“The awful thing is that beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and the devil are fighting there and the battlefield is the heart of man.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
“Drunk with the nectar of submission, I feel nothing more than existence.”
–Death in June, “Death is the Martyr of Beauty”
“Because the beauty of the White Aryan man must not perish from the earth”
–The Homonationalist 14 words.
“He becomes woman, who looks upon domination. Everyone in the fascist collective, with its teams and work camps, is from tender youth on a prisoner in solitary confinement; it breeds homosexuality”
–Adorno and Horkheimer Dialect of the Englightenment”
There are few thought-crimes that your author finds more exhilarating than that of homonationalism.
But what is homonationalism? It is first important to note two things it is not.
Firstly, Homonationlism is not gay xenophobia directed at homophobic cultures. This is the negatively-connotated definition of the term as coined by queer-theorist Jasbir K. Puar, and unfortunately is the definition one will find on Google. Such xenophobia certainly does not seem unreasonable for a homosexual, and may well be part-and-parcel of the homonationalist world-view, but it does not strike at the core of the phenomenon I wish to delineate.
Secondly homonationalism is not analogous to white nationalism—it is not an ideology which upholds the need for an all or predominantly homosexual state. This idea calls fun images to mind, and is not outside the domain of extreme views an individual homonationalist might hold, but is not the essential idea.
No, homonationalism is an aesthetic phenomenon with roots which stretch far back into the history of the West and manifestations ranging from fabled “Mannerbund” bands of Aryan warrior youths, to the androgynous heavy metal culture of the 80’s. Counter-Currents Publishing’s James J O’Meara is the true expert on this idea, as encapsulated in his collection of essays The Homo and the Negro. Of his basic picture of the history of European, homoerotic, Rightism, I am but a student. I would summarize O’Meara’s understanding of homosexuality, and its relation to western civilization as being in line with the basic New Right biological rather than moral– nature over nurture– account of things: homosexual men are a certain set who are biologically predetermined to prefer having sex with men, and based on this difference have a particular relationship to society. O’Meara differs from the larger far (and not so far) Right, however, in thinking that this role can be quite positive rather than inherently negative. O’Meara argues that in more traditional society, homosexuals were naturally culturally elitist or “of the right”, and that the Christian Right’s homophobia conspired with liberalism’s hegemonic creation of the gay, victim identity to create the historically anomalous situation we find ourselves in today, in which homosexuals play a clearly, leftist, socially destructive role. O’meara advocates not “gay rights” as presented by the socially-deconstructive left– a push to establish homosexuals as the same as everyone else based on the doctrine of universal sameness– but a sort of positive understanding of the role homosexuals as a distinct type, can play in societies, even, and perhaps especially, radically traditionalist ones.
Traditional societies–or relatively more traditional societies than the one we live in– often organically– that is, unconsciously–include institutions and traditions which sublimate homo-eroticism and otherwise cultivate the beauty of male-male bonding. Liberalism has brought us inorganic, hyper-conceptual, gay rights at the very same time it has eroded these organic outlets for male-male eros.
See for example, certain works of Danish film maker Lassie Nielsen or American photographer Will McBride. Nielsen’s subject of choice in the linked work is the bonding of young Danish boy’s in rural Denmark, while McBride documents a group shower at elite German boarding school Schule Schloss Salem. What each can be said to capture is a deep homo-eroticism in a classical, socially-accepted (even by social conservatives), setting. McBride and Nielsen themselves may advocate for extremely socially-degenerate politics, but the spectacular irony is that the sort of homoerotic bonding they capture and cherish can occur only in homogeneous– that is non-degenerated– societies. What these artists depict practically seem like utopias made especially for gay white nationalists! Rightist, and writer for the Unz Review Steve Sailer picks up on a similar point in his article “Students Still Sweat, They Just Don’t Shower” . Here Sailer recalls a New York Times article reflecting on the decline of group showers– of the type depicted by McBride– as a social ritual . Consider that this decline has corresponded exactly with the sexual revolution. In this atomized, all-shared-culture-based-on-the-lowest-common-denominator, society homoeroticism– and in fact, all eroticism– has been reduced to the mere sex act, rendering impossible the more civilized and aesthetically interesting ways these energies used to be expressed. What a thing the sexual revolution has brought us! We’ve come to all be sexually paranoid and hate our bodies.
The view of gays as creators and preservers of culture is delineated nicely not only in O’Meara’s controversial The Homo and The Negro, but also books written and read by ‘normies’ such as Will Fellows A Passion to Preserve. The basic argument goes that gay men, not beholden to the demands of family values or starting a family, are a natural sort of cultural elite; Rather than expending their erotic energies on creating and raising children, gay men have an excess of that energy to expend on creating and preserving culture and art. The image of gays as being naturally creatively gifted, in other words, is not just a stereotype but a natural byproduct of their extra-instrumental mode of expending erotic energy. Similarly, whereas the heterosexual male may find himself first and foremost as the head of a family, the homosexual male may have a keener sense for the familial bonds he shares with the greater community, and so apply his nurturing energies to the preservation of that community.
In this way we may say that homosexuals are a natural sort of aristocratic elite, or even a natural shamanic elite (Catholic Priests anybody?). The Native Americans had a natural wisdom about this as well; as anyone who has ever had a leftist try and convince them that homophobia is part of the curse of the white devil has likely been informed. In Native American tribes gays, bisexuals, and those who dabbled in cross dressing were said to be of “two-spirits” and regarded as having special spiritual insights. I am reminded of Alesteir Crowley who was not only bisexual, but a Switch (in the BDSM sense). I imagine this sexual duality was deeply related to the occultist’s spiritual interest and belief in grand cosmic dualities (death/life, chaos/order, etcetera). Everyone on the Right’s favorite Lesbian Feminist, Camille Paglia, in her essay collection Vamps and Tramps calls gay men “the shaman of our time… caught midway between male and female brains,” and explains their natural affinity for art as being a product of this psychic duality, this blend of “emotion, intellect [and an] artistic sensibility”.
This explains why gays may be naturally of the right, or conservative, but there is a deeper level to it: one that explains not merely homosexual conservatism, but homosexual far-rightism, or homonationalism. This level gets more explicit as it gets down to the details of what homosexuality is as a paraphilia. As author Paul Bingham noted when discussing Crowley with Robert Stark , sexual paraphilias should be treated like psychedelic drugs: as extreme experiences which may aid one in the understanding of the fabric of the universe– but they are not for everyone!
Sigmund Freud linked homosexuality to unresolved oedipal aggression, and associated with such pathologies as paranoia and narcissism. The Freud-influenced Frankfort school (in particular Adorno and Horkheimer in The Dialectic of the Enlightenment) take up this perspective and connect repressed homosexuality with fascism and aggression against ‘The Other’ . One needn’t buy into the full package of psychoanalysis to recognize a link between a certain strain of homosexual feelings and aggression, love of uniformity, and love of phallic power which reverberates throughout the history of what would be termed “gay” or “queer” literature and aesthetics.
One finds this sort of gay extremity in the works of Dennis Cooper, Kenneth Anger, Bret Easton Ellis, Chuck Palahniuk, Yukio Mishima , Death in June (the neo-folk musician Douglas P., controversial for his use of far-right imagery, who is also openly gay, and who has stated that the role his sexuality plays in his music has been deeply underestimated), The Band Xiu Xiu…. the list goes on.
… all that lays outside the confines of feminine conformity (Nielson is quite correct in his homoerotic readings of “Lord of The Flies”). What would be the purest political manifestation of androphilia? The triumph of masculanism that is fascism. Think about it. Is the basic love-of-sameness erotic structure of fascism homosexual in nature?
Homonationalism arises out of a sort of Sadean reading of homosexuality– as explored in a film like Richard Wolstencroft’s “Pearls Before Swine”.
Angela Nagle quotes Camille Paglia on De Sade in her book on the Alt-Right “Kill All Normies:
“… de Sade’s depiction of human evil as innate was a form of satire directed against the Rousseauian tradition, from which contemporary feminism springs. De Sade’s work famously features sexual violence as well as abhorrence for family and procreation, instead creating a violent transgressive sexuality based on the values of libertinism and individual sovereignty. In Juliette one rule of The Sodality of the Friends of Crime is, “True libertinage abhors progeniture.” Paglia argues that de Sade’s devaluing of the procreative female body, and his preoccupation with heterosexual and homosexual sodomy, also shared by chan culture, are not merely the product of a homosexual impulse, as argued by feminist Simone de Beauvoir, but a “protest against relentlessly overabundant procreative nature.” Author Susan Suleiman wrote that:
The founding desire behind Sadeian fantasy is the active negation of the mother. The Sadeian hero’s anti-naturalism ( . . . ) goes hand in hand with his hatred of mothers, identified as the “natural” source of life”
–Angela Nagle (https://thebaffler.com/latest/transgression-nagle)
It is here that homonationalism enters the realm of what might be called “forbidden knowledge”—the sort of thing explored by Adam Parfrey in Apocolypse Culture. …Reality as a kind of cosmic interplay between domination and submission– and fascism as the politics that takes the most honest look at that interplay.
Homoerotic social dynamics of the sort explored in McBride’s shower photo-shoot are indeed quite often a means by which social hierarchy is determined. That locker room moment, as captured in Robert Stark’s Novel Journey to Vapor Island, the protagonist of which is a troubled young man, Noam Metzenbaum, with obvious bisexual inclinations– or an “appreciation for the beauty of the male form”, as he would likely put it in his artistic, aristocratic-elitist parlance. The book revolves largely around poor Noam time and time again finding himself at the very bottom of the social totem pole…. and the extremely sexualized rituals by which he find himself there– one of the most infamous involves him having to gargle “Chad” piss. Noam’s darkest secret, perhaps, is that he secretly gets off on the degradation. And guess what his politics are?
So what is the relevance of this to my broader project? As James O’Mears writes, homosexual men have “unsurpassed talents in symbol manipulation”. This, naturally, is of great importance to me as someone arguing for an aesthetic nationalism, and for hegemonic warfare. For decades the left have taken advantage of the homophobia of the narrow-minded, neo-conservative and Christian Right, and co-opted these energies as a means to deconstruct western civilization. I think it is time we re-channeled homosexual aesthetic genius as a means to resuscitate western civilization into a Renaissance stage. The often confusing– and I do think, when all is said and done, delightful– Milo Yiannoplous may just be a harbinger for the sort of gay aristocratic radicals to come.