OMFG how I love hate mail

I don’t do as much blogging here as I used to, after I started getting picked up by more established websites like Return of Kings and Counter-Currents.  Still, once every blue moon I’ll get feedback on something I wrote here.  Lately, I got a new item from Jason Blaustein on my “Cultural Marxism and the Social Justice Warrior cult” article.  This one is a little in-depth, so I figured I’d feature it up front here to answer him.  This has a most curious beginning:

“For instance, if you say that multiculturalism brings more friction into society – which is pretty obvious – then you’d better be careful about who’s listening.”
You mean these liars:

I would like to acquaint the esteemed and most eminently truthful Jason Blaustein with Dr. Robert D. Putnam.  He is a celebrated liberal professor at Harvard.  He set out to prove that diversity is beneficial.  However, his study found that the opposite was true.  To put it simply, more diversity means less social trust among the public.  The findings were so shocking to him that he sat on the data for a while.  (One can imagine it would’ve been quite disturbing indeed, like an archbishop finding evidence that God doesn’t exist or something like that.)  Still, ultimately honesty won out and he reported his results.

Then Jason quotes from my original article at length:

“This might seem like a pretty bold claim, but the LGBT movement is a pretty telling example, one front in the culture war. First they asked for acceptance. (Personally, that much seems reasonable enough to me.) They gained a lot of traction in the 1970s, then some resistance in the 1980s, and finally acquiescence in the 1990s. Then gays in the military became the cause du jour. They arrived at the “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise, then acquiescence some years later. (For the military, this issue is a distraction at best, and a potential source of friction at worst; guys don’t like to take showers with guys who like to take showers with guys.) Then came the Boy Scouts issue; they finally had to give in on the “morally straight” business. (This wasn’t about inclusion; this was to punish a group that disagreed with them. Parents don’t want to send their boys out into the woods with a gay guy, and the activists were well aware of that.) The next push was gay marriage, which they lawyered up until the cows came home. The public was strongly against this, and it was rejected anywhere it was put to a democratic vote, even in California. Finally, the Supreme Court took their side, citing a Constitutional amendment intended to make sure that crimes against freedmen wouldn’t get ignored by local law enforcement. Right after they got their way with that one, the latest big hoopla is about transsexual bathroom preferences. One can only wonder what the next cause du jour will be. For the record, if two dudes want to hit it off in the privacy of their own homes, I’m not bothered by that. However, this small fraction of the public insisting that society bend over backwards on everything they ask for is a little much.”

Then he retorts with this:

Okay there is so much bs here that I need to give these links:

Dear lad, posting a couple of links full of talking points isn’t the same thing as a counterargument.

That said, just to clear up the record, I do not dislike gays as a category.  I’m not one of the “anything goes” crowd, but within reason, I’m fine with them doing whatever twists their nipples behind closed doors.  (The consequences don’t always stay behind closed doors, but that’s another matter.)  Gays have their own institutions and private spaces to be amongst themselves and do whatever pleases them, and I don’t have a problem with that much.

On the other hand, there are certain aspects of the GLBT political movement which I find objectionable.  They seek to make changes in the public arena (often quite aggressively), and since this is a public matter, others certainly are free to agree with them or challenge them.  Largely the objectionable things are a result of the way the movement developed, which didn’t have to be that way.

Sorry – nobody has special immunity from criticism!  Deal with it.

Jason continues:

The 14th amendment explicitly says:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In short it was asking why heterosexuals were getting certain privileges involving free association.

Context matters.  This amendment had nothing to do with homosexuality.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the universe doesn’t rotate around you!

Rather, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War.  (Since the Southern states were puppet governments at the time, its legitimacy is pretty questionable, but that’s another subject.)  Specifically, it pertains to the status of freed slaves, and it’s meant to ensure that local law enforcement doesn’t turn a blind eye to any crimes committed against them.  However, the loose wording tends to get twisted around a lot by liberal SCOTUS judges, shoehorning it to apply to whatever it is they want.  It’s too bad that history is so dumbed down in public education these days, which is one reason they get away with this trick and the public doesn’t notice.

That said, I’m not sure why this came up.  If it’s an argument that private organizations cannot have membership criteria – I think that’s what you were driving at – then it doesn’t make sense.  The 14th Amendment is binding on the government, not private organizations.

Also gsys are not pedos like you claim in your boy scout example:

I never said that all gays are kiddy fiddlers, but thanks for the straw man argument.  That said, there is a long-standing problem with pedophilia going all the way back to Harry Hay himself, continuing up to the presentThe GLBT political movement, for whatever reason, has not seen fit to distance itself from this loathsome fringe, even though they should.  Since you brought up the topic, you asked for it!  I went further into the history of the BSA controversy in the article “The Boy Scouts of America is in a death spiral after surrendering to the gay agenda“.  For example, as I wrote:

Unfortunately, they’ve had a long-standing pedophilia problem.  A court case in 2012 forced BSA to release a 20,000 page file documenting sexual abuse cases from 1965-85.  There were 1200 incidents, so that averages sixty badtouch cases per year that came to their attention.  A major reason they’re on the verge of bankruptcy lately is because they have 140 lawsuits pending, which resulted from scoutmasters who couldn’t keep their hands to themselves.

That was quite a lot of rubba-rubba going on, now wasn’t it?  Note well, this is exactly what BSA was trying to prevent with exclusionary policies.  Those are only the cases that they know about and were reported; how many other Boy Scouts were molested by perverts and now suffer in silent shame?

Since I wrote that article, the Boy Scouts did file bankruptcy.  Just as I’d predicted, removing all restrictions turned out to be the final nail in their coffin.  After BSA was forced to go inclusive, did any of the deep-pockets GLBT foundations help bail out their astronomical legal tab from the child sex abuse cases?  Of course not.

Following a long pattern of cultural Marxist agitation, the gay agenda raped and strangled Boy Scouts of America.  That’s right – they forcibly penetrated the organization and then left it to die.  Not only that, the decades-long lawfare campaign was an effort to enlist the power of the government in this effort.  Some people call this progress.

Finally, I’ll wrap up with a quotation from Deplorable Diatribes.  Enjoy!

It doesn’t make someone a bad person to have unusual proclivities, so long as they’re not inherently destructive, or taken to excess. (How one defines these things is a matter of debate, but work with me on this.) Reasonable accommodations for eccentricity can be made, within sensible limits. In the realm of pure theory, whatever goes on in the bedroom is fine so long as it stays in the bedroom. If this were the case in actual fact, it wouldn’t be too objectionable. In practice, it’s not as simple as that.

Whether we like it or not, sexual behavior has far-reaching consequences. This is in spite of the fact that it’s become unfashionable to say so given the popularity of the “whatever floats your boat” notion today. Traditionally, every culture – and ours is no exception – has moral standards; what it considers sensible limits. Generally that boils down to societal consensus. These customs sometimes differ according to time and place, and there may be debate about what is and isn’t proper. However, that’s not a valid argument to push the nihilist line and abolish morality, or go postmodernist and say all standards are meaningless. Sexuality affects society’s future, since this is how the next generation is created.

Specifically, in practice the gay movement became one more fashionable cultural Marxist cause that promotes disrupting normal family formation – though again, feminism is worse. Although a small fraction is inclined to homosexuality, it doesn’t make sense to glamorize it and encourage experimentation, especially by impressionable youths. This is but one example of something that transgresses necessary sensible limits.

Anyhow, thank you for sharing.

OMFG how I love hate mail