Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 26th, 2010 #61
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NY, nigger and fag capitol of the east!!
Posts: 93

Originally Posted by Tom Stanley View Post
I know that a lot of Jewish folk are very "sexually conservative". I don't think these articles are significant.
Hey Tom, very insightful comment! I bet you think all negroes are like Denzel Washington and Will Smith, always doing the right thing and saving stupid whites from various disasters!! Pull your head out of your ass and quit saying stupid things!!! Did you bother to read the 40 or so posts before you made your retarded statement??? I doubt it!!! Go watch Seinfield episodes to from your opinion of jews!!!! Idiots like you are the reason whites are in so much [email protected]#@##@#@!!!!!
Old August 28th, 2010 #62
Xuxalina Rihhia
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: FUCK YOU!
Posts: 1,477

Originally Posted by Tom Stanley View Post
I know that a lot of Jewish folk are very "sexually conservative". I don't think these articles are significant.
satan is a Jew!
Old August 28th, 2010 #63
Xuxalina Rihhia
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: FUCK YOU!
Posts: 1,477

Originally Posted by Gman View Post
Hey Tom, very insightful comment! I bet you think all negroes are like Denzel Washington and Will Smith, always doing the right thing and saving stupid whites from various disasters!! Pull your head out of your ass and quit saying stupid things!!! Did you bother to read the 40 or so posts before you made your retarded statement??? I doubt it!!! Go watch Seinfield episodes to from your opinion of jews!!!! Idiots like you are the reason whites are in so much [email protected]#@##@#@!!!!!
Playboy and later Penthouse, Chic and other filthy rags was founded by the Jewvandals...and from the very beginning to now they have subtly encouraged pedophilic sex. Go to Jewtube and type in Kinsey Syndrome and you'll find out. I fucking won't look at pornography since it is a Jewish thing, meant to degrade men and women, encourage pedophilia and a whole host of perversities. They started the Sexual Revolution in 1953 with Playboy and it's not just a "girlie" magazine as I have mentioned. Jews have thoroughly ruined us wherever they are allowed to infest nations.. They are behind all the major disasters including the BP disaster. They have vandalized nations throughout history, so they are nothing but scum. Hitler was Right and I would have deserted the Ameriqaedan army to become one of Hitler's men. I certainly did NOT vote for Obongo, who is half-Jew half nigger! I would not have voted for McCain, because even though he is most likely white, he's married to a filthy Jewpig sow. Fuck the Jews, Fuck IsraHELL, fuck porn, fuck the feds and fuck Obongo! I hate them all and spit on them!

Gman, go see "Kinsey Syndrome" on Jewtube and you'll see the real story behind porn. I don't want anything to do with it as a White man. Heil Hitler! 14/88!
Old February 26th, 2011 #64
Dale VanderMeer
Your Pro-White Neighbor...
Dale VanderMeer's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Somewhere On Your Block Or Road...
Posts: 4,353
Blog Entries: 9
Dale VanderMeer
Default More jewish Pornographers...

Micheal Whiteacre, jewish pornographer, and proud of it.:

Michael_Whiteacre Michael_Whiteacre
Old April 2nd, 2011 #65
Mike Parker
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker

John Schlesinger

Born John Richard Schlesinger
16 February 1926(1926-02-16)
London, England, U.K.
Died 25 July 2003(2003-07-25) (aged 77)
Palm Springs, California, U.S.

John Richard Schlesinger, CBE (16 February 1926 – 25 July 2003) was an English film and stage director and actor.

Early life Schlesinger was born in London into a middle-class Jewish family,[1] the son of Winifred Henrietta (née Regensburg) and Bernard Edward Schlesinger, a physician.[2] After Uppingham School and Balliol College, Oxford, he worked as an actor.

Career Schlesinger's acting career began in the 1950s and consisted of supporting roles in British films such as The Divided Heart and Oh... Rosalinda!!, and British television productions such as BBC Sunday Night Theatre and The Vise. He began his directorial career in 1956 with the documentary short Sunday in the Park about London's Hyde Park. By the 1960s, he had virtually given up acting to concentrate on a directing career, and another of his earlier directorial efforts, the British Transport Films' documentary Terminus (1961), gained a Venice Film Festival Gold Lion and a British Academy Award. His first two fiction movies, A Kind of Loving (1962) and Billy Liar (1963) were set in the North of England. A Kind of Loving won the Golden Bear award at the 12th Berlin International Film Festival in 1962.[3]

His third, Darling (1965), tartly described the modern urban way of life in London and was one of the first films about 'swinging London'. Schlesinger's next film was the period drama Far From the Madding Crowd (1967), an adaptation of Thomas Hardy's popular novel. Both films featured Julie Christie as the female lead. Schlesinger's next film, Midnight Cowboy (1969), filmed in the United States, was internationally acclaimed. A story of two hustlers living on the fringe in the bad side of New York City, it was Schlesinger's first movie shot in the U.S., and it won Oscars for Best Director and Best Picture. During the 1970s, he made an array of movies about loners, losers, and people outside the clean world. Later, after Honky Tonk Freeway (1981), he worked on films that attracted mixed responses from the public, and few dollars. In Britain, he did better with films like Madame Sousatzka (1988) and Cold Comfort Farm (1995).

His later films include Sunday Bloody Sunday (1971), The Day of the Locust (1975), Marathon Man (1976), Yanks (1979), The Falcon and the Snowman (1985), Pacific Heights (1990), the TV play A Question of Attribution (1991), The Innocent (1993) and The Next Best Thing (2000).

Schlesinger also directed Timon of Athens (1965) for the Royal Shakespeare Company and the musical I and Albert (1972) at London's Piccadilly Theatre. From 1973 he was an associate director of the Royal National Theatre.

Openly gay himself, Schlesinger dealt with homosexuality in Darling, Midnight Cowboy, Sunday Bloody Sunday, and The Next Best Thing, and two of the main characters in Marathon Man are implicitly gay[citation needed]. Speaking about the unflattering portrayal of homosexuality in Midnight Cowboy, he stated that he was against political correctness and the self-censorship it encourages, which would prevent such a film from being made today.[citation needed] In 1991, Schlesinger made a rare return to acting by appearing in a cameo role in the BBC made-for-television film The Lost Language of Cranes, in which he played a gay character.

Schlesinger also directed a notable party political broadcast for the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom general election of 1992 which featured Prime Minister John Major returning to Brixton in south London, where he had spent his teenage years, which highlighted his humble background, atypical for a Conservative politician. Schlesinger admitted to having voted for all three main political parties in the UK at one time or another.

The book and TV series The Glittering Prizes, written by Frederic Raphael, who won the Best Screenwriting Oscar for his work on Schlesinger's film Darling, feature a character believed to be based on Schlesinger.[citation needed]

Sexuality In his Diaries – 2003, Alan Bennett describes Schlesinger as "wonderfully funny, particularly about his sex life" and that, despite being "short, solid and fat", Schlesinger was "surprisingly successful in finding partners".

Not invariably though. Sometime in the 1970s he was in New York bath house where the practice was for someone wanting a partner to leave the cubicle door open. This Schlesinger accordingly did and lay monumentally on the table under his towel waiting for someone to pass by. A youth duly did and indeed ventured in, but seeing this mound of flesh laid out on the slab recoiled, saying "Oh, please. I couldn't. You've got to be kidding." Schlesinger closed his eyes and said primly: "A simple 'No' will suffice."[4]

Bennett was invited to speak at Schlesinger's memorial service held on 30 September 2003. Feeling that the bath house story would be inappropriate, he gave Schlesinger's own account of his investiture with the CBE.

John was so aware of his sexuality that he managed to detect a corresponding awareness in the unlikeliest of places. On this occasion HMQ had a momentary difficulty getting the ribbon round his sizeable neck, whereupon she said "Now, Mr. Schlesinger, we must try and get this straight," the emphasis according to John very much hers and which he took as both a coded acknowledgement of his situation and a seal of royal approval.[5]

Death Schlesinger underwent a quadruple heart bypass in 1998, before suffering a stroke in December 2000. He was taken off life support at Desert Regional Medical Center in Palm Springs on 24 July 2003 by his life partner of over 30 years, photographer Michael Childers. Schlesinger died early the following day at the age of 77.

Filmography Feature and television films (as Director)
A Kind of Loving (1962)
Billy Liar (1963)
Darling (1965)
Far From the Madding Crowd (1967)
Midnight Cowboy (1969)
Sunday Bloody Sunday (1971)
Visions of Eight (1973)
The Day of the Locust (1975)
Marathon Man (1976)
Yanks (1979)
Honky Tonk Freeway (1981)
Privileged (1982)
Separate Tables (1983) (TV)
An Englishman Abroad (1983) (TV)
The Falcon and the Snowman (1985)
The Believers (1987)
Madame Sousatzka (1988)
Pacific Heights (1990)
A Question of Attribution (1991) (TV)
The Innocent (1993)
Cold Comfort Farm (1995) (TV)
Eye for an Eye (1996)
The Tale of Sweeney Todd (1998) (TV)
The Next Best Thing (2000)

John_Schlesinger John_Schlesinger
Old June 11th, 2011 #66
Mike Parker
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker

Shag the Dog

By William Saletan
Posted Thursday, April 5, 2001

Years ago, advocates of sexual abstinence came up with a clever motto to instill chastity in youngsters. "Pet your dog, not your date," they preached. They may live to regret those words. The love that dare not bark its name is now a front-page topic, raised at White House news conferences and in state legislatures, thanks largely to philosopher Peter Singer. In an essay titled "Heavy Petting," Singer asks: What's wrong with fondling Fido? The essay, coupled with two scandals involving sex with dogs—one confirmed in Maine and the other alleged by investigators in California—has elicited cries of outrage and disgust. But the outcry has been largely thoughtless. It's easy to say that becoming more than friendly with man's best friend is wrong. What's hard is backing up that statement with a principle, and reconciling that principle with your beliefs about meat-eating, sexual orientation, or, in Singer's case, pedophilia.

Singer's essay tackles a series of objections to doggie-style intimacy. The first is that it's unnatural. If nature had wanted you to mate with your pet, the argument goes, you'd be able to procreate together. Singer points out, however, that we've come to tolerate other non-procreative practices, such as contraception, masturbation, oral gratification, and homosexuality. But isn't sex with animals a uniquely radical affront to tradition? Nope. Dog-bites-man is the oldest story around. Singer cites literary and anthropological evidence that humans throughout history have been attracted to animals—swans, horses, dogs, satyrs, calves—and some have acted on that attraction. OK, but aren't these acts cruel and harmful? Not necessarily, says Singer. "Sex with animals does not always involve cruelty."

So why the taboo? According to Singer, it's because we think we're intrinsically and categorically superior to other species. This is the dogma that Singer really wants to penetrate. "We are animals," he writes. "This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings."

Conservative editorialists have doggedly denounced and ridiculed Singer's argument. None of them, however, has explained what's wrong with it. The answer matters, because the principle that makes sex with animals immoral—whatever that principle is—must apply to other issues as well. The Weekly Standard, for instance, faults Singer's nonchalant reaction to an incident in which a lusty, "powerful" orangutan seized a woman "like a drunken frat boy." Is the Standard saying that this incident amounts to a kind of sexual harassment? Is Singer a cad for tolerating it? Then why does the Standard publish articles brushing aside "hypersensitivity to 'harassment' and 'date rape' "?

Or take the Wall Street Journal editorial page. The Journal derides Singer for condoning puppy love while his animal rights buddies demand "intolerable paperwork" from researchers who use animals in lab experiments. But if we want rules about what's done to animals by their owners, why not make rules about what's done to them in labs? The same logic applies to mockery of Singer's vegetarianism. "You could say Singer's take on animal rights is: You can have sex with them, but don't eat them," jokes conservative columnist Debra Saunders. That's funny. But you could just as easily ask those of us who eat meat why, if it's wrong to rape animals, it's OK to kill them.

Liberals have a different problem. Most of them want to say that sex with your dog is wrong, but sex with a human of your own gender isn't. The trouble is, Singer explicitly connects the two practices (both are non-procreative), and people who advocate sex with animals—"zoophiles," as they prefer to be called—borrow the language of gay liberation. "I'm the first out-of-the-closet 'zoo' to be attacked because of my sexual orientation," Philip Buble, a zoophile, told the Bangor Daily News four months ago. Buble says the "relationship" between man and beast "can develop to be a sexual one." Testifying before a Maine legislative committee a week ago, Buble accused proponents of a ban on animal sexual abuse of trying "to force morality on a minority. It will be a disservice to zoo couples and would keep zoo couples from coming out of the closet and drive us deeper underground." Commenting on Dearest Pet, the book that inspired Singer's essay, other zoophiles articulate an "alternative sexual lifestyle" defined by "loving relationships with their animal lovers."

Then there's the case of the killer dogs in San Francisco. Last week, Marjorie Knoller and her husband, Robert Noel, were collared on manslaughter charges because two dogs in their care mauled to death their neighbor, Diane Whipple. Knoller and Noel, who are lawyers, claim they were taking care of the dogs on behalf of Paul "Cornfed" Schneider, a client whom they have adopted as their son while he serves a life sentence for attempted murder. According to a prison guard's affidavit, documents found in Schneider's possession include a photo of a male dog's genitals, "numerous photos of Knoller posing nude with fighting dog drawings," and a letter from the couple that discusses "sexual activity between Noel, Knoller and the dog" that subsequently killed Whipple. When the first vague report of the photos surfaced, Noel told the San Francisco Chronicle, "I'm not going to confirm it or deny it," adding, "There used to be a time when guy-on-guy or woman-on-woman relationships were looked at as unnatural acts. What concern is it to anybody if there is or isn't a personal relationship?"

The last thing liberals want is to see homosexuality equated with this kind of animal husbandry. While portraying Whipple and her lesbian partner as a loving couple, they dismiss the Noel-Knoller-Schneider-dog "family" as a twisted sham. But what makes one family real and the other fake? Is it monogamy? Fidelity? Commitment? Effort? A New Republic article suggests as much: "[A] fundamental reason for prohibiting sex with animals is the human desire to join sex [with love] and our recognition of the complexity of that joining, the care with which it must be nurtured and disciplined, the ease with which it is disrupted and led astray."

Strange as it may seem, however, it's hard to prove that Philip Buble doesn't nurture and discipline his love for the canine companion he calls "Lady Buble." He's a one-dog man. A month ago, when Buble's father was sentenced to jail for attacking him with a crowbar—in part out of disgust with Buble's "lifestyle"—Buble sent a formal request to the judge. "I'd like my significant other to attend by my side if possible as she was present in the house during the attack, though not an eyewitness to it, thank goodness," Buble wrote. "I've been informed your personal permission is needed given that my wife is not human." In his legislative testimony a week ago, Buble declared that he and Lady "live together as a married couple. In the eyes of God we are truly married."

Let's try another criterion. How about harm? Many animal rights activists say this is what's wrong with human-animal copulation, as opposed to gay sex. But that dog won't hunt, either. Singer points out that some sex acts between humans and animals "don't seem to do harm to animals." Is Buble harming the dog for whose emotional well-being he expressed such concern in his letter to the judge? Good luck proving it. In last week's testimony, Buble said zoophiles are born to care for animals. He denied that their physical interaction with their pets includes abuse. And he added that zoophiles do far less harm to animals than hunters, meat-eaters, and medical experiments do. It's hard to argue with that.

How about consent? Village Voice columnist Norah Vincent argues that homosexuality is permissible because "sexual acts between consenting adults should be beyond the prurient reach of the state." However,

When someone has sex with an animal, he foists himself on a creature that has the mental and emotional capacity of a child. Thus, it is no more capable than a child of giving meaningful consent. … [I]f you have had sex with someone who is constitutionally incapable of giving anything that might constitute meaningful consent, you have committed rape. At the very least you have taken advantage of a creature over which you exercise considerable power.

Now we're onto something. The evidence that consent is morally essential—and that animals don't really give it—comes from zoophiles themselves. Dearest Pet reportedly suggests that many artistic images of male animals penetrating women are fantasies projected by men. The usual scenario, according to more reliable records cited in the book, is a man penetrating an animal for his own satisfaction. Singer essentially concedes his vulnerability on the consent issue by ducking it. He defends one scenario in which a dog tries to mount a human visitor's leg, and another in which an orangutan grabs a female attendant. Each scenario presumes the animal's initiative. Likewise, Buble goes through a dog-and-pony show to persuade people that his pet consents to their putative marriage. His letter to the judge included, next to his signature, a paw print purporting to represent the signature of "Lady Buble." But in forging his partner's consent, Buble screwed the pooch. Readers of the letter recognized that the paw print had been drawn by hand, and a Daily News reader discerned another discrediting detail: "I also noticed in the picture of Buble and his Lady that the Ms. wears a choke collar. A willing participant indeed."

So one mystery is solved. If you want to say that contraception, sodomy, and homosexuality are OK but sex with animals isn't, you can stipulate (as Slate's "Chatterbox" does) that sex is permissible only if both parties consent to it. This still leaves you with the problem of explaining why it's OK to kill and eat animals. But two other mysteries remain. One is Singer's position on consent. Does he think sex without consent is immoral? What mental capacities are necessary to give consent? Do animals have those capacities? Who else has those capacities? This line of questioning converges with the other mystery. "One by one, the taboos have fallen," Singer writes in his review of Dearest Pet, building up to the subject of zoophilia. The book's publisher calls sex with animals "the last taboo." But it can't be the last taboo, because there's another subject on which Singer, while freely discussing the charms and merits of zoophilia, seems strangely muzzled. The telling issue—the dog that didn't bark—is pedophilia.

A philosopher's duty is to clarify his principles and defend their consistent application. Those who embrace the principle of consent, and who agree that an animal "is no more capable than a child of giving meaningful consent," have done both. They have stated their principle and applied it to sex with children. What about Singer? He has often compared the mental ability of higher animals to that of children. Does he think this level of comprehension is sufficient to give consent to sex? If the answer is no, isn't zoophilia wrong? If the answer is yes, isn't pedophilia OK? Dog paddling, an old dog's new tricks, dog-eat-dog, a three-dog night—that's kid stuff. You want to take on a real taboo, Professor Singer? Stand up and be a man.

Singer's parents were Viennese Jews who escaped the German annexation of Austria and fled to Australia in 1938. They settled in Melbourne, where Singer was born. His grandparents were less fortunate: his paternal grandparents were taken by the Nazis to Łódź, and were never heard from again; his maternal grandfather died in Theresienstadt.
Peter_Singer Peter_Singer
Old June 11th, 2011 #67
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
jewsign 100,000 Turn Out for 'Gay Pride' Parade in Tel Aviv

Thousands of people took part in the Tel Aviv gay pride parade on Friday, held under heavy security. Several main roads in the city were blocked for traffic.

Dancers, singers and speakers graced the stage of the main event at the Meir Park, including Opposition Chairwoman Tzipi Livni and Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai.,7...080379,00.html
Old June 11th, 2011 #68
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,414

Jews have been behind the legitimization of homosexuality and sexual deviance since Humanist Manifesto I, and before...
Old June 21st, 2011 #69
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
Default Why Does ADL Support Homosexuality?

Why Does ADL Support Homosexuality?

" The ADL knows that the fastest way to destroy existing society is through homosexuality.

Historically, no nation pervaded by sodomy endured for long.

It’s for this reason that Jewish Bolshevik Bella Kuhn, conquering Hungary after the Russian Revolution in 1917, force-fed homosexuality into the curriculum of public education, transforming Hungary’s youth into moral degenerates.

The same thing is happening today as ADL promotes homosexuality in our school system, even from the kindergarten level.

Several years ago, through Barnes and Noble bookstores, ADL promoted homosexuality through their “No Place for Hate” program. It encouraged families visiting the bookstores to invite a homosexual couple to their home for an evening. This would teach kids, ADL suggested, that there’s no truth in Christian judgments against sodomy. Gays, ADL says, are some of the nicest, most non-threatening folks your kids can get to know.

In major US cities, ADL indoctrinates city governments, schools, even liberal churches, that Biblical Christians are gripped by a psychiatric disorder: “homophobia.” ADL says bigoted Christians persecute homosexuals, and are motivated by “hate literature,” the Bible.

Outlawing Criticism of Sodomy

Yet ADL wants more than to persuade our children to become homosexuals. It seeks special legal protection for homosexuality, making it a “hate crime” to exhibit bias or discrimination against those who practice it. ADL wants homosexuals protected, not just in housing, employment and same-sex marriage, but even from words! ADL claims it should be illegal to even criticize same-sex behaviors in public.

To create these laws, ADL has contrived a twisted definition of hate: “bias” against homosexuality. In countries such as Canada, thanks to ADL/B’nai B’rith federal and provincial hate laws, public expressions of such bias on the air waves, print media, or even on the street corner, can mean exorbitant fines or imprisonment. If a talk show host even suggests that homosexuals have a higher rate of AIDS, he can be fined and jailed, and the radio station airing his “hate” can lose its broadcast license.
Old July 1st, 2011 #70
Mike Parker
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker

Kameny, Frank (b. 1925)

Frank Kameny is one of the founding fathers of the American gay rights movement. He helped radicalize the homophile movement, preparing the way for the mass movement for equality initiated by the Stonewall Rebellion of 1969.

He was born Franklin Edward Kameny on May 21, 1925, into a New York middle-class Jewish family. A prodigy who had taught himself to read by the age of four, he entered Queens College at the age of 15 to study physics. He interrupted his education, however, to serve in the armed forces during World War II. After the war he returned to his studies, and in 1956 he received a Ph.D. in astronomy from Harvard University.

Upon graduation Kameny moved to Washington, D. C. to join the faculty of Georgetown University. In July 1957, after one year of teaching, Kameny obtained a civil service job as an astronomer with the United States Army Map Service and began what he hoped would be a fulfilling scientific career. However, events over the next couple of years changed the direction of his life forever.

Late one night in 1957, Kameny was arrested on a morals charge in Lafayette Park, a popular gay cruising area in Washington, D. C. He was released, and nothing immediately came of the incident. It was not long afterward, however, that an investigator from the Civil Service Commission came to question him about rumors that he was a homosexual.

That fall, after serving in his job for only a few months, Kameny was fired from the Map Service, and early the next year he learned that he had been barred from all future employment in the federal government. A victim of the McCarthy-era regulations that branded homosexuals as potential traitors and unfit for government employment, Kameny found his career in ruins.

This experience drove Kameny to militant activism. "My dismissal amounted to a declaration of war against me by the government," Kameny later said, "and I tend not to lose my wars." Kameny attempted to sue the government to get his job back, a lengthy process that went through several appeals. However, all his legal efforts came to naught, including filing his own petition to the United States Supreme Court, which was denied in 1961.

Having failed to achieve his goal as an individual, he resolved that it was time to organize and work within a group. Kameny and his friend Jack Nichols established the Mattachine Society of Washington, D. C. in August 1961. Although the Washington group took its name from the Los Angeles-based homophile organization, the two were not affiliated.

The Mattachine Society of Washington, D. C.'s first official meeting was held on November 15, 1961 and drew about a dozen men and women. Kameny was elected as the group's first president. In opposition to many gay leaders at the time, Kameny embraced direct action and sought contact with public officials rather than hiding from them. Kameny believed that gay people should fight a "down-to-earth, grass-roots, sometimes tooth-and-nail battle" against discrimination.

Under Kameny's leadership, the Mattachine Society of Washington, D. C. charged to the forefront of the emerging homophile movement, in many ways anticipating the militancy that was to be unleashed among gay men and lesbians generally by the Stonewall Rebellion of 1969.

Reflecting the specific concerns of its Washington, D. C. members, Kameny's group focused its efforts on removing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation from civil service employment, as well as on granting gay men and lesbians security clearances and qualifying them for service in the military.

In April 1965, the group organized the first gay demonstration at the White House. A dozen or so gay men and lesbians, including Kameny and Barbara Gittings, dressed in business attire, carried signs reading "First Class Treatment for Homosexuals" and "Civil Service Commission is Un-American."

A few months after that demonstration, the U. S. Court of Appeals issued a ground-breaking decision. The court held that rejection of an application for federal employment on the grounds of "homosexual conduct" was "too vague." The Civil Service Commission, the court ruled, failed to state "why [homosexuality] related to occupational competence or fitness."

After a number of similar court decisions were handed down over the next ten years, the Civil Service Commission finally amended its anti-gay policy in 1975.

The Mattachine D. C. group also published, irregularly, a newsletter, The Gazette, which they mailed not only to members but also to politicians and policy makers throughout Washington, including J. Edgar Hoover, director of the F. B. I. In fact, an F. B. I. agent once met with Kameny and requested that Hoover be taken off the mailing list. However, Hoover's name remained on the list until his death in 1972.

In addition to battling discrimination in civil service employment, Kameny also sought to challenge the negative images of homosexuals prevalent in the 1960s. Toward that goal, he coined the slogan "Gay is Good." The slogan was later adopted by the 1968 North American Conference of Homophile Organizations (NACHO).

In 1971 Kameny participated in the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, where he accused psychiatrists of victimizing gay men and women with their unscientific theories of homosexuality. He urged the APA to remove homosexuality from its list of psychiatric illnesses, which the organization eventually did in 1973.

In 1971, Kameny became the first openly gay person to run for congress. Competing for D. C.'s non-voting seat in the House of Representatives, Kameny came in fourth among six candidates. He used the campaign to call attention to the inequities experienced by homosexuals in a country in which the government "wages a relentless war against us."

Kameny is also a cofounder of the National Gay Task Force and the Gay Rights National Lobby. In 1975, he was appointed a Commissioner of the D. C. Commission on Human Rights, becoming the first openly gay municipal appointee. He also personally drafted the bill that repealed D. C.'s sodomy law, which was finally enacted in 1993.

In recent years, Kameny has finally received the recognition he is due, not only from the glbtq community, but from the United States itself. In 2006, for example, the Library of Congress acquired Kameny's papers; and in 2007 the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History featured the picket signs he carried in front of the White House in 1965 in its exhibit "Treasures of American History."

In February 2009, Kameny's home in Washington was designated as a D.C. Historic Landmark by the District of Columbia's Historic Preservation Review Board.

Perhaps most gratifying of all, on June 29, 2009, John Berry, Director of the Office of Personnel Management in the Obama administration, formally apologized to Kameny on behalf of the U.S. government. Berry, who is openly gay, characterized the government's firing of him as a "shameful action," and also presented Kameny with the Theodore Roosevelt Award, the department's most prestigious award.
Old May 4th, 2012 #71
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
Default "Pro-Homosexual 'GCB' Reflects Liberal Jewish Agenda "

2 May 12
quoteFor at least the past decade, ABC has aggressively portrayed homosexual characters as normal, funny and endearing. In 2011, ABC received an excellent rating from GLAAD for its inclusive portrayals of homosexuality, which occur in 55 percent of its primetime programming. Good Christian Bitches is nothing new in its glowing depiction of gay characters. It only breaks ground by blatantly contrasting the likable homosexual, Blake, to backstabbing Christian hypocrites. He exudes charm as he initiates sexual relationships, Brokeback Mountain-style, with the foremen who work on his ranch. He is a pillar of the church and kind husband to a wife with her own sexual arrangements. Jewish executive producer Darren Star and Jewish homosexual director Alan Poul present him as lovable and loyal. (See The Jews Behind Good Christian Bitches (GCB)) In contrast, ABC consistently portrays heterosexual “Christian” marriages as dysfunctional, unsustainable and supremely uninviting.

Why does big media tirelessly work to normalize deviant sexuality and break down traditional marriage?

To answer that question, we must go back to the origins of liberalism in America. Consider the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. In 1918 Winston Churchill, in an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, said:

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian revolution by these international and, for the most part, atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principle inspiration and driving power came from the Jewish leaders…

And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of anti-Christ were destined to originate among the same people and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestation both of the divine and diabolical. (See Jewish Activists Created Communism)

Socialism Comes to America

The Encyclopedia Judaica, in its article on Franklin D. Roosevelt, tells us a flood of Marxist Jews came to America during the early 20th century and preached socialism to the working class. Franklin Roosevelt’s liberal policies “endeared him to the Jewish community, which shared his overriding commitment to the welfare state. In fact, so pervasive was Jewish influence in Roosevelt’s experiment to socialize America that the pejorative epithet ‘Jew deal’ became prominent among anti-Semitic elements.”

The Judaica describes the creation of 20th century liberalism. For more than a century, liberalism has pitted itself against Christian values and traditions. It has striven to substitute secular, immoral, globalist values that will eventually make America amenable to participation in a Zionist-controlled new world order. (See 'Babylon the Great' is Israel)

In all polls of American Jews, more than 80 percent are strongly liberal. The Jewish community at large supports abortion, hate crimes laws, unrestrained immigration, evolution, and radical feminism. Polls consistently show upwards of 80 percent of Jews voted for Obama as well as Democrats in Congress. The same percentage endorse same-sex marriage.

Jews dominate such anti-Christian “civil liberties” groups as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and People for the American Way. No Jewish attack group more completely represents the liberal Jewish community than the Anti-Defamation League. While Jewish-dominated Hollywood and "big three" TV networks have normalized homosexuality in culture, ADL has worked to establish it legally and make homosexuality not only protected but privileged.

ADL’s pro-homosexual influence can be seen in California.

In 2007 California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law S.B. 777, legislation replete with ADL language. It outlaws Biblical criticism of homosexuality in public schools. Christians must watch their kids be corrupted by an educational system that demonizes their “bias” against sodomy.

This ban on the Bible is not a rare edict. It's the result of massive, purposeful social engineering throughout the past half century but begun in earnest in 1985 by ADL. ADL is architect of "anti-bias" educational programs worldwide.

America was founded on tolerance, as a place where people of widely diverse races, religions, and creeds could follow their convictions free of persecution. But America's founders hardly believed vice should be embraced! Early Americans believed the opposite: Families, social groups and even government should encourage "bias" against all forms of vice. These include robbery, graft, prostitution, and that vice so unnatural it was virtually unmentionable: sodomy.

In the early 1980s, Jewish-dominated media determined to create as much damage as possible from the 60's sexual revolution they promoted. They encouraged not just drug culture, abortion and fornication but especially "gay rights." In league with Jewish media, ADL's social re-engineering of America and the world has been largely accomplished through its massive "World of Difference" educational program. In 1985 ADL began an educational thrust that encompassed all levels of public education, government, corporations, and social organizations. ADL relentlessly taught millions there must be no bias against race, religion, or "sexual orientation." All bias is very bad. No one is entitled to claim that his religion or sexual orientation is right and another's wrong.

When we convince ourselves that our way is the "right way," we are more likely to strike out at those who are different. In fact, intolerance of differences is at the roots of most violence. (See

First Step: Make Bias Socially Taboo

To eventually criminalize bias against homosexuality, ADL first had to make it a violation of social norms. Since 1985 "more than 375,000 elementary and secondary school teachers, responsible for nearly 12 million students," have participated in ADL's "World of Difference" program. These included anti-bias programs beginning as early as ages 3-5. Lesson formats such as "I Belong to Many Groups" foster global, not religious or national, loyalty.

ADL sensitivity training programs in corporate America taught business owners to defer to homosexuals. Decades of conditioning prepared American businesses for ADL's workplace bias crime laws on the federal and state level.

In 2004 ADL introduced their "No Place for Hate" program, which boldly encourages American families to embrace homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc. "No Place for Hate" literature has been promoted by Barnes and Noble bookstores and at local chapters across the nation. It encourages families with young children to invite a homosexual couple for dinner, fun, and fellowship. This, ADL says, will help destroy any “homophobic” attitudes developing in young minds.

ADL also teaches law enforcement at all levels to recognize and report bias crimes. It conditions US Justice Department officials, FBI, and all police departments to believe verbal "intimidation" of homosexuals is a hate crime and that "gay bashing" may well be traceable to evangelical pulpits.

The Fruits of ADL's Labors

In the 1980s ADL led countless young people away from Biblical "homophobic" bias against homosexuality. They now teach police, jurists, and administrators who guide and enforce America's public policy. As in Canada and now California, this policy increasingly privileges homosexuals, viewing them as beleaguered victims of Christian intolerance. For 27 years ADL has cultivated, watered and fertilized the moral and cultural soil of America toward acceptance of homosexuality.

It was no surprise when the first openly lesbian member of California's state assembly, Jewish Sheila Koehl, submitted a bill, SB777, banning criticism of homosexuality in the public school systems. Signing it into law, Gov. Schwarzenegger enshrined on the legislative level a program of moral transformation begun decades earlier by ADL.

Yet ADL remains unexposed, unidentified, and uncriticized by Christian evangelicals and their leaders. Why the silence? ADL is 100 percent Jewish. Most evangelicals believe God will "curse" the nation or person who criticizes Jews (Gen. 12:3). Their leaders, though largely aware of ADL origins of hate laws and organized anti-Christianity, fear they will also be cursed by a mass exodus of support if they criticize “God's chosen people.”

If the church remains silent concerning those who invented and foment "anti-bias" laws, there is little to ultimately restrain passage of a virtual epidemic of hate laws identical to S.B. 777. This is exactly what is happening now as ADL-inspired “anti-bullying” laws, which make it a hate crime to criticize homosexuality in the public schools, are rapidly passed state by state.

California’s Anti-ADL Rabbi

Nachum Shifren is an Orthodox rabbi in California who has been ostracized by the vast majority of Jews, who are secular and liberal. He agrees ADL is playing the central role in corrupting America, so that its own twisted Jewish world order can be established. Shifren, in an article in NewsWithViews (See The ADL vs. Faith and Freedom by Nachum Shifren), says,

There is a…sinister group that has done more damage to the Jews and caused more murder and destruction than all of Israel’s enemies combined… This second camp is about control of human beings. It holds a vision of a one-world order, together with Marx, Trotsky, and Lenin—an evil, that to date, has claimed nearly 200 million souls. With these international bandits and mind-control wizards stands the ADL (Anti-Defamation league)…. The ADL’s agenda is simple: anything that will increase their power and control is good…. In order for there to be a One-World Order, man’s spirit and soul must be brought low, subjugated to the level of the beasts. This was the communist credo, to claim that we are no better than animals that must be controlled. G-d must be destroyed, faith debauched, and religion—All Religion. In this camp we find the ADL.

…Why is the ADL, supposedly the ‘sentinel’ of the Jewish people, so disposed to the rights and whims of radical gay and lesbian groups? Is this the purview of the ADL? The answer lies in one simple concept: power and control. What the Soviets could not do in Russia, the ADL will attempt to do in America.

Shifren says the ADL wants to “be positioned to establish a massive, pervasive, and Fascist bureaucracy that will monitor every single American and impose in this country Nazi Germany-style control—the ultimate vision of the leftist ADL.” Toward this end, he says,

Massive mind control about bias is even now being established in education—inculcating our youth from kindergarten through college about politically correct speech. Churches that do not hire homosexuals will be jailed. . . Here in California, our insane legislature just passed such a bill, a bill that will fire faculty or expel students that make a slip of the tongue. Isn’t it amazing? We’re not allowed to have the Ten Commandments in our schools. No minute of prayer, but plenty of mind control of how the White Christians have destroyed the earth and must be neutralized. The day of the multiculturalists is here, aided and abetted by the ADL, using “hate speech” as the Trojan horse that will destroy our once great America.

Time to Identify Jewish Liberal Corruptors

In 2010 I wrote an article entitled “The Jews Behind ENDA” in which I exposed the existence of a flood of pro-homosexual Jews overwhelmingly dominating all aspects of gay rights leadership in America. I counted 59 Jews controlling the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), Parents and Families of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAAG), National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce.

Soon after my article was widely distributed on dozens of websites, an amazing thing began to happen. Gentiles were substituted in homosexual national leadership! A year later, it had become difficult to find any Jews except Joe Solomenese in gay rights leadership. What happened? Clearly, Jews dove for cover in reaction to public identification as drivers of the homosexual revolution. They didn’t want exposed the ethnic/religious identity of those primarily behind the liberal agenda. That would threaten the huge evangelical donations flowing into Israel as well as the halo that circles modern Judaism in the American consciousness.

We can similarly intimidate ADL, SPLC, ACLU and Jewish-dominated mass media (See Jews Confirm Big Media Is Jewish) by stopping the unbiblical protection of Jewish activists. It’s time to identify them as the primary opponents to Christianity and conservatism in the west. This is truth, not anti-Semitism.

It’s time to stop saying hate crime and same-sex marriage laws are the work of liberals and homosexuals. It’s time to give credit (and blame) where it is due: ADL and secular Judaism. Only when Christians stop giving aid and comfort to these wreckers of our civilization can there be hope of arresting America’s decline. Only then, accompanied by significant national repentance, can our battered nation begin to rebuild.
Old May 5th, 2012 #72
Soldatul Vostru
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Wrong Parallel Universe
Posts: 3,499

Originally Posted by Ted Kike
For at least the past decade, ABC has aggressively portrayed homosexual characters as normal, funny and endearing.
Meanwhile, the "Rev." Ted Kike preaches co-existence with niggers and other muds: as if homosexuality were any more wrong than race-mixing.
Old May 5th, 2012 #73
Soldatul Vostru
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Wrong Parallel Universe
Posts: 3,499

America was founded on tolerance, as a place where people of widely diverse races, religions, and creeds could follow their convictions free of persecution.
Is that why the niggers were enslaved, cuz America was founded on tolerance?
Old May 5th, 2012 #74
Angel Ramsey
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,145

Not to be rude, or overstep my bounds.....but what does this have to do with WNism?
Old February 19th, 2013 #75
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
Default Kike "music executive" Clive Davis' bisexuality "is a welcome relief"

Record executive Clive Davis says he's bisexual.

In his new memoir out Tuesday, the 80-year-old music mogul, who is twice divorced, reveals that he had sex with a man in the 1970s. Davis writes in "The Soundtrack of My Life" that he hadn't been repressed or confused during his marriages and that sex with a man "provided welcome relief."

Davis is the chief creative officer of Sony Music Entertainment. He writes that he's been in a "strong monogamous relationship" with a man for the last seven years.

He also writes that he dated a man from 1990 to 2004, which he says was a "tough adjustment" for his son Mitchell. He says after "one trying year," he and his son worked things out. Davis is the father of three children.

In a new interview with ABC's Nightline,
Davis says bisexuality is "maligned and misunderstood," adding, "I'm not lying. Bisexuality does exist. For over 50 years I never had sex with a male. It wasn't repressed. I had very good sexual relationships with women."

In the book, Davis also delves into his experiences in the music industry, recounting his time with Whitney Houston, Bruce Springsteen, Simon & Garfunkel, Janis Joplin, Carlos Santana, the Grateful Dead and others.

He recalls speaking with Houston in the days leading up to her 2012 death, noting how the singer had said she was back on track.

"Maybe I should have been more skeptical," Davis wrote. "But I've always been optimistic, and I felt hopeful. It felt like old times."
Old March 20th, 2013 #76
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083

CHILD BUGGERY A-OK Wrote Big Jew Homo Activist

Celebrated” Jew homo activist, Larry Kramer, said most “gay” men victimized as boys have “fond memories” of early sexual experience. Looks like the nasty as hell Jews are combining a few of their favorite things — faggotry, child buggery and the never-ending holohoax victimhood crap! They got a lot of GD nerve trashing the Catholic Church all over the media, huh?

Self-absorbed Jews, like homo Larry Kramer, love using the word “Holocaust,” even when it comes to AIDS — a truly foul disease spread by these sick sodomites.
Old May 17th, 2013 #77
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
Default Queer is the New Pink: How Queer Jews Moved to the Forefront of Jewish Culture

Queer is the New Pink: How Queer Jews Moved to the Forefront of Jewish Culture

David Shneer

While queers and Jews have always been part of the cultural landscape, queer Jews have tended to be rather ambivalent about being both queer and Jewish. However, in recent years this connection is being promoted in a more proactive fashion. This paper highlights three examples of queer Jews whose cultural performances rely on being both queer and Jewish, suggesting queer Jews are playing an increasingly significant role in Jewish culture.

“A little bit of irreverence is very good for battling irrelevance”
– Rebbetzin Hadassah Gross
Queers and Jews—they’ve been put on the same dance card since the early twentieth century. In recent conferences on Jewish culture, in new studies coming out about contemporary Jewish identity, there is a new recognition that queer Jews are at the forefront of change. Perhaps it was Freud’s interest in the Jewish and the sexual, perhaps it was the “invention of homosexuality” at the same time that Jews were experiencing their own intellectual revolutions like socialism, Zionism, urbanism, and mass migrations in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These modern revolutions provoked a response from non‐Jews and non‐queers. Some saw queers and Jews as the bearers of modernity, and frequently the role that they played was put in a negative light. The Nazis targeted both groups, the McCarthy hearings often lumped Jews and queers together. And as Matti Bunzl (2004) showed in his historical anthropology of post‐World War II Austria, queers and Jews were in the same social and cultural boat as Europe underwent its modern and then postmodern revolution. The twentieth century was, in the words of historian Yuri Slezkine (2004), the Jewish century in that Jews not only underwent their own revolution, but also revolutionized the world in the process. Queers seem to be picking up where Jews left off. Maybe the twenty‐first century will be the queer century. (Think Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, the pop American television program that shows five upper‐middle‐class gay men saving straight men, and presumably therefore humanity, from fashion faux pas for their ever more demanding girlfriends and wives.)

