|
|
|
Oscar Wilde: the straight truth about a “gay” icon by Alexander Baron On October 26, 2010, the headline on page 31 of the London Evening Standard read Anti-gay bullies are taught a lesson or two. This propaganda piece is about a secondary school in North London that is said to have almost eradicated “homophobic bullying” after indoctrinating its pupils with “gay” history lessons. The catalyst for this cynical piece of political correctness gone mad is revealed as the discovery by music teacher Elly Barnes that some of her charges were using the word “gay” as a derogatory term. Perish the thought. So Miss Barnes, sorry, Ms Barnes, set about instigating a scheme to “educate and celebrate” being “gay”, and of course, who better to include in this unsubtle brainwashing exercise than Oscar Wilde, who is of course pictured in the article? The standard homo line on this degenerate and sexual predator is that he was a victim of Victorian hypocrisy who was driven to ruin by the vengeful father of his “lover”, Lord Alfred Douglas. The slightest critical examination of the undisputed facts of this sordid affair expose this for utter cant, and reveal clearly that Wilde was the author of his own misfortune. Why anyone should consider Wilde to be any sort of icon remains to be seen, least of all a “gay” one, because in spite of his penchant for both the company and debasement of younger men, he was not strictly speaking homosexual. Oscar Wilde married his long suffering wife Constance in May 1884, and as she bore him two sons in quick succession, this was obviously no lavender marriage. After meeting the Oxford undergraduate Lord Alfred Douglas in 1891, the two men became inseparable, both spiritually and sordidly. Born into privilege, and making large sums from his over-rated plays, Wilde could have followed in the footsteps of Jonas Hanway and William Wilberforce by turning his undoubted talents to social reform, instead he chose to indulge himself in debauchery of a particularly revolting kind, engaging in liaisons with young men of a lower class who had decided, for whatever reasons, to hire out their bodies to be debased. Unfortunately for Wilde, the father of Lord Alfred Douglas was the Marquess of Queensberry, who is today best remembered for the Marquess of Queensberry Rules for boxing. Queensberry appears to have been every bit as pugnacious in his personal life as in his patronage of sport, and, believing Wilde to be a corrupting influence on his son, warned him off. It has to be said that in spite of their age difference, Lord Alfred Douglas was in no sense the junior partner in their shared perversions, although in his 1984 biography of Douglas, H. Montgomery Hyde says he claimed in private correspondence that “Sodomy never took place between us, nor was it thought or dreamt of.” Whether or not that is true, he also claimed Wilde “sucked” him. Douglas gave the impression that his sexual proclivities at this time were just a youthful folly, albeit an extended one, and said that these “perverted instincts” disappeared when he parted company with Wilde and his crowd. That is quite likely true. He married less than two years after Wilde’s death, and less than nine months later his wife presented him with a son. Later, he grew to despise his association with Wilde, and openly condemned homosexual practices. Be that as it may, at the time he was a more than willing participant, and neither he nor Wilde was inclined to break off their relationship. This led to Queensberry delivering the infamous note to Wilde accusing him of posing as a sodomite if not actually being one. Nowadays, sadly, to accuse a man of homosexuality is hardly considered defamatory, but at the time it could be construed as criminal libel, and inadvisedly Wilde sought to have Queensberry gaoled for calling a spade a spade. Wilde seemed to treat the resulting trial as some sort of joke, and no doubt delighted in his performance in the witness box. Unfortunately for him, Queensberry’s lawyers had done their homework, and tracked down many of Wilde’s young escorts – or whatever you want to call them. Wilde withdrew from the prosecution, and was left with a considerable legal bill which ruined him financially. Having attempted to deprive Queensberry of his freedom, it was hardly surprising that the vindicated defendant should seek to return the compliment. In fact, immediately after turning over to the authorities all the evidence his lawyers and private detectives had unearthed for the criminal libel trial, Queensberry rather magnanimously informed Wilde and invited him to flee the country, “but if you take my son with you, I will shoot you like a dog”. Wilde declined, and stood trial on no less than twenty-five counts along with his procurer, Alfred Taylor. At the first trial, the jury cleared the two defendants of one of the charges, and were deadlocked on the rest. Wilde was granted bail for the retrial, and still elected not to flee the country. This time he and Taylor were convicted, and two years at hard labour in addition to bankruptcy and social ostracism left him a broken man. He died in exile three and a half years after his release. The fact that Wilde was left bankrupt and stigmatised has led many people to feel sorry for him; compassion is a fine thing, but let us not kid ourselves that he was any sort of victim, except of his own vices. Remove homosexuality from the equation, and what are we left with? A married man who engages in depraved sexual practices with younger, impressionable people, including consorting with prostitutes, then goes home and sleeps with his wife, which could have resulted in his giving her some unmentionable disease. We have, too, a man who seeks to have another man thrown into gaol because he has the temerity to protect his son, a man who resorts to artifice, and perjury in order to effect that, or tries to. What sort of victim was Wilde? What sort of role model, “gay” or otherwise? The aforementioned Evening Standard article finishes with some manufactured statistics which are oh so typical of the politically correct brigade. The self-styled Human Rights Commission is said to have published a report which found “two-thirds of lesbian, gay and transgender students had suffered homophobic bullying, and 17 per cent had received death threats”. Yeah, right. This is reminiscent of the American doctor Robert W. Deisher who wrote in the 1989 book Gay And Lesbian Youth that of the 30 million young people in the US between the ages of 10 and 20, 10% were felt to be “predominantly or exclusively homosexual”. The 10% is an uncritical parroting of the long discredited 1948 Kinsey report Sexual Behavior In The Human Male. It beggars belief that anyone with a university education, much less an MD like Deisher, could even consider the concept of a homosexual ten year old. The other figures spouted by the Evening Standard article are just as meaningless. What does bullying mean? And homophobic bullying? One instance of a pupil calling another pupil queer perhaps? The purpose of such nonsense is clear, it is part of a systematic campaign to brainwash the youth of Britain, and youth per se. Teaching tolerance of homosexuality is one thing, but acceptance of it…haven’t they learned anything from the AIDS pandemic? The really frightening thing about these people is their uncompromising willingness to subjugate truth to ideology, and to use every dirty trick in the book, including the usurpation of the rule of law, to restructure society to their version of paradise, whatever the consequences, including for future generations. Their total ruthlessness and intellectual dishonesty are above all the traits they share with Oscar Wilde. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 01:12 | # Goethe, “Gay Rights” presents as radical egalitarianism, and no doubt many homosexuals consider there to be justice in it. But it is used by those who mean European-descended peoples ill, specifically to weaken personal identity, the defences which healthy peoples construct against maladaptive sexual behaviour, and the great bulwark of marriage. If you read the opening paragraph again you will find one small example of how, and if you read the rest of the article you will find that, in common with all leftist trope-politics, lies and distortions are rife. 3
