There are days when i feel just like Tony Montana, of course without the drunkenness and the hench men. There are days when i feel like the incredible hulk, a primal need to smash things in uncontrollable rage. And then there are days, when i inhale the cosmos and meditate on the fact that i am to old to start doing jail time, so I give thanks for being alive and know that even at their best, the stupid and retarded. The hateful and the assholes, will not break my pursuet of internal happiness.
Kneegrows are such fascinating lab specimens. They are equal parts laughable and alarming. This constant swerving from stupid to stupider, tend sot leave me with wind burns and whiplash, at how rapidly they can swing on that idiot tree. I didn’t want to and had no interest in doing any form of commenting on the passing on Prince Rogers Nelson. I was fascinated though at the amount of love people are giving him. Even supposed hardcore pan Afrikanists. Overstand that one can acknowledge the passing of a celebrity, or some one famous, without making it into some reLIEgious devotional. I get that musically he has influenced more than a few people in the music industry. And his evolution and maturation had been talked about for a minute.
However, this is not the reason, why I append these lines to my follow up to the last. Since yesterday, my news feed on fed book has been inundated with Prince news. People posting up all kinds of pictures, songs and memories of where they were, what they were doing and other stuff, during periods in Prince’s musical life. Then the wheels fell off, because somebody pointed to the elephant in the room. And that elephant is Prince’s demeanor on and off stage. Wasn’t it just yesterday the dude was rocking panties, silk off the shoulder wraps and ass less pants? Was it not just yesterday, kats were swearing up and down that Prince was homosexual or at least bi-sexual? And of course, wasn’t it yesterday more than a few kneegrow females were defending Prince and people were saying that he was such a man he could have taken my girl?
Of course bits of what I wrote,was stated between yesterday afternoon and now. And the backlash, again was so kneegrowtastic, I swore I heard Stepen Fetchit cackle and scratch his bald head. I read a post where, one person said he wasn’t “gay”, he was “androgynous”. They said he could take any man’s chick from him. I wonder what kind of chick would leave a man for Prince? Surely not a black conscious woman? And if she did, then I surely dodged a bullet. I read somewhere else that “Us”, super conscious, hotep niggers, who love to hate on shit! I mean that was how the post started. And it went downhill fast afterwards. So called conscious people said Prince overstood his feminine side, that was why he dressed in women’s lingerie. They said that he was more masculine than you. They compared his mode of dress, to so called heterosexuals who were wearing all kinds of crazy shit on stage in the 70s and 80s. One poster even stated that they didn’t mind the image Prince portrayed, but as long as he wasn’t putting on a dress they cool.
We live in a world of the cult of personality worship. A world were the cult icon can never do wrong and can never be critiqued or risk the wrath of the cult followers. I would never hate on Prince. I don’t know the man,. Nor have I heard anything negative about any actions he did that warranted hatred. I dislike the image he portrayed. I overstand that in a society like ours, the flashier and different you are, the more you get noticed. Even Prince once said the shit he did in the 80s he couldn’t get away with today. He is right! And that is because today, many of these same hypocritical kneegrows, will lambaste today’s entertainers for promoting a homosexual agenda. Even when many have not proven to be practicing homosexuals. But Prince was just a genius. Or maybe Prince was such a a talented entertainer, that the image he promoted, can be ignored, because…well…he is Prince after all. And that in itself, will be why the sycophants will ignore the cross dressing image, even while lambasting Obomba and his cohorts for promoting transgenderism and transgender rights, when it comes to something as simple as bathroom segregation.
I constantly state to my readers, that our children needs us more than the symbols that we adore. And the most powerful language for man, is symbolic language. This was why the ancient, would draw shit, more than the actually write. And you would overstand that many ancients wrote things. If you take your nose out of the Englishman’s ass, and recognize English is a stillborn and deformed lycan, in the pantheon of linguistics. Something just dropped off in an empty field, by savages and beasts, taking a dump.
Kneegrows are confused and retarded people. We embrace the images promoted of a Prince Rogers Nelson, in panties and ass less pants. We embrace images of, effeminate looking males and masculine looking females. As long as we like them and they make good music or act really good for our entertainment. Despite our limited shock response, we still embrace male athletes, the supposed masculine of men in today’s society, dressing like ugly bitches from out of Cinderella’s basement. We have come around to embracing homosexuality as a norm and would fight harder for their right to ass fuck or pussy lick, over our own rights to…….claim Afrika as our center and the right to love our blackness, first and above all else.
I am at a loss to overstand how one minute you are praising Prince for daring to be different, but putting out a hit on Young Thug for also daring to be different. Yeah! Young Thugs talent is …er…different! And this is why he gets hate and not Prince. Now you asking how is this anything remotely part of the second part of my previous post on animal homosexuality? Well, if you take out the animal part and leave the other, you will perhaps overstand the connection with symbols and imagery, that in turn leads to coercion, conscription and eventual acceptance of a death style that is homosexuality.
Homosexuality is a primerely predatory death style. Its main focus is on turning out straight people, often the younger the better and has a long and documented his-story of doing this from as far back as the old city states of ancient Greece, through to Rome, the Arab culture and up to today. Homosexuals have many more rights, power, cohesiveness than kneegrows AND Afrikans today. To date the promosexual and homosexual movement, is working on making pedophilia acceptable, while a male dressing as a female, perhaps getting surgery to look like one, has already been accepted in most homes in kneegrow dumb. I saw a post the other day on racist book, where a female. Kneegress of course, claimed that “straight men” are raping tranny’s. I mean you can’t and shouldn’t call them women, because no matter how much they try…they are not women! But this female throws out this statement without supplying evidence or even a biased news story. I have heard of a transsexual being bludgeon and or beaten up, because at the point of whipping out his penis, or after, depending on how far some kats went; They found out they were with a dude and decided to wage a holy war for that instant. Kneegrows, its called being tricked! And because most kats are so undisciplined and lacking moral turpitude, they are easily tricked into that bait and switch game.
Some find out and haul ass. Some find out and put foot in ass. And some find out and maybe. Maybe went along with the stinking ass ride. But those that did, why are you calling them straight? As far as i know if you have carnal interaction with a man, you were nothing but a undercover acting AC, looking for a DC to stick your cord in. And our ethnic group have a lot of undercover DC’s acting like AC. Get the symbolic language?
The increasing amount of savage rapes and molestation going on among us, some decades old and coming to light and some new, is very frightening. And to hear supposedly sane people say transgender rape is a rising phenomena and is often conducted by heterosexual males, is testimony to how much under attack straight black males are. So again I state, if a supposed heterosexual male rapes another man, he is a undisclosed homosexual. There are many males in jail that do not engage in rapes. And you cannot point to dominance in jail as the only form of rape. Hence, many of these kats are closeted homosexuals.
Down–low(sexual slang): Men who identify as heterosexual, but have sex with men secretly.
Because of the media has programmed us, we have grown to accept homosexuality as more of a natural phenomena, than a black man and a black women, having a complimentary and loving relationship. Listen to how people talk. Read what selected bloggers and mainstream journalists say. Read what social media is putting out. Homosexuals have rights and rejecting that culture is a social or sometimes civil rights death choice for the so called denier. But let me talk about loving my deep dark, chocolate sister. her wit the Afrikan curls, tightly packed on her head top. Let me say I love black woman and only black woman and the pitch forks and torches come out. BY KNEEGROWS!
Being homosexual is a choice vs being homosexual is not a choice
While some claim that being homosexual is a choice, or that homosexuality can be cured, differing scientific papers, put out show evidence on one hand,that same-sex attraction is at least partly genetic and biologically based. While on the other hand no evidence was found. Some researchers have compared identical twins (in which all genes are shared) to fraternal twins (in which about 50 percent of genes are shared). A 2001 review of such twin studies reported that almost all found identical twins were significantly more likely to share a sexual orientation. Such findings indicate that genes do factor into a person’s orientation. Yet papers and articles I have read, suggests that tests on twins showed no genetic factors involved in both twins being homosexuals. In fact it showed that many of the twins showed different sexual preferences.
Since the time of early Greece, the cave savage has been homosexualizing his gods and goddesses and had effectively homosexualized their animals already. Early jokes about Shepherds and sheep, farmers and their goats and or peasants and the donkeys, didn’t seem so far fetch now a days, when any YouTube video will show males and females engaging in sex with animals. He has become so decrepit. Or in fact more so, that he will totally by pass a female entirely for an animal. Even Ancient Rome and Greece wasn’t so bad.
Its a war. And the war started with propaganda and the trading of the “god” of morality and balance…Ma’at, with the god of Isfet and chaos. Regarding animal cannibalism, of which I touched upon i the previous post, the Iran Nature and Wildlife Magazine notes:
Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates, often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.
— Animals Lack the Means to Express Their Affective States
To stimuli and clashing instincts, we must add another factor: In expressing its affective states. In being able to discern things, cognitively, an animal is radically inferior to man. Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states (fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.) are limited. Animals lack the rich resources at man’s disposal to express his sentiments. Man can adapt his way of talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot. Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They “borrow,” so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on.
— Explaining Seemingly “Homosexual” Animal Behavior
Again a refer back to the Bonobo monkeys. Bonobos are a typical example of this “borrowing.” These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says: “There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo’s answer to avoiding conflict.”
First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.
Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter’s mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.
Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly “homosexual” behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of S‹o Paulo, Brazil, explains, “When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex.”
Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:
Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance–in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who’s boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason. Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female: Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent…. And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.
Other animals engage in seemingly “homosexual” behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.
— “Homosexual” Animals Do Not Exist
In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
He states that: “Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity”.
Despite the “homosexual” appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a “homosexual” instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:
Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.
If you search for something hard enough, you will find something
Like many animal rights activists, homosexual activists often “read” human motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. While this attempt to ascribe human feelings to animals, enjoys full acceptance in art, literature, and mythology it makes for poor science. Dr. Charles Socarides of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) observes:
The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal’s motivation he is applying human psychodynamics–a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.
Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual relations:
Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure….The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature.
Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, is careful to include a caveat:
Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena….We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer–in both the gathering and interpretation of data–come to the forefront in this situation…..With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)….With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations.”
Dr. Bagemihl’s interpretation, shows him to be a hypocrite, who uses specific language to IMPLY an unabashedly favoring of the animal homosexuality theory. The pages of his book, is filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall Inn Editions, “an imprint of St. Martin’s Press devoted to gay and lesbian interest books.” Thus Bagemihl, leaves the strongly implied language and descriptions, to favor animal homosexuality, without directly addressing it.
An animal is not a man and a man is not an animal. Scientifically that is.
Some researchers studying animal “homosexual” behavior extrapolate from the realm of science into that of philosophy and morality. These scholars reason from the premise that if animals do it, it is according to their nature and thus is good for them. If it is natural and good for animals, they continue, it is also natural and morally good for man. However, the definition of man’s nature belongs not to the realm of zoology or biology, but philosophy, and the determination of what is morally good for man pertains to ethics.
Dr. Marlene Zuk, professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside, for example, states:
Sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic, that they have sex to procreate. … Sexual expression means more than making babies. Why are we surprised? People are animals.
Simon LeVay entertains the hope that the understanding of animal “homosexuality” will help change societal mores and religious beliefs about homosexuality. He states:
It seems possible that the study of sexual behavior in animals, especially in non-human primates, will contribute to the liberalization of religious attitudes toward homosexual activity and other forms of nonprocreative sex. Specifically, these studies challenge one particular sense of the dogma that homosexual behavior is “against nature”: the notion that it is unique to those creatures who, by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, have alone become morally culpable.
Other researchers feel compelled to point out the impropriety of transposing animal behavior to man. Although very favorable to the homosexual interpretation of animal behavior, Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, nevertheless cautions:
“For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn’t natural. They make a leap from saying if it’s natural, it’s morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn’t be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don’t take care of the elderly. I don’t particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.”
The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality. That blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man himself:
“It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. …. The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature. The fact that man has a body and sensitive life in common with animals does not mean he is strictly an animal. Nor does it mean that he is a half-animal. Man’s rationality pervades the wholeness of his nature so that his sensations, instincts and impulses are not purely animal but have that seal of rationality which characterizes them as human. Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man’s rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature. To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his free will. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.”
Dr. Bagemihl sought to apply androgynous myth, so widespread in today’s homosexual movement, to the animal kingdom with the help of Indian and aboriginal mythology. He invites the West to embrace “a new paradigm:” Yet fail to reason that we are dealing with to distinct species and thus two distinct mode of being. The homosexual movement’s attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science. In other words, if you throw shit up against the wall often and hard, something will stick and then we can say shit is a fully adhesive material.
If the homosexual agenda includes made up myth and lies to bamboozle and hoodwink you into believing that animals “think” and act like humans and that their instinctive non rational behavior is natural for humans, then they can get you to believe that purposeful androgyny and blurring the lines between femininity and masculinity is also natural. As long as the perpetrators are celebrities, family members and some one they have an affinity to. And in the next breath, these same people lament the dearth of masculine heterosexual men and feminine heterosexual women, who both love each other and who conduct themselves in a way that does not confuse others. Most importantly set a great example of balance to the children.
Again. To reiterate the old saying: IF YOU DON’T STAND FOR SOMETHING, YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING! You cannot say the white man oppresses you, yet accepts his oppressive behavior as natural, just because you are afraid of physical or emotional blows. Even the non rational animal will reject that and fight back as best as they can.