Advocating in favor of gays is directly advocating for the bourgeois against the proletariat
Editor’s Note: “The Crusades” are our more in-depth looks at issues, including our serial publications.
In a time of unprecedented profits for corporations, unlimited immigration,
falling wages, and unprecedented unemployment, an agitator for the empowerment of mind-diseased bourgeois people, while claiming to be a political representative for the working class, is part of the problem. Socialism is something the modern left has entirely dropped in favor of the social attitudes of the bourgeois élite. Issues such as homosexuality, mass immigration, cosmopolitan sexual morés, and enabling women to murder children at a moment’s notice have replaced what was once a movement to curtail and overthrow the excesses and attitudes of capitalism. The displacement of the working class in favor of bourgeois sexual attitudes and ‘Woke Capitalism’ are some of the many reasons why people like me have left the Left.
Homosexuality in particular is something the previous leftist movements have
advocated against! From a purely material analysis, it makes no sense
for a leftist to advocate for homosexuality. Homosexuality is most common among the bourgeois, urban middle managers who have the time to wonder about and experiment with bizarre sexual fetishes. They are commonly employed in the absence of the real capital holders because, as outsiders to normality, they have no ability to bond with normal workers. In other words, gays are the new Managerial Class. Even if you get a multi-racial workplace to have the operating capacity of a mono-racial one, placing a homosexual in charge ensures the reintroduction of strife into the workforce. Homosexuals are notoriously catty, and thanks to their uncanny ability to sniff out someone with a dissident mindset to capital they make collectivization of the workplace is impossible. This is to say nothing of the humiliation a straight worker feels having to report to an effeminate man who has been given authority by Capital over a workforce of masculine men.
Why would capital do this you may ask? Although we at WoTR are a Pro-White network, this does not mean we refuse to acknowledge the reality that men of differing races can and will get along and form friendships with each other.
To say otherwise would be denying reality.
How does the homosexual work for capital? Let’s say a workforce of mixed
race appoints a man on merit to a managerial position. He has spent months,
years, maybe longer working with these men he is now in charge of. If the
managerial class asks him to do something that would screw over his men, even if they’re of differing races, this manager is going to feel sympathetic
to the men he manages since he’s put blood, sweat, and tears into working with these men. His conscience will not allow him to do something to betray the men he has bonded with. On the other hand, a homosexual will have come from a university, or at least a petit-bourgeois background, and he will be put in charge of what he views as units of production (“Human Resources”)
and not human beings with real troubles. Of course, he is also of an abnormal
disposition in relation to the workers. That is to say he will not be able to
bond with the men over things men bond about like that sexy cashier at the gas station you saw on the way to work. He will not be able to bond over the crazy adventures the men have been on with other straight men since his background will not lend himself to backwater adventures and week-long camping trips with their families. Gays like campy, not camping. The homosexual cannot relate to the men he manages, and thus he is an inherent solidarity breaker due to his inability to sympathize with straight workers.
For the last part of this short essay I would like to turn my attention to
something which has always bugged me about modern Leftists: Why on Earth would you assume that workers would like or even care about such a bourgeois issue such as the right for a mentally deranged man to have sex with other men?
As someone who actually has spent time with, and worked with Joe Average ,they are repulsed by homosexuals. While Joe Average may be looser with his sexual morés than I’d personally prefer, he is not so hedonistic as to allow someone who represents a threat to his children in his society. Joe Average has or wants children and, since he has fatherly instincts, he’s never going to want people with an inordinately high offender rate of molestation openly directing his work and giving him direction. It is sickening that a movement, which, in theory, should represent and historically did represent Joe Average, has been so bought out by its supposed enemy as to now DIRECTLY ADVOCATE AGAINST JOE’S INTERESTS!