Originally posted 2014
If you are of a sound mind, can think for yourself, and can recognise things that are harmful to your nation, culture, people and children, then you will see clearly that the promotion of homosexuality to minors is wrong, dangerous and sinister.
For what other purpose would the homosexual lobby want to expose young children to their agenda other than to indoctrinate them?
It certainly isn’t to teach them about ‘love’ ‘tolerance’ ‘equality’ and ‘acceptance.’ It is to expose them to a lifestyle that children have no need whatsoever to know about, and even less do they need to be told that it is normal natural and healthy. Why would a behaviour that 2% of the population engage in, be so important to the indoctrinators? For what reason do they want to corrupt the minds of the majority and especially young children? What is the intention? The goal?
One only need read a very telling quote from the ‘Gay Liberation Front Manifesto’ written in 1971 to understand what the intention and goal is. It states quite clearly that the homosexual agenda ‘must aim at the abolition of the family.’ And by family, they mean the traditional Western family of man woman and child, and the institution of marriage which is the bond that ties the family unit together. A perfeclty healthy and natural environment in which to raise children with both a mother and father.
Those of you lucky enough to be blessed with children, would obviously not want their little fragile and easily impressionable young minds manipulated by any type of propaganda that would give them a skewed outlook on things. How many of you would be happy about your children being indoctrinated with homosexual propaganda?
Sadly, there are parents who are more than happy to have their children exposed to this. As far as I am concerned, any so called parent who allows their children to be groomed by the homosexual indoctrinators has failed as a parent and has failed their children.
We have seen in Russia recently, legislation that prohibits the promotion of non-traditional sexual behaviour ie homosexual propaganda, to children. These are steps that have been taken by the Russians to ensure that the militant homosexual agenda cannot target Russian children for their own sinister reasons, and I applaud them for doing so.
The backlash against the Russians from the West has been predictable considering Western nations have been totally consumed by this debilitating disease known as Cultural Marxism. Political leaders have condemned Russia and Vladimir Putin, the media did the same, and leftist groups everywhere went into a zombified frenzy because they couldn’t have their way and had been thwarted in their attempts to target children with impunity.
Pro-homosexual colouring books were intercepted on their way to Russian school children sent by a militant homosexual group. Swedish television aired a pro-homosexual advert mocking Russia using children to do so in the process. Channel 4 in the UK, aired a disgusting pro-homosexual advert called ‘Gay Mountain’ which again mocked Russias decision to protect its children from the homosexual mind groomers.
It was a concerted effort on the part of the militant homosexual agenda and their cultural marxist empowerers to do everything possible to portray Russias actions as being evil and morally wrong. Not that it had much impact, the Russians took no notice and never caved in to the demands of the pernicious culture destroyers.
In Britain, we also had our own legislation which forbade the promotion of homosexuality to children. Section 28, or Clause 28, was passed into law in 1988.
Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, meant that Local Authorities were prohibited from promoting homosexuality in specified category of schools.
Section 28 stated that they:
“shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.”
The law was repealed across the UK in 2003 by the Labour government, with the passing of section 122 allowing for the promotion of homosexuality in England and Wales.
The most important word in this is ‘promotion,’ by scrapping the law banning the promotion of homosexuality, they have actively encouraged its promotion which means they have conspired to help it to flourish and advance it. This they intended to be done in the schools, they wanted homosexuality to be promoted to children. For what other reason would they repeal a law keeping homosexual propaganda away from children? The sexual behaviour of an extreme minority of people was now given free reign to be promoted to young children as being ‘normal natural and healthy.’
In 1983 it was reported that a homosexual propaganda book called ‘Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin’ was available in school libraries.
Conservative MP Jill Knight, who introduced Section 28, spoke about the purpose of that section:
“Why did I bother to go on with it and run such a dangerous gauntlet? I was then Chairman of the Child and Family Protection Group. I was contacted by parents who strongly objected to their children at school being encouraged into homosexuality and being taught that a normal family with mummy and daddy was outdated. To add insult to their injury, they were infuriated that it was their money, paid over as council tax, which was being used for this. This all happened after pressure from the Gay Liberation Front. At that time I took the trouble to refer to their manifesto, which clearly stated:
“We fight for something more than reform. We must aim for the abolition of the family.”
That was the motivation for what was going on, and was precisely what Section 28 stopped. Parents certainly came to me and told me what was going on. They gave me some of the books with which little children as young as five and six were being taught. There was The Playbook for Kids about Sex in which brightly coloured pictures of little stick men showed all about homosexuality and how it was done. That book was for children as young as five. I should be surprised if anybody supports that. Another book called The Milkman’s on his Way explicitly described homosexual intercourse and, indeed, glorified it, encouraging youngsters to believe that it was better than any other sexual way of life.”
The stated aim of the Gay Liberation Front to ‘aim at the abolition of the family’ is enough of a reason to have banned the promotion of homosexuality completely. Yet there were dark forces behind the campaign to have the clause overturned, gay rights groups such as the Gay Liberation Front and Stonewall had one goal in mind, the indoctrination of children exposing them to their lifestyle and as they had clearly stated, abolishing the traditional normal and natural family unit.
This was a pivotal time in the clash between one branch of Cultural Marxism, militant homosexuality, and those who wanted to protect children from their clutches.
In May 2000, a private poll, paid for by Keep the Clause, found that 87% of Scots were in favour of keeping Clause (Section) 28. Yet despite public support for the law, leftist groups campaigned to have it overturned in their systematic assault on Western culture and morality.
After the law was repealed, David Cameron went so far as to apologise for the enactment of section 28 by his party in the 80s, he apologised on behalf of the Conservative Party at a ‘gay pride event’ for legislation banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools. He said the party had ‘got it wrong’ when it introduced Section 28 in the late 1980s. This is another example of how there is nothing Conservative about the Conservative Party. They are as infected with Cultural Marxism as any of the other mainstream parties and surrender ground to the left on every major issue of importance to Britain.
One of the reasons for pandering to the homosexual lobby, is because they hope it will win them votes. Cultural Marxism and its strategy of militant homosexuality is now so embedded in society, that it would be political suicide for the Conservatives to stand against it due to the extent of homosexual indoctrination upon the masses. Even many so called Conservatives are now advocates of the homosexual agenda.
So support for militant homosexuality is in the hope of keeping potential voters happy. It would also be unwise for the Conservatives to oppose the homosexual agenda because of the huge funding it gets from sources who are pro-homosexuality. Much like the funding political parties get from Jewish sources, who stipulate that criticism of Israel will ‘not be tolerated,’ and so any funding for mainstream political parties means that they conform to the wishes of their financiers and whatever they demand.
David Cameron went on to say that ‘his party was embracing gay rights and could well produce the first gay prime minister.’
He also said at a joint Gay Pride Tory fundraising event that:
“If we do win the next election instead of being a white middle class, middle-aged party, rather like me really, we will be far more diverse. The Conservatives had the first woman prime minister and we are bound to have the first black prime minister and the first gay prime minister.”
How’s that for a statement of Cultural Marxist intent? Yes, a so called Conservative leader using Cultural Marxist language to appease potential voters and the money men who finance him and his party.
Unbelievably, Cameron also went on to apologise for his party having called the Communist ANC a terrorist organisation.
A very small percentage of the population describe themselves as being homosexual, roughly 2%. So why was all this effort made to allow them the freedom to poison the minds of children?
Homosexuality has and is being used as a weapon to attack the West and its cultural foundations rooted in morality and the traditional family. Communism and Cultural Marxism identified the Western family as an obstacle to their objectives, it was the protective cocoon that kept the hostile forces of corruption and subversion at bay. The family was despised as an institution, it was described as being patriarchal, authoritarian, oppressive and they said that the family was a breeding ground for ‘racism’ and ‘fascism.’ All nonsense of course, but this is how they attacked the family by labelling it as a patriarchal authoritarian racist and fascist institution.
Homosexuality was seen as a way in which to undermine the family, and by extension the West. If they could ‘normalise’ and promote homosexuality to the point were it was widely accepted, then the traditional family unit consisting of man woman and child, was no longer seen as the ideal way to raise children. It was no longer a foundation of Western civilisation. It had been brought down to the level of the gutter.
Traditional family values were often based on the moral teachings of Christianity, which says homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is between one man and one woman. Christianity was a prime target despite its many problems and it now being part of the problem, it was certainly seen as an institution to be attacked. And as a result the family raised on its teachings, was also attacked. Homosexuality therefore, was empowered to attack Christianity and the family, to weaken them with incessant homosexual propaganda and campaigning.
To destroy the West, they had to target what they saw as the foundations of the West which had kept the working class from embracing revolution. Religion, the family, Nationalism, Patriotism, sexual morality etc. Only when then this was done could they start the deconstruction process and the militant homosexual agenda was part of the process. It was a strategy that was to be utilised in the assault on the institution of marriage and the traditional family unit.
It was the tactics of the Frankfurt School that brought the homosexual agenda to the mainstream with their ideas of ‘sexual repression’ and ‘sexual liberation.’ It spread like poison through the universities and wider society in general through media and television.
People like Wilhelm Reich, who coined the term ‘sexual revolution’ were involved in the promotion of ‘alternative lifestyles.’ He once said that ‘a sexual revolution is in progress and no power on Earth can stop it.’
We may not like what his intentions were, but we can not say he wasn’t right in stating that a sexual revolution is in progress, and the empowerment, ‘normalisation’ and promotion of homosexuality has been a massive part of that sexual revolution aimed at destroying the West.
The Marxists of the Frankfurt School were the ideological pimps who prostituted our youth to decadence. They created the slogans ‘free love’ ‘love is love’ and ‘make love not war.’ They coined these slogans not because of any belief in them, they knew that nice sounding phrases would entice people to embrace their subversive work and ideas not understanding what the agenda behind these slogans was.
The promotion of homosexuality to children is a result of this agenda and that is why they oppose laws prohibiting them from promoting it. The Russian legislation is geared towards protecting its youth, just as Section 28 was. It is a sad state of affairs that in Britain today, children are used as ideological pawns for the militant homosexual agenda. Ideological trophies presented to homosexuals to raise in a totally unnatural environment. Children who were once protected from the advances of homosexuality, are now denied their basic and very first human right to a mother and father. They have no choice in how their upbringing is to be, they are forced into a situation that they have absolutely no say in whatsoever in which the Cultural Marxist state determines how their life is to be.
The above article was written in 2014, and since then, the Conservatives have undergone a leadership change with Theresa the appeaser May taking control of the party. She has also kowtowed to the homosexual lobby saying that she was ‘wrong’ to vote against the repeal of Section 28.
Speaking at to ITV’s Paul Brand at the Downing Street LGBT reception she said:
“There’s some things I’ve voted for in the past that I shouldn’t have done and I’ve said sorry. Section 28 obviously would have been one of those things,” she said.
“I hope people can see that the UK has actually changed and Government should be proud of the actions it’s taken. There’s more to do.”
May added: “I hope people will see the fact I recognise that I shouldn’t have taken that view on Section 28. I have developed my views. I want to be seen as an ally of the LGBT community here in the UK.”
If you support what we do, would like to see more articles and want to help us maintain this website then please consider making a donation by clicking on the donate banner below. All donations over £10 will receive free stickers or a badge. We have incurred extra costs for security for the site so your support is very much appreciated.