“We aren’t banning anything, we aren’t rounding up anyone, we have no criminal punishment for such relations unlike many other countries,” he said. “One can feel relaxed and at ease, but please leave the children in peace.”

Vladimir Putin begs homosexuals to leave Russian children out of their evangelizing. “Tis truly a shame when a KGB strongman understands American constitutional freedoms, civil and civilized liberty, and Christian sentiment better than a Catholic choir director, former Mises Institute vice-president, and editor of a liturgical magazine.

Note: Putin himself was charged with having been a paedophile by journalist Alexander Litvinenko, who was later poisoned. But the story appeared on a website associated with Putin’s enemies in a break-away province, so it might be nothing more than libel or disinformation. On the other hand, Putin himself is said to be a tool of the New World Order, at least, on the more conspiratorial blogs.

Brutalist humanitarians are of no concern to Maximilien Tucker. He straightens his powdered wig and points a bony finger only at those who defend traditionalism or criticize the establishment’s ideological coalition (Jews, blacks, gays, feminists).

Criticism of the ideological establishment is “brutalism,” but actual brutality  is “humanitarian,” in the double-speak of the Tuckerite Cheka and their genetically-modified Franken-culture:

1. Seattleites celebrate Gay Pride week by proudly beating up Christians.

2. American evangelist arrested in London for preaching homosexuality is a sin.

3. Christian teen says gay activist made girls cry.

4. Violent mob of pro-abort feminists attack praying men defending cathedral

5. Feminist professor now claims moral right to attack 16-year-old abortion foe, destroy sign

6. Gays promote violence against Christians

7. The liberal media finally finds a shooting it doesn’t care about.

8. Cultural imperialism on the march.

9. Josh Williams arrested for preaching the Christian gospel in public.

10. Street preacher arrested and held in custody for mentioning sexual sin

11. Missouri preacher arrested for preaching the gospel

12. Christian street preacher arrested three times

13. American Christians face “hate-crime” for preaching gospel

14. Street preacher arrested for preaching homosexuality is a sin

15. Christians arrested for giving out gospels in Michigan

16. Florida teacher investigated for expressing religious beliefs on Face-book

Just to clarify, while I accept the Biblical teaching that homosexuality is wrong and don’t believe it falls in the same category as the teachings about shell-fish in the Bible, I also believe in the rights of those who commit homosexual acts to do whatever they want with their own lives – including marry, form their own churches, and adopt children.

However, I equally support the rights of Christians to enunciate their traditionalist beliefs, free of harassment.

If people then want to boycott Christians, they are free to do so, as long as they also allow Christians to boycott them.

As for evangelizing, which Western Christians feel compelled to do, I think the “witnessing” that Jesus asked people to do was a much simpler and more natural thing than knocking on doors and proselytizing. I think it was simply giving counsel, when needed, as needed, and explaining your beliefs, in the right place and at the right time.

Remember, Jesus also condemned people who proselytized and made others “ten times the child of hell” that they themselves were.

In other words, we are to fix our own selves and families, before worrying about the morality of anyone else.

One more thing. The Bible explicitly counsels against giving spiritual instruction to people not prepared to hear it. It says to shake the dust off from your feet and leave them to their own fate.

We always have the option to leave, if we don’t like something.

So I while I defend their right to be free from assault, I haven’t much sympathy for people who go to gay- pride events with signs condemning gays.

That’s not necessary and it’s as morally exhibitionistic as pride parades are often sexually exhibitionistic.

In any case, with hetero pornography consumed avidly by the mainstream, millions of broken heterosexual families, heterosexuals have more than enough to fix in their own back-yards without crusades against a trivial portion of the population.

So, why do I publish critical voices against homosexuality?

Sheer anti-establishment contrariness.

When I see the establishment silence any strand of thought, I feel compelled to put it on my blog.

