Tuesday, July 29, 2014


by Mr. Mean-Spirited

I’ll admit it: at heart, I really want to be libertarian about the issue of gay marriage. I truly want to believe the notion that, if two sodomites want to get wedded and bedded, the government should not be involved. 

I concluded as much until the bureaucrats started telling me what I should think. I conjectured as much until the establishment media started insisting that there was only one way to “feel” about this issue. I conceived as much until the humanitarians started repeating that a “good citizen” only supported one political position.

As soon as the mass media started indoctrinating one point of view, I immediately adopted the opposite opinion. The liberal overlords have squirted and spurted out a rather obvious stream of propaganda to make sodomy more acceptable. And if the idealists begin to tell you that something is good, you can be certain that it will be morally reprehensible when it all comes out in the end.  If the altruists say that something is a matter of civil rights, than you can be damn sure that it is going to be morally repugnant.

There is something genuinely disgusting about the ruling establishment’s heavy-handed and limp-wristed attempt to make homosexual activity seem normal. And I resent being socialized: I never really felt the least bit anti-gay until the government started telling me how awful and appalling it is to discriminate against sexual orientation.  When the do-gooders say one thing, you can be damn certain that the reverse is actually true.

Whenever the privileged classes boast that culture is proceeding down a particular route, you want to be running – no, you want to be fleeing – in the opposite direction.  You don’t even want to go anywhere near the on-ramp to that Hersey highway of progress.  If you should ever hear that things are “improving,” then you want to be making a U-turn.  No politician is more oppressive than a legislator who believes he is free of the “superstitions” of the past.  No one is more tyrannical than a citizen who fancies himself a freethinker.

With the mass media diligently trying to tell American citizens that “homophobia” is really, really, really wrong – the act of hating gays becomes revenge against liberal indoctrination. Hating bugger boys has become an act of retaliation against humanitarian brainwashing. You always fight the establishment by attacking their altruistic causes. The best way of protesting the totalitarian democracy of America is to oppose anything egalitarian.

Not everyone deserves equality. If a depraved special-interest group has experienced discrimination throughout history, there must be a particularly good reason for that pattern of social distrust. There is an obvious explanation why homosexuals have been kept in the closet: their uncouth proclivities repulse every normal human being. Whenever the do-gooders instruct you to be more accepting, your instinctive disgust becomes a weapon against indoctrination. No matter how many golden marriage certificates you shower upon these whiners, their fecal stains will still be just as despicable. The world is already full of enough shit, without having it smeared all over your dick. Whenever you extend a helping hand, you only end-up contaminating yourself.

If the media would have just shut the hell up about those loathsome pansies, I would never have hated these sodomites in the first place. Truly, truly, with anal sex gaining pubic and public acceptance, the end times are indeed upon us – make that: rear-end times.


  1. You're saying that an actual act is a non-issue and that the only thing that gives it positive value is if society is against it?

  2. Without involvement by political progressives, homosexual sodomy is going to be innately repellent to heterosexuals – but not socially destructive. After the matter has been hijacked by liberal activists, male anal eroticism is still likely to remain instinctively repulsive – but now the issue presents a political danger to straights.

  3. I am also prone to this irrational, childish, contrarian impulse. And so, if somebody tells me they believe in God. I tell them God is impossible. If somebody tells me they are an atheist, I suddenly find myself believing in God?! How could I not?! And does it matter than God doesn't exist....?!

    And yet. I find myself. Asking myself ー when somebody tells me what to think, is there any difference between springing to attention "for" or "against" ーー

    1. Remember, we aren’t talking about just “anyone” here. We are talking about whatever policies that the LIBERAL RULING CLASS might inflict upon us. Anything that comes from these totalitarian altruists must be opposed instinctively. (And, no, the humanitarian bureaucracy is not using some “reverse psychology” to manipulate the rest of us – that is giving these busybodies a bit too much credit.) Anything promoted by an enemy must be opposed on sight. And make no mistake about it, do-gooders are your mortal enemy.

    2. ....isn't everybody, "just anyone" ー ?!

      ....instinctively?! Whether accepting or objecting, and most particularly if instinctively, we are letting somebody tell us what to think....perhaps the best course is to refrain from thinking....it's (who is it that said this?) just confusing....

  4. Excuse me but what is so superior/enlightened/elevated about thrusting your penis into a vagina? It is the natural thing to do, surely, but as a wise man once said, "to be natural is to be obvious, and to be obvious is to be inartistic". I agree that the gay movement has become very fascistic and that no one should be chastised for expressing repulsion towards homosexual behavior. Everyone has the right to feel however they want to feel, but should repulsion form the basis of a political policy? What is your definition of a "normal" human being? By which standards does one measure "normality" and, most importantly, why should normality be an ideal? There are a lot of implicit value-judgments here without proper philosophical argumentation. By reducing homosexuals to a historically depraved special-interest group and equating homosexuality to the act of sodomy you betray a shameful ignorance of the massive contributions homosexuals have given culture and the complexity of homosexual love.

    I do empathize to a degree with your contempt for modern gay culture. The average modern assimilated homosexual man bears little to no resemblance to the great homosexual figures of the past (Michelangelo, Pyotr Illych Tchaikovsky, Yukio Mishima, Oscar Wilde). Sodomy loses its charm once it becomes the rule. Gay culture has absolutely nothing to offer now. It is pure political correctness. Bauer was right. Any ideas the masses assimilate, including revolutionary ones, are turned into conservatism; any doctrine absorbed by the masses becomes a religion. A creative idea is no sooner adopted by the masses than it loses its creativity. Ideas that need their support are foredoomed to distortion, degeneration, and defeat; all great historical enterprises that have come to grief have done so because the masses took possession of them.

    As a homosexual I am tempted to agree with you Mr. Mean Spirited, maybe we should go back to the closet. The pampered masses have shown themselves unworthy of the homosexual gnosis, the exalting lure of heresy.

    1. Let us consider the example of William S. Burroughs: the effectiveness of his literary creation arose from the experience of being persecuted for homosexuality. As sodomites now become more socially accepted in Western civilization, their artistic inventiveness will proportionally decline.