The White Racial Movement and Gays

Back in 2008, I wrote an essay/review—I called it a review at the time, but it was as much an essay as a review—of the book Gay Artists in Modern American Culture: An Imagined Conspiracy by Michael S. Sherry (The University of North Carolina Press, 2007). The book was informative and personally helpful.  It got me clearer about myself and what I’m up to in my life.

I approached the writing from a white racial angle, so I ran it by the editor of a print journal that dealt with racial matters from a white perspective.   He gave it a cool reception.  The gist of his response was the review was too gay-friendly and wouldn’t play well with his readers.  Perhaps if I were to mute my congeniality toward homosexuals so it wouldn’t be such a turn-off . . .

No thanks.  I wasn’t up to changing the piece at all, even if doing that would have gotten it into print.  It was my truth—reality as I perceived it, in the world and inside me—and anyway, I felt done with the writing and had no more energy to give to it and wanted to move on. I wasn’t even up for running it by other publications that might accept it as is.  I posted it on my personal website, which I’ve concluded is one of the internet’s best kept secrets, and there it sat for a decade.1

I seldom re-read my writings—I produce them and let them go—but this one I’ve revisited, I suppose, four or five times over the past decade. It has been a positive experience for me every time. It re-affirmed some things about who I am and got me back on track in my life.

I went back to the gay artists writing again a couple of days ago, and this time thought to myself, this gets at an important issue; how about making another run at getting it in front of the public?  There’s an animosity—tacit, and at times explicit—toward gays among white analysts and activists and organizations, and an absence of a gay presence, gay voice, gay sensibility, in the white movement.  I decided, yes, it might do some good if I called attention to the gay issue, encourage people to think about it and talk about it, and see if this topic can be discussed and debated with a reasonable measure of dispassion and objectivity; I realize it’s a touchy subject.

I’ve edited out the actual review of Sherry’s book and kept the material that deals with what I personally have taken from gay-influenced art and from gay artists’ life examples, as well as my comments about the wisdom of the anti-gay posture I’ve picked up in white racial discourse.  The basic point: I don’t see the movement entertaining and incorporating gay perspectives or inviting gay involvement in its efforts, and I think it would be good if it did.

I view gay white people as bona fide white people, and, the vast majority of them, as being good people.  They may not agree with the prevailing accepted wisdom in white activism on every issue, but I believe they have much to contribute to the movement if we could enlist them.  Besides that, it isn’t morally right to across-the-board disparage, even demonize, other white people simply because of their sexual orientation; it’s cruel at best and hateful at worst.  Also, as a practical matter, gays are powerful enough and organized enough and in positions of power and influence enough that we would best think twice before getting on the wrong side of them, especially if there’s no pressing need to do so, and I don’t believe there is.

You can read this updated 2008 article and see what it brings up for you and let people know what you think.  This writing is about personal responses to artistic expressions—a narrow focus, but it should, or at least I hope, prompt a broader consideration of social, political, cultural, philosophical, religious, moral, and strategic concerns related to gays and the promotion of white interests.

Here it is.

What do the following individuals have in common?

Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Franz Schubert, Henry James, George Santayana, Walt Whitman, John Cheever, Oscar Wilde, W.H. Auden, F. O. Matthiessen, Jack Kerouac, Rudolf Nureyev, Tennessee Williams, Gore Vidal, Cole Porter, Ian McClellan, George Frederick Handel, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Samuel Barber, Thornton Wilder, Dirk Bogarde, Edward Albee, Jasper Johns, Paul Bowles, Truman Capote, Montgomery Clift, Eudora Welty, Carson McCullers, Hart Crane, Herman Melville, James Dean, Philip Johnson, Merce Cunningham, Paul Taylor, John Cage, Ned Rorem, Andy Warhol, Christopher Isherwood, Jean Genet, Johannes Brahms, Van Cliburn, Franco Zeffirelli, Hubert Selby, Anthony Perkins, Robert Mapplethorpe, Terrance McNally, and William Inge.

All of them were or are artists—broadly defined anyway, Matthiessen was a critic and Philip Johnson an architect.  As far as I know, they are all white gentiles of European heritage.  All of them are reputed to be other than strictly heterosexual in orientation.  And all of them are mentioned in Michael S. Sherry’s book, Gay Artists in Modern American Culture: An Imagined Conspiracy.  Sherry is a professor of history at Northwestern University.  His book deals with events and personages in the mid-twentieth century.  None of the above list is in the prime of his or, in two cases, her career.   Sherry is himself gay.   Disclosure: I’m heterosexual.

Among the Jewish artists Sherry considers are Gustav Mahler, Aaron Copeland, Gertrude Stein, Allen Ginsberg, and Leonard Bernstein (who although married led an active gay life).  Sherry reports that writer James McCourt described Bernstein’s notorious fundraising cocktail party in Manhattan for the Black Panthers in the 1960s (see the Radical Chic half of Tom Wolfe’s book, Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers) as “an effort by the Uptown Homintern to appear radical without doing anything so socially compromising as coming out.”  Sherry devotes a good amount of space to describing the creation of the hit Broadway show West Side Story, in which the entire creative team was both Jewish and gay:  Bernstein for the music and, along with Stephan Sondheim, the lyrics; Arthur Laurents for the book; and Jerome Robbins for the choreography and direction.  Another Jewish gay, Ernest Lehman, wrote the screenplay for the film version.

The only black that Sherry discusses at length is the writer James Baldwin.  He briefly mentions dance choreographer Alvin Ailey, playwright Lorraine Hansberry, and writer Alice Walker.

Women don’t get much play in Sherry’s book.  Besides the two listed in the opening paragraph and the two black women named in this last paragraph, he refers briefly to the writer Adrienne Rich, anthropologists Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead, ‘50s pop singer Patti Page, and the film director Claire Denis.  The one woman who gets a lot of space in the book is the essayist Susan Sontag.  Over four chapters, Sherry quotes extensively from her classic essay written in the 1960s, Notes on Camp.  Interesting to me, Sherry never identifies Sontag as a homosexual.  She was, and this included a relationship of long standing with the photographer Annie Leibowitz, who recently [as of 2008] published photos depicting Sontag’s last days in her losing battle with cancer.

Beyond including contemporary comedian Margaret Cho in a long list of names, I don’t recall any reference in Sherry’s book to Asians.  Personally, I have been taken with the work of two gay Japanese artists active during the period Sherry focuses upon in the book, the writer Yukio Mishima and the film director Yasujiro Ozu.2   My connection with Mishima and Ozu centers on the top-rank quality of their art—check out Ozu’s film Tokyo Story and Mishima’s book Confessions of a Mask—and the messages about living I have taken from their work.  My guess is that, in good measure, the creations of these two superb artists were shaped by their sexuality, and that makes this gay topic an important one to me personally.

For readers antagonistic toward gays, Gay Artists in Modern American Culture serves up many arrows for their quiver.  Below are six examples.  All but one dates back a half century and might well ring unseemly to modern sensibilities; but then again, I suspect that more than a few in our time, including a good number of racially conscious whites, can resonate with these sentiments in both tone and substance:

  • The composer Charles Ives excoriated many European composers as “pansies,” “lily-pads,” “old ladies,” and “pussy-boys.”
  • The historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., criticized homosexuals for their “soft” leftism, cliquishness, and lack of mature manliness.
  • The psychologist Albert Ellis maintained that homosexuals “are almost invariably neurotic or psychotic.” Gay artists, Ellis argued, “cannot devise new solutions to artistic and scientific problems” and “are the most imitative, most conventional, and most acceptance-demanding people in our ultra-conforming culture.”
  • Novelist Philip Roth attacked Edward Albee’s play Tiny Alice for its “tediousness, its pretentiousness, its galling sophistication, its gratuitous and easy symbolizing, and its ghastly pansy rhetoric and repartee.” Disguise is the villain in all this, declared Roth. “How long before a play is produced on Broadway in which the homosexual hero is presented as a homosexual and not disguised as an angst-ridden priest, or an angry Negro, or an aging actress; or worst of all, Everyman?”
  • A 1966 Time magazine piece concluded that homosexuality is a “pathetic little second-rate substitute for reality, a pitiable flight from life, that deserves fairness, compassion, and understanding” but “no pretense that it is anything but a pernicious sickness.” The article pointed out gays’ “vengeful, derisive counterattack on the straight world.” It embraced writer Somerset Maugham’s view that queers “lacked deep seriousness” and have only a “wonderful gift for delightful embroidery.”
  • Midge Decter in a 1980 Commentary magazine essay shared that she found most gay men to be “mama’s boys,” alcoholic, “adolescent in personality,” unhappy, and prone to “drugs, sadomasochism, and suicide” and the “obliteration of all experience, if not, indeed, of oneself.”

The bullet points above don’t speak for me.  Increasingly over the last few years, and without doing it consciously, I have engaged the work of gay artists and attended to their life examples.  I came away from that admiring both the people themselves and what they produced, and consider myself to have been uplifted by these encounters.  I’ll outline five things that draw me to gay art, and discuss their significance with reference to white racial concerns.

  1. The quality of the art. Look over the names that lead off this writing—Michelangelo, da Vinci, Henry James, and on through the list. That represents some great art, and simply, I don’t want to die without experiencing at least a fair sampling of it.  These past few days, I read a collection of John Cheever’s short stories.3   Great writing.  I was moved, transported.  Earlier in my life I was in a modern dance company (with more than a few gays, I might add) and remain very interested in dance.  Dance doesn’t come better than that choreographed by Merce Cunningham and Paul Taylor.  I don’t want any movement I’m associated with denigrating artistic accomplishments because of the sexual orientation of their creators and thereby discouraging people from experiencing them, and I worry that the white racial movement does that.
  2. The insights I gain from it. Often those on the margin bring a fresh perspective to the ways of groups and individuals. Tennessee Williams has written that the cruelty and hurt gays experience results in greater sensitivity, and prompts gays to look deeper into themselves and the human spirit.  Sherry quotes social scientist Donald Webster Cory, who argues that, as outsiders, gays see “the stream of humanity, its morals and mores, its values and goals, its assumptions and concepts, from without,” and thus contribute to us all.

In recent months, I have been immersed in the films of the Japanese director referred to above, Yasujiro Ozu.  Yes, I can cherish my Western heritage and my race without closing myself off to the art and wisdom of other peoples.  I wrote the following about three of Ozu’s films:

I feel as if I am different for having seen these three films, that the person I am, the entity I experience as me, has shifted.  I’m more sensitive and softer in a good way and more grounded than before.   I believe if I had seen these films when I was young—I’m old now—I would have viewed life differently and lived differently than I have.  I wish I had known to see them back then.  Time has run out for me.   I can’t start over, it’s too late.4

The late Revilo P. Oliver, a classics professor at the University of Illinois and a prominent and highly respected defender of the Western heritage and the white race, wrote of the need to be “a man who is willing to learn from the accumulated experience of mankind.”

He must strive to observe dispassionately and objectively, and he must reason from his observations with full awareness of the limitations of reason.  And he must, above all, have the courage to confront the unpleasant realities of human nature and the world in which we live.5

It is not just Western heterosexuals who can help us confront the realities of our nature and the world in which we live.

  1. It brings me back to the reality of my life. Recently, I watched an interview with the French director Bruno Dumont (Humanite, Twentynine Palms) that accompanied a DVD of one of his films. From watching Dumont’s films, I pick up that he is gay.  The interviewer asked Dumont what matters to him in his life.  Dumont answered that making good films matters greatly to him—he gives his all to his work.  But what matters most of all to him, Dumont said, is his own existence.

In gay art, there is an emphasis on the private, the personal, and I have found that to be a healthy counterbalance to the public, impersonal thrust of the white racial movement.  White activist writings, the discourse generally, is predominantly about it, the fate of the West or the white race, immigration, government policy, what they said and did over there.  That is all fine and good, but it’s rarely if ever about the person making the point, or about you and me and how we are doing.  In a book review, I wrote:

[Chilton] Williamson’s presentations focused on the collective: religion, culture, ideas, public issues, what it is all about, what we are, what we do, what we should do.  Where does that leave me? I ask myself—this mortal, finite, human being sitting here in front of this computer on a Friday afternoon?  And where does it leave you, the person reading this right now.  I care about the destiny of the West, but the truth of it is I spend most of my time thinking about friendship, love, sex, pleasure, honest expression, my mental and physical health, and finding a rewarding way to get through my day-to-day activities.  And the truth of it is I’m going to attend to people whose work or life example informs these personal concerns.6

I read contemporary novelist Chuck Palahniuk (Fight Club, Choke), whom I presume is gay [he has since come out].  Palahniuk reflects a nihilistic perspective—nihilism is very much a part of the Western intellectual tradition.   He deals with issues that confront people in their everyday lives, like dealing with noise pollution and the anger we feel about things people do to us and our desire for revenge.  Palahniuk attacks rigid emotional restraint and foot-soldier loyalty to work and the state and the cause, whatever it happens to be.  He writes about the body and sexuality, and having fun.  He writes about pissing in the soup of the big shots, the top dogs, the I’ll-do-the-talking guys.  Does this, in good part anyway, come out of Palahniuk’s sexuality, out of the fact that he has lived in a world that has said “get back,” “get down,” “not you,” to people of his kind?   My guess: yes, it does.  Is this irreverence a dimension of the Western heritage: yes, it is.  The West, America in particular, has been about telling the pompous to f–k off.

Palahniuk wrote the following inscription on my copy of his book Lullaby:

To Robert—
is your life!!
[signed]
Chuck Palahniuk

I can relate to that and still care deeply about white people.

  1. It emphasizes gentility and softness and kindness. Last year [2007], I was asked to review a book that profiled “real men” that had struck the favor of an editor of a white racial publication. I wrote the review but it was never published.  It’s on my website.7

All ten of the exemplary men in the book were head-of-the-table, no-nonsense, tough guys—war heroes, football coaches, hard-charging entrepreneurs, those kinds of people.  In the review, I wrote the following (which may get at why it never got published):

As I read the profiles, I thought about what all this was saying about my father, slight of build, manicured, deferring, who ten hours a day, six days a week, stood on his feet with his arms raised cutting people’s hair, his shoulders throbbing as he got older, and rode the bus home every evening to be with my mother and me.

My father is long dead, but would he be welcome in the white movement?   I’m not sure.

I’m a sensitive, introspective, artistic type of person and have drawn inspiration from the American painter Robert Henri (1865–1929), whom I believe was gay.  Henri exemplified and wrote about the artist’s way, as he called it, where one’s total life, including his vocation, is conducted artfully, from that impulse; or another way to say it, where one’s life is one’s art. 8  I find Henri’s formulations appealing generally, and that they fit me.  But I don’t think Pat Buchanan would take to Henri, or me.  What gay artists are saying is that there is room in this world, including the white racial movement, for both people like them and me and people like Pat Buchanan [and today’s strident alt-right types].

Sherry reports that Arthur Laurents, a gay man who wrote the book for “West Side Story,” said it depicted a world of violence and prejudice in which the two lovers were trying to survive.  The critic Deems Taylor said Tchaikovsky, a gay man, “felt great pity for the mental and spiritual invalid.”  I am personally up to here with violence and harsh talk.  And while I might choose different words than “pity” and “invalid,” I care deeply about people who are in pain.  I’m in pain.  Can people in pain be part of the white racial movement?  Do they have to pretend they aren’t in order to be white advocates and included in the group and valued?   For that matter, aren’t we all in pain?  Isn’t that part of the reality of being a mortal human being?

Sherry quotes author Virgil Thompson: “The way to write American music is simple.  All you have to be is an American and then write any kind of music you wish.”  What Thompson is saying is you don’t have to be a certain kind of person and you don’t have to conform to a particular creed to express yourself to the world as a white person.   You don’t have to stay silent or hidden or on the outside looking in if you aren’t “normal” by somebody’s definition.  You have as much right to get on with what you do when you are truly yourself as anyone else.  You are not behind anybody in line

A concern of mine is that the central strain of white racial thought equates acceptability, legitimacy, and morality with normality, with normality defined as being like the person doing the talking.  The columnist Joseph Sobran is [was, he has since died] a perceptive, and courageous, writer, an inspiration to me.  But still, nobody is above critique and criticism.  In a 2003 column, he wrote about his kind of people, those who “aren’t easily bluffed” by gays:

When the abnormal claims to be normal, their instinct is to respond not with arguments but with jokes (“Did you hear the one about the straight Episcopal bishop?”).  Even Stalin couldn’t stamp out gay people.  More powerful than armies is a wisecrack whose time has come.9

There’s a smugness and nastiness in some spokesmen for whites that is getting old for me.  If we are perceived as smart-ass bigots we are going to stay on the periphery of American life.

  1. Gay artists promote reflection and self-criticism. Self-analysis and self-criticism are not hallmarks of white racial discourse. Rather, it is more the idea that we know the truth, we’ve got that down cold, there’s no doubt about that.  Our task is but to get others to see things our way.  In a healthy way, gay lives and creations shake up that certainty.  They prompt us to think about the degree to which white racial activism links the wellbeing of Western culture and white people to certain immutable and unquestioned orthodoxies: in religion, ideology, politics, sexuality and gender relations, art, lifestyle, work and leisure, and schooling.  Are we overly collectivist, authoritarian, male-dominated, closed-minded, hero-worshipping, exclusionary, and intolerant of anybody who is different from our central spokesmen?  As I see it, the challenge is to maturely and calmly consider this question.

Endnotes

  1. The website: www.robertsgriffin.com. The essay/review in its original form is in the writings section of the site: http://www.robertsgriffin.com/Sherry.pdf.
  2. See my writings On Mishima and On Three Films That Touched Me. http://www.robertsgriffin.com/Mishima.pdf http://www.robertsgriffin.com/Three%20Films%20.pdf
  3. John Cheever, The Stories of John Cheever (New York: Vintage, 2000).
  4. On Three Films That Touched Me.
  5. Revilo P. Oliver, America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative (London: Londinium Press, 1982), p. 182.
  6. See my review of The Conservative Bookshelf: Essential Works That Impact Today’s Conservative Thinkers by Chilton Williamson in The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 2, Summer 2005. http://www.robertsgriffin.com/ConservBookshelf.pdf
  7. The book: R. Cort Kirkland, Real Men: Ten Courageous Americans To Know and Admire (Nashville: Duke Cumberland House, 2005).  The review: http://www.robertsgriffin.com/RealMen.pdf)
  8. See my writing, On Living the Artist’s Way. http://www.robertsgriffin.com/Henri.pdf
  9. Sobran’s July 23, 2003 column, A Gay Man’s Manifesto. http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030729.shtml.

 

 

 

97 replies
  1. Ed
    Ed says:

    I couldn’t even finish this article. It’s nauseating. Sodomite are degenerates and they are on a full scale attack against EVERYTHING normal and healthy.
    This weekend I went to “lakeshake” in Chicago(a country music festival).
    The same day was Chicago’s disgusting “gay pride parade”. The country festival was thousands of people at the park made from the old meigs airport next to McCormick place.
    Yet 99.9% of them were white and no open faggots in sight.
    Yet AFTER the parade a small group of these sickos made their way to the front of the crowd in front of the stage and they waved their sodomite flag for hours.
    What do you as the author think would happen if 8 white Christian anti-sodomites went to one of their rallies and waved a Nazi flag or one that represents white heteros having special privileges and parades against faggots ?!?!?
    Obviously these freaks of nature and their friends would violently attack the white hetero Christian types.
    All one needs to do is to read all their disgusting degenerate “hopes and dreams”.
    They want pedophilia and they’ve, with Jewish help, pushed all their filth into the schools, fag marriage obviously etc.
    Why on earth, of ALL PEOPLE, would we want to align with pedos and freaks that are wildly pushing to spread their filth ?!?!?
    I’d rather align with any or all minority groups than align with faggots unless it was agreed that every last one would move to an island or a concentration camp.

  2. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    Being White is not only to be the progeny of Europeans. The White heritage entails a code of ethics too. And that code of ethics does not embrace sexual deviance. Even so, there are homosexuals of both genders in White Nationalist movements — sometimes in alarmingly large numbers, and all-too-often in positions of leadership. That, I put it to you, is the source and cause of the endless bitter quarrels and betrayals in those movements, and of those movements’ proneness to demise. Exactly the same can be said of the Roman and Anglican Churches.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      You are generally correct, Sophie. Homosexuality has to be “contained” and out of the public sphere, curtailing its influence. There is a public persona in general that civilized societies must maintain, which ours has collapsed.

      Privately, with boundaries set and proper controls, homos can carry on. Restricting them is like compressing a spring. They will always clamor for “more rights”, which must be refused resolutely. See my posting further down on how Singapore has handled the situation.

  3. Aitch
    Aitch says:

    I’m afraid that when I read “gays are powerful enough and organized enough and in positions of power and influence enough that we would best think twice before getting on the wrong side of them”, my middle finger started twitching. Maybe it’s because I’m English.

  4. ronehjr
    ronehjr says:

    Considering the tone of mainstream gay thought towards straight people I am not sure if this column is a massive troll. In case it isn’t, I have one response.

    Gay people exist only because of the sexual proclivities of straight people. It would behoove gay people, white nationalists or not, to remember this and realize their place in society should never be at the forefront as a group, and gay people should never be promoting group gay interests. Then homosexuality becomes an existential threat to civilization- i.e., what is occurring now.

  5. BlackedOut
    BlackedOut says:

    I guess I am confused about what exactly gays are supposed to contribute to furthering white interests. We are talking about perhaps 2% of the population. So they certainly don’t strengthen our numbers. How do they strengthen our intellectual arguments? Many of these “artists” produce nihilistic art, corrode the culture and lived dysfunctional lives. Many in the list above are jews who certainly won’t help us. Should we expect to get better treatment by the mai stream opinion molders by being more inclusive? What am I missing here?

  6. Sursum corda
    Sursum corda says:

    Tchaikovsky was a pederast. He sodomized his own nephew for crying out loud (who ended up killing himself, shocker). Are we really defending these degenerates. Sodomy and usury, two hallmarks of a judaized culture.

    • Taras Wesselchak
      Taras Wesselchak says:

      This is factually untrue. There is zero evidence that Tchaikovsky ever had sex with his nephew (Vladimir Davydov–which is not a Jewish surname, btw, although many Russian surnames based on Hebrew names are), nor did his nephew kill himself. In fact, his nephew was by Tchaikovsky’s side when he was dying.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        If by “zero evidence” you mean no incriminating, in flagrante photos, you are certainly correct. But every important Western Tchaikovsky biographer since David Brown, as well as many Soviet and post-Soviet biographers, has believed that his nephew Vladimir “Bob” Davidov (Bob was the nickname Tchaikovsky gave the young man) became the composer’s catamite while Bob was still a teenager.

        Have you ever read any of the letters from Tchaikovsky to Bob? What they expose are a psyche and mind-set best left concealed from view.

        What’s more, Bob (1871–1906) certainly did commit suicide. As there is nothing in Sursum Corda’s comment that suggests that Bob’s suicide took place prior to Tchaikovsky’s suicide,* mention of Bob’s presence at the latter’s bedside disputes an assertion that was never made.

        The bottom line here is that facing the facts of this morally unappetizing situation need not prejudice one against Tchaikovsky’s music, although it would hardly be surprising if it did! Less still, moreover, do the facts add up to corroborative evidence for Dr. Griffin’s contention that homosexuality and artistic creativity have any linkage beyond the merely adventitious.
        ___________
        *From what I know of the present state of scholarly affairs, opinion remains divided about whether there actually was a so-called court of honor that summoned Tchaikovsky and called upon him to commit suicide rather than face exposure and five-year banishment by Tsar Alexander to Siberia. But no close student of the subject any longer contends that Tchaikovsky’s death was accidental.

  7. Jack Highlands
    Jack Highlands says:

    First: nothing like the GQ to evoke plentiful comments.

    Perhaps the most prominent gay WN of all believes in both the cyclical view of history and the triumph of will, simultaneously. But the cyclical view of history is to a large extent a cycle of sex roles: the ‘hard times make strong men’ phase is characterized by masculine men and feminine women, our own ‘weak men make bad times’ phase is characterized by feminine men and masculine women (Tchaikovsky, and almost all the great art of the classical and romantic periods, belongs to ‘strong men make good times’).

    The link between this sex role degeneracy and gays is clear for all to see – IMO, there’s a strong biological component to all this. I don’t think any ‘triumph of the will’ gets us out of this: as an immutable law of nature, the cycle must play on. There can be no White racialism without opposition to degeneracy, and the time for future Tchaikovsky’s is three phases of the cycle away.

  8. Nick Dean
    Nick Dean says:

    Be pro-White. Nothing else is required of the pro-White movement. This is a non-issue.

    All of the drama introduced by hostiles or dopes, not only gays who say gays are the best of us, or gays are great models of masculinity, or even the non-homo, not pro-White issues that Greg Johnson promotes, are redundant. Ignore all of them.

    • Laurence Gallagher
      Laurence Gallagher says:

      What are the non-homo, not pro-White issues Greg Johnson promotes? Movie and sci-fi reviews excepted, I’ve read a lot of Johnson and missed his lapses from White Nationalist orthodoxy.

      • Taras Wesselchak
        Taras Wesselchak says:

        Same here. I’ve found Greg to be one of the wisest commentators on alt-Right leadership and organization and if anything am disappointed that he doesn’t seek out a more active leadership role himself.

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      In spite of my own opinions, I think that the homosexual Greg Johnson’s counter-currents site is pretty good overall. I just wish he understood the function of a moderator; sometimes he will publish comments that are objectionable to his own viewpoints and say nothing; yet other times loses his cool when someone mildly disagrees with him and even ban the hapless offender. What the hey. This type of brittleness is not a good thing and could turn newcomers off. Maybe he should remove the comments section altogether.

  9. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    I don’t need “gay” art of any sort and it’s too bad that so many white folks apparently do. I need to live in a sane and sound society. I’ve gone years without voluntarily listening to the embarrassingly bad creations of Tchaikovsky, Bernstein and the rest of them and I intend to keep it that way. Handel’s Halleluyah Chorus? The Water Music? Pure corn, high camp. Written, I am sure, with tongue in cheek. Handel was pulling our leg with those.

    Homosexuality is about taking a dyk up the arse (and associated acts), not interpreting the world for me according to some purportedly superior sensibility. You avoid this in your article with a precision that has to be deliberate. Homosexuality – on the increase and increasingly hostile to what’s left of any normalcy – was and is just an indicator of the near-total spiritual and physical degeneracy that now affects probably the majority of white people and not a few others.

    If WN/AltRight/proWhite/Whatever is just about living in our own countries once again, if that’s all there is to it, nothing more – leave me out.

  10. Maple Curtain
    Maple Curtain says:

    This essay reads like the anti-heterosexual hurt-feelings of a gay man.

    Hagiography of faggotry. Why is the author trying to rehabilitate faggism?

    Let’s re-visit that 1966 Time article: “homosexuality is a ‘pathetic little second-rate substitute for reality, a pitiable flight from life, that deserves fairness, compassion, and understanding’ but ‘no pretense that it is anything but a pernicious sickness.’ The article pointed out gays’ ‘vengeful, derisive counterattack on the straight world.'”

    That bullet point speaks for reality, Mr. Griffin.

    Gays are, because of their psychological make-up, always and everywhere subversive of straight society. They will always side with the (((destroyers))), and nothing in this horrible little pro-gay hagiography provides any evidence otherwise.

    Oh, and by-the-by, straight people have feelings, too. We can talk and write about the personal. We don’t need Mr. Griffin glorifying faggots and denigrating straights by straight-up claiming that straights are deficient to gays in the core of their selves.

    Maybe, Mr. Griffin, it’s time for you to come out.

  11. RoyAlbrecht
    RoyAlbrecht says:

    In well over 90% of the time, I am honoured to submit commentary that passes the moderators scrutiny and is able to improve the scope or understanding of a topic at TOO.
    In hindsight, I’m also thankful for being rejected in 90% of the under 10% of the comments that do not qualify.
    But the grist that overcomes the alienation of my day to day grind is when my favorite writers simply notice or even thank me for my efforts.
    It makes me feel that on the day when I am eventually murdered by these psychopathic Jews that my meager efforts will not have been totally in vain.

    That being said, as much as I love TOO, I still think that up to a quarter of contributions are either non-issues,
    or even worse,
    should never have passed muster and been posted.

    Reviews of – “..by Kike for Goy Consumption…” – films, books, articles, personalities, etc…, are one such genre that I do not have the stomach to read, let alone write a comment about.

    Another such category are dead-end, straw-man or diversionary issues and themes, of which I consider homosexuality to be one of.

    However, since the consequences generated by the adherents of this largely Jew inspired insidious behaviour have a net negative impact on Spiritual Evolution and,
    being the ascetic minded individual that I am,
    IMO, homosexuality is an issue that oozes (no pun intended) with repugnant hedonism and physical gratification and deserves at least a passing comment.

    However, just to be clear, ANY base sexual gratification
    that does not accompany the components of
    biological fertility,
    Christian Spiritual Reverence for life yet unborn,
    or at minimum a Tantric Act between two Ritualistically and Metabolically Prepared Compatible Mates with the express purpose of Enhancing One’s Spiritual Prowess
    is just not in the cards for me.

    Let us for a moment set aside the socially destructive aspects of Sexual Gratification without any of the above, positive, heterosexual-behavioural attributes like for example;
    the lack of children and the cultural loss therefrom as a consequence of these homo-couplings,
    the funding of these homo-movements by Jews who use them in their arsenal of tools to lower White birth rates and then point to those as reasons for importing Incompatible Racial Punters and Moral Degenerates from far off lands,
    the actual lowering of testosterone levels and the accompanying Metabolic…, and eventually…,
    the Spiritually Weakening side-effects of homosexuality.

    Consider also the, on balance, proven point that because homosexuality is actually just another addictive physical vice,
    it often becomes a gateway venue into more destructive behaviour like
    homo-pedophilia,
    drugs,
    alcohol,
    and the joys of coping with diseases (i.e. HIV-AIDS…).

    Moreover, “…Successful Homosexuals…” would not even be an issue were it not for the (((Father of Lies))) that supports the entire paradigm.

    Just a few hundred years ago,
    before the (((Race of Miscreants))) reached critical mass in terms of Planetary Resource Control through Deceit,
    homosexuality was at worst a non-entity in White Society or at best,
    something to keep hidden and under wraps.

    In Sparta, genetically deformed XXY chromosomal children were sacrificed to the Gods.

    Today, Jews socially engineer contaminants into the “…Goy Paradigm…” that in turn produce these homo-anomalies
    and then use White stolen funding to propagate the normalization of their Created Aberrations.

    Yes, I suppose it is none of my concern what two collusive and lascivious White adults do in the dark recesses of the night,
    but when the Jew has Fraudulently Positioned “…itself…” into controlling the helm of our present paradigm that kills the Wholesome and replaces it with the Diseased,
    “…it…” infringes upon the Rights of the Wholesome to conduct their lives according to their aptitudes…,
    AND (((THAT))) IS A PROBLEM.

    So let’s forget about Incurable Homosexuals in today’s age and concentrate on giving those Red Pilled, Resentful and Victimized Queers of Jewish Creative Abuse a Path to Catharsis by helping them to eliminate harmful Jews within our midst.

    The fact that some Jew-Induced, White, Homosexual Abnormalities have Artistic or other Talents is only positive for White Society after We Red Pill them and turn them against the (((enemy))) with the vengeance of a Deceived Tool.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      Roy, a bit over the top. Homosexuality just is. It is not to be celebrated or publicly denigrated. Singapore, as usual, had a short public debate about the role, rights, etc., of homosexuals, The final and decisive conclusion was set out by the Prime Minister, that homos have natural rights, their places that they frequent and their predilections. They are not allowed to parade their sexuality, publicly entice or promote it. The PM went on to say that the Nation will support and the traditional family, child rearing, and normal heterosexuality. Any such indecency of explicit homosexual behavior will result in swift and severe punishments.

      Singapore, the best governed state in the World, is a Chinese project and product of Confucianism, Buddhism, and traditional-yet-modern Asian seminal ideas. “Chinese people very practical” are words that I understand.

      One of the biggest problems of the Occidental is to flake Reality into abstractions, symbols, and representations, which may or may not be relevant and reliable.

      There will always be homosexuals, and many will be perfectly mannered, very discrete, and very moral. I know several of them. Like anyone else, if they transgress or violate rights and responsibilities the punishment should fit the crime. Where I differ from most is the extent of punishment. My code follows the “Asian” model: execution for murder, child rape, drug trafficking, and even attempted murder. Also, flogging, aka “caning” in Singapore. There should be no debate or back and forth on this subject. I simply advocate what works best and has proven to be so for thousands of years. Because of what I have exposited above-and much more-the Orient will be around for a long, long time, while we “Whites” and our references of past glories and old forms and frames will have been swept aside by the tides and floods of history.

      • RoyAlbrecht
        RoyAlbrecht says:

        I’ve seen your posts quite frequently, and with a name that begins with a play on words that translates to
        ” Sh!t on Marx ”
        I only read enough of them to convince me that your posts are generally not worth reading let alone commenting on.

        However, since you critiqued me without referring to the exact passage that was “over the top” and
        then continued passively defending a lifestyle that enjoys smearing a substance on one’s gonads that your pen name contains,
        only to finish off with using an example based on the actions of a Race of Humans that arguably evolved from orangutans,
        you really go a long way in reinforcing my point that you really are not worth responding to.

        However, being the idiot that I sometimes am, my response to you is this:
        ” over the top ” is a relative expression and is often determined by the bottom position of its user.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Dear Roy,

          Thank you for these remarks. Our colleague Charles Frey also pointed frankly to the willful offensiveness in the other commenter’s screen name. It’s hardly surprising that what is inherent in his name frequently appears in his comments, too.

          • RoyAlbrecht
            RoyAlbrecht says:

            Pierre,

            Moral support coming from a paradigm of erudition, eagle eyed insight and a towering intellect such as yours is definitely an honour…, thank you.

        • Curmudgeon
          Curmudgeon says:

          Roy,
          I guess I was niave. Since Poupon Marx claimed to be French, and many of his posts counter intuitive, I took him to be literally a “poupon” Marx – baby face Marx.

          • RoyAlbrecht
            RoyAlbrecht says:

            Curmudgeon,
            I had no idea that poupon meant “baby faced” in French.
            Thanks for the heads up.
            Notwithstanding, the mere presence of the nickname “Marx”, on an English medium website, prefaced with “baby faced” or as I may have incorrectly understood it; “poop on”, is a name that is associated with one of the most vile Jewish Killers of Whites in the history of the West. To see that name again and again associated with either (baby face or sh!t on) is to me a passive form of in your face aggression. Moreover, his writings generally resemble (((run on irrationalizations))) that seem to be strategically posted to obfuscate the more level headed thoughts on the page.

      • Karen T
        Karen T says:

        An Oriental future modelled on Singapore would bring about “This Perfect Day” (Ira Levin was the exception to the rule or the exception that proves the rule).

      • T. J.
        T. J. says:

        re Singapore:

        The 10th anniversary event was to reflect on – while celebrating – the known wisdoms and credited innovations of the founding prime minister, whether domestic or international. The banner title – (((The Lee Kuan Yew New World Order Conference))) – was an obvious one, potentially fatuous (let’s face it), but what was stunning was that it mushroomed into a true world summit, if Asia-heavy (which made sense, because such was the tilt of the geopolitical world by 2025).

        https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/a-new-world-order-thanks-to-lee-kuan-yew

        Singapore is a successful White country. The slants, like all the rest- utterly dependent on White stuff.

        I recall an interview with Lee in the LA Times circa 1992- “The industrial revolution was just luck- could have happened anywhere.”

        My thoughts are unprintable so I stop here.

  12. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    I think we should make a distinction between homosexuality as such and the homosexual agenda. The latter is the promotion of this deviant form of sexuality in the form of gay-prides, gay-marriage, the right of gay-couples to adopt children, education of little children into homosexuality and the portrayal of homosexuals as extraordinary sensitive and exemplary persons. This homosexual agenda should be rejected for every sane society (or society that wants to become sane again).

    Homosexuality as such is another thing. The reality is that every society will always have its homosexual minority. For the West this is about 3% of the total society. If such people keep their deviation private and for the rest contribute positively to society they can be tolerated. Some of them have been geniuses who did enrich society without promoting their sexual deviation.
    If homosexuals in White Nationalism behave in a similar way they can be accepted. However, leading roles should by preference be restricted to normal people. After all, racial interests ultimately are about procreation, and that is the prerogative of sexually normal people.

  13. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    This is a horrible article. It’s subversive. The first wrong thing about it is it’s use of the word “gay” and only that word to describe what is a sexual orientation. “Gay” is a word “appropriated” in modern times to cover up, not to clear up what is being talked about. The proper word, homosexual (as in vs heterosexual) is used only once in this entire article and for women, not men. So “gay” is meant to deny or distract from the sexual act and sexual attraction that is at the basis of a homosexual’s life. The homo-sexual act and the same-sex attraction is what being “gay” is really about.

    Joseph Sobran was right. Let’s get rid of the word “gay.”

    Since no one else brought this up, I thought I would.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      The terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” and their various cognate forms were themselves earlier fancy-dress coinages meant to costume (hence conceal) in clinical garb that consistently condemned vice that was for centuries considered too vile to name. That is, in an age that congratulated itself less on its sophistication and worldly-wiseness than the post-1960 age does, (((those))) who pushed the use of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” plainly meant to get their auditors to hear these words as substitutes for the far richer and older vocabulary of moral, social, psychological, and medical opprobrium (or approval, with reference to “heterosexual”) that English and the other Western languages were well stocked with.

      The then-new terms had the appeal of “scientific” description, deracinated from anything so quaint as vice or virtue. That the terms’ proponents suckered as many people as they did is a good indicator of the Jews’ power in the USA as long ago as the first decade of the twentieth century.

  14. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    It’s likely that Robert Griffin’s essay is going to unleash a firestorm in the comments, so I have no qualms about tossing in an ember. Jewish homosexual’s in my ‘antisemitic’ opinion have contributed nothing to Western culture. Francis Yockey’s Culture-distorters is apt.
    Allen Ginsburg was a communist who dedicated a poem to NAMBLA, Gustav Mahler was as overrated as Schubert was underrated, Gertrude Stein’s only contribution, if it can be called that, was her central role as an arbiter and promoter of modernism, and her god only knows why famous line “a rose is a rose is a rose” if changed to “a ham is a ham is a ham” would apply to Leonard Bernstein.
    I love Tennessee Williams, but that may simply be the feminine paying tribute to the feminine. Oscar Wilde’s ‘fairy tales’ -pun intended- are beautiful and ennobling. The Happy Prince, The Birthday of the Infanta, and especially The Nightingale and the Rose, would make Wagner weep. Yukio Mishima rocks unlike Susan Sontag who in my opinion was a bore, as unoriginal and pedestrian as her overrated Jewish lover Annie Leibovitz. Camille Paglia may have nailed it when she wrote, and I’m paraphrasing, that lesbians unlike queers are not creative.
    Alfred Rosenberg wrote “Wagner fought against a plebianised world and won.” Alas, the Jewish and homosexual alliance who brought us West Side Story cut short his victory and brought us the triumph of a plebianised world where we are still mired.
    Alfred Rosenberg said of Michelangelo ” His art exhibits no appeasement of passion. Rather one sees the unleashing of passion through personality, through a personal will in art.” Alas, that passion which Rosenberg rightfully applauded has undergone a transformtion courtesy of the Culture-distorters………https://youtu.be/lujybs2bhHY

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      Camille Paglia remarked that homosexuality is, after all, unnatural and therefore not in and of itself a mainstream force for the propagation and continuation of society. Homos-I never use the word “gay” or “queer”- are tolerated as long as they are discrete, and conform to public mores and norms. Like prostitution, as long as it is out of sight and perception, and no actual negative vicissitudes accrue. In other words, as is done in East Asian countries.

      Families and procreation are essential for the survival of a culture and society, homos are not. In mechanical systems, there are essential components that the machine(s) needs absolutely, while there are other pieces that are enhancers like insulation and color coding of controls, etc.

      The comments here fall into two categories: purists and pragmatists. Purists dwell in the abstract, vague, and omit the accommodation and implementation of policy and ideals. In fact, purists are purely idealistic and construct imaginary worlds that feign to be tested and quantified. They run away from specifics and greater detail and feedback.

      As an old sailor told me when I was young and stupid (pardon the tautology), “Travel is the best school”. It is also the superior method of arriving at more certain conclusions and results, which is of course, inductive reasoning. Not for lazy people.

      • T. J.
        T. J. says:

        You need more knowledge about pragmatism. It was sold as hard-hitting, no-nonsense realism. They lied, big time.

        American pragmatism is wholly derived from German Idealism- airy fairy, run away from observable facts.

        “. . .Professor Robert Brandom gives a talk on the development of American Pragmatism, beginning with Kant and German Idealism. Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that began in the United States around 1870. Pragmatism rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality.. .”

        https://tinyurl.com/yacs8nek

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      Karen T. And who is on the sidelines cheering them on? How many “White” mayors have actually created and promoted “Gay Pride” parades for all the children to see the glorification of an unnatural sexual orientation, that frequently manifests itself as vulgar, degrading, and destructive?

      That is why I do not believe that West Europeans as a whole in the present milieus and scatalogical culture can be salvaged. These imbecilic weak minded rabble need to be left behind to be eaten and disposed as Eloi and the farm animals they aspire and enact.

      The White Herd needs to be sequestered and separated not only from the ((((Viruses and Parasites))), but also from the “People of Color”, who are like flat tires and bad fuel on the engines of civilization and advancement. The First World War alone, removed the “Flower of British Manhood” from that nation, as it did to to other countries. The total loss of quality stock, pheno and genotype was morbid-the kind that careful replenishment would have taken several generations of careful and deliberate breeding to replace. Which did not happen; just the opposite.

      • BjornThorsson
        BjornThorsson says:

        According to your logic concerning the loss of quality stock during the two European civil wars, the Swedes should be at the top of the quality pyramide by now. Being neutral i both wars they kept their best.
        Excuse my doubt as to their natural lead in this race.

      • Jeremiah williamson
        Jeremiah williamson says:

        ‘That is why I do not believe that West Europeans as a whole in the present milieus and scatalogical culture can be salvaged. These imbecilic weak minded rabble need to be left behind to be eaten and disposed as Eloi and the farm animals they aspire and enact.’

        Spoken like a true supporter of the White man. I personally think that a fish rots from the head down and it is the elites who have become corrupted not the ordinary people. A thousand years of good Christian outbreeding, damn near 1500 years of building civilisation inside the hajnal line and you would like to throw it away because these people dont live up to your elite ideas despite the fact that it is most certainly not thier fault.

        Away with you

    • Lou
      Lou says:

      overrated Jewish lover Annie Leibovitz.
      Ah, I knew a cranky jew who was there ‘way back in the 1960s’ and he described (((wenner))) as closet fag [his term] who pushed Annie into stardom at his Rolling Stone mag. Maybe wenner needed a touch of jewish feminist at his mag…A L is a three fer—jew, female and dyke.
      I agree, her photos are just okay.

  15. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    Self-analysis and self-criticism are not hallmarks of white racial discourse.

    Speak for yourself, Mr. Griffin. You picked an odd venue to whine about the absence of the very characteristics that are present to overflowing hereabouts, whether in articles or in comments.

    And by the way, Brahms was a bachelor, not a queen. Do yourself a favor and stop reading Jan Swafford’s swill.

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      @Pierre. I did not believe for one moment that Brahms was queer and was shocked when his name appeared on that endless list. Does Griffin not realize that over the past generation the “gay community” has ramped up its practice of (probably falsely) outing long-dead artists who are not around to defend themselves? Same with blacks claiming great men and great inventions as their own.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        As I fully agree with your comments both directly above and farther above, dear friend, I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Griffin realized not just the things you have enumerated but a great deal more than he has let on.

        As it happens, earlier in my life I was acquainted with some of the people Griffin refers to in his article; in one case the acquaintance originated in college and continued till the nineties. Some of these people constitute a circle, or at the least they may be said to be well known to one another. Perhaps Mr. Griffin has some connection with this circle. If he does, he’s kept mum about it.
        ____________
        A bit more, if I may, about the Queer Artist List. I have never before seen the claim that Handel was homosexual. Even the (((fabulists))) at the Pretend Encyclopedia don’t make such a claim. As for Schubert, the entirety of the claim that Schubert was homosexual—and not merely homosexual but a very active member of a predatory “chicken queen” group—rests upon a single article by (((Maynard Solomon))) published in a trade journal in 1989: “Franz Schubert and the Peacocks of Benvenuto Cellini.”

        I remember the appearance of this article and the subsequent fuss with great clarity, not least because I initially believed what it asserted—why, after all, would (((honorable scholars))) lie about so grave a matter?!?—and was profoundly shocked and dismayed by the revelation. Yet although the article was given the full Moses-on-Mount-Sinai treatment by the New York Times and the associated Judaeo-fairy publicity machine, the thesis has never had more than innuendo and (((psychoanalytic double-talk))) for support. Among notable scholar-musicians, both Nikolaus Harnoncourt (d. 2016) and Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau (d. 2012) gave it zero credence.

        Not that Mr. Griffin will care what I think, but zero is the same amount of credence I now give the thesis, too.

  16. Mike
    Mike says:

    Complicated subject. Cut to the chase – maybe individuals with a homosexual inclination can be part of the movement but come on, they have to be watched. They may be talented for sure – that is what this writer is saying – but often homosexuals are neurotic, unstable and immature. To be fair, a lot of straight young White guys are also unstable and immature though not as neurotic. This author goes way too far in minimizing the problems with homosexuals but he does have a point. In the situation that we are in now – outnumbered and with little resources – we have to think before turning any White man away.

    Before you all erupt at me I’d have to also add that I would not ally myself with anyone who subscribes to the “gay” ideology. The behavior may be bad and intrinsically destructive but the ideology is much worse. We have always have people doing with sort of stuff but no culture, not even the Greeks and Romans, had this “gay” ideology. I would not ally myself with someone who openly lives a “gay” life or promotes or even accepts it. This leaves out just about every homosexual I’ve ever known. I’d also stay away from the ex-gays because one, they are mostly boomer tier, mega-church cucks of the worst sort but also they do tend to implode back into butt fucking eventually.

    Who does this leave? Not many tbh but I have known a few guys who never I guess were homosexuals but never did anything about it. Take their money in donations? Sure. Why not? Have them as leaders? No way.

  17. J F M
    J F M says:

    Like the recent article on national socialism, this piece was necessary to help belay the fears of those white people who think this movement for “white identity” is just a cover for Anglo Saxon, Protestant. free market
    ideology. Unfortunately the comment sections reads like a wistful return to the good old days of 1850’s America. Do you people really think you are going to
    achieve a 21st century ethno state centered on your sort of values. Where? Rhode Island?

  18. Red=fireStarter?
    Red=fireStarter? says:

    Arts and gays are inextricably linked, and if we are ever to create a pro white cultural alternative, we will desperately need them. Philosophers are also typically homosexual; Socrates, Plato, nietchze, and schopenhauer to witness. It’s because gays possess high verbal IQs. I have a theory that testosterone hypertrophies the part of the brain already dominant—technical left brained skills in heterosexuals, while gays have a female brain, and thus the verbal is amplified in them, higher than normal females.

    There are in fact strong gay contingents on the altright/pro white (whatever)already. You can’t miss them if you are attentive. And already they are making strides in the creation of pro white culture, if perhaps they are somewhat disruptive.

    In your exploration of literature you will come to see that almost all literary figures have been sexual deviants of some stripe. “This is an architecture for the odd,” said Auden, and I believe this was what he meant. I am hard pressed to find a poet of any stature that I am sure was a meat and potatoes heterosexual man. I strive to. Heine the great German Jewish poet was probably gay, as he died of syphilis, which was the HIV of the 19th century.

    There is a game in literature, a sort of confessional, where the artist will reveal his sexual preference and whether he has acted upon it, in a symbolic or coded fashion. It adds a dimension to literature. The scene in catcher in the rye where he touches the boy’s hair is a blatant example.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      There is no recorded evidence that Socrates and Plato or Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were homosexuals, nor is there proof that most philosophers and literary figures were sexual deviants. If verbal intelligence is boosted by female hormones, you will have to explain why there have been so few female philosophers.

      Your claim that most great men of White history were homosexuals looks suspiciously like the claim of the Afro-centrists that Nefertiti, Cleopatra, Hannibal, Socrates and Beethoven were Black.

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      @ ‘Red=fireStarter?’

      No fire; only a limp attempt to snatch the sexual deviance of homosexual men out of the jaws of perversion. Homosexual men (those sad, disease-raddled people are certainly not gay) have landed us with the hideous cost of financing the medication of HIV/AIDS, at the cost per annum per infected person of approx. £400,000. This is money taken from research into child bone-marrow cancer and other hideous chilhood illnesses. Hang your heads in shame, you filthy lot of faggots!

      • Red not fire starter?
        Red not fire starter? says:

        True, but I think hiv would have become prevalent at some point even if not speeded along by homosexuals. Your anger at hiv is rather focused—my friend’s mom died of complications of hepatitis C which spilled over in to the innocent population. I don’t hear you cursing those “tattooed drug shooting up bastards” who brought this plague upon us. Predictably, you haven’t even heard of hepatitis C and B. You are opportunistically employing a misfortune that befell a group you (understandably) dislike.

        • Sophie Johnson
          Sophie Johnson says:

          ‘I think hiv would have become prevalent at some point even if not speeded along by homosexuals.’

          This does not even begin to make sense. Filthy male homosexual behaviours are solely responsible for the onset of the HIV?AIDS epidemic.

          And what do you think you are achieving by muddying the waters with inanities like ‘Predictably, you haven’t even heard of hepatitis C and B.’? Predictably! Oh, go jump.

          • Barkingmad
            Barkingmad says:

            Read what Peter Duesberg has to say about the silly, useless retrovirus called HIV, which doesn’t cause a damn thing. His pronouncements led to his funding being cut off and being generally ignored at the university where he worked. To add insult to injury, the only project they gave him was organizing the annual picnic.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      … [Heine] died of syphilis, which was the HIV of the 19th century.

      This half sentence is emblematic of your entire comment, which is tendentious when it’s not being smug, ill informed, or deceitful.

      Syphilis is real, up to a point anyway; but HIV is a harmless passenger virus—if, that is, it even exists, as microscopic “identifications” have all been conjecture backed by NIH megabucks. The fact that you double down on this (((Establishment))) fantasy later on is also worth noting.

      Queeny hasbara, anyone?

    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      Kerouac came to despise Allen Ginsberg and his ilk. He was waking up to the heavy Jewish influence in the “beat movement” and was beginning to speak out about it when he immediately disappeared from the reading public. That was the end of Jack Kerouac, lover of a free American ideal, ending his life living with mom and drinking himself to death. Poor Jack.

      • Andy Hamilton
        Andy Hamilton says:

        I saw a youtube video where Kerouac was making some suspiciously ‘incorrect’ comments. I think Ginsberg was there at the time. It might have been an old show with WF Buckley. I think Ginsberg looked a little upset with what Kerouac was saying.

  19. Social Conquest
    Social Conquest says:

    The only argument I find compelling in regards to the Homo Question is discouraging instances of “Gay Witch Hunts” that can divide our movement. As long as someone keeps it a secret and doesn’t practice, promote, or identify with homosexuality, I think that they can typically play a role in our movement. Any arguments beyond that is simply promoting Cultural Marxism.

  20. Bill R
    Bill R says:

    Absolutely no good whatsoever can come from society — but especially any white enthnostate we hope to someday have — legitimizing, let alone normalizing, any form of sexual deviance. This becomes even more true and critical when one realizes that the reason we’re discussing this in the first place is because homosexuals are far beyond being merely interested in their private erotic pursuits. They are constantly agitating for social, cultural, and political changes that favor their deviant lifestyle.

    Furthermore, like Jews, no amount of social change in their favor is ever enough. And just as Jews desire the presence of ever more and more racial minorities because they see this as adding more layers of protection and reassurance for themselves as a racial minority, so homosexuals desire the normalization of ever more and more sexual deviancy. Ergo, same-sex marriages become legal throughout the land and all of a sudden we’re talking about transsexuals, allowing people into the public restrooms of the opposite sex, and legalized child abuse in the form of everything from education about how “normal” and “natural” these sicknesses are, to compulsory puberty blocking drugs in a dangerous attempt at humoring the delusion of an emotionally disturbed youngster.

    Homosexuality is a mental illness, period. The erotic orientation characteristic of this mental illness, and its obsessive nature, is only one symptom. The categorization of homosexuality as a mental illness was once recognized by the American Psychiatric Association, and was removed, not in light of any new scientific evidence, but only after a sustained campaign of threatening and intimidating political militancy. Can one imagine any other category of the mentally ill mounting a similar campaign, let alone a successful one? The homosexual simply cannot be trusted not to intrude his mental illness into any significant endeavor in which he is involved. A good look into what the actual reality of these disturbed individuals is like can be found in Charles Socarides’ book A Freedom Too Far.

    One can debate the degree to which society should (or should not) attempt to restrain these people in their private erotic pursuits. But the public display or advertising of homosexuality in any form, let alone its public celebration or attempts at recruitment, should never be tolerated.

    As Andrew Joyce concluded in his Occidental Quarterly article, “The Assault on Gender and the Family,” which dealt directly with this very topic, “I advise against the involvement of sexual inverts in the movement… 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 must be no distraction from this focus, and no concession on any ground… In this age of promiscuity, hedonism, abortion, and impending demographic oblivion, our future depends on it.”

    • Luke
      Luke says:

      Bill R. threaded the needle on this topic. Outstanding and 100 percent truthful and well thought out analysis.

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      “legitimizing, let alone normalizing, any form of sexual deviance.”

      While we’re discussing sexual deviancy, heteros are not innocent. Have a look at urban dictionary for some gruesome descriptions. They make anal sex look healthy and normal. Mind you, I recall reading about ancient chinese royalty doing serious schit like this. Stuff beyond your worst nightmares, wishing you had never heard about these things. Probably all royalty everywhere as well. Is it not interesting that, in the past, people with considerable leadership capacity came with damaged brains, but now, like everything else, we the hoi polloi are tripping over ourselves imitating them (but without their talents).

      Sexual depravity is all of a piece and if homosexuals were not organizing against normal society in a variety of ways political, legal, social & cultural, I would say they are no worse than non-homosexual degenerates. But it’s just a matter of time before heterosexuals join in with their homo brothers ‘n’ sisters, publicly taking “pride” in their twisted predilections – indeed, wearing it all like some bizarre cloak of moral rectitude.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      Here’s a concrete example, not some vague and ethereal abstraction and general deduction:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Singapore

      “In his concluding speech on the debate over the repeal of Section 377A,[2] Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told MPs before the vote that “Singapore is basically a conservative society… The family is the basic building block of this society. And by family in Singapore we mean one man, one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit.”

      And…..

      “Recognition of same-sex relationships
      Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Singapore
      Singapore does not recognise relationships of same-sex couples in any form (such as marriage, civil union, domestic partnership).

      Adoption and family planning
      Adoption of children by gay and lesbians are illegal in Singapore.

      Discrimination protections
      No laws exist specifically protecting LGBT Singaporeans from discrimination in the workplace, housing or any other relevant areas. Previous attempts claim damages for alleged discriminatory conduct in such fields have been dismissed in Singaporean courts.[8]

      Government reports
      Despite the legal conditions in the country, Singaporean government representatives have previously spoken glowingly of the conditions faced by LGBT citizens at a United Nations anti-discrimination committee; “homosexuals are free to lead their lives and pursue their social activities. Gay groups have held public discussions and published websites, and there are films and plays on gay themes and gay bars and clubs in Singapore.”[4]”

      Many commenters on this thread descend into hysteria and signaling-many with vulgar and gutter language, aping the coarse and repulsive language of celebrities, political hacks, and Jewish “comedians”.

      Would it not be nice to live in a nation with the intelligence, guts, and wisdom to stand fast for what really counts, traditional man-woman-family-children?

  21. the beer seats loves puritans
    the beer seats loves puritans says:

    Michelangelo Buonorotti and Thornton Wilder aren’t homosexuals. How many others on your list are speculative and gossip of a dirty mind?
    They were a certain kind of rare man. Chaste and religious Christians to the best they could be.. Those who often write about them aren’t and can’t understand such a person. The male equivalent of the age old European phenomenon of the “maiden aunt”- they were.
    Thornton Wilder is because it comes from a male prostitute who liked to go around saying he slept with everyone.and he is repeated like lurid monkey and taken as fact.

    Michelangelo didn’t probably ever see a female in the unclothed state and used the male models dressed like the female. Like many males- he didn’t think that highly of the female until very late in life- when his best friend was a Nun. He was self conscious of his unattractive looks. and there was more strict separation of the genders back then. So there was less opportunity for a very religious single guy like him to chat up the ladies. People talked differently back then. While most people are carnal and profane regarding a nude-many artists are like doctors and view the human body in a non- sexual way.. Especially the classical artists. They had chaste eyes that use the outer human form- in homage to the ancient Greek artists and mythology before them- to convey inner realities, truth or complex abstract concepts.

    Michelangelo once didn’t take his boots off for a whole month. When he finally did- the skin came off along with the boots. It had turned black.

    These related websites are homosexual to the nines. It’s not a matter or whether or not you will accept them. They are here and leading you all. The lingo. The thinking. The culture. The world view.

    i don’t want to be mean to them. However, they will ruin any society if allowed. They don’t mean to. And they don’t think they are. All sexual libertines will do that- not only homosexual ones. They are doing it to your own society- the alt right- whatever you call it. It even effects people who aren’t naturally like that. Bad influence.
    So i think the white nationalists who like to live in a more loose society with many choices of lifestyles and belief systems etc. should do so.

    While those who would like to try a G rated one with fewer choices should also. I want to live in a society were sexuality is completely private and intimate and only for the man and his wife. and not a subject of open conversation.

    I like Tchaikovsky and Cole Porter and didn’t know about their private life- and intend to keep it that way. And i’m sure they would appreciate it too.

  22. tadzio
    tadzio says:

    Many years ago I had a conversation with the Chairman of the state GOP who was trying to raise money from both both sides of the issue of decriminalization. He was also a member of the legislature. He summed up the proponents of the bill this way: The split between the pros and cons in both parties is about the same. The Ds think it is a sacrament. The Rs think it nobody’s business. I am a Republican. I am not interested anyone’s sex life but my own and that is none of your business.

    My guess is that the split between pro-Whites and anti-Whites among homosexuals reflects White society as a whole. But the big mouths get the attention. They are against us and will remain so. Ignore them. Their obnoxiousness repulses most people. In short they are an unintended quiet asset to our cause. When the enemy is in a circle and firing inward, leave them alone.

  23. Mike
    Mike says:

    Dr. Griffin, I agree there is nothing to be gained by gratuitously alienating gays into the hands of the Jewish anti-white grievance coalition. But it still behooves us to make distinctions. In literature, for example, there is qualitative difference between, say, Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice and Allen Ginsberg’s “Please, Master.” How they mediate their lusts, for example: Mann, intellectually, on behalf of humanity; Ginsberg, orgiastically, on behalf of his fellow pederasts. IMHO (and a professional literary critic is welcome to chime in here) there hasn’t been a great gay writer since Mann, perhaps with the exception of Hart Crane. Why? I’m tempted to say—what a difference a closet makes! And indeed ironically, as you allocate your sympathies, you might consider this: From an existential standpoint, the alt-right probably has more in common with historical homosexuality than even modern gays do. After all, most of us in the alt-right live, think, and write in the only closet left in America, and the penalties awaiting us for “coming out” are unparalleled for American dissidents—to include public shaming, lethal poverty, excommunication from our families, churches, and friends, death threats and physical assault.. Nevertheless, as was the case with the great literary gays of yore, institutionalized repression seems to be only improving the mystique and bravery of our writing. Another distinction you might better appreciate: The bisexuals. The real battlefront. I was raised rough South, a fundamentalist Baptist, and I would propose that the cultural barriers to homosexuality in place before the Jews’ wrecking job were in the best interest of gay integrity–for it was generally assumed if, after all that, you went gay you really were, and that was the best you could do. The result was not gays, or some cases transgenders, acting out a Jewish-induced celebrity fetish, but discreet, sturdy, productive citizens. Most important, this was also a culture that incentivized the vast ocean of bisexuality into marriage and family life and compensated and supported the psychological sacrifice of that commitment. Today just the opposite obtains. Jewish propaganda portrays the status of any heterosexual commitment on the part of bisexuals as tantamount to a living lie, a cause for grievance and rebellion. I can name three outstanding “family men” who have died of AIDS as a result. But even more tragic are the millions of white children that went unborn consequent this Jewish media brainwashing campaign as it “recruited” millions of capable though bisexual white husbands and fathers to act out the Jewish homosexual agenda in worst way—the exhibitionistic, Jewish, Allen Ginsberg way. Add the toll of their white unborn to the casualties of the Jewish abortion mills and interracial sex propaganda and I do feel an expansive sympathy comparable to yours, though not particularly for gays, rather for the 8 million dead Germans and their unborn whose demise cleared the way for Jewish designs on our own demographic. Finally, you could better distinguish domains. You were a dancer, I dabbled in playwriting, and sometimes my most sensitive, helpful readers were gay men. As a guest of their domain I welcomed their tact and feedback. But in that domain the goal was largely art for art’s sake, a luxury and relic of my liberal arts education. In the domain of the alt-right our ultimate goal is racial survival and preventing white genocide. A panegyric to homosexual artists and acquaintances is a decidedly superfluous summons to that cause and out of place here. It is a conversation the two of us might have based on our shared involvement in the arts, but at best a nebulous, confusing talking point for rallying the mass of our people to the cause of white racial survival.

  24. Walter Lewkowski
    Walter Lewkowski says:

    Can we be honest?
    I don’t care how good looking you are Dr. Griffin, I don’t want to stick my penis up your arse, and what’s more, I don’t what yours anywhere near me.
    That is what homosexuality is all about.
    It isn’t about a colorful rainbow of gay people. It’s about getting and giving as many butt f-ing and BJ’s with as many men and boys as possible in their homo shortened lifetime.
    The “gays” as you like to call them have designs on your sons and grandsons—they are fresh meat. Hence the all out effort at proselytizing them into the hell of homosexuality.
    So if you don’t care about passing on your genes and don’t care about white genetic interest, then invite the “gays” in.

  25. T. J.
    T. J. says:

    “. . .It’s because gays possess high verbal IQs. . .”

    Therefore those possessing high verbal IQs are [more often] queer- a logical fallacy.

    A common fallacy- [example] the fraction of homicides committed by negroes is confused with the fraction of negroes who commit homicide. . .

    • Red=what crime
      Red=what crime says:

      No, I meant that given a high level of gay achievement(production?)) in the arts, that I hypothesize the underlying explanation is relatively high verbal IQ. Don’t get me wrong, I want there to be more heterosexuals in the arts—it makes literature depressing to me, that it’s really some self referential, mastabatory activity of sexual deviants.

  26. Karl Nemmersdorf
    Karl Nemmersdorf says:

    First, Michelangelo was definitely not a homo.

    Second, more importantly, my principle is, for the homos as individuals everything; for the homes as homos, nothing.

    This means that I will consider artistic or other creations by homos on their merits if they are not presented primarily as a homosexual production. If such creations are presented specifically as homosexual endeavors, then obviously the agenda is not art but the homosexual agenda. That should not be tolerated.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      I write this with no pleasure, Karl, but there is good reason to believe that Michelangelo had, at the least, what are nowadays called bisexual proclivities. Some of his sonnets are plainly addressed to men.

      Beyond that, there is the even more compelling matter of the “Last Judgment,” the vast fresco on the east wall commissioned by Pope Paul III, which has been called “a riot of pederasty.” I do not consider that an unfair assessment. The fresco has certainly shocked a great many lay and clerical Catholics who were unprepared for what they saw during the almost 500 years of its existence.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        … vast fresco on the east wall commissioned by Pope Paul III.

        This should read “vast fresco on the east wall of the Sistine Chapel commissioned by Pope Paul III.”

        I suspect most understood what was being referred to without this correction, but I apologize to any for whom the omission caused puzzlement.

      • Karl Nemmersdorf
        Karl Nemmersdorf says:

        Weren’t the sonnets written in the Renaissance mode of sometimes intense friendships between men? What I know about Michelangelo comes only from Irving Stone’s great biographical novel. Stone said later he saw nothing in his research that would make him think that Michelangelo was an active homosexual. He was a pretty devout Catholic, which meant something back then. I would lay down big money that he never acted on his feelings for men.

  27. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    Bring up faggots or anything related to sex and suddenly everyone has an opinion. Meanwhile the white disenfranchised tossed onto the street like garbage, our corrupt plutocracy, the invasion of our countries by envious and greedy invaders don’t get half as much attention.

    • Bill R
      Bill R says:

      Most of the articles people here would be commenting on they already agree with, leaving little to add other than to supplement points the author has already made. I am not belittling such comments, simply suggesting why there might be less urgency behind them. When sexual issues are written about, on the other hand, particularly when a position is advocated on a sexual issue, as was the case with this article, that is actually hostile to the concerns of White advocates, the effect can be jarring, particularly if the reason why it is hostile is not immediately obvious. This generates, I think, a heightened interest in wanting to articulate that reason, not only to make it clear to others but to ourselves as well.

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      “the invasion of our countries by envious and greedy invaders”

      Let’s deal, too, with our own invasion and occupation of countries who are not even our enemies. The list grows and grows. It’s not a simple matter of telling African governments to take Syrians, Libyans, etc., who want to get out, but to stop providing those godforsaken countries’ inhabitants with excuses to leave their countries in the first place.

      • Karen T
        Karen T says:

        We are not invading India, China, Vietnam, Philippines, Somalia, Nigeria or sub saharan Africa, though much of Canada is beginning to look like an amalgamation of the above.

        • Andy Hamilton
          Andy Hamilton says:

          We are stirring up trouble in Somalia and Nigeria somewhat. The Muslim emigration to Europe is in response to the US/Israel policy of regime change and continuous subversion of Muslim elements in majority Muslim countries. That policy is in turn largely the doing of the Israel lobby and the one-world types. IMO.

  28. ex South African
    ex South African says:

    In my life I met intelligent male persons of this kind and less intelligent male members in my working life and outside the work environment. I was never bothered by co-workers in the work envorinment. I worked in a MINT job which tended to attract the more intelligent persons of them. They never bothered me and kept their orientation to themselves. As a person they were often quite socially and had a good sense of humor. I knew some who were big racists. Their orientation never was a problem and did not disturb the team spirit.

    Then I met another bunch of them when I left school and the army outside the working environment. I never knew of these things before the time. They tried to harass me. I had to threaten with physical violence to get them off my neck. These people were of the lower intelligent class.

    So my lesson is to distrust those of a lesser intellectual capacity and to get along with those with enough intellectual capacity to know what line must not be crossed.

    I guess one has to distinguish between those members that work against our interests, ond those that are neutral or for the cause. Those of them that attend Christopher Street parades and other funny actions, they are not the intellectual stars of mankind, no Tchaikovsky’s or whatever. What would they have been like without this unfortunate orientation? Perhaps misfits in some other ways.

    A clever man tries to make some sense out of the biological side of this problem.

    He cautions:

    “The sole purpose of this article is truth-seeking. The article should by no means be understood as promoting or approving of homosexuality, or denying the possible danger it poses to the predominantly Christian fabric of Western society.”

    http://paulcooijmans.com/evolution/homosexuality.html

    • ex South African
      ex South African says:

      I read Dr. Greg Johnson of Counter Currents has such an orientation. If it is true, he is like the intelligent persons of such kind I met. He writes a lot of sense and he has harmed no one. I guess he also longs for a normalized society. What is the problem with such a person? He will not become the new Fuehrer, as all of us most probably will not become, so one does not need to fear that. He will remain in the position of a western thinker. I am glad for any sane voice on the web. There are so few sane voices. His fate will be to be without descendants, and that is a bitter fate. His descendants will be his ideas and thoughts, and if they are good for western society, we benefit from that.

  29. Sandy
    Sandy says:

    I’m heterosexual myself but I can’t imagine the same reaction from an article on the white racial movement and masturbation or the white racial movement and take my wife or daughter. As long as the families in our movement don’t have to worry about the few gays in our movement molesting their children then I for one don’t mind them.

  30. Earl Oill
    Earl Oill says:

    How a white movement should view gays is a timely question. I suspect the readership of TOO is old, like myself, and not very sympathetic to the gay movement or to gays. On the other hand, younger Alt Right types, growing up post-counter-culture, seem more flexible. I suspect many feel uncomfortable taking a clear position on gay marriage/adoption, abortion, extra-marital sex, pornography, drug laws, use of obscene language, and religious belief. (One of them says: whatever the merits of Christianity, it is clearly the West’s religion so we should defend it against Muslims and Jews.) Outside of an occasional Pat Buchanan column it is hard to find an echo of the old hard-right that was Christian, nationalist, and pro-white. William Pierce, though not religious, saw counter-culture values as crippling degeneracy promoted by Jews. Whether or not it is degeneracy it has certainly been promoted by Jews. If we decide that Abbie Hoffman and Susan Sontag were right about homosexuality, abortion, atheism, and so on, must we drop our fears of Jewish power? Or can we embrace some of what Jewish modernists have promoted and yet be alarmed by the total package?

  31. Awake
    Awake says:

    I was eager to see the comments to this article, written by a man who was confused tragically by his love of his father who appears to have been a closeted homosexual. I really don’t have anything more to add to the content except that the only one comment FB has ever deleted of mine was about this issue. It was in response to a video by two Lesbians who were trying to introduce LGBTQ topics to Colorado schoolchildren. My comment:
    There have always been a minimal number of homosexuals in Western Culture. They have always been marginalized and considered deviant and a negative influence on the wider society. When they lived quietly, modestly and inconspicuously they were tolerated. Today their obnoxious rights mean PDAs, appropriation of public restrooms, gay peacocking, public nudity and sex, need for inordinate attention, demand to be the center of society, access to pervert and recruit our children, belief they should be role models, lies about their numbers among us. Homosexual lifestyle should never be taught to children; homosexuals should never teach children anything; homosexuals should never be teachers. These immoral government schools have created the need for homeschooling. Save the children.

  32. Fisk Ellington Rutledge III
    Fisk Ellington Rutledge III says:

    The thing to remember about homos is that they are either the product of a birth defect or of extreme mental illness. I’ve known them from working with them, and they are ALL horribly unstable. Most of them are prone to drug addiction and alcoholism. They are emotional spastics who are generally pedophiles. In cultivating their support we would inevitably have to compromise our movement in order to accommodate their political and social agendas. That would be insane.

  33. Will
    Will says:

    “There’s a smugness and nastiness in some spokesmen for whites that is getting old for me. If we are perceived as smart-ass bigots we are going to stay on the periphery of American life.”

    “some spokesmen” – names and examples, please. Anyone can make generalizations.

    bigots – Interesting word choice for people who disagree with a lifestyle they view as immoral, which lifestyle even the American Psychiatric Association considered pathological until a cabal of Jews changed that.

    This piece reads like a guy who was butthurt – no double entendre intended – because his original pro-homosexual piece was rejected by a pro-white audience (for whom the editor was acting as proxy) which very same group he now seeks to punish for the pain of rejection he has had to bear.

    Art, music, creativity, literary/analytical skill is not the issue. You’re making an appeal for acceptance as normative what is not which is a separate issue from creative/intellectual/artistic/musical/etc. capacity.

  34. Taras Wesselchak
    Taras Wesselchak says:

    Dr. Griffin, I agree with your general argument and would like to add another point: homosexual men at least may have greater than average creative potential due to stronger connections between the two hemispheres of the brain than either straight men or straight women. Additionally, homosexuals have higher than average IQ for their race. White Gentile homosexuals who follow decent norms of behavior could thus be a real credit to our movement (and some, like Palahniuk and Jack Donovan, have had favorable impacts on popular culture). My only concern is the harmful behavior of some–I don’t consider homosexuality inherently wrong, but some behaviors (promiscuity, backbiting, etc.) seem to be more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals.

    Milo might be a case in point but then again he is also a half-Jewish guy (albeit one who seems genuinely conflicted over his Jewish ancestry, since his Jewish mother was very unkind, he likes Wagner, uses anti-Semitic passwords like one celebrating the year that Jews were kicked out of England, admits Jews run finance and media….but in other cases takes up for Jewish interests), a victim of sexual abuse, etc. and thus far from representative of all homosexuals.

    Ironically, the greatest danger from homosexual leaders is just that they could be blackmailed if still in the closet. Best to promote tolerance of the well-behaved and openness about that issue. So I say we hold homosexuals in our movement to the same or even slightly higher character standards as we hold heterosexuals, but welcome those of good character and ability rather than citing Semitic-originated handwaving about how it is allegedly immoral.

  35. collen ryan
    collen ryan says:

    There’s a tendency for us on the far right to want simple answers, since we are building civilizations in the sky the details seem not so important.Fortunately history is with us and very soon civilization is going to be redesigned.The question is are we going to build a ten thousand year reich or another 10 year reich.The devil is in the details. Your argument seems to me to be really a bigger question the art question, art is questioning, critical, and also can be deadly dangerous. But a society that does not recognize the environment has changed and intelligently adapt will fall. There were things about monarchy pre capitalist economics among many other things that required a response.Often what happens is the power hungry spot these opportunities first and the old order instead of engaging the situation refuses to admit reality and the carpetbaggers win.It would be nice if we could get ahead of these changes before the opportunists and adapt in thoughtful way advantageous to the right.Art can be helpful in alerting us to what we are feeling subconsciously and will be thinking soon. Certainly it can be used also to argue for a wrong response artists are not known for analytical thinking, and this is the danger of art, trying to control art is very difficult you dont want to sanitize your cultural output nor do you want to subsidize subversiveness, or create martyres.
    The other issue gays as a minority, first off this may be solved soon with science its either a gene or a virus and no ones going to volunteer their child for this defect.some gays are a result of child molestation destroying them and obviously child molestors should be slowly tortured to death publicly. However in the meantime it seems the left has always targeted groups who are treated shall we say unfairly, be they underpaid enslaved oppressed etc. Obviously since all non whites will be elsewhere that leaves groups like women children gays and the left half of the bell curve. It seems to me a civilization ought to understand itself to be a sort of family women are valued but do not lead they influence through their families.The left half of the bell curve has value we can not survive as an elite only at the same time we do need to cultivate them including policies to eliminate bad genes while raising the national average but at any given time there will always be the left half and they must be treated fairly, not because they are humans or family or its right or god but for only the reason that we need to work as a unit and we need to deprive the left of a ready group of antagonists. Gays are probably such a group as well they are tiny so not as serious but they can hide well and find each other so when we suppress them we create a secret sub culture.Better to treat them humanely yes suppress public expression require confidential registration but at the same time have gays that are trusted in government that monitor for subversives while not harassing unbescasrily well behaved gays that are not subversive or prey on the youth.In short give them no reason to conspire. we don’t want them breeding as in the past as we do not no the cause of the abnormality.

  36. Stogumber
    Stogumber says:

    Dr. Griffin buys too much into the conventional views of around 1960 or 1970.

    One more trivial aspect is his allusion that unmarried men like Schubert or Brahms MUST have been homosexuals.

    Then he hasn’t made the important distinction between (a) effeminity and (b) male-to-male sex. In traditional societies men are rather indifferent about their sex objects; extreme specializing on feminine sex objects seems to have been a development of the higher classes in medieval Western Europe (France). Only in the 19th century medics began to equalize effeminity and male-to-male sex, which among others influenced the gay movement, but only until around 1980. (Of course, effeminates and male-to-male sexists needed “emancipation” likewise.)

    Dr. Griffin’s praise of homosexuals is valid for effeminates, but has not much to do with sex.

    This also hampers Dr. Griffin’s understanding of historical conflicts. For example, from a German perspective I can say that National Socialists were usually smeared as homosexuals and Jews were not in the least gay-friendly. The same applies to American Jews in the Thirties. Recent Evangelical attacks on Homosexuals (“The Pink Swastika”) have relied mostly on this traditional American Jewish Anti-Nazi propaganda. Adorno is in Germany well known for his anti-homosexual comments (in particular, against Thomas Mann’s son Golo, a conservative .historian). People who were Jewish and gay at the same time tended to hide their sex life against their Jewish aquaintances. That’s why the gay movement in the Fifties and early Sixties had a conservative slant, in Germany as well as in the United States.

    • Earl Oill
      Earl Oill says:

      I think it’s pretty well-known that Rohm and his staff were gay. Hitler defended Rohm’s homosexuality by making a distinction between a ‘warrior’ type of homosexuality and the decadent type that he might associate with Jews. I might have got this from one of Paul Johnson’s books, not sure. When I was a kid in NY in the 60s it was common to joke about the Nazis’ homosexual proclivities but that was before gay lib got going.

  37. Doug
    Doug says:

    I simply look at it this way. How can gays help us propagate the white race? They can’t. If the white race is s degenerate as all others what is the reason to save it? We are above this I hope.

  38. Will Williams
    Will Williams says:

    Dr. Griffin’s Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds: An up-close Look at White Nationalist Wiliam Pierce is a must in every serious WN’s personal library (available here: https://cosmotheistchurch.org/product/the-fame-of-a-dead-mans-deeds-an-up-close-portrait-of-white-nationalist-william-pierce-by-robert-s-griffin/. I’m not so sure, though, that all this talk he has raised about queers and other peculiar sex freaks, and whether they should be allowed to participate in pro-White organizations, gets our cause anywhere.

    Some commentators here, if eligible, surely will find themselves comfortable in an organization that takes a position on the following types of people who are ineligible for membership, whether genetically White, or not:

    No homosexual or bisexual person.
    No person actively addicted to alcohol or to an illegal drug,
    No person with a non-White spouse or a non-White dependent
    No person currently confined in a penal institution, except in extraordinary circumstances.

    Those types have plenty of groups where they will be welcome among their own. Most racially-minded, eligible*** Whites with wholesome values, given a choice, would prefer not to join a group that allows drug addicts, criminals, race-mixers, LGBQ freaks, Jews and other non-Whites.

    ***Any White person (a non-Jewish person of wholly European ancestry) of good character and at least 18 years of age who accepts as his own the goals of the National Alliance; and who is willing to support the program described in “What is the National Alliance?” is eligible for membership, here: https://natall.com/about/what-is-the-national-alliance/

Comments are closed.