Homosexual propaganda

Author: Ferenc Buji – own translation

If we look at current events from a higher perspective and understand that attacks against values, or more precisely against traditional values and in certain respect against the ideal of values, are being launched from the angle of sexuality, we can observe the fortresses of traditional sexual morals falling one after the other. The sixties and the seventies unequivocally stood in the sign of heterosexuality: with the hippie movement of the beat generation leading the charge, they attempted to accept all its forms, including promiscuity, as normal and natural.

It seems however that the revolutionary possibilities of heterosexuality have been exhausted. The eighties and the nineties decidedly depict the period of homosexual propaganda and – in order to break all taboos in this area – so will, it seems, the first decade of the next millennium, as well [translator: the article was written in 1999].

In order to be in the clear about the mechanisms of homosexual propaganda we need to clarify that three types of homosexuality exist: hereditary, acquired and learned homosexuality. Let’s have a closer look at these.

In regards hereditary homosexuality, it concerns mostly – but not exclusively – those  whose inner sexual nature doesn’t reflect their external one. These people in a homosexual relationship obviously don’t represent their own sex but that of the opposite one: the man playing the female role in a man-man relationship and the woman playing the male role in a woman-woman relationship.

In case of the remaining members of homosexual couples, i.e. the males playing the male and the females playing the female it’s not about an inherited irregularity, since the given male or female is masculine or feminine, respectively. Since their sexual constitution is not any different from that of people who are in normal sexual relationships, the reason why they find sexual satisfaction in a same-sex relationship may only be, according to modern psychology, certain irregularities in the relationship with the parent of the opposite sex in their early childhood. We call this acquired homosexuality.

We must however make a serious restriction here: only sparsely can we find women in this second category, for a simple reason. Namely, while the reason why men with acquired homosexuality are looking for sexual satisfaction among men is either because of a too tight mother-son relationship or because of a normal, but psychologically ill-processed mother-son relationship (in which case the reason for homosexuality is a factor of indirect inheritance), what could lead women in this category to homosexuality would be a father-daughter relationship; this however doesn’t tend to be that close thus it provides a much smaller chance towards homosexual deviations than a mother-son relationship. In any case, these two categories of homosexuality should be considered to be a natural disaster and in the same time an abnormality that is beyond the control of the person concerned; thus from the point of view of homosexual propaganda these cases are only interesting in as much as they may be presented as normal.

It should be clear by now that these may not be considered normal: hereditary homosexuality because the innate orientation and external sexual nature is not in harmony, acquired homosexuality because the original sexual orientation is upset by early childhood relationships; in this latter case, by the way, what drives people to same sex relationships is not attraction but – because of an inhibition – repulsion by the thought of intercourse with the opposite sex. In terms of people in the first category on the other hand the dominant tendency is attraction to people of the same sex and this is why they stay away from the opposite sex – not because of being repulsed by them.

One more note regarding these first two categories before transitioning to the third one: the partners of the overwhelming majority of men with hereditary homosexuality belong to the category of acquired homosexuality since they can’t find their partners in their own category – considering that the majority there consists of feminine men.

Understandably this is considerably less so in the case of women since their number, as we have already noted is quite minimal: the majority of women with hereditary homosexuality are forced to chose their partner from among women with learned homosexuality, which is the third category. However, since these women -as we shall see- are not true homosexuals but bisexuals, permanent relationships in a common household is less typical of female homosexuality than of its male counterpart. The relationships of homosexual women are more like shorter or longer term escapades. Long term homosexual relationship is more typical of men, namely between men from the first two categories.

In relation to the total population, the rate of homosexuals in these first two categories is relatively small, the two together doesn’t exceed five percent and no amount of propaganda can increase this rate. The homosexual propaganda can only influence the number of homosexuals in the third category of learned homosexuality. In a normal society that is organized according to traditional norms the number of people in this category is approximately zero; in such an environment, where people are aware that homosexuality is abnormal, it doesn’t occur to anybody to engage in homosexual adventures; we said adventures, because, as we have shown, homosexuals in this category are merely “dilettantes”. In fact they are not homosexuals but bisexuals, i.e. they are willing to engage both in homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Originally they are of course heterosexual but under the influence of homosexual propaganda – following the “pleasure principle” and the “why not” principle – they try out homosexual encounters, as well. The task of the propaganda here is to destroy those moral and human determinations that always kept heterosexual people from homosexual relationships, by presenting homosexuality as normal or modern. There is another reason why these people are the favorite targets of homosexual propaganda: because they lack principles (i.e. they follow liberal principles), or, more precisely, because they obey the pleasure principle.

Just like the rigorous insistence of heterosexuals on a partner from the opposite sex is labeled old fashioned, something that needs to be overcome, for the sake of consistency, the rigorous insistence of true homosexuals (first two categories) on a same-sex partner should also be labeled an old fashioned attitude that needs to be overcome, true homosexuality being in this respect the same kind of “moral caprice” as heterosexuality. They don’t do this for tactical reasons and this is embedded in a broader strategy. We should not be mistaken: they don’t want to turn people into homosexuals; what they want is to develop and promote a human type that doesn’t perceive a difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual relationship; a human type that is no longer able to differentiate based on values, because it can’t see the difference; a human type that orientates in the world exclusively according to the “pleasure principle”; a human type that may be infinitely manipulated without such obstacles as principles, taboos or moral caprices; a human type that no longer has poise.

Just like we have established considerable differences between men and women in the first two categories, here we can also find certain differences; homosexual propaganda finds a more fertile ground among women than among men since man is sexually more differentiated than the woman. We may also say that a man is much more of a man than a woman is a woman. This is evident from the fact that there is always a bigger repulsion between two normal heterosexual men than between two women with normal sexual orientation. We may observe women – especially teenage girls- without any homosexual or even homo-erotic attraction walking in the street holding hands, sitting in each other’s lap on the bus or embracing tightly. We practically can’t see such body contact between men or boys and while female friends often kiss each other when greeting or saying good-bye this occurs in the rarest of cases among male friends. A man typically experiences a sense of shame when he must publicly kiss another man on the cheek. Also, female homosexual relationships -according to their general need for tenderness- tend to rely on “soft”, while men’s on “hard” procedures, which again makes it easier for women to form such relationships: women that are dissatisfied with the roughness or “quickness” of men are more and more often driven by their need for tenderness into the arms of other women (similar motivation may not even remotely come up among men).

The distance between homo-erotic attraction and homosexual “acts” is much smaller in case of women than in case of men, thus it is more difficult for men to make the transition from one to the other. This explains why there are more homo-erotic relationships among men than among women: the relationship between men often stays on the level of erotic attraction without sexuality (like the relationship between S. Freud and W. Fliess) while women transition from the level of eroticism to the level of homosexuality relatively easily.

The deviant or, which is the same, pervert, or, which is also the same, aberrant (all three means “deviated from normal”) nature of homosexuality becomes truly evident if we consider that homosexual relationships actually don’t even exist; we must pronouncedly articulate that homosexual relationships essentially don’t exist! Only heterosexual relationships exist. It is precisely the homosexual relationship that proves that the prototype of all sexual relations is the heterosexual one: one of the parties – at least in true homosexual relationships (first two categories!) – must always take on the role of the woman and the other on the role of the man and thus sexual dominances come forth as well: the man or the woman playing man is dominant, while the woman or the man playing woman is always passive. This way homosexuals can’t help but acting as heterosexuals – since the foundation of all sexual relations and attractions is sexual polarization which necessarily finds expression in the tension of the masculine and feminine nature.

This also shows that a homosexual relation is abnormal not as a homosexual but as a heterosexual relation! Thus there are two types of heterosexual relations: the normal heterosexual relationship and the abnormal heterosexual relationship. Normal heterosexual relationship develops between a masculine man and a feminine woman, while abnormal relationships develop between a masculine man and a feminine man or between a feminine woman and masculine woman. This of course applies only to those in the first two categories – to “true homosexuals” – who are not driven merely by the pleasure principle but who are influenced by sexual attraction. The relationships, or rather the adventures on the other hand, that are determined exclusively by the pleasure principle, might rightfully be termed auto-sexual relation in which the role of sexual polarization is fully replaced by the pleasure principle (aiming only at sexual relief), just like in auto-sexuality (we’d like to emphasize that there is no auto-eroticism, only auto-sexuality, since all forms of eroticism presupposes some kind of relation of the soul).

At the beginning we mentioned that the sixties and the seventies were determined by heterosexuality while the eighties, nineties, as well as the 2010s will belong to homosexuality. But what will the sexual revolutions of the following decades stand for? We don’t need prophetic insight to see that the next two bastions of traditional sexual values – or as they say: taboos – on which the offensive forces want to put their flags next will be incest and the human-animal sexual relations (sodomy). Obviously today its unimaginable to stand up for the legitimization of these but the logic of events will definitely drive the agitators who today propagate homosexuality in this direction [translator’s note: this article was written in 1999. Today, in 2017 we can clearly observe these very tendencies]. Since if we apply the pleasure principle according to which everybody has the right to pleasure any way they can attain it (provided that nobody gets hurt in the process), then actually nothing should prevent sodomy from gaining legal status. Nobody gets hurt after all! Maybe even the animal likes it. Today sodomy is rare but if the “unnatural” aversion towards it may be eliminated with proper propaganda, more and more people will jump on the bandwagon of sexual relations with animals. Why not if it’s pleasurable? True, if we only apply the principles of pleasure and of not hurting -like in the case of homosexuality-, then sodomy is only different from heterosexuality. In fact, in the more advanced forms of sodomy even more permanent relationships may develop (especially in case of lonely men and women); from here there is only one step before the need for the legalization of such relationships may be voiced which will provide another noble mission for the propagandists to pursue. Because why not?…And exactly this applies for incest, as well.

It is not insignificant why the unrelenting propagandists of sexual revolution whose attention extends even to the adoption of children by homosexuals, forget to address one of the most massive sexual taboos: polygamy. It truly is significant why it is exactly polygamy, this really traditional taboo that nobody wants to destroy. Banning polygamy namely is fully gratuitous, even untenable both on religious and legal grounds. And yet: it doesn’t even occur to the activists to raise their voice against such a crass limitation of freedom. It’s probably safe to say that the reason for this lies in the patriarchal nature of polygamy and the strengthening of patriarchal views in modern culture are, to say the least, frowned upon by our agitators. They would likely raise their voice in support of polyandry (multiple husbands) but they know it well that such a fight can’t be fought without also fighting for polygamy; and they also know that polyandry would not be perceived as attractive in the modern world, while polygamy would be well received by many.

So based on liberal principles it would be reasonable to launch a campaign for polygamy since this – opposite to homosexual marriage – still has traditional roots (just like polyandry!). The fact that they don’t do this has a lot to do with the manipulated state of public opinion, since only that becomes a topic of discussion which is made into it and there are things that they consider to be better off left untouched and wisely forgotten about.

There is another reason why the legalization of polygamy would not serve the interests of propagandists: namely that it would bring out the differences between the nature of man and woman. The objective our propagandists pursue is precisely to eliminate this difference in all possible domains. This is what gives context both to the liberal cult of being different and to the process that wants to standardize everything, enforcing uniformity. This is why we’d like to point out the differences between the nature of man and woman in an area that, according to our knowledge, has not been addressed yet: in jealousy. There is a fundamental difference between male and female jealousy; because it is fundamental, it is expressed not only quantitatively but also qualitatively: jealousy is much more typical of men than of women. The reason behind this is a qualitative difference between male and female jealousy. Women namely are only jealous when the man gives them reason to be, through their behavior. Men are different. Male jealousy seems to lack reason if what we mean by reason is the behavior of the woman. It is well known however that nothing happens without reason and male jealousy is no exception. To discover this reason it’s worth observing that men are rarely jealous of the man they introduced to their wifes – even if they had reason to be; and in the majority of the cases these are precisely the people that their wifes cheats on them with. Typically everybody knows about the relationship except for the husband even if the flirting happens right in front of his eyes. Women immediately recognize such things when it comes to their husbands – they are much more difficult to fool in this respect. Thus we must look for the reason of the infamous male jealousy, the “green eyed monster”. In the eyes of the husband everybody is suspicious that didn’t get in contact with his wife through him; especially those whom his wife had already known before they met, but the situation is not much better even with men she’s got to know after she met had her husband, but not through him. The reason for the husband’s jealousy in both cases is the same: in certain areas of his wife’s life the husband is at a disadvantage in regards to these other men since they’ve known his wife longer than him or know certain areas of her life that he doesn’t ( they see her and hear her when he doesn’t ) and in this respect know his wife better than he does; thus they enjoy an unbeatable advantage over the husband even if only partially, in secondary areas.

Thus when the “green eyed monster” takes over, it shows no regard to the person, it’s capable of being suspicious of the most unlikely “competitors” to the degree that is already embarrassing for the woman. Women don’t know this kind of “groundless” jealousy; in all the literature produced on this subject we can’t find any, where women should fall victim of the “green eyed monster”.

Female jealousy is always well grounded in reality. Male jealousy however works, in a certain sense in unreal spheres: he’s either crazy jealous without any visible reason or when he’d have reasons to be jealous, he’s sheepishly blind; often in the same time.

The realistic jealousy of the woman is closely connected to her perception (even today) of being taken as wife. Thus the woman is in a state of being possessed in marriage (as in marriage contracts for example). The one who possesses is the man and who possesses something can’t tolerate that somebody else has more to do with his property than he himself; he can’t tolerate that his ownership rights may be compromised in any way. This claim for exclusivity is behind the irrationality of male jealousy: to fully and exclusively possess the woman including all domains of her life. The woman’s claim however -whose jealousy is realistic- is merely that the man possesses her. She only rebels when she sees this relation of possession jeopardized. She’s not interested in the completeness of possession -like the man- but in the mere relation of possession.

To put it differently -and to accentuate the problem- we can also say that while for the man it is the woman that’s important – but not as a given person but as complete possession- for the woman it is the relationship: the relation of possession.

This is why in pre-modern societies polygamy took on natural forms while polyandry was a deviation necessitated by external conditions; namely the jealousy of the woman is fundamentally not triggered by polygamy (since the woman, as the object of possession, is equally possessed in a monogamy as in a polygamy), while the jealousy of the man is definitely triggered in a polyandry (since he has to share his possession).

To use a strictly legal perspective: it is most natural to own more than one things but for many to own one thing unavoidably leads to complications. This is why there is never any polyandry without matriarchy (otherwise man would never suffer such a situation) which in turn is possible only if women take possession of certain aspects of masculine behavior thereby being able to fulfill a decisive role in society.

Let’s not beat around the bush and say it as it is: the overt or covert, conscious or unconscious goal of homosexual propaganda is to diminish man. This well coordinated war is waged against people on all fronts; first by ridding man of his divine, transcendental norms, then to rid him of his human, immanent norms and then to deify this deeply sub-human man and make him the norm, to ensure that there is no chance that anything or anybody is left in the world that may exhibit superiority, purity, beauty, majesty and nobility.

The celebrated talking-head on TV – an absolute nobody- is talking about how sympathetic is – in his opinion- Scorsese’s Christ whom the movie presents as just as weak, fallible and sinful as any of us. This is where the motivation of the propagandists, the influencer of public opinion come to light the most clearly, this is where they find the most satisfaction: not only to eliminate the superior, the saint and the noble, but to corrupt it, to taint it and to pervert it. This is the unconscious move of leveling: to drag everybody who’s superior down to their own level so that no superiority may disturb their self-image. They can’t suffer superiority: for them, the noble and the saint either don’t exist at all or it is just a “trick of priests”; or if they do exist then they must drag them down to their own level.

Needless to say that this attitude is strongly connected to the ideal of equality; because this ideal -more precisely superstition- was obviously not born in pure, superior and noble man but in filthy, inferior, ignoble man. Because it’s much easier to drag down than to lift up. It’s enough to drag somebody down once. He can then be just left there, he’ll stay; but for rising we need to employ our own power. This is the meaning of leveling i.e. the elimination of values, a notion that is so strongly connected to the notion of entropy in physics. Equality may only be realized on the lowest levels; values on the other hand differentiate hierarchically. A culture that can’t tolerate the superior, the noble, the pure and the saint, a culture that believes that dignity is not the result of an innate poise but may simply be handed out (dignity for all as the slogen says) to the needy, may perfectly be described by one word: ignoble.

The religion of the new type of man under development is the cult of being different, confessing and -which is even more symptomatic- propagating that all values are worthless. The burgeoning homosexual programs of TV and radio stations are essentially homosexual propaganda programs targeting heterosexuals – propaganda programs that are only known in this context since there are no heterosexual propaganda programs targeting homosexuals. The controversial nature of this propaganda (even in its verbal aspect) is disguised by the fact that it is precisely those who are the loudest about the need to respect “being different” who are drawn to people of same sex and while they call themselves and expect to be called “warm” [translator’s note: warm a common term to describe gays in some Central European countries] they imply that people with normal sexual orientation are “cold” (cf. frigid).

Another branch from the same stem of propaganda, following the same logic is only willing to accept the term colored people when it comes to blacks: in addition to implying that whites are of “no color” it is also a plain lie since the true color of blacks is anything but colorful (cf. color television).

Nevertheless we must warn those who think that they are influencing these events that they are also being influenced from behind the scene, from a background they can’t perceive. We’ve already referred to the mass of dupes who expect reaching the full potential of human existence through the normalization of homosexuality. We must notice however that those who stand behind these dupes are themselves dupes from the point of the of various powers and personalities that stand behind them. The nature of the dark side or reverse hierarchy is that there are always dupes behind the dupes who consider themselves to be autonomous leaders. Since they can’t recognize that they are being influenced themselves, the events they believe they have initiated will unavoidably devour them, too, since such initiated but not overseen -and thus not controlled- events have an imperious inner logic. This is evident in the socio-political revolutions: true revolutions often devour those who consider themselves to be the instigators. The same will happen with the sexual revolution although it is absolutely not certain whether this end result will take place in the domain of sexuality. Nevertheless, I recommend that the marionette puppets who think that they arbitrarily influence their “free thinking” comrades -who have no conception of true freedom- , should read the last chapter of Vladimir Soloviev’s Anti-Christ. After they have completed their assigned tasks, the background powers will get rid of all those who are now enthusiastically destroying the last few moral bonds of human culture, just like revolutions get rid of its own parents and children. But by then it would be too late. The sobering disappointment after the awakening may necessarily happen only when the downward direction of the unfolding of events may no longer be influenced. Not too long ago the question was still if the end really justifies the means. Whatever the answer may be, this question is already obsolete. The objectives and means of homosexual propaganda are in full accord: ignoble objectives are served by ignoble means. To make homosexuality accepted as merely different from heterosexuality is only a means of a much deeper intent; whoever is able to see this should not be duped by the agents of homosexual propaganda who merely try to strengthen their own position by first evoking anti-homosexual sentiments and then by pointing out their inhuman, intolerant nature.

Homosexuality is not a sin, it is not a vice; homosexuals should not be judged, despised or looked down upon since a true homosexual merely suffers homosexuality; on the other hand the view that is adopted by the believers of homosexual propaganda and successfully sold to the duped masses – including the homosexual masses-, according to which homosexuality is only different from heterosexuality, is definitely a sin and a vice: it is a direct assault on the value-ideal of man.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Principles, society and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s