Tracing Homosexuality's Moral Triumph
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
The liberals of the 1970s found homosexuality more morally objectionable than contemporary conservatives do. Social conservatives have conserved their positions on guns and abortions. Not much else:
Gays were widely considered predators and deviants a generation ago. Now they are among the most revered groups in the country. It’s a reminder of how quickly the zeitgeist can shift as social and cultural conditions change. For those concerned with the increasingly explicit persecution of unprivileged whites, it’s something to take comfort in. Most people don’t like punching down and most people resent the bullies who tell them they should.
GSS variables used: HOMOSEX(1-4), YEAR, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
I think it’s hard for Zoomers to comprehend how radical the social shift has been here. As recently as 30 years ago, gay marriage would have been considered a radical fringe left issue, if that. Hell, even I remember “smear the queer” during recess and after school, or “faggot” as a casual genetic inter-male insult dropped on tap.
Funny thing is, though, AE, I disagree: the cultural Bolshevik rage these days are transgenders. Homosexuals-particularly non-camp male ones-are yesterday’s news.
>Most people don’t like punching down and most people resent the bullies who tell them they should.
Au contraire: I think our elites and intellectual classes love, love, love punching down. The best part about the simpering, passive-aggressive victimhood morality of current America is that they get to cloak it as justice while in practice cementing their own power: and using the most ruthless, socially adept crypto-bullies as enforcers.
That’s the problem: our elites genuinely don’t believe they are elites, especially in the media.
Wow! That is crazy! This happened within my lifetime!
This is one of the more touchy subjects I’ve had to talk to my sons about; not that they resist the idea it is immoral, that’s fairly straightforward. The tough part is making sure they know what exactly their limits are in how they can publicly broach the subject in places like school.
Peace.
Funny thing is, though, AE, I disagree: the cultural Bolshevik rage these days are transgenders. Homosexuals-particularly non-camp male ones-are yesterday's news.
>Most people don’t like punching down and most people resent the bullies who tell them they should.
Au contraire: I think our elites and intellectual classes love, love, love punching down. The best part about the simpering, passive-aggressive victimhood morality of current America is that they get to cloak it as justice while in practice cementing their own power: and using the most ruthless, socially adept crypto-bullies as enforcers.
That's the problem: our elites genuinely don't believe they are elites, especially in the media.Replies: @Twinkie, @Barack Obama's secret Unz account, @White Elephant, @Luzzatto
I was with you until the last sentence.
I am usually not one to see a Jew behind every ill in America, but the American elites of today, as such, including many non-Jews, seem to have absorbed a lot of Jewish ways of thinking about their position in the country, e.g. self-image as smart, meritocratic elite, projection of hostility and resentment (of their own superiority) to the downscale (esp. gentile whites), contempt toward the same, constant virtue signaling (“light unto other nations”), critique of traditional Christianity and valorization of foreign religions such as Buddhism and Islam, denigration of patriotism and elevation of criticism and opposition to traditional values as morally uplifting, and so forth.
AE wrote this:
It IS quite surprising in retrospect just how quickly the stated/public social mores changed (though it’s hard to tell how much people have actually changed in private – I suspect not very much) and how much of this is public obeisance to those who rule). Then again, when you control HBO and Harvard, literally and figuratively, it’s not all that hard to alter public behaviors of those who want HBO and Harvard and, in turn, those who wish to imitate those who want HBO and Harvard.
Over at Razib Khan’s, there is considerable discussion about how Christianity was rapidly adopted by elites in the Roman and the post-Roman world while the countryside remained considerably resistant to the new religion for a long time (some areas being functionally pagan for centuries), but eventually it did filter down and overwhelm even the countryside.
I sincerely hope this trend is more like the Cultural Revolution and less like the Christian conversion of Europe.
3.) As long as Orthodox Jews remain free to practice our faith, we do not interfere or involve ourselves with how other peoples' practice theirs. One can always find exceptions and fringes but by and large, Orthodox Jews take no part in the kinds of opposition to the expression of religion in the public square, and active or outspoken hostility toward Christianity that many (though certainly not all) secular Jews often do.Orthodox Jews may be among the demographics least likely to denigrate patriotism. As for secular Jews, I do not believe the majority would denigrate patriotism (if you would contend otherwise, cite evidence), even if a disproportionately high number would.Everyone can benefit from introspection based upon credible criticism. Few people, however, are receptive to it. This is not unique to Jews or any other group but is simply basic human nature. It is always far easier and more appealing to blame an outgroup or some other external factor, than to look within. Every man and every nation, tribe, party, etc., view themselves more favorably than they objectively are.In defiantly rejecting Wokism and upholding a heteronormative, patriarchal community structure centered around the traditional family, I know of few demographics that can rival Orthodox Jews.*
Liberal support for ‘gay activity’, I think, is well above 90% if Blacks and Latinos are excluded.
Sailer calls it ‘Coaliation of the Fringes’, I myself prefer the term ‘Coaliation of the Double-Think’ i.e. liberals love gays and science… so, if you’re logical you’d think they’d revere White people. No! Instead they support Blacks and Muslims
Male homosexuality is strongly linked to sexual abuse during formative childhood years. It’s the secret that still hasn’t “come out of the closet”. Of course, it would undermine all the theories surrounding its etiology such as genetic, hormonal or “choice”.
The power of propaganda.
My revulsion is still instinctive, creepy people.
The key question of ‘morality’ re gays is a different one than whether gay sex per se is ‘immoral’
The question is whether gays should have a position of powerful influence or dominance, which leads to significant negatives for traditional family life – as is being seen today, the mass of hetero ‘normies’ being continually denounced & humiliated, the trad family being wrecked as an institution
Gay dominance is perhaps not new – it has long been argued, sometimes by gays themselves, that ‘religious celibacy’ and ‘monk’ etc traditions, were always cover for gay minorities … who then wormed their way into being mafias for the establishment under guise of being ‘religious holy’ people
Aside from those pushed by media into viewing themselves as gay or bi to be trendy, gays obviously are who they are, and certainly have a right to private lives with other adults
But many in Eastern Europe believe the Russian approach, legally permitting gay activity in private, but outlawing pro-gay propaganda, is a correct & needed framework to nurture family life & give the best environment to children
‘System of abuse’? At least 10,000 children sexually molested at hands of French Catholic Church since 1950s — reportYup, there is no reason to flaunt one's special tendencies in public.
And I have no good opinion of a "society" that permits "transgender" propaganda and doesn't come down on bullying "transgenders" like Jehova's Burning Hammer itself.
Harry Potter video game will allow transgender characters, but unsated critics want ‘reparations’ from ‘transphobic’ JK RowlingReplies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Archange, @Not Only Wrathful, @Altai
The question is whether gays should have a position of powerful influence or dominance, which leads to significant negatives for traditional family life - as is being seen today, the mass of hetero 'normies' being continually denounced & humiliated, the trad family being wrecked as an institution
Gay dominance is perhaps not new - it has long been argued, sometimes by gays themselves, that 'religious celibacy' and 'monk' etc traditions, were always cover for gay minorities ... who then wormed their way into being mafias for the establishment under guise of being 'religious holy' people
Aside from those pushed by media into viewing themselves as gay or bi to be trendy, gays obviously are who they are, and certainly have a right to private lives with other adults
But many in Eastern Europe believe the Russian approach, legally permitting gay activity in private, but outlawing pro-gay propaganda, is a correct & needed framework to nurture family life & give the best environment to childrenReplies: @El Dato
That didn’t work out so well, apparently:
‘System of abuse’? At least 10,000 children sexually molested at hands of French Catholic Church since 1950s — report
Yup, there is no reason to flaunt one’s special tendencies in public.
And I have no good opinion of a “society” that permits “transgender” propaganda and doesn’t come down on bullying “transgenders” like Jehova’s Burning Hammer itself.
Harry Potter video game will allow transgender characters, but unsated critics want ‘reparations’ from ‘transphobic’ JK Rowling
The commission received 6'500 reports during the 2 years of testimony collection. The 10'000 number is an extrapolation, a rounding up based on "research" to account for under-reporting. It also sounds better for anti-catholic propaganda.
Until now around 450 priests and members of religious orders have been estimated to be guilty with reasonable likelihood. In the preliminary report, it is stated that most abuses occurred in the 1950's, 1960's and declined markedly over the 1970's. There were 177'000 priests and members of religious orders in 1950. So the number of perpetrators will not surpass 1%. I cannot say whether 1% is high or low. But speaking of systemic abuse is merely false.
As for the role of homosexuality, the preliminary report states that 62% of the victims were boys and the vast majority were around puberty. This is pederasty, a sport enjoyed by a substantial proportion of homosexual men.
The catholic church has faced for centuries the problem of homosexuality and many saints called it a stain upon the clergy. There have been regular campaigns to expel homosexuals from seminaries and defrock homosexual priests, the latest under Benedict XVI. So no, the catholic church has not been a cover for homosexual minorities but a hostile institution. Conversely LGBT groups have attacked it with constance for the past 50 years.
Funny thing is, though, AE, I disagree: the cultural Bolshevik rage these days are transgenders. Homosexuals-particularly non-camp male ones-are yesterday's news.
>Most people don’t like punching down and most people resent the bullies who tell them they should.
Au contraire: I think our elites and intellectual classes love, love, love punching down. The best part about the simpering, passive-aggressive victimhood morality of current America is that they get to cloak it as justice while in practice cementing their own power: and using the most ruthless, socially adept crypto-bullies as enforcers.
That's the problem: our elites genuinely don't believe they are elites, especially in the media.Replies: @Twinkie, @Barack Obama's secret Unz account, @White Elephant, @Luzzatto
Interesting to go back to the 90’s and before, and watch mainstream media product and see the deliberate normalising of homosexuality, e.g. Friends and Seinfeld both had lesbian wedding episodes. It wasn’t subtle.
Perhaps, but black still trumps gay, so best to play it safe and be black and gay.
When I was in the military, we still had a “no gays” policy. A few years after I left, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” came along. Now it seems to be OK to be gay in the military. The next logical step is to make it mandatory. It is only a matter of time.
Water was routinely considered wet, too.
If whites can find social redemption only by appealing to the homosexual precedent, I’d rather stay unredeemed.
This is true, but except for the usual, character-building schoolyard violence we all experienced, gays were hardly punched.
How about by showing the courage gays did in order to dismantle the closet and obtain civil equality? KMac himself said that Whites must, like gay activists of yore, shed the fear of being identified (as racialists) and to then openly advocate on our behalf.
Don't make a virtue of your cowardice or your need to "play opposite" anything gays have done.
It may be morally OK, but it is still disgusting. I mean the sex act itself. People still banter about taking it “in the ass” or “bending over” as something vaguely submissive and abstract. They don’t seem to referring to an act, but rather an abstraction.
I think being more literal about involvement of the rectum would be useful counter propaganda to queer eye/metrosexual sort of imagery. Sorry about being so gross. Just being honest about it.
What does this look like state vs state – are Utah’s Mormons the most hetero friendly?
‘System of abuse’? At least 10,000 children sexually molested at hands of French Catholic Church since 1950s — reportYup, there is no reason to flaunt one's special tendencies in public.
And I have no good opinion of a "society" that permits "transgender" propaganda and doesn't come down on bullying "transgenders" like Jehova's Burning Hammer itself.
Harry Potter video game will allow transgender characters, but unsated critics want ‘reparations’ from ‘transphobic’ JK RowlingReplies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Archange, @Not Only Wrathful, @Altai
Priestly celibacy is IMHO the most dysgenic feature of Catholicism. Perhaps in a world where any sexual expression outside marriage was was tightly controlled and condemned as immoral it may have been just about functional, but not for the past 75 years.
Preindustrial society had considerably higher maternal mortality.
When Monarchies were common, royal families placed their extra sons into senior Church positions. It kept the Church in line with the needs of the Kingdom. For this to work, Priests were not permitted to have legitimate children that would inherit their father's position.
Preventing priests from "officially marrying" was a political restriction. Many priests had families that everyone knew about. However, their "illegitimate" sons were discouraged from becoming clergy. Those sons were typically literate and often wound up in the secular bureaucracy, further sealing alignment between Church & State.
Somehow this political reality was lost, mistakenly resulting in a dogmatic requirement for celibacy that defies human nature.
PEACE 😇Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom
Also, celibacy doesn't turn you gay (or pedo). The big problem is that many gays infiltrate there, because it's a good cover, and nowadays because they are actively trying to destruct the church. Perhaps it could be controlled with more strict requirements and other measures.
But the same can be said of other institutions. Schools, Boy Scouts, etc. Lots of gay predators there. Even more than in the church, because of the higher access to teens / children. So, I don't see that priest celibacy is the issue here. Except that it gives cover to gays, and so many gays enter it, etc.
I've read that there are also a lot of homosexual predators of teens and children in synagogues and yeshiva schools, but there's no celibacy requirement there.
Was AIDS necessary in the process of moving the Overton window on gays?
Personally, I think not, as Hollywood was pushing them beforehand, and I think it has always been about sexual anarchy – destroying the system of morality around sex.
Personally, I think not, as Hollywood was pushing them beforehand, and I think it has always been about sexual anarchy - destroying the system of morality around sex.Replies: @Wyatt, @R.G. Camara
That was being destroyed well before the gay revolution. One of the muslim brotherhood founders noted America was a nation of sexual impropriety decades before 1969 and the Stonewall Riots. Functional sexual restraint was already on the way out and it was mostly on the heads of women.
Their impact was serious enough for Pope Pius XI to publish the encyclical Casti Conubii in 1930. So we are mired in a moral crumbling that started in the 1920's.
I believe that male homosexuality – the real thing and not LGBT mass hysteria – is a genetically rooted phenomenon. It should be recognized as such, and allowances should be made for the gays themselves. After all, they can’t help it and shouldn’t have to think of themselves as outlaws simply for being born the way they are. In exchange, the gays themselves should stop trying to force the rest of us to believe that homosexuality is equivalent to being straight when we all know that it’s a biological glitch. Getting rid of those degenerate parades would be nice, too.
For those of you who think that allowing gays to live their lives as they see fit is asking for too much, consider the fact that closeted gays are a lot more likely to get married to women and pass on their genes.
The people who are instigating the punching down at unprivileged whites are doing it precisely because they are unprivileged whites. And the POC foot soldiers doing the (in some cases literal) punching view whites as deserving it because of slavery, segregation, colonialism, etc. I highly doubt there will be much sympathy engendered for whites when the media unceasingly promotes the view that they are evil.
Homosexual advocacy succeeded in changing public perception in part by doing what the progressive left has always done to dominate the framing and discussion of any issue they champion, and that is controlling the language. The term “gay” has replaced the correct but much less positive descriptor “homosexual.” The term gay is associated with happiness and glee as that is its definition, and who could possibly dislike happy people? People who are not in support of near militant homosexual advocacy that is currently on display should try to remember to use the correct terms.
Another example is the term pedophilia. This term has been popularized by incorrectly assigning it to identify homosexuals who prey upon pubescent and post pubescent boys. The Catholic Church abuse scandals are the obvious example of this. Identifying those priest as pedophiles (they weren’t; something like 90% of the victims were teenagers) in the media was a sinister way to deflect blame away from homosexual predation, and instead infer that the abusers were straight priests who like to abuse prepubescent children.
Movies and media support the above tactic. The movie Rounders, about 4 teenage boys who are molested by a group of white male juvenile hall guards, does a very good job of manipulating the viewer into believing the perpetrators are otherwise normal straight guys who are married with families. The term gay or homosexual is never uttered once in the movie.
The AIDS pandemic was also ironically the best thing to happen to the homosexual community as far as positive publicity went. The media went out of its way to insist that HIV was as big a threat to heterosexuals as it was to homosexuals, and completely covered up the explosion in homosexual buggery that took place in places like New York and San Fransisco in the 1970 and early 80’s. Homosexuals were cast of victims of the scariest virus ever (which really wasn’t) and Hollywood of course did it’s part to skew the facts in movies like Philadelphia, And the Band Played On, etc.
It was engineered top-down. There was no grassroots demand for gay marriage that percolated up. It was a campaign by elites who used their power over various institutions to bring it about. The monopoly media, educational system and of course Obama worked to make it seem like a matter of civil rights, individual choice, doing the right thing, etc etc. It didn’t just happen; it was made to happen through organized effort.
Teddy Cruz had a menage a trois type politician whore money begging trist in New York City in 2015 with two or more money-grubbing homosexual gay donors and what might have went on there is too horrible to think about.
I apologize to all French Canadians who resent my use of that French word in regards to the antics of Canadian Teddy Cruz and the great French people in Canada are innocent of any involvement with Teddy “Goldman Sachs Hubby” Cruz.
Go Back To Canada, Teddy Cruz!
Tweets from 2015:
You are right and your observation is important:
About this, though:
I get where you’re coming from and used to half-agree, until concluding that women are too incohesive as a social class to be collectively cajoled in this way. An individual woman probably either [a] is too deeply mired in her own troubles to hear such advice or [b] thinks that you’re talking about someone else.
What is needed is a serious restoration of marriage, with all that entails, including the husband’s mastery of the home. Divorce should be harder and state intrusion should be much, much rarer. A family-court judge should never, ever be female and should be chosen for his temperamental lack of prurience and for his propensity to avert his eyes from family troubles a decent man ought not to wish to examine. Happy marriages should be hoped for but unhappy marriages should again be treated as a fact of life.
Moreover, the state must diligently withhold social welfare payments that fill the absence of a husband, unless the reason the husband is absent is that he is dead.
Only within such a framework can the questions you raise even begin to be addressed.
Teddy Cruz had a menage a trois type politician whore money begging trist in New York City in 2015 with two or more money-grubbing homosexual gay donors and what might have went on there is too horrible to think about.
Trist is spelled TRYST and the rancid politician whores in the despicable Republican Party are having multiple trysts with their evil and treasonous donors and the donors want the GOP politician whores to keep pushing mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration and multicultural mayhem and open borders free trade and more and more endless war on behalf of the millstone client state of Israel.
Andrew Jackson said he couldn’t trust a man who couldn’t spell a word many different ways.
I wrote this about gay politicians in 2017 and Joe Jackson sang about them in his song Sunday Papers:
Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and Jeff Flake all seem to have faces that could be described as “gay.” I have seen Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney at political events and they seem rather effeminate. I do not know if the Artificial Intelligence algorithm would find Graham, Rubio, Ryan, Romney and Flake to be effeminate homosexuals, but I would not be surprised.
Graham, Rubio, Ryan, Flake and Romney have spent many hours of their lives on their hands and knees in front of donors who most likely do unspeakable things to them. I prefer not to know. The Republican Party has a rather large gay mafia that does the bidding of its donor controllers. If I found out that Graham, Rubio, Ryan, Flake and Romney were engaging in gay orgies with Republican donors, it would not shock me.
Let me remind you people that Pim Fortuyn, the homosexual Dutch political leader who was assassinated in 2002, was a strongly patriotic leader who wanted to preserve Dutch national identity by stopping mass immigration. I remind you of this so as to disabuse you of the notion that I suggested Graham, Rubio, Ryan, Romney and Flake look like effeminate homosexuals because all five Republicans push nation-wrecking mass immigration.
God Bless The Memory Of Pim Fortuyn, A Great Dutch Patriot Who Just Happened To Be Gay.
Looking again at pictures of Pim Fortuyn, he doesn’t seem to have a “gay” face, but Graham, Rubio, Ryan, Flake and Romney most definitely have hyper-effeminate gay faces.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/ai-and-the-gay-face/#comment-1998396
‘System of abuse’? At least 10,000 children sexually molested at hands of French Catholic Church since 1950s — reportYup, there is no reason to flaunt one's special tendencies in public.
And I have no good opinion of a "society" that permits "transgender" propaganda and doesn't come down on bullying "transgenders" like Jehova's Burning Hammer itself.
Harry Potter video game will allow transgender characters, but unsated critics want ‘reparations’ from ‘transphobic’ JK RowlingReplies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Archange, @Not Only Wrathful, @Altai
The commission received 6’500 reports during the 2 years of testimony collection. The 10’000 number is an extrapolation, a rounding up based on “research” to account for under-reporting. It also sounds better for anti-catholic propaganda.
Until now around 450 priests and members of religious orders have been estimated to be guilty with reasonable likelihood. In the preliminary report, it is stated that most abuses occurred in the 1950’s, 1960’s and declined markedly over the 1970’s. There were 177’000 priests and members of religious orders in 1950. So the number of perpetrators will not surpass 1%. I cannot say whether 1% is high or low. But speaking of systemic abuse is merely false.
As for the role of homosexuality, the preliminary report states that 62% of the victims were boys and the vast majority were around puberty. This is pederasty, a sport enjoyed by a substantial proportion of homosexual men.
The catholic church has faced for centuries the problem of homosexuality and many saints called it a stain upon the clergy. There have been regular campaigns to expel homosexuals from seminaries and defrock homosexual priests, the latest under Benedict XVI. So no, the catholic church has not been a cover for homosexual minorities but a hostile institution. Conversely LGBT groups have attacked it with constance for the past 50 years.
You are quite right. The first breakdown in mariage norms took place in the roaring 1920’s, when the upper class started to indulge in open mariages and polyamory and when long-range oceanic trips were considered a moment of evasion from the usual contraints of social life. The most daring started to overtly champion these themes in the press and to organise reunions to promote moral evolution. Novels by Virginia Wolf and Aldous Huxley mirror this state of affairs. Interestingly most of these people were associated with the suffragette movement and already planned to further the emancipation of women, i.e. to make them sexually available to most men.
Their impact was serious enough for Pope Pius XI to publish the encyclical Casti Conubii in 1930. So we are mired in a moral crumbling that started in the 1920’s.
The whites punching down at poor whites are doing so because they’re psychological losers. The punching down fulfills two of their psychological needs simultaneously. First, their masochism. Because they are losers, they hate themselves. The second psychological need is their otherwise natural, healthy desire to feel strong and competent. Since they are losers, they can only fulfill that need to feel strong by grafting themselves on to a large, impersonal group. And what is the largest, most impersonal group that exists today? The world citizen, globohomo, anti-white coalition.
Priestly celibacy is IMHO the most dysgenic feature of Catholicism. Perhaps in a world where any sexual expression outside marriage was was tightly controlled and condemned as immoral it may have been just about functional, but not for the past 75 years.
It could actually be eugenic if they are mostly taking highly sensitive and effeminate men out of the dating pool and encouraging large families in everyone else. But it could also be dysgenic for intelligence and speech.
But the real problem is that it attracts faggotry. Men that have no interest in women use it as a cover.
I have seen someone go into the priesthood that had weirdly zero interest in women. I’m not sure if he was gay but I don’t seen him being able to counsel married men when he has zero experience with women.
The other problem is that they send off women to the convent that might have just needed a few more years to find a mate. The daughter without much (cough) male interest is sent off to be a nun.
Lesbians are also attracted to the profession but I would suspect there are more cases of straight women going gay for the sake of intimacy. I think it is harder on the women as they are designed for children.
In any case the Catholics are at least having families. I saw a picture of a relative’s protestant church and there were very few children. It was creepy.
The whites punching down at poor whites are doing so because they’re psychological losers.
This is correct. Whether they are right or left globalists doesn’t matter. They all have insecurity issues and want to use poor Whites as punching bags.
It is surprising as to how insecure wealthy Whites can be. In wealthy areas you will see Whites berating workers over the dumbest things. I once stayed at a luxury golf resort in a conservative area and half the White men were just spineless and insecure. They were very uncomfortable in their own skin despite having wealth.
Liberals will do the same to what they perceive as lower Whites. They will treat White workers like dogs because in their minds the liberal elite are morally superior and the “bad Whites” are the ones causing all the problems. Only they posses the intellectual and moral superiority to address non-Whites in a proper (patronizing) manner. How is this at all egalitarian? It isn’t. None of it makes any sense and they are absolutely terrified of alt-right types that can point out their hypocrisy.
‘System of abuse’? At least 10,000 children sexually molested at hands of French Catholic Church since 1950s — reportYup, there is no reason to flaunt one's special tendencies in public.
And I have no good opinion of a "society" that permits "transgender" propaganda and doesn't come down on bullying "transgenders" like Jehova's Burning Hammer itself.
Harry Potter video game will allow transgender characters, but unsated critics want ‘reparations’ from ‘transphobic’ JK RowlingReplies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Archange, @Not Only Wrathful, @Altai
Some delusional nobodies want free money from J K Rowling. This is only news because people love to click on it. And so the cycle continues…
For those of you who think that allowing gays to live their lives as they see fit is asking for too much, consider the fact that closeted gays are a lot more likely to get married to women and pass on their genes.Replies: @John Johnson
I believe that male homosexuality – the real thing and not LGBT mass hysteria – is a genetically rooted phenomenon. It should be recognized as such, and allowances should be made for the gays themselves.
But it isn’t that simple.
Some gay men are born that way. Certainly. I have met them and their brains are not wired normally.
But there are also adolescents that are sexually confused and looking for identity. Our society is very confusing to just about everyone and there is a desire by Whites to feel unique and special. Society currently teaches that gays and transgendered are extra special.
Then there are the lesbians. I have met many lesbians and I’m not buying it. There is no way that modern society can admit that gay men are born that way but most lesbians could go either way even though numerous studies have suggested this indeed the case. De Blasio’s wife is a former lesbian and the left tells us this is impossible. The left gets upset if you even talk about prison lesbianism or lesbian after 40.
So there will never be a compromise or honest discussion with the left. They want to use all sexual minorities as foot soldiers against Western society. They will stick to ‘born that way’ for all cases and they have already taken over the social sciences so open study is not allowed.
For those of you who think that allowing gays to live their lives as they see fit is asking for too much, consider the fact that closeted gays are a lot more likely to get married to women and pass on their genes.
Well that recent study showed that younger generations are more likely to identify as gay. So that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Hitler sent off gays and Jews (considered by many to be leading purveyors of homosexuality) and Germany today has the gayest city in Europe.
I disagree. I believe these people genuinely believe what they say, that they are fighting against the oppressors who “really” dominate American society. Don’t give them too much intellectual credit: these are the same people who think having a female Treasury Secretary is a serious policy response to an economic crisis. There’s no mental contradiction in their mind when they assert, in all seriousness, that a penniless guy attacking a woman billionaire is “punching down”. They really believe that nonsense.
That’s not to say they don’t think they are special or “better”, and that others should sit down and follow them. Why wouldn’t they? They are following the system of morality they were marinated in. It identifies being an optimate with being a villain, as not following expert advice as a sign of evil. If they are “better”, then they wouldn’t.
Conveniently, though, not identifying as an elite means they don’t have any of the traditional responsibilities. Deep down, this is inseparable from the set of values we’ve chosen as a society, where victimhood is something to be aspired to rather than an unfortunate condition to be pitied and overcome, and courting managerial authority is the way of getting ahead rather than actually doing something innovative.
(I take a dim view of commentators here who compulsively see Jews behind every rock. But it is undeniably true that American Jews have a remarkably strong aversion to viewing themselves as what they really are: a disproportionately affluent group that is precisely the opposite of an underdog in contemporary America. Put more crudely, as the whitest of white people, in the cultural Bolshevik sense. This epitomizes the dynamic I’m talking about.)
>I sincerely hope this trend is more like the Cultural Revolution and less like the Christian conversion of Europe.
I hope so, too. But I doubt it. The Cultural Revolution was the mob running amok at the behest of one man, against other elites in society. We are seeing mass elite consolidation, despite a decades-long record of incompetence and venality that has led to regime change in other times and places. The belief in Diversity as deity-a fundamentally stupid, limited one-is inseperable.
If we must head back to de facto societial paganism, better to turn out pagans like Pericles or Fabius Maximus, and not Alcibiades or Nero. I’m not, at this juncture, optimistic.
I take it you aren’t a fan of the Gregorian Reforms, then?
Historically it was useful for reducing dynastic tensions that arise as part of primogeniture.
Preindustrial society had considerably higher maternal mortality.
Worse yet, it is a mistake from history being lost.
When Monarchies were common, royal families placed their extra sons into senior Church positions. It kept the Church in line with the needs of the Kingdom. For this to work, Priests were not permitted to have legitimate children that would inherit their father’s position.
Preventing priests from “officially marrying” was a political restriction. Many priests had families that everyone knew about. However, their “illegitimate” sons were discouraged from becoming clergy. Those sons were typically literate and often wound up in the secular bureaucracy, further sealing alignment between Church & State.
Somehow this political reality was lost, mistakenly resulting in a dogmatic requirement for celibacy that defies human nature.
PEACE 😇
The problems started to arise when the Church decided it needed to reform itself and start enforcing the rules. That was a disastrous decision.
That chart paints a good picture about how the US and then the rest of the world lost its moral compass after 1990. It’s very similar to the chart about attitudes toward miscegenation.
It also illustrates how “conservatives” will eventually accept any form of degeneracy from “proggressives”. Conservatives and the mainstream right will not save anything, only social, economic and political collapse on a massive scale will buck this trend.
When Monarchies were common, royal families placed their extra sons into senior Church positions. It kept the Church in line with the needs of the Kingdom. For this to work, Priests were not permitted to have legitimate children that would inherit their father's position.
Preventing priests from "officially marrying" was a political restriction. Many priests had families that everyone knew about. However, their "illegitimate" sons were discouraged from becoming clergy. Those sons were typically literate and often wound up in the secular bureaucracy, further sealing alignment between Church & State.
Somehow this political reality was lost, mistakenly resulting in a dogmatic requirement for celibacy that defies human nature.
PEACE 😇Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom
Temporal and spiritual motives happily melded in the medieval-and ancient, there was a lot more psychological continuity between them than between us and the pre-modern age-mind, so their struggle to free the church from being a plaything of kings and emperors was far from a cynical power-grab. The papal reformers saw it as Rome’s duty to return the church to its apostolic origins. That included ensuring that the representatives of God truly lived what they preached.
Politics being the business that it was, that often meant rather odd, improvised allies, such as Norman thugs who’d just been at war with you a couple decades before, or Milanese street gangs (look up the Patarenes). But it’s really easy in our deeply cynical age to dismiss what people truly believed in previous times. There was no contradiction between advancing the practical political power of Rome and the higher goal of saving the soul of mankind.
Peace.
Funny thing is, though, AE, I disagree: the cultural Bolshevik rage these days are transgenders. Homosexuals-particularly non-camp male ones-are yesterday's news.
>Most people don’t like punching down and most people resent the bullies who tell them they should.
Au contraire: I think our elites and intellectual classes love, love, love punching down. The best part about the simpering, passive-aggressive victimhood morality of current America is that they get to cloak it as justice while in practice cementing their own power: and using the most ruthless, socially adept crypto-bullies as enforcers.
That's the problem: our elites genuinely don't believe they are elites, especially in the media.Replies: @Twinkie, @Barack Obama's secret Unz account, @White Elephant, @Luzzatto
Yes, but transgenders ARE homosexuals. They just prefer to take on the outer look of the opposite sex. They also happen to be attracted to heterosexual males. Homosexuals have always tried to lure heterosexuals into their bed. Transgenders are more blatant with the “but I’m not a man, I’m a woman“, expecting heterosexual men to forego their common sense and say “so you are, my bad”. They seem to think that heterosexual men are going to completely ignore the elephant in the room (the transgender’s male parts and lack of female parts) and the fact that they’re not with a man, but a woman. It’s like going to a bar and ordering a pint of Guinness, to be poured a pint of lager, in a Guinness glass. It’s something out of a Monty Python sketch.
https://twitter.com/LabelFreeBrands/status/1366167980816494592
Wait....what?Replies: @anon
I doubt that Caitlyn Jenner is attracted to men, but I do think he really thinks he's a woman.
Let’s not draw the wrong conclusions here.
First, contra their unceasing propaganda, homosexuals were not so oppressed in pre-Woke America. There were a couple of homosexuals in my extended family who lived and socialized as a homosexual couple in a small Midwestern town through most of the last century. I think everyone in town understood why they shared a house, but no one bothered them because of it. That’s a factual datapoint against all the feverish and deceptive retconning of American social history. But your whiteness, if any, will always be a Mark of Cain on you, and the Wokels will never leave you alone about it.
Second, contra their unceasing propaganda, homosexuals have always inhabited the halls of power, and probably have always done so in proportions exceeding their incidence in the general population. So what we are seeing in AE’s graph is not a case of the disempowered becoming empowered. It is a case of those who were already empowered dispensing with part of the false front they used: coming out of the closet and demanding you accept it.
These people do. They were punching down before and they are punching down even harder now, demanding you accept their rule without even trying to hide their offensive lifestyle.
In a related way, or perhaps a sub-set of this topic, I will opine something that will seem outlandish, but regardless: soon, in various stages of acceptance, the sexual abuse of children will be normalized. It might begin with CGI in film; innocuous at first, not overt, but trending to overt. Then the boundary is pushed further and further, et cetera. Eventually pedophilia will be a “right”, just like anything else. If a person believes that pedophilia is “different” from the usual “civil rights” stuff, that no sane society would accept and promote it…all I can say is that the normies believed EXACTLY the same thing about homos in my parents’ time (I am 52).
I disagree. Mass acceptance of child sexual abuse would negatively impact too many of the elites. As shitty as so many of them are, they still love their children.
But that’s kind of what helps keep the idea of “progress” going. It is imperative to view the past in the worst way possible, whether that accords with reality or not.
Peace.
“It’s a reminder of how quickly the zeitgeist can shift as social and cultural conditions change. For those concerned with the increasingly explicit persecution of unprivileged whites, it’s something to take comfort in. ”
It is never anything to take comfort in to have a society that accepts anything so objectionable & morally deviant as homosexuality, let alone reveres (!) it. And it is in no way analogous to the increasingly explicit persecution of underprivileged whites. In fact, the two are related only insofar as it is the same forces which “revere” homos who hate whites! So the latter will only increase as the former decreases! The only thing to take any comfort in is that many other societies around the world are still moral enough to have strong sanctions against homosexual behaviour, including capital punishment.
American sitcoms and other tv shows flooded East European TVs in the late 90s and onwards, something like a third of them seemed to feature a token gay character in a recurring role (often as one of the main characters)
I found this odd when I was watching them, coming from a culture that views homosexuals as mentally ill deviants and perverts.
But I imagine that this created a fertile field in the minds of young Americans for further propaganda, now spread by the internet, to entrench positive views about homosexuality.
I appreciate that you read and commented on the post. Your statement on the face of it would seem entirely logical; we would suppose no parent, or hardly any, would condone an adult behaving sexually towards the parent’s own young child. But we know of too many stories where a parent, when confronted by their college-age or young adult child’s murder at the hands of a protected minority member, has not condemned the murderer; rather, the parent or parents blame society/racism/x-phobia, or whatever else is convenient. You would say those things have nothing to do with my statement, but they do. Day by day, moment by moment, people are being conditioned to not only accept, but defend what in a previous time was completely abhorrent. You may be right and I would like to be proven wrong, but the evidence, IMO, points much more to what I claimed.
Another example is the term pedophilia. This term has been popularized by incorrectly assigning it to identify homosexuals who prey upon pubescent and post pubescent boys. The Catholic Church abuse scandals are the obvious example of this. Identifying those priest as pedophiles (they weren't; something like 90% of the victims were teenagers) in the media was a sinister way to deflect blame away from homosexual predation, and instead infer that the abusers were straight priests who like to abuse prepubescent children.
Movies and media support the above tactic. The movie Rounders, about 4 teenage boys who are molested by a group of white male juvenile hall guards, does a very good job of manipulating the viewer into believing the perpetrators are otherwise normal straight guys who are married with families. The term gay or homosexual is never uttered once in the movie.
The AIDS pandemic was also ironically the best thing to happen to the homosexual community as far as positive publicity went. The media went out of its way to insist that HIV was as big a threat to heterosexuals as it was to homosexuals, and completely covered up the explosion in homosexual buggery that took place in places like New York and San Fransisco in the 1970 and early 80's. Homosexuals were cast of victims of the scariest virus ever (which really wasn't) and Hollywood of course did it's part to skew the facts in movies like Philadelphia, And the Band Played On, etc.Replies: @Stealth, @Rosie
I believe you’re referring to Sleepers. Rounders was about poker. As to your point, it is possible the offenders were heterosexual. Straight prisoners do rape other men.
And it was not other prisoners, it was the guards in the film.
Furthermore, most "prison rape" stories are just denials that men in prison will turn to degenerative sex with one another.Replies: @Stealth
Personally, I think not, as Hollywood was pushing them beforehand, and I think it has always been about sexual anarchy - destroying the system of morality around sex.Replies: @Wyatt, @R.G. Camara
Homosexuals, when freed of sexual restrictions, had so much degenerative sex they created a monster killer disease, AIDS. And somehow blamed that on Reagan and used it to push acceptance of them.
What a world.
No, they were not straight.
And it was not other prisoners, it was the guards in the film.
Furthermore, most “prison rape” stories are just denials that men in prison will turn to degenerative sex with one another.
Yes Sleepers, thank you. But the rapists were guards, not prisoners. That’s all the difference.
The World Health Organization decided to accept homosexuality back in 1990. China decriminalized the practice in 1997. A lesbian discovered a textbook back in 2013 that still classified homosexuality with crossdressing and other disorders. She filed suit.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-court-homosexuality-mental-disorder-b1810137.html
A court has ruled in China it is acceptable for a book to call homosexuality a mental problem. In this one small way, the People’s Republic of China is now a bit freer than the “free” world.
The term “GlobalHomo” isn’t random, by the way. There is a global push. So..we’ll see what the pushback on this court case looks like.
With the caveat that my modern marriage is not like marriages of times past that enjoyed different division of labor and different expectations, I would say that the requirement for priestly celibacy seems a much better idea to me now that I am married.
In the graph, there seem to be inflection points around 1991 and 2005. I suspect the first demonstrates the end of the Cold War, and some social changes that happened in response to the lifting of threat. On the other hand, this coincides as well with the rise of the Clintons with their style of politics that ultimately degraded truth and trust. I suspect their ability to capture the Democratic party reflects a trend in the left at that time toward dissembling and power worship.
The other point around 2005 is, as I mentioned in another post, around the time that YouTube’s video-streaming technology was developed and led to the development of more serious consumption of online pornography, with the most-trafficked sites having been started in the years immediately after YouTube.
One of the stranger experiences I’ve had recently is tuning into Milo Yiannopoulos’ podcast on Censored.TV and discovering him promoting Catholicism. Certainly, this kind of convergence is only possible because of the above trends. To the extent that the church becomes more open to gayness, it is a bad thing and probably represents the triumph of revolution. But to the extent gays become more open to the church, it may be a good thing and represent some kind of coming cultural and political re-alignments.
And it was not other prisoners, it was the guards in the film.
Furthermore, most "prison rape" stories are just denials that men in prison will turn to degenerative sex with one another.Replies: @Stealth
I know. I was just giving an example of a scenario in which that happens. A friend of mine who served as a guard in two prisons once told me that rape does occur. He did add that a lot of gay sex in prison is voluntary, though.
having lived thru it, this chart confirms my lived experience that the transition from WASP to jewish control began to really occur, or at least be felt in the late 80s. the early 80s still mostly had that feeling of old stock historic America. by the late 80s, some parts of media and pop culture had shifted slightly.
africans were ‘cool-ized’ and more promoted. the first movement towards promoting homosexuals in earnest began with media figures who were still publicly in the closet like Paula Poundstone. Cops started in 1989, one of the first ‘reality’ shows, and was deliberately set up to make low class proles look like the majority of the street criminals. neocons had taken a large part of control of the Republican party away from the paleocons, and were in the process of eliminating them from the remaining Republican administrations. they scored most of the their first big victories under GH Bush.
Greenspan began lowering interest rates, ostensibly for the economy, but mainly for the benefit of his co-ethnics. the Education Department, created only 10 years earlier under Carter, was already retconning US history books for public schools, and putting Harriet Tubman in everything.
the 1992 election, where MTV openly and favorably covered Clinton, something i don’t remember them ever doing before, seemed like a significant change. the Rodney King riots were, perhaps, the first large scale violent crime wave based totally on a false narrative, a complete and coordinated lie by the television media. by the time of the OJ Simpson trial result, i think average people could feel that the country was changing. the 1986 amnesty had slowly been turning California into Mexico, and SoCal people had already begun the decades long exodus process.
yes, there were earlier propaganda efforts, like Roots in 1977, but those were the opening salvos of the current campaign, not when it began to gain critical mass. the coordinated effort to use the 60s Civil Rights era as a launching platform to next take over the entire country, seemed to first really be felt in earnest in the late 80s.
SOAP ran from 1977 to 1981 and featured Billy Crystal as a sympathetic homosexual character. That's a good 10 years before Paula.
https://www.out.com/sites/out.com/files/2013/09/13/SoapBillyMain.jpg
the first movement towards promoting homosexuals in earnest began with media figures who were still publicly in the closet like Paula Poundstone.
SOAP ran from 1977 to 1981 and featured Billy Crystal as a sympathetic homosexual character. That’s a good 10 years before Paula.
looks like the final battle between paleocons in the Republican party and the Trump endorsed homosexual and transexual ‘conservatives’ is upon us. Richard Grenell is meeting unexpected resistance from America Firsters.
at least a few Republicans draw the line at chopping dicks off 12 year old boys and forcing 30 year old men into women’s sports.
my worst fears are starting to come true. Donald Trump is about to become a huge problem. we really gotta get rid of this guy.
Lol, puny fears. Your worst fears are puny. Maybe y'all should impeach Trump 2 or 3 more times? Would that calm you down?
Cheer up, though, Evan McMullin is considering creation of a new, really-truly Conservative party! So there will be some place for you to belong after all.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2021/02/19/utah-politics-podcast/
…and now, a totally normal, natural, healthy, and romantic trans love story:
Wait….what?
Love Wins, so Checkmate, Bigot! That's what!
my worst fears are starting to come true. Donald Trump is about to become a huge problem. we really gotta get rid of this guy.
Lol, puny fears. Your worst fears are puny. Maybe y’all should impeach Trump 2 or 3 more times? Would that calm you down?
Cheer up, though, Evan McMullin is considering creation of a new, really-truly Conservative party! So there will be some place for you to belong after all.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2021/02/19/utah-politics-podcast/
Another example is the term pedophilia. This term has been popularized by incorrectly assigning it to identify homosexuals who prey upon pubescent and post pubescent boys. The Catholic Church abuse scandals are the obvious example of this. Identifying those priest as pedophiles (they weren't; something like 90% of the victims were teenagers) in the media was a sinister way to deflect blame away from homosexual predation, and instead infer that the abusers were straight priests who like to abuse prepubescent children.
Movies and media support the above tactic. The movie Rounders, about 4 teenage boys who are molested by a group of white male juvenile hall guards, does a very good job of manipulating the viewer into believing the perpetrators are otherwise normal straight guys who are married with families. The term gay or homosexual is never uttered once in the movie.
The AIDS pandemic was also ironically the best thing to happen to the homosexual community as far as positive publicity went. The media went out of its way to insist that HIV was as big a threat to heterosexuals as it was to homosexuals, and completely covered up the explosion in homosexual buggery that took place in places like New York and San Fransisco in the 1970 and early 80's. Homosexuals were cast of victims of the scariest virus ever (which really wasn't) and Hollywood of course did it's part to skew the facts in movies like Philadelphia, And the Band Played On, etc.Replies: @Stealth, @Rosie
I think you’re mostly right here, but I’m not sure it’s appropriate to say that these priests weren’t pedophiles. I suppose the more strictly accurate terms would be hebephilia or ephebophilia, but these terms are not widely understood. The fact is that human males have a very long adolescence, during which they are not children nor are they adults. They look very different from adult males, and, if I’m not mistaken, are highly desired among gay men.
History is proven right again:
Gays recruit. By force.Replies: @Rosie, @John Johnson
*Up until the 80's, before negro culture was able to glamorize it, the word "pimp" held a very negative connotation. Currently pedophilia infers the most negative connotation (other than white) and is likely why it is applied with broad strokes to sexual offenders.Replies: @Rosie
There’s a YouTube channel which made some interesting compilations of news stories on gay rights through the decades. Not only is the tone taken different over time but there are many sub movements and rhetoric that were dead-ends.
It’s also just fascinating to see the tone of news reports as well as just the general level of formality over time. This is similar to what Adam Curtis said about going through the BBC archives to see what the media was saying or treating some idea or political situation or movement at the time being vastly different to how it was portrayed in retrospect and his being fascinated by this because a lot of the details are all there in the film but get cut out of the eventual narrative.
It's also just fascinating to see the tone of news reports as well as just the general level of formality over time. This is similar to what Adam Curtis said about going through the BBC archives to see what the media was saying or treating some idea or political situation or movement at the time being vastly different to how it was portrayed in retrospect and his being fascinated by this because a lot of the details are all there in the film but get cut out of the eventual narrative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYZiKGe3Qbc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcLjfDatWMk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dhHvBIMh0U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPO5wausim8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5dW2wqTF4QReplies: @Altai
Like the Lambda symbol just vanishes in the 80s but is hugely important in the 70s.
Triumph is not yet universal.
https://www.reuters.com/article/china-rights-lgbt/chinese-court-backs-publisher-of-textbook-calling-homosexuality-psychological-disorder-idUSL4N2KW1EK?
Not to worry, Murica is here for you.
Moral triumph? I dunno. Something tells me that teh ghey support is a mile wide and an inch deep, and as trans ideology tramples over our rights, with stiletto heels, people will become even more disenchanted with the whole alphabet soup LGBTQ, etc.
https://twitter.com/LabelFreeBrands/status/1366167980816494592
Wait....what?Replies: @anon
Wait….what?
Love Wins, so Checkmate, Bigot! That’s what!
First, contra their unceasing propaganda, homosexuals were not so oppressed in pre-Woke America. There were a couple of homosexuals in my extended family who lived and socialized as a homosexual couple in a small Midwestern town through most of the last century. I think everyone in town understood why they shared a house, but no one bothered them because of it. That's a factual datapoint against all the feverish and deceptive retconning of American social history. But your whiteness, if any, will always be a Mark of Cain on you, and the Wokels will never leave you alone about it.
Second, contra their unceasing propaganda, homosexuals have always inhabited the halls of power, and probably have always done so in proportions exceeding their incidence in the general population. So what we are seeing in AE's graph is not a case of the disempowered becoming empowered. It is a case of those who were already empowered dispensing with part of the false front they used: coming out of the closet and demanding you accept it.These people do. They were punching down before and they are punching down even harder now, demanding you accept their rule without even trying to hide their offensive lifestyle.Replies: @Charles
True, the idea of “oppression” in the olden days is simply false. In my small Kentucky town, from at least the late ’60s until, I suppose, one of the women died, a teacher at my high school was a verrrry butch woman who lived openly with another woman and a bunch of cats. We students simply inferred that we were not to mention how odd it was that the teacher wore no makeup of any type, but she did wear men’s jeans, shirts, belts and shoes.
Link?
Gays were widely considered predators and deviants a generation ago.
And the reality is that is this Universe they still are.
Now they are among the most revered groups in the country.
Only to the mindless brainwashed and pithed.
Yes, you moron, it’s perfectly appropriate to say they weren’t pedos because they weren’t. They were typical gays in power, abusing their power and preying on sexually mature weak teen boys for their degenerative lists.
History is proven right again:
Gays recruit. By force.
Those are very few among the elites. In reality, they punch down, they like to punch down, and merely mask it as punching up to avoid popular revulsion.
I don’t, but they are also not dumb. They might be unwise in the long run, but they are hardly unintelligent. You think white liberal elites actually want to improve black lives by affirmative action? No, they know that it allows them to suppress competition from smart downscale whites and uppity Asians all the while masking themselves in the cloak of virtue signaling.
I have to be optimistic, or at least “hope for the best, prepare for the worst,” because I have children. Razib Khan occasionally speaks critically of those who talk a good dissident game, but has no offspring and thus no stake in the future. While I wouldn’t quite go that far, I do agree that having children changes how one sees the future and its prospects. Even when one is enveloped by a sense of doom, one has to “buck up” and try to make thing as good as they can be – for the sake of those one loves more than oneself and those who will be here (hopefully) long after one is gone to the netherworld.
There is a difference between the two bombers – the respective targets. The first bomber is dropping ordnance on a wedding in an Afghan village while the second bomber is doing so on a church service in a Kentucky town.
it seems strange at first blush, but the reality of the matter is that people like milo often have lots of painful firsthand personal exposure to reasons why catholic doctrine makes a lot of sense…
‘System of abuse’? At least 10,000 children sexually molested at hands of French Catholic Church since 1950s — reportYup, there is no reason to flaunt one's special tendencies in public.
And I have no good opinion of a "society" that permits "transgender" propaganda and doesn't come down on bullying "transgenders" like Jehova's Burning Hammer itself.
Harry Potter video game will allow transgender characters, but unsated critics want ‘reparations’ from ‘transphobic’ JK RowlingReplies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Archange, @Not Only Wrathful, @Altai
Some of the trans lobby is a bit naive and recently reported that they had great success in some countries like Ireland or Denmark in getting their laws passed if only they didn’t make a fuss and just quietly petitioned judges and politicians. This in contrast to approaches in the UK or the US where a big fuss was made that undermined social solidarity and directly hectored society and attacked social mores in a seeming unending nagging attacking society despite having won. Unfortunately in the countries where they won quietly, children are being mutilated as ‘therapy’ too but not alongside a direct attack on society.
Ordinary people just shrug their shoulders and wish gay and trans people well. (When the girls with BPD are off to get SRS then it becomes very different) But this constant unending hostility, haranguing and oppositional attack on social solidarity, ethnic ingroupness and society in order to abolish any social standards they may not live up despite people having accepted them reminds me of the group activism of another group which may been the template for gay and trans groups.
It is usually at this point of the discussion where I recommend, Xenophon’s Oikonomikos; particularly, his views on marriage and wives.
Friends was very out there for the time. Largely written by homosexual jews.
It’s 100% appropriate to not call them pedophiles, because they weren’t. The notion that hebephila and ephebophila aren’t widely understood as terms is immaterial. (See my original post about controlling language and use of terms; it’s related.) The term pedophilia is widely used (do an ngram search of the word, very revealing and its increased use correlates very well with the gradual acceptance of homosexuality) but still clearly misunderstood and misused. Epstein was and is constantly referred to as a pedophile, but that classification is incorrect. Epstein was a pimp*, and if he himself was engaging in underage sex then he was at most an ephebophile. There is nothing that I’ve read that suggests Epstein dealt in trafficking or sexually abusing prepubescent girls, which is what the classification as “pedophile” requires for the latter. Your observation that gay men seem to be largely attracted to pubescent and post pubescent boys illustrates that homosexual men (not “gay” men) are in fact mostly hebephiles and ephebophiles. Adolescence is associated with the beginning of puberty, which immediately eliminates “pedophilia” as an accurate descriptor of adults who target adolescences for sex. “Length of adolescence” is irrelevant.
*Up until the 80’s, before negro culture was able to glamorize it, the word “pimp” held a very negative connotation. Currently pedophilia infers the most negative connotation (other than white) and is likely why it is applied with broad strokes to sexual offenders.
Especially nowadays, young people are experiencing onset of puberty at younger ages, but they are not less immature than previous generations.Replies: @AndrewR, @Mike Tre
Propaganda works, but reality works, too.
If you were born during the 1960s and entered adulthood during the 1980s when gays still had to live in the closet, you might have felt empathy—because decent people are tolerant and we all have our problems.
So then the gays got out of the closet and taught us the hard way about the problems they willfully cause.
To those of you who are Americans and do not happen to have teenaged sons: did you know that the boys seldom use those beautiful showers the taxpayers have built in the high-school locker room any more? The football team still might use them, but most everyone else is scared to be implicated in suspected homosexuality. So the boys go from P.E. to classroom and just stink.
By the way, AE has it right about punching down. Ordinary people don’t like it. That favors us.
Americans often like the underdog for beating the odds.
Peace.
Everybody likes having someone to punch down on.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @nebulafox
I think there was once a survey that said more than half of self-identified gay men admitted to being sexually abused as children. That’s certainly enough to imply causation. I also wonder if Jewish men are more predisposed as well, given their tendency towards neuroses and their effeminate matter of speech. I remember reading an article about the sexual abuse rampant in the Orthodox Jewish community. Makes me wonder if being molested by the local rabbi is a rite of passage for young Jewish males.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11501300
I am quite surprised at their figure of 46% of gay men. Note well: this does not imply causation in any way. The more parsimonious explanation is that predators have gaydar.
Interesting observation about high school showers. Also, why is it that women’s showers get stalls and men’s don’t? That’s also why when you go to college, you should select a coed dorm. Since half of the floors are female, they usually just put stalls in all of the showers. Not so with the single-sex male dorms.
It just so happens that I had business in a middle-school building undergoing renovation over the summer a couple of years ago. The girls’ shower—tiles, drain and all—was literally being used as a storage room. Dust lay thick on the piled cardboard boxes.
I didn’t venture to twist any of the valves to see whether water would drench the boxes, but I suppose that the renovator’s men might have been tempted.
Being naked in a room full of other naked men is definitely NOT something most men want to experience. Thank God the days of forced communal showering are largely over.
You call it gross if you want, but we called it time management.
Because women deserve basic niceties like privacy, whereas men apparently don’t. My freshman dorm did have stalls, but we had to bring our own curtains.
Are you familiar with the YMCA?
That’s what life in the United States was like before out-of-control faggotry.
Ron: please enforce this policy evenhandedly.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone
Looks gay AF to me.
That is where Americans of my generation failed. We didn’t preserve authentic American culture, we didn’t transmit it, we didn’t resist the dilution and degradation of it, so now you don’t recognize it.
I don’t blame you.
But the photograph is the polar opposite of gay.
That's been totally obliterated by militant homosexuality world over. Now men are terrified of sharing such bonds with one another, because they (despite their public protestations that homosexuality is just dandy) are afraid of being interpreted as "gay." We don't even joke anymore.
I still remember (rather comically in retrospect though I was annoyed at the time), as a late teenager, a particularly crude black peer of mine yelling at me in the locker room (after taking a shower), "You have a big dick for a yellow n***** - did your momma sleep with a brother?" (he was at least half a foot or so shorter than I was as I was already over 6 foot-tall at the time). He wasn't being "gay" or expressing any particular interest in me sexually - he was just being jokey and friendly (and complimentary in his mind probably), though I interpreted it as a bit racist at the time, not to mention highly insulting to my mother (and he later called me a "yellow n*****" again in a not so friendly way and things got a bit violent). In today's climate, he (or anyone else) would never utter such words or even give a hint that he saw me naked, lest he be seen as propositioning me.
Since then, I've noted that men increasingly preface or follow up compliments to other men with something like "no homo," as in, "Hey, I think you are a pretty cool dude, no homo here, man." I find that pretty sad. Apparently you can't even say to another man, "I think you are a good guy and I'd like to be friends with you" without having to worry about being seen as a homosexual.
By the way, even back then, all those decades ago, I knew black people were "special" in this country and that all kinds of mayhem would befall me had I said to him something like, "Hey, you have a small dick for a n*****" in response (not that I would ever say such crude things). But I knew he could get away with uttering something like that, but I would be crucified.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone
Many people enjoy bullying. Even more so if they feel righteous while doing so. People are tribal and conformist. Anti-white politics and pro-gay stuff is being pushed by people who control the media and the organs of power. Since the majority will do what their betters tell them, the anti-white stuff will continue so long as whites offer no effective resistance. Feeling bad about bullying hasn’t much to do with anything.
OT: the young men in that picture are “built” in a way that virtually none of their modern counterparts are. I wonder if the change was genetic. Without selection pressures, how fast does the genome deteriorate?
Genetic change? It's called fast food and sedentary activities.
Why is it “dysgenic”?
Also, celibacy doesn’t turn you gay (or pedo). The big problem is that many gays infiltrate there, because it’s a good cover, and nowadays because they are actively trying to destruct the church. Perhaps it could be controlled with more strict requirements and other measures.
But the same can be said of other institutions. Schools, Boy Scouts, etc. Lots of gay predators there. Even more than in the church, because of the higher access to teens / children. So, I don’t see that priest celibacy is the issue here. Except that it gives cover to gays, and so many gays enter it, etc.
I’ve read that there are also a lot of homosexual predators of teens and children in synagogues and yeshiva schools, but there’s no celibacy requirement there.
i had the same experience with homos as other posters. in the 70s and 80s in most towns the adult homos were known to be homos, but kept to themselves, and people didn’t harass them. at least that’s how it was in the suburbs. maybe it was worse in the city centers, but that’s where the annoying, overbearing homos seemed to congregate too.
when i was a paper boy, there was a house where 2 guys lived, they had a bunch of foo foo little dogs, and they wore fabulous outfits, and nobody bothered them. at my community pool, there were 2 divorced women with kids, who now lived together as a couple. again, everybody knew, nobody harassed them. these people never bothered anybody and were never activists for homo issues. i don’t remember a single person back in those days using the homo card or even identifying as a homo as if it were some kind of political category.
i also grew up during the era where high schools had those big 20 person showers, and we showered in there after sports practice with 20 other guys. it was never considered gay for 1 second. but the gym classes had already stopped showering in there by the late 80s, and only the athletes used them. lol, i saw lots of dongs, but nobody got freaked out like they would today. today they get freaked out if you make them play shirts and skins in gym…or even make them take gym class at all. forget about using the paddle to discipline students. i was probably the last generation to actually even see a paddle in the principal’s office. now you can’t even tell them what to do, let alone touch them.
looking back now over the decades, it is striking how obvious all these changes are, demonstrating the transition from a pioneering, constructive, take on all challenges WASP society that built a nation out of wilderness, into a passive aggressive, litigious, neurotic jewish society that hated physicality and blue collar work but loved lawsuits and gay stuff.
it is a nation state scale example of how things often work in the business world, where some european men do decades of blood, sweat, and tears work to create a big, awesome empire out of nothing, then jewish lawyers and finance guys come in and take it over and turn it into shit, a money making operation that gets perverted from it’s original mission.
you’d be wise to keep them out of your country, and i reckon most of the other nations around the world will.
History is proven right again:
Gays recruit. By force.Replies: @Rosie, @John Johnson
This is why we need schoolmarms.
It’s interesting that, after calling me a moron, you turn right around and admit, despite yourself, that they’re “boys.” (Average age of first ejaculation is 12.)
https://images.app.goo.gl/J96W6mc2MR9FQdrY7
There is something about this. Not too long ago, Eminem starred in a movie sympathetic to lower class whites, about a white guy fighting his way into the black-dominated field of underground rap and doing well. That was in the early 2000s and it was well received.
Americans often like the underdog for beating the odds.
Peace.
You have called others (including me) worse names than a “moron” here. Don’t be a hypocrite.
Moreover, I make personal attacks only when that is in fact exactly the appropriate thing to do. There comes a point in many arguments where there is nothing more to say to a person than that you think they have bad character and bad values because of X, Y, and Z reasons. Unlike so many others, especially around here, I am honest enough to admit that my values are just that: my values. A dispute as to values cannot be resolved by rational disputation. All you can do is hold a mirror up to a person's face and force them to take a hard look and consider whether they like what they see.
I have been complaining about the widespread inability to distinguish facts from values for some time here. A very interesting article about it appeared on counter-currents.com the other day.
https://counter-currents.com/2021/03/a-note-on-the-engineers-fallacy/Replies: @anon, @Twinkie
In Marine Corps boot camp we showered communally. 50 boots naked together. Head calls consisted of 6-8 recruits all trying to piss into the same toilet in under 30 seconds. PT showers (no soap, just a rinse) usually involved rinsing and pissing into the drain at the same time.
You call it gross if you want, but we called it time management.
Ah, Twinkles. The difference, of course, is that I do not stoop to totally unprovoked attacks like this childish troll.
Moreover, I make personal attacks only when that is in fact exactly the appropriate thing to do. There comes a point in many arguments where there is nothing more to say to a person than that you think they have bad character and bad values because of X, Y, and Z reasons. Unlike so many others, especially around here, I am honest enough to admit that my values are just that: my values. A dispute as to values cannot be resolved by rational disputation. All you can do is hold a mirror up to a person’s face and force them to take a hard look and consider whether they like what they see.
I have been complaining about the widespread inability to distinguish facts from values for some time here. A very interesting article about it appeared on counter-currents.com the other day.
https://counter-currents.com/2021/03/a-note-on-the-engineers-fallacy/
And this does not have to be racial in nature. Even among the people of same ethnicity, one can easily see overall, (mean or median or modal, whatever statistical yardstick you choose) consequences of, say, high promiscuity vs. low promiscuity or high out-of-wedlock birth rates vs. low out-of-wedlock birth rates.
Human values do not exist in a vacuum or merely as abstractions. They are expressed by human beings in their interactions with the environment (including the very social structures they build) and they create consequences, which can be observed and compared to value expressions of other human beings who behave differently according to a different set of values they hold. Perhaps this is not something that can be done in a snapshot, but it is done rather easily over time.It's not particularly interesting or original. The faith in the perfectibility of man among leftists is well-known and well-documented, and where the latter came into power and enforced it, the damning consequences were clearly observable to much of humanity.
Surely, you know the saying that "the quest for perfection never ends." This is a simple phrase that expresses two seemingly contradictory, yet harmonious ideas - that 1) we should strive to self-improve and be better tomorrow than we were today, however incrementally and minutely, and yet 2) we ought to have the humility to know that we can never reach perfection. That we can never reach that perfection does not mean that we should just give up and give into our base instincts - that would make us no better than animals without God-given souls and free will.Replies: @Rosie
Moreover, I make personal attacks only when that is in fact exactly the appropriate thing to do. There comes a point in many arguments where there is nothing more to say to a person than that you think they have bad character and bad values because of X, Y, and Z reasons. Unlike so many others, especially around here, I am honest enough to admit that my values are just that: my values. A dispute as to values cannot be resolved by rational disputation. All you can do is hold a mirror up to a person's face and force them to take a hard look and consider whether they like what they see.
I have been complaining about the widespread inability to distinguish facts from values for some time here. A very interesting article about it appeared on counter-currents.com the other day.
https://counter-currents.com/2021/03/a-note-on-the-engineers-fallacy/Replies: @anon, @Twinkie
I make personal attacks only when that is in fact exactly the appropriate thing to do.
“It’s different when I do it”, lol, same as every other hypocrite.
I have been complaining about the widespread inability to distinguish facts from values for some time here.
Do you ever look at your own words in the larger context of…your own words?
*Up until the 80's, before negro culture was able to glamorize it, the word "pimp" held a very negative connotation. Currently pedophilia infers the most negative connotation (other than white) and is likely why it is applied with broad strokes to sexual offenders.Replies: @Rosie
That’s just it. I don’t understand what practical harm you think results from calling them pedophiles. To the contrary, it seems to me that splitting hairs about it tends to excuse and justify sexual abuse of boys.
Especially nowadays, young people are experiencing onset of puberty at younger ages, but they are not less immature than previous generations.
You don't understand the practical harm of calling some one who sleeps with a 17 year old a pedophile? Meaning you see no difference in sleeping with a 17 year old as opposed to a 9 year old?
Even for you Rosie, that's insane.
Expanding the definition of terms like rape, harassment, and pedophilia actually minimizes and marginalizes the real victims of those acts, while simultaneously making villains out of people who are no such thing.
People who refer to adhering to proper definitions as "splitting hairs" are the kind of lazy thinking people who require broad strokes in order to make any argument.: Murder, death, heart attack, self-defense... it's all same! Guilty Mr Fields! See you in 400 years!Replies: @dfordoom
Those guys looks so harmless compared to today’s young men.
When I was in the military, we still had a “no gays” policy. A few years after I left, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” came along. Now it seems to be OK to be gay in the military. The next logical step is to make it mandatory. It is only a matter of time.Replies: @dfordoom
And trans trumps both black and gay. The power that the trans lobby has amassed in a few short years is extraordinary. They are the most revered group in the country. Their cultural power is staggering.
Most people don’t like punching down
Is that really true? My impression is that most people love punching down if they get the chance to do it.
The whole of politics for the past few centuries has been the ruling classes maintaining their power by exploiting people’s love of punching down.
I think most people will take a pound of flesh if they can get it.
This is because most people are insecure. Part nature but mostly society.
They want to feel above other people and will take what they can get. It's similar to a large dog that will snap at a small dog just to assert itself.
Probably around 60% of the public I would say.
When Monarchies were common, royal families placed their extra sons into senior Church positions. It kept the Church in line with the needs of the Kingdom. For this to work, Priests were not permitted to have legitimate children that would inherit their father's position.
Preventing priests from "officially marrying" was a political restriction. Many priests had families that everyone knew about. However, their "illegitimate" sons were discouraged from becoming clergy. Those sons were typically literate and often wound up in the secular bureaucracy, further sealing alignment between Church & State.
Somehow this political reality was lost, mistakenly resulting in a dogmatic requirement for celibacy that defies human nature.
PEACE 😇Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom
Yep. During most of the Middle Ages priestly celibacy was simply not enforced in practice. At most it was an ideal to aspire to but nobody expected that most priest would be able to achieve that ideal. And you’re correct that it was largely a sensible political restriction. If a priest was cohabiting with his female housekeeper and producing offspring nobody cared very much. If he was a good priest in every other way nobody cared at all.
The problems started to arise when the Church decided it needed to reform itself and start enforcing the rules. That was a disastrous decision.
The caliber of posters and postings has declined. You don’t just throw out a memory of “a study” and call it a day. I simply right clicked your claim that “more than half” of acknowledged gays claimed to have been abused and searched google. I came up with this (Aslanbek, you ought to pay attention, too):
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11501300
I am quite surprised at their figure of 46% of gay men. Note well: this does not imply causation in any way. The more parsimonious explanation is that predators have gaydar.
“If whites can find social redemption only by appealing to the homosexual precedent, I’d rather stay unredeemed.”
How about by showing the courage gays did in order to dismantle the closet and obtain civil equality? KMac himself said that Whites must, like gay activists of yore, shed the fear of being identified (as racialists) and to then openly advocate on our behalf.
Don’t make a virtue of your cowardice or your need to “play opposite” anything gays have done.
Ovelund, I don’t respect or appreciate your use of the term “faggotry”. You were warned every time you leave a reply that “Racial slurs, dehumanizing language…will not be approved.”
Ron: please enforce this policy evenhandedly.
OT: the young men in that picture are “built” in a way that virtually none of their modern counterparts are. I wonder if the change was genetic. Without selection pressures, how fast does the genome deteriorate?
Genetic change? It’s called fast food and sedentary activities.
Is that really true? My impression is that most people love punching down if they get the chance to do it.
The whole of politics for the past few centuries has been the ruling classes maintaining their power by exploiting people's love of punching down.Replies: @John Johnson, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone
Is that really true? My impression is that most people love punching down if they get the chance to do it.
I think most people will take a pound of flesh if they can get it.
This is because most people are insecure. Part nature but mostly society.
They want to feel above other people and will take what they can get. It’s similar to a large dog that will snap at a small dog just to assert itself.
Probably around 60% of the public I would say.
The big change, which often gets overlooked, is that LGBTwhatever is no longer about sex. It’s now entirely about identity.
Gay Liberation back in the 70s was all about sex. It was all about homosexuals wanting the freedom to live their flamboyant sexual lives.
It’s not about sex at all these days. It’s purely about identity. Most people who identify as LGBTwhatever are in fact heterosexuals, or they’re people who don’t want to have sex with anybody.
What they do want is an identity. Traditional forms of identity (ethnic, religious, cultural, class) have either become unsatisfying or are seen as wicked. But people desperately want an identity because they desperately want to belong. Being LGBTwhatever satisfies that need, and the great thing is if you’re a woman and you become LGBTwhatever you can still go on having sex exclusively with men.
It’s also an answer to the White Privilege problem. You can’t escape the Original Sin of White Privilege by changing your colour but if you become a gender-nonconforming polysexual all the sins of your White Privilege are washed away.
That’s why it’s incorrect to assume that other forms of sexual deviance will be normalised. It’s not about the sex any more, and other forms of sexual deviance that are centred on actual sex will still be disapproved of.
It’s something that could only come out of America, where actual sex is still something that is dirty and wrong. But gender identity is OK – it’s not dirty or wrong. LGBTwhatever is another mutant form of Puritanism – it’s about denying actual sex. That’s why homosexual marriage was pushed so hard – it’s a sign of the underlying Puritanism. Being homosexual is OK as long as you get married.
Moreover, I make personal attacks only when that is in fact exactly the appropriate thing to do. There comes a point in many arguments where there is nothing more to say to a person than that you think they have bad character and bad values because of X, Y, and Z reasons. Unlike so many others, especially around here, I am honest enough to admit that my values are just that: my values. A dispute as to values cannot be resolved by rational disputation. All you can do is hold a mirror up to a person's face and force them to take a hard look and consider whether they like what they see.
I have been complaining about the widespread inability to distinguish facts from values for some time here. A very interesting article about it appeared on counter-currents.com the other day.
https://counter-currents.com/2021/03/a-note-on-the-engineers-fallacy/Replies: @anon, @Twinkie
That’s just a circular rationalization. “I do it, because it’s appropriate – it’s appropriate when I do it.” It’s neither logical nor wise. It’s merely self-centered and leads to unawareness.
On another comment, you suggested that I ought to advocate for using state power to compel people to behave the way I want. This seems to be in conflict with your “honesty.”
Surely you can. The values that black people in this country seem to harbor – high promiscuity, high out-of-wedlock birth rates, low priority toward educational excellence, etc. – have consequences that can be measured against those of others who operate on values that appear to be in contrast, say, those of East Asians, who have low promiscuity, low out-of-wedlock birth rates, high priority toward education, etc.
And this does not have to be racial in nature. Even among the people of same ethnicity, one can easily see overall, (mean or median or modal, whatever statistical yardstick you choose) consequences of, say, high promiscuity vs. low promiscuity or high out-of-wedlock birth rates vs. low out-of-wedlock birth rates.
Human values do not exist in a vacuum or merely as abstractions. They are expressed by human beings in their interactions with the environment (including the very social structures they build) and they create consequences, which can be observed and compared to value expressions of other human beings who behave differently according to a different set of values they hold. Perhaps this is not something that can be done in a snapshot, but it is done rather easily over time.
It’s not particularly interesting or original. The faith in the perfectibility of man among leftists is well-known and well-documented, and where the latter came into power and enforced it, the damning consequences were clearly observable to much of humanity.
Surely, you know the saying that “the quest for perfection never ends.” This is a simple phrase that expresses two seemingly contradictory, yet harmonious ideas – that 1) we should strive to self-improve and be better tomorrow than we were today, however incrementally and minutely, and yet 2) we ought to have the humility to know that we can never reach perfection. That we can never reach that perfection does not mean that we should just give up and give into our base instincts – that would make us no better than animals without God-given souls and free will.
Individuals make value judgments that form the basis of theor personal decisions. Likewise, societies make policy based on value judgments. There is nothing illegitimate about this. It is inevitable as a matter of fact.No, Twinkles, you cannot. Values are inherently subjective as they depend on judgments about the good and the beautiful.
Take your own example concerning the consequences of premarital sex. Even if I agreed with everything you say concerning its consequences, which I don't, the proper course of action to take in response is another question entirely.
Your solution is to stigmatize women, while pretending to believe that your proposed stigma will apply to men as well as women. I don't like this solution, because it imposes consequences on women without due process, a clear punishment to pay off the debt, and equal protection of the laws. The sacrifice of the individual is too great. Can I prove this? No. Judgments about the god and the beautiful cannot be "proven."
My preferred solution is legal. If women are "goods" that can be damaged, then what are the damages? In the Bible, it was $50 shekels. What does that come to in American dollars? Anybody know? You have a problem with this because all of a sudden you discover your inner libertarian when we're talking about sex. Obvious hypocrisy aside, I cannot "prove" to you that your view that freedom from government coercion is more important than deterring and punishing pump and dumps, which you believe to be so harmful. All I can do is tell you that your priorities are out of order, based on your own factual premises, not mine.Faith in the perfectibility of "man" is at least as common on the Right as on the Left. Better yet, on the Right, men are not perfectible, but rather perfect. They will tell you that,men should have all the power in a relationship and then deny that this power will be abused. Any regulations directed at controlling men are illegitimate, because men's "is" equals their "ought." When it comes to women, they change their tune. Men who surely beat off to porn several times a week at least will tell you to stop eating chocolate, etc.Replies: @Twinkie
Is that really true? My impression is that most people love punching down if they get the chance to do it.
The whole of politics for the past few centuries has been the ruling classes maintaining their power by exploiting people's love of punching down.Replies: @John Johnson, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone
Most people do like to punch down. But most people don’t like to see others punch down. Both are part and parcel of human nature. We human beings have both the competitive desire to dominate others, but also the egalitarian instinct of seeking fairness (animals only seek to dominate or submit as necessary to maximize their wants, be they sustenance or procreation, but they do not care if they get more or less food in comparison to others in their group unlike humans who derive much satisfaction or discontent through comparisons).
In any case, that mutual suspicion is what keeps each other from punching down.
What the American elites of today do is exactly what elites have done from time immemorial – punching down. It’s just that they do so all the while pretending to punch up. It’s quite simple – they act as bullies (and get more than others), but wish to be seen as plucky underdogs (and be popular) as well.
The American society had been blessed for a good while that there were mechanisms to limit the excesses of punching down by the elites, but such mechanisms have been rendered impotent or coopted by the elites in the name of of punching up, in order that they can punch down unmolested (indeed egged on) by public opinion.
History is proven right again:
Gays recruit. By force.Replies: @Rosie, @John Johnson
Yes, you moron, it’s perfectly appropriate to say they weren’t pedos because they weren’t. They were typical gays in power, abusing their power and preying on sexually mature weak teen boys for their degenerative lists.
If homosexuality in men had nothing to do with abuse then the left would openly study the subject.
It’s similar to race in that they made it a taboo idea because they are afraid of the truth.
They also will never study if lipstick lesbians were raped at a young age.
That would further lead towards the theory of butch lesbians as having limited options.
They stick to the “born that way” 100% for political reasons.
I used to believe that until someone told me that gay left wingers in the 60s described lesbianism as a choice that women should make against the patriarchy. Looked it up and it turned out to be true. As with race the left just hopes no one actually fact checks any of this. The internet is really the only balance against their endless lies.
It was more than one post. Go to his site and try a search.
It’s not just the American culture, all healthy traditional cultures had social mores and conditioning, in which young men bonded as competitors and peers and shared non-sexual intimacy and pleasures of friendship.
That’s been totally obliterated by militant homosexuality world over. Now men are terrified of sharing such bonds with one another, because they (despite their public protestations that homosexuality is just dandy) are afraid of being interpreted as “gay.” We don’t even joke anymore.
I still remember (rather comically in retrospect though I was annoyed at the time), as a late teenager, a particularly crude black peer of mine yelling at me in the locker room (after taking a shower), “You have a big dick for a yellow n***** – did your momma sleep with a brother?” (he was at least half a foot or so shorter than I was as I was already over 6 foot-tall at the time). He wasn’t being “gay” or expressing any particular interest in me sexually – he was just being jokey and friendly (and complimentary in his mind probably), though I interpreted it as a bit racist at the time, not to mention highly insulting to my mother (and he later called me a “yellow n*****” again in a not so friendly way and things got a bit violent). In today’s climate, he (or anyone else) would never utter such words or even give a hint that he saw me naked, lest he be seen as propositioning me.
Since then, I’ve noted that men increasingly preface or follow up compliments to other men with something like “no homo,” as in, “Hey, I think you are a pretty cool dude, no homo here, man.” I find that pretty sad. Apparently you can’t even say to another man, “I think you are a good guy and I’d like to be friends with you” without having to worry about being seen as a homosexual.
By the way, even back then, all those decades ago, I knew black people were “special” in this country and that all kinds of mayhem would befall me had I said to him something like, “Hey, you have a small dick for a n*****” in response (not that I would ever say such crude things). But I knew he could get away with uttering something like that, but I would be crucified.
Ordinary people love punching down, as long as they’re not the ones on the receiving end. If it’s someone else on the receiving end, they like it just fine.
Everybody likes having someone to punch down on.
I don't. I'm not saying this to extol myself, but I genuinely hate it. Why this is so, I have no idea.Replies: @Rosie, @Talha
Ron: please enforce this policy evenhandedly.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone
Eugene is right. The rules here are reasonable and I like and support them. My use of the term broke the rule.
That's been totally obliterated by militant homosexuality world over. Now men are terrified of sharing such bonds with one another, because they (despite their public protestations that homosexuality is just dandy) are afraid of being interpreted as "gay." We don't even joke anymore.
I still remember (rather comically in retrospect though I was annoyed at the time), as a late teenager, a particularly crude black peer of mine yelling at me in the locker room (after taking a shower), "You have a big dick for a yellow n***** - did your momma sleep with a brother?" (he was at least half a foot or so shorter than I was as I was already over 6 foot-tall at the time). He wasn't being "gay" or expressing any particular interest in me sexually - he was just being jokey and friendly (and complimentary in his mind probably), though I interpreted it as a bit racist at the time, not to mention highly insulting to my mother (and he later called me a "yellow n*****" again in a not so friendly way and things got a bit violent). In today's climate, he (or anyone else) would never utter such words or even give a hint that he saw me naked, lest he be seen as propositioning me.
Since then, I've noted that men increasingly preface or follow up compliments to other men with something like "no homo," as in, "Hey, I think you are a pretty cool dude, no homo here, man." I find that pretty sad. Apparently you can't even say to another man, "I think you are a good guy and I'd like to be friends with you" without having to worry about being seen as a homosexual.
By the way, even back then, all those decades ago, I knew black people were "special" in this country and that all kinds of mayhem would befall me had I said to him something like, "Hey, you have a small dick for a n*****" in response (not that I would ever say such crude things). But I knew he could get away with uttering something like that, but I would be crucified.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone
I once tried to explain to a man 25 years my junior how the jocks used to spank one another on the rear ends at game time and how, occasionally, at other times, they used to mock homosexual attraction to one another as a humorous game of chicken. Utterly lacking the cultural context, junior had no idea what I was talking about and thought it disgusting, so I dropped the matter. The game of chicken was too trivial to argue over.
I think it unhelpful for men like me in their 50s to lecture men in their 20s about how great it used to be—for if it was indeed great (a debatable proposition), then it was our job to keep it that way, and we failed. However, it is regrettable that the younger generation has so little experience of normal, heterosexual masculine intimacy.
Your story about the crude black peer is well taken. I get it, but having sons of my own, I also understand why the younger generation no longer gets it. Indeed, why should the younger generation get it? It’s not part of their reality.
And that is our fault.
I now await the schoolmarm’s lashings.
Everybody likes having someone to punch down on.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @nebulafox
American fathers tell their sons, “Pick on someone your own size.” It’s vernacular, but I suppose that it’s clear enough to require no further explanation to an international audience.
Not everybody.
This is one of the more touchy subjects I’ve had to talk to my sons about; not that they resist the idea it is immoral, that’s fairly straightforward. The tough part is making sure they know what exactly their limits are in how they can publicly broach the subject in places like school.
Peace.Replies: @Fr. John
Sodomites HAVE NO ‘moral right.’
Ramming a penis up someone’s anal orifice, and calling such masturbatory activity ‘love,’ is the act of a MENTAL DEFECTIVE… or a Diabolical Narcissist. Wait… same difference.
Don’t you DARE defend the ‘deserving of death’ Lobby. [ Rom. 1]
“The greatest Russian religious writer, St. Maxim the Greek, wrote that Christians are obliged not only to disdain this “godless filth” but also to “anathematize” those who do it and to “burn them with fire”.
These decrees do not contradict the Christian commandments of love and forgiveness. If we were to believe that homosexuals do not need to be punished, then it would also be necessary to advocate the abolition of punishments for other sins, such as murder, theft, etc.
From the point of view of secular humanism, there is an essential difference between sodomy and murder: The murderer sins against another person, while sodomy does not formally go against someone’s will, since he is engaged in sodomy by mutual consent. However, from a Christian point of view, his sin is even worse, since it defiles the image of God by which he was created.”
https://russian-faith.com/orthodox-missionary-alexy-makarov-opposition-sodom-force-n2251b
Because they are all just a bunch of fags, your sons and my sons excepted. 😉
I now await the schoolmarm’s lashings.
This. Just watch old films, especially pre-Code. The sluttery was rampant. The Pill, antibiotics, easy divorce and legal abortion just accelerated the “liberation” of women.
I wouldn’t classify a trans woman who is only attracted to cis women as a “homosexual,” because that would necessarily imply that he is a real woman.
I doubt that Caitlyn Jenner is attracted to men, but I do think he really thinks he’s a woman.
Especially nowadays, young people are experiencing onset of puberty at younger ages, but they are not less immature than previous generations.Replies: @AndrewR, @Mike Tre
Saying that predatory priests are pedos lets gays off the hook. Few people are attracted to prepubescents, but almost all gay men are attracted to teenage boys. Not all of them will act on it, but enough will that it’s a bad idea to let them have unsupervised contact with teenage boys.
"Pedophile priests" was a term of art by ... um ... "media" to be able to inflict the hit on the Catholic Church--a very deserved hit--that they desired, without hitting their sainted minority group. This was 90% homosexuals preying on pubescent and (mostly) adolescent boys. Standard issue homosexual behavior.Replies: @Twinkie
> This is why we need schoolmarms.
https://images.app.goo.gl/J96W6mc2MR9FQdrY7
I can’t tell if I’m being too cynical in believing in the power of human self-delusion, or not cynical enough.
>While I wouldn’t quite go that far, I do agree that having children changes how one sees the future and its prospects. Even when one is enveloped by a sense of doom, one has to “buck up” and try to make thing as good as they can be – for the sake of those one loves more than oneself and those who will be here (hopefully) long after one is gone to the netherworld.
I don’t doubt that.
What happens when increasing amounts of people don’t have families or friends, and little prospect of gaining them? Politics as ansatz for life…
*One thing to keep in mind is that you have to fight the tendency to reject those people and groups who don't share 100% of your views or concerns. If you "purity-spiral" in your social interactions, you aren't going to have a church or friends or even - gasp! - a spouse. Community-building is not the construction of a Borg-hive of the completely-alike. You concentrate on the big things and enjoy the diversity the little differences among the people with whom you associate bring.
One trend among the young people I see these days - especially among those who are prone to using social media with its valorization of the "curated" (seemingly perfect) life - is that they develop a very high judging trait and reject the imperfections of those they meet in real life as deeply unsatisfactory. This tendency, in my view, is deeply destructive healthy community-building and contributes to much (mutual) alienation among people.
Everybody likes having someone to punch down on.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @nebulafox
>Everybody likes having someone to punch down on.
I don’t. I’m not saying this to extol myself, but I genuinely hate it. Why this is so, I have no idea.
They are very different sorts of egalitarians, though. One is a bossy egalitarian like me (my eldest). Without his gracious leadership, our family wouldn't have nearly as much fun or other good things in life. He's the one that helps me get everybody geared up and ready to go sledding, just for one example. He will not stand for bullying. Like Horton who hears a who, he insists that a person is a person, no matter how small.
The other is a quiet egalitarian. He struggles with self-assertion, delegation, and discipline, but he is brilliant, he has a heart of solid rhodium, and he is much better than I deserve.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
It’s part of the foundations of chivalry in multiple cultures; using one’s strength to uphold justice for the weak.
But the fitrah can be corrupted from its foundations and lose its compass.
Peace.Replies: @Twinkie
Let’s be honest……….the sheer unattractiveness of American women. Simply obnoxious with their weight, attitude, and ability to destroy you in court – criminal or civil.
Although most won’t become gay to escape them, they probably think, “those guys may have something.” I think that motivates the change of heart by most folks.
And this does not have to be racial in nature. Even among the people of same ethnicity, one can easily see overall, (mean or median or modal, whatever statistical yardstick you choose) consequences of, say, high promiscuity vs. low promiscuity or high out-of-wedlock birth rates vs. low out-of-wedlock birth rates.
Human values do not exist in a vacuum or merely as abstractions. They are expressed by human beings in their interactions with the environment (including the very social structures they build) and they create consequences, which can be observed and compared to value expressions of other human beings who behave differently according to a different set of values they hold. Perhaps this is not something that can be done in a snapshot, but it is done rather easily over time.It's not particularly interesting or original. The faith in the perfectibility of man among leftists is well-known and well-documented, and where the latter came into power and enforced it, the damning consequences were clearly observable to much of humanity.
Surely, you know the saying that "the quest for perfection never ends." This is a simple phrase that expresses two seemingly contradictory, yet harmonious ideas - that 1) we should strive to self-improve and be better tomorrow than we were today, however incrementally and minutely, and yet 2) we ought to have the humility to know that we can never reach perfection. That we can never reach that perfection does not mean that we should just give up and give into our base instincts - that would make us no better than animals without God-given souls and free will.Replies: @Rosie
There is nothing circular about it. I explained to you exactly when and why it is appropriate to acknowledge that a dispute is axiological and to clarify the precise nature of the value judgment your opponent is making. Indeed, this is not even a personal “attack.” It is actually a statement of objective fact concerning someone else’s value judgments. If your opponent takes it as an attack, then he thereby indicts his own value judgments.
You didn’t say that premarital abstinence is merely your personal preference concerning other people’s behavior. You claimed that premarital sex is harmful. In that sense, it is directly analogous to drugs. I do not recall you ever objecting to drug Prohibition. But then I know, from prior dealings with you, not to expect principled consistency.
Individuals make value judgments that form the basis of theor personal decisions. Likewise, societies make policy based on value judgments. There is nothing illegitimate about this. It is inevitable as a matter of fact.
No, Twinkles, you cannot. Values are inherently subjective as they depend on judgments about the good and the beautiful.
Take your own example concerning the consequences of premarital sex. Even if I agreed with everything you say concerning its consequences, which I don’t, the proper course of action to take in response is another question entirely.
Your solution is to stigmatize women, while pretending to believe that your proposed stigma will apply to men as well as women. I don’t like this solution, because it imposes consequences on women without due process, a clear punishment to pay off the debt, and equal protection of the laws. The sacrifice of the individual is too great. Can I prove this? No. Judgments about the god and the beautiful cannot be “proven.”
My preferred solution is legal. If women are “goods” that can be damaged, then what are the damages? In the Bible, it was $50 shekels. What does that come to in American dollars? Anybody know? You have a problem with this because all of a sudden you discover your inner libertarian when we’re talking about sex. Obvious hypocrisy aside, I cannot “prove” to you that your view that freedom from government coercion is more important than deterring and punishing pump and dumps, which you believe to be so harmful. All I can do is tell you that your priorities are out of order, based on your own factual premises, not mine.
Faith in the perfectibility of “man” is at least as common on the Right as on the Left. Better yet, on the Right, men are not perfectible, but rather perfect. They will tell you that,men should have all the power in a relationship and then deny that this power will be abused. Any regulations directed at controlling men are illegitimate, because men’s “is” equals their “ought.” When it comes to women, they change their tune. Men who surely beat off to porn several times a week at least will tell you to stop eating chocolate, etc.
For some reason, people think that the mere fact of being engaged in an argument with another person should and does shield them from criticism for being a bad person with disordered values. This is, I believe, one of those situations where a little knowledge (about logic) is much worse than none.
The ad hominem fallacy is, strictly speaking, an argument to the effect that a person’s views ought to be disregarded because of some personal characteristic concerning that person. Criticizing someone else’s value judgments is something else entirely.
Suppose I say we should institute the death penalty for littering.
This is an ad hominem response:
>You’re just saying that because you’re a hateful, litterphobic control freak.
This is not an ad hominem response:
>You have profoundly disordered priorities and a serious lack of regard for the value of human life.
Indeed, not only is the second response not a fallacious ad hominem, it is rather the only appropriate response. I suppose one might attempt to sound more objective, by saying something like this:
>That would be a wildly disproportionate response to the crime.
Of course, obviously your interlocutor disagrees. Otherwise they wouldn’t have proposed it. And there is really no way to “prove” that such a punishment would be disproportionate, because it relies on an inherently subjective evaluation of the harm of littering. I might justify my proposal by reference to dystopian images like this:
Is it really so objectively clear that one or two public hangings to prevent scenes like this would be so self-evidently disproportionate?
I don’t expect you to understand or care enough about truth, beauty, or reason to seriously consider this response, but it is worth considering for more thoughtful readers. If anyone thinks they can respond to my proposed institution of the death penalty for littering without making a personal attack, in form or substance, I would very much like to hear it.
When do you plan to educate yourself on the subject? That is, to apply your own rules to yourself?
Your persistent double standard is hypocritical.
I don't. I'm not saying this to extol myself, but I genuinely hate it. Why this is so, I have no idea.Replies: @Rosie, @Talha
Sincere egalitarians exist in this world. I married one and gave birth to another.
They are very different sorts of egalitarians, though. One is a bossy egalitarian like me (my eldest). Without his gracious leadership, our family wouldn’t have nearly as much fun or other good things in life. He’s the one that helps me get everybody geared up and ready to go sledding, just for one example. He will not stand for bullying. Like Horton who hears a who, he insists that a person is a person, no matter how small.
The other is a quiet egalitarian. He struggles with self-assertion, delegation, and discipline, but he is brilliant, he has a heart of solid rhodium, and he is much better than I deserve.
Bravo!
Presented below are six selected links to archived comments of mine from Steve Sailer’s blog that are germane to this thread. The specific topics addressed are at least tangentially related to the primary topic of AE’s post. Many of the sub-topics and specific points and concerns that have been raised in the comments in this thread are directly addressed by myself, my interlocutors, and often in comments by any number of others that are found in the linked threads. Likewise for a number of additional comments of mine therein, all of which can easily be found and displayed by utilizing the THIS COMMENTER button that appears under each comment in a given thread.
LINKS TO ARCHIVED COMMENTS:
1.) Outline for Comprehensive, Compassionate, Multifaceted Response to Same-Sex Attraction (October 2020)
2.) Restraining Effect of Female Critical to Unique Wholesomeness of Heterosexuality (Reply to nebulafox, August 2019)
3.) Awkward Twilight, a reply to Redneck farmer‘s, astute observation that,
(August 2019)
Topics covered:
Conflation of Pedophilia with Pederasty in Reporting on Catholic Church Scandals; Pedohysteria vs. Eroticization of Kids; Special Threat of Gay Doctrinal Assertions to Those in Formative Years; Intergenerational Homoeroticism: Predatory and Sodomitic vs. Its Antithesis: Instructive Hypothetical.
4.) Getting the Raw End of The Deal:
Inherent Asymmetry of Buggery Disadvantages The Boy; vs. Radically Different Hypothetical (Reply to Alec Leamas (hard at work), September 2019 )
5.) Attraction to Boys in The Otherwise Heterosexual Male (November 2019)
A theory, plus some critical distinctions.
6.) Rebuttal to Implausible, Lurid Claims of Rampant Sexual Abuse Among Hasidic Jews (March 2020)
Contains links to comments in which I express similar skepticism concerning similar allegations made about the Roman Catholic Church.
Funny thing is, though, AE, I disagree: the cultural Bolshevik rage these days are transgenders. Homosexuals-particularly non-camp male ones-are yesterday's news.
>Most people don’t like punching down and most people resent the bullies who tell them they should.
Au contraire: I think our elites and intellectual classes love, love, love punching down. The best part about the simpering, passive-aggressive victimhood morality of current America is that they get to cloak it as justice while in practice cementing their own power: and using the most ruthless, socially adept crypto-bullies as enforcers.
That's the problem: our elites genuinely don't believe they are elites, especially in the media.Replies: @Twinkie, @Barack Obama's secret Unz account, @White Elephant, @Luzzatto
I am not a social Conservative regarding same sex marriage but I do cringe when LGBTQ groups like GLAAD make extremely outrageous vast overrepresention demands like demanding that 50% of all characters in television shows and films should be LGBTQ when not even the 2 Gayest cities in The U.S San Francisco and West Hollywood are anywhere near 50% LGBTQ, let alone the rest of the nation!
Individuals make value judgments that form the basis of theor personal decisions. Likewise, societies make policy based on value judgments. There is nothing illegitimate about this. It is inevitable as a matter of fact.No, Twinkles, you cannot. Values are inherently subjective as they depend on judgments about the good and the beautiful.
Take your own example concerning the consequences of premarital sex. Even if I agreed with everything you say concerning its consequences, which I don't, the proper course of action to take in response is another question entirely.
Your solution is to stigmatize women, while pretending to believe that your proposed stigma will apply to men as well as women. I don't like this solution, because it imposes consequences on women without due process, a clear punishment to pay off the debt, and equal protection of the laws. The sacrifice of the individual is too great. Can I prove this? No. Judgments about the god and the beautiful cannot be "proven."
My preferred solution is legal. If women are "goods" that can be damaged, then what are the damages? In the Bible, it was $50 shekels. What does that come to in American dollars? Anybody know? You have a problem with this because all of a sudden you discover your inner libertarian when we're talking about sex. Obvious hypocrisy aside, I cannot "prove" to you that your view that freedom from government coercion is more important than deterring and punishing pump and dumps, which you believe to be so harmful. All I can do is tell you that your priorities are out of order, based on your own factual premises, not mine.Faith in the perfectibility of "man" is at least as common on the Right as on the Left. Better yet, on the Right, men are not perfectible, but rather perfect. They will tell you that,men should have all the power in a relationship and then deny that this power will be abused. Any regulations directed at controlling men are illegitimate, because men's "is" equals their "ought." When it comes to women, they change their tune. Men who surely beat off to porn several times a week at least will tell you to stop eating chocolate, etc.Replies: @Twinkie
I should have known better than to engage with you. I shouldn’t converse with someone who simply ignores arguments of others and ascribes straw men to them, all the while imputing immorality (“lack of principled…”) to the latter.
I dispute this statement by the blessed Maksim. The only sites that quote him thus are a qanon site, 8kun, and the one you link to, which was begun by an overzealous convert. The Eastern Orthodox surely don’t recommend burning anyone. Fr. John, are you a convert?
Boy that is three sentences of solid gold there Andrew.
“Pedophile priests” was a term of art by … um … “media” to be able to inflict the hit on the Catholic Church–a very deserved hit–that they desired, without hitting their sainted minority group. This was 90% homosexuals preying on pubescent and (mostly) adolescent boys. Standard issue homosexual behavior.
I don't. I'm not saying this to extol myself, but I genuinely hate it. Why this is so, I have no idea.Replies: @Rosie, @Talha
There is a natural sense of justice in most people. We would say it is a natural disposition, Divinely-inspired, part of what is called the fitrah. It usually extends even to other animals, we sometimes find humans championing the runt of the litter; the children’s classic “Charlotte’s Web” is built on the premise.
It’s part of the foundations of chivalry in multiple cultures; using one’s strength to uphold justice for the weak.
But the fitrah can be corrupted from its foundations and lose its compass.
Peace.
I believe experiments have been done on this topic. Humans, for example, are like to be aggrieved even if they get more goodies than they had before IF someone else gets far more. Meanwhile, non-human primates don't behave this way. They are content if they get more treats than they had before. It doesn't matter to them if the alpha of the pack gets a lot more goodies. In other words, humans focus on relative distribution of goodies within their social circle while other primates (and other animals in general) care about absolute gain. Simply put, animals don't care about fairness - they care about full bellies regardless of whether another packmate has more full or less full bellies.
That's why - even though I am a strong proponent of free enterprise - I prefer to live in an area that has a low Gini coefficient. Leftists are right that a high degree of material inequality creates dissension and disharmony even if there is a proverbial "rising tide that lifts all boats." Of course, I disagree with the methods of the leftists who invariably seek to destroy that tide and sink all boats (except those of a handful of elites), but they are correct in their assessment of the problem associated with unequal distribution, if not about the solution to it.
Economic conservative often do not get this. Their response to inequality is often, "What does it matter if Jeff Bezos or some Wall Street guy has billions of dollars? You have a bigger TV now, a better car, a faster computer, etc. You have a better standard of living than before!" They don't understand the basic human psychology that a grossly unequal distribution of resources creates a high degree of resentment - and thus conflict - in society.
The trick, therefore, is to create a social in which the truly brilliant and hardworking are amply rewarded and contribute to the growth of the pie all the while maintaining some semblance of egalitarian distribution of resources. And that is a most difficult, nearly impossible trick. But I believe whichever society comes closer to achieving that golden balance will be a far happier one.Replies: @Talha, @V. K. Ovelund
"Pedophile priests" was a term of art by ... um ... "media" to be able to inflict the hit on the Catholic Church--a very deserved hit--that they desired, without hitting their sainted minority group. This was 90% homosexuals preying on pubescent and (mostly) adolescent boys. Standard issue homosexual behavior.Replies: @Twinkie
Well, no sane person is going to defend sexual predators, but going after the Catholic Church for the predators among its midst is much like fixating on white crimes and claiming that whites “deserve” a “hit” for those crimes while ignoring black crimes.
https://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625
In point of fact, Catholic priests abuse at a far lower rate than the general male population per capita. Meanwhile:
Look at the graph under item 4. on this page on sexual predation of children at schools: http://www.themediareport.com/fast-facts/
Where is the media’s “well deserved hit” on teachers?
Perhaps i stated it unclearly, but where it was clearly deserved is that some members of hierarchy protected some of the abusing priests--moving them around to new assignments where they abused again.
That's simply unacceptable. Those are prelates who do not understand that their duty is not to other priests--not to coddle them, not to "be fair", not "second chances", but to God and the Catholic community. Actually blood boiling for me. If i'd gotten my hands on some of these bishops i'd have given them the treatment i'd give to the abusing priests themselves.Replies: @Twinkie, @Dissident
Have you interacted at all with real elites (not elite aspirants) in America? The kind of people who run tech companies, are high tier elected officials, media execs, etc. as well as those who are immediately under this rung? They might be unwise, but they are not dumb people. They know exactly what they are doing – they are not pushing sacralization of black people, because they actually care about blacks (or trans or brown immigrants or whatever).
That’s a very real and important concern. You have to fight that, of course. You have to build an interlocking set of communities around you and your family. Though it’s not easy, you can find the likeminded*, befriend, socialize, marry, and network. And you try to help yourself and others to absorb as many people into these communities as possible.
*One thing to keep in mind is that you have to fight the tendency to reject those people and groups who don’t share 100% of your views or concerns. If you “purity-spiral” in your social interactions, you aren’t going to have a church or friends or even – gasp! – a spouse. Community-building is not the construction of a Borg-hive of the completely-alike. You concentrate on the big things and enjoy the diversity the little differences among the people with whom you associate bring.
One trend among the young people I see these days – especially among those who are prone to using social media with its valorization of the “curated” (seemingly perfect) life – is that they develop a very high judging trait and reject the imperfections of those they meet in real life as deeply unsatisfactory. This tendency, in my view, is deeply destructive healthy community-building and contributes to much (mutual) alienation among people.
It’s part of the foundations of chivalry in multiple cultures; using one’s strength to uphold justice for the weak.
But the fitrah can be corrupted from its foundations and lose its compass.
Peace.Replies: @Twinkie
There is a lot of duality in people. As I wrote above, most human beings have the competitive desire to dominate, or at least rise above, another. But they also have exactly what you wrote – “a natural sense of justice.”
I believe experiments have been done on this topic. Humans, for example, are like to be aggrieved even if they get more goodies than they had before IF someone else gets far more. Meanwhile, non-human primates don’t behave this way. They are content if they get more treats than they had before. It doesn’t matter to them if the alpha of the pack gets a lot more goodies. In other words, humans focus on relative distribution of goodies within their social circle while other primates (and other animals in general) care about absolute gain. Simply put, animals don’t care about fairness – they care about full bellies regardless of whether another packmate has more full or less full bellies.
That’s why – even though I am a strong proponent of free enterprise – I prefer to live in an area that has a low Gini coefficient. Leftists are right that a high degree of material inequality creates dissension and disharmony even if there is a proverbial “rising tide that lifts all boats.” Of course, I disagree with the methods of the leftists who invariably seek to destroy that tide and sink all boats (except those of a handful of elites), but they are correct in their assessment of the problem associated with unequal distribution, if not about the solution to it.
Economic conservative often do not get this. Their response to inequality is often, “What does it matter if Jeff Bezos or some Wall Street guy has billions of dollars? You have a bigger TV now, a better car, a faster computer, etc. You have a better standard of living than before!” They don’t understand the basic human psychology that a grossly unequal distribution of resources creates a high degree of resentment – and thus conflict – in society.
The trick, therefore, is to create a social in which the truly brilliant and hardworking are amply rewarded and contribute to the growth of the pie all the while maintaining some semblance of egalitarian distribution of resources. And that is a most difficult, nearly impossible trick. But I believe whichever society comes closer to achieving that golden balance will be a far happier one.
Peace.
I believe experiments have been done on this topic. Humans, for example, are like to be aggrieved even if they get more goodies than they had before IF someone else gets far more. Meanwhile, non-human primates don't behave this way. They are content if they get more treats than they had before. It doesn't matter to them if the alpha of the pack gets a lot more goodies. In other words, humans focus on relative distribution of goodies within their social circle while other primates (and other animals in general) care about absolute gain. Simply put, animals don't care about fairness - they care about full bellies regardless of whether another packmate has more full or less full bellies.
That's why - even though I am a strong proponent of free enterprise - I prefer to live in an area that has a low Gini coefficient. Leftists are right that a high degree of material inequality creates dissension and disharmony even if there is a proverbial "rising tide that lifts all boats." Of course, I disagree with the methods of the leftists who invariably seek to destroy that tide and sink all boats (except those of a handful of elites), but they are correct in their assessment of the problem associated with unequal distribution, if not about the solution to it.
Economic conservative often do not get this. Their response to inequality is often, "What does it matter if Jeff Bezos or some Wall Street guy has billions of dollars? You have a bigger TV now, a better car, a faster computer, etc. You have a better standard of living than before!" They don't understand the basic human psychology that a grossly unequal distribution of resources creates a high degree of resentment - and thus conflict - in society.
The trick, therefore, is to create a social in which the truly brilliant and hardworking are amply rewarded and contribute to the growth of the pie all the while maintaining some semblance of egalitarian distribution of resources. And that is a most difficult, nearly impossible trick. But I believe whichever society comes closer to achieving that golden balance will be a far happier one.Replies: @Talha, @V. K. Ovelund
I agree here and what I think is interesting is how this links in with your comment right before; this natural sense of justice and equality has been (brilliantly, I may add) misdirected by the elite who have people concentrating on whether it is justice if some guy who wants to dress in a skirt can share a bathroom with your daughter rather than allow them to keep their eye on the growing financial inequality gap that is happening right in front of their eyes.
Peace.
I believe experiments have been done on this topic. Humans, for example, are like to be aggrieved even if they get more goodies than they had before IF someone else gets far more. Meanwhile, non-human primates don't behave this way. They are content if they get more treats than they had before. It doesn't matter to them if the alpha of the pack gets a lot more goodies. In other words, humans focus on relative distribution of goodies within their social circle while other primates (and other animals in general) care about absolute gain. Simply put, animals don't care about fairness - they care about full bellies regardless of whether another packmate has more full or less full bellies.
That's why - even though I am a strong proponent of free enterprise - I prefer to live in an area that has a low Gini coefficient. Leftists are right that a high degree of material inequality creates dissension and disharmony even if there is a proverbial "rising tide that lifts all boats." Of course, I disagree with the methods of the leftists who invariably seek to destroy that tide and sink all boats (except those of a handful of elites), but they are correct in their assessment of the problem associated with unequal distribution, if not about the solution to it.
Economic conservative often do not get this. Their response to inequality is often, "What does it matter if Jeff Bezos or some Wall Street guy has billions of dollars? You have a bigger TV now, a better car, a faster computer, etc. You have a better standard of living than before!" They don't understand the basic human psychology that a grossly unequal distribution of resources creates a high degree of resentment - and thus conflict - in society.
The trick, therefore, is to create a social in which the truly brilliant and hardworking are amply rewarded and contribute to the growth of the pie all the while maintaining some semblance of egalitarian distribution of resources. And that is a most difficult, nearly impossible trick. But I believe whichever society comes closer to achieving that golden balance will be a far happier one.Replies: @Talha, @V. K. Ovelund
The Donald who?
Twinkie 2024.
For some reason, people think that the mere fact of being engaged in an argument with another person should and does shield them from criticism for being a bad person with disordered values. This is, I believe, one of those situations where a little knowledge (about logic) is much worse than none.
When do you plan to educate yourself on the subject? That is, to apply your own rules to yourself?
Your persistent double standard is hypocritical.
No argument. And obviously the media played this up for reasons too obvious to state.
Perhaps i stated it unclearly, but where it was clearly deserved is that some members of hierarchy protected some of the abusing priests–moving them around to new assignments where they abused again.
That’s simply unacceptable. Those are prelates who do not understand that their duty is not to other priests–not to coddle them, not to “be fair”, not “second chances”, but to God and the Catholic community. Actually blood boiling for me. If i’d gotten my hands on some of these bishops i’d have given them the treatment i’d give to the abusing priests themselves.
Topics covered:
Conflation of Pedophilia with Pederasty in Reporting on Catholic Church Scandals; Pedohysteria vs. Eroticization of Kids; Special Threat of Gay Doctrinal Assertions to Those in Formative Years; Intergenerational Homoeroticism: Predatory and Sodomitic vs. Its Antithesis: Instructive Hypothetical.4.) Getting the Raw End of The Deal:
Inherent Asymmetry of Buggery Disadvantages The Boy; vs. Radically Different Hypothetical (Reply to Alec Leamas (hard at work), September 2019 )5.) Attraction to Boys in The Otherwise Heterosexual Male (November 2019)
A theory, plus some critical distinctions. 6.) Rebuttal to Implausible, Lurid Claims of Rampant Sexual Abuse Among Hasidic Jews (March 2020)Contains links to comments in which I express similar skepticism concerning similar allegations made about the Roman Catholic Church.Replies: @anon, @ravin' lunatic
Wow, A LOT to read and consider there. Thanks!
Many of the comments you linked could form the basis for interesting threads unto themselves.
PS Some of what you wrote (and your headers) had me uncomfortable at first, but it’s really important to actually read through carefully. A lot of critical qualifications and nuance that can make all the difference.
Topics covered:
Conflation of Pedophilia with Pederasty in Reporting on Catholic Church Scandals; Pedohysteria vs. Eroticization of Kids; Special Threat of Gay Doctrinal Assertions to Those in Formative Years; Intergenerational Homoeroticism: Predatory and Sodomitic vs. Its Antithesis: Instructive Hypothetical.4.) Getting the Raw End of The Deal:
Inherent Asymmetry of Buggery Disadvantages The Boy; vs. Radically Different Hypothetical (Reply to Alec Leamas (hard at work), September 2019 )5.) Attraction to Boys in The Otherwise Heterosexual Male (November 2019)
A theory, plus some critical distinctions. 6.) Rebuttal to Implausible, Lurid Claims of Rampant Sexual Abuse Among Hasidic Jews (March 2020)Contains links to comments in which I express similar skepticism concerning similar allegations made about the Roman Catholic Church.Replies: @anon, @ravin' lunatic
as a card-carrying ‘homosexual’ i approve this series of comments!
~ ~ ~
I, too, like others who have commented, have witnessed, with considerable dismay, this dramatic transformation in public opinion occur during my lifetime.As a Gen-X-er raised in New York City, I had interactions with a number of openly[1]/ obviously homosexual individuals[2 ] during my childhood and adolescence and into my adulthood. These included friends, acquaintances, and business associates of my parents and of other family members; as well as teachers, summer camp counselors, and a school principal. My parents never expressed nor exhibited any hatred, censure, condemnation or intolerance for the homosexuality of any of these individuals. At the same time, however, my parents also did not express or exhibit any particular approval, nor certainly any exaltation or celebration of such aberration. And my parents made it quite clear to me, implicitly and even at times explicitly, that they did not view such a lifestyle as wholesome, desirable, normal or even merely fully acceptable in any true or inherent sense.If I get a chance before the thread closes, perhaps I will share some germane and even instructive anecdotes and further personal background. Sir Epigone, how much longer until you close the thread?NOTES
[1]Note that "openly" back then could perhaps be said to have meant more not going out of one's way to actively conceal or deny it than necessarily overtly and confrontation ally flaunting it. While there were some, even many, who did the latter, doing so was, as a general rule at least, neither as common nor as typically obnoxious as both have since become.[2] The ones I recall are mostly men but there may have been some women as well.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Perhaps i stated it unclearly, but where it was clearly deserved is that some members of hierarchy protected some of the abusing priests--moving them around to new assignments where they abused again.
That's simply unacceptable. Those are prelates who do not understand that their duty is not to other priests--not to coddle them, not to "be fair", not "second chances", but to God and the Catholic community. Actually blood boiling for me. If i'd gotten my hands on some of these bishops i'd have given them the treatment i'd give to the abusing priests themselves.Replies: @Twinkie, @Dissident
Read item 2 in this link: http://www.themediareport.com/fast-facts/
Perhaps i stated it unclearly, but where it was clearly deserved is that some members of hierarchy protected some of the abusing priests--moving them around to new assignments where they abused again.
That's simply unacceptable. Those are prelates who do not understand that their duty is not to other priests--not to coddle them, not to "be fair", not "second chances", but to God and the Catholic community. Actually blood boiling for me. If i'd gotten my hands on some of these bishops i'd have given them the treatment i'd give to the abusing priests themselves.Replies: @Twinkie, @Dissident
And just how would you presume to be certain that both the bishops as well as the priests were, in fact, guilty? Relying on biased, sensationalist media reports?
Relying on court convictions? Do you not allow for the very real probability that a not-inconsiderable, not-insignificant number of individuals are wrongfully convicted of crimes that they did not commit?
This is not to suggest that none or even perhaps a great many of the allegations and convictions in-question have been legitimate, only that a healthy degree of skepticism is always warranted. This is an area where, to an overwhelming degree, both the media as well as the public make little distinction between allegations, accusations and hearsay, and established fact. Even if ultimately vindicated, a mere accusation is all it takes to ruin the life of just about any man alive. (Even women can be vulnerable. Imagine, for example, a student who, for whatever reasons, had a malicious wish to take down a female teacher of his…)
It's kind of weird that people here, who claim that the media constantly lies, believe the wildest media allegations of sexual misconduct.
It's even weirder that people here, who think the media is anti-Christian, believe the wildest media allegations of sexual misconduct directed at the Catholic Church.Replies: @Dissident
Especially nowadays, young people are experiencing onset of puberty at younger ages, but they are not less immature than previous generations.Replies: @AndrewR, @Mike Tre
“That’s just it. I don’t understand what practical harm you think results from calling them pedophiles. To the contrary, it seems to me that splitting hairs about it tends to excuse and justify sexual abuse of boys. ”
You don’t understand the practical harm of calling some one who sleeps with a 17 year old a pedophile? Meaning you see no difference in sleeping with a 17 year old as opposed to a 9 year old?
Even for you Rosie, that’s insane.
Expanding the definition of terms like rape, harassment, and pedophilia actually minimizes and marginalizes the real victims of those acts, while simultaneously making villains out of people who are no such thing.
People who refer to adhering to proper definitions as “splitting hairs” are the kind of lazy thinking people who require broad strokes in order to make any argument.: Murder, death, heart attack, self-defense… it’s all same! Guilty Mr Fields! See you in 400 years!
I agree.
It’s kind of weird that people here, who claim that the media constantly lies, believe the wildest media allegations of sexual misconduct.
It’s even weirder that people here, who think the media is anti-Christian, believe the wildest media allegations of sexual misconduct directed at the Catholic Church.
You don't understand the practical harm of calling some one who sleeps with a 17 year old a pedophile? Meaning you see no difference in sleeping with a 17 year old as opposed to a 9 year old?
Even for you Rosie, that's insane.
Expanding the definition of terms like rape, harassment, and pedophilia actually minimizes and marginalizes the real victims of those acts, while simultaneously making villains out of people who are no such thing.
People who refer to adhering to proper definitions as "splitting hairs" are the kind of lazy thinking people who require broad strokes in order to make any argument.: Murder, death, heart attack, self-defense... it's all same! Guilty Mr Fields! See you in 400 years!Replies: @dfordoom
I agree.
for a nine-year-old!"
Incidentally, that reminds me…
Did you hear about the guy who comes home one day to find his girlfriend packing her bags, preparing to leave him. “What’s the matter, honey?! What’s this all about?!”, he asks. “I have discovered the truth about you”, she replies, “I have discovered that you are a pedophile!”
Flabbergasted, the man exclaims, “Pedophile?! Pedophile?!”, “That’s a mighty big word
for a nine-year-old!”
Is that really true? My impression is that most people love punching down if they get the chance to do it.
The whole of politics for the past few centuries has been the ruling classes maintaining their power by exploiting people's love of punching down.Replies: @John Johnson, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone
Those in power will largely do what keeps them in power, but the modal Democrat doesn’t want to think he’s kicking some loser while he’s down. It is very important for them to think they are fighting ferocious bullies, not piling on the downtrodden.
Ron: please enforce this policy evenhandedly.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone
It’s crass but it’s not dehumanizing nor is it a racial slur. We want to err on the side of free speech as much as possible.
That's been totally obliterated by militant homosexuality world over. Now men are terrified of sharing such bonds with one another, because they (despite their public protestations that homosexuality is just dandy) are afraid of being interpreted as "gay." We don't even joke anymore.
I still remember (rather comically in retrospect though I was annoyed at the time), as a late teenager, a particularly crude black peer of mine yelling at me in the locker room (after taking a shower), "You have a big dick for a yellow n***** - did your momma sleep with a brother?" (he was at least half a foot or so shorter than I was as I was already over 6 foot-tall at the time). He wasn't being "gay" or expressing any particular interest in me sexually - he was just being jokey and friendly (and complimentary in his mind probably), though I interpreted it as a bit racist at the time, not to mention highly insulting to my mother (and he later called me a "yellow n*****" again in a not so friendly way and things got a bit violent). In today's climate, he (or anyone else) would never utter such words or even give a hint that he saw me naked, lest he be seen as propositioning me.
Since then, I've noted that men increasingly preface or follow up compliments to other men with something like "no homo," as in, "Hey, I think you are a pretty cool dude, no homo here, man." I find that pretty sad. Apparently you can't even say to another man, "I think you are a good guy and I'd like to be friends with you" without having to worry about being seen as a homosexual.
By the way, even back then, all those decades ago, I knew black people were "special" in this country and that all kinds of mayhem would befall me had I said to him something like, "Hey, you have a small dick for a n*****" in response (not that I would ever say such crude things). But I knew he could get away with uttering something like that, but I would be crucified.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone
Relatedly, there is an automatic revulsion against anything that organically creates groups exclusively comprised of men, even if implicitly so. It doesn’t just have to be athletic things. Nerdy things like gaming aren’t immune. Nothing is. And men cannot form the same kinds of bonds in the presence of women as they can when they’re only around other men.
They are very different sorts of egalitarians, though. One is a bossy egalitarian like me (my eldest). Without his gracious leadership, our family wouldn't have nearly as much fun or other good things in life. He's the one that helps me get everybody geared up and ready to go sledding, just for one example. He will not stand for bullying. Like Horton who hears a who, he insists that a person is a person, no matter how small.
The other is a quiet egalitarian. He struggles with self-assertion, delegation, and discipline, but he is brilliant, he has a heart of solid rhodium, and he is much better than I deserve.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
heart of solid rhodium
Bravo!
Thank you, and thanks to anon[284], for expressing your appreciation.
~ ~ ~
I, too, like others who have commented, have witnessed, with considerable dismay, this dramatic transformation in public opinion occur during my lifetime.
As a Gen-X-er raised in New York City, I had interactions with a number of openly[1]/ obviously homosexual individuals[2 ] during my childhood and adolescence and into my adulthood. These included friends, acquaintances, and business associates of my parents and of other family members; as well as teachers, summer camp counselors, and a school principal.
My parents never expressed nor exhibited any hatred, censure, condemnation or intolerance for the homosexuality of any of these individuals. At the same time, however, my parents also did not express or exhibit any particular approval, nor certainly any exaltation or celebration of such aberration. And my parents made it quite clear to me, implicitly and even at times explicitly, that they did not view such a lifestyle as wholesome, desirable, normal or even merely fully acceptable in any true or inherent sense.
If I get a chance before the thread closes, perhaps I will share some germane and even instructive anecdotes and further personal background.
Sir Epigone, how much longer until you close the thread?
NOTES
[1]Note that “openly” back then could perhaps be said to have meant more not going out of one’s way to actively conceal or deny it than necessarily overtly and confrontation ally flaunting it. While there were some, even many, who did the latter, doing so was, as a general rule at least, neither as common nor as typically obnoxious as both have since become.
[2] The ones I recall are mostly men but there may have been some women as well.
Light unto the nations* means leading by example.
If anything reasonably comes across as virtue signaling, it’s likely indicative of a case of at best doing it wrong. At worst, a complete perversion, distortion or travesty of Judaism. (Which is exactly what the so-called Tikkun Olam promoted by secular, heretical and apostate Jews is.)
1.) Jews who practice authentic Judaism (basically, Orthodox Jews) do not “valorize” any other religions.
2.) In romanticizing and to various degrees embracing and espousing any number of “foreign religions” (don’t forget Hinduism, esp. in the form of yoga), Secular Jews have a lot of company from Christian-descended non-Jews.
3.) As long as Orthodox Jews remain free to practice our faith, we do not interfere or involve ourselves with how other peoples’ practice theirs. One can always find exceptions and fringes but by and large, Orthodox Jews take no part in the kinds of opposition to the expression of religion in the public square, and active or outspoken hostility toward Christianity that many (though certainly not all) secular Jews often do.
Orthodox Jews may be among the demographics least likely to denigrate patriotism. As for secular Jews, I do not believe the majority would denigrate patriotism (if you would contend otherwise, cite evidence), even if a disproportionately high number would.
Everyone can benefit from introspection based upon credible criticism. Few people, however, are receptive to it. This is not unique to Jews or any other group but is simply basic human nature. It is always far easier and more appealing to blame an outgroup or some other external factor, than to look within. Every man and every nation, tribe, party, etc., view themselves more favorably than they objectively are.
In defiantly rejecting Wokism and upholding a heteronormative, patriarchal community structure centered around the traditional family, I know of few demographics that can rival Orthodox Jews.
*
~ ~ ~
I, too, like others who have commented, have witnessed, with considerable dismay, this dramatic transformation in public opinion occur during my lifetime.As a Gen-X-er raised in New York City, I had interactions with a number of openly[1]/ obviously homosexual individuals[2 ] during my childhood and adolescence and into my adulthood. These included friends, acquaintances, and business associates of my parents and of other family members; as well as teachers, summer camp counselors, and a school principal. My parents never expressed nor exhibited any hatred, censure, condemnation or intolerance for the homosexuality of any of these individuals. At the same time, however, my parents also did not express or exhibit any particular approval, nor certainly any exaltation or celebration of such aberration. And my parents made it quite clear to me, implicitly and even at times explicitly, that they did not view such a lifestyle as wholesome, desirable, normal or even merely fully acceptable in any true or inherent sense.If I get a chance before the thread closes, perhaps I will share some germane and even instructive anecdotes and further personal background. Sir Epigone, how much longer until you close the thread?NOTES
[1]Note that "openly" back then could perhaps be said to have meant more not going out of one's way to actively conceal or deny it than necessarily overtly and confrontation ally flaunting it. While there were some, even many, who did the latter, doing so was, as a general rule at least, neither as common nor as typically obnoxious as both have since become.[2] The ones I recall are mostly men but there may have been some women as well.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Comment threads remain open for ten days, so you have until tomorrow evening!
I wanted to followup on the propagation/lag concern I had reported on Monday. Just after posting that comment, I saw that the discrepancies (at least the bulk of them) I had noted had been resolved; the different browsers and instances had finally synchronized. That time, it had taken not much more than 45 minutes but I distinctly recall a number of times in the past where it was hours before comments of mine appeared anywhere else beside the specific browser instance which I had used to post them.*
(*Lest it not be clear, I am not referring-to the wait for a comment to clear moderation, as that is not applicable in my case.)
Note that it is not only with my own comments that this happened but also those of others; comments posted by others will first appear in other browsers as much as many hours after having appeared in the browser I use to post from (which has all my Unz cookies saved). And not only your blog but on Steve Sailer's and possibly others as well. Admittedly, the proper place to report this would probably Ron Unz's dedicated thread for bugs and suggestions. But I thought should at least followup to update my previous report.
Thank you. Looks unlikely I’ll manage to complete that particular continuation in time for this thread but I would expect other opportunities to present themselves before too long.
I wanted to followup on the propagation/lag concern I had reported on Monday. Just after posting that comment, I saw that the discrepancies (at least the bulk of them) I had noted had been resolved; the different browsers and instances had finally synchronized. That time, it had taken not much more than 45 minutes but I distinctly recall a number of times in the past where it was hours before comments of mine appeared anywhere else beside the specific browser instance which I had used to post them.*
(*Lest it not be clear, I am not referring-to the wait for a comment to clear moderation, as that is not applicable in my case.)
Note that it is not only with my own comments that this happened but also those of others; comments posted by others will first appear in other browsers as much as many hours after having appeared in the browser I use to post from (which has all my Unz cookies saved). And not only your blog but on Steve Sailer’s and possibly others as well. Admittedly, the proper place to report this would probably Ron Unz’s dedicated thread for bugs and suggestions. But I thought should at least followup to update my previous report.
It's kind of weird that people here, who claim that the media constantly lies, believe the wildest media allegations of sexual misconduct.
It's even weirder that people here, who think the media is anti-Christian, believe the wildest media allegations of sexual misconduct directed at the Catholic Church.Replies: @Dissident
It is indeed quite remarkable how wildly inconsistent and self-contradictory people can be in certain areas. We all have our blind spots; the power of various biases, prejudices and vested interests is difficult to overestimate.
Ten days is very restrictive. I’d prefer fourteen days, but it’s your blog.