Der Movement for the holidays – and fisking about homosexuality.
Merry Christmas, suckers! Keep on giving “D’Nations” – remember, those who give live in the Golden Age today!
But, but, but…Der Movement does good, it is fighting for the White race.
Keep on dreaming.
Remember…don’t objectify milady! No, wait…(Putting aside that now, after pushing the idea that grossly obese landwhales are “curvy and sexy,” we now have sagging aging hags promoted as paragons of feminine beauty). In any case, ”female” and “agency” in the same sentence is an automatic oxymoron, unless “agency” is preceded by “no” or “do not have.”
Get ready for the next Alt Right podcast That’s right!
I would like to take a critical look at this essay, commenting on certain excerpts:
First, homosexuality is beside the point.
Then why does Counter-Currents focus on the subject so much?
Because of the distorting lens of the Jewish media, it is easy to think that all homosexuals are promoters of the Jewish agenda.
Jew, Jew, Jew, Jewey, Jew, Jew. Can we discuss the topic without knee-jerk Jew-baiting?
White Nationalism should be a one-issue political outlook.
If so, then why must we discuss this topic? Why does Counter-Currents “take a side” on this issue, not only with essays such as this, but with the essays (and books) by James O’Meara and Buttercup Dew?
White Nationalism is for the interests of whites and against the interests of our racial enemies. Period. Anything else is beside the point.
The problem is that “the interests of whites” can be interpreted by different people in quite different ways. Moral, aesthetic, health-related, spiritual, etc. values can be viewed as important for such interests.
That means that White Nationalists must work to unite all whites into a self-conscious racial community, rallying around our common racial interests.
White Nationalism has only one message for homosexuals: white homosexuals have more important interests in common with other whites than they do with non-white homosexuals. We have to resist falling for any form of the divide and conquer strategy used by our enemies to destroy our solidarity as a prelude to destroying our race. 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. These will always be used by our enemies to divide and subvert us.
What hypocrisy! Let’s see: “We have to resist falling for any form of the divide and conquer strategy used by our enemies to destroy our solidarity as a prelude to destroying our race. Battles between…Nordics and Mediterraneans…have no place in the White Nationalist movement. These will always be used by our enemies to divide and subvert us.”
This coming from a site that has proudly featured the anti-“Mediterranean” ramblings of Andrew Hamilton and Ash Donaldson, that praises Humphrey Ireland, and promotes the HBD cult. By the criterion of “…have no place in the White Nationalist movement. These will always be used by our enemies to divide and subvert us” – then Counter-Currents has no place in the White nationalist movement, as it can be used by “our enemies to divide and subvert us.”
If Johnson has no problems with the aforementioned authors (as well as the likes of Colin Liddell [in the past] and John Morgan), then why not feature the writing of Andrew Joyce about homosexuality as well?
I have met a number of homosexuals in the contemporary White Nationalist movement, and I have my suspicions about a few others.
Indeed. I have heard things about certain people as well.
All of these people, however, are intelligent and accomplished.
Unlike those dumb, useless, and brutish heteros.
They are real assets to the movement.
Really? The ones I know about or have heard about are, in my opinion, net negatives.
They are masculine, and appreciate masculine things like facts, logic, and forthright action.
Jack Donovan has described some of that “forthright action.” Bite the pillow!
And even effeminate gay men can make a real contribution. Pim Fortuyn was ideologically a mixed-bag, but he had the potential to move the Netherlands significantly to the right, and his fruity persona only helped his cause. The media found it difficult to paint a flamboyant old fop who fussed over floral arrangements and doted over his lapdogs as the next Hitler.
What was tolerated in the socially liberal Netherlands would not be so well accepted elsewhere. I believe most White Americans would be repulsed by a “flamboyant old fop.”
A unified White Nationalist movement does not require that all the different White Nationalist subgroups follow the same strategy. That would be counterproductive. The more different strategies pursued, the more chance that someone will hit on a winner.
We’re still waiting for that winner to show up.
