I agree that the level of some criticism in this thread is 7th grade. However, why doesn’t Greg allow at CC a much more discrete criticism of the homo agenda he’s promoting by publishing James’ book? Why doesn’t he say a real word, not the evasive way he dismissed my point (“strawman”), about the problems presented in my linked article, “On classic pederasty”?
Originally Posted by Lew_
If a particular white male homosexual is not interested in pushing the modern gay agenda, supports traditional man / woman marriage as the societal ideal, and is willing to work for society and the collective good, what possible harm could he cause?
But there’s the rub. James O’Meara doesn’t seem to support traditional marriage (he recently published an article at CC critical of 1950s family values). Instead, he theorizes that real western families must be a kind of pagan homophiliacs. See for example Greg’s quotation:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson
There is a specter haunting the world, the specter of homosexuality.
It used to be a man’s world. And for good reason: civilization is largely a male achievement…
James O’Meara’s startling thesis is that the male groups that create and sustain civilization have been destroyed not just with the hammer of feminism but also on the anvil of “homophobia.” For today, any all-male group is stigmatized as “homoerotic” (usually by the same people who want to normalize homosexuality). Thus, to exorcise the specter of homosexuality, male groups have been pressured to accept female members. Merely excluding actual homosexuals is not enough, because the problem is the mere possibility of homosexuality in groups of men who live, work, and fight together. Thus O’Meara points to the conclusion that the only way to maintain all-male institutions is to de-stigmatize homosexuality.
Of course this is a non-starter for the conservatives who posture as defenders of Western civilization, because there is something they want to conserve even more: Judeo-Christian “family values,” including homophobia. Thus O’Meara argues that the homophobic conservative “family values” agenda actually undermines the foundations of Western civilization. As an alternative, O’Meara urges us to look to the other West, the real West, the West before it was conquered by a Near Eastern religion, namely the pagan West, for a model of civilization that managed to integrate all-male institutions with family life, due in part to more fluid conceptions of sexual identity and tolerant attitudes toward same-sex attractions.
Isn’t this the most preposterous hypothesis about homosexualism we have heard of?
The above sentence demonstrates that Greg was wrong when claiming that my piece was “so off the mark, such a straw man argument” because it’s James himself who’s placing “the pagan West”, i.e., the Greco-Roman world, as a “model” of civilization: precisely the claim that I debunked in my article, insofar as classic homosexuality was mainly pederasty—not the transvestite behavior that James provocatively and unabashedly boasts visually in his blog, even in the “About me” page.
As I said in my article on classic pederasty, I read a couple of Latin-Spanish translations of the first long novel in the western world. And although Petronius depicts the Roman provinces in altogether decadent times—perhaps under the reign of Caligula—, the main character, Encolpius, and his epheboy Gitone are described as feeling a great deal of revulsion towards a grotesque fag who tried to seduce them. If The Satyricon
is a window to the past, we can conclude that, even in those degenerate times, when vomitoriums were introduced in the Roman homes as depicted in Petronius’ novel, the lovers of the story—a 25-year-old young man and a 16 year-old teen— still felt incredible revulsion for open faggotry (faggotry like the one we see in today’s so-called “gay” bars).
It’s James the one who makes use of the classic world as his pivotal argument for his hypothesis. Thus, if I could demonstrate that he was arguing from a false analogy, I reasoned out when writing my essay, his hypothesis would be falsified by History itself.
Something similar could be said of how the pre-Christian Germanics handled the open queers (say, like those who made Encolpius and Gitone almost throw up). William Pierce wrote: “If these appeals were not sufficient to elicit honorable behavior from each and every German, Tacitus added, their fellow tribesmen dealt with them severely: ‘Traitors and deserters are hanged; cowards and those guilty of unnatural practices are suffocated in mud under a hurdle.’ Subject to the same punishment as cowards and homosexuals were draft dodgers: those who failed to present themselves for military service when summoned.”