Good or Bad for the Jews

"Good or Bad for the Jews"

Many years ago, and for many years, I would travel to Morocco to visit uncles, cousins, and my paternal grandmother. Some lived in Tangiers;...

Thursday, July 17, 2014

The Progressives: Destroying Western Civilization for the 1%

Well, well, and well, again! Who'd a thunk it could be so?

It hasn't gotten much media attention because it's not what the narrative demands, but the CDC has put out a thorough report which notes that only 2.3% of Americans identify themselves as either gay, lesbian, or bisexual. About 1.6% of the population identifies itself as either gay or lesbian, what used to be called homosexual. The Washington Post grudgingly covered the report's release but noted that,
The figures offered a slightly smaller assessment of the size of the gay, lesbian and bisexual population than other surveys, which have pegged the overall proportion at closer to 3.5 or 4 percent. In particular, the estimate for bisexuals was lower than in some other surveys.
Ah, yes, 3.5-4.0%? I remember being lectured at the Foreign Service Institute during the Clinton years by an "expert" who claimed that 13% of the population was homosexual. Where did all the gays go?

The progs have insisted that we undo, inter alia, our military, the Boy Scouts, and the institution of marriage for about 1.6% of the population. We have been bombarded by the media, Hollywood, and an endless parade of bien-pensants about the huge gay and lesbian population yearning to breathe free. Hardly a TV series or major movie is now made without gay or lesbian characters and strong gay and lesbian propaganda. So much so, that a Martian watching these productions would reasonably think that about 40-50% of the population is homosexual. Our Martian would also conclude that major metropolitan police forces in the US and the UK are composed of about 60% women coppers who can whoop a man with no trouble at all.

The CDC is a den of political correctness and usually does not fail to march lockstep with progressivism when it comes to climate change, gun control, and how HIV/AIDS would make America a howling wilderness by about 1998. Reading the new report, one can tell the authors are uncomfortable with their own findings, and seek to turn their report into a search for equitable medical treatment for straight and homosexual in America. Even there, however, the data show that homosexual Americans generally engage in more risky health behavior than do straight ones, and are larger consumers of health services.  Tsk, tsk, tsk, another reason for Obamacare . . .

The science is settled!


  1. People get fired because they support traditional marriage, and not same sex marriage, although they have never acted untoward against any homosexual. Businesses are boycotted because they hold Biblical beliefs. A university professor, who does a comprehensive study on the children that are raised by homosexuals, and reports that no, these children are not as well adjusted as children raised by two parents, male and female, father and mother, has to move from his own home due to the death threats not only against him, but also his wife and his children. The State Department of the Federal government announces its goal of hiring more homosexuals, all in the name of "diversity."

    Oh, and while the Gay Liberation Front moves on, if a heterosexual makes any comment that the gay lobby finds offensive, a rise of voices, shouting "Crucify him, crucify him" will ensue.

    Isn't there a saying that goes something like this: the very group you are not allowed to criticize is the very group that will put its boot on your neck?


    1. No, Zane, there is no such saying. Why don't you say one?

    2. “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”


      Same sentiment, different words than I used. More often than not, those who rule over you do it with their boot on your neck.


  2. No, the Progressives don't give a damn about the gays, lesbians, or bisexuals, and would sell them out in a heartbeat for two-tenths of a percentage chance of winning the next election.

    The Progressives are destroying Western Civilization because they hate it, and because they can. Even though it sustains them. An apt comparison might be the scorpion in the tale of the frog and the scorpion in the Middle East.

    They are destroying Western Civilization for the hell of it. In more than one sense.

    1. That particular fable always chilled me. The lesson is you can't convince away someone's nature, and if the destruction of the fundamentals of western civilization are being pursued by the liberal powers that be, then there is no choice but to make them powerless.

      Aussie Jim

    2. Same here. The really chilling part is that a talking scorpion still didn't have the sense to follow its nature till it was safe on the other bank.

      Leftist idiots could, you would think, pursue "social justice," peace, and free-range chicken farming, or whatever, without destroying essential structures and values.

      But . . . that's exactly what they do. Abortion is a sacrament to liberal women and if the Constitution has to be twisted into a pretzel to make it a federally-protected sacrament well, then, yeehaw! NO other consideration enters the mind. Blinders on, pedal down.


  3. You have to admit, it is a very loud 1%; and in any event progressives use these issues to distract the public when something happens that threatens their larger agenda. Here is Australia at any time that the left wants to draw the public gaze and debate away from something that is damaging, their friends in the media orchestrate a debate about gay marriage or Australia becoming a republic. They have done it so often it almost cliche; but it does seem to work.

  4. Aussie Jim said "The lesson is you can't convince away someone's nature, and if the destruction of the fundamentals of western civilization are being pursued by the liberal powers that be, then there is no choice but to make them powerless."

    A slow and measured response to their demands doesn't work. You hit them very hard as a first effort.

  5. and as if that's not enough, form
    Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go Back Into The ER
    San Francisco has it's priorities;.......
    In 1983, as the AIDS epidemic was raging, gays and bisexual men were banned from donating blood by the FDA. Now San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener has introduced a resolution to end the ban, and the city board is expected to approve it.

    Weiner told KTVU in San Francisco that the city has to make a statement to the FDA that times and technology are changing. He charged, “It’s discriminatory, it has no basis in public health. All donated blood is heavily tested, and it’s depriving our country of a lot of blood that could be donated to help save peoples’ lives.”

    It just takes one pervert working in the blood lab to falsify reports and there's another epidemic of AIDS thank you very much. After all, it's all about raising awareness, no?

    1. I'll tell you a funny/sad story. My husband has been banned for life from donating blood at work because we took a vacation to the D.R.!!! Never mind that he works several months out of the year in China and Mexico (where he used to call me every morning to give me the "dead animal" report on the way to the factory.)
      Or, did anyone hear of the thousands of pigs and chickens floating dead down the Shanghai river about a year ago? No, the Red Cross deemed taking a vacation to a resort in the DR posed a threat to the blood supply...
      You can't make this stuff up but it is just as well as my husband passes out more times than not when donating whole blood. I'm glad he can't be pressured at work anymore to donate.

    2. When I had an extensive spine fusion done in San Francisco in 1993, I brought my own blood with me. I donated 8 units of autologous blood and had the red cross send to to UCSF. I had the surgery with about half my normal hemoglobin so I could avoid San Francisco blood. A hematologist friend gave me some injection of Epogen to help get my hemoglobin up. Better safe than sorry.

    3. I can't give blood either, since I lived in Europe from 1982 to 1991 - the height of the BSE scare. Of course, the silly thing is that I couldn't afford to purchase beef on the local economy in Greece and Spain, and doubt that I ate it at a restaurant more than a dozen times in those years. If I bought beef at all, it was in the commissary - where they sold American beef. Most Americans didn't like the taste of European beef - and of course, most politicians from agricultural states believe that the military commissary system is a means of off-loading agricultural surplus on a captive audience.
      You'd think that if I had been exposed to BSE then there would have been some sign of it in the twenty years since ... but you'd be wrong. None of my finest homogenized Type-O for you!

      My daughter can't give, either. She was stung by a scorpion in Bright Star in Egypt in 2001 - something about the poison or the antidote remaining in her blood forever and ever.

    4. The Christian Scientist objection to using blood from others is starting to make a lot more sense.

  6. I think CDC is trying to move to a realistic measure of the number of homosexuals, but bows to political pressure and generates numbers like these that are not as large as a previous report.

    Looking at data from the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, it would appear that the Gay and Lesbian population cannot exceed about 0.7 percent overall (though naturally, they'll be rather over represented in places like near Du Pont Circle in DC). And one only gets that high if people who'd recently had transfusions or other medical problems are also all gay.

    So to my eye, 1.6 percent is likely a very high overstatement.

    Green Bear

    1. I agree with you. I doubt that at the very most 1% of the population is "gay." The numbers get inflated often by including prisoners or others who might have committed a homosexual act, but are in fact, not.

    2. I don't think the percentage of gay residents around DuPont Circle is all that relevant, however the number of gays around 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in the last couple of decades has been highly relevant. I would include the halfrican queen and Shrillary in that number.

      Agree with your general point though.

    3. Please don't let them re-assign word meanings.

      They are homosexual.

      They are NOT gay.

    4. One point something percent seems to be what most serious studies come up with.

      Sex Survey of American Men Finds 1% Are Gay

      These are surveys done by liberals and reported by liberals. As the story notes, the results are fairly consistent across western countries.

  7. I think you need to qualify this statement:
    "Even there, however, the data show that homosexual Americans generally engage in more risky health behavior than do straight ones, and are larger consumers of health services."
    Is that all homosexuals, or just gay men? I'm not sure that applies to lesbians at all. The only thing that really unites gays and lesbians is the vile leftist politics espoused by a vocal segment of their populations. IN every other way they are different.

    Guy Quiet
    (posting as anon because I forgot whether I have LJ or WP, and what the pwd is)

    1. Apparently, according to the CDC, lesbians drink and smoke considerably more than do straight women.

    2. Lesbians went through a phase where they were using gay men as sperm donors for "turkey baster" artificial insemination. A few AIDS cases cured them of that odd practice.

    3. Much higher incidences of self-harm, mental disease, partner violence and suicide. In short they are the nightmare cohort for public healthcare, being much more expensive to service than the average Joe/Josephine.

    4. I took an interest in the science of homosexuality after a brief corporate stay in San Francisco, a block from Polk Street - Castro Street's quieter cousin.

      The answer is the scientists have decided what form of evolutionary advantage homosexuality offers. There are some plausible hypotheses but no definitive answer.

      What doesn't seem to be considered, at least publicly, is that homosexuality is a genetic disease, a bad mutation.

      I'm no expert, but my feeling is live and let live, but my advice for society is that homosexuals were better off in the closet.

  8. Again, I would refer all to the writings of Antonio Gramsci, and the philosophy of the Frankfurt Marxists who created "social" Marxism, i.e. political correctness. The march to normalize abnormality has been in progress for 130 years. Even the term "homosexual" was created by a German Marxist in order to garner sympathy for the person, and acceptance of their action. i.e. In true Alinsky fashion, personalize homosexuality because you will be considered attacking another human being personally if you attack their actions.


  9. Frankly, even though I have my Ph.D. in a social science, I've come to look on a lot of approved "social science" as an enormous swindle. Politicize enough university departments, and your "research" is going to be skewed towards whichever group is ascendant. Today, that means the Sodomites.

    Also, re Dip's comments on the "experts" telling him that 13% of the population is queer, I think the EmCeePeeCee culture is very deeply entrenched at State. When I was in my orientation group (we called it A-100, I don't know what it is called now), I recall the affirmative action lady coming in and telling us all about "white male privilege"--and there, on my left, was a guy whose father was an out-of-work coal miner in Appalachia and whose grandfather died of black lung at the age of 52, while on my right was a guy from a Rust Belt Polishtown who was the only one of his several sibs to have a college degree and work in a professional job. But, whatever the EmCeePeeCee narrative demands, that's the "truth".

    @Cascadian: I'm not surprised about the problems of the LGBT's. When I was in Bangkok, I noticed there was a breed of "Farang" sex tourist who knew he was dying of HIV-AIDS and was looking around for a last, near-pederastic fling (partners young as he could find them) before passing on, and all the while telling himself he was helping poor people by doing this.

    @Michael K--aren't you just touched to the bottom of your heart by the supportive attitude those lesbians showed their male homosexual colleagues [sarc]?

    And my guess about CDC figures--Cascadian's post makes me suspect that the higher figures were formerly given to justify bigger and bigger budgets; now that the US $ is going down the tubes and we have deficits that will eat the next three generations alive, there's probably some pressure somewhere to save money on something other than the largest entitlement programs.

    Finally, about Sodomy, even if I didn't have the Old Testament telling me it was an abomination whose practitioners should be stoned to death and the New telling me it's a corrupt fruit of idolatry whose practitioners have no place in the Kingdom of God, I can't see a guy who enjoys getting the equivalent of a prostate exam as healthy, and I can only say that someone had to be rather cruel if he enjoys giving out the thing outside carefully regulated medical practice.

    Proposal: If the Muslims overrun Yurrup, put in place a refugee policy that forces any European homosexuals, feminists, and "independent" Marxists to swim home.

  10. Re. our "islamic cousins":

    "Gay" sex is officially forbidden.

    HOWEVER, because of the "cultural constraints" of islam on normal sex, it is probably more widespread than in "infidel" societies. See David Pryce-Jones "Closed Circle" for more details.

    "Gays" in islamic societies are occasionally "executed" in public, especially in Iran, as a "warning" to stay on the "straight and narrow", as it were.

    Homosexuals in the marxist "camp", (so to speak), are only 'safe' while they do their revolutionary duty.

    The goat-botherers hate godless socialists and gays equally.

  11. None of this is helpful. The self-righteous tone is not going to talk sense to or reach anyone who out of masochism or some other species of torment has gone down this ugly path.

    Stop congratulating yourselves.

    What about the much higher percentages of those in the arts, or controlling or strongly influencing the arts -- which means our culture as it now exists and devolves?

    1. Brave anonymous, I am going to disagree with you.

      Government inflation or deflation of estimates to suit the purpose needs to be exposed, so the article is extremely helpful. What also needs to be exposed is why the homosexual lobby has such success in the highest reaches of government and the bureaucracy, could it be that preferential hiring by fellow-travellers has been based on percentages of the population that are 800% in error?

      As to the devolution of arts, we agree. Indeed I see practically no art these days, the paint daubers are infantile, fashion is ridiculous, theatre is dire, film-making and TV is a wasteland, architecture is preposterous and unsuitable for use, there is no good writing. If the homosexuals proud claim is that they are artists it speaks volumes.

  12. O/T Good hunting and good luck to the IDF. Pound them.
    James the Lesser

  13. +1 to the IDF. Ironic, isn't it, the the Israeli's will likely save the West, Europe at least, from the Mad Mullahs with a Nuke. Foe sure it wont be the One, Clueless Chuck, or JFnKerry, Dirty Harry, Ball-less Boehner, or their like, pulling the trigger.

  14. Two quotes come to mind:

    "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing over what to have for dinner."


    "Tyranny of the majority."

    Point being, that just because they're only 4% doesn't mean their right to equal treatment under the law is any less important.

    Do the different sides conveniently inflate their statistics to suite their purposes? Sure they do. But then, ALL sides in the political theater do this, so I'm hardly surprised by it. Never trusts a politicians or government agency's "facts." Always verify them as best you can.

    1. You, Anonymous are correct that "Point being, that just because they're only 4% doesn't mean their right to equal treatment under the law is any less important."

      But do note that their right for equal treatment under the law is no more important than anyone else's either. That is what the left and the gay, etc. community wants to deny.

    2. Problem is they typically don't want 'Equal' treatment - they want special 'Protected' treatment. Not all do - but the vocal ones typically do.