You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘pornography’ category.

And, good news:

Anonymous hackers take out darkweb child porn sites – and leak 381,000 email addresses

That is a lot of addresses! Just horrible.

“Troy Hunt of HaveIBeenPwned says that 21% of the addresses used match information from previous leaks – suggesting they are people’s ‘real’ email addresses, rather than ‘burner’ addresses used to conceal people’s identity.”

And which leads us the very same question this commenter asked:

Rich Rochy Rochester

Shame the FBI/CIA don’t bother doing the same. Good on them.

Indeed, why is it that an anonymous hacker had to do this? Where was the police? Although I know there are some police units that do this kind of work, nothing on this magnitude, insofar as what I have seen reported. And why don’t the military take out child porn sites? And as another commenter, Rico Bobby, replied:

Because it would implicate their bosses.. and themselves

And not only that, their main job is committing mass murder of innocent poor people of color abroad.

In any case, great job by these hackers and thank you, from me.

 

Advertisements

This is a really smart comment:

The man made an arena full of Republicans stand up and cheer as he pledged to protect the LGBTQ community.
The Republican party voted for a former Democrat liberal businesses man as their candidate.And the Democratic party picked a neo con big business backed hawk.

Indeed – and that just goes to show what a failure the US is as a country and as a political system. But you must be getting tired of hearing me saying it. Still, I find it rather bizarre. So again it’s this weird center that congregates most of the American voting public. Whether it’s more neocon (Hillary) or more anti-globalist but pro-military (Trump), you see that all the candidates that were very left on geopolitics/Wall Street (Bernie and Stein)  or very right on culture war issues (Cruz, Carson, Rubio, etc.) lost badly.

Although Pence is really conservative and Kaine is somewhat conservative.

My comment left at Lionel Media’s video on Trump’s 60 minute interview:

Lionel is to his stupid support of LGBT “rights” what Hillary is to Wall Street and war. Shills who don’t have any decency or knowledge about what is a world with human rights. Just as we can’t expect Hillary to be honest about the damage that her agenda brings, we can’t expect Lionel to realize the problems with his homosexual agenda. He mentions he deplores the fact that today language has become crude and vulgar, along with the ideas expressed (or maybe he’s jumped on the “vulgarity is OK” bandwagon) – and who do we have to thank for that? Liberals (which includes the LGBT) – the people normalizing homosexuality, porn, and promiscuity, abortion on demand, adultery, and who are responsible for a lot of sexual harassment and sexual violence in society – as it couldn’t be otherwise.

In an exchange with a liberal troll the other day, he kept asking why Christians “hate women” because of the several passages in the Bible where women are mistreated, raped, etc. And I told him his question was rich given it came from a liberal that supports pornography (and I’m sure many more evil things), since there is nothing that contains more material that degrades and does violence to women than porn. Not just to women, because it’s one of the main venues for homosexual pigs to present themselves. The Bible is particularly tame compared to the extreme debasing of sex and women that all kinds of porn present. In short, that’s what the two sides of American society give us – either they are war perverts or sexual perverts – or both, such as the Clintons and also Trump, although I do agree with Lionel that Trump seems like a Clinton lite. My prediction is he will act quite similarly to Clinton if elected though.

All these idiots who are saying, “We know how repugnant Clinton is, but we don’t know what Trump will be like” are leading themselves into playing the role of Charlie Brown in Lucy holds the football.

And to this comment from One Man 1970:

This whole show (our country) ..has completely gone off the rails…
I agree – and a testament to the failure of the US public education system. It produces a country of war and sexual perverts who want to shove their wars, porn, and homosexuality agenda of death and destruction wherever they go.

 

 

Liberals are harmless and tolerant, right? People who are in favor of porn just want to live and let live, right?

Interesting article from guy who became psychologically and physically ill from porn addiction on the NYT. The most interesting part for me was reading about the death threats he received once he started a website to campaign against porn.

Need I mention that the overwhelming majority of people who are in favor of porn think homosexuality is normal? What trash of human beings.

Internet Porn Nearly Ruined His Life. Now He Wants to Help.

 

And the purges against decent people with a healthy mind about sexuality continue…

New case in the UK (land of pigs!) reported by the Express:

Felix Ngole, 38, posted on social media that “I stand with Kim Davis” – the American county clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples.

The student of Sheffield University also commented on the link quoting a bible verse which called homosexuality an “abomination” in September 2015. …

The father-of-four’s actions were described as “transgressed boundaries which are not deemed appropriate for someone entering the social work profession” by the committee and ordered him to hand in his student card.

The committee said its decision was not based on his views but the act of publicly posting them “may have caused offence to some individuals”.

Mr Ngole said: “My beliefs about marriage and sexual ethics reflect mainstream, biblical understanding, shared by millions around the world.

“Simply expressing that understanding, in a personal capacity, on my Facebook page, cannot be allowed to become a bar to serving and helping others in a professional capacity as a social worker.”

However, Mr Ngole said he will be appealing the decision, which could prevent him becoming a social worker.

He believes the decision is an effective “bar to office for Christians” and that he may have suffered discrimination.

Outright persecution and discrimination. Of course it’s all about his views, which the liberals in control of this university hate and want to punish.

I am going out on a leap here, and make a bet that Mr. Ngole is a good father and would make a good social worker.

And the university claiming it was going to expel him because “he caused offense” to people. Who are these people, may we ask? People with the minds of pigs!

Moreover, now these university people have offended me and Mr. Ngole with their words and deeds. Should they all be expelled? What nonsense this claim about “offense”! Not a day  goes by when dozens of people at this University offend someone somewhere in the world with their views. Should they all be expelled now? Not to mention that students are entitled to express views that sexuality pigs find offensive – that is, healthy and wholesome views of sexuality.

Shouldn’t all students who are in favor of pornography be expelled from the university? Pornography is offensive to anyone with a healthy and wholesome mind about sexuality.

Oh no, but UK sexuality pigs must claim their entitlement to saying the most depraved and offensive messages related to sexuality any time they want, but should someone point out how perverted their ideology about homosexuality is, out they go.

 

 

Dailymail: Sean Crumpler, from Colorado, accused of hunting young men and teenagers on dating app Grindr, keeping them as sex slaves and branding them with his name

  • Sean Crumpler, 48, of Aurora, Colorado, due to appear in court
  • Accused of keeping men and teenagers he found on Grindr as sex slaves
  • It is said they were allowed to live at his home rent free in return for sex
  • One man said Crumpler is HIV positive but didn’t practice safe sex 

He told Fox31 Denver that the males living with him played video games, watched Netflix and made porn.

‘They don’t realize they’re victims. They think he’s there to help them and they get whatever they want and they don’t have to work or get jobs or participate in normal society,’ he added.

He posted $100,000 bail and is due to appear in court on November 23.

______________

Notice the wording from the author:

“they don’t have to participate in normal society”

But that is just the problem, isn’t it? In a society ruled by LGBT pigs and others who think homosexuality is normal, having sex like pigs is ‘normal society’! They are certainly part of the normal for liberal pigs. Making porn is ‘normal’, prostituting oneself for a homosexual pig is normal, any kind of sexuality crap is normal… as long as the dogma that homosexuality is normal is sustained.

What is not deemed normal in such a society as ours is having a healthy sexuality, which can only be heterosexual, and rebuking all this LGBT/liberal trash.

I wonder what he will be charged with: prostitution of others?

And notice also how this blows a hole the size of a crater into the homosexual propaganda line that homosexuality is sex between consenting adults. Number one because LGBTs are constantly sexually exploiting and abusing teenagers (in addition to adults), and two, because exploiting and manipulating people is not proper consent. Only for pigs.

There is homosexual propaganda, then there is reality.

This is how these two homosexual pigs from San Francisco, Geoffrey Benjamin and Craig Persiko, explain the Folsom Street parade of homosexual perversities, sadism, and other deformed sexuality attitudes and behaviors to their kids. The two pigs are farcically “married” and raising two kids in the heart of the Castro.

“Living in SF, our kids are used to seeing special costumes and special events,” says Persiko. “We tell them this one is for adults only, in a way that some adults like to play dress-up and pretend. I also talked about it that way when our kids asked about store displays in the Castro with mannequins in handcuffs.”

Benjamin adds that kids’ brains aren’t wired to understand the point of a man dressed in black leather. The Folsom Street Fair is about sexual titillation for adults, and for kids who haven’t gone through puberty, the costumes and nudity simply don’t make sense. “I’ll tell my kids that their bodies aren’t ready to understand those costumes,” he says.

______________________________________

You have to brainwash them young to think every kind of deformed and vile way to think and behave about sex is normal – ‘just like kids “playing dress-up”,’ says the pig.

No, maybe torturing people sexually is not just like a little girl dressing up as Tinker Bell or a little boy as Batman.

Notice also his phrasing about the brain being “wired” to think all of this is normal – thus the individual has no responsibility over their thoughts, attitudes, or behaviors. LGBT pigs always blaming on wiring what is a deformed psychology in need of treatment and what are deformed attitudes in need of a change of mindset. All of which they are entirely responsible for and were not born wired that way.

fol1

Fol2

Fol8

Fol7

Fol5

Fol4

Fol3

Fol11

Fol6

Fol9

Fol10

  • Here’s a collection of several of my tweets on the Duke University Fun Home lesbian porn controversy

Duke University requiring students to read perverted lesbian porn to “open” their minds. “Fun House” | Grasso | Bechdel #Christian

Student 1: Whatdyu came to Duke for?
Student 2: They’re requiring students to read perverted lesbian porn to “open” their minds.
Student 1: A bit steep to pay 60K a year for that, dontcha think?
Student 2: Oh no! The more I clap at their lesbian porn and say I enjoy lesbian porn, the more chance I’ll have at getting a professor position later on. You know, clapping at lesbian porn is considered the highest form of critical thinking at Duke University.
Student 1: It takes a lot of thinking to clap at lesbian porn!
Student 2: Specially at Duke!


When they say “Duke is lacking conversations about LGBT”, it just means that’s all there is at Duke and no one can express any other point of view in their classes without being tarred and feathered as homophobic, bigoted, intolerant, or whatever other label they have come up with in order to destroy the possibility for students to hold onto whatever wholesome and healthy values they might have regarding sexuality. @DukeU http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2015/08/don039t-believe-the-hype#comment-2221451888 Jessica Namakkal | Gabriel Rosenberg


A challenging idea is one that challenges how perverted and dysfunctional liberals are regarding sexuality, including their promotion of homosexuality, porn, prostitution, and promiscuity as normal. There’s nothing challenging about normalizing garbage at @DukeU.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2015/08/freshmen-skipping-fun-home-for-moral-reasons


How sad that it seems that at @DukeU what is missing most are good professors who could actually have a worthy conversation about sexuality with students, as opposed to just peddling the usual “everything is normal” garbage that is the only thing that liberals are capable of.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2015/08/don039t-believe-the-hype


Clueless @DukeU student named Zephyr Farah, gushing at Alison Bechdel like a heroin addict gushes at his heroin dealer, was quoted as saying “it was the acceptance, the advocacy and the willingness here [at Duke] to treat people as people. ”

Like they will treat the people who are into porn “as people” (acceptance, advocacy, and normalization), the people into promiscuity “as people” (acceptance, advocacy, and normalization), the people into pimping “as people” (acceptance, advocacy, and normalization), the people into adultery “as people” (acceptance, advocacy, and normalization), the people into perverted sexual relations with the same sex (homosexuals and bisexuals) as “people” (acceptance, advocacy, and normalization), etc.