Posted by Goethe on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 01:46 | # I am in favour of ‘gay rights’, because I don’t consider gender/gender preferences/sexual expression to be a primary determinant of someone’s value. It would be a societal problem if everyone believed themselves to be homosexual/transgender/what have you, but this is not the case and is obviously is far outside of possibility. I consider myself a NS and pan-Germanic aristocrat in terms of social views. As such, I am certainly not ‘egalitarian’ in any way; I simply think that there are much more important considerations as to a person’s value to their people (intellect/creativity, morality, willingness to sacrifice themselves). Personal identity should not depend on others’ preferences. If one believes a certain set of people to be corrupt in some way, and thus fears them, then said person has a sort of weakness in that they do not trust themselves to avoid what they believe to be corruption, whether or not it really is. Gay rights is one of the few examples of social conditioning within the present cultural regime which I support, and the reason for this is that many are too stupid and violent to realize that gender/gender preferences is not something that you should bully/assault someone for. Without the requisite attitudes that promote humility and respect for the group, controls like this are necessary. I don’t really care whether or not this is accomplished with lies, as those who are insightful enough can see those lies for what they are. 4
Posted by Goethe on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 01:56 | # Ah, sorry about ‘is obviously is’, I have a habit of writing as a stream-of-consciousness. I only really reflect when working on maths. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 02:06 | # Goethe, Anything that weakens the connection of an individual or a people to its nature and naturally-arising interests is bad for that individual or that people. If that weakening is achieved with some personal benefit to a minority, it is still wrong. The interests of the greater number must prevail. Further, I would argue that the quality of the gain is also at issue. A gain in the freedom to mess about with someone’s sexual organs is not a currency of equal value to a gain in ethnic interests or evolutionary fitness. You are presenting a gain of minimal value by a negligible minority as a counterweight to the loss of self-relation and interests for the overwhelming majority. And it isn’t. 6
Posted by barb on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:29 | # “The majority of people are not gay or transgender, and won’t magically become gay or transgender just because acceptance is given to LGBT people. “ How do you know? I’m the parent of teens. I hear talk from a lot of my kids’ classmates these days about the rates of teens claiming to be gay that is truly frightening—20-30%, maybe? 20-30% of people were always gay, you say, and now they’re free to say so? Baloney. If that were true the human species would have died out long ago. I think a lot of the kids now claiming to be gay are doing so because it’s fashionable. Well, then, that’s okay, you say? Since it’s just fashion, they’ll revert to their hetero selves in a few years? How do you know? With having proclaimed to be gay on facebook, these kids may well have just foreclosed any opportunity to have a normal marriage, because what opposite-gender person would want someone who’s claimed to be gay in the past?
I’m not surprised. So how does a sufferer of abnormal psychology imagine himself qualified to expound on whether or not making “gayness” fashionable will adversely affect impressionable kids? 7
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:01 | # Foucault wrote: “The sodomite was a recidivist, but the homosexual is now a species.” 8
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:57 | # At the time (1957) of the Wolfenden Report on homosexuality the estimate of the homosexual percentage of UK males was 4. The mainstreaming of homosexual behaviour and liberal nonsense about lifestyle choice seems to have driven the increase in the self- identifying number of these pitiable creatures, whether ‘born or made’. There is of course a difference between being a homosexual and engaging in the jailed - Nigger type of homosexual, faute - de - mieux, acts. 9
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:24 | # Goethe, you are aware that had you been alive in NS Germany your fate may well have been to be put in a concentration camp on half-rations, doing back-breaking labor under the watch eyes of the SS, right? And if you didn’t like that, some precision dental rearrangement with a truncheon would not have been unforeseeable. Given that, it would seem any affinity for NS the sexually abnormal may have is inappropriate unto masochism. But then again, masochism is itself sexually abnormal. 10
Posted by Goethe on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:56 | # Oh, this will be entertaining. I’m not upset; I realize that the majority of WNs are older, and that the younger intelligent ones are introverted radicals like myself. That being said, let us begin:
Which is better, to forge a connection as a conscious choice, or to only be part of a group due to familiarity? Surely it is better to arrive at conclusions on your own, through conflict with things outside of yourself. Otherwise, you have an incomplete picture of what you live for. You seem to be claiming that a LGBT person is incapable of contributing to their people, whereas I say that there are more ways to contribute than to produce offspring. What use are offspring if they create no great work?
Utilitarianism is not what Europeans need; what Europeans need is hierarchy and culture. A major goal of any social group should be to reduce suffering, of course, but that is not to say that suffering or hardship cannot be a catalyst for greatness. What is most important is the well-being of the intellectual/creative elite, those that create and that others leech off of.
You have three choices here. 1. Sexuality is innate. If this is the case, then being exposed to alternative sexualities will not move someone from their natural inclinations, and you wish to cause suffering to those who are born a sexual minority. 2. Sexuality is learned. If this is the case, then you are a Behavioralist, and must admit that there are no real natural instincts/urges, which is, of course, ludicrous. 3. Sexuality is innate, and then shaped by experiences. How can something that is not there to begin with be shaped?
I highly doubt that the percentage is anywhere near what you have estimated.
I said nothing of the sort. *You* did, however. I personally estimate the rate of homosexuality to be somewhere between 5-8%. Considering the recent discoveries made in epigenetics, homosexuality may be partially influenced by the compositions of the immediate and extended family.
Perhaps someone who values other attributes than who a person likes to share their bed with, or expresses their gender. Perhaps someone who isn’t homophobic, or very immature/confused.
I doubt you know the first thing about transgenderism, including studies which show a biological basis. In the womb, hormones are released to make the physical sex concrete, and in some instances the ratio or timing is not the same as it usually is. That is, the mind is not the same sex as the body. I’m well aware that some people mistakenly claim to be transgender (or believe themselves to be), but if it doesn’t show up before 16 or so, then I strongly doubt said person is *transsexual*, perhaps just genderfluid or a feminine male/masculine female. And regardless, the confusion of some should not mean the condemnation of others. You’re making a huge generalization, because you have no real knowledge to go on, so you must generalize, or remain silent.
Liberal nonsense about lifestyle choice? Hum. Let’s pretend you’re right. Then: *Why are you not a proud capitalist? You must consume for the betterment of your economic overlords! *No, no, you must watch this television program. Everyone else is watching it. *A leather jacket? Much too aggressive. Denim is less threatening. *You don’t listen to the Billboard Top 40? It’s all the radio plays. *You don’t believe in multiculturalism/racial equality? You’re a horrible person to not believe what you’ve been told. *Oh, you can’t wear a dress even if you want to. See, despite the apparent decline of ridiculous religious thinking, we still think it’s a sin to crossdress, even on Halloween. *Conform Conform Conform, or people will talk about you. Oh yes, making non-mainstream personal choices is just awful. Why are you even here, really?
I’m not a Nazi. When I say National Socialist, I mean National Socialist. Nazi Germany was the side of good in WWII, but of course they had their faults.
Spartans are most certainly masochists. 11
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 00:19 | #
Sodomy is an act. Homosexuality is a social construct. Discourse is war. Homosexuality is discourse.
In WWII Holland it is regarded by one historian as “a persistent fiction, created by the gay-emancipation movement in the 1970s.” http://vorige.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2444718.ece 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 02:04 | # Goethe,
First, one must define “the good”. For ethnic groups, the good is what increases their ethnic interests. For the individual in the modernist sense, the good is what increases choice. So what is better? Well, I have already answered that. The interests of the greatest number must prevail. So, the definition of good we accept is that which increases the interests of our ethny. What relevance to that does your “conscious choice” have?
Not at all. In our time we have carried one or two pieces by homosexuals, when the point of view was of interest. Salter clearly says that all people regardless of sexuality have ethnic genetic interests because, essentially, they are part of a group and part of humanity like us all. Thus you write, ” I say that there are more ways to contribute than to produce offspring,” and I agree. But what I am saying is that “the good” as I have defined it also applies to you. It is, however, necessary to pull back from your attachment to liberal individualism, and to seek to support the group even when that may incur apparent costs to “individual” yourself.
Nature is not purposive. It does existing through time/entropy by the transmission of (potentially) immortal genes. That is the “great work” of our creation, in which furtherance we seek the increase of our ethnic interests.
We have debated this to death. Heirarchy is probably not required at all except that it can further ethnic interests. If “the intellectual/creative elite” succeeds there, it is a positive. If not, it is a negative. There is no magical certainty on that one, notwithstanding the “iron law” that certain persons like to espouse. As for culture, you mean high culture, right? That’s fine, but it is perhaps a secondary-tier ethnic interest. Art, beauty, expression are not greater than the simplest life. 13
Posted by Goethe on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 02:35 | #
The good is what is best for the best, not what is best for everyone. Conscious choices shape the individual because the individual is shaped by their environment, but something which is not there cannot be shaped. If a choice had to be made between saving the lives of 1 million European scientists/artists, or 100 million common laborers, I would choose the scientists/artists. You must be aware of how many individuals which have given gifts of creativity to Europa, no? How many Olympian concepts which are outside the purview of all but a few, that are brought to light by great thinkers? I am cognizant of this sacrifice, and I respect my ancestors because of it.
I am aware that I have a responsibility to my ancestors to have European progeny if possible. You seem to believe that because I am championing the central role of self-actualization that I am ignorant of the group being more important than the individual.
Nature does have a purpose: ever increasing complexity as a counterbalance to entropy. Natural laws exist, and therefore harmony with these laws is something that exists. I care about the best of Europeans, not everyone who is a European, which is why I style myself as an aristocrat and argue for the importance of hierarchy.
Europeans have intellect/creativity that other groups lack -> hierarchy allows the creative to create -> the best Europeans develop great works which further their cultures/peoples -> Europeans *create* beyond themselves -> increasing complexity/order and insight into the nature of the universe is the natural unfolding of things 14
Posted by barb on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 03:27 | # “What use are offspring if they create no great work?” The “useless” offspring may produce offspring who produce great work. Without offspring, no chance for the random recombinations of DNA that occasionally produce a Newton.
Not if as your first act you are undermining the kids’ ability to produce offspring (by making gayness fashionable.) Were you all to pipe down, go back in your closets, stop the activism which is messing with this crop of teens’ heads, and produce some more wonderful paintings, hey, I’d agree with you. But by forcing society to embrace homosexuality lest some LGBT get his feelings hurt, I say you are bringing about social conditions that will further depress the already dangerously-low White birth rate. “I highly doubt that the percentage is anywhere near what you have estimated.” You have no better proof of your statistics than I do. One thing I learned reading Steve Sailer’s stuff is to believe my lying eyes. And from what I’m seeing walking the halls in the high school and what my kids are telling me they see, 1/4 of the highschool class claiming gayness looks to be about correct. “homosexuality may be partially influenced by the compositions of the immediate and extended family. “ That “may” in there is very telling. Nobody knows for sure WHAT causes homosexual proclivities. But the root cause may not be relevant anyway. Claiming to be gay is fashionable, as a direct result of LBGT activism. Teens are very interested in what’s fashionable and what’s fashionable is what they embrace, without much thought to how it may affect them in the future. Since claiming gayness is currently fashionable, lots of kids claiming it is not too surprising. Dismaying, but not surprising. “I said nothing of the sort” Did you see the question mark? I was asking, if this is your argument, here’s why it’s wrong. “Perhaps someone who values other attributes than who a person likes to share their bed with, or expresses their gender. Perhaps someone who isn’t homophobic, or very immature/confused.” Big fat “perhaps” there. If you’re wrong and I’m right, 1/4 of Gen Y won’t be marrying and making babies, because they claimed to be gay in high school and so normal people will not marry them—for fear of STDs and being left for a gay lover, among other reasons.
“A biological basis,” even if it exists, does not counter my statement that transgendereds are suffering from abnormal psychology. Certainly, being willing to have the sensitive genital organs removed and remodeled is abnormal from the psychology of the rest of us who enjoy the sensations of our body parts and wish to keep them. But just as only a fool would ask a schizophrenic to judge whether or not hearing voices is normal, LBGTs are not qualified to decide whether making it fashionable to claim to be gay will depress the marriage and birthrate.
Your insistence upon not being “condemned”—not getting your feelings hurt—is causing a situtation to develop that very well may lead to Whites, whom you claim to value, failing to make enough babies to offset the rising Tide of Color. Sorry, but the Larger Good of the White Race continuing to exist into the future is more important than your self-pity party. And for that Larger Good, we need the vast majority of the next gen to get married and make and raise babies. LBGT activism is grossly interfering with that developmental process.
