Greg Johnson on homosexuality

by Hunter Wallace



In a new article he will probably later regret writing, Greg Johnson has waded into the gay marriage thicket at Counter-Currents.

Here’s my response:

1.) It is natural and normal to marry and reproduce with someone of the same race, but the American elite promotes miscegenation because it hates White Christian America, and celebrating miscegenation is a way to normalize race-mixing, promote perversion, and undermine the culture of the despised White Christian majority.

2.) The American elite actively promotes “gay marriage” (as opposed to “tolerates”) for the same reason it promotes interracial marriage. It is a means to the end of leveling and destroying hierarchical institutions like the White nuclear family that are seen as “reactionary” and standing in the way of “equality” and “progress.”

3.) Just as homosexuality exists in nature, the same is true of miscegenation, adultery, sexual promiscuity, polygamy, and pedophilia, but we once had social conventions like anti-miscegenation laws and anti-sodomy laws that stigmatized and criminalized this behavior and promoted and privileged White heterosexual monogamy as America’s normative cultural ideal.

4.) We already know from bitter experience that the American elite’s promotion of miscegenation, homosexuality, adultery, and sexual promiscuity has successfully undermined America’s traditional sexual mores and the White nuclear family even within White Nationalist circles.

5.) While it may not be possible to dismantle “heteronormativity” and “patriarchy” as an innate biological tendency within the human species, the American elite has already succeeded—as the recent Supreme Court rulings have shown—in undermining “heteronormativity” and “patriarchy” as America’s privileged cultural ideal.

The American elite has succeeded in moving America from “Leave It To Beaver” and the “Andy Griffith Show” to “Sex In The City” and “Will and Grace” and “Girls” and “Keeping Up With The Kardashians.” They have succeeded in promoting bisexuality and homosexuality and miscegenation among impressionable teenage girls.

6.) It is normal and natural for human beings to love their own children, but we live in a society where there have been almost 50 million abortions since 1970. It is normal and natural to dislike outsiders and love your own ethnic group, but we live in a society that systematically redistributes wealth from Whites to blacks and where it is taboo for Whites alone to express pride in their race and culture.

7.) Many a White American husband knows from America’s divorce laws that changing the law has already changed the stability of social conventions like marriage. Since the anti-miscegenation laws were changed, interracial marriage has skyrocketed.

8.) The same people who have been pushing feminism and miscegenation and abortion for decades are now behind the push for “marriage equality.” The push for “gay marriage” (like the push for the legalization of miscegenation) in no way implies that particular form of attack is the only or even the most successful way in which the White nuclear family has been undermined.

9.) If we really want to defend marriage and strengthen the family, we could do all the things that Greg Johnson suggests, and we could also stigmatize homosexuality and ban “gay marriage” and restore heterosexual marriage to its traditional privileged role in our culture like the Russians are already doing.

10.) Greg Johnson attacks a straw man argument that a homosexual cabal is behind the push for gay marriage. Just like interracial marriage and feminism, the push for “gay marriage” is driven by leftwing ideology and animus toward America’s White Christian majority; the welfare and “civil rights” of the blacks and homosexuals is an afterthought to the people who are behind this.


Internet_Troll_by_sagginjMy 2¢: Read it all at Occidental Dissent, but skip the trolling in the comments section if you like (Wallace’s tone is exactly right, but the tone of some of the commenters is not).

7 Comments

  1. This is a much better response than the comments at the Counter Currents site. From reading those comments it is clear that Greg Johnson is rallying the troops as it were, and they are happy. But it is also clear that many of these folks do not understand the philosophical basis for Johnson’s argument. Actually, it would be better to say that the ground supporting his arguments are not presented very well, but in fact are rather sloppy. I believe that Johnson is smarter than those for whom he writes, and because of it they do not therefore see the trick behind it all, or if they do, they do not care. His trick is to confuse the broad category of nature in its traditional sense, and then conflate “natural things” with intentional behavior.

    In a reply to someone’s question Johnson writes: I don’t subscribe to the Aristotelian identification of nature with telos, i.e., the identification of the natural with the optimal.

    This is a rather strange rendering of Aristotle’s view. Aristotle did not “identify” nature with telos, but rather argued that natural things have an end or final cause (telos). But for Aristotle, there are many different aspects of nature, and not simply the notion of telos. We may turn to Gendlin’s Commentary on De Anima:

    Within the truth of Everything, Aristotle divides first between nature and everything else. What is other than nature? The timeless universe, also mathematics as well as the things we make, like furniture, machines, and poems. Then, within nature, one subdivision consists of the living things. It is of those that the soul is the first principle (arche, ἀρχη, starting point, source, premise. The soul is what constitutes the living in them. We can use the English word “living” or “animation” for what he refers to. Aristotle uses the word “soul” to name whatever it is that makes all agree that plants and animals are alive, whereas rocks are “inanimate.” By the word “soul” he means whatever living is.

    Now, against Johnson, and also against Hunter Wallace (his point three), we must distinguish between a thing that “exists in nature” and human behavior which is intentional. As I explained in my earlier post, if everything we encounter is natural, then the word loses its meaning and becomes trivial. And at one level, no one denies that sex drive can be considered natural per se. This is not the issue. A “drive” is simply an inclination, like hunger, and by itself goes nowhere. The issue, rather, is how the sex drive manifests (that is, how it is outwardly expressed), and to what purpose? Then, whether this expression can be considered proper given the drive’s intrinsic purpose? It is not at first a moral judgment (although it will become one later), but is a product of rational, empirical analysis.

    A thing exists as a normal (optimal) example of its type inasmuch as it expresses, approaches, or instantiates its ideal, its exemplar or to use Aristotelian language, its formal cause. This is straightforward enough, and Johnson admits as much in his critique. Now, the existence of any particular outward sexual behavior is not ontologically univocal in the same sense that a preexisting “natural thing” such as a rock exists. Behaviors have something more in common with artifacts than they have with “natural things” (in the Aristotelian sense). Nevertheless, sexual behavior can be said to be normal (optimal) inasmuch as it accomplishes the proper end of the sexual union. We understand that sexual union has different purposes, purposes understood hierarchically, but as Johnson agrees, its principal purpose or end is procreation. That is its highest or most perfect manifestation.

    Now, one can simply say that they do not accept this Classical metaphysic. But then we have a right to know how such an abandonment does not automatically throw them into a modernist camp—the camp where man has no nature, facts are divorced from values, and causation itself is deemed to be a chimerical postulate—a world where everything is contingent and based upon mere whim, or economically determined, or bound by irrational subconscious urges needing psychoanalytic assuaging, etc. For Johnson to deny telos is a very queer position for a traditionalist to take, since at its core his denial is one of a denial of human nature altogether. In effect it means throwing one’s philosophical lot in with modernity and its representative thinkers, such as Hobbes, Rousseau, Hume, Marx et. al. It is in essence a liberal view.

    But…the most important point in this debate (a rather one sided debate because it is a point that Johnson has yet to explain), is how the practical results of open homosexuality do not necessarily lead to civilizational degeneration.

    • What do you mean with your last sentence? Ancient Greece?

    • And by the way, thanks for mentioning that learned critical comment about Johnson’s piece at CC.

  2. Johnson has not demonstrated, or even discussed, how it is that public acceptance of homosexuality, and public displays, will not result in the destruction of modern civilization. But I don’t want to leave the impression that it is the only destructive cause. There are many others in the agenda. You have pretty much covered them at one time or another.

    • I think that is destroying civilization are Jews. From what I know, we still have 30% of the white male population engaged in any homosexual behavior.
      If not, then is not they who are destroying.
      Mainly, what is destroying civilization is the very population that for now, is accepting all usually without complaint. While I see the white population at home, afraid to go out to the streets, protesting, making their revolution survival and attack the parasites, I definitely can not blame others for his cowardice, even Jews.

      But I not doubt that this will happen soon.

  3. Point #2 is the strongest.

    • Last year Griffin also made a good point at VNN:

      Greg Johnson has raised over $40,000 from White Nationalists this year alone … and he uses it to commission articles about underage boys having gay interracial sex.

      Counter-Currents has been implicitly queer since the beginning, but this is the first time I have seen it explicitly spelled out like this.

      By the by, Brad Griffin = Hunter Wallace. See also: here.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: