I'm straight and tired of gay pride

[Flannel Jesus]

That's definitely not something a nazi would say...

[Wizard22]

That's definitely not something a nazi would say...

Anybody who thinks that, is a traitor, and your grandparents were cowards in WWII. The difference between mine and yours, is that my grandfather actually saved Jews. But this is the 'thanks' we get from "God's Chosen". You should be licking my boots in thanks and appreciation. Instead, as is your nature, you are a Betrayer.

Jews were really kind and thankful to white people, between the decades 1940, 1950, 1960... but a generation passes, and they forget, 1970, 1980, 1990... another generation passes, and they forget more, 2000, 2010, 2020s... now they conveniently "forget" completely, and start accusing those who saved them of being the ones who forced them into concentration camps.

History repeats, you stupid goy. This is why. You forget, quickly, who rescued you from your mistakes.

[Flannel Jesus]

No signs of Naziism here, nope nope nope

[Wizard22]

No signs of Naziism here, nope nope nope

Yep, typical Jewish behavior... now go put the crucifix in a jar of piss and call it "Art".

When you get put in camps, *AGAIN*, just remember, you'll be praying for me to save you, *AGAIN*.

[Harbal]

Wizzo is certainly not frightened of looking and sounding like a Nazi. His main defence against the charge? His grandfather fought against Nazi Germany. Do you think he knows that doesn’t provide him with any cover? Of course he does! Do you think he cares? Of course he doesn’t!

I’m fairly sure Wizzo is a Nazi.

No, my grandfather defeated the Nazis and saved the ungrateful Jews,

Wow, what a guy.

[Harbal]

When you get put in camps, *AGAIN*, just remember, you'll be praying for me to save you, *AGAIN*.

Just like Grandpa did.

[Wizard22]

Just like Grandpa did.

Pretty much... despite what the goyim and Christ blasphemers say and think, I don't hate Jews, honestly I feel sorry for them. They try so hard to fit into the 'popular' and 'cool kids' groups in public schools, but their exclusivity and neuroses prevent them from fully integrating into white groups. I don't think all Jews are bad, but a chunk of them definitely live up to the stereotypes, same as any other race/ethnic group.

Wait, why am I explaining anything to you, bird brain???

[Harbal]

Just like Grandpa did.

Pretty much... despite what the goyim and Christ blasphemers say and think, I don't hate Jews, honestly I feel sorry for them. They try so hard to fit into the 'popular' and 'cool kids' groups in public schools, but their exclusivity and neuroses prevent them from fully integrating into white groups. I don't think all Jews are bad, but a chunk of them definitely live up to the stereotypes, same as any other race/ethnic group.

Wait, why am I explaining anything to you, bird brain???

You're an idiot. That's the usual explanation for what you say.

[Flannel Jesus]

You're an idiot.

He's a lot worse than an idiot.

[Harbal]

You're an idiot.

He's a lot worse than an idiot.

I know, but I wasn't in the mood for writing lists.

[Sculptor]

I'm tired and unimpressed with it all. I'm not anti-gay, just anti the misplaced forced enthusiasm that requires civic celebration of it, be it parades and interpersonal congragulations. I don't have to do this usually with other types of people. And I like that about those people.... they don't care if I don't care about them. I want to live in a society without parades. No military parades. No high school thanksgiving or home coming parades. No gay pride parades. Keep the noise levels down and your pants on when in public.

You know what makes Ground Hogs Day so great? It asks nothing of you. I don't have to believe or participate in that little rodent, and it doesn't give a damn about you or me. It just wakes up, looks.... and a small town in PA looks on in anticipation. Nobody is ostrachized for not playing along with the fantasy. Best Holliday ever. Makes you want to believe, just a little.

Get a life FFS.
What is wrong with you that it makes a difference what other people get up to.

Maybe you are a closet queen and scared of the truth?

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm tired and unimpressed with it all. I'm not anti-gay, just anti the misplaced forced enthusiasm that requires civic celebration of it, be it parades and interpersonal congragulations. I don't have to do this usually with other types of people. And I like that about those people.... they don't care if I don't care about them. I want to live in a society without parades. No military parades. No high school thanksgiving or home coming parades. No gay pride parades. Keep the noise levels down and your pants on when in public.

You know what makes Ground Hogs Day so great? It asks nothing of you. I don't have to believe or participate in that little rodent, and it doesn't give a damn about you or me. It just wakes up, looks.... and a small town in PA looks on in anticipation. Nobody is ostrachized for not playing along with the fantasy. Best Holliday ever. Makes you want to believe, just a little.

Get a life FFS.
What is wrong with you that it makes a difference what other people get up to.

Maybe you are a closet queen and scared of the truth?

I don't really have a problem with Constantine's take here, at a conceptual level - it's just anti-contextual is it's problem.

Like, if we lived in a world where being gay has always been accepted and isn't controversial, isn't downright illegal in many places, then "pride parades" would be obscene quite frankly. They wouldn't just be obscene, they'd be absurd. What are you proud of? Being born one way and not another way?

But the thing Constantine is missing is we don't live in that world. We don't live in a world where gay people are parading around in a world that accepts them peacefully, and has done for centuries. We live in a world where, in many places, gay conversation therapy is either legal or has just recently been banned. Gay people still face hate and ostracization, and violence

That's why his point is anti contextual. It misses everything surrounding these parades, and without that context, of course the parades are obscene and absurd.

[Sculptor]

I'm tired and unimpressed with it all. I'm not anti-gay, just anti the misplaced forced enthusiasm that requires civic celebration of it, be it parades and interpersonal congragulations. I don't have to do this usually with other types of people. And I like that about those people.... they don't care if I don't care about them. I want to live in a society without parades. No military parades. No high school thanksgiving or home coming parades. No gay pride parades. Keep the noise levels down and your pants on when in public.

You know what makes Ground Hogs Day so great? It asks nothing of you. I don't have to believe or participate in that little rodent, and it doesn't give a damn about you or me. It just wakes up, looks.... and a small town in PA looks on in anticipation. Nobody is ostrachized for not playing along with the fantasy. Best Holliday ever. Makes you want to believe, just a little.

Get a life FFS.
What is wrong with you that it makes a difference what other people get up to.

Maybe you are a closet queen and scared of the truth?

I don't really have a problem with Constantine's take here, at a conceptual level - it's just anti-contextual is it's problem.

Like, if we lived in a world where being gay has always been accepted and isn't controversial, isn't downright illegal in many places, then "pride parades" would be obscene quite frankly. They wouldn't just be obscene, they'd be absurd. What are you proud of? Being born one way and not another way?

But the thing Constantine is missing is we don't live in that world. We don't live in a world where gay people are parading around in a world that accepts them peacefully, and has done for centuries. We live in a world where, in many places, gay conversation therapy is either legal or has just recently been banned. Gay people still face hate and ostracization, and violence

That's why his point is anti contextual. It misses everything surrounding these parades, and without that context, of course the parades are obscene and absurd.

I get what you are saying, but Pride is no longer just about being gay.
I think there has been a Pride march in Brighton, where i live for about 40 years, it is a victim of its own success in a way. I know gay people who reject it because its no longer just about them.
People of all sorts join in and dress up. I think this is great since its now about free expression - mainly in a sexually ambigious or even ambivanet context. Like a Mardi Gras its now about enjoying the fact that you can now be gay or trans or WHATEVER without grumbles from nonces like Constantine being important. FFS its only a bloody weekend!
No one has to care about what Constantine thinks. Though his attitude is where the violence emanates, Pride is cocking a snook at his mean spirited and mean minded attitude.

Once or twice in the last few years I've gone along to take some pics. The costumes are incredible, and its all about creativity and expression. And although being free to be gay, is at the core, its about far more than just that.

