In these days of Good Will to Men, and the ending of the Peculiar Institution of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, it may be time to revisit our series on Homosexual Heroes of the Right and celebrate America’s first homo Commander-in-Chief.
What, you say? Who, you say?
Why, James Buchanan, of course.
Who?
Perhaps only known on trading cards as “America’s only bachelor President,” there are many reasons for his obscurity. However, the arrival of Larry Flynt’s [yes, that Larry Flynt] One Nation Under Sex provides us with the details, in a section called “The Blue and The Gay.”
It seems that from his arrival in Washington as a freshman Congressman from anti-Slavery Lancaster, PA, and for the next 32 years, Buchanan carried on a romance with Alabama Sen. William Rufus King [the only bachelor Vice-President!] They were know in Washington as “The Siamese Twins,” “Mr. and Mrs. Buchanan” and, to Andrew Jackson, as “Aunt Fancy and Miss Nancy.”
"It's nobody but old Fanny so I'll kick her."Of course, there are several problem with Buchanan as hero.
First off, this was one seriously unpleasant looking dude. While Sen. King was a “handsome, curly-haired dandy,“ the future President was beardless, “eunochlike” of features and had some kind of one-eyed myopia that forced him to screw up his face and crook out his neck constantly. I’m getting kind of a David Ferrie vibe.
"You make it sound like some remote fucking experience..."
Then there is the pesky fact that historians consistently vote him the Worst President Ever, and that mainly due to his handling of the slave issue either through inaction or, when he could rouse himself to do something, actual treason.
We at WTWBA care little for the whole slavery issue. We note that it is used mainly as a stick to beat the South, America as a whole and even The White Man or Traditional Society in general. It seems to us that even at the time, the issue was hardly slavery itself; if so, why could it not have been settled legislatively, as every now-smugly-abolitionist state had already done itself? Evidence enough for it as a pretext for Northern Financial Aggression.
“. . . The anti-financial heroic attitude of the South gave it an immense advantage in the field overt the Yankee armies, who were inoculated with a war propaganda of jealousy of the superior life in the South. The war was a contest — not last in Western history — between quality and quantity. . . .
“This war had many lessons for Europe. . . . It showed the enormous military potentiality in America, it showed the Yankee character, which was thenceforth to be the American spirit, it showed the enormous will-to-power of the New York plutocracy — it showed, in short, that a base for a world-power had been laid here.” — Francis Parker Yockey, Imperium.
Indeed, I would locate my own opposition to the Peculiar Institution precisely in its trading a short-term economic gain for the long time societal rot of the Multi-Culti “society.” When even the SPLC can’t find more than an average of one lynching a week from 1865 to 1930, the tens of thousands of rapes each year, overwhelmingly black on white, cause one’s concern over Jim Crow to pale, if you will.
Sweden, I hear, is now enjoying the benefits of the Rape Society, thanks to an insane government policy of trawling the world for refugees to induce to come to Sweden.
So I also have no sympathy for the Rebels, then or now; thanks for nothing, Johnny.
Flynt of course belongs to the He-Man Southern Haters League [putting him in uncomfortable company with the likes of the authors of The Pink Swastika, for whom homosexuality, paganism and fascism are so Evil that practitioners of any one must be presumed to belong to the others] so he’s quick to pin the blame for Buchanan’s pallid, limp-wrested opposition to slavery [“the South has no right to secede, but I have no power to prevent them”] on the pernicious influence of his long-time companion [who says gay men can’t stay together, and without marriage too!]
In fact, Buchanan “surrounded himself with Southern men in his cabinet [as well as] in his personal life” and I would locate that overall preference in the natural preference of homosexuals for Traditional, elitist society in general, as well as the disgust naturally felt by the fabulous for the degraded Negro race and its crypto-Judaic Abolitionist sponsors.
“Jim Dandy” Buchanan would have approved of this Southern Man
Even today, as we have pointed out from time to time, it is the homosexual community were one finds the last vestiges of segregation, racial and otherwise [the infamous “door policies“ and “house rules“] as well as an un-ironic appreciation for the Southern; only among the big city devotees of Tennessee Williams or Truman Capote would a Southern accent or a name like Beauregarde be welcomed rather than mocked [unless, of course, one has been PC’d by today’s Liberal Elite, especially through the fake “gay” identity, or suffer from an unfortunate “dinge” fetish; if you crave degradation, what could be more degrading that consort with the darky?].
However, you hardly need to be homosexual to note slavery with approval; most people throughout most history have; and many due today, mostly, oddly enough, the dark “brothers” of the PC or gay “brotherhood.” Curious how the White Man gets no credit for practicing but ending it, while the African and Arab can do so today with abandon. How multi-culti!
More troubling is the question of treason. After all, even if one accepts [as all intelligent and honest folks do] that the states had every right to secede, by that same logic Buchanan’s Southern advisers [and even cabinet officers!] were if not spies then at best “agents of a foreign government.” It makes Clinton’s “impeachable offenses” even more laughable. Still, if that was treason, what of our fully Judaicly advised presidents today, such as Bush [see Kevin MacDonald's "George Bush: The First Jewish President"] and the Dusky Messiah himself?
And finally, Buchanan does seem to have led off the American pursuit of Empire, with plans to steal Cuba decades before the Spanish American outrage, in order to provide more slave states for his insatiable partner.
And his enemies might even find comfort in the fact that his 32 year union [if you will] was of course childless; when he died in 1868, the Chicago Tribune sneered:
The desolate old man has gone to his grave. Fortunately he is the last of his race. No son or daughter is doomed to acknowledge an ancestry of him.
Just think, we might have been spared Bush II!
However, perhaps the ultimate answer to the Evil Homo line of thought is provided by Flynt himself: it turns out that the Great Emancipator himself, Honest Abe, was, if not homosexual, at least distinctly … odd. Again, a man of strange physical deformity; even at the time, to say nothing of his modern day detractors among the Southern partisans, Abe was treated as a figure of fun if not disgust.
But Abe’s younger contemporaries noted over and over his strange “lack of interest in the girls” [as they are invariably described by these pre-PC frontier males]. Moreover, he had a distinct like for “sleeping with men;” literally. Beds being somewhat a luxury on the frontier, this was not as odd as it would be today, but even in Abe’s time his downright enthusiasm for finding a new, young, partner in sleep was observed.
Observed, but not acted on, nor used to prevent him from rising as high as the Presidency. For Flynt confirms, unwillingly, one of our theses: that contrary to the Left’s Myth of Stonewall, pre-60s homosexuals did not cower in fear, suffer from raids by Cossacks or have to wear striped uniforms and yellow triangles. Sure, there were occasional moral panics caused by our Judaic “heritage,” but as Flynt himself points out, even then the ones doing the hounding [Cohn, Hoover] were homos!
Homos like Cohn or Hoover, or our other heroes like Noel Coward or, back to the military for a moment, “Bunny” Roger, wanted to take the lead in White Western society [being homosexual elitists], and were able to, precisely because homosexuality was not allowed to be an “issue” one way or another. That is to say, society did not hound them, and so society did not appear to them as needing “liberation” [or, perhaps, “reconstruction”].
Flynt makes the same point as Foucault did in more tortured [ha!] language: modern “liberation” is actually a form of social control. More talk, more rules, more observation. Go ahead, be “gay,” just make sure to wear a condom and get married like Everyone Else, because that’s what you are, just like Everyone Else.
By contrast, Flynt notes that while "in the nineteenth century scuttlebutt about the sex lives of [heterosexual] presidential candidates filled America's newspapers and was used by both parties to discredit opposition candidates," even so obviously a homoerotic work as Leaves of Grass could be freely published, since reviewers, however much they may have suspect something nasty was going on in the woodshed, literally could not mention their suspicious in polite [or as one quoted reviewer says, “Christian”] company!
Who needs “Don’t ask, don’t tell” when there’s no word for it anyway?
And that, boys and girls, is how, without the help of “gay liberation,” or Barney and Hillary, our 15th and 16th Presidents had already turned the White House into the original Log Cabin, and did so successfully that today not one citizen in a thousand even notices “Mrs. Buchanan” or Abe’s “beard.”
No comments:
Post a Comment