Thatcher on Thursday : As a Christian, I struggle with the idea of homosexuality – but I oppose homophobia.

Welcome to Great Britain.  Like it or not, Great Britain is a Christian Country.  Our Head of State is also the Head of the Church.  (I abhor the thought that Prince Charles wants to become Defender of Faiths.  Other faiths have enough defenders.  They do not need another one.  But that is another post for another time.)

I repeat; The United Kingdom is a Christian Country. Our State and church are wrapped up in each other.  This is what binds our once Great Nation together – our common history, our culture,  our laws and to some extent our morals are based upon on the teachings of the Christian Church. The Church also teaches  that marriage is between man and woman.  Not man and man, or woman and woman, or goat and man, or man and woman and woman and woman and woman.  One man and one woman. That’s what marriage is.

Hold your tongue.  I can already hear you seethe.  “But this is a libertarian blog.  Chill out Maggie”, I hear you say.

The Frankfurt School is something that you need to learn about.  It is not my place to sit and spoon feed you the information that I see fit that you should read.  To ask that of me is in itself evidence of the success of the actual theory. I will tell you the following though.

Amongst other things, to further their “quiet revolution” after the bloody communist revolution failed to spread further than mother Russia, the Frankfurt School recommended the following.

1.         The creation of racism offences.

2.         Continual change to create confusion.

3.         The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.

4.         The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.

5.         Huge immigration to destroy identity.

6.         The promotion of excessive drinking.

7.         Emptying of churches.

8.         An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.

9.         Dependency on the state or state benefits.

10.       Control and dumbing down of media.

11.       Encouraging the breakdown of the traditional family.

For this particular subject, I draw your attention to points 3, 7 and focussing specifically on point 11.

The traditional family has been assaulted for years.  From the sexual liberation of the 60’s, when Freud’s pansexualism really took hold, through to the UN, and their gay marriage agenda, drip fed down to ours and other European Parliaments via the EU.

The breakdown of the family has proved to be a big success in the global goal of communism.

We have seen governments attack the authority of the father, deny the specific cultural and biological  roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.  This week a report came out that 90% of British parents want the UK Government to stop their children having access to internet porn.  Surely a role that the parent should have is to educate, inform and control what their child sees.

We have seen the Government abolish all forms of male dominance – hence we see advantage given to women under the banner of equality such as women only short lists, or female quotas.  We have also seen the emasculation of men. Where are the Alpha Males?  Hell, I’ve been looking hard enough for one of my own, but there are none.  They have been neutered.  Ask yourself why.

The left have also declared women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’.  But hey… Those oppressive men should check their privilege, right?  It’s not as if the women would CHOOSE the traditional role, is it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2295236/Rise-happy-housewife-How-new-wave-feminists-giving-careers-stay-home-WANT-to.html

So, looking at this, Gay marriage, gay adoption are all parts of the jigsaw in place to breakdown the traditional family. The ultimate goal of which is to place the responsibility of the children onto the state.  The State wants to own your children, and their children after that.

Politicians have a long and dirty history of using and abusing religion to further their agenda.  Hitler paid a rather large sum every month to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

We see this again with the gay lobby.  You don’t actually think that Stonewall are loved by communists?  Because homosexuality  is doing so well in communist states.  Lawks. If you ever see a homosexual in a Che Guevara t shirt, he needs to be laughed at and pointed in to direction of a history book.

And don’t get me started on Iran (where there are no gays. I’m pretty sure this is a result of homosexuals being hung by the neck from cranes that litter the streets) or KSA where all homosexuals are caged.  But don’t mention this to the UN.  Nope.  Far too busy making sure that Gay marriage is pushed through statute of the Evil Capitalist Western Nations.

Gay marriage is not about equality, it isn’t about affording people equal rights to marry in a church.  It’s about forging ahead with the agenda to break nations, to install global communism so subtly that you didn’t know it had happened.

We are not equal. Some people are Christians.  Get over it.

PS.  H/T to Medhi Hasan for the glorious title to this post. It was too hard not to borrow it.

For the record, as a Christian, I don’t struggle with the idea of homosexuality because I have acknowledged that people are not the same – we are not equal – and I am thankful for that.

14 comments on “Thatcher on Thursday : As a Christian, I struggle with the idea of homosexuality – but I oppose homophobia.

  1. dr
    May 23, 2013 at 6:23 pm #

    I’m struggling with this…

    Margaret Thatcher wrote:
    “Gay marriage is…. ….about forging ahead with the agenda to break nations, to install global communism so subtly that you didn’t know it had happened.”
    Does this mean that two people who have no interest in communism, who are in love and of the same gender; should be prevented from marriage because someone else has an ulterior motive for wanting them and others to have that right?
    If I wanted more liberty, for example, and set about campaigning for citizens to receive it, would it be appropriate for me to be denied that liberty because someone else may plan to abuse that liberty if it is granted to everyone?
    If so, does this allow a government to create an organization to abuse a right, to justify taking that right away from everyone, so that a small group of people can no longer abuse that right?

    Also, if gay couples can already get a civil partnership, and a marriage grants them no more rights that they would have in that partnership, how does the renaming of a union between two people, degrade the society in which those people live? I mean, if two people can get a civil partnership and raise children, (maybe by adoption or something), how is it different for the children if they are raised by those same parents, but their parent’s union is named a marriage rather than a civil partnership?

    In my opinion, it is divorce and separation, that destroys the family unit, rather than homosexuality.

    I also make a distinction between a civil marriage and a church marriage. I understand that a church marriage would only be granted by a church to members that it felt were suitable to be married, ie. The priest or vicar would be asked to marry two people and could decline to do so. Yet we view civil marriages and church marriages as equivalent, so that, for example, if someone has a Christian wedding, then they will receive a civil marriage and a church marriage, whereas a couple who marry in a registry office will typically only receive a civil marriage. Yet in our society we regard them as equivalent.

    It seems to me that if we want to oppose the imposition of communism, then we should oppose other items on your list, say “Huge immigration to destroy identity” or “An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime” (items 5 and 8) more strongly than we should oppose gay marriage.

    Just a few thoughts…

    • baronessthatcher
      May 23, 2013 at 11:45 pm #

      DR,

      The focus of this post was on Gay Marriage as at the time, it was The Most Important Thing the government wanted to discuss. In regard to divorce and separation being damaging, you are also correct, so please think how divorce has been made easier – legally and socially – over the years.

      I included the other points for your consideration to contemplate the issue of communism by stealth as a whole picture, which you have started doing.

      The next step would be to ask yourself who would want to do this and why.

      • dr
        May 24, 2013 at 10:08 am #

        Thanks for your reply.
        (I assume that you are the author of the piece and not an impersonator)

      • Andrew
        May 24, 2013 at 6:59 pm #

        Well, divorce has been made easier ever since some former Head of State didn’t like Rome’s rules and so, under the Act of Supremacy, made himself the Head of his own Church. So, technically speaking, the Church of England is responsible for facilitating the decline of the “traditional family”.

  2. Brian Williams
    May 23, 2013 at 8:29 pm #

    Can anyone supply an original source for that 11-point plan? I cannot find it anywhere except in blogs like these. Everywhere it is stated as something designed in 1928, but there is no evidence It looks like something that should appear in Snopes as some form of urban legend. Don’t get me wrong, I would very much like to see the original manifesto please.

  3. baronessthatcher
    May 23, 2013 at 11:20 pm #

    Brian,

    Blogs like these condense pages upon pages of reading. I would suggest you search Frankfurt School, Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory. You will find names of academics and Marxists who are known to have worked on this, read around their works.. It is not urban myth.

    • brwims
      May 24, 2013 at 10:37 am #

      Many thanks for the reply. I have seen your suggestion elsewhere too – almost exactly a year ago – see http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=108882&p=1375422&viewfull=1#post1375422

      The thing is, I can find many, many references to the “11-point plan”, and they all read almost identically. Who put these 11-points together? I can readily admit that they can be abstracted, given time, by reading a number of dense texts, but my worry is (a) who did it? (b) why did they not publish it somewhere obvious? (c) why does each of the 11 points reference a specific text within one of those books?

      You see, without that, it becomes something that “goes viral”, nobody knows the origin, and I have seen many instances of these in snopes.

      For example, in Google if you search for “11-point plan” you can see a mention of its origin in a 1928 “manifesto” of the Frankfurt School, but when I searched for the terms “1928” “manifesto” “Frankfurt School” I found nothing…. even leaving out the date.

      I am firmly convinced, from what I have “read around” about Cultural Marxism that all of these points are desirable

      • brwims
        May 24, 2013 at 10:41 am #

        Sorry, I hit return by mistake!

        Carrying on….

        I am firmly convinced, from what I have “read around” about Cultural Marxism that all of these points are desirable to the cause of Cultural Marxists; several were favourites of Engels; but I would really like to be able to inform my friends and family about this “11-point plan” as it was defined and by whom. Because if it was put together “post hoc” we can hardly claim that the awful conditions of society that we have today were planned in advance.

        Do you see my point?

  4. John Galt
    May 24, 2013 at 10:55 am #

    what the fuck is this?

  5. jdseanjd
    May 24, 2013 at 3:43 pm #

    Great post Baroness.

    It is well past time that people learned of the Frankfurt School & it’s program of world communism by stealth, through political correctness.

    It is also well past time that people learned of the plan of UN Agenda 21, which is to install a one world govt, by stealth, of course, for which the undemocratic & authoritarian EU is seen as the forerunner.

    The EU has always been about the surrender of UK sovereignty, from McMillan to Cameron, from the 60s till now:
    http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/?article=91#preface

    Tony Benn on the EU:
    Go to youtube & put European Union Tony Benn Oxford Union
    into their search box if this link does not work:
    http://www.youtibe.com/watch?v=f0wFii8KlNg

    The problem is very well laid out here:
    http://www.thrivemovement.com/theproblem-gda
    Peaceful solutions here:
    http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_movie
    2 hrs 12 mins, but well worth it.

    The Frankfurt School Communism-by-stealth agenda is being pushed forward in this country by a shadowy group called Common Purpose, which is well exposed on Brian Gerrish’s site:
    http://www.ukcolumn.org
    Brian is an ex naval officer who is also trying to expose the UK govt’s despicable child stealing operations.
    It’s all to do with the Commie state wants control of kids, & is in the process of destroying the family unit.

    I hope you get a ton of viewers Baroness, a great post.
    Thanks,
    JD.

  6. David
    May 24, 2013 at 9:52 pm #

    …I think its a parody, its the only way I can make sense of these ‘essays’.

    Oh, and I wager that the 11 point plan is a fictionalized interpretation, a from ‘condensed reading’ if you will – a way of bullet pointing the essential horrors that people who don’t believe in infiltration need to know.

    • Brian Williams
      May 27, 2013 at 4:20 pm #

      I think you are right. However, the 11-point plan is being pushed around the ‘net as though it were factual, abstracted from some 1928 manifesto etc. It really is the stuff of snopes, which is a pity, because it will lose all credibility.

  7. jdseanjd
    May 24, 2013 at 11:38 pm #

    Sorry, the ref above should read:
    http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_problem-gda

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Steynian 468nth | Free Canuckistan! - May 25, 2013

    […] ITEM: Thatcher on Thursday : As a Christian, I struggle with the idea of homosexuality – but I oppose homophobia; and […]

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

%d bloggers like this: