Introduction
Let’s start with a few specific fabrications about homosexuality!
Gays would have you believe that their lifestyle is natural, normal and healthy. Genetically determined no less. Those who think differently are unbalanced hate seething bigots who suffer from homophobia. Additionally, they endure significant mental distress and chronic ill-health brought about by societal rejection and hostility. Gays would be free from the troubling chains of self-doubt if a profoundly prejudiced society were a little friendlier.
Running parallel with the ‘gay gene’ myth is the falsehood that the homosexual condition is fixed and thus incurable. Any attempts to reverse the condition are judged to be intensely harmful and damaging. Indeed, any suggestions to the contrary are extended evidence of blatant prejudice and chronic homophobia deserving of censure, punishment even. Thus, helpful heterosexuals are seen as a humiliating hindrance.
Such alarming doom-laden and outlandish claims deserve particular attention.
Hence, the intended purpose of this website is to counter the substance of the many assertions made by homosexuals or their apologists. It is to reveal the sheer duplicity and orchestrated falsehoods that accompany the overstated assumptions made by homosexual men and women.
For that purpose, this non-religious, non-commercial and wholly independent website draws together a collation of serious resource material. Indeed, much of the evidence to test several issues about homosexuality comes from the gay community itself.
This first part is a commentary that covers the current position within a British context. The remainder consists of a series of reference materials that reflects a wider dimension in stating the case against homosexuality. These same sources have also helped shape and inform this current critique.
What are the consequences for the individual person as well as the wider community and why is it no longer a medical disorder? Certainly, medical science has never rigorously established that it is not, so what explains the current scientific assessment? Although a great deal has been documented about homosexuality, crucial efforts by the scientific community to establish its aetiology have been consistently rejected. Apart, that is, from flawed ‘research’ by homosexual practitioners/scholars, or their apologists, who clearly have an axe to grind. This despite the medically established fact that homosexuality involves life-threatening behaviour with an addictive component which has serious health implications.
A subsidiary aim of this website is to defend our common ideals about the traditional family which radical homosexuals find threatening and offensive. There is little doubt, they intend to destroy it. More important, since much discourse within the homosexual community involves an increasing concern for children's ‘human rights’ within the context of a fabricated homophobic victimhood, particularly in schools, there is a pressing concern that this should also be properly addressed.
Recognising that not all homosexuals are so disposed, we have an important duty of care to protect innocent children from the advances of predatory gays who see youth as their greatest prize. Even Jack Straw MP when Home Secretary said in 1998 that he did not favour gay adoption and that homosexual couples should not be ‘awarded’ children merely to enhance their status. “We should not see children as trophies.” , he telling said in a remarkable admission..
Notwithstanding, four years later he was instrumental in forcing through gay adoption. Subsequently, as the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor he boasted before Parliament of major legislative changes embracing homosexual rights. He rejected the view that ‘...people who were gay or lesbian were told by the state that they had dangerous tendencies.’ This change amounted to a political and moral revolution. Straw simply endorsed the bumf and puffery of homosexual fiction that had long abandoned the respected tradition of established medical science.
We need to examine the nature of this sudden shift in opinion because the ‘dangerous tendencies’ claim most certainly has congruence within the homosexual context and always has. Why? It’s exactly what homosexuals tell us no less, quite apart from the substance, validation and methodological rigour of voluminous scientific findings and research.
Moreover, according to health experts, homosexuals suffer significant mental health problems. Remarkable that we now add to that stress by permitting gay adoption which will intensify the vulnerability of children’s health who will experience tangible psychological harm, increased maladjustment and sexual confusion.
The purpose here, however, is not to scold but to inform and educate. But when necessary, criticism should rightly be responsible, reasonable and resolute. The aim is clarity not cloudy thinking – truth not truculent intolerance!
By infiltrating our religious, civic and state institutions, the gay lobby has created a universal super hoax. Using stealth and deception they claim that homosexuality is a normal healthy alternative life-style. In society's rush not to offend homosexual behaviour, most well-meaning people fail to recognize that every advance for the homosexual agenda comes at the expense of rapidly shrinking freedoms of religion, speech, press, conscience and association.
Indeed, we currently face a pernicious sexual revolution that is solely conditioned by an unstable set of hazardous sexual cravings of a minority interest. The magnitude and scale of this challenge is unsurpassed in human history. Reason enough, it might be suggested, to look forebodingly to the future with palpable trepidation.
Myths and Methods
This website will expose homosexual myths and methods by directly challenging their deceit and propaganda. It is also controversial simply for revealing the duplicity surrounding homosexual issues and intentions. What does history tell us and what are the facts about the condition of being gay? Has it been an historical mistake for mankind not to nurture, let alone tolerate homosexuality and are all the worlds’ major religions wrong to reject it?
If you observe homosexual activism carefully, you will find their agenda deliberately spotlights two pillars of contention. First, is that of equality, which is a function of politics! Starting almost 150 years ago, homosexuals have increasingly been drawn into notions of human rights as a front for pushing their cause. We will examine how this has evolved over the years. The second consideration is that of developing a victim status in order to disarm opposition and thus garner support. This, again, draws them into politics that is revealed by the many formal/informal organisations they have created to pursue their aims within both Church and State.
There is another important aspect to this that should not go unrecognised. Riding tandem with the idea of human rights and notions of victimhood and inexorably bound by them is the perception that science is also irrevocably involved. They had to capture the professions and thereby science as their only hope of eventually defeating the arch-enemy - Christianity. Human rights and scientific research combined increasingly to generate sympathy in a hostile world.
We find early evidence of this in Germany as the homosexual culture developed starting in the mid-Nineteenth Century. By the 1930’s it was firmly entrenched throughout German society. The same pattern was later replicated in America culminating with the submission of corrupt ‘sexual research’ by Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker in 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association reclassified homosexuality as a normal variant of human behaviour.
For the first time psychiatry which championed itself as ‘enlightened’ and ‘scientific’ challenged the historical Christian paradigm of homosexuality as a sin and freed it from moral evaluation. It now became, among others, a mere recreational alternative emancipated from any negative value-judgements. It was different but not inferior. Such is the grip of “scientific enlightenment” today that Christian opinion is now ignored or denounced as fanatical religious bigotry.
Since then and with increasing vigour, sexual rights and homosexual research by gays has coincided to intensify the notion of victimhood to such an extent that it has become a rapacious shibboleth just short of a sacred apotheosis. Seemingly born of compassion, a new morality has emerged which embraces gay aspirations as never before. Queer science has proven superior to theology and now dominates political discourse to the extent that any challenge is treated with defiant derision deserving of censure and scorn. Leading homosexuals now emboldened label a new emergent Christianofascist and heretically declare that “gay is good, gay is Godly”.
More recently homosexuals have deceitfully aligned themselves with the idea their condition is innate and immutable like that of race. Thus, by associating homosexuality with the race issue it serves to emphasise the lie they were born that way. So, they argue, if this is the result of nature they cannot be held accountable for what they do? Of course, this is a manifest falsehood based upon propaganda and distortion that will be exposed later.
Further, race is primarily a non-emotive condition that is entirely heritable, absolutely immutable, principally non-behavioural and inherently benign. Homosexual ‘orientation’, on the other hand, is defined by changeable sexual urges at a given time in a person’s life. It is an exotic impulse that is not heritable for which no purely deterministic mechanism has been established. This explains why the gay gene is as illusive as ever. It still has not been identified and remains confined to its theoretical base.
Indeed, if we adopt the Kinsey 7 point scale of gradations of heterosexuality (0) to homosexuality (6) we identify the raising or lowering of homosexual urges that are subject to variation and change. This is irreducibly behaviour that cannot be regarded as inherently benign. Consider another taxing dilemma that further complicates the sexual enigma. More confusing would be a bisexual gene because it would have to characterise the capricious and uncertain nature of the condition.
It should be observed that homosexual conduct is not comparable to other characteristics usually protected by civil rights laws. So, for example, race, colour, sex or national origin are historically protected against discrimination on the basis they are inborn, involuntary, innate and immutable. Homosexuality does not share these traits, despite the fact in recent years the condition has become decriminalised. Indeed, it is a remarkable testimony of persistence and resolution by gays that current laws protect and thus encourage aberrant and self-destructive behaviour.
But as we will discover, no amount of psychotherapy can change a person’s race, but it can successfully deal with sexual orientation. The gay response to this conundrum is to reject the efficacy of therapy. In doing so, they deny both fact and reality! A common feature of gay politics.
More remarkable; even though still regarded as a homosexually based pathological disorder; transsexuals who feel emotionally drawn to the opposite sex to that in which they were born, now have the legal sanction to lie about it and formally assume that sex. Should others disclose this fact, they breach the criminal law.
Indeed, the primacy of homosexuality within the criminal law is such that a hate murder of a gay is treated more harshly than a homosexual who murders for lust. Yet, as we will see, the latter is more frequent than the former. Equally, the law has thus less regard for those who murder for fun, malice or greed. Inequality is thus inbuilt into English law because all victims do not share the same legal status. The principle that all men are equal before the law has now been abandoned. This new provision breaches Article 7 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights that confirms, “All are equal before the law.”
Denial as a Defence Mechanism
Most of us have a view on homosexuality, but few express it openly. There’s a natural reticence to this, because it’s about perceived abnormal behaviour, which features a prominent sinister dark side. If homosexuality is menacing why should we not want to know more. So, why is there an element of denial here?
Denial, in psychological/psychiatric terms, is a defensive strategy to minimize anxiety. It is defined and conceptualised in a number of ways, which differ according to theory. In classical Freudian terms, denial is a defence mechanism invoked by a person when there is a danger that he or she will become aware of or act on unconscious primitive impulses that are unacceptable. We defend against such impulses, it is said, by unconsciously limiting our awareness of them, or perhaps attributing them to others.
Simply put, an unconscious defence mechanism is characterised by a refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts or feelings. This is evident with many soldiers who, on their return home, refuse to speak of their war experiences.
Equally, gay people engage in defence mechanisms as well. This insulates their consciousness from the deleterious consequences of their dysfunctional behaviour. But what about heterosexuals limiting their awareness of gay impulses? Now that’s another story because it involves self-delusion of a different kind.
In short, people are intimidated from critical thought or discourse because of the assumed or perceived hostile consequences of falling foul of political correctness that masquerades as the new morality. Notice how quickly gays brand opponents as bigots filled with irrational hate. It’s ever so subtle, but the aim is shame-reversal.
The accusation of homophobia suppresses rational thought in an attempt literally to intimidate critics. It is an exercise in manipulative malice aimed at censorship through bullying. The totalitarian aim is to bend-minds. This grotesque phobic invention is an effort to win arguments by default by the trick of equating visceral hatred of individuals with reasoned opposition to the homosexual agenda. It is used as a catch-all label to discredit disagreement with any aspect of gay rights. It adopts a pseudo-scientific grammatical form by parodying the language of medicine and psychiatry that defines real problems. Yet, in all of this, there is no such thing as clinical homophobia.
Ultimately, it is the totalitarian use of language designed to oppose gay orthodoxy as irrational. As we saw in Soviet Russia, the end-point came when ‘irrational’ political dissidents holding unacceptable opinions were banged-up in mental institutions. One might argue that our current pursuit of political correctness regarding gay rights has nothing to do with the former Soviet Union. That would be patently misleading since the dogma of political correctness has its origins in Marxist theory. Until recently it used to be called Left-wing lunacy, the loony left or social engineering Now, Harriet Harman MP, the Leader of the House of Commons, has let slip at a Labour-only meeting that the Government have ‘sleeper ministers’ in various government departments monitoring ‘gay rights’. This has sinister echoes of the Stasis police of former communist East Germany. It is but another cynical attempt to fast-track and enhance pink politics. And watch out for any remark made at work that appears to challenge homosexual politics. Supposed offenders have compulsorily to attend ‘equality and diversity’ classes. It’s not difficult to separate this from classical brainwashing theory through re-education. But what happens tomorrow?
Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism
Briefly put, Marxist theory held that when a general European war came, the working class of different nations would rise up and violently overthrow their bourgeois governments on the basis they had more in common with each other than the ruling class in their own country. It never happened because the worker/soldier rallied to their flag patriotically to fight each other during the Great War. However, these revolutionary Marists believed the theory was right because of their experience of the Russian revolution.
In spite of this, they now reasoned that the workers will never see their true class interests until they were freed from Western culture, particularly the Christian religion – “the opium of the people”, which blinded them to their true class interests. Therefore, in order to create a Marxist paradise the culture of Western civilisation had to be destroyed. This was to be done through cultural Marxism.
Political correctness has its origins in cultural Marxism – that is Marxism translated from the economic into the cultural term. Its history goes back to the 1920’s and the writings of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci.
He had travelled to the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and made some accurate observations that caused him to conclude that Western workers due to their Christian souls could not bring about a Bolshevik-style uprising.
His advice to the intellectuals was to begin a long march through the educational and cultural institutions of the nation in order to create a new Soviet man before there could be a successful political revolution. Subsequently, this blueprint for mind and character change made Gramsci a hero of Revolutionary Marxism in American education and paved the way for creation of the New American Child in the schools by the education cartel.
At a secret meeting in 1923 of revolutionary Marxists in Germany, leading Marxist theoretician Georg Lukacs proposed the concept of inducing “Cultural Pessimism” in order to increase the state of hopelessness and alienation as a necessary prerequisite for revolution.
This led to a group of Marxist and Communist inspired psychologists, sociologists and other intellectuals to establish an institute in Germany devoted to making the transition from economic to cultural theory. It was modelled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, yet hid its Marxist theoretical base. The Institute of Social Research, later known as the Frankfurt School was founded deliberately to undermine Western culture.
It blended Marxist and Freudian psychoanalytic theory that stressed the centrality of sex to personal and social development and added the study of linguistics to create Critical Theory and “deconstruction”. These later influenced education theory that gave birth to political correctness
Cultural Marxism, or political correctness shares with classical Marxism a vision of a classless society – a society of equal opportunity and equal condition. This vision contradicts human nature since people are different and end up unequal regardless of their starting point. So equality has to be enforced. It is therefore totalitarian in nature. This explains why political correctness aims to control freedom of thought, speech and the press.
Cultural and economic Marxism share a single-factor explanation of history. Classical Marxism states history is determined by the ownership of production. Cultural Marxism says history is explained by which groups have power over other groups and these are defined by sex, race and sexual normality or abnormality. Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie or middle class and other capital owners as evil. Cultural Marxism defines blacks. Feminist women, homosexuals and other minority groups as virtuous and white men as evil.
Economic Marxism intended the expropriation of property from the bourgeoisie and handing it to the state as “representatives” of the worker. Cultural Marxism gain power by laying penalties on white men and others who disagree with them and give privilege to groups they favour. Affirmative action and multiculturalism is an example. Both varieties of Marxism use methods of analysis designed to show the correctness of their ideology. One is economic the other is linguistic – deconstruction. Deconstruction proves any “text” that illustrates the oppression of blacks, women and homosexuals regardless of their meaning. It is a flawed analysis that twists evidence to preordained conclusions.
The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs contributed the most to this new cultural Marxism. Antonio Gramsci worked for the Communist International during 1923-24 in Moscow and Vienna. In his view, a new “Communist man” had to be created before any political revolution was possible. This led to a focus on the efforts of intellectuals in the fields of education and culture. Gramsci envisioned a long march through the society’s institutions, including the government, the judiciary, the military, the schools and the media. He also concluded that so long as the workers had a Christian soul, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals.
Lukacs was the son a wealthy Hungarian banker who began his political life as an agent of the Communist International. His book History and Class Consciousness gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx.
Lukacs believed that for a new Marxist culture to emerge, the existing culture must be destroyed. He said, “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch,” and, “Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”
When he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary in 1919, Lukacs launched what became known as “Cultural Terrorism.” As part of this terrorism he instituted a radical sex education programme in Hungarian schools. Hungarian children were instructed in free love, sexual intercourse, and the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the out-datedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasures. Women, too, were called to rebel against the sexual mores of the time. Lukacs’s campaign of “Cultural Terrorism” was a precursor to what Political Correctness would later bring to the West.
Members of the Frankfurt School fled Germany in 1933 when the Nazi’s came into power. Most came to the United States to continue their work at the New York Columbia University. Now they concentrated their efforts on American society. It had many fronts: the relaxation of moral codes, the destruction of the traditional family, promotion of sexual promiscuity and perversion, denigration of religious belief, political correctness, and re-education by taking control of the university campuses. They wrote mostly in German thus concealing the real aims.
Interestingly, a version of the Frankfurt School was established at the Birmingham University Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in England. It was closed down in 2002.
The Frankfurt School combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to criticise Western culture which included Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism. These criticisms were known collectively as Critical Theory.
Critical Theory incorporated sub-theories which were intended to chip away at specific elements of the existing culture, including “matriarchal theory,” “androgyny theory,” “personality theory,” “authority theory,” “family theory,” “sexuality theory,” “racial theory,” “legal theory,” and “literary theory.” Put into practice, these theories were to be used to overthrow the prevailing social order and usher in social revolution.
The belief that matriarchy was the solution to patriarchy flows from Marx’s comments in The German Ideology, published in 1845. Marx advanced the idea that wives and children were the first property of the patriarchal male. The Frankfurt School’s matriarchal theory and its near-relation, androgyny theory, originated from these sources.
Critical theorists recognized that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then replaced. The patriarchal social structure would be displaced with matriarchy; the belief that men and women are different and properly have different roles would be replaced with androgyny; and the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be replaced with the belief that homosexuality is equally “normal.”
American student revolutionaries in the 1960’s were also strongly influenced by the ideas of Herbert Marcuse, another member of the Frankfurt School.
Marcuse preached the “Great Refusal,” a rejection of all basic Western concepts, sexual liberation and the merits of feminist and black revolution. His primary thesis was that university students, ghetto blacks, the alienated, the asocial, and the Third World could take the place of the proletariat in the Communist revolution.
In his book An Essay on Liberation, he proclaimed his goals of a radical eroding of values; the relaxation of taboos; cultural subversion; Critical Theory; and a linguistic rebellion that would amount to a methodical reversal of meaning. As for racial conflict he wrote that white men are guilty and that blacks are the most natural force of rebellion.
He may be the most important member of the Frankfurt School in terms of the origins of Political Correctness, because he was the critical link to the counter culture of the 1960’s. His objective was clear: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including morality of existing society…” His means was liberating the powerful, primeval force of sex from its civilized restraints, a message preached in his book, Eros and Civilization, published in 1955.
Marcuse became one of the main gurus of the 1960’s American teenage sexual rebellion; he himself coined the expression, “Make love, not war.” With that role, the chain of Marxist influence via the Frankfurt School was completed: from Lukacs’ service as Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Hungarian government in 1919 to American students burning the flag and taking over college administration buildings in the 1960’s.
He was the pied piper of sixties radical youth, feminists, black militants, homosexuals and the alienated and asocial. He openly encouraged sex and drugs and introduced the idea of “polymorphous perversity” where all moral and cultural order is rejected. He also called for a “repressive tolerance” but this was to be applied only to the Left.
Today, many of these same colleges are bastions of Political Correctness, and the former student radicals have become the faculties.
In 1950 The Authoritarian Personality was published. Written by another revolutionary Marxist, Theodor Andorno, it substantially influenced American psychologists and social scientists whose concern was with “self esteem” and “self actualisation” thus displacing the emphasis on “the common good”. It suggested that Christianity, capitalism and the patriarchal/authoritarian family created prejudice, which, if not eradicated, would result in another Holocaust. It provided the basis for political correctness. It conformed to Critical Theory in every respect because it was essentially anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-nationalist, anti-patriot, anti-conservative, anti-hereditarian, anti-ethnocentric, anti-masculine, anti-tradition and anti-morality.
The Frankfurt School introduced the idea of psychological conditioning as a means of changing culture to fit their warped image. Anyone with middle class, conservative or Christian value was labelled a racist and a fascist. It was a libellous indictment of western values. They infiltrated American society to subvert it by saturating the existing culture with a destructive ideology of lies.
Cultural radicals have successfully pushed an agenda of moral relativism, militant secularism, sexual and social “liberation”. Recall an icon of the 1960’s counter-culture, Timothy Leary who, promoting the benefits of LSD said, “Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out”. At the time, President Nixon labelled him the most dangerous man in America. Another member of the Beat Generation (beatniks) who rejected mainstream American values, experimented with drugs and alternative sexual lifestyles was the celebrated poet Allen Ginsburg. He played a leading role in the 1965 protest of the Vietnam war which was attacked by a motor cycle gang of Hells Angels yelling “Go back to Russia you fucking bastards.” He was closely associated with Communism and as a homosexual defended the freedom of expression of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) of which he was a member.
What are the implications here for homosexuality today? It is to observe that proponents of the Frankfurt School viewed homosexuality entirely negatively and were prepared to support it in order more quickly to extirpate societal values as a forerunner to a cultural revolution. They wished to harness its destructive qualities. Homosexuals, who proclaim themselves as sexual subversives, as does the leading gay activist Peter Tatchell, join forces with cultural Marxism in order to defeat family values that have served our nation well for thousands of years.
Indeed, the 1985 “Labour Gay Rights Manifesto” neatly reflects a real danger to the traditional family and the well-being of children. As we will see, it amounts to a paedophiles charter and effectively mirrors the essence of the Frankfurt School.
It is true to say that in the last 50 years, gay rights have made a sudden and rapid rise to prominence. It now assumes privileges that trump Christian theology that is being increasingly marginalised by the State. All of this can be explicated simply by reflecting on the initial corrupt intentions of a handful of revolutionary intellectuals. We have conspired with a perverse ideology to corrupt a culture that has stood the test of time.
Equally alarming, aside from the influence of cultural Marxism, we will shortly explore the emergence in America of homosexuality as a lifestyle following the defeat of Nazism in 1945 that was imported from the very heart of the Third Reich itself.
Political Correctness
There are real dangers In any democratic society where criticism has to be stifled absolutely. The alarming history of that outrageous process has already begun within the British Parliament, which, in recent times, has attempted to shut-down free speech and criticism of homosexuality per se. Hence an attempt to introduce hate speech crimes. Dedicated professional gay activists continue to pursue the prohibition of public discussion that fails to support the contrived political rights of homosexual men and women.
This bizarre new gay gospel not only reflects a self-indulgent narcissism but it also masks the inherent histrionics of an irrational destructive sexual identity. As a consequence it obfuscates more than it discloses about homosexual behaviour to an extent that it serves to distract from the reality of gay politics and conduct. For example, the falsehood of the existence of a gay gene explains they were born that way.
Political correctness is essentially about wielding power in the fullest civil and ethical sense, a matter central to the homosexual heart. This is pursued with a dogmatic intimidation and rigid subversion of established cultural, ethical and religious values. It is their intention to dominate political discourse and to determine events and issues and they are organised in small groups but in a big way to do this.
The hostility of political correctness is demonstrated by its lack of alternatives as it inverts logic, truth and reality. So, far example, gays conceal the fact they are in greater danger of molestation, rape and murder by other homosexuals, when the facts establish the opposite. It thus also exposes its intimidatory and intolerant nature.
What frightens people is that it is more negative that positive! And they have not yet woken up to the simple fact that political correctness is primarily about smoke and mirrors because its function is to distort.
Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that political correctness is ingrained in many of the institutions of science, academia and government. Indeed, psychology, psychiatry, social science and social work have been captured by the ultra-liberal agenda of cultural Marxism. Witness the unedifying preoccupation with political correctness, sensitivity and diversity. The professionalism of science and academia has capitulated to this questionable phenomenon. This will be examined in detail here.
Then there is the sinister and troubling behaviour of the police who have been taken in by the pink politics of the gay parade, even to the extent of proscribing behaviour outside of the law. Admittedly, some laws regarding homosexual behaviour are now legal, but the police exceed themselves and embrace gay rights with an overwhelming gusto. The unnecessary and undignified arrest and charge, or its threat, of social commentators and others in society has led to an insidious groundswell of fear deep within the heart of the community. Gays keep recklessly pushing the parameters of public discourse by feigning insult, injury and injustice in a relentless effort to smash any criticism. Equally, precipitous, presumptuous and prejudicial investigations by the police have resulted in stifling public opinion on any issue involving homosexuality. This, as will be detailed here, has drawn cutting censure from both Houses of Parliament.
Whether they like it or not, the police are unwittingly embracing a false moral panic about gay victimhood by demonising traditional values and concerns and by exaggerating societal homophobia and violence in the absence of tangible data. In doing so, they abandon their historical role as impartial guardians of law and order and, instead, enter into a world largely determined by sexual politics. Enough to make their founder Sir Robert Peel, turn in his grave!
Interestingly, a survey of 2,000 British men in 2008 found that two thirds ‘felt handcuffed’ by political correctness and that it was safer to conceal their opinions. More than half thought society was turning them into ‘waxed and coiffed metrosexuals’.
So, as far as Joe the Plummer is concerned, it is safer to say nothing.
It is astonishing, in one sense, how people will totally ignore, or even deny knowledge of the self-harm some people do to themselves. The effect of this is that destructive behaviours are overlooked in a conspiracy of silence.
For example, the singularly pernicious sexual debauchery of Hollywood superstar Marlon Brando, whose instant sexual gratification with men and women is well publicised in glossy magazines, has entirely escaped public censure. Similarly, the insatiable sexual appetite with gay men of flamboyant Freddie Mercury of the Queen pop group was of no significance other than the fact he died of AIDS. Indeed, recent events involving Boy George and George Michael; both here and abroad; hardly warrant attention once sensational media reporting has died down.
Leading actors and comedians of stage, film and television, classical and pop musicians, influential members of business and entrepreneurial captain’s of industry are constantly ‘coming out’ – disclosing their homosexuality and no one bats an eyelid. Why should they because it’s now respectable? This holds true for prominent politicians and Ministers of State, including at least one who, elevated with a peerage, is HIV positive. Indeed, some MP’s have been exposed by the press for furtively using rent boys and in one case, another was found scantily dressed soliciting for anonymous gay sex on a homosexual dating website. Contrast that with the case of one MP who quickly resigned following disclosures of a ‘moment of madness’ on Clapham Common. Notwithstanding, he may subsequently have thought his resignation was unnecessary and so he unsuccessfully tried desperately to get back into national politics. None of this has, however, hindered any political career In contrast, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, who admitted an extra-marital heterosexual affair was demoted from his ministerial position in the local government and communities department.
Instead, we ignore their sexual deviations because in the public’s view, sheer inspirational artistic talent or self-determination outmatches their narcissistic self-indulgent behaviour. And when numerous homosexual Minister’s of State enter into gay marriage we rush to congratulate them for their sheer bravado.
They In turn, and with increasing frequency, tell us that being gay is great and that those who think otherwise are detestable dogmatists who declare deceitful doctrines that are destructive and dangerous.. In the new order of things, these critics are the real deviants who should be ostracised from the communion of public discourse. Hence the potential for hate speech crimes!
This is evidence of an attitudinal revolution in sexual mores whose source is directly related to the sexual rebellion of the Sixties. The Free Love movement, of men who loved women, is now exacting an unintended consequence of men who love men and the emergence of widespread catastrophic incurable diseases in the form of multi and coinfections. Gays thus irresistibly embrace an unambiguous deathstyle, which explains their addiction. More remarkable, indeed disturbing, are those known as ‘bug chasers’ who actively pursue it In a grotesque death-defying danse macabre with ‘gift givers’ at gay HIV positive parties.
Yet, even here, society is largely in denial about the emergence of these calamitous infections because they readily embrace the toxic source of its vulgar pathological cause. This is crass stupidity! It is like encouraging a person suffering with lung cancer to continue smoking, or giving whiskey to an alcoholic in the hope of sobering him up.
Nevertheless, in the absence of public or political opprobrium, the deadly inexorable embrace of Mother Nature has determined the painful and prejudicial parameters of Gay Pride. For the Grim Reaper is the ultimate arbiter that stubbornly mocks at the fortress-like door of the primeval pagan temple of strutting hedonistic gay hubris and self-indulgent human rights, for disease and death is doggedly a function of gayness that is far from carefree and merry.
Finally, during this discourse we will encounter many types of denial that characterise the culture of homosexuality. It will be observed that gays deceitfully create falsehoods in order to win over public opinion. This battle of wits isn’t entirely successful though, which explains why the exercise has to be repeated ad nauseam. This is another good reason why their distortions should be challenged and exposed.
.
Now under active reconstruction, this is a dynamic website that is constantly revised with new information.
Copyright | Contact us | To p | Next
