![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/Williams-vs-Sharapova.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nFirst things first: let get the obvious out of the way<\/strong><\/h3>\nHomosexuality 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?<\/span><\/p>\nI 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 \u201cphobia<\/a>\u201d can mean one of two things: aversion\/hatred or fear\/anxiety.<\/span><\/p>\nDoes this make sense to you?<\/span><\/p>\nWhy is it that an opinion, a point of view, can only be explained away and dismissed as being in itself pathological\/irrational?<\/span><\/p>\nLet me ask you this: can you imagine that somebody might be critical of homosexuality as such (or of homosexual behavior\/practices) without<\/strong> suffering from any kind of phobias or without hating anybody?<\/span><\/p>\nIf not, please stop reading and turn the TV back on.<\/span><\/p>\nFor everybody else, I submit that this phobia-canard (along with the no less stupid \u201ccloset homosexual in denial\u201d label) is not conducive to an intelligent discussion. It is, however, great to shut down any critical analyses and \u201cad homineming<\/em>\u201d anybody who dares to ask the wrong questions.<\/span><\/p>\nNext, I also submit that there are those existing out there who do indeed<\/strong> 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 \u201ccloset\u201d 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 \u201cin your face\u201d homosexuals trigger in male heteros, and I will discuss it later below.<\/span><\/p>\nBut for the time being, I would rather stay away from these circumstance-specific minority phenomena.<\/span><\/p>\nNext, let\u2019s define the issue<\/span><\/p>\nIn its entry for \u201chomosexuality\u201d Wikipedia writes<\/a><\/strong><\/span> \u201cThe 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<\/em>\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\nThis sentence deserves to be parsed very carefully, especially since it uses a lot of frankly vague terms.<\/span><\/p>\nFor starters, what does \u201clongstanding consensus\u201d refer to? In 1973 the US American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM-II<\/strong><\/span><\/a>. The US American Psychological Association followed suit in 1975. This leads me to conclude that by \u201clongstanding\u201d Wikipedia means either 46 years or 44 years. In terms of human history, 44\/46 years is close to instantaneous and hardly \u201clongstanding\u201d. There is also the issue of HOW and WHY these two associations decided to \u201cde-pathologize<\/em>\u201d 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 \u201cnormal\u201d by means of a vote is hardly scientific.<\/span><\/p>\nNext, the statement above begs the question of what \u201chomosexuality per se<\/em>\u201d is (as opposed to homosexuality \u201cnot per se<\/em>\u201d 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<\/em>. This is just another crude word-trick to suppress any discussion of homosexuality in the real world (as opposed to DSM-like manuals).<\/span><\/p>\nThen there is the notion of \u201cnormal and positive variation of human sexual orientation\u201d <\/em>which, of course, begs the question of what would qualify as an \u201cabnormal and negative variation of human sexuality\u201d. And to those who would say that I am being silly here, I would point out that while in the 1970s the issue was \u201cjust\u201d homosexuality, we nowadays live in the society of LGBTQIAPK<\/strong><\/span><\/a> and that some even add an ominous + sign at the end of this abbreviation (LGBTQIAPK +<\/strong>) just to be truly and totally \u201cinclusive\u201d. And here is the obvious fallacy: since homosexuality is a \u201cnormal and positive variation of human sexual orientation<\/em>\u201d then it must also be true for the entire LGBTQIAPK+ \u201cconstellation\u201d. 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<\/strong><\/span><\/a> is declared \u201cnormal and positive\u201d. QED (technically, this would be a syllogisic fallacy<\/a><\/strong><\/span>).<\/span><\/p>\nBy the way \u2013 do you ever wonder what that small \u201c+\u201d sign at the end of LGBTQIAPK +<\/strong> really stands for? The answer depends on who you ask, of course, but if you ask Facebook in the UK, it\u2019s no less that 71 (SEVENY ONE!!) genders<\/a><\/strong><\/span> (not sure if FB believes that UK users need more options than non-UK users\u2026?). Turns out that this one small \u201c+\u201d is much bigger than the rest official acronym And, just for giggles, here is what the full acronym (the original 10 plus the new 71 should look something like this:<\/span><\/p>\nAAAAAABBCCCCCCCCCCFFFFFFGGGGGGGHIIIIIKLMMMMMMMNNNOPPPQTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTW+<\/strong> (yes, I still added the obligatory \u201c+\u201d at the end so as to be truly \u201cinclusive\u201d should this list grow in the future (which, no doubt, it will!).<\/span><\/p>\nAnd anybody not buying into that fallacy is, again by definition, a \u201chater\u201d and, as you well know, \u201chaters will hate,\u201d right? And if not a hater, then at the very least a repressed closet homosexual.<\/span><\/p>\nSo far, how do you like that intellectual environment?<\/span><\/p>\nI sure don\u2019t. In fact, I loathe it, primarily because it is freedom-crushing.<\/span><\/p>\nSo I will proceed to discuss this topic with no regard whatsoever for the politically correct doxa<\/em> that seems to have take over the entire western world. If you think that this makes me a \u201chater\u201d (or a homosexual in deep denial) you can stop reading here, since everything below could be summarized by the one word \u201ccrimethink<\/strong><\/span><\/a>\u201d, which would make me a thought-criminal.<\/span><\/p>\n—<\/span><\/p>\nSidebar<\/h3>\n
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 \u201ccrimes\u201d 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\u2019t know any better) and even (my favorite!) a \u201ctraitor to the White Race\u201d. 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<\/strong> use for anything even remotely resembling the Alt-Right or any other racist theories (nevermind the Papacy and its terminal degeneracy \u2013 whether of the ultramontanist<\/a><\/strong><\/span> or the sedevencantist<\/a><\/strong><\/span> persuasion). The Zionists also tried to \u201ccounsel\u201d me to change my use of the expression \u201cAngloZionist\u201d but they pretty rapidly gave up. As did the Papists. The Nazis complained and moaned about my anti-Nazism (I was \u201cunfair\u201d 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 in France 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\u2019s fine. I really don\u2019t care anymore.<\/span><\/p>\n—<\/span><\/p>\nThe 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).<\/span><\/p>\nSo let\u2019s engage in some much needed crimethink!<\/strong><\/h3>\nFirst, let\u2019s 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 \u201cgay\u201d and replace it by a value-free term \u201chomosexual\u201d (well, since homosexual is value-free, homosexual activist<\/strong><\/span><\/a>s<\/a> have declared it \u201c<\/a>offensive<\/a>\u201d<\/a><\/strong><\/span> and they demand that only \u201cgay\u201d 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, \u201cgays\u201d shall only be called \u201csads\u201d (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\u2019s try a little thought experiment.<\/span><\/p>\nLet\u2019s 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:<\/span><\/p>\n1) Homosexuals are only to be referred to as \u201csads\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n2) Those refusing to use that term will be immediately labeled \u201cheterophobes\u201d and \u201ccloset heteros in deep denial\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\nHow many people do you think would accept that?<\/span><\/p>\nHow would you feel if you were told that you need to comply with such outrageous demands?<\/span><\/p>\nWell, then why would anybody expect us to accept the very same nonsense, only in reverse?!<\/span><\/p>\nAnd yet, in 99.9999% of cases in the western media and public discourse these ideological shackles<\/em><\/strong> are present and hardly anybody dares to use a different terminology.<\/span><\/p>\n—<\/span><\/p>\nSidebar<\/h3>\n
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.<\/span><\/p>\n—<\/span><\/p>\nDo you think that this \u201cjust happened\u201d, and that this new politically correct terminology reflects some growing understanding and awareness of the issue at hand by the general public?<\/span><\/p>\nThink again.<\/span><\/p>\nTurns out, there is a conspiracy behind this, literally. See for yourself:<\/span><\/p>\n
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 \u201cphobia<\/a>\u201d can mean one of two things: aversion\/hatred or fear\/anxiety.<\/span><\/p>\n Does this make sense to you?<\/span><\/p>\n Why is it that an opinion, a point of view, can only be explained away and dismissed as being in itself pathological\/irrational?<\/span><\/p>\n Let me ask you this: can you imagine that somebody might be critical of homosexuality as such (or of homosexual behavior\/practices) without<\/strong> suffering from any kind of phobias or without hating anybody?<\/span><\/p>\n If not, please stop reading and turn the TV back on.<\/span><\/p>\n For everybody else, I submit that this phobia-canard (along with the no less stupid \u201ccloset homosexual in denial\u201d label) is not conducive to an intelligent discussion. It is, however, great to shut down any critical analyses and \u201cad homineming<\/em>\u201d anybody who dares to ask the wrong questions.<\/span><\/p>\n Next, I also submit that there are those existing out there who do indeed<\/strong> 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 \u201ccloset\u201d 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 \u201cin your face\u201d homosexuals trigger in male heteros, and I will discuss it later below.<\/span><\/p>\n But for the time being, I would rather stay away from these circumstance-specific minority phenomena.<\/span><\/p>\n Next, let\u2019s define the issue<\/span><\/p>\n In its entry for \u201chomosexuality\u201d Wikipedia writes<\/a><\/strong><\/span> \u201cThe 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<\/em>\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n This sentence deserves to be parsed very carefully, especially since it uses a lot of frankly vague terms.<\/span><\/p>\n For starters, what does \u201clongstanding consensus\u201d refer to? In 1973 the US American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM-II<\/strong><\/span><\/a>. The US American Psychological Association followed suit in 1975. This leads me to conclude that by \u201clongstanding\u201d Wikipedia means either 46 years or 44 years. In terms of human history, 44\/46 years is close to instantaneous and hardly \u201clongstanding\u201d. There is also the issue of HOW and WHY these two associations decided to \u201cde-pathologize<\/em>\u201d 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 \u201cnormal\u201d by means of a vote is hardly scientific.<\/span><\/p>\n Next, the statement above begs the question of what \u201chomosexuality per se<\/em>\u201d is (as opposed to homosexuality \u201cnot per se<\/em>\u201d 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<\/em>. This is just another crude word-trick to suppress any discussion of homosexuality in the real world (as opposed to DSM-like manuals).<\/span><\/p>\n Then there is the notion of \u201cnormal and positive variation of human sexual orientation\u201d <\/em>which, of course, begs the question of what would qualify as an \u201cabnormal and negative variation of human sexuality\u201d. And to those who would say that I am being silly here, I would point out that while in the 1970s the issue was \u201cjust\u201d homosexuality, we nowadays live in the society of LGBTQIAPK<\/strong><\/span><\/a> and that some even add an ominous + sign at the end of this abbreviation (LGBTQIAPK +<\/strong>) just to be truly and totally \u201cinclusive\u201d. And here is the obvious fallacy: since homosexuality is a \u201cnormal and positive variation of human sexual orientation<\/em>\u201d then it must also be true for the entire LGBTQIAPK+ \u201cconstellation\u201d. 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<\/strong><\/span><\/a> is declared \u201cnormal and positive\u201d. QED (technically, this would be a syllogisic fallacy<\/a><\/strong><\/span>).<\/span><\/p>\n By the way \u2013 do you ever wonder what that small \u201c+\u201d sign at the end of LGBTQIAPK +<\/strong> really stands for? The answer depends on who you ask, of course, but if you ask Facebook in the UK, it\u2019s no less that 71 (SEVENY ONE!!) genders<\/a><\/strong><\/span> (not sure if FB believes that UK users need more options than non-UK users\u2026?). Turns out that this one small \u201c+\u201d is much bigger than the rest official acronym And, just for giggles, here is what the full acronym (the original 10 plus the new 71 should look something like this:<\/span><\/p>\n AAAAAABBCCCCCCCCCCFFFFFFGGGGGGGHIIIIIKLMMMMMMMNNNOPPPQTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTW+<\/strong> (yes, I still added the obligatory \u201c+\u201d at the end so as to be truly \u201cinclusive\u201d should this list grow in the future (which, no doubt, it will!).<\/span><\/p>\n And anybody not buying into that fallacy is, again by definition, a \u201chater\u201d and, as you well know, \u201chaters will hate,\u201d right? And if not a hater, then at the very least a repressed closet homosexual.<\/span><\/p>\n So far, how do you like that intellectual environment?<\/span><\/p>\n I sure don\u2019t. In fact, I loathe it, primarily because it is freedom-crushing.<\/span><\/p>\n So I will proceed to discuss this topic with no regard whatsoever for the politically correct doxa<\/em> that seems to have take over the entire western world. If you think that this makes me a \u201chater\u201d (or a homosexual in deep denial) you can stop reading here, since everything below could be summarized by the one word \u201ccrimethink<\/strong><\/span><\/a>\u201d, which would make me a thought-criminal.<\/span><\/p>\n —<\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u201ccrimes\u201d 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\u2019t know any better) and even (my favorite!) a \u201ctraitor to the White Race\u201d. 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<\/strong> use for anything even remotely resembling the Alt-Right or any other racist theories (nevermind the Papacy and its terminal degeneracy \u2013 whether of the ultramontanist<\/a><\/strong><\/span> or the sedevencantist<\/a><\/strong><\/span> persuasion). The Zionists also tried to \u201ccounsel\u201d me to change my use of the expression \u201cAngloZionist\u201d but they pretty rapidly gave up. As did the Papists. The Nazis complained and moaned about my anti-Nazism (I was \u201cunfair\u201d 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 in France 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\u2019s fine. I really don\u2019t care anymore.<\/span><\/p>\n —<\/span><\/p>\n 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).<\/span><\/p>\n First, let\u2019s 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 \u201cgay\u201d and replace it by a value-free term \u201chomosexual\u201d (well, since homosexual is value-free, homosexual activist<\/strong><\/span><\/a>s<\/a> have declared it \u201c<\/a>offensive<\/a>\u201d<\/a><\/strong><\/span> and they demand that only \u201cgay\u201d 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, \u201cgays\u201d shall only be called \u201csads\u201d (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\u2019s try a little thought experiment.<\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s 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:<\/span><\/p>\n 1) Homosexuals are only to be referred to as \u201csads\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 2) Those refusing to use that term will be immediately labeled \u201cheterophobes\u201d and \u201ccloset heteros in deep denial\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n How many people do you think would accept that?<\/span><\/p>\n How would you feel if you were told that you need to comply with such outrageous demands?<\/span><\/p>\n Well, then why would anybody expect us to accept the very same nonsense, only in reverse?!<\/span><\/p>\n And yet, in 99.9999% of cases in the western media and public discourse these ideological shackles<\/em><\/strong> are present and hardly anybody dares to use a different terminology.<\/span><\/p>\n —<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n —<\/span><\/p>\n Do you think that this \u201cjust happened\u201d, and that this new politically correct terminology reflects some growing understanding and awareness of the issue at hand by the general public?<\/span><\/p>\n Think again.<\/span><\/p>\n Turns out, there is a conspiracy behind this, literally. See for yourself:<\/span><\/p>\nSidebar<\/h3>\n
So let\u2019s engage in some much needed crimethink!<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Sidebar<\/h3>\n