Posts by darktiger12
6 posts shown.
Drew Booth60 said:France is following right in Spain's footsteps ever since this liberal-socialist crowd took over the reins☕
While the country is basically sinking, they’re busy playing distraction tactics—focusing entirely on gay rights, immigrant rights, and waging war against those damn wealthy elites—which is exactly how things played out in Spain back when that idiot Zapatero was running the show🙄
We're seeing the fallout from all that "brilliant" and "progressive" policy making right before our eyes today😍
I guess France wasn't any better under that little guy who fancied himself a ladies' man (despite calling himself a "conservative"), nor was it any better under any of those crooks like Giscard, Mitterrand, and the rest before him. Didn't Sarkozy also hand over the government and key sectors to feminists and various "emancipated" "progressives," and then actually brag about it?
But honestly, countries like Spain and Ireland remain a complete mystery to me. I really don't get how these nations, which were so incredibly stubborn and deeply conservative Catholic societies for centuries, managed to degenerate so much and turn into what they are today in just 10 or 15 years. But like you said, I suppose everyone is starting to "enjoy" the fruits of their newly acquired "progressiveness."
The worst part, though, is that they are trying to force these same liberal nonsense policies—the ones that ruined them—onto the entire world, especially onto transition countries like ours.
It’s actually pretty interesting to see how many activists and their supporters—and I guess we can see some of that dynamic here on the forum too—seem to play both sides of the fence. On one hand, they love to talk about how marriage as an institution is supposedly "going to fail" or how it’s just this "outdated relic." But then, on the other hand, they try so hard to make sure their own relationships get that exact same legal status as this "relic" they claim to despise. They even go as far as calling their unions "marriages" and putting on these little tragicomic wedding ceremonies with guests that mimic traditional ones.
I suppose it’s the same story when it comes to the family unit. There’s this passionate effort—with plenty of help from their feminist allies—to tear down and dissolve the concept of family, yet at the very same time, they try to secure that same familial structure for themselves through adoption (though, I guess, the actual well-being of the kids isn't really the priority). They seem bothered by traditional terms like "mother" and "father," trying to replace them with these clunky, bureaucratic, almost totalitarian labels like "Parent A" and "Parent B," while simultaneously being quite eager to use phrases like "I have two moms" or "two dads."
To me, that alone shows just how powerful the human desire and natural instinct to marry and build a family really is. It seems even those who might be considered dysfunctional in that regard end up indirectly admitting that they feel those same urges and needs; they want to build a family just like everyone else, I suppose.
The whole narrative about marriage and family being "obsolete" doesn't actually seem to originate from within these activist circles. After all, they are people too, and they have that innate need for family, even if they express it in their own unconventional ways. It feels more like these ideas are being pushed by "social engineers" and big-capital global puppet masters. These groups essentially manufactured this entire debate over "gay rights" out of thin air, installing and supporting the movement alongside feminism and various other destructive social groups. Most of this seems theoretically grounded in the teachings of the Frankfurt school, seemingly designed to dismantle the family as the fundamental cell of society. The goal, I guess, is to turn society into a shapeless mass of selfish, alienated, and brainwashed individuals that are much easier to control and manipulate.
I’m noticing that people here are starting to use these supposed "millions" of participants in lesbian street festivals around the world as some kind of "argument." Just yesterday on TV (RTL, of course, who else?), we saw a news report about "over a million" people attending a massive event in Rio de Janeiro. I think that might need a little bit of clarification.
It’s pretty interesting how the media can't seem to agree if there were 70,000 or 200,000 people at that protest in Paris, yet they are somehow incredibly precise when it comes to counting "a million" or "a million and a half" participants in a "gay parade."
So, besides the fact that those numbers seem to be pulled straight out of thin air and tossed out without any real basis, it feels like those figures are being used quite brazenly to manipulate the narrative—trying to create this false image of both a massive crowd and widespread public support for their "cause."
But things actually look quite different. Not only is nobody truly counting these participants—they just make up numbers and wildly exaggerate them—but there's other manipulation going on too. You see, the media often labels any tourist or curious bystander caught nearby as a "participant in the parade," and therefore, a supporter of the lesbian agenda. I heard a story about how a group of American high school students on a field trip ended up in Munich right during a local "parade"; they were just watching from the sidelines along with plenty of other tourists. But some ambitious "journalist" snapped a photo of them, and the next day, they saw themselves in some German tabloid labeled as "parade participants."
This tactic is used all the time, especially in huge cities like Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, or Rio, where there are always hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of tourists who naturally watch the street festivities out of curiosity, only to end up being photographed, filmed, and branded as "participants" in the media.
Furthermore, most of the actual participants aren't even lesbians, and certainly not gay men, because a large majority of those unfortunate people hide their inclinations and don't march around in public. Instead, you have a huge number of feminists (who are as close to them as "two peas in a pod" and often share memberships with lesbian organizations) and self-proclaimed leftist "activists," followed by various exhibitionists, sadomasochists, and all sorts of others who use this as a chance to publicly display their fetishes and show off the SM "wardrobe" and props they usually keep hidden at the bottom of their closets. And let's not forget the many male and female prostitutes from all walks of life for whom business simply booms during these times.
A good chunk of these types travel the world from one "parade" to the next, which helps create that impression of massive numbers. It’s a bit like how, in our neck of the woods, the same small crew gathers from everywhere to wander and provoke through street festivals in cities ranging from New York to Chicago or Los Angeles (where they don't fare quite as well 😍).
But the bulk of what we actually see are young, shallow, and superficial Westerners who are only interested in partying and an easy life. They are the same crowds we see at festivals like Žrč, at rave parties, or at massive "Love parades," which don't really differ much from these lesbian street orgies anyway. For these masses of mindless people, the cause doesn't really matter; in fact, many probably don't even know "what is being celebrated." All that matters is having enough colorful pills, Red Bull-vodka, and being able to shake to the same boring electronic beat for hours. Whether it's a Love Parade or a "gay pride," it's all the same to them. And these types often travel from one party to the next.
So, I’d just ask that we tone down with these claims of "millions" of participants in "gay parades" in this beautiful liberal world.
bluerider63;42279724 said:
I guess I wonder what those folks in France think—do they honestly believe their birth rates are going to bounce back if they don't legalize marriage equality? Maybe they have some kind of plan, but I don't know, it seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
I guess the truth is getting a bit blurry again, along with what actually matters here. Honestly, I don't think anyone was really pointing fingers at the LGBTQ+ community regarding the declining birth rate; their share of the population is probably too small to make a dent in those numbers anyway, whether they have kids or not. If we're looking for the real reason why birth rates are dropping, maybe it's more about the rise of feminism—or what some call "women's empowerment"—combined with this modern trend toward selfish consumerism and pure hedonism. Just my two cents, I suppose.
I guess you could say the protests weren't really about the legalization of so-called "same-sex unions" itself. I mean, honestly, what other people do in their private lives doesn't really concern anyone normal, right? It felt more like the pushback was directed at equating those unions with traditional marriage, and the decision to allow those groups to adopt children. There was also that sense of certain ideologies being pushed through schools—sort of like a much more intense and aggressive version of our modern health education classes—and even seeing things like "Parent A" and "Parent B" popping up on official documents instead of Mom and Dad. Maybe that's just how it came across to people.
I saw some protesters carrying signs claiming that a child can only have one mother and one father, which was interesting to see. It honestly feels like maybe some people haven't quite grasped how things work nowadays—it's almost like they think children just spontaneously appear for every couple or that an official from a social services agency just hands them out to everyone. I guess there's a bit of a misunderstanding regarding how modern families and adoption actually function.
I guess there have always been gay people around, and honestly, they always will be. There isn't some kind of cure that could just stop this "epidemic" everyone talks about, because, well, nature just does its own thing. Maybe it’s just a matter of when society's collective consciousness finally catches up to a point where we can all just accept it, but I suppose that kind of shift takes time.
That’s just how it is, I guess. There were people like that before, there are people like that now, and I suppose there always will be. It’s hard to even talk about finding a cure or a remedy when you consider that, well, if it isn't classified as a disease to begin with, then a medicine doesn't really exist for it, does it? Maybe it's just one of those things.🙄So, because of all this, it’s basically off-limits—or rather, it isn't considered "politically correct," and apparently, it's just totally forbidden to actually dig into why this is happening or try to find a way to fix it. It's a bit strange, I guess. I can't help but think that if we actually did look into it, a lot of those struggling people would probably be pretty happy to see some kind of solution being found. Maybe it's just how things are now, but it feels like a missed opportunity, don't you think?
I don't really see it as some kind of epidemic. I mean, if you look at the numbers, there aren't any more of them now than there ever were. When you factor in bisexuals and the rest of the LGBT crowd—who, I guess, just didn't win the genetic lottery—you're looking at maybe 3 to 4 percent of the total population. The only real "epidemic" here is the media one. It feels like they’re aggressively serving this up to us every single day, trying to convince everyone that this is "normal" and that there are just *so* many people out there who are simply too afraid to "come out" because of some supposed "homophobic terror." It all seems a bit much to me, honestly.
As for whether people will actually accept it, I don't think that’s ever going to happen. Even with all the media conditioning and the push from the legal system and the government, there just won't be any mass acceptance. I guess you could say that the natural aversion an average person feels toward that kind of deviation isn't really a matter of conscious thought, but more about physiology—much like how "homosexuality" probably has its own physiological roots. Maybe a smaller group of people, perhaps those with less intellectual capacity or weaker willpower, can be swayed by propaganda and pressure to the point where they convince themselves they "accept" it, but I suspect the human race would face extinction before the majority of people degenerate enough to view lesbianism or homosexuality as a normal, equal alternative to the standard relationships between men and women.
I guess all that hard work from the musicians is just going to go unnoticed. Maybe they're putting in all this effort for nothing, but who knows?
I guess it’s hard to pin down the exact number of people who showed up for the protests in Boston and other American cities. It’s one of those things where the authorities might claim around 70,000, while the organizers are tossing around numbers like 200,000. Even the media usually settles on about 100,000 just for Boston, though some American news outlets suggested there might have been closer to half a million people protesting across the whole country.
It feels to me like they weren't really protesting against the legalizing of so-called "same-sex unions" as much as they were pushing back against the idea of allowing same-sex couples to adopt children. There was also this whole thing about bureaucratic linguistic gymnastics—you know, trying to phase out terms like "mother" and "father" from official paperwork and school textbooks, which is something they've been trying to push through in California too, replacing them with things like "parent A" and "parent B."
It’s actually pretty interesting to look at how the media covered the whole event. At the same time, there were these "counter-demonstrations" organized by supporters of what they call "marriage equality." Mostly it was just lesbian-feminist activists, a handful of male "gay activists," and a small group of typical, masked agitators from various "anarcho-liberal" circles. Even if they tried their best, the media couldn't seem to find more than 200 "counter-protesters" (though a hundred seems like a more realistic number, I suppose) who spent the whole time, as usual, tucked safely behind police lines. They kept provoking the protesters and calling them "homophobes," all without any real consequences or intervention from the police.
When you look at something like this media report, you notice that these two hundred agitators somehow got way more coverage and more photos than the main protest, which had tens—maybe even hundreds—of thousands of people. It's such a classic, shallow, and transparent bit of media manipulation that it almost makes you feel sick. The ratio of protesters was at least 70,000 to maybe 200 against the laws, but the photo ratio was totally flipped; I think it was about 7:2 in favor of the "marriage equality" supporters. It feels like a pretty blatant Orwellian way to twist the truth.
I don't think it's an accident, either. Most audiences tend to be a bit superficial, I guess. People mostly just skim the headlines and subheadings, rarely reading the full article, and they definitely look at the pictures. By using this kind of biased and selective "reporting," the media tries to downplay how many people actually oppose these "progressive measures." They inflate both the numbers and the influence of these lobbies to mislead the public and create a completely skewed image, essentially trying to reshape public opinion over time.
We saw a similar situation last year during that "parade" in Miami. There were barely a hundred agitators, gathered from all over the US—mostly from Washington, D.C., or even right there in Miami—and even from neighboring countries and Europe. They were forced through the streets under state and police protection, even though they weren't wanted. Meanwhile, the ten thousand citizens in Miami who stood against it were demonized in the media, labeled as "homophobes," "primitives," or "violent," and some were even arrested or detained.
This kind of media manipulation really only has one goal: to hide the fact that the ideas being spread by this propaganda simply don't have mainstream support. Most people are against them and don't accept them—not in America, and clearly not even in a highly "indoctrinated" place like France. But that majority opinion is systematically minimized and swept under the rug. Politicians just push ahead with their own agendas while the media creates this false narrative to "soften up" the public, making them feel like "well, it's already decided anyway," until people eventually become numb to it and just accept whatever is served to them. It feels like déjà vu.
Dennis Adams said:I honestly don't get the point of this thread. What's the goal here? Are you trying to force your views on everyone or something? Since when is it illegal to protest a singer who's basically mocking a majority religion? It’s not even like she has some vendetta against Christians—it's just that she’s turned into a total caricature of herself. She can't grab headlines with her actual music anymore, so she resorts to these cheap provocations to stay relevant. Honestly, the state of Poland, the Polish people, and us... we really have nothing to do with this drama. Just think about a hypothetical scenario... say you let anyone sing at the Colosseum, but then you specifically ban someone like Thompson. It's the exact same logic. If that kind of thing could happen here, why wouldn't it happen over there?
I highly doubt anyone would actually bother organizing protests against her. I mean, who’s actually going to waste their time getting worked up because some half-naked lady is jumping around on a stage? People have way better things to do with their lives.
The whole point of this thread seems to be venting frustrations and providing yet another demonstration of pathological hatred toward the Church and the faith held by the original poster. Since there aren't any actual, legitimate reasons for these attacks and all this spitting, I suppose anything will do for them. Maybe it would be best to just ignore these types of people and their bitter outbursts from now on. In any case, it must be incredibly difficult and honestly quite pathetic to live with such irrational hatred and frustration bottled up inside.
You're totally right about that tacky, unattractive Italian woman. Not just now that she's aged and lost her edge, but she could never pull people in just with her singing talent anyway. That’s probably why she’s been chasing cheap provocations, scandals, and basically acting like a fool since the very beginning. It's pretty much the same with her younger, even more vulgar and shallow version—Lady Gaga.
And in the States, you'd never see organized protests against performances by these recycled "artists" who are just provocateurs. It's more that meaningful, effective protests against anything else just can't get organized because, unfortunately, the American people have become completely numb, fallen into a sort of cowardice, and have just given up. They've thrown down their spears into the thorns and there's no will left; they just don't see any purpose or hope in fighting for anything anymore.