Prop 8 Hate: Our Glorious Multicultural Future and an X-Ray into PC

California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and outlawed Gay Marriage, has spawned protests around the United States, and a series of some ugly incidents in the wake of it’s passage. First, Gays in West Hollywood and elsewhere called Black passers-by the N-Word. Rod 2.0, and Pam’s House Blend two gay, anti-Prop 8 sites, have the details. More recently, envelopes containing white powder have been sent to the Los Angeles and Salt Lake City Mormon Temples, following protests and invasions of the Temples by Gays. Gays invaded a Lansing, Michigan church that had sent money to support Proposition 8, screaming “Jesus was a Homo,” threatening parishoners, and several hiding in restrooms, only discovered during a police sweep. Meanwhile the Sacramento Theater Director who donated money to Prop 8 (he is married, the father of two, and a Mormon) has been fired for making the donation. The Los Angeles Film Festival Director who donated money to Proposition 8 has tendered his resignation after his donation was discovered by a database search, kindly offered by the LA Times and Sacramento Bee, by the new McCarthyist Gay Mafia. Currently the Board is discussing how best to fire him for his political opinions, no doubt. Meanwhile, the elderly Mormon woman who owns Hollywood’s El Coyote Mexican Cafe has been targeted for boycotts and threats.

This is all fairly remarkable. Given that Gays at most comprise around 5% of the population, and the numbers may be smaller. All this fuss, this political frenzy, protests, targeting of first Blacks, in “safe” very White and Gay areas (the Westside of LA) and then convenient targets such as Churches, Mormon Temples, and political donors to Prop 8 (someone had to search the databases to find the donations, and must have had their own gay Jihad reasons to “purge” the non-Gays from public life) is revealing. In the way that an X-Ray can reveal the underlying bone and tissue structure, or seismic waves the makeup of the ground through which they pass, the actions of Gays can reveal remarkable facts about PC (and Hollywood).

These are, in no particularly order:

  • Gays are counting on the “Stuff White People Like” status-mongering to carry the argument politically.
  • There is a complex PC hierarchy of which Gays are at the top.
  • Gays are a tiny segment of the population, but are over-represented in Hollywood and the Media.
  • Michael Ovitz was right, a “Gay Mafia” does run Hollywood (much to it’s ruin).
  • Single Women have moved closer to Gay Male behavior.
  • Gays do not wish to marry, rather they wish to subvert marriage.
  • Gays over-representation in Hollywood and the Media is a weakness as well as a strength.

Let’s explore what the X-Rays reveal, one by one.

First, gays are not very numerous. Around 5% of the population. Whites are by the US Census Bureau about 43.1% of the California population. Hispanics account for 35.9%, Asians 12.7%, and Blacks only 6.7%. Hispanics don’t vote as much as Whites, but voted for Proposition 8 in significant numbers. Gays have been very careful not to say anything negative about the Hispanic vote for Proposition 8, and Spanish Language Media has supported Proposition 8. As the link shows, Prop 8 opponents made ads with “Ugly Betty” star America Ferrera, which were ignored (it is an English Language TV show) and Prop 8 supporters made Spanish language ads with telenovela star Eduardo Verastegui. America Ferrera, after all, is of Honduran descent and appears in English language films. She is the “Stuff White People Like” conception of a Hispanic star, as opposed to the real one that real Latinos actually watch. Ferrera, is in fact an actress on an English language TV show watched by … Whites (and specifically, White women). Not real, actual Hispanics who prefer such fare as “Sabado Gigante.”

[Click Image to Enlarge]

The blunder in the campaign, and the aftermath (that Gays never targeted Hispanics/Latinos which in LA amounts to Mexicans) is significant. Even the “Stuff White People Like” Gays and their supporters fear angering the Mexican community which is demographically powerful. Blacks are only around 7% of the population, so they may be abused, but the N-bombs stopped fairly quickly because while Blacks can be convenient targets due to demographic weakness in California, they form an important function among the “Stuff White People Like” contingent.

Laughably, the Magical Negro, popularized by Spike Lee, forms an important function for “Stuff White People Like.” Rich White Yuppies, who are bored out of their skulls, find magical transcendence by pretending “authentic” and “spiritual” Blacks are their super-secret pals. You can find this all over culture, in the films Lee derided (“The Green Mile” and “Legend of Bagger Vance”) as well NBC-TV’s “Heroes” (with it’s magical Black guy who sees the future). Criticism of Blacks, who are remarkably anti-gay (see Eddie Murphy’s Raw), risks losing the “Stuff White People Like” coalition of Rich, Bored, Status-obsessed Yuppies.

This is not anything new. Picasso and the Cubists thought only African Art could “save” their bored patrons from ennui, and Europeans have had a patronizing and romanticizing attitude towards Black American Jazz artists since the 1920’s. A long tradition of using Blacks as props in the status-play obsessions of the bored rich is merely confirmed by how quickly Gays dropped the use of the N-bomb, and switched to other targets.

There are not that many gays, and exit polls, if they are to be believed, showed that Whites mostly (by a small margin), voted against Proposition 8. The Whites who voted for Proposition 8 were older, married, with children, and church goers. The natural enemies of “Stuff White People Like,” who are engaged in an endless battle for status in the never-ending mating game, and constantly disparaging those with actual marriages and families. Gays politically depend on this group of Rich White Yuppies to carry their objectives forward. Politically, Gays just lack the numbers and face defeat in a straight numbers battle. In turn, the Rich White Yuppies hate the relatively poorer, but somehow married with children, Whites, who voted for Proposition 8. The pure hatred shown Sarah Palin, mostly over her class, her family, her husband, and children as a good example of this dynamic among the snob set that Gays depend on.

Here is the significance of the lack of any attack on the Mexican voters who voted for Proposition 8: Gays are afraid of them. That Gays quickly dropped the N-Word response to Blacks in their protests shows two things: One, that Gays feel free to make those attacks, because they sit higher up in the PC hierarchy than Blacks, and Two, that the attacks stopped as soon as Gays realized it weakened their hold on the “Stuff White People Like” contingent, the rich White Yuppies.

If one were to create a hierarchy level for PC, as shown by the Gay Protests, it would go something like this: Stuff White People Like > Mexicans (who are the bulk of Hispanics in LA) > Gays > Blacks > Ordinary Whites > Religious Whites. Asians are of course “invisible.” Asians have the numbers in California that Blacks have nationally, yet they are ignored in political campaigns. The dog that didn’t bark in the Gay Tantrum over Proposition 8 was how Asians were not even part of anything related to Proposition 8.

Are gays over-represented in Hollywood? Yes.You don’t get the suggestions by “Hollywood Elsewhere” blogger Jeffrey Wells for a Maoist “self-criticism” session if Gays are not over-represented in Hollywood. While it’s hard to find actual numbers, Gays seem to dominate certain key positions in Hollywood, such as Casting Directors. The Metrosexual Boy-Men plague, with actors such as Josh Hartnett, Ashton Kutcher, Shia La Boeuf, Leonardo DiCaprio, and so on, lies at the hands of Gay casting directors, who prefer the pretty boy look instead of actual, masculine, leading men. Writers and producers, too, are over-represented with Gays. “Big Love” writer-producers Mark Olsen and Will Scheffer, “Desperate Housewives” writer-producer Marc Cherry, “Superman Returns” writer-producer-director Bryan Singer, “Day After Tomorrow” writer-producer Roland Emmerich, “Chicago” producer Rob Marshall, “Sex and the City” writer-producer Darren Star, represent a large chunk of writers and producers who are actively working in Hollywood. CNS News has a report from GLAAD detailing how the broadcast networks alone (CBS, NBC, ABC, CW, and Fox) have 22 series featuring 35 openly gay characters for the Fall 2008 TV season.

“There are openly gay writers on almost every major prime-time situation comedy you can think of … In short, when it comes to sitcoms, gays rule.”

Gays are 5% of the population. Clear evidence, therefore, of how over-represented Gays are in Hollywood. To have openly gay writers on almost every sitcom.

Michael Ovitz, who complained after he left Disney, that a “Gay Mafia” that ran Hollywood was out to ruin him, was at least correct in that respect. Gays do dominate Hollywood, much to it’s ruin. As the CSN News link points out (quoting GLAAD):

“Ehrenstein, a professed homosexual, cheerfully admits that gay writers are attempting to influence viewers with a homosexual agenda:

‘The gay and lesbian writers of today have been pushing the envelope any chance they get. In fact, they’re encouraged to do so. Since current comedies are positively obsessed with the intimate sex lives of straight young singles, who better to write them than members of a minority famed for its sexual candor … as a result of the influx of gay writers, even the most heterosexual of sitcoms often possess that most elusive of undertones – the “gay sensibility”—‘Frasier’ being a case in point.’

“The ‘gay sensibility consists, according to two homosexual writers, of ‘a very urban, very educated, ironic, detached, iconoclastic attitude.’ Plus, a deliberate overdose of sexuality.”

This is probably responsible for the fact that 80% of sitcom viewers are women.Gay men are able to write for a female audience, but cannot write for (straight) men. Which is nearly all men. As TV has become gayer and gayer, it has become more and more female. Men have fled it, largely, for other less gay entertainment. The parallels with Broadway musicals is pretty clear: when Gays dominate a particular form of entertainment, men flee it.

Gay men cannot engage the interest of straight men in the stories they tell, because they don’t understand the desire of straight men to have exclusive access to just one woman. It’s understandable, given how promiscuous Gay men on average are, and how little appetite there is for monogamous relationships in Gay society. This can be seen most clearly in “Superman Returns,” which presents a Gay Superman as a Christ figure, with a Lois Lane being married to someone else. Nothing could be farther from what the Superman character is, which is wish-fulfillment for boys (“I wish I was all grown up and powerful”) and for young men (“I wish I had superpowers to get the girl and save the day.”) Openly Gay writer-director-producer Bryan Singer of course, could not understand this. No wonder the movie failed, despite being about well, Superman.

Hollywood increasingly relies upon female audiences for Television, which has turned into a Broadway like Gay-Female ghetto, and young men for the pitifully few movies which actually make money (Comic Book action-adventure films). The ability of Hollywood to churn out the latter is in serious question given how Gay it has become. There is about zero chance for a Gay Writer-Producer to be able to understand what young men want and deliver that on screen. It might indeed be fabulous. But no one is going to watch the action-adventure films that Gay Hollywood creates.

Gay Hollywood has been successful in one aspect — Single Women. Who can’t get enough of what Gay Hollywood has to offer. The movie “Sex and the City” grossed $152 million domestically, for a cost of “only” $65 million (source, Box Office Mojo) plus marketing costs. Women form the enthusiastic audience for Gay Hollywood. Which is a historic change from the days of the 1940’s and 1950’s. What has happened of course is that Single Women have become closer to gay norms.

Single Women are single longer, than they were in times past. They have more sexual partners, are more likely to have multiple partners at the same time (compared to times past), and are far less religious than their mothers or grandmothers. The number of sex partners in urban areas like NYC are higher than the national average.

”I stopped counting at 56,” says Christine, 35, a locations director from Bayside who lives in SoHo. “There are so many opportunities to meet men here – bars, restaurants, clubs, walking down the street, the deli. Men are everywhere.”

Women nationally average 9 lifetime sex partners, while in NYC they average 18-20. As Roissy in DC points out, anonymous urban living usually equates to many women living a Gay Man’s lifestyle. Complete with an emphasis on fashion, “fabulous” friends, conspicuous consumerism, and many sex partners. The NYC Health Department found that 25% of NYC adults were infected with Herpes. The rate was higher for women than men, 36% vs 19% (men), and roughly equivalent to Gay Men’s rate (32%). The national average was only 19% for all adults. As I pointed out in my Hollywood’s Romantic Comedies for Men, both men and women are marrying later. In many respects, Single Women’s open-ness to Gay Men reflects their shared social behavior (many sex partners, urban living, jobs in “design/entertainment/law” areas, lack of religious belief, consumerism). You will find few Gays or Women in Alaskan fishing boats, Sarah Palin excepted, or among the engineers in the suburban office parks.

According to some exit polls, Single White Women voted overwhelmingly against Proposition 8. Which should surprise no one.

Which brings us to the next question, why are Gays intent on getting married? The answer is, they are not. In places where Gay Marriage has been available for years, Gays don’t get married. Toronto has had Gay Marriage for years, and through 2008 only one gay couple has been married. Last year, only 107 Gay marriages have been performed.

The city of Toronto, which hosted the claimed “million-strong” annual Gay Pride March on Sunday, has one of the largest homosexual populations in Canada. Despite this fact, however, the demand for same-sex marriage licenses has drastically declined. Last year, the city issued 107 licenses to Canadian homosexual couples, whereas this year it has so far only issued 1.

Even though the overall number of “marriages” has declined significantly, the proportion of foreign couples has increased to two-thirds of the licenses issued. According to Reuters, last year Toronto gave out 924 same-sex “marriage” licenses, and of these, 338 were for American couples and 479 for foreign couples. This year, of the 320 same-sex “marriage” licenses issued, 118 were for Americans and 201 for foreigners.

The Gay Toronto Tourism Guide claims homosexual persons make up 14% of the city’s population, thereby making Toronto the third largest gay community in the world. Nevertheless, this year’s 1 legal gay “marriage” comprised only 0.01% of the marriages taking place in Ontario’s capital. This would seem to strongly confirm past charges that the political and legal campaigns which successfully and dramatically changed the institution of marriage in Canada were ultimately about nothing more than forcing acceptance of homosexuality.

Gays, in fact do not want to get married. Very few of them actually do, in places where Gay Marriage has been legal for some time. Gays are notoriously promiscuous, and promiscuity is incompatible with the traditional notions of marriage. Rather, as Stanley Kurtz has argued in National Review Online, Gays wish to use cultural arguments (mostly through television and movies) and legal ones to collapse traditional culture and specifically, the nuclear family. Which is viewed quite naturally as the enemy of Gay Culture (it is).

As Kurtz puts it, there is a three way split. A few Gay conservatives (who are as tiny a segment numerically as gays are in the larger population) admire bourgeois marriage and wish to emulate it. This is probably no more than 5% of all Gays. Radical Gays reject marriage, as outdated, and only want recognition of Gay Marriage as approval of Homosexuality. Subversive Gays (which is most of the TV writer-producer Gays) argue that the best way to destroy the Nuclear Family is to subvert Marriage itself, by moving it to “Gay” norms of promiscuity through normalizing sexually open unions.

Most straight people have no idea how much Gays loathe the institution of Marriage as it is understood traditionally. Like feminists, they view it as a prison, and the “Subversive” group wishes to sever the connection, as Stanley Kurtz argues, between monogamy and marriage.

“Big Love” writer-producers Olsen and Scheffer admit this is their goal through their TV series “Big Love.” Gays who embrace a life of promiscuity can hardly be expected to embrace monogamy in marriage, or allow it in any one else, for that matter. As Kurtz argues here in the Weekly Standard and here in National Review Online, Gays allied with Feminists, Family Law Radicals, and extreme Libertarians seek to redefine Marriage out of existence.

Both by legal means and cultural means.

Which explains the defenestration of the Sacramento Theater Director and the LA Film Festival Director. Anyone and anything that threatens the Gay “Subversives” who wish to redefine marriage out of existence must be “dealt with.” By McCarthyesque means if possible. As an expression of Gay Power. To erase the nuclear family and replace it with Gay Culture.

However, the Gay over-representation in Hollywood, and this defenestration of non-Gays in Hollywood who oppose attempts to redefine marriage out of existence, is an expression of weakness as well as strength.

The assimilationist Jews who ran old Hollywood knew how to count. While they may have ran much of Hollywood, they understood they were small in number, and vulnerable to the sort of pogroms that their parents had fled. Louis B. Mayer, head of MGM, created his own birthday on July 4. Jack Warner, Mayer, Samuel Goldwyn, all made sure that their productions were as pro-Middle American as possible, espousing the broadest possible view, the most populist and celebratory attitude towards America. They understood that their position was precarious, and overt expressions of in-group nepotism could create a populist backlash. They certainly had stories of such things from their parents. Moreover, they genuinely adopted and believed in the values of Middle America, which made them far more effective than the Gay Mafia in Hollywood today. Nearly all of Old Hollywood films made money. As opposed to today when only a few really do.

Gays depend on the over-representation of their segment in Hollywood (and the Media) for political strength. In sheer numbers, they have very little to offer, other than a loud megaphone, support among Rich Yuppies, and Single Women. Most straight men don’t seem to care for anything Gay, given how they’ve fled “Gay” sitcoms (as late as the 1970’s men formed half the audience for shows like the “Bob Newhart Show”) and Television in general. However, they moderate their expressions of disdain around women to maximize their dating chances. This of course, can change, and the more Gay Men seek to redefine Marriage, openly, as just a “Big Gay Party” that people throw to be “fabulous” and then go on having sex with many other people, the more most men, who win by having exclusive sexual access to only one woman, will oppose Gays. In nearly every form.

Making Marriage “Gay” (i.e. promiscuous) is a sure way to make permanent enemies of many, many men. It’s not as if men have not killed over women before.

Gays risk, in over-reach, alienating a large chunk of straight White men, and defining the Democratic Party as “Gay.” Straight White guys avoid “Gay” like the plague.

The public punishment of “safe” targets, the Mormons, Straight White Guys, and so on, may make the Rich White Yuppies happy. It may thrill the Media. It shows how PC is oriented against the “enemies” of the Rich White Yuppies who create and maintain PC: the religious, Straight White Guys, social conservatives, and so on. With a likely long recession, this is not a winning strategy, and the various Blacklists of supporters of Proposition 8 are likely to create their own counterparts.

About whiskeysplace

Conservative blogger focusing on culture, business, technology, and how they intersect.
This entry was posted in culture, demographics, gays, hollywood, men, more, pc, prop8, women. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Prop 8 Hate: Our Glorious Multicultural Future and an X-Ray into PC

  1. someguy says:

    I am a bit torn on the gay marriage issue. I used to take the attitude based on personal liberty of let people do what they want. But, more and more I see this is overly simplisitc. I work in a very PC setting and when I met a co-worker for the first time she talked about her partner. I assumed therefore that she was a lesbian. But no, her partner is a guy. I could see that with this mind set within a few years I would be getting in trouble for calling my wife my wife instead of my partner. Another example is talking to a gay friend about desires to stray from my wife. He was baffled about how this could be a problem and advised me to have a good time as he and his “partner” had different sex drives and he had to stray. I didn’t take his advise. Oh course he has a MS in marriage counseling. This is consistent with your belief that the gay community really doesn’t want marriage as it is commonly thought of. And if you spend some time with gays you will sense some hostility as their comments about breaders are not always meant to be funny. I am not sure however where you get the idea that most men are driven by the desire to have exclusive access to one woman. Any citations?

  2. PeterW says:

    Great article; the bit about percentages of gays who actually get married is particularly eye-opening. However, I wish you’d do more than give single quotes for your less quantifiable claims, such as the mainstream gay lobby being against traditional marriage.

  3. Whiskey says:

    Peterw — the Kurtz links have the details, I did not include them because they were quite lengthy. Kurtz has done a series of articles on this subject on National Review, I would encourage you to read all the Kurtz links.Someguy — I am sure most men would *like* access to most women, but the reality is that only a few, high-status, powerful men can achieve that state. Given that few men look like George Clooney and have his wealth, most will take the traditional route of monogamous marriage. That for most men in most cases “works.”

  4. Jay Fink says:

    While Mormons are an easy target because they are white, blacks and Hispanics also voted for Prop 8 in large numbers. I love the delicious irony that different Obama voting segments are not unified on cultural issues such as this.As good as things look for Democrats right now, the tent is just too big. It’s unnatural for such a wide spectrum of social and economic groups all to be on the same page politically. Prop 8 is a sign that different segments of the Democrat party will start fragmenting.

  5. demosophist says:

    Same sex marriage is a “gay issue” but not necessarily a homosexual issue. Classical Greece honored, or even revered, homosexual love above that between men and women, yet it had absolutely no inclination to establish same sex marrage. Indeed Plato discussed this issue at some length, making the observation that marriage was a sacred bond that was intended to preserve the culture. It can hardly be said of the Greeks that they eschewed same sex marriage out of some prejudice against homosexuals. So what was their reasoning?Marriage is about child raising… and passing on values and capacities to new “human starts” (as R.B. Fuller called them). The notion of same-sex marriage would have simply seemed silly to the Greeks. What would be the point?I’d also note that not only is interest in monogamy rather limited in the “gay” community (which isn’t synonymous with homosexuality, by the way) but there are a fair number of homosexuals who would vote against the practice if their jobs and livelihoods weren’t threatened by the “gay mafia.” It’s in the interests of all Americans to preserve this unique Lockean culture, which provides homosexuals and other minorities their fundamental “individual rights.” The dissolution of marriage and the family threatens that, so why in the world would a self-considerate homosexual favor same sex marriage?I have a homosexual friend (well three, actually) who vacated San Francisco because they simply couldn’t tolerate the perverse and self destructive culture there any longer, and their attitude about Same Sex Marriage is: “What in the world is the point?”If you don’t believe there are such people, check it out.

  6. sestamibi says:

    A few years ago I read an account similar to that of someguy in Daphne Patai’s critique of all of this, “Heterophobia”. She told of a female professor at a very PC university who constantly referred to her “partner”, leading everyone to believe that she was in some kind of long-time homosexual relationship. Turned out she was married to the same man for 25 years and had three quite normal kids. And that’s what it’s come to today.

  7. 49erDweet says:

    Excellent and thorough post, whiskey. On your point re: straight men seeking “access” to only one woman I believe the point is best proved by considering mens’ typical reactions to seeking approval for “their” woman to have “access” to other men. The “what happens when the shoe is on the other foot” test would best establish the rule, I would think.And I totally agree the goal is NOT for gays to become married, but for the normal family unit to disappear. Destruct, Destruct, Destruct. Nothing nice about some of these folk.

  8. Anonymous says:

    He doesn’t have any citations. He’s just a crazy person making shit up.check this out: are plenty of gay weddings in Toronto, so I’m pretty sure all his other claims are imaginary as well.

  9. Anonymous says:

    What motivation is there to destroy the family? What would the gay community gain?I know a number of homosexual couples who have been exclusive for decades and all they want is to be able to visit each other in the hospital and get on each others insurance. That’s all they want.You are full of hate.

  10. Jack says:

    Couple things – while I have no doubt NYC women are sluttier than others, the herpes facts are altered by very high rates for black women, while we are mainly thinking of white women when we describe young, urban sluts.I live in NYC, and I am surrounded by extremely liberal single women. They are the major problem in our society today. Gays could not do anything without the help of these women. They all support gay marriage and some even protested it. You gave some good insight why. They are the enemy of our country’s best interests. And especially the enemy of young straight men, who unfortunately are in the dark and generally supported Obama as well – a man who outwardly doesn’t support gay marriage, but will appoint judges who will implement it.Could gays rethink their support of illegal alien amnesty? Interesting question with their general opposition to gay marriage (Mexicans). I don’t understand why you think Mexicans are higher than blacks on the liberal white hierarchy. I always thought blacks were highest – look at Obama.What happened to 20 years ago when faggots got their asses kicked?

  11. Whiskey says:

    Both Anons — I have checked it out, there are no numbers there at the site posted, merely a site aimed at foreigners wanting to get gay married in Toronto. See Mark Steyn at NRO, Note the attitude towards polygamy in Ontario Canada I’ll note you cannot refute the numbers in the original post. If you have numbers that challenge my source (or those of Kurtz in the links) I challenge you to post them.Moreover, gays are not as a group very monogamous. Gays have far more sex partners than heterosexual couples do, and generally do not maintain monogamous relationships. There may be a few monogamous gay couples. Yao Ming and Vern Troyer are Chinese and American men, respectively. Neither gives a good picture of the average height of Chinese and American men or the nature of Gay monogamy (which is about as rare as Ming and Troyer’s sizes in China and America).Gays wish to destroy the “hetero-normative” at they call it, nuclear family so that society can be redefined according to Gay Norms. This is an expression of power caused by the over-representation of Gays among the “Stuff White People Like” yuppies, and the power they exert in that demographic segment which wields disproportionate power. The Kurtz links contain rather lengthy discussions and quotes by gay activists themselves as to why they wish to destroy the nuclear family. This is Whiskey’s Place. PC place is somewhere else.

  12. Whiskey says:

    Jack, you are right about the Herpes rates being distorted by the number of Black and Hispanic women in NYC, their rates are significantly higher, tragically. Young men generally agree with anything young women say, thinking it will help them romantically and otherwise. It will not, of course.I probably wasn’t clear — Blacks in California lack any significant demographic numbers, thus no fear of yelling out the N-word by White gays. However as you point out they are higher on the PC Hierarchy due to, IMHO fairly racist, PC imaginings of Black “primitiveness” that gives them magical authenticity. Which would have surprised the hell out of urbane, well educated men like Ellington, Davis, Monk or Bechet. Many of whom were well versed with European classical music/composers.It was the lack of fear that caused the initial words to be yelled out, something that could never have happened in largely Latino LA against Hispanics due to fear of immediate physical confrontation and PC consequences.I don’t think Gays will ever re-think their support of Illegal Immigration, it’s part of PC dogma aimed at the “Straight White Guys” who have to be “replaced” as the source of all evil. Or what they really mean, lower class Whites who form a threat up the mobility ladder to the rent-seekers of the elite classes, who occupy non-productive roles and seek to maximize their ability to occupy “important” positions and make money.

  13. Jack says:

    Guys agree with what women say to get laid? Maybe. But as you said, it won’t get them laid. So I don’t understand it. Personally, I don’t advertise my views but I don’t lie if I’m asked either. But to get laid, sure I’ll lie if I won’t see her again. And then I will vote my interests as a young man. Which are the complete opposite of those of a feminist. And this is what every guy should do – lying if necessary.Actually I have no idea if gays care about illegal aliens. But I wonder how the Latino population will affect the support for gay marriage in the South and Southwest.

  14. Anonymous says:

    The quotes on Ovitz are particularly funny, its just interesting that you left out the part that he was an ineffective executive and all of his years of taking credit for other people’s work finally caught up when he arrived at Disney. Now there is a velvet mafia,just as there’s a jewish mafia and hell an Italian mafia (b/c let’s face it Hollywood needs teamsters too to move their crap) but I think you’ll notice how many out leading actors there are headlining films– oh wait there aren’t any.Identifying the gay population as only 5% is inaccurate, if you look at census its actually 10% of the population identify as gay/homosexual. And if we were to count the DL segment of the self loathing hispanics, blacks, and asians –we have to imagine that number would be quite a bit higher.Good thing you blog and don’t fact check. Best of luck.

  15. The whole bruhaha around Prop 8 in particular and Gay Marriage in general to me, in a broader sense, is just a sign as to how decadent American (and by extension, Western) society has become. I’m no US citizen, I’m German – so if I get something wrong, blame it on me being unfamiliar with the subject matter.The US and its de-industrialized NATO-partners are facing the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression. Western power all over the globe is in steep decline, a fact driven by superior statesmanship of our global competitors, Russia and China, and ruthless exploitation of our weaknesses by minor powers like Iran, Sudan or Pakistan.Globally, we are pigheaded children living in lala-land, faced with very mature, ruthless opponents who rightly consider us weak, distracted, and largely inconsequential to their designs.We are under pressure from every possible angle, be it militarily, economically, industrially, and even within our own borders, demographically. And the longer I observe this state, the more I realize how large a percentage of our respective populations has reverted to some adolescent state of mind politically.Look at the real world you live in, not at the political weblogs we visit. Read what people think in the discussion forums you email providers provide. The ordinary Joe Schmoe doesn’t go any further if he articulates himself on politics on the web at all. This is what the average guys and gals think – and it’s largely frustrating to read and appalling to comprehend. No matter the topic, even people who otherwise might be quite intelligent resort to the simpleton approach to politics that reeks of indiscriminate morality – and the inability to detach the morals from the facts.Like this, Prop 8 becomes a moral issue, a rights issue, where you are a “hater” if you are against gay marriage (as Newt Gingrich’s sister just called him in an open letter today) – and not a simple matter of demographics and the nation’s wish to keep it’s population at a replacement level fertility rate by (theoretically) enabling a stable environment for child bearing.Prop 8 and gay marriage are, despite their larger social impact, small issues. But for quite a large number of (liberal?) American voters, “Gay Marriage” has become the sole defining factor to cast their vote. That, I think, is decadence. That is irresponsibility. American global power is crumbling, as is American economic power. Powers are on the move globally that eagerly would swarm like vultures over the diseased carcass of the Western world – and America is riled up about the question wether a couple of butt pirates get to wed…?!

  16. Anonymous says:

    Poor Whiskey.Sounds like you’ve got a chip on your shoulder. Focus on improving your own life – you might feel a little less insipide.

  17. Anonymous says:

    People love to complain that gays are promiscuous, and at the same time wish to deprive them of the one tool that would help to encourage long term stable relationships — namely same-sex marriage.

  18. “People love to complain that gays are promiscuous, and at the same time wish to deprive them of the one tool that would help to encourage long term stable relationships — namely same-sex marriage.”False. There is no reason whatsoever why homosexuals shouldn’t be able to confine themselves to one partner, even in the absence of legal recognition. Compare the behavior of slaves in the US, who often established their own (illegal) monogamous relationships, with that of homosexuals today. Despite being subject to much less oppression than slaves, many gays have hundreds or even thousands of sexual partners during their lifetimes. This suggests that personal morality, and not legal recognition, is the real issue.

  19. And another thing. Before you pity Whiskey and sing praises to homosexuals, google “Bug Chasing” and ask yourself whom it is you should really feel sorry for.

  20. Anonymous says:

    The liberal hierarchy is:1. Jews2. Blacks3. Everybody else: Gays, Latinos, Women, Handicapped, etc.Jews win because of the Holocaust.Blacks are in 2nd place because of slavery. Everyone else does musical chairs for 3rd place.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Whiskey is probably a lonely, sexually unattractive dweeb who has few friends; the internet sycophants are the closest real relations he has had in the near past. He thinks like a Weimar-era right-winger (not a Nazi [I don’t compare anybody to Nazis–right-wing activism in Germany long predated Nazism]; this Whiskey thinks like a Freikorps member).

  22. Anonymous says:

    I won’t name-call you like some here did, but God, your blog sucks ass, and that post was just plain hysterical.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Good point on the hysterical aspect, last anonymous. This blogger writes in this oh-so-serious, long-winded, pseudo-academic style, and rarely uses statistics, except from hard-right sources, so be wary of anything he says. His constant appearances on the Roissy website (and the subsequent butt-kissing he gets from the Roissy readers) makes me believe that the Roissy website is not for aspiring PUAs, but for bitter, sexually-frustrated losers. Note how the comments devolve into politicized garbage and talks about race and culture, when they should really be about refining one’s techniques.

  24. Anonymous says:

    "I am a bit torn on the gay marriage issue. I used to take the attitude based on personal liberty of let people do what they want."The problem here is that you've already accepted this warped framing of the issue. Gays have every right to live together, to be monogamous, to have a wedding. This is not an issue of personal liberty. Gays already have complete liberty in this regard.This is an issue of government intervention. Governments recognize and reward heterosexual marriage because it produces good children. Those good children, in turn, produce benefits to all of society. The government incentivizes heterosexual marriage, because it is desirable. Homosexual marriage produces none of these benefits. Its proponents are not asking for "equality" or "liberty" – they want the government to actively promote (incentivize) homosexuality.I find it amusing how many critical anonymous posters have shown up to insult the blog. Don't you realize you're just proving his point? You don't tolerate dissent. You don't want a discussion. You bring no facts, arguments, or sources. You just try to bully others into silence. That might work in a corporate boardroom, but it sure isn't helping you in the voting booth, is it?

Comments are closed.