We Don’t Need You

Isn’t it great when the bigots just simply remove themselves from the conversation?

Woman calls for Rose Parade boycott over gay wedding float

Buh-bye! I seriously doubt the Rose Parade or the city of Pasadena will miss you one bit.

PASADENA>> A San Diego woman Thursday called for a boycott of the Rose Parade because two Los Angeles men will be married atop a float themed “Love is the Best Protection.” The cake-shaped float is sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and is the group’s third entry in the New Year’s parade.

It takes some serious fucking cajones to protest an organization promoting monogamy in order to prevent STDs.

God-humpers are all about marriage and love and sexual restraint and monogamy–until gays do it, at which point everything they support suddenly becomes everything they despise. That’s how god-humper morality works: If we do it, then it’s a universal good sanctioned by the Ruler of the Universe. If you do it, it’s evil and disgusting and you’re going to hell, faggot.

Karen Grube, of San Diego, said the Tournament of Roses should remove the AHF float from the parade. She has also called on corporate sponsors to remove their support of the parade if the wedding goes on as planned. And, she has set up a Facebook page seeking support for her cause.

Yeah, good luck with that. If you check out that Facebook page, you find gems like this:

I just spoke with the PR Department at the Rose Parade. (626) 449 – 4100. The young woman who answered said they are concerned about the response to this and are forwarding all comments to their executives. That’s not a bad start. I pointed her to this page so she could forward it on to them as well. Please feel free to comment here as well as calling them. But PLEASE CALL!

IF YOU DON’T SPEAK OUT, THEY’LL THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH THIS.

I think I have a pretty good idea of how that conversation went.

BIGOT: OMG SOMEONE GAYED ON THE PARADE!!!!

PR Rep: Uh huh…

BIGOT: I WANT THESE MOTHAFUCKIN’ GAYS OFF THIS MOTHAFUCKIN’ PARADE!!!!

PR Rep: Riiiiight…

BIGOT: THE GAYS ARE WATCHING ME!!! THEY SEE ME WHEN I MASTURBATE!!! THANKS OBAMA!!!!

PR Rep: I’ll be sure to forward your concerns to the people you made up in your head. Buh-bye!

BIGOT: LICK ME ON FACEBOOK!!!!!

“Gay marriage is illegal in over 30 states, why would they promote something that is blatantly illegal?” Grube said. “That’s just stupid.”

LOL. Really compelling shit there. States that are not California don’t allow gay marriage. So California should avoid violating other states’ laws.

Except, of course, that no fucking laws are being violated. There’s nothing “blatantly illegal” happening at all. Even in the bigot states that refuse to recognize gay marriage, it’s not illegal to perform a gay marriage. The state just won’t recognize it.

So, you’re just stupid.

Grube also said she didn’t think the Tournament should be involved in a group’s “political agenda.”

“It used to be a family thing, to get up on New Year’s Day morning and watch the parade,” she said. “It no longer is.”

No, it still is. They just recognize that there are different kinds of families. Families which are different from yours (i.e. they’re not composed entirely of frantic nitwits who freak the fuck out whenever someone else’s family isn’t composed of frantic nitwits).

Danny Leclair said the negative reaction over the planned wedding to his long-time partner Aubrey Loots has not diminished his enthusiasm for his special day.

“It’s something that they don’t understand and so I expected it,” he said. “We’re not dissuaded or upset or concerned. We’re simply acknowledging it.”

That’s the right move, Mr. Leclair. Give this crazy, hateful bitch about as much acknowledgement as you’d give a steaming pile of dog shit on the sidewalk–which is to say, step around it and keep right on truckin’, slightly annoyed that some asshole shit where you were trying to walk.

Ralph E. Shaffer, a professor emeritus of history at Cal Poly Pomona, had a different opinion.

He said the wedding is an “in your face” act that might only harden people’s views towards gays.

Fuck your face.

I’ve been to quite a few sporting events in my day. Weddings and proposals and kiss-cams and other such things are a common event. Of course, it’s always heterosexuals who propose at a basketball game or get their ugly, privileged faces plastered across the scoreboard when they kiss.

Is that “in your face”? Are they “flaunting” their heterosexuality? Should this “harden” my views towards heterosexuals (of which I am one)?

Only on Planet Dumbfuck.

“The problem is going to be the wedding kiss,” Shaffer said, adding that the couple will likely kiss several times during the parade as would be expected for a couple on their wedding day. “I don’t know what the response is going to be,” he said.

Kissing in public. Something that straight people do ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

Let’s stop acting like gay people kissing in public is the problem. Bigots objecting to it are the problem. Period. I’m sick of how people molly-coddle bigots and try to tiptoe around the fact that they’re hateful, ignorant pieces of shit. Let’s just be honest from now on. If you take issues with gay people sharing a kiss, then you fucking suck.

Grube said her call for a parade boycott has nothing to with religious convictions.

She said she does not agree with having any marriage — gay or straight — celebrated during the parade.

Grube also said that the sky is green and zebras live on the Moon, because she thinks the rest of us are as dumb and gullible as she is and won’t see through these patently obvious lies.

In recent days several area residents have expressed similar sentiments. Michael E. Thornton, a retired disabled veteran, said he will not be watching due to religious beliefs.

“Celebrating this ungodly activity is repugnant to me spiritually and I will not support this practice financially by viewing the parade,” he wrote in an email to this newspaper.

The amazing thing is that he was able to hit SEND without choking on his drool rag.

There are quite a few comments on the article, most of them from sensible people, but quite a few from the type of morons you would expect this woman to attract. One comment in particular, however, caught my eye, as they posted a screen cap from Facebook that tells you everything you need to know about Karen Grube. I’ll leave you with this:

Really, do you need to know anything more about either of these people?

Really, do you need to know anything more about either of these people?

Vox Populi

If you’re like me and enjoy reading something excruciatingly dumb every now and then, then you can rarely go wrong with the Letters to the Editors pages of local newspapers. I usually find myself wondering, “If these are the ones they saw fit to publish, just how awful must the unfit ones have been?” And today’s three letters are no different.

Let’s start with C. Dale German of Bethany, OK, who has a nuanced and original take on the current condition of these great United States.

One nation under God

Ha ha! Just kidding. He’s just gonna regurgitate dishonest god-humper boilerplate. This asshole has totally drunk the “1950s were a utopia” Kool-Aid about the 1950s that too many Americans gullibly believe, and he wants us all to know how deluded he is.

America was once a civil place.

Even our Wars were Civil!

Democrats and Republicans fought from opposite political perspectives yet were both proud Americans.

In fact, just like now, they would NEVER shut up about what proud Americans they are. It’s practically the only thing politicians ever say in this country.

Families could watch TV with small children and never hear profanity.

Talk about first world problems. Oh, I’m sorry, I meant fucking god damn first world problems, you cunt-faced son of a bitch.

School days began with Bible reading, a salute to the flag and the Lord’s Prayer.

That flag reference sandwiched between two religious references is very revealing. As much as they yammer on about the evils of idolatry, the flag might as well be a god to fundamentalists.

We went to work and left our houses unlocked.

Then you were idiots, seeing as crime rates were about the same in the 1950s as they are today, and are actually steeply declining over the last two decades. The only thing that’s changed is now you have sensationalistic 24 hour news channels constantly bombarding you with real life horror stories.

The American military was strong and respected.

That’s because we’d just dropped a fucking nuke on Japan. The “respect” was bullshit. People just didn’t want to get fucking nuked.

Americans felt blessed to live in America.

We still do. I just had a conversation the other day about how happy I am not to live in fucking Mexico where the fucking cartels are leaving duffel bags full of severed heads in elementary schools. The difference is that I don’t feel the need to buttress those feelings with glurgy, sentimental garbage and lies like you do.

“Blue laws” supported businesses that closed on Sunday.

Free enterprise!

Those who don’t remember this America don’t know how heartbreaking it is for those who do remember the America we lost.

It wasn’t lost, because you can’t lose something that never existed.

For sure there was poverty, segregation and social ills to be cured in an evolving America.

*Snort!* Yeah, America in the 50s was great! We saluted the flag and didn’t say the word “shit” on TV! Sure, there was crime, injustice, racism, sexism, higher poverty rates, higher illiteracy rates and all. But we had blue laws! (By the way–blue laws still exist in many cities…)

But we remember a nice country.

That’s because you were a spoiled little brat who was shielded from the harsh realities of the country you lived in. Social ills and injustice are perpetuated by silence, and silence is exactly what a sanctimonious, censorious, prudish, sheltered society like 1950s America breeds. That’s why you were so content with your fucking censored TV and chintzy American flag crap while black people were being beaten in the streets just for protesting Jim Crow laws. “Yeah, there was segregation and poverty, but I remember a nice country.” Shut the hell up.

School teachers and clergy wore suits and were respected.

If you paid school teachers a decent wage maybe they could afford more suits. Or, you know, feed and clothe their children. But the suits seem to be what’s important to you, and if that’s what it takes to get you to pay teachers more, then I guess I can go with it.

Men respected women as ladies and women responded as ladies.

“As ladies”. There is so much packed into those two words that I could write an entire blog post unraveling it. (Don’t worry. I won’t.) Let’s just say that this is the 1950’s “suits=respect” way of saying “Bitches stayed in their place.”

We can hope that not all is lost.

I hope all of it is lost. I don’t want to live in a society where superficial crap like words on TV, saluting a flag and wearing a suit are more important than real life concerns like poverty and injustice. Take your shallow-minded, cotton-candy, shiny-surface-with-a-rotten-core vision of America and shove it.

When those who remember are gone and only those who don’t remember remain, we can hope today’s crass, vulgar, obscenity of incivility will one day fade into history in a born-again America true to its founding purpose — one nation under God.

Or we could just keep living our lives and wait for all you pathetic old fogies to die so we don’t have to hear about this crap any more. The really funny thing is that 60 years from now people will be saying these exact same things about the times we’re currently living in. Humans are nothing if not predictable animals.

Our next subject, Wayne Hull of Yukon, OK, has some serious fucking Fatwa Envy going on:

Regarding the staging of “The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told” at Civic Center Music Hall: Why would anyone during the holidays condemn an actual religion of peace? Imagine the ferocious protests if the same venue was being used to stage “The Most Fabulous Ramadan.” Why mock people of faith who celebrate their faith?

Because it’s funny? It’s telling that every time Christianity is mocked, the response is a furious protest by Christians claiming that Christians don’t do furious protests so fuck the Muzzies. They are so jealous of Muslims they can barely contain it.

What’s hilarious about ridiculing the story of Christ, likely using the most exaggerated homosexual caricatures in the presentation, and infusing sex acts into a holiday otherwise devoid of promiscuity?

Christmas? Devoid of promiscuity? Are you fucking high? The whole damn holiday revolves around a teenage girl giving birth out of wedlock.

Oh, and notice how he says “likely” when describing the contents of the play he’s furiously not-protesting. That means he hasn’t seen the play he’s criticizing. Fucking typical.

How is this anything but an affront to people whose beliefs are different and, consequently, threatening?

Pretty sure you’re the one protesting people whose beliefs you view as different and threatening. Hasn’t that been the whole theme of every single sentence prior to this one?

They made a play about gay Jesus. Fucking get over it. You didn’t even fucking see it, and no one is forcing you or anybody else to watch it. Yet you protest its very existence. You, my friend, are the one being intolerant.

Last year the Obama administration openly condemned an American citizen for a YouTube video poking fun at the Prophet Muhammad.

This would be a good time to remind everyone that the term “religion of peace” in regards to Islam was coined by George W. Bush. Pandering to Muslims is nothing new, and both parties do it. It’s not right, but it’s not exclusive to Obama, either.

Now our elected officials waffle with another public piece that, if paralleled in regards to Islam, would likely result in mass riots.

More fatwa envy. American Christians really, really, REALLY wish they could get away with the violence that goes on in the Muslim world. They’d love to riot and chop people’s heads off if they could.

Christians are supposed to shut up passively as their faith is ridiculed. If they speak up, they’re chastised as being bigots or, at least, anti-First Amendment.

And rightly so, because that’s exactly what they are. But no one is calling for you to be censored. What you’re asking for, on the other hand…

Those who support a “gay agenda” must know how deeply regressive this play impacts their desire to be recognized as part of a larger society.

Only amongst small minded bigots like you. Normal people don’t respond to a gay Jesus play by thinking, “Well, I guess that means I should deny gays their rights!” That’s not how human brains work.

The Christmas story isn’t a story of gay sex, let alone gay persons.

See? The gay people don’t need your fucking approbation anyhow. You’ve already excluded them, so why should they censor their play to appease your bigoted ass?

It’s a Middle Eastern story of one man whose life changed the world forever.

Which is why we Christians fight tooth and nail to make sure it never changes again….

…And lose every time.

And just so it doesn’t look like I’m unfairly picking on my home state, let’s move on to Pennsylvania. Central Pennsylvania, to be more precise. And as we all know, central Pennsylvania is the most important Pennsylvania, because it’s central to all that other Pennsylvania. And it’s got those fires that never, ever, ever go out.*

But that’s not what the real problem is. Take it away, Chris Hicks of East Pennsboro Township.

If the question is gay marriage, God has the answer

Please tell me Jesus finally proposed to Muhammad.

In response to Shirley Ericson’s letter, “United Methodist church is acting against a courageous minister“:

Contrary to Ms. Ericson’s opinion, God is not this grandfatherly-cosmic-casual-genie that looks down on us and is OK with our sinful condition.

Grandfatherly Cosmic Casual Genie sounds a lot better when you sing it to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon theme. Seriously, try it.

And why would god even be a genie, casual or otherwise? I read Shirley Ericson’s letter. She at no point implies that Jeebus is played by Shaq or Robin Williams, or that he ever grants any wishes (see what I did there? Prayer is bullshit!). The only person talking about this weird genie Jesus is you, bub.

Anyways, if gob doesn’t like our sinful condition, he shouldn’t have created it in the first place. He chose to give us free will and put tempting fruit in the garden. If he’s unhappy with the result, he has no one to blame but himself. Would you put a steak on your floor then beat your dog for eating it?

His word is clear and infallible. It does not change, while a culture’s moral compass becomes clouded and is in decline.

How exactly can a compass be in decline? Maybe he’s referring to the Golden Compass film franchise…

His word is rock solid, firm and clear.

Weirdly, this is also true of his dick.

Sin is bad because it hurts the heart of God.

What is it about fundamentalist religion that turns its followers into prattling five year olds? The baby-talk that comes from these people is just plain fucking creepy. The above sentence should never be spoken by any human being over the age of 8, unless they have, like, Down’s syndrome or something. And even then they should keep it to a minimum.

But apparently, in this guy’s puerile mind, an omnipotent being can be hurt. How? How could a perfect being be harmed in any way? If he has ANY vulnerabilities or shortcomings whatsoever, then he is not perfect and omnipotent.  It makes no sense to speak of a perfect being feeling or wanting or needing anything at all. And, with one fell swoop, I’ve just erased the motivation for all but the most deistic forms of religion. Sorry about that. I know how you guys hate logic.

When will we quit trying to pursue our own fleshly lusts and sinful desires and seek to live sacrificial lives unto our great, gracious, holy heavenly Father?

When we all lose our god damn minds. So, hopefully never.

For a closing exercise, click on that link above and read Shirley Ericson’s letter, then go back and read Chris Hicks’ again.  These are both Christians, but they are clearly very different kinds of Christians. And I’m not just talking about their views on gay marriage being different. Their brains work differently.  They’re processing information and reacting to it in starkly different ways.

Even before we get to their beliefs and their claims, just the language of the two letters shows striking contrasts. Both letters, for instance, contain a single interrogative sentence. But they use the interrogative for entirely different purposes. Ericson’s interrogative (third paragraph) is a hypothetical in which she presents some evidence and then provides a logical conclusion from it in order to make the reader THINK about their position. She’s challenging her audience to use their minds and reconsider their position.

Now look at Hicks’ interrogative, which I just snarked at above. It’s a lament, intended to get people to stop behaving differently from him and start unquestioningly obeying an authority. It has precisely the OPPOSITE purpose as Ericson’s. And rather than use logic to persuade, he tries to change the reader’s mind by appealing to a cognitive bias humans have to be more trusting of people who look wealthy, clean, beautiful, or powerful. Seriously, would even North Korea use language like his to describe its leader?

The baby-talk is completely absent from Ericson’s letter. Her declarative sentences are more complex than Hicks’, and again she uses them differently. Her declarative sentences consist mostly of statements of fact that are not a matter of belief, such as “This guy will lose his job,” etc. She often uses these facts as premises and conclusions in arguments. For Hicks, EVERY declarative sentence states as fact something that is a matter of his own personal faith. He doesn’t actually state a single faith-free fact anywhere in his letter. Not one. And he doesn’t make any arguments at all. He just declares his own beliefs as absolutely true by fiat, as if he himself were god.

I could go on and on analyzing the differences between the two, but the point should be obvious by now. There are different kinds of Christians, and differences between them run so deep that they alter the very way they process information and interact with the world. Ericson focuses on concrete facts. She then processes these to see what they imply. And if what they imply contradicts what she believes about gay marriage, she adapts her beliefs to the new information. She then proceeds to spell out these premises and conclusions for others, hoping to replicate the process in other minds as well. This is all just a long way of saying she’s a RATIONAL FUCKING PERSON.

Hicks, on the other hand, is a textbooks example of an authoritarian. He associates power with truth and beauty. If someone is powerful, then whatever they say must be true and good. He sees himself as a conduit of this power, and issues demands on its behalf that others assimilate to his thought processes or face dire wrath. So he’s like the Borg, but without any real power. He views communication between humans as a string of commands that others obey the power that he is vicariously channeling from an imaginary being.  And he sees value in others only insofar as they conform to this arbitrary string of commands. Which, again, is just a long way of saying he’s a FUNDAMENTALIST FUCKFACE.

I’m glad there’s no heaven. Spending eternity with these guys would be hell.

 

____________________

*No wonder they based a horror video game on it. That shit is fucking scary.

How dare you call a spade a spade???

You know what bigots hate? Pointing out that they’re bigots. If bigots flew planes, they would never want to be called pilots. If they played football, they’d never want to be called athletes. If they were the lead singer of Seether, they would never want to be called an absolute no talent hack piece of crap on toast. Bigots want to be bigoted, but they sure as buttfuck don’t want the fact that they’re bigots to be spoken aloud. That would be stating a fact, and, as we all know, the facts are biased.

No bias here! AP equates opposition to gay marriage with homophobia

In other startling news, they equated ursine qualities with bears. GAY bears!

Evidently, somewhere along the way, opposition to gay marriage became the same thing as homophobia — at least according to the Associated Press. Here’s a recent AP headline:

AP "anti-gay" headline

The title, is of course, totally accurate, which is why Twitchy (that’s what they call themselves over there…sounds pretty gay…) can’t stand the idea of it being uttered in public.

This past Saturday night, Sen. Rubio spoke at a fundraising dinner for the Florida Family Policy Council, a group that opposes gay marriage. But apparently that story just wasn’t spicy enough for AP writer Brendan Farrington, who felt compelled to suggest that same-sex marriage opponents are “anti-gay.” Because if you aren’t in favor of same-sex marriage, clearly you’re a vicious homophobe.

Bigots always assume that other people’s minds work just like theirs–that is, making the most childishly simplistic inferences then treating them as Gospel Truth. But of course, that’s not the AP’s reasoning at all. One can easily see that Florida Family Policy Council is anti-gay merely by looking at the numerous statements made by their deranged, bigoted fuckhead of a leader (John Stemberger) and the guy this event was honoring (Matt Staver), over the years:

The Florida Family Policy Council announced today that it will host Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) at its 2013 Annual Dinner. The FFPC is led by John Stemberger, the anti-gay activist who most recently helped launch a Boy Scouts splinter group that will ban openly gay youth, and the fundraiser will honor Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver.

….

Stemberger previously chaired Florida for Marriage, which spearheaded the campaign to pass a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions, and founded the anti-gay Boy Scout alternative Trail Life USA. Earlier in his career as a lawyer, he was widely criticized for misconduct in the Rifqa Barry case.

Stemberger has a long record of incendiary anti-gay rhetoric. He:

  • Said that people are gay because they think it is “hip” and “cool.”
  • Alleged that affirming LGBT youth is “tantamount to abuse” and “an abuse to that child.”

We noted Staver’s radicalism and involvement in a kidnapping case in our profile of him for the 2013 Values Voter Summit:

– See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/marco-rubio-headline-anti-gay-fundraiser#sthash.eIcF06oU.dpuf

Wait. What was that last part??? “INVOLVEMENT IN A KIDNAPPING“???

Yes, that is correct. This guy was implicated in an incident when an “ex-gay” woman kidnapped a child rather than let her live in the custody of her evil lesbian ex-partner. He was even named in the RICO suit that alleged a cover up. How much more would he have to do to qualify as anti-gay? Kidnapping lesbians’ children isn’t enough? Can anything short of outright murder of gay people count as anti-gay to the nitwits at Twitchy?

Of course, Twitchy would never acknowledge any of this. AP called them anti-gay because they were “merely” against gay marriage. Because, as we all know, denying a right to gay marriage is the only bad thing the bigots would ever do to gays.

But even if we accept this chowder-headed non-logic from the Twitchy bigots, it’s still bullshit. Yes, dumbfucks, if you oppose gay marriage, that makes you anti-gay by definition. You’re trying to deny gay people equal rights. That is anti-fucking-gay. Just like if you oppose interracial marriage, that’s all it takes to make you a fucking racist. I need know no other fact about you to be able to state such an obvious fact. Any and all people who oppose gay marriage are anti-gay. If you seek to deny some group equal rights, you are against that group. Period.

Sorry if that fucks up your persecution complex and makes you feel all poopy inside. Truth hurts. Fucking deal with it.

