Democracy And The Gay Agenda

 

    Let me preface this with an observation that is all too commonplace in this day and age, one of the biggest gripes about Conservatives is they always lose to liberals in the culture war. The reason for this is because their entire tactics are based around honor and virtue. That's why liberals win, because conservatives are well, conservative in their tactics in debates. When you're in a fight, do you a) play by the rules or b) do whatever it takes to win? Short of doing questionable things, most would answer with B) because at the end of the day, its not about fairness its about winning. if your enemy hits low, go lower, always, because nice guys finish last, and this is about your civilization versus theirs. use deception, make them think how much of an asshole you are, because these people don't fight fair and neither should you. moving on. When one things of democracy, one of the first things that come to mind is voting and representation. In countries like Switzerland, they have direct democracy, which every vote is cast at the local level, here in the US, voting is done towards representatives which vote on issues that affect us. With the unraveling of current year democracy, so many things have come to pass, and this was set in motion long before any of us were thought of existing. in the early 1900s, black men received the right to vote, that was the first strike, then women got it in 1920, which led us to successive waves of abusive feminism, civil rights and and now, transgender rights. One of the main things that occurred after women obtained the right to vote was the induction of Woodrow Wilson and the audacious foreign policy he held, which was to use Theodore Roosevelt's big stick policy in a perverse way, which was to participate in "empire building" and giving the third world what it needed the least, which was democracy, something thats uncommon among their people. Democracy at its best is decision making and grassroots polity, at its worst its mob rule and nepotism of the elites. One particular case has not been addressed, which is the rights of homosexuals, which came into being not long after the civil rights act of the 1960s. As we all know, homosexuals are known to engage in behavior that is inamicable to heterosexual reproductive methods, meaning nothing in the way of pure life is procured from its practice, and is often passed down the lines of each successive generation through the molestation of young boys. Lest we also forget lesbians, who by all rights not only fornicate with one another, their participation in the democratic process brings forth all sorts of anti-family, anti-male legislation such as metoo, abortion "rights", and illogical nonsense such as gender neutral language which spells doom for non-English speaking residentials who might possess a mother tongue which uses gender-specific articles, which they're trying to also get rid of and Anglicize through their weak egos that crumble at the sight of anything that might offend their cute, little sensibilities. Even though legislating this particular legal statue would be likely nigh impossible, we must at least try and bring it within the realms of legal rhetoric and hopefully legal jurisdiction, god willing. The question remains, why do we let homosexuals the right to vote? Given the circumstances, they contribute nothing to the future of a nation or empire and only serve to reduce birthrates to Malthusian levels, which certain people would find "good for the economy" since less people equals less usage of valuable resources and thus more goods to go around for those who need or (rather) want them. right? We seem to forget that with every passing day, someone dies, someone is born, and it tends to even out despite the conspiratorial ramblings of people such as Greta Thunberg who says (mostly white people) need to stop having kids for the sake of the earth. God gave us this planet as something we should use to our full advantage to partake in harvesting, hunting and fishing so that we could sustain ourselves for as long as he lets us live, before our final judgement. And since homosexuals tend to have no ability of such to bring new life to replace the old life that has passed on, why should they be allowed to decide the future of a nation or empire that depends on heterosexual reproduction to survive? Its absolutely ludicrous that these people who mostly engage in behaviors that are not only vile, but borgeiousie, to the point where someone like even Karl Marx was appaled at their very presence, to allow them to participate in a process that defines whether a civilization stays afloat or sinks into the ground with all the other "failed" civilizations. By restricting their constitution, the people who actually are able to give this country its workers, its scientists, its clergy, its leaders, that less policies could be passed that affect the ability of families to prosper. its also a good way to stop big gay in its tracks and encourage more people to pursue traditional gender roles and traditional morals if their rights get taken away from them. who knows, they might learn their lesson and civilizations and societies won't fall as easily, and we might even get beyond space. Long and short of it, the restriction of voting rights for homosexuals versus letting them run amok with the constitution could solve our birthrate problem, and could be applied elsewhere, but only if other nations want it, not by force or coercion, which was one of our mistakes during the Wilson administration. This could prove to show which countries succeed and which countries fail, by free will principles, and may the best country rise to the cream of the crop and set an example for others to follow.

                                                                                                        J./Adolf Stalin