Male homosexuality may be the most valorous of attempts to . . . defeat nature. By turning away41 from the Medusan mother, whether in honor or detestation of her, the male homosexual is one of the great forgers of absolutist Western identity. . . . Major peaks of Western culture have been accompanied by a high incidence of male homosexuality—in classical Athens and Renaissance Florence and London. Male concentration and projection are self-enhancing, leading to supreme achievements of Apollonian conceptualization.42
Recently, another work has appeared on the New Right itself that appears to take the same archetypal or physiognomic approach to Western Culture: Jason Reza Jorjani’s Prometheus and Atlas (London: Arktos, 2016) where the titular Titans of Greek mythology are envisioned as spectral presences that literally haunt or inhabit the minds of the West; I consider it the only work since Sexual Personae to command the same cultural heights and plunge to the same cultural depths.43 Together, along with Spengler, they could form a concise bookshelf for the New Right autodidact.
Along with the one in your hand, dear Reader.
Rust Belt, USA
July 9, 2017
THE HOMO & THE NEGRO:
A MASCULINIST VIEW OF THE
FUTILITY OF THE “RIGHT”
“How is it possible to brush aside entirely the intellectual and moral qualities of the ancient sages and to put oneself blithely on the other side of the balance? If a maximum of intelligence and virtue and a maximum of error could coincide in one and the same consciousness, as the demolishers of the human spirit and its innate truths unhesitatingly take for granted, then man would be nothing, and the emergence of philosophical luminaries—supposing them to be such—would by the same token be impossible. . . . [T]his conjecture bespeaks a monstrous lack of imagination and sensitivity and is belied at every turn—we repeat—by the intellectual and moral eminence of the men at whom it is aimed. One almost feels the need to apologize for drawing attention to something so obvious.”
—Frithjof Schuon44
For quite some time people have been writing analyses of the futility of the Right (perhaps best summarized by the title of Sam Francis’s book Beautiful Losers).45 How can a movement that seems so, well, right, seem to get nowhere, either losing outright or, when in power, never, as Evelyn Waugh said of the British Tories, turning the clock back one bit. Apparently none of these essays has been useful, or used, and so the self-examination has not ceased.
This essay takes a different tack; I want to locate the peculiar futility of the Right, especially its American version, in a more general sexual-cultural critique. I locate the futility factor in two related areas: its Judeo-Christianity, and its consequent homophobia. Whether a movement sans these features could be recognized as “The Right” is not really a problem for anyone interested in praxis rather than mere taxonomy; for now, let me suggest that “gay Rightist” is no more absurd than “gay rabbi.”
To anticipate, let me say that I agree with many on the Right that “homophobia” is indeed an absurd term; however, apart from being the most readily understandable, it does convey some truth: the Right’s futility is rooted in what is, indeed, a fear of homosexuality.
In a nutshell: the American Right, or the Republican party, cannot be a vehicle for the preservation and expansion of White culture, since its Judeo-Christian element leads it to oppose the culture-creating and culture-sustaining element of homoeroticism, while ultimately embracing, in the name of equality and multiculturalism, its opposite, the Negro.
While obviously not all Aryan cultural figures are homosexual, we may take the Homosexual as the ideal type in a masculinist, homoerotic system; in the same way, not all liberals are Negroes, but for the same reasons we may take the Negro as the ideal type, which is to say, that human type to which the system inexorably leads to or valorizes.
I.
THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE
Again, in a nutshell: once the American Right chose to base itself on Judeo-Christianity, its assimilation to the Left was a mathematical inevitability.
Why? Just as no people has reached a high level of culture without some acceptance of homosexuals in that culture, as a function of a more general cultural bias that might best be called more broadly “masculinist”; so no political movement can achieve dominance, or even influence, without a similar worldview; nor would it be worth supporting even if it did prevail.
An excellent summary of what a masculinist movement would be has been provided by Ean Frick: it would be “possessed of a heathen morality and thus certainly open to homosexuals. It would oppose the feminized, Judeo-Christian culture of being a passive viewer or consumer of life and would propose a new culture of excellence, creativity and active participation in all aspects of life.”46
For more detail, see the works of Hans Blüher, the ideologue of the German youth movement (the Wandervogel) and the historical male Männerbund, whose influence extended even to such Rightist icons as Baron Evola and Francis Parker Yockey; original texts of the Masculinist movement can be found in Homosexuality and Male Bonding in Pre-Nazi Germany,47 while the late Alisdair Clarke’s blog Aryan Futurism contains valuable modern contributions.48
In short, the Right has ceded cultural domination to the Left, by leaving it to be the only place publicly tolerating and indeed welcoming what the Right perceives as “deviance.” The recent takeover of the Right by the Trotskyite-Democratic-Judaics known as “neocons” is only a sideshow, interesting only as being the latest and most blatant, and thus most obvious and revealing (as in the Masonic “Revelation of the Method”) form of this more basic transformation; once their Christian stooges soften things up, the Judaics can then step in to take the place of the Right’s missing “intellectual elite.”
In a truly diabolical “turn of the screw,” of course, the welcoming Left hardly promulgates a “masculinist” mentality either. Rather than the unnatural demon of the Right’s imagination, the Left first promoted the supposedly “liberating” promiscuity and general sex-obsession of certain parts of the “gay community” (the feminizing word “community” is itself revealing); when AIDS made that unfashionable, they now promote the entirely feminized model of “I’m limp-wristed and hate football, but you accept me!”
Where once a distorted image of the male Männerbund in the form of San Francisco-style libertinage (still observable in the infamous “Folsom Street Fair”) was at least offered, now there is the demand (on both society and gays themselves) for “marriage equality,” the ultimate capitulation to Judaic “family values.” As gay-libertarian-Buchananite Justin Raimondo has said, marriage is for women and lesbians, who can bear children; what possible interest could a man, straight or gay, have in it?
So while the Right deprives itself of the elitist cultural creativity of homosexuals, the Left “accepts” and thus attracts them, but then demands submission to an anti-cultural feminist-socialist-egalitarian “Gay” identity.
In both cases, the masculinist forces of White culture are rendered inoperative.
Of course, the “choice” of Judeo-Christianity is more of an historical inevitability, given the nature of the elements that have made up, in varying proportions, the American Right, rather than a literal act in time, like the convention that promulgated what came to be known as “The Fundamentals,” hence “Fundamentalism.” By definition, a mass movement is made up of average Americans, hence Christians, mostly of a dreary Protestant type.
The best place to locate such a formal choice might be the moment when William Buckley expelled the Randians from the movement. Of course, Ayn Rand was a tedious nut job, but the ground for her dismissal was her atheism. That W. F. B. was a Catholic might have made this inevitable; that the chosen means was a review of Atlas Shrugged by Whittaker Chambers, and that the party it was meant to please was represented in America by Archbishop Spellman, both semi-closeted homosexuals, is a delicious irony, emblematic of the important role of homosexuals in the American Right, where even Buckley hims
elf gave off a distinctive air of epicene sophistication inconceivable in today’s Gingrich-Beck American Right. Toss in (or out) J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn, and it’s hard to image what the American Right would have been or accomplished without the tacit support of the faygeles.
II.
HOMOEROTIC OR HOMOSEXUAL?
But what does this really have to do with masculinism? Have I simply conflated masculinism with homosexuality? While I would defend a bell curve-like distribution of cultural creativity as heavily skewed to the homosexual (even Steve Sailer called Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae the most important book of the last 20 years), thus explaining the Right’s loss of cultural dominance, the effects of this cultural homophobia are much wider.
There is a relentless slippage between what is perceived as “gay” and all positive cultural qualities that are (1) easy to identify and (2) possessed by homos in optimum form.
Thus every culture-creating male bonding organization (the priesthood, the military, the Boy Scouts, bodybuilding, etc.) is presumed “gay” (and thus, “bad”) whether or not any move from the homoerotic to homosexual occurs (i.e., whether or not one moves from masculinist to homosexual) and despite their own (Judaic-influenced) public denials. Ironically, the most officially homophobic organizations in America are widely, and correctly, treated exactly as a bunch of homos.
At a pop cultural level, consider the mainstream and Leftist mockery of the movie 300, which (despite any number of real flaws) concentrated on “impossible six-packs” and other supposed elements of “homoeroticism.” An earlier film containing masculinist themes, Fight Club, was met with similar smears, which were renewed more recently when the book’s author voluntarily “came out,” leading to his astute observation that this is “a way of negating a story that they can’t be with. Things used to be dismissed as, ‘Oh, that’s just a black thing,’ and now it’s, ‘Oh, that’s just a gay thing.’ That just kind of smacks of dismissal.”49
Like the Jewish and Judeo-Christian authors of The Pink Swastika,50 even liberal movie reviewers can think of no insult greater than sniggering about something being “gay” and if the targets profess no such “gayness,” then it must be “unconscious” and thus even funnier.
III.
THE JUDAIC CONTAGION
The origin of the American Right’s homophobia is, of course, its acceptance of Judeo-Christianity.
Obviously, various approaches to homosexuality have existed in various cultures, and nothing like the Liberal idea of unlimited “sexual freedom” has ever really existed. Every culture “structures” homosexuality, like everything else, in socially approved ways. Still, however male-male relations have been structured—see for example Crompton’s Homosexuality and Civilization51 or Hardman’s Homoaffectionalism,52 which is an easier read, and more focused on “masculinist” issues, even though he doesn’t seem to have heard of the concept—homoeroticism has only been entirely condemned by Judaic culture, and consequently by those based on it: the Christian and Islamic. Other cultures have seen Judaism as distinctly “odd” on the subject, and Judaics have been pleased to take pride in their “purity” on this matter, so I think this is a fair characterization.
Using a variation on the “one drop” definition of race in the American South, we can see that any acceptance of homosexuality in a culture (only with slaves; only until the beard grows, etc.), however opposed to the “anything goes” model of “gay liberation” makes it, for our purposes, homosexual-friendly. No bishop could get away, for example, with saying “I condemn sex between men. I do, however, endorse the fine Spartan practice of kidnapping small boys and educating them in the ways of manhood.”
The implications of this, however, are seldom thought through. It is obvious, I think, that the acceptance of “one drop homosexuality” is itself merely a superficial symptom of a more important factor: these cultures are actually based on a masculinist ethos. Again, it is obvious that these cultures are the ones that have produced the great moments of civilization that “The Right” seems to laud, such as Athens and Florence, causing and being caused by such masculinist elements as hierarchy, elitism, and striving for personal greatness.
And it is obvious that they stand in stark contrast to Judaic civilization, which, at least after the Babylonian disaster, has been family-and-reproduction oriented, conformist, repressive, uncreative, and parasitic on those who are.53
What then, does Judeo-Christianity “contribute” to the American Right along with its “superior” anti-homoerotic moralism? (For anyone who is still inclined to accept that cliché, I recommend re-reading the passage from Frithjof Schuon quoted above.) Exactly the anti-cultural doctrines of “equality,” “love thy enemy,” etc. that the Right supposedly opposes, which are destroying our culture, and whose secularized counterparts make up the even more virulent doctrines of the Left.
Thus the American Right presents a false and therefore futile opposition, whose doctrines, superficially “opposed” to the Left, make it an enticing stopping point on the way to the Left.
These secularized versions of these Judeo-Christian doctrines found on the Left are, admittedly, more “liberal” but not in any way that makes them less harmful to White culture, just as some Jews are “more strict” than others, while remaining Jews.
For example, while the Judeo-influenced American Right demonizes homosexuals as unnatural monsters of sexual appetite, the Judeo-influenced Left initially agreed as well; homosexuality was “bourgeois decadence” for Marxists while the lunch-bucket Old Left hated “da fags.” Then, after Stonewall, the Lifestyle Left promoted the same model of animalistic sexuality, only presented as positive “sexual freedom.” When AIDS caused that to go tits up, they regrouped and now promote gay marriage (significantly, now marketed as “marriage equality” to make it isomorphic with its other causes) because “gays are just like everyone else” (leveling equality again). This, in turn, is more easily sold to the “Right” as a compassionate compromise (Andrew Sullivan’s muscular glutes are the main transmission belt) which everyone can join in on; after all, we all endorse “family values,” right?
On every issue, the American Right not only demonizes its own elite, but presents traditional Right positions (say, from the Conservative Revolution of pre-war Germany) only after they have been run through the Judaic Family Values machine, emerging in grotesque, distorted, and unusable forms, not unlike what happens to anything that goes through Judaic scientist Jeff Goldblum’s teleporter in The Fly.54
For example, think of “really Right-wing” ideas like the “Right to Life.” This is a function of the “every sperm is equal” mentality of Judeo-Christianity. No attempt to genetically improve or even protect the White race is allowed, while lesser races are allowed to breed freely. The same with opposition to birth control and capital punishment. The “conservative” Catholics are the best gift the Judaics ever gave the Left.
Civil Rights? Well, this has already been lost, with the neocon takeover and the resulting compulsory adulation of Martin Luther King as the Greatest American/Christian/Compassionate Conservative of all time. Sam Francis was among the Real Right figures who were sacrificed to the mob for this one, while the Republicans proudly point to their African-American party leader as a kind of Shadow Obama.
Immigration? An interesting opportunity to see a real-time example of the Marxist idea of “unequal development of the base and superstructure” (i.e., economics determines culture, except when it doesn’t). The conservative masses aren’t buying it yet, but all the “respectable” conservatives are on board: George H. W. Bush and his “little brown grandkids,” John McCain on “reform,” the Wall Street Journal on “open borders,” etc. Once again, to hell with tradition, culture, the White race; we’re all equal in God’s sight, right?
To quickly grasp the Masculinist position on these issues, consider the response of Leonidas to the Persian ambassadors in 300.
IV.
THE NEGRO
&n
bsp; This anti-homosexual, thus anti-masculinist, thus anti-White culture bias, explains another troubling cultural trend: the ever-increasing influence of the Negro on American, and thereby world, culture.
The Homo (that is, the Masculinist) and The Negro are polar ideal types.
This arises from material facts: differences in IQ, impulse control, and other psychological factors make the Negro an unsuitable host for masculinist idealism (where achievement requires modesty, restraint, asceticism, though not to be confused with Judeo-Christian “work ethic” or “unworthiness”). Thus, the well-known but un-PC fact of the inferiority of Negro societies, or even Negro parts of otherwise White societies.55
If the homosexual is the most extreme form of the masculinist, then the Negro homosexual is almost a contradiction in terms, and at least is subject to considerable cognitive dissonance. Thus, Michael Jackson’s pursuit of whiteness, along with his mental instability.
On the other hand, the heterosexual, nominally Christian, family values Negro, and especially the young “gangsta,” is the most purely anti-masculinist, and thus the well-known hatred of “acting White” (intelligent, well-spoken, hard-working, etc.) which as we have already pointed out easily shades off into “acting gay.”
Again, this is the factually material basis of The Negro as the symbol of all things non-masculinist, and thus non-homosexual; one “stereotype” they would no doubt welcome.
However much the American Right may bemoan the decline of culture and indeed of basic social livability, it cannot finger the Negro as the culprit (that would be “racist” and hence anti-Christian), however much the remnants of Traditional cultural criticism it still tolerates may inexorably point that way.
The Homo and the Negro Page 2
