The Homosexual Question

Welcome

This site was launched a few weeks ago now in the expectation of an imminent first article and of several more to follow soon after. However, our primary writer has since encountered various long delays, and as it will conceivably be another few days yet until it is finished, and as Intelligent Nationalism is so far devoid of any content (intelligent or otherwise), we have decided to copy over an article from another website in the meantime.

Intelligent Nationalism intends to produce articles which examine topics from a nationalist perspective in a more in-depth, more honest and better argued manner than is typical in the nationalist blogosphere however controversial it may prove. We feel that the following article from the esteemed Western Spring website meets those criteria nicely. The article is about homosexuality and the question of how it ought to be treated in our society.

This topic is one which British nationalists often take very strident and unforgiving views on. Nationalist responses to homosexuality can vary from the suspicious to the homicidal, but Max Musson takes a much more reasoned and fair approach, acknowledging that homosexuality is not always a choice and that societies throughout the ages have experienced its presence in one way or another, and recognizing that it can often be associated with less desirable phenomena.

We are in agreement with his attitude; homosexuals generally do not choose to be homosexuals, should not be persecuted simply for being so, do not all take part in perversions such as paedophilia, would not be a threat to society in the absence of phenomena such as gay pride marches and their accompanying public indecencies, and in fact have good cause to share concerns with nationalists about the rise of Islam in the west.

We apologize for the delay in publishing content for Intelligent Nationalism and would like to take this opportunity to recommend Western Spring for its consistently excellent output.

Article by Max Musson:

The Homosexual Question

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 while 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 homosexuals.

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