The agenda is exactly the same all over the Western World: make people feel afraid of expressing opinions that are “off-message”. It’s globalism; global tyranny. It is just developing at slightly different speeds depending on the success of the opposition by decent, aware people. The threats to our freedoms – very basic freedoms, at that – are increasing all the time, as evidenced by this story: Footballer sacked over homophobic tweet aimed at Gareth Thomas.

Mike Ford, manager of the Southern Football League Premier Division club, said the decision was taken in response to Steele tweeting about Thomas’s appearance in Celebrity Big Brother. Steele wrote: “I wouldn’t fancy the bed next to Gareth Thomas #padlockmyarse”.

And that is it. Out the dressing room door you go, Steele.

Ford told the BBC: “On this occasion Lee’s had to pay for his error of judgment. He’s made a homophobic comment, [but] that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s homophobic.”

But Mr Ford, manager of the diddy team playing three divisions down from the Football League, gives Steele no chance to make amends. He is an outcast and forced to wear a metaphorical yellow star in the football world.

Steele, 38, had a long career in the Football League playing for clubs including Shrewsbury, Oxford United and Leyton Orient, and was part of the Brighton squad that won the old Division Two in 2001-02.

Some careers end because of broken legs, illness and accidents. Mr Ford ended Lee Steele’s career because of a quip on the internet.

Reacting to the sacking, the Justin Campaign against homophobia in football said: “While it is never pleasing to see someone lose a position in a club or company, we fully applaud the club’s decision to terminate the player’s contract.

Fancy that; no mercy from the ‘gay’ lobby. No calls for a bit of common sense and sense of proportion. They don’t even realise that to show forgiveness and clemency would further their aims no end.

“For far too long homophobic comments like the ones Steele made have been defended using the erroneous argument that such remarks as simply harmless ‘banter’. However, we no longer accept racist ‘banter’, and likewise, we must never accept homophobic ‘banter’.

To help answer that tired old comparison with racism, and other points, I will turn to this interesting analysis on the Guardian Watch blog entitled, Homophobia – The Gays’ Secret Weapon.

The writer has some sympathy for the club’s position, but then states,

So for the footballer in this case to be sacked for expressing what is a very very common feeling amongst straight men [‘latent homosexual tendencies’], especially straight men who find themselves in environments surrounded by other men, such as football, seems incredibly unfair. He was basically sacked for being a man!

I think this tells us exactly what is going on – and deserves to be in bold text:

This increased use of ‘homophobia’ as a ‘criminal’ offence is all part of the Big Gay Project. Again as Simpson has so clearly explained (back in 1996 in his book Anti Gay for example), the ‘gay’ identity has developed in part through the development of the concept of ‘homophobia’:
‘So, in the As [After Stonewall] epoch, homosexuality, with its nasty medicinal odour, was now an increasingly redundant term. Instead, ‘homo-phobia’, a word with a nasty medicinal odour, was coined to explain the origins of the obviously mentally imbalanced idea that gay wasn’t good. While the innocent BS [Before Stonewall] homosexual was the victim of pathologisation and prejudice, the guilty AS [After Stonewall]  homophobe was obviously deserving of pathologisation and prejudice. ‘

Now onto the comparison with ‘ racism’:

I find this conflation of racism with homophobia troubling, in part for the reasons I have stated above. If ‘homo-anxiety’ and ‘latent homosexuality’ are in fact an aspect of nearly all men, then ‘homophobia’ does not relate to an ‘other’, separate from the ‘homophobe’ as racism does.

However, there are ways in which ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ DO function in similar ways as discourses. The ‘born this way’ version of gay identities suggests that being ‘gay’, like having a certain skin colour, or being from a certain place, is innate, natural, fixed. But, as is often the case with identity politics there is an irony here. It is, in part, using Simpson’s ideas,  this ‘fixed, natural, innate’ gay identity that enables ‘homophobia’ to exist.  Without ‘homophobia’ ‘gay’ may not be here at all, and this is why gays use ‘homophobia’ so strategically in their crusades.

As James Baldwin has put it so eloquently:

“People invent categories in order to feel safe. White people invented black people to give white people identity. . . . Straight cats invented faggots so they could sleep with them without becoming faggots themselves.”

– James Baldwin to Nikki Giovanni

I might add to that statement – ‘faggots invented homophobia so they could continue to exist as a distinct identity group in an ever-changing world’.

So if we want to get rid of homophobia (and indeed racism, for whilst skin colour is something we are born with, the ‘black’ or ‘white’ identity is not), we need to challenge the categories on which it is based. And that means challenging the notion of a ‘gay’ identity, especially challenging the idea that ‘gay’ is particularly special, particularly oppressed, and particularly, to use Simpson’s word: ‘fabby’.

I don’t know where the writer gets the idea that ‘homo-anxiety’ and ‘latent homosexuality’ are an aspect of most men; it would be interesting to read any believable research. Certainly, there has been a major shift in what is considered normal and acceptable behaviour. As the writer indicates, homosexuality was the mental illness of the past, but now not thinking that ‘gay’ is good is considered its replacement clinical condition.

The extra danger now to freedom is that once something has been labelled a mental condition, it makes it easier for ‘dissenting’ individuals to be abused by the state, as happened in the USSR:

Soviet psychiatric hospitals were used by the authorities as prisons in order to isolate hundreds or thousands of political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. This method was also employed against religious prisoners and most especially against well-educated former atheists who adopted a religion. In such cases their religious faith was determined to be a form of mental illness that needed to be cured.

Many people wonder why one or two percent of the population has so much influence in how our society is evolving, or rather, being re-engineered, but in my opinion the main reasons for the promotion of homosexuality are these:

1) as a divide and rule tactic;

2) for the weakening of traditional family life, society’s basic unit of strength;

3) as one part of the agenda to erode the West’s moral values and culture;

4) to aid in the control of thought and speech.

It has nothing to do with equality, fairness and justice and everything to do with control of the masses. The Tories promised to reverse this madness of political correctness, but it keeps marching on. Of course it does; they are party to it. They wouldn’t be allowed to form a government if they weren’t keen as mustard. It’s a global phenomenon. It’s also surely one of the reasons we didn’t get our EU referendum. The EU is one of PC’s major steering groups and 27 countries are subject to its diktats, so that isn’t something the globalists will sit idly by and watch disintegrating if they can avoid it.

Trafford Housing Trust - building towards a future without opinions... or flowerpots.

You might remember the story of Colin Atkinson from a few months ago. He is the 64 year-old former soldier who ended up in serious trouble from his employers, Wakefield and District Housing (WDH), for keeping a palm cross on his company van’s dashboard.

Now another Christian, Adrian Smith, who works for another housing trust, Trafford Council and Trafford Housing Trust, has been demoted, with a 40% pay cut, for stating on his own personal Facebook page that ‘gay church marriages’ are “a step too far”. Apparently, the only reason he wasn’t sacked is because of his eighteen years of service.

We are becoming a nation of informants:

Mr Smith was disciplined after a second colleague complained to the Trust’s ‘equality and diversity lead’, Helen Malone.

A few days later, Mr Smith was summoned from his home to a meeting at the Trust’s headquarters in Sale, where he was told he was being suspended while the complaint was investigated.

He was warned that even though his Facebook page could be viewed only by registered friends, rather than by the general public, those readers included colleagues who had taken issue with his comments.

Perhaps there is more to this story than meets the eye. It seems his ‘friends’ and colleagues were ganging up on him and perhaps using his rather unassuming comments as an excuse to get rid of someone they don’t like. If he was homosexual and being bullied and harassed, it would have been a totally different matter. One phone call to Stonewall would have left his bosses and colleagues panic-stricken.

A shocked Mr Smith, who managed a team looking after local housing issues, immediately removed the reference to where he worked from the page.

Why remove it? I have a feeling that allowing yourself to be cowed by these creeps will be seen as a sign of weakness. The Trust has 350 employees. Many of these will likely share Mr Smith’s beliefs and most will be afraid to speak out. And I hope those who grassed him up don’t get too complacent, or they could also find themselves the subject of a witch hunt if they are caught uttering a non-PC opinion (if they are capable). I would not have too many drinks at the office Christmas party if I was them. The walls probably have ears. (They will probably have a ‘Winterval’ party, of course, so as not to ’cause offence’.)

The following month he was called to a disciplinary meeting before Mike Corfield, the Trust’s Assistant Director, Customers. Although Mr Smith was allowed to put his case, insiders described the meeting as ‘tense and fraught’.

I can imagine. He would likely have been made to feel like scum by his interrogators. Like there was something wrong with him.

According to legal documents lodged at Manchester County Court, Debbie Gorman, a ‘neighbourhood manager’ also at the meeting, said Mr Smith’s comment could cause offence.

Indeed. A comment could ’cause offence’ but that is sometimes the price we pay to have freedom of speech. The alternative is far, far worse.

But because of his loyal service, Mr Smith was instead demoted to money support adviser, handling rent collection. His pay was reduced to £21,396, phased in over a year, and he was given a final written warning.

Mr Smith’s solicitor has said that, ‘Nothing he said was offensive or abusive. His comments were calm, measured and reasonable.

That doesn’t matter anymore. Freedom of speech has gone. You will comply – because someone, somewhere might be offended, especially when there’s money to be made.

‘Adrian has been treated disproportionately. Even those who disagree with his opinions will surely agree that he has been treated badly.’

I doubt it, actually. Some people are too far removed from reality now.

Last year, the Trust, which employs 360 staff, was awarded a ‘quality mark’ from a gay support group for its work training staff in recognising homophobic hate crime.

But it has also angered a number of elderly residents by ordering them to remove garden benches and flower pots from outside their flats for health-and-safety reasons.

Yes, they are clearly drugged up on a heady cocktail of political correctness gone mad and health and safety taken to insane extremes.

This is the future for everyone if this nonsense isn’t dealt with once and for all. David Cameron promised to end this sort of persecution, but as we know, he is a joker who has actually meted out similar treatment to some of his party members. It is no exaggeration to compare what is happening in the UK and EU to China and Soviet Russia. Clearly, it won’t just be Christians who will be browbeaten, but eventually, everyone but the most mindless drones will be forced to conceal their true feelings. For example, there are some people who want criticism of the EU to be a criminal offence. That would probably make criminals of the majority of the British people at the moment, but imagine it being an actual crime. How many detractors would remain?

One thing is for sure: I will never be employed by a housing trust. Nor would I want to be.

This video was uploaded to the Scottish Government’s YouTube channel the other day. It is an obvious piece of propaganda ahead of the ‘gay marriage’ consultation. Salmond’s first words are,

In Scotland, we want to celebrate the diverse communities that make our country great.

Firstly, is Scotland still great? Secondly, what made Scotland great was hard work, ambitious geniuses, being part of a strong and independent United Kingdom and having a broadly Judeo-Christian culture. Each of these has been on the way out for some time now, not just in Scotland, but throughout what was once called Christendom.

Now, apparently, what makes us “great” are “diverse communities”.

Of course, the SNP, in common with all the other main parties in Britain, wants us to celebrate homosexuality, Islam and being a member of the European Union. That’s about where diversity worth “celebrating” begins and ends for our politicians. Protestants and Catholics in Scotland are certainly not supposed to celebrate their own cultures. That’s “sectarianism” aka “Scotland’s Shame”. I don’t have any time for the chants at Old Firm matches, but now the SNP are starting to tread on very dangerous ground as they try to obliterate all signs of this “sectarianism” at football matches, which may include banning the sign of the cross from the Celtic End and the singing of “God Save The Queen” by Rangers fans.

I suppose congratulations are in order for Alex Salmond, as he has united Catholic and Protestant against him!

And leaders of the Catholic Church in Scotland have been speaking out against “gay marriage”. The Bishop of Paisley, Philip Tartaglia, has said that a Scottish government which backed same-sex marriage did not deserve the support of the Catholic community.

Even the Free Church of Scotland has spoken out in praise of the Roman Catholic Church’s stance on homosexual ‘marriage’ – Proddy and Tim standing shoulder to shoulder to fight the evils of government. I could get to like this ‘diversity’ lark after all!

At the end of his little propaganda piece, I was left wondering how much Stonewall had paid Salmond, or if he was chasing the coveted Stonewall Politician of the Year Award at the annual ceremony in three weeks’ time. He isn’t short-listed, but after a speech like that, basically asking the rest of us to try to fit in around homosexuality, I’m sure he could be shoehorned in.

You would think that a Scottish bunch operating out of Edinburgh would be more sensible and independently-minded than Westminster and Brussels, but they share exactly the same agenda: pretending that unity can come from diversity. Even many on the ‘left’ now admit that multiculturalism has been a failure.

Salmond talks of independence and plans a referendum to try to achieve it – and will allow 16 year-olds to vote in it to give him a better chance of winning – but Scotland could never be free with him at the helm, because he complies with every politically correct agenda on the planet.

Perhaps Salmond has an even more sinister motivation? Should he be successful in securing an independent Scotland, we would probably not gain automatic membership to the European Union, so appearing more PC than Brussels would shower him in brownie points.

Here is the Consultation on same-sex ‘marriage’. The SNP have already said that they want it to happen, so let’s make it as difficult as possible for them to re-engineer society to the detriment of the vast majority. Salmond, like Stonewall, talks about bullying to try to persuade us to accept the homosexual agenda lock, stock and barrel. I don’t approve of bullying, period. Bullying is not the issue, so let us not be fooled or made to feel guilty.

And for the UK as a whole, there is another consultation on same-sex ‘marriage’. We can stop the rot, but time is running out and work needs to be done. Thankfully, there are some people in the SNP with their heads screwed on correctly.

MSP John Mason tabled a motion which was supported by three other SNP MSPs  and which stated that no person or organisation should be forced to be involved or to approve of same-sex marriage.

The former SNP leader Gordon Wilson has called for a referendum and warned that same-sex marriage could have “extremely destructive consequences” for Scotland. Mr Wilson, now chairman of the Christian faith group, Solas, co-wrote a nine-page submission to the Scottish Government’s public consultation with Solas director, the
Rev David Robertson, in which they accused Alex Salmond’s government of pursuing a “harmful” shake-up of the country’s marriage laws and warned that pressing ahead with the proposals could be a danger to Scotland and that the legalisation of same-sex marriages was “an assault on Christian values” and warned that it could lead to “social disintegration” and “sexual confusion.”

Mr Wilson went on to claim that MSPs backing gay marriage would be showing “cowardice, injustice and folly”.

He said: “This is of such a destructive nature to Scottish society that, rather than leaving the decision to a group of MSPs (who themselves are very susceptible to the threats to their careers and positions of political and media lobbying), this decision should be put to a referendum of the Scottish people.

“We are concerned at the way this issue is being used to demonise and attack Christianity, whilst at the same time being used to reshape and change society in a way which we believe is ultimately harmful.

There are other SNP politicians who have stood up and been shouted down by colleagues (in other parties too) who hate free speech. There is clearly a lot of opposition to the idea of marriage being so drastically redefined in Scotland, so nobody should feel afraid of the bullies who would silence us. Nobody.

We used to lead the world in industry and invention, literature and exploration, but now all that our castrated politicians can think of making Britain world leaders in is unholy matrimony.

This is an illustration of what happens when a culture descends into hedonism: pleasures and comforts take over from hard work and genuine family life and child-raising. Time starts running out for that society. Already, the fertility rate of British women is below the replacement figure. We are literally becoming extinct!

The Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone announced at the LibDem Conference yesterday that,

…in March, this Government will begin a formal consultation on equal civil marriage for same-sex couples.

This would allow us to make any legislative changes before the end of this Parliament.

We will be working closely with all those who have an interest in the area to understand their views ahead of the formal consultation.

I replied,

I “have an interest in the area”. A very great interest. Marriage is between one man and one woman. This is the definition and always has been and no government has the legitimacy to change the meaning.

Changing the definition of ‘marriage’ will have a wide-ranging influence on the rest of society. Marriage has been getting undermined for the past few decades to the point where the majority of British children are now born out of wedlock.

This obviously has a destabilising effect on society and legitimising same-sex unions will add to the devaluing of marriage in people’s minds and increase problems in the community.

I urge you to consider the views of everyone in this country because a change of this magnitude effects everyone.

And I really do urge everyone to get involved, because this is not just a matter for homosexuals, this is a massive shift in society’s value system being proposed and will affect us all. Marriage will be further devalued and communities will become more fragmented. Your children will be subjected to homosexual propaganda at school and in the media on an unprecedented scale.

Apparently, “the Government has indicated it is committed to changing the law to allow gay marriage (sic) by 2015″ So, like the Scottish bunch, they appear to have made their decision even before the consultation process has started.

That’s “democracy” for you.

Ms Featherstone continues,

The consultation will only cover civil marriage for same sex couples – not religious marriage.

For now. As I wrote a fortnight ago, Tory MP (yes, Tory MP) Mike Weatherley has written to David Cameron and seems to be suggesting that churches that refuse to bless the union of man and man/woman and woman should forfeit the right to perform all marriages.

But like everything else, it’s salami tactics at play. Homosexuality was legalised for two people over 21 in private. Then it was 18; then 16. Civil Partnerships were introduced. And when Section 28 was done away with, we were assured that it would not lead to homosexuality being promoted to children. Now, Stonewall sends out its propaganda on DVD to every school in the country and teachers even encourage primary school children to wear frocks to ‘discover their feminine side’.

Imagine the new levels of child abuse they will be permitted to get away with if same-sex ‘marriage’ is legalised.

When societies descend into hedonism and decadence and throw morality out the window, they decline – and that’s why ‘gay marriage’ is unknown in history as far as I am aware.

Rulers and governments weren’t THAT naive in the past.

The consultation paper can be downloaded from here (pdf). It is quite lengthy and the actual questionnaire starts at page 35. The consultation period ends early December, but if you have an interest in preserving some vestige of decency in our society, please don’t leave it too late to get involved. This won’t just affect Scotland; it will end up spreading to the rest of the UK (like the smoking ban did). We all ought to know by now that these things are part of a global agenda.

These are the two basic discussion points raised by Nicola Sturgeon MSP, who is Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy,

…on the possibility of allowing religious ceremonies for civil partnerships and the possible introduction of same sex marriage.

We are assured that,

This Government believes in religious tolerance and the freedom to worship. We also believe in equality and diversity.

Sounds nice and cosy, doesn’t it; like everyone is catered for? The reality is that the two are sometimes incompatible and friction is created and people are made to do things against their will or face the consequences, so that, for example, if a B&B owner’s conscience doesn’t permit him to rent double beds to a couple of homosexuals, instead of those people simply acknowledging that others have different beliefs (isn’t diversity supposed to be a good thing?) and booking into alternative accommodation, they take the hump at being ‘offended’ and cause trouble.

And what exactly does it mean to ‘believe in diversity’? Obviously, it has to be an approved kind of diversity, as we have seen too many times already.

I haven’t read the whole document (yet), but here is a statement from Nicola Sturgeon which jumped out at me from the BBC’s article;

“However, we are aware that for religious reasons, some faith groups and celebrants may not want to solemnise same-sex marriages, and that is why we are making it clear that they should not be obliged to do so.”

An honest approach would have been to admit that many (not some) faith groups will not (not may not want to) solemnise these same-sex ‘marriages’.

But despite her insistence that they “should not be obliged to do so,” this question appears on the Consultation:

Question 14

Do you agree that religious bodies should not be required to solemnise same sex marriage?

In other words, mob rule may end up determining how groups and individuals are allowed to behave in matters of conscience. The logical conclusion is that this country will end up having a few state-registered churches (the ones that go along with the government) and all the others will be driven underground, just like in China.

That’s what will happen here if this agenda continues. In a sinister development, Tory MP (yes, Tory MP) Mike Weatherley has written to David Cameron and seems to be suggesting that churches that refuse to bless the union of man and man/woman and woman should forfeit the right to perform all marriages.

“Gay Rights” always was about changing the definition of marriage. Those early gay liberation militants knew this had to happen if their way of life was to have any chance of being considered equal to heterosexual unions. What is surprising is that so many people now support the obliteration of normality and destruction of society (destruction is inevitable if the basic building blocks – families – are weakened). That’s the power of an infiltrated media for you.

If same sex marriage goes ahead then schoolchildren will be subjected to even more propaganda from the likes of Stonewall, who are already encouraging youngsters to wear frocks to help them discover their ‘feminine side’.

How much worse are we going to let our society become just to allow homosexuals, a very small minority, to feel that their abnormal behaviour is normal?

That is all this is about, after all – but dressed up as some great crusade for equality.

That consultation paper lists the countries where same-sex marriage is already legal:

List of jurisdictions which have established same sex marriage

Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Iceland
Mexico (Mexico City only but recognised throughout Mexico)
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
United States (some states only)

Each of these countries has very serious problems due to their increasingly liberal ‘values’ and multiculturalism.

The warning is there. Some people will laugh, of course. Some people will call me names, of course. Some people will ignore the warnings from history, of course.

To these people, all I can say is, “Don’t say I didn’t warn you.”

Consider this. Can you think of any culture in any part of the world at any time pre-1990 which allowed two people of the same sex to get “married” and be legally recognised as such?

Were they all ‘homophobic’ or is there a very good reason for not accepting hedonistic, barren lifestyles as normal for the good of the tribe?

UPDATE 9.0PM – I had also intended to make this point – if same-sex “marriage” is approved, some people will be calling for civil partnerships to be extended to included heterosexual couples. Needless to say that this would weaken the institution of marriage, and therefore society, even further.

This has to be one of the saddest sights in the world, indicating a union of two people of the same sex who are settling for a fake life together, denying themselves the joy of true marriage, children and grandchildren.

Just to prove that the SNP are as keen to follow the same agendas as the Lib/Lab/Con Party on support for the European Union and love of social re-engineering, talk of “gay marriage” is in the air north of the Border. And just like in those other parties, people who express an opinion contrary to these agendas are portrayed as being fruit loops. People like me who argue (reasonably) calmly and logically are the “nutters” while those who try to shout down people with opposing views by calling them names and demanding they shut up and apologise, are standing proudly atop the moral high ground.

Yes, all the usual names have been trotted out for people like Dunfermline MSP, Bill Walker, who signed fellow SNP MSP John Mason’s motion against marriage being redefined in Scotland. And those names are the same ones I have been called: “bigot”, “homophobic” and accusations of living “in the Dark Ages”.

Sodom and Gomorrah were millennia before the Dark Ages, so just who is living in the past here?

Subrosa writes,

Divisions within the SNP have called Mr Mason’s objection ‘a nasty little anti-gay marriage motion’ – and that comment was from my own MP Pete Wishart.

She is concerned that should gay “marriage” become legal in Scotland, Mr Mason’s motion may be needed to protect clergy who do not want to perform ceremonies for same-sex unions. She writes,

What right has anyone, unless they are members of a particular church, to demand a minister or any other religious person, carry out a service?  None. If they’re not a paid up member then they can’t complain.

This isn’t just about redefining marriage and therefore society as a whole, but making churches conform and denying all people the right to act on their conscience.

When Labour were in national government, they engaged in a campaign of degeneration of society while condemning anyone who held traditional views, i.e. often the majority. It is therefore not surprising that Labour MP Thomas Docherty wrote a letter to Alex Salmond about Bill Walker’s comments and said to the First Minister,

break your silence on the despicable and disgusting comments.

Mr Docherty then claimed that Mr Salmond had gone mental when they discussed the issue at the opening of a new school. But it seems to have backfired on the intolerant Labour MP,

Councillor Douglas Chapman (SNP), chair of Fife education committee, said,

Any suggestion that Mr Salmond lost his temper is absolutely incorrect.

I was in the room along with guests and senior council officers and nothing untoward happened, other than Mr Docherty’s approach was totally inappropriate given that the focus of the visit was making children feel really proud of their new school.

In fact, most people in the room were unaware of any supposed incident and Mr Docherty and his press office are guilty of pure fiction. If anything, it was Mr Docherty’s inappropriate approach to Mr Salmond that was aggressive and the First Minister’s response was a model of restraint.

Mr Docherty’s childish behaviour was questionable in raising a political issue at the opening of a new school, which was a day for the proud pupils, parents and teachers.

Mr Docherty then left – presumably to prepare his fantasy press release – and didn’t even have the good grace to stay to share the day with the children.

These actions will be seen by many of his constituents as being not only juvenile and inappropriate but wholly crass and opportunistic.

There seems to be a feeling among the general population that “gay marriage” won’t affect them at all. I disagree, because there are sound reasons why homosexual activity has been a taboo throughout the world, as it is detrimental to the tribe as a whole.

And when homosexuality becomes accepted, that society naturally suffers the decline that comes with hedonism. As I wrote on Leg-iron’s coverage of the subject,

The sort of society children grow up in will define that society when they are in charge (or think and act like they are in charge).

The resulting sexual ‘revolution’ (of all sorts) has caused all manner of social breakdown in the West.

Naturally, this affects us all.

And it does in so many ways. Changes in society’s norms have seen the need for many more houses, which has resulted in a shortage and house prices and rents going through the roof. It is not just financially that social re-engineering is costing everyone, but through intolerance and rudeness, fear and crime and the attitude of the police.

A marriage is between man and woman. God declared it. The human anatomy confirms it. Healthy societies need healthy relationships for them to flourish.

This is not me being a “bigoted Nazi homophobe,” but a realist. If marriage is redefined, it will weaken society even further. We will all pay for it even more.

Counter-culture, or specially manufactured to effect social change?

After a young friend “liked” Wiz Khalifa on Facebook, a foul-mouthed rapper who promotes drug use, I felt the need to “like” him myself so I could leave this comment on his page:

Here’s the deal – the government makes drugs illegal to hike up the price on the black market, then they ship in the drugs and their friends in the music industry hire artists to advertise their product.

Clever scam, isn’t it?

Don’t be conned, drugs are bad and the government wants you to take them. They don’t want you to be successful and smart. Tell them to stuff their drugs and be yourself.

That probably seems bizarre to people who have not been initiated into the workings of government. Did you know that opium production in Afghanistan is higher now than before the 2001 invasion?

And where does counter-culture come from? And how do so many big corporations profit from it? Because they basically control both sides. In the 1960s, drugs and “free love” (promiscuity) were introduced into the mainstream for a reason. The controlled music industry played a massive part in the situation we see today, where just over half of the babies born are to unmarried women and where divorce rates are off the radar screen.

The family was the target and the “counter-culture” – those hippies and peaceniks – were used as tools to basically jeopardise the stability and happiness of their own children and grandchildren for political reasons. And not their political objectives.

As Lenin said, “Destroy the family, you destroy the country.”

He also said, “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”

He knew that churches, like the family, had to be destroyed in order for the government to have total control. For the same reason, the family has been savagely attacked in the West and atheism is promoted at the same time as our Judeo-Christian traditions are being dismantled and our morals ridiculed for being “out-dated” or “discriminatory”.

The major piece of “counter-culture” that is feminism was manufactured, with CIA involvement, to fool women into believing that they could enjoy fun and power “having control over their own fertility”. Thanks to the usual culprits of government, the media and state education, feminist “values” have become more-or-less mainstream and have added to the problems we face as a society – by design. For many, the definition of abortion has changed from killing one’s unborn child to a woman’s right to control her own body. The rights of the husband, and particularly the human being getting wiped from the pages of history, are non-existent according to feminism.

One of the triumphs of the social re-engineers’ “rights” programme has been to make George Orwell’s “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” become reality.

Gay Rights probably really kicked off in the USA with the Stonewall riots in 1969, at the Stonewall Inn, in the Greenwich Village neighbourhood of New York. And this “blueprint” by homosexuals published in the 1980s, “The Overhauling Of Straight America,” was an agenda to infiltrate the media to portray homosexuals as harmless and denormalised, while painting those who disagreed with same-sex liaisons – i.e. the vast majority at the time – as bigots. They advocated the use of well known and effective propaganda techniques to “persuade” the masses to accept homosexual behaviour as normal and even to defend it. You can see how much of the programme has now been carried out and objectives achieved. It is well worth a read.

So, where are we now with music (or what is promoted as such)?

Well, we have this rapper clown Wiz Khalifa offering prizes on Facebook of roll-up papers for kids to make joints out of. He has over ten million “likes” which is very scary.

I think that what we witness is the music industry increasingly turning out a product which is designed to dumb down (via language and drug use) and sexualise (via language, body language and dress – or lack of), as well as encourage children to consider their parents to be out of touch, and like in the Soviet Union, the music industry’s program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism, so blasphemy becomes ‘cool’ because the rapper and hip hop artist say there ain’t no God.

I wouldn’t be surprised if “counter-culture” is more heavily controlled than the mainstream. How ironic is that? What the music industry certainly aims for is to have the people exactly where they want us at any given time.

Doublethink works, and has been an effective weapon in the globalists’ success in changing the way people think and behave.

“WAR IS PEACE”

The war in Afghanistan is to make us safer from terrorists – at the same time as allowing an unknown number of them to live here and turn their taxpayer-funded houses into bomb factories.

“FREEDOM IS SLAVERY”

Let the Government control your life, so you don’t have to bother.

“IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”

State education and indoctrination by the BBC since birth equips people to be experts on everything – in their own mind.

“Equality” and “Human Rights” thrive on doublethink – and hypocrisy – and, of course, the downright illogical. This is because an agenda has been set and the rules must fit, but made to look impartial.

So, when Trevor Phillips says that his Equality and Human Rights Commission will stand up for believers, anyone who knows anything about the man and his Ministry will instantly shudder. Or just laugh uncontrollably.

Just go.

Phillips starts by talking sense – these people need to talk some sense to be believable to even the most dimwitted prole. He talks about “fashionable atheism” and that “people of belief” feel that they are “under siege, that they are often disadvantaged, that they are looked at and considered in some way different and their faith makes them less worthy of regard.”

This is true, but of course, it is largely down to organisations like his, which he somehow has the nerve to deny.

He adds that, “There is a view that says religion is a private matter and it’s entirely a choice. I think that’s entirely not right.

I believe that the Christ died for me and that means a) spreading the Good News and b) trying to live as He directed. This means that keeping my faith private is not an option.

And why should it be in a free country?

The equality watchdog chairman said it would support believers who suffer discrimination because of their faith, and conceded there was a perception it had not done so in the past.

“That is slap bang in the middle of our anti-discriminatory work,” he said.

Are those guffaws I can hear? The man’s being serious.

“Being an Anglican, being a Muslim or being a Methodist or being a Jew is just as much part of your identity and you should not be penalised or treated in a discriminatory way because of that. That’s part of the settlement of a liberal democracy.

Did someone tell him that the UK is a liberal democracy? The correct definition is “constitutional monarchy”.

“Our business is defending the believer. The law we’re here to implement recognises that religious identity is an essential part of this society. It’s an essential element of being a fulfilled human being.

“My real worry is that there are people who may well feel they’re being treated unfairly because of their faith and who actually in fact may be being treated unfairly because of their faith but for some reason feel they can’t get our support in getting justice.”

I know you are waiting for the “buts” and here they are.

The quid pro quo for standing up for individual believers is that churches and faith groups have to fall into line with the views of wider society to keep their charitable status, Mr Phillips signalled.

Yes, we must “fall in line” just like other dictatorships insist upon.

“People are being confused about the right of the individual to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression and the freedoms of particular institutions or organisations.

And of course, it’s our old friend, homosexuality, which is at the centre:

Mr Phillips says that the refusal to allow Catholic adoption agencies an exemption from laws stating homosexual couples could not be discriminated against was even more clear cut.

“Catholic care was a clearer and simpler case. You’re offering a public service and you’re a charity and there are rules about how charities behave. You have to play by the rules. We can’t have a set of rules that apply to one group of people simply because they happen to think it’s right.”

No, a corrupt and discredited government agency now decides right and wrong and our freedom only extends as far as the choices they allow us.

Equality laws should not impinge on the way that religious institutions are run, Mr Phillips said – meaning gay bishops and women priests are not a matter for his watchdog.

“It’s perfectly fair that you can’t be a Roman Catholic priest unless you’re a man,” he said.

“It seems right that the reach of anti-discriminatory law should stop at the door of the church or mosque.

And yet it doesn’t. A church can get into trouble for not employing a homosexual as a youth leader.

Then Phillips starts losing the plot completely,

“At the moment the law says it [appointing openly gay bishops] is a matter for the Church of England. It’s probably right.

“I’m not keen on the idea of a church run by the state. I don’t think the law should run to telling churches how they should conduct their own affairs.”

A string of high-profile legal cases involving Christians who feel discriminated against because of objections to homosexuality may be fuelled by evangelical activists who are seeking political influence – not helping their religion – he warned.

“I think the most likely victim of actual religious discrimination in British society is a Muslim but the person who is most likely to feel slighted because of their religion is an evangelical Christian,” he said.

No, Phillips, it is about people who demand the right that others adhere to their standards on their property and the right to express their opinions without being arrested and to be able to adopt children without being forced to indoctrinate them with your PC garbage.

“There are a lot of Christian activist voices who appear bent on stressing the kind of persecution that I don’t think really exists in this country. There are some Christian organisations who basically want to have a fight and therefore they’re constantly defining the ground in such a way that anyone who doesn’t agree wholly agree with them about everything is essentially a messenger from Satan.

“I think for a lot of Christian activists, they want to have a fight and they choose sexual orientation as the ground to fight it on. I think that whole argument isn’t about the rights of Christians. It’s about politics. It’s about a group of people who really want to have weight and influence and they’ve chosen that particular ground.

Personally I don’t know why they don’t choose ground that really is defending Christian values. I wish they’d choose gambling or human trafficking or something.”

And we do, but we also defend other values, and our rights – including what we allow on our own property. That is a most essential part of liberty: for every citizen of this country.

in a highly provocative comment Mr Phillips said he believed Anglican and Catholic churches were seeing growing congregations from African and Carribean (sic) backgrounds with “old time” views which put them at odds with mainstream Britain.

“In the Christian and Muslim faiths migration has given some of the great faith institutions a massive shot in the arm,” he said.

“I come from that kind of community. We like our faith strong and pretty undiluted. If you come from an Afro-Caribbean Christian background the attitudes to homosexuality are unambiguous, they are undiluted, they are nasty and in some cases homicidal.

Now he is equating people who have traditional beliefs with murderers. YOU are the nasty one, Phillips, by a country mile. But I imagine that this is how you have kept your job for so long.

“I think there’s an awful lot of noise about the Church being persecuted but there is a more real issue that the conventional churches face that the people who are really driving their revival and success believe in an old time religion which in my view is incompatible with a modern, multi-ethnic, multicultural society.

And multiculturalism has been dismissed as a failure by most commentators, including himself. And anyway, the point of multiculturalism was that every “community” could get on with living the way it wanted.

“Muslim communities in this country are doing their damnedest to try to come to terms with their neighbours to try to integrate and they’re doing their best to try to develop an idea of Islam that is compatible with living in a modern liberal democracy.

40% of Muslim students want Sharia law in this country. I suggest that Phillips is confused and that they are actually more keen to integrate with Saudi Arabia or Iran. Everyone knows that Muslims are the least likely group to try to integrate. I don’t think it would be unfair at this stage to call Phillips an outrageous liar.

“One of the aspects of that is essentially saying ‘whatever we feel about matter of sexuality we’re going to have to deal with the fact that most of our neighbours, most of our children’s friends, most of our work mates have a broader, more liberal view and we just have to live with that’.

And we’re back to sexuality: where all roads seem to lead eventually and why I have written about it to such an extent. That is because the perceived rights of those who wish to live contrary to good morals and good health have been allowed to impinge upon the rights of everyone else in the name of “equality”.

“Integration is also about compromise and I think the reason you don’t hear a lot about that from Muslims is that they’re trying to find ways of being good Muslims in a way that is consistent with the society they’re living in.”

He is saying that Muslims are good and Christians are bad. Being willing to accept alternative sexualities seems to be his only yardstick to “integration” and he conveniently avoids the fact that Muslims generally are vehemently, sometimes violently, opposed to homosexual behaviour. Not only in traditional Muslim lands, but also in the UK, where whole areas have been declared “gay free zones“.

But they aren’t “old-time” traditional Christians, so he lets them off.

Because the Religion of Peace is beyond reproach. It’s all everyone else’s fault that they cannot get along like every other known group of people in this country.

I call for the sacking of Trevor Phillips. It should have happened years ago.

I wasn’t going to write about my latest round of exchanges with a certain malevolent homosexual – not yet, anyway – but I will mention it in the context of tonight’s planned “Kiss-in” at the John Snow pub in Soho.

On Wednesday night a woman claiming to be the landlady allegedly ordered two men in their twenties to leave the pub for kissing in the corner.

More than 400 people have pledged to join tonight’s demonstration, while 600 say they will attend a similar protest at the pub next Wednesday,

Attendees are being urged to order nothing more than tap water to prevent the bar making money.

The pub is in Soho, the heart of London’s gay scene.

So, basically, if you run a pub in the “gay” quarter, you have to be a “gay” bar or you get targeted. How very tolerant.

The couple said the woman and a man who said he was the landlord called them “obscene” before forcibly removing them from the pub.

Mr Williams tweeted: “Seven years in London & I’ve never been made to feel bad for being gay.45 mins ago the John Snow pub, W1F had me removed for kissing a date.”

His date, James Bull, said the woman tried to claim that a straight couple would also be asked to leave for kissing.

He told PinkNews.co.uk: “I haven’t heard of the pub having a no-kissing policy and I’ve never heard of any straight couple being thrown out for kissing.”

A patron who was seated at the next table, Jamie Morton, told PinkNews.co.uk he too was asked to leave after questioning why the couple were being thrown out.

The general public has been trained to defend homosexuality.

Mr Morton, who backed up Mr Williams’ version of events, said the couple’s kissing was “innocent, not raunchy”.

He said: “The woman was really aggressive, shouting at them. It’s outrageous, they weren’t doing anything wrong. I was shocked.”

The woman may have handled it wrongly, although we don’t seem to have her recollection of events. I would have asked the pair politely to behave themselves if they wanted to continue drinking in my hostelry.

But yet again, it comes back to property rights, which are far more important than “gay” rights, because if the government can tell us what we must allow on our own premises then there is no freedom.

This brings me to my private messaging on Facebook over the past two days with a man I have blogged about before and who has obviously just seen the post. As I discovered from the blog stats, he found the post he considers offensive by searching for his name on the 123 People website. His name brings up all sorts of information, including blogs he has been mentioned on!

All I did on that post was to report on his incredible intolerance towards me. This he claims is libel, or slander, and he has ordered me to remove all mention of him.

I have absolutely no intention of giving in to pink fascism or any other kind.

He says that the “anti-fascist league” are onto me. To date, his last words to me are these:

You and your small-minded poorley educated opinions will be silenced.

That’s the gist of it, isn’t it? The silencing of dissent. They have to understand that they will never, ever get everyone to agree with their agenda and accommodate their behaviour, which many will always regard as unpleasant and immoral.

A tiny minority cannot and should not dictate to the rest of society what they should think or how they need to conduct their business.

When I try to explain the homosexual agenda, many normally sensible people cannot understand the damage it is doing. They think I am overreacting to what is, essentially, an “equality” issue. But homosexuals already have equality. What they crave now is for the whole of society to be re-engineered around them and for everyone to accept their behaviour as normal and thus for all opposing views to be silenced. The way they are trying to achieve this now is through using teachers to indoctrinate children.

Stonewall have sent out ‘teacher training packs’ to staff at primary schools,

Children as young as five should learn about gay relationships in schools and boys should be allowed to express their feminine sides by dressing in frocks or becoming cheerleaders, according to a Government-funded initiative.

The new pack was created by the gay rights organisation Stonewall with the help of a £25,000 grant from the Government’s teacher training body, the Training and Development Agency for Schools.

This is taxpayers’ money being used to make children question their gender and role.

And notice the veiled threat:

Schools and local authorities are urged to use the material to demonstrate they are complying with the Equality Act 2010, which obliges public bodies to promote equality.

Many people still defend Stonewall and the homosexual lobby with the old argument that what goes on in the bedroom is nobody else’s business, and that it doesn’t affect them, but things went well beyond that stage years ago. What Stonewall does affects each and every one of us because they are very effectively changing the norms of society.  We have already seen how they also threaten freedom of speech, freedom of association and the property rights of those who disagree with them.

One of the scariest ways this agenda impacts on us all can be heard in the video, and that is the teaching of children to resist the values of their parents and grandparents. We have witnessed the same agenda when it comes to encouraging children to seek contraception and abortion behind their parents’ backs. The State also wants children as young as five to be given sex “education” with no opt-out for the parents.

The State owns your children now. They have assumed the role of surrogate parent.

One of the teachers in the DVD says that some of the boys “really loved wearing the dressing-up dresses and it went on for several weeks.”

Are the parents told? Told – not asked, obviously. But are the parents being told that their sons are parading about in dresses while at school?

So creepy.

One very popular tactic apologists use when trying to justify same-sex acts is by alleging that some animals are homosexual and insisting that humans ought to take behavioural lessons from dumb animals. One of the picture books being promoted to teachers is “And Tango Makes Three,” about a penguin chick raised by two male penguins. It was based on a true story from New York’s Central Park Zoo, however, one of the “gay penguins” found a female mate. It seems that the penguins weren’t homosexual, just lonely.

But don’t expect a rewrite of the book for future editions. School isn’t for learning the truth, it is about indoctrination and being confused about right and wrong.

This is all about changing the perceptions, instincts and values of the next generation. This is a very serious re-engineering of society. Please do not underestimate what is going to happen when future generations reach adulthood with these negative views on family life and whose brains have been hardwired to accept state propaganda as the final word.

And as I keep saying, this is not about religion. Homosexual acts have been taboo all over the world because normal family bonds are what keep the community strong. The weaker these bonds have become in the UK, the more society has become fragmented.

Stonewall are by no means the only culprits, but the longer they are permitted to pervert the minds and souls of the next generation, the worse this fragmentation will become. That’s why everyone will pay the price. What else can we expect for treating children so appallingly?

How much worse will you let it become before you too speak out against it?

Stonewall - using your children to re-engineer society in their image

H/T – Video noticed and title pinched from here.