web analytics

Tag: Degeneracy

Categories
Abortion Ancient Rome Christendom Demography Emigration / immigration Feminism Sexual "liberation" Sparta (Lacedaemon) Women

On feminism

Some time ago John Thames wrote, and quoted, the texts below:


Woman, to a very real extent, is the “natural born Jew” of the universe. She thinks that man exists to serve her the same way the Jew thinks that the gentile exists to serve him.

To my enlightened female critics: Since you do not like my opinions, let me infuriate you with some more clear thinking. Let me describe to you American society as it existed before “sex discrimination” became a problem.

In 1950’s America, women work to support men who stay home and raise the children. Women give men the house, the furniture, the car and all the money in divorce court. Women pay massive child support and alimony to automatic custody fathers. Women suffer 400,000 battlefield deaths in WW2 while Jimmie the Riveter works in the factories back home. Women go down with the Titanic so that men and children can climb on the life boats. Women work themselves into a seven year shorter life expectancy so that men can inherit 80 percent of all the personal wealth of the country, paid for by women’s effort. Now tell me why men should have all the high paying jobs too?

As for Dear Old Mommie and her burdensome diaper changing duties, preach it to me as you throw unwanted babies into the garbage can down at the abortion clinic. Your concern for your own child (the ones you decided to keep) is truly touching.

♣

Women are basically Jews. They think they can do no wrong. Far from being victims of sex discrimination, women are the most pampered, parasitical, good for nothing pieces of ass on planet earth. I enjoy The Spearhead, although it is completely gutless on the Jews. As to your idiotic female logic, it merely demonstrates a truth my mother once told me: “The worst mistake men ever made was giving women the vote. Women have no brains and by giving women the vote, men gave women the power to screw everything up.”

No truer words were ever spoken.


Feminism in ancient Sparta

Feminism is not a modern invention, as many suppose. It existed in the ancient world—and its consequences were largely the same as now. A classic example is the Greek city-state of Sparta.

It would shock most people to know that the famous warrior state was a paradise for women, relatively speaking but it was. The Spartans granted educational and economic equality to women—and it contributed greatly to their eventual downfall. Spartan girls were given the same curricula as the boys and encouraged to engage in sports. They were also granted the right to hold property in their own name and inherit property on an equal basis. The Spartan economy was largely agricultural. While Spartan men were away on war Spartan women ran the household and controlled the finances. As much as 35-40 percent of Spartan land was owned by women some of whom became quite wealthy.

Sparta suffered quite a decline in its birth rate during its decline. Some of this was caused by economic factors, such as limiting reproduction to avoid splitting up estates and inheritances. But much more, it was caused by the independence of women. Women were too busy being “liberated” to bother with the necessities of reproduction. In several centuries time, the total number of Spartiae (Spartan citizens as opposed to the helots and half-citizens) had declined from 7000 down to 700 (a 90 percent drop). Spartan sterility was remarked upon by many observers, particularly the Romans. The Spartans eventually reached the stage where they could no longer replace their losses in war. They were conquered by the Romans and ceased to exist. Spartan women were noted for their adulteries, particularly in their later stages of decline. There was no stigma attached to adultery and Spartan women could violate marital vows with relative impunity.

The similarity of all this to modern feminism is striking. The sterility, the free love, the equal educational and athletic opportunities, the female control of the economy are, in essence, the same trends observable today. And this brings up the key point: Totalitarian societies, past and present, do not enslave women, they liberate them. It was so in the ancient world; it was so in Jewish-Marxist Russia; it is true in the degenerating and decaying society of today.


Feminism and the fall of Rome

Feminism is not a new thing. Neither is it a sign of progress, as some imagine. It has flourished in the past with results as disastrous as presently. Many parallels exist between the feminist movement in the Roman Empire and the feminist movement of today. In the early days of the Republic, Rome was extremely patriarchal. The father, the Pater familias, held the power of life and death over his wife and children. This system lasted until roughly the end of the Second Punic war against Carthage. Then began a vast movement for the “liberation” of women. The war had, in a sense, been won by women. The Romans had lost the entirety of their manpower in three consecutive defeats at the hands of Hannibal Barcas. The final disaster came at Cannae where 60,000 Romans were surrounded and stabbed in the back.

Ancient-Rome-1

When women had grown back the dead soldiers and the final defeat of Hannibal was achieved at Zama, Roman women demanded freedom. One of the first concessions granted to them was the repeal of the law against luxury. The repeal of this law allowed Roman women to flaunt their wealth in public. No longer did they have to practice frugality as matron of the household. Next they acquired the right to enter minor political office and the right to practice infanticide and abortion.

The Roman birth rate plummeted and vice and corruption spread among Roman men. A general strike against marriage ensued and the Emperor Augustus tried to revive reproduction with a bachelor tax. It was all to no avail. The situation became so outrageous that a famous Roman remarked that “We Romans, who rule the world, are ruled by our women.” The poet Juvenal remarked that the Roman aristocracy “divorced to marry and married to divorce”.

At the same time that this female liberation was taking place the Empire was overrun by swarms of slaves and racial aliens. Like many European cities today, it became difficult to find a genuinely Roman face in Rome. Diversity, like feminism, greatly contributed to the fall of the Empire. By the Empire’s end, the legions which had conquered the world were half Roman and half barbarian (rather like the American army today, where increasing numbers of Third Worlders proliferate). When Rome fell, the female irresponsibility which had so greatly contributed to the Empire’s downfall made a severe impression on the fathers of the Christian Church. They made a point to yoke females and to impose the virtue of chastity. Given what they had witnessed during the fall of Rome the misogynist viewpoint of the early Christian elders can hardly be criticized.

The parallels of all this to modern day America can hardly be disputed. Although America is not Rome the same trends, particularly that of the female unleashed, are evident. Women, throughout history, are either the bedrock of a social structure or the dissolvers of the social structure. In early America, as in early Rome, women were baby makers and home makers. In latter day America, as in latter day Rome, women are imitation men and unborn baby killers. The consequences are the same, then as now.

I could go on and on. It wouldn’t take a race-realist reactionary person but a few weeks of reading the “manosphere” to understand why white women will not join us [white nationalism] in large numbers. White men need to become “sex realists” too and understand that white women will not change until things are in a bad way.

Categories
Demography Kali Yuga London Miscegenation

Brave, Brazilian New World


Brazilian-favela


Friday, July 12

Hey John,

I am increasingly concerned about the coming currency crash. If I don’t convince my family to allow me sell the real estate at market price, I am screwed. The collapse may happen this year or the next one…

How is life going on in Brazil by the way?

Chechar



Sunday, July 14

Hi Chechar,

Well, things in Brazil are beginning to unravel. I don’t know if you are following the news on the media, but there have been many protests all over the country in the past weeks—as usual, in cases like this organized and instigated by the far Left. The reason for this is that inflation is back and the current communist government (in power for ten years now) is beginning to lose control over it. I think it’s the beginning of the end.

But for the moment, things are still ok despite of these problems. I can’t possibly complain about my material life, except for the fact that, like you, I have to live surrounded by folks who disgust me. The good news is that I’m going to Europe in early February, next year.

John



Sunday, July 14

The big step however will be to manage to move to bucolic England. After the dollar hyperinflates big cities will be unsafe to say the least. It would be ideal to work in a farm or something but yes: the arriving place must be Londri.

Changing subjects, is there anyone in Brazil in jail for saying things racists? Just curious…

Chechar



Sunday, July 14

There must be people being legally prosecuted for racism in Brazil, but I wouldn’t be able to recall any particular cases.

You see, since almost everybody here is brown/black and since the school system and the media have been so successful in indoctrinating the stupid masses about the inexistence of race, the country’s legal anti-racist apparatus sort of becomes obsolete in the face of the voluntary anti-racism of the populace.

I think this is what some commentators call “the São Paulo effect”: when the effects of miscigenation and its attending dysgenic consequences are so deep and pervasive that people don’t need to be thought-patrolled anymore because they have become so stupid that even if they got in touch with undesirable ideas (such as racism) they would be too stupid to digest and process them anyway.

This is a nation of brain-dead half-niggers and mestizos. There’s nothing to be done about it.

John



Sunday, July 14

And I guess that whites are as stupid and racially deracinated as they are here in Mexico?

Chechar



Monday, July 15

If not more so. 🙂

Brazil has a population of around 185 million people, of whom something between 10-15 percent are pure Whites. It means that there are more Whites in Brazil than in the whole of the Scandinavian countries combined. Just think.

But these Whites have long sold out to the current Antifa world order. They want to keep a low profile, get a job and have a good time. That is to say, they’re like the rest of Whites everywhere. Unfortunately, the future of Whites in Brazil is simply to be absorbed by the ocean of non-Whites surrounding them.

Take this guy for example [John adds a Facebook link]. He used to be my best friend when I was a kid. He is not a pure White because he has some Indian blood on his mother side. But to make things infinitely worse, what did he do? He married this niggress [pic in the Facebook page] and has had little half-black children with her. I hadn’t seen the guy in many years until I found him on Facebook, but having seen that he had married this she-monkey, I refused to contact the guy.

But his case is the general rule in Brazil. Most Whites will marry, date or have children with non-Whites and they see no problem with that, which means that this place has literally no future because it is the minority of Whites who keep things running here. As Whites disappear, there will be no elite to fly the plane—and the plane, being flown by apes, will eventually crash, just like it is currently happening in South Africa.

But fortunately, when it happens, I will have been long away from this shithole.

John



Monday July 15

Fascinating. Removing the obvious stuff (your friend’s link, etc) what about publishing these emails in WDH?

Chechar



Monday July 15

That’s fine with me. You know, there’s a saying here: Brazil is the country of the future. In a sinister way, Brazil is the country of the future.

The pervasive miscigenation that is the signature of the country’s social fabric will become the sad lot of every single White country in the West until the end of this century, with predictable consequences.

Non-Whites will absorb Whites in the First World, just like they have done in Brazil. São Paulo once was a European metropolis grafted in South America. Rio de Janeiro once was a European metropolis grafted in South America. Now they’re just sprawling slums teeming with blacks/mestizos surrounding urban areas inhabited by middle-class Whites living in constant fear of being robbed, raped, kidnapped or murdered.

And the same thing will eventually happen to places like Los Angeles, London, Paris and other (still) First World metropolises. They’ll become huge ungovernable slums, just like São Paulo and Rio.

This will be the Brazilian Century. You can call it Brave, Brazilian New World.

John

Categories
Degenerate art Feminism Kali Yuga Music

Epigrams and arrows

Why is the white nationalist movement fraudulent? Because white nationalists don’t really believe in their own shit:

• Any “nationalist” who says he hates Hitler is a phony white nationalist

• Any “nationalist” who says he supports homos is a phony white nationalist

• Any “nationalist” who promotes pop music is a phony white nationalist

• Any “nationalist” who embraces feminism is a phony white nationalist

• Any “nationalist” ignorant of the history of Europe is a phony white nationalist

How many are there in the American scene that hate Hitler or accept the homo agenda or listen popular music (this includes gyms) or accept women in what should be boys only clubs or are reluctant to learn basic facts about the Old World that allowed the New World in the first place?

If these guys are the cream of the Aryan people… you guys must be in good shape! Consider these epigrams and arrows taken from the site of Iranian for Aryans:


§ The sign of the times is degeneracy. This term—degeneracy—sums up all that is happening to the West. As a case in point, witness the efflorescence of “zoo brothels” in Germany (here). What’s amazing—is it really?—is that the zoophilic campaigners push the moral relativism card.

§ I am a staunch defender of the Western canon and I consider those who degrade it and marginalize it as my enemies.

§ White man, stop being such a degenerate. Your daughters sleep with niggers, they dress like strumpets, they behave like harlots, they talk back, and they abort. And to think that you have the temerity to be offended! What fatuousness!

§ Everything that this unlamented, for me, degenerate stood for was a direct slap to civilization and culture; especially, music. The strident cacophony, the profligacy, the words, the attire, the overall appearance, and the destructive aura of these retarded, sophomoric culture-wreckers damns them to eternal perdition as far as I’m concerned.

§ Sexual jealousy is one of the worst feelings a man can have. It is all-consuming and all-encompassing. Now I fully realize the importance of the traditional doctrine of marrying a virgin.

§ Hell is having to listen to and watch all forms of modern entertainment.

§ I’m sick of seeing young white women with tattoos.

§ I hate, I detest, I loath, I excoriate, I vilify modern “movies”, “music”, “art”, “poetry”, “literature”, and every other flatus meant to represent modern “culture”.

§ The “White movement” is no movement in the true sense. It is a loose aggregate—at best—of armchair loudmouths and pretentious pontificators. The overwhelming number of individuals who are either self-penned or peon-promoted “leaders” are half-baked intellectuals; to wit, those who spout off Evola and Nietzsche from one aperture while doing the same for rock’n’roll from the other, posterior one.

The pretenders, these pseudo-thinkers claim, disingenuously, that modern Whites, youth especially, don’t like and can’t digest the Western musical canon. They need, so they say, something more “up beat” and “relevant”. In other words, let’s teach them all the thoughts of the bigwigs from the Western past, which is somehow not antithetical, while pushing the “musical” excrescences of modernity. This is not only hypocritical, but otiose, since our agenda must be to invoke the Past in its entirety. Imagine, having a people who can quote Guénon while gyrating to AC/DC!

If such a group was ever to come to fruition, it would get nowhere. How can a mind house the soul of a nigger? It is a veritable abortion. And the people who talk big while listening to filth have no taste and they have no soul. The thoughts and milieux of great minds are antipodal to modern “White music” and even to musical modernisms of any and all sorts à la Stravinsky and Bartok. Can one even fathom a Nietzsche-like prophetic figure perorating such great and inspiring thoughts while contemplating offal?

Categories
Degenerate art Homosexuality Music

Not impressive

by Iranian for Aryans

emheader

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.

Categories
Aryan beauty Maxfield Parrish

Prolegomena

for the new religion for Whites


In a previous thread Stubbs responded to one of my comments:

I have, and I’m not really a theist. I’m more along the lines of Pierce or Heidegger or something. The problem with trying to emulate the NSDAP on this one is that they were able to use a lot of “meta-political” work done prior. They had Kant and Hegel and Nietzsche and so on, which wasn’t ideal but was at least a start.

Their religious dogmatism was mostly limited to things like banning freemasonry or not letting atheists into the SS, which wasn’t “separation of church and state” but wasn’t exactly a reformation either. They had to deal with the same problem as us: ending nihilistic atheism through something besides Christianity. It requires a new way of thinking, but I don’t see how the German people of 1940 could have been ready for it. They hadn’t witnessed the collapse of their entire civilization, they weren’t going to believe that God was dead just because Nietzsche claimed it. Now we know.

Maybe I’m being a little too bombastic; I don’t really care whether “the Spirit proceeds from the Son who proceeds from the Father” or “both the Spirit and the Son proceed from the Father”, but that doesn’t mean religion shouldn’t be debated in the public sphere, as a matter of right and wrong, and not merely a “personal opinion” to be tucked away. I see secularism as a sort of spiritual pacifism, and pacifism on the highest questions (is there a God?) trickles down to even the most basic issues (who are we to say homosexuals can’t marry?).

So let me think of some fundamental questions that need to be answered: Why does it matter if the White race exists, if the rest of the humans are happy? Why does it matter if the White race continues to exist if I personally live my life out in comfort? Why should I be concerned with the White race if it only recently evolved from our ape-like ancestors, knowing that change is a part of the universe? Why should I be concerned with the existence of the White race if every White person is mortal, and preserving each one is futile? Why should I be concerned with preserving the White race if all White people who live will suffer, some horribly, and none would suffer if they were wiped out? Why should I as an individual put effort into helping my race when it’s very unlikely that my personal effort will tip the scales? Why should I bother living at all, if my life is not immediately entertaining to me?

These are big questions. Maybe no one in the 1930s would ask why Germans must survive, but Pierce’s student has become the norm in 2013. I don’t think we can just give a smattering of different reasons and call it good enough. We’re going to need answers, and we’re going to actually need to agree on what the answers are, and how we got them, and that means no separation between religion and politics. Incidentally, this also makes a Christian-pagan-atheist alliance very difficult, and I think each position will have to divorce itself from and, at most, work in parallel with the others. Eventually something will become “king of the hill” and it will flip the world upside-down.

♣

This is my response:

So let me think of some fundamental questions that need to be answered: Why does it matter if the White race exists, if the rest of the humans are happy?

That and the rest of your questions are easy questions—for me. But I acknowledge that trying to respond in a blog entry is extremely difficult (William Pierce tried to ponder along similar lines in the very first of his weekly speeches). The real problem with this topic is that it involves something that we may call “psychoclasses,” a subject I mention in those pages of my book where I try explain psychohistory.

If regarding music you belong to a superior psychoclass to those of the masses, you will find it impossible to “prove” your superiority unless you are a scholar of musical science (see e.g., this response by Roger to one of James’ articles on music at Counter-Currents). I can grasp what Roger says intuitively. But I am not a music scholar. I can’t use language to prove that those who like the crassest forms of pop music are spiritual degenerates. Similarly, it’s all too easy to recognize a beautiful or an ugly face you see in the real world, but when trying to use mere language to describe that face to, say, the police, you will see that you need a visual representation of it.

It is the same regarding your questions above. As I told you in that thread, to me the beauty of the white Aryan woman (some would argue that leptosomatic ephebes fall in this category too) could transform itself into a new myth. To use Michael O’Meara’s words in Toward the White Republic:

For it is myth—and the memories and hopes animating it—that shape a nation, that turn a “motley horde” into a people with a shared sense of purpose and identity, that mobilize them against the state of things, and prepare them for self-sacrifice and self-rule.

Myth, not race realism, not stats on black-on-white crime or an excruciating analysis on the Jewish problem, will create the white ethnostate. Let us not use only those old tones anymore when trying to communicate with the broader population. Remember those words written specifically by Beethoven (rather than Schiller) for his Choral symphony:

Oh friends, not these tones!
Rather, let us raise our voices in more pleasing
And more joyful sounds!

For the emergent individual, classical music is the manifestation of a spiritual stage; the crassest forms of pop music and sexual permissiveness, the manifestation of a degenerative, hedonistic stage. The problem with the new myth that potentially could galvanize Whites is, of course, that like music it cannot be articulated except by means of using the right hemisphere of the brain; in this case, the visual arts.

Terre et Peuple, Blut und Boden

Catalina, the crown of the evolution, a girl I met in 1980

The above illustration comes from the brush of the American painter Maxfield Parrish. That Westerners in general and Americans in particular have been degrading their psyches into descendent spirals since World War 2 is evident when keeping in mind that it was estimated that a copy of one of Parrish’s masterpieces, Daybreak, could be found in one out of every four American households in times when Hitler was in power.

Even later, when I was a child in the 1960s, I remember how the American and British cultures still celebrated spiritually the beauty of the Aryan woman. I was a child when the original Prince Valiant came up in every Sunday paper, a comic-strip where the female characters were depicted as hyper-Nordic beauties and the institution of marriage (and the femininity of women) was solid.

Whites need to evolve, make a quantum leap from their current degeneracy to their previous stage. This cannot be done as some young people in the movement say, by invoking the year of 1936—as the Spanish Civil War was, literally, the last ditch of the Christian era (ask me: who studied in the Madrid High School of Mexico City). Following Hegel’s dialectic I would say that Christian numinousity can be merged within its antithetical secularism, giving birth to a synthesis that would be neither Christian nor secular in the current liberal sense.

Let me finish this post with the last paragraph of my essay “Gitone’s magic,” a sort of Platonic response to Counter-Currents’ explicitly “gay” agenda:

I imagine modifying the Northwest Republic tricolor flag by means of placing the colors horizontally and adding the full image of Parrish’s Garden of Opportunity in its middle. Not because in our search for the inexplicable superiority of the Venusinian we males should try to imitate Gitone or Tadzio, which is impossible. But because only the unreachable archetype of the eternal feminine will lead the white race to the Absolute.

I don’t know why, but I confess that every time I read this last line I find myself almost on the verge of tears…

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

On homosexual “marriage”

by Hajo Liaucius

Greg's pals

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.

Categories
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.

Categories
Child abuse Homosexuality Islamization of Europe Kali Yuga

Metapedia on homosexualism

Nuvola_LGBT_flag_borderless.svg
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)

Categories
Homosexuality

Johnson’s tactic

Wild Boy
(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…

Categories
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.