Why is Homo-Farcia — a Farcical View of Homosexuality — regarded as 'Homophobia', something that does NOT even exist?

One of the most bogus terms and tools of social and political control is the term 'homophobia'. It means just about anything or anyone hated or feared by homos. It's rather like how 'antisemitism' has some to mean 'anyone or anything hated by Jews' than the other way around. But 'homophobia' is worse than 'antisemitism', which carried genuine meaning in certain times in history when anti-Jewish hatreds were especially strong and even virulent. In contrast, 'homophobia' is utterly misconceived as I doubt if anyone has really been diagnosed with phobia of homos or trannies. Now, what does 'phobia'? It doesn't merely mean fear, anxiety, dislike, hostility, or hatred. Those emotions could be involved but aren't essential to what makes a phobia. Phobia is a medical or clinical term of Extreme Panicked Fear, Fright, or Dread of Something Harmless or Innocuous. In other words, the fear must be extreme & panic-inducing(or close to it), and it must be in irrational reaction to something that causes no direct harm. So, if a tiger leaps out of the bush and scares the living daylights out of you, that's not a phobia. It's rational to fear an ambushing tiger. But if you run around screaming and climb a tree to get away from a mouse, that is a phobia. If you freeze in fear upon seeing a cobra, that's not a phobia. But if you see a garter snake and know it's utterly harmless but still react with utter disgust, dread, and panic, that's a phobia. If you fear being stung by a hornet, that's not a phobia as the sting is extremely painful and can even lead to death in rare cases. But if you freak out upon seeing a cricket or a non-venomous spider, you have a phobia about such a thing. For this reason, phobia is above all 'irrational'. It's a gut feeling you have about certain things that fill you extreme fear, dread, and disgust, usually accompanied with panic or fright. Arachnophobes, for instance, aren't only afraid of poisonous spiders like the black widow but of all spiders, even ones that they know are totally harmless to humans. Something about the spider's features sends chills down their spines or makes them sick in the stomach. They feel frozen in fear or want to take flight. If someone is placed in a coffin and buried, his fright would be most understandable. But a claustrophobe is someone who feels severe anxiety coming over him inside an elevator.

Now, we can trace the roots of the word and find it to simply mean 'fear', but in the modern lexicon it has come to be used as a medical/clinical term. Thus, it would be irresponsible to politicize it unless one is using it merely as a metaphor. For instance, 'cancer' is often used as a metaphor to describe certain dire social or political phenomenon that has grown out of control. Or 'earthquake' is used outside geology to describe massive social events that realign the way we see the world or how people live. But 'phobia' is not used that way by the media and academia. It has been politicized and weaponized to rob the other side of any claim to sanity, rationality, and/or mental health. It's all the more disturbing because the ones accusing the other side of being 'sick' are the truly sick ones. When you or your side is called 'phobic', it means there is no point to any argument, conversation, or discussion because you or your side are beyond the pale, lacking mental balance, utterly irrational, and hopeless sick of mind. It is the secular version of calling someone 'demon-possessed'. Among the religious, it makes no sense to have a moral or spiritual discussion with those whose souls have been take over by the Devil. The only way is to exorcize the evil spirit from the soul. Among secular PC types, those with a phobia are simply incapable of rational understanding and discussion because their minds are so infected or twisted with emotions and passions that make no sense to sane people with healthy minds. The ideological use of the term 'phobia' is a sign of scientism, an unscientific or even anti-scientific turn of the mind that is, however, cloaked in scientific language. It was scientism that allowed the quackery of Freudianism to exert such tremendous influence on society in the 20th century. Scientism was also behind Marxism, supposed a wholly scientific dialectical materialist understanding of history, humanity, and society. So much of modern belief isn't so scientific — as few people are trained in science and, furthermore, scientists have their own ideological biases — as it is quasi-spiritualist draped in scientific lab coat. Notice that so many people who are into global warming believe in it so passionately without knowing the science behind it. How can they be so passionate about something they understand so little about(apart from what they've been told by mass media in the hands of Jewish oligarchs)? Now, there may be much that is true about Global Warming, and maybe something should be done about it, but the level of cult-like lunacy one sees among the True Believers is closer to the dynamics of Faith than of facts. It's something that so many secular folks have latched onto in their subconscious need for new gods(and devils). Same thing goes for all the brouhaha about race. While it's true that the Nazis abused racial, genetic, and biological sciences to cook up their ridiculous theories about 'Aryans' and the like, the so-called 'anti-racist' school is just as irrational and bogus. Instead of regarding blacks as they really are, they've concocted the cult of the Magic Negro. Instead of countering cartoonish Nazi views of the Jews, they've promoted the sacred image of Jews as a race of neo-christs who died for the Sins of Western Man. And of course, the obnoxious elevation of homos as something akin to latter-day angels goes to show that rationality isn't always a strong suit among the secularists. What does a rational understanding of homos have to do with hysterical celebrations of homosexuality and tranny-business decked out in 'rainbow' colors? And if the homo cause is secular, why has the near-reverence of homos become bigger than Easter and Christmas in the West? And why are there bigger taboos and heresies about what we can say about homos(and Jews and blacks) than about God and Jesus(and Muhammad)? If you criticize Muhammad, you might still have a job in elite or upper circles... like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins. But try putting down the likes of Harvey Milk, and you're in big trouble. For a secular cause, it's rather odd that the 'gay' lobby and its enablers(with Jews at the top) are so adamant about Christian Churches bending over to the holy homo cult. It seems these alleged secularists aren't so anti-spiritual as hellbent on bending all forms of spirituality to the will of the new faith, that of holy homo worship(which is really a proxy-pseudo-spiritual tool of the Jews).

At any rate, it's important for us to know why they use the term 'homophobia' and why they use it so casually, indeed promiscuously, to invalidate whom they disagree with. Indeed, it is rather odd how such a powerfully damning term has been used so widely and loosely to denounce so many people. People say Joe McCarthy got into the habit of arbitrarily accusing 'everyone' of being a communist, but he was an amateur compared to the Jew-run media/academia/state complex. Under Jewish control, not only has just about everyone been accused of 'racism' but 'antisemitism'. If you dare say anything to displease blacks, you're a 'racist'. You might be a 'racist', a subconscious one, even if you're a dye-in-the-wool Liberal. And today, 'anti-Semite' can even be someone who notices that Jews got a lot of power or that Zionism has been abusive toward Palestinians. Indeed, therein lies the power of weaponized terminology: On the one hand, the term defines something extreme, thereby implying something rare, unholy, or monstrous, and yet, on the other hand, it can easily apply to you as well. It's rather like the use of 'devil-worshiper' in the Christian lexicon. At once, it denotes something very dark — who but the most demented would worship the Devil? — and connotes it can apply to just about anyone. YOU could be the next one who is demon-possessed, and therefore you must join forces with all the GOOD people in impassioned & forceful denunciation of the Devil and his demon-possessed minions. The pop culture variant of this is the flesh-eating zombie movie. On the one hand, what can be more extreme and incredible than a dead person who walks again to feed on human flesh? And yet, the greater fear is that YOU could become a zombie too and all too easily with one bite. We see something similar now with the Covid-19 Virus scare. It's been depicted as a terrible disease of singular monstrosity, but guess what? You, your family, your relatives, your friends, your community, your city, your nation, and everyone on the planet could be next and indeed will be next unless there is a massive lock-down where we hand over all our keys to the government. In most horror movies, the monstrous is barely human and certainly not ordinary. Michael in HALLOWEEN is a rare breed indeed. He may stalk you and try to kill you, but he's not spreading Michaelism throughout the community. But in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, the unspeakable isn't only happening but can spread and take over the world. As such, they are even more horrifying than something like HALLOWEEN where, as long as Michael isn't in your town, you're safe.

And so, it is in the interest of the Power to (1) concoct something that sounds horrible and (2) make it seem rabid, infectious, and/or already widespread. It is thus pan-damning. Naturally, upon being told that there is something awful and that this awful thing is potentially everywhere, you want to take precautions against it to prove that YOU are clean of the disease or contamination. You either want the afflicted to be quarantined from the rest of society or even to quarantine all of society in fear that the sickness will spread to them as well. If the disease is mental, as in the case with the 'phobia' or some other scientifically(or more accurately scientistically) formulated sickness such as 'racism' or 'antisemitism', then it's deemed necessary for the media and academia to constantly fumigate the airwaves with ideological disinfectants and mass-vaccinate us with proper world-views and approved idols & icons.
While only homosexuals can be homosexual — as the current science says virtually all homos were born that way — , anyone can be afflicted with 'homophobia', and therefore all precautions and measures must be taken to limit the spread of this sickness. And just as anyone can be a sickly 'homophobe', anyone can be a healthy or cured 'homophile' who has gladly learned to love the Big Gay Brother. In a world where everyone fears being demon-possessed, there is a widespread desire to prove that one's with God against the Devil. Likewise, in a world where everyone has been informed that he or she could also be one of those dreaded 'homophobes', there is tendency, even mania, to prove that one is groovy with the homos(and trannies) against all those seemingly incorrigible and incurable cases of 'homophobes', the mental lepers of our age.

Now, it is necessary for people to take a time out and think for awhile. Of course, this is more difficult with the so-called millennials as PC-ideologizing-and-idolatizing from virtually the cradle began with that generation in full force. If they get you when you sleep in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, the Power figures that the trick is to get them when they're young as children are without critical faculty and most vulnerable to emotional manipulations of faith and guilt. Then, it is no wonder that the Power(mostly Jewish) is so eager to push globo-homo PC at the youngest age possible in schools(and even kindergartens). It is a way for Jews to push elite-minority-supremacism as the New Normal to children of all races. As the Power now practices mind-snatching at the youngest possible age, it is getting ever more difficult to sustain a culture of thought. After all, emotions and sensations oftentimes override thought, however factual and honest it may be. Reason tends to weaken in relation to beauty & bliss and ugliness & blight. It's been said the IQ goes down around 20 points in the presence of a pretty/handsome person. It's no wonder that so many people make poor decisions when they're in love and eventually end up in divorce court. People are also less likely to think clearly in presence of the sacrosanct. Their reverent, even rapturous, state of mind favors faith while fearing anything that might undermine one's blissful unity with the holy. Such spiritual inclinations are the most potent when instilled at a young age when the mind is most malleable and without critical/skeptical barriers, and this explains why some highly intelligent adults who are rational about most things go into Manchurian-Candidate gear when it comes to spiritually-charged topics, such as evolution. Thought is also weakened in relation to strongly negative responses. No matter how decent a person may be, he will elicit negative feelings if he's ugly and gross. No matter how nutritious(and tasty) insects-as-food may be — as well as more moral as it's better to kill insects than fellow mammals — , many people feel disgust at the mere sight of them. A man may go with a bad woman with good looks than good woman with bad looks, and both responses fail in reason and basic judgement. The good looks blind the man to one woman's badness while the bad looks blind the man to the other woman's goodness. One reason why many people cannot rationally fathom something like pedophilia has to do with extreme disgust and animus they feel about the subject. They see it as so beyond the pale that they want to regard it as pure evil than the possibility that some people are born with the sickness, i.e they chose to be evil than were born with a sickness. Likewise, many people cannot think objectively about National Socialism because of all the radioactive toxicity surrounding the subject. Of course, being rational or objective on the subject doesn't mean endorsement or lack of judgement. Rather, it means a cool-headed understanding as to why it came to power and what positive things it may have achieved. For many people, even that much thought on the matter is near-impossible as they've been led to see Nazism as pure evil, a form of diabolism.

So, the power of reason wilts under extreme-gloss and extreme-gross. Certain irresistible flavors make people ignore the nutritional downside of certain foods. No wonder so many people are obese, have diabetes, and/or suffer from tooth decay. But then, many nutritious foods are avoided by people who'd do better to eat them because the flavors are bland or off-putting. It takes strong mental constitution to resist the temptations of gloss and overcome the repulsions toward grossness. And most people don't have strong mental constitutions, and therefore, their power of reason operates within the space between 'gloss' and 'gross'. And the Power knows this, which is why it's so involved in moving the goal-posts of what is glossy and what is gross.
Now, some things are naturally full of gloss while others are naturally gross, at least to most humans. Most people have a natural like for lakes, sunshine, and beautiful forests, and most people dislike darkness, dung & rot, and fetid swamps. Most men like pretty women and dislike ugly women, and most women like handsome men and dislike ugly men. Most people like the taste of honey, and most people would surely prefer not to eat monkey brains or goat testicles. Among the spiritual, most love God or gods and hate Satan, the devil, and demons. Still, the natural likes and dislikes can be overridden with artificial manipulation, especially when imprinted on young ones. Consider how traditional Chinese culture had men thinking that mangled feet(via foot-binding) were a thing of beauty. Consider how Ancient Egyptians developed a method of flattening the heads of elites, a kind of mind-binding. And so many primitive cultures have developed rites of passage involving horrific scarring. While those outside the culture can readily see the sickness of the ways, those within the culture have been rendered blind to the ugliness because they grew up with it as a defining, even sacrosanct, element of what they're all about. This is why some cultures not only practice something as vile as human sacrifice but regard it as what makes them whole and holy. As they've grown up in a culture with a cosmology requires blood sacrifice to maintain the balance and harmony of all things, they cannot conceive of an order without the rites. Thus, even the ugly can be made to feel beautiful, even the diabolical can be made to seem holy. For sure, homosexuality that had once been reviled is now revered as the greatest thing since baked buns. And gambling has gone from a vice to even something like 'family values' virtue — Las Vegas is for the entire family, and besides, legal gambling in Indian Reservations have associated the once-vice with 'historical justice'.

But it can also go the other way. The beautiful can be made to seem unholy, or ugly in some deeper way. Jews have done this with 'Aryan beauty', not least because they are envious of it, have been driven mad by it, and were mass-killed by an ideology, Nazism, premised on defending and revering it. So, even as Jews have been unable to convince people that 'Aryan Beauty' is ugly per se, they've made it seem evil, diabolical, and vile as a thing unto itself. So, if beautiful 'Aryans' want a community of their own to preserve and admire their own beauty, that is so 'racist' and 'Nazi-like'. According to Jews, 'Aryan Beauty' is acceptable and redeemable ONLY IF it puts out to other races and mixes with others. In other words, its beauty must serve other races than serve itself. It must serve the lusts of Jewish and black men. Also, by race-mixing, the advantages of 'Aryan Beauty' must be appropriated by Jews, blacks, and other races. The 'Aryans' aren't supposed to have an identity or agency of their own. Any hint of autonomy for 'Aryan Beauty' is anathema. Thus, even if Jews can't convince you that beauty is ugly, they can convince you that beauty is evil UNLESS it is reduced to interchangeable commodity for Jews and others. Of course, Jews do the same thing to entire territories. So, if Hungarians say Hungary is their own beautiful nation, Jews may not convince you that Hungary is ugly but can convince you that Hungarian land, however beautiful it may be, is EVIL unless it loses its national autonomy and becomes global commodity for Jewish hegemonists. In other words, even if Jews can't convince you that the gold you possess is worthless, they can convince you that is EVIL for you to have possession of it. The Jewish message to goyim is that goy property has MORAL value, as opposed to merely material ones, ONLY IF it is made available for Jews to take and place in their pawnshop. Jews want all the goyim to pawn their entire nations and treasures to the Jews, the arch-financiers of the world.
Now, one might argue that it makes little sense for vilifying 'Aryan Beauty' for wanting autonomy. After all, the crimes of Nazism had to do with Germans invading other nations, not maintaining Germany for Germans. But that is from a goy perspective. As far as Poles, Greeks, and Russians were concerned, German nationalism would have been just fine AS LONG AS Germans didn't invade their territory. Their beef was with German Imperialism, not German Nationalism. Likewise, the Vietnamese and Algerians had no beef with French Nationalism AS LONG AS French Imperialists didn't rule over them. Then, why is German nationalism itself a problem? It is because, even without Nazi imperialist aggression, Jews in Germany suffered under German nationalism that led to the unity of German elites and German masses against semi-alien Jews. So, no matter where Jews live, even in non-imperialist or anti-imperialist nations, they fear goy nationalism as the binding force that allows the goy majority to work together against Jewish interests. What if goy nationalism is moderate and not particularly anti-Jewish or is even protective of Jews without totally putting out to them? Even such moderation is unacceptable to the Jewish Ego in the long run because the ultimate aim of Jews is not tolerance or co-existence with goyim but supremacist rule over them. Jewish vision of the world is one of Jewish Masters and Goy Cattle.

The term 'phobia' as currently used by PC doesn't just mean fear, dread, dislike, or even hatred. It really means you have NO VALID OR RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION for your antipathy. After all, if 'phobia' were to be used merely as a generic term for dislike or hostility, then we could call Jews 'Nazi-phobes', we could call capitalists 'communist-phobes', we could call Christians 'Satan-phobes', and so on. But we don't do that because the prevailing orthodoxy is Jews have good reason to hate Nazis, capitalists have good reason to oppose communism, and Christians have the duty to denounce the Devil. And 'phobia' doesn't mean just any fear, no matter how powerful it is. No one calls a man who fears tigers in the jungle a 'tiger-phobe'. No one calls a swimmer who fears being eaten by a shark a 'sharkaphobe'. A man wandering in a jungle filled with tigers better fear tigers, and a swimmer in a shark-infested sea better be wary of big jaws.
If 'phobia' in current discourse simply meant hatred, fear, or opposition, then we might as well call Democrats 'Republicanophobes' and call Republicans 'Democratophobes'. And if straight people who have issues with homos are 'homophobes', then homos with issues with straight society should be called 'normophobes' or 'straightophobes'. At the very least, such use of the term would be fair-minded. But of course, 'phobia' isn't used that way. The Power that controls the academia and media — and dictates what is to be allowed as approved definitions on Wikipedia and as acceptable discourse on social platforms — uses the term 'phobia' in the most selective manner to push its own agenda. The Power meant 'phobia' in ideological discourse to be a loaded term. It doesn't mean just any kind of fear, antipathy, or hatred but the kind that is disapproved or denounced by the Power. So, homos shitting on straight society is not a problem, just like it's okay for Jews to shit on goyim, especially whites. Such is never designated as 'phobic' but, if anything, as provocative and interesting. Despite the 'scientific'-sounding term borrowed from clinical psychology, it is used ONLY against those targeted by the Power. It's like Jews used the term 'paranoia' during the Cold War mainly against the anti-communist Political Right. Apparently, those who feared communist infiltration or propaganda were overcome with mass paranoia, whereas Jews who see 'anti-Semites' everywhere and another 'Holocaust' just around the corner are to be treated with the utmost courtesy, sympathy, and respect. Of course, in reality, the far-left came closer to taking over the US government in the 20th century than elements of the far-right did. But as Jews, many of whom were on the left and even far-left, had more sway in media and academia, especially in alliance with Anglo-American reformers who weren't sufficiently 'paranoid' of Jewish intentions, they got to portray the communist-sympathizers and even outright communists as sane & rational All-American patriots standing by the U.S. Constitution while those who sensed radicalism afoot in key institutions and industries were not only smeared as fear-mongers but mass-clinically-diagnosed as 'authoritarian personalities' overcome with mass delusions. Just think. Many Jewish-Americans spied for the USSR and plotted with Soviet agents to undermine American Security. Some of them went as far as sending atomic secrets to mass-killer Stalin who'd just swallowed up all of Eastern Europe. And yet, the Narrative on the Cold War has been mostly about HUAC and Joe McCarthy plotting against innocent patriots whose Constitutional Rights were trampled upon. And even though it was the Jews who plotted against America, Jewish authors and media moguls push narratives of how the plot against America was hatched by the American Right. But then, Jews pulled the same trick with the Palestinians. Even though Jewish imperialist-immigrants invaded and took over Palestine, dehumanized the native population, and denied them the right of nation-hood, the dominant 'American' narrative on the Zionist-Palestinian issue has been, "When will Palestinians accept the right of Israel to exist?" Never mind that Israel was founded on denying the right of Palestine to exist. Jews plotted against Palestine, but Jews have so many people duped that Palestinians plotted against Israel. Palestinians did no such thing. They merely tried to defend and preserve Palestine from Jewish invaders. It was the Jews who plotted to take over Palestinians, first by posing as New Palestinians who just wanted to get along with Arabs as Fellow Palestinians. But it was all just a ruse as the ultimate Zionist Plot was to wipe Palestine off the map and replace it with Israel. Likewise, Jewish immigrant-infiltrators in the US initially acted like they just wanted to be a part of the great country founded and built by Anglo-Americans, but their ultimate aim to replace the Original America with the New America of Jewish Supremacism, Diversity-Imperialism, Eternal White Guilt, and Globo-Homo-Worship(as Jewish-controlled Queertianity). Jews are not to be trusted as they regard goyim not as fellow adults but as children who cannot be trusted with the truth and must be lied to.

Not only is the term 'phobia' used selectively by the Power to designate certain groups, positions, and attitudes as irrational, pathological, sic, or diseased but it is then used casually and loosely to besmirch anyone within that group or with that position. It's like, not only can whites be accused of being 'Anti-Semites' while Jews cannot be accused of being 'Anti-Whites' or 'Anti-Whitites' BUT just about ANY white person can be called an 'Anti-Semite' for whatever reason. While Jews, being mostly on the 'Liberal' spectrum of the political divide, usually use the term against those on the American Right, they also encourage American Conservatives to denounce American Liberals as 'Anti-Semites' for being insufficiently servile to Israel or expressing sympathy, however slight, for the Palestinians. Though 'antisemitism' gained moral currency as a term describing oppressive attitude toward Jews, it now means not being with the Jewish program of oppressing non-Jews, especially Palestinians, Iranians, and Russians(and white middle and working class Americans). 'Anti-Semite' went from a man who wants to oppress or kill Jews to a man who opposes Jews' exploiting, oppressing, and/or killing such peoples as Palestinians(who suffered Nakba and live under Zionist apartheid), Russians(who underwent the Jewish Rape of Russia), Iranians & other Muslims(who've suffered semi-genocidal sanctions), and white folks of the West(who now face White Nakba, aka the Great Replacement). Even though Jews have become the New Nazis or Judeo-Nazis, the term 'Anti-Semite' is affixed to Jewish victimhood of bygone history.
Jews are cunning and play it both ways, which is why so much of accusation of 'antisemitism' comes as much from goyim as from Jews. When Jews are not accusing goyim, mostly white conservatives and Iranians, of 'antisemitism', it's the goyim who denounce one another as 'antisemitic' as so many of them are such craven toadies to Jewish Power or brainwashed dolts who look upon Jews as the holy race who are beyond reproach. Many Jews say Donald Trump is 'literally Hitler', so how does Trump respond? He accuses the goyim in the Democratic Party of being the Real 'Anti-Semites' by supporting Israel only 200% than 300%... or 6,000,000%. Jews have long accused the GOP as the party of bigotry, so how did the likes of Mitt Romney respond to the charge? They've accused the likes of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama of being 'antisemitic' by not giving Israel 1,000% of what it requested(or demanded). That's about half of all US political discourse. Jews say, "GOP, you're the party of Hitler", and GOP cucks say to the Democratic Party, "Democrats, you are a bunch of 'Anti-Semites' for not supporting the Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians 300% instead of just 200%." Behind closed doors, Jews must be laughing at the idiot goyim caught up in this clown show.

In the current discourse, the term 'phobia' is used almost entirely against those who refuse to bend over to the globo-homo agenda. There is no need for 'Judeophobia' or 'Afrophobia' because Jews and blacks already have potent terms as shields and battering rams: 'Antisemitism' and 'racism'(that only carries weight in relation to blacks and maybe Jews, as its permissible to badmouth Iranians, Chinese, Muslims, Palestinians, and even Mexicans). Homos, the favored of Jews, also got a special word as their terminological weapon, and it is 'homophobia' that has been adopted and used uncritically and aggressively by the entire media-academia-government apparatus. There have been attempts to widen the use of 'phobia' — 'Islamophobia', 'Russophobia', 'Sinophobia', and etc. — , but no term gains traction and currency UNLESS it is adopted and disseminated by the big media-academia-state complex. In the end, it is not so much the idea or term that matters but the manner and range of its promotion and marketing. Other than 'homophobia', the only potent politicized term with -phobia as suffix is 'xenophobia', but then it has a longer pedigree than 'homophobia', a bogus concept cooked up by Jews. (It is bogus because no one has demonstrated that anyone has an intense panicked fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. Plenty of people are put-off by homosexuals, the way they look and talk, but such disdain hardly fits the profile of phobia. And people who find sodomy or homo-fecal penetration to be gross are only feeling a natural reaction to a filthy and foul act that serves no biological function but is a prime way to spread disease. It's like being disgusted by the idea of licking toilet seats or eating-shit is not a phobia. It is healthy and normal to feel grossed out by gross behavior. Some might say homos who were brought up to despise homosexuality are filled with self-loathing, and that constitutes a kind of phobia, but that is false. A homo who wants to do homo things but feels ashamed for feeling that way is suffering from a complex, or homo-complex, not a phobia. A phobia is where a person truly and intensely feels dread and antipathy for something that is harmless. In contrast, a self-loathing homo truly and intensely would love to do homo things but feels shame for feeling that way. He feels loathing for what he truly desires. Phobia, unlike a complex, is not the product of repression. Phobia is someone truly being scared of a little white mouse that can do him no harm. A complex is someone truly loving white mice but having been made to feel shame for such affection. What about people who feel hatred or animus toward homosexuals as freaks, degenerates, or sinners? Their hostility may be pretty strong, but it's not a phobia without panicked fear/fright of something harmless. After all, many people have strong hatred for rapists, pedophiles, bigots, and the like — and plenty of homos virulently hate those who condemn the very idea of 'gay marriage' or refuse to bake 'gay wedding cakes', but their hatred, even if unhinged, doesn't necessarily amount to a phobia. A person with a phobia of rats freak out at the mere sight of a rat, even if it is outside and poses no harm to him or his property. In contrast, someone may hate rats because of they've done his house considerable damage. Such hatred is a reaction to what rats have done, not a mindless fear of rats per se. Likewise, this thing called 'xenophobia' is mostly bogus because, at least in current usage, it is rarely about mindless, irrational, and extreme fear of foreigners but totally warranted concern over what mass demographic migration and replacement may do to one's own nation. Isn't it odd that Jews, who love to demean others as 'xenophobes' for saying NO to mass immigration-invasion, are the first ones to say Israel must remain Jewish by an ONLY JEWISH IMMIGRATION policy. One thing for sure, Jews seem to be truthophobes who have no use for consistency.

Because 'homophobia' is a weaponized term to demean, dehumanize, and destroy modern heretics who refuse to kneel at the altar of globo-homomania, it is used rather liberally against ALL who are deemed threatening to the agenda. The term is targeted not only at those who resolutely stand against the homo agenda but those who dare to mock anything homo or tranny. In other words, the 'gay' agenda not only demands total acceptance but total reverence. It's not enough to target and destroy sincere opponents of the agenda but even those who joke about homosexuality must also be destroyed. It's akin to the domain of religion where not only the heretics must be burned at the sake but those who seem uncaring, irreverent, and mocking of the sacred dogma. Not only those accused of being devil-worshipers and idolaters must be destroyed but those who've failed to show due diligence in holy observance and due reverence to proper authorities. The same logic operated in the secular theocracy or ideocracy of communism. Not only were capitalists and anti-communists purged but even communists who dared to crack jokes about the Party and its leadership also had to be punished.
In a similar vein, it's not enough for the 'gay' lobby to call for the heads of sincere and dogged opponents of the Agenda. They are not the only 'homophobes' who must be burnt at the stake or forced to take it up the bung. According to the so-called LGBTQXYZ community, even those people who don't necessarily oppose the Agenda but love to make jokes about homosexuals, trannies, and their ways are also branded with the Mark of Cain of 'homophobia'. So, even though all they did was observe the silly, funny, ridiculous, ludicrous, outrageous, and outlandish ways of many homos and trannies, they are deemed to be 'phobic'. You see, if you're insufficiently reverent toward homos and trannies, you are sick in the head or afflicted with some pathological malaise... because after all, there is nothing more naturally wondrous than homo fecal-penetration and tranny peniscutting. This is all the nuttier when we consider how homos love to mock each other and actually revel in being 'different' and 'faggy'. After all, the camp sensibility arose largely from the 'gay' community with their fruity ways. But when homos rib and mock each other, that's oh-so-wonderful and charming. But if straight people notice the same things about homos and trannies, why that is 'phobic'. It's also like how blacks love to act the wild-ass jigglins, throw apelike antics, and act plenty crazy(and even take pride in it) but scream 'racism' when white people notice this very facet of Negro-hood. And notice how Jews love to incessantly talk, write, and discuss about Jewish money, Jewish power, Jewish influence, and Jewish everything, BUT they are the first ones to condemn goyim of being 'obsessive Anti-Semites' who go on and on about Jews who are just ho-hum minding their business.

Anyway, no straight person has a panicked fright of homos or homosexuality. They don't break out in sweat or wet their pants in abject terror at the first sight of homo or tranny. Many straight people feel uneasy about homosexuality or being around homosexuals, but mere discomfort doesn't make a phobia. After all, many people are put off by the sight of grossly fat people, but that doesn't amount to 'fatophobia', 'lardophobia', 'blubbophobia', or 'buffalobuttophobia'. They are people who feel strong animus, hatred, or contempt for homosexuals for whatever reasons. For the religious, homosexuals could be deemed as wallowing in sin and going against the way of God. For certain macho types, the mere sight of homo girly-boys fills them with contempt. They have certain ideals of manhood and are put off by men dressing, acting, and/or talking like pansies. But then, some people who prize intelligence and/or wisdom feel great contempt and derision — indeed very strong emotions — for the dumb, stupid, or imbecile. It's obvious that Richard Dawkins virulently looks down on people he considers to be idiotic. He believes humans have intelligence and the power of reason, and therefore those humans who've failed to live up to his ideal of the thinking person is deserving of his arrogance and tongue-lashing. Now, this self-righteous and self-aggrandizing side of Dawkins' character may be off-putting, but it wouldn't be a phobia. Whatever Dawkins is, he is not a dumbophobe who cowers in frightful fear in the presence of someone who strikes him as hopeless dumb, stupid, or ignorant. If anything, Dawkins, who is as witty as he is arrogant, loves to poke fun at people he deems to be too dumb to be human. Indeed, such derisive use of wit is very much a part of British culture. And Jews have their own way of mocking and deriding whatever and whomever they disagree with, look down upon, and hold in contempt. Jews surely love to mock Christianity, indeed a national pastime in Israel and even among American Jews who no longer fear the much-cucked Christian community, much of which is now more taboo-riddled with sanctities surrounding globo-homomania than about God, Jesus, and the long line of martyrs and saints. And yet, when Jews like Sarah Silverman, Bill Maher, Larry David, and others mock and joke about Christians and Christianity, are they denounced as 'Christophobes'? Indeed, is the term 'Christophobe' regularly used whenever some non-Christian mocks or makes fun of Christians, the Church, Jesus, and etc? No.

But even a farcical attitude about homosexuality, homosexuals, and trannies is deemed 'homophobic'(though 'transphobic' is also now being disseminated far and wide by the Jew-run media). If 'phobia' means an extreme, irrational, and panicked fear or fright attack over something harmless, how is it 'phobic' to joke about homosexuals? Granted, some might argue that people seek to relieve tension by joking about something that truly terrifies them. After all, some Jews have made jokes about Adolf Hitler and the Shoah to come to terms with them. And Woody Allen certainly told many jokes about things that make him feel uneasy, even queasy. But jokes about homosexuality, homosexuals, and trannies are not therapeutic efforts to ease one's extreme fear of 'gay' stuff. Rather, they are akin to fat jokes or jokes about especially ugly or dumb people. Generally, people find odd, weird, or extreme stuff to be funny. Even extreme qualities deemed to be positive come under mockery because they seem so different from the normality of most people. So, people with extremely high IQ are often mocked as 'geeks'. And women who are 'too beautiful' are caricatured as bimbos, stuck-up princesses, or vain-shallow dolts. Men who are overly powerful are lampooned as 'moose' or 'dumb jock'. The popular assumption is that if someone is over-abundant in one area, he or she must be lacking in most other areas. So, the stereotype of the absent-minded professor who is good with book-knowledge but lacking in common sense skills and general sociableness. True or not, none of these qualify as 'phobic'. Why have homosexuals and trannies often served as targets for comedy? In most cases, it's not even about hatred or contempt. The material made for easy laughs because most people are not homo or 'gay' in style, and therefore, homos, trannies, and their ways seem weird, goofy, nutty, ridiculous, and/or outrageous to most people. Thus, it's really a matter of Homo-Farcia and has NOTHING to do with any kind of phobia. But once homos got powerful, their vanity got the better of them and, with the backing of super-powerful Jews, they decided to use the media, academia, law firms, the courts, and the state to spread the message far and wide that any insufficiently reverent and celebratory attitude or expression regarding homosexuality and tranny-stuff is to be designated and derided as 'homophobic', in other words, pathological, demented, mentally sick, irrational, immoral, and even unholy as 'gay' vanity has deigned to be the new spiritual essence of the Modern World. So, what should properly be called Homofarcia is called 'homophobia'. Imagine if fat people — people with a natural impulse to eat compulsively to the point of becoming excessively overweight — had the power of homos and pushed the idea that fat jokes are 'fatophobic', i.e. the product of pathologically unhinged minds than natural expression of merriment among people who find gross obesity to be abnormal and extreme to the point of ridiculousness. Such a world would be plenty retarded. Well, we are living in such a world, except that it's not the fatsos but the fruitkins who have waged war on 'gay joke' comedy as a heresy that cannot be tolerated.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/lmNEiSUWWZOF/

If Homos Can't Help Being Homos, Normos Can't Help Being Normos — Therefore, Just Like Homos Should Be Left Alone to be Homo, Normos Should Be Left Alone to be Normo

We've all heard a million times that homos(and even trannies) are born that way, and nothing can be done about it. Even if we compel homos to repress their own deviant form of sexuality, it still impacts the way they feel, think, and act, especially on 'sexual' matters but in other areas of life as well. There was a time when most people adhered to the reigning religious, medical, psychological, and/or ideological explanations of homosexuality. Religious authorities said it was sinful, very likely soul-corruption by the Devil. Medical community regarded it as some kind of disease of the mind and glands. Certain schools of psychology deemed homosexuality as the result of childhood trauma. Ideologies on the Right regarded homosexuality as a subversive attack on society, and ideologies on the Left regarded it as the product of decadence & degeneracy as part and parcel of late-stage capitalism. It wasn't all that long ago when virtually all sectors of society regarded homosexuality with negativity and hostility. Even up to the 80s, it wasn't unusual for Liberal Hollywood to associate homosexuality with psychopathy and villainy, as in the Kevin Costner action movie NO WAY OUT(1987). There were also movies like WINDOWS, DRESSED TO KILL, and CRUISING that featured the dark & obsessive side of homosexuality. WINDOWS(written by Barry Siegel and directed by Gordon Willis) starred Talia Shire playing opposite a mad lesbian who will go to any lengths to own and control her. (In the original story idea, the psycho was a tranny.) Brian De Palma's DRESSED TO KILL featured a tranny as a serial killer. In William Friedkin's CRUISING, the victims are homos but so is the killer(s). Even though none of these movies go out of their way to condemn homosexuality or transvestites per se, there's a sense that individuals thus afflicted tend to be possess strange hangups or excessive neurosis. And of course, one of the biggest movies of the 1990s, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, had a tranny as a psycho-killer.



Given that sexual complex has often been used as the underlying motive for crazy, dangerous, or malevolent behavior in fiction — the murder in Otto Preminger's LAURA, repressed sexual memory in Alfred Hitchcock's MARNIE, the mad quest in THE GRADUATE, the attack on the prostitute in THE UNFORGIVEN, the bitter jealousy in RUSHMORE, the ugly tall man in MANHUNTER, and etc. — , it only seemed natural that storytellers would feature homosexuality or tranny-stuff as catalyst for neurosis, frustration, or strangeness that might trigger a chain reaction of horrors. Or, if homosexuality itself wasn't to blame, the burden was placed on the repression of homosexuality, as in AMERICAN BEAUTY where the reason for the abusive husband/father's fury & hostility turns out that he's really a homo who wants to suck dick. So, if many storytellers in the past used homosexuality or tranny-ness as the hidden motive behind anti-social, subversive, and/or dangerous behavior, later storytellers said the REAL problem derived from compelling homos and trannies to repress their true abnormal natures or 'abnature'(as homosexuality is 'abnatural' as it is abnormal, i.e. it is a part of nature to the extent that most homos were born that way BUT it deviates from the normal natural processes that make survival of organisms possible). Movies like AMERICAN BEAUTY and BOYS DON'T CRY suggested that what homos need to do is come out of the closet and embrace their true nature or 'abnature'. Then, they will be free of neurosis and will be honest with themselves and those around them, and it will be better for society as a whole since people will accept the reality of homosexuality — that some people are indeed born that way — and stop pretending that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE must be normal.


Well, we've seen how that theory played out. It's hard to think of another as wrong, but then, those who knew of the true homo nature warned us time and time again. It should be obvious to all by now that homos(and trannies) are NOT satisfied with mere social tolerance, individual rights, and acceptance of their 'abnature', namely that most Americans came to realize that most homos were born that way and it'd be as difficult to turn a homo into a normo as it would be to turn a normo into a homo. I can't imagine a real-sexual normal guy being conditioned to prefer men over women — though it may work in a few cases — , and it seems homos with their 'abnatural' predilections can't help being 'gay' either.
Now, some still argue that homosexuality must be conditioned than inborn because so many homos claim to have been molested as children. But the notion that childhood trauma can alter one's entire sexual proclivity for the rest of one's life sounds too much like a crackpot variation of Freudianism. Also, one wonders whether homos in their youth were really molested or invited such attention from older homos. According to Milo, he initiated the flirtation with an older man(a priest it turns out). And according to George 'Too Gay' Takei, he really got a kick out of being fondled and who-knows-what-else by his older adviser in the Boy Scouts. So, it is likely that homo kids tend to be sexually more voracious/adventurous and invite, by means subtle and not-so-subtle, sexual advances from older people; but when they grow up, they act like they were pure-as-snow victims, as when Milo changed his story from one where he was the seducer-predator to one where he was the hapless victim. One thing for sure, even if there are a good many homos who claim to have been molested as children, there are many homos who were never molested but are nevertheless 'flaming' in every way. Also, science tells us that we can often spot a fruitkin by his facial features and manner of speech. Science has shown that homos, far more than normos, tend to speak with a lisp and have girly voices. And when we look at a lot of homos, they tend to have a froolaloopidoopiness about them.

Anyway, once science established that most homos are born that way, it became less tenable for society to persecute or condemn them for what they didn't choose to be. They were 'chosen' that way by biology. And yet, most of society still understood homosexuality to be strange, deviant, and even perverse, especially as it involves men who indulge in homo-fecal-penetration. Also, homosexuality is often associated with a host of behavioral patterns that tend toward the obsessive, neurotic, hedonistic, vain, and/or nihilistic. To be sure, homosexuality comes with certain innate advantages in areas of design & craft. And some say that homosexuality is usually accompanied with few extra IQ points on average. But the CORE of homosexuality centers on a certain kind of 'sexual' proclivity, and objectively speaking, it cannot be good. After all, two vaginas grinding together isn't real sex and can never produce life. As for homo men doing sodomy, that is objectively gross and medically unsafe as it involves a sex organ penetrating a fecal organ. Gross.
So, even if society had to come to terms with the 'abnatural' fact of homosexuality, it still upheld a negative and dark perspective on such behavior. After all, science now seems to indicate that pedophilia is also a 'born' trait, which is why it is so difficult to reform and rehabilitate child molesters who can't help feeling their sick kind of desire. The closet-pedo father in Todd Solondz's HAPPINESS risks EVERYTHING to bugger his son's friend; despite the risk and perhaps even the realization that it's morally wrong, he still couldn't help himself. So, does that mean pedophilia is okay since some people are 'born that way'? Science also indicates that some people have greater natural tendency to be gluttons or alcoholic, but people still don't think pigging out or getting drunk is worthy of praise, let alone celebration, because it's so 'natural' or 'abnatural' with some people. There was a sane and serious time when society was willing to (1) accept the fact that most homos are 'born that way' but (2) nevertheless regard homosexuality as a deviance with a perverse streak. (Not only are some people born homo but such people tend to be far more risque about having multiple partners and experimenting in all kinds of excessive behaviors.) But, that compromise and consensus gradually and then dramatically faded as Jewish Power became absolutely predominant in the US(that controls all the West and most Westernized nations) and chose to use globo-homo-mania as substitute neo-cult for Christianity and proxy for promoting minority-elite-supremacism that would so nicely complement Jewish minority-elite-supremacism. If recent history taught us anything, it is that Jewish Hostility + Media & Finance Monopoly + Think Tank Domination + Power of Celebrity + Most People as Sheeple + Controlled Opposition(as US Conservatives are intimidated dogs of Jewish Power) = Social Madness. The West went from accepting the fact that homosexuality is a naturally occurring deviance to celebrating, revering, and near-worshiping homosexuality(and even tranny stuff) as what might as well be the second coming of bejesus.

How could so many people, from educated elites to unwashed masses, from people on the 'left' to people on the 'right', so quickly fall for the Jewish snake-oil? This amazing truth about humanity is both exhilarating in its madness and dispiriting in its implications. One thing for sure, it totally destroyed the Conceit of Rationalism. It is now quite evident that even if rationalism is the ideal way, too many people are incapable of facing facts and knowing the truth. And too many people who do know the truth would rather not speak out lest they lose in the social competition for status. One thing for sure, individuals don't decide what is good or bad based on reasoning. Rather, the decision is made at the top by the elites and then disseminated by the mass media, via which the Jewish Message enters every private space via electronic devices. We purchase and own the hardware, but most of the sounds, images, and words have been created by Jews and those mentally colonized by Jewish Power.

Jewish Power has proven that one can fool the masses that 2 + 2 = 5. Not by demonstrating it is true mathematically but by associating the formula with fanfare, music, song & dance, and bedazzling stories of how those who believe 2 + 2 = 5 are so very cool, awesome, or 'inspiring'. This is how Jews pushed the tranny business. Honesty and good sense tell us that a man is NOT a woman simply because he insists he is, but so many have been led to believe otherwise because trannies are promoted with such affection, hype, and even reverence by the Jew-run media. So, 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't have to be proven to the people. It can be promoted as 'true' by emotional and sensory appeals, like a movie that makes us suspend disbelief and revel in the excitement of watching a caped hero flying over clouds. Meanwhile, the absolute truth of 2 + 2 = 4 can be made 'false' in the hearts of many. How? Again, never mind that it can be proven true and instead associate it with negativity, such as spreading the message that 4 is a 'hate number' or having hacks as 'experts' all saying in 'unison' that 4-as-answer has been debunked and only BAD people still believe it. It's like Conservatism Inc. will not answer pointed and valid questions about the impact of demographic transformation on the American political landscape and about the duplicitous & often hypocritical role of Jewish Power in American narrative and politics. Unwilling to deal with facts, Con Inc merely goes about smearing such manner of inquiry as 'racism', 'Nazis', or 'Antisemitism'. If emotional/sensual appeals can fool so many people with the pseudo-science that a man can be a 'woman', then the same can be done to make people favor 2 + 2 = 5 over 2 + 2 = 4. It is distressing to believe that people can be so stupid, but that's humanity for you. If Jews did us one favor in the 21st century, it was in exposing how utterly stupid(or craven) most people can be.

Anyway, homos and their supporters have argued that, because homos are born-that-way and can't do anything about it, all good and reasonable people should accept the 'abnatural' facts of homosexuality and stop regarding homosexuals as willfully immoral degenerates. (Granted, if the natural inclination is nevertheless deviant and prone to danger, it should be the moral obligation of those who are afflicted to curb, restrain, or at least moderate their behavior, a lesson all too neglected in the homo community that is so vain and narcissistic — common traits among homos — that it never faced up to its responsibility in the HIV epidemic that killed so many fruitkins. That said, it seems the HIV epidemic had an effect on the homo community similar to the effect of drugs & radical violence on the Counterculture. Those most prone to abuse of drugs and political violence either burned out or were weeded out by circumstances, leaving the more cautious, organized, and bureaucratic radicals to take power. Similarly, it seems the HIV epidemic weeded out the most brazen & adventurous 'cowboy' homos, thus handing the leadership of the Community to the 'accountant' homos.) If homos are born-that-way and can't help it and if, for that very reason, we must make peace with homos and accept the facts of how they feel and behave, then the same demand must be made from the normo-sexual or real-sexual side. Just like it's impossible to turn a homo sincerely into a normo by therapy or some treatment — though, to be sure, progs keep telling us 'gender' is a social construct and not based on biology — , it's impossible to change a normo-sexual's true feelings about homosexuality. Sure, under heavy dose of indoctrination, propaganda, and intimidation(especially with loss of job & status), normos can be browbeaten into praising and even celebrating homosexuality and tranny-ness. Especially as people are loathe to admit they conformed or consented to something out of cowardice, the cucked normos often go out of their way act the 'more evolved' true-believer in globo-homo, just like John McCain, a pathetic dog of Zionist power, went out of his way to convince himself that he really and truly believed there is no greater honor than kissing the Jew's ass and sucking his cock.

Still, the fact that the Power feels a need to push globo-homo 24/7 suggests it knows that, minus the endless conditioning and propagandizing, most normos will eventually revert to the natural tendency to regard homos and trannies as weirdo deviants, freaks, or even degenerates worthy of derision. We know from history that tremendous anti-homo social pressure compelled most homos throughout the ages to either hide their sexual orientation or repress it as best they could, which would be like an natural alcoholic or glutton trying desperately to convince himself that he doesn't want a drink or another serving of cake. Throughout history, many homo men and homo women remained in the closet and led seemingly normal lives... just like in our time, so many normos keep their true feelings about homos hidden in the cabinet and pretend to be so hip and cool with globo-homo. It is here that the 'rainbow' flag has been so useful to the Agenda.
After all, people automatically visualize everything, and if there wasn't a potent deflective 'gay' symbol, a visual shield, as the main focus of our attention, most normos thinking of homosexuality, pro or con, would form images of guys sucking each other off or porking each other in the ass. Even for normos sympathetic to the homo agenda, it wouldn't be very pleasant for them to visualize homosexuality in terms of blowjobs and sodomy among fruiters. But if there is a colorful and happy symbol associated with homos and trannies, one need not think of penis-up-the-poopchute or a doctor slicing off a penis to mold a fake 'vagina'. Indeed, nowadays, so many fools seem to think homosexuality and tranny-business are all about fanfare with happy 'gay' colors. Consider the advertisement for food with 'gay' colors. No sane normo wants to think about homo-fecal penetration or tranny penis cutting while he's eating, but so many people purchase 'gay'-colorized food products because they think being 'homo' is mainly about these bright and sassy colors.

That way, one can nibble on 'rainbow-homosher'(the new kosher) oreo cookies while pretending that one is celebrating happy colors than an orientation involving guys sucking cocks and doing homo-fecal-penetration on each other. People are so easily fooled by packaging. For example, why do women spend so much money on clothing and hair-dressing? Because they think a different outward presentation will make them beautiful. Consider all those big fat black women who think they will be sexy if they get nails done in some exotic way. Or how their children will be special with 'creative' names like Mo'nique, Skankisha, and Bitchasshope.

Now, the argument that normos should put forth is as follows: Just as Homos cannot help feeling their 'abnatural' desires because, after all, they were only born-that-way, we must accept the fact that Normos can't help feeling the way they do about homosexuality and tranny-stuff because they were born-that-way. Normos have a natural revulsion, distaste, disgust, and attitude-of-ridicule about homosexuality and tranny-stuff. Just as it was cruel to force homos to reject their true homo self and pretend to be 'normal' out of fear of social opprobrium or worse, it is cruel, repressive, and corrupting to force normos to pretend that they are really hip and cool with a form of pseudo-sexuality involving homo-fecal-penetration or tranny-penis-cutting by Frankenstein Medicine. What is most cruel, ugly, and vile is the defamation that natural normo-sexual feelings about homosexuality or tranny-stuff are 'homophobic' or 'transphobic'. No, phobia is a medical term that means panicked reaction and extreme fear/dread of something harmless and safe. Normo-sexuals are naturally and rationally turned off by homosexuality that is sexually useless and physically gross. There is nothing phobic about such reaction. Just as people are grossed out by people eating feces, normo-sexuals find it gross that some men would have 'sex' by inserting their penises into the poopholes of other men. And when normo-sexuals honestly ponder what really happens at a 'sex reassignment' surgery, of course they would be freaked out.

Why wouldn't they be when it involves mutilation of a perfectly healthy organ to make for an ugly-looking fake 'vagina', especially one that smells like poop? If there is any phobia in our culture, it is Normo-Phobia that has inverted all sane, natural, and rational modes of humanity. We are to believe that men buggering one another or cutting off genitals is about PRIDE; in contrast, normo-sexuals or real-sexuals finding homosexuality or tranny-business to be odd, perverse, deviant, gross, or laughable are said to be suffering from a 'phobia'. It'd be like saying "Drinking urine is worthy of pride BUT those who express disgust over it are showing signs of phobia, or pissdrinkophobia to be exact." (By the way, if progs really believe that people with anti-homosexual feelings are 'homophobic' or suffering from a medical condition, they should show sympathy for them because people who suffer from phobias can't help themselves. If indeed 'homophobia' is a real phobia, then the affected are as helpless as those with arachnophobia, acrophobia, or ophidiophobia, extreme fear of all snakes, even harmless ones. But even as progs accuse anti-'gay' people of being inflicted with a 'phobia', they BLAME them of moral failings. But if people who oppose the 'gay' agenda are truly sick in the head, they should not be blamed for what would be a clinical malady.) The fact is real-sexuals normally feel a natural revulsion toward homosexuality and find stuff like tranny-business to be ridiculous. Just like homo men can't help wanting to suck each other's cock and bugger each other's ass, real-sexuals cannot help feeling queasy about what homos and trannies do. This is NOT a phobia of any kind. Nearly ALL normo-sexuals or real-sexuals don't have panic attacks or freak out over someone being homo. Instead, what they feel is a naturally derisive sense that the homo guy is either too effete/pansy for a man or that he indulges in gross pseudo-sexual acts.

Normality naturally favors the conventional, the standard, the usual. Now, there are exceptions. Beauty is rare, and normal people who are neither ugly or beautiful but average in looks prize beauty like precious gold. Elite athletic ability and high intelligence are also rare, and normal people admire the naturally gifted who happen to be far stronger or smarter than the average. (It could be, precisely because most people aren't exceptional in intelligence, looks, or athleticism, they now seek to be special in ways that are far more accessible, such as tattoos, piercings, and green-colored hair. If you can't be outstanding, be stand-outish.) Even so, normality generally prefers what is common and familiar, and this explains the penchant for certain negative attitudes even toward those with prized traits. For example, the overly big and strong person has often been caricatured as 'moose', more beast than man. And beautiful women have often been associated with vanity, vapidity, narcissism, self-absorption. Most people aren't rich and would love to have more money, but there is also the negative caricature of uber-rich people as snobby, stuck-up, crass, greedy, and soulless. And even as we admire intelligence, we can't get enough of the negative stereotype of the 'aspergy' geek or nerd who is all brains & bundle of neurosis and no body & life. Though 'fag' is now a dirty word, 'geek' and 'nerd' are not, and stereotypes of such are commonplace. Justified or not, the normal feels a certain disdain even for people with rare gifts, abilities, or good fortunes that most people would like to have. There is a sense that, in having those 'extreme' qualities, the 'special' people have become walking-talking caricatures than well-rounded people. Consider the cult of the artist that is both positive and negative. There is the romantic notion that, being different and special, he's devoted his entire life(and even sanity and health) toward creating a great work of art for the ages. But there is also the perception of self-indulgence, madness, and sickly obsession to attain, via a Faustian pact, the creative power of the gods.
Now, if normal people could feel naturally negative feelings about positive and much-prized traits, just imagine what they might feel for extreme manifestations of negative, useless, and/or harmless traits. If even great beauty or intelligence can be objects of mockery, imagine how most people naturally feel about extreme ugliness or extreme retardation. Now, out of kindness, most normal people, being decent ladies and gents, will not go out of their way to mock ugly or dumb people. Most of us take pity on the main character of ELEPHANT MAN and harbor no ill feelings toward the mentally retarded. But most normal people don't want to be around hideously ugly people and don't want to be friends with seriously low-IQ people. Likewise, for most normal people, homosexuality and tranny-stuff seem like extremes in negativity. We know that not all men are masculine, but certain froopy-doop tootkins are off-the-charts in pansy manners. And trannies who are men-pretending-to-be-women just look ridiculous.


And the idea of a fake 'vagina' is gross to most people, which is why even PC-addled proggy men who say all the token 'woke' things will NOT date or have 'sex' with trannies. They can tell themselves that a 'woman' can have a penis or that an artificially created 'vagina'(via Frankenstein medical surgery) is just as good as a real vagina, but something elemental in their nature says "NO, that is freaky as hell... Ewwwww." Just like people feel a natural revulsion toward gluttonous people who are grossly obese or lazy unkempt people who are overly filthy, people naturally disdain homosexuality and tranny-stuff that come across as extremes in negativity. It's one thing for men to have some feminine traits but to the extent that fruitkins do? It's one thing for men to dress a bit pretty and look elegant but put on a wig, wear makeup, and put on female dresses & high heel shoes? When confronted with such, most normal people feel revulsion or ridicule(that often turns into laughter). And such response among normo-sexuals is natural, no less than it is 'abnatural' for a homo to want to suck dongs and take them up his anus. If the natural feelings of homos are so overwhelming that it's near-impossible for them to refrain from blatantly odd(and even harmful) behavior such as 'cock-sucking' and homo-fecal-penetration(and even fisting in some cases), then we shouldn't demand that normo-sexuals refrain from natural feelings of revulsion & disdain about homosexuals and trannies. If it's unhealthy for homos to repress their true nature and keep it all bottled up, it's equally unhealthy for normo-sexuals to deny their true nature and self-censor honest responses to what they deem to be odd, strange, and deviant.

Now, a compromise has been possible whereby homosexuals do their own thing in their own space while normo-sexuals express their naturally negative feelings about homosexuality in their own space. There is no need for normo-sexuals to insult homosexuals as 'fags' and the like, but there is also no need for homos and trannies to demand that normo-sexuals honor, praise, celebrate, and even revere the attitudes and behaviors of homos and trannies as quasi-spiritual and 'rainbow'-like. But under the current Jewish Supremacist rule over the West, we don't have a sound compromise that is possible. The diva-like homo/tranny character, being naturally vain and narcissistic, isn't content with tolerance and mutual recognition with the other side. Rather, homos want to hog the stage of culture, politics, and even spirituality and present themselves as something akin to a quasi-race-of-angels. Therefore, they no longer just want their own spaces to do their homo things. They want to take over all public spaces, schools, banks, businesses, governments, and even churches to spread what could only be called Homomania or Queertianity.
Of course, homos(and especially trannies) on their own couldn't have accumulated such power in a million years. But having the full backing of venal Jews, the most powerful people in the world with control of finance, media, and much else, homos have been able to pull off an idolatrous neo-satanic takeover of Western culture, politics, and even spirituality(as so many churches fly the homo flag, as if indeed Jesus died so that His followers could celebrate sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting). As a result, even though we are told that it's cruel, unjust, and dishonest to force homos to repress their true nature of being homos, we are also forced to believe that real-sexuals must repress their own normal and natural feelings about homos and trannies on account that such are 'unnatural', 'irrational', and downright 'phobic'. So, while homos are so naturally homo that they can't help being 'gay', we are to believe that normos have harbored anti-homo feelings all through the ages AGAINST their own 'normal' nature.
In other words, current PC says it's natural and (new)normal for normos to have the most positive feelings about homos and trannies. To shore up their specious line of 'reasoning', PC commissars may point to the current West and remark how so many normos now celebrate homosexuality, but that is to totally ignore the fact that (1) most of the world media are controlled by venal Jews (2) people, young and old, have been bombarded with endless homo propaganda via education, entertainment, and advertising, and (3) Jews and their cuck-commissars have created means of purging and lawfare whereby anyone who deviates from the current dogma and 'idology' is swiftly smeared, character-assassinated, demoted, blacklisted, and/or fired.
Therefore, even though so many people seem happy-crazy about 'gay' stuff, it's really part of a ceaseless campaign of artificially manufactured hype, euphoria, and fear-mongering. History has shown that such madness isn't difficult to achieve IF the power is concentrated in certain hands. Consider the mass mania of Germany that blindly worshiped Adolf Hitler that drove them to ruin. Or consider the madness of Maoism that once engulfed the entire nation. Or consider the nutball lunacy of North Korea with its mindless displays of pageantry to sustain the mythic grandeur of the Kim clan. Looking back, we may one day wonder, how could so many seemingly normal people have been so duped and swayed into such feverish stupidity? We like to pride ourselves for living in a democracy with freedom and rational thinking, but most hearts and minds are shaped by slogans, mantras, idolatry, and dogmas pushed by institutions and industries that are really about concentration of power and control.

Now, some homos may object to the notion that homosexuality amounts to a negative extreme like obesity. Homos could argue that while there is nothing good to be said about obesity, there is much to be credited to homosexuality. For example, even though Orson Welles, Jean Renoir, and Sergio Leone were great film-directors, their success probably owed nothing to their considerable girths. There have been many successful fatty-fatkins, but it'd be quite a stretch to attribute their talents to their appetites. However, the same cannot be said of tooty-tookins. While most homos are hardly special in talent, there have been too many remarkable homos in the arts, design, fashion, music, and letters to dismiss the possibility of a link between homosexuality and certain kinds of creativity. And therein lies the difference between obesity and homosexuality. While some people have much bigger natural appetites than most people do — just like homos have a natural leaning to be fruity — the achievements of successful fatsos probably have nothing to do with their massive craving for More Food.

Thus, the (lack of)worth of obesity can be judged by its most obvious external manifestation. A fatso is fat, and that isn't good, and he should lose some weight. In contrast, there is MORE to homosexuality than its obviously grotesque and gross behavioral manifestation in the 'sexual' arena that involves fecal penetration and a generally nihilistic surrender to depravity. If such were the ONLY feature of homosexuality, we could dismiss it as a mere sexual deviance that leads to perverted behavior. But apparently, homosexuality has connections with certain brain functions and allows for nimbler use of fingertips. And this has led to homos making considerable contributions to the arts, letters, and design. Also, as homos are not burdened by family — even with 'gay marriage' as law of the land, most homos don't have children — , they can work 24/7, something impossible for men and women who seek to balance work and family. That means homos have created lots of things of great appeal to countless straight people and have been especially committed to tirelessly working as advisers and managers. And that means they've accumulated a great deal of cultural capital, social capital, connections with powerful people, and insider knowledge. Thus, there is more to being a tooty-tootkin than a fatty-fatkin. While, outwardly speaking, homosexuality does seem gross and grotesque to many/most honest normo-sexuals, there is no denying that there are facets and permutations of being 'gay' that have led to considerable and even crucial contributions to civilization and power.
In that light, we can understand why homos in the past felt so frustrated. They, as closeted fruits, made many contributions to society but hardly got the credit. So many normo-sexuals with disdain and hostility toward homosexuals were actually enjoying and/or benefiting from the fruits of talented homos. Also, most normos felt they were benefiting from the achievements of straight people since most homos remained in the closet and pretended to be straight. Homos felt like Cyrano de Bergerac. They made the poetry but the credit went to someone else. (Some even say 'Shakespeare' was a mere front for a genius homo playwright.) Therefore, unless homos came out of the closet and declared their talents, they would never get the credit and respect that they really deserved.

And yet, paradoxically enough, in our age when Homos have not only come out of the closet but out of the bedroom into the streets with their homo-stalinist banners, their creativity has mostly turned to trash. Perhaps, the formula for homo success wasn't simply innate homo talent but the social repression of homosexuality. In other words, too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Consider what black self-indulgence did to black musical culture. In an earlier cultural climate, homos felt a need to mold and channel their natural narcissism and vanity in service of something broader and deeper than "I'm so gay and pretty." After all, what makes a great actress isn't simply beauty and/or acting chops but the willingness to subsume her own considerable ego into an empathetic portrayal of another character. Thus, even as she is indeed feeding her own ego as a star(or star-wanna-be), she is also restraining and remolding her own ego in service to a portrait of another person. After all, nothing would be more boring and insufferable than an actress whose entire shtick is "Look at me, I'm pretty, I can show off all kinds of emotions." Julianne Moore was just awful in MAGNOLIA with a look-at-me performance. When homos were closeted, it was unfair that they didn't get the credit they deserved, but their creativity was enriched, deepened, and even ennobled by serving something far greater than a narrow bandwidth of ego or group identity. In our time, homos seem to do little but use their creativity to fill TV shows & movies with endless(and often irrelevant or gratuitous) homo propaganda; or much of the energy seemed devoted to making yet more advertisements about how we should consume Oreo cookies and guzzle Sprite soda because they are so 'woke' with globo-homo hysteria. So, when homos can be openly creative, they are actually less creative, or at least less meaningfully creative.

Anyway, one thing is for sure. Even if there is more to homosexuality than sodomy and poon-to-poon-grinding, its most defining feature and characteristic are not good and cannot be good. There is absolutely nothing good about homo-fecal-penetration, which is gross, disease-prone, and disgusting. As for poon-to-poon-grinding, while not physically gross from a clinical angle, it makes zero sexual sense. To the extent that most normo-sexuals are not interested in arts & culture(in which closeted homos played a key role in the past) and have a more basic and elemental understanding of humanity, they have every reason to be psychologically and physically put off by homosexuality. After all, if you asked any guy, "How would you like to have someone stick his dick up your ass?", his natural, normal, and healthy response is going to be, "What the fuc* are you, some kind of a faggot?" Indeed, what do normo-sexual men fear most about ending up behind bars? There's a good chance that their bungs will be torn apart by Negro dongs. Of course, if Milo ends up behind bars, he will probably have the time of his life. Now, is it 'homophobic' for normo-sexual men to be so put off by thoughts of homo behavior? Of course not. It's a healthy, natural, normal, and rational reaction(and defensive mechanism) to something that is so obviously gross and grotesque. Humans are naturally empathetic — the ability to put oneself in another's shoes — , and when normo-sexual men try to imagine themselves as fruiters being rammed in the ass or ramming their dongs inside the poopchutes of other men, their immediate natural reaction is Ewwwwww and for good reason. So, let homos be 'gay' since they were born-that-way, and let normos be 'nay' in their naturally visceral dislike of homosexuality. There used to be such an understanding/compromise, but today, homos and trannies are encouraged to strut their stuff in the streets and even in the presence of young school-children, whereas even the slightest negativity expressed by normo-sexuals on the matter of homosexuality leads to rabid hysteria, witch-hunts, and mania to tar-and-feather the heretic who then must be burned at the stake for all to see to send the message loud-and-clear that we must all worship globo-homo as the proxy of Jewish Supremacist Power.