The real brutalists are the Christophobes, says Bonchamp at The American Catholic, whom the Catholic convert Jeffrey Tucker has joined:

“The truth here, and it is almost unbelievable that Tucker misses it, is that his description of brutalism applies a thousand times more to the libertine left than it does to the traditionalist right.

Gay pride parades, “slut walks“, tampon earrings, kiss-ins, public fornication with frozen poultry – the list could go on indefinitely – this is anti-social behavior, this is the ignoring of “civic standards of public engagement”, this is the exercise of “the right to be uncivilized, to be rude and crude” in the name of personal liberty. Meanwhile most of the people he is complaining about want nothing more than what Justice Brandeis called “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men”, the right to be let alone.

Who does not see this, sees nothing.

Tucker says that “everyone needs to decide” if their libertarianism will be brutalist or humanitarian. I say that everyone needs to decide if they will use their liberty to proclaim and defend the natural moral law, the right of individuals to associate in communities that explicitly acknowledge that law, to resist the totalitarian ideology and unjust mandates of the Christophobes and egalitarian collectivists in positions of power, and to do it with all of the force and zeal of the prophets of the Old Testament; or, alternatively, to twiddle our bow-ties on the sidelines and maybe even lend a helping hand to the enemies of civilization.”

It is my sincere hope that Mr. Tucker clarifies his position.”

UPDATE: Apparently, The American Catholic joins me in smelling the stench of blood in Tucker’s declaration.:

“Tucker’s remarks about a “fundamentalist sect reminds one of the traditional suspicion and hostility of classical liberalism towards corporations of any kind: churches, guilds, universities, orders of chivalry and the rest.

Witness the French National Assembly’s famous declaration of August 18, 1792: “A State that is truly free ought not to suffer within its bosom any corporation, not even such as, being dedicated to public instruction, have merited well of the country.” As with the corporations, so also with the communes, the towns and villages. Village property—there was a great deal of village property in France—was exposed to the dilemma: it belongs to the State, or else it belongs to the now existing villagers. So too of voluntary associations of all kinds.

The only type of association that aroused no suspicion was the trading partnership or company. F W Maitland has noted the paradox that the liberal state, “saw no harm in the selfish people who wanted dividends, while it had an intense dread of the comparatively unselfish people who would combine with some religious, charitable, literary, scientific, artistic purpose in view” and subjected them to a strict regime of licensing and surveillance, when it did not suppress them altogether.”

Lila: Why is this? Why is it that pornography and its violence, the drug trade and its violence, and corporate/ financial looting and its violence don’t seem to Tucker to be brutalist?

The only brutalists are traditionalists and their voluntary associations that hurt no one and steal from no one.

It is because porn, the drug trade, and Wall Street are intimately connected with the state (the shadow state) and  Tucker is dispensing STATE (read, intelligence) propaganda.

ORIGINAL POST

Jeffrey Tucker’s recent article, “Against Libertarian Brutalism,” positions left-libertarian, life-style libertarians, such as himself, as “humanitarians” and contrasts them with libertarian “brutalists.”

He defines brutalists as those who prefer homogeneous religious or racial groups, defend traditional sex roles, and dislike homosexuality.

I posted (March 16) that this was an attempted purge of Christian libertarians

It would take too much time to dissect every nuance of the disingenuity and confusion on display in this piece, and, since it was trounced by a majority of libertarians on the net outside Tucker’s own circle, it’s emphatically not worth the effort.

Tucker’s writing, since he joined the Agora network, shows all the hall-marks of propaganda and do not merit serious consideration, except as propaganda. I  don’t think it’s worth getting monitored to deconstruct writing from an ideology whose tenets no longer interest me, let alone internal politics.

But the fall-out is sure entertaining.

Are libertarians (the kind I respect) in for some kind of purge, as Bionic Mosquito suggests?

Of course.

Purges are ongoing in any totalitarian society and Tucker’s black-and-white demand, “You’re either with us or against us” (even while semonizing against black-and-white thinking) is an indication of which way the left-lib wind (and I mean wind) blows.

But for those who buy into theoretical hocus-pocus, I am pleased to inform you that the definitive rebuttal of all Tuckerian pretensions to exclusive and extraordinary humanitarianism has already been made by libertarians themselves, and by American libertarians, no less.

There was Ayn Rand:

...if an unformed adolescent can tell himself that his cowardice is humanitarian love, that his subservience is unselfishness, that his moral treason is spiritual nobility, he is hooked.

But, better yet, there is an American female libertarian (God, what pleasure it gives me to sic one of those on a male gynocrat) who has done the job – Isabel Paterson.

The Humanitarian With The Guillotine.”

“The humanitarian wishes to be a prime mover in the lives of others. He cannot admit either the divine or the natural order, by which men have the power to help themselves. The humanitarian puts himself in the place of God.

But he is confronted by two awkward facts; first, that the competent do not need his assistance; and second, that the majority of people, if unperverted, positively do not want to be “done good” by the humanitarian. When it is said that everyone should live primarily for others, what is the specific course to be pursued? Is each person to do exactly what any other person wants him to do, without limits or reservations? and only what others want him to do? What if various persons make conflicting demands? The scheme is impracticable.

“People always give away a good deal, if they have it; it is a human impulse, which the humanitarian plays on for his own purpose.”

Perhaps then he is to do only what is actually “good” for others. But will those others know what is good for them? No, that is ruled out by the same difficulty. Then shall A do what he thinks is good for B, and B do what he thinks is good for A? Or shall A accept only what he thinks is good for B, and vice versa? But that is absurd. Of course what the humanitarian actually proposes is that he shall do what he thinks is good for everybody. It is at this point that the humanitarian sets up the guillotine.”

Noticed porn pop-ups that I didn’t click on (at least, not consciously) intruding. Some looked violent though I didn’t really see the content except for the flash when I deleted them.

I had been trying to look up comments on Weeks and her cutting problems, so it’s possible there was something, some virus, lurking there.

This always frightens me, when it happens.  It happened before when I wrote a piece about Vidal. I immediately got hacked  and users added to my blog repeatedly. Then porn images started jumping out on my screen in a bizarre way, that is, in greater numbers than something by accident.

I wonder if it was the Goodman post. Or the post about Tucker? You never know when you cross a line you shouldn’t and which line it was.

People might try to download taboo material on your computer too.

The scope for mischief is endless, when it’s humanitarians versus brutes, you know. There’s nothing too evil that it can’t be inflicted on a brute.

The Hindu:

“President Vladimir Putin thanked India for taking a “restrained and objective” stand on Russia’s muscle flexing in Ukraine.

Addressing a joint meeting of the Russian Parliament on Tuesday on the occasion of Crimea’s reunification with Russia Mr. Putin singled out China and India as the countries that showed understanding for Russia’s role in the Ukraine crisis.

“We are grateful to all those who understood our actions in Crimea,” Mr. Putin said. “We are grateful to the people of China, whose leadership sees the situation in Crimea in all its historical and political integrity. We highly appreciate India’s restraint and objectivity.”

India did not join the Western powers’ condemnation of Russia’s intervention in Crimea and kept a low profile on the issue.”

While the Western media has reported India’s position as pro-Russian, the transcripts of the Ministry of External Affairs, show a relatively even-handed approach, calling for peaceful discussion and restraint:

“India calls for sincere and sustained diplomatic efforts to ensure that issues between Ukraine and its neighbouring countries are resolved through constructive dialogue,” said the statement.”

One word of truth outweighs the world

– Alexander Solzhenitsyn

I have had my problems with both Rothbard and Ron Paul, but I can see where Bionic is coming from. My problems with R & RP are that they don’t give enough to conservatives, not that they are too conservative (socially), which is why they’re unpopular with the Bleeders and their friends. The Bleeders object to R and to RP from the left.

Mind you, I consider myself a bleeder. I bleed for people mangled in war, starved; deprived of electricity by cyber-attacks; deprived of food and water by rotten policies; deprived of clean air and roads by rotten human beings.

So I don’t have much blood left over to bleed for  the freedom to corrupt children on tax-payer money or practice the perversion-du-jour free of criticism.

bionic mosquitoMarch 16, 2014 at 6:28 PM

It is not the beginning of a purge, it is the continuation of the (attempted) purge of Rothbard with a tangential chapter being the (attempted) purge of Ron Paul.

Anyway, I must say I respect Ron Paul for his stance on abortion, which has been unvarying.

The Sodomizing of Our Churches, by O.R. Adams:

“The Sex Information and Education Council of the United States is a high sounding name chosen by the Kinsey group to indoctrinate children and young people with their perverted ideas on sexuality. It is not an institution of our federal government. “In 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) was launched by the Kinsey Institute. Its objective was to teach Kinseyan ideology as sex education in our schools. SIECUS (which now calls itself the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States ) imprinted the new Kinsey variant standard on almost all sex education curricula.”[15] Wardell Pomeroy was a coauthor with Kinsey on sexual publications, was Kinsey’s biographer, and worked with him on the “sexual research” with small children.[16] “The SIECUS Sex Education Curriculum Board was led by Pomeroy, Bell, Calderwood, Calderone, and McIlvenna – all Kinseyans and all committed to Kinsey’s research findings, deviant standards and pedophile promotions.”[17]

A PDF on SIECUS sex education can be downloaded from its website. It is very subtle and misleading, but even in this publication, it advocates homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and presents many kinds of perverted sexual activity as normal, and without censor as being wrong – even between small children. It presents “masturbation, either alone or with a partner,” as an acceptable practice for children. (Page 52, of PDF) The SIECUS sex education material is designed for presentation to all children, from kindergarten to grade 12. The actual workings of this organization and the sex education programs are far worse than even the PDF guidelines. They bring in lesbians and “gays” to indoctrinate the children with every kind of perversion there is. Much of the material and activity is vile and pornographic. Many lawsuits have resulted from parents who try to keep their children from being subjected to this vile trash.

We should ask ourselves why anyone would want to give sex education to small children – even as young as those in kindergarten. I believe that there are two primary reasons. One is that they want to brainwash children into the acceptance of homosexuality at an early age. This will pave the way for the selling of the homosexual agenda later, including same-sex marriage. Also, more of them may become homosexuals. The other reason is that SIECUS is still a Kinsey type organization. Kinsey and his associates seemed to have an obsession with sexual abuse of small children – only they did not consider it abuse. They argue that it was beneficial to the child. The same argument is made by the pedophile organization, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. (NAMBLA).

Dr. Wardell B. Pomeroy’s sexual research with Kinsey on small children included the infamous “Table 34”, which lists sexual responses in babies as young as four months old—data that could only have come from child molesters, or people lying about it.[18]

Pomeroy’s books for children “ten and up,” “Boys and Sex” (henceforth, BAS) and “Girls and Sex,” consistently encourage kids to experiment with sex and ignore parental teaching.[19] He also promoted vile and bizarre sadomasochism and brutality as being “loving and sexually exciting.”[20]

Both Kinsey and Pomeroy seemed obsessed with “pre-adolescent eroticism and orgasm” and stimulating babies, some so young they couldn’t even talk, to try to get them to have orgasms.[21] It has never been clear to me to what extent they actually participated in this criminal behavior of molesting such small children, but it would appear that there had to be at least some hands on participation, as well as cooperating with other pedophiles in this criminal behavior.

Pomeroy has noted that the Kinsey team tested for motility of sperm, obtained from masturbation of small boys, with microscopic examinations.[22] Now just how close would that participation necessarily be? The opinion of Dr. Lester Caplan, a Baltimore physician and member of the American Board of Pediatrics, was that children of that age would not have willingly submitted to such abuse.[23]

Kinsey publicly claimed that his “scientific” findings showed children “derived definite pleasure” from their experiences.[24]

“Pomeroy recommended sex with animals ‘potentially joyous,’ unless one is discovered by the inhibited and sexually repressive ‘Mrs. Grundys’ of the world.”[25]

“Like Kinsey, the SIECUS Report (1996) urged the use of ‘sexually explicit visual, printed, or online materials for school children … .”[26]

In actual practice, this so-called sex education in public schools has turned out to be extremely vile, filthy and bizarre. It has included such things as having children put condoms on such things as bananas and cucumbers; instructing them graphically about the engaging in oral and anal sex – both homosexual and heterosexual. And such things are always presented as normal and acceptable conduct. Homosexual marriage is promoted to the children with special books for that purpose. All of this is covered at length in As We Sodomize America, under books, on this website, and can easily be found from looking at the table of contents. Also, material may be quickly found by doing word searches using the words, sex education, and SIECUS, in the book.

The homosexualists plan to sell pedophilia to us in the same manner that they have homosexuality, generally:

The classification of pedophilia as normal sexual orientation is not the final step of the Kinseyesque agenda. Another sex theorist has attempted to advance the status of the pedophile to that of Good Samaritan, dedicated to helping children learn about, and develop, their sexuality. In other words, pedophiles could be viewed as natural helpers of children, with special gifts—much as John Money views homosexuals as special People … .

In her article “Intergenerational Sexual Contact: A Continuum Model of Participants and Experience” (Journal of Sex Education & Therapy 15(1):3-12, 1989), Joan A. Nelson, Ed.D., advocates a model of adult-child sexuality in which sex acts with children are to be viewed as acceptable and even essential to the healthy development of the child. She minimizes the harmful effect of what has generally been perceived as child sexual abuse; and she emphasizes the harmful effect of “society’s condemnation” of adult-child sex—an approach straight out of the pages of Kinsey et al. *** [27]

Kinsey’s research contains the only body of experimental data purporting to demonstrate that children from a very young age are sexual and have sexual needs. This wisdom is part of the “scientific” foundation of modern sex education, allowing Lester Kirkendall, a sex education pioneer and Kinsey colleague, to predict in a profession journal in 1985, that once our sense of guilt diminishes, cross-generational (adult-child) sex and other forms of sexual expression “will become legitimate.”[28] [Emphasis added.]

So, we see how this sex education is a part of the homosexual-pedophile agenda.

Many of these things remind me of the following from a part of a homosexual activist’s fantasy that has now become true:

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We will seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together.[29]

When churches and their members can be convinced that sodomy is moral, they have been convinced that wrong is right and right is wrong. It shows that people, generally, can be convinced of anything with enough incessant pressure and propaganda.

Now the affirming United Churches of Christ, and the Unitarian Universalist Churches, who have declared sodomy and homosexual marriage to be acceptable things, are embracing the SIECUS sex educations programs for their children, from kindergarten on up. There is no record that even Sodom and Gomorrah advocated homosexual marriage – much less the indoctrinating of children that sodomy and homosexual marriage are acceptable things. The sodomizing of these churches is now complete. It would be much better for a decent family to belong to no church at all, or even be atheists. “

UPDATE 3: The real brutalism: A critique of Jeffrey Tucker (American Catholic)

UPDATE 2:

“Thick and thin: The Libertarian Split,” C. J. Engel, reformedlibertarian.com

expresses what the minority of Christian libs feel about Tucker’s underhanded attack on them.

UPDATE:

I knew that the brutalist architecture = totalitarian ideology rang a bell for me and after some digging I found that the equation has been made before:

“Ayn Rand, Totalitarian Architecture, Brutalism, and Busselization,” (October, 2011)

Given Tucker’s attitude toward IP (pro-hacking and plagiarism) and my own experience of his negligence with attribution, I wonder if this piece isn’t where he picked up the idea.

ORIGINAL POST

Jeff Tucker, ex of Mises, now of Agora, the guy who reduced me to an editor of a book I co-wrote, then got sniffy at my objecting  to his misattribution (which was choreographed by certain enemies of mine who pay his check, one way or other)…that Jeff Tucker has got the libertarian world roiled up over a fairly inane article in which he divides libertarians into two camps –  brutalists and humanists.

Really?

Why not Guns and Roses? Or Beauties and Beasts?

Guess which side he belongs to?

Yeah….surprise.

The brutes versus humanitarians thing is just a replay of a tactic left-libertarians have been using for a while now to purge the libertarian movement of paleo-libertarians – people who hold Christian or traditionalist views of things, but don’t intend to use the law to enforce their views.

That describes the LRC crowd and their fellow travelers. I used to think I was one of them until I suspected that they might be the right-wing of the controlled opposition.

Tucker and Co. of course are almost certainly the more lucrative  left-wing controlled opposition.

For the sake of keeping the libertarian sheep happy, both groups vociferously shout their libertarian slogans, but their silences say more than their shouts and by their silences are they known.

Between the two, the LRC crowd is by several orders of magnitude more honorable and scholarly, so despite all my reservations, I tend to agree with them.

Besides, no one else is rooting for babies.

But the continual creation of divisions – thick and thin libertarians (Bleeding Heart Libertarians), gorillas versus gods (Paul Rosenberg of Cryptohippie), and now, brutalists versus humanitarians (Tucker and the IP socialists) betrays an agenda – these are all ways to ostracize and shame Christians for their beliefs, while preventing Christians from even expressing their core beliefs.

In other words, this is a WAR of ideology….the transvaluation reversal of traditional values.

That’s firmly in the “activist” tradition of the Jewish-led Civil Rights coalition, which, having got its start busting up the networks of the Anglo-Saxon dominant class and forcing entry into the halls of Gentile power, then turned around and practiced a far greater ethnic solidarity and nepotism, once the “commanding heights” of the economy were taken.

Now that the Gentiles have gotten wise, the left-liberal establishment is tightening the screws. Hence libertarian thought-control, right (Rothbardianism) and left (“brutalism,” and the Gorilla-God dichotomy).

What it amounts to is that you can call the Madonna a whore and you can call a whore Madonna,  but you can never call a whore a whore.

Not unless you want to be a brutalist. Or a thin Gorilla.

In other words, employ all the coercive power of language (“bigots” “haters”) to traditional views, while denouncing plain-speaking, even when it’s not intentionally shaming (“sodomy”, “prostitution,” :homosexuality,” “baby”).

Most of all, insist on manipulative euphemisms  – gay, hooker, foetus – that assume the moral high-ground.

Tucker’s piece is that kind of Orwellian exercise, only largely unsuccessful and easy to see through.

Thus it was seen through. Thank God.

See below for the overwhelmingly negative response (except from other IP socialists/communists)

“Jeffrey Tucker reduces core libertarian ideals to brutalism” (Robert Wenzel)

“Jeffrey Tucker’s Case Against Libertarianism” (Christoper Cantwell)

“Jeffrey Tucker and Libertarianism.me” (Bionic Mosquito)

“Why is Jeffrey Tucker promoting cultural brutalism?” (Ian Huyett)

In defense of libertarian brutalism” (Kathy Shaindle)

“A Critique of Against Libertarian Brutalism” (Paul Bonneau)

“Libertarianism Ill-defined” (Anarchist Note-book)

“Libertarians are either brutes or humanitarians, so says collectivist libertarian” (freefabulousgirl)

“Against libertarian post-modernism” (The Right Stuff)

“Getting liberty wrong,” (Politics and Prosperity) – a conservative site, which actually makes the most cogent intellectual argument against the piece – it commits an enormous act of intellectual collectivism, while claiming to be individualist.

Of course, that’s a problem with ALL of libertarian ideology, which is why I am not a libertarian after the American model.

I don’t think I ever really was, because I always took a minarchist position and I have never been an absolutist about rights: I don’t think they over-ride or excuse obligations.

I defend liberty, not libertarianism.