[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Pious Perverts See other Pious Perverts Articles Title: The Dilemma of the Libertarian Homosexual Quite a few "pure," anarchist libertarians are homosexuals. Specifically, the leftist libertarians. They are stuck in a dilemma. Like the Marxists they so strongly resemble, they believe that once the State "withers way," then all will be equal – there will be no prejudice, no sexism, no ageism, no "homophobia," no racism. This is why they are leftist. The words they use -- "sexism," "homophobia," etc. -- ultimately mean nothing because they can mean anything. This "equality" is the leftist, utopian, never-will-exist pipe-dream. The Left exacerbates what problems that do exist by setting people at each other’s throats; the Right ameliorates them, because they know the free market and liberty tends toward toleration. What leftist-libertarians believe would happen is not what would happen. Like all leftists, they don’t merely misunderstand human nature; they don’t understand it at all. Under a totally free market, people will arrange themselves into loose hierarchies, with many different tribes, with the leaders at the top and the lazy and stupid at the bottom. This places homosexuals in a quandary. Their tribe has never been accepted as the equal of heterosexuals, and never will be. That’s why there is such an uproar over gay marriage. The most homosexuals can expect is tolerance, and little else. The fact they’re never been totally accepted is why so many of them (the leftist ones) wish to use the power of government to pass laws granting them what they see as equal rights, but everyone else sees as special ones. I have worked with homosexuals, blacks, Jews, Asians, whatever. We all got along just fine, because it was work. However, afterward, everyone went back to his or her own tribe. After all, you don’t see straight guys hanging out at gay bars. That’s the good thing about the free market and liberty: everyone can associate with who they want. It’s why so many homosexuals have moved to San Francisco, to be with their own tribe. That’s the why it should be; it minimizes conflict. My experience with a fair amount of homosexuals is that they can’t comprehend that straight guys can’t be turned. Some seem to think if you catch them as kids, they can be raised gay. Sorry, they can’t. It’s so strongly genetic it can’t be overcome, contrary to the hallucinations of the NAMBLA crowd. The hard left doesn’t really believe there is a human nature. Male, female, straight, gay…they believe it just depends on the way you’re raised because human nature is (they delude themselves) infinitely malleable and plastic. If that was true, then homosexuals, who are raised in straight society, would be straight. But they’re not, just as heterosexuals raised in a homosexual society would still turn out straight. Ever since I was a teenager, I wondered why anyone would care if a guy (or girl) had sex with someone of the same sex. Later, I realized for the most part, that wasn’t the problem. The problem is that a substantial number of homosexuals are pederasts – they like boys in their early teens. That’s the reason why the fashion industry, which is dominated by homosexuals, uses female models who have the build of 12- and 13-year-old boys. The women who complain about such things apparently don’t realize what the real problem is. It’s not heterosexual men. Then there is the problem that homosexuals, who make up two percent of the population, are responsible for at least one-third of all child sex crimes – murder, rape, molestation. I see no reason why it was any different in the past. Or why it will be any different in the future. I had half-a-dozen homosexuals hit on me in my teens. It happened to most of my friends, too. Suddenly, at the age of 21, it stopped. Damning coincidence, isn’t it? I wasn’t a teenager anymore. This tendency toward pederasty, and self-destruction, and child sex crimes, are the real reasons societies have always frowned on homosexuality. And it doesn’t help that these self-destructive tendencies are the reason that two-thirds of all AIDS cases are among homosexuals. And it also certainly doesn’t help when they refuse to admit these things about themselves. What leftist-homosexuals hope to do is expel the right wing from libertarianism, thinking they can impose their agenda. It won’t work. They’re wasting their time. They’re fighting battles they’ve already lost. What exactly do they expect to do? Use social pressure and ostracism? Or, in the long run, will their statist/fascist/Nazi porn beliefs finally surface, after which they’ll give up any pretense of being libertarians and become just plain leftists? Most of them can’t really support the Right, because they realize that leads to vast majority of people will only tolerating them, or at best, find them amusing, the way the late Paul Lynde was amusing. Or Richard Simmons, or Liberace. If they support the Left, then they’re stuck heading back into trying to use the State and law, something that libertarians are supposed to see as one of the worst sins of all. So, they are stuck in a dilemma to which there really is no solution. Under complete liberty, they can only expect tolerance but not complete acceptance, (as one tribe will tolerate but ever really accept another) or under statism they can expect special rights but resentment and dislike from nearly everyone.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
#1. To: Turtle (#0)
(Edited)
Libertarianism is nonsense. It requires something powerful to define and protect its nebulously defined freedoms. In practice, that something is usually a powerful central government. Some libertarians call themselves anarchist, which is nonsense. A true anarchist is someone that rejects all forms of government. Since government is the use of force, a true anarchist would reject the use of force and be a pacifist. Virtually all libertarians are gun nuts, so they obviously don't renounce the use of force. In effect, the libertarian purist is a very weak and primitive form of local government.
It requires something powerful to define and protect its nebulously defined freedoms. In practice, that something is usually a powerful central government. Some libertarians call themselves anarchist, which is nonsense. A true anarchist is someone that rejects all forms of government. Since government is the use of force, a true anarchist would reject the use of force and be a pacifist. Virtually all libertarians are gun nuts, so they obviously don't renounce the use of force. In effect, the libertarian purist is a very weak and primitive form of local government. THis is true, imo. Except that .gov is not just the use of force. It's how force is used that we have a problem with. Force is neutral. It's why I call myself "leave me the fuck alone small "l" libertarian anarchist". Because if you don't leave me the fuck alone, there will be problems. There is no renouncing the use of force. And I call myself an anarchist because government as we know it is destructive and needs to be done away with. If everyone was that way, there would be no problems, imo, because force could be used against me if I got too big for my britches. It depends on the morality of the people involved though. There would be a "weeding out" process. That weeding out process is long overdue. .
A man with a gun, and the guts to use it in defense of some code, is a local government....definitely weak and primitive. In the real world, a government can survive only through compromise and negotiation with its neighbors.
Yes, if the neighbors are reasonable and are concerned with their neighbors well being. Otherwise you can compromise and negotiate yourself right out of existence. I see nothing wrong with a weak and primitive government. .
When your one-man local government is weak and primitive, anyman with a posse could easily violate or destroy your sovereignty. Refer to Randy Weaver for further clarification.
I'm not talking about a "one man .gov", but a weak one that is strictly for the benefit of the citizens, and not what we have now, which benefits only "elites" and only those groups that the elites want to benefit, over and above everyone else. Defense is a benefit to the citizens and a legit .gov activity, and is made up of citizens, not by the punks with badges and/or uniforms that we have now. Weaver was set up. He should have told that fed cocksucker to saw off his own shotgun barrel, and then told him to fuck off for forever.
There are no replies to Comment # 16. End Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||