Although conservative forces resisted the gift of modernity that Jews and queers seemed to be bringing through the twentieth century, other critics have celebrated the role these groups have played as the positive bearers of modernity. Richard Florida (2004) argues that contemporary urban economies that flourish are defined by a group he calls the “Creative Class,” and among those groups that make up this class are queers and Jews.

[page 56]

More famously, in her essay, “Notes on Camp,” Susan Sontag put queers and Jews together in a new way by arguing that these two voices from the margins were in fact the driving forces behind American culture. They each brought a particular sensibility to, and powerfully shaped, mid‐century American culture. Sontag: “Jews and homosexuals are the outstanding creative minorities in contemporary urban culture. Creative, that is, in the truest sense: they are creators of sensibilities. The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony” (1966, note 51).

There is a level of cultural critique in her claim that queers and Jews are central, not marginal, to American culture. She argues that each group’s contribution to modern culture was in fact a path that allowed that group to integrate into mainstream urban culture. It was a queer and Jewish conspiracy to transform America to allow Jews and queers to assimilate. As Sontag states,

Every sensibility is self-serving to the group that promotes it. Jewish liberalism is a gesture of self-legitimization. So is Camp taste, which definitely has something propagandistic about it. Needless to say, the propaganda operates in exactly the opposite direction. The Jews pinned their hopes for integrating into modern society on promoting the moral sense. Homosexuals have pinned their integration into society on promoting the aesthetic sense. Camp is a solvent of morality. It neutralizes moral indignation and sponsors playfulness. (Sontag, 1966, note 51).
I suppose Sontag might argue that the opposite was true. If homosexual camp is apolitical and “dissolves morality” (which is certainly not true of all homosexual camp), Jewish moral sense leaves little room for aesthetics and play.

Ultimately, then, for Sontag queers (or as she refers to them homosexuals, and I think she is primarily referring to gay men here, because the lesbian separatist culture that appeared after Sontag wrote her Camp essay had a well-developed sense of moral outrage at patriarchy and avoided cultivating a camp sense) and Jews have made modern urban culture. And each did so from a different cultural position—queers from the perspective of playfulness, aesthetics, and camp; Jews from seriousness, morality and liberalism. Why Jews were some of the most important American comedians of the twentieth century Sontag does not address. What happens when the Jews are the queers and the queers are the Jews? Does Sontag’s thesis collapse when these two forces that she suggests oppose one another are embodied in one person?

The Ambivalence of Being a Queer Jew in Twentieth Century America

Although Sontag draws a stark divide between homosexuals and Jews, queer Jews themselves have worked at the cutting edge of American culture throughout the twentieth century. Think, for example, of Gertrude Stein and Allen Ginsberg. But neither of these queer Jews was particularly interested in advancing Jewish culture as an end in itself. After all Ginsberg helped found a Buddhist university in Colorado1 and during World War II Stein was saved by fascist collaborators (Janet Malcolm, 2003, p. 54). Since the 1980s, queer Jews have not only become visible in highbrow literary circles, but also have [page 57] become omnipresent in mainstream American culture. In these popular representations of queer Jewishness and Jewish queerness, queer aesthetics and Jewish morality create an ambivalent tension. Jyl Lynn Felman (2002) has shown that the many examples of queer Jewish men adorning stage and screen, like the characters in The Producers or Angels in America are all about these characters’ ambivalence toward their masculinity and towards their Jewishness. Put in Sontag’s language, queer Jewish male characters express ambivalence about the intersection between their “Jewish morality” and “queer aesthetics.”

Harvey Fierstein’s 1982 Tony Award winning play Torch Song Trilogy, about a gay (Jewish) drag performer and his relationship with his very Jewish mother, reflects an ambivalence about the place of queerness within Jewish culture and of Jewishness in his queer life. Angels in America reflects a similar ambivalence about queerness, Jewishness and sex in politically repressive Reaganite America. Louis Ironson, the lead Jewish character, spends the entire play anxious about the relationship between his Jewish and queer selves, a tension that comes out most visibly in the scene near the beginning of the play/film, showing him soliciting advice from a rabbi about what to do with his AIDS-stricken boyfriend. The most notorious character who projects an ambivalence about queerness and Jewishness is Roy Cohn, who attempts to dissolve and deny both identities, in a scene in which he proudly proclaims, “I am not a homosexual.” Later, on his death bed, the Communist hunter turned AIDS patient is haunted by none other than the woman he helped put to death for treason, the secular socialist Jew, Ethel Rosenberg. Both Fierstein and Kushner suggest that these two identities, queer and Jewish and masculinity more generally, fit together very ambivalently.

Other more popular shows and films present queer Jews, often women, in a less sophisticated light than either Fierstein or Kushner, making ambivalent queer Jews come across as caricatures, rather than as struggling characters. The 2001 film Kissing Jessica Stein depicts an overeducated Jewish woman from Riverdale “experimenting” with sexuality. She tries to date a non-Jewish lesbian (a double no-no) but fails, as she comes to the conclusion that, well, she’s probably just straight. She is the Jew as unwilling queer, and her mother, played by the too-Jewish Tovah Feldschuh, plays the perfect liberal Jew from New York, who loves her daughter no matter what she is, even if she would rather she were dating a nice male Jewish doctor from the Upper West Side. Like Angels, which opens at a Jewish funeral, Kissing Jessica Stein opens during High Holiday services, marking both of these broadly popular productions as obviously Jewish.

If we move to television, the new totem of queer culture, Queer as Folk, filmed in Toronto, puts queerness at the center, and use characters’ other identities to create ambivalence. The show presents the queer Jew in a less than flattering light. If Kissing Jessica Stein was a bit of a Woody-Allen-in-Manhattan stereotype, at least it was sweet and flattering. In Queer as Folk, the only Jewish character, Melanie Marcus, is a money-grubbing butch dyke attorney, who was, for the first two seasons, the only character with a profession requiring advanced education. She is also the only character with a deep sense of connection to her cultural heritage. The clash of queerish and Jewish comes out most clearly in an episode about whether or not to circumcise Melanie’s son, Gus. She is parenting with her partner, Lindsay, and nominally with the child’s sperm donor, the [page 58] studly Irish-goyish gay dad, Brian. The three of them spar over whether or not to circumcise the boy as part of his initiation into Jewish culture. The goys win out over the Jew, and the boy is not circumcised, but the effect of the storyline was to show Jewish tradition in tension with modern queer culture.

There are many more examples of highly visible queer Jews in the 1990s and 2000s mainstream media, a new development since the 1960s when Sontag was writing. Then, queers and Jews were the ever present absence. Now the queerness and the Jewishness of the characters is thematized on stage, screen, and television with funerals, services, and brises, on the one hand; and AIDS, bisexuality, and queer co-parenting on the other. But even though queers and Jews are “out”, all of the examples I’ve presented still operate in a model of ambivalence. It’s just that now the conversation about ambivalence is out in the open.

Is This the End of Ambivalence?

But if we look at culture makers from the past ten years working within Jewish culture, we find something new that moves beyond the ambivalence over questions of sexual and cultural assimilation that marked these cultures since Sontag suggested as much forty years ago. The assimilationist anxiety of the twentieth century is out, and cultural and sexual pride in the twenty-first is in, and this heady mixture has been very good for Jewish culture. The new post-assimilationist queer Jewish culture, a culture that Sontag did not really know, brings together politics and entertainment, morality and aesthetics in ways that put queer Jewish culture in the vanguard of Jewish culture more generally and, in some ways, put Jewish culture in the vanguard of American culture more broadly.

The role queer Jews are playing in the transformation of Jewish culture can be seen in everything from liturgy and ritual to language use and dress. As ritualwell — the online Jewish ritual database run by Rabbi Jill Hammer, herself a Jewish lesbian—shows, Jewish rituals of all kinds are being transformed by queers who want to reclaim tradition by transforming it2, a process the authors of Queer Jews called transformative integration; schools at gay and lesbian synagogues are transforming what we understand to be the role of Jewish education, trends that have been picked up by progressive synagogues around the country (Shneer, 2002); and queer Israelis are transforming the use of Hebrew to make the gender regime of the language more flexible and playful (Andrea Jacobs, 2004).

Perhaps the most visible evidence of queer Jews transforming Jewish culture is in the overwhelming presence of queer Jews in the rabbinate. The book Lesbian Rabbis documented the rise of women and then lesbians into this profession that, for thousands of years, had been off limits both to women and to open queers (Rebecca Alpert, et. al., 2001). Anecdotal evidence from England suggests that the rabbinate of Liberal Judaism in England is made up of anywhere between 25 to 30 percent queer rabbis.3 The Reform Jewish movement’s seminary, Hebrew Union College, admitted its first transgender student a few years ago to much press coverage and fanfare. Even the Orthodox world has been feeling the effects of post-assimilationist queer Jewish culture. Sandy Simcha Dubowski’s film Trembling Before God which has created worldwide conversations about the presence of queer Jews in Orthodox Judaism, and more recently Keep Not Silent about [page 59] Jewish lesbians in Jerusalem, document the stories of queer Orthodox Jews, who are putting their voices and sometimes faces on camera and calling for change in Orthodox Judaism’s response to the queers in its midst (Dubowski, 2002).

In the 2000s, when queer Jews started to proudly engage their own culture, for an audience that is primarily Jewish, they brought together both queer aesthetics and Jewish moral criticism (and, perhaps most importantly, something that Sontag left out of the equation, feminist criticism) to create some of the most interesting edges of Jewish culture, precisely because they are queer and Jewish simultaneously. The examples of queer Jewish artists I will present are, like Gertrude Stein and Allen Ginsburg, inspired by a myriad of sources from Buddhism and African American folk music to avant-garde theater and European poetry. But unlike Stein and Ginsburg, they use these tools to create new edges of Jewish culture.

Case Study No. 1: Nerdy, Campy, Commie Girly

Charming Hostess, a group founded by Jewlia Eisenberg (note the spelling), has been creating new Jewish music since the late 1990s. Based in San Francisco, Charming Hostess brings together musical forms and lyrics based on diverse, but usually Jewish, texts to create a new sound that is unapologetically Jewish, queer, feminist, and political. In other words, Charming Hostess combines queer aesthetic sensibility with a Jewishly infused moral righteousness. Despite this edgy combination, the band has performed in major Jewish institutions like the Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York and has appeared on mainstream public radio all over the country. The band has recorded with the Radical Jewish Music series and with Tsadik, two cutting edge music production labels in New York that have been promoting new forms of Jewish music for more than a decade.

In an interview with National Public Radio, Jewlia, who not only runs this avant-garde girl band but also doubles as a freelance synagogue ritual singer known as a cantor, noted that she changed the spelling of her name to be more “out” as a Jew, and because she thought it was fun.4 Her mom freaked out at Jewlia’s too Jewish name, because as Eisenberg recalls humorously, “terrorists will know to target you.” As if “Eisenberg” weren’t Jewish enough. But the difference in relationship to the name—Jewlia thought it was campy, her mom thought it was dangerous and too unambivalently Jewish—says a lot about the new queer Jewish culture in the forty years since Sontag. Unlike the previous generation of lefty queer Jewishness, which used aesthetics and ethics to be part of American leftist culture, the new queer Jewish culture uses aesthetics and ethics to critique and advance Jewish culture. Her very name is campy, fun, and unapologetically Jewish.

Jewlia describes her band as “Klezmer Funk, Balkan Punk,” and more recently as a “nerdy, campy, Commie, girly band.” She also describes her three-woman a capella group as “beat box,” in that it uses the body, more than instruments, to generate sounds. The themes of the music range from the Jewish to the universal, but even when the themes are broad, like genocide or eating disorders, the music is all Jewish, all the time. Her two most recent albums, the Trilectic Project and Sarajevo Blues, have used texts ranging from Walter Benjamin’s Moscow diaries, to Balkan Jewish ladino music. In fact, one of the [page 60] things that differentiates Charming Hostess from other beat box groups is the reliance on highly intellectual texts for the lyrics, something that Jewlia thinks makes the band very Jewish.

The original band was made up of three women and two men, but the men dressed in drag for performances, since this was, after all, an “all girl band.” The group now usually performs with just the three women, and the music has become even more engaged in contemporary international politics, like the history of Communism and, more recently, the Bosnian genocide.

A most obvious example of how Charming Hostess works at the intersections of queerness and Jewishness comes on the album Punch, which opens with the song, Ms. Lot. The lyrics are based on a poem by the Jewish lesbian writer Muriel Rukeyser about the daughter of the biblical character, Lot.

Ms Lot
Well if he treats me like a young girl still,
That father of mine, and here’s my sister
And we’re still traveling into the hills—
But everyone on the road knows he offered us
To the Strangers, when all they wanted was men
And the cloud of smoke still over the twin cities
And mother a salt lick the animals come to—
Who’s going to want me now?
Eisenberg chose this Rukeyser poem as a way of engaging Jewish traditional texts and contemporary sexual politics, and secondarily, as a way of bringing the politically radical poet Rukeyser into the canon of Jewish culture. And what kind of music does she set this poem to? Bulgarian folk music, of course. Eisenberg said that the lyrics of the band’s next album will be based on the texts on Babylonian incantation bowls, which as she tells it, are all about women’s empowerment. I use this as an example of how deeply embedded in Jewish culture Charming Hostess’ music is, and how deeply embedded in sexual and gender politics it is. Other songs discuss bulimia, rape, and other issues relating to women, and the Trilectic project album based on Walter Benjamin’s letters is, at heart, about his love affair with Asja Lacis.

Charming Hostess is pushing Jewish culture in many new directions. The band is making Ladino and Balkan Jewish music more visible by putting it on stage in a variety of large venues; it integrates issues of gender and Jewishness in its thematics as it uses Balkan, blues, and gospel music to tell these Jewish gender stories. Finally, and most importantly, it is at the same time unapologetically Jewish and resists the nationalistic tendencies of some of modern Jewish culture by emphasizing moments in Jewish history and culture when Jews were at their most cosmopolitan. Eisenberg chose to focus her most recent album on the city of Sarajevo, because it was the site of interethnic violence and, in her words, because “Sarajevo, like New York, is a salad.” Although the interviewer saw Sarajevo as a “melting pot,” Eisenberg clarifies that salads, like cosmopolitan cultures, “gain their flavors from the differences of all the ingredients.” And one of the most [page 61] important ingredients of Sarajevo’s salad was Balkan Jewish culture. This form of queer Jewish culture puts Jews front and center, and in the process, emphasizes Jewish diversity and Jewish engagement with the rest of the world. It is radically universalist and deeply Jewish, all at the same time.

Case Study No. 2: Lesbian Klezmer as Bar Mitzvah Entertainment

If Charming Hostess sheds new light on Sephardic Jewish tradition and relatively unfamiliar Jewish sounds, Eve Sicular’s less edgy all-female klezmer band Isle of Klezbos (pun intended) remakes traditional East European Jewish music which, in recent years, has become a mainstay of American Jewish culture. Isle of Klezbos, an outgrowth of Metropolitan Klezmer, one of the most popular klezmer bands in New York, has a higher degree of camp than Charming Hostess, whose lyrics are frequently dark. In fact, Isle of Klezbos rarely has lyrics, because it showcases a group of incredibly talented instrumentalists who are making new Jewish music.

The band follows a relatively new tradition in Jewish culture in which queer Jews turn to Yiddish culture as a route into and means of criticizing Jewish culture (see also Jeffrey Shandler, 2005, pp. 187-90). The trend began in the 1980s, especially after the popular klezmer band, the Klezmatics, put out Shvaygn=Toyt (or silence=death, in Yiddish). The title echoed the slogan of the very in-your-face queer activist group ACT UP, which believed that remaining silent (shvaygn in Yiddish) in the face of the AIDS epidemic that was decimating queer America would only lead to more death (toyt). (In fact some of the themes echo those of Angels in America.) The group fused queer politics and Jewish music, a potent mix that made klezmer the then trendy (although now slightly stale) Jewish art form that aroused the ears of young and old. Isle of Klezbos performs regularly at both suburban bar mitzvahs as well as the downtown club The Knitting Factory, showing how the queer cutting edge of Jewish culture is making its way out of Manhattan and into Long Island homes, and in the process loses some of its edge.

Case Study No. 3: Neo-Hasidic Jewish Kitsch

The last example I want to include is the Shabbos Queen, Rebbetzin Hadassah Gross, otherwise known as Amichai Lau-Lavie, founder of the Jewish cultural operation, Storahtelling. Storahtelling’s mission is to bring traditional Jewish texts to life through performance, translation and, at times, camp. Its productions run the gamut from more conventional Torah portion interpretations to very sexy Jewish performance art.

In an email exchange with Lau-Lavie as I was writing this article, he noted rather apologetically that the materials he was sending me for research purposes would be “very conservative” since they were “marketing materials for synagogues” and would not “include our more radical queer stuff, such as Hadassah Gross.” What I find so poignant about this comment is the willingness and desire of much of the new queer Jewish culture to engage mainstream North American Judaism and Jewish culture. These forms of Jewish culture do this to gently push American Jewry to new places and to raise funds from it. The group may perform inspiring Torah stories on Saturday morning, but Storahtelling also presents hardcore sexual drag on Friday night. The theater group presents shows such as “The Sabbath Queen,” a show in which, according to its marketing materials, “the queen [page 62] descends with a retinue of angels and pimps, bestowing the gift of sacred sabotage[.] Sabbath Queen reclaims Friday night with sex, soul and style, featuring a cast of radical Semites, semi-Semites and secret agents in her majesty’s service.” Whether or not it knew that pimps and sexy angels were also part of Storahtelling’s repertoire, the mainstream B’nai B’rith magazine recently named Storahtelling a “trailblazer of the Jewish World” (Karen Brunwasser, 2004). Rumors have it, however, that some of the mainstream supporters of Storahtelling are less than pleased that their money is going not just to make traditional Jewish texts more accessible, but also to support a sexy and sex-positive, camp, irreverent, lefty queer Jewish performance artist.

Lau-Lavie’s own biography says a lot about not only why queers are the ones moving Jewish culture forward, but also why this new trend is happening in North America. Lau-Lavie was raised in a traditional religious Israeli family in the Orthodox enclave of Bnei Brak, and, as several articles about him suggest, he then found his true queer self and moved to the big city, Tel Aviv, to “be queer.” In America Lau-Lavie managed to bring his Jewish “moral seriousness” and “queer camp sensibility” together to create Storahtelling. More than either Charming Hostess or Isle of Klezbos, Storahtelling, especially Hadassah Gross, who is known as the queen of neo-Hasidic Judeokitsch, uses queer camp to move Jewish culture in new directions. From the promo note about Gross, “Born in Budapest Hungary in the mid 1920s, Rebbetzin Gross is descended from an illustrious Hasidic dynasty and is the widow of six prominent rabbis. She has established herself in the Jewish community and beyond as a personal soul-trainer to the ultra-orthodox elite…Her personal philosophy purports that, ‘A little bit of irreverence is very good for battling irrelevance. Humor is very important to touch the soul.’”

The show has toured the country and, in many ways, is a rather traditional presentation of Jewish culture. In the performance that I saw for this paper, the rebbetzin appeared on a stage adorned like a traditional Friday night Sabbath table, with candles, hallah, and wine. She spent the next hour warmly telling the audience how beautiful the Sabbath was, how it was an important part of her life, and how each and every audience member should find ways to bring the Sabbath into their lives. In other words, she played the role of the orthodox rebbetzin perfectly. The thing that saves the show from being nostalgia is the fact that the rebbetzin on stage is, in fact, a man, whose very presence completely subverts the very Jewish traditions his persona, the rebbetzin, seeks to promulgate. It is an ingenious way of pushing Jewish culture forward by celebrating tradition and rupturing it at the same time.

Each of these queer Jewish performers is deeply knowledgeable about Jewish culture—each in her own way. Eisenberg knows Jewish musical tradition, twentieth century European Jewish culture, and serves as a cantor; Sicular writes about Yiddish culture and its theatrical tradition and served as an archivist at the Institute for Jewish Research in New York. From his Orthodox upbringing and his studies, Lau-Lavie knows traditional Jewish texts and has studied and written about the art of the “translator” or m’turgeman. And at the same time, each one has been deeply involved in feminist, queer politics.

Why are Isle of Klezbos, Shabbes Queen, and Charming Hostess so seemingly hip and so popular? Why is rejuvenating Jewish culture about punk queer Jewish music and a [page 63] gay Israeli man performing in drag as a platinum blond Hasidic Holocaust survivor? These culture makers finally bring together queer aesthetic and Jewish moral sensibilities that Sontag outlined in the 1960s, but unlike in the 1960s, not for the goal of assimilating. They lack the ambivalence that marked the first wave of culture created by queers and Jews that was still searching for a place in American culture. They are campy and political, particular and universal, and each celebrates and criticizes American Jewish culture, all at the same time. They are “irreverent” in order for Judaism not to become “irrelevant,” to quote the rebbetzin. It is the lack of ambiguity, the direct engagement with Jewish tradition and with the pillars of contemporary Jewish culture like the Torah, the Holocaust, Israel, and Jewish lifecycles, rather than the shying away from it, and the overt use of queer culture that puts these queer Jews at the forefront of Jewish culture in the queer century.


Alpert, R. T., Elwell, S. L., & Idelson, S. (Eds.). (2001). Lesbian rabbis: The first generation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Brunwasser, K. (2004, Spring). Trailblazers of the Jewish world. B’nai B’rith Magazine, 14-16.

Bunzl, M. (2004). Symptoms of modernity: Jews and queers in late-twentieth-century Vienna. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Dubowski, S. (2002). Trembling on the road: A Simcha diary. In D. Shneer & C. Aviv (Eds.), Queer Jews (pp. 215-23). New York: Routledge.

Felman, J. L. (2002). Lost Jewish (male) souls: A midrash on Angels in America and The Producers. In D. Shneer & C. Aviv (Eds.), Queer Jews (pp. 189-98). New York: Routledge.

Florida, R. (2004). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.

Jacobs, A. (2004). Language reform as language ideology: An examination of Israeli feminist language practice. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas.

Malcolm, J. (2003, June 2). Gertrude Stein’s war. New Yorker.

Shandler, J. (2005). Adventures in Yiddishland: Postvernacular language & culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Shneer, D. (2002). Out at school: A queer Jewish education. In D. Shneer & C. Aviv (Eds.), Queer Jews (pp. 135-47). New York: Routledge.

Slezkine, Y. (2004). The Jewish century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Sontag, S. (1966). Against interpretation, and other essays. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.

1. Naropa University.
2., accessed November 11 2006.
3. Anecdotes usually do not qualify as evidence. This story was told to me by two different leaders of British Liberal Judaism at the World Congress for Progressive Judaism, Moscow 2005.
4. John Schaefer, “Jazzers are going it for themselves,” WYNC Radio, March 29 2005,, accessed November 11 2006.
Old May 22nd, 2013 #78
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
Default Biden: Jewish Leaders Drove Gay Marriage Changes

Vice President Joe Biden is praising Jewish leaders for helping change American attitudes about gay marriage and other issues.

Biden says, quote, "Think — behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it's in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry."
Old May 23rd, 2013 #79
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
Default Queer Jew Named Head Of American Psychiatric Association

"The APA has played a key role in the advancement of LGBT rights since the early 1970s when, following years of advocacy by gay activists, the organization removed homosexuality from its longstanding classification as a mental illness in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders."
Old May 26th, 2013 #80
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
Default Lesbian Love Story Wins Top Honor At Cannes

The biggest honor of the French festival went to Abdellatif Kechiche's "Blue is the Warmest Color," a coming-of-age drama which tells the story of a lesbian relationship.

The jury, headed by Steven Spielberg, took the unusual move of awarding the Palme not just to Kechiche, but also to the film's two stars: Adele Exarchopoulos and Lea Seydoux," the AP reports. "The three clutched each other as they accepted the award, one of cinema's greatest honors."


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 AM.
Page generated in 0.26025 seconds.