January 28, 2011

Marty Peretz

Martin Peretz, who bought The New Republic in 1974, has today finally been forced out as Editor-in-Chief. His heiress wife divorced him a few years ago, so he doesn't have the kind of money to pour into the magazine as he once did. And, over the last year, during the Ground Zero Mosque brouhaha and the Arizona shooting freakout, Establishment opinion has crystallized around the idea that the Real Threat is not Muslims, but is instead the kind of people who object to Muslims, leaving Marty sounding so 2000s.

Hence, Peretz spends most of his time in Israel now, where he rails at the Black Hats who are taking over Israel demographically. (Marty, who has two kids, has certainly done more than could be personally expected of him for the secular side in the intra-Jewish demographic struggle.)

There have been two long recent profiles of Peretz:
Martin Peretz Is Not Sorry. About Anything. by Stephen Rodrick in the NYT

Peretz in Exile by Benjamin Wallace-Wells in New York

Gawker has an inconvenient question about these articles:
Why Won't Anyone Tell You that Marty Peretz Is Gay?

Well, that would raise questions about a long string of Peretz's bright young men, stretching through Andrew Sullivan all the way back to the 17-year-old Al Gore in 1965.

As I pointed out in VDARE.com in 2008 when Peretz's latest bright young man, Jamie Kirchik, was attacking Ron Paul for being making jokes about the 1992 South Central rioters:
This Peretz-Kirchick fiasco reminds me of one of the stranger stories of the 2000 election: Al Gore's claim that, when he was an undergraduate at Harvard, he and his wife inspired the bestselling 1970 novel Love Story. It was made into a huge hit movie starring Ryan O'Neal and Ali MacGraw in, according to Gore, the Al and Tipper roles.

In fact Love Story's author, Erich Segal, a Harvard professor of Greek and Latin literature, said that his hero Oliver, "the tough, macho guy who's a poet at heart," was not inspired by Gore, but by Gore's roommate, Tommy Lee Jones, the college football player who went on to win an Oscar in The Fugitive. According to Segal, only a bit of Oliver's character—the family baggage of being intimidated by a famous, domineering father—was drawn from the son of Senator Albert Gore Sr.

Yet, the former Vice President's assumption that Professor Segal must have been fascinated by his undergraduate self is understandable. Because at about the same time, another Harvard professor, Martin Peretz, was beginning a lifelong infatuation with Gore.

It all started in 1965 when Al was a 17-year-old freshman and Marty his 26-year-old political science professor. Bob Zelnick, Gore's biographer, wrote:

"Perhaps the most significant friendship Gore formed at Harvard was with his resident instructor, Martin Peretz …"
 

Of course, the depths of Peretz's passion can be exaggerated. After all, as late as 1968, Gore didn't make Peretz's all time Top Three list, according to radical muckraker Alexander Cockburn's book Al Gore: A User's Manual:

"By 1968 Peretz was telling the late Blair Clark that 'I have been in love only three times in my life. I was in love with my college roommate. I am in love with the state of Israel and I love Gene McCarthy.'"
Still, Peretz's feelings for Gore have certainly been enduring. In 2006, he endorsed Gore for President (for the third time, after 1988 and 2000), writing:

"Let me tell you a few words about the question as to whether Al Gore has changed. Actually, to me he is essentially the same young man I met in a Harvard freshman seminar 41 years ago…"

48 comments:

Simon in London said...

"Marty, who has two kids, has certainly done more than could be personally expected of him in the demographic struggle."

Dulce et Decorum, Pro Patria...

Luke Lea said...

So Marty's not perfect. He has my deepest sympathy.

James M. said...

When I read your earlier article about Marty Peretz, I immediately made the connection: Peretz is probably a creepy gay guy.

But not being very interested in Peretz nor a regular reader of The New Republic I gave it no more thought.

The other day though, I happened to read the profile of him in the New York Times. Perhaps I'm a dingbat but it didn't at all register with me this time that the man was gay. I missed the hints that the reporter weaved in.

It's all so ridiculous. This kind of lying leads one to become so cynical about the elite media.

John Derbyshire is a nasty, mean-spirited, racist? I've been reading his work for years, and it's never occurred to me that he was that. And I'm black!

VDARE is a hate organization? I also read that regularly and although VDARE is many things, I doubt that a reasonable person could come to that conclusion.

