Equality is for Fags


IT'S MY DECADENCE AND CONSUMERISM...AND I NEED IT NOW!!!The Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act has made a lot of “gay marriage” advocates happy, because they now have “marriage equality” under federal law.

“I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law,” President Obama said in a statement last Wednesday, “It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people.”

There is no true political power in creating an empowered minority of shallow ideologues who seek only selfish desires of extra-legal representation.  Like  that ridiculous court scene from Spielberg’s Amistad (1997), the queer activists are standing in the street shouting, “Give us, us free!  Give us, us free! Give us, us free!”

Equality is for fags.

The queer activist community with it’s collective screams of “gib me dat” for federally recognized marriage might quiet down after this ruling, but they aren’t going anywhere.  The secular and modern lifestyle will continue to be at odds with traditionalism and traditional values no matter how many concessions the courts grant, so don’t think that one court ruling is going to magically make them go away.

The queer lobby might be able to rock the boat from time to time, and they do a good job of hogging the spotlight when big-media cameras are rolling, but they are not a political force, rather a social aggregation.

Julius Evola’s theories of sovereignty and authority do a good job spelling out where true authority comes from, and why equality is not only a pipe dream but also undesirable.  Evola writes, “Every true political unity appears as the embodiment of an idea and a power, thus distinguishing itself from every form of naturalistic association or ‘natural right,’ and also from every societal aggregation determined by mere social, economic, biological, utilitarian, or eudemonistic factors.”

Baron Julius Evola

Baron Julius Evola

Evola theorizes that power is derived from two main sources; religious and martial.  The function and quality of leadership are defined by the religious and martial mandate, or authority and power of enforcing rules and edicts.  This suggests that Matthew Heimbach’s “Church Militant” proposal is more than a fancy idea, and probably is a lot closer to what we should be doing.

What we saw in last week’s ruling by the Supreme Court was a rejection of traditional values, and DOMA supporters being ridiculed by Justice Scalia as “unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob.”

However, the Supreme Court’s ruling was anything but a political event.  It is one more piece of fruit on the secular vine.  I don’t think Scalia’s mocking statements of traditionalists is going to be a one time event, either.

Evola says the political domain is, “… defined through hierarchical, heroic, ideal, anti-hedonistic, and, to a degree, even anti-eudemonistic values that set it apart from the order of naturalistic and vegetative life.  Authentic political ends [point] to a higher dimension of life and a separate order of dignity.”

It’s no secret that Evola was no fan of democracy, and he explicitly supports the idea that societies need to have a visible ruling class.  Because there will always be a sovereignty among the nation, and a sovereign  which will always rule, the people need to be guided by that higher political class.

Evola is also highly critical of the secular and modern lifestyle saying that when a secular sovereignty is permitted, that the train will go off the effing tracks.  Okay, he didn’t say that, but he did say that it will be “as if a creature overtook it’s creator.”  He also said that such a condition is the cowardice of the political class.

The problem lies with the servile attitude of those who don’t have the strength to be “men.”  What we’ve seen thus far is that leaders (men, and women alike…) are failing to make the transcendence from being a naturalistic man to an enlightened man.

Now that the Supreme Court has legislated that queer marriages are the same as traditional marriages, perhaps we’ll see more Americans “man up” and provide the leadership that our State and Nation truly need.


  • JPOutlook

    Really inspiring! Thank you!

  • DuncanJ

    The Oxford dictionary defines marriage as: “the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife” I wonder how long it will take the gay lobby to change that, because the definition is “homophobic” or “heterocentrist”

  • Powerful article. I’ll have to re-read it till everything sinks in. Many years ago I coined the expression, “Drugs are for N-Words.” That’s my usual response when a V.A. doctor asks me if I’ve been taking street drugs — a required question. And unlike Paula Deen I’m not going to apologize for saying it. Now with your help halfway through my life I get it: Equality is for Fags! Also we should not succumb to the fag glossary. I, we, are not “straight”. We are just normal. Amerika is for the birds. Onward to the White Republic.

  • John

    Thanks john king. I hadn’t given much thought to using the word straight so I did’t realize I was using their language. I’ll be saying i’m normal from now on.

Baron Julius Evola

By: Thomas Buhls



%d bloggers like this: