Homos in white nationalism


A painting about fleeing from Sodom

A year ago Richard Spencer, the editor of Radix, a popular white nationalist webzine, tweeted: “Homosexuality has been a part of European societies and culture for millennia. It is not going away, not something to get worked up about.”

The content of the below text has already been quoted in this blog but it’s worth re-quoting: a passage from a book-review by Michael O’Meara.

This subversive ideology now even aspires to re-invent homosexuals as the flowers of society: liberators preparing the way to joy, liberty, fraternity, tolerance, social well-being, good taste, etc. As vice is transformed into virtue, homosexuality allegedly introduces a new sense of play and gaiety to the one-dimensional society of sad, heterosexual males.

Except, Mr. Faye insists, there’s nothing genuinely gay about the gays, for theirs is a condition of stress and disequilibrium. At odds with their own nature, homosexuality is often a Calvary—and not because of social oppression, but because of those endogenous reasons (particularly their attraction to their own sex) that condemn them to a reproductive and genetic dead end.

As to the favorite counter-argument among homo apologists, O’Meara continues:

To those who evoke the ancient glories of Athens as a counter-argument, Mr. Faye, a long-time Graeco-Latinist, says that in the period when a certain form of pederasty was tolerated, no adult male ever achieved respectability if he was not married, devoted to the interests of his family and clan…

Pederasty as understood in classical times had nothing to do with any of the colors of that nasty LGBT flag.

Postscript of 9 November:

See also “Queer Fascism: Why White Nationalists Are Trying To Drop Homophobia” and hetero Matt Parrott distancing himself from the pro-homo Counter-Currents webzine at an Occidental Dissent thread.

10:00 p.m.

And now in Anglin’s latest article I learnt that Jack Donovan, featured by Spencer’s organization, had posted this:

Yeah, I’ve been a top for years. I basically fuck men like they are women—but I’m glad that they’re not. I’m banging this jacked rich liberal right now. Probably the best piece of ass I’ve ever had. I’ve had sex with women, but I’ve been with one guy for 14 years, so there is no question of… switching teams…in any meaningful way. He’s a good guy who supports me and my work and always has…

As far at The Way of Men [his book] is concerned: It’s either right or it isn’t. A lot of the ideas came from conversations with my straight friends about their frustrations with their lives. It’s not about me “converting” people. Let’s be real. I’m a jacked tattooed guy who is more or less a skinhead. Do you for a moment think I can’t get laid? The reality is I can post a pic to a hookup app and have someone blowing me inside of 3 hours. I’ll be able to pull prime ass from dudes with daddy issues for the next 10 years.

Original source: here.

Published in: on November 5, 2015 at 11:36 pm  Comments (21)  

On sexual lib

socalled liberation

Never forget the sexual side of the destruction of the white race. Below, “Sexual Liberation & Racial Suicide,” a Roger Devlin address given at The Occidental Quarterly Editor’s Dinner on October 30, 2008 in Atlanta, Georgia.

What is “sexual liberation”? It is usually spoken of by way of contrast with the constraints of marriage and family life. It would seem to be a condition under which people have more choice than under the traditional system of monogamy. Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy philosophy” seemed to offer men more choices than just sleeping with the same woman every night for fifty years. Feminism promised women it would liberate them from “domestic drudgery” and turn marriage and motherhood into just one among many lifestyle choices.

On the other hand, there was always an element of free choice even regarding marriage: one may choose whether, and to a certain extent whom, one will marry. Indeed, marriage is perhaps the most important example of a momentous life choice. But on the traditional view you cannot make your choice and still have it. Once one takes the vow and enters into the covenant, ipso facto one no longer has a choice. In other words, marriage is a one-way nonrefundable ticket. Your wife is your choice even if she eventually displeases you in certain ways, as all mortal wives necessarily must. Keeping your choice of mate open forever is called “celibacy.”

Ultimately, the ideal of sexual liberation rests upon a philosophical confusion which I call the absolutizing of choice. The illusion is that society could somehow be ordered to allow us to choose without thereby diminishing our future options. Birth control, abortion, the destigmatizing of fornication and homosexuality, arbitrary and unilateral divorce—all these have been pitched to us as ways of expanding our choices.

Now, I am in favor of giving people all the choice they can stand. But I would like to be careful about what this means: analysis will reveal that the term “choice” has distinct and partly contradictory senses which may not be equally applicable in all contexts. In other words, choice is not a single thing which can be expanded indefinitely at no cost; the appearance of greater choice in one area can be shown to entail reducing one’s possibilities in another.

One perfectly legitimate sense of choosing is doing as one desires. When we are asked to choose a flavor of ice cream, e.g., all that is meant is deciding which flavor would be the most pleasing to us at the moment. That is because the alternative of chocolate or strawberry involves no deep, long-term consequences. But not all choices can be like this.

Consider, for example, a young man’s choice of vocation. One of the charms of youth is that it is a time when possibility overshadows actuality. One might become a brain surgeon, or a mountain climber, or a poet, or a statesman, or a monk. It is natural and good for boys to dream about all the various things they might become, but such daydreams can breed a dangerous illusion: that, where anything is still possible, everything will be possible. This is only true in the case of trivial and inconsequential matters. It is possible to sample all of Baskin-Robbins’ thirty-one flavors on thirty-one successive days. But it is not possible to become a brain-surgeon and a mountain climber and a poet and a statesman and a monk. A man who tries to do so will only fail in all his endeavors.

The reason for this, of course, is that important enterprises demand large amounts of time and dedication, but the men who undertake them are mortal. For every possibility we realize, there will be a hundred we must leave forever unrealized; for every path we choose to take, there will be a hundred we must forever renounce. The need for choice in this sense is what gives human life much of its seriousness. Those who drift from one thing to another, unable to make up their minds or finish anything they have begun, reveal thereby that they do not grasp an essential truth about the human condition. They are like children who do not wish to grow up.

Now, sexual choices, especially for women, are analogous to a man’s in regard to his calling. Inherently, they cannot be made as easy and reversible as choosing flavors of ice cream.

But this is what sexual liberation attempts to do. The underlying motive seems to be precisely a fear of difficult choices and a desire to eliminate the need for them. For example, a woman does not have to think about a man’s qualifications to be a father to her children if a pill or a routine medical procedure can remove that possibility. There is no reason to consider carefully the alternative between career and marriage if motherhood can be safely postponed until the age of forty (as large numbers of women now apparently believe). What we have here is not a clear gain in the amount of choice, but a shift from one sense of the word to another—from serious, reflective commitment to merely doing as one desires at any given time. Like the dilettante who dabbles in five professions without finally pursuing any, the liberated woman and the playboy want to keep all their options open forever: they want eternal youth.

The attempt to realize a utopia of limitless choice in the real world has certain predictable consequences: notably, it makes the experience of love one of repeated failure. Those who reject both committed marriage and committed celibacy drift into and out of a series of what are called “relationships,” either abandoning or being abandoned. The lesson inevitably taught by such experiences is that love does not last, that people are not reliable, that in the end one has only oneself to fall back on, that prudence dictates always looking out for number one. And this in turn destroys the generosity, loyalty, and trust which are indispensable for family life and the perpetuation of our kind.

Most of those who have obeyed the new commandment to follow all of their hearts’ desire do not appear to me to be reveling in a garden of earthly delights. Instead I am reminded of the sad characters from the pages of Chekhov: sleepwalking through life, forever hoping that tomorrow things will somehow be changed for the better as they blindly allow opportunities for lasting happiness to slip through their fingers. But this is merely the natural outcome of conceiving of a human life as a series of revocable and inconsequential choices. We are, indeed, protected from certain risks, but have correspondingly little to gain; we have fewer worries but no great aspirations. The price we pay for eliminating the dangers of intimacy is the elimination of its seriousness.

In place of family formation, we find a “dating scene” without any clear goal, in which men and women are both consumed with the effort to get the other party to close options while keeping their own open. There is a hectic and never-ending jockeying for position: fighting off the competition while keeping an eye out for a better deal elsewhere. The latest “singles” fad, I am told, is something called speed dating, where men and women interact for three minutes, then go on to someone else at the sound of a bell.

Sex belongs to early adulthood: one transient phase of human life. It is futile to attempt to abstract it from its natural and limited place in the life-cycle and make it an end in itself. Sustainable civilization requires that more important long term desires like procreation be given preference over short term wishes which conflict with them, such as the impulse to fornicate.

The purpose of marriage is not to place shackles upon people or reduce their options, but to enable them to achieve something which most are simply too weak to achieve without the aid of a social institution. Certain valuable things require time to ripen, and you cannot discover them unless you are faithful to your task and patient. Marriage is what tells people to stick to it long enough to find out what happens. Struggling with such difficulties—and even periods of outright discouragement—is part of what allows the desires of men and women to mature and come into focus. Older couples who have successfully raised children together, and are rewarded by seeing them marry and produce children of their own, are unlikely to view their honeymoon as the most important event of their marriage.

People cannot know what they want when they are young. A young man may imagine happiness to consist in living on Calypso’s Island, giving himself over to sexual pleasure without ever incurring family obligations; but all serious men eventually find such a life unsatisfying. The term “playboy” was originally derogatory, implying that the male who makes pursuing women his highest end is not to be taken seriously. The type of man who thinks he’s hot stuff because he’s able to have one night stands will never raise sons capable of carrying on the fight for our embattled civilization.

Confusion about one’s desires is probably greater in young women, however. For this reason, it is misleading to speak of women “wanting marriage.” A young woman leafing through the pages of Modern Bride does not yet know what marriage is; all she wants is to have her wedding day and live happily ever after. She may well not have the slightest notion of the duties she will be taking on.

Parenthood is what really forces young men and women to grow up. Young men whose idea of the good life was getting drunk, getting laid, and passing out suddenly start focusing on career planning and building capital. They find it bracing to have a genuinely important task to perform, and are perhaps surprised to find themselves equal to it.

But without the understanding that marriage is an inherently irreversible covenant, both men and women succumb to the illusion that divorce will solve the “problem” of dissatisfaction in marriage. They behave like the farmer who clears, plows, and plants a field only to throw up his hands on the first really hot and sweaty day of work, exclaiming: “Farming is no fun! I’m going to do something else!” And like that farmer, they have no one to blame but themselves when they fail to harvest any crops.

Understanding the marriage bond as an irreversible covenant similarly influences the way economic activity and property are understood. Rather than being a series of short-term responses to circumstance, labor and investment become an aspect of family life transcending the natural life span of any individual. From a mere means to consumption, wealth becomes a family inheritance. In Burke’s fine words: “The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends most to the perpetuation of society itself.” By contrast, the characteristically modern view of property finds its clearest expression in the title of a bestselling 1998 financial planning guide: Die Broke. This amounts to a scorched earth policy for our own civilization. Perhaps someday the author will favor us with a sequel entitled Die Alone or Die Childless.

But not everyone is equally receptive to this kind of message. Women in parts of West Africa are averaging over eight children apiece. The revolt against marriage and childrearing is an overwhelmingly white phenomenon. It is primarily in white countries that the birthrate has fallen below replacement level. It would behoove racially conscious whites, therefore, not to ignore the sexual side of the revolt against our civilization, nor shortsightedly to limit our attention to the single issue of miscegenation. The homosexual bathhouse view of sex as merely a means to personal pleasure attacks our race from within and at its source. As much as with inimical races and racial ideologies, our survival will depend upon our ability to organize effective resistance.

When we look around at all the forces arrayed against our race, it can be daunting. How can we fight them all? Are circumstances right? Would we be ready even if they were? And what to do in the meantime?

The situation becomes a lot less daunting when we realize that the first battle, and the first victory, must take place within ourselves.

Phony white nationalists


I copied this image from an ad on The Occidental Observer. This is the problem with white nationalists. Jack Donovan, who is included in the list of featured speakers in the forthcoming gathering, is homo and they have no problem with it. I wouldn’t mind if Donovan was an in-closet homo. But the guy advertises his sexuality openly, crossing a line that will never be allowed crossing in the ethnostate, where whites will really “become what we are” to quote from the title of the coming gathering.

Yesterday Greg Johnson had the audacity of reposting his “gay marriage” article published exactly two years ago, an homosexualist piece that was elegantly refuted by Hajo Liaucius (Liaucius’ response made its way in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour). And like typical liberals and leftists, in his blog Johnson continues, today, banning dissenters that strongly disagree with his plea to accept homosexual “marriage” and removing 12-paragraph posts.

American Renaissance is not much better. It’s several days now since the Supreme Court approved homo marriage in the US and there’s still no critical article in their site. So it’s not only Counter Currents. These two other blogsites together with Richard Spencer’s, whose name also appears in the above pic, are major sites for white interests and they are unable to recognize that approving such “marriage” is harmful for us. In fact, American Renaissance has also invited Donovan to its conferences, who has been photographed next to Spencer. (I don’t care that Donovan has criticized such pseudo-marriage. The point is that no out-of-the-closet homo should be allowed to address the young.)

The following article, “Look what gay marriage did to freedom of speech in Canada” by Red Dawn, quotes a writer whose last name sounds Jewish. She might be Jewish only in name as she was adopted by two male homos. Whatever she is, isn’t it a shame that a woman raised by fags is now defending our interests while, at the same time, among leading WN sites pieces strongly criticizing homo “marriage” are lacking? The American Red Dawn wrote (abridged):

* * *

fag banner

There are a couple things we can learn from our neighbors of the North. In an excellent piece in Aleteia, Dawn Stefanowicz, a woman who lives in Canada and was raised by gay parents, pens a warning to the United States: We don’t want to embrace gay marriage, and Canada is proof. Canada federally mandated gay marriage about ten years ago in 2005. Since then, their freedoms have eroded.

Over and over, we are told, “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.

It slowly creeps up, and before you know it, you can’t speak about the traditional family of a man, woman and children without authorities considering it “hate speech.” In fact, you couldn’t even have this kind of debate in Canada, because everyone would start shouting, “OMG you’re so homophobic and bigoted!” But it doesn’t end there.

Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

With gay marriage totally legal, the traditional family structure is destroyed. Kids can totally be raised by two dads or two moms, and call me discriminatory or hateful, but that’s not nature’s way. With same sex marriage legal, the concerns of kids are shut out. It’s not politically correct to point out, but kids who are raised by parents of the same sex have problems growing up (identifying with their gender, sexuality, and wondering about their “missing” parent of the opposite sex). A dad can’t fundamentally replace a mom, and a mom can’t fundamentally replace a dad. Stefanowicz would know. Two gay men raised her.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that men and women are anatomically, biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally, and neurologically different from each other. These unique differences provide lifelong benefits to children that cannot be duplicated by same-gender “legal” parents acting out different gender roles or attempting to substitute for the missing male or female role model in the home.

Oh, didn’t you hear? They’re called “legal” parents now. Canada basically “erased biological parenthood” and replaced it with this warm and fuzzy gender-neutral term “legal parent.” So once again, the state is overriding parental rights. Because it can.

And this is where it gets even scarier. In Canada, it’s considered discriminatory to say marriage is between a man and a woman. If someone catches and reports you uttering your bigoted, intolerant opinion, prepare to face tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and sensitivity training.

Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

The plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint.

And it still gets worse. In Canada, the state has a say on what you’re teaching your children. And if they don’t like it, they can be taken from you:

The state has access into your home to supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn’t like what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from your home.

So if you’re not teaching your children the state mandated gender-neutral terminology, expect a knock at your door chumps.

Newspeak proclaims that it is discriminatory to assume a human being is male or female, or heterosexual. So, to be inclusive, special non-gender-specific language is being used in media, government, workplaces, and especially schools to avoid appearing ignorant, homophobic, or discriminatory. A special curriculum is being used in many schools to teach students how to use proper gender-neutral language.

Bottom line? Gay marriage is slowly eroding the freedom of speech away in Canada. And everyone’s playing along because they don’t want to be the bad guy. Heck, in order to keep their status as charities, churches even play along! The media’s restricted. Business owners are restricted. Parents are restricted. Everyone’s restricted. Is that what you want America?

Americans need to prepare for the same sort of surveillance-society in America if the Supreme Court rules to ban marriage as a male-female institution. It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.


Editor’s note:

Although “Hate speech” is no longer part of Canada’s Human Rights Act, due to the militant character of homos—and especially because “the ever-greater pursuit of equality results in the ever-greater erosion of liberty”—you’ll see how they will sue, in the US, those American photographers or bakers who decline their services in such “weddings.”

On homosexuality

by Michael O’Meara

Homophilia and feminism are the most important children of the cultural revolution. They share, as such, much of the same ideological baggage that denies biological realities and makes war on the family. Mr. Guillaume Faye claims that in the late 1960s, when homosexuals began demanding legal equality, they were fully within their rights. Homosexuality in his view is a genetic affliction affecting fewer than 5 percent of males, but he does not object to homosexuals practices within the privacy of the bedroom. What he finds objectionable is the confusion of private and public realms and the assertion of homophilia as a social norm. Worse, he claims that in much elite discourse, homosexuals have quickly gone from being pariahs to privileged beings, who flaunt their alleged “superiority” over heterosexuals, who are seen as old-fashioned, outmoded, ridiculous. Heterosexuals are like women who center their lives on the care of children rather than on a career, and are thus something bizarre and implicitly opposed to liberal-style “emancipation.”

Mr. Faye, who is by no means a prude, contends that female homosexuality is considerably different from and less damaging than male homosexuality. Most lesbians, in his view, are bisexual, rather than purely homosexual, and for whatever reason have turned against men. This he sees as a reflection on men. Even in traditional societies, women who engaged in homosexuality retained their femininity and so were not so shocking as their male counterparts. By contrast, male homosexuality was considered abhorrent, because it violated the nature of masculinity, making men no longer “properly” male and thus something mutant.

Antinous Mondragone 130 AD

To those who evoke the ancient glories of Athens as a counter-argument, Mr. Faye, a long-time Graeco-Latinist, says that in the period when a certain form of pederasty was tolerated, no adult male ever achieved respectability if he was not married, devoted to the interests of his family and clan, and, above all, was never to be “made of woman,” i.e., penetrated.

Like feminism, homophilia holds that humans are bisexual at birth and, willfully or not, choose their sexual orientation—as if anatomical differences are insignificant and all humans are a blank slate upon which they inscribe their self-chosen “destiny.” This view lacks any scientific credibility, to be sure, even if it is professed in our elite universities. Like anti-racism, it denies biological realities incompatible with the reigning dogmas. Facts, though, have rarely stood in the way of faith or ideology—or, in the way of secular 20th-century ideologies that have become religious faiths.

Despite its progressive and emancipatory pretensions, homophilia, like sexual liberation in general, is entirely self-centered and indifferent to future and past, promoting “lifestyles” hostile to family formation and thus to white reproduction. Homophilia here marches hand in hand with anti-racism, denying the significance of biological differences and the imperatives of white survival.

This subversive ideology now even aspires to re-invent homosexuals as the flowers of society: liberators preparing the way to joy, liberty, fraternity, tolerance, social well-being, good taste, etc. As vice is transformed into virtue, homosexuality allegedly introduces a new sense of play and gaiety to the one-dimensional society of sad, heterosexual males. Except, Mr. Faye insists, there’s nothing genuinely gay about the gays, for theirs is a condition of stress and disequilibrium. At odds with their own nature, homosexuality is often a Calvary—and not because of social oppression, but because of those endogenous reasons (particularly their attraction to their own sex) that condemn them to a reproductive and genetic dead end.

