Judaism was the first major civilization to declare that men should limit their sexuality to their opposite sex spouse. That made civilization possible as it restrained and channeled male sexual energy.
Over the past few years, I’ve become interested in the Alt Right. I’ve noticed that many of its leaders are homosexual (particularly at Counter-Currents.com).
In his new book, Making Sense of the Alt Right, George Hawley writes: “The movement is also divided on issues such as tolerance for homosexuals and abortion, but these issues (so important to many conservatives) do not interest the Alt-Right very much.”
I love this Dennis Prager essay because he shows once again that Judaism is awesome. By contrast, Andrew Joyce’s essays are a little more difficult for me to digest.
When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah’s prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.
This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.
It is probably impossible for us, who live thousands of years after Judaism began this process, to perceive the extent to which undisciplined sex can dominate man’s life and the life of society. Throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society.
Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild (far more so than animal sexuality). Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as leather, shoes, and other pieces of clothing, through urinating and defecating on each other (interested readers can see a photograph of the former at select art museums exhibiting the works of the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe); by dressing in women’s garments; by watching other human beings being tortured; by fondling children of either sex; by listening to a woman’s disembodied voice (e.g., “phone sex”); and, of course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies. There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm. Of course, not all of these practices have been condoned by societies — parent-child incest and seducing another’s man’s wife have rarely been countenanced — but many have, and all illustrate what the unchanneled, or in Freudian terms, the “un-sublimated,” sex drive can lead to.
De-sexualizing God and Religion
Among the consequences of the unchanneled sex drive is the sexualization of everything — including religion. Unless the sex drive is appropriately harnessed (not squelched — which leads to its own destructive consequences), higher religion could not have developed. Thus, the first thing Judaism did was to de-sexualize God: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” by his will, not through any sexual behavior. This was an utterly radical break with all other religions, and it alone changed human history. The gods of virtually all civilizations engaged in sexual relations. In the Near East, the Babylonian god Ishtar seduced a man, Gilgamesh, the Babylonian hero. In Egyptian religion, the god Osiris had sexual relations with his sister, the goddess Isis, and she conceived the god Horus. In Canaan, El, the chief god, had sex with Asherah. In Hindu belief, the god Krishna was sexually active, having had many wives and pursuing Radha; the god Samba, son of Krishna, seduced mortal women and men. In Greek beliefs, Zeus married Hera, chased women, abducted the beautiful young male, Ganymede, and masturbated at other times; Poseidon married Amphitrite, pursued Demeter, and raped Tantalus. In Rome, the gods sexually pursued both men and women.
Given the sexual activity of the gods, it is not surprising that the religions themselves were replete with all forms of sexual activity. In the ancient Near Fast and elsewhere, virgins were deflowered by priests prior to engaging in relations with their husbands, and sacred or ritual prostitution was almost universal. Psychiatrist and sexual historian Norman Sussman describes the situation thus: “Male and female prostitutes, serving temporarily or permanently and performing heterosexual, homosexual oral-genital, bestial, and other forms of sexual activities, dispense their favors in behalf of the temple.” Throughout the ancient Near East, from very early times, anal intercourse formed a part of goddess worship. In ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Canaan, annual ceremonial intercourse took place between the king and a priestess. Women prostitutes had intercourse with male worshippers in the sanctuaries and temples of ancient Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Cyprus, Corinth, Carthage, Sicily, Egypt, Libya, West Africa, and ancient and modern India. In ancient Israel itself, there were repeated attempts to re-introduce temple prostitution, resulting in repeated Jewish wars against cultic sex. The Bible records that the Judean king Asa “put away the qdeshim [temple male prostitutes] out of the land”; that his successor, Jehosaphat put away out of the land …the remnant of the qdeshim that remained in the days of his father Asa”; and that later, King Josiah, in his religious reforms, “broke down the houses of the qdeshim.” In India until this century, certain Hindu cults have required intercourse between monks and nuns, and wives would have intercourse with priests who represent the god. Until it was made illegal in 1948, when India gained independence, Hindu temples in many parts of India had both women and boy prostitutes. In the fourteenth century, the Chinese found homosexual Tibetan religious rites practiced at the court of a Mongol emperor. In Sri Lanka through this century, Buddhist worship of the goddess Pattini has involved priests dressed as women, and the consort of the goddess is symbolically castrated.
Judaism placed controls on sexual activity. It could no longer dominate religion and social life. It was to be sanctified — which in Hebrew means “separated” — from the world and placed in the home, in the bed of husband and wife. Judaism’s restricting of sexual behavior was one of the essential elements that enabled society to progress. Along with ethical monotheism, the revolution begun by the Torah when it declared war on the sexual practices of the world wrought the most far-reaching changes in history.
Inventing Homosexuality
The revolutionary nature of Judaism’s prohibiting all forms of non-marital sex was nowhere more radical, more challenging to the prevailing assumptions of mankind, than with regard to homosexuality. Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That division was the Bible’s doing. Before the Bible, the world divided sexuality between penetrator (active partner) and penetrated (passive partner).
As Martha Nussbaum, professor of philosophy at Brown University, recently wrote, the ancients were no more concerned with people’s gender preference than people today are with others’ eating preferences:
Ancient categories of sexual experience differed considerably from our own… The central distinction in sexual morality was the distinction between active and passive roles. The gender of the object… is not in itself morally problematic. Boys and women are very often treated interchangeably as objects of [male] desire. What is socially important is to penetrate rather than to be penetrated. Sex is understood fundamentally not as interaction, but as a doing of some thing to someone…
Judaism changed all this. It rendered the “gender of the object” very “morally problematic”; it declared that no one is “interchangeable” sexually. And as a result, it ensured that sex would in fact be “fundamentally interaction” and not simply “a doing of something to someone”.
To appreciate the extent of the revolution wrought by Judaism’s prohibiting homosexuality and demanding that all sexual interaction be male-female, it is first necessary to appreciate just how universally accepted, valued, and practiced homosexuality has been throughout the world.
The one continuous exception was Jewish civilization — and a thousand years later, Christian civilization. Other than the Jews, “none of the archaic civilizations prohibited homosexuality per se,” Dr. David E. Greenberg notes. It was Judaism alone that about 3,000 years ago declared homosexuality wrong.
And it said so in the most powerful and unambiguous language it could: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is an abomination.” “And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed an abomination.” It is Judaism’s sexual morality, not homosexuality, that historically has been deviant.
Greenberg, whose The Construction of Homosexuality is the most thorough historical study of homosexuality ever written, summarizes the ubiquitous nature of homosexuality in these words: “With only a few exceptions, male homosexuality was not stigmatized or repressed so long as it conformed to norms regarding gender and the relative ages and statuses of the partners… The major exceptions to this acceptance seem to have arisen in two circumstances.” Both of these circumstances were Jewish.
Bible Truth
The Hebrew Bible, in particular the Torah (The Five Books of Moses), has done more to civilize the world than any other book or idea in history. It is the Hebrew Bible that gave humanity such ideas as a universal, moral, loving God; ethical obligations to this God; the need for history to move forward to moral and spiritual redemption; the belief that history has meaning; and the notion that human freedom and social justice are the divinely desired states for all people. It gave the world the Ten Commandments, ethical monotheism, and the concept of holiness (the goal of raising human beings from the animal-like to the God-like). Therefore, when this Bible makes strong moral proclamations, I listen with great respect. And regarding male homosexuality — female homosexuality is not mentioned — this Bible speaks in such clear and direct language that one does not have to be a religious fundamentalist in order to be influenced by its views. All that is necessary is to consider oneself a serious Jew or Christian.
Jews or Christians who take the Bible’s views on homosexuality seriously are not obligated to prove that they are not fundamentalists or literalists, let alone bigots (though, of course, people have used the Bible to defend bigotry). Rather, those who claim homosexuality is compatible with Judaism or Christianity bear the burden of proof to reconcile this view with their Bible. Given the unambiguous nature of the biblical attitude toward homosexuality, however, such a reconciliation is not possible. All that is possible is to declare: “I am aware that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and I consider the Bible wrong.” That would be an intellectually honest approach. But this approach leads to another problem. If one chooses which of the Bible’s moral injunctions to take seriously (and the Bible states its prohibition of homosexuality not only as a law, but as a value — “it is an abomination”), of what moral use is the Bible?
Advocates of the religious acceptance of homosexuality respond that while the Bible is morally advanced in some areas, it is morally regressive in others. Its condemnation of homosexuality is one example, and the Torah’s permitting slavery is another. Far from being immoral, however, the Torah’s prohibition of homosexuality was a major part of its liberation (1) of the human being from the bonds of unrestrained sexuality and (2) of women from being peripheral to men’s lives. As for slavery, while the Bible declares homosexuality wrong, it never declares slavery good.
Those who advocate religious acceptance of homosexuality also argue that the Bible prescribes the death penalty for a multitude of sins, including such seemingly inconsequential acts as gathering wood on the Sabbath. Thus, the fact that the Torah declares homosexuality a capital offense may mean that homosexuality is no more grave an offense than some violation of the Sabbath. And since we no longer condemn people who violate the Sabbath, why continue to condemn people who engage in homosexual acts?
The answer is that we do not derive our approach toward homosexuality from the fact that the Torah made it a capital offense. We learn it from the fact that the Bible makes a moral statement about homosexuality. It makes no statement about gathering wood on the Sabbath. The Torah uses its strongest term of censure — “abomination” — to describe homosexuality. It is the Bible’s moral evaluation of homosexuality that distinguishes homosexuality from other offenses, capital or otherwise. As Professor Greenberg, who betrays no inclination toward religious belief writes, “When the word toevah (“abomination”) does appear in the Hebrew Bible, it is sometimes applied to idolatry, cult prostitution, magic, or divination, and is sometimes used more generally. It always conveys great repugnance” (emphasis added). Moreover, the Bible lists homosexuality together with child sacrifice among the “abominations” practiced by the peoples living in the land about to be conquered by the Jews. The two are certainly not morally equatable, but they both characterized a morally primitive world that Judaism set out to destroy. They both characterized a way of life opposite to the one that God demanded of Jews (and even of non-Jew — homosexuality is among the sexual offenses that constitute one of the “seven laws of the children of Noah” that Judaism holds all people must observe). Finally, the Bible adds a unique threat to the Jews if they engage in homosexuality and the other offenses of the Canaanites: “You will be vomited out of the land” just as the non-Jews who practise these things were vomited out of the land. Again, as Greenberg notes, this threat “suggests that the offenses were considered serious indeed.”
Choose Life
Judaism cannot make peace with homosexuality because homosexuality denies many of Judaism’s most fundamental principles. It denies life, it denies God’s expressed desire that men and women cohabit, and it denies the root structure that Judaism wishes for all mankind, the family.
If one can speak of Judaism’s essence, it is contained in the Torah statement, “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse, and you shall choose life.” Judaism affirms whatever enhances life, and it opposes or separates whatever represents death. Thus, a Jewish priest (cohen) is to concern himself only with life. Perhaps alone among world religions, Judaism forbade its priests to come into contact with the dead. To cite some other examples, meat (death) is separated from milk (life); menstruation (death) is separated from sexual intercourse (life); carnivorous animals (death) are separated from vegetarian, kosher, animals (life). This is probably why the Torah juxtaposes child sacrifice with male homosexuality. Though they are not morally analogous, both represent death: one deprives children of life, the other prevents their having life. This parallelism is present in the Talmud: “He who does not engage in propagation of the race is as though he had shed blood.”
GOD’S FIRST DECLARATION about man (the human being generally, and the male specifically) is, “It is not good for man to be alone.” Now, presumably, in order to solve the problem of man’s aloneness, God could have made another man or even a community of men. But instead God solved man’s aloneness by creating one other person, a woman — not a man, not a few women, not a community of men and women. Man’s solitude was not a function of his not being with other people; it was a function of his being without a woman. Of course, Judaism also holds that women need men. But both the Torah statement and Jewish law have been more adamant about men marrying than about women marrying. Judaism is worried about what happens to men and to society when men do not channel their passions into marriage. In this regard, the Torah and Judaism were highly prescient: the overwhelming majority of violent crimes are committed by unmarried men. Thus, male celibacy, a sacred state in many religions, is a sin in Judaism. In order to become fully human, male and female must join. In the words of Genesis, “God created the human … male and female He created them.” The union of male and female is not merely some lovely ideal; it is the essence of the Jewish outlook on becoming human. To deny it is tantamount to denying a primary purpose of life.
Few Jews need to be informed of the centrality of family to Jewish life. Throughout their history, one of the Jews’ most distinguishing characteristics has been their commitment to family life. To Judaism, the family — not the nation, and not the individual — is to be the fundamental unit, the building block of society. Thus, when God blesses Abraham He says, “Through you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”
The Enemy of Women
Yet another reason for Judaism’s opposition to homosexuality is homosexuality’s negative effect on women.
One of the most remarkable aspects of contemporary societies’ acceptance of homosexuality is the lack of outcry from and on behalf of women. I say “outcry” because there is certainly much quiet crying by women over this issue, as heard in the frequent lament from single women that so many single men are gay. But the major reason for anyone concerned with women’s equality to be concerned with homosexuality is the direct correlation between the prevalence of male homosexuality and the relegation of women to a low social role. The improvement of the condition of women has only occurred in Western civilization, the civilization least tolerant of homosexuality.
In societies where men sought out men for love and sex, women were relegated to society’s periphery. Thus, for example, ancient Greece, which elevated homosexuality to an ideal, was characterized by “a misogynistic attitude,” in Norman Sussman’s words. Homosexuality in ancient Greece, he writes, “was closely linked to an idealized concept of the man as the focus of intellectual and physical activities…The woman was seen as serving but two roles. As a wife, she ran the home. As a courtesan, she satisfied male sexual desires.” Classicist Eva Keuls describes Athens at its height of philosophical and artistic greatness as “a society dominated by men who sequester their wives and daughters, denigrate the female role in reproduction, erect monuments to the male genitalia, have sex with the sons of their peers…”
In medieval France, when men stressed male-male love, it “implied a corresponding lack of interest in women. In the Song of Roland, a French mini-epic given its final form in the late eleventh or twelfth century, women appear only as shadowy marginal figures: “The deepest signs of affection in the poem, as well as in similar ones appear in the love of man for man…” The women of Arab society, wherein male homosexuality has been widespread, remain in a notably low state in the modern world. This may be a coincidence, but common sense suggests a linkage. So, too, in traditional Chinese culture, the low state of women has been linked to widespread homosexuality. As a French physician reported from China in the nineteenth century, “Chinese women were such docile, homebound dullards that the men, like those of ancient Greece, sought courtesans and boys.”
While traditional Judaism is not as egalitarian as many late twentieth century Jews would like, it was Judaism — very much through its insistence on marriage and family and its rejection of infidelity and homosexuality — that initiated the process of elevating the status of women. While other cultures were writing homoerotic poetry, the Jews wrote the Song of Songs, one of the most beautiful poems depicting male-female sensual love ever written.
A final reason for opposition to homosexuality is the homosexual “lifestyle.” While it is possible for male homosexuals to live lives of fidelity comparable to those of heterosexual males, it is usually not the case. While the typical lesbian has had fewer than ten “lovers,” the typical male homosexual in America has had over 500. In general, neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals confront the fact that it is this male homosexual lifestyle, more than the specific homosexual act, that disturbs most people. This is probably why less attention is paid to female homosexuality. When male sexuality is not controlled, the consequences are considerably more destructive than when female sexuality is not controlled. Men rape. Women do not. Men, not women, engage in fetishes. Men are more frequently consumed by their sex drive, and wander from sex partner to sex partner. Men, not women, are sexually sadistic. The indiscriminate sex that characterizes much of male homosexual life represents the antithesis of Judaism’s goal of elevating human life from the animal-like to the Godlike.
The Jewish Sexual Ideal
Judaism has a sexual ideal — marital sex. All other forms of sexual behavior, though not equally wrong, deviate from that ideal. The further they deviate, the stronger Judaism’s antipathy to that behavior. Thus, there are varying degrees of sexual wrongs. There is, one could say, a continuum of wrong which goes from premarital sex, to celibacy, to adultery, and on to homosexuality, incest, and bestiality. We can better understand why Judaism rejects homosexuality if we first understand its attitudes toward these other unacceptable practices. For example, normative Judaism forcefully rejects the claim that never marrying is an equally valid lifestyle to marriage. Judaism states that a life without marrying is a less holy, less complete, and a less Jewish life. Thus, only a married man was allowed to be a high priest, and only a man who had children could sit as a judge on the Jewish supreme court, the Sanhedrin. To put it in modern terms, while an unmarried rabbi can be the spiritual leader of a congregation, he would be dismissed by almost any congregation if he publicly argued that remaining single were as Jewishly valid a way of life as marriage. Despite all this, no Jew could argue that single Jews must be ostracized from Jewish communal life. Single Jews are to be loved and included in Jewish family, social, and religious life.
These attitudes toward not marrying should help clarify Judaism’s attitude toward homosexuality. First, homosexuality contradicts the Jewish ideal. Second, it cannot be held to be equally valid. Third, those publicly committed to it may not serve as public Jewish role models. But fourth, homosexuals must be included in Jewish communal life and loved as fellow human beings and as Jews. Still, we cannot open the Jewish door to non-marital sex. For once one argues that any non-marital form of sexual behavior is the moral equal of marital sex, the door is opened to all other forms of sexual expression. If consensual homosexual activity is valid, why not consensual incest between adults? Why is sex between an adult brother and sister more objectionable than sex between two adult men? If a couple agrees, why not allow consensual adultery? Once non-marital sex is validated, how can we draw any line? Why shouldn’t gay liberation be followed by incest liberation?
Accepting homosexuality as the social, moral, or religious equivalent of heterosexuality would constitute the first modern assault on the extremely hard won, millennia-old battle for a family-based, sexually monogamous society. While it is labeled as “progress,” the acceptance of homosexuality would not be new at all.
As a Jew, it is easy for me to hate other groups, such as Muslims and Nazis, when they threaten my group. The Torah contains genocidal hatred for Amalek and the Canaanites. Why should I get bent out of shape when other groups react similarly to their enemies? If they make me their enemy, I may instinctively react with hatred because that gives me energy, but when I take the time to be philosophical, I know that there are no good guys and no bad guys in the universe except when I look at things through the eyes of faith (or through my own interests). Different groups have different interests.
From what I hear, Kevin MacDonald, Steve Sailer, Greg Johnson, Richard Spencer also have little daylight between their public personae and their private selves. By contrast, the pundits you see on TV often say very different things in private (far more racist) than they would say in public.
I’ve long wondered how much tolerance the Alt Right would continue to show for homosexuals. The Alt Right is young. It will grow. I’m sure Hitler wasn’t thrilled with homos, but at times some of them served his interests. For a while, Ernst Rohm was invaluable to him, but when the guy got in the way, Hitler reluctantly dispatched him.
I guess the Alt Right hasn’t been much concerned with homosexuality yet because it is more a movement of anonymous and usually single men surfing the web than it is a movement of families creating communities. The Alt Right is so small it is looking to make alliances, even with homosexuals. Generally speaking, right now the Alt Right is tolerant of homosexuals so long as they stay closeted.
When the Alt Right builds concrete communities, it may well become more hostile to homosexuality and even possibly to homosexuals. I think it has to be if it genuinely values family. Everything people do affects other people. Letting people do what they want in privacy is a recipe for anarchy and decay. If people consume porn off the clock, that degradation is going to leak out into their daily lives, degrading them and those around them. I’m not arguing for surveillance of bedrooms. I’m arguing for standards, which mean sanctions and discrimination.
Andrew is in the heterosexual Richard Spencer camp of the Alt Right and appears as genuinely repulsed by homosexuality as the most right-wing Orthodox rabbis.
Andrew writes for AltRight.com:
One might be tempted to dismiss the position of Counter-Currents on the homosexual question as merely wrong-headed, ill-informed, or even amateurish. However, I believe that many of the writers there are intelligent, historiographically literate, and are probably aware that they are producing an argument with an agenda attached.
“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
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…
Within the Alt-Right, the subject of homosexuality, and more specifically homosexuals within our movement receives surprisingly little serious commentary…
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.”
…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:
The anti-Semite’s most buried and unconscious secret — from himself and others — is the desire to be a Jew. He wants to be free of conscience and inner coercions, and he believes that Jews are free. He too wants to be what he views as the exotic and privileged outsider. He wants to be the total and forever expatriate even as he raves about his own patriotism and nationalistic feelings and influences (91).
The Jewish interest in disseminating such an understanding of anti-Semitism among non-Jews should be patently obvious. What better way to deal with someone hostile to Jews than to convince him that his own hostility is evidence of becoming what he detests?
…In the field of academic history, Jewish historians versed in psychoanalysis have written entire tomes in which the central argument is that Europeans persecuted ‘innocent’ Jews for centuries simply because they envied the role of Jews as God’s Chosen People, and had deep-seated desires to be Jews themselves. The late Robert Wistrich, and his Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred (1991) is a classic in this regard, though it also featured in the works of self-hating, incentivized, crypto-Marxist Whites like the late Gavin Langmuir and his History, Religion, and Antisemitism (1990).
…And, at this point, it is worth highlighting the similarities in explanations of “homophobia,” a term coined by George Weinberg but first ‘explained’ as a putative phenomenon by Sigmund Freud. Freud scholar Christine Downing explains that (just as Jewish intellectuals argue that all Europeans wanted to be Jews):
For Freud, we are all in some sense homosexuals… Freud is also persuaded that the fear of one’s denied sexual longings constitutes one of the most powerful elements in resistance to analysis…Homophobia too is seen as an expression of repressed homosexuality. Freud regards it as the individual’s attempt to reject admission of his own unconscious homosexual desires with vigorous counter-attitudes.
Perhaps even more influential than Freud in the modern era, in terms of pathologizing aversion to homosexuality, was Albert Ellis (1913–2007), the Jewish, Pittsburgh-born psychologist who argued in The American Sexual Tragedy (1954) that all men who are not homosexuals are “fetishistic” and suffer from the “delusion” that women are more fun — and hence must be treated as “victims of psychiatric illness.” The striking parallels between these Jewish explanations for hostility towards Jews and homosexuals should be obvious, along with the transparent ambition of promoting a generalized notion of ‘tolerance’ as virtuous and a sign of good mental health…
The willingness of an individual or a movement to take a stand on an issue depends on a strength of worldview. The individual who argues that we should “deal with” this or that subject first (and solely) while leaving other matters to a putative future, does not possess a worldview but a hierarchy of opponents. A worldview entails a complete vision of the world in which we now exist, and a complete vision of the world we hope to shape. Our movement, consisting as it does of often bickering circles, should at the very least be made to conform in some fashion to the world that we are striving for. A situation in which known movement homosexuals and their circles can posture as spokesmen for National Socialism or White Nationalism would be laughable were it not for the fact that it was tolerated with such lethargy by the ideologically lazy and those intimidated into silence by Jewish psychological parlor tricks. Worldview is the foundation of ideology. Ideology is the foundation of activism and morale. Clarity of worldview, and its practical expression in whatever achievable form, is non-negotiable. Just as there is no room in this movement for Jews or Africans or Pakistanis, the over-arching rationale for an exclusion of homosexuals is the fundamental incompatibility of their inclusion under our worldview.
The various reasons underlying this incompatibility may be regarded broadly under two categories: the biological implications of homosexuality (issues of disease and demographics), and the behavioral traits and personality of the homosexual (issues of personality characteristics and socio-cultural impact).
As both a contemporary and historical phenomenon, it is difficult to separate homosexual behavior from pederasty, so reliant has the former been upon the latter…
One of the main reasons for the instinctive aversion to the subject of homosexuality is the strong correlation of homosexual behavior with disease and bodily degradation and deterioration. Contrary to high-minded philosophizing, health is not merely a personal or private matter, but a political one. In the over-populated mass societies in which we now live, the cost of healthcare in a market of increasingly scarce resources becomes, by necessity, a political issue — and this fact stands even in the context of privatized medicine, where premiums and costs will still be dictated to a great extent by expenditure in particular areas. The relationship between homosexuality and health in the mass society thus becomes not merely a matter of what is done behind the closed doors of the individual, but a matter of at least some public interest — especially if homosexuality can be determined to be a net financial drain on the resources of the vast majority of the population…
The annual cost of caring for and treating all HIV/AIDS sufferers in the United States has been ascertained as $16.4 billion annually. Since homosexuals comprise at least 55% of all persons with HIV (while constituting an absolute maximum of 4.1% of the total population), a figure that is rising rapidly every year, one could surmise that the annual cost of merely attempting to manage the health implications of homosexual behavior relating solely to this disease is at least $9 billion… An excellent example in this regard was a recent complaint in the United Kingdom, where Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) was set for roll-out at a cost of up to £20 million. At a time when children were being denied new forms of cancer treatment on financial grounds, some commentators managed to break through political correctness long enough to make quiet objections to PrEP, a drug with the primary ‘health benefit’ of enabling the abandonment of condoms for those infected with HIV.
In addition to the runaway problem of HIV/AIDS, homosexuals are the leading cause of the rapid spread of other sexually transmitted diseases, an area of public health that is becoming increasingly expensive. For example, scientists in several countries have now identified a new antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea. Doctors feared this new strain reaching homosexuals in particular because their behaviors and characteristics are known to exacerbate such diseases. Peter Greenhouse, a consultant in sexual health based in Bristol, England, told BBC News: “We’ve been worried it would spread to men who have sex with men…The problem is [they] tend to spread infections a lot faster simply as they change partners more quickly.” The BBC adds that homosexuals “are also more likely to have gonorrhea in their throats. Their further resistance is more likely to develop as antibiotics get to the throat in lower doses and the area is also teeming with other bacteria that can share the resistance to drugs.” This new strain of the disease has in fact now taken hold among homosexual populations, and medical professionals are bracing themselves for soaring numbers of diagnoses and accompanying care costs for the affected…
Aside from transmittable disease, homosexual behavior takes a grim and nauseating physical toll on the human body, a fact so well-documented and as to obviate any need to recount the odious details here. Perhaps even more importantly, however, homosexual behavior is often accompanied by a range of mental pathologies. A UK Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey from 2007 revealed that rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents. A common rejoinder to such findings is that homosexuals have such a high incidence of mental health problems because of wider social oppression. This claim is a dubious one given contemporary mass indulgence, protection, and endorsement of homosexual behavior, and quite reminiscent of explanations for criminal behavior and other social malfunctions among Blacks. These explanations fail to account for the common denominator found in both Black and homosexual populations: high levels of traits typically associated with psychopathic behavior. These include, but are not limited to: higher rates of promiscuity; a greater tendency to high-risk activity; higher rates of intimate partner violence;1 low levels of impulse control; and a tendency towards bouts of an exaggerated sense of self-esteem/importance quite detached from reality. In another indicator of psychopathy, studies have shown that homosexuals, like Blacks, commit homicides in the “brutal” category at a rate higher than sexually normal Whites.2 Homosexuals, even juvenile homosexuals, are also over-represented as sexual murderers.3 A less popular and politically correct, but eminently logical, supposition might be that the range of mental pathologies experienced by homosexuals is, rather than an externally provoked situation, coterminous with the overall psychological profile of the homosexual.
Assessed as vectors of disease, and as a group likely to be a significantly greater drain on mental health and related resources, homosexuals can be reasonably argued to act as a much greater burden on national health budgets than the sexually normal…
A more potent demographic impact of homosexuality, in my opinion, is the transmission and tolerance of more generalized aspects of homosexual behavior to the normal population — hedonism, childlessness, substance abuse, promiscuity, and the relatively novel idea that relationships are exclusively about love or similar abstractions — all of which will lead to a drop in birthrates…
The reliance of homosexuals on ‘recruitment,’ most often in the form of pederasty, has been well documented throughout history. At present, homosexuality has not been conclusively determined to have been caused by either genetic or environmental factors. Whatever its causes, homosexual behavior was always a minority problem.
…a 2001 study in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.”
…Havelock Ellis was able to advance the opinion that homosexuals should be prevented from coming into close contact with children since his studies indicated that this would reduce the incidence of “acquired perversity in others” via abuse and ensuing psychological disturbance. According to Ellis, adhering to this measure alone would act rapidly to reduce “artificial homosexuality among the general population.” An academic expressing such an opinion today would at the very least lose his job, or in other cases perhaps even find himself imprisoned for ‘hate speech.’ And yet the high rate of self-reported childhood molestation among homosexuals has yet to be adequately explained or its broader ramifications discussed. At any rate, it could be reasonably postulated, based on studies like that above and a high volume of anecdotal evidence (e.g. the personal account of molestation from Milo Yiannopoulos), that pederasty begets pederasty. Such a postulation would go some way towards explaining how a tolerated but maligned vice may if left to metastasize, reach greater proportions within a society than may otherwise have been the case — to become ‘fashionable.’
… anecdotal evidence and historical data suggest that homosexuals have routinely exploited any tolerance shown to them in such environments — from Imperial Rome to the presence of pederasts in the Sturmabteilung of the 1930s and the British National Front of the 1970s. Such a threat is not the stuff of nightmares or unfounded anxieties; it is a proven reality. In terms of its pederastic component, the tolerance of homosexuals in the movement is thus, at the very least a disaster for morale (and a cause for division between those who are alarmed and those two turn a blind eye), and at worst a personal disaster for the unfortunate victim of ‘recruitment.’
Homosexual Apologetics within White Nationalism
In a Counter-Currents article titled ‘Homosexuality and White Nationalism,’ Greg Johnson states that members of our movement shouldn’t be concerned about homosexuality because, one, “it is beside the point,” and two, “intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish.” The rationale in the first instance is that “White Nationalism should be a one-issue political outlook. White Nationalism is for the interests of Whites and against the interests of our racial enemies. Period.” The presentation of such a simplified argument is quite clever because, superficially at least, it is difficult to disagree with the statement of such a priority. However, it leaves a great deal unsaid. What does it mean for something to be “for the interests of Whites”? What about the health, and health resources, of Whites? What about the demographics of Whites? What about the morale of movements for White identity, and White culture at large? Homosexuality and its promotion can be demonstrated as being in opposition to all of these interests. A movement reduced to an unsophisticated “one-issue political outlook” would be cartoonishly absurd, lacking in nuance and direction. Pointing to “the interests of our racial enemies” in the context of such an apologetic is also an absurdity. Homosexuals, like other antisocials, violate and disturb the social norms of our people, placing themselves at the disposal of the enemies of our people, and acting as a weapon for their plans.
Johnson proceeds to argue that we should “resist falling for any form of the divide and conquer strategy used by our enemies to destroy our solidarity.” Homosexuals are said to be “real assets” to the movement because they “are intelligent and accomplished…Are freer to speak their minds because they give fewer hostages to fortune. They also have more free time and more disposable income to devote to the cause.” Truthfully, what loss would we experience by exiling these ‘real assets’? Where are all these homosexuals, so much ‘freer to speak their minds’? Where are they, other than producing anonymous homosexual apologetics? Yes, a great many members of our movement are anonymous. There is no inherent shame in that. But homosexuals have not distinguished themselves by bravely taking to the front line, or by filling our coffers with funds. The article continues: “Battles between gays and straights, men and women, pagans and Christians, Nordics and Mediterraneans, Celts and WASPs, Germans and Slavs, etc. have no place in the White Nationalist movement.” What a clever lie it is to suggest that the removal of homosexuals would entail the same scale of conflict as would ensue between Germans and Slavs. How many homosexuals are in our circles? Not many. And those that are here, for the time being, would be no loss, numerically or otherwise, in the eventuality of their departure.
The idea that “hostility to homosexuality is Jewish” is as insidious as it is false. The claim rests on a combination of poor understanding of pre-Christian European attitudes towards homosexuality and a predictable infatuation with a generalized view of the more appealing (to the modern homosexual) culture of the ancient Mediterranean. Firstly, as a northern European, I am concerned more with the ancient customs and traditions of my own ancestors — Saxon, Celt, and Norse. We have already mentioned the account from Tacitus on the execution of homosexuals by submerging them in bogs, but the pre-Christian Anglo-Saxons also engaged in the ceremonial execution of sexual deviants. In Anglo-Saxon Deviant Burial Customs (Oxford, 2009), Andrew Reynolds reports on the burial of homosexuals in pairs, their bodies decapitated and buried face down, and weighted down with stones — pagan methods intended to prevent the dead from entering the afterlife or from returning to haunt the living.6
Such examples aside, the more pertinent historical context is the understanding of the basis of pre-Christian law. Homosexual apologists have made much of the fact that pre-Christian Europe apparently had no specific laws against homosexuality, and have used this absence to argue for a putative tolerance of homosexuality in those ancient cultures. What they fail to understand or acknowledge, however, is that before the coming of Christianity most European tribes or nations had no concept of state-administered punishment for crime, and thus had no laws that would conform to such a scheme of punishment. Criminal law itself, such as it existed in the northern fringes of Europe, was almost exclusively based on oral traditions, and was loose and pragmatic. Anyone familiar with the Icelandic Sagas [in which accusations of homosexuality are a primary and severe insult between characters] will be aware that murder, for example, was something that would have to be either personally avenged by the murdered party’s relatives or be arbitrated by an ad hoc tribal court.
The lack of a written law against murder in this instance, or the lack of a fixed, state-administered punishment for it, did not suggest ‘tolerance’ or ‘acceptance’ of murder. Such an argument would be absurd. In the same way, it would be intellectually unsophisticated, if not disingenuous, to suggest that the same societies were ‘tolerant’ or ‘accepting’ of homosexuality. Like all arguments based on an ‘absence of X,’ this is especially weak. The exposed nature of such an argument is made even more problematic by the existence of pre-Christian legal codes which, while not legislating specifically against homosexuality, clearly locate it, via the available legal contexts, outside the normal and the desirable. An interesting case in this regard comes from Ireland’s ancient, pre-Christian, ‘Brehon Law’ — the oldest surviving codified legal system in Europe, and possibly a relic from the first proto-Indo-European populations. Like most examples of pre-Christian legal codes from North-Western Europe, Brehon Law was a civil rather than criminal code. Interestingly, it makes a provision for women to divorce their husbands if they were found to be homosexuals.
Roman law, which to a greater extent than any contemporary nation did develop state-administered punishment, is very interesting in the same regard. Lacking a Christian God to offer divine authority and direction, the Romans legislated against asocial activity in a manner that balanced individual freedom (a long-cherished European trait) with social priorities (order, health, stability, decorum). Since Roman law legislated against pederasty, as well as homosexual activity between freeborn males (in some cases under threat of execution), Roman law should be regarded as having de facto outlawed homosexuality in the form in which is mainly exists today. The fact that a Roman male citizen could legally engage in sexual activity with a slave (regarded as property with no bodily individuality or self-ownership), or with a prostitute (a sub-human in social and legal terms), is not a strong counter-argument. In short, there is at least sufficient evidence of opposition to homosexuality in pre-Christian Europe to refute the blatant falsity that ‘opposition to homosexuality is Jewish.’
On this point, however, one might ask — even if hostility to homosexuality was, in fact, a Jewish invention, would that be sufficient for us to discard it? Didn’t Jews, as Disraeli often boasted, also ‘lead the way’ in terms of codifying the racial principle? Should we, therefore, abandon all efforts to foster European ethnocentrism because Jews are ethnocentric? Obviously not. In truth, hostility towards homosexuality is rooted in human universals — a desire to protect the young, the preservation of social mores and decorum, and the promotion of social health and demographic growth. As a demographically vulnerable but ambitious tribe, with an authoritarian obsession with social rules rooted in self-segregation and ethnocentrism, it is unsurprising that the Jews contrived that their god mandated the execution of homosexuals. But their adoption of such a firm stance is not evidence in support of the argument that a similar adoption by us would prove toxic to our civilization. Additionally, because issues of youth protection, health, and demography are human universals, any kind of knee-jerk and uncritical rejection of something as ‘Jewish’ is precisely the kind of quasi-esoteric counter-Semitism that gives more reasoned critique a bad name.
Far from being original, my comments in this regard are mere echoes of those made by the psychologist Havelock Ellis in 1896 during the course of his Studies in the Psychology of Sex: Sexual Inversion — probably the first medical textbook on homosexuality. Ellis writes (p. 227):
“Our modern attitude is sometimes traced back to the Jewish law and its survival in St. Paul’s opinion on the matter. But the Jewish law itself had a foundation. Wherever the enlargement of the population becomes a strongly felt social need — as it was among the Jews in their exaltation of family life, and as it was when the European nations were constituted — there homosexuality has been regarded as a crime, even punishable with death. The Incas of ancient Peru, in the fury of their devastation, even once destroyed a whole town where sodomy had once been detected. I don’t know if it has been pointed out before that there seems to be a certain relationship between the social reaction against homosexuality and against infanticide. Where the one is regarded leniently and favorably, there generally the other is also; where the one is stamped out, the other is usually stamped out.”
Just as it would be foolish for us to abandon ethnocentrism simply because a pseudo-intellectual makes the argument that “ethnocentrism is Jewish,” so it would be foolish for us to abandon ‘homophobia’ just because a pseudo-intellectual (and one with a ‘dog in the fight’) states that “homophobia is Jewish.” Kevin MacDonald makes the argument in Separation and Its Discontents that National Socialism was a mirror image strategy replicating many aspects of Jewish ethnocentrism — was National Socialism Jewish? Of course not. In truth, by abandoning the promotion of ethnocentrism, and by actively or passively tolerating homosexuality and abortion (which are demonstrably linked in terms of social and legal approval, as Ellis noted), we weaken our material and ideological position immeasurably. And we would do so only to benefit a tiny homosexual clique LARPing as White Nationalists and National Socialists.
Another element underpinning the ‘homophobia is Jewish’ falsity, is an implicit homosexual hatred of Christianity. This is easy to understand — the homosexual hates what condemns him. However, is it true that Christianity is Jewish? We know the Christianity ultimately has Jewish roots, but we also know that Europeans crafted, shaped, and directed Christianity for two thousand years. We know that Christians decided that Judaism’s legalistic hostility to homosexuality was useful, but that its legalistic requirement for circumcision was not. In essence (and this is of course written from an atheistic perspective), Christians developed their religion via a process of selection and omission from Judaism, and via a much greater degree of innovation and the integration of pre-existing elements of pagan culture. The explosive power of Christianity in its first thousand years derived from this synthesis of Jewish fanaticism with pagan creativity. In particular, the former involved the mimicking of ethnocentrism and the creation of more authoritarian structures which replaced the multitude of loose individualistic tribes. Some of these authoritarian aspects undoubtedly infringed upon individual freedom, but this isn’t always an evil. In terms of homosexuality, could it be possible that the introduction of the monotheistic Christian state finally provided the enemies of the pederastic vice with final, overwhelming legal authority to utterly abolish a ‘fashion’ that had appalled them for centuries?
We should also consider modern Jewish attitudes, and what Jews are promoting to us today, rather than what they preached to themselves thousands of years ago. It goes without saying that a people engaged in ethnic warfare would arm itself with the best tools possible while simultaneously weakening the opposing tribe. Jews chose to arm themselves with social mores designed to boost their numbers, but what they did preach to their opponents? Until the late 19th century the Jewish interaction with European culture was more or less limited to financial matters. This changed with the intrusion of the Jews into the mass media and from there the further intrusion into almost every arm of culture. If culture is understood as the way in which a nation speaks to itself about itself, then one must understand that the presence of an alien body in this process can be devastating. The Jews posed themselves as French, German, British, etc and began to speak to these peoples, not as Jews, but as one of their own. The cultural conversation thus took on a different light altogether, and with different end goals. Without realizing it, these nations were no longer speaking to themselves about themselves, but were instead being fed fabrications by outsiders — both about themselves and about the world. A nation’s dreams and aspirations became its nightmares and self-recriminations. A nation that once talked to itself about its future now talked to itself incessantly about its putatively guilty past…
…I only very recently looked at The Homo and the Negro for the first time and was stunned at the publication, by an ostensibly Nationalist organization, of a set of writings that promotes pederasty.
In The Homo and the Negro O’Meara advances a number of arguments that should now be familiar, and with which we have already dealt with. O’Meara writes of the “futility” of the Right due to its “Judeo-Christianity.” He writes of a rampant “homophobia” (do White Nationalists now routinely use Jewish coinages like this?), which he defines as “a fear of homosexuality.” From here, O’Meara writes, apparently with the support of his publisher, that the American Right “cannot be a vehicle for the preservation and expansion of White culture since its Judeo-Christian element leads it to oppose the culture-creating and culture-sustaining element of homoeroticism.” Quite how the grooming and buggery of teenage boys in antiquity led to the creation of culture is never clearly articulated by O’Meara, though one is left with the distinct impression that he is speaking from a perspective of sexual preference rather than intellectual inquiry. Such fantasies may be assumed to lie behind his further elaboration that “the homosexual is the ideal type in a masculinist, homoerotic system.” Capping all of this nonsense is his assertion that “family values are Judaic,” and that the Right, by being hostile towards homosexuals, “deprives itself of the elitist cultural creativity of homosexuals.”
…O’Meara glorifies the work of Hans Blüher, a man condemned in his lifetime by Heinrich Himmler and Der Stürmer as a “notorious pederast,” who once wrote that: “In general, the greatest form of love is not between man and woman; with that there are children; that is something animalistic. The greatest form is the sublimated love between man and man. It is only from this that the greatest things in world history have come about.” O’Meara’s ideas are, ultimately, a poisonous doctrine that lowers the status of the family and reproduction in favor of a counter-productive sexual pathology. Such behavior is best described from an ethno-nationalist perspective by National Socialist theorist Reinhard Heydrich, who described the antisocial as having a natural inclination towards “disorder and subversion,” thereby “placing themselves at the disposal of the enemies of our people, and acting as a tool and weapon for their plans.”
…I once published on social media that society never really accepted homosexuality, but rather that society itself first became ‘homosexual’ in its traits before it could tolerate actual homosexuals. As the West became progressively more childless, promiscuous, hedonistic, and brimming with delusional self-confidence, the differences between the normal and the abnormal narrowed, and there appeared fewer reasons to continue to deny ‘equality’ to the sexual invert.
Donna Minkowitz writes for Slate June 5, 2017:
How the Alt-Right Is Using Sex and Camp to Attract Gay Men to Fascism
At the National Policy Institute’s 2015 conference, alt-right star Richard Spencer’s annual Nazi-fest, a speaker named Jack Donovan exhorted the crowd “to leave the world the way you entered it, kicking and screaming and covered in somebody else’s blood.” The same year, in the pages of the The Occidental Observer, one of the most prominent white nationalist webzines, another alt-righter, James J. O’Meara, held forth about how “behind the Negro, hidden away, as always, is the darker, more sinister figure of the Judeo. The Negro is the shock troop. The Jew is the ultimate beneficiary.” Aside from being open fascists and “white racialists,” Donovan and O’Meara have another thing in common: They’re both out gay men.
In his book The Homo and the Negro, O’Meara says that gay white men represent the best of what Western culture has to offer because of their “intelligence” and “beauty,” and that “Negroes” represent the worst, being incapable of “achievement.” Donovan calls women “whores” and “bitches,” and, when a questioner on Reddit asked him his views of the Holocaust, responded, “What is this Holocaust thing? I’m drawing a blank.”
Both have become influential figures in the alt-right; horribly, they are not the only gay men to respond to an olive branch lately offered by white nationalism. The opening of this movement to cisgender gay men is a radical change, “one of the biggest changes I’ve seen on the right in 40 years,” says Chip Berlet, co-author of Right-Wing Populism in America. In the United States, unlike in Europe, out gay men have never been welcome in white supremacist groups. The Klan and neo-Nazi groups, the main previous incarnations of white hate in this country, were and still are violently anti-queer. And while a subset of openly gay men has always been conservative (or, as in all populations, casually racist), they never sought to join the racist right.
That was before groups like NPI, Counter-Currents Publishing, and American Renaissance started putting out the welcome mat. Since around 2010, some (though by no means all) groups in the leadership of the white nationalist movement have been inviting out cis gay men to speak at their conferences, write for their magazines, and be interviewed in their journals. Donovan and O’Meara, far to the right of disgraced provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, are the white nationalist movement’s actual queer stars. But there are others in the ranks, like Douglas Pearce of the popular neofolk band Death in June. And there are many more gay men (and some trans women) who have been profoundly influenced by two white nationalist ideas: the “threat” posed by Islam and the “danger” posed by immigrants.
Donovan tries to sugarcoat his own racist beliefs when speaking to his main fan base, gay men who like his macho looks and straight men from the “pickup artist” culture and the manosphere who are desperately trying to learn from him how to be manly. Instead, reverting to the other half of the Nazi playbook, he prefers to highlight his hatred for “effeminacy,” feminism, and “weakness.” A beautifully muscular man of 42 who has perfected a masculine scowl in the many photographs of himself he releases on his website and Facebook page, he functions as beefcake for the neofascist cause. He’s parlayed his butch allure into a brand, earning money from a line of T-shirts and wrist guards that say things like BARBARIAN and a series of books that seek to instruct both straight and gay men in how to become more masculine and in particular, more “violent.”
In a 2011 essay, “Mighty White,” Donovan says, “race is not my favorite issue to write about” because “I know too well that it distracts people from the bulk of my work” on the sexiness of violent masculinity. (If people associated him more with white nationalism than machismo, it could impede sales of his clothing line, books, patches, and the tattoos he sells out of a Portland-area gym.) And indeed, at the end of May, Donovan wrote a long, rambling post on his website trying to dissociate himself from white nationalism. The post may have been a response to the enormous public anger in Portland, Oregon (where Donovan lives), following white nationalist Jeremy Christian’s murder of two men for defending women of color on a commuter train on May 26. In the essay, Donovan claimed he doesn’t want to organize anyone politically, rather “I just want to hang out in the woods with … the people who I am oathed to, my tribe, the Wolves of Vinland”—a white, “neopagan” quasi-military brotherhood recognized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. (Wolves of Vinland member Maurice Michaely recently spent two years in prison for burning down a black church in Virginia.)
But Donovan’s recent hand-wringing does not erase the fact that on his website he’s repeatedly said real men want to “control our borders,” decried the “black-on-white crime rate,” denounced “the deeply entrenched anti-white bias” of our culture, and said, “I support White Nationalists,” who “I call … ‘The Mighty Whites.’ ” Recently, he admiringly interviewed the two young men who lead Germany’s anti-African, anti-Arab identitarian movement. On his podcast, the men, one of whom used to belong to a neo-Nazi group in Austria, boast about attacking a mosque and disrupting refugee theater. He also has begun whispering praise for Julius Evola, the Italian anti-Semite and fascist who joined Hitler’s SS.
If Donovan is a caricature of the gay Nazi strongman—almost a personification of the phrase “body fascism” (which was originally used by gay men to critique other gay men’s obsession with perfect gym bodies)—his counterpart, James O’Meara, is an embodiment of something that could barely be imagined until now: Nazi camp. I hesitate to write that phrase, because it’s almost painful to acknowledge that camp—that subversive, gay “turning” of seriousness into playfulness and straight narratives into gay ones—could be deployed by a Nazi. But of course it can: If the emergence of out gay white nationalists shows anything, it’s that LGBTQ people truly are everywhere, for good and for ill. And that we no longer have the luxury of assuming that queer tropes are inherently, and trans-historically, progressive.
Far femmier than Donovan in both looks and tone, O’Meara writes alternately smirking and playful essays for Counter-Currents about men’s clothing, the closeted Cardinal Spellman, the “homoromanticism” of the Boy Scouts, and the political economy of The Gilmore Girls. O’Meara openly loves Hitler, but he also grooves to the socialist Oscar Wilde, and, in an interview with the webzine Alternative Right, admiringly quotes “Bunny” Roger, the gay British dandy and World War II hero, as saying: “Now that I’ve killed so many Nazis Daddy will have to buy me a sable coat.” But his “fun” paragraphs always end up at the same un-playful conclusion: “the Judaic is always there, blocking the way” and spreading “rot” throughout American culture. “The Jew” is deliberately destroying the country by building up “Negroes” and promoting “the alien, dissolute, demonic culture of the Africans.” In a podcast, O’Meara said, “The blacks get their chicks pregnant as soon as they turn 15, and have 30 different children with 10 different women” because of Jewish scheming: “the poison that the Jewish mentality introduces” promotes heterosexual sex and “girl-craziness” instead of the glorious gayness that would dominate “if the Jews hadn’t taken over Hollywood.”
Of course, neither O’Meara nor Donovan actually support gay rights. This is partly because they don’t believe in “civil rights.”
…Both men openly detest lesbians and trans and genderqueer people: Donovan calls the trans movement “men who want to cut their dicks off and women who want to cut their tits off.” And of course, no white nationalist organization anywhere supports LGBTQ rights on a social or legislative level. Their new “support” is limited to allowing cis gay men who are white racists to join them.
I appreciate these MSM critiques of the Alt Right. I don’t think that if an article appears in Slate or the New York Times, it is automatically nonsense. Just as much of the time, the leading Alt Right thinkers have important critiques of the MSM, so too the MSM has important analyses of the Alt Right. Jews have important critiques of goys, goys have important critiques of Jews. Jews have important critiques of blacks, blacks have important critiques of Jews. No race, no side, no religion has a monopoly on wisdom. I know that my own writing and my own life has benefited from my fiercest critics. I learned from interviewing pornographers that people I often thought of as wicked had often more profound insights into me and into life than I did. Objective standards of right and wrong require faith, which inherently contains tremendous subjectivity.
