...
If I have to tell you in detail what I believe, you'd most likely accuse me of disguising my "bigotry" under "philosophical rhetoric." It happened before, you know? But I will summarize my position nevertheless.
It is my position that the human being was made so that the division and difference is to be preserved - only thus is there life at all: through the play between the differences, orders, ranks, levels. These differences and divisions exist between man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, man and animal, plant and animal, and all the differences and divisions in general and in particular that we see in life and living things. The more blurred this difference becomes, the more "same" living things become, the more life threatening our living situation becomes - because there is life, primarily, because there is difference, separation, division, struggle, rank, war. The destruction of difference ends the movement which constitutes life.
There are many ways in which this destruction has begun already - but the greatest one I would like to emphasize is the forthcoming "world peace," which will be established without doubt. World peace means...the end of the world (but that's a different subject.)
To go right to the heart of the issue of homosexuality - to me it is a natural urge to destroy one more difference; and it is really only one more difference amongst many. Many differences have been destroyed already, and you see the false "equality" between man and man growing more and more - it is all very natural and perhaps even necessary, because it is the destiny of man that he destroys himself by destroying the difference and division. He thinks he is establishing world peace and a utopia when in reality he is putting an end to life - and what is life? A struggle, a war, opposition, rivalry - not peace, not tolerance, understanding, open-mindedness. But for struggle and rivalry one requires every man to be superior, intelligent, whole, so that he may be able to enforce himself and his personal principles...but that's not possible today. Even "man" is not possible today - he has degenerated into an all too effeminate, pathetic creature which lusts after the "practical" and the "responsible" aspect of life. But in truth, life is nothing practical and responsible - but experimentation, recklessness, crime, consequence. It is awfully woman-like to give one's self to the practical side of things...but man today, and by man I mean humanity, has become all too feminine.
Homosexuality is one more natural urge and tendency that is, above all, necessary. Because, again, it is necessary that the life of man be destroyed in so many ways - metaphysically speaking, by erasing the difference. Man loving a man, woman loving a woman - what does that represent? It represents the destruction of the sexual difference. Really, it is only one of the many differences that have already begun vanishing.
I hope to say, even if deceptively, that we have "free will" - so that a man who loves men can restrain himself...but that's hopeful thinking on my side. No one has free will, and everyone rather abides their natural, crude, basic instincts. What is desired is immediately what is pursued.
So at the end, I believe it is more appropriate for me to say: if you want to love men, go ahead and be. You are only doing what is necessary. And I am the last person who expects that anyone here, anyone on this earth, to have a choice and actually use their choice. Look at everyone! Just look at them carefully my friend - who chooses? And who follows?
Before even asking me why I believe what I believe, everyone jumped right at my back, like lustful animals...and only you asked with civility and respect. In reality, there are only few humans and quite all too many accidents, animals, worthless beings. Do I really need to teach you of this?
People are stupid - is that news to you? And every chance they have, people will do anything to affirm this observation: that they are stupid, intolerant, insolent, insipid, and at the end, worthless. Do I really need to speak to you of the lack of personality and lack of taste, lack of life, which floods this world? Because I’ll be more than happy to, to speak to you about it, but not the general public here, the general zoo, I mean. I don't like to give public speeches any more - most people haven't the clean ears or the cleanliness to hear what I have to say, but I realized about a year ago that I am better off speaking to individuals alone - there I have a better chance and better effect. But "the public" is worthless.
I'm no bigot, but who will believe that? Furthermore, why would I care to justify my case – as if the audience is worth it! Few people are worth it, are worth anything, are worthy of life and living...everyone else is simply existing for the sake of existing. They are beneath life.
