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

[bjorb]

[quote author= Laura]Not only that, as Lobaczewski points out, it is hardwired in human beings to be antagonistic to significant differences. So if a group only constitutes 3% of a population, it would behoove them to NOT seek to stand out too sharply because they are activating an evolutionary response in the other 97%. I'm just afraid that when all this shakes down in the end, the tide is going to turn massively and that 97% is going to get ugly. If I were gay, I wouldn't want to be on a list anywhere. Simple survival strategy.[/quote]

Yes, and next to that, when those comets make their impact and other catastrophic events happens people tend to get all religious. And I bet people out there will blame homosexuality for the end of the World. Many preachers are already doing exactly that.

The harsh reality is that there will always be people out there that simply won't accept it. That doesn't speak well for them but it just is.

Just like it isn't smart to tell others you are autistic when every white shooter out there is marked by the media as an autistic lunatic. People tend to associate autism with anti social disorder aka born psychopaths. So I rather keep it private, besides, I don't see the point of telling others.

This isn't some pretty 3STO World, it's 3STS. In a perfect world you don't have to keep such things private. But if you are honest and sincere with everyone in this World. You are in danger of digging your own grave.

So be vigilant. And besides, It's not about keeping it a secret, it's about keeping it private. That's a huge difference and luckily most Western people are tolerant about it. But being cautious is about survival. There are some really hatefull people out there !!


Besides all this, ordinary gay people are at risk exactly because of the LGBT movement more than anything else. Elements within are pushing for the acceptance for pedophilia. And thanks to those deviant people, it shouldn't come as a surprise if people in the 97% will start to associate homosexuality with pedophilia because of the LGBT movement. And that is really dangerous !!

 

[SeekinTruth]

[quote author=Pierre]By invoking the past oppression they were subjected to, the gay rights movement justifies the oppression it attempts to exert. It's even more ironic when one sees that those oppressive behaviours exhibited by organized minorities trigger, sooner or later, the reaction from the majority that will end up 'oppressing' the disturbing minority again.

How specifically are gays oppressing straight people? By their speech? What is advocated (or “proselytized”) is inclusion of gays, not the exclusion of straights.

In my message quoted above (bold added) I mentioned the 'gay right movement' and no 'gays' because I think these are the pathological leaders who push the community towards proselytism and oppression (among other things).

Now, it's interesting that you conflated 'gay rights movement' and 'gays' although their interest are so opposite and a lot of gays do not identify at all with the gay right movement, its claims and its agenda.

I tried to find an 'oppressed' minority group that I and others in this forum could identify with and thought about the smokers group. As a smoker, I would like to smoke freely, however I don't want to bother non-smokers. In this sense, I don't want to have the right to blow my smoke in the face of non-smokers will not support a smokers group that follows such proselyte goals.

The above is actually very similar to what the gay right movement does. Take the gay 'pride' for example, it is basically an event where non-gays have to face sexually explicit gay scenes displayed in the public space.

[/quote]

This really gets to the crux of the matter, Pierre. I'm a smoker, and I've been extra considerate to people who are very sensitive in one way or another to smoke all my life. It's just common decency - shouldn't be any big deal. But my own experience with obnoxious homosexual behavior is supporting evidence of the ponerization that has developed into the gay community in the West by the infiltration of pathological deviants with their own agendas - showing that where ever they have established dominance/pretty much taken over all positions of influence and power, they do not hide their intentions and motivations at all.

Before moving out of the U.S. over 10 years ago, I worked in NYC in commercial photography - including a lot of fashion photography - starting a photo studio with my brother in 1992. The amount of outrageous behavior in this and related fields that are dominated by gays (especially gay men) was already out-of-control in the early to mid 90's.

Already by around 1993 or 94, (we were in a studio space that was a sublet - which wasn't that large until moving in 1995 to a much bigger space, these types of experiences were heightened/exaggerated because of the lack of personal space and anywhere to go to get some kind of "breathing room") there was so much inappropriate behavior / over-the-top sexual innuendos, etc. by the makeup artists, hair stylists, fashion stylists and so on (about 99% gay men), that already there was NOT any kind of argument that could be made that this particular segment of ponerized gays had ANY kind of discrimination or oppression against them.

Quite the opposite. No heterosexual would get away with such behavior on the job in any field. Now, the thing I noticed rather early was that there was a distinct network of prejudiced, deviant gays that had an unbelievable amount of influence in who gets work and who doesn't in these fields. And just low key gay men who didn't participate in this type of in-your-face outrageous behavior, did not get as much work as the flamboyant/outrageous types.

A typical example was a fashion stylist who was black and gay. So a doubly "oppressed" minority, so to speak. Quite a good fashion stylist. But he was very low key, and didn't engage in this kind of outrageous behavior on the job. But he was booked for probably half the amount of work by higher ups in agencies that represent and book these workers. All things considered, he had very good talents/skills - better than many others, but wasn't part of the inner circles that were promoting the kinds of outrageous provocations discussed in your articles and this thread. So, that he was being hampered career wise for not being part of promoting outrageous behavior was rather transparent.

Included in the type of constant sexual innuendos all day long by these hyper-sexual gay hair stylists, makeup artists, and fashion stylists, it was already common to hear things about how "straights" did not know what they were missing, once they tried, they'd be unable to go back to vanilla/boring straight sex, etc. In other words, this particular milieu was so dominated by these over-the-top flamboyant types of gay men that they felt very secure to do and say whatever they wanted, rather than being an "oppressed minority".

By the mid to late 90's, a majority of ALL high profile positions in ALL related fields - not just hair stylists, makeup artists, and fashion stylists, but advertising agencies' creative directors, executives (to a lesser extent as flamboyant), prominent fashion photographers, graphic designers, etc. - were occupied by these types. Their dominance was about complete.

By this time there was a lot of talk about the "gay mafia" that dominates this field, as well as the film and entertainment industry. Going by my own experiences and observations, there certainly was a way-out-of-proportion dominance in positions of influence, hiring decisions, etc. It's like the old system of the "casting couch" in the movie and entertainment industry had its gay version - but probably in a less "discreet" way of operating.

These kinds of campaigns and promotions are very noticeable in the media in recent years - an all-out-of proportion "representation" of messages about all things sexual, but much more so with "non-conventional" sexuality, for lack of a better way of putting it.

Probably, the over-sexualization of society in a general way, opened the door for many types of deviants to take their stand and "demand their rights", as we see the kinds of attempts increasing to normalize pedophilia, bestiality, etc. in the West in recent years. So, there is plenty of evidence of the infiltrators wanting their proclivities normalized and accepted - by whatever means necessary, if they can get away with it. Seen in the framework of Ponerology, it shouldn't be too difficult to make a distinction between the overall gay community, and the pathological influence of the movers-and-shakers of the "movement." It's not very different from the Zionist usurpation of the Holocaust, and all things "Jewish" where the average Jew has been put in the position of being spoke for by rabid Zionist "bullhorns".

 

[whitecoast]

I've sometimes heard especially older conservative generation saying something like "i don't mind what anyone does in private, as long as they don't rub it in my face". But one should accept that this just is the way it is: there's always gonna be people who simply won't accept homosexuality and that is probably the best deal you can get with them, i.e keep it in private and it's okay. That's still quite reasonable request to live with but i can also understand how it might make one feel. In ideal world people wouldn't be concerned about these things, but this place is far from it.

The way i mostly see the saying "orientation should be private matter" is this: most people don't want to see over the top displays of affection (of any orientation) in public, so it's externally considerate to behave according to this commonly accepted rule.

I think that's sympathetic and reasonable. Like I said with Pierre, there needs to be a distinction drawn between what is a reasonable telegraphing of orientation and an ostentatious display ("blowing smoke in people's faces"). Maybe some older people equivocate the two in terms of negative affect, but a lot of older people don't as well. Aside from the nuance and questions of external considering in those minor cases, I would say that gays and straights need to be held to the same standards.

Not only that, as Lobaczewski points out, it is hardwired in human beings to be antagonistic to significant differences. So if a group only constitutes 3% of a population, it would behoove them to NOT seek to stand out too sharply because they are activating an evolutionary response in the other 97%. I'm just afraid that when all this shakes down in the end, the tide is going to turn massively and that 97% is going to get ugly. If I were gay, I wouldn't want to be on a list anywhere. Simple survival strategy.

I don't know how people will behave during the cataclysms. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. In the meantime the best we can do I think is to provide alternative explanations to the typical fundamentalist scapegoating. For what it's worth, the progressives influencing popular belief in the culture are cultural descendants of the mainline universalist christian sects, which are likely to blame the 1% for the catastrophes. Emphasizing empathy with gays in greater portions of the population can help protect them from bigotry in times of trouble. The sexual excesses obviously do not help this, and it will have to be seen whether or not it sabotages this. I hope it does not, and I think thankfully a lot of people are learning to tell between accepting gays and accepting public displays of sexuality they would not tolerate in straights. But I refuse to believe that gays are an inevitable target as part of some grand cycle programming. Sodom be damned.

 

[anothermagyar]

[quote author=whitecoast]Quote from: Seppo Ilmarinen on January 17, 2017, 02:04:55 PM
I've sometimes heard especially older conservative generation saying something like "i don't mind what anyone does in private, as long as they don't rub it in my face". But one should accept that this just is the way it is: there's always gonna be people who simply won't accept homosexuality and that is probably the best deal you can get with them, i.e keep it in private and it's okay. That's still quite reasonable request to live with but i can also understand how it might make one feel. In ideal world people wouldn't be concerned about these things, but this place is far from it.

The way i mostly see the saying "orientation should be private matter" is this: most people don't want to see over the top displays of affection (of any orientation) in public, so it's externally considerate to behave according to this commonly accepted rule.


I think that's sympathetic and reasonable. Like I said with Pierre, there needs to be a distinction drawn between what is a reasonable telegraphing of orientation and an ostentatious display ("blowing smoke in people's faces"). Maybe some older people equivocate the two in terms of negative affect, but a lot of older people don't as well. Aside from the nuance and questions of external considering in those minor cases, I would say that gays and straights need to be held to the same standards.[/quote]

Totally. I have to add that sexual behavior, no matter gay or straight is repelling. Sometimes I see a young couple, probably teenager boy and girl on the subway and it’s look like they’re eating each other and I have a feeling it’s a show for all middle aged peeps like me to get the outrage.
But of course I ignore it.
No matter straight or gay sex is not for public display, it is a “Caricature Of Love”.
I grew up in a theater with my mom and stepdad been opera singers, so I knew gay people as a remarkably talented, creative and often, cheerful, ”gay” wonderful part of the opera community.
My mother’s best friend was a very intelligent, well read gay man.
She told me his story, how he was sexually abused at childhood by a soldier, who tutored him and this shattered his soul.
It was in the 70-ies, 80-ies in Hungary. We didn’t have these movements and what not, everything is dependent on the individual, basically have a heart, have empathy toward others, try to understand how they feel.
That’s how my mother raised me and show her example, even she has no idea about Gurdjieff and the Work.
I think the worst thing I noticed with psychopathic influence, ponerology is to teach the next generation to be self-centered, shutting the outside world out, living their own bubble, without knowing what common curtesy, politeness and consideration means, ( snowflakes!) basically make the world total STS.