By Max Musson:
The issue of homosexuality and the attitude that nationalists should adopt towards homosexuals is a recurring one and one that is in my experience repeatedly dealt with inadequately. I have therefore in this article embellished upon comments that I have made regarding an earlier article that touched upon this subject.
Clearly, homosexuality is abnormal in the sense that the reproduction of our species depends upon the existence of two sexes and the mutual attraction that exists between men and women, and any form of behaviour, should it become widespread, which interferes with the sexual attraction between men and women and the function of sexual activity to lead on to procreation, must be regarded with concern. Therefore the phenomenon of homosexuality can be classed together with: deliberate childlessness; abortion on demand; the promotion of the contraceptive pill; the encouragement of career women to place their work above their desire for marriage and a family; and the encouragement of both men and women to regard sex as a primarily recreational pursuit, is one of a whole range of issues that threaten our fecundity and ultimately the survival of our race.
The difference between homosexuality and the other issues listed above, is that all of the other issues are a matter of opinion and lifestyle choice, whereas homosexuality would appear to be a matter of compulsion, in that it continually re-appears in each successive generation of every society, irrespective of whether or not as a practice it is tolerated or persecuted and even in societies in which conviction of homosexual practice incurs the death penalty. Indeed, as homosexuality is widely regarded as a form of behaviour that threatens the survival of our race by reducing overall fecundity, we often overlook the fact that as homosexuals cannot reproduce, this consequence of their behaviour should have had a far more pronounced effect upon their numbers, and one would have expected homosexuality to have become extinct long ago.
In terms of the causes of homosexuality a debate has raged over several decades with devout Christians and fundamentalist Muslims on the one hand declaring that it is a form of sinful behaviour, and with homosexual rights campaigners and predominantly cultural Marxists on the other, declaring that it is a genetic and therefore ‘natural’ phenomenon. In this respect I tend to agree with the latter group, however while Marxists and homosexual rights campaigners assert that because homosexuality occurs ‘naturally’, it should be regarded as ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable’, I assert on the contrary, that simply because something occurs naturally it does not follow that it should be regarded as ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’ by society as a whole.
Many debilitating genetic deformities occur naturally, but it would be a nonsense to suggest that they should be regarded as ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’. However, just as with any other debilitating genetic condition, the presence of which should not expose the individuals concerned to vilification and persecution, so homosexuals should not be vilified or persecuted simply on the basis of their sexual orientation.
We must draw a clear distinction here between militant gay rights extremists and predatory homosexuals on the one hand, and on the other, homosexuals who are in their behaviour modest, responsible and decent.
The fact that homosexuality does recur generation after generation, despite the fact that homosexuals do not reproduce and despite the fact that they are persecuted in many societies, indicates strongly that homosexuality is primarily caused genetically by a combination of several normally recessive genes rather than culturally, as acquired behaviour. Furthermore, the fact that these recessive genes exist and that through chance recombination they produce a relatively small number of homosexual men in every generation within all societies regardless of race, culture or ethnicity, indicates strongly that there was probably a time during human evolution when an evolutionary advantage was conferred upon those human populations carrying those genes and including such a minority.
My hypothesis is that at the hunter-gatherer stage of human evolution, when the majority of men were required to leave their home settlements and follow the migratory herds of prey animals in order to hunt them and provide food for their families, it was dangerous to leave the women and children undefended and an evolutionary advantage was conferred upon those human groups that were able to leave a small group of men behind to guard their families while most men were away hunting for extended periods.
In populations that had no homosexual men, it was not possible for the menfolk to leave their women in the care of other heterosexual men without fearing that the men left behind would abuse their position of trust and seduce the wives of the absent hunters. Only those societies in which a minority of the men of each generation were homosexual would have a body of young men they could trust to guard their women and children, and in this way the recessive genes for homosexuality became fixed within all surviving human populations.
My hypothesis is that all men carry a small proportion of these recessive genes, in such a small quantity that their heterosexuality and the heterosexuality of their children is not compromised. Only when the chance recombination of genes through natural reproduction causes people to be born with too high a proportion of these recessive genes, does homosexuality or a susceptibility to homosexuality occur. Homosexuality is therefore a natural occurance despite being a sexual abnormality. It is a naturally occurring abnormality.
Furthermore, there may come again a time in our evolution when most men will be required to spend extended periods away from our families and as a race we may in those circumstances have need again for a minority of men who can be trusted to guard our womenfolk without sexually molesting them. Therefore we nationalists should be tolerant of those homosexuals who are in all other respects of good character – i.e. who abide by normal standards of decency, who do not exhibit other unhealthy fetishes and practices and who do not feel the need to parade their abnormal sexuality in public. Any antagonism directed towards homosexuals should be reserved solely for those homosexuals, who in common with heterosexual perverts, allow their unbridled sexuality to lead them into behaviour that is indecent, unhealthy or criminal.
Referring to homosexuality as an abnormality is not suggestive of a desire to persecute homosexuals, it is a statement of fact in the same way that Downs Syndrome is an abnormality. We don’t advocate the persecution of people with Downs Syndrome and neither should we advocate the persecution of people who are homosexual. However the ‘price’ of such a tolerant approach is that homosexuals do not abuse the privilege in attempting to promote or celebrate their condition as ‘normal’ or desirable, that they conduct themselves modestly in public and perform their sexual acts in private. This is not an expression of homophobia, it is an expectation that practicing homosexuals will give priority to the interests of our people as a whole and abide by standards of common decency.
If practicing homosexuals are not prepared to give priority to the interests of our people as a whole, then they have no right to expect the rest of us to behave with tolerance towards them. This is called the ‘Law of Reciprocity’ and it is not in the interests of our nation for public decency to be outraged or for socially accepted gender norms to be undermined.
One might at this point ask whether I am asserting that we should have no concerns regarding the promotion of homosexuality as a lifestyle of equal validity to heterosexuality, however that is not what I am arguing. There are real concerns that we should have with regard to the activities of militant homosexual rights campaigners and predatory homosexuals – concerns that should be shared and acknowledged by all decent and responsible people, including homosexuals if they want to be regarded as decent and responsible.
While not all homosexuals exhibit other perverse sexual tendencies, it is a fact that homosexuality is by definition a sexual abnormality and as such, experience demonstrates that having already developed a susceptibility to one sexual abnormality, homosexuals frequently exhibit a susceptibility to other abnormal behaviour also.
Furthermore, homosexuality is all too often a homosexual’s defining personality characteristic and their sexual orientation is a mental pre-occupation, which leads them to talk almost incessantly about their sexuality and very little else. This is quite unlike heterosexuality, in which a person’s sexuality is more often incidental to their other personality characteristics. Celebratory parades by heterosexuals will often be focused around issues unrelated to their sexuality, and even where an event is intended to celebrate fertility and fecundity, such as Easter, the sexual imagery is found to be subtle and understated. This is not so with many homosexuals, whose ‘gay pride’ parades are frequently used as an excuse for lewd and lascivious behaviour in public with exhibitions of behaviour that would normally be regarded as indecent in any other context.
In addition, there is a mass of anecdotal evidence indicating a strong correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia, and between homosexuality and a whole range of other fetishes that are otherwise fairly rare among heterosexuals, such as: leather fetishes; rubber fetishes; tattoo fetishes; bondage; sadomasochism; body piercing; genital mutilation; and in extreme cases, castration fixation and auto/mutual consensual cannibalism.
A tendency towards paedophilia is particularly pronounced, as despite feeling sexually attracted to other men, many homosexuals (the ‘male’ or ‘dominant’ partners) are still aroused by feminine physical characteristics but only when exhibited by males. They are attracted to underdeveloped juvenile muscularity which has not yet been masculinised following puberty; they are attracted to soft, hairless skin and other ‘feminine’ characteristics, typically only found in males prior to puberty. Therefore the dominant homosexual often has a tendency to target pre-pubescent boys and this is why many homosexuals will tell you that their first sexual experience was being seduced by a much older man while they were under the age of sexual consent.
Most men will naturally grow up to be heterosexual irrespective of the environment in which they grow up and irrespective of the attentions they may receive from homosexuals. Similarly a small proportion of men will grow up to be homosexual irrespective of the environment in which they grow up and irrespective of the attentions they receive from women. However there is a proportion of normally heterosexual men who have a susceptibility for their sexuality to be influenced either way, dependent upon the proportion of the recessive homosexual genes they have inherited, dependent upon the environment in which they grow up and dependent upon the ‘sexual fixation’ that results from their first sexual experience, and it is this third category of men that homosexual campaigners and predatory homosexuals hope to influence, particularly when those young men are particularly vulnerable – pre-pubescent or in the early stages of puberty – at the point of their first sexual experience.
The more young men in this third category that are induced into having a first sexual experience that is homosexual, the more of them that will have their later life sexuality ‘fixed’ and determined by that initial experience and the larger the future pool of potential partners that will exist for other homosexuals. In this respect, gay rights campaigns and other proselytising by homosexual groups does deprive wider society of the reproductive capacity of those susceptible men and women who would otherwise grow up heterosexual.
The second major concern that heterosexual people and all decent and responsible homosexuals should share, addresses the issue of hygiene, which exists whenever sexual activity involves the insertion of the male penis or any other foreign body into the excreta contaminated orifice of another person. It is well known in medical circles that there is a strong correlation between homosexuality and the incidence of all forms of sexually transmitted disease and I don’t think it should be necessary for me to explain further the reason for this. Indeed I was once informed by a senior nurse, that a man presenting at a hospital with gonorrhea for example, will be automatically assumed to be homosexual by the healthcare professionals who treat him, so strong is the correlation.
There exists therefore a responsibility on the part of homosexuals to recognise that these issues exist and are of valid concern to the heterosexual majority. They have a responsibility to acknowledge the abnormal nature of their behaviour and to contain it within bounds that the majority heterosexual population would regard as wholesome and decent.
In the absence of predatory homosexual behaviour and of militant homosexual rights campaigns, the incidence of homosexuality would be discrete and would be characterised by modest, responsible and essentially decent behaviour. The numbers of homosexuals within our society would be small, one might say negligible and they would have little or no effect upon the fecundity of our population. There would be no public health issues, no assault upon public morality and no adverse impact in any other respect. The matter of homosexuality would become a non-issue.
A great many homosexuals share the concerns of heterosexual nationalists and in fact have a greater reason to fear the rise of Islam within Western societies than have heterosexuals. The mere condition of homosexuality should not be a reason to persecute or denigrate homosexuals, particularly those who are bound by the same standards of public decency as the majority of heterosexuals, who like the majority of heterosexuals resist the temptation to explore other sexual abnormalities, who are cognisent of the health issues related to promiscuous sexual behaviour and who display their sexuality modestly in public.
Furthermore, we should as nationalists be just as concerned if not more so, by the lewd, lascivious and wantonly irresponsible public behaviour of large numbers of heterosexual people who are to be seen in our town and city centres, in various states a scanty dress and in various states of intoxication, through the excess consumption of alcohol and other recreational drugs on a Friday or Saturday night. The drunken fighting and loutish behaviour that has come to be a feature of the lives of many of our young is just as deplorable as the vulgar and indecent behaviour of some homosexuals as already discussed and often has far more grievous consequences.
Our nationalist revolution must embody a revolution in terms of pubic morals so that we establish a wholesome society that is free from the vices that are manifest in our nation at present. While we must promote a wholesome, healthy and virile sexuality within our people, we must not be afraid to be champions of decency and our anger should be directed towards all people, regardless of sexuality, whose lax, permissive and irresponsible behaviour diminishes our race and threatens to drag our society into the gutter.
By Max Musson © 2014
# # # #
kradmelder
- Edit
What evidence is there that our ancestors left homosexuals to guard the women and children? In recent history it has been older men no longer fit for extended service, and boys not yet of age to be considered men. This extended across all races and even the zulus had age based impis. The old warriors and youth would remain behind. With whites, boys as young as 6 could shoot and were expected to defend their families if attacked
Max Musson
- Edit
The evidence is that in certain cultures in which slavery has traditionally been tolerated, male slaves unable to reproduce were ‘engineered’ for that purpose. In societies where slavery is not a tradition, i.e. European societies, it would not have been possible to create Eunochs and it is logical to assume that homosexuals could have fulfilled the same role without the distasteful process of having to castrate men against their will.
David
- Edit
Finally! I have said the same for years. For a while homosexuals had to fall under one umbrella to defend against abuse. Now that our existence is for the most part accepted we have gone back to our respective places. In my opinion the homosexual community is in a civil war. There are those of us who are rugged fighters like me (ex Special Operations) who not only observe social norms but are conservative in our politics. I remember having to align myself with men and women I would not have spoken to otherwise in order to avoid abuse from society at larger. It worked. Nationalist would be wise to consider the same approach but I am not accepted among nationalist so I don’t involve myself among you. I’m conservative and support my nation and my people! Not because I’m afraid of Islam (bring it on!) but because I love my people and want my people to respect me. I want the chance of finding one person and being monogamous unlike my straight friends who believe it’s ok to go to the buffet bar as many times as they like then throw the issue of sanctity of marriage in my face. And to the gays reading this (and there will be many bc there are a lot of nationalistic minded homosexuals) I want to say. I fought for a right of equality not depravity! Our respective societies have now recognised us and afford us all the rights they have and we now reward them with depravity. Stop being used by the other side in the destruction of our People. Be descent and respectable. Respect yourselves and love your Nation. Like I said earlier we are at war within our community pick the right side and be a man!
Steven
- Edit
I accept you David. If you are a Briton, are staunchly patriotic about our country then you are a brother (or sister) of mine regardless of your sexual orientation.
If only Nick Griffin and previous ‘nationalist’ leaders had realised that many gay and bisexual people are patriots and had cultivated their support. Marine Le Pen has done this in France and now the Front National attracts more French gay support than Sarkozy’s French Tories do.
David
- Edit
Thanks Steven. I’d like to pose some important questions for our nationalist brothers and sisters.
The “gay movement” accomplished so much in a short time. It would benefit British Nationalist to examine our movement even if they must hold there noses.
I’m in my 40’s now and I remember when the state would take our children (sound familiar)? I remember when the state would lock us up (sound familiar)? I remember when the Church vilified us (sound familiar)? I remember when we were called all kinds of names and hated (sound familiar)? I remember when they called us all molesters and found the lowest character stereo type to negate what we were saying. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR? We had every state apparatus and Church and culture openly hostile to us. We were considered insane. What the state is starting to impose upon Nationalist we overthrew and shook off. The left nor right was on our side here in the USA. So how did we being so small in number overcome in 20 short years what is now being done to White people in general? I’m amazed as I watch my People be destroyed but realize that our very small minority did what Nationalist in much greater numbers can’t. WE RAISED HOLY HELL!!!! We fought day and night because our lives were directly threatened. We supported each other even if we disagreed. We were locked up, hanged, our houses were set on fire, etc. Now some questions:
Are Nationalist hated more than we were?
Are Nationalist smaller in number than we were?
Do Nationalist have less support than we did?
Is the State and Church more against Nationalist than they were against us?
The list goes on but I’m sure you get the point. Many will say that we had support to undermine the family from the Jewish press. I’m calling bullshit on that one because we had no support. We begged for support. What we did was stay visible long enough that we became accepted in 20 short years. To Nationalists’ credit you are starting to do the same. This last Saturday was the Whiteman march. That was spot on! Keep doing it. Be loud and proud! Learn what we did and apply it to your movement. Sadly few will see this message because of the topic title. Compare the two movements. Steven thank you for your reply and I call you brother too.
kradmelder
- Edit
Well said David. A homosexual who puts the well being of his family, race and nation above his swxual orientation is acceptable, even if I find the practice distasteful. Keep it in the closet and don’t rub our faces in it. Heteros keep their sexual tastes in the closet. Why don’t gays. A gay who does his gay pride thing in my face makes me uncomfortable. So why would I want to accept him? I don’t have to.
kradmelder
- Edit
I realised we keep referring to male homosexuals, and the effect on white reproduction. It is accepted in demographics that males don’t control growth and birth rates; females do. A man can impregnate many women. So growth rates are expressed as births per woman. In that case the arguement against lesbianism should be stronger than against faggotry. Yet many of us dont like queers but tolerate lesbians. Im guilty of this. Shouldn’t we revaluate our personal biases versus our concern for the race?
heechee
- Edit
Homosexuality is abnormal behaviour, therefore none need accept homosexuality as normal. Individual homosexuals are as varied as heterosexuals and there are plenty of them I cannot stand either but a decent person is still a decent person and their sexual orientation should have no bearing on one’s opinion of the individual as a human being.
Gay pride is sickening to me, it seems to be nothing more than a show-piece for exhibitionists, depravity and excess. Society may have accepted homosexuality but should never promote it in any way.
Steven
- Edit
It is an abnormal sexuality but only in the sense of it being an unusual sexuality to have (about 1 to 1.5% of Britons are exclusively homosexual and the total population of Brits who are either homosexual or bisexual is around 6%). Therefore, around 94% of Britons are exclusively heterosexual and as a consequence of their preponderance in society and the fact that homosexuals and bisexuals will only ever comprise around 6% of the population we need to keep a sense of perspective about these things.
Individual gays or bisexuals should be tolerated, treated with kindness and not be discriminated against by the state. Their so-called ‘gay rights’ which have been legislated for over the last four decades are NOT ‘extra special’ rights but EQUAL rights.
I can see no way you can ‘promote’ ANY sexuality in the sense of getting people to change their sexual orientation. Does a war play ‘promote’ wars between countries? Does a murder play ‘promote’ murder?
As for gay ‘pride’, I too find it distasteful but then I would find anyone promoting a ‘pride’ in their sexuality to be that and also, frankly, a bit weird.
heechee
- Edit
Have you seen the BBC/ITV etc recently, or Parliament? 1.5% would be a huge reduction in the openly gay population of both institutions, promotion comes in many forms Steven.
When did we last a see a gay villainous character?
Steven
- Edit
Gays are over probably over-represented in politics. I expect they are too in the field of hairdressing (if I can get away with a classic gay stereotype!).
Hay
- Edit
It’s the manipulative influences at work that get people. It is natural for men and boys to feel more comfortable or a connection with males than females which can then lead them to turn this into sexual urges before they have become
A young man has high sexual urges and will be on the look out for ways to satisfy these. As our society over sexualises our young and offers them no strong outlet or meaning for their energies then their focus on sex becomes more. If female companionship is unavailable or if the young male is uncomfortable
My take is to stop homosexual propaganda and it’s continued use as a ‘struggle’. They can bone each other but they can only get civic partnerships and cannot adopt children.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
This illustrates why things are so skewed & not democratic, this promotion of minority rights over the majority rights & this needs to be reversed to give us true democracy.
The tail needs to stop wagging the dog.
Jane
- Edit
Here is an article with a short video in which Richard Dawkins postulates 3 reasons why homosexuality in men evolved. I rather prefer the third one that suggests something has changed in the modern world to make genes express themselves in a particular way that would not have been the case in the past.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/06/dawkins-evolution-homosexuality_n_1078714.html
Jane
- Edit
I would like to add that homosexuals could be expected to gravitate towards the right wing rather than to be socialist. The main reason any would claim to be socialist is because there are Lefties that will advance the homosexual’s personal selfish aims and desires. So it is about getting something – in the same way that immigrants from non white countries will take what they can get by means of latching onto socialism purely for their own selfish benefit.
Really homosexuals gravitate to the Ayn Rand type of radical individualism of the right wing as this makes most sense with the lack of interest in kin folk.
Steven
- Edit
But it isn’t a promotion of minority rights over majority rights. The rights the previous Labour government gave them were EQUAL rights (ie the SAME civil rights under the law of the land). They are now (for the first time in this country’s history) EQUAL CITIZENS before the law ie they have the right to find someone they love, to have that love recognised by the state ect. Civil partnerships just give them things like next-of-kin rights in hospitals, tenancy rights.
If a government said to us straights we didn’t have these rights we would rightfully be totally outraged. It is important to note here that when the government gave them certain rights in the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 it WASN’T saying their relationships were superior to us straight person’s but it WAS saying they were LEGITIMATE. That is quite a different thing to saying they are better. They are NOT.
There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding as to what these civil partnerships entail so I have provided a link to the relevant act on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Partnership_Act_2004
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
A well reasoned and long overdue critique of homosexuality by Max!
My own analogy would be to compare homosexuality with those on the autistic spectrum rather than with those affected by mongolism. I have both friends and relatives who are variously affected by autism and during my long career as a teacher have at various times been called upon to teach autistic children. Autism covers a very wide area and extends from those who are severely incapacitated to those whose personal characteristics are little more than part of a naturally recurring psychological continuum.
We can therefore view homosexuality in much the same way as any other regrettable disability, but not as one that calls for strict laws of prohibition.
Just as with autistic people, many individual homosexuals are as charming and decent as one might wish to find. Even so, most red blooded men and women might be forgiven if they admitted to feeling a little queasy at the prospect of such an unnatural alliance. Indeed one of the more fun incidents in my life was when, as a prisoner, I tipped a basin of water over the heads of two German queers who were attempting fellatio in the bunk bed beneath me.
The real problem arises though when politics is allowed to enter into the equation.
Whether the talk is of “civil partnership” or fully fledged homosexual “marriage”, either way the attempt to institutionalise homosexuality can be little more than a move by our enemies to undermine society. If you think about it, the idea of a man marrying another man is so absurd as to be laughed out of court in normal times.
However, I would take issue with Max on his speculative theory that homosexuals may have, at the ‘Hunter Gatherer’ stage of our evolution, justified themselves by providing a certain, non threatening, protective force for our women and children, a force that could be trusted not to seduce the women while the ‘real’ men were away.
This falls down on at least two points. Firstly, if as Max says, homosexuals are attracted to the feminine aspect of immature boys, who would protect the boys whilst the ‘real’ men were away? Secondly, if, as is commonly assumed, homosexuals comprise less than one in fifty of the population does Max consider that there would have been an adequate supply of homosexuals to provide such a protective shield?
Max Musson
- Edit
Thank you for your complimentary comments Mike. On that last issue, what we have to bear in mind is that at present there is no evolutionary advantage to having a homosexual minority and homosexuals have been discriminated against or worse for several millennia since the hunter gatherer days. Therefore one would logically expect there to be a much smaller proportion of homosexuals today than there would have been at a time when homosexuals did confer an evolutionary advantage. Furthermore, at a time when hunters might have appreciated the role that homosexuals might have played in guarding their womenfolk, the associated risk of sexual advances upon young boys might not have been regarded as that much of a problem. The hunters would probably have been concerned primarily with the chastity of their women, who might get pregnant and bear another man’s child, a problem that would not apply in cases where mere boys are taken advantage of.
.
In all probability however, I imagine the women would have protected their sons against predation to a large extent.
kradmelder
- Edit
https://m.jcc.sagepub.com/content/29/3/387.abstract
.
Max, you may find the above interesting. Homo sexuality less likley in huntet gather societies and more likely in settled ones.
.
In this paper, the author writes
.
https://chrestomathy.cofc.edu/documents/vol8/kyle.pdf
.
These results strongly support the idea that homosexuality is increasingly likely to be present as population pressure increases. The percentages demonstrating the presence of homosexuality: 0 (Low, hunting and gathering), 33 (Low, hunting, gathering, and fishing), 44 (Medium, Horticulture, etc.), 57 (High, Intensive agriculture) demonstrate a marked correlation between the presence of homosexuality and the intensity of a society’s adaptation to the environment. That none of the exclusively hunter-gatherer societies had any significant manifestations of homosexuality is particularly noteworthy, especially considering that over half of high population pressure societies have significant expressions of homosexuality in their culture.
.
What is disturbing is Domer’s theory of maternal stress. With the epidemic of single mothers, and the UK probably leads Europe, the growth of homosexuality is to be expected.
Max Musson
- Edit
The studies you cite result from an examination of homosexual frequency within modern ‘hunter-gather’ tribes, presumably within the Third World as none now exist anywhere else.
.
Such tribes have remained hunter-gatherers because the environment in which they live is conducive to that lifestyle, i.e. foodstuffs by way of prey animals and wild fruit and vegetables are fairly easily available. There is consequently no need for the menfolk to go off on extended hunting trips for weeks on end and there is a greater reliance on fishing and the ‘gathering’ of wild fruit and vegetables by the women. Such tribes are more accurately described as ‘gatherer-hunters’ than ‘hunter-gatherers’. This is a low stress environment and one in which the phenomenon of maternal stress induced homosexuality would therefore be negligible.
.
In Europe during the Paleolithic era the climate during the glacial period produced a tundra like vegetation in which fruit and vegetable foods sources would have been rare and the prey animals available were herds of bison, woolly rhinoceros, and mammoth, that had vast migratory routes from one season to another and if humans were to have any kind of settled existence, it would have been necessary for the hunters to undertake extended hunting trips lasting many days if not weeks. Furthermore the community would be reliant upon food in the form of flesh from formidable animals that would have presented a very real threat to the physical safety of the hunters involved.
.
In such an environment, the levels of stress experienced by the women would have been far higher than amongst modern day Third World gatherer-hunters. Would the menfolk return with food? And if they did, how many of them would have been killed or injured in securing that food? These are the worries that would have vexed the women.
.
As for the increased incidence of homosexuality in more densely populated intensive agricultural areas and urban environments, these environments will have developed later in our evolution, with the occurance of agriculture and industry, in which people are forced to live a more domesticated lifestyle, subject to different stresses from those experienced before. Anyone familiar with animal husbandry will tell you that the incidence of homosexuality among captive/domesticated livestock is far greater than among wild animals in their natural environment. Therefore, it is only to be expected that the same will apply to humans.
.
The factor of maternal stress does not invalidate my hypothesis. It simply suggests that epigenetic forces triggered by maternal stress may be involved in ‘switching on’ some of the recessive genes responsible for homosexuality. Furthermore, the existence of densely populated urban areas brings disparate people together thereby creating a ‘hot-house’ environment in which homosexual sub-cultures, freed from the responsibility of conforming to the needs of small tightly knit communities, have the potential to flourish.
frederickdixon
- Edit
I had the great good luck when I was much younger to make the acquaintance of two gay men (nothing to do with each other) and I came to esteem them because they were brave, decent and patriotic – and that was at a time when homosexuality was a total no-no and homosexuals were widely despised. That in turn stood me in good stead when one of my sons turned out to be gay, I already knew that they are just people; it’s not a choice, it is, if anything, a misfortune.
I think that Max has done us all a service by striking the right balance in how we straight nationalists should behave towards those among us – our racial comrades – whose sexuality is different, and how they in turn should act as members of the nationalist community.
frederickdixon
- Edit
re. hunter gatherers now only existing in the third world – I’m not sure you’re right, what about the reindeer herders of Lappland? And the last hunter gatherers in the United Kingdom were evacuated from St. Kilda as recently as the 1930s.
Max Musson
- Edit
The answer to your question is contained within the question itself Frederick, in that the reindeer ‘herders’ of Lapland practice a form of animal husbandry and the 1930s are now eighty-four years in the past.
Jane
- Edit
Crowded rats – deviant sexual behaviour. This explanation shows that our “friendly” homosexuals need to look into whether they are exhibiting symptoms of severe neurosis. Also the female hormones in the modern environment – pthalates, oral contraceptives etc cause poisoning.
I do not like the idea of fitting homosexuality into a healthy society. It is unhealthy and any man with that tendency should do all he can never to exhibit it and to remain celibate.
“Chaos resulted as no sense of order or balance could come from that many rats being trapped so close together. The male rats fought constantly and began to ignore mating rituals and force themselves on female rats. They also began to perform bisexual and homosexual acts. ” https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/communication-central/200911/crowds-behavior-why-did-i-do
Max Musson
- Edit
Homosexuality existed before the modern era and before there were phthalates and oral contraceptives in the drinking water. I agree however that the presence of such chemicals in our environment will almost certainly exacerbate all forms of abnormal and/or dysfunctional sexual behaviour.
.
While we may not like homosexual behaviour and may find it distasteful, if adult men and women conduct themselves modestly and discretely in public and only give express to their homosexually in private, I can’t see that the rest of society should object. Forcing people to deny their sex drive and remain celibate is in my view a recipe for disaster, in that a pent up sex drive that is denied release invariably leads on to worse forms of sexual deviation.
.
There are some parallels between the behaviour of rats in the kind of experiments that you describe and the behaviour of humans when we are forced to co-exist in unbearably overpopulated circumstances, however the symptoms you describe are exhibited by heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, and so I am unsure what argument you are trying to convey.
Steven
- Edit
Well put. Surely no one without pronounced authoritarian impulses would wish to restrict, spy-upon and ‘police’ private CONSENSUAL relations between two adults? Britons will instinctively turn-away from ANY political party they suspect has these kind of views concerning private relations between adults. I am no libertarian (libertarian views can do a lot of damage particularly when it comes to economics) but people must be allowed to have a certain amount of personal liberty in our society and this particularly involves sexual relations (apart from pedophilia of course)
Of course there are many cases where people don’t (sadly) fall in love with another person and hence remain virgins all their lives but trying to bottle-up sexual feelings (even when you are in love) is surely unnatural behavior?
I don’t think it is natural for people to be like Catholic priests and remain celibate all their lives.
Max Musson
- Edit
We’ve all seen what happens to many Catholic priests when they repress their sex drive, haven’t we?
Steven
- Edit
It ISN’T unnatural for SOME men and SOME women to be either homosexual or bisexual. It is a normal VARIANT of the RANGE of sexualities in human beings. It is also observed in the animal kingdom.
A society WITHOUT having at least SOME people who were either homosexual or bisexual WOULD BE an ‘UNNATURAL OR ABNORMAL’ society.
Did Britain get rid of homosexuality when this country used to HANG people for being homosexual? No, we didn’t. It has been repressed by many governments for hundreds of years and often by the most brutal measures such as the death penalty yet it it still exists so the conclusion to be drawn from that must be that it is NATURAL for SOME SMALL proportion of any society to be that way inclined.
Max Musson
- Edit
Steven, you have not fully understood what I have written. Just because something occurs naturally, it does not follow that it should be considered ‘normal’. Homosexuality is a naturally occurring abnormality in the same way that Asperger’s Syndrome is a naturally occurring abnormality. A society without homosexual or bisexual people would be no more ‘unnatural’ or ‘abnormal’ than a society without Asperger’s Syndrome.
.
My point is that we should not seek to persecute or denigrate people on the basis of their homosexuality any more than we should persecute or denigrate people with Asperger’s Syndrome. We should accept that such people exist and accept their participation in our society as long as they reciprocate, by ensuring that their abnormality does not become an embarrassment, does outrage public decency and does not cause socially accepted gender norms to be undermined. My aim here is not to conduct a crusade on behalf of homosexuals but an attempt to make sexual orientation a non-issue within the nationalist movement.
Dispater
- Edit
Max, a necessary and well reasoned piece. As you say, there is a perfectly acceptable middle ground here between the Neanderthal ‘bash em up’ brigade and the in your face ‘gay carnivals’. As in everything, a degree of modesty and respect for other peoples sensibilities is needed. Our cause is dealt far more damage by the drunken yob culture of some of our number than a few homosexuals.
An acceptance that it occurs is not the same as a ring endorsement of the practice.
Dispater
- Edit
Ringing endorsement sorry. Auto correct obviously has a sense of humour.
Jane
- Edit
Can someone please explain how these hunter gatherer homosexual men (surely no more than 1% of the population at that so maybe they couldn’t express their lust since the population was too small) went about doing their actual homosexual deeds by which they qualify as a homosexual, rather than pointing out to us that they may not have been at it all the time and even possibly were of some use?
After all, it is a bit like saying that modern homosexuals are fine because they produce some great music and art. That is rather a “don’t look at this, look over there instead” strategy to get people not to think about the real nitty gritty. How did our hunter gatherer ancestors allow the expression of homosexuality – open intercourse in public – with tolerance, or were the heterosexual men okay with letting the harmless fellow stick in in someone who doesn’t share their orientation? This is important actually.
Max Musson
- Edit
I wouldn’t know where to begin to describe the sexual practices of Palaeolithic homosexuals. Why is the actual mechanics of their sexual behaviour important to you?
Jane
- Edit
Why is the homosexual sexual act important when talking about homosexuals?
Why not just think about their friendship with women and children instead? Would those be serious questions?
Max Musson
- Edit
That’s a little bit too cryptic for me this late in the evening Jane, but just look at it this way, if homosexuals conduct themselves in a way that does not impact adversely upon the rest of society, why should we care what they choose to do in private? Unless we invade their privacy we will not know what they do in private and if we try to invade their privacy, they will strive all the harder to disguise what they do. Furthermore, if we stop them having any privacy and thereby stop them partaking in homosexual acts, what have we gained? Nothing!
.
So why bother?