New York Gay Marriage: Follow The (Jewish) Money

Clifford Asness: With My Money, I Get To Overthrow Christian Tradition

Larry Auster, the redoubtable proprietor of the View From The Right blog, lives I believe in Manhattan, and so has been exposed full force to the raucous orgy of self-congratulation which has followed Governor Cuomo’s success in legalizing homosexual marriage in New York. Auster is a religious man (born Jewish and an Episcopalian convert) as well as a Conservative and he is disgusted, posting a discussion of a New York Times article on Sunday: Liberals celebrate their disgrace

They think history will honor them. I think the opposite is the case. I think history will see them as wreckers of our country…

The article itself is a fawning portrayal of Cuomo…It also tells how rich Republican donors, several of them Jews, allied with Cuomo and gave huge sums to pay for the lobbying campaign that led to the homosexualist victory.

And it tells how several legislators, both Democrats and Republicans, who had opposed homosexual “marriage” two years ago changed the minds–for the most insubstantial and personal reasons

(Most likely the “insubstantial and personal” reasons plumped up envelopes very nicely.)

I discussed this curious funding pattern in We’re Rich; We’re Jewish: We Rule on May 14th, concluding

What these wealthy Jews are saying is that their opinions backed by their money should get paramountcy, and the preferences and religious scruples of the majority of their fellow countrymen count for nothing and should be ignored…the motive is straight out of Kevin MacDonald’s analysis – an insatiable and ferocious lust to eradicate the Christian aspects of the culture of their host, regardless of the fruits it has allowed them to reap.

Evidently damage control has been instituted, because Auster was promptly challenged by an argumentative Troll, “Steve W.” whose objections he elected to meet in Did VFR make a prejudiced reference to Jewish supporters of homosexual “marriage”? (Unlike OO, View From The Right does not permit automatic comment posting.) I found it a fruitful piece.

“Steve W” took the conventional line usually obeyed by the MSM, that Jews should be invisible. Auster replied:

Four men are named in this account: the three moneybags pro-homosexual “marriage” Republican donors, and Cuomo’s number two aide, who as a result of their six figure donations “began to see a path to victory.” Of the three donors, at least two, Singer and Loeb, have Jewish names (and the third, Asness, might be Jewish as well), along with Cuomo’s aide, Cohen. So the Jewish aspect of this operation stuck out.

(As I noted before, not only is Clifford Asness Jewish, he was the biggest donor in Temple Sholom of Greenwich’s Kol Nidre Appeal this year – see here, Page 5.)

Auster got support. “Irv P.” wrote:

Sorry, Steve W., but if the shoe fits, wear it. I’m Jewish but am not in the least bit offended by references to the truth about our so-called brethren who do everything they can to keep cracking the foundations of this once great culture. Jews have a disproportionate negative influence on the issues that threaten our way of life, and it’s about time we realize it as a group and cease and desist!

“Sophia A” added

We notice Jewish names that are prominent in destructive radical issues for the same reason we talk about black crime. It’s not the crime–it’s the proportions. Violent crime is pretty much a young man’s specialty, but within that group black males predominate disproportionately. This is Truth 101 to readers of your blog.

Likewise, in the U.S., a huge proportion of loudmouth leftists are Jews. What they espouse is completely antithetical to traditional morals, law, tradition and culture. (Perhaps that’s the reason they espouse them.) And it’s deeply troubling to me, as a traditional Jew, to say this. But I can’t deny the facts any more than a law-abiding black citizen can deny the facts about black crime.

Facts are facts.

“Pentheus” suggests

Here is the true litmus test question for Steve W.:
If VFR were a liberal, Jewish-oriented blog and Mr. Auster’s post had been celebrating rather than condemning the passage of same-sex “marriage” in NYS, and had praised these men as good Jews for their key influence in bringing about this great advance in justice and equality, would you have written to him to complain of prejudice or ask why he singles out one group for praise?

and adds

Wealthy white males have brought this about by the closest thing to legal bribery of legislators that I have ever read reported so nakedly.

Sadly, this exchange appears to have shaken Auster, who rather pathetically remarks:

…it wasn’t just one…who was Jewish, but at least three out of the four people attending this key meeting.

The Jewish names–Loeb, Cohen, Singer–stuck out… NOT to mention the fact that almost all the men in the meeting were Jews would have felt unnatural and dishonest. It would have felt as though I was closing my eyes to an evident fact, in the same way that the media constantly close their eyes to certain evident facts concerning certain racial and religious groups.

In this, Larry Auster demonstrates how far he has come from his intellectual origins. “Steve W” represents the true Jewish position. A fact has no independent existence – it only exists if convenient. Hence the Stephen Jay Gould fraud.

View From The Right – other than Sophie A’s astute aside – does not get into why these supposedly “Republican” Jewish Billionaires – two of whom do not even live in New York State – got so deeply and crucially involved. (The NYT said they

…had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash if they supported the marriage measure.. Each of them cut six-figure checks to the lobbying campaign that eventually totaled more than $1 million.)

So I will. These men were simply repeating the behavior of their Eastern European forefathers, spitting on Christian symbols when they could get away with it. For them, the pain they have caused the great majority of New Yorkers (remember, Gay Marriage has always lost in elections) is only a pleasure.

(Kevin MacDonald came to a similar conclusion considering Senator Lieberman’s efforts to destroy the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” last December.)

The Wall Street boom of the past generation has transferred enormous liquid resources into the hands of too many who were not brought up to respect – much less like – America. Jewish money in politics is a problem which must be unhesitatingly identified. The “Steve W.”s and their employers must be forthrightly rejected.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

159 Comments to "New York Gay Marriage: Follow The (Jewish) Money"

  1. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    June 29, 2011 - 8:06 pm | Permalink

    The article says:

    These men were simply repeating the behavior of their Eastern European forefathers, spitting on Christian symbols when they could get away with it.

    This sums up so much Jewish behavior in the West. Over and over, you see Jewish authors painting Christian culture as creepy – Stephen King has done it a number of times. Once you start looking for it, you see the relentless attack on any cultural symbols or beliefs that act as standards that White Gentiles could rally around.

    There are many reasons Jews are thus motivated, but one dimension is the endless sob stories they tell themselves about how they have been abused for thousands of years (as if no other group has a similar tale of woe).

    While I understand this is often a cynical ploy, there is also a pathological level of self-pity at work. That kind of righteous self-pity is dangerous, because those that experience that emotion feel entitled to take any action against their “oppressors”.

    • FWM's Gravatar FWM
      June 30, 2011 - 7:42 am | Permalink

      I forget the origin of the saying, but it is supposedly quite old:

      “A Jew cries in pain as he strikes you .”

    • G. Mile's Gravatar G. Mile
      June 30, 2011 - 8:54 pm | Permalink

      Stephen King isn’t Jewish. But he is left of Marx in his political views.

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      June 30, 2011 - 9:55 pm | Permalink

      Oh thanks, for some reason I thought he was Jewish. Good to know. He represents that element among Whites that embrace the Culture of Critique as well.

    • Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
      July 3, 2011 - 6:51 am | Permalink

      Jason speaks truth like the Canadian Jewish blogger, Simon Jones, who a few years ago, wrote: “Jews and gays – birds of a feather” – based on their common persecution in Christian Europe for centuries in the past.

      http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/israelis-and-gays-birds-of-a-feather/

    • July 11, 2011 - 1:32 pm | Permalink

      “…authors painting Christian culture as creepy – Stephen King has done it a number of times.”

      Christianity has been portrayed this way in literature since long before the jews took over the mass media.

      I’m currently reading a novel called The Monk, which was written in 1796 by Matthew Gregory Lewis. It’s considered one of the first gothic horror novels and was a bestseller in its time. The villain is, as the title suggests, a monk, and Lewis wasn’t a jew, to my knowledge.

  2. Greg Dancer's Gravatar Greg Dancer
    June 29, 2011 - 8:10 pm | Permalink

    If I may inject a sober note here—might the motivation of Paul Singer be simply to demonstrate fealty to his gay son, X-Men director Bryan (not that the latter’s antics chasing Taylor Lautner conduce to eventual marriage!)?

  3. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    June 29, 2011 - 8:34 pm | Permalink

    [ That kind of righteous self-pity is dangerous, because those that experience that emotion feel entitled to take any action against their “oppressors”. ]

    What is the old saying ? ….

    A jew will scream for pity as he beats you to the ground .

    • josef's Gravatar josef
      July 1, 2011 - 3:49 pm | Permalink

      that phrase, “A Jew screams as he stabs you in the back” dates back about 150 years ago, in Poland. it was revived after Poland ended as as a vassal state of the Bolshevik Jew state of the USSR. it is quite current today. and IS said casually within Poland, even as I type this missive.

  4. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    June 29, 2011 - 9:49 pm | Permalink

    I am delighted that Mr. Graham has written and TOO has published an essay on this revolutionary issue: New York State’s granting homosexual “marriage” recognition in law. It is—at least it ought to be—the clarion call to attention to the remaining mass of white Christian Americans who think that everything in this country would be just jim dandy if only the damn ragheads didn’t hate us so much. Given the endless media howling—before, during, and after the act’s passage—I am willing to bet a sizable sum that more public school children, from coast to coast, know the essential facts of this matter than know that Indiana is not a foreign country (50 percent of them think it is).

    I draw readers’ attention to small amplifications of two matters broached by Mr. Graham. Already widely known is that Larry Auster is a convert to Christianity only in the most degraded contemporary sense of the term convert. Like the neocatholic Roy Schoeman (Salvation Is from the Jews) or to a lesser extent the late cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, Auster is a “have your cake and eat it too” convert, one who feels no need to give up his Jewishness in order to cross from one side of the street to the other. The old-fashioned scorn and contempt for all things Jewish called for by Paul the Apostle and seconded by the Ratisbonne brothers and several million other converting Jews throughout history is too old hat for Auster and his like even to sneer at. As Mr. Graham points out, the very fact that Auster chose to display the comment from Steve W. gives the game away. The name of the game, of course, is obedience to and worship of the Tribe and its goals.

    The second matter concerns a Sherlockian peculiarity to be found in the overwhelming volume of press coverage accompanying this sorry saga. Like the perplexing failure of the dog to bark in the night, noteworthy by its absence was any reference to the popular will, that great American Universal Solvent that phony friends of white Americans and of traditional Christian virtue frequently appeal to as the preeminent frustrating force that ties their hands and undermines their efforts in their [ahem] sleepless fight to preserve or restore. The reason for the great silence is obvious: in this instance reference to the popular will—as calculated in good old head counts—would only have served to highlight the gravity of these recreant state legislators’ conduct in the eyes of anyone foolish enough to still believe that government derives its powers from the consent of, at a bare minimum, a majority of the governed. The media, which led the cheers for the passage of this abomination, know full well that Mr. Graham’s words are true: “Gay Marriage has always lost in elections.” Indeed, I’d go a step farther and claim that outside the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, no poll (or more accurately, none of which I am aware) of any state’s citizens has ever demonstrated the support of a clear majority for recognition of sodomite “marriage.” I further note that among lay adherents of the postconciliar neocatholic church, there were even many who, while winking at abortion on demand, drew the line at this latest bit of degeneracy.

    It is all too plain that any mention of the violence this and so much other legislation does to the democratic fiction of elected officials’ devotion to the needs and desires of the mugs and stooges who elected them would, from the perspective of our Tribal controllers, merely muddy the waters and poison the wells. Better to keep “the many” in the dark—dark being the preferred illumination level for watching one’s 72-inch HDTV.

    Yet in this regard and this regard only, one might take some small comfort from the new law, since any repudiation, no matter how tentative or implicit, of the cherished notion that vox populi and vox Deiare one and the same thing is cause, if not for rejoicing, at least for a grim smile through tears of rage.

    • Westmoreland County Ranger's Gravatar Westmoreland County Ranger
      June 30, 2011 - 3:10 pm | Permalink

      Amen!

  5. Michael Hardesty's Gravatar Michael Hardesty
    June 29, 2011 - 10:25 pm | Permalink

    Once about eight years ago a Jewish Communist bookstore dealer in San Francisco told me that he only endorsed homosexuality because it went against the normal grain of things. Apparently he wanted to be against whatever he perceived as the dominant paradigm on principle.
    With people like that there is no possible reasoning.
    I have noticed over the last 38 years a huge proportion of homos in SF and the East Bay are Jewish.
    They are as intolerant on that as they are on everything else.
    They are intellectual nihilists and the only good thing to say about them is that generally they are nowhere near as dangerous as blacks.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      June 30, 2011 - 5:33 pm | Permalink

      @ Michael Hardesty, june 29,2011-10:25 pm.

      “…a Jewish Communist bookstore dealer in San Francisco told me he only endorsed homosexuality because it went against the normal grain of things…”

      That is their very nature: being against normalcy,against humanity.

      The apostle Paul had this to say about them:”…the Jews,who both killed the Lord Jesus,and their own prophets,and have persecuted us; and they please not God,and are CONTRARY TO ALL MEN…” (1-Thess.2-14,15)

      Roman historian Tacitus (A.D. 55-120) says about them: “…all their other customs,which are at once PERVERSE AND DISGUSTING,owe their strength to their very badness…”
      And about their double standards: “…among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion though they regard the REST OF HUMANITY with all the HATRED OF ENNEMIES…”

      Greek author Philostratus (A.D. 170-244) says about them: “…For the Jews have long been IN REVOLT AGAINST HUMANITY; and a race that has made its own life APART and irreconcilable…”

      As you see being against normalcy and against humanity is not something of recent times only for the Jews.

      As you yourself say: “With people like that there is no possible reasoning”. Indeed,coexistence with such people is practically impossible,as history has showed abundantly.I call them “anti-humans”.

    • Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
      July 5, 2011 - 9:35 am | Permalink

      On September 16, 2009 – Michael Lucas was honored by the oldest Jewish magazine FORWARD under the heading Pornographic Stimulus Plan: “It’s a free PR (Gay movement) for Israel and it’s much better than the PR they’re getting on the news…”

      http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/israels-pornographic-stimulus-plan/

  6. Rich Pearson's Gravatar Rich Pearson
    June 29, 2011 - 11:26 pm | Permalink

    One assumes a major reason for the Jewish push for gay marriage is to provide a legal framework for suing Christian organizations. Also expect an attack on the tax exemption of Christian churches, charities, etc.

    Remember that during the Civil Rights era, the government provided funds to lawyers that would take up “racism” cases for Blacks that otherwise couldn’t afford a lawyer.

    Gay marriage is a field day for lawyers. It’s obviously not about the rights of homosexuals, since they have had civil unions for decades. Since marriage is so deeply embedded in common and legislative law, by changing the definition you provide countless opportunities for suing.

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      June 29, 2011 - 11:38 pm | Permalink

      This is a good point. I don’t think anyone has thought out all the legal ramifications of “gay marriage”. Once it is accepted as law, it gains the protection of a civil right. Those churches and organizations that in any way don’t recognize it, will find themselves under a new attack.

      On a smaller note, this also allows gay men to gain access to health care by “marrying” another gay man. This will allow those with AIDs to get their very expensive health care paid for by you and me.

  7. Mark Hess's Gravatar Mark Hess
    June 30, 2011 - 2:42 am | Permalink

    I don’t have a problem with homosexuals, especially if they are good people who seek long-term monogamous relationships like most of us do, and if they do not constantly shove the issue in our faces. And I do have a big problem with “queer-bashing,” as I think it is thuggish and irrational.

    Actually, I get the sense that a lot of us feel that way. Because of these things, I somewhat dismissed this issue of
    “gay marriage.”

    Well, thanks to articles like the very good one above, I am rethinking my who-really-cares? attitude about the issue. There is something else, too.

    After the recent legalization of it in New York State, I was sickened at the footage of the cheering and celebrating I saw. The myopia, self-satisfaction, smugness and so on was utterly astonishing. Tens of millions of us in the US are unemployed and under-employed; tens of millions of us are without health care; we are in such a deep debt that it is highly doubtful we will ever be able to get out of it; we, because of that debt, are heading for even worse financial disasters; we, for very good reasons, are the laughing stock of the developed world; and, for very good reasons, we are hated around the world as at no other time in our history. But, hooray! Gays can get married!

    Really, when you cannot find work, when you cannot afford healthcare, and when your country is falling to pieces, what does that matter? The priorities seem just a little messed-up.

    Part of me wishes I could be happy for them. But I am not.

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      June 30, 2011 - 3:24 am | Permalink

      I don’t have a problem with homosexuals, especially if they are good people who seek long-term monogamous relationships

      I don’t think gays have any real interest in true “marriage”, nor could they. Do we really expect male homosexuals to settle into monogamous relationships? That is totally against the nature of every youngish homosexual male I have ever heard of. They literally have hundreds if not thousands of different “partners” in their 20s and 30s.

      They have the male sex drive but without any choosy females to ever say no. So it is a free for all, at least until they become too old and unattractive to get mates. So I tend to think the whole gay marriage thing is a bit of a scam to start with.

      They have conned us into thinking they are just like we are, and gosh, can you stand in the way of love? LOL

      They are not the analogue of a male/female pair.

    • Xanadu's Gravatar Xanadu
      June 30, 2011 - 10:54 am | Permalink

      Mark Hess,

      Did you know that Reform Judaism, representing 40 percent of all American religious Jews, has given its “total endorsement to sodomy” (to quote the Rev. Ted Pike)?

      No other religion in the world has gone so far as to give its blessing to anal intercourse and to make this practice the basis of a “holy marriage”.

      The official Judaic blessing to homosexuality is found in a tract that reads:

      We hold that homosexuality is no longer an abomination; it is not a mental illness or social deviancy; it is not a perversion of the natural order. Homosexuality is not a choice or a preference; it is not something that one decides to do or abstain from doing. It is, like, heterosexuality, the way one is. As such it makes no sense on religious or moral grounds to differentiate between people on the basis of sexual orientation.

      What is not generally known is that pedarasty — sex with underage boys as young as eight years old — is regarded as completely innocuous. This is because it is condoned by the Talmud.

      The good rabbis, noting the Mosaic ban on homosexuaity in Leviticus 18.29 — “Thou shalt not lie with mankind” — shrugged their shoulders and concluded that underage boys were exempt from this moral law.

      After all, an 8-year-old boy was not a “man”, was he? As such, he couldn’t really be classified as part of MANkind.

      Boykind, yes; mankind, no.

      Sanhedrin 69b notes: “All agree that the connection of a boy age nine years and a day is a real connection; while that of one less than eight years is not.”

      The Jewish Bolshevik Bela Kuhn, having conquered Hungary after the 1917 Russian revolution, force-fed homosexuality into the curriculum of public education, “transforming Hungary’s youth into moral degenerates”. (Pike)

      This social engineering is now going on in America, with homosexual relationships being actively encouraged in schools via sex education.

      The Rev Pike says: “The boy-molesting homosexuals of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) are in solid agreement with the Talmud that sex with underage boys is of no moral consequence.”

      See here:

      http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/judaismhomosexuality.html

    • Xanadu's Gravatar Xanadu
      June 30, 2011 - 11:06 am | Permalink

      Mark,

      I wanted to thank you for your kind efforts in helping to draw attention to Isabella Fanfani’s scary article, Crimes of the Bolsheviks. Since you mentioned the title on various forums, including the Occidental Observer, we’ve had quite a few hits on that article.

      Many thanks again.

      Xanadu
      (Lasha)

      http://www.darkmoon.me/2011/crimes-of-the-bolsheviks-edited-by-isabella-fanfani/

    • Mark Hess's Gravatar Mark Hess
      June 30, 2011 - 11:27 am | Permalink

      Xanadu,

      I was not aware of most of those things. I was very well aware of the sickness of the Talmud, but I did not remember that particular section that you referred to. Anyway, thanks for bringing these things to my attention.

      On a related subject, I wrote a comment to yesterday’s post on Bob Dylan. I said some unflattering things about him and his work, but I failed to mention that he received lots of “cred” for being a confidant of Allen Ginsberg, that obnoxious, overrated Jewish poet who was a supporter of NAMBLA. Disgusting!

      Also, you and Ms. Fanfani are more than welcome. I was happy to do that.

      Take care.

    • Xanadu's Gravatar Xanadu
      June 30, 2011 - 12:03 pm | Permalink

      Mark,

      I read your recent comment on darkmoon.me, apologizing for an “inappropriate” comment. Sorry, but I wasn’t aware you’d said anything inappropriate! I’d like to assure you that darkmoon.me is a free speech zone. You are free to say anything you wish there. Some people have in fact been quite abusive, but their comments have not been deleted. Please note I don’t own this site and have no control over what gets published in Comments.

    • July 11, 2011 - 3:13 pm | Permalink

      “I don’t have a problem with homosexuals, especially if they are good people who seek long-term monogamous relationships like most of us do, and if they do not constantly shove the issue in our faces.”

      How many homosexual men meet your qualifications? Not many that I’ve met.

      “And I do have a big problem with “queer-bashing,” as I think it is thuggish and irrational.”

      Nearly all violence is thuggish and irrational. Punching a queer isn’t more thuggish and irrational than punching anyone else. It shouldn’t be treated as a special case under the law (i.e. a hate crime).

      Not to mention that “queer-bashing” isn’t nearly as common as Hollywood and the homosexual lobby make it out to be. Most of the violence homosexuals are subject to is perpetrated by other homosexuals.

    • July 11, 2011 - 3:26 pm | Permalink

      “That is totally against the nature of every youngish homosexual male I have ever heard of.”

      Monogamy to a homosexual man usually means being with the same primary partner for 2-5 years, with occasional sexual encounters with other people.

      Lesbians have traditionally tended to be more monogamous than homosexual men (which isn’t surprising since they are women, after all), although that is starting to change.

  8. ethnonationalism's Gravatar ethnonationalism
    June 30, 2011 - 9:46 am | Permalink

    Jews have a long history of promoting homosexuality…
    …from…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld

    …to…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weinberg_%28psychologist%29

    We could say that this “gay rights” bullshit is a Jewish invention.

    • July 11, 2011 - 3:52 pm | Permalink

      “Homophobia” was coined by a jew? I had no idea, though it shouldn’t surprise me; all the really destructive slogans and neologisms were coined by jews (see the article on my blog about the origin of using the word “gay” as a euphemism for “homosexual”).

      I always saw the functional similarity between “homophobia” and terms like “anti-Semitism” and “racism,” but I had always assumed the homosexual movement was independently emulating the jewish modus operandi, not that jews were directly involved in the creation the word.

  9. June 30, 2011 - 11:19 am | Permalink

    Xanadu,

    On the subject of Reform Judaism and homosexuality, this quotation directly from the website of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (the principal organization of Reform rabbis in the United States and Canada) is valuable as primary source material:

    Resolution Adopted by the CCAR
    ON GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGE
    Adopted by the 107th Annual Convention of the
    Central Conference of American Rabbis
    March, 1996

    Background:
    Consistent with our Jewish commitment to the fundamental principle that we are all created in the divine image, the Reform Movement has “been in the vanguard of the support for the full recognition of equality for lesbians and gays in society.” In 1977, the CCAR adopted a resolution encouraging legislation which decriminalizes homosexual acts between consenting adults, and prohibits discrimination against them as persons, followed by its adoption in 1990 of a substantial position paper on homosexuality and the rabbinate. Then, in 1993, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations observed that “committed lesbian and gay couples are denied the benefits routinely accorded to married heterosexual couples.” The UAHC resolved that full equality under the law for lesbian and gay people requires legal recognition of lesbian and gay relationships.

    In light of this background,

    BE IT RESOLVED, that the Central Conference of American Rabbis support the right of gay and lesbian couples to share fully and equally in the rights of civil marriage, and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CCAR oppose governmental efforts to ban gay and lesbian marriage.

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a matter of civil law, and is separate from the question of rabbinic officiation at such marriages.

    http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/resodisp.pl?file=gl&year=1996

    • Xanadu's Gravatar Xanadu
      June 30, 2011 - 11:47 am | Permalink

      Reginald,

      Many thanks. You have gone to the original source. A valuable document.

  10. Barbara's Gravatar Barbara
    June 30, 2011 - 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Stephen King is not jewish but Anne Rice is. Rice went on tv and called Christians “Devils” because of the Christian stand on homosexuality. Her son is gay. Can you imagine anyone getting away with going on tv and calling jews devils?

    The fact is there is no mention in the Christian New Testament about homosexuality but it is condemned in the Judaic Old Testament.

    Why do jews choose to always attack the host nation? There’s something wrong with the wiring in their brains. This sort of thing has been going on forever.

    • Lancashire lad's Gravatar Lancashire lad
      June 30, 2011 - 2:47 pm | Permalink

      Sorry Barbara, but St Paul mentions homosexuality in his Letter to the Romans:
      1.26: “[....] their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
      1.27 The men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

    • Jake's Gravatar Jake
      July 2, 2011 - 1:02 am | Permalink

      Anne Rice is an Irish-American (nee O’Brien, 1941) who was raised as a Roman Catholic, became a self-described atheist for several decades, returned to the Church in 1998, and then exited again, in 2010, at which time she put out a statement that she still was committed to Christ, but rejected organized Christianity altogether.

      Is it really too much to ask that you people at least check Wikipedia, or some other semi-credible source, to determine someone’s actual ethnicity and/or religious persuasion before claiming here that that someone is a Jew? Sigh….

    • July 11, 2011 - 4:01 pm | Permalink

      “Stephen King is not jewish but Anne Rice is.”

      I couldn’t say what Anne Rice is racially, but she was raised a Catholic. I’ve heard her say in interviews that her Catholicism was a big influence on her fiction.

  11. Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
    June 30, 2011 - 4:56 pm | Permalink

    If one follow any of American top politician or church leader – it certainly would lead him to Jewish money – From Ben-Obama to Pope Benedict XVI and Rev. John Hagee.

    Gay and lesbian culture was banned in all three Abrahamic religions. However, these days it’s considered ‘cool’ to be gay or lesbian. There are over 28 million gays and lesbians in the US and Israelis boast Tel Aviv to be the ‘Pink City’.

    Simon Jones, a Jewish gay blogger once wrote that ‘Jews and gays are of same feather’.

    In March 2011 – Fred Karger 61, the openly Republican Jewish gay politician – announced his candidacy for the 2012 Presidential election. He is the first person to file his papers with the Federal Election Commission.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/election-2012-jewish-gay-for-president/

  12. Caleb's Gravatar Caleb
    June 30, 2011 - 5:43 pm | Permalink

    In your zeal to condemn Jews, ALL Jews, for the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York, you overlook the real reason pro-gay measures have gained such traction in recent years. [Gay marriage was already legal in Massachusetts while Connecticut permits Civil Unions.] This is a well-organized, yes, well funded movement that is 95 percent WHITE, males **and** females. That is more than something in States with majority or near-majority nonwhite populations, and will give gays political influence well beyond their actual numbers.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      July 1, 2011 - 2:46 am | Permalink

      @ Caleb, june 30,2011-5:43 pm.

      {“…In your zeal to condemn Jews,ALL Jews,for the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York…”}

      { “…This is a well-organized,yes,well funded movement that is 95 percent White…”}

      I can imagine that “Caleb”,as the self-appointed Jewish troll that he is,once again tries to protect the interests of his tribe whenever he sees them threatened.Like all of his co-ethnics he is unshakably convinced of the intellectual and moral superiority of his tribe,as contrasted with the congenital stupidity and gullability of us “goyim”.It is therefore beyond his comprehension that old Jewish tricks and lies don’t work at least with THESE GOYIM who are regular readers and commenters of TOO.I consider it therefore useless to engage in a discussion with him as he is beyond redemption as most members of his cursed tribe are.

      First of all we do not condemn ALL Jews for the legalization of sodomy in New York as if 100% of them were actively involved.Jewish group-behaviour doesn’t work that way.It is always their influential (and rich!) LEADERS that take such initiatives albeit with the (tacit) consent of the Jewish community at large.That consent however is deeply rooted in the Jewish character itself and reflects a consistent behaviour that can be historically demonstrated. Only in this sense do we consider “all Jews guilty”.

      As for the movement being for 95% White,that is to be expected.Whites are always involved when it comes to the fight for what they consider to be individual rights,that’s how we are “wired”. But who are the rest 5% of this movement?Aren’t they the same as those who took care that it was “well-organized and well funded”?It is our understanding that the community in question has a PERSISTENT HISTORY of moral subversion of every society that was naive enough to accept them.

      There is no real reason for same-sex marriage as an “individual right” because all rights have already been covered by civil unions.The promotion of same-sex marriage has only as its aim to equate perversion with normalcy and thus undermine a basic institution of society.That is the sole purpose of this movement,and yes it is Jewish,typically Jewish.

      Don’t come with your false arguments,we at TOO are all JEW-WISE and for us Jewish lies DON’T WORK ANYMORE.

      Well “Caleb”,I wish you a “Shabbat Shalom” on the gay-beach of Tel Aviv,but please don’t bother us anymore.

    • Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
      July 1, 2011 - 5:55 pm | Permalink

      Caleb – As far as the media is concerned – the only one who are paranoid about Iran’s space program using a monkey to travel into space before a human is sent there – are Israeli Jews and their bottom-licking American lawmakers. These idiots believe that the monkey may throw uranium based urine on Israel – triggering a second Holocaust.

      Were it not the European Jews who killed 100,000 Arab Jewish youth in the 1960s by experimenting heavy doses of radiation – a document released by Israel’s Channel 10 in 2004?

      http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/irans-monkey-in-space-is-a-wmd-against-israel/

  13. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    June 30, 2011 - 11:49 pm | Permalink

    My brother is gay. He has friends who have had long term monogamous relationships for as long as I have known him, longer than any of my marraiges have lasted.

    So, now I see that not only is this site racist, but is homophobic as well–which goes together like bread and butter. Yes?

    Do if you claim that individual rights are part of your Christian heritage, where do you draw the line? It is obviously irrational to claim you are for individual rights and then to claim that queers haven’t the same rights as male female relationships.
    Anyone who claims they believe in the rights of liberty, but then turn around and say, “but” for “these people,” is a hypocrit and doesn’t believe in freedom at all.

    The bottom line is, it’s none of your business. It is nosy, busybody jabberwacky.
    ww

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      June 30, 2011 - 11:51 pm | Permalink

      I don’t believe you.

    • Caleb's Gravatar Caleb
      July 1, 2011 - 1:01 am | Permalink

      Sorry, Willy. Marriage isn’t a right. It’s a privilege. That’s why they have marriage licenses.
      “Queers” (your term) have always had the same marriage rights as any other man. They can marry any woman who’ll have them.

    • July 1, 2011 - 2:27 am | Permalink

      If you claim that individual rights are part of your Christian heritage, where do you draw the line?

      Willy Whitten,

      Like everyone who has ever existed, I support some individual rights but not others.

      One individual right I don’t support is the supposed right of persons to marry members of the same sex.

      It should also be noted that West’s Christian tradition includes no such thing as the idea that homosexual marriage should be legally or socially accepted, in fact it instead includes the idea that homosexual behavior is unnatural and sinful.

      It is obviously irrational to claim you are for individual rights and then to claim that queers haven’t the same rights as male female relationships.

      I have never claimed to be in favor of all individual rights.

      Have you?

      The bottom line is, it’s none of your business.

      So the issue of whether the government should recognize homosexual marriage is only the business of people like you who are in favor of it?

      That’s convenient.

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      July 1, 2011 - 2:47 am | Permalink

      It should also be noted, that people are free to hook up and call anything they want a “marriage”. But what homosexuals are demanding is a specially designated state recognized relationship that exists for the purpose of raising children, among other things. The state has a legitimate interest in this.

      People who are married have unique rights and privileges in society because marriage and family are so fundamental to the care of children. And the truth is, there are very, very few gays who truly want to be “married” in any serious sense. I think this will be looked back on as a kind of insane fad by future generations.

    • July 1, 2011 - 9:46 am | Permalink

      This site is not properly termed “homophobic.” As I wrote in the article linked by Graham,

      homosexuals have ethnic interests like everyone else and therefore White homosexuals should be on board with a movement that advances White interests. … The point is that all Whites, including homosexuals, have an interest in creating a culture that prizes strong families, children, and heterosexuality. White gay people should realize it is in their interest to acquiesce in a culture in which homosexuality is not publicly visible. From that perspective, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” made excellent policy sense. Its demise is yet another blow to the culture of heterosexuality that has been a healthy, adaptive norm in all human cultures.

    • Doug's Gravatar Doug
      July 3, 2011 - 1:49 pm | Permalink

      Willy,your comment is the perfect example of how the Jews have gained control of the U.S. government and its culture. The Constitution was not written for people like you. It was written for people of good will.

    • July 11, 2011 - 4:18 pm | Permalink

      “My brother is gay. He has friends who have had long term monogamous relationships for as long as I have known him, longer than any of my marraiges have lasted.”

      Which proves exactly nothing, since statistics don’t support your argument. Your brother and his friends — assuming you really have an accurate idea of what their sex lives are like — are exceptions, not the norm.

      “So, now I see that not only is this site racist, but is homophobic as well–which goes together like bread and butter.”

      Both the terms “racist” and “homophobic” were coined by jews, but I guess it would be “anti-Semitic” of me to suggest that your world-view has been jewed.

    • July 11, 2011 - 4:22 pm | Permalink

      “It is obviously irrational to claim you are for individual rights and then to claim that queers haven’t the same rights as male female relationships.”

      Marriage isn’t a right; it’s a privilege.

    • July 11, 2011 - 4:30 pm | Permalink

      “The bottom line is, it’s none of your business.”

      That would only be a valid argument if homosexuals were keeping their sexuality to themselves. “Pride” marches are not a way of keeping your sex life private.

      If homosexuals don’t want to be judged, then they should go back in the closet.

  14. July 1, 2011 - 3:32 am | Permalink

    “After the recent legalization of it in New York State, I was sickened at the footage of the cheering and celebrating I saw.”

    Well, I guess it’s good that you have a little bit of a decent man’s healthy aversion, revulsion, and repugnance still functional.

    • Mark Hess's Gravatar Mark Hess
      July 1, 2011 - 5:19 am | Permalink

      Thanks so much. I have been visiting various places on sites like Alternative Right, Counter-Currents and The Spearhead to learn how to become a more decent and manly man. You know? Learning to reflexively hate all homosexuals, to loathe kindness, empathy and reason, and to feel comfortable with viewing my female family members as inherently flawed “bitches” and “whores.”

      I am almost getting to the point where I confuse strength, decency, bravery and masculinity with being a thug.

      I’ll keep trying.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      July 1, 2011 - 12:59 pm | Permalink

      @ Mark Hess,july 1,2011-5:19 am.

      As long as you are a WHITE thug we’ll accept you.We have a “don’t ask,don’t tell” policy for thugs also.

    • Sean Grant's Gravatar Sean Grant
      July 4, 2011 - 6:02 am | Permalink

      Julian Lee is a radical homosexual activist based out of Portland.

  15. Tp's Gravatar Tp
    July 1, 2011 - 10:35 am | Permalink

    Good article and keen insight is displayed here. I am proud to see that honest people are starting to separate Zionist Jews from sincere Jews who tolerate the
    morals of other religions. Maybe one day people will see how History has been
    distorted such as the Holocaust, 9-11, Pearl Harbor, the present Libya conflict and the Gaza flotilla…it goes on. The destruction of all religion is behind it.

  16. Mo's Gravatar Mo
    July 1, 2011 - 11:53 am | Permalink

    Good video on NY Gay Marriage Bill;

  17. josef's Gravatar josef
    July 1, 2011 - 4:08 pm | Permalink

    this movement is two fold. to increase the velocity of social disintegration within the USA and to force Christian Churches to violate their theology. as regards to the last item. to sue those churches for great gain AND to demoralize the congregations within same.

    like every attempt to force things or ideas or actions down people’s throats, particularly with the backing of a centralized government, this movement will initially have great success.

    however, as in all things, that cute term, “blowback”, will eventually kick in.

    at that point, I don’t think I would want to be one of these anti human, Marxist, individuals.

    as to the Jew billionaires, they seem to think that they are completely immune, to events, which have happened to various kings and emperors throughout history.

    being terminally demoted from their king ship.

    I have to wonder just how intelligent these inbred tribal individuals really are.

  18. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 1, 2011 - 4:59 pm | Permalink

    “I don’t believe you.”~Jason Speaks

    Big deal.

    “Sorry, Willy. Marriage isn’t a right. It’s a privilege.”~Caleb

    Rights are not granted by the state, they are inherent upon being born a human being. Freedom of choice is simply a human right, regardless of your spurious “reasoning.”

    As far as McDonald’s proclamation that this is not a homophobic site, that is belied by the content-as any rational being can see with their own eyes.
    ww

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      July 1, 2011 - 5:06 pm | Permalink

      Yes, but marriage is not a “right” in the sense you are using it. What they are demanding is not the right to live together and call it whatever they want, they are demanding that the state recognize their union and give it the same protections and privileges of what the state calls marriage.

      There is nothing “homophopic” about such a concern.

    • July 11, 2011 - 4:45 pm | Permalink

      “Rights are not granted by the state, they are inherent upon being born a human being.”

      So a Chinaman is born with the “right” to criticize his government? Small solace to the students who got their skulls crushed under tanks.

      Marriage is not and has never in the history of the planet been a “right.” I defy you to come up with shred of evidence that show otherwise.

      Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that marriage is a “right”?

    • July 11, 2011 - 8:30 pm | Permalink

      “As far as McDonald’s proclamation that this is not a homophobic site, that is belied by the content-as any rational being can see with their own eyes.”

      Or maybe the owners of this blog simply believe in free speech, in not censoring the views of its columnists and readers.

      I would think that someone who cares as much about “rights” you claim to would respect that.

  19. fender_strat's Gravatar fender_strat
    July 1, 2011 - 5:45 pm | Permalink

    Hatred of homosexuality is a Semitic concept. The Ancient Greeks and Romans, for the most part, didn’t care whether someone loved the opposite gender or his/her own. It was only until the Semitic religion of Christianity took over the West that suddenly there was a problem with it. The only reason why today’s Jews are in favor of gay marriage is because the Christians majority is against it; most Jews probably think homosexualty itself is disgusting.

    Personally, I don’t have a problem with homosexuals. I don’t understand how someone can make the claim that their actions lead to a birth rate deficit; gays, by their nature, can’t have any effect on birth rates, positive or negative. They don’t have a stake in the game.

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      July 1, 2011 - 6:29 pm | Permalink

      I’m not sure we can say dislike of homosexuality is a Semitic hang-up. Many societies all over the earth and throughout time have condemned homosexuality.

    • July 11, 2011 - 5:12 pm | Permalink

      “Hatred of homosexuality is a Semitic concept.”

      Is there any difference in your mind between hating homosexuals and criticizing them, or hating them and opposing their political agenda?

      Is a parent a “hater” for being just a bit miffed that his tax dollars are being spent teaching his children “queer theory” in school? Or that people who are biologically incapable of reproducing should have the same marital status as him?

      “The Ancient Greeks and Romans, for the most part, didn’t care whether someone loved the opposite gender or his/her own.”

      First of all, the correct term is sex, not gender.

      Secondly, that statement is simply not true.

      The type of homosexuality which was tolerated in ancient Greece was the type now advocated by NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) and is almost universally scorned today.

      The type of homosexuality which is tolerated today — that is, one grown man allowing himself to be penetrated by another grown man — would have been deeply offensive to the ancient Greeks.

      I am not aware of there having been any widespread tolerance for homosexuality in ancient Rome, unless you’re talking about Caligula’s orgies or something like that.

      Furthermore, I don’t much care (other than as a purely scholarly matter) what the attitudes of the ancient Greeks and Romans were towards homosexuality. The Romans used lead plumbing for their drinking water — should we do the same? I don’t see what relevance their attitudes have to this debate. We are not ancient Greeks or Romans.

    • Caleb's Gravatar Caleb
      July 11, 2011 - 7:13 pm | Permalink

      Igor, strong disapproval of homosexuality certainly is a Hebrew concept. The explicit laws against it in Leviticus — where it is called an Abomination — and in Genesis where the Sodomites were annihilated by God were a reaction against the contemporary practices of the ancient Greeks. These practices did include a kind of institutionalized pederasty but there were homosexual relations between adults as well, such as Achilles and Hector in the **Iliad**.

      And I agree that “gender” should be reserved for language science where it belongs. Making “sex” a dirty word is a goal of the radical feminists.

    • Jim Bowie's Gravatar Jim Bowie
      July 11, 2011 - 7:31 pm | Permalink

      Great post Igor, very informative. And from what I know of history, many societies scorned homosexuality. The Mayans, the Aztecs, the Chinese, the Japanese, Native Americans … I believe they all rejected homosexuality. There may have been some mild accommodations, but certainly nothing as expansive as “marriage” was ever contemplated.

      The push for gay rights and especially “gay marriage” does seem to be part of a general attempt by progressives to undermine Western nations. And there are quite a few Jews involved in that!

    • July 11, 2011 - 7:44 pm | Permalink

      “Igor, strong disapproval of homosexuality certainly is a Hebrew concept.”

      If you’re going to go on making these claims, I’m going to have to see some evidence for them.

      You’re claiming that:

      1. “Strong disapproval” of homosexuality (whatever that means) originated with the Hebrews.

      2. “Strong disapproval” of homosexuality is something more-or-less exclusive to “Semites” and to peoples who have been influenced by Semitic culture (i.e., Christianity), who without this Semitic influence were and would have continued to be 100% tolerant and supportive of homosexual lifestyles.

      I doubt you can support any of those claims with evidence.

      In addition, you seem to be insinuating that a refusal to support the modern homosexual sociopolitical agenda (which is demonstrably jewish in origin and has nothing whatsoever to do with buggery in ancient Greece) is “Semitic” and therefore bad — because if a jew or Semite says something, it must be wrong, right? So long nuclear energy then. And we may as well stop using zero and go back to doing math using Roman numerals.

      “These practices did include a kind of institutionalized pederasty but there were homosexual relations between adults as well, such as Achilles and Hector in the **Iliad**.”

      Let’s see the passage.

    • Jim Bowie's Gravatar Jim Bowie
      July 11, 2011 - 8:08 pm | Permalink

      Actually I think Caleb is having fun with this blog. I believe he has stated before that he is oppossed to the critique of Jewish behavior and any kind of preservation of White culture. Apparently, he is engaging in a form of “satire”.

    • July 11, 2011 - 8:48 pm | Permalink

      “Actually I think Caleb is having fun with this blog.”

      Ah, that explains it. I saw some other comments he posted here and they seemed hard to reconcile with each other.

    • Caleb's Gravatar Caleb
      July 11, 2011 - 10:19 pm | Permalink

      Eye-gore, for Achilles read Patroclus and here is some “proof”:

      Achilles is tender towards Patroclus, while he is callous and arrogant towards others. Commentators from the classical period on have tended to interpret the relationship through the lens of their own cultures. Thus, in Athens during the 5th century BC, the relationship was commonly interpreted as pederastic. While some contemporary readers maintain the same pederastic view, others believe the relationship to simply be a strong friendship between two war heroes. Contemporary readers are more likely to interpret the two heroes either as non-sexual “war buddies”, or as an egalitarian homosexual couple.

    • Jim Bowie's Gravatar Jim Bowie
      July 11, 2011 - 10:34 pm | Permalink

      Interesting game Caleb is playing. Cute in its own way and we can learn from it. He assumes most people on this site are “anti-Semitic” and also “anti-gay”, so he tries to set up a conflict between the two ideas. By crediting Jews with anti-homosexual attitudes, he hopes to make you either disown your critique of Jewish culture or disown your disapproval of homosexuality, because you can’t have both the ways (the way he presents it).

      Notice that he isn’t really coming out and honestly presenting his ideas, rather he assumes everyone is a “bigot” too far gone to engage in honest debate, and they must be must be dealt with via manipulation. Or maybe he is just doing satire, in which case it’s not so insulting!

      We can learn from this. This is the way “progressives” play with ideas to divide and disrupt their opposition.

    • Caleb's Gravatar Caleb
      July 12, 2011 - 1:57 am | Permalink

      Actually, and to my initial surprise, it seems a number of people on this site ARE gay.
      But then, homosexuals, seeking acceptance, often turn up in cults and other marginal groupings. Why not here?

    • Jim Bowie's Gravatar Jim Bowie
      July 12, 2011 - 2:09 am | Permalink

      But then, homosexuals, seeking acceptance, often turn up in cults and other marginal groupings

      True. Just look at the anti-White Politically Correct crowd. It’s full of gays.

  20. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 1, 2011 - 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Speaking to Jason,

    The whole reason for this is that the ‘state’ demands such for reasons of inheritance, visitation rights in hospitals, and other institutions, and situations. Such legal protections become necessary in such a state of affairs. Denying gays these same protections is simply discriminatory and violate the right to their liberty as adult humans. It is not equality under the law to deal in the manner you profess.

    As far as those who call it a “sin”–under the concept of freedom of religion, this idea of “sin” as a matter of civil law is unconstitutional via the 1st Amendment, and is a matter of personal conscience from the perspective of the full spectrum of liberty’s freedoms.
    The 9th Amendment of the Constitution also speaks to this non-enumerated right.
    I will point out that the Bill of Rights were seen as a brake on the majority of the people more than as a break on government.

    The inviolability of these rights, regardless of majority opinion, should be seen as a safeguard to every right.
    Majority opinion could very well gore your own bull at some point if such precedents as the ban on marriages of certain individuals is maintained. Only the unimaginative can believe this is not a slippery slope issue.

    What seems quite obvious from reading many of your comments for the past couple years, is that you don’t have much respect for the rights of human beings, but only your white brethren. Although you have back-up from your racist allies on this site, yours are ideas that are being swept into the dustbin of history. I would give the idea of “slippery slopes” some serious attention were I you. It may not be too long when certain rights you think are inviolate could be withdrawn by the majority.
    ww

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      July 1, 2011 - 6:38 pm | Permalink

      But what “right” are gays denied by not having a state recognized state construct granted to them? You mentioned inheritance for example, but wouldn’t a Will take care of that? Couldn’t they draw up contracts that grant certain people rights in such situations? You are suggesting that gays are being denied these rights, but they are not.

      It is simply that there is an institution called marriage, that society and the state have a compelling interest in. It is an institution that is intimately involved in raising children – arguably the most important task a civilization undertakes.

      By the way, you mention reading my posts for the last 2 years, but I haven’t made posts that long, so maybe you have me confused with someone else?

    • Scooter's Gravatar Scooter
      July 1, 2011 - 8:18 pm | Permalink

      Slippery slope indeed, Wally. Once the white man gave up control of this country, we have slipped down the slope to the disaster we now have. On the scale of things, gay marriage is a minor annoyance compared to all the other liberal BS that has ruined this once great nation, but being as gays are 2% of the population and are a biologically viable only when hidden, perhaps they shouldn’t spend so much time pissing off the real men who made this country great prior to 1950.

  21. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 1, 2011 - 6:26 pm | Permalink

    [ As far as McDonald’s proclamation that this is not a homophobic site, that is belied by the content-as any rational being can see with their own eyes. ]

    The term ” homophobic” is a term fitting for retards and liberals only .
    Conservatives are not afraid of homos . Some people really think the homo lifestyle is not a good one .

    It is like smoking . You are free to choose to smoke but many people think it’s not a healthy choice . Nobody fears or hates smokers . It’s just that it is not something that should be promoted . Smoking should not be ” celebrated ” Children should not be taught to smoke .
    If someone smokes then they have the freedom to smoke and they are not evil for doing so .
    Also , some people are not comfortable around smoking , so smokers should be considerate of those who don’t like to be exposed to smoking . There should not be parades glorifying smoking , nor should there be smokers pride celebrations .

  22. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 1, 2011 - 6:38 pm | Permalink

    “Some people really think the homo lifestyle is not a good one .”~John hearns

    Fine. But they don’t have the just authority to use law to disparage that lifestyle.
    What this is, is simply busybody bullsnot: Nosy Neighbor Associations.
    Naïve goody-goody-two-shoes glad hand grinning groopers. It is NONE of your business.

    The question that comes to mind is whether you have undergone some form of psycho-surgery to replace your pineal with a bull’s anus, or whether you were born that way.~ww

  23. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 1, 2011 - 6:42 pm | Permalink

    I bet that many gays can not stand smoking .
    How would they feel if smokers had the same kind of in your face attitude about smoking ?

    I hate the big brother kind of anti-smoking agenda that is present in modern society . I think that smoking is not healthy but people should be free to smoke because that is a basic freedom . I feel the same about homosexuality .

  24. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 1, 2011 - 6:48 pm | Permalink

    WW

    If it was all about the freedom to be gay then I would have no problem .
    But , you have to be completely disconnected ( or biased because you are “ingroup” ) to not see that it is not about freedom to be gay at all . It is about taking freedom from those who sincerely feel that it is not a good lifestyle .
    Just like multi-cult is not about equality for all races . It is just code for hatred for whites and full of double standards .

  25. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 1, 2011 - 6:58 pm | Permalink

    [ The question that comes to mind is whether you have undergone some form of psycho-surgery to replace your pineal with a bull’s anus, or whether you were born that way.~ww ]

    Yup , this is the kind of ” tolerance ” that shows what your ” special interest ” is all about .
    Thanks for putting it right out there .

  26. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 1, 2011 - 7:10 pm | Permalink

    BTW , I know quite a few gays from a past employment . I have noticed that homos tend to have minds that are prone to really dirty low down toilet think as just displayed .
    There is another group that tends to think dirty like that …. any guesses ?

    • Doug's Gravatar Doug
      July 3, 2011 - 1:56 pm | Permalink

      A Federal investigative officer told me years ago that queers are part man, part woman and part devil.

  27. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 1, 2011 - 7:33 pm | Permalink

    [ And the truth is, there are very, very few gays who truly want to be “married” in any serious sense. I think this will be looked back on as a kind of insane fad by future generations. ]
    True , it is a small minority of a small minority that is pushing to overturn the will of the vast majority .

    And I think it is seen as a kind of insane fad by a lot of people right now !

    It is a wacky world for sure ! Sometimes you have to stand back and think : ” is this for real ? are they really talking about two men getting married ! Nahhhhh , can’t be !! ”

    No really , they are talking about two men getting married !
    It’s for real , believe it or not .

  28. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 1, 2011 - 7:40 pm | Permalink

    Can you imagine if you could bring back great grandpa and to tell him that we are considering making it acceptable for two men to get married ?
    I wonder what he would say ?
    I bet it would be very comical .
    lol

  29. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 1, 2011 - 8:39 pm | Permalink

    “It is about taking freedom from those who sincerely feel that it is not a good lifestyle .”~hearns

    The freedom to crush anothers freedom is not freedom it is tyranny. What a dolt.
    You are living in the wrong century hearns, you should have been around when KKK had full reign…ah the “glory days”..aye?
    ww

    • Doug's Gravatar Doug
      July 3, 2011 - 1:58 pm | Permalink

      Sorry Willy, your playback of Gentile ideals does not work here. We’re onto you.

    • July 11, 2011 - 7:20 pm | Permalink

      “The freedom to crush anothers freedom is not freedom it is tyranny.”

      How is freedom being “crushed”? Homosexuals have been free to live as they wish in most parts of the United States for decades. In fact, homosexuals residing in the western world today have a degree of freedom that is unprecedented in recorded history.

      But I guess that’s not enough for them.

      “What a dolt.”

      This is the second instance I’ve seen of you insulting someone here. The moderators must like you, because I’ve had posts removed for saying less.

  30. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 1, 2011 - 9:34 pm | Permalink

    ww ,
    You sound like something from the $plc . Nice . But , here of all places ?
    Last century ? KKK ?
    uh huh , yeah , I wear a comical white pointy hood and you are my adversary with your thirst for justice for new glory days when men will be marrying other men .

    I am growing tired of arguing with you . I’ve heard it and it is just an insane fad . Sorry , can’t jump on that band wagon . I won’t even get a tattoo .
    LOL

  31. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 1, 2011 - 9:45 pm | Permalink

    [ The freedom to crush anothers freedom is not freedom it is tyranny. ]

    * full symphony plays wedding march in background *

    LOL

    cheers .

  32. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 1, 2011 - 9:48 pm | Permalink

    “You sound like something…”~hearns

    Must be those voices again Hearns. I’ve sent a few words in text your way, but haven’t uttered a word.
    They say Abraham heard voices in his head too. Almost gutted his kid…”God told me to cut you into little pieces”…
    Yea, your a creature out of your proper time..and mind. Lol
    ww

    • Doug's Gravatar Doug
      July 3, 2011 - 2:01 pm | Permalink

      Your ignorance is showing, Willy. It’s “you’re”, not “your”. How did you ever learn to spout the subversive line with such poor spelling?

    • Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
      July 3, 2011 - 7:48 pm | Permalink

      Yea…it’s always suddenly a ‘spelling bee’ when you have nothing else isn’t Doug. No question mark, because this is a rhetorical remark.
      ww

  33. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 1, 2011 - 10:24 pm | Permalink

    That was lame WW ,

    Stick to the KKK thing . It’s so springer .

  34. m's Gravatar m
    July 2, 2011 - 8:31 am | Permalink

    f-s writes: “The Ancient Greeks…, for the most part, didn’t care whether someone loved the opposite gender…”

    For the most part? Which part?, and what particular cities do you mean? Certainly Socrates’ discussion of eros in the Symposium argues differently. And we may refer to Plato’s Laws for a further discussion of the morality of homosexuality. Or, one could reference Aristophanes. Whatever the ancient case, to make an analogy between classical Greek social norms with what is happening today in NYC, is very strained.

  35. m's Gravatar m
    July 2, 2011 - 8:41 am | Permalink

    willy whitten writes: “I will point out that the Bill of Rights were seen as a brake on the majority of the people more than as a break on government.”

    And you are essentially incorrect. The Bill of Rights was enacted as a check against the central government usurping the authority of the States. Prior to the post “Civil War” amendments, and prior to the Civil War, the idea of federalism still enjoyed legitimacy. Only after the war of Southern cessation, and even then only after the promulgation of the “incorporation doctrine,” did the Bill of Rights refer to the States, which were, by then, not viewed as autonomous civil entities, but rather as subservient to the center.

  36. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 2, 2011 - 10:54 am | Permalink

    “The Bill of Rights was enacted as a check against the central government usurping the authority of the States.”

    Only the Tenth Amendment deals with this issue of state v federal authority. The federal bill of rights was demanded as one that would mirror the bills of rights already existant in the state constitutions.

    The core document that should be examined is the Declaration of Independence, and it’s recognition of the rights of man as “self evident.” The various bills of rights in the state constitutions reflect this. The demand of a bill of rights for the federal constitution reflects the prescience of the founders–especially the antifederalists, that the Constitution was still born, a flawed but necessary attempt to form a more perfect union.

    “A mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits (of government) is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.” – James Madison, Federalist Paper #48, 1788.
    Franklin saw danger everywhere. They all did. Not one of them liked the Constitution. James Madison, known as the father of it, was full of complaints about the power of the presidency. But they were in a hurry to get the country going.
    Franklin, old and dying, had someone read for him. He said, I am in favor of this Constitution, as flawed as it is, because we need good government and we need it fast. And this, properly enacted, will give us, for a space of years, such government.

    But then, Franklin said, it will fail, as all such constitutions have in the past, because of the essential corruption of the people. He pointed his finger at all the American people. “And when the people become so corrupt”, he said, “we will find it is not a republic that they want but rather despotism ,- the only form of government suitable for such a people”.

    He was obviously correct, as is illustrated in flashing neon lights on this very site.
    ww

    • m's Gravatar m
      July 2, 2011 - 3:31 pm | Permalink

      Whitten writes: “Only the Tenth Amendment deals with this issue of state v federal authority….”

      You are missing the point and moving away from your original statement. The Bill of Rights was a check on the center, and hence the entire section deals with state v. federal authority. In its original form the limits did not at all apply to the States.

      Example: the First Amendment states that Congress (meaning the central government) could not exercise an establishment of religion. However, nothing precluded the individual States from doing so, as long as it was consistent with their own constitutions. Here are your original words:

      “I will point out that the Bill of Rights were seen as a brake on the majority of the people more than as a break on government.”

      Thus, your original claim that the Bill of Rights was a check against the majority was not really the case, except in a very loose sense. It WAS a check on central government, though.

      Regarding sexual deviancy, we can read Thomas Jefferson’s 1778 words: “Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.”

  37. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 2, 2011 - 4:12 pm | Permalink

    “Thus, your original claim that the Bill of Rights was a check against the majority was not really the case, except in a very loose sense. It WAS a check on central government, though.”~m

    Madison himself said that it was more a check on the majority than on government.
    It is obvious that all the founders realized that they had fallen into the Tory mole, Hamilton’s trap of creating a central government that would become not, federal but a national government.
    ww

  38. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 2, 2011 - 4:29 pm | Permalink

    The inclusion of the lex talionis, or retaliation in kind, bothered Jefferson even as he worked on the bill. By letter he consulted with fellow committee member George Wythe and wrote, “I have strictly observed the scale of punishments settled by the Committee, without being entirely satisfied with it. The lex talionis, altho’ a restitution of the Common law,…will be revolting to the humanised feelings of modern times. An eye for an eye, and a hand for a hand will exhibit spectacles in execution whose moral effect would be questionable…This needs reconsideration.”[5] Despite Jefferson’s reservations, the ninety page Revisal Report was submitted with the punishments for rape, polygamy, and sodomy unchanged.
    [from Monticello website]

    My only comment would be that Jefferson was obviously working with legalisms at this point–and he obviously came to his senses, feom seeing the tree rather than the forest but a short time later.

    That clause does sound rather Shariah, does it not?
    Is that what you would revert to M, brutal Shariah mutilations, stoning and such?
    This had as much to do with man/woman relationships as male-male buggery.
    As I pointed out before, all should beware of such slippery slopes.
    ww

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      July 2, 2011 - 5:27 pm | Permalink

      With regard to slippery slopes, we should keep in mind that there is no new restriction on homosexual activity or homosexuals being proposed, no “anti-buggery” laws as it were, only a debate over what constitutes a marriage.

      Again, as far as I can see, gays have the right to inherit property or leave their possessions to whomever they wish, to appoint someone legal guardian in emergencies, and to give a power of attorney to anyone they choose.

      They also have the right to live together, form partnerships and call it a marriage, including having a marriage ceremony.

      It is only the matter of what the state recognizes as a marriage in a specific sense for legal purposes. That is still generally defined as a particular institution between a male and female, because it is so intimately bound up with family formation and the raising of children – and I believe civilizations have a compelling interest in such matters.

      So, I don’t see any slippery slope we need to worry about here. No one is talking about taking some previously recognized “right” away from gays, they are only talking about what constitutes a marriage and not redefining it.

  39. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 2, 2011 - 5:29 pm | Permalink

    “But I confess that I do conceive, that in a government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority. “~Madison, in his introductory remarks on the articles he had written that would eventually become the Bill of Rights
    ww

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      July 2, 2011 - 5:40 pm | Permalink

      There are no rights that are being taken away from any gays in any sense. Period. There are no anti-sodomy laws being proposed. We are only talking about what defines a marriage.

  40. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 2, 2011 - 5:44 pm | Permalink

    Jason,

    Matters of inheritence are indeed more complex that you invision–with blood relatives given great privelege in this regard, even in light of wills expressly giving sums to others that are not family. Much of this will rest with the persuasiveness of particular attorneys, biases of judges, etc.

    One of the worst issues is in the matter of visitations of hospitals, prisons and other institutions for those who have no “legal” attatchement to the person ensconced in such an institution.
    While your cold heart may not go out to them, a partner of a person dying of aids in a hospital pleading; “But he is my common law husband” simply does not make a difference to hospital regulations on such matters.

    Appealling to the legally piggally aspect is always great for those who have no dog in the fight. Obviously appealing to your “better nature” is not going to move you as you apparently have none.

    Having seen my own brother in the depths of depression over such issues with some of his closest friends has given me some insights to these issues. Frankly the cavalier inhumane attitudes I see here are truly disgusting.
    ww

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      July 2, 2011 - 5:55 pm | Permalink

      Willy,

      I don’t have a cold heart. White Advocates actually tend to be much more warm-hearted and generous than the average person. My heart goes out to your suffering and your brothers suffering over his health and related issues. These are always hard times for a family, as I’m sure all of us are intimately aware. Sadly, we all have our share of tragedy to endure in this life.

      With regard to the issue at hand, no laws are being proposed to take rights or legal privileges away from gays. None. There are no anti-sodomy or anti-gay bans being proposed.

      Yes, blood relatives are given privileges over others by the courts (as this is usually the wisest course of action, especially given the extraordinary number of partners most gay men have), so if a gay person wishes to change that, then a simple trip to a lawyer would fix it.

  41. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 2, 2011 - 5:52 pm | Permalink

    I simply don’t get it Jason. How is it any skin off your nose, in other than a nosy busybody fascination with other people’s business.

    It is the historical suppression of gay rights that has brought this circus to the streets and statehouses.

    Again, what I see here is the fear of other–in both your homophobia and your racism. Make any euphemistic excuses you wish, but that is what is at the heart of this.
    ww

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      July 3, 2011 - 4:05 pm | Permalink

      That frames the issue incorrectly. It is not a matter of gay marriage being a personal inconvenience or an affront to anyone’s personal life. It is not a problem of it feeling like “skin off anyone’s nose”. There is no ban of gays or the gay lifestyle being proposed.

      Rather, it is a matter of protecting a special institution (marriage) that is responsible for the raising of children, who are the most vulnerable members of a society. If a civilization fails to properly raise future generations, it fails as a civilization.

      It has nothing to do with any concern for homosexuals at all. In fact, no one here really posts anything about gays as such, so there is no basis for the charge of “homophobia”.

      I think you may be having some fun baiting us.

  42. Jarvis Dingle-Daden's Gravatar Jarvis Dingle-Daden
    July 2, 2011 - 6:19 pm | Permalink

    ‘Reform Judaism’ has as much to do with Judaism as ‘rap music’ has to do with music.

    That Reform bureaucracy chose to support the so-called rights of sodomites merely signifies their commitment to dismantle what remains of traditional society. Which is precisely why white homosexuals found such willing partners-in-struggle within the ranks of Team Zion. As I commented on another topic on here, Jews have long had a penchant for building tactical alliances. When the respective use-by dates are reached though, Chad and Thom shouldn’t be shocked by having been tossed overboard by their kosher comrades.

  43. Joanne Dee's Gravatar Joanne Dee
    July 2, 2011 - 9:14 pm | Permalink

    These self-serving Jews are merely thanking the descendents of the liberators of their people from concentration camps. After all, how else would an Eastern European Jew thank a Christian WWII vet for his sacrifice other than destroy his culture and country? For a people that is often touted for their above-average intelligence, they sorely lack foresight. For every anti-White deed they do, they show more and more whites that they are an enemy. Where will the Jew run to next? After all, he has alienated the entire world with his arrogant, in-your-face subversions. However, his constant self-adoration and praise have blinded him to the consequences of his actions. What I’d like to know if they hate Nazis so much, why do they work so damn hard to create more of them?

    • Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
      July 3, 2011 - 10:37 am | Permalink

      “Nowadays, if any States raise a protest against us it is only pro forma at our discretion and by our direction, for their anti-Semitism is indispensable to us for the management of our lesser brethren.” Protocols of Zion 9

      Zionists from the beginning welcomed anti-Semitism as a means of undermining what Zionists believed was the sense of false security of Jews in western, liberal societies, and as the means by which Jews would be kept in a permanent state of neurosis.~Rabbi Silverstein

      In his “Diaries”, Herzl stated: “Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies.” (p.19)
      ww

  44. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 3, 2011 - 4:20 am | Permalink

    Without fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve System, Wall St would be shrunk back to its rightful size, an alley alongside the eight-lane Main St.

    And of course, the voice of organized Jewry would be flebile.

  45. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 3, 2011 - 10:46 am | Permalink

    Herein there is wisdom to be gleaned if one has the critical mind to descern…

    Zionists from the beginning welcomed anti-Semitism as a means of undermining what Zionists believed was the sense of false security of Jews in western, liberal societies, and as the means by which Jews would be kept in a permanent state of neurosis.~Rabbi Silverstein

    One who understands dialectics will recognize readily that the antithesis to this proposition that “whites” are held in the very same state of neurosis by identifying in the same manner as Jews do-to the cult of identity.

    It is said that “competing organizations become alike.”
    To play a game of chess, one must sit at the board opposite the opponent.

    The wise man does not play the others game, but follows his own inner light.
    ww

    • John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
      July 3, 2011 - 12:39 pm | Permalink

      [ It is said that “competing organizations become alike.” ]

      huh ?
      I do not think you can draw a parallel between jewish instigated cultural subversion ( insane fads ) and the healthy , natural reaction that results .

      [ The wise man does not play the others game, but follows his own inner light. ]

      So true ! and my inner light tells me that men marrying other men is an insane fad and not a good idea .

    • Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
      July 4, 2011 - 10:59 pm | Permalink

      If one read the writings of the Zionist leaders and Zionist writers, he will find that they’re more anti-Semitic than even the Bible.

      The justification of Anti-Semitism is a cardinal theme in Theodor Herzl’s book The Jewish State. Herzl poses the question asked by all anti-Zionists: “Will not Zionism provide weapons for the anti-Semites?” He answers: “How so? Because I admit the truth? Because I do not maintain that there are none but excellent men among us.” Then Patai quotes Herzl’s Diaries: “They (Goyim) could not have let themselves be subjected by us in the army, in government, in all of commerce”. However, Zionists have proven Herzl to be wrong. The Jews now do control all those three sectors of the Western world plus the world media.

      Yehezkel Kaufman in article, titled “The Ruin of Soul” collected quotes from some of the Zionist writers (Frishman, Lenni Brenner, Berdichevsky, AD. Gordon, Schawadron, Klatzkin, Pinsker, Israel Joshua Singer, Chaim Kaplan, etc.), which if repeated on air – would get you fired from CNN, BBC, CBS, etc……..

      http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/anti-semitic-roots-of-zionism/

  46. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 3, 2011 - 1:09 pm | Permalink

    [ The Ancient Greeks…, for the most part, didn’t care whether someone loved the opposite gender…”

    For the most part? Which part?, and what particular cities do you mean? Certainly Socrates’ discussion of eros in the Symposium argues differently. And we may refer to Plato’s Laws for a further discussion of the morality of homosexuality. Or, one could reference Aristophanes. Whatever the ancient case, to make an analogy between classical Greek social norms with what is happening today in NYC, is very strained. ]

    Yeah , it’s as if the greeks were one non stop homo orgy where men would marry men possibly more often than they would marry women in ” the old fashioned way ”
    Also , blacks would fly helicopters around the pyramids which they built with advanced math and technology .

    Just a little lefty history lesson .

  47. Doug's Gravatar Doug
    July 3, 2011 - 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, John Graham, for the insightful article. And thank you, Franklin, for your particularly insightful comments.

    • John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
      July 3, 2011 - 3:45 pm | Permalink

      [ And thank you, Franklin, for your particularly insightful comments. }

      I went back and read Franklins posts .

      I have to agree , Franklin said it all and he said it well .
      The gay marriage advocates have no rebuttal , but we know that won't stop their blather .

  48. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 3, 2011 - 7:44 pm | Permalink

    What is advocated here is to take us back to the dark ages of tribalism, barbarism and clannish grievances. Which is exactly what the organized Jewry wants. It is all blatant tribal supremacist blather, the same reactionary wank the Nazis promoted.
    In fact, the concepts of “Jewish self-interest”, “is it good for the Jews?” and the “elite identity” are incompatible with morality, humanity and civilization itself.
    It is no different for “White self-interest”, “is it good for Whites?”

    This is the dialectic I speak to, and this whole issue of homophobia is bundled into this same paradigm.
    ww

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      July 3, 2011 - 7:55 pm | Permalink

      But of all the groups that are organized to defend their rights, why are you preoccupied with small number of Whites defending themselves? This is one of the few sites devoted to White interests, which has none of the size or financial backing of non-White interest groups.

      If you are consistent in your critique of “tribalism”, you must be sending letters of dissent to the ADL, the SPLC. the NAACP and LULAC. What has their response been like? I assume you spend lots of time on sites devoted to people of color, explaining to them the error of their ways as well?

      And finally, what are you doing to counter the ugly tribalism and barbarism of “group gay rights”? Certainly, that must offend your sensibilities.

      Oh, but will you say that gays are under some “attack” as a group, and therefore a group response is necessitated? Well then, the same thing holds true for Whites. It except in our case, it is the truth.

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      July 3, 2011 - 8:06 pm | Permalink

      And there is nothing “Nazi-like” in the articles featured on this site. Indeed, the most Nazi-like behavior I see today is in the militant faction of the “gay rights” community.

  49. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 3, 2011 - 7:58 pm | Permalink

    Every one of you knows that if you spout this blather anywhere but here, you will be challenged by almost everyone. That is why you huddle together here in your little thugish clan.
    Heard any ‘blond jokes’ lately?
    I’m blond, they don’t bother me, how ’bout you ‘whitey’?

    Your stronzate is positively humid with mendacity, obfuscation, evasion and illusion.
    ww

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      July 3, 2011 - 8:10 pm | Permalink

      So you acknowledge that those who discuss White interests and culture are a beleaguered group, treated unfairly by enforcers of social conformity and political correctness, much more so than gay activists. And, of course, you are right.

      What did LULAC, the NAACP and the ADL say when you lectured them on the evils of tribalism?

  50. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 3, 2011 - 8:15 pm | Permalink

    Jason,
    I have deep and highly charged arguments with Zionist, both Jewish and Christian. And yes I have been in close scrapes with blacks for pointing out their hypocrisies as well.

    I have huge verbal fights with socialists, and their 5th columnist “Communitarians.”

    And as I mentioned before–this homo-parade and circus is a backlash against centuries of suppression and being ‘fags’ for the bonfires of heritics and such.
    A lot of it is disgusting to my own sensablilities as well.
    But all I have to do is look away. I don’t have to be involved in it. It is their lifestyle choice.
    I don’t like being involved with holy rollers drooling and flailing about gibbering on the floors any better.
    I don’t like nosy goody-goody two shoes of any ilk.
    I don’t like American Exceptionalism and jingo warmongers.
    Most of all I don’t like hypocrisy.
    What I do like is liberty and justice for all. I like it dealt with on an individual basis, for all are individual perspectives and cases. Lumping folks together in pidgin hole fashion is total ignorance.

    You got a world of crap coming down around you right now–and who sleeps with who is going to seem like something really stupid to have been worrying about when the fit finally hits the shan.
    FINI
    ww

  51. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 3, 2011 - 8:20 pm | Permalink

    I answered you Jason, about what happens when I argue with LULAC, the NAACP and the ADL…but that answer is under “moderation” ie, censorship.
    If it doesn’t come through, don’t blame me.
    ww

  52. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 3, 2011 - 8:25 pm | Permalink

    Jason, I am “treated unfairly by enforcers of social conformity and political correctness”, on a daily basis.
    I put up with it on my own as an individual–like I do here.
    I don’t need a gang, or a tribe, or bodyguards surrounding me to do it.
    Perhaps you could do with growing a pair yourself.
    ww

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      July 3, 2011 - 8:41 pm | Permalink

      I shall endeavor to rise to your level of courage and use your example as a source of inspiration. But really, there is no reason to have a special animus towards people that are concerned with preserving White culture. After all, I dare say a gay man is better off in most any White country than any alternative.

  53. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 3, 2011 - 9:24 pm | Permalink

    “.there is no reason to have a special animus towards people that are concerned with preserving White culture.”
    ~Jason

    After this entire conversation it should be obvious to you that there is nothing “special” in this ‘animus’ as you call it. I am opposed to all forms of exceptionalist creeds. I have made that azure clear in everything I have said.

    “Culture” is nothing but the scum grown in a petri dish in this instance. The social engineering of a scientific dictatorship.
    You may wish to blame this on “the Jews”, but it is in fact British Fabian Socialism. That this has absorbed Rothschild Zionism is also true. But it has been extant since long before Waterloo, when the Rothschilds conquered the British financial turf.
    You should consider looking into Sion, as well as Zion, as it is the “gentile” term for the same program.

    Let me bid you adieu, as this conversation has left me weary and disappointed in my fellow man…yet again.
    ww

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      July 3, 2011 - 11:41 pm | Permalink

      Sorry to have disappointed you – don’t let it color your view of Man himself! But after the dramatics have died down, reflect on something. You made this statement:

      I am opposed to all forms of exceptionalist creeds.

      Well again, if this is true, you need to focus on getting the big players to change their ways – that would be the NAACP, LULAC, ATZLAN, ADL, SPLC, etc.

      We are not even a tiny player in that game and we are heavily monitored and attacked by the establishment, as you yourself mentioned – remember you dared us to speak what we believe out loud and see the negative response we’d get. You realize Mexicans, Blacks and Jews are free to be openly tribalist. If the spread of “exceptionalist creeds” bother you, you should start with them, because they have much more cultural currency.

      We already have the weight of an elephant weighing down on us, adding a one more whispering voice won’t matter. But if you took this fight to NAACP, it might make a difference.

      But something tells me you won’t be going on NAACP websites and lecturing them on their “exceptionalist creeds”. Could there be a limit, even to your courage?

  54. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 3, 2011 - 9:26 pm | Permalink

    Hah…one way or another. So long.
    ww

  55. Willy Whitten's Gravatar Willy Whitten
    July 3, 2011 - 10:35 pm | Permalink

    Thank you to the editors, who have acted in a fair manner in this thread.
    ww

    • John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
      July 4, 2011 - 12:42 am | Permalink

      [ Thank you to the editors, who have acted in a fair manner in this thread.
      ww ]

      WW , You should be thankful that the editors did not boot you for your use for that ridiculous nonsensical smear of
      ” homophobia ” .
      I have say that your special interest group has stupidest smears , made only effective by the fact that you are subversive and for that reason you get strong support from high places .

    • July 4, 2011 - 2:33 am | Permalink

      WW , You should be thankful that the editors did not boot you for your use for that ridiculous nonsensical smear of
      ” homophobia ” .

      A phobia is an unreasonable, abnormal, and lasting fear of something.

      The question Willy Whitten raises with his use of the term “homophobia” is whether opponents of homosexual marriage are by and large driven by an unreasonable fear of homosexuals.

      Given that there are reasonable reasons to fear the effects of homosexual marriage on our society, even opponents of homosexual marriage who are primarily driven by fear cannot be assumed to be driven by a phobia.

      A reasonable fear felt roughly in proportion to the object provoking it is not a phobia.

      For example, Geert Wilders is often called an Islamophobe, but if whatever fears he has of Muslims were actually unreasonable I doubt he would need so many bodyguards.

  56. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 4, 2011 - 12:22 am | Permalink

    [ I am opposed to all forms of exceptionalist creeds. ]

    Yeah sure WW , except for your own “special interest” .

    I guess you have re-enforced the wisdom we all should take from this …
    If we ignore the realities of human nature as to ignore the fact that humans tend to group together , then one very small “special interest ” will act as a group and dictate to the majority as to what sort of culture we all have no choice but to live in .

  57. me's Gravatar me
    July 4, 2011 - 2:24 pm | Permalink

    ” long term monogamous relationships for as long as I have known him,”
    That is very unlikely, in fact, I think you’re lying. Even homosexual ‘couples’ have multiple partners – even Andrew sullivan admitted this.

    Homosexuals almost completely lack self restraint in dealing with their sexual urges, which is precisely why AIDS and other STDs ravaged the ‘community’

    Opposing homosexual marriage I guess, is homophobic, correct? What do you propose to do about these ‘homophobic’ people?

    • Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
      July 4, 2011 - 11:11 pm | Permalink

      Canadian Jewish gay blogger Simon Jones wrote in November 2005 – “I approve of the way gays are integrated traditionally in Muslim society – do your civil duty (marry, have a couple of kids, assimilate, or become a mystic or scholar if str8 sex is just too much) and abstain from or carefully practice MSM discretely without disrupting the fabric of social life. Of course there are abuses, but a society which is built on peace, spirituality, and social responsibility will find that such abuses are minimal. Islam is fundamentally based on self-restraint – the purpose of the regular prayers and the impressive month of fasting each year is to strengthen one’s self-control. This aspect of Christianity has been destroyed by the West’s embrace of consumerism. It seems the war against Islam today intends to destroy this very resistance of Islam to western decadence, epitomized by gaylib”.

      http://simonjones1.blogspot.com/2005/11/odd-man-out-assimilation-vs-separation.html

  58. Mark Hess's Gravatar Mark Hess
    July 7, 2011 - 1:51 am | Permalink

    More honest anecdotal evidence that the issue of gay marriage may very well be about something other than having respect and empathy for our gay sisters and brothers….

    Quite a few years ago, I had a commute that brought me through a small town. In that town was a cafe/luncheonette that I stopped in, on a number of occasions, for coffee and a sandwich.

    At the time, the town was surrounded by small farms that were still funtioning, as well as at least two small manufacturers. It was not a prosperous place, nor a pretty one, but it was getting by.

    The men and women (mostly men) who frequented the luncheonette were farmers, hunters and workers. In other words, the kind of people who would be unfairly dismissed as “rednecks” by the types who run our country.

    It was quite obvious that the two gentlemen who ran the place were a gay couple, although they were not walking stereotypes– pretty “normal” in their gestures and speech, not like what we have often witnessed in the coverage of the celebrations surrounding the recent legalization of gay marriage in New York State. Whenever I was in the place, I saw the kind of friendly conversations and comfortable banter between owners and customers that one would associate with any small diner in a tight-knit community. And I would bet that any number of those patrons would have beaten the daylights out of any thug who harassed the couple.

    Anyway, something to think about…

  59. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 11, 2011 - 6:18 pm | Permalink

    You would think that gays , who are also wise enough to be pro white , would value the importance of marriage in that white procreation is very much needing support .
    It’s like gays are spoiled kids who are whining ” wahh wahh ! we don’t care how anyone feels ! we want marriage too ! ”

    Why not just live and let live ? Why the need to be in everyone’s face and f*cking things up ? Why side with the wacko left ? Why not leave marriage the way it has been for all of history .

  60. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 11, 2011 - 6:30 pm | Permalink

    [ From that perspective, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” made excellent policy sense. Its demise is yet another blow to the culture of heterosexuality that has been a healthy, adaptive norm in all human cultures. ]

    Oh , but no , don’t ask don’t tell would never do for the “special interests ” Isn’t it true that many gays are what you call ” flamers ” ? They have this need to scream out to everyone at the top of their lungs that they are ” special ” in that they prefer another man’s behind over a woman’s hooch like us ” old fashioned ” hetero’s do .

    I wonder what the psychological explanation is for this need to be a ” flamer ” ?

  61. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 11, 2011 - 7:46 pm | Permalink

    [ Whenever I was in the place, I saw the kind of friendly conversations and comfortable banter between owners and customers that one would associate with any small diner in a tight-knit community. And I would bet that any number of those patrons would have beaten the daylights out of any thug who harassed the couple.

    Anyway, something to think about… ]

    Ok , I have thought about it …

    I’m thinking that homo’s should be even half as tolerant as ” red necks ” are .

  62. Andrea D. Merciless's Gravatar Andrea D. Merciless
    July 16, 2011 - 8:38 pm | Permalink

    The Jewish MSM brainwashed the people of America that any opposition to the GAY AGENDA is ‘homophobic’, a form of mental sickness. And Jewish-run Hollywood entertainment conditioned impressionable young people to believe that a sexual act involving a penis and the fecal hole of another man is biologically and morally on the same plane as real sex involving proper sexual organs of man and woman.

    Why do Jews push such an agenda? By legitimizing the gay
    community–1 or 2% of the entire population–as the biological, cultural, and moral equal of the straight community, the Cabal is underhandedly conveying the message that Jews, who are only 2% of the population, have a right to possess majority-power in America. If 98-99% of people in this country who are NOT gay must bow down or bend over to the radical gay agenda(which says gays are equal or even superior to straights in every way) of perhaps 1-2% who are gay, it also implies that America is as Jewish as it is Gentile, that Jewish interests are as valid as the interests of all most Americans who are Jewish. In other words, the gay or Jewish mouse gets to move and define the gentile elephant.

    Also, the erasure of the boundaries between straightness and gayness also fosters fuzzy notions about race, national borders, etc. So, if gay is the bio-moral equal of a straight person, an illegal alien becomes the legal-moral equal of an American citizen. A black person becomes no different than a white person, meaning more white women should run off to have kids with Negro men. The loss of clear sexual identity is analogous to and encourages loss of clear racial, national, and cultural identities. Thus, white men are metro-sexualized and white women are jungle-fever-ized.

    So, there is more to the Jewish support of the gay agenda than most people realize. It is to deracinate the white race and to globalize America by weakening its borders. To a Jew, American citizens must embrace illegal aliens and bow down to radical gay demands. When White Americans are culturally, poliitcally, and morally browbeaten this way, they won’t have the guts and balls to stand up the Jewish minority that seeks total supremacism. We all need to beware of Jewish Supremacism or Jewpremacism.

  63. Brian's Gravatar Brian
    July 17, 2011 - 11:20 pm | Permalink

    It’s breath taking to watch pushy, arrogant Jews have their way with docile gentiles who if they wanted to could rise up and crush these people. I have a feeling that day is coming.

  64. John Sumner's Gravatar John Sumner
    July 17, 2011 - 11:58 pm | Permalink

    Many who hate male homosexuals fixate on anal sex. They condemn it as unclean, unnatural and immoral. They appear to want the act outlawed. This line of thinking takes us into some bizarre places.

    I have news for you, folks. Monogamous and white heterosexual couples do all kinds of fun and kinky things. And I hope they do. Oral sex and anal sex are just the tips of the amusing iceberg.

    Are we to condemn and outlaw the pleasures that healthy, white and married heterosexuals have?

    • Caleb's Gravatar Caleb
      July 18, 2011 - 11:30 am | Permalink

      Anal intercourse is extremely dangerous. No one should ever do it and that is a medical fact.
      It certainly should not be done to children, whether in Thailand or the sacristy.

    • Scooter's Gravatar Scooter
      July 23, 2011 - 6:18 pm | Permalink

      It should not be done in the synagogue, either – silly Rabbi.

    • Caleb's Gravatar Caleb
      July 23, 2011 - 6:26 pm | Permalink

      I don’t think rabbinical schools are hotbeds of unnatural vice. What they say about seminaries, though…

    • Scooter's Gravatar Scooter
      July 23, 2011 - 6:32 pm | Permalink

      Caleb:

      I draw your attention to the following FBI report of May 2011:

      Percentages of Rabbinical Students Participating in Unnatural Vice: 24.9
      Percentages of Seminarians participating in Unnatural Vice: 4.8

    • Caleb's Gravatar Caleb
      July 23, 2011 - 7:14 pm | Permalink

      Hooter, I wasn’t aware the Federal Bureau of Investigation kept statistics on “unnatural vice”. You must be referring to your own organization: the Fog-Brained Ignoramuses

  65. July 18, 2011 - 9:21 am | Permalink

    Pierre de Craon wrote: “I draw readers’ attention to small amplifications of two matters broached by Mr. Graham. Already widely known is that Larry Auster is a convert to Christianity only in the most degraded contemporary sense of the term convert. Like the neocatholic Roy Schoeman (Salvation Is from the Jews) or to a lesser extent the late cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, Auster is a “have your cake and eat it too” convert, one who feels no need to give up his Jewishness in order to cross from one side of the street to the other. ”

    Thank you. Auster’s “on again, off again” defense of the Race and Religion of Christendom have always bothered me. At first, I thought it was his liberal ‘Y’all come’ variant of (spiritually dead) Episcopalianism, but I realized later it was his inability to call the Deicides, by the name Christ gave them in St. John’s Gospel, Chapter Eight- precisely because it was ‘too close to home.’

    Following up on Franklin Ryckaert’s comment:
    “That consent however is deeply rooted in the Jewish character itself and reflects a consistent behaviour that can be historically demonstrated. Only in this sense do we consider “all Jews guilty”.

    I can only say that modern attempts to call supercessionism (the fact that the Church is Israel now, in God’s eyes- Gal. 6:16) either ‘anti-semitic’ or ‘evil’ has caused me to re-post my series on this theological affront to White Europe’s Christians, almost four years after I first posted it. I enclose the first link FYI, to lend credence to the truism, that ‘If a Rabbi is present, a crime has already been committed.’

    http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/will-ar-print/

  66. Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
    July 18, 2011 - 11:54 am | Permalink

    Thomas Jefferson (d. 1826), the principal author of Declaration of Independence and third President of US&A (1801-09), who is quoted as saying: “Ethics were so little understood among the Jews, that in their whole compilation called the Talmud, there is only one treatise on moral subjects. Their books of morals chiefly consisted in a minute enumeration of duties…What a wretched depravity of sentiment and manners must have prevailed, before such corrupt maxims could have obtained credit. It was the reformation of this ‘wretched depravity’ of morals which Jesus undertook.”

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/rabbi-torah-and-us-constitution/

  67. John's Gravatar John
    July 23, 2011 - 5:38 pm | Permalink

    “We hold that homosexuality is no longer an abomination; it is not a mental illness or social deviancy; it is not a perversion of the natural order.”

    Au contraire, you sick people! Homosexuality ALWAYS WAS, STILL IS and ALWAYS WILL BE an ABOMINATION! You’re trying to normalize the ABNORMAL! Decent, moral, NORMAL folks will never, ever, ever, recognize or condone this sickening, morally repugnanant sodomatrimony. NEVER!!

    What an outrage!!

  68. John's Gravatar John
    July 23, 2011 - 5:43 pm | Permalink

    Willy Whitten the homo troll. Or are you a homo-loving ‘liberal’ homophile? Either way, you’re very disgusting.

  69. John's Gravatar John
    July 23, 2011 - 5:48 pm | Permalink

    “The good rabbis, noting the Mosaic ban on homosexuaity in Leviticus 18.29 — “Thou shalt not lie with mankind” — shrugged their shoulders and concluded that underage boys were exempt from this moral law.

    After all, an 8-year-old boy was not a “man”, was he? As such, he couldn’t really be classified as part of MANkind.

    Boykind, yes; mankind, no.”

    A classic example of Jewish hairsplitting! No one does it better!

    “Now Moshe, don’t worry about a thing. It sez right here in the Talmud that…

    …now drop your shorts.”

  70. John's Gravatar John
    July 23, 2011 - 5:59 pm | Permalink

    “The Jewish MSM brainwashed the people of America that any opposition to the GAY AGENDA is ‘homophobic’, a form of mental sickness.”

    There is absolutely NO irrational fear or dislike of homosexuals, i.e., a ‘phobia’, as those in the mass media, etc. smear us as, who oppose this abomination. There’s just a just a normal, natural, sick feeling and revulsion to something so twisted, UNNATURAL and unclean.

    Tis better to be called a homophobe, which in reality is a misnomer, than a homosexual or homophile (i.e., one who condones and defend homosexuals and their agenda).

  71. John's Gravatar John
    July 23, 2011 - 6:06 pm | Permalink

    Hey Willy Whitten, you’re defending the indefensible and trying to moralize the IMMORAL. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A PERVERSION. Legalizing homosexual marriage is an even GREATER PERVERSION. And people like YOU, whether you’re a sodomite or not, are 100% WRONG!!!

    Wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!

  72. John's Gravatar John
    July 23, 2011 - 6:26 pm | Permalink

    Willy Whitten said:

    “How is it any skin off your nose, in other than a nosy busybody fascination with other people’s business.”

    “Busybody fascination?” WRONG.

    “It is the historical suppression of gay rights that has brought this circus to the streets and statehouses.”

    Yeah, same way we ‘suppress’ pedarasty and other deviant and criminal behavior.

    What about OUR rights? Hmmm? Our right not to see such deviancy as openly displayed by garden variety homosexuals and an institution by DEFINITION exclusively reserved for a male and female, not two males or two females??

    Homosexuals have all the rights that heterosexual citizens have. What they want is SPECIAL rights! Rights that belong exclusively to heterosexuals! And you know that!

  73. John's Gravatar John
    July 23, 2011 - 6:35 pm | Permalink

    One more thing: this ‘legalization’ of this repugnant homosexual marriage in yet another state is but one more step further in the long march through the institutions, to corrupt, pervert, subvert and destroy the existing natural, normal, moral, White Western Christian social order. And Jews have led the way!

  74. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    July 23, 2011 - 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Willy Whitten has shown himself a thoughtful, articulate, and informed man. His posts virtually never degenerate into mindless name-calling and label waving. His views frequently run counter to those of the majority of TOO commenters, but there has been no discussion that has not been enriched by his participation.

    As my June 29 comment above demonstrates, my disagreement with him on the moral core of the primary topic of this thread is as diametric as it could possibly be, yet I profited from reading his comments. I regret his recent decision to largely absent himself from this site.

    John, I look forward to the day when I can write something similar of you and your comments.

  75. John's Gravatar John
    July 23, 2011 - 7:25 pm | Permalink

    fender_strat said:

    “Hatred of homosexuality is a Semitic concept.”

    So what? Hatred of homosexuality is a natural, normal loathing for something DEVIANT, same way one loathes someone who engages in bestiality and I don’t need no religion to teach me that!

  76. John's Gravatar John
    July 23, 2011 - 7:52 pm | Permalink

    John Sumner said:

    “Many who hate male homosexuals fixate on anal sex.”

    That’s bullsh*t!

    “They condemn it as unclean, unnatural and immoral.”

    That’s because it IS. Very.

    “They appear to want the act outlawed.”

    Nonsense. However, there were anti-sodomy laws on the books once. Now look how far we’ve sunk into the abyss.

  77. John's Gravatar John
    July 23, 2011 - 8:08 pm | Permalink

    WW burped:

    “It is all blatant tribal supremacist blather, the same reactionary wank the Nazis promoted”

    The only ‘wanking’ here is YOU. And FYI, the only supremacists in our midst are those of the Jewish variety.

    And just what do you know, you self-righteous, pseudo-intellectual, pious troll, about National Socialists and their so-called “wank,” except for the mountain of lies, half-truths, and misrepresentation of their beliefs that you’ve read from ‘approved’ sources?

    Under a National Socialism, I can assure you, homosexual marriage would never, ever, ever been allowed much less even brought forward for debate–unlike this “jewed” and perverted post-WWII world we live in.

  78. August 20, 2011 - 3:09 pm | Permalink

    Welcome to America in 2011…where you actually have to prove that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. What’s next?

    Not surprisingly, Jews have been very overrepresented as members of the homosexual movement.

2 Trackbacks to "New York Gay Marriage: Follow The (Jewish) Money"

  1. on July 16, 2011 at 7:45 pm
  2. on October 9, 2011 at 1:35 am

Comments are closed.