You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2014.

Today was a horrible day, because it was a lost day. Oh, Cravitz! It wasn’t all lost, but it was pretty much a lost day. My fault. Although there were a few non-lost things, like some great comments that I read on the Net.

1) Pornography

First on the lie that porn is cathartic regarding sexual violence. I’ve argued the same as what is stated below, but since I don’t see a lot of people saying it very often, it was nice to see it.

As to the idea that viewing porn helps prevent violent rape–if this logic were true, then it would be imperative for us to make all sorts of cathartic video games available, to replace actual crime and violence with simulated. We could end violence against GLBT with simulated beatings and killings, and have similar programs simulating the abuse and murder of children and the elderly. If there really is an exhaustible zero-sum equation of violence and wickedness in humans, it would be very important for everyone to spend a certain amount of time pretending they’re Hitler, so as to assure that no one will be.

It’s a ridiculous excuse.

2) Homosexuality

Second, my reply to a liberal that never got published, debating the normalization of homosexuality, because the liberal’s comment was deleted by the moderator (although I did not find it offensive, I imagine the moderator deleted it because it was just one load of liberal homosexuality propaganda):

Sorry, but there are many psychologists who understand how deformed and dysfunctional homosexuality is, and then there are the ignorant ones who don’t. NARTH is a good site to read research of people who actually investigate the causes of homosexuality. Every time psychologists have investigated causes, they have found a long list of problems. Liberals just don’t want to deal with many problems related to sexual psychology.
While homosexuality is not an illness, most destructive sexual ideologies are not “illnesses” either. A person who engages in date rape is not “mentally ill” by psychiatric standards. Neither is someone who produces porn, who exploits prostitutes, or who transmits deadly STDs to dozens of people. Not even pedophilia is thought of as an illness by the junk of liberal psychologists.

Regarding people not choosing to have a homosexual problem, perhaps you have not considered that your thoughts and your behaviors are your choice, or at least you are responsible for them. And homosexuality certainly includes plenty of thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors. All chosen.

And I also think your wrong about people not choosing things that would have bad consequences. If that were true, we wouldn’t have any criminal behavior in the world, because who would choose to a) do a crime, b) be punished? Yet, people choose to do harm and violence constantly. They also choose to pursue all kinds of perverted thoughts and feelings their deformed minds produce.

No one is born with a homosexual problem, and if homosexuals resolved their problems, they would live out their lives like the heterosexuals they were born.

There has been a lot more investigation in the death of Matthew Sheppard than you’ve read. A journalist has written an entire book showing that it was a drug deal gone bad, and that there is reason to suspect his killer was bisexual as well. I don’t know about this mother you mention, but clearly she is a monster. But if you want to talk about monsters, how about Frank Lombard, a homosexual pedophile who adopted two babies to specifically rape them every night? It was people with your ideas that gave him those kids to torture. 15%-50% of adult LGBs have been involved in interpersonal violence. 80% of the sexually abusing priests investigated in the Catholic Church scandal were homosexuals. Men who have sex with men lead the way in spreading HIV and syphilis. And homosexuals just love to sexually degrade people in pornography.

It seems to me you have chosen to ignore many, if not all, the problems that exist with LGBTs.


3) Power and morality

Intimidation, persuasion, bullying, shaming, ostracism, etc. is what decides who has a place at the table since morality is a matter of belief not fact. Moral debates are only power games. The earth is round and 2 + 2 = 4, those are facts.”

A lot of a person’s sense of good and evil ultimately depends on their feelings. For many people, morality  is as objectively true as your favorite flavor of ice cream. Yet, given that harm is not an abstract concept only, it exists in reality, all depends on how accurate or innacurate one’s perception of harm is, which will also determine one’s morality. Add self-interests and other interests, tons of social conditioning, and there is little room left for science, of all things. Liberals, who claim to base their views on science, have actually read very little science, understand very little science, and base most of their morality on the very biased, distorted, and infinitely emotional elements above. If only they had any self-awareness.

4) Liberals and sheep herding

Liberals are not smarter. They’re just school yard bullies who like to hurl insults towards any group they disagree with. It’s like having a scientific debate, and responding by saying “you’re gay”. Really? I basically proved my point, and that’s you’re response? Except, the lib simply declares themselves correct by virtue.

Of course, when a lib declares their theories to be set in stone facts, other libs will repeat these so called facts. When the public hears the same thing over and over again, they will assume it to be solidified fact. That’s how it goes in liberal science. It doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, or something in between. It’s all about how to condition the public to accept the agenda. In most cases, it’s as easy as blasting the public with these “facts”, until there’s no alternative but to accept them for face value.

Libs have invested more time and energy in herding the sheeple into their enclosures. Conservatives tend to favor freedom of choice… A pattern of thinking that libs are well on their way toward eradicating.”

While I disagree that conservatives haven’t done an equal amount of making people into sheep, I certainly agree with the description of what liberals do, and one can never point out enough how disingenuous they are about acknowledging exactly what they are doing.

5) Those odious moderates

Know who I despise most of all? So-called “moderates.” They are mealy-mouthed, flaccid, totally lacking in convictions or principles. They go along to get along, dissembling and equivocating shamelessly.

Hear, hear. Nothing as obnoxious as a “moderate” who is nothing but a spineless, basically clueless, indifferent individual who thinks he is superior because they don’t have a more definite position on an issue.

6) Falling for the liberal lie that homosexuality is normal

I also think some progress has been made in that more people are starting to reject the main tactic of the left of demonizing and maligning anyone who doesn’t normalize homosexuality. They were manipulating conservatives by making them feel guilty for things they were not guilty of.

At its core, liberals want to shove homosexuality as normal down society’s throat, and they used the line that you were a bad person if you believed in a wholesome and healthy view of sexuality that excludes homosexual perversion (along with porn, promiscuity, etc). Many people fell for the normalization of homosexuality.

It will be up to better informed conservatives to dismantle the lie.

7) de Tocqueville – Democracy, power, and mediocrity

Alexander de Tocqueville, 1835, Democracy in America

Freedom cannot possibly be taken as the distinctive characteristic of democracies.

Men are much alike, and they are annoyed, as it were, by any deviation from that likeness; far from seeking to preserve their own distinguishing singularities, they endeavor to shake them off in order to identify themselves with the general mass of the people, which is the sole representative of right and of might in their eyes. However the powers of a democratic society are organized and weighted, it will always be very difficult for a man to believe what the mass of people reject, or to profess what they condemn.The more social conditions become equal and the less power individuals possess, the more easily men drift with the crowd and find it difficult to stand alone in an opinion abandoned by the rest.

What concerns me in our democratic republics is not that mediocrity will become commonplace, but that it may be enforced.

8) Orwellian liberalism

tomfinn says: April 13, 2014 at 12:38 pm

Yeah, “diversity” and “tolerance” have now become a code-words for homogeneity and conformity.

Many years ago I occasionally watched a late-night cartoon on the TV – “Bromwell High.” It was British, extremely cynical, and quite brutal.

There was one episode about “Tolerance.” (You can find it on YouTube.) The kids in the high-school were doing presentations about diversity. One girl made a presentation called “Into the melting pot.” So all these multi-culti students started coming onto the stage, and saying “I am so-and-so, and I am from so-and-so. I like Tupac. My favorite food is KFC. I like text-messaging.” At some point the presenter’s crazy friend shouts: “This ain’t diverse! They is all the same!”

So that’s what we have going on with our “progressive” friends. Your skin can be of any color, and you can have sex with whatever persons and objects you want (presumably including sisters, sheep, tomatoes, etc), as long as: you hate Christianity and especially the Catholic Church, you believe in Global Warming, you think homosexuality is just dandy even if you would rather drink mercury than have gay sex, you believe Russia & China are bad without knowing anything of their cultures or history, you want to save the silly paupers of third world nations from themselves and their prejudices, you like Whole Foods, you are a bourgeois, you believe in Feminism, you believe in Darwinism, you believe in Behaviorism, you believe there are no such things as right or wrong, you believe all of the beliefs listed above are right, you believe there is no ultimate justice, you believe women and gays have been treated unjustly, you believe all cultures are equal, you believe (for example) that the female “circumcision” cultural practices in certain places are barbaric, you hate capitalism and corporatism, you love Starbucks & Apple, you believe bombing the subjects of “evil” dictators (e.g. Obama & Libya) into “democracy” is a good idea, you think Bush’s ridiculous wars were a bad idea, etc etc.

Disbelief in any of the dogmas listed above brands you as a heretic, and, if uncovered, may lead to excommunication. As we saw with the case of Mr. Eich.


I loved his whole compendium of profoundly inconsistent liberal beliefs – which they believe in a rabid way while always thinking they are very consistent.

Update Monday April 14

Mozilla is proving that it is dedicated to pluralism and tolerance by excluding people with different views.
Or something.
Likewise, Brandeis is proving its institutional commitment to women’s rights by excluding a woman from publicly speaking about women being mistreated at the hands of the Religion of Peace.
Keep in mind, these are the same people who think we have to spend more money in order to get out of debt, as well as that global warming causes more cold weather.

My calendar says “2014,” but I’m pretty certain it is 1984.

Comment by Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/13/2014 @ 10:38 am

I think it’s simpler than that [referring to OP]. The cultural “defect” is cowardice.

Comment by melanerpes (6d31ac) — 4/13/2014 @ 4:55 pm

Plust self-interest and thuggishness. This is exactly what it is.

Richao says: April 13, 2014 at 4:25 pm

Bobby says:

These complaints seem odd coming from social conservatives. I taught for one year at an evangelical Christian college as I was wrapping up my dissertation and getting ready to go to law school. Evangelical colleges are some of the most intellectually oppressive and stifling places imaginable. So, if you’re going to lambast Harvard, then take a look at places like Bob Jones, Wheaton, and Liberty.

I always find this argument – and the parallel tu quoque arguments elsewhere (e.g., “sure, maybe the Times is biased, but Fox News!”) curious: Pointing out that Harvard or the Times behave exactly like these caricatures of universities and journalistic organizations is supposed to be a defense of the former? Um, okay, I guess. I mean, I thought the whole point of taking a condescending attitude toward these institutions on the right was to mark one’s own institutions out as, well, being different in kind. But Bobby – and countless others – are telling me that his beef is not with fundamentalism as such: He’s totally fine with the fundamentalism on offer at Harvard. It’s that declassé Christian fundamentalism that he doesn’t like

Listen: I can’t speak to Wheaton and Liberty, but I attended – and received my BA from – Bob Jones. When I left fundamentalism a couple years later and decided to pursue an MA in history, the last thing I expected was to find myself, at an expensive, private university in the northeast, in another stultifying variation on the fundamentalism I had left behind. I took great pleasure in pointing out to classmates the eerie parallels with campus politics at Bob Jones. Unlike Bobby, my classmates and professors were not quite so enthusiastic about openly acknowledging those parallels.

Not all secular institutions are like this: I had the pleasure of attending law school at an institution where real debate on any issue, from any perspective one could defend, was encouraged. But Bobby’s right: Most academics – heck, most humans – are entirely happy to dwell in a narrowly comfortable – I would say constrained – world. Where we differ, however, is that I don’t see this as a virtue.


Frank Stain says: April 13, 2014 at 5:21 pm

Rod, I think Jerry’s post on this thread is worth thinking about. He points out where you and Douthat are both getting it wrong. The basic point is this: ‘diversity’ does not just mean considerable or even maximum variety and difference among expressed ideas. The notion of diversity itself has moral substance . That moral substance is located in its claim that, whatever the understanding of the good life individuals happen to hold, they must respect everybody else’s right to form and pursue their own good (providing they also return this respect).
In so far as social conservatives endorse a vision of the good that relegates some classes of people to second-class status, and excludes them from the benefits of full citizenship, their understanding of the good is incompatible with diversity.

[Alessandra asks: isn’t this exactly what most liberals (and conservatives) do to illegal aliens? But, but… the law says Inspector Javert.]

There is no rational expectation that a society has to tolerate views that are seeking to undermine the moral conditions of diversity.
Hierarchies of race and sex simply undermine the conditions of mutual respect and fundamental human equality that make a diverse society possible.

[Alessandra points out: so do notions that some people have a right to be a citizen and others don’t – the closest ideology we have to the rational of slavery, and with the former being completely enforced today, with the enthusiastic approval of the multitudes who consider themselves far different (in the sense of morally superior) than slavery partisans. The lying does get toxic.]

This is not a problem with ‘diversity’; it simply follows from what the moral content of diversity actually means.


Elijah says:

Jerry, there are so many straw men in your post that I’m afraid of a wildfire.

[Alessandra: LOL – I’ll have to remember this one]


The Mighty Favog says:

If it isn’t conducive to pie-charting, it ain’t “diversity.”

Now, if the shallow sons of sapsuckers running newsrooms today were TRULY committed to diversity, as opposed to “diversity,” you would see regular, in-depth coverage of America’s inner cities apart from when the inhabitants thereof show up on the police blotter.

But people who might be vitally interested in that don’t buy the newspaper, now, do they? Very un-SWPL. In a society that holds there is no god but mammon, everybody’s a whore.

Especially journalists.


zic says:

Ah yes, so diversity that does not embrace bigotry is not diverse.

Go bigots!

[Which only goes to prove that some of the best people in the world are “bigoted” and “homophobic” – without a doubt. Join our club!]


Glaivester says: April 13, 2014 at 8:25 pm

*I am sure that there are lots of very nice, very sincere individual leftists. They are not the ones setting the agenda.
[Alessandra says: This.]
Which leads me to my last issue: do the liberals Rod’s been writing about want to change people’s hearts, or do they just want the satisfaction of condemnation? Martin Luther King Jr. wanted us all to get to the Promised Land together. The liberal bigots we’ve been discussing have decided they’ve reached the Promised Land, and they want to punish everyone they think hasn’t gotten there yet. Of course, the urge to declare “I Know The Truth” exists in all of us – only some philosophies have built-in safeguards to keep us humble and tolerant, which I don’t think modern liberalism currently has.
[This is a very nice point. I’m not sure however, of which other philosophy has worked out that problem in practice. Most fail, even if you can always find particular individuals who succeed, almost regardless of the philosophy. The beauty of the human spirit lies exactly in that.]
Hector_St_Clare says:

Re: That moral substance is located in its claim that, whatever the understanding of the good life individuals happen to hold, they must respect everybody else’s right to form and pursue their own good (providing they also return this respect).

The reason this is so much intellectual fluff and nonsense, is because certain conceptions of the good life- indeed, the *vast majority* of conceptions of the good life, both ancient and modern, are essentially collective. They involve *society as a whole* pursuing certain goods, and individuals pursuing certain goods in concert with another. If one is a Marxist, for example, then one’s conception of the good life involves people owning the means of production in common, and contributing according to their ability, receiving according to their needs. If one is a traditionalist Catholic, then the conception of the good life is going to involve society as a whole protecting life from conception to natural death. If one is a Muslim, the conception of the good life is going to place a great importance on sexual purity not just as an individual virtue but as a social one. An ethnic nationalist is going to have still another vision of the good life, an environmentalist another, an anarchosocialist yet another, a monarchist still another….These are all visions that involve the wholesale transformation of society as a whole. To say to people “you can be a Catholic or a Marxist in your private life, but you must respect other people’s right to have recreational abortions/amass vast personal fortunes in theirs” is nonsensical. This is why liberalism fundamentally imposes a sterile sameness on the world, because it mortally attenuates everyone’s vision of the good life even while claiming to respect them.

You need to read Orlando Patterson on what he calls ‘sovereignal freedom’, and why it’s the oldest and arguably most important kind historically. Personal freedom, without the freedom to try to build the society we want to live in and impose that will on others, is not worth a whole lot, because most conceptions of the good life are inherently collective and social (as befits the fact we are a social animal).



Thanks to someone who left a comment in another post, I came to know that it was a vindictive homosexual couple that started the call for Eich’s head.

(Mar 24th, 2014) Today we were shocked to read that Brendan Eich has been appointed Mozilla CEO. As a gay couple who were unable to get married in California until recently, we morally cannot support a Foundation that would not only leave someone with hateful views in power, but will give them a promotion and put them in charge of the entire organization.

Many people are outraged in a political way, and Michael and I thank all of you for being so supportive. But, for us, this is very, very personal. Michael is a British citizen and so immigration is a big issue for us. Being a binational gay couple, up until this summer when the Supreme Court overturned Proposition 8, Michael was here on a temporary visa, tied to his job. Luckily, he loved working there, but we were not able to do anything on our own. If you leave your job, you lose your visa. So, due to Prop 8, Michael was unable to co-found a business with me. … Luckily, the Supreme Court dismissed the Prop 8 appeal. … This summer, Michael and I got legally married… Today, Michael has a green card and we’re able to pursue this venture in the US.

The overturning of Prop 8, literally was the foundation that allowed us to start this venture.

That’s why it’s personal for us. Brendan Eich was an active supporter of denying our right to be married and even to start this business. He actively took steps to ensure that rarebit couldn’t exist!


I have to interject here. It was not due to Prop 8 that Michael was unable to co-found a business with Hampton. Had Michael been Michelle (and not a dysfunctional homosexual), that is, a non-US-citizen woman,  she would have been denied the right to found a business with Hampton as he tells it – just the same. The fact that they simply couldn’t go out and found a business was not due to Prop 8, but due to immigration and business laws.

Now I would like that everyone who wanted to found a business in the US could simply go and do it, but the law isn’t like that and I’m sure that Hampton and Michael, nasty hypocrites that they are, wouldn’t want this to be the case – for others.

Still, in our hypothetical, “Michelle” could have asked to marry Hampton, and then tried to get the green card, and then founded a business. But she couldn’t just go out and do it like if she were an American citizen.

Or the couple could have set up a corporation and then asked for a visa for Michael/Michelle, just like many corporations bring their foreign officers to the US all the time. Cry, cry, cry, say it was all because of Eich, but in fact it wasn’t. But hey, an opportunity to go on a witch hunt cannot be missed! Bring the heads of those decent social conservatives on a spike and spin it as you please.

And this raises the question: why should having sex with an American citizen entitle one to get all that? Now you may say that the new farcical concept of marriage that homosexuals want to institute is more than just their perverted sex, but reality isn’t very different. Because once a marriage can be anything that happens between two people, there’s not much left in the concept. And then why not three people? Suppose the two homosexual louts here, Hampton and Michael, really, really wanted to be together with Jimmy, another dysfunctional homosexual from Singapore. And they wanted Jimmy to come to the US to be the next homosexual managing partner of their company. And, oh the horrors of horrors, there’s this law that says we can’t have three people in a marriage. It’s very, very personal, you see. And anybody who says that three people can’t get married would be standing in their way! Those bigots! All that money they could get from a three-person business venture out of their reach because bigots like Eich are standing up for traditional marriage.

So we come to the curious result that what enabled Michael to get his little green card and set up the business was to engage in dysfunctional sodomy with Hampton! And even though these are all very serious issues, I can’t keep from laughing at the thought that it was bending over like a homosexual pig that got Hampton his green card ticket to the US and got that business going.

So it’s interesting that aside from this being very, very personal for Hampton, it’s also very much about money, money, green cards, and business.

Hampton ends his statement with:

We will continue our boycott until Brendan Eich is completely removed from any day to day activities at Mozilla, which we believe is extremely unlikely after all he’s survived and the continued support he has received from Mozilla.

This makes us very sad, as we love the little guy fighting to make things better. But it’s because of our status as a minority that we simply can’t ignore this slap in the face of giving him a promotion to lead your organization.

Hampton Catlin (@hcatlin)
CEO, rarebit

Update: If you think asking him to step down is overkill, then go read the next post 5 Reasons Eich Should Step Down.


Oh, send in the victims! And how ridiculous for Hampton to claim to be part of a minority given that he has nothing but privileges in his life. Claiming to be part of a minority (as in oppressed and down-trodden) is the greatest hoax of the LGBT community (See “There is no such thing as a sexual “minority” when speaking about LGBT individuals“). One million children die of hunger in India every year – that’s a real minority, people who starve to death. Being a child slave, being sexually abused or trafficked, being battered, being tortured and imprisoned when innocent, working in horrible conditions, that’s oppression and that’s a real “minority.” Having a sexually deformed mind is not a minority status, as in victims, especially when they refuse to go treat their underlying psychological problems that sustain their homosexuality mindset.

Last point: do you want these vindictive kind of homosexuals in your company? And, not only this, but a lot of bisexuals (married to opposite sex couples) are just as fanatical about their homosexual agenda. And there are a lot of them around. I know of several cases of married bisexuals sexually harassing heterosexuals in companies and other environments.

One of the good things that is beginning to come out of the culture wars is that those people who always dismissed “thinking about sex, relationships, and sexuality” as something that shouldn’t be done, as if it was smarter not to think about these issues, are finally being exposed for the dumb asshats that they are. They were just trying to cover up their own irresponsible and perverted mind about sexuality saying related attitudes and behaviors are off-limits for social critique. I have seen a few signs that more people are starting to realize or at least to speak out more that these are all crucial issues for society and only our society’s most stupid individuals don’t think about sexuality and relationships in any serious way. You really need to be a jerk or very ignorant to say “I don’t care what people do in their bedrooms.” It’s exactly because of what “other people do in their bedrooms” that a perfectly good man was hounded from his CEO job.


It’s all about pleasing the market says the fairy. No, it’s all about the culture wars and persecuting decent people says Alessandra.



I thought you righties worshiped the market? It became clear that Eich’s statements were going to affect the bottom line. From a business perspective, it seems like a pretty obvious decision.


That’s what happens when you have gay mafia employees… it hurts the operation of your company


Wow, gay mafia? You clearly have no knowledge of organized crime. Or business either, because Mozilla is pretty profitable.

Mozilla’s operation has been hurt by these crappy homosexuality agenda people. And it was profitable with Eich, who created and built it, and it would have continued to be profitable with Eich as CEO.
But we don’t expect pink thugs to face reality.


If it was going to be profitable with Eich as CEO, after the public hearing his comments, he would not have been forced to resign. The reality is contrary to your beliefs. Many, many customers disagree with Eich’s comments. These customers have an easy way out–there are a lot of browsers freely available. The board realized this, and made the decision that maximizes profits. It’s quite simple from a business perspective.


LOL Many, many customers disagree with the gay mafia. In case it’s news to you, the majority of the world disagrees with your homosexuality agenda.

Here’s the real story: The gay mafia inside Mozilla is powerful, so it has power to persecute anyone who has a decent view of sexuality and relationships. This has nothing to do with the bottom line – it’s all about the culture wars.
Check out the feedback board at Mozilla – 95% negative feedback – that’s the reality of the world.


Yeah, you are wrong about the majority of the world. But since we’re talking about the US, you should probably realize that the majority of the US approves of gay marriage. Also, it’s legal in the majority of the western world. You are correct however, Iran, India, N Korea, etc, do agree with you.

As for your last paragraph, it’s pure fantasy. Can you can give me a single verified source for a “gay mafia”?

Finally, it’s -always- about the bottom line. If it were more profitable to be anti-homesexual, every company in the world would be saying the same things you are. However, it’s not. Microsoft, Apple, Asus, Mozilla, Samsung, Google, all support equality. Whatever device you are using to respond to me, whatever browser you are using, you are supporting equality. So thanks for that.


But the idea behind Mozilla is to be global, not just serve American liberals with a homosexuality agenda. However, it’s clear the gay mafia inside Mozilla, OKCupid, and elsewhere have destroyed the global purpose of the company. If the bottom line is about majority, the last thing Mozilla is doing now is serving the majority. Your bottom line claim is a hoax.

“As for your last paragraph, it’s pure fantasy. Can you can give me a single verified source for a “gay mafia”?”

LOL here’s the latest and most blatant example: the people who put Eich’s head on a spike and ousted him from the company he built up from nothing, because of their nasty homosexuality agenda

“However, it’s not. Microsoft, Apple, Asus, Mozilla, Samsung, Google, all support equality.”

Since a homosexuality agenda has nothing to do with equality, but simply pushing the notion that people with dysfunctional and deformed sexual psychologies are not responsible in treating their psychological problems, it is not about equality. It is about normalizing psychologically twisted people instead of having them resolve their problems.

One can see why that notion is popular today (surprise! surprise!) but it still causes great harm and violence in society.


“LOL here’s the latest and most blatant example: the people who put Eich’s head on a spike”. You guys watch too much Fox News. Nobody’s head was put on a spike. Nobody was killed. Nobody was even harmed. Your fear-mongering is laughable. A wealthy man lost his job because his statements would have caused customers to use a rival product. It’s business 101.


Really, so when the Nazis established a law that said that no Jew could hold public office and kicked out all the ones who did, is that what you said? Why the alarm, you sillies?

You Jews watch too much Fox News! Your heads haven’t been put on a spike. You haven’t been killed. We’re just kicking you out of the job that you would have performed beautifully because a part of the population deeply hates you with their ugly hearts.

And most of you Jews are rich, so what’s the problem anyway?
It’s business and politics as usual.
Well, that’s kind of what said actually.

I have no idea why you think I’m Jewish. I’m not,

And I’m sure you already know this, so I hate to insult your intelligence. But there is a stark difference between making a law that prevents religious and cultural groups from holding public office, and a private company deciding to remove a board member who might hurt profits.

Because if Nazis kicked out every Jewish CEO from every company, it would be OK?

Maybe the difference isn’t as stark as you claim…

As for you thinking that I was thinking you were Jewish… Jesus! here I am talking to a person whose reading comprehension is nil!!!


A comment on Volokh
7:15 AM GMT+0200 [Edited]

You think the sole reason for the growing (if still underground) sentiment to dismantle state-sponsored marriage is the gay thing? Not even close. The worthlessness of contemporary marriage – no-fault frivolous divorce, egregious child custody and support orders, the crassness of the “big day” weddings that value the party over the actual marriage – all of this has discredited the current system in the eyes of millions, especially those who have been victims. Gay “marriage” is just the final symptom of a dying institution that can’t be salvaged, nor should be.


I’m glad I’m not the only one who feels that liberals have truly destroyed marriage into a vapid circus. But how could people who engage in promiscuity, porn, and hook-ups think otherwise?

Indeed, it’s what I have been saying. The normalization of homosexuality is only one part of  a package  normalizing all sorts of harmful, perverted, and nasty attitudes about sex and relationships.

That is the liberal agenda.

And there is an abyss between what such people think and how they view relationships (of all kinds) and people who think about marriage seriously in a traditional way.



What shall we do with the  ‘Yes on 8′ donors? asks the gay mafia.

As if it was up to these people to decide the fate of decent social conservatives in society (whom they hate and want to persecute). As if socons were their property to do with as they pleased. As if they were a kangaroo court passing down a sentence, or a group of dictatorship thugs who doesn’t know yet where to ship a group of prisoners.

People who are pushing for a homosexual agenda have one goal and one goal only: to destroy the opposition. Now it’s just a matter of discussing the tactics to achieve their goal.

For a very nice article on Mozillagate, see Jim Parker’s “Should A Belief Cost You Your Job?

Very well reasoned and nicely explained. He writes, “While many Christian writers have decried the bullying that resulted in Eich’s “voluntary stepping down” at Mozilla, they have been met with opposing arguments from the other side that include hypothetical situations, which would supposedly result in Christians responding in the same fashion as Mozilla did with Eich. For example, what if the CEO of a prominent Christian organization was suddenly outted as being an atheist? ”

Then Jim asks three very important questions:

  • Does the privately held belief directly conflict with the foundational mission of the company / organization or does it merely appear to stand at odds with tertiary corporate beliefs?
  • Is there direct evidence that the privately held belief has been practiced within the organization to such an extent that laws governing the workplace have been broken?
  • Is the privately held belief strongly, continually, and abusively promoted to workers within the organization by the person or is it simply practiced and evangelized by the individual outside of the professional workplace setting?

After answering them, he concludes, “As you can probably guess, I believe the ousting of Mozilla’s Brendan Eich is both unjust and contradictory as there is little doubt that those behind his removal preach tolerance, anti-bigotry, free speech / expression, and unity and yet have acted in an intolerant, bigoted, anti-free speech / expression and divisive fashion. I’m not alone in my opinion as many non-Christians and secularists have said much the same. ”

The issue is we are in the midst of a culture war, and therefore liberals are not going to stop, listen to reason, and give a whit about ethics. It’s a war for dominance by thugs. Anyone who fell for the the line “homosexuals just want tolerance” and “LGBTs are just like us” is an idiot. Co-existence is not possible.

And if it’s not plain to see, the personal beliefs of all these homosexuality agenda employees interfered with their work and the very objective of the company they work for. Because, like a lynch mob, they ousted a great CEO. It was not the CEO who did anything bad to the company, it’s the people pushing for a homosexuality agenda that moved to destroy the leadership of the company and its mission. And in this case, the CEO embodied the company and its ideals like no one else, having founding it and dedicating himself to it with heart and soul.

First the came for the CEOs…

Two topics are discussed in a post by Steve57, a commenter at Patterico. One is the question of homosexuality in other species. And then the real interesting other topic comprises two comprehensive studies to find out if homosexuality was universal. And guess the answer?


Many cultures have never had people with such deformed psychologies. Everyone is heterosexual. Told ya.

Steve57 writes:

Animals can’t be homosexual. Not as a permanent orientation. They can engage in homosexual behaviors. For instance male ducks will (and it’s not consensual, if ducks can consent; it occurs at the end of what’s called a “rape flight”). But those same ducks will mate with females when they’re available. Which also usually involves what we would call rape, unless it involves a permanently mated pair.

In fact, most examples the gay rights crowd try to cite of homosexuality in animals, aren’t. For instance those two famous male penguins who were raising a chick together? That’s just pure parenting instinct. It wasn’t like they were trying to mate with each other. They were feeding a chick.

The fact is that the idea of “Homosexuality” as a gender orientation, once gay always gay, never existed before it was recently invented as a political movement. It’s not natural in the sense that just like with the animals you cite, Gil, human sexual behavior is much more elastic than the gay mafia can allow to be said. This is why ancient cultures that recognized and accepted homoerotic behavior still never defined that behavior as marriage, Gil. Even in ancient Greece (and not all Greek city states swung that way; there were 1500 of them) or certain provinces in Japan the essential element of marriage was that it be opposite sex. Never same sex.

Nobody was traumatized by being “forced” into marriage with an icky woman. Because it was inconceivable to everyone involved that there was anything remotely like a permanent condition called “gay.”

There are cultures where it just doesn’t exist.

In turning to a dedicated study of sex practices, the Hewletts formally confirmed that the campfire stories were no mere fish tales. Married Aka and Ngandu men and women consistently reported having sex multiple times in a single night. But in the process of verifying this, the Hewletts also incidentally found that homosexuality and masturbation appeared to be foreign to both groups.

…Is the strong cultural focus on sex as a reproductive tool the reason masturbation and homosexual practices seem to be virtually unknown among the Aka and Ngandu? That isn’t clear. But the Hewletts did find that their informants — whom they knew well from years of field work — “were not aware of these practices, did not have terms for them,” and, in the case of the Aka, had a hard time even understanding about what the researchers were asking when they asked about homosexual behaviors.

The Ngandu “were familiar with the concept” of homosexual behavior, “but no word existed for it and they said they did not know of any such relationships in or around the village. Men who had traveled to the capital, Bangui, said it existed in the city and was called ‘PD’ (French for par derriere or from behind).”

Given all this, the Hewletts conclude, “Homosexuality and masturbation are rare or nonexistent [in these two cultures], not because they are frowned upon or punished, but because they are not part of the cultural models of sexuality in either ethnic group.”

[slightly edited:] As an aside,  if homosexuality was so prevalent among animals as some people insist, the Aka would have a word for it. Given the fact that they’re hunter-gatherers. And hunter-gatherers live by being keen observers of animal behavior.

The authors conclude:

The finding with regard to homosexuality is perhaps not that surprising. As the Hewletts note, other researchers have documented cultures where homosexuality appears not to exist. If homosexual orientation has a genetic component to it — and there is increasing evidence that it does, in many cases — then it would not be surprising that this complex human trait (one that involves non-procreative efforts) would be found in some populations but not others.

Moreoever, sexual behavior — whether homosexual, heterosexual, or any other type — is never simply genetically determined in humans. Humans are born with sexual potentials that will manifest differently in different cultural settings.

So, to sum up. Homosexuality doesn’t exist in animals as the pro-SSM crowd understands it. A permanent, immutable characteristic. Neither does it exist in humans as such. There are some populations where it doesn’t exist at all. It is in essence a learned trait. The Ngandu had to travel to the big city to discover it even exists.

Comment by Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 3:10 pm


Alessandra says: I don’t think it’s merely learned, but it’s a dysfunction that can be caused by a set of different (non-biologically determined) variables. Socialization and social conditioning and ideology certainly have a lot to do with it.



2. Homosexuality and masturbation
Another reason we conducted a study of sexual behavior was that several years ago we asked Aka men about homosexuality and masturbation and were surprised that they were not aware of these practices, did not have terms for them and how diffi cult it was to explain both sexual practices. They laughed as we tried to explain and describe the sexual activities. We thought that maybe they were shy or embarrassed individuals, but this would have been uncharacteristic of the Aka we had known so long.

All Aka and Ngandu indicated that homosexuality (gay or lesbian) was unknown or rare. The Aka, in particular, had a difficult time understanding the concept and mechanics of same sex relationships. No word existed and it was necessary to repeatedly describe the sexual act. Some mentioned that sometimes children of the same sex (two boys or two girls) imitate parental sex while playing in camp and we have observed these playful interactions.
Ngandu were familiar with the concept, but no word existed for it and they said they did not know of any such relationships in or around the village. Men who had traveled to the capital, Bangui, said it existed in the city and was called “PD” (French for par derriere or from behind).

African Study Monographs, 31(3): 107-125, October 2010



Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Vancouver
Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Vancouver


Broude & Greene’s (1976) cross-cultural study of sexual practices used the Standard Cross Cultural Sample (SCCS), which is considered the best representative sample of the world’s cultures, and found that homosexuality was absent or rare in 59% of cultures with data. In terms of attitudes towards homosexuality, 21% of cultures with data (42 cultures) accepted or ignored homosexuality, 12%
of cultures had no concept, 26% of cultures ridiculed or mildly disapproved, but did not punish homosexuality, and 41% of cultures strongly disapproved and punished.

The Aka and Ngandu data on homosexuality are not inconsistent with the crosscultural record.

Homosexuality does not exist in all cultures.

Not a day goes by that I don’t think about the WWII era (from the 20s to the 40s). Well, that’s a bit exaggerated, but I do think about it a lot. And for some reason the year 1933 always jumps out in my mind. So here I was reading about it today. And 80 years ago today (well, 81 to be precise), it was time for:

(wiki:) Gleichschaltung (German pronunciation: [ˈɡlaɪçʃaltʊŋ]), meaning “coordination”, “making the same”, “bringing into line”), is a Nazi term for the process by which the Nazi regime successively established a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of society. The historian Richard J. Evans translated the term as “forcible-coordination” in his most recent work on Nazi Germany.

Among the goals of this policy were to bring about adherence to a specific doctrine and way of thinking and to control as many aspects of life as possible.


“coordination”, “making the same”, “bringing into line”: what liberals are doing in a nutshell. Because “diversity and openness,” as the Mozilla witch hunt shows. “Among the goals of this policy were to bring about adherence to a specific doctrine ” – ring a bell?

OK, so in Germany, actions involving all sorts of physical violence, terror, and murder of opponents started to happen basically from the beginning.

Sure, that’s different and the degree of violence and terror is enormously different.

But what is similar is the push for control and to disenfranchize the fundamental rights of social conservatives and to ghettoize us.

End of comparison with liberals and back to Germany. One of the things that I can’t get my head around is the speed with which so many major changes occurred at that time. The totalitarian takeover happened extremely fast, with just dizzying speed.

(wiki:) The period from 1933 to 1937 was characterized by the systematic elimination of non-Nazi organizations that could potentially influence people, such as trade unions and political parties. Those critical of Hitler’s agenda, especially his close ties with industry[citation needed], were suppressed, intimidated or murdered. The regime also assailed the influence of the churches, for example by instituting the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs under Hanns Kerrl. Organizations that the administration could not eliminate, such as the education system, came under its direct control.


Some key dates and events:

February 4, 1933 (Saturday)


  • With the approval of Germany’s President Hindenburg, Adolf Hitler decreed the “Ordinance for the Protection of the German People”, which allowed the police to ban any publications which were a threat to public order. Violators could be arrested and detained without a warrant for as long as three months.[8]


February 19 and 26, 1933: Father Charles Coughlin, a Jew-hating priest–Canadian but working in the Detroit, Michigan, diocese–sermonizes on the radio that “Shylocks” (Jews) are causing the Depression. He receives 80,000 letters of support a week, about 70 percent from Protestants. His editorials often parallel those of the Nazi press. He is friendly with several U.S. senators and representatives.

 February 20, 1933: Hitler wins over a group of leading German industrialists at a meeting designed for that purpose.

February 21, 1933 (Tuesday)

  • Hermann Göring, the new Nazi leader of Germany‘s largest state, Prussia, published a decree in the Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, ordering the Prussian police to shoot any “enemies of the state”, and providing for disciplinary action against any policeman who was “inappropriately considerate”.[58]
  • February 22, 1933 (Wednesday)

    • Adolf Hitler authorized the formation of the first Nazi concentration camps (Konzentrationslager), where opponents of the regime would be kept in “protective custody” (Schutzhaft) until they could reform.[60]
    • Hermann Göring appointed 55,000 members of the Nazi Party’s stormtroopers as auxiliary policemen, elevating former thugs to official status.[61]
    • February 23, 1933 (Thursday)

      • The Nazi regime issued a decree banning homosexuality and pornography throughout Germany.[69]
 February 27, 1933: The German Reichstag building is set ablaze. The Nazis are quick to blame the fire on Communists.
 February 28, 1933: A presidential decree gives Chancellor Hitler emergency powers. All 100 Communist Party members of the Reichstag are arrested. One Berlin man is given 50 lashes for being a Communist and 50 more for being a Jew.

I was stunned to read that this Jewish communist was whipped. Was he whipped in public or in some dungeon?

I didn’t know the Nazis had used whipping. We’ve all heard about beatings and assassinations, but I don’t remember whipping. Which goes to show how much reading I’ve done!

I also couldn’t find a detailed reference to this case.

But in reading about the camps, I discovered that there was plenty of such violence (whipping) in the concentration camps. You can read more (horrible) details in the link below. Be forewarned: it’s heavy reading and very graphic:


On the first camp:

The first concentration camps in Germany was set up on March 22, 1933 in Dachau near Munich in Bavaria by order of Heinrich Himmler. It was a model camp for all subsequent German concentration camps. The SS-men were trained there to work in the camps set up in Germany and then also in the German-occupied countries of Europe (among them were Adolf Eichmann and Rudolf Höss). The Nazis intentionally built this camp on swampy terrain with an unhealthy wet mountain climate, especially troublesome in fall and winter, when the prisoners had to stand for hours on the roll-call square.


OK, so this is yahoo, but there’s some interesting stuff, although the numbers mentioned… ooh lahlah they seem all over the place (and there’s no source).

Who was the leader of the Dachau concentration camp?

Best Answer
~The “main guy” was Adolph Hitler. He borrowed the idea from US President Marin Van Buren, whose “emigration depots” for the Cherokee and other “undesirables and heathens” were the world’s first concentration camps and he borrowed the name from the British, who coined the term for their political prisons and internment centers in South Africa during the Boer Wars of the 1890’s.

The man most responsible for developing the rules by which the camps would be run was Theodor Eiche although Heinrich Himmler had much input. He and Reinhard Heydrich were also instrumental in devising the idea of the camps generally (probably more so than Hitler, and probably with no small input from Hermann Goering). Eiche developed the blueprint at Dachau, which was the first camp when it opened in March, 1933, and all others (some 15,000 or so, including auxiliary camps, sub-camps and Kommandos) were modeled on his Dachau example.

Do not confuse the Concentration camps with the Death camps or Extermination Centers. The KZ’s started as political prisons and the early inmates were mostly communists and political dissidents. After the Red Army repelled Barbarossa and determined the outcome of the war at Stalingrad, Kursk and Smolensk, they became warehouses for the “inferior races” of Eastern Europe (like the Slavs and the Poles, the Romani and Sinti, the Serbs and, of course, the Jews) and they became slave labor operations. Of the 12 to 18 million inmates who died in the KZ camps, about 3.5 million were Jews. By far, the largest group of victims was the communists, followed by the ethnic Poles. The victims did not die from organized mass murder but from disease, starvation, exhaustion and overwork and the generally deplorable and horrendous conditions there extant.

The Extermination Camps were established as killing factories. Depending on which ones you count (the ones set up expressly for non-Jews often are neglected), there were about a dozen of them. Dachau was not a Death Camp. Chelmno, the first Extermination Camp, began operations in December 1941. They were largely the brain child of Heydrich, Himmler and, probably, Goering. Himmler himself ordered the killing centers to terminate operations in the spring of 1943. He did so because he realized that the murders were wasting a valuable and necessary source of slave labor. He also did so because of his sense of honor. Konrad Morgen, a Nazi and SS prosecutor and judge, was investigating corruption and abuse at the camps and he was successfully prosecuting camp Kommandants and officers. Partly because he was forced to understand how widespread the corruption had become, Himmler closed the camps. Morgen’s efforts probably saved more lives in the camps than any dozen other factors combined. By the time the Death camps were closed, about 6 million people had been murdered, including about 2.5 million Jews. Of course, had the Red Army not won the war, another 30 million ethnic Poles, 30 million Slavs, and at least 30 million Russians and Soviet Communists had been targeted for extinction.

Short answer: Adolph Hitler, as the Fuhrer, was ultimately responsible. Heinrich Himmler, as head of the SS (who ran the camps) would be next in line. Theodor Eiche, as the first Kommandant of Dachau and as the architect of the camp model and later as Inspector General of all camps, would be next. Other Kommandants of Dachau were Hilmar Wackerle, Heinrich Deubel, Alex Piorkowski, Wilhelm Weiter, Hans Loritz and Martin Weiss.

Other Answers (2)


joe t answered 4 years ago
Here is the ist of the SS Dachau commanders with dates

* SS-Standartenführer Hilmar Wäckerle (22 March 1933 – 26 June 1933)
* SS-Gruppenführer Theodor Eicke (26 June 1933 – 4 July 1934)
* SS-Oberführer Alexander Reiner (4 July 1934 – 22 October 1934)
* SS-Brigadeführer Berthold Maack (22 October 1934 – 12 January 1935)
* SS-Oberführer Heinrich Deubel (12 January 1935 – 31 March 1936)
* SS-Oberführer Hans Loritz (31 March 1936 – 7 January 1939)
* SS-Hauptsturmführer Alex Piorkowski (7 January 1939 – 2 January 1942)
* SS-Obersturmbannführer Martin Weiß (3 January 1942 – 30 September 1943)
* SS-Hauptsturmführer Wilhelm Weiter (30 September 1943 – 26 April 1945)
* SS-Obersturmbannführer Martin Weiß (26 April 1945 – 28 April 1945)
* SS-Untersturmführer Johannes Otto (28 April 1945)
* SS-Sturmscharführer Heinrich Wicker (28 April 1945 – 29 April 1945)

All concentration and extermination camps were adminsterd by the SS-Totenkopfverbände which was a branch of the Schutzstaffel (SS)

The SS-Totenkopfverbände was an independent unit within the SS with its own ranks and command structure. It ran the camps throughout Germany, and in Nazi-occupied Europe, It was responsible for facilitating the Holocaust in collaboration with the Reich Main Security Office.

The executives of the SS-Totenkopfverbände and the concentration camps were
SS-Obergruppenführer Theodor Eicke (1934-1940), Commander, SS-TV
SS-Gruppenführer Richard Glücks (1940-1945), Commander, SS-TV

The minister responsible was Heinrich Himmler1934-1945, Reichsführer-SS the Reichsführer-SS was a special SS rank that existed between the years of 1925 and 1945. Reichsführer-SS was a title from 1925 to 1933 and, after 1934, became the highest rank of the German Schutzstaffel (SS). Heinrich Himmler was also the Reich Minister of the Interior from1943 – 1945

Heinrich Himmler was directly below Adolf Hitler along with others like Joseph Goebbels, Hermann Göring and Joachim von Ribbentrop. Hermann Göring was the designated successor of Adolf Hitler.

The Reich Main Security Office duty was to fight all “enemies of the Reich” inside and outside the borders of Nazi Germany.This included the Gestapo, Sicherheitsdienst, Sicherheitspolizei, Kriminalpolizei

The Minister responsible was again Heinrich Himmler1934-1945, Reichsführer-SS and the executives were
SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich 1939-1942, Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD
SS-Obergruppenführer Dr. Ernst Kaltenbrunner 1942-1945, Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD


Israpundit – on Rohm, the camps, and revisionists myths spread about homosexuals:

“Revisionists have attempted to define homosexuals as a class of people who were ‘targeted for extermination’ by the Nazis. One homosexual group went so far as to stage a high-profile ‘pilgrimage’ to Yad Vashem… in May of 1994. They were met by a delegation of Jewish Holocaust survivors who were so overcome with outrage that some had to be restrained from physically assaulting the contingent of (mostly American) political activists. One man cried, ‘My grandfather was killed for refusing to have sexual relations with the camp commandant. You are desecrating this place…’ [Jerusalem Post, 5-30-94]

“Yet… many homosexuals did in fact die in Nazi concentration camps. We do not diminish the tragedy of any life lost under the Nazi reign of terror; however we must reject the implication that homosexuals as a class should be given moral equivalence to the Jewish people and other victims of genocide. There are five reasons why we must reject this claim of the revisionists.

“First, regardless of Himmler’s anti-homosexual rhetoric, homosexuals as a class were never targeted for extermination, as their continued role in the Third Reich [even after the Night of the Long Knives] demonstrates.

“Second, those homosexuals who died did so as the result of mistreatment and disease in slave-labor camps — not in the gas chambers.

“Third, though we cannot condone the form of punishment meted out by the Nazis, homosexuality was legitimately regarded as a crime of long-standing, for which individuals were being jailed both before and after the Nazi Regime. This is in contrast to the internment of the Jewish people, whose ethnicity is morally (and in pre-Nazi Germany, legally) neutral.

“Fourth, the actual number of homosexuals in the camps was a tiny fraction of both the estimated number of homosexuals in Germany and the estimate of the camp population. The camp homosexual population, estimated at 5000-15,000 by Joan Ringelheim of the US Holocaust Museum, contained an undetermined percentage of non-homosexuals falsely labeled as homosexuals. [Rick Rose, ‘Museum of Pain,’ The Advocate, 10-19-93, p. 40]

“Compared to more than 85 percent of European Jewry… [h]omosexuals who died were ‘a small fraction of less than 1 [one] percent’ of homosexuals in Nazi-occupied Europe.
[Steven Katz, ‘Quantity and interpretation: Issues in the Comparative Historical Analysis of the Holocaust’; in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, 1989, NY, Pergamon Press, 1989, p. 146]

“Fifth and last, many of the guards and administrators responsible for the infamous concentration camp atrocities were homosexuals themselves, which negates the idea that homosexuals in general were being persecuted and interned …

“As terrible as life could be in the work camps [where homosexuals were typically sent], it offerred better chances than being herded into gas chambers or shot in front of mass graves.

“An additional point that deserves mention here is that the uniform pattern of brutality for which the camps are known was established as a deliberate and calculated policy by the S.A. under [the notorious Nazi homosexual] Ernst Roehm in 1933. Heiden writes that ‘the S.A. had learned… that the will of an imprisoned mass must be broken by the most loathsome cruelty.’ [Konrad Heiden, Der Fuehrer: Hitler’s Rise to Power (Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1944), p. 565] He later adds that ‘frightening reports also trickled through from the concentration camps, and the public began to realize that the Fuehrer’s picked troops had organized artificial hells in Dachau… Rohm admitted publicly that these things seemed unbearable to many people, but said he saw no reason for stopping them’ [Ibid., p. 732f]

“Though Roehm was soon killed, his system of mass torture and degradation endured.”

People with a history!

And… after all his (Eicke’s) monstrosities:

In the war against the Soviet Union, the Totenkopf Division advanced through the Baltic States, liberating them from Russian occupation and proceeding to Lake Ilmen.

On 26 February 1943, Eicke was on an inspection flight in a Fiesler Storch when his plane was shot down by the Soviets near Orelka, Russia, and the plane crashed behind Soviet lines.

Several attempts were made by reinforced assault squads to recover the remains of their commander, they finally succeeded. after losing several men. Eicke was given an elaborate funeral at one of the cemeteries of the Division near Orelka.

Good grief. The odious craziness of people. This “beyond everything you can imagine horrible.”

And all of this happened only 80 years ago. It’s nothing in terms of time. Nothing. And yet, for most people, it’s like it all happened as far back as ancient Rome or some equally bygone era. I find this so odd, this tremendous disconnection with the past.

Also of note: wouldn’t it be correct to say that the majority of the people  targeted for extermination by the Nazis or killed by other means were  religious people?

And, you know it is estimated that one million young kids die of hunger in India alone per year! Do the math: 6 years makes how many kids?

But obviously given that they are in a concentration camp with no barbed wire, it’s OK. The world isn’t monstrous like those Nazis, we all just let them and so many others starve to death, because we must go shopping or go to the movies or play a new computer game. Look at how good we are.


Rod Dreher over at TAC has been covering a liberal lynch mob trying to run out of town an organic farm owned by a conservative couple. Not to mention the smears and character assassination that is par for the course.

It’s war.

And it’s time for people to wake up and fight back.

Dreher writes:

In the latest news from the Portlandia Sharia story, those trying to destroy Moreland Farmers Pantry, the organic store planned for a Portland neighborhood, are going after vendors selling to the store. From the boycott’s Facebook page:

Here is a current list of Moreland Farmers Pantry vendors, from their website. We will be posting their contact information shortly. If you’re a vendor on this list, who has pulled your product from their shelves, please let us know and you will be removed from this list.


The statement: from the Moreland Farmer’s Pantry FB page:

You may be aware that the media has been asking questions about the personal opinions of the owners regarding gay marriage and freedom of expression. We understand that this is a sensitive topic for many. We would like to reiterate our position that we will not discriminate against anyone in any form. We support diversity and anti-discrimination in all business practices. As a gesture of goodwill we donated $1,000 to the LGBTQ Youth program of the Equity Foundation in Portland. This program supports safe communities for LGBTQ individuals where sexual orientation and gender identity should not be the basis for social alienation or legal discrimination. We encourage others to make additional donations to this worthy cause at:

While we understand that we may not share the same viewpoints on all issues, we support freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Our beliefs are not necessarily shared by our employees; their beliefs are their own, as it should be. The employees are a diverse group of people working together with a common goal to simply provide good nutritious food to the Portland community and support local farms and vendors.

The Pantry is open to everyone from all walks of life.

If you would like to discuss this more we can be reached directly at [I’ve deleted the number — RD].

John and Chauncy Childs


Furthermore, these people have wonderful values: “local products, a strong connection to local farms and educating customers about food and farms. For example:”

Because the market is farmer owned, Moreland Farmers Pantry provides a direct connection between grower and consumer, taking “farm to table” a step further into our everyday lives. We also partner with other farmers to make a wide variety of real and safe food available to the neighborhood. See a list of suppliers, which we’ll update as sources and seasons change. The market will also curate tours of local farms, placing an emphasis on educating Portland’s children from all walks of life about where their food comes from, how it’s raised, and how good healthy can taste.

Dreher writes on the potential consequences:

the Portlandia Sharia Squad is trying to destroy the entire business by pressuring its suppliers, and extending no forgiveness or grace to the couple that owns this business. If they succeed, I presume this will put all the farm’s employees out of work. The Childs family invested a lot of money to create an organic farm on what was unused land. Now, that may all be about to be taken from them by this boycott. What’s more, to destroy the Childs’ business will hurt small artisans, farmers, and food producers who would sell products through the Moreland Farmers Pantry, but who will be denied outlets for their products, and in any case may not be able to afford to sell through the Childs, because they too could see their businesses destroyed by the boycott.

And this is the liberal mob speaking (from the boycott Facebook page):

Boycott Moreland Farmers Pantry shared a link.
April 4
It’s too late Chauncy. Cut your ties with our community and leave.


Seriously. Like Germany with the ascending Nazis: Jew, get out and take your dirty business out of here. You are not fit for society.

BTW, in case you’re new to this blog, I have been banned from commenting at Dreher/TAC, because you know how much they value a market place of ideas and are all for tolerance and diversity. Dreher shamelessly labels himself a pious Christian on top of it.

Some good comments:

Erin Manning says: April 7, 2014 at 12:30 am

To sum up the liberal talking points on these threads:

1. Christians participate in boycotts, so Christians have no moral ground to question a lynch mob running a small business out of town.

2. In 2014, people should know better than to try to run a business while also voicing any conservative political or religious views. Nabisco ™ and Chrysler ™ and other global multinational corporations can lecture the sad, backward masses who buy their products on how wholesome and family-oriented the gay agenda is, and Mozilla ™ can fire Eich for his heresy, but a small, local business had better not display any similar heretical dissent to the Official Religion of the Marketplace (which is, of course, Sex and Consumption Without Consequences). Because the marketplace will punish them justly and rightly, just as soon as the lynch mob of freethinkers gets their marching orders from Facebook. ™

3. Because Christians never spoke out when gay people were being shot down in the streets by the millions, etc., Christians have no right to complain about such mild, peaceful measures as harassing a business out of existence or destroying people’s jobs or livelihoods. Goose, gander. (Off-topic: I’m getting a bit amused by the constant use of that particular phrase–surely it’s insensitive to the many homosexual goose-goose and gander–gander couples out there, not to mention the goose who deeply believes she is a gander and ought to be referred to with a different pronoun…)

4. If Christians want to be left alone, all they have to do is show love and respect to gay people, which is defined as “Never, ever voicing any criticism of gay life or behavior and never expressing the mildest sort of belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, as this is the kind of hate speech that makes gay children commit suicide, and only evil bigots say any such thing, especially in America in 2014 when everybody should know better than to say that sort of inflammatory, derogatory, mass of trigger words and microagression out loud where anybody might hear it and collapse from the sheer emotional trauma of being reminded that marriage ever reflected the idea of opposite-gender complementarity or any other bad, horrible notion that people used to believe back in the bad old days when sex actually had consequences and you couldn’t shop at a global multinational billion dollar big-box store enterprise any day of the week including Sunday.”

Did I miss anything? I’m still reeling from the “Of course small, local businesses are better than big companies–except when the big companies promote the gay agenda and the small local business, which has nothing to do with gay stuff anyway, doesn’t…” change of front; I thought liberals *liked* gritty, individualistic small local companies, but I guess commitment to gay ideology and marching in lockstep with the agenda of the gay totalitarians is more important than the small local thing.


Rombald says: April 6, 2014 at 10:50 pm

Seriously, why are left-liberals so monomaniac about gay rights? Why not boycott businesses known to treat their employees badly, or to engage in environmentally destructive practices?

Even if one is strongly pro-gay, surely one can see that there are more important issues??

Alessandra replies: Because… they are just hypocritical garbage of people. As simple as that. Liberals perpetrate millions of acts of violence and harm in society every year. If they were serious, they would need to drive themselves out of every town. And if they weren’t complete hypocrites, they wouldn’t do business or buy products from most countries around the world. But this is a mob – an ugly, vicious, sexually perverted mob; do not expect any ethics or rationality or consistency about the defense of human rights. These are just thugs dressed up in “progressive” propaganda.


EliteComInc. says: April 6, 2014 at 7:40 pm

And to any attempt to end round the matter by an appeal that fear of retribution or outing themselves not to prosecute leaves the question among all of the reason in the general public as why people choose not to prosecute.

I am going to continue to whittle away at the attempt to climb on the civil rights redress of blacks or native Americans. I am not among that breed of people who ignore the reality that homosexuals occupy positions of power, wealth and influence in every rung of US society such that it rebuffs the contend of en masse harm from abuse as to the Constitution, behavior legal or not, it’s been little enforced.

What should be embarrassing to anyone making this case is that this is about how the community feels, not what has been denied them. Between the advance of women’s groups and homosexuals in both groups largely white a new body of law is being advanced based not constitutional violations, but personal hurt. It must have been the cultural stupidity of blacks not to have seen the real key to equality. If they had only known– “aha, the law needs to makes us feel good.” Employment was not the issue. Police treatment (measured not rhetoric but by the record in nearly every city) was not the issue. Access to education was not the problem. And then incorporating into a society that by and large ad excluded me and resented my inclusion was not the issue. It was my feelings. Those poor ignorant black people. Unrestrained and devoid any real sense of argument, they argued on the merits of the law and real injustice as opposed to their emotional harm.

If they only knew.


And a nice connection to the Mozilla/Eich debacle.

M_Young posts : April 6, 2014 at 12:14 pm – an excerpt describing the typical profile of  the tech crowd that ousted Brendan Eich.

” Entrepreneurs were showing off their products, and two young Australian men, David Boulton and Jethro Batts, stood behind the podium to give their presentation. “Titstare is an app where you take photos of yourself staring at tits,” Mr. Boulton began, as photographs of women’s chests on a cellphone flashed on the screen behind him.
After some banter, Mr. Batts concluded, “This is the breast hack ever.”
The crowd — overwhelmingly young, white, hoodie-wearing men — guffawed. “

M_Young: “These are the people many of you seem convinced would have abandoned Mozilla had Eich not been fired.”


Nick says: April 6, 2014 at 6:21 pm

The whole notion of a “hate crime” is a lie. You don’t commit crimes out of love. No, the “hate crime” designation was manufactured to punish thoughts, not conduct. Thus, not surprisingly, the statistics only show that those the elites want to cast as victims are, in fact, victims of “hate crimes”. Those the elites disfavor cannot, ipso facto, be the victims of “hate crimes” so, not surprisingly, they never show up in the data. Which naturally serves to justify stigmatizing and punishing those who are only ever the perpetrators of “hate crimes” and never the victims. Create a lie, fabricate a victim and use the power of the state to punish your enemies. That is the “progressive” way.


Josh McGee says:

“Mr. Childs realized that words had been spoken and it was time for action. He proposed to donate to a local LGBT program in Portland as a show of good faith. This was before any press was involved. I agreed that was a great start and once that was achieved I would take the YouTube video down.”

LOLZOLOLZOZOL. Folks like Mr. Childs need to realize that this has always been the nature of the movement. They do not want equality, they want cultural power. They want approval and the silencing of dissent. That is what it has always been about. Giving ransom money to their pet causes is mere weakness and will only cause them to go on the offensive at an even greater pace. They hate people like Mr. Childs. They’ll take his money, but they’ll steal seek to take him down…..

Maybe good-boy Sean should offer Mr. Childs an offer wherein Mr. Childs pays a monthly stipend to LGBT causes in exchange for ‘neighborhood protection and goodwill’. At this point, Childs has shown he’ll agree to it……


midtown says: April 5, 2014 at 6:50 pm

I’ve become extremely discouraged by the Eich news. I was hoping American society could remain cohesive despite radically different moral values. I was worried after the bakery stuff, but the Eich travesty has made it crystal clear that liberals have absolutely no desire to tolerate other thought. Up to now, I took pride in having friends and business associates of people from a wide swath of political and moral views. Now, though, I am convinced liberals want to destroy people like me. We’re entering a cold(?) civil war.


Josh McGee says: April 5, 2014 at 7:22 pm

Thursday is absolutely right about this being a substantive dispute, according to how the ‘struggle’ has been framed these recent years. Which is precisely why folks like Mr. Childs should never, ever start paying the protection racket.

Fine, go visit the house. Fine, be genuinely honest about where you stand. But don’t pay them money in the belief that it will smooth everything over. It won’t. They hate Childs and those like him – they really do see him as evil. Paying them money will only make you seem weaker (it probably weakens you in reality), inviting more vultures to the scene. The only option at that point was for Childs was to go on the offensive, strategically.


Jamie Estevez says:

What these adherents to what I call “The Religion of Tolerance and Diversity” want is what the Communist Party had in the Soviet Union which was complete control over who got hired and who did not and why. If you did not abandon your religious beliefs in the Soviet Union there were many jobs you were banned from working in no matter how qualified you were for the job. This is economic warfare and like I said when it starts effecting Blue Collar Americans, I think you will see a backlash and maybe even a violent one. This is a dangerous path that the radical homosexual activists and there supporters are now taking because they are polarizing the country and fanning the flames of radicalism on the other side as well even though they think “history is on their side”. History is not on their side, Federal and State governments are on their side. They have the weight of government behind them but those are the same governments that are widely unpopular by a vast majority of the American people.


Peterk says: April 5, 2014 at 1:23 pm



need to bring back the dunkin stool so we can determine who is innocent or not.

where is the new Arthur Miller who will write an updated The Crucible?

Which liberal/progressive will allow their name to replace McCarthy’s?


W_Nelson says:

Rod, you keep looking for natural law or some sort of reasonableness to kick in here. It’s not going to.

Homosexuals are in rebellion with God on a primal level — with who God created them to be. There is no neutrality here: it’s primal, existential — you don’t just take or leave the issue.

The town just isn’t big enough for the cognitive dissonance.

Once you remove the Law of God, and we have, something WILL fill that space — “Natural” law is open to debate without a defining law-word delivered by revelation.

And that’s why it’s been an IMMEDIATE change — we are finding ourselves on the other side of the civil law, and that’s why it’s biting back so quickly. This isn’t going to stop, and can’t be repaired without directly acknowledging God’s moral law culturally.

We are now *literally* criminals. What does society do with criminals?


[And I have to say, this one was just wonderful. And we end on a smiling note]

Elijah says: April 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm

In ref the Amish – I live near some Amish families and they are salt of the earth people. Good (raw) milk, great vegetables, always willing to lend a hand. People don’t bother to ask about their very conservative religious beliefs because they treat the Amish like cute little mantel ornaments rather than actual people.Plus, whenever I visit their farm, I almost always get to greet the farmer – Elmer. How could you not love a man named Elmer?


You have to read this. This is awesome. It’s the most beautiful and inspired blog response to the Mozilla gaystapo and these garbage of LGBT jerks and their supporters everywhere. By Matt Walsh:

Hey gay rights militants: your fascism is showing


Dear gay rights militants, dear progressive tyrants, dear liberal fascists, dear haters of free speech, dear crusaders for ideological conformity, dear left wing bullies:

You will lose.

I know you’ve got legions of sycophants kowtowing to you these days, and the rest you’ve set out to destroy — but you will lose.

So, you’ve tracked another dissident and skinned him alive. You’ve made an example of Brendan Eich, and now you dance joyously around his disemboweled carcass. You have his head on a spike, and you consider this a conquest in your eternal crusade to eradicate diversity and punish differing opinions. You launched your millionth campaign of intimidation, and now another good man has been dragged through the mud, to the sounds of taunting and jeering and death threats.

You found out that the CEO of Mozilla gave a few dollars to support a pro-traditional marriage ballot measure several years ago, and you proceeded to publicly tar and feather him until he was forced to ‘resign’ in disgrace.

You again chose to forgo debate, in favor of coercion and bullying.

You again attempted to end the ‘gay rights’ argument by defrocking your opponent.

Hey, good for you.

Enjoy the spoils of your cowardice.

It won’t last.

You will still lose.

Don’t you people read? Haven’t you learned anything from history? ‘Advancements’ earned through tyranny never endure. You can only win a debate by suffocating your opposition for so long. Your strategy is doomed for failure, because it has always failed.

In the name of ‘fighting for the freedom to love,’ you’ve utilized hate. For the sake of ‘tolerance,’ you’ve wielded bigotry. In order to push ‘diversity,’ you’ve been dogmatic.

You are everything you accuse your opponents of being, and you stand for all the evil things that you claim they champion.

You are exposed. We see you for what you are: a force of destruction and division.

You showed your hand, and now you’ll lose the game.

It’s inevitable.

(it continues on his blog)


Thank you, Matt.

For people like myself, who have been speaking out for years, mostly to deaf years, on the myriad types of harm and violence that LGBTs and other liberals pushing for a homosexuality agenda do in society, these are moments that I would have never thought I’d see.

And yet, little by little, there are cracks in the façade, their lies don’t always stand up so well. Their slurs and insults against decent people, and the nasty labels they tar social conservatives with are starting not to stick. More and more social conservatives are starting to see the game being played. There are now moments when the truth shines its rays amid the clouds, these are moments when homosexuality proponents reveal more of their ugly minds, so neatly hidden under all kinds of nice words and ideals deviously weaved into their disingenuous propaganda.

And finally, not every “conservative” shows themselves to be a coward, a sell-out, and ready to embrace becoming a sexuality pig or going along with any sexual garbage simply because it’s the easy and convenient thing to do.


Update: April 8, 2014

Other people persecuted for having a decent view of sexuality and relationships expressed through Prop 8.

…while Eich’s ouster is the latest for a supporter of Prop 8, it’s not the first.

Olympic gold medalist and gymnast Peter Vidmar was forced to relinquish his position as chef de mission for the 2012 U.S. Olympic team following disclosure of his support for the measure. In Sacramento, Calif., Scott Eckern of the California Musical Theatre was forced out of his job when his donation to the “Yes on 8” campaign became public.

Within the tech industry, many are suggesting that the way in which Eich’s situation was handled puts corporate leaders on notice that their political views and careers are increasingly intertwined. Dan Chmielewski, principal at Madison Alexander PR, Inc. in Irvine, Calif., said that while it was “perfectly appropriate for business leaders to engage in a political arena,” Eich wasn’t “alone in terms of paying a bit of a political price for having a political point of view.” That said, Chmielewski said, “Eich is a smart guy. Just because he stepped down from Mozilla, do not write his professional obituary.” Another industry insider familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it was “amazing the way things worked out. … People can destroy you in a tweet.”


Exchange over at
Dianaiad•7 hours ago

I notice that people have stopped posting, commenting or reacting…I hope they haven’t stopped signing. This isn’t about gay marriage or lack of same. It’s about freedom of speech. It’s about…how if someone does anything to disparage gays, or anything else politically correct (and heaven help anybody who actually contributed money to some politically incorrect cause, no matter how long ago), it becomes a legal matter. It’s legal to fire someone for contributing a thousand bucks to a cause you don’t like, or belong to an organization you don’t agree with?

Wait….wait….didn’t we do this awhile back? Senator McCarthy or something, wasn’t it?

The first amendment was not written to protect the freedom to agree with you. It was written specifically to protect the freedom of those you don’t like. I, personally, don’t give a hoot what gays do; get married, don’t get married…just leave me and my beliefs out of it, thank you.

I have been using Firefox for years; I love it and prefer it to any other browser. Indeed, I have been as much a Firefox fan as any Apple fanatic is of his Mac…but I have switched to Chrome. It’s a pain in the patootie, but I switched. For me it is not about gay marriage. It’s about freedom to speak freely.

I would have done the same had Firefox fired him for contributing to a more politically correct organization.


JoeMyGodNYC Dianaiad•3 hours ago

It doesn’t appear that you understand the First Amendment, which protects citizens from censorship by the GOVERNMENT. Therefore the First Amendment is inapplicable in situations that do not involve any government agency or authority. The First Amendment, therefore, provides zero protection to citizens from their employers. Surely you know that you don’t not have the freedom to make disparaging speech about your employers or to hold advocate for issues that may embarrass the people who sign your paycheck. Employees ARE protected against employment discrimination on the basis of religion, gender, race, etc

Alessandra JoeMyGodNYC•an hour ago

Freedom of speech as a principle and as a right is applicable in every sphere of society, not only those which involve the government.
Something so simple that some people haven’t understood yet.


JoeMyGodNYC Alessandra•38 minutes ago

If by applicable you mean “bears the force of law” then you are simply wrong. If by applicable you mean “should be upheld voluntarily” then I disagree. The unfettered freedom to express political opinions or religious views in the civilian workplace would often result in abuses and discord, which is why almost all companies strongly limit such behavior. I daresay you would not allow campaigning for abortion rights by coworkers to go unchallenged nor would many employees enjoy proselytizing among the cubicles. (And let’s not even get into sexual harassment.) Absolute freedom of speech at the workplace is appealing idea in theory, but in practice would soon devolve into mayhem. That’s why there exists an entire industry that creates employee conduct handbooks.

Alessandra JoeMyGodNYC•5 minutes ago

I think you raise a valid point about how complicated freedom of speech is in practice, including in the workplace. Your solution to the “mayhem problem” is censorship (imposed by the organization or the people themselves). I think this only speaks to the failure of civilizing people however. If you cannot work together with other people unless you put a tape on their mouths, it clearly shows you can’t stand hearing other opinions and neither can they. Or that people don’t know how to speak civilly. While keeping mayhem in check is necessary for people to work together, censorship is a palliative solution to the fact that you have created human beings who are incapable of dialog and debate without descending into mayhem. In other words, all you have is a group of thugs who are being kept in chains.
While that may be a “corporation”, it’s not a civilized group of people. What we are seeing in Mozillagate is that some of the chains were taken off from the liberal jerks, thus the ensuing persecution of good people like Eich. It couldn’t have been otherwise.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: