Are the Dangers of Heterosexual STDs Massively Exaggerated to Prevent White Reproduction?

Heterosexual STDs are frankly overrated and part of a conspiracy to drive down the birthrate, frankly.

Firstly, there is no virus that you can actually test for, by the nature of the virus, and you are always testing for antibodies that the medical establishment claims are associated with these viruses. Viral infections are basically a theoretical phenomenon.

I don’t really even believe in HIV=AIDS, and think AIDS is just old fashioned GRIDS. Many non-conspiracy people believe that. There just isn’t any evidence that a retrovirus has a relationship to T cell count. That’s really the only logical explanation as to why only homosexuals and drug users would get the disease.

Unlike HIV, hepatitis B and C are more than likely real, and it is possible for a heterosexual to get them technically, but it is only possible really with bloody anal sex. Basically, the bad hepatitis is 100% gay (and junkie) only. (Hep A is a totally different virus that you just get from bad water and which goes away, which makes one wonder why the other versions of the virus are so different.)

Secondly, I should make it clear: gonorrhea and chlamydia are real infections that can cause real complications if they are not dealt with. However, being bacterial infections, they are easily cured using antibiotics. What’s more, there are free clinics that will test you (often not for free, but for a trivial amount of money), and the medications are cheap. However, only the filthiest women carry these diseases, for the most part, as most normal middle class women get regular checks as part of their very expensive “women’s health” programs that the government pays for.

Technically, heterosexuals can also contract the bacterial infection syphilis, but that is also easily cured with antibiotics, and is usually part of a regular STD test. Like all STDs, homosexuals are at an exponentially higher risk. Also, if you read history books, several famous people contracted syphilis and it went away, before the invention of antibiotics (Conquistador Hernán Cortés got it when he was 19 from a hooker and lived to die of dysentery at 62).

With all three of these infections, women are at a much higher rate of getting them from men than the reverse. Even if you have so-called “unprotected” sex with a woman infected with one of these bacteria, you’re not necessarily going to get it.

Finally, there are the alleged viruses herpes and HPV.

Herpes probably exists, but it’s possible that everyone has it, and just only has outbreaks when they are unhealthy. Everyone gets cold sores, allegedly. I have personally lived a very healthy life, and have never had oral or genital herpes breakouts. However, if herpes is what they say it is, I don’t see how I couldn’t have it, given my sexual history, frankly, which was for a long period of my life not especially responsible. Furthermore, they say that herpes can be spread even with a condom anyway, given that the sores (which allegedly spread by touching the skin of other people, which is in itself questionable) can be on the outside of the vagina, where the balls and other areas of the groin touch.

Furthermore, herpes doesn’t have any alleged negative effect, other than being gross.

Frankly, I’m not really a big time believer in HPV at all, and if it does exist, it goes away naturally. There is no real proof linking HPV to cervical cancer, and cervical cancer – ironically – is more likely caused by birth control, and as with every cancer, a bad diet.

Basically, we have a situation where our birthrate has collapsed and the government is pushing for white people not to have kids, and only white people follow these neurotic STD rules, using condoms or not having sex at all because they’re afraid of these diseases. I find the whole thing very suspicious. The system is openly attempting to drive down the birthrate, and then just by magic, they discover all of these new diseases that present a reason not to have sex. Very convenient, no?

Just look at the situation. In the 1990s, they told everyone they were going to get AIDS and it was a total hoax. Then they told everyone “oh but these other STDs are really serious.”

Just imagine the way they brainwash little kids with those images of diseased or totally mutilated genitalia. It’s the same thing they do with the Holocaust, when they show you pictures of piles of dead Jews. These people claim that it is okay to traumatize children only in these two cases: Holocaust and STDs. Normally, they will tell you that purposefully inflicting trauma on children through disgusting images is unethical. If you were to ask them why it is okay in these two cases, why they cannot simply wait until the kids are grown to explain this stuff to them, they will claim that these issues – Holocaust and STDs – are so important that inflicting life-changing trauma on children’s developing brains is worth it. However, many more people die from obesity than STDs – by a factor of about 50,000 – and they don’t traumatize children with disgusting images of the diseases that fat people develop. The only explanation is that these classes are a scam to prevent pregnancies.

Earlier this year, it was exposed that the British government was telling teenagers to suck on each other’s toes rather than have sex.

This stuff is weird.

Although I make a point to keep my private life private as a rule, I will tell you this: I have been very “sexually irresponsible,” I have had close friends who were a lot worse, and I have never in my life heard of anyone having any serious problems. One guy I know had a bacterial infection that went into his prostate – after having no-condom sex with multiple $20 hookers in the same day and then not getting tested, and it took him two months to get it fixed. That is the absolute worst case that I’m personally familiar with. Those pictures that they show you are all third world morons who have puss coming out of their dicks for months and don’t bother to go to the doctor and get antibiotics. That is not real life in the first world (or for anyone who acts like a normal person and goes to the doctor when they’ve got puss coming out of their dick in the third world). The Jews who promote the “sex education” classes where they show these pictures know it is not real life, they show you these images to traumatize you and make you afraid of sex. Period. It’s a trauma-based mind control program.

Obviously, none of this means you should go around having sex with prostitutes (or really dirty sluts you met at a bar) without condoms or whatever. The clap is no joke. Furthermore, sex is overrated in general, and is not something that people should base their life or their self-worth around, at all, ever. That said, the purpose of sex is to create children, and so we need more sex, because we do not have enough children.

Sex is best within marriage. However, we recognize that the situation we live in is often not conducive to marriage, and we also recognize that many marriages, throughout history, have taken place because a woman was pregnant. That is just the reality. That was even true going back to the allegedly puritanical days before the revolutions of the 1960s.

We know about the “shotgun wedding” phenomenon, where a girl got pregnant and the parents of both the boy and girl forced them to get married. Well, in the 1950s, this happened with more than 40% of marriages. Maybe not with the parents forcing it, and definitely not likely with a shotgun, but simply because before abortion, and before the normalization of single motherhood, everyone knew this was what they were required to do by society. When we lived in a society, people took social obligation seriously.

So, obviously, marrying a virgin is the ideal, but the harsh reality is that we do not live in an ideal world, and we need babies. It’s very, very unlikely that any normal middle class girl you’d be involved with would have an STD, and if she does it’s not the end of the world and it won’t kill you, so if you’re going to have sex with a girl who isn’t a prostitute, you should not use condoms.

If a woman agrees to have sex with you, the likelihood is that she is in thralls to you, and will say nothing about the condom. At the very most, she will request a condom before the sex begins, but once her blood is hot, you can easily remove it. If she says something, you can play it off with the old, “don’t worry babe, I’m clean,” along with a chuckle to show your confidence in the matter, and in virtually any situation, she’ll just say “okay but don’t put it inside.” But of course, when it is inside, there’s nothing she can do, is there?

There is also no law against surreptitiously removing a condom during sex, which is very easy. (It’s extra easy if you buy the ones designed for people with huge dicks, assuming you have a normal sized dick.) All you have to do is make a “V” shape with your forefinger and index finger, and put it at the base of the wang. As you pump, you can progressively pull the ring of the condom upward. Eventually, it will get pulled off by the in-out motion itself, and either fall out, or, better yet, go up inside her. She will not feel it. In this situation, you can also play as though it was an accident after you’ve ejaculated and she finds the condom floating around in her goo-hole.

Theoretically, the floating condom could block the entry of the semen into the cervix, but probably won’t. Obviously, make sure that when you ejaculate, you are as deep in as possible. What’s more, the longer it’s been since you’ve last ejaculated, the more pressure you will have to shoot it out, and the more total semen you will have. The sperm count itself will also be higher. Also, the longer you have sex, the larger the build up of the load – up to 15-20 minutes, anything beyond that is diminishing returns and the woman will start complaining she’s sore around that time anyway.

If you have a hard time controlling the ejaculation without the condom (it’s normal for young guys, don’t be embarrassed about it – statistical average sex length is 3 minutes), then leave the condom on as you charge up the weapon.

Some may ask: “isn’t it unethical to impregnate a woman against her will?” and the answer obviously is “no.” What is unethical is allowing women to run around having sex without having children. You are simply balancing out the moral order of the universe.

Of course, be aware of the risks much greater than STDs, which are that after this bitch is pregnant, she can do basically whatever she wants to you. Furthermore, you obviously have to stop her from having an abortion, which is going to be difficult, but it is achievable.

Also, understand that my typical position is that men should not be trying to have kids until they are established with a profession. However, given the situation with the virus hoax, I’m really not sure that matters anymore. I don’t think anyone is going to be establishing themselves anywhere, frankly, other than maybe in a road gang. As such, getting a girl pregnant is unlikely to make your situation very much worse, and the joys of fatherhood will outweigh any negatives anyway.