Who poisoned our culture and sexualised our children?

Islam is the real religion - Muslims, the last true believers. For the vast, vast majority of Christians and Jews their faith is one of culture and convenience. Which is why Christians will go to church once a year, claim to believe in Jesus, but then drink alcohol, eat pork, work on Sundays, and go to strip clubs.

The same with most American Jews - they have no real faith in the Old Testament - it's just a cultural thing with them.

I'm an atheist, but I respect Muslims more than any other group because they truly believe - they walk the walk.

 

Better still.

Ask both.

I have my own answers, but let's hear what you think>>>

 

They also turn a blind eye when it suits them. You should find a better role model for your ideal religion.

 

Example.

And do not put words into my mouth, if you want to quote me, do so, but don't start with 'so in other words'.

Use my words, and that way there is no doubt.

Many Americans are scratching their heads (and Europeans actually), and wondering about this TOTALLY DISPROPORTIONATE and very much political representation of homosexuals, in every aspect of our culture. They make up 3% of the population. Yet there is NO DENIAL that the attention they get in the media, and the pandering by politics, is quite at odds with 3%.

It is clearly being PUSHED into the culture. Overtly so. That is totally different from my saying homosexuals should be arrested, or any other BS people want to put on me, by all means, do what they do in private - I have no issue with that at all.

But it's not private. Indeed ALL they ever seem to define themselves by is their sexuality. They seem to think the whole world needs to know that they shag men.

 

Do you also respect and condone the Muslim's racism, intolerance, anti-Homosexuality, oppression of women, prediliction toward violence and the movement by a significant number of them to use violent and non violent means to take over the world and kill, convert or captivate all non-Muslims?

If you are a fan of Islam don't you also have to close a blind eye to these glaring qualities that make Islam anathema to all peace loving peoples?

 

What do Muslims have to do with the topic?

 

See, here we go again. You're zooming in on a facet of culture that is highly contested (and thus great for news), and then taking the representation thereof in the news as some sort of big deal. Keep in mind that a lot of that coverage has to do with people who hate gays, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that it's an issue in the cultural flashpoint right now. People care about it. It's a political football. You want to know who's "pushing" it on us? Everyone who cares about the issue on either side. You and me. And that's assuming that what you say is even true, which I don't necessarily agree with. Perhaps that it's covered more than the population involved is represented in the news (as said: duh, it's a political football and raises ratings), but outside of that in the media? I sincerely doubt that you have proportionate representation in other forms of media. I welcome you to stop making sweeping, unproven statements and actually back up your claims for once, but I won't hold my breath.

But beyond that... So what? A certain sexual orientation may be getting a little more attention than you think it should. Why does this matter? What possible effect do you think this could have on culture as a whole? Remember, we're not talking about what they do in bed, but rather their sexual orientation, which, contrary to popular rumor, is a completely different beast. Even if you want to imply that there's something wrong with homosexuality, you cannot make the claim that representing them in popular culture has any effect on other people's sexuality.

 

I think it would be impossible to "push stuff" on a culture that was clearly rejecting it. Gay culture is not being "pushed" on Russia because the Russian people are saying no, and saying no quite loudly. No one is "pushing" the denigration of Islam in Saudi Arabia because Saudi culture would never stand for it -- the first person to disrespect Muhammad or the Koran would hang from a tree or lose his head. You aren't going to push much of a militarist mindset in Japan either, they reject it.

In other words, the secularization of Western Christianity by necessity preceded the nativity in front of a vagina being OK, so when you blame the Jews for putting that on TV (whether you agree or not with any specific issue), you also have 3 fingers pointing at Christians for giving that stuff ratings, for not storming the studios of Viacom for publishing that, for not writing letters to all the sponsers of Daily Show to have that show removed from the airwaves. It's a two way street with any media -- someone to make it, and someone to watch it. No ratings, no show.

 

I won't go into the OP but will address the thread question.

We did. Our grandparents did and so on down the line through history. We are simply oversexed as a species. Its just the way we are.

In the era of mass media it is entirely natural that certain forces will use this obvious part of human nature to their advantage.

Sex sells everything.

Not because someone makes it, but just because it works. If you think some ominous force is at work you simply show your own ignorance.

 

Actually, there can be NO PROOF at all of that.

 

While the Islamic campaign to conquer the World for Allah rages on Islam will ALWAYS be the elephant in the room whether we discuss it or not.

And in many cases has some relevance to many a topic one might not suspect at first glance.

 

Buddy.

All I gave was ONE example of how something which represents only 3% of people, and should really(as they always used to say), be a 'matter for closed doors', being something that media and politicians are fever pitch about, totally at odds with what it should be.

And even that's not enough for them, because now they have to go pushing their nose into Russia's business, so that the same happens there. Even though Russians have not asked for it, nor does Putin want it.

You may also wish to take some time and read up on the definite connection between increasingly hard core porn and sexually related attacks. Little wonder that one provokes the other, when someone already a bit ropey is exposed to a culture in which their sickest fantasies can be fed, until a fantasy alone is not sufficient.

- - - Updated - - -

Well it has nothing to do with anything in the OP my man, so can you start your own thread about it.

Thanks

 

Isn't there?

I guess you've never heard of these sick bastards then?

Bestiality brothels are spreading through Germany faster than ever thanks to a law that makes animal porn illegal but sex with animals legal, a livestock protection officer has warned.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ims-abusers-sex-animals-lifestyle-choice.html

- - - Updated - - -

Then I won't bother to read anything you write.

 

This is a whole lot of words which fail to explain why a Jewish dominated media feel it is fine to mock the primary religion of America, and do so behind men who are Jews but with assumed surnames, and why it is fine for the Jewish media to pour hate onto the Koran, but it would be a national incident if someone told a few 'holcost' jokes on mainstream tv, or made a model of a 'gas chamber', and beamed that out to a mainly Jewish audience.

You must invent differences to explain it away.

 

As stated by at least me and one other person in this thread, a lot of that has to do with those on either side of the debate forcing their noses in. And even then, this one example is very poorly chosen, and does almost nothing to demonstrate whatever point you're trying to make. I believe the initial point had to do with poisoning culture and sexualizing children. Have we shifted the goal posts significantly? You've done nothing to back up your initial claims. I am no more convinced than before I read this thread that American culture is being more sexualized or that that is causing significant damage. Less so, in fact, as I actually looked up the data and found that it led to exactly the opposite conclusion.

Way to mischaracterize what really is a very simple issue. The problem in Russia is not that we want homosexuality publicized. The issue has to do with basic human rights abuses against a vulnerable minority. The anti-propaganda law is being used to stifle all speech in favor of the rights of homosexuals, and that's not okay.

A cursory google search didn't exactly turn up a wealth of scientific studies on the subject - mostly just empty moralizing. Care to help me out at all, maybe with a source to back your claim?

Do you watch TV? I don't, but I can immediately name at least one episode with clear holocaust jokes in my two favorite TV shows - S2E01 of Drawn Together, where Strawberry Shortcake tries to finish the extermination of the Sockbat line to make more candy, and "Death Camp of Tolerance" from South Park. Neither of them got a lot of publication. There was Joan Rivers's comment on Heidi Klum, which got some negative press, largely because it wasn't funny, and seemed to glorify to holocaust. Where I live, jokes like "Hey man, holocaust jokes aren't funny. My grandfather died in Auschwitz. Was drunk, fell off the watchtower," are considered unfunny not because they're offensive, but because they've been done to death. And this is Germany - you're not legally allowed to put a swastika on a Nazi enemy in a video game over here. And even more, your comparison is so off that it's not even funny, because the holocaust was not criticizing a religious group, but rather eradicating a race. And trust me - Jews get tons of derogatory humor aimed at them. Just not much holocaust humor, because most of that stuff is just plain unfunny - offensive in the hopes that that alone makes it funny.

(My favorite exception? This one: )

 

No.

I threw my tv out three years ago.

 

Lol...You are describing right-wing fundamentalist Christians.
Isn't is funny how extremists of all stripes are cut from the same cloth?

 

Good, then the poster might have gone into a little detail about neo-conservatism in America because, as you will have noticed in the post, the words 'neo' and 'conservative' are conspicuous by their absence. Instead, and as usual, he leaps onto 'informing' us about the evil Joos.

 

Human sexuality has always been forefront in the male mind, and of course the primary object of interest will be women. The increase in technological innovation and communication has presented this aspect of ourselves with new means of showing itself, and as we males are fixated on sex it has grown enormously. Women are now given the opportunity to leave the shadows of their own sexuality and have obviously made the most of it, to the benefit of males who wish to enjoy such things.
The sexual taboos of old no longer hold power over much of the population in our culture, and will continue to fade into history as the society matures and the tech generation takes hold of the reigns of power. The older generation and those who cower before their own primal nature will try to avoid or deny this inevitable change in society....but it will come nonetheless.

 

And this is affecting you, how, exactly? Pornography, deviant sexual practises and goodness knows what else has been practised for thousands of years with varying amounts of societal acceptability. It was quite normal, for example, for the ancient Greeks to take boy lovers in addition to their wives. Citing the odious Daily Mail, by the way, won't win you any credibility points.

 

You know, replying like this makes it a huge pain in the ass to respond to your post. I care about what happens in Russia partially because it's a major backslide and abuse of human rights in an otherwise quite "modern" country, not to mention that they're hosting the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) olympics. I care because I have empathy. Because when I hear about people suffering, in particular due to reasons like this, I don't like to think, "Meh, not my problem".

Well, I don't see it, and you have provided zero evidence. What kinds of things would even indicate such corrosion? Teen pregnancy? All-time low. Abortion? All-time low. Rape? 85% decline since the 80s, which, by the way, correlates beautifully with the rise of internet porn. Come on, you want to talk about corrosion of society? Then tell me what it means. What does it mean to you when you say "corrosion of society"? What effects are you seeing? Because it's not enough just to go on common sense, because common sense is a terrible judge when it comes to things that are complex and multifaceted.

Common sense would tell us that if 40% of the country identifies as "conservative" and only 21% identifies as "liberal", the democrats would lose the presidential election horribly; that didn't happen. Common sense would tell us that it is possible to move faster than the speed of light; relativity says "no". Your common sense tells you that society is getting sexier and we are suffering as a result. Actual research seems to contradict you completely - all of the negative effects one would expect via common sense from a more sexualized society aren't happening. Hell, even STD infection rates are a mixed bag. The evidence does not support your claim. Common sense is not good enough.

 

For more on the Jewish agenda google:

"Critique of Culture" by Prof. Kevin McDonald

"Occidental Observer"

 

I agree , however , there's ample mention of Neo-cons in this somewhat similar article .

":As it turns out, neoconservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute are largely extensions of Trotskyism with respect to foreign policy. Other think tanks such as the Bradley Foundation were overtaken by the neoconservative machine back in 1984.
Some of those double agents have been known to have worked with Likud-supporting Jewish groups such as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, an organization which has been known to have “co-opted” several “non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq.”
Philo-Semitic scholars Stephen Halper of Cambridge University and Jonathan Clarke of the CATO Institute agree that the neoconservative agendas “have taken American international relations on an unfortunate detour,” which is another way of saying that this revolutionary movement is not what the Founding Fathers signed up for, who all maintained that the United States would serve the American people best by not entangling herself in alliances with foreign entities.

Elliott Abrams
As soon as the Israel Lobby came along, as soon as the neoconservative movement began to shape U.S. foreign policy, as soon as Israel began to dictate to the U.S. what ought to be done in the Middle East, America was universally hated by the Muslim world.

Moreover, former secretary of defense Robert Gates made it clear to the United States that the Israelis do not and should not have a monopoly on the American interests in the Middle East. For that, he was chastised by neoconservative Elliott Abrams.
In that sense, the neoconservative movement as a political and intellectual movement represents a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to undermine what the Founding Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding Fathers would have considered horrible foreign policies—policies which have contributed to the demise of the respect America once had.
Halper and Clarke move on to say that the neoconservative movement is “in complete contrast…to the general cast of the American temperament as embodied by the Declaration of Independence.”
The neoconservative persuasion is horrible in the sense that much of the war in the Middle East has been based on colossal hoaxes and fabrications.

Full article here :
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/01/22/the-neoconservative-movement-is-trotskyism/

or if you prefer a toned down version :

" "But what is neo-conservatism?

The ideology is difficult to define. It used to be a blend of liberal democracy and hawkish foreign policy. Today the term refers to idealistic hawkishness. The philosophy has been around since the middle of the 20th century, if not earlier. Some trace its origins to the liberals and social progressives who strongly backed the Second World War. One of its founders was the US intellectual and writer Irving Kristol, a former Trotskyist who later described himself as "a liberal mugged by reality". In the 1950s and 1960s the neo-conservatives adopted a similarly robust view towards the Soviet Union, breaking first with the anti-capitalist New Left, then with the Washington foreign policy establishment that came to support Cold War détente with Moscow.
====
How did it become identified with the Republicans?

For a long period it wasn't. Harry Truman and John Kennedy in some respects could have been labelled neo-conservatives. What changed things was the more dovish national security stance of the Democrats, after George McGovern won the party's presidential nomination in 1972. Thereafter Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Washington, an anti-Soviet hawk, became a focus for the movement. Among his staffers were Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, intensely pro-Israeli and later two of the most influential neo-cons under Ronald Reagan and George W Bush. They opposed not only the McGovernite Democrats, but also the "pragmatist" détente policy of Nixon, Kissinger and Ford.
===
* Neo-conservative policies have led to a geo-strategic disaster for the US in Iraq and, possibly, in Afghanistan

* It is responsible for a worldwide surge in anti-Americanism, giving the impression the US did not care what anyone else thought

* It inspired the US tilt towards Israel which has made a settlement of the Palestinian dispute all but unimaginable

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...m-and-how-influential-is-it-today-415637.html

====

 

Your sweeping conclusions aren't supported by your examples. It's bad logic.

 

Even when Jews admit it.