The Assault on Gender and the Family: Jewish Sexology and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School, Part Two

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.

Albert Moll

Albert Moll

Part I.

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. 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.

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

Also typical of Jewish intellectuals, Moll exhibited highly aggressive and assertive personality traits and had a flair for self-promotion. Although he began his career with a focus on hypnotism, Moll wasn’t long in utilizing these traits to gain professional closeness to sexology’s experts, particularly von Krafft-Ebing. He then masterfully orchestrated his own eclipse of von Krafft-Ebing to such an extent that Moll himself came to be considered, and largely remains considered, the pioneer of the field. However, Moll’s activity in sexology went far beyond stealing the limelight. From the beginning of his drift into sexology he adopted the same oppositional role that he occupied in relation to other German attempts to reckon with social decay. In particular, Moll worked tirelessly to persuade leading non-Jewish scholars like von Krafft-Ebing to reject the idea that sexual abnormality was the result of biological and psychological disorder. In his 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 significant reason to doubt the validity of Krafft-Ebing’s personal change of perspective given that the most pertinent, later, editions of Psychopathia Sexualis that showcased this change were in fact edited by none other than Moll himself. Volkmar Sigusch even writes that Moll “completely overhauled the work.”

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, 18801914, 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 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] 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. 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 sexual hedonism and the acceptance of a wide array of “identities” and “sexualities.” Although coming from a close-knit, observant, Jewish community, and possessed of an abiding hatred for Christianity, Hirschfeld superficially advocated a “pan-humanistic” outlook and was fond of declaring himself “a world citizen.”[13] (I might agree with Hirschfeld to a certain extent since he appears to me a perfect example of what Henry Ford called an “international Jew.”)

Magnus Hirschfeld: International “World Citizen”

Magnus Hirschfeld: “World Citizen”

Although there were few ideological differences between Moll and Hirschfeld, their egos clashed and there was a subtle disparity in approach. Whereas Moll was content to publicize his ideas from books and newspapers, the homosexual Hirschfeld was intent on a more direct form of activism in the fight to break down Western social and sexual mores. Like the Moll-popularizer Eduard Bernstein, Hirschfeld was a “socialist and an active member of the Social Democratic Party.”[14] 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 sexual inverts. Hirschfeld organized homosexuals, encouraging them to openly flaunt their predilections and 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 produced a vast number of books, manuscripts, papers, and pamphlets concerning sexuality, transvestitism, “transgenderism” (another Hirschfeld term) and fetishes. Through his work with the Scientific Humanitarian Committee, Hirschfeld published the 23-volume Yearbook for the Sexual Intermediates, the first periodical devoted to “homosexual studies.” 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 labels attached to his committees and journals, Hirschfeld’s work rested largely on political argument rather than legitimate scientific investigation. Scholar Edward Dickson argues that Hirschfeld’s field was “characterized by unresolved and often speculative arguments.”[15] Whereas many of the early non-Jewish sexologists had a background in zoology and the sexual behavior of animals, particularly primates, Hirschfeld rejected such strictly biological or evolutionary interpretations of human sexual behavior. Following from this, the methodology he employed was extremely close to that employed by Freud — this is the “science” of patient interviews and circular reasoning rather than statistics and empirical observation.

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.

Jewish Sexology Reduced to Ashes

Jewish Sexology Reduced to Ashes

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.[16] A key element of Hirschfeld’s theory was the deployment of “love as a primary weapon in his ethical and philosophical campaign for the liberation of same-sex relationships.”[17] However, love as a concept was itself altered by Hirschfeld, who imbued it with transcendental and cosmic qualities in an effort to distance it as much as possible from biological, reproductive drives. Mancini writes that “the idea that love had the potential to not only lift the individual but to enrich the broader mission of humanity was articulated in Hirschfeld’s condemnation of theories of racial hygiene and his appeal to Panhumanism to extinguish the hatred among nations and races.”[18]

Such romantic theorizing, of course, had little to do with the actual content of sexological studies of the sexually inverted, where love featured significantly less than pederasty, promiscuity and disease. But it was the idea and “feeling” that mattered most in creating a homosexual movement and public support behind it. As strategy it corresponded perfectly with efforts to achieve “Jewish emancipation.” In this respect Richard Wagner put it most astutely and succinctly when he wrote that “when we strove for emancipation of the Jews we were really more the champions of an abstract principle than of a concrete case: … Our zeal for equal civil rights for Jews was much more the consequence of a general idea than of any real sympathy; for, with all our speaking and writing for Jewish emancipation, we always felt instinctively repelled by any actual, operative contact with them.” One could easily substitute “homosexuals” for “Jews” and achieve significant insight into the basic psychological processes at work, with Hirschfeld’s “general idea” being a florid abstraction of love around which the fashionable and easily duped may gravitate. It can’t be emphasized enough that Jews have been very adept at framing their arguments in emotional or moral terms that appear to have a unique pull on the consciences of Europeans, and such strategies are very difficult to unseat. One need only acknowledge that Hirschfeld’s work in this regard retains great potency in the present, with the recent “marriage equality” debate neatly side-stepping biological and social imperatives in favor of Hirschfeld-like maudlin non sequiturs about “love.”

Hirschfeld’s Ghost: Hedonism and Perversion Triumphant under the Banner of “Love”

Hirschfeld’s Ghost: Hedonism and Perversion Triumphant under the Banner of “Love”

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.

Iwan Bloch

Iwan Bloch

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.[19] 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.”[20]

But time for the sexologists was beginning to run out. Following the destruction of Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science in 1933, the list of homosexual activists held by Hirschfeld’s organization fell into the hands of the police where it assisted the prosecution of thousands of sexual inverts under the Penal Codes, and the subsequent internment of these individuals in concentration camps. The journals and organizations of the Jewish sexologists were gradually shut down until, in 1938, the Jewish grip on several disciplines were categorically broken when the Nuremberg laws stripped thousands of Jewish physicians of their licenses. Albert Moll, once the haughty promoter of degeneracy, was among those who lost their medical licence and was thereby banned from the medical profession. He was forced to adopt the middle name Israel. In one of the strange coincidences that history sometimes bequeaths to us, he would die lonely and impoverished on the same day as his fellow warrior against the Europeans, Sigmund Freud. Baptized for social expediency in the 1890s, access to the local church cemetery was refused; the pastor in charge refused to speak at Moll’s grave.

Jewish sexology, it seemed, was on the brink of extinction. But 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. Since taking on the leadership of the Institite, 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 his new book Searching for Sexual Freedom. Despite his non-Jewish ethnicity, these works reveal that he is the spiritual and ideological son of Moll, Bloch, Hirschfeld and Eulenberg.

Surveying the contemporary social and cultural landscape in Western society, we see a much more radical departure from the measures advocated by Ellis, one of sexology’s founding fathers. And more than a century following from the first efforts of Moll to bring about a sexual revolution, we find ourselves once more wrestling with the hydra of Jewish sexology. As hinted at above, the modern Russian state has probably come closest to implementing measures in line with Ellis’ recommendations. Homosexual relations were decriminalized in 1993, but the state has consistently refused permission for “Pride” parades (the “flouting” warned against by Ellis) to take place. Most importantly, since 2006 Russia has also introduced legislation restricting the distribution of materials promoting sexually inverted lifestyles and behaviors to children as an extension to existing child protection laws. Homosexual couples cannot adopt children and cannot marry. While Russia has been harshly criticized and even fined by the European Court of Human Rights for these measures, the country is still remarkably lenient by Ellis’ standards. Single homosexuals are permitted to adopt children, sexual inversion was declassified as a mental illness in 1999, and those suffering from metamorphosis sexualis paranoica have been indulged with surgery and permitted to change their legal gender since 1997. One suspects that Russia will continue to be portrayed as a “civil rights” boogeyman by the sexologists and their agents until they fall into line with the pluralist zeitgeist.

To conclude, it may be worth remarking on the discussion of the desirability of there being homosexuals in the Nationalist movement. I don’t speak for The Occidental Observer, but I do speak for myself when I advise against the involvement of sexual inverts in the movement. Since arguments in favor of such involvement have been advanced, I feel that it is only fair that the opposite argument should also be given consideration. In this movement we are concerned with racial, biological and demographic fitness, and key to this is the preservation of traditional norms regarding marriage and relationships between the sexes. There can be no distraction from this focus, and no concession on any ground. I view any argument to the contrary as a mere echo of the claims of Moll et al. that they were “eugenicists.” There can be no subversion here. In this age of promiscuity, hedonism, abortion, and impending demographic oblivion, our future depends on it.


[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.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid, 4.

[14] Ibid.

[15] E.R. Dickson, Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880-1914 (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 249.

[16] Ibid, 7.

[17] Ibid, 5.

[18] Ibid, 6.

[19] A. Killen, Berlin Electropolis: Shock, Nerves and German Modernity (University of California Press, 2006), 63.

[20] J. Glad, Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century (Hermitage, 2006), 133.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

61 Comments to "The Assault on Gender and the Family: Jewish Sexology and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School, Part Two"

  1. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    January 5, 2016 - 2:15 am | Permalink
  2. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    January 4, 2016 - 11:59 pm | Permalink

    In the light of these articles it’s interesting to revisit the bitter feud between poets Heinrich Heine and Graf August Platen von Hallermünde. The former infuriated by the latter’s calling him a Jew, and in return, highlighting the latter’s homosexuality.

  3. Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
    January 1, 2016 - 5:25 pm | Permalink

    Your self is White. It’s racial.

    Ourself, a better term than ourselves, because it admits I’m just one branch on a tree and demands you admit you are too.

    Don’t be distracted. You were not born a Heideggerian or a Shitlord or a Rightist, any more than you were born a liberal (which all of them turn into when pushed, you’ll observe), or a Black or Asian.

    White is good enough.

  4. Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
    January 1, 2016 - 5:10 pm | Permalink

    Brent, not everyone he plays with is on Team White. It is necessary to define ourselves against them, just as normal political practice, but also because we know that some of them are attempting a hostile takeover.

    The Alt-Right, for example, is one among several Jewish authored and Jewish serving competing factions interested in infiltrating and subverting White Nationalism.

    This is not a controversial issue. The origins of the Alt-Right among Jewish adversaries of authentic, organic, antisemitic White Nationalism as represented by David Duke 20/25 years ago, originally branded the ‘Paleolibertarian Strategy’ is mainstream history.

    If you think Spencer has moved on, explain his recent pro-Jewish/anti-White comments on the race-replacement invasion he calls the ‘immigration’ non-issue.

  5. Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
    December 29, 2015 - 10:57 pm | Permalink

    white faustian spirit = the exaltation of the self over its “internal environment” (the exaltation of the self over itself)
    jewish faustian spirit = the exaltation of the self over its “external environment” (the exaltation of the self over society)

    I prefer the former, but both are “exaltations of the self”, hence are two different types of individualism.

    That’s what I’m thinking. Does that make sense?

  6. Derek White's Gravatar Derek White
    December 29, 2015 - 9:35 pm | Permalink

    Much as I accept a small fraction of the population is gay whether by genes or desire or environment (boarding schools, prison, abusive fathers etc), my problem with gays is hyper victimhood like Jews and Blacks, demanding special treatment and trying imposing their lifestyle on everyone else.

  7. Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
    December 29, 2015 - 9:04 pm | Permalink

    MacDonald has written that individualism is characteristic of whites, and has an evolutionary basis. And I totally agree.

    But isn’t all of this sexual liberation stuff promoted by the Jews also a kind of individualism?

    The basic idea the Jews seem to have is that society is repressive of the individual— and that it is of utmost importance that individual overcome and exalt themselves over the societal repression.

    Isn’t this Jewish exaltation of the individual over society also a kind of individualism? Its different than the individualism of whites, but it is a kind of individualism. Isn’t it?

    • T. Juana's Gravatar T. Juana
      January 2, 2016 - 12:31 pm | Permalink

      Individualism = Reason = Free Thought

      • AnotherAmalekite's Gravatar AnotherAmalekite
        January 2, 2016 - 2:22 pm | Permalink

        Individualism = Reason = Free Thought

        One of the biggest issues with this so-called “movement” is the near-constant implication that jewish hegemony needs to be broken…and replaced with some type non-jewish hegemony. This is what’s implied with virtually every reference to Hitler, WWII and all that.
        Too many immature simpletons. Like I wrote in another post, too many of these “adults” who apparently never matured out of their teenage fascination with militarism, especially German militarism.
        As long as these types are catered to and are allowed to worm their juvenile garbage into every discussion, whatever two forward steps this “movement” occasionally makes will continue to be quickly followed by three steps backward.
        One of these centuries, perhaps the allegedly smarter individuals within this movement – like the ones supposedly running this website – might actually realize this, but I’m not holding my breath.

  8. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    December 29, 2015 - 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Hirschfeld’s part in the Eulenburg Affair was considerable.

  9. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    December 29, 2015 - 1:49 pm | Permalink

    It is sometimes thought to have contributed to the Kaiser’s excessive reliance on military advisors.

  10. Brent G's Gravatar Brent G
    December 29, 2015 - 10:31 am | Permalink

    @Nick Dean

    Professor MacDonald is a team player. He is trying to build bridges in the movement.

    Personally I avoid Counter Currents especially O’Meara. Its just my preference.

  11. Passer by's Gravatar Passer by
    December 29, 2015 - 8:37 am | Permalink

    For me, the problem with gays is mostly political (besides stds).

    Just because they are a minority, they want to turn everybody else in a minority. They side with other minorities against whites. They support the left, immigration and multiculture. They want to fragment and atomise society.

    Just like the jews, it appears that they do not feel safe in a majority culture. So they attack the majority and side with other minorities. They are part of a coalition of minorities. They often side with foreign interests, especially non-western gays are like pro US/EU fifth column in their countries. In non-western states, gays usually hate their own country and want it to become a vassal state/defacto province to the US or the EU, or whatever liberal empire, with them as the local gauleiters. They are not jews, but they have similar political behavior. That’s why jews support them.

  12. Brent G's Gravatar Brent G
    December 29, 2015 - 7:29 am | Permalink

    Homos are not worth the effort. They are easy pawns of Jews and a weapon against us. Just look at all these TV shows making homos look normal and heterosexual white males wackos.

    Thats why I have little time for Greg Johnson and his sidekick O’Meara. I guess the homo thing is not really much for us with roots from the south.

    This Pink Nazis is more trash. The fact is National Socialists in the Third Reich did much to mop up the great societal damage done by Jews during the Wiemar Republic. We are seeing the same damage in America. Obama and his Jewish handlers has really been pushing hard to destroy Old America with the homo agenda. Did being a homo or bisexual help Richard Wagner’s son Siegfried who was a sissy and in fact his English-born wife Winifred had to take charge of the Wagner legacy.

  13. T. Juana's Gravatar T. Juana
    December 28, 2015 - 9:30 pm | Permalink

    The author is Andrew Joyce, not Joyce Andrews.

  14. AnotherAmalekite's Gravatar AnotherAmalekite
    December 28, 2015 - 7:57 pm | Permalink

    I read the first part of this article, not the second, mainly because the subject matter just doesn’t interest me very much.

    I do find the comments interesting, as usual, in particular the ones from people who seem to be convinced that homosexuality is simply a matter of choice (mostly comments in Part 1), or that an otherwise normal (heterosexual) person can be convinced or talked into becoming a homo- or bi-sexual, or at least “experimenting”. I find this notion patently absurd and laughable.
    (As an aside and using myself as an example once again, the only way something like that would ever happen to me is if I wound up in prison with a 6’4″ excessively muscular cellmate named Bruce. Even then, it goes without saying it would be under severe protest and in no way consensual. Still not something I would voluntarily “choose”, that’s just ridiculous.)

    I’m firmly in the camp of opinion that sexuality is not a matter of “preference” or “choice”, but is pretty much hardwired into a person’s mental and/or physical being, the cause(s) of which currently remain a mystery to science and medicine. Any deviation from “normal” I think is caused by mental or physical abnormalities, or mental abnormalities caused by physical ones (chemical imbalances affecting the brain, etc.). My guess in this regard is as good as anyone else’s.

    Here’s the point of my comment.
    I get the impression that, at least within the white advocacy movement, some people like to adopt the “choice” position perhaps because of two simplistic reasons:

    Firstly, by adopting the notion that deviance from sexual normality is simply a matter of choice, they avoid having to deal with an issue for which science and medicine hasn’t found a cause. No one knows what causes sexual variances in humans and claiming that it is simply a matter of choice avoids this mystery, which some people find unpleasant and would simply prefer not to have to deal with or even recognize.

    Therefore and secondly, by adopting the notion of choice, it conveniently and simplistically places fault on the individual who supposedly made the choice and removes it from being a question that science, medicine and society as whole should or needs to deal with. It then becomes a matter of simply convincing the person that he/she has made the wrong choice. Again, it’s a nice tidying up of an unpleasant loose end.

    Finally, would it be unreasonable to perhaps question the sexuality of those people who adopt the notion of “choice”? Perhaps they don’t realize that it might be only they who think it’s a matter of choice, without realizing that it isn’t at all a matter of choice for normal, heterosexual people.
    In other words, if it’s as easy for you as simply making a choice, maybe there’s something “wrong” with you.

  15. Deep North's Gravatar Deep North
    December 28, 2015 - 6:55 pm | Permalink

    Anecdotal, but here it is anyways: Two of my co-workers are homosexual. One is your stereotypical obese Liberal. He constantly bashes Christianity while ignoring the way homosexuals are treated by Muslims. There is nothing worse in his mind than a Christian. Some people handle their depression by taking drugs and abusing alcohol. Some homosexuals are depressed IMO enjoy being gay because its fashionable and gets them attention. The other worker has probable mental health issues. He sits down like a woman to go to the bathroom when standing up would get the job done. He is very disgusted by the sight or thought of a woman’s reproductive system.

    There always has and always will be people who are attracted to the same sex for various reasons. I take issues in the way its promoted as being normal or equal. If every ideology is equal, than none can be superior. Homosexuals aren’t equal to normal people at all: they cannot naturally reproduce the species. There is something unique about a man and woman each contributing half of their DNA to make a new human being; and the woman raising the child in her body for 9 months. Gay “parents” have to adopt and raise children that really aren’t theirs. Or in case of MM, find a surrogate mother. With Lesbians, one gets artificially inseminated. In either case only one gay “parent” is the natural parent. This is no comparison compared the normal way to raise a real family.

  16. Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
    December 28, 2015 - 3:53 pm | Permalink

    Many years ago, in an early anti-smoking campaign, one of the statements was that smokers were not born, they were recruited.
    It struck me then, and still does today, that the same logic applies, to a large extent, to homosexuals. In spite of all of the medical discoveries, including DNA sequencing and determining which genes or mutant genes, cause diseases, no “gay” gene has been discovered. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that homosexuality is not “normal”.
    In support of that, while I have often debated with others, I note that children are born with Downs Syndrome, spina bifida, cleft palate, tetralogy of Fallot, cystic fibrosis, and other afflictions. Medically speaking, these are considered normal abnormalities. No one would consider a child with one of these afflictions to be normal, but the afflictions are not uncommon. There are, undoubtedly, homosexuals who meet this definition, but I suggest they are relatively few in number. The “growth” in homosexuality has come with the advertising/packaging of it as being a lifestyle choice. This is on par with shopping for a new sweater, displaying your “choice” of style and colour.
    Another aspect of the medical side of homosexuality that has been studiously avoided is the question of chemical imbalance. Mood altering drugs used in the treatment of psychological disorders are purportedly for the purpose correcting chemical imbalances in the body. Why has there been no investigation in this vein?
    There have been recent promising developments in treatment of neurological disorders such as MS using “Paleo” diets with the focus on micronutrients that the body lacks. Could this be another avenue of investigation for homosexuality?
    There is much we do not know about this subject, but I believe that I am relatively safe in stating that the overwhelming majority of those who visit this site would conclude that homosexuality is not normal.

    • AnotherAmalekite's Gravatar AnotherAmalekite
      December 28, 2015 - 8:21 pm | Permalink

      I first of all want to say that my comment, right above yours, Curmudgeon, is not directed at you specifically. I just happened to submit my comment shortly after yours was posted and I hadn’t read yours.

      I agree with your opinion regarding the (as yet unproven and possibly largely unexplored) medical and/or psychological causes of sexual variance, but disagree with your opinion that there has necessarily been a “growth” in homosexuality in recent decades. I think it only seems that way because they’ve become more vocal and, yes, empowered (as much as I hate to use that politically correct word).
      I doubt I will ever buy into the notion that normal heterosexual people can be “recruited” or “talked into” a different sexuality. Like I wrote in my own post above, the idea to me is laughable.

      • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
        December 29, 2015 - 5:55 am | Permalink

        The recruitment starts in schools, around puberty, and in some cases pre-puberty, with the inclusiveness BS, which is tied to “sex education”. Twelve and thirteen year olds, have enough problem trying to figure out what is going on in their bodies with hormonal changes, have little or no concept of whether they are “normal” sexually. The pitch is that homosexuality is normal, and that there should be no concern if they want to experiment. The estimates used to be approximately 2% of the population. Of that relatively few, to use my daughter’s term, advertised, by lisping and effeminate behaviour. Now the advertising is everywhere, and the estimates are 5%.
        I am not convinced that the growth is entirely made up of true homosexuals, but rather, as you have identified, homosexual behaviour. Some of this homosexual behaviour occurs during cuckoldry, which is now also promoted as a lifestyle choice.

    • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
      December 28, 2015 - 8:28 pm | Permalink

      Decades ago I read an article by a healer from the far east who said that it was micronutrients lacking during gestation that could predispose a person to homosexuality.

      Another doctor, this one a westerner, said the proper term is “homosexual behavior”. It was your actions that made you homosexual was his point: a person one way or another felt an uncontrollable urge to “do” certain things in an attempt to duplicate normal man-woman sex. Just having feelings was not enough to define you as a homo.


    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      December 29, 2015 - 11:13 am | Permalink

      I believe that I am relatively safe in stating that the overwhelming majority of those who visit this site would conclude that homosexuality is not normal.

      If you are mistaken about this—need I add that I hope you aren’t?—this site and the movement it spearheads will do our cause, which I think of as a Second Reconquista (R2), infinitely more harm than good. Its genuine community of interest with homosexuals and homosexuality is narrow but real in the present parlous conditions but will by its very nature grow ever narrower as R2 gains ground—or put less optimistically, should R2 gain ground.


      I doubt I will ever buy into the notion that normal heterosexual people can be “recruited” or “talked into” a different sexuality. Like I wrote in my own post above, the idea to me is laughable.

      I would suggest only that your certainty in this matter might be less pronounced had you spent, as I did, a quarter-century working at the Metropolitan Opera or at another major institution similarly in the iron grasp of a Jewish-backed homosexual clique. One thing I observed is that a certain few are prepared to sacrifice virtually any standard, any principle, in exchange for sufficient secular advancement.

      • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
        December 29, 2015 - 7:13 pm | Permalink

        Whoredom, I daresay, is exclusively a learned behaviour. ☺

      • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
        December 29, 2015 - 7:30 pm | Permalink

        If I am mistaken, it is time to move on.

      • AnotherAmalekite's Gravatar AnotherAmalekite
        January 2, 2016 - 11:41 am | Permalink

        Pierre de Craon wrote:

        One thing I observed is that a certain few are prepared to sacrifice virtually any standard, any principle, in exchange for sufficient secular advancement.

        I would submit that there’s probably no way for you to know with certainty whether those individuals weren’t inclined toward bisexuality of their own volition in the first place.
        (Of course, I wasn’t there, so we can dance around this tree until the cows come home.)

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      December 29, 2015 - 7:05 pm | Permalink

      I think looking for gene sequences responsible for homosexuality are misguided. What is needed is a better understanding of what factors environmental and internal control the precise timing and amount of testosterone released by the mother to her developing male embryo, determining both male physical attributes and sexual identity/attraction. The female being the default template renders its embryonic sexual processing more robust and less likely to go awry that that of her brother. I feel I’m on safe ground by saying male homosexuals outnumber females by a wide margin.

      • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
        December 30, 2015 - 11:31 am | Permalink

        They will never find a gene sequence responsible for homosexuality, because it doesn’t exist. If they search for it and don’t find it, their narrative collapses.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        December 30, 2015 - 2:29 pm | Permalink

        I believe you are on very safe ground indeed. I don’t think that there are even 5 percent as many female as male homosexuals.

        That said, permit me to give the appearance of hedging my bets a bit. Among the things I learned at the Met a generation and more ago is that there are far more women with a deviant orientation than I had imagined, even though many of them seemed to be in lesbian relationships rather more because they were confused and weak-willed than truly oriented in that direction (and in that glittering but inverted, disordered context, they were also easy prey to the conformist impulse that seems as a rule to be even stronger in women than in men). Over the years I encountered perhaps twenty women and girls there whose situations were what I wouldn’t hesitate to call pitiable—similar in kind to and a good deal less rewarding than that of Ellen DeGenerate’s trophy: poor, deluded Anne Heche. Nor did any of them escape their poor choices as comfortably as Heche did either.

        • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
          December 31, 2015 - 9:53 pm | Permalink

          Indeed. I should have also said I believe there is continuum, where some individuals with less certain hard-wired instincts can be swayed. I can’t abide the outed, public gay, the media type. The closet wasn’t an Iron Maiden.
          Happy New Year!

    • Joe Six Pack's Gravatar Joe Six Pack
      December 31, 2015 - 7:01 pm | Permalink

      Wikipedia seems to talk about sexual orientation

      Wikipedia says under Biology and Sexual Orientation

      “A 2010 study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)[9] found that same-sex behavior was explained by both heritable factors and individual-specific environmental sources (such as prenatal environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer groups,and sexual experiences), while influences of shared-environment variables such as familial environment and societal attitudes had a weaker, but significant effect. Women showed a statistically non-significant trend to weaker influence of hereditary effects, while men showed no effect of shared environmental effects. The use of all adult twins in Sweden was designed to address the criticism of volunteer
      studies, in which a potential bias towards participation by gay twins may influence the results;

      Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance [of sexual orientation], the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and .64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.[9]

      I am no geneticist but it looks to me like gayness is about 60% choice. That would also be my experience after living over 20 years in DC where I met a lot of gay men. If i got to know them well enough they would eventually relate some story about a girl embarrassing them. They could not take the rejection so they went with the gay crowd which was only too eager to adopt them into their lifestyle. It was just easier psychologically.

      • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
        December 31, 2015 - 10:03 pm | Permalink

        “the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance.”

        Note that the environmental factors cited include “prenatal environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer groups, and sexual experiences)”. One would have to find out how to weight the physical as opposed to societal environmental influences to draw a definite conclusion.

      • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
        January 1, 2016 - 8:16 am | Permalink

        No geneticist am I, nor do expect you to be able to provide answers. The questions I have are, on what basis are they stating .18 – .19 genetic factors; and what genetic factors are they?
        The statement suggests that a “gay” gene or genes may have been identified and at the same time using the dodgy medical terminology like “has the appearance of”. Yet a 3rd possibility is the vague concept of genetic factors causing Amerindians to require more liquids therefore being at higher risk for alcoholism.
        As James Watson observed, apparently disgracefully, there is a lot we do not understand about combinations of genes.

  17. Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
    December 28, 2015 - 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Andrew Joyce, “I don’t speak for The Occidental Observer, but I do speak for myself when I advise against the involvement of sexual inverts in the movement.”

    In the justification that follows, it appears Joyce’s concern is actually closer to mine and specifically the question of queer activism by gay White Nationalists within White Nationalist circles – but is there any?

    For when I see American New Right B.S from Counter-Currents Publishing about how we need to choose between the homo and the negro; queer power B.S. from James O’Meara about how puffs are the best of us; New Right Spencer/Alt Right Johnson forcing a consensus that an anti-nationalist poofter, Jack Donovan, is the ideal model of White Nationalist masculinity, followed closely by Oscar Wilde … I don’t see White Nationalists subverting the movement. I see White Nationalists like Kevin MacDonald associating themselves needlessly with subversive ideas and personalities who are not White Nationalists.

  18. Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
    December 28, 2015 - 3:08 pm | Permalink

    I in no way mean to sound defeatist, but the opponent won a major battle in the 1960′ and 70’s by calling our unborn sub-human (a fetus). No proof is needed after something nearing one hundred million abortions in Europe and the Diasporas.

    The opponents semantics aside, what we are seeing now is a “next step” in controlling the genetics of the West.

    What to do? I think our best efforts might be directed toward creating an environment in which all European males have a viable reproductive strategy (and consider such just another weapon).

  19. Dave Bowman's Gravatar Dave Bowman
    December 28, 2015 - 12:02 pm | Permalink

    I feel the need to say a grateful, heartfelt Thank You so much, to Dr Joyce, for yet another two brilliant, masterful articles focussing hard on the origins of the extreme moral corruptions in our society. The self-seeking, utterly fraudulent, disgusting Jewish degeneracy masquerading as sexual “research” which took hold so long ago in Germany and Austria beneath the laissez-fair attitudes of a sleeping people continues to corrode and destroy White moral values across Europe and the west-facing world today long after the war which reduced Berlin to rubble, and their gross moral turpitude – now supported across the West by a mass of ill-conceived, unlawful, Jewish-bribed appeasement legislation – will eventually succeed in doing exactly what it was doing in Weimar Germany if not prevented. I am convinced that nothing less than truly radical and draconian measures to root out this bestial Jewish filth once and for all must inevitably come – by one means or another. Just as the spreading Jewish-backed sexual decadence and corruption of the dying Weimar Republic was in fact the main and strongest social platform on which the National Socialists originally campaigned – now wholly and conveniently forgotten courtesy of Jewish re-writing of German history – so today in both Europe and the United States we have a struggling against the self-same morally-destructive poison, from the same ethnic root source. As an organisation of the present and for the future, we should make one of our key public focuses the extreme moral damage which rampant, degenerate Jewish “sexology” has always done – and will always continue to do – to its host Western populations, for prior to their modernist Jewish corruptions, normal moral hygiene in sexual matters has always been of the most strongly-held (though intensely-private) convictions of White peoples – and thereby a stronghold of a strong, proud society. This is, of course, precisely why it has been so ruthlessly attacked by the “learned” specialists of uncontrolled Jewry.

    For my own part, I find myself spending more and more of my time trying to think of ways to widely and freely publicise this academically-heavy but wonderfully-perceptive, targeted information to likely recipients, without being arrested, in order to draw more public attention always back to the names, faces and ethnic identity always behind the evil. I am convinced this has to be the underlying strategy, and will both open the eyes of, and hugely comfort the hearts of, those hundreds of millions of normal, well-balanced, morally-sound, heterosexual White people who are crying out for an explanation of our current disaster – and a way forward to a better future.

