‘All of us who are openly [homosexual] are living and writing the history of our movement. We are no more- and no less– heroic than the suffragists and abolitionists of the 19th century; and the labor organisers, Freedom Riders, Stonewall demonstrators, and environmentalists of the 20th century. We are ordinary people, living our lives, and trying… to “fix what ain’t right” in our society.’ –Senator Tammy Baldwin
‘If a person is homosexual by nature… then society can no more deny a gay person access to secular right and religious sacraments(!) because of his homosexuality than it can reinstate Jim Crow.’ –Jon Meacham
‘Homosexuality is the last stand of implicit white identity.’ –Richard Spencer
‘No culture that has ever embraced homosexuality has survived.’ –Steve Largent
As the second decade of the twenty-first century comes to a close, homosexuality is a ubiquitous part of everyday Weimerican society. Mainstreamed by Hollywood propaganda and protected by judicial fiat, homosexual behavior is now seen as ‘natural and normal’. Children are taught in public schools– state indoctrination centers transplanted from Prussian soil by do-gooder Yankees, by the way– that homosexual behavior is simply ‘the way some people are’, exists in the animal kingdom (a patent falsehood), and encouraged to experiment among themselves to see if they themselves ‘like people of the same sex’.
Like any good religion, the adherents of homosexual-ism do not provide proof; they simply act as if their beliefs are ‘common sense’, belittle any who disagree, and hide behind anecdotal evidence and cliché arguments, like a jungle savage warding off evil spirits by repeating words he doesn’t understand but which the shaman promised him would work nonetheless.
Being an inhabitant of the territory derisively known on the coasts (and proudly at home) as ‘the Bible Belt’, a Southron might assume that this Yankee cultural rot is epidemic elsewhere– ‘on the coasts and in Democrat urban centers, surely, but not in my hometown’– but he would be mistaken.
A local newspaper recently brought to my attention a ‘wedding’- purportedly involving ‘Southern Baptist’ laity- performed by a lesbian ‘preacher’ dressed as a man. Imagine the indifference necessary to accept such a travesty! Imagine the darkness of the sin-loving intellect which looks at this parody of marriage and says ‘this is just and pleasing!’ No my friends, widespread acceptance of homosexuality is here, ‘at the very door’ (Matt 24:33), and woe to the nation which accepts homosexuality as simply ‘another lifestyle choice’– the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah awaits it at the very least, though worse is to be expected if Our Saviour’s words are any indication (Matt. 10:15)
Homosexuality is not merely a cudgel used by our ruling elites in this ‘Third Reconstruction’ to alter the South’s beliefs and identity, though it is that. Homosexuality is also a soul-imperiling sickness, which deforms and dehumanizes those who engage in it and also deadens the conscience of those who, while not engaging in it themselves, tolerate and ‘approve’ of it (Romans 1:32). It is the duty of every God-fearing Dixian to resist the homosexualisation of our society, not only out of a desire to resist being ‘reconstructed’ by outsiders, but also out of a freely-chosen desire to ‘fear God, and keep His commandments’ (Ecclesiastes 12:13)
Homosexual Behaviour in Context
‘A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.’ –Anonymous
Any human collective bound together, whether by blood, religion, or common cause, can only survive if the individual members of that group are willing to delay personal gratification for the sake of some larger goal. History proves to the intelligent eye the axiom that ‘civilisations are built on self-sacrifice’. Recall that noble occasion, in the annals of the Roman Republic, when Rome herself was sacked by the Gauls, yet the Senators remained in the city and met death on barbarian swords to permit the commoners and priests time to escape. Think of the soldiers and sailors of British troopship Birkenhead, who chose to drown to a man rather than permit a single woman or child onboard to face the icy waters of the Atlantick without a lifeboat. Consider, in more recent memory, the South Vietnamese ‘Rangers’; American-trained warriors who, when betrayed by Mordor-On-The-Potomack, threw themselves over and over at the Soviet armed-and-armoured Communist armies to buy time for civilians to evacuate– even as friendly units surrendered or fled and their supply lines collapsed.
In each of these cases, individuals- with all the commensurate hopes, dreams, and fears common to any man- placed a collective good over their personal good, and in doing so demonstrated civilised behaviour. Hans Hermann-Hoppe calls this ‘low-time preference’; the ability to delay gratification for some future payoff. This long-term behaviour not only aids individuals in survival (‘go to the ant, thou sluggard’), but is essential to social survival.
Within the constraints imposed by external and biological factors, an actor sets his time-preference rate in accordance with his subjective evaluations. How high or low this rate is and what changes it will undergo in the course of his lifetime depend on personal psychological factors. One man may not care about anything but the present and the most immediate future. Like a child, he may only be interested in instant or minimally delayed gratification. In accordance with his high time preference, he may want to be a vagabond, a drifter, a drunkard, a junkie, a daydreamer, or simply a happy-go-lucky kind of guy who likes to work as little as possible in order to enjoy each and every day to the fullest. Another man may worry about his and his offspring’s future constantly and, by means of savings, may want to build up a steadily growing stock of capital and durable consumer goods in order to provide for an increasingly larger supply of future goods and an ever longer period of provision. A third person may feel a degree of time preference somewhere in between these extremes, or he may feel different degrees at different times and therefore choose still another lifestyle- career. (Hoppe; p. 5)
How does the homosexual stack up when examined through this aspect of the social lens? Not well at all, it seems:
Not only do LGBT households make 10% more shopping trips in a year than the average U.S. household, recent Nielsen research has found that they buy more at checkout. In aggregate, LGBT households spent an average of $4,135 at retail stores in 2014—7% more than non-LGBT households.
There’s more. From Time:
Men in same-sex marriages tend to earn significantly more than their lesbian or heterosexual counterparts, according to new data released this week by the U.S. Treasury Department. Gay men had an average household income of $176,000 in 2014, $52,000 more than lesbian couples and $63,000 more than opposite-sex couples. The Treasury Department’s first-ever look at tax returns for same-sex couples adds a new element to research on the ways gender and geography affect earnings.
So, we see that not only does the average homosexual have more ‘disposable income’ than the average married couple with kids, but they spend it on themselves with greater frequency. This makes sense; just as most homosexuals aren’t interested in marriage, so they’re not interested in children (except as conversion projects) and, as a result, devote fewer resources to the future, and use more resources for immediate gratification, than do people with offspring. This goes a great deal towards explaining why corporate America is so interested in signalling their support for ‘LGBT rights’.
The willingness to delay gratification is civilising behaviour; doing so provides resources and capital (both economick and social) to future generations and makes possible all the benefits of elevated society which we enjoy and which it seems whites are uniquely prone to creating wherever they go. Homosexuals, by the very attitude towards reality their lifestyle engenders, are more prone to dispose of resources as soon as possible (or at least within their lifetime), and thus aid in reducing overall time-preference: preferring ‘barbarising’ behaviours over ‘civilising’ ones. The personal selfishness of a sin-sick homosexual thus ripples outward in a ‘social selfishness’, working at cross-purposes with the goals of the commonweal.
Parasitick In-Group Preference
‘Please don’t confuse Conversion with political Subversion. The word ‘subversion’ has a nasty ring, of which the American people are inordinately afraid–and on their guard against. Yet, ironically, by Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean ‘subverting’ the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends–using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard–whether they like it or not..’ –Marshall Kirk
Another troubling aspect of the homosexual lifestyle is their tendency towards in-group organisation. This is related back to their instinctive struggle against the common good of society. Apart from the incessant pangs of conscience sent by God to remind of sin, the homosexual also senses that he is transgressing the natural order and, if he is in a healthy society, he is also transgressing the law. As man is fallen, transgression has a temporary ‘thrill’ which can be addictive (precisely what the Devil intends), and homosexuals can and do bond privately over this shared ‘secret sin’.
This furtive ‘group bonding’ of homosexuals can give rise from time to time to actual secret societies (see the ‘Order of Chaeronea‘ for a Victorian example), but it more often gives rise to simple conspiracies- networks of homosexuals who eschew mere incidental undermining of social capital for intentional and sustained subversion of the social order itself.
The great danger of any secret society, as Kevin MacDonald notes, is that ‘cohesive groups outcompete individualist strategies.’ This is doubly true when a cohesive group works in secret, away from the publick eye. Such has been the history of notable portions of the homosexual movement in the decades before the Obama-era normalisation strategy was pushed to success. The quoted author above, Marshall Kirk, is emblematick of this strategy. His 1989 book After The Ball was the careful explication of a strategy by which America would be conditioned from hatred to approval of homosexuality. It was an expanded version of the 1987 article ‘The Overhauling of Straight America’.
As you read Kirk, reflect on how his ‘outsider’ language sounds akin to the ‘internal dialogue’ of other fringe, high-intelligence minorities present in Anglo society:
The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality…
And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent…
Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message– of normalcy. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past ten years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films…
While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency. Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion… Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here.’
— ‘The Overhauling of Straight America’, by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill
This sobering article, plus the book that came from it, are required reading for the Southron who wants to understand how homosexuality moved from heinous crime to mainstream acceptance. The current homosexualist morass which Dixie (and greater America) now faces is the result of a concerted and guided effort, outside of publick view, to acclimate the common man to apathy in the face of degenerate and unnatural sin. The great danger in the social tolerance of any minority group driven by a spiritual or cultural urge to subvert the host population’s way of life is well known to those on the Right, and oceans of ink have been spilled explicating the problems posed by other, more well-known groups of ‘resident aliens’. But we ought to, also, look to homosexuals as a group which takes advantage of Anglo-Saxon kindness and tolerance to undermine our people and destroy the fabrick of society.
Links for Reading:
-By Ambrosius Aurelianus
Oh, I'm a good old Rebel, now that's just what I am; For this "Fair Land of Freedom" I do not give a damn! I'm glad I fit against it, I only wish we'd won, And I don't want no pardon for anything I done.