Wednesday, July 31, 2019

The Last Chance for White America!

Notice they cannot admit being wrong.

A symbol, not substance.  Not bad, although it could have mentioned the A$AP Rocky fiasco as another example of Trump’s feckless buffoonery. Two further points. Are any of these fellows EVER going to publicly admit to being wrong about their hysterical “Trump is the last chance for White America” nonsense, as well as admit that Strom and I were right about Trump?  And is Johnson going to consider this brief Amren video as an example of “small-minded” “movement” whining about Trump?  

But, but, but…I thought Trump was “the last chance for White America.”  Listen to the whole thing, concentrating on the criticisms about Trump. Once again, note how these people are unable to admit how horribly wrong they were about Antifa Don Trump, and how EGI Notes was right.  Also, once again – will Johnson criticize his buddies at Amren for “small-minded” complaining about Trump?

And then the other shoe drops. MAGA! Pepe! Kek!

The Yang Gang!  Spencer!  Johnson!  

HBD in action!  “Razib” Khan:
My wife has two great-grandparents who were born in Norway.
But, hey, you fetishists, the real danger is dem dere dumb wops and hora-dancing Romanians. Nice Bengali Brownsters mating with Northern European women and producing mongrel offspring is all part of the HBD Jeurasian plan, so it’s all good!  Let’s mate and mix Khan’s spawn with those of Derbyshire, and then the consequent output can mate with some Jews!  HBD!

The fundamental difference between the EGI Notes and HBD perspectives is perhaps best exhibited by the reaction to this.  EGI Notes says the Legionaries were heroes; the HBDers scorn them as hora-dancing non-Jewish, non-Asian Romanians.  Me, I prefer Codreanu to some leering Levantine media manipulators, or to some disease-ridden Oriental human photocopiers, but, hey, what do I know? There's no accounting for taste. If the HBDers prefer Jews and Asians, who are we to say nay?  But, alas, they should go their own way and not infiltrate into White racial nationalism.

Speaking of HBD, this is part of a comment left by a virulently pro-Asian HBDer from Amren comments (emphasis added):
The Democratic Party I love is the party that existed from the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 to the assassination of John Kennedy in 1963. The civil rights movement was well intended. I supported it as a child, a teenager, and a young adult. I am disappointed with the black response.
See this.  Might is Right is a classic Type I fetishist screed, so it’s no wonder one of its (part Iranian?) advocates does the usual Type I stupidities. When are the Type Is going to finally sit down, shut up, and let Type IIs lead the way?  Answer – they won’t.  Ever. It’s up to the Type IIs to just lead the way regardless and push the Type I retards out of the way.

Is this a German? That's Goebbels' nemesis, the “German” Jew Bernhard “Isidor” Weiss. Another picture of this HuWhyte Ultra-Aryan is here.  The HBDers and "race realists" weep.

Monday, July 29, 2019

Salterian Ethics

“We charge you in the name of God, take heed.”

This essay is about the oft-ignored and much-neglected final third of Dr. Frank Salter’s classic work On Genetic Interests, a book that, in my opinion, is of such import that Salter should win a Nobel Prize for this work.

The book is divided into three major sections. The first described what genetic interests and ethnic genetic interests (EGI) are, how they can be measured, and what their import is, and how some objections to these concepts can be answered. The second section studies the political and social ramifications of genetic interests and the EGI concept, and how these concepts could be incorporated into practical biopolitics. The last third of the book deals with the ethics of pursuing genetic interests in opposition to the genetic interests of others and in opposition to the proximate interests (genetic interests being ultimate interests for evolved organisms) of others.

The ethical component of Salter’s work has been ignored by a Left that presents a defamatory strawman representation of EGI as promoting “genocide and rape.”  Obviously then, Salter’s careful arguments, and his advocacy of a “mixed ethic” that incorporates individual rights, is anathema to mendacious trash who wish to misrepresent the contents of Salter’s book. Some on the Far Right either ignore or mock this section of Salter’s book because these people actually do advocate genocide and rape (or at least the former) and they characterize the ethical section of the book as an unnecessary politically correct add-on, something purely subjective, and in some cases they engage in some defamation of their own by characterizing Salter’s ethical concerns as “squid ink” to hide the true “nature red in tooth and claw” agenda of On Genetic Interests (projection, perhaps).

I myself have not paid enough attention to this section of the book.  As a STEM person with an interest in population genetics and in empirical determinations of ethnic and racial interests, obviously I found the first part of the book riveting; as a White nationalist who wants to achieve certain political objectives based on EGI, it is equally obvious that the second part of the book was also of extreme interest to me.  Philosophy and ethics are not my strong suit and although I agree with most of what Salter wrote in that section of the book (unlike some of his foaming-at-the-mouth Nutzi critics), I have heretofore not given that section sufficient attention.  I hope to begin the process of rectifying that error here.

As Salter emphasizes, morality is basically an approach for adjudicating conflicts of interests. E.O. Wilson described human behavior as “…the circuitous technique by which human genetic material has been and will be kept intact.” In relation to that goal, he asserted: “Morality has no other demonstrable ultimate function.”  This is in accord with the view – promoted by Salter and myself - that genetic interests are ultimate interests. How could it be otherwise for evolved organisms whose reproduction – indeed, whose representation among the informational content of reality – is essentially dependent upon and constituted by “genetic material?”  Or more basically by the information encoded in that “genetic material?”

At this point, a brief detour is in order to distinguish “factual truth” from practical truth.” According to D.S. Wilson: “It is the person who elevates factual truth above practical truth who must be accused of mental weakness from an evolutionary perspective.”  As a man of science, I have been trained to value factual truth, and that is part of the Western tradition; indeed, it has antecedents in the Classical Civilization of Europe.  However, there is truth (both factual and practical!) in D.S. Wilson’s comment.  If we merge the assertions of the two Wilsons together, we can say that practical truth is evolutionarily paramount if and when it acts to promote the ultimate interest of genetic continuity.  

An example from “movement activism” can clarify how an example of hypocritical racial cant confuses factual and practical truth, and further, how adherence to the genetic interests of racial aliens uses a denial of factual truth to also impede practical truth. A certain “activist” (*) wrote: “Individual and ethnic amour-propre is a powerful motivator in the face of emotionally hurtful facts and hypotheses.”  But that criticism falls flat if the motivation in question reflects the practical truths that promote ultimate interests.  This individual himself is proof of this, given his reticence to extend his alleged interest in “emotionally hurtful facts and hypotheses” to those ethnies he values and identifies with.  As a Nordicist HBDer who distorts racial science and racial history for his transparent agendas, he is as guilty as anyone else in utilizing practical truth and dismissing factual truth. However, any European-derived person who promotes HBD is acting against, not for, their ultimate interests, as they instead promote the ultimate interests of Jews and Asians. In this case, practical truth is used in the service of someone else’s ultimate interests. Why such genetic treason is practiced is for the traitor to explain. Whatever the reason, this agenda is the denial of factual truth (i.e., dishonesty) in the service of the denial of practical truth for Europeans (i.e., race treason).  

Now we will begin to consider the main points of Salter’s arguments about the ethics of EGI. Salter wrote:
…we make moral judgements of great consequence, and must do so if we are to decide conflicts of interests.  Choices are also forced in the game of life, every day genetic interests being won or squandered. A commentator who fails to advise people on how to defend their most precious assets is, by default, advocating the status quo, with its winner and losers.
One can contrast teleological or consequentialist ethics such as utilitarianism with deontological ethics.  In the former, an act is morally right dependent upon its outcome; thus we ask - are its effects desirable?  In the later, acts are moral based on some defined rules or traditions; here the act is considered good or bad in and of itself, independent of its effects.  Teleological ethics are best suited for consideration of EGI, since we need to judge the consequences of various outcomes derived from conflicts involving genetic interests (e.g., competing genetic interests, genetic interests vs. proximate interests, or the specialized case of the latter of genetic interests vs. individual rights).

Obviously, and as Salter rightly points out, teleological ethnics have to have at some point a deontological component; after all, to label an outcome as “desirable” means that this consequence, this effect, has to be judged as morally right, as morally good, on its own merits.  Here we are evaluating the merits of the consequence itself, not the act that led to the consequence.  Thus, at some point in the analysis, a value judgement has to be made. Salter discusses various options for what this morally good consequence should be, including Mill’s idea of the morally optimal act being one that maximizes happiness for the greatest number.  However, “happiness” is a proximate interest that may not be in the best interests of an individual, group, or society; thus, maladaptive acts such as drug use leading to addiction may result in (at least short-term) happiness. Is that morally good?  Genetic interests are ultimate interests, and fitness can be an objective measure of a consequence that an evolutionarily informed individual (or society) can consider morally good.  

Obviously, this is a matter of values, and Salter has always admitted that “who cares?” is a riposte to genetic interests that cannot be refuted without addressing values. I’d like to point out though that those interested in promoting their genetic interests will outcompete and replace those who are not. In the long-term, disinterest in genetic interests is not evolutionarily stable. So, such a disinterest would be a quite strange “morally good ethic” in that it dooms itself to extinction. If someone has a value system in which self-destructive values are prized then that is their prerogative; others who value continuity of both their bioculture and their values would be well served to promote their genetic interests.  Salter also notes that proximate interests are best optimized rather than maximized; for example, a person who is “too happy” may become less prudent, jeopardizing well-being.  On the other hand, ultimate interests are different; these interests are adaptive when maximized (note: maximized in the net sense).  Thus, Salter states: “One cannot be too well adapted.” 

Careful readers may believe that quote is inconsistent with my distinction between gross and net genetic interests, and my comments (here and previously) that a too-aggressive pursuit of ever-diminishing returns of genetic interest can be counter-productive.  But there is no inconsistency because Salter’s quote makes being adapted the primary issue, not the mechanisms used to pursue that goal. Adaptiveness here is in terms of net genetic interests. In other words, maximizing adaptiveness is good, but attempting to maximize the pursuit of genetic interests, in every circumstance and regardless of context, can result in sub-optimal adaptiveness if that attempt backfires.  Note that in his book Salter describes certain ultra-nationalist states, like Nazi Germany, as being over-investments in genetic interests that ended up harming the adaptive interests of those states’ ethnies.  Hitler’s attempt to maximize German EGI backfired; look at Germany in 1945, and, worse, look at Germany today. German adaptiveness, their net EGI, would have been maximized by a more prudent, and less aggressive, pursuit of genetic interests. While in many – likely most – cases, maximizing genetic interests would maximize adaptiveness, that is not always the case. 

Note also that a person’s conscious preferences may not lead to adaptive outcomes; this can be from a hyper-investment in genetic interests as with Hitler or, more likely today, in globalist “anonymous mass societies,” people do not understand their genetic interests and thus under-invest in them.  While we cannot force values on people, we can educate them about genetic interests so that their choice of values will be an informed choice.

However, a pure utilitarian ethic – promoting adaptive fitness for the greatest number as the only consideration - has some problems.

Salter rightfully criticizes the pure utilitarian ethic from the standpoint of justice.  He provides a theoretical example that I can paraphrase here. Imagine a murder committed in a town, and the local vagrant is suspected.  The police chief then discovers the vagrant is innocent and that the murder was committed by the mayor, who has been an upstanding citizen and a long-standing important member of the town community.  The crime was one of passion and will be unlikely to ever be repeated, while the vagrant is a constant troublemaker. Convicting the vagrant on the basis of partial or invented evidence would be best for the long-term well-being of the town, while arresting and convicting the mayor would cause social upheaval in the town, damage the town’s nascent tourist industry, and cause widespread economic dislocation and hardship for residents.  A purely utilitarian reading of the situation is to let the vagrant hang and let the mayor off Scott-free, but, as Salter notes, this offends our sense of justice (for most of us anyway).  That being so, the utilitarian ethic needs to be balanced by individual rights, and by certain normative values. Pure utility is not sufficient for a truly just ethic.

Salter notes that “bounded rationality” – our inability to ever know everything necessary about a problem or issue – is a good reason not to advocate for the pure ethic of unbridled pursuit of genetic interests. This is because we may be in error about what those genetic interests actually are and about how best to achieve them.  In the absence of unbounded rationality, in the absence of absolute certainty, a degree of prudence and restraint is called for, and is likely to be more adaptive in the long run. I have always distinguished gross genetic interests from net – the former being a naïve attempt to maximize a perceived set of genetic interests to the ultimate degree possible, while the latter takes into account costs and benefits and attempts to ascertain what the long-term genetic interest net benefit will be after all the varied costs are accounted for.  It may be that a less radical pursuit of (ever-diminishing) genetic interest returns would be most beneficial; the marginal gains of genetic interests inherent in an “all or nothing” approach toward adaptive behavior may not be worth the costs incurred. For example, dividing a larger nation into smaller micro-states of more concentrated kinship may be seen as maximizing EGI, but if this division weakens the ability of the populations involved to defend their interests against aggressors (or achieve some other beneficial goal that requires a certain size threshold), then net adaptive interests would suffer. Maximizing EGI, trying to squeeze every last drop of genetic interest from a situation, may backfire. In addition, the possibility of kinship overlap between populations is another reason not to be too radical in the pursuit of EGI, particularly within continents, since some people on “their side” may be more genetically similar to you than those on “your side.”  Even if that degree of kinship overlap is not the case, if the two sides are relatively genetically similar to each other, then he costs of conflict may outweigh the benefits.  The bounded rationality problem, coupled to the possibility of kinship overlap, therefore suggests that a degree of flexibility in the pursuit of EGI is optimal, since errors in interpreting kinship and the best methods for pursuing adaptiveness may result in serious, perhaps irreversible, damage to adaptive interests. Prudence and restraint are therefore warranted to constrain reckless behavior in support of (assumed) genetic interests.

Thus, Salter asserts that is prudent to eschew the pure ethic – where maximizing genetic interests would always take precedence in every circumstance – in favor of a “mixed ethic” where the pursuit of adaptiveness is tempered by a concern for individual rights and minority group rights – or even the rights of other majority groups of other nations that your group may be in conflict with. 

Salter pre-emptively answers some of his Far Right critics by asking whether adding a concern for such rights “threatens incoherence” of an adaptive ethic. Thus, those critics complained that a concern for rights was a subjective “add-on” to EGI that does not logically derive from Salter’s arguments. However, the comments about bounded rationality and kinship overlap, as well as the possibility of maladaptive over-investment in EGI, point in the direction of a mixed ethic actually being coherent and probably more adaptive in the net sense. In addition, given the reality of White behavior, getting large numbers of Whites to agree with the value of EGI would necessitate flexibility about adaptive behavior, so as to include appropriate consideration of (potentially) non-adaptive values such as individual rights.

Note that in my view, proximate interests that temper the pursuit of genetic interests need not be limited to individual (or minority group) rights, but can (and should) include such things as a Yockeyian interest in “actualizing a High Culture” and other civilizational and political pursuits that may not always be perfectly congruent with a single-minded pursuit of genetic interests. But even here, I can argue that such a tempering may have long-term adaptive value.  The groups constituting the Yockeyian view are all European; hence, there will be at least some kinship overlap (at least at the global level).  

Salter compares three ethics – pure adaptive utilitarianism (PAU), mixed adaptive utilitarianism (MAU), and the rights-centered ethic (RCE).  The PAU holds EGI as morally good and also holds that adaptive interests must be maximized regardless of means. MAU also holds that EGI is morally good, but that the pursuit of adaptive interests must be constrained by rights.  The RCE does not assert that EGI is either morally good or bad, but this ethic is not teleological like the preceding two, but is deontological; thus, in the RCE the “rightness of means [are] unrelated to consequences.”  Then Salter asks certain questions for each of these ethics. First, can it moral for EGI to frustrate other interests? The PAU says yes, unconditionally; while the MAU also says yes, but only in defense of ethnic interests or in (limited) expansion that preserves the existence of the (defeated) competitor. Since Salter supports the MAU, it puts to lie the accusation that he supports genocide. What about the RCE? This ethic says that it is not moral for EGI to frustrate other interests, because such frustration of other interests causes harm. Should genetic interests have absolute priority?  The PAU says yes, the MAU says no when such interests “conflict with individual rights,” and the RCE says no, “since only means matter” – and only means consistent with individual rights are allowed in RCE.  What to do when genetic interests conflict?  The PAU says “compete within adaptive limits” (I suppose this means net genetic interests), the MAU says “compete but respect rights,” and the RCE says “stop competing, since it entails harm.”

I’d like to say at this point that the RCE is, practical terms, not really followed by anyone in the multicultural ex-West. Those who claim to support the RCE essentially support it only for Whites, while non-Whites are allowed to essentially follow a PAU ethics.  Consider – do supporters of the RCE really take an agnostic view of EGI independent of rights?  Or is the very idea of White EGI anathema?  I suppose the argument would be that any expression of White genetic interests harms the rights of non-Whites, so consideration of White EGI independent of rights is not possible.  That being so, the fact that non-White PAU harms White EGI is a feature, not a bug, of modern RCE hypocrisy.

Salter further discusses the ethics of the PAU and MAU approaches, making analogies between ethny and family.  If we allow people to favor their families, then why shouldn’t ethnocentrism be tolerated, or even celebrated (I’m talking about Whites here; as we all know, non-White ethnocentrism is already strongly promoted by the System)?  Salter goes further – if parents have a duty to care for their children, then perhaps people “have a similar duty to nurture” their ethnies.  Indeed, perhaps one rationale for race-denial propaganda is to prevent (White) people from making these “dangerous” (but accurate) analogies between ethny and family. Salter states that tribal feelings and ethnic identification are both necessary to produce “feelings of ethnic obligation” – so it should be no surprise to us that those two elements are attacked by the System with respect to Whites (but promoted for non-Whites).  

Salter discusses methods used to undermine these components of ethnic obligations, including “fictive ethnicity” (e.g., civic nationalism) and/or fictive non-ethnicity (e.g., race-denial).  Thus, Whites in America, for example, are told that their racial group does not exist, and that they should simply identify as “Americans,” considering any featherless biped infesting American territory as their civic “kin.” If protecting one’s genetic survival is a fundamental right (and it should be so for evolved organisms like humans), then these methods are immoral and unethical. Further, holding that genetic continuity is a fundamental right brings the MAU closer to the PAU, thus undermining Salter’s critics on the Far Right. Indeed, further undermining those rightist critics, Salter puts forth that advancement, and not merely defense, of genetic interests can be moral and ethical. The idea, consistent with the MAU, is to allow for the continued existence of the (defeated) competitor, albeit with reduced (but not fatally diminished) resources.

Salter then briefly discusses altruism and morality, citing one so-called “leading evolutionary theorist” who claims “that only non-fitness-enhancing behavior can be moral.”  Amusingly, Salter then mentions that a healthier theorist made the comment that these types of ideas are such “that this is an unconsciously self-serving moral sentiment that, when expressed, influences some susceptible individuals to show indiscriminate altruism that benefits the moralist.” Indeed, calls for universalism and pathological altruism can be a competitive tactic; thus, non-Whites manipulate White behavior so that Whites sacrifice their own interests to promote those of others. This is of course maladaptive for Whites; indeed, evolved organisms are not expected to be, and should not be, purely disinterested in their morals and ethics (including altruism).  And, sometimes, ultimate and proximate interests converge and the distinctions are blurred (as I often state)l however, when distinctions between the two sets of interests are clear, the ultimate should usually be given precedence over the proximate (note: a precedence constrained by a concern for rights).

Salter notes that people “who do not consider peaceful genetic replacement to be a moral issue will have no moral objection to their own painless genetic extinction.” Well, there are Whites with pathological altruism who do not personally reproduce as as to “save the planet” (and who advocate the same to other Whites, but typically not to non-Whites), but typically the situation is that of a targeted attack against White interests. Especially, non-White activists will be among those who attempt to convince Whites to accept genetic extinction, while these non-Whites themselves continue their own genetic lines.  

And if people genuinely do not care about genetic interests, then why do many of them so strenuously argue against those who do so care?  I wrote about this previously:
The only real critique possible is one of values – i.e., genetic interests are real, but, who cares?  However, I find the values argument hypocritical and mendacious as well. Imagine two co-ethnics, Jim and Mark. Jim highly values his genetic interests, genetic continuity, and racial survival. Mark is indifferent to all of that, he “doesn’t care” about it. Very well. But if Jim cares deeply and Mark not at all, then common sense and fundamental ethics tell us that Mark, who asserts he doesn’t care one way or the other, should let Jim have his way. Why not?  If one believes Mark then he’s fine either way – the race prospers or it does not. Mark’s indifference should then make way for Jim’s deep concern and concentrated activism. Of course, Mark may be a liar, he may have other interests which conflict with Jim’s concerns with race and EGI; if so, Mark should be honest about these interests. If Jim and Mark are of different ethnies, and if Mark opposes Jim’s pursuit of EGI, Jim should be wary of Mark’s claims to be a disinterested commentator.  Mark’s interests do not bestow upon him the right to delegitimize Jim’s pursuit of his ultimate interests through the misuse of pseudoscientific sophistry.  
Getting back to the issue of values, it is indeed amusing when people who claim “they do not care” about race get so upset with scenarios in which Europeans survive and prosper. If race is “irrelevant” then it should be “irrelevant” if non-Europeans become extinct and an expanding European population colonizes the entire Earth. Why not?  “Nothing matters.”  Except of course, in reality, it all matters. Attacks against “Salterism” are not disinterested science, but hyper-interested ethnic activism and/or political ideology.
A few concluding comments are appropriate at this point.  Salter believes that “evolved organisms” will not for long accept a “social order that weeds out their lineages.” Well, so far, Whites have been generally accepting of such a social order; we shall see how things evolve (no pun intended).  It is part of the proper ethics of EGI to educate people on the important of adaptive behavior; one can view Salter’s book, and my current post, as part of such efforts.

Salter also discusses “socially imposed monogamy” as an effective method for resolving conflicting genetic interests in societies, and this leads us to the idea that atomized individuals are unlikely to be able to effectively strategize and act on behalf of their genetic interests; collective action, including state power, is necessary. Salter mentions the ethical implications of having a state that is an interested promoter of national interests in the global arena, but “a disinterested arbiter of family interests within the nation.”  [Note that socially imposed monogamy may be an exception to the latter, depending upon your point of view]. There are different levels of genetic interests that would need to be handled in different manners.  Just solutions to conflicts of genetic interests, those that appeal to the universal human interest in genetic continuity and adaptiveness (whether consciously recognized or not), would be more stable than unjust and unreasonable approaches.  It is in the interests of any adaptively-minded state to promote such just solutions to conflicts of genetic interests,

Finally, while the MAU puts limits on the degree to which genetic interests can be pursued, people and ethnies must still have the freedom to advance (not merely defend) their interests within reasonable bounds. We cannot expect equal fitness outcomes as enforced equalized fitness would lead to an increased mutation load and would be so totalitarian in its application as to be unpalatable to reasonable people. Salter argues that the ultimate freedom is the freedom to defend (and advance) one’s genetic interests, which are ultimate interests. That this can be done via the MAU has been argued in Salter’s book and also in my comments above; I would promote a rather aggressive version of the MAU, but one that still incorporates limits and which respects certain proximate interests. However, in my case, I would value society-wide proximate interests, such as Yockey’s call to actualize a High Culture, over mere individual rights, although, certainly, individual rights are important and should be respected.

Let us finish with the following Shakespearean quote that Salter includes in this section of his book, with respect to conflicts between sets of genetic interests:

Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,
How you awake our sleeping sword of war.
We charge you in the name of God, take heed,
For never two such kingdoms did contend
Without much fall of blood, whose guiltless drops
Are every one a woe, a sore complaint
'Gainst him whose wrong gives edge unto the swords
That make such waste in brief mortality.
May I with right and conscience make this claim? 
Shakespeare, Henry V, 1500, Act I, Scene I

*I want this post to emphasize ideas and theory, not personal feuding, so I’m not going to mention such people by name here.

Sunday, July 28, 2019

Der Alt Right Marches On

The usual failures and humiliations.

What happened? Answer: David Duke is a fool. So is Spencer. So is anyone in Der Movement who endorsed or otherwise supported or promoted Princess Tulsi Coconut.  It’s not even primary season yet, and the Quota Queens are already being humiliated by their Man on White Horse Syndrome (or in this case, Woman on Samoan Surfboard Syndrome) candidates. Keep on enabling your “leaders” though, because, well, you know….

Meanwhile, Trump’s DOJ is hard at work.  Is Trump going to plan an Otto Skorzeny-style operation (a la Mussolini) to rescue A$AP Rocky?  MAGA! Pepe!  Kek!

Meanwhile, again, Trump is monitoring the situation. What is there to “consider?”  Just do it or don’t do it.  You see, this way, Trump has all the MAGA yokels excited about the “impeding action” – without having to actually do anything except producing another blustering tweet.  MAGA!  Pepe!  Kek!

A perfect inversion of reality (from Counter-Currents, of course):
Darryl Cooper: Something that you just said, definitely it’s something I’ve observed. I think maybe ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago, a lot of the time when you would think of a White Nationalist, you’re not necessarily thinking of a savory character. And I think there was probably some justice to that stereotype. But a lot of the people that I’m meeting now, who self-identify as Alt Right, like you said, are college-educated people who are well put together, who carry themselves well, who often have families that are at a young age and who take care of them. It’s definitely a different brand of people than the Venice Beach skinhead that I would have run into when I was a kid. I don’t want to leave that theme of alienation that you were talking about right now, but we’re going to get into that in a little bit. I kind of have that earmarked.
From my approximately quarter-century involvement in the American racial nationalist scene, my impression is exactly the opposite.  Well, almost exactly the opposite.  I think the most accurate analogy is with the American class system. In the past, we had a real and dynamic (White) middle class that was the backbone of the nation, with some rich and some poor above and below.  Today, that middle is evaporating, and society is starting to separate into broad categories of “haves” and “have nots.” Similarly, in the past, you had a solid “middle class” or fairly useful activists, with, obviously, some real Nutzi nutcases at the bottom and a few intellectual types at the top.  Today, that middle ground of solid activists is almost gone; instead we have a greater number of intellectuals and academic types, but a huge number of dysfunctional Nutzis, juvenile jackasses, and freaks/perverts.  And even the upper crust of intellectuals are problematic, since many them are jackasses, freaks, perverts, drug addicts, grifters, those with terminally bad judgment, or some combination thereof.  Overall, the quality of activists is lower now than in the past, and the Alt Right in particular is – or more properly was – a real cesspool of manifest inferiority.

Friday, July 26, 2019

The Homosexual Question, Part II

The second half of this discussion.

Here, we will take a look at Andrew Joyce’s comments on the matter of homosexuality, and I will determine if my views as outlined here in Part I require modification.

Several points. First, I am not going to comment on every single argument Joyce made, only those I believe are most relevant to a critical examination of my views (and his) and/or those comments of his that I wish to comment on even if they are not directly relevant to the main issue. Second, in general, much of Joyce's work (insofar as I am familiar with it) is in my opinion good; however, there are points of disagreement and criticism which come into play here, which should become apparent below. Third, my overall personal attitude toward homosexuality is similar to that of Joyce; however, I am here attempting to view the issue from the perspective of what is best for the pro-White movement as a whole rather than my private aesthetic preferences.  Fourth and finally, although Part II concludes this analysis, I reserve the right to revisit this issue in the future, possibly significantly altering my conclusions.

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.
Well, forget about the so-called “Alt-Right,” which is essentially dead, killed by the stupidity and juvenile retardation of its “leadership,” and let us instead focus solely on “the broader White nationalist movement.”  The overall question both Joyce and I are considering is what place, if any, do homosexuals have in White nationalism?
I once previously involved myself in the comments section of, 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 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 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.
Perhaps, but it is fairly obvious as to which side of that feud Joyce predominantly sympathized with.  That of course is not directly relevant to his arguments, and to argue (no pun intended) otherwise is ad hominem.
I deal with the bankrupt rationale behind the second accusation in the course of the essay. 
That accusation is particularly stupid ad hominem and Joyce really shouldn’t even had bothered spending any time answering it, other than pointing out its stupidity.  If a person is against “activity X,” it does not necessarily follow that they have repressed urges regarding “X.”  It is true that the “doth protest too much” sometimes applies when someone hysterically argues against something, but that is over-used to the point of absurdity regarding homosexuality.  Are homosexuals so deluded that they cannot understand why many heterosexuals are disgusted by homosexual behavior, for reasons other than “repressed homosexuality?”
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. 
The same principles apply to much of what I write here on other issues, but never mind.
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.
This is not really directly relevant to Joyce’s argument, but I do want to comment since it can be construed that I am, or at least was, one such person who stated that homosexuality was not a big issue (I did not use the word "obsession") for them.  Joyce is being unreasonable in labeling such attitudes as “nervous and cowardly.” Maybe – who knows? – some of the people involved simply do not rank the homosexual question very high among those affecting the future of the White race.  It is an opinion, a judgment, about priorities – to label that “nervous and cowardly” is the same dishonest ad hominem Joyce’s opponents use against him.
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. 
Fair enough. Given Salter’s logical arguments about the gay marriage movement (the analysis of which was in Part I of my evaluation of the homosexual question, linked to above), and the links between homosexuality and other perversions, never mind the nature of homosexuality itself, a reasonable argument can be made that homosexuality is incompatible with the WN world we wish to strive 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. 
Genuine National Socialists in inter-war Germany tolerated homosexuals, only moving against them because Ernst Rohm wouldn’t accommodate the political ambitions of the SA to Hitler’s regime. The anti-homosexual hysteria was part of the excuse for the purge; if the Nazis were genuinely horrified by gays they had nearly 15 years previously to deal with the issue.
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.
We will consider Joyce’s arguments in the next two sections. His arguments will include:
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.
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.
This is a reasonable argument.  The same argument can be made against smoking and obesity, two leading causes of cardiovascular disease and cancer.  If we are going to have injunctions against homosexuals – which I am not particularly strongly opposed to – then we can do the same for fatsos and smokers, and I am completely serious about that.  National Socialist Germany – if folks want to use that regime as a moral compass – was opposed to smoking and also made a fetish of physical fitness (at least for the masses if not for the leadership, the latter of which were, in general, not splendid physical specimens, with Goring being overweight).  And what about WNs allegedly using cocaine?  And doing so at meetings?
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…The annual cost of caring for and treating all HIV/AIDS sufferers in the United States has been ascertained as $16.4 billion annually…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…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. 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. 
Joyce’s arguments are sound from the descriptive perspective.  I’m not sure what to do about it from a prescriptive perspective, since homosexuality seems to have a strong biological component, and one can expect a certain percentage of gays to be born each generation – unless one speculates that the maintained existence of homosexuality over the millennia has been due to homosexuals being married with families for the sake of appearances, and thus passing on their genes (and this mode of inheritance is today attenuated with the general public acceptance of the gay lifestyle).  However, if these people are capable of bedding the opposite sex, are they truly biologically homosexual?  Are they bisexual?  There may be degrees of homosexual inclinations, and perhaps the best that can be done is to discourage the practice as much as possible, unless some folks propose to screen each generation for gay traits and eliminate those elements from the population in one manner of another.
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. 
See my comments above. This would suggest a sexual spectrum, in which some individuals could be hetero or homo dependent upon environment.  To the extent that is true, Joyce’s argument has validity. I do not know to what extent the gay community is biologically innate and to what extent it has been recruited.
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. 
See above.
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.
How about a demographic critique of Derbyshire’s apologia for miscegenation?
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.
See my comments about Nordicism below.  Also, much of this is irrelevant to us today.
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…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.’
Here, Joyce is touching upon a real issue, as the “Pilleater recording” makes clear. If the contents of that recording are true (and I note neither party was arguing against the validity of the accusations) there are precincts of the “movement” in which homosexual “flirtation” toward somewhat “vulnerable” “younger members of the community” occurs.  In the light of that revelation, I cannot argue against Joyce’s warning that homosexuals will exploit environments of “camaraderie, loyalty, teamwork, and, where necessary, authority” to further their sexual interests.  Of course, there are other aspects of "The Pilleater Chronicles" that need to be addressed as well, such as the accusations of drug use.

In any case, this leads to:
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.

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.
This would seem to be a key part of Joyce’s argument.
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? 
Valid questions.
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.
If homosexuals in the “movement” would be open about their sexual preferences, then we would at least have some empirical basis for determining relative contributions.
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.
How many?  We need to get an idea about that.  I think that people on both sides of the issue would want to know.
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. 
Yes, we know of Joyce’s agenda here. I make two points. First, I thought that Der Movement tells us that the Ancient Greeks and Romans were Nordic.  Do we see the hypocrisy here? When the discussion revolves around “the grandeur and glory of Ancient Greece and Rome,” then, of course, they were Nordic.  However, when the discussion is about the relative tolerance of homosexuality in those areas of Classical Civilization, then they are, of course, Mediterranean. Second, has Joyce realized that the primary players promoting homosexuality in Der Movement are of similar ancestry to himself?  Really, this whole issue is an argument between heterosexual and homosexual Northern Europeans, but, yet, mysteriously, the “noble Nordics vs degenerate Mediterraneans” paradigm surfaces. This is another example of Sallis’ Law in action, I suppose, although in this case it is not about “admixture,” but simply a generalized negative comparison of bad Meds vs. good Nords. Why would any White ethnics believe that Der Movement has anything to offer them? Obviously, the most debauched homosexual Northern European is going to be preferred to any Southern or Eastern European, regardless of how heteronormative the latter may be. Just look at how some of the (assumed) homosexual contingent of Der Movement are accepted by many activists as “top leaders” – the same activists who scorn the dumb wops and hora-dancing Romanians.
Anyone familiar with the Icelandic Sagas…
And could any self-respecting Type I activist not be?
… [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…
The only part of Europe that matters!
…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.
Common sense.
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.’
OK, but to my mind irrelevant.
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? 
I agree with Joyce that the “homophobia is Jewish” argument is foolish.  It reminds me of the Silkers, who try to get Whites to agree to become the slaves of Asians because otherwise, if you object, then you are either a Jew or a tool of the Jews who “sucks Jewish cock.”  Can we evaluate the validity of a premise independent of what Jews think about it?  Do Jews control us to such an extent that our every thought has to be through a Jewish lens?
Another element underpinning the ‘homophobia is Jewish’ falsity, is an implicit homosexual hatred of Christianity. 
I could care less about what Christianity thinks or whether someone or some group hates Christianity.

On a related note, the accusation that hostility to homosexuality is Jewish may be regarded as a passive, or barely concealed, attack on Christianity. Again, this is not surprising in itself, but it is incongruous in the context of apparent arguments being made in favor of movement unity. 
Consideration of “movement unity” is ludicrous coming from a “movement” that despises everything and anything to the south of Vienna and to the east of Berlin.
Essentially, the argument put forth by Johnson is that it is wrong to critique homosexuals because that is bad for movement unity, when in fact the apologetic itself purposefully attacks Christians (a very numerically substantial element of our movement) as ‘Jewish.’ In such a manner, our erstwhile architects of unity are in fact the cause of disunity, not merely by their very presence but by the divisive nature of their own arguments. Given what we have discussed thus far, it should be clear that if we had to choose between Christians and pseudo-pagan homosexuals, our movement would be numerically, demographically, tactically, socially, and intellectually enriched by choosing the former over the latter.
Perhaps numerically, but the devout Christian element often display the same flaw as the homosexual element – putting something proximate (in this case religion) above the ultimate interests inherent in genetic continuity.
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? 
What do they preach?  HBD. Hysterical opposition to any hint of pan-European racial-cultural unity, but allowing some ethnic-specific expression by Whites.
As Jews flooded the medical and scientific professions in the late 19th century, they brought with them the desire to interrupt the European self-conversation about race, biology, and related subjects. One of these was homosexuality. 
Again, why does everything need to be looked at through a Jewish lens?  Joyce is weakening some of his arguments above.
Although Jewish sexology, and with it the promotion of homosexuality, was effectively shut down by the National Socialists…
Well, at least after June 30, 1934.
…it would live on in exile, along with other poisonous doctrines, with the Frankfurt School. 
Jews, Jews, Jews.  I’m ignoring this part of Joyce’s argument, since it is irrelevant.

The following however is key.

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. One of the more annoying aspects of their position, however, is that it is framed under the rubric that ‘homosexuality is beside the point.’ Even if this were true, which in terms of our demographic and social concerns it is not, Counter Currents have not stuck to their professed ‘line.’ In fact, through the publication of volumes such as James O’Meara’s The Homo and the Negro, and a number of articles acting as apologetics for homosexuality, they’ve done quite the opposite. 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.
Here is a key point that I believe is more important from the perspective of my views from Part I. Joyce, after all, is adamantly opposed to any homosexual inclusion, while I maintained in Part I of my analysis that some inclusion could be possible if the homosexuals did not promote homonormalization, but instead promoted heteronormalization.
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. 
So, I’m not going to waste too much time on this.
Are family values really Judaic, as O’Meara claims? Consider one example contrary to this homosexual apologetic in the form of what Tacitus said of the ancient Germans…Moreover, recent DNA studies in England support previous research from the University of Oslo suggesting that Viking men were family-oriented, coming from communities where the marriage bond was strong and did not engage sexually with the women of lands they conquered. Rather it was found that Viking raiding parties were accompanied by significant numbers of women, and possibly whole families. 
These guys are so fanatical in their ethnic fetishism that they use any excuse to indulge in it. It’s comical. Here’s something different (emphasis added):
Homosexuality was not regarded by the Viking peoples as being evil, perverted, innately against the laws of nature or any of the other baggage about the concept that Christian belief has provided Western culture. Rather, it was felt that a man who subjected himself to another in sexual affairs would do the same in other areas, being a follower rather than a leader, and allowing others to do his thinking or fighting for him. Thus, homosexual sex was not what was condemned, but rather the failure to stand for one's self and make one's own decisions, to fight one's own fights, which went directly against the Nordic ethic of self-reliance. (Sørenson 20). Being used homosexually by another man was equated with cowardice because of the custom of sexual aggression against vanquished foes. This practice is documented in Sturlunga saga, most notably in Guðmundar saga dýra where Guðmundr takes captive a man and his wife, and plans for both the woman and the man to be raped as a means of sexual humiliation (Ok var þat við orð at leggja Þórunni í rekkju hjá einhverjum gárungi, en gera þat vi Björn prest, at þat þaelig;tti eigi minni svívirðing.) (Sørenson 82, 111; Sturlunga saga, I, 201).
Back to Joyce:
Again, are family values Jewish? Perhaps only in the mind of a manipulative homosexual who wishes to cynically use ethno-nationalistic instincts and a righteous hostility towards Jews in order to advance his own agenda — by tarring everything that he himself abhors as “Jewish.” 
I have not read O’Meara’s book. However, if Joyce’s characterization is accurate, that such a book is promoted and sold by Counter-Currents is shameful.
I must concede that had the Catholic Church had more power to enforce its doctrine, Europe would still be flourishing demographically, and a mass Muslim invasion would be nothing but a nightmare never to come to fruition.
Would the Pope stop literally kissing the feet of Negro invaders?
Why would O’Meara and Counter-Currents publish and promote such ideas, denigrating the family and selfishly glorifying their own preferences? Here it is necessary to confront the issue of the homosexual personality and to return to our central argument of the incompatibility of homosexuality and Alt-Right principles. 
Alt-Right principles?  Drunken podcasts?  Snorting cocaine at racialist conferences?  Race-mixing and cuckoldry?
As stated earlier in this essay, psychological studies indicate that homosexuals score higher than the sexually normal on traits associated with psychopathy, including higher rates of promiscuity, a greater tendency to high-risk activity, higher rates of intimate partner violence, low levels of impulse control, and a tendency towards bouts of exaggerated sense of self-esteem/importance. 
Sounds like some heterosexual Alt Righters.
Combining an understanding of homosexual personality traits with homosexual apologetics produced within White Nationalism, it becomes clear that dishonesty (“homosexuality is beside the point, let’s not discuss it”) and manipulative behaviors (“hostility to homosexuality is Jewish”), and an exaggerated sense of self-esteem/importance are at least primary concerns to those wanting to steer the cause of Whites in the right direction. Evidence of the latter is surely in evidence both in O’Meara’s claim that the Right persists in depriving “itself of the elitist cultural creativity of homosexuals,” and Greg Johnson’s apparent belief that homosexuals are “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.”
Such promotions of homosexuality are inherently insidious and are proof that, consciously or not, issues of White success, particularly demographic success, are likely to always be subordinated by the homosexual in favor of theories of life or behavior which glorify or excuse his own predilections. 
This is the key point, and one that Joyce could have primarily emphasized from the start, instead of going into other tangents to titillate “movement” fetishes.
The fact that an ostensibly nationalist writer can openly praise a pederastic author who denigrated the reproductive relationships of normal, healthy families is a sign of a degenerative rot that has developed in the corners of this movement. The toleration of such a rot has been the cause of disunity — not surprising given the apparent success of the lie that “tolerating homosexuals will increase our unity.” Quite the contrary. I have nationalist friends of many stripes, and a number of them have previously avoided aligning themselves rhetorically or materially with institutions like the National Policy Institute, or concepts such as the Alt-Right, because of an apparent tolerance of homosexuals and their apologetics. As a father of three, I have also had serious reservations about the kind of movement I am trying to raise my children in. Raising them in an environment that tolerates the open promotion of pederasty is out of the question.
Joyce should keep in mind that certain elements of the Alt Right now hostile to homosexuality were once quite welcoming to it, but changed their tune only after feuding with Counter-Currents.
This essay will cut out some of the rot, and bring clarity to some issues and questions that have been left to fester. It is largely a thankless task, and a dirty one too, but the Augean Stables must be cleansed.
To be fair, I'll reproduce a riposte by Johnson:
Greg JohnsonPosted October 22, 2018 at 1:59 pm | PermalinkAfter Joyce’s “definitive” series on the Gay Question, it came out that Richard Spencer put a gay furry in charge of his Discord server, despite repeated warnings. This guy would probably still be running Spencer’s Discord if it had not been shut down. When a recording came out of Spencer’s moderator sexually harassing and bullying a 14-year-old boy, I asked Joyce how much he would charge for a definitive four-part series on “The Furry Question in White Nationalism,” but I received no reply. 
There is no limit to the moral squalor of these people.
There is no refutation there about any of Joyce's arguments; rather, that comment essentially accuses Joyce of hypocrisy for not addressing alleged sexual perversions among Spencer's group of people.  I'll agree with the last line of Johnson's comment IF we apply that to the entirety of Der Movement.  I have no "dog in the fight" with respect to the Johnson-Spencer feud (that apparently is not ending due to any HBDer intervention, despite what it may have looked like to we low information moralizers some months ago); I say "a pox on both your houses."  Johnson's comment does nothing except reinforce the idea that Joyce's complaints are more general and relevant than even Joyce asserted.

Basically, where I am now about this issue is this.  Much of Joyce says is true, but with all the caveats and criticisms above.  My stance is not much changed from where it was in Part I. Assume the existence of a White person who is a homosexual but is otherwise an authentic WN, sincere in pro-natalist beliefs compatible with traditional family formation and heteronormalizaiton. They are upfront about their sexual identity, they understand it is abnormal, and they ask for nothing other than minimal tolerance and the right to participate in pro-White activism.  As it stands now, I would think that such a person can be included (albeit not as a leader).  

Practically speaking though, my views and that of Joyce likely converge, because I’m not sure there are any people such as I describe above - identified homosexual WNs who are firmly pro-heterosexual, who ask for nothing except for minimal tolerance, and who do not promote a homosexual agenda.  It is sort of like the issue of “Jewish allies” – in theory, it could be possible, but in practice what you get is Hart and Weissberg.  Pro-heterosexual homosexual WNs are possible in theory, but in practice what you get is all what Joyce describes above.

So, I’ll stick with my Part I views in theory, but with the understanding that the practical actualization of that would be, at best, rare.