Vilification of Homosexuality by identary ethno-nationalists: A Misunderstanding.

By Alfred Vierling


Being vilified for long by ethno-nationalists for being gay I feel the need to respond to such ill-founded misgivings.

Their argument normally goes as follows: Our ethics of the preservation of ethnicity are conducive of , to say the least, replacement fertility. Any behaviour upsetting fertility is therefore reprehensible. Homosexuality, for example, for it foregoes having children and if exhibited in public is bound to lure youngsters into this genetical dead-end. Some even invoke the Bible as a dictate of human behaviour. I am not falling for that one.


According to present-day state-of-the-art scientific knowledge of genetics this argument reveals some misunderstandings. I shall give some remarks:


  • Homosexuality is not an individual choice, but an early presumably prenatal and irreversible preference. People, like all mammals (in birds it is the other way round), are naturally female unless masculinized, a process triggered by the SRY gene which on the Y-chromosome starts a cascade of events in the developing foetus that leads to the development of a masculine appearance and behaviour. Female is the default sex and homosexuality in men results from the partial failure of this prenatal masculinisation process in the brain, though not in the body.



  • Ray Blanchard’s theory of the fraternal birth order states that elder brother(s) cause a maternal immune reaction  against presumably the PCDH22 gene  specific of the male foetus,  conducive to a rise of one third more chance to become gay of  a male foetus for each extra elder brother.


  • If nurture,  in the guise of birth order, causes some homosexuality, it does so by causing an immune reaction, which is a process directly mediated by genes. So, one can no longer differentiate between environmentally determined or genetically determined. Thus, the mere presumption that so-called determination by genetics is less malleable than what is determined by environment does not make sense anymore.


  • By consequence, nobody in science now believes that sexual orientation is caused by events in adolescence , because the determination is much earlier, presumably in the womb. Adolescence merely develops a negative that was exposed much earlier. It is therefore totally nonsense to state that exhibited homosexuality can lure youngsters into this preference. If experimentation is the right of youth, young people will soon find out whether it is their nature or not.


  • One should, however, not fall into the naturalistic fallacy, that ‘ought’ can be derived from ‘is’, for this is by definition fallacious. If a greater tendency to violence is innate in the human male, it does not make it right (or wrong).



  • Present-day geneticists do admit that the individuals are merely vehicles of genes. Fitness is defined as the quantitative genetic contribution of one genotype to the next generation relative to other genotypes of the same species. Individual fitness is defined as the contribution of individuals to the production of offspring. Inclusive fitness allows for compensation of foregoing procreation by behaviour that affects positively other individuals to transfer the same genotype.


  • So ethics of the preservation of ethnicity should allow for inclusive fitness, that is to consider self-sacrifice (not conveying its own genes to the next generation) as a foundation for radical activism. If someone foregoes having children of his own but would serve the larger interests of his race, he could be better serving it than the one leaving a large family but living against the larger interests of his race, like for instance many drug and alcohol users do deteriorate the quality of their genes. So do war-mongers: The boreal race lost 175 million people last century in fratricidal warfare.



  • The propaganda argument that the nuclear family is the cornerstone of the nation presupposes a rectangular building, while for many centuries troglodytes did not know but larger families in cave dwellings. What is more,  it ignores the very fact that a building needs at least four corner stones allowing for other inclusive fitness forms of relations. Decadence, Latin for the falling-down of the temple is due to a distorted equilibrium among all the cornerstones, not just one should be singled out for vilification.


  • Homosexuality is thought to be exempt from procreation, which might be true in the Talmudic propaganda distributed among gentiles to refrain from offspring, but it can also describe the Mediterranean (e.g. Muslim) way of inter-male hedonistic sexual prenuptial and extra-nuptial relations on the same level as heterosexual anal sexual relations and anti-conceptive sexual relations, while still allowing for offspring.



  • Criticism by etno-identary natalists on homosexuality should rather focus on this procreation inhibiting sexuality than on homosexual behaviour as such.




  • Nature via Nurture, 2003 Matt Ridley
  • On Genetic Interests, Family, Ethnicity, Humanity in the Age of Mass Migrations,

F.K. Salters, see also bookreview by M. Polignano in Occidental Quarterly vol7 no3, 2007 see