|August 12th, 2017||#121|
Join Date: Mar 2007
No jews, just right
|September 2nd, 2017||#122|
ALT-TECH IS RISING
The alt-right’s coordinated attacks on Google should disturb you
The alt-right and its predecessors have long antagonized Silicon Valley for its views and practices, but it wasn’t until James Damore that they truly mobilized to take down one of its companies. No sooner had the former Google software engineer been fired for penning and circulating a manifesto titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” did the alt-right co-opt his narrative.
Overnight, whether or not he was in on the coordination, Damore became their Silicon Valley mouthpiece. They whisked him on to an interview with prominent alt-right YouTuber Stefan Molyneux. They carefully focused his brand as an unjustly persecuted truth-teller with an image of him wearing a Goolag t-shirt, photographed by Peter Duke, who’s known for shooting portraits of the alt-right. They used his story as a springboard to launch a Breitbart News series called the “Rebels of Google,” featuring Q&As with former and current Googlers who are alt-right sympathizers. They even called for national marches across Google’s campuses, though the organizers postponed them (paywall) after Charlottesville, citing threats from “alt-left terrorists.”
It is no accident that the alt-right chose Damore’s firing as their catalyst. This was not the first time accusations over a tech giant’s censorship of their views sparked outrage within the movement. Breitbart News has vigilantly tracked Facebook’s “war on free speech” since the 2016 US election campaign. Gab, a “free speech” social media platform popular among the alt-right, was created in response to Twitter’s censorship policies. But more than any other tech giant in the Valley, Google is synonymous with progressivism. And when the confluence of several other variables—the seemingly rational tone of the manifesto; Damore’s awkward and unassuming demeanor; the hyper-attentive mainstream media—rolled out a carpet to the national stage, the choice to attack only became more obvious. This is the “beginning of the alt-tech revolution,” Gab founder Andrew Torba told the Washington Post.
Though Google has been mired in unflattering headlines as of late, it has long enjoyed a reputation of being one of the most inclusive and progressive companies in Silicon Valley. Early in its history, the company pursued (what were at the time) radical policies to engender an employee-centric environment: internal diversity initiatives, diversity-conscious hiring practices, flexible work hours, liberal maternity and paternity leave policies. “They were the first to really do it,” says Jen Carlile, a former Google software engineer. “It became the model for a lot of other companies in the Valley.” In these ways, it embodied the ethos of Silicon Valley: be open, be transparent, use technology to change the world.
Today, in an industry roiled by diversity and sexual harassment issues, Google preserves its benevolent reputation. Externally, its community-based initiatives—Girls Who Code and Made with Code to promote women in STEM; CODE2040 to foster black and Latinx tech talent—solidify its image as a force of good. Internally, its culture is considered by many as the safest haven for minorities in tech. As I heard over and over again from minorities who worked at Google or Silicon Valley at large, no place in tech is actually good for women and people of color, but Google is as good as it gets. It’s really trying.
“Apple, Amazon, companies like that, first and foremost, they’re businesses in the eyes of the public,” Carlile says. “Google is more of a symbol than it is a business”—a symbol of radical idealism, staunch optimism, and unrelenting positive change. That Google maintains this reputation in spite of turning its fortune from harvesting, parsing, and, in many ways, exploiting people’s data is only further testament to how deep its symbolism runs.
This is what makes it the perfect target for the alt-right. For the predominantly young, internet-savvy branch of white nationalism, bred within the underground meme-ridden culture of anonymous discussion forums like 4chan, few things feel more powerful than the subversion of benevolence, authority, and political correctness. Their tactics to push white nationalist ideas into the mainstream stem from this philosophy: Find the benign, the benevolent, the mundane and “corrupt” it with associations of fear and hatred. This is how Pepe the Frog, a children’s cartoon, became a symbol of white nationalism. This is also why alt-right protesters chug milk at rallies to assert white superiority. In online forums where the alt-right thrives, the reappropriation of such symbols to troll and demoralize proliferate. “Part of this is down to the alt-right’s addiction to provocation,” writes Breitbart in “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right.” The other part is an attempt “to normalize itself and its ideas,” reports Wired. As symbols that remind people of the alt-right become more ubiquitous, the movement gains strength.
The coordinated attacks on Google neatly follow the same pattern. By brandishing Damore’s manifesto as proof of Google’s “authoritarian” overreach and evoking Big Brother-like descriptions of groupthink, the alt-right begins to pervert a once-benevolent symbol into a disturbing one. Working at Google requires suffering through “constant abuse, sneers, insults and smears from people who detest that you disagreed with them,” details one article in Breitbart’s “Rebels of Google” series. “If the company continues along its current authoritarian route, as exposed by the firing of viewpoint diversity advocate James Damore, the personal data of ordinary users would be put at risk,” writes another.
The strategy is working. Mainstream media outlets have begun to adopt the same language. In a Fox News segment aired a week after Damore’s firing, commentator Tucker Carlson described Google’s statement on the incident as “perhaps the most Orwellian statement written since Orwell himself finished 1984.” “Google has shown a willingness to distort reality for ideological ends,” Carlson continued. “A lot of us trusted Google not to be evil. … It’s now obvious that Google cannot be trusted.” A New York Times opinion piece (paywall) titled “Google doesn’t want the best for us” echoed the sentiment. “Rules set by Google are the rules we all abide by,” writes guest contributor Jonathan Taplin. But such power unchecked leaves the public vulnerable to “the heart of Google’s business: surveillance capitalism.”
Perhaps ironically, the recent activity hasn’t really disturbed Silicon Valley itself. One Bay Area-based Google employee, who has worked at the company for six years, told me that the incident hasn’t changed her experience at work, nor does she believe it will affect the company’s image among potential job candidates. A New York employee, Lauren, said that the way Google and its employees handled the situation only reminded her of why she loves working there. Based on her conversations within the San Francisco engineering and startup communities, Carlile agrees: “It doesn’t seem to have had that much of an impact on how people see Google or, if there is such a thing, the general culture of Silicon Valley.”
But ultimately, it’s the public’s, not the Valley’s, perception that matters. The public is spooked; Google is suspect. And because Google acts as a guardian to Silicon Valley’s ideology, to question Google is to question it all.
Google was not prepared to fight this fight. Though it has faced legal scrutiny before, such as with the gender pay discrimination case brought by the US Department of Labor and the anti-trust charges (paywall) in Europe, never has it handled such a wide PR scandal. What the company saw as a logical response, firing Damore, played directly into the alt-right’s playbook and blew up in its face. Sundar Pichai was slammed—New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks called for the CEO’s resignation (paywall)—while founders Sergey Brin’s and Larry Page’s responses were, as usual, notably absent. An all-hands meeting on Aug. 10 that was supposed to help employees decompress had to be cancelled after an internal form that employees had been using to anonymously submit questions was leaked. The day before, alt-right pundit Milo Yiannopoulos doxxed eight employees who had criticized Damore’s memo.
Google has since scrambled to clean up the mess. On multiple occasions, spokespeople have emphasized the company’s staunch support for freedom of expression and “strong policies against retaliation, harassment and discrimination in the workplace.” After the cancelled all-hands, Pichai spoke at a girls’ coding event hosted by Made with Code. But the tech giant is having a hard time sweeping the incident under the rug. Last week, Damore’s hiring of prominent Republican lawyer Harmeet Dhillon provoked a fresh wave of media scrutiny.
Two weeks after the memo was first released, I called a close friend who had worked as a software engineer in Silicon Valley, though not Google, to ask her thoughts about Damore and the suddenly apparent alt-right sympathizers working within the company. Was she surprised? I asked. Not really, she admitted. She had never really bought into Google’s and the Valley’s pristine veneer. But “this is a strong reminder,” she added, a reminder that there is ugliness lurking in the dark.
|September 17th, 2017||#123|
[this is the big guy on Twitter supporting Trump in the campaign, making this definition of alt-right, which he did today on Gab]
Ricky VaughnPRO · @Ricky_Vaughn99
The alt-right is a Patriotic movement dedicated to these five issues:
1. Restrict Immigration
2. Restrict Trade to Protect Manufacturing Base
3. Jacksonian Foreign Policy
5. Traditional Culture and National and Local Identity
6. Free Speech and Ending Political Correctness
[So we see there are multiple definitions of alt-right, and they are NOT the same. There's Richard Spencer's, Vox Day's, and now Ricky Vaughn's. And probably others. The practical meaning is: confusion. Opening the door to co-optation. My view is that the alt-right is either white nationalism or nothing. It's much, much too late for the above to matter. They are all symptoms of diseases resulting from not IDing and dealing with the jew.]
|September 18th, 2017||#128|
Brandenburg v Ohio
Basically, if it won't "actually incite imminent lawless action" - it's legal.
|September 27th, 2017||#129|
Join Date: Jul 2014
The Alt-Right and the Homosexual Question — Part 1
The Family is the Foundation of the Nation.
ANDREW JOYCE September 25, 2017 140
“Men of our race naturally view with contempt the creatures who, though anatomically male, find a perverse and incomprehensible satisfaction in sexual relations with one another.” — Revilo P. Oliver
Also read: Part 2; Part 3.
The following essay is quite long — much longer than I initially intended. The reason for this is that I soon discovered that, like the Jewish Question, the Homosexual Question does not lend itself easily to soundbites, quips, rhetorical flourishes, or short blog posts. It is not intended to be comprehensive, nor is it meant to fully explain what homosexuality is, or how it originates. This essay is intended to advance the position that homosexuals should be regarded as anathema to the Alt-Right, and to the broader White Nationalist movement.
I once previously involved myself in the comments section of AltRight.com, arguing against homosexual apologetics. The response was overwhelmingly supportive, but one or two homosexual malcontents made the following accusations: first, that I was involving myself in a dispute between the editors of AltRight.com and Counter-Currents publishing; second, that I was evidently a repressed homosexual; and third, that this was somehow an attempt to boost my personal status. On the first point, I am not invested personally in the debate between AltRight.com and Counter-Currents publishing, but almost two years ago (long before the dispute) I was writing against homosexual apologetics and offered counter-arguments to at least one Counter Currents author. I deal with the bankrupt rationale behind the second accusation in the course of the essay. On the third point, my aspiration to personal status is necessarily limited by my anonymity. I aspire neither to ‘status’ nor to leadership. I am aware of the limitations of my position, and only wish to advance an argument. That such an argument might damage the credibility of others may be considered the primary reason behind accusations against me personally in this regard. Tackling this issue is likely to be largely thankless, and certainly controversial. My status may well have been better served by “sticking to the Jews,’ but as stated, status is not my objective.
This essay will not be “the last word” on the subject, but it is likely to be my last word on it.
Within the Alt-Right, the subject of homosexuality, and more specifically homosexuals within our movement receives surprisingly little serious commentary. There are a number of professed and implied reasons for this discursive lacuna, some of which may be more complicated than first appear on the surface. At the outset it seems scarcely worth repeating that homosexuality is not a pleasant topic to discuss or explore, and nor is it in any sense straightforward, concerning as it does a variety of complexities of morality, Nature, science, politics, and ideological worldview. One of our late great thinkers, Professor Revilo P. Oliver, expressed this combination of the repellant and the complex quite clearly when he wrote in 1966: “Homosexuality is a disgusting and, in some of its aspects, recondite subject, and even the most concise summary of what is known about it would reach the dimensions of a treatise and require the use of languages other than English.” Oliver, if he were alive today, may well agree with me that this is a subject which brings little reward for the attention that might be devoted to it. However, I believe that Oliver, who lived during a time when the tide of deviant behavior had not risen as high as it is today, would also agree with me this is a subject that should be addressed occasionally, as a matter of necessity, for reasons of ideological clarity and the maintenance of morale.
The reasons most often given for avoiding the subject of homosexuality should be familiar to all readers, though this very familiarity hides a rhetorical usefulness and a lack of deeper socio-historical awareness that has permitted the entry and tolerance of a small but noisy number of homosexuals in corners of the Far Right, not just in the United States, but elsewhere. First, there is the honest but ill-considered refrain that we “don’t care what people do in their bedrooms,” which reduces to narrow absurdity a question of ethnic health, demographics, and culture. Then there are nervous and cowardly assertions from some that the issue isn’t an “obsession” for them, and therefore isn’t one that they waste their time on. Those that do, of course, are simply “protesting too much,” and there must be something suspect about them. According to this line of thinking, men ‘secure in their sexuality’ simply wouldn’t address the topic.
As someone who has devoted many years of study to the Jewish Question, this latter excuse interests me. From a movement ostensibly well-versed in the methods of psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School, one would perhaps expect a total rejection of quack psychology and its barely-concealed uses for the advancement of interests antithetical to White advancement. The pathologizing of one’s ethnic and/or ideological opponents is presumably so well-attested that no self-respecting member of the Alt-Right or affiliated circles could entertain such mind games. In the Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald writes:
One way in which psychoanalysis has served specific Jewish interests is the development of theories of anti-Semitism that bear the mantle of science by deemphasizing the importance of conflicts of interest between Jews and gentiles. Although these theories vary greatly in detail — and, as typical of psychoanalytic theories generally, there is no way to empirically decide among them — within this body of theory anti-Semitism is viewed as a form of gentile psychopathology resulting from projections, repressions, and reaction formations stemming ultimately from a pathology-inducing society.
A key argument of psychoanalytic theories of anti-Semitism is that those who engage in the critique of Jews do so out of repressed jealousies that amount to a desire on the part of the anti-Semite to be Jewish. In this understanding, the anti-Semite so strongly desires to be a Jew that he secretly and subconsciously becomes an inward Jew. The fierce repression of this internal development is so strong that it further evolves into an outward, and irrational, hatred of the Jewish people. An example of this thinking can be found in Theodore Isaac Rubin’s Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind (2009), in which Rubin writes:
To those with a strong enough mental constitution, this tangle of manifestly unprovable theories is little more than ridiculous — a rhetorically impressive folly, but a folly nonetheless. And, at this point, it is worth highlighting the similarities in explanations of “homophobia,” a term coined by George Weinberg but first ‘explained’ as a putative phenomenon by Sigmund Freud. Freud scholar Christine Downing explains that (just as Jewish intellectuals argue that all Europeans wanted to be Jews):
Reasoned discussion is necessary to break this Jewish-contrived, artificial taboo, and to draw attention to some manifest realities compelling the exclusion of homosexuals from our struggling but sacred movement, and a broader reckoning with the social implications of homosexuality on a national or ethnic level. The willingness of an individual or a movement to take a stand on an issue depends on a strength of worldview. The individual who argues that we should “deal with” this or that subject first (and solely) while leaving other matters to a putative future, does not possess a worldview but a hierarchy of opponents. A worldview entails a complete vision of the world in which we now exist, and a complete vision of the world we hope to shape. Our movement, consisting as it does of often bickering circles, should at the very least be made to conform in some fashion to the world that we are striving for. A situation in which known movement homosexuals and their circles can posture as spokesmen for National Socialism or White Nationalism would be laughable were it not for the fact that it was tolerated with such lethargy by the ideologically lazy and those intimidated into silence by Jewish psychological parlor tricks. Worldview is the foundation of ideology. Ideology is the foundation of activism and morale. Clarity of worldview, and its practical expression in whatever achievable form, is non-negotiable. Just as there is no room in this movement for Jews or Africans or Pakistanis, the over-arching rationale for an exclusion of homosexuals is the fundamental incompatibility of their inclusion under our worldview.
The various reasons underlying this incompatibility may be regarded broadly under two categories: the biological implications of homosexuality (issues of disease and demographics), and the behavioral traits and personality of the homosexual (issues of personality characteristics and socio-cultural impact). It is to these categories that we now turn our attention.
|September 27th, 2017||#130|
Join Date: Jul 2014
The Alt-Right and the Homosexual Question — Part 2
The Alt-Right Supports A Healthy Society.
ANDREW JOYCE September 26, 2017 371
As both a contemporary and historical phenomenon, it is difficult to separate homosexual behavior from pederasty, so reliant has the former been upon the latter.
Also read: Part 1; Part 3.
The Incompatibility of Homosexuality with Alt-Right Principles
One of the main reasons for the instinctive aversion to the subject of homosexuality is the strong correlation of homosexual behavior with disease and bodily degradation and deterioration. Contrary to high-minded philosophizing, health is not merely a personal or private matter, but a political one. In the over-populated mass societies in which we now live, the cost of healthcare in a market of increasingly scarce resources becomes, by necessity, a political issue — and this fact stands even in the context of privatized medicine, where premiums and costs will still be dictated to a great extent by expenditure in particular areas. The relationship between homosexuality and health in the mass society thus becomes not merely a matter of what is done behind the closed doors of the individual, but a matter of at least some public interest — especially if homosexuality can be determined to be a net financial drain on the resources of the vast majority of the population. If such a drain can be established, homosexuality necessarily becomes a subject of political discussion, and silence on the issue (the status quo in the political mainstream) becomes a political decision of sorts.
There is now a large body of evidence from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and similar organizations outside the United States, indicating that homosexuals suffer from worse than average health and that much of this is rooted in health-negative lifestyle choices. For example, both male and female homosexuals engage in much higher rates of cigarette smoking and ‘binge’ alcohol consumption. The greater health problem of homosexuals has of course long been rooted in the sphere of venereal disease. The body of literature on this topic is so large and readily available that it doesn’t need to be repeated here, but some facts in relation to this matter are particularly noteworthy. In recent decades rates of HIV/AIDS transmission in almost every demographic have witnessed very significant reductions, and in very recent years this trend has accelerated dramatically. For example, between 2008 and 2014 transmission rates among drug users fell by 56%, while transmission rates among the sexually normal fell by 36%. This can be seen as a triumph of education and intervention (albeit at an extravagant cost to the Federal government — $980 million annually). It is interesting, however, that the CDC finds that homosexuals are the only group which has failed to respond to these costly interventionist efforts. Latino homosexuals and those aged between 25 and 34 saw increases in rates of transmission of 20% and 35% respectively. The rates of Black homosexual diagnoses for HIV/AIDS increased 22% overall between 2005 and 2014, while the figure among Black homosexuals aged between 13 and 24 increased an astonishing 87%. The starting point of that particular age range is, of course, concerning, to say the least, and will be discussed in more detail later.
The annual cost of caring for and treating all HIV/AIDS sufferers in the United States has been ascertained as $16.4 billion annually. Since homosexuals comprise at least 55% of all persons with HIV (while constituting an absolute maximum of 4.1% of the total population), a figure that is rising rapidly every year, one could surmise that the annual cost of merely attempting to manage the health implications of homosexual behavior relating solely to this disease is at least $9 billion. In the context of a privatized healthcare system, these costs can be dispersed in sufficiently opaque ways so as to avoid arousing the attention of the greater public. Such an inordinate and frivolous absorption of resources is less easy to obscure in a socialized system, where health budgets and expenditures are subject to more glaring critique. An excellent example in this regard was a recent complaint in the United Kingdom, where Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) was set for roll-out at a cost of up to £20 million. At a time when children were being denied new forms of cancer treatment on financial grounds, some commentators managed to break through political correctness long enough to make quiet objections to PrEP, a drug with the primary ‘health benefit’ of enabling the abandonment of condoms for those infected with HIV.
In addition to the runaway problem of HIV/AIDS, homosexuals are the leading cause of the rapid spread of other sexually transmitted diseases, an area of public health that is becoming increasingly expensive. For example, scientists in several countries have now identified a new antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea. Doctors feared this new strain reaching homosexuals in particular because their behaviors and characteristics are known to exacerbate such diseases. Peter Greenhouse, a consultant in sexual health based in Bristol, England, told BBC News: “We’ve been worried it would spread to men who have sex with men…The problem is [they] tend to spread infections a lot faster simply as they change partners more quickly.” The BBC adds that homosexuals “are also more likely to have gonorrhea in their throats. Their further resistance is more likely to develop as antibiotics get to the throat in lower doses and the area is also teeming with other bacteria that can share the resistance to drugs.” This new strain of the disease has in fact now taken hold among homosexual populations, and medical professionals are bracing themselves for soaring numbers of diagnoses and accompanying care costs for the affected.
Aside from transmittable disease, homosexual behavior takes a grim and nauseating physical toll on the human body, a fact so well-documented and as to obviate any need to recount the odious details here. Perhaps even more importantly, however, homosexual behavior is often accompanied by a range of mental pathologies. A UK Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey from 2007 revealed that rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents. A common rejoinder to such findings is that homosexuals have such a high incidence of mental health problems because of wider social oppression. This claim is a dubious one given contemporary mass indulgence, protection, and endorsement of homosexual behavior, and quite reminiscent of explanations for criminal behavior and other social malfunctions among Blacks. These explanations fail to account for the common denominator found in both Black and homosexual populations: high levels of traits typically associated with psychopathic behavior. These include, but are not limited to: higher rates of promiscuity; a greater tendency to high-risk activity; higher rates of intimate partner violence;1 low levels of impulse control; and a tendency towards bouts of an exaggerated sense of self-esteem/importance quite detached from reality. In another indicator of psychopathy, studies have shown that homosexuals, like Blacks, commit homicides in the “brutal” category at a rate higher than sexually normal Whites.2 Homosexuals, even juvenile homosexuals, are also over-represented as sexual murderers.3 A less popular and politically correct, but eminently logical, supposition might be that the range of mental pathologies experienced by homosexuals is, rather than an externally provoked situation, coterminous with the overall psychological profile of the homosexual.
Assessed as vectors of disease, and as a group likely to be a significantly greater drain on mental health and related resources, homosexuals can be reasonably argued to act as a much greater burden on national health budgets than the sexually normal. Due to political correctness, it would be impossible in the current academic and political climate to obtain the funding and support necessary to conduct a full and precise assessment of the financial burden of the homosexual population, much less hold a debate on whether this population is worth the extravagant overspending that it consumes, and apparently feels entitled to consume. However, it should be a political principle of the Alt-Right that this is an investigation and a debate that should take place, not in order to morally lecture or police people on ‘what they do in their bedrooms,’ but in order to ensure that the most vital areas of national and ethnic health enjoy their fully-deserved access to as many resources as possible. For example, children are the future of the nation and it should be a cast-iron political position of the Alt-Right that no situation should ever arise whereby children’s health is financially disprivileged while exorbitant funds are directed at chronically problematic adult groups, of which homosexuals are inarguably one.
Aside from issues of disease, demographics are another biological reason why homosexuality should be regarded as a political issue worthy of attention. In this regard, it has been argued historically that homosexuality threatens the demographics of a nation because it is reliant on ‘converts’ and thus, in recruiting individuals from the reproductive population, leads to an overall decline in birthrates. This may be regarded as the ‘homosexual conspiracy’, or ‘recruitment’ theory of homosexual demographic impact. My own impression is that the ‘recruitment’ problem is not as severe a demographic problem as some of the proponents of this argument maintain, mainly because I believe that an overwhelming majority of the population, apart from the psychologically vulnerable (children and adolescents in particular), would be impervious to homosexual efforts to propagandize their specific behaviors. A more potent demographic impact of homosexuality, in my opinion, is the transmission and tolerance of more generalized aspects of homosexual behavior to the normal population — hedonism, childlessness, substance abuse, promiscuity, and the relatively novel idea that relationships are exclusively about love or similar abstractions — all of which will lead to a drop in birthrates. Despite my own opinion, both demographic arguments require further elucidation.
