← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Mike
Thread ID: 12737 | Posts: 21 | Started: 2004-03-14
2004-03-14 09:06 | User Profile
[url]http://www.thornwalker.com:16080/ditch/neff_ar2004.htm[/url]
A strange moment at the AR
By RONN NEFF
I, too, attended the AR [American Renaissance] Conference, and easily the strangest moment came during the question-and-answer period after Joe Sobran's speech. In the course of it, Sobran had made a few comments about the homosexual agenda in conjunction with same-sex unions. He employed once again a favorite quotation of his from G.K. Chesterton that refers to "the modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal."
One of those who stood in line to ask Sobran a question was a fellow who took issue with Sobran's use of the concept "normal" while discussing homosexuality. In what sense, he asked, could homosexuality be considered abnormal, since it had a genetic origin? Sobran replied, and the man, dissatisfied with the answer, repeated his theme. In the exchanges that followed it was clear that the questioner was becoming ever more agitated, and that he simply did not get Sobran's point that the normal and the abnormal have nothing to do with statistics.
In the end, the fellow said that he simply disagreed with Sobran ââ¬â and he stormed out of the banquet hall. A few questioners later, a slightly androgynous-looking, nattily dressed younger chap (who had worn his natty hat indoors the whole conference) came to the microphone to say that he agreed with the earlier questioner about the genetic origin of homosexuality.
This second fellow was wearing a pin that indicated that he was a member of the National Alliance. The previous questioner may have been, also, though I saw no pin on him.
I venture my own judgment ââ¬â as one who has lived in the Washington, D.C., area for 35 years and who spent a fair amount of that time as a member of a high-church Episcopal congregation ââ¬â that both men were homosexuals. I was under the impression that the National Alliance was inhospitable to homosexuality, but perhaps its policy has more of a "don't ask, don't tell" character when it comes down to the actual application.
In any case, what amused and puzzled me most about these exchanges was this: whether homosexuality is of a genetic origin or not is really quite beside the point of whether it is hostile to white Western and Christian civilization. (Not that the National Alliance cares a whit about Christian civilization.) Surely that should be clear to anyone who believes that race ââ¬â which is of a genetic origin if anything is ââ¬â is a legitimate basis of social and geopolitical exclusion and that casual attitudes about race are similarly destructive of Western and Christian civilization.
March 5, 2004
2004-03-15 15:29 | User Profile
I wonder if this is true or not.
If not, then on what basis does the NA exclude homos?
2004-03-15 21:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
This second fellow was wearing a pin that indicated that he was a member of the National Alliance. The previous questioner may have been, also, though I saw no pin on him.[/QUOTE]
Having been an Alliance member since 1996, I hope I can shed some light on this question. First off, the National Alliance membership application specifically asks the applicant whether or not he is a homosexual or a bisexual and stipulates that if he is either one, then he is inelligible for National Alliance membership. If the name of this little pervert could be forwarded to Alliance authorities, I have no doubt he'd be expelled from the organization (as we've expelled members for less, such as for getting sloppy drunk at an Alliance function where alcohol was served).
We can't, however, control all our individual members, since most are not very public about their membership. He may have worn his Alliance pin (which one receives upon becoming a member; ownership of said pin is not proof of present membership status in the Alliance) to an American Renaissance gathering (thus humiliatingly undermining the Alliance in front of some of our most important allies) but the deeds of this individual poofter should not reflect negatively on the organization as a whole. IF he is a member, and IF we knew who he was, he would ne unceremoniously booted and barred from our future events.
A man named Walter Mueller, a German immigrant and professional pastry chef, used to attend Alliance functions in Sacramento (and, in point of fact, I recently saw him at David Irving's lecture in San Francisco) but once it was deemed that the rumours were true, so to speak, he was barred from even attending our events and was personally insulted (in a somewhat over-the-top moment, in my humble opinion) in the California Alliance newsletter. In any event, I always suspected the man to be a homosexual and once that became the prevailing view, he was not permitted to attend our events (at least one of which, attended by Dr. Pierce, he had provided the numerous and very good desserts for). I think that says a lot more about our attitude towards homosexuality than the fact that some mincing queer showed up at an AR conference.
As for upon what basis we ban homosexuals, well, its largely a spiritual and esthetic issue. Do the Christian Nationalists on this board really think that they'd embrace homosexuality if the Bible neglected to sufficiently condemn it? Of course not; its vileness is self-evident. What would make one think we cosmotheist pagans in the Alliance can't see that as well?
2004-03-16 02:07 | User Profile
If Mueller was interested enough in the future of his race for him to attend NA meetings, that is fine by any means. If he was gay and was interested in the future of his own people for him to attend a NA meeting, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Actually, I think that would be something worth looking into. Considering the slices of homosexuality one sees in Amerikwa 2004, the idea of a gay man interested in White Nationalism and being an active participant runs contrary to the multiculti ideology that is an aspect of homosexuality today. I don't think it was right for the newsletter to openly debase him; that was irrational. If he was there to disrupt the meetings and shouting epithets like "Stop Racism!" or "Fight Homophobia!" then I could see the reasons behind his expulsion from the meetings and open criticism in the newsletter. And I'm sure he made fine pastries for the participants.
2004-03-16 02:34 | User Profile
Homosexuality must not be allowed to gain a foothold/toehold in the WN movement. If that happens, then other non-traditional values will appear in the WN movement.
2004-03-16 10:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robbie]If Mueller was interested enough in the future of his race for him to attend NA meetings, that is fine by any means. [/QUOTE]
Robbie: I think you're missing the point that if was indeed interested in the future of his race he'd form a lifelong partnership with a woman and have children. This is where the rubber meets the road - nobody can claim to be for the survival of our European, Christian and English-speaking American nation and pursue a lifestyle which, if broadly accepted, would work directly to undermine our bedrock social institutions of marriage and family.
In fact, let me add that anybody pretending to leadership in a movement for our national survival who has not himself/herself made the personal sacrifice in our collective survival of founding and raising a family is of questionable sincerity.
There may be a few exceptions, but if a man hasn't done that then he's more likely than not just a tourist or worse.
If we are to survive we must build upon the institutions of marriage and family, and allow NOTHING, especially the sanctioning or even tolerance of homosexual sodomy, to threaten them.
I have nothing to do with any movement that would even consider cooperating with unrepentant sodomites.
Walter
2004-03-16 17:52 | User Profile
I think if I were a fag and I wanted to disrupt a group of non-perverts, I might wear the insignia of that group to one of its functions, making myself well known. Afterwards, seeking to sow dissension within the ranks, I might write an article decrying the organization for accepting perverts, though it never had.
But do we even really know this happened, or did someone just write the article? That would, after all, be the path of least resistance.
2004-03-16 20:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robbie]If Mueller was interested enough in the future of his race for him to attend NA meetings, that is fine by any means. If he was gay and was interested in the future of his own people for him to attend a NA meeting, I wouldn't have a problem with that. [/QUOTE]
Opening the door for homosexuals would be a disaster. And, if any of them claimed to be interested in my people, I would be very dubious.
My people cannot prosper without a strong moral foundation.
2004-03-17 06:55 | User Profile
Freud and his fellow Jewish psychologists where critisized for trying to reduce the peoples need for group bonding, into homosexuality. Basically, they tried to stop some of the various movements of the time from getting together and being close to each other, getting intimate in a primitivistic group-sense, something a psychiatrist knows people have a instinctive longing for. This beutiful, intimate and rightous thing, Freud tried to reduce into, you know, dark-backroom, smutty penetratinon focused drug ridden homo-culture. They succseded, we see this around us today.
If there was such an agenda as described above, then one central part of the plan would be to increase peoples homophobia, that is to riddicule and silence any traditions or experiments involving say, males coming together and beeing close together, other than the stereotypical gay horror scenarious one can observe surrounding us today.
So. Your pointy boots and broad brimmed hats and your male American culture, the whole ignorant, the whole, shall we say scared approach to our sexuality and real sentiments needs some re-evaluation and possebly modification. The "gay" culture and smut society is gaining ground, there is a problem in our current approach to solving this and this needs to be faced.
The problem is the trend people in the media. They are the ones guilty of putting these unhealthy values into peoples heads. The real issue will ultimately be why is'ent our beutiful girls having more babies, whats stopping them from fulfilling their life's desires and having many children? Who is responsible for that development? The problem is not a group of males, say, sitting in a sauna, naked with their arms around the next man's red neck, singing Russian-style choire songs.
The problem is these new attitudes, ideas or resignations in our female cultural society and the mental virus these poor, poor people are under attack from.
We need to get comforable with ourselves as a people, as a living organism, and fast. Because there is some pretty well fed competition out there..
2004-03-17 07:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]While this is true, what's really lowering white reproductive rates isn't homosexuality (which is a marginal phenomenon restricted to ~2% of the population), but rather the "Double Income, No Kids" (DINK) phenomenon, which is far from marginal, particularly among the middle and upper classes. And unlike homosexuality, being a DINK is completely culturally acceptable even in the most conservative social circles.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that, but I see the DINK/Feminism/Sodomite thing as facets of essentially the same phenomenon.
All of these bad ideas are based upon the notion that we exist only as individuals on not as cells in a single organism (Locke's civil society versus Paul's Body of Christ), that society is a web of contracts between autonomous entities, and that the highest value is the individual.
If one buys that idea of the supremacy of the individual over society, then the rest follows. If a young woman prefers career to family and a poodle to five children, then her feelings are supreme and nobody can question it.
If a man prefers to live with another man whom he sodomizes every day instead of a woman with whom he'd have children, then since his feelings are the only moral imperative who can complain?
My wife has a friend who lent her the Sex in the City series on DVD, and we watched the first several shows. It's worth a look as a window into the Culture of Critique. In this fabled Manhattan, sex is really just another bodily function, everybody does everybody else in a pecking order set by a sort of bedroom stockmarket, and nobody has any children. At the root of this terrible necrosis of our social body is the poison notion that we exist only as individuals. That society is a contractual thing, and not an organismic thing.
If we hope to survive we must challenge that fundamentally.
So, I agree that homosexuality isn't the proximate cause of our declinging birthrates, but it is part and parcel of a world view that leads directly to our killing sterility.
Walter
2004-03-17 16:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kosmos Luftwaffe]Freud and his fellow Jewish psychologists...[/QUOTE]
Kosmos, your post looks like contradictory gibberish to me.
2004-03-17 20:44 | User Profile
Well, according to Nietzsche everything is contradictory gibberish and the only thing that has any meaning is the things that rules ewerything, namely the underlying emotions..
And I'm happy to see this reaction in you, and I belive you'll let these things and thoughts move inside you in some way, for some time, Hacker. And this prosess will, I assume, in time let you emphesize not so much on the gibberish part.
So you don't think Freud was evil, trying to pin the insanity tag on some good things? You don't see the historical co-ordination addressed by some conspiralogists?
2004-03-19 16:36 | User Profile
It looks like the enemies of the National Alliance have resorted to tactics reminiscent of those used by National Enquirer in their futile attempt to discredit the NA and bring our momentum to a halt.
Here we have a situation where a guy with a life rune pin stood up at the AR conference and "agreed with the earlier questioner about the genetic origin of homosexuality".
From this act, we have Mike here claiming in the title of his thread, "Gays Accepted by the National Alliance".
shakes head Such desperation speaks for itself.
Let me ask Mike and Ronn Neff a question: How did it feel to be at the AR Conference in February, where the NA was by far the most represented organization? Did it make you feel good to see several NA members diligently distributing NA literature and talking with people who expressed interest in joining the largest, most organized pro-white group in North America?
Let me just say that we got more than a few recruits at the AR Conference, thank you very much. :thumbsup:
2004-03-21 00:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
I have nothing to do with any movement that would even consider cooperating with unrepentant sodomites.[/QUOTE]
And there you have it: Irrespective of whether this quote represents the most useful perpsective, so to speak, there are probably 50-100 people we might be able to recruit who think along these lines, for every one homosexual we could otherwise get. I'll take 50-100 unrepentant homophobes, as it were, over a handful of fags any day, if for no other reason than because the former is a bigger number than the latter. The fact that homosexuality constitutes an abomination before our civilization is just icing on the cake....
2004-03-21 04:37 | User Profile
Beliefs and what is infused in the soul is more important and powerful than race will ever be. I would rather shake a straight nigger's hand than shake the hand of a white man who is unrepentant about breaking the natural law of my God. I would also rather have my daughter marry a nigger than be a lesbian.
