|
Arnold Meiwes
Homosexual Sadism A
Speculation
It seems to me that, for some time now, there has been a
significant force permeating the mental space of westerners that is continually
promoting the view that hurting men - particularly in a sexual manner - is both
a laudable and an amusing thing to do. And it also seems that behaviours that
are likely to turn on seriously sick homosexual sadists are totally acceptable these days.
Regular readers of this website will already be aware of my view
that the very fact that the public finds it acceptable to laugh at Bobbit jokes
provides a truly profound insight into just how successful has been the demonisation
of men, and of just how hated men have now become. And, by and large, I would
pin much of the blame for this state of affairs on the usual culprits; e.g. the feminists, the abuse industry, the
government etc - all of which clearly profit very handsomely from the stirring
up of hatred towards men.
But there is a decidedly sexual and sadistic aspect to the kind
of mutilation implied by Bobbit jokes which, thus far, I have tended to ignore,
but which clearly permeates the mainstream consciousness through so many other
avenues that it is becoming increasingly hard for me not to see a somewhat
disturbing organism lying behind the creation of much of it.
And it is a homosexual one!
New readers will probably jump immediately to the conclusion
that I am a sexual bigot of some sort, one who hates gays, and who is a
'homophobe'. And so let me say, quite simply, that whether men or women are gay
or straight is just an irrelevance to me. I have no interest at all in what goes
on in other people's bedrooms - unless, of course, I am invited to join in!
But I really do see a somewhat sinister force
(organism) at work in western societies which emanates from the serious
homosexual sadism that is promoted and/or practised by genuinely disturbed
and sadistic homosexuals - even though I suspect that many of these homosexual
psychopaths do not even realise that they are, in fact, homosexual - or, perhaps,
they do, in fact, realise that they are homosexual, but that they would rather
not be identified as such. After all, it does not take much
imagination to see how, let's say, a male police officer or a male prison
officer might derive great sexual pleasure from beating up another man. The officer
might be a homosexual sadist and think of himself as such. He might be a
homosexual sadist but not recognise himself as such. Or he might just be a
sadist who derives sexual pleasure from beating up anyone - man or woman! But
because most of us are not homosexual, the fact that
the beating up of men by other men might be a SEXUAL act probably goes completely
unnoticed by us. In other words, they can get away with
it! Imagine, for example, that you went to the cinema and saw a
film wherein a male prison officer was forever beating up female
inmates - punching them in the breasts and grabbing at their genitals and
pulling at them viciously to cause real pain. I think that we would all easily
see the sexual element of this violence very clearly, and we would all recognise the
male perpetrator as a 'heterosexual sadist'. But if the victims
of this male prison officer were, in fact, other men,
we would see the film very differently. We would not see his
behaviour as particularly sexual. We would see a violent and nasty
man, Yes, but we would not see a 'homosexual sadist' - especially
if, for example, this male prison officer was portrayed as being married or as
having a girlfriend. In other words, we would see him as a
'sadist', but not as a 'homosexual'. So, why is it that we can
easily 'see' a particular form of serious violence against women as being
'sexual', whereas when we see the very same kind of violence being inflicted upon
men then the sexual aspect rarely enters our heads? Well. I am
suggesting that we do not see such violence against men as being sexual because,
quite simply, most of us are not homosexual! And, as such, we do
not see the sexual gratification that might be being derived from such violence
nor, indeed, the sexual motivation behind it. As a result of this
blindness, seriously sadistic homosexuals can often get away with
promoting and/or perpetrating serious acts of sexual violence against men. And
if, further, they manage successfully to conceal the fact that they are, indeed,
homosexual, then they can actually get away with a lot more - particularly if,
for example, they can hoodwink others into believing that their sadistic
violence is merely a way of 'defending' others. As such, I
suspect that many men - if not most men - who beat up other men on the grounds,
for example, that they have 'hit a woman' - or something similar - are little
more than sadistic homosexuals who will use any excuse to engage in behaviours
that turn them on sexually, and who also do not want to be seen as homosexual. At
first, this particular notion might seem a little far-fetched, but my belief is
that in much the same way that women's violence towards men remains well hidden
in western societies, so it is that homosexual violence towards men is also
hidden - and for similar reasons. In the case of women, for
example, the view is heavily promoted that their violence towards men must be
the result of them needing to defend themselves in some way - though we know
that this is politically-correct nonsense. But my belief is
that homosexual sadists also manage very often to get away with serious violence towards
men on similar grounds; e.g. that they are merely defending others. And so, for
example, they often promote the view that beating up other men who have, say,
been accused of paedophilia or of 'violence towards women' is a perfectly
acceptable and manly thing to do, and they engage in such violence very readily. And
because both women and homosexuals are protected by political correctness these
days, it is not permitted to expose to the world the true nature of what might
underlie their violence. To
summarise: Many homosexual sadists seem nowadays to be getting away with their
sickening sadism towards other men because ... 1.
We do not recognise the sexual motives behind their violence. 2.
We do not recognise that these men are, in fact, homosexual. 3.
These men successfully hide behind the claim that they are merely
defending others to justify their sexual proclivities; i.e. their sexual
violence. Homosexual men often used to argue that
'gay-bashers' (i.e. those 'heterosexual' men who seem to enjoy beating up
homosexuals) are, in fact, homosexuals themselves, and that they are simply reacting
to their own homosexuality with disgust and, as such, they inflict
violence upon those whom they believe arouse their own homosexuality - thus
bringing it to the surface. I used to discount this view as being nothing
more than typical psychoanalytical drivel; but I am no longer sure about this. Indeed,
many Nazi leaders were decidedly homosexual, and yet their regime treated some
homosexuals like animals. Why was this so? Well, perhaps it was because those
homosexual Nazi leaders were, in fact, homosexual sadists - as
opposed to being homosexuals of the more feminine variety - and they wanted to
cover this up - perhaps not only from others, but also from themselves. And,
as we now all know too well, these Nazis also masqueraded as defenders of women and children in order to cover up some of the
real motivations underlying their truly appalling sadism. In
other words, once again, we appear to have sick homosexual sadists (who hide the
fact that they are homosexual) perpetrating significant acts of violence against
other men on the grounds that they are defending others - in this case,
protecting the Aryan race. And in
western societies today this sadism towards men is being promoted on many
fronts. And while I am not suggesting that all of this is being driven by
seriously deviant homosexuals, the evidence that something like this is going on
seems to be accumulating - at least, in my mind. For
example, what can possibly lie behind the view that there is a significant difference between
hitting a man
and hitting a woman? How can certain men claim that hitting a man is 'all right' whereas
hitting a woman is completely
unacceptable? Well, the answer to these two questions surely stares one
right in the face! The only difference between the two types
of human being typically identified as 'men' and 'women' by such
individuals is that, unsurprisingly, they are of different genders. It is
their gender, their sex, their maleness, or their femaleness, that
determines whether or not it is 'legitimate' to hit them. It
is not their size, their weight, their strength, their colour, their shape,
their psychology, their personality, their demeanour or their attitude that determines whether or
not they can be hit. It is their gender. Their sex. And
if you look at other forms of close emotion-provoking physical interactions that take place between
people, it seems to me that if these forms of interaction are governed on
a basis that is exclusively to do with the sex of the
individuals concerned, then, surely, sex and, hence, sexuality, are very
likely
to have something to do with it! In
other words, those violent men who think that it is legitimate to hit other
men but not legitimate to hit women are making their distinction purely
on the basis of the victim's gender; their sex. As such, it is purely the
genitals of the victim that are significant to these violent men. And,
in my view, this tells us something! I am not suggesting that
this is necessarily so by any means, but I am suggesting that this is likely to be so;
at least, in many cases.
