Monoethnic Globalism

The main stream media, and people indoctrinated by their Marxist propaganda, call anyone who supports national sovereignty, opposes mass immigration, or has pride in their racial heritage while not belonging to a minority a racist. They paint the picture of hateful bigots who have nothing else to do with their lives than to despise people with a different skin colour. Nowadays even a single comment that is perceived as racist can end a man’s career, as happened to Hulk Hogan and basketball team owner Donald Sterling.

Hulk Hogan allegedly said something disparaging about his daughter dating a “nigger”, and he was purged from being mentioned by the WWE in any way. Donald Sterling, a Jew who owned the LA Clippers, didn’t want his girlfriend to bring black people to his games, so he was banned from basketball. The label “racist” has become equivalent to medieval European label of “heretic”. If the Inquisition labelled someone a heretic, he was burnt at the stake. Nowadays if someone is labelled racist, their career is destroyed. I’m not saying the actions of Hogan and Sterling shouldn’t be criticized. I guess it would be fair to say both men acted like assholes, but who hasn’t acted like an asshole sometimes? He who has never acted like an asshole, cast the first stone. Hogan and Sterling are being treated as if they personally committed the Original Sin, and now they must be punished for all eternity. Or at least as long as the raving masses remember them. This is insane. Especially since both men were spied on. Their personal conversations were made public without their permission.

The proper way to respond to this sort of totalitarian behaviour is not to avoid being called racist, or try to explain “I’m not racist, or he wasn’t racist, since I hate racism too”, but to ignore the whole word. The use of the word has lost all sensible meaning years ago. It is a tool for the Marxist establishment, and it has power only if we fear it.

Instead we should recognize that people who like to label others “racist” support a certain agenda wittingly or unwittingly. I call this agenda Monoethnic Globalism. Monoethnic Globalists are the real haters. For some reason they hate the idea that there are countless different races and cultures on this planet. They want to create a monocultural, monoethnic, monoreligious New World Order where everyone is the same. I suppose the underlying motivation for this is that these people have lost connection with their humanity, and with the ancestry of their own race, culture and nation. The only way they can feel satisfaction is to make other people as hollow as they are. Jack Donovan called this the Nothing from The Neverending Story.

It should be noted there are many decent people who deep-down have not lost the connection to their ethnic humanity, but are being seduced by the ever-present propaganda that tells them they are bad people for caring about their heritage, so they spout the propaganda they hear on TV without understanding it. Hopefully some of them can be de-programmed.

Despite their propaganda that feigns to care about diversity, Monoethnic Globalists abhor it. The world they want to see is much akin to the South Park episode “Goobacks” where hordes of refugees arrive from the future where the whole Earth appears to be monoracial. They all have the same light-brown skin colour, and they speak the same language that sounds like they are vomiting. This is the future that Monoethnic Globalists strive for.

The next time someone calls you, or a person in the public eye, a racist, counter it with them being a Monoethnic Globalist, or a pawn for Monoethnic Globalism. The word “racism” has lost any humanitarian or compassionate concerns it might once had had. It is a tool for genocide, culturecide, nationcide and diversitycide.



Hulk Hogan fired by WWE as he admits to racist n-word tirade where he rants about his daughter sleeping with a black man:

LA Clippers Owner Donald Sterling’s Racist Rant Caught On Tape: Report (UPDATES):

Jack Donovan: “White Tribalism Disrupts Their Regularly Scheduled Programming” :



Since some animals engage in homosexual acts, it’s natural for humans too, right?

I’ve heard the argument several times that since many different species of animals engage in homosexual behaviour, it’s normal and natural for human beings as well. Let’s look at the implications of this argument.

There are some claims that 1,500 different animals species engage in homosexual acts. Scientists don’t know how many different species there are on this planet, but Fact Monster gives the number 1,263,186 for different animal species. Assuming this is correct, it would mean that 1,500 out of that number is less that one percent. In the animal kingdom, homosexuality appears to be a curious anomaly at best.

This is also assuming these 1,500 species of animals all actually do engage in homosexual behaviour. I’m more inclined to think some of the cases of animal homosexuality have been discovered by zoologists with a political agenda of promoting homosexuality. Another possible explanation is anthropomorphization of their behaviour, i.e. scientists see animals doing something would be interpreted as gay if human beings were to do it, but it is not necessarily sexual for the animals. For example, a BBC article on homosexuality in animals quotes a scientist’s explanation of seemingly lesbian behaviour in bonobos, a species of ape, that they were “emitting grins and squeals that probably reflect orgasmic experiences” when they were rubbing their genitals together. “Probably reflect” does not equate scientific proof.

However, my aim is not to debunk animal homosexuality. It probably does exist, although I find it questionable to what extent. Also, if animals engage in homosexual behaviour, it does not necessarily conclude it is “natural” for them. Perhaps animals, the same as humans, can become perverted and engage in decadent acts for mere pleasure than ends up being harmful for them in the long run.

But let’s say that homosexuality is perfectly normal for various species of animals, and even has natural and evolutionary benefits for them. We could even say, for the sake of the argument, that half of all the animal species on earth engage in homosexual activities. Does it logically follow that human beings should do the same? No.

Human biology and psychology functions different from other animals. That’s the definition of a species; it has features that distinguish it from other species. Monkeys throw feces at each other. Does that mean that human beings should start throwing shit at each other? Unfortunately we do that figuratively over the internet every day, but it’s still something we shouldn’t do. Dogs eat shit, so should we do it too? Cats clean themselves with their tongues, so should I clean myself with my tongue? Taking a shower or a bath is much more preferable way for me to clean myself since human physiology works different to cats. Birds and reptiles lay eggs, while mammals, such as humans, don’t. Praying mantis females eat the male after copulation. Humans don’t do that, unless you take marriage to mean this figuratively. Fish live underwater, but human beings do not have gills, which means we’d drown if we tried.

Some species of fish change their sex at times. This is apparently a normal thing for these fish. I guess this means it’s natural for human beings to undergo sex change-surgery and become transgender? No. These fish do it naturally, human beings do it unnaturally by the use of technology.

I don’t think I have to go on. The argument, that since certain animals engage in homosexuality it is natural for human beings as well, is nonsensical. We are different species. What works for one species, may not necessarily hold for another. In this particular article I am not arguing that homosexuality is necessarily wrong for human beings, I’m simply pointing out the logical fallacies presented in the public in support of homosexual behaviour. However, since gay activists employ intellectually dishonest propaganda such as this for promoting the normalization of homosexuality, it makes me wonder if even they believe homosexuality is natural.



Think being gay is unnatural? These 11 animals will prove you wrong:

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality:

Estimated Number of Animal and Plant Species on Earth:

Are there any homosexual animals?:

Sex change in animals:

The Irresponsible LGBT-whiners for Rights

The reason why I have little sympathy for homosexuals, transgender people and the LGBT-crowd is precisely because they are begging for sympathy. They make themselves out to be victims that we have to feel sorry for, and that game works only so far. When someone is presented as a victim of an injustice, the initial reaction most people have is to feel sympathy, however after a while if the person keeps whining about the real or imagined injustices, it becomes apparent the person makes himself out to be a victim in order to gain attention. This is certainly what the LGBT-movement is doing.

This comes down the issue of reversal of rights versus responsibilities. Nowadays everyone is passionate about human rights. “I have the right to do this”, “he has the right to put his dick anywhere wants”, and so on. Those people sound like children crying to their parents “I have the right to receive this fancy new toy”.

In the modern world nobody cares about responsibilities, in fact they care about being legally irresponsible. An example of this would be the fact that many coffee shops like Starbucks write on their cups a warning that the beverage is extremely hot. This is not to protect the customer, but to protect the shop from being sued if a clumsy idiot spills coffee on himself. Politicians cannot really be held responsible for not being able fix any of society’s problems, since they didn’t start those problems. A politician usually serves a fairly short term, be it 4 or 8 years, and many of the problems that exist today date back much earlier. Obama didn’t start the War on Terror, so he cannot be expected to fix it, George W. Bush didn’t fund Al-Qaida in the 80s so he’s not responsible for 9/11 (if we take the main stream narrative of events). Serving only 4 or 8 years is a short time compared to feudal times when people often remained kings and dukes until their death. An ordinary citizen is not responsible for the problems our politicians cause, since voting means we have practically no power to affect what happens in politics.

The talk about human rights is utter selfish entitlement talk. Nobody should really care what your rights are as long as you take care of your responsibilities. This is how we should look at society. In a hunter-gatherer society, the men had the responsibility to hunt for food and protect the tribe from threats. In a rural, medieval society men had the responsibility to provide food by farming and protect their village, or their country from threats. If someone takes care of their responsibilities, it shouldn’t be an issue what he does in his free time, be it sodomy (although this could mean breaking one’s responsibilities toward one’s wife), drinking alcohol or what have you. You have the right to dislike their activities if you think they’re immoral, but this should be a secondary concern. However, nowadays nobody cares about responsibilities so people just want have more rights than others, and complain about privileges.

In olden times the aristocrats had certain privileges that others didn’t. This is nowadays regarded as an act of oppression and inequality. I don’t necessarily agree. If the aristocrats take care of their responsibilities, i.e. protect the country from invaders, and uphold the law and order, I don’t mind if they have the privilege of living in a fancy castle drinking fine wines. However, nowadays people just want these privileges, and no responsibilities. But when someone else has earned these privileges, people complain it’s oppressive and immoral. This is certainly what I hear in the media regarding all these LGBT-people.

Now I’m not saying all gay people, for example, are whining babies who just want more toys, but the majority of them seem to be since this is how most gays are represented in the media. I’d like to see some homosexuals who actually are taking responsibility and doing something useful. In modern times most of us regular people don’t have to hunt or work the fields, but we more or less have to fight in the information war, or the war for our souls against the Luciferian New World Order. I don’t recall seeing that many gays in the “truth movement”. Rik Clay, a guy who died under suspicious circumstances back when I was waking up, was homosexual if I recall correctly. There are a couple of Youtubers who have had some homosexuality in their past, but have renounced it, according to my understanding. So based on what I see, homosexuality is a sign of weakness when men only care about their feelings and “rights”, instead of taking responsibility. The same certainly goes for feminists, gender fluid people, transgenders and their kind. I challenge you to prove me wrong.


In order to clarify what I mean by LGBT-people only whining and wanting privileges instead of taking responsibility, I’ll post a few examples. Buzzfeed has an article titled 7 LGBT Issues That Matter More Than Marriage. This picture is included in it:

It sums up the LGBT-agenda. It’s not about human or civil rights, it’s not about justice or equality, but priviliges for people who do nothing practical. It’s about prioritizing the LGBT-people. The rest of the article is just about whining for rights, and wanting someone else to give them.

A Rolling Stone article is titled 4 LGBT Issues to Focus on Now That We Have Marriage Equality. It’s more or less on the same lines as the Buzzfeed article. It only cares about real or perceived issues that LGBT-people have.

A Think Progress article reports how Bruce Jenner has legally managed to change his name and gender to female, but many other transgender people struggle with it. Boohoo. Bruce Jenner is still not a woman even though he goes through a surgical operation, and “feels” like a woman.

The LGBT-people are a professional victim class. Already back in the nineties the late William Cooper said socialists promote victims because when you have victims, you have people who cannot take care of themselves, so you need the government to increase its power in order to take care of them. LGBT-people are agents, be they witting or unwitting, for the tyrannical, Orwellian state. Based on what I’ve seen, they’re certainly not responsible adults that contribute to society.


Rik Clay:

Children’s Crusade of the Modern Left

The event called the Children’s Crusade occurred in 1212 when Europeans got the brilliant idea that children could peacefully convert Muslims in Jerusalem into Christianity. I guess the reasoning was that since children are so innocent they could melt the icy hearts of the Saracens. Possibly as much as 30,000 people participated. Of course the crusade was a complete disaster. None of the crusaders even reached the Holy Land. The children were sold into slavery or died in a shipwreck, and so on.

Wikipedia says that historians aren’t sure to what extent the story is true or not, but it appears to have a basis in historical fact even if it is a bit embellished. The Children’s Crusade must be one of the dumbest mass undertakings in history, because the success margin of the operation was based on complete fantasies. Moreover, the adults sanctioning it were clearly negligent in their responsibility of taking care of children. They doomed tens of thousands of children based on insane fantasies. What underlines its stupidity even more is that Europeans had been waging war against the Saracens for centuries, and earned their ire and distrust. Had the first crusade been a peaceful one, there might have been at least some conceivable possibility of success, but sending children into hostile territory after over a century of wars is incomprehensible. But I guess it doesn’t matter if none of the children reached the Holy Land anyway.

This is more or less what the left-governed Western world is doing today. People are increasingly unwilling in facing the harsh realities of life, and instead choose to bet on fantasies that make them feel good. The West has been crusading in the Middle-East for a couple of decades now; George W. Bush even referred to the War on Terror as a crusade. The West is still waging these wars, which isn’t the best method for making friends. However, in the Europe and America the governments treat the Muslims immigrants as if they’re friends and welcome them into our countries. These modern crusades should never have been started in the first place, and it is utterly insane that they are still going on, but what is more insane is that the West treats Middle-Easterners and Muslims who live in their own lands as enemies, but once they cross the border into Europe, they’re supposedly transformed into friends. This is not how friendship or diplomacy works.

The Children’s Crusade of the left is not limited to relations between the West and the Middle-East. Youtuber Common Filth has been preaching how leftists, and left-leaning West, only care about their “feels”. What makes them feel nice and comfortable is most important, instead of making sure that our children have a future, for example. The West is obsessed about transient hedonism and tolerance of various deviant expressions of people’s identities. Anything practical, realistic and natural is a secondary concern.

It is regarded as progress that children consider themselves gender fluid, and wanting to get a sex-change operation. It is frowned upon if someone points this is stupid and insane, since it makes people feel bad when you point out they’re wrong. People have given up on reality as it is too difficult to affect positive change in it, so they turn to instant gratification and fantasies. This is probably how it was in Europe 800 years ago. They failed to hold Jerusalem by force, which you can argue was morally wrong or right, but at least in the real world, if you want to hold a peace of land you have to fight for it. Eventually the Europeans grew tired and weak in spirit, and there was little will to fight for anything. So they withdrew into destructive fantasies.

Westerners today no longer care to ensure that our children have a future in the real world, so they experiment on them in various ways, and pretend its endearing. Boys become princesses, girls become boys, children are purple penguins. Parents don’t take care of their purple penguins, so they put them in front of the TV, give them iPads to distract them or they’re just relinquished to the state. Soon enough pedophilia will just be regarded as an expression of love. If you speak out against this, you are a hater. Fuck hate; make love to children.

The Second Children’s Crusade has been marching forward for a good time now. I hope it crashes and burns sooner and not later, so more people are not suckered in.



I really recommend everyone to listen to Common Filth Radio. He can explain the decadence of the West much more vividly than I.



Children’s Crusade:

Children’s Crusade:

Tenth Crusade:

Common filth:

A prime example of the Children’s Crusade today:

Migrant Propaganda on the streets in Finland

In recent months I’ve seen some ads on the street here in Finland that promote multiculturalism, multi-racialism, or as it is nowadays known, cultural cuckoldry. Some of the ads are just regular grocery store stuff, while others are more “humanitarian”. I don’t have photos of all of the pictures I’ve seem, but I’ll post the few I’ve taken pictures of.

This one shows a middle-eastern man. The caption says something like: “He is present/here. You decide if he can help.” To be quite honest, I don’t know what it means, but the advertisement is from the Red Cross, so they’re probably asking for money as usual.



Just yesterday I saw this spinning advertisement stand with three pictures of black people.




The caption Tulossa Suomeen means “Coming to Finland”. There is a clear double entendre here. The obvious meaning is that they’re saying this new fashion brand, or whatever it is they’re marketing, is coming to Finland. But the insidious message is that also truckloads and boatloads of people like them are coming to Finland.

I don’t think these ads, and some others I’ve seen, are innocent marketing of consumer products (I don’t think marketing of consumer products is ever innocent either), but psychological conditioning trying to make us accept these armies of people from foreign races and cultures into our country without resistance. It’s sort of like when the United States attacked Iraq, they dropped flyers on the population explaining that they should just surrender and that Americans are the good guys. These ads are a disgusting display of manipulation and cuckoldry.

I also saw posters like this in the city center, probably plastered by leftist turncoats:


I shouldn’t have to point this out, but I don’t hate Africans, Middle-Easterners, or Muslims, but I hate this whole situation of them being forced into my country. It is an invasion that the High Command in the European Union, and the governments of most European nations are willingly participating in. It is a natural reaction to feel anger, aversion, and hate when something you don’t want is forced onto you.

If I invite friends to my apartment, I happily open my door for them. I am not happy when someone enters my apartment without my permission. It is natural to feel hate in such a situation. You should do the same.

In Search of Human Nobility

This is a continuation on the theme I discussed in Of Human Inequality.

Nobility is a rare attribute in the modern world. Most countries are democracies, and positions of power are elected or selected, not inherited. Sure many countries still have a monarch, or even some remnants of the old aristocracy, like England, Sweden, Japan and Saudi-Arabia. However, they hardly strike me as noble.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines noble as: “having, showing, or coming from personal qualities that people admire (such as honesty, generosity, courage, etc.)”


“of, relating to, or belonging to the highest social class : of, relating to, or belonging to the nobility”

The royalty and aristocracy in the modern world is not that admirable, even if they’re not all figurative members of the bloodline of shapeshifting reptilians, and they are not really part of the highest social class, at least not just by themselves. We have the highest social class of the plutocrats, which consists of various globalists, Marxists, socialists, imperialists, Luciferian Satanists, Jews, Jesuits, capitalists, pedophiles and simply despicable people. They are not noble in any true sense of the word.

The Online Etymology Dictionary describes noble as: “illustrious, distinguished; worthy of honor or respect”. This is not in any way applicable to the ruling class. However, such qualities, although not non-existent, are few and far between among the regular people. The dictionary reports that the older use of the word, “worthy of honor or respect”, is from the 13th century, whereas the later usage is from the 14th meaning “distinguished by rank, title, or birth”.  This is representative how the idea of nobility has been reversed, and ultimately eradicated.

In the old days, it would appear, that men who distinguished themselves by great ability were rewarded for their actions and abilities by them being elevated socially above others. I would emphasize that nobility has a spiritual and moral aspect to it as well. Noble people would then use that ability for the benefit of society in general. However later on people of lesser ability grew envious of the high position of the nobles. They wanted to be Sultan instead of the Sultan simply because supposedly possessing a high social rank somehow made you noble, instead of possessing noble qualities meaning you should arise to a high rank.

This is certainly how things are now. The people in highest positions of power are parasites who mask their venomous nature with the trappings of their rank. They are not better than the average man, they might be more cunning and devious, but not more noble.

Before modern times, most societies had a class system of some sort. On top of it was the aristocracy, which stands for “government or rule of the best”. This is what every nation should strive for, a government ruled by the best. However modern democracies tend to have a kakistocracy, rule by the worst. This is the nature of democracy, since you give equal power to decide for the animalistic people who only think 10 minutes ahead and to people with proper rational and moral abilities, the worst people in society, the psychopaths, use the animalistic people to rule society.

I am not certainly saying that 500, 1000 or 2000 years ago things were ideal, but most of the time countries did not have a kakistocracy. The notion of “rule by the best” was applicable to certain extent, but you can argue whether or not those people were truly noble and admirable.

The question is, what makes a person noble? Is it hereditary as our ancestors believed, is it a trait some individuals are born with somewhat randomly, or is it somehow cultivated by society or individuals through hard work? I cannot answer this question. I simply want to see the return of nobility who create an aristocracy in this world. Modern egalitarian dogma would attest that the idea of hereditary nobility is racist and unfair, which is why I like the idea. It would be convenient to have a certain family or bloodline that is noble, and the rest of us would protect them and serve to enable our own well-being. However I do not know if such a notion is mere fairy tale.

An alternative way of looking at nobility is that people of all walks of life can have nobility, as well as people of all walks of life can have a distinct lack of it. To use pop culture as an example, in the Game of Thrones Daenerys Stormborn possesses noble characteristics, and her brother Viserys does not. This is the case regardless of their Targaryen lineage. If we use this line of reasoning by looking at the class system most societies had prior to the modern, democratic age, we can assume there were truly noble people in the upper, middle and lower social classes as well as, very ignoble people in each class.

I am a firm believer in inegalitarianism as some people are simple-minded and animalistic, others are purely psychopathic and the rest are truly conscious, moral human beings. The easy way to look at these human classes and the class system would be to say that the conscious people should be the highest class, and the psychopaths and animalistic people should be limited to the middle and the working classes. However, it’s never that simple. Such a system would probably degrade over a few generations, especially if the trait of nobility is not hereditary. Even if it is partially random, it means there would be noble people in the lower classes and ignoble people in the upper class.

I propose instead that the purpose of a class system is to ensure that there are conscious people in all three classes to ensure the animalistic people and the psychopaths know their place. The animalistic people believe in the social consensus and pleasure, so they should be pressured to living according to the values of their social class. An animalistic person might act like a noble if pressured into it. An animalistic person in the working class would work hard if the society pressured him to value the fruits of his labour. The social structure should be fairly rigid, with little mobility from one class to another to ensure no group of kakistocratic psychopaths don’t try to hi-jack it.

I’m not sure if any of this made sense, but in order to salvage the human race and particularly the European races, we need to rediscover nobility and establish an aristocracy. Whatever nobility is, and what sort of people possess it. The notion of nobility would be racist and ableist according to Cultural Marxism, which means it is a worth-while cause to pursue.







Of human inequality:

The LGBT-crowd’s idea of love and marriage is that of a teenager

I’ve actually learned something useful in university. Fancy that. When I studied in Hong Kong I had a course called the Philosophy of Love. One of the main points of the course was that although in modern society love is generally understood in hedonistic terms of extremely strong sexual attraction between two people, in ancient Greece they had different words for different types of love.

There was Eros, which is more or less like the modern hedonistic concept of love. There was Agape, the highest form of self-sacrificial love. Philia is brotherly love, I guess nowadays that would be called Platonic love. And there was Storge, which is a word I’m not sure I’ve heard before. Wikipedia describes it as: “natural affection —such as the love of a parent towards offspring, and vice versa.” I’m not an expert on the ancient Greeks’ ideas on love, however, so I’ll impart what I’ve learned by myself.

The professor in the Philosophy of Love course explained that the modern idea of romantic or sexual love encourages the lovers to frown individuality. When you first start a relationship, you have the honeymoon phase, and the lovers just want to be locked up in their own private world for a while. Everything seems perfect in that world, and expressing individual ideas usually means departing from the perfection. It is somewhat like being in a religious cult.

After six months or so, the infatuation of the honeymoon phase passes and the lovers have to decide whether they still want to  be together or break up. If they wish to remain together, and as the magic or mutual delusion is no-longer there, they have to move on to the next stage in the relationship. If the relationship persists, eventually it will lead to starting a family, i.e. having kids, and possibly getting married. In modern ideology this part of the relationship is boring and tedious, and nobody wants to do it. This was more or less how I felt about it too back then. The professor, however, described how sex between a man and a woman with the intent of having children and creating a family can be more fulfilling than the erotic, hedonistic type of sex. (I cannot remember exactly that this is how he expressed the idea, but this is the most controversial idea that I gleaned from his lectures.)

Back then I could intellectually appreciate the idea of these different forms of love being valid, and even more meaningful than hedonistic love, but emotionally I did not want to accept it. Now, however, being older (33, The Masonic Age) and having been in a stable relationship for a couple of years, I can see that what the professor was saying was true. I don’t have any kids yet, but I can understand emotionally that having children and starting a family is more profound reason for having sex than mere pleasure. It does not of course mean you should not have sex if you are not going to try to conceive by that attempt, but ultimately in the grand scheme of things the purpose of sex in a relationship is to have children, and also create close bonds between the man and the woman so their relationship would last so they can take care of the family.

Based on what I’ve seen and heard, the LGBT community is stuck in the honeymoon phase of love/sex. This includes most gays, lesbians, transgenders, gender fluid, panamorous people and people who generally have to come up with complicated phrases to express what excites them sexually. The  LGBT women are of course feminist and want to “have control over their own body”, so they don’t want to have children. Neither do they want to commit to any relationship, since they want to be “free” to pursue the passion of the week. In effect, they seem unwilling or unable to Level Up their relationship status. Instead, they always quit the old one to find a new one and start again. Rinse and repeat.

Not only this, but the LGBT community is quite literally like a cult in some respects. Just as in the honeymoon phase, the lovers frown on expressing their individuality, and prefer being a single organism, the whole of LGBT community seems to pretend to be involved in a vast, multinational polyamorous relationship over the internet. However, it does not seem as enjoyable as regular honeymoon phase relationships are, as there is no true connection between people, and most LGBT people seem dissatisfied with life and mentally are unstable. The relationship seems mostly focused on hating those who do not wish to be part of their collective.

Homosexuals and liquid sexuals and all of these people naturally cannot start a family, as you need a man and a woman to do so. This is a fairly understandable impediment for them to continue to the next phase in love. They could adopt children, but I’m doubtful most of these people are mature enough to actually responsibly take care of children. I’m more inclined to think they’d think of the children as toys to fiddle around with, and I’ve heard of some examples of this. There’s bound to be a few honorable exceptions, but overall I do not think LGBT people can start a family, and for that reason they are incapable of experiencing the higher forms of love.

When you’re a teenager or 20-something, what you’re looking for in a romantic relationship is mostly someone who is attractive, exciting and can give you pleasure and fulfillment. There’s nothing wrong with that outlook when you’re young. But when you grow up, you start to see things differently. It’s no longer about you feelings and desires, but a greater responsibility for your family and society in general. It’s insidious how you just want to be selfish, but somehow these subversive ideas of responsibility creep into your psyche. However, all of the LGBT-allies think like they’re 20-years old forever. They don’t want to grow up and take responsibility. They think something like marriage is only about pleasure. It’s not.

I might have understood the argument that people of the same sex should be able to marry a thousand years ago, since sex out of wedlock was seen as sinful, if not criminal. Nowadays, gays and whoever can have sex all they want. They are not sent into prison or concentration camps, so they do not need to get married in order to do what they want. Marriage is meaningless for them. The purpose of marriage is to start a family, and the LGBT people do not want a family since that entails taking responsibility.

If you think I’m being intolerant or hateful of the LGBT people, I suggest you take a look of a few videos from Youtuber by the name of Common Filth. Especially the Tumblristas and Vine Marathon videos. They are brainwashing and corrupting children into all sorts of sick shit.







Common Filth: