Category: Homosexuality

Not impressive

I’ve come to the conclusion over the past few years that the mantra, “The conservatives of today are the liberals of tomorrow,” is axiomatic. Whereas the Racialist Right of the past, viz., Rockwell, inveighed against rock’n’roll, modern-day WNs promote it to the hilt and consider it part of White cultural heritage. Thus, it’s not surprising that James O’Meara’s latest essay is part of this trend.

Essentially, O’Meara’s essay is an attempt to belittle the Western musical canon and replace it with something more “progressive” (with a homosexual tinge). There are several problems with this. Allow me to begin with the most inconsequential and then I’ll work my way up to the crux of the matter.

James O’Meara’s writing style is irritating. It’s filled with references to “pop culture” and various modern/modernistic sayings. It’s a snazzy, jazzy, and frenetic writing style with a lot of names thrown in to give it the flavor of credibility. This invoking of the modern “world of pop” is alien to me and others from the Old World. More than half-the-time, I have no clue who or what he is referring to. O’Meara is steeped in the modern world. This is not good and it’s a sign of worse things to come.

Now, I’m not an expert on Equal Tuning (ET). However, I know enough of Western music, with its modes and diatonicity, to realize that the latter expanded the possibilities of the former by allowing for better direction and finality due to harmonic progression. Contrary to what the “composer” Dane Rudhyar claims, Western music did not revoke Mysticism. The Western canon is spiritual to the core, from chant up to and including the pathos of Elektra. Incidentally, I listened to Rudhyar’s “compositions” and they are ugly and miasmic. I thought it wryly humorous that he should speak about the West losing its Mysticism with his cacophonous compositions.

Once O’Meara is done attempting to denigrate the foundations of Western music, he states that the twelve-tone diatonic system is bankrupt and washed up: it’s discordant, it’s anti-Tradition, it’s “merely psychological”, etc. If O’Meara knew anything about Western music, he would know that it goes beyond the mundane. Western music moves the Soul. Actually, it invokes various States. Those who are moved by a Beethoven symphony, a Haydn string quartet, an Ockeghem mass, and a song of courtly love by Machaut, know of what I speak. For example, the last movement of the Pastoral symphony, where the double basses take the melody, makes the music soar, and one feels as if the clouds have been ripped asunder and the Heavenly Host has shown itself in its full glory. This is not mere theatrics. If individuals, bereft of a sense of beauty, cannot see it, then they are blind.

In actuality, O’Meara’s thesis is not novel. Others have besmirched Western music before. O’Meara’s approach, however, is to attack Western music by quoting the school of Sophia Perennis in order to sanctify his agenda. This doesn’t fly as it’s disingenuous and manipulative. A case in point is O’Meara’s homosexuality and probable pederasty. O’Meara is quick to quote and use Guenon to further his agenda; to wit, his viewpoint is in tune with “Aryanism”. Yet, Guenon converted to Islam and moved to Egypt, married an Egyptian woman, and fathered a half-Egyptian daughter. Indeed, Lings, Burkhardt, and Schuon, all big names in Tradition, converted to Islam and even took Islamic names. Next time, when O’Meara raises the issue that the anti-homosexual stance is Abrahamic and not Aryan, why doesn’t he quote Guenon, Lings, Burkhardt, and Schuon, all “Aryans”, in order to see what they think of homosexuality, given their conversion to Islam?

After having attacked Western music and attempting to destroy its edifice, O’Meara calls for a new music. This new music is exemplified by a horrid modernist by the name of Partch. Said modernist, miracle of miracles, is yet another “wild boy”; i.e., a homosexual. As disgusting as homosexuality is, what’s more intolerable, philosophically, ideologically, and aesthetically, is the hubris with which O’Meara pontificates on the merits of Partch. Partch is nothing but a gasbag and a pretentious pseudo-iconoclast. This microtonal moron (like Haba and Harrison, another homosexual) is touted because he developed a new system of music and new instrumentation to go along with it. Big Deal. Experimentation is nothing but another sign of the times. Is it any wonder that Hitler stated, “There shall be no experimentation”?

Experimentation is proof that music, including other fields of cultural expression, are dead and stinking. When an artist must create something novel, for the sake of novelty, then there is no creative spirit present. Hasn’t one witnessed that every degenerate and soporific (at best) “composer” of the modern era has been noted for one hare-brained form of experimentation or another? One can take serialism, minimalism, microtonalism, and their various permutations and amalgams as proof that not one of these turds (how appropriate, given their homosexuality) has anything to say. Further, isn’t it also telling that there is a large degree of perverse sexuality (homosexuality) in these aesthetically horrid circles: Harrison, Cage, Partch, etc.?

A Traditionalist would look to the past and stick with that, refusing to infuse today’s cacophony and faux-music (“folk metal”, for example) to build something new, since the age of creativity in the Arts has passed and said Frankenstein will be a chimera full of monkeyshines. This lack of understanding shows that O’Meara’s utilization of Tradition is flawed. It’s quasi-Tradition raised on rock’n’roll and other types of “pop culture”. All that this ridiculous talk does is, yet again, show that O’Meara and his ilk lack musical refinement while exhibiting, unbeknownst to themselves, the utmost hubris. As a case in point, O’Meara’s third installment on Partch refers to the decomposer as “Our Wagner, Only Better”! My God, what fatuousness!

Speaking of Wagner, he’s considered an idol because the NS, Hitler in particular, made him such at the expense of others. This is a case of sycophantism. In fact, the Right doesn’t know any better, because it, too, lacks knowledge and aesthetic sensitivity, to a large degree. Brahms and other composers who weren’t revered by Hitler and Co. didn’t shine as strongly for the Right as we currently witness. Be that as it may, I agree with Rossini: “Mr. Wagner has beautiful moments, but bad quarters of an hour.”

You who love the Western musical heritage and give it more than cursory lip-service should be aghast at what this pederast has written. He has an agenda of promoting the most absurd ideas as novel and almost always with some homosexual angle. His “wild boys” are charlatans, hacks, freaks, homosexuals (excuse the redundancy), modernists, and purveyors of ugliness. I have yet to listen to a piece by Partch that can compete with the most nugatory of classical compositions.

The fact that Western youth do not listen to their musical hits and wonderments is not a reason to forego the Musical Masters, but to accept the fact that Western youth are degenerate through and through and must be redeemed. They need the light and they need to be re-acquainted with their heritage. Simulacra of a nadir variety are simply not to be brooked.

Tags Degeneracy

Homosexuality Individualism Liberalism Metaphysics of race / sex Sexual "liberation"

On homosexual “marriage”

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.

Tags Degeneracy

Homosexuality Kali Yuga Liberalism Sexual "liberation" Videos

Gay “rights” – full movie

This documentary was filmed from the conservative point of view; not from our POV. But it’s still worth watching. The grotesque homo images are worth a thousand words.

Tags Degeneracy

Child abuse Homosexuality Islamization of Europe Kali Yuga

Metapedia on homosexualism

Post author By C .T.
Post date July 5, 2013
9 Comments on Metapedia on homosexualism

Homosexualism is a psychopathology and subsection of Sexual Bolshevism which encourages human males to participate in abnormal “sexual” relations with each other. The modern idea began in decadent urban centers of liberal-capitalist Western Europe during the 19th century; the term “homosexual” was coined in 1869. The modern movement was politicized by Magnus Hirschfeld, a Jewish Marxist, who used it as means to undermine gentile society; this was carried on by the likes of Wilhelm Reich of SEXPOL.

Etymology

The word comes from Greek homos “same” + Latin sexual. The word is argued to have been created by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in an anonymous pamphlet published in Germany in 1869. It and rival terminology were created as replacements for earlier derogatory words. The word appeared in English in 1892 in a translation of a German work. In 1897 Havelock Ellis stated that it is a “barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it. It is, however, convenient, and now widely used.”

Other terms

A propaganda campaign has been launched to usurp the word “gay” to refer to male homosexuals to make it sound like something positive. The word lesbian is sometimes used to refer to females of such a disposition. LGBT refers lesbian, “gay,” bisexual, and transgender. An alternative term for LGBT, or even broader, is queer, supposedly today without its original derogatory implications. Derogatory terms for male homosexuals include words such as pansy, fruit, faggot, poof, daisy, nelly, mincer, shirt lifter, s**t stabber and arse bandit which etymologically often imply effeminate men.

Even the seemingly neutral Lesbian has been seen as derogatory by inhabitants of the island Greek Lesbos from which the word derives and who have campaigned against its use.

Views on homosexuality

Homosexuality is rejected by various religions and conservatives. Consequently large amounts of criticisms can be found in such sources. For example Conservapedia has a large number of pages dedicated to religious as well as non-religious criticisms, with sources, regarding areas such infectious diseases, physical health, mental health, substance abuse, crime, pedophilia, lobbying, coverage in media, history, and other topics. The liberal views can similarly be found in liberal sources such as Wikipedia. See the links below in the “External links” section [omitted in this entry].

Any negative association with homosexuality, for homosexuals themselves or for other persons, is generally dismissed by supporters as completely due to stress caused by persecution which is at best an unproven hypothesis. There are many other possibilities. One is that that confusion regarding gender identity may be stressful in itself. Another is that if homosexuality is caused by some factor(s) affecting the brain regions involved in sexual behaviors, then these factors could possibly also affect other regions of the brain causing various, possibly negative, effects.

The “natural” argument

An influential argument in support of homosexuality is that it is actually a “natural” variation of human sexuality. [Chechar’s note: Greg Johnson’s take on this subject] This argued to be supported by homosexual behavior in several historical societies, the relatively high prevalence in Western societies, homosexual behaviors in some animals, various theories regarding evolutionary benefits, and some evidence of a genetic causation. Furthermore, if homosexuality is predominantly genetically caused, then homosexuality will not become more common if homosexuals raise children or work with children. Many of these arguments are ignored by religiously influenced critics who do not believe in evolution.

Against this a number of points can be raised. There are very few descriptions of homosexual behavior in traditional societies such as hunter-gatherer societies. These are the ones most similar to the societies in which humans spent almost all of their evolutionary history. The only exception are some related tribes on Papua New Guinea. This consist of apparently highly ritualized and culturally obligatory initiation rites for boys. [Chechar’s note: as a child abuse researcher I know that kids are forced to fellate adults in these New Guinea rituals] As such there is very little individual choice in participating. Depictions of sexual behavior are not uncommon in prehistoric art such as cave paintings but depictions of homosexual behaviors are nonexistent or possibly rare if generously interpreting two unclear cave paintings as homosexual. This is in contrast with ethnographers having been able to document many not culturally approved behaviors such as murder, theft, infanticide and extramarital affairs.

There are some forms of homosexual behaviors in some animal species but exclusive and predominant homosexuality by animals is rare in nature. The basic biological design of all species is heterosexual reproduction. […]

Political activism

The first homosexual supremacist rally was in 1970, which have become common.

Conservatives and even some liberals themselves have argued that the liberal Hollywood deliberately inserts homosexual propaganda in movies and television. Thus, in 1987 gay activists stated that “Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream”.

In a 2013 speech, then United States Vice President Joe Biden publicly spoke about how the push for homosexuality and the changes toward it were done entirely by the Jews who run Hollywood. He spoke his speech as praise to avoid accusations of anti-Semitism. […]

Homosexuals are often a particularly strange part of the leftist-Islamist alliance with homosexuals and homosexual organizations in Europe generally supporting the mass immigration despite this meaning a rapidly growing number of Islamists with far harsher views than Christian conservatives on homosexuality and on what society should do.

(See the complete article, and help us to edit it, here)

Tags Degeneracy

Homosexuality Kali Yuga Marriage

Hello Chechar,

First, thank you for your website, it is one of the most informative WN sites that I read on a daily basis.

Second, I wanted to share this link [admin's note of 2016: link no longer working] with you concerning the recent debate about homosexual marriage.

The point that Greg Johnson misses (purposely or not) is that the homosexual / jewish activists’ stated purpose through gay marriage is to destroy marriage. Johnson is either incredibly naive or being deceptive.

Best regards,

R. Rud

Tags Jewish problem (JP)

Homosexuality

Johnson’s tactic

(This pic of a transvestite appears in one of the “About me” pages of James O’Meara’s blogs)

Greg Johnson responds to these threads [that criticize his stance on “gay marriage”] as he’s done before, by placing James O’Meara front and center today. In your face. It says to readers and contributors at Counter-Currents, if they want me, you have to take my foul-smelling monkey, too. The second I saw the name, I clicked out of the site.

It’s because Greg is such a strong thinker and writer that he does more damage than his weird monkey whose brain is steeped in 60’s purple haze. Greg speaks and writes eloquently about White values, while at the same time he adamantly promotes a person who, in interviews and writings, pushes an agenda that is completely contrary to White values.

_________________

The blogger “MOB” wrote the above in this thread on Occidental Dissent. Just compare the transvestite with the face of Botticelli’s Venus on the sidebar’s top: my inspiration to fight for the survival of the fair race…

Tags Degeneracy

Homosexuality

Greg Johnson’s lunacies

This pic of a transsexual appears in one of the “About me” pages of James O’Meara’s blogs. Just compare this grotesque fellow with the nymph at the sidebar with the background of blue sky and sea: my absolute inspiration to fight for the survival of the fair race…

In this thread on Occidental Dissent the blogger “MOB” wrote:

Greg Johnson responds to these [“homophobic”] threads, as he’s done before, by placing James O’Meara front and center today. In your face. It says to readers and contributors at Counter-Currents, if they want me, you have to take my foul-smelling monkey, too. The second I saw the name, I clicked out of the site.

It’s because Greg is such a strong thinker and writer that he does more damage than his weird monkey whose brain is steeped in 60’s purple haze. Greg speaks and writes eloquently about White values, while at the same time he adamantly promotes a person who, in interviews and writings, pushes an agenda that is completely contrary to White values.

Good White nationalists who want to be able to believe in Greg massage their instinctive resistance until they can do that.

On another racialist site, Majority Rights, Captainchaos said:

According to Greg Johnson racial preservation is “decadent”. Johnson favors expanding the franchise of Whiteness to include Turks so presumably he does not oppose the mixing of Turks with Northern Europeans. This is nothing short of a recipe for racial nihilism. Now, as far as I am concerned, that is infinitely better grounds for condemning Johnson’s work as essentially frivolous, if not maliciously misleading rather than his alleged enrichment by Jews that can only be “proven” to exist in the imagination of Johnson’s accuser [paranoid monocausalist J. Richards].

On the same thread another commenter added:

So nobody else finds it strange that Greg Johnson trashes Christianity on the web, but gives sermons about Jesus in real life? Is he lying to the Christians he preaches to, or to us? And doesn’t it say something about him either way?

I find it quite revealing that the Counter-Currents’ readership is sending money to Johnson instead of sending it to other racialists that potentially could have webzines as stunning as Johnson’s—without degeneracy, lunacies or dishonesties involved.

Tags Degeneracy

Art Hadrian Homosexuality Julian (novel)

JVLIAN excerpts – XI

“Why were you so ungrateful to our gods
as to desert them for the Jews?”

—Julian, addressing the Christians

Julian

The Memoir of Julian Augustus

I arrived at Piraeus, the port of Athens, shortly after sunrise 5 August 355. I remember every one of the forty-seven days I spent in Athens. They were the happiest days of my life, so far.

I engaged a cart and driver after considerable haggling (I was able to bring the driver’s cost down to half what he asked: good but not marvelous). Then I climbed into the little cart. Half standing, half sitting on the cart rail, I was borne over the rutted road to Athens.

The sun rose in a cloudless sky. Attic clarity is not just a metaphor; it is a fact. The sky’s blue was painful.

My first reaction was delight at anonymity. No one stared at me. No one knew who I was. I looked a typical student with my beard and plain cloak. There were dozens like me. Some were in carts, most were on foot; all of them moving toward the same goal: Athens and the knowledge of the true.

On every side of me carts rattled and creaked, their drivers cursing and their contents, human or animal, complaining. The Athenian Greek is a lively fellow, though one looks in vain from face to face for a glimpse of Pericles or Alcibiades. As a race, they are much changed. They are no longer noble. They have been too often enslaved, and their blood mixed with that of barbarians.

[Chechar’s note: See Pierce’s take on this subject]

The Dipylon Gate was as busy in the early morning as any other great city’s gate might have been at noon. It is a double gate, as its name indicates, with two tall towers on the outside. Guards lolled in front, paying no attention to the carts and pedestrians who came and went. As we passed through the outer gate, our cart was suddenly surrounded by whores. Twenty or thirty women and girls of all ages rushed out of the shadows of the wall. They fought with one another to get close to the cart. They tugged at my cloak. They called me “Billy Goat,” “Pan,” “Satyr,” and other less endearing terms.

With the skill of an acrobat one pretty child of fourteen vaulted the railing of my cart and firmly grasped my beard in her fist. The soldiers laughed at my discomfort. With some effort I pried my beard from her fingers, but not before her other hand had reached between my legs, to the delight of those watching. But the driver was expert at handling these girls. With a delicate flick of his whip, he snapped at the hand. It was withdrawn with a cry. She leapt to the ground. The other women jeered us. Their curses were splendid, Homeric!

I arranged my tunic. The sharp tug of the girl’s hand had had its effect upon me, and against my will I thought of lovemaking and wondered where the best girls in Athens might be found. I was not then, as I am now, celibate. Yet even in those days I believed that it was virtuous to mortify the flesh, for it is a fact that conscience increases intellectual clarity. But I was also twenty-three years old and the flesh made demands on me in a way that the mind could not control.

Youth is the body’s time. Not a day passed in those days that I did not experience lust. Not a week passed that I did not assuage that lust. But I do not agree with those Dionysians who maintain that the sexual act draws men closer to the One God. If anything, it takes a man away from God, for in the act he is blind and thoughtless, no more than an animal engaged in the ceremony of creation. Yet to each stage of one’s life certain things are suitable and for a few weeks, eight years ago, I was young, and knew many girls. Even now in this hot Asiatic night, I recall with unease that brilliant time, and think of lovemaking. I notice that my secretary is blushing. Yet he is Greek!

♣

The driver indicated a large ruin to the right. “Hadrian,” he said. “Hadrian Augustus.” Like all travelers, I am used to hearing guides refer to my famous predecessor. Even after two centuries he is the only emperor every man has heard of—because of his constant traveling, his continuous building and, sad to say, his ridiculous passion for the boy Antinoüs. I suppose that it is natural enough to like boys but it is not natural or seemly to love anyone with the excessive and undignified passion that Hadrian showed for Antinoüs. Fortunately, the boy was murdered before Hadrian could make him his heir. But in his grief Hadrian made himself and the Genius of Rome look absurd. He set up thousands of statues and dedicated innumerable temples to the dead boy.

He even declared the pretty catamite a god! It was a shocking display and permanently shadows Hadrian’s fame. For the first time in history, a Roman emperor was mocked and thought ridiculous. Yet except for this one lapse, I find Hadrian a sympathetic figure.

Conservatism Homosexuality Mainstream media Sexual "liberation"

Linder on Johnson: a retort

Post author By C .T.
Post date July 3, 2013
9 Comments on Linder on Johnson: a retort

Excerpted from VNN Forum. Alex Linder is responding to Greg Johnson’s “The gay marriage controversy.” Indented paragraphs come from Johnson’s June 28, 2013 essay:

Both the promoters and opponents of homosexual marriage share a common false premise: that the legalization of homosexual marriage overthrows “heteronormativity,” i.e., the idea that heterosexuality is normal and other forms of sexuality are not. But the idea that changing marriage laws can change heteronormativity is simply false.

Actually, no one says that. Leftists see queer marriage as one important campaign in a giant ongoing war.

What do I mean when I say that homosexual behavior is abnormal? I don’t mean that it is unnatural, since its exists in nature. It is even found in many species besides man.

Most of the so-called examples of homosexual behavior disappear on closer examination.

I don’t mean that it is a sin, i.e., something that displeases God. The idea of sin pretty much paralyzes the ability to think rationally about morals.

For me, the issue of abnormality all boils down to homosexuality being a non-reproductive, recreational form of sex. And if everyone had non-reproductive, recreational sex all the time, the human race would perish. Heterosexual behavior is normal, because only heterosexual sex can perpetuate our species, provided conception is not blocked by birth control.

So the real issue is not even homosexual versus heterosexual, but reproductive versus non-reproductive sex. That’s all there is to it.

Um, no. Homosexual behavior is inherently morbid, heterosexual behavior is not. Queer behavior is on a par along with drug / alcohol abuse and other anti-social behavior. Whether a taste is inborn or developed, it’s socially destructive and should be looked down on, and certainly never given any kind of legal status. What Johnson doesn’t observe that’s most significant today is that (1) homos today, unlike in all prior history, can find one other easily; (2) queers have a global support network thanks to political backing and media / communications technology.

This results in queers being able to form what the left calls communities—basically, pockets of morbidity. In these death cultures new and quite dangerous diseases are created and existing diseases are exacerbated. Thanks to jewish political clout, these diseases are untied, in the public mind, from the homosexual behavior that spawned and spread them, and actually, such chutzpah!, blamed on the surrounding squares. It’s not Gaetan Dugas, an extremely promiscuous queer, who’s responsible for spreading Queer-Related Immune Deficiency (Q-RID), it’s Ronald Reagan, the ninety-year-old president, who’s responsible for spreading AIDS (“Acquired” [LOL] Immune Deficiency Syndrome). How was it acquired? Well, doc, I sucked 500 dicks in 400 days.

Heterosexuals engaged in normal activity don’t know whether their sex will result in offspring, so the division between productive and non-reproductive sex is not so simply made. We do know that every act of anal sex between homosexuals is inherently morbid—diseased. Big, big difference.

Homosexual behaviors and tastes are older than the human race, but the idea of homosexuality as an identity is a rather recent phenomenon. People with exclusively homosexual tastes are a tiny minority in any society, no matter how permissive and decadent. Thus it stands to reason that no society has ever ceased to exist because the tiny homosexual minority doesn’t reproduce. Societies decline demographically when the heterosexual majority doesn’t reproduce, primarily due to birth control.

Birth control is not the reason societies decline. Birth control is merely something people use to avoid pregnancy, not the cause of the desire to avoid pregnancy.

Thus if non-reproductive sex is a problem because it does not perpetuate the human race, the bulk of the blame falls on selfish, hedonistic straight people.

I mean, this is like arguing with a fundamentalist instead of a human because it’s easier. That’s one step above a strawman, I suppose, but there’s little else to commend it. Yes. You’re correct. The human race never is, has been, or will be in danger of dying off because of fag activity. No serious man ever so contended. 1% of the population can’t have that effect—unless it be through spreading lethal disease, which is not entirely out of the question, considering Q-RID and the various drug-resistant strains homo behavior has created or exacerbated.

The basic problem with Johnson’s article is there’s no acknowledgement of the Frankfurt School. We know that jews aim to destroy the white race. We know that their top experts see the best way to do this is by using the official vectors (government, schools, media) to promote a General Loosening. The creation and the glorification of the homosexual identity are part of this. But only a part. Deviant sex, drug use, self-worship (self-esteem)—whatever it is, the jewish goal is to get the goy focused with himself, his stupid, worthless feelings and opinions, thereby taking his eyes off the world and its unbending factual reality.

If you do what the jews advise, soon enough you will have so many personal problems you’re unfit to participate in politics. Which is the intent. The promotion of homosexuality is simply part of this. In Aryan society, queer behavior is the proclivity of a tiny, weird minority. A minority that is generally laughed about privately but left alone. Even those engaged in it hide the fact, since it never occurs to them, any more than to the normals, that their tastes are healthy or deserving of some kind of public acknowledgement, let alone respect or legal stature.

In a jew-controlled society, the queers are encouraged to think of their deviance as healthy, normal and natural. Even more than that—as a positive good. Something to take pride in. Something to celebrate. Something to hold parades for. A term is coined to disparage anyone who shakes his head at the world turned upside down. He’s now a “homophobe.” If he dares laugh or make objection to the new scheme of things, he finds himself publicly ridiculed, without a job, and very likely cut off from his scared friends and family.

The political use of homosexual behavior is what matters. Queer marriage is simply another milestone in the promotion and normalization of deviance in order to facilitate destruction. By itself it doesn’t mean all that much, except that a few more resources are shifted away from normal people to diseased / deranged people. But from the resource-shifting point of view, queer “marriage” is trivial, given our open borders and anti-white tax and welfare policies. The main thing is that the concept of marriage and family are further degraded, since the law is on the side of the degradation. This produces confusion in people, as is the intent. Confusion leads people to make bad choices.

Proponents of marriage for homosexuals think that heteronormativity is simply a social construct, a convention that can be changed through legislation, education, and relentless media brainwashing. But heteronormativity is based in nature, not in convention. Sexual reproduction has existed before human beings formed languages and conventions. Indeed, sexual reproduction existed before mankind evolved. The birds and the bees do it too. So heteronormativity is not a social construct and cannot be changed by society. It can only be covered up, lied about, and ignored—at society’s peril.

The queers believe, some of them honestly, that they have changed the public’s mind. They believe they have, through their gritty marches and public activism since Stonewall, converted people to thinking their side is morally right. Just as the negroes did. The truth is that, just as with the so-called civil rights movement, the public was simply browbeaten by a hateful media into accepting a new order accomplished anti-democratically by judicial edict. People’s minds haven’t been changed. They’ve just seen a thousand times there’s a price to be paid for speaking up. Disagree with The Cult on race, you’re aracist. Disagree with The Cult on sexual behavior, you’re a homophobe.

Both these, and other, labels can get you sued, fired, ostracized—even murdered. Who wants that? So the people keep their heads down, and content themselves with expressing any doubt in private, or not at all. Meanwhile, the 1% minority, along with the 2% minority that owns the mass media, preens and chortles over its great victory. The community, they say, supports “gay” rights. The community has changed its mind. It had a moral awakening. It decided to get on the right side of history. But homosexual behavior will never be anything but ludicrous and disgusting to the majority of the population. The public has been successfully intimidated out of expressing open criticism of deviant sexual behavior, but its basic views have not changed.

It is easy to understand why homosexual marriage proponents believe they are overturning heteronormativity. It is harder to understand why the opponents of homosexual marriage make the same claims, since presumably they think that heteronormativity is based on nature or divine will, neither of which can be altered by man, even by the US Supreme Court. Yet the opponents of heterosexual marriage claim that legally defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is the key to preserving the institutions of marriage and family life.

The point isn’t what they can build, it’s what they can destroy. And we have the who and the why. They say it themselves. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this. Your essay could have been written by James A. Dobson (Focus on the Family) or any other conservative fundraising hack.

This makes no sense for two reasons.

First, if heteronormativity is based in nature or divine commandment, not in law, then it cannot be changed by changing laws. (Human laws can, of course, strengthen natural laws by adding additional punishments and incentives to follow nature.)

Leftists are cultists. They are not interested in reality, since reality shows them to be liars and weirdoes. Their solution to nature disagreeing with them is speech codes and laws. This won’t change anything fundamental, but it will keep the air- and mind-waves free of anything that would make them cry. And that is good enough. See Paula Deen.

Second, the institutions of marriage and family life have been pretty much destroyed already. But 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.

No, heterosexuals have nothing to do with it. The elite setting the agenda bear all the responsibility. They have passed the easy divorce laws. They copied the Soviet family laws in their guidelines for settling child disputes. The agenda is anti-white. Deliberately so. This is not a matter of debate. You can’t have stable families in a nation with a gigantic government touching every area of life and extracting huge taxes to pay for it all. No one has any time or energy left to fuck, let alone fuck productively. Throw in a popular culture that is nothing but 24/7 streaming garbage about hotness, masturbation, homosexuality, getting drunk / wasted / high and mass sports—nothing’s left. You’re either working, sleeping, or thinking about fucking. Well, the legal / media communist jews know exactly what they are doing. Destroying families. Destroying men.

Destroying the very ideas of manliness, womanliness, or families. The very use of family without an article is subversive, and deliberately so, even though many who use it that way—i.e., “the importance of family”—don’t grasp the fact. Barbara Bush, for example, or I could cite other conservatives, do this. A family is anything, who are we to say? It’s certainly not a man, his wife, and his children. They’re all independent agents, who might temporarily combine, if it suits their interests. Well, that’s true for the Strong Women and children. Not for the men. They’re only a group if they’re queers. As family men, they have no rights. They have duties only. To pay their deadbeat dad bills when the court orders. To worship the chictator. And humbly to admit how goofy, doofy and clumsy they are. Just watch any sitcom or commercial if you need an example.

Since homosexuals are a tiny minority, and only a tiny minority of that minority wish to marry in any case, I think that homosexual marriage opponents owe us an explanation as to how, exactly, such a small group of people could mess up marriage any more than straight people already have.

Johnson doesn’t grasp what’s going on. The point of the queer marriage drive is to destroy the family. Destroy enough families, you’ve destroyed society; not to give queers the right to marriage. Something most queers don’t want, since anonymous, promiscuous sex is the heart of their culture, if you want to call it that.

The point is to disempower any legal or social structure that defends anything “patriarchal,” as the feminists and jews call it. These are people at war, or pretending to be at war (jews), with the biological nature of men and women. They denounce the observation that men and women do differ sexually and biologically as “essentialism,” and it is one of their high crimes. Funnily enough, they’re all about this essentialism when it comes to queers. It’s not homosexual behavior, not a choice, it’s an identity. It’s who they are. They are essentialists when it comes to queers, but not when it comes to men and women, or races.

If one really wanted to defend marriage and strengthen the family, one should do the following.

1. End no-fault divorce

2. Criminalize adultery

3. Criminalize alienation of affections

4. End child support for unwed mothers

5. Establish a legal presumption that unwed mothers are unfit mothers, so that giving up illegitimate children for adoption is the norm

6. End adoption by unmarried individuals

7. Institute positive incentives for high-quality individuals to marry and have families

8. Institute tax incentives for people to marry/disincentives to stay single

These policies would significantly strengthen the bonds of marriage and family life. And the burdens and benefits of these measures would fall on the heterosexual population, where they belong.

Mostly good things, but the point is to find out who is behind the pushing of homosexuality and why, and to what end. Homosexuals did not persuade the majority they were right. The people running the media did that. And it wasn’t persuasion of anything beyond “you’d better shut up or we’ll mock and ridicule you and get you fired.”

But none of our pro-family politicians and moral crusaders shows any interest in such measures. And that, to me, is the sign that the whole anti-homosexual marriage campaign is just another phony Right-wing con job: (1) scapegoating homosexuals for the mess that heterosexuals have made of marriage and the family, (2) and channeling the discontent, energy, idealism, and money of a certain segment of the Right (albeit a pretty hopeless segment, from my point of view) into just another dead end, a battle that, even if it were won, would do nothing to halt the demographic decline of our race.

Much like the Jared Taylor he verbally fellates, Johnson’s main concern here is to see that homosexuals aren’t blamed. I repeat—that is main concern. You can figure out why.

With Taylor, of course, it’s jews. As the public face of a White NAACP, funded and directed by jews, Taylor’s job—above all else—is to see that the awakening / burgeoning white identity movement does not blame the jews who put us in the position we’re now in. Instead, we must ever and always blame our own grandparents! You know how they directed the nation’s politics in between slaughtering hogs and growing muskmelons.

Johnson’s engaged in “blame whitey” by another means, which is particularly ironic in light of his “right-wing con job.” The Mormon church in Utah was behind most of the California campaign, as the left gleefully and hatefully exposed, and there is no reason to think they were kidding. Hell, their side won. How often do right-wing con jobs actually win? It was the left-wing court that reversed the popular vote. Which is par for the course. Exactly what we see on race. And illegal aliens. See California’s, again, Prop. 187. It’s a tiny elite setting the agenda. Let’s not blame generic heterosexuals for the imposition of a tiny-elite agenda. It isn’t far. It isn’t accurate.

I used to think that these mainstream Right-wingers were merely stupid and / or deluded. A lot of the rank and file are. But they are generally far better than their leadership. The ones on top are so consistently wrong-headed and ineffectual that it is hard to resist the conclusion that they are agents of the enemy, working to misdirect and dissipate Right-wing dissent lest it give rise to a genuine populism that would threaten the hegemony of our ruling coalition of Jews and raceless, rootless plutocrats. I think that the purpose of their campaigns may be to run out the clock until whites are a minority and there is no hope of change within the present system.

Who is he kidding? Everyone has known this for 100 years. I’ve quoted Joe Sobran a thousand times, and Greg Johnson has read it. “It was all a game; a way of making a living”—Joe Sobran on professional conservatism. They’re raising money from the rural hinds and bourgeois Fox watchers. The real agenda is set by jews. The superficial stuff, there’s a degree of freedom. The serious stuff, the racial stuff—the conservatives are exactly the same as the liberals. Racism is evil, squawk. Racism is the worst thing in the world. Hitler is the worst man ever. The Nazis were the ultimate bad guys. Churchill is the best. man. ever.

The only political issue that matters is whether the white race will continue to exist on this planet in 200 years. White Americans are increasingly aware of, and alarmed by, our demographic decline. But frank appeals to white racial interests are still taboo on the American Right. Instead, the mainstream Right at best offers us race-neutral proxies for racial interests (opposition to “illegal” immigration, libertarian individualism, etc.) and at worst promotes distractions (opposing gay marriage and flag burning, or promoting school prayer) or outright demographic suicide (opposing abortion). Thus I think that White Nationalism will never move forward until the mainstream Right is thoroughly defeated and discredited. I just hope that, by that time, it is not too late to save our race.

Good to see Greggy has finally come around to my position. Before, and remember he was bragging about defeating me in argument over this point, he was all about influencing existing elites. Now he’s all Linder-squawking “we must defeat the conservatives and Republicans.” Maybe he offered Pat Buchanan a blowjob and was rebuffed in a way he felt unmannerly. It’s really hard to say. Although it’s easy—and fun!—to speculate.

Like I said, and you can read it in Strategy forum, attack the conservatives. Quit appeasing them. Quit pretending they’re on our side. Our side is basically everyone who’s not a feminist, sex deviant, non-white—anyone who is normal. Any normal white man or woman.

That is who White nationalism represents, potentially. We fight for white normals with the other groups—the jew-left, and the jew-right. The jew-left relies on its sheer power, rather than its persuasive ability. Its ideas are, after all, directly opposed to the ideas and interests of the average white man. But it can use public schools and mass media and political authority to mislead him as to this fact. The right is more attractive to this average man because its ideas are either right or less obviously wrong. What’s not obvious is what you have to listen to me to learn, or take decades discovering—even where the professional right is right it doesn’t mean it. It won’t fight over anything essential. Starting with race. And pretty much ending there too. Because if you don’t believe that racial difference exist and matter then you’re too dumb to figure in politics beyond serving as someone’s fodder. And if you are smart enough to see that they do, yet you still won’t lead or fight, you’re likewise irrelevant.

So the right has written itself out of the equation, from the Realpolitik perspective. But it still exists as powerful media and political machine. It’s just that its agenda is not what it seems. Rather than protecting and advancing certain principles, even if imperfectly, it has instead changed into a simple money-making scheme. What’s advanced and defended are individual careers, not peoples (races) or positions. Republicans and conservatives are mouthers. They don’t mean. White nationalism is the only school that can mean it. But most people aren’t even aware that it exists. Except in Greece!

Glad to see you joining the fight, Greggy. The next step in your intellectual maturation is to quit pretending the “alternative” or “radical traditionalist” or non-respectable conservatives are any different from the regular ones. I’ll check back in 2018.

I have argued that homosexual marriage is an unimportant issue from the point of view of white demographics. The most important thing to do to increase white fertility and improve white parenting is to strengthen marriage and decrease non-reproductive sex among heterosexuals. I have also argued that the gay marriage issue is being promoted by the phony Right as a distraction from far more important issues. But I am not going to deal with the merits of demerits of homosexual marriage as a policy, because I need to devote more reading and thought to the matter. I do, however, want to end this piece by at least raising the possibility of a society that combines “heteronormativity” with tolerance.

The right didn’t pick that fight, the left did. The professional right accurately saw it as a way to raise money. It’s the leftist media setting the agenda, after all. I love how you continue to think you can just pick and choose your fights rather than fighting on all fronts at all times. And if you disagree, remember it’s your ilk who doesn’t want to force the enemy into a head and call that head jews. Which, after all, fits. Is accurate. There is no term, certainly, more accurate than jews, and only Englishmen who will be thrown in prison if they say otherwise say otherwise.

The only real way to maintain high standards is to recognize that people will fall short of them in some ways. That means a certain amount of latitude and tolerance. A society that cannot tolerate deviation from its norms will inevitably lower its standards to make it easier for more people to comply. And the end of that process is complete nihilism, for if integrity to one’s values is the highest value, in the end, it will be one’s only value. For the easiest way to insure perfect integrity and to make hypocrisy impossible is to value nothing but being oneself at the present moment, i.e., to collapse any difference between the real and the ideal, to affirm that whatever happens to be real at any given moment is the ideal. In short, the only way to always practice what one preaches is to preach nothing but one practices. And that boils down to doing whatever one feels like from moment to moment, a kind of groundless self-affirmation which is pretty much the moral and cultural dead end toward which liberalism is leading.

This wouldn’t be a problem in a society without a gigantic government involved in every detail of personal life. Who do you think is promoting queerness? Government and media. It’s not coming from the grassroots. It’s a top-down phenomenon. People support homosexuality and talk like it’s a good thing out of conformity or fear. Not because they actually like and support.

Most of them honestly don’t even know what faggotry truly is, since, after all, they aren’t fags. Where are they going to learn the truth about faggotry? From sex education? From fag depictions on prime-time tv? From the newspapers? From politicians? The whole thing is a giant charade, proof only of the power of the tiny minority setting the national agenda. Put the nation on a stable racial basis, reduce the role of central government to collective racial defense, watch the homosexual issue (issue is jewspeak for problem) disappear.

Why can’t we have a society in which parents of homosexual children say, “We’re sorry that you are not going to give us grandchildren. It is a misfortune. But we still love you as our flesh and blood, and we know you will still be a good son to us, a good brother to your siblings, and a good uncle to your nieces and nephews”? Why can’t we have a society in which homosexuals accept that they fall short of the norm, rather than tearing down norms merely to feel good about themselves? Why can’t we have a society in which homosexuals are grateful to the heterosexuals who gave them life and glad that others are carrying on their families and their race as a whole? I believe that there are already quite a few people who think this way. But their voices are not being heard.

It’s more subtle than that: whatever good homosexuals can do, and there is much, can be done best if they are objects of average-man hatred and ridicule. Homosexuals flourish, in their various talents, when their actors are locked in the closet. Keep it on the down low, as the niggers say. That’s how you do it. Have your bars. Have your places. But not publicly acknowledged. Accept some cop busts. Accept executions where you show any interest in those under eighteen. If you want to go public, then you ought to be charged for the diseases you create and spread with your behavior. And once those are acknowledged, it’s a very tiny step to the case that anyone with these proclivities is so dangerous that he ought simply to be executed as a botch that potentially threatens public health.

Tags Degeneracy, Jewish problem (JP)

Homosexuality

Liaucius vs. Johnson

Moved into a single entry:



On homosexual “marriage”