Pseudo-men in white nationalism

At Counter-Currents, today Greg Johnson did not let a comment of mine pass through (slightly edited below). Apparently, frank criticism of overt homosexuality is not allowed in his forum:

In previous entries I expressed my dismay about the degenerate musical tastes so common among white nationalists. And today I felt disappointed about the cheers that Jef Costello’s latest article has received here.

Last January, in his review of Fight Club Costello wanted us to believe that a film that starts with rock music, based upon a nihilistic novel authored by a homosexual author, Chuck Palahniuk, when properly interpreted deals with rebellious, healthy fascist moods that could lead our young toward masculine identity. Similarly, in today’s article Costello favorably reviews the book of another overt homosexual, Jack Donovan, again as exemplary to inspire the young on how to become more masculine.

Hello? I mean: Am I living in a different planet? How on Earth a nationalist site that purports to defend traditional, white interests ends up promoting the views of out-of-the-closet homosexuals?

In first place, neither Palahniuk nor Donovan—the latter, a featured author in Alternative Right—promote white interests. It should be a no-brainer obvious to Kindergarten kids that no overt homosexual who sells that sort of behavior as something healthy ought to be accepted in the white nationalist community.

And now that I have mentioned Alternative Right it’s worth saying that I find it ironic that Sebastian Ernst Ronin, who looks old, slim and weak in his videos is, according to my standards, far more manly, honorable, valiant and honest that the macho-type behavior that Palahniuk or Donovan promote. In his latest article Ronin wrote:

“White Nationalist” organizations and political parties indirectly endorse the betrayal of the White Race; they are reactionary and not, relative to current conditions, dynamics and opportunities, revolutionary…

This reactionary tendency in the White Nationalist community is most professionally exhibited by the American Third Position and most “unprofessionally” exhibited by the American National Socialist Movement. Between these two extremes of blind and blinder strategic forecasting are upstanding organizations such as American Renaissance, the Council of Conservative Citizens, and such minor New Right poseurs as Counter-Currents Publishing, Alternative Right, and Youth for Western Civilization, the latter being the most notorious for confusing crass Amerikan jingoism and exceptionalism for Occidental nobility.

I agree with Ronin’s last words in that article: “It is a binary world. One is either in or one is out” referring to the mental gulf between mere reactionaries and true revolutionaries. But promoting “gay” authors is not even “reactionary”! Furthermore, Alternative Right, where Donovan publishes, is a classic example of a “nationalist” organization repacked, as Alex Linder says, as implicitly conservative. This is not an organization that looks forward for a glove to be turned inside-out. Ronin reminds us that a paradigm shift literally means a transition onto and into a new world (see for example how my recent entries end with the Nietzschean call “Umwertung aller Werte!” here and here).

Ronin also points out, accurately, that these implicit conservatives ignore the fact that, due to the peak oil crisis (and I would add the coming crash of the dollar), both the US and Canada will collapse, and that the planet’s population will be reduced by the billions by the century’s end.

But back to Costello, Donovan, Palahniuk—and Greg Johnson who seems to be fond of such writers to the point of publishing them. See my lengthy response to Johnson’s views on homosexuality in “Gitone’s magic.”

Since out-of-the-closet homos obviously won’t be empowered in the coming ethnostate, it is refreshing to learn that Ronin spares the Northwest Front from his harsh criticism. Unlike the other blogsites and organizations, the NWF does not consist of implicit conservatives, gayish or pseudo-masculine, albeit “macho” types.

For an apatride like me, I am tempted to conclude this post saluting the banner that will be the banner of my Judenfrei, gay-free, feminist-free, truly manly country:

On St. Paul

I have just reread chapters 13 and 14 of The Myth-Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by New Testament scholar Hyam Maccoby, after twenty-four years that I read the whole book, and I still find them fascinating. Maccoby wrote:

“As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and the leaders of the ‘Jerusalem Church,’ James and Peter.

Peter and Paul, in later Christian tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the imputation of being the individual creation of Paul…

Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation.”

For those who are biased against the late Maccoby because he was Jewish, let me now quote what a few non-Jews opined about Paul:

“My long-time views about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts—the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn’t much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document.” —Carl Sagan

“Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.” —Thomas Jefferson

“Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon of the mount, and had taught his disciples the ‘Our Father.’ Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord.” —Albert Schweitzer

“Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ… Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ.” —Will Durant

“The new testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad.” —Thomas Hardy

If Christianity requires an Antichrist “and if, in place of an ideal, they can put up with a real Antichrist, —an Antichrist of flesh and blood— they need not go far to look for one. Of Saul, alias Paul, the existence is not fabulous.” —Jeremy Bentham

“Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in.” —Carl Jung

“Paul’s words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul—a vast difference.” —Bishop John S. Spong