Gay rights = Civil rights

Civil rights movements are always transgressive in their own time. They break social mores, challenge previously unquestioned biases, and root out traditional moral values to replace them with newer, more progressive ideals. This is true of the abolitionist movement to end slavery, the women’s suffrage movement and subsequent feminist/women’s lib movement, and the civil rights movement for African Americans. In their own day, the “right thinking” traditionalists denounced them as unchristian and anti-biblical. But eventually, they become the new status quo, and the new religious right has to find a way to distance themselves from what their intellectual forebears wrought. Despite the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention specifically formed to defend slavery, you won’t hear Baptists today bringing that talking point up very often.

This creates a problem for god-humpers. The most prominent civil rights movement today is the gay rights movement. God-humpers oppose it, because it involves people living their own lives uninfluenced by a 2,000 book of fables that they believe should control everyone and everything. But the gay rights movement is playing out very much like past civil rights movements–civil rights movements which the fundamentalists now pretend they supported all along (they didn’t).  In fact, the arguments for and against gay marriage in particular are extremely similar to the arguments for and against miscegenation in the first half of the 20th century. In both cases, it was argued that god separated the races/sexes because he never meant for them to marry. In both cases marriage between people of different races/same sexes were argued to be “unnatural”. In both cases it was argued that mixed race kids/children of gay parents would somehow suffer from their parents mixed race/same sex relationship. And in both cases these arguments are complete and utter horseshit. The Loving v. Virginia case of 1967 guaranteed the right to marry to all mixed race couples in all 50 states, and the gay marriage issue is progressing in a very similar fashion, except at a much faster rate. It’ll be legal in all 50 states in maybe 5 to 10 years or so, and even the staunchest opponents seem to realize this.

What to do? The god-humpers want to oppose gay marriage, but they also want to pretend that god-humpers never took the wrong side in the very similar fight over interracial marriage. Well, there’s no way to resolve the cognitive dissonance other than to pretend it’s not real at all. Gay rights has nothing in common with black civil rights! Why, because I SAY SO DAMN IT!

Last month, Pennsylvania’s attorney general refused to defend a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Her website argues: “The issue of same-sex marriage is squarely in the tradition of the struggle for civil rights in the U.S.” That comparison has significant implications for how same-sex marriage advocates treat marriage laws that they disagree with. It also deserves more scrutiny.

No, it really doesn’t. The Pennsylvania judge didn’t just pull that comparison out of her ass. It has been noted again and again by numerous observers of the movement, and has strong historical evidence to support it. Like I said, look up the ruling in the Loving case and read it. Replace the racial stuff with sexual orientation stuff, and it’s easy to see that we are having the exact same argument, just about a different minority.

As a grassroots supervisor for California’s Proposition 8, I was surprised to see numerous yard signs stolen, slashed and defaced. Those responsible were likely law-abiding citizens. Why the exception? Undoubtedly, many felt they were in hand-to-hand political combat against discrimination, hatred and bigotry.

“Grassroots”? Bullshit. Michael Erickson, the author of this garbage, got his law degree at Brigham Young University. So he is probably a Mormon. There was nothing grassroots about the Mormon church’s support for Prop. 8 in California. The church itself funded numerous political operations in hopes of influencing the voting public (something non-profit organizations are not supposed to do), and then lied about their involvement repeatedly, even after documents proving their financial involvement surfaced.

I don’t support vandalizing signs, but if the vandals (misguidedly) thought they were helping fight discrimination, hatred and bigotry, they were merely using the wrong methods to target the right group. Anyone who supported Prop. 8 supported discrimination, hatred and bigotry. That includes you, Mr. Erickson.

I will give him credit for at least recognizing that the people who defaced signage are probably otherwise good people, and will extend the same courtesy to him. I have no doubt that Mr. Erickson opposes any form of violence or vandalism against gays or gay rights supporters, which automatically makes him better than the entire Russian government and a healthy chunk of the Russian people on this issue. But the fact that he is humane in one area of human rights does not cancel out his bigotry in others. In the 1960s there were undoubtedly people who thought blacks should be treated equally….except when it comes to marriage. Mr. Erickson has taken a similar position on gays judging by the rest of his op-ed. It’s a lesser bigotry, but lesser bigotry is still bigotry.

It’s no secret that media coverage disproportionately favors same-sex marriage. A candid admission in the Washington Post explains why “(many journalists) see people opposed to gay rights today as cousins, perhaps distant cousins, of people in the 1950s and 1960s who, citing God and the Bible, opposed black people sitting in the bus seat, or dining at the lunch counter, of their choosing.” (What goes unsaid is that the most influential civil-rights leaders, “citing God and the Bible,” opposed discrimination and segregation on religious grounds.)

Actually, what most often goes unsaid is that in almost every civil rights conflict, the Bible is quoted to support BOTH sides of the issue. This is because the Bible is murky, muddled, contradictory, and irrelevant to modern life. It’s primed to be manipulated and read however the reader wants to read it. Every civil rights movement (including the gay movement) has religious people on both sides, quoting the same scripture to say the opposite thing. It’s almost like the Bible is bullshit or something!

Regrettably, some infamous groups spew anti-gay rhetoric that is hateful and indefensible. But far too often the media amplify these voices and conflate all religious opinion with this easily assailable straw man.

Comparing you to the yahoos at Westboro Baptist Church or the American Family Association would indeed be tearing down a straw man. But that doesn’t mean that your views are not hateful or indefensible. Lesser bigotries, as before.

As such, they entirely ignore, as a Deseret News editorial put it, our “morally complex and pluralistic world” (June 30). A world where some religious faiths that only endorse marriage between a man and a woman also support nondiscrimination laws for gays and lesbians. And a world where some gays and lesbians oppose same-sex marriage “citing a belief that children benefit most from opposite-sex parents.”

Those are both minority opinions. Sure they count to some extent, but they don’t represent either group. More importantly, yes, we do live in a morally complex and pluralistic world. But that’s exactly why religion is growing more and more irrelevant every day, and why more and more people are leaving their churches. Religions too often speak in absolutes, in black-and-white morality, in unquestioned divine authority, in faith unsupported by facts and evidence, in the primacy of tradition over a society that adapts to improve the lives of real people instead of please the whims of invisible imaginary people. Religion just doesn’t fit any more, and it is slowly dying as a result.

Unfortunately, the situation is unlikely to change unless this civil-rights comparison is scrutinized. Here are three differences that deserve attention:

Scrutinize it all you want. It will change nothing, because your starting position, the very beliefs you stand on, are what’s really wrong with your argument.

First, laws prohibiting interracial marriage were designed to promote white supremacy. That’s why a unanimous Supreme Court invalidated these laws for having “no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination.” In sharp contrast as one gay-marriage advocate acknowledges, “Unlike racial segregation, to which anti-gay laws are often compared, the traditional restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples was not designed, in and of itself, to denigrate or harm same-sex couples.”

“One gay marriage advocate said something stupid, so that makes the stupid thing true!”

When North Carolina outlawed gay marriage in 2012, do you think that had any purpose other than to reinforce straight privilege? Straight people get the benefits of marriage, gay people don’t. Therefore, privilege. Straight people get to visit their dying spouses in the hospital, gay people don’t get that privilege. The law was designed specifically to reserve certain privileges to straight couples and deny them to gays. To argue that it serves any other purpose is absurd.

As for “traditional marriage”, there’s no such thing. Racial segregation has a long and storied tradition as well, and not all forms of it were “designed” to reinforce privilege in one race. Many, like marriage, weren’t designed at all, but instead arose organically and only became enshrined in law later on. Regardless of whether opposite-sex marriage was ALWAYS designed to denigrate gays, there’s no questioning that RIGHT NOW it is. And that’s what matters.

Second, the Civil Rights movement, according to noted leader John Lewis, “was built upon deep-seated religious convictions” and, without such faith, “would have been like a bird without wings.” But it’s hard to imagine prominent gay-marriage advocates describing their movement as “built upon deep-seated religious convictions.” Indeed, it has often been hostile to religion.

To be sure, some of that hostility stems from perceived, and sometimes very real, denigration by some religious adherents. Nevertheless, the different roots of these movements appear to manifest sharply contrasting fruits. Compare, for example, the gospel-inspired Civil Rights anthem “We Shall Overcome” to the now popular mantra “Get on the right side of history!” Or compare the Christian perseverance evident in this preacher’s promise, “We will win you with the power of our capacity to endure,” with the conventional pride revealed in this politician’s bluster, “It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not.”

The past civil rights movements also took place in a time when religion had more political strength than it does today. As I already mentioned, our society is going through a slow process of secularization, and religion’s power is waning. It should come as no surprise, then, that religion has less of a role to play in current issues.

This doesn’t change the fact that there are indeed many Christians who support gay rights. As I discussed above, this shouldn’t be surprising to anybody, because the Bible says only what the person quoting it wants it to say.

Third, whereas segregationists fought to preserve their social status and political power, many in the religious coalition for man-woman marriage seek, in the words of President Obama, “to preserve and strengthen families.” Although in favor of same-sex marriage now, even President Obama acknowledges that their “impulse” to strengthen families “is the right one.”

Bullshit. “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!” was a constant refrain amongst segregationists. It was alleged, without evidence, that mixed race families would be unstable, that allowing interracial marriage would lead to black men raping white daughters, that mixed race children would not turn out as well as “pure” children. The gay marriage opponents make all the same unsupportable claims, saying children of gay parents will turn out bad, comparing gays to pedophiles, and insisting that only opposite sex marriages can be stable. Nothing has changed except the identity of the minority being denied its rights.

Notwithstanding these differences, discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation should be addressed. Marriage, however, is about more than civil rights for individuals. Marriage has profound implications for a historically vulnerable and underrepresented class of persons — children.

That’s what the opponents of interracial marriage said. They were wrong, and so are you. Their beliefs were based on superstitious misapprehensions of a minority, and so are yours. Because of white privilege, they couldn’t see (or wouldn’t see) how they were harming others. The same goes for you and your straight privilege.

In the fortieth year since Roe v. Wade, public opinion has settled on a middle ground that recognizes the concerns of both pro-choice and pro-life advocates — approving of abortion for threats to a mother’s health, rape, incest, and birth defects, but disapproving for elective birth control, selecting birth traits or avoiding parental responsibility.

If the public discussion on marriage is not prematurely curtailed, public opinion might yet arrive at a common ground that recognizes the dignity of gay and lesbian Americans while also preserving marriage between a man and a woman as the surest foundation for the future of children.

How would you like it if we found a “middle ground” when it comes to YOUR rights? You seem to be fine when the rights of gays and women are on the line, but what if we start curtailing yours because of “the children”? That sound good to you? Would you like it if the people took a vote on your marriage? Would you like it if we declared, based on no evidence, that Mormons make bad parents, and that therefore you can’t get married? Would that be okay with you? Would you feel that we were “respecting” your “dignity” if we prohibited you from visiting a dying spouse in the hospital just because we disagree with your faith/lifestyle, based on such stupid arguments? You can’t respect people’s dignity while denying them certain basic privileges which you reserve to yourself. So long as you insist on doing so, you are a bigot, and you are discriminating.

Oh, and the Mormon church didn’t allow blacks to be ministers until…what? 1975? 1976? Some time around then. But you’d rather we forgot all about that, wouldn’t you, Mr. Civil Rights Man?

Russia Still Sucks (when it comes to gay rights)

We’ve heard a lot about athletes opposing Russia’s draconian, unjust new law banning “gay propaganda” (which is just code for “any free expression regarding homosexuality in public”).  But now CNN brings us a Russian athlete who has seen fit to defend this stupid, fascist law, except she chose to do so in broken English with comical results. (Note to bigots: You guys usually aren’t very bright, and can barely handle your own native languages. Trying to be bigoted in a language you only partially speak will never end well.)

Yelena Isinbayeva, the golden girl of Russian sport, has sought to clarify her controversial comments about gay rights and her apparent criticism of fellow athletes for highlighting the issue at the world championships in Moscow.

As is always the case with these kinds of things, “clarify” means “pretend you didn’t say what you actually said.”

Isinbayeva reclaimed the women’s pole vault title in front of her adoring public on Tuesday, then two days later defended her country’s anti-gay propaganda law after receiving her medal.

“If we allow to promote and do all this stuff on the street, we are very afraid about our nation because we consider ourselves like normal, standard people,” Isinbayeva said in English at a press conference.

Let me make this clear, Ms. Isinbayeva: If you or anyone else support this kind of bullshit, you have no right to call yourselves “normal, standard people.” No sane person is going to go along with the idea that censorship and oppression of minorities is normal and standard. We gotta have some fucking standards here, and denying people’s right to free speech for any reason–a fortiori for their minority status–must not be one of them. Period.

But there is a nugget of honesty in Isinbayeva’s comment. I believe her when she says she and her fellow Russian bigots are “afraid”. Fear of difference often motivates these kinds of oppressive laws. Well, fear of difference among the ignorant populace–the motivation amongst the leaders who pander to them is more likely to be a cynical desire to further solidify their power. You’re being exploited by your leaders, Russian people, and you don’t even know it.

In short, Vladmir Putin is a fucking asshole.

“We just live boys with woman, women with boys.

Um….Ewww?

“Everything must be fine. It comes from history. We never had any problems, these problems in Russia, and we don’t want to have any in the future.”

Yeah, ’cause when I think of countries that never had any problems, Russia is the first to spring to mind.

LOL. I couldn’t even keep a straight face while typing that. Has there ever been a moment in history when Russia wasn’t completely fucked up? Your country still had a god damn feudalistic medieval economy at the beginning of the 20th century. You were decimated in both World Wars. You had Joseph Stalin, one of the most murderous dictators in human history. And now, despite all the economic problems your country faces, you’re chasing the bogeyman of “gay propaganda”.

Yep. No problems at all…

She criticized two Swedish athletes who defied the anti-gay law by sporting what could be seen as “propaganda” under the new regulations.

Read: U.S. runner blasts Russia on gay rights

High jumper Emma Green Tregaro and sprinter Mao Hjelmer wore rainbow-colored fingernails in their events in support of the gay rights movement.

Green Tregaro posted a picture on her Instagram account captioned: “Nails painted in rainbow sign #pride #moscow2013.”

Go Sweden!

(But, seriously, who would name their kid “Mao” in this day and age? Does she have siblings named Hitler and Pol Pot?)

“It’s unrespectful to our country,” Isinbayeva told reporters. “It’s unrespectful to our citizens because we are Russians.

Oh, boo fucking hoo. You disrespect your own people by making these kinds of laws. Maybe if you started treating gays like actual human beings with equal rights, I’ll start giving a fuck about your precious little hurt feelings. But until then, cry your fucking eyes out. You’ll get no sympathy from me.

“Maybe we are different from European people and other people from different lands. We have our home and everyone has to respect (it). When we arrive to different countries, we try to follow their rules.”

It seems that you don’t understand the purpose of civil disobedience. That’s likely because you live in a country where any form of it is brutally repressed.

However, on Friday Isinbayeva released a statement via athletics’ ruling body claiming that she had been “misunderstood.”

“English is not my first language and I think I may have been misunderstood when I spoke yesterday,” said the 31-year-old, who is an ambassador for the International Olympic Committee and will be mayor of the athletes’ village at the Winter Games in the Russian city of Sochi next year.

Excuses excuses. Yeah, your English was a little broken and sounded funny, but you knew what you were saying.

“What I wanted to say was that people should respect the laws of other countries particularly when they are guests.

“But let me make it clear I respect the views of my fellow athletes and let me state in the strongest terms that I am opposed to any discrimination against gay people on the grounds of their sexuality (which is against the Olympic charter).”

Anyone who feels the need to use the word “respect” over and over and over is most likely hoping to use decorum to obfuscate and confuse the conversation. “Respect” in these cases often means “silence”. Show us some respect. Just don’t talk about the anti-gay law. Remember that all these Swedish athletes did was paint their fingernails with rainbow colors and tweet about it. That’s it.

This has become a pretty common refrain in the articles I’ve read about defenders of the Russian gay propaganda laws. They insist that they don’t want to discriminate against anyone, and then demand “respect”, hoping that silencing the debate will prevent people from pointing out that discrimination is exactly what they are doing. They’re picking out a certain minority and restricting their freedom of expression simply for being who they are. That, by definition, is discrimination. It is impossible to support this law without supporting discrimination. Isinbayeva’s “clarification” is as absurd as saying, “I would never murder anyone” while repeatedly stabbing everyone in the room with a cyanide-coated broad sword. But then again, George Orwell used what was going on in Russia as part of the basis for Animal Farm and 1984, so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised to hear this kind of abuse of language (English, Russian, or any other) coming out of a Russian mouth.

U.S. runner Nick Symmonds was quoted in the New York Times criticizing Isinbayeva’s comments.

“It blows my mind that such a young, well-traveled, well-educated woman would be so behind the times,” said Symmonds, who spoke out against the law after winning a silver medal in Tuesday’s 800 meters event.

He told the BBC Thursday that he had wanted to compete wearing a rainbow sticker, but was afraid of being arrested.

In his blog for Runner’s World prior to the world championships, Symmonds said he disagreed “with the laws that Russia has put in place.”

Don’t be too shocked, Nick. She is indeed educated. She was educated to believe that everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Immutable Stupidity

The WingNutDaily never fails to entertain me, especially their excessively mustachioed publisher Joseph Farah, who consistently sputters out right wing nonsense so insanely stupid that one can’t help but wonder whether his entire journalistic career is one big Andy Kaufman-style piece of performance art. Today’s piece is a particularly exquisite morsel of Dumb, because nothing causes fundamentalist brains to go haywire quite like the menace of Gay.

“Non-discrimination” is one of those new buzzwords that has widespread appeal.

It’s not exactly new…unless your thinking is permanently rooted in the 1950s.

After all, nobody can defend discrimination against people because of immutable characteristics like their skin color, religious beliefs or ethnicity, right?

*Spit take* Did you just describe religious beliefs as immutable? Then does that mean you fucking Christians will stop hassling everyone and trying to convert them?

People like you, Mr. Farah, do defend discrimination based on these things all the time. Evangelicals have no problem with discrimination based on religion–so long as it’s not against their own religion. And, no, Mr. Farah, religious belief is not immutable, but homosexuality is.

But America has moved way beyond that ideal. The cultural and political pendulum has swung so far the other direction that “non-discrimination” actually means victimizing people because of their religious convictions.

I bet you like thinking about that pendulum swinging. That big, luscious pendulum, swinging back and forth, back and forth.

WND reported last month that the San Antonio City Council, way down in the heart of Texas

It’s actually closer to the rectum of Texas. But that’s not San Antonio’s fault. Texas is mostly rectum.

of all places, is considering a change to its “non-discrimination” ordinance that will seemingly bar those who take the Bible seriously from holding office.

I can’t understand why I’ve got this sudden feeling of skepticism towards absolutely every word that follows…

In the rush to condemn “bias” of any kind, in particular discrimination against people based on their sexual proclivities and behavior, faithful, Bible-believing Christians and Jews could be permanently banned from participation in city government, business and even employment!

Note how he leaves out Muslims, who are even more hostile to gays than Christians.

“Now wait a minute, Farah,” you say.

Actually, what I say is more like, “Go fuck a goat and die of goat AIDS, Farah.”

[“]What are you talking about?

You probably get asked that a lot, don’t you?

That wouldn’t be legal. This is still America, where people’s religious convictions are protected by the First Amendment! Furthermore, the Constitution explicitly prohibits any religious test as a qualification for office or public trust.”

A fact Farah will conveniently forget when it comes to the question of an atheist holding office.

Well, tell the city council in San Antonio.

There, council members are on a path to add “sexual identity” and “sexual orientation” to the city non-discrimination ordinance, which, on the face of it, would bar anyone from office who has “demonstrated a bias” against someone based on categories that include “sexual orientation.” The proposal does not define “bias,” which, according to local church leaders, could mean someone who declares homosexual behavior is sinful, as the Bible clearly does.

Local church leaders have a bad habit of being completely and utterly full of shit.

The new ordinance would state: “No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or disability.” [emphasis added]

And here is where we learn that Joseph Farah can’t read. Or, more likely, that he knows his audience can’t read. I’ve highlighted the word here that he is clearly ignoring. Barring “Bible-believing” Christians from office would clearly violate this ordinance. So if the ordinance is enforced correctly, god-humpers in San Antone have nothing to worry about.

That said, I don’t think this ordinance could cut the Constitutional mustard. Not for the dumbshittery that Farah gives as reasons, but because it says “in word or deed”. Farah is right about one thing–the ordinance is vague. It might be construed as barring people from appointments based on their speech, which would be a violation of the First Amendment. It’s hard to tell, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this ever went to court and got shot down.

Church leaders have gathered to discuss what they consider an alarming plan. They said it would allow the city council “to prohibit those that speak their religious beliefs regarding homosexuality from serving on city boards.”

No, it wouldn’t, because it clearly states that religion is one of these protected classes. This is classic right wing scaremongering. Create an artificial crisis, trust in your dull-witted followers to believe it even when the evidence that it’s fake is right in front of them, then profit off of them. It’s fucking sickening, and speaks poorly of our species that people like Farah are able to do it so easily.

It’s why America’s founders established a Bill of Rights. These were not “special privileges” bestowed by government. Instead, they were recognized as God-given rights.

Which is why the Bill of Rights mentions god precisely ZERO times.

Whenever government starts handing out special protections of classes of people, especially based on their behavior, you are no longer protecting rights, you are denying them.

Religion is a behavior. Should we not protect your rights?

That’s where the homosexual agenda is rapidly heading.

The movement started with this slogan: “It’s nobody’s business what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom.” It has become a movement that is obsessed with what people do in their own bedroom – a movement that seeks to identify people based on what they do in their own bedroom, or anywhere else for that matter.

And they project their own shortcomings onto others, too!

Yet, few Americans have yet realized how far off the rails this train has veered.

That’s because most Americans aren’t so stupid that they wouldn’t see the word “religion” in that quote above and fail to realize that you’re making all this shit up.

The popular culture loves, adores and worships all things “gay.”

Well, I do like Batman. So you got me there. And Lady Gaga is pretty gay. I’m not a Lady Gaga fan, but I do like her a lot when she’s naked. Does that make me so straight I’m gay?

But I don’t think a guy with Joseph Farah’s mustache has any right to attack people who like gay things.

In such an environment, is it really that tough to imagine Americans being victimized because of their most heart-felt religious convictions?

Poor god-humpers. Always the victims. Boo hoo hoo.

Grow up, shitbritches. No, you are not the victim. No one declared your marriage illegal. No one beats you up for going to church. No one fires you for being a superstitious testicle head. No one is telling you that your consensual adult relationship is evil and disgusting and a threat to all of society. You are not the fucking victim here, so stop bitching and whining.

It’s easy. It’s just one small, inevitable step from where we were just a few years ago.

He’s got one thing right here. Gay rights is inevitable. People like Farah are flailing because it is becoming increasingly obvious that they have lost the fight and that full equality for gays and lesbians is now a matter of when, not if.

And I love watching them flail. Schadenfreude is a wonderful thing. 🙂

Russia Sucks (at least when it comes to gay rights)

Mother Russia is trying as hard as it can to avoid joining the 21st century when it comes to LGBT equality. They’ve recently outlawed “gay propaganda” (which is code for “any public assertion that gays are human beings”) and adoption of Russian children in countries that support marriage equality; they’ve sent police and soldiers to viciously attack gay rights protesters; and they’ve turned a blind eye to homophobic violence, up to and including murder. They’ve also issued confused and contradictory statements on whether they will equally harass foreign gay athletes and spectators at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi (which is apparently some shitty little burg way out in frozen buttfuck Russia). Oh, and check out the warning label under the heading of those articles from a Russian website:

This article contains information not suitable for readers younger than 18 years of age, according to Russian legislation.

Even talking about oppressing gays is “not suitable”! We’ll oppress them, but SSSHHH! Don’t talk about it! Oppression works better when no one talks about it in public!

It’s safe to say that Russia never fully recovered from its Stalinist totalitarian days, and Vladmir Putin is more than happy to stoke the bigoted irrational fears of right wingers in his country in order to solidify his power. Older gays must be having flashbacks to the days of a repressive Communist regime that ruled through fear and intimidation. But you know who the real victims are? The bigots, of course! Or at least, that’s what the English version of Pravda.ru wants us to believe.

Good bye, totalitarian Facebook

31.07.2013 | Source:

Pravda.Ru

See all that stuff I linked to in the first paragraph? Yeah, Facebook didn’t do anything like that, in case you’re wondering. So what makes Facebook so totalitarian?

Something has to be said. It has been over six week since I last posted on my Facebook account, and rarely opened it. I was trying to get rid of the addiction, communication with many people who became my close friends. It turns out that at times I shared with them my thoughts that were once spoken only among very close friends. I was flattered that these thoughts were discussed by people I’ve never met in person, but who turned out to be like-minded individuals.

I decided to put an end to this communication, and, likely, for good. It is a shame…: (

So Facebook helped you meet fellow dumb people. Why is this a problem for you? (I could tell you why it’s a problem for me, but you wouldn’t care.)

It’s funny, but six weeks ago I decided to stop using Facebook after the social network has blocked my account due to complaints of a sexual liberties advocate who called me a homophobe, and who I called a homophile in response.

“Homophile”? You must have gotten blocked for butchering the English language.

I posted some objections to the support team of Facebook Russia over the use of the antonyms “homophobe” – “homophile” in the Russian language. No one bothered to respond.

Can’t imagine why they weren’t prompt in getting back to you…

On my page I posted against gay propaganda aimed at children.

Right wingers are the same everywhere, aren’t they? Just like in America, Russian bigots just simply echo boilerplate terms without putting so much as a moment’s thought into it. In reading on the new Russian legislation, this term “gay propaganda” has pooped out of just about every bigot’s ass-mouth over and over and over, and it really just means “support for gay rights.” Are you publicly stating that gays should have human rights? Well, that’s gay propaganda! We must silence you, FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!

I shared what I do not like about various public figures who oppose the independence of my country or call for what they believe to be freedom and democracy.

“Don’t they realize that only bigots like me get to have freedom and democracy?”

On my initiative, Pravda.Ru was nearly the first Russian online media outlet that started actively working with Facebook placing their interactive panel on Pravda.Ru’s pages.

*Golf clap*

In short, I tried a six-week long break in communication with the people I used to chat almost daily since 2009. Now I realized that I am not willing to work for people who can block my page because my thoughts are different from theirs.

I’m not privy to the entire ordeal, but I’m guessing they blocked you not for your thoughts, but because you’re an asshole.

I am not going to let some Facebook employees hired by a certain Katya Skorobogatova (who is she anyway?) to tell me what I can and what I cannot post on my account in the literary Russian language? ! 🙂

Oooo, literary bigotry! Dostoyevsky hates fags!

I am not a fighter with misfits like Skorobogatova and her staff on their territory and in their coordinates system. Why? Pravda.Ru Media holding that I own has over 20 resources where I, as a founder and editor, can post anything that does not contradict the Russian legislation without looking at Zuckerman’s boys and girls who moderate the opinions of their users when it comes to the issues of same-sex love.

I can say “anything that does not contradict Russian legislation.” That phrase right there should tell you who the real totalitarian is. A country that outlaws speech has no right to call itself free. But in this authoritarian’s mind, it’s a travesty that Facebook (a private company) would block his anti-gay bigotry, but perfectly okay for his government (which is supposed to represent the people) to use violence and prison sentences to silence anyone who publicly advocates for human rights.

Why would I fight with them? They are a minority on a global scale, because the most important thing for every normal person is children. Homosexuals cannot have children by definition.

I win because I procreate! It’s like Vadim Gorshenin thinks this cartoon (NSFW) is meant as actual advice on how to win a fight.

He also seems to think humans are fruit flies, whose only goal in life is to make more fruit flies. Sorry, pal, but some of us have broader horizons than that. It’s a stupid point, anyways, because gays are perfectly capable of procreating. They can also adopt, for that matter, unless some assholes in Russia pass an idiotic law prohibiting it.

While I was writing this, it grew into a column that I can publish on Pravda.Ru.

Translation: Pravda.ru will publish any horseshit as long as it’s bigoted, ignorant, and poorly reasoned.

Why do these thoughts deserve to be published in this online newspaper as opposed to a journal or a social network status?

Because the internet is an echo chamber of babbling inanity, hatred and delusion?

It is simple: I, like probably many others, faced sex-censorship by Facebook whose leader headed a gay parade of nearly a thousand employees of this gay social network (it must be the way since about a thousand FB employees joined him on this parade?)

How dare they hold a gay pride parade???

Hypocrisy, thy name is Vadim Gorshenin.

In short, I have three kids and I do not want any social network as part of their totalitarian “tolerance” prohibit heterosexuals from not just expressing an opinion, but simply defending it, eating antonyms of the insults they were insulted with, and dictating what should a “tolerant “community” be like.

Like American bigots, Russian bigots are complete fucking pussies. They bitch and whine like little children when some minor problem affects them, like getting blocked on Facebook. But they’re perfectly fine with gays being beaten and imprisoned.

I, unlike Zuckerberg and Skorobogatova, want to have grandchildren. I want to give them the love that parents do not have a chance to give their children…

How the fuck do you know they don’t want to have grandchildren? And what the fuck does this have to do with anything?

I understand that FB, through the hands of their moderators hired by Skorobogatova, does not let me share with you my thoughts as a father of three … If so – why don’t they get lost?

You seem to be the one throwing a hissy fit after they told you to get lost by blocking you. Fuck, Gorshenin has done everything but stomp his feet and hold his breath because Mommy wants him to eat broccoli at this point. He should be less worried about having children and more worried about not acting like one.

All I want to write will be publish by Pravda.Ru or VKontakte where I’ve moved for now.

Vadim Gorshenin

Yeah, see, that would be you fucking off, not them. I seriously doubt Facebook gives a flying assfuck about your whiny bullshit.

The comments are about on par with what one would expect from WingNutDaily. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were considerable overlap in readership between Pravda.ru and WingNutDaily. Here’s a pretty typical one:

Seeker World в 20:34 01 августа

Homosexuality -Proof Government Promotes Sickness. This is not “homophobic.” What homosexuals do is their business. This is about they pushing a destructive lifestyle on heterosexuals. Their satanically-inspired, social engineering is our business.  “Gay rights” and “Gay marriage” are a ruse to hide a deliberate attack on heterosexual norms.  Whether it is false flag state terrorism, vaccines or chemtrails, their agenda is to weaken, depopulate and enslave society. The promotion of homosexuality is designed to destroy the fundamental building block of a healthy society: the traditional family. The USofA is Morally bankrupt!

Chemtrails. Oy vey.

Whiny Whitey just won’t give up

The American (non)Thinker just won’t stop pimping this idea that white people are the real victims of a case in which an unarmed black teenager was stalked and shot to death. Here’s one of the more recent anal spewings they’ve produced:

July 20, 2013

Birth of a Racist

By Sally Zelikovsky

I assume that the title is a deliberate reference to Birth of a Nation, which is still used by the KKK as a promotional tool to this day, 98 years after it came out. At least D. W. Griffith’s horrendously racist piece of hateful propaganda was well-made. In fact, it is, sadly, a legitimate contender for the title of Most Influential Movie Ever. Zelikovsky’s piece, however, is just more of the the poorly written fucking dogshit we’ve come to expect from American (non)Thinker.

When I awoke this morning and looked at myself in the mirror, I realized that I had undergone a fundamental transformation — a  Kafkaesque metamorphosis.  I was no longer myself.  I had become…a racist.

In my junior year as an undergrad I participated in a preceptorial on the works of Kafka. During our discussions of The Trial, one of the other students suggested the idea that some aspects of Kafka’s work represented the gas chambers in the Holocaust. I pointed out that Kafka died in 1924, long before Hitler took power and began the Holocaust. But she insisted on her interpretation, even going so far as to claim that Kafka somehow psychically predicted Zyklon B showers. This was the point when I realized that “Kafkaesque” means whatever the fuck the person using the word wants it to mean.

But there is, ironically, a sort of Kafkaesque quality to Zelikovsky’s little Whiny Whitey tirade. The joke of “The Metamorphosis” is that Gregor Samsa didn’t really change. He always was the spineless vermin that he supposedly transformed into–there actually wasn’t any real metamorphosis in terms of personality. The same is true of Zelikovsky. Being a racist is a Kafkaesque metamorphosis for her. Which is to say, nothing about her really changed. She was already a racist to begin with.

I didn’t do it to myself.  I’ve always been sensitive to race.  I don’t support racism or racists.  I’ve never considered myself racist and don’t think others would consider me a racist.  How could I be one now?

I’m pretty sure others would consider you racist, given what you say later in this article. This appears to be primarily an issue of your self-delusion and narcissism.

I never enslaved anyone, prevented them from working or voting or living in my neighborhood or joining my clubs.

That’s all it takes to be non-racist, right? As long as I don’t own slaves or kick blacks out of my neighborhood, I’m not racist. That’s all it takes. Right? RIGHT??? TELL ME I’M RIGHT SO I CAN FEEL GOOD ABOUT MYSELF!

I don’t think there was any proof that George Zimmerman did either.

There’s also no proof that he had any reason to suspect Trayvon Martin of anything at all. But you’ll be conveniently ignoring that fact, won’t you?

But now I know if I ever cross or injure a black person — no matter how justified my actions might be — there is a presumption that I am a racist.

Only if “justified” means “The unarmed child I shot was black.”

I don’t like it at all.  It isn’t true.  But here I am, non-racist me trapped inside this new racist body I’ve been assigned.  My actions and beliefs are irrelevant.  Society has decreed this is who I am.

Oh, poor you. Society declared you racist, and it makes you feel poopy. Meanwhile, society also declared it okay to kill Trayvon Martin because he…what? What did he do? Walk around at night while black? You’re declaring your feelings to be more important than his life. Fuck you.

Like alien pods taking control over our slumbering bodies, unstoppable forces have gradually been redirecting our programming as a society so that any time a minority is harmed or disliked by a white person, the precipitating cause of the harm or dislike is ipso facto racism.

Euphemism is always the friend of the prude and the whiner. Please note that in the case under consideration, “harmed or disliked” means “stalked without any justification and then shot dead.”

After the Zimmerman verdict, many white people woke up just like me, realizing that we will be deemed haters whenever we interact with non-whites and something goes wrong — no matter what our motivation or innermost thoughts are.

To understand the meaning of “something goes wrong”, see above. And, again, Zelikovsky is claiming that her precious, delicate little “innermost thoughts” are more important than a 17-year-old boy’s life. Fucking horrible, hateful, selfish, racist bitch.

Most of us didn’t grow up this way.

No shit.

Quite the opposite.  I was taught never to hate and only to judge people by their actions and not by their color, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc

If so, your teachers failed.

Didn’t Martin Luther King say we should judge a man by “the content of his character, not by his color of his skin”?

Didn’t Martin Luther King devote his entire life to opposing people like you?

Use of racism to implement an agenda or get one’s way, has been building over years.

This guy called Martin Luther King may have done it, too.

Anytime you fire someone who is a minority, you must have documentation backing up your non-racist justifications.

I’ve had several jobs and seen people of all races fired. Being able to justify a firing is something a business has to do no matter what.

Even though we are supposed to be a color-blind, post-racial society, groups and individuals force us to think about race all the time.

Classic Whiny Whitey. “By talking about racism, they’re FORCING me to experience the horrible, unutterable suffering of having to THINK!”

We have become a hyper-racial society.  Furthermore, since very few of us want to be labeled with anything as odious as “racist,” we will do anything — including keeping incompetents in our employ — to avoid the moniker.

Or maybe we’ll just construct such excuses in order to make ourselves look like victims.

If you don’t like your black neighbor because you have a personality clash, you are a racist.

Nope. Lot’s of people don’t like Chris Brown. No one has ever been called racist for it. He’s an asshole.

If you complain about a black clerk in a store because she wasn’t helpful, you are a racist.

Nope. I’ve complained about bad service from people who happened to be black. No one ever called me a racist for it.

If you oppose affirmative action, you are a racist.

True.

If you disagree with a black President’s ideology and disapprove of his policies, you most definitely are a racist.

Nope. But it helps your credibility with the right if you are a racist.

If you are a juror in the Trayvon Martin case and find George Zimmerman not guilty, you must be a racist. Heck, the entire system that acquitted Zimmerman is racist. Those shots were fired not out of self-defense but because of racism. And we know that, because Trayvon was black and Zimmerman white.

There is no sane universe in which stalking an unarmed boy–even after a 911 operator told you not to–and then starting a confrontation with him and shooting him should be considered “self defense”. Florida, obviously, is not sane. Zimmerman was not defending himself. He started the confrontation. Trayvon Martin was the one defending himself. If you think differently, I don’t even care if you’re racist or not. You’re just an asshole, plain and simple.

Whether or not he did or did not provoke the confrontation with Trayvon, it’s hard to believe the wimpy George Zimmerman’s last thoughts were “I’m going to kill a black man because I don’t like blacks” as opposed to “This guy is bashing my head in and I better do something before I lose consciousness.”

No. Bullshit. The fact that Zimmerman started the whole thing is very much an issue.

In trials like this — where you have one-on-one action with little else to go on — and you want to prove racism, you are either forced to (1) look at surrounding evidence, statements and circumstances and try to re-construct what you think the state of mind or intent of the accused was, or (2) intuit what the accused was thinking, in other words, jump into his mind and make the leap from assumption to assumption.

While there was a credible eye witness who saw Trayvon beating up Zimmerman,  if hate is to be the crime on trial, then we are compelled to examine the thoughts of the perpetrator and the victim, even though we have no way of ever knowing what they really were.  Until we can read someone’s thoughts as if they were files on a computer, we are treading into dangerous territory.

Fuck you. You’re the one pretending to “intuit” what Zimmerman was thinking. Here are some facts, which neither side of the debate disputes: 1.) Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though no one ever asked him to do this; 2) Trayvon Martin wasn’t hurting anybody; 3) Zimmerman chose to follow him; 4) The 911 operator specifically told him not to do that; 5) Zimmerman ignored this and continued following Martin; 6) Zimmerman was the one who initiated a confrontation between the two; 7) a fight broke out; 8) Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, 9) Martin was UNARMED.

I don’t need to read anyone’s thoughts. Zimmerman was wrong. Period. No one should be allowed to do what he did, even without the race issue.

These are the kind of cases that try men’s souls.

Fuck off.

…the public is unsettled because any one of us, at any time, of any color, could be either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman.

Complete and utter bullshit. I can’t be Trayvon Martin, because I am a 32 year old white man. You are a white woman, and therefore also cannot be Trayvon Martin. Society frequently treats young black men as if they’re automatically dangerous–something that doesn’t happen to white men or to women of any race.

On top of all this, some in the public — MSNBC, loonies on the left, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the minions they have summoned to protest — want us to further restrict the self-defense laws that protect all of us in these situations.

Bullshit. Zimmerman was not defending himself. He started the fight. He was the aggressor.

This means it would be even harder for you to shoot an intruder or rapist or pedophile when protecting yourself or your family.  This means people will hesitate before coming to the aid of a neighbor or being a Good Samaritan.  This means when someone robs your store at gunpoint, you have to succumb to injury or death.  This means when your daughter or son is raped, they must yield and never fight back because self-defense will no longer be available to them.

Whiny Whitey sure does love some good old fashioned scaremongering. And, no, recognizing the injustice of the Martin case does not mean you have to let your daughters get raped. It just means you can’t stalk and kill unarmed teenage boys. If you consider not being able to stalk and shoot 17 year old black boys to be an infringement on your rights, please fucking fuck yourself with the first sharp object you find.

This would be a return to the lawlessness of the Wild West where anything goes and your only justice is revenge.  Call it feudal, barbaric, mob rule or lawlessness: either way, it is the unraveling of the criminal justice system in America and a giant step back for mankind.

That’s precisely the opposite of what you said the the previous paragraph, you stupid hateful bitch. First you say this will make everyone cowed and submissive–next it’s the Wild Wild West. You don’t have any activity in your anterior cingulate cortex at all, do you?

Do we really want to throw the self-defense baby out with the racism bathwater?

No, but only an idiot would think that those are our only two options.

Most of these cases are admittedly hard to prove — that’s why our system errs on the side of innocence.  It’s better to let a guilty man go free than incarcerate an innocent one.  If you were the accused, believe me, this would be your mantra.

I agree that it’s better to let guilty men go than imprison innocent men. So, let’s talk about all the black men who get railroaded into our prisons by a justice system that–HEY! Where are you going???

I wonder if the race industry has any idea what they are clamoring for by restricting the claim of self-defense.  Black-on-black crime is the overwhelming source of crime against blacks in America.  If the Zimmerman protesters have their way and a black intruder breaks into the home of a black family and is shot dead by the homeowner, the homeowner will more likely be the criminal on trial than the perp, as we have seen in the Ron Dixon case in Brooklyn, where a Jamaican family man killed an intruder (whose race isn’t clear in the reports) and was shockingly sentenced to jail for illegally possessing a gun.

Do I even need to explain how this situation has nothing to do with Zimmerman? (Nota Bene: If you need me to explain, then you’re an imbecile, much like Sally Zelikovsky.)

My heart breaks that slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, the KKK, lynching, and discrimination ever existed.  Every reasonable human being feels this way.

Sure it does. But you know whose hearts don’t break for those things? The commenters on the website where you published this.

This is not exclusive to race.  Gay activists have hijacked the black plight for their own purposes.  Gay students are given special consideration in the college application process to right the wrongs visited upon previous generations of homosexuals.  If you dislike a person who happens to be gay, you are homophobic.  If you disapprove of redefining marriage, you are homophobic.  If the thought of same-sex sexual conduct makes you feel uncomfortable, you are homophobic.  If you think AIDS is a gay disease brought on by lifestyle, you are homophobic.  If you fire anyone who is gay, you are homophobic.

“I can’t understand why every time I restrict the rights of gays I get called homophobic!”

And, as we have seen in the media’s reaction to the Zimmerman case, for many, there is no room for self-defense if the puncher-turned-victim is black and the accused is white.

The media is evil for turning the “puncher” into a victim. Rather, we should treat the SHOOTER as a victim.

You right wing assholes are so very clever–in the Spinal Tap interpretation of clever which actually means stupid. But make no mistake. If you ever punch someone, and then they shoot you in response, all this indignity will vanish in an instant, and you’ll suddenly realize what “proportionate response” means. Especially if the guy you who picked a fight with you is black.

Whiny Whitey and the Zimmerman trial

A few months back I coined the term Whiny Whitey to denote those ubiquitous white assholes who claim to be persecuted by the mere discussion of racism in America. And boy oh fucking boy has the Zimmerman trial–and its accompanying controversy over the race issue–brought out the whiniest of whiny whiteys this country has to offer. Exhibit A: C. Edmund Wright at the American “Thinker”.

July 18, 2013

Creep Me Out: Chinese is the ‘New Nigga’?

By C. Edmund Wright

Confused yet? Be warned: the whole article is about as disjointed and non-sequitur as the title, so get used to it.

I confess to being a very confused creepy ass cracka, trying desperately to go New School, as recently elucidated by Rachel Jeantel:

Confession or no, it’s true. You are one fucking confused, racist white fuckwad. He goes on to quote Jeantel’s rather idiotic statement, and compare it to something Richard Pryor said in a 35 year old movie:

Nigga….the whole world say it’s a racist word. …around 2000, 2001 – they change it around. That means a male….any kind of male.  Any kind, (even) Chinese…my Chino…but (say) nig-grrrrrrr – (and I) advise you not to be around black people, because they not gonna have it like that.  – Rachel Jeantel on CNN, July 2013.

Stoney gave bootleg haircuts for 25 cent…..he put a bowl on your head, and he cut around it…made all the niggas look Chinese…that way they could get a job on the railroad. They wouldn’t hire no niggas see. Niggas want real money.  Chinese work for that yang money see…niggas didn’t want that sh_t see”  – Richard Pryor as Mudbone in Miss Rudolph and the Monkey, circa 1978

Remember when Chris Rock did that funny bit on the difference between black people and niggers? And remember how every single fucking white moron on planet Earth immediately took this to be an excuse to start calling black people niggers? You know, those people who are too fucking stupid to understand that Rock was being ironic, and just took him on face value as a cheap excuse to justify their own bigotry? Yeah, this is gonna be one of those situations. Wright isn’t going to throw the word “nigger” around, but he treats these two quotes as a carte blanch to toss out every negative black stereotype his tiny little pea brain can conjure up in the next few paragraphs.

Frankly, I’m not sure how to reconcile these two very disparate views on African-American relationships with Chinese-Americans, just one of the many national puzzles we face in the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict.

Let’s make something very clear here. Richard Pryor is very funny. C. Edmund Wright is not. Moving on.

And we thought the new class of “white-Hispanic” was confusing.

It’s not confusing to anyone with two neurons to rub together. Hispanic is classified as an ethnicity, not a race. So, yes, someone can be both white and Hispanic. The two are not mutually exclusive, and never have been.

However, in honor of Miss Jeantel, I’m going to do my best to leave “the old school” and join “the new school” – and figure this stuff out.  From what I can tell, my old school ways “creep her out,” so in the spirit of racial sensitivity, reparations, bipartisanship, gender neutrality, sequestration, looking for the union label, compassionate conservatism, Occupy Wall Street, doing it for the children, and no doubt Mother Earth, I really want to get this right – and figure out the new school vernacular. (I know, old school.)

In other words: “I want to heap everything I don’t like onto Jeantel because she’s black and I’m a fucking asshole.”

I’m just a free lance writa after all, and I figure you’ll soon have an honorary degree and be a college professa somewhere – where your Obama Care benefits might cover things like fingernail extensions, paid for by taxes on tanning beds no doubt. Or maybe you’ll be on The View, or the Kardashians, or Tyler Perry’s House of whatever it is.

Black women have crazy fingernails, amiright amiright amiright? And black people elide the “R” at the end of a word! And they’re uneducated and want things like health care. Silly negroes! Nota bene: The above paragraph occurs in an article that will ultimately argue that there is no race problem and liberals just need to shut up about it.

“Freelance” is one word, by the way. That is unless you lance boils for free in addition to being a writer, which I find doubtful. Perhaps you shouldn’t be mocking black people’s supposed lack of education when you yourself seem to be rather lacking in the skills required to do what you get paid to do.

We also know from Miss Jeantel’s information that cracka, as in creepy ass cracka, is not a racist term either, as cracka refers apparently to a cop, of any color — and perhaps, a gay cop at that. Or, in the new school lingo, a cop who is “that kinda way.” For some strange reason, this image reminds me of The Village People. Then again, so does Piers Morgan.

Just in case the racism isn’t enough, he throws in some homophobia against Piers Morgan to boot. And, seriously, the Village People? If you’re going to make a gay joke in your racist article, you could at least come up with one that hasn’t been done a fucking bajillion times already.

But in reality, none of it is really that funny.

No shit.

What this all boils down to is that the trial, and what the jury focused on, was not race. This of course is an inconvenient problem for the booming racial grievance industry, which includes among others Barack Obama, Eric Holder, the NBC family of networks, the Democratic Party, numerous black churches — and of course, Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. For this community, the Zimmerman trial was about the race, the whole race, and nothing but the race, so help us almighty media.

And now we’re in full on Whiny Whitey mode.

Racists like Wright have been in retreat since the 50s. Since being openly racist is no longer socially acceptable, the strategy today is for racists to pretend that they’ve already lost. Racism is gone, so stop talking about it. If they were to succeed in this, then they might be able to preserve the vestiges of racism that still remain in today’s society.

Of course, lucky for us, racists tend to be fucking imbeciles. They have this bad habit of doing things like stringing together several paragraphs of racist stereotyping, and then following it up with dogshit like this:

Yet NBC’s naked attempt to use this trial to ignite nothing short of a race war is as pre-ordained as it is despicable. It is inevitable because contrary to popular belief and conventional beltway wisdom, the election of Obama was guaranteed to tear our nation apart at some point. The notion that he was some kind of fanciful post racial healer — almost from another galaxy — was absurd from the get go.  No liberal politician, especially a black one, can possibly heal anything racial. That’s right — it’s simply not possible.

Consider that liberal leaders of color mostly seem to come from the grievance wing of racial politics. Thus, as professional agitators and race baiters by definition, their ascension to power will necessarily take on an adversarial tone. There is no way around it.  They have gotten where they are by being adversarial towards all conservatives, Republicans and most Caucasians — and they are not about to change once they grab the reigns of power. Quite the contrary.

According to Wright the problem with racism is blacks in politics, apparently. There’s really no other conclusion that can be reached from the two paragraphs above. If we were to take Wright at his word, then we must conclude that he wants blacks removed from politics.

But, of course, since he’s Mighty Whiny Whitey, he has to portray himself as the victim in all this. When black politicians do something horrible like talk about being black, that’s just being adversarial towards “most Caucasians”. Once again, Whiny Whitey wishes us to believe that blacks talking about being black is actually an attack on whites. Wright takes it even further in declaring that it’s impossible for a black liberal to address any racial problem. He’s declaring that people who talk about racism are whiners while simultaneous spewing some of the most racist whining I’ve heard in a while. And I haven’t even gotten to the part where he declares all black Democrats to be incapable of talking about race in one breath and then in the very next breath accuses them of being “adversarial towards all conservatives, Republicans, and most Caucasians.”

Think of racial tensions as a wound on the nation, and the race agitation industry, the institution that gave us Obama, Sharpton, Jackson and Holder, is in the business of specifically pouring salt into the wound, and generally making sure it festers and never heals. Their efforts are then multiplied by butt-insky white liberals, who project their internal guilt by constantly picking at the scab as well. This scar heals just fine when ignored over time and people just go about their lives, but that dynamic is sort of inconvenient when your cash flow model or your political turn out model is dependent on a continuing flow of blood.

Even his fucking metaphor doesn’t fucking work. Wounds don’t heal by being ignored. That’s a great way to fucking bleed to death, you brain dead dickbucket. Although part of me really is hoping that Wright will get in a car accident and bleed to death because he stupidly thinks he can just wish his sucking chest wound away by pretending it’s not there. (And there’s a big difference between a scab and a scar. If we’re going to call racism a scar, then that metaphorically implies that it will never fully go away. But that’s a bit too close to the truth, now, isn’t it?)

This one paragraph from Wright pretty perfectly encapsulates what Whiny Whitey is all about. Whiny Whitey is the victim because talking about racial issues hurts Whiny Whitey. So we just shouldn’t talk about them, and pretend they’re not there. White people who disagree with Whiny Whitey are actually just full of “white guilt” because, as we all know, white people are always the victim, rather than the perpetrator, of racism. The only way Whiny Whitey will feel good is for all those evil blacks to stop talking about what it’s like to be black. Then we can maintain the wonderful status quo, where *wink wink nudge nudge* white people have it a lot easier than black people–just don’t say that part out loud.

This is known by those who benefit, and there is not a single politician or professional race hustler who’s life will be improved by acknowledging progress in this area. Without the grievance industry, figures like Sheila Jackson Lee, Emanuel Cleaver and John Lewis would be largely irrelevant government employees, representing safe liberal districts in Congress, and heard of by almost no one but their constituents.  Human nature is a powerful force, and people tend to gravitate towards positions that enrich them. Beyond any doubt, it enriches and empowers certain elements to pretend that we are all Mississippi in 1950 now, so those elements exist in a bizarre media/political/community organizing sphere where is it still Mississippi in 1950.

Your welfare for fingernail extensions joke from earlier would be quite at home in a conversation between whites in 1950s Mississippi. Or, hell, your implication in this very paragraph that black politicians are “irrelevant” apart from the racial “grievance industry” for that matter. The evidence that we haven’t come as far as we think from the 1950s is right here in your own fucking article.

The New York Times, the NBC family of networks, many black churches, Hollywood and Big Education, all are ironically part of the progressive universe and yet are stuck in this racial time warp. And this was unavoidable once Obama was elected. Obama in power was always destined to appoint grievance pimps like Van Jones and Eric Holder to positions of authority. That’s who he is, and they are merely extensions of him. The grievance pimps live for only one thing: to finally get even with all the creepy ass crackas. And no, with due respect to Miss Jeantel and Rush Limbaugh, I’m not talking about gay cops, and neither are Obama and Holder.  This is about reparations and getting even. So obsessed are they with this mission that an Hispanic Democrat who tutors black kids and votes for Obama will do for a cracka in a pinch. It goes way beyond that now, though.

We are all creepy ass crackas now, which was the point of electing a community organizer as President in the first place. It could end up no other way.

“Big Education”. The fact that he would use such a term tells us so much about his disposition.

Maybe Mr. Wright should squeeze the word “pimp” into those paragraphs a couple more times, just in case the association between black people and prostitution isn’t obvious enough. I mean, we can’t have people thinking that black people should be associated with any positive things, now, can we?  Nope. When Whiny Whitey talks about blacks, he never fails to find something negative to associate with them. Blacks are vengeance-seeking pimps who hate fine, upstanding, totally-not-racist white people like C. Edmund Wright. It’s a good thing we’ve got brave whiners like the folks at the American (non-)Thinker to stand up to these evil black people who live disproportionately in abject poverty and have historically been on the receiving end of just about every form of racism and discrimination that one can think of! To think that they have the gall to organize their community! Oh, the humanity!

Sorry, Mr. Wright, but I have no interest in creepy ass cracka solidarity. Black people talking about racism does not victimize me or anyone else. You, and every other Whiny Whitey out there, are a fucking embarrassment. Not just to white people, not just to Americans. To humanity. If anyone needs to shut the fuck up, it’s creepy ass crackas like you.

And yes. You are creepy. You are an ass. And by being a Whiny Whitey, you are definitely a cracka. Go fuck yourself.

A failure of irony

Bill Hicks famously said that fundamentalism breeds a lack of irony. Fundamentalists often have extreme difficulty recognizing telling contrasts between what is said and what is implied by the context in which it is said. Often times, this failure can come in multiple layers. Take, for instance, the publication which calls itself American Thinker, which frequently publishes utterly thoughtless dribble that only repeats right wing talking points, such as the piece we’ll be looking at today, in which author Paul Schlichta actually quotes an author without realizing that the author was being ironic.

What’s wrong with Same-Sex Marriage?

By Paul Shlichta

There’s nothing wrong with it. The fact that bigots and fundamentalists keep trying and always failing to make the case that there’s something wrong with it is evidence of this.

This year, June’s wedding bells had a discordant tone, as they ushered in a raft of same-sex marriages.

It’s funny how bigots always feel the need to speak of gay marriage in the most ominous tones, hoping to convince the reader that it’s the fucking scariest thing in the universe. In actuality, it’s utterly innocuous, and will have no effect at all on the vast majority of people. But maybe if we talk about it in Vincent Price voice, and have a Theremin playing in the background, and use a metaphor that invokes Edgar Allan Poe, we can make it scary. OoOOOooooOOooooOOOOooo!

By the way, since when are rafts ushered in by anyone to anything? Did I just miss some recent event where bells usher in rafts?

I hereby invoke a panel of experts — Fr. Thomas Vandenberg, G. K. Chesterton, and Kurt Vonnegut — to explain why such marriages are a dangerous debasement of the concept of marriage.

Bells, ushers, rafts, and now juries? Unmix your metaphors, Mr. Shlichta. You clearly don’t understand how writing works.

And really, Kurt Vonnegut? The agnostic socialist renowned for his transgressive writing that was frequently banned by conservative prudes and moral busybodies? You’re invoking him? This ain’t gonna go well for you.

Fr. Vandenberg’s new book, Rediscovering a Pearl of Great Price , is an inspired exposition of the full meaning of Christian marriage, It should be required reading for couples planning to marry, although some of the passages may come as a surprise:

The greatest gift a husband can give his children is to love their mother, and the greatest gift a mother can give her children is to love their father. That is what will keep the proper balance in the family and make their home environment secure. That is what will free the children from their primary fear, which is to be abandoned by one of their parents. Why do they fear that? Because that is what has happened to so many of their friends at school.

This is clearly bullshit. The greatest gift parents can give their kids is to love their kids. Even parents who hate each other and get divorced can still raise a good child by letting their love for the child overcome whatever disdain they have for each other. I’ve seen it happen, so I know it’s true.

Even if we go along with Vandenberg’s pseudo-philosophical ramblings, how is this a problem for gay couples? If they love each other very much, then they should be fine parents according to this. You have failed to make your point.

Marriage is supposed to have the ambitious goal of providing children with a nurturing and reassuring base from which to learn to face the world. Therefore, parents must not only be good persons, not only a man and a woman (so as to provide the dual role models psychologists say they need), but also so unshakably devoted to each other that their mutual love can withstand all the temptations and shocks that life will hurl at them, as well as the abrasion of living with each other.

You see what Shlichta’s doing here? He’s throwing in “man and woman” as if it’s relevant to Vandenberg’s quote, but his parenthetical justification actually involves something completely different from what he quoted above. Instead of being about the importance of loving each other (which gays are perfectly capable of doing), it’s actually about “dual role models”. As if some other man or other woman couldn’t fulfill that role for them.

To this end, sexual passion and the bewildering differences between the sexes jointly play a vital role.

“Bewildering”? Does a vagina really confuse you that much? I can just imagine Mr. Shlichta at home, staring in utter disbelief as his wife inserts a tampon, muttering to himself, “I…I don’t understand…What’s happening???”

As Chesterton put it:

The differences between a man and a woman are at the best so obstinate and exasperating that they practically cannot be got over unless there is an atmosphere of exaggerated tenderness and mutual interest.  To put the matter in one metaphor, the sexes are two stubborn pieces of iron; if they are to be welded together, it must be while they are red-hot…

Great. More metaphors. Besides, if men and women are so irreconcilably different, doesn’t that mean same sex marriage might be the better option?

Therefore, as Fr. Vandenberg goes on to emphasize, sexual intercourse is not merely a permitted “perk” or a reluctantly tolerated means of procreation but rather a vital and holy part of marriage…

If there’s one thing that makes my skin crawl, it’s a fundamentalist attempting to talk about sex. Seriously, if someone came up to me and said, “I slid my hard cock into her wet pussy, stuck my finger up her ass, and fucked her while she called me ‘daddy’ and cried,” it wouldn’t skeeve me out as much as the sentence quoted above. Not even if he added, “Then I made her lick expired Miracle Whip off my taint.”

…a divinely sanctioned means of demonstrating and intensifying conjugal love to make it withstand the rigors attendant upon raising children.

That’s how you see sex? It makes it easier to raise your kids? Fucking weirdo. How the fuck do you get off calling the gays “perverts” when this is what’s going through your mind when you fuck your wife?

Fortunately, as with all animals, men and women have the proper equipment for such activities.

He means cocks and cunts, which not all animals have.

The corresponding parts of the male and female body interact quite neatly for both mutual pleasure and procreation.

I feel so sorry for any woman you have ever slept with.

Not so for homosexual men and women. Whether or not there is anything wrong with their desires, they simply don’t have the proper apparatus to fulfill them.

This is entirely predicated on you knowing what they desire. You do not. Like all sanctimonious busybodies, you just assume you know what everybody’s business is and insert yourself into it. I’m not gay, but I would bet that if you said this to a gay person, their response would be to tell you to take your proper apparatus and fuck yourself with it.

They must resort to clumsy makeshifts, like cargo cult devotees trying to make airplanes out of straw.

A cargo cult is a phenomenon observed on Pacific islands after WWII. During the war, many islands, inhabited by hunter-gatherer tribes who had little contact with the outside world or modern technology, became the home of make-shift airfields. The soldiers at these airfields sometimes shared what they were flying in with the natives, who referred to it as “cargo”. After the war, the airplanes and soldiers (and cargo) disappeared, and on some islands new religions emerged in which the natives built airplanes out of bamboo and straw to try to make the cargo come back. They obviously had no idea how an airplane actually works. The physicist Richard Feynman used cargo cults as a metaphor for pseudoscience–someone who reconstructs the superficial appearance of something, but has no comprehension of its inner workings. Mr. Shlichta is invoking this idea.

Keep this in mind when he quotes Vonnegut later.

Alternatively, they submit to grotesque operations, trying to alter their bodies to suit their desires. The artificiality of these attempts to mimic normal sexuality will inevitably distort the emotions that arise from them and will tend to adversely affect any children living with them.

You know that part of the Bible where Jesus says, “Judge not, lest ye be judged”? Yeah, Christians just kinda ignore that. They fucking LOVE judging people, and this article is just dripping with judgmental attitude.

You see those transgender people? They’re grotesque! And they’re just trying to mimic MY sexuality, which is totally NORMAL. It’s normal to view sex as primarily geared towards making you raise kids better. I’m normal! They’re the grotesque weird perverted ones!

Homosexuals who engage in such desperate expedients shouldn’t be condemned for wanting to do so. As the psychoanalyst in Kurt Vonnegut’s God Bless You Mr. Rosewater  explained:

Let’s assume that a healthy young man is supposed to be sexually aroused by an attractive woman not his mother or sister. if he’s aroused by other things, another man, say, or an umbrella, or the ostrich boa of the Empress Josephine or a sheep or a corpse or his mother or a stolen garter belt, he is what we call a pervert. Let us hasten on to the admission that every case of perversion is essentially a case of crossed wires…

Vonnegut was being sarcastic, you fucking nitwit. All you have to do is just read a little further down the page to see that. Here’s what immediately follows the Vonnegut quote above:

Mother Nature and Society order a man to take his sex to such and such a place and do thus and so with it. Because of the crossed wires, the unhappy man enthusiastically goes straight to the wrong place, proudly, vigorously does some hideously inappropriate thing; and he can count himself lucky if he is simply crippled for life by a police force rather than killed by a mob.

You see that part about police brutality and lynch mobs at the end? That’s the part where a rational mind reflects on what he/she read before and realizes it shouldn’t be taken on face value, that Vonnegut is actually making a quite different point than what a literal reading of the words might indicate. It’s called fucking irony. But for our noble busybodies at the American Thinker, that just doesn’t register with them. They see “pervert” and their feeble minds go no further.

In fact, there is neurological evidence that at least some homosexuals are wired differently and cannot help their proclivities. Others contend that homosexuality may be one of the aftereffects of sexual abuse during childhood. In recognition of such factors, the Catechism of the Catholic Church proposes the apparent paradox of condemning homosexual acts while urging that people afflicted with homosexuality be treated with sympathy.

Every major psychiatric organization has reached a consensus that homosexuality is not dangerous and should not be treated as a disorder. So everything in this paragraph is pseudoscientific bullshit that has no bearing on modern psychological medicine.

But we cannot debase the whole concept of sex and marriage merely to oblige them. The objective of what a gay activist has called the “”war we’ve already won” is to reduce marriage to a lowest-common-denominator status that will inevitably include polygamy, which is already being touted on ABC-TV as  “normal” and being campaigned for in Canada. That’s too high a price to pay for making homosexuals feel better about themselves.

None of this follows from anything you’ve said above. Not a single bit of it can be logically inferred from anything that proceeds it in the article. It’s just yet another bigot declaring by fiat that gays are evil because imaginary Jesus says so.

And the gay marriage initiative is not about making gays feel better about themselves. It’s about treating them like humans who have the same rights as other humans. Honestly, I don’t give a fuck about how they feel. All I care about is treating people equally.

Unfortunately, the institution of marriage is currently being attacked by several forces that, deliberately or inadvertently, are destroying it and thereby undermining our society:

  • The current fad of cohabitation. Single mothers usually do not assume this role voluntarily but are forced to do so by the perfidy and selfishness of men who desert them when they become pregnant. In consequence, the children suffer from the absence of a father and seek a male role model and mentor, often by joining gangs.
  • Ultrafeminists, who regard men as “the enemy”. They encourage the idea that men are unnecessary for raising children and regard lesbian couples as the new “normal”. To this end, they cite psychological studies that fall apart when examined.
  • Our protosocialist state, which seeks to diminish the concept of family in order to make the state the primary “parent”. This may be one reason why liberals are so enthusiastic about same-sex marriage — because it weakens the status and importance of families.

Now we’ve degenerated into the all-too-typical right wing freak out about how gays and feminists will destroy the universe. I especially love how his first point (aside from confusing cohabitation with single mothers) puts all the blame on men, and then his second point puts all the blame on “ultrafeminists” who supposedly hate men. Make up your mind, assfuck.

But whatever the causes, the debasement of the concepts of marriage and family will destroy us. Lycurgus achieved it in ancient Sparta and produced a nation of racist brutes. The USSR tried it, with partial success, in the last century and begat a dysfunctional society that is now painfully groping its way back to normality. These are hardly encouraging precedents. The legalization of same-sex marriage is a decisive step down that slippery slope.

Neither the Spartans nor the Soviets legalized gay marriage. And, in fact, both society’s were actually quite conservative. And Lycurgus, as our primary source Plutarch even admits, probably never even existed. He’s a legend, cobbled together from the storied lives of several different Spartan kings.

Of course, I’m not at all surprised that your ultimate evidence is fables and legends. That’s all religion is good for.