Maybe one should consider the possibility that real men agree, at least to some extent, with what the Muslim youths did to the gay model. In the West's currently feminized culture, the cultures that are still male based will probably take over. One cannot stand Nature on its head and expect a happy outcome.

Your argument overlooks Fortuyn's victory.

Putting aside the issue of who is "standing nature on its head," I think a number of real men would have been quite happy had the model involved pulled a knife and carved up his attackers a bit.

Or is a ten on one attack considered manly?

Nice definition of "manly," Peter (if that is your real name). Thing is, it appears identical to my own definition of "cowardly." Also see: thuggishness.

Let me counterpropose that "real men" find your smug endorsement of gang violence abhorrent.

By the way, isn't Peter a gay name? Sounds kind of gay to me.

Peter,

Western culture is not feminized, it has merely been provided an opportunity to use brainpower in lieu of brawn, and this puts women on a more nearly equal footing, much to the dismay of some men. Those men then, in many instances, resort to manifestations of brawnpower that are criminal or otherwise socially unacceptable (in western society). That doesn't make them 'real men'; it just makes them very much like these muslim youth whose society does not revere the brainpower that gives our culture its superior quality. The muslim culture has a wholly different view where reason has no place and brutality in many forms is admired.

wow... it's unmanly and unwomanly to consider a 10 on 1 a "reasonable" reaction to (mostly imagined) feminization.

I did use the caveat 'to some extent' to modify my assertion. I do agree that the act was thuggish. But the radical feminization of western culture, if not reversed to a better balance which excludes abortion and open homosexuality, will result I believe in male dominated cultures taking over western countries.

I believe in male dominated cultures taking over western countries.

Sounds like Islam to me.

"Western culture is not feminized, it has merely been provided an opportunity to use brainpower in lieu of brawn"

Would you be thinking of the "brainy" way that so many of the West's intellectual elites appease Muslim thuggery?

In all probability, the good Netherlanders were too frightened.

Hmmm, perhaps. But I would suggest that if they were afraid, it was of being arrested.

I was in Amsterdam in 2006 and I had a long talk with a bartender. He was jealous of America because we can fight back.

I didn't say anything to provoke his comment, but he noted that you will be arrested if you defend yourself against a mugger. He was very bitterly angry about it. And I'm saying he started talking about it because I'm obviously an American wherever I go.

The Dutch are not wimps, they're aggressively tolerant.

But... They don't believe in violence in any way and they're conditioned to let the police handle it. On a train I was watching some junkie harass this woman with her child, I didn't want to step in unless he did something overt cuz I would probably have been arrested, but I watched and waited. She seemed to know what I was doing, which I hope helped.

I was more afraid of being mugged in EUnuchstan than ever in America on that trip because I would probably have been arrested if I defended myself.

"Maybe one should consider the possibility that real men agree, at least to some extent, with what the Muslim youths did to the gay model."

My understanding was that real men saw their aggression as a potential good for civilization because they used it in a disciplined fashion-- training as warriors, building stuff, and exploring that seemingly impenetrable forest at the edge of the village. I'm not questioning your right to condemn homosexuality, only saying that it's odd for you to advance it by claiming we should be in the business of understanding why some people would indulge in their most primitive, destructive urges. Social conservatives usually try to take the discussion in the opposite direction.

Eric replies "If an unprovoked 10-on-1 attack constitutes the sort of manly model with which real men agree, then surely, so must honor killings, beheading captives in Iraq, and blowing up women and children."

My point is that most men would agree that open homosexual behavior deserves to be punished to the degree needed to deter such behavior. If the laws against public homosexual behavior in western cultures have been deleted or are not enforced, then, as happens in other similar situations where the authorities are deemed ineffective, some people will act as vigilantes.

Veeshir makes a good point that those in authority in the West are becoming so totalitarian that citizens are not even allowed to defend themselves but are expected to depend totally on the government. And it is these same totalitarian elements in the West who have pushed pornography, drugs, abortion, and homosexuality in an ongoing attempt to destroy the family, destroy the backbone of any society, destroy our ability to resist, and so solidify their power.

I am not against LEGITIMATE rights for men and women, but who determines what those are ? Our Creator does. And even for the non-religious we can use our reason and look to the Natural Law.

I am a Christian so "honor killings, beheading captives in Iraq, and blowing up women and children" are illegitimate. But it is my belief that these same global totalitarian elements, who once wanted to impose marxism as their model for global governance, have now decided that islam makes a much better model. Keep your eyes open, amigos, and watch them work.

(And PUHLEEEASE no naive posts about 'conspiracy theorists'. Companies conspire, governments conspire at all levels, friends conspire. Conspiracies are part of the human condition.)

And to answer your question as why choose a model that opposes the very things these totalitarian elements used to consolidate their power, their first goal was to destroy the existing Christian culture.

They gave up on the marxist model not only because it was economically inefficient but because the human spirit had a natural aversion to it which resulted in constant friction, arrests, purges, mass murders, and more inefficiency.

But have you seen Muslims demonstrating holding signs that say "FREEDOM GO TO HELL"? Perfect!

"most men would agree that open homosexual behavior deserves to be punished to the degree needed to deter such behavior"

Really? Is there a poll somewhere?

Well, pst314, not every result of using brainpower is necessarily a good one, but it is still in the realm of rational behavior, just misguided. European secularism seems to have caused that society to forego many Christian behavioral traditions. Much of that worked ok until Europe began to be populated by muslims who are much more inclined to follow their natural instincts and impulses resulting in more animalistic behavior (no recognition of guiding principles like the Ten Commandments on the one hand or modern secular rule of law on the other). And clearly no respect for reason (there's that brainy word again).

Peter, I think you have identified Islam as a global totalitarian threat, but there is also the threat from the so-called 'tolerant' left which is fascist as well. The latter is what we observe in The Netherlands. Notice I did not say radical Islam since what is needed is a reformation like we had in Christianity so the radical elements cease to exist.

"My point is that most men would agree that open homosexual behavior deserves to be punished to the degree needed to deter such behavior. If the laws against public homosexual behavior in western cultures have been deleted or are not enforced, then, as happens in other similar situations where the authorities are deemed ineffective, some people will act as vigilantes... I am not against LEGITIMATE rights for men and women, but who determines what those are ? Our Creator does. And even for the non-religious we can use our reason and look to the Natural Law."

Your opinions are logically incoherent, not to mention crudely detached from several hundred years of western social and political theory. Life, liberty, and property (or the pursuit of happiness, if you must) are our natural rights, no matter what deeper contract binds you to your gods. The specter of "public homosexuality" seems to have you spooked right into the dark ages. What is your response when a Muslim country finds it a crime to be "openly Christian?" Full of righteous anger, I imagine, because after all they've penciled in the wrong box on the god test. You are the very thing you imagine you hate.

Peter, I don't know a single person at any of the churches I have attended who would approve of pulling a gay man off a stand in public and beating him up to make an example of him.

What denomination are you, then?

Bob T. writes: "Peter, I think you have identified Islam as a global totalitarian threat, but there is also the threat from the so-called 'tolerant' left which is fascist as well."

Bob, I am saying more. I am actually making an educated guess that the totalitarian left, which make up the globalist power core, have switched from promoting marxism to promoting islam as their model for their world government. I am saying that its no coincidence that huge numbers of muslims have been imported into Europe. I am saying that when our political leaders pretend impotence in the face of muslim aggression and demands, it is because it suits their agenda. When the Archbishop of Cantebury, the head of a very liberal group that used to be Christian, calls for sharia law to be established in England, he is promoting this agenda. When the City of New York establishes a muslim High School while banning Christianity in all their public high schools under 'separation of Church and State', we should be very suspicious.

-------------------------------
capital L writes: "Your opinions are logically incoherent, not to mention crudely detached from several hundred years of western social and political theory."

capital L, I don't know how old you are but I am old enough to remember when public homosexual behavior was considered public indecency and a crime. And as for your 'several hundred years', the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a sodomy conviction (act done in private) in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. A different constituted Supreme Court reversed that decision only in 2003. So much for precedent.

As recently as 1960, every US State had an anti-sodomy law. It may be sp again so don't think it's over.

-------------------------------
Eric S. writes: "Really? Is there a poll somewhere?"

Eric, I am going by two things. One, the males I have known over the course of my whole life, whether liberal or condervative, are sickened by such behavior. Even on US TV which is very PC, straight characters on the shows are portrayed as similarly sickened. And two, the about thirteen (?) amendments so far to state constitutions, to protect marriage as between one man and one woman, have all passed by about 80% majority vote.