In the first half of the 20th century, the word “gay” was synonymous with “happy” or “joyous.” Now it refers to homosexuality. How did such a formerly innocent, innocuous term come to be associated with something as unsavory and unsanitary as queer buttsex?
From the Wikipedia article on the word “Gay”:
“A passage from Gertrude Stein’s Miss Furr & Miss Skeene (1922) is possibly the first traceable published use of the word to refer to a homosexual relationship. According to Linda Wagner-Martin (Favored Strangers: Gertrude Stein and her Family (1995)) the portrait, ‘featured the sly repetition of the word gay, used with sexual intent for one of the first times in linguistic history…'”
From the Wikipedia article on Gertrude Stein:
“Gertrude Stein, the youngest of a family of five children, was born in 1874 in Allegheny, Pennsylvania (merged with Pittsburgh in 1907), to well-educated German-Jewish immigrant parents.” [Emphasis added. -IA]
As can be readily seen, use of the word “gay” as a euphemism for homosexuality is yet another instance of the jewing of the English language.
My April 8, 2008 post It’s Official: Stormfront now run by feminists was recently linked to by a strange blog called Female Misogynist. Strange, not only because it’s not every day you run into a “female misogynist,” but also because the women whose views this blog represents are fiercely anti-Muslim, to a degree I’ve only ever encountered in neo-kahns and feminists. These women pretty much want men to be “men again” so that they can go out and die in the battlefields to fight Islam, an attitude reminiscent of the suffragettes who wanted British men to die in the battlefields of WWI.
Such views are not typical of men’s rights advocates. I’m not particularly inclined to give up my life or those of my sons to fight wars for a bunch of Jews and spoiled cunts. Let women and Jews fight their own goddamn wars. I personally would love to see women get drafted and come home in body bags for a change. How’s that for “equality.”
You can read their post here.
I submitted a response on their blog, but that was a few days ago and my comment has yet to appear, so I must assume that it isn’t going to appear (i.e., it’s been censored). That’s not exactly surprising, since few women appreciate the value of free speech.
Since they won’t allow my comment to appear on their blog, I am posting it here:
“In response to The Edirix’s comment above, that’s an overgeneralization. Some white nationalists are of a conservative bent, some aren’t. Some are Christian, some hate Christianity. Some believe in global warming, others don’t. Some may identify as right-wing, while others are so left-wing that their rhetoric is hard to distinguish from that of communists. Some are anti-Semitic, while others think nothing of forming alliances with Jews (this is particularly true of some of the European far-right parties, which Jews have started supporting due to the threat to their safety and power posed by Muslim immigration; of course, Jews had a lot to do with opening the West’s borders in the first place, so it’s hard for me to sympathize with them).
“While I won’t contest that Ashkenazi Jews are biologically white (though others, including many Jews themselves, would contest that), the problem is that Jews don’t collectively think of themselves as or act as though they’re white. In Western nations, they have generally behaved in a hostile way towards the white majority, and continue to do so. Study the history of communism and you will see that a vastly disproportionate amount of its leadership was made up of Jews (Jews in the genetic, not the religious, sense). It’s no coincidence that about 2/3 of the Soviet spies arrested in the U.S. were Jews. Study the history of the NAACP and you will see that until recently, it was entirely run by Jews; Jews basically spearheaded the entire “civil rights” movement. Study the history of American immigration laws and you will see that Jewish politicians and Jewish organizations were largely responsible for overturning the laws that until 1965 had kept the United States a primarily white nation. The ideology of political correctness that is ubiquitous today was also a largely Jewish creation; I recommend Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s book The Culture of Critique for more on that subject.
