This will be the third time that I’m writing a wall-o-text explanation on faggotry. The first time around when I wrote on this, I was motivated by pure annoyance at how people fail to argue against faggotry – and most of the time relying on religious narratives. However one doesn’t need faith and the Bible to take down the modern fag movement. In fact, that tactic is ineffective because fags learned to argue around religion, even if they don’t know jack shit about it. Also, you can’t persuade faggots that they are degenerates via religious arguments… and if you’re Christian then what the bible says goes, no need for arguing. If faggotry is sin, you treat it like any other sin, and there is no point in persuading the sinner that he lives in sin. Moreover, I was an atheist myself back when I first argued against faggotry, and I knew that it could be refuted on non-religious premises. Instead, I utilized science to make my points, relying on anthropology, genetics, psychology and physiology to deconstruct the fag movement. This left the fags furious and indignant because they can’t possibly fathom the idea that “even” science is against them.

Rest assured, jimmies were rustled. Even more so the second time I’ve done it, on tumblr, to piss off faggots and fag-lovers. I also spread a number of images to trigger them (some of which I’ll include in this article). It was a shoah.

However, I never figured I’d have to explain why faggots can’t be our allies in the struggle. Yet apparently, some people labor under the delusion that you can trust a faggot, and seriously believe they can share our viewpoint. Fine then, I’m up to the task one more time. I will make my case about how faggotry is always in the wrong, and can never be accepted in society – and thus in the struggle to restore society. If you already oppose faggotry and just want to read my arguments against the inclusion of faggots into the struggle then skip down to the Incompatible segment of this article.

The best way to tackle this issue is to discuss all the origins of faggotry. And mind you, I use the term faggotry as the all inclusive umbrella term for degenerate sexual behavior, so that means gays, lesbians, trannies, genderqueer, poliromantic and any other made up bullshit term SJW scum can come up with. As far as “intersectionality” and “inclusiveness” go, I’d say faggotry as a term beats the ever expanding word soup of “LGBTQIABCDEFGHIOJ”-etc.

We’ll first go over homosexuality specifically however, and branch out from there.  There are only three sources for faggot behavior: biological disorder, mental disorder and perversion.

BIOLOGY

We’ll start with biological faggotry. Fags will have you believe that they are “born that way” 100% of the time. Well, I will contest that only a minority of the modern fags are actually that – fags from birth. Yes, certainly some faggots are born that way, but these are a minority in the sea of faggots that arise from the other sources which I mentioned prior. The thing is that “born that way” is not an argument. Some people are born deformed. We don’t treat that as normal – that’s why we call it a deformity. In this same sense, the origins of “born gays” would have to be attributed to genetics, but not as a “gay gene” being a variation of the norm,as fags would have you believe, but as a deformity, a genetic imperfection and disorder. This can be proved even on a purely rhetorical level, in the sense that it is an evolutionary dead end (can’t reproduce).

Some have actually argued with me that this is a natural development in response to human overpopulation. This is a hilarious argument, seeing as it justifies the existence of faggots simply because it comes down to “they are good because they will die without producing offspring“, or more concisely still: “they are good because they will die“. Better yet: “faggotry is death“. It’s a weirdly self-defeating argument that justifies faggotry by the fact that fags will die, but so is the attempt to utilize evolution as an argument in defense of faggotry in general.

Faggotry did exist throughout history, but it only became a prevalent social ill in the last century. This clearly disproves the notion that faggotry is “evolution” reducing the human population (as it only strongly affects western societies that are in their demographic decline, as opposed to overpopulated non-white countries like China and India). It also solidifies the point that the majority of modern faggotry has other sources than biological, though faggots would try to argue that we’re only now aware of how many gays there are in society now because it finally became socially acceptable, meaning that there was always as many fags around but they just stayed hidden in their closets.

Fags tried to justify the evolutionary argument from a different angle, namely utilizing the concept of “fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation“, yet they only use this argument in the context of the positive “being born that way” argument (positive in the sense of ‘I am what I am, accept me that way, love is love’) rather than the negative “curb overpopulation” argument because the first one sounds “nicer. However, if this concept is true, then it may indeed be the proof that biological faggotry (which is, again, the minority of cases) is an evolutionary safeguard against overpopulation. Only thing that puts this concept into question is how traditional aryan families of the past had many children, whereas modern families struggle to have even one child, let alone two. Not to mention, once again, how non-whites keep having many children – so on a purely statistical basis, they ought to have more faggots than there are in the West. Yet, this does not happen.

However the point of this concept is still that fags can’t reproduce and must die, which again brings about the hilarity of “faggotry is good because it is death“. All evolutionary arguments on biological faggotry lead to it being a dead end. You can only try to spin what that means in a societal context, which is what faggots have grown to be excessively good at.

The only other ways to look at biological faggotry is that it is a kind of biological or genetic disorder which may have various causes. For instance, if the supposed gay gene was to be ever proven to exist, it would rather prove that faggotry is a congenital genetic disorder. Trying to pass that as a variation on the norm is just another spin. One can also argue that it is a result of hormonal imbalance, yet again not a norm but a disorder. Some people have it so bad, you can visually tell that there is something wrong with them from their androgynous appearance.

Whichever way you look at the issue of “born this way“, you can’t find evidence of homosexuality being a variation of the norm (ergo – it’s not). This in turn supports why actual “born this way” fags are a minority in the fag movement ranks – genetic disorders don’t occur on mass scale, except for cases of inbreeding (one African tribe has a genetic disorder that makes them have “ostrich feet“, and they don’t marry outside the tribe which ensures the re-occurrence of this disorder in new generations). But as we know – fags can’t produce kids, so there’s no chance of this disorder’s occurrence drastically increasing statistically speaking, unless we allow them all to utilize surrogate mothers (but most fags would prefer to adopt as it is a socio-political point of the movement, more on that later).

Interestingly enough most of these arguments, with the exception of the hormonal imbalance one, affect males specifically. I lay claim here that only men are actually fags. Lesbianism, on the other hand, is always psychological and is thus nothing more than female promiscuity. Thus chances of lesbians being “born that way” are even lower than those of male fags, ergo almost non-existent. In this video on some study of sexual cues, which is rather speculative and not definitive but certainly interesting, an argument is made on how with women sexuality is more of a choice by virtue of their nature (which I defined as promiscuous, and they defined as ambiguous). I’ll go more into this further on to support my claim of females at their worst naturally seeking promiscuity (women and men have their respective highs and lows, in this context at their best women are loyal to their men, at their worst they are loyal to their own vaginas). And, obviously, I don’t agree with the researchers’ statement that homosexuality is almost always biological. I will just reinforce that the study doesn’t prove in any way that homosexuality is a variation of the norm – it only explains sexual cues in men and women, including homosexuals. It does not say anything on the origins of homosexuality and just starts off with the presumption that it is a norm. Something else that supports this claim is the example of Norah Vincent who in 2006 tried to “walk in men’s shoes” in the program “Self-made man“, and likewise observed that with females, attraction is always psychological.

PSYCHOLOGY

So let’s discuss the psychological origins of faggotry. Some Fascists would dismiss psychology and Freudian psychoanalysis in particular as fake science, but having actually studied it in an academic environment for a while (one that isn’t subject to SJW infiltration and based on the Soviet educational system), and knowing what I know now out of studying Traditional teachings, I’d say that psychology is a valid science. One must however realize the era in which it was born. Same goes for Freudian psychoanalysis – that is to say, this profane science originated in a declining, degenerating world, and as such it can only study psychology of people who inhabit said world. And those people are for the most part degenerates if we compare them to our ancestors. So when psychology relegates some aspects of modern human psychology to themes we, as Fascists, would find preposterous and repulsive, it doesn’t negate that this is true for the modern person, as opposed to our ancestors and men of tradition. Psychology is simply confined to work with material produced in the course of social decay or involution, so it can’t be disregarded completely as it does explain the thinking of modern people in modern (degenerate, materialistic, profane, involutionary) society. Naturally, due to psychologists being prone to same concepts that define the Modern World, they can’t imagine the world ever being different, or that it is not subject to linear progress. They thus project their findings onto all of history as universally applicable – an understandable misconception when not armed with knowledge to the contrary which is at the core of our own worldview.

In this sense, psychology is very useful for us, and Freudian psychoanalysis along with some other schools of psychology stand out. Here, we’ll explore the psychological origin of some homosexuals. In fact, here we’re talking about one of the two majority groups of faggots in the world, as opposed to the “born this way” minority. Freud had made clear origins of some psychological disorders in the modern man, faggotry included. For one thing, he argued that the first sexual experience can play a vital role in defining the relationship of an individual to sex, and also explored how traumatic (in one way or another) events can cause certain leanings.

Human psychology, being a fickle thing (in the modern man), can react to certain events in diametrically opposed fashion. If the parents were too strict with a kid, he may develop a behavior of demanding the same standards of himself on his own, and also demand same standards from others. He may also develop the contrary character of acting out in rebellious fashion against any sort of authority and impositions of rules. Or, he may well end up a spineless slug that anyone can walk over, acting completely submissively to anyone’s authority.

You can have very similar results in the contrary situation of a child being given too much freedom: he may develop an indignant, spoiled, entitled attitude and act out rebelliously when he doesn’t get his way; he may actually seek order and structure, and thus create high standards for himself that he will expect others to uphold as well; or, the freedom may instill in him the confidence to be aggressive and dominant towards others as he never experienced opposition to such behavior.

These examples are simplified ideal situations to illustrate my point, which is that psychology can develop any which way depending on certain events (hence Freud’s notion that parents are essentially the ones to fuck up their kids first, even if we don’t go into the sexual motifs he explores behind parent-child relations). This explains the psychological origin of homosexuality for a good deal of faggots, since events that can impose psychological faggotry of course statistically occur more often than a genetic disorder. In women lesbianism can be a result of being raped by a man, while in cases of man on man rape, the results can be various: overcompensating, emphasized heterosexual behavior, or to the contrary – varying types of faggotry, from homosexuality to transsexualism.

One doesn’t really have to go into too much detail to understand the basic premise. What must be realized however is that there is also the additional issue of imparted information taking hold of people in their childhood. Kids are essentially informational sponges and as such they simply take everything in, until a certain age when they grow to be critical. However by that point whatever was imparted and the reaction to said information will have already stuck for life (after that, the majority of people are prone to confirmation bias, i.e. only seek out materials and information that already supports their established views). Developmental psychologists, for the most part, agree that kids remain sponges roughly until they grow to be 14, which is when they become critical of information (important to note: critical, not reactionary but actually critical of information, that is to say that they develop an inquisitive nature as opposed to simply reacting to it one way or another, as was expressed in my examples earlier).

This means that kids up to 14 years of age are particularly vulnerable to the information imparted on them, and very sensitive to events that can have psychological consequences, i.e. “become scarred for life”. This means that events having to do with sexual intercourse can have devastating effect, with consequences that also range far and wide (including all manner of faggotry), and will stay with them for life. We will come back to some of these points further down as we counter gay adoption and gay propaganda.

What all of the above means is that there is certainly many avenues for coming to homosexuality from strictly psychological origins, making them a majority in the faggot movement. With appropriate psychological treatment, such people could be theoretically cured of their mental disorder. Yes, in the case of psychological origins of homosexuality, it can’t be classified as anything else but a psychological disorder.

However, in the United States the American Psychiatric Association had to cave in to faggot pressure, as it experienced constant harassment and protests from the faggot movement for 3 years from 1970 to 1973 until the matter was put to a vote, with 58% voting for declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder. Thus, the only reason homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness was because faggots strongarmed the APA into that decision. It wasn’t declassified due to a new valid study proving it to be a variation of the norm. No, it was declassified because barely more than half of the members of the Board of Trustees voted to do so, meaning they were more concerned about stopping the protests and harassment than in sticking to scientific research. But science is never a matter of voting – we don’t vote if gravity exists or not, and neither can one vote on something being a mental disorder or not. But a group can vote if it is in their interests to appease faggots so that they would go the fuck away.

What followed was a simple domino effect as other institutions had to cave in, not just from fag pressure but also from the false peer pressure of another institution having done so – “the chain is only as strong as its weakest link”. Any research on the matter done by such institutions thereafter is highly suspect – especially so today – in a society that chastises any research that could be deemed “homophobic“, simply by virtue of not agreeing to support a belief (not scientific fact, but a social belief) that homosexuality is a variation of the norm. Even more so considering it may lead to subsequent harassment from the faggot movement, which has grown more powerful than ever. Worse still, considering it may cost the researcher his job and status, as their conformist colleges will attempt to distance themselves from the “homophobic bigot“. They do this either out of supporting the social delusion/belief, or out of fear of faggot harassment, almost akin to typical yank highschool scenarios about popularity – “we can no longer be associated with you, you’re not kewl”. Similar examples exist now in other scientific fields which go up against other SJW narratives, for example the case of James Watson.

Furthermore, most if not all supposed scientific research that attempts to prove homosexuality to be a norm, genetic or psychological, is mostly conducted by “gay researchers” and their “allies“, i.e. people with a vested interest in a specific outcome in any research they conduct on the matter. This makes said research completely invalid, by virtue of the “scientists” involved not being impartial (ergo why it specifically “attempts to prove it to be a norm” – that is the goal and evidence to the contrary be damned). Naturally, faggots will try to counter this argument by spinning it around against normal (read: real) scientists, who would prove homosexuality not to be a variation of the norm, by claiming that they are evil bigots and so on trying to oppress faggots. However, since when does one trust a patient’s ramblings over the educated opinion of his doctor?

PERVERSION

The third source of homosexual behavior is – simply put – perversion, which is simply behavior dictated by pure self-interest and narcissism, with hedonism taking center stage. It is the dedication of oneself to seeking purely material, carnal pleasures – it is always about the perverts themselves, and whatever gets them off, rather than about whom they engage in their perversion with (they are there only to help achieve climax).

The greatest accomplishment of faggots pushing their agenda in society is that they managed to convince people that it is about love, and that all faggots are born that way 100% of the time. Thus, no one even considers the possibility of alternative sources to faggotry – such as the psychological one, which account for a bigger proportion of faggots than biology. But perversion would account for a bigger proportion still. Faggotry as perversion has nothing to do with love or attraction to this or that sex. Rather, it is about seeking pleasure and amplifying it with psychological stimuli. And it is faggotry as perversion that accounts not only for homosexuals but also for transfags, genderqueers and any other nonsense they can come up.

Perverts simply jump on the bandwagon of “social justice” in order to benefit from it, as it justifies their behavior on the sociopolitical scale, and opens up avenues of justifying more degenerate behavior they would like to partake in without fear of repercussions of any kind. There isn’t much more that can be said on the nature of this origin of faggotry, as it is fairly straight to the point. It used to be the universally acceptable explanation for all faggotry, including biologically and psychologically induced cases, yet today it is practically forgotten. This is despite all the evidence being available to prove that this is indeed the majority of the fag movement, and explains the rampant promiscuity faggots engage in, the inability to be loyal to a single partner at a time and all of the most degenerate cases you may have heard of from watching Common Filth’s channel.

And yet we’re not even remotely done.

ALWAYS A CHOICE

Despite there indeed being several sources for faggotry, they nevertheless always come down to choice. Regardless of the origins of faggotry, it is in the end unified by its nature as degenerate behavior. You can thus equate it to a vice. Faggotry must be treated as a vice and not as a social group. Vices have to be overcome, or else you’re just a degenerate. That’s why by and large, regardless of the roots of faggotry, it becomes a choice of either indulging in it or denying it – so it is always a choice. Just like how one has a choice not to eat themselves into a hamplanet, but if they do so it betrays a weakness of character, weakness of will, lack of integrity and ultimately selfish and narcissistic behavior.

So what if you are “born that way“? Either get treatment or simply overcome it by sheer will-power. Psychological disorder? Same thing. Perversion? Fucking stop it. This ultimately comes down to the subject of one’s inherent inferiority and the  test of Free Will.

Consider the argument I made prior about hamplanets and the “fat pride” narrative, which likewise argues that they are just “born that way” and are “healthy at every size“. I realized at one point that the hamplanets are right, in a sense. They are just born that way, but not in the sense of being born with any biological predisposition to being fat, or in fat being the norm. The fact is that we are not our bodies. Any body can be fit.

However, since everyone associate their selves with their bodies, the hamplanets obviously talk about how they are supposed to be fat because their bodies are fat. No, the real issue is that they are fat because they – not their bodies, but what makes up the real Self – is weak, and gives in to material pleasures (which are actually also purely a craving of the body rather than of the self, meaning they are slaves to their bodies rather than being masters to it). They are not fat because their bodies are supposed to be fat. They are fat because they are weak in spirit, and it is the spirit that determines their physical appearance. They really are “born that way” – as in, they are born weak and pathetic, and that leads to most all degeneracy, including faggotry.

They are not weak because they are fat. They are fat because they are weak and they cannot change. The potential for the body to change is always there, but not for the spirit. So no excuses of being strong and beautiful on the inside either. And obviously no such thing as healthy fat bodies. So it’s pointless to try and tell these shits that they can loose weight, and any promise that “anyone can get fit” is egalitarian bullshit – any body can get fit, but not every self is strong enough to be in charge of their body and reject its urges and desires. The line between the body being just an animal or a tool is determined exclusively by the true strength of the spirit shackled within that body.

If the choice was out of their hands (forced labor, slavery, forced exercising) the material change would follow, because all of that is merely material and subject to changeability. But as soon as you let them off that leash their weak spirit will surrender to material desires. What makes them inferior is their inherent nature, their weak spirit. That is what you are born with, everything else simply follows from there. There are those of strong will who succumb to degeneracy all the same, as it is hard to escape the decay of the world around us, but it is possible. It is easy to fall from grace and it is hard to climb back up, but for the inferior there are no options.

That is the Test of Free Will, which exists only for those who have strong spirit and strong will, they are given a choice: succumb or overcome.

The exact same situation applies to faggotry. If you are actually of strong will you can overcome that vice no matter its origins, and prove that this is not who you are, that you are above it. Yet if you are inferior and of weak will you will succumb to it or even embrace it, and let it define you as much as you let your body define you. That is the case with the fag movement that tries to impose itself onto society by any means through identity politics. If you are fine with being a faggot or embrace it, then you are a degenerate through and through, regardless of how you justify it.

THE FAG AGENDA

Thus, we finally move to the real crux of the matter. The sociopolitical movement of fag acceptance and the Fag Agenda, which is absolutely real but has recently manifested in a new strain. Before we come to that we’ll discuss the mainstream fag acceptance movement that has been reshaping Western civilization for some decades now, accelerating its progress in recent years.

This subject actually reveals a recently developed new origin of faggotry, which overlaps quite heavily with the psychological origin and with what was said prior on developmental psychology.

Faggots, having organized themselves into a sociopolitical movement, promote the goals of gay rights, gay marriage, gay adoption and tolerance/acceptance.

As any other sociopolitical movement, the faggot movement relies on propaganda, it’s just that they don’t like the word propaganda. But that is a general modern ailment rather than a fag-specific one, and to keep up with the narrative of liberal/degenerate bullshit, they will have you believe that what they fight for is “progress”. As such what they do isn’t propaganda (how the hell does portraying a normal family as poor, dirty and dysfunctional, as opposed to the well off, clean and “loving” fag wanna-be parents not constitute propaganda?), but rather “education” (and small wonder, considering that American universities are infested with “professors” who were hippies just yesterday, that is to say in the 60s, who finally got a chance to advance their bullshit via the “long march through the institutions”). They produce tons of materials on the matter that helps produce faggots by “educating” people on it. When psychologically unbalanced/disturbed/sensitive people having undergone some event that can predispose them to faggotry come across such materials, they instantly jump on board, as these materials feed into the insecurities, speculations, rationalizations and projections that they already experience or had come up with in light of whatever event that had caused them psychological unrest. In short: faggot propaganda exacerbates the condition and develops a particular reaction to it, leading to various forms of faggotry.

However it’s not just exacerbating the traumatic psychological sensitivity. It’s also indoctrination – another “bad” word that they also cover by calling what they do “education”. Faggots attempt to deny that they are indoctrinating kids into homosexuality, and yet they produce “educational” books for kids on sexual orientation. Kids are just not allowed to be kids anymore. No, they must know about sex and sexual orientation as early as possible, lest the “evil patriarchy” teaches them to be bigots. But again, kids up to around 14 years are like sponges and intake information without any sort of filter. They can have a basic reaction to the information, but they are not truly critical of it.

This is why every ideology targets kids first – it is the next generation that can grow up with the ideals of the ideology engraved in their hearts and minds. The reason why Fascists and Nazis target kids are entirely the same as why liberals and faggots target kids. Liberals think its cute how kids eat up their shit and regurgitate it back at them, but become upset when they see pictures of neonazi kids or the Hitler Jugend and cry “poor children, they were brainwashed!”.

The faggot movement does entirely the same thing, but instills sexually degenerate views. I already mentioned the Freudian theory that the first sexual intercourse can play an important role. Well, what if a teen boy has a bad experience with a girl? Just one bad experience shouldn’t constitute anything, rationally, but if its the first time then it can instill a lack of confidence and confusion. But “thankfully” fag propaganda is here to tell you that maybe this is because you actually like cock, and so the teen is pulled into the fag scene instead of growing up a normal person. Beyond that, kids just emulate the reality around them, so if they grow up in a degenerate environment what else can be expected to come out of it? Check out any of CF’s Vine Marathons to see how much this filth is affecting children.

This is why gay adoption cannot be allowed under any circumstances. We already established that even normal parents can fuck up their kids in any number of ways. Now the degenerates want to take a swing at parenting? I already read and heard enough stories of the sort of results this shit has, and I’ll forgo such cases as when faggots adopt children only to sexually abuse them, as other faggots will just dismiss these as isolated incidents, so its pointless to use them as an argument. No, I’m talking about how some children raised by faggots imagine such behavior to be the norm, and don’t even know that heterosexual relations even exist up to a certain point. This means that they base their own future relations on the model of their adoptive faggot parents, meaning they have more chances of growing up as faggots than a child in a normal family. Especially so if the parents are very adamant about their views and about “educating” the child into such thinking. What a “happy coincidence” that the lesbian cunts just happened to adopt a boy who always “knew” he was a girl. And then they proceed to mutilate the child by giving him hormone blockers.

Gays who want to adopt, by the very virtue of wanting to have kids, are engaged in the faggot movement and promote its views. Ergo, they will inevitably try to indoctrinate (oh, sorry, “EDUCATE“) the kids into this kind of thinking: “Some dudes fuck dudes up the ass Timmy, maybe you’re one of them, unless you prefer to be the one fucked up the ass, like your daddy here.” But ultimately, at best, faggots use children as props for their agenda, and at worst see them as another way of satisfy their need for carnal pleasures.

All of this is motivated by promoting degeneracy to a status of identity for reasons mentioned prior. Society has essentially allowed the biologically and mentally ill, as well as outright perverts, to have pride in their disease. Imagine if schizophrenia was elevated to a status of identity and schizophrenics refused treatment claiming there’s nothing to treat. They are as god made them, nothing wrong with that, they are proud schizos and want schizo parades and schizo rights.

But hey, some faggots know all about promoting diseases and having an entire subculture based around that – Bug Chasing. These particular faggots are in fact happy to be plague-bearing vermin. In fact, they love it! The whole scene, besides being one of the most degenerate things imaginable, is 100% native to faggotry. There is no heterosexual subculture of looking to spread HIV. There might be some degenerates like that, but there is no subculture dedicated to this pursuit, which serves as further evidence of how HIV is so intrinsically tied to faggotry.

It is also indicative of the whole Modern World/Gynocractic pursuit of promiscuity and hedonism, well espoused in the liberal youth slogan of “YOLO – You Only Live Once”. Taking the concept of “burning bright and fast” to the most degenerate place imaginable. I am all but certain that Bug Chasers already partake in the other faggot endeavor of mixing semen into alcoholic beverages.

This is the sort of degenerates that want to adopt your kids. Perhaps not the Bug Chasers at large, as having kids would only interfere with their YOLO lifestyle. But it can be well estimated that at least a handful of those will come around to wanting to have kids as well. And even if it’s not the worst of the worst, the other option is no better, as we already looked into how these degenerates will only look to indoctrinate the child with their bullshit, if not outright mutilate the child with hormone treatments.

We oppose gay adoption not “just because we’re bigots” – the “No H8 Campaign” and the like should stop wasting their time. Our hatred doesn’t come from some irrationality or because we fear faggots. Practically all hate is born from love. One can’t exist without the other. We hate that which threatens what we love, so our hatred for this degeneracy is the purest expression of our love for that which we are defending – including the kids this scum tries to adopt and fuck up if not just fuck.

Yet they will criticize traditional family and the foster care system to promote gay adoption as the better alternative. Why not instead fight for improving the foster care system? Why, in fact, not promote such values in society that minimizes the possibility of a child needing adoption at all? Well, clearly that’s not something faggots are interested in, because then there would be no kids for them to adopt in the first place. The faggot agenda is a selfish one no matter how hard it tries to masquerade as a loving and altruistic one.

But let’s move on to other resulting effects of the faggot movement. By making faggotry a sociopolitical issue, rather than being a clinical one or one about overcoming vice, they have caused three distinct phenomena. We’ll consider them from “the at face value” position to signify that you don’t even need the Jew for this to happen, but obviously Jewish influence in all of this is present. The three phenomena are:

1. Homosexuality has, for a long time now, advanced itself from an oppressed “minority”. It is now a well organized movement with its own resources and influence, and by making homosexuality acceptable to the average person they have created a support for its struggle and an open window into this perverted behavior. That is to say that now people like to engage in some of these faggot acts, even if they technically don’t consider themselves faggots. They are either “experimenting with their sexuality” or are just “enjoying themselves”.
2. With a popular support for faggotry now in place (regardless of the mainstream anti-faggotry expressions, which are rather helpless in the face of the popularized faggot movement), the advancement of faggotry as a sociopolitical issue has created a new avenue of advancing one’s political career. That is  to say that some politicians hope to have support for their candidacy (to whatever) by supporting faggotry in order to appear “progressive“, and thus become popular. It is likewise used as leverage in the scientific field. Supporting gay rights is now a populism tool with the “progressive”, “educated” crowd, as well as a means of maintaining your position in certain circles.
3. Finally, we have the economic consequences. Faggots will tell you all about the powers that be trying to keep them down, when in reality, as we saw just above, they are using the faggotry movement to advance themselves in politics. And there is a market to be cornered with the gay movement, which is for now in part in the hand of the various faggotry advocates. But the people endowed with economic power will not miss an opportunity to create and monopolize the market aimed at faggots. After all, they already sell Che Guevara tshirts to leftists, who supposedly oppose exactly this kind of capitalist shenanigans, and yet they fall pray to it. The same will happen with faggotry. So in reality, the powers that be have a covert interest in keeping faggotry popularized in its current form of a political movement struggling for equality, in order to create a consumer market based on that premise and to cash in. Capitalism is always interested in having new venues to profit from. And political struggle is some kosher business, especially if the views of the struggle you profit form don’t threaten your status and pocket.

You think this is all imaginary slippery slope ramblings? We don’t have to imagine shit. We just have to look to history, namely the Weimar Republic, one of the most degenerate states that ever existed. Berlin of that time manifested the kind of society towards which decay and such faggotry leads to (try to find the documentary Legendary Sin Cities and watch the part Berlin: Metropolis of Vice). However, the reaction in the form of Nazi Germany taught the supporters of this sort of society that you can’t just try and establish it on the spot. So now, its being done gradually, veiled in talk of progress and education. This shit has been done before, we know exactly how it looks, we won’t have it. But lo and behold, a challenger appears to contest Weimar Berlin as the most degenerate city ever – San Francisco! Just check out these pictures from an event called “Up your alley fest” – wow, so progress, so slippery slope, wow. Wait a minute, where were the kids during all this? But that’s from 2008, check out the 2015 report. Yet when this exact same behavior is combined with drug use, it suddenly gets called the “dark side of the gay scene” as this VICE “documentary“ will attest.

But let’s move on and now talk about the issue of gay marriage. Here’s something I would recommend for you to read: “The secular case against gay marriage”. It is a nicely explained take on why gay marriage is dangerous from a purely sociological viewpoint. It argues it would lead to the destruction of marriage and the traditional family at large, by virtue of opening up the way to the marriage of more than two people, until marriage becomes obsolete. The author describes it as marital chaos, but what it is in effect is promiscuity. This argument was only further proven to be right by Masha Gessen, who openly stated that gay marriage is a sham to destroy marriage at large. Ergo she also means that gay marriage is a window to promiscuity.

Thus we come back to my statement that women naturally seek promiscuity. Allow me now to expand on this point. Mainstream anthropological studies have come to the conclusion that early human groups practiced total promiscuity, which is inevitably tied to the rule of females, i.e. matriarchy or gynocracy. Total promiscuity allows for anyone to fuck anyone without any moral or societal obligations/restrictions, which means two things: first, the children born to this society never know their fathers, simply because it is impossible to say for sure. And second, the mother becomes the most important figure in a child’s life, while the second(ary) figure is the mother’s brother (if she has one), the uncle. The uncle is thus the only male figure in a child’s life (this in part influenced western societal importance of uncles in civilized societies and inspired the famous stereotype of “rich uncle left me a fat inheritance”), while mothers are assured a sacred place in the group’s order, making women the ones in charge of such societies.

Such hedonistic promiscuous groups never amount to anything. The one parallel that can be found to this social structure in the animal kingdom are the Bonobos. However, animal behavior is hardly an excuse for human actions. All gay arguments about how homosexuality is a variation of the norm due to its occurrence in nature, thus making it “natural”, are bullshit.

The more fundamental argument against this idea is that it relies on a misuse of the word “natural“, which has two implications: natural as in something that occurs in nature, or natural as in something that is in harmony with the Natural Order. Just because something happens in nature doesn’t mean that this is the way it is meant to be. Often times, nature itself corrects these problems. If we go back to evolution, certain mutations prove detrimental rather than beneficial, and may lead to the extinction of a species.

With that in mind, it can be said that HIV is nature’s response of correcting an occurrence that goes against Natural Order. Faggotry is an evolutionary dead end, and nature is trying to kill it faster with diseases that are spread specifically through the central activity that defines faggots. Not only is science against faggotry but so is nature.

However, if we look back to the argument of a natural occurrence of homosexual behavior in animals, then in most cases animal homosexual interactions are not done for pleasure, save for some species (most prominent yet again being the Bonobos). In most cases, such acts are done as a show of dominance – meaning that those homosexual acts are instances of rape. Also there is next to no instances of lesbianism in the animal world, save for those few species that practice homosexuality for pleasure. But even then a lot of the supposed studies in this field are highly suspect, like the guy who claimed that lezhogs exist – you think that video is funny shit? This is where the gay argument that homosexuality exists in over 450 species COMES FROM – some crackpot idiot who drew shit. Actually the reality makes more sense, no, he’s not a crackpot – he’s gay. So allow me to restate my previous point: “research” conducted by “scientists” with a vested interest in its results is invalid. And the wiki on him is suspiciously small. Also, I don’t think he actually wrote any other “research” but this one.

The animal argument is one of the most pathetic that gays can come up. It does nothing but further verify that they can only identify with their most base carnal desires, and would rather be animals than humans. Though I would argue that humans who want to be as animals, in practice, become less than both. Animals have no choice, as their behavior is largely instinctual as opposed to conscious human decisions, thus rendering such behavior subhuman and incomparable with animals. If anything, calling faggots animals would be an insult to animals.

But coming back to human groups that practiced promiscuity. According to mainstream anthropology it was only when males had forced women into covenants that forbade them to sleep with more than one man that the family unit was established and marriage manifested as a rite to “seal the deal“, as it were, making the covenant official. It was only once women were made into “property” that the family unit was established, that kids finally knew their fathers. Because of this, the father could pass on their property to their kids. This is what started civilization as we know it today, so it is indeed Patriarchal by definition. You wouldn’t have any of this shit you have today if we still practiced Matriarchy, which exists in direct proportion to the prevalence of promiscuity in society – and this is exactly what feminists want now innit?

“Slut shaming” is a mechanism to prevent women from breaking this covenant. Well, the feminists are very interested in destroying the norms that were established with the creation of this covenant. They want to be independent of men, yet they want to be adored. They want to be able to sleep around all they want but only of their own choice, and if they regret it they can essentially socially ostracize the man they were with. They want a typical Matriarchal/Gynocratic promiscuous society where they are treated as sacred and can get away with shit. So no fucking shit it is in their interest to stop “slut shaming” and to destroy the Patriarchy. This is also why feminists are such powerful supporters of the “gay struggle”.

But no, this isn’t some conspiracy theory, because it doesn’t have to be. Feminists know what they want in the short term (as modern man has a hard time processing any kind of long term consequences), so they don’t think about the subsequent fallout of establishing a Matriarchy. And there is no reason to care anyway, since once they get there, they will like it all the same. They intrinsically are drawn to this course of action. It is the logical progression of their demands, though some of them recognize this better than others. This is simply women, when at their worse, acting out their promiscuous nature if they are not held in check by men.

Feminization of men and encouraging them to act against male nature, in line with the stereotypical faggots of the faggotry movement, is a nice way of keeping men from realizing their role. Their role would be to put women back in their place. Again, none of this is a conspiracy or a plan, it is just the natural progression of their views. Destruction of marriage is as much a feminist goal as it is a fag one, because these two paths are closely interlinked. All degeneracy ultimately follows the same path.

And where does this path go to exactly? Feminism wants promiscuity so that women can sleep around. The Fag Agenda, however, takes it further, as its ultimate end goal is to make it alright to have sex with anything and anyone regardless of anything. They have oversaturated their narrative with all these fake labels for different genders and sexual orientations for the sake of completely breaking down all definitions, until it will be about justifying “humans fucking humans” (incest, pedophilia are made permissible under that notion) and later on “animals fucking animals” (zoophilia made permissible under that notion).

If you want to obscure Truth, you have to hide it behind innumerable lies. Likewise they try to redefine human nature using their bullshit. Why? Because we are all equal, we are all the same amorphous gray blob of nothing, and “love is love“. If we are all the same, then it doesn’t matter what sex you are, what age you are, if you’re related or not, etc. And what are people if not animals? So why can’t we fuck other animals? This is the logical endgame of sexual perversion and the logic of equality.

This is the whole twisted “logic” of modern thinking taken to its logical conclusion. It was, ironically, very well summed up in the movie “The Believer“: “They want nothing but nothingness, nothingness without end“. If you erase the fundamental principles of life, then anything goes and sky is the limit as to how far lies and degeneracy can go:

“They told me I could be anything, so I became a demisexual preop MTF unicorn-kin and this is my life partner Rocky. He’s a horse but since I’m a unicorn-kin I can communicate with him and it’s totally mutual. Who are you to tell me otherwise, bigot? I put “it’s complicated” into my facebook relationship status because farmer John doesn’t approve of our relationship. We’re like a modern day Romeo and Juliet – love is love! We’ll get married one day too, zoosexual rights is the next chapter of social justice. Why? Because it’s the current year – check and mate, ignorant nazi bigots!“

That is the essential fag agenda. To be free to do whatever the fuck you want without consequences because they’ve destroyed all standards, all definitions, all truths.

Who the fuck thought this scum can be our allies?

• http://i.imgur.com/tBjV2jJ.jpg
• http://i.imgur.com/qeNNxUQ.png
• http://i.imgur.com/P0N8F9A.png
• http://i.imgur.com/8v5QXHv.jpg
• http://i.imgur.com/PTP6MPG.jpg
• http://i.imgur.com/Ha4dhy1.png
• http://i.imgur.com/3zQzSfC.jpg
• http://i.imgur.com/cZGc8Zr.png
• http://i.imgur.com/y6noEOm.png
• http://i.imgur.com/eiHOcR8.png
• http://i.imgur.com/xPQVhwh.png
• http://i.imgur.com/QocezRq.png
• http://i.imgur.com/AbHPBpb.jpg
• http://i.imgur.com/iRgWBRF.png
• http://i.imgur.com/Jh3KpXO.png
• http://i.imgur.com/sMTmR42.png
• http://i.imgur.com/s0dwAjj.jpg

INCOMPATIBLE

Thus we finally come to the new chapter of this question. The notion that this degenerate scum can be allied with our cause. This ridiculous idea comes from the mentality of inclusiveness and appealing to the masses, the “strength in numbers” thinking which deserves its own criticism in a dedicated article so here we’ll forego it with a simple: no, that’s wrong.

I’ve already given one of the most fundamental points to oppose this notion, namely that faggotry is a vice and thus succumbing to it or overcoming it is always a matter of choice. Fascism/National-Socialism is about overcoming vices and striving for something more, so faggotry by definition is incompatible with this direction as it is a result of succumbing to said vice. For a faggot to be a Nazi he has to stop being faggot, regardless of the origins of his faggotry. Should he fail then he cannot be allowed to join in our struggle. And this doesn’t mean abstinence from partaking in the vice, it’s not just about saying no to it, it is about no longer being afflicted by it at all, it is about eliminating the temptation itself.

In many regards the situation can be paralleled with that of drug addicts – you can’t expect them to be loyal to anything but their desire for the next hit and whoever provides him with the means to achieve the next high. They have to choose to overcome their vice in order to become a Fascist/National-Socialist. Want to read a case study on this issue? Read George Lincoln Rockwell‘s “White Power”, Chapter 2 – Spiritual Syphilis. Actively seeking to and triumphing in overcoming one’s vices is what earns respect and a place in this Struggle.

I literally had an argument with someone who asked me “well why should it matter what they do in private?” The entire notion that you can somehow divide what is the whole of their identity from the activities they engage in is ludicrous – faggotry is an activity elevated to the status of identity, what they do is who they are. What they do in private is what defines them in their entirety. These degenerates succumb to a purely hedonistic pursuit, they engage in this behavior because it “feels good” thus their identity is tied to narcissistic, selfish behavior. Idiots who think that faggots can have any kind of loyalty to anything other than their own pleasure are delusional or try to lay the groundwork for rationalizing their own shortcomings as being “okay“.

Considering that we live in a world where everybody view everything as a matter of interests it is surprising how none of these fag-lovers seem to ask themselves “why would a faggot want to join a pro-white/altright/whatever scene, what interests is he pursuing?” What they identify as is an active pursuit of carnal pleasures, that is their prime concern as faggots, everything else is secondary or non-existent. Can a faggot enjoy pleasure if he is dead? No, thus he cannot be expected to lay down his life for anything, he has to live on in order to enjoy himself in his degeneracy, which makes him vulnerable to simple threats of violence, torture and discomfort, the things hedonism avoids at all costs, whereas we try to overcome them in the name of Truth, in the name of Race, in the name of Victory. “Tell me your attitude to pain and I will tell you what kind of person you are” as Ernst Junger wrote. A faggot will betray you if threatened with discomfort or promised carnal satisfaction in return for his treachery.

Faggots cannot be expected to fight for anything other than their own survival and pleasure. But one might argue “well if they are white they will fight for the white race because it is in their interests” – if you still think in terms of interests then you don’t get the point of our Struggle and belong to the enemy camp rather than our own, you can have all fag cocks you want there. Interests are a projection of the selfish mindset, it is the core of modern thinking and thus of the kind of reasoning that our enemies utilize. It means you don’t value something greater than yourself, you only value it in as much as it can benefit you personally, but that doesn’t mean that one with such a mindset will actually partake in the most violent aspects of the struggle, as his interest of self-preservation against immediate danger of violence will always take precedent over the long term survival (once again pointing to that modern mindset that is only concerned with immediate consequences) by means of association with a larger group behind the backs of which he can hide. And therein one can spot one of the reasons for faggots trying to infiltrate our ranks – to hide behind our backs. From whom? Ourselves. If they identify with our struggle they expect to be left alone and thus allowed to continue in their behavior which will ultimately undermine anything that we strive for, hence why it cannot ever be allowed.

Furthermore, acceptance of faggotry in our ranks in this Struggle means that they will expect some kind of recognition once the battle is won, namely same social recognition they strive for today. Saying faggotry is acceptable so long as its not in the open leads to the social conflict of WHY can’t it be in the open, it’s not a stance but a compromise which ultimately will resurface in the same kind of social movements that led to faggotry being as widespread and accepted as it is today.

One might argue that “even if we make it clear that it’s unacceptable the same thing would occur“, which is once again wrong, seeing how unacceptable and “keep it private” imply different consequences: check how USSR embodied the first and USA the latter, now see where faggotry is more widespread, modern USA or modern Russia. Contrary to popular western views faggotry is no longer as much a taboo today as it used to be in Russia, sure fag parades aren’t allowed and there is a law against spreading fag propaganda to kids, but in reality the attitude has now entered the same “keep it to yourself” mentality that existed in USA and the consequences are already taking roots as these degenerates are allowed to entertain the notion of social change even if they get refused time and again. One fellow studying political sciences here asked me what’s wrong with letting homosexuals have pride parades – imagine if this guy becomes some official tomorrow and acts on that notion. We’re now on the same trajectory as USA was in the 50s, just before the 60s hit, though it may take us longer to get there than it did USA by a generation or two.

Faggotry does not in of itself as a phenomena challenge heterosexual relations however once you give it any kind of social awareness it will start developing the way it did in USA towards what you have today where it DOES challenge heterosexual relations and redefines all of society, something that will happen by default if you entertain this direction but these faggots are actually aware of it if that video of that Masha Gessen cunt is any indication.

The other side to consider is what drives one to seek social acceptance in this way, again its not like USSR even with its criminal offense punishment for faggotry ever had 1984 style TV’s in every home to make sure nobody committed faggotry – point is the policy kept away even entertaining the notion of it being acceptable to discuss in any way other than how the policy dictates, but could not stop anyone from doing it privately. So why make it into a social acceptance issue in the first place if nobody can stop you from doing it in the privacy of your home regardless of social conventions and policies?

Because that’s their default mentality, that is the inevitable outcome, and if you position yourself on anything similar, i.e. “keep it private“, you are opening the way for this thing to resurface. They WANT to take it out of the privacy of the bedroom, check that Up your Alley festival and any of CF’s tumblristas episodes again if you’re still confused about that. The entire point of their social struggle is to bring into the public eye what they otherwise would do in private, that is always the default goal otherwise there wouldn’t be an issue to start with.

If you think having faggots in your corner is any different then you’re delusional, if anything it brings about a different narrative for completing the same thing: “see we’re not degenerate like those faggots, we’re just homosexuals but we are on your side, we’re loyal to your cause, why not make some exceptions for us, why are you trying to hide us away like you’re ashamed of us, I thought we were all on the same side here, you’re ungrateful for my contribution” and thus the conflict starts over again in the same or one generation away.

Exceptions, even if there are any in this matter, do not negate the general rule ergo why it is called an EXCEPTION, but if you give them an in and say there’s exceptions then ALL OF THEM will try to fit themselves into the margins of an exception. Only exceptions that can be considered in this matter are those of when faggots seek to stop being faggots, seeking treatment, because they seek to stop being faggots altogether, regardless if it is a biological or psychological disorder or a vice that they struggle with.

Another aspect of this problem is that faggots have fantasies about not just acceptance but dominance in society. And since their sole interest is that of pursuing personal pleasure their social goals are all about making those fantasies manifest. So what is the other point of infiltrating radical movements besides their own security? Advancing their narrative of their own superiority. You are being used you dumb fucks. You’re okay with their “private” activities today – tomorrow you’ll be forced to suck their cocks. “On the right“, if you want to use that terminology, the fag supremacy notion has been developed by people like Jack Donovan. I had read his “The Way of Men” book when it had been first released and I had actually found it to be a good read for what it is and would even recommend it to people today on the premise of it placing to the forefront of your mind what used to be a vaguely felt and undefined in the subconscious.

However the point of deviation manifests in his argument that faggots who act manly are superior to straight men on the premise of being able to partake in manly activities without being tied down by having kids and family (so much for them sharing our values on Race and family), a theme he talks about in his other book “Androphilia: A Manifesto“:

“With the exception of a few committed bachelors, women are always going to play a significant and moderating role in straight men’s lives. Instead of working out Mars/Venus compromises, androphiles can create and inhabit completely male-oriented environments, free from feminine influence. In Where Men Hide, James B. Twitchell cataloged what he referred to as redoubts, places where men go or have gone to simply be men and escape the wife and kids—places like bars, basements, barbershops, garages, workshops, lodges, deer camps, dens, strip clubs, clubhouses and sporting events. Androphiles don’t have to hide; they can thrive as men, living a dream life that most other men only escape to.

Androphiles have the opportunity to devote far more time to masculine pursuits, to doing the things other men wish they could do more often. I envision a world where androphiles become admired as knowledgeable outdoorsmen, avid hunters, successful sportsmen, skilled builders, do-it-yourselfers, shrewd businessmen, and accomplished leaders in their chosen fields. Androphiles could become known connoisseurs of male culture, collectors and enthusiasts devoted to the things of men, from war and sports memorabilia to automobiles to male-oriented books, music, artworks and films. As culture becomes increasingly female- and family-friendly, as ‘men-only’ institutions continue to fall from favor or become integrated, as masculinity is controlled, compromised and redefined according to the preferences and aesthetics of women—as straight men lose touch with their own masculine heritage—I see a role for androphiles as masculine purists, unlikely carriers of Mars’ ancient torch. Masculinity is a religion, and I see potential for androphiles to become its priests—to devote themselves to it and to the gods of men as clergymen devote their lives to the supernatural.“

At the time when I read Donovan’s materials I thought it to be a ridiculous point as having kids and family is in fact one of the crucial aspects of what defines and tests one’s manhood, but I didn’t think too much of it until recently when all this nonsense of fag acceptance in the movement had arisen and this narrative finally gained its full context – it’s a new direction of fag supremacy that utilizes the narratives of our movement against us by virtue of that premise. So I am not kidding when I tell you that these fags will expect you to suck their cock tomorrow. “You believe in manhood and superiority right? Well see, here’s the argument for why manly fags are superior, we are the natural aristocrats, so spread them ass cheeks wide, because I fuck men like they are women“.

LET’S RECAP

Faggotry is either a biological disorder, in which case it must be treated; a psychological disorder, in which case it must be treated; the result of fag indoctrination, in which case it must be treated; a hedonistic vice, in which case it must be overcome.

Social faggot acceptance leads to complete degradation of society and all norms, resulting in a free-for-all sexual jungle where everything is permissible, including pedophilia, incest and zoophilia. This can only be prevented by a definitive stance to opposition to faggotry in all its forms without compromise.

Acceptance of faggots in the movement is impossible because their nature goes against the principle of overcoming our vices and swearing loyalty to something greater than ourselves.

Acceptance of faggots in the movement opens doors to subversive influences meant to spearhead faggot supremacy.

Faggots are only loyal to themselves and whatever provides them with pleasure.

Time to put an end to the Fag Agenda.

I never particularly got the whole “cuckservative” thing, I did get it’s value to shock conservatives with the realization that they are whiny, pathetic and repeatedly give up ground to the enemy. However at the end of the day that is what a conservative is by definition. As George Lincoln Rockwell had already said seemingly so long ago: “Conservatives are sissies“. That behavior is the very core of conservatism, but here we can look at the other implication of this new title – attempt at differentiation. Upset rank and file conservatives saying to their establishment representatives “you failed us, you’re no real conservative, you’re a CUCKservative, you betrayed what we stand for, you’re a sell-out“. And yet the people using that title are the same, they just realize how badly they are losing and they don’t see that their very position is premised on inevitable defeat, so they put the blame elsewhere to hang on to their delusions.

So I’d like to give you a run down of what conservatism actually is, then we can also look at the reactionary position and finally the Revolutionary position and dispel some illusions around those terms as well.

Conservatism comes from the word conserve. The entire point of conservatism is to conserve or preserve something – that’s it. As such this concept is entirely relative to whatever has been established prior, most likely by people of strong character and vision or principles, like conquerors and revolutionaries. Their descendants inherit these things but they never worked to get them in the first place, however the first few generations fight to build on and expand from there because they still have a direct connection to that original glory. Yet as time marches on descendants become more and more disconnected from that original glory and take their position for granted though they certainly still enjoy  that position, purely for the benefits they receive – they no longer understand the glory, they only understand the formal benefits and comforts. This is the downward slope of the inherently losing position that carries the name of conservatism. It’s an attempt to stop something that is destined to die from dying just for the sake of its formal benefits. The glory, the living spirit that established the structure that provides said benefits has long since left, it’s but an empty carcass that is falling apart, however this carcass is the most precious thing to those who never knew the glory in the first place.

To put it simply: someone builds an Empire, their immediate descendants build or expand its spirit and glory, inevitably the spirit and glory fade and what is left is but a formal structure inhabited by people who never knew the spirit and glory and only knew the benefits of the structure – the positions and titles, the basic political power and thus they don’t get the point of why the Empire was built in the first place. When the spirit and glory are gone the Imperium becomes merely an Empire. So they are focused solely on keeping the structure and they want to preserve it. This is the very premise of the ancient teachings on the cycles of rise and fall in societies, for instance the Greek Anacyclosis.

This is something that the German thinker Ernst Niekisch had spoken of after Germany’s defeat in the First World War, describing the conflict between the generations, namely the generation of old men who lost the Empire and the young generation who never got to know the Empire of their ancestors:  “These young hearts have never been impressed and inspired directly by the proud grandeur of their Fatherland. Political anger, social poverty, economic decline – that is what is self-evident to them, always in their face, their personal experience. Prewar Germany was nothing more than historical memory, akin to the memory of the Empire of Otto I, Frederick Barbarossa, with the memory of the great and incomparable state of Prussian King Friedrich. But if the old generation were to chide the youth for such “historical” viewpoint of Bismarck’s empire, it might have received a reply in the form of bold and impertinent questions: Wasn’t the fate of this empire in your hands? Were you not the ones who lost this empire in the first place? How do you have the audacity to still so arrogantly claim your own importance on the political scene?“

However, again, conservatism has no core of it’s own. It is always relative to what preceded it, thus conservatism isn’t inherently “right-wing“, if you still buy into that formal differentiation. Conservatism is always different from place to place. In the United States conservatism stands to conserve the Constitution, the ideas of the Founding Fathers and so on. Which all happen to be liberal in the classic sense of the word, of the government as being nothing more than a “guard dog” of society, with little to no involvement in the economy and social affairs, only enforcing the law and protecting it from enemies without. Is this not the american conservative/republican motto of small government? Compare that to conservatism in the British Empire that at one point defended absolute monarchy against constitutional monarchy, defending the big government, conserving its power. Hell, look at USSR, think there was no Soviet Conservatism? It stood against Gorbachev‘s reforms, attempting to conserve the old soviet system, which later became reactionary, but more on that specific example later.

Conservatism is always a defensive position of what had been established prior, thus it is always relative and has no core of its own and it differs from place to place and time to time. It defends the formal structure that has lost it’s real core, what gave it life in the first place. Conservatism defends the purely material, formal outer shell, it mistakes the outward form for the essence. Just as when the animating energies or the soul leaves the body, once the essence is gone, once the life force that created the form in the first place is gone, the form is already as good as dead and it’s decay and death are inevitable. But the conservative grasps hold of it in desperation, not wanting to lose what he has, but inevitably failing and coming to terms with their failure but he’ll just try again: “Well we lost some ground, but not a step back from here on in! Oh, we lost again. Well no mo-oh, it happened again. Well this will be the las-damn it!” Slowly but surely, they give ground and what they try to conserve is chipped away at, piece by piece. They can’t defend it, because they fight for something temporary and that is fated to pass away, mistaking it for the end all and be all.

Thus all conservatives, by definition, are cuckservatives and sissies. The name is a nice zinger, but it doesn’t do much in of itself other than feed the delusion of those who use it to signify that they are different, that they are the “real” conservatives who will uphold the “conservative values“. Mind you that with the United States we do have a special case, namely that it was built entirely on the ideas of the founding fathers, which from the get go do not reflect the values that we Fascists uphold. Defending them is no better than defending the Soviet values, which likewise came about from man-made ideas. It’s simply a choice between a liberal republic and a state socialist republic. And still both concepts decayed over time into merely formal structures, not even the original ideas remained.

Here we move on to Reactionaries. The difference between conservatives and reactionaries is purely in their stance, the former one being defensive (conserving and preserving), the latter is offensive (attempting to restore the old structure). At the end of the day, however, it is a thin line and one could say that reactionaries are at the very least admirable for being more pro-active, yet it is still a fight for an empty husk – not reanimating the corpse, just trying to rebuild it from  the rot it decayed into. To give an example of actual reactionaries you can once again look to USSR, reinforcing the point of how it is likewise a relative position with no core of its own. The old guard of the Soviet system formed the State Committee on the State of Emergency and attempted to stop Gorbachev’s reforms during the August Coup of 1991. Some people in Russia like to entertain the idea that the USSR could have lasted a while longer had the coup succeeded, but it’s decay and collapse were inevitable, because likewise the spirit and ideas that built it in the first place were no longer present in the political elite that was simply engaged in basic politics.

Reactionaries are but a braver kind of conservative, someone who is willing to take real action to retake the husk, but again, they place the value into something that itself only gained value from elsewhere, from the essence that had built it in the first place and without it, it is surely doomed. Reactionaries may even use violent means but their fight is nevertheless destined to fail, which was best explained by the Russian thinker Nikolay Vasilyevich Ustryalov, who likewise wrote on the difference of form and essence: “Violence cannot save a dying idea, but it can provide immeasurable help to the rising idea.“

And the rising idea always comes in the form of Revolution, regardless of the means for it’s rise, but again, violence can provide it immeasurable help. Whilst man-made ideas are by their nature lies, figments of the imagination, as opposed to the Natural Order and Truth that we as Fascists and National-Socialists uphold, they still have power to them and have a certain spirit which can sway masses of people and the course of history.

Thus Revolutions are inhabited by something living, they have some essence to them (the Truth or Idea), when talking about real revolutions that is, like the March on Rome which was a revolution through a show of force, or Hitler’s rise to power which was a revolution made through entry and reform. Even the Russian October Revolution, which was a violent, living revolution (as opposed to the February Revolution of decay or the events of Black October). We’re not talking here about “revolutions” that are orchestrated by (geo)political interests or which happen as a slow decay, like the Social Justice Warrior degeneracy we see today. Revolutions are always passionate, they breathe fire, fire that destroys and creates, regardless of what it is that it creates. SJW and modern liberal/democratic change is more akin to a parasite or growing rot than a fire-breathing dragon.

Revolutions are always aimed at the decaying husk, they burn away the husk and create space for something new, which can be either good or bad but it is nevertheless full of life rather than decay and death. You can’t compare modern commies and SJW’s to the original communist revolutionaries, the latter would probably kill the former had they ever met. But the original communist is long since dead, and he was a worthy foe, unlike the scum we face today which don’t deserve the title of enemy – you can respect an enemy for his dedication to his beliefs and readiness to die for them, even if he is dead wrong. SJW/PC/Feminist/etc scum are just parasites that can be easily crushed underfoot, they don’t wish to die because what they fight for is comfort and pleasure which cannot be enjoyed while dead – they’re merely pawns to our real enemies who profit from the decay they create.

What’s more important, however, is that real Revolutions are all about essence, they will destroy any form that stands in the way of the victory for their essence, whatever form doesn’t oppose them will be infused with the victorious essence, though essence of ideas will always be at odds with the essence of Truth. And here comes into play the difference between Ideas and Truth. Ideas are lies of the imagination, man-made concepts of how the world should be. The Truth is how the world actually is. Ideas can substitute one another, rather reflective of Marx’s view of how history is a continuous cycle of revolutions, which in turn takes cues from the concept of cycles of rise and fall in societies that we spoke of earlier. Thus the essence of an idea is temporary, though they may reoccur over time. The Truth, however, is eternal, it is always one and the same. Forms may come and go, regardless of the essence that lives and fades in them, but the Truth remains the same. Thus our struggle is an eternal one.

We don’t fight for forms, and that is our primary difference from the conservatives and reactionaries. We do not fight for mere ideas, even if they are revolutionary. We fight for the Truth. It is eternal but forms are not and so the Truth may fade from a given form and a revolution becomes necessary to bring back the essence of Truth. Which is what puts us at odds with conservatives and reactionaries – they protect a decaying husk, they protect something dead and lifeless. They defend the product of essence, whereas we fight for restoring essence itself even if its old form must be destroyed. What puts us at opposition with revolutions of Ideas is that they are lies. We have no allies in conservatives and reactionaries, or revolutionaries who do not share our loyalty to the Truth.

Let’s clear up something else, however, before we draw this to a close. Namely the confusion around the title of Conservative Revolutionaries, which is essentially just a clumsy way of explaining a Revolutionary struggle for essence, as it is again confused with the form. It was probably the first attempt made to articulate this direction in some categorical terms and thus a rather clumsy title was formed, driven by the desire so signify that this is a living, revolutionary force that wants to defend that, which made the old form great, back when it used to be infused with essence. At the end of the day, however, it is the same force as us Fascists and National-Socialists, though it was more concerned with self-analysis than action. I’m adding this part to make it perfectly clear to people who would use this title to differentiate themselves from “those bad fascists and nazis” that you won’t fool anyone but yourselves – we fascists know what it actually is and our enemy can smell that it is something related to us. It is not some other “third position“.

Using these terms to differentiate from Fascism and National-Socialism is futile, just as futile as it is to attempt to differentiate between “real” conservatives and “cuckservatives” – the former a delusion indulged in an attempt to protect oneself from the enemy’s criticism, the latter a delusion indulged in an attempt to protect oneself from admitting that he stands for something that is doomed to fail and fall. And this is why Fascism always was and forever will be a Revolutionary force – it fears not the destruction of forms, of what exists purely on paper fading away. So long as there is essence it can make manifest new forms, ones infused with living spirit, appropriate for a new time and a new place. That is our struggle, to carry on the Flame of Truth, from one torch to another, while the conservatives fawn over burnt wood that the Flame had already departed from.

There are no conservative or reactionary principles, they have none. We carry the principles, they obsess with the byproduct. The only driving “principle” behind these notions is that of the walking dead – to keep something lifeless from collapsing.

Few things disgust me more than defeatism. It is the combination of cowardice, laziness and egotism, where the impotent think that their worthless self deprecating thoughts have any value to them.

Throughout all recorded human history and applied universally without exception, defeatism during times of war was a crime punishable by incarceration at the very least. While those who claim to be vanguards for liberty and free speech may decry this, their outrage has no foundation. When the nation is under threat every muscle fiber is strained and reserve of energy expended to claim victory and avoid defeat.

Some will feign moralism “oh it is moral because the war is wrong and it will save lives!” Preaching defeat saves nothing. The men will die all the same simply abandoned by their people, left alone in the fields of battle with their last thoughts of futility and betrayal.

The wounds will last long after the war. Unlike the temporary pain of a honorable defeat, the spiritual energy of the nation will be sapped greatly by such a moral collapse. Only with Faith in itself can a nation rebuild – never without it. The Triumph of the Will makes anything possible for a people with faith in itself and it’s leader!

The most despicable thing about such an attitude is that it comes exclusively from people with our views. They see the hell around them, acknowledge it is hell and then proceed to give up without a fight! They will decry the damage done as irreparable and irreversible. They will bemoan the crimes against us and then proceed to remain silent! “Oh Germany is doomed, Europe is doomed… It’s all over!” they’ll say in a youtube comment section.

They will cry that “no one is doing anything!” and then proceed to do nothing themselves. A useless, hypocritical nihilism more scornful than the traitors because at least the traitors “think” that they are correct and fight to that end.

We do not call for weak sympathizers, we call for fighters, those who die if final victory demands it! Those who will give their wealth, labor, food , clothes, blood and very lives to our brothers and sisters in need. Those willing to risk imprisonment and possible death in service of the cause.

The excuses will flow. “I have a job  I don’t want to lose , I have a family that relies on me, it’s just not convenient for me right now to express my views.” None of these are adequate because if you do not act in order to make your family’s life comfortable now you will doom your children and grandchildren to hell. Every day you hold back from the fight is one more day your descendants will have to fight 10 fold as hard for your cowardice.

If that is what you truly feel and you believe it’s the truth, if you love your people, then you will keep your nihilist mouth shut and not spread your fatal virus to anyone else! We must be willing to go to Hell to ensure our children live in Heaven!

It is said that if everyone with our sympathies rose up today it’d be enough to overthrow the rotten international clique that rules over us. This is true. But it is also no reason to despair that it hasn’t happened yet. The faithful of our cause will commit to action, not just words, in order to enlighten and uplift our people  and liberate them from their chains. For we have seen the light outside the modern day Plato’s cave – the cafe – and we will not return no matter the ridicule and violence.

No one man can do everything. But everyone can do something to help the cause, whether it’s speaking out, activism, charity or confrontation.

Mass movements with a cause never just spring up from under the ground, they are molded and directed by an elite or a singular being, who embody the spiritual consciousness of the masses and have the personal courage to give all of themselves to it’s victory. But none of those beings would have been able to accomplish anything if the masses did not volunteer their labor and will to the great causes of history.

Article by Aquila