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
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.
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:
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? The power of his Jewish-provoked wrath is thus turned upon himself, neutralizing him as an opponent of Jewish interests. Since the beginnings of psychoanalysis, Jewish intellectuals have focused on applying its tactically useful ‘findings’ to myriad historical contexts as part of their growing and unrelenting critique of the West. 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).
To those with a strong enough mental constitution, this tangle of manifestly unprovable theories is little more than ridiculous — a rhetorically impressive folly, but a folly nonetheless. 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. However, whereas stronger mental constitutions appear to have resisted the advance of the former attempt at pathologizing opposition, I am often struck by the apparent readiness, even within our circles, of men eager to reach for Jewish explanations for why they refuse to tackle an issue of some social significance. Moreover, I find it cowardly and weak: “I can’t take a principled position on this issue because if I do then I will appear homosexual in the schema of Jewish psychological contrivance.” Perhaps it’s because I’m a married father of three, that I’m confrontational by nature, or that I find accusations of repression and secret homosexuality to be humorous as much as irritating, but such a contrivance has never worked on me, and never shall. Behind every Jewish claim that the anti-Semite ‘doth protest too much,’ lies the implication that he should stop protesting. And behind the same giggling refrain from the effeminate lies the same implication. And, in the main, the latter works, shielding the degenerate from critique from all but the most fanatical, which in turns lends perverse credence to his claim that only an ‘obsessive’ would critique his ‘way of life’ or draw attention to what he does ‘behind closed doors.’
Reasoned discussion is necessary to break this Jewish-contrived, artificial taboo, and to draw attention to some manifest realities compelling the exclusion of homosexuals from our struggling but sacred movement, and a broader reckoning with the social implications of homosexuality on a national or ethnic level. 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). It is to these categories that we now turn our attention.
Next: Part 2