“Jews only became ‘conservatives’ when they decided that it would be in the interests of Israel to do so. It’s interesting to note that many of the Jewish founders of neo-conservatism are ex-Trotskyites (Trotsky, nee Lev Bronstein, was himself a Jew; I believe that the antipathy of neo-con Jews towards the Soviet Union had more to do with the fact that Stalin and his successors weren’t Jewish than with a rejection of communist ideology per se). Many of the Jewish ‘hawks’ of today were the leaders of the student protest movement of the 60’s; read the biographies of Jews like David Horowitz or Michael Savage, for example. You can believe what you want, but I personally don’t believe that their conversion to ‘conservatism’ is sincere. At the back of whatever ideological flag Jews happen to be waving at the moment, whether it be communism, conservatism, or whatever, is always a distinctly Jewish agenda. ‘Is it good for Jews?’ is their overriding concern. That is why so many white nationalists are hostile to Jews and support the enemies of Israel, not because they love Islam. It may seem strange to some that white nationalists would be willing to “rub shoulders” with Muslims, but politics makes strange bedfellows, as they say. When you think about it, it’s not really any stranger than Jews aligning themselves with Italian Fascism during the 20’s and 30’s, or than feminists aligning themselves with the religious right in the 80’s and 90’s to carry out anti-pornography crusades.
“I fully expect more and more women of a ‘feminist’ persuasion to be drawn to white nationalism, since non-white and Muslim immigration is bad news for feminism, and since real rape statistics (not the ones doctored by feminists) show that male-on-female rapes of the ‘dark alley’ variety are almost exclusively perpetrated by non-whites.
“It won’t surprise you to hear that I don’t want to have anything to do with such women, who in my view, have played a decisive role in the destruction of Western societies.”
UPDATE: “Male Chauvinist Woman,” the administrator of the blog, wrote an entry on the 29th (yesterday) explaining how she had posted my comment and then deleted it. It’s a rather lengthy post, and I don’t have time (and may not have the time) to respond to it.
Frankly, I’ve had run-ins with these types of know-it-all, self-indulgent twats before, who try to lure you into protracted, pointless arguments with the only aim being to buttress their frail egos, and I’ve learned to “just say no.” Besides, why would I bother responding to a blog that only sees fit to delete my comments?
I will just make the following three points, however, based on a cursory reading of her post:
1. It is the epitomy of spinelessness to delete someone’s comment and then post a lengthy rebuttal to it. People who pull shit like this literally make me sick. If you’re going to engage someone in a debate, then don’t try to suppress the other side; that is not debate, that’s attacking a strawman. I repeat: few women, including “female misogynists,” grasp the concept or value of free speech.
2. Professor Kevin MacDonald is not a crackpot. His assertions are far better documented than anything appearing on this nutty woman’s blog. As usual, all philo-Semites have to fall back on is censorship and character assassination. The facts are simply not on their side.
3. It is idiotic to claim that feminists will never be drawn to white nationalism considering there already are women of a feminist persuasion involved in white nationalism. I really don’t see what the controversy is; my statement was not speculation, it’s already happening. There is nothing to debate here.
Check out the description for Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?, a collection of essays being sold on Amazon:
“Polygamy, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, punishing women for being raped, differential access for men and women to health care and education, unequal rights of ownership, assembly, and political participation, unequal vulnerability to violence. These practices and conditions are standard in some parts of the world. Do demands for multiculturalism–and certain minority group rights in particular–make them more likely to continue and to spread to liberal democracies? Are there fundamental conflicts between our commitment to gender equity and our increasing desire to respect the customs of minority cultures or religions? In this book, the eminent feminist Susan Moller Okin and fifteen of the world’s leading thinkers about feminism and multiculturalism explore these unsettling questions in a provocative, passionate, and illuminating debate.
“Okin opens by arguing that some group rights can, in fact, endanger women. She points, for example, to the French government’s giving thousands of male immigrants special permission to bring multiple wives into the country, despite French laws against polygamy and the wives’ own bitter opposition to the practice. Okin argues that if we agree that women should not be disadvantaged because of their sex, we should not accept group rights that permit oppressive practices on the grounds that they are fundamental to minority cultures whose existence may otherwise be threatened.
“In reply, some respondents reject Okin’s position outright, contending that her views are rooted in a moral universalism that is blind to cultural difference. Others quarrel with Okin’s focus on gender, or argue that we should be careful about which group rights we permit, but not reject the category of group rights altogether. Okin concludes with a rebuttal, clarifying, adjusting, and extending her original position. These incisive and accessible essays–expanded from their original publication in Boston Review and including four new contributions–are indispensable reading for anyone interested in one of the most contentious social and political issues today.
“The diverse contributors, in addition to Okin, are Azizah al-Hibri, Abdullahi An-Na’im, Homi Bhabha, Sander Gilman, Janet Halley, Bonnie Honig, Will Kymlicka, Martha Nussbaum, Bhikhu Parekh, Katha Pollitt, Robert Post, Joseph Raz, Saskia Sassen, Cass Sunstein, and Yael Tamir.”
Whether “Male Chauvinist Woman” is willing to acknowledge it or not, many feminists are beginning to see the writing on the wall in regards to non-white immigration and the continuation of their movement. There’s even a schism within feminism itself, with non-white feminists accusing white feminists of having too much power; in other words, the non-white feminists are complaining that feminism is just “too white.” And I agree with them; feminism has been nothing but a bunch of spoiled white bitches whinging on their periods, too self-absorbed to realize how much better they’ve had it than almost all the women in the world, due entirely to the civilization white men built and that feminists have spent the last several decades demolishing.
I’m wondering at this point if “Male Chauvinist Woman” doesn’t have an agenda other than anti-feminism.
“[W]hile homosexuals vehemently reject being considered mentally ill, they have no problems regarding those who dislike homosexuality as mentally ill.” —homosexinfo.org
“A healthy society is life-affirming. Homosexuality is the metaphysical negation of life. Incapable of reproduction (giving life), it can replenish its numbers only by seduction.” –Don Feder*
Read the homosexual spin on the story here:
Now, heed well my words: until such time as they are free to push homoerotic material in every ad, every magazine, on every bus, street sign, and TV channel, queers are going to continue complaining about “homophobia.” They have only gotten started in their campaign to destroy the sexual mores of our society. You ain’t seen nothing yet.
Accusations of “homophobia” are not about promoting the so-called “rights” of an “oppressed minority,” they are about depriving normal straight people of the right to raise a family in an environment in which their children aren’t being continually exposed to the homosexual death culture (as per the Don Feder quote above, the homosexual counterculture is, quite literally, a death culture, since it in essence encourages people to not have children; and that’s to say nothing of AIDS and other diseases to which homosexual men are disproportionately subject due to their unhealthy lifestyles and sexual practices).
Note the progression thus far: in only a few decades, the homosexual movement has gone from such seemingly (to some people) reasonable demands as not having queer bars shut down by police, to now insisting, at threat of boycott, to having “the right” to publicly display homoerotic material anywhere they wish (and sometimes, to even engage in homosexual intercourse in public). It’s only going to get worse, folks. Much, much worse.**
There is no way that our heterosexual culture can peaceably coexist with a militant homosexual counterculture. Make no mistake: Incidents like these are a declaration of war against the heterosexual majority.
My advice is that straight people stop allowing themselves to be bullied by accusations of “homophobia” and start standing up for themselves by telling these militant queers to f*ck off. Queers want to boycott Amazon (see story here) and Facebook? Fine. Straights should do the same. Send emails to Facebook and Amazon informing them you’ll refuse to use their sites and services if they cave in to pressure from the homosexual lobby and allow homoerotic material to be displayed. It’s time to stop pussyfooting with these deviants and start hitting back. There’s a lot more of us out there than there are queers; if only we could get more organized…
And to the Christian wimps who say things like “hate the sin, not the sinner,” you’re not going to have your cake and eat it too. The only way to defeat the homosexual lobby is through hatred and intolerance. There is no other way. When it becomes unsafe for queers to walk down the street holding hands, or to otherwise publicly announce their sexual preference, that’s when we’ll have them off our backs. Until such time, you can expect the demands of the homosexual lobby to become increasingly strident and outlandish.
Let me repeat that this is a war, not a misunderstanding of some kind that can be politely worked out over tea and crumpets. The queers know perfectly well what they are doing and the ramifications of what they’re doing. This is a war, and as such, your options are either to stand up and fight, or drop your weapons, roll over, and let the homos sodomize your corpse.
Hopefully future generations will look back on this putrid, degenerate sewer of an era of ours and fully appreciate what the consequences are of allowing queers out of the closet, and thus avoid repeating our mistake.
* Yes, I know Mr. Feder is Jewish, and that I don’t always have the kindest things to say about Jews, but truth is truth no matter who expresses it. At least Mr. Feder isn’t like the Jew Ezra Levant, who is trying to sell conservatives on the idea of homosexual marriage.
** To get an idea of what homosexuals see all of this leading to, see the 2004 movie A Dirty Shame by homosexual filmmaker John Waters.
Insemination fight ends in wife’s arrest
By Conor Berry, Berkshire Eagle Staff
Updated: 03/13/2009 08:51:53 PM EDT
Thursday, March 12
PITTSFIELD — A woman who allegedly intended to artificially inseminate her wife with her brother’s semen has been charged with domestic assault and battery.
Pittsfield police responded to a call shortly before 4:30 p.m. Tuesday in the city’s Morningside neighborhood, where the assault allegedly occurred.
Stephanie K. Lighten, 26, was released on personal recognizance after denying the allegations in Central Berkshire District Court Wednesday morning.
Jennifer A. Lighten, 33, told police that Stephanie Lighten, her wife, was “all liquored up” when she returned to their Lincoln Street apartment, where the defendant then allegedly tried to use a syringe to inseminate her, according to a police report.
Jennifer told investigating officers that Stephanie “has been talking about trying to impregnate (her) for some time,” police said.
According to a report by Pittsfield Police Officer Kipp D. Steinman: “Jennifer said that Stephanie had a ‘turkey baster and her brother’s semen in a sealed container.’ Jennifer said she told Stephanie that she didn’t want to get pregnant.” The device was actually a large syringe with a catheter tip, police said, and it was still in its original package when officers confiscated the item.
That’s allegedly when Stephanie threw Jennifer on the couch, grabbed at her clothes and threatened to impregnate her, police said.
Jennifer broke free, ran into the bathroom and locked the door. Stephanie “then broke the bathroom door down,” police said, hurting her wrist in the process.
When Stephanie went to retrieve an ice pack from the freezer, Jennifer bolted from the apartment and attempted to get away in the couple’s sport utility vehicle, police said.
As Jennifer pulled away from the scene, Stephanie “jumped on the side of their vehicle, swung the door open and made (Jennifer) stop,” Steinman said.
According to Officer John Bassi, a witness at the scene claimed Stephanie “was hanging on the SUV door handle, trying to get into the car.” Amber Hunt told Bassi that Stephanie nearly caused an accident when the vehicle narrowly missed hitting a tree in the front yard of Hunt’s Spring Street home.
Police arrested Stephanie Lighten near the intersection of Spring and Curtis streets in Morningside.
Police also confiscated the container of semen and some aluminum foil, which was originally used to hold the semen. Nicholas Lighten, Stephanie Lighten’s brother, was the donor, according to police.
Story continued at:
(Also see What’s With All The Lesbians?)
From the April 3, 2008 edition of The Gazette:
“Feminism marches on: The newest role model for young teen girls is Jenny Green, who takes a knife to boys who are mean to her. She’s the heroine — I guess — of Jenny Green’s Killer Junior Year, a teen novel due out this fall from Simon & Schuster. The N.Y Post found some publicity material that explains that Jenny is a ‘spoiled teen princess’ who ‘discovers just how despicable the male gender can be – with the lying, the cheating and the utter disrespect – (and) decides to make them pay… with their lives.'”
UPDATE (10-07-14): There’s now an expanded version of this post at:
The following comment, which I attempted to post but was deleted by a moderator, is an example of what Stormfront moderators call “woman bashing”:
Originally Posted by Lady Celtic:
“Some women were afraid to post in the main forum and were afraid to join because of the some of the males that bash women on here. Stormfront was created for all white people with White Nationalist ideals. But some men don’t see it that way and see it fit to bash women on here.”
My Unpublished Response:
“So instead women get their own forum from which they can bash men, but the men don’t get to respond. Typical feminist hypocrisy. Always whinging about ‘equality’ when what they’re really after are special privileges.”
Is there really any difference, as far as underlying principle, between Stormfront banning people for “sexist” remarks and Human Rights Tribunals prosecuting people for “hate speech”?
UPDATE (08-04-14): I have now been permanently banned from Stormfront. I tried accessing my account and was greeted with this:
Oh well. I didn’t enjoy posting there anyways. Stormfront has to be one of the most overmoderated message boards on the Internet, with your posts always at the mercy of the mods and their unpredictable, hormonally-induced mood swings.