Walt & Mearsheimer are virulent anti-Semites? Reading their otherwise fabulous book, The Israel Lobby, I grew tired of their repeated sops to Israel's right to exist and their constant reminders that the aims of the Lobby are not in line with those of average Jews.

It all makes you wonder about what's being hidden, the stuff that remains unsaid, and the real agenda behind it all. It's exhausting.

Harry Baldwin said...

From the Gawker piece:
Though he has been an avowed bigot for most of his adult life, he has only been held to account for his ethnic hostility to Arabs and Persians recently, when he wondered aloud on his New Republic blog "whether I need honor these people and pretend they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment, which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse." The "these people" were Arabs, for whom Peretz also said "life is cheap" (he later apologized for the First Amendment line). The naked racism of the sentiment caused even some of Peretz' oldest friends to hang their heads in shame, and served as an ignominious cap to his career.

Wow, those statements caused his oldest friends to hang their heads in shame? Those kind of statements--honest expressions of his feelings--are the only things I respect Peretz for. Shouldn't a man be free to say what he thinks? What a pathetic people we have become.

I have long-since concluded that when diversity meets freedom, freedom loses.

rob said...

His wife? I didn't think he was into that sort of thing.

Anonymous said...

Israel is the correct venue for Mr. Peretz (home is where the heart is, after all).

Anonymous said...

"Marty, who has two kids, has certainly done more than could be personally expected of him for the secular side in the intra-Jewish demographic struggle."

If two is all that could be personally expected from a guy like him, then it shouldn't even be called a struggle. Black hats routinely go into double digits.

Anonymous said...

He also famously said "my pacifism stops at the kosher deli door"

no one has ever faulted him for HIS ethnic 'chauvinism'

As with so many things centered around Israel /Jewish identity, his fault is not thinking it, because most all of them do, it's saying it.

Udolpho.com said...

lol, Gawker...snark at its pissiest

Thrasymachus said...

Liberals are very much into the idea that there are those who get it and those who don't. They don't want to say he's gay because they figure it will be perfectly obvious to any genteel sophisticate and they don't they should have to, or need to explain it to the rubes.

not a hacker said...

In the '80's, Peretz enriched my life publishing likely the most literate and entertaining magazine that ever existed. With my dreary law practice, it was the one think I looked forward to every week. Depite being a liberal(ish) organ, TNR is the only entity ever to state explicitly what the rest of the Left refuses to face, i.e. that "most 'racism' is classism." That this meme never took off is the reason for most of our problems since.

helene edwards said...

James M: want to get famous? Why not round up a few of your friends, call a press conference, and explain to the nation that every time some white Lefty trots out the term "racist," all that's going on is status posturing and cheap self-congratulation? Ask Matt Lauer if he's invested any of his money with a black money manager. That should be fun!

Anonymous said...

Never liked him but I respected his warring with leftists over the far Jewish Left on The Nation.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/79648/rosenbergs-redux-julius-ethel-communist-spies

http://www.tnr.com/article/red-dusk

Anonymous said...

Jews don't have problems with Peretz's anti-Islamism and extreme Zionism. The problem is Peretz acted like Sonny in the scene where Vito talks 'business' with Sollozzo the Turk. He's a hothead and GIVES THE GAME AWAY of how Jews REALLY FEEL.

After Sollozo leaves, Vito tells Sonny, "Never tell anyone outside the Family what you are thinking again."
The Jewish way is to undermine both Christians and Muslims by pitting them against one another while pretending to be for UNDERSTANDING beween both sides.

Eric said...

Let me tell you a few words about the question as to whether Al Gore has changed. Actually, to me he is essentially the same young man I met in a Harvard freshman seminar 41 years ago…

Is that supposed to be a compliment? Gore hasn't learned anything in 41 years?

Anonymous said...

A lot of politicians and newscasters are gay. Same drama major qualities as actors: love attention, obsessed with how they look, dramatic speech and gestures, make-up, etc.

Fred said...

"If two is all that could be personally expected from a guy like him, then it shouldn't even be called a struggle. Black hats routinely go into double digits."

That went right over your head, huh?

Anonymous said...

Why is hearing about this so gratifying?

RKU said...

Well, I remember quite a number of years ago I happened to read some "intriguing" comments about Peretz somewhere, and said to myself "I wonder..." But then I thought a little more about it, and decided there was absolutely no way the entire American media would have kept something like that absolutely quiet, especially since Peretz had so many bitter political enemies, and I dismissed the idea. I was pretty naïve back then, and still assigned some weight to arguments from silence.

Then a year or two I happened to be looking through back issues of TNR, including right around the time Peretz acquired the magazine in the early 1970s. TNR had always been left-liberal, with a heavily Jewish staff, and presumably supportive of gay rights. But within the six months following Peretz's arrival, I noticed what seemed to be a *gigantic* spike in stories focusing on Jews, Israel, and homosexuality, not necessarily in that order. Ha, ha, ha...

Still, in some ways, there's much less to this Peretz controversy than meets the eye. After all, Peretz together with all his friends, associates, employees, and "employees" are and always have been very strong advocates of "social liberalism," at least in the gay rights category. I'd bet that pretty much all the people in his circle have approximately similar views, whatever their personal orientations, as do the elected officials they support and the voters who keep them in office.

But here's a vastly greater and much more intriguing puzzle. In effect, today's Republican Party represents America's "anti-gay rights" constituency, as does the conservative movement behind it. Social conservativism, certainly including gay issues, is a very major component of the party's ideological roots and the motivating force behind a huge fraction of its rank-and-file voters. Yet if all the rumors and innuendo floating around on the Internet are even partially correct---and I credit that sort of evidence much these days more than I would have a few years ago---an absolutely astonishing fraction of the most prominent Republican/conservative elected officials and activists in America are actually (closeted) gays, probably a much higher fraction than is the case with their opposite numbers among the (pro-gay) Democrats/liberals. Given how many have been "outed" one way or another over the last few years, even a rock-bottom estimate would be pretty huge.

If true, this is extremely peculiar, a little like suddenly discovering that one-third of Bin Laden's top aides were actually Jewish. It raises all sorts of fascinating speculations regarding the true underlying political/ideological history of America over the last half-century...

Severn said...

RKU: if all the rumors and innuendo floating around on the Internet are even partially correct---and I credit that sort of evidence much these days more than I would have a few years ago---an absolutely astonishing fraction of the most prominent Republican/conservative elected officials and activists in America are actually (closeted) gays, probably a much higher fraction than is the case with their opposite numbers among the (pro-gay) Democrats/liberals.

You really, really need to stop getting all your news from the far left press. I await with bated breath your next startling discovery - that these people habitually fill your empty head with nonsense!

Simon in London said...

anon:
"A lot of politicians and newscasters are gay. Same drama major qualities as actors: love attention, obsessed with how they look, dramatic speech and gestures, make-up, etc."

I don't normally watch CNN, but I did last night looking for news on the Egyptian uprising. My main impression:

"Wow, I didn't know Wolf Blitzer was an old gay Jewish man!"

Simon in London said...

Ron:
"an absolutely astonishing fraction of the most prominent Republican/conservative elected officials and activists in America are actually (closeted) gays, probably a much higher fraction than is the case with their opposite numbers among the (pro-gay) Democrats/liberals"

I was involved in London local politics for a few years, which also meant encountering a few national politicians. From my experience I would say that while a large number of both Labour and Conservative politicians were gay, far more than the public knew about, there were probably even more gay Tories than gay Labourites (& the Trans-sexuals were Liberal). So that would fit the pattern you attribute to the US.

Part of it seems to be that gays don't have children and so have far more time to devote to politics. Certainly having a child knocked me out of political involvement, I was far too tired. Straight men with traditional wives* who do most of the child care can do politics, but now that men are expected to do both there's not much energy left over. This creates a vacuum filled by gay men.

*Or "super mums" with the energy to both do child care & paid work.

Simon in London said...

Our female politicians are usually straight, though. I think lesbians tend to lack the flamboyance/extroversion to make good politicians. Instead they go into the civil service, academia etc.

Lucius Vorenus said...

Hence, Peretz spends most of his time in Israel now, where he rails at the Black Hats who are taking over Israel demographically. (Marty, who has two kids, has certainly done more than could be personally expected of him for the secular side in the intra-Jewish demographic struggle.)

In defense of a hardcore Jewish chauvinist, like Marty Peretz: A least he cares about SOMETHING.

And apropos of the accompanying Ronald Reagan thread, I get the same feeling when I consider Steven Spielberg [a man whom I utterly loathe and despise] - he may be an ogre, but he had 1 child by Amy Irving, 5 children by Kate Capshaw, and is rumored to own one of the largest private gun collections in the world, so you get the strong sense that at least the guy cares about SOMETHING.

On the other hand, this new generation of Peretz proteges is so thoroughly, viscerally nihilistic that they will be more than happy to leave absolutely nothing [other than the annihilation of Western Civilization] in their wake.

Anonymous said...

I'm with the crowd who suspects that the upper echelon of the GOP leadership is simply riddled with sodomites.

Speaking of which, how long did it take "Pretty Boy" Rubio to ditch his Tea Party allies?

All of five minutes?

BTW, you get this in the mega-churches, as well.

Show me one of these extroverted, publicity seeking, charismatic celebrity ministers, and I'll show you a sociopath with some serious sexual issues in his closet.

Almost all of these ministers [in both the Caucasian & Negro churches] are either satyrs hitting on all of the married ladies in the congregation, or sodomites preying on the altar boys, or both.

Anon this time said...

@ RKU- there is possibly something to this.
I have noticed in the gay community that 'tops' tend to be conservative,( align with authority figures, more at ease in the masculine sphere) They tend to have more brothers than sisters.
'Bottoms' tend to be left wing, (challenge authority figures ,but align more with women) have more sisters than brothers.
What this means I have no idea.

RKU said...

Severn: You really, really need to stop getting all your news from the far left press. I await with bated breath your next startling discovery - that these people habitually fill your empty head with nonsense!

Well, offhand I can't think of a single one of the rumors I've heard which derives from a leftwing website, and at least about 95% come from rightwing websites, especially the more extreme ones. The rest of my observations come from just reading the headlines of the major newspapers after every additional Republican/conservative sex-scandal unfolds. When you notice all sorts of "crazy rightwing rumors" floating around for years, and then suddenly one day they're on the front page of the NYT, you start to reassess your credibility-weighting of various media outlets.

I guess "Severn" must spend all his time on leftwing blogsites. If he ever visited rightwing ones, he'd know that rightwing commenters typically identify "G.O.P." with a rather scandalous acronym...

Bruce Banner said...

Are there any stats about homosexuality among male Jews? For some reason, they seem to be over represented compared to gentiles.

Anonymous said...

For such an ethnocentric/tribal guy, it is a little surprising that is ex-wife is not Jewish. His descendents will probably be generic white Americans.

Silence said...

The number of mid-level gay Republicans is disturbing to any social conservative.

Perhaps the most effective SoCon movement in the 20th century was based in the Catholic ethnics who held control of the urban centers. Then urban renewal and "integration" came along. It's as if they were driven out of the Democrats by feminists and open homosexuals into a party of closet cases where their concerns can be safely contained and sabotaged.

How many Republican politicos are victims of sexual blackmail I wonder? Look up the Craig Spence prostitution ring, whose investigative records in 1992 passed into the control of... U.S. Attorney Eric Holder.

Pre-feminism, a lot of housewives also had more time for politics and social activity.

Luke Lea said...

Peretz in a review of "The fatal Embrace: Jews and the state" by Benjamin Ginsberg, once remarked that the Jews seemed to be good at everything except self-government. He was referring to Israel. The Ginsberg book itself makes an interesting point: that over the centuries Jews have tended to ally themselves with the governing elite against the people (court Jews, war financiers, estate overseers, tax farmers, etc) and that while this strategy has often proven successful in the short-run it often proved disastrous in the long. If he hasn't already, Steve might do a review of this book.

More generally I would say that Jews have shown remarkable naivite about politica power in general, perhaps because they exercised so little of it over the last two thousand years. We see this in their embrace of Marxism -- the withering away of the state? oh, oomeon !) and currently in their embrace of the cosmopolitan globalist agenda at the expense of the American people. (Paul Samuelson led the way on this when he used his influence in favor of Nafta and Gatt.)

Since I generally love the Jews and care about their fate, I am hoping that a significant fraction of the American Jewish community will see the folly of their ways and go over to the other side. In fact I see this as the only hope for Sailer's citizinism idea in the long run.

Luke Lea said...

BTW, let me answer the question before anyone asks it. Why do I love the Jews? For the same reason I love the Brits, for their numerous contributions to our culture and civilization. I mean, where would we be without them?

Simon in London said...

I like Steven Spielberg. He seems to really believe in the American Dream. He's a patriot. His politics seem more classical-Liberal than Frankfurt School. He's like a throwback to the
pre-60s Hollywood.

SFG said...

"I have noticed in the gay community that 'tops' tend to be conservative,( align with authority figures, more at ease in the masculine sphere) They tend to have more brothers than sisters.
'Bottoms' tend to be left wing, (challenge authority figures ,but align more with women) have more sisters than brothers."

Kinky friends of mine (you'd be surprised what Northern nerds get up to in their off hours) tell me that submissive men tend to be poorly endowed. Probably this all ties in to testosterone levels.

I suppose challenging authority figures might come to masculine men as well--after all, if you're alpha, why would you want to be someone's beta?

Wesley said...

"I have long-since concluded that when diversity meets freedom, freedom loses."

-Only in recent history

William said...

Not sure that Gore is gay- he doesn't really have a reputation for flamboyant theatrics. Then again, he did have a thing for Chads hanging in Miami.

RKU said...

Silence: "How many Republican politicos are victims of sexual blackmail I wonder?"

That's exactly correct, and the main reason the problem is much more practical than merely prurient.

Consider perhaps the most prominent gay Democrat, Barney Frank. Back a couple of decades ago, he was hit by a major sexual scandal, namely that one of his boyfriends was running a male prostitution ring out of Frank's home or something like that. Frank was bombarded with a lot of negative headlines and was officially reprimanded by the full House, but since he was elected by the "pro-gay party," it didn't really damage him politically, and he never faced a serious challenge in his own district. After a couple of years, pretty much everyone forgot about the matter. But just imagine what would have happened to him if he'd been a member of the "anti-gay party," i.e. the Republicans. And imagine the sort of blackmail power which such evidence would have held over one of the most powerful members of the House.

Consider the interesting historical case of J. Edgar Hoover, who served as head of the FBI for a full half-century. It's widely believed that Hoover had accumulated massive blackmail material against most of the leading political figures in the country over the decades, and this was an important reason no president ever dared to replace him.

Meanwhile, it's also every widely believed that Hoover himself was homosexual and some people also believe his hidden family tree was part black; both these theories seem pretty plausible to me. Strangely enough, despite Hoover's longstanding role as America's top law enforcement officer, he always denied the existence of the Mafia, claiming it was just a myth, and under him the FBI seemed to allocate relatively few resources to combat organized crime, which seems a bit peculiar. I strongly suspect that blackmail is a weapon that can be used in both directions.

As for the present day situation, I've noticed an intriguing correlation between the widespread suspicion that some prominent Republican or conservative is secretly gay and the tendency of that individual to follow strange and mysterious political twists and turns, taking positions which might seem ideologically inexpicable at first glance. In most of these cases, I suspect that correlation does indeed imply causality.

Taking this analysis a step further, I doubt it is entirely coincidental that so many of the conservatives and Republicans who tend to reach the top ranks of influence and power possess such massive personal vulnerability. By contrast, gays seem much less over-represented among leading Democrats, even though gay voters and activists are so overwhelmingly concentrated in that party. A plausible hypothesis behind these seemingly backward statistics is that gay Republicans are very vulnerable while gay Democratcs are much less so, hence the former are much more likely to serve as malleable political tools for others.

Anonymous said...

"A plausible hypothesis behind these seemingly backward statistics is that gay Republicans are very vulnerable while gay Democratcs are much less so, hence the former are much more likely to serve as malleable political tools for others."

Interesting hypothesis. I wonder if it applies to George W.?

Svigor said...

BTW, let me answer the question before anyone asks it. Why do I love the Jews? For the same reason I love the Brits, for their numerous contributions to our culture and civilization. I mean, where would we be without them?

I find that hard to believe. If you base the argument on math, as you have done, you should demonstrate the ability to add, as well as subtract.

Otherwise, I'm reminded of the scene in Coming to America where Arsenio Hall puts his chicken bone in the collection plate; not every "contribution" is of positive valuable.

Perhaps more to the point, the more "Jewish" Jewish contributions become, the greater their negative value.

Svigor said...

Swap "add" and "subtract" there for better clarity...

Svigor said...

Wow, I didn't know Wolf Blitzer was an old gay Jewish man

I can definitely see Shep Smith being homosexual. Or an alien, for that matter.

Simon in London said...

I think George W could be a malleable political tool without being gay. Possibly his substance-abusing past was relevant. But the most important factor for a pol is whether they *want* to be a malleable political tool.

It might be that because closted gay pols are living one lie, it affects their sense of integrity and makes it easier for them to take on more lies.

But what I saw in London politics was a huge number of gays in the lowest levels of politics, long before there was any question of them being worth manipulating. Eg my local council ward's councillors used to be 2/3 gay (in a mostly working class area around half Muslim & Tamil Hindu).

So IME it's not that gays reach the highest echelons at a disproportionate rate; at least among urban pols, a disproportionate number are gay to start with.

Simon in London said...

Svigor:
"I can definitely see Shep Smith being homosexual."

I have heard this from people who claim to know him.

Personally I've liked Shep since his Hurricane Katrina on-site coverage, which punctured Fox News' attempts to downplay the disaster and the failure of FEMA.

Anonymous said...

"I can definitely see Shep Smith being homosexual. Or an alien, for that matter."

I don't know if you're joking or not, but of course, Shep Smith *is* gay and who in the heck other than maybe little old great-grandmother sorts can't tell that he is? The giggling, the hyperbole, the need to try to turn through his "narration" every damn story that isn't about murder or mayhem into some kind of high school drama, the exasperated looks (oh, he just loves to roll his eyes and shrug those shoulders)and sighs. Oh, and how can I forget to mention his constant references to Ole Miss football and NY Yankee basesball and those cute boys who play for both. (He loves him some Derek Jeter.)

When they finally identify the cause of homosexuality, I am willing to bet that the small part of the brain ablated also controls some kind of mechanism responsible for regulating mood. How else to explain the silliness?

At least Anderson Cooper *tries* to control himself.

Anonymous said...

"So IME it's not that gays reach the highest echelons at a disproportionate rate; at least among urban pols, a disproportionate number are gay to start with."

Why should this surprise anyone? Gays traditionally don't go into work that requires manly labor unless it's landscaping.

RKU said...

Simon in London: But what I saw in London politics was a huge number of gays in the lowest levels of politics, long before there was any question of them being worth manipulating...So IME it's not that gays reach the highest echelons at a disproportionate rate; at least among urban pols, a disproportionate number are gay to start with.

I certainly agree that this is also an important factor. It seems pretty clear that gay men tend to have the personality traits that incline them towards political activism, and other sorts of "flamboyancy", irrespective of ideology. This is closely probably related to their massive over-represented among actors and popular entertainers.

Also, I think the landscape might be a little different in Europe. There, parties of the Right often had quasi-aristocratic roots, and my impression is that homosexuality tended to be pretty closely linked with the aristocracy for several centuries. And in England, there's obviously the "public school" tradition, with its widespread homosexuality, on the Tory side. Meanwhile, until the last few decades, parties of the Left in Europe were usually rooted in the working classes, which tended to be much more hostile to such sexual orientations.

But neither of these factors really applies much in American politics. The bottom line is that something like 80% or 90% of gay voters and gay activists are (quite naturally) affiliated with the "pro-gay" party, while (assuming widespread rumors are true) probably 80%-90% of the most politically prominent gays in America are found in the top ranks of the "anti-gay" party. This seems awfully peculiar, and raises all sorts of suspicions that something intentional might be happening behind the scenes. As a close analogy, consider that something like 95% of American blacks (and maybe 80% of non-whites in general) support the Democrats, and think how strange it might be if many of the most prominent and highly visible Republican leaders fell into this non-white category---ha, ha, ha...

In science, seemingly inexplicible actions are usually regarded as the best initial evidence for the existence of some otherwise undetected force...

TGGP said...

Bruce Banner, use the GSS.
ROW: SEXSEX5 (sex of partners for the last five years)
COLUMN: RELIGKID (what religion you were raised in)
FILTER: SEX(1) (just male respondents)

I found that those raised as Jews were somewhat more likely (3% gay, 5.7% bi) than Catholics (2%, 1.3%) and Protestants (1.6%, 1.6%) to have male partners, but Orthodox Christians (8.5%, 16.5%) were much more so, though they had a fairly small sample size.

Silence said...

I believe the Frank prostitution scandal was linked to the Craig Spence ring. There's a good collection of WashTimes articles somewhere online.

At the same time, is there any possible sex scandal today that would bring down a prominent homosexual Democrat? Being caught in bed with a woman wouldn't do it. They might even get away with underage sex. Are they as immune from shame & legal repercussions as I suspect they are?

"seemingly inexplicable actions are usually regarded as the best initial evidence for the existence of some otherwise undetected force..."

Sexual favoritism is also a powerful force. It's not just blackmail.

As for the J. Edgar Hoover rumors, the Mitrokhin archive indicates that these rumors were part of a deliberate Soviet plot. I wonder if Truman Capote was deliberately chosen as a vector for this rumor?