Homosexual Libertarians are Masochists

Homosexual libertarians choose their politics as an appeasement strategy. They are so terrified of what the big, mean conservatives think of them, so unconfident in their own ability to fight, that they let conservatives do whatever they want to them. It is waving the white flag. They hope that conservatives won’t see them as a threat, and thus won’t attack them.

Aside from being despicably cowardly, this demonstrates a childishly naive, short-sighted view of political history. Homosexuals were hated most when they weren’t a political threat. Before homosexuals became politically organized, they were beaten, kicked out of their homes by their parents, fired from jobs, made homeless, lobotomized, and murdered. Most of them were probably good people, respected by their community as long as they were in the closet, but the social standards of the time forced their peers to stop seeing them as people and treat them as targets when their homosexuality came to the surface if they wanted to continue conforming – if they stood up for them, they too would find themselves out-grouped. Being “good people” didn’t save homosexuals.

It was by directly changing the nation’s definition of morality that homosexuals won acceptance. They won not through any appeasement made to the society that hated them, but by boldly declaring “we are right, and you are wrong,” and sticking to that frame through thick and thin. Through their perseverance and courage, society gradually came to see things their way.

But homosexual libertarians are young, and they don’t understand that because the struggle took place before their time. They are afraid of being seen as contrary to society, or as self-victimizers. They do not understand the insane, genocidal heart of homophobia because they have never experienced it in their own lives. In their misguided supplication, they give power to those who want to destroy them.

Homophobes aren’t rational. They don’t care about being moral. They don’t want to kill you because of any character traits within your control; they want to kill you because you’re homosexual. That’s all. They have a megalomaniacal desire to torture and massacre you that they can not even express in words themselves. Until you’ve been on the receiving end of the grinning monster of homophobia, it’s hard to understand it through words alone. But it’s still very much a part of society (worsened by multiculturalism), and the libertarian lambs are throwing us all into the spinning blades of the machine in their naive quest for “respect.”


I suspect there is a second, tangential reason for homosexual libertarianism as well. One of the memes the West has inherited from Christianity is that the more one opposes one’s own interests, the more moral he or she is. Since conformity to morality determines social status, voting for policies against your own interest becomes a kind of status-whoring. So homosexual libertarians vote in favor of their own discrimination to communicate “Look at how humble and giving I am! Look how much freedom I give you! I’m conforming to your values! I’m not like those other gays. You’ll like me now, won’t you?”

Of course, the monster id of homophobia cares nothing for reciprocity. It will delightfully gobble them all up.


“Degenerate” is the Right-Wing Equivalent of “Racist”

A couple years ago I read the article Kafkatrapping by Eric Raymond: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122. It struck a chord with me how political and religious institutions use unfalsifiable accusations to scare people into obeying them rather than facts.

“Degenerate” is a word I see thrown around a lot these days. I immediately recognized it as another variation of Kafkatrapping, the psychological manipulation that defending yourself from an accusation makes you guilty of that accusation. By the twisted “logic” of the kafkatrap, this means that the accuser is always right in every circumstance; no one can ever be innocent.

Why is the word “degenerate” used? The accuser has some subjective desire they want to coerce society into bending over for, like banning pornography (usually ugly women who want to eliminate sexual competition), or banning public displays of homosexual affection (laughably, these are the same people who rail against “trigger warnings”). However, if their naked motivation was made publicly known – their subjective want – they would not have the justification to coerce society into indulging their solipsism. They would be a laughingstock.

So, they use the specter of objectivity. The rhetoric of “degenerate” implies that there is an objective standard of civilization that will inevitably come to fruition with or without the accused’s approval – the accused can only hope to join the winning side, or face inevitable condemnation. And of course, this specter of objective civilization always supports the accuser’s subjective, often irrational, wants.

Therein lies the irony of the kafkatrap: the rhetorical inevitability of the accuser’s subjective desires are only made into reality through the support of the deceived. Churches only continue to thrive as long as their congregation believes themselves sinful.

Degeneracy, racism, misogyny, privilege, heresy, sin – all of these accusations are the same.

It is not hard to see the Judeo-Christian genealogy of the kafkatrap. Several thousand years ago, a man once got the idea that by fabricating an omnipotent, invisible, and unknowable (hence, impossible to disprove) God based upon his own desires, he could trick the entire world into conforming to him. That devious little con artist became the world’s first priest.

The political ends to which the specter of God is applied has changed over times and cultures, but the structure of the kafkatrap has remained the same. From YHVH to Jesus to anti-racism to degeneracy… mankind remains ever predictable in its shamelessness.

Introductory Post

I’m writing this blog to voice my thoughts and frustrations concerning the current state of politics, particularly about the burgeoning right-wing nationalist movements and homosexuality.

Some background about my political history may provide a clearer context for the posts to come.

I live in America. My family (that is to say, my father, who decided for us) are thoroughly typical Republicans. I received a Calvinist Protestant education. However, I resented my upbringing. The memories of my childhood and adolescence are predominantly unhappy ones. Furthermore, even as a teenager I knew I wasn’t being told the full story about politics. Although I swallowed the pills of Neoconservatism (due to having no other point of view), I did so with skepticism and a certain readiness to give it up, should better arguments present themselves.

At seventeen, I silently became an atheist. My reasoning was twofold:

1.  An absolutely moral God is not capable of grace.
“Salvation through grace” was a foundational tenet of my Christian upbringing. We are told that Christ, through his mercy, voluntarily crucified himself to bear humanity’s sins out of love, and thus he deserves our worship. But if God, as a condition of his godhood, is perpetually and absolutely moral in every circumstance, then he must always do the moral thing in every situation to preserve his godhood. God is not allowed to “decide,” by the nature of his own existence. If God, even once, did something that was not optimally moral, he would renounce his own godhood. A God that cannot decide is a God incapable of grace, and so the foundation of Christian salvation contradicts itself.

2. Eternal Hell is unjust, and an unjust God is not God.
Man is incapable of doing anything to deserve the punishment of an eternal Hell. Certainly mankind is capable of great evils, but all of man’s evils are finite. Even destroying the Earth itself is a limited, measurable evil. Certainly, our sins should appear quite frivolous to an infinite God! A transcendent, infinite God who subjects his children to an eternity of suffering for their folly is unjust, and since justice is a condition of his Godhood, he is not God. Some of my teachers would have said something like, “Well, you’re a man, and God is God, so you don’t have the authority to decide what’s just,” but then it follows that my teachers had no authority to demand that I or anyone believe in Christianity.

My loneliness at being a closeted atheist in a Christian family and school was somewhat comforted by the pride I took in having disproven one of the world’s leading religions at age seventeen.

At about the same time, I became honest with myself about my homosexuality too.

Upon entering college, I took the opportunity to explore liberalism, and became a mainstream liberal shortly thereafter. I felt that it was a way to express my autonomy and gain an identity for myself, and to distance myself from my stifling origins. I was satisfied with my new identity, and did not delve much farther than accepting leftist arguments at face value. This inoffensive approach to politics continued until I was 24 years old, when a sudden… incident occurred.

Before I continue, I should explain that I have always had an autonomous desire to be a moral person. I cannot think of any particular incident that made me this way – as far back as I can remember, even as a child, the desire to be a moral person came as naturally to me as breathing. And most importantly, I projected this moral autonomy onto all humanity. I did not even imagine that other people might not share my own way of thinking. Consequentially, I believed that ignorance and immorality were completely transient phenomena – the person committing them just needed to be correctly informed, and they would correct themselves of their own will. With the spread of enough information, I believed that evil could be completely eradicated from the earth. I was a progressive before I even knew what a progressive was.

As for the incident: on an Internet forum I frequented, there was a call by another member to boycott a certain company for “racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia.” The rationales given were a psychotic, insane mess, but innocent, gullible me believed that the person was merely misinformed. I responded back explaining the flaws in the poster’s reasoning, with naught but the humble intention of guiding others on the path to morality.

To say I was surprised when I found myself receiving the rancor of the entire forum is an understatement.

For not immediately jumping onboard the crusade, I was a bigot. Worthless. 100% evil. A follow-up post made in my self-defense resulted in my banning from the forum. For someone who truly believed in the universal moral autonomy of humanity, this was a deeply traumatic, utterly incomprehensible experience.

After a couple weeks spent in borderline schizophrenia, I had to admit to myself that my view of humans as fundamentally moral creatures had been flawed. But the foundation of my worldview, liberalism, had suddenly given way under my feet, leaving me nothing to stand on. Lost and confused, I stumbled upon the imageboard /pol/.

If the revolutionaries of the 60’s could be characterized as vulgar Marxists, /pol/ are vulgar Fascists. Nevertheless, I gradually absorbed their way of thinking and came to see them as a diamond in the rough – loudmouthed and a little stupid, but with a moral core that, with polishing, could develop into something great.

And so, I repeated my mistake.

They would make extravagant, hysterical claims to moral objectivity, and the violence they justified. I would correct them with good intentions. They would respond with death threats and slander more vile than anything the leftists ever said to me. I gradually came to the conclusion, that /pol/, too, was insane – they were merely insane towards different political ends.

And so, that leaves me here. I have begun this blog out of a feeling of necessity that none of the popular political forces of our day are capable of creating a healthy, happy society. It falls to me to speak.