Thursday, February 27, 2014

Gay fascism is the new Jim Crow

One of the tropes making the rounds about the proposed Arizona statute that would protect Christians from being forced to violate their faith is that the law is a 'new Jim Crow' aimed against gays.

Actually, the opposite is true.

Jim Crow was not private bigotry or private discrimination. Jim Crow was government social engineering. It was a system of law that dictated a spectrum of private interactions based on group identity. It was an effort on the part of a faction in power to use legal force to impose a certain social order. Obviously that order (segregation) would not have happened privately, or Jim Crow would not have been necessary.

The goal of Jim Crow was to drive a disfavored segment of society out of the public square-- to prevent members of the disfavored class from full participation in public life.

The gay and leftist legal lynching of Christian businessmen and women is much closer to historical Jim Crow than any private "discrimination" against gays that a faithful Christian baker or wedding photographer might engage in. The obvious goal of the attacks on faithful Christians who object to participation in ceremonies appropriately deemed sinful by Christian moral standards is to drive serious Christians from the public square.

This new expungement of Christians from the public square-- akin in many ways to the older expungement of blacks from the public square-- is being perpetrated by the same folks who did it early in the 20th century. Jim Crow-- government social engineering based on color or creed-- is a Progressive Democrat program, advanced with the original Jim Crow based on race by our first Progressive Democrat president (Wilson) who segregated the federal government, and now advanced by a new Jim Crow based on creed-- the Christian creed-- in an effort to drive faithful Christians out of public life.

I don't know if it can be stopped. This is a mimetic crisis (Girard) of sorts-- the haters on the left smell blood-- Christian blood-- and they have the press, a load of politicians, the courts, and a host of morons and Christian -haters of all stripes on their side. My prayer is that Christians band together and support our brothers and sisters under persecution, but I don't know if we have enough traction in this cess-pool culture to resist this tide of oppression.

I don't know that many of my Christian brothers and sisters understand just what is happening. This is real persecution, and it is growing with astonishing rapidity. This is the real thing, and it's going to get a lot worse.


  1. Egnor,

    Your hero, Mitt Romney, also opposed the Arizona law. Did America avoid having a moron as president?

    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 27, 2014 at 6:50 AM

      Egnor: "[haters] have the press, a load of politicians, the courts, and a host of morons"

      Mitt Romney is - or was - a politician.

      That help, barkmad?

    2. Senile old fart,

      Care to quote Egnor in full?

    3. It's politics, bark fiend. Never let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

  2. "the haters on the left smell blood-- Christian blood-- and they have the press, a load of politicians, the courts, and a host of morons "

    Your mistake is this: most of those people are Christians. Do you think those 'politicians' are atheists? That the judges they appointed are?

    Clear majorities of Christians support gay marriage. The only categories where it's in the very high 40s instead of a majority? ... the white, the male, the evangelical and the Southern. In all of those categories, the majority of under 40s support gay marriage. So even there, it's changing.

    This is is not 'Christian-haters' this is everyone, including Christians, apart from a geographically concentrated band of white men from a particular subset of a particular subset of Christianity.

    One that is aligned so clearly with the political right, one that swallows the Fox News narrative so completely, that it's no great surprise.

    But, you know, I'm saying this from a black helicopter that was busy sowing chemtrails so couldn't make it to Benghazi and I use the IRS to silence my critics by removing their guns as part of a campaign to install Hillary, a lesbian murderess, as next President once the Kenyan has served his four terms, so that the bankers-who-happen-to-be-Jewish can gay marry Christian women to make billions aborting babies in clinics where churches used to stand, so I may be a bit crazy, biased, blinkered and in thrall to a world view that makes it difficult to see reality.

    1. Put it this way, then: Jan Brewer, Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, John McCain. Do they count as 'haters on the left'?

    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 27, 2014 at 6:48 AM

      See my comment above. Note "haters have".

      This really isn't difficult if you actually read the sentence you seem to be struggling so mightily with.

    3. Senile old fart,

      Again, care to quote Egnor in full?

    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 27, 2014 at 7:41 AM

      It's right up top. You have a comment, bilgeful?

    5. Snile old fart,

      It's 'the haters on the left', not 'the haters'. If people such as Mitt Romney and John Cain (and the Republican governor of Florida) disagree with the Arizona statute, then it's no longer a matter of 'the left'.

      Opposition is broad based. It's just an example of Egnor's fuzzy conspiracy based thinking and writing.

    6. Well, Jem, I shocked to find myself identified (by you) as an evangelical. Last time I looked I thought I was Catholic. Shocked, I tell you.

      And reality doesn't change just because you can get a majority vote to overturn reality. You people who support 'gay marriage' have an ontological problem. Like a vermouth free martini, 'gay marriage' is a thing which does not exist.

    7. "And reality doesn't change just because you can get a majority vote to overturn reality."

      The law can, though, so I'll settle for that. My point is that Mr Egnor's idea that this is 'Christians' versus 'Non Christians' is nonsense. *Most* Christians support gay marriage.

      There is a right wing subset of Christians, an unholy alliance of Mormons, evangelicals and Catholic Bishops (lay Catholics and nuns show clear majorities in favor) who oppose gay marriage. Catholic bishops have been particularly cynical about this, allying themselves with some truly loathsome people for local political traction.

      As for 'ontological status', in 1775 the concept 'American citizen' would have been oxymoronic. Things change. Do you think modern marriages are like the ones in Biblical times? Do you think the status of marriage in society in general and Catholicism in particular has remained constant and unchanging?

      Ask a Catholic grandparent what the priest would have said if you wanted to marry a Protestant or a Jew.

      And, as a Catholic, do you not see that the principles being used to protect gay people from discrimination are exactly the same ones that protected Catholics a hundred years ago? Someone else here mentioned the KKK. In the 1920s, the KKK was spending most of its time campaigning against Catholics. Job adverts would specific 'No Catholics'. Catholics were barred from some shops and other public places, all with the connivance of the local police and authorities. That changed because of the same fight.

      Your side might have been fighting about cakes, we were fighting about basic human dignities and freedoms that most people have had to fight for. And that's why we won.

    8. Jem, you haven't won anything. Not even the law can produce a non-existent thing.

      I think marriages have always involved a man and a woman. Because the genitals fit together in a way which cannot be done with a man and a man.

      Gaia is heteronormative. Her decisions are not subject to your opinion, to elections, or to legal decisions.

      And no, no gay people are suffering from discrimination because what they say they want DOES. NOT. EXIST. How can it be discrimination to object to your demand to call a thing by a name which does not apply to it? Your freedom is unimpaired and your dignity only sullied by your idiocy.

    9. "How can it be discrimination to object to your demand to call a thing by a name which does not apply to it?"

      Which part of your argument wouldn't have applied to 'women voter' in 1900?

      The 'definition of marriage' has changed over time. Just look at the Bible - there's barely a 'traditional marriage' in there. Lots of remarriages and polygamy and arranged marriages and incest and women dragged off as the spoils of war.

    10. Jem is wrong, if not intentionally misleading. 31 times "same-sex marriage" has been put to popular referendum and 31 times it was shot down. Activist judges took it upon themselves to override the will of the people. The majority is definitely not in favor of so-called "gay rights," which is redundant. If there's equal rights for all then "gay rights" is nothing more than a false label applied to special privileges for a select few. Marriage isn't a right, let alone forcing private business owners to cater to your demands which is a form of indentured servitude.

  3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 27, 2014 at 6:55 AM

    Such weird, inapt, and pointless questions so early in the morning! Egnor, you have an amazing ability to induce cognitive vaporlock in the Dutiful Commentariat of the Left. I'd hate to see their SAT scores if those responses are typical.

  4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 27, 2014 at 7:07 AM

    Bigots? You make the call...

    WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – A coalition of African-American civil rights leaders and pastors announced a campaign to gather 1 million signatures to impeach Attorney General Eric Holder for attempting to undermine states’ authority to “coerce states to fall in line with same-sex marriage.”

