The Myth of the Neutral Public Square

The Myth of the Neutral Public Square, by Paul Collits.

Homo-fascism is the phenomenon when homosexual activists strive for advancing themselves beyond favored status to supremacy. In line with instructions in After the Ball (the LGBTI equivalent to Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto), the homosexual movement avoids using such terms as “favored status” or “supremacy”, but rather outwardly pretend their goal is “tolerance” or “acceptance”. Supremacy is then the stage in which the homosexual movement and its allies take effective control of most or all of the centers of power of a government or other organization. When they have achieved this level of control they use and abuse their power to suppress and/or punish those who openly disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle or its agenda.

In the US, Chick-fil-A has withdrawn sponsorship from some charitable organisations in the face of hostility and blackmail by homosexual activists and advocates. What the activists who have been intimidating the well known Christian chicken sandwich making company are demanding is that organisations like them not support any third organisation that does not “affirm” homosexuals and homosexuality. Wow. …

Affirming means accepting the substance of the homosexual lifestyle, not merely tolerating difference and avoiding being judgemental. We have to like it! And, in the religious context, it also must be acknowledged that homosexual lifestyles are not sinful. End of discussion. The demand that all “affirm” homosexuality is taking things even further than the activist charge that conservative social views “hurt”, “offend” or “demean”.

So Chick-fil-A cannot support (sponsor, donate to, etc) any organisation that does not embrace the homosexual lifestyle as fine, OK, normal, whatever. Or we will make you pay. …

It is all of a piece with the homo fascists’ core strategy. We cannot (yet) control what you think, but we sure as hell can control what you say. …

And if you dare to have a publicly expressed different view to us, we will brand you unfit to have a public voice. …

Of course the oldest trick in the book is that if you simply “say” homophobia often enough, people will believe that support for traditional marriage is, indeed, homophobic. …

Margaret Court may or may not come to Melbourne to celebrate her tennis achievements. She may or may not be booed by the homo fascists. Israel Folau may or may not win his legal battle over his right to hold and express unfashionable religious views. But each effort at chipping away the rights of traditionalists to express publicly their views on issues core to their being is a further step down the road towards the virtual extradition of the silent minority from their own country. Even though they still live here. They won’t get public recognition. They may be forced out of a job, even a career, hence a future. They will be unplatformed. …

The public square is rigged. It is a minefield for the believers in tradition and the believers in the Jewish and Christian God. Those who would do harm to the beliefs and the public expression of them use the so-called neutral public square to their decided advantage. And, what is more in Australia, they get a mighty (one billion dollar plus) leg-up from the public broadcaster, whose blatant (and ceaseless) anti-conservative and anti-Christian bias is a national disgrace. Ditto the publicly funded universities.

Overreach indeed. Like all PC icons, gays are beyond criticism (unless they conflict with Muslims). And if history is any guide, it will become permanent.

For example, feminists used to moan about how there were fewer females than males at university. How unfair! Bias! Leaving aside the issues of greater male ambition due to not being able to have babies, and that there more brighter males due to bell-curve genetics, suppose we accept their claim that 50:50 was fair. But for the last decade, 60% of university students throughout the West have been female. Where are the cries of “unfair” and “bias” now? Where are the urgent government inquiries and task forces into rectifying the situation? There are none. So, it was all a power-grabbing con.

I know too many young men of stellar ability who are not planning to go to university and refuse to try hard at high school. Why? How much loss of talent can our society bear? Another factor dumbing down our society. It’s a rigged schooling system and a rigged job market, so why should young men play? Why support a society that treats them thus? Marriage too has become rigged — ask any divorced man — so why would men participate? Now women are moaning that there are not enough eligible and willing men. Who could have seen that coming? How “unlucky.”

But back to gay supremacy and “affirmation.” An up and coming US presidential candidate, Peter Buttigieg, is gay. With the top three Democrat candidates all failing and broadly seen as unacceptable (Biden, Warren, Sanders), Buttigieg is now leading in the polls for the Democrat primary in Iowa (though not more generally). From an article by Jim Goad about Buttigieg and the gay lifestyle we must now “affirm”:

Call me old-fashioned, but I think that people who have unprotected sex with others without informing them that they’re HIV-positive are downright rude. …

Pete’s on the right

What I do know is that Buttigieg recently declared that laws which criminalize nondisclosure of being HIV-poz are “not fair.”

Beware of a world where the mere idea of possibly giving someone who is the sexual equivalent of a drunk driver a social stigma is considered more damaging than a drunk driver plowing through a crowd without caring who gets hurt. …

Buttigieg, along with Elizabeth “Dry Gulch” Warren and Cory “Scary” Booker, say they agree that laws designed to punish HIV-positive sluts who willingly put others in harm’s way are “antiquated” and “archaic” and have no basis in real science.

Buttigieg noted that someone who’s dosed his bloodstream with antiretroviral drugs may have such a low viral load that it is undetectable and therefore untransmissible. That’s all fine and dandy, but these laws do not differentiate between people with low viral loads and those who are so chock-full of HIV they could infect all of Brazil with one sticky wad.

There are endless documented cases of people using HIV as a murder weapon, either intentionally or with reckless disregard for the life of the person they were jizzing all over.

Just last week, John Conner III — a professional dance coach and star of TV reality show Bring It — pled guilty to exposing a 16-year-old boy to HIV when Conner was 26 and they’d “had unprotected sex inside Conner’s vehicle multiple times.” Now 30, Conner was aware of his HIV-positive status in 2012 and is also being investigated for possibly exposing two other males to the virus.

Last year, a Scotsman named Darryl Rowe received a life sentence after he went on an eighteen-month campaign of vengeance to purposely infect as many other gay men with HIV as possible. Rowe claims he had unprotected sex with hundreds of men through the gay dating app Grindr; he is confirmed to have infected at least five of them. He would wait for days after exposing them to the virus so that they’d have no chance of nipping it in the bud with retroviral cocktails before he’d send them text messages such as:

  • “Maybe you have the fever. I came inside you and I have HIV LOL. Oops!”
  • “You can’t get rid of me. You’re gonna burn. I ripped the condom. You’re stupid. I got you.”
  • “You’re a fucking revolting jackass. Ha Ha Ha Ha. I’d taken the condom off.”
  • “I hope you enjoyed four of my loads. I have HIV.” …

In 2015, a California landscaper named Thomas Guerra was convicted of infecting others with HIV based on 11,000 text messages that saw him reveling in the fact that he was infecting others: “Yay lol. Someone getting poz that day. Poor Sucka.” Guerra’s punishment for potentially killing dozens of people? Six months in jail. …

In 2008, an ostensibly heterosexual Australian father of five named Michael John Neal was convicted of fifteen charges including “attempting to infect another person with HIV, rape and procuring sexual penetration by fraud.” Neal estimated that he infected about 75 men and confessed that he “gets off” on the idea of transmitting the virus. …

Sorry, fruitcakes — this is a situation where your legendarily fragile feelings must take a back seat to public safety. You can shoot at someone with a loaded gun and entirely miss your target, and it will still be charged as attempted murder. Having unprotected sex with someone and not telling them you’re HIV-positive should be treated the same way.

Affirm it, or be banned from the public square.