Jump to content

The homosexual elite and the velvet mafia


Golden Retriever
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

Who else is behind these powerful LGBTQ lobbies, which grassroots people don't like?

 

Big oil money (and the petro-chemical industry that creates the endocrine disrupting chemicals). Its vital that the changes their chemicals are causing to society are NORMALISED so that no one can ever call them out on what they are doing for fear of being branded as something nasty. This way their endocrine disrupting chemicals can never be questioned properly for fear of 'offending' people....well guess what? IM OFFENDED by what they are doing....IM OFFENDED by their toxic chemicals and their societal manipulations:

The Rockefeller Foundation Announces Grants to Organizations Supporting and Defending LGBTQ Community

06.22.17

$300,000 in three grants to NYC LGBT Center, Sylvia Rivera Law Project and Campaign for Southern Equality

 

NEW YORK — The Rockefeller Foundation announced today that it will be making grants of $100,000 each to the New York City LGBT Community Center, the Sylvia Rivera Law Project and the Campaign for Southern Equality. The organizations will use the funds at their discretion to provide a variety of legal, advocacy, and social services to the LGBTQ community as they respond to an environment of increased violence, hostility and prejudice.

https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/rockefeller-foundation-announces-grants-organizations-supporting-defending-lgbtq-community/

Edited by Macnamara
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Golden Retriever said:

 

Your link gave me Stonewall and one person called Nancy Kelley.

 

Who else is behind these powerful LGBTQ lobbies, which grassroots people don't like?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57281448

 

 

There's Carrie Symonds who you mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

Apart from that, I don't know of any other names because I'm not interested in politics. A lot of people just know that they don't like these lobby groups.

 

It's like the groups pushing the vaccine. I know some names - I don't know many of the names behind it all - but I do know I don't like that lobby. Same with the gay lobbies, like the one Matthew Paris referred to in the article about Stonewall.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RobSS said:

Unfortunately, man's inhumanity to man knows no boundaries and those violently inclined will find any excuse under the sun to assault and physically abuse another human being, whether it be because they perceive them as being gay, straight, brown, white, black, or Chinese, or a tramp. That's why we all need to challenge and expose the divide and conquer agenda because it affects us all at the end of the day.

Bubonic plague professor, 47, accused of murdering his boyfriend, 26, in sex fetish killing claims he 'hid in the bathroom like a coward' while another man stabbed lover 78 times

  • Wyndham Lathem is accused of murdering Trenton James Cornell-Duranleau
  • Andrew Warren, who has pleaded guilty to murder, testified that he flew from England to Chicago to meet Lathem, and they agreed to kill Cornell-Duranleau 
  • Lathem claims he was in shock and believed he would be blamed for the death
  • 'I didn't stop Andrew from hurting him, I didn't,' Lathem testified. 'I hid in the bathroom like a coward'

By Ross Ibbetson For Mailonline and Ap

Published: 00:41 BST, 7 October 2021 | Updated: 16:24 BST, 7 October 2021

Lathem is accused of enlisting Andrew Warren, an Oxford University financial officer, to fly from England to Chicago to help him kill hair stylist Cornell-Duranleau as part of a sexual fantasy.  

Warren, who has already pleaded guilty to murder, testified that he flew to Chicago to meet Lathem as part of a pact to kill each other, before they agreed to kill Cornell-Duranleau.

Lathem under questioning from the prosecutor acknowledged that not only did he not try to stop Warren from killing his boyfriend, but he took a shower before the two fled together. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10067103/Professor-charged-stabbing-death-blames-man.html

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Macnamara said:

 

stabbed his gay lover 78 times....

Bubonic plague professor, 47, accused of murdering his boyfriend, 26, in sex fetish killing claims he 'hid in the bathroom like a coward' while another man stabbed lover 78 times

  • Wyndham Lathem is accused of murdering Trenton James Cornell-Duranleau
  • Andrew Warren, who has pleaded guilty to murder, testified that he flew from England to Chicago to meet Lathem, and they agreed to kill Cornell-Duranleau 
  • Lathem claims he was in shock and believed he would be blamed for the death
  • 'I didn't stop Andrew from hurting him, I didn't,' Lathem testified. 'I hid in the bathroom like a coward'

By Ross Ibbetson For Mailonline and Ap

Published: 00:41 BST, 7 October 2021 | Updated: 16:24 BST, 7 October 2021

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10067103/Professor-charged-stabbing-death-blames-man.html

 

What an vile crime.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Macnamara

I guess you are sufficiently qualified to know if the sources you quote and the papers they publish are based on accurate, peer-reviewed, academic research and not just stuff that has appeared in pay-to-publish journals. I'm not an epidemiologist, or endocrinologist and I certainly wouldn't be comfortable posting such papers to support a subject I didn't fully understand.

 

And as far as I know the Daily Mail, Washington News Post nor National Catholic Register qualify as rigorous academic journals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

Who else is behind these powerful LGBTQ lobbies, which grassroots people don't like?

 

Matthew Rothschild is editor of The Progressive magazine and host of Progressive Radio, a weekly public affairs program syndicated nationally. He is author of You Have No Rights: Stories of America in an Age of Repression.

The Progressive celebrates its 100th birthday May 1–2, 2009
• Visit The Progressive website

https://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/4701.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Janet W said:

@ Macnamara

I guess you are sufficiently qualified to know if the sources you quote and the papers they publish are based on accurate, peer-reviewed, academic research and not just stuff that has appeared in pay-to-publish journals. I'm not an epidemiologist, or endocrinologist and I certainly wouldn't be comfortable posting such papers to support a subject I didn't fully understand.

 

And as far as I know the Daily Mail, Washington News Post nor National Catholic Register qualify as rigorous academic journals.

 

you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts

 

its a fact that endocrine disrupting chemicals are being mass produced by the elite owned corporations and that the corrupt governments are not regulating those chemicals and that those chemicals have had a wide range of harmful effects on both animal and human life

 

to try and deny this at this point would simply expose someone as an outright liar

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Macnamara said:

 

you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts

 

its a fact that endocrine disrupting chemicals are being mass produced by the elite owned corporations and that the corrupt governments are not regulating those chemicals and that those chemicals have had a wide range of effects on both animal and human life

 

to try and deny this at this point would simply expose someone as an outright liar

 

So you do fully understand all the science. Good. As long as you do appreciate all the facts that's fine. Unfortunately I have no qualifications in the relevant subjects. I may be wrong, but I doubt many others reading this thread do either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what i have learned from years of debating woke people online

 

They hold fast to their narratives. If reality itself contradicts their narrative they won't alter their own consciousness to live more in alignment with truth

 

No instead they will simply ignore reality so that they can keep upholding their narrative

 

They are not interested in objective truth and they are not bothered about the wider implications for society. They are only interested in their own narrow self interest and will gladly live a lie in order to protect their narratives

 

Its a cult

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

 

Your link gave me Stonewall and one person called Nancy Kelley.

 

Who else is behind these powerful LGBTQ lobbies, which grassroots people don't like?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57281448

 

 

It's also probably the same groups of people who are behind all the other things that we're under attack from, like the Great Reset, for example and World Economic Forum, not to mention groups like Bilderberg, etc.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

Here's what i have learned from years of debating woke people online

 

They hold fast to their narratives. If reality itself contradicts their narrative they won't alter their own consciousness to live more in alignment with truth

 

No instead they will simply ignore reality so that they can keep upholding their narrative

 

They are not interested in objective truth and they are not bothered about the wider implications for society. They are only interested in their own narrow self interest and will gladly live a lie in order to protect their narratives

 

Its a cult

 

So you believe only woke people cling on to their beliefs even when confronted with opposing evidence? Interesting.

You haven't quite clarified your background in fully appreciating all the data in your long posts above. You're not just cherry-picking text regardless of its academic accuracy just because it fits your narrative are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

efgedger.jpg

 

I'm not into lewd shit, but isn't Playboy traditionally a heterosexual mag? How is this just about promoting tolerance? This seems like it's being pushed to piss people off.

 

I would say that Hefner would be turning in his grave, but he was a slimey subversive too, so I dunno.

 

The backlash to Weimar 2.0 is going to be hard to watch, especially as the West is also importing people that have a medieval attitude towards gays. A literal disaster waiting to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Janet W said:

So you believe only woke people cling on to their beliefs even when confronted with opposing evidence? Interesting.

 

oh no there are all kinds of mind fuck softwares being run by people in their heads out there

 

but the thing that wokery does is it gives people anidentity and they desire the sense of belonging to that identity SO MUCH that they choose connection to that identity over a connection to truth

 

If they have to choose between the truth on something or saying what wokery deems politically correct they will go with the political correctness everytime

 

the cabal who created wokery know this. The woke people are puppets on strings pulled by the likes of soros, rockefeller and rothschild. The minds of woke people are not their own. They have simply handed over the reins to the cabal. Someone else is in the driving seat

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

This seems like it's being pushed to piss people off.

 

its simply the lurianic kabbalist supremacists vision for how they WANT goy society to look

 

and they will use chemicals, pop culture, psychiatry and a host of other tricks to get us there

 

and THATS the fucking truth

Edited by Macnamara
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Janet W said:

narrative

 

have you got your two politically correct covid jabs yet janet?

 

and remember that to keep your vaccine passport and the respect of your woke friends you will need to get EVERY booster shot too....no cheating

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

efgedger.jpg

 

I'm not into lewd shit, but isn't Playboy traditionally a heterosexual mag?

I always assumed so. That 1969 cover may be a lot of "problematic" things to today's crowd but to me it's an attractive young lady with a reasonably normal body shape, without any ink or enhancements, posing suggestively but not explicitly (that's probably saved for inside, I dunno, maybe cover girls were just that and others posed inside? I've never owned an issue). In short, it's nice to look at....if you're a heterosexual bloke. And maybe even if you're not!

 

I do find that gay men can appreciate and comment positively on the prettiness of women. The difference I suppose is that I might fancy them and they don't. But this stuff on the right is just beyond me. WTF is that meant to achieve?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Anti Facts Sir said:

I do find that gay men can appreciate and comment positively on the prettiness of women.

 

do they comment on the prettiness of women or how fabulous they look?

 

see prettiness is an innate thing but fabulousness is something that is artificially crafted to glamour people much like a woke narrative

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Macnamara said:

 

have you got your two politically correct covid jabs yet janet?

 

and remember that to keep your vaccine passport and the respect of your woke friends you will need to get EVERY booster shot too....no cheating

 

Not thread relevant, but yes. Had both my jabs even tho I was very ill with it in December. Great thing is I no longer need a sim card in my phone and I seem to be connected to the internet wherever I go. Win win I reckon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Janet W said:

Not thread relevant, but yes. Had both my jabs even tho I was very ill with it in December. Great thing is I no longer need a sim card in my phone and I seem to be connected to the internet wherever I go. Win win I reckon!

 

bloody hell janet.....well don't take any more for goodness sake

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Janet W said:

 

Interesting. Did you chose your sexuality? How old were you when you did that? Can you chose to change it to something else?

I get what you're trying to do but it's never gonna work 

 

The gay lobby is very shrewd but historically they've been wrong more often than they're right, remember when they lied to us until recently and claimed there was a gay gene, we now know that's a load of rubbish

 

Your questions are irrelevant to any point I've made, but you knew that anyway surely, if someone is gay due to being raised in an overly feminine environment thats doesn't make it a choice, but it also makes a mockery of the failed born this way belief 

 

It's hard to respect someone such as yourself who is a shill for the corrupt LGBTQ look, although I accept maybe youre just naive or struggle to think for yourself 

 

 

Edited by Liam3880
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Liam3880 said:

I get what you're trying to do but it's never gonna work 

 

The gay lobby is very shrewd but historically they've been wrong more often than they're right, remember when they lied to us until recently and claimed there was a gay gene, we now know that's a lot 

 

Your questions are irrelevant to any point I've made, but you knew that anyway surely,

 

 

 

Oh go on luv, give us a clue at least... Did you chose your sexuality or not? If so how old were you? I've never known anyone able to do that. Maybe it's a bit like choosing to be left-handed in a right-handed world. A sort of a life challenge?

 

I don't remember choosing my sexuality, I just sort of grew up with it, like absolutely everyone I know. But maybe some people can choose it, though why they'd choose a sexuality that made life unnecessarily difficult I can't imagine.

Edited by Janet W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

I'm not into lewd shit, but isn't Playboy traditionally a heterosexual mag? How is this just about promoting tolerance? This seems like it's being pushed to piss people off.

 

I would say that Hefner would be turning in his grave, but he was a slimey subversive too, so I dunno.

 

The backlash to Weimar 2.0 is going to be hard to watch, especially as the West is also importing people that have a medieval attitude towards gays. A literal disaster waiting to happen.

 

Interesting you bring up Weimar because what the Nazis did is a perfect example and like you say,  history is repeating itself because the same cabal who were Hitler's puppet masters, are the same cabal who are orchestrating what's going on today, but it won't just be gays who will be the victims, it'll be the poor, the disabled, the marginalised, white people, minorities, the working classes and the unvaccinated and anyone in general who doesn't become one with the hive mind.

 

 

Edited by RobSS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Anti Facts Sir said:

I always assumed so. That 1969 cover may be a lot of "problematic" things to today's crowd but to me it's an attractive young lady with a reasonably normal body shape, without any ink or enhancements, posing suggestively but not explicitly (that's probably saved for inside, I dunno, maybe cover girls were just that and others posed inside? I've never owned an issue). In short, it's nice to look at....if you're a heterosexual bloke. And maybe even if you're not!

 

Yeah, I'm still a red-blooded male. I might not be into the more decadent stuff these days, but I still appreciate the human form. It's hard not to appreciate it when you're into figure drawing, it's just that my taste has become a bit more traditional over time.

 

12 minutes ago, Anti Facts Sir said:

WTF is that meant to achieve?

 

Well, Norm MacDonald called "cisgender" a "way to marginalize a normal person". I know gender is a different topic to sexuality, but I think that's what is happening here too. The majority are being marginalized to a certain extent.

 

The diversity crowd need to create their own content, not hijack other peoples stuff. It's just constant role reversals, and it's not going to end well.

 

Andrew Neather said that they're going "to rub the Right’s nose in diversity". Obviously he was talking about with racial demographics, but we're seeing it with the LGBT agenda too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RobSS said:

 

Interesting you bring up Weimar because what the Nazis did is a perfect example and like you say,  history is repeating itself because the same cabal who were Hitler's puppet masters, are the same cabal who are orchestrating what's going on today, but it won't just be gays who will be the victims, it'll be the poor, the disabled, the marginalised, white people, minorities, the working classes and the unvaccinated and anyone in general who doesn't become one with the hive mind.

 

 

 

Well people should focus on Weimar and who was pushing the decline of society more, not the NatSoc blacklash all of the time. Most people are blind though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...