And one of my main points in this piece is that because most people are not homosexual, they are unlikely to appreciate
this. Putting this another
way: Unless you, the reader, are homosexual, then you, too, will probably
fail to recognise, or suspect, the sadistic, sexual, homosexual motivation
that might underlie much of the promotion
and acceptance of sexual violence towards men
that occurs these days. (But you would certainly notice any sadistic,
sexual, heterosexual motivation that might underlie the
promotion of similar violence towards women!) As
further evidence for my point of view, I would also
point out that one might expect the very powerful gay lobby to complain
rather loudly about the way in which violence towards men is being
encouraged through so many avenues nowadays. But it remains relatively
silent on this issue. Why?
How can this possibly be so? Indeed,
I find it almost incredible that gay men have not been up in arms and protesting
very vociferously over the past many years over, say, Bobbit jokes. Well, one
possible explanation for this unbelievable silence is that many homosexual men rather like the
idea of what is depicted by such jokes. Can
you even imagine, for example, the feminists never protesting
about any ubiquitous mainstream promotion of jokes about, say, females being
raped - should such a mainstream promotion ever occur - let alone about any mainstream humour about their actual genitals being
cut off. It is almost
unthinkable that the feminists would not forever be screaming and shouting about such a
thing. Goodness
me. The feminists would be tearing up the country - literally - with the
enormous amounts of protests and hysteria that they would generate over such a
matter. And
yet, there is not even a peep from the very powerful gay lobby
over jokes concerning the most serious sadistic mutilation of men. Why
does the gay lobby remain silent on this issue? It really is
quite unbelievable - unless, of course, a significant force behind the gay
lobby tends to
see serious sadism towards men as being quite acceptable; i.e.
nothing to make a fuss about. One
specific example of a violent thug who is probably a homosexual sadist
masquerading as a defender of vulnerable women and children is the Australian murderer who likes to call himself 'Chopper'.
He has been released from prison and is currently trying to make part of
his living by portraying himself as a knight in shining armour and a
'defender of women'. To this end he has made a domestic
violence advert wherein he threatens men charged with domestic
violence with serious assault should they end up in prison. He portrays the
assaulting of such men as something to laugh about. But I suspect that, in
reality, the whole idea excites him sexually. Indeed,
in my view, 'Chopper' is likely to be nothing more than a psychopathic homosexual sadist who has simply
discovered an acceptable way of justifying his sick
perversion. (Both his history and his advert are entirely consistent with
this view). And yet, somehow, western societies seem relatively
unperturbed that this apology for a man and his (possibly) sexually-perverted
instincts are actually being promoted by the mainstream media. .... The
people behind this disgusting advertisement work for the
Schwartz Foundation, and I presume that they are trying to make money for
their organisation by demonising men and stirring up hatred towards them. You
can email them here, ... e-mail:
Reception - joy@schwartz.com.au
Finance - frances@schwartz.com.au
Legal - legal@schwartz.com.au ... 
Sin
City Serious homosexual sadism is also being
promoted by Hollywood through some of its films. As just one example, in
the film Sin City starring Bruce Willis, the amount of violence directed
towards men's genitals is quite significant, and, further, this violence
is 'justified' throughout the plot. Needless to say, such violence against
women would never be 'justified' and, indeed, I doubt that Hollywood would
ever dare to make a film wherein serious sexual violence
against women was ever 'justified'. Thus,
serious homosexual
sadism towards ordinary men is being promoted, and, hence, lauded, throughout western societies
through fiction (e.g. Sin City) through domestic violence advertisements
(e.g. 'Chopper') and through humour (e.g. Bobbit jokes). And
when we also open our eyes to the fact that assaulting men's genitals is
often made out to be humorous in comedic situations and that the rape of
male prison inmates is often made light of even by major institutions
(e.g. in British Telecom adverts) it seems to me that serious homosexual
sadism is a force that needs to be dealt with and, further, that those who
promote or engage in it need to be exposed for who they might really be. Of
course, I am not suggesting that all serious violence against men by men is to do
with homosexual sadism. After all, who of us has not wished to beat the
hell out of somebody at some stage in our lives? What I am suggesting is
this. ... 1. Serious homosexual sadism is
being promoted through many major avenues - films, adverts,
comedies etc - whether intentionally or otherwise. 2.
Serious homosexual sadistic acts are not being recognised by the majority
of the public - because most people are not homosexual. 3.
Serious
homosexual sadists are, in fact, getting away with their
behaviours - often by pretending that their motives are, somehow, non-sexual and,
often, that these behaviours are justified because they are merely 'defending others'. 4.
The public's acceptance of the promotion of serious homosexual sadism
needs to be addressed. Finally, I would ask my readers to
ask themselves these questions. Where is all this promotion of violence
towards men coming from? Why do people find it acceptable to laugh over a
man's penis being chopped off when they would be appalled if some similar
form of mutilation was inflicted upon a woman? Why is the rape of male
prison inmates deemed to be funny? And so on, and so on. By and
large - and with some exceptions - I do not see the usual culprits such as the man-hating feminists promoting this sort of thing to any
great extent; nor the abuse
industry, nor the government. So, what forces - what organisms - lie behind
it? Well, my answer is that
an organism of significant size and influence deriving from serious homosexual sadism has something
to do with it.
Meiwes
had advertised on the Internet for a well-built man who would consent to being
killed and eaten. Meiwes says that there are over 400 cannibal web sites and
chat rooms. Supposedly, more than 200 men responded favorably to his ad.
...
while many homosexuals were persecuted by the Nazi party, there is no doubt that the Nazi party itself had many homosexuals within its own ranks, even among its highest
leadership. Scott Lively - 25 min
Hi Harry
re: Homosexual Sadism
... an
innovative and desperately needed article
sad to say, you have vastly
understated the amount of this going on, esp in america-- the lack of vengeance,
taking it like a man, and "fixing your wagon" or real or intended
"offenses" against the Little Lady
it's not limited to prisons or
barfights either . . . you'd be surprised -- some of the greatest homosexeual
sadists are probably medical practitioners, esp urologists, proctologists, and
"genital surgeons" of various "disciplines -- but, indeed,
there's a LOT of this going on in law enforcement and "corrections" --
anyplace, really, where defenseless boys or men can be herded, shielded from
public sight, and tortured under cover of "protecting society" of
"giving the creep what he deserves"
it's a pathological syndrome
based on sadism and sub/dom psycho-scripts, and it is VERY common in certain
areas of the military, and MANY of the players in the Bush admin, including very
highly placed people, engage in these behaviors, often vicariously thru war,
because, of course, direct engagement is difficult once on has attained a v
public position
correct also that the sadism
often masks the homosexuality, and many of the persons engaging in these
behaviours have NEVER confronted their own homosexual urges or leanings -- an
unconscious state which, paradoxically but predicatably, tends to produce
extremes of these behaviors
correct also that the general
misandry of western cultures not only makes these people, and their behaviors,
"permissible," but actually funds and enshrines their sadism as
"protecting society" or even "protecting the weak"
the nazi/homosexual/sadism
connection is also on-target,
a related film that shines MUCH
light on this phenomenon -- and it is a VAST and horrible phenomenon in the
modern West, esp in america -- is David Cronenberg's 1991 adaptation of
Burroughs' "Naked Lunch"
stay on this one -- if you can
handle the heat -- you will be up against some v powerful people and groups,
people who have EVERYTHING to lose should such a thesis reach widespread
exposure (i e. in the western collective consciousness), and they be revealed
not as brave chivalrous knights, nor astute and mature politicians, nor as
concerned professionals but as the sexually/emotionallly stunted
walking psychopaths they truly are
and there are a LOT of them about, and
up till now, they have had free run of the world -- and free access to the
bodies of boys and men
well done
m
+ Psychopaths In Business And Politics Masters of manipulation, it is estimated that approximately only 1 percent of the general population are psychopaths. Yet their numbers are overrepresented in business, politics, law enforcement agencies, law firms and the media, according to research done by Dr. Robert Hare, at the University of British Columbia and his colleague, Dr. Paul
Babiak.
(Robert Hare is probably the world's leading expert on
psychopathy.)
|
