Brendan O'Neill

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:39 pm

And he can dust down some gay-bashing rubbish.

People who object to the bus advert are the real intolerant ones.

George Tait · **Posted:** Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:57 pm

According to him, conservatives and Christians once argued that homosexuality was a genetic trait when gays were arguing that it was a lifestyle choice. I'm calling bollocks on that one.

Some of the commentators who have commented underneath the articles about this gay advert controversy make the commentators on Mailonline look like progressives.

Abernathy · **Posted:** Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:11 pm

I suppose that the only sense in which homosexual orientation could be considered to be a choice is that one instinctively feels attracted sexually to people of the same sex, and one therefore "chooses" to pursue relationships with such people (assuming the choice not to pursue such relationships exists - which it does, but we're into repugnant Alan Turing territory).

Apart from that, not a choice in any sense.

George Tait · **Posted:** Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:31 pm

Abernathy wrote:

I suppose that the only sense in which homosexual orientation could be considered to be a choice is that one instinctively feels attracted sexually to people of the same sex, and one therefore "chooses" to pursue relationships with such people (assuming the choice not to pursue such relationships exists - which it does, but we're into repugnant Alan Turing territory).

Apart from that, not a choice in any sense.

Agreed. I could have ignored my sexual inclinations but if I had done, my life would have been one that was loaded with loneliness and depression, like Turing's was. Instead, I chose to spend my life with a gentleman. I'm not lonely. I'm not depressed. And I really do believe that I made the right choice.

ezinra · **Posted:** Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:48 pm

George Tait wrote:

According to him, conservatives and Christians once argued that homosexuality was a genetic trait when gays were arguing that it was a lifestyle choice. I'm calling bollocks on that one.

What he writes is true, to a degree. To quite a small degree.

In the 1970s and 80s, many homophobes were still arguing that homosexuality was a mental illness, and that it should be repressed or medicated. It was also still believed that you could catch teh gayz if, for example, you'd been seduced at a young age by an older homosexual 'predator'. And many people claimed that homosexuality was just a phase that everyone went through and everyone grew out of.

Gay groups combatted these myths by asserting that their homosexuality had not been forced on them — they had, to an extent, chosen it (or, more precisely, chosen to assume it). Equally, the bisexual movement resisted the idea that sexuality was binary and static. It refused to accept that sexual orientation was determined by anything other than an individual's own more-or-less-consciously held desires. Less significantly, a small number of militant activists, especially women, chose to become 'political homosexuals' as a protest against heteronormativity and the inequalities in sexual relationships between men and women.

Resistance to the idea of a genetic component to homosexuality persisted well into the 1990s. This was largely due to a fear that if there were a 'gay gene' it could be identified and modified in the foetus, thus eliminating homosexuality altogether. The tables have indeed now turned, ironically again partly as a response to the arguments of homophobes.

Althea · **Posted:** Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:20 pm

ezinra wrote:

In the 1970s and 80s, many homophobes were still arguing that homosexuality was a mental illness, and that it should be repressed or medicated.

But, not long before that, it had been classified as an illness. Not sure on the exact date when it was removed as one.

ezinra · **Posted:** Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:34 pm

It was removed from the Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1974.

Messianic Trees · **Joined:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:50 pm **Posts:** 2839

Breivik: a monster made by multiculturalism

ezinra · **Posted:** Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:49 pm

Fucking hell.

Quote:

Breivik is not so different from the “Cultural Marxists” he loves to hate. Like them, he uses academic lingo such as “deconstruct” and “cultural identity” to describe what he thinks is happening to Europe.

Man uses words too long for crap hack to understand, therefore is the opposite of what he says he is.

Quote:

This obsession with one’s own cultural identity, and the desire to erect a forcefield around it so that it is never threatened by external forces, is pure, unadulterated multiculturalism

The prefix 'multi' seems to have escaped O'Neill there.

new puritan · **Posted:** Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:51 pm

Looks like the Torygraph's Breivik fan club are out in force again. Totally fucking barking, the lot of them.

Quote:

Jackthesmilingblack
12 minutes ago

ABB strongly disagreed with
multiculturalism in Europe, and specifically Muslim immigration into Norway. He
blamed the Socialist Party for allowing this mass immigration. Up to this point
I can see where he was coming from. So to bring a very personal punishment on
the Socialists he believed were responsible for destroying his country at a
cultural level, he killed many of their children. And in the process threw a
major scare into Norway’s ruling class. The bombs were essentially a
distraction. Now if only he's shot up a mosque, over night he might have become the
hero of Europe.

Quote:

UncleTits
16 minutes ago
Either the most muddled or the most dishonest article I have ever read. The fact that, at the particular ethno-cultural level, multiculturalism shares the self-protectionism of ethno-nationalism does not mean that it is the same. They are polar opposites.

Multiculturalism is an overarching managerial strategy to promote and control the coexistence of multiple ethnic sub-cultures within the reaches of the State. A particular ethno-nationalism, even within the scope of multiculturalism, is concerned with its own interests alone. Hence it's protectionist quality. Breivik might be a natural by-product of multiculturalism but only in his opposition to it's ideology. Not in conformity.

The Breivik's of this world might be deemed 'paranoid' by you right now but at what point does paranoia become the real awareness of a genuine existential threat? How long would you have lasted, spouting your lefty bollox, in a Native American teepee?

Quote:

davidalbion
Today 01:39 PM

people who condemn this man for doing as he saw fit should recall that the island where he did the majority of killings is a place owned and run for the labour party who see people who do not agree with them as the opposition and not free minded.

He said and I agree in his court address that it was like the Hitler Youth camps of germany and that is just what Ithought at the time.It is where the future leaders went for indoctrination and games.

Remember that in 1990 the Labour Party announced there would be no further general elections in Norway as they,the Labour Party always won so no more need and only replacements would be elected as needed.

This is a constitutional monarchist country like ours.

They carried on as though in Russia or China or Korea.

The Norwegians voted the opposition in and no more talk at least of a one Party state.

He is a victim just as the dead are.

mojojojo · **Joined:** Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:33 pm **Posts:** 4289

new puritan wrote:

Looks like the Torygraph's Breivik fan club are out in force again. Totally fucking barking, the lot of them.

Quote:

Jackthesmilingblack
12 minutes ago

ABB strongly disagreed with
multiculturalism in Europe, and specifically Muslim immigration into Norway. He
blamed the Socialist Party for allowing this mass immigration. Up to this point
I can see where he was coming from. So to bring a very personal punishment on
the Socialists he believed were responsible for destroying his country at a
cultural level, he killed many of their children. And in the process threw a
major scare into Norway’s ruling class. The bombs were essentially a
distraction. Now if only he's shot up a mosque, over night he might have become the
hero of Europe.

Quote:

UncleTits
16 minutes ago
Either the most muddled or the most dishonest article I have ever read. The fact that, at the particular ethno-cultural level, multiculturalism shares the self-protectionism of ethno-nationalism does not mean that it is the same. They are polar opposites.

Multiculturalism is an overarching managerial strategy to promote and control the coexistence of multiple ethnic sub-cultures within the reaches of the State. A particular ethno-nationalism, even within the scope of multiculturalism, is concerned with its own interests alone. Hence it's protectionist quality. Breivik might be a natural by-product of multiculturalism but only in his opposition to it's ideology. Not in conformity.

The Breivik's of this world might be deemed 'paranoid' by you right now but at what point does paranoia become the real awareness of a genuine existential threat? How long would you have lasted, spouting your lefty bollox, in a Native American teepee?

Quote:

davidalbion
Today 01:39 PM

people who condemn this man for doing as he saw fit should recall that the island where he did the majority of killings is a place owned and run for the labour party who see people who do not agree with them as the opposition and not free minded.

He said and I agree in his court address that it was like the Hitler Youth camps of germany and that is just what Ithought at the time.It is where the future leaders went for indoctrination and games.

Remember that in 1990 the Labour Party announced there would be no further general elections in Norway as they,the Labour Party always won so no more need and only replacements would be elected as needed.

This is a constitutional monarchist country like ours.

They carried on as though in Russia or China or Korea.

The Norwegians voted the opposition in and no more talk at least of a one Party state.

He is a victim just as the dead are.

These are the boys that Brendan is courting with this sort of shite. He really is so brave.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:50 pm

More "personal responsibility" from the right.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:31 pm

I'm left-wing but I'm not supporting Livingstone!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brend ... vingstone/

Funny, his objections don't mention stuff like better housing, unemployment or union rights, isn't it?

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:24 pm

In which Brendan takes one case, generalises, and pretends it's odd a couple on a charge of murdering their child have their new-born baby taken into care. And he knows about how doctors and social workers are trained.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brend ... se-can-be/

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:27 pm

Anyone see Platell on the story of the newborn baby being taken into care because the parents were up on charge of killing their last baby (which was later dropped)? Someone on a school magazine could have written it- difficult job, sorry for the parents, good luck to them now- but basically sensible.

But it was better than O'Neill.

Brendan O'Neill

Who is online