  20. December 28, 2015 - 12:02 pm | Permalink

    For their rich trove of references and historical surveys, these have been entertaining and useful articles. Like some of the other commenters however, I demur at some of the author’s reasoning. It is very difficult to separate the strands of sexological research from those of psychology and psychiatry. It seems as though Mr Joyce wants a blanket condemnation of all research pertaining to sexuality. That is as bizarre and pointless as banning research into gastronomy. Some of the targets in these pieces are just a little too easy. Magnus Hirschfeld, for example, has been done to death for over eighty years because of his supposed obsession with and popularization of sex perversion. But his work was not significantly different from that of Havelock Ellis and Krafft-Ebing, or (to take a later example) Kinsey and Pomeroy. When Magnus Hirschfeld came to America on a speaking tour in the 1930s, he was hosted by G. S. Viereck and Harry Benjamin, both of whom were quite far removed from—opposed to, I would say—Frankfurt School Marxism and Leftism in general. It should be possible to make an informed criticism of Hirschfeld’s work without resorting to finger-wagging and reductionist arguments about Jewish conspiracies against the family. Speaking of which, the leap from Moll and Hirschfeld to modern homosexual emancipation is just a bridge too far. A ‘gay rights’ movement of some kind would have come into being in recent decades regardless of the Frankfurt School and Weimar-era sexual licentiousness. The really crucial factor is not that Gay Lib existed, but that it was subverted (like Feminism) by those cultural marxists who will opportunistically burrow into and exploit any available social trend or political movement.

    Closing the mind to intellectual inquiry about sexuality and affectional preferences is just not a wise strategy; it leads not to healthy thinking but to a cult mentality. This realization is why Nationalist organizations today are often open-minded or agnostic on the subject of homosexually-oriented members. Making those inclinations a major issue of discussion, or a bar to participation, is a prescription for making a movement as ineffectual as “social conservative” groups have proven to be. Finally, there are assorted errors and misinterpretations in these essays. E.g.,metamorphosis sexualis paranoia is not an old term for transsexualism as Mr Joyce seems to think, but rather is a delusion (Krafft-Ebing, 1877) that one’s body is transforming itself spontaneously even though no change takes place.

    • December 28, 2015 - 12:28 pm | Permalink

      I do not read Dr. Joyce as rejecting research, only as pointing out that the tradition of sexology covered in Part II was politically/ethnically motivated and has had destructive effects on Europeans and their cultures. I think we would be in a very different place if the research discussed in Part I had continued.

    • Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
      December 28, 2015 - 2:24 pm | Permalink

      “Gay lib”? Terms like that telegraph sexual inversion. BTW, a systematic delusion as to change of sex seems a pretty straightforward description, and one used by Ellis himself. Transgenderism doesn’t exist except within the warped mind of the sufferer. I am certain Bruce Jenner truly believes he is now, despite his DNA and chromosomes, physically a woman. Try again.

      • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
        December 29, 2015 - 8:30 pm | Permalink

        Ambiguous genitalia certainly exist, and I suspect that when brain development is better understood it will be seen that people like Bruce Jenner are indeed genuine freaks of Nature.

        Quite a different matter is dragging their sorry cases out of medical journals and placing them on a public pedestal for all to prostrate themselves before.

  21. Director's Gravatar Director
    December 28, 2015 - 10:04 am | Permalink

    This is one of the narratives that makes me extremely angry about Pink Nazi narratives.

    It’s pretty obvious that the Nazis were reacting to and anticipating demands for things like Gay Marriage etc.

    The idea that the Nazis were closeted fags must have been dreamt up to get ordinary men to fight them. And to die doing it.

    I had no idea that Weimar was that fucked up.

  22. Armor's Gravatar Armor
    December 28, 2015 - 4:14 am | Permalink

    In France, the state-subsidized and largely Jewish newspaper Le Monde had a lighthearted article just yesterday about zoophilia. The conclusion of the article seemed to be that the reason why we all dream of sleeping with cows, horses and dogs is that it puts innocence back into our sexuality (“partageant avec nous tous ce rêve d’une animalité qui soudain, rendrait la sexualité innocente” – sharing with ALL OF US that dream of an animality that suddenly would make sexuality innocent).

    They like to say that Le Monde is France’s “journal de reference” (just like the Jew York Times was supposed to be the jewspaper of record). Le Monde is also well known for once publishing a petition by French (=Jewish and Jewishy) intellectuals to lower the age of sexual consent.

  23. Jacob's Gravatar Jacob
    December 28, 2015 - 2:20 am | Permalink

    “urveying the contemporary social and cultural landscape in Western society, we see a much more radical departure from the measures advocated by Ellis, one of sexology’s founding fathers. And more than a century following from the first efforts of Moll to bring about a sexual revolution, we find ourselves once more wrestling with the hydra of Jewish sexology. As hinted at above, the modern Russian state has probably come closest to implementing measures in line with Ellis’ recommendations. Homosexual relations were decriminalized in 1993, but the state has consistently refused permission for “Pride” parades (the “flouting” warned against by Ellis) to take place. Most importantly, since 2006 Russia has also introduced legislation restricting the distribution of materials promoting sexually inverted lifestyles and behaviors to children as an extension to existing child protection laws. Homosexual couples cannot adopt children and cannot marry. While Russia has been harshly criticized and even fined by the European Court of Human Rights for these measures, the country is still remarkably lenient by Ellis’ standards. Single homosexuals are permitted to adopt children, sexual inversion was declassified as a mental illness in 1999, and those suffering from metamorphosis sexualis paranoica have been indulged with surgery and permitted to change their legal gender since 1997. One suspects that Russia will continue to be portrayed as a “civil rights” boogeyman by the sexologists and their agents until they fall into line with the pluralist zeitgeist.”
    Which makes russia backwards:
    By claiming that homosexuality destroyed families, which isn’t accurate at all, you demonize the Jews who punshed for sexual freedom.

    • mari's Gravatar mari
      December 28, 2015 - 12:17 pm | Permalink

      This is not a comment. Its just a clip and paste from the article.

  24. December 27, 2015 - 7:43 pm | Permalink

    A very characteristic Jewish trick is simply to flood some topic or interest with vast numbers of similar tracts, books, lectures etc. Ralph Miliband (‘Belgian Jew’) in a book ‘Marxism and Politics’ (published 1977; I believe he was a professor in Leeds, Oxford University Press publishing his worthless book). He stated in it that the German Social Democrats had no less than 4,000 different publications in German in about 1900. With little interest in objectivity, or in abstract truth or justice, Jews often dominate with their massive output of low-grade material.

  25. Henry's Gravatar Henry
    December 27, 2015 - 5:36 pm | Permalink

    A brilliant article sealed with a most welcome conclusion.

    FKA Max mentions Douglas Murray as a homo (invert) of worth. I disagree. Murray speaks out because he is a homo in fear of Islam. But not because he is a white man in fear for his white children’s future: for Murray has no such children and never will.

    What say Murray of the Jewish involvement in his nightmares…

    Yes. His silence is deafening.

    • December 30, 2015 - 4:03 am | Permalink

      You may have missed Douglas Murray’s recent article in the Jewish Chronicle. He writes of ‘many Jewish groups and Jewish leaders…taking a conspicuous lead in welcoming refugees’ to Europe and warns of ‘a problem for European Jews if their leaders…are seen to be the progenitors of a mass movement of people that looks likely in the near future to go unimaginably sour’.

      I think it is clear that Murray has become aware of the connexion between Jews and Third World immigration, witness his direct quote from Barbara Lerner Spectre. All in all, I see it as a remarkable piece of writing.

      • Henry's Gravatar Henry
        December 31, 2015 - 6:17 pm | Permalink

        “All in all, I see it as a remarkable piece of writing”

        I disagree but then I suppose it all depends on how one (or who) is looking at it.

        Murray isn’t condemning the Jews for their role in our destruction, he’s placing his caring arm around their collective shoulder, warning that their universal kindness may prove to be a boomerang: perhaps even a gift to those who, in Murray’s mind, seem to rise against the Jews at times like this.

        I respectfully suggest that you purchase a copy of the American Jewish Committee publication (1945) Jews in the Post War World and send it to Mr. Murray, so that he may know the root of our malaise and, evidently, the error of his ways.

  26. FKA Max's Gravatar FKA Max
    December 27, 2015 - 4:29 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Joyce,

    thank you very much for your research and your honesty and frankness in regards to the Homosexual Question.
    I partly agree with your conclusion. However what I have found, is that homosexuals have been some of the most effective and vocal opponents of the Islamic invasion of Europe e.g. Douglas Murray. While we should not welcome them with open arms, on the other hand I do not want to make them our enemies either. Non-Whites are my main concern. In the EU this is mostly Muslims, in the USA it is still mostly Hispanics/Latinos, who we need to be most concerned about.
    While the ”enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach is not recommended, and should not be applied to Jews when it comes to Muslims, I see White homosexuals as more aware of the Islamic Question, out of self-interest and self-preservation, than the average White person.
    Professor MacDonald wrote a short blog post on this issue in October:

    For Jews, ethnic interests are the ultimate value, trumping trivial issues like sexual orientation. Homosexual Jews still have ethnic interests as Jews, and the ethnonationalist right seems to appreciate that fact — while sensibly not advocating a public culture of homosexuality.

    I personally am in the camp of being open to homosexual contributions in our movement, but you are correct, they should not hold any leadership positions within the movement and promote their sexual preference/perversion, and we should make this clear to them in the beginning, and if they still want to join and accept these limitations, that they will not be able to rise all the way to the top within the movement and openly advocate for the acceptance of their sexuality, then we should open the door to them, in my opinion. For me personally, no Jews and no Muslims and no Han Chinese within the movement is the most important factor. Homosexuals are a secondary concern to me. Most homosexuals are pretty well-educated, cultured and dress well, etc.
    I think going after White homosexuals too severely could result in shooting ourselves in the foot. I see the same happening with the Britain First movement in the UK, which is calling for the death penalty for pedophilia:

    Britain First will always support capital punishment for paedophiles.
    This distracts from their main purpose and goal in my opinion, and truly is self-sabotage on their part and on their platform and their wider appeal to especially Whites, which otherwise is very good and appeals to many Britons in my opinion. This turns them into a Christian Taliban in the eyes of many Whites unfortunately, due to their rigid stance on certain issues
    As much as we cannot be subverted by sexual degeneracy, we should also be very careful not to fall into the trap of being religiously subverted. Otherwise there is no difference between us and reactionary/medieval Muslims or Third World Christians. Would you not want to abort a White child if you knew, that it had Down Syndrome, or would you want to prevent a white woman/girl from aborting a child, after she was raped or impregnated by a non-white person? Patrick LeBrun wrote a very good and important piece on this on Counter-Currents titled ”White Nationalists Need Planned Parenthood, Not the Pope”
    My recommendation is to not focus on homosexuality, abortion, pedophilia, transgenderism, etc., but to focus on the Jewish, Muslim, and immigration questions exclusively and not get sidetracked by social wedge issues.
    We cannot afford to convolute and conflate nationalistic, patriotic and racial issues with sexuality, etc.
    I am sure you are currently discussing these issue within the British Renaissance organization and membership.
    Ann Coulter is a one issue voter and activist. Stopping and reducing non-European immigration is all she cares about.
    The K.I.S.S. approach and principle can truly do wonders in my experience: Muslims, Jews, and immigration should be the main focus, otherwise, as I said, things get too convoluted in my opinion.
    White advocacy (Amren), patriotic immigration advocacy (Vdare) and the Jewish Question (TOO) combined are the sweet spot and the winning combination in my opinion. If you can duplicate these organizations and combine all these issues in one organization, British Renaissance, you have a winning team and approach in the UK, in my opinion.

    • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
      December 29, 2015 - 5:38 am | Permalink

      Amren and Vdare do not contribute to a “winning combination” in my opinion. Jared Taylor stated “AR has taken an implicit position on Jews by publishing Jewish authors and inviting Jewish speakers to AR conferences. It should be clear to anyone that Jews, from the outset, have been welcome and equal participants in our efforts.”
      The late great John Bryant, in his letter to Peter Brimelow of Vdare, wrote “The truth Peter is that all of this makes absolutely no sense unless you can see the hand of the Jews who have used their very great influence in all the Western countries to bring this on….So, why are you not dealing with the Jewish Question?”
      Gentiles are not invited as participants in B’nai Brith, World Jewish Congress, ad infinitum, so why must Jews be participants in White Gentile organizations, opening the door to the infiltration and eventual takeover that Dr. Joyce illustrated in his excellent article.

      • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
        December 29, 2015 - 11:54 am | Permalink

        Your comments are good, Karen, but as to the late John Bryant being “great”, he was a bit of a dirty old man, a perv. Don’t you recall some of the photos he placed on his site? Serious groinecology, including that of oriental women. Also:

        “On 2/9/07 at 9:30 AM Edgar J. Steele wrote:

        John –

        I am literally stunned by your trivialization of – and, since we’re
        “get(ting) real about pedophilia,” let’s call pedophilia precisely what it is – the rape of children.

        JBR replies:

        You are playing with words, Ed. Having actually communicated with a pedophile some years ago, I was told — and can believe — that kids can and often do enjoy sex with adults, and I have received confirming information from other sources. I can see clearly that you do not want to admit this, but it is a fact. My point, then, is that if a kid enjoys it (hence consents in some sense), it is not rape, because rape is non-consensual. Of course you are going to argue that a kid “can’t” consent, but you are just redefining ‘consent’ so you can draw the conclusion you want, ie, that kiddie sex is rape. Sorrie, no workee!”

        JBR was a libertarian. You know, do whatever you like.

        • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
          December 29, 2015 - 2:58 pm | Permalink

          John Bryant was great, his playfulness in rooting out cuckservatives was a joy to behold.

        • Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
          December 29, 2015 - 7:54 pm | Permalink

          I don’t think Bryant was a “perv”; I think he just enjoyed being provocative.

          I remember that exchange between Steele and Bryant; after a few email back-and-forths, Steele went ballistic. But I think Bryant was just making an intellectual argument, rather than demanding that pedophilia be made legal. Although a blanket ban on adult-child sex is necessary, Bryant does have a point.

        • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
          December 29, 2015 - 9:42 pm | Permalink

          Libertine. Libertarian is something quite different. The non-aggression principle would preclude that sort of non-consensual and therefore criminal behaviour.

        • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
          January 1, 2016 - 11:50 am | Permalink

          @Karen T:

          John Bryant was great, his playfulness in rooting out cuckservatives was a joy to behold.

          Épater la bourgeoisie, huh? Gee, I can think of a group of folks who are doing that 24/7. They never needed Bryant’s assistance.

      • FKA Max's Gravatar FKA Max
        December 29, 2015 - 12:28 pm | Permalink

        Sorry, I maybe did not express myself precisely enough, Karen. I did not mean to imply in any way, that Jews should be included. I am aware of this weakness of AmRen and also VDARE, and this is why an organization and movement without the inclusion of TOO’s research and contributors is incomplete, inefficient and runs the high risk of Jewish co-option in my opinion. This however does not mean, that AmRen and VDARE are without their merits, and should not partially be emulated in my opinion. VDARE are very successful fundraisers for example. What I meant, was to pick and choose the best parts and aspects of these three organizations/groups and form a single similar entity in Britain. I think British Renaissance is doing this (they used AmRen as an inspiration for their name I am pretty sure), and I think it is the most promising project and movement in/on Albion for our cause, and I wish them the best of success on their mission.
        Here part of their mission statement:

        The British Renaissance will act as a counter to the prevailing Marxist bias in the media, academia and Western culture – and will act as a vanguard of nationalist thought – seeking to stem the tide of Zionist infiltration at present hijacking our once noble movement. There’s an enormous vacuum right now in nationalism and I am concerned that pseudo-nationalistic interlopers will eventually hijack every party we have left, if something’s not done. BritRen will seek to organisationally counter this.

        Here Jared Taylor is asked by an Englishman about the Jewish Question:
        “The Jewish Question” – Jared Taylor Vs. Brit
        Video Link:
        Published on Apr 29, 2013

        Jared Taylor defends/clarifies his (and American Renaissance’s) position regarding Jews.

  27. Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
    December 27, 2015 - 3:24 pm | Permalink
    • December 27, 2015 - 9:20 pm | Permalink

      That site makes you wonder why they don’t promote an Ugly Liberation Front.

      • T. Juana's Gravatar T. Juana
        December 28, 2015 - 12:48 am | Permalink

        If You Wanna Be Happy Jimmy Soul [1963]

        If you wanna be happy
        For the rest of your life,
        Never make a pretty woman your wife,
        So from my personal point of view,
        Get an ugly girl to marry you.

        A pretty woman makes her husband look small
        And very often causes his downfall.
        As soon as he marries her
        Then she starts to do
        The things that will break his heart.
        But if you make an ugly woman your wife,
        You’ll be happy for the rest of your life,
        An ugly woman cooks her meals on time,
        She’ll always give you peace of mind.

        Don’t let your friends say
        You have no taste,
        Go ahead and marry anyway,
        Though her face is ugly,
        Her eyes don’t match,
        Take it from me she’s a better catch.

        Say man.
        Hey baby.
        Saw your wife the other day.
        Yeah, she’s ugly.
        Yeah, she’s ugly but she sure can cook.
        Yeah?. Okay.

        • FKA Max's Gravatar FKA Max
          December 28, 2015 - 11:02 am | Permalink

          What would be the most advantageous game theory strategy to advance our cause? What risks are worth taking? How can we apply this knowledge to the Homosexual Question within the movement? Does race trump beauty and sexuality? I think it does. Would you rather have a family with a stunning looking Hispanic or a mediocre looking European White? Would you rather ally yourself with a heterosexual Jew, Hispanic, or African American person, or with a homosexual White person?

          Nash Equilibrium
          Video Link:
          Uploaded on Oct 20, 2007

          One of my favourite moments in A Beautiful Mind.

          It has also been used to study to what extent people with different preferences can cooperate (see battle of the sexes), and whether they will take risks to achieve a cooperative outcome (see stag hunt).

          The original stag hunt dilemma is as follows: a group of hunters have tracked a large stag, and found it to follow a certain path. If all the hunters work together, they can kill the stag and all eat. If they are discovered, or do not cooperate, the stag will flee, and all will go hungry.

          The hunters hide and wait along a path. An hour goes by, with no sign of the stag. Two, three, four hours pass, with no trace. A day passes. The stag may not pass every day, but the hunters are reasonably certain that it will come. However, a hare is seen by all hunters moving along the path.

          If a hunter leaps out and kills the hare, he will eat. However, it results in the trap laid for the stag to be wasted, and the others will starve. There is no certainty that the stag will arrive; the hare is present. The dilemma is that if one hunter waits, he risks one of his fellows killing the hare for himself, sacrificing everyone else. This makes the risk twofold; risk the stag never coming, or risk another man taking the kill.

        • December 28, 2015 - 1:47 pm | Permalink

          An interesting applied social science project would be to design an Ugly Liberation movement along Jewish lines. Slogans: beauty is from within, perhaps. Cis- Trans- meta- (or other science based prefixes) of appearancism, shallowism, surfacism. Appeals to better natures: Do not treat the ugly as beneath you! Pity the ugly! Uglies are human too! And titles for magazines: Metropolitan Style? Reformed Deformed? … The Uglies are your oyster? Choose to Loose?

  28. L. A. Waddell's Gravatar L. A. Waddell
    December 27, 2015 - 3:00 pm | Permalink

    I’m surprised you didn’t mention the work of Hans Blüher, Adolf Brand or the Gemeinschaft der Eigenen. They were fierce critics of Herschfeld and Jewish sexology.

Comments are closed.