Greg Johnson on Gay Marriage

[Jean West]

Greg Johnson has written an interesting treatise on the issue of "gay marriage." Even for those whose rejection--let me say "revulsion"--at anything to do with homosexuality will find food for thought, not only in the article but in the Comments (note especially Hajo Liaucius)--not merely regarding gay marriage, but regarding heterosexual marriage and family.

I expressed my own aversions in another thread some time ago. I disagree with some things Greg writes here. Nevertheless, I think it's an above average essay. When I read this early today, the last comment was posted by Chonodomarius (about Hirschfeld and Weinberg).

The “Gay Marriage” Controversy
Greg Johnson
June 28, 2013

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

What do I mean when I say that homosexual behavior is abnormal? I don’t mean that it is unnatural, since its exists in nature. It is even found in many species besides man. I don’t mean that it is a sin, i.e., something that displeases God. The idea of sin pretty much paralyzes the ability to think rationally about morals.

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

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

Homosexual behaviors and tastes are older than the human race, but the idea of homosexuality as an identity is a rather recent phenomenon. People with exclusively homosexual tastes are a tiny minority in any society, no matter how permissive and decadent. Thus it stands to reason that no society has ever ceased to exist because the tiny homosexual minority doesn’t reproduce. Societies decline demographically when the heterosexual majority doesn’t reproduce, primarily due to birth control. Thus if non-reproductive sex is a problem because it does not perpetuate the human race, the bulk of the blame falls on selfish, hedonistic straight people.

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

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

This makes no sense for two reasons.

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

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

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

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

1. End no-fault divorce
2. Criminalize adultery
3. Criminalize alienation of affections [3]
4. End child support for unwed mothers
5. Establish a legal presumption that unwed mothers are unfit mothers, so that giving up illegitimate children for adoption is the norm
6. End adoption by unmarried individuals
7. Institute positive incentives for high-quality individuals to marry and have families
8. Institute tax incentives for people to marry/disincentives to stay single

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

[this continues at the URL above.]

[Oprichniki]

Because coercive big government will succeed where individual morality fails.

Any solution that resolves around "we'll create this new set of laws!" is doomed to failure. Call it cliche, but you have to win the war for hearts and minds and making something illegal doesn't achieve that. Consider the efforts to defeat the sodomite agenda via legal channels that have already been attempted. Whoops, undone by activist judges while the masses are anesthetized by the endless propaganda on the talmudvision.

[Jean West]

Hunter Wallace started a thread yesterday entitled Putin Signs Anti-Gay Measures Into Law

He writes:

Vladimir Putin’s approach to gay marriage is more interesting than Greg Johnson’s approach at Counter-Currents:

“President Vladimir Putin has signed into law a measure that stigmatizes gay people and bans giving children any information about homosexuality.

The State Duma unanimously passed the Kremlin-backed bill on June 11 and the upper house approved it last week.

The ban on “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” is part of an effort to promote traditional Russian values over Western liberalism, which the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church see as corrupting Russian youth and contributing to the protests against Putin’s rule….”

There are 74 Comments to the thread.

[Alex Linder]

Johnson missed a lot of points.

[Jean West]

Of interest to me was the direction the OD thread took, toward Putin and Russia. I find it difficult to keep track of "who's on first," with regard to Russia.

After reading that thread, I found myself reading TOO's Putin’s view of Russia’s national future. Migration policy and residence registration
Igor Artemov on February 17, 2013, Translated by Roman Frolov who also translated Artemov’s “Russians in Russia: A state within a state” for TOO.

Frolov comments: Igor Artemov is one of the oldest and the best reputed Russian nationalist. His organization, the Russian All-National Union (RONS), was proscribed last year, and Artemov himself is on the run because he is wanted by the Federal Security Service for the ‘hate crime’ of writing that Russian Orthodoxy is the only true faith. In reality, they just wanted him out of political field, I guess because, as a politician, he is much more dangerous to the establishment than the other Russian Nationalist leaders.
A month ago the President of Russian Federation (RF) Vladimir Putin signed the Concept of Migration Policy of Russian Federation covering the period from 2013 to 2025. The full text of this document . . . is verbose and not specific. Yet let’s try to analyze it and single out its essence.

And just now I have discovered that the TOO article was posted here at VNN in January.

I admit that I, too, have hoped and sometimes believed that Putin and Russia were "on our side," and even now, I don't think I could say with certainty whether they are or they aren't. I think it's important to know who's with us and who's against us, wholly or partially.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Jean West

Greg Johnson has written an interesting treatise on the issue of "gay marriage." Even for those whose rejection--let me say "revulsion"--at anything to do with homosexuality will find food for thought, not only in the article but in the Comments (note especially Hajo Liaucius)--not merely regarding gay marriage, but regarding heterosexual marriage and family.

I expressed my own aversions in another thread some time ago. I disagree with some things Greg writes here. Nevertheless, I think it's an above average essay. When I read this early today, the last comment was posted by Chonodomarius (about Hirschfeld and Weinberg).

The “Gay Marriage” Controversy
Greg Johnson
June 28, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um, no. Homosexual behavior is inherently morbid, heterosexual behavior is not. Queer behavior is on a par along with drug/alcohol abuse and other anti-social behavior. Whether a taste is inborn or developed, it's socially destructive and should be looked down on, and certainly never given any kind of legal status. What Johnson doesn't observe that's most significant today is that

1) homos today, unlike in all prior history, can find one other easily.
2) queers have a global support network thanks to political backing and media/communications technology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The basic problem with Johnson's article is there's no acknowledgement of the Frankfurt School. We know that jews aim to destroy the white race. We know that their top experts see the best way to do this is by using the official vectors (government, schools, media) to promote a General Loosening. The creation and the glorification of the homosexual identity are part of this. But only part. Deviant sex, drug use, self-worship (self-esteem) - whatever it is, the jewish goal is to get the goy focused with himself, his stupid, worthless feelings and opinions, thereby taking his eyes off the world and its unbending factual reality. If you do what the jews advise, soon enough you will have so many personal problems you're unfit to participate in politics. Which is the intent. The promotion of homosexuality is simply part of this. In Aryan society, queer behavior is the proclivity of a tiny, weird minority. A minority that is generally laughed about privately but left alone. Even those engaged in it hide the fact, since it never occurs to them, any more than to the normals, that their tastes are healthy or deserving of some kind of public acknowledgement, let alone respect or legal stature. In a jew-controlled society, the queers are encouraged to think of their deviance as healthy, normal and natural. Even more than that - as a positive good. Something to take pride in. Something to celebrate. Something to hold parades for. A term is coined to disparage anyone who shakes his head at the world turned upside down. He's now a 'homophobe.' If he dares laugh or make objection to the new scheme of things, he finds himself publicly ridiculed, without a job, and very likely cut off from his scared friends and family.

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

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

The queers believe, some of them honestly, that they HAVE changed the public's mind. They believe they have, through their gritty marches and public activism since Stonewall, converted people to thinking their side is morally right. Just as the negroes did. The truth is that, just as with the so-called civil rights movement, the public was simply browbeaten by a hateful media into accepting a new order accomplished anti-democratically by judicial edict. People's minds haven't been changed. They've just seen a thousand times there's a price to be paid for speaking up. Disagree with The Cult on race, you're a racist. Disagree with The Cult on sexual behavior, you're a homophobe. Both these, and other, labels can get you sued, fired, ostracized - even murdered. Who wants that? So the people keep their heads down, and content themselves with expressing any doubt in private, or not at all. Meanwhile, the 1% minority, along with the 2% minority that owns the mass media, preens and chortles over its great victory. The community, they say, supports 'gay' rights. The community has changed its mind. It had a moral awakening. It decided to get on the right side of history. But homosexual behavior will never be anything but ludicrous and disgusting to the majority of the population. The public has been successfully intimidated out of expressing open criticism of deviant sexual behavior, but its basic views have not changed.

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

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

This makes no sense for two reasons.

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

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

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

No, heterosexuals have nothing to do with it. The elite setting the agenda bear all the responsibility. They have passed the easy divorce laws. They copied the Soviet family laws in their guidelines for settling child disputes. The agenda is anti-white. Deliberately so. This is not a matter of debate. You can't have stable families in a nation with a gigantic government touching every area of life and extracting huge taxes to pay for it all. No one has any time or energy left to fuck, let alone fuck productively. Throw in a popular culture that is nothing but 24/7 streaming garbage about hotness, masturbation, homosexuality, getting drunk/wasted/high and mass sports - nothing's left. You're either working, sleeping, or thinking about fucking. Well, the legal/media communist jews know exactly what they are doing. Destroying families. Destroying men. Destroying the very IDEAS of manliness, womanliness, or families. The very use of family without an article is subversive, and deliberately so, even though many who use it that way -- i.e., 'the importance of family' -- don't grasp the fact. Barbara Bush, for example, or I could cite other conservatives, do this. A family is anything, who are we to say? It's certainly not a man, his wife, and his children. They're all independent agents, who might temporarily combine, if it suits their interests. Well, that's true for the Strong Women and children. Not for the men. They're only a group if they're queers. As family men, they have no rights. They have duties only. To pay their deadbeat dad bills when the court orders. To worship the chictator. And humbly to admit how goofy, doofy and clumsy they are. Just watch any sitcom or commercial if you need an example.

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

Johnson doesn't grasp what's going on. The point of the queer marriage drive is to destroy the family. Destroy enough families, you've destroyed society. Not to give queers the right to marriage. Something most queers don't want, since anonymous, promiscuous sex is the heart of their culture, if you want to call it that. The point is to disempower any legal or social structure that defends anything 'patriarchal,' as the feminists and jews call it. These are people at war, or pretending to be at war (jews), with the biological nature of men and women. They denounce the observation that men and women do differ sexually and biologically as 'essentialism,' and it is one of their high crimes. Funnily enough, they're all about this essentialism when it comes to queers. It's not homosexual behavior, not a choice, it's an identity. It's who they are. They are essentialists when it comes to queers, but not when it comes to men and women, or races.

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

1. End no-fault divorce
2. Criminalize adultery
3. Criminalize alienation of affections [3]
4. End child support for unwed mothers
5. Establish a legal presumption that unwed mothers are unfit mothers, so that giving up illegitimate children for adoption is the norm
6. End adoption by unmarried individuals
7. Institute positive incentives for high-quality individuals to marry and have families
8. Institute tax incentives for people to marry/disincentives to stay single

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

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

[Alex Linder]

I want to give Jean West a special thanks for rounding up the quality material at the top intellectual WN and WN-positive sites. Much appreciated, Jean.

[notmenomore]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

...and it wasn't persuasion of anything but "you'd better shut up or we'll mock and ridicule you and get you fired."

This is the fundamental characteristic of the judaized world we live in today, and it's not just about queers or race; it's about the entire agenda - each and every factoid of it.

[Alex Linder]

[rest of the piece]

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

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

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

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

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

Who is he kidding? Everyone has known this for 100 years. I've quoted Joe Sobran a thousand times, and Greg Johnson has read it. "[I]t was all a game; a way of making a living" -- Joe Sobran on professional conservatism. They're raising money from the rural hinds and bourgeois Fox watchers. The real agenda is set by jews. The superficial stuff, there's a degree of freedom. The serious stuff, the racial stuff - the conservatives are exactly the same as the liberals. Racism is evil, squawk. Racism is the worst thing in the world. Hitler is the worst man ever. The Nazis were the ultimate bad guys. Churchill is the best. man. ever.

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

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

Like I said, and you can read it in Strategy forum, ATTACK THE CONSERVATIVES. Quit appeasing them. Quit pretending they're on our side. Our side is basically everyone who's NOT a feminist, sex deviant, non-white - anyone who is normal. Any normal white man or woman. THAT is who WHITE NATIONALISM represents, potentially. We FIGHT for white normals with the other groups - the jew-left, and the jew-right. The jew-left relies on its sheer power, rather than its persuasive ability. Its ideas are, after all, directly opposed to the ideas and interests of the average white man. But it can use public schools and mass media and political authority to mislead him as to this fact. The right is more attractive to this average man because its ideas are either right or less obviously wrong. What's not obvious is what you have to listen to me to learn, or take decades discovering - even where the professional right is right it doesn't mean it. It won't fight over anything essential. Starting with race. And pretty much ending there too. Because if you don't believe that racial difference exist and matter then you're too dumb to figure in politics beyond serving as someone's fodder. And if you are smart enough to see that they do, yet you still won't lead or fight, you're likewise irrelevant. So the right has written itself out of the equation, from the Realpolitik perspective. But it still exists as as powerful media and political machine. It's just that its agenda is not what it seems. Rather than protecting and advacing certain principles, even if imperfectly, it has instead changed into a simple money-making scheme. What's advanced and defended are individual careers, not peoples (races) or positions. Republicans and conservatives are mouthers. They don't mean. White natioanlism is the only school that can mean it. But most people aren't even aware that it exists. Except in Greece!

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

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

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

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

This wouldn't be a problem in a society without a gigantic government involved in every detail of personal life. Who do you think is promoting queerness? Government and media. It's not coming from the grassroots. It's a top-down phenomenon. People support homosexuality and talk like it's a good thing out of conformity or fear. Not because they actually like and support. Most of them honestly don't even know what faggotry truly is, since, after all, they aren't fags. Where are they going to learn the truth about faggotry? From sex education? From fag depictions on prime-time tv? From the newspapers? From politicians? The whole thing is a giant charade, proof only of the power of the tiny minority setting the national agenda. Put the nation on a stable racial basis, reduce the role of central government to collective racial defense, watch the homosexual issue (issue is jewspeak for problem) disappear.

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

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

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by notmenomore

This is the fundamental characteristic of the judaized world we live in today, and it's not just about queers or race; it's about the entire agenda - each and every factoid of it.

Yep. We're not in an argument, as the conservatives pretend (leaders) or falsely assume (followers), we're in a fight.

How do they debate Golden Dawn?

With bombs.

[Rick Ronsavelle]

These are people at war, or pretending to be at war (jews), with the biological nature of men and women (A. L.)

In the early 70s I heard Rand's girlfriend (Dr. Nathaniel Branden)(Natan Blumental) assert: "The only difference between men and women is that men can't have babies."

Branden's organization (Nathaniel Branden Institute) offered lectures and sold books. One such book was The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan. Betty, it turns out, was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. . .

They also pushed Mortimer Adler's books- an NWO commie. [Dr. Adler wrote a Constitution for the Entire World back in 1938. I actually read it- the head of the World Supreme Court, and the President of the Gov- same person! Adler prolly wanted that job, to burn up excess narcissism]

[Alex Linder]

It's like they say in the Protocols: they feed the goyim doctrines they KNOW to be false. Jews know racial differences exist and matter. Same with sexual differences. That they set up schools to deny both of these doesn't matter. Yes, some of their own eat the poison laid out for others. Cost of doing business.

[Cora McGuire]

I want to give Jean West a special thanks for rounding up the quality material at the top intellectual WN and WN-positive sites. Much appreciated, Jean.

Thanks Jean, and thanks Alex. This is a must-read thread.

[Rick Ronsavelle]

Dr. Johnson had something to do with Objectivism around 2001. He won't talk about it any more- I found this site by luck:

IQ and Heredity

http://www.objectivistliving.com/for...showtopic=8397

Objectivists totally stonewall genetics- Johnson and friend call them on it.

(from the link) Objectivism is, therefore, at an intellectual cross-road. It can stick to an a priori counter-factual belief about intelligence and genetics, and become another pseudo-intellectual movement like creation science, or it can, through the proper use of reason, reconcile its ideology with reality.

Hating Greg Johnson and myself will not alter the fact that what we are saying is true. If we were to stop posting tomorrow, this would not change the basic fact that we are right, and many of the posters here are simply wrong. We can go, or be forced out, but Truth cannot change.

It is not a surprise that Greg Johnson and I have been met with hatred. If the topics we have broached had been consistently debated in a rational, objective manner, we would have been met with agreement.

You can agree with us. Or you can hate us. But you cannot rationally answer our ideas.
--- DAVID RASMUSSEN

[Bardamu]

The difference between heterosexual and homosexual sex is afterwards the straight couple roll over and go to sleep, the homosexual couple need to change the sheets.

[Tintin]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

The queers believe, some of them honestly, that they HAVE changed the public's mind. They believe they have, through their gritty marches and public activism since Stonewall, converted people to thinking their side is morally right. Just as the negroes did. The truth is that, just as with the so-called civil rights movement, the public was simply browbeaten by a hateful media into accepting a new order accomplished anti-democratically by judicial edict. People's minds haven't been changed. They've just seen a thousand times there's a price to be paid for speaking up. Disagree with The Cult on race, you're a racist. Disagree with The Cult on sexual behavior, you're a homophobe. Both these, and other, labels can get you sued, fired, ostracized - even murdered. Who wants that? So the people keep their heads down, and content themselves with expressing any doubt in private, or not at all. Meanwhile, the 1% minority, along with the 2% minority that owns the mass media, preens and chortles over its great victory. The community, they say, supports 'gay' rights. The community has changed its mind. It had a moral awakening. It decided to get on the right side of history. But homosexual behavior will never be anything but ludicrous and disgusting to the majority of the population. The public has been successfully intimidated out of expressing open criticism of deviant sexual behavior, but its basic views have not changed.

Very true.

When confronted by a fag enabler there is a rather simple approach of convincing the fag enabler that their view of fagz has not changed from the initial instinctive feeling. This approach also demonstrate the issue of race if very different than fagitry.

This approached basically involves of constructing a scenario in which the fag enabler is viewing pornography. At some point, two "men" start sodomizing each other or performing oral sex on each or even stroking each other lovingly.

Ask the fag enabler what they would do? Would they continue to watch? How would their reaction differ from male-female interracial scene?

It seems that virtually all fag enable males admit they would react as quickly has possible to avoid seeing any male-on-male scene. This seems that most fag enable females will refuse to answer the question by saying pornography is disgusting. Another common response of fag enable females is to insult the questioner's masculinity or sexual orientation.

An interesting follow up question is to ask fag enabler males is they have ever viewed human-animal sex. It seems that many have, for example at a frat house party. The point is that some males are more willing to watch bestiality than watch fagz "making love".

A ridicules aspect of fag enabler females calling porn disgusting is, what exactly do they thing fags are doing in public bathrooms, parks, and fag clubs. The seem to believe in the TV fags. They will concede what make gay culture different from normal culture.

[Jean West]

Hunter Wallace created a thread at Occidental Dissent yesterday entitled Alex Linder on homosexuality.

As Martha would say, "that's a good thing."

[Hugh]

We should be careful to use the correct terminology.
They aren't gays, they are sodomites, it isn't homosexuality, it's sodomy.

Greg Johnson on gay marriage vs Greg Johnson on sodomites marrying have quite a different impact.

Faecesphiliacs would be a better scientific description.

[Leonard Rouse]

Originally Posted by Bardamu

The difference between heterosexual and homosexual sex is afterwards the straight couple roll over and go to sleep, the homosexual couple need to change the sheets.

And take antibiotics.

[Karl Radl]

I'd argue Johnson's mistake is the assumption that opponents of homosexuality argue for 'heteronormativity' which he associates with the belief that a minority of homosexuals can bring down heterosexual unions and matings and thus deprive the nation of children.

What Johnson is fundamentally ignoring (aside from misunderstanding the *origins* of the arguments against homosexuality [i.e. as evolutionary eugenic necessity rationalized through socio-cultural norms such as the Bible and constitutionality etc as opposed to the expressed logic being the totality/origin of the reasoning]) is three fold:

A) That natural (for lack of a better term) homosexuals (I will focus on male homosexuals here for the sake of argument as lesbianism is a much more complicated subject) tend; as I've stated, to try and 'convert' heterosexual males (if you will) in order to increase the number of sexual partners available to them. This means that heterosexual males can be pressured into actions of this kind, which they may regret afterwards.

As such the fact that I would argue that most homosexuals are not 'natural' (as in non-genetic/non-hormonal [whatever internal bodily trigger you want to use]) but rather are homosexual because of a social/environmental/psychological cause (for example the high incidence of homosexuality in largely heterosexual prison populations due to a lack of females).

This in turn means that the population of 'natural' homosexuals will constantly try to gain new converts from among the heterosexual population (as remember their sexual impulses to reproduce are being channeled towards their own gender so they are; fundamentally, trying to breed but can't) and as such in an environment which is hostile or at least disapproving of homosexuality then you will naturally get heterosexual victims of predatory homosexual behaviour.

B) That one of the central methods of homosexuals increasing their 'breeding population' (if you will) is by supporting socio-political groups and intellectual movements that support the social, political and intellectual normalization, which allow themselves more beneficial social, political and intellectual conditions for bringing a higher yield for their efforts to increase their 'breeding population'. Thus homosexuals are necessarily politically and intellectually subversive.

C) That because most homosexuals (as of the current time) are not per force genetically inclined to be homosexual; the best expression of which is the increase in so called 'bi-curious' and 'bi-sexual' individuals, each instance of a non-genetic homosexual engaging in homosexual intercourse represented biological opportunity cost for the nation and thus is dysgenic.


To quote something I wrote to explain to people how you can argue against homosexuality without resorting to religion:

Originally Posted by KR

On 'Homophobia' and Homosexuality


1) Animals do have homosexual pairings, but such pairings do not procreate so they die off.

2) These pairings are in the minority and are usually confined to the males of the species not the females.

3) Pairings of this kind act as a Darwinian mechanism of removing undesirable sexual mutants from the group, while still allowing the group to benefit from the physical and mental capabilities of the sexual mutants (to increase the survival rate and rate of procreation among non-sexual mutants).

4) Pairings of this kind cannot; and have no means to, procreate in the animal kingdom and as such they; as before stated, remove undesirable sexual mutants from the breeding pool.

5) Homosexual pairings in other species are less inclined to propagate their sexual mutation and are unlikely to be accepted; due to the nature of animal groups such as prides in lions, as a beta or alpha male, because they cannot propagate themselves.

6) Accordingly homosexual pairings are; in other species, not subversive to the group and if; like a male lion outside the pride trying to mate with one of the pride's female lions, they exhibit behaviour perceived as damaging to the group then they are rejected, wounded or killed by the existing power structure that holds that group together.

7) If we apply this to humans this means that because homosexuals are sexual mutants who cannot normally propagate themselves, but who are trying to do so via technology and science. Then they have become a threat to the survival of the group as they are normalising undesirable sexual behaviour.

8) Further in humans homosexuals are actively seeking to 'convert'; as remember their desire to procreate is being channeled towards the wrong gender, non-genetically homosexual members of the breeding population; by means of suggesting that it is to their material benefit [and thus playing on the false sense of evolutionary benefit from better standing in the group and material circumstances] to be homosexual.

9) This creates an incredibly dysgenic situation, which drives negative attitudes to homosexuals and their increased rejection from the group via polarising political attitudes towards them as they are an aggressive minority population (seeking homosexual 'converts' to increase the pool of potential mates that the homosexual is able to have intercourse with [driven by the need to propagate ones genes but in the wrong gender]) causing quantifiable harm to the majority heterosexual population.

10) Homosexuals are thus accordingly both subversive and a form of sexual and political criminality as by seeking to normalise undesirable sexual mutations they are causing quantifiable harm to the majority population in a similar way to rapists and murderers do. Remember that in both rape and murder there are also genetic explanations and causes for this kind of behaviour (e.g. psychosis), which removes the (now) common homosexual argument that because it occurs in nature it must be accepted by the group.

11) Accordingly opposition to homosexuals and/or opposition to the normalisation of homosexuality is not irrational (i.e. a 'phobia' about or 'irrational fear of' homosexuals ['homophobia']) but rather is a rational position taken on the ground of group benefit before individual whim.

Basically Johnson is taking evolution out of the frame and then suggesting that because normality; in a socio-political context, is necessarily subjective: it means that homosexuals are not ipso facto subversive or cause problems in and of themselves. This isn't so as he is removing the purpose for sexual intercourse from the homosexual equation (while keeping it in the heterosexual) and asserting homosexual behaviour to be value neutral when it; as I've outlined, is necessarily both subversive and dysgenic to the group (thus a negative).