I want to call it pink nationalism, because it advocates the acceptance of Sodomites. I want to call it gray or maybe beige nationalism, because it advocates the acceptance of mongrels among Whites. Perhaps it is best called Rainbow nationalism, but I dislike that term as well, because it legitimizes the language of the perverts. And none of it is nationalist at all, so perhaps it is better called Marxism. However for our purposes here tonight, I will title the program “Rejecting Rainbow Nationalism”.
Here we have Mike Delaney of Prothink.org and Trutube.tv, and Brett Light of Expel the Parasite and Aryan Israel, for a discussion explaining why we steadfastly believe that neither Sodomites nor bastards should ever be accepted into the ranks of true nationalists. [In hindsight, we never got much into addressing the problem with bastards. Perhaps we can do that another night.]
The laws of our Christian God tell us that a bastard shall not enter the congregation of the Lord. They also tell us that “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Christians are urged to practice and repeat these laws, and therefore any real Christian cannot accept Rainbow Nationalism. Neither can real Christians accept those who accept such things themselves.
[I explained the theme of Romans chapter 1 somewhere in here.]
I am going to state that I am not really a fan of Matthew Heimbach, but I do not dislike him. Last year, he had an invitation to hear me speak in Kentucky, and he had accepted it but then he failed to show. From what I hear, he apparently didn't show because in the interim he had neglected to accept Christian Identity in favor of some sort of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. But we are nevertheless going to use Heimbach's recent experience with the National Policy Institute as the starting point for tonight's discussion.
We thought this discussion was timely, because recently the clowns at the so-called National Policy Institute had rejected the participation of Matthew Heimbach at one of their events, and the SPLC has tried to get some traction out of the division. The National Policy Institute website bears the slogan “For our people, our culture, our future”, but as far as we are concerned, they seem to be compromising all three of those statements. They claim Sam Francis as a founder. Another group that Francis helped to found is the Council of Conservative Citizens, and while the CCC also waffles on a lot of issues crucial to White interests, even they take a stronger stance against Sodomites than the NPI. The CCC also explicitly upholds Christianity in its Statement of Principles, if not always in practice.
The Marxist antifa crowd is also making news of this apparent split among nationalists, and antifacistnews.net had this to say of Heimbach: “His fiery style, big smiles, and lack of a filter has also made him enemies, and not just of the anti-racist crowd. At the recent National Policy Institute conference, Heimbach was banned entry because of his publicly repulsive statements about homosexuality. The bright new face of nationalism is more friendly (which still isn’t very friendly) to queer people, and they did not want to insult the one gay speaker on their line-up. He still made it to DC to hang out with the crowd, but this was certainly a blow.”
We would agree, that real Christians should not have “filters”. I am not going to read the SPLC article. But I am going to read the response of the NPI to the SPLC article, which reveals just what we suspected, that the NPI is indeed moving towards the promotion of Rainbow Nationalism, and rejecting true Christian principles.
This is what Richard Spencer of the NPI has written, under the title The Rainbow Coalition, where he does not even renounce the idea that such a title conveys:
The Southern Poverty Law Center has delivered a [url=https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/11/03/youth-turn-out-large-numbers-npi’s-rainbow-racist-gathering]write-up[/url] on Become Who We Are. It isn’t all that bad, at least in comparison with some the SPLC’s smears of the past. But some corrections need to be made.
We are going to skip over Spencer's answer to the SPLC remarks concerning his conference attendees and move on...
Another theme the SPLC stressed was that the conference was “LGBT friendly.”
Spencer never denies the label. Then quoting the SPLC article Spencer writes:
The SPLC wrote:[I]n a move not normal in these circles, anti-gay voices were kept away. White nationalist Matthew Heimbach of the Traditionalist Youth Network (TYN) was disinvited. According to his close friend Scott Terry, Heimbach was “booted” from the NPI conference for his anti-gay views.
Then Spencer says in reponse to this:
In hosting an event of this size, we have to make many decisions regarding personnel and attendees. These are private matters and will remain so.
I will comment, however, about a general principle we try to adhere to in making such decisions.
Our conferences will include people who hold many different views on religious, social, sexual, historical, and political matters. We do not exclude anyone for, say, being a Buddhist, Pagan, Catholic, or atheist, or for being passionate about gay issues or thinking that they are not important. We hope that such questions can be discussed respectfully at our conferences.
NPI will, however, exclude those who show reckless disregard with the media, or those who've made morally indefensible public statements. Such people make our movement look bad. We choose not to grant them a platform. It’s as simple as that.
So on the one hand, Spencer waffles about how many speakers he should have, but on the other, he talks about excluding speakers who have made “morally indefensible statements” while acknowledging that he will not exclude anyone who is “passionate about gay issues”. So what is it? We can only take it as an indication that Spencer has found some things that Heimbach has said about Sodomy in the past to be “morally indefensible”, but that Spencer is also attempting to avoid an explicit position directly in support of Sodomites. Therefore the antifacistnews.net article certainly seems to be accurate where it says that “Heimbach was banned entry [to the NPI conference] because of his publicly repulsive statements about homosexuality.”
[In reality, it is Sodomy itself which is “morally indefensible”, and any criticism of Sodomy is in defense of good morals!!!]
In fact, in another article which is Spencer's reaction to a recent Supreme Court decision, entitled The End of the Culture War, while upholding the concept of traditional marriage Spencer at the same time has avoided criticizing Sodomites. So it seems that the National Policy Institute is accommodating those who are “passionate about gay issues”, but struggles to quietly resist those who may be passionately against the issue of gays. Of course, all of this might also have something to do with NPI's IRS 501c3 status. Real nationalists must know that any organization with such status cannot effectively combat the Marxist-leaning status quo.
Spencer's failure to take a concrete position against Sodomites in his own articles, and his reply to the article by the SPLC, fully indicate that in relation to this situation, the SPLC is correct, that the antifacists are correct, and that Spencer does in fact support the idea of Sodomites in the ranks of White Nationalists.
Spencer's failure to take a concrete position against Sodomites in his own articles, and his reply to the article by the SPLC, fully indicate that in relation to this situation, the SPLC is correct, that the antifacists are correct, and that Spencer does in fact support the idea of Sodomites in the ranks of White Nationalists.
This is without doubt the reality of the situation, as Jack Donovan, a Sodomite writer of books advocating for so-called homosexuals as nationalists, was one of the speakers invited to this NPI conference. But Donovan advocates that Sodomites set aside their so-called “gay” identity so that they can blend in with normal men, obviously because that way they would have a greater influence on the thinking of normal men. It seems that Donovan wants to recreate a white patriarchical society, but without patriarchs. Maybe we should call him the advocate of a gaytriarchal society. [That would be the recreation of Sodom and Gomorrah, the real Jewish notion of Heaven.]
But this is not a first. There is another supposed white nationalist, Greg Johnson of Counter Currents, who for years has been promoting the idea that Sodomites can fit into the ranks of White nationalists, and should be accepted by them. Spencer has been lauded by Johnson publicly and in writing. In other aspects, Johnson's work is applauded and even promoted at websites such as Kevin MacDonald's Occidental Observer, and Johnson posts articles from the Occidental Observer writers, including MacDonald, on his own website. So even the Occidental Observer seems to be approving of Rainbow Nationalism, which is quite disappointing. So do the Amren crowd, apparently, as Spencer has worked closely with Jared Taylor, and Taylor is frequently promoted by Greg Johnson. This is in spite of the fact that Taylor embraces Jews, while Johnson is keen enough to reject them (See his article Reframing the Jewish Question). Johnson, however, openly refuses to deny the Holocaust, and diminishes those who do, leaving the Jews with their most effective moral weapons against the West.
But what is really funny about Johnson, is that he is brazen enough to claim a moral high ground for his position. In an article responding to a dispute he had with Andrew Anglin, he said that the intended audience for his own website “is whites of all social classes who are above average in intelligence, morality, and taste.” We beg to differ, Sodomites are not moral at all. In an article which has been on his website since 2002 titled Homosexuality & White Nationalism, Johnson states “I must protest Andrew Westphal’s “Homosexuality Ain’t Cool” and other examples of queer-bashing on VNN. I have two arguments for why this is misguided and for why tolerance is a good thing for the White Nationalist movement.” The rest of the article is a defense of Sodomites, and Johnson even goes so far as to say that “intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish”, even abusing the Gospels to claim that Christianity does not condemn fags! He goes on to mischaracterize the practice and acceptance of homosexuality among the Greeks and Romans, and to ignore condemnations of such immorality by both Tacitus and Paul of Tarsus.
Johnson bases his decisions about Christianity on the Jewish paradigm, accepting the claim that they are the people of the Old Testament, when they are certainly not, and they act exactly like the Enemies of the people of the Old testament always had.
Johnson's article presents a whole lot of incoherent psychobabble concerning Sodomy, sin, and choice, and concludes that “Thus there is no room for moral self-righteousness.” He claims that the identity of homosexuals and heterosexuals is exclusively Jewish, and that identifying as heterosexual leads men to “self-righteousness, turning them into queer-bashing bullies” If he himself is not a Sodomite, he should be stoned along with them anyway.
But we would agree that the labels “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are products of Jewish pop-culture. However those labels were created to legitimize Sodomy, not to demean it. In truth, the appropriate label for a heterosexual is “normal”, and the appropriate label for a homosexual is “Sodomite”.
While Johnson has been around for years, the Heimbach incident with NPI has encouraged the antifa crowd to write another article, titled Queer Fascism: Why White Nationalists Are Trying to Drop Homophobia. We would hope that at least most White Nationalists would come to their senses, and push the Sodomites back into the abyss they crawled out of.
Real Nationalists, and especially Christian Nationalists, should put these quasi-nationalist organizations on notice, that Rainbow Nationalism will not be accepted under any circumstances. Even The Occidental Observer, as well as the CCC and similar groups, should be targets of such notices.
These suit-and-tie White Nationalists are really not Nationalists at all. In many ways, they are no better than mainstream Republocrats. They have to be confronted, because they are not, as Johnson puts it, the representatives of the “new right” that they claim to be.
