A RESPONSE TO GREG JOHNSON'S ESSAY "GAY PANIC ON THE ALT RIGHT"

Let me first point out that I have no problem with Greg Johnson personally. I think, unlike many in the Aut Right, that he has done some sterling work in publishing Rightist poets, authors and philosophers like Juleigh Howard-Hobson, Tito Perdue and Jonathan Bowden. Indeed, contrary to how certain miscreants of the Aut Right attempt to portray me, any critiques I give are utterly impersonal. I do not care one jot about the 'flame wars' between the various personalities of the Aut Right who jockey for position and fame. Beyond exposing out-and-out frauds, the only thing I am interested in is the progression of the wider nationalist movement itself, and the question I always pose is: Does it help the movement? And this is exactly at the heart of the problem with Greg Johnson's essay "Gay Panic on the Alt Right". Although an old essay written in 2016, it resurfaced in the volume The Alternative Right, which mysteriously found its way to my doorstep a couple of months ago.

 

 

 

One of my own essays appeared in the copy in a bowdlerised form, with a negative reference to bronyism notably expurgated. You can find the unexpurgated article by following this link. In any case, the essay itself is rather redundant in that I no longer see any value in the Alt Right, although many of the artists I mention in the essay merely skirted, like me, around the fringes of the largely internet-based phenomenon, and some of these I still think can go on and continue to do good. I realised, of course, that the reason bronyism has been held sacrosanct is that Greg Johnson obviously approves of it to the point of obviating any criticism, as also demonstrated by his publication of 'Buttercup Dew's' My Nationalist Pony. Buttercup Dew a.k.a. Bain Dewitt, a regular writer for Counter Currents, is one of the homosexual clique published by Johnson. A former friend on Facebook, I observed several of Dewitt's bouts of depression and nervous breakdowns, and his homosexuality would appear to stem from this mental instability. I finally gave up on him when he claimed that White Nationalism was 'damaging' to him about three years ago during one of his episodes. And this begs the question: why did Johnson, the author of The White Nationalist Manifesto, publish someone who regarded White Nationalism with disdain? Perhaps Johnson managed to talk him round, but then one would also have to address Dewitt's misogyny. In "Gay Panic on the Alt Right", Johnson states:

 

 

None has been more vocal than I in showing intolerance towards gamers, MGTOWs and woman-haters, and I would applaud Johnson on this point were it sincere. But how can he be sincere when he tacitly approves of someone with these opinions on women?

 

 

One notes here that his homosexuality and his retarded views on women (or 'wamen', as he disparagingly calls them) are intrinsically linked; and such misogyny is often a distinct feature of male homosexuality, just as the lesbian tends to detest men. One notes how many lesbians make up the front line of the feminist movement and how many MGTOWs turn out to be queer. There are no greater masochists than the male feminist and the 'fag hag'. One notes in the screenshots that Counter Currents published a 'Buttercup Dew' article at the same time as he was enlightening us with his views on women. Does Johnson then share these views in private or merely turn a blind eye to them? Certainly, in the opening paragraph of his essay, Johnson says that the movement "tends to scare off women." Is there any wonder? And surely one must address who it is exactly who is scaring off women and why.

 

But we have rather jumped the gun here: let us go back to the beginning of Johnson's essay, starting with the title. Johnson always uses the word "gay", which is a propagandist term invented by the LGBT lobby. I use either the scientific term homosexual or the colloquial term queer, a neutral term used by both homosexuals and normal people alike. The latter colloquialism is apt, as it characterises homosexuals for what they are: strange or peculiar. "Gay", however, characterises them falsely, as happy and joyous, which they invariably are not. It also means that a once-positive word has now had its primary meaning perverted in the Left's constant war on semantics. Gone is the gay sabre of poetry, as opposed to the dismal science of economics, and one can no longer listen to the lyrics to the Flintstones' theme tune without wincing or bemusement at the end. In short, "gay" is a word the LGBT Left have subverted, and for a supposed Rightist not merely to accept this subversion but to promote it, is cause for concern. This might, to some, seem like an overwrought quibble, but it is revelatory when we get to the meat and gravy of the article:

 

 

We come back to the queer eye on male-female relations, in all senses of the word queer. One notes the willingness to separate men from women, to keep the movement as an exclusively male sphere, to maintain it as a sausage fest. Johnson mentions the Left quite a lot, as though criticism of the actions of queers associates one with the Left. He speaks of mistrust, yet one must place the blame for this mistrust squarely where it belongs: at those who would divide White Men and White Women. In doing so, is he any different to the feminists and MGTOWs he purports to criticise? Secondly, one of the reasons the Left won out was because they found a role for women. It was of course designed ultimately to destroy Whites in general, both men and women, but the fact that the Right had long-since abandoned any concern for the role of women meant women were easy to tempt into any role that made them feel important. This is something Sir Oswald Mosley realised and why he managed to sway so many former suffragettes to the BUF. Certainly, it is rather queer that Johnson talks about a Biblical view towards homosexuality, because that is exactly his view on women:

 

 

 

Christianity reduced women to the bearers of "original sin" - a nonsensical Christian concept through which, we are led to believe, Yahweh gave man dominion over woman in Genesis 3:16. In other words, Johnson himself is following Christian teaching when it suits to exclude women. In his opening, he talks about religion excluding women, but this is rather a Christian phenomenon or one from the morally bankrupt decadent multiracial Classical empires, which collapsed into Christianity under their own corruption. It was certainly not the case for the ancient Germanic tribes who sacked Rome. Johnson then rails against potential feminist entryism and "crazy-eyed women" and asserts he is creating a "healthy sexual order":

 

 

While I agree that we do not need nor want feminists or cranks in the movement, they come in both genders, and Savitri Devi might also be regarded as a crank to many. Again, his intolerance of woman-haters is commendable, but is it sincere, as I have mentioned above? But this is rather building up to the real issue at the end of the section above, which is "the healthy sexual order we want to create". What is this sexual order exactly? My idea of a healthy sexual order is clearly not the same as that given in the comments by Buttercup Dew. Is one man putting his penis in the rectum of another healthy to Johnson? Apparently, it is fine for the one doing the penetrating:

 

 

If being the passive partner is immoral, but being the active partner is not, does it not follow that the active partner makes the passive partner immoral by penetrating him? Is the active partner not then guilty of corrupting others? This was the logical charge brought against the likes of Oscar Wilde and probably Socrates. So then where do the passive partners come from if passive homosexuality is immoral? If you engage in sex with the men of your own race, you are responsible for corrupting the men of your own race; if you are engaging in sex with men outside your race, you have opened the doors of your society to multiracialism. I invite Greg Johnson to provide an explanation of how he avoids this obvious paradox. His reference to Julius Caesar is an appeal to a pre-Christian authority figure is odd because he has considered the morality of ancient peoples an irrelevance to the modern world. Why mention Julius Caesar at all then? Indeed, all religious traditions suddenly become an irrelevance:

 

 

It is very curious indeed that an allegedly Rightist thinker and proprietor of an allegedly Rightist publishing house would suddenly reject the relevance of tradition. Why are the views of ancient people relevant? Let us turn again to our old friend, the Roman historian Sallust, who presaged the collapse of the Roman Empire due to its internal corruption, especially sexual corruption:

 

"Men forgot their sex; women threw off all the restraints of modesty."

 

The truth Sallust gives us is eternal and is the same for every age. When dissecting the fall of Western civilization, how can one address the sexual corruption of modern women without mentioning the sexual corruption of modern men? The queer lobby of Counter Currents (James O'Meara, Buttercup Dew, Jack Donovan and the like) are often very eager to point to the failings of sexually decadent women, but what of sexually decadent men? Johnson is keen to defend Donovan in the article, particularly from criticism received in the wake of his appearance at NPI; yet what does Jack Donovan bring to the table? He believes, in his own words, that 'a contemporary American nationalism cannot be about race...' His value to some seems to be his homosexuality, which is proffered as an intrinsic good. His views on masculinity are informed by his homosexuality and are as ill-informed as his views on male-female relations. His assertion that 'masculinity is about being a man within a group of men' is as monocular as those of any lesbian feminist. It is the view of someone who wishes to shut men away from women for his own gratification. Masculinity takes many forms, but it is invariably about men's dealings with BOTH sexes. In short, Donovan is indefensible and O'Meara more so.

 

 

The section above is totally disingenuous. Johnson is providing answers to questions only he himself is asking, but not addressing legitimate concerns. Malicious rumours about someone's sexuality is obviously not the same as an open queer using power, money and influence to create homosexual cliques within the movement's hierarchy and to exclude those who are unfavourable towards the promotion of homosexuality. The two options Johnson gives to resolve a problem he has imagined are also disingenuous. Even if one were to address the subject of homosexuals in the movement, there are more options than either getting rid of them or stop caring about them. It is yet another example of the creation of false dichotomies that one sees so often in politics. Each case is different. In general though, homosexuals within the movement ought to have the good sense to advocate heteronormativity or at least keep quiet on the subject of sexuality and, particulary, male-female relations. Ideally, we would not know homosexuals existed within the movement, because most of us do not want to know or care. Indeed, Johnson has rather put the onus on the normal people living next to a noisy neighbour. 

 

Johnson mentions Martin Webster as a model homosexual nationalist, but he had to be repremanded by Eddy Morrison for his predatory behaviour towards young men in the National Front, lest we forget. Equally, the notion that we should stop worrying about homosexual entryism because they are already inside is rather like saying we should stop worrying about Leftist entryism because they are already inside. Someone in the comments section gave Johnson an easy rebuttal by using the example of Jews, but what of Leftists of the same race? The answer is that we should be worried because they do not hold the values conducive to a successful white society. Quite, and the same goes for noisy queers.

 

 

All the way through the 'Gay Panic' article, no explanation is given as to the benefits of homosexuals to the nationalist movement. Again, it is as though homosexuality itself were an intrinsic good. Proffering deficiencies and defects as things of value is certainly a characteristic of Leftist thought. Homosexuality is a form of sexuality that has no function, and I have explored this in articles before, as well as its history of societal destruction. I also mentioned that scientific research has now proven that homosexuality has little to do with genetics, despite all the 'born this way' rhetoric of the queer lobby. in any case, there are plenty of other genetic diseases we ought to seek to eliminate. In short, advocating homosexuality is about as reasonable as normalising haemophilia. There is little difference between Greta Thunberg's rhetoric of neuro-diversity and Johnson's rhetoric of sexual diversity.

 

It is in homosexuals' interests to keep the movement exclusively among men and to promote their own into positions of influence, where they can keep the movement pro-queer. One does not wish to "out" queers who keep their heads down and who are genuine about helping the cause, but if they are genuine, we would not even know they were homosexual, unless someone had gone out of their way to "out" them, which would be akin to doxxing. Yet people who are vocal about being homosexual do not have the best interests of the cause at heart. They put their queer sexuality before their racial identity. It seems to me that the real "gay panic" in the article is Johnson's own. Certainly, the article is full of contradictions and paradoxes, and that suggests it was written in a panic. The panic has been projected onto people with legitmate and serious concerns, and legitimate and serious concerns do not constitute a panic. Attempting to associate legitimate and serious concerns with buffoons like the two Matts Parrott and Heimbach does not delegitimise such concerns.

 

Johnson talks of a movement that is straight but not narrow. I agree with the principle, but does Johnson himself? Johnson has often talked of wanting all shades of the political spectrum to be pro-White, but I am forced to wonder if he does not mean rather pro-queer. His association with anti-White queers like Robert Stark and Francis Nally, who promote miscegenation with Asians, is cause for concern. I hope it not the case that his commitment to homosexuality is greater than his commitment to nationalism, but only he can answer that.