Madisonville Anti-Homosexual Picket After Action Report


I had the pleasure of joining our Madisonville Kentucky chapter of the Traditionalist Worker Party as they took a stand against the radical homosexual agenda. The event began as I was notified by our local chapter leader, who is a small business owner in town, that several local banks and corporations were supporting this “Pride Festival” in town. Madisonville, Kentucky is a town of about 20,000 people and is approximately 86% White.

The area has long been attacked by globalist trade and economic policies, with mining and industrial jobs shrinking in the entire region for years now. Not content with simple using globalism to economically impoverish the area, the globalists are now pushing their agenda of homosexuality and radical leftism to the people of Western Kentucky.

When I got to the staging ground for our protest I was overjoyed to see both comrades I have had the pleasure of knowing and marching with for an extended time, and new ones! Our membership, especially in Appalachia, is growing very quickly and it was great to see some new faces who lived in Madisonville and had seen the previous actions of our chapter there and decided to become Party comrades.

Our chapter leader had found out about the homosexual event the day of, meaning we weren’t able to muster our full local strength, but those of us who were able to attend were enthusiastic to head out into the ninety degree heat to face down our foes and take a stand for Faith, Family and Folk.

At the public venue where the Pride Festival was being held, the first thing we saw was a rainbow flag raised on the flagpole. A gaggle of assorted homosexuals, drag queens and their pink and green haired supporters were milling about outside.

Already in the designated protest zone were a few Westboro Baptist Church style preachers, yelling about the usual things, Hellfire and damnation and sodomites and the such. Of course on their signs were things against idolatry, which they identified as anyone who is Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran or any other High-Church form of Christianity, basically the entire Christian world. They began screaming in their megaphone against us, seeing “racists and Socialists are even worse than sodomites” in their exact words.

The man with the megaphone began talking about supporting open borders within about two minutes of us arriving and denounced us for our anti-semitism because the Jews are “God’s chosen people.” This was a walking (and talking) hilarious stereotype of the worst type of American branded Cucktianity, having nothing to do with traditional Christendom of any form.

Myself and our chapter had a playful back and forth with the confused truck stop “pastor” and his troupe of semi-literate buffoons before engaging our real target, the assembled homosexuals and their supporters. The Socialist fist t-shirts, the multicolored hair, the bull-dyke’s; this was the stereotypical neo-liberal Establishment assembled in all of its smell and degeneracy, right in beautiful little Madisonville Kentucky. KY1

While the homosexuals were likely thinking we should begin attacking them, I started with a series of questions.

How can they as a movement say they support indigenous peoples if the homosexual movement has pushed European and American leaders to hold medicine, food and financial investment hostage from African nations because of their local culture and religious views on homosexuality?

If you claim to hate Wall Street and the 1%, why does your movement get huge subsidies from these sources and is supported by the media, by our political class and by the giant capitalist banks and multinational corporations who make up the 1% and their various agents?

If you say that people have no right to make rules that impact your personal life, why has your movement filed hundreds of lawsuits against Christian business owners to force your ideology into their private lives?

Why do you claim to be Revolutionaries when you are simply upholding the status quo of mainstream Western politicians and Leftist academia?

To the one girl wearing a USSR shirt Why are you wearing the symbol of a country that imprisoned homosexuals in asylums and gulags, viewing homosexuality as a dangerous Fifth Column within Soviet Society and an attack on the proletariat revolution? 

Why do the media oligarchs who support your actions against primarily White Christians stay silent when a Jewish Shomrim patrol in New York City beats a Black gay man?

Why does the Obama administration and other pro-homosexual movements use you as weapons against my community, but continue to arm and fund Wahabbi countries and groups who throw your fellow homosexuals off of buildings in the Middle East?

I was able to give a speech asking these questions and present our worldview, to a mostly silent crowd. A few of them inflated balloons and pretended to perform fellatio on them, other homosexuals kissed and grinded on one another to attempt to make us uncomfortable, but after we didn’t get angry, only taunted them and refuted their pathetic arguments, they grew very quiet.

The far-Left is used to arguing against folks like the protesters that were next to us. They get a glee out of being called sodomites and told they are going to burn in Hell, which they will but that is beside the point, instead, challenging their entire assumption of the world is far more effective and satisfying to dismantle their point of view. They are trained to argue with the old Religious Right, they aren’t prepared at all to refute or defend themselves against nationalism and the facts of their unholy allegiance with the globalists and Jewish oligarchs.

Arguing from both a Socialist and a Nationalist position, making it clear that the homosexual supporters were actually doing the bidding of the people they claimed to hate, left them with no defenses.

We had an excellent time debating these Leftists and then went for an evening of fellowship at a local restaurant. Following supper we distributed literature in town to the locals in several trailer parks to expand our reach within the White working class community.

Our event in Madisonville was overwhelmingly successful and I thank all of my comrades for standing up against the forces of the radical Left. I look forward to many future events in Madisonville and a great number of upcoming rallies, meetings and events with our chapters around America in the next few months. United, we will win.

 


  • Pingback: Madisonville Anti-Homosexual Picket After Action Report | Aus-Alt-Right()

  • Alt left

    Ya, so

  • Relating to Parrott’s post today, isn’t it interesting that Donald Trump has always, always. Always supported gay liberation, etc. For about twenty years now, promoting “gay rights” has been at the top.of the left Agenda. You point out the contradictions inherent in that agenda very well: they do not just “want to be left alone”—they want the whole world flying that “flaming faggot flag”… Privacy and individual freedom should have been enough, but they want to be the center of attention, and to “rub our noses” in it endlessly, ceaselessly, eternally….kind of like—what were you saying about “Hellfire?”

  • Matthew Raphael Johnson

    I’m very sorry I wasn’t able to attend this. My very first political action was to defend St. Patrick’s Cathedral against the fags in 1989 with the National Traditionalist Caucus. Very, very nice work.

  • Pingback: 8-25-16 News – National-Satanist Worldview()

  • Ben Sanderson

    “Following supper we distributed literature in town to the locals in several trailer parks to expand our reach within the White working class community.”

    LOL.

  • ‘Radical’, ‘Extremist’, ‘Subversive’, ‘Heretical’, and etc. are all Relative Fetishes of Changing Politics

    Hillary Clinton and PC commissars may negatively label the Alt Right as ‘extremist’ and ‘hateful’; and the Alt Right might counter by labeling itself ‘radical’, ‘heretical’, or ‘dissident’, but all such tags are relative to the conditions of power.

    When communists were out of power, they were heretical, rebellious, dissenting, subversive, and radical. The ‘reactionary’ or ‘bourgeois’ powers-that-be denounced them as ‘extremist’, ‘hateful’, or ‘destructive’.

    But when the communists took power, they were the New Establishment and the New Normal. And those who had once held the power were denounced as ‘extreme’, ‘hateful’, and etc. And leftist rebellious voices against Establishment Communism were denounced as ‘adventurist’.

    So, the ultimate worth of any vision, ideology, or set of values is not the labels tagged onto itself or by its enemies. Arguably, ALL systems and ideologies are ‘radical’ relative to the conditions of power. What goes by the name of ‘moderate liberal democracy’ would be considered ‘radical’ and ‘extreme’ in Islamic Iran or Saudi Arabia, or in totalitarian North Korea. A communist would be a radical in a capitalist system, and vice versa. Capitalists are dime-a-dozen in America, but they would have been hounded as ‘extreme’, ‘dangerous’, and ‘subversive’ in Stalinist or Maoist China.

    Atheists are commonplace in Western Europe and may constitute the majority of the population. But an atheist would have been seen as ‘extreme’ in the past when virtually all Europeans were Christian and regularly attended Church services.

    There was a time when ‘gay marriage’ would have considered as ‘extreme’ and crazy, indeed even by the biggest Liberals. Today, majority of Americans are resigned to accepting it, and there are even people who feel that ‘marriage for homos’ is the greatest moral crusade of our age.

    So, ‘gay marriage’, once a radical idea, is the New Normal. If anything, it is people who remain resolute in denouncing ‘gay marriage’ who are reviled as ‘extreme’.

    So, what is ‘extreme’? What is ‘radical’? It is relative to who has the power, who controls the Narrative, and who controls the taboos and relics.

    Some in the Alt Right define the ‘movement’ as ‘radical’. It may well be that in the current political climate. But if radicalism defines the Alt Right, what happens if reality were to conform to Alt-Rightism?

    Let’s play a little mind game. Suppose Alt Right wins and gets everything it wants. It gets to define the Official Normal, and most people are instilled with Alt Right ideas and values from cradle. Could the Alt Right still claim to be ‘radical'(or even Alt)? If the essence of the Alt Right is ‘radicalism’, it would lose its raison d’etre the moment it gains preeminence. If it were then to cling to the ‘radical’ label, it would akin to communists waving the revolutionary banner even after its power has been firmly entrenched as the New Normal.

    Consider. Galileo’s ideas about astronomy were once ‘extreme’, ‘heretical’ and ‘blasphemous’. Ultimately however, they came to be accepted as true, and even most uneducated people know that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

    Now, were Galileo’s ideas valuable because they were ‘radical’ in their time or because they were true and correct? If ‘radicalism’ is the highest essence of value, then Galileo’s views would have been rendered worthless the instant the Establishment accepted them as canonical.

    But if the essence of value is truth, it doesn’t matter if his views were deemed ‘extremist’ or ‘official’. Whether only 1% or nearly 99% of the world agreed with him, he would have been right simply because he was right. If Galileo’s core ambition was to be ‘radical’, ‘contrarian’, and ‘heretical'(for all eternity), he should have come up with a theory that could never be accepted by most of humanity. Maybe a theory says the sun is a tiger that plays polka music while the planets, which are actually jelly beans, waltz in space for kielbasa on sale. Now, every generation would find such an idea ‘radical’, ‘outlandish’, and ‘ludicrous’.

    The paradox of people who are labeled(or self-labeled) as ‘radical’ is that their mission is to prove that their views are not actually normal and true. Galileo wasn’t trying to be ‘radical’. He was just being honest, courageous, and truthful. He strove to demonstrate that his views, though denounced as ‘extreme’, weren’t such at all.

    Someone may be targeted as a ‘radical'(in the negative sense) because the powers-that-be and/or the great majority see his visions and values as crazy, ‘extreme’, or ‘unacceptable’.

    Someone may designate himself as ‘radical'(in the positive sense) because he believes himself to be honest, courageous, and principled in saying it like it is even if condemned as outcast by the powerful and/or the unwashed masses.

    However, in either case(and this is very crucial), he would be trying to show that his views are not ‘extreme’ or ‘radical’ and instead should be accepted as the New Normal or, better yet, the True Normal.

    The boy in the story of the EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES was not trying to be ‘radical’. He was just being honest. If his words sounded ‘radical'(or like a crude gaffe), the fault wasn’t with him but with the system that wove a web of lies around the emperor and his flunkies. (One wonders if the weavers in the story were serving or trolling the Cult of the Emperor.)

    So, the Alt Right needs to be wary of labels. Because it finds itself in the ‘radical’, ‘extreme’, or ‘heretical’ position for the time being, it may fall into fallacy that its core agenda is to ‘make trouble’, ‘outrage the establishment’, pull the fire alarm, and etc. What the Alt Right has to do is ask itself, “Does its vision and values have worth even if were to take power as the New Normal?” Will its ‘New Normal’ be just a new fad or fashion, or will it really be the True Normal with Eternal value?

    Indeed, even the notion of ‘alt’ is relative. Alt Right currently offers an alternative because the American Political Narrative has been, for too long, dominated by Democrats and Republicans. But if Alt Right voices become prominent, it will no longer be ‘alternative’. If such time were to come, will it have value other than as a dissident voice? It’s always easier to attack and ridicule those with in the game than to play the game.

    If Alt Right is to have a lasting impact, it must ask itself what its vision and values are apart from its relative position to the conditions of power.

    In a world that insists 2 + 2 = 5, both assertions that 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 = 6 may be condemned(or praised) as ‘heretical’, ‘extreme’, and ‘radical’ for deviating from the official orthodoxy. Inasmuch as both assertions rebel against the dogma, they may have ‘radical’ value. But once the power that insists 2 + 2 = 5 is removed, 2 + 2 = 4 would continue to have value whereas 2 + 2 = 6 would no longer have value.

    The 6’ers may have had radical value in resisting the oppression of the 5’ers, but in the end, their formula was just as wrong as that of the 5’ers. Once the 6’ers lost their radical chic, they only had the wrong answer to offer. In contrast, even after the 4’ers are no longer deemed ‘extreme’, ‘heretical’, or ‘radical’, their answer still has value(indeed eternal value) because they are correct.

    In a repressive system, ALL voices that resist and challenge the Power may have ‘radical’ value, but once the oppression is vanquished, the only lasting vision and values are one with the truth. Truth, in the end, is neither official or radical. 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of whether it is asserted by officialdom or radicaldom. In contrast, 2 + 2 = 5 and 2 + 2 = 6 are wrong regardless of their adoption by officialdom or radicalism.

    The ‘radical’ is a mere fetish relative to the conditions of power. Truth, on the other hand, is the real flesh.

    ===============


By: Matthew Heimbach



%d bloggers like this: