Involuntarily Closeted

Funny, as I only catch up on the news every few days, I managed to post my rant about sexual freedom and gay rights' decreasing relative relevance a couple of days after some idiot decided to prove me wrong by shooting up a gay nightclub. Isn't my face red. Well, not really, since the event touches on my greater point about sexual repression, but I'll get to that in a moment.

First off: religion. Sick, idiotic, primitive pretext for every kind of oppression and villainy you care to name. Add this example to the pile - and yes, this latest mass-murderer's Muslim, big surprise. For every left-wingnut crying about "islamophobia" we're rapidly accumulating a matching brainwashed loser who's shot up, blown up or burned down a restaurant, church, airplane, night club, etc. for the greater glory of Mohammed's whiskers.

Second: guns. You don't get to pretend it's not a problem! If you flood the market with them, the people who want to use them will, and those with better things to do will become victims. For all the moronic Libertarian bullshit arguments about self-defense, the assuredly well-armed population of Orlando responded to this attack the same way bystanders do in every other shooting: they ran the other way! How many attacks have actually been foiled by all these heroic true-blue, amendment-adoring all-American gap-toothed rednecks with gun racks in their pickup trucks?

Finally, can we all just acknowledge that a great part of this cretin's problem was likely the mountain of self-hatred brought about by closeted sexuality? Salon is all too eager to heap ridicule, vitriol and condemnation upon self-declared "involuntarily celibate" straight white boys and their violent revenge fantasies. However, will all the self-serving feminist mouthpieces who have made careers out of bashing men dare to include this non-Christian, non-white, non-heterosexual in their diatribes? Will they admit how closely this man's repressed sexuality echoes that of the left wing's favorite targets? I would guess not. Omar Mateen's privilege rating places him squarely among anti-intellectual facetious regressives' favorite lapdogs.

So great care must be taken never to admit that the thought crimes for which the likes of Salon lambastes twenty-something straight white male social outcasts were actually put into practice by a gay Muslim Middle-Easterner. Might have to admit that religion - any religion, including those being attacked by Western corporate imperialism - breeds disgustingly diseased abortions of thought. Might have to admit that being gay does not endow one with higher ethical thought and that most of Americans' rhetoric about "oppressed minorities" is nothing but smoke and mirrors to distract from more realistic interpretations. Worse, they might have to admit that the old-style closeted, taboo, repressed sexual impulses, the desperate self-hatred brought about by religious vilification of sexuality transitions seamlessly into the past several decades' surrender of public discourse to feminists' new-style, relentless fundamentalist vilification of sex, men, and especially men's desire for sex.

Ah, well. I generally avoid writing back-to-back "humanity" posts, but this seemed too apropos to pass up.