+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Gay Panic on the Alt Right

  1. #1
    Greg Johnson's Avatar
    Greg Johnson is offline I've done gone to Sans Fagscrisco Veteran Member Greg Johnson is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    San Fagscrisco

    Default Gay Panic on the Alt Right

    Gay Panic on the Alt Right



    The Alternative Right is subject to occasional gay panics. Throughout most of human history, politics and war have been exclusively male occupations, and in those realms of culture where women took part — such as religion and education — the sexes were still separate rather than mixed. Since this is a political movement, it is naturally attractive to men. Since it is a dissident political movement, it also tends to scare off women.

    However, in the present age, all predominantly or exclusively male institutions are routinely slurred as “gay.” The purpose of this charge is to lower trust and raise conflict within male groups and to encourage them to integrate women, whose presence will supposedly provide insurance against future charges of being “gay.”

    Generally, this slur originates from the Left, where homosexuality is supposed to be a good thing. But gay panics presuppose “homophobia,” one of the Left’s sins. The Left is quite happy, however, to exploit such sentiments to weaken any male institutions that make individual men or society as a whole stronger, from male gyms and sports leagues to men’s clubs and the military — and now the guardians of the white race.

    Unfortunately, the Left is not the only source of gay panics in our ranks. The most recent examples are self-inflicted.

    For instance, after the Halloween 2015 National Policy Institute conference, the Two Matts, Parrott and Heimbach, made up the story that Heimbach was disinvited from NPI because a “gay mafia” disapproved of his Old Testament opinions on homosexuality. Their motive was narcissistic rage, and their aim was simply to harm NPI by starting a gay panic, a troll so divisive that it was eagerly promoted by the Southern Poverty Law Center which shares the same destructive agenda. Naturally, there followed a great deal of squeaking and spinning in the smelly hamster cages of the internet movement, which generated a great deal of distrust and ill-will but did nothing to stop or slow down our race’s programmed march to extinction.

    The most recent gay panic agitation comes from Sinead “Renegade” McCarthy, whose black marks include linking White Advocacy to flat earth and anti-vaccine cranks, slurring people who think there is more to activism than crazy-eyed women passing out flyers (e.g., Richard Spencer, Angelo Gage, Nathan Damigo, etc.), and basically demanding that the movement capitulate to feminism. Her motives in pushing the gay panic button seem to be equal parts narcissistic rage and feminist entryism.

    Which brings us to the question of the proper role of women in “the movement.” First of all, “the” movement is not unified and monolithic. There are multiple groups and platforms, and if you don’t like what is in the offing, you can create something more to your taste. Andrew Anglin thinks women have nothing to offer The Daily Stormer, and that is his right. At Counter-Currents I publish women like Savitri Devi, Juleigh Howard-Hobson, Margot Metroland, and Ann Sterzinger not “because they are women,” but because they do good work. I have done interviews with Lana Lokteff because she does good work. I am also grateful for female donors and organizers, again because they add value to the movement. Finally, I am increasingly intolerant of gamers, MGTOWs, and woman haters, because their ethos is no more compatible with the healthy sexual order we want to create than the feminism they oppose.

    But I completely reject the feminist notion that gender parity should be a norm and that we should welcome women — any women, even women who add no value or who objectively detract from the cause — just because they are women. This is war, not ballroom dancing. In my corner of the movement, women who add something to the cause are welcome. I have no time for men or women who add nothing. And men who do nothing but harass or repulse women who do add something need culling.

    Gay panics weaken the movement, so how can we armor ourselves against them? There are basically only two options: (1) get rid of all homosexuals or (2) stop caring about them.

    The first option cannot work, for the simple reason that gay panics do not require the actual presence of homosexuals but the mere possibility they are present. A male group may be 100% heterosexual, but that cannot prevent a malicious and dishonest person from spreading rumors, making charges, and starting a gay panic anyway.

    This means that the endless “purge” threads on internet forums are pointless.

    First, there is no point worrying about homosexual entryism, because they are already inside. When I first arrived on the White Nationalist scene in the year 2000, it was apparent that a number of discreet and open homosexuals like Martin Webster were already well-ensconced.

    Second, the most enthusiastic purgers are themselves “outsiders” and would-be entryists who are in no position to purge anyone.

    Third, the movement is not a monolithic, centralized, Bolshevik party, so talk of purges makes no sense anyway. Again, there is nothing to prevent people from creating their own groups and platforms according to their own ideological tastes.

    Finally, as I said before, even if the purgers get what they want, it still does not protect them against gay panics, because the problem is not the presence of homosexuals, but the specter of homosexuality, the mere possibility of homosexuality, which will never disappear


    This means that the only way to protect a group against gay panics is simply to stop caring about it. When someone tries to make an issue of Jack Donovan speaking at NPI or James O’Meara writing for Counter-Currents, nothing stops them deader than simply saying, “I don’t care.” Meaning: I’m not tainted by it. It doesn’t make me dirty. There is no guilt by association. You can’t catch cooties off the internet. So I just don’t care.

    Of course, what makes most people care about homosexuals is the Bible, which treats homosexuality not just as abnormal but as an offense against God. This is the source of the intense and irrational anxiety and the sense of moral contagion involved in gay panics. Thus it follows that the more Christian an organization is, the more fragile it is in the face of gay panics. Which implies that the less Christian an organization is, the less susceptible it is to this form of subversion.

    This also implies that the recent gay panics in the Alt Right might eventually strengthen it, or at least certain segments. If Parrott and Heimbach hoped their “gay mafia” slur would split those susceptible to gay panics away from NPI and attract them to Trad Youth, the net effect will only be to make Trad Youth more brittle and NPI more resilient. Because Trad Youth is overwhelmingly if not exclusively male too. Which means that they can be hoist by their own petard. (Someday some jerk is going to suggest that the dust up with NPI was merely a gay spat between bear and twink factions.)

    This brings up the question of the proper role of homosexuals in “the” movement. Again, I can only control my little corner of the movement, but my view is that White Nationalism should be “straight but not narrow,” meaning that we should uphold and defend heterosexuality as the norm but also recognize that not everyone fits that norm. But as long as homosexuals uphold healthy norms and have something positive to contribute, they can and do make our movement stronger, if we stop worrying about it.

    Counter-Currents Publishing
    Books Against Time

  2. #2
    Fatt Parrott's Avatar
    Fatt Parrott is offline Fat Hoosier Intellectual Ass-Clown Member Fatt Parrott has a little shameless behaviour in the past
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Going ass-to-mouth with bigger swinging intellectual dicks

    Default We’re Here. We’re Not Queer. Get Used To It.

    We’re Here. We’re Not Queer. Get Used To It.


    Earlier this month, Todd Lewis attacked our project from the anti-White/pro-Christian direction, insisting that Christianity is integrally anti-White. We receive attacks, insults, and even the occasional excommunication from anti-Whites under the delusion that God himself commands White Genocide. Yesterday, the latest incoming landed in my mentions from Greg Johnson, who insists that Christianity is anti-homosexual and therefore an impediment to White Advocate solidarity.

    We get it from all sides.

    The anti-White Christians are sure that we’re pagan racial supremacists in sheep’s clothing. The anti-Christian nationalists are sure that we’re itching to go on a new crusade against all the heretics. That’s life on the third rail, and we accept it. But it’s imperative that we respond in these sorts of circumstances, as silence is often mistaken for an implicit admission of guilt.

    Unfortunately, the Left is not the only source of gay panics in our ranks. The most recent examples are self-inflicted.

    For instance, after the Halloween 2015 National Policy Institute conference, the Two Matts, Parrott and Heimbach, made up the story that Heimbach was disinvited from NPI because a “gay mafia” disapproved of his Old Testament opinions on homosexuality.

    Greg Johnson knows this to be false, yet he repeats it. In private conversation with Scott Terry, Heimbach referred to the elitist clique which runs NPI and thinks it runs White Nationalism “faggots.” There was a misunderstanding, and Scott remarked about it on his blog, without our foreknowledge or suggestion. Imagine a Venn Diagram, with “faggot” and “homosexual” circles. While there are indeed a good share of both open and closeted homosexuals in our movement who happen to be both homosexuals and faggots, a good share of these anti-Christian bourgeoisie poseurs with an elitist classist pose are presumably straight.

    And there are certainly a few gentlemen who come to mind who happen to be homosexuals but don’t happen to be faggots, namely a man whose name I won’t name on account of his always finding himself in the middle of childish feuding he has no part in instigating or fueling. The most critical and most frequently overlooked way that one can be anti-homosexual is to stop playing along with the liberal myth that it’s a coherent identity. It’s a habit, not an identity. One’s a homosexual the way one’s a smoker or a gambler. It’s not like being Italian or Mennonite or whatever.

    Following that logic, I don’t bring up what I consider someone’s bad habits unless they make it an issue. Even if they’ve made it an issue in the past, if they’re not promoting the habit, I stay in my lane. As much as I may ideologically oppose libertarianism and promote communal morality, a solid streak of Appalachian disinterest in litigating others’ private business remains. There are numerous people who happen to be homosexuals who want no part in this feud, and I’m not going to drag them into it.

    Even if one accepts the notion that I insidiously schemed to press the Gay Panic button on Richard Spencer, history confirms that the first victim of Gay Panic was actually Matthew Heimbach himself. A few years ago, Pastor Tom Robb, the leader of one of the larger klan groups, started a rumor campaign against Heimbach “because” he chose to attend American Renaissance despite [redacted] also attending. Heimbach attended despite this asinine smear campaign, and both got along just fine. After that smear failed to work, Pastor Robb later managed to achieve some success, compelling Stormfront to ban us from future Stormfront Retreats on account of our “anti-Americanism.”

    Any stick will do.

    Few of the accusations flying in any direction, including those from Greg Johnson, have any substance whatsoever. This is a middle school food fight and the pastries actually being launched are of little consequence. There’s a limited amount of financing, a limited amount of active supporters, and there’s a perpetual zero-sum competition for a relatively small pie. Pastor Robb lost some quality talent and support to our project and has been striking back ever since.

    One thing to bear in mind is that just about all of the nationalists attacking us are full-time activists who rely primarily on fundraising. While aggressive fundraising is great, and being able to do this stuff full-time seems fine at first glance, our project is a threat to their livelihoods. If one were to ask me before this all broke out, “Who are the most aggressive fundraisers in our entire cause?” the list of people would have pretty much been the list of people trying to pick feuds with us at the moment.

    While I’ve left the Mormon Church a long time ago, I learned some administrative lessons while there. One thing the rather successful LDS institution does is generally avoid full-time employees. Almost everybody’s a volunteer or has some other form of support. While we are working to fundraise more, and do look forward to eventually paying writers and reimbursing people more liberally for their expenses and investments, we all have day jobs. Not a single penny we raise goes to any of us at the moment.

    There are movement folks who rely on donations to meet their expenses who maintain a constructive “bake more pie” attitude to the fight over the fixed amount of financial support. But a cursory survey of our cause confirms that perhaps more projects should consider restructuring to minimize this circular firing squad behavior.

    Their motive was narcissistic rage, and their aim was simply to harm NPI by starting a gay panic, a troll so divisive that it was eagerly promoted by the Southern Poverty Law Center which shares the same destructive agenda.

    While the realpolitik of petty factionalism is the primary factor here, the gay thing deserves some clarification.

    It gets even more ironic than the fact that Heimbach himself was the first target of Gay Panic. Richard Spencer pressed the button on himself with his article insinuating that NPI had overcome its homophobia and embraced a more “diverse and tolerant” position on social issues. By the time the SPLC got around to quoting Scott Terry’s blog post, there were literally years of “smelly hamster cage” nonsense going on about homosexuality and NPI-affiliated projects, much of it entirely self-inflicted. The SPLC has been reporting on this mess since well before Halloween, disproving Greg’s conspiracy theory that I personally concocted it.

    Naturally, there followed a great deal of squeaking and spinning in the smelly hamster cages of the internet movement, which generated a great deal of distrust and ill-will but did nothing to stop or slow down our race’s programmed march to extinction.

    One thing that’s surely doing nothing to stop or slow down our race’s programmed march to extinction is the ongoing religious squabbling between the “pagans” and the Christians. The scare quotes around “pagans” are necessary, in my opinion, as many actual pagans have nothing to do with this mess.

    One reason (certainly not the only reason) that Greg’s anti-Christian is he harbors the notion popular in the gay community that Christianity is what caused homosexuality to be taboo in the first place. The pink swastika folks take it one step further, ultimately insisting that we’d all be cool with gay stuff if it hadn’t been for Jewish/Semitic influence on the foam party which was supposedly the pre-Christian West.

    Of course, precivilized Western folks who indulged in sodomy were, with a handful of pederast exceptions, more likely to find themselves drowned in a bog than hooking up on Prehistoric Grindr. Homosexuality is universally taboo because it’s dangerous, dysfunctional, and degenerate. It’s not a healthy part of a balanced civilization. Homosexuality’s like shingles, always lingering in the background but only flaring up into a real problem when a civilization’s somehow weakened or decrepit.

    The Christian position on homosexuality is commensurate with just about every comparable religious tradition, including the indigenously Western ones. My position is pretty much identical to Greg’s stated position, which is that we should be an explicitly pro-family, pro-heterosexual movement while thoughtfully muddling through and patiently coping with all of the dangerous, dysfunctional, and degenerate habits that each of us all bring with us from this broken society. I’m a Traditionalist, not Fundamentalist. And part of the difference between one and the other is that I have no illusions about completely perfecting either myself or my society.

    Neither Heimbach nor myself are the crusading madmen eager to attack homosexuals that Greg, Richard, and others are trying to make us out to be. Pastor Robb was closer to the truth of the matter with his original charge that we’re willing to work with just about anybody who is willing to work with us on promoting our tribalist and/or traditionalist agendas. I try to be pagan-friendly, and I shall remain so because there are indeed some folkish people for whom paganism isn’t a synonym for anti-Christian reactionary modernism.

    With Greg and most of the others, you’re infinitely more likely to hear a diatribe against Christianity than you’re likely to hear any talk of runes, folklore, or quotations from The Havamal. It’s a posture, and if I were an actual folkish traditionalist, I would find it tiresome that my tradition is being misappropriated by these people. Christianity has very little to do with this feud, and Greg Johnson is smart enough to know that. After all, Sinead herself is at least as passionate in her attacks on Christianity as she is in her attacks on homosexuals.

    Greg would have you believe that there are only two options for dealing with this “Gay Panic” problem.

    Gay panics weaken the movement, so how can we armor ourselves against them? There are basically only two options: (1) get rid of all homosexuals or (2) stop caring about them.

    We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it!

    He expects you to fall for this false dichotomy, then insists that you must go with the second option because the first option is unworkable. I agree that it’s impossible to get rid of all the homosexuals. Furthermore, I believe nationalism and reactionary sentiment are surging within the gay community as a natural and predictable backlash against both the mainstreaming of homosexuality and against the minorities overwhelming the community.

    While most nationalist homosexuals are surely sincere in their political convictions, the pink swastika serves a valuable function in subcultural gentrification. If you wish to keep your homosexual circle White and exclusive, nailing a swastika to the door is the best way to get the job done. Without it, the wealthy, sophisticated, and cultured homosexuals have no way to distance themselves from the growing mass of unsophisticated, uncultured, and non-White homosexuals. A similar phenomenon will eventually catch on among straight people within the next decade or so, but gays have a way of being at the vanguard of trends.

    As much as I love it when anybody becomes pro-White, we as a movement can’t simply stop caring about gays or start ignoring them. They are arriving in real numbers with a relatively defined agenda. They are arriving with a tremendous amount of money relative to our cash-starved cause. They are arriving with a tremendous amount of talent. Homosexuals are a vibrant and creative bunch. I’ll give them that. But what I won’t give them is carte blanche to attack and isolate the Christians, the traditionalists, and the women in our ranks.

    If there is to be a “gay panic,” it should be less about fearing literal grooming and buggery than about their political agenda. While Greg’s record on women’s issues is indeed unimpeachable, the pink swastika clique as a whole is impatient with women in general and traditional femininity in particular. While Counter-Currents sells books and publishes articles from within the New Right and Radical Traditionalist philosophical milieu, they’re generally antagonistic toward traditionalism and most traditions–aside from the esoteric and initiatic optics, of course.

    The clique favors an elitist and secretive approach which reacts to populism and working class outreach and aesthetics like a vampire to garlic. The clique, most importantly and obviously, is strongly anti-Christian. If we take Greg’s advice and merely ignore them, then they’ll remain unchecked in their promotion of that agenda. Even if one’s not the least bit homophobic (I don’t happen to be), even if one doesn’t believe it’s a major Christian sin (I do), there’s a very good case for being mindful of their presence and alert to ensure that they contribute useful work rather than religious feuding and destructive entryism.

    The re-emergence of nationalist sentiment in the West isn’t bubbling up when and where we all expected it. It’s almost exclusively, as James O’Meara would perhaps suggest, occurring from the left-handed side of things. The gay subculture, the vulgar and porn-infested imageboards, the darknet, and such are not only coming around to nationalism, but traditionalism and traditional Christianity, as well. Striking that right balance where we welcome newcomers while also being mindful of their baggage and motives will be a defining challenge for the pro-White cause.

    Merely turning a blind eye to this phenomenon is not an option.


    Trad Yoot ZOGbots, cum-cum, cum-cum!!!



  3. #3
    Fatt Parrott's Avatar
    Fatt Parrott is offline Fat Hoosier Intellectual Ass-Clown Member Fatt Parrott has a little shameless behaviour in the past
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Going ass-to-mouth with bigger swinging intellectual dicks

    Default The Alt-Right Faggots got us Tard Yoot mamzers butt-fucked all to heck

    The Alt-Right Faggots got us Tard Yoot mamzers butt-fucked all to heck


    The altright can't and won't take a hard line on homosexuality because the homosexuals are too numerous, well-organized, and well-financed to be stopped. While the percentage of homosexuals in the general population has been vastly overblown, some unique sociological factors have resulted in our relatively marginal movement hosting several times the statistical average.

    Homosexual white males have been shuffled to the bottom of the "progressive stack" within the LGBTQ community. The loosening of the taboo against homosexuality and the increasing female hypergamy have resulted in a stampede of social rejects into the gay community. There's an existential crisis in the old-school gay community, with their clubs and social gatherings being overwhelmed with fag hags, crypto-straight bicurious fatties, and--perhaps most importantly--disease-riddled and gross minorities clamoring to get in like The Walking Dead.

    Nailing a swastika to the door of one's bathhouse resolves all of those problems, ...bringing the eighties back again. Homosexuality gets to be secretive and elite again. It gets to be all-white again. Their lesbian nemeses are not welcome. Cue the VaporWave, bring back Donald Trump, and let's have one last stand of implicit whiteness!

    Greg's correct that you can't actually drive them all out, though not for the milquetoast reasons he offers. You can't drive them all out because you'll become the subject of a startlingly comprehensive purge if you pose a credible threat to them. They're the only coherent organized leadership this movement has. If anybody who matters enough to pose a threat questions this hypothesis, he's welcome to test it himself.

    Personally, I think the best bet is to focus on the symptoms rather than the disease.

    Anti-Christianity: Within their circles, the subcultural mythology is that "homophobia" is a Jewish affliction, romanticizing the pre-Christian era as a golden age of unmitigated buggery. While most folk religionists aren't homosexual, and plenty of anti-Christians aren't homosexual, reflexive hostility to Christianity is an important clue.

    Misogyny: Homosexuals are naturally pissy about the inordinate attention and deference females receive. They have a Pick-Up Artist's disdain for feminine shenanigans, without the goal of picking them up. They would prefer not to have them around, and they make this known. Women do cause a bunch of problems for our cause, and we should certainly avoid white knighting, tokenizing, and deference. But demands for outright formal exclusion of women as women for being women is an important clue.

    Secretiveness: Some crypsis and secretiveness is necessary and appropriate in a dissident movement. If the focus on Eyes Wide Shut ritualism and "male bonding" is greater than the focus on getting shit done, then you've probably gotten yourself mixed up with homosexuals.

    Snobbery: Most (not all) homosexuals are in this scene as an elitist refuge from slimy SJW proles, and they bring their over-the-top classism and fixation on grooming and signaling with them. Some classism is natural and unavoidable. But if it's like something out of a Jew's parody of WASPy nineteenth century bourgeois snobbery, you've got yourself another clue.

    If these things are guarded against, the movement can minimize the negative impact of this subculture. The best we can do is police them to ensure they're in the closet and police the externalities (listed above). That's a line which will put the true believers who happen to be homosexual on our side, as well as most gay-friendly heterosexuals. That's the optimal place to draw the battle line, in my opinion.


    Trad Yoot ZOGbots, cum-cum, cum-cum!!!



  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Homosexuality and the Alt-Right

    Homosexuality and the Alt-Right


    The notion that homosexuality is harmful to the integrity of the family, and therefore the future of the nation, is not really a controversial position within the alt-right. As such, writing an elaborate article on the evils of degeneracy for society would be a redundant exercise in preaching to the choir.

    But listening to last week's episode of the Daily Shoah reminded of something I had reflected about many years ago, but never got the chance to write about. The goys from the Death Panel had a brief conversation about the harm that pro-homosexual culture has done to friendship, and male bonds in general. I think this is something critical that needs to be further explored, since the future of the alt-right may depend on it.

    Instinctive Manhood

    If there’s something constant we can rely on, it’s that men have an instinctive disdain for effeminacy in other men. The worth of a man, at a biological level, is largely dependent on his vigor, strength of character, physical prowess and other traits that are associated with having “manly virtues”, or “high-T” in modern parlance.

    Because of this, men instinctively loathe behavior (and even appearances) that betray a lack of those manly virtues. In other words, effeminate behavior. Homosexuality is simply the most extreme form of that effeminacy. As such, no matter what the social norms are, no matter what the narrative dictates, men will still have feelings of disgust for homosexual behavior and great fear of being thought of as “effeminate.”

    This is normally positive, as it promotes a culture of manhood which is essential for the development and maintenance of civilisation.

    But today, this same instinct is being turned against us.

    Gay culture

    The superficial acceptance of homosexuality fostered by (((popular culture))) these days creates a strange effect. By being constantly bombarded with references to homosexual behavior, the above mentioned instinctive reaction of disdain is being amplified and triggered constantly, honing it to a razor edge. It creates a climate of paranoia about being thought of as “gay”--and that, even if no one would dare say anything bad about homosexuals.

    In other words, the culture of tolerance for homosexual behavior is not changing men’s instinctive disdain for it, or their fear of being thought of as effeminate. It’s only accentuating it.

    Thus now many behaviors that used to be perfectly acceptable and which didn’t arouse any ill suspicions, like two male friends embracing each other or saying they “love each other dearly” (as the goys on the Shoah mentioned). Even worse, any all-male gathering now becomes suspect. And thus, we arive at the state where any deep bonding between males becomes very difficult as a result of these psychological blocks.

    The necessity of strong male bonds

    Now, this is bad and all, but is this the most important thing to be discussing at this point in our struggle? After all, can’t we take care of these cultural issues once we’ve gained power and cleansed our (((media and cultural institutions)))?


    The fact is that by putting off this issue for later, we’re hamstringing our own efforts at organising a movement (or individual local movements).

    A group, whether it’s a political party, a militia or just a group of friends, will thrive and succeed or disintegrate based on the strength of the bonds uniting its members. When the guys forming a group keep their distance from each other, because their relationships remain at a superficial level based on interests, hobbies and shared ideals, then it doesn’t take much to shatter that group. A small dispute, an ideological conflict or simply stress can be enough to make the group split up or slowly disintegrate.

    Thus this culture of keeping each other at arm’s length to avoid suspicions of being “gay” is making our groups fragile. Leftist groups have the same problem--in fact, it’s worse for them because their acceptance of homosexuality is even higher. But it’s is a much more dangerous situation for us, because unlike the leftists our groups have a much higher risk of being in high-pressure situations.

    We have the risk of being fired from our jobs. We have the risk of being attacked by antifa. We have the risk of having our stuff shut down by the ADL or even the government. Any right-wing organisation will likely have far more pressure on it than a left-wing group of similar size and importance. Thus strength and cohesion on our part is crucial for our success.

    And before moving on, I need to stress that the cohesion of a group isn’t based on its structure (bylaws, hierarchical order, meeting schedule, whatever), but on the depth of the bonds between the members--especially the respect and devotion for the leader (even if there is no officially defined “leader” position).

    What we need to do

    At this point, there’s not much we can do about the general culture. But there is something we can do about our culture--the culture of the alt-right.

    Right now, there is a sort of loose consensus within the alt-right that homosexuality is harmful to society and to the individuals practicing it, and a general culture of mocking their behavior and stepping over the tenets of PC culture. But that’s not enough.

    In order to counter the general culture of tolerance for homosexuality (which triggers this acute paranoia about being perceived as “effeminate”), we have to create a strong taboo against all forms of effeminacy and degeneracy in the alt-right. Mocking and ridicule must be accompanied by a total shunning of anyone homosexual, advocating homosexuality or even tolerance for homosexuality.

    As a side-note and example, think of Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men. This is actually a very good book, in terms of its content and what it advocates. Yet it certainly did far more harm than good, simply because it associated male bonding and tribalism with homosexuality. As such, even if Donovan had the best of intentions, the result was still subversive and undermined the cohesion of the alt-right.

    Once the very idea of an alt-right dude being gay moves from being abhorrent (as it is now), to being unthinkable, the path to building stronger male bonds, and thus stronger political and social movements will open up to us.

    I am The Librarian

  5. #5
    Greg Johnson's Avatar
    Greg Johnson is offline I've done gone to Sans Fagscrisco Veteran Member Greg Johnson is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    San Fagscrisco

    Default To escape the spectre of the bowel-Movement gay mafia -- follow the Matt-oids

    To escape the spectre of the bowel-Movement gay mafia -- follow the Matt-oids


    Matt Parrott is being deeply dishonest here.

    1. His assertion that homosexuals are "the only coherent organized leadership this movement has" is a conscious and calculated lie. Basically, Parrott is filled with bitterness because both he and Matt Heimbach have been shunned by the NPI, CMS, AmRen wing of the movement. So he has made up the lie that these organizations are run by a gay mafia. In an article years ago, he opined that there is no better way to wreak havoc among sexually insecure people than lob the charge of homosexuality or associating with homosexuals. Thus he chose this particular lie because he wanted to create maximum drama. In fact, the leadership of this wing of the movement is not led by a "gay mafia." There is one influential old queen in their ranks, who has taken a special dislike to the Matts. And from that tiny mustard seed of fact, Parrott has grown a towering tree of falsehood about a gay mafia.

    2. Anti-Christianity: Since Parrott is a pretend-to-be Christian, and wishes to attract and organize Christians, he tries to tar anti-Christians in the movement by suggesting that anti-Christianity is associated with homosexuals. Of course he wants you to think of Richard Spencer's widely known anti-Christian snark -- and the Matts really hate Spencer -- but there is no evidence that Spencer is gay. (And how is that going to help your ecumenical outreach, Matt?)

    3. Misogyny: Since one attraction of fundamentalist religion is that beta males think it will help them control women, the Matts have no use for game or misogyny, so Parrott thinks it clever to associate misogyny with homosexuals, even though the only person I know in the movement who excludes women is Andrew Anglin, and he is straight. NPI, CMS, and AmRen, who are the special targets of Parrott's malice, all include women. Better think twice about making misogynistic remarks, guys, lest you be thought to be homos. Better pose as beta orbiters, I guess, so you won't be thought unmasculine. Don't be a pussy nerd, guys. It's gay.

    4. Secrecy: Parrott, of course, has toyed with various secret or quasi-secret societies of his own devising. So the only secret groups he hates are the ones that exclude him, and those are the Charles Martel Society and, I suppose, Spencer's Phalanx youth group. So secrecy is also branded a "gay" thing. I guess Parrott thinks that people will now think twice about joining CMS or Phalanx for fear of being thought to be homos.

    5. Snobbery: The Matts are butthurt because the NPI/AmRen/CMS "suit and tie" wing of the movement has disdained them, so if you are physically fit and dress well, be on notice: people might think you are a fag too. If in any doubt, consult the examples of Matt Heimbach and Matt Parrott, your new masculine and sartorial role models.

    But, Matt helpfully suggests, if you steer clear of all corners of the movement that manifest these traits, you might escape the spectre of the gay mafia. Basically, everything that conflicts with the Tard Youth/Trad Worker brand is tainted with homosexuality. So follow the Matts. Nobody would think there is anything gay about that.

    Counter-Currents Publishing
    Books Against Time

  6. #6
    Richard Spencer is offline The Alt-Right Establishment Member Richard Spencer is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default The Alt-Right and the Homosexual Question — Part 1

    The Alt-Right and the Homosexual Question — Part 1


    “Men of our race naturally view with contempt the creatures who, though anatomically male, find a perverse and incomprehensible satisfaction in sexual relations with one another.” — Revilo P. Oliver

    Also read: Part 2; Part 3.


    The following essay is quite long — much longer than I initially intended. The reason for this is that I soon discovered that, like the Jewish Question, the Homosexual Question does not lend itself easily to soundbites, quips, rhetorical flourishes, or short blog posts. It is not intended to be comprehensive, nor is it meant to fully explain what homosexuality is, or how it originates. This essay is intended to advance the position that homosexuals should be regarded as anathema to the Alt-Right, and to the broader White Nationalist movement.

    I once previously involved myself in the comments section of AltRight.com, arguing against homosexual apologetics. The response was overwhelmingly supportive, but one or two homosexual malcontents made the following accusations: first, that I was involving myself in a dispute between the editors of AltRight.com and Counter-Currents publishing; second, that I was evidently a repressed homosexual; and third, that this was somehow an attempt to boost my personal status. On the first point, I am not invested personally in the debate between AltRight.com and Counter-Currents publishing, but almost two years ago (long before the dispute) I was writing against homosexual apologetics and offered counter-arguments to at least one Counter Currents author. I deal with the bankrupt rationale behind the second accusation in the course of the essay. On the third point, my aspiration to personal status is necessarily limited by my anonymity. I aspire neither to ‘status’ nor to leadership. I am aware of the limitations of my position, and only wish to advance an argument. That such an argument might damage the credibility of others may be considered the primary reason behind accusations against me personally in this regard. Tackling this issue is likely to be largely thankless, and certainly controversial. My status may well have been better served by “sticking to the Jews,’ but as stated, status is not my objective.

    This essay will not be “the last word” on the subject, but it is likely to be my last word on it.

    Silencing Tactics

    Within the Alt-Right, the subject of homosexuality, and more specifically homosexuals within our movement receives surprisingly little serious commentary. There are a number of professed and implied reasons for this discursive lacuna, some of which may be more complicated than first appear on the surface. At the outset it seems scarcely worth repeating that homosexuality is not a pleasant topic to discuss or explore, and nor is it in any sense straightforward, concerning as it does a variety of complexities of morality, Nature, science, politics, and ideological worldview. One of our late great thinkers, Professor Revilo P. Oliver, expressed this combination of the repellant and the complex quite clearly when he wrote in 1966: “Homosexuality is a disgusting and, in some of its aspects, recondite subject, and even the most concise summary of what is known about it would reach the dimensions of a treatise and require the use of languages other than English.” Oliver, if he were alive today, may well agree with me that this is a subject which brings little reward for the attention that might be devoted to it. However, I believe that Oliver, who lived during a time when the tide of deviant behavior had not risen as high as it is today, would also agree with me this is a subject that should be addressed occasionally, as a matter of necessity, for reasons of ideological clarity and the maintenance of morale.

    The reasons most often given for avoiding the subject of homosexuality should be familiar to all readers, though this very familiarity hides a rhetorical usefulness and a lack of deeper socio-historical awareness that has permitted the entry and tolerance of a small but noisy number of homosexuals in corners of the Far Right, not just in the United States, but elsewhere. First, there is the honest but ill-considered refrain that we “don’t care what people do in their bedrooms,” which reduces to narrow absurdity a question of ethnic health, demographics, and culture. Then there are nervous and cowardly assertions from some that the issue isn’t an “obsession” for them, and therefore isn’t one that they waste their time on. Those that do, of course, are simply “protesting too much,” and there must be something suspect about them. According to this line of thinking, men ‘secure in their sexuality’ simply wouldn’t address the topic.

    As someone who has devoted many years of study to the Jewish Question, this latter excuse interests me. From a movement ostensibly well-versed in the methods of psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School, one would perhaps expect a total rejection of quack psychology and its barely-concealed uses for the advancement of interests antithetical to White advancement. The pathologizing of one’s ethnic and/or ideological opponents is presumably so well-attested that no self-respecting member of the Alt-Right or affiliated circles could entertain such mind games. In the Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald writes:

    One way in which psychoanalysis has served specific Jewish interests is the development of theories of anti-Semitism that bear the mantle of science by deemphasizing the importance of conflicts of interest between Jews and gentiles. Although these theories vary greatly in detail — and, as typical of psychoanalytic theories generally, there is no way to empirically decide among them — within this body of theory anti-Semitism is viewed as a form of gentile psychopathology resulting from projections, repressions, and reaction formations stemming ultimately from a pathology-inducing society.

    A key argument of psychoanalytic theories of anti-Semitism is that those who engage in the critique of Jews do so out of repressed jealousies that amount to a desire on the part of the anti-Semite to be Jewish. In this understanding, the anti-Semite so strongly desires to be a Jew that he secretly and subconsciously becomes an inward Jew. The fierce repression of this internal development is so strong that it further evolves into an outward, and irrational, hatred of the Jewish people. An example of this thinking can be found in Theodore Isaac Rubin’s Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind (2009), in which Rubin writes:

    Richard "Dickie" Spencer -- 1/8 jewboy & 80% ZOGbot faggot?



+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts