Friday, January 2, 2015

The Misuse of Equality Fetish for Evil Purposes

One of the most appealing, pervasive, and defining terms of the modern era is ‘equality’, and it’s easy to understand why. Given that most of human history has been one of what we would consider as oppression, exploitation, slavery, privileged-for-the-few(who were generally born into power), legal imbalance between the powerful and powerless, and etc., most of us appreciate the concept of equality. We don’t want to live in a world where the rich, powerful, and privileged can arbitrarily do as they please. We want certain rights and legal protections, no more but no less than the rich and the powerful. And when the rich and powerful do wrong, we want them to face the same justice that the rest of us do. So, when it comes to issues of justice and legality, the triumph of equality in the West has been a great advancement in the history of mankind. The idea of universal truth and justice didn’t originate in the West, but West advanced and built upon its principles more than any other civilization. And with the rise of modernity, all of mankind has looked to the West for principles and formulas in the attainment of equal justice under the law.

But the human mind being what it is, certain terms can easily turn cancerous and deviate from their original meaning and purpose. Duplication of cells is necessary for the maintenance of life, but with cancer the process goes awry and the cells keep multiplying in ways that harm the body. Same dynamics can overcome words and ideas. Once equality came to be idolized as a positive ideal, it came to be applied to and associated with all kinds of irrelevant realities, thereby rendering the concept of equality meaningless. (We see this all the time. It’s like how once Jesus became a figure of worship, He was associated with just about everything, and today His birthday is commemorated with crass commercialism of the kind we see on Black Friday. In China where Mao has become sacrosanct, even capitalists invoke his image and name for good fortune despite the fact that his ideals were about as anti-capitalist as any set of ideals could be.) The only way equality can be meaningful and moral is in its conceptualization of basic rights and administration of basic laws. When it deviates from its core purpose and affects the way we observe, judge, and interact with reality, we are likely to end up with a very skewed view of reality due to the simple fact that almost nothing is equal in reality. I mean who would argue that it’s unjust that a monkey cannot swim like a fish and absorb oxygen underwater or that a fish cannot climb trees and eat nuts and coconuts? Depending on the situation, task, or purpose, different organisms have different advantages. Birds can fly, fish can swim, snakes can kill prey with poison, black bears can climb trees, wolves can hunt in packs, and mountain goats can live alongside steep cliffs. As every organism is better than others in certain tasks, they are worse in others in other tasks. There are certain things an organism cannot do at all. An eagle cannot swim underwater. A hippo cannot fly. So, what does equality have to do with nature? Nothing. If anything, every set of organisms relies on its advantages — what its members can do that others cannot do or less well — to gain an advantage in survival.
Have You Seen a Flying Hippo?
To understand how equality has little or nothing to do with reality, we only need to examine our own bodies. The purposes and abilities of certain organs are very(even utterly)different from other organs. Eyes can see, other organs cannot. Only a fool would say, in the name of equality, that all organs should be recognized as visual organs. But who heard of liver that sees, ears that see, heart that sees, or testicles that see? We know that the urinary tract allows for relief of excess fluids in the bladder. Suppose in the name of equality, we demand that other organs also have the ‘right’ to urinate. But whoever heard of urine coming out of ears, eyes, noses, fingertips, or the anus. Diarrhea can come out of the anus, but it’s still not urine.
In economics, different things have different value because of their relative usefulness and availability(or lack thereof). Gold is more precious than lead because there’s a lot more lead than there is gold. If gold were as plentiful as dirt, its value would plummet. Suppose in the name of Metal Equality, someone insisted that his pound of lead be priced the same as a pound of gold, or platinum. It’d be retarded since the relative rarity of gold far out-values lead that can easily be dug up from the ground. It’s like the difference between coal and diamond. Or between any oyster shell and pearl.

In the making of weapons, those made of steel are more durable and lethal than those made of wood, stone, or bronze. This was why early men that crafted weapons out of stone had an advantage over those with weapons carved out of wood. Then, those with bronze weapons had a decisive advantage over those with weapons tipped with stone parts. And then, those who made weapons out of iron had an advantage over those with bronze weapons. And then those who learned how to fashion iron into steel were more advantaged yet. But suppose in the name of Weapons Equality, we all pretended that a stone weapon is as valuable as a steel weapon. It’s be like saying, in the name of Sports Equality, that Don Knots is equally valuable as a boxer as Sugar Ray Robinson or Jake LaMotta.

It may well be that everything has its purposes and uses. An anus cannot see as eyes do, but it is no less important to human survival. People need sight to get around, but they also need an anus to relieve themselves of waste material. Here, the issue isn’t equality but essentiality. Each human organ is essential in its own way, though I suppose one could make a case that some organs are somewhat more essential than others. One can live a healthy life without appendicitis or tonsils but not without the heart. One can live with one lung or one kidney(albeit with some difficulty), but as there’s only one liver, loss of liver spells sure doom and death. Loss of sight endangers survival more than loss of smell or hearing. Losing half of one’s tongue is terrible enough, but don’t bother imagining one can survive after losing half a brain. At any rate, what is obvious is that different organs have their own essential(within a range) purposes, and equality has nothing to do with it.

Even opinions cannot be said to be equal. True, every person is entitled to his or her own opinion, but surely someone who says CITIZEN KANE is a great film has more sense than someone who says AMERICAN PIE is the ‘greatest movie of all time’. Surely, someone who has high regard for Creedence Clearwater Revival has more sense than someone who thinks Katy Perry, Beyonce, Usher, or Justin Bieber are musical heavyweights.
Why do some restaurants charge more than other restaurants? It’s because they have higher-rated chefs and offer high level of dining experience. Who, in the name of Restaurant Equality, would insist that all foods served in all restaurants should be valued and priced equally?

But because ‘equality’ has become the ‘charm of making’ of sacro-decadent ‘progressives’, they liberally(or illiberally) sprinkle it on just about anything to push their demented agendas. In the 1990s, there was a bad habit of the ‘left’ tagging ‘racism’ on just about anything to hype its value as a moral/social issue. Remember ‘environmental racism’? Now, there may be some validity to the claim that rich people can afford to live in less hazardous and pleasant places, but the issue was all-too-conveniently simplified and turned cartoonish via the invocation of ‘racism’. Because ringing the alarm of ‘racism’ became so pervasive in our culture, it was used as a surefire way to grab the headlines by arguing that a certain injustice isn’t merely unfair but especially evil because it’s ‘racist’.
In our times, we’ve seen how the worthless gay agenda has been pushed and promoted by tagging ‘equality’ with ‘marriage’. Because of the power of words — indeed, all-too-cancerous power of words — , such misapplication of ‘equality’ has fooled innumerable people into embracing the absolute filth of ‘gay marriage’. They see it as an issue of legal equality or moral righteousness when the notion of ‘gay marriage’ is based on a complete falsehood and a lie. It’s even pathetic and hilarious when the real reason why ‘gay marriage’ got such a great boost was because of the very unequal distribution of power and privilege in the media, academia, government, Wall Street, advertising, and Hollywood. In other words, it was a hysteria and lunacy cooked up, promoted, and forced on us by the Power Elites, many of whom are Jewish, homo, or Liberal Wasp(who’ve turned into gutless and craven neo-puritans of Political Correctness). As for the rising Asian elites, forget about any individuality or originality of thought among that crowd. Yellow dogs only know how to bark along to the commands of their Jewish and white Liberal Wasp masters. Anyway, isn’t it interesting that ‘equality’ became associated with an agenda pushed by the most unequal, most powerful, most connected, most conniving, and most privileged groups in America? Indeed, even the Mormon elites are now with the Jewish, homo, and Liberal Wasp elites in approving of ‘gay marriage’.
Some argue that ‘gay marriage’ is just a legal matter of universal rights and, as such, shouldn’t be confused with moral values or moral judgement. But the very notion of ‘marriage’ IS a moral definition, moral category, moral concept, moral ideal, and moral principle. Marriage was developed and defined out of a moral need to regulate and guide biological drives, needs, and functions. So, the nature the sexual biology in question cannot be separated from moral institution of marriage. By its very character, the culture of matrimony decides and judges what is and isn’t properly moral sexual behavior. In a free society, anyone has the freedom to deviate from such moral rules and live by whatever he or she happens to be partial to in terms of pleasure and desire. But marriage doesn’t exist to accommodate every sexual deviancy or perversion. It was formulated and it exists to uphold certain kinds of sexual practices that are deemed to be essential and fundamental to the continuation of civilization and culture.
Though words can be broadened to include wider meanings, all words retain their meaning only through exclusivity. A generic word like ‘thing’ can be anything. But for ‘chair’ to be meaningful, it has to exclude everything that is not a chair. Anyone who argues that a purse should be included in the meaning of ‘chair’ in the name of Definition Equality is nuts. Likewise, if ‘marriage’ is made overly ‘inclusive’ in meaning, it loses its core meanings and thus its core values as well. Marriage is a matter of Life Substance, not of Life Style. But in our consumerist culture where fashion and the cult of cool/hipness determines what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, the elites only needed to make ‘gay’ into something cool to persuade great numbers of people to become a bunch of airheaded clods whose moral icons are Ellen Degeneris, Oprah Winfrey, and Chris Hughes(though his reputation hit a brick wall recently because he wasn’t sufficiently reverential to the Jews at the New Republic; the Zionist Power Elite gave him the cold shoulder, rather like what the eponymous character got in BARRY LYNDON in the final part of the film.)

The very notion of ‘marriage equality’ is ludicrous. After all, all those brainwashed dolts who think ‘gay marriage’ is a moral absolute — not least because they get most of their world-view from celebrity culture, late night talk shows, MTV, Hollywood, and Political Correctness dished out at colleges dominated by humorless ideologues — feel no moral passion for polygamy or ‘incest marriage’. Furthermore, if equality is so central to social relationships, why should marriage be defined differently from other social relationships? Why not, in the name of Relationship Equality, force marriage to be like any other kind of relationship whether it be friendship, partnership-at-work, affiliation to a church, or whatever? Why does marriage have a different set of rules and attendant laws than other kinds of relationships?

Also, if equality is so crucial to human relationships, why do we — especially elite Liberals — tolerate the fact that all social relations are exclusive to a large measure? Different colleges have different standards for admitting students. Colleges don’t admit just about anyone in the name of Admission Equality. Jobs don’t hire just about anyone in the name of Employment Equality. They look for specific sets of skills and credentials. The medical community doesn’t accept Voodoo as real medicine in the name of Medical Equality. Schools of biology don’t accept Creationism as a real biological science in the name of Science Equality.
Laws ensure no discrimination based on race, color, or creed(though in practice plenty of people have lost jobs due to creed in recent years as the result of Political Correctness controlled by fiendish Jews and homos), but corporations, in choosing the skilled over the unskilled or the more skilled over the less skilled, decide who gets in and who stays out. A Christian Church welcomes fellow Christians or non-Christians who may convert to Christianity. It’s not just some all-inclusive hang-out place for people of any religion or atheists in the name of Parishioner Equality. Temples are for Jews, just as Mosques are for Muslims. The Church of Scientology is for Scientologists. Different organizations, institutions, and systems have different sets of criteria that they uphold, emphasize, and use to evaluate in their decision as to who is allowed and who isn’t allowed. Equality has nothing to do with it. After all, Catholic Church is not a place for Satan Worshipers, and if some Pope came along and said the Church should welcome Satan Worshipers in the name of Worship Equality, the Church would pretty much be over.
Likewise, marriage has its rules of who qualifies and who doesn’t. Even though those who choose to get married may also choose not to have sex, sex is still a possibility and hope for married couples. Even in cases where sex is impossible — suppose the man lost his penis in war — , marriage between a man and a woman involves feelings of love that are rooted in sexual desire. It’s like Ron Kovic in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY cannot ‘do it’ anymore, but he feels sexual desire because his biochemistry is still wired to want to use his penis on a woman. People with missing organs may not be able to ‘do it’, but the feelings of mutual attraction cannot be understood apart from the fact that men and women have naturally mutual sexual desire for one another in the first place. Therefore, the nature of sexuality is crucial to marriage. Marriage is about the union of what a woman feels in her vagina and what a man feels in his penis. After all, whoever heard of marriage based on the fact that two people take a shit? Did any guy say to a woman, "you know, I took a shit today through my bunghole, and I’ll bet you took a shit too through your bunghole; that means we were meant for each other." The woman would look at him like he’s some retard. Or imagine a girl going up to a guy and saying, "you know, I breathe through my lungs, and I’ll bet you breathe through your lungs. And my liver filters toxins, and your liver filters its toxins, and that means we were meant for one another." The guy would at the woman like she’s cuckoo-bananas. The reason why men and women feel desire for one another is because both are incomplete by themselves. Sexually, men are one-half, and women are one-half. Men have something women don’t have, and women have something men don’t have. Men cannot have sex and children by themselves, and women cannot have sex and children by themselves. Proper sex I mean. The penis needs the vagina to complete its mission and vice versa. The penis and vagina were meant to be together. It is an essential fact of life, and marriage developed morally out of that biological fact. So, for us to say two homo guys(who indulge improper ‘sex’ involving the penis ejaculating inside a anus or fecal hole of another guy) are the sexual equal(biologically and morally) of a man and woman in marriage is just a lot of horse dung.
Chris Hughes and Sean Eldridge: Two Pooter-Boy Fruitkins as 'two husbands'. Truly Ewwwwwww-worthy.
Why is ‘gay marriage’ and ‘marriage equality’ ludicrous notions? Because they violate the fundamental foundations, principles, purposes, and meanings of True Marriage. Though some people have odd or eccentric reasons for marriage, most marriages happen because of the sexual nature of human beings. And when we say ‘sexual’, we mean the reproductive facts of life. True, some couples may choose not to have kids or may be unable to have kids due to physiological problems or illness. But even couples who may not choose to have kids in the near future still have the option open in case they decide otherwise — and indeed they want that option to remain viable just in case.
While sterile individuals may get married out of love and in need of companionship, it feels like a dead-end if one or both of the couples are infertile. Even so, when the relationship involves a man and a woman, the nature of their union is still healthy, normal, and decent. They are still doing everything right, and the problem is with their organs than with their actions. It’s like someone who has digestive problems eating through his mouth. He’s doing it right — eating through his mouth — , but his stomach and intestines just can’t handle the food very well. Still, we cannot blame him because the fault is not with his action but with his internal organs. But if he tried to ‘eat’ by trying to shove morsels of food down his ears or up his anus, then it wouldn’t be a problem of dysfunctional internal organs but a demented problem of total malfunction of proper mode of behavior. If someone eats right but cannot digest food well because of problems of internal organs, the fault isn’t with him. But if someone gets sicker and sicker because his idea of eating compels him to shove food down his ears or up his anus, then the fault is with him. This is why it makes no sense to compare sterile couples in true marriages to homo couples in a ‘gay marriage’. In a true marriage, the infertile couple is doing it correctly, but their organs simply don’t work properly. In a ‘gay marriage’, both homos may have perfectly healthy organs, but they are willfully doing it wrong because their biochemistry has messed up their sexual preferences, indeed to the point that homo men’s idea of ‘sex’ involves fecal-penetrating a guy in the anus. Is the act of two homo guys fecal-penetrating one another the biological or moral equal of a man and woman using proper organs to have real sex and exchanging key bodily fluids essential to life? Only in a demented world where ‘equality’ has turned cancerous would such nonsense be swallowed. Of course, those who are for ‘gay marriage’ believe themselves to be on the side of angels, the victims, the marginalized, and etc. But more often than not, they are status-hungry dolts seeking special approval from homos because homo elites are associated with fancy places like Hollywood, high fashion, the arts and culture, etc. In places like New York and San Francisco, homos(as the mini-me allies of all-powerful rotten Jews) prance and strut around like they are kings, queens, princes, and princesses for whom the entire world is their oyster(or snail as the case may be).
Rectum, aka poop-hole, is NOT a Vagina.
It may well be that women are generally more supportive of ‘gay marriage’ than men are, but if true, it goes to show dumb a lot of them are. If anything, ‘gay marriage’ is an insult to womanhood. Central to sexuality is the vagina. Recently, feminists have been going around yelling and screaming ‘vagina’ all over the place. Rather childish, one might say, but they seem to value the special place that vagina has in their lives. Oddly enough, they seem to think men fear the vagina when, if anything, men want more of it. Men want the vagina because their penises get rock-hard in lustful desire to penetrate it. A male penis wants to enter the vagina like a religious zealot wants to enter Church or Mosque. Indeed, one of the unstated attractions of joining the Church is to find a mate. They sing about God, but churchgoers often use their church as a dating service. Men value the vagina because they’ve been hardwired by evolution to want to have sex, and real sex involves penis entering the vagina. Men are especially ‘boing’ about the vagina since it’s generally closed off to them. Unless rape is involved, the vagina opens up to a man only when the woman desires the man and wants him to enter her ‘holy hole’. At least that’s how it happens in the modern/developed world. There are still tribal and ultra-traditional communities where marriages are arranged and women must sexually open their vaginas to husbands they may not feel particular love for. And of course, there are poor or skanky women all over the world who turn to prostitution to make a living. (But then, with the fusion of mainstream culture and pornography, it appears that even college-educated girls today look to The Prostitute as their model of emulation in dress, style, talk, and behavior.)
Vagina, the 'sacred' Keyhole of Life
Anyway, the vagina is precious to a woman because it is her ultimate keyhole. Her face is out there for all to see. Even men whom she may find ugly and disgusting are allowed to see her face. And during summer, she may wear a bikini on the beach, and all kinds of men might ogle her arms, shoulders, legs, torso, feet, and even buttocks. She might even come close to baring her ass as even scantily clad outfits have become fashionable. And a good number of women(even famous and respected ones) have exposed their breasts. But most women keep their vaginas sealed shut. It’s like that song by the Go-Go’s "Our Lips Are Sealed".

So, when a woman finally decides to spread her legs or stick out her rear to expose her vagina for entrance, she is opening what is most intimate to her to the guy she desires. Every woman should say, "It is through my vagina that life will be created. And it was through vaginas that lives have always been created. My vagina is the hole of life. And it is through great pain and endurance that we women create life through our vaginas. And it is through our vaginas that we women find great pleasure and give great pleasure to men in the act of sex, that is real sex. SO, HOW IS THE HOMO FRUITKIN’S POOP-HOLE EQUIVALENT BIOLOGICALLY, SEXUALLY, AESTHETICALLY, AND MORALLY WITH MY VAGINA?" (Alas, with the fusion of mainstream culture and pornography — and stuff like madonna’s excesses with the Coke bottle on stage — , a kind of Open Pussy policy has been promoted in the culture-at-large, and that may be responsible for what is now known as ‘hook-up culture’, which might as well be called ‘hooker culture’. Under this mind-set, women don’t see the vagina as a special intimate keyhole for the special guy but a open door for the in-and-out entry of whole bunch of men. Thus, what should properly be intimate and private has been turned into mere muff to stuff.)
And why is the vagina so desirable to the male? In the simplest Beavis-and-Butthead terms, it’s a case of ‘boing’. A guy sees some hot girl, gets a ‘stiffy’, and wants to get it on & stick it in. But on a deeper level, the meeting of the penis and vagina is the ultimate essence of life because all of life(at least among higher organisms) began that way. Every person is the creation of the entrance of the penis into the vagina. In the case of artificial insemination, the male seed has been planted into the vagina. It substitutes what the penis is meant to do. As we are civilized people, at most times men and women interact professionally, intellectually, or socially. Most people have learned to control their urges out in the public — unless one happens to a ghastly Negro for whom self-control is rather difficult. But scratch the surface of male psychology and there’s the reptilian Beavis-and-Butthead-ian drive of the ‘boing’. Today, this is hardly surprising to anyone as our pop culture is inundated with raw sexuality and much candid talk about ‘fuc*ing’ and body parts.
And yet, it’s still surprising to some feminists who urge women to act like liberated whores in the name of ‘slut power’ but are then surprised by the fact such behavior provokes and excites men to be lewd and aggressive. When a women dresses and acts like a slut, it can only be seen by men as a kind of come-on. Humans are not islands unto themselves. Whatever you do, your actions elicit certain kinds of responsive/reactive behavior in others. Just like sentences have subjects, verbs, and objects, human behavior has a subject projecting his/her action onto others who are the objects. If you(as subject)dress as a clown and walk around, people(as objects of your exhibitionist action) laugh at you. Your subjective action makes you, in turn, an object of ridicule. You can’t dress and act like a clown in the name of ‘clown pride’ and expect people to respect you and take you seriously — though MSM goes out of their way to convince us that we should soberly respect a creature like Laverne Cox, a black transvestite with a blonde wig; the fact that so many people take freaks like Cox seriously goes to show that most people are worthless sheeple who can be brainwashed and cowered into believing anything; US has become a kind of North-Korea-lite where people can be made to believe in the most ludicrous things; they worship Kim Clan over there, we worship MLK, Oprah, and Cox over here.
Slut Pride Parade. Sacro-Decadence of Middle Class Girls Brainwashed by PC gone sour.
If you dress like a whore and strut around with half your boobs showing and your ass swinging left and right, men are gonna ogle, and some are even going to hoot and holler. But if a guy goes around the same way as a outlandish stud, lots of girls will ogle and feel the same way too; and yes, some will even hoot and holler.
To be sure, as men are stronger, their sexual attention can be dangerous and threatening in ways that female attention can never be, but that is reason for women to be more careful about their appearances(and the signals they send) for it was nature, not so-called ‘patriarchy’, that created the differences between men and women in physical strength.
Though most men don’t think much about sexual desire beyond the ‘boing’ part, it was their DNA or genetic code that made them want to enter the vagina. Their semen/seeds seek release into the vagina so as to fertilize the egg. The genetic codes of a man want to impregnate the woman even though the social male may not want to do so in most cases. The natural male wants to spread his/its seed into the vaginas of females. But as there are social/economic/moral consequences to getting a girl pregnant in human society, there is a dissonance between what the man’s genetic makeup wants and what he, as an individual thrill-seeker, wants. His genes want to fertilize the egg and impregnate the female, but his social makeup, in most cases, wants the pleasure of sex without the pregnancy that will tie him to her and the kid(unless he’s committed to her and wants to raise a family with her).
I Vitelloni - Fausto, who got a local girl pregnant, tries to flee from responsibility.
But then, even his desire for mere sexual pleasure exists only because his biochemistry driven by his DNA wants to impregnate a female. Socially, he doesn’t want to impregnate the woman, and he only wants the pleasure of sex, but this need for sexual pleasure is there in the first place only because his DNA is constantly telling him to knock some girl up in order to reproduce more life.
This is why it is NOT a simple matter when we try to separate sexual pleasure from impregnation and childbearing. While men and women in the modern world with their contraceptives and abortions can have the sexual pleasure without the social ‘burden’ of pregnancy, they feel horny for one another only because some powerful force within them compels them to mate to produce offsprings.
And it is only by the penis’s entry into the vagina and the fertilization of the egg by the sperm that life can be created. So, the penis and vagina are true sexual organs. This isn’t an opinion or some lifestyle conceit. It is the absolute biological truth. Indeed, even among homos, the sexual impulse and drive exist only because their DNA also drives them to mate. But the problem is their biochemistry is messed up, and that explains the abnormality(a natural abnormality as abnormalities do exist in nature, e.g. children who are born blind or deaf) of their impossible dead-end form of sexuality involving weird matching of incompatible organs. Among homo men, it’s often the penis entering the anus. Among lesbians, it’s the vagina trying to ‘mate’ with a vagina, which is silly, rather like a pickle jar trying to fill itself with another pickle jar.

Though men in their ‘boing’-ness and women in their horniness in their heat of lust may not think much beyond ‘dick’ and ‘pussy’, there is a deep meaning to these sexual organs. After all, there is a meaningful purpose to the penis. And it is the penis that feels the pleasure of orgasm. Men can’t feel orgasm in any other part of the body even if he tried. Whoever heard of an orgasm in the ears or elbows? Likewise, there’s a reason why the clitoris is placed where it is. None of these facts is arbitrary; each is very purposeful and meaningful. A woman may look eye-to-eye with a man. She may give him a friendly hug. She may say kind words to him. They might date him, and she might kiss him. She may let him hold her hand. But what is the organ that the man is really after? It’s the vagina. It’s the vagina that the woman keeps sealed and hidden until she really wants to go all the way with a man she likes.

Therefore, the vagina cannot be a casual organ. When a woman spreads her legs, it’s like she’s handing the key to her house to the guy. Having a penis isn’t enough for any man to enter any woman’s secret room. It’s like every house has a unique key that fits while all the other keys don’t fit. It is when the woman accepts a man into her private life that his penis turns into a key that fits into her keyhole. And it is through the act of ejaculating sperm inside the vagina to fertilize the egg that the woman becomes pregnant and produces another human being. So, you see, the vagina isn’t just ‘some organ’. It is a very special, powerful, and unique organ. Every woman has it, but its power rests in the fact that it’s the organ that she keeps hid at all times except when she feels she’s found the man she likes. And it is when the man enters the vagina that he feels he’s reached the ultimate goal of life. Life goes on after sex — humans don’t drop dead like salmons after they reach their destination up the rivers and stream and spew out their eggs and sperm — , but when a man releases his life juice inside the vagina, it feels like he’s finally achieved his goal in life, which is to create more life. It’s no wonder that there’s a climax in orgasm.

Given this truth, how is it not an insult to say that a homo boy’s anus is biologically, aesthetically, and morally the equal of a vagina? I’m not denigrating the anus. It is a very special organ as well. Indeed, for the case of survival in a single lifetime, it is even more crucial than sexual organs. Sexual organs are for creating more life. They are not necessary for the maintenance of life that already exists. A man can live a long life without having sex. Consider Catholic priests. And women can live a long frigid sexless life too. But try living life without crapping. So, we need to respect the anus. But the anus is an organ for defecation and passing malodorous fecal-scented gases and nothing else. True, in our perverted age, there’s been an increase in fecal penetration among normal-sexuals, not least because a lot of young clods grew up watching nasty porn where guys pork women in the hynie.
A corrupt or demented society can condone, spread, and even encourage nasty and foul behavior. After all, the Chinese spread and perpetuated the vile practice of foot-binding that was continued not only as a custom/tradition but because so many weenie-peckered Chinese men came to find it so erotically alluring. Now, what kind of men would find deformed feet to be sexually attractive? A bunch of tards of a social culture that has grow sick and twisted. While natural rules of sexual attraction exist, they can also be formed by social taboos and myths. As foot-binding came to be associated with status and privilege in China, the finer kind of women almost certainly had bound-feet. In contrast, ‘big’ feet among lower-class women(who didn’t have the wherewithal to undergo foot-binding as they were too busy working in the fields) came to be associated with crudeness and poverty. So, Chinese men who desired the ‘better kind of women’ developed fantasies of wrapping their weenies with deformed feet of the ‘better kind of women’.
Do you really think it's a sound idea to stick your male sexual organ into this guy's hole from which his feces and fart spew out? Why do so many women think this guy's rectum and poophole are the sexual equivalents of their  ovaries and vaginas that produce eggs and life? Even homo boys came out of their mothers' vaginas. Do homo boys really think that their poopholes are the sexual equivalents of their mothers' vaginas that gave them life? Some respect for motherhood!
Today, the reason for the allure of ‘anal sex’ isn’t difficult to fathom. Sexual mores are pretty low. And even those who can’t get sex can find plenty of nudie pics and porn videos on the internet. And a homokin can watch tons of videos where his ilk get pummeled in the ass all night long. Anyway, the cult of sex is so everywhere that straight sex no longer titillates. In most men, there is a fantasy of ‘conquering’ a woman. There is also the fantasy of defilement: "Me Tarzan, you Jane." In earlier times, merely kissing a woman might have been seemed daring. And having actual sex would have been quite a conquest. Today, it’s all so passe. It’s hard to feel like a conqueror who defiles a damsel with his man-meat when so many girls are loose and have lost their virginity years ago. Also, the dumbass ho might have even had sex with some big-ass Negro. Thus, her pooter has already been defiled and conquered by bigger meat. So, the only way left for a lot of white guys to get down, dirty, and nasty with a girl is to pork her in the hynie. Of course, this is a bad idea as it’s terribly gross and unhealthy to be indulging in that kind of behavior. For one, the penis becomes smeared with fecal matter. Worse, the anus wasn’t designed for that kind of abuse. It can lead to the leaky-fecal-juice syndrome that requires diaper-wearing. Worse, it can lead to anal cancer, which is a terrible disease. For these reasons, young people should be warned about indulging in such behavior. So, why aren’t they?
Because we live in a homomaniacal age that would have us believe that the male anus(or any anus) is the sexual equivalent of the vagina. This is when the cult of equality, in service of falsehood and lies, becomes evil. In the name of Sexual Organ Equality, the homo male anus has been made the equal(in value and purpose) as the female vagina.
In truth, of course, the vagina isn’t merely superior as a sex organ to the homo male anus but infinitely greater. When it comes to crapping, no organ can compete with the anus, but the anus is not a sex organ, and to elevate it to the same rank as the vagina is downright criminal and a unconscionable insult to women everywhere. A woman’s vagina is her special keyhole. It is, in some ways, her most precious organ. She may impress people intellectually with her mind, she may impress people professionally with her skills, and etc. But in order to really please herself and a man she loves to the max, she has to open up her keyhole. It is also the keyhole of life.
Also, intellectualism is asexual. A woman can feel pride as a thinker by writing a book or giving a lecture — just like any male thinker can — , but she feels pride and pleasure as a woman through her vagina. Through real sex involving the vagina, a life is conceived, and it grows and grows within her womb until she gives birth. The process of childbirth is difficult and painful, and what every woman must go through to be a mother(via her vagina) is some powerful stuff. So, the vagina isn’t merely ‘some sex organ’ but, along with the penis, THE sex organ.
So, what is our society saying when it says a homo guy’s anus is the sexual equivalent of the vagina? Has any life been fertilized up an anus? Has any homo given birth through her anus? Has any homo man undergone childbirth? No. So, to compare the homo man’s anus with a vagina is a profound attack, degradation, insult, and befoulment of women. It is a completely foul misuse of the meaning of ‘equality’. Women, through their vaginas, have brought forth all the life in the world. Women undergo tremendous pain and hardship to produce a new life. Yet, we are to believe that the homo man’s anus that defecates crap is EQUAL as a sex organ as the vagina?
Is this Jewish homo's anus the sexual equivalent of your mother's vagina?
Is your mother’s vagina — from which you came from — the sexual equivalent of Barney Frank’s crusty smelly Jewish shithole? Does the male penis equally at home inside an anus as inside a vagina? Who would believe such nonsense? And yet, that is the kind of lie that pervades our society. But then a lie is a blanket that hides the truth, and we only need to remove the cover of homo propaganda to see the truth hidden below, a truth that is so obvious that it shouldn’t even be controversial: penis and vagina are real sex organs and complementary in the most meaningful way.
What the vagina does and what the anus does are two very different things. Both are essential in their own ways, but the anus is NOT the sexual equal of the vagina. Poop is not a baby.
Now, if homos want to indulge in fecal penetration, that is their business, and I don’t much care if the likes of Andrew Sullivan enjoys having their asses pummeled with the penises of other fruiters. Indeed, even almost all conservatives today don’t believe sodomy should be outlawed. They figure if homos find happiness through fecal penetration, let the fruitkins do as they please. What we oppose is the vile notion that by simply invoking ‘equality’, a lie can be turned into truth. But that would be like, in the name of Math Equality, arguing that 2 + 2 = 5 should be acknowledged as equally true as 2 + 2 = 4. But using ‘equality’ to force a falsehood into a ‘new truth’ is not only wrong, it is evil. If I say, in the name of Food Equality, that a 2 week plate of moldy casserole is the equal of a new freshly baked casserole, that would be downright retarded. And yet, in our sicko and demented society(ruled by disgusting Jewish oligarchs who fund and support the likes of Masha Gessen), powerful/privileged groups invoke terms like ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ to wage all sorts of war on truth, sense, and rule of law. In the name of ‘diversity’, we must do away with our borders and meaningful law enforcement. But what is a nation without borders? In the name of ‘equality’, we are supposed to be morally offended by the fact that many more black students are suspended from schools than students of other color. Never mind that blacks cause more troubles because of racial differences. In truth, the races are not equal. When it comes to traits such as aggression, wildness, physical strength, stupidity, obnoxiousness, and baboon-ishness, blacks are superior to other races. Black obnoxiousness is superior to white obnoxiousness. In acting like apes and baboons, blacks are considerably superior to whites. The races are not equal and don’t behave equally in the classroom. American schools reflect the natural unequal traits of whites, blacks, yellows, browns, and etc. But by invoking ‘equality’, decrepit so-called ‘civil rights’ groups claim that black students are disproportionately punished because our society hasn’t yet committed itself to ‘equality’. You see how easily applying ‘equality’ to everything has turned America into an evil or ‘equil’ country. This is no longer about justice or equal application of the law. The fact that many more black students are suspended or disciplined is real justice in action. As blacks are naturally wilder, crazier, nastier, and stronger, more of them act out of order. Likewise, many more boys than girls get punished because boys are stronger and more aggressive. But the so-called ‘civil rights’ groups overlook the truth of racial differences and begin with the premise that the world SHOULD BE equal in outcome. But if society is forced to punish all races equally in schools, then non-blacks who didn’t do anything wrong would have to be punished. Or ill-behaved blacks who acted out of order will have to be allowed to go unpunished for their offenses. How is that just? The issue is all the more ludicrous when much of black culture goes out to promote and take pride in bad behavior. Obama, who hangs around scum like Jay-Z, should know this. Much of rap culture is about how some black thug think he be cool cuz he got a gun, how he harasses women, how he don’t give a shit about anything but his own ego, and etc. Given the dominance of such culture among blacks, why should it surprise anyone that bad behavior is part of black culture? True, non-blacks also listen to rap and indulge in crap behavior, but it’s more dangerous with blacks because they are naturally stronger and more aggressive. The races are not equal.

Of course, we must not throw out the baby with the bathwater and denounce everything associated with equality because, after all, equality under the Rule of Law is one of the great foundations of modern civilization and values. Those on the Alternative Right without power and privilege need to value this principle because they would all be put behind bars without legal recourse without such principles. Alternative Rightist fools who indulge in fantasies of the New Aristocracy are blind to the fact that things would be much worse if the ruling elites in the West took on absolute aristocratic powers. Isn’t it bad enough that Jews rule over us as if they’re kings who are above the law? There’s still enough Rule of Law left in this country so that we can have our say, but even that may be doomed in the near future as Jewish and homo power grow bigger and bigger.
Sure, the ruling elites invoke ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’, but they want to take away our free speech rights(or ‘hate speech’ rights as they call it) not to protect poor blacks or browns but to consolidate and guard their own neo-aristocratic power. What Jews fear most is criticism of Jewish elitist power. Jews want to be total kings over us. But of course, if they admitted as much, we would become angry and rise up. So, they to maximize their control over us by invoking ‘equality’. But Jews don’t want to be equal with us. They want to be above us. In pretending to take away our free speech rights to protect the ‘weak’ and ‘powerless’, Jews are in fact assuring that we will never have the power to badmouth the power of the Jewish elites. Indeed, this is already the case in Europe where one can be fined or thrown in jail to speaking out about the foulness of Jewish power and privilege. Jews invoke ‘equality’ to expand and protect their own unequal supremacy over the rest of us. So, be careful whenever someone mentions ‘equality’ to get more for himself or his kind.
THE KILLER ELITE. The nature of Power is that the Elites bullshit all the time to fool us. Same as it ever was.

No comments:

Post a Comment