Millions of fans around the world were yesterday digesting the news that one of the main characters in the Harry Potter novels, Albus Dumbledore, is gay.The revelation came from author JK Rowling during a question-and-answer session at New York's Carnegie Hall. It instantly hurtled around the internet and the world. News websites in China and Germany announced starkly: 'JK Rowling: "Dumbledore is gay".' One blogger wrote on a fansite: 'My head is spinning. Wow. One more reason to love gay men.'
Harry Potter 3: Witchcraft for Dummies
by URI DOWBENKO
Just as Mel Gibson’s movie ‘Kill Jesus’ (not to be confused with ‘Kill Bill’) introduced millions to the joys of “Christian” sadism & masochism, the Harry Potter books and movies have promoted the Occult and Secret World of Witchcraft.In fact, the success of the books of J.K. Rowling (or her ghostwriters) is due to mankind’s endless fascination with the Astral Plane -- the dimension of time-space that is the Collective Unconscious and the fount of dreams, nightmares and fear, as well as emotional pain and trauma that lasts for lifetimes.
‘Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban’ then is an illustrated guide to the Astral Plane, as seen through the eyes of the Illuminati and their scribes.
After all, it’s not easy being an Illuminati kid. First there’s boarding school, being sent away packing, since Illuminati don’t have any time for kids. They’re too busy running the world, of course. That was the point of ‘Princess Diaries’ (for Illuminati girls) and ‘Spiderman’ (for Illuminati boys).
21 comments:
Do you have to make a tin foil cap and raise your arms in the air to get 'messages' like this.
Yes, its something they have put in the water.
It is destroying our vital bodily fluids. Ha ha.
Humans require love and, indeed, healthy sexual relationships in order to be complete. Homosexual sex, like promiscuity, is, by definition, unhelathy, because it causes irrational and destructive thoughts and behavior. Thus, the promotion of homosexual sex as a healthy, and, indeed, DESIRED lifestyle does an incredible disservice to children. It's like feeding your kid McDonald's and telling him "it's just the same as vegetables." My son ain't readin' that shit.
the state of... The logic of your opinion relies on a play on words or at the very least a manipulation of the flexibility of the word healthy. In the first sentence, you say "Humans require... healthy sexual relationships" which is an inarguable premise, however the definition of healthy here is general and even holistic referring simultaneously to physical health, happiness, mental health etc. In the second section of your argument you use the word health with a greater degree of specificity, "Homosexual sex, like promiscuity, is, by definition, unhealthy," here it seems that you're talking purely about physical health which creates less of a "home run" argument because it is a question of degree and would require us to compare the "healthiness" of the act from a physical perspective to a whole host of "unhealthy" acts that we all agree are perfectly within a human beings right to engage freely (fattening foods, wine, cigars, etc.). The second portion of your thesis "because it causes irrational and destructive thoughts and behavior" does indeed broaden the definition of unhealthy to a degree, however it relies almost completely on circular logic--the negative effect "irrational and destructive thoughts" implicitly assumes the ultimate conclusion of your argument (that homosexuality is inherently irrational and destructive). It begs the question, but does not answer it. Why is such behavior inherently wrong and destructive? Physical health effects? I doubt that suffices. I think you're argument would be a lot stronger if you just came out and said "I think homosexuality is wrong because my god says its immoral." Perfectly consistent and valid and cuts straight to the point.
Formal logic aside, I find all of this discomfort with homosexuality and specifically its presence in art and entertainment among black people quite interesting. In an interview, a gay black author you may have heard of (James Baldwin) once said that American art and literature suffers from its insistence in avoiding the presence of black people. In his view, the art of American whites had an inescapable hollowness because the real world in their minds ("Friends") does not resemble the real world before their eyes ("New York"). The effect on the black man of all this in Baldwin's analysis is profound "The black man insists, by whatever means he finds at his disposal, that the white man cease to regard him as an exotic rarity and recognize him as a human being. This is a very charged and difficult moment, for there is a great deal of will power involved in the white man's naiveté."
If you agree with Baldwin in any respect, then I must ask the question: Feeling so strongly that whites cannot and should not create an America (in fiction, on television, etc.) where we do not exist, why do we feel equally as strong about our unfettered right to art that avoids the presence of gays? Do they not exist in our version of America?
Wesley,
Great comment. "Why is such behavior inherently wrong and destructive?" I have struggled with this question, to be honest. It may very well be that homosexuality is good for some people. I am not trying to change the essence of any person. However, for the VAST MAJORITY of people, homosexuality and homosexual acts can be very destructive. In my opinion, homosexuality is a form of "suffering," to use a Buddhist term.
My point is that young children should not be exposed to homosexuality in any meaningful way. It can confuse them and make them think that homosexuality is as "normal" as heterosexuality.
I do not seek to write gays out of history of contemporary issues. Baldwin, my favorite writer, was of course gay. Paraphrasing, he once wrote that a man has not lived until he's had gay sex. On that we vehemently disagree. I wouldn't want to live in the mental suffering of homosexuality.
"Paraphrasing, he once wrote that a man has not lived until he's had gay sex."
I'm going to spend some time editing this particular Baldwin statement out of my personal history.
Why oh why must the plight of
" blackness " or of black people always be an analogy for the rejection of homosexuality?
Being black is not a choice! It's 100% genetic! One is a apple the other an orange!
"If you agree with Baldwin in any respect, then I must ask the question: Feeling so strongly that whites cannot and should not create an America (in fiction, on television, etc.) where we do not exist, why do we feel equally as strong about our unfettered right to art that avoids the presence of gays? Do they not exist in our version of America? "
That gays, or pedophiles, or murderers or wife beaters exist does not mean that we have to accept this lifestyle as one that is healthy and normal!
Anonymous: I sincerely hope you were actually intentionally trying to make me laugh that hard.
Quickly, your argument implies 3 assumptions that it should instead prove.
1. Homosexuality is a choice and not genetic.
2. There is some moral equivalency to consensual homosexuality -- murder and the rape of little boys.
3. (This ones the funniest) that murder, pedophelia and wife beating are lifestyle choices. (Hahahahah, that was good.)
Taking the one point that doesn't make you sound a bit looney, i.e. that homosexuality is a choice not genetic, I only have this point to make. So?
Ultimately, unless you make an argument not that its a choice, but that its an "immoral" choice your entire point is basically that discrimination should be legal so long as one chooses to identify with a group disfavored by society.
Identifying with a religious group, for example, is a choice. None of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. are genetic, in fact I'm inclined to believe that they are all choices. The difference here is that we inherently believe these choices are either moral or at base something we should respect.
You'd never argue that because someone chooses to be christian we should be able to discriminate against them in a way that we couldn't against someone who is born asian for example?
So, stop begging the question and answer it. Why is homosexuality immoral in your mind (go ahead, say because my god says so), and then answer this question: Should the laws of your god be the laws that govern your actions or society as a whole?
And by the way, in my opinion, you have a right to believe both that Your god says homosexuality is wrong and that the laws of your religion should be the laws of society. I just want you to say it out loud instead of gibbering on, so I can stop arguing the myriad flaws in your thought process.
Wesley,
I don't get why you one-lined my comment.
So is your argument that homosexual sex is just as moral as heterosexual sex?
I believe homosexuality is something akin to a mental illness, some sort of mental quirk. The "morality" of a sexual act is difficult to debate.
My one liner was a joke. Baldwin needs to chill with all that.
"So is your argument that homosexual sex is just as moral as heterosexual sex?"
I don't argue either way. Basically, your answer to this will be consistent with your set of beliefs. My point is that absent religion or moral authority, there is no "logical" or "inherent" difference in the morality of the act of hetero or homo sex. I see each of these arguments as a way to hide religious based beliefs about the morality of certain sexual acts behind secular arguments. The problem is I don't think thats provable by logic alone. In each case you end up having to assume the conclusion you're attempting to prove.
A prime example is your your mental illness point. I think it assumes or presupposes that there is a right way to do things and a wrong way and that can only be legitimated by an appeal to some higher authority. To be specific, it implies that the correct state of being with regard to sexual gratification is man on woman, and thus any deviation is a "quirk." But why? Why is there a "right" and "wrong" way? Why are there not just "ways"? How would you prove this absent an appeal to some moral authority?
Its perfectly legitimate for someone to believe that certain things are wrong based on religion alone. I just think more people should come out and say that and then we can argue about the alignment between church and state rather than dance around the fundamental arguments.
Beautiful post Brother Gibson. Beautiful post.
However, I see a couple of opportunities to fine tune your interpretation of State’s thesis.
State appears to resist the state sponsored meme which politicized homosexuals by converting them into a potent political group called “Gays”.
In the war of group identity politics, “Gays” are a superpower.
You appear to have bought into the suggestion that Homosexuals are a deserving and distinct political entity, every bit as deserving as African-Americans or Latinos or even God forbid … Jews.
(Blacks used to be ‘Group Superpower’, but now we are about as politically potent as is Puerto Rico. Jews are Great Britain and Homosexuals are Israel.)
I contend that “Gay Americans” are no more a valid group designator than is “Virgo Americans” or “Short Americans” or “Shaky Leg Syndrome Americans”.
The powerful “Gay Lobby” is a conference room on K Street in DC and a bunch of writers in San Francisco.
Claiming to represent millions of homosexual "victims" and hi-jacking the moral authority that is bestowed upon "Victimhood" in this country is a great trick to gain power.
The people who financed the NAACP did it to us 80 years ago. They are doing it to homosexuals today.
Antwan who does hair at Tamikas Hair Salon is not a “Gay American”. He is an American that happens to be a homosexual. He deserves every right an American deserves.
Having Fairytales with homosexual characters, read to school children is not one of those rights.
My point is that absent religion or moral authority, there is no "logical" or "inherent" difference in the morality of the act of hetero or homo sex.
Wesley, even outside religion, homosexuality cannot be logically or inherently justified under an evolutionary theory. Evolution is fundamentally premised on survival of the fittest, i.e. survival of those traits that ensure survival of the species.
Men with men and women with women does not promote reproduction and survival of the species. At all.
Taking the evolutionary theory further, our colons evolved to serve the function of expelling feces. It's a one-way exit door. I don't think it requires a huge leap in logic to suggest that the colon did not evolve to have a penis jammed up there on the regular.
Just because I can shove a pencil up my nose, doesn't mean I should.
And to anticipate Casper's argument, even if shoving a pencil up my nose is what gets my jollies going, that doesn't make me a special interest group entitled to special rights for it.
Wesley,
I don't think I have to use religion or some other starting point to disagree with homosexual practices.
Homosexuality can't be "right" or "wrong." It's a set of behaviors which is included within the whole of human experience, but which should be avoided in order to attain happiness, like smoking crack.
"Wesley, even outside religion, homosexuality cannot be logically or inherently justified under an evolutionary theory... Men with men and women with women does not promote reproduction and survival of the species. At all."
My response to this point is so? There is still a logical leap to be made here. If I get your point correctly, you're saying that the homosexual act is either neutral to or counter to the survival of the human species. Okay. Sure. I mean one can make a host of evolutionary arguments that fight this point (natural barrier to overpopulation, creates a class of men that do not compete for reproduction but can help the tribe overall, i.e. protect offspring, gather food, etc.) but lets take this point as fixed.
Homosexuality is best described as evolution neutral and possibly evolutionarily negative. Somehow you still have to go from this point to how this is actually damaging to humanity. Ultimately any thought experiment with this as a base point will lead to overinclusive results. There is simply no way to logically differentiate between heterosexual adults that choose not to have children and the gays if you use only this as a justification. In the end, you'll just end up having to conclude that every human being is biologically obligated to have the kids, which is fine I guess but thats another debate.
"Taking the evolutionary theory further, our colons evolved to serve the function of expelling feces. It's a one-way exit door. I don't think it requires a huge leap in logic to suggest that the colon did not evolve to have a penis jammed up there on the regular."
Gross. Just gross. This discussion is going to give me nightmares. But I guess to fight this point, I'd say there are a million things that evolution didn't intend us to do with our bodies. Thats why we're human, we are smart and creative enough creatures to decide to change or improve upon the evolutionary design whenever we see fit. Without a moral component why is this different than blowjobs, handjobs, male on female sex of the same nature, or any other host of things that humans do with their bodies that nature may have not contemplated?
"It's a set of behaviors which is included within the whole of human experience, but which should be avoided in order to attain happiness, like smoking crack."
First and foremost, happiness is a value judgment so I'll replace "attain happiness" with in order "not to do oneself harm". The existential debate here is why is one not entitled to do themselves harm, but I'll skip that and ask how exactly does engaging in such behavior do ones self harm? Bear in mind before answering that if you say AIDS, STD's, etc, you're assuming either A) promiscuity (and therefore actually saying sleeping around is harmful not gaydom) or B) that the genesis of stds is the gay sex act (i.e. two commited people with no std's can somehow create one by interacting in that way) which is relatively far-fetched from a medical perspective.
In sum, I think you're argument makes a great case for homosexuality being biologically "unnecessary" but cannot stand for the proposition that it is "bad" from an evolutionary standpoint. To get to the bad, I still think you gotta get to the authority behind all this...
(Lord Vesey I'm coming for you next)
Denmark Vesey:
"(Blacks used to be ‘Group Superpower’, but now we are about as politically potent as is Puerto Rico. Jews are Great Britain and Homosexuals are Israel.)"
First off, I like this analogy so much that I'm stealing it. Consider your swagger jacked.
You make interesting points about the nature of group identity and the politicizing of said identity. From the level of the fundamental, I'll agree with you. Here is where we differ:
"I contend that “Gay Americans” are no more a valid group designator than is “Virgo Americans” or “Short Americans” or “Shaky Leg Syndrome Americans”."
What you've hit on here is an amazingly deep reservoir. At the superficial level, the question is what makes group designator's valid? But if we look a bit deeper, the question transforms to one not about group designations but to our tolerance of discrimination itself. To put it more simply: What kinds of discrimination do we think are tolerable and why?
American's are a peculiar breed. As children, our parents constantly tell us that "life isn't fair" some people are taller, some people are prettier, some people are faster and they all will receive benefits in proportion to the degree of their difference. The only (or at least one of the few) area, where we demand, as americans, that everything be perfectly equal is race. But why? Specifically, how is being black unlike being short, or less attractive or slow in the sense that it be simply viewed as a competitive disadvantage? We live in a society that prizes whiteness, being born white, like being born pretty athletic and tall is likely to lead to a substantial advantage in the greater market. Why are we okay with one and not the other?
This question is extreemely difficult to answer from any justifiable premise. I mean technically (and likely to our detriment) a good 75% of the battles fought by black people in this country are over the intangibles (why don't you invite me to your places, why don't you find me pretty, why don't you validate my art, why don't you think i'm smart, etc.). In some very real sense African-American's are American's own jilted lovers. I digress...
The answer that I've become comfortable with is this: when society creates an identity for a group based on one primary factor (blackness, gayness, etc.) and chooses to make that group less favored, it elevates my (our?) sensitivity towards what would otherwise be just American's who happen to exhibit such a trait.
The easiest way to distinguish the degree of this favored/disfavored dichotomy is in the law (which is probably why that is the arena disfavored groups tend to challenge). There are no and have never been any anti short person laws, anti-ugly person laws, anti-shaky leg syndrome American mating requirements, etc. There have however been anti-sodomy, anti-miscegenation, negative prohibitions against legal marriage, etc.
Once you get to this level, I think you tend to be able to distinguish disfavored traits (shortness) from disfavored groups (blacks) simply by the fact that society focuses a greater degree of scrutiny/discrimination on persons who exhibit such traits.
To that end:
"Having Fairytales with homosexual characters, read to school children is not one of those rights."
Nor is it a right to have fairy tales with blacks read to school children. However, to the degree that such individuals should contextually exist in the story [ftn] to avoid the presence of such individuals due to their disfavor in society is tantamount to telling children that a perfect world is one in which these don't exist.
[ftn: i.e. if there is sexuality at all or if there are white people where black people should be...]
@ wesley gibson..... don't get all excited, I didn't mention discrimination anywhere in my post.
Not accepting a lifestyle choice as one that is moral or normal doesn't mean that I am discriminating against that lifestyle or does it?
You are so eager to write volumes of hogwash just to prove to us that ther homosexual lifestyle is no different from being hetrosexual.
Well you can write till the cows come home, cos aside from a religious standpoint, I know deep in my bones that sex between two males is at variance with nature!
As well as immoral and disgusting.
@ wesley gibson
"Should the laws of your god be the laws that govern your actions or society as a whole?"
Who is talking about governing anyone. Don't Gays have the same rights as everyone else?
If my God is is against homosexuality, I don't see how that affects Mr gay man down the street since my Gods laws are for those that believe in him.
Perhaps it is you, whose thought process has been befuddled by the lack of a moral compass.
The dumbing of black america...
Anonymous, thanks for that (whatever it actually was). Funny enough the whole reason I engaged in this debate in the first place is that I've become increasingly discouraged by the didactic nature of discourse in the black community.
Funny enough, I actually believe the achievement gap can be explained in some measure by reference to the preachy and morally obtuse way that we've taught ourselves and our children to think. We've essentially created a cultural child rearing system that eliminates the ability to view things probablistically, to see shades of gray.
Not to go into it too much, but I think all of this is more a product of what we think we're doing right than what we know we're doing wrong. Our focus on discipline / the concept of righteousness / etc. is actually, in my opinion, to the detriment of teaching kids to think analytically.
I'm actually so concerned with this, I've been thinking of devoting the time to write a overly academic wordy tome on the subject to be skimmed and dismissed by half-interested academics and well-to do white people just to make myself feel better.
But seriously, endeavor to pursue knowledge that doesn't originate in your "bones". It might do you some good, and will keep me from using words like "quaint" and "homespun".
LOL. Get 'em Wesley.
I like this cat. You got style man. And you are intellectually courageous.
Welcome.
You are right. Black people can be a bit preachy and a bit self-righteous.
But, you know what? People guided by a deep seeded sense of "right" are often preachy and self-righteous.
There is a point where one does not need to argue why something like ... incest ... is universally distasteful.
Most people, when confronted with the reality of the homosexual sex act, as opposed to the sympathetic "Gay" victim of the MSM, are as appalled as they are by the act of incest. (Refer to your above "gross")
Preachy? Maybe. But that may also explain why we produce few Columbine kids or Satan worshiping cannibals.
And you my dear should endeavour to tolerate opinions that differ from your own without resorting to vitriol
And all this because I dare to question the homosexual lifestyle?
Wesley Gigson says
"But seriously, endeavor to pursue knowledge that doesn't originate in your "bones". It might do you some good, and will keep me from using words like "quaint" and "homespun".
How do you assess my overall knowledge by this short interaction on homosexuality?
And and then draw half baked porous conclusions about the nature of discourse in the black community
I happen to have great faith in my inner voice, and don't need it to be validated by the likes of you.
I am amazed at your level of smug superiority. What makes you the law on this subject?
The dumbing of black America indeed, with you presiding at the head of the table!
Anonymous. You've got to something to say. I like that. You don't back down an inch. That's admirable in these days of mass conformity.
You need a nickname, to distinguish you from the other 'anonymous'.
What shall we call you?
Thanks DV, Boot is my name.
Post a Comment