January 30, 2023

Let Them Eat Cock

By now January is almost over, meaning most people’s New Year’s resolutions will already have crumbled away into mere atoms, just like mine: It’s not even February and already I’ve murdered two prostitutes.

Perhaps the most common failed New Year’s resolution is to quit smoking, a solemn promise to your lungs that, if you only lived in New Zealand, it would henceforth be impossible for you not to keep, at least if you happen to be young enough. This is because N.Z.’s ever-kind dictatrix Jacinda Ardern (soon to be quitting herself, thankfully—as PM, that is) has just passed a new law effectively banning the filthy habit forever.

From Jan. 1, Ardern generously made underage puffers’ New Year’s resolutions for them, forbidding the sale of tobacco to all Kiwis born in or after 2009, meaning anyone aged 14 or under will never lawfully be able to smoke over there at all. Once legislation kicks in, the legal minimum age of smoking will increase by one year each twelve months. Eventually even pensioners will need to flash tobacconists ID proving not that they are 18 as now, but, for example, that they are 64 in 50 years’ time, or 114 in 100, when everyone has magically been enabled to live forever by fiat of the nanny state.

“Smokers are perpetually urged to quit inserting unnecessary tube-shaped items into their mouths for pleasure, but gays are not hectored to treat their own throats or anuses similarly.”

Other nations’ political health-freaks look on jealously. In the U.K., opposition Labour Party health chief Wes Streeting pronounced himself “genuinely curious” about Ardern’s innovative experiment in lung fascism, pledging to start a consultation on the issue in the name of “fresh radical thinking.” Streeting “hated the smell of cigarette smoke growing up,” he said, and whatever “liberal” politicians hate, we all know, they end up banning eventually. Meanwhile, whatever they happen to love, they end up abusing their position to have the state officially promote on the public dime. Being a homosexual, one thing Mr. Streeting doubtless loves more than anything else in this world is other men’s penises, which raises one important public health question above all others: Is smoking cocks really safer for one’s well-being than smoking cigarettes is?

Some People Will Swallow Anything
Notoriously, the main chosen hobby of one of Wes Streeting’s esteemed swinging-’60s Labour Party predecessors, Tom Driberg, was to spend his free evenings away from Parliament kneeling in public toilets handing out blowjobs to all comers (in both senses of that term)—a wholly meat-based diet he allegedly justified not on grounds of personal taste, but personal health. According to Tom, swallowing such an excellent cross section of the general public’s semen exposed him to so wide a range of sperm germs in vaccine-style attenuated form that it boosted his personal immune system against future infection by far worse things than spunk flu.

In those happy pre-AIDS days, doubtless this innovative oral injection method worked well for Tom, but perhaps he just got lucky and ended up blowing Stuart Redman from The Stand or something. For most mere mortals, chewing off random strangers in public bathrooms is potentially very bad for your health indeed, particularly if said random stranger just happened to be Freddie Mercury on a day you had a mouth ulcer. So where, one may ask the Jacinda Arderns and Wes Streetings of this world, is their taxpayer-funded public health campaign against cock sucking?

A similar question was once asked by the conservative political commentator Peter Hitchens. Peter’s query (eventually) appeared in his 1999 book The Abolition of Britain, which bemoaned what a leftist-ridden shithole his homeland had become ever since the 1960s heyday of liberalizing social reformers like Tom “Suck It and See” Driberg. One particular chapter was omitted from the initial hardback version as being so controversial it was likely to overshadow Peter’s main message. Reinstated in the paperback and U.S. editions, it laid out Hitchens’ honest observation of a severe disjunction existing between the nanny state’s official attitudes toward the two differing yet equally lethal diseases of AIDS and lung cancer.

As Hitchens noted, “Smoking and buggery can both kill you” (at least if you’re doing it properly), yet Western governments treated smokers as moral pariahs who selfishly brought their lung diseases down upon themselves, costing hospitals millions, whilst simultaneously treating gay puffers of pink cigarettes as sainted martyrs and tragic victims of society, when in fact both AIDS and lung cancer were often equally self-inflicted and equally cash-draining impositions upon national treasuries.

Hitchens’ argument wasn’t necessarily that homosexuality was wrong, merely that one social group was relentlessly demonized, the other endlessly pandered to. Smokers are perpetually urged to quit inserting unnecessary tube-shaped items into their mouths for pleasure, but gays are not hectored to treat their own throats or anuses similarly; for today’s government health-mafias, the only true sodomitic sin would be a man lighting up a quick postcoital Marlboro after being gangbanged by the cast of Queer as Folk in his local car park.

Put That in Your Pipe and Smoke It
Ridiculously, in 2022 Dr. Bryan Cullen, founding director of Duke University’s Center of Virology in North Carolina, came under fire for disseminating “reactionary rhetoric” and “harmful stereotypes about HIV/AIDS,” harmful stereotypes such as the previously undisputed medical facts that promiscuous male homosexualists played a “critical role” in the early spread of AIDS in the U.S., and that HIV was more easily contracted via anal than vaginal sex, unless said vagina had been used as a collective field latrine by the Village People beforehand. Like sodomy itself, “the truth can be painful,” retorted Dr. Cullen, “but that does not mean it should be avoided.”

But won’t obscuring the obvious medical truth for PC reasons just counterproductively risk costing more gay lives? Ah, no, because what homosexuals really need to be protected from is not a killer disease, but far worse social stigma and prejudice. For example, there is a niche gay pursuit called “bugchasing” (I prefer to call it “suicide bumming”) in which gays seek to subvert wicked heteronormative oppression by deliberately getting infected with HIV via condomless anal intercourse with already infected males called “giftgivers,” thus “breeding” the bugs inside their rectal “wombs” as microscopic surrogate bum babies.

As Wikipedia sycophantically puts it, such male pseudo-pregnancy grants “a shared identity and sense of community” whilst concurrently undermining evil conservative social norms. A voluminous medico-sociological literature has sprung up around this practice, none of which appears remotely condemnatory, as such texts generally are about the significantly less deviant habit of smoking.

The real animus these people have against smoking tobacco is that it is generally perceived as right-wing and hetero-masculine in nature. Smoking cannabis, however, is generally thought transgressively left-wing in nature, like being bummed, so today’s leftist authorities are all too keen on legalizing that—including Jacinda Ardern, who narrowly lost a referendum on freeing the weed in N.Z. in 2020.

Tellingly, some of the main reasons given by the N.Z. left for banning smoking and legalizing marijuana were contradictory. Shockingly, a greater percentage of native non-white Maoris were addicted to legal tobacco than post-imperialist white settlers, damaging their health. Equally shockingly, a greater percentage of Maoris also smoked illegal weed than white New Zealanders did, thereby criminalizing them unnecessarily. So, to ban cannabis was racist, whilst not to ban tobacco was also racist, even though you’re just arbitrarily swapping the legality and illegality of two similarly addictive substances around here.

Cake-Away Menu
Meanwhile, at the same time as promoting cock chomping, our rulers are busily trying to ban cake chomping. On 17 January, Professor Susan Jebb of the U.K.’s Food Standards Agency gave absurd warning that taking high-calorie cake into the office on your birthday might harm your colleagues’ health in the same way passive smoking once did, before that particular vice too was made verboten. According to Reichskuchenführer-SS Jebb:

“We all like to think we’re rational, intelligent, educated people who make informed choices the whole time…. [But] if nobody brought cakes into the office, I would not eat cakes in the day, but because people do bring cakes in, I eat them. Now, OK, I have made a choice, but people were making a choice to go into a smoky pub.”

So, we must take that choice away from them immediately, just like we did with smoking in pubs, nein? A new condition called “passive eating” now appears, and it must be eradicated. Tam Fry of anti-adipose pressure group the National Obesity Forum further suggested British employers be given a legal mandate to ensure their staff doesn’t become too chubby, modeled upon Japan’s “Metabo Law,” which apparently “penalizes bosses if their staff’s annual waist measurement check falls outside a healthy range.”

Tell you what, Tam, we’ll all agree to that particular amazingly illiberal measure the very same day joyless prigs like you also agree to fine gay workers whose sodomy-distended rectal passages likewise fall outside a “healthy range” of anal gape width during their annual in-office public inspection probe with a sterilized protractor, eh? Have equal standards and just leave people alone to manage their own lives, please.

Let gays eat cock, and everyone else eat cake!

Subscribe to Taki’s Magazine for an ad-free experience and help us stand against political correctness.


Columnists

Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates!

SIGN UP

Daily updates with TM’s latest