July 28, 2013
In this post I intend to argue against the acceptance of homosexuality on the radical, pro-white right. I am shocked that this post even has to be written, but over the last few years certain pro-sodomy propagandists have become influential in the movement. These pro-white homosexuals, whose work is found most notably at the websites Counter Currents and Alternative Right, go far beyond the libertarian argument that “what people do in their own bedrooms shouldn’t matter”. These perverts actually promote the acceptance homosexuality as a positive good, and argue that opposing homosexuality ultimately harms white interests.
The basic arguments of the pro-sodomy white nationalists are clearly stated in Homosexuality & White Nationalism by Greg Johnson, the editor of Counter Currents. Many of these homosexuals style themselves as “traditionalists”, claiming to follow Julius Evola and Rene Guenon (interestingly, I cannot recall reading anything in Evola or Guenon approving of homosexuality). As traditionalists these homosexuals seek to justify their position by appealing to the ancient practices of the white race. Thus Johson says:
“Homosexual pederasty, which still remains a taboo in our culture, was widely practiced by the ancient Aryan peoples of the Mediterranean world. The Persians, Greeks, and Romans all practiced it.”
Johnson is correct in pointing out that the ancient world accepted homosexual pederasty, not homosexuality in general. Pederasty was a form of homosexuality in which a fully mature man engaged in a romantic relationship with an adolescent boy. The adult male was always the dominant partner and the adolescent the submissive partner. It was also acceptable in the ancient world for adult males to engage in sex acts with male slaves, because what was key to the ancient mind was that a free-born adult male must always be the dominant partner during intercourse. Although it was not shameful for a man to sodomize a slave or male prostitute, a free-born man being the submissive partner was considered a great scandal. But rather than promoting pederasty or sex with male slaves, the only homosexual behaviors that were accepted in antiquity, these pro-sodomy white nationalists promote acceptance of all types of homosexuality. This is the pro-homosexual white nationalist sleight of hand: moving from the ancient practices of sodomizing boys and slaves to the acceptance of two grown men engaging in a mutual sexual relationship, a practice for which there is no traditional precedent. Let me repeat: there is absolutely no legitimate traditionalist argument for the acceptance of two adult homosexuals living together as equals. This would have been shameful in any ancient European society, and yet these homosexual “traditionalists” wish to argue for the acceptance of these modern relationships by making reference to Greek pederasty.
Of course it is also possible that homosexual white nationalists secretly engage in pederasty (or wish to do so), but understand how unpopular this would be. After all, Johnson does attempt to defend pederasty, saying that:
“Technically, the Greeks and others were not pedophiles, who pursue children, for they focused their attention on young men who were well past puberty and ready to begin military training.”
This sounds like something out of a NAMBLA pamphlet. While the boys in pederastic relationships were not prepubescent, they often were only 14 or 15 years old, and by definition could not be fully developed (a boy with a full beard was generally considered too old). Being interested exclusively in males who are not fully developed is certainly a form of pedophilia.
Johnson also overstates the acceptance of homosexuality in the ancient world. Pederasty was lauded by many ancients, but many in the ancient world also sought to limit or even completely do away with it. In Rome attempting to seduce free-born youths was a crime, and homosexuality was banned in the army. The philosophers Socrates and Plato strongly disapproved of the physical consummation of male-male friendships, and according to Xenophon, a famous general and a pupil of Socrates, while many of the Greek cities allowed pederasty, Sparta did not, the laws of that state requiring that friendships between men and boys be as chaste as the relationship between father and son. While pederasty did have its supporters in Greece and Rome, to suggest that it was an essential feature of Aryan culture is absurd.
In addition to the traditionalist argument, Johnson tries to support his position by claiming that the condemnation of homosexuality is detrimental to the pro-white cause:
“White Nationalism should be a one-issue political outlook. White Nationalism is for the interests of whites and against the interests of our racial enemies. Period. Anything else is beside the point. That means that White Nationalists must work to unite all whites into a self-conscious racial community, rallying around our common racial interests. White Nationalism has only one message for homosexuals: white homosexuals have more important interests in common with other whites than they do with non-white homosexuals.”
This position has unfortunately been accepted by many heterosexual white nationalists. The obvious problem with this position is that it fails to put any limits on sexual behavior. For example, if we accept pro-white homosexuals, should we also accept pro-white adulterers? pro-white transsexuals? pro-white whores? wife-swappers? zoophiliacs? Surely white adulterers have interests in common with us, but that does not mean that we should condone their behavior, or that a healthy white society can exist where adultery is rampant. Johnson goes on to say that, “we all must focus our energies on pursuing our common goal by whatever path we choose, and we must resist wasting our time and energy on squabbles that divide us.” But in this very same piece in which he calls for an end to divisive squabbles, Johnson engages in childish attacks on Christianity:
“If you ask Christians why they think homosexuality is a sin, they cannot point to any saying of Jesus. Jesus saw fit to condemn divorce but not sodomy. Christians have to turn to the Old Testament, to the record of the Jews and their wanderings, crimes, superstitions, and hatreds…Queer-bashers are in the grip of Jewry without even knowing it.”
This is the same gibberish that comes from liberal pro-homosexual “Christians”, and in making these claims Johnson is either being dishonest or is incredibly ignorant of Biblical teaching. First of all, the New Testament does condemn homosexuality; second, traditional Christianity has never taught that we must follow only the words of Jesus while other Biblical teaching is optional; third, Jesus did not need to condemn homosexuality because his audience already knew that it was wrong. When teaching on sexuality, Jesus introduced stricter standards than those found in the Old Testament, saying that it is a sin even to look upon a woman with lust. The idea that Jesus, while introducing an even stricter standard on heterosexual behavior, could somehow be tacitly condoning homosexuality is ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is Johnson’s claim that because the Greeks and Romans allowed men to sodomize their slaves, therefore you are acting Jewish if you oppose homosexuality.
One can pick apart the bizarre, irrational arguments of men like Johnson, but the obvious fact is that these individuals are homosexuals themselves and go to great lengths to rationalize their behavior. Like all sexual deviants they are driven by the desire to normalize their own perversions in the eyes of others, and therefore everything they say about sexuality is tainted and should be rejected out of hand. Furthermore, we should not send the message that these queers are part of our movement, or represent what we are about. At best this situation will continue to be an embarrassment, at worst it will become a major scandal when an activist who idealizes and promotes ancient Greek homosexuality turns out (surprise surprise) to actually pursue young boys in real life. I suggest that the pro-sodomy right should be ignored and ostracized from the rest of the pro-white community. Don’t read their blogs, don’t comment on their articles, don’t appear on their radio shows, don’t buy their books.
Unfortunately far too many white nationalists either accept the pro-sodomy arguments or collaborate with the sodomite right despite their own personal opposition to homosexuality. This latter group includes many pro-white Christians. I began this post by commenting on how shocked I am that the acceptance of homosexuality is a topic of discussion on the far-right, but the fact that pro-white Christians accept virulently anti-Christian homosexuals into their movement absolutely boggles the mind. As an example of this inexplicable behavior, I look at an interview of James O’Meara conducted by Andy Nowicki. O’Meara is a homosexual propagandist whose book The Homo and the Negro is published by Counter Currents. Nowicki identifies as Catholic, and yet in this interview he is thrilled to explore O’Meara’s “queer, psychedelic” world-view (O’Meara has explained his approach as Evola combined with David Bowie and William S. Burroughs). When Nowicki asks O’Meara about Christianity, O’Meara suggests that “traditionalist” homosexuals should infiltrate the Church and transform it into a pagan institution. Nowicki offers no objection to this proposal, at least in the text of the interview provided. I should add that this interview was posted in the category “Alt Right books for Christmas”, and was promoting The Homo and the Negro. The “Catholic” Nowicki was promoting the sale of a pro-homosexual book as a Christmas gift. This type of behavior is completely shameful and can only harm our cause. The Christians who associate with the likes of Johnson and O’Meara, while not living in the city of Sodom themselves, look back at Sodom, hoping that something good will come out of it. I pray that these Christians change their ways, and begin imitating Lot instead of his foolish wife, and leave the Sodomites alone with the hellfire they have brought upon themselves.