Tuesday, September 25, 2012

III. A little history of homosexuality.

I want to tell you, dear reader, is that it is not homosexuality, per se, that is the problem, but feminism, or more specifically, identity politics and cultural Marxism. Let's start from the beginning.

You've all probable heard the argument. That Gay-ism was accepted and celebrated by the Greeks and Romans, or that the Greeks and Romans were moral, and shunned such individuals, only to meet its doom when it became prevalent as a phenomenon. 

Just as F.C.I. Clarke noted in his essay,”Homosexuality and WhiteNationalism: Two Arguments for Tolerance", written in 2002, "If you ask Christians why they think homosexuality is a sin, they cannot point to any saying of Jesus. Jesus saw fit to condemn divorce but not sodomy. Christians have to turn to the Old Testament, to the record of the Jews and their wanderings, crimes, superstitions, and hatreds. There we find homosexuality condemned as a capital crime. Why? The whole aim of the Law is to set Jews apart from the rest of humanity, it condemned buggery because they and all their neighbors were engaging in it."

[While the source, wording, intent, target audience, and connections of the author are questionable to some, the article is a brilliant piece. In it he advocates the acceptance of individuals such as myself because we are free from the bonds of kin and creed, and thus less susceptible to attack.]

"Technically, the Greeks and others were not pedophiles, who pursue children, for they focused their attention on young men who were well past puberty and ready to begin military training. The ancients regarded homosexual relationships as completely consistent with marriage and family life, and they frowned upon men who formed exclusively homosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships were also bound by a host of rules and taboos."

"There was nothing of the modern amoral free-for-all. But there is no question that homosexual behavior was not only tolerated by ancient peoples, it was considered normal, in some cases even ideal. It was ascribed to the gods (Zeus and Ganymede) and lauded by poets, philosophers, and historians. It is hard to maintain hateful Jewish attitudes toward homosexuality if one really understands and appreciates the greatness of classical pagan civilization."

"As poisonous as the Old Testament's moral condemnation of homosexuality may be, it is based on a realistic conception of human nature. Judeo-Christianity condemns homosexuality as a sin. A sin is a matter of choice. And nobody is immune to sin. If a heterosexual is a person who is immune to homosexual attractions, then the Judeo-Christian viewpoint implies that there is no such thing as a heterosexual."

If a homosexual is a person who cannot help but be attracted to people of the same sex and has no choice in the matter, then the Judeo-Christian viewpoint implies that there is no such thing as a homosexual either. There are just people, all of whom have the capacity to be tempted by homosexual attractions and to choose heterosexual attractions. Thus there is no room for moral self-righteousness.

After looking over my notebook, I was reminded of an essay, "Homosexualityin the Middle Ages" by Warren Johansson and William A. Percy, in which he tries to explain the views held by the Church. In it he argues that it was perceived as part of certain pagan rituals, apostasy and witchcraft (both the Order of the Templars and the Freemasons, as well as certain occult groups in Europe were accused of practicing vile rituals of sodomy).

It's striking to see that because sex in general, even between men and women within the confine of marriage, was seen as a necessary evil at some point, has led to the creation of this delusional cultural meme that sodomy is something that, if left unchecked, would bring the suicide of the species (which is ironic, seeing that it is not homosexuality that has led to the decline of European population, but birth control, abortion and a lack of interest towards child rearing and marriage, e.g. feminism).

This distorted view of sexuality, inherited from the Jews by Christians, was passed to theEuropean colonies by being codified into law. Even the Chinese ans Japanese, which were not colonized, enacted sodomy laws because of their alignment with the "civilized"West. 

The nonsense – that homosexual unions blessed by both the priests and the state happened in the Greco-Roman world, and to some extent in Medieval Europe (without taking into consideration that there was no such thing, or that in Medieval Europe such unions were chaste, religious in nature) – is being spread among many LGBT's, and they fall for it.

For example, I quote: "In his Satire II, written about 85 C.E., theRoman poet Juvenal portrays a Roman citizen, once a priest of Mars,who now "decks himself out in a bridal veil" in order tomarry another man. Juvenal comments, "horreres maioraque monstraputares": "you may shudder and consider such men evengreater freaks" — greater, that is, even than such evil omensas women giving birth to calves, or cows to lambs. Invoking theshades of Roman ancestors, Juvenal argues that the presence insociety of such men bodes no good for the Roman people; indeed, ithas brought them to a "pitch of blasphemous perversity

Juvenal's horror is directed at effeminacy and at the sexual passivity he believes it implies.

Like Greek literature, the literature of the Roman republic and empire generally celebrated love and sex between men, and in Rome as in Athens, homosexuality was widely practiced and, within certain parameters, generally accepted by both the exalted and the humble. Latin poets presumed that all men at one time or another felt homosexual desire, and Roman art... pictured that desire openly, showing sex between adult males on wall paintings in Roman houses, on coins, and on artefacts — jewellery, terra-cotta lamps, flasks — made for the elite as well as for the masses." - end quote

I can already imagine you saying to yourself: “What is this? Both the gay and the feminist movements (and to some extent all leftist movements) ignore and distort history for their ideological benefit? I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!”

"If a homosexual is a person who cannot help but be attracted to people of the same sex and has no choice in the matter, then the Judeo-Christian viewpoint implies that there is no such thing as a homosexual either. There are just people, all of whom have the capacity to be tempted by homosexual attractions and to choose heterosexual attractions. Thus there is no room for moral self-righteousness."

"Matters became worse in the late Nineteenth-Century, when psychologists -- some but not all of them Jews -- created a new paradigm for understanding sexuality. There were no longer homosexual and heterosexual desires, which can be found in all people and can be controlled by our faculty of choice. There were now homosexual and heterosexual people, and what made a person one or the other was generally thought to lie outside of our choice and control."

"One's sexual proclivities suddenly became a whole "lifestyle," a whole "identity," giving sex an inflated importance in the scheme of things. It was not long before Freud started speculating that the whole soul can be understood in terms of sexuality. This new and false conception of sexuality has caused immense suffering and damage to our people, be they "heterosexual" or "homosexual".

"First of all, it has created a great deal of anxiety for men and women who experience homosexual attractions at one time or another. In pagan societies, these desires could be acknowledged, understood, and even expressed if one chose to. In Judeo-Christian society, such desires were repressed, but their mere presence said nothing more about one's identity than one is a sinner and subject to temptation -- just like everybody else."

"Today, homosexual desires cause great anxiety and psychological anguish. People worry if they fall into a small and stigmatized sexual subspecies, totally different from the rest of humanity. A young man gets aroused wrestling with a friend and suddenly has a psychological crisis on his hands. He wonders if he is sick. He feels alienated from his family and peers. He wonders if he will have to move to the city and buy a feather boa."

"Second, this anxiety has chilled same-sex friendships and male bonding, and it is the bonded male group, the Männerbund, that is the foundation of all higher forms of civilization, particularly European civilizations. It is amazing to read accounts of male friendships from earlier centuries, for example in Augustine's Confessions or Montaigne's Essays."

"It was possible for men to frankly express their love for one another without fearing the stigma of homosexuality, because that was an identity that simply did not exist before the late Nineteenth century. (Today, these expressions of affection are read through the distorting lens of "queer theory," and Augustine and Montaigne and countless other figures have been "outed.")

Third, those who decide that they do not merely have homosexual desires, but are "homosexuals" are trapped by this self-concept into an exclusively homosexual lifestyle, which not only carries health risks, but also prevents them from affirming whatever heterosexual desires they might also have. It cuts them off from marriage and family life, which could be combined with homosexual relationships openly in pagan societies and on the sly in Judeo-Christian societies.

Fourth, it has created the heterosexual, who thinks he is immune from same-sex attractions. This allows some heterosexuals to fuse Jewish intolerance with self-righteousness, turning them into queer-bashing bullies.

All these destructive consequences could be alleviated if we freed our minds from the legacy of Jewish hatred and intolerance. Queer-Bashers are in the grip of Jewry without even knowing it. European Nationalism requires that we de-Jew our thinking, but many European Nationalists, Conservatives and Classical Liberals have no idea of just what a radical change of outlook that requires."

I strongly recommend you should take a glance over the homosexual manifesto "Androphilia: Rejecting the Gay Identity, Reclaiming Masculinity" by Jack Malabranche. 

Quote: "The word gay has never described mere homosexuality. Gay is a subculture, a slur, a set of gestures, a slang, a look, a posture, a parade, a rainbow flag, a film genre, a taste in music, a hairstyle, a marketing demographic, a bumper sticker, a political agenda and philosophical viewpoint, a pre-packaged, superficial persona--a lifestyle. It's a sexual identity that has almost nothing to do with sexuality.

Androphilia is a rejection of the overloaded gay identity and a return to a discussion of homosexuality in terms of desire: a raw, apolitical sexual desire and the sexualized appreciation for masculinity as experienced by men. The gay sensiblility is a near-oblivious embrace of a castrating slur, the nonstop celebration of an age-old, emasulating stigma applied to men who engaged in homosexual acts.

Gays and radical queers imagine that they challenge the status quo, but in appropriating the stigma of effeminacy, they merely conform to and confirm long-established expectations. Men who love men have been paradoxically cast as the enemies of masculinity--slaves to the feminist pipe dream of a 'gender-neutral' (read: anti-male, pro-female) world."

No comments:

Post a Comment