Virginia
H/T Spelunker
Update: We’ve found the Facebook event page for the “Richmond Rally for Racial Justice and LGBTQ Rights.”
Unfortunately, we missed out on the “energizing music by queer artists of color”:
Here’s confirmation of what reportedly happened at the “rap battle” at the VA Flaggers event:
47 Going, 52 Maybe, 712 Invited … Confirmed Turnout, 12! Victory!
One People’s Project has a new article about our Richmond demonstration. Here’s a quick breakdown of some of the things that OPP missed:
1.) Liberty Lamp predicted that the League of the South would probably have 5 or 6 people, 10 to 15 tops in Richmond. My guess was 20 to 30 based on previous experience. The actual number turned out to be 30 to 35.
Richmond was supposed to be just a local event along the lines of Ocala or Atlanta. It turned out that there were more people there than in Greenville in December. There were people in Richmond on our side from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and even New York.
2.) “Anti-Fascist Action” claimed that “both sides had a little over a dozen protesters, but the anti-fascists outnumbered the secessionists.” That’s bullshit. They were outnumbered about 3 to 1 in Richmond.
3.) Obviously, there was no fighting in Richmond because a dozen lesbians and queers weren’t dumb enough to storm across the street and find out how many Southern “gun nuts” there were in our entourage, and we had no interest in fighting with them anyway, as we have our own reasons to prefer having them there.
Just look:
Contrast with us:
4.) The boy holding the “Anti-Fascist Action” banner was obviously embarrassed to be seen in public with his associates. We noticed that he wouldn’t look us in the eye when we stood across the street and laughed at their bizarre public display. If their goal was to shame us and make us look like “extremists,” it backfired.
5.) As we previously noted, we heard that the promised “rap battle” ended in failure when a biker stopped by and smashed their little radio. We were eating lunch at the time and that was a source of great amusement.
6.) Spelunkstein’s article about the KKK is baseless. Going into the Richmond demonstration, we wondered if the Klan would show up like they did in Florence, KY, but we didn’t see, meet, or recognize anyone from the Klan there. Surely, if there was a Klansman at our demonstration, Spelunkstein would have told us by now.
7.) There was never any “march” from the Museum of the Confederacy. It was just a convenient gathering point to GPS. Also, there was never any plan to use the grounds of the Virginia State Capitol because of the one hour time limit and the limitations on using our flags and signs.
8.) According to OPP, no less than SIX organizations and leftwing newspapers turned out a whopping 12 lesbians and queers in a large metro area. Is this not a huge source of embarrassment for the “anti-fa”? What kind of message does that send to us?
It tells us that “anti-fa” are pretty weak on the ground in the South, even in their own urban strongholds, and probably non-existent in our turf. You’re supposed to be the “mainstream.” We are supposed to be the “extremists.” Well, it looks like Richmond and Tallahassee are not exactly Chicago and Portland.
9.) Where was OPP?
Daryl Lamont Jenkins was supposed to show up in Murfreesboro. It says on the Active-RVA event page that DLJ was supposed to be in Richmond. We didn’t see him in Murfreesboro or Richmond or anywhere else. This is surprising because Richmond is fairly close to DC and we believe Daryl was at the NPI conference.
10.) We’re told that there were about 50 people at the Equality Virginia conference. What a disappointing turnout in the wake of such a major legal victory.
11.) Finally, we learn something new from experience every time we do this, and we learned some things in Tallahassee and Richmond that will be applied later down the road. In Richmond, we were underestimated. Keep it up.
Here a we see what happens to Hipsters who side with black one legged lesbians.
And if non-White leftists express such hatred and spite towards their own comrades, what will the increasing power of non-Whites mean for Whites in general? As we can see from South Africa and Zimbabwe, non-Whites believe in racial equality and justice for precisely as long as it takes for them to get the upper hand. Once they have it, their old beliefs are discarded. Not that those beliefs are ever sincere. This is a non-White Trotskyist addressing his White comrade Richard Seymour:
How fucking dare you…turn around and put the word “racist” in quotation marks like the accusation is a trivial or silly one. … Your response has been at all times to try and define this racism out of existence. … Your response at all turns has been to argue, essentially, we’ve got a moral chip on our shoulders. YOU FUCKING CRACKER. (Further adventures in intersectionality)
I know too much about the history of black people to buy into the idea that not being able to drink out of a specific water fountain or not being able to sit in a specific section of a bus is a tragedy.
This is the first time you have volunteered that information.
Since I’m not familiar with these rules it’s quite possible I am unknowingly using them.
Are you referring to me as a hipster? I get that a lot. Not sure why.
“I know too much about the history of black people to buy into the idea that not being able to drink out of a specific water fountain or not being able to sit in a specific section of a bus is a tragedy.”
Now that’s what I call “representing the values of the League if the South”!
Spelunker,
You are an ignorant enthnomasochist.
From what I have seen, Spelunkstein is just a run-of-the-mill self hating White liberal. He hasn’t demonstrated any deep level of knowledge about any particular issue. He strikes me as someone who just goes with the flow and assumes the legitimacy of the status quo.
Case in point, his comment about “sexism” above. He doesn’t explain what sexism is or why anyone should consider it to be immoral. He just assumes that “sexism” is a bad thing like a typical leftist without explaining his reasoning to us.
Arguments on the left often seem to consist of trying to manoeuvre one’s opponent into a position where one can throw an accusation of “Racist!” or “Sexist!” or “Homophobe!”
Indeed, is anything wrong with either of these secular sins anyway?
According to Dictionary.com sexism is:
“1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.”
Southern White Nationalists apparently believe the stereotype that “a woman’s place is in the kitchen (making sandwiches for men), I guess… At least, that’s my understanding of why the comment was made, but maybe it’s just me.
“Make me a sandwich” is a popular internet meme. It got started on SNL in the 1990s.
Spelunker,
Why would you care if someone held “stereotypical” views? Or was “racist”? Are you so alienated from yourself that you can’t allow others to fight their own fucking battles!?
Funny stuff:
https://everydayfeminism.com/2013/12/gender-neutral-alternatives/
love with my best friend. She’s a woman. So am I.
Sometimes that information is required, but you’d be surprised how often it really isn’t.
If you’re a queer person who doesn’t feel the need to go into details at the moment or a straight person acting in solidarity with the LGBTQIA+ community, using gender-neutral terms of affection can work in your favor.
If you happen to be bisexual, pansexual, or fluid, but currently in a relationship that appears to be heterosexual, a gender-neutral term can prevent people from asking fun questions like, “Wait, weren’t you gay before?”
Who is the spokesperson for the League? Is it Cushman? Should I just direct my questions about if the League supports the comments you made publicly and posted online, and other members and supporters also made? I’d like to have it officially on the record if the League supports the behavior you exhibited by publicly mocking and castigating people who had the same amount of rights as yourself to peacefully assemble and let their voices be heard. It would be wonderful to know where the League officially stands on whether or not HIV and AIDS are “punishments” or “consequences” due to the “sin” of homosexuality.
HIV infection is invariably caused by homosexual anal sex. It’s spread into the heterosexual community by bisexual men who often knowingly infect unsuspecting women. Generally sub literate sub moron black women, which is an interesting twist. Race/homosexuality and sexually transmitted disease. Intersectionality again!
Yeah you’ve got a Yigael Gluckstein “Tony Cliff” here.
Spelunkerstein is that close to lawyering up. He’s ready to fight the good fight on behalf of blacks, queers and other designated victims of the white man.
Who is the spokesperson for the League? Is it Cushman? Should I just direct my questions about if the League supports the comments you made publicly and posted online, and other members and supporters also made?
Do you have a JD? You are starting to sound lawyerly.
Odium Theologicum.
That’s Spelunkerstein’s MO.
Not at all, just want to know where the League stands, after all, they ejected Heimbach for having his photo taken with Swastikas and everyone has to be on “best behavior” for Cushman.
Spelunkerstein is a well briefed operator.
He couldn’t help show his hand.
For the record, I can definitively say that we don’t have a problem with them being there, or voicing their opinion in opposition to us in Murfreesboro and Richmond, and that we actually prefer them to be there, and that we were quite pleased when they showed up without giving us any advance notice.
Cushman personally contacted every sociology professor at FSU in the hope that a motely crew like the one that assembled in Richmond could be roused to come out and oppose us in Tallahassee. A dozen queers and lesbians suffering from gender confusion dressed in pink pants and yellow shoes gyrating on a street corner while banging on a tambourine and shouting obscenities and infantile slogans at us is exactly the kind of contrast that we want to draw.
That’s what we associate with “America “and contrast with “Dixie.” These people believe that homosexual marriages should be on the same level as traditional Christian marriages. We are convinced that they are a great advertisement for their sterile, degenerate, and uninspiring worldview.
Listen to the video. You can tell how delighted we were to have them there. My only regret is not bringing a megaphone and not getting them on a high quality camcorder before they disbanded.
Yellow fro’s and pink tights are the leftist equivalent of Swastikas and Blackshirts.
The x Protesters won that image war.
Average joe v the Tatooine Cantina.
“That’s what we associate with “America “and contrast with “Dixie.” These people believe that homosexual marriages should be on the same level as traditional Christian marriages. We are convinced that they are a great advertisement for their sterile, degenerate, and uninspiring worldview.”
They believe that same-sex marriage should be on the same level as Traditional marriage because it is. Meanwhile, you believe first off that same-sex marriage shouldn’t exist at all, but secondly, that because it does, your version of marriage is the “Supreme” one. Not true. Neither are better or worse than the other. Amazingly enough, same-sex marriage was legalized in Maryland and a few months back two friends of ours who are both women married in one of the most touching ceremonies I’d ever been to. They had been together for 37 years. It’s odd how since the laws had changed, me being in a heterosexual relationship was able to marry, with no noticeable change or difference. I thought marriage was being destroyed? Mine worked out just fine. Strange.
Pop quiz. Name one heterosexual who has suffered because one homosexual gained the exact same rights and explain how the heterosexual has suffered or been affected? In what way has their life changed or been affected?
The Mozilla chief was a high profile victim of gay mafia tactics.
You might shed a tear for a touching ceremony. However there is no doubt gay marriage has come at a point when the common sense of the western world has imploded. The coupling of a gay marriage cannot produce any offspring. There’s no future in that sterile bond.
This happened here in Alabama just a few months ago:
http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/12/29167-boy-held-captive-and-raped-for-eight-months-by-his-father-and-homosexual-partner/
Hunter, he’s not really a WHITE liberal, but another one drop case that proves the one drop rule — as in one drop of oil contaminates an entire pool of drinking water. @Dalton: Re: ‘focusing our energies on the Jews (…) is a losing strategy’: So you would persuade everyone believe, as you work to ‘mainstream’ WN, and SN, or SWN. Re: ‘Our focus should be on the corrupt political establishment (…) Yankeeland (…) that produced this mess’: So you keep trying to turn the focus on Whites who live or originate north of the Line. Re: ‘the powers that be that has arisen from the City On A Dunghill’: What about the source of the powers that arises from the city of SEVEN (dung)hills? @Rudel: Have your genetic studies prepared you to explain the so-called ‘gay gene’ for us?
1.) First, Spelunkstein said above that he is an atheist, so it is understandable that he would see traditional marriage, as a sacred vow taken in the presence of God, family, and one’s community, as being on the same level as someone marrying a chicken or a tree, but this view is incompatible with Christianity.
2.) Second, homosexual marriages are biologically sterile and sinful in our moral tradition, and a slippery slope that will invariably lead (already has in Europe) to even greater forms of perversion.
3.) Third, Spelunkstein was married in a courthouse, so that gives us some idea of how seriously he takes the concept of marriage. The present liberal divorce laws and all the consequences of shattered families that have flowed from that are a stark warning against introducing further innovations to the institutions of marriage and the family.
For the record, I am calling him “Spelunkstein” now as a humorous way of noting his identification with his 3 percent Jewish ancestry.
Ummm, yeah… Women DO belong in the kitchen. It’s where I am right now! Any League supporters want a sandwich? I’ll gladly oblige. It may be hard for a homosexual to understand… or an atheist… But, I know why God me the way he did. I have a servant’s heart, I was placed here to serve a husband and reproduce. Period. I’ve found I’m very happy with such things and have no disagreement in doing such.
That’s your evidence that same-sex marriage is destroying traditional Christian marriage? So the marriage is what caused the boy to be raped? For someone so intellectual, you’re not…
I’m pretty sure you understand that what I’m asking is what rights heterosexuals have lost or are being infringed upon due to same-sex marriage being legalized. I’m not really aware of any, but since you’re so strongly against it, I just know that you can explain it to me. I’m sure the League has had this entire issue figured out for a long time and probably have pages and pages of examples. That is a pretty absurd example. When I have more time, I’ll retort with a news story of a heterosexual coupled who raped their children as evidence of traditional Christian marriage destroying itself, and the family unit while they’re at it.
I take the “concept” of marriage very seriously, which is why I made a life long commitment to the one I love, just like a large number of homosexuals want to. Again, just more of Brads “Superiority”. Brads better than me because he was married in a Church. BFD. The act of marriage to us was nothing more than a way to get in on some of the same benefits you enjoy by being married. You’re all burned up right now because little old Spelunkersteins making a lot more sense than you are. It doesn’t matter where you are married or who marries you, as long as it is legal. My marriage is no better or worse than your own.
What troubles did you and Renee encounter when you both said, “I do”?
“Equal rights” is a slippery slope that leads to interracial marriage, sexual promiscuity, divorce, abortion, prostitution, homosexual marriage, low birth rates, sex change operations, gender confusion, incest, pedophilia, beastility, polygamy, gay adoption and so on. I’m sure there are plenty of innovations to come because when all sexual acts are treated “equal” then any form of vicious perversion is possible and normal.
What kind of society do we want to live in? I want to live in a traditional Christian society, not a degenerate liberal one like the contemporary USA that produces desexed, pants wearing, butch lesbians suffering from gender confusion like Kat McNeal. If that is what you consider “progress,” I want no part of it.
A very good friend of mine had a child molested by a male primary school teacher.
The victim is a boy. While I do not conflate homosexuality with child molestation categorically I do know that the man in question is a homosexual.
They are dangerous. Both to the body of the nation and to the bodies of small children.
You’re right
I really do consider a traditional Christian marriage ceremony between one man and one woman, a sacred vow and commitment that is made in the presence of God, family, the community and one’s coreligionists, and one that is theoretically enforced by all of the above witnesses, to be absolutely superior to a civil contract – a liberal “marriage” – made in a mere courthouse on the basis of feelings and mutual consent.
In what way are you being forced to be a “part of it”?
I make choices every day. I made a choice where to live, who my friends are, where they go to school, I chose where to apply for work, I choose what type of gasoline to put in my car, I chose what I had for lunch today. It’s crazy. I’m not being forced or compelled to do anything besides paying my taxes, and I’m really not being forced. I don’t really want to get started on taxes. Are you telling me you’re being prevented in some way for living your life in a manner of your choosing? I knew I made a wise decision by not choosing to live in Alabama for some reason. If it’s that bad there, I can understand your complaint, especially if the mean old Federal Government is the one forcing you to do all of these things you don’t agree with. Did the Feds direct you to marry Renee?
Had that teacher been discriminated against by a more rigorous vetting standard the abuse wouldn’t have occurred. I understand that sexual assault by homosexuals is now becoming more common in the US military. Society is collapsing, for real.
Let’s not even mention prison rape.
What exactly is it about marriage that gays need “access to”? What exactly is it about workplace discrimination do homosexuals need “access to”?
The answer is pretty fucking obvious, even for someone as disingenuous as yourself.
I support your right to have an opinion.
I don’t support your belief that people should be excluded from enjoying the same benefits you and I enjoy on the basis of them being homosexual. Your rights stop where mine begin.
In the end, you and I don’t really matter. Law won’t be settled on Brad’s and Spelunker’s opinions. We should both continue to push for our separate opinions. I will agree that you have a right to do that and hopefully you can agree that I have a right to oppose you.
What is the status of gay marriage in Israel?
Anyone know?
‘I really do consider a traditional Christian marriage ceremony between one man and one woman, a sacred vow and commitment that is made in the presence of God, family, the community and one’s coreligionists, and one that is theoretically enforced by all of the above witnesses, to be absolutely superior to a civil contract’:
Bravo, Hunter! Bravo!
Perhaps you ought to agitate for gay marriage in Israel.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Israel
It’s a purely religious matter there. Completely illegal. You’d do more good there Spelunkerstein. You can show them your DNA test and start telling them about all these fantastic equal rights n shit. Right before they run a bulldozer over you.
As I said above, I want to live in a traditional Christian society, not a failed leftist experiment like the modern USA which is based on the “proposition” that all types of sexual relationships are on the same level.
The concept of “equal rights” leads to moral degeneracy. It has led to a society that we no longer recognize, no longer identify with, and have no desire to preserve. We want to live in a real nation that is based on a shared history, ancestry, and culture, not an “experiment” that is based on universal liberal abstractions.
Btw I’m making a distinction between civil and religious law here.
So any pedants out there! Be warned!
Re: Spelunkstein
I’m telling you that I don’t want to live in a liberal society that is based on “equal rights.” We have rejected Americanism in favor of a better model.
They believe that same-sex marriage should be on the same level as Traditional marriage because it is.
That’s obviously not true. A marriage between a man and a woman is clearly different in nature to a marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The latter can be defined as “marriage” if your side wins, but people will continue to see a distinct difference between a real marriage and a gay marriage. Take your female friends who were recently “married.” They think themselves married all they want, but for me they will never be anything but “gay married,” not actually married. Since everything I’ve said here is indisputably true for anyone normal enough that he doesn’t take out his alienation and frustration on the rest of society, I can see no reason why the law shouldn’t reflect these distinctions.
Pop quiz. Name one heterosexual who has suffered because one homosexual gained the exact same rights and explain how the heterosexual has suffered or been affected? In what way has their life changed or been affected?
Heterosexuals consider homosexual disgusting. The vast majority of heterosexuals (upwards of 90%, easily) would not engage in homosexual sex even for large sums of money. Heterosexuals see great beauty in heterosexual relationships, particularly when they lead to the union we know of as marriage. Homosexual relationships elicit feelings of disgust and revulsion in us. Forcing us to treat homosexuals couples as “married” is insulting and clearly devalues the real thing. Even if you succeed in redefining the word “marriage,” heterosexuals will always see a difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions and will always look favorably at terms that exclusively refer to the latter.
I don’t know why this such reasonable concepts are so difficult for you to accept. You know, it’s not as preferring heterosexual marriage requires me to denounce gays as a pack of “diseased faggots” or something (although, the cold hard truth is that certain diseases are heavily concentrated in their “community”).
Silver explains things quite well here! I agree with him 100% for once. Spelunker, as a fellow anti-racist, I think it’s important to avoid identifying too much with the gay lobby. The white race, assuming that it exists which it in fact does not, is the most pro-gay race in the world. Trying to have some huge left-wing coalition between racial minorities and gays is doomed to failure. It leads to a logical circle because so many racial minorities are homophobic, but if homosexuals call them on it they could be attacked as racists. Now the left-wing elite seems to be deciding they would rather ally with homosexuals and throw nonwhites under the bus if necessary. They also now have no problem with attacking white women for homophobic comments, even though this contradicts feminist principles because isn’t feminism supposed to mean that women should have the right to think and speak freely? Greg Johnson is trying to exploit this, although fortunately, through the efforts of the COFCC and other organizations, it looks like white supremacists will fight against the entire left-wing coalition at once.
Hey Sliver, you can look at same-sex marriage however you want, on paper and in reality, it’s real… You lose, so sorry.
PGRT makes some excellent points.
I’m inclined to live and let live with homosexuality. But the marriage idea is foul desecration. The push toward it by radicals confirms all the vicious stuff the Taliban or the Chinks say about the gay agenda. It’s not about equality it’s about domination and eventual enslavement.