Deceptions of the homosexual movement: “Homosexuality about ‘love,’ not sex”

by Igor Alexander

I’ve been noticing a consistent pattern lately on the part of homosexuals, both male and female, to play down the “sex” part of homosexuality and try to present it instead as a “love” or a “romance” thing. I no longer believe that this is truthful or sincere on their part, but is rather a ruse, a calculated, coordinated “educational effort,” to try to make homosexuality more acceptable to and less easy to criticize by the heterosexual majority. This strategy makes sense, since many heterosexual people find the sex part of homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, revolting. It also dovetails with the campaign by homosexual zealots to extend the so-called “right” of marriage to homosexuals (unfortunately, far too many heterosexuals view marriage as being solely about romantic love and miss its real purpose — to be touched on later — which prevents them from understanding why homosexual marriage shouldn’t be allowed).

This tactic seems to be working with a lot of people; mention the word “love” to some people (particularly females) and their rational senses seem to shut down to be replaced by a warm, fuzzy feeling. “Aww, it can’t be bad if it’s love! The only evil in this world is hate, and only a hater would try to stand in the way of love.” Kinda scary that as many adults with full voting privileges have an intellectual capacity that doesn’t exceed a Hallmark card.

live eel in gay man's rectum

It's all about the romance: Here is an actual photo of a live eel -- that's right, the aquatic animal -- which managed to find its way into the rectum of a 'gay' man. It had to be surgically removed. Such cases are not uncommon in the emergency wards of hospitals. Click on the photo for more details.

I do not believe that a lesbian can experience “love” towards a woman in the same way that a heterosexual experiences love towards a partner of the opposite sex. Whenever I see lesbians attempting to describe what it feels like to be “in love,” they invariably confuse the symptoms of infatuation — butterflies in the stomach, thinking about the person all the time, a willingness to submit to the person and do anything possible to make that person happy — for love (by the same criteria, you could just as easily say that the average stalker is “in love”). Infatuation or what some call “romantic attraction” is a part of sexual attraction, not seperate from it. Some people don’t get this because they think “sexual” must mean that only the genitals can be involved, which isn’t true; sexual attraction can manifest itself in many ways besides, or in addition to, a tingling sensation in one’s genitals. The reality is that there is nothing “romantic” or glamorous about true love. It’s something that grows out of dirty diapers and attending the funerals of in-laws; it’s not some transcendental euphoric experience that arrives suddenly like a thunderbolt or one of cupid’s arrows, though it’s not surprising that a generation raised on MTV that views unhappiness as a Prozak deficiency would have that expectation. The true measure of love isn’t how a person “feels,” it’s the longevity of the relationship, the sacrifices each partner is willing to make for the sake of the relationship. Heterosexual love — true love — is based on a profound sense of trust and interdependence that takes years, even decades, to build. True love requires a polarization, the polarization between a man and a woman; it cannot be based on the narcissism of homosexuality. When lesbians pontificate on “love,” they don’t know what they’re talking about. They’re confusing a hormonal experience for a spiritual one. By turning their backs on heterosexuality, lesbians have removed the possibility of ever knowing true love.

As for male homosexuality being about “falling in love,” give me a break. If I was fresh off the farm or some suburban schmuck who had never met a homo in his life, I might buy that, but as it happens, I’ve known dozens of fags throughout my life and have had dozens of encounters in which “gay” or bisexual men have tried, often very aggressively, to get down my pants. Any fag who tells you that male homosexuality is about “love” rather than lust is pissing in your face and telling you that it’s raining.

Cynicism is in order when it comes to evaluating the claims of the homosexual lobby. These people have an agenda, and that agenda is going to have some deeply destructive effects upon society if it is allowed to go through. Don’t let sappy sentimentalism cloud your better judgement on these matters.

It is not in the best interests of your children to have “gay” Boy Scout leaders, or to allow homosexuals to confuse your kids about their sexuality through the public school system under the pretense of “fighting homophobia.” It is not in the interest of national security to have unabashed homosexuals in the military. It is not in the interests of society to degrade the institution of marriage, which plays such a crucial role in the proper rearing of children, by extending the so-called “right” of marriage to homosexuals. Marriage is a responsibility, not a “right,” and to entrust that responsibility to sexual deviants who cannot reproduce by natural means is to make a mockery of it, to cheapen it, to obscure its real purpose, which is to create stable, healthy families.

The homosexual agenda is a political agenda which has nothing to do with “love” or “romance” and it should be treated as coldly and dispassionately as you would the agenda of any other special interest group. The public must start looking at the big picture — at the long-term consequences the changes being demanded by the homosexual lobby will have on the whole of society — and not just at whether the homosexual who lives down the street appears to be a “nice person” or not.

33 responses

  1. I sincerely hope everyone who is AGAINST Marriage Equality will enjoy paying my federal taxes from now on; I stopped in 2005.

    Two American Myths:
    * Equal Protection Under the Law
    * Separation of Church & State

    The National Equality Tax Protest will be on [date removed; do not promote homosexual causes on my blog, pls. –IA].

  2. John:

    Can you explain to me why I should have to pay taxes to allow turd burglars like yourself to indoctrinate my children through the public school system? It just isn’t fair. I would urge all heterosexuals to stop paying taxes until such time as homosexual zealots like John here are prevented from interfering with the education of our children.

    No one is opposed to “marriage equality”; what the majority of Americans, and indeed, heterosexuals all over the world, are opposed to is homosexual marriage. “Equality” is not an issue, because you and your fudgepacking crew simply do not qualify for marriage in the first place.

    I mean, what’s next? A man marrying his dog? An adult marrying a prepubescent child? Hey, as long as they’re “in love” and are paid up on taxes, why should anyone object, right?

    What you and your kind fail to see is that this is a moral issue, not an economic one. I and most people don’t give a shit about your tax dollars.

    When you manage to impregnate your boyfriend, let me know; until such time, your sexual preference and lifestyle are not equal to mine and should not be treated as if they were.

    1. Hate to break it to you but “straight” people are already marrying inanimate objects. And by your logic if a woman can’t have children she can’t marry? What puts in the position to say what marriage can or can’t be?

    2. And what about homosexual kids do they just not matter? I mean who cares if they are getting bullied everyday at school or on the side of the street?

      1. There’s no such thing as “homosexual kids.” If a kid thinks he’s a homosexual, it’s because that idea has been planted in his mind by an adult, his school, or the mass media. It might also mean that the child has been sexually abused.

        No child has the maturity to be able to decide his sexual identity and preferences, and no child should be burdened with even having to think about such matters. It disgusts me, absolutely disgusts me, that children are being sexualized this way. Whatever happened to kids just being, you know, kids? Kids are being robbed of their innocence, and your way of thinking is going to lead directly to the legalization of pedophilia (which is no doubt exactly what a lot of faggots want).

        As for bullying, it’s an unfortunate fact of life. Kids get bullied because of their size, weight, hair color, intelligence (or lack thereof), disabilities, birth defects, class, ethnicity, race, social ties, the clothes they wear, the area they live in, temperament, etc.; there’s nothing exceptional about kids who are perceived as being sexually deviant being picked on, and there’s nothing that can be done about it anyways (although putting an end to forced racial integration in public schools would almost certainly lead to a reduction in the severity and frequency of incidents, since the majority of assaults against homosexuals are done by blacks and browns). The best kids in such a situation can do is to grow a thick skin and try not to draw attention to themselves. Any kid who goes around calling himself a homo is obviously trying to provoke a reaction and should not act surprised when he gets one. Don’t play the martyr if you’re not willing to hang on a cross.

        So-called “homosexual kids” are no more special than anyone else being picked on in the schoolyard and don’t deserve any special considerations or protections.

        Besides, bullying is an American national trait. Americans think it’s OK for their government to bully every other nation on earth (except Israel), so why shouldn’t the moral example set by Washington carry through into the schoolyard?

  3. From John’s blog:

    “I now blog to avoid the absolute, total insanity and ANGER I feel as I listen, wait for, and experience other people voting on my CIVIL RIGHT to marry the person I love.”

    Gee, democracy sure is a bitch, ain’t it, John? Just wait ’til the U.S. has a Mexican majority.

    And since you’re so concerned about “civil rights,” tell us all how you feel about the “hate speech” laws you and your fellow poofs are trying to pass in order to deprive me of the right to free speech.

    For those who don’t know, John and his bumbuddies want to make it illegal for anyone to criticize their lifestyle, just like it already is in Canada and some European countries.

    “America’s laws HATE our families and children, and I have had E_N_O_U_G_H.”

    You love children, do you, John?

    But I agree. The adoption of children by homosexual couples does reflect a hatred of the nuclear family and a shocking lack of concern for the psychological well-being of the child. It should be illegal everywhere.

  4. In this entry on his blog, John tells the story of a “gay” foster couple which is allegedly being prevented by us cruel heterosexist bigots from adopting a 12-year-old boy.

    Before succumbing to John’s calculating sob story, however, compare it to the following news article about what happened to the children under the care of one of the UK’s first “gay” foster couples. Perhaps not all “gay” couples are out to molest boys, but if preventing homosexuals from caring for children could have prevented the tragedy described below, that would be sufficient in itself to justify making it illegal for homosexuals to assume positions of power over children.

    Such positions will act as magnets for homosexual pedophiles, and you can be sure that once in place, homosexual pedophiles won’t hesitate to use accusations of “homophobia” to silence anyone who threatens to expose them, just as was done in the case below.

    Children’s rights must come before “gay rights,” and despite what John claims, children’s rights aren’t compatible with “gay rights.”–social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html

    Gay couple left free to abuse boys – because social workers feared being branded homophobic
    Last updated at 21:53 05 September 2007

    A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded yesterday.

    Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were one of the first homosexual couples in the country to be officially approved as foster parents.

    They looked after 18 children in only 15 months.

    With no previous convictions, they came across as respectable men who simply wanted to help boys with a variety of problems.

    In reality, they were paedophiles, who repeatedly abused the children in their care.

    Even when the mother of two of the children reported her suspicions to the council, officials accepted the men’s explanations and did nothing.

    Instead of banning children from staying with Faunch and Wathey, they sent youngsters with more serious problems to them. Between them, the couple abused four boys aged between eight and 14.

    In a scathing report published yesterday, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council was condemned for treating the men as “trophy carers”.

    The children’s charity Kidscape said those in charge of overseeing the safety of children in the care of Faunch and Wathey had allowed political correctness to override common sense.

    The report, following an independent review of the case, said: “One manager described the couple as ‘trophy carers’ which led to ‘slack arrangements’ over placement.

    “Another said that by virtue of their sexuality they had a ‘badge’ which made things less questionable.

    “The sexual orientation of the men was a significant cause of people not ‘thinking the unthinkable’.

    “It was clear that a number of staff were afraid of being thought homophobic.

    “The fear of being discriminatory led them to fail to discriminate between the appropriate and the abusive.”

    The report also accused the council of failing to carry out proper assessments before and after the children were placed with Faunch and Wathey.

    “Issues arose in the first longer-term placement of two children, including potential indicators of child sexual abuse, which were inadequately investigated, understood or acted upon,” it said.

    “More children were then placed with Faunch and Wathey, some successfully, some with concerns which were again inadequately investigated, understood or acted upon.

    “The practice of some social workers in this case was deficient.”

    The report’s authors, led by former Surrey social services chief Brian Parrott, said they could not be sure that Faunch and Wathey were “predatory paedophiles” who became foster carers in order to have access to children.

    They added: “Our criticisms are much more of those in middle management whose job it was to piece together what was really happening, to ask the right questions and to be critical and probing.”

    Wathey, 42, was jailed for five years in June last year after being convicted of four counts of sexual activity with a child and one offence of causing a child to watch sexual activity.

    Faunch, 33, received a six-year jail sentence after he was found guilty of five charges of engaging in sexual activity with a child and two of taking indecent photographs of a child.

    The couple, who lived together in Pontefract, West Yorkshire, were approved as foster carers by the council in August 2003.

    Their victims included a 14-year-old boy with Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism, who had a mental age of seven and was forced by Wathey to watch gay pornography.

    Another youngster with a “very troubled background” was only in their care for a few weeks before being abused by Faunch.

    But social workers had been aware of “inappropriate” behaviour long before then.

    Just eight months after they started as professional foster carers a mother of eight-year-old twins, who couldn’t cope with raising them on her own, voiced concerns about them with social services.

    While visiting the twins, the 34-year-old single mother was shown a picture taken by Faunch showing one of the boys going to the lavatory during a visit to Butlin’s holiday camp in Skegness and discovered a similar snap had been taken of the other twin.

    A social worker took the photograph and promised a full investigation.

    But the court heard that not only did social services staff lose the photo, they decided against contacting police after accepting Faunch’s explanation that he was trying to embarrass the boys into shutting the lavatory door.

    Police later discovered that, days after the photos were taken, Faunch recorded an indecent video of the twins taking a shower. They began abusing the boys three months later.

    Undetected, the offences continued over an 11-month period, Leeds Crown Court was told last year.

    Police were called in to investigate the couple only after one of the abused boys told a woman he had been touched by one of the men.

    Faunch abused all four boys and Wathey targeted one of them.

    Judge Sally Cahill, QC, said neither had shown “empathy, remorse or any responsibility for their actions”.

    Yesterday’s report said that the fostering panel which approved Faunch and Wathey accepted without hesitation their request to look after only boys on the basis that they didn’t feel equipped to look after girls.

    The report made 41 recommendations for overhauling the council’s fostering process.

    Last night, Michelle Elliott, a director of Kidscape, said: “Common sense went out of the window when they allowed political correctness to take over in this case.

    “I don’t care if you are homosexual or bisexual – if you are taking care of children you need to be vetted and subjected to the same investigation as anyone else.

    “Child abuse knows no gender boundaries.”

    Elaine McHale, the council’s corporate director of family services, said it would be “inappropriate” to comment on the report until after a meeting of the full council on September 12.

    1. Yes this is so accurate because there are absolutely no heterosexual couples that have done this.

  5. How do children raised by homosexual couples feel about it? Do homos clamoring for so-called “adoption rights” even think about the long-term effects such arrangements will have on the children?

    “Jakii Edwards was raised by two lesbian parents. She does not think children should be raised by homosexual couples; it is not the same as having a mother and a father.

    ‘But when a child lives in an environment where mom is kissing mom and daddy is kissing daddy, it leaves the child with voyeurism issues, with gender-identity issues — we question whether we have to be gay like mommy is gay or like daddy is gay.’

    She feels that good intentions are not enough; children need both a mother and a father in a stable relationship. What hasn’t been looked at objectively is the turmoil faced by children in homosexual homes.”

  6. Where John mentioned the “Separation of Church & State” in his comment, he chose to omit a subsequent line that appears on his blog: “Separation of Church & State (except when the law applies to gays or a woman’s womb).” [Emphasis added.]

    Once again, we see that the homosexual lobby aligns itself closely with the feminists, and that there really is a rainbow coalition out to disempower heterosexual white gentile males.

  7. B”H

    Why do you write “to disempower heterosexual white gentile males.” this is not a Jew versus
    gentile issue, rather it is a way to present “human ills” in the form of “human rights”
    that hurts the whole society Jews and gentiles.

  8. Igor Alexander | Reply

    Ariel: I am aware that traditional religious Jews for the most part oppose the homosexual agenda, and that the homosexual movement is hurting Jewish societies as much as gentile ones (look up the clips on YouTube showing “gay pride” marches in Israel for an example).

    OTOH, Jews are overrepresented in the homosexual movement, are overrepresented in organizations that support the homosexual agenda (such as the ACLU, the SPLC, and the Jewish ADL), and are overrepresented in the ranks of Hollywood film producers who make movies and TV shows promoting homosexuality (to say nothing of Jewish overrepresentation in the porn industry).

    Granted, most of these Jews aren’t particularly religious and many are sexual deviants themselves, but remembering how Jews were behind the American “civil rights” movement (not out of any sincere concern for blacks but from a desire to disempower the white majority), one has to wonder if “gay rights” wasn’t yet another Jewish scheme to destabilize white, gentile societies. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me, as they say.

  9. Igor Alexander | Reply

    Earlier I posted a story about a homosexual foster couple in the UK who sexually abused the boys in their care. Turns out they did this under the watch of a Jewess named Margaret Hodge:

    “When Hodge was leader of Islington council in London, her arrogant and autocratic ways won her the nickname ‘Enver’, after the Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha (pronounced ‘Hojja’). There was a big scandal while Hodge was leader: paedophile ‘carers’ were abusing children with impunity in council-run care homes. One big reason for their impunity was that the abusers were homosexual and could not be challenged under Hodge’s politically correct Marxist regime. Her response to complaints by one of the victims was to smear him as an ‘an extremely disturbed person’. She later had to apologize, but neither the scandal nor the smear stopped her becoming ‘Minister for Children’ under Tony Blair. Now she’s Minister for Culture under Gordon Brown, doing for culture what she did for child care.”

    1. B”H
      Dear Igor.
      Why do you persist in this?
      Jewish religion doesn’t contribute to fighting to elevate human ills to human rights to the contrary it forbids this behavior in a well known verse in Vaikra (Leviticus ) and elsewhere in the body of Jewish law and tradition.
      That people who are ignorant of the true teachings of their faith are descendants of a persecuted minority would fight for “rights” of other minorities is understandable, but this behavior failing to differentiate between persecution without cause such as racism vs legitimate public policy concerns such as unwillingness to elevate deviant relationships ( ) to the level of marriage doesn’t flow from them being Jewish rather due to their lack of traditional Jewish upbringing.
      It doesn’t advance your cause to promote healthy society imbued with traditional values to mix this noble agenda with antisemitism.

      1. Igor Alexander

        Ariel: there couldn’t be a better illustration than your response of why an alliance between religious Jews and white nationalists against militant homosexuals isn’t going to happen.

        First the eternal Jewish whine of “persecuted minority”; did it ever occur to you that your people has been persecuted throughout history because it deserved to be? As the Jew Henry Kissinger said, “any people that has been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong.”

        Second, don’t preach to me about “racism” while your nation (Israel) continues to treat the Palestinians like dirt. Don’t even try to tell me that I’m wrong or have been misinformed on the subject; I’ve spoken with enough “patriotic” Jews who have enthusiastically told me how much they’d like the Palestinians and Arabs to be exterminated to have an idea of just how racist the average Jew can be.

        Third, don’t you realize that the queers are merely following in YOUR footsteps? It is YOU GUYS who created the climate that was needed for homosexuals to start demanding their so-called “rights.” It is YOU GUYS who set the groundwork that made it possible for groups claiming victim status to demand special rights and privileges. It’s YOU who destroyed the stability and homogeneity of Western societies and shoved “diversity” down our throats. How dare you complain now that the strategy has backfired on you.

        The homosexual movement has imitated you right down to invoking the holocaust as a justification for fighting “homophobia.” That’s what the pink triangle is all about. Society must at all costs fight “homophobia,” lest queers are once again herded into concentration camps by those evil bigoted heterosexual white males; society must at all costs fight anti-Semitism lest it lead to another holocaust. Whether it’s Jews complaining about anti-Semitism or queers complaining about homophobia, the discourse is precisely the same.

        And the proposed solutions are the same as well: Jews want to “educate” gentile schoolchildren about the holocaust, while queers want to educate schoolchildren about “homophobia.” Jews have successfully lobbied for hate speech laws and laws against “holocaust denial,” and homos likewise would like to see the passage of laws which make it illegal to criticize them.

        The way I see it, Jews, feminists, homos, and non-whites may not see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, but they are all in this together, partners in crime, all part of a coalition to disempower heterosexual white males.

        It’s revealing that while you admit that some of your secular fellow tribesmen have been promoting homosexuality and are major players in the the homosexual movement, you prefer to excuse their behavior rather than condemn it. You know this filthy, destructive counterculture is being promoted by your fellow Jews and yet you can’t bring yourself to even be angry at them. You attribute to them benign intentions which they don’t really have and blame white gentiles for their behavior. It’s like that old Polish saying, “the Jew cries in pain as he slaps you.” It’s this attitude that Jews are never wrong and this refusal to turn on your own in spite of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing that has made Jews hated in almost every society they have set foot in.

        Until the religious Jewish community starts aggressively opposing hate speech laws, human rights tribunals, “civil rights” initiatives that advantage minorities over the majority, and most of all, its fellow tribesmen in Hollywood, I will continue to doubt its sincerity.

      2. Igor Alexander

        “…doesn’t flow from them being Jewish…”

        I beg to differ. Jews — generally the secular type — consistently and systematically promote every disintegrative tendency or movement imaginable, whether it’s homosexuality, pornography, abortion, communism, feminism, miscegenation, etc.

        I was surprised to discover recently that the birth control pill was invented by a Jew, though I probably shouldn’t have been. Needless to say, “the pill” has played a vital role in propping up the modern feminist movement, in lowering the white birth rate to below replacement levels, and in turning generations of white females into the most degenerate sluts imaginable.

        You know those Bratz dolls, the ones that are sold at Wal-Mart and that encourage prepubescent girls to dress like street whores? Yup, you guessed it. Yet another Jewish gift to society. I wonder if Bratz dolls are sold in Israel?

        I’m willing to consider that there are religious and/or conservative Jews who are basically decent people and don’t approve of this kind of stuff, but what disgusts me is that they turn a blind eye to the Jewish role in all of it.

        It’s like a game of “good Jew, bad Jew,” where the “bad Jews” go about defecating on everything that’s sacred in the host society, while the “good Jews” pretend to be morally outraged by it, all the while refusing to censure their fellow Jews and crying “anti-Semitism!” should anyone point out that what all these shit disturbers have in common is their Jewish heritage.

  10. 14_NSBM_Warrior_88 | Reply

    My thoughts on Gay Marriage?

    I’m more interested in Gay Divorce; now THAT would be top-class theatre. So many “brave” couples, so many “brave” mayors, so many lovely lavender bouquets. How long will the bliss endure? Who will be first to realize their mistake? How long until a courageous divorce lawyer steps forward to help these new partners realize their new dreams of getting far, far away from each other?

    “It’s clear now that I was just a pretty plaything to you, a bauble, something that looked good pinned beneath you on sheets of Egyptian cotton. You never even tried to understand me! You took all I gave and when I could give no more you went out dancing. You can have your ugly dishes, the DVD player, the exotic pets and even little Felipe Lawrence Holbeck III, our child who once lived in Guatemala. At least I still have my dignity, you faggot!”

    Although I personally couldn’t care less about their lifestyles (the gay men, that is; lesbians make me paranoid), they never fail to amaze me when they boast that their love is superior to heterosexuality. How they placate themselves with their delusions of grandeur. How they truly convinced they’re better because they’re naturally inclined to stick their dingi up other men’s rectums. Oh, bliss!

    A fat smile will stretch across my face as their romance spoils. As their families crumble, they’ll realize they’re as fallible as any of us. And I, with triumph, will proudly announce, “I guess your love wasn’t so strong after all.” Tell me; what’s greater than watching a homo’s romance burn to death.

    1. You can stop dreaming, my friend…

      Lesbian couple seeking country’s first same-sex divorce

      Last Updated: Thursday, July 22, 2004 | 9:26 AM ET
      CBC News

      “A lesbian couple in Ontario may face problems getting what is believed to be Canada’s first same-sex divorce because the law limits divorce to male-female couples.

      The two women, identified only as M.M. and J.H., were married in Ontario on June 18, 2003, a week after Ontario’s Court of Appeal legalized same-sex marriage.

      They separated five days later.”

      Five days later; ROFL!

    2. Right, because it’s not like the divorce rate for heterosexuals is 50% but that’s just fine no one thinks twice about heterosexuals divorcing but when one, just one homosexual relation ship doesn’t make it means they are not ready for marriage.

  11. I’ve noticed the queers have spammed the search engines so that when you type in keywords like “faggot” or “homosexual mafia,” you get their sites in the first page of results.

    It seems like there’s faggots monitoring the web continually and anytime someone posts an unflattering article or comment about them, they come down on it with a bunch of cut-and-paste responses, two of their favorites being to portray themselves as the innocent victims of heterosexual bigotry or to try to relativize their behavior by saying things like “heterosexuals practice sodomy too” (both arguments being easy enough to refute).

    We need to start working the engines like they do. Sometime I might also put together a guide on how to refute their most common arguments, just as they have guides for their activists.

    At the end of the day, though, a few well-placed bullets and bombs will do more to stop their “movement” than any amount of media activism. If people are shooting abortionists, it’s only a matter of time before they get fed up and start going postal at pride marches or leaving truck bombs outside of bathhouses. It’s hard to understand why, in a society as supposedly “homophobic” as ours, this hasn’t been happening already.

    1. 14_NSBM_Warrior_88 | Reply

      Interestingly enough, as blind as the homos are to this simple truth, Western Culture has been most tolerant, dare I say encouraging, of their pursuits. It’s ingrained within our history; one need only look at the Ancient Athenians for evidence (the same can’t be said for the mighty Spartans).

      Any honest assertion of any other culture (Middle Eastern, Far Eastern, Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, you name it) will reveal far more “homophobia,” stringent gender roles, and xenophobia than the West dreamed of. I feel silly for stating the obvious, but seeing that uttering it aloud has been repeatedly condemned, what am I to do?

      1. Good point. In a sense it’s ironic that feminism and the “gay rights” movement developed here, since relatively speaking, women and queers have been treated better in Western societies than anywhere else. It’s not surprising though, since Western societies are the only ones where such movements would’ve been tolerated.

        OTOH, I’m getting sick of people (like Mark Steyn) claiming that “tolerance” is a fundamental Western value. That would only be true if you accepted that the values of the 60’s countercultural revolution were the quintessential Western values, which I do not.

        Queers always moan about how the Germans put their kind in concentration camps. I’ve heard people cite this as yet another reason for why Germans are a uniquely evil people, and yet, it seems to escape them that 60 years ago it was illegal for a woman to crossdress in the U.S. or that in England buggery was a felony punishable by death right up until 1861. It’s simply not true that there was ever any widespread or universal acceptance of homosexuality in Western societies, and by the standards of the time, there is no reason to point the finger at Germany, especially when you consider that before the Nazis came along to set things right, Germany was a cesspit of debauchery.

        At any rate, even if pederasty was accepted in certain Greek city-states, that’s a far cry from queers demanding the “right” to marry. To my knowledge, no society in recorded history prior to now has allowed homosexuals to get married, and for good reason — marriage is the foundation of the biological family, and the biological family is the foundation of society. If you can destroy the family by making it acceptable for queers to get married and raise children (either adopted or born in vitro), then you have destroyed society, even if it takes a few decades for the damage to become obvious.

        Something I always like to ask people who defend queer marriage and adoption is: how would you have liked to have been raised by a homosexual couple? These myopic, self-absorbed assholes want to impose something on future generations that they themselves never had to live through and that most of them wouldn’t have wanted to.

        I don’t have any overwhelming hatred of homosexual men as individuals, as long as they drop the “I’m a lisping fag with an attitude” charade and act like normal human beings. It’s primarily the homosexual movement I have a problem with. I think it’s dangerous to society as a whole and needs to be stopped by any means possible.

        The funny thing is that just as jews fuel the anti-Semitism they’re always complaining about by their behavior, queers are starting to irritate people (such as myself) with their group demands who would not have otherwise been predisposed to hate them. These minorities don’t know how to quit while they’re ahead. The lesson of Weimar Germany has been lost on them.

        It was the same with the blacks — superficially reasonable demands for “equality” turned, within a few decades, into a sense in the majority of blacks that they are entitled to privileged treatment as far as hiring and so on, and that they have a “right” to leech off the white taxpayer. Already queers are demanding privileged treatment by pushing for “hate crimes” and “hate speech” laws, among other things. They’ve already bamboozled heterosexual white taxpayers into providing massive funding for AIDS research by selling them the lie that white heterosexuals are just as vulnerable to the disease as queers.

        As for lesbians, well, I’m with you. I have yet to meet one that wasn’t a bitch or fuck-up or that had any redeeming qualities.

  12. Regarding the Spartans, I’ve read claims that homosexuality was rampant in their society. This is such a politicized area, though, with queers searching through the annals with a fine-tooth comb looking for any tidbit that they can use to bolster their cause, that I take such claims with a grain of salt.

    It’s worth noting that university Classics departments often have a disproportionate number of fags working in them. I wouldn’t be surprised if the prevalence of homosexuality in the ancient world was being exaggerated by these homosexual scholars, either deliberately for political reasons, or due to an unconscious bias on their part.

  13. You aren’t homosexual: You have no right to say what it is and isn’t about. End of story.

    1. Nonsense. I have every right to question a group’s motivations, especially when it’s trying to shove its sociopolitical agenda down my throat.

      I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard queers say that Christians and conservatives are motivated by “hate” in their opposition to queer “marriage,” even though the Christians and conservatives deny that this is so. By your logic, queers who are neither Christian nor conservative (which would happen to be most of them) don’t have the “right” to make such an inference.

  14. Nikolay Makarov | Reply

    “I’ve known dozens of fags throughout my life and have had dozens of encounters in which “gay” or bisexual men have tried, often very aggressively, to get down my pants”. And male heterosexuals never aggressively pursue females for purely sexual encounters, it’s always about love? Give me a break, you are short sighted and bigoted if you think gays cannot fall in love.

    1. Igor Alexander | Reply

      “Give me a break, you are short sighted and bigoted if you think gays cannot fall in love.”

      Yeah, I’m sure the average homo “falls in love” several times a night at his local bathhouse. The personals on craigslist are just brimming with faggots looking for committed, long-term relationships. Kneeling at a gloryhole, his mouth full, Peter ponders starting a family with John Doe #8. LOL!

      The stats simply don’t bear out your assertion. Fags are more promiscuous than heterosexuals by several orders of magnitude. Those who are “married” or in “long-term” relationships are many times more likely to cheat and their relationships on average don’t last as long. To whatever extent fags have started to imitate the behavior of heterosexuals over the last two decades, it’s only because the AIDS/GRID epidemic frightened them into it. Let’s see how long that lasts.

      That heterosexuals feel lust towards each other is irrelevant. The point is that the homosexual lobby is deliberately misrepresenting what fags actually do by promoting a whitewashed, sanitized image of homosexuality which has little relation to reality.

      You’re one of those cretins who thinks that by pointing out that some heterosexuals engage in anal sex, or that heterosexuals molest children too, that this somehow provides a moral justification for faggotry. Your argument boils down to saying that because Johnny gets away with smoking cigarettes in the boys room, that this makes it OK for Timmy to shoot heroin in the stalls. It’s a sad comment on where we’re at as a society when people try to excuse sick or depraved behavior by citing the lowest common denominator as a standard to look up to.

  15. […] salient feature of the “gay rights” movement is that it never discusses what it is that fags actually do in the bedroom; in […]

  16. The moral degradation of society. We are in the last days when bad is considered good and good is considered bad. Heterosexual marriage is good but we are considered bad because we want to protect its sacredness.

  17. I absolutely love your blog and find most of your post’s to be precisely what I’m looking for.
    Would you offer guest writers to write content for you personally?
    I wouldn’t mind producing a post or elaborating on many of the subjects you write concerning here. Again, awesome site!

  18. What’s up everyone, it’s my first go to see at this web
    page, and article is actually fruitful in favor of me,
    keep up posting these types of content.

  19. Just came across your blog. Would like to know: are you the same Igor Alexander who recently changed his last name and is selling the popular courses ‘ Money in Y0ur MInd’ and ‘Power of Conversational Hypnosis’?

  20. I’ll immediately snatch your rss feed as I can not in finding your email subscription hyperlink or newsletter service.
    Do you’ve any? Kindly let me know so that I could subscribe.

Leave a Reply to me Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: