Nasty, Racist, Islamophobic, Militaristic video game set to be Christmas bestseller

Posted by Guessedworker on December 05, 2006, 06:57 PM | #

... count the number of National Secular Society members you can find.

Not just NSS members but senior NSS members.  It had not occurred to me that “organised secularism” was so bent.  The thought does occur, however - indeed re-occur - that culture war activists combine and re-combine, thereby punching far above their real weight of numbers.

Of course, what really counts is that they are welcomed by the liberal elite.  The doors to a listening government are opened to them, closed to us.

Posted by Al Ross on December 05, 2006, 07:10 PM | #

The membership of the National Secular Society are deluding themselves if they think that their celebration of the absence of a Jew-invented deity means that their minds have been liberated.

These neo-Communist zombies are still deeply in thrall to the basic pro-underdog Christian equality message,dinned into them since the Sixties. The baneful creed is now largely devoid of its supernatural component but may be even more dangerous to our race than in its previous guise.

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 06, 2006, 08:12 AM | #

GW, what is all the more striking is how easy it is to access such information. All I did was google for ‘Terry Sanderson, National Secular Society’ and the first page which came up was the bent god-deniers association. So, we must assume that the Times either: a. can’t even be arsed to google its sources or b. doesn’t think it’s significant that the two organisations seem to be close to one and the same. Laziness or wilful blindness? Which one sounds the more likely?

Posted by Steve Edwards on December 06, 2006, 09:14 AM | #

“The baneful creed is now largely devoid of its supernatural component but may be even more dangerous to our race than in its previous guise.”

It is a major (perhaps even the greatest) threat to the personal and national security of all Europeans, everywhere.

Posted by James J OMeara on December 06, 2006, 09:56 PM | #

“Now, why would a campaigning homosexualist, in other words somebody who campaigns for the benefit of those whose interests do not extend past this generation…”

Because…..homosexuals’s “interests do not extend past this generation”, right?

I would guess if you said that to Vice President Dick Cheney, whose lesbian daughter is giving him his 6th grandchild with her partner, Heather, he’d shoot you in the face. 

But then you wouldn’t have the guts, would you?

How many children do you have, wanker?

Posted by Al Ross on December 06, 2006, 10:55 PM | #

Given draft-dodger Dick Cheney’s unfortunate history of coronary thrombo-embolism I’d be very careful about even saying boo to the pathetic and diseased stooge.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 07, 2006, 12:59 AM | #

“whose lesbian daughter is giving him his 6th grandchild with her partner, Heather”  (—James O’Meara)

Sadly for that little grandchild, she won’t be giving it a dad in its little life. 

“Mommy, where’s my daddy?  It’s my birthday.  Why isn’t he here?” 

“You don’t have a daddy, honey.  Only two mommies.” 

“I don’t have a daddy?  But my friends do.  Did I do something wrong?  Doesn’t my daddy love me?”

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 07, 2006, 06:50 AM | #

Because…..homosexuals’s “interests do not extend past this generation”, right?

Well done, you’ve understood what a rhetorical question is.

I would guess if you said that to Vice President Dick Cheney, whose lesbian daughter is giving him his 6th grandchild with her partner, Heather, he’d shoot you in the face. 

Dear sir, have you ever heard about the difference between a general and a specific statement? Just because a single lesbian happens to have some connection to the future, it does not follow that the majority of homosexuals, who are childless, will. Interest groups always look to furthering those interests which are unique to their chosen beneficiaries, and in the case of homosexuals this is short-termism.

But seriously, don’t take my word for it. Have it straight - so to speak - from the horse’s mouth. “In the long run, we’re all dead”- J.M. Keynes, sodomite, explaining why his economic theories ignore the long term implications of any action.

But then you wouldn’t have the guts, would you?

Wouldn’t I? How the hell do you know? Well, thanks for enlightening me so much about my own character! You, sir, are truly a brilliant psychologist if you can tell so much about me after meeting me briefly online!

I trust the good Mr. Cheney, he of the dodgy ticker and even dodgier trigger-finger, would be more than happy to meet me, to discuss the policy implications of admitting homosexual identitarians to the halls of power, one on one without the myriad bodyguards and special service commandoes who ever accompany even the lowliest offical in the Washington Imperium in our day and age.

How many children do you have, wanker?

The crucial questions are how many children I forsee having? and do I identify with those who expect to have children? Or do you not care about the quality of barbers because you plan to have a haircut tomorrow rather than today?

Incidentally, I wonder if you would say that to me, face to face? Or are you but an internet culture warrior?

Posted by Rnl on December 07, 2006, 07:42 PM | #

Homosexuals form about two percent of the population; the highest respectable figure is four percent. Of that small minority, the number who will avail themselves of the opportunity to wed will be much smaller; the frantic sexual behavior of male homosexuals makes the prospect of widespread homosexual marriage highly unlikely. Of the small number of homosexuals who do choose to marry, the number who will somehow acquire children will be tiny.

In other words, there is no danger of a large number of legally recognized homosexual families raising children. The very existence of such families is akin to legalized child abuse, but we don’t need to worry that this abuse will become common. 

The real danger of homosexual marriage lies in the educational programs that it will generate. The nuttier the idea, the more educational work it requires to make the idea mainstream. Most of us have a strong understanding that in childrearing the differences between men and women are complementary. Children benefit from having a man and a woman as parents. That’s a core belief of our society. For most of us it is much closer to a fact than an opinion, and if we think about it at all, we regard the complementarity of men and women as an enlightened belief, light years away from an ignorant prejudice. But the normalization of homosexuality and the coming legalization of homosexual marriage will almost inevitably turn this enlightened belief into an “exclusionary prejudice,” since it implicitly delegitimizes the homosexual family, where no such complementarity is possible. _Heather Has Two Mommies_ was, from a homosexual perspective, an early attempt at resolving this problem, and we can expect to see many more similar attempts in the years ahead. There will never be a large number of homosexual families, but their mere statistical existence will be enough, in a culture controlled by the Left and devoted to the ideology of tolerance, to generate more anti-heteronormative educational programs, purportedly designed to protect the children of homosexual parents from the intolerance of their classmates.

It will require a massive miseducational effort to rid our culture of the belief that an optimal family has a mother and father, and if you’re really dedicated to eradicating that belief, you’re wise to start young, with a captive audience in the public schools. That, it seems to me, is why anti-White organizations like the ADL are so enthusiastic about homosexual marriage. They want us weaker, and they know a culture that no longer values the traditional family can only be weak. They’re pleased not so much at the concrete social damage homosexual marriage might cause, since that damage, as I suggested earlier, could never be substantial; they’re pleased above all at the massive growth in socially destructive tolerance training, focused on children, they see looming on the horizon.

Mandatory Homosexual Indoctrination
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10303

ADL Vows to Fight for Gay Marriage
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1880

Child Molestation and Homosexuality
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

Posted by ben tillman on December 07, 2006, 11:32 PM | #

Nicely done, Alex.  An excellent response.  That Keynes quote is a classic.

Posted by Election Summary on December 07, 2006, 11:54 PM | #

They want us weaker, and they know a culture that no longer values the traditional family can only be weak.

I understand that many intelligent WNs believe that the Protocols of LEZ are a fraud. I do not, and properly recognize the work as a social science masterpiece, sound from the first word to the last.

Relevant quote (one of many):

When we introduced into the State organism the poison of Liberalism its whole political complexion underwent a change. States have been seized with a mortal illness - blood poisoning. All that remains is to await the end of their death agony.

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 08, 2006, 05:38 AM | #

Rnl, The main reason I oppose gay marriage, apart from constitutional ones, is the amount of child abuse that has taken place within them. Homosexuals do have a startling propensity to engage in that, something which cannot be explained except by reference to deap-seated mental problems. All the more reason to think it isn’t genetic - a gene that makes one more attracted to the same sex and to the underaged is almost a textbook example of an evolutionary loser!

Thanks, ben. Can you(or anyone else), get a source for the quote? All I have to go on is one passage in an economics textbook, which seems to suggest that this was one of Keynes’ bon mots.

ES, Do you think that the Protocols were actually written by Jews or that they are merely good descriptors of the sort of activities Jews engage in?

Posted by Election Summary on December 08, 2006, 07:37 AM | #

ES, Do you think that the Protocols were actually written by Jews or that they are merely good descriptors of the sort of activites Jews engage in?

Written by Jews?—yes. In the future, Protocols will receive recognition as a timeless masterpiece alongside classics such as Republic and Wealth of Nations.

But the work requires annotation because of its difficult style. Remember that Protocols wasn’t written for public consumption, it’s the outline of an action plan directed at confederates who already understand social sciences at a high level. But in outlining the action plan the author(s) very fleetingly present the basis of each “protocol”, in the process revealing their erudition.

Posted by Lurker on December 08, 2006, 08:35 AM | #

Ive never taken the “long run we are all dead” so literally. I took it to mean that, in economics, we should also be concerned with current problems, not defer evrything into an unrealised future.

Posted by Steve Edwards on December 08, 2006, 09:04 AM | #

This may not be the thread for it, but I was hoping to generate some critical comment on this:

http://ravingwingnut.blogspot.com/2006/12/bahsm-blueprint-for-global-communism.html

Posted by ben tillman on December 08, 2006, 11:54 AM | #

“Ive never taken the “long run we are all dead” so literally.”

I don’t see how it can be taken other than literally.

Posted by ben tillman on December 08, 2006, 11:58 AM | #

What Keynes actually wrote in his Tract on Monetary Reform was:

Now ‘in the long run’ this [way of summarizing the quantity theory of money] is probably true…. But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again.

See:

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/04/delong_on_hazli.html

Posted by Guessedworker on December 08, 2006, 04:19 PM | #

So post it here, Steve.  You have the privilege.

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 09, 2006, 04:20 PM | #

Cheers for the link, ben. I always, perhaps rather naively, assumed that economists spoke in clear, analytical terms, rather than using metaphors that might not mean what they appear to mean.