Friday, June 18, 2021

Downey City Council: Reject PRIDE Flag, Celebrate the Community as a Whole

Dear Downey City Council:

My name is Arthur Schaper, and I am the Organization Director for MassResistance.

For the last three months—and ongoing—our activists and their contacts and supporters in the city of Downey have been contacting you to reject all of this LGBT promotionalism.

It is sickening and disgusting that the city council insists on pandering to another so-called minority, aka a sexual minority. The latest attempt, a discussion about flying the PRIDE Flag at city hall, is deeply offensive.

According to common law, natural law, and even proper constitutional law, there is no such thing as a “sexual minority.” Just because there is a smaller group of people who engage in certain behaviors, that does not mean that those individuals constitute another “minority.” I must remind this council that there are no ex-blacks, or ex-Cubans, but there are ex-gays and former transgenders. Their very existence proves that the whole LGBT movement is based on a lie, i.e. that people are “born that way,” and therefore that group should receive special celebrations and treatment.

Furthermore, I must remind the city council that the whole PRIDE month hagiography is based on a lie. The Stonewall Riots in 1969 had nothing to do with New York City police officers harassing peace-loving homosexuals and transgenders trying to enjoy a drink in a seedy bar. The Stonewall Inn was a notorious mob bar, and that bar was not paying their liquor license fees. For that reason, the bar endured one raid after another because of their failure to comply with New York City’s municipal codes.

So let’s dispense with the politically correctness nonsense that PRIDE Month or LGBT Month is somehow worthy of celebration.

Furthermore, it is indeed quite ironic that LGBT activists like Councilman Trujillo want to flaunt their gayness and have a picnic, a resolution, and a flag ceremony to celebrate their perversion, yet numerous residents have informed me that when he was running for city council last year, he never once brought up his sexual preferences. Now, after getting elected, he wants the whole world to know about his sexual conduct. This more or less holds true for Councilwoman Alvarez, as well.

This whole LGBT promotionalism is just so despicable. It is wrong for politicians to push their narrow agenda onto a city, when they had campaigned for office by pledging to deal with local bread-and-butter issues like street repair, public safety, and security for the business environment in the city.

Homosexuality and transgenderism should not be promoted in any city. Just because a number of government entities have caved to this agenda does not mean that Downey should do the same. Downey residents called on the school board to reject the sexually explicit, pro-LGBT sex-ed curriculum “Teen Talk.” Residents are now speaking out against the further promotion of LGBT themes and ideologies in city hall, as well.

The city must not promote behaviors, identities, and ideologies that are harmful to the individual and to the community as a whole. Homosexual conduct leads to an average decline of 20% in the lifespan of individuals. Transgenders struggle with a staggering 41% suicide rate, and in even the most LGBT affirming countries. There is a growing opposition to LGBT promotion and domination in the public square, as witnessed in a recent USA Today poll (Click here)

Last of all, the city needs to stop promoting narrow special interests and distinct segments of the city population at taxpayers’ expense, and at the expense of constitutional unity. For example, the Greek-American community hosts their annual celebrations on their own dime. Why do LGBT activists think that they have a right to city funds to promote their destructive behaviors in the community? As a reminder, people are born with a certain ancestry or ethnicity—but they are not born gay or born in the wrong body.

The Downey City Council should demonstrate its true commitment to unity and civic harmony and reject the hoisting of a PRIDE Flag or any other narrowly tailored banner. The only banners which should fly over city hall are the American Flag, the California Flag, and the POW “You Are Not Forgotten” Flag.


Arthur Schaper

Organization Director


To all readers and visitors, please contact the Downey City Council and urge them to reject flying the PRIDE Flag at Downey City Hall.

Here is their contact information:

Claudia Frometa

(562) 904-7274

Blanca Pacheco

(562) 904-7274

Sean Aston

(562) 904-7274

Catharine Alvarez

(562) 904-7274

Mario Trujillo

(562) 904-7274

Thursday, June 17, 2021

Twitter Censors Inadvertently Admit the Truth about January 6th, 2021 "Insurrection" That Wasn't

 Well, well, well ... when even the censors themselves admit to the truth that they are trying to cover up:

Tucker Carlson is right.

I am so glad that I told the FBI agents to leave my home.

And Epstein didn't kill himself. 

Sunday, June 13, 2021

Irony: Director of Jewish Studies Supported Anti-Semite Kevin MacDonald's Academic Freedom

In 2004, I enrolled in the teaching credential program at Cal State Long Beach. Two years later, I would have my teaching credential.

In the meantime, I did a great deal of reading and writing on campus. I was always researching, visiting the stacks in the main library. For a number of months, I would do the basic coursework for earning the credential, and then I would look over the numerous books that I had borrowed. One could say I was a voracious reader!

My credential advisor at the time was Arlene Lazarowitz. 

Dr. Arlene Lazarowitz

I will be sharing more information about her shortly.

At that time that I enrolled at Cal State Long Beach, the California Teaching Credential program at Cal State Long Beach was renowned. Many of my high school teachers earned their credentials in that program. It helped that Long Beach was close to home, so I did not have to commute long or move to the campus to earn the credential.

Now, the interesting story that I wanted to share about my time at Cal State Long Beach has to do with the infamous Kevin MacDonald!

Kevin MacDonald, aka K-Mac.
His motto: "It's the Jooz' Fault!"

He was a tenured faculty member at Cal State Long Beach, a social scientist and evolutionary psychologist who conducted considerable research into Jews, Judaism, and Western politics and philosophy. He wrote a trio of books on the subject, the most incendiary of which was entitled:

The whole title was actually:

The Culture of Critique : An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements

In this book, Kevin MacDonald argues that Jews in the United States and in other countries pursue values and policy goals to promote their own interests, often at the expense of the home countries which they live in. He further makes the argument that the left-wing zeitgeisten that has become commonplace in the United States and throughout the West is a result of Jewish academics and activists pushing their so-called anti-West, anti-White agenda.

MacDonald asserts that it's the Jews' fault that mass immigration has become a point of great contention in the United States, and that demographic changes are becoming considerable in the United States. He argues that Jewish activists started and promoted the NAACP. He focuses narrowly that they lead to the end of Darwinist theory in the social sciences, which gave rise to the multiculturalism movement and the argument that all cultures--traditions, values, habits--are equal, and equally estimable. This movement, he asserts, is a result of Jewish academics pushing their own self-interest to undermine the so-called ethnically "white" majorities in the Western World while promoting themselves and their interests into the seats of power.

He ultimately argues that Jews are pushing this agenda all at the expense of Europeans and their descendants, i.e. Jews are hurting white people.

MacDonald's assertions were blunt, blustery, controversial to say the least. Most importantly, they are false. His views are clearly, and he admits it unabashedly, anti-Semitic. He has openly decried the attacks on "White people" and one can basically reduce his moral worldview to "It's the Jooz' Fault!"

I cannot speak too charitably about his delusional thinking. It is really offensive!

I started hearing about this guy while I was earning my teaching credential at Cal State Long Beach in 2004. MacDonald would retire in 2006, so he was still technically active as an academic, a tenured faculty member on campus while I was getting my credential.

MacDonald's research received scant attention from other academics for decades after it was published. Professor Steve Pinker, for example, dismissed MacDonald's work as not worthy of any serious academic inquiry. However, such disregard has not prevented his ideas from getting promotion from certain political operatives in the United States. In the last five years, Alt-Right proponents have taken K-Mac's research (his supporters call him "K-Mac" as a term of endearment) and promoted his ideas for the last five years. During the Charlottesville rally turned riot in 2017, for example, the chants of the white supremacists, white nationalists, and neo-nazis included "Jews will not replace us!" Where does this conspiracy theory come from?

The Culture of Critique. 

The pernicious lies of this crank academic are getting more mainstream. It's time to do more than just stand by and say "His ideas don't matter." They require contention, confrontation, and correction.

For this reason, plus the fact that anti-Semitism is becoming more chic among younger so-called "conservatives" and college students in general for their overheated, baseless hatred of Israel and championing of the so-called Palestinian territories, I have been very alarmed about this trend and have wanted to combat it. For the last few weeks, I found myself engaging with Groypers, bigots, and other white nationalists on Gab, who routinely attack me for speaking out against Anti-Semitism and denouncing this false narrative that the Jews are the problem in our culture and our country.

Barely two years ago, I remember eating breakfast at a local McDonald's, and I started up a conversation with a guy who was eating with a passing acquaintance. Out of nowhere, this guy just blurted out to me: "Did you know that the Jews were behind 9-11?"

I nearly burst out laughing, the statement was so ludicrous. Then a creepy sense of unease washed over me. Then I started probing him on this issue, asking him to prove his assertion, which he clearly could not do. I then denounced his remarks and walked away.

It's shocking that such heinous, delusional anti-Semitism still lingers in the world, even in the United States, and even here in supposedly progressive, tolerant, and accepting Southern California.

So, getting back to Cal State Long Beach ...

I mentioned that MacDonald was still a tenured faculty member at Cal State Long Beach while I was earning my teaching credential. I also mentiomned  my Second Teaching Credential advisor Arlene Lazarowitz:

She had quite a reputation on campus. She was tough, loud, brooked no argument from students when they tried to turn research papers in late. She was the most ostentatiously Jewish person one could possibly imagine,too (and that's not an insult)! She was unapologetically liberal, with a very strong New York time accent (even though she was born in Canada. Go figure!). During her classes, she sometimes mentioned going to synagogue every Saturday with her colleagues. In short, she was very open about her Jewish identity. In fact, she was the Director of the Jewish Studies Program at the University!

Certainly, she would fit into the nefarious profile of "The Jews" that Kevin MacDonald had repeatedly argued in his book. He claimed many times over that Jews and Judaism operate based on an evolutionary strategy to promote their own interests while undermining the interests of gentile populations around them. They even go out of their way to suppress anti-Semitism via these same subversive, coercive methods.

If any of MacDonald's conclusions were actually true, one would think that the outspoken Jewish academic and activist Dr. Lazarowitz would have gone out of her way to fight back, suppress, and "cancel" MacDonald's research or end his tenure.

But on the contrary, Lazarowitz SUPPORTED his academic freedom!

Check out her statement in this edition of the Cal State Long Beach student newspaper:

Arlene Lazarowitz, the director of the Jewish studies program at CSULB, said that while she does not agree with many of MacDonald’s conclusions and that they are too subjective, she is happy that CSULB allows its faculty to think and publish freely without the threat of censorship.

In a debate about the validity of MacDonald’s research by members of the College of Liberal Arts it was determined that the tenured professor did not teach any of his research in the classroom and therefore was entitled to publish his research.

Lazarowitz added that instead of censorship, the best response to MacDonald’s research is to prove it wrong.

How about that?!

When I first read this account in the student newspaper, I was really surprised and thrilled to see this kind of openness in academic inquiry. One would think that she would have gone out of her way to suppress and shut down MacDonald's research, discredit his professional career, and even get him fired.

Not a chance. 

The further irony, when I remembered this, was that her very stance in favor of academic freedom further undermined MacDonald's noxious thesis! Jews are not operating to promote their own interests at the expense of their home country at all. In fact, Lazarowitz was defending and celebrating the university's atmosphere of free inquiry! One would think that if there were any truth to what MacDonald had asserted in The Culture of Critique, there would have been some effort by Jewish groups on campus to get MacDonald removed, and Lazarowitz would have been leading the effort.

That is precisely what did NOT happen. This anecdote has come and gone in my memory over the last few weeks, and it's particularly noteworthy for me since I was there in the midst of this controversy, although it impacted my only tangentially at best.

Today, I am sharing this story to fight back against the corrupt, corrosive lies of Anti-Semitism, which are becoming more popular on social media and in academia, and which need to be challenged, debated and debunked, as Dr. Lazarowitz had asserted nearly twenty years ago.

Saturday, June 12, 2021

Torrance City Council: Finish the Job, Pass Resolution of No Confidence in George Gascon

Dear Torrance City Council:

First of all, I wish to commend Councilman George Chen for taking the lead to seek an agenda item for a Resolution of No Confidence in LA County District Attorney George Gascon. There can be no delay for the city to go on record demanding the removal of that despicable partisan masquerading as a the chief law enforcement officer/prosecutor in Los Angeles County.

From LA County Sheriff Alex Villanueva to retired LA County District Attorney Steve Cooley, there is a wide consensus of elected officials, current and retired, who recognize that George Gascon is neither qualified nor equipped to serve as the District Attorney for the most populous county in the United States. His reckless disregard for the law, his utopian commitments to dismantling the execution of justice in name of "social justice", and his flagrant disdain for the residents of this county have made him a dangerous laughingstock to the entire county.

I just received word that in addition to dismantling the Hardcore Gang Crimes prosecution unit in the LA County DA's office, Gascon has disbanded The Los Angeles County District Attorneys Investigator’s Special Enforcement Team (SET). This unit was responsible for apprehending sexual predators who have failed register as sex offenders in the county. This is extremely alarming!

As a cursory reminder, Gascon has also done (or failed to do) the following:

·  He has refused to prosecute numerous crimes, including numerous misdemeanors like resisting arrest

·  He has rejected the voters' will when it comes to imposition of bail

·  He is seeking sentences that do not fit the crimes of defendants, including a rejection of all special enhancements

·  He is allowing violent 17-year-old repeat offenders to be tried as juveniles, avoiding more severe yet necessary punishment

·  He is pushing for motions to release all defendants who have served 15 years in state prison, regardless of how serious the crime may be

·  He has routinely dismissed the concerns, well-being, and welfare of victims and witnesses, insulting them in public hearings while leaving deputy DAs out of parole hearings

Deputy prosecutors in his own office have publicly denounced him, too:

Regarding Gascon's decision to reinvestigate officer-involved shootings, Gascon brought in a criminal defense attorney, and Gascon was going to allow this defense attorney to continue representing other criminal defendants at the same time. This is a massive conflict of interest, a blatant abuse of power, and a corruption of justice. A judge had to weigh in on this decision and order the attorney to drop representation for other defendants.

Gascon must receive a Vote of No Confidence from the city of Torrance.

Thank you for your time.


For anyone else reading this post ...

Please contact the Torrance City Council, and urge them to support the Resolution of No Confidence in George Gascon. We need four votes on the council to support this resolution, and just because a clear majority of of the members supported an agenda item does not mean that they will vote for it in the end.

Here is the Agenda Item for the June 22, 2021 Torrance City Council Meeting

Here's the email address to submit public comment for the meeting:


Here are the contacts for the city councilmembers individually:

Pat Furey (;

George Chen (;

Aurelio Mattucci (;

Sharon Kalani (

Mike Griffiths (;

Heidi Ashcraft (;

Phone:   (310) 618-2801

Hell Freezes Over: Democratic Sheriff of Los Angeles County Going Conservative, Standing up to Crime, Democratic Party

 When Alex Villanueva announced his bid for LA County Sheriff, I did not support him.

I wanted McDonnell to win re-election, because from the outset he opposed SB 54, the unconstitutional sanctuary state law which put illegal alien criminals ahead of law-abiding citizens. As the sheriff for the most populous county in the United States, McDonnell faced considerable blowback and headwinds for speaking out against the sanctuary state anarchy.

He met considerable hostility from left-wing activists, including La Raza militants and Brown nazis alike. He was unwavering in his opposition against such lawlessness. The state of California needs federal law enforcement officers in the jails to remove every foreign national who has violated our sovereignty. Illegal aliens have to go.

I confronted Villanueva on this issue. He actively campaigned on removing ICE from the jails.

Sadly, he was elected sheriff in 2018. I suspect that voter fraud, i.e. ballot harvesting played a huge role in that outcome.

So, we have had to suffer under his reign of error in regards to illegal immigration. He even went so far as to expand the number of crimes under which illegal aliens would not have to be deported from the county.

But now, fast forward two more years, and we see a Sheriff who is talking about law and order and taking on the political establishment in Los Angeles County.

He is speaking with news anchors on Fox News. He is talking about issuing massive numbers of Concealed Carry Weapons permits to Los Angeles County residents, when the previous sheriffs (Lee Baca and Jim McDonnell) refused to issue CCWs in the first place.

AND he is talking about cleaning up Venice Beach, taking on emergency powers to get rid of all the homeless who have migranted to California, to Venice Beach because they love the weather, the free government handouts, and lax law enforcement.

Villaneuve is calling out all the liberal politicians, from the Board of Supervisors to the Los Angeles City Council, for allowing this homeless invasion to metastisize in our communities.

Villanueva has sparked the ire of the very Democratic Party that lined up behind him in 2018, too. Check out this report:

LA CountyDemocrats call for Sheriff Villanueva to resign; his spokesman hits back

LOS ANGELES — The call by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party for Sheriff Alex Villanueva to resign is part of a “radical agenda,” a sheriff’s department spokesman told City News Service Wednesday.

Only California Democrats would declare that enforcing the law, protecting public safety and health were part of a "radical agenda." This is absolute madness.

“Yesterday, Sheriff Alex Villanueva began solving the homeless problem on the Venice Boardwalk while simultaneously conducting the largest illegal drug bust operation in the history of the department,” said Capt. John Satterfield, a spokesman for the sheriff’s department.

This story is not getting enough attention, either. Pot farms have been sprouting all over Northern Los Angeles County. These illegal operations take water away from essential services and real businesses, like farming. People need to eat food, not smoke pot, to get through the day.

“Violent crime rates have nearly doubled, yet for some strange reason the radical left activist crowd has decided defunding the police is a good move.

They are rabid communists paid to spout their hateful nonsense. If everyday citizens and activists don't get busy, this will become the norm throughout Los Angeles County and the United States as a whole.

“The LACDP calling for the sheriff’s resignation is part of this radical agenda, evidence they have been hijacked by the far left, and a distraction. The sheriff will continue to remain focused on public safety, creating solutions and serving our communities.”

Exactly. Of course, I do not believe in drawing a dichotomy between "The Left" and "The Far Left." Left is left is left. Evil is evil is evil. Madness is madness is madness.

Anyone who wants to serve in law enforcement is supposed to ... enforce the law. That is something that Democrats are now militantly fighting with all their might.

The Los Angeles County Democratic Party Central Committee voted Tuesday night to call for Villanueva to resign, saying he has failed to rein in “long-standing problems within his department.”

There are still long-standing problems, but they are not going to be solved by endangering public safety further. When the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to cut $300 million from the department budget

The vote came 10 days before the first anniversary of the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Andres Guardado by a sheriff’s deputy in an unincorporated area near Gardena.

The Democrats should also talking about the shooting of a special needs adult in Cudahy. For some reason, the Left does not care about innocent people who get killed by the police. They only care when someone who was committing crimes gets killed by the police--and black suspects only, at that.

“Accountability has long been one of the foundations of democracy,” Los Angeles County Democratic Party Chair Mark Gonzalez said Tuesday. “As voters, we have an obligation to hold our leaders accountable for their actions, and as the Democratic Party, a responsibility to ensure that our elected officials are upholding our ideals and principles.

The Democratic Party of Los Angeles County has no ideals or principles, aside from lawlessness, disorder, and Cultural Marxism. How can anyone still support this terrible party anywhere in the state of California?

“Tonight, marking the one-year anniversary of the murder of Andres Guardado, Los Angeles Democrats stand in solidarity with the Guardado family, recognizing the systematic brutality of law enforcement that has continued to shake our county. Leadership and accountability starts at the top, and while strides have been made to reform police culture in Los Angeles, it’s simply not enough.

Will they stand in solidarity with Jamiel Shaw Jr? How about David Dorn? How about Conan Hinnant (oh, he does not count, since he was a white kid shot by a black man ...)

“Sheriff Villanueva has had multiple opportunities since his election to rein in long-standing problems within his department, which is why tonight, Los Angeles Democrats are holding him accountable and calling for his resignation.

“A failure to lead in Los Angeles is a failure to serve Los Angeles. We will continue to hold those accountable who fail to live up to their obligations.”

The Democratic Party of Los Angeles County needs to be defunded and disbanded. They are a terrorist organization all unto themselves.

The Los Angeles County Democratic Party Central Committee endorsed Villanueva in his 2018 race against then-Sheriff Jim McDonnell, helping him become the first Democrat to win the nonpartisan office in 138 years.

Final Reflection

Again, hell is freezing over. We have the Sheriff of Los Angeles County taking on his own party and actually doing his job.

He refused to enforce the onerous lockdown orders from Governor Gavin Newsom.

In fact, he refused to enforce the statewide beach closures in Los Angeles County, too, on Independence Day! Happy Fourth of July!

He is issuing more CCWs to law-abiding citizens. He is issuing more concealed-carry permits than his predecessors, both of whom were supposedly more conservative than he.

He has continued to post the release dates of every convict in the LA County jails, even though left-wing activists wanted this practice to stop so that illegal alien criminals could wander back into LA County streets and cause more harm and havoc.

He stood up to the regressive, leftist LA County Board of Supervisors and ensured that not one sheriff's deputy was laid off, even after the board voted to cut his budget by $300 million.

He has gone on national television calling out the corrupt, lawless, dystopian governance in Los Angeles County.

He has pledged to remove all the homeless from Venice.

He has signed off on the recall petition to remove pro-criminal, anti-victim LA County District Attorney George Gascon.

He is even releasing the names of deputies in officer-involved shootings.

If he brings ICE back into the jails, I will VOTE FOR HIM in 2022!

Based El Salvador: Central American Nation Pushing Incredible Conservative Populist Reforms

 This incredible set of developments in El Salvador is something else!

Indeed, a country which acknowledges Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is going to enjoy great wisdom and great blessings!

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance." (Psalm 33:12)


"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption" (1 Corinthians 1:30)

The country is doing away with property taxes. He is inviting Cryptocurrency investors to the country.

The President of El Salvador also blasted the current administration in the United States for their open border policies, all of which are harming Central American nations, too. Just because corrupt VP Kamala Harris comes to Guatemala and tells people "don't come" does not mean that people will not come. The Biden Administration has rolled out the Welcome Mat with all kinds of government-funded goodies to illegal aliens. It's really embarrassing when Canada has stricter border security than the United States.

And the President of El Salvador was not afraid to call it out!

We need more countries stepping into these bold conservative reforms. Sadly, there may be a growing movement for these changes in South America as American governing leadership abandons all interest in upholding constitutional principles.


Nice: Barnes Beating Groypers Like a Boss

Kudos to Alex Jones for sponsoring a debate between Robert Barnes and Nick Fuentes.

Here's the link. I cannot share this link on Facebook, since they are doing the bidding of Communist China, and they will not allow Alex Jones' program to be posted on their site. After all, Jones has gone out of his way to expose all the evil that the Chinese Communist Party is doing around the world.

His debate debunking anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and pretty much upended the Groyper obsession with denouncing Israel while ignoring Islamic militancy and promoting Iran was excellent.

Here's some takeaways from the debate:

After the debate, Barnes exposed a number of Fuentes' despicable views (all culled and shared by TPUSA's Benny Johnson)

And here was a funny meme, too:

Failure of Zoomer "Conservative" Populism: "Sex Should Be Illegal"

 This is a serious policy position from a Zoomer populist:


This is the answer to the culture wars? Make sex illegal?

Even if this were a joke, it's not very funny or enlightening.

When does this madness cease?

I understand that a growing number of Zoomers, many of whom are embracing more conservative, nationalist, and populist beliefs want to take a stand for the culture wars and help win this fight.

However, these kinds of spasmatic, sporadic spouting-off sentiments are not going to help.

If younger generations want to be taken seriously in the fight for the United States, to Make America First, they need to do a better job of crafting real policy positions and shape the culture.

You cannot shape the culture by tweeting all day, and putting out ludicrous ideas like "sex shouldbe illegal."

Cut the crap, kids, and get real!

How False Marriage Took Over So Quickly in the United States

 I don't like to call the movement to allow homosexuals to marry "gay marriage". There is nothing really happy about the whole homosexual scene. So many stories of people who have lived in the whole "community" and the people who left homosexuality share that there is nothing really gay about the gay lifestyle.

And so, I talk about "false marriage." since it's a flagrant violation of natural law and natural right to say that two people of the same sex can form a covenant akin to marriage itself. It's just not possible. The physical, mental, emotional, and certainly spiritual dynamics relating to the marriage covenant belong only to one man and one woman.

At any rate. here's an extensive report about Sasha Isenberg in The New Yorker, in which he reports on how false marriage went from a fantastic and offensive idea to a sad reality in the United States:

In his new book, “The Engagement: America’s Quarter-Century Struggle Over Same-Sex Marriage,” the journalist Sasha Issenberg chronicles one of our country’s most recent civil-rights battles, tracing the evolution of the cause from 1990, when it started to become a political movement, to its ratification by the Supreme Court, in 2015. Issenberg’s subjects are the activists, politicians, and judicial figures who, intentionally or not, found themselves at its forefront. That gay marriage would become legal after only a twenty-five-year fight, Issenberg writes, “was beyond the wildest hopes of gay-rights activists just years before.” The book attempts to explain why this campaign succeeded so quickly and how religious conservatives inadvertently furthered a cause they passionately opposed.

Conservatives need to learn how this happened, and then take every step to reverse this terrible course.

I think, generally, when people think of the struggle for gay marriage, they often think about the relative speed with which it was accomplished compared with other struggles in American history. Do you think that can be replicated in other movements?

I think there are certainly some structural, tactical decisions that same-sex-marriage supporters made that helped lead them to victory. And that, broadly, there are lessons that other campaigners or social movements can adopt. But the idea that there’s a kind of off-the-shelf manual for twenty-five years of social change. . . .


One important thing is there’s an organization called Freedom to Marry, which was a single-issue campaign organization with one goal: equal marriage rights across fifty states and the District of Columbia. And, up until this point, the major players in L.G.B.T. politics, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and a lot of state-level organizations, have a really broad panoply of issues that they are invested in. They represent a coalition that is fairly broad, basically sexual minorities, and have a whole lot of issues that they’re working on: they’re trying to stop hate crimes, they’re trying to get recognition for families, they’re trying to allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military, a whole bunch of things. It’s been a recurring trope among gay-rights activists that the Human Rights Campaign, the most wealthy and prominent of the gay-rights groups, is too focussed on the inside game, too focussed on winning access, raising money. Some activists believe that the gay-rights movement as a whole did not fight strongly enough against the Defense of Marriage Act or against the federal marriage amendment because the Human Rights Campaign wasn’t ready to fight and that this was evidence of their accommodationist sort of approach to politics.

One organization focused on one goal: to make false marriage a reality in the United States. Too many conservatives want to focus on all kinds of issues at once, and they become ineffective.

It’s clear that the H.R.C. was always acting, I think, quite rationally, in that they had had a broad set of issues that they cared about, and they intended to use influence in Washington institutions to get it. And they had to weigh the merits of fighting over marriage with the merits of trying to get progress on other issues. When Freedom to Marry comes along, they don’t have to make those compromises. And so they are able to develop a strategy that’s not based on trade-offs between “If we push for marriage in this state, will it step back our efforts to get a nondiscrimination ordinance passed?” And Freedom to Marry said, “We’re going to put ourselves out of business after we meet our goal,” which they did after the Supreme Court ruled in 2015. And that is not the way that most interest groups are set up. They’re set up basically to perpetuate themselves. And that means that they are having to weigh not just their policy objectives, but their donors and their members and their long-term stability.

And I think it raises a lot of questions. Where would gun laws be if, instead of having these broad gun-control organizations, a group is focussed solely on background checks?

The other issue with the gun control lobby, however, is that the right to self-preservation is so endemic to human beings, and the very culture and character of the United States was founded in large part on the right to self defense. When the British started attacking the American colonists in New England, they went after their guns. The farmers with guns on the fields of Lexington and Concord help

Probably the same place, but your point may still be correct.

Yeah. But I think that the natural physics of interest-group politics and coalitions is to make them bigger. And if you really are focussed on one discrete policy objective, the bigness and broadness of those groups can be self-defeating.

Exactly. Smaller interests tend to wield disproportionate political power, and more effectively, too.

Well, this also goes to your earlier point, that the religious right did the cause of gay rights a favor by making it more about one specific thing.

Yeah. They helped set up the terms of a debate, and then, later, gay-rights activists with big donors built an infrastructure that could fight the conflict on those terms.

We were talking about backlash earlier, and you mention near the end of the book that a backlash to gay marriage hasn’t really happened in the way one often expects. How do you understand that?

I think there are a few elements here. One is that anti-gay activists were not surprised when the Obergefell decision came down in 2015. It looked almost fated, based on the court’s earlier ruling and the way that it had handled appeals to circuit-court decisions. So I don’t think that there was the emotional letdown on the day of the decision that would’ve galvanized some opposition. And, because of that, many of those activists had already begun to move to an area where they still had strength, where the public opinion looked a lot more like it did around gay marriage twenty years ago—which is trans issues. And so they basically said, “We have lost the gay-marriage fight, but we have this nearby place where we can manufacture conflict from a position of strength.” And many of the same institutions that had been fighting over gay marriage all of a sudden just started fighting over issues related to transgender people.

The bigger issue, which this interview does not pay attention to, is that pro-family activists refused to discuss more grounded realities regarding the dangers of false marriage. In fact, they did not even start the fight properly with the right rhetoric. They should have been calling the push for gay marriage what it really is: false marriage.

Then they should have focused on science, biology, genetic arguments. They needed to point out that every society cannot survive, let alone thrive, without the nuclear family, without natural marriage. Sadly, pro-family activists and their lawyers relied on arguments of tradition, religious sentiment, and religious liberty. These arguements cannot be persuasive in the face of the emotionally demanding "non-discrimination" arguments.

That was going to be my next question—to what degree is it a coincidence that trans issues have become more prominent in the past five years?

There was all this capacity that had been built. I mean, part of the story of how we ended up fighting about gay marriage in the nineteen-nineties is that the gay-rights movement and the religious right grew up more or less in parallel in the late seventies and became professionalized and well funded through the eighties. By the nineties, the gay-rights movement was a central part of the Democratic-left coalition, and the religious right was a central player in Republican politics. And they had developed capacity for conflict. They were basically on a collision course. And the only question was: What were they going to fight over? And this popped up on the radar as the thing that they started to fight over.

I think what happened twenty years later, around the time of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling, was that these coalitions were bigger and stronger in many respects, more entrenched, and still needed something to fight over. Religious conservatives had lost their position of strength for a variety of reasons—opinion change, demographic changes. And then they decided that they were going to go to trans issues instead.

The real change was not demographics, but rather the growing indoctrination in the public schools and the public square. The media promoted TV sitcoms and "out" celebrities, all of whom gave off this false veneer that they were "born that way", and that normalizing their lifestyle was not going to cause anyone else harm.

The other part of it is the cosmology of religious conservatives shifted with the defeat over same-sex marriage, where they may have ceded the broader culture wars. There’s a reason Jerry Falwell called his organization the Moral Majority. The kind of motivating conceit of religious-conservative activism through the eighties and nineties, and much of the two-thousands, was based on the idea that there’s a Judeo-Christian majority in the country and the laws of the United States should reflect its values. And losing the conflict over gay marriage, I think, persuaded many of those religious conservatives that they were not, in fact, the majority—that now you don’t have to watch more than ten minutes of Fox News to understand that the cosmology of the current American right is that they are a besieged minority, under siege by the courts, and academia, and Hollywood. And, once they began to think of themselves as a besieged minority, they started doing what besieged minorities do in our constitutional system, which is to ask the courts for protection. And that takes the form of these religious-liberty exemptions, which is basically an acknowledgment of the concession of defeat in the broader struggle.

The Moral Majority cannot win a political or cultural majority based on statements, speechs, conventions, and conferences. The intellectual and legal activism essential to preserving a culture was not prominent among religious conservatives for the last twenty years. In fact, for decades conservatives have avoided court battles, have avoided taking over key institutions of the culture, hoping that by reducing the government and pressing "live and let live" as a cultural policy, everything would work out just fine.

Clearly, that is not what has happened.

You wrote an op-ed last weekend in the Times which was headlined “Cancel Culture Works: We Wouldn’t Have Marriage Equality Without It.” For the book, you went back and looked at the different ways that gay-rights organizations and gay-rights activists shamed, shunned, and boycotted opponents of same-sex marriage. Do you feel that you’re seeing some of the same tactics that are today labelled “cancel culture,” or do you feel like those activists avoided what critics of cancel culture find so damaging today?

This is a bigger part of the reason why false marriage took over the country. Again, referring to my previous reflection above, the homosexual lobby fought the culture war in the fields of public opinion, including academia and the general media. They worked hard to shame and shun anyone who spoke out in favor of natural marriage and against false marriage. These Stalinist tactics have barely abated in the last five years since false marriage was imposed on the country via a corrupted Supreme Court decision.

Yeah. Well, I’m glad we’re not going to have a conversation about what cancel culture means or doesn’t, because I actually don’t really know. I think that one of the big changes that take place in the marriage debate is how the money dynamic shifts in the years between 2008, when gay-marriage supporters suffered this massive setback when Proposition 8 passed in California, and four years later, in 2012, the first time they sweep four ballot measures. One of the big things is the extent to which the pro-gay-marriage side of the debate opened up a major financial advantage over opponents. You had a cluster of exceedingly wealthy gay donors, mostly gay white men who had made their money through tech or inherited it, who in the two-thousands had become uniquely interested in marriage among all the issues on the agenda. By 2012, Mike Bloomberg was giving major contributions. Jeff Bezos was giving major contributions. You had a whole lot of Wall Street donors, including Republicans, who were giving generously as well.

Notice that Big Business got behind the false marriage movement big time! Conservative donors did not want to get their hands dirty in that fight. I would go one step further and submit that conservative donors have been more interested in making money than in perserving the culture. As Dinesh D'Souza pointed out in his book "Letters to a Young Conservative," conservatives care about the economy. Liberals care about power. The fight to force false marriage on the country was a powergrab of the first order, and the Left understood this dynamic very well.

The other thing that’s happening is big donors basically abandon the other side of the fight: by 2012, it’s clear that the folks running the effort to ban same-sex marriage are just having trouble going to their normal donors, including archdioceses. There’s something about being associated with this issue that people don’t want to deal with, in terms of media scrutiny and acceptance among their peers in the business world. I think so often this cancel-culture conversation is played out over the propriety of it, or the place of these tactics in a liberal democracy, and here’s this really important recent case study that shows it actually works. Scaring away propositions’ financial backers through shame is something that can have a dramatic effect on the trajectory of a particular political debate, and the Internet has made it much easier for individuals to launch and organize these types of attacks.

Final Reflection

Supporters of false marriage relied on shame, degradation, and all-out war against anyone who disagreed with their perversion. Conservatives simply refused to understand the nature of the tactics which LGBT militants would use to push their destructive, hateful agenda.

Too many people were caught up in the lie that they are "born that way," and therefore it is cruel to discriminate against them. Furthermore, I submit that there was too little research at the time on the necessary reasons for children to have a mother and a father. Much of the reason for the paucity of research, however, is due to the fact that academies, universities, and research facilities have suppressed inquiry into these issues. Intellectual activism has included cancelling, suppressing, stopping any investigation into the long-term damage of undermining natural marriage in any community.

Conservatives, pro-family activists have ample opportunity to push back. What is needed is not just political change, but cultural and intellectual activism of a new sort to push back. Conservatives cannot abandon the public square and public institutions because they do not want to engage with destructive, hateful, anti-family, and anti-American liberals. They need to get into the fray, get into the fight, and win.

Open Letter to Actor Edward Choy Regarding "Pink Dot"

Dear Mr. Choy:

How are you?

My name is Arthur Schaper. I am very well aware of your work in the Republic of Singapore, as an actor and spokesman on many issues. I am particularly surprised and grateful for your "American accent"! I notice that your speech is very much like mine!

At any rate, I noticed this post on your Instagram account:

These are your remarks on that post:

"@jodecro and I put on our pink tops and cycled to a nice place by the water to sit and take a picture. We'll always support the right of consenting adults to love each other without being subjected to prejudice and persecution.

"As Jesus says, "love thy neighbour." So we do lor. :)"

Regarding the "right" of consenting adults to love each other without being subjected to prejudice or persecution ...

Do you believe that people who engage in prostitution should be free from prejudice or persecution? What about incestuous relationships between adult parents and their adult children? Should polygamy be accepted in the Republic of Singapore and other countries as well?

Furthermore, I am aware of your participation in Christian events and services in your country. How do you reconcile your interest in promoting relationships between two people of the same sex, when God's Word makes it very clear that such behaviors are unnatural? i.e.

"25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers," (Romans 1:25-29)

I understand that you have provided speaking and presentation services to New Creation Church. You are aware that Pastor Prince has wisely and righteously made appeal to those who struggle with the sins of those manifested in the city of Sodom and Gomorrah that they can break free. 

Consider also Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians:

"9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

I ask again: how do you reconcile your faith with these pronouncements in favor of Pink Dot, which runs contrary to God's best for all of mankind?

Feel free to respond via email if you wish. My email address is