Homosexuality: Tolerate It As Long As It Stays In The Closet

by Michael Coss

July 5, 2002

I would like to throw my two cents into the homosexuality debate between Andrew Westphal ("Homosexuality Ain't Cool") and F.C.I. Clarke ("Two Arguments for Tolerance"). Westphal's essay is basically a tirade. Clarke objects to this tirade and calls for "tolerance," but unfortunately doesn't really say exactly what he means by the word. In both cases, it's not difficult to get the basic gist, of course. Assuming that I do get the gist, I advocate a position in between the two extremes expressed by these authors, albeit a bit closer to the former. I call my position "tolerate it as long as it stays in the closet."

Queer-Bashing As Impulse

First, although I admittedly share some of the sentiment expressed in his essay, I have to take Andrew Westphal to task for a rant which is, I hope he will forgive me for saying, far too subjective and which thus neglects the basic issue: the need for a moral compass in White society, based on fundamental spiritual and ideological principles and not on emotional reaction. Of course, Westphal is correct to denounce this latest Jewish effort to mainstream homosexuality on a children's network. This effort is indeed a clear manifestation of the ongoing Jewish project to reconstruct White society according to a corrupt Jewish vision. This could have been the starting point of an interesting examination of the role of licentiousness, egoism, and extreme individualism, and how these things have assisted Jewish corruption and contributed to the decline of our civilization on all fronts in the last century or so.

However, the tack taken by Westphal is to build up and knock down a series of straw men. In order to build his case against tolerance of homosexuality, Westphal proclaims that "Envisioning two guys drooling and slobbering all over each other and bloodying and bruising each other's asses makes me want to vomit all over the place." Needless to say, no psychologically normal person would savor such an image. The rest of the essay is essentially an appeal to White American males to resist "spinelessness" and to adopt Linder's prescription for the "New Hardness." While I find none of this appeal particularly objectionable, I still have to say, such a narrow focus on personal revulsion towards homosexuality leaves the field open to reasonable-sounding arguments for tolerance based on political expediency.

F.C.I. Clarke enters the field with a two-pronged argument for tolerating homosexuality. In view of the derisively anti-homosexual atmosphere of most White Nationalist venues, presenting such an argument must have taken considerable intellectual fortitude. Unfortunately however, the argument to tolerate homosexuality simply does not mesh with most interpretations of White Nationalism. At best, the points contained in the argument, as well made as some of them are, are only properly applicable as correctives to a lunatic, witch-hunt style of anti-homosexuality, which hardly anyone advocates. Clarke's argument cannot be accepted at face value. Let's look at each prong in turn.

Is homosexuality beside the point?

The first prong of Clarke's argument is the notion that "homosexuality is beside the point" of White Nationalism. This prong is founded on several premises.

The first premise is that homosexual status is not qualitatively different from a person's religion, gender, or exact White national origin. Clarke writes, "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."

Presumably, we are to relegate sexual orientation and behavior strictly into the realm of "private," while only truly race-related matters are to be considered "public." In other words, White Nationalism has no fundamental bearing on the question of sexual morality.

This makes sense if we have no concern or vision of what we want a post-revolutionary society to look like, other than it will be free of non-Whites. It makes sense if we believe that sexual mores, and the general health and happiness of White society are not related. It makes sense if one ranks individual license as a moral imperative, which is a very fashionable concept in modernity, but one which would have been virtually incomprehensible throughout most of White history and tradition. It makes sense if one confines his attention to the purely physical level of race-consciousness, adopting a sort of chromosome-fetish, and ignores completely the moral and spiritual dimensions of belonging to a Folk. Unfortunately, I do not believe that White Nationalist ideology and morality can be so neatly separated. In my view, White Nationalism is not merely a materialist outlook; it is necessarily a spiritual and moral outlook as well. To attempt to divorce White Nationalism from its spiritual and moral foundation is eviscerate it. It is to render it merely another totally worthless and dead-end piece of materialistic, modernist dogma like communism, capitalism, libertarianism, and the rest.

The second premise is that homosexuals have contributed positively to the White Nationalist cause. Considering that many types of flawed individuals have contributed positively, I have no doubt that this is true, even if one quibbles over details such as the ultimately problematic nature and subsequent liquidation of Ernst R�hm's homosexual clique. I have no doubt that there are homosexuals with abundant time and resources that they can make available to the Cause. What I ask is what extra value does the homosexuality per se of a White activist add to his contributions? What is so special about being homosexual that necessitates that heterosexual activists publicly acknowledge homosexual activists as homosexuals? Should alcoholic activists also be "tolerated" as alcoholics? If a homosexual truly cares about the race from which he has sprung, why would he feel the need to generate scandal and revulsion by flaunting his sexuality? I would argue that it is homosexuals who are out of step with both nature and tradition. Therefore, it is incumbent on homosexuals to take the necessary precautions to avoid problems, and not incumbent on heterosexuals to have to pretend that homosexual behavior is normal. In other words, "tolerance" should be in direct proportion to the degree that the homosexual endeavors to keep it in the closet.

The last premise is that White Nationalists "must resist wasting time and energy on squabbles that divide us." I hope that Clarke does not mean to suggest that we let Jewish homosexual-mainstreaming efforts on Nickelodeon go unchallenged, because if that sort of thing is somehow divisive, then perhaps we are best divided. Such displays of homosexual depravity must never be glossed over simply to spare the feelings of homosexuals in the movement. However, I will agree with F.C.I. Clarke to this extent: in general, any manifestation of a witch-hunting mentality regarding homosexuals in the movement should be condemned and avoided as counterproductive. If there are homosexuals or other individuals with various sorts of dirt in their pasts who have quietly joined the movement and who are now contributing positively, then I see no point, in general, in digging this dirt up. This does not mean that anyone should have to pretend that homosexuality and other psychological defects are normal or desirable, nor does it mean that homosexuals should be guaranteed protection from scorn and ridicule of the sort that Westphal is wont to dish out. It just means that there is no need to focus on this issue if it is not directly causing a problem.

Is intolerance of homosexuality Jewish?

The second prong of the argument is a surprisingly counterintuitive one, to say the least: Clarke asserts that it is the anti-homosexuals who are following the Jewish lead, and that homosexuality is actually an Aryan ideal! We'd better have a closer look at this.

First, regarding Christ and Christianity: Although Christ was apparently silent on sodomy, he was clearly pro-marriage and anti-adultery. This does not seem to me to be a particularly strong case for sexual license of any sort. I suppose that it is open to interpretation. However, what is not open to interpretation is the fact that all Christian denominations worth mentioning up until recent decades solidly and universally condemned homosexuality as a sin. For many Christians, particularly Roman Catholics, tradition is more important than bible interpretation as a basis of faith. And that tradition was always, regardless of whatever else it might have been, a formula for bringing new members of our race into existence and ensuring that they were raised in a family. This mode of existence was more or less the way our Folk lived for centuries. Things were not essentially different in pagan times either: people belonged to their families, clans, and tribes, all of which were regulated by traditional customs every bit as "restrictive" as Christian morals, which is something our modern license-loving libertines seem not particularly inclined to give much thought to. I'm afraid it's difficult for me to accept that moral standards that have persisted in Europe for centuries are "Jewish."

Looking at the classical non-Christian Aryan cultures: it is true that the Greeks engaged in homosexual behavior, but I doubt even at its height that the average Greek thought such was normal, or preferable to heterosexual behavior; I think it's much more likely was that such behavior was the mark of a degenerate upper class. Even if I were to be convinced that homosexual behavior was as all pervasive as it's often made out to be, that only suggests to me that civilizations can be complex entities composed of both splendor and degeneracy; Greek homosexuality does not recommend itself to me as an Aryan ideal.

