And our adversaries said, They shall not know, neither see, till we come in the midst among them, and slay them, and cause the work to cease. [Nehemiah 4:11]
If you have been active arguing and fighting online against homosexualism, no doubt you have encountered a persistent bombardment of hate-filled comments directed at you. This is of course something that many of us have come to expect when we challenge any or all of the dehumanising ideologies of death, like abortionism, homosexualism, atheism and radical feminism. Veterans of online social media and commentary battles develop thick skins and the persistence of rocks in midstream. They have to if they are to keep their sanity and sanctity of belief.
There is one thing, however, which I suggest harms us ever so much more than a cacophony of vulgar screeches emanating from a troupe of enraged homosexualists. This is due to the fact that we have few online refuges where we can gather to discuss and share our views, and where we can lend mutual support and encouragement to each other without the interference of our opponents. The ability of homosexualists and their allies to stymy the opposition's voice is not only a consequence of a ruthless decades-long campaign to hound, denigrate and persecute any opposition, wherever it may appear on the internet (and, of course, off line). It is also, in no small part, a consequence of poor management of commentaries by the majority of anti-homosexualist websites and social media pages. I arrived at this conclusion through a sequence of recent personal experiences. I will relate two of them here, to set the scene for the discussion to follow.
The Mercatornet.com experience
Last year I discovered mercatornet.com, a media site influenced by the Catholic-ethos which publishes very good articles on current political issues, like abortion and same sex marriage. I found the articles to be very informative and inspiring. Upon making this discovery, I was excited and eager to engage in the discussions which followed most articles. As a social scientist, I thought that my knowledge and insights would add to these discussions. Importantly for me, I also felt a sense of safety. I thought, here was a site where I would surely not be subjected to the usual diatribes, lies and hatred one encounters on the more ‘liberal/progressive’ sites which abound on the net. Or at least, I naively thought, I will not be attacked with the same ferocity which I encountered at, say, The Conversation.
Alas, it was not to be. No sooner did I start commenting when I became the target of a group of creepy homosexualists who zeroed on me with the usual epithets and insults (bigot, homophobe, etc.). What was happening? I explored past commentary threads on the site, and to my dismay I discovered these individuals to be long-term patrons of the site, dishing out the predictable menus of insults to guests with opposing mindsets with clockwork regularity. Normally, I am pretty resilient to these sorts of attacks, but I must admit that I felt ambushed by what happened to me on this website. In retrospect, I now realise that, because of its content matter, I assumed that I would be ‘safe’ on this website. That is, perhaps too reflexively, I expected the website would provide protection for its supporters. I wrote to the moderators, and explained that I thought the site would do well to restrict those who (so obviously from their comments) wanted only to disrupt and denigrate those who made positive and constructive comments. However, no action was taken. When I dished back to homosexualists some of their own medicine (though I use sarcasm, never vulgar language), I even had some of my comments removed. Some posts were removed without explanation, like when, in response to a suggestion that homosexuals have ‘hard lives’, I posted a link to a youtube clip showing some of the things going on on a cruise ship catering exclusively for homosexual men.
The Mercatornet.com experience
Last year I discovered mercatornet.com, a media site influenced by the Catholic-ethos which publishes very good articles on current political issues, like abortion and same sex marriage. I found the articles to be very informative and inspiring. Upon making this discovery, I was excited and eager to engage in the discussions which followed most articles. As a social scientist, I thought that my knowledge and insights would add to these discussions. Importantly for me, I also felt a sense of safety. I thought, here was a site where I would surely not be subjected to the usual diatribes, lies and hatred one encounters on the more ‘liberal/progressive’ sites which abound on the net. Or at least, I naively thought, I will not be attacked with the same ferocity which I encountered at, say, The Conversation.
Alas, it was not to be. No sooner did I start commenting when I became the target of a group of creepy homosexualists who zeroed on me with the usual epithets and insults (bigot, homophobe, etc.). What was happening? I explored past commentary threads on the site, and to my dismay I discovered these individuals to be long-term patrons of the site, dishing out the predictable menus of insults to guests with opposing mindsets with clockwork regularity. Normally, I am pretty resilient to these sorts of attacks, but I must admit that I felt ambushed by what happened to me on this website. In retrospect, I now realise that, because of its content matter, I assumed that I would be ‘safe’ on this website. That is, perhaps too reflexively, I expected the website would provide protection for its supporters. I wrote to the moderators, and explained that I thought the site would do well to restrict those who (so obviously from their comments) wanted only to disrupt and denigrate those who made positive and constructive comments. However, no action was taken. When I dished back to homosexualists some of their own medicine (though I use sarcasm, never vulgar language), I even had some of my comments removed. Some posts were removed without explanation, like when, in response to a suggestion that homosexuals have ‘hard lives’, I posted a link to a youtube clip showing some of the things going on on a cruise ship catering exclusively for homosexual men.
How to get banned from posting on Facebook
I maintain a Facebook page, mainly so that I can have the convenience of being able to login to some websites on the net. As one invariably does on social media, I friended a few pages maintained by individuals and organisations which support traditional marriage. One such page is Marriage Conservation. Initially, because the page is maintained by a pastor who obviously feels strongly about the sanctity of marriage, I once again felt that I would be ‘safe’ enough to let my guard down and discuss my views somewhat more freely. I guess that, like on mercatornet, I was assuming a supportive online environment and a certain level of protection from the usual homosexualist attacks. However, I obviously didn't learn my lesson from the mercatornet experience. If I paid attention to previous conversations on that FB page, I would have soon discovered that dozens of homosexualists, abortionists and atheists trolled every conversation on it, goading and insulting the page owner and his supporters. However, I didn’t do this.
Instead, I got sucked into a conversation with a Canadian homosexualist. On a separate thread he created for the occasion, this individual invited me to discuss how his ‘marriage’ might be different from mine. Because I refused to enter into a conversation about him, personally, this chap immediately launched into an attack on me. Using the usual ideologically-designed techniques of homosexualism, he soon led me to discussing sexuality, gender, children, racism, homophobia, religion and so on. Others joined (mostly his fellow activists) and the epithets were soon flying in my direction. Goaded into it, I was asked to comment on some harmful homosexual lifestyle consequences. My comments then triggered my banning, despite saying nothing which might be construed being anywhere near as being worse than what they were saying to me. Naturally, it was what they were aiming for, as the subsequent gloating on their pages and their private messages to me revealed. This ‘ban’ bothered me little. However, what was upsetting was the failure of the page owner to get rid of these individuals or to take any serious action to protect his supporters. I even wrote to him, detailing the threatening messages I received from these people, and the fact that some of us will find it necessary to unfriend him because of these people's behaviour towards us on his page. He did nothing, and even at the time of writing this a quick visit to the page confirmed that the trolling is still going on, as ferociously as before.
I maintain a Facebook page, mainly so that I can have the convenience of being able to login to some websites on the net. As one invariably does on social media, I friended a few pages maintained by individuals and organisations which support traditional marriage. One such page is Marriage Conservation. Initially, because the page is maintained by a pastor who obviously feels strongly about the sanctity of marriage, I once again felt that I would be ‘safe’ enough to let my guard down and discuss my views somewhat more freely. I guess that, like on mercatornet, I was assuming a supportive online environment and a certain level of protection from the usual homosexualist attacks. However, I obviously didn't learn my lesson from the mercatornet experience. If I paid attention to previous conversations on that FB page, I would have soon discovered that dozens of homosexualists, abortionists and atheists trolled every conversation on it, goading and insulting the page owner and his supporters. However, I didn’t do this.
Instead, I got sucked into a conversation with a Canadian homosexualist. On a separate thread he created for the occasion, this individual invited me to discuss how his ‘marriage’ might be different from mine. Because I refused to enter into a conversation about him, personally, this chap immediately launched into an attack on me. Using the usual ideologically-designed techniques of homosexualism, he soon led me to discussing sexuality, gender, children, racism, homophobia, religion and so on. Others joined (mostly his fellow activists) and the epithets were soon flying in my direction. Goaded into it, I was asked to comment on some harmful homosexual lifestyle consequences. My comments then triggered my banning, despite saying nothing which might be construed being anywhere near as being worse than what they were saying to me. Naturally, it was what they were aiming for, as the subsequent gloating on their pages and their private messages to me revealed. This ‘ban’ bothered me little. However, what was upsetting was the failure of the page owner to get rid of these individuals or to take any serious action to protect his supporters. I even wrote to him, detailing the threatening messages I received from these people, and the fact that some of us will find it necessary to unfriend him because of these people's behaviour towards us on his page. He did nothing, and even at the time of writing this a quick visit to the page confirmed that the trolling is still going on, as ferociously as before.
What is happening?
In simple terms, the homosexualists are winning the war of ideas on the web because of the naiveté of many website owners. Too many Christians and other supporters of marriage neglect and even refuse to protect their supporters and allies. They instead seek to tolerate and even ‘engage’ the opposition, no doubt hoping to change minds and to promote civility and moral discourse. As an aside, I have a question for mercatornet and marriage conservation: How many homosexualists have you been able to dissuade or convince thus far?
As I see it, the reality is, instead, quite brutal. It consists of the following:
We are in the middle of a cultural genocide. The homosexualists, abortionists, atheists and radical feminists have made great progress in dismantling and replacing our cultural institutions – especially the popular media, social media, and much of the World Wide Web. Make no mistake about it. There is no quarter given, and this sustained attack has been going on for some time now – having it's roots in the ‘sexual revolution’ of the 60s and 70s.
Unlike others, homosexualists have no real moral framework or points of reference. They have no problem lying, misleading, bullying, silencing and marginalising those they disagree with. If they could, they would physically torture and exterminate us – they often say so! I am struggling to remember if I have ever had an online ‘conversation’ with a homosexualist where he or she was not either lying, misrepresenting facts, making hateful and/or insulting personal comments, threatening me, or seeking from the website owner my censure/banning.
A homosexualist’s primary goal is to silence opposing voices, and to extinguish the truth. I suggest that homosexualists dislike democracy, and tirelessly work to usurp it. This is evident in the very fact that they represent a tiny minority in society, yet homosexualists work to normalise a way of life which has been alien to the majority of humanity, and for human societies throughout known history. Homosexualists (and abortionists, atheists, radical feminists) don’t merely seek tolerance and equal civil rights. They ardently seek the destruction of ‘heteronormativity’. Just open any queer text and see for yourself how this ideology is being advocated. Just listen carefully to what the founders and leaders of the homosexualist movement advocate to realise how this is so.
Homosexualists are well organised and resourced, and are politically very powerful. As a movement, homosexualism is well funded, and wields much political power. Not only is it allied with atheists, radical feminists and abortionists, but is well represented and positioned within the mechanisms of government and bureaucracy in western societies, and also in peak global organisations, like the UN. It is even making inroads in religious institutions. It controls much of the academia, through which it is busily manufacturing its own 'evidence' and 'facts'. It controls the policies (and sucks cash out) of many global private corporations which control the internet, industry and trade (e.g., Amazon, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and so on). There should now be little doubt that these organisations prefer homosexualism over Christianity, and some even marginalise the latter. Homosexualism is networked with hundreds of major national advocacy and activism organisations – in the US alone think of GLSEN, HRC, GLAAD, Lambda Legal, GLFF, etc., each with annual budgets ranging into tens of millions.
In simple terms, the homosexualists are winning the war of ideas on the web because of the naiveté of many website owners. Too many Christians and other supporters of marriage neglect and even refuse to protect their supporters and allies. They instead seek to tolerate and even ‘engage’ the opposition, no doubt hoping to change minds and to promote civility and moral discourse. As an aside, I have a question for mercatornet and marriage conservation: How many homosexualists have you been able to dissuade or convince thus far?
As I see it, the reality is, instead, quite brutal. It consists of the following:
We are in the middle of a cultural genocide. The homosexualists, abortionists, atheists and radical feminists have made great progress in dismantling and replacing our cultural institutions – especially the popular media, social media, and much of the World Wide Web. Make no mistake about it. There is no quarter given, and this sustained attack has been going on for some time now – having it's roots in the ‘sexual revolution’ of the 60s and 70s.
Unlike others, homosexualists have no real moral framework or points of reference. They have no problem lying, misleading, bullying, silencing and marginalising those they disagree with. If they could, they would physically torture and exterminate us – they often say so! I am struggling to remember if I have ever had an online ‘conversation’ with a homosexualist where he or she was not either lying, misrepresenting facts, making hateful and/or insulting personal comments, threatening me, or seeking from the website owner my censure/banning.
A homosexualist’s primary goal is to silence opposing voices, and to extinguish the truth. I suggest that homosexualists dislike democracy, and tirelessly work to usurp it. This is evident in the very fact that they represent a tiny minority in society, yet homosexualists work to normalise a way of life which has been alien to the majority of humanity, and for human societies throughout known history. Homosexualists (and abortionists, atheists, radical feminists) don’t merely seek tolerance and equal civil rights. They ardently seek the destruction of ‘heteronormativity’. Just open any queer text and see for yourself how this ideology is being advocated. Just listen carefully to what the founders and leaders of the homosexualist movement advocate to realise how this is so.
Homosexualists are well organised and resourced, and are politically very powerful. As a movement, homosexualism is well funded, and wields much political power. Not only is it allied with atheists, radical feminists and abortionists, but is well represented and positioned within the mechanisms of government and bureaucracy in western societies, and also in peak global organisations, like the UN. It is even making inroads in religious institutions. It controls much of the academia, through which it is busily manufacturing its own 'evidence' and 'facts'. It controls the policies (and sucks cash out) of many global private corporations which control the internet, industry and trade (e.g., Amazon, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and so on). There should now be little doubt that these organisations prefer homosexualism over Christianity, and some even marginalise the latter. Homosexualism is networked with hundreds of major national advocacy and activism organisations – in the US alone think of GLSEN, HRC, GLAAD, Lambda Legal, GLFF, etc., each with annual budgets ranging into tens of millions.
What to do?
The first thing that should be on the ‘to do’ list of website owners who support institutions like marriage is to actually understand the reality I outlined above. In short, they are not facing a civilised opponent, who is willing to compromise and respect difference. No. They are facing homosexualism. Like the communist, radical feminist or fascist cadre, the adherents to homosexualism are bent on indoctrinating us or, failing this, persecute us into submission or silence. I repeat. There is no compromise possible with such people whilst they are under the influence of homosexualism. Obviously, some of these poor sods might come to their senses, and see the illogical and unjust tenets of the ideology which they hold. There are examples of some that have done so. However, when faced with an active homosexualist on your website, in my view there is only one thing to do. His/her access to the website should be blocked.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not advocating for excluding people on the slightest misdemeanour or, least of all, for voicing their opinion, no matter how differing that might be. Nor am I advocating the closure of healthy and robust debate – including even the odd name-calling, uttered in the obvious heat of the moment.
What I am advocating for instead is the immediate censure of individuals and gangs exercising homosexualist tactics on online fora and commentary threads - this is known as 'jamming'. Luckily, jamming is quite easily identified, as anyone who has been subjected to it can attest. Here are some key signs of homosexualist jamming on a commentary thread (I assume that already foul/vulgar language is not tolerated):
· The use of terms like ‘bigot’ and ‘homophobe’
· Asking for ‘evidence’, sometimes continuously and at almost every opportunity. When evidence is presented, it is not accepted as ‘valid’, and is discounted and/or ridiculed
· Sending the other participants on ‘wild goose chases’ by asking for explanations and clarifications, then asking again … and again … and again …
· Condemning the beliefs shaping the moral frameworks held by other participants. Homosexualists are invariably atheists and Christophobes, and will often accuse others of being irrational because of their beliefs
· Goading comments, usually one sentence or a few words designed to question the integrity of someone with a contrary view, or to insinuate an insult. I call this ‘snapping’. Some homosexualists specialise in this technique. When they are pressed about it they squeal in protest, and they may say that they were only posing/asking an innocent statement/ question.
· Entrapment. Some homosexualists are very good at this technique. They target and incessantly harass one or more individuals, prodding them with insulting or demeaning remarks until the individual retaliates with some comment. Armed with it, the homosexualist then reports them to the site moderator (or Facebook, or such, if on a social media site) hoping to get the opponent banned.
The first thing that should be on the ‘to do’ list of website owners who support institutions like marriage is to actually understand the reality I outlined above. In short, they are not facing a civilised opponent, who is willing to compromise and respect difference. No. They are facing homosexualism. Like the communist, radical feminist or fascist cadre, the adherents to homosexualism are bent on indoctrinating us or, failing this, persecute us into submission or silence. I repeat. There is no compromise possible with such people whilst they are under the influence of homosexualism. Obviously, some of these poor sods might come to their senses, and see the illogical and unjust tenets of the ideology which they hold. There are examples of some that have done so. However, when faced with an active homosexualist on your website, in my view there is only one thing to do. His/her access to the website should be blocked.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not advocating for excluding people on the slightest misdemeanour or, least of all, for voicing their opinion, no matter how differing that might be. Nor am I advocating the closure of healthy and robust debate – including even the odd name-calling, uttered in the obvious heat of the moment.
What I am advocating for instead is the immediate censure of individuals and gangs exercising homosexualist tactics on online fora and commentary threads - this is known as 'jamming'. Luckily, jamming is quite easily identified, as anyone who has been subjected to it can attest. Here are some key signs of homosexualist jamming on a commentary thread (I assume that already foul/vulgar language is not tolerated):
· The use of terms like ‘bigot’ and ‘homophobe’
· Asking for ‘evidence’, sometimes continuously and at almost every opportunity. When evidence is presented, it is not accepted as ‘valid’, and is discounted and/or ridiculed
· Sending the other participants on ‘wild goose chases’ by asking for explanations and clarifications, then asking again … and again … and again …
· Condemning the beliefs shaping the moral frameworks held by other participants. Homosexualists are invariably atheists and Christophobes, and will often accuse others of being irrational because of their beliefs
· Goading comments, usually one sentence or a few words designed to question the integrity of someone with a contrary view, or to insinuate an insult. I call this ‘snapping’. Some homosexualists specialise in this technique. When they are pressed about it they squeal in protest, and they may say that they were only posing/asking an innocent statement/ question.
· Entrapment. Some homosexualists are very good at this technique. They target and incessantly harass one or more individuals, prodding them with insulting or demeaning remarks until the individual retaliates with some comment. Armed with it, the homosexualist then reports them to the site moderator (or Facebook, or such, if on a social media site) hoping to get the opponent banned.
One can see from just these few techniques that the central aim of the homosexualist is to censure and drown the voice of those opposing and resisting homosexualist propaganda and aims. If they can drive away supporters of a website, then they would consider this as mission accomplished, and a ‘job well done’. That’s not what makes me angry – I expect homosexualists to do this, it is after all predictable that they would employ such a strategy. Time and time again their ideological literature instructs them to disrupt, demonise and harass those engaged in opposing discourse. What saddens me is the inability of many website and page owners to see that their supporters are undermined, bullied, silenced and chased away. As I said above, I believe that these website owners genuinely have the cause of resisting homosexualism at heart, but do not fully appreciate this ideology’s ferocity and what it makes its adherents do. Like the first Vikings landing on Europe’s shores, they are on your site to plunder, destroy and drive away – they cannot be bargained with. Tolerance and civil discourse does not work with these people if they are allowed to roam free. Forgiveness is warranted, certainly, but a wall to protect your community is also needed, from behind which one can safely forgive.
The short message from all of this is that if I participate in the commentary threads on a site which purports to support the same things I do, like marriage, then I expect to feel that I am within a community of my own. I expect to feel safe from homosexualist attacks and harassment. Years ago I lived in a communist country, where there was nowhere to hide and be yourself, there was nowhere that you could speak freely without feeling that you are under surveillance. I will never forget the existential state of not being free. One can never forget such things.
Ultimately, I was not free of homosexualist persecution even on websites which one would consider sympathetic and aligned with ones principles, and even Christian. So it was that, like a refugee from a dictatorship, I had to leave websites I like but which could not afford me a space free from the kind of intolerance which prompted their birth in the first place … Unashamedly using the liberties and tolerance afforded them by website and page owners, the homosexualists succeeded in driving me away. Sadly, mercatornet and marriage conservation are examples of websites and pages which allowed them to do this.
The short message from all of this is that if I participate in the commentary threads on a site which purports to support the same things I do, like marriage, then I expect to feel that I am within a community of my own. I expect to feel safe from homosexualist attacks and harassment. Years ago I lived in a communist country, where there was nowhere to hide and be yourself, there was nowhere that you could speak freely without feeling that you are under surveillance. I will never forget the existential state of not being free. One can never forget such things.
Ultimately, I was not free of homosexualist persecution even on websites which one would consider sympathetic and aligned with ones principles, and even Christian. So it was that, like a refugee from a dictatorship, I had to leave websites I like but which could not afford me a space free from the kind of intolerance which prompted their birth in the first place … Unashamedly using the liberties and tolerance afforded them by website and page owners, the homosexualists succeeded in driving me away. Sadly, mercatornet and marriage conservation are examples of websites and pages which allowed them to do this.
RSS Feed