Posted by Phil on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 22:53 | #

It was a spectacularly wrong decision which could have cost many homosexual men their lives.

That doesn’t bother me in the least. If one chooses to live in opposition to nature and insists on a life of sexual perversion and indulgence, just desserts will follow.

And in terms of nature, this is not a difficult one to understand. Do we have male Dogs, Lions, Tigers, Elephants, Chimps having sex with males of their species? No (as far as I am aware).

It therefore follows that Homosexuality is the result of a perversion of nature. It is not unheard of for human beings to also engage in vile sexual acts with members of other species. In the same way, Sex between males among humans is the natural consequence of perversion allowed to run amok.

Incidentally, I was talking to a white South African friend once. He is Afrikaner with some family still living in Orange Free State. He kept talking at length (over lunch) about the brutal murders of white farmers in the South African countryside. Then he saw an AIDS story (from Africa) in the Independent. He says with a wry smile, “Some white farmers believe African AIDS is their saviour from heaven”. (chuckle)

Posted by Kubilai on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:41 | #

Phil,

Homosexuality does occur in the animal kingdom.  See here…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_animal_sexuality

It is a biological phenomenon and not a choice.  Though I agree, a perversion of nature.  I am for homosexuals to live in peace, though not promoted in schools, tv, etc.  When my daughter proudly declared to me when she was TEN that she “likes boys and doesn’t think she is bisexual”, that to me indicates that homosexuality is fed to the young WAY, WAY, WAY too much.

Posted by Phil on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:52 | #

Kubilai,

The only instances I am aware of are among Penguins.

And notice the way they write:

The presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not ‘officially’ observed on a large scale until recent times, possibly due to observer bias caused by social attitudes to same-sex sexual behavior.

Politics pervades everything including scientific research. That ought not to surprise us since we know that in the realm of racial differences.

I take these claims with generous amounts of salt. It is perhaps not unheard of but I would go no futher than that. It is a far cry from the thousands of Fags assembling in the fleshpots of London and indulging in their atrocious habits.

I believe that any toleration of homosexuality is a slippery slope. The best way to deal with it is the way ot was dealt with in the Middle Ages. That is, I believe, the only healthy way to deal with it.

The numbers of homosexuals we see in our societies is far larger as a percentage than in most other socieities in the world. The only reason for this is that it is celebrated and fed into the brains of children as a “healthy” alternative lifestyle.

They should be banished from the public sphere. Those that wish to copulate should choose a life of celibacy rather than turn their bodies into petri dishes incubating the most lethal diseases known to man.

Posted by Matra on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:08 | #

“Some white farmers believe African AIDS is their saviour from heaven”.

What about all the white women being raped by these AIDS-infested blacks?

Posted by Phil on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:10 | #

Its a double edged sword I suppose.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 01:12 | #

Kubilai, you’re right about homosexuality being fed to young children.

Here in Melbourne a taxpayer funded booklet was sent to over 2000 children’s centres (kindergarten and younger) in order to “promote awareness of homosexual issues” amongst pre-school children.

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2005/08/celebrating-partner-b-day.html

Like you, I’m for tolerance as long as heterosexual norms aren’t challenged in the wider community.

The problem is they are being challenged, for instance, in terms of sexual morality, the meaning of marriage, and gender.

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:01 | #

Here’s the bit no one wants to talka about: homosexuality is not sodomy.

Lesbians (who are mostly bisexual) don’t get AIDS, because they don’t (can’t) sodomize one another.  Male homosexuals (almost none of whom are bisexual) do, because they do sodomize one another.

Where is it written that male homosexuals must sodomize one another?  Where is it written that an exclusive sexual orientation in males towards attraction to other men must result in sodomy?  The two are distinct.

AIDS is primarily a sodomite’s disease.

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:04 | #

What about all the white women being raped by these AIDS-infested blacks?

Seen the new defensive condom now entering the testing phase, developed by a white SA woman?

It’s like an umbrella in reverse, with claws, and once it clamps down a doctor is required to remove it.

I kid you not.

Posted by Andrew L on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:09 | #

I heard on the news a few day’s ago, a report released by the Brit. Government on Immigration, and it’s content is absolute garbage. They state that most of the immigration is from, USA, some European Nations, and the largest Immigrant group is German.
The failure to mention any African, Sub Asian, Mid East or Pakastani in these figgures, sure must be a statement in context, that Multicurturalism in the UK is a dud, if the Government dares not mention Skin colour or Race, (Unless Anglo) in a report,and make out it is large numbers of those Anglo- Sphere immigrating to the UK, then you must construde , there is a massive problem and it is of a typical Political propaganda Statement to comfort the natives, How incoherent are the natives.
I did note the report excluded the few million’s of refugee’s and assylum seekers of the above third world countries, OOO Brother, here we go again.

Posted by Andrew L on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:20 | #

Mark,

I would state that an Education department that inculcates this perverted mindset in Kids is a Pedofile and needs to be dealt with. This is “Education Pedofillia” and not awarness, brainwashing kids minds is tantermount to murder in my book.

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:44 | #

Phil:

I believe that any toleration of homosexuality is a slippery slope. The best way to deal with it is the way ot was dealt with in the Middle Ages. That is, I believe, the only healthy way to deal with it.

Damn!  Do you mean execute them?  This would reduce us to the level of filthy Moslems!  I believe that the proper way of dealing with the spread of diseases by gays is to urge them to seek psychiatric treatment for sexual addiction.  I believe they have the right to consensual homosexual activity between adults in private, even though I find it very disgusting.  Additionally, it is unlikely that people chose to be gay or that gays convert others to a gay lifestyle.

Non-white mass immigration to Western societies can only be bad news for white gays and lesbians, especially Moslem immigration.  Therefore, hopefully, some white gays and lesbians will come to appreciate our cause, i.e., to preserve Western societies, and also help us in this regard, but extreme statements implying that they should be incarcerated or executed or dealt with in a not-clearly-defined but extreme manner (e.g., the comment by Andrew L) does not help endear them to our cause.   

Kubilai,

Why do you believe that homosexuality is being fed to children when you state that it is a biological phenomenon?  The homosexuals appear to be attempting to engender tolerance of homosexuality in schools rather than “feeding homosexuality” to children.  This attempt is misguided, of course, and I would rather not have my children learn about the sordid aspects of the homosexual lifestyle, not because I fear that they will be prompted to try it out, but because why unnecessarily disgust schoolchildren?  Most people find homosexual behavior naturally disgusting and are unlikely to view it in a neutral or positive manner even if repeatedly told that it is natural.

Svigor,

A sodomite is a Biblical term that literally translates to “a resident of Sodom,” thereby one who behaves like the residents of Sodom did.  Sodomy has been historically used in a much broader context than anal sex alone; it has been used to refer to other sexual practices such as oral sex, too, and a sodomite refers to a homosexual man, whether or not he indulges in anal sex.  Besides, most gays indulge in anal sex with men.  As to your statement that lesbians don’t get AIDS, it is true that they likely almost never get AIDS from lesbian sex, but as you have noted, most lesbians are behaviorally bisexual and in reality, women who have sex with women have higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases compared to women who have sex with men but not women; see:

Fenton KA, Mercer CH, Johnson AM, Byron CL, McManus S, Erens B, Copas AJ, Nanchahal K, Macdowall W, Wellings K. Reported sexually transmitted disease clinic attendance and sexually transmitted infections in Britain: prevalence, risk factors, and proportionate population burden. J Infect Dis. 2005 Feb 1;191 Suppl 1:S127-38.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:05 | #

Interesting comments, J Richards, but I disagree with one thing.

Homosexual activists have long since passed the stage of merely promoting tolerance of homosexuality to school children.

Instead, they are promoting the idea that homosexuality is normative, whereas heterosexuality is an opressive imposition.

I know this because I’ve been given replacement classes (when the regular teacher is sick) in which I was supposed to teach this kind of thing to junior high school students.

I was supposed to teach the class that traditional “bipolar” notions of gender, in which the world is divided into man and woman, are wrong because there are many genders existing along a continuum, and that there is a similar diversity of sexualities.

This is not so much a call to tolerance, as an effort to break down heterosexual norms.

Posted by Phil on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:32 | #

Damn!  Do you mean execute them?  This would reduce us to the level of filthy Moslems!

I don’t think my ancestors in the middle ages in England were “filthy Muslims”.

I am not talking about executing anyone but about public opinion.

Public Opinion has far greater power than any decree or edict devised by any government in the history of man. And a change in public opinion would achieve the desired results without any difficulty. The correct response to it would be to eliminate all celebration of homosexuality as an “alternative lifestyle” and drive it to the periphery of public discourse.

Let it be something of an oddity (a bit like the habits of people who like spotting migratory birds).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:04 | #

“The correct response to it would be to eliminate all celebration of homosexuality as an ‘alternative lifestyle’ and drive it to the periphery of public discourse.”  (—Phil, 12:32 PM)

Phil, that’s advice which the Catholics running a particular U.S. Catholic university <u>could stand to hear more of</u>.  (<u>Here</u>‘s Jim Kalb’s take on that freshman orientation brainwashing that apparently takes place at that Catholic university, by the way.)

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:33 | #

The push to teach homosexual “values” in primary schools is not about equality; it’s about recruitment. Homosexuals (and this is entirely rational on their terms) simply want to increase the proportion of homosexuals in the population. That’s why they are trying to “normalise” the abnormal.

What we have to realise is that the state is the enemy of mankind - unless we eviscerate government, and abolish the school curriculum (privatise all schools, give them full control over their curriculum and hiring, and abolish “anti-discrimination” laws), then our civilisation is over. The enemy class control the government, and they wish to destroy us.

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:10 | #

What we have to realise is that the state is the enemy of mankind

This is true.  I watched Brazil for the first time last night, and was struck by how true it rang.  I got to thinking about the left/right overlap and just sat there stumped, mystified, contemplating the likes of Arcane.  How can anyone get so worked up in defense of the shitty system we have, that malignant selve-serving humanity-crushing spider?

One needn’t be a race-realist to realize how very, thoroughly rotten the state has become.  It’s very much in need of a pruning, and I came to this conclusion long before I became a race-realist.

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:11 | #

Er, “self”-serving

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:29 | #

Our system is nothing more than an ideological fabrication based on historical fallacies. We are a “free society” because we “defended our way of life” against “totalitarianism”, etc. A whole load of hogwash and national myth-making.

The truth is that we exist at the dawn of an unprecedented tyranny - one that will make the French and Russian Revolutions look like a game of tiddlywinks. The process has been advancing consistently and deliberately for several decades, and I fear we are close to the final destination.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:31 | #

Steve,

You really shpould be blogging here now you’ve relinquished your own site.  Waste of talent.  For one thing, we could have a lot of interesting arguments about the role of the state and the individual.  You can get my drift on this from the following which I wrote a few posts ago:-

... new-wave libertarians contend that all evil flows from the state, that it continually extends its power over the individual because authoritarianism is its nature.  But I think that is a fantasy.  It is liberalism which creates the instability, and it is the liberal state which burgeons to control it through authoritarianism.  True Conservatism, by contrast (and if it was ever again put into practise), would aim for stability and should thereby shrink the state machinery.

The target we have to aim for is the hardest to hit because it is everything.  Not the left, not immigration, not the state, which is only what it is because it enacts liberal political aims).  We are losing our countries to pan-liberalism.

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:05 | #

GW, I think both are true.  Is it harder to contain a state in a liberal Zeitgeist?  Of coursse.  Is the nature of the state increasing power?  Of course.

The Zeitgeist, the spirit of the people, can ameliorate the nature of the state; perhaps it can even change it, but I say that’s a dangerous game.  The default nature of the state will always work towards power-accumulation.

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:09 | #

“In Britain, heterosexual Aids has probably never existed,” is a conclusion of the BBC “Fine Cut” documentary programme “The End of Innocence”, which was shown as part of the Red Ribbon series marking World Aids Day, on the 5th December 1995.

http://www.libchrist.com/std/uk.html

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:03 | #

Mark Richardson,

One of the most obvious ways of trying to promote tolerance of homosexuality would be to argue that homosexuality and the accompanying gender-atypicality are part of normal variation.  This argument does not necessarily imply that someone is trying to break down heterosexual norms; rather, there is an attempt to attack ideas that consider homosexuality or gender-atypicality to be abnormal.  Now, some homosexuals are hostile to heterosexuality and are appropriately described as desirous of abolishing what they call heteronormativity, but their behavior should not be extrapolated to all people who attempt to portray homosexuality and gender-atypicality as part of normal variation.  Besides, most people are not naïve enough to readily believe that there is something normal about a man’s desire to indulge in anal sex with another man.  So, you needn’t be much concerned about the masses buying into patent nonsense.

I am aware of what you talk about.  A small proportion of the population – classified as mentally ill in mainstream psychiatry and often with homosexual behavior/desire – identifies with the gender that goes with the opposite sex and/or is unable to identify with either gender, and some people start to argue that this is proof of some kind of sexuality/gender continuum/spectrum, even though the statistical distribution of the anomalies and normal behaviors do not form a continuous/spectrum distribution.

Phil,

I am glad to know that you were making a reference to public opinion rather than executing gays.  However, please be more careful with the wording given that the likes of Godless Capitalist of Gene Expression blog would love to portray us as people with violent/criminal desires.  I have previously had to clarify GC’s distortion of a passage by commentator “Tournament of Champions,” and was glad to be able to point out that TOC is Chinese and has limited English proficiency, but in your case, English is your native language. 

Steve Edwards,

Since you raise the “recruitment issue,” it appears that fear of contagion is partly responsible for your attitude toward gays and lesbians.  Look at it this way.  Humans would be a pretty pathetic species if a major aspect of our sexuality—specifically to whom one is sexually attracted to, which had better be to the right person or else there would be no reproduction—were left to nurture.  Now, I am not very familiar with the biological literature on homosexuality, but I am fairly confident that either the extant literature already shows or future research will show the cause to be a biological abnormality.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:45 | #

J Richards,

To give an example of how despotic methods can never successfuly enforce morality, take a look at the example of Islam’s relation to homosexuality.

And in any case, despotic measures (such as executions) do not suit the conditions of a free people.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:14 | #

Svi,

Personally, I am convinced that the right-liberal view of the state is a “production” serving an alien EGI.  Why would a libertarian philosopher of a certain ethnicity propose that the state is the perpetual Lord of Darkness from which all men must flee towards the light of atomisation?  Why would he want to destroy the vehicle by which power can be focussed in the societies of Western Man, save that he feared where the focus may rest?

Remember, we are living in a liberal age.  We have not seen anything remotely like Conservatism for fifty years.  We are not a position to judge the state.  Certainly, all I see is a machine by which to deliver impossible, socially-destabilising objectives.  As the failures mount up and unexpected stresses arise, so it tends to authoritarianism.  What else would you expect?  That liberals will learn from all their disasters?

If I am wrong and the libertarians are right then the wise governments of Henvy VII, Charles II and the fine gentlemen whose Tory Ministries ruled England in the 18th century, and in the 19th century up to 1827, were monstrous.  If I am wrong then there is no ethic of public service among men in the West, no love of the good and of freedom.  All is self-interest, greed, low cunning and the relentless pursuit of power.

When it does not deny human nature libertarianism is cynical about it.

Among political persuasions only Conservatism could ever serve our EGI.

Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 12 Sep 2005 02:54 | #

Very interesting comments gentlemen.

Phil,

I find your comments hilarious.  I’m not being condescending or belittling in any way.  They are just funny, wrt your “passion” towards the subject.  I fully understand your “grain of salt” approach in regards to what we are told etc, though I do think that it (homosexuality) is found in the animal kingdom.  I haven’t really delved into it to truly find out due to a total lack of interest.  I agree to a degree that homosexuality (the act and lifestyle) should not be tolerated and definitely not promoted to where it is now, namely on par with heterosexuality but “just different”.  I do not advocate harassing or “closeting” homosexuals.  I have a strange tolerance towards them due to my interactions with many in my career.  This does not mean I encourage gay pride parades or any such thing.  If a person is gay, then he is gay.  No reason for them to skulk around pretending they are straight ala Rock Hudson.

Mark R,

Like you, I’m for tolerance as long as heterosexual norms aren’t challenged in the wider community.

The problem is they are being challenged, for instance, in terms of sexual morality, the meaning of marriage, and gender.

Yes Mark, they are for sure.  Hollyweird’s agenda to destroy the family unit, male role models, and Christian values has many weapons and one is the homosexual.

J Richards,

Why do you believe that homosexuality is being fed to children when you state that it is a biological phenomenon?  The homosexuals appear to be attempting to engender tolerance of homosexuality in schools rather than “feeding homosexuality” to children.

For the reason I stated above to Mark Richardson, JR.  I honestly do believe a very small percentage of heterosexual people will try homosexual sex for a multitude of warped and/or tragic reasons such as childhood abuse, drug addiction, “experimentation”, covert or overt manipulation by a predator etc.  Most homosexuals ARE homosexual via their biological makeup. 

Now, we are constantly fed on tv and movies how homosexuality is cool, normal, an alternative and this is a nefarious agenda that is only meant to destroy the normalcy of the family and our society, period.  Luckily for us, homosexuality will always be rejected by a vast majority of people(*) because, as you stated, most find the act disgusting.  And this disgust never has to be taught.

(*)When I say people, I mean men.  For some reason women are more open to lesbianism.  Hence, there is where the crux of the homosexual problem MAY become a problem for society.  If there are significant amounts of women who “decide” to become lesbian or “bi”, then they remove themselve from the gene and reproductive pool.

Posted by Phil on Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:03 | #

I find your comments hilarious. 

I think you would find a great deal of history hilarious too.

Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:17 | #

Sorry Phil.  I wasn’t being insulting, if that is the way you took it.  It’s too complicated to explain here, though it has to do with someone I knew in my youth which you reminded me of.  Anyway, no offense meant.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:17 | #

Mark,

Are those homosexual activists leading the effort to proscribe heterosexuality of European ethnies or are they principally Jewish, not to put too fine a point on it?

I don’t have the link but I have seen a list of American homosexual activists, the bulk of whom were evidently, and amazingly one would think, pursuing their EGI through the usual means.  The worth of that list I do not know, and one must be cautious on such ground.  Nevertheless, a definitive answer would be most useful.

Posted by Phil on Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:38 | #

Kubilai,

I was being very sarcastic. But no offence intended or taken.

The point I was trying to make (which I didn’t get across across correctly and in the right words) is that our opinions on these matters are the opinions of late Liberal democracy. The idea that individual sexual gratification ought to be the governing concern in these matters is a Liberal Democratic notion.

And those notions are young. Even as late as the 1940s, in much of the West, it was not “assumed” that law or morality ought to be governed by the sexual “needs” of this or that group.

And this is where history comes in. If you long for a time when the west was healthy and was strong, you will need to look at the fundamentalsof society. And morality was the strongest element in that time (underpinned by Christianity). We bemoan the weakness of the West (and its softness) but I think we sometimes fail to see how deep the softness runs.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:46 | #

GW, you make a persuasive case.  However, I find the very idea of equilibrium in a broad social sense to be naive.  Similarly, the idea of government seeking the reduction of its own power is naive.  Thus, we’re left with movement in one direction only.

Yes, you make an excellent point, which I made perhaps too tersely above.  The spirit of a people is easily the most powerful factor in determining its government.  If a people is willing to roll over and be Rogered, it will get its wish.  If it is not, no amount of whispering in its ear will make it roll over and take its Rogering. This is the truth that the west has allowed buried, the truth that stands astride the road between us and destiny.

This is why I’m always harping on the media.  In “normal” circumstances there is tension between government and governed, and the latter provides the necessary check on the former.  Now, we have the New First Estate continuously destroying (perverting really) this natural state.  We’re going to have to drive around, over, or through the NFE to get where we’re going.

I’d like to return to the discussion we once had here on monarchy, to maybe see a more thorough explication of the pros and cons vis-a-vis modern democracy.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:30 | #

If I am wrong and the libertarians are right then the wise governments of Henvy VII, Charles II and the fine gentlemen whose Tory Ministries ruled England in the 18th century, and in the 19th century up to 1827, were monstrous.

But why must one be wrong and the other right?  A libertarian might look at those governments and conclude that they did not constitute “states”.  If they were part of the community and were working for the good of the community, then they were not “states”.  A “state” is by definition (at least in the libertarian lexicon) something that has separated itself from the community and achieved the ability to violate the community’s moral code with impunity to a greater or lesser extent.

Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 06 May 2009 23:42 | #

A “state” is by definition (at least in the libertarian lexicon) something that has separated itself from the community and achieved the ability to violate the community’s moral code with impunity to a greater or lesser extent.

The state ought to be able to violate the prevailing moral code in order to preserve the integrity of the community (i.e. do we really want freedom of speech for judaeo-bolsheviks and the like?).  Of course this is open to wanton abuse but it must nevertheless be the prerogative of the rulers to take extra-legal or extra-moral actions in certain cases to preserve the community.  There ought to be checks and balances to this power to see that it doesn’t get out of hand, but it must be available.

In the US for instance, revitalizing local government and cutting down the federal leviathan would certainly be one such check/balance.

Posted by harris on Sun, 10 May 2009 16:29 | #

the problem with British society is ignorance and racism.HIV in the first place was not discovered in Africa it was in America.so why is that people think that aids is an African disease.i have been in africa and one thing i noted was that those people tend to die fast because they have no ARV and sometimes food is a problem.those with money are able to live longer without much impacts on their lives.in this country NHS is there with all the resources at its disposal,when u r sick the government buy food for you.to make matters worse a lot of us don’t know a condom.the mere fact that there hundreds of teens pregnancies is a clear indication that a condom is unpopular in this country.i was on tele this other day a white man in Leicester was diagnosed with HIV and he admitted that he slept with loads of women without protection.so tell me is HIV for Africans? There is a lot of undiagnosed HIV in this country.