And they LIE to the minority interest groups about their intentions with false promises and rosy dreams. Who will they give the land back to? The Mexicans? The Apaches? I thought socialists didn’t believe in private ownership! They don’t care about who owns the Southwest. “Who” depends on which protest rally the propagandist from Berkeley is lying to.

So… they really AREN’T the revolutionaries. They are the power structure, and have been for years. The revolution started 90 years ago and it’s been over with for while now. Otherwise, explain how it is that the radicals run the government universities and schools. It is the American majority that is on the outside, looking in, clamoring to restore freedom and liberty. If these people were revolutionaries, they’d be bombing the federal buildings, not Timothy McVeigh. Revolutionaries don’t DEFEND the power structure unless it is their creation.

“I don’t understand how this isn’t self-evident.”

It’s not self evident because it isn’t true. Wholly or in part.

A group representing Euro-Americans should and will,unsurprisingly, pursue goals and interests that best serve their interests in a multi-cultural society/political system. The fact that this flies in the face of our current policy of encouraging multi-culturalism and discouraging racial and cultural chauvinism is also not surprising. The somewhat hysterical reactions published here highlight the general PC reaction to any hint of cultural pride, most especially if its proferred from a European Classical perspective. All other cultural racial views are by default “good” and in the best interests of a diverse society. A Euro-Classical perspective is “bad”, its advocates unrepentent racist chauvinists who represent a continuation of an unbroken multi-century legacy of repression and abuse. It’s time we stop kneejerk labeling and recognize that the pursuit of self-interest by any group is a natural byproduct of an open competitive, society. European Americans should be able to advocate and pursue their own political/economic interests without being labeled, stereotyped and pigeonholed. No current living European American has owned slaves, participated as Conquistadors in the conquest of the New World or overseen third world plantations exploiting native labor. Nor should past actions or policies of any group be used to forever label and judge the present living generation.

As for Prof. Macdonald, academic freedom and the tenure system guarantees his right to publish and disseminate controversial viewpoints without fear of dismissal or censure. Whether or not it stands up under peer review should be the ONLY criteria upon which its judged. Not who grabs it and uses it for nefarious purposes. Evolutionary Biology and Psychology is an embryonic science that doesn’t always produce answers any of us are comfortable with, often conflict with religious or cultural “truths” and challenge long-standing beliefs as to how and why we do what we do. It often conflicts with what we would like to be true, but consistently seeks the truth based on the science of evolutionary development of cultures and societies. Has there been any peer criticism of his methodology and conclusions that have been published and is available for general review and comment?

Labeling any perspective or advocacy as a “hate” group presupposes and stereotypes that group. Preference and voluntary association should not presuppose hate or fear towards others as a primary motivator for that free association. Do members of La Reza hate Anglos? B’nai B’rith gentiles? NAACP whites? Are these groups organized for the express purpose of formulating “hate” against all others? I would submit that each group is an advocate of their cultural and/or racial interests in an open competitive society and are organized along mono-cultural or racial lines to pursue those associations and interests.

It’s time we recognize what everyone knows, race and culture matter. Multi-culturalism has not worked well in any state or nation subject to it (Yugoslavia a prime example) and any nation that pursues it soon finds itself a collection of warring sub-cultures fighting for dominance within the state, much to the detriment of the losers in that fight.

Now..! BACK TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS BLOG… Anti-social people in authority.

Bigmo, and R. Lavigueur… you speak a lot of BIG words.

The truth is, as it has been my experience, and I’m drawing on decades of association with literally thousands of people, whom I have had the pleasure of being in close quarters with for extended periods of time… it is my opinion that most people (meaning over 90%) don’t see race… they look foremost at weather or not you speak ‘truthfully’… whether you’re right or wrong is of another issue entirely.

The real problem (issue here) still remains, should ANYONE with bias be allowed to hold key decision-making positions, positions of responsibility, and positions of influence?

Remember Stalin… Hitler… and J. Edgar Hover.

My Point…

I caution you that ANYONE who speaks with unfounded accusation, or incorporates a false belief system is deceptive in character, and irresponsible in their nature, as is demonstrated through their very act. Especially when those accusations and/or beliefs have overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That 10% who control 90% of the wealth (business owners and their bulldogs) have kept almost all of civilization down for a couple of thousand years… how much more are you gonna take?

HOW LONG… do you think the world is gonna wait for them to see with ‘fair’ eyes?

HOW LONG… are ‘you’ gonna keep buying into their BS?

HOW LONG..?

Not long.

Check out the truth about the currency system, and how we WILL correct this most inefficient method of using currency to regulate and control how we govern our resources.

Zeitgeist Movie; NUMBER 3… http://video.google.com/videop.....3163636261

This movie first paints a dim picture… however, it does not stop there… it also introduces a SOLUTION… it is very interesting. However, you must watch the entire movie.

NO… I am not a member of this movement… real and solid ideas don’t just attract your attention… they scream at you. This one SCREAMS!

I think many students want him fired because of his ‘research’ suggesting that Jews are genetically programmed equivilants of viruses attacking their ‘host’ civilizations. This goes well beyond suggesting that whites should be proud of their ethnicity or that we should reconsider immigration policies.

Don’t mistake me, I’m all for debate, but in taking a position like the one MacDonald takes one has to expect that the other side will have things to say. Personally, I strongly support free speech and that includes the free speech of the academia; but a lot of people on both sides of any debate involving ethnicity are going to skip past dialogue and straight to personal attacks. I think treating Jews as a disease constitutes an attack and not dialogue.

As far as his students’ response goes, there can be arguements made both ways. If they don’t want to be taught by such a person, that is their right as paying students at the university, and I don’t think distributing information about his views really violates anyone’s rights. As for trying to get him dismissed, unless there’s a media circus I doubt very strongly he’ll be fired. For most of their history universities have, at least on paper, tried to protect academics from being persecuted for their views no matter how unpopular. The privatization of universities, sadly, has many administrators worrying more about attracting money and less about high minded values like freedom of speech.

The issue is for both sides one of security and justice. Whites worry about the trends in population and the animosity that still exists among some of those who suffered at their hands, fearing eventually discrimination and potentially violence. Non-whites (and some whites for that matter) worry about the increasing anti-immigration rhetoric and fear the result will be a return to previous patterns of violence, exclusion, and a retreat away from any hope of getting past all this. Meanwhile, we already have plenty of hatred in a society that is trying to make everyone (with some exceptions) feel welcome.

My questions seem ideological because this is an ideological issue. Like it or not, race and ethnicity are touchy topics, and the definition of ‘white’ is going to be a problem. I agree that for Jews its the same way, in fact its very hard to define any group of people by a single category. Nor do I deny that many whites do share MacDonald’s concerns, but at the same time I would be quite surprised if many of the students protesting MacDonald were not themselves whites. There are an increasing number of people who don’t worry about race and an increasing number of people who are worried about it, what seems to be disappearing is the middle ground.

In this case, while I understand the concerns of the white population, I have a hard time feeling them myself despite my own whiteness. The election of Obama means a lot to the non-white population of the United States, but many of Obama’s supporters of all backgrounds are finding out that words don’t always translate to action. A lot of animosity remains partly because, despite decades of legal equality and integration, there remains a much deeper connection between race and class in the US than exists in, for example, Canada. For many minorities, it is not so much acting like nothing has really changed as much as the fact that, in their own lives, there really haven’t been that many changes for the better.

My own belief is that the ‘revolution’ won’t be a permanent one, but I don’t think we’ve reached the end of it either. If we had, whites wouldn’t need to fear their neighbours and their neighbours would not have to live with the disadvantages passed on from their parents, disadvantages made by grievances that have been stopped but in very few cases actually repaired. I do indeed worry about the backfire because I know for a fact that I would never want to see the United States or any country become a second Israel. An eye for an eye makes the world blind, and while I fully support dialogue I can’t imagine that separation will change anything for the better. Nor do I believe that MacDonald meant his charge that Jews had led the civil rights movement “in their quest to achieve the eclipse of the political and cultural hegemony of white Americans.” to open such a dialogue.

I don’t think Mcdonald claims he has the answer to all the question you raised. He said he wanted people to be able to be conscious about these issues and to debate them.

However it seems that many people do not want him to. Now there is an intense campaign to have him fired. This to me shows the insecurity of many of the multi-cultural crowd who know many Whites might think like Mcdonald but chose to supress those feelings. A least for now.

AS far as Jews are concerned to this day Jews have not been able to define a common definition of what consititutes a Jew and there is still major conflict among Jews as to who should be considered a Jew.

I think your questions are too ideological. Not everyone will agree as to who is “White”. But I think the issue here is about feelings of security and justice. Macdonald never said Whites feel persecuted but he said they feel nervous about where their ethnicity is heading. He talked about how many ethnic minorities in America have deep grudges against Whites and Whites could find themselves in trouble if they lose power.

There is a lot of truth to that although I believe its other ethnic groups who could be threatened from Whites who might turn to violence to maintain their dominance.

What these students and organization are doing right now in trying to have the professor fired will backfire big time as Whites begin to get convinced that they will be despised no matter what changes have occurred in America’s race relation. They will see clearly that even when there is a Black President, many minority organization will simply act like nothing really changed. Its the ‘permanent revolution” of Leon Trotsky, the permanent stuggle that never ends.

It will backfire big time. You watch.

Has not an injustice of the others equal opportunity rights just been violated?

Isn’t Nepotism illegal in this country?

*** WOW… 62% of Hispanics recorded their race as WHITE… I wonder why they did that? ***

The problem with emulating Israel, well, actually, there are a number of problems with emulating Israel.

We’re talking about a nation that was founded after a period of extremely intense anti-semitism, for largely political reasons, and which endured numerous wars and attempts to destroy it by its neighbouring countries. We’re talking about a nation that flaunts international conventions on warfare and commited ethnic clensing in pushing the Palestinians off their lands. I don’t mean to atteck Israel by any means, but I’m not about to defend the nation’s policy decisions either.

But it is difficult to imagine America going Israel’s route for a number of reasons. First is that, unlike Jews, White Christians have never exactly formed a particularly disadvantaged or persecuted group in the United States or indeed in any part of North America or Europe. Oh certainly there are complaints about affirmative action or increasing immigration, but the former is an attempt (whether justified or not) to deal with previous oppression by said white Christians and the later hardly counts as open discrimination. There is animosity among some groups toward whites as well, but we’re not looking at something that is one-sided or nearly the amount of discrimination and hated that inspired Zionism.

Second, there’s the problem of defining what counts as White or Christian. This might seem straightforward, but in fact these definitions have changed a lot throughout history. Americans once feared losing their Christian heritage because of Catholic immigration, and as far as race is concerned the concept is difficult to define. Virey identified only 2 races, Burke 63, and of course the problem is where does one draw the line? Are the people of Turkey ‘White’? If not, does the line stop somewhere in the Balkans, and what about the situation of Hispanics? Line up everyone in the average American city and try to group them into “white” and “not-white” and it won’t take long before you find yourself running into classification issues.

Third, there is the issue of defining America as White and Christian. Whites in America make up according to recent census about 75% of the population, not counting the 62% of Hispanics that recorded their race as white. As for religion, Christians also make up about 76%, a number that has been in decline for some time. Barring questions of immigration, how is a European and Christian nation to be maintained without oppressing the non-European and non-Christian population that currently lives in the US? When we deal with immigrants themselves, of the top countries currently accounting for the million or so legal immigrants entering the US annually, only Canada would probably fit your definition of white and european, and the 20,000-26,000 Canadians don’t make up a sizable chunk. On top of that, many of us Canadians are neither Christian nor white, and many of us who are support a broad form of multiculturalism.

Those are just some of the considerations that need to be made before attempting to make that demand, since they weigh rather heavily on how likely it is to be accomplished without violence or oppression. The academic community for the most part open to any sort of free speech, but the vast majority of academics have dismissed the concepts of race that seem to be so important to how a lot of people understand their identity. Humans have biological diversity, but it is culture that determines what is to be considered relevant when deciding who fits into what box. The trend in Canada has been toward multiculturalism, in America things seem to go back and forth.

Regardless, those of us who have any experience being in any minority can’t help but shake our heads at how terrified the majority often seems to be at finding itself in a similar situation. It is… amusing to say the least to see whites (of which I am one) bemoaning that they aren’t allowed to take pride in their ethnicity, but perhaps they don’t realize that in some cases the pride and identity that minorities form is one forged in resistance and defiance to the oppression of the majority. Being white and male still remains a privilage in our culture. By all means take pride in who you are, but think carefully before painting yourself as a victim.

on January 31st, 2010 at 3:39 am

I sense a lot of hate right on these pages. Obviously, most of the commentary comes from interested parties, so let’s not kid ourselves. But whether you agree or disagree with MacDonald that is not the point. We should champion intellectual freedom on all American universities. No exceptions. We should reject all attempts at intellectual censorship.

Why not debate Prof. McDonald? Unmask his falsehoods. Truth will prevail. Let freedom ring. Censorship is not the answer.
End Quote

Maybe because the other side fears they might not win. After all Macdonald is abdicating exatly what the ADL and SPLC is abdicating for Jews. They just don’t believe Whites have a right to identify with their own ethnicity.

Thats not an easy sell in an academic environment. Macdonald wants what many jews want for Israel. An immigration policy that maintains America’s European and Christian heritage like Israel’s immigration policy is strictly designed to maintain Israel’s Jewish and Judaic character. Even the indigeneous Palestinians are not included in Israel’s immigration policy as we know. So how can groups like the SPLC talk about Macdonald?

I don’t deny many Whites have hate, but many don’t. But the issue here is do Whites in America have the right to at least demand that America maintains policies that favor its European and Christian heritage.

The answer is yes, but it must do so without violence and oppression. Something that Israel isn’t doing.

Why not debate Prof. McDonald? Unmask his falsehoods. Truth will prevail. Let freedom ring. Censorship is not the answer.

You both made very excellent points. Morrell’s comment that the upsurge in racism is a symptom is quite accurate. Moderates, progressives (and I don’t mean that in any specific political sense, just those who don’t adhere to old fashioned stereotypes of race, religion, sexuality and gender), and the tolerant parts of society look at these hateful people and the horrible things they say on the media and ask ‘why do people believe these things?’

Part of it is tradition or simple bigotry, but I don’t think that’s a satisfactory answer, not for every extremist viewpoint being expressed. Part of it has to do with that often ignored advantage of extremism: if there is a group of people who are evil, immoral, and inferior, than you can blame all of your problems, all of society’s problems, and all of your anger, hatred, and sometimes violence on those people. You can pretend that if those people did not exist, the world would be perfect and that you wouldn’t feel resentment toward anyone. That’s the advantage of enemies, and of black and white systems of morality. Things that relate to you can be defined as good, and the enemy of choice can be blamed for everything bad.

But as Morrell pointed out above, the real problems facing the world have their roots in economy. I’m not familiar enough with the situation in the US to make broad statements, but we can use Clark’s comment about the solidarity and exclusory communities among Hispanic immigrants as an example. As he said, illegal immigration is not done because these people want to destroy the USA, the roots are in deep economic injustices in their own country. Many of these economic problems are the results of trade agreements and policies that benefit nations like the US and Canada as well as a corporate and Mexican elite while the people suffer. In many cases, the agreements don’t even benefit the majority of people in the northern nations.

So the question remains. How do we move from a society that still largely judges people based on irrelevant or unchosen markers like race, gender, etc; and one in which those classes result in increased poverty and difficulties for whoever happens to be in the wrong category, to one in which, again to quote Clark, “Content and Character” are the measures of a person?

A major aspect has to be integration. The fact that a good deal of immigration is illegal and undocumented creates problems here, because these people cannot assimilate themselves with American culture. Indeed, American culture rejects such an association, leading many minority groups to form their own communities. This isn’t a problem restricted to immigrants, nor one restricted to America.

People tend to be less racist if they live in multiracial communities or know and work with people of different races. Ditto for homophobia and religious intolerance, while sexism presents its own unique problems. The problem is that class in America is in many ways still tied to race, and many communities are not integrated or diverse. The media can play a role in helping to make up for that, but at the moment it does not such thing, and I think that it has to go beyond that regardless. People need access to good education and to decent work in decent conditions, and communities need to reach out to each other, both as communities and as individuals.

The problems are too great to be addressed with any one solution, but my own experiences have shown me people tend to have a hard time holding irrational hatred for people they know, live and work together with everyday.

You hit that right on the head… the MEDIA is what keeps this crap perpetuated.

There are (2) solutions to calming down the world.

No. 1) Keep Idiots and Bullies out of key positions in Government, and Management in the private sector.

No. 2) Look at this… it’s gonna blow you away… http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Over 25 million people watched this in the first 3 months that it aired on the internet… it’s 6 hours long if you watch all 3 presentations.

Your last comment is precisely the problem.

The problems is… what happens when one group begins to dominate “in any particular area” but let’s use “economically” as the example.

And, just for the sake of this argument… lets use Hispanics…

It’s a well-known fact that Hispanics put their own first…

Here in Southern California during the last 7 or 8 years over 5 million Hispanics have migrated across the U.S. border (a lot illegally, most gaining citizenship quickly as they marry someone who is already a citizen here). That’s fine, and I congratulate them on finding a way to escaped the extreme poverty and oppressive conditions that they had been forced to live with… but when you adopt the idealism that it is you and only you FIRST… as you become the majority (in any given area) you start all over again the oppressive culture that you have just escaped from, only this time you oppress the other groups and cultures that you have migrated into… that’s right, the very people who helped you in the first place.

As an example… if you’re not Hispanic and you want a job in trucking or construction, it’s too bad, those two occupations are dominated in Southern California by the Hispanics and if you’re not Hispanic you can’t get in… and, as they gain more and more power, authority, and education in those two industries, they are even beginning to push the white owned construction companies “out of business”. They’re also beginning to run and dominate in the banking industry, and use their authority to grant loans and lines of credit to their own where other non-Hispanics still have to meet and qualify to the letter of the law the rigid rules and guidelines set forth buy those same lending institutions.

But I don’t blame them… whitey has been doing it that way for centuries.

It’s funny, whites here in Southern California have begun to become so angry at Mexican and the self-serving culture that they are bring into this country that they are driving their cars into groups of Mexicans they see gathered in the spots where Mexicans gather as “day laborers” running over as many of them as they can… a couple have even been killed or maimed for life.

But, the biggest rebellion and resentment that whites are exhibiting is… 1) The Sudden “closing” of the Mexican border… hay, but wait… I thought it was supposed to closed in the first place… oh I’m sorry, my bad… in order for 7 million to be able to cross over in as little as 7 years… it had to have not been closed in the first place.

Now that they are not content with just being “day labors” and “sweat shop workers” whites suddenly want to close the borders… ha ha ha ha… I’m LMAO.

Oh yes, and let me not forget to mention the statistics that the SPLC has recently released about the increases in hate group activity and recruitment. Here in California white hate group enrollment has increased 3 fold since 2006. I think there’s a Shotgun, American Flag, and a case of Survival Supplies in every other Anglo occupied home in Southern California as we speak.

Hay… what’re you scared of… discrimination doesn’t hurt… hell blacks have been living with it for over 300 years… but then again, you know what that did to blacks… and you don’t want it to happen to you… isn’t that right?

I’ll give you another example… the Irish still run Chicago.

Come on people… get with the program… the United States is quickly becoming number 3 in the world, while we continue to fight amongst ourselves.

…choose “Content and Character” over “race and gender”.

…this is no longer about money… this is about surviving as people.

Personally I’m Irish and African… I don’t see race, I never have… I see only the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

Oh… and the STUPID.

Don’t allow anyone, not even your own… to play the race card.

The “Joker” is not wild… he’s a fool.

Congratulations…

So… it is normal that you would continue to try to defend your argument.

Onward… Does anyone else have any more comments about McDonald, and the mess that Long Beach CA is in?

Currently I am a 10 year resident of Long Beach California… and I’ll tell you now… I do not go out at night in Long Beach.

I spent 16 months on the DMZ in Korea as a Door Gunner 35 years ago… if I tell you that I don’t go out at night in a particular city… you’d better listen.

It’s sad when a 55 year old person gets into an argument with a group of teenagers, and they shoot him 87 times (killing him)… isn’t it!

What we need in “all offices” are people who care about EVEYONE… not just their own.

The attitudes of a people are a direct result of the leadership in place.

Note the NEW direction that the U.S. has headed since the last administration has left… don’t tell me that “one person” can’t influence and entire people.

Listen… everyone in North Korea believes in what that country is doing… despite the fact that everyone else on the entire planet is trying to tell them that they are wrong.

Take it from an old Sergeant… they way you lead can either inspire people or fill them with contempt… the choice is on YOU as a leader.

You will argue that it’s the way those people were brought up… but the truth is, once someone leaves home mommy and daddy’s influence fades… their real opinions, values, and attitudes are formed and shaped by they’re environment… the environment is the culture, the culture is designed by the leadership.

. . . this is what the “white reactionaries” can’t seem to understand – for them it’s always absolutes and “all or nothing”.

As for the rest of your post, Bigmo – you’ve exposed nothing more than the conspiracy theory-ridden mindset of “white reactionaries” . . . there is nothing to very little in your post that is backed up by historical fact.

Almost your entire post consists of the same kind of historical distortion that the Nazi’s foisted upon the German People in order to get them to participate in genocide.

You seem to think thats its issue about racial purity. This is not a German socialism. And Macdonald himself said that German National Socialism was obsessed with this issue as they were a reactionary movement who took these cues from Judaic activism in German society. Judaism as we know is obsessed with racial purity.

Macdonald is more concerned about the future threat that Whites might find themselves when they are surrounded by a majority of ethnic groups with historic grudges against Whites that he believes would not go away. Especially when there is a hostile elite(mostly Jews to him) who have decision making power. Hence his article on Stalin’s willing executioners where he talked about how Jewish Bolsheviks were more than glad to do some of the killings for the Communist in Russia in part due to their historic hostility towards Christianity and European identity.

So his motivation is not purely racial as much as it is an expectation of what a White minority society in America would be like with a Jewish elite.

I’d post many many links showing how wrong & empty-headed your arguments are, but Liesl & Lavigeur beat me to it.

Clark – your posts are typical Right Wing responses.

I mention Beck & Fox News because that is one of the hate-spewing outlets that July gets her “news”, views & rhetoric.

Thank you for writing such an eloquent, intelligent and logical response. You succinctly stated some key concepts that, I think, should be obvious to everyone. I’m glad to have you on my “side” of things.

Yours is a typical student response.

Homosexuality cannot lead to the extinction of life forms, as should be evident by the fact that its existance in every mammal species where we have looked closely at sexual behaviour clearly demonstrates. Your comments are not only extremely offensive to anyone, like myself, who happen to be gay, they are also quite illogical.

I was not talking about animals that once or twice ‘experiment’ with same-sex sexual behaviour, I was referred to animals that engage in this behaviour over long periods of time with the same partner(s). I do not feel attraction to other men ‘because it gives me a greater high’ than my attraction to women. I simply do not feel attraction toward women anymore than you feel attraction toward people of the same gender. I have friends who are bisexual, they experience attraction (not always to the same level) toward both. All three orientations have been demonstrated to exist within humans, they are not changable behaviours.

As for your understanding of evolution, I don’t know where you got your information. Evolution in most species opperates biologically, with physiological and behavioural changes accumulating over many generations. Basically, individuals in a species that succeed in reproducing pass on their traits to the next generation, and those individuals that do not breed do not pass on whatever quirks they might have. Over time, the traits that are most useful for whatever circumstances the species finds itself in come to dominate. There is no direction here, just generational selection over time. By definition, someone who does not have sex with members of the opposite sex will not pass on their DNA and thus cannot lead to extinction of the species.

In humans and other animals evolution has a cultural element; which can change who passes on their DNA based on cultural trends of sexual selection. There is also cultural evolution which is adaptation to changes in the environment through technologies and whatnot. Again, since homosexual behaviour does not lead to DNA being passed to children, it isn’t able to derail our species.

One advantage of a college education, it encourages you to actually research a topic before making claims about it; such as your claims that prove that:

A: You don’t understand how evolution works. Evolution does not begin at the psychological level, it works at a genetic level based on reproduction. Homosexuality cannot harm it because exclusively homosexual behaviour does not pass on DNA. I promise you, I do not mean to suggest that homosexuality is a means of population control; it doesn’t have a specific purpose, it simply exists; one of the many quirks of evolution and life. It hasn’t, however, been demonstrated to threaten anyone.

B: You don’t understand the difference between homosexual behaviour and homosexuality (A British study suggested 13% of men engaged in same-sex sexual behaviour vs. 6% who considered themselves bisexual or gay). This difference is very important, because it separates people like me, who are actually homosexual and have been our entire lives, from people like you, who might have tried such acts once but have no actual desire beyond curiosity to partake in them. I experimented with women, but my body responded much as your description of a curious heterosexual trying gay sex. This might be difficult for you to understand, but its really quite simple.

C: You don’t understand what causes homosexuality and bisexuality. Don’t feel too bad though, neither do sexuality researchers, psychologists, or zoologists. What they do have is a growing body of evidence suggesting that it comes from hormonal and genetic factors in association with environmental factors, and there is more or less a universal rejection among peer-reviewed research that there is nothing unnatural or unhealthy about it and it is more or less set at birth.
Lots of studies have been done on differences in brains of gay men (less studies on lesbians), I’ve come across nothing suggesting a chemical deficiency is to blame. All major health organizations in Canada and the USA universally advise against attempts to change orientation, all efforts so far cause far more harm than good.

PS: I was taught a grand total of nothing about homosexuality in college, save for choosing to write papers on the topics of homophobia and writing my thesis on the experiences of non-heterosexual students in high schools. Since I am gay, I had my own reasons for following that line of questioning. Everything I know about the topic, I learned through my own research, I did not simply hear it stated and decide to blindly follow it.

PPS: A note on my use of statistics, scientific studes, and major psychological and medical associations. Peer-review is the accepted scientific method because it tries to prevent opinion from masquerading as fact. Studies need to be proven to be conducted properly, be unbiased, and be repeatable in order to be considered valid under this model. Peer-reviewed literature almost universally speaks against the viewpoints you raise here, as does the less scientific but not insignificant experiences of millions of non-heterosexual people around the world.
Most of this research can easily be found free online, and I ask you this. Is it more logical to believe that these peer-reviewed studies and the experiences of actual gay and bisexual people are reliable; or should we assume the personal beliefs or individuals who base their understanding of homosexuality off religious texts, their own personal feelings as heterosexuals, and what their traditions tell them are more reliable.
I choose to think for myself and trust the group that goes beyond simple prejudice and gives solid evidence of its position. For the life of me I can’t understand how that makes me a blind follower.

There’s the rub, so to speak. I wondered if the answer to your tripe was as simple as self hatred. Acceptance of what you are is the first step toward understanding and happiness, Clark. There’s no way you’ll be a truly functional person until you accept your sexual orientation as valid and good.

Where did you get that tripe??? That’s where your problem is Clark – you haven’t a CLUE about Science.

Liesl & Lavigeur are correct – and anyone who makes an honest effort at truly open-minded research will come to the conclusion that Sexual Orientation is determined by the time one is born.

. . . and your innuendo that “homosexuality kills” is absolutely (in a word) absurd . . . homosexuality doesn’t kill any more than heterosexuality kills.

That’s why organizations like the SPLC came about in the first place… people (even your own) are tired of all the crap “an unfortunate few” are trying to spoon feed the rest of us.

Rewriting history and distorting the facts… is why the planet is in the shape that it is in, in the first place, and now the entire planet is in jeopardy.

Stop playing, grow up… and take some RESPONSIBILITY… not just Financial Responsibility… but REAL Responsibility… before the entire WORLD rallies against you.

If what you are saying is true “R. Lavigueur, and Liesl” and you are rational enough to understand that this could possibly lead to the extinction of all life forms and we know it… it makes it even more absurd that you would try to condone it.

I’ll even venture to say, that if what you are saying IS TRUE… that digging a little deeper would probably uncover that there is a cause for these occurrences in nature… and… that man knows about it and it’s cause, but still continues to pollute our air, and our oceans.

AGAIN I STATE… this is an Illogical Act… and if you practice it… YOU ARE IRRATIONAL.

I’ll also tell you that all men (and animals) look at, and have touched another males genitals (I think all men have had at least one sexual encounter with someone of the same sex)… it’s called curiosity… but I’ll also tell you that the FIRST time you do that you know that something’s Just Not Right About That, and you stop. You realize that you are OUT OF ORDER, and you discontinue.

The ultimate High… is living on the edge (we’ve all been there)… if you make that you’re life style… you are reckless.

Reckless behavior is a psychological dysfunction… whether be it willfully or chemically induced or a change in nature… there is still something OUT OF ORDER.

If you think that modern life forms are evolving to being able to reproduce independently and solely … I think that would be nature retreating not advancing. Whether the universe is expanding or contracting is irrelevant… it is still “advancing in time” not “retreating”. I do not think we are going back to the days when the Ameba ruled the world.

This is either a chemical, or a psychological imbalance… the widespread-ness of the evidence you suggest about the other species and life forms would also suggest that the imbalance is chemical… understanding this and you still condone or practice this further suggest that the practitioners who engage have gone beyond the ability to willfully disengage, and that our work should focus even more strongly on the cause of this disillusionment occurring in nature and the inability of the species not being able to discern the difference.

Psychological in the advanced, and chemical is the more primitive.

Either way… ALL EVOLUTION… begins psychologically.

I think, so therefore I am, and I will continue to create, so long as the elements are available to me in the universe.

Maybe man has gone too far… inducing change where it is not warranted.

Don’t destroy the Earth… preserve life.

P.S. Lavigueur; Homosexuality is not an attempt to “control and moderate reproduction”… it is an attempt TO STOP IT. It is a blatant disregard for that Responsibility… knowing this… makes it Irrational. The Rational approach would be to moderate that until we understand clearer this phenomenon and why.

Drunkard-ness is chemically induced and counterproductive to your longevity… once realizing this most Rational people STOP.

Those that do not or can not, are found to have a chemical imbalance in the brain… without which induces a psychological craving… not solely physical because going without does not induce death, and can be overcome with time… but the psychological craving… is permanent.

Pharmaceutical companies are now trying to produce a chemical that will replace that chemically deficiency in that area of the brain (estimates are that this deficiency occurs in about 10% of the population)… until a medical solution is reached, that 10% of the population having this deficiency must rely on their WILL… if they don’t want to die.

Your argument will be that homosexuality never killed anyone… but that is because you are short sighted and have not yet learned to resolve what facts and statistics really mean.

That’s the only problem with collage, it does not give purples the ability to Think for themselves… but solely relay on what they are told.

In shot it breads a society of shortsighted statistic filled brains… brains lacking the ability to Reason… for themselves.

Ever wonder why most who START businesses are not college graduates… maybe they see something the rest of us don’t.