    Oh my goodness! More "right wingers"! :-)

  5. How many wedding cake bakers and wedding photographers are we really talking about here, a 100, 500? If we change the laws to codify their right to discriminate based on their deeply held moral or religious beliefs then we will be giving license for any business to discriminate against virtually anyone for any reason. When this is pointed out many conservatives say “good, that’s the way it should be anyway”.

    What we have here is white conservatives using Christianity to defend their otherwise indefensible homophobia, racism and bigotry. Making discrimination a universal right is too high a price to pay to ensure a homophobic baker doesn’t have to suffer the horrors of touching a two groom cake decoration.


    1. >>If we change the laws to codify their right to discriminate based on their deeply held moral or religious beliefs then we will be giving license for any business to discriminate against virtually anyone for any reason. <<

      Which they should be allowed to, because it's their business. That sounds great. Let's do it.

      You're petrified that all of this free association stuff might get out of control. Autonomous people making decisions about their own lives in a free market, without the heavy hand of government there to force one party to do business with someone he'd rather not do business with, or to provide a good a or service he'd rather not provide...That's a major problem for authoritarians like you.

      It will keep you up tonight I'm sure, worrying that a private business owner might make a decision you don't like.

      Her'es my promise to you, KW: I promise to stick up for your right to choose what contracts you'd like to take on, when you own a business. I might not like your decisions but I won't run crying to the government. If you want to exercise your bigotry and refuse to bake cakes for Catholics or any of the other groups you hate, I promise not to advocate for a law that would force you to.

      KW proves that some people just can't handle freedom, namely people reared in a statist environment.


    2. white christians males are most likely segment of society to be discriminated against. sometimes it's legal, sometimes it isn't, but it happens nontheless.


    3. KW, would you insist that a black baker bake a cake celebrating the founding of the KKK?

    4. No I wouldn’t, unless we passed a law that made it illegal to discriminate against racist hate groups. And really, depending on the exact circumstance, I generally don’t I don’t care if a baker wants to refuse making a cake for a gay wedding. Here in Massachusetts are plenty of wedding cake bakers dying to get a piece of the gay wedding pie. What really gets my goat is conservative’s apocalyptic hysteria about these largely hypothetical scenarios and using that hysteria to try to pass laws that effectively permit discrimination for any reason.


    5. "KW, would you insist that a black baker bake a cake celebrating the founding of the KKK?"

      The baker should treat all customers equally. If they just want a cake, yeah, sell them a cake. He's not being asked to donate the cake, or agree with every opinion of every person who is going to eat it.

      An African American baker would probably not like it, but understand the bigger picture: that a world in which shops can't discriminate in this manner is hugely to his advantage. That the actual problem in the world was never black people putting up 'no whites' signs.

      Would he have to ice the cake with 'I love the KKK'?. No.

      Ironically, another failed piece of legislation from the US fanatic Christian right allows us to make the distinction, here.

      Remember some states tried to impose a requirement on doctors that they would have to read from a card saying that women who had abortions faced an increased risk of suicide? Doctors originally appealed on the grounds that wasn't true, and the South Dakota court agreed it wasn't true but said it didn't matter it wasn't true and upheld. However, the law was then overturned on free speech grounds - doctors' right to free speech mean they are not compelled to say anything they don't want to.

      So, in this case, there's a clear distinction: a cake seller would have to sell the KKK a cake, he wouldn't have to ice the cake saying 'I love the KKK' or whatever.

      The principle's simple enough: treat people equally. The cake seller wouldn't ice 'I love the KKK' on *anyone's* cake.

      And, again, what a silly battleground to fight this on. No wonder you lost.

    6. Silly battleground is right. It is YOUR side which decided to fight on it.


  6. Perhaps if business owners were more up-front with their beliefs they could avoid potential conflict in the first place. If they simply made sure all their promotional material, advertising, and a prominent sign on their front door lists what specific goods and services they would rather not to supply to what specific groups, and the religious tradition or deeply held moral reason that compels them, I’m sure the majority of people they don’t want to serve will simply go elsewhere.


    1. Seems that a simple sign "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" isn't good enough for people like KW who are doing God's Work.

      KW, is DroneF├╝hrer Barry working for God when he decides which Muslims to obliterate each Tuesday AM?

    2. Indeed, a nice sign like that should suffice.


  7. Gay fascism is a terrible term. I object to the term "gay" though fascism is spot-on.

    Here's an honest homosexual musing on the strange overlapping between homosexuals and fascists.

    He calls it the "strange" story of "gay" fascists. I'm not sure what's strange about it at all. I think he finds it counter intuitive that such a nice bunch of folks, with a live-and-let-live ethic, would be attracted to fascism. I'm not surprised in the least. 'Fuck you and do it my way" is a better summation of the homosexual philosophy.

    The reason I mention that this author is a homosexual, and a HuffPo columnist to boot, is not because it really matters in terms of veracity. It wouldn't be any less true if a straight person or even a Christian pastor pointed out the "strange" overlapping, but that person would be labelled a "homophobe" and dismissed. They can't dismiss this guy because he admits to being an anal sodomy enthusiast.

    The Torch

    1. Interesting article Torch. The takeaway seems to be that if you want to avoid Fascist Gays don’t stigmatize gays to the point where they overcorrect by going all hyper masculine authoritarian on your ass. I’m sure a similar sort of overcorrection also explains all the gay priests.

      Also, the article states that the 300 at Thermopylae were 150 hyper masculine overcompensating gay couples! I guess we have to thank hyper masculine body worshiping gays for western civilization. Thanks!


    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 27, 2014 at 3:19 PM

      The gaystapo. I like it. It has that special ring, the ring of truth.

      This phrase, though - "hyper masculine authoritarian" - takes the cake. I'd like to illustrate it by sharing a couple of videos...

      Here's regular masculine. Long head start, full head of steam.

      And here's "hyper masculine authoritarian".

      Oooooooh. You savage!

    3. hyper masculine authoritarian is a pretty good way of describing bizarre gay behavior. i don't know how any one 'made' gays become this way. i skimmed the article and it seems to have a pretty solid historical basis. the fascists have always been lavender, yesterday, today, and forever.


  8. I see that it should not be Christian opposition to moral/practical forced compliance with gayism but simply anybody for any reason must be allowed non compliance with gayism.
    Free men, free citizens, will decide their conscience, an old idea, as to whether they help any gay thing.
    Its immoral, ungodly, unmanly, repulsive and so mankind need not comply.
    This would on;y happen in certain areas. Otherwise citizenship rights would ensure any important dignity issue for gays.
    AGAIN this is about state coercion on the people to moral acceptance of homosexuality.
    Thats what they want and demand the people comply with as far as they can. So they abuse general laws on society for this.
    Its a chance in these acts to attack their presumptions to morally and legally rule American citizens.
    You can beat to the fair minded majority of Americans.
    No unkindness, or injustice but no forcing moral compliance.
    Everyone lives together in a mutual home.

  9. Universal GAYety is Coming !

    Gays are found throughout history. For the first time ever - finally - they're almost worldwide! Wow!
    This global gaydom is even foretold in the Bible - predicted by Jesus (see "days of Lot" in Luke 17 and compare with Genesis 19).
    And the Hebrew prophet Zechariah (14th chapter) says that during the same gay "days" ALL nations will come against Israel and fulfill the "days of Noah" at the same time (see Luke 17 again) - a short time of anti-Jewish genocide found in Zechariah 13:8 when two-thirds of all Jews will die.
    In other words, when "gay days" have become universal, all hell will break loose!
    Shockingly, the same "days" will lead to and trigger the "end of days" - and when they begin, human government will quickly wind down in just a few short years. For the first time in history there won't be enough time for anyone to expect to live long enough to be able to attend college, have kids and grand-kids, save for and enjoy retirement, etc.
    One final thought. The more we see gays "coming out," the sooner Jesus will be "coming down"!
    (For more, Google or Yahoo "God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up," "Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality. When gays have birthdays...," and "FOR GAYS ONLY: Jesus Predicted...")

    / Above article was spotted on the ever present web. Reactions? Jack /