If I were them, this image would keep me up at night.
Posted on 04/20/2014 9:35:32 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
On the Friday, April 18, All In show, during a discussion of the firing of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for simply donating to a political campaign opposing same-sex marriage, guest Richard Kim of the far left The Nation magazine intoned that he found it "disturbing" that gay activist friends of his have expressed interest in "targeting" more people who have made similar donations, and who have declared they should "find out where they live." Kim:
Here's a disturbing thing. I did ask some of my gay activist friends, I was like, "Look, here's a list; 6,500 people gave the same amount that he did or more in California. Should we go down the list and sort of start targeting all these people?" And I asked this facetiously, and people were like, "Let's do it. Let's find out where those people live. It's all-" To me, that's a disturbing level of targeting people.
Hayes, who had earlier expressed reservations about Eich's firing, exclaimed, "Yes," to Kim's view that such talk was "disturbing."
As he brought up the discussion, the MSNBC host seemed skeptical of the former Mozilla CEO's firing: "And there was part of me that did not know how to feel about how this whole thing unfolded."
A bit later, as panel member and MSNBC host Karen Finney defended the practice of pressuring company heads about their political views, Hayes brought up President Obama's previous history of opposing same-sex marriage. Hayes: "Barack Obama in 2008 was opposed to marriage equality."
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, April 18, All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, with critical portions in bold:
CHRIS HAYES: So here's the other interesting part of this, and I want to use this to segue to the Brendan Eich story because what you hear and see here are changing social norms, right? It is legal in South Carolina to fire someone because they're gay. Increasingly, that is not viewed as socially acceptable, right? And rightly so. We agree everyone at the table agrees that is wrong.
But, now, there's also social norms about whether it is socially acceptable to have the belief that gay folks can't get married or to oppose gay equality. And this came to a head in the tale of Brendan Eich, who was the CEO of the firm, Mozilla, which makes a very popular Web browser. People found out that he had given a contribution to the wrong side in Prop 8, which was the anti-equality side. It was in a public record.
And there was a campaign that basically got rid of him, basically saying this is an unacceptable view for the CEO of a major firm to have. And there was part of me that did not know how to feel about how this whole thing unfolded. What was your thinking?
RICHARD KIM, THE NATION: Yeah, so I, first of all, say I don't think anybody's rights were violated.
HAYES: Nobody has a right to be a CEO.
KIM: Right, exactly, exactly. I do, on the level of proportion, question this. So this guy gave one $1,000 donation six years ago to a campaign that 7 million Californians voted for, that 6,500 people gave a donation at his level or higher. Mozilla has an anti-gay discrimination policy. He had no intent to change that. Marriage in California is settled law.
So there's a question of whether or not all the sort of fury targeted at him and this one sort of, you know, attempt to oust him is in proportion to any threat that he represents to gay people in the future.
CATHY HENNA, LGBT ACTIVIST: It's somehow, it's how the culture works, too. This is a major tech company in Northern California, and, you know, as we were talking about before, you know, this is not just about gay people anymore. This is about allies. I mean, the second this went on social media, on Facebook, on Twitter, people just find this unacceptable. It's no longer acceptable to be anti-gay.
HAYES: But did they find it unacceptable, there was a weird kind of advertising of one's own enlightenment that this was part of. You know what I mean? It felt to me a little bit like, "I can like this, I can get behind this because this is a kind of, it's no skin off my back, you know? Like, I don't care who the CEO of Mozilla is." And this shows -- that's what conservatives were saying, right? Conservatives were saying that this is basically hounding people, this is totally "il-liberal."
HENNA: (INAUDIBLE) -to say that when it works for them because what their big thing is, "Oh, it's about the free market." Well, in this case it was the free market. People are making decisions about what they do and what they buy and what the organizations and the companies they support and the decisions they make as consumers voting with their wallets based on the leadership of those companies.
KAREN FINNEY, MSNBC HOST: It's the little bit of power that we have as consumers. And you hear Karl Rove and the right wing. What do they always say about the companies that give to right-wing causes. We don't want to have to publish our names. They're afraid of a backlash. Well, guess what: I can decide I don't want to spend my money at, with your company if I don't approve how you spend that money. I can decide-
HAYES: Barack Obama in 2008 was opposed to marriage equality.
FINNEY: And he still got elected, you know, that's the process.
HAYES: The point, but this guy gave them-
KIM: Here's a disturbing thing. I did ask some of my gay activist friends, I was like, "Look, here's a list; 6,500 people gave the same amount that he did or more in California. Should we go down the list and sort of start targeting all these people?" And I asked this facetiously, and people were like, "Let's do it. Let's find out where those people live. It's all-" To me, that's a disturbing level-
HAYES: Yes.
KIM: -of targeting people.
FINNEY: But is part of it because Prop 18 is so, it became such a heated issue in this country, and it sort of became, I think, and it is a sort of either you're on the right side or the wrong side, and, ironically, even the lawyer in the case has been evolving as he's planning his daughter's wedding.
oh- you mean they finally noticed?
They need to look out for their own jobs next
If I were them, this image would keep me up at night.
What question? It wasn't about any imagined future threats to gay people, it was about revenge. Payback. Exactly the sort of thing Valerie Jarrett threatened conservatives with. If Kim is surprised to find his activist friends turn out to be ugly, vengeful, hateful, violent people, he's likely the very last to notice it.
Now that the homosexuals believe they have the high ground, there are those who can’t wait to take advantage of their newly acquired power to torment other human beings. It is just like the anti-Irish hatred of the late 1800s that encouraged job discrimination, ostracization and stigmatization. Human nature has a bullying nature, when given free reign, will resort to savage inhumanity. These homosexuals are falling in line with that pattern.
It is almost like the goal to their quest for equality was really to have the upper reign over other human beings in order to satisfy a sadistic desire to torment. We are seeing the rise of the Hitler Syndrome.
Like others here, I also have been aware of Ernst Rohm history, and have been wondering all these recent years where is the hyper ‘masculine’ Rohm faction, are they staying in the shadows, are they still even there? It appears that faction is starting to come forward but notice, since this is the beginning, that you still can’t identify a Rohm yet. I would also point out, again what most posters on this thread know, that the misconception that all gays are effeminate(and therefore not really a threat or danger) has allowed the ruthless hyper ‘masculine’ Rohm factions to progress. They have been so stealth I had hoped maybe it didn’t exist like it had in Germany. The general publics’ view that gays(effeminate) can just be dismissed is a fatal mistake.
Interesting. More than a week ago I was listening to Rush and he called them the brown shirt faction. I explained to my wife that the brownshirts were the SA and were comprised mainly of homosexuals, their founder and leader being Ernst Rohm. I wondered at the time if Rush did that on purpose or did he actually just stumble on it. I beginning to believe he did it on purpose. Most people - especially the vast majority of the media - probably missed the connection.
We have been referring to them as Brown Shirt Media for years!
So let’s imagine the backlash if there was a similar effort to find and remove every employee who supported gay rights in a company. The Rainbow Mafia would make the Watts riots look like a Sunday get-together.
Not in California. They’ll all bend over for the theology of diversity.
Faggies picketed our local Chick Fil-A with signs warning “If You’re Eating Chick Fil-A, You’re Eating Anti-Gay!”
The lines only grew, spilling outside the restaurant. Patrons dared the faggies to cause trouble but nothing eventuated, no invasion. Too many fathers protecting their children.
At street level, faggies are hopelessly outnumbered.
You out there, cloudmountain?
I admire Pastor Lively and have read The Pink Swastika. There is a contradiction in your statement. If Rohm's masculine/butch homosexuality was the main issue for Hitler's purge, why were not all the butch homosexuals in the SA targeted?
Adolf Hitler personally arrested Röhm and ordered the arrest of other SA leaders and other political enemies (estimates range up to 1,000 – most were not homosexual) on 6/30/1934 in a plot to eliminate them, not because of their homosexuality, but as rivals to his consolidation of power. Historians later called this political purge, “The Night of the Long Knives.” At least 85, and possibly ~200 were executed in prisons by 7/02/1934 after which the SA was disbanded. Most of the experienced SA homosexual leaders who survived the blood purge moved into other power positions in the German military. Rohm was a communist in all but name, along with most of the SA. The German industrial class was very uneasy with having Hitler in power because they believed their industries would be nationalized. Hitler assured them that would not be the case because he knew he needed them to build his war machine. Targeting Rohm and the SA was meant to assuage the fears of the German industrial class. Also, the Wehrmacht was unnerved about having a rival military faction in the SA. They would not be loyal to Hitler until the SA was done away with as well.
Reminds me of the quote attributed to Mark Twain ...
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
The open homosexual "bear" columnist, Andrew Sullivan, may well be 1 of the butch homosexuals, but he has openly condemned Mozilla's treatment of Eich.
It’s more complicated than that. Most of the homosexuals who were considered untrustworthy and generally unworthy were the “fems.” Rohm was a loose cannon for a variety of reasons. He was too public, and he’d amassed a cult following which was viewed as a direct threat. But even that’s not the whole story. I recommend The Poisoned Stream for a better understanding.
We’ve already seen the “hyper-masculine” Rohm faction.. They were called The Village People.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.