The last Great Progressive Awakening started in the 1950’s as American Progressives began looking for an alternative to Communism as their organizing religion. The Soviet Union, despite the attempts by major newspapers like the New York Times to normalize political murder, was an embarrassment to the American Left. If you read the accounts of David Horowitz, his generation of radicals were ashamed of the old CP-USA types, like his parents.
Radicals latched onto the Civil Rights Movement. What better way to freak out the squares, like their parents, than to invite the blacks in for dinner? So the New Left jumped into the cause, not to help blacks, but to harass white people like their parents. At the heart of radicalism is a tantrum against biological reality. Eventually, we all become our parents and radicals rail against that by indulging in juvenile and dangerous political causes well into adulthood.
This round of radical lunacy started in the 1990’s with the disappointment that was Bill Clinton. The Progressives really thought he was going to be JFK 2.0 and when he was basically JFK 2.0, rather than the imaginary version of JFK, Progressives began to radicalize again. The result has been a war against normal Americans for the last two decades.
Unlike the last wave, this one has been a bit more diverse. Blacks have proven to be unreliable victims. Like the Soviet Union, it is hard to ignore the bodies stacking up. The near total absence of demonstrable discrimination was also a problem. Whites have been reordering their lives to accommodate the sensibilities of black people for a long time now. A new civil right movement was just not practical.
Instead, they went for homosexuals, sexual deviants, immigrants and single white women. Blacks, as a voting block, have been taken for granted by Progressives for a long time now so there’s no reason to cater to them, other than when they can be used as a cudgel. Blacks have become just another bit of furniture in the Progressive fun house, so the Left could go after Hispanics and gays without fear of alienating blacks.
When building a coalition of bitter weirdos, the bitterest will always rise to the top. In the 60’s, the pasty-faced white kids in the student movements gave way to the bitter (and violent) weirdos of the black power movement. In the 90’s, the most bitter and deranged weirdos turned out to be the homosexuals. As a result, the Great Fag Wars have raged for close to two decades now.
Take a look at some recent skirmishes. Razib Khan gets hired and fired in one day by the NYTimes, allegedly for hanging out with people that say bad things about immigrants. The head of that lynch mob was a deranged homosexual working at the homosexualist site called Gawker. If McInnes is accurate, the Gawker guy just wanted to be an asshole.
Of course, the recent turmoil in Indiana, where very modest protections against predacious homosexuals were put in place, has been led by homosexual fanatics like Tim Cook, the gay ruler of the Apple cult. Homosexuals from around the country have been taking to the Internet, threatening anyone and everyone who supports protecting Christians from these rampaging mobs. ISIS has to be wondering why we care what they do to their Christians.
Even the rape hoax stuff on college campuses is being championed by homosexual activists. Rolling Stone is run by the flamboyant homosexual Jann Wenner. The homosexualist site Gawker got in on the act, defending what was clearly a fabricated story. The New Republic, run by the billionaire homosexual fascist Chris Hughes, was also on the case, trumpeting the veracity of the story, despite their history with the fabulist that wrote it.
Blacks, in the long run, turned out to be poor mascots for the Cult of Modern Liberalism. Government discrimination against blacks, however, was a real problem and overturning it was a good thing. Denying people full citizenship based solely on their ethnicity is no way to run a republic. The train load of other stuff that came along with overturning those laws may have been a disaster for the country, but it was right to overturn those laws.
No such dynamic exists here. This is a war on Christianity and a war on traditional Americans. There’s nothing that can be plucked from the tidal wave of sewage coming from the Left that one can hold up as a benefit. It’s all filth and the people riding the wave are the worst elements of society, the deviants.
I have no predictions as to how this ends. The last Great Progressive Wave collapsed in an orgy of drug abuse and violence. This wave will end similarly. The last time, however, American society had huge storehouses of surplus. Today, we are showing the signs of exhaustion, with limited reserves to blunt the denouement of this wave. My sense is the great homo wars will not end well.
Pingback: Radical Queers. Just another pawn in the Liberal game plan to Destroy America | Zions Trumpet
It’s really getting hilarious, from Breitbart:
“In a bizarre new twist on the religious liberty front, Colorado officials have determined that bakeries must cater to proponents of gay marriage but are not legally obliged to decorate cakes with Bible verses.”
Bakers are quite free to refuse to put any message on a cake, if they so desire. However, they can’t refuse to sell someone a wedding cake in Colorado because it is going to a same sex marriage, just like they can’t refuse to sell one going to a Jewish wedding.
Jann Wenner, the publisher of “Rolling Stone” started the magazine on the nickel of his wife, Jane’s father. After he got it off the ground, he dumped her for the Sacred Cult of Sodomites. He’s really a world class a**hole.
I have been, rather pointlessly, going round on this debate on Facebook. The first interesting thing is that my “debaters” keep insisting that homosexuals are being denied the right to buy cakes and cookies, just like blacks being denied a seat at a lunchonette. No matter how many times I point out that it simply isn’t true, they come back with the same argument. Then they trot out segregation. It must be a mental disease because they clearly know nothing about recent history.
I keep trying, because I used to buy all those arguments. I was able to finally recognize that it was the same thing, over and over, and decided it was time to think for myself. I keep hoping there are others that can be saved, but so many of them have totally closed minds.
A comment from the Pleasureman (pman) on the subject of homos.
To start, some very obvious things that you already know. Human beings are a pair bonding species. Some other mammals are too, but human beings especially, it is a deeply embedded instinct, so deeply embedded that when you see human beings reject that instinct you know something went wrong somewhere.
One of the reasons pair bonding is such a deeply embedded instinct is that our offspring require massive resources in order to survive and mature properly. Whether because it is intrinsically advantageous or is contingent upon certain conditions, our psychological development is most balanced with male and female parents, a concept we’ve formalized with marriage. It’s true you can find various primitive societies that do not have formal marriage, but they are incredibly rare, lack robustness, and remain stuck at a primitive, almost animal level of social organization.
When you are a loose band of nomads, individual deviation from the healthiest norms has very localized effects, namely your offspring are more likely to die before reproducing, group cohesion is weaker, the ability to manage large threats is reduced. But as societies grow larger and larger, these effects do not stay so localized–deviations from pair bonding contribute to social disorder, and the larger the society the more disorder they create. Family chaos creates more illegitimacy, crime, substance abuse, domestic violence, promiscuity, on and on–and these risk devouring public resources, not just government resources. You have to pay more for your auto insurance, you have to buy a more expensive house to stay in a good school system (i.e. to avoid dysgenic filth), you are physically less secure, etc.
We’ve been watching it in real time for the past 50 years with illegitimacy rates. We’ve watched lower class blacks collapse into nearly feral behavior, and without draconian incarceration of black males the problem would be a hundred times worse. We see similar problems with Mexicans and to a lesser (but still measurable) degree with whites. It isn’t someone else’s problem, it is devouring resources and energy at a massive rate.
So when you see pair bonding decrease or become less stable, if you are at all awake you see a huge problem. The effects won’t be local, they will spread and will carry over into subsequent generations. And as it happens, homosexual couples all have higher rates of social dysfunction, remarkably like the products of illegitimacy. They have higher rates of substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness (besides being sexually deviant), promiscuity, and I believe if statistics could be accurately collected they would have higher rates of criminal behavior when controlled for race. Anecdotally, homosexuals appear to be overrepresented in radical political groups of the right and left. Their hedonism is off the charts. With gay marriage it is safe to predict that homosexual “partnerships” will be shorter, non-monogamous, and more disordered.
As such homosexuals are a net cost to society, leaving out whether their sexual practices should be ignored by a “consenting adults” standard (the lowest standard of public morality you can have). Completely apart from that they are a net cost. A glance at gay subculture tells you this, and the statistics back it up. That said, politically I think arguing that homosexuality is harmful is a loser, because there are too few homosexuals and because other groups grossly overshadow them in proportional harm. Also because conservatives are inordinately bad at arguing harm.
More important than the social disorder they directly contribute to, homosexuality is a symptom of hyperliberalization. I repeat, the main problem is what homosexuality is a symptom of, not what harm it causes. To a liberal, at least one who doesn’t read much, hyperliberalization might sound great–finally, real progressivism! Like they talk about on Current TV! But in reality hyperliberalization is a very bad thing. It’s a sign of anomie, a state of normlessness and disillusionment which results in ramped up materialism and relaxed morality and cohesion. The main thing hyperliberalization is good for is creating lots of disorder. That’s what it did back in the 1920s. This period saw a sharp increase in deviance from social norms in the Western world, which, depending on how you look at it, either fed an atmosophere of greed and materialism or was fed by it (probably both). Reactions such as Prohibition were either ineffective or stimulated even more disorder and crime.
The end result, according to social scientists like Robert Paxton, was turmoil and fascism. Generally these are not in progressive interests, even if you’re an angry Journolist member and would like to kick some people through plate glass windows (metaphorically speaking of course). Usually turmoil is really bad for liberals and results in the opposite of the society they want to live in, even when the new government calls itself “the people’s party”.
Conservatives usually argue that homosexuality is “just wrong” (sometimes they can’t even go that far). They can’t say why or articulate the harmful effects or defend the benefit of shared morality (much less state why morality is more than harm and fairness). They’re hopeless. That is why they have no rejoinder to the naive liberal assertion that gay marriage is about love and holding hands and being yourself. In defense of conservatives, liberals are profoundly obtuse on this subject–their thinking is inbred, they ignore their own data, and they hide behind mindless emotional catchphrases. As stupid as conservatives are, they’re simply not smart enough to be as hysterically dumb as a liberal with a slogan. (Conservatives will always be second rate when it comes to idiocy, as in so many things.)
I think you can point to additional factors that indict homosexuality as abnormal on the level of sociopathy or pedophilia. Physical development–gay face, finger length, brain morphology–is just clearly abnormal. For strictly eugenic reasons it is appropriate to study it as an abnormality and come up with forms of treatment, or if need be to change the environment that is producing it. Emotional development mirrors the physical–neoteny, hedonism, lack of self-control–homosexuals seem a lot like hypersexualized children. It’s no wonder then that in an age that exposes children to sexuality far before their brains have matured in crucial ways, homosexuality has far greater acceptance, as does most other sexual deviance.
Liberals are free to continue being stupid–no one can stop them. Fortunately they are only 20% of the public, and they seem fine with shooting themselves in the foot. I think most everyone else (at least those who have reached full maturity) can be convinced that continuing to sanction homosexuality, much less gay marriage, is a terrible idea.
Nature is stocked full with mistakes. Perhaps every advance in nature comes with blow back. The immunity to malaria leaves a few poor souls with a deadly anemia. Depending on what part of the world you live in, it is well worth that cost.
Homosexuality is, obviously, a mistake of epic proportions in an natural world that values reproduction above all else, but when it sees itself as a host instead of a parasite we have yet to see how long both will survive.
Homosexuality is one of those things in nature that baffles science. There’s no genetic explanation that anyone has found. Such a trait, as a matter of simple math, would have disappeared a long time ago. It could be a combination of factors, both natural and environmental. The fact that homosexuals have been a stable portion of the population for as long as we know strongly suggests the heavy hand of nature.
On the other hand, shortage of women result in wide scale homosexual activity. Afghanistan is full of it. There’s an expression there. “Women are for children, boys are for pleasure.”
The new SWPL paganism rests firmly, when the PC gibberish is removed, on the following beliefs and practices:
1) The celebration of infant sacrifice;
2) The celebration of sodomy;
3) An apocalyptic nature cult; and,
4) The celebration of the state as the abiter and enforcer of the above.
As the Zman observes, it’s difficult to see how this can end well.
Weird, how many gays are assholes. Wait…
I have known many homosexual men — in AA, in my former church, which was downtown in a big city, as a volunteer in an AIDS ward in the 80s, in a “recovery house” (a retired college administrator, who was gay, rented about five rooms in his rowhouse to people in recovery) … this retired gentlemen knew everyone lol in the gay community, and had numerous stories. I think I got a good view of it.
My experience is that homosexual men “other” themselves: They insist they are different from other men than we see them as different. I see them as men with a sexual fetish … one that has a profound impact on their psyche. What I saw:
1. There are some men who make a perverse choice to sleep with other men; they could have relationships with women, but don’t.
2. There are some men who just like dudes.
All the homosexual men I knew were lonely and frustrated at core, even more than most men. Some suffer gender confusion and get catty and bitchy, and seem surprised when they are held accountable. I have seen gay men literally snap back into being a man with a dirty look. I have no tolerance for queeny swishing and they’d pick up on it very quickly.
My sense is that homosexual relationships and sex are dead ends for these people, leaving them frustrated and at times lashing out, blaming others. That’s the hostility we see in the gay community. They’ve been accepted, but they are still unsatisfied, because they can’t be. You can’t be satisfied with a fancy version of masturbation. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.
On the good side, they were pretty good at forming networks.
A while ago I went to a feminist-inspired wedding with all sorts of weird angles but I found the strangest thing wasn’t the ‘celebration’ of the woman over the man (equality wasnt on the cards here) but the gay rainbow flag placed very prominently at the entrance to where the wedding was being held. A flag at ground level so no one could miss it.
I would have been surprised if among the hundred or so guests there wasn’t at least one homosexual male. Given that even the most conservative calculation puts the number of gays at 2 per cent of the population then I could imagine at least two there. I hope they met and we’re happy. However I didn’t think we were there to acknowledge or participate in anything but a heterosexual marriage. Admittedly there were a lot of left-wing types there but I was still puzzled why this was so important to the couple marrying.
But this is how the message gets across. Little things to remind us all of the alternate sexuality on offer. The mainstream media in the UK has long championed the cause, starting with comedy. A very popular BBC comedy series featured a highly visible camp male in the 70s and soon others followed. When another outlet, Channel 4, arrived it became obvious that it wasn’t just laughs that were on offer to the watching plebs (the danger was that people might laugh at the gays rather than with them) but a wider acceptance of the homosexual male.
We were laughing with them but not at them, and acceptance was therefore easier. Education followed, though it is still not clear even to the super-intelligent elite how the very anti-gay religions, especially the One That Must Not Be Offended, are going to happily embrace the new curriculum with lessons on ‘relationships’
I have known gay males, and like us all they are just people. Some good, some unpleasant. One of these gays was a vicar in the church but one who for all his liberalism was vehement in his opposition to female priests. You might think anyone who wanted acceptance of their difference to the norm would want to encourage true diversity. He didn’t, and one thing the elite cannot yet fathom is why homosexuals can be so hateful of equality other than as a chattering noise.
Our public acceptance of homosexuality is pretty complete now, but I still get the feeling it isn’t enough. I just hope the hetero couple at the wedding I attended made enough libation to the gods of diversity with the prominent rainbow flag to guarantee their happiness.
In America, probably more so than Britain, a robust disinterest in the love that dare not speak its name was the norm. In the 70’s, two flaming homosexuals were very popular TV stars. Paul Lynde and Liberace were wildly popular on TV, turning up on all sorts of shows. Rip Taylor was another guy who was a staple of TV comedy shows. He threw confetti on the audience was flamboyantly gay. The general rule was that homosexuals did not talk openly about their private behavior and worked to keep in private. In exchange, the rest of us would politely not notice that they were homosexuals.
Two decades ago the Cult of Modern Liberalism decided to make homosexuals their weapon against regular Americans, particularly Christians. Ever since the war on regular people has become more open and vitriolic. Most of us are old enough to remember that threatening to burn down a store because they were Christian would land you in jail. Today, it makes you Rosa Parks.
Do you have a blog Uker? If not it is time to start one. You have a fair bit to say and it needs to be at the top of the page, not in the comments section.