Wednesday, August 09, 2017

Remember 67 + the Gay Agenda's Victory

The Brits live under Big Brother. What was a fantasy dystopia has become reality as people are arrested for words and social media posts. This is one element of the mental prison. The other is the never-ending stream of propaganda. Advertising, art, BBC series or BBC nonfiction videos, it never stops and sucks in more government money. Why not combine most of those and flash billboards of radical '60s gay propaganda? The Brits see this on their commutes and walks around the emerging caliphate.

Martin Firrell is the artist behind it, and he is standard issue lefty. The trick lies in the media coverage saying that he is the force driving it. No. He may be the simple artist putting the images and words together but big media is giving him billboard space and allowing him to broadcast his message in the place of advertisements. It is clear, "Remember 1967 has been supported by media brands Clear Channel and Primesight." Those big media firms are sacrificing billboard revenue to push the message.

What is that message? Remembering the 1967 change in British laws that legalized male homosexuality in merry old England. It's not even new art as he is recycling old slogans. Firrell is working with the the Tatchell Foundation, which is all about gay rights, civil rights and human rights. These rights all seem to center on gays, but can be cloaked as human rights brilliantly confusing normal people. Who would ever defy the Human Rights Watch or deny human rights? Only an evil, sinister character. It is the same message you hear today because the true goal is still out there.

This is all to destroy the traditional family unit. The Tatchell in Tatchell Foundation is connected to the Gay Liberation Front from the '70s. The GLF wanted to overturn society so that gays could be themselves and be fully free to live their lives in the open. Admirable to have liberation without anxiety as a tiny sexual minority, but let us read their manifesto to see why the Left was so eager to use them.

What is the crux of their problem? Not fitting into the norms of the society they live in. This is their giant anxiety. One that if they paused a moment and thought, they would see that there was a wide spectrum of roles and behaviors for both men and women, it is just that they sit in odd spaces of the spectrum. On top of this, there was no safe way for them to approach someone for sex without the huge risk of exposure and ruin. What gets them so mad, though, in their own words?

But gay liberation does not just mean reforms. It means a revolutionary change in our whole society. Is this really necessary? Isn't it hard enough for us to win reforms within the present society, and how will we engage the support of straight people if we get ourselves branded as revolutionaries? 
Reforms may makes things better for a while; changes in the law can make straight people a little less hostile, a little more tolerant-but reform cannot change the deep-down attitude of straight people that homosexuality is at best inferior to their own way of life, at worst a sickening perversion. It will take more than reforms to change this attitude, because it is rooted in our society's most basic institution-the Patriarchal Family. 
We've all been brought up to believe that the family is the source of our happiness and comfort. But look at the family more closely. Within the small family unit, in which the dominant man and submissive woman bring up their children in their own image, all our attitudes towards sexuality are learned at a very early age. Almost before we can talk, certainly before we can think for ourselves, we are taught that there are certain attributes that are 'feminine' and other that are 'masculine', and that they are God-given and unchangeable. Beliefs learned so young are very hard to change; but in fact these are false beliefs. What we are taught about the differences between man and woman is propaganda, not truth. 
The truth is that there are no proven systematic differences between male and female, apart from the obvious biological ones. Male and female genitals and reproductive systems are different, and so are certain other physical characteristics, but all differences of temperament, aptitudes and so on, are the result of upbringing and social pressures. They are not inborn.  
Human beings could be much more various than our constricted patterns of 'masculine' and 'feminine' permit-we should be free to develop with greater individuality. But as things are at present, there are only these two stereotyped roles into which everyone is supposed to fit, and most people-including gay people too-are apt to be alarmed when they hear these stereotypes or gender roles attacked, fearing that children 'won't know how to grow up if they have no one to identify with', or that 'everyone will be the same', i.e. that there will be either utter chaos or total conformity. There would in fact be a greater variety of models and more freedom for experimentation, but there is no reason to suppose this will lead to chaos. 
By our very existence as gay people, we challenge these roles. it can easily be seen that homosexuals don't fit into the stereotypes of masculine and feminine, and this is one of the main reasons why we become the object of suspicion, since everyone is taught that these and only these two roles are appropriate. 
Our entire society is build around the patriarchal family and its enshrinement of these masculine and feminine roles. Religion, popular morality art, literature and sport all reinforce these stereotypes. In other words, this society is a sexist society, in which one's biological sex determines almost all of what one does and how one does it; a situation in which men are privileged, and women are mere adjuncts of men and objects for their use, both sexually and otherwise. 
Since all children are taught so young that boys should be aggressive and adventurous, girls passive and pliant, most children do tend to behave in these ways as they get older, and to believe that other people should do so too.
They require a revolutionary upheaval of the family structure. This does not make sense, especially with the end of the manifestos requests (gays can hold hands and kiss in public). If you contrast this with the simple things they supposedly want at the end of the manifesto, this radical revolution in the family makes zero sense. Strung throughout this manifesto are words like privilege that are thrown around all over modern liberal discourse today.
What could possibly be the aim of the group that feels they can never conform? It sounds familiar to what you see today.
The long-term goal of Gay Liberation, which inevitably brings us into conflict with the institutionalised sexism of this society, is to rid society of the gender-role system which is at the root of our oppression. This can only be achieved by eliminating the social pressures on men and women to conform to narrowly defined gender roles. It is particularly important that children and young people be encouraged to develop their own talents and interests and to express their own individuality rather than act out stereotyped parts alien to their nature. 
As we cannot carry out this revolutionary change alone, and as the abolition of gender rotes is also a necessary condition of women's liberation, we will work to form a strategic alliance with the women's liberation movement, aiming to develop our ideas and our practice in close inter-relation. In order to build this alliance, the brothers in gay liberation will have to be prepared to sacrifice that degree of male chauvinism and male privilege that they still all possess.
This sounds slightly familiar, maybe even very familiar. Here is a quote from a disgusting activist from today, Masha Gessen, stating some truths about gay marriage.

Gay marriage is a lie... Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we're going to do to marriage when we get there... It's a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist... I don't see why they shouldn't have 5 parents legally. I don't see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.

It is the same story that never changes. In fact, reading the GLF manifesto, the finals goals they wanted are tame compared to what we see now. The very phrase gay agenda was something comedians could laugh at the right for being wary of, but it never was the gay agenda. The gay agenda was a cover for the deep progressive agenda of destroying the family unit.
In the manifesto, the gays themselves cite being post-family and cutting edge for the change needed. What change? Change in all of society? Who could possibly want that instead of the more humble recognition that gays exist at all and deserve to be treated as humans? No one stopped to ask how liberation had to be tied to the destruction of historical roles common in every society.

Gays are merely the means right now for the progressives to attack the family, gender roles, sex practices and gender itself. Women and bastards were the means fifty years ago. If pedophilia and polygamy are to be the next steps, watch how Muslims and their cultural norms and practices become the hammer the progressives wield to push more degeneracy. The goal of eroding Western normative traditions stays the same.
This Remember 67 project is not a reminder of the '67 legislation. It is not even an edgy meme transmission. This is a commemoration or the victory lap of the gay agenda. They won not because of their power but that it overlapped with the needs of the progs. The danger was always the progressive agenda. The gays simply are the convenient tool to destroy norms because they are the antithesis of healthy, family formation for cultural continuity.


Anonymous said...

Because the admin of this site is working, no question very
rapidly it will be renowned, due to its quality contents.

Alexandros HoMegas said...

"The Brits live under Big Brother."

London is the NWO ground zero, after Waterloo the British Empire became the Rotshchild Empire, the biggest British imperialist was Disraeli because he knew its the Jewish Empire, the opium trade with China, the diamonds in South Africa,.. all Jewish monopolies.

Damn Crackers said...

Anthony Burgess wrote a book after Clockwork Orange all about the dystopian present. It was called the The Wanting Seed.

Throughout the first portion of the novel, overpopulation is depicted through the limitation and reuse of materials, and extremely cramped living conditions.

There is also active discrimination against heterosexuals, homosexuality being encouraged as a measure against overpopulation. Self-sterilization is also encouraged.

Throw in the all-powerful labor, the rise of Islam, and meaningless warfare and it truly becomes a prophetic book.