Category: O’Meara

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.

Advertisements

This is Serious

This all needs to change.

Thus, my recent supposition – made at the time with no knowledge of the details of these affairs whatsoever – that Morgan joining Counter-Currents is somehow fundamental to this feud has turned out to be correct.

I have no idea whether the accusations made in this post are true or false.  I have no idea whether the accusations made against Friberg are true or false. I have no definite idea whether O’Meara’s accusations against Spencer in the comments thread are true or false, but I believe the accusation that Spencer is a “CIA asset” is patently absurd.  Of course, I have no evidence that it’s not so.  I also have no evidence that Spencer isn’t really an alien from a planet circling a red supergiant star in the Andromeda galaxy.  Some things are more or less likely than others.  And read more through the comments section.  Besides the anti-Spencer “CIA plant” ranting, we also see rude and vulgar attacks against Greg Johnson (similar to the vile crap at Majority Rights), who is an excellent writer and nationalist theorist (albeit one who has soured on Sallis, but, hey, no one is perfect), other back-and-forth personal attacks, and the like.  All about personality; nothing about ideology.


Greg Johnson’s response.


I’ll give credit to Greg for this:


But the only way to “win” these sorts of public battles is not to get involved in the first place. And since I obviously failed at that, the second best option is to stop them before they escalate any further. So, for my part, it stops here.


I hope that’s correct.  But the Friberg-Spencer side have their arguments as well, and much of that focuses on Morgan.  Again, it seems to me as an outsider here that Morgan switching to Counter-Currents was an initiator of this sorry sequence of events.


Greg also writes:

And since criticism is inevitable, isn’t it better to get it from our friends now than from our enemies later?


Er…yes.  Exhibit one: Ted Sallis’ criticism of the “movement.”


And although I grant that there is definitely a place for barbs and mockery in driving home a well-argued point or skewering pretense and folly…


So, it’s not always “crazed bitterness?”

Apparently, there are no real consequences for wrongdoing in this movement. 


I’ve been saying that for years.  That’s what you get with a dysfunctional “movement” with affirmative action “leadership.”


A movement that seeks the renewal of white civilization should, at the very least, try to maintain a few minimum standards of civilized behavior. But the movement today resembles a post-apocalyptic wasteland in which warlords and their gangs fight for spoils.


Exactly.  And therefore isn’t vehement criticism of such a “movement” – including “barbs and mockery” – justified in “skewering” the “pretense and folly” of such a “movement?”


The original of this post was written before Greg Johnson’s response.  This version of my essay is not substantially different from this version (hardly different at all) – I still do not know who is right or wrong (both sides make plausible arguments but show minimal concrete evidence and I am not taking sides).  I am glad though I waited so I could link to Greg’s riposte. However, as you will see as I make my argument below, it really does not matter who is more in the right and more in the wrong here.  Someone here did wrong and the entire episode is a blight on the Alt Right and by extension the “movement” that the Alt Right has, unfortunately, become the predominant element in.  


For all these people’s criticisms and ignoring of that crazy shit-stirrer Ted Sallis, they are, by far – by an order of magnitude or more – “stirring the shit” more than I ever have.  And my “shit stirring” has always been about substantive issues – ideology or “movement” defectives and their unethical behavior. It’s not been a “movement catfight” of folks hurling accusations against each other.

And to me all these explanations seem incomplete.  Not that it matters for my final thesis of this post, but: what was the true origination of the Johnson-Spencer feud that seems to have predated this latest imbroglio? Why did Morgan leave Arktos for Counter-Currents? From an ideological standpoint, how does all of this background drama affect, for example, the (in my opinion unfortunate) embrace of narrow ethnonationalism by some of the people involved over the last few years?

Let us crudely divide the combatants in two camps.  First, we have the Spencer-Friberg-Jorjani-Arktos camp and then we have the Johnson-Morgan-O’Meara Counter-Currents camp.  Some very serious accusations and counter-accusations have been made in both directions.  As I’ve said, I have no idea where the truth lies here. I previously asserted on this blog that Spencer and Johnson should settle their differences for the good of racial nationalism; this obviously does not appear likely to occur.

What are the broad implications here?  Now, it is of course very possible that the storylines of both sides are mixtures of truth and falsehood.  Reality – particularly in these sorts of internal squabbles – is never so clear cut that one side is all pure moral goodness and the other side pure evil.  For example, imagine that the Counter-Currents side is mostly correct, but O’Meara’s accusation about Spencer is not true (which I believe it is not). Or maybe some of the Counter-Currents folks were bad-mouthing Friberg. On the other hand, if the Arktos side is essentially correct, it is still possible they are exaggerating and embellishing the “crimes” of the other side and taking things out of context.

However – and this is the key pint – it is HIGHLY improbable, to the point of impossibility, that each side’s storyline is an exactly equal distribution of truth and falsehood; exactly 50:50.  In fact, it’s far more likely that one side is completely right and the other completely wrong than it is for there to be an essentially equal distribution of mixed truth and falsehood. In other words, it is most likely that one side of this conflict is mostly telling the truth (even if some embellishments and misleading “spin” is thrown in) and is in the right, and the other side is mostly lying and is in the wrong.  Oh, I guess it is theoretically possible the whole thing started out as a misunderstanding – but don’t you think that rational and disinterested players would have realized this and settled the matter by now if that was really the case? The situation is only getting worse – suggesting there is “real meat” to some of the accusations and/or there are some strong (financial) interests at stake.

As I said I do not know which side is the one mostly right.  And maybe, just maybe, in the broad scheme of things, it does not really matter.

What does matter is this.  If my understanding is correct and one side here – whichever side it is – is essentially in the wrong, that means that one major component of the Alt Right, one major faction of Der Movement, is in fact guilty of (some of) the serious accusations made against it.  From my perspective it really doesn’t matter which side it is – since I’m opposed to the Alt Right in general and opposed to Der Movement as it currently exists as well.

But, let us agree – both sides cannot be essentially right and ethical at the same time. Someone has done (serious) wrong; someone has been engaging in unethical subterfuge at the expense of the good of racial nationalism as a whole.  And, truth be told, even the (relatively) “innocent” faction (whichever it is) is not handling the situation well, as both sides are escalating the feud – the Arktos side keeps on running anti-Counter Currents articles at AltRight.com, while O’Meara is accusing Spencer of being a CIA plant.  They keep on “airing dirty laundry.”  So, even the “innocent” side – whichever it is – is in fact behaving more destructively than the dreaded Sallis ever has, with my tongue-in-cheek mocking ridicule of “movement” stupidities (which as we see has been justified).  They claim they are “restraining themselves,” threatening they could “disclose even more.” That’s great.  It’s a public site, read by everyone and anyone; keep it up, it’s obviously doing us all a world of good.


And guess what?  I could “disclose” many things as well, but choose not to do so.  What would it achieve?

Yes, the Alt Right spurns Sallis, thinks Sallis is crazy, and ignores Sallis. That’s great; you know, at this point, with all of this going on, I’ll consider it a compliment.


Indeed, as Johnson writes:


All things considered, though, it is better to sacrifice personal friendships than to weaken the movement as a whole.

Yes, indeed.  See the last few years of EGI Notes.

I for one do not have any financial interests in activism, I earn zero money from it (it is actually an opportunity cost taking time away from other endeavors) and I’m a third party disinterested observer to this whole mess. Do not misunderstand: I do not begrudge overt full-time activists from earning a living from activism.  Obviously, they must do so and they should do so.  In fact, if we want high-quality full time activists we need a situation where at minimum they can have a comfortable middle class existence, etc. But this should not be achieved through vicious squabbling over financial resources, unethical behavior, and the like (I also do not like constant Alt Wrong panhandling so that kosher conservative “activists” earn exuberant six figure professional-scale salaries while funneling money into the pockets of “writers” who are race-mixing child porn apologists).  From what I can see this feud is NOT over ideology or any grand statements of principle. It’s about personality, it’s about claims to leadership, it’s about the resources (such as they are) of Arktos, and it’s about money.

If it was actually about ideology and principle, then it would be at least understandable, if regrettable. But it is not.

And, I must say – the “rank and file” “movement” “activists” are to blame for this fiasco as well.  It are they who enable the “leadership,” it are they who add fuel to the fire of the feuds, it are they who keep on propping up a failed “movement” instead of looking elsewhere to people offering an alternative.

Fact is – one year after its “breakthrough” the Alt Right is a feuding muddy mess.  Who was skeptical of the Alt Right?  Who has been skeptical of Der Movement and its leaders?  Was this the same “crazy” and “bitter” person who warned you all that Trump was a vulgar beta cuck buffoon?

That’s OK though.  Double down on the Alt Right, scream “Hail Kek!,” draw some more Pepe cartoons, and let the affirmative action train keep on rolling along.  Here’s a comment from someone who understands.  Excerpt:

I don’t identify as Alt-Right – after all it isn’t an organised movement and has no clear manifesto, it’s a free for all of undisciplined rabble. It’s perfectly possibly to be Right wing and not Alt-Right. I think you find that the majority of Right wing people would never associate with such a trashy bunch of people. Teenagers might enjoy memes, but I think you will find that the adults have all the money…

All the rest of you get the “leadership” you deserve.  And you obviously are deserving of what you have.  Enjoy.

And let me rewrite this Johnson comment:

If the best among us had any conviction, people like Daniel Friberg would have never grown into the menace that he is today. If the best among us had any conviction, they would speak out against him. If the best among us had any conviction, then the worst among us — people like Friberg, Spencer, and Forney — would have no audience for their lies and no platform from which to broadcast them. They would have no credibility, no friends, no supporters, no authors, no podcasters, and the sole audience of the tabloid freak show at Altright.com would be the chan nihilists and Left-wing press they so eagerly cultivate.


As:

If the best among us had any conviction, people like Der Movement’s “leadership” would have never grown into the menace that they are today. If the best among us had any conviction, they would speak out against them. If the best among us had any conviction, then the worst among us — people like the “leadership” that’s failed us continuously for many decades — would have no audience for their lies and no platform from which to broadcast them. They would have no credibility, no friends, no supporters, no authors, no podcasters, and the sole audience of their tabloid freak show at Altright.com would be the Game/HBD/Nutzi nihilists and anti-racist freaks they so eagerly cultivate as show opposition.


My advice to third party observers such as myself: be patient and wait until the Alt Right contagion, burns itself out.  This is, by the way, we need something like Codreanu’s Legion; we need the New Man, ethical and moral leadership. not something accurately described as a “freak show.”


Delenda est Alt Right.  This episode is a perfect reason why.

O’Meara’s Introduction to Yockey’s The Proclamation of London

One critique.

Reading O’ Meara’s Introduction to the latest edition of Yockey’s The Proclamation of London, one unfortunately sees the anti-biological race problem rearing its head again.  The strawman argument is made that so-called biological racial materialism (the adherents of which – like myself – O’Meara doesn’t want to waste his breath on) is all about looking at humanity from the perspective of superiority/inferiority or of a strict genetic determinism.  That is true of Der Movement certainly, and, from a Judeophilic and Asian-worshiping perspective, also true of the HBDers.  But it is not true of a kinship-based racialism that takes the reasonable view that it is adaptive to pursue the promotion of interests of those most closely related to you (genetic kinship), modulated by the numbers involved. That is a core component of my ideology – the Salterian EGI component – of which that there can be no compromise.  Race exists, it is real, population groups differ, genetic kinship differs, and adaptive behavior is tied into the relative levels of that kinship.  Culture is of course extremely important – High Culture/Civilization (using the broad definition, not the strictly Spenglerian distinctions) that includes science/technics – is indeed the most important proximate interest, but genetic kinship is ultimate. I don’t care about, or care for, racial aliens who ape aspects of White Western Culture.  I care about racial Europeans.  When talking about a Race-Culture both aspects are important, and in the order shown: race, then culture.
O’Meara also makes the bizarre argument that racial classifications are arbitrary because Victorian Englishmen saw themselves as more racially similar to Jews than to the Irish.  But here O’Meara is confused, and points the finger of blame in the wrong direction.  What biological science actually says is that indeed the English and Irish are more similar, racially, than either are to Jews (or even to many other European – including NW European – groups).  This belief of Victorian Englishmen was cultural – more akin to the Yockey/Evola “spiritual race” concept than to anything else.  Therefore, O’Meara uses this example of cultural race stupidity to indict biological racial materialism – even though biological racial materialism gives the right answer, and cultural race gives the wrong answer.  The example given is actually supportive of the importance of genetic kinship.  One can also state that total Identity is composed of both biological and cultural characteristics, and that today any racially aware Englishmen would consider himself more similar to the Irish either biologically or culturally than to Jews.
To be fair, apart from this issue, O’Meara’s Introduction is quite good.  This nevertheless is important and the critique, in my opinion, justified.