The Best Reason to Suppress the Gay

Jim has a good post with dozens of reasons to suppress the gay. None of them on their own are wholly convincing. We know that suppressing the gay is Chesterton’s fence; it is done for a good reason. We might not know the reason, but we know that every healthy society suppresses the gay and that sick and dying cultures tolerate and even liberate it.

I think I found the answer, out of the mouth of the gay itself. Read this Twitter thread. https://twitter.com/Mer_Squared/status/1193206389063241731 It is necessary for understanding this post. What this thing (claiming to be a female lesbian but possibly a straight male freak in lipstick) is describing with such revulsion is healthy human sexuality. A “goddess” adoring a rough man with an implied penchant for violence. It feels a truly visceral demonic hatred for this natural arrangement and expresses its desire to undermine it. The jealousy is obviously partly sexual, partly driven by a hatred of normality that the thing will never be able to partake in, but it is something I cannot really put into words; you have to experience this seething hatred for yourself. It’s like being bathed in radiation.

Gays hate normal sexuality and seek to undermine it. This is not a society-wide occurrence as has been interpreted. If so, gays, like market-dominant minorities, could be allowed to do their thing in their gay ghettos. Excluded from the halls of cultural power and influence but not actively persecuted. This is not just a society-wide phenomenon, it is a personal one. Your girl’s gay friends will attempt to poison and undermine your relations with her. Here is a snake! You cannot safely take it with you or leave it behind. To slay it would be just…

Generally, gays are unsuccessful at poisoning straight relationships. That is my experience. But I am an outlier. I cannot give advice on how to make a girl stick around because it comes so naturally to me that I am incapable of verbalizing it. In hindsight, every gay friend of my women hated my guts and tried to undermine me, and it did not make a difference. For the average man, though? I am not so sure it is always unsuccessful. And I am unwilling to be magnanimous. Just as the white knight commits a violence-worthy aggression against you when he tries to “protect” your girl from you, so too does the homo commit a despicable act of violence against you when it tries to undermine your relationship.

It did not seem like a big deal at the time, but in hindsight it is a very big deal and I do not want to brush it off with “probably won’t work anyway”. I cannot punish such an aggression, because we are not more alpha than the FBI, but under patriarchy, can and absolutely should. Imagine a Bronze Age pastoralist. He ducks under the flap of his tent after a “business trip”, tunic stained with dried blood, built like a shit brickhouse without an ounce of body fat.

“Honey, I’m home. Good strong slaves this raid. Our lands will prosper.”

“Uh, hi husband, Queeriel was just telling me how I could totally do better, and like, find a husband who didn’t treat me like breeding stock. He said we were, like, toxic.”

“Oh yeah?” he snarls through his uncombed sternum-length beard. “We’ll see about that.”

He walks out of his tent, over to Queeriel’s “group-fertility-maximizing gay shaman” hut and buries a bronze ax to the hilt in the twink’s eye socket.

This scenario, played out thousands of times across culture, is part of the foundations of civilization. When you have tribal sexual chaos, the “free sexual market”, gay aggression seems small or nonexistent. It is lost in the shuffle of hypergamy and constant mate competition. When trying to establish sexual order, trying to build and maintain patriarchy, gay aggression against you and your woman is nakedly obvious and obscene. As soon as the thing I linked brought it up, instantly recognized this pattern in my own history. I did not care in the past, because I was not looking to secure a wife and kids, but any attempt to destroy the time, energy, and resources I put into starting a family and ensuring my paternity, no matter how ineffectual it proves to be, is worthy of blood retribution. The gossip, the slander, and the backbiter are absolutely despised through Scripture for this reason.

Do we really need to punish the gay gossip who tries to pull your girl away with a tall building?

adqjs1t3ujp31

27 thoughts on “The Best Reason to Suppress the Gay

  1. My women have always found homosexuals annoying. The gay best friend is I suspect a Western phenomenon and one concocted purposefully by our degenerate elites in order to praise Moloch.
    I’m surprised you’re using bog-standard lesbo jealousy against heterosexual couples as an example. I don’t think the scenario you described transpires, but rather, gays repress fertility rates by being a massive flex by the Cathedral against straight men (look at our pet petri dish you’re not allowed to treat as a public health hazard, peasant) and the gay best friend is a Cathedral flex against straight men in their own homes – a violation of freehold so severe that it’d justify a peasant rebellion were we not peace-loving Moldbuggian passivists.
    On the genetic front, gay shamans maximizing fertility is one possibility. Their increased frequency in degenerate stages leads me to believe that they are genetic mutants. Another possibility, put forward by J.-F. Gariepy is that gay is the result of genes which lead to adaptive behavior in women expressing themselves in men by mistake and that gay is carried through the mother. In the future, our scientists will have to study the genes and behavior of all suspected buggers in order to locate, isolate and hopefully eradicate this disease, insofar as it can be eradicated.

    Like

    1. It is not -just- jealousy, it’s a visceral hatred of the good and the natural. Also, the thing was confirmed to be an insane man wearing a dress who wants to fuck straight women. Women making gay friends happens, I’ve seen it happen, to fob immigrants from both Eastern Europe and Asia. Western culture yes, but appeals to something innate in women and queers that is elsewhere suppressed. Whether the gay friend is successful at changing the girl’s mating behavior, besides the point. A bugger whispering into my girl’s ear makes me want to reach for the battleaxe, moreso than them just being generally annoying or offensive.

      I’ll call it Chesterton’s Axe. When we, as men, get that primal urge to reach for the battleaxe and start splitting heads like logs, there is a very, very good reason behind it, though we might not understand exactly what it is.

      Like

      1. I like this idea of Chesterton’s Axe. We all have to get in this mindset that our bodies and instincts are smarter than we are and know much more than we can imagine.
        Maybe what makes us want to split the queermo’s head open isn’t the buggery, but the sneakiness, the Grima Wormtongue subversion and cultivation of the lowest female passions.I imagine I would have revulsion for a sneaky fucker white knight. That mentally unstable man in a dress falls in the category of sneaky fucker, not homos.
        For example: My wife had a male “friend” from before we were together who was quite adamant that I’m too much of a bearded ketamine dealer to be with fair m’lady. He backed down only after I cornered him in the dark corner of a bar and told him in no uncertain terms that fair m’lady is mine and that he should watch himself, else he gets what’s coming to people who cross the proverbial bearded ketamine dealer.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Cartesian dualism was one of the greatest tricks ever played on us. There’s often good reason to suppress our instincts, but they exist for a reason. GNON does not suffer disrespect. Our bodies and minds are ultimately inseparable.

        Like

      3. I gotta admit I am now changing my stance on the necessity of knowing what causes male homosex and that I was wrong before. I’ve been re-reading Nassim Taleb and one of the most important lessons from him is that it is not necessary to understand the thing you do in order to do it right. He calls that the green lumber fallacy, after some NYC commodity broker who became a millionaire trading green lumber while believing that it is lumber painted green (while it’s actually fresh-cut lumber which hasn’t been dried out). The necessary skill to succeed as a green lumber trader is TRADING, not knowledge of green lumber.
        Analogously, the necessary skill to succeed in suppression of the gay is policing. Nobody in the whole edifice of the law from the gumshoes on the street to the head of the constabulary need know about the genetics of buggery in order to suppress it.

        Like

      4. Again, this is a coup-complete kind of thing. I certainly wouldn’t stop people from studying it, and I wouldn’t want the priesthood pushing an erroneous falsifiable explanation of its origins, for the same reason it’s not wise for the church to have censored Galileo and claimed the sun revolves around the earth.

        Like

      5. First of all, it sounds like a jihad-complete solution to me. Pretty sure that a mere Augustinian restoration wouldn’t be able to hack it. Remember that Augustus himself failed to do away with whoredom among elite females, and couldn’t even control his own daughter’s whorish behavior.

        Second of all, if the priesthood is to avoid falsifiable statements, then it should just shut up and chant praises to God. This is an impossible standard. This is maybe one of the reasons why civilizations follow the Spenglerian cycle. At some point, the official faith makes a falsifiable statement which is falsified and then the ball on deconstructing the faith and subsequently the civilization gets rolling.

        Like

    2. Saying that homosexuality has a single key “genetic” background is just buying into the Born This Way narrative that came to prominence once news spread of how dysfunctional the homosexual lifestyle is.

      All of the acceptable studies on this subject only really found correlations with abnormalities like schizophrenia. Otherwise not really.

      You all need to recognize that homosexuality as a “state of being” rather than an activity (that’s correlated with abnormalities and dysfunction) is a modern notion. Once you reject the modern narrative, it’s easy enough to see how the homo comes to be (they’re disordered and engage in deviant behavior ala asylum inmates, men violating other men in prison, women kissing other women for attention or out of a lack of men to choose, either men or women being gay for status).

      Like

      1. There’s been a good deal of debate on this point under my last post on buggery. I am agnostic on the causes of male homosex but I do believe it is necessary to frame it as a deviant activity rather than legitimize it as an identity. They should be outgrouped as individuals and not as a group, because an exiled group is a conspiracy whereas an exiled individual is just a closeted freak.

        Like

  2. To those who grew up in a religious context, there’s a constant concern with the vast numbers who’ve left the faith–which is a new phenomenon. The sexual revolution of the sixties wasn’t enough to trigger it. But, since the general pozzing of the 2000s, most all the churches have been bleeding their young. Naturally, they don’t understand the processes at work. A few weeks back, one of my priests remarked that the most successful factor in retaining the youth is fellow believing peers. I suspect that’s true not of itself but rather inasmuch as having Christian friends excludes degenerates. The single factor which would most contribute to retaining grown up children would be patriarchy and arranged marriage because that authority structure exemplifies proper teaching. Marriage is the icon of Christ and the Church.

    I don’t mean to suggest that the root of the problem is sexual but that the sexual aspect exemplifies the spiritual truth.

    Like

    1. The root of the problem is definitely sexual. Christianity and patriarchy have a natural high demand among the 80% of men who have a hard time getting laid and a moderate demand among alpha males who want loyal firmly bonded families, for which most of them are willing to give up a life of debauchery. Most churches ceased to be Christian in their sexual teachings, thus no surprise that men stop showing up. Churches that actually believe in, preach, and enforce Christian marriage are well-attended. The Mormons, whatever else they believe, are doing just fine.

      Like

      1. My suspicion is that the Mormons are not doing well. A little cursory research reveals the following:

        “Tristen Ure Hunt who is a 35-year-old who runs a LDS Matchmaking website told Jon Birger:

        You have no idea how big a problem this is. I have three times more single women than single men in my matchmaking database. My heartstrings are pulled daily because I have ten friends—“all good LDS girls!”—who gave up on finding a husband and decided to have children on their own.

        Cynthia Bowman, a veterinarian in San Diego added her perspective on this “dating crisis”:

        They (the men) wait for the next, more perfect woman…There might actually be a more promiscuous dating culture than there otherwise would be in the Mormon culture because of this gap.”

        LDS article here: http://www.ldssmile.com/2015/08/25/the-mormon-and-jewish-dating-problem/

        Of course, if you meant the polygamist communes, yes, they’re doing just as well as they ever have but the mainstream is not immune. The Mormon leadership in Salt Lake has been taking extensive measures to better fit in with (and better appeal to) the mainstream culture. I suspect they have, without realizing the consequences, dismantled their patriarchy.

        A great mass of the Roman Catholic Church actually did quit following the sexual revolution. Roman doctrine has always focused more on hierarchy as compared to the egalitarian Protestant sects. The introduction of chaos to a system (and what is leftism but chaos worship?) always crashes the more intricately ordered mechanisms before ruining the less complex ones. The public presence of sexual disorder is sufficient in itself to destabilize society–merely as an example. Your point stands, though, that buggerers take particular pains to tumble down all that is good.

        Like

      2. Yes, I have heard that the Mormons are cucking out. They have a tendency to try and infiltrate the Cathedral. Think Romney or McMuffin. Stare into the abyss, etc. Still don’t think they’re as far gone as most.

        The Catholic marriage market is dead because it no longer endorses or practices Catholic marriage. How many Catholic girls will swear to “honor and obey” their husbands? Versus men willing to swear to “love and cherish”. Through that lens, lots of Catholic men looking for marriage and very few women. Christian marriage is a zombie institution, gay marriage wearing a skinsuit and sacral vestments.

        Whatever your church is, it cannot and will not enforce “honor and obey”. Coup-complete, we will need to make churches enforce it again. Today, only your force of personality, your friends, and your wife’s friends, are left to enforce an actual Christian marriage. Rising to that task is a necessity.

        Like

  3. I came here to make Nibba worthy commentary but in this most unwholesome issue I am but a Brainlet and a Grug.

    I find gays particularly loathsome. The reaction is involuntary, the homos are loathsome, the dykes are irritating.

    There it is.

    Like

  4. “Homophobia” is an absurd neologism, just another “it takes one to know one” playground taunt dressed up by Dr. Jewberg.

    Instinctive disgust is not fear.

    Like

  5. “Meredith Russo” is trans. It is clear from the blurbs of the books he writes. Young adult fiction! Imagine some kid coming out of Barnes and Noble with this filth.

    Like

  6. Good stuff per usual.

    Incidentally, this is the use of Twitter I like. Taking a tweet or thread and expanding on it in a blog. Twitter has no room for thorough explanation. It’s why I stopped following the hip frogtwitter intellectuals – it’s too hard to understand what they’re trying to say.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. First of all, I wholeheartedly agree with your post, gays do undermine normal relationships.

    However, I still like one of Jim’s reasons a bit better, with regard to consent culture.

    To summarize, the gay must be criminalized because it is impossible to have traditional marriage with it. If the gay is decriminalized, then as a society, “consent” is the means by which sex is good or bad. Thus, arranged marriage and early virgin marriage (under 18s) must be criminalized, normalizing degeneracy and feral female behavior. To quote Jim, “consent does not make sex good, nor lack of consent make sex bad.” In other words, sex is made moral if a man and a woman are brought together and stay together, and all other variants are immoral, deviant or degenerate.

    In other words, buggery is deviant, and like autistic creepy incel nerds, the gays must be shoved into lockers for anti-social behavior. Is this sufficient? Do you think this line of thinking works? If not, why?

    Like

  8. Upon Spandrell’s recommendation I have read The Man Who Would Be Queen. TL;DR gays are really feminine men, they want to have sex with masculine men, masculine men don’t want to have sex with them, so they are stuck with each other and they are not happy about it at all! “This guy looked like a total masculine stud, I take him home, first thing he does he throws his legs in the air…” “Every gay bar has one top for a thousand bottoms…”

    So when they see a masculine man they lust for with a girl, lots of sour-grapes effect. You know how libs accuse incels of hating women, due to frustration? And there is something in that. And it is something similar.

    Your example sounds like the lesbian version of exactly this – why is that hot feminine chick dating menz and not her?! Except there is a difference. Gays have a large sex drive, so they put some effort into kinda presenting masculine, at least having a muscular body, so that they can attract each other. Lesbians have low sex drive, so they mostly do not care about presenting femininity to attract each other, they are usually accepting their masculine selves. Although, Meredith here at least managed to make a feminine looking, although fat, profile pic. She likely has a higher sex drive than most lesbians so she is trying to be attractive to them.

    Like

    1. (“Meredith”, by the way, was confirmed to be a man wearing lipstick and a dress, not an actual female lesbian. So higher sex drive makes sense)

      Yes, I think this is true. Gays have a high sex drive, a male sex drive, so they will settle for what they consider to be bad sex to get their rocks off. Like men who only fuck fat chicks, they’re frustrated and resentful for it. Incels develop an inappropriate hatred of women and gay men develop a hatred of masculine men who have no interest in railing them through the drywall the way their scoutmaster did when they were nine.

      Even the most feminine among them want to bugger little boys when they are not larping little boys themselves. Gay culture is inextricable from pederasty, which is the other visceral reason to give them the axe. Some of them larp as masculine men to recreate this dynamic. but “one top for a thousand bottoms” is accurate in my experience.

      Lesbians are ubiquitously lonely and have great difficulty hooking up with other lesbians and even greater difficulty maintaining relationships with them. This is because lesbians are generally normal girls who are turned on by dominance but abjure men for a diversity of reasons. Mostly because they are ugly and fat. The next biggest reason seems to be that if they were raised in an environment of all low-status men, who were hitting on them from an early age, they acquired a pavlolvian disgust response to male sexuality. I knew a lesbian once who preferred men, got turned on by men, but once the cock came out, would have an insane pathological freakout. So girls it was.

      Like

      1. >I knew a lesbian once who preferred men, got turned on by men, but once the cock came out, would have an insane pathological freakout.

        Hm. A psychiatrist would immediately suspect childhood sexual abuse. Which is a bit blue-pilled. But childhood sexual abuse by a low-status, low SMV, disgusting man – yeah, I can imagine that.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s