The reliance of homosexuals on ‘recruitment,’ most often in the form of pederasty, has been well documented throughout history. At present, homosexuality has not been conclusively determined to have been caused by either genetic or environmental factors. Whatever its causes, homosexual behavior was always a minority problem. Attempts by modern scholars, often those with a ‘dog in the fight,’ to read homosexual behavior into this or that historical era or individual are often riddled with logical errors, use of anachronistic terminologies, and omissions of contrary data. However, what we can ascertain is that homosexual behavior was evident in ancient Greece and Rome, but appears to have been less common in northern Europe. Also in evidence is an abundance of primary documentation from contemporaries critical of homosexual behavior. An example combining both of these realities is the description by Tacitus of the Germanic tribes taking “the man stained with abominable vices” and plunging him “into the mire of the morass with a hurdle put over him” — an indictment of some of the tolerances of Roman society as well as an accurate anthropological description of ancient Nordic social governance.
Hostility and aversion to the ‘recruiting’ or pederastic elements of homosexuality were commonplace in Imperial Rome. We know from Polybius that the Roman army punished homosexual relations between soldiers with death, and from Valerius Maximus that the upper echelons of the armies of the middle and late Republic were forced to confront incidents where homosexual officers had been sexually molesting young subordinates. Indeed, Tacitus remarks that one of the main reasons for the revolt of the Batavians, a Germanic tribe on the Rhine, against the Romans was the conscription, and subsequent molestation, of their youths in the Roman army. Whatever tolerance was shown to such behavior by Imperial authorities, it appears to have increased along with the decline of the Empire.
The link between the toleration of homosexual behavior and civilizational decline is an interesting one. Although both Parmenides and Aristotle argued that heredity played a large role in the homosexuality of the Greeks, and more especially the Dorians, Havelock Ellis, the early ‘sexologist,’ argued that the prevalence of what he called “sexual inversion” in Greek society was rooted more in the human “herd instinct” and was due more to a “state of social feeling that however it originated, induced a large proportion of the ordinary population to adopt homosexuality as a fashion.” Once a society adopted this fashion, it contributed to the “demoralizing of the manhood of a nation,” and was a sign of impending national or civilizational collapse into decadence and despondency. The goal was thus to avoid a situation in which homosexual ‘recruitment’ was “normalized” and, more crucially, to prevent the behaviors associated with these psychological disorders from becoming fashionable. This connection between homosexual behavior and civilizational decline is simply too large in scope to properly deal with here, but it should remain a background note to our consideration of the issue as a whole. More specifically, it is necessary to give some consideration to Ellis’ theory that homosexuality became ‘fashionable’ in Ancient Greece. By what means?
As both a contemporary and historical phenomenon, it is difficult to separate homosexual behavior from pederasty, so reliant has the former been upon the latter. The introduction of the legal decree Lex Scantina by the Romans around 149 B.C. appears to have been a reaction to the rape and sexual abuse of young male citizens, and a number of prosecutions against Senators and other Roman elites are documented. The pederastic preference among homosexuals appears to have survived the last two millennia but is currently inhibited from full ‘expression’ by legal, social, and cultural obstacles. For example, in one 2000 study of sexual age preferences by orientation, psychologists found that homosexuals were on average most likely to select the youngest possible option: a teenage boy. By contrast, sexually normal males were most likely to select a 25-year-old female.4 It is highly controversial to suggest that homosexuals may be more likely to sexually abuse children, and due to a lack of reliable studies, such an argument is not advanced here. However, there are very credible studies indicating that child sexual abuse plays a role in the development of homosexuality — a form of ‘recruitment,’ for lack of a better term. For example, a 2001 study in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.”5
Given the historical and contemporary prominence of the pederastic element, the ‘homosexual conspiracy’ or recruitment theory should be regarded as pertinent to demographic decline mainly in respect to the relationship of the homosexual to children or adolescents. In an earlier age, Havelock Ellis was able to advance the opinion that homosexuals should be prevented from coming into close contact with children since his studies indicated that this would reduce the incidence of “acquired perversity in others” via abuse and ensuing psychological disturbance. According to Ellis, adhering to this measure alone would act rapidly to reduce “artificial homosexuality among the general population.” An academic expressing such an opinion today would at the very least lose his job, or in other cases perhaps even find himself imprisoned for ‘hate speech.’ And yet the high rate of self-reported childhood molestation among homosexuals has yet to be adequately explained or its broader ramifications discussed. At any rate, it could be reasonably postulated, based on studies like that above and a high volume of anecdotal evidence (e.g. the personal account of molestation from Milo Yiannopoulos), that pederasty begets pederasty. Such a postulation would go some way towards explaining how a tolerated but maligned vice may if left to metastasize, reach greater proportions within a society than may otherwise have been the case — to become ‘fashionable.’
These findings are important on a movement level. Like the Imperial Roman army, we aim to create an environment of camaraderie, loyalty, teamwork, and, where necessary, authority. It is an unfortunate fact that, also like the Imperial Roman army, there would be a vulnerable minority among the younger members of the community to those who would abuse authority for perverse ends. Far from mere conjecture, anecdotal evidence and historical data suggest that homosexuals have routinely exploited any tolerance shown to them in such environments — from Imperial Rome to the presence of pederasts in the Sturmabteilung of the 1930s and the British National Front of the 1970s. Such a threat is not the stuff of nightmares or unfounded anxieties; it is a proven reality. In terms of its pederastic component, the tolerance of homosexuals in the movement is thus, at the very least a disaster for morale (and a cause for division between those who are alarmed and those two turn a blind eye), and at worst a personal disaster for the unfortunate victim of ‘recruitment.’
Recent decades have witnessed waves of ‘educational’ efforts promoting ‘tolerance and understanding’ of homosexuality among the young. This is of course propaganda rather than education because the biological, psychological, and pederastic elements of homosexuality are entirely omitted in favor of misleading representations of homosexuals as being socially identical to the sexually normal. Perhaps even more notable is the fact that even our own movement has tolerated similar ‘educational’ efforts promoting ‘tolerance and understanding’ of homosexuality. I am of course referring to the substantial volume of homosexual apologetics emanating from Counter-Currents Publishing. It is necessary to examine and critique some examples.
Homosexual Apologetics within White Nationalism
In a Counter-Currents article titled ‘Homosexuality and White Nationalism,’ Greg Johnson states that members of our movement shouldn’t be concerned about homosexuality because, one, “it is beside the point,” and two, “intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish.” The rationale in the first instance is that “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.” The presentation of such a simplified argument is quite clever because, superficially at least, it is difficult to disagree with the statement of such a priority. However, it leaves a great deal unsaid. What does it mean for something to be “for the interests of Whites”? What about the health, and health resources, of Whites? What about the demographics of Whites? What about the morale of movements for White identity, and White culture at large? Homosexuality and its promotion can be demonstrated as being in opposition to all of these interests. A movement reduced to an unsophisticated “one-issue political outlook” would be cartoonishly absurd, lacking in nuance and direction. Pointing to “the interests of our racial enemies” in the context of such an apologetic is also an absurdity. Homosexuals, like other antisocials, violate and disturb the social norms of our people, placing themselves at the disposal of the enemies of our people, and acting as a weapon for their plans.
Johnson proceeds to argue that we should “resist falling for any form of the divide and conquer strategy used by our enemies to destroy our solidarity.” Homosexuals are said to be “real assets” to the movement because they “are intelligent and accomplished…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.” Truthfully, what loss would we experience by exiling these ‘real assets’? Where are all these homosexuals, so much ‘freer to speak their minds’? Where are they, other than producing anonymous homosexual apologetics? Yes, a great many members of our movement are anonymous. There is no inherent shame in that. But homosexuals have not distinguished themselves by bravely taking to the front line, or by filling our coffers with funds. The article continues: “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.” What a clever lie it is to suggest that the removal of homosexuals would entail the same scale of conflict as would ensue between Germans and Slavs. How many homosexuals are in our circles? Not many. And those that are here, for the time being, would be no loss, numerically or otherwise, in the eventuality of their departure.
The idea that “hostility to homosexuality is Jewish” is as insidious as it is false. The claim rests on a combination of poor understanding of pre-Christian European attitudes towards homosexuality and a predictable infatuation with a generalized view of the more appealing (to the modern homosexual) culture of the ancient Mediterranean. Firstly, as a northern European, I am concerned more with the ancient customs and traditions of my own ancestors — Saxon, Celt, and Norse. We have already mentioned the account from Tacitus on the execution of homosexuals by submerging them in bogs, but the pre-Christian Anglo-Saxons also engaged in the ceremonial execution of sexual deviants. In Anglo-Saxon Deviant Burial Customs (Oxford, 2009), Andrew Reynolds reports on the burial of homosexuals in pairs, their bodies decapitated and buried face down, and weighted down with stones — pagan methods intended to prevent the dead from entering the afterlife or from returning to haunt the living.6
Such examples aside, the more pertinent historical context is the understanding of the basis of pre-Christian law. Homosexual apologists have made much of the fact that pre-Christian Europe apparently had no specific laws against homosexuality, and have used this absence to argue for a putative tolerance of homosexuality in those ancient cultures. What they fail to understand or acknowledge, however, is that before the coming of Christianity most European tribes or nations had no concept of state-administered punishment for crime, and thus had no laws that would conform to such a scheme of punishment. Criminal law itself, such as it existed in the northern fringes of Europe, was almost exclusively based on oral traditions, and was loose and pragmatic. Anyone familiar with the Icelandic Sagas [in which accusations of homosexuality are a primary and severe insult between characters] will be aware that murder, for example, was something that would have to be either personally avenged by the murdered party’s relatives or be arbitrated by an ad hoc tribal court.
The lack of a written law against murder in this instance, or the lack of a fixed, state-administered punishment for it, did not suggest ‘tolerance’ or ‘acceptance’ of murder. Such an argument would be absurd. In the same way, it would be intellectually unsophisticated, if not disingenuous, to suggest that the same societies were ‘tolerant’ or ‘accepting’ of homosexuality. Like all arguments based on an ‘absence of X,’ this is especially weak. The exposed nature of such an argument is made even more problematic by the existence of pre-Christian legal codes which, while not legislating specifically against homosexuality, clearly locate it, via the available legal contexts, outside the normal and the desirable. An interesting case in this regard comes from Ireland’s ancient, pre-Christian, ‘Brehon Law’ — the oldest surviving codified legal system in Europe, and possibly a relic from the first proto-Indo-European populations. Like most examples of pre-Christian legal codes from North-Western Europe, Brehon Law was a civil rather than criminal code. Interestingly, it makes a provision for women to divorce their husbands if they were found to be homosexuals.
Roman law, which to a greater extent than any contemporary nation did develop state-administered punishment, is very interesting in the same regard. Lacking a Christian God to offer divine authority and direction, the Romans legislated against asocial activity in a manner that balanced individual freedom (a long-cherished European trait) with social priorities (order, health, stability, decorum). Since Roman law legislated against pederasty, as well as homosexual activity between freeborn males (in some cases under threat of execution), Roman law should be regarded as having de facto outlawed homosexuality in the form in which is mainly exists today. The fact that a Roman male citizen could legally engage in sexual activity with a slave (regarded as property with no bodily individuality or self-ownership), or with a prostitute (a sub-human in social and legal terms), is not a strong counter-argument. In short, there is at least sufficient evidence of opposition to homosexuality in pre-Christian Europe to refute the blatant falsity that ‘opposition to homosexuality is Jewish.’
On this point, however, one might ask — even if hostility to homosexuality was, in fact, a Jewish invention, would that be sufficient for us to discard it? Didn’t Jews, as Disraeli often boasted, also ‘lead the way’ in terms of codifying the racial principle? Should we, therefore, abandon all efforts to foster European ethnocentrism because Jews are ethnocentric? Obviously not. In truth, hostility towards homosexuality is rooted in human universals — a desire to protect the young, the preservation of social mores and decorum, and the promotion of social health and demographic growth. As a demographically vulnerable but ambitious tribe, with an authoritarian obsession with social rules rooted in self-segregation and ethnocentrism, it is unsurprising that the Jews contrived that their god mandated the execution of homosexuals. But their adoption of such a firm stance is not evidence in support of the argument that a similar adoption by us would prove toxic to our civilization. Additionally, because issues of youth protection, health, and demography are human universals, any kind of knee-jerk and uncritical rejection of something as ‘Jewish’ is precisely the kind of quasi-esoteric counter-Semitism that gives more reasoned critique a bad name.
Far from being original, my comments in this regard are mere echoes of those made by the psychologist Havelock Ellis in 1896 during the course of his Studies in the Psychology of Sex: Sexual Inversion — probably the first medical textbook on homosexuality. Ellis writes (p. 227):
Another element underpinning the ‘homophobia is Jewish’ falsity, is an implicit homosexual hatred of Christianity. This is easy to understand — the homosexual hates what condemns him. However, is it true that Christianity is Jewish? We know the Christianity ultimately has Jewish roots, but we also know that Europeans crafted, shaped, and directed Christianity for two thousand years. We know that Christians decided that Judaism’s legalistic hostility to homosexuality was useful, but that its legalistic requirement for circumcision was not. In essence (and this is of course written from an atheistic perspective), Christians developed their religion via a process of selection and omission from Judaism, and via a much greater degree of innovation and the integration of pre-existing elements of pagan culture. The explosive power of Christianity in its first thousand years derived from this synthesis of Jewish fanaticism with pagan creativity. In particular, the former involved the mimicking of ethnocentrism and the creation of more authoritarian structures which replaced the multitude of loose individualistic tribes. Some of these authoritarian aspects undoubtedly infringed upon individual freedom, but this isn’t always an evil. In terms of homosexuality, could it be possible that the introduction of the monotheistic Christian state finally provided the enemies of the pederastic vice with final, overwhelming legal authority to utterly abolish a ‘fashion’ that had appalled them for centuries?
1 Ard & Makadon. (2011).Addressing Intimate Partner Violence in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26:8, 930-933.
2 Mize & Shackelford. (2008). Intimate partner homicide methods in heterosexual, gay, and lesbian relationships. Violence and Victims, 23:1, 98-114.
3 Myers & Choon. (2012). Juvenile Homosexual Homicide. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 30:2, 90-102.
4 Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67-76.
5 Tomeo, Templer, Anderson & Kotler. (2001). Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30 (5):535-41.
6 A. Reynolds Anglo-Saxon Deviant Burial Customs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 84.
|September 27th, 2017||#131|
Join Date: Jul 2014
The Alt-Right and the Homosexual Question — Part 3
Degeneracy is a Key Aspect of Our Decline.
ANDREW JOYCE September 27, 2017 192
One might be tempted to dismiss the position of Counter-Currents on the homosexual question as merely wrong-headed, ill-informed, or even amateurish. However, I believe that many of the writers there are intelligent, historiographically literate, and are probably aware that they are producing an argument with an agenda attached.
Also read: Part 1; Part 2.
Jewish Promotion of Homosexuality among non-Jews
On a related note, the accusation that hostility to homosexuality is Jewish may be regarded as a passive, or barely concealed, attack on Christianity. Again, this is not surprising in itself, but it is incongruous in the context of apparent arguments being made in favor of movement unity. Essentially, the argument put forth by Johnson is that it is wrong to critique homosexuals because that is bad for movement unity, when in fact the apologetic itself purposefully attacks Christians (a very numerically substantial element of our movement) as ‘Jewish.’ In such a manner, our erstwhile architects of unity are in fact the cause of disunity, not merely by their very presence but by the divisive nature of their own arguments. Given what we have discussed thus far, it should be clear that if we had to choose between Christians and pseudo-pagan homosexuals, our movement would be numerically, demographically, tactically, socially, and intellectually enriched by choosing the former over the latter.
We should also consider modern Jewish attitudes, and what Jews are promoting to us today, rather than what they preached to themselves thousands of years ago. It goes without saying that a people engaged in ethnic warfare would arm itself with the best tools possible while simultaneously weakening the opposing tribe. Jews chose to arm themselves with social mores designed to boost their numbers, but what they did preach to their opponents? Until the late 19th century the Jewish interaction with European culture was more or less limited to financial matters. This changed with the intrusion of the Jews into the mass media and from there the further intrusion into almost every arm of culture. If culture is understood as the way in which a nation speaks to itself about itself, then one must understand that the presence of an alien body in this process can be devastating. The Jews posed themselves as French, German, British, etc and began to speak to these peoples, not as Jews, but as one of their own. The cultural conversation thus took on a different light altogether, and with different end goals. Without realizing it, these nations were no longer speaking to themselves about themselves, but were instead being fed fabrications by outsiders — both about themselves and about the world. A nation’s dreams and aspirations became its nightmares and self-recriminations. A nation that once talked to itself about its future now talked to itself incessantly about its putatively guilty past.
As Jews flooded the medical and scientific professions in the late 19th century, they brought with them the desire to interrupt the European self-conversation about race, biology, and related subjects. One of these was homosexuality. In this area, and for the last century or more, Jewish activists have ‘distinguished’ themselves by normalizing and promoting homosexuality, and by campaigning for cultural and legal changes on behalf of homosexuals. Many of these Jewish activists originated in orthodox communities where homosexuality was outlawed, but they nevertheless preached toleration of homosexuality to non-Jews. Albert Moll (1862–1939), who would go on to be “a great influence on Freud,”1 came from a Polish Jewish merchant family and “belonged to the Jewish religious community.”2 Typical of his ethno-religious group, Moll frequently utilized his position within the field of medical psychology to form an oppositional bloc against prevailing opinions in nineteenth — and early twentieth-century non-Jewish society. Indeed, large numbers of Jews tactically ambushed several medical disciplines during this period for precisely this reason. Historian Elena Macini writes that “Jews flooded medicine at this time not only for social standing but also in an era that witnessed the efflorescence of race science, for the opportunity of self-representation. … The presence of Jews in the medical sector in general, and in race science in particular, allowed them to assert Jewish equality and very often moral superiority.”3 With Berlin as the center of German medicine, and Jews comprising one-third of doctors in the city,4 the domination and re-orientation of entire disciplines was not only feasible but disturbingly easy.
A key aspect of advocating for Jewish equality and moral superiority was the Jewish advocacy of social, racial and religious pluralism — which came to include ‘sexual pluralism.’ This position often came into conflict with non-Jewish efforts to promote Nationalism, particularly ethnically-based Nationalism, and corresponding efforts to confront social and cultural decay. A universal theme in Albert Moll’s works were arguments against German attempts to reckon with late Imperial and Weimar-era social and biological degeneration via eugenic programs. For example, in his Handbuch der Sexualwissenschaften (1911) Moll expressed the hope that mooted plans for sterilization programs would “not be implemented and that our race-improvers do not get too much influence on our legislation.” When German science in the late 1920s became concerned with degeneration and decline, gravitating even further towards eugenics, Moll preceded Boas in rejecting the findings of behavior genetics, arguing that “the fact we find so many valuable people, despite the hereditary burden, is caused by regeneration in countless cases. … We can hardly ever say something about the condition of offspring with any certainty at all.” Moll was, therefore, the quintessential Jewish physician: political and ethnic interests were never far from his dubious practice of medicine.
Moll worked tirelessly to persuade leading non-Jewish scholars like Richard von Krafft-Ebing to reject the idea that sexual abnormality was the result of biological and psychological disorder. In Freud: Biologist of the Mind, Frank J. Sulloway writes that “Krafft-Ebing’s decision around the turn of the century to separate the doctrine of degeneration from the theory of homosexuality was in response to the thinking of his younger and more critical colleague Moll.”5 However, there is a significant reason to doubt the validity of Krafft-Ebing’s personal change of perspective given that the most pertinent, later, editions of his Psychopathia Sexualis that showcased this change were in fact edited by none other than Moll himself.
Moll’s work centered on the argument that there were alternative, valid, “identities,” and as such, he argued that homosexuality was a “valid sexual identity.”6 Whereas earlier non-Jewish psychiatrists observed “unsavory and often contemptible personal characteristics” among sexual inverts (including their tendency to be liars, their moodiness, love of gossip, and vanity and envy), Moll argued instead that “homosexual men were not corrupt, but merely womanish,”7 comprising a kind of “third sex” — a theory that would later be advanced much further by co-ethnic Magnus Hirschfeld. In Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880–1914, E.R. Dickson remarks that Moll’s theories were popularized and given substantial sympathetic coverage in Germany by the predominantly Jewish Social Democratic press during the trial of Oscar Wilde in England in 1895 (RE. the contemporary scene, see my Occidental Observer colleague Brenton Sanderson’s “Jewish media influence as decisive in creating a positive public culture of homosexuality“). Dickson writes that “public policy towards homosexuality was also one more issue Social Democrats could use to point to the hypocrisy of bourgeois sexual mores and to elaborate on their own naturalist alternative. Social Democrat Eduard Bernstein, for example, did precisely that in his reporting for German audiences on the Wilde case in London (where he was living as a journalist).”8
Even more radical than Moll was Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935). Like Moll, Hirschfeld came from a family of Jewish merchants and, also like Moll, he advanced theories of social and sexual behavior amounting to “the existence of fundamental irreducible sameness in human beings.”9 Unsurprisingly, Elena Macini writes that Hirschfeld’s Jewishness was “a socially and politically determinant aspect of his life.”10 A common feature of his work was the hatred he had for Christianity — a hatred both Jewish and homosexual in origin. Indeed, his critique of that religion resembled in many respects that concocted by Freud. To Hirschfeld, Christianity was “essentially sadomasochistic, delighting in the pain of ascetic self-denial.”11 Western Civilization had thus been “in the grip of anti-hedonist exaggerations for two thousand years,” thereby committing “psychic self-mutilation.”12 It was, therefore, Western society, rather than homosexuals and other outsiders, that was sick and degenerate, and Hirschfeld’s prescribed ‘cure’ was one destined to be demographically destructive — the promotion of sexual hedonism and the acceptance of a wide array of “identities” and “sexualities.”
Hirschfeld, described by Mancini as “cosmopolitan to the core,” essentially created the first homosexual “communities,” beginning in Berlin where the Hebrew “transvestite” (a term he coined) was known as “Aunt Magnesia” by the city’s perverts. Hirschfeld organized homosexuals, encouraging them to openly flaunt their predilections and to get involved in the growing campaign for “emancipation” that was developing under the auspices of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee which he had formed in 1897. Hirschfeld pioneered modern Social Justice Warrior tactics by urging celebrities and high-profile politicians to add their names in support of the campaign for “sexual equality.” Hirschfeld and his protégés also produced a vast number of books, manuscripts, papers, and pamphlets concerning sexuality, transvestitism, “transgenderism” (another Hirschfeld term) and fetishes. Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science (Institut füer Sexualwissenschaft) was the world’s first gender identity clinic and his staff performed the first known transsexual surgeries. Through the Institute for Sexual Science which he founded in 1919, Hirschfeld also documented thousands of cases of sexual inversion and further bolstered his theory of the “Third Sex.”
Despite the bankruptcy of his science, the dramatic success of the Committee at mobilizing large sectors of German and European society on behalf of homosexuals was due to Hirschfeld’s personality. Like Moll, he was an aggressive and relentless agitator. Respecting few social codes, he was the darling of the Social Democrats and the reviled enemy of Weimar conservatives (Hitler referred to Hirschfeld as “the most dangerous Jew in Germany”). By the end of the 1920s, Hirschfeld’s activism meant that Weimar Germany saw homosexuality less as a medical disorder and sign of degeneration than as a major cause célèbre. Hirschfeld’s perverse bonanza came to an end in 1933 when on May 6th Nationalist German student organizations and columns of the Hitler Youth attacked the Institute for Sexual Science. The Institute library was liquidated and its contents used in a book burning on May 10. The youths also printed and disseminated posters bearing Hirschfeld’s face complete with the caption: “Protector and Promoter of pathological sexual aberrations, also in his physical appearance probably the most disgusting of all Jewish monsters.” Hirschfeld himself had been on an international speaking tour since 1931. He lived in exile in France until he died of a heart attack in 1935. But unfortunately, this individual enjoyed significant post-humous success. In terms of theory, Hirschfeld had “subverted the notion that romantic love should be orientated toward reproduction,” arguing instead for the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles and hedonistic, non-reproductive, sexual relations in general.13
Hirschfeld’s use of the weaponized concept of love was itself a legacy of Hirschfeld’s “scientific mentor” and co-ethnic Iwan Bloch (1872–1922). Like Moll and Hirschfeld, Bloch had no background in zoology, evolutionary studies or animal behavior. Trained as a dermatologist, Bloch was also attracted to the cause of “sexual minorities” and became an ardent campaigner on their behalf. He joined with Moll and Hirschfeld in attacking the non-Jewish consensus that sexual inversion was pathological and coined the term sexualwissenschaft or sexology to give academic and medical respectability to what was essentially a Jewish intellectual reaction against non-Jewish efforts to categorize harmful social and sexual pathologies. He was also a keen promoter of perversion and pornography. He was the “discoverer” of the Marquis de Sade’s manuscript of The 120 Days of Sodom, which had been believed to be lost, and published it under the pseudonym Eugène Dühren in 1904. In 1899 he had published Marquis de Sade: His Life and Works under the same pseudonym. In 1906 he wrote The Sexual Life of Our Time in its Relations to Modern Civilization, for which he gained the praise of Sigmund Freud for attacking “bourgeois” (non-Jewish) sexual mores, attacking the perception of sexual inverts as pathological, and calling for Europeans to adopt a more pluralistic and hedonistic sexual life.
By the time Moll, Hirschfeld and Bloch had essentially co-opted and redirected the study of human sexual behavior, Jews were flooding the new “discipline” in increasing numbers. Albert Eulenberg (1840–1917), with a background in neurology and electrotherapy, began styling himself a sexologist. With Bloch and Max Marcuse (1877–1963) he co-edited the Zeitschrift fur Sexualwissenschaft (Journal for Sexology) and with Hirschfeld, he co-founded the Berlin Society for Sexual Science and Eugenics. The eugenics aspect of the society’s name was, of course, a clever piece of deception, intended to ingratiate it with non-Jewish eugenic societies for the purposes of eventual subversion with Jewish oppositional ideas. Nor was the tactic new. Eulenberg, Hirschfeld, and Moll all claimed to be eugenicists but, like the Jewish-dominated German League for Improvement of the People and the Study of Heredity, astute Nationalists perceived the attempt at co-option from within, and all were attacked by National Socialist publisher Julius F. Lehmann as “part of a targeted subversion on the part of Berlin Jews.”14
Although Jewish sexology, and with it the promotion of homosexuality, was effectively shut down by the National Socialists, it would live on in exile, along with other poisonous doctrines, with the Frankfurt School. After the war, it would return, with Horkheimer and Adorno, to Frankfurt, where the Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science would be re-established and then led by their protégé Volkmar Sigusch (who coined the term ‘cisgender,’ now much-beloved by SJWs). From there it would spread throughout the West. Since taking on the leadership of the Institute, Sigusch has acted as a theorist and expert on social policy issues, and he has played a key role in liberalizing Germany’s laws penalizing homosexuality. Until 2006, Sigusch led Frankfurt University’s Institute for Sexual Science and its associated sexual medicine clinic. In 2005, he published Neo-sexuality: On the Cultural Change of Love and Perversion. In early March 2011, he released Searching for Sexual Freedom. Sigusch, who has done much to continue the advance of ‘sexual pluralism,’ has been described by Der Spiegel as “one of the main thinkers behind the sexual revolution of the 1960s.” Despite his non-Jewish ethnicity, these works reveal that he is the spiritual and ideological son of Moll, Bloch, Hirschfeld, and Eulenberg. Yet more reasons, perhaps, to question the argument, advanced by Counter-Currents, that “homophobia is Jewish.”
The Promotion of Homosexuality within White Nationalism
One might be tempted to dismiss the position of Counter-Currents on the homosexual question as merely wrong-headed, ill-informed, or even amateurish. However, I believe that many of the writers there are intelligent, historiographically literate, and are probably aware that they are producing an argument with an agenda attached. One of the more annoying aspects of their position, however, is that it is framed under the rubric that ‘homosexuality is beside the point.’ Even if this were true, which in terms of our demographic and social concerns it is not, Counter Currents have not stuck to their professed ‘line.’ In fact, through the publication of volumes such as James O’Meara’s The Homo and the Negro, and a number of articles acting as apologetics for homosexuality, they’ve done quite the opposite. I only very recently looked at The Homo and the Negro for the first time and was stunned at the publication, by an ostensibly Nationalist organization, of a set of writings that promotes pederasty.
In The Homo and the Negro O’Meara advances a number of arguments that should now be familiar, and with which we have already dealt with. O’Meara writes of the “futility” of the Right due to its “Judeo-Christianity.” He writes of a rampant “homophobia” (do White Nationalists now routinely use Jewish coinages like this?), which he defines as “a fear of homosexuality.” From here, O’Meara writes, apparently with the support of his publisher, that the American Right “cannot be a vehicle for the preservation and expansion of White culture since its Judeo-Christian element leads it to oppose the culture-creating and culture-sustaining element of homoeroticism.” Quite how the grooming and buggery of teenage boys in antiquity led to the creation of culture is never clearly articulated by O’Meara, though one is left with the distinct impression that he is speaking from a perspective of sexual preference rather than intellectual inquiry. Such fantasies may be assumed to lie behind his further elaboration that “the homosexual is the ideal type in a masculinist, homoerotic system.” Capping all of this nonsense is his assertion that “family values are Judaic,” and that the Right, by being hostile towards homosexuals, “deprives itself of the elitist cultural creativity of homosexuals.”
Are family values really Judaic, as O’Meara claims? Consider one example contrary to this homosexual apologetic in the form of what Tacitus said of the ancient Germans:
Again, are family values Jewish? Perhaps only in the mind of a manipulative homosexual who wishes to cynically use ethno-nationalistic instincts and a righteous hostility towards Jews in order to advance his own agenda — by tarring everything that he himself abhors as “Jewish.” In reality, the proffered vision is a homo-nihilistic fantasy in which wholly imagined pederastic Männerbund antics take the place of the reproductive monogamous family unit as the lifeblood of the nation. O’Meara glorifies the work of Hans Blüher, a man condemned in his lifetime by Heinrich Himmler and Der Stürmer as a “notorious pederast,” who once wrote that: “In general, the greatest form of love is not between man and woman; with that there are children; that is something animalistic. The greatest form is the sublimated love between man and man. It is only from this that the greatest things in world history have come about.” O’Meara’s ideas are, ultimately, a poisonous doctrine that lowers the status of the family and reproduction in favor of a counter-productive sexual pathology. Such behavior is best described from an ethno-nationalist perspective by National Socialist theorist Reinhard Heydrich, who described the antisocial as having a natural inclination towards “disorder and subversion,” thereby “placing themselves at the disposal of the enemies of our people, and acting as a tool and weapon for their plans.”
In truth, homosexuality has been part of the demographic problem in the West. I once published on social media that society never really accepted homosexuality, but rather that society itself first became ‘homosexual’ in its traits before it could tolerate actual homosexuals. As the West became progressively more childless, promiscuous, hedonistic, and brimming with delusional self-confidence, the differences between the normal and the abnormal narrowed, and there appeared fewer reasons to continue to deny ‘equality’ to the sexual invert. As mentioned previously, Havelock Ellis observed that societies with demographic concerns will have harsh penalties for both homosexuality and abortion/infanticide. The West is in demographic free fall but, ignorant of the profound implications of this racial death, it’s people are actually in the process of indulging in a culture cultivated for their demographic assassination. Homosexuality has never been more tolerated. Abortion has never been easier and less stigmatized. Whites have never been closer to leaving the stage of history.
Promiscuity has replaced the pushchair. A glance at the modern generation of Whites of child-bearing age is sobering. Rates of sexually transmitted disease in America have never been higher. According to senior physicians, the UK is heading for a “sexual health crisis.” The same phenomenon has been reported in Australia, Canada, Ireland, France, and Germany. Meanwhile, the Gatestone Institute reports that: “Abortion has recently assumed epic proportions in countries such as Sweden or France. In France, there are 200,000 abortions a year. To put things in perspective, there are in France around 750,000 births a year. France, therefore, is aborting 20% of its babies/fetuses/embryos/cell clusters — choose according to your personal convictions — each year.” You can be sure that it isn’t French Muslims who are aborting their babies by the hundred thousand, and this perhaps explains why they’ve been telling the Archbishop of Strasbourg that “France will be theirs one day.”
In The Population Bomb (1968), the Jewish biologist Paul Ehrlich wrote that the best method to reduce population is the legalization of abortion. That was without considering the effect of birth control, or the cultural impact of tolerance of homosexuality and the Hirschfeld-derived glorification of perverted, empty, childless visions of “love.” When Europeans began to legalize both birth control and abortion 40 years ago, a few years after Roe vs. Wade (1973), the Catholic Church warned of the risk of Europe entering into a “morbid civilization.” This, of course, is the same Catholic Church likely to be denounced as “Judaic” by James O’Meara and his sponsors. In truth, and as someone raised in a Protestant home, I must concede that had the Catholic Church had more power to enforce its doctrine, Europe would still be flourishing demographically, and a mass Muslim invasion would be nothing but a nightmare never to come to fruition.
Why would O’Meara and Counter-Currents publish and promote such ideas, denigrating the family and selfishly glorifying their own preferences? Here it is necessary to confront the issue of the homosexual personality and to return to our central argument of the incompatibility of homosexuality and Alt-Right principles. As stated earlier in this essay, psychological studies indicate that homosexuals score higher than the sexually normal on traits associated with psychopathy, including higher rates of promiscuity, a greater tendency to high-risk activity, higher rates of intimate partner violence,15 low levels of impulse control, and a tendency towards bouts of exaggerated sense of self-esteem/importance. In addition, studies have found that homosexuality was 10 times more common among the men and 6 times more common among the women with borderline personality disorder (BPD) than in the general population or in a depressed control group.16 An extensive 2008 study confirmed and expanded upon these findings, arguing that “subjects with BPD were significantly more likely than comparison subjects to report homosexual or bisexual orientation and intimate same-sex relationships.”
Prior to the peaking of ‘sexual pluralism’ in the last decade, research into the homosexual personality was behind much of the stance in the United States in terms of excluding homosexuals from the military, law enforcement, and government security. It was argued that homosexuals “possessed an inordinate amount of psychopathology and character flaws such as instability, illegal conduct, dishonesty, untrustworthiness, poor teamwork, and relationship forming skills. Gay men were described as being highly strung and neurotic.”17 Combining an understanding of homosexual personality traits with homosexual apologetics produced within White Nationalism, it becomes clear that dishonesty (“homosexuality is beside the point, let’s not discuss it”) and manipulative behaviors (“hostility to homosexuality is Jewish”), and an exaggerated sense of self-esteem/importance are at least primary concerns to those wanting to steer the cause of Whites in the right direction. Evidence of the latter is surely in evidence both in O’Meara’s claim that the Right persists in depriving “itself of the elitist cultural creativity of homosexuals,” and Greg Johnson’s apparent belief that homosexuals are “real assets” to the movement because they “are intelligent and accomplished…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.”
Such promotions of homosexuality are inherently insidious and are proof that, consciously or not, issues of White success, particularly demographic success, are likely to always be subordinated by the homosexual in favor of theories of life or behavior which glorify or excuse his own predilections. The fact that an ostensibly nationalist writer can openly praise a pederastic author who denigrated the reproductive relationships of normal, healthy families is a sign of a degenerative rot that has developed in the corners of this movement. The toleration of such a rot has been the cause of disunity — not surprising given the apparent success of the lie that “tolerating homosexuals will increase our unity.” Quite the contrary. I have nationalist friends of many stripes, and a number of them have previously avoided aligning themselves rhetorically or materially with institutions like the National Policy Institute, or concepts such as the Alt-Right, because of an apparent tolerance of homosexuals and their apologetics. As a father of three, I have also had serious reservations about the kind of movement I am trying to raise my children in. Raising them in an environment that tolerates the open promotion of pederasty is out of the question.
This essay will cut out some of the rot, and bring clarity to some issues and questions that have been left to fester. It is largely a thankless task, and a dirty one too, but the Augean Stables must be cleansed.
1 F.J. Solloway, Freud, Biologist of the Mind: Beyond the Psychoanalytic Legend (Harvard, 1979), 314-5.
2 V. Roelcke, Twentieth Century Ethics of Human Subjects Research: Historical Perspectives From Steiner Verlag (Stuttgart, 2004), 26.
3 E. Mancini, Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom: A History of the First International Sexual Freedom Movement (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 29.
4 A. Killen, Berlin Electropolis: Shock, Nerves and German Modernity (University of California Press, 2006), 63.
5 Solloway, Freud, Biologist of the Mind: Beyond the Psychoanalytic Legend (Harvard, 1979), 300.
6 E.R. Dickson, Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880-1914 (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 155.
7 Ibid, 156.
8 Ibid, 157.
9 Mancini, Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom, 30.
10 Ibid, 4.
11 Ibid, 160.
13 E.R. Dickson, Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880-1914 (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 7.
14 J. Glad, Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century (Hermitage, 2006), 133.
15 Ard & Makadon. (2011).Addressing Intimate Partner Violence in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26:8, 930-933.
16 Zubenko, Soloff, & Schulz (1987). Sexual practices among patients with borderline personality disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(6), 748-752, and developed further in Reich & Zanarini (2008).Sexual Orientation and Relationship Choice in Borderline Personality Disorder over Ten Years of Prospective Follow-up. Journal of Personality Disorder, 22(6), 564-572.
17 G. Hagger-Johnson ‘Personality, Individual Differences, and LGB Psychology,’ in Clark and Peel (eds) Out in Psychology: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer Perspectives (Chichester: Wiley, 2007), p. 83.
|4 Weeks Ago||#132|
Bread and Circuses
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Blog Entries: 1
Richard Spencer-Appointed AltRight Official Attempted Sexual Humiliation of 14 Year Old Under Threat of Doxing
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
Last edited by RickHolland; 4 Weeks Ago at 06:50 AM.
|3 Weeks Ago||#134|
Bread and Circuses
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Blog Entries: 1
That Charles Martel Society is also connected with Kevin Macdonald.
I think Richard Spencer contributed to the occidental quartely magazine as a writer or editor.
|#1 thread, altright, andrew anglin, richard spencer, vox day|