Quote notes (#18)

John Lloyd on the other (and bigger) ‘no borders’ movement — the pink wedge:

Not so long ago how a country’s administration handled its ‘homosexual problem’ would be thought of as its business. Many still think that way. But most Western democracies don’t. They haven’t just adopted legislation that enjoins equality of treatment for all, irrespective of sexuality. They have taken seriously, for the most part, the claims made by gay organizations for many years: that discrimination against gay men and women is an affront to civil liberties, and that when some states pursue discriminatory policies, those who do not should make their disapproval clear. Gay rights are now part of the world’s clash of cultures.

Is Political Correctness emerging as an even more significant factor in international relations than it is in domestic cultural reconstruction?

ADDED: Jim Goad comments

August 15, 2013admin 15 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized


15 Responses to this entry

  • Mike Says:

    Is it really that surprising that pro-gay evangelism by the cathedral would emerge as another front in the competition for social status? An increasingly internationalised world implies increasingly internationalised status competition.

    Also notice how the term “lesbian” has disappeared from the vocabulary. People now talk about “gay” women where they would once have spoken of “lesbians”.


    admin Reply:

    It’s totally unsurprising, I agree.


    Posted on August 15th, 2013 at 10:58 am Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    Makes sense to me and doesn’t surprise at all – it’s the essence of the distinction between universalism and particularism. The logic of universalism cannot long tolerate differences of policy in any significant matter across jurisdictions. The One True Scientific-Policy-Religion which includes ‘Universal Human Rights’ (‘Gnon-given’, some people here might say) cannot imagine that it matters where you live when it comes to the good or evil of the respective enjoyment or denial of these rights. An idea is either in the bag (mandatory), out of the bag (prohibited), or by definition trivial-mechanical and a matter of mere empirics and competent management. Jurisdictions may have different water-management policies according to local precipitation rates, but certainly not because there’s something particularly different about the people

    Consider, for example, freedom of religion. It’s very hard for me to imagine a Christian genuinely believing that China or North Korea is within its rights to ban worship, or even public mention of Jesus within the bounds of its territory. The Western mind reels as it conflates disgust or abhorrence with Truth. Surely it is a ‘universal human right’ of everyone, everywhere, all the time, to not be forbidden to follow the dictates of one’s conscious and express one’s genuine sentiments regarding theology so long as one does not conduct any directly tortiously interfering conduct with your fellow resident?

    Take that thought and add PC and there you are. ‘World War G’ as Sailer quips. (And after gays, then transgenders, which could be ‘World War T’, but I prefer ‘World War X’). Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus.


    spandrell Reply:

    I’d rather they went outright Trotskyist and collectivized the farms and factories. If we are to have a leftist singularity let it come quick. What’s the endgame of ‘mentally sick people have a right to fulfill their desires?” We’ll have transexual teacher unions, lesbian family judges, cannibal social workers, but a country can still survive, if barely, as long as most people are sane. North Korea will collapse eventually but Brazil is eternal.


    Thales Reply:

    Unlike its client democracies, the Anglosphere is on a long controlled glide into terrain. The inherent (genetic?) distrust Whites have for each other not only enables them to sell each other out for status (thus enabling the Cathedral), but I think also retards “Change!” (be it right, wrong or indifferent). Thus, the landing may be soft, who knows…


    spandrell Reply:

    You mean the sinking.

    Thales Reply:

    Depends on one’s relationship to the waterline…

    Posted on August 15th, 2013 at 11:31 am Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    The Cathedral seems to be more effectively constricted by its external than its internal limits, doesn’t it? Global Neo-Puritan revolution doesn’t strike me as an overwhelmingly successful project, and the more it promotes itself through high-camp PC, the less inexorable it looks.


    Posted on August 15th, 2013 at 3:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    The lax carefree gaiety of the past has marched into the Stern Rule of Sin. These Ironsides shall brook no heresy.

    Maybe all the Nazi outfits were a warning.


    Posted on August 16th, 2013 at 12:17 am Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Many in Russia’s dark and cold hinterlands seem to feel that the whole gay agenda—lock, stock, and cock ring—is a rude intrusion by Western imperialists.

    And there it is. In case anyone thought Cathedral clerics cared about teh gayz. Of course if you push a human hard enough they’re going to push back if they’re at all able. The harder gays are preached for, the worse their situation will be.

    In May, a 23-year-old in Volgograd was murdered during a drinking party after revealing to his friends that he was gay.

    I said Russians were never very nice people, didn’t I? However, I expect there’s more to this story. Even from Russians, I don’t see this:

    “Hey guys!”

    “Hey buddy.”

    “I’m gay.”

    “Fuck you, die!”

    In January, 10 gay activists were beaten by a much larger mob during a protest

    I just realized I believe all activists can be assumed to be gut-churningly evil until proven otherwise.


    VXXC Reply:


    I’m gonna have to agree.

    Weapons Free: All targets destroyed unless positively identified as friendly.


    admin Reply:

    “all activists can be assumed to be gut-churningly evil until proven otherwise” — this is definitely a key point.


    John Hannon Reply:

    Well one gay activist has proved worthy of respect – at least on this one occasion –



    Posted on August 16th, 2013 at 6:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • asdf Says:

    People try to make a big deal about how certain cultures were more open to homosexuality (Greeks, etc) so there must not be something wrong with it. However, different cultures tolerate lots of different things for different reasons at different times, none of them necessary optimal.

    My reading of history is that certain cultures *tolerate* gays, but none celebrate them. Even within the gay relationship it was more scandalous to be the bottom. It reminds me of an old comedy routine:



    spandrell Reply:

    That video’s awesome, thanks.


    Posted on August 17th, 2013 at 4:13 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment