The occultist Illuminati purpose behind the gay agenda in the USA.

reply to post by tiger5


I'm guessing you meant "display brain patterns similar to men" instead of what you said? There is no such thing as a "male brain" or a "female brain".

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by SeaWind

 

If the cartoon is like you say then I would not support it.
It's just that some people see a "gay" agenda everywhere.
Cross-dressing is one of the oldest forms of humor, and can be found in everything from Bugs Bunny to Cow and Chicken. One could take clips from there and say there is a gender-blurring agenda, when it's clearly just for a romp and a belly-laugh.
At Shakespeare's time women were not allowed on stage (a custom still found in some very religious countries) so all the female roles were played by men. Was this an evil gay agenda? Certainly not; it was a patriarchal tradition.

In India (from where the OP gets his terminology) the hijras bless births and weddings. The devotees of Lord Aravan are men dressed as women and are married and widowed by their god every year.
So from that tradition the "third gender" (who can dance for men at highly gender segregated functions) is very auspicious.

According to some Christian fundamentalists kundalini energy is regarded as demonic possession.
So that in itself can also be dismissed as evil, and part of a Satanic agenda (see the books by Rebecca Brown, e.g.: Prepare for War).
Tantra is only one way towards awakening kundalini. There are non-sexual methods too.
The devotees of bhaki-yoga would point out that it is not the most appropriate form of spiritual practice in our age of the Kali Yuga. But, each to their own path.

A lot of negative male rape can be found in patriarchal systems that precede any gay political movement.
It is widespread in gender segregated religious systems where older men have access to young men and boys.
It is also rife in violent homosocial systems like prisons
Bizarrely such institutions have a wide social acceptance amongst the moralists and homophobes.

edit on 22-12-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

Halfoldman, I'm glad you do NOT support the Gay indoctrination of grade school children.

Halfoldman: "Cross-dressing is one of the oldest forms of humor, and can be found in everything from Bugs Bunny to Cow and Chicken. One could take clips from there and say there is a gender-blurring agenda, when it's clearly just for a romp and a belly-laugh.
At Shakespeare's time women were not allowed on stage (a custom still found in some very religious countries) so all the female roles were played by men. Was this an evil gay agenda? Certainly not; it was a patriarchal tradition."

SW: Agreed.

As for your vision of the Hijras, that's very controversial. Some do not see it your way:

"Ancient religious texts such as the Vedas often refer to people of a third gender known as hijra, who are neither female nor male. Some see this third gender as an ancient parallel to modern western lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and/or intersex identities. However, this third sex is usually negatively valued as a pariah class in ancient texts.[44] Ancient Hindu law books, from the first century onward, categorize non-vaginal sex (ayoni) as impure.[45]"

en.wikipedia.org...

Halfoldman: "According to some Christian fundamentalists kundalini energy is regarded as demonic possession.
So that in itself can also be dismissed as evil, and part of a Satanic agenda (see the books by Rebecca Brown, e.g.: Prepare for War)."

SW: Do NOT get me started on Christian Fundies. I value them primarily because they are, one of the few groups in the US, fully awake to the worldwide threat of Islam -- a truly evil "totalitarian political system disguised as a religion." It's about the only thing I agree with them on.

Halfoldman: "Tantra is only one way towards awakening kundalini. There are non-sexual methods too.
The devotees of bhaki-yoga would point out that it is not the most appropriate form of spiritual practice in our age of the Kali Yuga. But, each to their own path."

SW: Agreed. Non-sexual methods are safer. Attempting any kind of sadhana is difficult in Kali Yuga. We live in a very DARK cycle of time. Bhakti is good.

Halfoldman: "A lot of negative male rape can be found in patriarchal systems that precede any gay political movement.
It is widespread in gender segregated religious systems where older men have access to young men and boys.
It is also rife in violent homosocial systems like prisons
Bizarrely such institutions have a wide social acceptance amongst the moralists and homophobes."

SW: Agreed. Religious organizations can be among the most corrupt in the world. Catholic Church cover-up of pedophile priests -- inexcusable. Our prisons are cess-pits of corruption -- really needs reform.

Originally posted by foxlogan2

The world and the tide of time is against you. Gays may now serve in the military. They may get married in 6 states. This will only spread..because the Majority of Americans * let alone the people of many other western countries* are clearly as per recent polling not on your side.

-CL

Foxlogan, as I posted to someone else earlier:

The NWO is almost guaranteed to win. They own the money & power. So know this: Homosexual marriages will be legalized in the US. Marijuana will be legalized. The drugging of people will increase, whether or not the drugs laws change anytime soon. Enjoy the decay.

Those who believe in heterosexuality as the norm and other traditional values will be driven into silence and eventually underground.

SeaWind

Originally posted by Archangelelijah
But to call being Gay as WRONG, is as singularly obtuse as calling an inter-racial couple wrong. As calling a Muslim wrong if you are christian..As calling a right-handed person throwing a baseball with their left hand as wrong.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

I would have to disagree!

We have all reached this point in evolution by the birth of children through the union of male and female relationships. If a person has a different religion, country of origin or has a different skin colour is not the same as homosexuals.

Yes, I'm sure it has always been in life but it was kept in secret. The Romans had harems where one man was pleasured by many women and the women pleasured eachother. This was not accepted in society in general though because it would effect the birth rate of the nation. Every nation required numbers in population to defend the borders.

The reason why it is accepted now is to slow the worlds population growth down as we have become like a plague to mother nature. Everything we do these days effects plants, animals, environment and ourselves.

Archangelelijah, congratulations! You're one of the few people who responded on this thread who got this:
The primary exoteric reason the NWO is promoting homosexuality is De-population.

The OP by Anunnaki also wanted to warn people that there is also an esoteric or occult reason to encourage homosexuality. An explosive topic here because the esoteric reason is NOT something the homosexuals want to hear. Does NOT give them warm fuzzies. Hence the hundred flamers.

SeaWind

I am willing to show tolerance and understanding...but no matter how you try to twist it, homosexuality is NOT natural and transsexualism is not normal. No amount of propaganda from those wishing to alter reality will convince those with the capacity to think for themselves otherwise.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Technically anything that can occur does fall within the provenance of nature. As humans are part of nature, every single thing they do, create, form, or idealize is within nature.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


What about the rules of nature that keep things stable and healthy? SURELY there is behaviour that while technically falling within the realm of nature can be seen as destructive? For example: practising Necromancy. The desire to communicate with a spirit that has left the physical plain could be likened to "talking with a medium", but it goes much further than that.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


All natural. Moral objectivity has no bearing upon the reality that, if it occurs, then it occurred within the confines of natural parameters. Morality is not a function of nature. It is a function of society. Nature is filled with things that we, socially and morally, would find undesirable or reprehensible. ( I am not including homosexuality in this statement as I personally do not find it to be a negative at all. )

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


That is a valid point, well put. But you must admit that for us to live in a society we must be willing to disregard some of the behaviours that distinguish us from other animals - otherwise we might as well live literally amongst beats and battle for survival in the same way they do. In order for us to remain stable and healthy, we should not promote behaviour that is destructive to our survival. (Tthis does raise the problem of what should be considered "destructive" or "productive". Yet if we continually struggle to make definitions and stand firmly by them, how can we say we have values worth preserving?)

reply to post by Dark Ghost

In order for us to remain stable and healthy, we should not promote behaviour that is destructive to our survival.

By this are you implying that homosexuality is one of those things destructive to our survival?? If so, you are being way too simplistic. There is more to survival than procreation. That may be the staring role, but every movie has its co-star, without which there would be no movie.

Those who do not procreate can nevertheless have an essential role in supporting the well being of society.
On another note people don't realize just how many gay people actually have kids of their own "making".

reply to post by SeaWind


It is a real pity that you haven't read the post or understood it. Anyway I have no arguement with you on the topic of brain scanning. I have no homosexual agenda apart from human rights and reducing hatred. What is your agenda?

reply to post by wayno


I think you're putting too much emphasis on the co-star (The homosexual)

Where would the co-star ( homosexual ) be without the star? ( heterosexual )

Sorry, but you can't say that conversely no matter how hard you try. So homosexuals have the ability now to have children via in vitro fertilization. All that proves is that they have the desire to have children of their own. This allows them to live happily as they're not living a lie of procreating naturally. Whereas 100 years ago when they didn't have the option, they were forced to live a lie by bedding with a woman. They may not have been happy, but they were still getting the job done.

I believe that's what they call a sacrifice. What can you say about a people who are uncomfortable with the natural act that keeps this spinning rock populated? How can that be natural? Call me a tree hugger, but I like nature. And while I'm at it, what can you say about a people who will use homosexuals for their own agenda of de-population when they themselves are not homosexuals?

This whole story line is getting more twisted beyond recognition then a soap opera on a good day. And yet you you want to sing the praises of complexity by claiming that it's all about "progress" for the "enlightenment" of the human race? I know you didn't say it outright, but I have a strong feeling that that's your implication.

The bottom line for me is that I don't hate homosexuals. I just don't understand their sexual orientation, and you can throw anything you want to at the issue to make it more complex to where you're hiding behind it, as if acknowledging that homosexuality as being a good thing, is a bad thing, but I'm going to choose to keep it simple.

Heterosexuality is good. Homosexuality is not. One is not morally better than the other, they are simply different..

This is the most hate filled threat I have ever read. If the "NWO" is propagating this "Gay Agenda" to help with de-population have you ever thought that might be a good thing? We are currently using the resources of 4.5 earths in our lives and soon we will run out of minerals, mainly because there is too friken many of us.

As for the religious god says it is evil folk. I think the people you are hating on is your own priests...

reply to post by SeaWind

The primary exoteric reason the NWO is promoting homosexuality is De-population.

SeaWind, you have shared a lot of interesting info.

I see a general de-pop agenda that TPTB have been working for a long time now, so adding homosexuality to this doesn't seem too far-fetched, based on the whole picture.

I also see how the elite prefer volitional elements in their plans, since anytime you have people thinking they are "choosing" something, there is far less resistance. Not that homosexuality is strictly a choice, I think the whole "nature/nurture" thing is usually a combination of factors, even though it always turns into one or the other in debates like this. The choice here that I'm talking about here is not the individual one anyway, rather it is the one made by society about where homosexuality "fits in". Will it continue to be regarded as something "on the edge", or will it be completely accepted? By completely accepted, I mean that society at that point might treat it virtually the same as heterosexuality, even if it hadn't achieved the same numbers.

Why this may be important in the grand scheme is because by the time a society comes to accept something, a self-perpetuating meme has been spawned that will go forward into coming generations, literally "changing history". Obviously, this could be something perhaps "positive" from the gay perspective, to be fully accepted, to have the chance to avoid so much unpleasantness that comes from the present incomplete acceptance (especially during the formative years of childhood).

I can easily see how the many people posting here are quite indignant about associating their orientation to something so negative. However, I can see a potential "motive" here, from various angles.

SeaWind, you said that de-pop was the "primary" reason for promoting homosexuality (besides the esoteric). After acknowledging the possibilities of motive that I mentioned, it still seems that there are many far better ways to achieve de-population, at least in the short-term. This would leave one with the impression that if this was indeed being promoted by TPTB, then logically it would be because they desire something longer-term in this regard.

This is the kind of thing that someone could get a lot of mileage out of. In the here and now, they can see the effects of the "battle", divide and conquer, each side is right, everyone is emotionally charged, etc. But down the line, when things settle, could be there is almost a calculable population effect left.

There is probably someone good with these sort of calculations out there, and I'm not sure that introducing the notion of the gay desire for "procreation" is being characterized correctly. From everything I've seen, it is strictly a "lesbian" thing, or rather, the usual female maternal desire. Sure, there will be men out there who might want to raise a child, etc., but I'm pretty sure they are in the tiny minority. Maybe this isn't true, but I wonder if there are any stats on that these days.

Anyway, lots to think about. I hope people will continue to keep an open mind. I sort of feel like ever since you read and responded to my post emphasizing the occult, things have gotten mostly back on track. A lot of the back-and-forth mud-slinging seems to have gone way down.

Thanks for the very interesting info you have been providing.

JR

worst post ever

I am very comfortable in my sexuality so I do not think that TPTB could ever turn me gay. I think if anyone can be turned gay by propaganda then they could also be turned back to being straight by propaganda. No we have dismissed the false esotericism of the OP we can now deal with the homophobia in its own right. I see no need for the state to go pushing any agenda. We do not need the state top teach us any form of sexual orientation.

Malthus was the onethat started all of this population contrl crap anyway. Population control advocates are those who have lost faith in science as a solution to human problems.

I do NOT bend to gay agenda

Sorry...but

There is really nothing more to this recent public acceptance that's out of the ordinary...except that you, like the racists after the Jim Crow laws failed, sit and sneer and mutter the word faggot instead of 'n-word'.

Seawind, I respect your views differ from mine, but the only decay I see on this board is the American dream. Homo or hetero, as Hefficide said when he trounced Dark Ghost a few posts up...This normal/natural thing is purely subjective. To quote Hefficide:

"All [things are] natural. Moral objectivity has no bearing upon the reality that, if it occurs, then it occurred within the confines of natural parameters. Morality is not a function of nature. It is a function of society. Nature is filled with things that we, socially and morally, would find undesirable or reprehensible. ( I am not including homosexuality in this statement as I personally do not find it to be a negative at all. )"

Originally posted by foxlogan2


There is really nothing more to this recent public acceptance that's out of the ordinary...except that you, like the racists after the Jim Crow laws failed, sit and sneer and mutter the word faggot instead of 'n-word'.

Seawind, I respect your views differ from mine, but the only decay I see on this board is the American dream. Homo or hetero, as Hefficide said when he trounced Dark Ghost a few posts up...This normal/natural thing is purely subjective. To quote Hefficide:

"All [things are] natural. Moral objectivity has no bearing upon the reality that, if it occurs, then it occurred within the confines of natural parameters. Morality is not a function of nature. It is a function of society. Nature is filled with things that we, socially and morally, would find undesirable or reprehensible. ( I am not including homosexuality in this statement as I personally do not find it to be a negative at all. )"

Morality is a function of nature. The morals of any species is to reproduce and protect the young until it can fend for itself! This is in the society of all living creatures.

I agree we all want to feel loved but we can achieve support and love without physically touching the same sex! It is not a massive problem or negative but introducing this to our civilisation for all people will confuse the younger generation of the meaning of loving support.

I know of a case where some youths who were best friends loved and supported eachother and they thought since it was accept in society that they must be gay. After a brief relationship, they went their seperate ways. They thought they were homosexual but this was not the case!

People can do what they want as life is free will but just as long as all feelings are mutual and the understanding that law must be obeyed. We have laws for a reason to control society in general!

reply to post by Archangelelijah


That is a biological determinist type argument. Taken to a reasonable point it leads to the justification of of incest as all females must mate with the alpha male even if it is their father which I am sure you would never support. We are a unique species so I would contend we are outside of biological determinism because we have technology.