Is that what it’s really about?

Oscar Wilde was sent to jail. Not for all the insults and caustic remarks he threw about willy-nilly, but for where he put his willy. In those days, gay sex was illegal in the UK and it still was until really quite recently.

If he was alive now he would no doubt be delighted to find that his private preferences for parking his privates are nobody’s concern. However, he would no doubt join Twitter and soon end up back in jail anyway. Some people were always destined to be the ones who just can’t win.

The Nazis hated gays so much that they gassed them to death – along with everyone else they didn’t like who happened to be within reach. For those further away, they invented railway guns and rockets so they could kill them from afar. Basically, they didn’t like anyone. In context then, the Nazi anti-gay campaign probably wasn’t personal, it was just that the gays were in the group known as ‘Someone Else’ which was to be utterly eradicated.

Britain furrowed its brow at the death camps and said ‘Oooh, no, dashed poor show, old chaps’ and then shot all the Nazis to deter them from doing it again. Much was made of the large Jewish component of the death camps and yes, they were by far the biggest group but they were not the only ones. Gay people died too. And others.

In the UK at that time, it was still illegal. Gays were still going to jail for being gay. A chap you might have heard of, by the name of Turing, was chemically castrated for being gay after the war – even though he was instrumental in winning it. Maybe that’s why the non-Jewish component of those camps was quietly brushed aside. The fate of gays in the rest of the world was perhaps less brutally final, but not really all that much better.

Anyway, eventually most of the civilised world realised that, while they might not approve of what consenting adults get up to in private, as long as they are consenting and keep it private, why should anyone care? I read recently about men who like to dress up in latex woman-suits complete with painted eyes. There were pictures. Damn, it’s creepy! But then, if that’s what floats their boat, it’s not really harming anyone else, is it? Not unless an unsuspecting window cleaner falls off his ladder.

If that gay agenda had stopped there it should have been okay. It didn’t. Rainbow flags appeared. ‘Gay rights’ which are somehow over and above the rights of anyone else also appeared. If I go to a guest house with a loose floozy and ask for a double room (nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more) and they tell me to begone and never again sully their premises with my amoral presence, well, I’d just have to take loose floozy elsewhere. Round the back of the gasworks again. Yet when the same happens to two gay men, they get compensation and the guest house gets a hate campaign. Is that equality?

Now, I know this is not the fault of gay people in general, any more than the moves to make Christian festivals vanish has anything to do with most Muslims. There was a case in Aberdeen where a bunch of Righteous tried to rename Easter in case it offended Muslims. The local mosques publicly stated that this was a ridiculous idea and had nothing to do with them. In this case at least, the Muslims stood up at once and said ‘Oh no, you are not pinning this one on us. It’s your own idiots who are behind this, not ours’.

Of course, all this ‘offends the Muslims’ crap has nothing to do with Muslims. It’s all about control. Petty little controls. Using the ‘do you dare risk being called Islamophobic’ lever to get that first notch into the ratchet.

As with the smoking and drinking and overweight and climate change and all the rest of it. None are about what they appear to be about. It’s all about incremental control. So is the gay agenda – which has nothing to do with gays.

It’ll come as a surprise to some but, just like smokers, gay people are human like you and me. They just like to live their lives differently. Personally I can see nothing attractive in the male body at all, it looks like a flat slab with a saggy bit between its legs that resembles some gristle a shark threw up. No curves or soft bits. Guys who want some favour done for free can do the ‘big eyes’ at me all day long and all they’ll get are more imaginative insults and maybe a poke in the eye. Girls… I can hold out for at least 30 seconds on a good day.

India ‘decriminalised’ gays in 2009. Their law against it dated back to the British occupation, apparently, because back then it was deemed to frighten the horses. I find that hard to believe. A horse frightened by the sight of a human man’s whacker? I rather suspect the average horse would, if confronted by such a sight, give out a pitying whinny and maybe a hearty laugh.

No mention of whether India’s pre-British culture allowed, penalised or stoned to death their gay members. I’m not getting into that one here, it’ll turn this post into another bloody book.

Anyway, in 2009, India decided not to prosecute people for something that wasn’t a crime and just let adults get on with poking their whatevers whereever.

Now they have decided to go back to insisting on the one true insertion method. The one that has resulted in a disastrous overpopulation problem. Why? Why does anyone care what the folk next door do when the lights go out? Hell, I have neighbours I have not set eyes on for many months and who might be dead for all I know or care (in one case, hope) and I honestly don’t care if they dress up as Teletubbies and have sex with every appliance in their kitchen while chanting Gregorian monk chants and slapping a melon with a haddock.

Although… if I could get film of that I could make a fortune on YouTube…

The punishment in India for a guy who likes to have sex with guys is to be locked up for ten years in… a building full of locked-in guys. Maybe it’s just me, but I have to wonder if that’s a punishment. Is it a stick or a carrot? I suppose, at a pinch, either will do.

But is it really about the gays? A clue –

UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay, told media the decision violated international law and was ‘significant step backwards for India’.

Hmm… doesn’t India have the right to decide for itself which way is forwards and which is back?

Meanwhile, in Uganda, they have come up with a crime called ‘aggravated homosexuality’ which is difficult to picture. It’s a bit like arresting someone for being black, letting them off with a warning not to do it again and then re-arresting them and jailing them for being a persistent offender. If you are a gay man in Uganda you face being locked up for life in a big house full of locked-in sex-starved men. It must be terrifying. (Yes I am being flippant. It’s what I do).

Why? What difference does it make to Uganda if a few blokes prefer the tradesmen’s entrance? It makes no difference to me. Well, it does, a bit. Those gay men tend to be well groomed and stylish and good looking. I am happy that they are not my competition and will be on hand to comfort all the poor wee lassies who they reject.

On the face of it, it’s all stupid. But there is a much bigger hint as to the ‘why’ in the Uganda story.

President Museveni said in a statement released on Friday that countries ‘should relate with each other on the basis of mutual respect and independence.’

‘Africans do not seek to impose their views on anybody,’ Museveni said in the statement, which was published in the government-controlled New Vision as a response to U.S. criticism of the bill.

‘We do not want anybody to impose their views on us. This very debate was provoked by Western groups who come to our schools and try to recruit children into homosexuality. It is better to limit the damage rather than exacerbate it.’

The gay agenda went too far for these countries. They were fine with ‘they aren’t bothering you, leave them alone’ but that is never enough for any of these groups. Not for antismokers or antidrink or antisalt or antisugar or anything else. They had to push and push and push and this is the result. A severe retaliation.

Again, I say this has nothing to do with gay people. Like Muslims, they are being used as an excuse to impose an incremental control system.

If it could have stopped at ‘Look, these people aren’t hurting anyone, stop persecuting them’ then there would have been progress.

It could not have stopped there. It was never intended to. All it ever was, was another notch on the ratchet. The cause was irrelevant, as it is every time. It’s only ever been about control.

India and Uganda are not doing this because they hate gays (okay, maybe not just because) but because they see the ratchet being notched again. It’s control from outside being imposed on their countries and they are fighting back. Yes, it means some of their own people will suffer (assuming they actually enforce these laws – they don’t need to, their point is made) but if they let the outside control keep clicking the ratchet then all their people will suffer. Including the gay ones.

Interesting times ahead, I think.


34 thoughts on “Is that what it’s really about?

    • But it can be so much fun!

      I am treated as a moron because I am a janitor/cleaner. Shoppies who don’t know what IQ means look down on me. The things I get away with… ‘but it couldn’t have been him, he’s just the cleaner’.

      Gays, Muslims etc are in the spotlight, they can’t move without being seen. Oldies like us are in the twilight, nobody cares we’re even there.

      Me? I like it that way.


  1. According to that eminent thinker of our time, Ch4’s Jon Snow (Altogether now: “You know nothing, Jon Snow”…), the reason the Africans are so against homosexuality is because of pernicious Western influences.

    So we’re responsible for EVERYTHING!


    • Did you know we stole the Falklands from Argentina before Argentina even existed? Yes, we occupied those islands and waited a couple of centuries for the birth of the real owners, just to piss them off.

      Now that is the way the British should be thinking. I like that way of thinking,.


  2. Last year, when Peter Tatchell was crowing on Facebook that it was forty years since homosexuality was removed from the list of psychiatric conditions with his help, I asked him what medical qualifications he holds to be able to make such a judgment.

    He didn’t reply to me (he does occasionally – very!).

    I still beleieve it should be on that list and still banned behaviour because, as you say, they are useful idiots to subvert society. (As Yuri Bezmenov explains, the KGB spread ‘equality’ in the West so we build our society on sand for it to collapse.)

    In other words, homosexuality was kept in the closet precisely because it is a danger to that society, just like many other sorts of ‘taboo’ behaviour.

    And indeed, it has deliberately been allowed to go so incredibly far that Stonewall think they can do whatever they like to subvert and pervert young minds and souls to try and gain recruits, even encouraging primary school teachers to get their boys to wear dresses at school to express their feminine side.

    As for India, legalising behaviour that endangers the country won’t do them any favours. In fact, one population control organisation welcomes homosexuality because it helps keep the birth rate down. No doubt another reason for the social enginers to try to make it compuulsory.


    • From looking at the video, it soon becomes apparent there’s not much equality amongst gays themselves. It’s nearly all about the males (as is Leggy’s good post above). So, come on Stonewall, what about our gay sisters? Or are they, like too many straight women still unequal in this funny world, just another 2nd class?


    • Actual homosexuality should not be a crime. I can agree that ‘promoting’ any kind of sexual activity – gay or straight – to small children should be stamped on hard. But what adults do to each other in private is nobody else’s business.

      See, if you want to get into controlling what people do in private then you cannot object to the smoking ban in pubs, in cars or even in people’s homes. You cannot object to internet censorship or TV propaganda. It all comes down to the same thing. Control of people’s private lives.

      I understand that you find homosexuality objectionable from a moral/religious standpoint. I am not interested in taking part nor in hearing about any details of it but will not condemn anyone else who does. If any were to force it on me you would hear a blast of rage that would make Satan cower but that has never happened. Looking at me, as I age disgracefully, it’s not likely to.

      You have missed the point. It is not about homosexuality. No more than smoking bans are about health. It is about control. Forcing India to allow homosexuality was not for the benefit of the homosexual population. India would have, in time, realised that there are more important things for the law to deal with than the non-crime of two men or two women living together.

      All this promotion of homosexuality to children has nothing to do with gays, just as the renaming of Christmas to ‘Winterval’ has nothing to do with Muslims. These are distractions to point your rage away from those who deserve it.

      The big clue was in the response by the president of Uganda. That is what it is really about. His response was way over the top but he was provoked, as he explained.

      You might say that the devil is using your own beliefs to blind you to his real purpose. I would call them ‘The Righteous’ but although mine are human and yours are spiritual, it doesn’t matter, the technique is the same.

      It’s the same technique used to make antismokers hate smokers even more than they already did. The same as used to make teetotallers hate drinkers and now, to make vegetarians hate meat-eaters. The target spreads disease and discord, and you must fight it. Oh but don’t fight us, we are on your side.

      The same technique used against German Jews and other groups in the 1930s.

      As Rolf Harris was silenced from saying, ‘Can you see what it is yet?’


      • Well said. It would be equally possible to make the argument “socialism is a mental illness and socialists should be locked up because they are useful idiots to subvert society”. I would argue that socialism, as opposed to gayness, is the common theme among the problem elements of the gay rights movement.

        Of course nobody in their right mind would advocate rounding up all socialists and throwing them in prison. To do so would reduce yourself to their tactics and would not only be somewhat hypocritical but also make the world a more dangerous place.

        The very term “society” is ill-defined but in this type of argument always boils down to a particular ideological view of the individual using the term, whether the ideology is religious, political or anything else. Surely the best “society” is one where everybody gets along and keeps their noses out of each other’s private business?

        And yes, this includes schools keeping their noses out of promoting (or discouraging) any particular sexuality but also includes religious people keeping their religion to themselves and fellow believers.


  3. That guest house incident. From what I have read, the two gays were members of Stonewall and knew they wouldn’t be allowed to stay there, having seen online that it was run by Christians. They knew they could sue when they were refused admission. And so they did. I don’t think that this was particularly admirable behaviour on the part of the gays. Gaylordism shouldn’t be illegal- poor Alan Turin – but neither should a private guest house be punished for refusing admission to whomsoever they please.


    • Yes, at least one was a Stonewall member targetting a harmless old couple, the husband just about (or just had) a triple heart bypass. Their policy is no double beds unless you’re married and as it is impossible for two men to be married, they were not being discriminatory, but even so, the judge fined them, if memory serves, £3,600.

      But more importantly, like the smoking ban, it removes one of our most funfdamental freedoms – property rights. Without them, we have no rights.


      • Exactly right. It isn’t a public house if the landlord can’t make the rules, I haven’t gone to a pub since the smoking ban except for a few times. It’s not the same, an imitation pub in fact.


        • Religion (of pretty much any flavour) cannot recognise gay marriage. It is an oxymoron. As an apathist, it doesn’t matter to me what two people call their relationship but to many religious people it matters a lot.

          If I can be denied a hotel room because I want to smoke in it, can I honestly support anyone denied a hotel room for any other reason? No. If they can tell me to fuck off, they can tell anyone they want to fuck off.

          Equality or not equality, that is the question.


  4. “A chap you might have heard of, by the name of Turin”

    Ah yes, the chappie in the shroud. He must have been getting on a bit by then though?


  5. Coincidentally this touches on a conversation that my partner and I were having last night. We are a same-sex male couple in our fifties. We were discussing (for the umpteenth time) the notion of ‘gay marriage’ and, again, couldn’t think where the notion came from and why it is being so vigorously pushed more or less world-wide. We were both delighted to be able to enter a civil partnership when we could but are not at all sympathetic to the idea of same-sex ‘marriage’. We are both church-goers (and yes I’m fully aware what the Bible says) but the idea of a gay couple being wedded in church feels wrong for all sorts of reasons. We certainly wouldn’t countenance doing this. As we have never been aware of any grass-roots agitation for ‘gay marriage’, and considering how long it took before civil partnerships were allowed, we think it suspicious too that this policy has come to the fore as quickly as it has. We can only conclude that as global developments very rarely manifest themselves spontaneously that ‘gay marriage’ must be something that is being imposed upon national governments from above (by the UN, anyone have any other suggestions?). Since I was a youngster there have been great strides in the way gay people have been treated by society but now my partner and I are starting to feel threatened again. I feel as if our existence is being used for some sinister agenda. It all seems part of the anti-tobacco/alcohol/junk food, anti-racism, global-warming portfolio that we are all expected to take on board. They bang on about ‘celebrating diversity’ but in reality it seems to me the ‘elites’ are trying to iron out differences so that we, as a population, can be more easily scrutinised and manipulated. By treating gay people (and other groups) like some kind of endangered species that can’t be touched, common sense can only tell you that a backlash can be expected, especially when the required group-think is exported to countries that have a different culture and history to the developed west’s – hence the sad developments in Russia, India and Uganda. It is now expected of gay people to report incidents of ‘hate crime’: I have followed your blog for quite a long time now and see it as a life-line for those of us who loathe the Nanny State and all her works. Whereas I find some negative statements about gay people in the responses to this article disappointing, (especially as I have heartily agreed with statements made by some of the names in the past) I wouldn’t dream of running to hold out my boo-hoos to the local police wailing about ‘hate crime’, why should I? As I agree with free speech (with no ‘its’ and ‘buts’) I had to accept a long time ago that some people just aren’t comfortable with the topic of homosexuality – I wish it wasn’t so but the world wasn’t created around my likes and dislikes. I could go on but wouldn’t want to test anyone’s patience – as it was very much on my mind this morning I didn’t want to let this opportunity pass!


    • a) Yes, orf course, like I said, ‘equality’ is to weaken the west. The notion came from the twisted minds of the social engineers who hate humanity and want to control us all.

      b) If you believe what scripture says then repent of your sins or you will be liable to be left out of favour, “For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”

      You can’t have it both ways.


    • I think I read somewhere (Frank Davis’s blog?) that the UK had, under an EU directive, to implement ‘gay marriage’ by a certain date – July 2013 rings a bell. Not sure why the EU should be interested in gay marriage (but then why was it insistent on greengrocers only advertising bananas in metric) except to exert control and bring on the Republic of the United States of Europe.


      • Yes you did, Jay.

        EU politics: gay marriage – required by “Europe”
        Richard North, 05/02/2013

        “ 2010 the UK signed up to an EU solemn international treaty that requires parties to permit same-sex marriage. In the UK’s case, the deadline was June 2013.”

        Equalities Office

        Equal civil marriage: a Consultation
        March 2012

        “We recognise that the personal commitment made by same-sex couples when they enter into a civil partnership is no different to the commitment made by opposite-sex couples when they enter into a marriage.

        We do not think that the ban on same-sex couples getting married should continue. Put simply, it’s not right that a couple who love each other and want to formalise a commitment to each other should be denied the right to marry.
        That is why we are, today, launching this consultation to seek your views on how we can remove the ban on same-sex couples having a civil marriage in a way that works for everyone.”
        https: //

        Reference number: Equal civil marriage consultation
        Issued: 15 Mar 2012
        Closing date: 14 Jun 2012
        http: //


    • Russia has not criminalised homosexuality. What they have done is a far more measured response than Uganda managed to the pushing of sexualisation on children. It was never about gays.

      You are right to be concerned. The Muslims and the travellers were once the Golden Children of the Righteous and now? They have been turned against. As you will be. As we smokers already have been. Don’t worry about it, revel in it. We Denormalised are going to be voting soon, and we must spread the word that we should not vote for any party that hates us. Even the ones who pretend they do.

      As for Russia, here is a detailed description of their real ‘anti-gay’ law –


  6. Sunex Amures
    Excellent, brave comments.
    “…anyone have any other suggestions?” Frankfurt School, Fabians and religious zealots who listen to their priests/vicars interpretation of the book, rather than let the book speak to them.


  7. Pingback: Underdogs Bite Upwards Tackles a Serious Subjec...

  8. Those of us who believe in the risen Lord are covered by His atoning blood shed for us on the cross. I remind myself of this fact when deeply ashamed of my own sins. As the world falls ever nearer to the time of the anti-christ and his evil rulership, I believe it will be the only thing that will save us.


First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s