Dante’s outer circle

In the third season of Downton Abbey, when Matthew experiences a visual shock while entering a jazz club in London trying to rescue Rose dating a married man, Matthew proclaims aloud that the club is “Dante’s outer circle.”

Downton-Abbey-Christmas-2013

(In the above photo inside Highclere Castle this spoiled girl, Rose, appears with a pink dress.) Downton Abbey is the only recent TV series that I might recommend. Even the kissing of Rose with a Negro in the next season is depicted as a silly revenge of Rose against her abusive mother. But there’s no obvious cultural or racial treason in the episodes I’ve watched as to date. (I’ve only missed the last one, the 2013 Christmas special of the fourth season).

These sort of post-war London clubs that shocked Matthew were in operation a hundred years ago. Music is infinitely worse now. Since the self-destructive defense mechanisms of abused adolescents are my specialty I’d claim that the rock classics you may listen today—for example “Tie Your Mother Down” by the group Queen that I used to like when I was the victim of an engulfing mother—are precisely silly defense mechanisms.

Now that I wrote a book confessing how I was abused as a teen I realize that a mature man may develop non-degenerate defense mechanisms to cope with past memories.

Alas, this is not the case of the overwhelming majority of white nationalists. All of them seem to fail to comprehend that it is impossible to revert back to the healthy sexual mores depicted in Downton Abbey if at the same time they don’t reject the music of Queen and the myriads of other rock groups.

In his blog’s entry of the first day of the new year, Iranian for Aryans reposted what musician Roger had said recently:

I’ve just finished reading this interview with the late Cardinal Domenico Bartolucci, former musical director of the Sistine Chapel, and I thought you might be interested by some of his comments. He is speaking primarily about liturgical music, but he also discusses about the general condition of music in this rotten century:

“[My father] was a workman at a brick factory in Borgo San Lorenzo, in the province of Florence. He loved to sing in church. And he loved the romance of Verdi and Donizetti. But at that time, everybody sang: the farmers while they were dressing the vines, the shoemakers while they were working a sole. There were bands in the piazza, during the holidays music directors came from Florence, and the area theatre had two opera seasons each year. It’s all gone now.”

Simple Italian factory workers used to love the music of Verdi and Donizetti? I wonder how this fits with the black metal apologists’ belief that classical music was historically something for a tiny bourgeois clique, and that most normal people were only familiar with folk songs.

I can remember them trying to make these arguments in the comment threads of Counter-Currents, Alternative Right and the Occidental Observer. There is no excuse these people will not use if it will enable them to continue listening to their beloved modern music. Were they serious, they would spend a moment considering why old reactionaries, who grew up before rock music became ubiquitous, are so repulsed by distorted guitars and screeching. (Modern man knows better, of course.)

When asked if the old musical traditions are disappearing, the cardinal said, “it stands to reason: if there is not the continuity that keeps them alive, they are destined to oblivion.”

I think that sums it up in a nutshell. One of my goals in 2014 is to acquire a tenor viol and start learning music by the English consort composers (as well as continental composers from the same time period). Whether it will be possible to find other violists to form a consort is another problem, but keeping the music alive with one’s own hands is a good starting point. It is undoubtedly the case that music cannot survive as a collection of digital audio files. That will turn it into a mere museum piece. If that happens, it will be sad but just. A civilised nation cannot choose to embrace African voodoo devilry at the expense of its own culture and expect to continue living with dignity.

Yup… Precisely because my mother is a piano teacher I rebelled against my family’s traditions and, like Downton Abbey’s Rose, never learnt how to play it. But now that I fully processed my pain thru a thick book I realize that my adolescent infatuation with Queen was just silly. I no longer listen rock. In fact, I just started learning piano at my relative old age!

Cesar tocando piano 2014

(It’s me playing the piano…)

By the way, in a most recent personal communication, Iranian commented on Roger’s above sentence: “There is no excuse these people [white nationalists] will not use if it will enable them to continue listening to their beloved modern music”:

How correct Roger is! What we have here is a degenerated breed of WNs / “traditionalists” who, basically, have no musical taste, are divorced from their superior heritage, and desire a world where bad music and pornography reign sans Jew.

Recently at Facebook, a Counter-Currents sodomite responded to Iranian that a Persian ought not dare teach him what his western cultural roots are.

Can’t he? I am not an American either but, to my present ears, years after I processed my adolescent pain, the “music” promoted by Counter-Currents and other nationalist sites is becoming like Dante’s outer circle certainly…

Postscript of January 11: Alternative Right is gone now, but Richard Spencer has opened a new site promoting exactly the same “black metal” degeneracy.

Downton Abbey

downton-abbey-wallpaper-8

I have said that, of all recent TV series I have seen, I only found inspiring the first episode of The White Queen. Now I might recommend a series which message, at least until the first season that I watched, is not necessarily negative.

Downton Abbey is a series created by English actor and novelist Julian Fellowes, first aired in Britain on September 2010. The series depicts the lives of the aristocratic Crawley family and their servants in the post-Edwardian era starting with the sinking of the Titanic. Of the only season I’ve watched to date my favorite line upon which the entire drama evolves—that in the recent past women had no right of inheritance—is a dialogue between two humble servants:

“It is the law.”

“Well: it is a wicked law.”

These well-intentioned Britons were naïve of course. We know better now. We now know that from the corruption of women all evils follow. Just compare the decent world of Downton Abbey with today’s Hollywood degeneracy (that incidentally even quite a few white nationalists like).

Remember for instance that filthy film, Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone, during the interrogation scene, shows her pubic hair to the male interrogators. That’s what happens when women are allowed to inherit immense fortunes from their late parents, as Catherine Tramell (Stone) did in Basic Instinct. Remember also when the detectives visited her Pacific Heights mansion to find only Catherine’s lesbian lover, etcetera.

My dream is that later in this century and the next one the West will revert to the mores of Jane Austen in the ethnostate. What I most loved about Downton Abbey, which rather depicts the late Victorians of the early 20th century is that, with the exception of a Turk who died in the aristocratic mansion, non-whites simply don’t exist in that world.

Affection of yore among hetero males

(A post by Matt Parrott on Facebook)

hetero-male-affection-of-yore
 
The author’s thesis is completely upside-down. It’s the homophilic garbage which frames male affection as potentially gay which “queers” straight male physical affection.

The most homophobic subcultures in America have the most healthy male physical affection precisely because it’s firmly understood that there’s not a gay subtext to it. Even straight men who don’t consider themselves homophobic aren’t comfortable with unwelcome sexual advances, and in more liberal and libertine subcultures, that’s necessarily a potential factor and a potential perception.

Personally, I’m just a prickly sort of person who doesn’t have much use for physical interaction (or any interaction at all) with other humans. But it’s obvious from looking at these old photos, and from observing other cultures which don’t have this problem, that an aspect of the traditional human experience has been lost in our society.

Published in: on November 24, 2013 at 9:27 am  Comments (6)  

March of the Titans

The following paragraphs of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:

Non-white immigration into the white heartlands

The dominating theme of European history in the last quarter of the 20th Century has been the large-scale immigration of non-White peoples and races into the modern era White heartlands of Europe, Australia/New Zealand and North America. This process has taken place via two avenues: legal immigration and illegal immigration: it is difficult to formulate estimates on which has been the greater. Whatever the channel used, the reality of masses of non-Whites settling in these territories can quite rightly said to be changing the face of these continents.

According to Eurostat (the Statistical Office of the European Communities) in their publication Migration Statistics, 1996, there is not one of the fifteen countries in Western Europe which, at the beginning of 1994, did not have less than 3-10 per cent of what they euphemistically call “non-nationals resident”.

France, Germany, Austria, the Benelux countries, Denmark, Scandinavia and England are all listed as having “non-nationals resident” of more than 10 per cent, with Germany in two regions registered figures of “more than 15 per cent.” An average of between ten and fifteen per cent of “non nationals resident” in Western Europe as of the mid 1990’s is therefore an accurate estimate, given that official figures are always behind actual statistics, as the number of illegal immigrants always closely shadows the number of legal immigrants.

Racial mixing has been extremely prevalent in Britain. According to the 1991 census, taken by the Office for National Statistics in London (ONS), 40 per cent of young Black men in Britain are married to, or live with, a White partner. The trend is less common on the other side of the sexual divide, where one in five young Black women has a partner who is White. Britain has, as a result of this large non-White influx, suffered a large number of Black riots, the most serious of which occurred in 1981, when countrywide riots saw large areas of many inner cities razed to the ground.

According to an article in the newspaper, USA Today of 17 June 1998, the number of mixed-race marriages in the USA was 150,000 in 1960. By 1998 it had increased to “over 1.5 million” and it estimated that the number of mixed-race children in America stood at “over 2 million.”

The 1960s will also go down in history as having introduced one of the most significant factors to affect White numbers in the entire history of the world: the development of the birth control pill, or oral contraceptive, which was first approved for use in the United States in 1965. Social demographic trends have shown that it is only in the Western, White, industrialized countries where contraception is used to any significant degree.

The reproduction rate in White countries (amongst their native populations) has, since the introduction of the pill, dropped to the point where in most White countries it is below the stable replacement rate of 2.4 children per female. In the non-White Third World however, no such restraints exist, and the population grows exponentially as fast as the White population declines in Europe and North America: this demographic time bomb will in the not to distant future have serious consequences for the entire earth.

The resultant massive overpopulation of the non-White lands of the earth provides the major driver for non-White immigration into the White heartlands of Europe, Australia and North America.

Battery Park, NY

Cloaca gentium – Battery Park, New York

My Fair Lady

My_fair_lady_poster


As a kid I watched My Fair Lady on the big screen: a film that won eight Academy Awards in 1964. I am in my middle fifties now. One of the advantages of having living more than half a century is that you remember My Fair Lady as if you had watched it a couple of weeks ago. This means that the visual mores of the time are still fresh in my mind as if it was something that (psychologically) happened a fortnight ago. My little sisters treasured their memories too and talked about the movie at home.

My Fair Lady can be watched in YouTube, at least in the country in which I am living for the moment. If you click here, starting with “Pickering, why can’t a woman be more like a man?” (hour 2:28 to 2:32), you will see that “a fortnight ago” men regarded women as totally different creatures.

For people of my age it is like if an esoteric fashion took over society “a fortnight ago” turning the world upside down—something absolutely impossible to transmit to younger people since they didn’t build their psyches in the early 1960s.

That’s why for people like me even most white nationalists are, mixing old film metaphors, body-snatched degenerates. We older folks still have memories of an age when decency and the most obvious facts about the differences between the sexes were widely acknowledged by most.

Nonetheless, even now, during the West’s darkest hour, the new generation can make a difference by failing to renew their Cable services; disconnect the aerial antenna to avoid temptations, purchase old-time movies in DVD form, and spend their relaxing hours watching only the films that their grandparents saw in the luxurious, old-fashioned theaters of yore.

The beam

Domenico_Fetti_Parable_Mote_Beam


And why beholdest thou the mote that is in the Jude’s eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?





In “Lefty river” I said: “Imagine a river that took a very wrong turn to the Left. Those who fancy themselves ‘white nationalists’ are deceiving themselves, for in a way or another they are navigating that river too.”

To navigate the river as westerners do since the 1960s means to be part of the so-called sexual revolution (actually, libidinous ethno-suicide) that includes women’s and homosexual “rights” and civil “rights” for non-whites. Westerners who subscribe the new zeitgeist view all navigating through the river as a mere relaxation of social taboos, especially “taboos” relating to “racism” and “sexism.”

If Hegel is right that music only reflects the spirit of an age, such promiscuous and ethnic relaxation was readily expressed, since the 60s, in new forms of music such as rock; and if today’s white nationalists were as honorable as Commander Rockwell and William Pierce, like them they would also feel revulsion for the outer expression of a rotten soul.

But today’s nationalists do exactly the opposite. They navigate the same river that has been driving Western civilization to an ocean of black sewage. Most white nationalists of course are totally blind about this because, like the rest of whites, they have been navigating it for decades.

A couple of days ago for example Greg Johnson published an article, “Death June in San Francisco,” where he praises a concert he attended in California’s sin city, San Fran: a band of a homosexual who plays deafening folk-rock, post-punk music. Having in mind what he saw in the concert, Johnson claimed that “any signs of cracks in Jewish-led anti-white coalition of homosexuals, feminists, environmentalists, and liberals should be welcomed by White Nationalists.”

This of course assumes that Jews are our only enemy and that whites, including white nationalists—actually including Johnson—are not active actors in the demise of the West. But what if they are? What if any white who navigates the river is a racial or cultural traitor?

I have said it before and I’ll iterate it again: What convinced me that the Jewish problem is not the main problem in the West’s darkest hour was precisely the behavior of white nationalists. Since they are presumably the only group in the West that is fully conscious of the Jewish question, destructive views and lifestyles among them—praising homosexualism and even “gay marriage,” heavy metal, Hollywood filth, sports featuring Negroes and getting laid heterosexually or adding soft-porn pics in some of their sites—proves beyond reasonable doubt that even pro-white advocates are implicated in their demise.

It is useless, and kind of silly for me, to say, “Stop navigating the river and live like our ancestors did.” The grim fact is that very few, if any, will do this because they are blind about the beam in their own eyes.

On feminism

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


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

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

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

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

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

No truer words were ever spoken.


Feminism in ancient Sparta

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

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

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

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


Feminism and the fall of Rome

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

Ancient-Rome-1

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

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

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

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

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

Is Greg Johnson one of us?

Liaucius’ final comment on the Johnson affair:



Greg's palsIn the past I had heard plenty of claims that Greg Johnson was a homosexual but I ignored them because of the great virtues found in much of his writings and because I believed that I shared a broadly similar ideological framework with him.

When I first read Johnson’s essay on homosexual marriage I wasn’t concerned since I presumed that he was engaging in an intellectual exercise that was sincere, if deeply problematic, which didn’t reflect a defense of homosexuality or an endorsement of homosexual marriage. What I did find worrying was that self identified homosexuals defended the article along with several apparently healthily Occidental advocates who overlooked numerous, serious flaws with the rationales behind Johnson’s missive. These concerns had been partly alleviated by Johnson’s polite response to my initial retort although I was starting to realize that the ideological chasm between Johnson and myself was far more [wide] than I had previously thought. Still, it seemed that he was dealing with the topic in good faith and I certainly wasn’t ready to view him as a sodomite or harboring a weltanschauung at odds with the cause of Occidental restoration.

My second retort was met with the standard Dissipationist tactic of decrying me as a reactionary combined with a cursory bit about how I was faux tough, ceding the metapolitical ground to our enemies and doomed to failure. My subsequent attempts at responding were met with censorship and the thread being closed before Johnson created a new essay praising undefined moderates for accepting the soundness of homosexual civil unions and decrying those that disagree as hateful. Seeing an alleged Occidental advocate parrot virtually any generic left wing agitator one could care to recall was clearly a sign that something was radically amiss with Greg Johnson.

When D. McCulloch correctly pointed out that

“Marriage is the working out of metaphysical truth. That truth (as traditionalists see it, broadly) is in the incompleteness of either the masculine or the feminine principle instantiated by itself. We marry and then work together in order to become whole, i.e., to become fully human, for want of a simpler term. It is an effort to restore, in a minor way, the primordial condition. Society sanctions that effort for the dignity and fulfillment of both sexes. At bottom, the reasons for marriage, as it were, are entirely metaphysical. All of those sodomite questions and challenges for which you think there are no-good answers, are, if fact, easy to answer if you understand the principles involved; the principles that you are supposed to be defending. So, no. The agenda of the forces of dissolution, i.e., anti-tradition, including the radical politicized sodomites, should be opposed in its entirety with no quarter given.”

The extent of Johnson’s reply was to dismiss what was said as “made up rationales for justifying coupling” which demonstrates a shallow, mis-educated view regarding traditionalism and an open contempt for Occidental folkways and mores that in no respect differ from any generic proponent of our destruction. Interestingly, D. McCulloch was permitted an elegant reply:

“Make up—a religious rationale? One doesn’t ‘make up’ religious, metaphysical or even magical (I like that) rationales. Unless ‘we’ are deracinated, social atoms, those things come to the table with us—and decide for us, to some degree, what we think the role of the state ought to be. A strictly utilitarian debate, from the standpoint of instrumental reason, abstracting from any prior spiritual or cultural commitment (which I take you to want), offers the glittering possibility of what, exactly? Deciding what half-measures should be taken for the sake of ‘the children?’ As though we could influence this monster for the sake of the good?”

That Johnson lacked the ability or willingness to counter such an obvious truth wasn’t a surprise to me. More importantly, the exchange confirmed that Johnson’s thinking on this topic is fundamentally in opposition to Occidental renewal and that he mimics the rhetoric of our enemies and the reasoning of the American Supreme Court.

Donar van Holland capably demolished Johnson’s argument that “couplings” should be considered strictly in terms of the prima facie position that allows marriage to be divorced from reproduction, as seen here.

As expected Johnson didn’t even acknowledge Donar van Holland’s position but focuses upon legalistic sophistry and the notion that all biologically unproductive “couplings” are functionally equivalent because he says so.

In essence, one is concerned with Occidental humanity to the extent that one seeks to preserve and strengthen that which makes our folk unique. Promoting the legal and institutional recognition of “homosexual couplings” can’t serve such an aim even if family life has been utterly decimated as Johnson claims. Realistically speaking, Johnson is wrong as tens of millions of healthy families exist in the Occidental world; so a central element of his argument is fallacious.

He never really provided any support for his contention that the decline in family life is the fault of heterosexuals, yet even if one accepts that assertion he still provides no reason to believe that accepting the institutionalization of homosexuality can benefit our people. In fact, the alleged utility of such a policy is left unmentioned let alone supported.

As to what Johnson describes as “heteronormativity” it is true that it can’t be undermined insofar as it’s natural in every meaningful sense of the term and will always appeal to most people. Regarding the homosexual movement in social / tribal and biologic terms (which is what those of us that care about the preservation of our people should be focusing upon), it’s detrimental for all the reasons detailed by myself and others here and elsewhere. Johnson recognizes that his prescriptions for strengthening real marriage aren’t viable in the present clime yet he promotes the agenda of the homosexual movement which is detrimental to our people making one doubt his motivations and / or his intellectual foundations.

Is Johnson a homosexual? I don’t know and I don’t think it matters since regardless of how he lives he perceives the very building blocks of any civilization worthy of the name (i.e., families) can be divorced from biology as well as be meaningful apart from social / tribal / metaphysical concerns. He attempts to reconstruct marriage in legalistic / institutional terms which only makes sense within the context of deracinated, social atoms that “couple” purely because it fulfills individual needs. That any “coupling” should be accepted socially and legally as equally valid as heterosexual marriage reflects a Dissipationist rather than an Occidental way of thinking that must be condemned.

In short, Johnson has demonstrated that he has fully embraced a key aspect of Dissipationism to the point of adopting rhetoric indistinguishable from any generic libertarian or leftist establishment proponent meaning that can’t be seen as an Occidental advocate as a result.

Hajo Liaucius

Gay “rights” – full movie

This documentary was filmed from the conservative point of view; not from our POV. But it’s still worth watching. The grotesque homo images are worth a thousand words.

Linder on Johnson: a retort

Excerpted from VNN Forum. Alex Linder is responding to Greg Johnson’s “The gay marriage controversy.” Indented paragraphs come from Johnson’s June 28, 2013 essay:


Both the promoters and opponents of homosexual marriage share a common false premise: that the legalization of homosexual marriage overthrows “heteronormativity,” i.e., the idea that heterosexuality is normal and other forms of sexuality are not. But the idea that changing marriage laws can change heteronormativity is simply false.

Actually, no one says that. Leftists see queer marriage as one important campaign in a giant ongoing war.

What do I mean when I say that homosexual behavior is abnormal? I don’t mean that it is unnatural, since its exists in nature. It is even found in many species besides man.

Most of the so-called examples of homosexual behavior disappear on closer examination.

I don’t mean that it is a sin, i.e., something that displeases God. The idea of sin pretty much paralyzes the ability to think rationally about morals.

For me, the issue of abnormality all boils down to homosexuality being a non-reproductive, recreational form of sex. And if everyone had non-reproductive, recreational sex all the time, the human race would perish. Heterosexual behavior is normal, because only heterosexual sex can perpetuate our species, provided conception is not blocked by birth control.

So the real issue is not even homosexual versus heterosexual, but reproductive versus non-reproductive sex. That’s all there is to it.

Um, no. Homosexual behavior is inherently morbid, heterosexual behavior is not. Queer behavior is on a par along with drug / alcohol abuse and other anti-social behavior. Whether a taste is inborn or developed, it’s socially destructive and should be looked down on, and certainly never given any kind of legal status. What Johnson doesn’t observe that’s most significant today is that (1) homos today, unlike in all prior history, can find one other easily; (2) queers have a global support network thanks to political backing and media / communications technology.

This results in queers being able to form what the left calls communities—basically, pockets of morbidity. In these death cultures new and quite dangerous diseases are created and existing diseases are exacerbated. Thanks to jewish political clout, these diseases are untied, in the public mind, from the homosexual behavior that spawned and spread them, and actually, such chutzpah!, blamed on the surrounding squares. It’s not Gaetan Dugas, an extremely promiscuous queer, who’s responsible for spreading Queer-Related Immune Deficiency (Q-RID), it’s Ronald Reagan, the ninety-year-old president, who’s responsible for spreading AIDS (“Acquired” [LOL] Immune Deficiency Syndrome). How was it acquired? Well, doc, I sucked 500 dicks in 400 days.

Heterosexuals engaged in normal activity don’t know whether their sex will result in offspring, so the division between productive and non-reproductive sex is not so simply made. We do know that every act of anal sex between homosexuals is inherently morbid—diseased. Big, big difference.

Homosexual behaviors and tastes are older than the human race, but the idea of homosexuality as an identity is a rather recent phenomenon. People with exclusively homosexual tastes are a tiny minority in any society, no matter how permissive and decadent. Thus it stands to reason that no society has ever ceased to exist because the tiny homosexual minority doesn’t reproduce. Societies decline demographically when the heterosexual majority doesn’t reproduce, primarily due to birth control.

Birth control is not the reason societies decline. Birth control is merely something people use to avoid pregnancy, not the cause of the desire to avoid pregnancy.

Thus if non-reproductive sex is a problem because it does not perpetuate the human race, the bulk of the blame falls on selfish, hedonistic straight people.

I mean, this is like arguing with a fundamentalist instead of a human because it’s easier. That’s one step above a strawman, I suppose, but there’s little else to commend it. Yes. You’re correct. The human race never is, has been, or will be in danger of dying off because of fag activity. No serious man ever so contended. 1% of the population can’t have that effect—unless it be through spreading lethal disease, which is not entirely out of the question, considering Q-RID and the various drug-resistant strains homo behavior has created or exacerbated.

The basic problem with Johnson’s article is there’s no acknowledgement of the Frankfurt School. We know that jews aim to destroy the white race. We know that their top experts see the best way to do this is by using the official vectors (government, schools, media) to promote a General Loosening. The creation and the glorification of the homosexual identity are part of this. But only a part. Deviant sex, drug use, self-worship (self-esteem)—whatever it is, the jewish goal is to get the goy focused with himself, his stupid, worthless feelings and opinions, thereby taking his eyes off the world and its unbending factual reality.

If you do what the jews advise, soon enough you will have so many personal problems you’re unfit to participate in politics. Which is the intent. The promotion of homosexuality is simply part of this. In Aryan society, queer behavior is the proclivity of a tiny, weird minority. A minority that is generally laughed about privately but left alone. Even those engaged in it hide the fact, since it never occurs to them, any more than to the normals, that their tastes are healthy or deserving of some kind of public acknowledgement, let alone respect or legal stature.

In a jew-controlled society, the queers are encouraged to think of their deviance as healthy, normal and natural. Even more than that—as a positive good. Something to take pride in. Something to celebrate. Something to hold parades for. A term is coined to disparage anyone who shakes his head at the world turned upside down. He’s now a “homophobe.” If he dares laugh or make objection to the new scheme of things, he finds himself publicly ridiculed, without a job, and very likely cut off from his scared friends and family.

The political use of homosexual behavior is what matters. Queer marriage is simply another milestone in the promotion and normalization of deviance in order to facilitate destruction. By itself it doesn’t mean all that much, except that a few more resources are shifted away from normal people to diseased / deranged people. But from the resource-shifting point of view, queer “marriage” is trivial, given our open borders and anti-white tax and welfare policies. The main thing is that the concept of marriage and family are further degraded, since the law is on the side of the degradation. This produces confusion in people, as is the intent. Confusion leads people to make bad choices.

Proponents of marriage for homosexuals think that heteronormativity is simply a social construct, a convention that can be changed through legislation, education, and relentless media brainwashing. But heteronormativity is based in nature, not in convention. Sexual reproduction has existed before human beings formed languages and conventions. Indeed, sexual reproduction existed before mankind evolved. The birds and the bees do it too. So heteronormativity is not a social construct and cannot be changed by society. It can only be covered up, lied about, and ignored—at society’s peril.

The queers believe, some of them honestly, that they have changed the public’s mind. They believe they have, through their gritty marches and public activism since Stonewall, converted people to thinking their side is morally right. Just as the negroes did. The truth is that, just as with the so-called civil rights movement, the public was simply browbeaten by a hateful media into accepting a new order accomplished anti-democratically by judicial edict. People’s minds haven’t been changed. They’ve just seen a thousand times there’s a price to be paid for speaking up. Disagree with The Cult on race, you’re aracist. Disagree with The Cult on sexual behavior, you’re a homophobe.

Both these, and other, labels can get you sued, fired, ostracized—even murdered. Who wants that? So the people keep their heads down, and content themselves with expressing any doubt in private, or not at all. Meanwhile, the 1% minority, along with the 2% minority that owns the mass media, preens and chortles over its great victory. The community, they say, supports “gay” rights. The community has changed its mind. It had a moral awakening. It decided to get on the right side of history. But homosexual behavior will never be anything but ludicrous and disgusting to the majority of the population. The public has been successfully intimidated out of expressing open criticism of deviant sexual behavior, but its basic views have not changed.

It is easy to understand why homosexual marriage proponents believe they are overturning heteronormativity. It is harder to understand why the opponents of homosexual marriage make the same claims, since presumably they think that heteronormativity is based on nature or divine will, neither of which can be altered by man, even by the US Supreme Court. Yet the opponents of heterosexual marriage claim that legally defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is the key to preserving the institutions of marriage and family life.

The point isn’t what they can build, it’s what they can destroy. And we have the who and the why. They say it themselves. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this. Your essay could have been written by James A. Dobson (Focus on the Family) or any other conservative fundraising hack.

This makes no sense for two reasons.

First, if heteronormativity is based in nature or divine commandment, not in law, then it cannot be changed by changing laws. (Human laws can, of course, strengthen natural laws by adding additional punishments and incentives to follow nature.)

Leftists are cultists. They are not interested in reality, since reality shows them to be liars and weirdoes. Their solution to nature disagreeing with them is speech codes and laws. This won’t change anything fundamental, but it will keep the air- and mind-waves free of anything that would make them cry. And that is good enough. See Paula Deen.

Second, the institutions of marriage and family life have been pretty much destroyed already. But during the whole period that marriage and family life have been decaying, homosexuals have not been allowed to marry, and marriage has been defined as a union of a man and a woman. In other words, marriage and family life have declined with their heteronormativity entirely intact. Therefore, heterosexuals bear the primary blame for the decline of marriage and the family.

No, heterosexuals have nothing to do with it. The elite setting the agenda bear all the responsibility. They have passed the easy divorce laws. They copied the Soviet family laws in their guidelines for settling child disputes. The agenda is anti-white. Deliberately so. This is not a matter of debate. You can’t have stable families in a nation with a gigantic government touching every area of life and extracting huge taxes to pay for it all. No one has any time or energy left to fuck, let alone fuck productively. Throw in a popular culture that is nothing but 24/7 streaming garbage about hotness, masturbation, homosexuality, getting drunk / wasted / high and mass sports—nothing’s left. You’re either working, sleeping, or thinking about fucking. Well, the legal / media communist jews know exactly what they are doing. Destroying families. Destroying men.

Destroying the very ideas of manliness, womanliness, or families. The very use of family without an article is subversive, and deliberately so, even though many who use it that way—i.e., “the importance of family”—don’t grasp the fact. Barbara Bush, for example, or I could cite other conservatives, do this. A family is anything, who are we to say? It’s certainly not a man, his wife, and his children. They’re all independent agents, who might temporarily combine, if it suits their interests. Well, that’s true for the Strong Women and children. Not for the men. They’re only a group if they’re queers. As family men, they have no rights. They have duties only. To pay their deadbeat dad bills when the court orders. To worship the chictator. And humbly to admit how goofy, doofy and clumsy they are. Just watch any sitcom or commercial if you need an example.

Since homosexuals are a tiny minority, and only a tiny minority of that minority wish to marry in any case, I think that homosexual marriage opponents owe us an explanation as to how, exactly, such a small group of people could mess up marriage any more than straight people already have.

Johnson doesn’t grasp what’s going on. The point of the queer marriage drive is to destroy the family. Destroy enough families, you’ve destroyed society; not to give queers the right to marriage. Something most queers don’t want, since anonymous, promiscuous sex is the heart of their culture, if you want to call it that.

The point is to disempower any legal or social structure that defends anything “patriarchal,” as the feminists and jews call it. These are people at war, or pretending to be at war (jews), with the biological nature of men and women. They denounce the observation that men and women do differ sexually and biologically as “essentialism,” and it is one of their high crimes. Funnily enough, they’re all about this essentialism when it comes to queers. It’s not homosexual behavior, not a choice, it’s an identity. It’s who they are. They are essentialists when it comes to queers, but not when it comes to men and women, or races.

If one really wanted to defend marriage and strengthen the family, one should do the following.

1. End no-fault divorce

2. Criminalize adultery

3. Criminalize alienation of affections

4. End child support for unwed mothers

5. Establish a legal presumption that unwed mothers are unfit mothers, so that giving up illegitimate children for adoption is the norm

6. End adoption by unmarried individuals

7. Institute positive incentives for high-quality individuals to marry and have families

8. Institute tax incentives for people to marry/disincentives to stay single

These policies would significantly strengthen the bonds of marriage and family life. And the burdens and benefits of these measures would fall on the heterosexual population, where they belong.

Mostly good things, but the point is to find out who is behind the pushing of homosexuality and why, and to what end. Homosexuals did not persuade the majority they were right. The people running the media did that. And it wasn’t persuasion of anything beyond “you’d better shut up or we’ll mock and ridicule you and get you fired.”

But none of our pro-family politicians and moral crusaders shows any interest in such measures. And that, to me, is the sign that the whole anti-homosexual marriage campaign is just another phony Right-wing con job: (1) scapegoating homosexuals for the mess that heterosexuals have made of marriage and the family, (2) and channeling the discontent, energy, idealism, and money of a certain segment of the Right (albeit a pretty hopeless segment, from my point of view) into just another dead end, a battle that, even if it were won, would do nothing to halt the demographic decline of our race.

Much like the Jared Taylor he verbally fellates, Johnson’s main concern here is to see that homosexuals aren’t blamed. I repeat—that is main concern. You can figure out why.

With Taylor, of course, it’s jews. As the public face of a White NAACP, funded and directed by jews, Taylor’s job—above all else—is to see that the awakening / burgeoning white identity movement does not blame the jews who put us in the position we’re now in. Instead, we must ever and always blame our own grandparents! You know how they directed the nation’s politics in between slaughtering hogs and growing muskmelons.

Johnson’s engaged in “blame whitey” by another means, which is particularly ironic in light of his “right-wing con job.” The Mormon church in Utah was behind most of the California campaign, as the left gleefully and hatefully exposed, and there is no reason to think they were kidding. Hell, their side won. How often do right-wing con jobs actually win? It was the left-wing court that reversed the popular vote. Which is par for the course. Exactly what we see on race. And illegal aliens. See California’s, again, Prop. 187. It’s a tiny elite setting the agenda. Let’s not blame generic heterosexuals for the imposition of a tiny-elite agenda. It isn’t far. It isn’t accurate.

I used to think that these mainstream Right-wingers were merely stupid and / or deluded. A lot of the rank and file are. But they are generally far better than their leadership. The ones on top are so consistently wrong-headed and ineffectual that it is hard to resist the conclusion that they are agents of the enemy, working to misdirect and dissipate Right-wing dissent lest it give rise to a genuine populism that would threaten the hegemony of our ruling coalition of Jews and raceless, rootless plutocrats. I think that the purpose of their campaigns may be to run out the clock until whites are a minority and there is no hope of change within the present system.

Who is he kidding? Everyone has known this for 100 years. I’ve quoted Joe Sobran a thousand times, and Greg Johnson has read it. “It was all a game; a way of making a living”—Joe Sobran on professional conservatism. They’re raising money from the rural hinds and bourgeois Fox watchers. The real agenda is set by jews. The superficial stuff, there’s a degree of freedom. The serious stuff, the racial stuff—the conservatives are exactly the same as the liberals. Racism is evil, squawk. Racism is the worst thing in the world. Hitler is the worst man ever. The Nazis were the ultimate bad guys. Churchill is the best. man. ever.

The only political issue that matters is whether the white race will continue to exist on this planet in 200 years. White Americans are increasingly aware of, and alarmed by, our demographic decline. But frank appeals to white racial interests are still taboo on the American Right. Instead, the mainstream Right at best offers us race-neutral proxies for racial interests (opposition to “illegal” immigration, libertarian individualism, etc.) and at worst promotes distractions (opposing gay marriage and flag burning, or promoting school prayer) or outright demographic suicide (opposing abortion). Thus I think that White Nationalism will never move forward until the mainstream Right is thoroughly defeated and discredited. I just hope that, by that time, it is not too late to save our race.

Good to see Greggy has finally come around to my position. Before, and remember he was bragging about defeating me in argument over this point, he was all about influencing existing elites. Now he’s all Linder-squawking “we must defeat the conservatives and Republicans.” Maybe he offered Pat Buchanan a blowjob and was rebuffed in a way he felt unmannerly. It’s really hard to say. Although it’s easy—and fun!—to speculate.

Like I said, and you can read it in Strategy forum, attack the conservatives. Quit appeasing them. Quit pretending they’re on our side. Our side is basically everyone who’s not a feminist, sex deviant, non-white—anyone who is normal. Any normal white man or woman.

That is who White nationalism represents, potentially. We fight for white normals with the other groups—the jew-left, and the jew-right. The jew-left relies on its sheer power, rather than its persuasive ability. Its ideas are, after all, directly opposed to the ideas and interests of the average white man. But it can use public schools and mass media and political authority to mislead him as to this fact. The right is more attractive to this average man because its ideas are either right or less obviously wrong. What’s not obvious is what you have to listen to me to learn, or take decades discovering—even where the professional right is right it doesn’t mean it. It won’t fight over anything essential. Starting with race. And pretty much ending there too. Because if you don’t believe that racial difference exist and matter then you’re too dumb to figure in politics beyond serving as someone’s fodder. And if you are smart enough to see that they do, yet you still won’t lead or fight, you’re likewise irrelevant.

So the right has written itself out of the equation, from the Realpolitik perspective. But it still exists as powerful media and political machine. It’s just that its agenda is not what it seems. Rather than protecting and advancing certain principles, even if imperfectly, it has instead changed into a simple money-making scheme. What’s advanced and defended are individual careers, not peoples (races) or positions. Republicans and conservatives are mouthers. They don’t mean. White nationalism is the only school that can mean it. But most people aren’t even aware that it exists. Except in Greece!

Glad to see you joining the fight, Greggy. The next step in your intellectual maturation is to quit pretending the “alternative” or “radical traditionalist” or non-respectable conservatives are any different from the regular ones. I’ll check back in 2018.

I have argued that homosexual marriage is an unimportant issue from the point of view of white demographics. The most important thing to do to increase white fertility and improve white parenting is to strengthen marriage and decrease non-reproductive sex among heterosexuals. I have also argued that the gay marriage issue is being promoted by the phony Right as a distraction from far more important issues. But I am not going to deal with the merits of demerits of homosexual marriage as a policy, because I need to devote more reading and thought to the matter. I do, however, want to end this piece by at least raising the possibility of a society that combines “heteronormativity” with tolerance.

The right didn’t pick that fight, the left did. The professional right accurately saw it as a way to raise money. It’s the leftist media setting the agenda, after all. I love how you continue to think you can just pick and choose your fights rather than fighting on all fronts at all times. And if you disagree, remember it’s your ilk who doesn’t want to force the enemy into a head and call that head jews. Which, after all, fits. Is accurate. There is no term, certainly, more accurate than jews, and only Englishmen who will be thrown in prison if they say otherwise say otherwise.

The only real way to maintain high standards is to recognize that people will fall short of them in some ways. That means a certain amount of latitude and tolerance. A society that cannot tolerate deviation from its norms will inevitably lower its standards to make it easier for more people to comply. And the end of that process is complete nihilism, for if integrity to one’s values is the highest value, in the end, it will be one’s only value. For the easiest way to insure perfect integrity and to make hypocrisy impossible is to value nothing but being oneself at the present moment, i.e., to collapse any difference between the real and the ideal, to affirm that whatever happens to be real at any given moment is the ideal. In short, the only way to always practice what one preaches is to preach nothing but one practices. And that boils down to doing whatever one feels like from moment to moment, a kind of groundless self-affirmation which is pretty much the moral and cultural dead end toward which liberalism is leading.

This wouldn’t be a problem in a society without a gigantic government involved in every detail of personal life. Who do you think is promoting queerness? Government and media. It’s not coming from the grassroots. It’s a top-down phenomenon. People support homosexuality and talk like it’s a good thing out of conformity or fear. Not because they actually like and support.

Most of them honestly don’t even know what faggotry truly is, since, after all, they aren’t fags. Where are they going to learn the truth about faggotry? From sex education? From fag depictions on prime-time tv? From the newspapers? From politicians? The whole thing is a giant charade, proof only of the power of the tiny minority setting the national agenda. Put the nation on a stable racial basis, reduce the role of central government to collective racial defense, watch the homosexual issue (issue is jewspeak for problem) disappear.

Why can’t we have a society in which parents of homosexual children say, “We’re sorry that you are not going to give us grandchildren. It is a misfortune. But we still love you as our flesh and blood, and we know you will still be a good son to us, a good brother to your siblings, and a good uncle to your nieces and nephews”? Why can’t we have a society in which homosexuals accept that they fall short of the norm, rather than tearing down norms merely to feel good about themselves? Why can’t we have a society in which homosexuals are grateful to the heterosexuals who gave them life and glad that others are carrying on their families and their race as a whole? I believe that there are already quite a few people who think this way. But their voices are not being heard.

It’s more subtle than that: whatever good homosexuals can do, and there is much, can be done best if they are objects of average-man hatred and ridicule. Homosexuals flourish, in their various talents, when their actors are locked in the closet. Keep it on the down low, as the niggers say. That’s how you do it. Have your bars. Have your places. But not publicly acknowledged. Accept some cop busts. Accept executions where you show any interest in those under eighteen. If you want to go public, then you ought to be charged for the diseases you create and spread with your behavior. And once those are acknowledged, it’s a very tiny step to the case that anyone with these proclivities is so dangerous that he ought simply to be executed as a botch that potentially threatens public health.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 201 other followers