The Attorney General, Eric Holder, holds on. At the beginning of the Fast and Furious scandal, the idea was floated that this was intended to be an excuse for gun control laws in the US. How ludicrous, federal agents giving guns to Mexican criminals with no tracking as an argument for Texans and Arizonans to surrender their self-defense?
[Not to mention Occupy Oakland and all the other OWS sites which have attracted far more violence and vermin than the Tea Parties did. But the Tea Partiers had to go to work the next day.]
But Holder's testimony to Congress followed the script. Do they really think this will work?
Not so fortunate is Obama's Chief of Staff Bill Daley. After the President's ill-fated address to both Houses of Congress coincided with a Republican primary, Obama reportedly thundered at his staff for not seeing that coming, because it made him look like egomaniacal tyrant.
If this is true, then Obama (and Daley) don't seem to realize that two or three levels below them, anyone who noticed the events falling at the same time would assume that the President was out to attack his Republican enemies. Wasn't that the point all along?
[I don't know what Obama expected would happen. Perhaps his 'jobs bill' would be passed by immediate acclaim after his awesome speech and he would be the most adored President ever. The jobs bill was a rehash of what the Democrats couldn't pass at the beginning of his term and a long-delayed plan that was supposed to be a response to all the bills passed by the House and the Senate's inability to pass a budget in what must be pushing 1000 days as well as the reason for refuting the President's own commission's recommendations, after he promised a hard pivot to jobs roughly a quarter of his term ago. But he addressed Congress as he demanded and that was a while ago. Is he even saying 'pass this bill now' anymore? Maybe he does and it's just background noise.]
Meanwhile Occupy Oaklanders riot. A continent away, the Leninist state evolves. There is a strange preponderance of man-on-man rape. Salacious detail, or suggesting women are victims because they are easier targets but men are the prey. By now the community has divided into several dozen tents, for each 'group' representing itself. Those who choose to be homeless are reverting to type.
I wonder if this is the source of legal antipathy towards homosexuals in the first place. The male on male sexual predator can find a target in children, in the 'glam' style of romanticizing the subhuman. Women stop being targets because they are women, hence the 'women only' tent. Women are women, so they can find sympathy or sex with a willing partner for better or worse, and it doesn't matter. Especially since there's no risk of children and very little risk of vd.
Stable male homosexual couples either have independent incomes or dependent lifestyles and can do what they want. It's the unstable male homosexuals who are the problem. At this point, there's no distinction between them and the remaining Occupiers. They spout nonsense causes and are easy enough to mooch from. I doubt gender matters much, but male is probably preferred.
Women are excluded from the club because they have the 'wife and mother' option. A community at that level consists of women who desire/need a bond with a man, and/or another woman of compatible nature. They can't become predators the way men can, though they find compensation elsewhere. Men do stupid things with their dicks, that's a given.
The male predators however, are on the opposite line of civilization, and it's through homosexuality that the predators find their targets. They can't exist in civilized society. I would guess they hook up with nomads, gypsies, carnivals as some manner of entrance to society. Especially in show-biz, where they start so young. Gigolos appear, as does whatever homosexual community gathers in towns, bars, dance clubs, places where civilized homosexuals can congregate. Men and women who can earn their own living, either individually or in their own private arrangements, independent of 'husband, wife and kids' which is what a family is. It has been thus for millions of years through quantity and reproduction of human beings.
It's not homosexuality, it's the license permitted by a large enough group for enough men to do enough stupid things with their dicks. Mooch off the rich, pretend to be straight, I can only guess what problems it's caused for militaries. By choice or by nature, it's these unstable people who are the problem and taint whatever homosexual community gathers.
It's attractive to straight women because they can relax with a man who poses no sexual challenge. They can also vicariously enjoy the soap operas, especially when they find men who 'go both ways'. If stable homosexual men are interested in these shenanigans, they participate. If not, not.
If Marxism works, they'll find some appeal there. Sexuality leaves the picture but retains that unreal understanding of relationships which makes socialism so fundamentally attractive to a small but vocal minority. Many of whom are also violent.
Who were the victims of Hitler's purge of the SA? The leadership of his first SS were the ones who were there first. They recognized each other at his speeches perhaps. Recruited others. They saw Hitler for what he was at the start, someone who could organize a crowd. They took advantage, but had to go once too many guys who preferred women were around.
Eliminate the homosexual intrigue and include as much or little violence as required, you have the basis for female stories which males can tolerate (chick flicks, theater). Shakespeare lasts because women are perpetually intruiged by this mysterious language. Men wrote it down at the time and English evolved into present form which still mystifies people but keeps them performing it over and over. Costume changes and sets are helpful. A predator who finds an opportunity for regular food has the chance to get far.
Religion is undoubtedly a good place for such people to hide, and scandal is ever-present. Minister' wives are always good sources of gossip. Homosexuals are quickly excluded but good sources for clothes and food and dance clubs. [The clubs will eventually be appropriated through homosexual migration, first as the rich people who show up will be wearing the same outfits as a rebellion against their rich upbringing, then as the rich straights looking to meet the hottest chicks, the ones hanging out with the coolest gay guys...
These are the least-civilized minority, not yet animals, but not worthy of being human. Women are targets for being weaker and a heterosexual bond is best for both parties. As always, once the women are excluded for that reason, human coexistance becomes male-on-male predation. Once women are included, the vast heterosexual majority reasserts itself. Fashion goes down the social ladder and recycles itself, soap operas go into reruns between seasons.
Men who are inclined to cohabitate with a woman are the vast majority. Stable gay men and women can make comfortable homes with their loved ones and be equal citizens. However, to prosper they need to avoid alienating the vast majority. I think women are inherently bisexual, but some (many? most?) clearly are against the notion. They'll go along with what their man wants. But even the most unappealing women retain the wife/mother option. Gay couples break up because someone decides they want to be straight.
This also becomes humor and humiliation for the straights. The guys can talk a chick into anything (and vice-versa) but then have to look at each other later on when you aren't drunk and she's not so eager. This sort of humor plays well (dare I say it?) with the lower classes.
It also defines celebrity. Athletes don't get far if they make who they have sex with a priority, so they're only available as examples of physical perfection. Actors have stage personas and disconnection from that which they represent, as well as an ambiguous sexuality that threatens as much as provides inspiration for knock-offs.
Preachers recite scriptures and practice rituals which have served those who follow them noticeably well and they are often the majority. They attract the sheep and tend the flocks, who nonetheless retreat to their own vices. But more communities form.
The animosity most of us have towards the notion of guys doing *that* to each other follows from the male-on-male predation that is the lowest end of the food chain. Male-on-female is the next-lowest because it implies the perpetrator makes some distinction. After that, the next-lowest is general male-female violence, the masculine 'never hit a woman' rule which applies even when the woman initiates violence, never mind two women fighting each other and how sexy it can be.
Morally we can distinguish these things no matter what class we were born into. We prosper, men, women, children and non-sexual partnerships alike, by eliminating these 'perversions of human nature'. At least, that would be the viewpoint of women who pick wife/mother. Marxism becomes an intellectual distinction of studious types who share the ideology of the '99% Occupiers' rampaging in their sites. Pampered, spoiled brats left in their own playpens, where men-on-men crime is rampant. A couple of cops were quoted and referred to 'another boy being raped' as a regular feature.
It's not that homosexuality is wrong or homosexuals themselves are bad, but it's the area where the worst aspects of humanity will gather and influence where they see the opportunity. It's not a moral condemnation, just a fact as saying that the place where the gasoline is stored is more flammable than the place where the metal is stored.
As with any gossip/tabloid figure, the story becomes more appealing in the retelling by removing the gay stuff. I assume it's an inborn trait. Young women can be trailer trash or appeal to church or something. Preacher's wife and kids are always popular. Youth is undoubtedly as attractive to older gays as to straights. Demi Moore [age 48]'s boytoy Ashton Kutcher [age 33] cheated on her with a 22 year-old model. Kutcher screams 'ambiguous sexuality' in all the wrong ways and is as prone to chasing the easy life as others of his ilk.
At best the influence is intellectual and verbal. Oscar Wilde abandoned his wife and children and through lavish feasts for starving London thugs for his sexual acts. Wilde described it as 'dining with panthers.' This is wrong for several reasons having nothing to do with homosexuality itself. His literary success is deserved however. Who can judge such things?
The socialist inclinations which have led to the OWS movement become ever more foolish as winter nears and they can't clean up after themselves. Only ideology and determination will sustain them now, or a desire to prey on other human beings. Beyond them there is only the savage.