Culture, Politics

The Love that Dare Not Speak its Name

183 Views 38

By David Yorkshire:

So, the ex-swimmer Ian Thorpe has come out. Apparently, he’s very brave. Well whoop-ee-doo. When I came out, I was told I could lose my job and career in education if I didn’t use a pseudonym. Friends looked around to see if anyone was looking when they talked to me. Members of my family said I shouldn’t get involved in the lifestyle and should steer clear of pride events in case I was spotted by the authorities. There was no fanfare for me by the media, Ian. Quite the opposite. But then I came out as a nationalist.

Homosexuals, one notes, have been very privileged by the media for some time now. Did I mention privilege? Yes, I believe I did. It was not so long ago that the media were all fawning over Orlando Cruz, an openly homosexual boxer who was to fight for a version of the world title. He would have been the first openly homosexual world champion, but he got bashed around the ring before losing, and the media promptly forgot about him.

Before that, there was Gareth Thomas, another brave soul who was forced to continue tackling well-developed young men on the rugby field, before being thrust up onto the media’s C-list celebrity circuit because of his homosexuality. He now scrapes a living through punditry and reality TV. Terrible.

Let us contrast all this with the fate of Voula Papachristou, the Greek athlete who came out and was banned from taking part in the Zion – I mean the 2012 – Summer Olympics in Jeru— London. That’s right, she too came out as a nationalist. A little joke, which apparently offended the Nile mosquito community, meant that she had to sit out at a time when she was swiftly improving in both triple and long jump. The year before, she had achieved her personal best in the triple jump: 14.72m, which was good enough for fourth place in the Games.

Yes, truly the love for one’s own people is the love that dare not speak its name these days. Let us remind ourselves of what Oscar Wilde actually said at his trial:

“The Love that dare not speak its name” in this century is such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare. It is that deep, spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect. It dictates and pervades great works of art like those of Shakespeare and Michelangelo, and those two letters of mine, such as they are. It is in this century misunderstood, so much misunderstood that it may be described as the “Love that dare not speak its name,” and on account of it I am placed where I am now. It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. There is nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an elder and a younger man, when the elder man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him. That it should be so, the world does not understand. The world mocks at it and sometimes puts one in the pillory for it.”

Eloquent words indeed. Was this the love he had for his fifteen-year-old rent boy Walter Grainger? The love of a middle-aged powerful man for the nubile young buttocks of a poor young boy he plies with drink and money. There has been a lot of this sort of love at the BBC and in Westminster of late.

In 1885, all forms of homosexuality in Britain were strictly recriminalized (in 1861, a loophole had been created to allow certain sexual acts) as part of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (which was designed to protect children from sexual predators) after a series of scandals involving members of the gentry using and abusing young working-class rent boys in their early to mid-teens. This included the Cleveland Street Scandal, in which several members of the aristocracy were implicated, such as Lord Arthur Somerset and the Earl of Euston, and the Prince of Wales himself was heavily rumoured to have been a customer at the male brothel that was uncovered by police. It was this law that Oscar Wilde was tried and convicted under.

Since the liberal elite decriminalised homosexuality in the Sexual Offences Act of 1967, they have pushed further and further until we now have homosexual adoption and laws which virtually forbid any criticism of the acts of parliament that have been passed to the advantage of homosexuals. Let us be frank: homosexual adoption is child abuse. I remember Michael Barrymore and his “partner” (what is the homosexual obsession with cowboys?) were talking openly about adopting a child – just before they went for a dip in the pool.

It is the same liberal mob who have also pushed for the lowering of the age of consent and the same mob who wish to criminalise the love for all the previous norms – including the love for one’s own people. I will say it openly: I love my people. I love my race. You liberal haters cannot stop my love. My love will grow and spread like an inferno and burn you like witches. In that regard, perhaps Harriet Harman should be first for the stake. I’ll go and get the faggots…

The late great Jonathan Bowden used to say that liberalism is moral syphilis. I will add to that. Liberalism is the intellectualisation of sexual perversity. It is time to expose the whole liberal sham for what it is.

By David Yorkshire © 2014

# # # #

 

38 thoughts on “The Love that Dare Not Speak its Name”

  1. Brin jenkins

    - Edit

    I came out as a Nationalist after looking at the BNP web site in 2002. As a Christian believer I could see nothing to disagree with and joined up the same night. OK the party has its problems, and nothing is perfect.

    I remain a born again Nationalist, a Christian, and don’t give a damnation who knows. I have confronted several Pastors when they told me they did not like my politics. I asked them, how was it they had no similar comments for Labour, Conservative, or Liberal policies? They only spluttered.

    All Nations were ordained by God

    International Standard Version:-

    He made every nation of humanity to live all over the earth, fixing the seasons of the year and the national boundaries within which they live.

    Where is Nationalism not Christian?

  2. Shaun

    - Edit

    Kerry Bolton has written a good book on the sickness of liberalism called the Pathology of the Left. Living sheltered lives, using daddy’s money to ”fight the system”, many of these idiots believe they are above basic morality so they become the ultimate nhillists — they have NO conception of personal responiblilty as they target nations, races, and children for destruction. Jews will go along with thier nonsense to fulfill their own ethnocentric objectives, and, if we are perceptive, we only have to look at our local universities to see the ”types” of people who become left-wing.

    Read Kerry Bolton’s book. The left really are a sick bunch of people. Us nationlaists should have no tolerance for them whatsoever.

      1. ChrisN

        - Edit

        Re: Revisionist. If someone questions the validity of Christianity you can’t quote scripture (or quote someone quoting scripture) in order to assert its authority; rather you need some outside source to validate its claims.

    2. Brin jenkins

      - Edit

      I can’t agree with such an answer from a non believer. The fact that you don’t understand Christianity, or even wish to, suggests anyone holding another view must be an idiot.

      Nuff said.

      1. Corky341

        - Edit

        C’mon now lads. ‘No more ”brother wars”. Please lets agree to disagree. 14w is far more important than religion. 14w.

    3. johnb

      - Edit

      Not true Christianity is the acceptance of ones own sin and the fact that Jesus died to pay the penalty for it. It is also the acceptance of Jesus’s teachings. as the truth. No where did Jesus preach that any nation had to let itself be invaded by hordes of foreigners. Jesus did teach us to love others including strangers as ourselves with the object of showing them Gods love so they could become saved Christians themselves. This was done on an individual to individual basis. Jesus also taught believers to after a sincere argument, to shun those who refused to accept Jesus and continued in their evil ways this would include Muslims especially those who use violence to control their family and others. This would also include not voting for corrupt politicians, which of course includes virtually all the Lib Lab Cons., and to support True Christian Politicians. Politicians who throw communities open for invasion by Jihadists or in fact hordes of any people while their own people are suffering are not Christians.
      Finnally Griffin puts it bluntly the population density of Britain is about double that of China and exzceeeds any European nation except Belgium and Holland. Britan is not onl;y full up but overfull and is living on fiat money and borrowed time. Nationalism must prevail to support selff sufficiency any other p[olicy is Genocidal. And Christ does not support Genocide.

  4. Rerevisionist

    - Edit

    Slightly off-topic: I believe the original on whom Dorian Gray was based was quite a powerful thinker. I remember reading that he unearthed the letter from an Amsterdam Rabbi offering to pay Cromwell, but modestly declining to help with Charles’ murder.

  5. Michael Woodbridge

    - Edit

    The problem with homosexuality is that it is socially corrosive. It starts off as an understandable plea for tolerance and ends up occupying the moral high ground whereby any criticism is regarded as taboo. We have even had policemen visit opponents of homosexuality in their homes to cross-question them. Weasel words like “homophobia” and “hate-crime” (read thought crime) are used by our racial and cultural enemies to instil the false idea that normal, healthy instincts are not only mentally defective but illegal.

    Some of us will have found homosexuals whom we’ve met both entertaining and likeable but ultimately there’s a sadness about their lives. They are unable to partake in the great evolutionary, life giving momentum which gives true love and purpose to our existence.

    Rather than regard homosexuality as a crime though, I suggest that we should regard it as a disability, the severity of which might vary from individual to individual. In that way we’re able to isolate its corrosive effect (no more “Gay Pride” marches for instance) but at the same time avoid bullying an already unfortunate small minority of about one and a half percent.

    1. Brin jenkins

      - Edit

      Excellent view point. We have been maneuvered into a situation where many will wish to totally reject all homosexuals, and everything connected to them, this places us in a difficult position.

      1. ChrisN

        - Edit

        That’s right … a difficult position … our backs are against the wall. Although as this is the homo question perhaps that is the best position to be in.

    2. Steven

      - Edit

      I think we should treat homosexuals and bisexuals with kindness and tolerance and we should certainly NOT use the law to discriminate against them. All the discriminatory laws we used to have in this area have now been repealed and that is the way it should stay and probably will until we have the muslims finally take over and then the gays and bisexuals will be treated as badly as Christian fundamentalists wish to treat them.

      I do wish though that they would stop the ‘gay pride’ parades since they serve no purpose nowdays (they probably held them before to get the government to stop discriminating against them which has now been achieved)

      1. Brin jenkins

        - Edit

        We must discriminate in adoption cases! Its wrong that homosexuals may adopt youngsters.

        Discrimination is not always wrong morally, the rights of youngsters must also be considered.

        1. Steven

          - Edit

          That is the area of the law I have had reservations about. I think it could do with further research but I am open-minded about it. All the other previous discriminatory laws that were repealed such as allowing them to demonstrate their patriotism by serving in our country’s armed forces (WITH the proviso they must adhere to the normal standards of military discipline like their colleagues have to do) to allowing them to gain a CIVIL marriage thus giving them EQUAL (AND NOT ‘SPECIAL’) CIVIL rights (after all, they DO pay taxes to the British government) I am ok with.

          1. Brin jenkins

            - Edit

            No, I can’t agree, the marriage bit makes a complete mockery of a man and his wife procreating children. (Please google the agenda and aims of the Frankfurt School)

            In the forces homosexuals would keep quiet about their sexual preferences and not try to pervert comrades. I speak with some knowledge on this point, my best chum in the RAF 1955 was homosexual, he came out shortly afterwards but never tried it on with me.

            I feel uncomfortable with women in a gents urinal, is there much difference with a homosexual in the ablutions?

            I’m happy for them to pay taxes. I’m unsure if the present tax system is just or even justifiable though. All taxes should be for the benefit of the taxed, its not charity when taxes get spent on aid, that’s extortion.

            1. Max Musson

              - Edit

              I see no reason why homosexuals should be disadvantaged by the tax system and I think the introduction of civil partnerships achieved a situation of parity with heterosexuals. In my view there was no need for the introduction of homosexual marriage because marriage is a form of union intended to facilitate procreation and the raising of a family by a man and a woman.
              .
              Beyond this, there is nothing to be gained by heterosexual nationalists venting their distaste regarding homosexual acts and nothing to be gained by homosexual nationalists trying to persuade others that homosexuality is normal. As Brin and others have previously stated, if homosexuals behave discretely and avoid parading their sexuality in public we can all get along fine and concentrate our efforts on regaining the freedom and self-determination of our people.

          2. Steven

            - Edit

            Brin,I know this may come as a surprise to you but homosexuals and bisexuals are actually people and they shouldn’t be treated as second-class citizens by the British government. They pay taxes (infact, their tax contribution to the British state is higher than average as they tend to have better jobs) therefore they should be treated as equal BRITISH CITIZENS. I and you are treated as unequal by the British government as our voting system is a complete travesty of democracy (marginal seats give people who live in them a more valuable vote) As I live in an very safe Tory seat, my vote is effectively worthless so I should abstain from paying taxes as my civil RIGHT to a fair and equal vote is not respected by either Tory or Labour.

            It is therefore good that the government has at least rectified one glaring civil wrong, I wish they would agree to my CIVIL RIGHT to a FAIR and EQUAL vote as the German government does in Germany.

            Max, civil partnerships were a great advance I agree but NOT enough. I’m afraid you CAN’T BE ONLY 80 OR 90% EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW OF THE LAND. You are EITHER EQUAL or YOU ARE NOT. Why should people be required by the government to metaphorically be asked to ‘SIT AT THE BACK OF THE BUS? CIVIL gay marriage affords them EQUAL rights and NOT NEARLY EQUAL ones.

            Also, you say that marriage is for procreation. Yes, it can often be a very happy by-product of a marriage BUT THAT ISN’T THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON people get married. They get married because they are deeply IN LOVE with each other and WANT TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMITMENT to that effect.

            If marriage was all about procreation then why don’t we have fertility tests at at the altar and ban infertile couples from getting a marriage certificate?

            By the way, you don’t have to be either gay or bisexual to support gay rights. If that were the case, NONE of them (least of all gay CIVIL marriage) would have been passed by parliament.

            1. Max Musson

              - Edit

              Steven, equality before the law does not mean that everyone must be treated identically. I cannot draw the State Retirement Pension because I am not old enough, i.e. I am discriminated against because of my age. To use your argument, everyone should be able to retire on a state pension irrespective of age, otherwise we won’t have 100% equality before the law.
              .
              Similarly, I cannot use the ladies lavatory, I cannot park my car in disabled parking bays and I cannot go to school for free like all children between the ages of five and sixteen. I can’t do these things because I am not over the age of 65, I am not a woman, I am not disabled and I am not a child of school age, and it is entirely appropriate that certain groups have ‘rights’ that others do not. This does not mean that I an unjustly treated under the law, it simply recognises the fact that groups within society to which I do not belong have needs that I don’t have.
              .
              Furthermore, if I was homosexual, I would be able to make a public commitment to the person I love through civil partnership, and that civil partnership would accord me all of the benefits accorded heterosexuals through marriage.
              .
              Marriage is however a partnership intended to facilitate procreation between a man and a woman and the state of matrimony had this significance within the established Church and still has this significance among the majority of professing Christians within our society.
              .
              Civil partnership as far as homosexuals are concerned is marriage in everything but name. The only difference is that civil partnerships are distinct from marriage because they have no expectation of procreation between the respective parties. All that the introduction of homosexual marriage has done is to effectively remove that expectation of procreation from marriage so that marriage is now no different to civil partnership, and therefore in order not to offend a small minority for whom the expectation of procreation is meaningless, the government have offended the religious sensibilities of a large proportion of the heterosexual community for whom the expectation of procreation means a great deal.
              .
              Having separate legal states by which homosexuals and heterosexuals proclaim their love does not therefore mean that anyone is ‘sitting at the back of the bus’, anymore than the existence of the state pension, of disabled parking bays etc., means anything of the sort either.
              .
              The campaign for the introduction of Homosexual marriage is therefore a very stark example of the kind of pointless campaigning that militant homosexuals indulge in that actually does nothing to better their position, but simply annoys the rest of society making them resentful towards homosexuals when they may not have been resentful to begin with.

              1. Brin jenkins

                - Edit

                That sums it up very well Max, nothing much further to say.

                I’m a Nationalist and love our people but not necessary all they do.

  6. Steven

    - Edit

    Max, I am afraid you are wrong. Civil Partnerships DON’T ACCORD all the legal rights of CIVIL marriage. Yes, they were a great advance but they are not the same thing. If that were the case, the government wouldn’t have used such a large amount of parliamentary time on this measure.

    Religious people have no right to be offended by this legislation because the government has PROTECTED religious freedom by only extending the institution of CIVIL marriage to all couples (CIVIL marriage has existed for more than a hundred years and is infact one of the major ways the institution of marriage has been changed by government over the years which negates the opponent’s charge saying the institution has been stuck in aspic for hundreds of years) and IS NOT COMPELLING people who believe in religion to marry people against their will.

    Indeed, the legislation NOT ONLY PROTECTS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IT EXTENDS IT as Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews have wanted to marry same-sex couples for many years now and previously the British state explicitly banned them from doing so.

    Religions ONLY ‘OWN’ RELIGIOUS marriage and NOT ALL MARRIAGES. Far too often, the problem with religious people is that they not only expect but DEMAND the government take their views into account and expressly legislate their opinions into laws which the non-religious have no option but to comply with. We have UNELECTED bishops sitting in an UNELECTED House of Lords for god’s sake! It is time religious people knew that Britain is a largely SECULAR country nowdays and that whilst they do have a right to their beliefs they can’t expect, let alone demand, that religious beliefs are made into laws!

    1. Steven

      - Edit

      When I said that civil partnerships don’t accord all the rights of civil marriages one example of how they don’t is the fact a civil marriage certificate is a universally understood document in ALL countries of the world whereas a gay civil partnership isn’t and this is therefore one new right gay couples have obtained through the recent change in the law. There is also another reason why the law was changed and that is the government wanted to accord all loving relationships with the same parity of esteem in the eyes of the law.

      1. Max Musson

        - Edit

        Yes, Steven, ‘the government wanted’ it, the same government that is planning the racial obliteration of our people. Doesn’t that tell you something?

    2. Max Musson

      - Edit

      After all that bluster Steven, you still haven’t explained the ways in which civil partnership differs from marriage in terms of the rights it accords the parties involved. The fact is there are no differences, save as I have explained, the expectation of procreation in marriage, which stems from the religious origins and status of that union between a man and a woman.
      .
      For homosexuals to campaign and demand their legally and socially recognised union be regarded as ‘marriage’, when it cannot be because there is no expectation of procreation, was simply a spiteful assault on the religious sensibilities of those religions that do not recognise homosexuality as normal. This is so, because other than having the ability to now thumb their noses at Christian fundamentalists, homosexuals have gained nothing by the introduction of homosexual ‘marriage’.

      1. Steven

        - Edit

        You say homosexual couples have gained nothing by the change of the law so why did the opponents of the change even bother to campaign against it? They must have regarded it as a significant change or else they wouldn’t have bothered to be so fervent in their opposition.

        1. Max Musson

          - Edit

          Many people campaigned against the introduction of homosexual marriage, not in order to deny anything to homosexuals, because homosexuals already had civil partnerships and therefore parity within the law, but because equating a union between two homosexuals with a union between a man and a woman denies marriage the unique quality it has always hitherto had, an expectation of procreation.
          .
          The introduction of homosexual marriage gained nothing for homosexuals, but it took a very important element in marriage away from everyone else. Now that any union between two people can be called marriage, marriage is no longer marriage, it has become merely a civil partnership. This is why most people opposed the introduction of homosexual marriage, not in order to deny anything to homosexuals, but in order for marriage to retain its traditional meaning. Most people would have also opposed the introduction of marriage between a farmer and his horse, or a woman and her cat. It does not matter how profound a farmer’s love is for his horse, the relationship he had with it is never marriage, but homosexuals have now opened the way for any relationship between two beings to be regarded as marriage and therefore marriage itself has been devalued.

          1. Steven

            - Edit

            Why did you remove my comprehensive posts, Max? We can’t have a discussion on this matter if posts are not printed, can we?

            1. Max Musson

              - Edit

              I have not ‘removed’ your posts Steven, I have simply declined to publish those in which you are continually repeating arguments that have already been comprehensively rebutted.

  7. ChrisN

    - Edit

    The quest for Equality, once a noble ideal, now, like the quest for the Holy Grail, appears to have descended on a slippery slope towards an ever-receding horizon. Several cabals have hopped aboard this bandwagon which is fueled by their unending resentment. No matter how equalised people become there is always some micro-inequality to be discovered. The equaliser must, therefore, be ever vigilant and will not be happy until his (or her!) particular groupsicle is, to paraphrase Orwell, ‘more equal than the others’.
    Nietzsche, in the ‘Genealogy of Morals’ identified such ‘resentiment’ as the driving force behind slave morality. The Christian slaves jealous of their Roman masters’ success sought to undermine it through an inversion of values. Nietzsche, concerned with the propagation of high culture, thought that inequality was a precondition of civilisation.

  8. David Yorkshire

    - Edit

    For me, the procreation argument about marriage is only part of it. Marriage is about a spiritual union that reinforces the norms of society – a society that functions and prospers. As I said recently on a radion show, one cannot have multiple norms within a society, else that society will tear itself apart. Witness today’s society. Therefore heterosexuality must be given preference above homosexuality for the society to reproduce. Is that unequal? Absolutely. Equality is an evil masquerading as a good.

    1. Brin jenkins

      - Edit

      Procreation is the whole reason for a Christian marriage, not always is such a union blessed, but it remains the reason.

      A State marriage is considered paramount by the State, one should be aware of the contractual reasoning behind this. With no contract, Statute Law is unlawful. When your birth was registered a contract was created betwixt ones parents and the State. An excellent book is available for free download on these matters and the Law, Google Veronica Chapman if you wish to research it.

      1. David Yorkshire

        - Edit

        Yes Brin, but marriage predates Christianity. Nonetheless, throughout history, marriage has been a union between a man and a woman and homosexuality has been seen as something that can damage society, and homosexuals have been pushed to the fringes at the most tolerant and executed at the least. We see this in all the past folk tales, lagends, religions and mythologies As we see now, there was very good reason for this.

  9. Brin jenkins

    - Edit

    True, Jews had marriage long before Jesus, and leaping over the brush perhaps was pagan.

    However for 2000 years ours has been a Country influenced by Christianity and the whole of our Science, Medicine, Education and Justice. Throwing this out is what our State is attempting to do, appealing to fringe groups in order to divide and conquer.

    Throwing out our culture destroys Nationality, and I think we know what just waiting in the wings. I would urge any who might have alternative views consider the dangers of promoting anything else. Our Culture is very much at risk here.

    1. David Yorkshire

      - Edit

      ….and what have the Jews got to do with us exactly, Brin? It seems to me you prefer the Jews to Pagan Europeans, which would mean you’re a Christian Zionist and not a nationalist. As a historical fact, Pagan civilizations had a history of marriage long before Christianity and I don’t think you’d find a Roman senator “jumping over the brush.” If you want others to respect your Christian faith, I think you’d better respect other faiths that pertain to the European identity, otherwise you may find others questioning whether Christianity is European at all, or even merely calling it Jew-worship.

  10. Brin jenkins

    - Edit

    Reply to Steven:-
    Most marriages are not ‘Christian’. They take place in registry offices and are sanctioned by the British state. My own sister was married in a registry office though my mum and dad were married in church. I think (and in the eyes of the British state) my sister is as equally married as my mum and dad are. S.
    ___________

    Steven most of my friends are married in a Christian Church. The State requires its own input for political/contractual reasons, and I suppose it depends on how one views the State as to how you feel about this. If you have no belief, or truck with God it won’t matter to you.

  11. Brin jenkins

    - Edit

    Not really Steven, its when ones nose gets rubbed in the mess Christians get upset.

    Following Christian teachings can’t lead to violence, ignoring the teachings probably will. The troubles in Ireland are an example of the teaching being ignored, and noses being rubbed in it perhaps.

Comments are closed.