Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children

By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!

All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.

Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:

First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.

Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.

A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.

Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.

Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.

Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.

Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.

There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.

###

©2009 Dr. Trayce Hansen. All rights reserved.

Read More

The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous

The dirty little secret about gay marriage: Most gay couples are not monogamous. We have come to accept lately, partly thanks to Liza Mundy’s excellent recent cover story in the Atlantic and partly because we desperately need something to make the drooping institution of heterosexual marriage seem vibrant again, that gay marriage has something to teach us, that gay couples provide a model for marriages that are more egalitarian and less burdened by the old gender roles that are weighing marriage down these days. 

But the thorny part of the gay marriage experiment is sex, and more precisely, monogamous sex. Mundy writes about an old study from the '80s that found that gay couples were extremely likely to have had sex outside their relationship—82 percent did. That was before AIDS and the great matrimony craze in the gay community. She also tells the story of Dan Savage, who started out wanting to be monogamous until he and his partner had kids, and then they loosened up on that in order to make their union last. “Monogamish” is what he calls his new model. But as Mundy asks, can anyone out there imagine a husband proposing that same deal to his pregnant wife?

A long Gawker story last week explored this problem in greater detail. In the fight for marriage equality, the gay rights movement has put forth couples that look like straight ones, together forever, loyal, sharing assets. But what no one wants to talk about is that they don’t necessarily represent the norm:

The Gay Couples Study out of San Francisco State University—which, in following over 500 gay couples over many years is the largest on-going study of its kind—has found that about half of all couples have sex with someone other than their partner, with their partner knowing.

In writing about the subject, gay people emphasize the aspects of their relationships that sound most wholesome and straight-like, Steven Thrasher writes. They neglect to mention that, say, in Thrasher’s case, he met his partner for sex only once, and they ended up falling in love. The larger point being that gay couples are very different when it comes to sex, even if this is not the convenient moment to discuss that. And in legalizing gay marriage, we are accepting a form of sanctioned marriage that is not by habit monogamous and that is inventing all kinds of new models of how to accommodate lust and desire in long-term relationships.

In his interviews with married gay couples, Thrasher gets them to open up about the arrangements they invent. Most are some version of Dan Savage's “monogamish.” They are monogamous when they are in the same city, they can have sex with other people but not fall in love, or they can have sex with other people for some period of time. In some far-off, ideal world, this kind of openness may infect the straight world, and heterosexual couples may actually start to tackle the age-old problem of boring monogamous sex. But do any of us really believe that?

Source: http://ow.ly/sS2rk

* * * * * *

So, if they don't want to stay faithful to one single person for the resto of their earthly existence, why do they want to "marry"?

Answer: They don't. Most homosexuals frown at the ideia of monogamy (sex with only one person for life) and marriage is *all* about monogamy.

Gay "marriage" is about redefining marriage and not about helping gays. Like I said before, if you resist gay "marriage", you will have some gays helping you out because they - like you - know that marriage is an heterosexual institution.

Read More

Sir Paul Coleridge under fire for defending the right thing

High Court judge Sir Paul Coleridge has been disciplined for media comments he made in support of marriage – but he says the response is “disproportionate”.

The formal warning relates to his involvement in articles for The Times newspaper in December last year and for The Telegraph’s website in July.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) – the official body that deals with judicial discipline – says the comments amount to “judicial misconduct”.

Stability

Sir Paul, speaking about same-sex marriage, told The Times in 2012: “So much energy and time has been put into this debate for 0.1 per cent of the population, when we have a crisis of family breakdown”.

And in his Telegraph article the judge commented: “‘Stability’ is the name of the game and comparatively speaking that means marriage.”

Last month Sir Paul said he will retire early, partly because of the lack of support from some of his colleagues for his pro-marriage beliefs.

He says many agree with him, but won’t say so publicly: “With one or two exceptions they have been very, if quietly, supportive.”

Champion

In 2012 the judge set up the Marriage Foundation which aims to be a “national champion” for the institution.

Criticising the formal warning from the JCIO, Sir Paul said: “I strongly disagree with the overall conclusion of the JCIO, which underlies this announcement that my occasional comments on the huge social problem of family breakdown or my public support for the Marriage Foundation amounts to misconduct or brings the judiciary into disrepute.

“Indeed I think the contrary is true.”

“My involvement with the work of the Marriage Foundation may indeed be unusual and unconventional for a judge, but I do not agree that that renders it, of itself, ‘incompatible with my judicial responsibilities’.

‘Lower profile’

“It has not in any way interfered with my judicial work and no one who has appeared in my court has ever suggested that it has or does”, Sir Paul commented.

Last year the judge was told to keep a “lower profile” over his role at the Marriage Foundation by the JCIO’s predecessor.

At the time the body said a lower profile role within the organisation would be “more appropriate for a serving judicial office holder”.

Source: http://bit.ly/1bSEW4e

Read More

Public masturbators in Sweden

A recent court ruling in Sweden's Södertörn District Court suggests that masturbating on the beach in Sweden is "OK," according to public prosecutor Olof Vrethammar.

Vrethammar was prosecuting a 65-year-old who was charged with sexual assault after getting literally caught with his pants down in June, giving himself a sandy handy on a the Drevviken beach in Stockholm, according to The Local's translation of the Swedish newspaper Mitti.

A ruling which acquitted the man of the sex assault charges this week found that although the he was publicly masturbating, he was not directing his actions at anyone in particular, according to the Local. This was enough to clear him of the sexual assault charge, though it's unclear if the action is still in violation of other statutes in Sweden.

"With that [ruling]," prosecutor Vrethammar told the Mitti, "we can conclude that it is OK to masturbate on the beach... [although] the act may be considered to be disorderly conduct."

Dr. Liz Davies of London Metropolitan University has researched Sweden's child protection system, and told the Daily Mail the court decision surprised her.

"Sweden has a really robust child protection system and very rigorous investigation around sexual abuse," she said. "So this judgement is surprising given that such an act could be witnessed by children as well as adults."

The revelation that public masturbation may or may not be a criminal offense in Sweden comes just two months after one Swedish political party announced they'd like it to be illegal for men to stand while urinating.

Source: http://ow.ly/p0dgh 

Read More

The Zebra Killings': A forgotten hate crime

Most serial killings in America take on a life of their own through movies, books and documentaries. The crimes of Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer and The Son of Sam are still well remembered years after they were committed. Yet there is one set of serial killings that has been almost completely forgotten and is rarely mentioned in popular culture.

The Zebra Killings occurred in the San Francisco bay area between 1972 and 1974 and left 71 people dead. They were dubbed the Zebra Killings because of the radio channel used by the police investigating the case (channel Z). The name would take on a more sinister meaning as it became apparent that a group of blacks was systematically stalking and killing whites simply because of the color of their skin.

The majority of the attacks were carried out by five members of a group within Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam called the “Death Angels.” Jesse Lee Cooks, J.C. Simon, Larry Green, Manuel Moore and Anthony Harris were part of this group which believed that whites were created 3,000 years ago by a black mad scientist named Yacub who wanted a race of inferiors to rule over. Death Angels believed they could earn “points” towards going to heaven when they died if they killed whites. For them, whites were not human beings but “grafted snakes,” “blue-eyed devils” and “white motherf—–s.”

Howard describes the vicious and cowardly nature of the attacks, which were made at gunpoint and mostly carried out against women and weak or old men who could not fight back. The first victims in San Francisco were a couple named Richard and Quita Hague. The Hagues were out for an after dinner walk when they were abducted at gunpoint and forced into a van. They were bound and Richard was beaten over the head with a lug wrench and knocked unconscious. Quita was sexually molested and hacked with a machete. While begging for her life she was decapitated. Before leaving, the attackers hacked at the face of the still unconscious man. Miraculously, he survived and was able to give valuable information to the police.

Brutality and a lack of remorse on the part of the criminals mark the attacks. Vincent Wollin was shot in the back and killed on his 69th birthday. Mildred Hosler, an obese, older woman was shot while frantically trying to get away from her younger, faster attacker. Ilario Bertucci, a 135-pound, 81-year-old man, was killed while walking home from work. Marietta DiGirolamo, a 5’1? white woman was shot and killed on her way to a neighborhood bar. In none of these cases did the victims do anything to provoke the murderers. They simply had white skin and were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The increased police presence had the effect of angering the black community.

Twenty years before the Los Angeles riots and O.J. Simpson trial, blacks were already making statements to the press that showed a stunning lack of remorse for what was happening to their white neighbors. Howard quotes from interviews conducted by the San Francisco Examiner in 1974. Among the responses by blacks were, “I don’t feel comfortable with all the police around. But then, I never have felt safe around them.” A young housewife stated, “I’m really glad the police are concerned for a change. I just wonder if they would be as much concerned if it were black people getting killed.” A black lawyer added, “I commend the police for their beefing up of the force, but I hope it’s not just directed at blacks. I hope blacks aren’t being harassed.”

Still other blacks blamed “unemployment” and “oppression” for the attacks. One man said, “the madness that drives black men to kill innocent people . . . involves a sickness that is as American as apple pie.” Black Panther leader Bobby Seale declared, “every black man in the Bay area is in danger of losing his life.” 

The Reverend Cecil Williams claimed that the entire black community was “under a police state that could erupt into a racial war.” Howard observes, “although they were responding only to a question about Operation Zebra, it was curious that none of the blacks interviewed took the occasion to condemn the unknown street killers or express sympathy for the victims.”

The Nation of Islam paid for the legal representation of every one of the killers except Cooks, who immediately admitted to his murders.

It has been almost 40 years since the Zebra Killings and, with the exception of Clark Howard’s book, little has been written about the murders. That is why they have disappeared from the public consciousness. At least one filmmaker who tried to get funding for a documentary on the killings has said that producers will not touch it, as it involves the taboo of black-on-white racism. Needless to say, there is no such taboo on discussing white-on-black racism.

But a society that memorializes Emmett Till, Medgar Evers and James Byrd should also make room for the victims of the Zebra Killings. Justice demands it.

Source

----------------------

While serial killers are usually loners, they do sometimes murder as a group. This was one of those relatively rare instances.

And while many of the most infamous serial killers tend to be driven by lust, or greed, this case is different. These monsters simply wanted white blood on their hands.

And they got what they wanted.

Now, these horrific killings clearly fit the definition of “hate crimes.” But of course, such a classification of crime did not exist in the 1970s.

But one wonders if such vile acts, were they to occur today, would be prosecuted as “hate crimes.” After all, it was black-on-white, not the reverse. And prosecutors have been extremely reluctant to pursue convictions for “hate crimes” if the defendants are black.

Is this a particularly obvious example of a “hate crime”? Yes. But is it also obvious that this would be prosecuted as such, if it were to happen today? No.

And that is the problem with “hate crime” legislation: Unequal protection under the law.

Read More

Black man attacks white people shouting "I hate white people!"

A violent, racially-charged attack happened in New York City’s Union Square this Wednesday. One man was left brain dead as a result of the attack.

The suspect is 31-year-old Lashawn Marten, a black man who repeatedly yelled, “I hate white people.” He vowed to attack white people on the streets — that is what he did.

One witness said Marten declared, “The next white person who walks by I’m going to f**k.”

Then he attacked multiple white people on the street who he did not know.

A witness who shot the attack on video said it was completely random. See the shocking video on Instagram here (http://instagram.com/p/d2XJJ_y9KW).

Three men were injured as a result from the attack. One of those men, 62-year-old Jeffery Babbitt, was punched especially hard; he fell to the ground. Witnesses heard his skull crack as it hit the pavement.

Babbitt was eventually brought to the hospital, where it was determined that he is now braid dead.

Here are some images from the attack, posted on Twitter by one witness:

1. http://www.mrconservative.com/files/2013/09/2013.09.07-mrconservative-522b598a4615f.png

2. http://www.mrconservative.com/files/2013/09/2013.09.07-mrconservative-522b596c643af.png

Babbitt is in the hospital, currently in a coma. His 92-year-old mother is there with him, hoping for the best.

At this time, police are treating this vile attack as a hate crime.

Source: http://ow.ly/oFzIQ

* * * * * * *

It takes a lot of time to civilize barbarians. Here in Europe, the culturally superior Romans spent centuries before the conquered nations could act in a much more civilized manner. For sure, the Romans had their own barbaric rites too (like leaving female babies to die in the wilderness) but they were much superior than the Gaulic or Germanic Tribes they overcame. While the Romans and the Hellenized world was discussing Philosophy and creating great works of art, other Tribes in central and northern Europe were busy doing other less-culturally-advanced activities.

When it comes to Africans, it's absurdly obvious that their culture is inferior than the White European culture. In terms of cultural evolution, it would take centuries to civilize them in ways midly similar to White European culture. The problem we have in Europe is that we are told that it's "racism" to consider one culture better than the other, and that all cultures have their "beauty" and their "merits". 

This is wrong at all levels.

First, culture superiority is not racism but a self-evident CULTURAL fact.

Secondly, there's nothing wrong in saying that European culture is superior. In fact, everyone knows this and its because of this belief that every single minority in the world would rather live in European cultures (like the ones in Europe and the USA) rather than in non-European culture. 

You don't migrate to a place where you think your life will be worse. You pick your bags and move to Europe because you believe your life will be better here.

Speaking of the incident at hand, the tragedy of it it's not only that a culturally inferior African spread his racism in broad daylight in a European-ish place, but that his actions will be "justified" with the same marxist rethoric of "opression" and "white guilt" or whatever. 

Protected classes ("victim" groups) can do no wrong. Non-protected classes can do no good. Within cultural marxism, whites, heteresexuals, males, Christians, patriots, nationalists, traditionalists have no protection at all. On the other hand, blacks, homossexuals, militant atheists (not to be confused with classical atheists), hispanics, leftist women and everyone else, is free to do whatever they wish since they know their deeds will be seen as "revolt against the opression".

Read More

The Four Stages of Ideological Subversion how to brainwash a Nation.

Source

Yuri Bezmenov KGB defector.

Stage 1 — Demoralization

The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already, for the last twenty-five years, actually it’s over-fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success, most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to access true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I showered him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures — even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him a concentration camp — he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom. When a military boot crashes his butt, then he will understand, but not before that. That’s the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.


Stage 2 — Destabilization

The next stage is destabilization. This time the subverter does not care about your ideas and the patterns of your consumption, whether you eat junk food and get fat and flabby doesn’t matter anymore. This time — and it takes only from two to five years to destabilize a nation — what matters is essentials. Economy, foreign relations, defense systems. And you can see quite clearly that in some areas, in such sensitive areas as defense and economy, the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas in the United States is absolutely fantastic. I could never believe it fourteen years ago when I landed in this part of the world that the process would go that fast.


Stage 3 — Crisis

The next stage of course is crisis, it may take only up to six weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis, you can see it in Central America now. And after crisis, with a violent change of power, structure, and economy, you have a so-called period of normalization. It may last indefinitely.


Stage 4 — Normalization

Normalization is a cynical expression, borrowed from Soviet propaganda, when the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in 1968, Comrade Brezhnev said, “Now the situation in brotherly Czechoslovakia is normalized.”


This is what will happen in the United States if you allow all the schmucks to bring the country to crisis. To promise people all kinds of goodies and a paradise on Earth. To destabilize your economy. To eliminate the principle of free market competition and to put a Big Brother government in Washington DC with benevolent dictators like Walter Mondale who will promise lots of things, never mind whether the promises are fulfilled or not. He will go to Moscow to kiss the bottoms of a new generation of Soviet assassins, never mind, he will create false illusions that the situation is under control.

The situation is not under control. The situation is disgustingly out of control. Most of the American politicians, media, and educational system, trains another generation of people who think they are living at the peace time. False. The United States is in a state of war. Undeclared total war against the basic principles and the foundations of this system. And the initiator of this war is not Comrade Andropov of course, it’s the system — however ridiculous it may sound — the world Communist system, or the world Communist conspiracy. Whether I scare some people or not I don’t give a hoot. If you are not scared by now, nothing can scare you. But you don’t have to be paranoid about it. What actually happens now, that unlike myself, you have literally several years to limp on unless the United States wakes up. The time bomb is ticking, with every second the disaster is coming closer and closer, unlike myself you will have no where to defect to. Unless you want to live in Antarctica with penguins. This is it, this is the last country of freedom and possibility.

You might also like:

• Feminism and Cultural Marxism, the plot to destroy the foundation of White Western Civilisation.
• The Frankfurt School: Western Subversion by Design
• Cultural Marxism and the assault on the Cultural and Ethnic identity of the West.
• Recognising Cultural Marxism
• Welcome to the Smash Cultural Marxism blog.

Read More

What is Cultural Marxism?

William S. Lind

http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm

In his columns on the next conservatism, Paul Weyrich has several times referred to “cultural Marxism.” He asked me, as Free Congress Foundation’s resident historian, to write this column explaining what cultural Marxism is and where it came from. In order to understand what something is, you have to know its history.

Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as “multiculturalism” or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as “multiculturalism.”

Cultural Marxism began not in the 1960s but in 1919, immediately after World War I. Marxist theory had predicted that in the event of a big European war, the working class all over Europe would rise up to overthrow capitalism and create communism. But when war came in 1914, that did not happen. When it finally did happen in Russia in 1917, workers in other European countries did not support it. What had gone wrong?

Independently, two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, came to the same answer: Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interest that Communism was impossible in the West until both could be destroyed. In 1919, Lukacs asked, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” That same year, when he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun government in Hungary, one of Lukacs’s first acts was to introduce sex education into Hungary’s public schools. He knew that if he could destroy the West’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying Western culture itself.

In 1923, inspired in part by Lukacs, a group of German Marxists established a think tank at Frankfurt University in Germany called the Institute for Social Research. This institute, soon known simply as the Frankfurt School, would become the creator of cultural Marxism.

To translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms, the members of the Frankfurt School - - Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, to name the most important - - had to contradict Marx on several points. They argued that culture was not just part of what Marx had called society’s “superstructure,” but an independent and very important variable. They also said that the working class would not lead a Marxist revolution, because it was becoming part of the middle class, the hated bourgeoisie.

Who would? In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question: a coalition of blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals.

Fatefully for America, when Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, the Frankfurt School fled - - and reestablished itself in New York City. There, it shifted its focus from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to destroying it in the United States. To do so, it invented “Critical Theory.” What is the theory? To criticize every traditional institution, starting with the family, brutally and unremittingly, in order to bring them down. It wrote a series of “studies in prejudice,” which said that anyone who believes in traditional Western culture is prejudiced, a “racist” or “sexist” of “fascist” - - and is also mentally ill.

Most importantly, the Frankfurt School crossed Marx with Freud, taking from psychology the technique of psychological conditioning. Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood).

After World War II ended, most members of the Frankfurt School went back to Germany. But Herbert Marcuse stayed in America. He took the highly abstract works of other Frankfurt School members and repackaged them in ways college students could read and understand. In his book “Eros and Civilization,” he argued that by freeing sex from any restraints, we could elevate the pleasure principle over the reality principle and create a society with no work, only play (Marcuse coined the phrase, “Make love, not war”). Marcuse also argued for what he called “liberating tolerance,” which he defined as tolerance for all ideas coming from the Left and intolerance for any ideas coming from the Right. In the 1960s, Marcuse became the chief “guru” of the New Left, and he injected the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School into the baby boom generation, to the point where it is now America’s state ideology.

The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism. Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. It has already made vast strides toward that goal. But if the average American found out that Political Correctness is a form of Marxism, different from the Marxism of the Soviet Union but Marxism nonetheless, it would be in trouble. The next conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - - old Karl Marx himself.

(The Free Congress Foundation’s website, www.freecongress.org, includes a short book on the history and nature of cultural Marxism, edited by William S. Lind. It is formatted so you can print it out as a book and share it with your family and friends.)

Read More

Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church

Source

Book Description

Publication Date: May 1, 2002

Goodbye, Good Men provides the real story behind the sex scandal currently rocking the Catholic church. Investigative reporter Michael Rose has conducted countless interviews and exhaustive research to uncover several out-of-control seminaries as the root cause of the scandal.

While most pundits and critics are calling for liberalization of the Church in the wake of these scandals, Rose presents compelling evidence that liberal influence is the very cause of the crisis. The revelations in Goodbye, Good Men will shock the nation and ignite a firestorm of debate on the subject.

From Library Journal

Written shortly before the current scandal broke upon the Roman Catholic Church, Rose's book seems almost prophetic as he documents the systematic rejection of pious, orthodox seminary applicants in many dioceses and the encouragement of questionable attitudes and agendas.

Rose (Ugly As Sin), who was editor of St. Catherine Review for seven years, is the author of numerous articles, essays, and books that question the wisdom of contemporary liberal Catholicism. Here, he discusses the causes of the chronic priest shortage, including the misuse of psychological screening and what appears to be blatant discrimination against the kind of young men who were once considered ideal candidates for the vocation.

He gives a disturbing glimpse behind the scenes that may go far in explaining the church's present difficulties. Based primarily on interviews, the book is carefully footnoted and contains a bibliography of sources cited and consulted. Highly recommended for anyone interested in this prominent topic, and for public and academic libraries. C. Robert Nixon, MLS, Lafayette, IN
Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

Review

"Absolutely astonishing... This bombshell book reveals a seminary underworld in which homosexual promiscuity is rampant."

Read More

Media Manipulation – Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism Exposed

Source

Kyle Rogers from Examiner.Com deserves major credit for having the fortitude and courage to track, investigate, research and write about something the media refuses to discuss. Hate Crimes. Specifically, Black Hate Crimes. Kyle even assembles an interactive map of the known hate crimes from the month of May. This is a must read for any Truth Seeker willing to confront the rabid and insufferable culture of political correctness.

Over the past couple years major media bosses have publicly admitted to censoring black crime. Editors from the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, New York Times, and the Associated Press have all publicly confessed to censoring black crime. Recently I’ve personally been able to obtain statements from two media outlets admitting they have a policy of censoring black crime. This includes the Newark Star-Ledger and WYFF, the Greenville, SC NBC affiliate.

This censorship is all about politicizing the news. In 2007 the LA Times made an official statement saying that accurately reporting crime would “unfairly stigmatize racial groups.” In other words, politically correctness trumps public safety. This censorship is most blatant when the crime involves a black perpetrator and a white victim. Especially if racial hatred was a motive.

Since the media frenzy over Trayvon Martin, there have been a few sizable public scandals over the censorship of black on white crime. A few major media outlets have discussed the censorship of black on white crime including World Net Daily, The Blaze, Daily Caller, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly. However, as I am about to show you, the censorship has not slowed down.

for an interactive map CLICK HERE

The month of May appears to have been a particularly bad month for black on white crime. The most shocking examples are two major crimes committed in foreign countries by black American’s working overseas.

A white Irish tourist was murdered after attending an American rap concert in Japan. Two black Americans working for the tour have been arrested. James Blackston, the main suspect, is a backup dancer for Nicki Minaj. An employee of the tour videotaped the backup dancer menacing elderly Japanese people on a train the day before the concert. The murder was a major news story in Japan and Ireland, but not the United States.

Four days after the murder in Japan, black members of the US Airforce participated in a racial mob attack on some white Australian soldiers outside a bar in Sydney. Video shows seven or more black men assaulting three white men. One of the attackers is using his belt as a whip. Two of the perps were arrested at the scene and discovered to be members of the US Airforce.

It seems that black on white crime is so widespread and common that the US is actually exporting it to foreign countries.

Two particularly heinous public murders occurred in London, England. On May 20th, a large black mob viciously attacked a father and son at random in a crowded area. The son was beaten to death. On May 9th, a black mob pursued a white family as they left a tavern. The father was stabbed to death in front of his daughter on her birthday. In both cases, there is no doubt that racial hatred was the sole motivation for the murders. Racially motivated violence against white people is not limited to the United States. It is common in Britain and Western Europe as well.

I found numerous black on white murders that occurred during the month of May, where little if anything was stolen. In each case, the murder was a thrill killing in which the victim was probably targeted because they were white.

In Dallas, TX, Portland, OR, and Santa Cruz, CA, very attractive white females were stabbed to death in public places by black males. All three were random. In Schereville, IL another very attractive white female was attacked at random and strangled to death right in front of her apartment. In Jonestown, MS, a rural all black village, a white nun was the victim of a near fatal stabbing. She had been helping the local black community for decades and someone stabbed her for the fun of it.

In Atlantic City, NJ a black female fatally stabbed two Asian women in a thrill killing. She laughed about the killings in court.

In northwestern Mississippi, a black suspect was arrested for murdering two whites at random. Police believe the suspect would have continued killing more white people if he not been caught. If the races had been reversed, this would have been a major national news story. Instead it was just a local Mississippi story.

When an American Indian and a white accomplice killed three blacks in Tulsa, it was the biggest news story in the entire Western world. I talked to one woman who watched it on the news in Finland. Ask yourself why the racially motivated killings of two white people by a black man is only a minor local story.

There was a particularly cruel attempted murder in Garland, TX that would have been the biggest news story in the North America had the races been reversed. A black man robbed a gas station. After getting the money, he doused the 76 year old white female clerk with gasoline and set her fire. The woman was horrifically burned and almost died. The perp torched her purely for the fun of it. The media aggressively censored this heinous crime. It only received minor local coverage and most outlets censored the race of the victim.

Young white males were shot and killed, at random while sitting in their cars, by black males in Kannapolis, NC and St. Louis, MO. In Kansas City, MO a sixty year old white man was shot at random, while jogging, by two black male suspects. Another young white man asked a black man for directions near Atlanta, Georgia. Police say the black man shot and killed him for the fun of it. Another US soldier was killed at random by two black suspects near Fort Campbell, KY.

In Smyrna, GA a white Marine Corps veteran was invited to an all black party by a co-worker. After he got there, he was chased out and beaten to death by a black mob. If the races had been reversed, this would be made of tv movie material. Instead it was only a tiny blip in the local news.

The month of May also saw widespread racially motivated mob attacks against white people. Baltimore, Newark, and New York City saw multiple attacks each. There were also mob attacks in Denver, CO, Coral Springs, FL, Sacramento, CA, Tampa Bay, FL, and Saint Louis, MO.

You can rest assured that many more violent black on white crimes occurred in the month of May that were not mentioned in this article. Ask yourself how many of these victims would have received national media attention if they were black and the perpetrator was white?

It is time to put real pressure on the so-called “mainstream” media to accurately report crime. US Attorney General Eric Holder says that white people who won’t talk about race are “cowards.” So let’s give Holder what he wants and start speaking up. (visit article)

Read More

Is US President Barack Obama a Christian?

Source

You asked Satan. In fact, everyone wants to know. Two news articles recently raised the question, and, in fact, answered it. First was an AP article entitled, “Obama makes rare trip to church while in Hawaii,” and, second, a Politics Daily article entitled, “Obama Tries to Reassert His Christian Bona Fides, With Words and Deeds.”

Hmmmm. . .

Question: If you have to wonder if someone is a Christian, guess what is the likely answer?

Ha ha ha ha ha. And you are probably right!

But since you asked, here is my short answer: I don’t know (for sure).

Surprised? You shouldn’t be. Unlike God (Blechhh!) I am not omniscient. I don’t know everything, and I cannot see into people’s hearts and minds and determine the state of their spiritual health. In this respect I am no different than you; I can only infer from what I see and hear.

Of course, I have much more experience judging inner conviction by outward evidence, so here is my longer answer:

For the most part I judge a man’s heart the same way God does and you should: by the fruit of his life on earth.

But I have been known to be wrong. On more than one occasion someone I felt sure I would welcome through the gates of Hell went the other way, never to be seen by me again. But more often than not I see those who appear to be religious on earth, going through all the right motions and acting the saint, only to find them come tumbling into my eternal domain, moaning and groaning and acting surprised.

Often I hear the earthly self-righteous screaming pitifully: “But Jesus, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?” It seems there are many fools who do not believe in God, and many fooled who do!

Of course, I have helped make both the fools and the fooled.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

I have spread many lies on earth about how to get to heaven. I have spread the lie that one need not be a Christian at all; there are many paths to God as long as one is good and believes in love. I have spread the lie that one “need not go to church” to be a good Christian. I have spread the lie that going to church makes one a good Christian. I have spread the lie that good works alone will get one to heaven, and calling oneself a Christian is a mere label and nothing else. I have spread the lie that belief systems that deny the deity of Christ are Christian.

Lies, lies, lies. Ha ha ha ha ha. And so many believe my lies and believe themselves to be Christians.

But the biggest lie of all is that man can make God in his own image, so that becoming a “Christian” is an exercise in semantics, where one’s self-identification as a Christian is deemed sufficient for the actual fact of being a Christian, and God otherwise is molded to be what man wishes him to be.

In fact, a Christian is a very unique being on earth. A Christian is one who has been reborn spiritually, becoming alive and free, having escaped by God’s grace from my death, sin, and destruction. That is why I hate Christians. They have experienced a supernatural work of God in their hearts, a work that I am powerless to stop and which bears fruit in one’s actions that I am equally at pains to stop.

One can fake the actions, but one can’t fake the rebirth.

Sometimes the fakers fool even me. So that is why I hesitate to declare definitively on Obama’s Christianity. But let me tell you what it looks like from my view.

I have many hundreds of years watching human beings, and watching Christians. I almost always know a true Christian. A true Christian has a humble dependence on God that is expressed unambiguously in word and deed, in public and in private. A true Christian has experienced a life-changing encounter with a living God that results in the Christian’s trading slavery to sin for slavery to righteousness; that is, a true Christian seeks to live every moment of every day in regenerated righteous obedience to God as revealed in his word, the Bible.

A true Christian is not one who merely self-identifies as one. An unregenerate self-identifier is merely a lying sinner.

A true Christian seeks to destroy my kingdom. And his words and actions make his intentions clear. I oppose true Christians at every turn, seeking to thwart their every effort at advancing God’s kingdom on earth.

Now, answer me this: would a true Christian cover up Christian symbols while speaking at a Christian university? Obama did.

Would a true Christian vote unambiguously and without apology for laws that make killing an innocent human being legal? Obama did. More than once.

Would a true Christian refer to people in communities as bitter, and as clinging to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them”? Obama did.

Would a true Christian support the homosexual political agenda, in clear opposition to Biblical Christianity? Obama does.

Would a true Christian support same-sex marriage, for example by using tax dollars to fund same-sex lifestyles? Obama did.

Would a true Christian “forget” to include the reference to a “creator” when quoting his nation’s founding document’s most famous line? Obama does. Repeatedly.

Would a true Christian “forget” his nation’s own motto of “In God We Trust” and quote a different motto instead in a major speech to Muslims? Obama did.

I could go on forever (literally!).

But think for yourself, my servants. You can see the same behavior I see. What you may lack is a clear understanding of what a Christian is.

But if you rationally juxtapose what a true Christian looks like with what Obama looks like, there is only one reasonable answer to the question “Is Obama a Christian.”

From my viewpoint, the answer is clearly no. And I back my words up with actions; I rarely find myself needing to oppose a speech, a vote, a policy, or any other action of President Obama’s.

But I have been known to be wrong.

Read More