Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Message icon:


shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 22, 2022, 06:58:15 pm »

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: February 27, 2022, 11:28:32 pm »

About Witzke:

Witzke has described Black Lives Matter as "violent terrorists" who want to "stoke societal unrest, and literally already has blood on their hands"
Witzke is open about her far-right politics and has recommended that people read Pat Buchanan's 2001 book The Death of the West to understand her political philosophy
In October 2020, Witzke defended the far-right organization the Proud Boys and said at one point that the Proud Boys exemplified "patriotic masculinity" and thanked the group for providing security at her campaign rallies.[24][21]
Witzke has supported a complete ban on all immigration to the United States for ten years.
Witzke is openly homophobic and transphobic. She described gay people as "enemies" and said that Christians should "reclaim the rainbow" and celebrate pride month June as "Christianity month".[2]

In March 2021, Witzke responded to a tweet from Richard Grenell about a trans woman who had attended CPAC by claiming that transgender people are "mentally ill" and "demonic".[27] She also iterated her opposition to both same-sex marriage and gay conservatives being welcomed into the Republican Party.[28][29]
In November 2021, Witzke again attacked Richard Grenell over his Twitter dispute with Arizona state senator Wendy Rogers over whether the Republican Party should accept gay conservatives in their party, calling him on Telegram "Subversive pervert Richard grenell is now attacking Wendy Rogers because she doesn't want to hear about the anal sex he is having".[30]
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: October 13, 2021, 04:17:06 am »

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: August 27, 2021, 03:07:13 am »

Posted by: Zea_mays
« on: May 06, 2021, 07:04:46 pm »

Since Hawaii is part of America for now, I will post this here.

In the early 1800s, King Kamehameha III had a male or third-gender lover in his youth. But Judeo-Christians, such as the Queen Regent Kaʻahumanu and high-ranking "whites" and ethnic Hawaiians, ensured he was murdered. Unfortunately, like the other Hawaiian monarchs, it was difficult to fight back since many/most high-ranking ethnic Hawaiians were also Westernized!

The term māhū is familar to anyone who grew up in Hawaiʻi. ...A māhū could be “defined” in various ways including: a person of a “third gender”; non-binary; queer; a person that is neither heterosexual nor cisgender; a homosexual; a trangender; a person who is gender transcendent like the Bissu of Indonesia; and/or a person that feels between male and female. It also holds the same meaning and tradition in Tahiti and other places within in Polynesia. In other words, being māhū means to move between multiple spaces and does not necessarily fit into one single English language definition. ...The act of calling oneself a māhū is in effect an act of decolonization. It is a refusal for our stories and our lives as māhū to be erased by the same forces that ultimately stole the Hawaiʻi.

The moʻolelo (story) of Kaomi Moe presents a story with themes familiar with many modern māhū. Kaomi Moe was the son of a Hawaiian mother and a Tahitian father. Kaomi excelled in the ancient Hawaiian healing arts and in hula but was deeply Christian and was educated in Western ways. His English teacher was in fact Reverend Hiram Bingham, pastor of Kawaiahaʻo Church. Soon his knowledge of healing attracted the attention of members of the royal court. It also helped that he was pleasing to the eye and had a good sense of humor. King Kamehameha III took notice of him and made Kaomi his aikāne, his lover. They both were in the their 20s. This angered a great deal of people, particularly the missionaries and other churchy Hawaiians. King Kamehameha III was forced to confess the nature of his relationship to a church congregation — a practice among some Calvinists — where he was then sentenced by Kaʻahumanu to build a stone wall for the missionaries. Kaomi, who grew up in the household of Kaʻahumanu, was kicked out from the church because he refused to denounce who he was. After Kamehameha III completed the wall with his hands, he and Kaomi continued their relationship.

By this time, Kaomi began to serve as a subversive symbol to Hawaiians of the incompatibility of Hawaiian culture and the imposed Calvinist value system. Kamehameha III declared Kaomi to be his mōʻī kuʻī or joint ruler — in effect his consort and equal. Kaomi’s separation from the Calvinist church became more permanent when he tried to revive the Hawaiian religion through a group called the Hulumanu. Although the Hulumanu were a native religion revivalist movement, it was syncretic as it was panentheistic in nature and had adopted Christian elements. Kaomi’s movement seems to have also had equalitarian underpinnings in their treatment of respecting not on the basis of their gender or kūlana (class or station) but of only their character and relationship to the akua (normally translated as a “god”). This upended the ideology of not just the Calvinists — who believed in hierarchies in the form of believers and the elect — but also of the power of the converted chiefs. It should be noted that this was one of the most serious movements to revive the Hawaiian religion since the Battle of Kuamoʻo in 1819 and it was being led by a māhū.
Kaomi’s time as mōʻī kuʻi was called a period of “hana pagana” (pagan works) and “hana Sodoma” (Sodomite behavior) by other pastors. Church members were told to shun Kaomi and pray for the King to return to being “civilized”. Civilized in their eyes.
After a year of Kaomi, Kaua’i Governor Kaikioʻewa, a devout Christian, ordered his servant to assassinate Kaomi. According to noted 19th century historian Samuel Kamakau in Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii, the plan was to kidnap and club Kaomi slowly to death. His brutal death was supposed to become a symbol of a new Christianized and “civilized” Hawaiʻi. They had already kidnapped Kaomi and was in the process of beating him when the then Prime Minister and half-sister to the King, Princess Elizabeth Kīnaʻu, found out about this and told the King. The King then rushed in during the beating to save his beloved Kaomi. King Kamehameha III took Kaomi to his home to protect him but then removed Kaomi from court. Some accounts also say that it was Kaomi who removed himself from the court because of the trauma and the hypocrisy of the court as well as to protect the King.

Nonetheless, Kaomi died within the year due his wounds. He died alone. The “time of Kaomi” (ka wā o Kaomi) as his detractors called it, was over. His rebellion became a morality tale told by missionaries on the dangers of the māhū while Kaikioʻewa was seen as morally right man. In fact, Kaikioʻewa was not tried for his involvement. Kamehameha III on the other hand was taught another lesson — that disorder and “uncivilized” behavior would jeopardize the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and being open about his sexuality could lead to his own assassination. Kamehameha III began a dramatic transformation of the Hawaiian Kingdom through a Magna Carta in 1839 and a Constitution in 1840, albeit it through a Christian voice in order to gain the support of the powerful church.

In addition to māhū, Kanaka Maoli also recognized aikāne relationships. While māhū describes an identity and cultural role, aikāne describes more of a type of relationship. Aikāne relationships exist between two men, two women or one man and one māhū. In Hawaiian cultural norms, having an intimate relationship with a person of the same gender did not necessarily make one a māhū. A person could feel perfectly fine in their culturally assigned roles as kane or wahine. But there was a strong attraction regardless of the gender. Ranking chiefs or people with station normally had consorts and aikāne. Kamehameha I, for example, had aikāne as well as consorts.

In regard to the aikāne relationship, Lieutenant James King stated that "all the chiefs had them". He recounts a tale that Captain Cook was actually asked by one chief to leave King behind, considering such an offer a great honor. A number of Cook's crew related tales of the tradition with great disdain. American adventurer and sailor John Ledyard commented in detail about the tradition as he perceived it. The relationships were official and in no way hidden.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: May 02, 2021, 01:09:43 am »

A Western occupier bullies an American:
Posted by: guest5
« on: January 25, 2021, 10:14:40 pm »

Pentagon Spokesman: 'As Of Today, Transgender People Are Allowed To Join The Military'
Retired Rear Admiral John Kirby, the new Pentagon press spokesman, joins Andrea Mitchell Reports to discuss the lifting of the transgender military ban, saying that Defense Secretary Gen. Lloyd Austin is committed to supporting President Biden’s agenda and building an inclusive agency. “It's going to take us a couple of months to continue to work through all the details of how this gets done but as of today, transgender people are allowed to join the military, if they meet all of the other standards,” Kirby said.
Posted by: guest22
« on: October 07, 2020, 02:25:55 pm »

"what do the gay activists think about individuals who want to overcome opposite-sex attractions for the sake of switching to same-sex attractions? If they bash them too, then they are being fair, as hence they would be against anyone being untrue to themselves."

There are a few such individuals, namely radical feminists who convert to lesbianism out of contempt for men.

There is even a religion called Filianism which worships God the Mother in all-female congregation, and believes the existence of men is a sign of the universe decaying away from the Golden Order (their equivalent of original nobility).

IDK what LGBT activists think of these phenomena, but the relations between the LGBT movement and radfems aren't really warm.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: October 07, 2020, 02:51:35 am »

"people with latent homosexual tendencies should "come out of the closet" and start acting on their attractions"

I support this. People with closeted sexual preferences are not necessarily more chaste than people who have come out of the closet, for example it was common during the colonial era for closet "homosexuals" to have a spouse with whom they had regular "hetero" sex (and even reproduced!) as part of their coverup, to the extent that even their spouse was unaware of their actual sexual preference. Surely coming out of the closet would be an improvement - at the very least the reproduction could have been avoided!

"They also bash individuals who want to overcome same-sex attractions (so-called ex-gays)."

But do such individuals want to overcome same-sex attractions for the sake of chastity, or for the sake of switching to opposite-sex attractions? If the former, they do not deserve to be bashed, but if the latter, they do deserve to be bashed for being untrue to themselves.

Also, what do the gay activists think about individuals who want to overcome opposite-sex attractions for the sake of switching to same-sex attractions? If they bash them too, then they are being fair, as hence they would be against anyone being untrue to themselves.
Posted by: guest22
« on: October 07, 2020, 02:27:14 am »

Gay activists believe sexual orientation is innate, and people with latent homosexual tendencies should "come out of the closet" and start acting on their attractions. They also bash individuals who want to overcome same-sex attractions (so-called ex-gays).

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: October 06, 2020, 01:29:12 am »

"you should promote chastity and asexuality."

We are happy to celebrate individuals who choose a chaste lifestyle for themselves and hold them up as rolemodels. But this is not something for the state to get involved in leglislating about, since the state should avoid interfering in people's private lives (as such interference would be initiated violence). The state should definitely control reproduction, but people who have already had their reproductive potential surgically removed should not be prohibited from having sex any more than they should be prohibited from any other non-violent activity.

"Both homo and hetero sex is disgusting for the innocent child."

I have found pears disgusting ever since childhood. But I had no problem with others eating them.

"Most gay rights activists are very sex-positive, and thus against original nobility."

If by "sex-positive" you mean they explicitly disparage chastity, then they are definitely in the wrong. But if by "sex-positive" you mean they respect chastity while merely declaring it is not for themselves, then I am not too bothered.
Posted by: guest22
« on: October 05, 2020, 03:38:50 am »

Since your philosophy is based on childlike "original nobility", you should promote chastity and asexuality. Both homo and hetero sex is disgusting for the innocent child.

Most gay rights activists are very sex-positive, and thus against original nobility.
Posted by: rp
« on: August 07, 2020, 01:09:36 am »

This is why many “homosexuals” in the “White” LGBT community are projecting their homophobia when they accuse “non-Whites” of being homophobic. In short, being “homosexual” does not preclude one from being homophobic, hence why I would argue the term “homosexual” itself is a homophobic term, as it attempts to force other “homosexuals” to claim the label.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: August 07, 2020, 12:54:15 am »

Homophobia is so deeply rooted in Western thinking that the fastest way to get bullies to stop bullying LGBT people back in the Counterculture era was to claim that bullying LGBT people was a symptom of the bullies suppressing their own "homosexual" tendencies*, which of course was the last thing the bullies wanted to be even suspected of having. In short, homophobic psychology had to be invoked to stop homophobic actions.

(* For the record, I never believed this to actually be the case, generally speaking.)