Reply from:

Bill Weintraub

Re: Analist Censorship

5-3-2011

Thank you Robert.

An excellent post!

Guys, I asked Robert, via email, what he meant by the acronym MSM.

Did he mean "men who have 'sex' with men?"

Or did he mean "main stream media?"

Because MSM can be used either way.

This was Robert's response, which is also excellent:

anal faction of MSM

In this post I meant Men who have sex with men. I am glad you mentioned the Main Stream Media. Whenever I read the mainstream media I am constantly presented with effeminate images of men. As we all know there are millions of MSM who do not fit into this false portrayal. I think my question was deleted because Yahoo Answers receives money from large commercial interests and would lose money if they would tell the facts and research about HIV and how it has affected the lives of so many men, their families, friends, and coworkers.

We must press on. The struggle will be long and I may not be here when it ends. But I have faith that some day all Men will be free from the scions of analism and their minions of death.

Rm

Thank you Robert.

Minions of death is correct.

The death and the effeminacy are both the result of the ideologically-dictated emphasis on anal.

Now:

Let's talk about censorship.

I've said repeatedly that all dominant cultures -- and analism is a dominant culture -- censor.

They seek, and usually successfully, to silence and censor opposing points of view.

Even though doing so is damaging to the people who live under the culture.

So:

Let's look at another example -- not analism -- but the dominant economic culture in the US today, which I call the dominant culture of greed-and-growth, but which is usually just called "free market capitalism."

Again, this is a dominant culture, and it dominates in part by dictating what can and can't be discussed.

Right now we're in a severe recession: unemployment is high, and millions have lost the equity they once had in their homes.

Yet debate about what's to be done consists virtually entirely of tweaks to the existing system:

supply side vs demand side;

more regulation vs less regulation;

more deficit spending vs less deficit spending.

Never does the debate look at whether the system itself -- the dominant economic culture -- needs to be changed.

What's interesting about that is there exist a plethora of what today are called "metrics" -- statistics -- detailing the failures of the present US system:

Life expectancy, infant mortality, percentage of population incarcerated, academic performance of school children --

in metric after metric, the US doesn't just lag behind, it's far, far behind comparable societies:

Countries like Germany, Holland, Canada.

Those countries have a more mixed economic culture -- a mix of what in the US is derisively called "socialism" -- with capitalism.

And they are, going by the statistics, more successful than the US.

Their societies are stabler, and their citizens happier, because their lives are less insecure.

Doesn't matter.

Our dominant American economic culture dominates the discussion by in effect censoring any attempt at looking at alternatives.

The same is true with analism.

There are "metrics" -- statistics.

For example, HIV prevalence -- the percentage of "MSM" -- men who have 'sex' with men -- in reality, males who engage in anal penetration with other males -- infected with HIV.

In the US, it's somewhere between 20 and 25%.

That's a huge number.

Only in sub-Saharan Africa do you see figures that high -- and then only in a few places.

Again, twenty to twenty-five percent is a huge number, and, details a huge failure of analism and a culture which centers on anal penetration:

Vulnerability to disease.

And in consequence, mass death.

Yet when Robert tries to point that out -- "If anal contact is responsible for the deaths of 600,000 men how could it be justified?"--

He's CENSORED.

There are other metrics:

Levels of substance abuse, cigarette smoking, and depression are all higher among "gays" than "straights."

The "gay leadership" blames such dysphorics on "homophobia."

Yet substance abuse is a major problem in extremely "gay"-friendly cities -- like San Francisco.

But if we try to say so -- we're censored.

What that means is that a dominant culture acts to preserve its dominance -- even when doing so -- is HARMFUL to those who live under the culture.

HIV infection is, after all, harmful to those infected.

Yet analism CENSORS Robert's very reasonable attempt to point out the role of anal in the spread of HIV.

So -- censorship is one of the major ways a dominant culture maintains its control -- even when that censorship is harmful to the members of the culture.

Another means of control is outright lying.

June 5, 2011, will mark the 30th anniversary of the first report of AIDS.

In anticipation of that anniversary, an old acquaintance of mine recently circulated an article he'd written titled "AIDS at 30: Genocide by Sloth."

Was or is AIDS -- genocide?

No.

Genocide is the purposeful and systematic mass murder of an entire people -- a "gens."

Was the spread of AIDS among "men who have 'sex' with men" purposeful and systematic?

No.

MSM AIDS came about through

1. the presence of HIV; and

2. a shift in sexual mores among MSM away from the laissez-faire attitudes of the 1950s and 60s, in which oral, JO, and frottage predominated, and anal was denigrated --

   to a doctrine -- "You're not really gay if you don't get fucked!" -- which required that every sexual encounter between two males culminate in an act of anal penetration.

   Once again, it should be noted that in the previous era, MSM sex was a sort of smorgasbord in which oral, JO, and frottage predominated, and anal was denigrated.

   Now anal was elevated to the status of a necessary and, as I said, culminating act, the only fitting climax to every sexual encounter.

That shift in sexual mores occurred in the mid-1970s.

It takes about six years from infection with HIV to the emergence of AIDS itself.

And, sure enough, the first reported cases of AIDS appeared in 1981.

Please note that the presence of HIV alone wasn't sufficient to cause the AIDS epidemic.

It was the shift in sexual mores, a shift which occurred within the "gay community" -- which was the "sine qua non" -- the "without which, not" -- of MSM AIDS.

If anal penetration hadn't been made mandatory -- if anal had remained what it had been in the 1950s and 60s, a denigrated and fringe activity -- there would have been NO epidemic.

Males into anal might well have infected each other with HIV -- and developed AIDS, and died -- but the disease and death would have been limited to those males.

Instead, HIV infection occurred on a massive scale.

Now -- who was responsible for the change in sexual mores?

Was it Ronald Reagan, Jerry Falwell, the Catholic Church, the American Nazi Party?

NO.

Once AIDS hit, and even before, the actions of many of those people were without question reprehensible --

but once again, the question is -- were they responsible for the shift in gay male sexual mores?

And the answer is NO.

It was gay-identified males themselves.

They were responsible for the change -- which they embraced, and enforced, with great vigor.

Of course, in my view, those gay-identified males were responding to an historical process we call heterosexualization.

But heterosexualization isn't a conspiracy or a plot -- it's what I said it is, an historical process.

Which means there was no genocide.

Because there was no systematic and purposeful murder of MSM.

If there had been, not just "males into anal" -- but all MSM -- would have been killed.

Especially guys like me -- "gay" activists.

Fact: Before the Nazis invaded a country, they made lists of Jewish and anti-Nazi activists.

As soon as they had control of the country, they rounded up, tortured, and killed those activists.

Like I said, I was a "gay" activist.

My name appeared in the gay press from at least 1975 forward in Boston, NYC, and SF.

Yet I'm alive.

Indeed, throughout the worst phases of the epidemic, I enjoyed robust good health.

That's not because some imaginary group of mass murderers overlooked me.

It's because I didn't do anal.

So -- there was no genocide.

How about homicide then?

Or suicide?

Arguably yes.

Once the cause of AIDS -- HIV -- had been discovered -- in 1984 -- and the mode of transmission -- anal penetration -- had been identified -- also in 1984 -- the behavior of the "gay community" can be described as both homicidal and suicidal:

As Mr. AIDS activism himself, Larry Kramer, stated in a speech in 2004:

Does it occur to you that we brought this plague of aids upon ourselves? I know I am getting into dangerous waters here but it is time. With the cabal breathing even more murderously down our backs it is time. And you are still doing it. You are still murdering each other. Please stop with all the generalizations and avoidance excuses gays have used since the beginning to ditch this responsibility for this fact. From the very first moment we were told in 1981 that the suspected cause was a virus, gay men have refused to accept our responsibility for choosing not to listen, and, starting in 1984, when we were told it definitely was a virus, this behavior turned murderous. Make whatever excuses you can to carry on living in your state of denial but this is the fact of the matter. I wish we could understand and take some responsibility for the fact that for some 30 years we have been murdering each other with great facility and that down deep inside of us, we knew what we were doing. Don't tell me you have never had sex without thinking down deep that there was more involved in what you were doing than just maintaining a hard-on.

I have recently gone through my diaries of the worst of the plague years. I saw day after day a notation of another friend's death. I listed all the ones I'd slept with. There were a couple hundred. Was it my sperm that killed them, that did the trick? It is no longer possible for me to avoid this question of myself. Have you ever wondered how many men you killed? I know I murdered some of them. I just know. You know how you sometimes know things? I know. Several hundred over a bunch of years, I have to have murdered some of them, planting in him the original seed. I have put this to several doctors. Mostly they refuse to discuss it, even if they are gay. Most doctors do not like to discuss sex or what we do or did. (I still have not heard a consensus on the true dangers of oral sex, for instance.) They play blind. God knows what they must be thinking when they examine us. Particularly if they aren't gay. One doctor answered me, it takes two to tango so you cannot take the responsibility alone. But in some cases it isn't so easy to answer so flippantly. The sweet young boy who didn't know anything and was in awe of me. I was the first man who ****ed him. I think I murdered him. The old boyfriend who did not want to go to bed with me and I made him. The man I let **** me because I was trying to make my then boyfriend, now lover, jealous. I know, by the way, that that other one is the one who infected me. You know how you sometime know things? I know he infected me. I tried to murder myself on that one.

"this behavior turned murderous"

That's homicide.

"I tried to murder myself on that one."

"Self-murder" -- that's called suicide.

Not genocide.

If that's the case -- if there was no genocide -- what's the purpose of the repeated use of the word "genocide" to characterize MSM AIDS?

What's the purpose of the lie?

Answer:

To evade responsibility.

And in particular to safeguard anal and promiscuity -- two key components of the dominant culture of analism.

But there's a problem.

Just as the censorship covers up the "metrics" of analism --

so do the lies.

By endlessly repeating a lie like "genocide," the analists in effect delude themselves into believing that they had nothing to do with the disaster called AIDS.

That they were in no way responsible for it.

But they were.

As they will be for the next anally-vectored epidemic.

Of which, as with AIDS, they will be both the victims -- and the cause.

In my last reply to Tom's our bodies melded into each other and our dicks became one, I said that as a boy, I was taught -- by Holocaust survivors no less -- that:

it is NEVER right and it is ALWAYS a mistake to compromise with or otherwise entertain a lie -- aka evil.

It's never right and it's always a mistake to compromise with or otherwise entertain a lie.

That MSM AIDS was "genocide" is just such a lie.

It can never be tolerated or in any other way entertained.

Robert:

Even though I told them that my question [about the role of anal in the death of 600,000 men] was based on reports from CDC. AIDS.gov, The Body.com and PBS and the evolution of the SIV into the human HIV it had no effect. These people did not give any response based on any research at all. The reason for this is that they do not want to face the truth about such reprehensible behavior. I also stated that if a person knows that he is infected and still has anal penetration, that such a person should be prosecuted for reckless endangerment of human life and should be sent to prison.

These people have no regard for human life. They are selfish, self centered and such behavior violates the very center of what it means to be a MAN. The time will come when they will reap what they have sown.

To you guys out there never, never lie on your back or be on your hands and knees to these merchants of death. Remember guys you are Warriors who follow the path of Fidelity, Masculinity, and disavow analism.

Robert is absolutely right, and in every particular.

The analists "do not want to face the truth about such reprehensible behavior."

They evade that Truth through censorship and lies.

"These people have no regard for human life. They are selfish, self centered and such behavior violates the very center of what it means to be a MAN."

That too is absolutely right.

Such selfishness and self centered disregard for the lives of other Men is NOT MANLY.

Manliness is Virtue.

Analism is vice.

It's foul.

Vicious.

Evil.

The time will come when they will reap what they have sown.

Inevitably.

Because although HIV infection is at present to some degree "manageable" -- albeit with drugs which are toxic --

the anatomy and physiology of the anus and rectum HAVE NOT CHANGED.

When penetrated, the anus and rectum are uniquely vulnerable.

And pathogens, even as I write and you read, are seeking ways to survive and thrive by exploiting that vulnerability -- even if it means the death, as with AIDS, of their host.

That's what pathogens do.

And helping them do it -- which is what analism does -- is both insane;

And inevitably deadly.

To you guys out there never, never lie on your back or be on your hands and knees to these merchants of death. Remember guys you are Warriors who follow the path of Fidelity, Masculinity, and disavow analism.

Right.

Analism = anal, promiscuity, and effeminacy; and analism = death.

Reject it.

Disavow it.

Choose Virtue.

Choose Life.

I thank Warrior Robert Moseley.

Who's a true Warrior.

And guys, I recommend that you scroll back up to the top of this page and read again what Robert said.

Because his words bear reading again and again.

Bill Weintraub

May 3, 2011

© All material Copyright 2011 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Warrior Man Brian Hulme

Re: Analist Censorship

5-4-2011

It is my experience that those who censor do so because they are afraid! Bullies always pick on the easiest targets, how else can you be (or LOOK) strong? If anal was the right thing then they only need to defend it and put its case; frot if it were a lot of nonsense would fade and die.

The TRUTH is backed by the Warrior God and I have faith that He and it WILL WIN. Robert may have been stopped this time, but the truth can not be stopped, maybe slowed a bit but not stopped -- "never retreat, never surrender".

With Warrior Love

Brian

Reply from:

Bill Weintraub

Re: Analist Censorship

5-9-2011

Thank you Warrior Man Brian.

Brian is certainly correct that "If anal was the right thing then [the analists] only need to defend it and put its case"

But as to this: "frot if it were a lot of nonsense would fade and die."

Well, it's a bit more complicated.

Frot of course isn't nonsense and it won't fade and die -- simply because it's directly and mutually genital sex, extraordinarily powerful for Men, and uniquely Male.

And Men now discover, and will continue to discover, Frot while with a buddy, sometimes in boyhood, sometimes later, often in playful or not-so-playful Wrestling or Fighting or other "rough-housing" --

as was just described in Warrior Rodolfo's First Time Fighting and Frot.

Or Men discover Frot, and will continue to discover Frot, alone, rubbing their cocks against their bedclothes or humping a pillow while imagining being with -- and, often, Fighting -- another Man.

Guys discover, and will continue to discover, Frot in those ways because Frot is rooted in Male Biology and genetically-determined Male Psychology -- in Masculinity.

Again, this is a question of Male Biology.

Other than this website, there's virtually no cultural support for Frot.

And yet Frot endures.

However -- and despite that endurance -- the larger MSM culture, which in this case is analism, could very well continue to succeed in doing what it's done so successfully for many many years now --

Denigrating Frot, while asserting that those who don't and won't do anal are "psychologically blocked," immature and forever incomplete.

Those constant cultural messages, that unending propaganda, takes an enormous toll, as can be seen in many many posts on this site, including this one from a guy named Dave, titled I have everything I could ever want!:

Thank you so much for your website. Over the past couple of weeks I have read and reread many pages, and I have done a LOT of thinking. I am not trying to be dramatic here, but your website, your message, has been the catalyst for changing my life. I have NEVER wanted anal...I have a partner of 16 years, and he has never wanted it either. The Buttfuck Dictatorship though has managed to make me wonder for years what I have been missing, not only with anal sex, but with a "gay life" in general. i have for so long thought there was something wrong with me, something wrong/missing in my relationship. I have spent years looking for whatever this is/was. I could write volumes here, but I will be brief for now. It hit me right between the eyes after finding your site. I HAVE EVERYTHING I COULD EVER WANT! I AM NOT MISSING OUT ON ANYTHING! I have a wonderful partner. We love each other. It is simple and easy...WHY HAVE I WORKED SO HARD TO MAKE IT SOMETHING ELSE! I feel like a kid again. I feel liberated!

Now, I haven't heard from Dave in a number of years, but his feelings are very common among guys who identify as "gay":

The Buttfuck Dictatorship has managed to make me wonder for years what I have been missing, not only with anal, but with a "gay life" in general. i have for so long thought there was something wrong with me, something wrong/missing in my relationship.

"i have for so long thought there was something wrong with me, something wrong/missing in my relationship."

Those sorts of thoughts can be, as Dave says, quite toxic and very destructive.

They can and do, quite frequently, as many other posters on our sites have attested, destroy relationships.

Even though the Men in those relationships do indeed "have everything they could want."

The problem is that their culture, their analist culture, tells them that they don't have everything -- or even anything.

It tells them, over and over and over and over again, that if they're not doing anal, they're not really gay.

And that message is very very very destructive -- and in the form of HIV and other STI, it can literally kill.

Now:

We've been trying, for the last eleven years, to defeat the analist message.

We have not succeeded.

Why not?

Because our guys won't support us in the way that we need.

American author Kurt Vonnegut once said, "The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are angels, I hope they're organized like the mafia."

Problem:

Our guys refuse to organize -- they won't come out, they won't donate, they won't form Regional Chapters.

Which cripples us.

In the meanwhile, the "LGBT community," including the analist part of that community, becomes increasingly powerful.

Indeed, as The New York Times reports, the "gay" community now has so much clout that law firms are refusing to defend an anti-"gay"-marriage piece of legislation, the Defense of Marriage Act, even when requested to do so by the US House of Representatives:

WASHINGTON -- It's not every day that a leading law firm fires a client for holding a position so extreme that it may be said to be unworthy of a defense. And it is rarer yet -- unheard of, really -- when that client is the House of Representatives and the position in question is a federal law.

Yet that is just what King & Spalding, a venerable Atlanta firm, did last week. Under pressure from gay rights groups and apparently fearful of criticism from the law students it recruits and the corporate clients it serves, the firm said it would not defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act against a challenge that it violates the Constitution.

. . .

To opponents of same-sex marriage, the firm's decision is the latest evidence that elite opinion generally and the legal culture in particular is racing ahead of popular opinion and shutting down a worthwhile debate.

"There is a big gap between elites and everyone else" over same-sex marriage, said Maggie Gallagher, the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, which supports traditional marriage. The polls and political science literature support her: What may be orthodoxy in faculty lounges remains an open question among the public at large.

Another critic of same-sex marriage said King & Spalding's decision illustrated just how wide the divide between elite and mass opinion on same-sex marriage has become. "There is no doubting that the default position of the American academy is to dismantle the institution of marriage and remake it on a new basis," Matthew J. Franck of the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative research group, wrote in a blog post on Friday. "The deadly combination of unchallenged liberal presumptions and casual intimidation of dissenters is probably at its worst in the most prestigious universities, which set the tone for the rest of the country, on this issue as on many others."

Ms. Gallagher sounded bitter and besieged as she described how the nature if not the substance of the debate had shifted. "Either you're with them or you're a hater," she said of gay rights advocates. "They're trying to exclude you from the public square."

[emphases mine]

Now, and of course, "gay"-marriage is bigger than just analism.

It has huge ramifications for anyone involved in male-male or female-female -- ramifications which are personal, legal, and financial.

Which is why it has such widespread support.

Nevertheless, it's telling that the tactics being used to intimidate those opposed to "gay"-marriage are those so often used by the "gay" community, and by analists in particular:

• inculcating "fear of criticism," in this case, in a wealthy and powerful law firm, "from the law students it recruits and the corporate clients it serves";

• "intimidation of dissenters"; and

• characterization of those who dissent as "haters."

We've all encountered this, and in Robert's case, from just one question:

Robert asks a question which is implicity critical of anal, and the analists respond by treating him as a dissenter and hater, seeking to intimidate him by having his question removed and penalizing him on a point system:

On Yahoo Answers I asked a question: "If anal contact is responsible for the deaths of 600,000 men how could it be justified?" The response was immediate. The question was removed and I was penalized 10 points.

The purpose of doing that, of course, is to make Robert and anyone who thinks as he does "fearful of criticism," fearful that if he speaks up, he'll be creamed.

Robert:

This goes to show that the anal faction of MSM has an iron grip on everything.

The anal faction of MSM has an iron grip on the big websites like Wikipedia and Yahoo Answers; and its iron grip extends even into prestigious US law firms, which under our American adversarial system, are supposed to represent anyone who requests that representation.

Of course, it doesn't always play out that way, particularly if you're poor.

But the US House of Representatives isn't exactly poverty-stricken.

Doesn't matter.

The House is having trouble finding a lawyer.

And that is indeed the "iron grip" of analism.

And that's a huge problem.

So -- you guys need to understand that wanting Victory -- or a lover -- isn't enough.

That you have to FIGHT for it.

The analists have been fighting for many years.

You've been doing nothing.

The analists are organized.

You aren't -- because you refuse to be.

In the third and fourth centuries AD, Hellenism -- the great and glorious spiritual and philosophic thought of the ancient world -- was challenged by Christianity.

The Christians were organized.

The Hellenists -- whom the Christians called "pagans" -- weren't.

The Hellenists lost.

And Hellenist thought basically disappeared for a thousand years.

Yes, Christianity assimilated many Hellenist ideas and turned them into Christian doctrine.

But the glory and essence of Hellenism -- its rational, inquiring, and tolerant spirit -- was destroyed.

As was its championing of male-male.

And for a thousand years, Europe and the Mediterranean world were ruled by the equivalent of today's Taliban.

When Hellenism reappeared -- under the Renaissance -- much of it had gone missing -- been lost or destroyed.

For example, the work of Tacitus, one of the great Roman historians, survived, but only partially, in just one medieval manuscript.

One of his works which survived, but again, only partially, is known today as The Annals of Imperial Rome.

In that work, Tacitus describes, in excruciating detail, the depredations of Tiberius, the second Roman emperor, who ruled after Augustus.

And he also, brilliantly, summarizes the events which led to the imperial tyranny:

Pompey [,the war lord who succeeded Crassus and was then killed by Julius Caesar], in his third consulship, was chosen to reform public life. But his cures were worse than the abuses, and he broke his own laws. Force was the means of his control, and by force he lost it. During the twenty years of strife that followed, morality and law were non-existent, criminality went un-punished, decency was often fatal.

Finally, Caesar Augustus, when consul for the sixth time, felt sure enough of his position to cancel all that he had decreed as Triumvir, in favor of a new order: peace and the Principate.

[That "new order," the Principate (28 BC), meant the death of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire, an endless tyranny.]

. . .

[Augustus] seduced the army with bonuses, and his cheap food policy was successful bait for civilians. Indeed, he attracted everybody's good will by the enjoyable gift of peace. Then he gradually pushed ahead and absorbed the functions of the senate, the officials, and even the law.

Opposition did not exist. War or judicial murder had disposed of all men of spirit. Upper-class survivors found that slavish obedience was the way to succeed, both politically and financially.

. . .

At this time there was no longer any fighting -- except a war against the Germans; and that was done less to extend the empire's frontiers, or achieve any lucrative purpose, than to avenge the disgrace of the army lost with Publius Vinctilius Varus.

In the capital the situation was calm. The titles of officials remained the same. Actium had been won before the younger men were born. Even most of the older generation had come into a world of civil wars. Practically no one had ever seen truly Republican government. The country had been transformed, and there was nothing left of the fine old Roman character.

Political equality was a thing of the past; all eyes watched for imperial commands.

~ Translated by Michael Grant

And you can see the power of Tacitus' writing.

In phrase after memorable phrase, he describes what happens when republics are subverted by the rich and the powerful:

• Force was the means of his control, and by force he lost it.

• During the twenty years of strife that followed, morality and law were non-existent, criminality went un-punished, decency was often fatal.

• Opposition did not exist. War or judicial murder had disposed of all men of spirit.

• Upper-class survivors found that slavish obedience was the way to succeed, both politically and financially.

• Practically no one had ever seen truly Republican government. The country had been transformed, and there was nothing left of the fine old Roman character.

• Political equality was a thing of the past; all eyes watched for imperial commands.

Tacitus is seen today as one of the leading voices in the Western humanistic tradition.

His work was read and re-read by our American Founding Fathers.

And yet we only have what we have of Tacitus -- through one frail medieval manuscript.

We have to wonder -- what it is we don't have.

Often, we know the authors' names and the names of their works.

But we don't have the books themselves.

The same is true of statuary and other art.

This "Warrior found at Riace" is rare in that it 1) exists and 2) is virtually intact:

As is this painting of Warrior Lovers at a Symposium:

Both were buried, by the way -- that's why they survived.

But we have very little which is intact -- the way those two pieces are.

Mainly what we have are fragments:

And we know, from literary sources, that for every fragment we have, there were tens of thousands of statues and other works of art that were smashed to dust.

Bishop Theophilus
He led the mobs which destroyed much of pagan
Alexandria, including the famous Serapeum and its library

So -- a dominant culture -- can last a long time -- literally a thousand years -- and do a lot of damage.

You guys need to think about that.

Analism has been dominant since 1975.

That's thirty-six years.

Suppose it lasts another thirty-six.

Those of you who are thirty now -- will be sixty-six.

And you'll still be hearing, incessantly, about tops and bottoms and that you're not really gay if you don't get fucked.

You'll have heard that all your lives.

And then you'll die.

Fun, huh?

Brian:

The TRUTH is backed by the Warrior God and I have faith that He and it WILL WIN.

Sure.

Eventually.

But eventually can be a very long time.

"God helps those who help themselves."

A common sentiment.

The Spartans had a version of that saying too.

But you refuse to help yourselves.

You'll help yourself -- in the most selfish ways imaginble.

But you won't help your SELVES -- your Fellow Warriors.

So -- you're in for decades of oppression.

And it could get worse.

Right now you're merely derided and pressured.

And sometimes -- about a third of the time, according to one study -- coerced.

The coerced part could become a lot more serious.

I'm talking about, for example, being jailed for denigrating anal and criticizing "gay."

And effeminacy -- particularly effeminacy.

Far-fetched?

The buttboys have long urged that that happen to me.

Why shouldn't it happen to all of you?

Dominant cultures defend themselves.

RUTHLESSLY.

Fact: The buttboys despise you.

Your very existence is a continual affront to them.

Because it calls into question their core "sexual" practice.

If they can, they'll eliminate you.

And they daily grow more powerful.

Why?

Because they're ORGANIZED.

And because they put a LOT OF MONEY into their organizations.

Millions of dollars.

Multi-millions.

Brian:

Robert may have been stopped this time, but the truth can not be stopped, maybe slowed a bit but not stopped -- "never retreat, never surrender".

"slowed a bit" --

Unfortunately, it can be more than a bit.

It can be a long, long time.

And during that time, not just things, but -- attributes -- can be lost.

What is it that Tacitus said?