In the recent, colorful thread of the article “Fuck Christianity!” in this blog, I expressed pretty heavy criticism about non-closet homosexuals in the white nationalist movement: those who unabashedly and aggressively boast their transvestite-like lifestyles to the general public. Today, Greg Johnson published an apologia of homosexuality at Counter-Currents—in French!
My essay-reply will appear in a subsequent entry. For the moment let’s just reproduce the article in English, originally published at VNN in 2002 under the pseudonym of F.C.I. Clarke:
Achilles tending Patroclus’ wounds from a red-figure kylix by the Sosias Painter from about 500 B.C. in the Staatliche museum in Berlin [image chosen by Johnson].
Homosexuality and White Nationalism: Two Arguments for Tolerance
I must protest Andrew Westphal’s “Homosexuality Ain’t Cool” and other examples of queer-bashing on VNN. I have two arguments for why this is misguided and for why tolerance is a good thing for the White Nationalist movement.
First, homosexuality is beside the point.
Because of the distorting lens of the Jewish media, it is easy to think that all homosexuals are promoters of the Jewish agenda. And leftist gays really are repulsive. So it is tempting to make disparaging comments about them just because it is so politically incorrect and because it pisses off the right people. But this is a serious tactical mistake.
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. That means that White Nationalists must work to unite all Whites into a self-conscious racial community, rallying around our common racial interests. White Nationalism has only one message for homosexuals: White homosexuals have more important interests in common with other Whites than they do with non-White homosexuals. We have to resist falling for any form of the divide and conquer strategy used by our enemies to destroy our solidarity as a prelude to destroying our race. Battles between gays and straights, men and women, pagans and Christians, Nordics and Mediterraneans, Celts and WASPs, Germans and Slavs, etc. have no place in the White Nationalist movement. These will always be used by our enemies to divide and subvert us.
Intolerance of homosexuality does not just divide the White population, it divides the White Nationalist movement. Ernst Röhm was not the last homosexual to be attracted to White Nationalism. I have met a number of homosexuals in the contemporary White Nationalist movement, and I have my suspicions about a few others. All of these people, however, are intelligent and accomplished. They are real assets to the movement. Those without families are freer to speak their minds because they give fewer hostages to fortune. They also have more free time and more disposable income to devote to the cause. Quite a number of homosexual men do not fit the effeminate stereotype. They are masculine, and appreciate masculine things like facts, logic, and forthright action. And even effeminate gay men can make a real contribution. Pim Fortuyn was ideologically a mixed-bag, but he had the potential to move the Netherlands significantly to the Right, and his fruity persona only helped his cause. The media found it difficult to paint a flamboyant old fop who fussed over floral arrangements and doted over his lapdogs as the next Hitler.
A unified White Nationalist movement does not require that all the different White Nationalist subgroups follow the same strategy. That would be counter-productive. The more different strategies pursued, the more chance that someone will hit on a winner. It does not require that all groups co-operate with one another either. It does not require that they like one another. It does not require that gays and straights share pup tents and take showers together. The minimum requirement for White unity is simply this: We all must focus our energies on pursuing our common goal by whatever path we choose, and we must resist wasting our time and energy on squabbles that divide us.
Second, intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish.
Westphal is apparently a Christian. If you ask Christians why they think homosexuality is a sin, they cannot point to any saying of Jesus. Jesus saw fit to condemn divorce but not sodomy. Christians have to turn to the Old Testament, to the record of the Jews and their wanderings, crimes, superstitions, and hatreds. There we find homosexuality condemned as a capital crime. Why? The whole aim of the Jewish law is to set Jews apart from the rest of humanity. The Jews condemned buggery because they and all their neighbors were engaging in it. Homosexual pedophilia, which still remains a taboo in our culture, was widely practiced by the ancient Aryan peoples of the Mediterranean world. The Persians, Greeks, and Romans all practiced it, including some of the manliest men in history and legend, like Achilles and Alexander the Great.
Technically, the Greeks and others were not pedophiles, who pursue children, for they focused their attention on young men who were well past puberty and ready to begin military training. The ancients regarded homosexual relationships as completely consistent with marriage and family life, and they frowned upon men who formed exclusively homosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships were also bound by a host of rules and taboos. There was nothing of the modern amoral free-for-all. But there is no question that homosexual behavior was not only tolerated by ancient Aryan peoples, it was considered normal, in some cases even ideal. It was ascribed to the gods (Zeus and Ganymede) and lauded by poets, philosophers, and historians. It is hard to maintain hateful Jewish attitudes toward homosexuality if one really understands and appreciates the greatness of classical pagan civilization.
As poisonous as the Old Testament’s moral condemnation of homosexuality may be, it is based on a realistic conception of human nature. Judeo-Christianity condemns homosexuality as a sin. A sin is a matter of choice. And nobody is immune to sin. If a heterosexual is a person who is immune to homosexual attractions, then the Judeo-Christian viewpoint implies that there is no such thing as a heterosexual. If a homosexual is a person who cannot help but be attracted to people of the same sex and has no choice in the matter, then the Judeo-Christian viewpoint implies that there is no such thing as a homosexual either. There are just people, all of whom have the capacity to be tempted by homosexual attractions and to choose heterosexual attractions. Thus there is no room for moral self-righteousness.
Matters became worse in the late Nineteenth-Century, when psychologists — some but not all of them Jews — created a new paradigm for understanding sexuality. There were no longer homosexual and heterosexual desires, which can be found in all people and can be controlled by our faculty of choice. There were now homosexual and heterosexual people, and what made a person one or the other was generally thought to lie outside of our choice and control. One’s sexual proclivities suddenly became a whole “lifestyle,” a whole “identity,” giving sex an inflated importance in the scheme of things. It was not long before Freud started speculating that the whole soul can be understood in terms of sexuality. This new and false conception of sexuality has caused immense suffering and damage to our race.
First of all, it has created a great deal of anxiety for men and women who experience homosexual attractions at one time or another. In pagan societies, these desires could be acknowledged, understood, and even expressed if one chose to. In Judeo-Christian society, such desires were repressed, but their mere presence said nothing more about one’s identity than one is a sinner and subject to temptation — just like everybody else. Today, homosexual desires cause great anxiety and psychological anguish. People worry if they fall into a small and stigmatized sexual subspecies, totally different from the rest of humanity. A young man gets aroused wrestling with a friend and suddenly has a psychological crisis on his hands. He wonders if he is sick. He feels alienated from his family and peers. He wonders if he will have to move to the city and buy a feather boa.
Second, this anxiety has chilled same-sex friendships and male bonding, and it is the bonded male group, the Männerbund, that is the foundation of all higher forms of civilization, particularly Aryan civilizations. It is amazing to read accounts of male friendships from earlier centuries, for example in Augustine’s Confessions or Montaigne’s Essays. It was possible for men to frankly express their love for one another without fearing the stigma of homosexuality, because that was an identity that simply did not exist before the late Nineteenth century. (Today, these expressions of affection are read through the distorting lens of “queer theory,” and Augustine and Montaigne and countless other figures have been “outed.”)
Third, those who decide that they do not merely have homosexual desires, but are “homosexuals” are trapped by this self-concept into an exclusively homosexual lifestyle, which not only carries health risks, but also prevents them from affirming whatever heterosexual desires they might also have. It cuts them off from marriage and family life, which could be combined with homosexual relationships openly in pagan societies and on the sly in Judeo-Christian societies.
Fourth, it has created the heterosexual, who thinks he is immune from same-sex attractions. This allows some heterosexuals to fuse Jewish intolerance with self-righteousness, turning them into queer-bashing bullies like Westphal.
All these destructive consequences could be alleviated if we freed our minds from the legacy of Jewish hatred and intolerance. Queer-Bashers are in the grip of Jewry without even knowing it. White Nationalism requires that we de-Jew our thinking, but many White Nationalists have no idea of just what a radical change of outlook that requires.
Postscript of 4 March 2012
In his article Greg does not make the distinction I made in the hatnote between discreet homos and what in some places of Latin America are called Locas: the effeminate queers who aggressively boast their queerness publicly.
When Johnson wrote: “Battles between gays and straights…” the phrase immediately reminded me a former internet friend. In a now closed forum, Daniel Mackler used the phrase “gays and straights” iteratively as if homosexuality was… healthier than heterosexuality! (Elsewhere I have debunked Mackler, a New York Jew that predicates the idea that we should have no kids.)
There are several obvious fallacies in Johnson’s article that are easy to rebut. Yes: Ernst Röhm was homosexual and I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Führer’s tolerance of him. (In fact, I like Hitler’s repentance of having been influenced by Himmler’s innuendo and ordering Röhm to be executed in the Night of the Long Knives.) But Röhm was the perfect antithesis of the Locas. We could imagine what would have happen if some Locas organized a gay parade in the Third Reich!
Johnson mentions Pim Fortuyn. But Fortuyn was no white nationalist whatsoever. When I was involved in the counter-jihad movement I was amazed with a video of Fortuyn telling his audience that he had to stop the Islamization of Holland—because it reminded him the treatment of white women by male whites in the 1950s! Like his successor Geert Wilders, Fortuyn never escaped the liberal box.
Johnson mentions Achilles and Alexander the Great. What if I tell you that these guys ought not to be examples for contemporary whites? In Johnson’s own site recently a commenter pointed out that, even before Christianity, whites had been universalists with Alexander commanding his officers and soldiers to marry Persian women!
Furthermore, understanding Psychohistory dramatically changed my mind about Homeric Hellas. Achilles was a comrade in arms of Agamemnon in the Trojan war, the very one who sacrificed his daughter to the gods. Some sources even claim that Iphigenia was to be married to none other than Achilles. The late, Judeo-Christian exordiums against sodomy, the sacrificing of one’s own daughter or son to the gods, incest, cannibalism and other practices make much more sense to our modern mind than the milieu where Achilles and Patroclus flourished.
Johnson says that “intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish” and puts the example of Zeus and Ganymede. Well, there were times in some Greek cities that the abduction of adolescents by older adults was legal—as long as the parents gave permission to the abductor! (as in the terracotta statuette of Zeus carrying off Ganymede).
Again, that was a “psychoclass” distant from ours, and Johnson and the rest of the nationalists would do well to become acquainted with psychohistorical research.
I might try to delve deeper into this line of thinking in the promised article on homosexuality. For the moment, see the index to my latest posts of my book The Return of Quetzalcoatl, an introduction to Psychohistory for the nationalist community, here.