The Heretics' Hour: The Homosexual Menace, Part Two

Rance

June 12, 2012 at 1:08 am

No disrespect to you, Carolyn, but Jack Donovan’s theories are quite ridiculous. If male homosexuality were caused by a lack of closeness with the father, then it would be rampant in the black community, where most boys are raised without the presence of a father in the househiold. Nor can homosexuality be dismissed as an “addiction”. Most clients receiving treatment for sexual addiction are heterosexual males, and the lion’s share of pornography is also consumed by that group. People can learn to curb addictive behaviors, but basic sexual preferences can’t be transformed through the use of “will-power”.

Carolyn

June 12, 2012 at 9:25 am

Rance – If you listen again, I don’t think you will hear me say that sexual preference can be changed through will-power. I referred to using will-power to cease from consuming pornography and carrying on unhealthy sexual fantasies. But I also inferred this is most easily done in the beginning, not after an addiction has taken hold. In essence, the old “just say no” policy. I said a long-term program, such as the one I described, was needed for sexual preference change … and I didn’t say it was easy or worked like magic.
I was not defending Jack Donovan’s ideas. You heard that wrong too.
It’s true heterosexual males develop sexual addictions via pornography, which is why the stuff should be outlawed — I quoted Ted Bundy, who was heterosexual.
I don’t think you can compare a different culture, such as Blacks, with no father at all in the home, with Whites whose father is present but distant, thus arousing feelings in the White son of being rejected.

Carolyn

June 12, 2012 at 12:31 pm

Let me add to what I wrote to Rance that an addiction is nothing more than habit. Even what we call physical addictions are the body becoming habituated to some substance or action. Any habit can be broken in a relatively short period of time with sufficient desire to do so. The longer one refrains from the particular substance or action, the weaker the memory of it becomes, until it is almost as if it never existed.
In some cases, a person may experiment with same-sex relationships, then simply become habituated to it. A habit is just something it’s easier to continue than to stop. Of course, this does not apply to the more deeply-rooted cases nor to those who are happy in their homosexuality. Why change?

I’m not implying that it’s all easy and just a lifestyle choice, but it also has never been shown to be a neurological difference in the brain, or to have any physical cause, other than maybe hormonal. Various kinds of hormonal imbalances are common. Making it out to be something that must be accepted as a variation on “normal” is a big mistake. This group is growing because it is made to look attractive.

Chechar

June 12, 2012 at 12:55 pm

Jack Donovan may be talking inexplicitly about himself, although like James O’Meara I doubt he has the courage to say it was an abusive parental relationship what caused the homo acting out as a defense mechanism.

I don’t buy these claims that homosexuality is a 100% genetic and that these poor guys cannot help to control their drives. I mean: just see the pic of Eric Newman above. Isn’t it all too obvious that something horrible must have happened in his life to metamorphose this beautiful child into a monster?

To use again the examples in the previous podcast, to me it’s obvious that people like James, who endured an abusive Catholic upbringing, are acting out their unresolved childhood pains thru unhealthy ways (see e.g., my “A woman chasing after her revenge”). Homosexuality, as a subject, would be completely resolved by now weren’t it for the phony claims in psychiatry, psychoanalysis and most of clinical psychology that usurped the legit study of the human soul to the thriving genre of confessional autobiography after Rousseau.

I would recommend Tom Szasz’s Anti-Freud. While WNsts are pretty conscious that the academia teaches lies in subjects such as HBD, gender, “gay” studies and Boasian anthropology, at the same time most of them completely ignore that pseudoscience runs rampant in the mental health professions as well, including much of what passes as genetic origins of homosexualism.

Carolyn, in a complex subject such as this one, and to boot with the technical problems that plaged the first hour of the program, it would be a good idea to quote at length the relevant literature on the subject (as you did in the previous program with the long quote on NS policies on homosexualism). Also, I am sure some nationalists would like to speak out about this subject in your program.

Hilmar

June 12, 2012 at 1:50 pm

It’s an important topic, surely.

Cleaning out the hidden degeneracy within white nationalism is urgently necessary and imperative if we are to ever succeed.
First requisite step is to identify the problem, which Carolyn does in her unique style and with thoroughly well-disciplined meticulousness.

No heterosexual, however, probably likes ruminating on this particular subject for any extended length of time.

Just goes to show that what is necessary is seldom pleasant.

