Furthest Right

Social Engineering: Homosexuality

“Dude, haha, it’s just a joke man!” That’s what we were told repeatedly throughout the early 2000s as the gross-out humor of most popular comedies veered closer to homosexual pornography. From American Pie to Freddy Got Fingered, the snowballing trend finally reached its apex in Borat as the 2006 box-office topping film displayed several minutes of thinly veiled homosexual pornography under the guise of a comedy routine.

While I just thought it was funny at the time, the recent breakdowns in institutional competence and revelations of media propaganda have prompted me to rethink the purpose of visual media and its relation to the human psyche. And therefore I found myself asking: what is the cause and effect of homosexuality in television in film?

We now live in at time where there is an 85% increase in homosexual teenagers, where psychiatrists tell us that “transgenderism is not mental illness” as somewhere between 45 and 55% of trans people attempt suicide (with about a 41% success rate), and where millennials are struggling to achieve the replacement rate that will allow the nation to safely sustain needed population levels.

Meanwhile, we are unable to have an honest conversation about homosexuality in the realms of science or education as individuals who bow to no higher order (family, tradition, religion, history) have made gay culture their religion, their God, and their purpose. Some have also taken missteps in allowing their religious beliefs to handicap their ability to discuss the issue intelligently as they fall into the trap of inflamed emotional outbursts. But ultimately because of a system that interprets “the pursuit of happiness” of an individual to take precedence over the needs of the nation or its culture, we have handicapped our ability to properly understand and address the best path forward to dealing with the issue of homosexuality. More so, we have become so imprisoned to diversity-and-inclusion ideology that we have failed to properly study its causes and effects on individual, the family, and the society.

It is not the intent of the author to condemn those who struggle with homosexual lusts, as the sheer volume of different fetish categories on pornographic websites attest to the varying degrees of sexual dysfunction and perversion affecting nearly everyone in my generation. Furthermore, I acknowledge the lack of evidence, study, and understanding of the complexities of sexual development in humanity and fully accept the possibility that being gay is something some individuals are born with, whether it is a natural overpopulation check, a demonic attack/curse, or simply an unbalance in biological formulation.

However, there are numerous studies that have indicated it is something inherited through external causes and that it is possible to change throughout an individual’s life. And because the same American institutions that have failed us would rather capitalize on the business market of homosexuality instead of addressing its potential threat to our nation and our children, it’s time to ask if our course of action in addressing this crisis has been fatally incorrect for over sixty years.

You will be hard pressed to find a mainstream media outlet that will acknowledge environmental sexual orientation research. Without knowing advanced techniques in search engine navigation, you would will find yourself digging through masses of stories on how opposition to the “born gay” theory is nothing other than bigotry and hatred. Even when it’s a highly reputable scientific body, such as Johns Hopkins, the findings are always buried in news media silence and search engine blackout, but they are out there:

Johns Hopkins University psychiatrists say there is insufficient evidence to conclude people are born with heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual attractions.

“The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are ‘born that way’ — is not supported by scientific evidence,” Drs. Lawrence Mayer and Paul McHugh conclude in their new study, “Sexuality and Gender.”

“While minor differences in the brain structures and brain activity between homosexual and heterosexual individuals have been identified…such neurobiological findings do not demonstrate whether [they] are innate or are the result of environmental and psychological factors.”

Across the pond, we find additional affirmation. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, part of Britain’s storied and historic Royal College of Physicians, was also confident in concluding that homosexuality does not happen at birth. Furthermore, they have also found striking evidence that sexual orientation is not necessarily permanent throughout the lifetime of the individual:

A statement by the Royal College of Psychiatrists that people are not born gay has been welcomed as “a major admission” by a Christian charity that helps men and women change unwanted same-sex feelings

Core Issues Trust (CIT), which is campaigning against a ban on therapy being offered to people who want to move away from a homosexual lifestyle, says the latest statement by the Royal College admits what it previously denied.

“They now say that the causes of homosexuality are a combination of ‘biological and postnatal environment factors.’ So, if a child does not encounter such postnatal life experiences, he or she will grow up heterosexual,” says the director of CIT, Mike Davidson.

“The Royal College has also modified its view on whether sexual orientation can change, saying, ‘It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life,'” he says. “So how can that be consistent with a ban on people voluntarily seeking professional counseling to change unwanted same-sex feelings?”

Despite the reputability of these sources, any honest suggestion that homosexuality is possibly caused by anything other than birth is considered blasphemy and hate speech by all the radicalized liberals and even moderates (if any still exist). This is striking proof that there has been a successful propaganda campaign launched in the schools and news media of America and other European nations to render this conversation immoral, bigoted, and outright hateful.

There are many possible causes for this, ranging from a mining prospective economic industry in creating an LGBT demographic, to an attempt by democratic states to wrestle power away from religion and its authorities, to an eventual justification of war on Islamic states in opposition to the interests of Israel. I will not explore these theories here, as there is much to be considered and possible written about at another time.

But now that we understand that it is at least possible (though probable may be more accurate) that homosexuality is not determined at birth, how should we approach the last sixty years of Hollywood? It’s worth considering the question not for conspiracy purposes (e.g. lobbyists weaponized gay culture against the West, remotely plausible), but for the lack of consideration of television and movie effects on children. After all, many from the boomer generation and beyond were left in front of the TV for countless unsupervised hours and no regard to the possible effect of this.

I recall watching a TV special in the early 2000s listing The American Film Institute’s 100 funniest movies of all time and a bizarre observation I had about the top two choices. Though the humor was beyond my comprehension given the age of the films, I was stricken by the strange commonality that both film shares: transvestites. “Why was this funny?” I thought, as the mere sight of men in drag made me instinctively uncomfortable. The films — one in the 80s and one in the late 50s — showed that such content was fiscally prosperous throughout many generations. This economic prosperity become a highly pursued goal among filmmakers that increasingly disregarded the means used to achieve it.

In an unfortunate collusion of timing, the regulations of motion pictures began being chipped away just as we had developed the psychological advancements that could properly study their effects. Furthermore, this coincided with the ability of lobbyists to begin surmounting total domination over both the medical industry and the politicians regulating the restrictions of media.

With the 1960s seeing the death of the Production Code that regulated media, there was gold mine of opportunity for filmmakers to push the boundaries in film industry and find potential wealth in pushing the boundaries of graphic content. Along the way, we never thought to consider about how men in drag and Disney characters with homosexual traits might affect the adolescents who were first growing up with this type of media saturation dominating their youth. But here we are now, where virtually every lesbian has a Disney obsession and nobody has thought to connect the dots.

So with the growth of homosexual media altering the sexual development of young people, should we consider this good or bad? Well, if we look to tradition, we can acknowledge that most prosperous societies across civilization considered it bad. Nearly every great empire from ancient Rome and Persia to the prosperous Saudi Arabia and UAE of today that suppression and persecution of LGBT anything was positive and effective.

Then when we consider that the most homosexually liberal empire, Greece, eventually was destroyed by its openness to such conduct. With nearly every major organized religion in agreement that homosexuality is wrong, and with all the prosperous non-democratic world powers in strong opposition, are America and Europe really “getting it right” on this one? The answer is unequivocally and uncontestably “no.” In fact, we are unwittingly weaponizing it against ourselves, as we crumble our replacement rates and therefore import Islamic immigrants that are just going to do away with it once they reach power anyway.

Sexual dysfunction is rampant among the West, and homosexuality is just another symptom that is no better or worse than pornography addiction, paraphilia, bestiality, or pedophilia. It is, however, the only one that has its own culture, its own parades, and its own economic target audience. Thus we must be bold in calling it what it is: a dysfunction with harmful effects, that in mass increase will endanger a nation. It must not be tolerated or celebrated, but like porn addiction and pedophilia it must be classified as a disturbing disease and treated as such. Otherwise, more teen suicides, familial collapses, and infertility plagues are sure accelerate the final hours of Western Civilization as we know it.

As for Hollywood, I don’t believe there was any intent to subvert American sexuality or unwind America’s moral fabric. I believe it was merely a pursuit of personal wealth at any cost by those who were already living in a morally bankrupt Tinseltown. But now that homosexuality, pornography, and sexual dysfunction are multi-billion-dollar industries they, much like the pharmaceutical industry, will put their own fiscal prosperity over the health of the nation.

And so we will continue to have LGBTQWERTY social garbage stuffed down our throat until our either Democracy collapses or Muslims reproduce in great enough numbers to force Western Civilization into Sharia submission. So is it possible for parents properly regulate the technological impact of the youngest generations? At this point I’m not even sure anymore. Perhaps it’s time to re-evaluate our technical dependence now through this newly framed perspective.

Tags: ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn