It takes a nation to protect the nation
I've been protesting/challenging the gay hatred on some counter-jihad sites for years. But it carries on regardless. So clearly, the people who run these sites don't care to restrain/censor this manifestation of Nazism (they block postings by jew-haters/anti-jewish conspiracy theories).
So there's nothing to do but to start to document the frequency of these incidents which promote hatred of gay people. I've seen several cases of people in the counter-jihad movement saying "the islamisation of the west is the fault of gays". Never mind that the vast majority of gay people in the west recognise that islam is fundamentally anti-gay, and that ALL the evidence points to gays being the group who muslims hate most (more than jews).
I'll post the links, and people who are interested can visit the page and search for the word "gay". Perhaps after 100 or so of these links mount up, others in the counter-jihad movement will begin to recognise just how many Nazis there are following such sites.
Those who think that such counter-jihad sites do not have a crypto-Nazi agenda can explain why it is that they would block such posts if they were about some supposed jewish conspiracy, but not when it is about a supposed gay conspiracy.
If it wasn't for jews/Leftists having done such a good job of making the world aware of the Nazi persecution of jews, I see no reason to think that the counter-jihad movement wouldn't be pinning the islamisation of the west on jews as well as gays. But the people who are so ready to keep promoting the persecution of gays know that they would be easily cast in the role of Nazi if they were to do the same with jews, so that acts as a brake on them publishing stories which invoke anti-jewish conspiracy theories as the explanation for the islamisation of the west.
That gays were hated and persecuted by Nazis seems to be generally forgotten. And these defenders of western civilisation who criticise islam are perfectly ready to blame/persecute gays too. The question they should be asking themselves is: "what has this story got to do with stopping islam?" And if it hasn't got anything to do with it, then they should ask themselves why they are publishing it.
So, the party calling itself "Liberty GB" opposes same-sex marriage.
Anyone know if Paul Weston is married or divorced? If they really want to roll back the clock, they'd make divorce illegal. But then, would they roll back the clock to 1950, or to 1533?
Joe - 2nded ! - Liberty GB were quite promising at first, but with this seem to have been drifting back into the "right wing mire of cliches", they seem to be promoting bible-bashers, Enza Ferreri seemingly the foremost of these, if they persist with this they will be no bigger than the rest of the alphabet soup of failed "nationalist parties", and the muslims and leftists will march on.
TBH them forming a political party is a waste of time and money. I suppose they think they are doing some good, but they're pissing in the wind. They'd be better looking at ways to spend time and money more productively fighting islam. After all, if it's taken the Dutch the assassination of Pim Fortuyn and the attempted assassination of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the 24x7 police protection of Geert Wilders AND still they don't have the PVV with any power in Holland, a country with PR -- what on earth do LibertyGB expect to achieve in a country with the most ossified political system in Europe?
They'd have been better to set themselves up as a "hit squad" on Twitter, who took on debate on islam, and simply demolished all the arguments. That's not going to stop islam, but it is as much use as LibertyGB is.
Gates of Vienna had no problem editing and publishing this article. When I responded with a criticism of it, they accused me of being selective, then said that no more comments on homophobia were going to be permitted.
The Delights of Faithlessness
Part 3: What Is To Be Done?
I have described a self-serving, immensely empowering and gratifying worldview, one that protects one from the adverse consequences of failure and betrayal by transferring allegiance away from those supposedly to be served to the group of which they are a part; one that is hermetically sealed off from argument, from evidence, from shame and guilt, from remorse, and from contrition and penitence by means of group solidarity. This worldview, if not vigorously combatted, will lead the West to drift inexorably away from republican forms of government and toward a fascist variant, one that in time, as tensions and contradictions become more apparent and more insoluble, will evolve from a soft despotism into something harder and more overtly menacing.
What then is to be done?
Freud said, “Reason is no avail against human passion.” It certainly is of no avail against this hermetically sealed worldview, one that privileges holders and leads them to believe that they possess a special kind of esoteric insight that renders them immune from criticism by “know nothings.”
So what is to be done? Certainly not to bewail our fate. Nor to attempt to re-analyze our situation, which God knows has been endlessly analyzed by minds far better than mine. Nor can it be to make impassioned appeals to our faithless leaders, almost all of whom share French Socialist Premier Hollande’s contempt for the “toothless” poor, whom Trierweiler reports he calls the sans dents. Most members of traditional-values coalitions and the counterjihad are certainly poor, and any amount of money we could raise would pale in comparison to the wealth the oligarchs and governmental elites can mobilize.
Some in the counterjihad hope that when the day of overt conflict comes, the governing elites will have no choice but to side with the indigenous population. I think this is by no means certain. What is clear to me is that European leaders fear widespread civil unrest. And they do so for many reasons:
1) They fear widespread Muslim military defections, and even Muslim soldiers turning on their own comrades. 2) EU countries are financially broke and have decimated their military budgets to prop up their expensive social welfare systems, so that it may no longer be adequate to the task of containing widespread insurrection. 3) They fear that a prolonged civil insurrection and the devastation wrought by it will break the economy.
These fears, which all but ensure a continued dual policy of appeasement of Muslims and intimidation of their non-immigrant populations, are most acute in France and the UK, but exist everywhere Islamic populations are large and militant, e.g. Belgium, Holland, and Germany.
No, there is only one available strategy: Raising consciousness. But raising consciousness does not mean consciousness of our situation. That has already been done. It means raising consciousness of the faithlessness of the West’s ruling elites and their media allies.
Can this be done through reasoned debate? Doubtful. Instead, we must take a page from those on the Left who have waged successful social insurgencies, from those on the Left who understand the futility of reasoned debate where deeply, almost religiously held, beliefs are involved, and who therefore adopt a strategy rooted in relentless psychological intimidation; in essence in psychic warfare.
Take homosexuals. Some in the US, even those sympathetic to their cause, have called gay activists the “gay mafia” for their brutal, take-no-prisoners rhetorical and legal bullying. Like Islamists, gay activists have lied about only wanting acceptance. Like the Islamist, what they really want is to stamp out opposition to their increasingly ambitious agenda, and this they have pursued, like Muslims, by all possible means, including legal bullying. What this means is that one lawsuit won is worth a hundred brilliant analytical essays.
Conclusion? Spend less time writing essays and more time enlisting attorneys like the UK’s Gavin Boby, whose work in stopping the building of mosques in the UK is more valuable than a hundred or even a thousand essays. Ten Gavin Bobys on the loose on behalf of the counterjihad would be worth more than a thousand or even ten thousand brilliant counterjihad essays, because the essays, while they make us feel less alone, do not arouse additional hope and the harnessing of militant energies, whereas even one legal victory does. How much more, then, will ten or a hundred legal victories?
For those who must limit themselves to rhetorical activity, let me stress that being able to return meaningful fire will require that we loosen the rules of civil discourse, and adopt the playbook of the faithless, who rely on ad hominem attacks and the dishonest framing of their opponent’s position more than reasoned argument; who realize that argument exists not to arrive at a deeper understanding of the truth, but to delegitimize not only one’s adversaries’ arguments but their adversaries themselves, by which means they delegitimize their opponents’ very right to hold any respectable position.
To accomplish this will not be easy, and one can expect enormous pushback. But that said, still one must concentrate one’s energies on exposing the pervasive faithlessness and its present and future consequences in media venues that will gain a larger audience than traditional counterjihad websites. One must attack the faithless frontally and if possible, publicly; one must punish them relentlessly, especially their media lapdogs. Maul them. By means of one’s rhetorical blows, make them bleed. You will know you are having an effect when they become as apologetic and defensive as we who oppose them have been forced to become.
How often has one seen a conservative or traditionalist adopt a defensive tone? When can you recall a member of the media, or a Liberal or Leftist politician pre-emptively apologize for fear they will be slandered? In the psychic struggle being fought everywhere in the West, the goal is to define and to avoid definition. Therefore, never apologize, never defend. Follow Patton’s advice: Attack. Attack. And be very personal.
Too ugly, you say. Of course — that’s the point! But that does not mean this playbook does not work. Sadly, it works all too well. We have previously mentioned gays, but others could be mentioned — the Palestinians, for example. Ugliness is how and why the Palestinians successfully delegitimize Israel, despite their militarily losing.
Demonization is the Left’s primary playbook. They argue not that your arguments are poor, but that you are a bad person, and thus no decent person should listen to your arguments. Essentially, your arguments are bad because you are a bad person.
Turn the tables. Show that they are bad people, very bad people.
Obama’s foreign policy is a disaster. Yet so cowed by the pervasive slanderous ugliness are most commentators that the most even courageous commentators can bring themselves to say about it is to paraphrase Dinesh D’Souza’s anti-colonial argument about Obama, namely that Obama thinks US influence in the world has been malign, and that US Global influence and the US footprint should be made smaller for the good of the world. But Obama was not elected to protect the world’s interests but to protect US interests, and those of the citizens he supposedly serves. But he has privately deconstructed his service oath and reconstructed it to serve his larger, more grandiose vision.
EU leaders are even worse, sacrificing national interest almost everywhere, paradoxically even in Germany as Thilo Sarrazin makes clear in his book, Germany Does Away with Itself(Deutschland schafft sich ab). How one must ask, does the behavior of any of these leaders differ from faithlessness to their oath of office? It doesn’t.
One might ask the same thing about EU foreign policy toward the Palestinians. How can all this be reconciled with one’s oath to defend the national interests of any European nation, let alone, the EU? It can’t.
To fully understand the faithlessness of UK and EU leaders, one must analogize it. Imagine the Director of Communicable Disease for Europe arguing that he cannot issue a quarantine because not everyone in the infected area is infected by the pathogen, and to punish the uninfected because of the infected would not be “fair” to them. And yet this is the same argument insisted upon as justification for allowing massive Muslim immigration into Europe, despite the fact that everyone knows that a significant percentage carry the pathogen of Islamic jihad, and that even those who show no present symptoms, may carry a dormant strain of this virulent pathogen.
What would one call such a Director? Would one allow such a Director to finesse such behavior in the name of “fairness”?
In sum, never defend. Only attack. The more one’s attack addresses the true faithlessness manifested at every turn throughout the West from the smallest bureaucrat to that non-entity who is the President of the European Council, where all real decisions are made away from the prying eyes and interfering whims of Euro-sceptics and other European troglodytes.
The more personal and punishing the attack, the more effective it will be.
Here is the response I wrote, before I realised that GoV had decided that no such responses were going to be allowed on this thread.
You think I’m being “sadly selective”. Selective is exactly what you and Thucydides are being. He compares gay activists to islamists and the mafia. Where have gay activists killed their critics? We have the Baron editing Thucydides articles, and neither you nor the Baron clearly have any problem with the bigoted and invalid comparisons being made by Thucydides. When the first gay activists fly planes into the newly-built WTC, get back to me on why the Baron thought this was not a stupid and hate-filled comparison. Until then GoV shamefully cheapens what muslims do. No gay people have assassinated the Westboro Baptist Church or Terry Jones. And gay activists like me have continued to play our role within the counter-jihad movement, even though sites like GoV are happy to peddle homophobia every few days.
I challenge you Dymphna to provide evidence that it is anything other than absolutely exceptional for gay people to refer to straight people as “breeders”. I will bet that from the millions of pages of gay news/activist websites, or the millions of pages of gay magazines and books, you cannot provide more than 10 instances of gay people calling straight people “breeders”. In 35 years of being immersed in gay culture, I can think of a single instance where I have seen that word used: Class War produced a magazine called “Wolverine” around 1990 aimed at gay people, and they had an article where they used that word. That magazine went through about 3 issues, then folded – so popular was its antagonistic attitude towards straight people.
Why does Thucydides find it necessary to invoke the idea of a “gay mafia”, when there are some people using the legal system to demand rights? Would GoV have allowed him to make the same claims about a “jewish mafia” doing this? The mafia used extreme violence and the fear of such violence to extract money in an extra-judicial fashion. How is that anything other than a hate-filled image when applied to people who use the courts to extract damages (whether those people be jewish or gay). Why doesn’t he instead refer to a “jewish mafia” using brutal legal and rhetorical means to stop discrimination against jews?
I see stories surface at places like GoV where businesses in the US are (supposedly) penalised for refusing to serve gay customers. Does GoV think that businesses should be able to refuse to serve jews or blacks? I doubt you will answer that question. Talk about selective.
The homophobia that surfaces on GoV every few days (usually through your “unedited” newsfeed) would not be allowed by you if it was targeting jews and any demands “jew activists” make not to be treated as second class citizens: I suspect your “unedited” news feed is indeed selective in not pushing anti-jewish submissions. Perhaps some of your funders are jewish, and you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you. Perhaps you don’t want GoV to be a magnet for Nazis (little realising that they will be drawn to homophobia as well as anti-semitism).
Just like the behaviour of some “gay activists” might be useful for the Left to destabilise society, so is GoV useful for those who would like to see a eugenic society return. The UK has not seen a transformation in attitudes and rights of gay people due to a “gay mafia”, and the UK has got mosque busters and an anti-islamic street protest movement (with a gay division). Thucydides is clueless when it comes to activism, and I doubt that Thucydides even practices what he preaches.
“Conclusion? Spend less time writing essays and more time enlisting attorneys like the UK’s Gavin Boby, whose work in stopping the building of mosques in the UK is more valuable than a hundred or even a thousand essays. ”
What does Thucydides do? He writes 3 lengthy essays for GoV, advising others what to do. Has he spent anything like that amount of time actually helping Gavin Boby fight mosques? Of course not. It’s left up to activists like me and my friends to actually do things, whilst Thucydides advises us from on high about what needs to be done.
I know of gay activists who have left the counter-jihad movement, precisely because they were sick and tired of the homophobia found at Gates of Vienna. And it makes me question why I bother too. It’s not my children and grandchildren who are going to be fighting the civil war.
It's clear that to those who run GoV and most of their respondents, gay rights is as big a threat to the west as is islam.
I am trying to catch up in things, any-howz I opened up the above link then opened the link to Shoebats sight.
Seems that Walid Shoebat is not the only raving loon in the family
Interesting comments as to Shoebats credibility ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walid_Shoebat