Go ahead and read this important article by Tyler Blanksi about how the modern concept of ‘heterosexuality’ leads inevitably to the new ‘homosexual” identity, along with all the rest of them.
Here’s an excerpt:
Who is the protohomosexual? He is the troubadour poet in twelfth-century France idealizing romance and sexual passion, the knight of Arthurian legend pledging to serve his lady in trouthe and curtesie as if she were a goddess worthy of adoration. He believes erotic love is a high spiritual experience, the highest experience. Andreas Capellanus’ handbook advises that secrecy and suspense will fan the flame of passion; family obligations and children will stifle it. Lancelot and Guinevere betray King Arthur, Tristan and Iseult break the law, Romeo and Juliet go insane, and in the name of “love” every new fling causes undeserved pain for others. All of this is, of course, the raw material for blockbuster videos and bestselling novels in America today.
The serious flaw with the whole system of Courtly Love is its inherent tendency toward anarchy and narcissism. Meeting alone in the dark, far removed from everyday responsibilities and social constraints, lovers do not really get to know one another. Their supposed love for one another is grossly self-absorbed, their lovemaking little more than mutual masturbation. With the flattering image reflected in the other’s eyes, they imagine themselves identical. The heterosexual, who is the protohomosexual, gazes dizzily at his beloved as if at his own reflection in the water.
The protohomosexual’s narcissism, his inflated sense of self, leads him to believe that the irresistible force he calls “love” is inherently ennobling and that his liaisons need no other sanctioning than mutual consent. But his passion only propels him to deceit and unintended cruelty—to his beloved, to his family and hers, to any children they might conceive, even to himself.
Star-crossed lovers standing up against the world in order to get married is a tired cliché. Yet marriage-as-rebellion and sex-as-self-actualization remain the unquestioned stage upon which we woo, marry, and divorce one another. This is the house we have erected for conceiving and rearing children.
It is a house of cards. Having already overturned the social and moral pressures of the community and erected a dating system not unlike civil war, having already privatized marriage and turned it into a statement about his freedom and erotic preference—“This is my choice, my love!”—the protohomosexual closes the curtains of his bedchamber to find only another obstacle to his happiness: fertility.
This fits nicely with an article that I wrote from last year about why the gay marriage arguments are so popular and why pro-transgender arguments are also so popular among the middle classes.
What’s important about advancing this line of argument is that conservatives in America generally only fight isolated tactical battles over “the issues.” Each issue tends to be considered in isolation from all the other issues, because that’s what’s convenient for democratic rhetoric. You can educate morons on ‘talking points’ on single issues, but it’s much more complicated to make a deeper argument which relies on more background knowledge.
This is how the left tends to win every political battle that it fights in democracy — by defining the frame in terms of isolated issues, which it can then push through despite resistance, just because it’s limiting the area that’s being contested.
Further, the popularity of heterosexuality as novelly defined in this essay makes it a lonely fight indeed to argue for regular ol’ sexuality, with all of its weighty moral consequences.
The elevation of romantic love over all other forms of love (connections to family, community, God, culture, nation, and people, with all their attendant obligations) was really the start of the problem. There is noplace where the deep, dank pool of “muh feels” is deeper or danker than that; there is nothing that is more of a license for self-indulgence; there is no door so wide open to all the problems we face. Romantic love is treated as the most supremely valid of human experiences; the one feels before which all other feels must bow – along with rationality, duty, obligation, and honor.
The conservatives lost the gay “marriage” debate when they failed to sufficiently contest the idea that the purpose of marriage is to serve as the fulfillment of romantic love. No, even further back – they lost it when they didn’t contest the idea that there is some kind of right to romantic love. They started losing with easy divorce laws decades ago. Their answer to “But I don’t love him anymore” should have been a big “So fucking what?”. Having not made a stand there, they then had no ground to stand on when homosexuals started saying “But I love him!”.
I’m not being a curmudgeon here. I’m not saying that it’s bad to love your wives. It’s a matter of place and proportion. Romantic love is fine, but not when grossly inflated in importance to the point that it comes at the expense of literally every other consideration in life. That’s indulgent, and indulgence always ends in destructive self-indulgent solipsism. You know, along the lines of “The kids will just have to deal with it. I don’t love him anymore, and I have a right to be happy”.
On a related topic, we must be careful to define “homosexual”. Same-sex attraction is as old as mankind. But “gayness”, as we define it today, is entirely a modern invention. Socrates loved to have sex with boys, but if you tried to explain the modern concept of “gay” to him, he would have thought you were stark raving mad.
And he’d be right.
You don’t go nearly far enough, Antidem. You’re a moderate. The “debate” shouldn’t have been lost – it could have not been started in the first place. In traditional, non-liberal, “unfree” societies, marriage is arranged by the families, not decided upon by the marrying individuals. The very fact that people choose their mates, as opposed to having their mates *chosen for them*, is the root of our modern peril. The issue, then, is not “romantic love” as you wrongly postulate, but “choice” – liberalism entitles every person with the “right” to choose, and Western liberal societies frown upon the so-called backwardness of arranged marriage. Indeed, if everyone has the “right” to choose their mates according to whatever standard they apply, why shouldn’t they choose same-sex persons, or multiple persons, or dogs, or cockroaches as their mates? Seriously, why? Liberalism allows for it all, and to combat this pernicious state of affairs, it’s indispensable to eradicate not “romanticism” (although, be sure, I wholeheartedly agree that romanticism should be eradicated) but liberalism itself.
To put it succinctly, the problem ain’t “muh feels”, but “muh choice”. We live in a state of barbarism wherein each individual is entitled to liberally take as a mate whoever (and soon, whatever) they desire, whether it’s out of love, greed, lust, or whatever. This is wrong from the beginning. Eliminate choice, marry people regardless of their will (against their will, if necessary), marry them as young as possible, and get rid of all forms of infantilization. Then there won’t be any “debate” whatsoever about “gay marriage”, polyamory, polygamy, bestiality, and whatever other forms of consensual, liberal “marriages” that the left tries to shove down society’s throat. Death to liberalism.
That wouldn’t actually be traditional arranged marriage except in certain circumstances for most Europeans.
You’re exactly right, but that’s the issue – since the dawn of Western civilization, “love” has been the basis of marriage. Europeans have always married consensually, and they did it for love first and foremost. This stand in contrast to other civilizations where marriage is conducted for various other reasons, including, say, familial kinship. What Andtidem gets at, and what other critics of modern marriage patterns fail to note, is that the Western pattern of marriage has always had this inherent flaw, and while “marriage for love” could have worked in gated, close-knit communities counting several hundred individuals, today this model has become impractical and detrimental to societal interests. I guess Europeans aren’t adapted to modern circumstances, unlike other cultures that, owing to being large and complex for dozens of generations, have developed societal controls to channel sexuality in a positive, constructive direction.
Oh well. I suppose we’ll have to go extinct then. It was a good run, though.
It makes no sense to even want to rescue a people that you don’t want to reproduce.
What happens now is that liberal Whites (and liberal others) are culled from the gene pool, so if Whites get to 2200, they won’t be the same Whites as today: they’ll be more inbred, more authoritarian, and less individualist, for instance. I don’t know enough about Mormons, but I gather their reproduction rate is healthy – so if you want to know what Whites will be like in a few generations, look to them. Illiberal Whites, admittedly a minority, can be rescued. Others… have good luck with them.
Yes, they’re self-exterminating, so mainly it’s needed to cordon them off while they abolish themselves.
Wow, almost worthy of The Last Psychiatrist – http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/archives.html (ctrl-f narcissism)
We all need to stop using the term “homosexual” and start using the term “homoerotic,” because there’s nothing sexual about homoeroticism. Henry is right to observe how “homosexual” muddies the waters. I’ll be adding that to my personal “banned words” list and using “sexual” in its place. Thanks, Henry.
I try to use the term Sodomite where possible, since I prefer to define people by their illegitimate actions rather than ascribing those actions to some innate ‘identity’.
Your take on the whole same sex marriage fiasco, Mr. Dampier, is very much accurate. Conservatives always fail in describing things on the macro, and yet in the micro they don’t make sense to the average person. The best example of this is the Liberal retort “how does two men getting married affect your marriage!” This is a micro view, and can’t be met with a good micro answer by the Conservative because there is none. The macro argument concerns how this contributes to the debasement of marriage and subsequently procreation, its societal concern. Of course we can’t make any moral argument because “secularism”.
With regard to what Sam has said, I’m ambivalent towards practices of arranged marriage. They seem to actually yield good results in India, and they weren’t as totally uncommon in Traditional Europe as we might think. Boys would quite often end up marrying girls of distant relatives or family friends, and this was a kind of ‘soft’ arrangement engineered by the parents. I think what India does at least show is that love is not pre-ordained, but can grow from very little. Perhaps we might say it is not as important to marry the person you love, but to love the person you marry.
On a general note, I think marriage should ideally take place between the ages of 18 and 25. It’s just getting later and later, fading into impossibility in the Modern age.
We’re in disagreement as regards the ideal age range for marriage (it should begin earlier than 18), but I’d like to expand on “it is not as important to marry the person you love, but to love the person you marry.” Most people mistakenly presuppose that preliminary attraction should lead to investment, hence consolidating the relationship. However, psychology rules that an inverse causation is just as likely: when one invests in another, he subsequently becomes more captivated by the subject of his investment (it’s true for children as well as for spouses); therefore, ensuring both mates invest in one another to a significant extent, regardless of any initial feelings of love between them, will facilitate the development of love within the relationship.
When people invest in someone or something, the subject of their investment becomes more appealing to them. Today relationships are fragile, and lasting love is scarcer than before, due to lack of any substantial investment by spouses in one another – at least during the initial stages, but also throughout the entire course, of the relationship. From a “Game” perspective, women specifically — as the more desired sex — need to be compelled to invest in their spouses to generate (a stronger) attraction towards them, which wouldn’t have been an issue had women were made socially subordinate to men. Individualism disinclines people to foster attraction through dedication, instead offering them love as a “free lunch” to be consumed with no price. In actuality, however, there are no free lunches, and if “love is free” (as hippies would have it), then love is, alas, non-existent.
I applaud your exposition of love’s connection with investment. Can’t say I disagree.
Out of interest, where do you think the acceptable marriage age range should lie. I’m certainly open to well-reasoned opinions on this.
Ideally, 11-14.
The first issue that must be taken into account is schooling. As long as the modern school system is in place, this age range is too early, and yours (18-25) is more realistic. If, however, you share my view that the modern school system is not only redundant but positively detrimental to one’s natural maturation, and that this systems results in mass-infantilization that is as artificial as it is harmful, then we have initial common ground to work with. This is not the place to discuss schooling, so let’s move on.
Assume, for a moment, that we have abrogated modern schooling. What are men and women aged 8 to 18 supposed to do with themselves? Basically, what they did before modern schooling came into existence: men should work (provide resources for their families) and some men should study as well; women should engage in housewifery. This is a very natural state of affairs, so I’m not proposing anything new here.
Now we have all these 13 year old male providers and 12 year old housewives. They enter puberty and start taking an interest in the other sex. They become sexual, and they do so even if you’re uncomfortable with it. Here you should be alarmed: if you keep treating these adolescents as if they were children (infantilization), expect the following:
1) Masturbation;
2) Pre-marital sex;
3) Porn use [note: it’s a symptom, not the underlying cause];
4) Rape;
5) Prostitution [see note on 3];
6) Bastardy [for bonus points, involving fathers from another race or badboys];
7) Homosexuality and other types of sexual experimentation;
8) Hook-up culture of promiscuous sex, sluthood, and immodesty;
9) Gamer-life for some men, and drama-life for some women.
You don’t need to imagine this scenario, because this is exactly, one-to-one what we have today. Surely, if all this could be prevented, that would be a positive thing? Hopefully you begin to see the soundness of what I suggest. Liberalism dictates that arranging your children’s marriage regardless of their will, and doing so when they’re young, thereby depriving them of a “choice”, is an affront to Human Rights, or some such. But I’m anti-liberalism, so… If choice stands behind these problems, then ending choice would solve these problems.
Age disparities should be taken into consideration. As men and women begin to sexually mature at approximately the same age, marriage should be conducted when their ages are approximate. Women start their sexual maturation a little earlier than men, so I’d say 13 for men and 12 for women (bar & bat mitzvah) is a good ideal. If your morality contends that masturbation, pre-marital sex, and homosexual “experimentation” are sinful – you ought to make conditions that allow these sins to be prevented. Telling people not to have sex, or not to masturbate, is, how to put it mildly, not the most effective strategy. Nor is punishing humans for doing that which is most natural to them. Humans, including young humans, need a sexual outlet – and they’ll find it, whether from members of the other sex, from members of their own sex, from themselves, or by becoming addicted to games of various kinds to forget about their physical needs. This is not to say they should actually have sex at 12 — they can wait a few years, as pregnancy may be dangerous so early – but it is better that when they *do* have sex, it’d be with their one and only spouse. That’s monogamy, and there’s a reason why it has become so fragile.
Naturally, you are programmed to dislike what I propose here. This programming is called “romanticism”, which is something I addressed above in my response to Antidem. Specifically, your (or some other reader’s) objection is that “children should be children”. (Never-mind that we’re not actually talking about children right now. When I think of children, I think of pajamas and ice-cream, not of popping pimples and having an erection when your favorite teacher enters the classroom – those latter things seem un-children-like to me) Modern culture is flooded with romanticism. Towards spouses, towards children, towards pets, towards third-world pets, etc. To say that 14 year olds should work and provide resources like adults, and that their sexuality exists whether or not said existence makes one feel uneasy, is to abrogate a deeply-ingrained romantic (or puritan-idealist-romantic) view of adolescents. As with schooling, I don’t want to steer the discussion towards romanticism, but suffice it to say that it’s bad.
It is healthier for monogamy if both spouses are given the opportunity to become accustomed to each other instead of having romantic or sexual relations with other people first. The more romantic or sexual partners one has before marriage — particularly if one is female — the higher the risk of divorce. Since your 14 year old daughter is going to have romantic (even if not sexual, but could also be sexual) relations of some kind despite your prohibitions and protestations, these relations should at least be with a husband who can provide for her (and he won’t be much older than her, because, if you recall, we disposed of schools, so now males are providers from 8), and even better, with a husband specifically chosen by yourself. Instead of being devastated to discover your daughter is pregnant at 15 from an unknown father, why don’t you introduce her to a husband whom you actually find likeable?
Individualism underlies liberalism. From a non-individualist, non-liberal perspective, it is obvious that if you could find a way to prevent bastardy, masturbation, gayness (at least to some degree), hook-up culture, and most importantly, pre-marital sex, then you should at least try. All these things, and more of the kind, develop not when you’re 25, not even when you’re 18, but earlier. It then logically follows that to prevent those things, you should implement a solution earlier than 18; otherwise you’re too late. If proclaiming “don’t masturbate!” worked, and if it were good, then you could try that. Reality indicates some inefficiency on the part of this method. If proclaiming “don’t get knocked up by this sexy thug over there!” worked, all the better. It doesn’t. If you’re into puritanism, you could try chopping off various parts of your children’s sexual organs to prevent them from having sexual arousal when they grow up. There’s a reason why circumcision and cliterodectomy were once practiced throughout some Western countries, and are still practiced in many non-Western ones. If that’s not your cup of tea, well, I propose something more humane yet also more efficient.
Lastly, I’d like to take into account HBD and its implications. Notably, blacks sexually mature earlier than whites, and the latter, earlier than Asians. Different races should, therefore, have different ranges, with the black one starting at 10, and the Asian one ending at 16.
I thank you for taking the time to write what is obviously a very well-researched and well-thought out post.
Firstly, I agree 100% on schooling. The public school system (that is, compulsory schooling) should be completely abolished, replaced with private academies for certain professions and the economic system should be entirely reverted to children mostly inheriting their parent’s trade. I don’t see this as incompatible with a booming economy in the least.
You have correctly stated that I would like to curb as effectively as possible, the practices of adultery, sodomy, and pornography use. I don’t however, have so much of a problem with masturbation. As far as I am aware, concerns about the practice (particularly theories on its speculated detrimental medical effects) largely arose during the Puritan period, so I would disregard them.
Obviously, adultery and sodomy, as well as producing pornographic material, would be rendered illegal in the Reactionary State.
I think you are right that we react with an immediate revulsion to the idea of very young people having sex, largely because we will often subconsciously infer abusive adult voyeurism or involvement that may not be a factor. Then of course, the correct stigma against pregnant teenagers who leech off of the welfare system. As you point out, we must be careful not to carry such stigmas that are pertinent to the Modern age over into a proposed non-Modern age. The dynamics are different.
For the reason that while girls do sexually mature faster than boys, their sex drive isn’t as troublesome, I’d probably say 15 for boys and 13 for girls would be an acceptable range, although like you say, marriage doesn’t necessary have to correlate to sexual activity. Though, is the practice of consummation not being taken into account here? I’d also be concerned about people in their mid-teen range’s economic ability to support children of their own. I favor a larger family structure, but will that be enough to compensate in terms of both time/resources that children require for positive development?
As a side note, I support castration (chemical or otherwise) for adults who sexually abuse children, which would include exploiting them for pornographic purposes.
I don’t know about all that. Looks like a crock of mental gymnastics to justify sexually deviant perversion, no matter how it is all sliced.
Besides, what the fuck does it matter, you want to stick you dick up another guys rectum and get feces on it, by all means you go right ahead. Not my business to tell you or judge you. Liberty right?
What bakes my noodle is it isn’t good enough you have to have sexual relations with your own sex, you got some twisted sick perversion where all the rest of us have it cramed down our throats and accept it as normal. The double standard here is the stuff of psychopaths and megalomaniacs.
So let me get this straight, no pun intended, you are entitled to the liberty of your sexual perversions, yet I am not entitled to the traditions long established of not liking those things, not believing in those things, and forced through “laws” and diktat and threat of force and violence if I do not G along with these perversions. Hmmm, looks like tyranny to me with a strap-on.
And brother, ain’t nothing normal about any of that.
There are so many circles of lies here.
It goes to show that the search for truth can slide into a cesspool of lies.
There was a time of undue panic about homos. People sought all sorts of ‘scientific’ reasons to treat it as a mental sickness.
But then, it was realized that homos are just born that way, and there was nothing that can be done about it.
So, the idea was that homos should be allowed to do their homo things.
Still, it was understood that homo stuff was biologically useless, gross, and/or ridiculous because factually it is. Fecal penetration among men indeed.
There was truth all around: homos are born that way AND homo-ness is a natural abnormality that turns off most people for obvious reasons. So, let homos be homo, but let’s not pretend that it makes biological or moral sense..
But then the lies began, and one lie began to snowball into other lies.
1. We were told that homosexuality is ‘rational’ and ‘natural’–meaning naturally normal than naturally abnormal–, and if you find it gross or weird, you are a ‘homophobe’ suffering from an ‘irrational’ and ‘unnatural’ extreme aversion to something healthy. In fact, ‘homophobia’ doesn’t exist. People’s aversion to homosexuality is natural. What is unnatural is homomania and homophilia. Indeed, the fact that tremendous 24/7 homo propaganda costing billions has to pushed on us constantly to make us accept the agenda goes to show how unnatural homomania is. It’s like North Korea has to push the cult of great leader day in and day out to perpetuate the myth that the fat Kim is a great man. End the propaganda and indoctrination, and people will see him for the pig he is. Turn off the lie machine and people will quickly revert to the truth.
2. We were told that homos were pure-as-snow victims of AIDS only because of ‘indifference’ of Reagan and the spread of AIDS had nothing to do with wanton homo behavior.
3. We were shown so many homos on TV and in movies that American public began to think that 25% of Americans are homo.
4. We were only shown clean-cut idealized images of homos while anyone who wasn’t ecstatic about homos was portrayed as a degenerate pervert. Audiences are shielded for the most part from the gross physical side of homosexuality.
5. We were told that homo agenda is about more freedom, but then anyone who uttered anything critical about homosexuality or the homo agenda was shot down, reviled, and attacked.
6. We were told that homo agenda would only allow homos to their own thing without interfering with our values or institutions. Clinton signed marriage act and Obama voted for religious freedom act. They were both lies and tricks.
7. Homo agenda went from a matter of free choice among homos to mandatory requirement of straight people to not only tolerate homos but to mute their own criticism of homos, then to praise homos, then to celebrate homos, then to worship homos, and then to attack anyone who doesn’t do likewise. In big cities, politicians don’t have a chance unless they attend homo ‘pride’ rallies. It is a mandatory requirement.
Why must straight people grovel and worship homos? What is so great about men porking each other in the fecal hole, or women having ‘sex’ by humping a hole with a hole, or men/women undergoing genital mutilation to become the opposite sex?
8. Then, the homo agenda said that homo should get ‘married’ on the basis that homosexuality is just as ‘naturally’ normal and rational and moral as real sexuality. This led to the crazy notion that ‘two mommies’ or ‘two daddies’ can have kids. We were supposed to pretend that if a lesbian has a man or man’s sperm impregnate her, she had the kid with her lesbian lover/wife.
Lies and lies, but in a corrupt society made up of cowards(who shudder at the feet of Jews who chose homos as their favored allies), even conservatives have shut the hell up. While hysterically howling about Israel and Iran, they don’t dare take a strong stand against the homomaniacal policies favored by Liberal Jews and Neocon Jews as well.
9. Then, homos began to infiltrate the churches and turn church after church into swallowing the nonsense that Christianity is compatible with the homo agenda and ‘gay marriage’.
10. People were told the lie that the homo agenda is ‘leftist’ and about helping poor helpless victims when, in fact, it’s been the favored agenda of the oligarchic class that has long appreciated the loyal service of vain and power-hungry homos.
———-
This brings us to a problem. All these lies began with the truth. The truth was homos are born that way, and they can’t do anything about it, so they should be allowed to do their homo things on their own.
So, why couldn’t homos be content with the truth? We accepted that they are born fruity and tolerated their homo stuff among themselves. Why couldn’t it end there?
It’s because we overlooked the homo psychology. By nature vain, narcissistic, hissy, sneering, ooh-lala, whoopity-doo, bitchy, queenie-ish, and snotty, it’s never enough for homos to just be tolerated. They have a pagan-god complex and wanna be worshiped as royalty and Adonises. They have personalities of ‘radical will’ that wants to be center of the world.
I mean, just think about it. They are so pushy and deluded that some of them put on women’s dress and makeup and really believe that they look like hot stuff. Indeed, they are so demanding that they insist that WE find them ‘beautiful’ too. Now, it has become bad form according to PC for us to laugh at and mock trannies who look ridiculous.
We want to accept the truth, but sometimes there’s more to the truth than we may have originally assumed. Even as we accepted the truth of homosexuality, there was a hidden truth that we ignored: that homos have a problem with the truth. i.e. even as we accepted the truth about them(they were born homo and have a tendency to indulge in gross and weird ‘sexual’ behavior), they could not handle the truth about themselves. They wanted to believe the lie that their ‘sexuality’ was biologically the equal of ours, that heir ‘morality’ founded on biological lies was not only as good as our morality but even better, indeed to the point where we should get on our knees and bow down before them.
Indeed, the very nature of homosexuality is deceitful. It is a natural lie. Nature produces sexually dysfunctional people such as homos who believe that the male anus is a ‘sex’ organ. It produces men who want their penis removed and fitted with fake vaginas that they believe to be just as good as real vaginas.
Homosexuality produces feelings and mind-sets in homos that prefer the lies about biology.
It produces lesbians who rub pooters together and produce no life but then hire a man to become pregnant and then lie to themselves that THEY had the child together.
But then, lies + power = forcing everyone else to swallow the lie as well or else.
As Jews have the power over media and government, they can force or brainwash us all to swallow the lie pushed by homos.
So, what is to be done? I’m not a religious nut who wants to say “God hates fa*s.”
I accept the biological reality/truth about homosexuality, BUT, homos, being vain and egotistical and queenie-meanie, cannot accept the truth of their biology. They not only say that they were born that way(truth) but insist that their ‘sexuality’ is just as normal, valid, and rational as real sexuality is(lie) and that a homo’s anus(that excretes feces) is just as much a ‘sex organ’ as a woman’s vagina that produces life. A tranny’s fake vagina is just as real as a real vagina. And ‘two daddies’ can have kids together. And anyone who disagrees is a ‘homophobe’ with mental problems and is a moral degenerate to boot.
I can accept the truth about homos but homos can’t.
This is the nature of the conundrum.
Suppose someone is a compulsive liar, and we try to make him stop lying. But suppose it turns out that he can’t help it. He was born with the compulsive lying gene. He feels this powerful compulsion to lie and simply can’t help it.
So, we accept the truth and allow him to be a compulsive liar.
Good for everyone, right? He gets to compulsively lie, which he can’t help. And we tolerate the fact that he loves to lie.
No, it doesn’t end there. Being a compulsive liar, he not only lies but insists that he is telling the truth. He then says his lies or ‘truths’ are just as valid as our truths. Then, he accuses us of telling lies and says his ‘truths'(lies) must be favored over our ‘lies'(which is actually the truth).
Now, what would happen if such compulsive liars were to be favored by the rich and powerful(esp the untouchable Jews) who use all their financial, governmental, legal, cultural, and media power to promote the compulsive liars as ‘the greatest truth tellers’ whom we all must all obey? Sheeple can be made to believe in anything through media manipulation and mass education/indoctrination, especially if they’ve been cut off from deeper truths of biology, morality, and culture.
But Cons are to blame too because their ideology has become a big lie. It is based on the false premise that Jews are totally wonderful, the best friends of conservatism and Christianity, and that serving Jews is what conservatism is all about. In truth, Jews have been at the forefront of pushing the homo agenda.
As for the religious right, they can’t accept the truth of evolution and biology, such as that homos are born that way.
Anyway, it’s not enough for us to accept the physical truth. We need to understand the psychological truth. Physical truth is that homos are born that way and that their ‘sexuality’ is biologically worthless and morally dubious(as it is a natural lie).
But there is also the psychological truth that says homos are vain, pushy, bitchy, and can’t accept the truth that their ‘sexuality’ is not equally valid as ours.
For this reason, the acceptance of the truth about homos can lead to a slippery slope of lies because once homos are given even the slightest bit of legitimacy, they work obsessively to
force all of us into believing that EVERYTHING about them is just as good or even better than our sexuality.
So, fecal penetration among men become the equivalent of real sex between men and women.
So, a tranny with fake vagina is as much a real woman as a real woman.
And such stuff are like the ‘rainbow’.
An empire of lies.
You may be overthinking it, epic as that was.
The ‘Christian right’ is not the Christian right at all. It’s the Republican Party at prayer. Conservatism is not right wing, and so Conservative Christians are not rightist. This is why, while they think same sex marriage should be banned, they are not for the re-criminalization of the sexual practice.
Christian Reactionaries meanwhile support the policies in place on this issue up until the Enlightenment, based on the fact that sodomy is a choice. The desire to do it may not be a choice, but nobody cares about that. The action is all that matters in the legal realm here.
Now, of course they were going to push for marriage and more disgusting still, adoption, when they rose in our upside down caste system. They have power, and being already of unsound mind, will use it in destructive ways.I have often compared them to the Chinese eunuch class who caused a lot of damage to the imperium there.
The Reactionary, whatever the persuasion of his belief, and going from purely the interests of society, should want the return to the pre-Enlightenment sexual ethic which dismissed same sex activity as maladaptive and reprehensible.
I read this comment twice to make sure I’m not being unduly harsh. There is some good material here, but you need to work on conciseness and getting to the point or else people will write you off as 888. You basically spewed out a bunch of premises without a conclusion.
You also make the assumptuon that all Sodomites are born that way. This isn’t exactly settled science. Sodomites go to extreme lengths to recruit people into their lifestyle. It may be that not all Sodomites are born that way.
“Gay marriage” is absolute filth. Homos are rich and powerful and allied with Jews. Therefore, among all the sexual deviants, ONLY THEY get to change the rules of marriage. If indeed LOVE redeems everything and any adult in love should be allowed to marry another adult, how come supporters of ‘marriage equality’ don’t support incest marriage or polygamy? Why should we stick to any traditional or normal conventions of marriage? After all, LOVE redeems all! If a 20 yr old son loves his 40 yr old mother, why not allow them to marry? Wouldn’t it be incestophobic and eeeeevil to deny them that right? So, why aren’t there incest pride parades? Why isn’t incest associated with the rainbow? Why aren’t there positive incest-sexual characters on TV?
It’s because incest-sexuals aren’t powerful like the homos who also happen to be the favorite allies of Jews who run this country. Jews are 2% of the nation but 35% of the billionaires and they own 90% of the media. And nearly every president of Ivy League universities is Jewish. Why do Jews push ‘gay marriage’? You see, it’s not normal for a nation that is only 2% Jewish to be ruled and owned by Jews. So, Jews wanna make us accept the abnormal as the ‘new normal’. If Americans are dumb enough to swallow ‘gay marriage’, they will be dumb enough to accept the notion that 98% of Americans who are not Jewish should live under the financial, cultural, political,and intellectual rule of Jews who are only 2% of the nation. Also, many homos are powerful in arts, culture, and entertainment, and Jews obviously have much to profit from their chummy relations with homos.
Another reason why homos are so fashionable is New Liberalism is neo-aristocratic. Look at the fancy parts of NY, Chicago, LA, Miami, San Francisco–where the global elites are getting richer and richer while most Americans are growing poorer–, and the rich-getting-richer are almost all Liberals and Democrats. They are vain, narcissistic, materialistic, and etc. They love being catered to by fancy homos who do their hair, sell them jewelry, and offer all sorts of luxury services. Traditionally, liberalism was about helping the farmers, the working class, the factory laborers, the poor minorities like blacks, and etc. But the Liberal elites today are globalist and love to ship our jobs overseas to China and India. They love importing illegal aliens to hire as nannies, tomato pickers, lawn cutters, and dishwashers. The American masses mean nothing to these urban elites.
Homos are useful to this privileged urban set that call themselves the ‘creative class’. Homos nominally have ‘victim’ status–so, being pro-homo makes you nominally on the side of the underdog–, but homos also happen to be the richest and the most privileged groups on a per capita basis after the Jews. So, rich urban dwellers do business with rich homos while, at the time, pretending that they are helping out a ‘victim’ group.
Meanwhile, Jews in America continue to steer US policy toward aiding Israel to oppress and crush Palestinians. But all the so-called ‘progressives’ who wet their pants over ‘gay marriage’ have no sympathy whatsoever for Palestinians who have been relegated to slave status by the Zionist imperialists. On the issue of Palestinians, progs remain silent because their idea of great moral cause is pretending that two men sticking their sex organs into one another’s fecal hole is something like the rainbow!!!
Needless to say, most of US media are owned by billionaire Jews who are allied with millionaire Homos. All those globalist elites rake it in while the masses sink lower and lower. Yet, all the dummies addicted to TV and brainwashed by public education think they are morally superior because they believe fecal penetration between two men is the biological and moral equivalent of real love and real sex between men and women that creates life and ensures the survival of our species. Name just one human life that was created by a man ejaculating inside the fecal hole of another man. You tell me that what homos do to one another is biologically or morally equal to real sex involving real sexual organs? That’s like saying creationism is the equivalent of the true science of evolution. It’s like saying a witch doctor is the medical equivalent of a real doctor.
Btw, if someone really happens to be for ‘marriage equality’, they need to espouse SAME FAMILY MARRIAGE. In this world filled with so much hatred and violence, oh gee wee, what is sooooo wrong with a mother loving her son? We can’t deny their love and their longing to get married!!!! And let’s have homo identical twins marry one another. Wow, that sure is progressive. Homo and incest marriage rolled into one. Why don’t we support it and feel soooo good about ourselves? Don’t be incestophobic now.
And why should love to limited only to two people? What if three homos wanna marry? If you only allow two to marry, you are denying the third homo his share of love!!! Oh my, that is multi-phobic!!! We can’t have that!!!
Once again, please don’t just write a rant that fizzles out into nothing. Make a point or don’t comment.
“It produces lesbians who rub pooters together ”
Oh man, you have made me day, I’m laughing so hard. In Alabama, we call them ‘cooters’ when we want to be crude. But also, the common term for ‘fart’ is ‘poot’–including in the larger cities. ‘Fart’ is considered indelicate! And nobody anywhere else I’ve ever been says ‘you pooted.’
One thing it totally missed, but then I don’t know if all NRXer couples are exclusively ‘missionary position’ and think sex is never for pleasure itself, even if they do also have children. Frankly, even the most Bible-belt rednecks I’ve run into (and grew up with) were very much concerned with ‘just doing it’–all the time–as well as (most) wanting children.
But the thing that has to be pointed out, with all this talk about ‘men fucking in the feces’, is that women and men also do that all the time. Born yesterday? Don’t women have feces too? They also both suck–yes, they suck each other’s reproductive organs. Yes, men and women suck each other off. What an(other) abomination!
The tranny epidemic, though, caught me by surprise, I mean that it became so widespread. I thought it was as minor as the tiny community of ‘asexuals’, which somebody linked to, and comprises maybe 1% of the population (this was totally unknown to me, these people who want ‘romantic relationships’ totally without sex, but usually heterosexual). There were also the drag queens, squalid little things that are often prostitutes, but these ‘serious’ trannies I hadn’t known were growing in number. Someone told me that some of them start this later in life, and are often tech types who have the money to get the most procedures.
The tranny epidemic seemed to catch me by surprise, but I’ve been wondering if it is not just easier to do that now, not only because of all the domino theory parade of liberation-liberalism, but also because of the emphasis on the cosmetics that surely is a precursor for AI, as in ‘Ex Machina’, where the female dildoes are part of ‘what the man gets’ along the way to creating the perfect AI woman who is smarter than he is. All the old facelifting, the nose-jobs that don’t work after a few years, the breast and penile implants, and then the botched operations some of the trannies want. The strangest one I’ve heard of was a woman who got semi-rubberized male genitals, I knew someone who knew her in Miami, and I never could figure out whether they like detachable appendages or what, I guess so. And then what will virtual reality do with all this sexual wishfulness: They’re not going to all keep their eyes on the baseball like Kurzweil, any more than nuclear power (or money) is always used virtuously.
In the media I hear more about men wanting to be women, and I don’t know how many of them use surgery or just make-up and clothes. I never have known one and am quite allergic to them, I’ve found (yes, even in Sodomite Manhattan, where the gayboys and the Jews make the musical comedies together–true enough stereotype.) Like, I didn’t watch the Bruce Jenner interview, so I don’t know if he’s going to get operations, and it’s bad enough culturally that there is a such thing as ‘Keeping Up With the Kardashians’, because those broads never have a scene where their tits and asses aren’t featured (including their mother’s.)
Maybe this group, though, does stick only to the older heterosexual practices, but the oral and anal sex practised by heterosexuals does not originate from homosexuals, even though they do it too. It’s true, though, I don’t know where to find statistics on how many heterosexuals get into the perversions. And adultery is everywhere, but that’s heterosexual traditionally, because before gay marriage there was just ‘cheating’ and promiscuity, which in heterosexual relationships is associated far more with men (though not nearly always, lots of women have always been up to it.)
Oh yes, I forgot to include that part of my half-theory of all this cosmetic and tranny stuff getting so much easier, and so many more people doing it, may be ‘continued Marxism’. There was that very smart 70s anti-Feminist Movement essay by Joan Didion in The White Album, in which she said she thought it was ‘Marxist’, but not like the ‘oppressed race’ thing, which she thought had worked (most of us did, and to some degree, it seemed to until recently.) One of the most interesting things she said in that was the lesbians, in particular, thought they were ‘more sensitive’ than any other kind of coupling, and that she was running into more and more women even then who were unable to face ‘an overtly heterosexual male’. She was better back then, though. But she was also famous enough to infuriate all the big early feminist leaders, which I thought was useful.
I had a teacher at conservatory who I adored decades ago, and she had had a ‘famous’ 5-year relationship with a girl lover at Bennington. After that, she married his BROTHER and they had kids! I only found this out on the internet 2 years ago, and thought that this must usually be almost unheard-of. I asked around, and nobody else had heard of anything like this, but I did find out that she and her husband were both alive and living out their lives in New Hampshire in their 90s.
I make an effort to read Dampier’s comment section because it’s usually quality. Please don’t ruin it with pointless rants.
Also, your point about “well heteros do poop sex also so anal isn’t imported from the gay lifestyle” doesn’t hold much water. The rise of anal sex, and even oral sex among straights, is a recent historical phenomenon. Some think it is linked to porn usage. In either case, the rise of hetero sodomy directly supports the thesis put forth in this article.
Thanks, shitlord, heading for Hyperboria today–skipping HRx, that was just, like, a pivot chord, my protecting maniac told me about, but said he thought I could do it without a net.
Confirmed for sperg.