Category: Andrew Joyce

Comments on the Clarke Interview

Three points.

As a final note, the story of these arrests, and of Andrew’s in particular, is an important corrective and admonition to those among us who have waxed eloquently with their “disavowals” of “terrorism” because it “undermines White Nationalism.” I have always had a problem with such disavowals, and for a few simple reasons. More often than not, they are simply exercises in preaching to the converted. Most disavowals are made by people “plugged into” the “movement”, while the very rare handful of extreme acts of White violence are carried out by isolated fringe individuals who never hear such disavowals or are least likely to be moved by them. Disavowals are thus, more or less, languid and effete acts of moral self-satisfaction. Second, disavowals simply add to, and increase the volume of, discourse critiquing the dissident Right, and they are divisive and demoralising. They implicitly assume a problem within the “movement” that needs to be addressed (where none in fact exists because the movement is already overwhelmingly non-violent), a pernicious trend that conforms very strongly to opposition narratives. They are, therefore, in terms of image management or “optics” undoubtedly worse than mere silence – we can’t correct criticism and image problems by making concessions to the opposition’s vision of our cause. Third, and related to the second, “right wing terrorism” is a largely invented phenomenon, embellished by falsified statistics, media tactics, and the steady production of propaganda by dedicated anti-White groups. It is a largely fictional opposition talking point that would be foolish to adopt ourselves. Fourth, and most important, by adopting discussions and perceptions of “right wing terrorism” we are easily corralled into fear and silence when entirely innocent activists are swept up in “terrorism” arrests. We allow ourselves to be pre-programmed to disavow these individuals and abandon them to their fate. I personally find this mode of conduct to be shameful, cowardly, and highly revealing. I reject it in disgust.

This is a fascinating paragraph because when looking at it from the perspective of a point-by-point analysis, I agree with all points (more or less) and have no strong objection to anything written.  However, looking at it as a whole, I cannot fully agree with it – it is as if the whole is less than the sum of the parts.  If I had to pinpoint a specific objection to the entire narrative of that paragraph, it would focus on that I believe something needs to be said about the issue of these violent attacks by pro-White individuals and what the deeper meaning of them is.  I agree with Joyce that the disavowals are not helpful and sometimes harmful, and I am myself tired of those “movement leaders” who trot out the same tired essay over and over again when an incident occurs. However, there is a difference between such disavowals and an honest appraisal of the problem. By take on these incidents has been two-fold. First, I criticize the System for causing the problem to begin with, with its anti-White policies, its persecution of pro-White activists, and its cordone sanitaire erected to inhibit pro-White activists from fully participating in the political process, equal to all others. Second, I criticize Der Movement because its constant humiliating failures and depressing ineptness induces despair in pro-White individuals and prompts some of them to carry out foolish attacks. If the “movement” was a credible outlet for racialist feelings and activism, then perhaps these people would not believe that their only option is to shoot something up. So, point-by-point, Joyce’s critique of the disavowals is fine, but the entire paragraph fails in that it doesn’t address what should be done, what should be critiqued, and doesn’t properly point the finger at “movement” failure as one motivator for the attacks.

However, by 2017 HnH had a mole inside a group of friends who used to be members of pre-ban National Action. Robbie Mullen was this mole, and Mullen used to be the regional organiser for what was National Action in the North West. The evidence shows that Mullen was playing people off one another as late as July 2017. His efforts were not working and he himself described the group of friends, supposedly a clandestine continuation of National Action, as like “an old man’s drinking club” with “not much going for it.”

At the end of April 2017, Mullen approached Hope Not Hate via email, alleging that NA continued to exist and that he was a current member. He said in court that it (“NA”) had discarded all of the symbolism of NA and was “going it alone” as a nameless entity. HnH activist Matthew Collins has since said that they began to publish articles on their website in the hope the media would pick them up — presumably in order to generate paranoia among former members.

Former NA member Christopher Lythgoe had, post-ban, taken out a private gym for himself in Warrington and that this, according to Mullen, was supposedly “NA” headquarters. I’d like to add that Michal Trubini, who was found not-guilty with me in April 2019, was the name on the lease for the property that the gym was situated in. There wasn’t a single shred of political literature or items found in that gym when the police searched it in September 2017.

Mullen had supposedly expressed to HnH that he wanted out of NA, but that he couldn’t leave because he was too embedded within NA and feared for his safety. HnH later said through Matthew Collins that they were slowly withdrawing him from the group. However, they contradicted this statement through Collins, their “Head of Intelligence,” stating that they persuaded Mullen to remain in the group to work as an informant for HnH, and that Collins would be his “handler.”

Third, it is interesting how the Right is always so easily infiltrated and compromised by the Left, while the opposite almost never occurs. And of course, HopeNotHate was the group that used Hermansson to leverage “movement” Nordicism so as to place him in a position of extensive infiltration. Der Movement is lucky that the Left (at least in this case) was so short-sighted and unimaginative, for they could have had this Hermansson fellow rise fairly fast and far in Der Movement (more than what he actually did) and do real long-term damage. Perhaps they already have such people already in place?  After all, many of our “leading activists” couldn’t do more damage if they were trying. Maybe they are.

The dissident ethno-nationalist Right must enter the democratic process and fight tooth and nail for every vote. 

Readers of this blog know I have been promoting the idea that electoral politics are important.  Not as the only strategy and not as the main strategy, but as one crucial component of an interlocking strategic plan, that also includes metapolitical education and community/infrastructure/organization.

Jews, the Decline of MacDonald, and Other News

Jews and other news.

An excellent Joyce piece about Jewish self-glorification.

Jews have a joke among themselves that goes something like this: A class of schoolchildren is asked to produce an essay about giraffes; little Tom Smith hands in a piece on the neck; little John Baker writes about its diet; others write about the tail, the environment, and so on. Then little Benny Cohen hands in his paper, and it is titled “The Giraffe and the Jews.”

The joke, little-known among non-Jews, conveys an important truism — that, for Jews, everything, no matter how distant or abstract, often comes back to the idea and feeling of being Jewish. In other words, it is a joke about Jewish ethnocentrism. That non-Jews aren’t very familiar with the joke speaks to the fact that Jewish ethnocentrism is something that is very frequently discussed and celebrated by Jews, but also something that is frequently downplayed, obscured, or even denied when queried by outgroups.

Indeed.

A particularly interesting aspect of the study by Brown et al. is the response to increasing rates of intermarriage among American Jews. Jewish intermarriage has been raised as evidence by some scholars objecting to analyses of Jewish ethnocentrism, most notably and recently by Nathan Cofnas.[6] However, as Brown et al. note, given more than a century of intense assimilation and acceptance by the host population and a population size of only around 3%, “an endogamy rate [among Jews] of 50% is surprisingly high.”

People familiar with my work over a long period of time may remember that I did a quantitative analysis of this, graphing various White American ethnic groups for proportion of the population (X axis) and outmarriage rate (Y axis). A linear relationship was established – the smaller the group, the greater the outmarriage rate (since the greater the chance of a partner of a different ethnicity). I then tried to place Jews (in America) on that line and saw that they didn’t fit; indeed, their outmarriage rate was depressed compared to gentile groups of similar population size (who had outmarriage rates of greater than 70%). Of course, the more ethnocentric Jews practice endogamy, and if ethnocentrism has, at least in part, a genetic component, this trend would have the effect of increasing Jewish ethnocentrism over time.

One can note that arguments about Jewish outmarriage rates, while perhaps relevant to Jewish genetic strategies, are not directly relevant to the effects of Jews in White societies. Even if Jews are destroying their ethnic integrity through outmarriage (which is questionable) that doesn’t obligate other groups to endure Jewish destructive behavior toward those other groups for the period of time that Jews are still extant.

And speaking of self-glorification, isn’t that what Jewish involvement in the HBD cult is about?  When is Joyce going to denounce that cult and denounce “pro-White activists” who seemingly care more about Jews than about European-derived peoples?  Both Joyce and Strom write good things about the general subject of the Jews, but when it comes to criticizing people on the (Far) Right who are slavishly pro-Jewish, they suddenly become reticent.

And then we have this nonsense:

TOQLIVE: JAMES EDWARDS HOSTS KEVIN MACDONALD: INDIVIDUALISM AND THE WESTERN LIBERAL TRADITION

What that basically is, is MacDonald going hardcore, ultra-Nordicist. And why not?  I’ve predicted a convergence of HBD, anti-panEuropeanism, Nordicism, etc., with the net effect of alleged anti-Semites being puppets being manipulated by the likes of Hart and Unz.  And, a per the vast majority of my other predictions, I’ve been proven right.  MacDonald is so hysterical in his HBD-Nordicism that he makes ludicrous comments.  One example is the Kempian talking points about complete population replacement in Rome, which is not only factually incorrect but logically inconsistent with the idea that North/South European differences have been place since the Neolithic. Another example is the idea that Southern Italy is “collectivist” while the truth is that the amoral familism there is inherently anti-collectivist – there is no sense of civic duty or ethnic loyalty or nationalism, just loyalty to smaller family units.  I wrote about that at my old Richard Lynn’s Pseudoscience blog:

Amoral Familism is Not Ethnocentrism
This Afrowop defect is not the same as this.
That the HBDers are apparently unable or unwilling to distinguish amoral familism from ethnocentrism does not reflect well on their intelligence or their honesty.
Whether amoral familism is a step on the universalism-ethnocentrism spectrum, or represents an independent entity (in which case we would have at at least a triangle rather than a straight line representing the possibilities), is open to debate.
However, it should be clear that in many ways amoral familism is, practically speaking, as opposed to ethnocentrism as universalism is.  Universalism rejects ethnocentrism because it sees the ethnocentric view as too selfish and narrow, amoral familism rejects ethnocentrism because it is too broad and selfless.
For EGI, ethnocentrism is the “sweet spot,” and the other two options are defects.  From the standpoint of building a civil society, amoral familism is the worst, ethnocentrism is the best in a (relatively) homogeneous state but leads to problems in multiculturalism.  Universalism allows for temporary smooth functioning in a multicultural state, but long term leads to ethnic replacement of universalists by ethnocentrists.  Universalism in a homogeneous state is not stable, since it will eventually lead to alien immigration and multiculturalism.
A moderate degree of ethnocentrism in a (relatively) homogeneous state is more optimal than the alternatives.
There is also a question of the relative hereditability of these behavioral patterns.  The more genetically influenced, the more the pattern should hold with migration and existence in multicultural societies. The two extremes of universalism and ethnocentrism may be most heritable.  Contra the HBDers, aside from a dwindling number of mobsters, Afrowops in America really don’t practice amoral familism, while Jews and other Asians definitely still practice ethnocentrism. Thus, I doubt that amoral familism hereditability of these behavioral patterns.  The more genetically influenced, the more the pattern should hold with migration and existence in multicultural societies. The two extremes of universalism and ethnocentrism may be most heritable.  Contra the HBDers, aside from a dwindling number of mobsters, Afrowops in America really don’t practice amoral familism, while Jews and other Asians definitely still practice ethnocentrism. Thus, I doubt that amoral familism is strongly heritable.  It seems like a very plastic behavioral phenotype.
While it may be extremely difficult to make ethnocentrics into more disinterested civic-minded people, hopefully the more universalist and ex-familistic can be “trained” to become more ethnocentric, in competition to those with an innate sense of extreme ethnocentrism.
This isn’t the kind of analysis one would get from a HBDer, who instead would be pathetically groveling in front of the Altar of Asia, and worshiping a pile of yarmulkes.

HBD: the enemy of truth.

MacDonald is essentially trashing his legacy in his old age.  While it is sad to see, and unfortunate, it doesn’t obligate me to pull my punches when I comment on such mendacity.

Trump’s campaign antagonism toward the military and intelligence world was at best a millimeter thick. Like almost everything else he said as a candidate, it was a gimmick, designed to get votes. That he was insincere and full of it…

But, hey, according to Greg Johnson, Trump’s sincere, a man of genuine greatness, who could have won with Jeb Bush’s political views.  Even Trump himself refutes the latter, as chronicled at this site.  But Johnson continuously insists otherwise. Is that rent-seeking behavior?  Is Johnson using the Counter-Currents platform to gaslight his readers in order to safeguard his own reputation and the flow of “D’Nations?”

Not a bad Zman essay…particularly as it repeats points made here years ago.

After all, she’s of great benefit to all humanity. Why would anyone think otherwise?  How dare you!  In all seriousness, the positive attitude of Der Movement to that obviously unbalanced little Ladogan is truly tragicomic and pathetic. It is also confirmation of the validity of my criticism of Der Movement.

Hey!  Giovanni Gentile had that Ray Luca-John Gotti-Judge Napolitano puffed up hairstyle.  It’s in the blood, apparently.

Odds and Ends, 10/9/19

In all cases, emphasis added.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day: 

In reality, people in marketing are mostly shiftless sociopaths

Yes indeed:

After the war, he developed a successful career in journalism and advertising.

You see, I don’t always disagree with Zman.

Never forget, the subhuman slime Donald “sincere man of genuine greatness” Trump refuses to act against Antifa (although he’s monitoring the situation…very closely), while, at the same time, his DOJ persecutes his own supporters who are victims of Antifa. The incident linked to above took place in Canada, but of course worse has been occurring, with regularity, in America.

While I am sometimes critical of Andrew Joyce, in general I agree with him more often than not. In fact, he is one of the best and most articulate anti-Johnsonian voices in Der Movement.  In the following, he needles the petty nationalist ethnonationalists, and exposes as a lie the ethnonationalist fraud that asserts that the UK is beset by immigration only because it is part of “the pan-European EU” – 

I must make myself clear. I am ambiguous about the actual meaning of Brexit. I firmly believe that the day after Brexit there will be violence in the streets, chaos in hospitals, resources and infrastructure will be stretched to breaking point, and government will be totally ineffective. Britain will be a disaster. But this will also be the case the day before Brexit, just as it has been the case in Britain ever since the multicultural project was embarked upon. Britain’s most pressing crisis has little or nothing to do with a series of transnational treaties binding it to other European member states. Britain has already imbibed the most potent of toxins, globalism and multiculturalism, and these toxins will remain in the system with or without supervision or government from Brussels. My point is that Brexit will not cure Britain of any of its ills. It will not stop or slow immigration, it will not halt cultural decline or the march of Cultural Marxism, it will not stop Britain being ruled by elites far removed from the life and environment of the everyday Briton. More than a departure from European bureaucracy, Britain needs a new departure from itself.

The ethno-nationalist looks at the Brexit debate and what does he see? He sees a choice between the migrant-welcoming EU globalist behemoth and … what? For a start, he sees “the most ethnically diverse” British government in history, led by a Prime Minister whose first act in office was to rule out setting any limits on the numbers of immigrants flooding Britain. This places Brexit voters in something of a quandary because the primary motivation for the Brexit vote was concern about immigration (see the excellent research of University of Kent’s Matthew Goodwin). What they are now faced with is a Brexit that won’t do anything to change immigration other than reduce the numbers of Poles and increase the numbers of Indians, Pakistanis and others from the Third World.

9/9/19 News

More of the same.

A man of genuine greatness!  That genuine greatness on display again!  Keep on sending in those “D’Nations” to the Quota Queens, some of whom are still lying about Trump.

The endgame for the Quota Queens.

Sallis’ Law in action again:

Rob Bottom
Posted September 7, 2019 at 8:24 pm | Permalink
I don’t know if it’s joking or not, but there are a lot of people who say that Meds aren’t white. There are certainly differences between the Northern Europeans and those nations that have long histories of Arab invasion, for example.

Once again – EGI Notes openly calls for all White ethnics to abandon Der Movement.  Withdraw your support so that its inevitable collapse comes that much faster.

Read this.  A good review of a good book, but my predictions differ.  I see it more likely that there is a continued slow decline into demographic doom, with outbreaks of real, widespread violence occurring after Whites are in minority status. In any case, I predict defeat, despair, and destruction.  Regardless of the specifics, a people that has let things reach the point they have reached today, without even the mild response of electing Mainstreaming Marine, do not exhibit the stuff to fight, much less win, any sort of “racial civil war.”  

More Movement Stupidity and Hypocrisy

In der news.

My riposte to this is as follows:

Press release!  Author of EGI Notes blames Greg Johnson (and other failed “movement leaders”) for El Paso shooting.

This is correct, but doesn’t go far enough. How about denouncing all the hysterical cheerleaders for Trump on the Alt Right?  The last chance for White America!  MAGA! Pepe! Kek!

More stupidity.  ‘White genes.”  Russians are “not White.”  Nitpicking over “genocide.” Completely unrealistic proposals.  Is it any wonder the mentally weak throw their hands up in despair and go shoot up something?  Der Movement is a pathetic embarrassing failure.

And then we have:

PJ Dooner says:
August 3, 2019 at 11:50 am
He might believe that Russia is mongrelized beyond repair: two of the policies that the jews implemented when they took over Russia a hundred years ago was to relocate huge numbers of “Russians” from more eastern areas into purely Slavic areas and outright mass murder of pure Slavs as in in Ukraine and of the ethnic Germans in the Volga area-the result is an enormous mixed-race population of Eurasian-Russians today–take a close look at the “Russians” you see on TV or the net, they almost all look mixed-race like Putin’s first wife, for example.

Unlike David Bromstad and family, or Bjork, who don’t look even the slightest Eurasian, right?  Mote and beam.  Look in your own eye, fetishists.

Uh-huh.  Note the discussion of alien civilizations at around the 50 minute mark.  My riposte is this.  That’s from 2018…the same year as the Wit’s End book.  Let’s see if the HBDers claim to have been the only ones to have invented this hypothesis.  A form of affirmative action I suppose; just like Blacks “invented” everything, the Quota Queens can do the same.

Not bad, not bad…figuring out in 2019 what I was telling all of you in 2016, before the election.

Other folks in 2016. Hail Trump!  MAGA!  Pepe!  Kek!

Them in 2019.

Looking at online discussion about the upcoming paper on Ancient Roman genetics, including mention of a “leaked PCA,” we see that Der Movement Strikes Back, desperately trying to save the dogma by wild interpretations.  You know, whether or not the Etruscans and Iron Age Italics clustered with Spaniards and whether later-age Romans clustered with South Italians (Genocide!  Levantine admixture!  Genocide!), I’ve yet to see anyone claim that any of these samples, from any era, cluster with Northern Europe. I thought the original ancients were all Nordic?  If the essential cline of Ancient Rome extends through the entire North Mediterranean basin – otherwise known as Southern Europe – that’s a refutation of the main points of “movement” dogma. That a cosmopolitan metropolis like Ancient Rome saw some population shifts as the capital of an empire is not surprising.  That’s not the point. The point is the official “movement” dogma that the original Romans were Dolph Lundgren in a toga, and there’s no evidence of that.  If there was a shift from Franco to Evola over time, that’s hardly SPQR Leif Erikson. I suppose that Der Movement will continue to retcon their dogma. Don’t let them do it. That’s putting aside the irrelevance of all of this to EGI-based biopolitics in 2019 – that’s 2019 AD, not 2019 BC.  But, Der Movement is going to be Der Movement and there’s no getting around it.

The Homosexual Question,Part II

The second half of this discussion.

Here, we will take a look at Andrew Joyce’s comments on the matter of homosexuality, and I will determine if my views as outlined here in Part I require modification.

Several points. First, I am not going to comment on every single argument Joyce made, only those I believe are most relevant to a critical examination of my views (and his) and/or those comments of his that I wish to comment on even if they are not directly relevant to the main issue. Second, in general, much of Joyce’s work (insofar as I am familiar with it) is in my opinion good; however, there are points of disagreement and criticism which come into play here, which should become apparent below. Third, my overall personal attitude toward homosexuality is similar to that of Joyce; however, I am here attempting to view the issue from the perspective of what is best for the pro-White movement as a whole rather than my private aesthetic preferences.  Fourth and finally, although Part II concludes this analysis, I reserve the right to revisit this issue in the future, possibly significantly altering my conclusions.

This essay is intended to advance the position that homosexuals should be regarded as anathema to the Alt-Right, and to the broader White Nationalist movement.

Well, forget about the so-called “Alt-Right,” which is essentially dead, killed by the stupidity and juvenile retardation of its “leadership,” and let us instead focus solely on “the broader White nationalist movement.”  The overall question both Joyce and I are considering is what place, if any, do homosexuals have in White nationalism?

I once previously involved myself in the comments section of AltRight.com, arguing against homosexual apologetics. The response was overwhelmingly supportive, but one or two homosexual malcontents made the following accusations: first, that I was involving myself in a dispute between the editors of AltRight.com and Counter-Currents publishing; second, that I was evidently a repressed homosexual; and third, that this was somehow an attempt to boost my personal status. On the first point, I am not invested personally in the debate between AltRight.com and Counter-Currents publishing, but almost two years ago (long before the dispute) I was writing against homosexual apologetics and offered counter-arguments to at least one Counter Currents author.

Perhaps, but it is fairly obvious as to which side of that feud Joyce predominantly sympathized with.  That of course is not directly relevant to his arguments, and to argue (no pun intended) otherwise is ad hominem.

I deal with the bankrupt rationale behind the second accusation in the course of the essay. 

That accusation is particularly stupid ad hominem and Joyce really shouldn’t even had bothered spending any time answering it, other than pointing out its stupidity.  If a person is against “activity X,” it does not necessarily follow that they have repressed urges regarding “X.”  It is true that the “doth protest too much” sometimes applies when someone hysterically argues against something, but that is over-used to the point of absurdity regarding homosexuality.  Are homosexuals so deluded that they cannot understand why many heterosexuals are disgusted by homosexual behavior, for reasons other than “repressed homosexuality?”

On the third point, my aspiration to personal status is necessarily limited by my anonymity. I aspire neither to ‘status’ nor to leadership. I am aware of the limitations of my position, and only wish to advance an argument. That such an argument might damage the credibility of others may be considered the primary reason behind accusations against me personally in this regard. 

The same principles apply to much of what I write here on other issues, but never mind.

Then there are nervous and cowardly assertions from some that the issue isn’t an “obsession” for them, and therefore isn’t one that they waste their time on. Those that do, of course, are simply “protesting too much,” and there must be something suspect about them. According to this line of thinking, men ‘secure in their sexuality’ simply wouldn’t address the topic.

This is not really directly relevant to Joyce’s argument, but I do want to comment since it can be construed that I am, or at least was, one such person who stated that homosexuality was not a big issue (I did not use the word “obsession”) for them.  Joyce is being unreasonable in labeling such attitudes as “nervous and cowardly.” Maybe – who knows? – some of the people involved simply do not rank the homosexual question very high among those affecting the future of the White race.  It is an opinion, a judgment, about priorities – to label that “nervous and cowardly” is the same dishonest ad hominem Joyce’s opponents use against him.

Our movement, consisting as it does of often bickering circles, should at the very least be made to conform in some fashion to the world that we are striving for. 

Fair enough. Given Salter’s logical arguments about the gay marriage movement (the analysis of which was in Part I of my evaluation of the homosexual question, linked to above), and the links between homosexuality and other perversions, never mind the nature of homosexuality itself, a reasonable argument can be made that homosexuality is incompatible with the WN world we wish to strive for.

A situation in which known movement homosexuals and their circles can posture as spokesmen for National Socialism or White Nationalism would be laughable were it not for the fact that it was tolerated with such lethargy by the ideologically lazy and those intimidated into silence by Jewish psychological parlor tricks. 

Genuine National Socialists in inter-war Germany tolerated homosexuals, only moving against them because Ernst Rohm wouldn’t accommodate the political ambitions of the SA to Hitler’s regime. The anti-homosexual hysteria was part of the excuse for the purge; if the Nazis were genuinely horrified by gays they had nearly 15 years previously to deal with the issue.

Worldview is the foundation of ideology. Ideology is the foundation of activism and morale. Clarity of worldview, and its practical expression in whatever achievable form, is non-negotiable. Just as there is no room in this movement for Jews or Africans or Pakistanis, the over-arching rationale for an exclusion of homosexuals is the fundamental incompatibility of their inclusion under our worldview.

We will consider Joyce’s arguments in the next two sections. His arguments will include:

The various reasons underlying this incompatibility may be regarded broadly under two categories: the biological implications of homosexuality (issues of disease and demographics), and the behavioral traits and personality of the homosexual (issues of personality characteristics and socio-cultural impact). It is to these categories that we now turn our attention.

One of the main reasons for the instinctive aversion to the subject of homosexuality is the strong correlation of homosexual behavior with disease and bodily degradation and deterioration. Contrary to high-minded philosophizing, health is not merely a personal or private matter, but a political one. In the over-populated mass societies in which we now live, the cost of healthcare in a market of increasingly scarce resources becomes, by necessity, a political issue — and this fact stands even in the context of privatized medicine, where premiums and costs will still be dictated to a great extent by expenditure in particular areas. The relationship between homosexuality and health in the mass society thus becomes not merely a matter of what is done behind the closed doors of the individual, but a matter of at least some public interest — especially if homosexuality can be determined to be a net financial drain on the resources of the vast majority of the population. If such a drain can be established, homosexuality necessarily becomes a subject of political discussion, and silence on the issue (the status quo in the political mainstream) becomes a political decision of sorts.

This is a reasonable argument.  The same argument can be made against smoking and obesity, two leading causes of cardiovascular disease and cancer.  If we are going to have injunctions against homosexuals – which I am not particularly strongly opposed to – then we can do the same for fatsos and smokers, and I am completely serious about that.  National Socialist Germany – if folks want to use that regime as a moral compass – was opposed to smoking and also made a fetish of physical fitness (at least for the masses if not for the leadership, the latter of which were, in general, not splendid physical specimens, with Goring being overweight).  And what about WNs allegedly using cocaine?  And doing so at meetings?

There is now a large body of evidence from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and similar organizations outside the United States, indicating that homosexuals suffer from worse than average health and that much of this is rooted in health-negative lifestyle choices…The annual cost of caring for and treating all HIV/AIDS sufferers in the United States has been ascertained as $16.4 billion annually…In addition to the runaway problem of HIV/AIDS, homosexuals are the leading cause of the rapid spread of other sexually transmitted diseases, an area of public health that is becoming increasingly expensive. For example, scientists in several countries have now identified a new antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea. Doctors feared this new strain reaching homosexuals in particular because their behaviors and characteristics are known to exacerbate such diseases…Aside from transmittable disease, homosexual behavior takes a grim and nauseating physical toll on the human body, a fact so well-documented and as to obviate any need to recount the odious details here. Perhaps even more importantly, however, homosexual behavior is often accompanied by a range of mental pathologies. Assessed as vectors of disease, and as a group likely to be a significantly greater drain on mental health and related resources, homosexuals can be reasonably argued to act as a much greater burden on national health budgets than the sexually normal. 

Joyce’s arguments are sound from the descriptive perspective.  I’m not sure what to do about it from a prescriptive perspective, since homosexuality seems to have a strong biological component, and one can expect a certain percentage of gays to be born each generation – unless one speculates that the maintained existence of homosexuality over the millennia has been due to homosexuals being married with families for the sake of appearances, and thus passing on their genes (and this mode of inheritance is today attenuated with the general public acceptance of the gay lifestyle).  However, if these people are capable of bedding the opposite sex, are they truly biologically homosexual?  Are they bisexual?  There may be degrees of homosexual inclinations, and perhaps the best that can be done is to discourage the practice as much as possible, unless some folks propose to screen each generation for gay traits and eliminate those elements from the population in one manner of another.

Aside from issues of disease, demographics are another biological reason why homosexuality should be regarded as a political issue worthy of attention. In this regard, it has been argued historically that homosexuality threatens the demographics of a nation because it is reliant on ‘converts’ and thus, in recruiting individuals from the reproductive population, leads to an overall decline in birthrates. 

See my comments above. This would suggest a sexual spectrum, in which some individuals could be hetero or homo dependent upon environment.  To the extent that is true, Joyce’s argument has validity. I do not know to what extent the gay community is biologically innate and to what extent it has been recruited.

This may be regarded as the ‘homosexual conspiracy’, or ‘recruitment’ theory of homosexual demographic impact. My own impression is that the ‘recruitment’ problem is not as severe a demographic problem as some of the proponents of this argument maintain, mainly because I believe that an overwhelming majority of the population, apart from the psychologically vulnerable (children and adolescents in particular), would be impervious to homosexual efforts to propagandize their specific behaviors. 

See above.

A more potent demographic impact of homosexuality, in my opinion, is the transmission and tolerance of more generalized aspects of homosexual behavior to the normal population — hedonism, childlessness, substance abuse, promiscuity, and the relatively novel idea that relationships are exclusively about love or similar abstractions — all of which will lead to a drop in birthrates. Despite my own opinion, both demographic arguments require further elucidation.

How about a demographic critique of Derbyshire’s apologia for miscegenation?

The reliance of homosexuals on ‘recruitment,’ most often in the form of pederasty, has been well documented throughout history. At present, homosexuality has not been conclusively determined to have been caused by either genetic or environmental factors. Whatever its causes, homosexual behavior was always a minority problem. Attempts by modern scholars, often those with a ‘dog in the fight,’ to read homosexual behavior into this or that historical era or individual are often riddled with logical errors, use of anachronistic terminologies, and omissions of contrary data. However, what we can ascertain is that homosexual behavior was evident in ancient Greece and Rome, but appears to have been less common in northern Europe. Also in evidence is an abundance of primary documentation from contemporaries critical of homosexual behavior. An example combining both of these realities is the description by Tacitus of the Germanic tribes taking “the man stained with abominable vices” and plunging him “into the mire of the morass with a hurdle put over him” — an indictment of some of the tolerances of Roman society as well as an accurate anthropological description of ancient Nordic social governance.

See my comments about Nordicism below.  Also, much of this is irrelevant to us today.

Given the historical and contemporary prominence of the pederastic element, the ‘homosexual conspiracy’ or recruitment theory should be regarded as pertinent to demographic decline mainly in respect to the relationship of the homosexual to children or adolescents…These findings are important on a movement level. Like the Imperial Roman army, we aim to create an environment of camaraderie, loyalty, teamwork, and, where necessary, authority. It is an unfortunate fact that, also like the Imperial Roman army, there would be a vulnerable minority among the younger members of the community to those who would abuse authority for perverse ends. Far from mere conjecture, anecdotal evidence and historical data suggest that homosexuals have routinely exploited any tolerance shown to them in such environments — from Imperial Rome to the presence of pederasts in the Sturmabteilung of the 1930s and the British National Front of the 1970s. Such a threat is not the stuff of nightmares or unfounded anxieties; it is a proven reality. In terms of its pederastic component, the tolerance of homosexuals in the movement is thus, at the very least a disaster for morale (and a cause for division between those who are alarmed and those two turn a blind eye), and at worst a personal disaster for the unfortunate victim of ‘recruitment.’

Here, Joyce is touching upon a real issue, as the “Pilleater recording” makes clear. If the contents of that recording are true (and I note neither party was arguing against the validity of the accusations) there are precincts of the “movement” in which homosexual “flirtation” toward somewhat “vulnerable” “younger members of the community” occurs.  In the light of that revelation, I cannot argue against Joyce’s warning that homosexuals will exploit environments of “camaraderie, loyalty, teamwork, and, where necessary, authority” to further their sexual interests.  Of course, there are other aspects of “The Pilleater Chronicles” that need to be addressed as well, such as the accusations of drug use.

In any case, this leads to:

Perhaps even more notable is the fact that even our own movement has tolerated similar ‘educational’ efforts promoting ‘tolerance and understanding’ of homosexuality. I am of course referring to the substantial volume of homosexual apologetics emanating from Counter-Currents Publishing. It is necessary to examine and critique some examples.

HOMOSEXUAL APOLOGETICS WITHIN WHITE NATIONALISM

In a Counter-Currents article titled ‘Homosexuality and White Nationalism,’ Greg Johnson states that members of our movement shouldn’t be concerned about homosexuality because, one, “it is beside the point,” and two, “intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish.” The rationale in the first instance is that “White Nationalism should be a one-issue political outlook. White Nationalism is for the interests of Whites and against the interests of our racial enemies. Period.” The presentation of such a simplified argument is quite clever because, superficially at least, it is difficult to disagree with the statement of such a priority. However, it leaves a great deal unsaid. What does it mean for something to be “for the interests of Whites”? What about the health, and health resources, of Whites? What about the demographics of Whites? What about the morale of movements for White identity, and White culture at large? Homosexuality and its promotion can be demonstrated as being in opposition to all of these interests. A movement reduced to an unsophisticated “one-issue political outlook” would be cartoonishly absurd, lacking in nuance and direction. Pointing to “the interests of our racial enemies” in the context of such an apologetic is also an absurdity. Homosexuals, like other antisocials, violate and disturb the social norms of our people, placing themselves at the disposal of the enemies of our people, and acting as a weapon for their plans.

This would seem to be a key part of Joyce’s argument.

Johnson proceeds to argue that we should “resist falling for any form of the divide and conquer strategy used by our enemies to destroy our solidarity.” Homosexuals are said to be “real assets” to the movement because they “are intelligent and accomplished…Are freer to speak their minds because they give fewer hostages to fortune. They also have more free time and more disposable income to devote to the cause.” Truthfully, what loss would we experience by exiling these ‘real assets’? Where are all these homosexuals, so much ‘freer to speak their minds’? Where are they, other than producing anonymous homosexual apologetics? 

Valid questions.

Yes, a great many members of our movement are anonymous. There is no inherent shame in that. But homosexuals have not distinguished themselves by bravely taking to the front line, or by filling our coffers with funds.

If homosexuals in the “movement” would be open about their sexual preferences, then we would at least have some empirical basis for determining relative contributions.

The article continues: “Battles between gays and straights, men and women, pagans and Christians, Nordics and Mediterraneans, Celts and WASPs, Germans and Slavs, etc. have no place in the White Nationalist movement.” What a clever lie it is to suggest that the removal of homosexuals would entail the same scale of conflict as would ensue between Germans and Slavs. How many homosexuals are in our circles? Not many. And those that are here, for the time being, would be no loss, numerically or otherwise, in the eventuality of their departure.

How many?  We need to get an idea about that.  I think that people on both sides of the issue would want to know.

The idea that “hostility to homosexuality is Jewish” is as insidious as it is false. The claim rests on a combination of poor understanding of pre-Christian European attitudes towards homosexuality and a predictable infatuation with a generalized view of the more appealing (to the modern homosexual) culture of the ancient Mediterranean. Firstly, as a northern European, I am concerned more with the ancient customs and traditions of my own ancestors — Saxon, Celt, and Norse. 

Yes, we know of Joyce’s agenda here. I make two points. First, I thought that Der Movement tells us that the Ancient Greeks and Romans were Nordic.  Do we see the hypocrisy here? When the discussion revolves around “the grandeur and glory of Ancient Greece and Rome,” then, of course, they were Nordic.  However, when the discussion is about the relative tolerance of homosexuality in those areas of Classical Civilization, then they are, of course, Mediterranean. Second, has Joyce realized that the primary players promoting homosexuality in Der Movement are of similar ancestry to himself?  Really, this whole issue is an argument between heterosexual and homosexual Northern Europeans, but, yet, mysteriously, the “noble Nordics vs degenerate Mediterraneans” paradigm surfaces. This is another example of Sallis’ Law in action, I suppose, although in this case it is not about “admixture,” but simply a generalized negative comparison of bad Meds vs. good Nords. Why would any White ethnics believe that Der Movement has anything to offer them? Obviously, the most debauched homosexual Northern European is going to be preferred to any Southern or Eastern European, regardless of how heteronormative the latter may be. Just look at how some of the (assumed) homosexual contingent of Der Movement are accepted by many activists as “top leaders” – the same activists who scorn the dumb wops and hora-dancing Romanians.

Anyone familiar with the Icelandic Sagas…

And could any self-respecting Type I activist not be?

… [in which accusations of homosexuality are a primary and severe insult between characters] will be aware that murder, for example, was something that would have to be either personally avenged by the murdered party’s relatives or be arbitrated by an ad hoc tribal court.

Relevance?

The lack of a written law against murder in this instance, or the lack of a fixed, state-administered punishment for it, did not suggest ‘tolerance’ or ‘acceptance’ of murder. Such an argument would be absurd. In the same way, it would be intellectually unsophisticated, if not disingenuous, to suggest that the same societies were ‘tolerant’ or ‘accepting’ of homosexuality. Like all arguments based on an ‘absence of X,’ this is especially weak. The exposed nature of such an argument is made even more problematic by the existence of pre-Christian legal codes which, while not legislating specifically against homosexuality, clearly locate it, via the available legal contexts, outside the normal and the desirable. An interesting case in this regard comes from Ireland’s ancient, pre-Christian, ‘Brehon Law’ — the oldest surviving codified legal system in Europe, and possibly a relic from the first proto-Indo-European populations. Like most examples of pre-Christian legal codes from North-Western Europe…

The only part of Europe that matters!

…Brehon Law was a civil rather than criminal code. Interestingly, it makes a provision for women to divorce their husbands if they were found to be homosexuals.

Common sense.

Roman law, which to a greater extent than any contemporary nation did develop state-administered punishment, is very interesting in the same regard. Lacking a Christian God to offer divine authority and direction, the Romans legislated against asocial activity in a manner that balanced individual freedom (a long-cherished European trait) with social priorities (order, health, stability, decorum). Since Roman law legislated against pederasty, as well as homosexual activity between freeborn males (in some cases under threat of execution), Roman law should be regarded as having de facto outlawed homosexuality in the form in which is mainly exists today. The fact that a Roman male citizen could legally engage in sexual activity with a slave (regarded as property with no bodily individuality or self-ownership), or with a prostitute (a sub-human in social and legal terms), is not a strong counter-argument. In short, there is at least sufficient evidence of opposition to homosexuality in pre-Christian Europe to refute the blatant falsity that ‘opposition to homosexuality is Jewish.’

OK, but to my mind irrelevant.

On this point, however, one might ask — even if hostility to homosexuality was, in fact, a Jewish invention, would that be sufficient for us to discard it? 

I agree with Joyce that the “homophobia is Jewish” argument is foolish.  It reminds me of the Silkers, who try to get Whites to agree to become the slaves of Asians because otherwise, if you object, then you are either a Jew or a tool of the Jews who “sucks Jewish cock.”  Can we evaluate the validity of a premise independent of what Jews think about it?  Do Jews control us to such an extent that our every thought has to be through a Jewish lens?

Another element underpinning the ‘homophobia is Jewish’ falsity, is an implicit homosexual hatred of Christianity. 

I could care less about what Christianity thinks or whether someone or some group hates Christianity.

On a related note, the accusation that hostility to homosexuality is Jewish may be regarded as a passive, or barely concealed, attack on Christianity. Again, this is not surprising in itself, but it is incongruous in the context of apparent arguments being made in favor of movement unity. 

Consideration of “movement unity” is ludicrous coming from a “movement” that despises everything and anything to the south of Vienna and to the east of Berlin.

Essentially, the argument put forth by Johnson is that it is wrong to critique homosexuals because that is bad for movement unity, when in fact the apologetic itself purposefully attacks Christians (a very numerically substantial element of our movement) as ‘Jewish.’ In such a manner, our erstwhile architects of unity are in fact the cause of disunity, not merely by their very presence but by the divisive nature of their own arguments. Given what we have discussed thus far, it should be clear that if we had to choose between Christians and pseudo-pagan homosexuals, our movement would be numerically, demographically, tactically, socially, and intellectually enriched by choosing the former over the latter.

Perhaps numerically, but the devout Christian element often display the same flaw as the homosexual element – putting something proximate (in this case religion) above the ultimate interests inherent in genetic continuity.

We should also consider modern Jewish attitudes, and what Jews are promoting to us today, rather than what they preached to themselves thousands of years ago. It goes without saying that a people engaged in ethnic warfare would arm itself with the best tools possible while simultaneously weakening the opposing tribe. Jews chose to arm themselves with social mores designed to boost their numbers, but what they did preach to their opponents? 

What do they preach?  HBD. Hysterical opposition to any hint of pan-European racial-cultural unity, but allowing some ethnic-specific expression by Whites.

As Jews flooded the medical and scientific professions in the late 19th century, they brought with them the desire to interrupt the European self-conversation about race, biology, and related subjects. One of these was homosexuality. 

Again, why does everything need to be looked at through a Jewish lens?  Joyce is weakening some of his arguments above.

Although Jewish sexology, and with it the promotion of homosexuality, was effectively shut down by the National Socialists…

Well, at least after June 30, 1934.

…it would live on in exile, along with other poisonous doctrines, with the Frankfurt School. 

Jews, Jews, Jews.  I’m ignoring this part of Joyce’s argument, since it is irrelevant.

The following however is key.

THE PROMOTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY WITHIN WHITE NATIONALISM

One might be tempted to dismiss the position of Counter-Currents on the homosexual question as merely wrong-headed, ill-informed, or even amateurish. However, I believe that many of the writers there are intelligent, historiographically literate, and are probably aware that they are producing an argument with an agenda attached. One of the more annoying aspects of their position, however, is that it is framed under the rubric that ‘homosexuality is beside the point.’ Even if this were true, which in terms of our demographic and social concerns it is not, Counter Currents have not stuck to their professed ‘line.’ In fact, through the publication of volumes such as James O’Meara’s The Homo and the Negro, and a number of articles acting as apologetics for homosexuality, they’ve done quite the opposite. I only very recently looked at The Homo and the Negro for the first time and was stunned at the publication, by an ostensibly Nationalist organization, of a set of writings that promotes pederasty.

Here is a key point that I believe is more important from the perspective of my views from Part I. Joyce, after all, is adamantly opposed to any homosexual inclusion, while I maintained in Part I of my analysis that some inclusion could be possible if the homosexuals did not promote homonormalization, but instead promoted heteronormalization.

In The Homo and the Negro O’Meara advances a number of arguments that should now be familiar, and with which we have already dealt with. 

So, I’m not going to waste too much time on this.

Are family values really Judaic, as O’Meara claims? Consider one example contrary to this homosexual apologetic in the form of what Tacitus said of the ancient Germans…Moreover, recent DNA studies in England support previous research from the University of Oslo suggesting that Viking men were family-oriented, coming from communities where the marriage bond was strong and did not engage sexually with the women of lands they conquered. Rather it was found that Viking raiding parties were accompanied by significant numbers of women, and possibly whole families. 

These guys are so fanatical in their ethnic fetishism that they use any excuse to indulge in it. It’s comical. Here’s something different (emphasis added):

Homosexuality was not regarded by the Viking peoples as being evil, perverted, innately against the laws of nature or any of the other baggage about the concept that Christian belief has provided Western culture. Rather, it was felt that a man who subjected himself to another in sexual affairs would do the same in other areas, being a follower rather than a leader, and allowing others to do his thinking or fighting for him. Thus, homosexual sex was not what was condemned, but rather the failure to stand for one’s self and make one’s own decisions, to fight one’s own fights, which went directly against the Nordic ethic of self-reliance. (Sørenson 20). Being used homosexually by another man was equated with cowardice because of the custom of sexual aggression against vanquished foes. This practice is documented in Sturlunga saga, most notably in Guðmundar saga dýra where Guðmundr takes captive a man and his wife, and plans for both the woman and the man to be raped as a means of sexual humiliation (Ok var þat við orð at leggja Þórunni í rekkju hjá einhverjum gárungi, en gera þat vi Björn prest, at þat þaelig;tti eigi minni svívirðing.) (Sørenson 82, 111; Sturlunga saga, I, 201).

Back to Joyce:

Again, are family values Jewish? Perhaps only in the mind of a manipulative homosexual who wishes to cynically use ethno-nationalistic instincts and a righteous hostility towards Jews in order to advance his own agenda — by tarring everything that he himself abhors as “Jewish.” 

I have not read O’Meara’s book. However, if Joyce’s characterization is accurate, that such a book is promoted and sold by Counter-Currents is shameful.

I must concede that had the Catholic Church had more power to enforce its doctrine, Europe would still be flourishing demographically, and a mass Muslim invasion would be nothing but a nightmare never to come to fruition.

Would the Pope stop literally kissing the feet of Negro invaders?

Why would O’Meara and Counter-Currents publish and promote such ideas, denigrating the family and selfishly glorifying their own preferences? Here it is necessary to confront the issue of the homosexual personality and to return to our central argument of the incompatibility of homosexuality and Alt-Right principles. 

Alt-Right principles?  Drunken podcasts?  Snorting cocaine at racialist conferences?  Race-mixing and cuckoldry?

As stated earlier in this essay, psychological studies indicate that homosexuals score higher than the sexually normal on traits associated with psychopathy, including higher rates of promiscuity, a greater tendency to high-risk activity, higher rates of intimate partner violence, low levels of impulse control, and a tendency towards bouts of exaggerated sense of self-esteem/importance. 

Sounds like some heterosexual Alt Righters.

Combining an understanding of homosexual personality traits with homosexual apologetics produced within White Nationalism, it becomes clear that dishonesty (“homosexuality is beside the point, let’s not discuss it”) and manipulative behaviors (“hostility to homosexuality is Jewish”), and an exaggerated sense of self-esteem/importance are at least primary concerns to those wanting to steer the cause of Whites in the right direction. Evidence of the latter is surely in evidence both in O’Meara’s claim that the Right persists in depriving “itself of the elitist cultural creativity of homosexuals,” and Greg Johnson’s apparent belief that homosexuals are “real assets” to the movement because they “are intelligent and accomplished…Are freer to speak their minds because they give fewer hostages to fortune. They also have more free time and more disposable income to devote to the cause.”

Such promotions of homosexuality are inherently insidious and are proof that, consciously or not, issues of White success, particularly demographic success, are likely to always be subordinated by the homosexual in favor of theories of life or behavior which glorify or excuse his own predilections. 

This is the key point, and one that Joyce could have primarily emphasized from the start, instead of going into other tangents to titillate “movement” fetishes.

The fact that an ostensibly nationalist writer can openly praise a pederastic author who denigrated the reproductive relationships of normal, healthy families is a sign of a degenerative rot that has developed in the corners of this movement. The toleration of such a rot has been the cause of disunity — not surprising given the apparent success of the lie that “tolerating homosexuals will increase our unity.” Quite the contrary. I have nationalist friends of many stripes, and a number of them have previously avoided aligning themselves rhetorically or materially with institutions like the National Policy Institute, or concepts such as the Alt-Right, because of an apparent tolerance of homosexuals and their apologetics. As a father of three, I have also had serious reservations about the kind of movement I am trying to raise my children in. Raising them in an environment that tolerates the open promotion of pederasty is out of the question.

Joyce should keep in mind that certain elements of the Alt Right now hostile to homosexuality were once quite welcoming to it, but changed their tune only after feuding with Counter-Currents.

This essay will cut out some of the rot, and bring clarity to some issues and questions that have been left to fester. It is largely a thankless task, and a dirty one too, but the Augean Stables must be cleansed.

To be fair, I’ll reproduce a riposte by Johnson:

Greg Johnson
Posted October 22, 2018 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
After Joyce’s “definitive” series on the Gay Question, it came out that Richard Spencer put a gay furry in charge of his Discord server, despite repeated warnings. This guy would probably still be running Spencer’s Discord if it had not been shut down. When a recording came out of Spencer’s moderator sexually harassing and bullying a 14-year-old boy, I asked Joyce how much he would charge for a definitive four-part series on “The Furry Question in White Nationalism,” but I received no reply.

There is no limit to the moral squalor of these people.

There is no refutation there about any of Joyce’s arguments; rather, that comment essentially accuses Joyce of hypocrisy for not addressing alleged sexual perversions among Spencer’s group of people.  I’ll agree with the last line of Johnson’s comment IF we apply that to the entirety of Der Movement.  I have no “dog in the fight” with respect to the Johnson-Spencer feud (that apparently is not ending due to any HBDer intervention, despite what it may have looked like to we low information moralizers some months ago); I say “a pox on both your houses.”  Johnson’s comment does nothing except reinforce the idea that Joyce’s complaints are more general and relevant than even Joyce asserted.

Basically, where I am now about this issue is this.  Much of Joyce says is true, but with all the caveats and criticisms above.  My stance is not much changed from where it was in Part I. Assume the existence of a White person who is a homosexual but is otherwise an authentic WN, sincere in pro-natalist beliefs compatible with traditional family formation and heteronormalizaiton. They are upfront about their sexual identity, they understand it is abnormal, and they ask for nothing other than minimal tolerance and the right to participate in pro-White activism.  As it stands now, I would think that such a person can be included (albeit not as a leader).

Practically speaking though, my views and that of Joyce likely converge, because I’m not sure there are any people such as I describe above – identified homosexual WNs who are firmly pro-heterosexual, who ask for nothing except for minimal tolerance, and who do not promote a homosexual agenda.  It is sort of like the issue of “Jewish allies” – in theory, it could be possible, but in practice what you get is Hart and Weissberg.  Pro-heterosexual homosexual WNs are possible in theory, but in practice what you get is all what Joyce describes above.

So, I’ll stick with my Part I views in theory, but with the understanding that the practical actualization of that would be, at best, rare.

The Homosexual Question, Part I

Delving into a subject usually not discussed at this blog.

My general attitude toward homosexuality in the “movement” has been one of “live and let live” – not considering it a major issue or concern, as long as people were discreet. Perhaps I should have known better given some of my experiences back in the early days of Yahoo discussion groups.  I was aware of one homosexual WN group forming and I thought, well, if they want to do their own thing, but are sincere activists and concentrate on promoting White interests, fine.  Then one day I decided to go and read the posts at the group (at that time freely accessible to non-members) to better determine what was going on there. I found it to be a disgusting cesspool of campy Nazi play-acting, “leather Nazis” engaging in S and M, advertising sex acts to each other (“U piss, I drink”), etc.  I was, honestly, completely disgusted and at that time thought Pierce showed wisdom banning homosexuals from being members of the National Alliance.  Several years later, Salter’s On Genetic Interests came out, and that book, which had a profound influence on me, had a short section on homosexuals, essentially promoting a tolerant line – homosexuals actually should have even more invested in ethny (and of course extended family) since most have no children of their own, and has long as homosexuals support EGI, ethnic-based natalism, and traditional family formation then they should expect toleration of their sexual expression. So, one could (naively) think of the Yahoo experience as an aberration, and hope that the On Genetic Interests paradigm could serve as a way of going forward.

However, two other things occurred at around the same time, the early 2000s, of relevance. First, a (heterosexual) person of some importance in the “movement” at that time  – and who shall remain nameless here – warned me about a “homosexual clique” that had seriously undermined him. Somewhat later, another activist of long-standing informed me that a prominent “movement” personage – a “Mr. X” as we’ll refer to him here – was a homosexual, although one “in the closet” as Mr. X had made an effort to hide his inclinations (if the accusation was true).  Although I never heard anything else ever again about Mr. X in this regard, certain more recent incidents suggest to me that the accusation may have been correct, and that Mr. X may be involved, at least peripherally, in the aforementioned clique. These are obviously issues of concern – homosexual cliques undermining straight activists to replace those activists with homosexual counterparts, august personages “in the closet” with who knows what hidden agenda, etc. But, truth be told, I didn’t think much of it at the time.  My focus was solely on race and my own ideas and I didn’t care too much about what I perceived as peripheral issues.  And, after all, perhaps some of these accusations were mistaken, I thought at the time, or, irrelevant to the “movement” as a whole.  That was, of course, short-sighted on my part.

To further analyze this subject, let’s look at a more recent Salter essay.

A remarkable feature of the same-sex marriage movement, that has helped make it a juggernaut, is the solidarity of its disparate parts. Lesbian activists don’t mock gays before the general public, gay activists don’t ridicule bisexuals, bisexuals don’t disrespect the transgendered, and so on, presumably down the growing list of non-traditional sexual and gender orientations.

As an example of a pro-gay marriage piece from the “movement,” see this.  My riposte is here.  Note that while I oppose the main theme of that piece equating non-reproductive heterosexual relations with homosexuality, I take a generally tolerant position about homosexuality, a subject that I claimed at the time I had little interest in.  Thus I wrote:

I also agree that when considering homosexuality (a subject that in general I have little interest in), a “give and take” attitude can be constructive.  A degree of tolerance can be given to gays, in exchange for them to stop allying with the Left to wreck race and civilization, and an admission from their part that they are abnormal, analogous to a disability.  For example, I don’t hate people who are deaf, but if they attempt to declare deafness as normal, desirable, the same as hearing, if they also declare a “deaf culture” (and some do) and refuse treatments for themselves and (especially) their children (if deaf as well), then I do have a problem. The same goes for the blind, and also considers that accommodation can only go so far: we cannot have blind brain surgeons, taxi drivers, or airplane pilots, regardless of how “unfair” that is. Homosexuals need to accommodate the needs of the larger society in exchange for tolerance. They are abnormal regardless of how one wants to define that – either based on frequency or biological fitness.  But if they defend their family and ethnic genetic interests, that is all to the good. One can argue that homosexuals (and anyone who does not personally reproduce) have a relatively greater interest in their race’s genetic continuity (as well as that of their family), because that is all they have to work with to improve their inclusive fitness.  They also need to understand that many heterosexuals find the idea of homosexual relations repugnant and would – especially if they value genetic continuity – be greatly displeased if their children were homosexual and did not find some way to reproduce (as opposed to adopt). Of course, childlessness of heterosexual children would have the same negative effect on their parents’ fitness, but without the aesthetic disgust toward homosexual acts.

Having said all of that, better a homosexual racist than a heterosexual liberal.  Better gay than a race mixer.  I’ll take Ernst Rohm as a comrade over John Derbyshire any day.

Obviously, I’m now questioning that nonchalant attitude and will now examine Salter’s arguments.

That is odd because some categories, to be discussed, are noticeably absent from that list. Possible reasons for excluding them include the law, aesthetics, and morality. Legality can be immediately ruled out. Homosexuality’s illegality until recently has not prevented agitation for gay rights. Aesthetics can also be ruled out, because LGBTQI-rights activists have been pushing back against popular revulsion for decades. If they cited legality or aesthetics to justify excluding selected types of sexuality, consistency would demand immediate cessation of their own activities. No sexual or gender category can be credibly excluded from the LGBTQI fold for legal or aesthetic reasons.

Note that last sentence.  Salter makes the argument that the LGBTQI crowd has no legal or aesthetic rationale to exclude even the most horrific perversions from the fold – incest, bestiality, pedophilia (which some of them openly embrace), etc.

Morality is different. Morality is the only conceivable principled reason that some sexualities are excluded from the fold. Whether or not one accepts the morality of the alternative sexuality and gender movement, there are nevertheless some ethical principles associated with it. These include the rights to free expression and association. It is asserted that gender and sexual expression should be unconstrained when harmless and when entered into by mutual consent.

Free association?  Can gays be legally excluded from society?  Or must we bake wedding cakes for them?

These principles are sufficient to explain the exclusion of pedophilia from the LGBTQI platform. It seems the great majority of individuals of all orientations reject it. 

Well, “great majority” isn’t all. Interesting that most (all?) pedophiles among Catholic priests are molesting boys and not girls.  Coincidence?

Mary De Young has documented attempts by paedophile activists to normalize sex between adults and children from at least the 1980s in “The indignant page: Techniques of neutralization in the publications of pedophile organizations” (Child Abuse & Neglect, 1988).[i] A more recent study by O’Halloran and Quayle in “A content analysis of a ‘boy love’ support forum: Revisiting Durkin and Bryant” found that the trend has remained uninterrupted (Journal of Sexual Aggression, 2010). These attempts have failed to convince many people that children are able to give informed, prudent consent to sexual contact. It is true that educational packages such as the Safe Schools program sexualise children but that is not the same thing as advocating the legalization of paedophilia.

The fact is that some of these types have been trying to normalize pedophilia.

LGBTQI morality is not a credible reason for excluding all of the sexualities missing from that acronym. Consider polygamy, often called plural marriage. This was opposed by the Medieval Church and before that the Romans and Ancient Greeks, making Europe the only monogamous stratified society until the modern era.[ii] The law that enforces monogamy necessarily restricts the free choices of adults to participate in consensual polygamous relationship. If polygamy does not contravene LGBTQI moral principles, why is there not a ‘P’ in ‘LGBTQI? As Brendon Wynter noted recently on our public broadcaster (ABC Religion & Ethics, 24 March 2017) attempts to find a moral distinction between plural and same-sex marriage can lead to illiberal claims, such as that polygamy but not homosexual marriage is “bad or at least, trivial”.[iii]

A ‘P’ should be added to ‘LGBTQI’.

Very well.

Incest is also missing from the LGBTQI heading. From an LGBTQI moral perspective, why ban sex or marriage between any consenting adults? As the actor Jeremy Irons commented a few years ago, genetic disorders in the children of incestuous unions are only an issue with heterosexual pairs.[iv] LGBTQI advocates are not in a position to complain about incest on the basis of its being gay or lesbian. From their perspective, love and lust between consenting adults should never be condemned.

That last sentence follows from the gay agenda and can and will eventually lead to all sorts of grotesqueries – situations incompatible with the sort of healthy racialist state most WNs envision.

On what grounds could LGBTQI advocates object to marriages between mother and daughter or father and son, or object to them adopting? One ground that has been raised is a supposed categorical difference between those sexually attracted to close kin and those sexually attracted to members of the same sex. The former, it is claimed, do not belong to a distinct class of individuals but the latter do.[v] In the case of same-sex attraction, it is proposed, accurately, that homosexual orientation is sometimes inborn, and that as a result these individuals cannot change their same-sex attraction. Preventing them from marrying the same sex is therefore discriminatory. Incest is held to be different on the basis of the claim that it is a matter of free choice. For that reason, banning incestuous marriage does not constitute discrimination, and is therefore consistent with liberal ethics. This argument breaks down with the second premise, that incestuous desire is not inborn. The Finnish sociologist Edward Westermarck discovered that incest avoidance is a universal inborn trait that is triggered by close proximity during childhood. De Smet, van Speybroeck and Verplaetse investigated this theory in Evolution and Human Behavior (2014) and found that children raised together are usually averse to sexual contact during and after puberty.[vi] It follows that sexual desire for a sibling or offspring is in part or whole due to genetically-programmed developmental processes. The fact that incestuous motivation is produced when these processes go awry does not make them any less inborn. Thus incestuous motivation is not always a matter of free choice and in such cases, according to LGBTQI ethics, it is a right when consensual and harmless.

An ‘I’ should be added to ‘LGBTQI’.

Thus, according to Salter’s argument, the homosexual agenda has an ethical underpinning that would justify incest.

Bestiality also presents difficulties for the brevity of ‘LGBTQI’. On which grounds can advocates condemn sex with animals? As already noted, legal and aesthetic distinctions are unavailable. The rule against cruelty is also unavailable most of the time. Cruelty is wrong, and sex with animals can be cruel but so can sex with humans. The fact that animals cannot consent is not relevant because they do not, as a rule, possess human rights. In Australia and many other countries animals are protected against cruel treatment, but that does not include protection against being killed and eaten. Apart from militant vegetarians and vegans, most feel justified eating animals, so it is not obvious why, without invoking traditional moral or aesthetic standards, sexual contact that does not inflict suffering can be considered immoral.

The bestiality category is not an empty hypothetical. A recent academic study by Earls and Lalumiere titled “A case study of preferential bestiality”, published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior (2009), indicates that it is not as rare as previously thought, and shares many of the characteristics of other atypical sexual interests.[vii] Likewise, a recent report in the Australian online edition of The Guardian by Mona Chalabi, “Bestiality: which animals are most at risk” (22 June 2017), describes the online zoosexual movement that advocates the rights of the bestially inclined.[viii] The most preferred species appear to be dogs and cows, but cases are reported involving horses and even snakes. Woody Allen might add sheep.[ix]

There is a human dimension to the issue. Members of what we might reluctantly call the zoosexual community feel they are treated unfairly by the mainstream, which includes the LGBTQI movement. Some feel trapped in human relationships, such as the man who felt that sex with his (human) wife was “wrong” and during marital acts closed his eyes to better pretend she was a horse. Earlier this year an article in The Independent reported that animal sex tourism became such a problem in Denmark that in 2016 the country criminalized bestiality.[x] The journalist hinted that bestiality usually conforms to the harm principle: “[T]he studies published over the last 15 years using non-clinical samples report the vast majority of zoophiles do not appear to be suffering any significant clinical[ly] significant distress or impairment as a consequence of their behavior.”

Surely most LGBTQI people will share the generally-held opinion of bestiality. Many will be disgusted by the very thought and wish it never to be depicted or praised in public. They will wish that it never be part of their social environment and certainly not that of any child’s.

However, if LGBTQI activists believe the position they urge on the public, consistency demands they not only tolerate bestiality but treat it as possessing equal rights to human-centric sex. Otherwise they are guilty of the illiberal prejudice of claiming that their kind of love is superior to others they deem deviant. And if even the proponents of LGBTQI rights were to admit the legitimacy of privileging one sexual or gender orientation over another, then their main defence against hetero-normativity would collapse.

An extra ‘B’ should also be added to the acronym.

Thus, according to Salter’s argument, the homosexual agenda has an ethical underpinning that would justify bestiality.

Other initials could be added. Why not an ‘R’ for love of robots and dolls? Blow up dolls and simple silicone mannequins with recorded voices are primitive compared to the pleasure model “replicants” depicted in the science fiction classic Blade Runner. Nevertheless, they are beginning to compete for men’s affections.[xi] This is a rapidly growing industry feeding insatiable demand. The Third International Congress on Love and Sex with Robots is to be held in London in December 2017.[xii] Professor Noel Sharkey, chairman of the Foundation for Responsible Robotics, points to guilt-free threesomes as a potential use of sex robots.[xiii] He and colleagues predict that many humans will have sexual relationships with robots. Evidence is already emerging of men feeling embarrassed about seeking sex and companionship from artificial women.[xiv] Women might also suffer embarrassment when robot gigolos become feasible. From the perspective of LGBTQI morality it is wrong to shun or mock people just because they are turned on by machines.

An ‘R’ should be added to ‘LGBTQI’.

Gays should therefore welcome their new robotic sexual overlords.

One suspects that pragmatism is a big reason why LGBTQI activists want to keep polygamy, incest, bestiality and sex robots in the closet. Activists do not want to openly associate with these categories because that would increase opposition. The public might wonder about the implications. If exotic gender identities and same-sex marriage are to be taught in schools as equal to the heterosexual types, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality, and sex dolls? Citizens would be more likely to resist demands for full legal equality until the slippery slope were shown to have principled limits.

LGBTQI campaigns assert that love is equal, yet they help marginalize attachments and acts they find repugnant or inconvenient. The activist community should acknowledge all types of sexuality and marriage that meet their professed moral standard. They should not deceive the public by selectively applying their morality.

Here, Salter is essentially accusing the LGBTQI community of hypocrisy and cherry-picked moral standards. This is not necessarily a problem for LGBTQI White activists, unless they openly promote some or all of the LGBTQI agenda.

Alternatively, activists should abandon their artificial solidarity and the morality they deploy to justify it. They should admit that not all sexual desire and acts and types of marriage are equal. Many will join with the straight binary community in rejecting the appropriateness of polygamy, incest and bestiality. In so doing they might view their own orientation with humility and ponder whether insisting on complete normalisation is good for society.

That includes attempts to normalize this agenda within the confines of White racial nationalism; people who prioritize the interests of their sexual preferences over the good of the race, and who use pro-White activism as a vehicle to promote a particular sexual agenda.  To actually use racialist meetings as homosexual pick-up opportunities, with same-sex sexual harassment, is obviously completely unacceptable. There shouldn’t even be heterosexual activity of that nature at meetings, that is unprofessional and uncalled for, but at least such activity would be consistent with the majority’s normal and reproductively sound healthy sexual preferences.  To promote abnormal sexuality at meetings, to defend it, laugh it off, and/or minimize it in any way, is beyond the pale.

Until LGBTQI activists admit the radical implications of their morality, the spelling of ‘GBTQI’ and its variations should be contested. Rearranging the extra letters discussed, consistency demands an extra ‘B’, ‘I’, ‘R’ and ‘P’ (at least). In addition, the rainbow flag deserves a jarring additional stripe standing for the arbitrarily excluded categories as well as the hypocrisy of LGBTQI activists. Such as honest inclusive symbol would also serve to inform the public of where the arguments of the radical sexuality and gender movement logically lead.

Once again, Salter labels members of the gay movement as hypocrites who arbitrarily draw lines for acceptability to include their own preferences, but excluding those of others who, by LGBTQI ethics and logic, should have the same fundamental rights.  

Let us add ‘BIRP’ to ‘LGBTQI’ until activists apply their arguments consistently. When they do, they also will adopt the extra letters and perhaps some other besides.

“Others besides.”  The mind boggles.

So, at this point, what do we have?  It depends if you accept the legitimacy of Salter’s arguments. I essentially do so accept them and all they imply about the ethics of the hmosexual agenda, which is of course directly relevant to the issue of homosexuality in the “movement.”  Is this essay by Salter necessarily incompatible with what he previously wrote in On Genetic Interests? I do not believe it is, although it may be an evolution in thinking, based on various factors, including perhaps the increased “in your face” militancy of gay activists. The compatibility between the two works would be if one accepts a baseline of tolerance for homosexuality predicated on practitioners of that preference respecting core features of an EGI-based approach to society: heteronormalization, marriage for heterosexuals only, pro-natalism, respect for traditional family formation and values, as well as the usual interests in immigration control and racial preservation.

At this point, my fundamental viewpoint of minimal tolerance, as outlined at the beginning of this essay, and which existed before this Salter essay, remains, but with some important clarifications.

Thus, at this point, I would still maintain that homosexuals can play a role in the racial activism, providing:

1. They are not in the top leadership. They can be prominent members and important contributors, but not at the top of the hierarchy, as all of the various moral, social, ethical, etc. issues outlined by Salter and others come into play at the highest level.  

2. Homosexuals in the “movement” who are playing an important (albeit not top leadership roles, as stated above) need to be open about themselves and their preferences.  This will prevent blackmail and other pressure from the System/Left and avoid unpleasant “surprises” for the rank-and-file later on.

3. Most importantly, homosexuals in the “movement” should, as explained above, respect “key features of an EGI-based approach to society: heteronormalization, marriage for heterosexuals only, pro-natalism, respect for traditional family formation and values, as well as the usual interests in immigration control and racial preservation.”  They should not be pushing homosexual apologia, promoting homosexuality in general, defending gay marriage, or enabling and/or condoning homosexual harassment/pickups at pro-White meetings.

While the points above can allow for minimal tolerance, it does not seem like they have been followed.

In Part II, we will look at Andrew Joyce’s objections to tolerance and consider if the viewpoint I promote here needs to be adjusted based on Joyce’s arguments.