking to you any further.
Rogll has a point:
“Arian” – disciple of Arius (cf. my coming entry on Gibbon).
“Aryan” – related to Indo-European race.
@Chechar
That is because I am Dutch, I spell it differently. But there is a strange correlation between the two terms, the Goths who adopted Christianity where originally Arians and not Catholics.
This demolish of the myth that classic antiquity was gay (there were gays but that was not the majority nor was well seen): link
I’ve already responded to that article: here.
Greg believes convincing the elites is the most important, DS believes it is more imp. the common men, let each do it’s thing* (btw, *your* sites are intellectual directed just like Greg’s, in a way even more, e.g. your position regarding music. You are also not doing field/politics actions, are you?).
This ‘internal’ fighting between ‘racialists’ is silly considering this world view is the minority among both the popular and intellectual milieu. Divide and conquer is working for the mainstream. Let the infighting for if/after victory is achieved (and *most* of Greg’s articles are interesting/relevant and not related with defending gays (yes, degenerates, denounce him on that, don’t miss-appreciate all the rest of his work)), you need all the help, the elites and the masses, cover all the bases.
* Greg Johnson
Posted October 19, 2014 at 7:51 pm
(link)
I cannot do activism because I live in Mexico, and all of the remaining Iberian whites have been “snatched” (see e.g., here).