In its public displays as gay pride, homophilia defines itself as narcissistic, exhibitionist, and infantile, thus revealing those traits specific to its abnormal condition. In any case, a community worthy of itself, Mr. Faye tells us, is founded on shared values, on achievements, on origins—not on a dysgenic sexual orientation.

Editor’s note:

See also “On homosexual marriage” by Hajo Liaucius. In that July 2013 article I added today the following note:

It is pathetic to see conservatives invited to speak on Fox News trying to criticize yesterday’s Supreme Court decision to uphold so-called gay marriage with no other argument than “it is a sin” according to the Bible (YouTube clip: here). In contrast to the argument offered by Liaucius, the complete lack of secular arguments among American conservatives is due to the fact that very few in our times are willing to challenge the civil religion of our days—egalitarianism—and, therefrom, its epiphenomenon: the principle of non-discrimination.

With malice aforethought

by William Pierce



A review of the movie The Crying Game, American Dissident
Voices (September 18, 1993). The following text of a radio
address by Pierce is taken from Kevin Strom’s archive.


Today I want to talk with you about morality… about standards… about values.

Most of us have heard it said that the reason America is in such a mess today is that our people have lost the values we used to have, and that we need to regain them—that we need to begin teaching values to our kids in the schools.

And I guess I’ll agree with that… but there’s more to it. It’s certainly true that as a nation, or as a race, we’ve lost our values. Or, more accurately, we had them stolen from us. And now, unfortunately, the values we used to have are being replaced by new values which are worse than no values at all.

America hasn’t so much lost its sense of direction as it’s had all the road signs changed while it wasn’t looking. Values are our problem today… but even more, our problem is the people who have deliberately changed our values, deliberately perverted them.

I don’t want to beat around the bush or keep you guessing what I’m getting at, so I’ll come right out with it: the people who control the mass media in America have deliberately and consciously, with malice aforethought, used their influence over the thinking of the people who see their films, who watch their television programs, who read their newspapers and comic strips and popular magazines… they’ve used their influence to twist our values, to reorient our whole way of looking at the world.

Now, most of us have heard that too. We’ve heard about the destructive effect of television and the other mass media on public morality. We’ve heard that there’s too much violence and too much sex on television and that it isn’t good for us. And I guess that I’ll agree with that too… sort of. Too much television isn’t good for us, but it’s not just because of the sex and violence. It’s because television—and films and magazines and the rest of the controlled media—are used for propaganda aimed at subverting the values of our people, especially our young people. And they’re used with malice aforethought.

A lot of us have more or less realized this. We’ve sort of sensed that something was rotten in the media establishment. We felt that the media bosses who run Hollywood and the media bosses who control the TV networks were slyly twisting the view of the world they presented to us, slyly trying to change our attitudes. But the media bosses are clever and they’re subtle, and, of course, they denied everything. And so it often was difficult for ordinary people who felt they were being manipulated to really put their fingers on what the media bosses were trying to do.

And so people have jumped on the too-much-sex-and-violence bandwagon, but that really isn’t the problem at all. The sex and violence in films and television is simply pandering. It’s simply keeping the viewers distracted, so that they won’t complain about the real propaganda. The real propaganda the media bosses have been trying to slip into our minds is the idea of human sameness, the idea that the differences between Blacks and Whites, between men and women, between homosexuals and heterosexuals aren’t significant, aren’t important, that we ought not to notice these differences, and we certainly ought not to take them into account in choosing friends, associates, or lovers… that we ought not to feel any special affinity for people of our own sort, that, in fact, we ought to feel a little guilty if we still have any sense of racial or ethnic identity left, or if we regard homosexuals any differently than we do normal people.

TVThat’s the basic message. That’s the propaganda. But, as I said, the media bosses are subtle, and the average person usually doesn’t see that whole message in any single film or TV show, and so it’s difficult for him to recognize that he’s being manipulated.

The media bosses are getting bolder, however, and a film came out a few months ago which contains pretty much the whole message, and it contains it in a form that’s not at all subtle, that is in fact blatant enough for many people to see for what it is—at least, they should be able to see it once it’s pointed out to them. The film I’m referring to is The Crying Game. It was made by Miramax Pictures. That’s a film company in England which is owned by two Jewish brothers, Bob and Harvey Weinstein. When the film first came out I wasn’t interested in seeing it, because the reviewers in the NY Times and the other major media were all oohing and ahing over it. They considered it a very “sensitive” film, and so I figured it must be more of the same, old trash.

Well, I was wrong. A friend sent me a video of the film, and I viewed it a couple of days ago.

In case you haven’t seen the film, let me run briefly through the plot. It opens in present-day Northern Ireland. A British soldier is enticed by an Irish girl he meets at a carnival to head off into the bushes for a little sex, where he is immediately kidnapped by members of the Irish Republican Army, to be held as a hostage in retaliation for the arrest of an IRA man by the British Army. Nothing the matter with that as a movie plot, of course—except that the “British” soldier just happens to be Black. No one pays the least attention to that rather startling fact, even as the Black soldier kisses and fondles the blonde Irish girl in the midst of the carnival crowds. The message the filmmakers are sending us here is that the soldier’s race makes no difference, either as a soldier or as a lover. We are being told that we should see nothing amiss in a typical British soldier being Black, or in a Black man romancing a White girl.

While he is being held hostage, a friendship develops between the Black soldier and one of his Irish captors, a man named Fergus. Eventually the time comes to kill the captive, but before that the Black has shown Fergus a photograph of the girl back in London he really loves, a mulatto, and he makes Fergus promise to visit the mulatto girl and tell her that his last thoughts were of her.

Fergus keeps his promise—more or less. But he also falls in love with the mulatto girl. Then, in the course of trying to make love to her he discovers that she’s really a man: a homosexual female impersonator. At first that disconcerts Fergus rather badly, but by the film’s end he’s shed his prejudices, his bigotry, and he’s realized that it really doesn’t make any difference, that he loves the homosexual mulatto after all, just as the Black soldier had done before him.

Now, I’ve skipped a lot of the lurid details, which would get this program thrown off the air if I described them to you, but you get the picture: race doesn’t matter, sex doesn’t matter, sexual orientation doesn’t matter. All that matters is love. Every effort to discriminate—to distinguish—between Blacks and Whites, between men and women, between homosexuals and heterosexuals is bigotry, is prejudice, is hatred. We’re all human beings, the film tells us, and that’s the only thing that’s important. We should ignore everything else and love others, without regard for these superficial differences.

The people who made The Crying Game don’t believe that, of course. That’s just what they want us to believe. They understand that any race which absorbs their message, any nation which absorbs their message, any society which absorbs their message… has been morally disarmed and has been made helpless against its enemies. The race which absorbs and takes their message to heart has lost its ability to discriminate and therefore its ability to survive. It’s a race ripe for exploitation, ready to be plucked and slaughtered, a race unable to defend itself against the predatory tribe to which Bob and Harvey Weinstein belong.

As I said, the media bosses prepare their message for us with malice aforethought.

Now, if you think I overstate my case, if you think I exaggerate, if you think I’m being unfair to the media bosses, I invite you to view The Crying Game yourself. It’s available in video stores everywhere. View it for yourself. See if you don’t agree with me about what the Weinstein brothers are trying to tell us.

Their message, of course, is the same message we get from all of the controlled media these days. The only thing unique about The Crying Game is that it rubs our faces in their filth so much more forcefully than most other films do. Usually they don’t slap us right in the face with the whole message at once. Usually they sugarcoat it and slip in just a bit of it here and there. Usually they don’t let us see so clearly what they’re aiming at. Usually they just teach us to parrot a few of their Politically Correct clichés about the evils of “discrimination” and about how wonderful “multiculturalism” and “diversity” are.

After I viewed The Crying Game I reread the reviews of the film. I want to read you a few short extracts from these reviews. The NYT reviewer, Bernie Weinraub, bubbles about how the film explores “the blurred nature of love, trust, and compassion.”

Blurred, indeed, for Mr Weinraub and the Weinstein brothers!

Weinraub then goes on to quote the film’s director and scriptwriter, who says his film is “a love story, in the broadest possible sense. It’s about the extremes of love and the responsibilities of love, and how two characters find a way to love each other who are divided by many things. It’s also about how one person loses himself to find himself. The central character loses all the different facets of what he thought was his identity. Once he does that he finds the human being in himself.”

Newsweek magazine gushingly calls the film a “study of what constitutes moral virtue.” Newsweek tells us: “If the test of a good movie is how it makes an audience feel when the lights come up, The Crying Game is a very good movie indeed. It leaves one giddy.”

Isn’t that something! Not a mention of the film’s portrayal of homosexuality and miscegenation as normal, healthy behavior we all should feel good about. The film, according to the reviews, is about love, about finding the human being in oneself. It makes audiences feel so good they are giddy.

What are we to think about the people who made this film and the people who reviewed it and the people in Hollywood who awarded it several Oscars? The Weinstein brothers and Bernie Weinraub and the rest of their tribe are so arrogant as to tell us that every standard of quality, every standard of behavior, every standard of beauty and righteousness which has guided our race for thousands of years is bad because it discriminates, and that we have to throw them all out and be undiscriminating.

While laughing up their sleeves and smirking behind their hands they come into our country and tell us that it is wrong for us to discriminate between decent and indecent behavior, between our own race and other races, between what is natural and what is unnatural, between what is wholesome and beautiful and what is filthy and ugly. It’s all the same, they say; that’s the new morality.

How can anyone be so pushy? How do they get away with it? Why do we permit people who so clearly are working to destroy us morally to carry on their destructive activity? Why did we permit them to take over our newspapers and magazines, our film industry, our television?

Part of the answer to that question is, as I said before, that these people usually are not so obvious about their intentions as they were in The Crying Game. Usually they make films which simply entertain people, while slipping in just a little poison unnoticed by most of us.

And part of the answer lies in a peculiarity of human nature, a peculiarity which the great Danish storyteller Hans Christian Andersen commented on more than a century ago in his story titled “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” When the average person sees a film as shocking and evil as The Crying Game, he doesn’t simply say to himself, hey, that was a shocking and evil film, which aims at making us abandon our sense of right and wrong, our sense of discrimination.

And he certainly doesn’t say that to his friends and neighbors. Instead he looks around to see what other people’s reaction to the film is. He listens to what the opinion molders are saying, the film reviewers. And if they say, hey, this was a wonderful, sensitive film about love, then he’ll simply suppress his own reaction to the film, and he’ll tell the people around him, oh, wasn’t that a sensitive film! Even sophisticated, educated, intelligent people will behave that way. Remember, in Hans Christian Andersen’s story it wasn’t a professor or a successful businessman but a child who said, “Mommy, mommy, look, the emperor is naked!” And then, if you remember the story, the other spectators who heard the child also began saying, yes, the child is right, the emperor is naked.

Perhaps Andersen was a little too optimistic about human nature if he really believed that one lone voice of truth and reason could shatter the whole fabric of lies and deceit which the masters of the controlled media have woven around us. But I believe, nevertheless, that individuals must speak out now: we must say to everyone around us, films like The Crying Game are not about love. They are about the abandonment of values and standards. They are about giving up our power to discriminate. They are about surrendering to evil.

We must say these things not just because they are right, but also because some people who hear us will wake up, just like the people in the crowd admiring the emperor’s new clothes woke up when they heard the child saying what should have been obvious to everyone. We must say that it is not love to permit Blacks to fondle and kiss White women or to treat a homosexual female impersonator as if he were a normal woman. It is racial suicide. It is filth and sickness. We must say that loudly and clearly. And we also must say that the people who have been trying to twist our values, the film-makers and the film reviewers and the television network bosses, are evil people, and we should not tolerate their presence in our society. We should rid ourselves of them by whatever means is necessary.

We should understand that those who want to rob us of our values are as dangerous to us as those who want to steal our possessions or our liberty. Those who try to make us believe that anything goes and that it’s wrong of us to discriminate are as much our enemies as any gang of terrorists bent on destroying our society. The Weinsteins and the Weinraubs and their ilk are trying to destroy us morally.

And they’re succeeding. Just look at the filth we elect to public office in this country. Look at what we tolerate in the White House and in the Congress.

You know, a single film and a few deceitful reviews seem like an inconsequential thing. It is, after all, just entertainment, and we might think that we can take it or leave it.

No, no, really—it’s more than that. It’s part of a vast, concerted, ongoing effort, and it does have consequences. We can see those consequences all around us, from the Clintonistas in Washington to the breakdown of order in our cities and the loss of discipline in our kids’ schools.

We don’t have to put up with that any longer. We don’t have to pretend that we don’t notice what’s been happening. We can stand up and speak out. We can make others wake up. We can begin taking this country back. It’s time to start doing it.

On the art of having it both ways

As I have stated before, one of the reasons I have repudiated white nationalists is because they really want to eat their cake: enjoying the pleasures of liberal hedonism while at the same time pretending to be saving their race. Below, a recent exchange between other bloggers who think like me:

Iranian for Aryans said:

Gregs weaponThe only reason I link to Counter Currents is because it sometimes features very well written and culturally insightful articles. Nonetheless, much that comes out of this site is balderdash; to put it very innocuously. For instance, besides the articles on trite subjects, asinine and insipid articles and books are promoted by two homosexual authors: Jack Donovan and James O’Meara.

It’s bad enough that I have to read monotonous essays, which, truth be told, at least have educational properties for the neophyte, but I have to be victimized, traumatized, and violated by two disgusting faggots: one who pushes other faggots (James O’Meara) and one who preaches to us about the necessity of having a masculine militia so, I’m sure, we can sodomize each other to oblivion (Jack Donovan).

God, how I miss the original, vintage, nationalist groups and movements! The Old Parties who smashed homosexuals within their midsts. The Old Right which was raised on opera, march music, folk music, and the Masters—the Old Vanguard who would have looked at his bastard descendants with disdain and disgust.

Roger said:

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. Anything else is beside the point.

This is what Greg Johnson wrote in his article about homosexuality and white nationalism. If one’s sole concern is to propagate the interests of whites, the corollary is to attack degenerate behaviour among whites. This has to be inclusive of homosexuality and all other forms of non-reproductive sexual misbehaviour. If the outcome of a man’s sexual deeds is a disease rather than a baby, he is doing it wrong. He is lowering the general health of his race and increasing the risk of contaminating normal people. James O’Meara actually uses the term “ambisexual”, so one can assume he thinks it is acceptable for a man to poke turds and then pass his diseases on to a woman. He envisions these alleged benefits of teenage “ambisexuality”:

In a traditional society, these erotic energies would be recognized, valued, and safely diverted into “homoromances” (along the lines of Nietzschean “sublimation” vs. Judeo-Christian asceticism). This is possible because, contrary to Freud and Hirshfeld, humans are, as Neill documents, an “ambisexual” species, which allows society to shape and prune human sexuality in various ways and into various channels. In this way, male/female relations are reserved for marriage at appropriate ages, and the whole problem of teenage pregnancy, STDs, knife-fights among pubescent Romeos, etc. is avoided.

Such tripe. Teenage pregnancy is not a problem. It was normal for women to be married before the age of twenty in the past. 18-23 is the peak fertility age. They are better off getting married at 18 than packing their bags to study psychology at the University of Gomorrah, and men are better off finding a woman than being subjected to “homoerotic inter-generational pedagogic relations”. Teenage pregnancy is only a problem among populations which treat sex as nothing more than a form of pleasure, and I can only laugh at the idea that STDs would become less prominent if male homosexuality was encouraged. I don’t doubt that teenage boys will get sexually frustrated and seek some outlet—for most of them, onanism or celibacy will be preferable to buggery until they find a shrew to tame.

If Johnson conceives WN as a single-issue cause, and positions himself as a WN, why does he spend so much time and money advancing causes which do not benefit white interests in any way? Everyone who donates money to Counter-Currents is funding new books by James O’Meara.

Iranian for Aryans said:

As always, well written and humorously so. The truth of the matter, as you asseverated, is that male homosexuality is disease-ridden. Not only that, but that “knife-fights among pubescent Romeos” would increase as male homos have shown throughout their nasty history to be involved in more numerous physical conflicts.

Why would anyone promote a “lifestyle” that is detrimental to White reproduction, health, and normalcy? Well, because Johnson and Co. are part of the problem with their ugly distortions.

Beyond OD vs. CC

trainspottersIn this comment at Counter-Currents (CC) Trainspotter did not find anything wrong with the American Gomorrhaites known as “Bronies” that even the ultra-liberal Wikipedia has a section criticizing them.

To understand the whole discussion that involves several exchanges between the two pro-white blogs CC and Occidental Dissent (OD), the reader would also have to visit the OD thread where it is discussed how the most featured writer on CC posted an article that contained descriptions of interracial sex between young males (screenshot: here).

In the past, OD’s admin has made false remarks against both, Trainspotter and me. But unlike Trains I don’t automatically side OD’s nemesis in the racial underworld: I am principle-oriented and dislike feuds.

Trains always stroke me as a commonsensical, reasonable voice in the movement. But what he said earlier this year at CC only demonstrates that, like virtually all American nationalists, he fails to see the fundamental etiologies of Western and American malaise (of which both hetero and homo Gomorrahean degeneracy is only a symptom).

See this article by Hajo Liaucius: a European who, precisely because he has always lived in Russia, has a detached perspective on American white nationalism like no intellectual I am aware of. Together with other articles of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, Liaucius’ piece shows that American white nationalists are blind about the primary and secondary factors in their nation’s decline: capitalism and their parents’ religion. (Jewish depredations are only a tertiary infection, but precisely because self-righteous American racialists are completely blind they miserably fall into “monocausalism.”)

This thesis of my compilation—that soon will be available in printed form—, of course, goes far beyond the pro-homo / anti-homo debate between OD and CC, and still has to be discussed in this site’s threads.

On pre-Hispanic Amerinds, 7



Standing in a bookstore when I was much younger I read a passage from a book by an out-closet homosexual, the Mexican poet Salvador Novo analyzing the term “pecado nefando” (heinous sin). Novo mentioned Nezahualcoyotl, a 15th-century king and member of the Aztec Triple Alliance, who promulgated a law code that included that those who had engaged in the passive role of homosexual anal intercourse had their intestines pulled out, then their bodies were filled with ash, and finally, were burnt (the active or penetrating partner was simply suffocated in a heap of ash): a punishment more severe than a mere capital punishment against sodomy in the Muslim world. Novo included an illustration of a dead male Amerind with his intestines pulled out, but now that I looked if that image was available in the internet I didn’t find it.

I mention this because one of the reasons why the behavior of pre-Hispanic Amerinds is unknown lies in the fact that the deranged Christians and liberals who are obsessed with out-group altruism have been most reluctant to speak about the level of cruelties in the American continent before the white people arrived. In the latest threads I have spoken about some members in the pro-white movement that get mad when I dare to challenge their dogmas. For instance, in an article at Majority Rights I was once called “Jew” because I dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories. But in my long life I have had similar experiences with this sort of fanatics.

In my book for example I mention that I have taken issue with my father about Nezahualcoyotl. He has enormously idealized this Indian, to the extent that he even composed a short musical piece for one of the poems that some attribute to Nezahualcoyotl. From time to time I have tried to transmit to my father the fact that the historical Nezahualcoyotl ordered his son to be killed, and that that must be enough to stop idealizing him.

In his uttermost dishonesty, my father has not tried even to respond. He simply continues to idealize Nezahualcoyotl during family meetings and even before visitors from Europe; he continues to flatly claim that figure of Nezahualcoyotl proves that the Aztecs were highly civilized. (Incidentally, in my discussions I never mentioned that Amerind fags were disemboweled in such horrible way after Nezahualcoyotl’s laws; only that he ordered his grown-up first born to be killed.)

Another personal vignette. Back in 2008 I was in a taxi with my father and my six-year-old nephew. Those days I had been discussing with him about the fact that according to my sources the pre-Hispanic Amerinds were cannibals. I even photocopied Mexican newspapers notes saying that such anthropophagy had been corroborated by archeological evidence. Keep in mind that virtually all Mexican press side the Amerinds against the Spanish conquerors, but even the indigenista press has to acknowledge the facts.

My father simply stopped talking to me in the taxi, changed the subject of conversation and started to talk with my six-year-old nephew…

Of course: people like my father, completely unconcerned with the facts, exist by the millions. But I find it healthy that presently the top cultural institutions of Mexico have been corroborating the facts (not my psychohistorical theories) that I cited in The Return of Quetzalcoatl. That’s why I have been reviewing the academic treatise El Sacrificio Humano in these series about pre-Hispanic Amerinds. So let’s now continue to refute my father’s intellectual cowardice with another chapter of El Sacrificio Humano.

The Aztecs and the Mayas were not the only sons of bitches in Mesoamerica (see the previous entries of these series). In the opening paragraph of “El Sacrificio Humano en el Michoacán Antiguo” Grégory Pereira says that Tariácuri, the founder of the empire of the Purépecha culture which developed in the Mesoamerican Postclassic period, congratulates destiny when learning that his own son would be sacrificed (page 247). This of course reminds me what my father’s “civilized” Nezahualcoyotl did. Pereira cites the Spanish Relación de Michoacán as a reliable source about how the Michoaque people behaved before the arrival of the Spaniards.

The Relación states that part of the captives such as old people and children were sacrificed by extraction of the heart right on the spot of the battle, and that (my translation) “the bodies of these victims were cooked and consumed at the same place.” I mention this only to show how my father, who has a good library in his study including books about the pre-Hispanic Amerinds, simply doesn’t want to face what’s right in front of his nose.


On page 254 Pereira includes a diagram showing a skeleton with points that show the impact of the rib cut to reach the heart during those sacrifices, and he adds that those who performed the ritual were called opítiecha or “holders” who grabbed the extremities of the victim. He adds: “Once slaughtered and decapitated, the dismembered body was in the house of the priests and the various parts offered up to the gods and eaten by the priests and lords. Those who were killed at the scene of the conflict were eaten by the victors… After the cannibal feast, the bones of the slaughtered apparently were gathered and preserved in the house of the priests.”

On the next page Pereira includes an illustration of the Relación depicting the consumption of human flesh. Later, on page 262, the author reveals that Tariácuri also ordered the killing of another of his sons, Tamapucheca, as punishment for having escaped being sacrificed.

Then Pereira recounts that on the day following the sacrifice, they “wore the skin of the slaughtered in a dance, and for five days got drunk.” That is, the cadavers were skinned so that the priests could wear the skin as clothes.

I just wonder… How would an American leftist react before such information. Like my father did in the taxi?

Xipe, Veracruz

A figurine at the Museo Nacional de Antropología
showing an Amerind covered with a human skin.

Rockwell, Pierce, Hitler

I’ve seen enough specimens of white Untermenschen in my life to understand that skin color alone is unfortunately not enough…


Andrew Hamilton’s latest piece includes stupendous quotations that I can quote again apropos my provocative views that most humans are “Untermenschen,” including those whites who are behaving like the blond Eloi before the Morlocks.

Hamilton wrote:

We have been without genuine freedom of speech or association for so long that we don’t even know what they mean anymore. Ordinary whites are completely clueless. They’re anti-white racists and neo-communists because that’s what the System tells them to be. From morning to evening and birth to death that’s all they hear. They’re denizens of Oceania.

White racialists, an iconoclastic subset, think it means addressing a miniscule audience on a tiny website or individual blog, or organizing six people for a street protest—until a writer or activist is taken down by the System, at which point remaining racialists gleefully join the Left-wing mob in kicking the helpless victim to a bloody pulp. He didn’t get it! He said the wrong things! He acted the wrong way! I have witnessed this unedifying spectacle again and again over the decades.

Any given Counter-Currents article I write will be seen by roughly 1,000-2,000 people. Seen by (i.e., clicked on), not necessarily read or agreed with; only a small number will actually read a piece with some degree of sympathy and understanding, or have a seed planted that will eventually take root and grow, which is the best one can hope for…

The situation is especially strange in that in addition to theoretical access to a worldwide audience of English readers, market forces—supply and demand—are in my favor. I fill an unmet need. In a genuine marketplace of ideas there would be some demand, certainly more than there is now, for suppressed facts, information, and opinions. But this natural demand is not there. The absence of a greater positive response is like the dog that didn’t bark in “Silver Blaze,” alerting the perceptive observer that something was seriously wrong. (“I had grasped the significance of the silence of the dog, for one true inference invariably suggests others,” Sherlock Holmes noted.) In our case the primary culprit is disparate power, and the refusal of elites to play by the rules.

Conversely, those who hate my race—and I mean hate it—broadcast their hatred repeatedly, many times daily, to billions of people worldwide: a distinctly unnatural state of affairs in an ostentatiously “anti-racist” culture. Thousands and thousands of people make exceptionally good livings doing this. They monopolize not only the mass media of communications with their racist and totalitarian bile, but educational systems, governments, legal systems, and other institutions as well—everywhere. This, also, is not natural. It is exceedingly strange.

Such a lopsided disparity of power can have only one possible outcome in terms of who wins, who loses, and why. Therefore, I never scratch my head, stumped, wondering blankly: “Why are whites doing this to themselves?” I’d be dense, dishonest, or willfully blind to express such puzzlement…

As one man long ago observed:

The fundamental error of the right wing—that sweet reason will change the world and save us from the Jewish tyrants.


Reason is still an infant in human affairs, a precious and rare development found in the mutational brains of an infinitesimal minority of Homo sapiens. And even the few geniuses able to exercise genuine, independent reason are almost entirely incapable of acting in accordance with the dictates of that reason—which is one of the reasons so many of them end up as failures in a world which does not appreciate them or their reason.

It is FORCE, POWER, STRENGTH which rules the world, from the ebb and flow of the tides to the decision of your neighbor to join the Rotary. Only a negligible fringe of oddball humans change their mind as a result of being convinced by a superior argument. The overwhelming masses, including the mass of today’s “intellectuals” [emphasis added], change their minds only in order to CONFORM. In other words, the minds of the vast majority ALWAYS bow to the strongest opinion—the opinion which brings rewards and avoids punishment.

The right wing examines its reasons and arguments and facts and finds them true and good—as they may be. They then become outraged [or hopelessly befuddled] when the slobs next door cannot see and appreciate this rightness and, very probably, throw them out of the house for preaching “hate.” But this is only as things are. The slobs will hold whatever opinion seems to show the most strength and WILL TO POWER. They are completely, hopelessly female in their approach to reason and always, ALWAYS prefer strength to “rightness.”

This is a “secret” the Jews learned long ago.

Another voice from the past:

Things are very bad indeed, but they are far from hopeless. Only a people or a nation that gives itself up for lost is truly and irrevocably lost. There is a bloody and terrible ordeal ahead of us, and many will perish—but our race can still be saved, and that, in the long run, is all that counts.


Do not be discouraged by the indifference of the people around you. Remember, the great mass of people have always been like that and always will be. When the Christians are ahead they cheer for the Christians, and when the lions are ahead they cheer for the lions. They have no understanding or concern for anything but the present and for what they see as directly affecting their comfort, welfare, or security.

But the masses do not make history. [Again, “the masses” includes academics, intellectuals, and high-IQ and socially successful people generally. It is not a class thing.] That is and always has been the task of the few. Those few must embody in themselves a majority of will and determination. They must know what they want and be willing to do whatever is necessary to achieve their goal.

Today the old order of things is crumbling into ruin, and the world will never again be restored to what it was before. But a new order will eventually emerge from the wreckage of the old.

It is only too late to save the present order from final collapse. It is not too late to begin building the new.

How many are “the few”? Here’s the assessment of a formidable achiever, also deceased, whose judgment on such matters cannot be taken lightly, much less dismissed out of hand:

“In my view, when there are nine thousand men in a country who are capable of facing prison from loyalty to an idea, this idea remains a living one.”

For conceptual purposes, this might be adopted as a provisional benchmark since, implicitly, the reference is to a minority existing amidst a hostile majority in a Jewish-Leftist state. It imparts concrete substance to the idea of “the few” whose task it is to embody within themselves a majority of will and determination.

Of course, the speaker was probably referring to an extraordinary level of commitment, on the order of an Anders Breivik or Timothy McVeigh. Even so, he added:

“And as long as a man [i.e., presumably one man] is left to carry the flag, nothing is lost. Faith moves mountains.”


Each of the three men just quoted was an optimist. They said so explicitly and their words and deeds bore them out. Yet each “failed.” I qualify “failed,” because in a larger spiritual sense (as far as white survival is concerned) they were all successes given the insurmountable odds they faced.

Moreover, the battle in which they were engaged still rages. It is world-historical and spans generations. The outcome has yet to be determined.


My 2 cents:

Quotations in order according to Hamilton: George Lincoln Rockwell (“reason is still an infant in human affairs”); William L. Pierce (“must embody in themselves a majority of will and determination”); Adolf Hitler (“9,000 men” / “a man left to carry the flag”).

But Hamilton is wrong. Rockwell, Pierce and Hitler were not. Hamilton said, “I never scratch my head, stumped, wondering blankly: ‘Why are whites doing this to themselves?’ I’d be dense, dishonest, or willfully blind to express such puzzlement.”

Well, he has the answer right in front of his nose and he chooses not to see it. He is willfully blind indeed.

The same site that recently published Hamilton’s piece has also published, yesterday and today, pieces about homosexual “wild boys” by an author that Franklin Ryckaert nailed not long ago:

It is a pity that Greg Johnson has this attitude, because he is fairly intelligent and writes and promotes a lot of good stuff. I could accept an in-the-closet homosexual WN, if only he had no homosexual agenda. But people like James O’Meara, who promotes the idea of a homosexual “Mannerbünd” as the vanguard of WN, or Greg Johnson who pleads for homosexual “marriage”, seem unable to do that.

WN not only means the survival of the White Race, but also its flourishing, and that entails cultural and moral regeneration. Homosexuals-with-an-agenda cannot really contribute to that.

I have stated many times that the 19th century is the most important one to understand how whites empowered the subversive tribe. But that subject aside, Hamilton just cannot see that if whites were not doing it to themselves prototypical white nationalists like his editor, so conscious of the Jewish problem, would simply not subscribe a liberal agenda, such as homo “rights.” And Johnson is not alone in the pro-white movement promoting this. Alternative Right, the site for white Untermenchen has also joined the fad.

I must say something outside the subject of both sites to better illustrate my point. A hetero blogger who over the pro-white boards has been willing to discuss with me about the extent of Jewish influence in our woes, a man from Louisiana (who incidentally also defends the homos), has stated that his daughter has decided to be independent, in the sense of not being bothered with a traditional marriage and lots of kids, and he has no problem with that.

This is the same man who is so conscious of the Jewish problem that always jumps over the boards to defend his point of view. But at the same time he—like Hamilton—is unwilling to see that once you tolerate the liberal view of placing individualism whims above racial duties (both the gay movement and feminism are the product of runaway individualism), you simply cannot blame the Jews. You must blame yourself.

There’s no other interpretation of the facts. If the editor of CC and this Louisiana blogger are so conscious of the subversive tribe, why on earth they themselves subscribe the toxic aspects of the tribe’s agenda for whites?

The answer is simple: Modern suicidal liberalism, and the economics-over-race policies since the times of ancient Rome and even before are white phenomena. Or haven’t you read my very recent posts quoting Yockey’s magnum opus?

If the blond Eloi are not ultimately responsible for what the Morlocks do to them, who is? I have already said it and I’ll say it again: What moved me to change my mind from blaming the Jews to blaming Whites was the ethno-suicidal behavior (feminist whims; homo tolerance, and more) coming from the white nationalists themselves. That’s why I have abandoned the term White Nationalism and adapted instead the old-fashioned National Socialism.

Stick to the giants! Stick to honorable men like Hitler, Rockwell and Pierce. Forget white nationalists. As the Swede Panina said in the comment linked in the epigraph, the American movement is just pathetic.

Affection of yore among hetero males

(A post by Matt Parrott on Facebook)

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)  

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 305 other followers