Scott Horton Interviews Jeremy Sapienza

Scott Horton, September 23, 2011

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Jeremy Sapienza, Senior Editor at, discusses the repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and the new era of gays openly serving in the military; why acquiring the privilege of killing foreign civilians and staffing the US empire is not a victory for civil liberties; why we should expect that poor, picked-on, isolated gay youth will be filling the ranks, not the Hollywood liberals who fought against DADT; and how gays can slough off the stigma of “otherness” if they enlist, since they “don’t have to be straight, as long as they shoot straight.”

MP3 here. (19:35)

Jeremy Sapienza is Assistant Webmaster and Senior Editor at

22 Responses to “Jeremy Sapienza”

  1. Pulling the trigger in foreign lands doesn't make someone righteous no matter their personal life. I only wish people would wake up and realize the empire couldn't really give a shit one way or the other so long as its robots do as they're told. All the window dressing was for those who would never get dirty.

  2. This has been a touchy subject for me. It is bad that there is more fodder for the empire, but it does repeal legal discrimination-really, a State cannot discriminate as it takes everyone's money.

    I think bagging on the repeal of DADT as merely "giving gays the opportunity to kill while not in the closet" misses the point. Gays in the military have already been slaughtering people alongside their straight comrades; it's the slaughter that should be harped on. It shows what a hollow victory it is.

  3. Taking a position against the elimination of state sponsored bigotry because it allows gay people to continue doing what they were already doing is one of the dumbest arguments I've heard in a while.

  4. i think Jeremy hit the nail on the head. this is the last domino to fall. it's not about being able to fight for one's country. you can do that without being in the military. this is about tearing down one of the last bastions of heterosexual culture in the U.S. . and next? other groups will clamor for recognition: older men marrying teenage boys; older women marrying teenage girls; polygamists wanting to marry multiple women; and incestuous marriages and relationships…all being legalized for they all will want recognition of their lifestyle. this gay agenda is all about changing western culture and destroying its Christian roots (or any institution that condemns their lifestyle). AND sadly…they are asking the state to protect them. probably because they need it to.

    and someone should tell the homosexuals, next time there is a draft…they will not be exempt.

  5. That's my feeling about it too. The two are separate issues; I see no reason why one cannot oppose DADT and the war both. One is an issue of equality before the law, the other is a moral opposition to mass killing.

    Taking this position alienates those in the GLBT community who are opposed to the war; believe me, there are many. There is more to the community than the prim-and-proper activists who you see nowadays. Again, focus on the fact that people are being massacred by Predator drones; who is piloting them is meaningless.

  6. And I am not wholly unsympathetic to the otherwise dismissive attitude in this discussion. I mean, I praise the development for what it is, but I'm not hollering about it. I'm a single minded opponent of war, and I leave it at that.

  7. I very seriously doubt that many homosexuals will be enlisting in the armed services, other than those who enjoy showering with other men. But for those who do join up I'm not sure what difference it would make to their own psyches to go and kill people. When you've lowered yourself to the degradations of buggery you've already given up on life, morals and common sense. Killing people souldn't affect a conscience like that unduly.

  8. Another thought: the underlying issue here is the 'limousine liberal' phenomenon. I have a book by that iconoclastic leftist (leftism I generally consider separate from the Huffington 'progs') Walter Benn Michaels entitled "The Trouble with Diversity". He is as radically leftist as they come-definitely a mild anti-captialist, or at least anti-neoliberal bent-but he critiques things like multiculturalism, diversity, affirmative action. Why? Because it undermines the historical goal of the left: narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. When I was attending Nader's talk at Busboys and Poets discussion, I had a stimulating discussion with a young black woman on this very issue. She said frankly that the Left made a mistake when it abandoned class politics for environmentalism or identity politics.

    That is why I hold the following eccentric opinion: I don't think of the beltway progs as being left wing in any meaningful sense. The most generous thing I can say is that they are "Red Tories". Think about it. They may oppose the conservative's vulgarity, and maybe more generous with public funds to the needy, maybe a little nicer. But, do they propose changing the system itself? Not really. They're more anti-right than pro-left. They don't really critique the status quo any more than conservatives do. They're fine with a few ruling the many, as long as it is polite about it. Not radical at all.

    There is a gulf between the Center for American Progress wonk and your anti-globalization activist or radical leftist generally. I am a free market libertarian-totally laissez faire in personal and economic issues, but I have always enjoyed the company of real progressives and leftists as compared to either conservatives or the "Red Tories" I described. I don't know what it is, I just feel like I can have an intelligent conversation with them-even when we both vehemently disagree. Maybe I am just a wierdo. *shrugs* Perhaps it is because they actually have ideas to talk about, as opposed to talking points.

  9. But but but but the elimination of DADT just brings LGBT (well maybe not trannies) closer to being real human beings. /s

  10. you KNOW the legitimization of beastiality is next don't you?
    babylon or bust.

  11. Evidence?

  12. Just to play Devil's Advocate, so what? Does it harm you? Pick your pockets? Break your nose?

    If no in either case, then one has no claims to complain.

  13. Again, so what? I don't think the sky will fall.

    And if there is a draft, then I'm sure all will oppose it.

    I have a crazy idea; society is much more robust than you give it credit for. I think it will adapt, change, and survive. It will be very different, but will it be so awful?

  14. The debate between paleos and cosmos is a bullshit one; it misses the point. If cultural permissiveness has nothing to do with libertarianism, than neither does cultural conservatism. Likewise, what do any of these cultural issues have to do with matters of foreign policy? Absolutely fucking nothing.

  15. I'm not sure I said in the interview that I *oppose* the repeal particularly strongly. In fact, one good thing is that it will probably harm morale – rose-colored ideas aside, grunts hate fags. The point is that it's not something people who are really interested in justice should care about AT ALL. They should attack their gay friends who want to join the military in the same way they would their straight friends, because it's a stupid and illegitimate goal.

    Finally, I'm not in favor of reforming the state; no reform is possible. Because the rulers deign to allow me to kill for their empire doesn't mean justice has been done.

  16. Uh, I don't think you know what nail I was hitting, buddy. Being gay is not wrong. Joining the military is wrong. I was not commenting on any of those other things you mentioned.

  17. God we have some retarded readers. Go back to your cave, nutbag.

  18. "Likewise, what do any of these cultural issues have to do with matters of foreign policy? Absolutely fucking nothing."
    Thank you!

  19. This was a pretty offensive episode.

    Apparently Sapienza learned everything he knows about gay people from watching the Rocky Horror Picture Show. But let that pass.

    You've missed the real point. Under DADT where it was still technically illegal to be gay in the military, potential conscripts were just one blow-job away from freedom.

    Closing this escape route can be seen as necessary given the rather full slate of wars we've got scheduled.

    In short, they did nothing "for the gays", this was meant as a move against the unwilling.

    So, your resentment should be coming from a different angle.

  20. Actually, a lot of what I know about gay people I learned from sucking dick. Apparently you have never seen silly sparkly military fetishist videos at a gay bar. But that's irrelevant.

    I have worried about the issue you brought up, but that seems minor compared to queer acceptance of the murder machine. No? Especially considering the cases in which that was used successfully in, say, Vietnam, were quite few.

  21. [...] it into its plan to garrison and subjugate the earth’s peoples. We saw this with the recent revolting to-do about the repeal of DADT, which openly inducted gays into the murder empire. Professional gay activists cheered that now [...]

  22. Normally I do not read post on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very compelled me to take a look at and do it! Your writing taste has been surprised me. Thanks, very nice article.

Leave a Reply