Saturday, December 08, 2007

Prancing Vanities

Why don't homosexuals in the West condemn homophobic/murderous jihadis? Well, I didn't actually have a clue at all till I read this, which maybe sums it all up:

"If America elected a government/leaders that took a stand against the sexual religious fascists in our own country - we could take a stand against the Islamic countries. But we can not because of who the elitist Republicans have turned to for support as America woke up to how corrupt they are."

No, I'm sure that doesn't cover all homosexuals' understanding of reality. There is also this:

"There is no limit to the contempt I feel for the Islamic regime in Iran. That contempt is magnified by the knowledge that the US had a hand in installing the ayatollahs in power. Had we left well enough alone in 1953 and left their elected parliament intact, then imposing the brutal Shah over the Iranian people, we may never have lived through the nightmare of the hostage crisis and the never-ending pissing contest between the leaderships of our respective countries.

What makes me even more sick is the thought that the Iranians themselves don't seem to want to do anything about their own government and the problems that it causes to its citizens. Just as with Iraq, the people in Iran won't stand up to their Muslim rulers - but you can damn sure bet that they would stand up to us if we invaded.

I can only hope that for the sake of this poor Iranian man that his death was quick and relatively painless. Of course, I am sure it wasn't since one of the rules of sharia is that homosexuals should be executed in a painful way.

Sick. Just sick. But imagine how many American theocrats are watching stories like this, looking on with envy at what the theocrats in Iran get away with. Don't you think that the American Taliban are just as bloodthirsty as the Iranian mullahs are? Don't you think that Pat Robertson gets a hard-on thinking about publicly executing gays, adulterers, non-believers, etc.?"

Posted by: Jonathon | Dec 5, 2007 5:26:38 PM

You're wondering about the details of this? Plese read:

Iranian Man Executed Today Without Notice for Alleged Sex Crime

The execution of a 21-year-old Iranian man that was reportedly stayed due to international pressure in mid-November has happened.

"Mr. Makvan Mouloodzadeh was executed in Kermanshah Central Prison at 5 a.m. this morning, Iranian time." the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission reports :

Mouloodzadeh"Mr. Mouloodzadeh was a 21-year-old Iranian citizen who was accused of committing anal rape (ighab) with other young boys when he was 13 years old. However, at Mr. Mouloodzadeh's trial, all the witnesses retracted their pre-trial testimonies, claiming to have lied to the authorities under duress. Makvan also told the court that his confession was made under coercion and pleaded not guilty. On June 7, 2007, the Seventh District Criminal Court of Kermanshah in Western Iran found him guilty and sentenced him to death. Despite his lawyer's appeal, the Supreme Court upheld his death sentence on August 1, 2007. The case caused an international uproar, and prompted a letter writing campaign by IGLHRC and similar actions by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Outrage! and Everyone Group. In response to mounting public pressure, and following a detailed petition submitted to the Iranian Chief Justice by Mr. Mouloodzadeh's lawyer, the Iranian Chief Justice, Ayatollah Seyed Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi, nullified the impending death sentence of Mr. Mouloodzadeh. In his November 10, 2007 opinion (1/86/8607), the Iranian Chief Justice described the death sentence to be in violation of Islamic teachings, the religious decrees of high-ranking Shiite clerics, and the law of the land. In accordance with Iranian legal procedure, Mr. Mouloodzadeh's case was sent to the Special Supervision Bureau of the Iranian Justice Department, a designated group of judges who are responsible for reviewing and ordering retrials of flawed cases flagged by the Iranian Chief Justice. However, in defiance of the Chief Justice, the judges decided to ratify the original court's ruling and ordered the local authorities to carry out the execution."

According to their report, "Neither Mr. Mouloodzadeh's family or his lawyer were told about the execution until after it occurred."

Said Paula Ettelbrick, IGLHRC's executive director: "This is a shameful and outrageous travesty of justice and international human rights law. How many more young Iranians have to die before the international community takes action?"


A reader from blog above writes:

"The right is supported by Christian wanna-be fascists - remember the Republican base may still want to reinstate the only recent reversal of sodomy laws. I am sure they would love that LEFT TO THE STATES.

If America elected a goverenment/leaders that took a stand against the sexual religious fascists in our own country - we could take a stand against the Islamic countries. But we can not because of who the elitist Republicans have turned to for support as America woke up to how corrupt they are.

As for Gay Republicans - just more elitists who are fighting to be allowed into the elitist party - and willing to support corrupt liars in the process."

Posted by: RJP3 | Dec 5, 2007 6:53:21 PM


Until the intellectual elite among homosexuals take a different tack and promote a veiw that America is the best place for homosexual rights rather than the worst threat on Earth we will continue to see homosexuals hanged like dogs while homosexuals whip themselves into fits of stupidity and rage against nothing much at all because they aren't smart enough of themselves to understand basic survival. Until the homosexual world decides to rid themselves of the Foucaults among them and returns to a realistic and non-conpiratorial vision of reality, one less "sophisticated" or one less artsy, a vision of reality that accords with real men with real ropes and a real urge to murder and no restraint in doing so, then homosexual s will continue to hang. Unfortunately, part of the homosexual presentation seems to be that of Left poseur. It's not only stupid, it's often and increasingly fatal. But to acknowledge such would be to accept the humiliation of showing the world that previously they paraded and posed and pretended like fools while the innocent suffered and died to give a back-drop to their Liberal vanities.

I who have little liking for homosexuality have enough regard for Humanity that I won't stay silent in the face of murder; nor will I pretend the problem stems from those like me when there is work to be done saving those who can be saved in spite of the frivolous posing of the mainstream homosexual ummah's fashionable anti-Americanism of the day. Those who are too addicted to intellectual mascara will likely keep on hanging till those who genuinely care about Humanity are able to put a stop to the outrage of murder-- of anyone for any reason. More interested in being seen as fashionable than in working to save the lives of their fellows. Well, it's not just homosexuals who are that vain and stupid, but in this case they are a glut.


VinceP1974 said...

Not all gay folks are blinded by Leftism.

See a blog I comment on:


You could see we have no patience for the prattling of the leftists who like to come on and spout their nonsense

dag said...

Hi Vince.

I suspect you know that not all straight people are blinded by hatred of homosexuals, and that we see Humanness as the bottom line regardless. You seem like a pretty decent guy to me, and to me that's about all that matters. My complaint with those homosexuals who think they can play pretend without consequences means that there is perhaps a Muslim who will hurt you or worse because some homosexuals are more interested in being popular than they are in their fellow man, possibly you. So long as even some homosexuals refuse to stand up for their fellows and themselves they are a menace to all.

Like the title of the blog you refer to. I'll take a look. I think I've seen it before. I might even have left a comment.

VinceP1974 said...

Hi dag..

I think most people are utterly bored by gay people throwing their gayness around .. in other words , yes, i agree with you that most poeple just dont care.

To give you some idea on where I stand I'll paste a critique i made elsewhere about other gay people:

I’ve never received so much hatred from other people than I have from gays.

Once it’s found out you would never vote for a Democrat.. oh man watch out. People will gossip you, there will be lies told about you. People you dont even know will feel they are pefectly entitled to say the most vile things about you.

Your opinions are not considered, your thought process is not respected. A slew of cliches and pychoanalysis will be spewed at you.

So I’ve come to discover over the years that in general, gay people are the most intolerant people when it comes those they disagree with that I know of. That I never had a straight person direct even 1% of the negativity that I have received from other gay people.

And I noticed that the gays peopel who are the loudest in demanding the entire world notice and approve of what they do are the most intolerant when it comes to those they disagree with.

So knowing what I know now, I always make sure to give my opinion , especially when someone blurts out some rude comment without even having considered that not everyone would have agreed with him.

The groupthink is so rigid and entrenched.

That’s why I really appreicate when some Lefty comes on here and accuses me of being ‘intolerant’…

Yeah right.

VinceP1974 said...

This is a great rant by Michael Savage regarding Islam

Rob Misek said...

I can attest that from my experiences arguing with homosexuals that they don't value truth or honesty.

My scientific opposition to homosexuality is based on the preclusion of reproduction.

Yet you'd be suprised how many homosexuals disagree.

They either don't recognize or care about the hypocrisy of claiming to be homosexual, then proceeding to aquire sperm or egg from the opposite sex to produce children.

I had one particularily disgusting homosexual state how eager she was to get her gay friend to donate sperm to potentially maintain his genetic lineage and prove me wrong.

This is the insane behavior we are being told we can't discriminate against. Like hell I won't.

If we don't protect the children, who will, and how will we be judged?

dag said...

I'm increasingly concerned about the general idea that 'we are x' is meaningful. An example: All Catholics must hold in common a great number of shared beliefs that disqualify them from membership in Catholicism if they refuse. If they do hold the shared beliefs, then they re Catholic. But in saying all Catholics are Catholic is not to say all Catholics are the same kind of Catholics at a personal level. As I continuously age I find I am separated from most of Humanity by the fact that I see things in way others simply cannot because they haven't been around as long as I. We might in some obscure case share beliefs by the dozen and be fundamentally in agreement about some one idea, but my age is a part that others not my age cannot grasp. I've not only been around a long time, I've been around; and in that, I know more and see differently from those who have more recently shown up, those who think they see what I see but don't, regardless of the smarts they might have or what have you. But there are too many old men, far older than I who know next to nothing, who are s mindless as children. In thought, in age, in things generally, there is no "we."

In the West and in our beautiful Modernity we are atomized. Some or even many cling to groups for security and safety but they too are assaulted by freedom. In that, there is no "we." The greater the effort toward "we," the less effective it becomes: the isolated individual grouping together as a mindless person is separating himself from others who are still individuals. In the mass of atomic beings, the group-man is a lost individual. Thus, I look at Vince as "one of mine" in that he's a free man, and I look at the Act-Up man as one who has little or nothing in common with Vince.

What's essential and what's merely accidental decides how I have to decide people. If one is essentially free and accidentally homosexual, then I look for the essence more than the other. I think free is essence, though others might not. I think it comes from our Modernity that gives us a formlessness that can only come from Will. With that Will comes being of essence rather than of accident. But in freedom is responsibility, and there is not certainty anyone will even recognize it. When I find that Vince and some many of his colleagues at, for example, Gay Patriot do, than I find I have in common with them and not with others homosexual. So, homosexual might be "we" in a terrified cluster of the group, but no, not in the world of those of us who are not grouped accordingly. The multiplicity of "we" is so diffuse it becomes meaningless on the sidewalk. The distance between I as "we" and he as "we" is so vast that it becomes meaningless sometimes simply on the basis of age. X, yes, but in the other 25 plus categories, what? And even if, as an example, one is Catholic, what commonality is there between the parish priest and the Pope?

"The preclusion of reproduction." I hate to recall, but there is somewhere in this city an in-group who cling for the reason they are "childless by choice." There are those who adopt Third World children as a status symbol. There is no end to the ugliness and stupidity of Man. And within that there are degrees. There are so many possibilities within Modernity that one cannot claim inclusion in anything more significant than a few shifting and ephemeral assortments. With any examination, the group identity falls apart. We are all pretty much alone in our Modernity. We are atomic.

Those who value publicity over the vanity of privacy must do so by conscious effort of Will. Even those who are committed to a value-group have to make a determined and daily renewed decision to remain. Yes, one might be homosexual, but that is nothing compared to ones state of freedom. And within that freedom one is alone and distant from all others. We have to decide whether Will decides or whether we just drop off the map from apathy.

I happen to think there is a World Will. That would exclude me from nearly every group in Modernity. Vince might be there. And Charles, and Truepeers, and a few others. But even if so we would be as distant from each other as the points of the Star of David.

The World Will of birth is a decision one makes to enter into. And then what? One must decide on a daily basis to remain. There is always the freedom to leave. Those who accept the freedom of Will are those who will remain to tend to children. Some might be homosexuals. Those would be more "we" than the ones who smoke pot and dither. Those who have children will run the gamut too of trailer trash to super moms. In our Modernity there is no coherent "we."

Alone. All alone.

I shrug.

Rob Misek said...

""The preclusion of reproduction." I hate to recall,"

Dag, Why do you hate the truth?

Is it that it doesn't bend with your wishes? Or that it is your unfeeling judge?

I love the truth and speaking it in clear and direct language.

While I am capable of recognizing the unwelcome effect it has on liars, I also recognize its beauty as the crucible of all things.

dag said...

Rob, I think you kinda missed something there, buddy. But if you want to go back and try it again I'll be waiting.

truepeers said...


I don't think of you so much as atomic, as a centre in your own right, in a modernity that is a network of individual centres, each with their own attractions and detractions that are models of various kinds for the others in the network.

We are all also relatively more central and marginal within this network. However, since so many of the official elites in the academy, arts, and journalism have for some time now been making ultra-romantic gestures about denying their centrality (all the better to get it), a law of diminishing returns has kicked in, such that those who would criticize the center, the normal, etc., no longer have any means to effect changes in social norms; they only have endless criticisms, conspiracies, denunciations, etc., to offer.

But since renewal of our shared centres or norms is sooner or later necessary, especially now htat we are facing a global conflict with those who would refuse modernity outright and who thus force us to consider how we must renew ourselves in order to fight, win, preserve, and increase our freedom and modernity, those people, like yourself, who might feel marginalized but who recognize their real stakes in the centres of Western civilization, now must take the renewal of centrality very seriously, and hopefully become more somewhat central in the process.

And so, don't simply see your "atomicness"; take joy in the task that history has given to those of us who would make ourselves centres, and defenders of centres, of the new modernity. Charles and you and I: three centers in one: our covenant for the renewal of Western civilization and modernity.

Others are welcome to join us.

dag said...

I got through the first paragraph and wanted to stop to write how much I enjoyed it. It is a imple, in fact complex, joy to read such work.

I thought as I was writing my comment above that it would generate a response from you in light of our shared concern for "covenants." There is no good in the atomic Man. What a horrible failure it is to be nothing but alone and worth nothing other than the cost of burial. But as I wrote, there is, according to me, a telos that justifies our existence independently of our persons, a world Will that gives meaning to us all and always, not as a herd of stupid and mute beasts but as thinking and questioning and striving individuals in concert with all others. That's why, to an extent, ai frown at iPod and television and such antisocial things while at the same time I hate communalist totalitarianisms. Partly it's Americanism, the being on ones own to make or fail and to be part of the whole in citizenship and duty. Yes, every free man is himself, but "no man is an island entire of itself: every man is a part of the continent." It's making that balance real and fruitful that seems to elude so many and to turn them into flaky and creepy pot smokers or lone gunmen killing at random or on the other hand, conformist Leftists and Muslim fanatics with no sense of anything good, only of nihilism and corrupt certainties.

Our Modernity gives us so much potential that I could weep from excessive happiness; and at the same time I see the freedom we have pissed away on abortion, drug-taking, and so on, the negative aspects of unrestrained people who mistake freedom for license. But it's a price one pays for the good, the right of Man to be his own with those who are not owned but who own themselves and do as they will by their own good or dim lights.

I had occasion recently to think more on the Burgess novel, A Clockwork orange. What is life without the ability to be evil? If one can be evil, then one knows what a blessing it is to find those who will not be. With those one can and might make a covenant.

See you Thurday.

Rob Misek said...


Are you denying your hissy insult to my statement?

I didn't think I missed that,or your intention, but I could be wrong.

Frankly, if it weren't for the perceived insult, wouldn't have replied to your incoherent drivel.

Why not clear it up?

VinceP1974 said...

>Rob Misek said...
I can attest that from my experiences arguing with homosexuals that they don't value truth or honesty.

What do you attribute that to? Their sexual behavior or their political ideology?

I attribute it to political ideology... after all not valuing truth/honesty is not exclusive to gays, and not all gays are dishonest. But one can argue that people of certain political viewpoints are not interested in the objective truth.

>My scientific opposition to homosexuality is based on the preclusion of reproduction.

>Yet you'd be suprised how many homosexuals disagree.

>They either don't recognize or care about the hypocrisy of claiming to be homosexual, then proceeding to aquire sperm or egg from the opposite sex to produce children.

Well I'm a gay guy who grew up and lives in Chicago and lived in San Francisco for a few years. I do not know anyone who is looking to procreate.

I don't know too many lesbians.. maybe they're different.. maybe their womanliness compells them to want to have kids. I dont know.

>I had one particularily disgusting homosexual state how eager she was to get her gay friend to donate sperm to potentially maintain his genetic lineage and prove me wrong.

>This is the insane behavior we are being told we can't discriminate against. Like hell I won't.

Well what do you propose to prevent such a thing from happening?

>If we don't protect the children, who will, and how will we be judged?

I guess it depends on what policies you want to acheive this protection

Rob Misek said...


I value the truth. As long as you do too we can keep this argument relevant.

You seem to agree that homosexuals don't reproduce and the moment they do they are either no longer homosexual or they are hypocrites.

I believe this statement is the truth.

Failure to reproduce is an inherent human disadvantage on many levels. (genetic lineage, life changing experience etc.)

This I believe is also a true statement.

My point is that responsible people, like all living creatures, must discriminate to avoid counterproductive lifestyles.

We need to start by opposing and changing any laws that require us not to discriminate between unequal things, like sexual orientation.

This alone will stop the flood of spin-off wrongs in society.

I believe that if you really value the truth, you will come to this conclusion as well.

I believe that once you suffer the internal conflict as a direct result of the discrimination of your responsible peers and providing you still value the truth you will make the right life choice.

I just hope the damage you do until then is minimal.