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?|
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’.
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.|
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.|
|Vagina, the 'sacred' Keyhole of Life|
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.|
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.
|I Vitelloni - Fausto, who got a local girl pregnant, tries to flee from responsibility.|
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’.
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?|
|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.|
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.|