[Warning: This piece is completely freaking long. I have tried to make it enjoyable. If you don't like that, read something different.]
I have been arguing with myself over whether to post on this screed by someone called “Jim O’Neill,” because to do so could be very time consuming. First of all it is so long-winded that to address its points could take the entire day. Even simply mocking the piece, paragraph by paragraph, could take an hour. What we have here is a guy who seems to have gone quite far off his rocker, who believes that obscure, fringe sources and unhinged hatemongers like NARTH and Scott Lively, who are rejected by the entire scientific and mental health communities, are somehow the only ones telling him the truth, and who truly thinks he has found a nugget of an idea in stating that the “homosexual agenda” is actually the same as the “Islamist agenda,” because both [he says] are misogynistic! Uh, yeah. All you lesbians? You hate women. So much. And all you gay men who shout “divaaaaaa!” at the ceiling any time a woman does something “fierce,” are also he-man woman haters. Also, apparently liberals don’t care about female genital mutilation in the Islamic world. Actually, I learned all about that issue from liberal sources. Anyway, but first, before we enter the biggest vortex of stupid I’ve ever encountered [and this is in a world that contains Peter LaBarbera], let’s look at his bio, because it’s funny:
Born in June of 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jim O’Neill (constitutionalwrites.com) proudly served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two. A member of MENSA, he worked as a commercial diver in the waters off Scotland, India, and the United States. In 1998 while attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student, O’Neill won “First Place” in the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award.” The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with the money she won from successfully suing the National Enquirer for libel.
He is in MENSA, you guys! You know, I have had the opportunity to join MENSA, and have never done so, mostly because I don’t care, but even if I did, you would NEVER see my “MENSA membership” in my bio. I mean, my goodness. But also, he was a Navy SEAL! Now, as we all know, Navy SEALs are trained to be bad-ass and do things like shoot Osama bin Laden in the face, but this does not tell us anything about their perceptive capabilities when it comes to subjects like homosexuality, now does it? Indeed, there are gay Navy SEALs! This would freak Jim O’Neill out, a lot, as you will see.
Also, your fancy pants college journalism award is named after a campy gay icon, so there is that.
Anyway, let’s jump into the vortex of stupid, but we’ll try not to stay too long. The supposed thesis of this word salad is that gays should not be able to serve in the military:
DADT was not merely about not asking, and not telling, it was a law that prohibited homosexuals from openly serving in the US armed forces.
The “openly” part was supposed to be prevented by banning “asking” and “telling.”
Why the rush? Why this extremely expensive and disruptive campaign to make the US military homosexually compliant, during tough economic times, and a world-wide war against Islamists? After all, homosexuals account for, at most, around 3% of the population.
According to his link, which goes to [I'm not kidding] Free Republic. But one reason to repeal DADT was that to do so strengthens our military. For instance, Arabic translators were disproportionately affected by DADT discharges, and when you’re throwing a “world-wide war against Islamists,” it’s helpful to have people who speak their languages. Your MENSA is not showing, boy genius.
It has been said that “the Left doesn’t look back”—and with good reason. If you had the blood-stained track record of god-awful screw-ups that the Far Left has, you wouldn’t look back either. Best to just stay in a state of denial and delusion—and they do. That the Far left (and to a lesser extent, the liberal) mental state is a dysfunctional, warped, and pathological weltanschauung, or world-view, is a given. Link
Just because the Far Left insists on lying about, twisting, or ignoring their past history, does not mean that “we the people” need to follow suit. On the contrary, we must become aware of the insidious path that the communists, fascists, and other Far Left collectivist regimes have followed, if we are to stand any chance of defeating their onslaught.
Ooooookay, I’m not going to be doing much copy/pasting of the next 48,000 words of his screed, because it’s basically the linguistic equivalent of Glenn Beck pulling out a chalkboard and fingerpainting all over it, with feces. This is what wingnuts call “connecting the dots of history.” The smell is awful.
Basically, the “idea” is that liberals think that people are a product of their environment, except for gays, who believe gayness is a product of biology for the most part, and these things are in conflict! [No, they're not.] Then we “say hello to the gay gene,” because [what is this guy's name again?] is one of those wingnut fools who believes that liberals and gays are strong believers in a “gay gene,” even though the most marginally informed among us can tell you that no, the science is much more complex than that, sweetheart, go back to drawing on your chalkboard with poo. But anyway! He tells us that the two people most responsible for the gayness epidemic sweeping the US are the economist Keynes and the sex researcher Kinsey. And then he accidentally veers back onto the road, suddenly remembering what the article is about, with this gem of a paragraph, where he introduces the Trinity of Buttsex:
Yet here is the US military, a mainstay of American society, openly embracing the homosexual lifestyle. And lest you think that polymorphous perversity is hip, slick, and cool beyond words, permit me point out that psychopaths are often polymorphously perverse. Also, like many homosexuals, psychopaths often indulge in anal intercourse (as do many Muslim men with their wife, or wives—more about that shortly)
And because it is a Trinity, there is a great mystery to behold, for all these things are simultaneously very different things, but also THE SAME! Also, I always thought polymorphous perversity was more “gnarly” and “totally radical,” but maybe that’s just me.
So, the first time I read this piece, I thought to myself, “this dingbat can’t be more than three or four paragraphs from referencing that boogeyman of a book that very few of us on the gay side have actually read, but which wingnuts seem to think is our bible: After the Ball.” When I got there, I busted out laughing, because if there’s one thing wingnuts all have in common, it’s that they never say anything new — they all scrawl the same poo on the chalkboard, but in different arrangements. It always smells the same. First, though, the tinfoil hat conspiracy theory about the gays storming the doors of the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, raping the horses and riding away on the women, etc.:
Another major victory for homosexuals was their successful 1973 attack on the American Psychiatric Association, or APA (although the American Psychological Assoc. has the same initials, I’ll be using them only in reference to the psychiatric association). By staging what was essentially a coup, a relatively small sub-set of homosexual activists within the APA managed to ensure that homosexuality was “normalized” by the association—against the wishes of almost 70% of its members.
As Dr. Jeffery Satinover writes in his book “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth,” “How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now”—so much for empirical science. This was followed two years later by the American Psychological Association (at the time over three times as large a group as the APA) following suit. The “normalizing” of homosexuality within the professions of psychology and psychiatry has had far-reaching and deleterious effects on American culture.
Right. Because that hasn’t been debunked by actual grown-up journalists, historians and researchers like a million times.
Not everyone has bought into the smoke and mirrors deception, however. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, writing for NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) states, “the dark side of gay life—characterized by sexual addictions and fixations—keeps stubbornly emerging, in spite of public-relations efforts to submerge it. …How long can psychologists be in denial about the significance of the dark side, and ignore what it implies about the homosexual condition?”
There’s that lying hack, Nicolosi. Told you he shows up in this piece. Wingnuts and their conspiracy theories — they actually exist in this fantasy world where there is literally one person telling them the truth and everything else is a sinister “conspiracy” to make small-dicked, mentally deficient [MENSA memberships notwithstanding!] fundamentalists feel bad.
Ready to go to the Ball?
Another important year for homosexual activists was 1988. As David Kupelian documents in his book “The Marketing of Evil,” “In February 1988 some 175 leading activists representing homosexual groups from across the nation held a war conference in Warrenton, Virginia, to map out their movement’s future.” Link
Shortly afterward two attendees, a “Harvard educated researcher,” and another “with a doctorate in politics from Harvard,” wrote a book called “After the Ball”—a blueprint for a “long-term marketing campaign to sell ‚Äògay rights’ to straight America.” Kupelian observes that “‘After the Ball’ became the public-relations ‘Bible’ of the movement.”
Seriously, one day I’m going to have to check that book out of the library, just to see what it’s all about.
The “push-back” by NARTH, and other groups or individuals is still a relatively small affair—but they are rapidly growing in influence and numbers.
That’s absolutely adorable, to somehow suggest that NARTH, and the greater ex-gay industry, is “growing in influence and numbers.” This would be the same NARTH whose board member and researcher extraordinaire George Rekers was recently caught coming back from a European soiree with a spritely young thing [MALE] that he rented on a site for [MALE] escorts [FOR OTHER MALES].
The next few paragraphs consist of the wingnut diver valiantly going to battle with the undersea strawman known as the “gay gene,” and winning! There is no “gay gene!” Meanwhile, the grown-ups are still sitting on the beach watching the wingnut flail around in the ocean saying, “yeah, idiot, we told you the science was far more complicated than that. Come back inside now before you catch cold.”
Is it too late for me to say that I’m not homophobic?
Oh, you can say it any time you want, but we know what makes you wet the bed at night, dude. Anyway, his point is that he is not homophobic, but a lot of homosexuals are involved in the New World Order movement [yes, he's one of those...] and anyway, it’s not that most gays are pedophiles, but he’s just saying. But all of that being said, you shouldn’t beat up fags or blame people who have been raped in prison, but again, he’s just saying:
That being said, I am vehemently opposed to the gay agenda of promoting polymorphous perversity, pederasty, and gay marriage.
Yeah, he stands in opposition to Grec0-Roman warrior culture and also marriage equality. Noted.
Homosexuality is opposed to natural law, the way things are intended to be. If the idea of males and females being made for each other seems befuddling; I suggest that you go grab yourself a nut and bolt and play with them for awhile—perhaps a light will dawn for you, perhaps not.
I suggest dude play around with his toolbox a bit more and explore his creative side.
Homosexuals generally have little or no interest in children (aside from those who regard them as sexual toys), and therefore are naturally aligned with the Far Left’s death cult. Their narcissistic lack of concern for future generations is evidenced by the economic suicide run America is currently on.
Aside from all the gay people who actually are or want to be parents. The “death cult” comment, and our supposed alignment with it, is funny considering that in about three paragraphs, he will extol gay people for our sense of “self-preservation.” I am not sh*tting you. And aren’t you glad to know that the gays, with our narcissism, are the cause of the “economic suicide run” that Ronald Reagan started in this country? Why? Because we apparently have ALL the cash. Take that, Jews! It’s a gay world, and all the resta y’all are just living in it!
Now, are you ready for the part about how gays are just like radical Muslims? I know I am!
Since misogyny and homosexuality often go hand in hand, it is important to understand the misogynistic nature of various Islamic cultures if we are to grasp some of the dynamics involved between Progressive homosexuals and radical Islam.
That whole “Women’s Rights Movement,” which was conducted almost entirely by liberals, was just a front for our secret woman-hating plans, you see. Also, lesbians, being homosexuals themselves, are apparently also misogynistic! If you’re thinking, “this would be a great lead-in to a discussion about female genital mutilation,” you are in luck!
Dr. Glazov informs us that “how much is amputated varies among cultures. In Egypt only the clitoris is amputated; in countries like Sudan the woman haters are not so kind. In a savagery known as infibulation, the girl’s external genital organs are completely removed….” I will spare you the specifics. Link
In more “civilized” Egypt, where the US recently backed a “pro-democracy movement” (in truth a ploy to aid the radical Muslim Brotherhood) close to 100% of the women are circumcised.
It is indeed puzzling that the same feminazis who go into a frothing hissy fit over such things as Madison Avenue’s “objectifying” of women, seem to be perfectly okay with genital mutilation being performed on approximately 5,000 Muslim girls every day. Odd—makes you wonder.
You see, liberals don’t care about gruesome practices like FGM, and he knows this because it says so in his chalkboard poo drawings. He seems to believe this is the case because, seriously, I have no idea. I, for one, learned about FGM from liberal feminist activists and from the writer Alice Walker, when I was in high school. Alice Walker — that wingnut. I have never seen an actual wingnut write seriously on the subject.
But now we explore the Trinity of Buttsex again, focusing on the fact that [this writer says] all Muslim men hate vaginas, and so do homosexuals. [Even the lesbians, apparently! It's funny that they never seem to realize that they omit lesbians from their fever dreams most of the time. No, the demons they're fighting in their heads are all gay men. It's part of the pathology of being an anti-gay man.]
Dr. Peter Raddatz observes of Islam that “Being legitimized religiously, male dominance…condemns not only women as an animal-like existence, but also their sexual organ as a despicable opening…. Therefore the anus is preferred to the vagina to an extent that has raised the attention of UN institutions and secular Muslim scientists. Anal intercourse appears as an unusually common practice, and corresponding hospital reports often indicate brutal extremes in which terrible injuries have been inflicted in this area. This puts more light, clearly, on the alleged rejection of homosexuality in Islam.”
Don’t you see now?! If Glenn Beck were giving this report orally, he would be crying at this point.
The peculiar spectacle of homosexuals supporting a religion that, at least publicly, hates them, is beyond bizarre. Whether such groups as QUIT (Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism) are indicative of “yet another dark reflection of the suicidal impulse” at the heart of the Far Left, or stem from a “nod and a wink” acknowledgement of Islam’s misogynistic tendencies, is a matter for debate.
Wingnuts never argue against actual left policies toward radical Islam, because left policies toward radical Islam are nuanced, and stupid people can’t do “nuance.” [Yes, again, we know you're in MENSA.] So instead they argue with the strawman that says that the Left loooooves Radical Islam, wants to marry it, etc. All they’re doing is conflating the various things that make them leak in the night in their heads and turning us all into a massive superhero alliance bent on making wingnut boys look like idiots and/or destroying them. When you look at it from a meta perspective [not to mention a clinical one], it’s fairly simple to understand.
I realize that the PC police will not permit us to admit that the US is at war with radical Islam, but does opening the gates of our military to homosexuals, while we are in a de facto war with an enemy rife with closet queers, seem like a smart move to you?
He remembered what he was writing about again!
Why does the push to queer the US military find so little opposition and such vocal support in Washington? Is it that the Power Elites are so riddled with homosexuals? Is it that the higher levels of government have a disproportionate share of homosexuals; way out of line with the nation’s norm? Is it that the various news media have a disproportionate share of homosexuals as well, and that they push the gay agenda for all its worth? Link Link Link
I suspect that it is all the above, and then some. Homosexuals have a sense of self-preservation after all, and when you are such a small percentage of the overall population, it behooves you to have as many like-minded fellows move into positions of power as possible. It is a no-brainer really, and I am sure it is a process that has been clandestinely going on for quite some time. Link Link
I quote those two paragraphs for one reason, and one reason only [aside from the obvious "They're a-comin' to git us!" pant-sh*tting fear evident in their lines]: One of his links, apropos of seemingly nothing, is to a bathhouse in Chicago. I went to the link and found absolutely no reason this should be considered a “source” for those paragraphs, and would like to suggest that Jim do a better job of remembering what tabs he has open in his browser while he’s composing his screeds.
Almost to the end. The next bit is revisionist, hateful history about the Third Reich from that noted leader of hate groups, Scott Lively, the man whose credibility is so nonexistent and his pathological hatred so disgusting that he traveled to Uganda to tell the Ugandans that gays caused the genocide in their next-door neighbor, Rwanda. Everything he has ever written has been discredited, and he is known by most of those who have actually heard his name to be a congenital liar. This writer [seriously, what is his name again? Oh yeah, "Jim O'Neill."] has never met an unhinged crackpot source he didn’t trust implicitly, has he?
Finally, back to the topic at hand, for the fiftieth time!
I am opposed to gays in the military because I have no doubt that they would comprise a huge security risk due to their affinity for left-wing causes, and because their presence would be highly disruptive and detrimental to unit cohesion, moral, and fighting effectiveness, and because their presence in our armed forces flies in the face of well over two hundred years of hallowed tradition, and because their lifestyle finds a harmonic echo in various Islamic cultures, and because their acceptance into the military would lead to a similar acceptance by society at large (I believe that such an acceptance would be social/cultural suicide), and finally, because of the health risks homosexuals pose.
“A harmonic echo in various Islamic cultures.” Wow. Yeah, dude, Western gay culture and Iranian social life are so similar. The part about the “health risks” is more discredited crap from days gone by, during the beginning of the AIDS crisis, etc. Wingnuts will continue to lie with those statistics until they’ve reached Klan status for most Americans, and then they’ll lie with them some more. In conclusion, and in summary:
Why in the world is the US military rolling over and playing dead regarding the queering of the armed forces? Is the Pentagon that full of homosexuals, or are they simply too frightened of crossing swords with the PC police—or both? I researched this subject on my own, and I had no trouble accessing pertinent data. Are we supposed to believe that the Pentagon is incapable of similar due diligence before turning over the reins of the armed forces to queers?
Yep, dude, the Pentagon is completely terrified of the gay hordes at the door, and they don’t have the ability to Google right-wing lunatic websites like you do.
Or maaaaaaybe. Just maybe. Maybe the Pentagon and the American people [who overwhelmingly supported DADT repeal] aren’t scared pantywaists like “Jim O’Neill,” haunted by gay monsters hiding under the bed/in the closet, and maybe they know that having gays serving openly in the military is a win for the military and a win for fairness and equality in this great country.
Maybe you used to be a SEAL, Jim. Maybe you’re in MENSA too. Whatever it is that got you into those two groups, it doesn’t seem to be there anymore. Clutch that Carol Burnett award like a strand of pearls though, baby.
And we’re done! If you got this far, I applaud you, because it’s rare that I spend that much time making fun of the writing of one wingnut.