Gay Marriage · The Regressive, Elitist, Violent Left · The Traditional Family

LGBT Agenda

The no campaign further exposing the LGBT Agenda and its virulent neo- Marxist links.

LGBT

Why Vote No, September 10, 2017:

Yes, it’s true that the vast majority of same-sex couples who intend on marrying are doing so for the sentimental aspect of equality. However, there is a dark side behind the push for the legalisation of same-sex marriage that is driven by senior LGBTQI activists and their Leftist allies, that for the most part, has been hidden from public view.

The information posted here is not some ‘elaborate conspiracy’, but rather a very clear agenda laid out in the open, that can be confirmed by anyone who makes the effort to do their homework.

IS IT REALLY ABOUT ‘EQUALITY’ OR A PLATFORM FOR POWER?

Many of us would be forgiven for thinking that once the LGBTQI community finally got “marriage equality” that they would put their placards and banners away and go home happy that the long fight is finally over. Not necessarily. There is a much larger and much more sinister plan for the tiny minority of radical activists to wield disproportionate power and influence over Australian society.

The Australian Greens are one of many leftwing organisations that are upfront about their longterm objectives after gay marriage is legalised. In an article entitled “Beyond Marriage Equality” that appeared on the Greens website two years ago, it makes the very revealing claim of what their intentions are.

They themselves admit, that their agenda is to “build power to continue to achieve [additional] victories“. To give “queer organisers a stronger platform to create further change.” Is this something that Australians should be voting YES for?

greens-beyond-marriage-equality-excerpt

LGBT ACTIVISTS ADMIT THERE’S MORE TO IT THAN JUST MARRIAGE

World leading gay activist Masha Gessen, a prolific contributor on LGBT issues to The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Slate and Vanity Fair, candidly admitted to an audience that the entire push for the legalisation of same-sex marriage was built on liesand then argues that the institution of marriage shouldn’t exist (see video on left).

Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we liethat the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change and it should change, and again I don’t think it should exist.

High-profile LGBTQI activist Michelangelo Signorile, who is an American journalist, author, talk radio host and the Queer Voices Editor-at-Large at the Huffington Post made a very revealing comment in regard to the push for gay marriage. He said,

“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry, not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk the myth and radically alter an archaic institution. It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”

Signorile makes it absolutely clear that LGBTQI activists have no interest in simply “joining” marriage. No, they see it as a springboard to completely transforming culture and society. They want to be the tiny minority of people who wield disproportionate power and influence over the vast majority of society. They want to take marriage and remake it their own radical image.

michelangelo-signorile-huff-post-queer-voices
Signorile is the Queer Voices Editor-at-Large at the Huffington Post

Paula Ettelbrick (1955-2011), was one of the original pioneers of the LGBT movement for ‘marriage equality’. She was also the former director of Lambda Legal Fund Legal Defense and Education and the former executive director of the International Human Rights of Gays and Lesbians. She had this to say on the agenda behind the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

“Being gay is much more that just making a cozy home, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking government approval to have these rights . . . Being queer means modifying the parameters of sex, sexuality and family and, in the process, transforming the very fabric of society . . . We must keep our eyes on the goal . . . to radically reorder the way society sees reality.”

Again, Ettelbrick confirms that same-sex marriage is just a stepping stone toward a much larger sex/gender revolution with the agenda to completely re-engineer reality as we know it.

MARXISM AND THE LGBT AGENDA

There is a very big reason why the same-sex marriage agenda is being pushed by the so-called ‘progressive’ or Left side of politics.

Many of the leading activists pushing for same-sex marriage are Marxists. The reason why Marxists favour same-sex marriage so much is because it enables the transfer of centralised power to the state to enforce equality throughout all aspects of society (as we have seen happen overseas) and it confronts the very two institutions that are holding back socialist policies — the family and the church. Whether deliberately or ignorantly, socialist polices undermine the biological family, faith communities and pre-political civil associations since their cohesion and self-sustainability lessen the need and opportunity for governmental intervention.

 

Identity politics is merely a facade for the neo-Marxist agenda. It’s all about shifting blame from personal responsibility to collective guilt. Create victims, empower their victimhood, then lobby the government to give them “rights” and the government expands in the process to enforce those rights. In traditional Marxism you had class warfare between the bourgeoisie (ruling class) and the proletariat (working class). Neo-Marxist theory (also known as Cultural Marxism) substitutes class warfare for minority group warfare.

This deviation from traditional Marxist theory was the brainchild of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci, further developed by Hungarian Communist György Lukács and then weaponised and exported to America’s leading universities via Herbert MarcuseTheodor Adorno and other academics from the Frankfurt School. The central work to come out of the Frankfurt School, was Critical Theory, a theory of criticism of social norms to bring about wholesale societal change. Herbert Marcuse built on top of that theory with his book Eros and Civilisation, in which he regarded the realisation of man’s erotic nature as the true liberation of humanity. Then in 1965, he wrote his acclaimed essay “Repressive Tolerance” in which he posited to give preference of tolerance to minority groups using the dialectics of conflict (e.g. the oppressed vs the oppressor), advising the Left to restrain the liberty of the Right and to continually give preference to marginalised minority groups, who then become the oppressor in the fight for complete social equality. The tall poppies of Western society are to be torn down and the minority groups are to be championed and lifted up. The class warfare of traditional Marxism (proletariat vs bourgeoisie) has evolved to a cultural conflict between minority groups and established norms of Western society to achieve the same Marxist goal of a socialist revolution.

gramsci-lukacs-macuse-adorno
Clockwise from top left: Antonio Gramsci, György Lukács, Theodor Adorno and Herbert Macuse
socialist-alliance-marriage-equality
Two Leftist protestors holding signs from the Socialist Alliance. Same-sex marriage is a crucial step in the Left’s agenda to re-engineer society.

The proletariat (working class) has been replaced by the minority groups (LGBT, feminists, BLM, Islam, etc.) and the bourgeoisie (ruling class) has been replaced by the established social norms of Western society (heteronormativity, cisgenderism, the patriarchal nuclear family, the white race, Christianity, etc). It’s the oppressed vs the oppressor.

  • White people are deemed as “oppressive”, therefore the answer is “racial diversity”
  • Western culture is deemed as “oppressive”, therefore the answer is multiculturalism
  • Heterosexuality is deemed as “oppressive”, therefore the answer is other diverse forms of sexuality
  • Cisgender people are deemed as “oppressive”, therefore the answer is transgenderism

Marxists want massive centralised state power (in other words, BIG government) in order to force equality to all aspects of society. They can get government to expand via two ways. Firstly, they achieve it by creating victims which look to a leftist government; and secondly, they achieve it by creating chaos in society by breaking down the family and the government expands by default to clean up the mess.

Let’s look firstly at their strategy in creating victims.

Marxist “equality” is a loaded term that is a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing. On the surface it appears to offer “fairness” and “social justice”, but in reality is nefarious ploy to get people to lobby the government to grant them “rights” and “special privileges” (rights and privileges that are usually invented out of thin air) and hence government expands in the process. Marxists understand that the only way possible for “equality” to be implemented onto a society is if government is empowered to do it.

10308075_10152412852292074_1919626652104655630_n

They know full well, that if they can create victims, rub the sore red by aggravating the so-called “injustice” of their victimhood, and then preach that only they can provide the solution to their injustice, the victims will always look to them for giving them the so-called “rights” they crave, will be a devout Marxist (whether they realise it or not) and vote LEFT for life.

When the majority of people in a society all look to the government for “rights” and “privileges”, the individual freedom ebbs away and society inevitably heads toward enslavement. Consequently, as Reagan said, “As government expands, freedom contracts.” and hence freedom is sacrificed on the altar of “equality”. It’s tragic seeing Australian society placing more value on equality, than freedom. Why? Because inevitably, as Paul Kersey puts it, “When equality is considered the greatest goal of a nation state, it won’t be a nation state for long.”

Secondly, they achieve their strategy by creating chaos in society and then government must expand as a solution to the chaos—and what no better chaos than by exacerbating the breakdown of the family unit.

Breaking down the family unit was a primary goal in Marxist strategy. Marriage was “private prostitution”, wrote Marx. Engels called for the abolition of the family, and the collective rearing of children, describing a wife as “a slave of (her husband’s) lust and a mere instrument for the production of children”.

This anti-family ideology was adopted with gusto by the post-revolutionary Soviets who passed decrees in 1917 which made divorce easy, recognised only civil marriages, abolished shared family property and banned adoption. In 1918 courts took over parental rights. “True liberation of women, true Communism comes about only when the masses rise up … against … small-scale households,” wrote Lenin in 1919.

You will find these ideas in every feminism and gender studies course in universities today. But you probably won’t find their real-life consequences, which were catastrophic for Russian society.

By 1920, divorces increased 100 fold, the birthrate plummeted, abortions skyrocketed, and 75 per cent of marriages lasted less than six months. Nearly seven million homeless children “roamed the streets, starving, dying of disease, and forming criminal gangs,” wrote Geoffrey Hosking in A History Of The Soviet Union.

 

smash-patriarchy-smash-capitalism
A Leftist activist who understands that destroying the patriarchal family and capitalism go hand in hand.
cleon-skousen-naked-communist
W. Cleon Skousen’s The Naked Communist (1958) has sold more than 1 million copies.

Former FBI agent W. Cleon Skousken had spent his entire career documenting the activity of Communist agents operating within the United States throughout the 1940’s and 1950’s. In 1958, he published his book “The Naked Communist” which documents the clear agenda the communists had set in place back then. He cites 45 goals (straight from the horse’s mouth) in which the Communists/Marxists have sought – and are still actively seeking – to undermine traditional Judaeo-Christian values in society. The LGBTI agenda is merely one of many vehicles to drive Marxist propaganda into the mainstream – be that in schools, government or in the news media. Here are some of the most relevant points:

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV. [Note: This is the Gramscian agenda of the “long march through the institutions” spelled out explicitly: gradual takeover of the “means of communication” and then using those vehicles to debauch the culture and weaken the will of the individual to resist.]

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural and healthy.”

And what better way to destroy the family unit than by indoctrinating impressionable young people into the LGBT lifestyle. Safe Schools is sold on the lie of being an anti-bullying program, yet the true goal is to indoctrinate them into the LGBT lifestyle, destroy the bond between the child and his/her parents and ultimately breakdown the patriarchal family unit, which they utterly despise. Of course, government has to expand in its powers to pick up the pieces of destroyed families and socially dysfunctional individuals. They create the chaos, then they step in as a solution to the chaos.

Roz Ward: “I don’t just teach people how to be gay, I teach them how to be  and ” 

An embedded tweet of Roz Ward’s speech at the 2013 Marxism Conference.

roz-ward-speaking-at-the-2013-marxism-conference
Safe Schools co-founder Roz Ward speaking at the Marxism Conference in 2013. Notice the “Marriage Equality” poster in the background.

U.S. educational psychologist Prof. Benjamin Bloom, who was heavily influenced by Frankfurt School Marxists Adorno and Fromm said, “The purpose of education is to change the thoughts, actions and feelings of students.” and “Good teaching is challenging the students fixed beliefs.”

Education is one of the most critically important vehicles for the Marxists to bring about social change. Enter the radical LGBT sex education program—Safe Schools.

Roz Ward, the co-founder of Safe Schools at the 2015 Marxism Conference in Melbourne made her intentions absolutely clear when she said the following:

Marxism offers both the hope and the strategy needed to create a world where human sexuality, gender and how we relate to our bodies can blossom in extraordinarily new and amazing ways that we can only try to imagine today, because Marxism has a theory of social change.

And

“LGBTI oppression and heteronormativity are woven into the fabric of capitalism…there’s no denying that some areas of life have improved for LGBTI people and programs like Safe Schools Coalition are making some difference, but we’re still an extremely long way from liberation…only Marxism provides both the theory and the practice of genuine human liberation.”

Marxism can be devastating when embraced by a large number of people who are uninformed of its devastating consequences. Vladimir Lenin had a word for people who championed his cause, yet were clueless in regard to his true agenda. He called them “useful idiots”.

The leading Marxists and LGBT activists understand full well that their plan is to radically transform society to the point where sex, gender and reality itself are completely redefined. However, there are thousands more who are simply shouting the slogans and waving the rainbow flag with absolutely no idea what the end game is.

Want to help put a stop to all this? Vote NO for the postal plebiscite.

socialist-alliance-protestors

18 thoughts on “LGBT Agenda

  1. While I appreciate the work you put into this, I think you’re making the mistake of overlooking the basic humanity of the issue in order to build the case that you want to. I’m sure you’ve heard plenty of people discussing how the notion and definition of marriage has changed countless times throughout history. There’s no need to go into that and I’m sure we won’t be able to agree on a “definition” of marriage in any case. But the point is, society is always in flux. We just tend to look back fondly on the past as some monolithic, halcyon period, when in reality the world and societies we lived in were constantly shifting and changing around and through us. The point of most societal movements is to guide change in a beneficial way, not gather “power” to remake the world in some image. This has nothing to do with Marxism. There are gay Marxists, sure, the same way there are gay conservatives, libertarians, socialists, etc. But we aren’t a political party with set leaders — either covertly or overtly — and none of the people quoted are the “leaders” of any gay movement. But on top of that, talking about achieving greater change in society has nothing to do with Marxism. There’s no desire to “indocrinate impressionable young people” into any lifestyle. While I understand it’s a fear of people who aren’t gay and don’t understand it, it’s not possible. People either are, or aren’t LGBT. It’s something we all learn early on, but only if we’re one of the “different” ones. And there’s no desire to break down the family unit, but expand it. To be able to have loving, gay families. The only way being gay can destroy a family unit is if we’re told we’re not allowed to be a part of it. Isn’t that self-defeating? Yes, marriage is just one part in a quest for acceptance. A quest to go beyond people just tolerating something “disdainful” and saying “Gay people can do what they want, I have no problem with them so long as they keep it to themselves and I don’t have to deal with it.” We do want to change society — so that we’re accepted as part of it. So that a gay couple holding hands in public isn’t any more of an act of courage than a straight couple doing the same. So we can walk down the street of our homes without facing verbal or even physical violence. So we can talk about the man or woman we love at work without evoking fear that we may suddenly find ourselves ostracized by people we respect or even lose our jobs.How is that nefarious? How is that “creating victims?” These things happen to real people. You’re twisting the meaning of equality. What we want is to have the freedom to celebrate who we are without fear. If you think society is good enough, then good for you, but for those of us who have to live the reality of having slurs hurled at us, we want society to be better.

    1. And I have no issue with gays and their sexual preferences. I understand these are often decided by biology, and I wish them nothing but happiness in pursuing what they want to do. However, it is rather disturbing that Marxists were the people who first came up with this idea of ‘gay marriage’. Aren’t the remarks of the first pushers of this change worth listening to? Also, it is a bit misinformed to say ‘there’s no desire to indoctrinate impressionable young people’. When the facts say there are via safe schools in Australia, which teaches kids at young ages radical ideas about gender and sexuality, so by the time they hit puberty they are confused and chaos is created. And don’t take my word for it, look up what Roz Ward (the founder of the program and devout Marxist), said about the role of safe schools.

    1. Homosexuality? Absolutely, I have no real issue with people doing as they please when it’s consensual. But them tampering with marriage is something altogether.

  2. Lot of work gone into this post, and while I disagree fundamentally with the premise of your post, I respect the fact you’ve done more than just spew the usual right-wing hate-speech we hear so much. I had to laugh, though. Early on, when you highlight how LGBTQI activists “want to be the tiny minority of people who wield disproportionate power and influence over the vast majority of society” I did a lot of old-fashioned ROFLing. Surely the irony didn’t escape you as you wrote that? Such a pity it seems to be about choosing ‘sides’. I’m sure you’d be an interesting guy to have a beer with, even if it ends up in a fist-fight!

  3. The view of the family that you attribute to Marxism is actually rooted in the Bible. Women are (or were) property. The essential principle Marx opposed, which is expressed in the family and which is the root of most of the evil, oppression, discrimination and degradation of the natural world currently an existential threat to the human species is private property–that which you never name and which you seek to preserve in the form of the family as an essential unit of the ideology that is destroying everything. Whether the LGBT community has a secret or even an open agenda about the family unit, I assure you it is about this relationship between private property and the family unit. You can call is marxism or socialism or velveteen rabbitism or whatever you wish. You can erect straw men until you are a full-fledged scarecrow, but you cannot say that private property has been the boon of the world or that the family unit–as you define it- is essential to the continuation of the species, whereas I can go on ad infinitum about how the principle of private property is driving us over the cliff of extinction.

    1. This is a bit of a tangeant to the post, but I understand what your getting at regarding private property. Basically, it comes down to whether we have either private property, or government owning all land (communism). I would avow that although capitalism is imperfect, communism commits far graver woes against both the environment and human life eg. Soviet Union, China etc. As for the family, it appears to be the main institution holding back a continued expansion of government funded welfare (which is a disaster in certain respects). The arranged/ forced marriages of the past that many of the Left criticised in the past are virtually gone in the West (save for growing Islamic populations), but I oppose them as Marx did. But the family as it stands today, is different for the one you describe as the root of most ‘oppression’.

Leave a Reply