Mummy, why is Daddy wearing a dress? Daddy, why does Mummy have a moustache?

[Laura]

In praise of Pierre's article, I think it tries to bring an ethical stance back into areas of discussion where things like ethics, morality and values are sometimes seen as old-fashioned and best abandoned. A modern liberal might say "There is no such thing as bad behavior, all that exists are different lifestyle choices, to be be sampled and gourmandized over to please our own self-indulgent palates as we wish."

Perhaps it is using too broad a brush to paint the whole disciple of Gender Theory as a backward step? Maybe some parts of gender theory, and some gender theorists, are okay, some brilliant, others hopelessly ponerized?

How many times have you heard "homosexual" associated with "pedophile"? It's almost like when some people say the one word, they automatically tack on the second one. "Why?" you should be asking yourself. And it should scare you. We know it is a load of bollocks. There are way more pedophile heterosexuals than pedophile homosexuals (I'd say the latter category is vanishingly small). But there are a LOT of pedophile psychopaths, and psychopaths are, for the most part, the 1% in power.

A very important thing to keep in mind is this: a LOT of very conservative people see the debasement of their society in "lock-step" with the rise of "gay rights/pride" and make a deep, immediate, and wrong, association between ALL gays and the decline of morality, etc. That's very dangerous for gays. If I were gay, I'd be outraged that psychopaths have piggy-backed their agenda on my sufferings the same way Jews should be outraged that Zionists have piggy-backed their agendas on the Holocaust. But so many gays (whatever designation) are completely under the influence of the neo-liberal, post-modernism, "philosophical" nonsense that they, like whitecoast above, cannot see the forest for the trees. They can't see that what the majority of people, i.e. heterosexual PARENTS of children see as a direct relationship. Those parents are angry, downright hostile, and very easy prey for the same kind of pathological manipulation to turn human beings against each other for the WRONG reasons. And so it has always been.

Our idea was to sort through this thorny issue and show that it is NOT gays, (LGBT/whatever) that are the problem, but the psychopathic types using them. If anybody can't see that, then I don't know what to say. You just can't help some people.

The appeal to the wisdom and level-headedness of our grandparents' generation may work in the case of Pierre's grandmother, who I am sure is sharp as a tack and a lovely old lady. But I think in other cases age does not bring wisdom but only creates bigoted old fools. In my own cultural background, racist dispositions seem to be even more common among my grandparents or great-grandparents generation than among younger generations. I don't have to use my imagination too much (but can rely on things I have actually heard people say), to imagine a scene with a 95 year old man squinting at the TV set, unable to believe their grandchildrens' insistence that the black man on the TV is the president. "Whaddaya mean, he's the president? That fella? He should be in prison with the rest of 'em."

Of course. And things are heading right back to that state of affairs thanks to the usefulness of the gay rights/pride neo-liberal faux ideology employed by psychopaths. Just as there is growing anger against all Jews for the crimes of Zionist Israel, so there is growing anger against ALL gays for the crimes of the psychopath/pedophiles. Pierre attempted to find a way out of that trap but it's like criticizing Zionism... you get accused of being anti-Semitic. Here, it's "anti-gay". I think I'd be worried about that if I was gay.

 

[truth seeker]

Pierre's use of "simpler" was also one of a couple of things that struck me when reading the article as being somewhat off in tone - in the early 20th century, homosexuality was a crime for which one could be imprisoned (or worse? I am no expert on the subject.)

Yes, homosexuals have been targets off and on for a couple of millennia. So have Jews. And blacks. In the two former cases, it seems that the attacks and oppression have been utilized by pathological infiltrators who have slipped new meanings in under the content of the ideology.

I think pretty much the same thing has happened with all such groups, blacks included.

This is why writing a relatively short and simple article about a particular thread of research is so problematical; if everything isn't spelled out explicitly with excruciating detail, it is so easy for mis-perceptions and emotional knee-jerking to occur.

Dunno. From what I've seen, this tends to happen with certain conversations. I think that's one of the reasons there's such a problem with people having conversations about race. People on both sides get easily triggered, it seems regardless of how things are said. The idea of people being pc doesn't seem to have helped either as it seems to shut down any kind of fruitful exchange and can lead to guilt on the part of those who aren't considered part of the minority group.

This is way easier said than done, but I think what can help those who feel offended is to dig a bit deeper and try to realize that they're in a place of hurt and not everything said is consciously meant to be hurtful.

 

[Brenda86]

I do not have a whole lot to contribute to this at the moment, but I wanted to thank Pierre for the article. I read it earlier... forced myself through it actually... because the discussion of pedophilia, the sexual "education" (brainwashing) of children, the widespread sexual abuse of children... it was almost too much for me to look at. I was so nauseous I had to stop reading at one point to avoid throwing up. :(

It was a real eye-opener, too, about the ways in which a lot of movements start off benign/beneficial and get co-opted for nefarious purposes, something we see over and over again and without most people even being aware. The techniques used are just so insidious, it's often too late before any notices.


It can be very hard to look at these kinds of things face-on, and I am not sure how you all muster the strength for it, but I am grateful for you all working to spread as much truth as possible. It was truth I needed to read today, though it left my heart very, very heavy, and I am almost in tears even now thinking about all the suffering.

 

[Pierre]

Just as there is growing anger against all Jews for the crimes of Zionist Israel, so there is growing anger against ALL gays for the crimes of the psychopath/pedophiles. Pierre attempted to find a way out of that trap but it's like criticizing Zionism... you get accused of being anti-Semitic. Here, it's "anti-gay". I think I'd be worried about that if I was gay.

This analogy is, sadly, true.

As a matter of fact psychopaths who infiltrated the gay community or the Jewish community won't change, so the heavy responsibility rests on the shoulders of each members of those communities.

On one side you swallow the lies spread by leading psychopaths: the hysterization, the victim complex, the specialness, the 'them against us' ideology, the instrumentalization of 'freedom', 'rights', the identification, the contempt. In such a case a self fulfilling prophecy can happen: a minority that has contempt for the majority won't be accepted, reinforcing the discrimation sentiment, which reinforces the contempt, hence more rejection, etc.

On the other side, members of the community can start seeing through the lies, aknowledge they've been manipulated, see that their right cause (equality) was used for nefarious agendas, realize that their 'leaders' care about them much less than other human beings may.

In this sense, the LGBT community can play an essential role in saving us from the completion of the plans described in the discussed article.

Members of the majority hold a responsibility too. Will they understand why 'dominating' minorities are behaving this way? Will they go beyond their own prejudice? Will they chhose reconciliation instead of ostracism?

 

[Sol Logos]

On the being transsexual issue, I was wondering how that works from a biological point of view. In humans it seems that the inclusion of the Y chromosome makes man and not having it makes a woman. It appears to be that way from the basic building blocks of sex differentiation. There's plenty of genetic variations, but from the level of chromosomes, it's firmly polar.

Not all humans are XX or XY. Different combinations occur in about 1 in 1,000 individuals, such as XO (only 1 X chromosome), XXX, XXXX, XXXXX, XXY, or XYY:

_http://anthro.palomar.edu/abnormal/abnormal_5.htm

I didn't say that all humans are XX or XY instead I said that inclusion of Y (in any combination) is what determines male characteristics, without that Y we are female - just one sex or the other.

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

Thank you Pierre for the great article. Is very good, and it shares a lot of ideas to develop. And also thank you, whitecoast for opening the conversation about this, and your contribution.

This is perhaps one of the most damning sections of the article. If Pierre was interested in simply demonstrating the importance of the love of the family unit, he could have simply used the first paragraph. But instead, he added information about homosexuals having a negative PK effect. Here he implies that gays are inherently entropic, and not capable of influencing the cosmos in a positive way macrocosmically. (This may or may not be true, but it’s mad to suggest that gays not have a problem this, especially after Pierre says he supports gays).

Well I find fascinating that homosexuality that is heavily promoted nowadays leads to an inhibited 'cosmic-connection'. That's not a judgement about gays, it's a judgement about the ones who engineer our society.

While bonded heterosexual couples, the kind of pairs that have the strongest influence on the reality around us, have been consistently inhibited to the point almost of destruction of those capacities, the normalization of homosexuality - including massive faux homosexuality - has given rise to a growing number of homosexual couples whose influence, as shown by Jahn and Dunnes, is not just weaker than the one exerted by individuals alone, but can produce the opposite effects of those intended.

So. Gays have a negative/entropic influence on the cosmos. Just like psychopaths. No risk of someone coming away with the conclusion that gays are evil there! *rolleyes*

It's not exactly that: same sex pairs have an inhibited influence, i.e. an influence that is lesser than if they were alone. It would be interesting to know if gays (alone) have a stronger influence than heteros (alone). That would give some credence to Laura's shaman hypothesis.

It would be possible to ask the Cs in some future session about this? It is very interesting. Would be great to have more information about Laura's shaman hypothesis and the objectivity of Dr. Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne's experiment.

I think lots of emotional buttons were pressed in you, whitecoast.
A few things that stuck out for me were: you said that Pierre had shown no empathy towards the LGBT community or something along those lines. Yet, in your post you make no mention of the fact that millions of kids were or are sexually abused, attacked, raped, tortured and murdered every year. Instead, you talk about the suffering of gay people.

That stuck out for me too, like a sore thumb. The level of emotional knee-jerking about the self, and complete loss of the plot of the article, its real concern, was quite astonishing.

Seems selective empathy. There are many parallels between gays victimization and the Jews after WWII ("our dead are more important than the others, that millions of Russians, Europeans and Asian...").
About the "privileges" of heterosexuals, I really do not agree. That's just see it from an identification as being gay. Heterosexuals are not handled as a conscious majority group. I mean, I do not base my identity of being heterosexual as opposed to others (again, I do not do it consciously, but perhaps yes in a deeper psychological aspect ). Gays who victimize seems think so: all the time is like "us against them ", "the majority against us". But the truth is that gays and heterosexuals are both victims of a psychopathic minority (it's very troublesome to all of us see the real enemy that divides us in countless ways). Among heterosexuals there is no homogeneity: there are racial differences, or creed, culture, economic, etc. And every inch of difference is enough to be exploited by psychopaths to divide and create problems, segregation, etc.
Actually if I put myself in the shoes of a gay, I think there's still a lot of discrimination and difficulties to have a healthy life. But also "being gay" (like "being Jewish", "being black") are identities that have been deformed since a long time by people of bad faith. It is as in those identities, attached inside, is made ​​explicit that members should feel always discriminated from the others, the others who are the majority! Have adopted the same ideology of zionists. Or, better said, the vision of the psychopathic minority against the vast majority of normal people. And heterosexuals are victims too.
Also: gays can pertain to a minority regarding their sexual preferences, but also they participate in massive identities as "being Catholic" or "Democrat" or whatever. The "tie" to a sexual minority identity as such and only to that one (as the major feature of the identity)...Why it should be like this?. And why the sexual identity is so important?.

 

[Jones]

I’ll admit that some of my buttons were pushed by the article too, it stirred up some very old fears. It wasn’t unusual back then for gays to be lumped into the same basket as pedophiles – gosh I remember that growing up and one the fears I had when considering coming out was that I would be accused of being a pedophile, or be treated as though I was one.

In general and in my experience there seems to have been a shift in that public perception. I’m curious if that shift began to happen when some pedophile groups started to claim that pedophilia is a normal sexual orientation like homosexuality in a fake attempt to gain some legitimacy while the real purpose was to reduce the perceived connection between the two by creating a vehicle to talk about the distinctions between them. In other words, take the heat off gays, then join them to influence the direction of their political lobbying to gain benefit for their own sick ends. So I wonder if this was engineered as part of the plan in order to help pedophiles to hide behind a mask of ‘gay’ so that they can continue or advance their own sick agenda? I’m not yet finished ECHCC so perhaps that point may have already been addressed.

Although I recognised that this was important information to share, I hesitated to share a link to the article fb because I expected reactions like whitecoasts and I wasn’t sure how to deal with that, so am thankful for this discussion.

 

[Brenda86]

In praise of Pierre's article, I think it tries to bring an ethical stance back into areas of discussion where things like ethics, morality and values are sometimes seen as old-fashioned and best abandoned. A modern liberal might say "There is no such thing as bad behavior, all that exists are different lifestyle choices, to be be sampled and gourmandized over to please our own self-indulgent palates as we wish."

Perhaps it is using too broad a brush to paint the whole disciple of Gender Theory as a backward step? Maybe some parts of gender theory, and some gender theorists, are okay, some brilliant, others hopelessly ponerized?

It does seem the limits get pushed more and more every day. The world is already vastly different from even when I was a child, and I am only 28. But actually, the first thing that popped into my mind when I read this is how often these days I read comments from faceless people on the internet about how "before we know it pedophilia will be considered just another sexual orientation, too. After all, pedophiles can't be changed either!" Of course, we all know a re-class to sexual orientation from sexual disorder is just one more way to "get the foot in the door" so to speak. And then I recalled the "slip" last year when the APA, in their DSM-V, reclassed pedophilia as a sexual orientation before quickly backtracking their "disastrous error." Pardon me if I am a bit skeptical that no one caught that before publication. It feels a lot more like testing the waters to me. :(

 

[Oxajil]

This has nothing to do with savouring a sense of otherness and everything to do with making gays personable and more cognitively accessible. More common and prominent depictions of them in life increases empathy towards them, and so help further legal and social integration.

I would have to disagree. I assume you are familiar with the Amsterdam Gay Pride event? If I would be gay, this would be one of many events I would avoid like the plague. Half-naked people, people in distasteful leather clothing, blown-up naked plastic dolls, and the list goes on. This is supposed to celebrate pride for the LGBT community? Such events are not to be helpful in the ways you describe, it's co-opted, it's about normalizing disturbing sexual acts. And of course events like these are for all to see, including children.

I took a course called Sexual Health about three years ago at the university of Amsterdam. During one of our classes, we had a guest, he was a transsexual (female>male). He helps a lot of LGBT children, informs people etc. And at some point we had a Q&A session with him, and one of the students asked: What do you think of the gay pride events? His answer was: It isn't good. It doesn't help with informing the people about the LGBT community, it just aggravates the problem and increases the division between people. It becomes more of an in-your-face thing, and it doesn't represent us in any way whatsoever.

Very much like what Pierre wrote:

On one side you swallow the lies spread by leading psychopaths: the hysterization, the victim complex, the specialness, the 'them against us' ideology, the instrumentalization of 'freedom', 'rights', the identification, the contempt. In such a case a self fulfilling prophecy can happen: a minority that has contempt for the majority won't be accepted, reinforcing the discrimation sentiment, which reinforces the contempt, hence more rejection, etc.

And think about it this way. It is a huge red flag already knowing that our governments finances and/or supports such events. When did they do anything that is in favor of any of us?

 

[Gwenllian]

On the other side, members of the community can start seeing through the lies, aknowledge they've been manipulated, see that their right cause (equality) was used for nefarious agendas, realize that their 'leaders' care about them much less than other human beings may.

In this sense, the LGBT community can play an essential role in saving us from the completion of the plans described in the discussed article.

I agree. I was thinking about the above yesterday. I think it would help the LGBT community a lot, if they made a public statement, saying that they do not condone pedophilia, that it has nothing to do with their community, that they are deeply worried that people are being primed to associate pedos with the LGBT community etc. Also, I think it would help them coming out, showing the world that they also care about others, about kids that are infinitely more vulnerable than they are. IMO, at the end of the day it could even help them, because such a statement would create good-will.

This has nothing to do with savouring a sense of otherness and everything to do with making gays personable and more cognitively accessible. More common and prominent depictions of them in life increases empathy towards them, and so help further legal and social integration.

I would have to disagree. I assume you are familiar with the Amsterdam Gay Pride event? If I would be gay, this would be one of many events I would avoid like the plague. Half-naked people, people in distasteful leather clothing, blown-up naked plastic dolls, and the list goes on. This is supposed to celebrate pride for the LGBT community? Such events are not to be helpful in the ways you describe, it's co-opted, it's about normalizing disturbing sexual acts. And of course events like these are for all to see, including children.

I took a course called Sexual Health about three years ago at the university of Amsterdam. During one of our classes, we had a guest, he was a transsexual (female>male). He helps a lot of LGBT children, informs people etc. And at some point we had a Q&A session with him, and one of the students asked: What do you think of the gay pride events? His answer was: It isn't good. It doesn't help with informing the people about the LGBT community, it just aggravates the problem and increases the division between people. It becomes more of an in-your-face thing, and it doesn't represent us in any way whatsoever.

I agree, I don't like these Gay Pride events at all. It is very much an in your face thing and it has nothing to do with love between two men or two women. Also, it is a prime example of narcissism. Look at me.
BTW, I just read that there was also a children's boat during this Gay Pride thing when Cohen was mayor of Amsterdam. Eleven year old boys were allowed to participate.

 

[whitecoast]

Thank you all for your replies, criticisms, and mirrors. I have learned a lot about myself, and the blindspots in my own thinking through reading through many of these comments. I realize that I did end up coming to some pretty pejorative interpretations of some of the content in the article, and after reflecting I do agree with far more points in it than I did initially. I'm not sure if I still see myself or you all eye-to-eye though, so I've decided to follow up with this post.

I think lots of emotional buttons were pressed in you, whitecoast.
A few things that stuck out for me were: you said that Pierre had shown no empathy towards the LGBT community or something along those lines. Yet, in your post you make no mention of the fact that millions of kids were or are sexually abused, attacked, raped, tortured and murdered every year. Instead, you talk about the suffering of gay people. I do not deny their suffering, I know that gays are still being bashed and murdered by sickos and that's heart-breaking. But to me it sounds as if you don't know much about the suffering of others or that you are too focused on one group.
Have you ever read Joel van der Reijden's article about Dutroux and his pedophile networks? There is a thread on the forum about the article and the article is to be found on SOTT.

Hi Mariama. I have read articles about Dutroux and his pedophile networks. It is a tragedy on a mind-boggling scale. As I mentioned before, I thought Pierre’s exposure of the way hypersexualization and implementation of gender theory harms children was very well done. Because of that I didn’t see any need to elaborate more detailed comments on it, since he’s already said so much. I did focus a lot on the ways that I perceived the article as being insensitive to gays and trans people, because I didn’t see it receive much rational analysis by the people who did feel upset about it but didn’t know exactly how to articulate why (on SOTT and FB at least).

And yeah, my buttons were pressed. I hoped that I explained why in sufficient detail above, since I really want to get to the bottom of this can of worms. I think the large amount of pondering and writing I did on this initially (hence the lag in starting this response thread) did play a therapeutic role for me, since when I do feel upset or triggered I often try and write about why and explain the origins of my emotions to myself as a coping mechanism. I tried my hardest to be as objective as possible, but I suppose it still just shows how little we can do/see on our own.

 

[zim]

I do not have a whole lot to contribute to this at the moment, but I wanted to thank Pierre for the article. I read it earlier... forced myself through it actually... because the discussion of pedophilia, the sexual "education" (brainwashing) of children, the widespread sexual abuse of children... it was almost too much for me to look at. I was so nauseous I had to stop reading at one point to avoid throwing up. :(

It was a real eye-opener, too, about the ways in which a lot of movements start off benign/beneficial and get co-opted for nefarious purposes, something we see over and over again and without most people even being aware. The techniques used are just so insidious, it's often too late before any notices.


It can be very hard to look at these kinds of things face-on, and I am not sure how you all muster the strength for it, but I am grateful for you all working to spread as much truth as possible. It was truth I needed to read today, though it left my heart very, very heavy, and I am almost in tears even now thinking about all the suffering.

I second, first thanks Pierre the article is very eye- opener as Brenda86 said, as a mother I was angry, it is very clear the dangers that the kids are living right now and what came to my mind was how I can protect my Kids from all this "education", the kids of the moment are not kids as they were before now they act like adult, the girls behave like barbies or models and it is because their own mothers do that, in fact every TV program lead to this situation we see this everyday, it is so sad how this ponerized society use the children for this purposes not to be good man or good women in the future just sexual toys of the psychopaths

 

[Pierre]

Thank you all for your replies, criticisms, and mirrors. I have learned a lot about myself, and the blindspots in my own thinking through reading through many of these comments. I realize that I did end up coming to some pretty pejorative interpretations of some of the content in the article, and after reflecting I do agree with far more points in it than I did initially. I'm not sure if I still see myself or you all eye-to-eye though, so I've decided to follow up with this post.

Thank you for explaining your point of view and examining other's point of view.

In light of that, being told that (1) gays exert a negative PK influence, or otherwise are different in other ways that are really not straightforward to understand by the secular world, and (2) are not capable of achieving that supreme sublimity of the platonic androgyne being that straight couples can and are expected to (in a virtuous society) really raises a LOT of emotional triggers. I suppose it is black and white thinking though, to say that we either perfectly equal in all respects to straights, or we are marginalized as inferior “others” that desecrate nature by our very existence (according to psychopathic religions.)

I think that most heterosexual couple don't reach the 'supreme sublimity'. The differences in PK influence can be due to several factors. For example, an individual incarnated many times as a woman, his soul is loaded with female experience and traits but during the present incarnation, for some reasons (say a specific gender-related lesson to be learned), the soul incarnated in a male body. You have a soul that feels woman and is attracted to men while the genetic body is male. That might explain those numerous reports of homosexuals saying they feel like a woman in a male body (and vice versa).

The soul pulls in one direction and the genetic body pulls in the other direction, this internal conflict might explain the reduced PK influence.

[quote author=Pierre] I hope you can see the support is not only superficial.

I believe you have shown me this. Thank you for the personal, sensitive, and considerate response. :)[/quote]

:)

Ultimately, whether homosexual or heterosexual we all have the same fears (death, suffering, betrayal, abandonment...) and the same hopes (love, intimacy, trust,...). What if any of us wakes up tomorrow in a woman body or a man body? What if we discover that our 'polar opposite' has the same gender as ours?

I don't think the gay pride will make gay more personable and cognitively accessible. I think it is an ostensible display in public place that the rest of the population didn't ask for. If we want to keep on reconciling gays and heteros it has to be done on mutually agreed terms. In the same way I would not agree with an heterosexual couple displaying ostentatious sexual behaviors in a public place. Sex is a private matters, whether it's homosexual sex or heterosexual sex.

I agree that hypersexualization in society in general is a HUGE problem. In the pride parades I’ve gone to (a couple many years ago) there are some ostentatious displays, which I agree don’t depict anything positive. But I also think it’s unfair for some people to see a few of those displays and then generalize those people as being representative of gays. There are numerous other floats in such parades for political parties (both mainstream and fringe), as well as activists for legalizing marijuana or 9/11 truth disclosure. It’s a highly mixed bag of countercultural interests, which of course creates space in which pathological advocates can infiltrate. In such states people often walk away agreeing with some of them and disagreeing with others, like any other forum.

On the other hand, I can appreciate that people who don’t know many gays personally, or only see them on the television, can get a lot of incorrect ideas (though that probably has more to do with the television portion than the gay portion.) For what it’s worth, I do know that more and more people are calling for the pride parades and events to become more family-friendly. I think this position will only become more popular as the fallout of hypersexualization becomes more and more apparent from a personal and interpersonal psychological perspective. As you have said, it falls to those empathic gays to take ownership of the movement and divest it from the pathological interests. I will try my best to do my part in this.

I agree. I suppose, maybe wrongly, that many homosexuals don't see the gay pride as a true reflection of who they are. Like you I hope the gay pride will become an open event where homosexuals, heterosexuals, families all celebrate together not their difference but what unites them: dreams, hopes, joy and pain. I also hope that the focus will shift from hypersexual displays towards more loving and caring.

The homosexual VS heterosexual (like the men VS women, black VS white, Muslims Vs Christians) duality is manufactured by the elites to divide and conquer, and to divert us from one fundamental duality: the psychopathic leader CS the non-psychopathic masses (although psychopathy and elite ranking are not perfectly correlated).

I would be very interested to know the percentage of gay people who truly want marriage and children compared to straight people. Because of the studies done about the duration of gay couples and testimony of gays acknowledging the need for having and mother and a father I am under the impression that as a general rule gays want equality above all and not marriage/adoption rights.

I don’t think whether or not people wish to take advantage of a right or freedom has much bearing on whether that right or freedom should be accorded to them. A lot of people don’t enjoy smoking, but that doesn’t mean they should step on the rights of those who do. As for whether children categorically require archetypal father or mother figures, I haven’t done the research to say either way. If it turns out they do, then I think those who wish to help raise children should consider their requirements first and foremost. Again, I think this pushes the emotional button of my thinking there shouldn’t be any perceivable difference between gay and straight couples when it comes to raising children (except maybe things like breastfeeding, etc.) I suppose back in the good old days (the real good old days), members of a tribe who wanted to help with child-rearing could fully do so alongside many other members of the community, so this conundrum may very well be a consequence of our increasing social isolation from one another (a “first world problem.”)

Very true. Whether raised by homosexual couple or heterosexual couple, the child still miss the extended family environment. The love of the grandparents, numerous cousins and siblings of same age, etc. And I'm sure that many same-sex couples provide a much better growing environment than heterosexual couples. As I said in the article many heterosexual couples are dysfunctional!

Here the devil is in the details, there is a fine (but essential) line between accepting / integrating and promoting / encouraging or even enforcing... In the above mentioned article you can read: "On peut proposer à un garçon de jouer à la poupée", which translates into "we can propose to a boy to play with a doll". Again, we are dealing with the very fine line between respecting free will and priming/suggesting.

I agree with this. It is difficult because priming and suggestion can work both ways: against the straight or gay, and against the cis or trans. On one hand you don’t want to erase the existence of gay/trans people from the minds of children in education because (1) it will make the straight/cis less accepting of actual instances of gay/trans in their current and later peers and (2) it will hurt the gay/trans people by inducing a sense of cognitive dissonance and narcissistic wounding. On the other hand you can’t promote gay/trans ways of being to be the majority dominant, since it will create all the problems gay/trans people face in opposite problem, only in straight/cis people (which there are more of). It is a complex situation, and I don’t think gender theorists (as gender theory was promulgated in the early 20th century) are equipped to deal with this problem. But, I will say that depicting one instance of boy-meets-boy or girl-meets-girl (as fish or otherwise) in a curricula in which hundreds of boy-meets-girl stories have been presented will not cause confusion or cognitive dissonance on the part of the straight children. That is my opinion.

I agree. Here the key point is balance. The goal should be acceptance without falling into promotion/priming/suggestion especially at such an early age when kids are so 'imprintable'. That's a very fine line. Problem is, while you or me want this acceptance to grow, the Gender theorist only use the acceptance as a pretext to indoctrinate our kids. They are preparing the pedophile generation, or so they wish.

I think that sex and gender are related, the same way there is some kind of frequency match between the genetic body and the emotional body. This being said why do the elites promote so heavily the blurring of gender? It's not necessary to attain full integration of the gay community, is it?

Not for gay people, no. Obviously from the perspective of the elite it’s more in their interests to confuse and wound cis children through overly emphasizing gender-asymmetric dress/behaviors. That some trans people will be less hurt or ostracized is only incidental to that point (thought I hope that can be achieved without harming the non-trans in the process. It’s really important to avoid zero-sum thinking.)

I think you have a point here. I was wrong. As shown in the example I previously mentioned, you can have a female soul in a male body (or vice versa). In this case sex and gender are opposite.

There were whites and non-whites and this is still the case today, isn't it? Do we have to remove the whites and the blacks, give rise to some king of universal 'greys' in order to go beyond racism? Again the devil is in the detail, dualities can lead to conflict but also complementarity. Of course if your remove the duality there's no more conflict but at the same time you removed all the potential complementarity.

I don’t think it’s really about removing, but rather adding. So instead of there just being whites and non-whites, you have northern europeans, mediterranean, middle eastern, saharan african, sub-saharan african, native north american, native south american, etc. It’s more about acknowledgement and respect for the diversity that’s there, rather than trying to shoehorn everyone into a binary notion that doesn’t always represent what people are (even if it does most of the time). For what it’s worth.

I see what you say here. It leads to some interetsing question: Is the promotion of an the androgynous being, the emergence of a third gender more in sync with the existing diversity? Or is it a way of undermining the male-female potential complementarity by making man more effeminate while masculinizing women?

My paranoid mind and the track records of our dear elites makes me think that the first is the pretext while the latter is the true objective.

Well I find fascinating that homosexuality that is heavily promoted nowadays leads to an inhibited 'cosmic-connection'. That's not a judgement about gays, it's a judgement about the ones who engineer our society.

Thank you for adding that distinction, and taking the time to reply to my concerns about this.

Thank you Whitecoast for sharing your thoughts. It's really, really appreciated.

If I've hurt anyone's feeling, it was really not my intent. I hope this forum thread will help dissipate the last doubts. This topic is such a can of worm that even if you are super careful it is almost impossible to avoid some heated debates. And that's perfectly understandable when we know how much anger, suffering, frustration, violence, injustice, misunderstanding is attached to the history of homosexuality.

 

[luke wilson]

Pierre,

Excellent article. Mind-blowing. Excellent research. I learnt something new today!

From the research/experiments of Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne, bonded heterosexual couples have the strongest positive signature in terms of the human-cosmic connection. This I suppose is not surprising given that such strong heterosexual bonded unions are pretty much the corner stone of human society. Even being around such people, you can sense the magnetism that they emanate as a 'couple'.

From your research, someone who is forever single, what does this mean cosmically/energetically? Cause for concern? What would your grandma say?

Speaking from the point of view of Gnosis by Mouravieff, for progression through where we are - evolution of spirit and from mechanicalness, does the cosmos demand of us to be in such unions (i.e. happily married/bonded unions) in order to be complete - as per your view?

 

[Pierre]

Pierre,

Excellent article. Mind-blowing. Excellent research. I learnt something new today!

From the research/experiments of Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne, bonded heterosexual couples have the strongest positive signature in terms of the human-cosmic connection. This I suppose is not surprising given that such strong heterosexual bonded unions are pretty much the corner stone of human society. Even being around such people, you can sense the magnetism that they emanate as a 'couple'.

From your research, someone who is forever single, what does this mean cosmically/energetically? Cause for concern? What would your grandma say?

Speaking from the point of view of Gnosis by Mouravieff, for progression through where we are - evolution of spirit and from mechanicalness, does the cosmos demand of us to be in such unions (i.e. happily married/bonded unions) in order to be complete - as per your view?

Maybe my Grandma would say that, couple or not, what really matters is to be good human beings.

I think that the couple thing is only one factor amongst many others. The most important factor being probably the ability of an individual to 'resonate' with Truth (this point is explained, hopefully clearly, in part IV of ECHCC).

Of course a bonded heterosexual couple made of two individuals resonating with Truth is ideal (and very rare).

This being said there might be a correlation between the formation of bonded couples, and the Truth resonant individuals. Indeed the more an individual resonates with Truth the more he is likely to find the 'one' because he's less blinded by programs and prejudices that make him attracted on superficial levels.