The wave of anti-trans sentiment is not really a sign that there is a serious backlash against the agenda of Sodom. If this were truly the case, then we would not be seeing so much collaboration between “conservatives” and sodomites within recent years. If it were truly the case that there is a backlash against the religion of Sodom, then why were so many Christians, just in 2016, fawning over Milo Yiannopoulos, a“gay conservatives”, even after he tongue kissed Vice Magazine co-founder Gavin McInnis after he told a crowd of cameras “fuck Islam”? Even after this display of sodomite behavior, Billy Graham ministries held a “prayer” session with Milo in which followers of Graham prayed over Milo, with one of the volunteers asking God that Milo “lifts people up in Christ”. If there was so much of a backlash against the “LGBT+”, then such things would not have happened amongst so-called Christians. Even as recent as 2021, the Republican Party announced the creation of an “RNC Pride Coalition”, as we read in Fox News:
The Republican National Committee announced its first ever “RNC Pride Coalition” over the weekend, partnering with the Log Cabin Republicans to invest and mobilize LGBTQ communities ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.
The announcement came during the Log Cabin Republicans’ “Spirit of Lincoln Gala,” which took place Saturday night at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, and attracted a high-profile group of attendees, including former President Trump and former first lady Melania Trump, who was the event’s guest of honor, and other prominent Republicans, including former acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell.”
RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, who was given the “Majority Maker” award, said the RNC is “committed” to working with the Log Cabin Republicans — the country’s largest Republican organization dedicated to representing LGBTQ conservatives and allies — calling the organization “a partner to fight for our country’s future.”
A week before this announcement was made the log-cabin Republicans told the public of their “Outspoken Middle East” platform, in which they wanted to disseminate homosexual propaganda in Farsi and Arabic along with a “team of LGBTQ+ citizen journalists in Tehran, Kabul, Beirut and around the region and the world to tell human stories about the realities of being gay in parts of the world that liberals and corporations have left behind.” How is this any different from the “liberal” sodomite agenda? The answer is nothing.
In fact, in 2021 the GOP spokeswoman Ronna McDaniel wished everyone a “Happy Pride month”, saying that the “@GOP is proud to have doubled our LGBTQ support over the last 4 years”. The “T” in the acronym means “transgender”, which means that the GOP doesn’t mind more “transgenders” joining its party. And where was the backlash by the army of Trump supporters? The backlash came from the state of Texas, with the Texan GOP issuing a resolution suggesting the “Pride coalition” was “identity politics” and declaring, “the Republican Party of Texas pledges fidelity to our Party platform and affirms its stand that the most basic and fundamental building block of any society is marriage between one man and one woman.” Yes, there are Republicans who are against sodomite agenda, but this doesn’t change the fact that the tide has been turning amongst conservatives in favor of Sodom. In a Gallop poll done in 2021, for the first time a majority of Republicans approved of same-sex marriage. In 2022, 56% of polled Republicans agreed that “same-sex relationships” were morally acceptable. In 2023, the number dropped to 41%, still a substantial number. The decline is due to the push for the transgender ideology. So what does this tell us? It tells us that conservatives don’t have a huge issue with the L,G and B, but really their main focus is against the T. And secondly, it tells us that American conservatives can switch to supporting Sodom if the “T” in “LGBT” is removed or shutdown. Which means that they do not have a big problem with “gay conservatives”, but just really with transgenders. The mainstream conservative movement has been, within the last decade and this current decade, quite open to homosexuals who are, supposedly, on their side (“gay conservatives”). As Dennis Prager wrote back in 2012:
Proponents of same-sex marriage may conflate opposition to same-sex marriage with being anti-gay. But conservatives must not.
…
As it happens, there are far more gays who hold conservative values than many gay activists — or conservatives — realize. And we should embrace these people. Being gay does not automatically mean that one is on the Left, and conservatives should not assume that they are. Otherwise, they risk pushing the gay conservative leftward.
Conservatives have to be true to social as well as economic conservatism. But there is no reason why a gay should not be a conservative.
I am close to a gay man — and his partner — who lives in the heart of San Francisco. This man is a major fund raiser for Republican candidates. And given his homosexuality and where he lives, his Republican activism is quite courageous. He should be regarded as a major asset to the conservative cause.
The way it works is simple: The Left pushes for “gay marriage” and “transgenderism,” and the Right protests; but then leading conservatives say that they accept gays as long as they are “conservative.” Rightests who are more nationalistic will argue that Christians should embrace these “gay conservatives” lest they lose them to the Left. Thus, the conservative movement absorbs Sodom without much objection because the sodomites they are accepting are not under the title of “transgender.” So, in the end, the Right absorbs Sodom without embracing the taboos that conservatives despise. What ends up happening is the conservatives, seeing so many “gay conservatives”, begin to become lackadaisical and just downright accepting of abominations like gay marriage. They then will stop fighting a previous abomination and go on to fight the next extreme which right now is transgenderism.
If enough “conservative transgenders” pop up, the American conservative will then become pro-trans. The numbers reflect this. Back in the early 2000s, 60% of Americans opposed gay marriage. According to a poll by Pew, in 2017 almost half of white evangelicals born after 1964 favored same-sex marriage. The seas of the American Christian ebb and flow to the dictates of phases. The anti-gay marriage wave in the early 2000s and 2010s was a phase; and now it is not even that big of an issue anymore. We look back at the decades long past, we see the tensions, we hear the acrimonious expressions, we hear the raucous of arguing, we see the rifts and hear of complaints as if the apocalypse will soon happen. But then, after a decade has passed, the tension have calmed and the raging waves have abated, and the past controversies become a thing almost forgotten, and those who cling onto them are seen as outdated.
Should we really be surprised that one of the biggest names amongst conservatives, Jordan Peterson, referenced the American Psychological Association (the same organization that once called pedophilia an “orientation”) to argue that child molestation is not a traumatic experience? Peterson once wrote:
“Did you know that about 20 years ago the American Psychological Association published a paper showing that most people who were sexually abused as children recovered with very little psychological damage? This is an unsayable truth. …These are hard truths, and I don’t really give a damn if that’s politically incorrect or not.”
The paper that Petersen referenced was entitled, “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples”, published in 1998 in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin. The authors — Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, Robert Bauserman — wrote: “Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA [child sex abuse] indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women.” These authors suggest that “willing” sexual encounters between children and pedophiles that have “positive reactions” should be called “adult-child sex”:
“…focus on the young person’s perception of his or her willingness to participate and his or her reaction to the experience. A willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply adult-child sex, a value-neutral term.”
The outrage against the paper was so great that the American Psychiatric Association made a statement saying that: “The facts are that the majority of the psychological literature reveals that childhood sexual abuse has serious negative effects on its victims.” This statement goes contrary to what Peterson asserts, that “people who were sexually abused as children recovered with very little psychological damage”. If someone were to argue that pushing transgenderism on children inflicts “very little psychological damage”, the whole Right-wing movement would condemn such talk (and rightfully so). But Jordan Peterson said that it was a ‘hard truth’ that “most people who were sexually abused as children recovered with very little psychological damage”. How is Peterson better than the Left that advances for the transgender agenda? In July of 1999, Congress condemned the paper Peterson referenced, declaring in a resolution:
Whereas the Psychological Bulletin has recently published a severely flawed study […] which suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for “willing” children … That Congress– (1) condemns and denounces all suggestions in the article ‘A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples’ that indicate that sexual relationships between adults and “willing” children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for “willing” children.”
One of the authors of the condemned paper was Robert Bauserman, a writer for a pedophile magazine called “Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia” (1987-1995), founded by the the Stichting Paidika Foundation based in the Netherlands. A board member for Paidika, pedophile activists Gert Hekma, once said that children are sexual creatures who “so called innocence is imposed on.”
This creep Bauserman wrote for Paidika an article called “Man-Boy Sexual Relationships in a Cross-Cultural Perspective” in which he looks at the history of pedophilia and concludes that it traditionally gave boys positive male role models and mentors. In 1990 Bauserman wrote an article for “the Journal of Homosexual” entitled, “Male Intergenerational Intimacy” in which he criticized anyone who believes that pedophile ‘relationships’ “are by their very nature abusive and exploitive” or that “the younger partner is automatically incapable of consent”. Bauserman also called for for a new “scientific objectivity” in research on ‘adult-child sex’. This is the person who Jordan Peterson references.
Both Rind and Bauserman (who Jordan Peterson referenced when arguing that pedophilia doesn’t cause harm) co-authored an article called “Biased Terminology Effects and Biased Information Processing in Research in Adult-Nonadult Sexual Interactions: An Empirical Investigation” in which they argue that psychologists should not take part in”the indiscriminate use of terms suggesting victimization and harm” when describing “adult-nonadult” sex because the use of negative terms is based on “unsubstantiated assumptions of inherent exploitation . . . in these contacts”; “value-neutral terminology” should be used instead according to Rind and Bauserman. By downplaying the sinister nature of pedophilia, these writers like Rind, Bauserman and Tromovitch then make then pedophile into a victim of the law. Hence why in 1995 Rind wrote an article speaking on “an unfolding modern-day social pathology which has not yet reached its peak in terms of scapegoating sex offenders, destroying families, creating iatrogenic victims, misdirecting huge amounts of taxpayers’ money, social attention and legislative action to a social problem [child sex abuse] much less serious in size and scope than an unwitting public has been led to believe”.
In 1997 Bauserman and Rind wrote that “Self-defined consent, like absence of force, is in all studies associated with positive outcomes or evaluations”, and concluded that negative feelings are not inherent in pedophilia, “but depend on cultural views of these behaviors”:
“In the absence of social taboos and moral condemnation, negative feelings such as guilt and shame and doubts and conflicts about masculinity should not arise for children and adolescents who experience such contacts. The cross-cultural and historical literatures provides examples of societies where sexual contacts between boys and adults, rather than being condemned and pathologized, instead were approved of, encouraged, or even regarded as necessary for healthy development.”
In September of 1998, the Dutch “church based” foundation Kerkelijk Sociale Arbeid (Church Social Work) organized a pro-pedophile conference and invited Bauserman, Rind and Tromovitch as keynote speakers. An announcement for the event was made by a newsletter called “International Pedophile and Child Emancipation (IPCE)” and it stated:
“In order to throw light onto this other side of the coin again, after so long a time, the church-based Kerkelijk Sociale Arbeid (Church Social Work) foundation in Rotterdam is organizing a study conference to which the American psychologists Bruce Rind and Robert Bauserman have been invited as key speakers. (Dr. Rind has confirmed his presence.) Bauserman and Rind have distinguished themselves in professional circles in recent years by their publication of meta-analyses, research into sexuological research. Their most startling conclusion: from nearly all available research it appears that among males who have had sexual experiences with adults during their youth, a majority look back upon these experiences as positive or neutral, and that they experienced no demonstrable, lasting damage.”
What is so revealing is the fact that what Peterson said is exactly what these pedophiles in the Netherlands said. They both agree. Peterson takes writers — Rind, Bauserman and Tromovitch — and references them when saying that “most people who were sexually abused as children recovered with very little psychological damage” and called this “an unsayable truth.” The pedophile activists take this same work that Peterson references and make the same conclusion. Peterson would argue that he was simply referencing this work as a testament to human fortitude rising above the trauma of molestation.
But the fact is, the work Peterson referenced was written by pro-pedophile academics, and used by pedophile activists. If Peterson has no qualms about referencing pro-pedophile academics, then it shouldn’t surprise us that he is an ally to lesbian thinker Camille Paglia who has advocated for pedophile. In fact, on Jordan Peterson’s website it promotes Paglia’s pro-pedophile book, Sexual Personae, stating that she “is the author of seven books focusing on literature, visual art, music, and film history, among other topics. The most well-known of these is Sexual Personae (http://amzn.to/2xVGEEV), an expansion of her highly original doctoral thesis at Yale.” Well, in this book it not only promotes pedophilia, but protests against anti-pedophilia laws:
“The rosy English or Austrian choirboy, disciplined, reserved, and heart-stoppingly beautiful, is a symbol of spiritual and sexual illumination, fused in the idealizing Greek manner. We see the same thing in Botticelli’s exquisite long-haired boy angels. These days, especially in America, boy-love is not only scandalous and criminal but somehow in bad taste. On the evening news, one sees handcuffed teachers, priests, or Boy Scout leaders hustled into police vans. Therapists call them maladjusted, emotionally immature. But beauty has its own laws, inconsistent with Christian morality. As a woman, I feel free to protest that men today are pilloried for something that was rational and honorable in Greece at the height of civilization.”
Need I say more? Words are not needed to prove that this is evil. The presence of evil, unto itself, is enough for people to know whether or not something is rotten. And surely the conservative movement is rotten.