|
|
|
The mysterious virtue of homosexual politics In recent days there have been around a dozen opinion pieces at the Telegraph site addressing the Catholic Church’s defence of marriage from the trespasses of “gay rights” activism. I’ve participated in a few of the threads (plus one at the Indy which had to be taken down, so shocking is it to the fastidious liberal to encounter opposition). My usual argument was that the female demand for male fidelity (monogamy) is a European sociobiological trait, so the protection and preservation of marriage as the most efficacious form of monogamy (for raising well-adjusted offspring able to make adaptive life-choices) is a highly important interest for our people. The effect of its homosexualisation would be to reduce it to the status of a mere lifestyle choice – even more than it is already. Young women, in particular, would no longer find in it that idealisation of love, sex and family which has drawn them up the church aisle, on their father’s arm, for centuries. Plainly, homosexual activists are not open to conservative or religious argument. Even the two most reasonable who did briefly acknowledge that there are more important things to society than homosexual equality never followed that line of reasoning through to its natural conclusion. The rest of them - and there was an impressive number of homosexuals and leftists commenting on these threads - were hermetically sealed away from all reason. They denied outright that the homosexualisation of marriage will have the slightest impact on its status. But the quality of their advocacy generally – it’s arrogance and smugness, its frequent recourse to insult, its hatred of the Church and the Vatican, its refusal to acknowledge any merit in opposing arguments (some of which were unanswerable) – leaves one with precisely the impression that these people will sully and wreck whatever they touch. The repute of marriage, already in decay, will never recover while they use it to prove their normality to themselves - which is all they are interested in. It was my intention to go through some of the threads and pick out their more interesting arguments. I have tried. This is the result, and it’s not much because there isn’t much that can be used:
None of these remarks was made to me, incidentally. I have not selected them because they contain insults. They are merely representative of the quality of thought that, apparently, goes on in homosexual circles. Yet these creatures are winning their war for the right to marriage. Obviously, the reason for that lies elsewhere than in their ability to set out their case, which has no merit whatsoever. Comments:2
Posted by uKn_Leo on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:08 | # I suspect XWPA and Genotype will have the most in depth knowledge on this particular subject. I look forward to their valuable contribution to this thread. 3
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:44 | #
uKn_Leo - please, no more comments like that. Otherwise I might think you are trolling. 4
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:12 | # GW it’s not that homosexual marriage has much merit more a function of the Durkheimian deviancy constant - in our societies right now homosexuality is hardly the outlier in odd behaviour. Look the ancient Greeks liked there same-sex fun so while not a fan of the mincers and benders I guess it’s an issue of pragmatism - a ‘new right’ party might even have the public line that it wants to ‘protect gays’ from Islamic religious throwbacks. As for why women love gays - well many of the gays are pseudo-women - chatty, fashion obsessed, vain, interested in gossip and ‘celebrity culture’, bitchy etc. So gay men are ‘better friends’, are more fun and fashionable, unthreatening sexually (no pressure to have sex) for some women, and/or many women are turned on by joining in the action for a MFM threesome (a very common female fantasy) or in ‘turning’ a homosexual male (or homosexual couple) via their own beauty and sex appeal. On the last idea Momus has written a song about his younger days when he used to pretend to be a homosexual in order to pick up women that would be delighted that they had ‘turned’ him straight. Women have egos too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QATmpIKxav8 Perhaps Kai Murros could write more on this topic sometime? 5
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:23 | # Roger Scruton on Homosexual “Marriage” http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/blog/2011/07/roger-scruton-on-homosexual-marriage.html On homosexual adoption And his very sophisticated account/defence of traditional sexual roles/morality Sexual Desire: A Moral Philosophy Of The Erotic http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Desire-Moral-Philosophy-Erotic/dp/0029292808 6
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:43 | # Foucault calls it biopower. The use by the ‘State’ of various techniques,including and often prominently sexuality, to control and subjegate its populations. He suggests it’s a shift from blood relations to sexual relations. The transition from ‘sanguinity’ to one of ‘sexuality’ was a shift from the pursuit of perfection to the pursuit of pleasure. 7
Posted by daniel on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:36 | # Posted by Desmond Jones on March 10, 2012, 05:43 AM | # Foucault calls it biopower. The use by the ‘State’ of various techniques,including and often prominently sexuality, to control and subjegate its populations. He suggests it’s a shift from blood relations to sexual relations. The transition from ‘sanguinity’ to one of ‘sexuality’ was a shift from the pursuit of perfection to the pursuit of pleasure.
8
Posted by Alaric on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:09 | # The homosexual cretins are winning because their opposition is you. Cowards and bootlickers. Could it be otherwise? 9
Posted by daniel on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:44 | # Maybe queers are easy for me to ignore, Alaric. There aren’t many around where I am, no parades… I am not interested in them, don’t seek them out… I guess they could be a more important issue in certain circumstances. I had resolved for myself that they ought to to be looked upon critically for a number of reasons, but ought not be a priority as a concern. One issue has since caused me a little more hesitation as to their potential level of hazard - if they are in fact, more disposed to pedophilia. I don’t know the data.
10
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:49 | # The idea that homosexuality is bad for other than religious reasons is probably too sophisticated for most people’s cognitive levels. However, the fundamental argument against gay marriage really isn’t religious in a direct sense, unless one is a fundamentalist. Sexual orientation is almost certainly deterministic, though what part is genetic vs what part ‘environmental trigger’ I leave to the experts. I may myself be overly infected by the liberal Zeitgeist, but I find it difficult to believe that the Christ figure of the NT would harshly condemn and punish homosexual expression, at least if carried on discreetly, and not in such a way as to offend those doing the real work of society - parenting. The most important human task is reproduction of the successive generation, by which I mean both actual procreation, as well as the parental civilizing task. Homosexuals may not be culpable for their sexual orientation, or perhaps even for acting upon it. But there is no argument that they deserve the same privileges that come with marriage, given that they do not share the primary responsibilities at least always potentially associated with marriage. A privileged status for heterosexual marriage is only fair in light of parental sacrifice. Why would a pair of queers even think they should be entitled to those privileges (I realize that things get complicated with lesbian families which do produce kids, but then re repair to the old notion that children are best socialized by being raised by parents of separate sexes)? “Gay marriage” is liberalism on steroids. All the discussion some have been attempting here re ‘mereological’ concerns comes into play. This is a battle between extreme, antinomian, egalitarian individualism and radical ‘choice’, and those who recognize the ontological validity of ‘society’, and that it, too, has claims that should be respected. Gay marriage is the type of issue that also defines the border between classical liberalism or libertarianism, and authentic conservatism. I submit that the former class has no real argument in opposition to such an outrage, which is another reason why I’m not a libertarian, despite holding liberty rooted in strong property protections in high regard. 11
Posted by daniel on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:58 | # One thing that bothers me a whole lot more than queers is men who hog and go through a whole lot of women for themselves - particularly if they are of other races. It is possible that queers do not help in that regard - that is, queers really might not help in arranging for a more equitable arrangement between the sexes. That is one criticism that I’d propose, although it probably does not apply with complete consistency. 12
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:26 | # Leon for course you’re right non-religious objections to radical homosexual politics and culture such as Roger Scruton’s are sadly way ‘over the heads’ of Mr. & Mrs. Average - indeed as are many ideas of any note - how to translate them into a popular and attractive idiom is a key task. BTW did you see my posts on the ethics of immigration? - perhaps like you might be interested in following up the communitarian versus cosmopolitan debate on that topic when time allows? There is some potential in freedom of association and freedom from association, democratic consent (or not) etc., as normative political ideas in this debate. Even Schmitt and his friend verses foe distinction - can ‘we’ collectively and politically choose the limits of our ‘in-group’? If not why not and what if the ‘egalitarian plateau’ has radically sub-optimal outcomes even in its own terms? 13
Posted by daniel on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:36 | # that is, queers really might not help in arranging for a more equitable arrangement between the sexes
I have said this in other places..but One reason being that in needing to absolve themselves of blame, queers may become overly partial to promoting biologically deterministic arguments. While it is undoubtedly true that some have a biological determination that they can barely help, when that view is spread too far, and to other issues, it can interfere with socio-cultural mediations that would serve to negotiate more just arrangements between the sexes. That is, the politics of queers probably tends to be too liberal. However, I have seen examples where they are not too liberal - in fact, racially helpful. And, on the other hand, I have seen really macho guys who are a disaster from a racial standpoint.
14
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 15:07 | # Of course homosexuals have always been with us - just think of the ‘Molly Houses’ of ye olde England. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_house And some homosexuals have greatly contributed to European culture and society so really it’s a question of how far should we bend societal norms to their ideological fantasies - such as the ‘right’ to children etc., Ronald Dworkin calls the “egalitarian plateau” the deepest moral assumption of our time, that each person is of equal intrinsic worth. This is at root one of the key ideas of liberal cosmopolitanism (extreme value pluralism in life-styles etc., as equally worthy). The alternative is something like Michael Sandel (and communitarianism), who rejects what he refers to as liberalism’s depiction of a “deontological” self whose identity is never tied to its aims or attachments. He writes: “we cannot regard ourselves as independent in this way without great cost to those loyalties and convictions whose moral force consists partly in the fact that living by them is inseparable from understanding ourselves as the particular persons we are…Allegiances such as these…go beyond the obligations I voluntarily incur and the ‘natural duties’ I owe to human beings as such. They allow that to some I owe more than justice requires or even permits, not by reason of agreements I have made but instead in virtue of those more or less enduring attachments and commitments which taken together partly define the person I am.” A person without such constitutive attachments, Sandel continues, would be lacking in moral character and depth. “For to have character is to know that I move in a history I neither summon nor command, which carries consequences none the less for my choices and conduct. It draws me closer to some and more distant from others; it makes some aims more appropriate, others less so”. The “deontological self” which is the starting point to liberal contract theory is, by contrast, a self so bereft of character that it is incapable of self-knowledge, and therefore self-direction. Being “unencumbered” by its conception of the good, having no attributes and aims other than those it has voluntarily chosen, its inquiry into its own motives and ends “can only be an exercise in arbitrariness”. Note the idea that we owe certain people and certain communities more than justice demands or requires - what is that other than a very sharp limit to the boundaries of the universal “egalitarian plateau” of Dworkin et al.? 15
Posted by The Unsinkable Dirty Bull on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 15:53 | # O.T. Great debate going on down at the Guardian’s ‘comment is free’ forum, over the revelation that *most* (54%) young black men are on the dole.In fact by some measures only around 30% have jobs. 16
Posted by The Irrepressible Dirty Bull on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:02 | # Whilst on the subject of poofters, the Guardians great Simon Hoggart has revealed that the late Sir Norman St. John Stevas MP had a boyfriend who worked at (you’ve guessed it) Peter Jones, Oxford Street - Mr. Humphrey’s and all that. I don’t like being too hard on the pooves, because there are some genuinely good eggs like Norman St. John Stevas about. 17
Posted by The Obsessive Dirty Bull on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:04 | # As Quentin Crisp put it, he was ‘one of the stately homos of England’. 18
Posted by daniel on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:09 | # On the other hand, I guess that it would not only be biological determinism that would be used by queers. The deonitc argument, perhaps even more so, would be used by queers to justify liberal politics - as that would serve their designated group and its coalitions in definitive political correctness. 19
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:31 | # Daniel it’s the hypocrisy called “strategic essentialism” - the “strategic use of positivist essentialism in a scrupulously visible political interest”. It’s from that ‘intellectual giant’ Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayatri_Chakravorty_Spivak Spivak coined the term “strategic essentialism” which refers to a sort of temporary solidarity for the purpose of social and political action. For example, the attitude that women’s groups have many different agendas makes it difficult for feminists to work for common causes. “Strategic essentialism” is about the need to accept temporarily an “essentialist” position in order to be able to act. That is all women, or gays or whichever PC victim group all have common interests. Aka special pleading on behalf of gays and other ‘oppressed’ minorities - asymmetrical “group rights”. I can only imagine the outrage from such quarters if the Scots or English or any other Euros were to act on our own “strategic essentialism” of common blood and inheritance. Or asserted the autochthonicity of Europeans in Europe and our collective rights to autonomy from third-world ‘diversity’. In the global perspective we too are a minority! Brian Sewell is another grand old Queen of England - harmless if kept in their place - dangerous to society if not.
20
Posted by Republicrat on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:32 | # How many people here are actually married? How many of here have had a divorce? I think this is a fair question to ask of anyone who wants to critique gay marriage. I don’t think we should exempt our own personal lives from our sociological observations and prescriptions - that includes those among us who justify their mixed-race relationships while being advocates of racial exclusion. I am skeptical of the homo movement and of homo marriage - don’t take me for being an advocate of gay marriage per say. I am a heterosexual white male myself. However, I see so much dysfunctional among heterosexual couples that I really have a tough time accepting most of the criticisms of gay marriage. I think it is a red herring and an excuse not to address the real problems that already exist in “normal” marriage. This idealization of heterosexual marriage sounds great but it doesn’t really reflect reality. Modern marriages (including the legal framework) are too focused on putting women on a pedestal (as a consequence of modern feminism) to the point that it incentivizes women to betray their vows (“no fault divorce”) and disincentivizes men from wanting to get married in the first place (This is not to excuse misbehaving men by any means). This comes at the expense of children who grow up in broken families, and of course, it comes at the expense of men who are victimized by the divorce process. There are valid critiques of the homo rights movement but to me it pales in comparison to the sadly dysfunctional state of marriage among heterosexuals. IMO gay marriage while a questionable endeavor for society to be taking up, is a very minor issue as compared to the problem with modern heterosexual marriages. Gay marriage is not on my radar screen. I don’t see why I should care that much beyond just remarking that it’s a bit gross and disgusting. 21
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:39 | # Scruton is, as ever, right on the money. ‘Moral inversion’ he terms it, what a useful phrase. Reading at some of the links provided at the OP it seems that the present Conservative party line, at least as blessed by Party Central if not in the shires, is that marriage is such a ‘good thing’ - leading to social stability, happy families, and so on - that as many people as possible should be encouraged to take it up. Pursuing this actuarial mindset to logical conclusion, what possible objection could there be to me marrying my sister, or both of the lovely 14-year old twins next door, or even Daisy our prize heifer? 22
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:43 | # Maybe all the black boys without an education or job could become “batty boys” for cash? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batty_boy I mean around Westminster there are at least 300 Tory MPs that would use their services! Along with many Liberal and Labour MPs, Members of the Lords, High Court Judges etc. Here a member of the English establishment discusses his interests in sexual deviancy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ezqpFWnfU Track 8 “Winkie Wanky Woo” 23
Posted by daniel on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:45 | # Posted by Graham_Lister on March 10, 2012, 11:31 AM | # Daniel it’s the hypocrisy called “strategic essentialism” - the “strategic use of positivist essentialism in a scrupulously visible political interest” It makes sense. I can only imagine the outrage from such quarters if the Scots or English or any other Euros were to act on our own “strategic essentialism” of common blood and inheritance. Strategic use of both deontic and ontic arguments on behalf of the Scots and English in spite of the resistance - interesting. 24
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 17:04 | # @Dan Scruton is generally excellent but as you say why not marry the microwave or the Eiffel Tower or a bridge! Like this dumb, delusional bitch - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXlaS_jYBFQ On other matters this is a transcript from a recent court case in England. CLIVE: Did I ever tell you before that I love a man who has no convictions. DEREK: Ohhh ..... CLIVE: How many convictions have you got? DEREK: Well-l-l, depends what you mean by convictions. CLIVE: How many times have you been in prison for offences against, erm, Anna Neagle? DEREK: Forty-four times, your honour. CLIVE: Well, come back and see me and we’ll see if we can ..... sort things out. DEREK: You’re too kind. CLIVE: I’m what? DEREK: You’re getting fainter. CLIVE: I’m getting Fanta? Yes, I should go off and get some Fanta ..... DEREK: No, you’re getting fainter. CLIVE: Oh, I’m getting fainter, yes, yes, because, do you know in forty-five years in the British army I’ve never met anyone who really cared. DEREK: How very sad. CLIVE: It is, isn’t it? When one has fought two wars, beaten the Boche twice, one ceases to care, ..... DEREK: Nnggh ..... CLIVE: ..... one only hungers for where it’s at. DEREK: Well, get your willy wanky woo over here, darling. CLIVE: I wish I could ..... it was shot off in the first war. DEREK: Well, fuck off you silly old poof. Peter Cook - truly a comic genius.
25
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 17:45 | # Trouble in the PC multi-cult world… Apparently black reggae is terribly homophobic… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJoc8HpMSAM And Peter Tatchell (a disgusting creature that salivates at the prospect of enjoying sex with 14 year olds) is not happy. http://www.petertatchell.net/pop_music/reggaeinthepark.htm How can the likes of Spivak - a radical “para-disciplinary, ethical philosopher” - reconcile these different “strategic essentialisms”? I mean both blacks and gays are equally special victim groups, yes? 26
Posted by daniel on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 18:47 | # How can the likes of Spivak - a radical “para-disciplinary, ethical philosopher” - reconcile these different “strategic essentialisms”? I mean both blacks and gays are equally special victim groups, yes? First of all, thank you for pointing this out, Graham. I guess the answer is inherent in the question. The logical consistency is primarily that it be good for the victim group and on a supra-ordinate level, good for the Jews/Plutocrats. Thus, the explanation for this hypocrisy is in the fact that these arguments are more or less facile and merely pragmatic; offered up for public consumption and backed by the belief and the fact that choke points of power are controlled. However, we need not fetish logical consistency to the point where it runs counter to our interests either. Perhaps that is an easier adjustment for me, having grown up in crazier circumstances than most, I am not as frustrated by ambiguities and ostensible logical inconsistencies. I am rather comfortable with “White boxing” them if I can feel the consistency toward the out come. For example, when I spoke of coordinating Bowery’s notion of human ecologies based on freedom from association with the historically deep, and situated ecologies of native Europeans and also with the large White nation (big enough to fund a space program and hold up to China)... Desmond made the excellent rejoinder that Bowery’s concept is based on the fact that explicit Whiteness has not worked. And indeed, when I think of the example of American realtors and how they cannot even safely discuss racial issues with buyers and sellers, that fact becomes acute. However, it did not trouble me much because I could see the voluntary aspect that I was/am proffering for this coordination, together with its not seeking legal status (yet), but merely expressing a wish. That would make it so that it did not contradict Bowery’s strategy for facilitating implicitly White communities. However yes, certain tact and discretion would have to be adhered. A Bowery, for example, may not want to sign up. That was a long story to make a short point, that I am perhaps not so troubled by ostensible logical inconsistency and ambiguity. I believe that we, as native European advocates, need not be so troubled by it either. We can take advantage of it and be more pragmatic as well, while taking note and keeping an eye on the power behind their arrogant contradictions. 27
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:49 | #
Sodomites yes, homosexuality no. Foucault wrote: “The sodomite was a recidivist, but the homosexual is now a species.” 28
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 11 Mar 2012 07:51 | # The English would rather hoist the skull and cross bones of butt-piracy up the flag pole than adopt National Socialism. And why should we be shocked? This, from the nation which coined the term “buggery”. LOL Fuck Anglo-Saxonism. 29
Posted by Harvey on Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:30 | # @CaptainChaos You seriously think that the NS movement of Germany was not full of degenerate homosexuals? Their symbols could have been a pink Swastika. With every comment you get more delusional. Go and jack-off to Himmler or Rohm or whoever you damn fag. 30
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 11 Mar 2012 12:10 | #
Where are these? The Kievsky thread? I will look. Lister @14 Interesting contrast between Dworkin and Sandel (I’ve always thought both were Jews of the Left, though - am I wrong?). I have Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (if that’s the correct title) somewhere at home; never read it, however - perhaps I should?
Of course it all depends on what one means by “worth”. Also, it is wrong. More than two millenia ago Aristotle pointed out one correct element of justice: that likes should be treated alike, and unalikes unalike. From a Christian perspective, each person at best possesses a presumption of intrinsic worth, but that must be demonstrated. If the person demonstrates a lack of ethicality, then he correspondingly loses any right to be treated equally with those who do ‘keep the Commandments’. Seems obviously right. Homosexuals are maritally inferior because they don’t make the sacrifices associated with marriage (ie, child rearing). Therefore, they are not owed the privileges which conventionally attach to the marital state, either. Homo and hetero couples are not alike, and therefore need not be treated alike. Republicrat @20 You are certainly correct re the parlous state of traditional marriage, which has been ruined in many ways, mostly (though not exclusively) associated with feminism. That hardly justifies further denuding marriage of its traditional content in order to recast it merely as a ‘lifestyle choice’. On another note: do you disapprove of someone like me who advocates white preservation and political re-empowerment but who also has a mixed race girlfriend? Am I somehow a hypocrite? What if I’m extremely ugly and unable to get a pure white girlfriend? Or what if I’m acceptable in appearance, but have just never found an adequate white female? Or what if I could, but my ‘mongrel’ is unusually intelligent or pretty or otherwise desirable? I think we need to avoid making the personal political. Most whites will never be WNs, and the direct reproductive contribution WNs could make to the overall cause of racial survival will never be very consequential. What we need are successful men of influence or means converting to WN. A WN intellectual, by influencing thousands or millions of ordinary whites in a pro-white way, is being far more useful than he would be merely by adding 2 children to the race.
31
Posted by France 22 - 24 England on Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:03 | # Churches unite against gay marriage 11/03/12. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/11/legalising-gay-marriage-unjustified-archbishops 32
Posted by The Stuart Hall Incident on Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:20 | # Off topic but funny Radio 5 discusses Zimbabwe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv_7tmyz9y4 Mugabe cast as a witch doctor! 33
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:48 | # Sophists and hypocrites like Spivak are beyond contemptible. Like the old Trots that somehow can have their cake and eat it with crap about how only whites can be ‘racist’. Utterly dishonest creeps. Even old socialists like Terry Eagleton hate the crap Spivak et al., come out with.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n10/terry-eagleton/in-the-gaudy-supermarket Honestly Spivak and her dishonest ilk flip-flop to suit their propaganda objectives: when they want to have people mix, they say intra-human variation (race, ethnicity etc., doesn’t exist). When they want Blacks or other ‘victim’ groups to get preferential treatment for job placement or some form of group rights, based on race etc., suddenly such differences exist again and are extremely important. They aren’t suited to work in an institute of higher learning, except to scrub the toilets. Even then I doubt they are up to the job.
34
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 11 Mar 2012 20:26 | # @Leon Google “the procedural republic and the unencumbered self” and you should be able to get one of Sandel’s key essays as a PDF. 35
Posted by uKn_Leo on Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:29 | # This may be of interest. Words fail… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113383/Man-reveals-shock-UKs-transgender-pregnancy.html 36
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 12 Mar 2012 01:29 | # uKn_Leo It’s not so much slouching towards Gomorrah as maximal velocity towards that destination. For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way. Where now is the katechon? Yes I have been reading about Schmitt recently. 37
Posted by uKn_Leo on Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:17 | # @ G_L “It’s not so much slouching towards Gomorrah as maximal velocity towards that destination”. I’ve been trying for ten minutes to find some words of encouragement or consolation G_L but i’ll have to admit i’m struggling. In the comments from the homosexuals in GW’s lead piece, they triumphantly assert that majority opinion is in their favour. I would suggest that they are somewhat exaggerating their case. This is certainly not true in my experience. They just know how to shout very very loudly, that voice being then amplified by their many ‘friends’ in media and political spheres. I will give up at that G_L. I have many thoughts swirling around my head but it’s nothing you don’t know (more) about already. Ironic though that these same ‘gays’ and whatever else pick and mix combo humanoids, will come screaming for heterosexual male assistance if the poop hits the fan with our muslim friends. Gordon bleedin’ Bennet!, is I believe the correct intellectual terminology G_L. 38
Posted by new era of Putin jew ass kicking on Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:06 | # Homosexual propaganda banned in St Petersburg, 12/03/2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/12/st-petersburg-bans-homosexual-propaganda 39
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:21 | # (Somewhat) off-topic, but does anyone else find it curious how the MSM manage to strenuously avoid mentioning her own ethnicity in articles intended to invoke criticism of Equalities Miniter Lynne Featherstone’s campaign against the right to wear the Christian cross while at work? As here. 40
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:44 | # Dan it’s our old friend asymmetric multiculturalism (otherwise called hypocrisy) at work. One rule for the goy… 41
Posted by uKn_Leo on Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:55 | # Dan Dare, they (MSM) don’t ever mention that aspect. Ever, in any story (99.9999% recurring ever). The very British sounding name, Lynne Featherstone, unless prompted, won’t arouse any suspicion either. Apparently for us mere gentiles any discussion of this subject, or anything related whatsoever, is off limits. I have listened to G_L for example, and taken on board that this is a much more nuanced situation, with many actors. Not a one size J-Lizard fits all issue. But it’s a real struggle not to be consumed with sheer hatred for the perpetrators of the tactics being used against my beloved countrymen. Those tactics being nothing less than acts of war in my book (if that stance puts me into the category of rebellious teenager, then so be it). 42
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:55 | #
I’m not sure which is more despicable: that some Jew is trying to ban cross-wearing in an OFFICIALLY Christian country, or that the UK has an “Equalities Minister”. I hate the multikult. But I hate the Left only slightly less. And why not? The latter paved the way for the former (regardless of the extent to which specific UK political bumblers may have originally inadvertently inaugurated the colonization process). 43
Posted by gays without borders on Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:15 | # The pro gay agenda working its way into the video game industry. Where the homosexual market is virtually non existent and homosexual content is both unwarranted and unwanted. This game, Mass Effect 3 is essentially an aliens vs humans shootout. It will sell millions of copies around the globe and be played by many children despite the 18 year old and over certificate. For whatever reason the developers have decided to include the option to follow a homosexual romance storyline, complete with explicit acts of homosexuality. http://www.computerandvideogames.com/338691/features/mass-effect-3-gay-shepard-shows-games-are-finally-growing-up/ 44
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 13 Mar 2012 00:32 | # Aye Graham, it is that lad. When I’m not thrilling to Colonial Office memoranda from the 1950s I’m spending some time at the moment ploughing through Anthony Julius’ Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitismin England. There seems to have been an awful lot of it about, 811 pages worth. although you Scots don’t seem to have been much cop at it, at least not as far as Julius is concerned. It’s fairly hard going, the style being akin what David Irving must have had in mind when characterising the historical works of some of his persecutors as ‘turgid sludge’, but if I get through it in the next several years I’ll post some impressions here. In the meantime there’s a very good review at the LRB by Diarmuid McThingy, the telly-Jock who did that series on the History of Christianity. 45
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 25 Mar 2012 08:08 | #
Are you referring to historian Diarmaid MacCulloch, author of excellent histories of the Reformation and Christianity more broadly? I highly recommend his work, even if he is not actually a Christian, but only a “friend of Christianity”. He is an outstanding historian, of the type the English once seemed to produce in great abundance. Post a comment:
Next entry: The French shooter
|
|
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) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 02:43 | #
I came across a survey recently which indicated that ‘gay marriage’ is one of the very few issues which attract significantly more female support than male.
If I have noted this, then it is certain that Dave’s advisors have too and, given his well-publicised appeal deficit with respect to the female electorate, it would not be at all surprising to learn that this is why ‘gay marriage’ has received such a giant leg-up since the coalition took over.