Sunday, December 22, 2013

Eat The Homophobes First

The People of the Gun, or at least one of their bloggers, has decided on the new and improved defense of gun owners, implicitly white that they are:  Play the diversity card and hope that because they are queer friendly, the jackbooted thugs from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, and Really Big Fires, will eat them...ehr...burn them alive last.

The Truth About Guns December 22, 2013 by Robert Farago
Random Thoughts On Fags and Gun Nuts
The recent flap about Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson’s comments on homosexuality got me thinking. While I don’t share Robertson’s belief that being gay is a sin – at all – I support his right to be wrong, in public. That said, the remarks themselves were inexcusably crass. Vagina vs. anus? Really? Robertson must have known that this comment would inflame both homosexuals and heterosexuals. To what end (so to speak)? It’s certainly not the kind of language I’d expect from a “true Christian”; someone who loves the sinner but hates the sin. Nope. The comment was needlessly, heedlessly insensitive. And it reminds me of nothing so much as the comments I’ve heard as a gun guy. Or should I say “gun nut” . . .
Fag. Gun nut. Critics use these terms to the signal the “fact” that the recipient’s behavior is unacceptable. Beyond the pale. That they’re genetically, morally and spiritually abhorrent. Both words are designed to marginalize otherwise acceptable members of society. To ostracize them. More than that, people use the terms fag and gun nut to condemn the person themselves. To make the recipient wish they’d never been born. The terms are, in short, hate speech.
I’ve been called both. The first because that’s what boys called each other at Moses Brown, the all-boys school I attended for ten years. If I did anything that didn’t fit the macho ideal I was a fag. Soccer instead of football? Fag. Cool shoes? Fag. Close friendship with someone artistic? Fag. The term didn’t bother me per se. In almost all cases, it was just a word used by bullies to put someone down, regardless of their sexual orientation. Truth be told, I used it myself more than once.

Farago does not get it.  People of the Gun, gun nuts, or just plain old gun owners, are one of the identified enemies of the radical left.  Gun ownership represents a threat to the neo-Marxist and their totalitarian ambitions, just as Christmas does, what Christianity does, or any other aspect of implicit whiteness does

Farago decides that in the culture war, People of the Gun must surrender and hope the crocodile eats them last.  That will not quite work out, as homosexuals, organized like GLAAD, or not, vote overwhelmingly for anti-gun and anti-white politicians like Barack Hussein Obama.



Farago also pulled a little Alinskyite trick as well.  Lecturing Phil Robertson for his homophobia, he implied that Robertson hated homosexuals, then brings up the "fag" issue.  Nice little trick there. Robertson did not use any insults in the GQ interview where he criticized the sexual practices of homosexuals, e.g. anal intercourse.  He did not use "fag" to describe homosexuals.  He just questioned the sexual practices, which, for the scientifically uninitiated, are counter evolutionary.  Anal intercourse, or homosexuality itself, do not result in the continuation and survival of the species, something rather important if one is a scientific materialist, as most homosexuals claim.  It is contrary to Darwin's laws on survival of species.  If one is of a bent to support evolution, then the purpose of two sexes and sexual reproduction make it clear that males of the species should "prefer" vaginas to anuses.  It is just science.

Of course, we do not live in a world based on scientism.  We live in a created world, with a system of natural laws and order.  Part of that is the ordered universe, which one can understand through scientific observation, such as observing sexual reproduction.  The natural law is as clear as Revelation to those willing to take any time.  Funny how that the natural world supports the Revealed Law.  Part of that is clearly the choice man makes in relation to our Creator.  We can chose to ignore Him, apparently as Farago has.  But then his argument for liberty rings hollow.

While I don’t share Robertson’s belief that being gay is a sin...

Sure, you can take a bite out of that apple, but the punishment for it is eternal damnation.

Then we get the diversity lecture:

But I knew that calling someone a fag was wrong. My parents’ gay friends were funny, intellectual and creative people (just like their heterosexual friends). I never once thought of calling them—or anyone else outside of school—-a fag. That would be like calling a black man a nigger or a Jew a kike. A decent person didn’t go there; using the term for real would have revealed me as intolerant, uneducated and classless. As the child of the late 60′s, I embraced society’s movement towards what’s now called diversity, what was once called tolerance and brotherhood. A trend that, eventually, included gays.
Personally, I didn’t experience much prejudice. Sure, there was some anti-Semitism. But like the fag thing, it was mostly background noise. The only time I got a real taste of what it was like to be “different” was when I hitched a ride home from Mount Hermon summer school with an all-black basketball team. It sounds silly but that was a genuinely eye-opening, sensitivity-enhancing experience. 

Wow, America was basically evil before the 60s, back before the 1968 Gun Control Act;  racist and anti-Semitic.  Hitting all the tropes of the radical left.  For Farago though, prejudice against People of the Gun is his argument.  Racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, hoplophobia, all the same thing, The Man standing in the way of true liberty, free love, and bong hits

Wait though, I America before the 60s was evil?  Are we getting a mixed message from Farago?  It looks like hoplophobia is a post 60s development.  As if it developed at the same time as the homosexual rights movement.  As they said of the War Between The States, emancipating slaves, enslaving free men.

What he does not realize is that his bargaining with the neo-Marxists in the homosexual movement will get him nothing, except getting eaten by the neo-Marxist crocodile last.  But he will be eaten, and no pink triangle, pink pistols, or PFLAG membership will save him in the end.  It is the United Front ism fantasy of all libertarians.  Sorry, gun ownership is not allowed in any future homosexual dictatorship.

The good news though is that some People of the Gun get it.  Gun Owners of America is in the fight on amnesty for gun control voters.  Let's hope that all the People of the Gun get it that homosexuals don't like gun owners either.


No comments: