We’re Here. We’re Not Queer. Get Used To It.

Earlier this month, Todd Lewis attacked our project from the anti-White/pro-Christian direction, insisting that Christianity is integrally anti-White. We receive attacks, insults, and even the occasional excommunication from anti-Whites under the delusion that God himself commands White Genocide. Yesterday, the latest incoming landed in my mentions from Greg Johnson, who insists that Christianity is anti-homosexual and therefore an impediment to White Advocate solidarity.

We get it from all sides.

The anti-White Christians are sure that we’re pagan racial supremacists in sheep’s clothing. The anti-Christian nationalists are sure that we’re itching to go on a new crusade against all the heretics. That’s life on the third rail, and we accept it. But it’s imperative that we respond in these sorts of circumstances, as silence is often mistaken for an implicit admission of guilt.

Unfortunately, the Left is not the only source of gay panics in our ranks. The most recent examples are self-inflicted.

For instance, after the Halloween 2015 National Policy Institute conference, the Two Matts, Parrott and Heimbach, made up the story that Heimbach was disinvited from NPI because a “gay mafia” disapproved of his Old Testament opinions on homosexuality.

Greg Johnson knows this to be false, yet he repeats it. In private conversation with Scott Terry, Heimbach referred to the elitist clique which runs NPI and thinks it runs White Nationalism “faggots.” There was a misunderstanding, and Scott remarked about it on his blog, without our foreknowledge or suggestion. Imagine a Venn Diagram, with “faggot” and “homosexual” circles. While there are indeed a good share of both open and closeted homosexuals in our movement who happen to be both homosexuals and faggots, a good share of these anti-Christian bourgeoisie poseurs with an elitist classist pose are presumably straight.

And there are certainly a few gentlemen who come to mind who happen to be homosexuals but don’t happen to be faggots, namely a man whose name I won’t name on account of his always finding himself in the middle of childish feuding he has no part in instigating or fueling. The most critical and most frequently overlooked way that one can be anti-homosexual is to stop playing along with the liberal myth that it’s a coherent identity. It’s a habit, not an identity. One’s a homosexual the way one’s a smoker or a gambler. It’s not like being Italian or Mennonite or whatever.

Following that logic, I don’t bring up what I consider someone’s bad habits unless they make it an issue. Even if they’ve made it an issue in the past, if they’re not promoting the habit, I stay in my lane. As much as I may ideologically oppose libertarianism and promote communal morality, a solid streak of Appalachian disinterest in litigating others’ private business remains. There are numerous people who happen to be homosexuals who want no part in this feud, and I’m not going to drag them into it.

Even if one accepts the notion that I insidiously schemed to press the Gay Panic button on Richard Spencer, history confirms that the first victim of Gay Panic was actually Matthew Heimbach himself. A few years ago, Pastor Tom Robb, the leader of one of the larger klan groups, started a rumor campaign against Heimbach “because” he chose to attend American Renaissance despite [redacted] also attending. Heimbach attended despite this asinine smear campaign, and both got along just fine. After that smear failed to work, Pastor Robb later managed to achieve some success, compelling Stormfront to ban us from future Stormfront Retreats on account of our “anti-Americanism.”

Any stick will do.

Few of the accusations flying in any direction, including those from Greg Johnson, have any substance whatsoever. This is a middle school food fight and the pastries actually being launched are of little consequence. There’s a limited amount of financing, a limited amount of active supporters, and there’s a perpetual zero-sum competition for a relatively small pie. Pastor Robb lost some quality talent and support to our project and has been striking back ever since.

One thing to bear in mind is that just about all of the nationalists attacking us are full-time activists who rely primarily on fundraising. While aggressive fundraising is great, and being able to do this stuff full-time seems fine at first glance, our project is a threat to their livelihoods. If one were to ask me before this all broke out, “Who are the most aggressive fundraisers in our entire cause?” the list of people would have pretty much been the list of people trying to pick feuds with us at the moment.

While I’ve left the Mormon Church a long time ago, I learned some administrative lessons while there. One thing the rather successful LDS institution does is generally avoid full-time employees. Almost everybody’s a volunteer or has some other form of support. While we are working to fundraise more, and do look forward to eventually paying writers and reimbursing people more liberally for their expenses and investments, we all have day jobs. Not a single penny we raise goes to any of us at the moment.

There are movement folks who rely on donations to meet their expenses who maintain a constructive “bake more pie” attitude to the fight over the fixed amount of financial support. But a cursory survey of our cause confirms that perhaps more projects should consider restructuring to minimize this circular firing squad behavior.

Their motive was narcissistic rage, and their aim was simply to harm NPI by starting a gay panic, a troll so divisive that it was eagerly promoted by the Southern Poverty Law Center which shares the same destructive agenda.

While the realpolitik of petty factionalism is the primary factor here, the gay thing deserves some clarification.

It gets even more ironic than the fact that Heimbach himself was the first target of Gay Panic. Richard Spencer pressed the button on himself with his article insinuating that NPI had overcome its homophobia and embraced a more “diverse and tolerant” position on social issues. By the time the SPLC got around to quoting Scott Terry’s blog post, there were literally years of “smelly hamster cage” nonsense going on about homosexuality and NPI-affiliated projects, much of it entirely self-inflicted. The SPLC has been reporting on this mess since well before Halloween, disproving Greg’s conspiracy theory that I personally concocted it.

Naturally, there followed a great deal of squeaking and spinning in the smelly hamster cages of the internet movement, which generated a great deal of distrust and ill-will but did nothing to stop or slow down our race’s programmed march to extinction.

One thing that’s surely doing nothing to stop or slow down our race’s programmed march to extinction is the ongoing religious squabbling between the “pagans” and the Christians. The scare quotes around “pagans” are necessary, in my opinion, as many actual pagans have nothing to do with this mess.

One reason (certainly not the only reason) that Greg’s anti-Christian is he harbors the notion popular in the gay community that Christianity is what caused homosexuality to be taboo in the first place. The pink swastika folks take it one step further, ultimately insisting that we’d all be cool with gay stuff if it hadn’t been for Jewish/Semitic influence on the foam party which was supposedly the pre-Christian West.

Of course, precivilized Western folks who indulged in sodomy were, with a handful of pederast exceptions, more likely to find themselves drowned in a bog than hooking up on Prehistoric Grindr. Homosexuality is universally taboo because it’s dangerous, dysfunctional, and degenerate. It’s not a healthy part of a balanced civilization. Homosexuality’s like shingles, always lingering in the background but only flaring up into a real problem when a civilization’s somehow weakened or decrepit.

The Christian position on homosexuality is commensurate with just about every comparable religious tradition, including the indigenously Western ones. My position is pretty much identical to Greg’s stated position, which is that we should be an explicitly pro-family, pro-heterosexual movement while thoughtfully muddling through and patiently coping with all of the dangerous, dysfunctional, and degenerate habits that each of us all bring with us from this broken society. I’m a Traditionalist, not Fundamentalist. And part of the difference between one and the other is that I have no illusions about completely perfecting either myself or my society.

Neither Heimbach nor myself are the crusading madmen eager to attack homosexuals that Greg, Richard, and others are trying to make us out to be. Pastor Robb was closer to the truth of the matter with his original charge that we’re willing to work with just about anybody who is willing to work with us on promoting our tribalist and/or traditionalist agendas. I try to be pagan-friendly, and I shall remain so because there are indeed some folkish people for whom paganism isn’t a synonym for anti-Christian reactionary modernism.

With Greg and most of the others, you’re infinitely more likely to hear a diatribe against Christianity  than you’re likely to hear any talk of runes, folklore, or quotations from The Havamal. It’s a posture, and if I were an actual folkish traditionalist, I would find it tiresome that my tradition is being misappropriated by these people. Christianity has very little to do with this feud, and Greg Johnson is smart enough to know that. After all, Sinead herself is at least as passionate in her attacks on Christianity as she is in her attacks on homosexuals.

Greg would have you believe that there are only two options for dealing with this “Gay Panic” problem.

Gay panics weaken the movement, so how can we armor ourselves against them? There are basically only two options: (1) get rid of all homosexuals or (2) stop caring about them.

We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it!

He expects you to fall for this false dichotomy, then insists that you must go with the second option because the first option is unworkable. I agree that it’s impossible to get rid of all the homosexuals. Furthermore, I believe nationalism and reactionary sentiment are surging within the gay community as a natural and predictable backlash against both the mainstreaming of homosexuality and against the minorities overwhelming the community.

While most nationalist homosexuals are surely sincere in their political convictions, the pink swastika serves a valuable function in subcultural gentrification. If you wish to keep your homosexual circle White and exclusive, nailing a swastika to the door is the best way to get the job done. Without it, the wealthy, sophisticated, and cultured homosexuals have no way to distance themselves from the growing mass of unsophisticated, uncultured, and non-White homosexuals. A similar phenomenon will eventually catch on among straight people within the next decade or so, but gays have a way of being at the vanguard of trends.

As much as I love it when anybody becomes pro-White, we as a movement can’t simply stop caring about gays or start ignoring them. They are arriving in real numbers with a relatively defined agenda. They are arriving with a tremendous amount of money relative to our cash-starved cause. They are arriving with a tremendous amount of talent. Homosexuals are a vibrant and creative bunch. I’ll give them that. But what I won’t give them is carte blanche to attack and isolate the Christians, the traditionalists, and the women in our ranks.

If there is to be a “gay panic,” it should be less about fearing literal grooming and buggery than about their political agenda. While Greg’s record on women’s issues is indeed unimpeachable, the pink swastika clique as a whole is impatient with women in general and traditional femininity in particular. While Counter-Currents sells books and publishes articles from within the New Right and Radical Traditionalist philosophical milieu, they’re generally antagonistic toward traditionalism and most traditions–aside from the esoteric and initiatic optics, of course.

The clique favors an elitist and secretive approach which reacts to populism and working class outreach and aesthetics like a vampire to garlic. The clique, most importantly and obviously, is strongly anti-Christian. If we take Greg’s advice and merely ignore them, then they’ll remain unchecked in their promotion of that agenda. Even if one’s not the least bit homophobic (I don’t happen to be), even if one doesn’t believe it’s a major Christian sin (I do), there’s a very good case for being mindful of their presence and alert to ensure that they contribute useful work rather than religious feuding and destructive entryism.

The re-emergence of nationalist sentiment in the West isn’t bubbling up when and where we all expected it. It’s almost exclusively, as James O’Meara would perhaps suggest, occurring from the left-handed side of things. The gay subculture, the vulgar and porn-infested imageboards, the darknet, and such are not only coming around to nationalism, but traditionalism and traditional Christianity, as well. Striking that right balance where we welcome newcomers while also being mindful of their baggage and motives will be a defining challenge for the pro-White cause.

Merely turning a blind eye to this phenomenon is not an option.


Ezra Pound

An absolute drubbing. The dead give away that Greg was writing out of self-interested bad faith was his naked assertion that the only reason people oppose homosexuality is because of the Bible. Greg is a smart guy. So can anyone who knows Greg is a smart guy take his assertion seriously? As soon as I read that I knew that Greg was not writing out of any good faith conviction (however misguided); he was writing solely and exclusively for the purpose of rationalizing his position by any means necessary. If that means being transparently obtuse – and it does – then so be it.

I honestly think it does not occur to Greg to expect that his audience would be of the common-sense, believe-my-lyin’-eyes opinion that there are more secular, scientific, biological and sociological reasons to oppose homosexuality than anything offered by “Christianity”, even assuming you’re in the minority of people who dismiss theological and metaphysical arguments out of hand.

I was really embarrassed for Greg when I read his article. His “rationalization hamster” (as Heartiste would say) is spinning so fast that the smoke coming off the wheel has clouded his perception and especially his self-perception.

I genuinely like Greg and I even post a positive or admiring comment at C-C every now and then hoping he’ll decide to get over his ego and post it, but no. Vindictive people aren’t like that. Even when you’re trying to meet them half, or three-quarters, or the whole of the way, once you’ve made it known that you oppose their personal rationalization-agendas – regardless of however much you otherwise agree with them – they give no quarter on any account. That is fundamentally the problem with having any “parochially” self-interested clique at the top of an organization or movement.

Greg Johnson

“Of course, what makes most people care about homosexuals is the Bible, . . .” Read it, compare it to what you said, then post your retraction/apology below.


I’m a bit of a nobody to be perfectly honest, but if an atheist or pagan can not come to terms with why Homosexuality is wrong then that is their maintaining of the current false narrative provided by the Jews. I’ve read the works of the Greeks and I could not say with all honesty that there have been no instances where homosexuals have been a part of society. Yet I will say that homosexuality was essentially destroyed for hundreds of years (for the better) and if any homosexuals were alive in those periods they shut up and got with the program and didn’t try to get their way.

This current wave of homosexuality was only able to be promoted in a state where Christianity had been undermined for years, and feminism wouldn’t be an issue either if it wasn’t for the weakening of Christianity. Sadly, or happily however one may wish to take it, we must name the Jew as the originator of almost all degenerate actions that have been enacted in this time period whether pornography, adultery, homosexuality, or feminism.

Christian society was not perfect, but no society has ever been and the Christian societies of the past have I believe come far closer than the one which we currently live in. This could be explained in large as being based around the fact that it promoted white births, a continuing and advancing standard of civilization by eliminating actions that are not necessary and could be viewed accurately today as promoting disease.

Yet in the end this could rightfully be dismissed as simply an anonymous opinion. But what can not be dismissed as an anonymous opinion is the statistical rate of HIV/AIDs infection in relation to homosexuals, and the wealth of disgusting evidence online of homosexual actions that are abominations. These are not opinions these are facts. There are statistics and there are examples as to why homosexuality is degenerate. Continuing to support it is Cucking for a small but vocal minority.

Mr. Parrott and Trad Youth have taken a rather moderate position, that I don’t wholeheartedly support, but I can understand that there are no enemies to the right. But if one allows degeneracy into their very soul they are of the left.

silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

I’ve known plenty of people who hate gays (even more than me) in Australia. Older cousins and their friends used to go gay-bashing for a bit of sport (literal, physical bashing, not blog-posting). I’ve never once heard it so much as intimated that their religious views (which they basically had none) had anything to do with it. I can appreciate that America is a much more Christian country than Australia, even so it still seems unreal to me that “the Bible says so” is the real motivating factor here. Christians routinely ignore parts of the bible they don’t like, so why couldn’t they just ignore the gay stuff if they truly wanted to?

Matt Parrott

If Greg were thinking clearly, he would have used his unique influence and position to extricate homosexuals from what’s primarily a factional pissing contest. Instead, he’s gone for a foolish escalation, with Christianity and populism on one side and homosexuals and NPI on the other.

Say what you want about the man. He’s certainly not lacking in courage.

silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

I genuinely like Greg and I even post a positive or admiring comment at
C-C every now and then hoping he’ll decide to get over his ego and post
it, but no.

I know the feeling well. I also genuinely like the guy and believe he does good work, but he does not handle disagreement well at all.

Vindictive people aren’t like that.

I assume you meant are like that. What makes it worse in his case is the big show he makes of standing for virtues like truth and justice. Probably he does stand for those things, but few people will believe it after they witness his vindictiveness.


I don’t perceive Greg Johnson to be vindictive. He can be impatient with disagreement at times, but, I mean, I can’t blame him for that given that 99% of the crap that gets thrown his way from anonymous spitballers is just that, crap.

silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

I’ve been observing his spats for a few years now, and while I’m in no position to know any of the private details, the impression I get from what has been publicly spoken is that he has a vindictive side to him. I’m not necessarily saying his opponents are better men; perhaps they’re worse, only they’re better able to publicly conceal their defects.

Matt Parrott

The real back office irony with all this is that Sam kicked off this shit storm because he thought I was plotting with Greg against him. I reckon I should’ve been plotting one way or another, as now Greg’s unwittingly jumped on the Purge Everybody Associated with Greg bandwagon.

They’re purging us for trying to purge people, which we haven’t come close to trying to do. They’re hysterical about our being hysterical, even though we’ve been consistently measured. They’re fanatical about our being fanatics, even though we don’t trade in any of the conspiracy theorizing, vulgar supremacism, hateful humor, or armed robbery that they’re all happy to either indulge in or associate themselves with.

The longer this campaign rolls on, the more obvious it’s going to be that this is factionalism masquerading as professionalism, tolerance, or whatever it’s masquerading as this week. We can’t actually be stopped by the method they’re attempting to stop us, by driving away the big donors. Like Donald Trump, we’re self-funded, so CMS ‘n pals can and will choke on each and every attempt to purge us from the movement they’ve been driving into the ground for decades.

silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

They’re fanatical about our being fanatics, even though we don’t trade
in any of the conspiracy theorizing, vulgar supremacism, hateful humor,
or armed robbery that they’re all happy to either indulge in or
associate themselves with.

Sure, provided your definition of “we” excludes your comments section.


I don’t see what the point is of attending Spencer-fests, most likely you will trip over a Jew and land on the lap of a faggot.

As for Kohnson, that degenerate faggot belongs to the same ovenworthy category with the Charlie Hebdo staff, attacking the same things the left-liberal totalitarian Zionists do with a bit of pseudo white supremacism in. It is clear that he uses his role of advocate of “white rights” in order attack other traditional norms and identities – rather than to promote the interests of the one he supposedly defends.

Charles Martel

Bravo. I quit following Spencer a long time ago for two reasons. He is very arrogant. He giggles when talking of Christians and sounds like a little school girl. His love of the queer is almost fanatical, and he can’t see the queers a s the death cult they are. What do they being to the white race but desease degeneracy, and death? Their cult even goes against nature which is the only God Spencer follows.

He is very anti-Christian. A testament to his continued failure is the smaller crowds he is now drawing. When Jack Donavan wrote an article about how to teach your boys to be men I realized I was wasting my time there. It was as if they were trying to parody themselves.

I have since dropped my viewing of CC as well.


While true, Greg Johnson needs to read a book or two on meta-ethics (or just a basic intro. to modern philosophy), his commentary isn’t totally hopeless. Counter Currents, despite the intellectual laziness on some fundamental issues, serves as an excellent introduction to the body of literature a budding Alt.Rightist ought to be familiar with.

…and I wouldn’t give up on Spencer either – the guy has charisma and is a savvy leader (savvy enough to recognize a threat to his hegemony vis-a-vis Heimbach).

Since Johnson (in his article) presents a series of defacto psychological assumptions about the two Matts, I’ll offer one of my own: I think Johnson is just mad at me, Scott Terry, for getting the better of him in our exchanges. He has to drop the facade of civility when dealing with the likes of me and it drives him up the wall – so much so, he’s willing to attack and tar my friends.

But that’s a Terry-centric view of the situation and I’m willing to admit it’s likely only a part of the story. At any-rate, given my strong belief that God really does exist and that He really doesn’t want white people to be genocided out of existence, I’d say there’s not much the Johnsons of the world will be able to do against Trad Youth’s momentum.

Hopefully, they’ll jump on board as willing participants. (We could use the fashion tips, at least).


I think the pro-homosexual side is ultimately going to lose money, supporters and influence over every socio-economic demographic all at the same time over this issue.

Matt Parrott

If this whole situation were how they imagined it, they would be entirely in the right. If Heimbach and I were trying to purge people, were all hysterical, and were hellbent on a medieval witch hunt against the sodomites, their behavior would be entirely rational.

But they’re the ones purging people. They’re the ones getting hysterical. And they’re the ones with a witch hunt mentality. They’ve managed to ban us from ALL of the major pro-White conferences. They’ve convinced themselves that we’re teetering on the brink of criminal violence.

It’s all bullshit. And unless we manage to get ourselves arrested or randomly attack a gay guy at the mall in the near future, it’ll gradually become obvious to everybody that we’re the targets of a grossly unfair smear campaign.

Diabolus Candidus

Greg replied sarcastically to someone who pointed out that all world religions have the same opinion of homosexuality.

I have a degree in god-stuff. No theologian that I know would disagree with the assertion that *all world religions consider homosexuality* haram. One of the sharpest human beings, a theology professor, I ever knew said, “The world religions don’t disagree on the question of homosexuality.”

Greg chose to go after “the Bible.”

Greg has his issues. Tradition does not with regards to the question of homosexuality.

I will not subsidize his hang ups with the Bible.

Diabolus Candidus

I don’t think C-C gets much cash from most of its viewership. Maybe Trump is making big checks out to them, but I doubt it.

The stats are posted over there at C-C. Read them and weep.

It perplexes me why the site C-C would go commit seppuku in front of the whole world. I’ve mentioned in comments like this that trying to destroy Christianity in favor of secret ritual initialization won’t work. It’s not part of the white genome. Whites like Christianity a lot. We are not partial to bringing back human sacrifice (Odinism) or secret initiatory rituals. It’s not who we are. I understand that a minority want to bring back a Masonry “purged” of “semitic” influences that does weird cult shit in dark rooms. It’s still shit tier initiation. Again, not a white thing.

The operators of C-C and Radix are firmly on board with a certain agenda. “Gays in the movement…”

It’s such a narrow focus to have, especially when people are donating to your cause.

Does anyone read Radix anymore? Hood went on a vacay or something and I stopped reading it months ago. Alt-Right.co.uk or whatever? Dust.

Same crap out of Colin Liddel (Liddle? does it matter?) or whatever his name is. No one cares about your atheistic, secret, occultic initiation rituals. Yeah, Colin is British and has hangups. So does Dawkins, (the late) Hitchens, etc. Everyone in Britain is basically a product of the English Reformation. Great.

This whole thing is like watching Alex Jones circa 2002 sneaking into Bohemian Grove. No one cares except C-C and Radix.

The drama has been sickening and for C-C to revive it after some of us tried to forget about its existence…

It’s about C-C and its “Bible” hangups. Not about WN.

C-C might be perplexed to know just how many times unnatural lust is condemned in religious texts from every “tradition.” The operator there has his hangups with the Christian faith and he’s never been bashful about making the most ridiculous accusations against it.

This is about some other murky shit going back to child psychology and frankly, it’s boring.

Yet, there they are, C-C and Radix, the voice of “tradition”? How many idiot commenters on Radix are followers of “Game” and Heartiste/Roosh? A few more than is comfortable. This is atheistic white nationalism: goons quoting Heartiste/Roosh on “WN” boards.

I think NPI/C-C are perfect for each other despite the cat-like squabble that took place on the Red Ice table round up with, uh, white nationalist “leaders.” I was even less convinced by the masculinity of certain members who purport to be straight and masculine.

Great, you have children, but still sound like a total fag when you are on air.


Writing that you share the agenda of SPLC is an incredibly stupid and bitchy attack. Just like a faggot come to think of it.

Matt Parrott

Greg was actually subtly signaling to his own hamster cage crowd with that. We did a sit-down interview with the SPLC a a while back and there’s a baseless rumor that’s been floating around since then that we’re secretly feeding information to and working closely with them.

We are not. We are not FBI informants, either. In an amusing recent episode which elucidates who’s being trashy here, Richard Spencer’s chief networking guy publicly accused us of being federal informants on twitter two months ago, only to find himself accused by a completely different person within his NPI clique of being himself a fed about a month afterwards.

#_AltRight_ deleted his original tweet accusing us of being feds and he and Richard pined eloquently about how noxious and classless it is to go around baselessly accusing one another of being feds.


Gay panics weaken the movement, so how can we armor ourselves against them? There are basically only two options: (1) get rid of all homosexuals or (2) stop caring about them.


Ad hominae aside, the fact is that homosexuality really wasn’t always taboo. In ‘native american’ societies they weren’t closeted and were part of certain tribal rituals. Further, the notion that ‘traditional women’s roles’ were in fact truly traditional isn’t accurate if you’re a real celt. The celtic women went into battle with their men at times. This is fact and any irish historian will back that up.

Your guy John Knox may have hated women, or he may have just plotted to unseat Mary and Elizabeth using their femininity as a target. ‘Traditional women’s roles’ were jewish concepts to *some* extent.

Organized Gayness aka Big Fag is always a fifth column. Since lesbians don’t ‘organize,’ they mostly just annoy insecure people. Something in gay men makes them vulnerable to sabotaging healthy straight societies whenever they fly their flag.

It’s a waste of time to care about gays and/or lesbians. Richard Spencer hates women. He’s probably not gay.


And some were born without critical thinking skills, apparently.


What Matt meant by habbit is that people practice it but they don’t identify as such and keep it to themselves. It is when they make it an issue of identity and expect you to accept them for their gayness alone and not for their merits as a person, because they probably have none, that the problem occurs.


My sense after reading a couple years of Matt’s opining on gays is that he truly believes it to be a choice. Whether or not the pivot is the choice to act or desire I don’t know.


I meant to express uncertainty about what Matt Parrott’s views were on the choice to act or the ‘choice’ of which sex one desires innately. There is no uncertainty in my mind that some people are born biologically gay.


There is no gay gene. There is no science to back up that homosexuality is biologically determined. That’s why you get bisexuals. The homo lobby which propagates that it was mainstream in antiquity does so on the basis that it was part of their culture – i.e. they weren’t born homosexuals, but it was tolerated or encouraged by society and it was perfectly normal for married men with families to have homosexual relationships as well. Then they contradict themselves when they say gay people should be accepted because they are born that way. But if homosexuality is a choice then the homo lobby has absolutely nothing.


Matt says “The gay subculture, the vulgar and porn-infested imageboards, the darknet, and such are not only coming around to nationalism, but traditionalism and traditional Christianity, as well.”

I haven’t checked out what this refers to in this specific context (something’s going on in a sphere I don’t follow…) but historically it also seems problematic. ‘Vulgar, porn-infested imageboards and the darknet’ aren’t inventions of gays. Was the Weimar Republic’s decadence due to the influence of gays or was the gays’ influence on it due to underlying socioeconomic and political shifts? I think the latter, and I think more of it stemmed from purposeful jewish subversiveness than Matt likes to admit.


It was the result of Jewish subversion, notably of Magnus Hirschfeld the first “champion” of gay and womens “rights”.


“Was the Weimar Republic’s decadence due to the influence of gays or was
the gays’ influence on it due to underlying socioeconomic and political

Both are true. Just like with jews.


Are you really suggesting that ‘studies’ that have no science can be considered at all? I happen to have encountered studies that claimed homosexuality in men was due to antibodies in the mother’s body that develop; youngest sons of large mostly male children families exhibit gayness at higher rates. Some that argue in utero causes for it in both sexes. Blah blah blah.

Consult your own common sense. Do you choose to find women attractive? And men gross sexually? Or are those instincts just that – instinctive? I’ve just been around way too many gays, lesbians and ‘bi’s’ to not see the difference clear as day. I’ve seen biologically straight people try to convince themselves they’re gay only to struggle mightily with the actual same sex act. ‘Political’ or the modern ‘Voluntary’ (the former was the in vogue term during the second feminist wave, the latter is pro-whites’ version of the current ‘bisexual’) lesbianism usually is just that – a choice to identify with the dykes, as opposed to the biological state of wanting sex with them. There exists an element of people of both sexes who really are ‘fluid’ sexually and can enjoy sex on some physical basis with both sexes, but most of these people are still just straight people.
Women’s sexuality may be more diffuse in some ways which might account for the supposed broader span of ‘fluid’ types, but most are still born straight; I think more of that is sociopolitical than base biology.

I’ve seen gay people struggle all their lives with trying to be content having sex or ‘love’ with the other sex to no avail. I’ve seen zero correlation between the factors cited in the article and actual homosexuality, sorry to say (there is some definite correlation between them and the ‘voluntary’ types however).

So if you haven’t hung around in the gay community much, you’ll just have to ask yourself whether any one study or source can be believed, and whether you could ever react to some guy’s anatomy the way you would to a woman’s.


ETA I should clarify what I meant by ‘choice to identify.’ I personally don’t believe that gender roles are nearly as innate or hardwired as most think. Therefore some people will wind up identifying with their own sex’ homosexuals more due to the political experience of perhaps failing to conform to ‘traditional’ gender roles. I’ve known cloyingly ‘feminine’ dykes who no one would ever sense were gay without actually knowing. Ditto for gay men.

Class and ethnicity and timing also influence this ‘choice’ to identify. Some people might go so far as to fully delude themselves during youth especially, but those types are more often incorporated under trannyism than gayness as time goes by.

The reason women exhibit this tendency more often is mostly due to the higher rates of sexual abuse they encounter in teen and young adult life especially. The fact is, both girls and boys who are gender nonconforming are statistically targeted at significantly higher rates for sexual abuse in all periods of their lives than ‘conformists.’ Again, females sometimes keep running into this clash with society’s norms and endure greater violence due to them, which shunts them into the ‘bi’ category (there are other reasons too). But personality type and sexual orientation don’t correlate inherently. Of this I can 1,000% assure you based on a lifetime of experience.


They were definitely ‘the vanguard.’ Since politically-minded lesbians and some feminists already tended to question gender roles, the drive always stemmed from the transvestites and hyper feminine gays. Historically there was tension between factions of lesbians and the budding and largely male ‘transgender’ movement.

But this trend expanded to include women sometime in the early 2000’s. Prior to that they’d just be called ‘butches’ and then some nouveau revised term, like ‘bois.’ Transsexualism does seem to be more a mtf phenomenon though.

Fr. John+

BS about the ‘born gay’ thing. And, what do you think the term ‘dying to sin every day’ means, if you truly, really want to be a Christian, or go to Heaven?



lesbians are totally analogous to gay men. We need to be suspicious of anyone with open hostility to gender roles.

Your claim that lesbians are not subversive like gay men despite being fags makes me suspicious.

What would you say about Rita Mae Brown, tegan and sara, rachel maddow or some of the boston married women who were the gandmammies of the poz?

What would make lesbians different?


I don’t get your second paragraph if you care to clarify.

Lesbians are not analogous to gay men. What makes them different…? Can you name one all lesbian organization that has sought to subvert whites’ survival? No, because ‘organized lesbianism’ is an oxymoron. It doesn’t seem to exist in nature. Most of the ‘gay and lesbian’ groups are really vehicles for bourgieous gay male (and jewish) interests. The lesbians are used by the gays as cover and to horde resources.

The only type of lesbian ‘organizing’ I’ve ever seen has consisted of separatist type festivals where capitalism plays the bigger boogeyman than men, or almost anyway. Why homosexual men and women migrate to such opposite political extremes is beyond me. It’s probably a function of biological sex differences. But while some lesbians serve as destructive change agents subverting healthy society, they do so largely as recruits for Big Fag’s agenda. It just is.


Actually, given that women have much less agency than men, it would make sense that lesbians would have different political activity.

I’m sorry for attacking you. It’s clear that all homosexuality is subversive and I should’ve acknowledged that you seem to agree

Division Charlemange

Holy hell. I gotta admit, I have certain reservations about you folks, but seriously, THIS is the hill that the flatearthers and Dukefans choose to die on? These people, if they aren’t entirely retarded, should understand that faggot tolerant well-off dilettantes like Spencer are going to be faggot tolerant. It’s unfortunate that they are, but given that most of these people aren’t seriously contributing to the realization of the day of the rope, they have no right to criticize people for ‘being counterproductive’.

I’m not going to say that a certain puller of ‘dudes with daddy issues’ shouldn’t be sent to Madagascar with all the Shecklestein types when the balloon goes up. But up until then, he is still less bad for the white race than every sub-congoid who promotes retarded flat earthism.


In both the ancient Greek and Roman societies homosexuality was a taboo and only became more prominent in the late, decadent stages of their civilization when they were on the verge of collapse. Similarly Western Christian Civilization flourished and skyrocketed to the top of the world because Christianity kept such behaviors in check. Spencer is a know-nothing poseur not familiar with even school-level history when he says homosexuality was always part of White Civilization, which explains why he is the dullest and crudest alt-right author out there.

As for reasons to oppose homosexuality and the gay agenda it is a no-brainer that it is as subversive and harmful as the anti-white agenda. Not only because it diminishes our numbers and leads to lower birth rates, but more importantly, that masculinity and gender are part the traditional identities under attack by the Jewified postmodern liberal ideology, together with national, religious and all other organically developed identities . That’s what being a traditionalist is, to defend all of them and race is just another one. When you only obsess about race but you don’t care about the rest or even worse openly promote the same subversive agenda on every other issue as our enemies then you render yourself worthless and a liability.

silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

Homosexuality is universally taboo because it’s dangerous, dysfunctional, and degenerate.

Those aspects make it undesirable. What makes it taboo is that it is completely disgusting (to the average hetero). A good test to put to pro-gay straights is to ask them whether, since they’re so tolerant, they’d be willing to bend over and let a homo penetrate them in order to prove their tolerance. They’re tolerant, right, and a bit of penetration is surely harmless, so why not? I’m straight, but if it were in doubt I’d be quite happy to allow some fat chick I find totally unattractive to suck me off or something to prove I’m hetero.

I’ve tried very hard to tolerate faggots. I would say I’ve succeed, but it’s only a very perfunctory sort of tolerance, and I certainly do not go beyond tolerance–there is absolutely no question of me every befriending a faggot. Even as I’m tolerating away (work colleagues, say), I can’t help feeling that something is “wrong” about this interaction. It’s impossible for me to view a faggot as truly normal, as though he were essentially just like any other guy, apart from his curious sexual preference.

Two things threaten to destroy even this bit of tolerance I’m willing to afford them. First, is the “normalization” of faggotry, so that it’s increasingly brought into public consciousness, which I find is rather like forcing people to view pics of feces before sitting down for a meal. Secondly, and related to the first, is the increased sexual aggressiveness of faggots towards me. I’m a good-looking guy and I dress well, so I have a long experience of attracting attention from them. Recently though, some fags have been right up in my face with it. Just last week, this faggot at the bar felt up my ass three times, despite my sternly telling him not to, until the last time I said “do that one more time, I’m gonna knock you the fuck out right here.” It’s bad enough having to put up with this, but what truly enrages me is that the law protects these scum, so that if I were to give one the beating he assuredly deserves I’d be the bad guy.


My condolences on the unwanted sexual touching you experienced; it’s called indecent assault or some such, and it’s a crime. The law claims to protect both men and women from such outrages. If it happens again, try reporting it and hold the court system’s feet to the fire. Meantime, welcome to the state of fear women have to live with every day! (That doesn’t mean all straight men should be blamed for the crimes of a few.)

silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

The difference, Lisa, is that not all men’s touch is so repulsive to you. Indeed, if you are normal, there are some men whose touch you crave. In contrast, the sexual contact of all homos is utterly repulsive to me and to 99% of straight men.


Eew. I just read Greg Johnson’s swipe at Sinead McCarthy. I’ve been responding to the abstract issues…

Sinead has her mistakes or failings (some of which are a function of youth), but to accuse her of ‘feminist entryism’ is ridiculous. Sinead has recently called out most of the pro-white movement for its various iterations and degrees of ‘misogyny’ (my word). She got it absolutely right and not one criticism was off.

She mocked the ‘feminist panic’ that attends most pro-white outlets; she did not in any way attempt to ‘enter’ feminism into pro-white. She merely opined on how absurd it is for a bunch of male ‘leaders’ (and hangers on) to cower in paranoid terror of unshaven patchouli-spritzed women dancing around a field in Michigan or Ohio (both home to famous ‘Women’s Festivals’), for example.

Such types aren’t sabotaging the white race or doing anything but failing to shower for a few days (part stereotype). Kyle Hunt astutely pointed out that these photo ops of young feminists protesting european nationalism are exactly that – photo ops. They tend to recirculate and don’t represent any real movement or groundswell of young feminists. To react to them is to fall into a Soros trap set to divide whites.

Spencer and his ilk actually think rounding up feminists in concentration camps would remedy the purposeful destruction by Jews & Co. of the european race. What they’re too pathetic to realize is that there’d be fewer feminists to round up than insecure betas to recruit to their Nationalist Narcissists conferences, and that the earlier waves of feminism weren’t wholly reducible to the jewish terms imposed on them. Male narcissists, BTW, vastly outnumber female ones, at least in terms recognized by psychologists.


It doesn’t matter how right that woman is on particular issues. She appears to be right about some things (ex: the presence of actual as opposed to faux or manufactured misogyny around these parts). But from what I gather, she also believes the Earth is flat. By all rights, that ought to be sufficient grounds for most people to justify shunning whatever the merits of her other ideas.


Do you know how rat poison works? Its 95% wholesome, scrumptious rat food. Sinead O’Flatearth needs to go in the oven along with every other supposed white nationalist who promotes the idea that the Earth could be flat. And yes, Sinead is most definitely a feminist entryist who does nothing but attack other nationalists. She is a narcissisitic shit-stiring attention whore. I would love to have more women in the movement, but not if it means giving harpies like Sinead a platform.


So wait, where is the gay mafia based out of? I thought it was a joke and Greg was supposed to be its Don. Now I’m hearing it’s a real clique and Greg’s ignoring it. I’ve never seen these people, unless you count JamesO.


Attend some Alt. Right conference dressed as a sailor and they’ll find *you*.


It exists but it is not as powerful or as influential as it and its critics would like to imagine it is.

Matt Parrott

I’m thankful for Greg’s years of mentorship and support. He’s one of the very few movement “leaders” who actually does invest in rather than using the people around him. While he’s not a Christian, he’s more Christ-like in most of his daily affairs than most people who claim to be.

I must answer his hysterical bullshit charges, of course. I’ll do so as long as he’s throwing them at me and my cohorts. But I do not wish for this argument to suggest that I don’t think highly of him. Of all the people involved in this feud, he’s the last one I cared to be fighting with.

The very people he warned me about are playing him like a fiddle and will go back to stabbing him in the back in due time.


I feel the same way. I genuinely like Greg despite his flaws and faults. I’m the kind of person who likes to have a beer with an opponent after a heated disagreement but it seems that Greg is more inclined to denounce, sever contact and encourage others to do the same. Its all very pharisaical. I think it is a shame the way he tries to steer people in the movement using disingenuous arguments, but he has been an overwhelmingly positive role model for us and I salute him for that.

Diabolus Candidus

C-C went off my donor list.

I’ve met its operator in person, but his use of a third party to demean the Matts has been haram to me.

I tolerated C-C’s anti-Christian stance on the thought that I can work with other people. After reading C-C and comparing and contrasting, GJ lost me.


C-C and NPI are the most well-funded outfits in the movement, so don’t feel bad. They get tens of thousands of dollars from their cocktail party set so they never get a dime from me, despite the fact that I think both organizations generally do good work. Neither Greg nor Richard have enough influence to take control of the movement, especially now that we’ve all been inoculated against their homophilia.

Augie Dammler

For a long time it’s been evident to me that Richard Spencer’s NPI tolerates an increasing number of homos, Jews and race-mixers – or participates with other groups (American Renaissance) who do. I reject them as completely as I do the KKK/Neo-Nazi variety of white nationalists, accepting only straightforward “white preservationist” types, sans uniforms or other non-WN beliefs. Very streamlined.

But why is this question of “gays” even an issue? Who made it one? How did someone like Jack Donovan rise to such prominence anyway? Who enabled him? There’s an old saying: “Whoever smelt it, dealt it.” Likewise, whoever propelled Donovan to prominence is almost certainly gay himself. So…who did propel him?

Another thing: no matter what you think of him, Alex Linder is perceptive. For a long time he’s claimed “The Cat Lady” is gay. Certain of it, in fact. And though I cannot say there is a connection, I have to wonder if The Cat Lady’s refusal (even outright panic) of having any public photo displayed of him might not be due to this fact. And no, I don’t buy his claim that he’s “trying to protect his job”. On the contrary, I think he’s afraid of revealing his gay lifestyle to widespread exposure. We in the WN movement have no obligation to protect his identity. He should be exposed.



According to this from the comments section at counter-currents.com.

Yes, the Matts were to blame for it. I do not believe Parrott’s and Terry’s protestations of innocence and attempts to reframe this. They aren’t honest, so they are personas non grata in my book.

The story is that you are both untrustworthy Matts.

This is so typical of Christians. Untrustworthy, feckless, betrayers.

Why can’t you be more gay? Then, you’d be honorable.

Darwin's Accelerator

You’re a great bunch of guys, I just wish you would see that Christianity is a one world humanist ideology. If anyone enters a church and proclaims their love of race and nation, they will be excommunicated like Matthew was. You have to admit this is true or you must lie and say it isn’t, which isn’t Christian behavior. This is why I am no longer a Christian but I do believe in a creator and mover.

Christianity has destroyed the European warrior spirit and this is why Kings of Europe spread it and forced their serfs to adopt it. It pacified the people and justified divine right of kings. Centuries of pacifism has caused the majority of today to have no warrior spirit and have a spirit of humanistic one world love. If you are against this, Christian churches will toss you out and denounce you and your people.

Matt Parrott

I appreciate the compliment, but a few decades of Christian institutions being perverted is insufficient to condemn the faith as integrally globalist and anti-white.

Darwin's Accelerator

It’s not just a few decades, it’s centuries. The fundamental story of the New Testament is that Jesus Christ did away with the racial Nationalism of the Jewish Old Testament and will create the multicultural New Kingdom of Christ that will bring all people who believe in him as one. Nevertheless, no church is going to accept Racial Nationalism because it’s fundamentally against the spirit of Christianity and thus why Matthew was excommunicated.


News Flash: This just in!!

Government school kid rejects Christianity…!!

Leave a Reply