Gays in Military = Traitors in Military

Cineva din armată mi-a atras atenţia că există homosexuali în litigiu cu armata americană şi că au şanse de câştig. In replică, fac trimitere la un articol care tratează isprăvile recente ale homosexualilor în armata şi în serviciile speciale de informaţii americane.

FRR Aug 2010 – Gays in Military = Traitors in Military

After President Clinton announced his intention in 1992 to allow homosexuals into the military, a slew of ‘first hand’ articles started to appear in major newspapers revealing how gays were not only ‘good soldiers,’ but also that they had a ‘secret network’ that extended to every military facility, including the Pentagon. This continues today — homosexuals are ‘proud’ to disobey or ignore their military vows should they interfere with their sex preferences, and journalists are proud to toady for them.
Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Johnson all felt that homosexuals were natural traitors and ought to be excluded from the military as well as any sensitive position (e.g., intelligence). They knew that a disproportionate number of Britain’s spies and traitors during the cold war — Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, and Anthony Blunt among others — were homosexual Soviet agents.
Who is the current candidate for ‘worst traitor?’ Undoubtedly it would be Bradley Manning, whose ‘dump’ of tens of thousands of pages of secret materials about the Afghan war has resulted in fame for him and death for hundreds, if not thousands, of Afghans who helped our side. Why is Manning significant? Because his story illustrates yet another reason why homosexuals don’t belong in the military.
Manning felt the military was ‘discriminating against him and his kind.’ So he apparently stole state secrets (in his role as a U.S. Army intelligence analyst!) and, thanks to the ‘freedom loving’ folk at the NY Times, all his stolen goods got published. Now the Taliban is making a list of enemies to murder. And Manning ‘got even’ — with his society, with the military, and with all those on our side of the conflict.
What has been little reported in America is how well Bradley Manning fits the homosexual profile. The British media have reported that his facebook page contains many claims and clues about his homosexual affiliations. Seems he just split with his homosexual lover and has also been contemplating a sex change.
Why Manning was allowed into the military — in intelligence no less — is far from certain. And what about those who aided and abetted his actions? Are the co-conspirators at MIT who helped him dump the data homosexual also?
And why is the British press the only media to publicize this aspect of Manning’s character? U.S. right-wing radio talk show hosts have been essentially silent. On August 11, Rush Limbaugh added to his usual ditty that “race, sex, sexual orientation” don’t make any difference to “us conservatives.” It seems that Rush has ‘adopted’ the elite’s notion that ‘gay is OK’ because it is like skin color — simply irrelevant. How far from the truth can he be?
Pakistanis View America Negatively
The Pew Foundation reported (July 30) that Pakistanis’ feelings toward the U.S. were very negative. Obviously, our wartime efforts against terrorists in both Afghanistan and along the border of Pakistan probably impact this assessment. However, it is not always clear why the West is trying to court this Islamic ‘Land of the Pure.’
Pakistan, besides leading the world in the prevalence of men raping boys, has upwards of 3,000 children — mostly boys — that go missing every year (Reuters 8/2/10). And, at the child abuse conference in Lahore in 2009, Punjab Minister for Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Rana Sanaullah, said “people should be educated about the menace of child sexual abuse” which is “distorting the image of Pakistan.”
He asserted the “majority of children admitted to Madrassas to get religious education were abused” (International News 11/20/09). Of the 4 million students in Pakistani Madrassas, all but 6% are boys, so the sexual abuse to which Sanaullah referred is almost all homosexual — a far higher rate of molestation than alleged within any Catholic church or institution.
Other media seem to confirm these statements. Google trends ( allows one to track the relative worldwide prevalence of users searching for specific terms or topics since the beginning of 2004. Figure 1 indicates the average search prevalence over that time for the phrases ‘sex with boys’ (orange) and ‘sex with men’ (blue). ‘Sex with men’ has always been more popular in Google searches than ‘sex with boys,’ but both have seen a recent upswing since 2009.
Interestingly, Google trends also breaks down search traffic by region/country, city, and language, reporting frequency of searches relative to all Google searches from that same area. By this tally, Pakistan (Muslim) is the clear leader not only for searches on ‘sex with boys,’ but also for ‘sex with men,’ ‘sex with girls,’ and ‘sex with women.’ Second place in all these categories goes to either India (Hindu/Muslim) or Sri Lanka (Buddhist/Hindu).
To the extent that Google search traffic corresponds with interest in a topic amongst the populace, Pakistan might be considered the ‘sexiest’ country on Earth. However, the results are quite dependent on the degree of Internet penetration and usage in any given area. In addition, searches for a phrase like ‘sex with boys’ do not automatically mean the user desired to engage in such activity. However, given that the ratio of search traffic for ‘sex with men’ vs. ‘sex with boys’ averages 2.2:1 for English language searches compared to 1.2:1 for Arabic language searches, the results may indicate more proportionate interest in ‘sex with boys’ among Arabic speakers. Further, given the prevalence of various kinds of pornography and prostitution on the web, and the fact that women in Arabic countries generally have much less computer access than men, it would appear that reports of disproportionate homosexual child molestation in Pakistan may indeed be credible.

Figure 1. Google Trends Results for ‘Sex With Men’ and ‘Sex With Boys’
Plumbing Problems: Learned, Not Born
Two major kinds of appetites involving our ‘plumbing’ receive a lot of attention: (1) eating/drinking, and (2) sexual desire.
Eating and drinking are associated with the alimentary canal. Traditionalists counsel moderation in the amount eaten, as well as with alcohol. Modern elite moralists worry about everything — salt, cholesterol, additives, insecticides, etc.
Sexual preferences also involve plumbing, with traditional moralists (at least the Christian variety) promoting procreation (within marriage) as a positive, while enjoining against homosexuality. Traditionalists reason that while having children ties one to broader society, those who prefer homosexuality usually have an overriding loyalty to the ‘gay community’ that surpasses social and family loyalties (which is part of the reason homosexuals in general are rebellious and so often involved in betrayals). They consider homosexual activity to be negatively transformative. Modern moralists, on the other hand, see no downside to homosexuality. As long as one is not ‘harming others’ or involving children sexually, their counsel seems to be ‘do what you feel like.’
Culinary tastes can ‘fixate’ in youth, and profoundly influence one’s life. Thus there are adults who only eat certain kinds of cereals, MacDonald’s, or macaroni and cheese. This taste is so ‘real’ that the fixated cannot attend dinners or eat with others for fear that they won’t be able to eat or will be mocked. Fortunately, this kind of ‘culinary deviation’ is rare (but highly resistant to change if carried into adulthood).
Sexual tastes can also ‘fixate’ — often in youth, but even in early- and mid-adulthood. Sometimes sexual tastes ‘cross over’ into culinary tastes. Imagine a society in which fat girls are ‘sexy.’ If, as argued by homosexual activists, homosexuals are ‘born that way’ then would those in such a society be likewise ‘born so?’
Welcome to Mauritania — a Muslim country in Africa about three times the size of New Mexico, and sparsely populated with 3 million souls. There, being fat as a woman — between 220–300 lbs (obese in the Western view) — makes her sexually desirable. Indeed, so important is being fat that a girl’s parents, often the mother or a trained villager, make girls as young as 5 drink up to five gallons of fat-rich milk daily. Why? To give her silvery stretch marks on her upper arms and to assure she is plump all over.
Forced? Indeed. If the girl refuses to drink (and most kids do, after all they are ‘full’), her foot may be painfully squeezed between two boards, her fingers bent backwards, her ears pulled, or she might even be forced to drink her own vomit! On the other hand, a man is considered good looking if he is slender (the sign of a hard worker).
This part of Mauritanian society is real — the men consider their taste for fat women as ‘natural’ as Western men do their taste for slender gals. But neither ‘ideal’ is ‘natural’ except within their respective cultures. What we now consider ‘rather plump women’ was the ideal through much of Western history (e.g., most of the women in famous paintings tend toward the hefty). Hollywood and ‘fashion designers’ had a great deal to do with moving ‘the feminine ideal’ toward the slender.
Sexual tastes do indeed vary greatly across cultures. Poland’s famous ‘barefoot explorer’ has devised a technique that allows him to visit, live with, and film many tribes in the Amazon. He goes in nude, just as the natives are. Each little society — perhaps 200-300 people — has permitted him to stay long enough to learn the language and the customs.
The important part of his research from our perspective — confirmed in tribe after tribe — is the absence of ‘deviant’ sex. Indeed, given their living situation — where the men go out to hunt and the women stay to plant, cook, and clean — they apparently live free of any sort of sexual deviation, including adultery. When told about other forms of sex, such as homosexuality, they laugh, calling the children to see or hear the strangeness of our culture.
Of course, girls there marry at around 9-11, boys at perhaps 13 or so. Every girl/woman knows what every other girl/woman is doing, so there is no adultery (the girls and women are in constant contact with each other as they work), and there is no privacy since many families occupy one dwelling.
Both of these cultures sexual tastes are instructive when it comes to the sexual preferences of homosexuals. Once established, the taste is ‘real,’ but nonetheless learned. As long as sex between men and women leads to children, it ‘gets the job done’ and a future is assured. Whether the women are slender, fat, younger, or older is largely irrelevant.
Western culture still encourages a preference for the opposite sex. That used to be ‘enough’ to assure a future. But now with birth control, it is not. And the problem is exacerbated by the teaching in Western schools of the acceptability of homosexuality. Because sexual tastes are not inborn, nor ‘cast in stone,’ the West may well experience as much of a change toward homosexual preferences as Mauritania will undoubtedly experience in its sexual ideals as it consumes more of our (Western) entertainment.
Clearly, Mauritanian men are not ‘born with’ a desire for fat women any more than Western men are ‘born with’ a desire for slender gals. Their sexual taste in women is learned. Indeed, at their typical weight, the sight of a young female nude from Mauritania would probably be a ‘turn off’ for most Western men. Likewise, Mauritanian men are currently repelled by our ‘slender beauties.’ But Western influences are coming to Mauritania — they will probably change in time. Our culture can expect no less a change as homosexual influence grows here.

SURSA: Family research Institute

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.