Part 12: The Gay Heroes

Homophobia Part 12: The Gay Heroes

Before I get into the gay heroes, I’d like to highlight two pieces of news from today. The first, comes from our president’s state of Illinois  “where a county judge ruled the state can decline to renew its contracts with Catholic Charities to provide publicly funded foster care and adoption services.” In other words, because the Catholic Church doesn’t pretend to have to honor the state’s Civil Unions for homosexuals (because the 1st Amendment protects them from the state dictating their religious doctrine), they may no longer be able to aid adoptions and placement of foster kids. This is like the situation in Massachusetts, where the Catholic Church had to give up adoption services because they wouldn’t let gay couples adopt children. This is just another instance of where the gay bullies have come into the religious arena and made America less American and more French. First they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t Catholic… Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me, to paraphrase Rev. Martin Neimoller.

The second instance of the gays taking over our country occurred as a result of the actions of some left-wing celebrities that include Eddie Vedder (whose band Pearl Jam is named after his grandmother or his aunt’s marijuana jelly) and Natalie Maines (whose outspoken hatred of George W. Bush has hurt her Dixie Chicks record sales). They donated to a defense fund to get three guys that murdered three cub scouts after first hog tying them naked and performing some satanic homosexual ritual on them. HBO (aka Homophile Box Office) did a movie sympathetic to these boy predators, which interested the keen minds of some celebritards who have now secured the release of murderers.

Like most Democrats who think the Boy Scouts are a hate group, these half-wits probably sympathize with murderers rather than the victims. And spare me the nonsense about how even some of the victims’ family members didn’t think they were guilty. Dead cub scouts aren’t obligated to have genius family members in order to earn my sympathy. Furthermore, had it not been a couple of celebrities who sided against their own country because George W. Bush was a Republican in a war against a brutal dictator Saddam Hussein, who gassed his own people, killed hundreds of thousands of them and whose torture/prison system rivals that of their other favorite dictator, Fidel Castro. Through their previous stands on what they consider morality, I presume these murderers still guilty because I must judge them by the company they keep. Eddie Vedder and Natalie Maines are not good company to keep.

Gay Heroes

Here, I’m referring to the people that students in California and eventually the rest of the country will be learning about after the recent passage of legislation in California that mandates gay history being taught in public schools without any mention of the diseases, drug problems and mental health issues that too often accompany homosexuality. I covered this legislation in more depth in Part 11.

While I’ve written about Ernst Rohm, Hitler’s mentor, head of the Nazi Brown shirts and the second most important homosexual in gay history, I will begin with the person I believe is the most important and influential homosexual in history. His name is John Maynard Keynes. Most have heard of him. He was an economist in England from the World War II era.

While more complex than I’ll get into here, his main theory is that during a time of recession or depression, governments should borrow money and spend like crazy. This is called Demand-Side economics. Another part of his theory is that governments should spend less during fat economic cycles, but since elected officials only want to get reelected, that never happens. Increased spending in both fat and fallow times ultimately leads to national bankruptcy. The only way this theory could work is if officials in charge of increasing and decreasing spending didn’t have to worry about getting reelected. In other words, it only works in dictatorships. As we know from the gay Nazis in Part 11, many homosexuals love absolute power, while others want the responsibility of making decisions taken from them so that they no longer have to feel guilty about the decisions they’ve already made and those they’d have to make in the future. The first type of homosexual is the ruling-class leader, and the second is the submissively socialized. So Keynes’ economic theory sucks.

Another reason this theory sucks is that it’s based on Keynes’ assumption that all economies would be Marxist/socialist in nature. Marxist economies don’t worry about the effects of inflation due to currency devaluation that inevitably comes from spending borrowed money. Government-induced inflation was Lenin’s way of raising taxes without legislation.

The most important reason this theory sucks is that Keynes was a homosexual. While Keynes was alive, homosexuals weren’t allowed to adopt children, and, since homosexual relationships don’t produce children, homosexuals rarely had children. What does this have to do with economic theory? – Everything. Part of our obligation as inhabitants of earth is to leave a country and an economic environment hospitable to economic growth for our future generations. Homosexuals have no future generations, and therefore, Keynes had no consideration for his future generations in mind when he came up with his spend-all-the-money-and-then-some-immediately theory. Without progeny, why would he be concerned about leaving wealth to his heirs?

How is this affecting the world today? – In a big way. We all know that President Obama and the Democrat Party are Marxist/socialists, but they use Keynes’ theories as a cover for what they’re doing, namely bankrupting America by printing money and borrowing more than 40% of every dollar the Federal Government spends. This is wreaking havoc on the dollar, and also on other global currencies because they’re all pegged to the dollar. Riots are happening throughout the world because other countries are feeling the food and energy hyperinflation much more than we are in America.

While I did see that Keynes might have belonged to an organization famous for having sexual relations with boys, I don’t know how reliable that is or his level of involvement. But I do know that our economy and the global economy are hurting badly because of this homosexual’s theories. Part of the problem liberals have is that they can’t look at things objectively. They’ve secretly convinced themselves that there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals, nor in the way that each thinks. I say secretly because, while you and I know it, liberals still aren’t clued into their own personally secret self-deluding. They repeat their lies so many times that eventually they actually believe them.

God told us to be fruitful and procreate, not to be fruits and recreate. With a future generation to consider, heterosexuals are going to be more prudent with money and wealth. Homosexuals, without a future generation to worry about, are going to burn money and destroy wealth through wealth redistribution programs that make them feel good but serve no edifying purpose other than to enslave the minds of those who get hooked on the dole.

Actually though, gay activists have bullied the government into spending more on AIDS treatment and R and D than on that for cancer. Cancer kills more Americans every year than AIDS, but because AIDS normally kills gay men and IV drug users, that’s where the money is spent. With that in mind, think about this. Cancer isn’t communicable. If we save the life of a cancer patient, that person isn’t going to give cancer to another person. However, saving the life of an AIDS patient isn’t going to mean that that person will get rid of all the sinful urges that most likely got them the AIDS in the first place and refrain from putting others at risk. Remember that the next time you’re writing a check out to the IRS. You are willingly funding efforts to keep AIDS patients alive, able to live somewhat normal lives and able to spread their disease, thus actually increasing the chance that you might get it through infected blood supply or random acts of blood splatter. Nonetheless, if you get cancer and can’t afford the treatment, the government may say, “Go scrub rocks, this heroin addict’s AIDS cocktails are too expensive for us to bother with you.”

It kind of reminds me how liberals don’t care a bit about the life of an unborn baby, but if that baby grows up to be a murderer on death row, the liberals will do everything in the world to keep him alive so that he will get more opportunities to kill others in prison. I’m not saying I’m rooting for the government to let all the AIDS patients die, just that the difference in funding amounts speaks volumes about the liberal government’s moral priorities.

Next gay hero, Boy George. That’s all I really have to say, unless people don’t read much about his constant troubles with drugs and getting busted for chaining a man up in his home. George Michael, another gay singer, has a tendency of getting busted in public bathrooms looking for love in all the wrong places.

However, as far as singers go, I think Elton John is a worthy example of a homosexual. His songs are just fantastic, and he sang at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding. Upon doing so, he developed a lasting friendship with Rush, not allowing their differing opinions on gay marriage to keep them from mutually respecting each other. That’s classy.

Morrissey, however, is just plain batty. After the Norway massacre, he had this to say: “We all live in a murderous world, as the events in Norway have shown, with 97 dead. Though that is nothing compared to what happens in McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Sh*t every day.”  Like Hitler was, Morrissey is a vigilant vegetarian who thinks “Meat is Murder” as he used to sing as the front man of The Smiths. Both seem to think killing animals for food is more barbaric than slaughtering humans. Morrissey’s just another gay musician with moral equivalency troubles. I love meat, Morrissey- just not the same kind as you. MMMMM, burger.

For further proof that aliens are secretly breeding with humans, look no further than bisexual Lady Gaga.

That’s it for now. Tune in for Part 13: The Gay Heroes Part 2

__________________________________________________________________________________________

We at the FDFNY depend on your supportDonate Today! Your Donation of any amount ($1, $5, $50 ect.) will help us Educate, Empower and Enhance those around us. You can help the Frederick Douglass Foundation of New York compete with the well-funded opposition by donating today. The Left is great at putting their money where their hearts are. Conservatives need to do the same thing if we intend on meeting our goals. To Donate and find out more Click Here

SIGN UP FOR ACTION/EMAIL ALERTS: by sending an email to info@fdfny.org with subscribe in the subject line

You can also join as a MEMBER and become a 21st Century Abolitionist.

We do not discriminate based on gender, race, class, economic status, ethnic background, sexual orientation, age, physical ability, cultural and religious backgrounds.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For those of you who have not been following my series on the gay agenda, Parts 1 through 7 can be found at the links below.

Society Needs to Embrace its Homophobia if We Plan on Saving the Country- Part 1

Society Needs to Embrace its Homophobia if We Plan on Saving the Country- Part 2: What is Homophobia?

Society Needs to Embrace its Homophobia if We Plan on Saving the Country- Part 3

Society Needs to Embrace its Homophobia if We Plan on Saving the Country- Part 4

Part 5: The overly misrepresented story of Matthew Shepard and the under reported story of Jesse Dirkhising- two heinous stories with lessons for everyone, including the liberal media

Society Needs to Embrace its Homophobia if We Plan on Saving the Country, Part 6: The under-told story of Jesse Dirkhising.

Part 7: How the gay bullies are turning us all into homophobes- It’s time to draw the line in the sand.

Part 8 Gay Bullies

Part 9

Homophobia Part 10: The Gay Bullies part 4

Homophobia Part 11: The Gay Bullies Part 5

 

Share

6 thoughts on “Part 12: The Gay Heroes

  1. My point about Keynes is that he was faithful to his wife, and they tried to have a family. You can’t make conclusions about his economics based on an argument that he was a present-oriented homosexual. And my point about Smith (similar to a number of other economists throughout history) is that, since he didn’t have any children either, you’d have to assume that his economics wasn’t future-oriented either. For all we know, he was a present-oriented homosexual. But that doesn’t necessarily mean anything about his economics.

    • Doesn’t fly as suspicious, Jenny – he was single. So what? Lots of people are single, that does NOT mean they are gay. Let’s not be overly simplistic, conflate real differences, or reduce everyone to just two catgories, i.e. “If you are not this, you must be that”.

  2. John Maynard Keynes was bisexual, favoring relationships with men when he was young. But he then married a woman and was faithful to her the rest of his life. She had a miscarriage (not too surprising since she was an underweight ballet dancer), and the couple ended up not having any children (not uncommon for upper-middle class, heterosexual academics of the time). In other words, you’re making too much of his non-procreation. I’d think that including him on your “gay heroes” list is worse than those who list President Obama on “black heroes” lists. Try again.

    • Is bisexuality determined by preference or behavior? I thought it was defined as a matter of preference or orientation. As defined by the gay community, it is “preference” or “orientation”, not sex (male or female)that determines one’s “sexuality” or “sexual identity”. Therefore, if behavior is the defining characteristic, then “bisexual” as a category of “preference” cannot logically exist: one should conclude he went from being “gay” to “straight” behaviorally. However, if it is sexual preference that defines sexuality, then he may be any number of sexual preference categories, but the fact that he is married or single does not say one word about what his preferences are. You cannot have it both ways, preference (orientation) one second, behavior the next.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>