The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
On Homonationalism, Heteronationalism, and Alabama’s Roy Moore—American Original
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
IslamMerkel

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Germans have a word for it: homonationalism“—polls suggest support among homosexuals for the immigration-patriot AfD party is higher than among Germans at large, basically because of gay-bashing by Merkel-imported Muslim “refugees.” [The gay men turning to the far right in Germany, By Atika Shubert, Nadine Schmidt and Judith Vonberg, CNN, September 14, 2017] We’ll see: There’s a federal election coming up in Germany tomorrow, Sunday September 24th. Meanwhile, here’s a guy who won’t be signing on to homonationalism any time soon: Roy Moore, former Chief Justice of Alabama, and a candidate for election Tuesday September 26 in that state. Whatever else you can say about Moore, he is an American original. I hope he does well.

Tuesday’s election is a Republican Party primary. You’ll recall that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was junior senator from Alabama until being plucked from that position to be Trump’s A-G in February this year. That left an empty seat in the Senate, so Alabama’s then-Governor appointed his state A-G, Luther Strange, to fill the seat.

Jeff Sessions’ Senate term ran to January 2021, though. Four years is a long time for Mr. Strange to sit in the Senate without having been elected, so there’ll be an election for this Senate seat December 12th.

So far, so good: a special election for this Senate seat in December, so the parties need candidates to run in that election, one Democrat and one Republican.

There were primaries last month to decide the candidates. A chap named Doug Jones, a bland center-Left type, won the Democrat primary. For the Republicans, there’s to be a runoff between two guys: that’s the election next Tuesday, a runoff primary to decide the GOP candidate.

Luther Strange, the current Senator, is of course one of the candidates. The other is the aforementioned Roy Moore, the one I started off by saying will never be described as a homonationalist.

Moore is a piece of work, a little bit of Americana. His moment of fame–his aristeia, the Greeks would have said–came in November 2003, when he was Chief Justice of the Alabama state Supreme Court. He had installed a massive granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments in the state judicial building in Montgomery. A federal judge ordered him to remove it. Moore refused, and was himself removed from office.

Moore got himself elected back to the Supreme Court, then got himself suspended last year for obstructing issuance of licenses for homosexual marriages, which he hotly opposes. April this year he resigned from the court to run in this primary.

In the first round of primary voting, last month, Moore beat Strange by 39 percent to 33. If he beats him in the runoff this week he’ll be the Republican candidate against Democrat Doug Jones, and likely the next Senator–Alabama is strong for the GOP.

Roy Moore concedes nothing to Political Correctness. He is, as I said, a gem of pure Americana. They don’t make his type anywhere else. Intensely Christian and a Bible literalist, he thinks that evolution is nonsense, homosexual behavior should be illegal, and Islam is a false religion not protected by the First Amendment.

I don’t myself agree with him on any of those points. But—speaking personally, VDARE.com does not endorse candidates–I hope he wins Tuesday’s primary none the less. He may not be a homo-nationalist, but he’s definitely a nationalist—a heteronationalist? –American all the way through. If there isn’t room in the U.S. Senate for a few eccentrics like Moore, I don’t see the point of the place.

Moore has some big names on his side, who I presume feel the same way I do: Steve Bannon, former chief Strategist to Donald Trump, and Sarah Palin, John McCain’s VP candidate in 2008.

ORDER IT NOW

Luther Strange, his opponent on Tuesday, is very much the GOP Establishment candidate. He has the backing of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell; you can’t get more Establishment than that. As a person who would like to see the entire GOP Establishment roasting slowly in Hell, this only fortifies my support for Roy Moore.

My support was further fortified by a hit piece on Moore in Yahoo News today, written by homosexual supremacist Michelangelo Signorile [Tweet him] who is to homosexuals what Ta-nehisi Coates is to blacks.

If elected, this guy [i.e. Roy Moore] will be the kookiest, most dangerous man to serve in the U.S. Senate in many years, not to mention that he’d consistently cause embarrassing media spectacles, as if we don’t have enough of that.[What Alabama’s GOP Senate Frontrunner Told Me Should Scare The Daylights Out Of You, Michelangelo Signorile, HuffPost, September 22, 20]

Hey: embarrassing media spectacles are my bread and butter–what, you think I want to write about bland elections like Germany’s all day long? –and I can’t see that wanting the U.S.A. to be a Christian nation is any kookier than buggering other men and writing about it at endless length.

To be perfectly frank, it strikes me as less kooky.

Sad to report, President Trump has been persuaded to throw his own support behind Luther Strange, apparently believing, or having been persuaded, that the GOP doesn’t have enough Chambers of Commerce cheap-labor front men, Mitch McConnell / Paul Ryan clones in Congress, jogging along a year or two behind the Progressive agenda.

I disagree, and I hope the Republican primary voters of Alabama vote for Roy Moore on Tuesday.

Let’s get an American original in the Senate–not just another globalist drone.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Homosexuality, Political Correctness 
Hide 54 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. This photo always gets a chuckle out of me. Merkel jew-proofing Germany with Muslims.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jderbyshire/on-homonationalism-heteronationalism-and-alabamas-roy-moore-american-original/#comment-2018483
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. MEH 0910 says:

    As Trump campaigns for Strange in Alabama, he expresses some doubts: ‘I might have made a mistake’

    HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — President Trump campaigned on Friday night for Alabama Senate candidate Luther Strange, in a race that has pitted him against his most loyal supporters and that holds the potential to upend the political dynamics for Republicans facing election in 2018.

    The endorsement of ‘Big Luther’ could prove to be a big boost for the interim Alabama senator, who is trailing his opponent, former state judge Roy Moore, in some public polls. But even Trump seemed unsure that the endorsement was the right move.

    “I’ll be honest, I might have made a mistake,” Trump told the crowd at one point during his nearly 90 minutes of remarks.

    “If Luther doesn’t win they’re not going to say, we picked up 25 points in a short period of time,” he added, referring to the media. “If his opponent wins, I’m going to be here campaigning like hell for him.”

    After some musing, he seemed to catch himself.

    “Luther will definitely win,” Trump said.

    It may not have been exactly the ringing endorsement Strange’s campaign had hoped for, but it would have to do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    Yep, read that a breitbart this morning. Trump is sounding a bit less committed to Strange.That means he isn't deaf to what has been going on. Dump the globalist traitor RINO trash and MAGA!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. I know the hour’s late, but I would to contribute a last-minute motto to Ms. Merkel’s campaign: Vielfalt macht frei!

    Regarding homosexuals, Australia is in the midst of a postal plebiscite on gay marriage. It’s the talk of the town. On Friday and Saturday night I must have been asked by a dozen strangers I got involved in conversations with how I was voting. I didn’t want to get into debates, but at first I stated my reasons for opposing it. Later in the night, as I got more drunk, I started “trolling” people with the iconic American anti-gay slogan: “Cos God hates fags,” I’d answer with a smirk. Got more laughs than I expected. As depressingly leftarded as Melbourne is, it’s good to know we haven’t completely lost our sense of humour.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Brabantian says: • Website

    One rainbow-diversity effort that has gone into difficulties, is the repeated attempts to maintain a pro-gay etc pro-diversity huge multiple-metres high rainbow of flowers at Saviour Place / Square – locally, ‘Plac Zbawiciela’ – in Warsaw Poland. However, it seems that whenever it gets constructed, some Polish folks set the thing on fire, as seen in this photo

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Inspiring stuff from the Poles!
    , @Jim Don Bob
    Nice!
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I'll tell you something about this sort of thing. I'm not all about destroying all things gay, but I don't like the blatant in-your-face "what-are-you-gonna-do-about-it?" gay pride nonsense. I applaud the Poles for not putting up with it, and what young men don't like setting a good fire now and then?

    However, lots will look at this and say those Poles have guts and the Western men are cowards, as they would never do anything like this. The difference is in the Authoritah! In the West, you will get all but strung up, at least arrested for a "hate" crime, your career (unless your career is pyromania) ruined, and your reputation trashed all over the place. You will be treated worse than a murderer. I'm just guessing, but the police in this town with the burned rainbow would, at worst case, just arrest the culprits for simple arson or destruction of property, if anything at all.

    That is the reason you won't see much of this, yet.. in the western world with its anarcho-tyranny.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Randal says:

    The Germans have a word for it: “homonationalism“—polls suggest support among homosexuals for the immigration-patriot AfD party is higher than among Germans at large, basically because of gay-bashing by Merkel-imported Muslim “refugees.”

    This is certainly one of the key current problems – sustaining healthy levels of opposition to homosexual behaviour in the face of the naturally rising resistance to islamist influence tending to drive it in the wrong direction. The result has been the rise of homosexual activists driven by fear of conservative islam to positions of unhealthy prominence in the nationalist resistance to mass immigration, and the laughable but politically effective achievement of the homosexualist lobbies in getting morally corrupt mainstream politicians to declare that approval of homosexual behaviour is some kind of fundamental western value (especially amusing considering that the vast majority of all past generations of western societies in the Christian era, right up until a few decades ago, regarded homosexual behaviour as unacceptable and/or evil).

    Ironically, one of the few redeeming features of mass muslim immigration could have been importing their cultures’ healthier attitudes towards some social issues.

    and I can’t see that wanting the U.S.A. to be a Christian nation is any kookier than buggering other men

    Interesting reading that 2001 essay of yours today. You clearly dramatically underestimated the immense power of elite propaganda and social approval bias to manipulate opinion, backed by corporate collaboration motivated by the “pink pound”, when you wrote that: “In a 1996 Gallup poll 59 percent of the public believed that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, compared to 34 percent who believed that it is not morally wrong. I doubt if the first of those figures will ever get much lower; I doubt if the second will ever reach 50 percent.” The 2013 Pew Global Attitudes survey gave 60% in the US saying “Homosexuality should be accepted by society” versus only 33% saying it should not.

    Just how much of that is almost certainly people saying what they think they ought to say rather than what they fundamentally believe is indicated by another survey suggesting that fully 64% of people in the Americas and 61% in Europe would be very or somewhat upset “if their child told them that they were in love with someone of the same sex”.

    That male homosexuals should be jailed? Run out of town on rails? Surgically altered? Burned at the stake? Of course not. In a free society, the things people choose do do with each other in private, even if unhygienic and unhealthy, are nobody else’s business. They become someone else’s business only when the people concerned go into the public square and start advertising their tastes, and recruiting to them. If my neighbor wants to be buggered in the privacy of his home, I wish him joy of it; if he wants to get on my school board and agitate for the establishment of a “gay” students club at my son’s school, I shall have something to say about it.

    This was my attitude, decades ago, to the issue of decriminalisation of homosexual activity. Surely it must be correct to argue that there is no place for the government interfering in the private behaviour of consenting adults?

    Experience has confirmed, however, that those who argued to the contrary that decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour would be the beginning of a slippery slope were incontrovertibly correct, to the extent that we now, as a direct consequence of decriminalisation in the sense that they could not have occurred without it, have many things that the vast majority of those who supported decriminalisation decades ago would have regarded then as unacceptable and, indeed, in many cases as positively evil – the active suppression of political opinion and principled behaviour opposed to the normalisation of homosexual behaviour. the fundamental corruption of the institution of marriage to include pairs of homosexuals, the placement of children for adoption by pairs of homosexuals and the driving put of agencies that refuse to do so, etc.

    We might have been correct in theory but, as one suspects might often be the case with liberal theory, the price in practice has been too high.

    Look: in a civilized modern society, majorities owe a debt of tolerance to harmless minorities.

    One mistake, I think, driven by the homosexualist identity lobbyists for obviously self-serving reasons, was to regard people tempted to engage in homosexual behaviour as a “minority” group, rather than just as people tempted to engage in wrongful behaviour. The comparison should be with bestiality, not with heterosexual sex. We don’t generally say that bestiality is ok as long as the animal is not harmed, or that it should be no concern of government if it is in private. We just say it’s wrong and should not be allowed. Tolerance comes in applying reasonable punishments and light enforcement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think that it's obvious that while we might not be happy with gays or how they have made themselves the central point of Western morality, we certainly don't need Muslims to insert themselves into this family dispute. This is our civilization's problem, and Muslims have certainly no business telling us what to do here, even if I might personally be inclined to agree with them on that particular issue.
    , @PhysicistDave
    Randal wrote:

    The comparison should be with bestiality, not with heterosexual sex. We don’t generally say that bestiality is ok as long as the animal is not harmed, or that it should be no concern of government if it is in private. We just say it’s wrong and should not be allowed.
     
    Hmmm... if by "we" you mean a strong majority of contemporary American society, I wonder if you are right. I suspect that a large fraction of our contemporaries would say that bestiality is only morally wrong if the animal does not consent.
    , @Quartermaster
    Since homosexuality is unhygienic, and we have a welfare state where we pay the medical bills of loose people, we all get a say on such things. If queers want to bugger each other, let them do it without the welfare state paying the bills for their idiocy.
    , @Corvinus
    "The result has been the rise of homosexual activists driven by fear of conservative islam to positions of unhealthy prominence..."

    Prominence cannot be "unhealthy". Perhaps you meant to use the term "undeserved".

    "in the nationalist resistance to mass immigration, and the laughable but politically effective achievement of the homosexualist lobbies in getting morally corrupt mainstream politicians to declare that approval of homosexual behaviour is some kind of fundamental western value."

    OR, it's merely because increasing numbers of people within the past 60 years who of their own volition are changing the nature of their society, similar to past generations, by questioning alleged "truths".

    "You clearly dramatically underestimated the immense power of elite propaganda and social approval bias to manipulate opinion, backed by corporate collaboration motivated by the “pink pound”, when you wrote that: “In a 1996 Gallup poll 59 percent of the public believed that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, compared to 34 percent who believed that it is not morally wrong. I doubt if the first of those figures will ever get much lower; I doubt if the second will ever reach 50 percent.” The 2013 Pew Global Attitudes survey gave 60% in the US saying “Homosexuality should be accepted by society” versus only 33% saying it should not."

    You are definitively overvaluing this impact of "elite propaganda" and "social approval bias". People on this fine blog assume that there has been a concerted effort by elites, in particular da Joos, that there are front and center in manipulating the minds of Gentiles for their own demonic ends. Perhaps this issue has become personal to millions of people who are merely taking God's command of treating people with respect and dignity regardless of their sexuality. That is called human progress,

    Now, good ol' Derbs stated "If my neighbor wants to be buggered in the privacy of his home, I wish him joy of it; if he wants to get on my school board and agitate for the establishment of a “gay” students club at my son’s school, I shall have something to say about it."

    Likewise, if a person wants to oppose this "gay" students club at a school, those who favor the forming of such an organization have the liberty to fight tooth and nail for it, with the school district rendering its decision based on overall public sentiment. Freedom is not about being able to only do something in the privacy of one's home, it is being able to do it in public, provided that this activity is within the boundaries of established social norms. Of course, freedom is never free, there are positive and negative consequences.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @Randal

    The Germans have a word for it: “homonationalism“—polls suggest support among homosexuals for the immigration-patriot AfD party is higher than among Germans at large, basically because of gay-bashing by Merkel-imported Muslim “refugees.”
     
    This is certainly one of the key current problems - sustaining healthy levels of opposition to homosexual behaviour in the face of the naturally rising resistance to islamist influence tending to drive it in the wrong direction. The result has been the rise of homosexual activists driven by fear of conservative islam to positions of unhealthy prominence in the nationalist resistance to mass immigration, and the laughable but politically effective achievement of the homosexualist lobbies in getting morally corrupt mainstream politicians to declare that approval of homosexual behaviour is some kind of fundamental western value (especially amusing considering that the vast majority of all past generations of western societies in the Christian era, right up until a few decades ago, regarded homosexual behaviour as unacceptable and/or evil).

    Ironically, one of the few redeeming features of mass muslim immigration could have been importing their cultures' healthier attitudes towards some social issues.


    and I can’t see that wanting the U.S.A. to be a Christian nation is any kookier than buggering other men
     
    Interesting reading that 2001 essay of yours today. You clearly dramatically underestimated the immense power of elite propaganda and social approval bias to manipulate opinion, backed by corporate collaboration motivated by the "pink pound", when you wrote that: "In a 1996 Gallup poll 59 percent of the public believed that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, compared to 34 percent who believed that it is not morally wrong. I doubt if the first of those figures will ever get much lower; I doubt if the second will ever reach 50 percent." The 2013 Pew Global Attitudes survey gave 60% in the US saying "Homosexuality should be accepted by society" versus only 33% saying it should not.

    Just how much of that is almost certainly people saying what they think they ought to say rather than what they fundamentally believe is indicated by another survey suggesting that fully 64% of people in the Americas and 61% in Europe would be very or somewhat upset “if their child told them that they were in love with someone of the same sex”.


    That male homosexuals should be jailed? Run out of town on rails? Surgically altered? Burned at the stake? Of course not. In a free society, the things people choose do do with each other in private, even if unhygienic and unhealthy, are nobody else's business. They become someone else's business only when the people concerned go into the public square and start advertising their tastes, and recruiting to them. If my neighbor wants to be buggered in the privacy of his home, I wish him joy of it; if he wants to get on my school board and agitate for the establishment of a "gay" students club at my son's school, I shall have something to say about it.
     
    This was my attitude, decades ago, to the issue of decriminalisation of homosexual activity. Surely it must be correct to argue that there is no place for the government interfering in the private behaviour of consenting adults?

    Experience has confirmed, however, that those who argued to the contrary that decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour would be the beginning of a slippery slope were incontrovertibly correct, to the extent that we now, as a direct consequence of decriminalisation in the sense that they could not have occurred without it, have many things that the vast majority of those who supported decriminalisation decades ago would have regarded then as unacceptable and, indeed, in many cases as positively evil - the active suppression of political opinion and principled behaviour opposed to the normalisation of homosexual behaviour. the fundamental corruption of the institution of marriage to include pairs of homosexuals, the placement of children for adoption by pairs of homosexuals and the driving put of agencies that refuse to do so, etc.

    We might have been correct in theory but, as one suspects might often be the case with liberal theory, the price in practice has been too high.


    Look: in a civilized modern society, majorities owe a debt of tolerance to harmless minorities.
     
    One mistake, I think, driven by the homosexualist identity lobbyists for obviously self-serving reasons, was to regard people tempted to engage in homosexual behaviour as a "minority" group, rather than just as people tempted to engage in wrongful behaviour. The comparison should be with bestiality, not with heterosexual sex. We don't generally say that bestiality is ok as long as the animal is not harmed, or that it should be no concern of government if it is in private. We just say it's wrong and should not be allowed. Tolerance comes in applying reasonable punishments and light enforcement.

    I think that it’s obvious that while we might not be happy with gays or how they have made themselves the central point of Western morality, we certainly don’t need Muslims to insert themselves into this family dispute. This is our civilization’s problem, and Muslims have certainly no business telling us what to do here, even if I might personally be inclined to agree with them on that particular issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Well since large numbers of them are here and aren't likely to be going anywhere soon, even if there were somehow to be some kind of return to sanity on mass immigration, I'm inclined to at least take what few compensations there are in the situation.

    By the way, looks like Merkel is going to try to bring the Greens into government along with the FDP, probably to ensure that AfD are not allowed to be the main opposition party.

    More of the same, anyway, but the lowest ever result for the "left"-establishment party and lowest since 1949 for the "right"-establishment party does look like movement in the right direction, at least.

    Current exit poll forecast:

    CDU/CSU: 32.7%
    SPD: 20.2%
    AfD: 13.4%
    FDP: 10.5%
    Greens: 9.4%
    Linke: 8.9%
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor
    I think that it's obvious that while we might not be happy with gays or how they have made themselves the central point of Western morality, we certainly don't need Muslims to insert themselves into this family dispute. This is our civilization's problem, and Muslims have certainly no business telling us what to do here, even if I might personally be inclined to agree with them on that particular issue.

    Well since large numbers of them are here and aren’t likely to be going anywhere soon, even if there were somehow to be some kind of return to sanity on mass immigration, I’m inclined to at least take what few compensations there are in the situation.

    By the way, looks like Merkel is going to try to bring the Greens into government along with the FDP, probably to ensure that AfD are not allowed to be the main opposition party.

    More of the same, anyway, but the lowest ever result for the “left”-establishment party and lowest since 1949 for the “right”-establishment party does look like movement in the right direction, at least.

    Current exit poll forecast:

    CDU/CSU: 32.7%
    SPD: 20.2%
    AfD: 13.4%
    FDP: 10.5%
    Greens: 9.4%
    Linke: 8.9%

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Randal says:
    @Brabantian
    One rainbow-diversity effort that has gone into difficulties, is the repeated attempts to maintain a pro-gay etc pro-diversity huge multiple-metres high rainbow of flowers at Saviour Place / Square - locally, 'Plac Zbawiciela' - in Warsaw Poland. However, it seems that whenever it gets constructed, some Polish folks set the thing on fire, as seen in this photo
    http://media.novinky.cz/136/401364-original1-2hcgj.jpg

    Inspiring stuff from the Poles!

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The moment Algeria became independent and enacted a sensible immigration policy, it included the mass immigration of all French Algerians to Metropolitan France. I'm not sure the Muslims are here to stay forever, since it's impossible to know. I'm not keen on catastrophic events, but they will happen anyway, sooner or later. It's either Eurabia or the Muslims won't stay.

    Of course, as long as they stay, we can use them to troll the establishment and their useful idiots.
    , @SteveRogers42
    More inspiring stuff from the Poles!

    https://twitter.com/OnlineMagazin/status/912272171413762048/video/1
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Randal
    Inspiring stuff from the Poles!

    The moment Algeria became independent and enacted a sensible immigration policy, it included the mass immigration of all French Algerians to Metropolitan France. I’m not sure the Muslims are here to stay forever, since it’s impossible to know. I’m not keen on catastrophic events, but they will happen anyway, sooner or later. It’s either Eurabia or the Muslims won’t stay.

    Of course, as long as they stay, we can use them to troll the establishment and their useful idiots.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Brabantian
    One rainbow-diversity effort that has gone into difficulties, is the repeated attempts to maintain a pro-gay etc pro-diversity huge multiple-metres high rainbow of flowers at Saviour Place / Square - locally, 'Plac Zbawiciela' - in Warsaw Poland. However, it seems that whenever it gets constructed, some Polish folks set the thing on fire, as seen in this photo
    http://media.novinky.cz/136/401364-original1-2hcgj.jpg

    Nice!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Mr. Anon says:

    Strange does indeed seem to be a conventional GOP, chamber-of-commerce type Republican as Mr. Derbyshire as said. There is also this, from his Wiki page:

    “Strange holds a 16% share of Sunbelt EB-5 Regional Center, LLC,……” which is one of those outfits that procures EB-5 visas for foreign millionaires – the same kind of scam that Hillarys’ oafish brother was wrapped up in with Tony MacAuliffe. So he is already personally making a tidy profit by diluting the value of american citizenship.

    He also makes a big deal about not having been in politics his whole life. Before he held elective office he worked as………………a lobbyist. But of course.

    That said, I wouldn’t necessarily trust Moore either. He worked as a cowboy before he Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Nothing wrong with that of course (in fact, there’s everything right with it). He also was, to believe his Wiki page, a professional kickboxer for a time. He claims that he was a Vietnam veteran. Which is true, but he was an M.P. He went to West Pointer too. Maybe someone with military experience can help me evaluate this. Is it common for West Point grads to go into the military police? And, do combat soldiers even like M.P.s? My impression has always been that they don’t.

    Mainly what I’m getting at is that Moore seems to be a bit of a flake. He’s good at grandstanding, but is it to any effect? The impression I get is: No.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. MBlanc46 says:

    Apparently the heauxmeaux have more sense than the women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. unit472 says:

    How much better would America have been if we had elected Alabama’s George Wallace in 1968? Donald Trump might have been the DEMOCRATS nominee in 2016 if we had. “America Love it or Leave it” was the slogan then instead of MAGA!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Idiots like Roy Moore are part of the reason why Conservatives lost.

    As GOP pandered to Christian Fundie dummies, Conservatism got branded with Creationism, anti-Evolution and anti-science, and Bible Thumping.

    Separation of Church and State is necessary for a secular republic/democracy.

    Now, I appreciate and value Christianity as part of Western tradition, and separation of Church and State shouldn’t mean anything associated with Christianity should be seen as ‘religious violation of secular institutions’. Christmas as holiday is bigger than a religious issue. It’s a cultural issue, and it seems even most Libs understand this and leave it alone.

    At any rate, the reason why anti-homo position failed was because it got associated with religion. So, the impression was that homo agenda is secular and rational whereas anti-homo agenda is religious and irrational. Even this idea of invoking of ‘religious liberty’ to protect bakers is flawed. What if you’re secular and atheist and refuse to bake a cake cuz you find it utterly immoral? A religious-liberty law will not protect such person.

    In fact, science and morality and reason are on the side of anti-homo-agenda. While it’s true that homos are born that way and should be left alone to be tutti, there is nothing rational, moral, or biologically useful about homo fecal penetration or lesbian poon-grinding. Former is far worse because it is physically filthy and objectively so. I mean is it good to have penis smeared with fecal matter? Is it good to have anus penetrated by objects? NO.

    Conservatives should have used reason and facts to oppose homomania, but the only defense they had was religious.
    Ironically, homos who pretended to make a secular and rational case soon pushed homomania as a neo-religion with dead HIV homos as saints(even though they died of excessive vice), homosexuality made synonymous with ‘pride’, and homo symbols hung inside churches. I see Methodist churches with homo flags. Homos are naturally vain, arrogant, narcissistic, and contemptuous. Letting homos run free under the protection of Jewish supremacists was a huge mistake. And Bible Thumping fundies like Moore did more damage by associating moral opposition to homo agenda with nonsense like Creationism and Literal reading of the Bible that believes in Noah’s Ark story.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vinteuil
    Priss, you crazy guy - would it just kill you to find yourself on the same side as a "homo?"

    "...it’s true that homos are born that way and should be left alone..."

    You should've stopped right there.

    But instead you launch into all this disgusting stuff about fecal penetration & poon-grinding.

    Well, at least you didn't bring up big black dongs, this time around!
    , @Hibernian
    "Conservatives should have used reason and facts to oppose homomania, but the only defense they had was religious."

    Reason and Facts = Natural Law

    True Faith and Right Reason are never in conflict.
    , @Randal

    At any rate, the reason why anti-homo position failed was because it got associated with religion.
     
    No, this is the reverse of the truth. The reason the resistance to the normalisation of homosexual behaviour became associated with religious faith is that the non-religious resistance to it failed first, leaving only the faith-based opposition standing up for decency.

    Religious folk will say that's no surprise, but regardless, it's nothing particularly new for the acceptance of moral depravity to become widespread in a rich, powerful and decadent society, and liberal democracy seems uniquely vulnerable to the kind of manipulation by highly motivated minority identity lobbies that gave rise to the normalisation of homosexual behaviour.

    On homosexual behaviour, secular society failed first and religious groups held out longer. For you to condemn the latter for that is rather bizarre.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Trump’s failure to endorse Moore is evidence that he has no interest in putting agents of change in Congress. He is not playing the long game.

    He’d rather just go along as an ordinary Republican president would: dealing with the party on the party’s terms. So he endorses Strange, thinking the party and Strange will give him some votes. Oh sure, maybe on tax reform, which is what the party wants anyway.

    Immigration? Forget it. Foreign trade? No way.

    If Trumpists or Trumpist-like candidates are not elected to Congress, there is no hope of the president changing the things that he got us all riled up about during his own campaign.

    He is refusing to lead his own movement!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    So he endorses Strange, thinking the party and Strange will give him some votes. Oh sure, maybe on tax reform, which is what the party wants anyway.

    Immigration? Forget it. Foreign trade? No way.
     
    All that you say is probably true. But would Moore be any different? I could see him being squishy on immigration and trade too, as long as he was given a platform to do a little moral preening. We all took the gamble that Trump would be different too. But it hasn't really panned out that way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Randal

    The Germans have a word for it: “homonationalism“—polls suggest support among homosexuals for the immigration-patriot AfD party is higher than among Germans at large, basically because of gay-bashing by Merkel-imported Muslim “refugees.”
     
    This is certainly one of the key current problems - sustaining healthy levels of opposition to homosexual behaviour in the face of the naturally rising resistance to islamist influence tending to drive it in the wrong direction. The result has been the rise of homosexual activists driven by fear of conservative islam to positions of unhealthy prominence in the nationalist resistance to mass immigration, and the laughable but politically effective achievement of the homosexualist lobbies in getting morally corrupt mainstream politicians to declare that approval of homosexual behaviour is some kind of fundamental western value (especially amusing considering that the vast majority of all past generations of western societies in the Christian era, right up until a few decades ago, regarded homosexual behaviour as unacceptable and/or evil).

    Ironically, one of the few redeeming features of mass muslim immigration could have been importing their cultures' healthier attitudes towards some social issues.


    and I can’t see that wanting the U.S.A. to be a Christian nation is any kookier than buggering other men
     
    Interesting reading that 2001 essay of yours today. You clearly dramatically underestimated the immense power of elite propaganda and social approval bias to manipulate opinion, backed by corporate collaboration motivated by the "pink pound", when you wrote that: "In a 1996 Gallup poll 59 percent of the public believed that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, compared to 34 percent who believed that it is not morally wrong. I doubt if the first of those figures will ever get much lower; I doubt if the second will ever reach 50 percent." The 2013 Pew Global Attitudes survey gave 60% in the US saying "Homosexuality should be accepted by society" versus only 33% saying it should not.

    Just how much of that is almost certainly people saying what they think they ought to say rather than what they fundamentally believe is indicated by another survey suggesting that fully 64% of people in the Americas and 61% in Europe would be very or somewhat upset “if their child told them that they were in love with someone of the same sex”.


    That male homosexuals should be jailed? Run out of town on rails? Surgically altered? Burned at the stake? Of course not. In a free society, the things people choose do do with each other in private, even if unhygienic and unhealthy, are nobody else's business. They become someone else's business only when the people concerned go into the public square and start advertising their tastes, and recruiting to them. If my neighbor wants to be buggered in the privacy of his home, I wish him joy of it; if he wants to get on my school board and agitate for the establishment of a "gay" students club at my son's school, I shall have something to say about it.
     
    This was my attitude, decades ago, to the issue of decriminalisation of homosexual activity. Surely it must be correct to argue that there is no place for the government interfering in the private behaviour of consenting adults?

    Experience has confirmed, however, that those who argued to the contrary that decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour would be the beginning of a slippery slope were incontrovertibly correct, to the extent that we now, as a direct consequence of decriminalisation in the sense that they could not have occurred without it, have many things that the vast majority of those who supported decriminalisation decades ago would have regarded then as unacceptable and, indeed, in many cases as positively evil - the active suppression of political opinion and principled behaviour opposed to the normalisation of homosexual behaviour. the fundamental corruption of the institution of marriage to include pairs of homosexuals, the placement of children for adoption by pairs of homosexuals and the driving put of agencies that refuse to do so, etc.

    We might have been correct in theory but, as one suspects might often be the case with liberal theory, the price in practice has been too high.


    Look: in a civilized modern society, majorities owe a debt of tolerance to harmless minorities.
     
    One mistake, I think, driven by the homosexualist identity lobbyists for obviously self-serving reasons, was to regard people tempted to engage in homosexual behaviour as a "minority" group, rather than just as people tempted to engage in wrongful behaviour. The comparison should be with bestiality, not with heterosexual sex. We don't generally say that bestiality is ok as long as the animal is not harmed, or that it should be no concern of government if it is in private. We just say it's wrong and should not be allowed. Tolerance comes in applying reasonable punishments and light enforcement.

    Randal wrote:

    The comparison should be with bestiality, not with heterosexual sex. We don’t generally say that bestiality is ok as long as the animal is not harmed, or that it should be no concern of government if it is in private. We just say it’s wrong and should not be allowed.

    Hmmm… if by “we” you mean a strong majority of contemporary American society, I wonder if you are right. I suspect that a large fraction of our contemporaries would say that bestiality is only morally wrong if the animal does not consent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    LOL! Sadly, you are correct. In practice that absurdity is indeed commonly the response from the fairly thoroughly indoctrinated inhabitants of the modern US sphere.

    I usually respond by saying I'll start to worry about consent by animals the day vegetarianism is made compulsory by law (hopefully I won't live long enough to see my bluff called on that point).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Randal says:
    @PhysicistDave
    Randal wrote:

    The comparison should be with bestiality, not with heterosexual sex. We don’t generally say that bestiality is ok as long as the animal is not harmed, or that it should be no concern of government if it is in private. We just say it’s wrong and should not be allowed.
     
    Hmmm... if by "we" you mean a strong majority of contemporary American society, I wonder if you are right. I suspect that a large fraction of our contemporaries would say that bestiality is only morally wrong if the animal does not consent.

    LOL! Sadly, you are correct. In practice that absurdity is indeed commonly the response from the fairly thoroughly indoctrinated inhabitants of the modern US sphere.

    I usually respond by saying I’ll start to worry about consent by animals the day vegetarianism is made compulsory by law (hopefully I won’t live long enough to see my bluff called on that point).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Randal

    The Germans have a word for it: “homonationalism“—polls suggest support among homosexuals for the immigration-patriot AfD party is higher than among Germans at large, basically because of gay-bashing by Merkel-imported Muslim “refugees.”
     
    This is certainly one of the key current problems - sustaining healthy levels of opposition to homosexual behaviour in the face of the naturally rising resistance to islamist influence tending to drive it in the wrong direction. The result has been the rise of homosexual activists driven by fear of conservative islam to positions of unhealthy prominence in the nationalist resistance to mass immigration, and the laughable but politically effective achievement of the homosexualist lobbies in getting morally corrupt mainstream politicians to declare that approval of homosexual behaviour is some kind of fundamental western value (especially amusing considering that the vast majority of all past generations of western societies in the Christian era, right up until a few decades ago, regarded homosexual behaviour as unacceptable and/or evil).

    Ironically, one of the few redeeming features of mass muslim immigration could have been importing their cultures' healthier attitudes towards some social issues.


    and I can’t see that wanting the U.S.A. to be a Christian nation is any kookier than buggering other men
     
    Interesting reading that 2001 essay of yours today. You clearly dramatically underestimated the immense power of elite propaganda and social approval bias to manipulate opinion, backed by corporate collaboration motivated by the "pink pound", when you wrote that: "In a 1996 Gallup poll 59 percent of the public believed that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, compared to 34 percent who believed that it is not morally wrong. I doubt if the first of those figures will ever get much lower; I doubt if the second will ever reach 50 percent." The 2013 Pew Global Attitudes survey gave 60% in the US saying "Homosexuality should be accepted by society" versus only 33% saying it should not.

    Just how much of that is almost certainly people saying what they think they ought to say rather than what they fundamentally believe is indicated by another survey suggesting that fully 64% of people in the Americas and 61% in Europe would be very or somewhat upset “if their child told them that they were in love with someone of the same sex”.


    That male homosexuals should be jailed? Run out of town on rails? Surgically altered? Burned at the stake? Of course not. In a free society, the things people choose do do with each other in private, even if unhygienic and unhealthy, are nobody else's business. They become someone else's business only when the people concerned go into the public square and start advertising their tastes, and recruiting to them. If my neighbor wants to be buggered in the privacy of his home, I wish him joy of it; if he wants to get on my school board and agitate for the establishment of a "gay" students club at my son's school, I shall have something to say about it.
     
    This was my attitude, decades ago, to the issue of decriminalisation of homosexual activity. Surely it must be correct to argue that there is no place for the government interfering in the private behaviour of consenting adults?

    Experience has confirmed, however, that those who argued to the contrary that decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour would be the beginning of a slippery slope were incontrovertibly correct, to the extent that we now, as a direct consequence of decriminalisation in the sense that they could not have occurred without it, have many things that the vast majority of those who supported decriminalisation decades ago would have regarded then as unacceptable and, indeed, in many cases as positively evil - the active suppression of political opinion and principled behaviour opposed to the normalisation of homosexual behaviour. the fundamental corruption of the institution of marriage to include pairs of homosexuals, the placement of children for adoption by pairs of homosexuals and the driving put of agencies that refuse to do so, etc.

    We might have been correct in theory but, as one suspects might often be the case with liberal theory, the price in practice has been too high.


    Look: in a civilized modern society, majorities owe a debt of tolerance to harmless minorities.
     
    One mistake, I think, driven by the homosexualist identity lobbyists for obviously self-serving reasons, was to regard people tempted to engage in homosexual behaviour as a "minority" group, rather than just as people tempted to engage in wrongful behaviour. The comparison should be with bestiality, not with heterosexual sex. We don't generally say that bestiality is ok as long as the animal is not harmed, or that it should be no concern of government if it is in private. We just say it's wrong and should not be allowed. Tolerance comes in applying reasonable punishments and light enforcement.

    Since homosexuality is unhygienic, and we have a welfare state where we pay the medical bills of loose people, we all get a say on such things. If queers want to bugger each other, let them do it without the welfare state paying the bills for their idiocy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Since homosexuality is unhygienic, and we have a welfare state where we pay the medical bills of loose people, we all get a say on such things.
     
    That argument certainly rationalises a general case for overriding personal liberty, but in reality such an argument requires a strong lobby behind it to drive implementation. The problem is that the homosexualist lobby might be much, much smaller than the general mass of those opposed to such behaviour, but it is immeasurably more highly motivated and focussed. I suspect the triumph of homosexualist identity lobbies and the consequent normalisation of homosexual behaviour is probably inherent to liberal democratic systems, and represents one of the costs of such systems.

    Of course, the argument is wide open to legitimate attacks based upon whataboutery, given all the other dangerous and unhealthy activities that are subsidised by the general taxpayer.

    If queers want to bugger each other, let them do it without the welfare state paying the bills for their idiocy.
     
    If normal folk had the political power to implement that, surely it would be simpler just to recriminalise?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Randal says:
    @Quartermaster
    Since homosexuality is unhygienic, and we have a welfare state where we pay the medical bills of loose people, we all get a say on such things. If queers want to bugger each other, let them do it without the welfare state paying the bills for their idiocy.

    Since homosexuality is unhygienic, and we have a welfare state where we pay the medical bills of loose people, we all get a say on such things.

    That argument certainly rationalises a general case for overriding personal liberty, but in reality such an argument requires a strong lobby behind it to drive implementation. The problem is that the homosexualist lobby might be much, much smaller than the general mass of those opposed to such behaviour, but it is immeasurably more highly motivated and focussed. I suspect the triumph of homosexualist identity lobbies and the consequent normalisation of homosexual behaviour is probably inherent to liberal democratic systems, and represents one of the costs of such systems.

    Of course, the argument is wide open to legitimate attacks based upon whataboutery, given all the other dangerous and unhealthy activities that are subsidised by the general taxpayer.

    If queers want to bugger each other, let them do it without the welfare state paying the bills for their idiocy.

    If normal folk had the political power to implement that, surely it would be simpler just to recriminalise?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Mr. Anon says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Trump's failure to endorse Moore is evidence that he has no interest in putting agents of change in Congress. He is not playing the long game.

    He'd rather just go along as an ordinary Republican president would: dealing with the party on the party's terms. So he endorses Strange, thinking the party and Strange will give him some votes. Oh sure, maybe on tax reform, which is what the party wants anyway.

    Immigration? Forget it. Foreign trade? No way.

    If Trumpists or Trumpist-like candidates are not elected to Congress, there is no hope of the president changing the things that he got us all riled up about during his own campaign.

    He is refusing to lead his own movement!

    So he endorses Strange, thinking the party and Strange will give him some votes. Oh sure, maybe on tax reform, which is what the party wants anyway.

    Immigration? Forget it. Foreign trade? No way.

    All that you say is probably true. But would Moore be any different? I could see him being squishy on immigration and trade too, as long as he was given a platform to do a little moral preening. We all took the gamble that Trump would be different too. But it hasn’t really panned out that way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Wency says:

    How much gay support for AfD is just a function of male support for AfD? If I recall, AfD support has historically had a huge sex gap, though I can’t recall the exact numbers. And gay men vastly outnumber lesbians.

    While gay men, as a group, have certain feminine tendencies and interests, they are still much more represented within male hobbies and interests than women are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Cast your ballots for me, Judge Roy Moore.
    I serve only the God we adore.
    Uncle Sam is a fag,
    And that Liberty hag
    Is a filthy miscegenous whore!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Hey, the new limerick man! Nice job.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Derbyshire, when are you going to address the illegal Chinese smuggling problem in the USA? Is this how you met your Chinese wife? China refuses to take back its illegals. When are you going to address this issue?

    http://www.wnd.com/2017/09/growing-number-of-chinese-smuggled-through-san-diego-border/?cat_orig=us

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-mostly-right-about-countries-refusing/

    Read More
    • Troll: Vinteuil
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Is the pay working for the Jews any good?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. woodNfish says:
    @MEH 0910
    As Trump campaigns for Strange in Alabama, he expresses some doubts: ‘I might have made a mistake’

    HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — President Trump campaigned on Friday night for Alabama Senate candidate Luther Strange, in a race that has pitted him against his most loyal supporters and that holds the potential to upend the political dynamics for Republicans facing election in 2018.

    The endorsement of ‘Big Luther’ could prove to be a big boost for the interim Alabama senator, who is trailing his opponent, former state judge Roy Moore, in some public polls. But even Trump seemed unsure that the endorsement was the right move.

    “I’ll be honest, I might have made a mistake,” Trump told the crowd at one point during his nearly 90 minutes of remarks.

    “If Luther doesn’t win they’re not going to say, we picked up 25 points in a short period of time,” he added, referring to the media. “If his opponent wins, I’m going to be here campaigning like hell for him.”

    After some musing, he seemed to catch himself.

    “Luther will definitely win,” Trump said.

    It may not have been exactly the ringing endorsement Strange’s campaign had hoped for, but it would have to do.
     

    Yep, read that a breitbart this morning. Trump is sounding a bit less committed to Strange.That means he isn’t deaf to what has been going on. Dump the globalist traitor RINO trash and MAGA!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. roy moore doth protest too much about homosexuals.
    he must be gay.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    At the end of the day, please think of the gays.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @attilathehen
    Derbyshire, when are you going to address the illegal Chinese smuggling problem in the USA? Is this how you met your Chinese wife? China refuses to take back its illegals. When are you going to address this issue?


    http://www.wnd.com/2017/09/growing-number-of-chinese-smuggled-through-san-diego-border/?cat_orig=us

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-mostly-right-about-countries-refusing/

    Is the pay working for the Jews any good?

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    (((Anonymous))) you must be involved with Asians like Derbyshire. Or maybe you have a "crush" on Derbyshire...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. The System ‘works’.

    Non-Partisan Whistleblower Group Nothing More Than Deep State Front Show

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. I agree with The Derb on every point. I’m no Biblical literalist, believe that evolution happened, and don’t think homosexuality should be illegal. But I’d vote for Roy Moore anyway. He’s against a dreamer amnesty, while Luther Strange has been unwilling to come out against it. If the Democrats can have Maxine Waters, why can’t Republicans have Roy Moore?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. @Anonymous
    Is the pay working for the Jews any good?

    (((Anonymous))) you must be involved with Asians like Derbyshire. Or maybe you have a “crush” on Derbyshire…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    cute hasbara antics, but we see through it. shut it down.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @the one they call Desanex
    Cast your ballots for me, Judge Roy Moore.
    I serve only the God we adore.
    Uncle Sam is a fag,
    And that Liberty hag
    Is a filthy miscegenous whore!

    Hey, the new limerick man! Nice job.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Brabantian
    One rainbow-diversity effort that has gone into difficulties, is the repeated attempts to maintain a pro-gay etc pro-diversity huge multiple-metres high rainbow of flowers at Saviour Place / Square - locally, 'Plac Zbawiciela' - in Warsaw Poland. However, it seems that whenever it gets constructed, some Polish folks set the thing on fire, as seen in this photo
    http://media.novinky.cz/136/401364-original1-2hcgj.jpg

    I’ll tell you something about this sort of thing. I’m not all about destroying all things gay, but I don’t like the blatant in-your-face “what-are-you-gonna-do-about-it?” gay pride nonsense. I applaud the Poles for not putting up with it, and what young men don’t like setting a good fire now and then?

    However, lots will look at this and say those Poles have guts and the Western men are cowards, as they would never do anything like this. The difference is in the Authoritah! In the West, you will get all but strung up, at least arrested for a “hate” crime, your career (unless your career is pyromania) ruined, and your reputation trashed all over the place. You will be treated worse than a murderer. I’m just guessing, but the police in this town with the burned rainbow would, at worst case, just arrest the culprits for simple arson or destruction of property, if anything at all.

    That is the reason you won’t see much of this, yet.. in the western world with its anarcho-tyranny.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @attilathehen
    (((Anonymous))) you must be involved with Asians like Derbyshire. Or maybe you have a "crush" on Derbyshire...

    cute hasbara antics, but we see through it. shut it down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    WOW!!!! You have it bad for Derb and Asians. I'm going to toss out another point for Derb to answer.

    And you claim to be for whites? WOW!!!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Randal
    Inspiring stuff from the Poles!
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I’m one of these lesbians that seem to be the subject of much discussion and occasional derision.

    Ultimatley I don’t care about parades and flags and SJW stupidity or the madness in college campuses. I live a normal life and my interests are pretty darn boring….work, family, liberty, promoting the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments. I served in the military and did a tour in Iraq too, so I’m not a freeloader either. I care about equality of opportunity and protection before the law, that’s it.

    I know it is easy to lump us all into the deranged because of well, the mass stupidity the media shows us, but there are plenty of us, take peter thiel for instance, who aren’t crazy or any different than the rest of you save for our choice of mates.

    I’d support Moore for his position against DACA and illegal amnesty. I think trying to ban gays or roll back protections is stupid. Keep in mind that productive gays which I like to think of myself as, helped create what we call western civilization, namely those fine Greek philosphers who were fond of young boys and a certain young Macedonian conquerer who had similar preferences.

    There’s a big difference between rampant degeneracy and simply living differently but otherwise normally through simply choosing a different mate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Ancient homosexuality was a completely different animal and entailed procreative sex as well with women; nor was it seen as normal, and its hard to say that the Romans who reviled homosexuality created that much worse of a civilization. While its nice that you don't promote the SJW insanity, the truth is that you're a cancerous cell much like the others. So as long as you keep quiet and accept that you should be, to some extent, reviled or mocked, as it was in the past, that was still workable.

    When you are going to promote your life as normalcy, then it only gets worse from there. The slippery slope, as we have painfully discovered, is very real.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    I'm one of these lesbians that seem to be the subject of much discussion and occasional derision.

    Ultimatley I don't care about parades and flags and SJW stupidity or the madness in college campuses. I live a normal life and my interests are pretty darn boring....work, family, liberty, promoting the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments. I served in the military and did a tour in Iraq too, so I'm not a freeloader either. I care about equality of opportunity and protection before the law, that's it.

    I know it is easy to lump us all into the deranged because of well, the mass stupidity the media shows us, but there are plenty of us, take peter thiel for instance, who aren't crazy or any different than the rest of you save for our choice of mates.

    I'd support Moore for his position against DACA and illegal amnesty. I think trying to ban gays or roll back protections is stupid. Keep in mind that productive gays which I like to think of myself as, helped create what we call western civilization, namely those fine Greek philosphers who were fond of young boys and a certain young Macedonian conquerer who had similar preferences.

    There's a big difference between rampant degeneracy and simply living differently but otherwise normally through simply choosing a different mate.

    Ancient homosexuality was a completely different animal and entailed procreative sex as well with women; nor was it seen as normal, and its hard to say that the Romans who reviled homosexuality created that much worse of a civilization. While its nice that you don’t promote the SJW insanity, the truth is that you’re a cancerous cell much like the others. So as long as you keep quiet and accept that you should be, to some extent, reviled or mocked, as it was in the past, that was still workable.

    When you are going to promote your life as normalcy, then it only gets worse from there. The slippery slope, as we have painfully discovered, is very real.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Dammit, Phil! You should have that re-written with “miscegenating” by now! ;-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. @Anonymous
    cute hasbara antics, but we see through it. shut it down.

    WOW!!!! You have it bad for Derb and Asians. I’m going to toss out another point for Derb to answer.

    And you claim to be for whites? WOW!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    you seem triggered, but here is a secret: the shrillness of the jewess always gives her away
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Derb, at the most recent AmRen conference there were millenials. https://www.amren.com/features/2017/09/millennial-red-pilling-future-europe/

    Your Chinese offspring are millenials. Why weren’t they at the AmRen conference?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @attilathehen
    WOW!!!! You have it bad for Derb and Asians. I'm going to toss out another point for Derb to answer.

    And you claim to be for whites? WOW!!!

    you seem triggered, but here is a secret: the shrillness of the jewess always gives her away

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    You keep outing yourself - in many ways...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Anonymous
    you seem triggered, but here is a secret: the shrillness of the jewess always gives her away

    You keep outing yourself – in many ways…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Vinteuil says:
    @Priss Factor
    Idiots like Roy Moore are part of the reason why Conservatives lost.

    As GOP pandered to Christian Fundie dummies, Conservatism got branded with Creationism, anti-Evolution and anti-science, and Bible Thumping.

    Separation of Church and State is necessary for a secular republic/democracy.

    Now, I appreciate and value Christianity as part of Western tradition, and separation of Church and State shouldn't mean anything associated with Christianity should be seen as 'religious violation of secular institutions'. Christmas as holiday is bigger than a religious issue. It's a cultural issue, and it seems even most Libs understand this and leave it alone.

    At any rate, the reason why anti-homo position failed was because it got associated with religion. So, the impression was that homo agenda is secular and rational whereas anti-homo agenda is religious and irrational. Even this idea of invoking of 'religious liberty' to protect bakers is flawed. What if you're secular and atheist and refuse to bake a cake cuz you find it utterly immoral? A religious-liberty law will not protect such person.

    In fact, science and morality and reason are on the side of anti-homo-agenda. While it's true that homos are born that way and should be left alone to be tutti, there is nothing rational, moral, or biologically useful about homo fecal penetration or lesbian poon-grinding. Former is far worse because it is physically filthy and objectively so. I mean is it good to have penis smeared with fecal matter? Is it good to have anus penetrated by objects? NO.

    Conservatives should have used reason and facts to oppose homomania, but the only defense they had was religious.
    Ironically, homos who pretended to make a secular and rational case soon pushed homomania as a neo-religion with dead HIV homos as saints(even though they died of excessive vice), homosexuality made synonymous with 'pride', and homo symbols hung inside churches. I see Methodist churches with homo flags. Homos are naturally vain, arrogant, narcissistic, and contemptuous. Letting homos run free under the protection of Jewish supremacists was a huge mistake. And Bible Thumping fundies like Moore did more damage by associating moral opposition to homo agenda with nonsense like Creationism and Literal reading of the Bible that believes in Noah's Ark story.

    Priss, you crazy guy – would it just kill you to find yourself on the same side as a “homo?”

    “…it’s true that homos are born that way and should be left alone…”

    You should’ve stopped right there.

    But instead you launch into all this disgusting stuff about fecal penetration & poon-grinding.

    Well, at least you didn’t bring up big black dongs, this time around!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    Priss, you crazy guy – would it just kill you to find yourself on the same side as a “homo?”
     
    It certainly wouldn't kill him to find himself above or below one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. MEH 0910 says:

    Roy Moore Wins Senate G.O.P. Runoff in Alabama

    Mr. Strange conceded defeat on Tuesday night before a subdued audience at a hotel outside of Birmingham, acknowledging in a moment of striking candor that he did not fully grasp the forces at play in his loss.

    “We’re dealing with a political environment that I’ve never had any experience with,” Mr. Strange said. “The political seas, the political winds in this country right now are very hard to navigate. They’re very hard to understand.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Hibernian says:
    @Priss Factor
    Idiots like Roy Moore are part of the reason why Conservatives lost.

    As GOP pandered to Christian Fundie dummies, Conservatism got branded with Creationism, anti-Evolution and anti-science, and Bible Thumping.

    Separation of Church and State is necessary for a secular republic/democracy.

    Now, I appreciate and value Christianity as part of Western tradition, and separation of Church and State shouldn't mean anything associated with Christianity should be seen as 'religious violation of secular institutions'. Christmas as holiday is bigger than a religious issue. It's a cultural issue, and it seems even most Libs understand this and leave it alone.

    At any rate, the reason why anti-homo position failed was because it got associated with religion. So, the impression was that homo agenda is secular and rational whereas anti-homo agenda is religious and irrational. Even this idea of invoking of 'religious liberty' to protect bakers is flawed. What if you're secular and atheist and refuse to bake a cake cuz you find it utterly immoral? A religious-liberty law will not protect such person.

    In fact, science and morality and reason are on the side of anti-homo-agenda. While it's true that homos are born that way and should be left alone to be tutti, there is nothing rational, moral, or biologically useful about homo fecal penetration or lesbian poon-grinding. Former is far worse because it is physically filthy and objectively so. I mean is it good to have penis smeared with fecal matter? Is it good to have anus penetrated by objects? NO.

    Conservatives should have used reason and facts to oppose homomania, but the only defense they had was religious.
    Ironically, homos who pretended to make a secular and rational case soon pushed homomania as a neo-religion with dead HIV homos as saints(even though they died of excessive vice), homosexuality made synonymous with 'pride', and homo symbols hung inside churches. I see Methodist churches with homo flags. Homos are naturally vain, arrogant, narcissistic, and contemptuous. Letting homos run free under the protection of Jewish supremacists was a huge mistake. And Bible Thumping fundies like Moore did more damage by associating moral opposition to homo agenda with nonsense like Creationism and Literal reading of the Bible that believes in Noah's Ark story.

    “Conservatives should have used reason and facts to oppose homomania, but the only defense they had was religious.”

    Reason and Facts = Natural Law

    True Faith and Right Reason are never in conflict.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Shooter says:

    Which way, Western man?

    Jews promote homosexuality to the population at large; or:

    We should accept ‘homonationalism’ as it’s good for the movement.

    Looks like even the Unz Review can’t criticize the Natural Aristocrats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    F the homos.

    Unlike some other things where compromise may be necessary, accommodating a tiny portion of the population is NOT.

    , @Corvinus
    "Jews promote homosexuality to the population at large; or: We should accept ‘homonationalism’ as it’s good for the movement."

    Exactly. That is why Milo is serves as such a useful tool for the Alt Right. It champions patriarchal Christian western civilization, but allows a rabidly gay man to be "one of them"...for the time being. So long as "homonationalists" are anti-immigrant, the Alt Right will tolerate their inclusion in their movement. But what happens when the reboot is in full swing. Will Vox Day, for example, come to Milo's defense Judo chop style, when Milo is heading to the gallows?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Randal says:
    @Priss Factor
    Idiots like Roy Moore are part of the reason why Conservatives lost.

    As GOP pandered to Christian Fundie dummies, Conservatism got branded with Creationism, anti-Evolution and anti-science, and Bible Thumping.

    Separation of Church and State is necessary for a secular republic/democracy.

    Now, I appreciate and value Christianity as part of Western tradition, and separation of Church and State shouldn't mean anything associated with Christianity should be seen as 'religious violation of secular institutions'. Christmas as holiday is bigger than a religious issue. It's a cultural issue, and it seems even most Libs understand this and leave it alone.

    At any rate, the reason why anti-homo position failed was because it got associated with religion. So, the impression was that homo agenda is secular and rational whereas anti-homo agenda is religious and irrational. Even this idea of invoking of 'religious liberty' to protect bakers is flawed. What if you're secular and atheist and refuse to bake a cake cuz you find it utterly immoral? A religious-liberty law will not protect such person.

    In fact, science and morality and reason are on the side of anti-homo-agenda. While it's true that homos are born that way and should be left alone to be tutti, there is nothing rational, moral, or biologically useful about homo fecal penetration or lesbian poon-grinding. Former is far worse because it is physically filthy and objectively so. I mean is it good to have penis smeared with fecal matter? Is it good to have anus penetrated by objects? NO.

    Conservatives should have used reason and facts to oppose homomania, but the only defense they had was religious.
    Ironically, homos who pretended to make a secular and rational case soon pushed homomania as a neo-religion with dead HIV homos as saints(even though they died of excessive vice), homosexuality made synonymous with 'pride', and homo symbols hung inside churches. I see Methodist churches with homo flags. Homos are naturally vain, arrogant, narcissistic, and contemptuous. Letting homos run free under the protection of Jewish supremacists was a huge mistake. And Bible Thumping fundies like Moore did more damage by associating moral opposition to homo agenda with nonsense like Creationism and Literal reading of the Bible that believes in Noah's Ark story.

    At any rate, the reason why anti-homo position failed was because it got associated with religion.

    No, this is the reverse of the truth. The reason the resistance to the normalisation of homosexual behaviour became associated with religious faith is that the non-religious resistance to it failed first, leaving only the faith-based opposition standing up for decency.

    Religious folk will say that’s no surprise, but regardless, it’s nothing particularly new for the acceptance of moral depravity to become widespread in a rich, powerful and decadent society, and liberal democracy seems uniquely vulnerable to the kind of manipulation by highly motivated minority identity lobbies that gave rise to the normalisation of homosexual behaviour.

    On homosexual behaviour, secular society failed first and religious groups held out longer. For you to condemn the latter for that is rather bizarre.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    No, this is the reverse of the truth. The reason the resistance to the normalisation of homosexual behaviour became associated with religious faith is that the non-religious resistance to it failed first, leaving only the faith-based opposition standing up for decency.

    There was hardly any non-religious opposition to it except on some bogus libertarian or legal grounds.

    No one strongly mentioned biological hierarchy, i.e. real sexuality is useful and essential whereas homosexuality is a deviance in biological terms and perversion in moral terms. The secular and rational counter-homos were too nice. Also, the religious element of the opposition had long been there before the rise of any secular opposition.

    At any rate, nothing in a republic/democracy like ours can be based on religion. We can't say "Evolution must be banned because it is an affront to God's Creation." Likewise, we can't let religion decide matters of sexuality.

    The secular opposition had all the truth on its side. Truth is that some people are born homo and can't being what they are. Okay, so let homos be homos and do their own thing. However, homosexuality is not any kind of 'new normal' but a deviance that has no biological purpose. That is also a truth. Among men, it is downright gross and putrid. Still, there is a certain plus to homosexuality. Not in what they do 'sexually' but in how homos see and feel things, and this can add to creativity in society. So, there is some value to homosexuality in arts & culture.

    But homosexuality has no value in biology and family. Homosexuality cannot produce life. That is a truth. Marriage is a fusion of biology and morality. It must be based on the truth of life and values. 'Gay marriage' is based on a lie. It makes believes that homosexuality has equal value with real sexuality. It makes believes that Tim Cook's anus has the same value as his mother's vagina that birthed him. Another fact about homosexuality is that homos tend to be vain, narcissistic, and self-centered in their ego. So, they have no sense of limits in terms of 'sexual' excess or self-aggrandizement. So, homos went from 'gay rights' to Gay Rites.

    Another thing. Homos won not be rational argument but by irrational sensual-sacro-propaganda. TV shows and Movies featured all these saintly homos were so well-groomed and more-normal-than-normal. Even as Progs mock 50s culture, homo were given a 'father knows best' makeover.
    Homos won by advertising, fanfare, spectacle, parades, and etc. It's like communism mainly spread thru songs, music, pageantry, rallies, and etc. The appeal to the irrational. It is no wonder that homos soon targeted churches and want everything holy & sacred to be associated with homo colors, which, in and of themselves, are ridiculous since what does the rainbow have to do with homo fecal penetration or lesbian poon-mooshing? Or tranny penis-and-testicle mutilation?

    Most important of all, the reason the Right failed to oppose homos was due to its slavishness to Jews and the Rich. As many homos became rich and powerful(and well-connected), more and more members of Conservative Inc began to suck up to them. It became a status-thing to be pro-homo. Look how SE Cupp broke down in tears of joy when 'gay marriage' passed. Look how the kids of the Bush family are all crazy for homo, homo, homo. It's what elites go for, so anyone who aspires for status must follow along. (Also, homos built up a network of spying, gossip, and blackmail. If anyone opposed their agenda, they would be 'outed' for something scandalous. Look how the homos and their allies in the media treated Carrie Prejean when she opposed 'gay marriage'. They dug up all the dirt on her and dragged her through the mud. Homo men are esp foul in personality. They have male aggression plus female bitchiness and hysterics, like with the homo guy in MEAN STREETS.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRq1XHiSGeU

    Also, as GOP became slavish to everything Jewish, Conservatives dared not voice opposition to homosexuality lest it upset Jews. Jews sent out a message, "the homo agenda is OUR baby, and we'll be very very displeased if you oppose it". So, Conservatives only pretended to sort-of-oppose it while doing NOTHING to condemn homomania. Look how Charles Murray caved. That bald-headed lowlife sucked on Tinkerbell Curve.

    The failure was due to lack of reason, facts, and courage. We have spineless idiots on the Right.
    But then, the Evangelicals and Mormons are so eager to suck up to Power and Jews that they also muted their opposition to homo stuff. Mormons will do ANYTHING to have Goldman Sachs build more office in Salt Lake City. And Evangelicals will do ANYTHING to please Zionists and prove it is not filled with 'hate'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Randal

    At any rate, the reason why anti-homo position failed was because it got associated with religion.
     
    No, this is the reverse of the truth. The reason the resistance to the normalisation of homosexual behaviour became associated with religious faith is that the non-religious resistance to it failed first, leaving only the faith-based opposition standing up for decency.

    Religious folk will say that's no surprise, but regardless, it's nothing particularly new for the acceptance of moral depravity to become widespread in a rich, powerful and decadent society, and liberal democracy seems uniquely vulnerable to the kind of manipulation by highly motivated minority identity lobbies that gave rise to the normalisation of homosexual behaviour.

    On homosexual behaviour, secular society failed first and religious groups held out longer. For you to condemn the latter for that is rather bizarre.

    No, this is the reverse of the truth. The reason the resistance to the normalisation of homosexual behaviour became associated with religious faith is that the non-religious resistance to it failed first, leaving only the faith-based opposition standing up for decency.

    There was hardly any non-religious opposition to it except on some bogus libertarian or legal grounds.

    No one strongly mentioned biological hierarchy, i.e. real sexuality is useful and essential whereas homosexuality is a deviance in biological terms and perversion in moral terms. The secular and rational counter-homos were too nice. Also, the religious element of the opposition had long been there before the rise of any secular opposition.

    At any rate, nothing in a republic/democracy like ours can be based on religion. We can’t say “Evolution must be banned because it is an affront to God’s Creation.” Likewise, we can’t let religion decide matters of sexuality.

    The secular opposition had all the truth on its side. Truth is that some people are born homo and can’t being what they are. Okay, so let homos be homos and do their own thing. However, homosexuality is not any kind of ‘new normal’ but a deviance that has no biological purpose. That is also a truth. Among men, it is downright gross and putrid. Still, there is a certain plus to homosexuality. Not in what they do ‘sexually’ but in how homos see and feel things, and this can add to creativity in society. So, there is some value to homosexuality in arts & culture.

    But homosexuality has no value in biology and family. Homosexuality cannot produce life. That is a truth. Marriage is a fusion of biology and morality. It must be based on the truth of life and values. ‘Gay marriage’ is based on a lie. It makes believes that homosexuality has equal value with real sexuality. It makes believes that Tim Cook’s anus has the same value as his mother’s vagina that birthed him. Another fact about homosexuality is that homos tend to be vain, narcissistic, and self-centered in their ego. So, they have no sense of limits in terms of ‘sexual’ excess or self-aggrandizement. So, homos went from ‘gay rights’ to Gay Rites.

    Another thing. Homos won not be rational argument but by irrational sensual-sacro-propaganda. TV shows and Movies featured all these saintly homos were so well-groomed and more-normal-than-normal. Even as Progs mock 50s culture, homo were given a ‘father knows best’ makeover.
    Homos won by advertising, fanfare, spectacle, parades, and etc. It’s like communism mainly spread thru songs, music, pageantry, rallies, and etc. The appeal to the irrational. It is no wonder that homos soon targeted churches and want everything holy & sacred to be associated with homo colors, which, in and of themselves, are ridiculous since what does the rainbow have to do with homo fecal penetration or lesbian poon-mooshing? Or tranny penis-and-testicle mutilation?

    Most important of all, the reason the Right failed to oppose homos was due to its slavishness to Jews and the Rich. As many homos became rich and powerful(and well-connected), more and more members of Conservative Inc began to suck up to them. It became a status-thing to be pro-homo. Look how SE Cupp broke down in tears of joy when ‘gay marriage’ passed. Look how the kids of the Bush family are all crazy for homo, homo, homo. It’s what elites go for, so anyone who aspires for status must follow along. (Also, homos built up a network of spying, gossip, and blackmail. If anyone opposed their agenda, they would be ‘outed’ for something scandalous. Look how the homos and their allies in the media treated Carrie Prejean when she opposed ‘gay marriage’. They dug up all the dirt on her and dragged her through the mud. Homo men are esp foul in personality. They have male aggression plus female bitchiness and hysterics, like with the homo guy in MEAN STREETS.)

    Also, as GOP became slavish to everything Jewish, Conservatives dared not voice opposition to homosexuality lest it upset Jews. Jews sent out a message, “the homo agenda is OUR baby, and we’ll be very very displeased if you oppose it”. So, Conservatives only pretended to sort-of-oppose it while doing NOTHING to condemn homomania. Look how Charles Murray caved. That bald-headed lowlife sucked on Tinkerbell Curve.

    The failure was due to lack of reason, facts, and courage. We have spineless idiots on the Right.
    But then, the Evangelicals and Mormons are so eager to suck up to Power and Jews that they also muted their opposition to homo stuff. Mormons will do ANYTHING to have Goldman Sachs build more office in Salt Lake City. And Evangelicals will do ANYTHING to please Zionists and prove it is not filled with ‘hate’.

    Read More
    • LOL: Truth
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Shooter
    Which way, Western man?

    Jews promote homosexuality to the population at large; or:

    We should accept 'homonationalism' as it's good for the movement.

    Looks like even the Unz Review can't criticize the Natural Aristocrats.

    F the homos.

    Unlike some other things where compromise may be necessary, accommodating a tiny portion of the population is NOT.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Corvinus says:
    @Randal

    The Germans have a word for it: “homonationalism“—polls suggest support among homosexuals for the immigration-patriot AfD party is higher than among Germans at large, basically because of gay-bashing by Merkel-imported Muslim “refugees.”
     
    This is certainly one of the key current problems - sustaining healthy levels of opposition to homosexual behaviour in the face of the naturally rising resistance to islamist influence tending to drive it in the wrong direction. The result has been the rise of homosexual activists driven by fear of conservative islam to positions of unhealthy prominence in the nationalist resistance to mass immigration, and the laughable but politically effective achievement of the homosexualist lobbies in getting morally corrupt mainstream politicians to declare that approval of homosexual behaviour is some kind of fundamental western value (especially amusing considering that the vast majority of all past generations of western societies in the Christian era, right up until a few decades ago, regarded homosexual behaviour as unacceptable and/or evil).

    Ironically, one of the few redeeming features of mass muslim immigration could have been importing their cultures' healthier attitudes towards some social issues.


    and I can’t see that wanting the U.S.A. to be a Christian nation is any kookier than buggering other men
     
    Interesting reading that 2001 essay of yours today. You clearly dramatically underestimated the immense power of elite propaganda and social approval bias to manipulate opinion, backed by corporate collaboration motivated by the "pink pound", when you wrote that: "In a 1996 Gallup poll 59 percent of the public believed that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, compared to 34 percent who believed that it is not morally wrong. I doubt if the first of those figures will ever get much lower; I doubt if the second will ever reach 50 percent." The 2013 Pew Global Attitudes survey gave 60% in the US saying "Homosexuality should be accepted by society" versus only 33% saying it should not.

    Just how much of that is almost certainly people saying what they think they ought to say rather than what they fundamentally believe is indicated by another survey suggesting that fully 64% of people in the Americas and 61% in Europe would be very or somewhat upset “if their child told them that they were in love with someone of the same sex”.


    That male homosexuals should be jailed? Run out of town on rails? Surgically altered? Burned at the stake? Of course not. In a free society, the things people choose do do with each other in private, even if unhygienic and unhealthy, are nobody else's business. They become someone else's business only when the people concerned go into the public square and start advertising their tastes, and recruiting to them. If my neighbor wants to be buggered in the privacy of his home, I wish him joy of it; if he wants to get on my school board and agitate for the establishment of a "gay" students club at my son's school, I shall have something to say about it.
     
    This was my attitude, decades ago, to the issue of decriminalisation of homosexual activity. Surely it must be correct to argue that there is no place for the government interfering in the private behaviour of consenting adults?

    Experience has confirmed, however, that those who argued to the contrary that decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour would be the beginning of a slippery slope were incontrovertibly correct, to the extent that we now, as a direct consequence of decriminalisation in the sense that they could not have occurred without it, have many things that the vast majority of those who supported decriminalisation decades ago would have regarded then as unacceptable and, indeed, in many cases as positively evil - the active suppression of political opinion and principled behaviour opposed to the normalisation of homosexual behaviour. the fundamental corruption of the institution of marriage to include pairs of homosexuals, the placement of children for adoption by pairs of homosexuals and the driving put of agencies that refuse to do so, etc.

    We might have been correct in theory but, as one suspects might often be the case with liberal theory, the price in practice has been too high.


    Look: in a civilized modern society, majorities owe a debt of tolerance to harmless minorities.
     
    One mistake, I think, driven by the homosexualist identity lobbyists for obviously self-serving reasons, was to regard people tempted to engage in homosexual behaviour as a "minority" group, rather than just as people tempted to engage in wrongful behaviour. The comparison should be with bestiality, not with heterosexual sex. We don't generally say that bestiality is ok as long as the animal is not harmed, or that it should be no concern of government if it is in private. We just say it's wrong and should not be allowed. Tolerance comes in applying reasonable punishments and light enforcement.

    “The result has been the rise of homosexual activists driven by fear of conservative islam to positions of unhealthy prominence…”

    Prominence cannot be “unhealthy”. Perhaps you meant to use the term “undeserved”.

    “in the nationalist resistance to mass immigration, and the laughable but politically effective achievement of the homosexualist lobbies in getting morally corrupt mainstream politicians to declare that approval of homosexual behaviour is some kind of fundamental western value.”

    OR, it’s merely because increasing numbers of people within the past 60 years who of their own volition are changing the nature of their society, similar to past generations, by questioning alleged “truths”.

    “You clearly dramatically underestimated the immense power of elite propaganda and social approval bias to manipulate opinion, backed by corporate collaboration motivated by the “pink pound”, when you wrote that: “In a 1996 Gallup poll 59 percent of the public believed that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, compared to 34 percent who believed that it is not morally wrong. I doubt if the first of those figures will ever get much lower; I doubt if the second will ever reach 50 percent.” The 2013 Pew Global Attitudes survey gave 60% in the US saying “Homosexuality should be accepted by society” versus only 33% saying it should not.”

    You are definitively overvaluing this impact of “elite propaganda” and “social approval bias”. People on this fine blog assume that there has been a concerted effort by elites, in particular da Joos, that there are front and center in manipulating the minds of Gentiles for their own demonic ends. Perhaps this issue has become personal to millions of people who are merely taking God’s command of treating people with respect and dignity regardless of their sexuality. That is called human progress,

    Now, good ol’ Derbs stated “If my neighbor wants to be buggered in the privacy of his home, I wish him joy of it; if he wants to get on my school board and agitate for the establishment of a “gay” students club at my son’s school, I shall have something to say about it.”

    Likewise, if a person wants to oppose this “gay” students club at a school, those who favor the forming of such an organization have the liberty to fight tooth and nail for it, with the school district rendering its decision based on overall public sentiment. Freedom is not about being able to only do something in the privacy of one’s home, it is being able to do it in public, provided that this activity is within the boundaries of established social norms. Of course, freedom is never free, there are positive and negative consequences.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Corvinus says:
    @Shooter
    Which way, Western man?

    Jews promote homosexuality to the population at large; or:

    We should accept 'homonationalism' as it's good for the movement.

    Looks like even the Unz Review can't criticize the Natural Aristocrats.

    “Jews promote homosexuality to the population at large; or: We should accept ‘homonationalism’ as it’s good for the movement.”

    Exactly. That is why Milo is serves as such a useful tool for the Alt Right. It champions patriarchal Christian western civilization, but allows a rabidly gay man to be “one of them”…for the time being. So long as “homonationalists” are anti-immigrant, the Alt Right will tolerate their inclusion in their movement. But what happens when the reboot is in full swing. Will Vox Day, for example, come to Milo’s defense Judo chop style, when Milo is heading to the gallows?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Truth says:
    @Vinteuil
    Priss, you crazy guy - would it just kill you to find yourself on the same side as a "homo?"

    "...it’s true that homos are born that way and should be left alone..."

    You should've stopped right there.

    But instead you launch into all this disgusting stuff about fecal penetration & poon-grinding.

    Well, at least you didn't bring up big black dongs, this time around!

    Priss, you crazy guy – would it just kill you to find yourself on the same side as a “homo?”

    It certainly wouldn’t kill him to find himself above or below one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Svigor says:

    “The result has been the rise of homosexual activists driven by fear of conservative islam to positions of unhealthy prominence…”

    Prominence cannot be “unhealthy”. Perhaps you meant to use the term “undeserved”.

    Of course it can, you pinhead. Sort of like smoking in film. You utter boob.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. Derb, you’re brilliant and I love you, but could you cut it out with “Radio Derb” and just write?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS