Greg Johnson’s

“The gay marriage controversy

by blogger “M”

GregJohnsonMysteryManWithQuestionMarkGreg Johnson states that homosexuality is not unnatural because it exists in nature. This is a very simplistic naturalism, and one that avoids the issue of morality inherent in human action.

First, not every “thing” that exists is natural, nor can every thing be said to exist “in nature.” If it were so, then the word “natural” would not have significant meaning. Nature, or natural things, necessarily excludes artifacts, and abstractions such as universals and mathematics (compare De Anima 402a 4-10). In this context, sexual activity is not a thing, such as a plant or a rock, but rather exists as a drive or inclination toward an end that can be meaningfully said to be either natural, or unnatural. Sexual activity can be deemed natural inasmuch as the act participates in achieving its inherent or essential end, or purpose. It is unnatural to the degree that it deviates from this natural end.

The question to ask, then, is what is the natural end of sex? Johnson himself understands that its principal end is procreation. Therefore, he acknowledges that the principal end (or nature) of sexual activity is necessarily heterosexual. If so, then we must conclude that homosexual activity is most certainly unnatural or, to use another word, perverted. It is so because to use sexual organs in the act of homosexual activity is a perversion, i.e. an unnatural use, of the organ’s natural function.

(As an aside, to state that an act is natural because someone may at some time exhibit the act is to therefore argue that any conceivable act is, or could be, natural. Some men are pedophiles, and some men have sex with sheep. To state that bestiality, or sexual attraction to young girls, is natural is to completely deny the idea of nature.)

In any discussion of sexual function one can discern a hierarchy of manifestations. A normal sexual act leads to the possibility of procreation. Even if one or both of the heterosexual partners is unable to produce offspring (for instance, because of infertility), the heterosexual coupling is still normal because the union of the male and female is consistent with the natural end and function of the sex organs. On the other hand, auto-eroticism is not consistent with this end, and is therefore judged to be unnatural, in spite of the fact that most men, and some say that many women, engage in the practice. Democracy is not the arbiter of nature.

Morality, or right behavior, is action consistent with natural law, and known through the natural light of reason. We find this codified through tradition. Johnson sidesteps the issue of morality, and argues that the “real” issue is reproductive versus non-reproductive sex. He states that that is “all there is to it.” But it is not all there is. There remains the moral question of why homosexuality has been condemned from tradition.

While he does not address this, it is nevertheless of the most importance. Spiritual tradition always understood the interplay of the active male and passive female soul (or animating principle). In order for the social dynamic to work in harmony these two “forces” must maintain equilibrium. They must maintain what is natural, or proper for them. Symbolism shows this in, for example, the Taoist figures of the spinning Yin/Yang conjunction. Whenever the balance becomes upset, degeneration manifests. We can see many examples of this resulting disjunction, for instance within our feminized educational system. Our military will soon be destroyed in the same way.

Through traditional social orders in both the East and West, orders that were adapted to the natures of those respective civilized peoples, the active male principle has for the most part been adequately checked, and channeled through the social institution of marriage. In this context it should not have to be said that from tradition, marriage has always been between male and female.

Here we must unequivocally state that unchecked male sexuality is always destructive to whatever discipline is imposed by traditional social restraints, and homosexuality represents a hyper instance of unrestrained male sexual degeneration. Anyone who has had the misfortune to live in a city where homosexuality is “celebrated” as an official event can understand. Parades with men on floats wearing only their underwear, gyrating to Negro inspired music, and other acts of uncivility are common. Disease follows the homosexual “community.” And so on and so forth.

Johnson is correct to cite the breakdown of traditional marriage as a problem for society, and his solutions for the maintenance of heterosexual relations are sound. He lists eight principles that should be supported by government. But in the realm of sexual morality and mores, he should also cite the criminalization of public shows of homosexuality, because homosexuality is at its core anti-family. And law should always support the family as the principal foundation or means of propagating the race.

His talk of affirming the real as the ideal, and the integrity of one’s values as the highest value, etc., are for the most part simply words that may sound good, but lack much substance within his context. Here, we must face the fact that most people cannot become moral by or through themselves. Tradition demonstrates that external force is always necessary, and discipline in both personal and societal matters can only be maintained through coercion. Johnson is correct that homosexuals ought to fully support the natural heterosexual order. But the way they must do it is to renounce their public homosexual demands, and to move their aberrant behavior back into the privacy of the closet. There, home alone, they can be left alone.

If they do not, they are guilty of assisting in the destruction of civilization.

28 Replies on “Greg Johnson’s

  1. well greg is a fag isn’t he? so at the very bottom, hands down, “mano-e-mano” he is rationalizing his beliefs. whatever, i say, if there is ever a possibility to form a state based on our ideals, fags will be treated like they are in rus. hands down, i don’t have a big problem with fags personally, but the consensus does. in the old days the fags of my ancestors (the o’irish) had to go live away from society in monesterys and be asexual and live for knowledge. i am no christian but at least the body denying aspect of the christians controlled the fags and forced the excess energy into other directions.

  2. Chechar, I’m very concerned with this topic because i’ll be helping to prepare a family law course in my university, however as I read the core texts on the subject they have all been infested by this idea that same sex unions and same sex marriages are a matter of “equality” and should be allowed and even promoted in order to recognize the human rights of the LGTBIQ.

    I’m disgusted by this, because I don’t want to keep spreading the same egalitarian bullshit that doesn’t remember history and what happened with Sodoma and Gomorra and with the latter Roman Empire; that doesn’t reflect for a moment that marriages aren’t about love but are primarily a “contract” and are based first on reproduction and then on the principle “lecho, mesa y techo” (bed, table and roof) from which the division of the labor and the reciprocal duties of the man and the woman come from.

    As I said before in the link below, I also think that this unnatural promotion of unnatural sexual relations, making a private matter public, could eventualy lead that poligamy, incest and gay incest would become legal and socially aceptable.

    I haven’t considered a racial perspective on this because myself I’m not white but I respect the consideration and the right of the peoples to self determination and to keep their culture intact from external forces. That right starts in the bedroom, yet we don’t stop fucking for a moment and start thinking about the kind of descendants we are leaving to this world.

    This comment by now it’s very long but I ask you, please, help me in suggesting a non-leftist/egalitarian/feminist family law or roman law text that teaches the importance of the family.

    (link)

    1. I recommend your reading of the articles by F. Roger Devlin that have been published here and in other websites. Really, really must-reads! (And don’t worry if you are not white: this is for everyone.)

    1. I would only reply that while aspects of my writing can be said to flow from a certain line of Scholastic thought, particularly that associated with Thomist Realism (think Étienne Gilson), it is not, strictly speaking, Christian, but also includes (and is really founded upon) Classical Greek philosophy, namely Aristotle. Although not mentioned in the article, one can also compare Plato’s Symposium and his Laws in order to find additional suggestions. Finally, aspects within the Eastern Tradition are referenced. Nothing I write would ever be given the Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur.

  3. Homosexual behaviour is exceptionally rare among animals in the wild. Only yesterday I read of the discovery of a two-headed turtle. It occurs in nature, so presumably Greg would argue that it’s natural.

    1. That will be an easy one. Accepting homo marriage, etc, is only the latest liberal layer, and therefore the first that will get peeled off during the convergence of catastrophes (see the previous entries).

  4. As a side note, I’m not a sports fan and I mock those who are, but I always follow international soccer. The miscegenated Brazilian soccer team is playing Spain as I type; this is symbolic warfare.

    I love all of the symbols and racial artifacts of Spain, they are a great representative of Traditional Europe.

    I hope they win FIFA for the white race it would be a victory.

    1. Spaniard message to Mandela

      ”Mandinga, we are with you”

      Really that the game are ”symbolic warfare”??

      1. Whites versus non-whites in sports. Most people identify with a sports team, so this is a good way to promote racism in my mind.

        I always root for the whitest team in Europe to win the World Cup.

  5. I think Greg is right about it, ”homossexuality” is natural because exist in nature. Well, should be rare trait or combination of traits but, human intelligence is absolutelly more rare than homo behavior right?
    Human mind is unique but also is natural.
    The problem about the gay propaganda is
    – is orchestrated by jews
    – serve only to jewish interests
    – introduce to public cenario determinated close choices or behavior that do not should be to debate into a breakfast table
    and in my opinion, create other secondary scapegoat for misrepresente attention of public, especialy white public, about the matrix main and in a near future used gays, blacks and muslims as fisical scapegoat

  6. I am not a gay or homo myself, but it does appear that one’s sexual orientation is not a consciously made choice. I certainly didn’t choose to be so-called straight, and neither do gays, from what I’ve read of what they say about themselves, choose to be gay.

    In James O’Meara’s book “The Homo & the Negro” (I bought the Kindle version of his book a few months ago) he makes in the first few pages what sounds like a very good argument for acceptance of homos by the American Right.

    I’ll paraphrase his argument: Gays on average are more intelligent and artistic than non-gays. However, because the American Right largely rejects them, gays have no choice but to side with the Left. Consequently, the Right loses the aid and support that gays — many of whom would choose the Right if not for the Right’s outright rejection of them — could provide.

    So, I too agree with Greg Johnson’s non-rejecting attitude toward gays also known as homos.

    1. To have a reasonable discussion on the subject I would ask you to drop the New Speak and call “gays” homos, or homosexuals (I can only think in Old Speak). That’s the first step.

      1. I prefer the one-syllable word ‘gays’ for homos, but if you want to reply to James O’Meara’s argument, I’ll confine any further reply to using the word ‘homos’ only (the word ‘homosexuals’ is too long with too many syllables, which is why I don’t like to use it).

      2. James’ claim that homos are not siding our civ because civ’s defenders shun them is a typical woman’s shit test on straight males.

        First of all, I am not against, say, Oscar Wilde’s homosexuality or Michelangelo’s in the sense that letting these guys alone is the best policy. But this has nothing to do with shit tests in our century: “either you accept socially my inclinations or else”.

        James’ homosexuality is typical not of the great geniuses that happen to be homos, but of the feminist mentality that permeates the so-called “gay” movement of our times. (Though there’s nothing “gay” or “cheerful” in the contemporary homo scene but pathetic and promiscuous lives that end in solitude and without the zest that comes with having a real family.)

        1. So, referring back to James O’Meara’s argument: are you saying that even if the American Right were accepting of homos, that by far most homos would still reject the Right and side with the Left, to the extent they are already doing?

      3. Let’s put it this way.

        It is not that the “right” is reluctant to accept them. It’s that, if I may use my case of what moves me to WN, my adolescent love for the nymph Catalina (see the girl with ginger-hair on the sidebar) retroactively makes me, obviously, feel revulsion for those brute bears with minds of a butterfly, so to speak. It is a thoroughly natural reaction when seeing two adult, macho men kissing each other on the streets.

        Neither James nor anyone can demand from me—me, whose mind is made out with the bricks of Aryan female beauty!—to view the exact opposite and accept it unconditionally, which is what James demands when he reproduces pics of grotesque transvestites in the “About me” pages of his blogs.

        It is all common sense. When a homo crosses the line to hysterically demand that his perversions be accepted just like we accept Norman Rockwell’s stamps of family values, he’s stepping into dangerous territory: a territory that in a healthy society would mean sending these guys to reeducational concentration camps.

        1. Okay, your reply appears to be saying that you are so rejecting of homos because of their sexual preference and practices, that you don’t care if they could help the Right if the Right would just accept them — by “accept them” I mean being politically neutral to them regarding their sexual preference and practices, instead of the current outright public rejection and condemnation of homos by what appears to be most of the current Right including yourself.

      4. No: what I am saying is that overt, non-closet displays of homosexuality are both cultural & race-destroying, as Faye said in the Michael O’Meara article that I reproduced today. (I’ve illustrated this in one of my articles about James in relation to the city of San Francisco.)

      5. @Chechar

        You have dealt with the homosexual issue very eloquently. By far, you are the best thinker in modern WN to date that I have read (I include a lot of scholars in that category with the possible exception of Tom Sunic).

        Keep up the good work.

      6. Ops. Flattery makes me feel a little embarrassed (but thanks anyway 🙂

        Sunic has an enormous culture, higher than any of us: a true intellectual in the European sense. The high IQ of MacDonald, Johnson and even Brad Griffin is obvious. But my pathetic experience with chess players has shown me that even those with highest IQs (think of Bobby Fischer) sometimes commit terrible mistakes, and not only on the chessboard but on the Board of Life so to speak.

        My previous involvement in cults and pseudosciences has made me, in my middle 50s, wiser than I was in my twenties…

  7. Another problem with the homos is that you will end up with a homo-elite just like the jew elite. Now imagine You (or your son) having to grow up in a world with older men leering at him, using a system of sexual favors acting as a means of career advancement (ala Boss-secratary).

    Unfortunately, that system can (and has) worked before which makes it essential to cut it down before it flourishes again.

  8. According to Google, 11 hours ago Occidental Dissent posted an article that started Greg Johnson on homosexuality. In a new article he will probably regret writing, Greg Johnson has waded into the gay marriage thicket at Counter-Currents.” It has been deleted. Anyone of you got a chance of looking at its contents or commentariat before deletion?