2004-03-21 16:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo] I would also rather have my daughter marry a nigger than be a lesbian.[/QUOTE]
You would have no problem with your daughter defiling her blood and racial future for her offspring while you would be against her having affections towards someone of the same sex.
I suggest you go to Stormfront's forum and post that exact statement there.
2004-03-21 22:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robbie]You would have no problem with your daughter defiling her blood and racial future for her offspring while you would be against her having affections towards someone of the same sex.
I suggest you go to Stormfront's forum and post that exact statement there.[/QUOTE]
And if he did so, the lumpen proletariat over there would no doubt call him a "stupid mother****er" and generally act like caterwauling Negroes, rather than explain to him, rationally, why he is (and he is) mistaken. That's probably why he's here, instead of there.
In any event, as wrong as he may be, his wrongness is based on his religious faith, so there's really not much point in trying to persuade him. I don't have a daughter but a son (which makes this tougher for me; in my experience, most men would be less horrified by a lesbian daughter than a gay son, and I certainly count myself in that number). Would I rather he be gay than breed with a Negress? Its a tough call. At least if he were with a Negress, he might see the error of his ways (particularly since she'd probably leave him eventually, or perhaps vice versa, since marriage is very seldom forever anymore) and marry a White woman in the future. If he were gay, I suppose he could always go straight, but I suspect that's somewhat less likely than Christian Fundamentalists hope for (even if homosexuality is largely cultural, as seems to be the case, seeing as how it became much more common once the Jews began promoting it). Presumably, homosexuality has its (difficult to fathom) rewards and thus one tends to remain in its thrall.
In the final analysis though, it scarcely matters. Saying one would prefer one's daughter marry a nigger over becoming a dyke, or vice versa, is just empty posturing. The salient point is that both options are totally unacceptable.
2004-03-22 02:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]And if he did so, the lumpen proletariat over there would no doubt call him a "stupid mother****er" and generally act like caterwauling Negroes, rather than explain to him, rationally, why he is (and he is) mistaken.[/QUOTE]
Now, that's an unfair and inaccurate assessment of Stormfront, Mr. O'Keefe. Maybe you haven't been to SF lately, but it's a very cleaned-up place and it actually is only slightly more...dare I say, "radical"?...than Original Dissent :cowboy: In fact, many of the discussions there surpass anything here on OD in terms of being interesting and contributing to a solution that Whites must pursue to achieve victory. Why don't you drop by and give it a second chance?
[url]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/[/url]
2004-03-22 19:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Braveheart]Now, that's an unfair and inaccurate assessment of Stormfront, Mr. O'Keefe. Maybe you haven't been to SF lately, but it's a very cleaned-up place and it actually is only slightly more...dare I say, "radical"?...than Original Dissent :cowboy: In fact, many of the discussions there surpass anything here on OD in terms of being interesting and contributing to a solution that Whites must pursue to achieve victory. Why don't you drop by and give it a second chance?
[url]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/[/url][/QUOTE]
Its possible I may be being unfair; I haven't been there in a while and I was basing my remarks somewhat on the reports of others. Still, the phenomenon to which I was alluding is not difficult to find on the net....
2004-03-23 22:11 | User Profile
There is some poetic dissonance here, something funny and interesting. So, here is a bunch of men in a heated discussion on weather or not to bond in some umbrella organisation and thereby have the power to pressure the land into acnowledging the demands of the right wing men.
And the topic of discussion is how to mistreat men who seem to like other men all too good. But it's not possible for the partys involved to have enough liking for each other to be able to agree on a policy in oppressing the others..
Well, keep me updated on this one.
2004-03-24 01:34 | User Profile
Quote: Originally Posted by Exelsis_Deo
I would also rather have my daughter marry a nigger than be a lesbian.
You would have no problem with your daughter defiling her blood and racial future for her offspring while you would be against her having affections towards someone of the same sex.
I suggest you go to Stormfront's forum and post that exact statement there
Well I don't feel like signing up for Stormfront. Why don'y you post my message there for me and ask them to come to this board instead plz. I am not saying I want my daughter to marry a Negro.. I would verily be unpleased and let that be known. But, in my opinion, homosexuality is more abhorrent than race mixing. I believe that with all my heart and mind.