It does not require that all groups co-operate with one another either. It does not require that they like one another. It does not require that gays and straights share pup tents and take showers together.
Brendan/Brandon is disappointed.
The minimum requirement for white unity is simply this: we all must focus our energies on pursuing our common goal by whatever path we choose, and we must resist wasting our time and energy on squabbles that divide us.
Again: Andrew Hamilton, Ash Donaldson, and Humphrey Ireland. You hypocrite.
Second, intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish.
Insane. I suppose that’s why the Jews are constantly promoting homosexuality and why traditional Christianity, despised by the Jews, opposes homosexuality.
Westphal is apparently a Christian. If you ask Christians why they think homosexuality is a sin, they cannot point to any saying of Jesus. Jesus saw fit to condemn divorce but not sodomy. Christians have to turn to the Old Testament, to the record of the Jews and their wanderings, crimes, superstitions, and hatreds. There we find homosexuality condemned as a capital crime. Why? The whole aim of the Jewish law is to set Jews apart from the rest of humanity. The Jews condemned buggery because they and all their neighbors were engaging in it. Homosexual pederasty, which still remains a taboo in our culture, was widely practiced by the ancient Aryan peoples of the Mediterranean world. The Persians, Greeks, and Romans all practiced it, including some of the manliest men in history and legend, like Achilles and Alexander the Great.
So what? First of all, I don’t care what Christians or Jews support or oppose. I make up my own mind. Second, what people did in the past is irrelevant.
Technically, the Greeks and others were not pedophiles, who pursue children, for they focused their attention on young men who were well past puberty…
But there is no question that homosexual behavior was not only tolerated by ancient Aryan peoples, it was considered normal, in some cases even ideal. It was ascribed to the gods (Zeus and Ganymede) and lauded by poets, philosophers, and historians. It is hard to maintain hateful Jewish attitudes toward homosexuality if one really understands and appreciates the greatness of classical pagan civilization.
Regardless of what is on the Old Testament, the Jews of today, who are relevant to us today, promote homosexuality. And one does not have to “understand and appreciate the greatness of classical pagan civilization” by agreeing with, or appreciating, all facets of that civilization. Let’s see…they viewed Germans as barbarians, and celebrated the defeat, slaughter, and enslavement of those German barbarians. Does Der Movement appreciate that? I doubt that very much. Consider what Caesar did to the Gauls. Does Der Movement appreciate that? Should we tolerate treating today’s Celto-Germanic peoples in a similar fashion?
As poisonous as the Old Testament’s moral condemnation of homosexuality may be, it is based on a realistic conception of human nature. Judeo-Christianity condemns homosexuality as a sin. A sin is a matter of choice. And nobody is immune to sin. If a heterosexual is a person who is immune to homosexual attractions, then the Judeo-Christian viewpoint implies that there is no such thing as a heterosexual. If a homosexual is a person who cannot help but be attracted to people of the same sex and has no choice in the matter, then the Judeo-Christian viewpoint implies that there is no such thing as a homosexual either. There are just people, all of whom have the capacity to be tempted by homosexual attractions and to choose heterosexual attractions. Thus there is no room for moral self-righteousness.
Retarded sophistry. Who cares about the goddamned Old Testament? We can condemn homosexuality on biological, aesthetic, and social grounds without invoking scripture.
Matters became worse in the late nineteenth century, when psychologists—some but not all of them Jews—created a new paradigm for understanding sexuality. There were no longer homosexual and heterosexual desires, which can be found in all people and can be controlled by our faculty of choice. There were now homosexual and heterosexual people, and what made a person one or the other was generally thought to lie outside of our choice and control. One’s sexual proclivities suddenly became a whole “lifestyle,” a whole “identity,” giving sex an inflated importance in the scheme of things. It was not long before Freud started speculating that the whole soul can be understood in terms of sexuality. This new and false conception of sexuality has caused immense suffering and damage to our race.
Jews! Jews! Excuse me…if it is all a matter of “our faculty of choice,” then why can we tell that someone is homosexual just by listening to their voice? Or in some cases by looking at their face? Are we, in December 2019, denying a strong biological basis for sexual preferences? And, if is “choice,” then can homosexuals please choose to be heterosexual, thus ending the problem?
First of all, it has created a great deal of anxiety for men and women who experience homosexual attractions at one time or another. In pagan societies, these desires could be acknowledged, understood, and even expressed if one chose to. In Judeo-Christian society, such desires were repressed, but their mere presence said nothing more about one’s identity than one is a sinner and subject to temptation—just like everybody else. Today, homosexual desires cause great anxiety and psychological anguish. People worry if they fall into a small and stigmatized sexual subspecies, totally different from the rest of humanity. A young man gets aroused wrestling with a friend and suddenly has a psychological crisis on his hands. He wonders if he is sick. He feels alienated from his family and peers. He wonders if he will have to move to the city and buy a feather boa.
Projection? Homosexuals seriously – very seriously – inflate instances of nominally heterosexual people experiencing “homosexual attractions.” Johnson should realize that many – I would say most, more likely the vast majority – of heterosexuals go through their lives without once experiencing such attractions.
Second, this anxiety has chilled same-sex friendships and male bonding, and it is the bonded male group, the Männerbund, that is the foundation of all higher forms of civilization, particularly Aryan civilizations. It is amazing to read accounts of male friendships from earlier centuries, for example in Augustine’s Confessions or Montaigne’s Essays. It was possible for men to frankly express their love for one another without fearing the stigma of homosexuality, because that was an identity that simply did not exist before the late nineteenth century. (Today, these expressions of affection are read through the distorting lens of “queer theory,” and Augustine and Montaigne and countless other figures have been “outed.”)
I don’t know. Maybe if young men can attend Alt Right meetings without being “flirted” with by homosexuals, then a “Mannerbund” could be possible.
Third, those who decide that they do not merely have homosexual desires, but are “homosexuals” are trapped by this self-concept into an exclusively homosexual lifestyle, which not only carries health risks…
This makes no sense. Why would an “exclusively homosexual lifestyle” carry health risks while a “partially” homosexual lifestyle not? The risks might be statistically higher in the former case, but still substantial in the latter. It’s not like there’s a threshold that needs to be reached before health risks occur. A single homosexual encounter can result in a life-changing infection or structural bodily damage.
…but also prevents them from affirming whatever heterosexual desires they might also have. It cuts them off from marriage and family life, which could be combined with homosexual relationships openly in pagan societies and on the sly in Judeo-Christian societies.
“On the sly.” I’m sure the wives would be thrilled if they knew that their husbands are sleeping with men. Get tested, milady! Virus testing awaits!
Fourth, it has created the heterosexual, who thinks he is immune from same-sex attractions.
Created? CREATED!!!???? Excuse me, heterosexuals are not “created,” unless by “creation” you mean conception and birth. The idea of Johnson here apparently is that there aren’t any people who are innately purely heterosexual. They all have homosexual yearnings, don’t you know, perhaps satisfied by getting groped in a men’s room, or propositioned at an Alt Right meeting. Excuse me, but this is pure fantasy.
This allows some heterosexuals to fuse Jewish intolerance with self-righteousness, turning them into queer-bashing bullies.
Is wishing to avoid interacting with homosexuals equate with being a “queer-bashing bully?”
All these destructive consequences could be alleviated if we freed our minds from the legacy of Jewish hatred and intolerance.
Gaslighting nonsense. Intolerance of homosexuality is not “Jewish.” If anything, the opposite is true.
Queer-bashers are in the grip of Jewry without even knowing it.
Oh, please. This is just transparent pandering to Der Movement’s knee-jerk anti-Semitism. “If you dislike homosexuals, then you are secretly in thrall to the Jews.” Nonsense. The same “movement” tells us that “the Jews” control the media, have an outsized influence on popular culture, dictate social and political mores, and are over-represented in academia and the professions. Yet, society moves steadily in the direction of the LGBTQ agenda. What does that tell you?