By Nicholas Stix
Between here and Europe, I’ve attended four different colleges and universities, some of them world famous, but the finest one was New York State’s unheralded little Sullivan County Community College, where I got my start. But the story to follow is more about SCCC’s um, atmosphere, though that too contributed mightily to its greatness.
In the spring semester of my freshman year, I took Western Civ II with a man I’ll call “Willis Anderson.”
Anderson was a wild man. In class, he bellowed about his hero, Martin Luther, with a deep, booming voice that gave me headaches, when he was too close at hand. He was handsome and athletic looking, notwithstanding a slight paunch and a jaw (like my own) of Biblical dimensions, with a theatrical flamboyance which, I was told, had served him well in local amateur productions of Gilbert & Sullivan. I also once heard a tape of his comical, inebriated rantings at a saloon, when he did an unscripted “Rev. Billy Ray Hargis” (I believe he used Hargis’ name) standup shtick.
Entertaining fellow, and known to all the local barkeeps, who he may have occasionally spelled. He once threatened me in class, if I didn’t shut up, saying “After three straight nights in [saloon]….,” the implication being that he had tended bar, though I’m no longer sure one should make that assumption.
Prior to teaching college, Willis had taught high school history. Based on his widespread local reputation, I think that in addition to easier hours and better pay, he chose to jump to teaching college, because he would no longer have to worry about possible statutory rape prosecutions.
Although he was legally married, he and his wife seemed to lead separate lives. He would offer coeds with “incompletes” in his classes the opportunity to do “research” for him. At one point, he offered a girl I was dating (unbeknownst to him, not that it would have mattered) such an opportunity. She told me she’d take an “F,” before she’d do any of his “f-ing research.”
I’d never heard of Willis being sighted off campus sober. It was as if the moment he left campus, he hit a secret button, and immediately became soused.
Anderson gave me a B that semester; I thought I deserved an “A.” It turned out, he thought so, too.
During the summer, whenever I had a moment, I’d visit the local watering holes looking for Willis, to ask him why he’d given me a “B.” I always missed him, but one day, as I was riding my bike to my job as a restaurant dishwasher, I saw Willis stagger out of “Bum and Kel’s,” my own favorite saloon.
“Willis?”
“What the fuck you want?”
I’d like to talk to you about something.
[More of the same.]
“Why the fuck did I give you a B? You deserved an A.”
That’s what I’d like to know.
“Alright, if you take me, I’ll give you the A.”
Assuming the nine-inch taller man meant a round of fisticuffs, I put up my dukes. He shook me off, and put out his arms to signal we were to wrestle.
The place we were at was an inhospitable mix of sand and tiny pebbles, between some pickup trucks parked in front of the joint, but it would have to do.
We tangled, and went down in the sand and pebbles, and I pinned Willis on his shoulders, counting him out 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3. But he wouldn’t admit that I’d beaten him and continued struggling with me, our legs by now under someone’s parked pick-up truck. Finally, the beefier of the two owners came out, said “Boys, that’ll be enough,” and dragged us up from under the truck, and separated us, each in one of his meaty hands. Willis had bloody knees, due to wearing shorts (I was wearing jeans), but that was his choice.
I then went across the street to Ralph’s Pizza, where I triumphantly told the owner’s son, Ralph Jr., of my exploits.
“It doesn’t count, because Willis was drunk.”
“But he’s always drunk off campus!”
I don’t recall succeeded at bringing Ralph Jr. around to my way of seeing things. And Willis was no gentleman; he never changed my grade, and I had no intention of chasing after him like a bill collector, dunning him for a grade change.
These reveries were inspired by the thoroughgoing thrashing that Takuan Seiyo gave to Kevin MacDonald at Gates of Vienna, in “Critique of the Culture of Kevin MacDonald.”
MacDonald, who knows little about Jews, whom he understands not one bit, considers himself the world’s greatest scholar of all things Jewish. His “scholarship” is reducible to the statement, ‘The Jews are an alien race that is a cancer on the white race, and responsible for all that ails the latter,’ or more succinctly, ‘The Jews are our misfortune!’
Seiyo proceeds by showing that MacDonald’s “method” consists of finding anything negative about any Jews, and attributing it to all Jews; ignoring all Jewish contributions to Western civilization; ignoring any injustices committed by gentiles against Jews; and writing as though any defect observed among Jews were unique to them, rather than common to many other, and possibly all other religious and ethnic groups. The philosopher Walter Kaufmann called such sophistry, “gerrymandering.”
The only blemish on Tak’s victory is, of course, that it came against the slovenly thinking Kevin MacDonald.
However, sometimes a man has to fight “the Bum of the Month.” Contrary to Ralph Jr.’s criticism, if I’d waited to find Willis sober, I would have never had my day. Was I supposed to let him slide? I don’t think so. And in an admittedly imperfect analogy—aren’t they all?—was a high-powered intellect like Tak Seiyo supposed to say, “This pathetic excuse for an intellect is beneath me; I won’t dirty my hands on him”? Of course, not. America and the rest of the West are collapsing due to such snobbishness, which often is a front for intellectual cowardice and laziness.
Anyone who would consider himself an intellectual today must, perforce, join the Bad Books Club, and pummel the intellectual Bum of the Month, or pretty soon, all intellectual exercises will have been outlawed.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Guests from Hell: The NAACP's Shakedown of the Hospitality Industry
By Nicholas Stix
January, 2002
Middle American News
The race hustlers who have engineered race hoaxes and shaken down one American industry after another have found most hospitable hosts in the hotel and motel industry. Hotel and motel owners have responded to demands for payoffs to blacks by meeting every demand -- and have been rewarded for their troubles with frivolous lawsuits and public condemnation by the very groups whom they have so dutifully served.
Consider the case of Adam's Mark, a St. Louis-based, national chain of 24 hotels. Twenty percent of Adam's Mark executives are black, 60 percent of its employees are "minority," the firm forces all employees to undergo diversity training, and executives at its Daytona Beach hotel had for so long been involved in the planning of Black College Reunion weekend held annually in the Florida city, that BCR representatives made Adam's Mark the official BCR headquarters. And yet, all these initiatives failed to protect Adam's Mark from repeated law suits by black BCR guests seeking to shake it down, and a national boycott the NAACP organized against it, with the connivance of the federal Department of Justice and Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth.
On December 3, Adams' Mark agreed to a settlement that will cost it at least $5 million: The chain will pay $1,000,000 to be split among the five black plaintiffs -- Dante Gilliam, Jamie Morrison, Latoya Straughn, Napoleon Berrian and Mark Simmonds -- who initially sued it; $600,000 to four racially segregated, black Florida colleges; $400,000 to be split among the 400 black guests who were in the Daytona Beach Adam's Mark during BCR 1999; and the hotel chain agreed to forfeit payment on $3 million dollars in contracts that were broken by groups and individuals that had cheated the hotel, in support of the NAACP shakedown. (The four black schools are Bethune-Cookman College, $150,000; Florida A&M University, $250,000; Edward Waters College, $100,000; and Florida Memorial College, $100,000).
And so, all of the BCR celebrants whom the hotel had so assiduously reached out to, ultimately got to stay in the hotel for free, while five of them made a cool, $200,000 profit out of the weekend. Those free stays, shakedown payoffs, and broken contracts will ultimately have to be paid off by Adam's Mark's white guests.
The inspiration for such racial extortion was apparently born in 1990, during a racial love fest hosted for black South African leader, Nelson Mandela, by Miami's black leaders. When leaders from Miami's Cuban expatriate community criticized Mandela for his support of Cuba's communist dictator, Fidel Castro, black community leaders demanded apologies and reparations. (The concept of reparations is not limited to the white man's guilt for slavery and Jim Crow.)
Led by the Florida Conference of NAACP chapters, black activists organized a boycott of Miami, producing a film which they sent free to organizations around the country, telling them not plan events in Miami, irrespective of the fact that such boycotts would disproportionately harm blacks. As Jared Taylor recounted in Paved with Good Intentions, "A year later, the group estimated that it had managed to keep $27 million of convention business out of the city."
The activists demanded that the hospitality industry apologize and pay extortion to blacks, in the form of jobs, college tuition, and other protection money. Had white organizations engaged in such behavior, their leaders surely would have been arrested and tried for extortion and conspiracy; but since these were black extortionists, they were able to operate with impunity, and the targeted industry caved in.
The hospitality industry and its media rushed to serve its new masters. As Brian S. Lonergan put it in a celebratory 1999 article in USAE News, a convention and hotel industry magazine, "Facing the possibility of millions of dollars of lost tourism business, the Miami hospitality community rallied. It worked with [local NAACP leader, Adora] Obi-Nweze to develop a 20-point plan to improve opportunities for African-Americans in Miami.... To date, 115 scholarships have been awarded to students studying hospitality management at Florida International University and over $1 million in cash, on-the-job positions and in-kind services."
Observing the Florida NAACP Conference's winning formula, national NAACP CEO, Kweisi Mfume, decided to "wet his own beak." In 1997, Mfume started publishing an annual report on the hotel-motel industry, rating all major players. The problem is, Mfume's "rating system" provides no criteria, and he almost never gives any white-owned hotel or motel chain a good rating. Only the Cendant and Marriott hotel chains have ever gotten a rating above a "C." And caving in to black extortion demands has now inspired a spate of frivolous lawsuits against hoteliers.
The Adam's Mark hotel chain has been the target of shakedown lawsuits following each of the two previous annual Black College Reunion weekends. In each case, black guests claimed that by being required to wear orange wristbands showing that they were hotel guests, they were being racially discriminated against, and that they were charged higher rates than white guests.
In 2000, Adam's Mark agreed to pay an $8 million settlement, but the settlement was scuttled by a federal judge on technical grounds.
Apparently seeing that there would be no end to the lawsuits, last fall Adam's Mark's Fred Bossert decided to fight them. In early September, Adam's Mark spokeswoman, Sharon Harvey Davis, denied the charges. Davis told me, "No, they're not true. The higher rates are true for all special events -- any high demand event for the city -- Daytona 500, Oktoberfest. Requiring a security deposit is true for all special events that require advance registration. It's a demand that's not specific to Black College Reunion weekend.
"The ID bands are [for] when there are a lot of non-guests trying to enter the hotel, and to make sure that our paying guests have a chance to enjoy the facilities." Davis noted that the same practice is used "most notably in New Orleans during Mardi Gras week. So, it's industry-wide, and it's not just done to African Americans."
So, are you telling me that this is a frivolous lawsuit? "We are saying, that we are going to aggressively defend the lawsuit. Everything we did during BCR week were done to control crowds, and make sure our guests were able to enjoy the facilities of our hotel."
Why is the NAACP targeting Adam's Mark? "I'm not sure," Davis responded, "but I know that we are working hard to keep the doors of communication open to the NAACP, and to find a common ground."
In December, Adam's Mark surrendered.
Hoteliers are learning the hard way, what happens when you lie down with dogs. However, it is most likely the white hotel and motel guests who must subsidize racist black extortionists, who will be waking up with fleas. And that is most inhospitable.
January, 2002
Middle American News
The race hustlers who have engineered race hoaxes and shaken down one American industry after another have found most hospitable hosts in the hotel and motel industry. Hotel and motel owners have responded to demands for payoffs to blacks by meeting every demand -- and have been rewarded for their troubles with frivolous lawsuits and public condemnation by the very groups whom they have so dutifully served.
Consider the case of Adam's Mark, a St. Louis-based, national chain of 24 hotels. Twenty percent of Adam's Mark executives are black, 60 percent of its employees are "minority," the firm forces all employees to undergo diversity training, and executives at its Daytona Beach hotel had for so long been involved in the planning of Black College Reunion weekend held annually in the Florida city, that BCR representatives made Adam's Mark the official BCR headquarters. And yet, all these initiatives failed to protect Adam's Mark from repeated law suits by black BCR guests seeking to shake it down, and a national boycott the NAACP organized against it, with the connivance of the federal Department of Justice and Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth.
On December 3, Adams' Mark agreed to a settlement that will cost it at least $5 million: The chain will pay $1,000,000 to be split among the five black plaintiffs -- Dante Gilliam, Jamie Morrison, Latoya Straughn, Napoleon Berrian and Mark Simmonds -- who initially sued it; $600,000 to four racially segregated, black Florida colleges; $400,000 to be split among the 400 black guests who were in the Daytona Beach Adam's Mark during BCR 1999; and the hotel chain agreed to forfeit payment on $3 million dollars in contracts that were broken by groups and individuals that had cheated the hotel, in support of the NAACP shakedown. (The four black schools are Bethune-Cookman College, $150,000; Florida A&M University, $250,000; Edward Waters College, $100,000; and Florida Memorial College, $100,000).
And so, all of the BCR celebrants whom the hotel had so assiduously reached out to, ultimately got to stay in the hotel for free, while five of them made a cool, $200,000 profit out of the weekend. Those free stays, shakedown payoffs, and broken contracts will ultimately have to be paid off by Adam's Mark's white guests.
The inspiration for such racial extortion was apparently born in 1990, during a racial love fest hosted for black South African leader, Nelson Mandela, by Miami's black leaders. When leaders from Miami's Cuban expatriate community criticized Mandela for his support of Cuba's communist dictator, Fidel Castro, black community leaders demanded apologies and reparations. (The concept of reparations is not limited to the white man's guilt for slavery and Jim Crow.)
Led by the Florida Conference of NAACP chapters, black activists organized a boycott of Miami, producing a film which they sent free to organizations around the country, telling them not plan events in Miami, irrespective of the fact that such boycotts would disproportionately harm blacks. As Jared Taylor recounted in Paved with Good Intentions, "A year later, the group estimated that it had managed to keep $27 million of convention business out of the city."
The activists demanded that the hospitality industry apologize and pay extortion to blacks, in the form of jobs, college tuition, and other protection money. Had white organizations engaged in such behavior, their leaders surely would have been arrested and tried for extortion and conspiracy; but since these were black extortionists, they were able to operate with impunity, and the targeted industry caved in.
The hospitality industry and its media rushed to serve its new masters. As Brian S. Lonergan put it in a celebratory 1999 article in USAE News, a convention and hotel industry magazine, "Facing the possibility of millions of dollars of lost tourism business, the Miami hospitality community rallied. It worked with [local NAACP leader, Adora] Obi-Nweze to develop a 20-point plan to improve opportunities for African-Americans in Miami.... To date, 115 scholarships have been awarded to students studying hospitality management at Florida International University and over $1 million in cash, on-the-job positions and in-kind services."
Observing the Florida NAACP Conference's winning formula, national NAACP CEO, Kweisi Mfume, decided to "wet his own beak." In 1997, Mfume started publishing an annual report on the hotel-motel industry, rating all major players. The problem is, Mfume's "rating system" provides no criteria, and he almost never gives any white-owned hotel or motel chain a good rating. Only the Cendant and Marriott hotel chains have ever gotten a rating above a "C." And caving in to black extortion demands has now inspired a spate of frivolous lawsuits against hoteliers.
The Adam's Mark hotel chain has been the target of shakedown lawsuits following each of the two previous annual Black College Reunion weekends. In each case, black guests claimed that by being required to wear orange wristbands showing that they were hotel guests, they were being racially discriminated against, and that they were charged higher rates than white guests.
In 2000, Adam's Mark agreed to pay an $8 million settlement, but the settlement was scuttled by a federal judge on technical grounds.
Apparently seeing that there would be no end to the lawsuits, last fall Adam's Mark's Fred Bossert decided to fight them. In early September, Adam's Mark spokeswoman, Sharon Harvey Davis, denied the charges. Davis told me, "No, they're not true. The higher rates are true for all special events -- any high demand event for the city -- Daytona 500, Oktoberfest. Requiring a security deposit is true for all special events that require advance registration. It's a demand that's not specific to Black College Reunion weekend.
"The ID bands are [for] when there are a lot of non-guests trying to enter the hotel, and to make sure that our paying guests have a chance to enjoy the facilities." Davis noted that the same practice is used "most notably in New Orleans during Mardi Gras week. So, it's industry-wide, and it's not just done to African Americans."
So, are you telling me that this is a frivolous lawsuit? "We are saying, that we are going to aggressively defend the lawsuit. Everything we did during BCR week were done to control crowds, and make sure our guests were able to enjoy the facilities of our hotel."
Why is the NAACP targeting Adam's Mark? "I'm not sure," Davis responded, "but I know that we are working hard to keep the doors of communication open to the NAACP, and to find a common ground."
In December, Adam's Mark surrendered.
Hoteliers are learning the hard way, what happens when you lie down with dogs. However, it is most likely the white hotel and motel guests who must subsidize racist black extortionists, who will be waking up with fleas. And that is most inhospitable.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Letters from Jail, Cont’d.: The Heretical 2’s Stephen Whittle Writes
By Nicholas Stix
I have previously published letters from Santa Ana (CA) Jail by Stephen Whittle (nom de plume, Luke O’Farrell), one half of the Heretical 2, on September 17 and May 18. See also this July 31 VDARE blog essay and this March 14 Hoover Hog essay. Whittle’s publisher, the writer Simon Sheppard, is being held in the same jail.
Whittle and Sheppard were convicted in the U.K. in July of thought crimes, fled that month on the eve of sentencing, and sought political asylum in Los Angeles. The acquaintance whom the pair and I have in common has forwarded another letter from Whittle, which the former was kind enough to transcribe for me, and for which I thank him.
* * *
* * *
Although it is late in the day, Hoover Hog and one of his readers urged contacting Amnesty International, which claims an interest in freeing political prisoners, the ACLU of Southern California, which feigns an interest in freedom from state coercion (when it isn’t commissioning racial profiling hoaxes), the Orange County Register and the Los Angeles Times.
I have previously published letters from Santa Ana (CA) Jail by Stephen Whittle (nom de plume, Luke O’Farrell), one half of the Heretical 2, on September 17 and May 18. See also this July 31 VDARE blog essay and this March 14 Hoover Hog essay. Whittle’s publisher, the writer Simon Sheppard, is being held in the same jail.
Whittle and Sheppard were convicted in the U.K. in July of thought crimes, fled that month on the eve of sentencing, and sought political asylum in Los Angeles. The acquaintance whom the pair and I have in common has forwarded another letter from Whittle, which the former was kind enough to transcribe for me, and for which I thank him.
0800006408
c/o Santa Ana Jail
P.O. Box 22003
Santa Ana, CA 92701
19th April, 2009.
Dear ……….,
The judge [immigration judge Rose Peters] doesn't ignore the possibility of imprisonment for political speech: she supports it. To quote from her ruling:
According to evidence presented before the Court, Applicants have been arrested, tried, and convicted under legitimate laws of the United Kingdom. Generally, legitimate prosecution cannot be considered persecution for asylum purposes...In the present case, Applicants were tried and convicted by a highly developed and sophisticated legal system. As such, it cannot be said that their conviction was arbitary or lacking due process of law. (pp. 7-8) [Emphasis added.]
Michelle Myers, the DA [federal prosecutor], made no attempt to rebut any of our claims about persecution: her entire reply consisted of a report on the European Community's efforts to crush free speech. She and the judge were obviously fully in support. I repeatedly made the point in my testimony that one of the chief reasons for our flight was to warn Americans of the implications of our conviction for speech on an American-based site: Namely, that American citizens too were liable to arrest and imprisonment if they entered British/European jurisdiction. The judge and DA are obviously quite happy for that to take place. Free speech and free enquiry are white male values and both are marked for destruction under the present Marxist diversitoids. That's not to say all white males support free speech or all non-whites and non-males oppose it, simply that it will not survive if white males lose power.
I think the Orange County Register is a case in point: we've written to it twice and had no response, altho' our case would seem perfect for a self-proclaimed libertarian paper to report on. Steve Greenhut recently made the (ludicrous) equation of Obama's government with fascism, but he won't devote any time to the Heretical Two, it seems. The LA Times reporter Christopher Goffard is still interested in our case, but we've heard that the jail has been denying him access to us.
The Kvetscher's comments on Baal HaShoah were spot-on, I thought. Larry Auster did a good piece a few years ago explaining that Jews irrationally saw highly philo-Semitic white Christians as a greater threat than Muslims, which is why they supported mass immigration by the latter.
On to happier thoughts... Clark Ashton Smith is a good illustration for the maxim that "only the mediocre are always at their best." His horror and science fiction are usually weak, but his fantasy contains some of the best prose ever written in English, in my opinion. H.P. Lovecraft did not write as well as CAS, but it increases my respect for Sam Francis to learn that he liked HPL.
I see from the paper today that the U.S. is "reluctantly" boycotting a conference on racism because it criticizes Israel and seeks to undermine free speech. I personally support Israel's status as a "racist" state à la China or India: each people should have and defend a homeland, and most peoples are allowed to do so by the "anti-racists." The white peoples are the exception. Racism, so-called, is like the immune system of the state: it prevents alien elements invading the body politic. California and its budget deficits, etc., are a good example of what happens when an immune system doesn't work, or rather is suppressed by Marxism.
I would like to stay in touch: your letters and support have been one of the few positive aspects of our sojourn here. But I suspect Santa Ana Jail will prove a lot pleasanter than any jail we end up in back home. We'll see sooner or later, tho' it could be two months or more before we're deported.
All best,
Stephen W.
Although it is late in the day, Hoover Hog and one of his readers urged contacting Amnesty International, which claims an interest in freeing political prisoners, the ACLU of Southern California, which feigns an interest in freedom from state coercion (when it isn’t commissioning racial profiling hoaxes), the Orange County Register and the Los Angeles Times.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Non-Criminal “Violator” or Felon? What’s in a Word? Sometimes, Everything
By Nicholas Stix
February 19, 2009
VDARE
An unsigned news item running all of 111 words provides a lesson in the world of open borders propaganda, in which any given word may be a tactical opportunity.
Coming to America on a legal visa, and overstaying that visa is a non-criminal “violation.” Crossing the border illegally, i.e., without a visa and at an unauthorized border point, is a crime, but only a misdemeanor. Illegally re-entering America after one has already been deported, is a felony. Thus, it is an immigration felony, for which Domingo Vazquez Rodriguez is to be adjudicated. Whether he is properly adjudicated in either the immigration felony or child molestation felony case may be another matter entirely, but it was not the place of the Express News’ anonymous, alleged reporter to usurp the prerogative of Congress in passing and repealing laws.
February 19, 2009
VDARE
An unsigned news item running all of 111 words provides a lesson in the world of open borders propaganda, in which any given word may be a tactical opportunity.
Customs officers in Hidalgo found a fugitive wanted on a child-molestation charge hidden in a commercial bus heading for Mexico, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman said Monday.
Domingo Vazquez Rodriguez, 29, of Saltillo, Mexico …
Officers who found him used fingerprints and photo records under the US-Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program to identify him as a fugitive wanted by Edinburg police, CBP spokesman Felix Garza said.
Records showed Vazquez Rodriguez had been deported in 2007. He will be turned over to police after adjudication for the immigration violation.
[“Fugitive found hidden on bus to Mexico,” San Antonio Express-News, February 10, 2009.]
Coming to America on a legal visa, and overstaying that visa is a non-criminal “violation.” Crossing the border illegally, i.e., without a visa and at an unauthorized border point, is a crime, but only a misdemeanor. Illegally re-entering America after one has already been deported, is a felony. Thus, it is an immigration felony, for which Domingo Vazquez Rodriguez is to be adjudicated. Whether he is properly adjudicated in either the immigration felony or child molestation felony case may be another matter entirely, but it was not the place of the Express News’ anonymous, alleged reporter to usurp the prerogative of Congress in passing and repealing laws.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Media’s Gay Mafia “Queers” the News
By Nicholas Stix
July, 2003
Middle American News
In their quest to “queer” America, radical homosexual activists in the media destroy lives, as they manipulate the principle of privacy, and make war on traditional masculinity, sports, and even the truth.
In late April, Sen. Rick Santorum (R, Pa.) got a taste of what awaits anyone who opposes the gay agenda. After explaining to Associated Press reporter Lara Jakes Jordan (who is married to Sen. John Kerry’s (D, Ma.) campaign manager, Jim Jordan) his opposition to any pro-gay laws or court rulings that might weaken the family, gay activists demanded that Santorum resign.
But the Santorum case was only the tip of the iceberg. For as Sandy Koufax, Mike Piazza, and countless others will attest, in recent years, gay activists have graduated from protesting against public figures to controlling news rooms. The activists do not care if their stories are even true, and suffer no consequences for lying.
In February, Hall of Fame pitcher Sandy Koufax ended his 48-year relationship with the Los Angeles Dodgers, due to a defamatory story a reporter planted in the New York Post, insinuating that Koufax was a homosexual. The Dodgers and the New York Post both belong to News Corp., the conglomerate owned by Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch.
The story, a “blind item” in Richard Johnson’s Page Six gossip section, referred to “an unidentified ‘Hall of Fame baseball hero” who was secretly gay. The December 19 item claimed that the baseball great “cooperated with a best-selling biography only because the author promised to keep it secret that he is gay. The author kept her word, but big mouths at the publishing house can’t keep from flapping.”
Since the bestselling biography, Sandy Koufax: A Lefty’s Legacy by Jane Leavy, had appeared only three months earlier—published by News Corp. subsidiary HarperCollins!—many observers concluded that the “blind item” referred to Koufax. On February 21, the New York Post’s management
confessed that the piece had indeed been about the 66-year-old pitcher. “A two-sentence blind item we ran here on Dec. 19 about a ‘Hall of Fame baseball hero’ has sparked a series of unfortunate consequences for which we are very sorry.... We apologize to both Koufax and Leavy for getting it wrong.”
The New York Daily News reported on February 22, that “Daily News columnist Michael Gross tracked down the twice-married Koufax and his current girlfriend and made clear that the Dodger great is heterosexual.”
The report went beyond even the radical homosexual “outing” of famous closeted gays, a practice which was pioneered in 1989 by editor-in-chief, Gabriel Rotello, and violent “reporter,” Michelangelo Signorile, of the short-lived magazine Outweek. In 1990, Rotello sought to rationalize the practice, writing that, “social workers pointed out that gay teens grow up without support networks of parents, relatives or even ‘out’ gay and lesbian friends. Such kids, who are taught the lie that gays are pathetic, sad and hopeless, desperately need positive role models. Despite the fact that thousands of society’s most famous, respected and successful people are gay, gay kids grow up without that knowledge.” Rotello considered his tactic vindicated, when supermarket tabloids soon began imitating it.
The gay mafia—openly gay activists who pass as journalists—seeks to “out” high-profile, professional athletes as homosexual, in order to mainstream a sexual orientation which most Americans consider perverted, and apparently as an assault on the last preserve of the traditional masculinity they have declared war on. And if no gay superstars are handy, activists will invent some.
Once the preserve of despised storm troopers like Rotello and Signorile, the practice of “outing” has since gone mainstream, as activists have taken over major media outlets. However, even bigger problems with the “queering” of the news involve the willful misreporting or outright silencing of important stories.
In June 2000, media watchdog Reed Irvine reported in NewsMax.com on the celebratory speech given at the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association by New York Times national political correspondent, Richard Berke. “Now, there are times when you look at the [Times’] front-page meeting and ... literally three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals.”
In a whispering campaign last year, reporters portrayed New York Mets catcher Mike Piazza as homosexual. Piazza, widely considered a surefire future Hall of Famer, eventually felt the need to call a press conference, to announce that he is “not gay.”
Gay media activists have also succeeded at perpetrating hoaxes, according to which heterosexuals are just as much at risk of contracting HIV as homosexuals, and that gays comprise 10% of the population, and are victimized by rampant anti-gay attacks.
In 1990, investigative journalist Michael Fumento’s book, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, meticulously proved that AIDS was a gay disease. Fumento revealed that public health officials, in league with homosexual activists, routinely lied about the danger of AIDS to the heterosexual population, and thus misused scarce resources, costing many lives that could have been saved. Gay activists felt so threatened by Fumento, that they intimidated his publisher into killing the book’s PR campaign, thus ensuring that it was a commercial failure, and succeeded at marginalizing one of America’s finest journalists.
In seeking to mainstream homosexuality, the gay mafia has for years spread the fiction that “every tenth” person is homosexual. More sober calculations, such as those of SUNY Stony Brook sociologist John Gagnon, put the prevalence of homosexuality at 2%.
In 1991, New York Newsday columnist Jim Dwyer wrote of the near-lynching of a heterosexual man by a homosexual mob at the annual New York City Gay Pride parade. The man had muttered to his girlfriend about the aggressive attitude of the “fags” at the parade. A nearby spectator overheard him, and organized a lynch mob, which chased after the man. A police officer saved the man, by putting him in a taxicab that sped from the scene. No members of the mob were arrested.
Dwyer alone reported on the incident. Local media outlets all reported, however, on three thugs who were arrested at the parade, for attempting to attack homosexuals with baseball bats. And so, instead of showing that homosexuals were both attackers and victims that day, the media portrayed them exclusively as victims.
During the 1990s in New York State, thousands of babies and their mothers died horrible, preventable deaths due to AIDS, because the gay mafia, which controlled AIDS coverage, refused to report on a gruesome policy that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had adopted, under pressure from the gay lobby. All newborns were routinely tested for HIV infection, but contrary to established public health practice, CDC officials refused to inform their mothers of the results. While only 25% of the children of HIV+ mothers were born with HIV antibodies, thousands more were then infected via their mother’s breast milk. As State Assemblywoman Nettie Mayersohn wrote in 1997, “Only in the world of AIDS has privacy and secrecy been given a higher priority than prevention and treatment.” But then, gay activists do not have children.
Another dramatic case of the gay mafia’s ability to skew the news came following the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, in Laramie, Wyoming. Posing as gays, Aaron J. McKinney and Russell Henderson lured Shepard away from a bar, robbed and pistol-whipped him, and tied him to a fence. Shepard was found alive, but died five days later. Henderson and McKinney are serving life sentences.
As William McGowan points out in Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism (which the New York Times refused to review), no less than 3,007 stories on the Shepard case were published in the first MONTH after the murder. Across America, pro-gay and gay reporters, and gay activists seized upon the case as typical of rampant “homophobia,” exploiting it to win political privileges for homosexuals, including “hate crime” legislation giving gay crime victims special status.
In 1999, a young boy was heinously murdered, but since the crime was carried out by homosexual pedophiles, most Americans never heard about it. Don Carpenter and Joshua Macabe Brown lured 13-year-old neighbor Jesse Dirkhising into their apartment in Rogers, Arkansas, where they tied up, gagged, and drugged him. As Allyson Smith reported in World Net Daily, for five hours, Brown anally raped the boy with sausages and cucumbers, “three fingers, his penis, a frozen banana, and a urine enema laced with the sedative drug amitryptiline while Carpenter watched, masturbating ...”
Leaving their victim face down, the men took breaks to eat, shop for more rape implements, and nap, while he slowly succumbed. According to Medical Examiner Dr. Stephen Erickson, young Jesse died of “suffocation, positional asphyxiation and acute amitryptiline intoxication.”
As William McGowan reports, in the month after Jesse Dirkhising’s murder, only 46 stories were devoted to his fate. “The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC ignored the story altogether and continued to do so through the March 2001 trial of one of the murderers, which resulted in a conviction. (The other assailant later pled guilty.)” Dirkhising’s murderers are now fighting their convictions.
Ultimately, the gay mafia does allow for one last preserve of “privacy”: Keeping important but unflattering stories about homosexuals very, very private.
July, 2003
Middle American News
In their quest to “queer” America, radical homosexual activists in the media destroy lives, as they manipulate the principle of privacy, and make war on traditional masculinity, sports, and even the truth.
In late April, Sen. Rick Santorum (R, Pa.) got a taste of what awaits anyone who opposes the gay agenda. After explaining to Associated Press reporter Lara Jakes Jordan (who is married to Sen. John Kerry’s (D, Ma.) campaign manager, Jim Jordan) his opposition to any pro-gay laws or court rulings that might weaken the family, gay activists demanded that Santorum resign.
But the Santorum case was only the tip of the iceberg. For as Sandy Koufax, Mike Piazza, and countless others will attest, in recent years, gay activists have graduated from protesting against public figures to controlling news rooms. The activists do not care if their stories are even true, and suffer no consequences for lying.
In February, Hall of Fame pitcher Sandy Koufax ended his 48-year relationship with the Los Angeles Dodgers, due to a defamatory story a reporter planted in the New York Post, insinuating that Koufax was a homosexual. The Dodgers and the New York Post both belong to News Corp., the conglomerate owned by Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch.
The story, a “blind item” in Richard Johnson’s Page Six gossip section, referred to “an unidentified ‘Hall of Fame baseball hero” who was secretly gay. The December 19 item claimed that the baseball great “cooperated with a best-selling biography only because the author promised to keep it secret that he is gay. The author kept her word, but big mouths at the publishing house can’t keep from flapping.”
Since the bestselling biography, Sandy Koufax: A Lefty’s Legacy by Jane Leavy, had appeared only three months earlier—published by News Corp. subsidiary HarperCollins!—many observers concluded that the “blind item” referred to Koufax. On February 21, the New York Post’s management
confessed that the piece had indeed been about the 66-year-old pitcher. “A two-sentence blind item we ran here on Dec. 19 about a ‘Hall of Fame baseball hero’ has sparked a series of unfortunate consequences for which we are very sorry.... We apologize to both Koufax and Leavy for getting it wrong.”
The New York Daily News reported on February 22, that “Daily News columnist Michael Gross tracked down the twice-married Koufax and his current girlfriend and made clear that the Dodger great is heterosexual.”
The report went beyond even the radical homosexual “outing” of famous closeted gays, a practice which was pioneered in 1989 by editor-in-chief, Gabriel Rotello, and violent “reporter,” Michelangelo Signorile, of the short-lived magazine Outweek. In 1990, Rotello sought to rationalize the practice, writing that, “social workers pointed out that gay teens grow up without support networks of parents, relatives or even ‘out’ gay and lesbian friends. Such kids, who are taught the lie that gays are pathetic, sad and hopeless, desperately need positive role models. Despite the fact that thousands of society’s most famous, respected and successful people are gay, gay kids grow up without that knowledge.” Rotello considered his tactic vindicated, when supermarket tabloids soon began imitating it.
The gay mafia—openly gay activists who pass as journalists—seeks to “out” high-profile, professional athletes as homosexual, in order to mainstream a sexual orientation which most Americans consider perverted, and apparently as an assault on the last preserve of the traditional masculinity they have declared war on. And if no gay superstars are handy, activists will invent some.
Once the preserve of despised storm troopers like Rotello and Signorile, the practice of “outing” has since gone mainstream, as activists have taken over major media outlets. However, even bigger problems with the “queering” of the news involve the willful misreporting or outright silencing of important stories.
In June 2000, media watchdog Reed Irvine reported in NewsMax.com on the celebratory speech given at the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association by New York Times national political correspondent, Richard Berke. “Now, there are times when you look at the [Times’] front-page meeting and ... literally three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals.”
In a whispering campaign last year, reporters portrayed New York Mets catcher Mike Piazza as homosexual. Piazza, widely considered a surefire future Hall of Famer, eventually felt the need to call a press conference, to announce that he is “not gay.”
Gay media activists have also succeeded at perpetrating hoaxes, according to which heterosexuals are just as much at risk of contracting HIV as homosexuals, and that gays comprise 10% of the population, and are victimized by rampant anti-gay attacks.
In 1990, investigative journalist Michael Fumento’s book, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, meticulously proved that AIDS was a gay disease. Fumento revealed that public health officials, in league with homosexual activists, routinely lied about the danger of AIDS to the heterosexual population, and thus misused scarce resources, costing many lives that could have been saved. Gay activists felt so threatened by Fumento, that they intimidated his publisher into killing the book’s PR campaign, thus ensuring that it was a commercial failure, and succeeded at marginalizing one of America’s finest journalists.
In seeking to mainstream homosexuality, the gay mafia has for years spread the fiction that “every tenth” person is homosexual. More sober calculations, such as those of SUNY Stony Brook sociologist John Gagnon, put the prevalence of homosexuality at 2%.
In 1991, New York Newsday columnist Jim Dwyer wrote of the near-lynching of a heterosexual man by a homosexual mob at the annual New York City Gay Pride parade. The man had muttered to his girlfriend about the aggressive attitude of the “fags” at the parade. A nearby spectator overheard him, and organized a lynch mob, which chased after the man. A police officer saved the man, by putting him in a taxicab that sped from the scene. No members of the mob were arrested.
Dwyer alone reported on the incident. Local media outlets all reported, however, on three thugs who were arrested at the parade, for attempting to attack homosexuals with baseball bats. And so, instead of showing that homosexuals were both attackers and victims that day, the media portrayed them exclusively as victims.
During the 1990s in New York State, thousands of babies and their mothers died horrible, preventable deaths due to AIDS, because the gay mafia, which controlled AIDS coverage, refused to report on a gruesome policy that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had adopted, under pressure from the gay lobby. All newborns were routinely tested for HIV infection, but contrary to established public health practice, CDC officials refused to inform their mothers of the results. While only 25% of the children of HIV+ mothers were born with HIV antibodies, thousands more were then infected via their mother’s breast milk. As State Assemblywoman Nettie Mayersohn wrote in 1997, “Only in the world of AIDS has privacy and secrecy been given a higher priority than prevention and treatment.” But then, gay activists do not have children.
Another dramatic case of the gay mafia’s ability to skew the news came following the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, in Laramie, Wyoming. Posing as gays, Aaron J. McKinney and Russell Henderson lured Shepard away from a bar, robbed and pistol-whipped him, and tied him to a fence. Shepard was found alive, but died five days later. Henderson and McKinney are serving life sentences.
As William McGowan points out in Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism (which the New York Times refused to review), no less than 3,007 stories on the Shepard case were published in the first MONTH after the murder. Across America, pro-gay and gay reporters, and gay activists seized upon the case as typical of rampant “homophobia,” exploiting it to win political privileges for homosexuals, including “hate crime” legislation giving gay crime victims special status.
In 1999, a young boy was heinously murdered, but since the crime was carried out by homosexual pedophiles, most Americans never heard about it. Don Carpenter and Joshua Macabe Brown lured 13-year-old neighbor Jesse Dirkhising into their apartment in Rogers, Arkansas, where they tied up, gagged, and drugged him. As Allyson Smith reported in World Net Daily, for five hours, Brown anally raped the boy with sausages and cucumbers, “three fingers, his penis, a frozen banana, and a urine enema laced with the sedative drug amitryptiline while Carpenter watched, masturbating ...”
Leaving their victim face down, the men took breaks to eat, shop for more rape implements, and nap, while he slowly succumbed. According to Medical Examiner Dr. Stephen Erickson, young Jesse died of “suffocation, positional asphyxiation and acute amitryptiline intoxication.”
As William McGowan reports, in the month after Jesse Dirkhising’s murder, only 46 stories were devoted to his fate. “The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC ignored the story altogether and continued to do so through the March 2001 trial of one of the murderers, which resulted in a conviction. (The other assailant later pled guilty.)” Dirkhising’s murderers are now fighting their convictions.
Ultimately, the gay mafia does allow for one last preserve of “privacy”: Keeping important but unflattering stories about homosexuals very, very private.
How Elites Impose Gay Marriage from the Top Down
By Nicholas Stix
July, 2004
Middle American News
May 17 was, in the words of Ron Crews of the Massachusetts Family Institute, “a day of mourning.” For on that day, Massachusetts officials began marrying man to man, and woman to woman. Those who brought about this state of affairs claim to believe in “equality” and to be “democrats,” but in fact are elites who will have nothing of equality, let alone democracy. Five elite groups brought about same-sex marriage, which is however not an unalterable condition: Activist judges, the establishment media, ultraliberal elected officials, gay activist organizations and the homosexual activist, “shadow government.”
In the Supreme Court’s June 26, 2003 “Lawrence” decision overturning the Texas sodomy law, it went beyond the claims of “privacy” that homosexual activists had always previously made, with some justices already leaning in their decisions towards same-sex marriage. In a game of judicial “can you top this,” on November 18 in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, led by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court projected a non-existent right to same-sex marriage onto the 200-year-old, Massachusetts State Constitution. And beginning on February 12, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered city officials, in clear violation of California state law, to illegally marry people of the same sex, for weeks, California state judges found every specious excuse imaginable (including “punctuation”) to refuse doing their jobs.
According to its own archive, in the past year the New York Times has published 305 articles on same-sex marriage, virtually all of them with a one-sided, pro-same-sex marriage slant. The Times and the rest of the elite, establishment media hammer away, claiming that homosexuals are in the same situation that blacks were during the civil rights movement, and that to deny homosexuals the right to marry members of the same sex, would be to treat them as second-class citizens. As Sen. Rick Santorum observed prior to Lawrence, the same argument would justify incestuous and multispousal marriages. The elite, politically correct media have, however, “won” the argument via their usual method -- by variously silencing, caricaturing, and demonizing their opponents. And through threats: A house editorial in the March 11 New York Times made a veiled threat to politically destroy Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg, if he did not commence performing illegal same-sex weddings, and direct city officials to do the same.
Beginning in February, rogue political leaders, most notoriously San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and New Paltz, NY Mayor Jason West, demagogued the issue, spitting on their respective state laws, while wrapping themselves in imaginary flags of “equality,” illegally marrying same-sex couples. As professor of law Vikram David Amar of the University of California’s Hastings College of Law in San Francisco pointed out, Mayor Newsom violated no less than three provisions of California State law, as well as the California state constitution’s ban on officials refusing to uphold laws with which they disagree. “Finally, and perhaps most importantly, section 308.5 of the Family Law Code -- which was enacted by the voters themselves as an initiative (Proposition 22) in the 2000 election -- says that ‘only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’"
Homosexual activist groups have been among the most influential players in the same-sex marriage campaign. Working behind the scenes with political leaders, news editors, public and private managers and educators, these groups have for the past thirty years wielded increasing power over what Americans may see and hear and say and do. Often at taxpayer expense, they have imposed a situation in which gays and their agenda must always be depicted in a positive manner, and their critics demonized. Some activist groups have increasingly hijacked public institutions, which they use for gay political organizing, same-sex marriage politicking, and most importantly, sexual recruitment.
One such powerful activist group, GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, pronounced “glisten”) has developed a curriculum promoting same-sex marriage to schoolchildren. One of the lesson plans instructs educators, “Elicit laws or customs that students feel are reflective of current marriage practice and … the underlying attitudes/beliefs. These practices reflect the ideas that marriage requires compatibility, economic interdependence, and that marriage is first and foremost about love – not procreation.”
But promoting same-sex marriage is just the tip of the iceberg for GLSEN, which functions in the schools through homosexual teacher-activists. The group, which was founded in 1990 by Kevin Jennings, was originally named GLISTN, as in the “Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teachers Network.”
GLSEN Los Angeles sells a homosexualist curriculum that starts in kindergarten, “cootie shots” (which as a traveling “play” has also reached tens of thousands of young school children), whereby it seeks to impose homosexuality on all subjects.
In “Play Wedding,” designed for K-2, “Two little girls play dolls and talk about a wedding between two men one of them attended.” In “La Peluca de Su Mama,” which is also promoted for K-2 pupils, “A Latino boy is mocked and teased by his classmates for trying on his mother’s wig.” In “Billy Tipton,” for grades 3-6, “Billy, a jazz musician and heartthrob, who lived her/his entire life as a man, shares his/her story.” In three other lessons, little boys are encouraged variously to wear dresses, don their mother’s high heels, and paint their fingernails bright orange.
GLSEN activist and “Cootie Shots” co-editor and theater director Norma Bowles claims, “We started hearing from parents and teachers that something like this was needed for elementary schools. As young as first and second grade, kids are calling each other names like sissy and queerboy. Long before kids even know what it means, the put down of the day is ‘That’s so gay.’”
First and second graders speaking that way? Parents calling for a pro-gay curriculum? I don’t think so. In fact, in 2002 parents in Novato, CA sued to protect their children from being exposed to “Cootie Shots.”
According to World Net Daily reporter Diana Lynne, Fringe Benefits Theatre’s Web site has said that it is "dedicated to building bridges between gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) youth and their straight peers, teachers and parents."
However, in news reports, the group sells its productions as simply “promoting diversity.” And the group has since made it impossible to reach it directly. Now, although Fringe Benefits is supported by taxpayer dollars, one must use intermediaries such as the radical leftwing Southern Poverty Law Center's Web site to reach the group.
GLSEN activists have preyed on sexually confused (which many adolescents are) children as young as 12, and have told 14-year-olds that the latter are “transgenders,” an incoherent notion that claims that one can have a sexual identity that contradicts one’s body. The “therapy” for such confused souls involves chopping off a child’s sexual organs, constructing useless facsimiles of the sex organs of the opposite sex, and counseling the mutilated child that he (it?) is what he is not.
GLSEN’s most powerful organizing tool has been “Gay-Straight Alliances” that homosexual activist-teachers organize and manipulate at their schools. GSAs operate under the ruse that children as young as 12 have not only full-blown sexual identities, but a political consciousness of conflicts involving sex and sexual orientation.
Homosexual activist groups have parlayed their power into the creation of a fifth group, which I call the homosexual “shadow government.” Thus do some states and municipalities have homosexual activist advocacy institutionalized as part of government -- "Commissions for Gay and Lesbian Youth," “Commissions on Sexual Minorities,” etc.
In Massachusetts, in what has become known as “fistgate,” thanks to the dissident Web site MassNews, state education officials have joined with activists to push homosexual practices on school children. Two parents, Brian Camenker and Scott Whiteman, publicized a March 25, 2000 talk by state education and health officials, at a GLSEN-sponsored conference, who graphically described and praised any number of homosexual sex acts, most notoriously “fisting” (forcing one’s fist and in some cases, forearm into another person’s rectum or vagina), and who downplayed the need for safe sex (forget about chastity), before an audience of children and educators. The officials had indoctrinated children as young as 12 to talk about homosexual acts. A 12-year-old girl said of homosexuality, “Don’t knock it, til you’ve tried it,” “How do you know you don’t like it?,” and that it “has a glorious history.”
One homosexual teacher-presenter had her seventh-grade students prepare a film to convince administrators that homosexuality was normal, and “not about sex.”
When Camenker and Whiteman played their tape on a local radio show, the education officials, Julie Netherland and Margot E. Abels, were fired. Netherland sued Camenker and Whiteman, arguing that they had violated her “privacy.” Note that while the taxpayer-sponsored talk took place at Tufts University, the officials said that its content was identical to what they typically taught in the public schools.
As the Seattle-based group, Parents and Teachers for Responsible Schools (PTRS) reports, “The City of Seattle and the Seattle School District have created departments, paid for with public money and staffed by public employees, to advocate for homosexual civil rights, which include the right to marry, adopt, conceive children through artificial insemination, and to receive legal status equivalent to that afforded race under law. These departments, the Seattle Commission on Sexual Minorities (‘SCSM’), and the District's Sexual Minority Advocacy Council (‘SMAC’) are part of their respective Office of Civil Rights.
PTRS reports that homosexual activists first used “AIDS education” as their Trojan horse, to get a foothold in the public schools. Since then, GLSEN has fabricated problems, including abuse and discrimination, encountered by allegedly homosexual children, as a pretext to spread its publicly-funded “safe schools” program across the nation. “Safe schools” is a second Trojan horse, which GLSEN uses to push homosexuality and same-sex marriage on school children at ever younger ages.
Homosexual activists have also used programs funded for gay “suicide prevention” to promote homosexuality and same-sex marriage. In short, all public funding for homosexual-oriented programs is used to promote homosexual sex and same-sex marriage.
It is hardly coincidental that same-sex “marriages” were performed in Massachusetts, beginning on May 17, the fiftieth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Topeka Board of Education ruling, in which the justices rode roughshod over the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions and referenda, and the Court’s own precedents, thereby establishing the tyranny that ever since has marched over the will of the American people and its laws with jackboots.
July, 2004
Middle American News
May 17 was, in the words of Ron Crews of the Massachusetts Family Institute, “a day of mourning.” For on that day, Massachusetts officials began marrying man to man, and woman to woman. Those who brought about this state of affairs claim to believe in “equality” and to be “democrats,” but in fact are elites who will have nothing of equality, let alone democracy. Five elite groups brought about same-sex marriage, which is however not an unalterable condition: Activist judges, the establishment media, ultraliberal elected officials, gay activist organizations and the homosexual activist, “shadow government.”
In the Supreme Court’s June 26, 2003 “Lawrence” decision overturning the Texas sodomy law, it went beyond the claims of “privacy” that homosexual activists had always previously made, with some justices already leaning in their decisions towards same-sex marriage. In a game of judicial “can you top this,” on November 18 in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, led by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court projected a non-existent right to same-sex marriage onto the 200-year-old, Massachusetts State Constitution. And beginning on February 12, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered city officials, in clear violation of California state law, to illegally marry people of the same sex, for weeks, California state judges found every specious excuse imaginable (including “punctuation”) to refuse doing their jobs.
According to its own archive, in the past year the New York Times has published 305 articles on same-sex marriage, virtually all of them with a one-sided, pro-same-sex marriage slant. The Times and the rest of the elite, establishment media hammer away, claiming that homosexuals are in the same situation that blacks were during the civil rights movement, and that to deny homosexuals the right to marry members of the same sex, would be to treat them as second-class citizens. As Sen. Rick Santorum observed prior to Lawrence, the same argument would justify incestuous and multispousal marriages. The elite, politically correct media have, however, “won” the argument via their usual method -- by variously silencing, caricaturing, and demonizing their opponents. And through threats: A house editorial in the March 11 New York Times made a veiled threat to politically destroy Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg, if he did not commence performing illegal same-sex weddings, and direct city officials to do the same.
Beginning in February, rogue political leaders, most notoriously San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and New Paltz, NY Mayor Jason West, demagogued the issue, spitting on their respective state laws, while wrapping themselves in imaginary flags of “equality,” illegally marrying same-sex couples. As professor of law Vikram David Amar of the University of California’s Hastings College of Law in San Francisco pointed out, Mayor Newsom violated no less than three provisions of California State law, as well as the California state constitution’s ban on officials refusing to uphold laws with which they disagree. “Finally, and perhaps most importantly, section 308.5 of the Family Law Code -- which was enacted by the voters themselves as an initiative (Proposition 22) in the 2000 election -- says that ‘only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’"
Homosexual activist groups have been among the most influential players in the same-sex marriage campaign. Working behind the scenes with political leaders, news editors, public and private managers and educators, these groups have for the past thirty years wielded increasing power over what Americans may see and hear and say and do. Often at taxpayer expense, they have imposed a situation in which gays and their agenda must always be depicted in a positive manner, and their critics demonized. Some activist groups have increasingly hijacked public institutions, which they use for gay political organizing, same-sex marriage politicking, and most importantly, sexual recruitment.
One such powerful activist group, GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, pronounced “glisten”) has developed a curriculum promoting same-sex marriage to schoolchildren. One of the lesson plans instructs educators, “Elicit laws or customs that students feel are reflective of current marriage practice and … the underlying attitudes/beliefs. These practices reflect the ideas that marriage requires compatibility, economic interdependence, and that marriage is first and foremost about love – not procreation.”
But promoting same-sex marriage is just the tip of the iceberg for GLSEN, which functions in the schools through homosexual teacher-activists. The group, which was founded in 1990 by Kevin Jennings, was originally named GLISTN, as in the “Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teachers Network.”
GLSEN Los Angeles sells a homosexualist curriculum that starts in kindergarten, “cootie shots” (which as a traveling “play” has also reached tens of thousands of young school children), whereby it seeks to impose homosexuality on all subjects.
In “Play Wedding,” designed for K-2, “Two little girls play dolls and talk about a wedding between two men one of them attended.” In “La Peluca de Su Mama,” which is also promoted for K-2 pupils, “A Latino boy is mocked and teased by his classmates for trying on his mother’s wig.” In “Billy Tipton,” for grades 3-6, “Billy, a jazz musician and heartthrob, who lived her/his entire life as a man, shares his/her story.” In three other lessons, little boys are encouraged variously to wear dresses, don their mother’s high heels, and paint their fingernails bright orange.
GLSEN activist and “Cootie Shots” co-editor and theater director Norma Bowles claims, “We started hearing from parents and teachers that something like this was needed for elementary schools. As young as first and second grade, kids are calling each other names like sissy and queerboy. Long before kids even know what it means, the put down of the day is ‘That’s so gay.’”
First and second graders speaking that way? Parents calling for a pro-gay curriculum? I don’t think so. In fact, in 2002 parents in Novato, CA sued to protect their children from being exposed to “Cootie Shots.”
According to World Net Daily reporter Diana Lynne, Fringe Benefits Theatre’s Web site has said that it is "dedicated to building bridges between gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) youth and their straight peers, teachers and parents."
However, in news reports, the group sells its productions as simply “promoting diversity.” And the group has since made it impossible to reach it directly. Now, although Fringe Benefits is supported by taxpayer dollars, one must use intermediaries such as the radical leftwing Southern Poverty Law Center's Web site to reach the group.
GLSEN activists have preyed on sexually confused (which many adolescents are) children as young as 12, and have told 14-year-olds that the latter are “transgenders,” an incoherent notion that claims that one can have a sexual identity that contradicts one’s body. The “therapy” for such confused souls involves chopping off a child’s sexual organs, constructing useless facsimiles of the sex organs of the opposite sex, and counseling the mutilated child that he (it?) is what he is not.
GLSEN’s most powerful organizing tool has been “Gay-Straight Alliances” that homosexual activist-teachers organize and manipulate at their schools. GSAs operate under the ruse that children as young as 12 have not only full-blown sexual identities, but a political consciousness of conflicts involving sex and sexual orientation.
Homosexual activist groups have parlayed their power into the creation of a fifth group, which I call the homosexual “shadow government.” Thus do some states and municipalities have homosexual activist advocacy institutionalized as part of government -- "Commissions for Gay and Lesbian Youth," “Commissions on Sexual Minorities,” etc.
In Massachusetts, in what has become known as “fistgate,” thanks to the dissident Web site MassNews, state education officials have joined with activists to push homosexual practices on school children. Two parents, Brian Camenker and Scott Whiteman, publicized a March 25, 2000 talk by state education and health officials, at a GLSEN-sponsored conference, who graphically described and praised any number of homosexual sex acts, most notoriously “fisting” (forcing one’s fist and in some cases, forearm into another person’s rectum or vagina), and who downplayed the need for safe sex (forget about chastity), before an audience of children and educators. The officials had indoctrinated children as young as 12 to talk about homosexual acts. A 12-year-old girl said of homosexuality, “Don’t knock it, til you’ve tried it,” “How do you know you don’t like it?,” and that it “has a glorious history.”
One homosexual teacher-presenter had her seventh-grade students prepare a film to convince administrators that homosexuality was normal, and “not about sex.”
When Camenker and Whiteman played their tape on a local radio show, the education officials, Julie Netherland and Margot E. Abels, were fired. Netherland sued Camenker and Whiteman, arguing that they had violated her “privacy.” Note that while the taxpayer-sponsored talk took place at Tufts University, the officials said that its content was identical to what they typically taught in the public schools.
As the Seattle-based group, Parents and Teachers for Responsible Schools (PTRS) reports, “The City of Seattle and the Seattle School District have created departments, paid for with public money and staffed by public employees, to advocate for homosexual civil rights, which include the right to marry, adopt, conceive children through artificial insemination, and to receive legal status equivalent to that afforded race under law. These departments, the Seattle Commission on Sexual Minorities (‘SCSM’), and the District's Sexual Minority Advocacy Council (‘SMAC’) are part of their respective Office of Civil Rights.
PTRS reports that homosexual activists first used “AIDS education” as their Trojan horse, to get a foothold in the public schools. Since then, GLSEN has fabricated problems, including abuse and discrimination, encountered by allegedly homosexual children, as a pretext to spread its publicly-funded “safe schools” program across the nation. “Safe schools” is a second Trojan horse, which GLSEN uses to push homosexuality and same-sex marriage on school children at ever younger ages.
Homosexual activists have also used programs funded for gay “suicide prevention” to promote homosexuality and same-sex marriage. In short, all public funding for homosexual-oriented programs is used to promote homosexual sex and same-sex marriage.
It is hardly coincidental that same-sex “marriages” were performed in Massachusetts, beginning on May 17, the fiftieth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Topeka Board of Education ruling, in which the justices rode roughshod over the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions and referenda, and the Court’s own precedents, thereby establishing the tyranny that ever since has marched over the will of the American people and its laws with jackboots.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Leftist: Telling “Obama” Joke = Assassination Threat
By Nicholas Stix
Ever since the election, President-for-Life Soetoro’s (aka “Obama’s”) supporters have been demanding that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney be imprisoned. Those who are inexperienced or soft in dealing with these specimens of humanity might think, “We’ll, they say it’s for supporting torture.”
No. “Obama’s” base believes that all public opponents must be jailed and/or killed. They will provide the pretext du jour. After all, these people consider Communist Cuba, where Fidel Castro murdered thousands of dissenters, the ideal model for America.
For over 20 years, the Left has promoted the idea, through the universities and MSM, that any disagreement with its lies and hoaxes constitutes “hate speech” and “verbal assault.” Leftists have shouted down their opponents, stolen and destroyed their newspapers, forced them to publicly apologize, take “sensitivity training,” and fired, expelled, whitelisted and yes, arrested them (see here, here, here and here).
Thus, it was no surprise that when I posted a link to “The Top Ten List of Things to Know about President-for-Life Barack Obama” in the comments section at Village Voicer Roy Edroso’s blog, Runnin’ Scared, an Obamaton calling himself “Atheist” responded, “‘President for Life’ Obama? What, are you going to assassinate him or something?”
Don’t try to grammatically or logically parse “Atheist’s” response; it’s not possible. Atheist, like the rest of the Left, lives in Bizarro World, which is governed by the “logic” of the non sequitur, in which no conclusions logically follow from premises. (Besides, he has nothing against “Obama” being president for life, indeed he loves the idea, just not my saying so publicly at this point, where “Obama” has yet to suspend America’s Constitution and laws.) Instead, conclusions flow from political will, logic and the facts be damned. Dissent is a crime, but since we still live officially in a nation of laws, upon observing dissent, instead of simply saying, “He’s an enemy of the people! Let’s kill him!” the Leftist must conjure up some crime, no matter how implausible.
Ever since the election, President-for-Life Soetoro’s (aka “Obama’s”) supporters have been demanding that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney be imprisoned. Those who are inexperienced or soft in dealing with these specimens of humanity might think, “We’ll, they say it’s for supporting torture.”
No. “Obama’s” base believes that all public opponents must be jailed and/or killed. They will provide the pretext du jour. After all, these people consider Communist Cuba, where Fidel Castro murdered thousands of dissenters, the ideal model for America.
For over 20 years, the Left has promoted the idea, through the universities and MSM, that any disagreement with its lies and hoaxes constitutes “hate speech” and “verbal assault.” Leftists have shouted down their opponents, stolen and destroyed their newspapers, forced them to publicly apologize, take “sensitivity training,” and fired, expelled, whitelisted and yes, arrested them (see here, here, here and here).
Thus, it was no surprise that when I posted a link to “The Top Ten List of Things to Know about President-for-Life Barack Obama” in the comments section at Village Voicer Roy Edroso’s blog, Runnin’ Scared, an Obamaton calling himself “Atheist” responded, “‘President for Life’ Obama? What, are you going to assassinate him or something?”
Don’t try to grammatically or logically parse “Atheist’s” response; it’s not possible. Atheist, like the rest of the Left, lives in Bizarro World, which is governed by the “logic” of the non sequitur, in which no conclusions logically follow from premises. (Besides, he has nothing against “Obama” being president for life, indeed he loves the idea, just not my saying so publicly at this point, where “Obama” has yet to suspend America’s Constitution and laws.) Instead, conclusions flow from political will, logic and the facts be damned. Dissent is a crime, but since we still live officially in a nation of laws, upon observing dissent, instead of simply saying, “He’s an enemy of the people! Let’s kill him!” the Leftist must conjure up some crime, no matter how implausible.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Race-Blindness is a Social Construct
By Nicholas Stix
I wish I could take credit for the brilliant insight above, but it is in fact the contribution of Vanishing American, in an essay, “Stranger than Fiction,” in which she draws an analogy from people acting as if race didn’t exist to the Hans Christian Anderson story, ''The Emperor's New Clothes.''
One of the giveaways that race-blindness is a fraud, is that it only goes one way. The same people who insist that "race is a social construct" demand that whites be "race-blind," while encouraging blacks and other non-whites to be race-obsessed. That is because they know damned well that race is real, but seek to aid blacks, at whites' expense, in the same zero-sum game racist blacks are playing.
As the saying goes, "Race for me, but not for thee."
I wish I could take credit for the brilliant insight above, but it is in fact the contribution of Vanishing American, in an essay, “Stranger than Fiction,” in which she draws an analogy from people acting as if race didn’t exist to the Hans Christian Anderson story, ''The Emperor's New Clothes.''
One of the giveaways that race-blindness is a fraud, is that it only goes one way. The same people who insist that "race is a social construct" demand that whites be "race-blind," while encouraging blacks and other non-whites to be race-obsessed. That is because they know damned well that race is real, but seek to aid blacks, at whites' expense, in the same zero-sum game racist blacks are playing.
As the saying goes, "Race for me, but not for thee."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