Your choice of subject is not exactly a crowd-pleaser, Carolyn.
But you have certainly opened my eyes to a grave and disgustingly lethal problem for WN, of which I had not considered the implications seriously enough before.

Thanks for keeping my “gay-dar” alert.

Hoping for a less repugnant topic, though, on your next podcast.

Carolyn

June 12, 2012 at 7:36 pm

But you have certainly opened my eyes to a grave and disgustingly lethal problem for WN, of which I had not considered the implications seriously enough before.

I have opened my own eyes too, Hilmar. For all of the dis-jointedness of last night’s program, and that I may have gone on about some things more than I should have, I think I said some good things that ring true to me. I have educated myself … and that is always what keeps me going.

In only a week and a half of time investment, I brought myself to a clear conviction that homosexuality cannot be tolerated in a white community, whereas before I had no firm opinion on it. What I do works for me!

Chechar

June 12, 2012 at 9:34 pm

Obviously it cannot be tolerated. Just consider this ex friend of yours. The hetero equivalent would be an “artist” that only paints vaginas: a vagina worshiper. Hetero artists of course don’t do such things. Penis-worshiper homos are clearly sick.

What moved me to post a series of articles in the last few months about homosexuality is that Greg Johnson doesn’t allow debate on this topic at Counter Currents. If he deletes your comments you have to post them elsewhere, even as blog’s full entries. (Something analogous happened to Tanstaafl and me last year when the pious admins of Gates of Vienna shunned all discussion about the Jewish Question at their blogsite.) I am fed up of so-called West “defenders” who persist in protecting “minorities” to the point of shunning you altogether if you dare to open any honest debate on Jews, homos, etc. Protecting “minorities” was what caused all of the current liberal mess in the first place.

But what is really telling in Johnson’s behavior (deleting a comment of mine in a thread unrelated to homosexuality after I dared to denounce homosexuality in a previous thread) is that what you said seems to be true: that homo sympathizers like Johnson place “gay” interests above white interests.

Carolyn

June 12, 2012 at 10:17 pm

There are lesbian artists who do paint vaginas, Chechar, and write about them too. And perform skits and plays. Same-sex-attraction people are just hung up on sex … and they want to teach sex in kindergarten and get the children started early.

Peter

June 13, 2012 at 1:13 am

Dear Carolyn,
I´m happy that you also put the most weight on the question of inborn or acquired. I found the named aspects of that list of items very interesting (lack of fatherly appreciation, smothering mother, childhood same-sex experiences, and others). Also interesting the aspect of general destabilisation and confusion of the personality by that lifestyle. I also appreciate that yxou consider the aspect that there always has to be the cross check: didn´t people under the same conditions NOT turn out homosexual.
There are very many aspects. I would like to point out a few that I think deserve attention:

1)Homosexuality = result of circumstances -> I think that kind of thinking reinforces the “social engineering” thinking: ANYTHING can be made out of a human being, just depending on the conditions. Slippery slope for WNs.

2)To relate to the minority issue in the homosexual question IMO completely falls into the trap: it´s NOT about minorities, it´s about ethnicity!! I don´t care about ANY WHITE minority but I don´t accept ANY non-white minority
-> that is: the gay – feminist – etc. agenda is played just to CONFUSE about the relevant aspect: it is pretended that we have a minority problem: don´t discriminate against gays -> ergo don´t discriminate against ethnic minorities and that is WRONG! We are not supposed to discriminate against sexual lifestyle minorities but we are very well supposed to discriminate against ethnic minorities. These two aspects get mixed up fully purposely and the WN movement falls for it.

3)Homosexuals would prefer their sexual identity cause over the White cause: couldn´t we make the same reproach to the antihomosexual WNers?: ask a WNer: would he rather live in a mixed race society that is antigay or in a pure white society that is gay-tolerant?
Ask a gay if he would rather live in a gay-tolerant mixed-race-society or in a gay-intolerant white society
-> so the anti-gay WNers also put the homosexuality question over the white racial cause.

4)Is “christianity” against homosexuality? Is it in the New Testament? Or in the jewish Old Testament? I actually don´t know. But the hateful
exterminational tone of the anti-gay agenda sounds jewish, so I guess it´s from the Old Testament: are we now Jews, following their book of their national history? Me not.

5)Lesbianism = female homosexuality was never even mentioned: why?
My anwer: precisely because it is NOT about homosexuality but about personal disgust. Male homosexuality seems to be disgusting to non-homosexuals, as opposed to female homosexuality. Very well. But let that then be the argument and not other made-up arguments.

So: what harm does male homosexuality? The SS-article practically makes 1 point: demography. Big problem. For a monogamous society, yes. And since we can´t help being christian (= jewish scam to harm us), we must be monogamous. One might rather say that we can be lucky that males that feel inferior abstain from reproduction and leave the females for the strong males. Maybe a biological program that´s running here.

So we see a minority group with a diverging sexual behavior being prosecuted with exterminational zeal. That means that any other divergent group can expect the same treatment. So we are now in the business of defining what is normal. Is oral sex normal? Is a-tergo-sex normal? How rough may I touch my girl? Will she be too aroused by roughness? I have to cut back on that then? Or am I then too sissy? Give it a rest.
The violence of the right may be the crucial point that welds the leftist coalition; or rather, that delivers the best arguments for those who want an opposition to the right not for any leftist reason but solely for ethnical reasons (anti-right = anti-white !).

Addiction question: abstinance is one option. But you can´t be abstinent from eating. You can´t be abstinent from sex. Who tells different is a liar. So: like the French (and the medieval monks) cultivated the drinking of wine and are NOT a bunch of alcoholics, same with any other activity: do it in a measured way. We are NOT convicted to ever descending behavior when we practise recreational activities.

I find it courageous to touch this tabooed point of male homosexuality. If it is possible for homosexuals to change their behavior to their advantage, excellent and I very much support any step in that direction, knowing that it´s most tabooed and hence requires all strength to pursue such a program. But I do not feel that your position is what I´m comfortable with for the White Cause, I rather think it´s not sufficiently thought through, and often actually damaging to the White Cause. I hope to have indicated that with the list of points.

P.S.: I had a tought as to why homosexuals are overrepresented in key positions: besides that they may have more spare time as they have no family obligations, it´s not only the spare time but that they are free to take risks! If you are responsible for a family, how can you expose yourself to high risks! That may be a reason why homosexuals are overrepresented in key positions that require risk taking. If that is true, one consequence could be to create credible support networks for white families so that fathers / husbands can expose themselves more readily to risks, knowing that their family will be safe.

Will Williams

June 13, 2012 at 1:27 pm

@ Carolyn: “There are lesbian artists who do paint vaginas…”

Reading your statement, Georgia O’Keefe’s large flower paintings came immediately to mind, though I don’t believe she was a lesbian. She was, however, married to the famous Jew photographer Alfred Stieglitz, if that says anything about her.

She nor any lesbian artist for that matter have anything on artist Jamie McCarthy when it comes to representing female genitalia. He spent 5 years on his “labia of love,” making 400 castings from life of various vulvas that make up his famous sculptural piece, the Great Wall of Vagina: http://www.mamamia.com.au/relationships/updated-the-great-wall-of-vagina-nsfw/ Amazing! I seriously doubt that Jamie is homosexual.

Carolyn

June 13, 2012 at 1:41 pm

Peter – Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I will reply to your #4 and 5 first because they are the easiest.

4) “Directly” in the OT; more “indirectly” in the NT. But your words “the hateful exterminational tone of the anti-gay agenda sounds jewish” comes straight from the pro-homosexual ‘agenda’ at Counter-Currents and other homosexuals. So are you homosexual? Doesn’t matter, you still have a right to your opinion. Am I against homosexuals leading or running in any way the WN movement because of what’s in the OT. No, I am not Jewish, don’t think Jewish, and furthermore don’t believe “anti-gay” is a Jewish agenda. Therefore, I dispute your entire assumption.
In addition, it is not so much “from the Bible” but the Catholic Church doctrine that labels homosexual acts a sin. (I think it still does.) This is part of the REASON for the Jewish attack on the Catholic Church for absolving pedophilia. Jews and homosexuals are on the same side in this. Wouldn’t you have to admit that?

5) Lesbianism was not mentioned because lesbians are not in the WN movement in large numbers as are male queers. I don’t know of a single one! That is why I didn’t speak of them, not the reason you gave. Again, your assumption is wrong. As I said, this whole topic (or investigation?) came up because of James O’Meara’s interview on The Stark Truth.
As far as the disgust factor, the word “gay” is designed to cover that up, so there is an agenda by “gays” to deceive “non-gays” as to the degenerative aspects of this lifestyle as it is practiced by a large portion of “gays”, if not all.

Carolyn

June 13, 2012 at 2:27 pm

Peter – In response to your 3rd and 2nd aspects:

Homosexuals would prefer their sexual identity cause over the White cause: couldn´t we make the same reproach to the antihomosexual WNers?: ask a WNer: would he rather live in a mixed race society that is antigay or in a pure white society that is gay-tolerant?
Ask a gay if he would rather live in a gay-tolerant mixed-race-society or in a gay-intolerant white society
-> so the anti-gay WNers also put the homosexuality question over the white racial cause.

3) You are setting up a straw man, I think. I would prefer a “gay-tolerant” White society to a mixed-race society, of course, and I”m sure so would all WNs. So that kills your argument that “anti-gay WNers” put anything before White interests.
It is not a choice between the two, an either-or. First comes the White society, then a decision on how homosexuals fit in to that society … or not.

Related to this is your #2:

To relate to the minority issue in the homosexual question IMO completely falls into the trap: it´s NOT about minorities, it´s about ethnicity!! I don´t care about ANY WHITE minority but I don´t accept ANY non-white minority
-> that is: the gay – feminist – etc. agenda is played just to CONFUSE about the relevant aspect: it is pretended that we have a minority problem: don´t discriminate against gays -> ergo don´t discriminate against ethnic minorities and that is WRONG! We are not supposed to discriminate against sexual lifestyle minorities but we are very well supposed to discriminate against ethnic minorities. These two aspects get mixed up fully purposely and the WN movement falls for it.

2) Homosexuals see themselves as a minority. I see how they behave like other minorities — I didn’t turn them into a minority! They have special interests apart from the White majority. WN homosexuals also network and assist each other, as a minority group within the larger WN community. So if it’s NOT about minorities, they should stop behaving like a minority and pushing their particular interests. But they can’t. They have something going on, at an essential level, that is not shared by the majority WN, which sets them apart and makes them potentially subversive.
When WNs who aspire to be leaders – right now – don’t want to disclose their “gayness” but expect the whole movement to ignore it and cover for them, that is subversive right there.

Carolyn

June 13, 2012 at 2:34 pm

I wrote on 6-12:

But you have certainly opened my eyes to a grave and disgustingly lethal problem for WN, of which I had not considered the implications seriously enough before.

I have opened my own eyes too, Hilmar. For all of the dis-jointedness of last night’s program, and that I may have gone on about some things more than I should have, I think I said some good things that ring true to me. I have educated myself … and that is always what keeps me going.
In only a week and a half of time investment, I brought myself to a clear conviction that homosexuality cannot be tolerated in a white community, whereas before I had no firm opinion on it. What I do works for me!

I would like to correct this last paragraph from “cannot be tolerated” to “cannot be tolerated wholesale, but under certain conditions and restrictions it could be tolerated.” “Tolerated” is the key word. Clearly, not to the extent that it is currently.

Carolyn

June 13, 2012 at 2:57 pm

Peter – Response to your #1:

Homosexuality = result of circumstances -> I think that kind of thinking reinforces the “social engineering” thinking: ANYTHING can be made out of a human being, just depending on the conditions. Slippery slope for WNs.

1) Yes, it does set up Nurture before Nature as a possibility in this instance. Or a combination of the two. But if it’s TRUE, then it can’t be a slippery slope. The thing is to find out whether it’s true or not, rather than to reject it because it might resemble “social engineering” to some people. It is like Eugenics in that it has to be studied scientifically and dispassionately in order to find out what is best for the long-range survival and strengthening of White peoples and White culture on this planet. It is absolutely right to discuss forthrightly how this will be done.

Response to your P.S.: You are saying exactly what Greg Johnson has written, as I recall. This is so similar to the argument for why we should let Jews do things for us: they are better at it (well, they already have huge networks set up). For others, we should let the Muslims fight the Jews for us.
My answer is that homosexuals are more motivated to become activists because of their status of not being fully accepted. The White majority feel totally acceptable everywhere, thus feel no need to do anything. We need to wake up and wake up our brethren (and sistren) rather than turn the job over to those with special agendas.

That’s all I’m going to write for now.

Peter

June 13, 2012 at 3:31 pm

For a quick answer / clarification: I´m not homosexual; yet I´m interested in various non-classical sexual lifestyles that might well be prosecuted by WNers if the attitude towards homosexuality is the measure. As I said: zeal and violence from the right might well be a considerable part of what creates the leftist block in the first place. “Single pointed anger is one of the easiest things to get in the world”, as a selfdefense-instructor said. If the right challenges a lot of minority positions in that way, those people MUST fight back with utmost decisiveness. I want a White Republic for the survival of the White Race. For that, I accept any white alliance. I pretty much don´t care what actually happens in that White Repbulic as long as the White Race survives. I´m liberal but racialist. I have yet to see how anything that deviates from a jewish-paulinistic code (aka christian) puts the White Race at risk. If sexuality is private, and thus homosexuality also not openly propagated, I don´t see a problem with homosexuals in leading positions. And if they turn out a problem, let´s not have them in leading positions. At any case, homosexuals that are at least not against the White Cause seem beneficial to me, and thus Donovan and the like are appreciated.

I apologize for the term “hateful tone”, that may not accurately describe at least your position (but I guess well possibly a general tone in the WN community, towards homosexuality, that is). Yet I seem to catch an air of zeal and intolerance that appears jewish, and actually I think that the violent rejection of homosexuality is the result of a jewish socialisation in the spirit of the OT.

Jews and homosexuals on one side? I don´t ascribe much to that. Jews ally with anybody when it serves their agenda.

I used the term “gay” only because it´s shorter to write. I may well write “homosexual”, and maybe yes, it more transports what it´s about.

You´re right, I´m wrong about why lesbians weren´t an issue. Yet, I think it is worth to make the comparison of how the attitude is towards male and female homosexuality (and when at details…: if homosexuality is for weakish males, looking for male affirmation: what is homosexuality then for those homosexual males in a homosexual couple who are the strong, virile ones? That calls for an interpretation).

Looking forward to possible more answers of yours. I don´t want to tie you up in discussions. It´s actually that I don´t really understand the strongly rejective attitude towards homosexuality in the WN scene so I ask and try to understand. I have often needed to revise my positions, so maybe here too. But so far there was no real enlightenment for me.

… ah… more answer from you… so I refer to that as well:
#3: hm, ok… you may be right that WNers prefer a only-white society etc. Point taken.
Leaves the question as how to deal with homosexuals. Yes, I guess that´s a question that has not yet been addressed (ha!… new comment of yours that actually addresses this point … and it sounds like something that seems plausible to me).
As to homosexuals as a minority (#2)…: what I wanted to say is that I don´t think that minorities are per se a problem. Only ethnic minorities are. I guess that any people will always be subdivided into subgroups of special interests. I don´t think that that has to hurt the general White Cause. Why would a homosexual subgroup be a problem to the White Cause?
The jewish trick (one of the jewish tricks) to racially destroy the White Race is to confuse about the minority subject: they point out that there are always minorities (true) and that therefore also ethnic minorites are ok (not at all true). On the other hand that means: only because the jewish minority, and all other ethnic minorities, are not ok, that doesn´t mean that minorities per se are not ok. As said, there is always any number of subgroups.

Again a P.S.: re Christianity, I would like to mention that my view could be described as that I see Christianity as two-fold: there are arian parts, and there are jewish parts. That´s why it causes those conflicting impressions. Also, Christianity simply represents a good deal of our tradition, set of values, rules in society. It´s hard to touch that. But one has to be aware that altering rules doesn´t mean abolishing rules altogether. I think we can well keep the good, arian parts of Christianity, love light warmth, and get rid of the jewish parts, the paranoical tyrannical parts.

Oh… and yet more answer, great…: ok, I like your argument, I agree: relevant is if it´s true, not if it ressembles something etc. Rather than going deep into that…: what comes to my mind primarily is what I wrote in a comment to the first program: to me, it seems that heterosexuality is quite deeply rooted in hetero men. But… ok: that doesn´t preclude that in some, maybe not so few, cases, indivduals are succeptible to deviating influences (also… I guess I can´t know if I “might” have turned out not-hetero if under the respective influences; what was described, lack of father figure, smothering mother, need for affirmation, all that in a very impressionable age…. that may well have a strong effect. In that respect I may just be lucky to come from a very normal white middle class family; a bit cold and possibly abusive, actually, and that is/was a relevant aspect in the White Culture from what I understand and possibly also a very important subject; of which Chechar has all to contribute).
I think we don´t have too many differences left; just as another aspect of nature – nurture: watching pornography causes deviations? One may as well say, it only brings them to consciousness, what was established well before. And as heteros kind of puke when they come across gay porn accidentally, that seemed to indicate to me that the sexual orientation is deeply ingrained. But… who knows… maybe it can be imprinted, at least in some cases, and/ or some circumstances. Again, addressing such issues against the PC commands is laudable, and maybe even beneficial to quite some homosexuals.

Chechar

June 13, 2012 at 3:38 pm

“the hateful exterminational tone of the anti-gay agenda sounds jewish” – Peter

Never in Western history had there been a “gay” movement of the proportions like the one we have today. Striving to revert to more traditional mores has nothing at all to do with “jewish”.

donothingWN

June 13, 2012 at 4:15 pm

quote “Carolyn concludes that the degeneracy and corruption that necessarily accompanies homosexuality is harmful enough for its practitioners to be expelled and all hard pornography outlawed in White-run societies.”

spot on! I wish I knew nothing of gays, but unfortunately, through long exposure, I do.

All their propaganda to claim they’re ‘just like us’ are a laugh. *MOST* of their lifestyles are destructive to themselves and those around them.

Like jews, they have nothing to offer WN.

Carolyn

June 13, 2012 at 4:59 pm

Peter – After subjecting myself to this long, slithering comment (which, btw, did not address my replies to you in a direct MANLY way, but you did expose yourself), my conclusion is that I don’t want YOU in WN. I do want people like donothing WN. I hope he begins to do something.

I won’t allow any more comments like this. From now on, anything you write that is more than 3 sentences long will not be accepted. Normal length sentences. No multiple comments.

That’s it. Good day.

Peter

June 13, 2012 at 9:37 pm

Well, thanks anyway for taking the time to read and comment upon my commentary (the form of which may be questionable, sorry for that). I still think to be pointing out relevant aspects, at which we disagree.

Carolyn

June 13, 2012 at 9:44 pm

You’re welcome, Peter. And you’re welcome to post brief comments. We can disagree, but you were trying to “get around” what I said (or so it seemed to me), thus I used the word “slithering.” I’m glad you took it well. I hope you do stay around.

Mike

June 13, 2012 at 10:41 pm

Addiction = Pleasure + Habit

All it takes is pleasure plus repetition to create any addiction. Introducing a faggot lifestyle to impressionable young children is as simple as introducing a heterosexual lifestyle to impressionable young children. Sexual pleasure does not know the difference between a male’s mouth, female’s mouth or animal’s mouth. A little rubbing by anything is all it takes to create sexual pleasure; be it rubbing by a man, woman, machine or animal.

If a child does not get proper behavioral correction/direction, then it is easy for a pleasure to become a habit and then an addiction. When do people think these idiots who like sex with animals actually first tried it? As impressionable children… Same goes for those introduced to faggotry in their unique socio/environmental situations which lacked correction and direction from their parents/friends.

You will have as much success becoming an ex-alcoholic as you will becoming an ex-faggot. The neural wiring is too strong to break because of the repetitive focus on sexual pleasure in both real life and imaginary life. A faggot who strengthens his neural pathways every 5 minutes thinking about faggot sex is like the most hard core of alcoholics who drinks every 5 minutes. An alcoholic will always be an alcoholic even if he stops drinking, just like a faggot will always be a faggot because of what he has done to create the strong neural pathways towards this behavior.

You can love someone (emotion) without sticking your penis into another man’s mouth or asshole (behavior). One can still stop the degenerate behavior.

I could take the most Heterosexual Man and turn him into a faggot through simple Pavlov Training. All I have to do is introduce severe pain with heterosexual acts and blissful pleasure with homosexual acts. If any of you doubt this, then you have never had complete control (life or death) over another human/animal.

Humans are DOMESTICATED animals through conditioning and training. Period. A farm has domesticated animals like a civilization has domesticated humanimals.

Peter

June 14, 2012 at 1:59 am

Thanks Carolyn for the conciliatory words. I would like to risk to mention a very brief thought:
I think we are dealing with a dual phenomenon: securing the existance of the people – versus – recreational activity.
MY concern is that a dismissal of the recreational aspects – anything fun – will make WN noncredible as it is not a credible propositon that people will dismiss the recreational aspects (that´s – mainly – why I always harp on that point).
The other position is to subject any activity under the caveat of being unmistakably constructive to the people: reproduction, marriage, work, military service, resources.
The question is how those two areas relate.

More specifically, to nature – nurture: when I said “slippery slope”, I mean that “gender”, and the “social construction”-position, is the “nurture”-position, whereas I think the argument for WN is that we FEEL that it´s right to be a white group, and we FEEL that we are different sexes (true by nature, inborn).
That´s the conflicting field.

Hilmar

June 14, 2012 at 1:21 pm

Just got home from work so don’t expect this comment to be an intellectual tour de force.

Briefly, I would just like to contribute with some physical basics to this nauseating, but admittedly, relevant and necessary debate on whether faggotry is all conditioning and pavlovian training or an innate trait; a genetic malfunction.

No matter how much societal conditioning one is subjected to, I’ll postulate that there are certain genetic and hormonal preconditions that has to be met in order for a young adult to exhibit and desire natural and healthy heterosexual behaviour.

This instinct, if sufficiently strong, will, in my estimation, be able to rescind and supersede most attempts at indoctrination and behavioural reward/punishment schemes set up by the pathogenic postcultural western educational systems, for instance, or any other queer mind-programming cabals out there.

Surely there are cases of weak quasi-straights who are led astray through the subversive influence of zog-schools and zog-media, but those who argue that genetics don’t play any significant part in the deranged phenomenon of homosexuality would have a hard time explaining why faggotry still occurs in societies that frown upon, and harshly punish, the practice, e.g. contemporary Iran or, let’s say, medieval catholic Spain.

My conclusion thus far is that homosexuality is a horrible disease of the mind (i.e. the body), caused by genetic and hormonal deficiencies, but clearly also promoted, popularized and exploited for political ends by those who conspire to weaken and ultimately extirpate the formerly independent white nations of this world.

Carolyn

June 14, 2012 at 2:37 pm

Interesting take on “Christophobia” now by the LGBT kids. It actually lists 9 categories of unorthodox sexual orientation that are officially approved of!

HAMILTON, Ontario, June 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In the wake of the passage of Ontario’s “anti-bullying” Bill 13, Christian parents and leaders in the Hamilton area are demanding that their school board address what they say are instances of Christian children being bullied for their beliefs in public schools.

“There is a sincere need for anti-Christophobia efforts in the public schools of the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB),” said Jim Enos, president of the Hamilton-Wentworth Family Action Council to LifeSiteNews. “Children from traditional biblically moral homes need to be offered a safe environment at public school.”

The issue of Christian children being bullied was brought to the attention of board members during a meeting Monday evening. Father Geoffrey Korz, Dean of Ontario for the Orthodox Church in America, and General Secretary of the Pan-Orthodox Association of Greater Hamilton, told an HWDSB committee that according to Statistics Canada, hate-motivated attacks against traditional religious groups increased by 55% over the past two years.

“As you know, this Board pioneered anti-bullying initiatives arising out of its Equity Policy, as far back as 2007, long before Ontario’s Bill 13. Yet the Board has concentrated almost all its efforts on only one identified group, that is self-identified LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender) students. Why was this group selected?” he said.

Critics have charged that Bill 13, billed by legislators as a general “anti-bullying” measure, had clear ulterior motives, as evidenced by its hyper-focus on students who identify as “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirited, intersex, queer and questioning (LGBTTIQ)”.

Cecilia Forsyth, president of Real Women of Canada, told LifeSiteNews in a recent interview that Bill 13 is not about “preventing anti-bullying in schools,” but about “pushing on our children a radical revision of sex-education that is built on the full acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/christian-group-demands-ontario-school-board-use-bill-13-to-protect-student?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=9d52ef2b8b-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Full_Text_06_13_2012&utm_medium=email

Hilmar

June 14, 2012 at 3:10 pm

Those postcultural zog-acronyms are just hilarious in their helplessness.

How about this one?

Straight; Aryan; Proud; Productive; Healthy, Heterosexual; Intelligent; Resourceful; Energetic;

Or S.A.P.P.H.H.I.R.E., by way of abbreviation.

–For the sapphire-coloured eyes of our still unfathomably superior race.

Freedom Cobra

June 16, 2012 at 10:12 pm

Perhaps homosexuality is caused by hormone changes in womb? If so, a future ethnostate with a healthy eugenic program could phase it out.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodiversity/born-that-way/