You are, too, by asserting that making gayness socially acceptable will do no harm to the population at large. You have no knowledge, either, accept your own selfish demands to be approved of by the rest of us. 15
Posted by barb on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 04:19 | # “You must be aware of how many individuals which have given gifts of creativity to Europa, no? How many Olympian concepts which are outside the purview of all but a few, that are brought to light by great thinkers? I am cognizant of this sacrifice, and I respect my ancestors because of it. “ Well, assuming you had one of these Great Thinkers in your ancestry, are you unaware of the phenomenon of “regression to the mean,” the likelihood that an overachiever’s progeny tend to be not so hot? In fact, I’d venture you’re a case in point. Because, you are not going to claim you yourself are a Great Thinker who’s about to win the Nobel Prize in Physics for a Grand Unified Theory that works, are you? Certainly your posts seem to indicate an inability to look outside your own purview and see the Bigger Picture about the White birthrate. Personal insults aside, What are Einstein’s grandkids doing? Who knows? Certainly talent tends to run in families, but the appearance of the virtuosos you uniquely value, is unpredictable. And it goes the other way, too: Newton’s family was nothing special, yet it produced him. His father was an illiterate farmer—one of those common laborers you’d rather not save. And the thing is, Mr. not-Goethe, all those Mental Giants are dependent upon the efforts of all those common laborers, so they have time to sit down and do all that thinking and creating. Or instead of working out the number of dimensions in the universe or painting The Last Supper, they’d be all day about chasing down squirrels to bash for dinner. 16
Posted by Goethe on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 07:58 | #
Thus the need for eugenics.
I will state that I believe myself capable of highly original work in the primary three fields that interest me: philosophy, art, and mathematics. The actualization of my potential leading to this possible accomplishment is dependent on my maturation, &c;. I am 19 now (soon to be 20, I feel old). The Bigger Picture is that the wrong people are having children. By ‘wrong people’, I mean not just non-Europeans living as parasites in European or European-built nations, but also the undesirable lower classes, in comparison to the upper middle class and wealthy, who have been corrupted by Mammon so that their highest priority is self-indulgence and competitions hinging around status symbols, instead of self-sacrifice and creation for the benefit of those worthy of it. I recall reading several papers+articles discussing the difference in birthrates between the nobility and the working classes of the UK prior to the Industrial Revolution. 17
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 08:52 | #
It’s not about choice. It’s about knowledge and power. Ethnocentrism and homosexuality share at least one thing. They are both social constructs. They are both about bio-politics and they both have no foundation in evolutionary biology. Homosexuality does have one thing that ethnocentrism does not: power. As this article outlines the state believes that homosexuality is not just an act of sodomy but accepts the social construct . It is homosexual. Homosexuality has achieved minority racial status. Thus it, the state, is able to justify its attacks on heterosexuals. 18
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:09 | #
Clark’s Farewell to Alms discusses survival rates, as does Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, however with the end of the Malthusian trap, through industrialization, post revolution survival rates began to favor the poor. The result of natural selection advantaging the “right people” with a reproductive differential? An increase in the survival rate of the offspring of the “wrong people”. 19
Posted by svensson on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 11:19 | # For the record: after Constance had given birth to their two sons Wilde lost all attraction to her. He wasn’t some ordinary hetero husband, he became rather gay confronting his wife’s post-natal condition. Other than that, an interesting article. Personally I’m thinking about the penalty he got: how can “hard labour” kill anyone? Hard work is healthy. But Wilde was broken in spirit after he lost his trial. Mind over matter. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 12:42 | # Goethe,
I am going to repeat what I said in another thread about the good. For an enlightened nationalist, as opposed to people who have bad values, there are two possible definitions: 1. That which increases genetic interest and, at the level of the group, that which increases ethnic genetic interest. 2. That which draws Man, individually and collectively, away from mechanicity and absence and towards consciousness and presence. There is no third definition for those with a true relation to self. The absent hordes, of course, will convince themselves of anything. We know better.
I will translate. You are saying that mechanistically-derived actions (Libet) in ordinary waking consciousness are ultimately connected to acquired, formative data from without. And this is true. But its meaning is far removed from the one you are giving it. The environment is the author of human personality. But personality is a mechanistic behavioural suite in which the three systems of the mind run like unsynchronised engines, over which heat and sound the fabulous story of the self is woven. It is not the real “I”, though, which is no story. So, man is personality and “I”, and he does not know “I” unless and until he experiences a moment of presence. In the rest of his life, which might be 99.9% of it, he knows only absence and the illusion of the woven story. His power of attention, which should be a directed and active freeing agent, is left to wander and diffuse onto objects, noumenal and phenomenal. And where attention is, so is the person. This is the human psychological condition, and we are living through a period, commencing, perhaps with the industrial revolution or even earlier, in which the power of the environment to anaesthetise, atomise and estrange is become very great and only grows greater. For the environment is in us and only in us, and is us, and we are imperilled because of it. So, my friend, take nothing from it that does not conform to one or other of those definitions. Deliverance lies there.
I seem to believe that you have a very ordinary understanding of self, and so “self-actualisation” in your mouth is a nonsense. But a widely-understood nonsense among the misunderstanding!
No, Nature is. The closest we can get to finding purpose is interest.
First, as I said on another thread, all human personality has the same ontological value. It is important that you do not confuse categories here. If we are speaking ontologically with any kind of strictness - and I am - the heirarchs have no objective high-ness, nothing bequeathed upon them by their aestheticism or by a thoroughly Nietzschean and barbarian morality, whichever it is. Social position achieved in the struggle for mate fitness is simply about which women can be impregnated. It has no wider significance, and neither do the people who achieve it. Unless ... they increase the genetic interests of the tribe. Utility is in Nature. Sorry, you cannot find personal value in another paradigm that is not illusory.
You are driving downward into confusion and untruth. Why, because you are fixated on your disability. The (psychological) sacrifice for your people that is demanded of you is to free yourself from that fixation, put aside all striving for self-repair, and face Nature, truth, science, and the real, the latter of which contains more of power and beauty than Nietzsche ever dreamt. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:23 | # Desmond,
“Choice” is a proxy for the unfettered will, and I had qualified my statement with the words “the individual in the modernist sense”. But then you write:
But ethnocentrism is the emotional cognition of kinship at the level of the group. Homosexuality is an activity caused by sexual disability, and is no more constructed than heterosexuality. So neither are constructs, it seems to me. Though I don’t doubt that, as is your wont, you will immediately appeal to some lettered notable who will testify to the opposite. Wrongly, certainly as far as ethnocentrism is concerned.