Furthermore, there were Aryan societies that took a somewhat different view of homosexuality. Here I quote Tacitus discussing the Germanic tribes around 69 or 70 A.D:

Punishments vary according to the quality of the crime. Traitors and deserters they hang upon trees. Cowards, and sluggards, and unnatural prostitutes they smother in mud and bogs under a heap of hurdles. Such diversity in their executions has this view, that in punishing of glaring iniquities, it behoves likewise to display them to sight; but effeminacy and pollution must be buried and concealed.

In other words, homosexuals were so reviled that they were executed non-publicly in order to conceal the shame. Are we supposed to believe this Germanic intolerance of homosexuality was somehow Jewish? Incidentally, I do not at all advocate that homosexuals be executed. I am merely pointing out that the Old Testament's severity towards homosexuals is not without parallel in the Aryan world.

Regarding the assertion that Freud's approach to sexuality elevated it to the primary basis for one's identity: This undoubtedly part of the story, but the other part is Freud's inherent argument in favor of sexual license, and thus Freud does not call for intolerance as implied by Clarke, but actually calls for tolerance. Briefly, Freud argued that sexuality has no necessary connection to teleology, but rather was a primal drive that needed to be satisfied efficiently and regularly in order to maintain psychological health. In order to allow their sexual appetites to be slaked, society needed to be reformed to permit individuals to pursue freely their sexual desires. Thus the last few decades we've witnessed the campaign against "hang-ups," "uptightness" and other terms that formerly might have been covered by "propriety" and "self-control."

All of this was subversion, plain and simple. All of this flew in the face of the age-old traditional view of sex, which simply could not be neatly separated from romantic love, marriage, and child bearing, all of which were regarded as facets of the same life-affirming enterprise. The ultimate result of Freud's evil genius was to unhitch sex from these things and make it a completely independent consideration. A full catalog of the consequences of this unhitching, which is beyond the scope of this essay, would demonstrate this "blessing" to be an unmitigated disaster for our Folk. I believe a quick look at the White birth rate should suffice to illustrate my point.

At the end, Clarke's logic falls apart completely. I must reject the assertion that all people suffer from homosexual urges. The vast majority of the population -- 98% or so -- is solidly heterosexual, Kinsley's disingenuous and pernicious rubbish notwithstanding. I also reject the assertion that intolerance of homosexuality interferes with male bonding. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact that male friends do not use the word "love" simply indicates that the language has changed in the last couple centuries. It does not indicate any fundamental change in the nature of male friendship.

Finally, Clarke appeals to our compassion by describing the confusion experienced by a young homosexual as a result of his unnatural feelings. I have to admit I do sometimes pity those homosexuals who mean us no harm, much in the same way that I might pity an individual who is tragically born, say, with no arms. However, I, like most persons, will never accept the normality of homosexuality any more than I will accept the normality of any other severe defect. And ultimately, homosexuality is exactly that: a severe psychological defect to be pitied at best, and to be opposed vehemently whenever it threatens to become assertive.

In conclusion, the argument to "tolerate" homosexuality depends how on one defines "tolerance." If tolerance means simply refraining from unnecessary witch-hunts of harmless albeit defective persons, then homosexuality can possibly be tolerated. However, if tolerance demands expressing respect and approval for homosexuality, then it cannot be tolerated. Homosexuality is not normal, it is not natural, and it is not a traditional Aryan ideal. It is in fact an affront to our ageless manners and ways. Intelligent, circumspective homosexuals will admit this basic reality to themselves, and will not attempt to rationalize this flawed aspect of their psyche to others. If there are homosexuals that truly support our Folk, then they will recognize that their affliction cannot be recommended to others and will act accordingly. And insofar as homosexuals succeed in keeping it in the closet, I do not think homosexuality is worth a great deal of our concern.

MICHAEL COSS

Back to VNN Main Page