The traditional family unit is a place from where we learn our identity. If the family unit is broken, we are more likely to be unable to identify with ourselves, since we have no sure foundation to draw from. We are therefore left to look to the outside world of media and popular culture to identify with. To destroy the family unit puts child birth, and child development into the hands of the state, but it also sends out confusion about who we are. This is a perfect breeding ground for trans-humanism.
There are many ways in which the family unit is being broken up, but this particular article follows on from the previous by looking at the trans-humanist agenda in regards to sexuality and how our sexuality is being changed and altered to further suit this agenda, by changing the way we identify ourselves as people.
Hetrosexuality has formed the foundation of civilisations and families for as long as Man has existed. It may also be said that homosexuality has been practiced in multiple cultures throughout recorded history, however, its acceptance is a relatively new concept in regards to Christianity, a religion that - up to this century - has overwhelmingly contributed to the culture and beliefs practiced in this country (along with almost all other countries throughout the western world). Christianity has always been in opposition to homosexuality, despite many preachers and prelates engaging in the activity. Whilst the clergy’s hypocrisy will not be discussed here, it is still important to note that the change and acceptance of homosexuality by a Christian culture, that has been practiced throughout western countries for nearly 1700 years, illustrates that the change and acceptance has not occurred gradually but has in fact occurred rather suddenly. This would suggest that there is a driving force behind this change, since, left to their own devices, cultures and practices exist unchanged for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years.
Whilst homosexuality, along with cross dressing men and women, is nothing new, trans-sexualism - that is those who seek to physically change their bodies into the opposite sex - is a concept that is getting more and more attention in the media. Trans-gender and trans-sexual, much like trans-humanism, describes an individual in transition. In regards to the former it refers to a person who psychologically identifies with the opposite sex and may seek to live as a member of this sex especially by undergoing surgery and hormone treatment in order to change their body, much like a trans-human would seek to change their body through integrating with technology (All be it for different reasons).
There are a plethora of trans-gender articles as well as an increasing number of articles talking (mostly) about high profile men who are being, or have been, turned into a ‘woman’. This could be described as the next stage towards trans-humanism where we are gradually being asked to accept people that have willfully changed their physical bodies from that which they were born with.
Changing people’s opinion on sexuality, from what could be seen as the traditional family view to what we have today, has been a step by step progression. This progression really gained momentum in the free love movement of the sixties, which, as an offshoot, laid the foundations for a tolerance of homosexuality, and the right to be left alone --- remember, we are observing cultures that have been predominately anti-homosexual over the course of hundreds of years. After several decades of gentle nudging, homosexuality is not only accepted in society it is protected; a great leap in just a few decades when considering how homosexuals have been mistreated, and how intolerant Christian cultures have been in the past. However, sadly, homosexuals have not been liberated, they have in fact been, and continue to be, used as a stepping stone by an agenda to persuade us to accept trans-humanism. Homosexuality can be seen as the first stepping stone away from what previous cultures considered the natural family and sexual union between man and woman, towards what might be considered an unnatural division between the two sexes.
Homosexuality has become so accepted by Christian culture that it is now promoted in schools to children as young as four, which maybe seen as an attempt to create a future generation which is wholly accepting and more likely to participate in some way with the homosexual community.
Our personal opinion of homosexuality, or wether we believe it should be taught to infants, is irrelevant in this discussion; the point being made is that Christian culture has changed radically in the last two decades to the point where it is being taught to four year olds in schools; this should be seen as evidence of social manipulation, whether it is for the better or otherwise. We must then ask: why is this happening?
As discussed in previous articles, the process of nudging culture is one that takes decades and often starts with a marginalized group, such as homosexuals, often under the guise that their rights are being protected. No individual or group should be able to oppress another’s personal choices, however, what is unknown is that these rights are not being promoted for the individual, they are being promoted in order to change public opinion and ultimately the culture of a nation. Whenever a nudging process has been successful, and reaches the penultimate phase of promotion in schools and to the populace in general, there will always follow the creation of legislation which will act as a stopping block to prevent a culture from going ‘backwards’; in this case it was the legalisation of same sex marriage.
Legislation and policies then enable the punishment of anyone who opposes the desired opinion or change, such was the case in Penzance when a Gay couple were refused a room by Christian owners of a B&B. Mr and Mrs Bull are devout Christians who believe that unmarried couples must not share a bed (which, incidentally, stretches to all couples regardless of their sexuality). However, in this case, their right to religion was usurped by the rights of a couple’s sexuality. High profile cases such as these are used to ram home the point, further pushing society towards the desired goal by punishing those who would oppose. Interestingly, it was suggested at the time that the two individuals were part of a pressure group, although the homosexual couple denied this claim.
Ultimately the goal is to create a world where Mankind is created in a laboratory, owned and controlled by a small group of elites. People would have laughed at that notion in 1932 when Aldous Huxley printed his ‘Brave New World’, however in the 21st Century we are fast speeding towards his vision at a terrifying pace.
There are too many articles to mention that have helped that process, but they mostly lean on stories about people with mental illnesses, learning difficulties, diseases and of course failed pregnancies to justify why we would need to create IVF babies in a laboratory. However, all of the previous still involve the traditional family unit. With the acceptance of homosexuality within society, IVF is now able to demonstrate that the union between man and woman is unnecessary by helping homosexual couples to ‘create’ their own children, asking society to further accept family units that are not traditional or natural..
The very high profile spat between Dolce & Gabbana and Elton John, in regards to synthetic babies, is a very good example of how celebrities are used to sway public opinion. Whatever our opinion of Elton John, he, and his music, is ‘adored’ by millions of people, not only across the country but across the world. Whether people agree with Elton John and David Furnish or not, a great number of people will be more inclined to sympathise or ‘let the issue go’ because so many people appreciate Elton John’s music; such is human nature. To then accept Elton John'sopinion, and thus this particular issue, one has to accept this issue in general or accept that one is a hypocrite or is ignorant.
Just to be clear, the resulting articles, and now campaigns and demonstrations that have followed the media hype, are concentrating on the approval of synthetic babies with the aim to keep the noise going for as long and as loud as possible so as to force home the acceptance of IVF which will one day pave a path towards genetically modified designer babies.
Having successfully changed the way people view homosexuals, the media, or more correctly those that own the five major media corporations (ultimately all of the media), will now seek to convince the public to accept trans-gender / trans-sexuals. If successful, the public will more easily accept a future plan to alter Mankind and merge it with technology, since there will be no simple definition of what a person is. As a result, it will become harder to determine what is natural and what is un-natural, since to do so would infringe on a person’s right to be who, or whatever, they choose to be.