Republishing of the articles is welcome with a link to the original post on this blog or to

Italy Travel Ideas

Saturday, 12 October 2013

Repulsion Is the Natural Feeling towards Homosexuality

Gay Pride Amsterdam 2008

If we think of the gigantic progress made by the "gay liberation" movement in just a few decades or even years, we are astonished.

The idea of homomarriage would have been unthinkable 20-30 years ago when homosexuals themselves were declaring their opposition to this institution, and even 5 years ago it would have been difficult for it to become part of the UK law.

It has required a social re-education programme of vast proportions, a cultural war for general sexual freedom, of which homosexual "liberation" is part.

One method of crucial importance and psychological effectiveness employed by the homosexual movement and by the Left in general, of which proponents of "gay rights" talk openly, has been the use of desensitisation.

This technical term derives from the learning theory, a psychological theory descended from behaviourism.

The technique of systematic desensitisation is popularly and commonly used in behaviour psychotherapy. It consists in exposing the patient to something - an object, situation, person, animal - to which he has a sensitivity considered excessive, abnormal, pathological or harmful, as in the case of a phobia, until it gradually decreases and hopefully disappears.

The point is that desensitisation is useful and advisable if you have, for example, a phobia of cats. If you have a fear of tigers, getting desensitised may be a very bad idea.

Clearly, for people who believe in the existence of "homophobia" - an irrational fear of homosexuals comparable to fears of harmless spiders, the number 13, lifts or mice -, the folks who suffer from it are badly in need of treatment, and desensitisation is the method they've been employing through prolonged exposure to TV, press, celebrity behaviour and public discourse in which homosexuality is presented, in words and images, as "the new norm", or just another lifestyle.

It's natural, animals are homosexuals too, they say. In addition, anything negative said about homosexuality is treated as morally equivalent to discrimination on the basis of race, which these days is a crime worse than murder. This not only reinforces desensitisation to homosexuality but also creates a new sensitisation, a new fear in its place (this time real), that of being considered as a socio-political pariah for thinking - and even feeling - in the wrong way.

Any feeling of aversion or repulsion for homosexual behaviour - even if not extended to homosexual individuals - is to be ferociously repressed and suppressed, by order of the "liberators". If that sentence sounds like a contradiction in terms, it's because it is.

You don't "free" people by making them afraid of you and by imposing on them your views through that fear.

As homosexual celebrity Graham Norton commented in reference to what was happening on the stage during the Eurovision Song Contest held in Malmö in May 2013, "if two girls kissing offends you, you need to grow up". Feelings of offence are not acceptable to the thought police.

To desensitise the public even more, later on two male dancers kissed in the final choreography during the voting process. It's exactly the correct procedure of graduality: first you expose the subject to a milder shock, then to a slighly stronger one.

And any opportunity is good for the cause of "gay liberation", as long as it has a wide audience.

The theory, if we can call it that way, behind this vast programme of brainwashing - vaguely reminiscent of the film A Clockwork Orange, but on a much bigger scale -, which its supporters probably would consider education or rehabilitation, is that only positive feelings towards sexuality are natural.

It probably has a Freudian derivation, since the father of psychoanalysis has had an enormous influence on the way we think and, along with Marx, has been the greatest destroyer of all that is good about Western civilisation.

Sigmund Freud believed that society is a necessary evil, in that the individual's natural urges must be sacrificed for it, which gives rise to neuroses and psychoses.

He inspired the idea that, if we were left to our natural sentiments and impulses, we would only feel attraction for everything that is sexual. Repulsion, shame, disgust only come from society's repressive influence.

But what if it were not like this? What if our natural feelings towards sex were mixed, both of attraction and repulsion?

I'll explore this in more detail in another article, but there are signs that it could be this way. After all, many mammalian species' females go through periods of oestrus or heat, so sexual attraction is limited to those times. In other animals, who don't live in a restrictive society, it's not a sexual free-for-all.

Each species has its normal behaviour, anyway, which may be greatly different from what is the norm in another species, so this is not conclusive. But we can see that in humans too. There is, for example, an innate aversion to sex with kin individuals in humans as well as other animals.

So, sex can provoke natural strong feelings in both directions. Since homosexual activists and their supporters, hard as they tried, have not managed to produce credible theories that homosexuality is "natural" or non-pathological, but on the contrary there are good reasons, which I've examined elsewhere in the articles linked to below, to believe that it is neither, the feelings of aversion to homosexual acts that they try to suppress in us may just be an innate and totally healthy reaction, similar to that towards brother-sister sex. In which case this indoctrination is a harmful manipulation - in addition to an illiberal attack on personal freedom - that we must fight against tooth and nail.

Read previous posts on the condition of homosexuality:

A Critical Assessment of LGBT Claims

Is Homosexuality as Harmless and Healthy as Political Correctness Dictates?

Consenting Adults, Homosexuality, Incest, Polygamy, Bestiality: Defining Acceptable Sexuality

Photo Gay Pride Amsterdam 2008 by FaceMePLS (Creative Commons CC BY 2.0).


  1. Stephen St. George12 October 2013 at 04:29

    Enza, look at the picture you have posted with this article. Why are there spectators encouraging and feeding this abomination? Just imagine if NO ONE showed up to watch. I bet you these abnormal freaks would dwindle in number over time. By giving them "the-time-of-day", our society propagates this un-natural and atrocious behavior!! BTW, the same applies to Islam, if our society and government would only ignore the "religion-of-peace" and its demands, believe me, we would not be facing the problems we currently have in the West!


  3. Thanks Enza!
    Our neo communist governments want to eliminate God via homosexuals, just another attack....

  4. Great article, Enza. Isn't it amazing how culture shapes beliefs? Pedophilia could be normalized using the same method.

  5. "Natural" isn't always (or even often) good. That's why we have culture, education, and laws. You and I probably couldn't live comfortably without the intercession of millions of unnatural acts. And you know, that's okay. Unreasoning, arbitrary fear is natural, but pathological.

    1. Yes, of course what is natural is not necessarily good, and I've previously written about the fallacy of thinking that way, in particular in areas like "natural" medicine, remedies, food, and so on.

      But neither is it necessarily bad. It is interesting that homosexual activists themselves, when they say that their condition is natural, imply that it is all right and non-pathological, whereas in fact diseases are natural.

      In the case of natural repulsion to homosexuality, as in all cases of aversions to pathological conditions, natural is indeed good.

      There is ample evidence, as shown in the articles linked to at the end of this piece, that homosexuality presents several medical and psychologycal problems.

    2. Please read Camille Paglia article of a few days ago.

      She makes point that through Rousseau the Romanticism Era introduced the radical idea (at the time) that "nature" was good and "society" was bad. From this anything "natural" is worshiped.

      But what is "society" is more than an imposed structure? What if it is a carefully constructed series of social mores and rules based on reducing social conflicts and innate violence? What contains the gray area of any social organization - those social interactions inbetween Criminal Action and Sweet Liberty?

      Laws and customs have been refined by different social groups and cultures. Some have been more successful than others (Social Darwinism) and flourished - while others are on the dustheap of history.

      This is the "tyranny of nice" - we can all "do whatever we want" - because it leads to social and political anarchy. We need to compromise with each other - somehow - and all the social customs (marriage/family as bais for sexual/economic union and procreation) that have been formed over centuries to somehow deal with the issues which arise from us "giving in to our basest desires/natures" are been destroyed without any thought.

      Just my 2c.

  6. Excellent article. I linked to it:

    As a person, who has tried to confront the militant homosexuality in Canada in rational way (receiving numerous punches and bruises in the process) I admire your courage.

  7. Thank heavens for courageous and honest journalism. I thought I had left this politically correct madness behind when I moved to Canada, only to find that its even worse over here. However, if one is "born gay" why then do they need to target our children in their classrooms?

    The Truth:

    The Lone Ranger:
    October 10, 2013 at 11:51 am
    I notice the anger, profanity and hysteria are coming from the “tolerant” crowd here. Notice the brutal honesty of one homosexual activist regarding the targeting of children in public schools:

    Here is a rare, open admission from a homosexual activist in the USA:

    “Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?,” wrote Daniel Villarreal on, a website that promotes the gay agenda.

    “We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it. Recruiting children? You bet we are. We want them to grow up and f*** other men."

    There you have it. The real reason why homosexual activists want to brainwash children into accepting and participating in a dangerous and perverted lifestyle.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.