– In other words, for liberals this means treating as normal all the garbage of people who think homosexuality, porn, prostitution, and promiscuity are normal – exactly because they have no ethics. Just so they can be “comfortable” with whatever garbage they want to be and do.

How sad that it seems that at Duke what is missing most are good professors who could actually have a worthy conversation about sexuality with students, as opposed to just peddling the usual “everything is normal” garbage that is the only thing that liberals are capable of.


Gabriel Rosenberg / Jessica Namakkal @DukeU: “For many LGBTQ students, the Bechdel events this fall may be the only time in their four years on campus that the topic of queer identity will be widely discussed.”

“For many clean-minded conservative students, Grasso’s complaint about reading pornographic lesbian garbage may the only time in their entire four years at Duke where someone publicly stands up for ethics and morality in the sphere of sexuality.”

Fixed it for ya!


If it depends on the #gaymafia at @DukeU, homosexuality is going to be shoved down everyone’s throats in the campus as normal every single day. #DukeU

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2015/08/don039t-believe-the-hype

Read the rest of this entry »

From The Smoking Gun – excerpted portions of longer article:

APRIL 3–A business tycoon gave a gay porn star $500,000 and a luxury automobile in hush money payments after being threatened with the exposure of details of his paid sexual liaisons with the accused extortionist and other X-rated performers, according to sources and court records.

The alleged shakedown scheme resulted in the arrest last month of Teofil Brank, a 25-year-old Los Angeles man known professionally as “Jarec Wentworth.” A U.S. District Court judge has ordered Brank held without bail in advance of trial on the felony charge.

Brank’s alleged victim–who is only identified by the initials “D.B.” in court filings–is Donald Burns, 51, a regular on the society circuit who made his fortune through the 1997 sale of a telecommunications firm he co-founded. The jet-setting Burns’s real estate portfolio includes waterfront estates in La Jolla, Nantucket, and Palm Beach, where he lives a mile up N. Ocean Boulevard from Rush Limbaugh’s compound.

The businessman also gave the porn star his Audi R8, which investigators valued at $180,000. Brank picked up the vehicle at Burns’s La Jolla home, which he purchased in 2011 for $14.1 million.

The six-figure payoff, however, did not sate Brank, according to prosecutors. In a series of text messages, the porn star demanded an additional $1 million for his silence. Brank also told Burns, “I want a condo here in LA. Bachelor pad.”

Faced with the new demands, Burns contacted the FBI on March 3. In subsequent interviews with agents and prosecutors, Burns admitted paying Brank for sex, as well as arranging sexual encounters with other men. In text messages quoted in the felony complaint, Brank told Burns, “You lied to me and treated me like Shit,” adding that, “I only wanted to drive cars and Enjoy your company. I guess findin you boys is out of the picture.”

Brank was arrested March 4 when he met with an undercover FBI agent posing as a “trusted friend” of Burns (pictured below). During the meeting at a Starbucks in El Segundo, the agent provided Brank with title to the Audi and claimed that the $1 million was in the trunk of his vehicle.

During a court hearing last Friday, prosecutor Kimberly Jaimez told Judge John Walter that “D.B.” paid Brank “for sexual conduct” and also gave him up to $2000 for individual referrals to “other individuals who would have sexual contact.” Jaimez estimated that Brank made “less than ten” of these referrals to “D.B.”

Jaimez said that Brank met “D.B.” in late-2013, when the victim “began considering investments in the homosexual pornography industry and in connection with that began having meetings and getting to know individuals in that industry.” When Walter asked if Brank and “D.B.” were “business associates,” Jaimez made the nature of their relationship clear. “Pay-for-sex operation,” she said.

In reply to a question about the age of the sex partners referred to “D.B” by Brank, Jaimez told Walter that “D.B.” “informs us that all these boys were over the age of 18.” She added that FBI agents were investigating to confirm that the sex referrals did not involve minors.

Brank’s lawyers have countered that “D.B.” does not deserve anonymity since, “by the government’s own admission,” he allegedly paid Brank for sex and to “procure sexual partners for himself.” Jaimez also disclosed that there is evidence that several Brank associates were involved in the extortion plot and, as a result, could face conspiracy charges.

Additionally, Brank’s counsel contends that, “the government does not know whether any of the ‘boys’ with whom D.B. engaged in sexual activity were underage. This begs the fundamental question of why D.B. is not named as a fellow defendant given that he engaged in an interstate arrangement with Mr. Brank to pay for procurement of sexual partners.”

A judge has, so far, agreed to keep “D.B.”’s name out of the public court record.

The salacious nature of the case is likely of concern to Burns, who regularly attends charity galas and society events and sits on the board of a public company. He also heads an eponymous charitable foundation that donates to organizations in Nantucket and Palm Beach, where Burns maintains his principal residence, an oceanfront mansion. According to its 2013 tax return, the Donald A. Burns Foundation had assets totaling $10.1 million and it paid Burns $132,834 annually for his work as the group’s president. Over the last five years, the foundation has reported donations totaling $2.2 million

Burns’s wealth appears principally derived from the 1997 sale of Telco Communications Group, a Virginia-based long-distance phone carrier. According to Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Burns–Telco’s founder and chief executive–received around $250 million in cash and stock when the deal closed.

Burns has maintained a role in the telecommunications industry through positions with Magicjack Vocaltec Ltd., the publicly held company that produces the magicJack Internet phone device. Burns, chairman of the company’s board of directors, reportedly provided part of the investment used to launch the firm, and he served as its chief executive for several years. According to an SEC filing, he currently owns Magicjack stock with a market value of $2.8 million.

A registered Republican, Burns has donated to a variety of GOP candidates and committees, including Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Jeb Bush, Rudolph Giuliani, and the Republican Party of San Diego. In 2004, Burns made a $1000 donation to a “swift boat” group opposing Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, and he also gave money to the presidential campaigns of John Edwards and Ralph Nader. Last year, he made a maximum $2600 contribution to Richard Tisei, an openly gay, married Republican who lost a bid for a congressional seat in Massachusetts.

Burns’s largest political donations came in 2008, when he contributed $400,000 to a group opposing a Florida ballot measure that called for amending the state constitution so as to define marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman. The measure, which passed with 62 percent of the vote, is the subject of ongoing litigation by gay marriage proponents. (14 pages)


Another example of the turds of people who impose the dominant culture of the West right now. My question remains: why should such garbage of people be the ones who dictate to our children how they should think about relationships and sexuality and how laws and society should be organized, and more fundamentally, even understood?

Notice the problem with liberal language: “a gay porn star”.

What is this but a person who has a profoundly perverted, deformed, parasitic, and dysfunctional psychology and ideology regarding relationships and sexuality, and who engages in prostitution with a camera?

And yet, look at the what this language does. “Gay” “porn” “star”.

Recently I came across a thesis on a legal question about pornography (which I only browsed because of lack of time). Why hasn’t pornography that involves a monetary transaction been pursued as prostitution with the use of a camera, since that’s exactly what it is?

I have found no satisfactory answer in terms of legal coherence. The only explanation is that once sexually perverted people gain power, they will institute as legal any and all of their perverted and destructive behaviors. And they will persecute anyone who does not subject to their deformed ideology and praxis, which is in this case the larger liberal homosexuality agenda, one of the core parts of the liberal agenda on sexuality.

I’ve updated the section on defining and describing the homosexuality agenda, which is part of my page on why so many people have normalized homosexuality:

What is the homosexuality agenda?

The homosexuality agenda is the political and cultural movement to normalize homosexuality in every aspect of society, by systematically lying about its etiology and consequences, and to criminalize any questioning, differing viewpoints, and objections of said homosexuality agenda. As such, the goal of people with a homosexuality agenda is not only to silence dissent but to paint decent thinking as evil and to malign and slander the character of all  conservatives who have a moral and healthy understanding of human sexuality. Thought crime is the goal.

The main tool of people with a homosexual agenda is propaganda, i.e., constantly spreading myths, misinformation, and downright lies, and promoting perverted and dysfunctional attitudes about sexuality. Concomitantly, they move to cover up and silence every single case and collective action of LGBTs and their supporters perpetrating harm and violence in society. Thus, within homosexual propaganda, “gays” are painted as downtrodden victims, masking the millions acts of  violence and other egregious behaviors they engage in. This violence and harm include, but are not limited to: the destruction of marriage, trafficking, prostitution, promiscuity, sexual harassment, abuse, molestation, murder, assault, battering, bullying, fake hate crimes, porn, degradation of human sexuality, attack on social conservatives in all spheres of life (professional, political, personal, business), trampling on fundamental rights (speech, religion, conscience), character assassination, persecution, discrimination, spreading of STDs, S&M, violation of children’s rights to heterosexual parents, and censorship of research and debate. Most of these harmful actions are perpetrated with impunity, if not downright support from liberals and others promoting homosexuality as normal. Moreover,  the violence LGBT individuals perpetrate is often blamed and projected on conservatives, i.e., the false stereotype of who does violence to “gays”. In truth, it is LGBTs themselves, by millions of cases compared to a handful of incidents by conservatives, who are violent to LGBTs.

Another part of the propaganda involves conducting irresponsible and corrupt research and academic content regarding homosexuality, used as a means to legitimize the agenda in legal, medical, and academic circles, as well as to give a false wrapping of “scientific authority” to liberal political ideology.

The homosexual agenda (ridiculously called “gay rights movement” and other such euphemistic terms) is part of a larger liberal agenda regarding sexuality and personal behaviors (including the endorsement of promiscuity, hook-ups, perverse and perverted attitudes and behaviors related to sex, porn, adultery, abortion, destruction of traditional marriage, STD epidemics, etc.).

Do not confuse the term “(homo)sexuality” with “(homo) sexual orientation. They are not the same.

Homosexuality is about sexual attitudes, values, attractions, repulsions, concepts and interpretations about sexuality, power and domination or subjection dynamics relating to the sexual other, affection or objectification of the sexual other, admiration or disrespect related to the sexual object,conscious and unconscious feelings related to self or other which shapes or deforms relation and sexual feelings towards other, obsessions and distortions, projections, fantasies, dysfunctions, traumas, impacts from social conditioning, problems with masculinity or femininity, problems with personal history and fundamental caretakers, etc. that will result in the sexualization of someone of the same sex and a hindering of the normal sexualization of someone of the opposite sex.

Society needs to be concerned about homosexuality, not homosexual orientation. Homosexual attraction or desire is only a mere product of myriad configurations of these aforementioned dysfunctional
psycho-social dynamics. There is nothing normal about homosexuality and no one is born homosexual. It is perverted and dysfunctional and the best a person with a homosexual problem can do is to seek to treat the underlying reasons that produce such a perverted way of thinking and feeling about same-sex people, which for homosexuals comes accompanied by a deformed way of thinking about opposite-sex people too.

On using the words “a homosexual”

The problem I see with using “a homosexual” is that it has an essentialist, inborn, or biological determination connotation to it that is the opposite of reality.

This is why I often prefer using “individual with a homosexual problem,” since no one is born with a homosexual problem.
This means in “liberalspeak” that no one is born a homosexual, no one is born gay, no one “is gay” in the biologically determined sense, and homosexuality or gayness or homosexual sexual orientation are not inborn.

Homosexuals are not “being themselves.” They are being themselves with a homosexual problem. Resolve the problem and they are heterosexuals being who they are.

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).

=====================

 

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

%d bloggers like this: