by Kevin Alfred Strom (pictured)
I’ve just read Edgar Steele’s series on sexual deviants and the proper attitude that ought to be taken toward them by White nationalists.
I cannot endorse a 'don't ask - don't tell' policy for our pro-White organizations. The National Alliance has always forbade membership to homosexual and bisexual persons, and that will never change so long as I have anything to say about it. The leaders of the White renaissance are -- or ought to be -- trying to put society back in harmony with Nature. Homosexuality is anti-life, anti-Nature, and its spread and acceptance militates against the survival of our kind.
Of all our goals, none is more central than securing our race's natural and potentially infinite continuity and progress into the future. Having a proper understanding of our sexual nature is a part of that, an essential part. We who presume to lead White society away from its present death march need to embody a life-affirming attitude toward our sexuality. We cannot allow those who embody the opposite to represent us at any level.
To my way of seeing it, sex is sacred. Not in a conventional religious-dogmatic sense, but really sacred: most highly valuable, inviolable, entitled to reverence and respect. If we do not honor, respect, and revere the sexual nature that brought us into being; if we do not honor and respect our mate, our lover, that which we claim is most highly valued; then what can we respect? Nothing, I expect. And therein lies the cause of much of the misery and purposelessness of the modern world.
The part of our nature that makes men and women come together (and yes, in both senses of the word) and stay together is what connects us with the distant past, all the way to the beginning of life, and, as I said, to the infinite future. Homosexuality is a rejection of that sacred bond. It is a rejection of that continuity. It is a set of attitudes and behaviors that mocks sex, and degrades it at worst into a disease-infested chamber of horrors and death -- and at best into a sick and pathetic kind of "game."
Some homosexuals are born (and one pities them), but I am not at all sure that it is the great majority. Homosexuals do recruit, and they usually recruit teens or preteens who are at a very vulnerable stage in their lives. Some of these children, tricked into experiencing sexual pleasure for the first time at the hands of a pervert, are imprinted (like the baby ducks who think a human is their mother if they see a human first upon hatching) by the experience and henceforth identify members of their own sex as appropriate "mates" for them. It's very sad, very sick, and very harmful to the race. How many White children were never born because of this?
I see Sex, Family, and Race as a kind of natural trinity. When sex is decoupled from the other two, as the Jewish establishment and trash culture and the anti-natal crowd want it to be, then it becomes nothing more than a source of pleasure.
Viewed in that way, why should we disparage or restrict whatever causes pleasure, sexual or otherwise? Why not a bit of voluntary masochism or sadism? Why not wife-swapping, as long as everyone agrees? Whatever floats your boat, right? Why not "sex" with animals, as long as the animals aren't hurt? Why not sex with children, as a few chosen psychologists are starting to say isn't really harmful after all? Why not sex with machines? Why not the "orgasmatron" machine posited by Jewish "comedian" Woody Allen? Why not non-stop masturbation to Jew-produced porno films? It gives pleasure and reduces the White birthrate -- all good, right? So obviously, why not homosexuality and bisexuality and any kind of sexuality you can think of? After all, doesn't the rock song tell us "any kind of lovin' is all right" and "if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with" and it's OK to "walk on the wild side"? Once you take away the sanctity of the sexual act and its natural linkage to family and race, there's no limit to the unnatural acts that can -- and will -- ensue and be promoted to our young people under the rubric of “whatever gets your rocks off,” meaning whatever gives you pleasure.
I would find it very difficult to enjoy a pro-homosexual film, no matter what its qualities of direction, music, et cetera -- just as I would feel sick viewing an art work celebrating racial mixing or cannibalism or torture, no matter how skilfully done. I don’t find these ‘differently wired’ people noble or funny. Some are wired so differently that they think that torture is just A-OK and 'fun' -- and some of these people even like to be on the receiving end of torture, too, a few even to the point of willingly allowing themselves to be tortured, killed, and then eaten, and deriving pleasure from these acts (or, in the case of being eaten, the anticipation of the act). Needless to say, many such beings self-identify as homosexuals. There's more than one wire crossed, I say! The point is: Once we have thrown out our sexual standards and accepted the ‘pleasure principle,’ there is then no limit to the perversions we will be asked to accept.
Of course, we can recognize that there are some homosexuals who were born defective or who were psychologically twisted as youths, and know it. They refrain from making their defect known, some to the extent of never or almost never acting on it. Such people deserve our understanding and compassion. Certainly they would never consider such a dishonorable act as promoting or perpetuating their serious defect. Since laws restricting homosexuality would have essentially no effect on such harmless persons, but would have the very beneficial effect of holding debauchers and disease-spreaders and racial destroyers in check, I have to say that such laws are good for the race.
 ILLUSTRATION: Psyche, by Arno Breker.
Prudishness, which came into our culture at least partially via the Torah and the people of the Torah, is a negative influence, too, and I think it sometimes forces suppressed sexuality into abnormal channels; witness the legendary levels of perversion among 'celibate' priests. Making normal sex into something 'shameful' or 'evil' puts it on a more or less equal footing with perversions, doesn't it?
I think that normal sexuality should be celebrated more in our art and our media, and I would encourage such a trend if I had the power to do so. The Classical attitude toward nudity in art, for example, which experienced a great resurgence in the years from the Renaissance up to the late 19th century, is wholly healthy and good in my view. The artistic worship of the beauty of the body provides a respectful -- yet still sensual -- outlet for expression of our normal sexual attitudes. With enough of it, officially encouraged, sleazy pornography would wither on the vine. And artistic presentations of the body also offer an idealized vision of racial perfection, too -- something that the Jews well know, which is why they prefer "abstract" or primitive art in which racial ideals couldn't be expressed even if the artist wanted to do so.
|
NV phone message