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: 2370
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
Comments (1-54) not displayed.
.
.
.
#55. To: Ada (#52)
I recall him posting on FReakrepublic under his real name. Not sure if he got banned or moved on. He was occasionally flamed for his sexual preference. Not that any of this matters to anyone except Artisan. I wrote to Greenwald after reading an article about him rescuing and raising dogs shortly after I lost mine to old age. He gave me a kind reply.
I heartily disagree. It matters to God. Sodomy is "a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance." Anyone who believes that Holy Scripture is the actual word of God will acknowledge this. Promotion and attempted "normalization" of homosexuality is from the devil himself. People who do this will be very sorry when they die and are judged and are sent to hell for all eternity. it is a very sick and sad situation. I reject the popular culture that creepily promotes this, always have. "Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
Just so you love the sinner as a fellow human being then I'm good with that. Hating, condemning and all that won't eliminate homosexuality from the face of the earth. Although I understand Iran doesn't have any of them.
Oh, no. No way. Wherever did I get that idea..... ROTF + + + !!
You forgot to ad the part that "that would be crazy." I see that you never post about the pedophile jewish rabbis, you only obsess on and try to deride the catholics - just like the masons, hagee fundies, satanists, and zionist jews do. very interesting company you are aligned with there. :-) "Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
I know for sure I've zinged all those parties here and pointed out that it's by no means only the RC ones. But you see, Mart, it's the RCs you brought up here, that's why we're on that subject again. You see no irony in quoting Catholic palimpsests in shooting down homosexuality, I do. It's a free country for 15 more minutes -- deal? :-) Thanks for the ping -- I love pings! Why March 3, 2016 should have suddenly proved a ping extravaganza is a great mystery. :-?
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.
I'm unfamiliar with that passage. Surely it was not used to refer to the David and Jonathan relationship.
Raimondo's real first name was Dennis. Anyone who rescues and raises dogs can't be all bad :-). I read the same article and noted that those dogs were mighty large and therefore might prove useful should the bad guys come prowling around.
Wow, I hadn't noticed the Epstein factor -- but of course it's the most natural connection in the world. The media should theoretically be yelling about it, but of course they favor Epstein's crimes and accomplices like the British royals. I'm warning yawl, Trump is NOT conservative if that's what you're looking for. He'll be another Bush at best, and that is deplorable if not fatal for our hopes of a future for amerika. You don't get to be a plutocrat without being evil -- and if in NYC, FORGET about it! Predict that after the election he and the Clintoons will be best pals again. Slick and other top power players have their own lockers in the posh Trump Tower gym. Do you think a former prexy of amerika would suffer having his engaged nameplate removed from a place like that?
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 :-[
Are people still doing Bitcoin? (I never understood it, so I didn't do it.)
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
There are frequent articles on it linked at www.freedomsphoenix.com -- a "must" site for all true freedom lovers -- many of them asserting it's got a great future ahead despite past volatility. Some are saying alternatives like "Litecoin" are going to leave it in the dust. I'm no expert but predict if the dollar really really drops, Bitcoin will be riding high once again.
lol - I'll stick with gold, silver, and lead. Even an EMF blast won't destroy them.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
That's circumstantial evidence too :-) If anything had been amiss, God surely would have come down on them.
That's just silly! "We need more H-1B visas, because source code is rotting in the fields." - Countenance Blog
..........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:-)
Even with his sodomy, his murder to have Bathsheba, David was the one that the Lord loved. Many times, I don't get the messages of the Bible. Prolly need to read and study more of the NT, than the Olde. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
wikid: "its atompunk retrofuturistic setting and artwork are influenced by the post-war culture of 1950s America", so I suppose it's at least partly ironic. Thanks for reading it, Dak -- makes life worth living! Mine, that is.....
So you agree with the iconoclasts. Thanks for weighing in. Next!
Exactly which iconoclasts are you referring to? there's only hundreds of them out there.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
The ones who call David a fag, of course. You used the word sodomy? What made me think you were an atheist? Must be another 4umizer.
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.
David found favor with the Lord in all that he did except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. That means that David's relationship with Jonathan was okay.
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. "Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
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.
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. LOL because it's funny and real! The fact is these are real people we're talking about and such factors ("politics" if you will) were constant in their lives just like ours. According to the links I threw in above including standard evangelicle theologians of our time, gayness is NOT the crime of Sodom and it makes sense in the context of the times that denying/disrupting hospitality could be, since it could leave people to the elements. What was the law at the time? To me the trump card is what God approves. David was "a man after God's own heart" and as you point out, David only offended God in the matter of Bathsheba, so I'm concluding it's fine with him that D and J passionately loved each other. It's been regarded as a beautiful, moving, touching, stirring thing through history, and everybody involved has had the plain text of the KJV staring them in the face, so I don't see any way around this interpretation.
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.
Actually it was the matter of Uriah the Hittite. That was murder. With Bathsheeba it was only coveting another man's wife.
You're right..... hey, I'm beginning to wonder what church this God guy grew up in. He's totally inconsistent! Do you think he's a Moonie or anything????
One sin led to another. And there's a connection with your fun fact #4420. Moonie marriage is something else :-)
War lovers will appreciate the dogtags he's sporting :-) Back to our hot topic (over 10k words here so far)..... in an email, Ada brought up a startling angle that even I the great Digger of PC-Busting Truth hadn't tho't of: if homosex is such an abomination, why is no specific gay individual or act mentioned in Bible narratives? This is a bolt out of the blue. Innumerable people are slain or executed over moral matters in the good Book, but there's no page that says "the two were brought before the king and run through with his spear for sodomy" or whatever. If homosex is a crime or sin, it's one that saturated life back then, both in and outside of the cast of Bible characters -- yet if the mainstream reading is correct, no fags are individually cited in it. Does everybody here agree that's a gap too large to be logical? Gay libbers are fond of opining out that Jesus never mentioned the subject, and it's something they and "mainstream" theology agree on. What, being a tax collector is a worse sin than "FUDGE PACKING"? Ouch, he even told soldiers to stop stealing and lying -- talk about victimful crimes! Brentlinger (gaychristian101.com) et al would seem to offer the only logical solution. One thing's for sure -- a universal straightness requirement is one of the best ways to multiply populations beyond the breaking point. Further links on request. Those who insist on an abstract, airless reading of the Word will kindly tolerate my compulsive relating it to real life >:-} Ted Crudz: The Mask of Sincerity
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.
#56. To: Fred Mertz, ada, aka stone (#55)
Not that any of this matters to anyone except Artisan.
#57. To: Artisan (#56)
#58. To: Artisan (#50)
going to communion has nothing whatsoever with homos. you cannot assume or imply that all Catholic priests are perverts, homos or pederasts.
#59. To: NeoconsNailed (#58)
Oh, no. No way. Wherever did I get that idea..... ROTF + + + !!
#60. To: Artisan (#59)
(Edited)
#61. To: Artisan (#54)
#62. To: Artisan (#56)
Sodomy is "a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
#63. To: Fred Mertz (#55)
#64. To: Artisan, all (#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)
#70. To: NeoconsNailed (#69)
#71. To: Lod (#70)
#72. To: NeoconsNailed (#71)
#73. To: NeoconsNailed (#69)
Nobody's coming after me on David and Jonathan this time?
#74. To: NeoconsNailed (#71)
#75. To: Ada (#73)
(Edited)
#76. To: NeoconsNailed (#75)
#77. To: Dakmar (#74)
#78. To: Lod (#76)
#79. To: NeoconsNailed (#78)
#80. To: Lod (#79)
#81. To: NeoconsNailed (#75)
same-sex love framing the adult lives of these heroes
#82. To: Lod (#76)
Even with his sodomy, his murder to have Bathsheba, David was the one that the Lord loved. Many times, I don't get the messages of the Bible.
#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.
#88. To: Artisan (#87)
for example, violating many of the ten Commandments are sins but would not involve force.
#89. To: Ada (#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.
#90. To: Artisan (#87)
#91. To: NeoconsNailed (#89)
David only offended God in the matter of Bathsheba
#92. To: Ada (#91)
#93. To: NeoconsNailed (#92)
#94. To: Adall (#93)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest