March 10, 2012

Chris Hughes buys The New Republic

Ever since Obama got elected, it's sure started to seem as if the whole black thing that had been going on for half a century was losing momentum. Or at least homosexual activists have been acting as if blacks were so 2008 and that gay is the new black

But the news that The New Republic magazine was being sold to Chris Hughes, one of the Facebook founders and head of Obama's social media campaign in 2008 seemed weird. I didn't know much about Hughes, so I turned to Wikipedia and found this picture and biographical detail:
Hughes grew up in Hickory, North Carolina, as the only child of Arlen "Ray" Hughes, a paper salesman, and Brenda Hughes, a public-school teacher.

That seemed an odd fate for the magazine long run by Marty Peretz, who always made sure that it reflected his effusion of 1968: 
"I have been in love only three times in my life. I was in love with my college roommate. I am in love with the state of Israel and I love Gene McCarthy." 

What happened? Granted, The New Republic is a money pit and Hughes has Facebook Money.  But, still, The New Republic has been sold to some guy from Hickory, North Carolina? 

So, if gay is the new black, does this mean that goy is the new gay? Very strange ...

(By the way, I like to check Google to see if my insights are novel. Has anybody ever said "gay is the new black" before me, or did I just make that up? Why, yes, that phrase, in quotes, brings up 855,000 pages. So, other than the 849,999 who beat me to it, I was the first to notice that. On the other hand, "goy is the new gay" has never been said before in the history of the Internet, which suggests that nobody has noticed before it because it's not true.)

Then, it dawned on me ... 

And, sure enough, farther down in the Wikipedia article, we find the expected: "Hughes is gay ..."

I've long had a hunch that the future of American society is going to look like a cross between Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash and the Ottoman Empire. Perhaps gays then will become, in effect, one of the ethnic power blocs, just one generated anew each generation?

125 comments:

W Baker said...

" Perhaps gays then will become, in effect, one of the ethnic power blocs, just one generated anew each generation?"

A perfect amen corner for our evolving Trotskyite/NeoCon/Likud philosophy of perpetual but creative destruction.

Henry Canaday said...

When they’re still saying “...once edited by Walter Lippmann,” a century later, you know the brand is in trouble. Peretz, Kinsley and acrylic cover art at least made The New Republic funny in the early1980s, and I agreed with Peretz on foreign policy and Arabs. Kaus was sane and Wieseltier was challengingly ornate. But what was the last Lippmann-sized idea, both new and true, broached in the magazine?

PublicSphere said...

Marty Peretz's ex-wife's stepmother's mother was Marie Curie!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/arts/25labouisse.html

Grumpy Old Man said...

Your reference to the Ottomans and a bloc recreated every generation brings to mind the Janissaaries, who were boys taken from the Christian subjects of the Empire, forcibly converted to Islam, trained militarily, and became quite powerful. A cross between the Spartans and Monty Python's mincing pansy brigade.

I feel a dystopian screenplay coming on. Bring whisky and my laptop!

Anonymous said...

"Gay is the new black" is so old. It's more like "gay is the new Jew." After all, many gay folks schmooze with Jews at the top, and indeed many prominent Jews are gay. How many black people--even rich ones--do you see buying intellectual magazines?
Btw, isn't Tim Cook gay too, and he also hails from the American South.
Gays and Jews seem to be more serious about academic and intellectual matters whereas white conservatives tend to be dead in areas that will dominate the world of tomorrow. It's like 'white conservative is the new Mexican'. John McCains, Dan Quayles, Sarah Palins, and Pat Buchanans of the world aren't masters of anything. And it seems like the wives of the Bushes and McCains are all for 'gay marriage' too, so, what does that tell you? As yrs, more Americans drop out of traditional religion and values while even conservatives have not only signed onto the cult of MLK but are jumping on the bandwagon of 'gay marriage' and etc.
And after the AIDS epidemic wiped out many outrageous/rebellious gays, the movement fell into the hands of 'responsible' father-knows-besty gays, and these types tend to win over conservatives too. Even I would prefer a gay neighbor to a black one.
And though crazy gays may be artistically more creative, most of the money is made not through expressiveness but organization and business, and 'responsible gays' tend to be more adept at such things than wild gays. And so, we have the rise of Chris Hughes of the world.

Anonymous said...

Another thing. It doesn't matter who owns the New Republic or New York Times. The fact is they're branded as 'Liberal Jewish Institutions', and rich people who invest in them--Slim or Hughes--do so for that reason: with the understanding that liberal Jews are at the forefront of American liberalism and that supporting institutions that give voice to liberal Jews is a great way to further American liberalism.
So, this isn't news. It'd be news if Rush Limbaugh had bought the magazine.

Also, Hughes, as a smart Southern boy, would have spent a lot of time reading intellectual stuff, and much of it would have been by liberal Jews, and so even though he's not Jewish, he came under the influence of Jewish thinkers and pundits since they seemed to him so much more intelligent than stuff from the Right--mostly dominated by moronic talk radio which is 99% about opinionating and 1% about thinking.

Imagine yourself as white, Southern, and gay growing up as a child. The religious Right goes around saying 'God Hates Fags' and 'Fags will burn in hell'. And ruffians and boors beat you up and call you names. For a sensitive gay guy, coming upon THE NEW REPUBLIC and other such publications would have been like milk and honey.

And even if Hughes were not gay, there are many privileged/educated people in the South who feel ashamed at the low level of cultural activity and creativity among traditional white Southerners with their hee-haw drawl and good ole boy guns, hustler magazines, and Bible. For such a person, liberal Jewish/gay culture seems ever so more sophisticated and interesting than what's found in communities around him. I think REM also hails from the South, and again, we see the same pattern as with Tim Cook and Hughes. Southern boys go left because Southern traditional culture is so dumb, simple-minded, and boorish.

Anonymous said...

Culturally and intellectually, it seems one gay is the equal of a 10,000 conservatives. Sad.

And even among conservatives, neocons took over because the Paleo-cons were so lacking in ideas. AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE magazine is a good start because it promises a new kind of Right that is energetic, alternative, and culturally engaged--though the idea of Scott McConnell, who endorsed Buchanan in 2008--makes me sick to my stomach.

Anonymous said...

One of the advantages of Tolerance on the Left is that it attracts top talent from all groups: gays, Jews, women, blacks(music and sports especially), etc.

In contrast, the culture of Intolerance of the Right tends to favor anxious but uncreative lower-middle-class folks who may be hardworking and all that but rarely don't do great things. In Timothy Stanley's book on Buchanan, we learn most of Buchanan's supporters during his Presidential runs were under-educated white people, the kind who never amount to much in terms of elite institutional power. As we know from Mexico itself, numbers alone aren't enough. There may be more mestizos and Indians than whites in Mexico, but whites dominate because they have access/gain entry to elite positions. If you control the mind, you control the body. Buchanan appealed to the gut, but it's the mind that decides what the gut must digest.

And when uncreative lower-middle class people do have kids with exceptional talent, the kids gravitate toward liberalism not because they agree with everything liberal but they feel that the liberal realm offers more opportunities and freedom of thought. Sure, there is PC intolerance but it is sold as intolerance of intolerance, which to a lot of minorities and oddballs is acceptable or a necessary evil. It's like the Right supports the death penalty, which is like official murder of murderers. Murder is wrong, but murdering a murderer is okay, and indeed the Right argues it's not murder but morally justified 'execution'. Similarly, people on the Left think that PC intolerance isn't really intolerance but a justified set of rules to discourage and punish intolerance.

Therefore, many creative people associate liberal tolerance with allowing all sorts of artistic, scientific, ethnic, racial, and cultural expressions while they associate conservative tolerance with encouragement of views such as 'God hates fags' and 'blacks are dumber'. I don't know about God and blacks may generally be less intelligent, but such views sound offensive and hurtful to many people, not least because they're espoused by 'racists' with a certain social agenda. Issues of black IQ isn't merely to find out the truth but to formulate an anti-black agenda that prevents black immigration and to find ways to control black birthrates. They may well be justified, but they don't sound very nice to progressive society that believes in giving a fair break to all people who were supposedly created equal.

Anonymous said...

I am in love with the state of Israel


What? Somebody must have made that up. I have it on good authority that all Jews love America first and foremost, and that to suggest otherwise is akin to Nazism.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps gays then will become, in effect, one of the ethnic power blocs, just one generated anew each generation?"

Yup, and under ObamaCare we will subsidize IVF for Lesbian mothers and Gay sperm donors to grow this oppressed group. Soon all power will be in the hands of a geek/gay/NAM alliance, who will annihilate their enemies with armed drones, 24/7 surveillance with swarm technology, and cyber warfare.

The triumph of the high IQ geek/gay elite is perhaps not something devoutly to be wished for.

Anonymous said...

I have the vague impression that gays are less likely than straights to fall for all the "clash of civilizations Israel is our bestest friend ever" crap. And that gays are over-represented in the Israeli left. This despite all the efforts of pinkwashing Israel. So could be a big change at TNR.

Anonymous said...

How does the left's support for Muslim immigration and the Arab Spring reconcile with gays being the new blacks? If gay trumps black, does Islam trump both or hasn't the left looked that far ahead?

Anon87 said...

OT: This is actually from the Onion, but the non-fiction side.

Rock music makes you racist

Anonymous said...

I didn't need to read it: the small photo sent my gaydar off. True.

Maya said...

Look at him! I think if the two of us were sitting in a room, and a man walked in, I'd feel an involuntary sense of competition rise within me.

Is there a correlation between being pretty and being gay?

Anonymous said...

Goy the new gay? We finally be a protected minority?

Maya said...

Wait, one more thing...

In love with the state of Israel? Is this fellow meant to be Jewish? You know, how they've tested Ashkenazi Jews and found a respectable-ish amount of Middle Eastern genetic make up and an equally respectable amount of Southern European roots... I want THIS guy tested.

Worked in PR and Knows a Gay Face said...

I suspected Chrissie was gay when I saw his face.

"Gay Face"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=something-queer-about-that-face

As the article suggests, this becomes more ingrained as the gay ages. By the time they are past 40 most of them look like old lesbians.

Hm.

Matthew said...

Is gay cultural dominance what happens when women have careers, and straight men can't rely on them to manage the kids and the home? Is fertility collpase and the insolvent nanny state the result of same?

Best of luck to Hughes. He may own The New Republic, but he'll never control the editorial direction. Another software/internet tycoon, John Warnock of Adobe, has poured a shitload of his money into Salon.com, which currently has a market cap of $0.2 million.

Anonymous said...

gays will replace.. well. gays in the ottoman empire - i think you're going to see an effeminized 'elite' and mark my words, widespread pederasty - the NYT was just estatic over the fact the state department was telling solidiers in afghanistan not to 'judge' pederasty man/boy relationships among afgans.

This is a return to decadent, prechristian europe - complete with infanticide which is now not simply contained to abortion.

It also remembles another place - Moorish spain that was a 'golden age' in the eyes of a certain ethnic group (not so golden for iberian christians though)

beowulf said...

If you've got a vast fortune, I suppose there are worse things to burn money on. Hughes can't possibly be less sane than Peretz so TNR only stands to benefit from the change.

Anonymous said...

It's a shame that he's gay, he's quite handsome.

I'm a straight Asian man btw.

fb said...

To have only one child...and he turns out gay. But then he becomes a zillionaire! I guess his father doesn't know whether to laugh or cry :-)

Get Off My Lawn! said...

Hughes grew up in Hickory, North Carolina, as the only child of Arlen "Ray" Hughes, a paper salesman, and Brenda Hughes, a public-school teacher.

Hughes, who's not yet 30 years old, went to Phillips Andover, which presumably is what led to Harvard, Facebook and to his eventually being, according to Wikipedia, an "invitee of the Bilderberg Group." Quite a meteoric rise for the son of paper salesman from a blue-collar town in North Carolina.

So, how did he get into Phillips Andover, and what are the chances that he would have gotten into Harvard if he had been an equally smart and talented graduate of Hickory High School?

Anonymous said...

Nowadays Nordish males are really only allowed access to elite niches, especially for things like media, if they're gay.

helene edwards said...

TNR subscriber 1986-92 here. To answer Henry Canaday, the last new and true idea broached in the magazine, at least from a liberal perspective, was that it might be reasonable for D.C. shopkeepers, before admitting anyone to their store, to check the prospective entrant's race. I seem to remember this as a cover story around '92when there had been an epidemic of local smash and grabs. I always got the feeling that TNR writers were of the opinion that, "blacks just can't help it."

smead jolley said...

Well, it's good to know, from that link Steve provided, that libs will even attack a gay man for his "racist" views on Arabs. I guess the answer must be that before dissing Arabs, Peretz wasn't solid enough on blacks. Otherwise, he'd have established cover?

Harvardese said...

That wiki page is going to be of interest to future archaeologists deciphering 2012 meritocratic America: "Jumo is a non-profit social network organization which 'aims to help people find ways to help the world'"

Marlowe said...

Will the world finally listen to the voice of Reason? Shall Carlos Slim purchase a former U.S. Navy nuclear aircraft carrier? Watch for the Aleut nuclear menace. When will The Gipper dollar bill make an appearance?

BTW: did Marty go clean for Gene?

SFG said...

Explain the Ottoman Empire reference? You may be right, and I suspect you are, I just don't see the connection. Kinky stuff in the harems?

Daybreaker said...

"Perhaps gays then will become, in effect, one of the ethnic power blocs, just one generated anew each generation?

No.

When through chronic mass non-White immigration and the tacit suppression of affordable White family formation there's a sufficiently stable anti-White demographic majority, one that like Samuel L. Jackson votes for people that look like them for that reason alone, "minority rights" will have served its purpose and hit its use-by date. Then it will be "majority rule" for breakfast, lunch and dinner, as in South Africa.

And then it will be "White devils" even as the last few thousand are reduced to nothing, as in Zimbabwe, if not a quick finish as in Haiti.

There is not going to be any social space for people like Chris Hughes. He is just participating in the destruction of his own future.

Whiskey said...

Steve-- gays are a minor demo force, only the power of White professional women make them important. So I would not count them as a major player. Gays are fairly absent in Silicon Valley.

Nor do I think we will see the Ottoman Empire or Brazil, rather a crash between Green Dreams and other utopian schemes of the White post Puritan elite, the newly manufactured hillbillies among Whites who are ethnically cleansed out of places like California (think Northern Ireland only continent wide) and the Mexodus which is totally dependent on White support. You've speculated on the stolen generation coming, and that is spot on, because that's the only way to even potentially fund the Green Dreams. It will fail of course, and the wild card is the Hillbillies finding a Napoleon or Cromwell or such. The Mexodus has the numbers but not the wealth.

bjdubbs said...

Does that kid shave? Seriously it's like looking in a mirror, if I had no facial hair. And a couple billion.

Anonymous said...

"Is there a correlation between being pretty and being gay?"

I posted the comment above yours.

I wouldn't call him "pretty" at all, nor ugly nor unattractive as a person, not even feminine. There's simply something unmasculine about him.

Actually, the more I think about it, I think the word I am looking for is "pre-pubertal."

Anonymous said...

"Nowadays Nordish males are really only allowed access to elite niches, especially for things like media, if they're gay."

Excellent point. It gives the other elites their progressive street cred. Next you know, they'll be sporting visible tattoos that profess their tolerance.

Anonymous said...

"He's quite handsome."

He doesn't look as if he's entered adulthood. It's that look boys have when they are about 10 or 11.

Matt said...


Hughes, who's not yet 30 years old, went to Phillips Andover, which presumably is what led to Harvard, Facebook and to his eventually being, according to Wikipedia, an "invitee of the Bilderberg Group." Quite a meteoric rise for the son of paper salesman from a blue-collar town in North Carolina.

So, how did he get into Phillips Andover, and what are the chances that he would have gotten into Harvard if he had been an equally smart and talented graduate of Hickory High School?


In the old, ignorant days, a meteoric rise like that would give rise to speculation about his having been surreptitiously sired by somebody rich and powerful, someone who maybe pulled strings behind the scenes for him his whole life, and then owned him.

Of course, PC and our feigned belief in meritocracy have made such speculation unthinkable now.

Anonymous said...

Gays are fairly absent in Silicon Valley.

Far from it.

The most powerful CEO of Silicon Valley, Tim Cook of Apple, is, like Chris Hughes, a gay man of southern non-elite origin.

Peter Thiel, who co-founded Paypal and served as its CEO, is a gay immigrant from Germany. He is a billionaire and one of the biggest venture capitalists in Silicon Valley, with a large stake in Facebook. And, this will warm your heart, he is an outspoken conservative unlike Chris Hughes.

not a hacker said...

He looks like a possibly less snarky version of David Spade.

Anonymous said...

Since so many are remarking on his looks, I will too:

He kinda reminds me of Julian Assange of Wikileaks, who also started out as a computer programmer and became an activist.

Wes said...

I believe there was a study that showed gay men were actually less attractive by objective measures than straight men.

So, are we supposed to just smile and be like "golly gee wiz", while we turn into the Ottoman Empire? Won't there at least be some respectable protest?

Svigor said...

Goy the new gay? We finally be a protected minority?

Well, they're working on the minority part. Protected? Not so much.

Anonymous said...

he is an outspoken conservative unlike Chris Hughes.
no he is libertarian, far from conservative...

Anonymous said...

I could tell he was gay just by looking at him. I also agree with DAYBREAKER'S comments. This gets me to wondering. Why are so many Gays, from pretty much all walks of life and backgrounds, so liberal and left-wing? Anyone?

Anonymous said...

By the way, the englishman Alan Turing, who is considered the father of computer science, was a convicted homosexual (it was a crime in England then). That humiliation led to him committing suicide by eating a poisoned apple.

Hmmm, now I am wondering whether the half-eaten apple that was found by Turing's body could be the inspiration behind the name and the logo of the world-conquering corporation founded by Steve Jobs. Apple has always been gay friendly. Steve Jobs had a habit of wearing tiny denim shorts in the early days of Apple. Not a fashion choice a straight man would make. And there are rumors of Jonathan Ive, chief designer at Apple, and close friend of Jobs, being gay. Mark Zukerberg also looks gay to me. Maybe that is why there are so many gays associated with Facebook at the highest level?

Interesting. One could make up a conspiracy theory about gays from this material.

Anonymous said...

no he is libertarian, far from conservative...

Peter Thiel is a very outspoken conservative-libertarian Republican. He supported Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Not all Republicans are homophobic, evangelical, lower-IQ types.

Beecher Asbury said...

White post Puritan elite

OK, I give up. Explain why Puritans are bad. I am getting tired of all this hate directed at the Puritans. I thought the Puritans were good. Their work ethic and ethos was legendary and led to the Yankee industrial revolution. They also established our oldest most prestigious institutions of higher learning, e.g. Harvard, Yale, etc.

If Americans still had the Puritan work ethic, we'd be studying as hard as NE Asians. We'd not be hooked on drugs, alcohol and porn. We'd have less crime. In short we'd be a more peaceful and functional society.

Please explain why I should dislike these quiet, industrious and most capable people.

Anonymous said...

Yes, what Daybreaker said. The old fashioned dystopia of violent chaos will always trump the end-of-history, progressive dystopia.

Gilbert Pinfold.

Anonymous said...

"I could tell he was gay just by looking at him. I also agree with DAYBREAKER'S comments. This gets me to wondering. Why are so many Gays, from pretty much all walks of life and backgrounds, so liberal and left-wing? Anyone?"

They take female status seeking into the male status market, and the "traditional" response to that is not one that they like.

Be of good cheer though, having to live down the street from a muslim cleric who pontificates on whether defenstration or having walls toppled on gays is the best way to kill them usually clears up any leftism on their part.

Harry said...

Another goyische sucker.

The New Republic is now past its expiration date, seeing as its twin goals of destroying the white American nation and establishing Greater Israel have become a fait accompli.

Anonymous said...

1960s: feigning homosexuality to avoid the draft.

2010s: feigning homosexuality to get a job.

Anonymous said...

"Imagine yourself as white, Southern, and gay growing up as a child. The religious Right goes around saying 'God Hates Fags' and 'Fags will burn in hell'. And ruffians and boors beat you up and call you names."

Wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute. A lot of gays have told me most gays are just as masculine as any average straight guy, that it's just an old, incorrect stereotype that they're feminine and can be recognized so what'dya mean saying this guy likely heard such stuff?

Anonymous said...

Culturally and intellectually, it seems one gay is the equal of a 10,000 conservatives. Sad.

Um.

Gay troll alert.

Have you seen the crap that passes for art in the past century?

Gays as mega intellectuals? What the...?

Put down the crack pipe, man.

What complete idiocy.

Anonymous said...

One of the advantages of Tolerance on the Left is that it attracts top talent from all groups: gays, Jews, women, blacks(music and sports especially), etc.

In contrast, the culture of Intolerance of the Right tends to favor anxious but uncreative lower-middle-class folks who may be hardworking and all that but rarely don't do great things



What a load of crap. The left isn't more tolerant. It just promotes degeneracy to the masses. Providing the simple with guidance is just common sense. Providing them with license and bread and circus is freakin' suicide.

Anonymous said...

Right tends to favor anxious but uncreative lower-middle-class folks who may be hardworking and all that but rarely don't do great things

Yeah, they are so boring. They don't riot, or burn stuff down. What a bunch of losers.

How stupid are you? Lefty social policies don't make people do great things. They just enable dysfunction. Great people are born, dumbass. Puritan culture laid the foundation for success by establishing a high functioning basic society, so that when those great men were born, they wouldn't be living in a hell hole where they could't apply their talents. If Louis Pasteur had been born in some 3rd world dump, then what would he have produced?

Anonymous said...

t's like 'white conservative is the new Mexican'. John McCains, Dan Quayles, Sarah Palins, and Pat Buchanans of the world aren't masters of anything. And it seems like the wives of the Bushes and McCains are all for 'gay marriage' too, so, what does that tell you?

One thing it tells us is that they arent really conservative. The phrase 'controlled opposition' springs to mind.

Henry Canaday said...

Helene,

Henry here. Yes, I agree that TNR was often an island of sanity in liberal Washington in the 80s, but the menace of black stick-up men really wasn’t a new idea, society-wide. And the scope of TNR speculation has considerably narrowed.

TNR writer Noam Scheiber spoke at the Local Lefty Bookstore last night. Scheiber seems an intelligent young man of reasonable temper. His new book addresses the burning question: given Republican intransigence, is Obama a) sincere and b) wise, to seek bipartisan agreement? In other words, given that liberalism is right, which tactics should liberals pursue to advance their goals? That is the debate within the black hole of intellectual liberalism in DC now.

gum said...

"Ever since Obama got elected, it's sure started to seem as if the whole black thing that had been going on for half a century was losing momentum."

Something odd is afoot. Though 2008 promoted Obama as the first viable BLACK presidential candidate, much of the cross-over appeal had to do with his personality that verged on gayness. He was different from the stereotypical black politician who was heavy on testosterone. Though Obama could turn on the juice when he had to, he smiled gayishly and his fist bumps were on the dainty than thuggish side.
If white liberals had long been waiting for a black candidate, why didn't they go with Jesse Jackson in 1988 or with Al Sharpton in 2004? Many white liberals were excited about Colin Powell in 1996, but Powell didn't run. Obama, like Powell, isn't an high octane black personality. Though more proactive than Powell who was maybe TOO WHITE-ISH for liberals--thus giving the game away that white liberals prefer white-ish blacks over blackish ones--, it wouldn't have surprised anyone if Obama did indeed turn out to be gay. He certainly has one of the most gay-ish smiles in the world, so icky it makes my skin crawl.

Gay community now goes by the name LGBT, emphasizing its 'inclusive' sexual ambiguity. According to the LGBT worldview, straight males and females are kinda lame. Straight males are only male while straight females are only female. LGBT folks, in contrast, are a sublime blend of both male and female. They are to sexuality what globalism is to nationality. With profound rise in global interconnectedness, fixed nationalities no longer mean what they used to. One is more than a German, a Frenchman, a Chinese, an Asian-Indian, a Russian, a Iranian, etc, especially in America where people tend to have hyphenated identities: African-American, Jewish-American, Irish-American, Muslim-American, Asian-American, Mexican-American, etc. or, like Tiger Woods, Asian-Black-white-Indian-American.

What with the rapid rises in race mixing, the new ideal--according to PC--is the mixed race person. Obama is black and white--and Tiger Woods is black, Asian, white, etc--, and their racial ambiguity is seen as analogous to the sexual ambiguity in the LGBT community. And so, there was a wink-wink understanding between Obama's racial ambiguity shtick and the gay community's sexual ambiguity shtick. They are supposed to be the combination of the best of black and white OR of male and female--just like a Hindu-American might take pride in combining the best of the East with the best of the West.

gum said...

To the extent that black race is seen as the Masculine race and white race is seen--at least relative to the black race--as the feminine race(due to black male dominance in sports and white female jungle fever for black males, not to mention the wussification of white males), it could be said that a mixed-race black person has been somewhat feminized. Thus, Obama, Tiger Woods, and John McWhorter seem less masculine than most black men. Due to their white genes, they seem somewhat more feminine. So, even if they are not homosexual, they are racially more feminine than most pure black males, and this fact may be appealing to an increasingly gay-izing America. Indeed, the pure black William Sisters(or Michelle Obama) seem more masculine than Obama, Woods, and McWhorter combined. This 'white feminine' side to their personality makes them appealing to the gay community.

There is another odd angle to this. It could be said 'gay is the new conservative'. This is paradoxical since most conservatives oppose the gay agenda and most gays are Democrats. But if conservatism is love of order, organization, discipline, devotion, and commitment, some of the people who exhibit such traits happen to be gay. Sure, there are wild gays, like the ones in the movie CRUISING(by William Friedkin), but there are also many diligent gays who behave in class, do their homework, don't make trouble, are socially cooperative, and wanna get along. Though politically liberal and sexually weird, they exhibit many personal qualities prized by conservatives. They don't act like barbarians, thugs, ruffians, or Hell Angel's. Many of them act like neo-English-gentlemen with finer manners than possessed by most other men. In contrast, many Red State conservative males tend to be wild, boorish, rough, disrespectful, anti-social, and crazy. Take the Buchanan boys when they were young. They often acted like rapping Negroes, crashing parties like drunken thugs. I think this is one reason why some conservatives have warmed up to gays. In their personal dealings, many gays seem so much nicer and more decent to get along with than testosterone raging straight males, black or 'white trash'.

gumosexual said...

"Culturally and intellectually, it seems one gay is the equal of a 10,000 conservatives. Sad."

"Um. Gay troll alert."

Who are calling gay, you lunatic?! I didn't say I like the fact that most gays are liberal and tend to be far more creative than conservative males. It's just a fact that we have to face. Look at theatre. So many gays and no conservative. Look at Hollywood. So many gays and hardly any conservative writer or director.
Look at music, classical and pop. Lots of gays but almost no conservative. What is conservative culture? Country music. Heeeeee-haw.

Anonymous said...

"Since so many are remarking on his looks, I will too."

I think he looks like Ramzpaul. He looks cute but I don't like thin lips, which is why I detest Kenneth Branagh. The man has no lips.

Anonymous said...

TNR is 1/3 Zionist propaganda, 1/3 gay propaganda, and 1/3 excellent art/culture reviews.
Me thinks Hughes bought the magazine because it's so gay.

Glaivester said...

You've speculated on the stolen generation coming, and that is spot on, because that's the only way to even potentially fund the Green Dreams.

How does that work? How does a "stolen generation" (which I presume means taking black kids away from their parents and having the state raise them) fund "Green Dreams?"

Anonymous said...

"Culturally and intellectually, it seems one gay is the equal of a 10,000 conservatives. Sad."

That's why libs talk about you when you walk out of the room, huh?

Maya said...

Dear Gum,

In your long explanations about Masculinity, femininity, blacks, whites and the Williams sisters being more masculine than the half blood Obama and McWorter, you seemed to have argued on the assumption that "feminine"= civilized and capable of complex thoughts and feelings while "masculine"= the exact opposite.

As a woman, i'm flattered that you worship my gender so. However, I must point out that the vast majority of the world's greatest philosophers, poets, writers, artists, musicians, architects and scientists had been men. Furthermore, most of these men had wives and children or were known to chase tail... If the abilities to dress oneself in pants of the correct size, control immediate impulses, communicate clearly, emphasize, envision a goal and work towards it, just to name a few, are such obviously feminine traits, how come, throughout history, the highest masters of these skills tended to be men?

Matthew said...

"So, how did he get into Phillips Andover, and what are the chances that he would have gotten into Harvard if he had been an equally smart and talented graduate of Hickory High School?"

Or, um, straight? Or conservative?

Promoting white, non-Jewish gays is one way for the elite institutions to ensure that the whites they promote to the elite are liberal whites. After all, they can't completely exclude the goys.

"Steve Jobs had a habit of wearing tiny denim shorts in the early days of Apple. Not a fashion choice a straight man would make."

Yes it was, in the early 80s, esp. in California. Gay men have retained the fashion, straight men have not.

"He was different from the stereotypical black politician who was heavy on testosterone"

No he wasn't. He's the same as any black politician - megalomaniac in a way that puts most white pols to shame, and ignoring standard protocol and precedent because he thinks he's "special," or rebellious by so doing - e.g., treating our traditional, European allies like crap while bowing to certain non-white sovereigns, which no American head of state has any right to do.

He believes such acts make him brilliant, special, slightly rebellious, ad nauseum. Just like every other black pol.

Anonymous said...

The founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergei Brin, always looked gay to me. I remember reading how Larry Page once showed up for an interview at a coffee house in skates wearing tiny shorts. Perhaps imitating his idol Steve Jobs?

Google has a well-deserved reputation of being one of the most gay friendly corporations in the world. It's founders have openly supported gay causes, such as coming out strongly against Proposition 8 in California.

Gringo said...

gumosexual:
Look at Hollywood. So many gays and hardly any conservative writer or director.

A problem with your statement is that in order to keep working in Hollywood, many conservatives find it necessary to hide their political affiliations.

Anonymous said...

bowing to certain non-white sovereigns, which no American head of state has any right to do.

Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan was jarring all right.

But far more so was cowboy Bush kissing and holding hands with the Saudi monarch. That was so....gay.


http://mirroronamerica.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-republican-lunacy.html

Anonymous said...

"It's just a matter of time before U.S. tires of Israel"

Interesting Haaretz editorial, but it misses or evades the real point. It's not as if Israel is dictating policy to Americans because it's so powerful. Israel is powerful because American Jews are powerful and control so many of the key institutions in America. Netanhayu could barge into America and talk tough and throw his weight around because his Jewish brethren in the US have ensured that US policy will always be pro-Zionist. Without Jewish power IN America, Israel wouldn't amount to much, and indeed it would be humbly begging for handouts and favors and the leaders of Israel would come crawling on their knees to us.

Steve Sailer said...

"The founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergei Brin, always looked gay to me."

Right, indubitably. Gay billionaires in California, a joint property state, get married to women all the time to cover up because who wouldn't risk billions in a divorce settlement just to have a beard? It's kind of like how Mike Piazza had to be gay because he churned through about ten lingerie models as live-in girlfriends. Clearly, he was trying too hard, and therefore must be gay.

Anonymous said...

"A problem with your statement is that in order to keep working in Hollywood, many conservatives find it necessary to hide their political affiliations."

Some do for sure, but it's no secret that the biggest talents in Hollywood tend to be Jewish, gay, liberal, etc. And if there are so many brilliant conservatives, why couldn't they build their own movie empire? If conservatives can run their own country music empire, why not their own movie empire? Conservatives have to work in liberal dominated Hollywood because there aren't enough creative conservatives in cinema or theater to form critical creative mass.
Conservatives are better at stuff like talk radio which is hardly creative. It's about opinionating than creating. It's like they say: opinions are like aholes; everyone has them. Conservatives certain have opinions on many issues, some of them quite strong. But saying something is good or bad isn't the same as creating stuff that is bad.
It's pathetic how conservatives keep bitching about how liberal-dominated Hollywood makes bad movies or won't make the kind of movies conservatives might like. Did it ever occur to conservatives to create their own enterprises and make their own movies that might be huge successes at the box office? If you don't like what liberals do, do it on your own.

People like Kevin MacDonald accuse Jews of culture of critique, but whether coc is good or bad, Jews don't just critique but produce, compose, create, write, and direct a lot of music, books, plays, movies, etc. And they're only 2% of the population. And though Jews are greatly privileged now, they started with virtually nothing when they came to America. People like Macdonald thus fail not only at critique but in creation. They decry much that comes out of Hollywood but offer nothing as an alternative.

Anonymous said...

Since when did getting married preclude one from being bi-sexual/gay? That is like saying being an avowed celibate catholic priest precludes one from being a gay pedophile.

The past owner of New Republic was married for 42 years, and is gay.

Quite a few married Republican politicians have been outed as gay.

There is also the pre-nuptial agreement in California to consider.

imaginary hip gay friend said...

If he'd stayed at Hickory High he would have gone on to the state basketball finals right? Anyways, not having kids is one obvious method to being rich so I'd say the Dan Brown puzzle of gay Bilderbergers was solved decades ago. By the way that picture of Peretz linked by Steve above is a hoot. The only photos I'd ever seen of him were back when he was just a teen Harvard prof, with the full Napoleon Dynamite fro & overjet.

Udolpho.com said...

Who are calling gay, you lunatic?! I didn't say I like the fact that most gays are liberal and tend to be far more creative than conservative males. It's just a fact that we have to face. Look at theatre. So many gays and no conservative. Look at Hollywood. So many gays and hardly any conservative writer or director.
Look at music, classical and pop. Lots of gays but almost no conservative. What is conservative culture? Country music. Heeeeee-haw.


Yes, look at Hollywood. The gayer it's become, the worse its product. It now cynically churns out joyless trash like the recent flop John Carter, or derivative reboots such as the last Star Trek (featuring not one but two gay male leads).

When gays invade a field of artistic endeavor, they always reduce it to trash in good time. Only when they are a distinct minority do they ever make contributions, and even then largely overrated. Want to put gay classical composers up against heterosexuals? Good luck, rube.

Anonymous said...

"the biggest talents in Hollywood tend to be Jewish, gay, liberal, etc"

taylents, and the small matter of masses being entertained by whatever buffoonery is thrown at them. And yet, Hollywood flounders.

"Indeed, the pure black William Sisters(or Michelle Obama) seem more masculine than Obama, Woods, and McWhorter combined. "

If you think having a posterior that could balance a family dinner is a masculine signal.
Beauty is a feminine trait, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a racial relative one. Ugliness doesn't automatically mean manly.

Like lesbians who like to legitimize their existence by hating the same behavior in men that they encourage in women, gays try hard but their blatant shameless displays turn off men and women alike, bisexuality found few takers and most men find it hard to change even in the face of sexual imperative.
And it's much much easier to make women follow men than the other way round.

Svigor said...

Put down the crack pipe, man.

What complete idiocy.


I think the liberals should heed the words of Maximus: "the time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end".

I bet the Soviets used to crow about how all the best and brightest loved the Party, too.

If liberals are so very creative, why can't they figure out a way to argue their position without oppressing their opponents?

What with the rapid rises in race mixing, the new ideal--according to PC--is the mixed race person.

Yes, the whole world should strive to be like central & south America, and central Asia, the world's epicenters of miscege- er, race-mixing.

Svigor said...

There is also the pre-nuptial agreement in California to consider.

Pre-nups are valuable if you're out of TP. Or if you're the lawyer writing them. Otherwise, not so much.

swimming swan said...

You shouldn't have had to guess about the sexual orientation. A guy's not going to have skin that soft & flawless at the age Hughes must be unless he's used a lot of skin care products. I mean North Carolina isn't really known for its fresh faced English beauties.

Anonymous said...

"the biggest talents in Hollywood tend to be Jewish, gay, liberal, etc"

"taylents, and the small matter of masses being entertained by whatever buffoonery is thrown at them. And yet, Hollywood flounders."

Hollywood always made a lot of junk, but then its core is business--giving people what they want--than art. To the extent that Hollywood continues to produce and market stuff people like, it is succeeding. Now, if it's so easy to make junk, why can't conservatives do it and rake in tons of cash for their own causes?
Another thing... your average conservative is more likely to be addicted to Hollywood junk than is a liberal, who is more likely to try stuff like foreign films and the like.
While I find much of Hollywood politicizing annoying to the max, didacticism in art is nothing new.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, look at Hollywood. The gayer it's become, the worse its product. It now cynically churns out joyless trash like the recent flop John Carter, or derivative reboots such as the last Star Trek (featuring not one but two gay male leads)."

There is some truth to this. Gays seem to be most creative when they are not so blatantly gay. Then, gays sublimate their gayness and channel it toward something interesting. But when gays are openly gay, they aren't very interesting. They become either too pornographic(we gays are wild and crazy!) or too generic(we gays are so normal, indeed more normal than you straight).
It's like blacks were most creative musically when they held back and sublimated some of their jiveassness and channeled it toward emotions that amounted to something more than 'ho, come and suck my...' There used to be Marvin Gaye and Al Green. Now, there's 50 cents and that junk.

But then, same goes for patriotism. SANDS OF IWO JIMA, though no great work of art, is a wonderful movie. But RAMBO is patriot-porn. And PASSION OF THE CHRIST, art film about Rambo Jesus who can take the PAIN, rendered spirituality meaningless with excess of bloodcurdling violence, which may have initially shocked/moved a lot of people but left them feeling sour later.

So, the problem is less gayness than blatancy in creativity. Gays, like everyone else, have become too blatant in their biases, desires, and passions. Instead of expressing, they are now too often exhibitionist-ing or preaching. if Proust were alive today, his book might be 'Remembrance of all the cocks I sucked'.

Anyway, you're one big fool for thinking STAR TREK was ever watchable, gay or not gay. I mean it sucked donkey dick from the very beginning. I don't go for some show where some tall guy has a Moe haircut and elf ears.
Another thing... STAR TREK was closet-gay from the beginning(for anyone with eyes). Notice most of the crew are men. There is one woman, but she is black and so a kind of hononary man too. The show is like a joke where everyone is gay but Captain Kirk, the one member who isn't, just doesn't get it. I mean look at the spandex shirts they're wearing. Who but fruits would wear such things? Anyway, if you think gay characters ruined STAR TREK, you have lousy taste. STAR TREK was awful from the beginning. It was pretty gay from the beginning too.

"When gays invade a field of artistic endeavor, they always reduce it to trash in good time. Only when they are a distinct minority do they ever make contributions, and even then largely overrated. Want to put gay classical composers up against heterosexuals? Good luck, rube."

Yeah, that must be why the Renaissance was reduced to trash in no time. And I guess all those gay artists and poets in Classical Greece didn't know nuttin' about art and beauty. And Tchaikovsky, what did he know about art?

Anthony said...

Steve says "... the Ottoman Empire. Perhaps gays then will become, in effect, one of the ethnic power blocs, just one generated anew each generation?", and 76 comments later, nobody has mentioned the power of palace eunuchs in the Ottoman empire?

The Anti-Gnostic said...

. He was different from the stereotypical black politician who was heavy on testosterone. Though Obama could turn on the juice when he had to, he smiled gayishly and his fist bumps were on the dainty than thuggish side.

My impression of Obama is he is uncomfortable around high T black men. He's got one high yella AG of upper-caste Caribbean descent, and I think the UN trade rep is a black American. Otherwise it looks a lot like George Bush's Cabinet, with more peri-menopausal white women.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

But far more so was cowboy Bush kissing and holding hands with the Saudi monarch. That was so....gay."

What little respect I might have had for George W. Bush I lost when I saw that photo of him holding hands with some berobed arab sheik. What a craven, soulless toady that man is.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Imagine yourself as white, Southern, and gay growing up as a child. The religious Right goes around saying 'God Hates Fags' and 'Fags will burn in hell'."

That is a lie. The only religious group that says "God Hates Fags" is the Westboro Baptist church - a family-cult led by the deranged Fred Phelps. It is only because people in the media - and people like you - spread this meme that it has gained currency. Such as you have promoted the term "homophobic" - as if their were no legitimate reason to be repulsed by homosexuality or to be mistrustful of a gay-supremicist agenda.

"And ruffians and boors beat you up and call you names. For a sensitive gay guy, coming upon THE NEW REPUBLIC and other such publications would have been like milk and honey."

Yes, imagine. Why is it we are always asked to imagine how awful it is for sensitive gay boys to be harrassed by their straight peers. Why are we not invited to consider how awful it is for straight boys to be molested by gay pederasts?

Mr. Anon said...

"gumosexual said...

I didn't say I like the fact that most gays are liberal and tend to be far more creative than conservative males. It's just a fact that we have to face. Look at theatre. So many gays and no conservative. Look at Hollywood. So many gays and hardly any conservative writer or director."

Hollywood now produces little besides crap. As it became more overtly gay (and also more overtly jewish), it's output has increasingly gone bad.

"Look at music, classical and pop. Lots of gays but almost no conservative."

You are obviously ignorant. Name a great (or at least pretty good) homosexual composer - Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Copland, Britten - there, named them all for you.

California kid said...

I wonder how the Blacks feel, getting shoved down a notch on the totem pole ? Not too happy about it I'll bet.

I think the "hurt, persecuted, special, entitled, smug, darling of the media" totem pole goes like this:

1. The Jews
2. The Gays
3. Blacks
4. Latinos and other ethnics
5. White Women

You can tell the order by watching who the media screams at for verbal indiscretions. That's how I saw that Gays were now above Blacks.

alonzo portfolio said...

The founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergei Brin, always looked gay to me.

In one of Brin's Google pics, he looks like Rory Mcilroy. In another, he has Paul Begala's forehead.

Get Off My Lawn! said...

Why are so many Gays, from pretty much all walks of life and backgrounds, so liberal and left-wing? Anyone?

Two reasons:

1. Homosexuals are outsiders, and, what's more important, they see themselves as such. Outsiders are always going to choose the side that opposes the established order.

A much better question is how, nearly 45 years after 1968, liberals still manage to present themselves as rebellious outsiders fighting the establishment, instead of as the people who run nearly everything (including, increasingly, big business), which is what they really are.

2. In a multi-party system, where people weren't locked into a black-and-white, liberal Democrat OR conservative Republican choice, many homosexuals might be sympathetic to an economically conservative, socially liberal or libertarian political movement. As long as economic conservatism and social conservatism are tied together by the two-party system, they're going to support the group that seems to support them. If you were gay, would you want to be associated with a party that considers Rick Santorum a viable Presidential candidate? (I respect Santorum for standing up for his opinions, even though I don't agree with all of them, but you can see why he would drive gays crazy.)

Jared said...

Homosexuals are outsiders, and, what's more important, they see themselves as such. Outsiders are always going to choose the side that opposes the established order.

So why aren't European-derived men liberal?

They are clearly outsiders. Is the explanation that the established order is in fact liberal? But then it isn't the case that homosexuals oppose the established order.

Anonymous said...

One look at the picture and I had nasty thoughts about the cute gay nerd and Marty Peretz

Mr. Anon said...

"Get Off My Lawn! said...

If you were gay, would you want to be associated with a party that considers Rick Santorum a viable Presidential candidate? (I respect Santorum for standing up for his opinions, even though I don't agree with all of them, but you can see why he would drive gays crazy.)"

I don't like Santorum. But his view of homosexuality would have been considered completely normal only thirty years ago - so normal that is holding it would not have even been an issue. Perhaps you can appreciate why it drives traditionalists crazy that we must now all-of-a-sudden kowtow to a well-funded homosexual lobby which seems intent on overturning everything it sees as normal.

Big Bill said...

"Perhaps gays then will become, in effect, one of the ethnic power blocs, just one generated anew each generation?"

Think about it. Every ethnic power bloc is "generated anew each generation". Homosexuals are alike to every other power bloc, except they have to select their young at an early age from the general population and groom them to share in the homosexual habitus and repertoire.

The Gay Lesbian Straight Educational Network (GLSEN)is the major organization for grooming the potential recruits. Some recruits they will lose, of course, but they can turn many into lifetime members of the homosexual ethny. They don't procreate to expand, they adopt and convert underage youth, much like the Shakers.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how the Blacks feel, getting shoved down a notch on the totem pole ? Not too happy about it I'll bet.

I think the "hurt, persecuted, special, entitled, smug, darling of the media" totem pole goes like this:

1. The Jews
2. The Gays
3. Blacks
4. Latinos and other ethnics
5. White Women

You can tell the order by watching who the media screams at for verbal indiscretions. That's how I saw that Gays were now above Blacks.


And Muslims are even lower than white women. You can bash Muslims all you want with impunity because it helps the largely Jewish media beat the drums for war against Israel's enemies.

diana said...

I don't think that "most gays" are liberal. Most of them are, in my experience, libertarian. That's not conservative either. They want to keep their tax dollars for themselves and not waste it on breeders and their sniveling brats because, despite what Hollyweird wants us to believe, most gays aren't married, don't want to get married, and dont have kids.

Regarding Silicon Valley, the rise of Tim Cook is a very notable hinge point in our culture. Think of it - an openly gay man is the CEO of the world's most culturally significant company. Think of it. It's immensely important.

I wonder what'll happen in the next 5 years with Apple. The article about Cook in Gawker paints him as a monster, but so was Jobs. But - Jobs had a wife and kids to humanize him (well, a little). What does Cook have to humanize him? What about him inspires loyalty?

Stay tuned!

Anonymous said...

And Muslims are even lower than white women. You can bash Muslims all you want with impunity because it helps the largely Jewish media beat the drums for war against Israel's enemies.

If that were true, then why haven't the powers that be done anything to curb muslim immigration?

Anonymous said...

When gays invade a field of artistic endeavor, they always reduce it to trash in good time.

Only an ignoramus would make such a sweeping statement.

Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci we're gay, along with numerous other artists and sculptors.

The classical music composers Handel and Tchaikovsky were gay. As are/were numerous other musicians.

Marcel Proust, Oscar Wilde, Virginia Woolf, Walt Whitman, John Milton, W. H. Auden, T. E. Lawrence and numerous other writers were homosexual.


It really is remarkable how so many of the biggest names of western civilization are homosexual or mixed race.

One would think that the HBD crowd would be fascinated by the hugely disproportional representation of gays and mongrels among the creative elite.

Whiskey said...

The Left is not very tolerant: witness the hatred shown say, David Mamet. Or Sarah Palin. Nor indeed is the cultural left accomplishing much of lasting value, beauty, grace, and emotional power. In the visual arts you have formaldehyde sharks, spatters of paint, in music rap and Philip Glass repetitive tweedles, in literature navel gazing, and endless female fantasies of beautiful victims and bad boys.

The power of the left rests in its culture, the things that made Confederate Soldier Mark Twain live in Connecticut and embrace Yankee-ism. And that is, safety, good treatment of animals, women, and non-Whites. Along with valuing education, business, technology, and hostility to superstition (that tormented Twain as a boy). However ... continued ethnic cleansing of Whites due to NAM violence/living burdens basically takes the Puritan/Left class and makes them into hillbillies, cleansed from their land.

If the story of America post WWII was turning much of the White population into post-Puritan New Englanders in attitudes, and culture, the story of say 2000 onwards is the reversing of that, turning sober staid New Englander types into dispossessed hillbillies.

Anonymous said...

If that were true, then why haven't the powers that be done anything to curb muslim immigration?

Because the best way to get whites to hate Muslims and thus support wars against them in the middle east, is to import way too many of them.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Only an ignoramus would make such a sweeping statement.

Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci we're gay, along with numerous other artists and sculptors.

The classical music composers Handel and Tchaikovsky were gay. As are/were numerous other musicians."

Handel is now "was gay". We can add him to the list with Abraham Lincoln. (Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't - I don't really care).

What you are forgetting is that all of those cultural luminaries lived and worked in a world that was "hetero-normative" to use the modish PoMo lingo. It is perhaps not an accident that when it's not okay to be an out homosexual, we get the Pieta and the Symphonie Pathetique, and when it is okay we get the Robert Mapplethorpe collection and "Rent". Then again, being homosexual might well have been incidental to their art. Tchaikovsky was a homosexual and wrote great music - True. But Brahms also wrote great music, and he wasn't.

"Marcel Proust, Oscar Wilde, Virginia Woolf, Walt Whitman, John Milton, W. H. Auden, T. E. Lawrence and numerous other writers were homosexual"

Milton, Auden can perhaps be conceded. But Woolf? Whitman? That the best you got?

Anonymous said...

Milton, Auden can perhaps be conceded. But Woolf? Whitman? That the best you got?

Virginia Woolf had a lesbian affair with a fellow writer named Vita, and wrote on lesbian themes. Read and concede.

As for Walt Whitman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Whitman#Sexuality


By the way there is some suspicion, though no proof, that the never married supposed virgin Isaac Newton may have been gay or at least a repressed homosexual, based on his realationship with a young Swiss mathematician named Fatio.

Beecher Asbury said...

whiskey, I will ask this again since you did not answer.

Re: White post Puritan elite

OK, I give up. Explain why Puritans are bad. I am getting tired of all this hate directed at the Puritans. I thought the Puritans were good. Their work ethic and ethos was legendary and led to the Yankee industrial revolution. They also established our oldest most prestigious institutions of higher learning, e.g. Harvard, Yale, etc.

If Americans still had the Puritan work ethic, we'd be studying as hard as NE Asians. We'd not be hooked on drugs, alcohol and porn. We'd have less crime. In short we'd be a more peaceful and functional society.

Please explain why I should dislike these quiet, industrious and most capable people.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Virginia Woolf had a lesbian affair with a fellow writer named Vita, and wrote on lesbian themes. Read and concede.

As for Walt Whitman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Whitman#Sexuality"

I'm not disputing that they were homosexual. Everyone knows those two were. I'm disputing that they were good or important writers.
They weren't.

"By the way there is some suspicion, though no proof, that the never married supposed virgin Isaac Newton may have been gay or at least a repressed homosexual, based on his realationship with a young Swiss mathematician named Fatio."

Yeah, there is always "some suspicion, but no proof" among you gay supremicists, in trying to postumously smear people as deviants and co-opt notable worthies of the past to your movement.

Kylie said...

"Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci we're[sic] gay, along with numerous other artists and sculptors.

Only an ignoramus would make such a sweeping statement.


The classical music composers Handel and Tchaikovsky were gay. As are/were numerous other musicians.

Only an ignoramus would make such a sweeping statement.


It really is remarkable how so many of the biggest names of western civilization are homosexual or mixed race.

Only an ignoramus would make such a sweeping statement.


One would think that the HBD crowd would be fascinated by the hugely disproportional representation of gays and mongrels among the creative elite.

Only an ignoramus would make such a sweeping statement."

Kylie said...

"The classical music composers Handel and Tchaikovsky were gay. As are/were numerous other musicians...

It really is remarkable how so many of the biggest names of western civilization are homosexual or mixed race."


Could Beethoven have been both black and gay? He was a lifelong bachelor and titled one of his best-known piano pieces "Für Ellis" . Could Ellis have been the mysterious "Immortal Beloved" of Beethoven's famous love letter?

The evidence is overwhelmingly convincing: Beethoven was a two-fer!

creeping tom said...

"Otherwise it looks a lot like George Bush's Cabinet, with more peri-menopausal white women"
They'd have to be "peri" or "post." They are usually more steady, fewer mood swings. Younger than that, they'd likely be too young to have had the experience and connections necessary to cop those positions. Same with men. Most men in high-level politics are well past their peak testosterone years depsite their alleged alphaness (really just the right connections and the ability to regurgitate whatever claptrap is the winning trend for the day.) Still. We must be grateful for small favors. It's a fact with both genders, the less hormonal they become the less damage they do.

me said...

Anonymous: If that were true, then why haven't the powers that be done anything to curb muslim immigration?

Me: For invasion/nation-building to happen today, the people have to believe that muslims are like us and just happen to live in a backward region

Is the same logic with immigration, "when they come herethey will be like us", immigration won't stop because will be like admitting that these people are hopeless.

Anonymous said...

Lefty social policies don't make people do great things. They just enable dysfunction. Great people are born, dumbass. Puritan culture laid the foundation for success by establishing a high functioning basic society, so that when those great men were born, they wouldn't be living in a hell hole where they could't apply their talents.


O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassion'd stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness.

America! America!
God mend thine ev'ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.

Crawfurdmuir said...

@ Beecher Asbury - You wrote: "White post Puritan elite. OK, I give up. Explain why Puritans are bad. I am getting tired of all this hate directed at the Puritans. I thought the Puritans were good... Please explain why I should dislike these quiet, industrious and most capable people."

Let us recall the verse of Butler's "Hudibras" describing his Puritan protagonist:

"For his Religion, it was fit
To match his learning and his wit;
'Twas Presbyterian true blue;
For he was of that stubborn crew
Of errant saints, whom all men grant
To be the true Church Militant;
Such as do build their faith upon
The holy text of pike and gun;
Decide all controversies by
Infallible artillery;
And prove their doctrine orthodox
By apostolic blows and knocks;
Call fire and sword and desolation,
A godly thorough reformation,
Which always must be carried on,
And still be doing, never done;
As if religion were intended
For nothing else but to be mended.
A sect, whose chief devotion lies
In odd perverse antipathies;
In falling out with that or this,
And finding somewhat still amiss;
More peevish, cross, and splenetick,
Than dog distract, or monkey sick."

Here's the origin of what W. Baker, in the first post to this comment section, describes as "A perfect amen corner for our evolving Trotskyite/NeoCon/Likud philosophy of perpetual but creative destruction."

Do not the neo-cons and the Likudniks "build their faith upon/The holy text of pike and gun;/Decide all controversies by/Infallible artillery;/And prove their doctrine orthodox/By apostolic blows and knocks;/Call fire and sword and desolation,/A godly thorough reformation"? The people of Iraq and Afghanistan have had a massive dose of such "reforms" over the past decade.

Are not the Trotskyites, with their doctrine of perpetual revolution, prefigured by the Puritans in the belief that their "godly thorough reformation" is one "Which always must be carried on,/And still be doing, never done", as if not just religion, but all of human society, "were intended/ For nothing else but to be mended"?

Eric Voegelin detected in the Puritans of the English Civil War the first manifestations in the early modern world of that utopian totalitarianism which he somewhat confusingly called "gnosticism."

The Puritans were not just quaint people who adhered to a strict personal morality, wore black clothing with buckled shoes, and shot turkeys with blunderbusses in the primeval forests of seventeenth-century New England, as American children were once taught in elementary school. In Old England they were lthe vanguard of the religious left.

There, they brought about the judicial murder of the earl of Strafford, the archbishop of Canterbury, and finally of King Charles I. The mechanism used was the parliamentary bill of attainder, and their historic example is the reason why such bills of attainder are specifically forbidden under the U.S. Constitution. They afterwards instituted a dictatorship under Cromwell that was perhaps the first example in history of what the late Sam Francis called "anarcho-tyranny."

They may have been industrious and capable in their private lives, but they were certainly not "quiet," and they were disastrous at the task of governing.

Anonymous said...


Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci we're gay, along with numerous other artists and sculptors.

The classical music composers Handel and Tchaikovsky were gay. As are/were numerous other musicians.

Marcel Proust, Oscar Wilde, Virginia Woolf, Walt Whitman, John Milton, W. H. Auden, T. E. Lawrence and numerous other writers were homosexual.


It really is remarkable how so many of the biggest names of western civilization are homosexual or mixed race.


Huh, all those intolerant a-holes back then supported and patronized these folks. Sounds like they were pretty tolerant, but stopped short of promoting degeneracy and dysfunction.

Imagine that.

There is a difference between exceptions to the rules and no rules.

Truth said...

"What little respect I might have had for George W. Bush I lost when I saw that photo of him holding hands with some berobed arab sheik. What a craven, soulless toady that man is."

Yeah, well, he got your vote at least once, so I don't think he gives a shit.

Anonymous said...

Da Vinci exhibits classic straight guy obsession with mechanical engineering. He was not homosexual in the modern sense. He was probably traumatized as a child which left him unable to perform with women.

Poofters have been trying to claim him for centuries though his body of work screams hetero brain waves. He sketched technical diagrams much much more than he did paintings. That is not a gay man's mind at work.

corvinus said...

If that were true, then why haven't the powers that be done anything to curb muslim immigration?

Because they're trying to destroy Western civilization and white Europeans, and importing Muslims is a great way to do that.

Because the best way to get whites to hate Muslims and thus support wars against them in the middle east, is to import way too many of them.

Not really. The most jingoistic Western country against the Muslims is the United States, which actually has the lowest percentage of Muslims in the western world. WNists complain about Muslims being counted as "white" here in the United States (except for Pakistanis and other South Asians, which are "Asian") -- but that's because they aren't numerous enough! Hispanics used to be counted as "white" too, until their numbers burgeoned.

On the other hand, the USA does have the biggest diaspora population of a certain other Semitic religion, along with tens of millions of evangelical dispensationalist Protestants to serve as their cannon fodder.

neil craig said...

If gays, usually, don't have children we may expect them to be able to put more effort into careers and, when they die, to have their money going to institutions rather than family.

While for most of history when we lived in a subsistence, or close to, economy and children were the best possible investmenmt it now rather looks like money is the best investment which may explain the gaying of society.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps gays then will become, in effect, one of the ethnic power blocs, just one generated anew each generation?"

Sequential alliances changing as demographics change. Non-anglos vs anglos then non north-europeans vs north europeans then non-europeans vs europeans etc.

In europe the gay and feminist wing of the alliance goes under the bus when the muslim percentage hits a tipping point.

///

Crawfordmuir

"They may have been industrious and capable in their private lives, but they were certainly not "quiet," and they were disastrous at the task of governing."

That couldn't be more blatantly and self-evidently untrue. They created two of the most successful countries in world history.

///

"One of the advantages of Tolerance on the Left is that it attracts top talent from all groups: gays, Jews, women, blacks(music and sports especially), etc."

People who are content with the status quo have no reason to create idealogies designed to destroy the status quo.

///

"of the White post Puritan elite"

Given the importance of the mass media they must dominate that sector pretty dramatically?

Anonymous said...

"Why are so many Gays, from pretty much all walks of life and backgrounds, so liberal and left-wing? Anyone?"

Because they don't realise the project isn't an anti-conservative or anti-christian thing it's an anti-white thing.

Anonymous said...

"It really is remarkable how so many of the biggest names of western civilization are homosexual or mixed race."

Anti-whites massively exaggerate this as part of their culture of critique but i think there may be a element of truth that
- sexual minorities
- ethnic minorities
- religious minorities (of all kinds, including Protestants in majority Catholic cultures and Catholics in majority Protestant cultures)
may have a disproportionate cultural impact as a result of feeling conflicted by their outsider-ness as i believe inner conflict of any kind is likely to be one of the drives behind creativity in the arts.

If so then if they stop being outsiders and the conflictedness stops then any disproportionate creative impact will dry up also.

Conquistador said...

"Explain the Ottoman Empire reference? You may be right, and I suspect you are, I just don't see the connection. Kinky stuff in the harems?" - SFG


That and much more.

As for why the puritans are bad well that's because of the drivel they support nowadays while being nowhere near the consequences while at the same time smugly calling others racists. Their dominance over power in the country is what the founders feared (they didn't want any one faction gaining too much influence).

Crawfurdmuir said...

@ Anonymous, you wrote in response to my remark that the Puritans were disastrous at the task of governing:

"That couldn't be more blatantly and self-evidently untrue. They created two of the most successful countries in world history."

How so? The Puritan Commonwealth of England, which lasted only from 1649 - 1660, was held together for most of its brief existence by the strength of Oliver Cromwell's personality, and even he was sorely tried in dealing with a fractious Parliament. After his death, his son proved a feckless ruler, and the leading Parliamentary general, George Monck, recognizing Richard Cromwell's incapacity, ended up negotiating with Charles II, forcing the dissolution of the Long Parliament, restoring the king, and with him, the Church of England, its Book of Common Prayer, and its bishops.

The historic political and economic success of England was certainly not due to the Puritan commonwealth, but arose from England's much more ancient heritage as a maritime nation, to which was added the prosperity brought by the much later industrial revolution. That took place under the restored monarchy and the ascendancy of the broad Anglican church of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Much of the nineteenth-century British empire was conquered by Scots, who though they may have been Calvinists, were not Puritans.

Neither was the political and economic success of the United States of America due mainly to New England's Puritans. The commercial acumen of the Middle Atlantic states, such as New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, along with the agricultural wealth of the tidewater and deep South, had just as much or more to do with it.

Finally, expansion into the old Northwest Territory, the Louisiana Purchase, and later the intermountain West, drew few people from the settled precincts of Massachusetts and Connecticut. The frontiersmen came mostly from earlier frontiers such as western New York and Pennsylvania, and the southern uplands.

These people were not New England Puritans (Congregationalists) in their religious adherence. They were a mixture of Methodists, Baptists, Scottish-derived Presbyterians, and smaller numbers of Episcopalians, German-speaking Lutherans, etc. New Englanders from Maine were prominent in the lumbering industry, but they hailed mostly from Maine a part of New England that had first been settled by Sir Ferdinando Gorges's expedition, which was a commercial venture, and not an effort to build the "shining city upon a hill" envisioned by the Puritan John Winthrop's sermon to his shipmates aboard the Arbella.

Anonymous said...

Conquistador

"Their dominance over power in the country is what the founders feared (they didn't want any one faction gaining too much influence)."

So, given US politics is dominated by the mass media and funding from Wall St banks these Puritans must be pretty dominant in those two sectors?

.
Crawfordmuir

yawn

The agricultural and industrial revolutions acame out of those East Anglian Puritan and equivalent non-conformist / dissenting religious groups with as you say a heavy contribution in the industrial revolution from the Scottish version of Puritans.

David said...

>Yeah, there is always "some suspicion, but no proof" among you gay supremicists, in trying to postumously smear people as deviants and co-opt notable worthies of the past to your movement.<

True. Also never acknowledged is the possibility - once widely recognized - of asexuals. Everyone has to be in one pressure group or the other. If you ain't married with children, then "some suspicion, but no proof" (which = PROOF in the homosexual mind) comes into play. And even with regard to marrieds-with-children, there is gay "suspicion," at least if the person is attractive.

Re. "goy is the new gay": Jews are perfectly happy with the homosexing of gentile men, of any race. Think Hughes could have attained the position of being able to buy and run TNR if he were straight?

Crawfurdmuir said...

@ Anonymous - you wrote: "The agricultural and industrial revolutions acame out of those East Anglian Puritan and equivalent non-conformist / dissenting religious groups with as you say a heavy contribution in the industrial revolution from the Scottish version of Puritans."

Those events did not reflect the the Puritans' success at the task of governing, at which, as I originally noted, they proved disastrous Rather they showed their capacity for success in private life. Different skills are at issue in the one instance than in the other.

Anonymous said...

"Finally, expansion into the old Northwest Territory, the Louisiana Purchase, and later the intermountain West, drew few people from the settled precincts of Massachusetts and Connecticut. The frontiersmen came mostly from earlier frontiers such as western New York and Pennsylvania, and the southern uplands."

Well my family started in Massachusetts in the mid 1600's. They had literally dozens of kids every generation. In the 1700's, some moved to New York. Dozens more kids. Then in the 1800's some of them moved from New York to Iowa because they got land grants for service in the war of 1812. Dozens more kids. Then after the civil war moved further west to Nebraska and the Dakotas, and intermarried with some nordics. Dozens more kids. More land grants. Early 1900's moved to Idaho and Washington. Dozens more kids. Audacious Epigone said that about half of us can trace back before the revolutionary war. For me that goes back to Puritans in Massachusetts who moved ever more westward to get more land.

Crawfurdmuir said...

@Anon. - I have New England ancestry, too, but not all of it could be called Puritan in the strict sense of the term. One of my ancestors on my mother's side was a Church of England clergyman who co-founded Barnstable, Mass. He eventually got in trouble with the local religious authorities for "prelacy" and fled to Maine, where he joined the settlers of the Gorges expedition. His fellow co-founder, whose descendants became cousins of mine through marriage with his daughter, similarly got in trouble with the powers-that-were because they sympathized with the Baptists. You may recall that Baptists were systematically hounded by the Puritans. Roger Williams was exiled to Rhode Island, which Cotton Mather called "the fag end of civilisation," for his Baptist beliefs.

The influence of New England in the history of the colonial period, the Revolution, and the subsequent western expansion has been overstated by schoolbook history. Considering the origins of American public education in the common school movement of New England under the aegis of Horace Mann and his followers, this emphasis is more easily understood. The important point to remember is that it is lopsided. The "Pilgrim fathers" have been transformed from just one of many early groups of settlers in British North America to the central participants in a myth of civic origins. A more mature and balanced reading of history will remedy this.

And even though there were New England Congregationalists who migrated westward, the success of that expansion had nothing to do with their skills in government. None of the new territories or states had state Puritan churches, as Connecticut did until 1818 and Massachusetts did until 1833. All of their development took place under secular governments not dominated by Puritans, and to the extent that Puritans participated in that development, they did so in the capacity of private citizens and not as theocrats along the lines of Cromwell or the Mathers.

Matthew said...

"One would think that the HBD crowd would be fascinated by the hugely disproportional representation of gays and mongrels among the creative elite."

I might be, if you first proved their "disproportional representation" yada yada yada. Given the thousands of significant Western cultural figures one could draw from over the last, say, 250 years, a half dozen names doesn't signify.

I don't refuse to believe it. You just have to prove it.