If You Are Using the Word "Homosexual", You Are Already Losing the Battle
If You Are Using the Word "Homosexual" (as Well as Derivatives, Positive, Negative or Other, such as "Gay" and "Fag" etc…) — by that very act — You Are Already Losing the Battle.
A battle in the alleged war against homosexuals, or perhaps that, more general (and more real), against liberals and the left?
The battle to see the truth, pure and simple, and to (warning: gay double entendre ahead) get to the bottom of things.
And it applies to whether you are pro-gay, anti-gay, or neutral; and whether you are conservative, liberal, or independent.
It sounds extreme, doesn't it?
in this day and age, just about everybody would agree, the terms gay
and homosexual are part and parcel of modern-day discourse, and should
thus be accepted. No?
One (straight) pickup artist's
involves asking a girl whether she is: a folder, a roller, or a tosser.
Wondering what identity of hers he is asking about gets the conversation
going (it concerns how one… packs one's clothes in one's suitcase!) —
which is the whole point, needless to say. A whole conversation begins
and continues forever — just as it has, on a nation-wide scale, on a
worldwide scale, regarding oppressed homosexuals, oppressed
African-Americans, oppressed women, oppressed individuals who pour hot
coffee on their laps at McDonald's, etc etc etc…
other day, I was telling a liberal how I was sorry, but — compared with
their lot in foreign countries — blacks and the poor have perhaps not
suffered as much in America as they like to think…
He immediately interrupted me: "You've never been black!"
Of course, his being a (close) member of my family, he wasn't black either and had never been so.
that is of no matter, needless to say, because he is of the
tolerant-generous-humanistic-new-agey sort and so he empathizes with
minorities and wants the government to interfere on their (alleged)
Another time, I was told — by leftist Jews —
that I was not a Palestinian and could not comment on the conflict
because I had no idea of their suffering at the hands of Israel. (Guess what: they — obviously — weren't Palestinians either.)
answer to all those issues is, I am a human being, and therefore I can
understand (or make a decision to refuse to understand) blacks (black
human beings), Palestinians (Palestinian human beings), women (female
human beings), etc, etc, etc, as well as homosexuals (gay human beings)…
Wouldn't this seem to go along with Martin Luther King's "Judge them not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"?
And so we get to "homosexuals" and to "their [gays'] dignity as human beings"; "recognizing the gay and lesbian population in the United States is a contemporary civil rights issue."
No, it's not.
To put it simply:
Homosexuals do not exist.
Really. It's true. Gays, or gay people if you prefer, do not exist.
Nor do lesbians.
It sounds radical, doesn't it? Extremist, even.
Retarded. Obtuse. Dense.
To tell the truth, it sounded so to me too a few months or so ago when the thought first popped into my head.
Actually, it is neither extremist nor dense. Nor is it hate speech or anti-gay (nor is it in any way pro-gay, for that matter).
it or not, this post is in no way a moral judgment of any kind on
homosexuals, nor indeed on heterosexuals, or on sex (or the lack
thereof) of any kind.
It is simply a fact — a neutral, objective fact: Homosexuals do not exist.
passes for (a) homosexual is a particular person's search for a
particular pleasure — whether it is temporary or life-long. (A pleasure which, most of the time, is different
from the mainstream's.)
Most people, gay or other,
pro-gay or anti-gay, would probably laugh or snort if I said that
homosexuals do not exist, meaning homosexuality does not exist, and they
could then, f'r'instance, link to a gay sex site and ask what kind of dork says
that this (pointing) does not exist?!
Are you crazy?!
they (you?) would ask disbelievingly (whether you are gay,
straight, leftist, rightist, or anything else). Have you never seen a
gay porn video? Two gays (male or female) ought to stand right in your
face and soul kiss each other, with their hands down each other's pants.
But this entire post could have been written without
once addressing gay themes, and being entirely focused on conventional
(mainstream?) heterosexual (man-woman) sex.
Because heterosexuals do not exist, either.
man's pursuit, or a woman's pursuit, of (what we might call) hedonistic
pleasure — or of any pleasure at all — should not be the way we
identify him, or her. Nor should his or her particular pursuit of
pleasure (hedonistic or other) — i.e., homosexuality — be used to
classify that person's activity.
By speaking about
homosexuality, we extend it to a given person's identity as a homosexual
and classify him as such, whether in positive, negative, or simply
neutral terms. He or she is different. And lately, he or she deserves
All the debate about homos is one way of elevating (what ostensibly is) a
private activity, a way of seeking pleasure (perverted or other, inside the mainstream or outside), into a
personal identity. As it happens, this is no more wrong than identifying "normal" people as heterosexuals, i.e., elevating
"banging chicks" (for a male) into a personal identity — or even refraining from sex (for reasons
valid or other) into an identity (a non-sexual?).
centuries, for millenia, people have been primarily identified by their occupation —
what they did for the benefit of their neighbor(s) and their community (soldier, farmer,
worker, businessman, plumber, etc) — and not what they did for leisure, "for
fun", for themselves, whether inside the home or elsewhere (certainly not in the privacy of the bedroom) — unless, of course, they were a prostitute (but in that case we would indeed also be speaking of that woman's, or of that man's, occupation).
as we should not be identified, primarily, with our skin color, or with
our nationality, so we should not — any of us — be identified with (the amorphous and ill-defined concepts of)
sexual orientation and gender identity. Or indeed, with attraction or
with pleasure-seeking of any sort of all. Whether homo or hetero.
Leisure, within the bedsheets or outdoors (neither are we Disneyland-goers or Six Flag park-attenders), is not our primary identity.
It is not his — or her — true self.
(Unless it is a person's occupation, such as a prostitute or — I am not
saying they are the same — a musician or a professional baseball
You might ask (indeed, you might sneer), who
are you, Erik, who are you conservatives, to tell me how I am to
identify myself, who am I to describe myself.
And that, whether you are gay, straight, man, woman, "African-American", white, Palestinian, Scandinavian, or other.
You may identify as you wish. Absolutely.
Just as I may not choose to identify you as other than a human being.
Indeed, isn't having all members of a country identified equally the meaning of republic? Not as part of subsets, and subgroups?
the problem here is, is asking, requesting, the government, and the
authorities, and the culture, that it, and that we all, identify you as
So, to the question, Why should this be of any business of mine?
answer is: The issue
is not me, us, refusing something to some minority: it is gays and
their sympathizers imposing their will on us, with the backing of the
and on the laws of the land (see bakers and photographers, not to
mention the Ku Klux Klan).
The people in society we admire are no longer
business leaders and warriors and those who work hard and have made a sacrifice. They are movie
stars and pop musicians and Olympic athletes and transvestites. In France, a girl demands,
"Je veux m'exprimer sexuellement!" I want the freedom to express myself
freely — that is, express my sexuality freely (i.e., sleep around). Fine. No problem with that. But notice that all our society's freedoms and liberties and
admiration have dwindled to being reserved for the field of what can generally be described as entertainment and personal pleasure-seeking.
the modern liberal state's "progress" has been towards the field of the
citizen's entertainment (who cares about foreign affairs? just pretend
the foreign governments are not as bad as the "paranoids" claim) — with
the epitome being the state that takes care of all citizen "needs"
(health care, etc) while spending money on several levels of
entertainment (making cities pedestrian-friendly, e.g.,
tourist-friendly, by shutting down ever more car-friendly, i.e.,
worker-friendly, roads) — the citizen keeping only one "freedom", the
freedom to retain some level of control over what types of personal
pastimes (sexual and/or other) he or she engages in.
The progressive dream is to make the nation, and indeed the entire world, a playground.
(At the same time, the fun-seekers (gay or other) can assuage any guilt they might have by their (basically effortless)
joining of righteous causes — such as the battle against homophobia or
racism (one in which they basically make little effort except bring up, when needed,
the correct opinion, the one supporting the censors (the guilt-mongerers, nannies, authoritarians and far-Left agitators as well as the crowing, cackling, censorious battle-axes, male and female, of the third-wave feminist and social justice causes). Conversely, a great deal of the opposition, indeed the bitterness, to Bush and his Iraq War was the reluctance to have to face up to moral considerations and take money, and time, away from the various countries' respective playgrounds. Indeed, one has to wonder if the entire concept of the United Nations does not lie on the presumption that with that international talking shop in place, all nations can engage in their respective playground antics — blast demonizing broadsides at the moralizers Bush and Blair while hoping for a president who would mirror the Europeans' taste for play…)
As you can see, we have not taking a step forward — for gay rights or for rights in general — nor have we come out of the dark ages.
No. On the contrary. We have gone back in time. Two thousand years back in time.
have gone back to the time when the Republic of Rome was transformed
into the Roman Empire.
To build on the words of Benjamin Franklin, the citizens of the Republic could not keep it (their Republic).
Empire came during a time when government took over the citizens'
private pleasures, such as with the public building of immense bath
houses and huge coliseums, along with free circuses, and when citizens
became contented as long as they had their "bread and circuses" (not to
speak of the famed Roman orgies (straight or other)), i.e., as long as
their private pleasures, as their sensual pleasures, were taken care of.
We have gone back in time. Two thousand years back in time.
Friday, November 14, 2014
Have Democrats Taken Their Talking Points and Tactics From French Waiters?
The unwritten rule book on how "garçons" from Paris and the rest of France manage to lengthen diners' bills without raising their hackles has been set in stone by the rue89 websitewrites Henry Samuel in a Daily Telegraph post that makes one think of America's Democrats.
In an article headlined: "Seven serving tips to increase the bill", rue89 claims that waiters or waitresses are taught skills such as [employing] closed questions like: "Will you have an aperitif or move straight onto wine?", steering customers away from cheaper options like free water.
Among the more subtle techniques is that of listing wines from cheap to expensive, such as "Sauvignon, Chardonnay or Chablis?" as customers tend to remember the last wine mentioned and don't dare to ask for a waiter to repeat the list.
One golden rule is never to place bread on the table before an order, as diners are likely to get full too fast for several dishes. "My boss wants me to give it after bringing the dish, even if it means forgetting it entirely so customers will be hungry for dessert," Romain, one waiter in Montparnasse told the website.
… An old trick to pull in a bigger tip is to cheerily inquire whether "everything is OK?" when collecting the credit card or ensuring there is plenty of small change instead of a banknote in case of a cash payment.
Sylvain, a waiter interviewed by rue89, said he always recalls advice from a manager at the Costes restaurant group, who told him: "Waiters are here to screw the clients, not physically but by taking his money."
"Everything is codified, thought out down to the smallest details to sell the most products."
But Aurélie Viry, a teacher with AV-Conseil, which offers catering and hostelry courses, said there was more to the art of serving than simply taking orders.
"Everything that can be sold means more profits. It's all about how it's proposed. We're not forcing the customer, who can always say no," she said.
Above all, the customer must associate the experience with pleasure, she said. "Hence, you must say: 'Would another coffee give you pleasure?' rather than "No more coffees?" she said.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
The most efficient way to set the various family members in opposition to one another is to encourage every kind of selfish behaviour
A century ago, it was not at all uncommon to have an entire extended family — one or two sets of grandparents, parents, at least a half-dozen children — all in one house.Thus wrote a Catholic by the name of Skellmeyer in a highly interesting Fifth Column post a few years back (via Instapundit).
Families like that used to pose an enormous problem to modern economies.
Think about it. A dozen or two people living in one house find hand-me-downs virtuous, they only need one set of cook pots, they only have one toaster. Large households are not good for the economy because they consume fewer goods.
If there were some way to split those people up so they inhabit three, four, five or six households, then we can sell five or six toasters, five or six sets of cook pots, five or six sets of dishes or cars or houses. From a capitalist’s point of view, it would be best if every one of our 300 million Americans lived in a separate house since that would maximize both purchases and profit.
However, as one might expect, while there are enormous economic advantages to creating this level of social disintegration, there’s a downside as well. In order to break up the multi-generational family, sowing social dissension between the members of the family is absolutely critical. The most efficient way to set the various family members in opposition to one another is to encourage every kind of selfish behaviour. If each person thinks only of his own best interests, then each person will spend his income on himself, saving none of it for anyone else.
Unfortunately, this selfishness bleeds over into the workplace. A selfish worker is more likely to steal, to use up sick days and similar benefits at the highest possible rates, in short, s/he will have little loyalty to the company.
Part of the cost of doing business is precisely the controlled anarchy that tends to be engendered in the larger society as each person looks out primarily for number one. As experience shows, anarchy can be managed so as to produce significant profits for particular people.
But, to be fair, most businesses don’t do well in total anarchy. Rather, they do best at a level just below total anarchy, a situation in which everyone invests their money in goods and services that will protect them from the various kinds of physical, emotional, and social harm which the larger society so willingly inflicts on the weak.
Unmade in America
Since World War II, the United States has been the pre-eminent leader in creating an economy whose citizens tremble on that knife edge between maximum profit-generation and general anarchy.
We do this by placing enormous obstacles in the way of every personal relationship. Early daycare, year-round schooling and the perceived need for a two-income family effectively separates parents from their own children for as long as possible each day, guaranteeing that the family is essentially composed of strangers living at the same address. Better yet, the schools teach children how to be consumers: needy, unable to solve their own problems, always looking towards the external authority: peer pressure.
We encourage pornography and contraception, and thereby divorce, by transforming every person into an object of use. Easy access to abortion and euthanasia encourage family members to destroy one another at the first sign of burden. Homosexuals become the icons for our generation because they (1) rise rapidly on the corporate ladder through assiduous attention to their own good and (2) spend all their money on their greatest love, themselves. Homosexuals are the darlings of the media because homosexuals have far more per capita disposable income than a married couple with five children.
But, even as the corporate world encourages homosexuality precisely because it is profligate, encourages contraception/abortion precisely because it is an abdication of responsibility and encourages euthanasia precisely because it does cut costs, Christian faith attempts to undercut these movements. America’s economy works well because it has harnessed two opposing forces: integration and disintegration, and kept both from gaining majority control.
We Need a New Quarry
But there’s a problem in paradise. You can shear a sheep many times, but you can only skin him once. … In its endless quest for profits, too many sheep have been skinned. American corporations are running out of families to exploit. There are fewer and fewer families to break up, fewer and fewer children to dispossess.
But not to worry. We still have Mexico.
… Hispanics … are Christians who still tend towards multi-generational households, households whose piggy banks are growing through the money sent home by immigrant workers. The American economy needs Hispanics not just because they do jobs Americans will not, but also because their unbroken families are as untilled fields to us, their Catholicism is strong enough to maintain the necessary tension against anarchy. Like a new granite quarry, they can be tunneled into, mined, and blown apart. These are sheep we know how to shear.
Monday, November 10, 2014
What Obama and his Democratic allies are attempting to do is to completely remake America into a government-dependent society, and importing millions of low-skilled low-educated aliens is central to that goal
“The very illegal aliens [Jeanne Shaheen] wants to help Obama grant amnesty to—and steal your job—are in many cases also violent criminals, driver’s without licenses, members of gangs, or are in some way endangering the welfare of New Hampshire families,” … Maria Espinoza, the national director of The Remembrance Project, told Matt Boyle of Breitbart News.Conservative HQ explains how the Democrat party, and how the administrative state, wins if the average American gets poorer.
… illegal immigration is not a victimless crime as countless American families have learned, most recently through the murder of two California law enforcement officers at the hands of an illegal alien.As Instapundit writes regularly, They’ll turn us all into beggars ’cause they’re easier to please…
But as important as keeping criminal aliens out of America is, what may be even more important is keeping American jobs for Americans.
As Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama has observed on numerous occasions an executive order on immigration would increase by millions of people the nation's workforce pool — and further hurt the opportunities of American citizens to get jobs.
"We have the lowest percentage of people in America today who have been working in 40 years. This is a stunning statistic. Almost every person who's gotten a job in the last 10 years is going to an illegal immigrant," he recently told NewsMax.
As Senator Session wrote in an op-ed for FOX, “A nation’s first loyalty must be to its own citizens.”
But the immigration policies of President Obama and Congressional Democrats help only billionaire special interests, amnesty activists, and the citizens of other countries – while reducing jobs and pay for our own.
Every single Senate Democrat voted for the Obama-backed plan to provide immediate work permits to 12 million illegal immigrants – allowing them to compete for any job in America. This legislation would also double the rate at which low-wage guest workers are brought into the U.S. to fill jobs throughout the economy.
Further, the legislation would triple the rate of permanent immigration, giving lifetime work permits and citizenship to over 30 million immigrants over the next ten years.
America already has the world’s most generous immigration policy. The foreign-born population is at record levels, quadrupling since 1970. Since 2000, the U.S. has issued nearly 30 million lawful visas to foreign guest workers and permanent immigrants. During that time, all net employment gains among the working-age went to immigrant workers.
This large surplus of labor has also pulled down wages – family incomes are down more than $3,000 since 2009 alone.
Imagine then what will happen if we double the supply of foreign labor. For many Americans, who will be pushed out of the workforce altogether, their wages will be reduced to zero.
What Obama and his Democratic allies are attempting to do through both legal and illegal means is to completely remake America into a government-dependent society, and importing millions of low-skilled low-educated aliens is central to that goal.
Sunday, November 09, 2014
Photos of US army tanks and shipwrecks off the coast of Ireland
Following a 12-year survey of the offshore waters and coastal seas around Irelandwrites Irish Central's Dara Kelly,
the Irish government launched an illustrated book entitled “Warships, U-Boats & Liners - A Guide to Shipwrecks Mapped in Irish Waters.”
The coffee table book features stunning shots of wrecks on the seabed including the Lusitania off the Cork coast and US army tanks on the seabed 17 miles off of Donegal. Many of the 300 shipwrecks featured in the book where not known about before this survey.
The book [by Karl Brady, Charise McKeon, James Lyttleton, and Ian Lawlor] includes details on the background of the vessels alongside the photograph and sonar images.
The publication was launched in 2012 by Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Jimmy Deenihan TD, together with Fergus O'Dowd TD, Minister of State, Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.
… According to Minister O'Dowd, the collaboration has "truly made Ireland a leader in this field of endeavor."
… [The Underwater Archaeology Unit (UAU)] have built an extensive database of shipwrecks, Afloat Magazine reported.
It's actually against the law in France to pass a boulangerie without stopping to buy one of their lovingly crafted entremets
One thing about life as an expat in rural France that I always warn people about is the need to keep moving and staying active, otherwise things start to head south and outwards very quicklywrites Mark Johnson.
This is mainly because hospitality is still a way of life out here. If you stop by a neighbour to ask a question about something, or even just to say hello – the offer of an aperitif won’t be far off. Drop into the village bar to ask about a reservation – it’ll be discussed over a Pineau for sure.
And, in case you didn’t know, it’s actually against the law in France to pass a boulangerie without stopping to buy one of their lovingly crafted entremets.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)