Streaks of Lavender

Homosexuality.

I was re-reading Andrew Joyce’s Alt Right writings on homosexuality. As I have previously stated, I generally agree (see below) with Joyce’s major premises, but, as I’ve also previously stated, I object to the Nordicist agenda in the writing – Joyce contrasts his perception of degenerate Southern European tolerance of homosexuality in Ancient Greece and Rome to the noble anti-homosexual manliness of Nordic Northern Europe. I have outlined here evidence of homosexuality among, e.g., Vikings and Ancient Gauls, disproving much of Joyce’s assertions and implications about Northern Europe. I could also mention the well-known homosexuality of English boarding schools and universities (one remembers Celine’s reference to “Oxford queers”); further, were Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed founding stock Americans or greasy Mediterraneans?

But even if we take Joyce’s agenda at face value, we see a problem for Der Movement. On the one hand, Der Movement contrasts the queer degeneracy of the ancient Mediterranean to the macho manliness of Nordics; but on the other hand, Der Movement says that Ancient Greece and Rome were…Nordic.  So, which is it?  Were the pederast pooftahs of Periclean Athens and Dorian Sparta greasy homo swarthoids or heroic Nordics? I thought that the patrician Roman Julius Caesar, the pink-frilled Queen of Nicomedes, was a hardcore Nordic? So, what’s going on?

This is similar to the HBD Nordicists screeching about differences between Northern and Southern Europe since the Neolithic while at the same time saying that the post-Neolithic Ancient Classical civilizations were Nordic.

It is a type of racial quantum mechanics, akin to wave-particle duality. When the Ancient Greeks and Romans are praised by Der Movement, then they were Nordic; when those same ancient peoples are criticized, then they were Mediterranean. Dat Right!

Getting back to my overall views of Joyce's writings on homosexuality, Joyce seems to want to completely exclude homosexuals from pro-White activism.  I would not go so far; I would say that homosexuals can be included, but with three provisos:

1. They should not be in any significant leadership position. Even if it can be guaranteed that there would be no conflict of interests, no homosexual agenda, it is still bad optics. Given what the Right represents, do we want homosexuals representing the cause to the public? Further, while some in the rank-and-file obviously accept homosexual leadership, many others do not. It would be a constant problem.

2. Homosexuals should not be promoting paradigms corrosive of society. I agree with Joyce that The Homo and the Negro does this. Joyce's critiques of Counter-Currents in general are, in my opinion, correct. When you have a pro-White site defending gay marriage and promoting The Homo and the Negro and My Nationalist Pony, then I say there is a problem, and it is not acceptable.

3. There should not be any hidden homosexual cabal promoting specifically homosexual interests in pro-White activism. Currently this does seem to exist,and it is not acceptable.

Are those provisos practically possible if homosexuals are involved in pro-White activism?Joyce would presumably say no; I myself do not know.

More homosexual apologia.  I’m shocked, shocked I say!

Greg Johnson:

…second conversation with Hugh MacDonald offers a defense of some forms of vanity, pretentiousness, and snobbery.

Good to see that Johnson practices what he preaches!