See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Dangerous Faggot: “Let’s Beat Feminism Together.”
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blo ... t-lets-beat-feminism-together/
Published: Feb 29, 2016
Author: Karen De Coste
Post Date: 2016-02-29 08:06:00 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 1669
Comments: 94
I like how Milo Yiannopoulos has been disrupting college campuses one trigger at a time, as he likes to say. He is openly queer, articulate, funny, and blunt- honest outrageous. And he’s a conservative. Accordingly, he may be a Coulter-like statist on some issues, but on the topic of feminism he has been a leading anti- SJW activist. And he calls his speaking-debate tour the “Dangerous Faggot Tour.” This month he was at the very radical, left-wing (surprise, I know) University of Michigan debating a feminist. In all of his usual candor, his closing arguments noted that it is male imaginativeness that explored the oceans, got us to the stars, built what was best about the world, and generally, he exalts the role of men in society. He says that in America today men are ridiculed and free speech is curtailed by feminism in a world where women have a stranglehold on academia and politics. His shtick – as a Brit – is to help expose a poisonous, hateful, sexist system that is finally being exposed to the public. He calls feminists a tiny, angry minority that is shrinking by the day. And he does this all very poignantly. In this video he debates the Trump campaign with Kate Andrews from the Adam Smith Institute, who is somewhat of a Republitarian. Kate is not always bad on issues, but here she comes off as a defender of perpetually offended women and minority persons. What is important to understand about Social Justice Warrior-ism is that its greatest defenders do not have a clue that most women do not side with these shrill, 20-something Social Justice Warriors and their crazed hatred of all things male and/or traditional. We are not perpetually offended at every turn in the road, every word uttered, and every action taken. And we are not underpaid and under-promoted in corporate America due to glass ceilings and misogyny and patriarchy. We are not offended by Donald Trump, we do not need safe spaces, we are not triggered by something we don’t agree with, and we do not genuflect at the alter of female talk TV and left-wing female academics. These people who pretend to argue for our cause and speak for us have absolutely nothing in common with most of us women.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 87.
#4. To: Ada (#0)
He's my favorite homo.
I have difficulty chosing between Glenn Greenwald and Justin Raimondo :-)
My female naber says they're both dynamic but "Greenwald's got the animal magnetism" :-)
My female naber says they're both dynamic but "Greenwald's got the animal magnetism" :-) I'm shocked that anyone's neighbor on this forum would ever even know who greenwald or raimando is. also, what a stupid line at the beginning of this article that claims greenwald "is a conservative." That's such a twisted, absurd claim that some homo, whose perverse acts are those of "grave depravity" and whose "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" is somehow a ''conservative''. WTF wrote that and what exactly in their mind does ''conservative'' MEAN? coming from an 'old right' perspective, even though when I was a kid the tv shows, sitcom, and jew-run hollyweird started trying to normalize and mainline this God-hating perversion, even as a kid I knew it was wrong and twisted. So I would never characterize some pervert as 'conservative'. That is completely, indescribably bizarre, a la 1984. I reject it completely. pretty soon they will say abortionists are pro life and reconquistas are pro sovereignty. Chastity and homosexuality 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Congratulations, they've just condemned half their own clergy and half their favorite politicians to the eternal flames of hell! BURN, BABIES, BURN. Don't link any more Greenwald or Raimondo, gang -- even if they're doing the dirty work 90% of conservativity refuses to. And no more piano playing by Van Cliburn, UNDERSTAND??? :-) -------------------------------------
I sort of knew the Catholic link would throw you off,. sorry. lets start again. Do you believe homo perverts (people who believe that wrong is right and right is wrong, and celebrate depravity,) are ''conservative''?????! if so, what exactly does 'conservative' mean? I always understood it basically to mean adhering to , & wanting to preserve traditional values.
"A Kind of Gay Hogwarts With Palm Trees" gawker.com/5825254/the-catholic-churchs-secret-gay-cabal ----------------------------------
So, now you can't justify your twisted thesis that homo pervs are "conservative", so you're gonna divert the topic & obsess on pervert priests all day? (Who by the way never claim to be conservative) I'll recap. Homo pervs like raimando and Greenwald are not conservative. They are an abomination, just like those pervert satanic false priests you link to. At least I'd never defend them and claim that they're somehow "conservative"! Eegads.
Recap all you want, but it's you who are blithely diverting on the perverting and just reverting. YOU invoked the RCC, I didn't. More stuff for you to ignore: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/us/archdiocese-in-boston-plans-to-close-65- catholic-parishes-by-the-end-of-the-year.html?_r=0 I'm confused here. The Swiss Guards are calling the Vatican a homo mafia, or are they one -- or both? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/24/vatican-s-pope-protecting-swiss- guards-accused-of-secret-gay-lobby.html https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/retired-swiss-guard-commander-confirms-existence- of-vaticans-gay-lobby I'm just sayin'..... taking up your implication that all homos should be shunned, cast into outer darkness or mebbe burned at the stake, how about we start with the religious since they're supposed to be humanity's moral compass? I know. You're not listening, but others are reading. I'm playing to the jury and having a jolly good time :-) ----------------------------------------------------
That's just the point. You point out all sorts of pervert homos, but at the same time you claim They're capable of being some sort of "conservatives". They are not. They're the exact opposite. I would not find one of those priests named in your links and then post and promote their weekly political column or blog as some sort of invaluable political principled wisdom, as you seem to be suggesting with justin and glenn, LoL. Someone who promotes faggotry such as Glenn and Justin are disordered, until they repent they don't know right from wrong. It is akin to satanic posession. I would likewise suggest that any priest who is a homo or pederast is also most likely possessed by satan.
Van Cliburn -- don't forget Van Cliburn! :-)
Just to be clear, in case you don't understand where I'm coming from. I don't "hate" people who are homos, or think they should be as you put it, burnt at the stake. I simply don't accept their perversion. Just as I don't call them "gay". Which is a term used in the Flintstone cartoon, a term that meant happy. A term hijacked to attempt to normalize sodomy. I think there are certain litmus tests. People who support homos, abortion or gun control should never be promoted or trusted. People who have homosexual tendenies, who are cursed and suffer with that disorder and struggle with it, should be shown compassion. But that is distintly different from those who openly embrace and promote faggotry., and proudly embrace the abomonation as if there is nothing wrong with it. I fear for such people on judgment day, when they meet their maker.
"Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much". Oops, I just parafrazed the Bard :-0 en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Sexuality_of_William_Shakespeare --------------------------------------------------------
"Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much". oh I get it. so people who aren't afraid to criticize fags and condemn sodomy and perversion are therefore themselves fags. That's what you're arguing, right? if so, that's interesting, because that's exactly what the fags themselves say. In that case, two can play this game. Have you ever been married? for how long? kids?
IMO your question is inappropriate. I would not ask it of anyone.
just sinking to the same level that he was. he kept whining when I explained to him why proud homos, by their very nature can not be conservative., and he responded by saying ''methinks he protests too much''. in other words, he was implying I protest too much, insinuating that i am a fag because i disapprove of fags. so I sank down to his level. anyone that matters here has met my beautiful wife in person. Where is his? So, who's more likely to be the fag here? facts are facts. do i really think NN is a fag? No, probably not, i was just applying , throwing back at him, the same twisted logic and insults that he launched. if ya cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen, or, where i come from , if you don't want a fight, don't start one. this always starts with NN - whenever I dare mention anything about Catholicism, he has a mental breakdown. It's all in the archives. he seems to have some rabid hatred the church that Christ established, for some reason. Must be a fundy upbringing, I don't know. and lastly, no, I would never promote and copy and paste articles by unrepentant, proud pervert fags such as raimando and greenwald, who also by the way is a PC Israel shill. I don't believe such people have anything worthwhile to contribute any more than a gang banger, dope dealer or usurious bankster, or mass murderer. these are all known as "sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance."
Is it fags you disapprove of or their behavior? I belong to a ski club where one of the males is obviously homosexual but very well regarded by the other men in the club. When my son was in his teens, I would have had no reservation about sending him off alone on an overnight ski trip with this fellow. I cannot say the same about some of the club straights if he had been a girl. His behavior has always been exemplary. Raimondo and Greenwald do not represent themselves as being conservative. They are libertarian and Greenwald might even be left-libertarian. So what? Both of them contribute a great deal to the cause of freedom. I might add more so than most conservatives do. (I used to be conservative but have given up on them.)
this issue arose in post #26 when I referred to the intercept article, which referred to greenwald as "a conservative." I disagreed and replied "also, what a stupid line at the beginning of this article that claims greenwald "is a conservative." regarding your question "Is it fags you disapprove of or their behavior?", most of them seem to have their identity as being openly homosexual - in their mannerisms, behavior, etc. They believe that there is nothing wrong with it, or else they wouldn't act so proud of it. As I stated above to NN, that's sad if someone has these leanings and it would be a cross to bear for them. But I do not agree with them embracing that lifestyle. For them to do so is a grave mistake and a serious sin. Heterosexuals oftentimes embrace and flaunt their sexual sinfulness also, and that is also a terrible mistake.
Wasn't Greenwald but a fellow called Milo Yiannopoulos who was described by Karen Coulter as a conservative fag in the first sentence of the article. I like how Milo Yiannopoulos has been disrupting college campuses one trigger at a time, as he likes to say. He is openly queer, articulate, funny, and blunt- honest outrageous. And he’s a conservative. Accordingly, he may be a Coulter-like statist on some issues, but on the topic of feminism he has been a leading anti- SJW activist. And he calls his speaking-debate tour the “Dangerous Faggot Tour. A public figure if he is queer is almost required to come out lest his enemies try to blackmail him. Raimondo, for instance, didn't come out until his site had been up for years. Just something he had to do, I would think, and he hasn't mentioned it since. I'm sure you have heard the rumors about Chief Justice Roberts being a closet queer (if you haven't I'll post a link from tex marre) whose prime qualification for the job was that he could call Bush43 by his first name. May not be true, of course, but the suspicion resurfaced when he changed his Obamacare vote at the very last minute causing some critics to believe he had been blackmailed. Better to be openly homosexual than be blackmailed into hurting the country.
Ok right, Milo Yiannopoulos. Thanks for the correction. yes, john Roberts has always been very shady even before he was nominated because he had proudly boasted that roe v wade "was the settled law of the land." That is not something that a conservative pro lifer would ever say, because number one roe v wade is not a law, and according to actual pro lifers themselves, it has never been considered 'settled' (accepted.) To those who like abortion rights, yes it is considered long settled. in my opinion, only an idiot would have ever considered Roberts conservative if they had actually viewed his record. I wrote this back at LP at the time, that he was not trustworthy. Plus, anyone nominated by a bush by definition should be known to be untrustworthy and not conservative. It wouldn't surprise me if that pervert arch-criminal John Roberts is a homo. That makes perfect sense. who knows what he was doing in that third world country when he illegally adopted those poor foreign kids. which reminds me, Donald trump is close friends with jewish pedophile jeff Epstein, has ridden in his plane and been to his home. no one likes to mention that pesky fact. I guess its only bad if bill Clinton and alan dersowitz do it., I guess is the logic. trump's lawyer even threatened to sue the media outlet for reporting it. they said the fact that Donald rode in Epstein's plane and went to his home in no way proved the insinuations attached. lol.
I was suggesting that Roberts was conservative in the sense of not being openly homosexual if, indeed, that's what he is. A Supreme Court Justice should not be blackmailable and his last minute opinion change on Obamacare suggested to some people that was what happened. Years ago a homosexual could not work for the State Department because homosexual conduct was illegal and, therefore, they could be blackmailed. But of course there were homos in State and they were blackmailed. Therefore, the rules were changed to permit homos to serve. The State Department is still a problem and employees are still blackmailed (ever hear of the Israeli "honey pots") but not for homosexuality. IMO if a homosexual wishes to stay in the closet, that's fine but if someone thinks to blackmail him, he should give the old Duke of Wellington's, "publish and be damned". I hope The Donald has cut his acquaintence with Epstein. Jeff is one bad dude.
Wait a minute -- Roberts a fag? The Google eight-ball seems to say yes Yeah, some of these indicators are flimsy by themselves, but others would seem to be smoke enuff to prove a blazing fire behind the scenes. It wouldn't be a problem except these Busheviks are toxic in every possible way and that means Roberts would be prime blackmail material even in a communistically pro- gay situation like today's amerika. Bushite neocons are evil personified and no good will ever voluntarily come from their direction. (Pure coincidence -- I swear on a stack of Bibles :-)
Much suspected by me, Nothing proved can be, Quoth Elizabeth prisoner. Written with a diamond on her window at Woodstock (1555) Even the fever swamps of the right have offered no proof, but there has been plenty of suspicion since his name was first proposed.
We're heavily dependent on sources we've never met and can't vet as there are only 24 hours in a day, but I feel we can develop a nose for authenticity. If that pile of assertions is even 3/4 true, Roberts has to be a member of the lavender hill mob -- just as surely as Jonathan and David :-}
Circumstantial evidence is strong that he is a closeted queer. But nothing concrete. Unlike Bush 43 where his boyfriends have been named.
Nobody's coming after me on David and Jonathan this time? This stuff IS going mainstream :-[
That's circumstantial evidence too :-) If anything had been amiss, God surely would have come down on them.
..........the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. “..........I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” All I want is the truth. And the truth so far that is neither I nor any guy I've asked about this has ever said anything like that to or about another guy. There's no parallel for it in the rest of the Bible, amerikan history or world history -- except when one or both the parties were queer. My father, brother, my guy friends and compatriots, none of them report having had a friendship in (or about) which such things were said. No covenant declared or (heh heh) stripping off of robes makes the file! David was the renowned king of Israel. Where is there any case of a modern head of state saying some guy's love was better than his wife's -- or wives'? There are such, but on inspection they come off shockingly fag rather than rescuing J and D from this implication. I really don't want to be any trouble, but am just dying to know what's going on here if it's not what "queer theology” says -- same-sex love framing the adult lives of these heroes. We're supposed to take the good Book at its word but what it says clashes with the Billy Graham interpretation sometimes. The rest of what we know of David's sex life wasn't very Presbyterian. If he'd been married to one woman (1 Tim 3:2) as long as they both should live we could call Jonathan a passing adolescent thing, but the King has smashed our chances -- the 2nd quote at top is his lament at J's death, not a jotting in his soldier diary. Help me, somebody! Vindicate them! Since yawl have brought it up again 0:-)
Same sex, but chaste, love? I know it sounds unlikely, especially what we know about their neighbors. But the kings of Israel did know the law.
If you mean platonic, have it your way -- wouldn't really change anything.
Not Platonic but obedient to the law. The question being just what the law. Was all sodomy prohibited or just temple prostitution and homosexual rape?
That is the question. "Even virulently anti-gay scholars like Dr. Robert Gagnon and John MacArthur and Merrill F. Unger, who had two earned doctorates, agree that the context of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 IS temple prostitution" http://www.gaychristian101.com/how-do-you-interpret-leviticus-1822-and-2013-man- should-not-lay-with-man.html I had never heard of Unger, but he taught at this fundy-sounding school http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Theological_Seminary MacArthur is of course a radio shouter beloved by millions of Babdists, Pennycostals etc. http://www.gaychristian101.com/how-do-you-answer-the-verse-that-says-homosexuals- will-not-go-to-heaven.html http://www.gaychristian101.com/what-words-could-paul-have-used-if-he-intended-to- condemn-homosexuality.html We have to be practical. Does God by chance agree with mother nature and the ancient Cretans that homosex is a ready-made means of population control? The alternative is a horrifically overpopulated world thanks to white Christian do-gooders running all over it for 500 years stamping out existing homo culture along with disease, malnutrition et al. Of course it's fantastic that the pederasty pervading pre- Christian societies is banned now, but people always go too far in the right direction. Where'd everybody go??? (Pure coincidence -- I'm not making this up :-)
As I understand the Cretans, they were pederasts so population control was not a factor. Population, though, was a concern with the Spartans who came later than the Cretans. With their husbands away from home for maybe 20 years at a time, the Spartan women would get children with the helots and no one thought a thing wrong with it. And even those masters of homosexuality, the Greeks, were conflicted. On the one hand, this love greater than the love of women could be pure and beautiful and on the other it was shameful and rich Greeks would hire slaves to protect their sons from seducers and abductors. Plato himself changed his mind on the subject. I still don't understand why it is a crime that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. After all, in itself it is a victimless crime. When force is used, its the force that is the crime. www.theguardi an.com/books/2007/nov/10/history.society But I am digressing from the question as to what was the law at the time of David and Jonathan. Their contemporaries saw nothing wrong but KIM that the account was written by one of King Solomon's scribes and maybe he couldn't criticize the boss's father.
geez louise, I've never heard of any of this, but as far as your point - it's not merely 'force' that makes this a sin. I understand that's the libertarian non-aggression principle, that anything goes as long as no force is initiated, - and that certainly involves morality. but whether something involves force or not is not the only deciding factor into whether something is a sin. for example, violating many of the ten Commandments are sins but would not involve force. fornication for example, lusting after another man's wife, coveting their goods, not keeping Hoy the Sabbath, using God's name in vain. bearing false witness. hating others, gossip, destroying one's reputation, .. the list of mortal sins that do not involve force could be almost endless. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 2. ON A COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT WHICH I WILL PROBABLY REGRET POSTING because it will start an argument with NN :-) incidentally, about the scripture, in the Catholic bible at the USCCB website, 2 Samuel 1:26 has a footnote which references 1 Sm 18:1–4. [Don't ask me what any of it means, I don't have a clue and don't really care.] but if I did I certainly wouldn't get analysis or give credence to a website called 'gaychristian.com, lol! here is the verses from the USCCB, links above. 26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother! Most dear have you been to me; More wondrous your love to me than the love of women.j @@@@@@@@@@@@ David and Jonathan. 1 By the time David finished speaking with Saul, Jonathan’s life became bound up with David’s life; he loved him as his very self.a 2 Saul retained David on that day and did not allow him to return to his father’s house.b 3 Jonathan and David made a covenant, because Jonathan loved him as his very self. 4 Jonathan took off* the cloak he was wearing and handed it over to David, along with his military dress, even his sword, bow, and belt.c 5 David then carried out successfully every mission on which Saul sent him. So Saul put him in charge of his soldiers; this met with the approval of the whole army, even Saul’s officers.
#88. To: Artisan (#87)
True. The law was made for the benefit of man and not man for the law. Violating a commandment does not necessarily cry our for punishment, much less vengeance. Some of them, of course, do: murder, theft, perjury, etc. David and Jonathan's relationship seems to be admired by their contemporaries. If it were shameful, the scribes would have ignored it. Sometimes same sex relationships are admired. For instance, 100 years ago Boston marriages, i.e., 2 women living together, were considered the height of purity. After all these high class women would never have done anything wrong. So either David and Jonathan were considered "pure' or the law exempted homosexual relations among military men from the law's prohibition. I have no idea which it was. After all this was about 1,000 BC and the Greeks had not yet conquered Palestine. If David found favor with the Lord in all except the matter of Uriah the Hittite, the Lord himself overlooked quite a bit like the murder of the messenger.
Martisan, you're back! So you're agreeing with our findings? Come on, somebody shoot it down already! I DON'T WANT TO BE A HERETIC -- well, it has its points >:-) Sure, force isn't the only or even the major yardstick of what's sinful. A truism.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: Turtle (#4)
He's my favorite homo.
#6. To: Ada (#5)
#26. To: NeoconsNailed, ada, turtle (#6)
http ://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
#27. To: Artisan (#26)
#28. To: NeoconsNailed (#27)
#29. To: Artisan (#28)
#30. To: NeoconsNailed (#29)
#31. To: Artisan (#30)
#32. To: NeoconsNailed (#31)
#33. To: Artisan (#32)
Someone who promotes faggotry such as Glenn and Justin are disordered, until they repent they don't know right from wrong.
#35. To: NeoconsNailed (#33)
#36. To: Artisan (#35)
(Edited)
#37. To: NeoconsNailed (#36)
To: Artisan
#40. To: Artisan, Rotara (#37)
Have you ever been married? for how long? kids?
#43. To: Ada (#40)
#46. To: Artisan (#43)
proud homos, by their very nature can not be conservative
#49. To: Ada (#46)
Raimondo and Greenwald do not represent themselves as being conservative.
#52. To: Artisan (#49)
also, what a stupid line at the beginning of this article that claims greenwald "is a conservative."
#54. To: Ada (#52)
#61. To: Artisan (#54)
#65. To: Ada (#61)
#66. To: NeoconsNailed (#65)
#67. To: Ada (#66)
#68. To: NeoconsNailed (#67)
If that pile of assertions is even 3/4 true, Roberts has to be a member of the lavender hill mob -
#69. To: Ada (#68)
#73. To: NeoconsNailed (#69)
Nobody's coming after me on David and Jonathan this time?
#75. To: Ada (#73)
(Edited)
#81. To: NeoconsNailed (#75)
same-sex love framing the adult lives of these heroes
#83. To: Ada (#81)
#84. To: NeoconsNailed (#83)
#85. To: Ada (#84)
(Edited)
just what the law
#86. To: NeoconsNailed, Artisan (#85)
Does God by chance agree with mother nature and the ancient Cretans that homosex is a ready-made means of population control?
#87. To: Ada, neoconsnailed (#86)
I still don't understand why it is a crime that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. After all, in itself it is a victimless crime. When force is used, its the force that is the crime.
Replies to Comment # 87. for example, violating many of the ten Commandments are sins but would not involve force.
#90. To: Artisan (#87)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 87.