Constantine is a dinosaur. Sadly looks like the dinonsuars are being mobilised by the RIGHT and things are going backwards.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are entitled to your opinion, but It is not a charitable one. Does valuing the heterosexual union and the family necessarily involve devaluing homosexual families? My own son was born out of wedlock. Thank goodness that no longer resulted in him being stigmatized or disrespected. What do you propose gay people do? Abstain from sex? Slink back into the closet? Whatever you may think about the value of nuclear families, you should also consider the well-being of individuals who don't fit the mode. Don't you think gay people are happier when they're proud of who they are? Why do they trouble you?

Starting from an intellectual point (in the sense of the Latin intellectus) -- my orientation is Platonic and Aristotelean and as I say I reject, overall, the so-called *Christian ethic* as such -- I am not moved by feelings of *charity*. Since I do not have any power at all, in the present dispensation, to influence how the larger social body relates to homosexuality, sexual deviation, perversion, pornography, and a practical social ethics whereby the notion of *sexual ethics* is a meaningless term, I am simply talking about what I think is both right and best in a somewhat abstract sense.

Does valuing the heterosexual union and the family necessarily involve devaluing homosexual families?

Yes, certainly. Beyond all doubt. Ethically, and also morally, the primary social unit, and the primary union that must be valued above all others is that of the productive male-female union. This is intuitively obvious. The family is the source of progeny. If one, and if a culture, loses track of this fundamental fact -- a truth if ever a truth has been defined -- it begins to lose the core motor that generates society. So if you take what I suggest here at face value, and subtract out of it any desire to *hate* or to condemn any other people, it is really the idea here that I emphasize.

What I am saying is that homosexual unions must be recognized, even or especially among homosexuals but certainly among the majority, as having less value and less importance than that of productive male-female unions that produce abundant families.

My own son was born out of wedlock. Thank goodness that no longer resulted in him being stigmatized or disrespected.

If my argument was essentially Christian or Catholic I would naturally place emphasis on the *sacrament* of marriage. In Catholicism (for example) marriage is a sacrament. It is an interesting idea when examined. The marriage union is given a sort of divine or sacred status. It needs to be validated and authoritated (and turned into an indissolvable bond) through ritualized ceremony. At this point I am far less interested in Catholic-Christian definitions and as I say much more interested in Platonic concepts. So, there is a logic, a reasoning, behind elevating a marriage union. You could use the term sacralizing but that has all sort of religious baggage associated with it, no? I prefer to strip from the religious baggage what I believe is the *core meaning*. And it resolves into a recognition that the male/female union, in this world, is the very core of society and civilization. Mess with it and you do so (in my opinion) at your peril.

It hardly matters to me that your son was born outside of a solemnized marriage. But it would interest me (philosophically and culturally) to understand the degree to which you took your union with your wife, and hers with you, seriously. One thing that a religious orientation does provide is a strong moral sense that a sacralized marriage must be preserved no matter what. Thus it calls out of people all that is associated with *sense of responsibility* and *seriousness*.

But I recognize (and have had) unions that were simply matters of convenience and were understood to be temporary.

The Philosophical-existential issue is how seriously do we take these unions? The view I am trying to articulate is that they should be taken far more seriously. (But you must understand that I married later than most and that all my ideas were undergoing transformation at that time. As I said I come from (extremely) progressive social circumstances but have taken an intellectual and philosophical stand against what I now term hyper-liberalism).

What do you propose gay people do? Abstain from sex?

There are two aspects. One is that sexual ethics must be defined. You could look into Catholic and Christian family and sexual ethics to gain a sense of the philosophy standing behind it. It is, in my view, entirely coherent and very practical. But too you could (I mean one could) strip away the religiousness and focus on the Platonic and Aristotelean backgrounding of these definitions. That is what I choose in any case.

So once you have entered, philosophically, into the question of sexual ethics, you are going to have to set down value-sets and parameters to sexual expression. You are going to have to make some statements as to whether you regard it as ethically practicable to fuck your dog or to fuck your neighbors teenage daughter when you are involved in a committed relationship with your own wife. The fucking of your dog is one thing to consider but we tend not to be concerned about the psychological implications for that dog. But it is a different matter when it concerns that teenage daughter next door. One could use her as a really fun sexual partner without much concern for the question *What is this doing for her?* and is the activity good for her in any sense, either conventional or special. Sexuality is possibly the most powerful, and the most potentially untresstained, appetite that we deal with, wouldn't you say? Let us, for the sake of conversation, imagine a culture with no sexual ethics. What would that look like?

So the issue is not that I condemn homosexuals for their sexual appetites, and more that it is a bona fide and important topic to ask questions in relation to sexual ethics. And again, and for example, sexual ethics is certainly emphasized in traditional Catholicism. These are ethics that were developed over many centuries. But as I say, behind these religiously defined ethics is a sound philosophical base for the admonitions.

The second aspect is that even, or especially, in a traditional male-female union sexual ethics *must* be observed. That *must* is an idealistic imperative. Even St Paul said "better to marry than to burn". But how one burns, within the marriage, is obviously of some importance (even when divorced from specific Christian rules and regulations).

I don't make statements about what gays should do or not do. What I do say is that what they do should be repressed and suppressed by common, general culture, and that gays themselves should do this voluntarily and out of a sense of respect.

Why do they trouble you?

There is not a great deal that *troubles* me. I am an observer of cultural currents; where things are, where they are going. And primarily what interests me is causation: What has brought about the notable transvaluation of values in relation to sexuality? In that sense my orientation is actually Nietzschean.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's definitely not something a nazi would say...

I could have quoted from Wizard himself (in regard to some of his recent statements) but chose to start from your statement. I am interested in the topic and, it is fair to say, I have researched it and studied it for about a decade. What I mean is the upuerge in or the return of ideas that were highly repressed in our Liberal societies. I.e. in the PostWar. So I have taken the time to read people who would certainly be considered *allies* (on one level or another) with some aspects of National Socialist ideology or philosophy.

My recommendation to you and to everyone is that you had better take the tame to familiarize yourself with the resurgence, and the reasons and the ideology that stand behind it, because if not you will a) have no real understanding of the phenomenon, and b) have no position at all from which to actually counter the ideas (if that is actually your interest).

You must face the fact (I use the *you* in a non-personal general sense) that even as we speak the entire position of world Jewry, to the degree that it has been *Zionist*, is now in extreme danger. Therefor the issue of Judaism, the problem of Judaism, and certainly Judaism's modern form Zionism, has come to the forefront and there is no choice but to examine it.

I think Wizard is substantially wrong in a few areas. But if I articulate why I will, naturally, involve myself in a somewhat greater controversy. But I say that doing this is actually part of the process of gaining better understanding.

First, the entire war period, the motives of all parties, has to be disentangled from *patriotic stories* defined by those who won. To do so involves genuine revisionism. Meaning, the overturning of entire sets of falsely-constructed narratives about Western (or American) *righteousness*. It also involves redefinitions of how the Soviet Union is seen and understood and, naturally, how deeply Marxian and Communist ideology was spread, and continues to be spread, which was and is far more consequential and dangerous than certain elements of National Socialist ideology.

These ideas are so challenging to most that they will appear (as they likely appear to you) as "Nazi". Meaning, that you resort of easily grabbed phrases to argue vague points that, in fact, you really do not have. (Which enables you to use the term "Nazi" as you do, and whenever you want, for any immediate purpose you have: i.e. a bickering inanity).

We are now in the throes of world war. It is a different category of war, that is true, but it is war nonetheless. In all senses there are direct causal lines between *what happened then* and what is happening now. Causation does not leap out of a vacuum. If we look merely at surfaces -- this is my view -- we will not see *what is really going on*. But how then can we discern what is really going on? It is not at all easy. Especially since we are in different levels of essential ignorance.

These are, obviously, statements that would have to be qualified. Bui I can only allude to them here.

Just as your position (I make a general interpretation of it and assign labels to it) requires a backgrounded set of definitions; so too the position that Wizard has (or is developing) requires the same.