-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

There's a guy over on the "alt.security.terrorism" group,
called "SBC Yahoo", who apparently thinks a lot like you
do; you know, a devoutly-conservative right-wing Atheist!
That makes two of you on the whole Internet, by the looks
of it...

Atheists and Conservatives make very strange bedfellows.
But I'm not complaining. As long as you vote Republican,
you can believe in the freakin tooth fairy if makes you
Atheistic-conservative Republicans feel any better. :-D

Enjoy Life! (here comes U.S. Supreme Court Justice Alito!)
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7

*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/

*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster


"'God is dead'-Nietzsche
'Nietzsche is dead'-God"
-Tomb's Restaurant,
in Washington D.C.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQ8B7zpljD7YrHM/nEQL3wgCfaVEdk6cbC4f+3SKv/ZMKzM+00WgAoMHU
d5jwvhKc9XhkiYpyBjtBoula
=g/SF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 6 Jan 2006, "alejandro de tacobell" <cerebureaucracy@hotmail.com>
wrote:

ever notice...


if you DESCRIBE gay sex for and as what it actually is--penis going
into a shithole, two guys sucking eachother's dicks, etc--, the
mainstream accuses you of being sick, disgusting, and vulgur. yet, if
you PRACTICE gay sex, it's just wonderful and good.
you are deemed sick for describing what it is, but you are deemed
healthy if you
actually do it.
suppose someone ate ***** and you spelled it out--that he ate *****. the
mainstream would describe you as an uncouth boor daring to discuss such

things; but suppose someone eats *****; mainstream would deem that
person oh-so-wonderful and ***** as a legit food item.


this was also true of communism. if you spelled out what it was really
about--totalitarianism, mass murders, world conquest, etc-- you were a
redbaiting reactionary. but, if you practiced communism--like mao,
che, lenin, ho chi minh--you were a progressive liberator.


liberalism is hypocritical and puritanical at its root--hyporitanical.
it pretends to open up discussion and freedom but its terms of debate
is totally toothless and based on banal fantasies. liberalism is
willfully and coercively generic despite the pretensions of thinking
new ideas and considering new approaches. liberalism opens up to new
things on the basis of 'correctness', not on unfettered truth. so,
with homosexuality, we are supposed to welcome homosexuality but
forbidden to honestly what homosexuality entails--the use of
reproductive organ to penetrate a shithole, or the amusing/idiotic
sight of two women rubbing their holes together when the hole was
designed by nature to be filled.
liberalism stifles honest debate and discussion cuz its roots are
puritanical--despite its conceits of hipsterishness--and based on
saphead guilt-ism. we are supposed to feel guilty for past
'oppression' of homos and thereby ignore the dirty side of
homosexuality to make up for past wrongs. we also have affirmative
action with the negroes. and we aren't supposed to ever criticize jews
though jews always criticize wasp power, asian power, muslim power.


liberals say let's talk honestly and openly but they control the manner

of debate and terminology. they say let's discuss and see if you're a
wonderful 'progressive wiberal' or a 'hateful, disgusting homophobe'?
when the terminology is already established like this--where if you
don't agree with them, you are automatically suffering from a
phobia--everyone is subtlely coerced to agree with the liberal side or
else. of course, the religious right does this too: are you a good
christian or a sodomite? but, the RR has no pretensions of
openmindness; they are proud to be rigid and 'principled' in their
beliefs. it's the liberals who say that we should be honest and say
whatever's on our mind; so, it's hypocritical of them to come up with
pseudo-scientific terminology such as 'homophobic' to suppress all
debate; if you don't agree with the gay agenda, you are mentally
sick--a phobe--and won't be considered fully human.
as with the issue of race, we can't truly and honestly talk. for
example, we can't say negroes may be different biologically, and that's

why so many people--including most white liberals--fear negroes and
don't wanna integrate with most blacks; cuz they are wild and strong
and less intelligent.
and, we can't say gays are dysfunctional and screwy, that their
behavior is often annoying wussy, their sexual acts sick and
dirty--especially in the spread of diseases such as HIV.


what liberals often employ is the trojan horse tactic. during the civil

rights, we had the image of the harmless loving negro who just wanted
to be our next door neighbor. we were told that blacks were either
angelic child-like folks or simply black-faced white folks. but, we
soon found out blacks are crazy, aggressive, wild, and strong. they
may put on the face of jackie robinson but deep inside, they is jack
johnson. and today, blacks--in sports and the in the streets--no longer

even pretend this negro ***** except to fool some gullible guilt-ridden
liberal pussyboy. so while the brojan horse promised us uncle ben,
when we pulled it inside the castle what rushed out in the middle of
the night was king kong. negro revealed himself as nigga. and now, we
have asshojan horse. the fagro will eventually be revealed as the
fagga.
it's as if a doctor told you to turn around so that he could stick his
gloved finger up your ***** to check for lumps only to boof you with his
fat ugly ***** when your back is turned. and the gayboy is getting ready

to boof all of us--politically and culturally. what started out as
tolerance for gays is now turning into kowtowing to digusting
*****-stained gay demands.


of course, trojan horse tactics are quite common. commies tried to
infiltrate american institutions by posing as liberals. and on the
right, we have creationists trying to sneak religion into the classroom

by championing a pseudo-science called Intelligent Design.
yes, pat robertson and his ilk are trying to fuc* us in the ***** with
that turd-science.
and, let's not forget scumbags hitler and allende tried to impose
totalitarianism by posing as democrats. always beware of the trojan
horse; when you see one approaching, don't turn your back lest you be
boofed.


i believe gayness must be discreet. it shouldn't be denied cuz some
people are born the dysfunction which is mainly biochemical. it's where

guys wanna be girlish or girls wanna be guyish. when guys want a *****
instead of a ***** or stick his ***** up a male ***** but since men don't

have pussies, they settle for the shithole. and it's where girls wanna
fuc* other girls but can't cuz they don't have dicks so they gyrate
their groins retardedly against other frustrated groins. or they settle

for some artificiality such as ***** or cucumber. i mean is that
dysfunctional or what? it's certainly laughable.
anyway, let gays be gays. but, i say be discreet with idiocy and
retardedness. it shouldn't be celebrated which is what gays are doing.
i mean how can you celebrate fuc*ing a shithole? or the inanity of two
women rubbing their holes together? or a guy sucking another guy's
***** or fondling his nutticles? or, fuc*ing another guy in the ***** and
pulling out the pud and cumming all over his cheeks? or, doing a 69
with two guys simultaneously sucking eachother's dicks and balls and
cumming and swallowing all that *****? is that sick or what?
or, imagine a guy dickslapping another guy or bouncing his ***** off the

other guy's head? i mean just imagine that *****? it's gay.
this sort of thing shouldn't be celebrated. it should be dealt with
discreetly. it's like masturbation. masturbation is about not getting

any action. so, it's pathetic. it's about fat ugly guys looking at
magazines and fantasizing that they were doing some hot ho. sad, aint
it? anyway, loser guys do whank off and i say let it be discreet.
does it make sense to celebrate masturbation? imagine a masturbation
parade or masturbation month?
or, imagine some disease like diabetes. now, i admire people who
struggle with diabetes. and we should celebrate their struggle. but,
should we celebrate diabetes? no.
same with gays. if gays wanna be discreet with their sick behavior, i
say fine. but, we shouldn't celebrate gayness. now, if there are some
gays who are trying to restrain from gayness, we should celebrate that
cuz they are resisting their dysfunction. just we admire diabetics who

struggle against diabetes, we can admire gays who struggle against
gayness--against the desire to stick their dicks up shitholes. but, if
gays wanna give into their sick lusts, there's nothing to celebrate.
they are so gay.


now, don't get me wrong. i admire the beauty of men. beauty is beauty
and always admirable. but, this does not mean i wanna suck a guy or
let him boof me. i see the beauty of children--boys and girls--but it
don't mean i wanna see or fondle their wee-wees. and i see the beauty
of animals but it don't i wanna hump a horse, bear, deer, or pig.
the problem of gayness is not love or admiration among men but lust.
lust by man for man is sick and dysfunctional. sex is supposed to be
union of opposites, like negative and positive create electricity.
celebrating gayness is like celebrating bestality. it's elevation and
legitimization of a sickness. men should love other men but not lust
after other men.
i can look at gary cooper and say 'what a beautiful man'. but, that
dont' mean i wanna boof him. jesus loved his disciples and vice versa
but that didn't mean they wanted to boof one another. fathers love
sons and sons love fathers and brothers love brothers but that doesn't
mean they should lust for one another.
some say, 'in this world with so much hatred, what's wrong with a man
loving another man?'. nothing. love is not the issue. if gays only
loved eachother like jesus loved his disciples, there would have been
no AIDS epidemic. the problem is the lust. suppose i tell you guys
that i love you. and maybe i do. that's okay. but suppose i said i
lusted after you, that everytime i see you, i fantasize about sucking
your ***** and fuc*ing you in the *****. i mean that is some gay sick
*****.
similarly, the problem with pedos is not their love for children
despite their argument: "in this world so filled with child abuse,
what's wrong with loving children?". the problem is not love for
children--i love chillun too--but lust for children which is sick and
putrid.
and, loving animals don't mean lust for animals. and loving family
doesn't mean incest. i mean yeccch. but, in our debased culture, we
often confuse lust for love. men can love men without buttfuc*ing.
indeed, many westerns were about love amongst men. but, manly love
isn't about cocksuc*ing and buttfuc*ing. the problem with ang lee is
he's an ugly chinee who wants to fuc* white boys. so we had wedding
banquet where this chinee shacked up with an aryan blonde. so, in
bareass mounting, we have two gungho white guys boofing one another.
this ***** lee is very very gay. he wants to shove his wittle yellow
dingy into some tight white *****. the problem with bareass mounting is
not that it's about love between men but lust between men; this debased

gay notion that true love between men must be about kissing,
dicksucking, assboofing, and testicle-fondling.


just as intelligent design has some trappings of science, gay sex has
some trapping of what we call sex. but, just as ID is not true
science, homo-sex is not real sex. real sex is between man and woman,
penis and poon. at its root, sexuality is about ***** going into poon,
fertilizng egg, creating baby which then sucks on tits for milk.
even when sex is not about having kids, the root feelings involved are
naturally reproductive.
we don't think 'i am politically a hetero, and therefore, it's my
obligation to hump a ho'. we just feel this natural urge and wanna
hump a ho cuz it's reproductive instincts kicking into gear. we use
condoms or whatever, but the very reason for hard dicks and salivating
poons is the reproductive instincts.
but, gayness is the product of biochemical dysfunction; it's when the
men or women are physically/psychologically confused as to what they
are or what their bodies are supposed to do. it's when a ***** goes
into bunghole of same sex, squirts lifejuice sperm into ***** which then

dies. it's when two poons--holes meant to be filled--rub against
eachother ridiculously or settle for some plastic *****.


intelligence design sounds like real science on the surface, but at its

root, it's not science.
gay sex sounds like real sex on the surface, but at the root level,
it's not sex.
both are bogus. gayness is a biologically bogus dysfunction. and ID is

a rationally bogus dysfunction.
if people wanna be gay or believe ID, okay. but do NOT force the rest
of us to accept either as valid or something to celebrate.