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.
The Incompatibility of Homosexuality with Alt-Right Principles
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. If such a drain can be established, homosexuality necessarily becomes a subject of political discussion, and silence on the issue (the status quo in the political mainstream) becomes a political decision of sorts.
There is now a large body of evidence from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and similar organizations outside the United States, indicating that homosexuals suffer from worse than average health and that much of this is rooted in health-negative lifestyle choices. For example, both male and female homosexuals engage in much higher rates of cigarette smoking and ‘binge’ alcohol consumption. The greater health problem of homosexuals has of course long been rooted in the sphere of venereal disease. The body of literature on this topic is so large and readily available that it doesn’t need to be repeated here, but some facts in relation to this matter are particularly noteworthy. In recent decades rates of HIV/AIDS transmission in almost every demographic have witnessed very significant reductions, and in very recent years this trend has accelerated dramatically. For example, between 2008 and 2014 transmission rates among drug users fell by 56%, while transmission rates among the sexually normal fell by 36%. This can be seen as a triumph of education and intervention (albeit at an extravagant cost to the Federal government — $980 million annually). It is interesting, however, that the CDC finds that homosexuals are the only group which has failed to respond to these costly interventionist efforts. Latino homosexuals and those aged between 25 and 34 saw increases in rates of transmission of 20% and 35% respectively. The rates of Black homosexual diagnoses for HIV/AIDS increased 22% overall between 2005 and 2014, while the figure among Black homosexuals aged between 13 and 24 increased an astonishing 87%. The starting point of that particular age range is, of course, concerning, to say the least, and will be discussed in more detail later.
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. In the context of a privatized healthcare system, these costs can be dispersed in sufficiently opaque ways so as to avoid arousing the attention of the greater public. Such an inordinate and frivolous absorption of resources is less easy to obscure in a socialized system, where health budgets and expenditures are subject to more glaring critique. 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. Due to political correctness, it would be impossible in the current academic and political climate to obtain the funding and support necessary to conduct a full and precise assessment of the financial burden of the homosexual population, much less hold a debate on whether this population is worth the extravagant overspending that it consumes, and apparently feels entitled to consume. However, it should be a political principle of the Alt-Right that this is an investigation and a debate that should take place, not in order to morally lecture or police people on ‘what they do in their bedrooms,’ but in order to ensure that the most vital areas of national and ethnic health enjoy their fully-deserved access to as many resources as possible. For example, children are the future of the nation and it should be a cast-iron political position of the Alt-Right that no situation should ever arise whereby children’s health is financially disprivileged while exorbitant funds are directed at chronically problematic adult groups, of which homosexuals are inarguably one.
Aside from issues of disease, demographics are another biological reason why homosexuality should be regarded as a political issue worthy of attention. In this regard, it has been argued historically that homosexuality threatens the demographics of a nation because it is reliant on ‘converts’ and thus, in recruiting individuals from the reproductive population, leads to an overall decline in birthrates. This may be regarded as the ‘homosexual conspiracy’, or ‘recruitment’ theory of homosexual demographic impact. My own impression is that the ‘recruitment’ problem is not as severe a demographic problem as some of the proponents of this argument maintain, mainly because I believe that an overwhelming majority of the population, apart from the psychologically vulnerable (children and adolescents in particular), would be impervious to homosexual efforts to propagandize their specific behaviors. 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. Despite my own opinion, both demographic arguments require further elucidation.
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. Attempts by modern scholars, often those with a ‘dog in the fight,’ to read homosexual behavior into this or that historical era or individual are often riddled with logical errors, use of anachronistic terminologies, and omissions of contrary data. However, what we can ascertain is that homosexual behavior was evident in ancient Greece and Rome, but appears to have been less common in northern Europe. Also in evidence is an abundance of primary documentation from contemporaries critical of homosexual behavior. An example combining both of these realities is the description by Tacitus of the Germanic tribes taking “the man stained with abominable vices” and plunging him “into the mire of the morass with a hurdle put over him” — an indictment of some of the tolerances of Roman society as well as an accurate anthropological description of ancient Nordic social governance.
Hostility and aversion to the ‘recruiting’ or pederastic elements of homosexuality were commonplace in Imperial Rome. We know from Polybius that the Roman army punished homosexual relations between soldiers with death, and from Valerius Maximus that the upper echelons of the armies of the middle and late Republic were forced to confront incidents where homosexual officers had been sexually molesting young subordinates. Indeed, Tacitus remarks that one of the main reasons for the revolt of the Batavians, a Germanic tribe on the Rhine, against the Romans was the conscription, and subsequent molestation, of their youths in the Roman army. Whatever tolerance was shown to such behavior by Imperial authorities, it appears to have increased along with the decline of the Empire.
The link between the toleration of homosexual behavior and civilizational decline is an interesting one. Although both Parmenides and Aristotle argued that heredity played a large role in the homosexuality of the Greeks, and more especially the Dorians, Havelock Ellis, the early ‘sexologist,’ argued that the prevalence of what he called “sexual inversion” in Greek society was rooted more in the human “herd instinct” and was due more to a “state of social feeling that however it originated, induced a large proportion of the ordinary population to adopt homosexuality as a fashion.” Once a society adopted this fashion, it contributed to the “demoralizing of the manhood of a nation,” and was a sign of impending national or civilizational collapse into decadence and despondency. The goal was thus to avoid a situation in which homosexual ‘recruitment’ was “normalized” and, more crucially, to prevent the behaviors associated with these psychological disorders from becoming fashionable. This connection between homosexual behavior and civilizational decline is simply too large in scope to properly deal with here, but it should remain a background note to our consideration of the issue as a whole. More specifically, it is necessary to give some consideration to Ellis’ theory that homosexuality became ‘fashionable’ in Ancient Greece. By what means?
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. The introduction of the legal decree Lex Scantina by the Romans around 149 B.C. appears to have been a reaction to the rape and sexual abuse of young male citizens, and a number of prosecutions against Senators and other Roman elites are documented. The pederastic preference among homosexuals appears to have survived the last two millennia but is currently inhibited from full ‘expression’ by legal, social, and cultural obstacles. For example, in one 2000 study of sexual age preferences by orientation, psychologists found that homosexuals were on average most likely to select the youngest possible option: a teenage boy. By contrast, sexually normal males were most likely to select a 25-year-old female.4 It is highly controversial to suggest that homosexuals may be more likely to sexually abuse children, and due to a lack of reliable studies, such an argument is not advanced here. However, there are very credible studies indicating that child sexual abuse plays a role in the development of homosexuality — a form of ‘recruitment,’ for lack of a better term. For example, 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.”5
Given the historical and contemporary prominence of the pederastic element, the ‘homosexual conspiracy’ or recruitment theory should be regarded as pertinent to demographic decline mainly in respect to the relationship of the homosexual to children or adolescents. In an earlier age, 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.’
These findings are important on a movement level. Like the Imperial Roman army, we aim to create an environment of camaraderie, loyalty, teamwork, and, where necessary, authority. It is an unfortunate fact that, also like the Imperial Roman army, there would be a vulnerable minority among the younger members of the community to those who would abuse authority for perverse ends. Far from mere conjecture, 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.’
Recent decades have witnessed waves of ‘educational’ efforts promoting ‘tolerance and understanding’ of homosexuality among the young. This is of course propaganda rather than education because the biological, psychological, and pederastic elements of homosexuality are entirely omitted in favor of misleading representations of homosexuals as being socially identical to the sexually normal. Perhaps even more notable is the fact that even our own movement has tolerated similar ‘educational’ efforts promoting ‘tolerance and understanding’ of homosexuality. I am of course referring to the substantial volume of homosexual apologetics emanating from Counter-Currents Publishing. It is necessary to examine and critique some examples.
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?
1 Ard & Makadon. (2011).Addressing Intimate Partner Violence in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26:8, 930-933.
2 Mize & Shackelford. (2008). Intimate partner homicide methods in heterosexual, gay, and lesbian relationships. Violence and Victims, 23:1, 98-114.
3 Myers & Choon. (2012). Juvenile Homosexual Homicide. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 30:2, 90-102.
4 Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67-76.
5 Tomeo, Templer, Anderson & Kotler. (2001). Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30 (5):535-41.
6 A. Reynolds Anglo-Saxon Deviant Burial Customs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 84.