Buttigieg Besmirches the Legacy of Past Presidents by Claiming They Were Closet Homos

Roy Batty
Daily Stormer
June 17, 2019

Gays have this unfortunate habit of ramming things up their ass. It’s shocking, but it’s true and it needs to be said.

There are, however, other unpleasant pastimes that they engage in like, say, retconning famous men from history as gay men to somehow convince people that their sinister gay agenda in 2019 is not as evil and perverted as all that.

USA Today:

Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s candidacy has fueled speculation about how the American electorate would react to its first gay president.

But, according to Buttigieg, he would not be the first gay president.

In an interview with “Axios on HBO” aired on Sunday evening, Buttigieg asserted that it’s “almost certain” he would not be the first gay president.  

When asked specifically if the United States ever had a gay president, he said, “I mean, statistically, it’s almost certain.”

He wasn’t sure which one, though.

“My gaydar even doesn’t work that well in the present,” Buttigieg added.

This is a very, shall we say, problematic reading of history.

Gays like to grasp at straws when finding reasons to back up their thesis that someone was gay. Basically, if a man ever even so much as touched another man at any time in history, that is a good enough reason for a gay to pounce and claim that he was secretly on their team.

Now, to be fair, there were probably some gay men here and there historically – especially among the Anglo writers of the 19th century.

But to understand what was going on there, all we have to do is look at the situation that we have with Hollywood now.

Every single writer appears to either be a Jew or a Gay or, ideally, a Gay Jew. Is this because gays and Jews are somehow exceptionally talented at writing screenplays? No, of course not. GRIDS has no nootropic qualities to speak of and you could just look at the shitty quality of modern films if you didn’t believe me to make up your own mind about how talented these people really are.

The reason you have these homos churning out the same drivel that the English-speaking public is forced to consume year after year is not because of talent, but because of homosexual nepotism.

Even then, in the 19th century, when all of this homo networking was starting in earnest (because of the emergence of the boarding school), you had a velvet underground – I prefer the term Gay Mafia – of homos that would promote each other’s stuff in exchange for blowjobs and venereal diseases.

The other half of the puzzle becomes clear when you take into account that a lot of women in the 19th century started reading, and authors had to take this new market into account when they were writing. I first became aware of this phenomenon upon reading Anton Chekov’s letters and discovering that playa knew what was up. He realized that salons of bored, gossipy women read his books and liked the sappy stuff, so he pivoted towards writing chick-friendly (read: gay) shit to make more money and to buy a ballin’ beach house in Yalta.

So you basically had these closet homos and fag hags promoting gay writers, and it really hit fever pitch in the 19th century. That means that based, red-blooded men who no doubt blew these faggots and society hags out of the water with their skills languished and their great works were no doubt lost to time.

So even if there were a lot of famous gays in the past, it says nothing about their skills and everything about their sociopathic ability to network and get in the graces of stupid women who promoted their work and made them famous.

As to Buttigieg’s claim about US presidents… well, I think that a lot of people in powerful positions are, indeed, recreationally gay. But that is because, as a rule, sociopaths are attracted to positions of power and get off on dominating people. Just look at the FBI, which has been a den of buggery since its inception.

But here’s the thing.

Even if there were presidents who were sodomizing subordinates in their free time, this would do nothing to legitimize Buttigieg and his run for the presidency. Because Americans might have inadvertently elected power-tripping shit-packing sociopaths before, sure. But they have never, and I mean never, purposefully elected a power bottom to the Presidency.

They may have elected a tranny First Lady named Michael by accident, sure.

But bottoms/catchers/twinks have always been soundly rejected by the American people.

Now, I know what you’re thinking:

But see, here’s the thing.

Obama didn’t count because he had the whole black thing going on and that confused people. Since most blacks act like criminals, Obama’s more effeminate behavior was seen as him trying to huwhyten his act up, which was very well-received, and we only later began to speculate on the true nature of Bathhouse Barry.

But Buttigieg is out there and rubbing his gay twinkiness in America’s face and this bothers people.

America may promote butt sex in Uganda, but Americans will never – and I mean never – elect a gay bottom and they never, ever have.

Sorry, Buttigieg, you’re wrong on all counts here.

The American voter has always put pillow-biters in the bog come election day.

Join the discussion at TGKBBS