Category Archives: Trump

Are Traps Gay? A Greco-Christian Perspective

Something that has commanded a great deal of my thought as of late has been the question on the sexual nature of those men who choose to imitate women- that is, if it would be indicative of homosexuality for a male to feel sexual attraction towards someone with many of the aesthetic qualities of a female, including mannerism both physical and emotional, dress, and so on, but who was in actuality a biological male, this lattermost fact being known to both parties. This has nothing to do with transvestitism or whatever queer (no pun intended) word is used for the filth the anti-American, anti-Christian bourgeoise cosmopolitan elite are pushing on children in the modern day, but rather, a phenomenon largely resultant from Western exposure to Japanese culture where young men simply choose to sexually act as women in a way somewhat indescribably but inarguably different from “traditional” versions of the thing, such as drag queens and simple flaming homosexuals. I must admit I know little about traps as a whole- my n for interacting with traps has been quite small, and I don’t hope to extrapolate much definite data from those few I has spoken to or know, but there are definite separable differences, most notably that traps generally recognize that they are not actually female, and that a surprising number ascribe to authoritarian, hardline, esoteric or right-wing ideologies.

Now, long has the question been asked if traps are gay, and generally it’s been whimsical, with no one seriously considering or caring about the answer. This has often been used as a catch-all question, and I often see people arguing on multiple levels to discuss the sexual nature of traps, without recognizing the distinction between what their positions address. Generally, there are two things that are debated when this is discussed- there is the aesthetic question of whether traps are gay, and the moral question on whether they are gay. However, rarely is a distinction drawn between these two things, so you will have one side rightfully arguing that it is not a sign of homosexuality to sexually like traps, or at least, pictures and drawing of traps (which they, through no fault of their own, inaccurately phrase as ‘traps are not gay’), and another side rightfully arguing that just as homosexuality is a moral wrong, so too is sexual attraction to traps (which they, similarly blamelessly, inaccurately phrase as ‘traps are gay’).

For quite a while, I was of the opinion solely of the first group, although not of the extremists who inaccurately claim it is straight to like traps. Scientific study has proven that heightened attraction to androgynous and cross-dressing men and women is not something seen in totally homosexual or heterosexual people. The implication that many draw from this is that liking traps is a wholly bisexual phenomenon (an idea commonly espoused when one views sexuality as a linear spectrum), and that is close to the truth, but not the truth exactly- liking traps is something that is separate even from bisexuality as there verifiably exist those who like traps but are not interested in the masculine. Now, this means that it is not straight to like traps, but it’s not gay either- it’s an abnormal sexuality that exists wholly outside of the gay/straight paradigm. Oftentimes, bisexuals and others like them will also like traps, and this is to be expected- bisexuals, those who are attracted to the feminine and the masculine, would often be attracted to those who represent an intersection or rejection of both, but quite often as well, are not attracted to traps. However, like all abnormal sexualities, liking traps is often found with other abnormal sexualities, adding to the general confusion of the thing.

However, a short while ago, someone I met through Nick (whose name I will not reveal here but simply refer to by his chosen display name of “S P A C E B O I”) presented me with a meme of Plato and Aristotle discussing traps. The meme posited that Plato would have argued that traps are not gay, while Aristotle would have argued the reverse. This is something I had been thinking about at the time, and I was having a bit of thinker’s block. Any who follow me on twitter and most people I know in real life would be able to tell you that I am quite the fan of Plato, and I readily defend Forms as being verified in the Bible. However, this left me in quite the pickle- would I say that a not-insignificant amount of Plato’s work was wrong because of this application, or would I turn my back on Biblical truth opposing the practice of same-sex relations? The latter was obviously not an option- the Bible is clear here, even in the New Testament (despite some ‘theologians’ attempts to confuse the matter), and infallible in this regard. However, the stance given to Plato seemed very much in keeping with his stances, and also very much wrong. I muddled on this for some time, until recently I thought back to a very early part of The Republic, which clearly helped lay the foundation for the Theory of Forms. In it, Socrates is said to have inquired on the nature of justice, and after some dialogue, have stated that justice could have the working definition of “doing good to one’s friends and bad to one’s enemies.” However, this was somewhat simple, and as Socrates pointed out, would have (if they had been in keeping with the definition of “good” which they laid out prior) commanded one to give arms to a madman if he was a friend and had given to you for safekeeping while he was sane. The same is true with traps. One must support the friend unless one must restrain him if he has gone rogue. Similarly, one must like the form reflected in the trap, but reject the rogue incarnation of it out of love for it. Therefore, I must also state that morally speaking, consorting with a trap would be a form of sodomy undeniably linked to homosexuality, just as one who gave arms to a madman would inarguably be more responsible for his demise than the procurer of said arms, a position wholly in line with any form of Platonism.

Now, there is a question to be raised- do these truths not come into conflict with one another? It’s somewhat hard to verbalize, but some may recognize a disconnect here. God is beauty, and truth, and justice, and therefore, it does not make sense that something immoral and unjust could be aesthetically “good” or properly enjoyable. However, this only proves that it is not virtuous to like traps, something I have never argued. It is not perfect, and imperfect men like imperfect things. This is an inarguable truth of philosophy, and something borne out by further psychological studies which show people are often attracted to those on a similar level of attractiveness. This is also one reason why I do not think that the perfect man, Jesus Christ, married- there would not be a woman he was sexually attracted to. In conclusion, I must generally reject the question of traps being gay, as it does not provide a useful answer. It is not aesthetically gay to like traps- that is, you are not gay if you like them, just as Plato would likely argue. However, it is [unfortunately] morally gay to act on such an attraction, a statement that is wholly in line with Biblical and Platonic teaching, both of which are yet to be wrong.

The Death of Saul Alinsky

Last Saturday, hundreds of thousands of people in cities across the country came out in defiant protest against Donald Trump. Bravely wearing those ridiculous, amorphous pink hats, women took to the streets with their neutered husbands and impressionable children in tow to “take on” the President. They chanted, they marched, they made their cool signs with all sorts of neat supplies from Michael’s, the unemployed hippies played their drums, Pocahontas made a rousing speech, and Madonna threatened to blow up the government.

They poured through the streets in wave after wave from Los Angeles to New York with their black, Muslim, queer, and Hispanic allies alongside them to make their voices heard! This should have been a political grand slam. Hey look over there! Those rambunctious, millennial women at the beginning of the parade dressed up like vaginas! Take that Drumpf! Look at all the clever signs! So funny, that old woman is mad because she still has to protest, what a riot!

According to the mainstream media, this was among the largest protests in US history. Surely the effects of such a dramatic event would be felt for months, maybe years to come! With such an enormous show of solidarity between white liberals and cosmopolitan minorities, who could possibly stop this group of people who collectively hold no institutional power? After all, the protestors say that this is the new normal, their “resistance” will continue all the time for the next four years.

But if that truly is the case, then so what? Who cares?

The past three months of protests and organizing have reached a scale never before seen in American history. The sheer amount of financial, political, and social capital at the disposal of left wing power players to drum up armies of disaffected, disenfranchised urban populations is unprecedented. Had it not been in response to an almost absolute seizure of power by America’s premier real estate mogul and the Republican Party, this activism would be the stuff of Saul Alinsky’s fantasies.

But of course, the object of this defiance is the one they call the madman, the God Emperor. A man who went up in the polls after he said that former presidential candidate and veteran John McCain was not a war hero because he was captured and tortured. A man who elicited laughter from an audience of GOP donors when he said that he had only called Rosie O’Donnell a “fat pig” and a “disgusting animal.” A man who told political royalty Jeb Bush that his brother lied the country into the Iraq War on a Republican stage yet went on to win the presidential nomination.

A man who, just four weeks before the presidential election was caught saying he could “grab (women) by the pussy” and within 48 hours recovered the race almost completely and then won it just three weeks later. Through attrition, Donald Trump has slowly but surely destroyed any significant measure of public pressure that the press or a protest could exert on him. The era of Saul Alinsky is over.

In fact, we witnessed the exact moment when the soul of that late Marxist agitator finally passed on into the ether. In the closing remarks of Barack Obama’s Farewell Address he said that if ordinary cultural Marxists wanted to affect change, they ought to “pick up a clipboard and do some organizing,” as he had done in Chicago. The perfectly pathetic call to action by a lame duck president was silenced not more than twelve hours later when the new President stole the news cycle the next morning by calling Buzzfeed, that repository of white hating degeneracy, a “failing pile of garbage.” That had been the last breath of Alinsky.

Few people could have guessed in which direction the nation would proceed after Obama because few could fathom how they could put the nation back together again. In the wake of the endlessly divisive, critical, malicious, self immolating politicking of the Democrat machine, how could the nation at once recover its identity crisis, break the shackles of political correctness, and then figure out how to right the ship?

The answer was simple. After eight years of corruption by an Alinskyite, basically a double agent trained in propagandizing through subversive speeches, we needed a doer. Any normal president would see the massive protests, the pink hats, hearing the pussy tape on repeat in their mind, tortured over how to answer a coalition of anarchists whose sole objective is to burn. Donald Trump shrugged, tweeted a mild acknowledgement, and went on to scrap the Trans Pacific Partnership two days later. Women’s March? When?

Moreover, Trump had already been winning against Alinsky throughout the election, and this was precipitated by Brexit. The entire Obama-Hillary strategy depended almost entirely on the passivity of white people, bullied into docile submission by the political correctness police.

Only with their obliging ignorance in the transformation of the country could the Democrat Party secure power by appealing to deep racialist sentiments within the various minority communities. Winning enormous margins of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and counting on whites to stay home was the Alinsky ticket to a one party state. Demographically, with a pro amnesty President in office right now, this would have been all but assured.

With total power in sight, Hillary overplayed her hand and it took a strategist like Trump to see the vulnerability and exploit to critical effect. In each and every speech, Trump held a mirror up to the country and shocked enough people into realizing that we didn’t want a nation in which terrorism, race riots, unemployment, and Spanish predominated.

He parried with a bit of genius Alinsky rhetoric of his own, “Make America Great Again,” a statement which betrays a profoundly offensive but necessary truth about the state of the country veiled in a patriotic battle cry. At once daring the reckless liberal into either denying or affirming America’s greatness, either way strengthening a nationalistic brand which beats Alinsky’s racialist brand every time.

The grand women’s march on Saturday was no women’s march at all. An event without purpose, message, brand, or ultimately an effect. As Trump has coopted the nation’s true disenfranchised, the old Alinsky coalition has no banner to wave other than that of anarchy. Obamacare has been repealed, the TPP is dead, the Republicans inherited the union vote. All that’s left of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Saul Alinsky is those lousy pink hats.


Applied Newspeak: Why Trump’s Speech Mattered