Loyalty and belonging are extant emotions, and emotions are not constructed. They can, of course, enter into constructs, imbuing them with import for the individual concerned. One has to be careful, therefore, in following the line of descent. If it is from pure emotion then we are dealing with no construct. I hope your authority can grasp this distinction. 22
Posted by Goethe on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 20:38 | #
Do not ignore the relationship between the individual and the nation. The connection is not a direct one; the intermediate collection, that of social circles, must be addressed. The individual cannot be directly connected to a nation (or if they (singular) are so they must necessarily be disconnected from the normal social needs of humans), they must be part of a family, and/or a social circle. Increasing the group interest is a matter of cultivating the self to the greatest extent possible, and then sacrificing for the group. Such a development, of individuals and social circles, must be organic, and therefore I argue the necessity of strong culture and hierarchy, because culture is what is organically produced by Europeans in groups. Humans have moral failings; it is okay to be human, but it is not acceptable to be aware of these failings and do nothing to improve them so that you may be able to better serve your fellow (wo)man. So I agree with point 1 for the most part, and my emphasis on self and group cultivation is obviously in support of point 2.
Small inputs can result in large outputs, especially if the inputs are somehow combined in the black box that is the human psyche. The real self is almost never exposed; part of what I am getting at is that a major goal of self-cultivation is the awareness of this self. By this, I mean more than ‘know thyself’, I mean that to be able to *give* to the best of your ability, you must know your true self. And I would further add that to know the self, there must be conflict/suffering. Suffering helps to remove the false patterns of behaviour within that which you call ‘personality’. Man is the Self, which is unconscious, the I, which is conscious, and the personality, which interacts with that outside of the Self and I. I keep repeating ‘self-cultivation’, and it is for a reason. To grow requires focus, intensity, and dedication. But most of all, it requires that one already have some awareness of the Self, otherwise one is little better than an animal (which is how I would label the vast majority of humans, even most Europeans).
This is something that I completely agree with.
Let my above statements help to guide your understanding of my conceptualization of self.
Are you aware of the idea of pre-established harmony (Leibniz)? Natural laws are little different than that, in that if there are natural laws, all that can exist, and the patterns of existence, conform to that set of natural laws. A good way to conceptualize this is to consider geometry. Geometry is a huge field of different results originating in the observance of a few axioms. There are any number of geometries, arrived at by changing said axioms, which can be done as long as the axioms are in harmony (do not contradict one another; limiting the extent of another axiom is an entirely different thing). The same is the case of the universe, and as intelligent life, we have a responsibility to seek to understand the Universe, and its laws.
I cannot agree with this. You cannot claim that because any individual element of a collection is impossible to quantitatively analyze that all the elements are equal.
My struggle is one of self-doubt. I don’t really consider myself a Nietzschean; some of his ideas are attractive (master/slave morality, the continual striving to overcome limitations, &c;), but it is safe to say that Aristotle and Plato are larger philosophical influences. 23
Posted by Goethe on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 20:58 | #
Genetic quality is nowhere near as random as you believe it to be.
Oh, so LGBT people are only okay as long as they produce without being given respect as fellow humans? How is that different than a form of slavery?
It is much easier to believe what you are looking for instead of accepting that you are naive concerning the issue.
Which is it? Do people have natural inclinations, in which case it doesn’t matter that LGBT rights are promoted, or do they just decide to start fantasizing about cock because their teacher told them it was cool? What do you think is *really* more likely?
This is simply absurd.
Is ‘abnormal psychology’ necessarily a bad thing? The existence of those that are outside of gender norms helps to raise questions about gender and sexuality, which can lead to a greater understanding of the gender/sexuality of the self. Geniuses are much more likely to suffer from ‘abnormal psychology’ such as severe depression (I’m a good example of this), bipolar disorder, and some other issues. Before deciding to claim that something is bad because it is different than the majority or norm, perhaps you should think a bit.
It’s a lot more than ‘not getting my feelings hurt’; I’d rather not be assaulted or unable to get a job because of mindless bigots. Some TG people are really into trying to force people to label them a certain way; I am not one of those. If someone respects me, they will show respect for my gender expression. If they don’t, I don’t wish to be around them to begin with, because their shortsightedness speaks volumes about their quality as a human being. You’re blaming the wrong crowd for European demographic issues. The main culprit is consumerist culture, a selfishness that is only possible because of the current raping of Earth by similarly selfish corporate and governmental interests. Become an environmentalist and then get back to me.
To wish to be treated with respect is not selfish, especially considering that I show respect towards others. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 02:00 | # Goethe, In his book On Genetic Interest Frank Salter measured gains and losses in the currency of child equivalents. He did this for the obvious reason that the first tier of genetic interests is our children, who carry forward the distinctive genes we share as an ethnic group. What that means is that the loss of lower-order interests like high art or social elitism, for example, is survivable. But the loss of our children is killing for the entire tribe. It is important that you understand clearly why you desire to pressage a different, non-real heirarchy of interests. That, for starters, would be something to sacrifice to do good by the definition I have offered.
Well, if you haven’t done so it wouldn’t do any harm to visit the side-bar and check out the first two links under “Existential Issues”. The Salterian thesis is laid out there. It imposes a certain discipline on the way we handle human purpose, and reminds us that Man is an animal and not “a sovereign individual”, and lives as such despite his illusions to the contrary.
Nope. Sounds Jewish to me. We are dealing with an area of fact here, not speculation. We can break down or use different terms, and formulate a more detailed and compelling picture. But the model remains that, if I borrow from Heidegger, for instance, of inauthenticity in the witness of being and authenticity in that witness. It is dualistic, not trinitarian.
Look, I will try to separate out from your grand ideas about human teleology the beautiful, vital, animalistic fact of “what is” in the unique moment of consciousness. I’ve done this before here. So regular MR readers can look away now! Look at these two very amateurishly shot videos of the ancient festival of Obby Oss, which is held every May Day in the town of Padstow in north Cornwall. This is from 2009. Tell me what you really see. But don’t tell me it’s the costumes and dancing, because that would represent a fail! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_YmKdcSZDw
The natural law is evolution. Is there any other? Well, entropy, of course. But otherwise I except physical laws. I am not really interested in the physics of rocks and light.
That is not the basis of my claim. Ontological value manifests in the heightened attraction of reality over illusion. All human personality has the same ontological value because it all excludes the former unit of higher value.
You have done amazingly for one so young. If you do not allow your personal issues to influence the construction of your thought-world and make yourself the complete servant of truth, frankly, you will have achieved something beyond praise. 25
Posted by barb on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 02:07 | # “Which is it? Do people have natural inclinations, in which case it doesn’t matter that LGBT rights are promoted, or do they just decide to start fantasizing about cock because their teacher told them it was cool? What do you think is *really* more likely?” Reread my posts. I think that LBGT activism has made gayness fashionable, so teenagers are claiming, claiming, claiming, CLAIMING gayness. Claim definition: To assert to be true. (Whether a given claim is ACTUALLY true depends.) AND, the outcome of the foolish claiming of gayness is dangerously likely to be that those who claimed it can’t find someone to marry and make babies with.
That’s nice. Better hurry up, though. You’re getting a bit long of tooth. Mathematicians and physicists who do important work tend to already be doing so by the time they’ve reached your age. Eugenics: The “undesirable lower classes” are having kids because the smart White kids are busy being “tolerant,” that is to say embracing of, homosexuality. Being nice to you does NOTHING to change the disgenic reproduction you say you are worried about (which *I* say has NOTHING to do with excess breeding of “common laborers,” as Germanic farmers are AWESOME at creating virtuosos, but rather welfare eaters. Would that they WERE common laborers—they’d cost the rest of us a lot less money.
“I’d rather not be assaulted or unable to get a job because of mindless bigots”
“Increasing the group interest is a matter of cultivating the self to the greatest extent possible, and then sacrificing for the group” 26
Posted by barb on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 02:41 | # Oh, and environmentalism? Way ahead of ya, young ‘un. Since the Sierra Club was bought off by (Jew) David Gelbaum, who donated a hundred million I do, however, view myself as a conservationist. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Ducks Unlimited do good work. (I have also contributed to The Good of White People by bearing and raising a mathematically gifted young teenage boy—who likes girls. And SHOCKER, I’m a middle class White woman with only a bachelor’s degree—who enjoys “common labor.” Math Whiz Kid’s grampa? A common carpenter / home builder. Fella, you really need to rethink the genesis of virtuosity.) 27
Posted by Goethe on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 06:34 | # I’ll get back to you tomorrow, GW (and unfortunately barb, whose name is certainly accurate). 28
Posted by uncle joe on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:43 | # So is anyone else tired of “barb” thrusting her beak into every discussion of sex on every high IQ nationalist website? Someone needs to lay the frightful buzzard. 29
Posted by barb on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:43 | # ” Someone needs to lay the frightful buzzard. “ The word you want is “harpie.” “Buzzard” is commonly used to denigrate mean old men, as in, say, for example, something like this: “Uncle Joe, the old buzzard”.... 30
Posted by svensson on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:56 | # Time to write: “He Was Not Gay - The Biography Of Oscar Wilde”...? 31
Posted by uncle joe on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:25 | # barb, Having no desire to entertain your presence, my own being so marginal, I will restrict myself to reiterating “buzzard”, for that is precisely how I imagine you. “Harpie” would require exponential notation to cover the enormity of your poisonous character. I do not like seeing your petty, self-assertive, post-feminist eruptions on every blog I read. I read these blogs to maintain my good sense in a world of nonsense. You traffick in the latter. You are extremely hard to bear reading, and obviously very intrusive; I see you on these blogs scenting out any talk of sexual relations that doesn’t reinforce the vain, simplistic formula that white men exist to serve white women, code for: “I am not satisfied and I shall punish you for it, men.” I am really very sorry that you aren’t living as you’d like. Few of us are. In any case do remember that men - even those wanting to be female it appears - find you utterly obnoxious. 32
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:32 | # Guessedworker, Erectile dysfunction is a sexual disability, however, “there is no sense of personal and social identity based on their disability, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them” just because they can’t get a hard on. No, homosexuality, the sense of personal and social identity, in Wilde’s day, did not exist. It is an incidental offspring of the elevated discourse regarding the examination of sexuality in the 19th century which is a function of power.
No doubt it’s much easier to fabricate it as you go along. There is no emotional connection to the ethny as love of kin, otherwise this site would not exist. Salter’s is simply a prescription, as your friend Mr. Sallis has repeated over and over and over again. It is bio-politics and thus socially constructed with no foundation in evolutionary biology. Of course the means by which sodomites constructed the biological notion of “homosexuality” and formed their “personal and social identity” might be worthy of study. God forbid, you might actually learn something. 33
Posted by barb on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:34 | # ‘post-feminist eruptions’ “I am not satisfied and I shall punish you for it, men.” I am really very sorry that you aren’t living as you’d like” You got me mixed up with somebody else. So what IS “post-feminism” anyway? The idea that fertile monogamous marriage is the best way to live? If so, count me in. I doubt it, though. Trot on back to Chateau Roissy where you can get your own sick need to hate women fed. 34
Posted by uncle joe on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 01:46 | # barb, Be instead an advocate of greater tact in your dealings with men. Start with blogs, as you detract from their quality. 35
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:04 | # Desmond,
You mean homosexuals couldn’t camp it up? Well, I was not there so I can’t say. But I doubt it. Or are you actually suggesting that there is no physical foundation (disability) for same-sex orientation?
Are you a closet, er ... lefty or something?
So those Africans in your city warm the cockles of your heart just as much as a stray Welshman? Perhaps north America fresh into the second decade of the 21st century is not the best place from which to observe the phenomenon. From where I am sitting it would be very rum indeed if a Welshman cared for a random Rwandan as much as he cared for his own kind.
Ethnocentrism has a foundation in kin selection, ethnic nepotism, and altruism. 36
Posted by barb on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:54 | # Tact with men? I’m exceedingly tactful with men who deserve tact. Homosexuals who are advocating their own interests at the expense of White children deserve no tact— Nor do “Gamers,” — like I suspect you fancy yourself, based on this statement utterly typical of those locales: “see you on these blogs scenting out any talk of sexual relations that doesn’t reinforce the vain, simplistic formula that white men exist to serve white women, code for: “I am not satisfied and I shall punish you for it, men.” — (*** which absolutely does not describe anything I’ve ever stated ***) —because Gamers are right down there in the pigsty, enabling the anti-White brigade in their slow genocide of my people, by telling young men that “women are all ***** anyway, so ya might as well get all the quickies offa the bar**** ya can, and for the love of Pete, don’t ever, ever, ever, ever marry.” White men who choose their Lady Life-partner well, sire and provide for and rear childen, and the young men who would like to do so, THOSE fellas get every ounce of my respect and appreciation and admiration and tact. So, WHY are you here, berating ME, a Mother of the Race, for dressing down an anti-White homosexual activist? Just needed to get yer day’s quota of woman-hatin’ done? 37
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:01 | # Same-sex orientation is a social construct. The Negros in prison that rape white boys are same-sex oriented? Sodomy is an act not necessarily indicative of a predilection for interior design.
That by you is an argument? Oi vey.
And yet British tourists in Spain risk their well being by aiding drowning Africans, like they would any other European. Why is that if there is some instinctive preference for their own kind? Ethnic nepotism is a sociological term. It has no founding in evolutionary biology. 38
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:24 | # Desmond, it is because the act of rescuing Blacks raises Whites’ moral and social status in a way that rescuing Whites would not. Our fellow Whites have many fine qualities but status-seeking to the point of self - defeat remains a problem. 39
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:51 | #
The Jewish prison psychologist who upset James a few years ago with his interpretation of liberating white boys in jail from their dominant heterosexual constructions by negro rape would heartily agree with you.
They would do it for drowning dogs. For pete’s sake, these people hug trees. Never do such distant genetic interests get so sentimentalised as in the postmodern European mind. 40
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:45 | # Desmond, it is because the act of rescuing Blacks raises Whites’ moral and social status in a way that rescuing Whites would not. Our fellow Whites have many fine qualities but status-seeking to the point of self - defeat remains a problem. (Al Ross) Talk about begging the question! 41
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:55 | # A lot of Nazis were homosexuals. Nazis would certainly have saved the white race from extinction. But is life under that type of order what we would prefer? Is the only option for white survival some type of revolutionary nationalism (‘revolutionary’ as against traditional social orders and normative behaviors)? I recall reading Will Durant, who once opined that the clearest historical indication that a civilization had entered a period of decline was widespread public acceptance of homosexuality. 42
Posted by Don on Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:09 | # Hey Leon, does the following mean anything to you? “Just When You Thought You Were Out, They Pull You Back In” 43
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 07:59 | # Posted by Don on January 26, 2011, 01:09 PM | # Hey Leon, does the following mean anything to you? “Just When You Thought You Were Out, They Pull You Back In” You know, I was actually thinking of starting a longer post with that exact same quote ... Really, I am not lying. But then I thought I really don’t want to write much, but could not resist noting what I did above. 44
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 08:04 | # Begs what question, Haller? This one, perhaps : Why can’t tenaciously boring people simply do what they say they will do? 45
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 08:22 | # Your stupidity is priceless, Al Ross. Perhaps someone else can explain the logical fallacy embedded in your ridiculous assertion (which, incidentally, was cribbed from interesting, if not finally persuasive, articles by racialist writer Ian Jobling on “competitive altruism”) that I referenced above. Persons like you have little to nothing to contribute to the development of any realistic nationalist agenda. Before further plaguing better educated men with your meager opinions, take some time off, and try to learn a few things from the wealth of knowledge that your fellow whites have accumulated. I would counsel spending less time with the pure philosophy (especially metaphysics) and evolutionary biology which seem to be the strong preferences here, and much more with history, especially that of politics and in particular revolutionary movements. But that’s just me. Robust criticisms are useful in a growing intellectual or political movement, so long as the semi-learned are not leading the discussions. 46
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:08 | # Total rot, Haller. I gave up on Jobling years ago. Anyone with any WN nous would have long since recognised the White liberal tendencies to which I referred. As an avoidance measure for the benefit of those of us who enjoy interesting and informative posts, please inform the MR supporters of your intended online destination. One doesn’t like to fetch up in intellectual slums. 47
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:09 | #
Well, from the perspective of White Americans, it would doubtless have been desirable for America to have stayed out of WWII and watch from afar on this side of the Atlantic as the Krauts achieved hegemony in Europe. But what of the “Mother Country” and our English cousins? Could White Americans have lived with themselves whilst the English endured under a Mosley puppet-government ultimately beholden to Berlin? As far as I’m concerned, too bad, so sad, and tough shit for them. America would have been saved and inherited Canada, Australia and New Zealand. 48
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:37 | # In reading Buchanan’s book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War one can detect a real bitterness on the author’s part towards those he holds responsible for setting in motion the chain of events that murdered his beloved nation. These are as Lindbergh stated: the British, the Jews and the Roosevelt administration. For him, an abiding love of what America once was and a sincere hatred of Bolshevism is truly something more than a limp sop offered to Americans in saying that “revolutionary internationalism” is “something that has to be fought”. And what has become of England? “Enslaved” to the Tory-Labour-UKIP-Jewish hydra and race-replaced and mongrelized to boot. It was none of it worth it. 49
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:18 | # Captainchaos: To what of mine do your broadsides refer? I certainly agree that the US was manipulated into WW2, and that both we and the West would have been far better served by our staying out completely. Would that have resulted in a Nazi-dominated England? Not necessarily. The historiographical consensus today is that Hitler’s true intention had always been to destroy Soviet Bolshevism, and expand Germania into the east. He at least did not relish war with his ‘cousins’ across the Channel (unlike the vainglorious Churchill, who was actually very sound on many questions - Bolshevism, race, Empire, even eugenics; there is debate about his true feelings towards the Jews, however - but in the crux decided that being personally defiant and a world-historical personage was more important to him than suing for peace and saving the Empire, as well as many British lives and much property and infrastructure). But even a Nazi-dominated Britain would, in the long run, have worked out better for the British people. The Nazi yoke would have been especially light (indeed, it would had to have been, given how stretched were their resources on the Eastern Front; this precarious state would have continued for a long time even had the Red (Rape) Army been defeated), and a strong sense of race would have been instilled in the young generation. It is doubtful that The (Judeo?-)Sixties ever would have come to Britain, and even if Nazi control had gradually evolved and loosened (as I believe it would have), British racial and ethnic self-confidence would have been such as to reject dark-skinned migrants out of hand. I’m not a Nazi as a matter of political philosophy. But even from my traditionalist conservative perspective (one I share with Buchanan, though with more of an empiricist, and especially scientific racialist, bent), it is now undeniable that a Nazi-dominated Europe, even if not my ideal, would have been better for the cause of Western Man than the Allied victory which sealed our doom. 50
Posted by AnalogMan on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:35 | # Late to the party, as usual, and I find that, once again, barb is fighting the good fight alone. Barb, you rock. Pay no attention to the yapping ankle-biters. 51
Posted by Ms Baroque on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:41 | # Just happened along here, looking for something. I’ve put three kids through Stoke Newington School, and I can tell you. What Ellie Barnes has done for that place is wonderful. In an inner city, mixed-race school where 58 languages are spoken, she has bred tolerance and understanding, and taught the children something as well. She’s a great music teacher, too. I’m proud to have been associated with the place. For someone who professes not to like Wilde, you certainly seem to have spent a lot of time reading up on him. I wish you’d absorbed more of his prose style. 52
Posted by Pastor Joe on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:14 | # Oscar Wilde is one of the most celebrated playwriters and authors of his time. Whether he was gay or not makes no difference about the work of his plays. Whoever wrote this is very narrow minded and needs to learn alot about literature. 53
Posted by Nathanael Provan on Thu, 06 Oct 2011 19:10 | # No, whoever wrote this knows how to clearly and succinctly lay out the truth for all to see and comprehend, if they so wish. You on the other hand, Pastor Joe, are the typical yes-boy of the pro-Sodomite movement, with (un)clever use of catch-phrases and keywords like “narrow-minded”, “hateful” or the ubiquitous “intolerant”. Of what, pray tell, are you “Pastor”? Not much, I think, and not much I hope. Even so, be assured that what you have will be stripped from you, for leadership is from God alone, and He takes it away with violence from those who do not lead by His word, by His Law. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 18:22 “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders” 1 Corinthians 6:9 54
Posted by Emma on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:27 | # Well, reading the first third of this argument has sufficiently confused me, I must say. Please forgive any typos I make but my keys are quite small:) Firstly, I’d like to comment on the article. Children being taught that to be LGBT is ok is not a bad thing. It prevents the prevalence of homophobia that threatens to bring about much violence within great countries. Oscar Wilde is used as an example because people know of him. His overt decadence was mostly brought about as a result of his connection with Douglas his lover, as was the connection to male prostitutes. The libel case against a “protective father” was urged by Douglas himself. And, having read De Profundis, I know that much of Oscar’s most “depraved” acts he truly and honestly repented. You also mention that because he was married and had sex with a woman he wasn’t gay. I would like to point out that his seduction by Robert Ross did not occur until after his wife became pregnant fir the second time, then they had no more children. She also completely disowned him after his connection with Douglas. This leads me to point out (from the first sentence of the previous paragraph) that other gay celebrities have have sex with someone of the opposite sex - Stephen Fry, for instance slept with Emma Thompson. In fact, my mother has discovered she was gay, and she has quite obviously had sex with a man. My best friend has recently come out as gay and she has had sex with a man. The following is regarding the statistics aspect. It all depends who you talk to. People who are gay are more likely to be around others who are gay. About 90% of my friends are not heterosexual. However, my stepbrother, who IS heterosexual, only has 2 friends out of 50 who aren’t straight. So barb, if you are that homophobic, you ay have reason to hate your io own child soon enough. Penultimately, as someone who is bisexual, I know that I am not unbiased, but I also know that I was severly depressed and contemplating suicide before I came out and realised I have a massive suppirt structure from my friends and family and it was only then that I was truly happy. The sane can be said for my friends; even the oreviousky mentioned best friend who is now ignored by her mouther because she is gay, says she feels hapoier now she isn’t hiding part of what makes her who she is. Fibally, I’d like to finish by saying that by promoting acceptance of LGBTs doesn’t corrupt the country, nor does i confer a disadvantage to our country or culture by accepting it. Instead it prevents harm and injury to others and promotes happiness and freedom, which is surely the “best” thing to do. 55
Posted by Emma on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:31 | # Wow, there really were a lot of typos in that… Many apologies… I’ll try to retype it on the computer without so many as trying to decipher it takes away from my argument. 56
Posted by Tyler on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:28 | # You write like a journalist. Not that you don’t write well, but I don’t appreciate it. You may have your point of view which you’re entitled to and I can’t say differently. What it made me think is of how criticising and studious we are of other people are their lives, and how really we can’t keep ourselves away. It’s incredible how we can pour our souls into the revelling or slander of another and do so with ease. The general tone of your article was that you don’t care for Oscar Wilde, but what perplexes me is that you seem to feel very strongly about it. You can call that whatever you may. I still remain an Oscar Wilde sympathiser I’m afraid, and also pro gay rights. I think gay people like any other will be the judge. Also, the AIDS pandemic is nature’s way of culling the species through natural selection. The same applied to the Black Death and so on. It isn’t to wipe out gay people. 57
Posted by maisy on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:06 | # i’m sorry to say this, but i think your line of reasoning is biased and questionable, i think you researched and found evidence that suited your preconceived ideas and judgements and that you did not even try to represent the facts with any amount of equality and fairness. i disagree with your intended message of homosexual hate, and i hope that in the future you will find it fitting not to express such opinions on the world wide web. i find your piece insulting, and not because i am homosexual, (which i am not) but because it is so ignorant and close minded. what is it to you anyway!? 58
Posted by coria on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:52 | # Those of you in favor of gay rights are brain washed by the public schools (isn’t that who told you to be tolerant?) And why should homosexuality be a sin besides the fact it is disgusting and abnormal? YOu may want to KNOW that the MAJORITY of AIDS cases come from MSM also known as Homosexual men. These men who a good number are closet homosexuals, then go to their girlfriends, wives and have sex with them. That is why 30% of cases are heterosexual women who get it NOT from drugs, but from the men they have been sleeping with but did not know that these men have AIDS. 60
Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:57 | # I don’t understand what’s so ‘base’ or ‘sordid’ about two people committing sexual acts consensually over a decade or two. The writer here doesn’t appear to understand sex, never mind sex between two men. Post a comment:
Next entry: Acts of War
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Goethe on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:54 | #
I don’t see this as being all that relevant to WN interests. The majority of people are not gay or transgender, and won’t magically become gay or transgender just because acceptance is given to LGBT people.
If someone has a certain gender preference or gender that isn’t mainstream, it is irrational to try to repress their natural expression. Do gays make you feel uncomfortable? Don’t be around them, then.
Genes trump experiences. It is most realistic to think of genes as an inherent limit, and experiences/growth as a percentage of that limit. Of course this model is simplistic, and in reality there are a large number of different attributes that can be thought of in this way, as clusters of abilities, traits, and proclivities.
BTW, I’m transgender.