Gay families bang their children

The Story of Moira Greyland

tl;dr She got banged a lot by her parents with lot of sadism and bondage, starting at age five.

from my experience in the gay community, the values in that community are very different: the assumption is that EVERYONE is gay and closeted, and early sexual experience will prevent gay children from being closeted, and that will make everyone happy.

Yes, she is right about that. Gayness in males is spread in whole or major part by adult men fucking male children, and they intend to spread gayness that way. Lesbianism is more complicated, since women remain sexually flexible all the way to menopause.

If you raise a sheep among goats, the sheep grows up goatosexual. Hence the program of providing schoolchildren with positive gay role models, and getting gay men into contact with scouts and schoolchildren. They want gay scoutmasters to recruit young gays. Whether it works or not, and I think it does work to some considerable extent, they believe that it works. They believe that gays are made, not born, and intend to make them, starting at a school near you.

New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research

Progressives are fine with rape and slavery, provided the right people are doing the raping, and the right people are being raped and enslaved. Truth is, I am fine with rape and slavery also, except that my definitions of the right people differ radically from those of progressives.

99 Responses to “Gay families bang their children”

  1. Mark Citadel says:

    Remember that horrific story of the two Australian fags who adopted a 2 year old Russian boy (the Russian government had no idea), and then they systematically raped him over years, taking him to gay bars where he was raped by their friends as well?

    Remember – “Equality is related to the direct interests of individuals who are bent on escaping certain inequalities not in their favor, and setting up new inequalities that will be in their favor, this latter being their chief concern.”

    – Vilfredo Pareto

    The left, as anyone with a coherent governmental theory, wants there to be oppression and authority, but they want the entire pyramid of natural power flipped on its head. The clerical class burning a woman at the stake for witchcraft simply cannot be allowed! However the vile parasite deviants systematically molesting a child as their sex slave? Well, that oppression is just A-OK, because ‘equality’, stupid!

    There is a reason the whip of power throughout 5000 years of civilization has always been in the hands of the same kinds of people, because if you put it in the hands of the other kinds of people, they do things with it that are immeasurably more evil and destructive.

    And so here we are in the Kali Yuga with the most vile new class you can imagine born out of the slime, the ‘homosexual community’ who are like the old Chinese Eunuch class if you maxed out their degeneracy, insanity, and stupidity by warp factors 10 and 12. They are the latest in a long line of ‘Untouchables’ who now hold the reigns of civilization. Even with the undeniable objective ugliness of these people, the masses still wave their flag and cheer for ‘equality’.

    As the great philosophers alluded to when speaking of this age however, one day it will all burn.

  2. JJ says:

    Truth is, I am fine with rape and slavery also, except that my definitions of the right people differ radically from those of progressives.

    Can you give an example of a group you would be fine with being raped and enslaved? I usually agree with everything you write, Jim, but this was jarring and seems wrong. Unless you are being a bit of a smartass, in which case it’s not really funny.

    I’m not fine with anyone being raped and enslaved, though if that is what goes on over in Africa or the Middle East or Asia or whatever, that’s their problem, not mine. Keep it over there. But I’m not “fine” with it, either.

    • jim says:

      Obviously I totally endorse “marital rape”, a category of “rape” that did not exist until the seventies or so. I am also in favor of slavery for able bodied and undeserving poor – for those that are simply disinclined to work, and will, if left to their own devices, hunt and gather in the urban jungle. Most single mothers should be forced to marry someone.

      Even real rape, as in a naked stranger jumps a woman and drags her into the bushes, we overpunish and overreact to it because we are forbidden to punish and condemn what we really want to punish, the violation of male property rights in a woman’s reproductive and sexual services. A husband is far more concerned that his wife might be raped, than a wife is concerned that she might be raped. Hence the extreme condemnation of real and imaginary “sex crimes”. The harm done by rape, genuine forcible stranger rape, real no kidding rape, is primarily that it undermines paternal certainty and male property rights in women. Therefore, as in the old testament, we should punish sexual misconduct primarily as a violation of male property rights in woman, with coercion being primarily a female excuse and justification, rather than an aggravating factor in the offense committed by the male.

      In the Old Testament if a wife or betrothed virgin voluntarily slept with a man other than her husband, she and the man both executed, if raped, only the man executed. If a man seduced or raped a virgin, the primary punishment was that he had to marry her and stay married. If a man raped an unmarried non virgin … well this case seems to be too minor and inconsequential for the old testament to directly address. The Old Testament does not distinguish between raping and seducing an unbetrothed virgin. Would the Hebrews then have distinguished between raping and seducing an unmarried non virgin?

      With most crimes we realize there is a continuum, between minor stuff that should generally be piously and hypocritically overlooked, even though technically it is illegal and potentially subject to drastic punishment, minor stuff that requires minor enforcement, generally social or warnings, and major stuff that must be stopped by violence.

      With sexual activities, everything is either absolutely sacred, or the absolutely vilest crime ever. All sex criminals are the most horrible human being that ever there was, or they are sacred victims. Our extreme overreaction to some relatively minor sex crimes is because there are so many major sex crimes that we are forbidden to punish, forbidden to condemn, and indeed required to celebrate – such as actions that deprive children of their biological parents.

      In the ancestral environment women were not allowed agency in sexual and reproductive matters, and when allowed agency today, exercise it poorly. They should exercise agency in such manners only under strict supervision, as for example the seventeenth century upper class system, where daughters were kept locked up once they became fertile, until their “coming out”, when they were required to engage in sexy dancing with parentally preselected batchelors. They then either promptly married one of those bachelors, or they became engaged, “engagement” meaning that if she had sex, or perhaps if she became pregnant, they were legally and socially required to marry, and the marriage was irrevocable. Female choice, rather than being treated as absolutely sacred and protected by law, needs to be legally and socially restrained. The modern Christian idea that women should wander around freely getting drunk, but remain virgins till thirty or so, and then get married, is absurd. The medieval system of relatively late virgin marriage was based on extreme coercive restraints on women to stop them from banging like a dunny door in a high wind.

      • Stephen W says:

        Raping an unmaried woman still risks spreading STDs and creating unwanted children, and despoiling her potential value as a future wife especially in the case of a virgin, maybe making her hate mentally damaged hating men and becoming a lesbian. Someone who rapes virgins will also rape wives, such vermin should be castrated or killed before they damage more women or spread there feral genes through cuckoldry or orphans. Proggie scare mongering about non-rapes of stupid drunk sluts, should not make us forget that real rapists do exist especially where inferior sub humans are allowed to grow feral, the kind that proggies like to cover up.

        I am also rather dubious about the merits of slavery that creates an incentive for maintaining a population of degenerate sub humans and economic dependency on cheap labor. If the American colonies kept slavery illegal then they would of entered the 20th century without a black population. If slavery is going to be brought back I must insist on compulsory castration and GPS tracked and bugged tazer collars for the public good.

        • jim says:

          Raping an unmaried woman still risks spreading STDs and creating unwanted children, and despoiling her potential value as a future wife especially in the case of a virgin, maybe making her hate mentally damaged hating men and becoming a lesbian. Someone who rapes virgins will also rape wives, such vermin should be castrated or killed before they damage more women or spread there feral genes through cuckoldry or orphans. Proggie scare mongering about non-rapes of stupid drunk sluts, should not make us forget that real rapists do exist especially where inferior sub humans are allowed to grow feral, the kind that proggies like to cover up.

          Yes, but is this not an argument for old testament type laws, that punish rape as sexual immorality – as adultery, or as sex followed by abandonment, rather than as rape? And in fact, the reason we come down so hard on rape, is that in our hearts, we really want to punish sexual immorality. Rape is just an excuse for punishing what we really want to punish. And what we really want to punish is the guy who has sex with other men’s wives. What we really want to punish is family breakup, whether the wife voluntarily leaving the man, the wife being pressured into sex in her place of employment, the wife being raped, or the husband abandoning his family.

          Our weird response to sex crimes and sex criminals (all sexual misbehavior is either utterly beyond the pale, or else sacred, without intermediate cases) shows that we are somewhat hypocritical and crackers on punishing sex.

        • Red says:

          Historically raping a virgin and the not taking her as a wife was a killable offense as was the father deciding the rapist isn’t worthy of his daughter. If you know your history it was the Sybian women who convinced thier father’s of the value of their roman rapists that stopped them from killing all the Romans.

          Same goes for fornication. The offense is against the owner of the woman in question and as such he was allowed to decide the issue.

      • Jack says:

        I concur. Men who sleep with other men’s wives, and wives who commit adultery, should be punished severely. Men who sleep, voluntarily or non-voluntarily, with sluts or prostitutes, should be merely frowned upon, if even that. I don’t care about the “rape” of sluts. I simply don’t care about it, and neither the shedding of tears by sluts nor the incessant grating of lesbian ideologues will make me care about it. Non-virgin unmarried women are distinguishable from prostitutes in degree, not in kind, and treating their being raped as a severe crime is utterly bizarre.

        Recently I entertained the company of a slut, coming from an upper middle-class stable intact home, who cheated on her beta boyfriend with two random men whose facial features she couldn’t evoke due to alcohol-induced blurred memory, then proceeded to dump beta boyfriend so she could have as much promiscuous sex with strangers as she saw fit without worrying about any unpleasant reactions from the unsuspicious cuckold. I have also stumbled upon (okay, I looked for it) a blog of a literally psychotic non-transsexual nymphomaniac slut who reliably documents enthusiastically sleeping with about 3 different strange men per day (in between drug sessions, it appears), and has been doing so for years. Am I expected to provide these sluts with sympathy and affection if they ever engage in non-voluntary sexual intercourse? Why, because the “rape” would make them “feel bad”? Who cares? Let them “feel bad”, repent, and find a husband, if they can.

        When sluts are fair game, sooner rather than later, there are no sluts anymore. If you make it impossible to charge a man for raping a slut / an unmarried non-virgin with “rape”, even if the rape of sluts is technically illegal, and especially if it’s totally legal, you incentivize the marriage of sluts, and incentivize fathers to marry their daughters so they don’t end up sluts. That’s a positive outcome for civilization.

  3. Just sayin' says:

    Jim is correct.

    If you don’t think gays can recruit, remember that there are parts of the world like Afghanistan where huge percentages of the population are into pederasty.

    There is a reason that our ancestors did not tolerate this stuff.

    • Stephen W says:

      Probably because the women are so hidden the prettiest thing they can imprint on is little boys. While an encounter with a real woman reminds them of there mother.

  4. vxxc2014 says:

    As long as we keep blogging and tweeting civilization is safe.

  5. J in Augusta says:

    I foresee a time when a hetero kid gets called a phobe for turning down a homo’s advances–much the way a white girl gets called a racisss for turning down a dindu

  6. Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

    >Progressives are fine with rape and slavery, provided the right people are doing the raping, and the right people are being raped and enslaved. Truth is, I am fine with rape and slavery also
    Neither of these are really true. Lots of Americans don’t believe marital rape exists. So, you are not fine with the historic definition of “rape”, and not fine with the way “rape” is defined by many modern Americans.

    Progressives are not fine with gays raping children. They’re in favor of gays being role models, and having power over children. And because gays are a group they consider spiritually elevated above the rest of society, they are lax about preventing them from raping children. But that’s not equivalent to being pro-rape.

    Most societies look the other way, when a high-status member does something wrong. Same for progressives, except their high-status members are buttblasters.

    • jim says:

      Observe their reaction to Rotherham and the poster boys of “Two fathers are better than one”

      Is equivalent to being pro rape. In that when rape occurs, they deny it, and protect the offenders. Look at all the pushback that Moira Greyland is getting.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        >Is equivalent to being pro rape
        They are taking a situation that is somewhat ambiguous, and interpreting it in a gay-friendly way. Their interpretation is not particularly credible.

        In the American South 100 years ago, the same thing would have been done if a White man had killed a Negro in somewhat ambiguous circumstances. The White man would have not been condemned by the newspapers, even if his claims of innocence were implausible.

        And this was fairly rational. In the American South 100 years ago (as well as today), the average White man was worth much, much more than an average Black men. So a White killing a Black is a much less serious crime, than a Black killing a White.

        In general. Of course, the White guy might have been a felon, or the Black guy an academic. But those would be exceptions.

        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          What I’m saying, is that the American South 100 years ago, was not pro-murder-of-blacks. But it didn’t take the murder of blacks very seriously.

          • peppermint says:

            protip: there was little to no murder of blacks in the American South 100 years ago

            you retarded cuck

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            How is the quantity of murder particularly relevant?

            Did I hurt your feelings? Maybe you ought to spend less time on the internet. People are mean here.

          • peppermint says:

            you’re right. I should not have said murder, because the word murder refers to unlawful killing of a human. I should have said that there was little to no nigger abuse leading to death in the American South 100 years ago.

            How would you feel if you knew that your neighbor killed a dog?

            You should call yourself John F. Kennedy’s Ghost, cuck.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            Can I be Eisenhower’s ghost?

            Also, you’re aware that LBJ, and JFK almost certainly fathered their children, right? Cuck is a factually incorrect insult.

            You need some other insult. Probably one that implies that they think their daughters should get pregnant at 14 by a negro felon. I know one of JFK’s descendants dated a negro.

    • peppermint says:

      …Police went to a house outside which a father was demanding the release of his daughter, who was inside with a group of British Pakistani adults. Officers found the girl, 14, who had been drugged, under a bed. The father and his daughter were arrested for racial harassment and assault respectively…

      …A 13-year-old girl was found at 3am with disrupted clothing in a house with a large group of Asian men who had fed her vodka. A neighbour reported the girl’s screams. Police arrested the child for being drunk and disorderly but did not question the men…

      …one young white girl, known by social services to have been sexually abused by Asian men from the age of 12, was offered language lessons in Urdu and Punjabi by Rotherham council. The aim was ‘to engage’ her in education…

      Not pro-rape, but pro-understanding, says Richard Nixon’s Ghost. Richard Nixon was not a cuck. Please call yourself Lyndon Johnson’s Ghost.

    • jim says:

      Most societies look the other way, when a high-status member does something wrong. Same for progressives, except their high-status members are buttblasters.

      If Xs do bad things to Ys, not really considered wrong. Perhaps that is standard procedure an awful lot of societies, but interesting to know that you and I are Ys.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        Equality-under-the-law is a bad idea. If a low-income man steals a car, and you execute him, what happens? The State loses a little tax revenue, and reduces theft. What if a millionaire steals a car, and you execute him? The State loses a lot of tax revenue, and reduces theft. So, in general, rich people should be able to get away with much more criminal stuff. Because they are worth much more.

        The modern US finds sneaky ways to (partially) evade equality under the law. Rich people get better lawyers, and rich areas are less likely to be searched by police. A city that fully implemented equality-under-the-law would drive away most of it’s tax base.

        But tolerating gay misbehavior is not like tolerating people who generate tax revenue. Progressives tolerate gay misbehavior in order to serve a spiritual ideal. What Stirner called “spooks”.

        Of course, almost nobody actually sees sodomy as a good thing. Men rarely wish to be sodomized themselves, and don’t want their children to be sodomized. But the spiritual ideal of sodomy is promoted, despite (almost) nobody wanting it.

        • B says:

          The Torah disagrees: Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            Equality-under-the-law is bad for criminal law. Not civil law.

            I am not very familiar with the Torah. But from my single reading of the Old Testament, the penalty for most crimes was economic. Payment, in the form of cattle, silver, required marriage, et cetera. Of course, a rich man has much more money, and can absorb the loss much easier.

            If the punishment for a crime is a fine, then the severity of the punishment is relative to the wealth of the person. Obviously, this is not what I am criticizing.

            Torah seems to supports equality-under-the-law for sodomy and murder. This would be examples of what I’m criticizing. But I heard (perhaps unreliably) that almost nobody was ever executed for sodomy.

            • jim says:

              I heard (perhaps unreliably) that almost nobody was ever executed for sodomy.

              We don’t really know how they handled it old testament times. But recently existent societies that had the death penalty for sodomy only carried it out when sodomites stubbornly got in people’s faces. So long as they made a sufficient pretense of not being sodomites, other people would go along with the pretense. Islamic state has given a few sodomites the high jump. Presumably all the rest are now firmly in the closet, and I doubt that Islamic State goes around peeking into closets.

              The point is not to stop homosexuality, but to stop homosexuals from recruiting.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >The point is not to stop homosexuality, but to stop homosexuals from recruiting.
            It also should be noted that the Jewish teaching that homosexuality deserves the death penalty parallels the Catholic teaching that sodomy is a mortal sin. The Catholic teaching may be understood as a spiritual version of the Jewish law.

            Of course, the Pope no stopped teaching that sodomy is a mortal sin in the 1960s and 1970s. The Catholic catechism replaced “mortal sin” with “grave sin” in the 60s and 70s. About the same time they stopped believing that people can go to hell (or “die spiritually”).

          • B says:

            That’s not quite true.

            Penalties imposed by courts for violating a negative commandment (like killing someone or theft) range from economic restitution to lashes (the most common and general punishment, also imposed for disobedience of the court and refusal to perform a positive commandment) to the death sentence. There are other penalties imposed by heaven.

            A rich man is not as likely to commit the kind of crimes that require economic restitution, like theft, assault or rape.

            Almost nobody was ever executed for ANYTHING, because the legal requirement for imposing the death penalty was that you had two male, observant (credible) witnesses who observed the crime being committed, warned the criminal that what he was doing was punishable by death, and have a clear indication that he kept doing it out of spite and not under compulsion. The only exception I know of is exhorting someone else to idolatry, where no warning is given, but you still need two witnesses.

            There were cases where you are supposed to kill someone on the spot, when they are pursuing another person in an attempt to take their life (and it doesn’t matter who it is-you are supposed to kill the Kohen Gadol, the High Priest, if he’s running after someone with a knife,) and where you are allowed to kill them on the spot, when they are breaking into your house at night (it can be assumed that they were planning to kill you or willing to kill you.)

            In all of this, there is equality under the law. It is explicitly stated in many places that the value of a man and his wealth have no connection.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Almost nobody was ever executed for ANYTHING
            Oy Vey.

            If the death penalty is out, the only penalty listed here that my approach would oppose, is lashes. Which, if not frequently used on the population, is not a large deviation from my approach.

            Economic restitution, so long as it is a fixed sum, and not relative to the criminal’s income, is punishing the poor man differently than the rich man. The rich man will often be able to easily pay, and the poor man may have to sell himself into slavery.

            >the legal requirement for imposing the death penalty was that you had two male, observant (credible) witnesses who observed the crime being committed, warned the criminal that what he was doing was punishable by death, and have a clear indication that he kept doing it out of spite and not under compulsion
            How did anybody ever convict a murderer?

            Do you doubt that my approach makes sense? A rich person who generates a lot of tax revenue, can cause significantly more crime than a poor person, without being a burden on the State.

            • jim says:

              Official Jewish story is that executions were very rare, yet strangely, Josephus mentions quite a few famous figures getting executed. Did they execute no one except famous and important people?

          • B says:

            >Economic restitution, so long as it is a fixed sum, and not relative to the criminal’s income, is punishing the poor man differently than the rich man. The rich man will often be able to easily pay, and the poor man may have to sell himself into slavery.

            Rich people don’t tend to commit petty economic crimes and damages. For a rich guy to find committing a crime worthwhile, it has to involve serious sums.

            >How did anybody ever convict a murderer?

            Rarely, that’s how. The king also had the right to execute people for whom there was not enough evidence to convict properly, in the interest of public order. Generally, though, the Jewish approach is that it’s better for 1000 criminals to go free than to punish one innocent man.

            >Do you doubt that my approach makes sense? A rich person who generates a lot of tax revenue, can cause significantly more crime than a poor person, without being a burden on the State.

            Your approach is bad. If you let the people at the top of society get away with poor behavior and crime, those below them will imitate them and your whole society will collapse. Further, the value of a person to society is not well-measured economically. A ponzi scheme millionaire is worth less to Jewish society than a Torah scholar.

            >Official Jewish story is that executions were very rare, yet strangely, Josephus mentions quite a few famous figures getting executed. Did they execute no one except famous and important people?

            Look at the context in which they were executed. We are talking about the way things typically were.

          • Red says:

            >Rarely, that’s how. The king also had the right to execute people for whom there was not enough evidence to convict properly, in the interest of public order. Generally, though, the Jewish approach is that it’s better for 1000 criminals to go free than to punish one innocent man.

            So we have the Jews to blame for that terrible idea.

            Public perception that criminals are always caught and punished is the primary way a justice system reduces crime. Jury trials used to work well because if people couldn’t find the criminal, they’d grab one of the shittier members of the community and punish them for the crime, thus keeping the illusion that the criminal always pays for their crimes.

          • B says:

            >So we have the Jews to blame for that terrible idea.

            We did 9/11, too.

            >Public perception that criminals are always caught and punished is the primary way a justice system reduces crime.

            If you assume that most people are idiots and will believe any stupid thing you tell them, sure.

            But in reality, people know very well what the odds are of criminals being caught and punished for a crime. And they also have a pretty good idea of whether the people getting executed are likely to be guilty or not.

            The reality is that in a society where most people will not behave properly without law enforcement and punishments, they will not behave properly WITH law enforcement and punishments either. The Taoists figured this out:

            “The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.”

            “If we substitute for the master executioner to kill
            It is like substituting for the great carpenter to cut
            Those who substitute for the great carpenter to cut
            It is rare that they do not hurt their own hands”

  7. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Progressives are fine with rape and slavery, provided the right people are doing the raping, and the right people are being raped and enslaved. Truth is, I am fine with rape and slavery also, except that my definitions of the right people differ radically from those of progressives.

    Yes, “Jim”, agreed. This is about authority, which is a concept that Theonomy defines very well, by the way.

    Best regards,

    A.J.P.

  8. Massimo says:

    I think you are completely wrong on this. I hate the left, but there is no way that a majority of the left support sexual abuse. I suspect that the average homosexual parent that goes out of their way to have kids is probably a better parent and is less abusive than the average heterosexual parent. There are exceptions and individual monsters of all orientations, of course. This post is just insane.

    I would agree that the left cares much less about civil rights abuses committed by non-whites because their whole mindset is built to target and shame whites.

    • fnd says:

      They don’t condemn sexual abuse made by those from the left as much as they would if the perpetrators where from the right. In conclusion, they are pro sexual abuse for gays and the left, provided they keep it undercover for now.

      • fnd says:

        I mean, gays from the left. Closeted gays and gays from the right gets a lot of flak from outraged leftists.

    • Mark Citadel says:

      Please. ‘homosexuals’, intrinsically disordered enough as it stands, are even more disordered and suspicious when they try and adopt children. Such children, if not sexually abused, will be mentally abused by their parents within the sexual framework where they will be continually subject to the propagandizing of unnatural behavior as natural.

      And on a note unrelated to sodomites, read this report and then say with a straight face that the Left does not work hand in glove with child molesters

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

    • Korth says:

      The “two dads are better than one” story linked above had quite an impact in the international media. The horrific child gang rape story lurking underneath was barely mentioned at all, and no retractions were offered, ever.

      The majority of the left do not consciously support child abuse, but they sure as hell enable it by turning a blind eye when the right kind of people do it.

      • Mark Citadel says:

        The left views the world, whether they say so or not, as an upside down hierarchy based on victimhood. Thus, blacks are tolerated acting like illiterate thugs because they have been oppressed. Similarly, the Left can tolerate sodomites raping kids, even when gay leaders like Peter Tatchell explicitly say, and I quote, “not all sex between adults and children is harmful”, they just don’t have an issue with it because of who the perpetrator is.

    • jim says:

      but there is no way that a majority of the left support sexual abuse.

      They do not consciously think of it like that. They certainly do not believe that they support rape and slavery. They would not express the the idea in their heads in terms of ah, good that those sluts get the beatings they deserve and the dickings that they really want. But they do feel that it is good that ugly working class white males are deprived of authority over their children by gays and muslims, so when they see actual rape and slavery, feel mighty good about it.

      It is similar to the genocide of the Tutsi. A leftist would totally not believe he supports the genocide of the Tutsi, even though the west gave military support to the genocidaires and no one said a word, and if you read the voice of the Cathedral, the big problem with Rwanda is that the Tutsi are not doing enough to make it up to the poor Hutus.

      When Tutsi women are vaginaly impaled on objects larger than themselves, leftists do not do a victory lap and cheer “Serve those bitches right”. Instead, they do not think about it at all. But when a black man suffers a micro aggression, perhaps a shopkeeper looks at him suspiciously, the leftist cannot endure a world of such unbearable cruelty.

      As we saw in the Duke university case, some victims somehow count for a great deal more than other victims. White women raped by black men or Muslim men are privileged, and so are Tutsi women who are publicly impaled on very large objects by the Army of the Congo operating with western air and ground support.

      They do not think of it as supporting rape and slavery, but sufferings of some victims, for example gays denied the opportunity to adopt, are very very very salient to them, while the sufferings of other victims, for example Tutsi women who are tortured and degraded by being impaled with very large objects and Tutsi men degraded by being forced to watch, are totally, completely, absolutely non salient to them, absolutely and completely fail to register, because in any case it is the privileged being raped, degraded, and murdered by the non privileged.

    • B says:

      Jim is here using the standard leftist tactic (not necessarily wrong, by the way,) of charging that if your enemies have not strongly enough objected to some outcome of their policies, that they actually want that outcome.

      In reality, leftists use crimestop to allow goodthink about gays to fill their brains. In their magical world, of course child molestation is bad, but homosexuals are not child molesters. Rather, they are People Like Us (only better) who just happen to Love Differently.

      I would say that they no more want child rape than do Catholics. The fact that allowing perverts to “marry” each other and own children inexorably leads to child rape? They ignore it, just like Catholics ignore the fact that creating a hierarchy of celibate, physically healthy men and putting them in positions of trust and authority will inevitably attract perverts, who will cover for each other and create an informal hierarchy within the formal one.

      • jim says:

        Jim is here using the standard leftist tactic (not necessarily wrong, by the way,) of charging that if your enemies have not strongly enough objected to some outcome of their policies, that they actually want that outcome.

        It is a matter of degree. As you say, not necessarily wrong. It depends on the degree. Obviously leftists do not consciously think “oh it’s great if girls are enslaved by pimps, but terrible if they are subjected to the authority of fathers and husbands”. But, when the issue arises in actual practice, as it did in Rotherham ….

        • B says:

          When the issue arises in actual practice, those who deal with it in practice are 1) not leftists but cops and civil servants, 2) not dealing with the issue as a whole but with some particular small chunk of it (THIS girl, THIS family, THIS particular group of Pakis,) 3) more motivated by game-theoretical considerations than ideology-cost vs. benefit analysis of a particular cost of action, the likelihood of being backed up vs allowed to do whatever you’re doing vs fired or made unemployable or put in jail. A lot of their decisions came down to a coordination problem-being the only cop in Rotherham to bust Paki pervert rapists is not a good place to be, but you can’t talk about the problem out loud for fear of being fired, so how do you check to see whether you will have enough backup to do the right thing? None of this has much to do with personal ideology, and most of the people making the immediate decisions didn’t have a particular personal ideology. Rather, ideology served the function of creating an environment and a coordination problem which enabled the rapists.

          • jim says:

            When the issue arises in actual practice, those who deal with it in practice are 1) not leftists but cops and civil servants, 2) not dealing with the issue as a whole but with some particular small chunk of it (THIS girl, THIS family, THIS particular group of Pakis,) 3) more motivated by game-theoretical considerations than ideology-cost vs. benefit analysis of a particular cost of action, the likelihood of being backed up vs allowed to do whatever you’re doing vs fired or made unemployable or put in jail.

            Here is the thing. If you stop someone of a state privileged class, from enslaving a girl of the officially condemned evil and hateful class, you are likely to lose your job and be made permanently unemployable. If you allow a husband or a father to exercise authority to prevent a woman from doing stupid and self destructive stuff, you are likely to lose your job and be made permanently unemployable.

            Surely it is then fair and accurate to say that progressives favor slavery and rape, provided the right people are doing the enslaving and raping, and the right people are enslaved and raped.

          • B says:

            Not any more than it is to say that someone in the 1930s preferring to do business in gold favors Siberian convict slave labor mining camps. The slavery and rape are, from the perspective of progs, an invisible and unthought of consequence of the principles they espouse. They are unaware of the connection and will employ crimestop to stay unaware of the connection if you try to make them aware. They do not favor slavery and rape, but they don’t disfavor them as much as they favor “equality” and the rest of it.

            • jim says:

              The slavery and rape are, from the perspective of progs, an invisible and unthought of consequence of the principles they espouse.

              Indeed they are. But when a cop runs into slavery and rape by a member of a preferred class against a member of an evil and unworthy class …

              He better make sure it continues to be invisible and unthought. And should he cause it to become visible and thought, then is revealed what progressives really think about slavery and rape.

          • B says:

            >And should he cause it to become visible and thought, then is revealed what progressives really think about slavery and rape.

            How did you become aware of the Rotherham rape case?

            Was it through neoreactionary underground channels?

            Or was it that some cops actually went and arrested some Paki rapists, and some newspapers covered it?

            • jim says:

              How did you become aware of the Rotherham rape case?

              Was it through neoreactionary underground channels?

              I first became aware that there was whole lot of rape and enslavement going on in England through “racist” underground channels. Similarly, Sweden. Allegedly white women in Sweden are producing a very large proportion of mixed race children, in substantial part the result of state tolerated coercion. Not sure how I first became aware of Rotherham.

          • pdimov says:

            “Almost two years later, in September 2012, Andrew Norfolk, a journalist on The Times newspaper, published an investigation which revealed a confidential 2010 police report had warned thousands of such crimes were being committed in South Yorkshire each year by networks of Asian men.”

          • pdimov says:

            “One 11-year-old known as Child H told police that she and another girl had been sexually assaulted by grown men. Nothing was done. When she was 12, Child H was found in the back of a taxi with a man who had indecent pictures of her on his phone. Despite the full co-operation of her father, who insisted his daughter was being abused, police failed to act. Four months later, Child H was found in a house alone with a group of Pakistani men. What did the police do? They arrested the child for being drunk and disorderly and ignored her abusers.”

          • B says:

            In other words, the story came out through the media.

            In the case of the same thing going on in Derby, the story came out through police work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_sex_gang#Police_investigation

            So it’s not quite true that ” But when a cop runs [or journalist-B] into slavery and rape by a member of a preferred class against a member of an evil and unworthy class …

            He better make sure it continues to be invisible and unthought. And should he cause it to become visible and thought, then is revealed what progressives really think about slavery and rape.”

            • jim says:

              Derby came out “through police work”. But no one wanted to know.

              Rotherham did not come out “through police work”. It came out through a lot of people raising hell. And when it did come out, progressives still don’t think about it.

          • pdimov says:

            The policemen were obviously under orders to not do much if anything. Because “crimes had ‘cultural characteristics…which are locally sensitive in terms of diversity’.”

            But it’s true that a journalist broke the story.

            • jim says:

              A journalist broke the story in 2010, but the child protective services people were “ïnundated” with complaints about white children being enslaved by Muslims all the way back in 1997, shortly after the labor party project to turn England nonwhite began.

              While government took no action until 2010, and did not issue reports on the scale of the problem till 2015, that there was massive problem had been glaringly obvious for some considerable time.

  9. B says:

    I suspect that homosexuality, transsexualism, abortion, pedophilia etc. in the West are really a societal expression of self-hatred and the desire for death.

    Homosexuality in a typical non-Western society is a despicable personal vice. Homosexuality in the West is an act of adherence to an ideology that is a sort of atheistic idolatry, the raw worship of the self and the ego, utilitarianism taken to its logical end, expressed in the ritualized and glorified transgression of “irrational” prohibitions.

    I suspect that as homosexuality becomes standard and no longer transgressive (as it was not transgressive in Japanese, Greek and Roman society, for instance,) they will need to find something further. Trannies are a step in this direction, but they will go beyond that.

    • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

      >the raw worship of the self and the ego, utilitarianism taken to its logical end, expressed in the ritualized and glorified transgression of “irrational” prohibitions
      How is stuffing things up your butt, “utilitarianism taken to it’s logical end”? Or “worship of the self and the ego”?

      And why is disliking sodomy categorized as an “irrational prohibition”? Objectively speaking, homosexuality spreads various deadly diseases, fails to create children (which most people want at some point), et cetera.

      • B says:

        What is “utility”?

        It’s “what we like.” What is pleasant to our self, or avoids unpleasantness.

        In a utilitarian worldview, things are good insofar as they create utility and bad as far as they destroy it. There is no way of saying that the utility you get by doing a good deed, or learning something new, is objectively better than the utility you get out of eating a steak or having an orgasm.

        Sex, along with food, are our most basic drives. Satisfying them is very pleasant, and takes little effort (assuming there is food or a willing partner available.) This contrasts with other things that are considered good in non-utilitarian systems, which require effort and sacrifice. Since in a utilitarian system we evaluate the goodness or badness of things insofar as they create pleasure for a self and do not create pain, it’s obvious that stuffing things up your ass or up someone else’s ass are very good in a utilitarian system.

        Now, you can say, well, but when I create a beautiful song, I ultimately create utility for many people, but when I go to the gay bathhouse, I ultimately destroy utility for many people, who get diseases. To which the answer is that we need to be able to look at all the consequences. We need to rationally analyze how much utility your song creates, what the opportunity cost is (surely, those people who sing it would have found something else to do with their time,) how many people it offends, destroying utility, etc. We need to understand how many people your bathhouse visit will infect, how much utility will be created for the scientists researching antiretrovirals, etc. Except insofar as we can prove the ultimate utility of something rationally, its value must be indeterminate.

        This is how you get rationalism as a higher value-in a utilitarian society, only your ability to dispassionately, objectively and accurately measure and forecast the utility outcomes of policy determines success or failure of the society. So you get socialism, which is just the idea that society should be ruled by scientists.

        But since the reality is that we have no way of accurately measuring or forecasting the utility outcomes of a particular thing without massive fudging, and that utility in itself is not a very good measure of how good or bad something is, and none of us are particularly rational except for inside some very small envelopes, what is “rational” or “irrational” becomes up for debate and dependent on the subjective preferences of the evaluator. So, we get reasoning like “most gays don’t have a deadly disease and anyway, they can use protection,” “lots of straight people have non-reproductive sex,” etc. For every argument, there’s a counterargument, you can’t disprove every shifted null hypothesis, and anyway the budget is going to get distributed in the next couple of months and nobody is gonna wait on your multigenerational double-blind meta analysis to come back. So you get decision by idolatry, Carlyle’s “phallus-worship.”

        • jim says:

          What is “utility”?

          It’s “what we like.” What is pleasant to our self, or avoids unpleasantness.

          Maybe you are talking to utilitarians, but on this blog, not very likely.

          • B says:

            Ultimately, it devolves to this. You might find utility in order, someone else might find utility in the opportunity to inflict violence on others, etc.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >someone else might find utility in the opportunity to inflict violence on others
            A good measurement of what people find desirable, is how much money they will pay for it. How much will people pay, in order to torture or murder someone?

            From what I can tell, very few people want to murder, purely for the sake of murder. Hit men are usually hired to kill family members, business partners, etc.

            Humans have certain common values. Which isn’t surprising, because we’re so closely related. How many chimpanzees enjoy hair waxing? Probably not many.

            Oddly enough, repulsion at sodomy seems to be one of those common values. Almost nobody pays money to watch gays kiss. But lots of people are clearly afraid of prison, and other areas where aggressive homosexuals hang out. And they pay money to raise their children in the suburbs, away from gay bathhouses, and around other wholesome families.

          • B says:

            People will pay a lot of money (cumulatively,) time and effort for porn which becomes progressively more degenerate, and entertainment which allows them to viscerally enjoy the torture, murder and degradation of others (i.e., Human Centipede.)

          • B says:

            For religious reasons, I can’t do the requisite research, but my impression is that porn has been getting steadily more degrading since its entry into the mainstream.

            • jim says:

              Progressive porn is degrading for political reasons – see for example mattress girl’s porno. Porn that people actually want to watch does not see to be all that degrading, though it is certainly plausible it has become more degrading.

              Checking Xhamster’s front page: All six promoted videos were perverse, degrading and disgusting – these were videos that someone paid to have placed at the top of the page.

              Then there followed the “new porn videos” – what people actually want to watch. There were forty of these, of which perhaps four were perverse, degrading, or disgusting. Possibly the “new porn videos” are different depending on the profile of the person hitting the page, but I don’t think so.

              Which kind of fits with Peppermint’s “Jews are doing it” theory. Someone is doing it.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >People will pay a lot of money (cumulatively,) time and effort for … entertainment which allows them to viscerally enjoy the torture, murder and degradation of others (i.e., Human Centipede.)
            Box Office of Human Centipede: $252,207 (wikipedia)

            Box Office of the Avengers: $1,519,000,000 (wikipedia)

            Human Centipede attracted attention because it was so horrifying. Not because anybody watched it. And it probably got a lot of it’s box office revenue because of the free media attention it got by being condemned so widely. All press is good press.

            Are there any mainstream movies that spend a lot of time on torture, murder and degradation? Maybe some horror films? Only morally repulsive horror film I can think of that got a large box office is the Saw franchise. But I’ve never seen any of them, so I wouldn’t know.

            >my impression is that porn has been getting steadily more degrading since its entry into the mainstream
            Given the rise of feminism, the “porn is degrading” rhetoric has been increasing in popularity. And the “porn is sinful” rhetoric had been decreasing in popularity.

            Also, in the 1960s and 1970s USA, hardcore porn was more restricted than softcore porn. Also, the internet has increased anonymity, and thus lowered social pressure to … y’now … not search “polynesian dwarf cuckold VI”.

          • B says:

            First, porn is itself inherently degrading, to the people making it and the people watching it.

            Second, the Overton window of what is considered exciting and acceptable sexual behavior has moved very hard to the left. Stuff that 80 years ago would only be done by complete degenerates with no self-respect or regard for their health is now mainstream. This is just an inherent function of the hedonic treadmill. Before you were exposed to porn, looking at a picture of a topless woman was very exciting. Now, you have to watch a degenerate circus to get a proper response, and even that circus is boring.

            Third, the entire horror genre is basically designed around viscerally enjoying other people being tormented and murdered, as are zombie movies and vampire movies, and a lot of other movies derive their popularity from how exciting it is to watch people suffer. For instance, the Mad Max franchise, Inglorious Basterds, etc. The typical American 18 year old has watched more people die painfully for his titillation than all but the most degenerate sadistic monarch of times past.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >porn is itself inherently degrading
            That’s pretty subjective. It’s certainly low-status. Nobody values a porn star, or porn watcher as a spouse.

            >Third, the entire horror genre is basically designed around viscerally enjoying other people being tormented and murdered
            It’s possible I haven’t seen enough horror movies. I guess I haven’t seen any.

            But I’ve seen the first three Mad Max, and didn’t really regard them as enjoying torture. Max seems a lot like Clint Eastwood.

          • B says:

            >That’s pretty subjective. It’s certainly low-status. Nobody values a porn star, or porn watcher as a spouse.

            When you get done watching porn, do you feel elevated or degraded?

            >But I’ve seen the first three Mad Max, and didn’t really regard them as enjoying torture. Max seems a lot like Clint Eastwood.

            Would you have enjoyed them as much if the bad guys were not sadistic murderers and if Max had not killed them in spectacularly brutal ways?

            • jim says:

              >But I’ve seen the first three Mad Max, and didn’t really regard them as enjoying torture. Max seems a lot like Clint Eastwood.

              Would you have enjoyed them as much if the bad guys were not sadistic murderers and if Max had not killed them in spectacularly brutal ways?

              This inclined me to watch “Mad Max, beyond Thunderdome”.

              Did not notice Max do any spectacularly brutal killings, or indeed any killings.

              Someone steals his vehicle, a camel drawn truck, takes it to Bartertown. Bartertown is OK with fencing stolen goods.

              Max is offered a deal: Kill Blaster in a fair fight, and he will get his stolen property back.

              A spectacular battle in the Thunderdome ensues before a cheering crowd. Max defeats Blaster. Blaster lies there helpless and semiconscious. The Master makes an appeal for mercy. Max refuses to kill him.

              The queen of Bartertown condemns Max to be abandoned in the desert tied up without food and water, and enslaves the Master, the Master being a man who is very good at recreating and restoring pre apocalyptic technology.

              Max is rescued, recovers, and urges a bunch of primitives to steal/rescue Master in order to restore their technology.

              An epic battle for possession of the Master ensues, in which no doubt many people died in horrible ways but we don’t actually see anyone killed horribly, or even killed at all. They might all be unconscious with non fatal wounds.

              The Master is rescued, and in the epilog, we see some lights come on in the ruins of an abandoned city.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >When you get done watching porn, do you feel elevated or degraded?
            I don’t watch porn anymore. And when I did, I felt badly about it, but not really degraded.

            >Would you have enjoyed them as much if the bad guys were not sadistic murderers and if Max had not killed them in spectacularly brutal ways?
            Probably. Of course, if the bad guys weren’t really bad guys, and hadn’t been murderers, or Max wasn’t fighting/killing them, then what would have been the point of the movies?

          • B says:

            >when I did, I felt badly about it, but not really degraded.

            Why did you feel badly about it? What does “badly” mean?

            >Of course, if the bad guys weren’t really bad guys, and hadn’t been murderers, or Max wasn’t fighting/killing them, then what would have been the point of the movies?

            Exactly. The point of the movies is that the viewer can be a vicarious sadist with plausible deniability. He can be titillated by the murders being committed by the bad guys, then be titillated by the bad guys being killed. Very similar to the Colliseum when you think about it-first the animals eat the criminals, then the bestiarii kill the animals, then the dead animals get cooked and fed to the mob.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >The point of the movies is that the viewer can be a vicarious sadist with plausible deniability.
            So every movie where bad guys get killed is crypto-sadism?

            >Why did you feel badly about it?
            Because it’s wrong.

            >What does “badly” mean?
            I felt like I did something wrong, and was ashamed of that wrong thing. Not really degrading, unless we’re using a abnormal definition of the word.

          • B says:

            >So every movie where bad guys get killed is crypto-sadism?

            Where there’s a detailed and loving depiction? I think so-why else would they do it?

            >Because it’s wrong.

            Why is it “wrong”?

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Where there’s a detailed and loving depiction? I think so-why else would they do it?
            Realism? Probably some other artistic reasons, too.

            Also, what is a “loving” depiction? Even Mad Max avoided showing gore. People dying spectacularly is not equivalent to an excessive focus on dying.

            >Why is it “wrong”?
            That can lead down very complicated philosophical paths. I’ll go with “it’s intrinsically disordered” and related to activities that are “against nature”.

          • B says:

            >People dying spectacularly is not equivalent to an excessive focus on dying.

            That word, spectacularly, tells you everything you need to know. People enjoy the spectacle of watching others die.

            > “it’s intrinsically disordered” and related to activities that are “against nature”.

            This is what degradation is.

            • jim says:

              People enjoy the spectacle of watching others die.

              But, in “Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome”, we do not actually see people die. What we see is violent conflict, in which the good guys make a spectacular escape, but we do not in fact see a single person die.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >This is what degradation is.
            We must define the word “degradation” in different ways.

            From Google’s dictionary
            >treat or regard (someone) with contempt or disrespect
            >break down or deteriorate chemically

            The first definition is a metaphorical use of the first.

            >People enjoy the spectacle of watching others die
            There are shows (i.e. Faces of Death) that show people dying in real-life situations. Not very popular, compared with mainstream cinema. People enjoy the spectacle of dangerous things, but not dying itself.

          • B says:

            What I mean by degradation is that people are created in the image of G-d, their sexual function is, when properly channeled, one of the most amazing and elevated aspects of them. And in porn, this is turned into pure degradation; the image of G-d couples for the camera like dogs in the street, sterile, for money, or sits there masturbating like a monkey in a zoo.

            Naturally, just watching faces of death is not interesting. Also in the Colliseum there was a narrative and a struggle to capture interest and excitement. But the foundation is the sadistic instinct.

            • jim says:

              Also in the Colliseum there was a narrative and a struggle to capture interest and excitement. But the foundation is the sadistic instinct.

              Your example was Mad Max. So I watched “Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome”. It does not in any way pander to the sadistic instinct.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            You’re talking past each other.

            Beyond Thunderdome which you watched was made in 1985.

            The newest Mad Max came out this year. Not having seen the latest Mad Max I can’t speak definitively but I suspect that there are plenty of on camera deaths.

            • jim says:

              The newest Mad Max came out this year. Not having seen the latest Mad Max I can’t speak definitively but I suspect that there are plenty of on camera deaths.

              I just watched the trailer for “Mad Max: Fury Road”. Lots of vehicles exploding, and violence that would probably cause death, but not one drop of blood spilled on camera.

              You can say “Well, there was probably someone inside that vehicle that crashed and exploded”, but we don’t actually see any people inside.

        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          >Since in a utilitarian system we evaluate the goodness or badness of things insofar as they create pleasure for a self and do not create pain
          I feel repulsion when I see two gays kissing. Yet I’ve been repeatedly told that that is sinful. Obviously, the pursuit of pleasure is somewhat selective, and I’m socially pressured into seeing repulsive things.

          I also think it’s funny to call people “nigger” (especially if they are a liberal White person). They’re not too accepting of that pleasure.

          >So, we get reasoning like “most gays don’t have a deadly disease and anyway, they can use protection,” “lots of straight people have non-reproductive sex,”
          Most Africans didn’t have Ebola, but we still shut down travel from Africa. I’m not sure that anyone takes that argument seriously.

          >what is “rational” or “irrational” becomes up for debate and dependent on the subjective preferences of the evaluator.
          And why did the evaluators subjective preferences choose sodomy, rather than, say, excessive reading of the Torah? I, and over 90% of men, would rather read the Torah than watch sodomy or sodomy-related stuff.

          You haven’t really explained why ego-worship leads to support for sodomy. Only the arbitrary nature of utilitarianism.

          • B says:

            >Obviously, the pursuit of pleasure is somewhat selective, and I’m socially pressured into seeing repulsive things.

            That’s because as I said the ultimate outcome of a utilitarian worldview is that enlightened Scientists evaluate the long term and overall utility of actions and policy. In your case, your Leaders decided that encouraging homosexuality and discouraging your natural reaction will lead to higher overall utility in the long term.

            >Most Africans didn’t have Ebola, but we still shut down travel from Africa. I’m not sure that anyone takes that argument seriously.

            I do not recall travel from Africa being shut down. I remember screenings. Also, gays are not allowed to donate blood. Obviously, the Scientist-Leaders give lip service to their principles, but see massive disutility in dying from AIDS or bleeding out from Ebola. You may also perceptively notice that they live in minority-free zones (with no white trash, either,) and that Obama sends his girls to Sidwell Friends.

            >And why did the evaluators subjective preferences choose sodomy, rather than, say, excessive reading of the Torah? I, and over 90% of men, would rather read the Torah than watch sodomy or sodomy-related stuff.

            First, nobody cares about what 90% would prefer. That’s the difference between utilitarianism and anarchy. There are people whose job and training is to see the long-term overall utility of a given course of action.

            Second, like studying anything else, the Torah takes a lot of effort over some time to give you pleasure, and that pleasure is intellectual. On the other hand, there is immediate physical pleasure in having an orgasm. So we notice the Enlightened Elite encouraging orgasms as an end, as a healthy and good aim, to be achieved via whatever means you prefer.

            >You haven’t really explained why ego-worship leads to support for sodomy. Only the arbitrary nature of utilitarianism.

            As I said, when your own subjective preferences are the end goal, you end up pursuing immediate pleasures. One of the most immediate pleasures one can have is sexual. But there is a law of diminishing returns with sex (as there is with food.) The obvious answer is a crescendo of degradation.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >I do not recall travel from Africa being shut down.
            Travel was shut down from certain African countries. Not Africa in general.

            >Also, gays are not allowed to donate blood.
            They are in the process of reversing that.

            >First, nobody cares about what 90% would prefer. That’s the difference between utilitarianism and anarchy. There are people whose job and training is to see the long-term overall utility of a given course of action.
            And for the most part, they are heterosexuals. Take the judicial elites, who recently mandated gay marriage. Do you think Justice Alito, Justice Kennedy, Justice Kagan, or whatever, would rather spend time on gay stuff, or read the Torah? I’m guessing they’d rather do neither. I’m also guessing that they might pretend to like gay stuff, because it would help their career. But in general, judicial elites probably don’t like sodomy that much. Most people don’t.

            >As I said, when your own subjective preferences are the end goal, you end up pursuing immediate pleasures.
            Ok. Maybe I missed the original point. You’re saying that

            1) Focus on pleasure (as an end goal) leads to focus on short-term pleasure
            2) Genuine focus on long-term pleasure would lead people to more civilized behavior (including traditional religions)

          • B says:

            >They are in the process of reversing that.

            Very halfheartedly.

            >Take the judicial elites, who recently mandated gay marriage. Do you think Justice Alito, Justice Kennedy, Justice Kagan, or whatever, would rather spend time on gay stuff, or read the Torah?

            Kagan is a lesbian, and I suspect Roberts is a pedophile (his 11th hour reversals suggest someone with a terrible secret being blackmailed,) so…

            >I’m guessing they’d rather do neither. I’m also guessing that they might pretend to like gay stuff, because it would help their career. But in general, judicial elites probably don’t like sodomy that much. Most people don’t.

            Look, sodomy is not the end-all and be-all of human degradation, but just one flower in the bouquet. The wonderful thing about modern society is that it finds a lever for almost everyone, whether it’s sex, food, the prey instinct (video games,) power, fear whatever, and then uses that lever to make them controllable.

            >1) Focus on pleasure (as an end goal) leads to focus on short-term pleasure

            Yes, which leads to the total lack of pleasure, i.e., the hedonic treadmill.

            >2) Genuine focus on long-term pleasure would lead people to more civilized behavior (including traditional religions)

            No, except in the most abstract sense of the word “pleasure,” which is not accessible to the masses. The causation is backwards-focus on religion would lead to civilized behavior which would lead to more lasting and real pleasure.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Kagan is a lesbian
            Officially, she’s never denied or confirmed it, and people who knew her have confirmed that she dated men. I would assume she isn’t denying it, because it brings career benefits. Not every ugly fat woman is a lesbian, y’know.

            >No, except in the most abstract sense of the word “pleasure,”
            Ok, I understand your point. You’re right.

            • jim says:

              All lesbians date men. Does not signify. Very few gays date women.

              But a lot of lesbians these days are political lesbians – they are lesbian the same way that people one sixty fourth native American are native Americans. Everyone is terrified of being accused of mistreating one.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >all lesbians date men
            Nearly all lesbians fuck men. I wouldn’t be too sure about “date”.

  10. Marapoem says:

    Over at MPC they propose that Jews are “sexually neurotic”, being lecherous and constantly sexually aroused; moreover, Jews become very, acutely anxious when sexually ungratified. Sexuality among Jews is vulgar and crass, and its suppression leads to perversion, or results in the sexualization of culture. (romantic yearnings are practically non-existent among them) It then follows that Jews promote this stuff not *just* to devastate Goy morality, but simply because they are genuinely sexually-anxious all the time. Most people perceive Jewish females as slutty, so perhaps it’s not just the Bris turning Jews to perverts, but Jewish genes as well. Also, White Feminism is puritanical/anti-sex whereas Jewish Feminism is anti-puritanical/pro-sex. The Talmud is filled with disgusting debates about all forms of perversity. Leftist Jews pride themselves with being sexually “open”, unlike the repressive Goyim. In conclusion: it’s the Jews.

    • jim says:

      If so, should be evident from producers and stars in pornography. Do you have any relevant data, for example is overrepresentation in porn production, particularly deviant porn production, conspicuously greater than overrepresentation in other arts?

      It is obviously true that there is an active conspiracy to promote deviant porn regardless of what consumers actually want, just as there is an active conspiracy to demonize fathers and husbands – just as every fiction book requires a counter stereotypical black male, and a counter stereotypical blonde woman, every story requires a brutal husband and father who gratuitously harms his wife and children, but I don’t see any real evidence that this conspiracy is particularly Jewish.

      • Marapoem says:

        I don’t have relevant data at hand, but I do recall that, besides pioneering the whole industry, Jews are overrepresented among producers, though when it comes to sick porn, no one could top the Japanese, who have no sense of disgust whatsoever. Male porn actors are a thing, but Jewesses either conceal their Jewishness or are less eager than male counterparts to participate in the business. Jewish sexualization of all culture (including Jewish culture) is not committed by porn alone, or primarily. Rather, Jews push sex everywhere, and it only intensifies; right now, they promote analingus, licking of buttholes, as normal. However, it’s not just an anti-Gentile conspiracy, for it comes completely natural to Jews, it’s not even conscious, or merely semi-conscious. They are not hypocrites, as they practice what they preach. It’s amoral rather than intentionally devious. Some WNs, a very dubious source, claim cuckold fetishism is Jewish. Dunno.

        As for Jewish representation in regular art, I’d say almost no fine art was created by Jews. It’s all crap. As with porn, Jews use art to push progressivism; but, Jews couldn’t create good art even if they wanted to, for genetic reasons. Jews despise aesthetics. For Whites, “beauty is truth”. For Jews, “beauty is vanity”, at best. Porn is a very Jewish business; good painting, music, and sculpture are not. Semites are abstract-minded, they form ideas from first principles, rather than follow their natural senses, which are diminished. It’s not just a conspiracy, it’s nature. Jews aren’t creative either. They are detached from reality outside their heads.

        The demonization of husbands and fathers stems from Jewish males being feminine and Jewish females masculine. In Jewish households, the woman wears the pants, hence, Jews think it normal to depict men as weaklings. A conspiracy, but also nature. They’re not hypocrites, they merely practice what they preach, and preach what they practice. If you want Jewish hypocrisy, look for how they light-heartedly laugh at their practices, and how viciously they deride and attack Christianity. Narcissism is rampant in their outlook.

        • jim says:

          I don’t have relevant data at hand, but I do recall that, besides pioneering the whole industry, Jews are overrepresented among producers

          Because Jews are market dominant minority, people tend to pay excessive attention to anything dubious that any Jew does. Thus without the relevant data, I don’t find your impressions persuasive. People tend to be irrationally hypersensitive to misconduct by members of a market dominant minority.

          As for Jewish representation in regular art, I’d say almost no fine art was created by Jews. It’s all crap.

          Do Jews own Hollywood, or don’t they?

          All twentieth and twenty first century fine art after 1940 or so is crap. Can’t blame the Jews for that.

          The demonization of husbands and fathers stems from Jewish males being feminine and Jewish females masculine.

          I see this demonization in every book and every television show. The evil or dangerously incompetent husband and father is a stock figure, a required character, like the magic negro and the highly competent blonde. They are not all produced by Jewish authors and Jewish publishing houses.

  11. Law Student says:

    It’s laughable how often people quote the new family structures study when, in fact, it doesn’t even study same sex couples. It only studied children whose parents had a same sex encounter in their lifetime, not if a same sex couple was actually raising them.

    More info here:

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/a-faulty-gay-parenting-study

Leave a Reply