Homo debate continues

After James O’Meara told me at The Occidental Observer that “Only the Jews have demonized all forms of male affection” I responded:


So what’s your model society?

Yesterday I watched Pride and Prejudice (the 1995 TV series) and experienced great emotion at the very end during the double marriage of Elizabeth Bennet with Mr Darcy and Jane Bennet with Mr Bingley.

That’s the world I would aspire to live in after the vindictive Day of the Rope and a brief interregnum of Lycanthropes chasing over the naughty feminists turned now into Sabine women in order to found large families. Once the violence is all over after the racial wars the Austen world makes sense in a future ethnostate, except that instead of Christianity we might have something like Nazi Aryanism as the cement for holy heterosexual marriage (as holy as the Austen series I saw yesterday; yes, traditional family values).

You propose the Athens model of Pericles? Not Spartans, who unlike the Athenians did not commit the mortal sin of mongrelization? What do you propose exactly? (The Burroughs novel you use in your blog depicts an altogether violent and degenerate, non-Athenian homo world that would be easy prey for the enemies of the white ethnostate.)

While posting this entry I’m still awaiting a response to the above. Meanwhile, this is what I responded to Lew at VNN Forum about a month ago:

I said…

I agree that the level of some criticism in this thread is 7th grade. However, why doesn’t Greg Johnson allow at Counter Currents a much more discrete criticism of the homo agenda he’s promoting by publishing James’ book? Why doesn’t he say a real word, not the evasive way he dismissed my point (“strawman”), about the problems presented in my linked article, “On classic pederasty”?

Lew said…

If a particular white male homosexual is not interested in pushing the modern gay agenda, supports traditional man / woman marriage as the societal ideal, and is willing to work for society and the collective good, what possible harm could he cause?

I said…

But there’s the rub. James O’Meara doesn’t seem to support traditional marriage (he recently published an article at Counter Currents critical of 1950s family values). Instead, he theorizes that real western families must be a kind of pagan homophiliacs.

Greg Johnson said…

James O’Meara’s startling thesis is that the male groups that create and sustain civilization have been destroyed not just with the hammer of feminism but also on the anvil of “homophobia.” For today, any all-male group is stigmatized as “homoerotic” (usually by the same people who want to normalize homosexuality). Thus, to exorcise the specter of homosexuality, male groups have been pressured to accept female members. Merely excluding actual homosexuals is not enough, because the problem is the mere possibility of homosexuality in groups of men who live, work, and fight together. Thus O’Meara points to the conclusion that the only way to maintain all-male institutions is to de-stigmatize homosexuality.

Of course this is a non-starter for the conservatives who posture as defenders of Western civilization, because there is something they want to conserve even more: Judeo-Christian “family values,” including homophobia. Thus O’Meara argues that the homophobic conservative “family values” agenda actually undermines the foundations of Western civilization. As an alternative, O’Meara urges us to look to the other West, the real West, the West before it was conquered by a Near Eastern religion, namely the pagan West, for a model of civilization that managed to integrate all-male institutions with family life, due in part to more fluid conceptions of sexual identity and tolerant attitudes toward same-sex attractions.

I said…

The above sentence demonstrates that Greg was wrong when claiming that my piece [“Gitone’s magic”] was “so off the mark, such a straw man argument” because it’s James himself who’s placing “the pagan West”, i.e., the Greco-Roman world, as a “model” of civilization: precisely the claim that I debunked in my article, insofar as classic homosexuality was mainly pederasty—not the transvestite behavior that James provocatively and unabashedly boasts visually in his blog, even in the “About me” page.

As I said in my article on classic pederasty, I read a couple of Latin-Spanish translations of the first long novel in the western world. And although Petronius depicts the Roman provinces in altogether decadent times—perhaps under the reign of Caligula—, the main character, Encolpius, and his epheboy Gitone are described as feeling a great deal of revulsion towards a queerfag who tried to seduce them (during the banquet of Trimalchio if I remember correctly). If The Satyricon is a window to the past we can conclude that, even in those degenerate times, when vomitoriums were introduced in the Roman homes as depicted in Petronius’ novel, the lovers of the story—a 25-year-old young man and a 16 year-old teen—still felt incredible revulsion for obvious queers.

It’s James the one who makes use of the classic world as his pivotal argument for his hypothesis. Thus, if I could demonstrate that he was arguing from a false analogy, I reasoned out when writing my essay, his hypothesis would be falsified by History itself.

Something similar could be said of how the pre-Christian Germanics handled the fags (say, like those who made Encolpius and Gitone almost throw up). Tacitus wrote, “Traitors and deserters are hanged; cowards and those guilty of unnatural practices are suffocated in mud under a hurdle.”

Published in: on December 31, 2012 at 11:47 am  Comments (11)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://caesartort.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/homo-debate-continues/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

11 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Again, you’re spot-on, Cesar. The homosexuality pushed by Greg, James, Jack & Co. is one that was eschewed by the Greco-Roman world as it, as correctly shown by you and other scholarly works on the subject, was pederastic.

    I don’t find it surprising that the company above is “oblivious” to the ancient Nordic tribes considering homosexuality with the greatest of opprobria and punishing sodomites with live burial.

    Oh, and James, with his promotion of Burrhoughs will not come out, so to speak, and state that he likes boys (which he does), as this is too far out there for our current credulities. This, of course, will change as the pretentiously titled “New American Right” (a collection of armchair philosophers) will mould itself to accept yet another grotesquery of modernity as every other bound-to-be-defunct WN “movement” has in one form or another.

    I really think that the pederastic James-type of people, WN notwithstanding, should be killed for such a deviance. Round him and his Burrhoughs types and execute these freaks.


    • Not sure if James likes adolescents; he seems, at least, to approve homosexualism among coeval, post-teen adults. I reacted thus mainly because I found the homo images in his blog completely disgusting and detrimental to the movement.

      • I’m basing it on two things: 1) His website (just like you), and 2) the strong prideliction of fags towards pederasty.



      • I may be a little ignorant of the so-called gay movement, but at least what can bee seen on TV and in Wikipedia when I edited there (there are more homos in the Wiki than in San Francisco) is that the movement is basically an adult movement for adults—which is what to my mind makes it so disgusting.

      • I’m quite familiar with this freak movement and they like boys.

      • I’d need stats. How percentage of homosexuals are strictly pederasts? Or even better: how many of them feel revulsion for adult males (only attraction to teens)?

        Without stats there’s no solid argument; a kind of anonymous polls research, etc., I would need to change my mind.

      • I don’t know of quantitative data, but that’s not the point. There is sufficient qualitative data to prove the issue. Brown’s “AQueer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been” is a good puriew of the topic; viz. the seventh or eighth chapter.

  2. James O’Meara and his type are degenerates, and, for the sake of racial hygiene, need to be removed from the White body. It has nothing to do with hate, it is simply a matter of health. This is why Harold Covington is right in taking the position that no faggots should be allowed to live in a White homeland; a homeland that exists for the strengthening of the race. That is National Socialism, and that is what is needed.

    • James is not even a white nationalist once you see how specious his pro-homo arguments are; and how he evades answers to simple questions.

      • Elaborate.

      • He hasn’t replied to my comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: