You raised an interesting issue. Why attend open meetings held by groups I believe to be deliberately deceptive and criminal? Why ought I bother to make a presence at functions of these sorts?A few reasons:
1) Education – Although the subject matter of these proceedings tend to be a twisted mass of propaganda, spin doctoring and circus, there is an underlying system of linguistic tactics used to forward these various agendas. Just as Mr. Goebbels was rather meticulous in using crowds and theatrical flourishes to popularize the Nazi message, so also does the Left use the academic setting to legitimize their own system of beliefs, concentrating their message most often on the most privileged and wealthy members, and choosing those that are most lucrative and least likely to reject them via experience (i.e., the 20 something nomenklatura, children of the ‘capitalists’). Observing someone like Angela Davis or Andrea Dworkin “work” a crowd is most informative.
2) Waving the Flag – This means not so much ‘agitation’ (waving a cloth before the bull), nor does it means patriotism, per se. The idea is to show that these groups do not possess a unified front of fanatical followers, ready to fight the good fight. My quiet dissention at such meetings, and their reaction to my legitimate questions, shows the hosts for what they are – crooks, thieves, charlatans and con-artists of the most base stripe.
3) Evidence – When deciding an issue, I like to collect facts. It is a strange practice of mine, and is somewhat confusing to those in academia, but I am under the novel impression that empirical evidence actually has some place in decision making. Thus, it is important for me, when deciding whether some group is correct or faulty in their ideology, what exactly it is that this particular group has to say. Thus, my own understanding of Nazism is affected more by the published works and historical deeds of Mr. Hitler, Mr. Goebbels, etc. (so also, my understanding of Communism, as per the ideas and acts of Mr. Marx, Mr. Lenin, Mr. Stalin, etc.) and not on the emotional appeals of some self-appointed moral guide who feels the compulsion to answer my missives on the Internet. I shall not name names, of course.
4) Proof – Sometimes, when I relate the excesses of these various organizations in their truth-bending for the Greater Cause, I am met with stark disbelief. I thus bring acquaintances along, from time to time, to show them just what goes on at these affairs.
These sorts of escapades are frequently far less than pleasurable. What I do, as must be readily apparent, is done from a personal loyalty to my principles, and an awareness that if I do not stand for them that they are meaningless. If I allow the challenges of the Left to go unanswered, then many will arrive at the mistaken conclusion that my silence is a kind of passive agreement and acceptance of their message. This is why I suspect that any challenge to these core beliefs is met by such harsh personal innuendo (questions such as: Did you have a mean mother? Did your parents fight? Did your papa beat you, poor dear? Don't you care about anybody other than yourself? Are you a (horrors) Nazi?). The idea is to fend off a rational rebuke by venturing into spurious issues deliberately designed for an emotional impact. In this way, one can forestall the defense of dubious and even murderous arguments in favor of a juvenile exchange of personal insults, thus bringing both parties to a state of undeserved parity. Once one has studied the modus operandi of such individuals, however, this line of inquiry is seen for what it is – the maneuverings of a petulant child, bent on avoiding the obvious repercussions of deliberate and malicious delinquency. Or, in reference to the Church Lady, her questions in reference to the involvement of Mr. Lucifer and Co. are not meant as honest inquiries, which is of course the point.
And now, the issues, as I see them:
1) Homosexual behavior is an obvious aberration. The ‘bits’ are simply not designed to fit in these ways, which is of course what all these recent diseases (to be fair, amongst males almost exclusively) are caused by. One might remind the defender of the ‘natural’ nature of this behavior that birth defects are also ‘natural’.
2) Aberrant behavior is not necessarily ‘bad’ behavior. I would think that at least some of the abhorrence leveled by mainstream Christians towards this class has something to do with a belief in a world of deliberate construction and purpose, in which this sort of behavior is a deliberate refutation of. However, the state is mainly interested in maintaining public order, and not in supporting metaphysical speculation; so long as sodomy is not a threat to the smooth workings of society, the federal government might be expected to show it the disinterested tolerance it deserves, as it does to a host of other similar ‘hobbies’.
3) Capitalism allows for the quantification and management of a vast diversity of behavioral patterns; those who have unusual inclinations simply appeal to market forces, and find a niche for their proclivities. Thus, like-minded queers might use the same technology that facilitates business operations to find those of similar inclinations. So long as they are productive members of the economic system, they can use their wealth to force a tolerance of their behavior. One might also note the growing acceptance of so-called ‘gangsta’ behavior as well, in an almost direct relation to the growing affluence of that sector of society.
4) Many people certainly find this sort of activity disgusting. It is true that there are those who might find the public consumption of ones own fecal matter aesthetically appealing. You may very well be one of these people. However, it is obviously the case that this is not a widespread belief, and so, out of respect for the culture that one lives within, one might show a bit of respect towards the viewing public. I might add that this sort of discretion is behind the profitability of the curtain, shutter and venetian blinds industries, respectively.
5) (I think this a most important point) There is a strong connection between the Left’s interest in “gay rights” and their declared intention toward looting the capitalist economic system. The idea is that, were homosexuals to but see the evil nature of the society they live in, and organize with the Left to help in the subversion of said, that they might be the resultant benefactors in the imminent victory of the Left. I have noted at functions of the Socialists (especially open recruitment sessions) that they are at pains to keep the ‘fag’ element at arms length, lest they scare off the ‘straights’. My opinion is again that the rising acceptance of gays is in direct relation to their rising level of affluence. Thus, their best means of achieving their ends is in acquiring greater affluence, which is what their frequent dalliance with the Left is all about, one would suppose. One could also say the same thing in reference to a host of similar minority interest groups. The idea is that, if our demands for an acceptance in the mainstream social order are not met, then we will turn to those that mean to topple the mainstream social order. Such is the game played.
6) Thus, it is in the interest of those who represent mainstream society to pay attention to such issues, lest radical elements of society gain converts, and threaten public order (as did the Nazis, when the Weimar Republic seemed intent on allowing for the disintegration of German society, or when the Czarist administration foolishly neglected the rising fury of mistreated soldiers and peasants, allowing a pseudo-intellectual group of criminals to round up their own cadre of disaffected hooligans. It should be noted here that many of the early SA were openly homosexual – one might make choice reference to a certain Mr. Goering, but here I am bereft of strong factual evidence, and refer to the circumstantial). One should be very strict about where one stands here, without being unduly restrictive towards the rights of others. It may very well be true that the choice of where, how, and with who one fiddles with one’s bits is one’s own affair; this does not automatically bestow on people the right to inflict their beliefs on my person. Furthermore, when this sort of behavior invades the public sphere, the people have a right to regulate these affairs. Thus, although the spread of AIDS is not directly a threat to non-participants of this ‘lifestyle’, the rise of strains of tuberculosis that are resistant to antibiotic treatment is. If bystanders are afflicted with life-threatening diseases that are caused by the reckless behavior of others, that behavior should be brought into question. That no less applies to the practice of homosexuality as it does in regards to the effects of second hand smoke from the products of tobacco users.
As the great A. Clay once said (known more popularly as “The Dice Man”), “(One) can’t smoke a cigarette, but the ‘baloney pony’ is O.K.” To which I again remark that the issue is political, almost wholly driven by partisan tactics, is enabled by the respective affluence of the actors as regards the free-market system, and ought to be monitored and judged upon in that light.
And no, I do not believe that you are being deliberately obtuse because your mommy beat you. That would be unfair to your family, and would contradict my personal belief, borne from my Republican attitudes, that individuals are responsible for their own behavior, and not puppets of their environment or sheep-like masses helpless without the benevolent, guiding hand of some impersonal Party apparatus. It would be refreshing to see you accept the same premise, and desist from these insolent and spurious remarks. It might actually help you come to a more rational basis for understanding the key issues; at the very least, it would make you substantially less annoying.
“Doc” Cruel
