Tag Archives: rainbow coalition

Declaration of War on the Racist, Sexist, Speciest, Homophobic, Xenophobic Patriarchal White World Order

You, heterosexual white gentile males,

Hateful racist right-wing fuckers —

You are what’s preventing world peace.

You are impeding the New Age of Enlightenment.

If it weren’t for you, we’d all be living in an earthly paradise right now, holding hands, singing Kumbaya, with universal health care and beautiful mixed-race children turned into budding Einsteins through the magic of public schooling. There’d even be free tofu burgers for everyone.

You are the problem. You must be done away with.

In order for Humanity to thrive, you, White Man, must die.

The origin of the word “gay” as a euphemism for homosexuality

Loxist bulldyke Gertrude Stein

In the first half of the 20th century, the word “gay” was synonymous with “happy” or “joyous.” Now it refers to homosexuality. How did such a formerly innocent, innocuous term come to be associated with something as unsavory and unsanitary as queer buttsex?

From the Wikipedia article on the word “Gay”:

“A passage from Gertrude Stein’s Miss Furr & Miss Skeene (1922) is possibly the first traceable published use of the word to refer to a homosexual relationship. According to Linda Wagner-Martin (Favored Strangers: Gertrude Stein and her Family (1995)) the portrait, ‘featured the sly repetition of the word gay, used with sexual intent for one of the first times in linguistic history…'”

From the Wikipedia article on Gertrude Stein:

“Gertrude Stein, the youngest of a family of five children, was born in 1874 in Allegheny, Pennsylvania (merged with Pittsburgh in 1907), to well-educated German-Jewish immigrant parents.” [Emphasis added. -IA]

As can be readily seen, use of the word “gay” as a euphemism for homosexuality is yet another instance of the jewing of the English language.

Patriotard talk radio host Jason Bermas defends La Raza

“Determined conspiracy-hunters will accept practically any crackpot theory on which to base their futile speculations but the real conspiracy, which is staring them in the face, is taboo.” —Simon Sheppard

“For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing.” –Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA)

Gringos Go Home

Patriotard radio talk show host Jason Bermas, filling in for Alex Jones today, responded to a caller’s suggestion that La Raza might be a racist organization* by stating that in his opinion, it wouldn’t be fair to classify most of La Raza‘s membership as racist. These were his exact words:

“What La Raza stands for at the upper echelons … is absurd. But at the lower levels, people don’t understand what it is. […] They don’t understand that it’s all corrupt at the top. They don’t understand what the real message is. I don’t want to say every member of La Raza is automatically a racist. I would say every member of La Raza that doesn’t realize that there’s race implications and race bias is ignorant. And there are some at the top that are openly racist.”

Race “implications”? Only “some” are openly racist? The Spanish phrase La Raza literally means “the race” and refers to Chicanos (mestizos of Mexican origin living in the United States). La Raza is an explicitly racialist organization and movement. Every member at every level fully understands this; I mean, their movement is called “the race,” fer crying out loud! How much more obvious can it get? Stop lying to your listeners, you gutless patriotard snake oil salesman.

Watch a video of La Raza in action.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Find out who pays Alex Jones’s bills.

Support real alternative media, like October Sun Films [link now dead] (who produced the documentary from which the video clip above was taken), New Century Productions, or the websites in my blogroll. Don’t give your money to hucksters like Alex Jones and Jason Bermas. Contrary to one of their slogans, patriotard broadcasters don’t think you’re intelligent enough to “handle the truth,” as evidenced by Jason Bermas’s whitewash of La Raza.

* La Raza can refer to the National Council de La Raza, but it also refers more generally to the La Raza movement to take over the Southwestern United States (or Reconquista, as its adherents call it).

Canadian social workers misuse power to punish parents’ political views

“Freedom is the right to live in one’s own homeland in accordance with the laws and traditions of one’s ancestors.” –Ernst Arndt, Catechism for the Teutonic Armyman

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” –Thomas Jefferson

“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” –George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

“What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!” –Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Keep this. It will bring you luck.

This is getting serious, folks. The Canadian government is giving itself the right to take away the children of whites who hold “racist” views. Either you go along with the multiracial agenda of Canada’s overseers and teach your children to be obedient, self-hating, race-denying, politically-correct lemmings, or risk having them taken from you. There is no other word to describe this but tyranny.

For years I’ve been telling people that while I personally wouldn’t beat my children, the government has no right to interfere in how people raise their kids, and that by allowing the government to interfere in cases of corporal punishment, parents will ultimately lose all their rights to raise their children as they see fit. Well, that’s exactly what’s happening. This is what you get when you let women, with their misplaced maternal instincts, get hold of political power*, and is yet another example of why freedom and democracy don’t mix, popular belief notwithstanding.

I can see it now — daddy uses the word “faggot” around his kids, social services gets wind of it and takes the children away, since under Canada’s democratic nanny state, exposing kids to “homophobia” is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. If they’re lucky, the kids may even be placed with a homosexual foster couple, in whose home they’ll have the privilege of hearing mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy getting it on at night in the master bedroom. You think I’m exaggerating? There’s only one degree of seperation between having your kids taken away because you used the word “nigger” around them and having them taken away because you said the word “fag.” If the government is allowed to get away with this, the precedent will be set for the government to act the same way in any case involving politically incorrect speech.

Canadians, like Americans, like to make a show of how politically correct they are in public, but how PC are they in the privacy of their homes? For their sake, I hope the statements they make in private, in front of members of their family, match those of their public personas, because if they don’t, social services may hear about it and take their kids away.

This brings us one step closer to the world of “thought crime” depicted in the novel 1984. Canadians have no idea how close they are to the society that sent men like Solzhenitsyn to the Gulags. (Don’t even get me started on how much the United States is beginning to remind me of Canada since Obama the Marxist mulatto got put in power.)

If the child in this case had been black rather than white and had come to school wearing a T-shirt that said “black power” or “Nation of Islam” or bearing the name of a rapper that advocates violence against whites, what are the chances that social services would’ve reacted the same way? Slim, I bet. We’re all equal under the law, but some animals, you see, are more equal than others.

In the religion of political correctness, only whites, by definition, can be “racist.” Expressions of hatred or acts of violence towards whites by non-whites are excused and even applauded by the politically correct (who are almost all white) as “payback” for white racism. Poor whites are looked down on as “trailer trash” and are regularly mocked in the movies and on television, while astronomically high crime rates in non-white communities are explained away as the result of “systemic discrimination” against minorities and the unwillingness of rich white men to share their “ill-gotten” wealth with the “have-nots” (of course, the upper middle-class sociology professors who get paid big bucks to make these types of analyses never offer to pay for the social programs they demand out of their own salaries). Expressions of racial pride by non-whites are tolerated and even encouraged, no matter how viciously anti-white they are, while expressions of white pride, no matter how mild, are always labelled “hate” and are greeted with calls for the harshest of sanctions. Such is the hypocrisy of political correctness and the sick minds that peddle it.–Igor Alexander

* Note that besides women’s proclivity to vote for left-wing/liberal politicians, they are also vastly overrepresented in the social services.


Parents put blame on daughter for racist remarks, custody hearing told
Last Updated: Tuesday, May 26, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/05/26/mb-swastika-custody-hearing-winnipeg.html

A young girl’s head was shaved, and her parents described themselves as a skinhead family, court was told on Day 2 of a child custody hearing in Winnipeg.

The case involves a girl, now eight years old, who went to school with white supremacist symbols drawn on her skin. Her mother and stepfather, who are accused of racist teachings and failing to provide adequate care for their children, began a court battle for their children this week.

The girl and her brother have been in the care of the government’s Child and Family Services agency since March 2008, when the girl showed up in school with a swastika on her arm.

Her teacher scrubbed it off in the afternoon but the girl showed up again the next day with another one, along with other white supremacist symbols drawn on her body.

Neo-Nazi symbols and flags in family residence

Caseworkers were alerted and went to the family’s apartment, where they found neo-Nazi symbols and flags, and took custody of the couple’s two-year-old son. CFS officials picked up the daughter at her school.

The case has garnered international attention and sparked debate over how far parents can go to instill beliefs in their children — and how far the government should go to protect children from those beliefs.

On Monday, the social worker who initially interviewed the girl after she was taken into care testified the child was well versed in racist and hateful propaganda. None of the CFS workers can be identified in order to protect the identities of the children. [Nice. The cowardly busybodies who are doing this get to hide their identities under the guise of “protecting the children,” and hence remain unaccountable to the public for their actions.-IA]

The girl spoke of this being a white man’s world and provided graphic suggestions of how to kill people of colour, the worker testified.

Girl famous for lying: parents

On Tuesday, another social worker testified about her first meeting with the parents — about three weeks after the two children were apprehended.

They told the social worker their daughter often makes things up, and was famous for lying, the worker testified. The parents also said the girl had likely drawn some of the symbols on her body herself.

When the social worker asked why the girl was able to talk about certain things, like hurting people or killing people of colour, the stepfather said it was probably something she’d heard in a private conversation and was probably a joke, the hearing was told.

According to the social worker, the mother said she had no idea why her daughter would refer to them as skinheads.

But the social worker said extended family members later told her that the parents had shaved their heads, and the little girl’s, and described themselves as a skinhead family. [So what? Is there a law against being a skinhead?-IA]

Girl said stepdad brought in neo-Nazi views

Then she met the girl, who the social worker described as bright and articulate, even chatty. They met in the girl’s new foster home, where the girl was eager to show off her room, and her brother’s toys. [I guess this part was put into the article to show us, the stupid readers, how much better off the girl is with a foster family than with her biological mother.-IA]

The girl told the social worker that her mother used to read her stories but had stopped when she met and married a new man, the social worker testified. [Break out the violins.-IA]

“She was not a nice mommy anymore,” the social worker quoted the girl as saying.

The girl said she started missing school because her mom and stepdad didn’t wake her up on time. She told the social worker that her stepfather made the rules in the house, that he was angry and would get drunk, and that he didn’t make meals, or change her brother’s diaper often enough. [So now the social workers are getting into character assassination to deflect attention away from the fact that they abducted these children for political reasons. How many black kids have parents who get drunk, don’t make meals or change diapers often enough, don’t read their kids bedtime stories, and talk shit against white people? Lots, I’m sure. Now, how many of those black kids are put into foster homes? None, I bet. Kids are going to have a tough time in any family where there’s been a seperation or divorce, but that’s generally not seen as a reason to break that family up even further. Bottom line: social services is abusing its power to punish politically-incorrect speech and ideas.-IA]

The girl said she used to have non-white friends before her stepdad came along, but after he was in her life, the girl’s mother told her, “If you have a friend who’s not white, I won’t be your mom anymore,” the social worker testified. [And since when don’t parents have the right to tell their kids who they can and can’t hang out with? It’s not only the parents’ right, but arguably, their responsibility, to make sure their kid doesn’t fall in with the wrong crowd, and in this case, I’d say telling the daughter to not hang out with non-whites was a good call. Let’s be honest: how many white parents would be pleased if their daughter started hanging out with, say, blacks or American Indians? Not too many, I’d wager. Not only because few people relish the idea of having mixed-race grandchildren, but also because anyone with any life’s experience knows what the problems associated with those racial groups are: crime, violence, drugs, gangs, precocious sex leading to bastardy/illegitimacy and single motherhood, etc. What parent in his right mind would want that for his daughter?-IA]

Parents separated, each seeking sole custody

Testimony from child welfare officials and lawyers will continue through the week.

The hearing will adjourn but resume in June, when lawyers for the parents will make their arguments.

The parents no longer live together, and each has asked for custody of the children. The girl’s mother is not living in Manitoba anymore and has not been in court. Her lawyer’s request for an adjournment Monday morning was rejected.

She has said she can’t afford to travel but will attempt to when the parents have an opportunity to make their case next month.

The stepfather is in court and has filed a constitutional challenge, saying his right to freedom of expression, religion and association were violated when the children were apprehended. [I hope he wins, and that if he does, he sues the pants off of Child and Family Services.-IA]

The girl’s biological father has also been attending the hearing, sitting in the gallery and watching the proceedings. He told CBC News he hopes the children’s best interests won’t be overlooked in the rhetoric of political ideology.

[Incidentally, as regular readers of the taxpayer-funded CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) website will know, the CBC consistently slants its news coverage to fit a leftist/liberal agenda. In other words, the CBC isn’t in the business of responsible journalism, but rather, of disseminating propaganda. This story was a good illustration of that; notice how it subtly took the side of the social workers, quoting statements allegedly made by the little girl to tug on readers’ heartstrings, while villainizing the mother and stepfather. Is that balanced reporting? It’s not that non-state-funded media companies are any better, especially in light of who runs most of them, but it seems more overtly tyrannical when people are forced to pay taxes to be propagandized in this manner. But since the CBC’s biased news coverage is a rather large topic, perhaps I’ll leave it for another time.-IA]

Facebook rejects ad promoting lesbianism

“[W]hile homosexuals vehemently reject being considered mentally ill, they have no problems regarding those who dislike homosexuality as mentally ill.”homosexinfo.org

“A healthy society is life-affirming. Homosexuality is the metaphysical negation of life. Incapable of reproduction (giving life), it can replenish its numbers only by seduction.” –Don Feder*

Ad rejected by Facebook

Rejected by Facebook

Read the homosexual spin on the story here:
http://gay-girls-guide.blogspot.com/2009/04/facebook-rejects-ad-for-lesbian-film.html

Now, heed well my words: until such time as they are free to push homoerotic material in every ad, every magazine, on every bus, street sign, and TV channel, queers are going to continue complaining about “homophobia.” They have only gotten started in their campaign to destroy the sexual mores of our society. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

Accusations of “homophobia” are not about promoting the so-called “rights” of an “oppressed minority,” they are about depriving normal straight people of the right to raise a family in an environment in which their children aren’t being continually exposed to the homosexual death culture (as per the Don Feder quote above, the homosexual counterculture is, quite literally, a death culture, since it in essence encourages people to not have children; and that’s to say nothing of AIDS and other diseases to which homosexual men are disproportionately subject due to their unhealthy lifestyles and sexual practices).

Note the progression thus far: in only a few decades, the homosexual movement has gone from such seemingly (to some people) reasonable demands as not having queer bars shut down by police, to now insisting, at threat of boycott, to having “the right” to publicly display homoerotic material anywhere they wish (and sometimes, to even engage in homosexual intercourse in public). It’s only going to get worse, folks. Much, much worse.**

There is no way that our heterosexual culture can peaceably coexist with a militant homosexual counterculture. Make no mistake: Incidents like these are a declaration of war against the heterosexual majority.

My advice is that straight people stop allowing themselves to be bullied by accusations of “homophobia” and start standing up for themselves by telling these militant queers to f*ck off. Queers want to boycott Amazon (see story here) and Facebook? Fine. Straights should do the same. Send emails to Facebook and Amazon informing them you’ll refuse to use their sites and services if they cave in to pressure from the homosexual lobby and allow homoerotic material to be displayed. It’s time to stop pussyfooting with these deviants and start hitting back. There’s a lot more of us out there than there are queers; if only we could get more organized…

And to the Christian wimps who say things like “hate the sin, not the sinner,” you’re not going to have your cake and eat it too. The only way to defeat the homosexual lobby is through hatred and intolerance. There is no other way. When it becomes unsafe for queers to walk down the street holding hands, or to otherwise publicly announce their sexual preference, that’s when we’ll have them off our backs. Until such time, you can expect the demands of the homosexual lobby to become increasingly strident and outlandish.

Let me repeat that this is a war, not a misunderstanding of some kind that can be politely worked out over tea and crumpets. The queers know perfectly well what they are doing and the ramifications of what they’re doing. This is a war, and as such, your options are either to stand up and fight, or drop your weapons, roll over, and let the homos sodomize your corpse.

Hopefully future generations will look back on this putrid, degenerate sewer of an era of ours and fully appreciate what the consequences are of allowing queers out of the closet, and thus avoid repeating our mistake.

* Yes, I know Mr. Feder is Jewish, and that I don’t always have the kindest things to say about Jews, but truth is truth no matter who expresses it. At least Mr. Feder isn’t like the Jew Ezra Levant, who is trying to sell conservatives on the idea of homosexual marriage.

** To get an idea of what homosexuals see all of this leading to, see the 2004 movie A Dirty Shame by homosexual filmmaker John Waters.

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.

Lesbians hate you — don’t you get it?

by Igor Alexander

Jane doesn't care to know Dick

As a red-blooded heterosexual male, there’s nothing that I find objectionable about watching two attractive women making love. It’s not the lesbian sex act per se that bothers me, it’s everything that surrounds it.

If I thought that lesbians were just hedonistic women who were sexually attracted to other women and were primarily seeking pleasure and thrills, I would be more willing to overlook them. Hey, I can relate — girls are hot! But that’s just a male fantasy. Such lesbians don’t exist outside of pulp novel covers*, porn, and other products of men’s lascivious imaginations.

The vast majority of real lesbians, even the ones of the “lipstick” variety that guys drool over, are women who have serious issues with men. Lesbians aren’t so much indifferent to men as they are hostile. It’s almost impossible to tell where feminism ends and lesbianism begins. The lesbian counterculture is inextricably tied to feminism.

Stop thinking of lesbianism as if it were just a sex thing. It’s not. It’s also a counterculture, an identity, and a political movement. Women who sleep with women for purely sexual reasons don’t usually go around calling themselves lesbians.

I’ve heard people claim that lesbians don’t dislike men, that they just aren’t interested in them, but I have not found that to be true in most instances. Lesbians are obsessed with men. They pretend to be men. They date women that look like men. They employ sex toys that are precisely modeled after male genitalia. They’re into “gender” role-playing, and assume “male” and “female” roles in their relationships. They go to feminist rallies, attend workshops for “womyn,” work in rape counseling centers. Many of them can’t stop yapping about the bad experiences they claim to have had with men, even years after they say they have stopped dating men. They appear genuinely upset when a man doesn’t give their lifestyle the nod of approval; if lesbians are indifferent to men, why would they care?

Young lesbian couples parade down busy streets in the daytime, hand-in-hand, staging public displays of affection which are meant more for attracting men’s attention (and rubbing it in their faces) than as sincere expressions of fondness or desire for each other.

Numerous studies have indicated that only a small minority of the women calling themselves lesbians have never slept with a man, and a surprising number of women calling themselves lesbians have sex with men (frequently “gay” or bisexual men) on a regular basis. An Australian study found that lesbians in the survey had slept with more men on average than the heterosexual women had! These findings are consistent with what I’ve observed firsthand.**

For lesbians not caring about men, an awful lot of their attention seems to be either directly or indirectly focused on them.

A stronger case could be made that faggots are indifferent to women than that dykes are indifferent to men. Fags, for the most part, seem to be genuinely guided by the pleasure principle and not much else. Fags who would truly qualify as misogynistic are rare, whereas man-hating dykes are ubiquitous. There may be a tiny bit of latent misogyny in male homosexuality, but it doesn’t even approach the scope and severity of lesbian misandry.

It wouldn’t make much difference to fags if all the sexually-available women on the planet vanished tomorrow; they would quickly get over it. But if all the men on the planet were to vanish tomorrow, much of the impetus for becoming a lesbian would be gone. Much like feminism: if all the men vanished tomorrow, feminists would have no one left to hate and to blame all their problems on, and their movement would shrivel up and die, having lost its raison d’etre. Lesbianism really should be thought of more as a wholly-owned subsidiary of feminism, than as a seperate thing onto itself.

When a guy jerks off, he’s just jerking off; he’s doing it because it feels good. To a lesbian, “flicking the bean” is a political act, a part of the struggle to liberate herself from the invisible (because they’re imaginary) chains of male oppression, an act of insurgency against the patriarchy. A woman who calls herself a lesbian and lets herself be penetrated by another woman donning a strap-on rubber penis isn’t merely displaying same-sex attraction, she is also revealing something about how she feels about men. That something goes along the lines of: “I enjoy heterosexual intercourse enough to try to mimic it, but I don’t like men.”

Guys, lesbians hate you. Their whole scene is based on spite and envy towards men. The only reason you don’t get it is because your only exposure to lesbianism has been through the pages of Penthouse magazine or by watching cute Hollywood actresses rubbing their boobies together on cable television. The reality on the ground is quite a different matter. By all means, check out some lesbian clubs and hangouts in your city, read some lesbian blogs and magazines, watch some pornography that was made by lesbians, for lesbians; but remember to bring along a barf bag.

(Also see What’s With All The Lesbians?)


* Ironically, lesbian-themed pulp novels from the 50’s and 60’s, whose target audience was nominally men, are now celebrated in women’s studies programs. Many lesbians from that generation remember these novels as having been an important part of their initiation into the lesbian way of life. From a Wikipedia article on these books:

“Writer Donna Allegra explained why she purchased them in saying, ‘No matter how embarrassed and ashamed I felt when I went to the cash register to buy these books, it was absolutely necessary for me to have them. I needed them the way I needed food and shelter for survival.'”

Sounds rather like the embarassment a teenage boy might feel buying his first copy of Playboy, doesn’t it? Nerve-wracking and yet strangely exhilarating at the same time, like breaking the law or starting a fistfight. I wonder how many people get sucked into the homosexual lifestyle because of the initial nervous thrill they get from trying something new, different, and taboo? Of course, once the excitement wears off, fags have to start inhaling “poppers” (alkyl nitrites) just to get it up, while female homosexuals suffer a condition known as “lesbian bed death,” similar to the loss of sexual desire long-standing married couples sometimes experience. Would it be overly optimistic to hope that as homosexuality continues to lose its stigma due to the public relations efforts of the homosexual lobby, fewer people will be attracted to it? To some there’s no fruit more inviting than the one that is forbidden, and in some sectors of society, homosexuality is becoming downright banal.

Also from Wikipedia:

“Stephanie Foote, from the University of Illinois commented on the importance of lesbian pulp novels to the lesbian identity prior to feminism: ‘Pulps have been understood as signs of a secret history of readers, and they have been valued because they have been read. The more they are read, the more they are valued, and the more they are read, the closer the relationship between the very act of circulation and reading and the construction of a lesbian community becomes…Characters use the reading of novels as a way to understand that they are not alone.'”

Hearing this, one has to wonder if men, by purchasing these novels and thus keeping them in demand and on store shelves, weren’t inadvertently fueling a movement and counterculture that would soon become profoundly antagonistic towards them. How many a woman from that generation who became a lesbian would never even have thought of eschewing a heterosexual lifestyle if she hadn’t momentarily caught a glimpse of one of those covers on a drugstore shelf out of the corner of her eye? Could the widely disseminated pornography of today be having a similar effect on some of our young women?

Would it be accurate to assume that the publishers of these pulp novels, like the pornographers of today, were disproportionately Jewish? Could the seeds of the modern lesbian movement have been planted by Jewish publishers in the 50’s and 60’s?

** It’s interesting to note that the Greek poet Sappho, who was born around 600 B.C. on the island of Lesbos — from which we get the term “lesbian” — was married and had a child, and that most of the young women in her circle of companions left her group to marry men.

Feminists say “tough titty” to white males suffering from cystic fibrosis

The rainbow coalition of feminists, queers, Jews, blacks, browns, and leftists is forever trying to shove political correctness down our throats under the guise of promoting “equality” and preventing “discrimination,” but in the following story its true motivation — the blind hatred of heterosexual white gentile males — is naked for all to see. In the Orwellian doublespeak of the rainbow coalition, a call to end “discrimination” is really an invitation to discriminate against heterosexual white males. When a member of this coalition demands “equality,” what he/she/it is really after are special treatment and privileges. When members of this coalition talk about promoting “human rights,” what they really have in mind is depriving heterosexual white males of the rights of property, free speech, and free association. –Igor Alexander


Lesson in stupidity – Carleton’s student union quit its Shinerama fundraiser because cystic fibrosis affects mainly white people

http://www.saultstar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1316835

OTTAWA – The Carleton student union’s decision to quit its Shinerama fundraiser because cystic fibrosis affects mainly white people is stupid and unfair, says CF sufferer Kelsey Lett.

Lett, 18, who has spent most of her life in hospital, says the disease doesn’t discriminate.

“I know white girls who have it. I know black guys who have it,” she said yesterday.

At a meeting Monday night, Carleton University Students Association councillors voted 22-2 in favour of quitting their long-standing FROSH week fundraiser and sponsoring another charity.

They supported a motion to stop Shinerama because, as the motion stated, they want fundraising to be “inclusive as possible,” and “CF has recently been revealed to affect white people and primarily men.” [Emphasis added. -IA]

The decision was based on misinformation, says the head of the Canadian CF Foundation.

“It’s the most common, fatal, genetic disease affecting young people in this country,” CEO Cathleen Morrison said.

“Hopefully people are making decisions based on information that is correct.”

Nick Bergamini, who voted against the motion, was shocked when he heard it.

“This does not reflect the views of Carleton students. These are the views of a few radicals who are playing politics with a charity,” he said.

Bergamini plans to put forward a motion to reverse the decision at the next monthly meeting, but he’s not optimistic.