[email protected] said:
In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Homofascists dominated the Nazi Party. Can you prove they
>>> didn’t?
>>
>> Don’t need to. The sexual orientation of one group of thugs isn’t
>> relevant to the question of the morality of liberty, equality and
>> justice (to name three things to which you seem to be opposed).
>> [wdstarr]
>
> This is where you’re wrong. I’m all for the liberation of man from
> emotional and spiritual bondage. I also believe in the principle of
> equal justice for all. (equality and justice are one not two)
That’s nice. I don;’t believe it, based on your track record here,
but it’s nice. Now, how about addressing the question of why anyone
sould accept you apparent assertion that the sexual orientation of one
group of thugs is relevant to the question of the morality of liberty,
equality and justice?
>>> Can you prove that homosexuality is `innate’?
>>
>> Don’t need to. The “innateness,” or lack thereof, of a particular
>> sexual orientation isn’t relevant to the question either.
> Gay activists would not agree with you. They believe if
> homosexuality is presented to the public as being `innate,’ this
> excuses them from personal responsibility for the consequences of
> their conduct.
Why is it that I have trouble accepting your words as accurate
expressions of the positions and beliefs of any gay activists?
>>> Can you prove that homosexuality is a benefit to either the
>>> individual or society?
>>
>> Don’t need to. No sexual orientation, nor any person who holds
>> such orientation, is under any obligation whatsoever to be “a
>> benefit” to anyone or anything.
>
> This pretty well describes the `gay’ mind-set. “Don’t need to” give
> a damn about anyone but themselves.
This is the statement: “No sexual orientation, nor any person who
holds such orientation, is under any obligation whatsoever to be “a
benefit” to anyone or anything.” If you disagree with it, please
explain what the obligation is and where it comes from.
>>> Can you prove that homosexualism is not predatory?
>>
>> Don’t need to. The statement “homosexualism is predatory” is
>> semantically meaningless.
>
> “Don’t need to, don’t want to” do anything, right William?
Don’t need to try to make sense out of someone else’s (i.e., yours)
nonsense.
>>> Can you explain how homosexualism is equal to heterosexism?
>>
>> Don’t need to. The statement “homosexualism is equal to
>> heterosexism” is semantically meaningless.
>
> No semanitics here. How is homosexuality the same as
> heterosexuality?
That isn’t what you asked. You said “equal to,” not “the same as,”
and those two relational expressions are not equivalent in meaning.
Please make up your mind as to what questions you’re asking.
>>> Can you tell us, on what basis did the APA remove homosexuality from
>>> its Diognostics and Statistics manual?
>>
>> Do’t need to. The institutional opinions of the American
>> Psychiatric Association, or the personal opinions of any of its
>> members, are no more relevant to the questions of “homosexualism”
>> than are your own.
>
> This is not true. Homosexualists used the 1973 APA descision to
> remove homosexuality from its DSM as a political weapon to declare
> anyone who disagreed with them pathological or homophobic. The
> descision was made on the basis of a vote by a minority of the APA’s
> voting membership. The principle being that science is NOT
> democratic but evidential.
And what has this to do with my statement that “The institutional
opinions of the American Psychiatric Association, or the personal
opinions of any of its members, are no more relevant to the questions
of “homosexualism” than are your own?”
[ *snip* ]
> On the basis of evidence I could easily change my mind. Thus far,
> all we’ve seen from the `gay’ camp is distortion, extortion and
> fraud. Gays are afraid of an open and fair debate of the issue with
> their opponents. The foundations of their claim are made of clay.
You ask questions which are meaningless or which contain within them a
set of unsupported presumptions, and then you demand that others play
your game by your rules (with you acting as “impartial” referee), and
you have the temerity to claim that you desire “an open and fair
debate of the issue.” Talk about chutzpa on the hoof… Have you
ever thought about playing fair for once, just to see what it’s like?
— William December Starr <[email protected]>
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 13:33:44 PST 1996
Article: 18371 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!homer.alpha.net!
usenet
From: [email protected] (Apuleius)
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.homosexual,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Eine Juedische Verderber
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 1996 15:12:06 GMT
Organization: Alpha.net — Milwaukee, WI
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dial42-243.mixcom.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26138 alt.society.conservatism:24229 alt.society.civil-liberty:39146
alt.sex.pedophilia:12937 alt.sex.homosexual:9427 alt.sex.advocacy:588 alt.revisionism:18371
alt.religion.sexuality:7594 alt.politics.usa.misc:48264 alt.politics.sex:7673 alt.politics.homosexuality:80011
alt.homosexual:49199 alt.christnet:41104 alt.books.reviews:15522 alt.activism:17874
Eine Juedische Verderber
In German, eine Deutsch Verderber, is a traitor who disparages and
drags down his own (German in this case) people.
Kevin Abrams has written in his “book” The Pink Swastika, that the
1938 German “Kristallnacht” pogrom against the Jews began after a
German working in the Paris Embassy, Ernst vom Rath, was shot by “a
seventeen-year-old male prostitute by the name of Herschel Grynszpan,
a Polish Jew.”
Now we know from Kevin’s rabid, homophobic posts here that he
considers homosexuality the worst thing in the world.
The problem Kevin has is that his hatred of gays blinds him. His
so-called “book” relies on distorted fictional accounts of events
written by equally rabid authors in the past. Their goal was more
often than not to tar the Nazis with the worst possible demonic image
they could construct, such as being homosexuals, just as Kevin seeks
to demonize gays with the worst image, such as being Nazis.
Kevin’s complete lack of scholarly skills and his lazy failure to do
adequate research failed to inform him of the fact that in 1938
Herschel Grynszpan was considered a hero of the Jewish People for
standing up to the Nazis.
In his blind rage to smear gays with yet another false and dirty deed,
Kevin calls a hero of the Jewish People, Herschel Grynszpan, a
homosexual prostitute, and we know from Kevin’s posts that he
considers that to be the lowest of the low.
Not only does Kevin desecrate the memory and reputation of a Jewish
hero, but he has absolutely no basis for doing so. As I’ve shown from
the works of William Shirer and other reliable authors in another
post, there’s absolutely nothing to connect Grynszpan or vom Rath with
homosexual activity, and, in addition, all indications are that the
two never knew each other or even saw each other before the day whan
Grynszpan shot vom Rath. Indeed, they never even saw each other then,
for vom Rath was shot in the back.
What kind of person is this Abrams, to be living in Jerusalem, and to
smear a hero of the Jewish People like Hershel Grynszpan with false
charges of being a homosexual prostitute? Perhaps someone should bring
his actions to the attention of Kach and Kahane Chai.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Romans referred to Jesus using “ECCE HOMO”, not “ECCE HETERO”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 17:10:59 PST 1996
Article: 18380 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!news.uh.edu!
lurch.sccsi.com!news.sccsi.com!ganymede
From: [email protected] (Greg R. Broderick)
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.homosexual,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: New Book, THE PINK SWASTIKA
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 96 16:00:26 GMT
Organization: The Usenet global cabal
Lines: 168
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tty21.com5.houston.net
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26141 alt.society.conservatism:24246 alt.society.civil-liberty:39154
alt.sex.pedophilia:12941 alt.sex.homosexual:9430 alt.sex.advocacy:590 alt.revisionism:18380
alt.religion.sexuality:7598 alt.politics.usa.misc:48294 alt.politics.sex:7676 alt.politics.homosexuality:80028
alt.homosexual:49212 alt.christnet:41141 alt.books.reviews:15523 alt.activism:17902
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>For the moment you assume a falsehood. There is no hard evidence to
>prove that homosexuality is innate and far more evidence to prove that
>it is sociological and environmental in origin. The question is, if
>there is no solid evidence to establish the innateness of homosexuality
>then why are we teaching that it’s not a choice? The burden of proof
>rests upon those who want us to believe that homosexuality is innate.
>This proof they have failed to provide. In Israel I interviewed the person
>responsible for the nations sex education curriculum. She candidly told
>me, we really don’t know what causes homosexuality, but in the same breath
>she stated, it’s not a choice. From my perspective this seems a little
>reckless, seeing as how sexual experimentation can and does lead to
>established behaviors.
There is no hard evidence to prove that Judaism is innate and far more
evidence to prove that it is sociological and environmental in origin. The
question is, if there is no solid evidence to establish the innateness of
Judaism then why are we teaching that it’s not a choice? Why is Judaism
protected by Constitutional rights, when homosexuality is not ?
..
In Israel I interviewed the person responsible for the nations religious
education curriculum. He candidly told me, we really don’t know what causes
Judaism, but in the same breath she stated, it’s not a choice. From my
perspective this seems a little reckless, seeing as how religious
experimentation can and does lead to established behaviors.
>Gay advocates have no proof to substantiate their claims for the
>normalization and acceptance of homosexuality.
This statement does not follow from your prior argument, it is a non sequitur,
and therefore stands or falls, as well as all argument derived from this
statement as an unsupported assertion.
Moreover, this statement flies in the face of history — considering the
number of known homosexuals throughout the ages, it is plausibly true
statement that homosexuality has been a part of human sexual behaviour
throughout recorded history. This statement also flies in the face of
psychological research (c.f. Dr. Evelyn Hooker) which has shown no
identifiable behavioural or psychological dysfunction to be inextricably
linked to homosexual orientation or behaviour.
>It therefore follows, that if homosexuality is not innate, but at some point,
>a chosen behavior, what are we doing designating them minorirty status?
It therefore follows, that if Judasim is not innate, but at some point, a
chosen behavior, what are we doing designating them “minorirty” status?
>What are we doing allowing sexual conduct to be used as a basis from which to
>accord minority status?
What are we doing allowing religious conduct to be used as a basis from which
to accord minority status?
>No Neal, the burden of proof lays far more with homosexualists and those who
>have worked to sell the gay cause. So far, they haven’t even entered into
>open debate on the issue. Maybe it’s time. This could be a tremendous
>learning experience for the whole nation. Maybe even a new lease on life!
>> You need to take a few courses in critical thinking, specializing in
>> burden of proof.
>
>I think before you make statements such as this, which could prove to
>be embarrassing to yourself, you should research the subject a little
>more. As you must appreciate, you do not have a monopoly on `critical
>thinking.’
>
>> > I am saying, and will continue to say, that in all areas, whether
>> > historical, religious or scientific you have no legitimate basis
>> > upon which to substantiate your claims for acceptance other, than it
>> > being a personal `preference’ or `orientation.’
>
>> Oh? You mean.. um.. like… uh… RELIGION? Is there a Jew gene?
>> How about an Episcopalian gene? If you claim there is NO LEGITIMATE
>> BASIS for any rights based on ‘choice’ then you give up any rights
>> based on religion because any such are, by your own definition,
>> INVALID. I do not hold that homosexuality is a choice any more than
>> heterosexuality is a choice. I, being heterosexual, never had ANY
>> time in my life where I was equally attracted to either sex and just
>> one day made the decision to be heterosexual and that I could just
>> change that choice on a whim as you seem to be claiming of homosexual
>> orientation. It is, to me, similar to right handed or left
>> handedness. SURE… you could with great effort force someone who is
>> left handed to act right handed, but it will REMAIN unnatural for them
>> to do so.
>
>The Jewish people have established cultural, ethnic, linguistic, religious
>and a literary tradition which goes back thousands of years. How can you
>possibly compare everything it means to be Jewish to a sexual disfunction?
And homosexuality, if we are to believe your interpretation of Genesis 18, and
ignore Ezekiel’s interpretation of Genesis 18 (c.f. Ezekiel 16:49 – 50), has
existed longer than has Judaism, seeing as Judaism (the Abrahamic covenant)
was not instituted until well after Lot was extracted from Sodom before its
destruction.
>> However if you wish to just consider it a choice and claim that no
>> rights accrue just from choice… I suggest you are extremely ill
>> informed.
>
>You have already said this. I would respond, it is YOU who appears to be
>”ill-informed” and casting aspersions. If a man “chooses” to enter into a
>loving and mutually consentual sexual relationship with a prepubertal boy,
>what would be your response? Would you say that the man made an acceptable
>`choice?’ In your opinion, is the boy old enough to consent? I’m sure
>you’re familiar with NAMBLA?
If a man “chooses” to attempt to convert a prepubertal boy to Judaism, what
would be your response?
Aside from the above, pederasty bears no more relation to homosexuality than
rape bears to heterosexuality. Should we condemn a mutually loving, adult,
consentual heterosexual relationship because some heterosexual men rape women
? If not, then why should we condemn a mutually loving, adult, homosexual
relationship because some men molest little boys (and girls) ?
>> > What I am also saying is that homosexuals have a responsiblity to
>> >the rest of the community which they don’t seem to care about,
>> >regardless of the harm they are causing.
>
>> What harm is this, and why should they care about you when you have
>> nothing but hateful and venomous intolerant bigotry against them? You
>> are asking the jews to love their nazi persecuters as they shove them
>> into the camp ovens!
>
>I do not hate “them,” nor do I know who “them” are. However, I condemn
>homosexuality as a destructive and debilitating behavior, a behavior
>which we should do everything in our power to repress and avoid. A person
>can’t have it both ways, to be known as a `homosexual’ and as a dignified
>human being at the same moment. Labels play a large role in this game.
You have yet to provide incontrovertible support for your unbutressed
assertion that homosexuality is a “destructive and debilitating behavior”,
Kevin. Until you do so, your argument is worthless.
>> > Can you prove to us that homosexuality is not
>> > harmful, to both the individual and society?
>
>> You are the one who has to prove that it IS.
>
>No, it is you Neal, who must prove that it isn’t!
He who asserts bears the burden of proof, Kevin. You have made unsupported
assertions. You hhave failed to provide proper support for these assertions
when challenged, therefore these assertions are worthless.
>Shalom,
>
>Kevin E. Abrams
>
>> Neal Feldman “Fight Fascism!”
>> Salem, Oregon “Defeat the Religious Reich!”
>> [email protected]
—
============================================================================
Greg R. Broderick And it came to pass that in the hands of the
ignorant, the words of the Bible were used to beat
plowshares into swords.
[email protected] — Alan Watts
[email protected]
[email protected]
============================================================================
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 17:11:00 PST 1996
Article: 18381 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!news.uh.edu!
lurch.sccsi.com!news.sccsi.com!ganymede
From: [email protected] (Greg R. Broderick)
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism
,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism
,alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.homosexual,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: New Book, THE PINK SWASTIKA
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 96 18:26:21 GMT
Organization: The Usenet global cabal
Lines: 168
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <30E6EEC[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Greg R. Broderick)
NNTP-Posting-Host: tty21.com5.houston.net
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26142 alt.society.conservatism:24247 alt.society.civil-liberty:39155
alt.sex.pedophilia:12942 alt.sex.homosexual:9431 alt.sex.advocacy:591 alt.revisionism:18381
alt.religion.sexuality:7599 alt.politics.usa.misc:48295 alt.politics.sex:7677 alt.politics.homosexuality:80029
alt.homosexual:49213 alt.christnet:41142 alt.books.reviews:15524 alt.activism:17903
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>For the moment you assume a falsehood. There is no hard evidence to
>prove that homosexuality is innate and far more evidence to prove that
>it is sociological and environmental in origin. The question is, if
>there is no solid evidence to establish the innateness of homosexuality
>then why are we teaching that it’s not a choice? The burden of proof
>rests upon those who want us to believe that homosexuality is innate.
>This proof they have failed to provide. In Israel I interviewed the person
>responsible for the nations sex education curriculum. She candidly told
>me, we really don’t know what causes homosexuality, but in the same breath
>she stated, it’s not a choice. From my perspective this seems a little
>reckless, seeing as how sexual experimentation can and does lead to
>established behaviors.
There is no hard evidence to prove that Judaism is innate and far more
evidence to prove that it is sociological and environmental in origin. The
question is, if there is no solid evidence to establish the innateness of
Judaism then why are we teaching that it’s not a choice? Why is Judaism
protected by Constitutional rights, when homosexuality is not ?
..
In Israel I interviewed the person responsible for the nations religious
education curriculum. He candidly told me, we really don’t know what causes
Judaism, but in the same breath she stated, it’s not a choice. From my
perspective this seems a little reckless, seeing as how religious
experimentation can and does lead to established behaviors.
>Gay advocates have no proof to substantiate their claims for the
>normalization and acceptance of homosexuality.
This statement does not follow from your prior argument, it is a non sequitur,
and therefore stands or falls, as well as all argument derived from this
statement as an unsupported assertion.
Moreover, this statement flies in the face of history — considering the
number of known homosexuals throughout the ages, it is plausibly true
statement that homosexuality has been a part of human sexual behaviour
throughout recorded history. This statement also flies in the face of
psychological research (c.f. Dr. Evelyn Hooker) which has shown no
identifiable behavioural or psychological dysfunction to be inextricably
linked to homosexual orientation or behaviour.
>It therefore follows, that if homosexuality is not innate, but at some point,
>a chosen behavior, what are we doing designating them minorirty status?
It therefore follows, that if Judasim is not innate, but at some point, a
chosen behavior, what are we doing designating them “minorirty” status?
>What are we doing allowing sexual conduct to be used as a basis from which to
>accord minority status?
What are we doing allowing religious conduct to be used as a basis from which
to accord minority status?
>No Neal, the burden of proof lays far more with homosexualists and those who
>have worked to sell the gay cause. So far, they haven’t even entered into
>open debate on the issue. Maybe it’s time. This could be a tremendous
>learning experience for the whole nation. Maybe even a new lease on life!
>> You need to take a few courses in critical thinking, specializing in
>> burden of proof.
>
>I think before you make statements such as this, which could prove to
>be embarrassing to yourself, you should research the subject a little
>more. As you must appreciate, you do not have a monopoly on `critical
>thinking.’
>
>> > I am saying, and will continue to say, that in all areas, whether
>> > historical, religious or scientific you have no legitimate basis
>> > upon which to substantiate your claims for acceptance other, than it
>> > being a personal `preference’ or `orientation.’
>
>> Oh? You mean.. um.. like… uh… RELIGION? Is there a Jew gene?
>> How about an Episcopalian gene? If you claim there is NO LEGITIMATE
>> BASIS for any rights based on ‘choice’ then you give up any rights
>> based on religion because any such are, by your own definition,
>> INVALID. I do not hold that homosexuality is a choice any more than
>> heterosexuality is a choice. I, being heterosexual, never had ANY
>> time in my life where I was equally attracted to either sex and just
>> one day made the decision to be heterosexual and that I could just
>> change that choice on a whim as you seem to be claiming of homosexual
>> orientation. It is, to me, similar to right handed or left
>> handedness. SURE… you could with great effort force someone who is
>> left handed to act right handed, but it will REMAIN unnatural for them
>> to do so.
>
>The Jewish people have established cultural, ethnic, linguistic, religious
>and a literary tradition which goes back thousands of years. How can you
>possibly compare everything it means to be Jewish to a sexual disfunction?
And homosexuality, if we are to believe your interpretation of Genesis 18, and
ignore Ezekiel’s interpretation of Genesis 18 (c.f. Ezekiel 16:49 – 50), has
existed longer than has Judaism, seeing as Judaism (the Abrahamic covenant)
was not instituted until well after Lot was extracted from Sodom before its
destruction.
>> However if you wish to just consider it a choice and claim that no
>> rights accrue just from choice… I suggest you are extremely ill
>> informed.
>
>You have already said this. I would respond, it is YOU who appears to be
>”ill-informed” and casting aspersions. If a man “chooses” to enter into a
>loving and mutually consentual sexual relationship with a prepubertal boy,
>what would be your response? Would you say that the man made an acceptable
>`choice?’ In your opinion, is the boy old enough to consent? I’m sure
>you’re familiar with NAMBLA?
If a man “chooses” to attempt to convert a prepubertal boy to Judaism, what
would be your response?
Aside from the above, pederasty bears no more relation to homosexuality than
rape bears to heterosexuality. Should we condemn a mutually loving, adult,
consentual heterosexual relationship because some heterosexual men rape women
? If not, then why should we condemn a mutually loving, adult, homosexual
relationship because some men molest little boys (and girls) ?
>> > What I am also saying is that homosexuals have a responsiblity to
>> >the rest of the community which they don’t seem to care about,
>> >regardless of the harm they are causing.
>
>> What harm is this, and why should they care about you when you have
>> nothing but hateful and venomous intolerant bigotry against them? You
>> are asking the jews to love their nazi persecuters as they shove them
>> into the camp ovens!
>
>I do not hate “them,” nor do I know who “them” are. However, I condemn
>homosexuality as a destructive and debilitating behavior, a behavior
>which we should do everything in our power to repress and avoid. A person
>can’t have it both ways, to be known as a `homosexual’ and as a dignified
>human being at the same moment. Labels play a large role in this game.
You have yet to provide incontrovertible support for your unbutressed
assertion that homosexuality is a “destructive and debilitating behavior”,
Kevin. Until you do so, your argument is worthless.
>> > Can you prove to us that homosexuality is not
>> > harmful, to both the individual and society?
>
>> You are the one who has to prove that it IS.
>
>No, it is you Neal, who must prove that it isn’t!
He who asserts bears the burden of proof, Kevin. You have made unsupported
assertions. You hhave failed to provide proper support for these assertions
when challenged, therefore these assertions are worthless.
>Shalom,
>
>Kevin E. Abrams
>
>> Neal Feldman “Fight Fascism!”
>> Salem, Oregon “Defeat the Religious Reich!”
>> [email protected]
—
============================================================================
Greg R. Broderick And it came to pass that in the hands of the
ignorant, the words of the Bible were used to beat
plowshares into swords.
[email protected] — Alan Watts
[email protected]
[email protected]
============================================================================
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 17:11:01 PST 1996
Article: 18383 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!homer.alpha.net!
usenet
From: [email protected] (Apuleius)
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.homosexual,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Kevin the propagandist. This is what all those rabbis taught him ?????? I doubt it.
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 1996 19:20:12 GMT
Organization: Alpha.net — Milwaukee, WI
Lines: 219
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dial42-243.mixcom.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26144 alt.society.conservatism:24250 alt.society.civil-liberty:39157
alt.sex.pedophilia:12944 alt.sex.homosexual:9433 alt.sex.advocacy:593 alt.revisionism:18383
alt.religion.sexuality:7601 alt.politics.usa.misc:48299 alt.politics.sex:7679 alt.politics.homosexuality:80031
alt.homosexual:49215 alt.christnet:41148 alt.books.reviews:15526 alt.activism:17907
[email protected] wrote to and alt.politics.homosexuality:
换The Nazis took power with approximately 35% of the popular vote.
You know damned well that most of your recent Israeli governments have
been formed by minority parties. Are you putting the Government of
Israel in a class with the Nazis?
换The Nazi Party was made up of considerably fewer people. Most of the
换core members were homosexual pederasts. The family, no matter how
Absolutely not true. You lied about the Jewish hero, Hershel
Grynszpan, charging him with being a homosexual prostitute, even
though there is absolutely no credible evidence of that and even
though the unanimous weight of historians (as opposed to
propagandists) is against that idea. And you lie here. Every one of
the few things I’ve had time to investigate in your book has been
obviously false. You relied on other “authors” like yourself, who were
not journalists but propagandists. Your references are from
propaganda, not from historians.
Where you use someone reasonably correct, like William Shirer, you
ignore him when it suirs you. You write what a wonderful and respected
authority he is, yet in the case of Hershel Grynszpan you ignore what
Shirer has written and flatly contradict him. I think what appeals to
you in Shirer is that, like you, he is a homophobe who mentions gays
only in disparaging ways. For Shirer being gay is a way to tar his
enemies with filth. But there is a major difference between Shirer and
you. Shirer had the integrity not to make things up, nor to copy from
other people who made things up.
换imperfect in may be, is in principle the foundation of a civilized and
换free society. Undermine the family, and you undermine your own freedom.
换Promote homosexuality as `normal’ and acceptable and you destroy the
换only thing which holds a civilized society together.
换> Kevin, your oppions are that of a weak man that does not wish to take
换> responsibility for his own life. Stop blaiming the world and grow up.
换
换Reviews & comments,
换 “The Pink Swastika”
换 “A landmark book for those who have trouble understanding
换Hitler, the Holocaust, etc. Previous books and movies, however high
换their quality, have left me mystified as to how the Nazi leaders could
换have done the things they did. This short book gets closer to that
换puzzle than anything I know of. The key participants begin to emerge
换as real people, whatever you may think of them. There is even a
换glimmering of light on Hitler himself.”
换 [John Hully, Former senior economist at World Bank headquarters in
换 Washington D.C & Fellow of the British Interplanertary Society]
换 “As a Jewish scholar who lost hundreds of her family in the
换holocaust, I welcome, The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality In The Nazi
换Party as courageous and timely . . .Lively and Abrams reveal the reigning
换 “gay history” as revisionist and expose supermale German homosexuals
换for what they were – Nazi brutes, NOT Nazi victims.”
换 [Dr. Judith Reisman, Institute for Media Education and Co-author of,
换 “Kinsey Sex and Fraud, The Indoctrination Of A People.”]
换 “Without going into the gory details, a simple but clear generality
换can and must be stated. Overt deviant sexual behavior is the most blatant
换and powerful method to demonstrate contempt for G-d. The Nazi quest for
换world domination immediately recognized Biblical morality as its enemy.
换As such it flaunted and exalted the most abominable hedonist behavior
换possible which eventually led to the attempted annihilation of the people
换of G-d……..The Pink Swastika, by Kevin Abrams and Scott Lively, is a
换timely historical text which points out frightening similarities between
换the moral climate leading up to the Third Reich in Germany, and that of
换our own time. It has an urgent warning to all mankind not to make the
换mistake of permitting a false morality, based upon a democracy which is
换shaped by manipulators of evil, to usurp the eternal morality of G-d.”
换 [Excepted from, “A Voice From Hevron, Democracy verses Judaism,”
换 by: Gary M. Cooperberg, Quiryat Arba, Israel]
换 “I am impressed with the comprehensiveness of the book. In 200 pages
换you have managed to expose myths concerning homosexuality in the German
换Nazi Party — and in doing so have exposed the revisionist history now being
换created around that appalling period. In addition you have `brought the
换subject up to date’ and shown the power of the supposed `gay rights
换movement’, their link with neo-fascism, and the dangerous trend we now see
换throughout the western world. And, this `politically correct movement’, being
换a main force in the destruction of the moral judeo-christian base of western
换society.”
换 [Gemma Blech, Retired Social Worker]
换 `Gay Liberation = Sad Bondage’
换THE PINK SWASTIKA:
换Homosexuality In The Nazi Party
换By Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams
换Founders Publishing, Keizer, Oregon
换205 pages; softcover; 9.95 US.
换The gay-rights movement has lately stepped up its “pink triangle
换campaign,” which aims to establish that treatment of homosexuals
换in Hitler’s Germany was virtually equivalent to the Jewish Holocaust.
换This is a gross distortion of history, say the authors of “The Pink
换Swastika;” in fact, “there was far more brutality, rape, torture and
换murder committed against innocent people `by’ Nazi deviants and
换homosexuals than there ever was `against’ homosexuals.” The authors
换maintain that the Nazi Party was so intimately connected with the
换German homosexual movement that the history of one cannot be
换understood without the other.
换Co-author Kevin E. Abrams is a practicing member of the Jewish faith, a
换longtime researcher into the historic consequences of homosexuality, and
换an associate of the national Association for the Research and Therapy of
换Homosexuality. Scott Lively, a conservative Christian, was for five years
换communications director for the pro-family Oregon Citizens Alliance. When
换the OCA tried to block legislation granting “minority status” to
换homosexuality, the “gay” opposition loudly accused OCA members of
换”Naziism” and threw swastika-marked bricks through the windows of
换supporting businessmen. Since some of Hitler’s chief henchmen were
换known to be homosexual, this emphasis intrigued Mr. Lively.
换He and Mr. Abrams therefore worked together to trace the fortunes of
换homosexuality in Germany from the 1860s through the 1940s. They site the
换work of scores of historians— “straight” scholars, homosexual ones and
换”homosexualists” (meaning anyone, straight or gay, who promotes
换homosexuality as morally and socially equivalent to heterosexuality).
换They describe the peculiar welter of homosexual and occult groups that
换by 1900 developed into two opposing types. One, which had scientific
换pretensions, was represented in the Sex Research Institute of Berlin,
换founded in 1919 by Magnus Hirschfeld, a Jewish doctor and influential
换homosexual. Anyone convicted of homosexuality under paragraph 175 of the
换German Penal code had to go there for “treatment,” while Hirschfeld
换strove unsuccessfully to have paragraph 175 repealed. This type
换emphasized the feminine, condemned pederasty and sadomasochism, and
换wanted consenting homosexual intercourse legitimized.
换The other type, ultra-masculine, militaristic and pederastic, was based
换on a Hellenic pagan revival. They scorned femininity, especially the
换Hirschfeld brand. They considered sodomy aesthetically superior to
换heterosexuality, which was useful only for breeding, and envisioned a
换nation of supermen built upon strong male bonding. Their main
换association, The Community of the Special (renamed the Society for Human
换Rights in 1920), supplied the National Socialists with ideas, members
换and leaders.
换Prominent among these was Ernst Roehm, the Nazi co-founder who developed
换the Freikorps, Germany’s postwar volunteer reserve units, into the
换brownshirted SA, the Nazis crucial strongarm force. Roehm was killed in
换the 1934 purge of the SA, but most historians agree this was because he
换had become too powerful, not because of his strident homosexuality.
换Almost all the many other nazi homosexuals handily survived. Well
换ensconced in Hitler’s inner circle were Hermann Goering, Rudolf Hess, and
换the vicious Julius Streicher and Hans Frank, all commonly thought to be
换homosexual or bisexual. Working his way up the Nazi ladder was the equally
换vicious Reinhard “Hangman” Heydrich, who may have learned his
换homosexuality at 14 in the old Freikorps.
换Most German homosexuals, the authors suggest, probably fell somewhere
换between the two extremes, which were linked solely by “a common sexual
换disfunction.” Whatever their official line, however, the Nazis approved
换of masculine, Butch-type homosexuality and despised the effeminate femme
换variety. This would explain why they destroyed Hirschfeld’s institute in
换May 1933 and burned its files, which may have held damaging revelations
换about important officials. It could also explain why less than 2% of
换Third Reich homosexuals, estimated to number 1.2 to two million, were
换vitimized.
换Some 10,000 men were convicted of homosexuality under paragraph 175,
换including many non-homosexuals (priests and other opponents of the regime)
换who were condemned on trumpted-up evidence. Six thousand of them probably
换perished, mostly in the work camps, and there is considerable evidence
换that they often died at the hands of the homosexual trusties and guards of
换the SS.
换Although this book sometimes conveys a sense of overkill, and not every
换reader will go the whole way with the author’s conclusions, it is both
换fascinating in its detail and largely convincing. Nor is it of merely
换academic interest, authors Lively and Abrams believe. The German
换homosexualist movement spawned not only the Nazi party, but also the
换now-global gay-rights movement. It thrives in North America today, in a
换notably confused moral climate which, like that of pre-Nazi Germany, is
换seriously debilitated and very vulnerable.
换Mrs. Virginia Byfield
换The British Columbia & Alberta Report Magazines.
换September 4 1995.
换 For my Jewish brethern searching for a Biblical basis for the
换legitimization of homosexuality, I refer to the words of Rabbis Marc Angel,
换Hillel Goldberg and Pinchas Stopler and their joint article in the winter,
换1992-93 edition of Jewish Action Magazine, an OU (Jewish Orthodox Union)
换publication;
换
换 “There is not a single source in all the disciplines of Jewish
换sacred literature — halachah, aggadah, philosophy, muscar, mysticism —
换that tolerates homosexual acts or a homosexual `orientation.’ Jews who
换sanction homosexuality must do so wholly without reference to Jewish
换sacred literature, in which case their justification has no Jewish
换standing; or without reference to Jewish sources, in which case they act
换with ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. The idea, set forth by some of
换the non-Orthodox leadership, that the Torah prohibited only coercive and
换non-loving same-sex relationships, thus allowing for a contemporary,
换voluntary and loving same-sex relationship, is wholly without basis in a
换single piece of Jewish sacred literature written in the last 3000 years.”
换We have received many reviews, from both Jews and non-Jews, religious
换and non-religious, which provide an affirmative view of THE PINK SWASTIKA.
换These shall suffice for the moment.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Romans referred to Jesus using “ECCE HOMO”, not “ECCE HETERO”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 23:32:36 PST 1996
Article: 18421 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!news.netvision.net.il!usenet
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: New Book, THE PINK SWASTIKA
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 96 02:21:30 PDT
Organization: NetVision LTD.
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts2fp9.netvision.net.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon — TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26155 alt.society.conservatism:24278 alt.society.civil-liberty:39185
alt.sex.pedophilia:12957 alt.sex.homosexual:9438 alt.sex.advocacy:600 alt.revisionism:18421
alt.religion.sexuality:7610 alt.politics.usa.misc:48343 alt.politics.sex:7689 alt.politics.homosexuality:80058
alt.christnet:41216 alt.books.reviews:15529 alt.activism:17969
Apuleius wrote,
> Much of the responsibility for the Holocaust must rest on corrupt,
> amoral people like you.
Apuleius,
“Amoral” means morally neutral. How could you say such a thing about
me? Does being an ethical monotheist to you mean that I’m morally
neutral?
“Amoral” Def: `being neither immoral or moral.’
Regards,
Kevin E. Abrams
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 23:32:37 PST 1996
Article: 18422 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!news.netvision.net.il!usenet
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism
,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.homosexual,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: The Homophobe with the Pink Face
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 96 01:53:29 PDT
Organization: NetVision LTD.
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts2fp9.netvision.net.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon — TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26156 alt.society.conservatism:24279 alt.society.civil-liberty:39186
alt.sex.pedophilia:12958 alt.sex.homosexual:9439 alt.sex.advocacy:601 alt.revisionism:18422
alt.religion.sexuality:7611 alt.politics.usa.misc:48344 alt.politics.sex:7690 alt.politics.homosexuality:80059
alt.homosexual:49235 alt.christnet:41217 alt.books.reviews:15530 alt.activism:17970
Apuleius writes,
> For those who can read German (my ability is poor) I can recomment
> Helmut Heiber’s “Der Fall Gruenspan” in Vierteljahrs hefte fure
> Zeitgeschichte, April 1957, pp 134-172.
Thanks for the info, my co-author’s wife Ann Lively reads German
Perfectly. I’ll have her look it up.
Regards,
Kevin Abrams,
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 23:32:38 PST 1996
Article: 18423 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!news.netvision.net.il!usenet
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism
,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.homosexual,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Puritans had no place for Jews, Kevin
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 96 01:46:04 PDT
Organization: NetVision LTD.
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts2fp9.netvision.net.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon — TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26157 alt.society.conservatism:24280 alt.society.civil-liberty:39187
alt.sex.pedophilia:12959 alt.sex.homosexual:9440 alt.sex.advocacy:602 alt.revisionism:18423
alt.religion.sexuality:7612 alt.politics.usa.misc:48345 alt.politics.sex:7691 alt.politics.homosexuality:80060
alt.homosexual:49236 alt.christnet:41218 alt.books.reviews:15531 alt.activism:17971
> >The Calvinist Puritan ethic had absolutely no place for Jews. For you
> >to try to weasel in on it is the equivalent of placing the abomination
> >of abominations in the temple of Jerusalem.
You’re thinking of Luther maybe?
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 23:32:39 PST 1996
Article: 18424 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net
psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!news.netvision.net.il!usenet
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism
,alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.homosexual,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Innocent until proved guilty: an American principle of justice.
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 96 02:30:23 PDT
Organization: NetVision LTD.
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts2fp9.netvision.net.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon — TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26158 alt.society.conservatism:24281 alt.society.civil-liberty:39188
alt.sex.pedophilia:12960 alt.sex.homosexual:9441 alt.sex.advocacy:603 alt.revisionism:18424
alt.religion.sexuality:7613 alt.politics.usa.misc:48346 alt.politics.sex:7692 alt.politics.homosexuality:80061
alt.homosexual:49237 alt.christnet:41219 alt.books.reviews:15532 alt.activism:17972
Apulieus writes,
? I don’t care what your Israeli system says about the matter. In
? western, Anglo-Saxon America, the burden of proof is not on gays to
? show that their condition is “innate,” but rather the burden of proof
? is on YOU to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have made a
? “choice.”
? I’m sorry if your culture and education makes that a difficult concept
? for you to grasp. We Americans find it easier to understand.
Apulieus,
Over the years, I have worked and lived in both Canada and the United
States. I am also quite familiar with US history and their system of
government. I also attended school in America as a youth.
What you are referring to, is that everyone is innocent until proven
guilty in a court of law. This does not however apply to moral principles.
A transgression of the sexual moral code is always wrong. By making it a
`scientific or psychiatric question,’ `gay’ activists were able to get
around the moral code. They did so on the basis of fraud. To clear this
issue up, there needs to be an open and fair national debate and an
investigation into the `evidence’ put forth by homosexualists to justify
their claims. To change the sexual dispensation of an entire society to
accommodate the militant demands of a sexually corrupt minority is simply
foolish, irresponsible and cruel to the healthy development of our youth.
Apuleius, You are irresponsible and what I would call a social crimminal,
for attempting to promote a viscious and debilitating sexual disfunction.
You continue to do so, in spite of enormous evidence that should convince
you to pause and reassess your position. I have a great affection for a
great many Americans and the founding principles of American culture. It
makes me extremely sad, to see people like you doing everything you can, to
destroy her, and bring misery to her people. Think about it. Your so-called
`gay’ agenda is a total fraud.
Regards,
Kevin E. Abrams
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 23:32:39 PST 1996
Article: 18425 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!news.netvision.net.il!usenet
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: New Book, THE PINK SWASTIKA
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 96 02:26:06 PDT
Organization: NetVision LTD.
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts2fp9.netvision.net.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon — TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26161 alt.society.conservatism:24282 alt.society.civil-liberty:39189
alt.sex.pedophilia:12961 alt.sex.homosexual:9442 alt.sex.advocacy:604 alt.revisionism:18425
alt.religion.sexuality:7614 alt.politics.usa.misc:48347 alt.politics.sex:7693 alt.politics.homosexuality:80062
alt.christnet:41220 alt.books.reviews:15533 alt.activism:17973
Apulieus wrote,
> The comparison is not sexual ‘behavior’ but sexual orientation. Didn’t
> your big list of rabbi teachers include any science in your education?
You know Apuleius, the only thing I can think of, is that your own
life is so miserable, you have to run everyone else down. Pity.
Regards,
kevin E. Abrams
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 23:32:40 PST 1996
Article: 18426 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!news.netvision.net.il!usenet
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism
,alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Hoist with his own petard again.
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 96 02:02:16 PDT
Organization: NetVision LTD.
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts2fp9.netvision.net.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon — TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26162 alt.society.conservatism:24283 alt.society.civil-liberty:39190
alt.sex.pedophilia:12962 alt.sex.homosexual:9443 alt.sex.advocacy:605 alt.revisionism:18426
alt.religion.sexuality:7615 alt.politics.usa.misc:48348 alt.politics.sex:7694 alt.politics.homosexuality:80063
alt.christnet:41221 alt.books.reviews:15534 alt.activism:17974
> [email protected] (Kevin Abrams) wrote,
> 换The Nazis did not persecute homosexuals. This is `gay’ propaganda.
> 换The historical record reveals an entirely different picture than the
> 换one you have become accustomed to.
Apuleius
> Let me quote you something:
O.K.
> “In February of 1933, Hitler banned pornography, homosexual bars and
> bath-houses, and groups which promoted ‘gay-rights.'”
The Bund fur Menschensrecht (Society for Human Rights) which became
the largest homosexual rights movement in Germany, and was founded
“by” the Nazis, had fulfilled its purpose. Remember, the Nazis came
to power on January 30, 1933? Roehm’s `gay’ street thugs were no
longer required. Besides they were an open embarrassment, and most of
the German public was sick of them and their `gay’ orgies at the Brown
House in Berlin.
> Do you think that is persecution to ban groups working for the
> political rights of their members?
Sure, the foolish effeminate Jewish homosexual Magnus, Hirschfeld did
much to help Nazi homofascism come out of the closet. It backfired and
he had to flee for his life to France.
In all, it was a political descision to calm the German public and
to put an end to “revolutionary” activities.
> Do you recognize what I have quoted?
Yes. So what’s your point? The suspense is driving us crazy…..
> Do you know where I got that quote?
I’m still waiting.
> Here’s the source:
At last…..
> The Pink Swastika, by Kevin Abrams & Scott Lively, page 95.
Phew! Thanks Apuleius.
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 23:32:41 PST 1996
Article: 18427 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!news.netvision.net.il!usenet
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay
,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.homosexual,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Apuleius Foams at The Mouth…….
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 96 01:57:53 PDT
Organization: NetVision LTD.
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts2fp9.netvision.net.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon — TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26163 alt.society.conservatism:24284 alt.society.civil-liberty:39191
alt.sex.pedophilia:12963 alt.sex.homosexual:9444 alt.sex.advocacy:606 alt.revisionism:18427
alt.religion.sexuality:7616 alt.politics.usa.misc:48349 alt.politics.sex:7695 alt.politics.homosexuality:80064
alt.homosexual:49238 alt.christnet:41222 alt.books.reviews:15535 alt.activism:17975
Apuleius,
You’re one angry person and filled with HATE.
Maybe you should seek help? It’s never to late.
Unless you’ve got AIDS that is. And even then you
might beable to do techuva.
Regards,
Kevin E. Abrams
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 23:32:42 PST 1996
Article: 18428 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net
!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!news.netvision.net.il!usenet
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay
,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.homosexual,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Doomsday weapon.
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 96 01:49:29 PDT
Organization: NetVision LTD.
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts2fp9.netvision.net.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon — TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26164 alt.society.conservatism:24285 alt.society.civil-liberty:39192
alt.sex.pedophilia:12964 alt.sex.homosexual:9445 alt.sex.advocacy:607 alt.revisionism:18428
alt.religion.sexuality:7617 alt.politics.usa.misc:48350 alt.politics.sex:7696 alt.politics.homosexuality:80065
alt.homosexual:49239 alt.christnet:41223 alt.books.reviews:15536 alt.activism:17976
Apuleius wrote,
? You and your kind of fanatic extremists are a great danger to the
? world, as great as the Islamic fundamentalists on the other side.
? We worry about atomic weapons getting into their hands.
? We should also worry about the far greater possibility that existing
? Israeli atomic weapons might get into your hands.
? I believe you’re quite capable of destroying mankind by blanketing the
? world with deadly radiation if the world doesn’t give you your way.
? This is the meaning of the Battle of Armageddon in Revelation. The
? enemy from the north is from the Canadian north.
? The Romans referred to Jesus using “ECCE HOMO”, not “ECCE HETERO”
Apuleius,
Are you sure you’re not the “doomsday weapon?”
Regards,
Kevin E. Abrams
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 23:32:43 PST 1996
Article: 18437 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!agate!
usenet.kornet.nm.kr!news.kreonet.re.kr!news.hncnet.co.kr!uunet!in1.uu.net!wizard.pn.com!brighton.openmarket.com!
decwrl!nntp.crl.com!crl4.crl.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,
alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,
alt.politics.libertarian.gay,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.homosexual,alt.christnet
Subject: Re: Apuleius Foams at The Mouth…….
Date: 1 Jan 1996 20:08:48 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl4.crl.com
In-reply-to: [email protected]
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.society.conservatism:24297 alt.society.civil-liberty:39200 alt.sex.pedophilia:12966
alt.sex.homosexual:9446 alt.sex.advocacy:608 alt.revisionism:18437 alt.religion.sexuality:7619
alt.politics.usa.misc:48371 alt.politics.sex:7697 alt.politics.homosexuality:80078 alt.homosexual:49246
alt.christnet:41245
[Note the deletion of various newsgroups from this thread.]
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] said:
> Apuleius,
>
> You’re one angry person and filled with HATE.
If this is true, then it’s hate-mongers like you who can take most
of the credit for it, Kevin.
— William December Starr <[email protected]>
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 23:32:45 PST 1996
Article: 18410 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual
,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,
alt.politics.libertarian.gay,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.homosexual,alt.christnet
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!
newsie.dmc.com!spdcc!fj
From: [email protected] (FJ!!)
Subject: Re: New Book, THE PINK SWASTIKA
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 21:53:23 GMT
Lines: 30
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.society.conservatism:24265 alt.society.civil-liberty:39177 alt.sex.pedophilia:12951
alt.sex.homosexual:9436 alt.sex.advocacy:598 alt.revisionism:18410 alt.religion.sexuality:7607
alt.politics.usa.misc:48325 alt.politics.sex:7684 alt.politics.homosexuality:80048 alt.homosexual:49227
alt.christnet:41193
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Gay activists would not agree with you. They believe if homosexuality
>is presented to the public as being `innate,’ this excuses them from
>personal responsibility for the consequences of their conduct. The problem
Which shows exactly just how incredibly out of touch you are with the
current struggle for civil rights. The “innateness” is something that
is mostly used and talked about by people who have just come out or are
still in the first throws of it. There are many same-sex activists who
will state (and in fact, try to adapt reality sometimes) that it isn’t
entirely innate, and even more who will say that actually, with regards
to civil rights issues, it doesn’t matter, it is about harm – and none
is done in consentual relationships.
Again Kevin shows how he blathers without any knowledge.
>is, if homosexuality is found to be innate, then it should be able to be
>repaired physiologically, something which most gays would reject.
`Repairing’ has been tried over and over and over and over again. It
wouldn’t be anything new. And besides, purely psychologically,
`repairing’ has very little to do with innateness, as the treatement
of many traits in society shows, like lefthandedness, hair-color or
temper.
Again Kevin demonstrates how he blathers without knowledge.
FJ!!
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 23:32:46 PST 1996
Article: 18412 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!news.uh.edu!
lurch.sccsi.com!news.sccsi.com!ganymede
From: [email protected] (Greg R. Broderick)
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.homosexual,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: New Book, THE PINK SWASTIKA
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 96 18:37:32 GMT
Organization: The Usenet global cabal
Lines: 168
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Host: tty21.com5.houston.net
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26152 alt.society.conservatism:24268 alt.society.civil-liberty:39180
alt.sex.pedophilia:12952 alt.sex.homosexual:9437 alt.sex.advocacy:599 alt.revisionism:18412
alt.religion.sexuality:7609 alt.politics.usa.misc:48332 alt.politics.sex:7685 alt.politics.homosexuality:80050
alt.homosexual:49230 alt.christnet:41202 alt.books.reviews:15528 alt.activism:17955
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>For the moment you assume a falsehood. There is no hard evidence to
>prove that homosexuality is innate and far more evidence to prove that
>it is sociological and environmental in origin. The question is, if
>there is no solid evidence to establish the innateness of homosexuality
>then why are we teaching that it’s not a choice? The burden of proof
>rests upon those who want us to believe that homosexuality is innate.
>This proof they have failed to provide. In Israel I interviewed the person
>responsible for the nations sex education curriculum. She candidly told
>me, we really don’t know what causes homosexuality, but in the same breath
>she stated, it’s not a choice. From my perspective this seems a little
>reckless, seeing as how sexual experimentation can and does lead to
>established behaviors.
There is no hard evidence to prove that Judaism is innate and far more
evidence to prove that it is sociological and environmental in origin. The
question is, if there is no solid evidence to establish the innateness of
Judaism then why are we teaching that it’s not a choice? Why is Judaism
protected by Constitutional rights, when homosexuality is not ?
..
In Israel I interviewed the person responsible for the nations religious
education curriculum. He candidly told me, we really don’t know what causes
Judaism, but in the same breath she stated, it’s not a choice. From my
perspective this seems a little reckless, seeing as how religious
experimentation can and does lead to established behaviors.
>Gay advocates have no proof to substantiate their claims for the
>normalization and acceptance of homosexuality.
This statement does not follow from your prior argument, it is a non sequitur,
and therefore stands or falls, as well as all argument derived from this
statement as an unsupported assertion.
Moreover, this statement flies in the face of history — considering the
number of known homosexuals throughout the ages, it is plausibly true
statement that homosexuality has been a part of human sexual behaviour
throughout recorded history. This statement also flies in the face of
psychological research (c.f. Dr. Evelyn Hooker) which has shown no
identifiable behavioural or psychological dysfunction to be inextricably
linked to homosexual orientation or behaviour.
>It therefore follows, that if homosexuality is not innate, but at some point,
>a chosen behavior, what are we doing designating them minorirty status?
It therefore follows, that if Judasim is not innate, but at some point, a
chosen behavior, what are we doing designating them “minorirty” status?
>What are we doing allowing sexual conduct to be used as a basis from which to
>accord minority status?
What are we doing allowing religious conduct to be used as a basis from which
to accord minority status?
>No Neal, the burden of proof lays far more with homosexualists and those who
>have worked to sell the gay cause. So far, they haven’t even entered into
>open debate on the issue. Maybe it’s time. This could be a tremendous
>learning experience for the whole nation. Maybe even a new lease on life!
>> You need to take a few courses in critical thinking, specializing in
>> burden of proof.
>
>I think before you make statements such as this, which could prove to
>be embarrassing to yourself, you should research the subject a little
>more. As you must appreciate, you do not have a monopoly on `critical
>thinking.’
>
>> > I am saying, and will continue to say, that in all areas, whether
>> > historical, religious or scientific you have no legitimate basis
>> > upon which to substantiate your claims for acceptance other, than it
>> > being a personal `preference’ or `orientation.’
>
>> Oh? You mean.. um.. like… uh… RELIGION? Is there a Jew gene?
>> How about an Episcopalian gene? If you claim there is NO LEGITIMATE
>> BASIS for any rights based on ‘choice’ then you give up any rights
>> based on religion because any such are, by your own definition,
>> INVALID. I do not hold that homosexuality is a choice any more than
>> heterosexuality is a choice. I, being heterosexual, never had ANY
>> time in my life where I was equally attracted to either sex and just
>> one day made the decision to be heterosexual and that I could just
>> change that choice on a whim as you seem to be claiming of homosexual
>> orientation. It is, to me, similar to right handed or left
>> handedness. SURE… you could with great effort force someone who is
>> left handed to act right handed, but it will REMAIN unnatural for them
>> to do so.
>
>The Jewish people have established cultural, ethnic, linguistic, religious
>and a literary tradition which goes back thousands of years. How can you
>possibly compare everything it means to be Jewish to a sexual disfunction?
And homosexuality, if we are to believe your interpretation of Genesis 18, and
ignore Ezekiel’s interpretation of Genesis 18 (c.f. Ezekiel 16:49 – 50), has
existed longer than has Judaism, seeing as Judaism (the Abrahamic covenant)
was not instituted until well after Lot was extracted from Sodom before its
destruction.
>> However if you wish to just consider it a choice and claim that no
>> rights accrue just from choice… I suggest you are extremely ill
>> informed.
>
>You have already said this. I would respond, it is YOU who appears to be
>”ill-informed” and casting aspersions. If a man “chooses” to enter into a
>loving and mutually consentual sexual relationship with a prepubertal boy,
>what would be your response? Would you say that the man made an acceptable
>`choice?’ In your opinion, is the boy old enough to consent? I’m sure
>you’re familiar with NAMBLA?
If a man “chooses” to attempt to convert a prepubertal boy to Judaism, what
would be your response?
Aside from the above, pederasty bears no more relation to homosexuality than
rape bears to heterosexuality. Should we condemn a mutually loving, adult,
consentual heterosexual relationship because some heterosexual men rape women
? If not, then why should we condemn a mutually loving, adult, homosexual
relationship because some men molest little boys (and girls) ?
>> > What I am also saying is that homosexuals have a responsiblity to
>> >the rest of the community which they don’t seem to care about,
>> >regardless of the harm they are causing.
>
>> What harm is this, and why should they care about you when you have
>> nothing but hateful and venomous intolerant bigotry against them? You
>> are asking the jews to love their nazi persecuters as they shove them
>> into the camp ovens!
>
>I do not hate “them,” nor do I know who “them” are. However, I condemn
>homosexuality as a destructive and debilitating behavior, a behavior
>which we should do everything in our power to repress and avoid. A person
>can’t have it both ways, to be known as a `homosexual’ and as a dignified
>human being at the same moment. Labels play a large role in this game.
You have yet to provide incontrovertible support for your unbutressed
assertion that homosexuality is a “destructive and debilitating behavior”,
Kevin. Until you do so, your argument is worthless.
>> > Can you prove to us that homosexuality is not
>> > harmful, to both the individual and society?
>
>> You are the one who has to prove that it IS.
>
>No, it is you Neal, who must prove that it isn’t!
He who asserts bears the burden of proof, Kevin. You have made unsupported
assertions. You hhave failed to provide proper support for these assertions
when challenged, therefore these assertions are worthless.
>Shalom,
>
>Kevin E. Abrams
>
>> Neal Feldman “Fight Fascism!”
>> Salem, Oregon “Defeat the Religious Reich!”
>> [email protected]
—
============================================================================
Greg R. Broderick And it came to pass that in the hands of the
ignorant, the words of the Bible were used to beat
plowshares into swords.
[email protected] — Alan Watts
[email protected]
[email protected]
============================================================================
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 23:32:48 PST 1996
Article: 18421 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!news.netvision.net.il!usenet
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: New Book, THE PINK SWASTIKA
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 96 02:21:30 PDT
Organization: NetVision LTD.
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts2fp9.netvision.net.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon — TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26155 alt.society.conservatism:24278 alt.society.civil-liberty:39185
alt.sex.pedophilia:12957 alt.sex.homosexual:9438 alt.sex.advocacy:600 alt.revisionism:18421
alt.religion.sexuality:7610 alt.politics.usa.misc:48343 alt.politics.sex:7689 alt.politics.homosexuality:80058
alt.christnet:41216 alt.books.reviews:15529 alt.activism:17969
Apuleius wrote,
> Much of the responsibility for the Holocaust must rest on corrupt,
> amoral people like you.
Apuleius,
“Amoral” means morally neutral. How could you say such a thing about
me? Does being an ethical monotheist to you mean that I’m morally
neutral?
“Amoral” Def: `being neither immoral or moral.’
Regards,
Kevin E. Abrams
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 23:32:49 PST 1996
Article: 18425 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!news.netvision.net.il!usenet
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: New Book, THE PINK SWASTIKA
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 96 02:26:06 PDT
Organization: NetVision LTD.
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts2fp9.netvision.net.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon — TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26161 alt.society.conservatism:24282 alt.society.civil-liberty:39189
alt.sex.pedophilia:12961 alt.sex.homosexual:9442 alt.sex.advocacy:604 alt.revisionism:18425
alt.religion.sexuality:7614 alt.politics.usa.misc:48347 alt.politics.sex:7693 alt.politics.homosexuality:80062
alt.christnet:41220 alt.books.reviews:15533 alt.activism:17973
Apulieus wrote,
> The comparison is not sexual ‘behavior’ but sexual orientation. Didn’t
> your big list of rabbi teachers include any science in your education?
You know Apuleius, the only thing I can think of, is that your own
life is so miserable, you have to run everyone else down. Pity.
Regards,
kevin E. Abrams
From [email protected] Mon Jan 1 23:32:50 PST 1996
Article: 18426 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!news.netvision.net.il!usenet
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Hoist with his own petard again.
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 96 02:02:16 PDT
Organization: NetVision LTD.
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts2fp9.netvision.net.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon — TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26162 alt.society.conservatism:24283 alt.society.civil-liberty:39190
alt.sex.pedophilia:12962 alt.sex.homosexual:9443 alt.sex.advocacy:605 alt.revisionism:18426
alt.religion.sexuality:7615 alt.politics.usa.misc:48348 alt.politics.sex:7694 alt.politics.homosexuality:80063
alt.christnet:41221 alt.books.reviews:15534 alt.activism:17974
> [email protected] (Kevin Abrams) wrote,
> 换The Nazis did not persecute homosexuals. This is `gay’ propaganda.
> 换The historical record reveals an entirely different picture than the
> 换one you have become accustomed to.
Apuleius
> Let me quote you something:
O.K.
> “In February of 1933, Hitler banned pornography, homosexual bars and
> bath-houses, and groups which promoted ‘gay-rights.'”
The Bund fur Menschensrecht (Society for Human Rights) which became
the largest homosexual rights movement in Germany, and was founded
“by” the Nazis, had fulfilled its purpose. Remember, the Nazis came
to power on January 30, 1933? Roehm’s `gay’ street thugs were no
longer required. Besides they were an open embarrassment, and most of
the German public was sick of them and their `gay’ orgies at the Brown
House in Berlin.
> Do you think that is persecution to ban groups working for the
> political rights of their members?
Sure, the foolish effeminate Jewish homosexual Magnus, Hirschfeld did
much to help Nazi homofascism come out of the closet. It backfired and
he had to flee for his life to France.
In all, it was a political descision to calm the German public and
to put an end to “revolutionary” activities.
> Do you recognize what I have quoted?
Yes. So what’s your point? The suspense is driving us crazy…..
> Do you know where I got that quote?
I’m still waiting.
> Here’s the source:
At last…..
> The Pink Swastika, by Kevin Abrams & Scott Lively, page 95.
Phew! Thanks Apuleius.
From [email protected] Tue Jan 2 15:14:18 PST 1996
Article: 18490 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!
alpha.sky.net!winternet.com!news.cinenet.net!news.cais.net!news.his.com!ultraplex.upx.net!kaz
From: [email protected] (KAZ Vorpal)
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: New Book, THE PINK SWASTIKA
Followup-To: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Date: 2 Jan 1996 16:47:38 GMT
Organization: UltraPlex
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <[email protected]com>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ultraplex.upx.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26201 alt.society.conservatism:24373 alt.society.civil-liberty:39262
alt.sex.pedophilia:12996 alt.sex.homosexual:9471 alt.sex.advocacy:632 alt.revisionism:18490
alt.religion.sexuality:7646 alt.politics.usa.misc:48481 alt.politics.sex:7727 alt.politics.homosexuality:80146
alt.christnet:41372 alt.books.reviews:15558 alt.activism:18115
[email protected] wrote:
>)>Homofascists dominated the Nazi Party.
>)Then how come Nazis persecuted homosexuals?
>)>Can you prove they didn’t?
>)Holo
>)Can you prove they did? Why don’t you go check the Holocaust Museum? It
>)states there, very plainly, that the Nazis persecuted homosexuals. Why
>)would they persecute their own???? Answer: They wouldn’t!!!!
err…again you are arguing a valid position using a fallaceous point.
Of course homosexuals could oppress homosexuals. That’s like
saying that whites can’t oppress whites, et cetera.
Before the Holocaust, wealthy Jews did actually help finance the
Nazis. Does this prove that they were not Jewish? They were told by the
Nazi leadership that the Anti-Jew stuff was just anti-wealthy propoganda
used to buy power, that they needn’t worry about it. Thus extenuating
circumstances.
And of course there are similar problems in your homosexuality
argument. They could hate themselves. They could consider themselves
different than the “class” of homosexuals.
Or, as is almost certainly the case, they could just be looking
for a group to use as a scapegoat for their class warfare, and as long as
nobody knew their own sexual preferences they didn’t care whom they
betrayed or tortured.
>)>Can you prove that homosexuality is `innate’?
>)Let’s see. There have been tests with mice that, with minor brain
>)surgery, caused male mice to chase after female mice, evidence that the
>)brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals may be different, so I’d say
>)yes.
That’s stupid. You could alter their brains to make them kill
themselves, too, does that prove that being suicidal is “innate”?
And ALL of the “evidence” that homosexuality is “genetic” is
similarly junk science. None of it isolates the mechanism for this trait,
which is what any real scientist would do.
And YOU DO NOT WANT IT TO BE GENETIC. Stop and think about it.
I see that you don’t want to be claimed to be responsible for your own
actions, so you want it to be genetic…but you’re not following this
through in your mind.
If it’s genetic, then it -IS- a mere defect. It is nothing more
than a curable genetic trait. The Nazis -did- believe it genetic. Their
solution should illustrate to you the obvious conclusion of your line of
reasoning. If it had been considered a simple matter of taste in Weimar
Germany, then the Nazis could not have used their genetic purification
arguments to oppress homosexuals. The Nazis -did- have arguments and
rationale for -all- of their oppressive actions, you know.
>)>Can you prove that homosexuality is a benefit to
>)>either the individual or society?
>)Can you prove it is not a benefit? Without going into stupid religious,
>)”moral” ramblings without any hint of logic, that is?
Of course he can’t. Your point should be that you don’t NEED to
prove it, not -just- that he can’t disprove it. You need to stand on your
rights to do anything that doesn’t attack other people directly.
>)>Can you prove that homosexualism is not predatory?
>)Can you prove that it is?
Now you need to point out that you don’t have to prove a
negative. This is an impossible demand. Prove that there is not a giant
blue hamster holding the universe under its thumb. You can’t disprove it.
But the important question is whether anyone can prove it -does- exist.
You needed to spell that out. He can’t say that the hamster
doesn’t exist just because you can’t disprove it, and he can’t say that
homosexuals are predators just because you can’t disprove it.
I know you implied that, but if he were smart enough to get it he
wouldn’t be making the argument in the first place.
>)>Can you explain how homosexualism is equal to heterosexism?
>)Can you prove that it is inferior?
See? Same problems. First, even if it’s inferior he has no right
to prohibit it, and second, he has to show it’s inferior, not you have to
show it’s equal.
>)>Can you tell us, on what basis did the APA remove homosexuality
>)>from its Diognostics and Statistics manual?
>)It’s as much a mental disease as having blue eyes is a mental disease.
No, you’re doing it again. You give him ammunition with
ridiculous comparisons like that. Homosexuality -is- mental, and would be
even if it were genetic…but blue eyes is cosmetic.
—
Words of the Sentient:
Lawyers are the only person in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.
–Jeremy Bentham
From [email protected] Tue Jan 2 15:39:28 PST 1996
Article: 18494 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!
news.charm.net!news.cais.net!news.his.com!ultraplex.upx.net!kaz
From: [email protected] (KAZ Vorpal)
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: New Book, THE PINK SWASTIKA
Followup-To: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Date: 2 Jan 1996 17:34:53 GMT
Organization: UltraPlex
Lines: 289
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ultraplex.upx.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26204 alt.society.conservatism:24384 alt.society.civil-liberty:39266
alt.sex.pedophilia:12997 alt.sex.homosexual:9472 alt.sex.advocacy:633 alt.revisionism:18494
alt.religion.sexuality:7647 alt.politics.usa.misc:48487 alt.politics.sex:7728 alt.politics.homosexuality:80148
alt.christnet:41380 alt.books.reviews:15559 alt.activism:18129
[email protected] wrote:
>)> [email protected] writes:
>)> >dionisio writes,
>)> Because of Intolerance.
>)No, because of so-called `human rights’ based on `self’ determination,
>)which amount to little more than licence and an excuse to be indifferent
>)to the harmful effects of your actions on society.
No, but you’re more correct than he is. It’s not because of
“intolerance” in the sense that he means…it’s because of -separatism-.
The ruling class for the last sixty years has used the socialist
trick of artificially exaggerating the separation between various
arbitrary groups, aka class warfare. They have pitted everyone against
the straight white male. And you play into it by pitting yourself against
them in response, instead of scoffing at the -alleged- separation they
claim.
Homosexuality is just a matter of taste, like whether you prefer
coffee, tea, pepsi, or coke. And it’s just as stupid to worry about it.
The ruling class has artificially separated people who happen to
like the same sex from -you-, and convinced those people that they need
to -demand- to be treated as a special -class-. Then they use this to get
elected: They make many heterosexuals feel guilty about how people like
you react against this new, fake class. They get homosexuals to feel like
they -have- to belong to this group and support those leaders who
separate them, no matter whether they would support them on any other
issue or not.
Take blacks: Most blacks are very conservative in philosophy, as an
arbitrary demographic. They support the death penalty to a higher percentage
than whites, statistically. They are more likely, statistically, to be
religious. They had a trend toward strong family bonds, until the last
sixty years of socialism targetted them as an arbitrary group and
punished them for this.
Yet many black individuals are fooled into thinking that they
-must- vote Democrat, even if it’s a Liberal who they’re supporting
against their personal beliefs, because the ruling class has pitted them
against whites and then “taken their side”.
Each time some Liberal talks about needing to get his “core constituency”
out to save the Democrats, he doesn’t mean people WITH THE SAME BELIEFS,
he instead means the arbitrary groups of peoople, like homosexuals,
blacks, and women, whom his party has taught to blindly follow his
leadership, based solely on the “us versus them” mentality he has
created.
So the root problem is not “intolerance”, and it’s not freedom of
choice. You’re both wrong. It is the pitting of you against him. A lot of
people do a lot of things you don’t approve of, yet which you are willing
to ignore…because those people haven’t been grouped together and
-identified- by that thing you don’t like, and pitted against you.
>)> >Crime has increased with the advent of sexual `liberation’ (licence).
>)
>)> Crime has increase due to the Drug War’s Underground Market effects,
>)> including crimes by police and the government in general.
>)Drugs are another discussion, but are often linked to
>)corrupt sexual activities. Any individual in bondage to their passions
>)will not be the least bit concerned for the freedom and welfare of others.
This would include your passion for opposing this ridiculous
grouping of Homosexual Versus Heterosexual. You are forgetting the
concern for the freedom and welfare of others yourself, because you are
being tricked into it, as is your opponant, by this class warfare.
The same applies to the drug prohibition. Any close examination will
tell you that it is having the same effects as the alcohol prohibition;
more drug abuse, more crime, more suffering, more people imprisoned until
real criminals get set free to make room. But the -cause- is used to get
you to blindly vote for its supporters…
This is why ever more -Conservatives- oppose the drug
prohibition, and ever more Liberals support it. The drug war fits the
class warfare philosophy of the Liberals more than it does the
Restrained-Government philosophy of the Conservatives.
>)> >Sexual licence leads to more drug abuse, AIDS, younger age pregnancy,
>)> >abortion as a method of birth control and crime in general.
>)Sexual corruption and exploitation are the root of most, if not all
>)other crime. A new and improved sexual morality would do wonders towards
>)solving America’s present cultural crisis.
Oh, that’s just silly. Bank robbers are sex criminals? No, what
you mean to say is that the crimes you SEE ON TELEVISION often have
something, vaguely, to do with sex, because this sells and enforces the
class warfare.
>)> Prohibition of drugs leads to more crime via the underground market,
>)> higher AIDS rates due to prohibition of needle-exchange programs or
>)> legal sales in pharmacies.
>)Sexual corruption increases the demand for drugs. If our
>)sexual constitution is wrong, then nothing else will be right.
How exactly does sexual anything increase demand for drugs?
Gee, by that logic anyone with a poor diet will be homosexual and
a drug user; if our diet isn’t right, nothing else will be either.
A ridiculous statement like that needs some -vague- degree of
logical support. You’re placing -way- too much importance on sex here.
>)> >Of course, libertinists will, with a straight face, deny this.
>)
>)> Of course, Religious Supremists will answer all these issues with more
>)> violence and less Liberty.
>)Ethical monothesists seek truth, justice and compassion. The goal is to
>)rectify and repair. The goal is not to produce those who are vanquished
>)and defer to those who become the victors. The original concept of equality
>)meant that all were equal before the law, not the socialist concept that
>)everyone is forced into becoming the same. Besides, the reality of socialism
>)is that no one is equal before the law. Social`ism’ is a political ideology
>)whereas social justice is an objective principle based on the Bible.
Monotheists? You do realize your religion isn’t the only one that
is monotheistic, and that every single -ethical- belief of your religion
could easily be part of a polytheistic religion too, don’t you?
I would say that any rational being seeks truth, justice and
compassion as his ethical system within a society, because it is
pragmatic.
You are still correct about the falsity of socialism, which takes
away all freedom of choice for a central control system…but this is
also what you propose if you advocate central control of morality as
well.
You are essentially being a moral socialist. And every argument
you apply to economic socialism will apply to your moral socialism.
>)> >>The reputed causal link between intolerance levels towards
>)> >>homosexuals and resulting societal health has been disproven by
>)> >>example. Not only do the above cited examples contradict the
>)> >>proposed relationship directly, but they suggest that it’s exactly
>)> >>backwards: attitudes about homosexuality REFLECT the level of
>)> >>cultural health, not act as a causal agent. In other words,
>)> >>intolerance of homosexuality appears to be the effect of violent,
>)> >>harsh, and/or authoritarian regimes, while tolerance of homosexuality
>)> >>appears to be the hallmark of humane and civilized cultures.
>)
>)> Such as Holland, with a more tolerant drug policy, a tolerant sexual
>)> policy, all with lower AIDS rates and crime rates.
>)What do you mean, Holland is falling apart!
hmmm…if it’s falling apart, it’s the socialism, as you noted,
not the freedom of choice. In fact, it’s the LACK of freedom of choice
>from socialism…and that damage results from any kind of lack of freedom
of choice.
>)> >Before America `tolerated’ homosexualism it was a far more
>)> >compassionate and tolerant society.
>)
>)> Was that when preachers used to preach segregation, where there were
>)> black and white water-fountians, where gays were sent to mental
>)> hospitals and tortured, where women were sterilized, where blacks were
>)> kept out of votin
>)> g due to poll taxes, where lynchings of african americans were common
>)> and ignored by the `faithfull’???
>)There have been many injustices perpetrated in the past, most of which we
>)shall not address in this posting. Sexual disfunctions are some of the most
>)difficult and often most misunderstood problems. Homosexuality is a riddle,
>)but based on experience it is definately something we in good conscience,
>)cannot accept as either normal or morally correct.
I would say that any obsessing on sex would be sexual
dysfunction. Both obsessing with being homosexual, and obsessing with
being heterosexual.
If he were obsessing with coffee drinking, and demanding special
rights, and let’s say you prefer tea, would your obsessing on tea and
opposing all coffee drinking be any healthier than his?
Imagine that someone comes along and pits him against you,
telling him he needs special treatment as a coffee drinker. Do you
reinforce this by trying to attack his coffee drinking, as a defense, or
do you point out that the whole issue is bullshit?
>)> >Notice how violence is on the “increase,” as sexual `licence’ impacts
>)> >on the nation.
>)
>)> You ignore the impact of the Drug War, which creates underground
>)> markets and violence all over the Earth associated with them.
>)Again, drug abuse is the symptom, not the cause.
Yes, drug abuse is a symptom of the drug war. Note that the drug
abuse problem started -after- the first heavy enforcement of the drug
prohibition in the early sixties, but -before- the heavy separatist
movement among the fake homosexual leaders. Cause and effect.
>)> You ignore the Violence that you preach in denying people their right
>)> to be free of Religious Laws – which Initiate Violence.
>)Violence is neutral, it’s all a matter of who’s using it. The `freedom’
>)which some seek is the same freedom a dog has to run in the street. This,
>)for human beings is not freedom at all, but licence and the destruction
>)of human dignity. Those who seek to destroy society must be restrained.
The idea that there are special classes of violence is part of
the socialist class warfare tactic. It lets them use violence and claim
to be less evil, and lets them demonize the kinds of violence they want
to focus upon…
For example: There is far more violence against men than women.
Some socialist/Liberal the other day mentioned that there was violence
against a woman every n seconds…yet didn’t mention that there was
violence against a man THREE times in that same period. Their target here
is the women, pitting them against men and guarentying their political
support…
>)> >The one thing which was noticable in America during the last world
>)> >war, was its realtively high sexual mores, contrary to Berlin, which
>)> >Hitler himself called, “the whore of Babylon.”
>)
>)> As if Hitler was moral!!!
>)Hitler as evil as he was, was a genius and a very observant and
>)in many ways, an intuitive person. He was also a master polititian,
>)although to me, this even today, is a dubious honor.
Yeah, he was a genius at pitting people against each other, and
he needed people like you as much as people like your opponant. Think of
these two quotes:
“The wealthy, priveledged race…” Hitler, about Jews
“The wealthy, priveledged race…” Clinton, about Whites
It takes both sides to make this war work. Both of you are being
sucked into the socialist class hate trap.
>)> >America became great because she rejected homosexuality and sexual
>)> >promiscuity in general. Today, western society is FAILING, largely
>)> >because of its acceptance of sexual deviance and infidelity.
>)
>)> Failing to `love thy neighbor’ because of Hate and prejudice like
>)> yours.
>)In loving our children and our neighbors mustn’t we be willing to
>)say “no,” when when it’s required?
What? America became great because of WHAT? Oh, it wasn’t the
freedom of choice, eh? Nothing to do with the free market systems which
made us grow from last place to first place over the course of a mere
century. It was sexual repression, which gave us enough energy in the
form of frustration and tension to allow us to be more productive!
Even if we’d been socialist, we’d have been the same success, as
long as we didn’t screw to much…
>)> > “Sexual licence leads to VIOLENCE & BRUTALITY.
>)> > Those held in a state of sexual bandage, can do little
>)> > towards the freedom and welfare of others, to the contrary,
>)> > they will usurp the freedom of others.”
>)
>)> So, your answer for homosexuality, drug use, prostitution…
>)> …is NOT to usurp the freedom of others????
>)This depends on what you call `freedom.’ If by `freedom’ you mean
>)the `licence’ to destroy human dignity and commit a fraud against the
>)whole of the society you live in, shouldn’t this person’s freedom be
>)challenged? We restrict the freedom of many people in our society, for
>)instance there’s those drug pushers you’re worried about. Then there’s
>)child molesters and rapists. Don’t we restrict their freedom? Don’t all
>)those who promote sexual debauchery and a breakdown of civilized human
>)behavior deserve similar treatment? Should anyone be permited to place
>)a stumbling block before the blind? Are we not our brother’s keeper?
Human dignity? Are you talking about outlawing slapstick comedy?
The most terrible violation of human dignity is the prohibition
of personal choice.
You’re Christian, right? Jesus didn’t try to force anyone to do
anything. He never advocated the State imposing -anything-. He -advised-
people, and then left them with the dignity to listen or to make a
mistake instead.
—
Secrets of the Sentient
Did You Know:
Black households making more than $35K a year grew from 2.6 million people in
1979 to 3.9 million people in 1989.
From [email protected] Tue Jan 2 16:02:18 PST 1996
Article: 18129 of alt.activism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!
news.charm.net!news.cais.net!news.his.com!ultraplex.upx.net!kaz
From: [email protected] (KAZ Vorpal)
Newsgroups: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism,
alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Subject: Re: New Book, THE PINK SWASTIKA
Followup-To: uk.religion.jewish,soc.culture.israel,israel.lists.il-talk,israel.israeline,alt.society.conservatism
,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex.pedophilia,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.advocacy,alt.revisionism,
alt.religion.sexuality,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.christnet,alt.books.reviews,alt.activism
Date: 2 Jan 1996 17:34:53 GMT
Organization: UltraPlex
Lines: 289
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ultraplex.upx.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:26204 alt.society.conservatism:24384 alt.society.civil-liberty:39266
alt.sex.pedophilia:12997 alt.sex.homosexual:9472 alt.sex.advocacy:633 alt.revisionism:18494
alt.religion.sexuality:7647 alt.politics.usa.misc:48487 alt.politics.sex:7728 alt.politics.homosexuality:80148
alt.christnet:41380 alt.books.reviews:15559 alt.activism:18129
[email protected] wrote:
>)> [email protected] writes:
>)> >dionisio writes,
>)> Because of Intolerance.
>)No, because of so-called `human rights’ based on `self’ determination,
>)which amount to little more than licence and an excuse to be indifferent
>)to the harmful effects of your actions on society.
No, but you’re more correct than he is. It’s not because of
“intolerance” in the sense that he means…it’s because of -separatism-.
The ruling class for the last sixty years has used the socialist
trick of artificially exaggerating the separation between various
arbitrary groups, aka class warfare. They have pitted everyone against
the straight white male. And you play into it by pitting yourself against
them in response, instead of scoffing at the -alleged- separation they
claim.
Homosexuality is just a matter of taste, like whether you prefer
coffee, tea, pepsi, or coke. And it’s just as stupid to worry about it.
The ruling class has artificially separated people who happen to
like the same sex from -you-, and convinced those people that they need
to -demand- to be treated as a special -class-. Then they use this to get
elected: They make many heterosexuals feel guilty about how people like
you react against this new, fake class. They get homosexuals to feel like
they -have- to belong to this group and support those leaders who
separate them, no matter whether they would support them on any other
issue or not.
Take blacks: Most blacks are very conservative in philosophy, as an
arbitrary demographic. They support the death penalty to a higher percentage
than whites, statistically. They are more likely, statistically, to be
religious. They had a trend toward strong family bonds, until the last
sixty years of socialism targetted them as an arbitrary group and
punished them for this.
Yet many black individuals are fooled into thinking that they
-must- vote Democrat, even if it’s a Liberal who they’re supporting
against their personal beliefs, because the ruling class has pitted them
against whites and then “taken their side”.
Each time some Liberal talks about needing to get his “core constituency”
out to save the Democrats, he doesn’t mean people WITH THE SAME BELIEFS,
he instead means the arbitrary groups of peoople, like homosexuals,
blacks, and women, whom his party has taught to blindly follow his
leadership, based solely on the “us versus them” mentality he has
created.
So the root problem is not “intolerance”, and it’s not freedom of
choice. You’re both wrong. It is the pitting of you against him. A lot of
people do a lot of things you don’t approve of, yet which you are willing
to ignore…because those people haven’t been grouped together and
-identified- by that thing you don’t like, and pitted against you.
>)> >Crime has increased with the advent of sexual `liberation’ (licence).
>)
>)> Crime has increase due to the Drug War’s Underground Market effects,
>)> including crimes by police and the government in general.
>)Drugs are another discussion, but are often linked to
>)corrupt sexual activities. Any individual in bondage to their passions
>)will not be the least bit concerned for the freedom and welfare of others.
This would include your passion for opposing this ridiculous
grouping of Homosexual Versus Heterosexual. You are forgetting the
concern for the freedom and welfare of others yourself, because you are
being tricked into it, as is your opponant, by this class warfare.
The same applies to the drug prohibition. Any close examination will
tell you that it is having the same effects as the alcohol prohibition;
more drug abuse, more crime, more suffering, more people imprisoned until
real criminals get set free to make room. But the -cause- is used to get
you to blindly vote for its supporters…
This is why ever more -Conservatives- oppose the drug
prohibition, and ever more Liberals support it. The drug war fits the
class warfare philosophy of the Liberals more than it does the
Restrained-Government philosophy of the Conservatives.
>)> >Sexual licence leads to more drug abuse, AIDS, younger age pregnancy,
>)> >abortion as a method of birth control and crime in general.
>)Sexual corruption and exploitation are the root of most, if not all
>)other crime. A new and improved sexual morality would do wonders towards
>)solving America’s present cultural crisis.
Oh, that’s just silly. Bank robbers are sex criminals? No, what
you mean to say is that the crimes you SEE ON TELEVISION often have
something, vaguely, to do with sex, because this sells and enforces the
class warfare.
>)> Prohibition of drugs leads to more crime via the underground market,
>)> higher AIDS rates due to prohibition of needle-exchange programs or
>)> legal sales in pharmacies.
>)Sexual corruption increases the demand for drugs. If our
>)sexual constitution is wrong, then nothing else will be right.
How exactly does sexual anything increase demand for drugs?
Gee, by that logic anyone with a poor diet will be homosexual and
a drug user; if our diet isn’t right, nothing else will be either.
A ridiculous statement like that needs some -vague- degree of
logical support. You’re placing -way- too much importance on sex here.
>)> >Of course, libertinists will, with a straight face, deny this.
>)
>)> Of course, Religious Supremists will answer all these issues with more
>)> violence and less Liberty.
>)Ethical monothesists seek truth, justice and compassion. The goal is to
>)rectify and repair. The goal is not to produce those who are vanquished
>)and defer to those who become the victors. The original concept of equality
>)meant that all were equal before the law, not the socialist concept that
>)everyone is forced into becoming the same. Besides, the reality of socialism
>)is that no one is equal before the law. Social`ism’ is a political ideology
>)whereas social justice is an objective principle based on the Bible.
Monotheists? You do realize your religion isn’t the only one that
is monotheistic, and that every single -ethical- belief of your religion
could easily be part of a polytheistic religion too, don’t you?
I would say that any rational being seeks truth, justice and
compassion as his ethical system within a society, because it is
pragmatic.
You are still correct about the falsity of socialism, which takes
away all freedom of choice for a central control system…but this is
also what you propose if you advocate central control of morality as
well.
You are essentially being a moral socialist. And every argument
you apply to economic socialism will apply to your moral socialism.
>)> >>The reputed causal link between intolerance levels towards
>)> >>homosexuals and resulting societal health has been disproven by
>)> >>example. Not only do the above cited examples contradict the
>)> >>proposed relationship directly, but they suggest that it’s exactly
>)> >>backwards: attitudes about homosexuality REFLECT the level of
>)> >>cultural health, not act as a causal agent. In other words,
>)> >>intolerance of homosexuality appears to be the effect of violent,
>)> >>harsh, and/or authoritarian regimes, while tolerance of homosexuality
>)> >>appears to be the hallmark of humane and civilized cultures.
>)
>)> Such as Holland, with a more tolerant drug policy, a tolerant sexual
>)> policy, all with lower AIDS rates and crime rates.
>)What do you mean, Holland is falling apart!
hmmm…if it’s falling apart, it’s the socialism, as you noted,
not the freedom of choice. In fact, it’s the LACK of freedom of choice
>from socialism…and that damage results from any kind of lack of freedom
of choice.
>)> >Before America `tolerated’ homosexualism it was a far more
>)> >compassionate and tolerant society.
>)
>)> Was that when preachers used to preach segregation, where there were
>)> black and white water-fountians, where gays were sent to mental
>)> hospitals and tortured, where women were sterilized, where blacks were
>)> kept out of votin
>)> g due to poll taxes, where lynchings of african americans were common
>)> and ignored by the `faithfull’???
>)There have been many injustices perpetrated in the past, most of which we
>)shall not address in this posting. Sexual disfunctions are some of the most
>)difficult and often most misunderstood problems. Homosexuality is a riddle,
>)but based on experience it is definately something we in good conscience,
>)cannot accept as either normal or morally correct.
I would say that any obsessing on sex would be sexual
dysfunction. Both obsessing with being homosexual, and obsessing with
being heterosexual.
If he were obsessing with coffee drinking, and demanding special
rights, and let’s say you prefer tea, would your obsessing on tea and
opposing all coffee drinking be any healthier than his?
Imagine that someone comes along and pits him against you,
telling him he needs special treatment as a coffee drinker. Do you
reinforce this by trying to attack his coffee drinking, as a defense, or
do you point out that the whole issue is bullshit?
>)> >Notice how violence is on the “increase,” as sexual `licence’ impacts
>)> >on the nation.
>)
>)> You ignore the impact of the Drug War, which creates underground
>)> markets and violence all over the Earth associated with them.
>)Again, drug abuse is the symptom, not the cause.
Yes, drug abuse is a symptom of the drug war. Note that the drug
abuse problem started -after- the first heavy enforcement of the drug
prohibition in the early sixties, but -before- the heavy separatist
movement among the fake homosexual leaders. Cause and effect.
>)> You ignore the Violence that you preach in denying people their right
>)> to be free of Religious Laws – which Initiate Violence.
>)Violence is neutral, it’s all a matter of who’s using it. The `freedom’
>)which some seek is the same freedom a dog has to run in the street. This,
>)for human beings is not freedom at all, but licence and the destruction
>)of human dignity. Those who seek to destroy society must be restrained.
The idea that there are special classes of violence is part of
the socialist class warfare tactic. It lets them use violence and claim
to be less evil, and lets them demonize the kinds of violence they want
to focus upon…
For example: There is far more violence against men than women.
Some socialist/Liberal the other day mentioned that there was violence
against a woman every n seconds…yet didn’t mention that there was
violence against a man THREE times in that same period. Their target here
is the women, pitting them against men and guarentying their political
support…
>)> >The one thing which was noticable in America during the last world
>)> >war, was its realtively high sexual mores, contrary to Berlin, which
>)> >Hitler himself called, “the whore of Babylon.”
>)
>)> As if Hitler was moral!!!
>)Hitler as evil as he was, was a genius and a very observant and
>)in many ways, an intuitive person. He was also a master polititian,
>)although to me, this even today, is a dubious honor.
Yeah, he was a genius at pitting people against each other, and
he needed people like you as much as people like your opponant. Think of
these two quotes:
“The wealthy, priveledged race…” Hitler, about Jews
“The wealthy, priveledged race…” Clinton, about Whites
It takes both sides to make this war work. Both of you are being
sucked into the socialist class hate trap.
>)> >America became great because she rejected homosexuality and sexual
>)> >promiscuity in general. Today, western society is FAILING, largely
>)> >because of its acceptance of sexual deviance and infidelity.
>)
>)> Failing to `love thy neighbor’ because of Hate and prejudice like
>)> yours.
>)In loving our children and our neighbors mustn’t we be willing to
>)say “no,” when when it’s required?
What? America became great because of WHAT? Oh, it wasn’t the
freedom of choice, eh? Nothing to do with the free market systems which
made us grow from last place to first place over the course of a mere
century. It was sexual repression, which gave us enough energy in the
form of frustration and tension to allow us to be more productive!
Even if we’d been socialist, we’d have been the same success, as
long as we didn’t screw to much…
>)> > “Sexual licence leads to VIOLENCE & BRUTALITY.
>)> > Those held in a state of sexual bandage, can do little
>)> > towards the freedom and welfare of others, to the contrary,
>)> > they will usurp the freedom of others.”
>)
>)> So, your answer for homosexuality, drug use, prostitution…
>)> …is NOT to usurp the freedom of others????
>)This depends on what you call `freedom.’ If by `freedom’ you mean
>)the `licence’ to destroy human dignity and commit a fraud against the
>)whole of the society you live in, shouldn’t this person’s freedom be
>)challenged? We restrict the freedom of many people in our society, for
>)instance there’s those drug pushers you’re worried about. Then there’s
>)child molesters and rapists. Don’t we restrict their freedom? Don’t all
>)those who promote sexual debauchery and a breakdown of civilized human
>)behavior deserve similar treatment? Should anyone be permited to place
>)a stumbling block before the blind? Are we not our brother’s keeper?
Human dignity? Are you talking about outlawing slapstick comedy?
The most terrible violation of human dignity is the prohibition
of personal choice.
You’re Christian, right? Jesus didn’t try to force anyone to do
anything. He never advocated the State imposing -anything-. He -advised-
people, and then left them with the dignity to listen or to make a
mistake instead.
—
Secrets of the Sentient
Did You Know:
Black households making more than $35K a year grew from 2.6 million people in
1979 to 3.9 million people in 1989.
