Debunking the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby’s Propaganda
First things first: let’s get the obvious out of the way.
Homosexuality is a phenomenon which has probably always existed and which has often polarized society into two camps: those who believe that there is something inherently bad / wrong / pathological / abnormal with homosexuality (probably most/all major religions) and those who emphatically disagree. This is normal. After all, the issue of homosexuality deals not only with sex as such, but also with societal norms, reproduction, children and family issues and, most importantly, with love. What could be more mysterious, more fascinating and more controversial than love?
I am beginning this article with these self-evident truisms not because I find them particularly interesting, but because we live in a weird time when only one of these two views gets objectively and calmly discussed, while the other point of view is immediately censored, denounced and condemned as some kind of phobia. Now, the word “phobia” can mean one of two things: aversion/hatred or fear/anxiety.
Does this make sense to you?
Why is it that an opinion, a point of view, can only be explained away and dismissed as being in itself pathological/irrational?
Let me ask you this: can you imagine that somebody might be critical of homosexuality as such (or of homosexual behavior/practices) without suffering from any kind of phobias or without hating anybody?
If not, please stop reading and turn the TV back on.
For everybody else, I submit that this phobia-canard (along with the no less stupid “closet homosexual in denial” label) is not conducive to an intelligent discussion. It is, however, great to shut down any critical analyses and “ad homineming” anybody who dares to ask the wrong questions.
Next, I also submit that there are those existing out there who do indeed feel an aversion / hatred / fear / anxiety towards homosexuals. These are the folks who feel their masculinity tremendously boosted when they get the chance to beat up (preferably in a group against one), humiliate or otherwise assault a homosexual. In my (admittedly entirely subjective) experience these are a minority. True, some homosexuals do elicit a strong sense of disgust from male heterosexuals, but these are typically those homosexuals who, far from being sequestered in some societal “closet” do the opposite: they ostentatiously flaunt their homosexuality with provocative make-up, dress or behavior. Again, in my (no less subjective) experience, these are also a minority among homosexuals. I think that there is a very natural explanation for the aversion these “in your face” homosexuals trigger in male heteros, and I will discuss it later below.
But for the time being, I would rather stay away from these circumstance-specific minority phenomena.
Next, let’s define the issue.
In its entry for “homosexuality,” Wikipedia writes:
“The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation, and therefore not a mental disorder”.
This sentence deserves to be parsed very carefully, especially since it uses a lot of frankly vague terms.
For starters, what does “longstanding consensus” refer to? In 1973 the US American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM-II. The US American Psychological Association followed suit in 1975. This leads me to conclude that by “longstanding” Wikipedia means either 46 years or 44 years. In terms of human history, 44/46 years is close to instantaneous and hardly “longstanding”. There is also the issue of HOW and WHY these two associations decided to “de-pathologize” homosexuality. I will touch upon that later, and for the time being I will simply state that declaring a pathology that is henceforth to be considered as “normal” by means of a vote is hardly scientific.
Next, the statement above begs the question of what “homosexuality per se” is (as opposed to homosexuality “not per se” I suppose?). The intent here is clear: to decree that whatever co-morbidity (depression, suicide, substance abuse, violence, etc.) can be identified in homosexuality will always get explained away because it is not inherent to homosexuality per se. This is just another crude word-trick to suppress any discussion of homosexuality in the real world (as opposed to DSM-like manuals).
Then there is the notion of “normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation” which, of course, begs the question of what would qualify as an “abnormal and negative variation of human sexuality”. And to those who would say that I am being silly here, I would point out that while in the 1970s the issue was “just” homosexuality, we nowadays live in the society of LGBTQIAPK and that some even add an ominous + sign at the end of this abbreviation (LGBTQIAPK +) just to be truly and totally “inclusive”. And here is the obvious fallacy: since homosexuality is a “normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation,” then it must also be true for the entire LGBTQIAPK+ “constellation”. I submit that unless your IQ is way below room temperature, you surely must realize that what we are dealing with here is a free for all in which any variation of human sexuality is declared “normal and positive”. QED (technically, this would be a syllogisic fallacy).
By the way – do you ever wonder what that small “+” sign at the end of LGBTQIAPK +really stands for? The answer depends on who you ask, of course, but if you ask Facebook in the UK, it’s no less that 71 (SEVENY ONE!!) genders (not sure if FB believes that UK users need more options than non-UK users…?). Turns out that this one small “+” is much bigger than the rest of the official acronym And, just for giggles, here is what the full acronym (the original 10 plus the new 71 should look something like this:
AAAAAABBCCCCCCCCCCFFFFFFGGGGGGGHIIIIIKLMMMMMMMNNNOPPPQTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTW+ (yes, I still added the obligatory “+” at the end so as to be truly “inclusive” should this list grow in the future which, no doubt, it will!).
And anybody not buying into that fallacy is again, by definition, a “hater” and, as you well know, “haters will hate,” right? And if not a hater, then at the very least a repressed closet homosexual.
So far, how do you like that intellectual environment?
I sure don’t. In fact, I loathe it, primarily because it is freedom-crushing.
So I will proceed to discuss this topic with no regard whatsoever for the politically correct doxa that seems to have take over the entire western world. If you think that this makes me a “hater” (or a homosexual in deep denial), you can stop reading here since everything below could be summarized by the one word “crimethink”, which would make me a thought-criminal.
Every since I began blogging, about a decade ago, I have really pissed off a lot of people who accused me of an endless list of ideological “crimes” ranging from being a Communist, to being an anti-Semite, a Jew (or Jew-lover), a Muslim, a Nazi, a CIA/MI6/Mossad agent, a Putin agent, an FSB agent (they meant SVR, but they don’t know any better) and even (my favorite!) a “traitor to the White Race”. Frankly, my most persistent detractors have been Papists and Nazis primarily because I had the nerve to tell them that neither the Papacy nor Nazism has any traction in Russia and that Russia will never somehow step in to boost their declining popularity or influence. The truth is that Russia has exactly zero use for anything even remotely resembling the Alt-Right or any other racist theories (never mind the Papacy and its terminal degeneracy – whether of the ultramontanist or the sedevencantist persuasion). The Zionists also tried to “counsel” me to change my use of the expression “AngloZionist,” but they pretty rapidly gave up. As did the Papists. The Nazis complained and moaned about my anti-Nazism (I was “unfair” to Hitler and his supposedly immensely kind and Russia-loving goons!), but they eventually also gave up. The French philosopher Alain Soral once stated that, in France, the Homo Lobby is even more powerful than the Israel Lobby. I suspect that this is even more true in the United States, and I am under no illusions about the kind of reactions my article will elicit. That’s fine. I really don’t care anymore.
The truth is that as long as we continue to use terms imposed upon us by the dictatorship of political correctness, and as long as we leave the numerous assumptions of the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby unchallenged, we will either die of boredom or, at least, never understand why the society we live in (or why it is collapsing).
So let’s engage in some much needed crimethink!
First, let’s toss out all the stupid and ambiguous terms and expressions imposed upon us by the leaders of the Empire. For example, we could agree to ditch the value-loaded term “gay” and replace it by a value-free term “homosexual” (well, since homosexual is value-free, homosexual activists have declared it “offensive” and they demand that only “gay” be used, thus imposing a value-loaded term in lieu of the correct scientific designation). And if the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby excoriates us for doing so, we could always declare that from now on, “gays” shall only be called “sads” (primarily on account of all the pathology and dysfunction which typically come along with homosexuality: most psychologists and psychiatrists are quite aware of that comorbidity, but speaking about it would be a career-ending mistake for them). In fact, let’s try a little thought experiment.
Let’s imagine that we organize a public debate, a town hall meeting if you want, on the topic of homosexuality. And for that purpose, we establish the following rules:
1) Homosexuals are only to be referred to as “sads”.
2) Those refusing to use that term will be immediately labeled “heterophobes” and “closet heteros in deep denial”.
How many people do you think would accept that?
How would you feel if you were told that you need to comply with such outrageous demands?
Well, then why would anybody expect us to accept the very same nonsense, only in reverse?!
And yet, in 99.9999% of cases in the western media and public discourse, these ideological shackles are present and hardly anybody dares to use a different terminology.
The parallels between how the Israel Lobby carefully crafted the public discourse on Zionism and Israel and how the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby succeeded in shaping the public discourse on homosexuality is striking and not at all coincidental: for a host of reasons these two lobbies strongly support each other and learn from each other.
Do you think that this “just happened”, and that this new politically correct terminology reflects some growing understanding and awareness of the issue at hand by the general public?
Turns out, there is a conspiracy behind this, literally. See for yourself :
This video is 44 minutes long and I highly recommend that you watch it in full for two crucial reasons:
- It will give you a detailed analysis of how the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby conspired to use its influence to shape the public perceptions of homosexuality in the West
- It will give you a good insight into the Russian objections to the ideology and methods of the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby
Finally, I will assume that those reading further will have seen and understood the information contained in this video, and that this information forms an integral part of our discussion.
Next, debunking one of the silliest arguments used by the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby
“I was born that way!”
How many times have you heard this totally meaningless argument?
And, just for comparison’s sake,
How many times have you heard this meaningless argument debunked?
(My guess? Roughly 1000:0 – right?)
Like most LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby canards, this one is based on a misleading assumption that whatever you are born with is “natural” and even “good”. The problem with that is that this same argument can be made for every mental disease and even any criminal impulse. And without going into an endless battle of numbers, I think that we can agree that if somewhere around 1.2%-2.2% of humans might be born homosexuals and if sociopaths are 3%-5% of the population, then sociopathy is about as “natural” as homosexuality. In fact, we could even declare that sociopathy is a “normal and positive variation of personality”. Would you want to live in a society which would proclaim that?
For Christians: this argument is even more ridiculous when coming from people trying to impersonate Christians (say, like these folks). The truth is that Patristic dogmatic theology is very clear on the dogma that the Fall of Man has not only corrupted the original God-given and perfect nature of Man, but it has really corrupted all of creation: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” Rom 5:12. The problem is that Augustine of Hippo diverged from the consensus patrum on this issue and offered instead his own, misguided interpretation of the dogma of the Original Sin. Later, Anslem of Canterbury and, even more so, Thomas Aquinas further hopelessly corrupted the dogma of Original Sin and, as a result, in the West the original Patristic understanding of that dogma has been lost (generally, scholasticism has been the poison which killed western Christianity and turned it into the abomination we all see today). Due to a lack of space, I cannot offer a full discussion of this dogma here, but I will point you to this excellent article on this topic (or, even better, the original writings of Saint Maximos the Confessor and Saint Gregory Palamas). The point here is that Christianity unambiguously teaches that every single human being (including Christ Himself!) is born not with the personal guilt for the sin of Adam and Eve, but with the consequences of their sin: a pathological, spiritual, psychological and even physical nature, in which pathology and even death are always present and weighing down each and every human being, not only homosexuals. From a truly Christian point of view the notion that what we are born with is axiomatically declared as good and natural is sheer folly. If anything, the assumption is that the opposite is true or, more accurately, that the only way for a human being to recover his/her true, perfect, original nature is to reunite with the Church of God and God Himself in a process known as “theosis” (for a superb discussion of this term, please see here), which begins with the process of repentance and renunciation of self-will. The so-called “Christians” in the West seemed to have completely blocked out the following words of Saint Paul: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” (1 Cor 6:9). Either that, or they subscribe to the absolutely self-evidently stupid notion that Christ Himself was some kind of well-meaning hippie while the evil homophobe and hater
Saint“Paul” (sic. these folks never call saints “Saint”) perverted Christ’s original message and created some kind of “Pauline religion” instead. The facts that 1) Saint Paul was originally a vicious a persecutor of Christians, and that 2) Saint Paul was surrounded by people who personally knew Christ (including the 12 and the 70) and His teachings does not lead these simple-minded people to realize that these Christians who personally knew Christ. These Christians would never let a former persecutor of Christians modify Christ’s teachings. If Saint Paul had tried to introduce any heresy, he would have been immediately condemned like all the other heretics over the centuries. Sadly, we live not in a Christian society anymore, but a post-and-pseudo-Christian one in which even the fundamentals of Christianity have been forgotten, perverted or both.
The argument that “I was born that way” is both infinitely self-serving and infinitely dishonest. But it also is a powerful illustration of how the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby not only seeks acceptance, but also that “regular” homosexuality is used as a kind of “gateway mental disorder” which is used to force a much longer list of sexual deviations (“paraphilias”) upon the western societies very much including pedophilia (by means of hebephilia and ephebophilia). It does not have to be, but that is how the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby uses that argument, so it is legit to point that use out and debunk it, too (and this is what freaks like this one will use to demand acceptance, endorsement and even special protection!).
Next, debunking the canard that homosexuality and pedophilia are totally different phenomena
That is another deceptive core-argument of the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby. I won’t go into a long historical discussion of how the terms “pederast” and “pederasty” have been universally used in the past. I will just point out that the first link above says that “pederast” is “a man who desires or engages in sexual activity with a boy” whereas the second one defines “pederasty” as “sexual relations between two males, especially when one of them is a minor” (emphasis added by me, VS)! See how “fuzzy” all this rapidly becomes? Not convinced, then just add ephebophilia, hebephilia and pedophilia to the mix and see the inextricable mess you end up with!
I am lucky to speak 6 languages and understand another 3 pretty well, and I can attest that in many other languages the politically incorrect word for the root for pedophile and homosexual are one and the same (ex: Russian: педераст, пидарас, пидор; French: pédale, pédé ), which makes sense since the Greek word paiderastes means, literally, lover of boys.
Now, I am not, repeat, not saying that all homosexuals are also pedophiles. What I am saying is that, contrary to LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby propaganda, the boundary between these two categories is fuzzy and ambiguous and that it most definitely is nowhere nearly as clear-cut as the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby propaganda claims it to be.
Now having debunked a few (not all!) LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby canards, let’s try to look at what is really happening here.
The truth? We are being brainwashed
Shocked by my use of the term “brainwashed”? Fine. Use “conditioned”, or “trained,” or whatever term you prefer as long as it reflects the following: there is an organized, well-financed and powerful effort made to convince you of a number of (highly controversial and dubious) things. That is not some invention of mine, and if the video I posted above was not enough to convince you, why don’t you make a quick visit to this website, a typical LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby propaganda outlet: https://www.glaad.org and click on “About”. There you will read for yourself that the purpose of this organization is to be “Leading the conversation. Shaping the media narrative. Changing the culture. That’s GLAAD at work”. Of course, GLAAD is just one star in a much bigger galaxy and we can see that galaxy at work literally everywhere. Here are just one excellent example from Google:
Now, if that is the new consensus in the West and if folks here like that, I personally have no objection to this whatsoever. To each his own. But when that ideology is not only shoved on the Russian people but also used in political campaigns to discredit Russia, then I have a problem with that: not only do I object to this specific case of ideological brainwashing, I object to the very notion that folks in the West have some kind of right to impose their so-called “values” on other people. As far as I am concerned, the various advocates of gender-fluidity are welcome to add “Z” (for zoophilia) or “C” (for coprophagia) to their favorite acronym, but they are not welcome to impose it on others or demand that the rest of the planet endorse it as a “normal and positive variation” of human sexuality or gastronomy.
And, finally, western politicians are all trying to outcompete each other as enthusiastic supporters of homosexuality. This is just one example amongst many more:
At the very least, I find the Russian reaction to that kind of brainwashing rather refreshing, see for yourself:
I also get some solace that there are still folks in the West who do understand that this propaganda campaign is part of a real “war on men” which has been waged for many decades already. Here is the example of a lady who makes minced meat of all the “transgender madness”:
And then there is Paul Craig Roberts, truly a fearless man who calls it as he sees it.
In fact, I would wager that most people in the West at least feel that something here really stinks, but that most keep their peace lest they be accused of some kind of homophobia or, more accurately, some kind of “LGBTQIAPK+phobia”.
By the way, there is also a lot of money to be made in transgenderism. Jennifer Bilek’s research has found that:
“Exceedingly rich, white men with enormous cultural influence are funding the transgender lobby and various transgender organizations. These include but are not limited to Jennifer Pritzker (a male who identifies as transgender); George Soros; Martine Rothblatt (a male who identifies as transgender and transhumanist); Tim Gill (a gay man); Drummond Pike; Warren and Peter Buffett; Jon Stryker (a gay man); Mark Bonham (a gay man); and Ric Weiland (a deceased gay man whose philanthropy is still LGBT-oriented). Most of these billionaires fund the transgender lobby and organizations through their own organizations, including corporations”.
She also points out that the kind of sums involved in the homosexuality/transgenderism propaganda are huge:
These men and others, including pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. government, are sending millions of dollars to LGBT causes. Overall reported global spending on LGBT is now estimated at $424 million. From 2003-2013, reported funding for transgender issues increased more than eightfold, growing at threefold the increase of LGBTQ funding overall, which quadrupled from 2003 to 2012. This huge spike in funding happened at the same time transgenderism began gaining traction in American culture.
I can’t vouch for her figures, but I think that it is obvious beyond reasonable doubt that the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby has immense sums of money to push its agenda. I know for a fact that many (all?) US embassies abroad are delivering funds to promote “gay rights” in many (most?) countries of our poor planet.
This is, by the way, exactly the same case in Europe: being mentally handicapped is the new “cool” apparently…
Russian men (and Russian women!!) don’t want to have anything to do with that toxic ideology, and this is why the most used informal term for “heterosexual” in Russia is “натурал”, meaning “natural” in opposition to the concepts of “гeй” (gay) – politically correct term – or any of the less politically correct terms used in Russia for homosexuals.
For a typical Russian reaction to the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby propaganda, I would refer you to Ruslan Ostashko (for a typically Chechen one, see what Ramzan Kadyrov has to say).
In contrast, in the Euro-compatible & Nazi-occupied Ukraine the reality is, obviously, very different:
I feel sorry for the poor Euro-Ukrs…
So what is really going on in Russia? Ain’t there Gulags for gays?! Don’t the Chechens torture gays?
Actually – no.
Debunking the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby lies about Russia
To say that homosexuals are persecuted by the state in Russia is a lie which any (honest) person who has ever been to Russia can debunk. However, what is true is that the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people do not accept the notion that homosexuality “is just like” heterosexual love. You might vehemently disagree with this idea, but do you agree that the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people are under no obligation to agree with your values any more than you are under any obligation to agree with their values?
Next, the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people also believe that children need to have two, gender-differentiated, parents: one mother and one father. Again, you might vehemently disagree with this idea, but do you agree that the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people are under not under any obligation to agree with your values, any more than you are under any obligation to agree with their values?
Finally, the Russian state and a majority of Russians believe that Russian children should not be exposed to any propaganda of homosexuality. Yet again, you might vehemently disagree with this idea, but do you agree that the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people are under no obligation to agree with your values any more than you are under any obligation to agree with their values?
Whatever may be the case, the laws in Russia currently support this majority Russian point of view. Hence, homosexual propaganda directed at minors is illegal, and homosexual couples are not free to adopt children. And, last but certainly not least, the so-called “gay pride parade” has been banned in many Russian cities, including for the next 100 years in Moscow – something I enthusiastically support for reasons I outlined in this article.
But for the rest – Russia does not have US-style sodomy laws. Russia does not tell anybody what they can/cannot or should/should not do in the privacy of their bedrooms and, in fact, homosexuals have their own clubs, bars, websites, organizations, magazines and pretty much everything else all Russians (whether “natural” or not) enjoy.
Here is what is really going on here: militant homosexuals are far from being content with “inclusion” “non-discrimination” or any other laudable things they claim to stand for. No, what they want is a two-step sequence:
- Declare as axiomatic and self-evident that homosexuality “is just like” heterosexuality and then
- Declare that homosexuality is now therefore an accepted norm.
It’s that simple, yet that important: Russia categorically refuses to place an “equal” sign between the concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality. In fact, the Russian culture (secular, Orthodox or Islamic) likes to stress and emphasize the differences between genders, and places a premium on masculinity in men and femininity in women. In other words, Russians reject not only Neanderthal-like macho men, but also what is known as “soy boys” in the West. Likewise, Russians reject men-hating feminists as much as they reject brainless bimbos à la cheerleaders. If I was really cruel, I would suggest that you compare (looks and brains!) the Russian spokeswomen to their White House or Foggy Bottom counterparts: this really says it all.
There is something else which I mentioned above which I want to rapidly touch upon: male hostility towards homosexuals.
Setting aside the kind of degenerate thugs who feel the need to beat on somebody weaker than them, I do believe that homosexuality as a concept and homosexual sex as an activity is naturally repulsive to many, possibly most, men. I don’t mean to say that most men are degenerate thugs who will beat up anybody weaker they find, but I did observe all my life that most men seem to have at least some degree of repulsion towards homosexuality. I could go on and just claim that these men “can’t help it” and that they were “born that way”, but that would be too easy. I will attempt an explanation for this instead.
I believe that repulsion towards homosexuality is a normal and positive variation of the healthy male psyche developed to strengthen the reproductive potential of any population. Yup, it is not popular to say so, and homosexuals go to great lengths to obfuscate that (by means of adoption and propaganda, mostly) but homosexuality is totally sterile. Thus there must be a powerful natural selection pressure not only for men not to engage in homosexual behavior, but also for men to instinctively realize that “something is very not right” with homosexuality. This instinctive feeling should not be used as a justification for violence (any more than sexual attraction cannot justify rape, or irritation justify murder), but it does explain the prevalence of heterosexual repulsion for all things “homo” (at least in males; many/most females also seem to be repulsed by (male and female) homosexuality, but the feeling seems to be less strong than in men and it does not lead to aggression).
The real question is: what do we do with this kind of repulsion?
The answer depends on your culture, religion and worldview.
Even in the post-Christian West, most people know the saying “love the sinner, hate the sin” or some variation thereof. This point of view has a very solid scriptural basis. This approach, by the way, makes sense whether homosexuality has its roots in nature or in nurture. In fact, from a strictly Christian point of view, homosexual behavior is no worse than any kind of sexual immorality. This makes sense as the word “sin” originally means “missing the target” or, more loosely, “failing to achieve your full potential.” There have been attempts in history to classify and order sins according to their severity. This, again, is a typically scholastic attitude. The Fathers, in contrast, sought to develop a complete dogmatic anthropology which truly understands the struggles of each human being to achieve his/her full potential (theosis) and warns about the consequences of failing to do so. Thus “sinning” is not pissing-off some bearded old guy sitting on a cloud surrounded by harp-playing overweight angels, but the failure to realize your full potential. In such a context, “hating the sinner” makes no sense at all while “hating the sin” is quite logical. Especially since the Fathers believed that the One Church of Christ is a “hospital for sinners” in which all sinners are welcome and where they get the spiritual medicine needed to achieve their full potential as human beings.
From a secular point of view, there are really only three options which I have outlined in the past:
- declare that only one specific form of sexuality is “normal”
- arbitrarily discriminate between various forms of sexuality with no logical basis for it
- declare that any form of sexuality is “normal”
Most developed countries have opted for the second option, making a completely arbitrary, illogical and absurd list of “normal” and “not pathological” sexual behaviors. By the way, the same dumb approach was used in dealing with sexual practices between consenting adults (the so-called “sodomy laws“) or the codification of a legal age of sexual consent. Even a cursory look at these laws clearly shows that they are based on nothing except political expediency: they make absolutely no logical sense whatsoever.
Most religions and traditional societies have opted for option #1. Modern secularists initially leaned towards #2, but they are now gradually caving to the LGBTQIAPK+lobby’s pressure to accept #3.
Conclusion: this discussion is far from being over, and it won’t be suppressed either
As I said at the very beginning, the topic of homosexuality is a controversial one. It is also fascinating on many levels (biological, psychological, ethical, moral, religious, medical, societal, etc.). The main religions have, over the centuries, developed their “answer” to this phenomenon, but most of our planet nowadays lives in a secular, sometimes even atheistic, environment in which religions have lost much of their traction, especially in societies which were corrupted by centuries of western imperialism (made worse by the bizarre phobia – yes phobia – the Latin Christians have for everything and anything sexual – hence their effeminate looking and smoothly shaven priests, wearing lace (at least the “traditionalists”!), singing with an effeminate voice and thinking that this represents some true Christian tradition!). You want to see what the original Christians looked like? Look at any traditional Orthodox icon and you will see for yourself. Or visit a true Orthodox monastery. You will immediately see the difference, I promise!
For most people – religious or not – this topic ought to remain one which can be freely discussed in an intellectual and ideological environment which does not immediately place the label of “hater” on every person daring to dissent from the officially imposed dogma. Real scientific research (as opposed to ideological votes by professional associations) ought to be encouraged and regularly reviewed.
In political terms, the topic of homosexuality is just one amongst many others which have been given a One And Only Officially Politically Correct narrative by the AngloZionist leaders of the Empire. Other such officially “dogmatized” narratives include the truth about 9/11, the truth about the so-called “Holocaust”, the truth about Zionism and Israel or the truth about Latin Christianity (there are many more, of course). These are all topics in which dissent is totally taboo and dissidents dismissed along with any or all of their arguments.
If we really want to stand for freedom in its most fundamental essence, we cannot accept being herded into the intellectual cages of the “authorized” political discourse. All the lobbies which ceaselessly endeavor to silence dissent and impose their views and agenda upon us ought to be clearly identified and denounced as a danger for all of humanity. I see no reason to make an exception for the
Lobby, regardless of how many letters will be added to this acronym in the future.
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply