Wednesday, 17 August 2011

Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded poof?

I don't care.

Over at Subrosa's there is heated discussion over whether gay marriage should be marriage and whether it should have a ceremony.

Well, whether Judaism, Christianity or Islam, the word of God is... 'Rule One - No pooftahs'.

'Rule Two - No mistreating the Goyem/Heretic/Infidel if there's anybody watching' but that's a different argument.

Look. If you're gay, religion doesn't like you. It says so in all their books. Very clearly. It doesn't like me either for different reasons, but at least it doesn't mention me quite so specifically. I don't go to Church or Mosque or the Jewish one or any of the others because I am an unbeliever. Not an atheist, an apathist. I am not going to berate anyone for their beliefs but I don't believe so if there is a God, I will have to do some fast talking in my last minutes.

I can do that.

I'm not gay. I hope to be heterosexual again one day, given the chance, enough booze and an extraordinarily short-sighted woman (preferably blind and not too fussy), but I have no interest at all in same-sex sex. I don't object to it, I just have no interest in participating.

So if gay people want to call it 'marriage' I can't see the issue. The Bible does not define the word, not really. It could be called 'wibbletime' or 'knackwhackery' or the pagan 'handfasting' or anything. All it means is that this person and that person promise to stay together and not poke their bits into anyone else, nor allow anyone else's bits to poke into them.

Perhaps it could be defined as 'unopokebittery' or something.

But really, I don't care. In fact I don't care so fervently I could be defined as a fundamentalist apathist. Get your logic gnashers into that one. We'd have a rally full of placards saying 'Ah...but...' if we could be bothered.

The only thing that gets my hackles raised here is that government think it's their business to define who can whip their whacker into whose sump plug and that they have to have a licence for it. Oh, and pay for it. It's nothing more than a whipped-up and delightfully delinquent way to enforce a gay tax. Oh yes, suckers (no pun intended, no really, oh okay, just a bit) you'll notice it didn't cost you anything to stay together in the past, but now it does.

There have always been gay people of both genders and always will be. I know the religions don't like it and I know of extraordinarily unattractive men who back up to the wall when a known 'shirt lifter' enters the room, as if they were the gay version of Kate Bush rather than the clay version of Gollum but hey, those gay people have been there since the dawn of Man and they'll be there at the sunset. Probably criticising the colour scheme while the rest of us run about screaming.

They leave me alone. I've been in gay bars and never been propositioned once. This is not necessarily an ego-enhancing thing. Okay, I'd say 'no thanks' but look, it would make me feel better if someone at least asked, okay? There is no danger and I'd buy you a pint, you fussy girlie bastards. Just because I have no muscles and no tan and look like Davros with a hangover...

I digress. All the gay people we are to be terrified of have never once troubled me in half a century of babbling and bumbilng about the planet. I have met the blatantly camp (who are, let's be honest here, almost always really witty and funny apart from Julian Clary) and met those who Opened the Closet and got the answer 'Nah, you're just pissed'. I have no idea which of my current circle of friends might be gay and don't care. I do not have a 'friend application form' but my fictional world does, and it does include both 'gender' and 'gender identification' boxes.

In my list of things to worry about, gay people are, I'm sorry to tell you Stonewall, right at the bottom. I am not concerned about you at all. You gay people have never troubled me and in fact, only seriously interacted with me once in 1981 and I am still laughing about that to this day. I was plastered and it was hilarious and a certain guy from Solihull still, I bet, wakes up sweating. Yes, you, Simon. Are you gay?

So gay people want to be declared husband and hole or hole and wife. Why does anyone at all care? It is no different to the lifetime commitments made by birds, dogs and deer. Should they be called marriage? Why not? Many species we regard as beneath us will pine themselves to death when a partner dies, while we cash in the insurance and take a holiday. Are we superior? In what sense?

Gayness is not a human thing. Gay finches, gay ruminants, it's everywhere, but not in my house. I live, unfortunately, in a shagless zone and while I have no objection to gay sex, you are not getting any under a roof where I don't want any. So there. You can smoke here but no parting of the gluteus, and I really must design some signs.

Really. Why does it matter to anyone, religious or not, if two people want to be together?

If it wasn't for the taxes and the government's interference, and Stonewall's insistence on paid licencing, nobody would even know.


Anonymous said...

Two people can be togethert but to be married they have to be man and wife. Why should everything be changed because the gays feel entitled.

Anonymous said...

I agree entirely. If the whole nonsense was privatised as it clearly should be, the issue goes away.

Then people who want to join churches which ignore some inconvenient scripture can, where as other who want to ignore different inconvenient scripture can.

Anonymous said...

Anon 06:41
Perhaps gay couples feel entitled to be able to visit their partners in hospital when they are ill. A gay acquaintance was denied visiting rights when his partner was recovering from a heart attack by his partners lovely family. After a second, fatal heart attack the same family contested the will leaving half of a shared home to the remaining partner and won. Maybe gay couples would just like to insist on being treated the same as or at least no worse than everyone else in a long standing relationship. If civil partnership doesn't fulfill their emotional needs why not call their commitment to each other marriage, who does it hurt?

Twenty_Rothmans said...

Anon 0729:
A civil partnership and/or joint tenancy would have prevented that.

Homosexuals aren't treated the same way because, as it's always being pointed out to us, they're 'different' or 'special'.

Don't get me wrong - I don't mind them, despite being hit on when I was underage by some old men. What people do in their spare time is no concern of mine, although I would love to confront a gay antismoker with the heightened cancer rate for practitioners of that art.

So if we allow homosexuals to marry, why don't we also allow normal men to marry more than one woman, instead of prosecuting them? If everyone involved is agreeable to it, why not?

Then why can't people get married on the Internet, or by filling in and posting a form? Why are divorces expensive? Why are property rights automatically conferred?

This argument smacks of the child, having seen another with something it desires but does not need, bleating and crying to its parents to have the same thing.

If you want to be in my gang, fine, find a girl. Unless you're a girl yourself. Otherwise, join another gang - e.g. 'civil partnerships' and stop whining.

Anonymous said...

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Anonymous said...

I agree with every word of your post...well, except the bit about Simon, whom I've never met (indeed, I've never even been to Solihull).

But I chuckle to see these old people get their knickers in a twist about it.

Most people don't worry their backsides (no intended pun) about what sex people are, or if their relationship is called marriage or not. (My parents' generation worry about gays, my grandparents worry about the fact that women are wearing trousers!!)

It's, as you say, just a word... in Turkish it's called evlilik, in Hebrew, נישואין. Maybe we should call it one of them!

Incidentally, don't we talk about the marriage of a good wine with the right cheese. (Or maybe that's the French!)

I'm not sure why cheese and wine should have marriage but two guys can't. Particularly as DU fromage and DU vin are both masculine.

Still, it's funny to see all these blood pressures rising.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps it could be defined as 'unopokebittery' or something."

Unobitpokery, surely.

Amusing Bunni said...

That's a good Point, Leggy.
The only reason they are letting gays marry now, besides appeasing the lefty voting weirdo's, is that they CAN COLLECT MONEY. All those marriage license fining people who don't go along with it.

Catherine in Athens said...

LI, there are women who fall in love using criteria very different from the norm. I knew I had to marry my husband after reading his first letter to me because it was clear, literate and amusing. My husband is a darling, but he would agree that modelling would probably not have been a career option. The ability to write is a great aphrodisiac for some people. Don't keep putting yourself down!

Anonymous said...


Even if the government got out of marriage entirely, divorces would still be difficult because of children. But otherwise, it should be up to the partners (or their lawyers) as to how the joint possessions are divided.

And yes, why is polygamy illegal? What about if a woman wants two husbands?

banned said...

"Antidisestablishmentarianism, NOW!"

If the Church wishes to stop the State from interfering with its definition of marriage it needs to stop being the State Religion.

Leg-iron said...

Anon - Leviticus does indeed say 'kill' but the Old Testament says that about a lot of people. Which is odd, considering they'd been commanded by God not to kill, and that was pretty close to the start of the book too. By the end of that book, almost everyone was dead.

Fortunately the New Testament came along before the old lot ran out of people and pretty much replaced 'kill them' with 'disapprove of them strongly and don't invite them for tea'.

Which is a step in the right direction, I think.

Gays and muslims have one thing in common in this country. Nobody was concerned about them, nobody worried about them, until certain pressure groups started ramming them in everyone's face.

Which was a step in entirely the wrong direection.

Leg-iron said...

More than one wife? Are you people insane?

Think of the mothers-in-law.

They'll synchronise too and you'll get a double dose of monthly misery.

And they won't agree on where they want you to put that shelf.

Women - more than one husband? How many beers can you carry at once? How many sulky arguments can you settle in a day?

I'm baffled as to how people cope with one spouse. More than one? Madness!

Twenty_Rothmans said...

>divorces would still be difficult because of children

Indeed. If you're the breadwinner, you're entering into an open-ended contract. You're signing over an unspecified but in any event substantial percentage of your wealth, just to get your leg over.

The hoes have to be proximal to get the rhythm going. Most bigamists have mutually oblivious wives, yet they are prosecuted when caught.

As for a woman wanting two husbands, that's kinda weird as they would want to - er - gang up on her sooner or later.

Stewart Cowan said...

As I wrote at Subrosa's...

Marriage is between one man and one woman. That is the definition and nobody has the right to change it.

There are sound reasons why homosexual activity is taboo throughout the world, because it is detrimental to the tribe as a whole.

When homosexuality becomes accepted, that society naturally suffers the decline that comes with hedonism.

So, for anyone to say, "It doesn't affect me," well, I'm afraid it does.

my bet's that marriage will always mean what it's always meant... said...


yes, if the state wants to make marriage a truly equal opportunities venture, and thereby make a few more quid selling licences, and then make few less quid because the traditionalists decide that marriage has been devalued...and if the state, because of its own equal opportunities legislation, wishes to be compelled to employ people who disagree with same-sex-marriage even tho' dissenting opinion is not permitted in equal-opportunities-land...then yes, the state should get further and more deeply involved in the marriage business, and without much ado go straight up its own arsehole too.

yes, mr banned, if the state wants to be free to do as it pleases, it will have to ditch religion, because religion is cultural and flourishing cultures didn't get where they are today by not going forth and multiplying - the state will have to turn its back on the culture and itself become an asexual, objective, sterile entity, and then duly sign its own certificate of extinction as a physical democratically populated being - this latter described state being a state into which, as a metaphysical political concept, the state should never have been allowed to evolve. of course, in reality, the state cannot disown the culture unless there is no culture, in which case the state would not have to disown it and would have a great deal of trouble existing in any meaningful or significant sense anyway in the minds of a bunch of individuals with absolutely nothing cultural in common - and no matter, even if there were no culture, i'm sure that homosexuality would not be preponderant, unless it were a gay-culture with a gay-state (which would obviously not be multi-cultural as gay-partnerships are not exactly havens of equal-opportunity heaven).

well, as you may have guessed, i do not believe in the state, because i do not believe in it controlling any part of our lives. without the state everything is simple, and simplicity is the formula for success, but when the state nationalizes something formerly successful, we all know what the inevitable outcome will don't let the state into your marriage for god's sake - keep it a cultural tradition, you get a say in that, because, in respect of your own culture, you are ultimately a designer with the power of veto.

personally, i believe that marriage is the (ideal of a) union between a man and a woman and that other relationships must be defined differently, since the possibility of a heterosexual relationship producing children raises the stakes and thus the responsibility factor - yet, at the same time, i do not oppose other forms of relationship, nor their recognition as spiritual by specific religions (or those individuals involved), and nor do i oppose their recognition as legally-binding (although naturally we have always been free to draw up and enter any form of legally-binding relationship we wish to), nevetheless, with regards to the concept of 'marriage', i wish to define it as being the often seemingly impossible ideal of a man and a woman agreeing on something, a uniquely tough standard of communication set as an example...

...i do not want the state to dictate the meaning of marriage to me, nor do i wish to dictate its meaning to anyone else - and this is why i do not believe in the state, but still (inexpicably) believe in marriage.

concepts divorced from reality said...


you're being a bit cynical - marriage is defined by the greatest achievement of those who live by its ideal.

Leg-iron said...

Stewart- I can appreciate your beliefs and reasoning on this but I don't believe gay people as such are any threat at all.

The enforcement of sex education on five-year-olds, and the teaching of the gay holey pokey in schools, well that I do see as dangerous.

But gay people aren't doing that. The Righteous are. The same ones who tell us that Muslims are offended by things they haven't even noticed and that Hindus are scared of Santa.

Look for the enemy. It's not always the first one you see.

Don't fight the puppets. Follow the strings.

Leg-iron said...

concepts divorced from reality - a bit cynical? Me? A bit cynical?

I'm the deepest digger in the cynical mine, matey.

Anonymous said...

Mr Cowan:

You appear to be implying that homosexuality is fun, or at least more fun than heterosexuality; that given an equal choice people would prefer to be homosexual; that it is an indulgence that, if followed to its logical conclusion would mean no more procreation.

Did you mean to do that?

Windsock said...

"Probably criticising the colour scheme while the rest of us run about screaming. "

As an ardent poofter (me) to one who is not (you): how can you get us SOOO right?

Budvar said...

I know I repeat myself, but a marriage is between a man and woman, end of.

A marriage has 2 parts, the ceremony and the consummation. Gays can't complete the 2nd part of the contract, so de facto it isn't a marriage.

As for the "Well we know it isn't a real marriage, but can't we just say it is, so as the gays don't feel left out?", school of reasoning.

Well why don't we allow Trabbant to call their latest paper bodied, smokey pile of crap a Rolls-Royce silver shadow? We know they aren't the same, but Trabby will feel so much better being allowed to call it that, and it harms no one.

Anonymous said...

End of what, Budvar?

Windsock said...

Mr Budvar: it may not be consummation to you, but it is when I do it....

Budvar said...

Windsock, unless your interpretation of consummation is:-

A marriage as consummated when the

"spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh."

Then "Butt fucking your special friend" can't possibly be an act of consummation as the act is not "suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring" is it?

Windsock said...

Hmm.. where do you get your definition of consummation? I get mine from Concise Oxford Dictionary: "accomplish, completion (esp. marriage by sexual intercourse)". Are you going to argue that sexual intercourse, like marriage, can only happen between man and a woman? In my book "Butt fucking your special friend" counts.

Anonymous said...

Actually, they don't become one flesh in reality, do they Budvar? (What a quaint, old fashioned expression.) I mean, if you take, for example, Prince Charle;, he didn't become one flesh with Diana. Nah, on the honeymoon when he should have been "becoming one flesh", he was on the phone to his trollop arranging, doubtless, to become one flesh with her just as soon as this ghastly honeymoon was done with.

And, I wonder, if some contraception is used, do people become one flesh> That is to say, if one uses a rubber, I'm thinking, it probably doesn't matter much whether one is "butt fucking one's special friend" or "fanny fucking the wife". It's just a way of getting off.... no babies.

Budvar said...

Tris, quaint and old fashioned the phrase may be, but the consummation part of a marriage has less to do with religion and more to do with money, title and property.

For this reason, I don't see TPTB changing the definition anytime soon.

Winsock, it isn't *MY* definition of consummation, it's the "Common law" definition that counts in a court of law.

Fortunately (or not) the Concise Oxford dictionary definition of consummation holds no sway in law.

Also, yes I'm arguing that consummation does need to be be with both a man and a woman.

has a raft of case law in support of it.

Windsock said...

Budvar: OK, I didn't know that was how the law defined it, which leads me to two conclusions:

a: the law is an ass (oops!)

b: it shows that the law/system still inherently discriminates against gay people. It regards their relationships as phoney replicas of heterosexual ones and gets its knickers in a twist when it comes to gay sex... and eventually it does come back to sex (reference your own comment above).

The original 1967 Act legalising homosexuality was described as "a buggers' charter" and similar comments were made during the debates to equalise the age of consent between gays and non-gays.

Why does it always come back to bumming? What is it that you can't accept about two people (oh alright, as many people as you can fit in a room) doing whatever it is they want with their own bodies, and other people's by mutual consent.

I have also known long-term gay partners who didn't practise anal sex but were sexual in other ways. No doubt that would also not qualify as "the real thing." So, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I don't buy the "God said so" argument, because to me he's a story, a bit like Yoda. (P.S. if you are going to argue the bible, you might find this interesting):

All the time gay people are looked on as inferior because of what to them are natural sex drives and urges, there will be a need, sadly, for uptight unrepresentative organisations like Stonewall, because at least they are still fighting the fight, even if it has to be couched in terms that won't frighten the horses.

Budvar said...

Windsock, the law discriminates between us and them period.

An example springs to mind here, the 2 most powerful men in the country and their chums smash up a restaurant whilst drunk, it's a jolly jape.

You or I and our mates smash up the local Indian after a night on the lash, we're looking at time in the pokey.
Rightly so in my view, but the same sanction should apply to the Bullingdon boys.

Here's something you may wish to ponder. The pendulum of public opinion tends to swing from the extremes of "Anything goes" to shall we say for want of a better word, to the "Puritanical".

I see the tide of public opinion changing, and once it takes hold the transformation is swift.

We already see it manifest itself with the anti drinking/smoking/fat lobby.

It wont be long before they get their teeth into race and sexuality, and we all know the can of worms that opens.

The thing with demanding more and more is eventually they turn around with an unequivical *NO*, and they take away your other rights too.

Be careful what you wish for.

Windsock said...

All I wish for is the recognition that my life, my loves and my expression thereof are as valid as anyone else's. Everyone should be able to just get on with their own lives to the best of their ability and stop worrying what everybody else is getting up to.

rubber-stamped perversion - the people vote with their naughty bits, quite often said...


you are wasting your time waiting for your life, your loves and your expression thereof to be as valid as anyone else's, because everyone reckons on his or relationship to being perfect, until finding out that it isn't - relationships have to be rewarding in themselves, not via some third-party validation service. you are welcome to your love-style-choices, and your plea for others to respect your privacy is legitimate, so why not get on with it instead of protesting too much and fuelling the perverse imaginations of the pious.

although we may hazard a good guess, ultimately, no-one can really prove how consummately rich in happiness is one relationship in comparison to another and nor should anyone - only god can do this, and he must therefore sit as the final judge of the xxx-factor.

however, failing this holy intervention, i imagine we'll have to work on the principle of "if it looks like fun we'll give it a try too" and find out for ourselves...but ironically i'm sure, the spice in life comes from being adventurous and trying things which are not necessarily approved by others...and i'm talking about life-experiences generally, not specifically about sex, you mucky-minded lot.


after defining marriage, i suppose the state will now attempt to define 'love', presumably as 'hate', and compel us all to be happy. it's helpful to think of 'the state' as 'god', it has all 'the answers' safely stored away in the vault of objective reality, but cannot communicate the safe-contents to anyone mortal, since the state, like god, is a metaphysical concept and not human - so it follows that anyone claiming to be either 'the state' or 'god', or their messengers, should not be taken too seriously or heeded in any way. the state is much safer left as an idea which each of us may interpret differently whilst none truly knows its precise nature, and thus the notion of the state remains locked inside our heads - a status quo far more preferable than that where the state becomes a physical monolith of humanity which may only be perceived as being in one single immutable authorized and dictated form, incarcerating all those individuals who either have dissenting notions of the state's state, or refute its existence altogether...

meanwhile hetero-sexuality doesn't seem to be a craze which is about to fade-away in a hurry - the rebellious act of sleeping with the enemy will always be an aphrodisiac.

Stewart Cowan said...

Tris wrote:

You appear to be implying that homosexuality is fun, or at least more fun than heterosexuality; that given an equal choice people would prefer to be homosexual; that it is an indulgence that, if followed to its logical conclusion would mean no more procreation.

Did you mean to do that?

Just because something is "fun" doesn't make it advisable. Homosexuals tell me that sodomy is fun, but I have no intention of finding out for myself.

I think that "gay rights" are part of the overall population reduction agenda, as well as degrading society as part of a cultural and economic takeover.

Stewart Cowan said...

L-I wrote,

Look for the enemy. It's not always the first one you see.

Don't fight the puppets. Follow the strings.

True, that, Leggy, but at the same time, should we put up with the puppets as well as their masters?

The sort of society children grow up in will define that society when they are in charge (or think and act like they are in charge).

The resulting sexual 'revolution' (of all sorts) has caused all manner of social breakdown in the West.

Naturally, this affects us all.

the state is gay, long live the state said...

i really don't know why people get involved in these sorts of silly non-prductive arguments?

Anonymous said...

I dunno about advisable or not advisable Stewart.

I mean getting drunk isn't advisable; smoking isn't advisable; getting cross isn't advisable... there's no end of stuff that's not advisable. I suppose being gay might be one of them.

I was making the point that at some stage, someone implied that if homosexuals were made equal, then people would chose homosexuality over heterosexuality, signalling a decline in the birth rate, and damaging society.

I just wondered if he thought that people preferred homosexuality to heterosexuality.

Indeed when you consider life before Christ, men tended to have homosexual relationships for fun and heterosexual ones because of the need top procreate. Greece and Rome both had a high incidence of this.

So perhaps it is worrying. if men were told it's OK to be with another bloke, and women with another lass, and it wasn't considered shameful any more... who knows what might happen.

i think this wot you were digging at said...


mr cowan, heterosexuals can enjoy both sodomy and pussomy - not to mention making the missus look like a whale - it's quite difficult to see the attraction of homosexuality really.

pod stewart - model husband said...

screw the state marriage contract - it's just another method of establishment control through the bossier-half. if you are mature enough to live according to the strict ideal as currently set out by our town-halls, then go for it, if you're not up to the rigorous romance of western monogamy and prefer another matrimonial model, then go for it, and if you don't want your children to believe that homosexuality is the norm then make sure you choose a good spouse and celebrate an enduring and happy wedlock which leaves them with a lasting impression.

screw the state marriage contract - it's a legalized guilt-trip through government enforced fidelity; one size fits all, as usual - whether it's gay or not, it's a dictated state draft and not your personally designed expression of mutual love. have a hippy wedding or something.

it doesn't affect us all - the state can fuck-off (chained into whatever form of partnership it chooses).

gay roots said...


there will always be homosexuality, there will always be a healthy cultural disregard for wayward state nonsense - such as wasting time, energy, and money either promoting, or prohibiting, homosexuality.

our obsession with homosexuality appears to be purely down to christian-indoctrination - according to wickipaedia:

men in greece and rome were apparently 'not defined' by the gender of the partner they preferred in sexual encounters, but it was nevertheless frowned-upon for two adult men of equal seniority and status to engage in a sexual relationship, because one of them would have to 'play the woman'. tribally customary homosexuality in greece predated its rise as a world power; the outlawing of homosexuality in rome preceeded the empire's demise. some scholars argue that homosexuality in the ancient world was confined to the social elite and aristocracy - suggesting it was a practice intrinsically linked to power-play and an obsession with supression.

whatever...what's for sure is that rome got it from the greeks who, it is argued, learned all they knew from ancient egypt - which was, of course, an african civilization.

Anonymous said...

Interestingly, although of course, you are right, Egypt is African geographically, it is Arab by culture.

Budvar said...

Except "Ancient Egypt" was more of a "Mediterranean" culture than Arabic.

unfair share of the spoils said...


if i may say, a typical eurocentric view, which racially excludes the black man's enormous imput into the cultural, philosophical and ideological development of the progressive western civilization we see today.

Budvar said...

Like what, care to give examples?

poly-rhythms, puff and polygamy said...


you may laugh at my answer, but in fact, in this respect, there is no single specific influence on which it is possible to put one's is something altogether more profound and spiritual than a mere feat of engineering, an electronic invention, or a system of governance - it is more the freelance state-of-mind which gives birth to the creative energy-spring allowing mankind, as one symbiotic entity, to venture forward into the unknown. the trance-state can be induced by music, or dance, or other emotio-physical activity, but let's be honest, whosoever performed the leap of imagination necessary to conjure-up the unrealizable pie-in-the-sky propositions of the welfare-state, sex and race discrimination legislation, and equal-opportunities must have been smoking some pretty damn strong leaf; democracy was definitely the result of a pipe-dream. you see, europeans are just too straight-laced to have come-up with such funky wacky reality-defying cultural concepts without the benefit of foreign assistance and guidance. indeed, since you have asked me...david cameron's proposal to exorcize the destructive demons in britain's big-society, by using indigenous incantation to cast a charm on the european convention on human rights, exemplarizes the very embodiment of traditional african faith-healing.

old nanny nip-nosh said...

all these posters who want to be granted the state's permission to pass wind are just authority titty-suckers, aren't they?

qaddafi's oil said...


that's all a bit erudite, the past, the african contribution to the west was enslaved manpower - and nowadays it's economically enforced skilled manpower and cheap plundered mineral resources. the current and historic debt to african society being essential to constructing the big negative. an industrial mincing-machine lubricated with blood.

opinions powered by