[b]A PROFOUND STUDY THAT SUGGESTS THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NEITHER GENETICAL
NOR IT IS BY CHOICE.
I warmy incourage all of you to read it wholly, it can help you and make you help many confused people and save them from the evil homosexual agenda.
[/b]The root of homosesuality is more identified of the working together of various factors, the most significant ones are
- an unmet need of love from same sex parent which has been reported by many homosexuals
- sexual abuse as a child (80% of homosexual men report having been sexually abused when they were children)
The study shows that during adolescence there is a [b]natural[/b] confusion about sexual orientation which will later clear itself, and little boys and girl should be left free to experience this period of confusion without imposing on them the belief that they are homosexual.
Thus what is being done by the gay activists in schools, as is reported in the previous article - the homosexual agenda - is inducing the little boys and girls to believe they are homosexual just because they happened to have some sexual arousal when seeing-getting in touch with another same sex person, or having some sex fantasies about them.
That is the suble attack to youth that is being perpetrated under the guise of teaching children values of "acceptance, respect" and to combat homophoby.
http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/rootsofhomosexualityp603.php
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Thank you for this testimonial, I am reassured to know that children do not buy into this fake propaganda. The important is that they stay away from Freddy's fake gay biographies and fan clubs.
[QUOTE]
[b]Missreclusive wrote: [/b] Am raising a 13 yr old guy who loves Queen and Freddie M. He doesn't realize anything with regard to Freddies sexuality...he assumes he was heterosexual. The kid has watched Freddie interviews and concerts with Freddie prancing around in leotards and has also seen the IWTBF vid but still doesn't see Freddie as gay. We just enjoy the music and Freddies personality both on stage and off. Now, this same kid has developed predjudice towards gays and also hispanics. Why? Because of the "in your face" stuff. He has seen the hispanics in our area act like little gang members and has witnessed flamboyant lisping gays... he finds it distasteful. Have I taught him this? no. He made up his own mind, this kid a top student, plays music and sports and is well thought of in the community. I think sexuality is a personal issue and shouldn't be shoved in anyones face...period. But then the world is full of people who feel they must do this and they don't care that it offends people.
Thank you for this testimonial, I am reassured to know that children can recognize the real Freddy and do not buy into this fake gay propaganda. [/QUOTE]
[b]Missreclusive wrote: [/b] Am raising a 13 yr old guy who loves Queen and Freddie M. He doesn't realize anything with regard to Freddies sexuality...he assumes he was heterosexual. The kid has watched Freddie interviews and concerts with Freddie prancing around in leotards and has also seen the IWTBF vid but still doesn't see Freddie as gay. We just enjoy the music and Freddies personality both on stage and off. Now, this same kid has developed predjudice towards gays and also hispanics. Why? Because of the "in your face" stuff. He has seen the hispanics in our area act like little gang members and has witnessed flamboyant lisping gays... he finds it distasteful. Have I taught him this? no. He made up his own mind, this kid a top student, plays music and sports and is well thought of in the community. I think sexuality is a personal issue and shouldn't be shoved in anyones face...period. But then the world is full of people who feel they must do this and they don't care that it offends people.
Thank you for this testimonial, I am reassured to know that children can recognize the real Freddy and do not buy into this fake gay propaganda. [/QUOTE]
You're still spelling Freddie wrong, in your fake gay propaganda.
Flores, cherry-picking bits from the Bible to support your anti-gay beliefs is the worst kind of intellectual and moral cowardice. You live in the Dark Ages. No one cares what you think any more than they care about the views of lunatics who think the world is flat or that comets are evil omens. You are irrelevent.
Apart from that, have a nice weekend.
Apart from that, have a nice weekend.
Mr. Ahundova lived and lives- behind the iron curtain, and as such does not believe anything the media says or said.
which is a reasonable position when faced with a culture of total propoganda, but it seems insane to the enlightened western culture who believe anything they read.
except for "the gospel truth" of course.
which is a reasonable position when faced with a culture of total propoganda, but it seems insane to the enlightened western culture who believe anything they read.
except for "the gospel truth" of course.
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
Flores, cherry-picking bits from the Bible to support your anti-gay beliefs is the worst kind of intellectual and moral cowardice. You live in the Dark Ages. No one cares what you think any more than they care about the views of lunatics who think the world is flat or that comets are evil omens. You are irrelevent.
. [/QUOTE]
If you really thought that my posts are irrilevant you wouldn't even bother to reply. Of course they are relevant, that's why you and your colleagues are paid for trying to put them down.
Flores, cherry-picking bits from the Bible to support your anti-gay beliefs is the worst kind of intellectual and moral cowardice. You live in the Dark Ages. No one cares what you think any more than they care about the views of lunatics who think the world is flat or that comets are evil omens. You are irrelevent.
. [/QUOTE]
If you really thought that my posts are irrilevant you wouldn't even bother to reply. Of course they are relevant, that's why you and your colleagues are paid for trying to put them down.
Paid? lol
[QUOTE] [b]ITWEMBLEY86 wrote:[/b]
Mr. Ahundova lived and lives- behind the iron curtain, and as such does not believe anything the media says or said.
which is a reasonable position when faced with a culture of total propoganda, but it seems insane to the enlightened western culture who believe anything they read.
except for "the gospel truth" of course.[/QUOTE]
I think she hit the point about the way he died. Those articles in the press saying "Freddy underwent another AIDS test but he is not positive" didn't really mean anything, unless they were to prepare the masses for his illness while trying to hide how he was infected: why the press was not to saying that he WAS infected? the press is always looking for big news, scandals, even when they are not true, and in this case which was the truth, why to say that he was negative? Obviously because if they did say the truth, investigations would occur, and discovered that he was injected HIV in hospital.
I report an excerpt from the chapter where she details her findings, which is worth reading all:
The illness and death of Freddie Mercury are surrounded by a dark and very suspicious mystery.
Freddie Mercury wasn’t the only one celebrity who died of AIDS, but only the circumstances of his illness and death are still hidden from the society. About any famous man died in the similar circumstances, we can know almost everything: the date of diagnose ascertainment – year, month and day, the name of the doctor who ascertained the horrible news, number and name of the hospital in which that happened, the approximate date of his AIDS infestation, where and what treatment did he receive, in which clinics and hospitals, which medicaments did he receive and what procedures he’d undergone, how the disease progressed, the name of the attending physician or physicians etc. etc. We can learn that about everyone – except Mercury.
The intelligible information about his illness doesn’t exist. The few pieces of data that we have are bitty, chaotic and contradicting each other. And factually, we know nothing.
And what’s essential – nobody even tries to learn anything. Biographers and journalists, who love to dig up Freddie’s dirty clothes, for some reason aren’t interested with such a theme – his disease. Furthermore – they are straightly “closing” the theme, which is quite unpleasant for them, telling that nobody else than Mary Austin and Jim Hutton know when Freddie was HIV-infested – and shut up after that. To say shortly, nobody knows, and it’s not needed. If you’d know too much, dear Queen fans, you’d grow old too soon. Hushaby, kids, you’d better discuss the kitties and fishies and don’t go where you aren’t welcome…
But, at least, that must know the doctors who ran the tests and told Freddie those horrible news. Also, his own doctor Gordon Atkinson and the attending physicians must’ve known that too. Like of every citizen of Great Britain, Freddie’s medical card must’ve remained. He was receiving the treatment from AIDS for several years – so, there must be the case history, the notes about the procedures he’d undergone, the medications he’d received, the professional advises, the progress of the disease, the date of the opening of the card of another HIV-positive British, Faroukh Bulsara. Where is all that?
And where are the formalities which are essential in the case of the death from the communicable disease (furthermore, Freddie died at home, not in the hospital)? Where are the results of autopsy or, at least, the simple corpse examination? Where’s the doctor’s opinion? The death certificate was written according to the spoken opinion of Gordon Atkinson – why? Why the body was driven away from home with the outrage upon the laws?
Maybe, because if the doctors would’ve been punctilious, they’d find many interesting things. For instance, the medical proof of the normal sexual orientation of the deceased. Or the absence of any trails of cocaine in his organism – and this is a grandiose scandal, isn’t it?
If a famous man dies from illness, his doctor (or doctors) holds the press conference, on which he answers all the press’ questions. Gordon Atkinson didn’t do that, limiting himself to several common, meaningless phrases. And all other witnesses did so.
But why nobody tries to learn it by him (or her) self? The sensation-seeking press and biographers were so thoroughly describing Freddie’s fictional “gay affairs”, so scandalously presented his death to public – but nobody asked Atkinson to show the medical card and the case history, not a single, even wildest, tabloid didn’t attract the public attention to the strange suppression of facts about the disease, no sensational hunter ever tried to find the information on his own. Neither the press, which is always interested with the diseases of the famous men, nor the biographers, describing the physical sufferings of dying Mercury with a sadist’s delight – nobody cornered the witnesses, and no journalist demanded them to answer the elementary simple questions.
Where is this indifference from? And don’t say that it’s because of delicacy – we know what have they done with the name and memory of Freddie Mercury.
The analysis of the materials of this theme led me to a very disappointing conclusion – the information about the illness and death of Freddie Mercury is classified. Even now, when ten years passed since his death.
What for, if his disease is just an incident? What for such conspiration is needed in the backdrop of the most dissolute obscenity?
So, they have what to hide.
Summer 1986 – Queen are out on their most grandiose Magic Tour, after which Mercury can be treated as the new King of Rock.
Autumn 1986 – Mercury undergoes some tests in the London hospital Harley Street and goes holidaying to Japan. While he’s out, the tabloid paper Sun says that he had an AIDS test. The article attracts the attention of journalists and causes a scandal; on return, Mercury denies the newspaper information.
Year 1987 – one after another, the newspapers are publishing the provocative articles about Mercury. It’s said about his depraved gay’s life, the false Mercury’s interview is printed, in which he’s saying expansively about his present depraved life, which ended when AIDS appeared, and says that he’s HIV-negative.
Years 1988-1991 – the press is constantly saying that Mercury was tested for AIDS, but the infection wasn’t found. Meanwhile, the changes in Freddie’s appearance cause rumors about his health. The Queen officials are denying his AIDS infection.
November 1991 – a day before his death, Freddie officially states that he has AIDS. Ten years after his death, all the medical documentation about his disease is still hidden.
It seems that it makes the full circle. And now, we can put forward a preliminary version of when and where Freddie Mercury was infested by AIDS.
It happened in September 1986, in the London hospital Harley Street.
What happened at the Harley Street isn’t the medical mistake or neglect – it’s the thoroughly planned murder. Otherwise, Sun wouldn’t have learned about that so soon, Freddie wouldn’t have been the only victim, and the reach of the scandal can hardly be imagined.
In 80’s and 90’s, all around the world went a wave of mass AIDS infestations in the medical facilities. But in all similar cases, the infestation was quickly found, the principals were found, and the press was raising a scandal. There were the cases of single infestations also (for instance, in 1991 the entire world was shocked by the tragedy of American student who was HIV-infested in the dentist’s cabinet), but even these cases were quickly found out.
It can be found out only if it was an accident, a neglection. But that day, nobody else was infested, the infested instruments were instantly replaced and destroyed, and it was impossible neither to prove something nor to find the principals
Mr. Ahundova lived and lives- behind the iron curtain, and as such does not believe anything the media says or said.
which is a reasonable position when faced with a culture of total propoganda, but it seems insane to the enlightened western culture who believe anything they read.
except for "the gospel truth" of course.[/QUOTE]
I think she hit the point about the way he died. Those articles in the press saying "Freddy underwent another AIDS test but he is not positive" didn't really mean anything, unless they were to prepare the masses for his illness while trying to hide how he was infected: why the press was not to saying that he WAS infected? the press is always looking for big news, scandals, even when they are not true, and in this case which was the truth, why to say that he was negative? Obviously because if they did say the truth, investigations would occur, and discovered that he was injected HIV in hospital.
I report an excerpt from the chapter where she details her findings, which is worth reading all:
The illness and death of Freddie Mercury are surrounded by a dark and very suspicious mystery.
Freddie Mercury wasn’t the only one celebrity who died of AIDS, but only the circumstances of his illness and death are still hidden from the society. About any famous man died in the similar circumstances, we can know almost everything: the date of diagnose ascertainment – year, month and day, the name of the doctor who ascertained the horrible news, number and name of the hospital in which that happened, the approximate date of his AIDS infestation, where and what treatment did he receive, in which clinics and hospitals, which medicaments did he receive and what procedures he’d undergone, how the disease progressed, the name of the attending physician or physicians etc. etc. We can learn that about everyone – except Mercury.
The intelligible information about his illness doesn’t exist. The few pieces of data that we have are bitty, chaotic and contradicting each other. And factually, we know nothing.
And what’s essential – nobody even tries to learn anything. Biographers and journalists, who love to dig up Freddie’s dirty clothes, for some reason aren’t interested with such a theme – his disease. Furthermore – they are straightly “closing” the theme, which is quite unpleasant for them, telling that nobody else than Mary Austin and Jim Hutton know when Freddie was HIV-infested – and shut up after that. To say shortly, nobody knows, and it’s not needed. If you’d know too much, dear Queen fans, you’d grow old too soon. Hushaby, kids, you’d better discuss the kitties and fishies and don’t go where you aren’t welcome…
But, at least, that must know the doctors who ran the tests and told Freddie those horrible news. Also, his own doctor Gordon Atkinson and the attending physicians must’ve known that too. Like of every citizen of Great Britain, Freddie’s medical card must’ve remained. He was receiving the treatment from AIDS for several years – so, there must be the case history, the notes about the procedures he’d undergone, the medications he’d received, the professional advises, the progress of the disease, the date of the opening of the card of another HIV-positive British, Faroukh Bulsara. Where is all that?
And where are the formalities which are essential in the case of the death from the communicable disease (furthermore, Freddie died at home, not in the hospital)? Where are the results of autopsy or, at least, the simple corpse examination? Where’s the doctor’s opinion? The death certificate was written according to the spoken opinion of Gordon Atkinson – why? Why the body was driven away from home with the outrage upon the laws?
Maybe, because if the doctors would’ve been punctilious, they’d find many interesting things. For instance, the medical proof of the normal sexual orientation of the deceased. Or the absence of any trails of cocaine in his organism – and this is a grandiose scandal, isn’t it?
If a famous man dies from illness, his doctor (or doctors) holds the press conference, on which he answers all the press’ questions. Gordon Atkinson didn’t do that, limiting himself to several common, meaningless phrases. And all other witnesses did so.
But why nobody tries to learn it by him (or her) self? The sensation-seeking press and biographers were so thoroughly describing Freddie’s fictional “gay affairs”, so scandalously presented his death to public – but nobody asked Atkinson to show the medical card and the case history, not a single, even wildest, tabloid didn’t attract the public attention to the strange suppression of facts about the disease, no sensational hunter ever tried to find the information on his own. Neither the press, which is always interested with the diseases of the famous men, nor the biographers, describing the physical sufferings of dying Mercury with a sadist’s delight – nobody cornered the witnesses, and no journalist demanded them to answer the elementary simple questions.
Where is this indifference from? And don’t say that it’s because of delicacy – we know what have they done with the name and memory of Freddie Mercury.
The analysis of the materials of this theme led me to a very disappointing conclusion – the information about the illness and death of Freddie Mercury is classified. Even now, when ten years passed since his death.
What for, if his disease is just an incident? What for such conspiration is needed in the backdrop of the most dissolute obscenity?
So, they have what to hide.
Summer 1986 – Queen are out on their most grandiose Magic Tour, after which Mercury can be treated as the new King of Rock.
Autumn 1986 – Mercury undergoes some tests in the London hospital Harley Street and goes holidaying to Japan. While he’s out, the tabloid paper Sun says that he had an AIDS test. The article attracts the attention of journalists and causes a scandal; on return, Mercury denies the newspaper information.
Year 1987 – one after another, the newspapers are publishing the provocative articles about Mercury. It’s said about his depraved gay’s life, the false Mercury’s interview is printed, in which he’s saying expansively about his present depraved life, which ended when AIDS appeared, and says that he’s HIV-negative.
Years 1988-1991 – the press is constantly saying that Mercury was tested for AIDS, but the infection wasn’t found. Meanwhile, the changes in Freddie’s appearance cause rumors about his health. The Queen officials are denying his AIDS infection.
November 1991 – a day before his death, Freddie officially states that he has AIDS. Ten years after his death, all the medical documentation about his disease is still hidden.
It seems that it makes the full circle. And now, we can put forward a preliminary version of when and where Freddie Mercury was infested by AIDS.
It happened in September 1986, in the London hospital Harley Street.
What happened at the Harley Street isn’t the medical mistake or neglect – it’s the thoroughly planned murder. Otherwise, Sun wouldn’t have learned about that so soon, Freddie wouldn’t have been the only victim, and the reach of the scandal can hardly be imagined.
In 80’s and 90’s, all around the world went a wave of mass AIDS infestations in the medical facilities. But in all similar cases, the infestation was quickly found, the principals were found, and the press was raising a scandal. There were the cases of single infestations also (for instance, in 1991 the entire world was shocked by the tragedy of American student who was HIV-infested in the dentist’s cabinet), but even these cases were quickly found out.
It can be found out only if it was an accident, a neglection. But that day, nobody else was infested, the infested instruments were instantly replaced and destroyed, and it was impossible neither to prove something nor to find the principals
(follows from previous post)
It can be found out only if it was an accident, a neglection. But that day, nobody else was infested, the infested instruments were instantly replaced and destroyed, and it was impossible neither to prove something nor to find the principals… Freddie went to Japan not knowing what they have done to him yet. But the one who published the article in Sun knew about it – most probably, it was the sign, “there it is!” And in order not to cause any suspicion in the future, after Mercury’s death, the article was written in the style of a canard. And then, the purposeful and carefully thought up press campaign began, preparing the public to the future honourless end of the Europe’s first gay. And the articles about the unfound infection meant: the client is dying, everything’s under control. And for he wouldn’t accidentally live ten or fifteen years on medication, as it often can be during AIDS, his quickest departure to the other world must’ve been provided by the good doctor Gordon Atkinson…
What for and why Freddie was killed – I think you understood that. After 1986, it was the only way to stop Queen’s triumph and prevent the progress of the spiritual rock revolution. They couldn’t let Freddie take the throne of the Rock King, and when it happened, they just didn’t have any other way. Everything happened exact to Freddie’s early song Liar – “They never ever let you win… they bring you down before you begin”. The song turned out to be prophetic.
But why was he silent? Why didn’t he say about what they’ve done to him? Why he let to dishonour himself?
And what could he do? What could he prove? How would that look like? Who would believe him, except a group of devout fans? In this situation, Freddie Mercury would’ve looked like a scoundrel who tried to shift the blame on somebody else, who’s not just a lecher and felon, but also a sad coward who isn’t brave enough to confess in his sins. This would’ve looked like a sorry try to deny his sin and disgrace.
Freddie, like any Parsi, was a very proud man and would never diminish himself to that. He hated when somebody tried to pity him, and his Queen mates during work had to go out to the corridor to hide their tears – Freddie wouldn’t tolerate any condolences towards him. That’s why he didn’t say anything about his disease – he wanted neither condolences nor reproaches nor his life turned to hell, which the prostitute press would’ve surely done.
And don’t forget that in 80’s, the attitude towards AIDS-infested people was quite different to current…
They knew perfectly well that Freddie is going to be proudly mute, swallowing his dishonour and sufferings – and they used it.
But it would’ve been wrong to say that Freddie hid the truth from people. Queen screamed about the unfortunate fate all around the world.
If you want to know more about Freddie Mercury – don’t read his biographies. Listen to his songs, watch his video clips.
The full chapter here:
http://allofqueen.on.ufanet.ru/book/chapter8.html
It can be found out only if it was an accident, a neglection. But that day, nobody else was infested, the infested instruments were instantly replaced and destroyed, and it was impossible neither to prove something nor to find the principals… Freddie went to Japan not knowing what they have done to him yet. But the one who published the article in Sun knew about it – most probably, it was the sign, “there it is!” And in order not to cause any suspicion in the future, after Mercury’s death, the article was written in the style of a canard. And then, the purposeful and carefully thought up press campaign began, preparing the public to the future honourless end of the Europe’s first gay. And the articles about the unfound infection meant: the client is dying, everything’s under control. And for he wouldn’t accidentally live ten or fifteen years on medication, as it often can be during AIDS, his quickest departure to the other world must’ve been provided by the good doctor Gordon Atkinson…
What for and why Freddie was killed – I think you understood that. After 1986, it was the only way to stop Queen’s triumph and prevent the progress of the spiritual rock revolution. They couldn’t let Freddie take the throne of the Rock King, and when it happened, they just didn’t have any other way. Everything happened exact to Freddie’s early song Liar – “They never ever let you win… they bring you down before you begin”. The song turned out to be prophetic.
But why was he silent? Why didn’t he say about what they’ve done to him? Why he let to dishonour himself?
And what could he do? What could he prove? How would that look like? Who would believe him, except a group of devout fans? In this situation, Freddie Mercury would’ve looked like a scoundrel who tried to shift the blame on somebody else, who’s not just a lecher and felon, but also a sad coward who isn’t brave enough to confess in his sins. This would’ve looked like a sorry try to deny his sin and disgrace.
Freddie, like any Parsi, was a very proud man and would never diminish himself to that. He hated when somebody tried to pity him, and his Queen mates during work had to go out to the corridor to hide their tears – Freddie wouldn’t tolerate any condolences towards him. That’s why he didn’t say anything about his disease – he wanted neither condolences nor reproaches nor his life turned to hell, which the prostitute press would’ve surely done.
And don’t forget that in 80’s, the attitude towards AIDS-infested people was quite different to current…
They knew perfectly well that Freddie is going to be proudly mute, swallowing his dishonour and sufferings – and they used it.
But it would’ve been wrong to say that Freddie hid the truth from people. Queen screamed about the unfortunate fate all around the world.
If you want to know more about Freddie Mercury – don’t read his biographies. Listen to his songs, watch his video clips.
The full chapter here:
http://allofqueen.on.ufanet.ru/book/chapter8.html
Nice fiction.
Flores, dear. You and M.V. Ahundova are undoubtedly free to envision Freddie Mercury any way you like as long as it helps you to enjoy his music. Though it’s sad that you are frustrated by social preconceptions around you, I must admit that - like it’s been already said in one of the posts above – it depends on where you live. The society may well deserve it.
However, there’s one thing about those chaos-coming-soon websites you go to next; something that I’m just curious about. There homosexuals are dubbed as “sodomites” and “pedophiles”, despite that these words are not synonyms; and there isn’t mentioned that both sodomy and pedophilia can be [and way too often are] committed by heterosexuals as well. I can’t help noticing that exactly these two acts are felt as sexually unpleasant and/or dangerous by large number of people.
The question is, then: of course, the celebrity news releases often have little credibility; but what makes you think that people, who attempt to manipulate the unconscious fears of others instead of addressing their judgment, are certainly nicer and should be trusted more?
However, there’s one thing about those chaos-coming-soon websites you go to next; something that I’m just curious about. There homosexuals are dubbed as “sodomites” and “pedophiles”, despite that these words are not synonyms; and there isn’t mentioned that both sodomy and pedophilia can be [and way too often are] committed by heterosexuals as well. I can’t help noticing that exactly these two acts are felt as sexually unpleasant and/or dangerous by large number of people.
The question is, then: of course, the celebrity news releases often have little credibility; but what makes you think that people, who attempt to manipulate the unconscious fears of others instead of addressing their judgment, are certainly nicer and should be trusted more?
"the tragedy of American student who was HIV-infested in the dentist’s cabinet"
Hahaha.
Hahaha.
[QUOTE]
[b]Zaza Gabor wrote:[/b] QUOTE
"However, there’s one thing about those chaos-coming-soon websites you go to next; something that I’m just curious about. There homosexuals are dubbed as “sodomites” and “pedophiles”, despite that these words are not synonyms; and there isn’t mentioned that both sodomy and pedophilia can be [and way too often are] committed by heterosexuals as well."QUOTE
Actually it IS mentioned:
"Homosexual apologists, admit that some homosexuals sexually molest
children, but they vehemently deny that homosexuals are more likely to
commit such offences. [b]They cleverly argue that the majority of child
molestation cases are heterosexual in nature and produce convincing
statistics to support their argument. While this is correct in terms of
absolute numbers, they conveniently ignore the fact that homosexuals
comprise only a very small percentage of the population.[/b]
If pushed these venal minds will cite the claim of a so-called sex
researcher Alfred Kinsey that at least 10 percent of the population is
homosexual. This figure is a fallacy.
The facts of the matter are these: men commit almost all sex crimes
against children. Therefore, paedophiles are invariably males. Up to
one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys
(as opposed to girls). Therefore, by definition and probability the act
is by pederasts who are ipso facto homosexual. The figure cited
by Alfred Kinsey and promoted by vested interests that homosexuals
comprise 10 percent of the population has been proved a fallacy by
authorities that are more circumspect and decidedly less venal. The
figure is between 1 to 3 percent of the population. [b]Individuals from
this tiny minority (1 to 3 percent of the population) that are sexually
attracted to the same sex commit up to one-third of the sex crimes
against children[/b]. Therefore, homosexuals are over represented in child
sex offences. Homosexuals comprise by far the greatest group of sexual
predators of children and the lifting of the moral restraints and the
legal sanctions against them merely emboldens would be paedophiles.
These are the facts this is the reality.
[/QUOTE] http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/homosexual_agenda_4.html
[b]Zaza Gabor wrote:[/b] QUOTE
"However, there’s one thing about those chaos-coming-soon websites you go to next; something that I’m just curious about. There homosexuals are dubbed as “sodomites” and “pedophiles”, despite that these words are not synonyms; and there isn’t mentioned that both sodomy and pedophilia can be [and way too often are] committed by heterosexuals as well."QUOTE
Actually it IS mentioned:
"Homosexual apologists, admit that some homosexuals sexually molest
children, but they vehemently deny that homosexuals are more likely to
commit such offences. [b]They cleverly argue that the majority of child
molestation cases are heterosexual in nature and produce convincing
statistics to support their argument. While this is correct in terms of
absolute numbers, they conveniently ignore the fact that homosexuals
comprise only a very small percentage of the population.[/b]
If pushed these venal minds will cite the claim of a so-called sex
researcher Alfred Kinsey that at least 10 percent of the population is
homosexual. This figure is a fallacy.
The facts of the matter are these: men commit almost all sex crimes
against children. Therefore, paedophiles are invariably males. Up to
one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys
(as opposed to girls). Therefore, by definition and probability the act
is by pederasts who are ipso facto homosexual. The figure cited
by Alfred Kinsey and promoted by vested interests that homosexuals
comprise 10 percent of the population has been proved a fallacy by
authorities that are more circumspect and decidedly less venal. The
figure is between 1 to 3 percent of the population. [b]Individuals from
this tiny minority (1 to 3 percent of the population) that are sexually
attracted to the same sex commit up to one-third of the sex crimes
against children[/b]. Therefore, homosexuals are over represented in child
sex offences. Homosexuals comprise by far the greatest group of sexual
predators of children and the lifting of the moral restraints and the
legal sanctions against them merely emboldens would be paedophiles.
These are the facts this is the reality.
[/QUOTE] http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/homosexual_agenda_4.html
[b]And now let's talk about AIDS.
The HIV theory has been proven to be false.
The scientific community is denying it but there is enough proof out there for those
who want to see.
There is no virus: what causes AIDS, which is the failure of the immune system,
besides malnutrition and starvation, is basically medical drugs, including vaccines,
Medical drugs are deadly, but people do not know. When people start to die because
of some drug, pharmaceutical companies pay some doctors to invent the theory of new deseases to cover up the killer drug. So lots of money goes into research for the causes
which are of course given to a virus and never to the effects of deadly products of the
industry, be them food, drugs, new toxic tecnology and so on.
A research for a virus that does not exist. And they invest money to invent a vaccine to
the virus that does not exist. And the vaccine itself will cause the desease and new
deseases, that they will cover up and look for a new virus....do you get the picture?
Take the time to listen and read all these three different doctors/scientists say and the other information provided.
1) Christl Meyer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaA6zLUPfvk
2) Dr Willner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmpx3bQ40Dg&feature=endscreen&NR=1
3) Peter Duesberg: http://www.henrymakow.com/the_aids_hoax.html
[/b]
[b]
4) http://www.harmonikireland.com/hiv-hoax/[/b]
[b]HIV is just an unharmful cell in the body, a part of our dna according to doctor 1, and it tests positive when there is a big amount of antibodies, proteins, in the body. It becomes positive for different reasons: after a vaccine is injected is one of them. After you take drugs. And for homosexual after receiving proteins from your partner through sex. Because they often take drugs and because of semen in the body homosexuals often test positive. But there is no virus and AIDS CANNOT BE TRASMITTED. The test is totally untrustable, you test positive in one country and same blood in another country tests negative. Because there is no virus, it is just antibodies coming from outside that naturally are eliminated then by the body.
Doctor 2 has publically stung himself with HIV positive blood several times to demostrate people that HIV is not a virus. He died of heart attack 6 months later. Heart attack is one of the most common ways used to secretely kill somebody by making them take some poison.[/b]
[b]Let's see how the HIV theory was invented by the pharmaeutical industry to cover the lethal effects of one of their drugs, used by gays, and for another reason linked to the gay agenda, that we will see later:
[/b]This is the story of Peter Duesberg. Duesberg is a professor of molecular and cell biology at the
University of California, Berkley. He is a cancer researcher who has formulated a theory that HIV does not cause AIDS.
According to Duesberg what is known as AIDS was originally caused by the use of Alkyl Nitrate in the homosexual communities. Alkyl Nitrate is a recreational drug that creates some euphoria, and also loosens the anal spincter making anal sex easier.
Hence its use by homosexuals. Alkyl Nitrate, like some other nitrates, causes Karposi Sarcoma, a virulent cancer. When homosexuals in the late 70's and early 80's started surfacing with Karposi Sarcoma the possibility of a new epidemic disease was proposed.
Causes for the new disease were explored. HIV, a retrovirus present in many of the homosexual community that had Karposi Sarcoma was identified and labeled the possible cause of AIDS.
The extremely toxic cancer drug AZT was resurrected from oblivion, because it had been banned for chemotherapy cancer use.
AZT was approved for treatment of HIV infection. AZT itself causes many disease conditions commonly associated with AIDS. Merely detecting HIV infection was cause for "treatment" with AZT.
Once AZT treatment was initiated a whole myriad of AIDS symptoms surfaced, not just Karposi Sarcoma.
Lots of money was made from causing more disease conditions, which of course had to be treated with other expensive drugs as well.
AFRICA
Africa
has suffered from many tropical diseases like malaria, and malnutrition because of wars, revolutions, and famine. These conditions were labeled as AIDS, even though HIV positive test results were not
obtained in most cases.
The AIDS figures were always greatly inflated by this sleight of hand. This resulted in huge amounts of money allotted for AIDS research. Many "researchers" and pharmaceutical companies profited greatly.
Duesberg contends that HIV is a harmless retrovirus. That is why a person may be infected with HIV for
years and never experience any symptoms associated with AIDS, until of course treatment with AZT is initiated.
Doctors will then say, "good thing we started treatment just in time as symptoms started to surface."
Huge sums were made from the AIDS hoax. It could never be "cured", just treated indefinitely at a high cost, and AZT caused many more disease conditions.
Duesberg's theory was totally ostracized by the scientific community, and personal attacks were made. It was the classic kill-the-messenger approach. Duesberg wrote a book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" that details his theory.
Duesberg's theory has never received much press even in conspiracy circles. I believe that is because it is probably the closest to the truth.
I wrote this article for anyone infected with HIV, which could be almost anyone homosexual or heterosexual, so that they could have necessary information before starting any AZT regime for
"treatment".
I am not a homosexual, but I certainly do not wish any harm to come to anyone. Promoting the theory that AIDS is really an epidemic disease is the exact MO of the "Powers That Be" to keep the
population in a perpetual fear state.
I know for a fact that drugs used to treat "Autism" actually cause many of the symptoms labeled
"Autism". I have witnessed it with my own two eyes. That is going to be the topic of one of my subsequent articles.[b]
[/b]
The HIV theory has been proven to be false.
The scientific community is denying it but there is enough proof out there for those
who want to see.
There is no virus: what causes AIDS, which is the failure of the immune system,
besides malnutrition and starvation, is basically medical drugs, including vaccines,
Medical drugs are deadly, but people do not know. When people start to die because
of some drug, pharmaceutical companies pay some doctors to invent the theory of new deseases to cover up the killer drug. So lots of money goes into research for the causes
which are of course given to a virus and never to the effects of deadly products of the
industry, be them food, drugs, new toxic tecnology and so on.
A research for a virus that does not exist. And they invest money to invent a vaccine to
the virus that does not exist. And the vaccine itself will cause the desease and new
deseases, that they will cover up and look for a new virus....do you get the picture?
Take the time to listen and read all these three different doctors/scientists say and the other information provided.
1) Christl Meyer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaA6zLUPfvk
2) Dr Willner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmpx3bQ40Dg&feature=endscreen&NR=1
3) Peter Duesberg: http://www.henrymakow.com/the_aids_hoax.html
[/b]
[b]
4) http://www.harmonikireland.com/hiv-hoax/[/b]
[b]HIV is just an unharmful cell in the body, a part of our dna according to doctor 1, and it tests positive when there is a big amount of antibodies, proteins, in the body. It becomes positive for different reasons: after a vaccine is injected is one of them. After you take drugs. And for homosexual after receiving proteins from your partner through sex. Because they often take drugs and because of semen in the body homosexuals often test positive. But there is no virus and AIDS CANNOT BE TRASMITTED. The test is totally untrustable, you test positive in one country and same blood in another country tests negative. Because there is no virus, it is just antibodies coming from outside that naturally are eliminated then by the body.
Doctor 2 has publically stung himself with HIV positive blood several times to demostrate people that HIV is not a virus. He died of heart attack 6 months later. Heart attack is one of the most common ways used to secretely kill somebody by making them take some poison.[/b]
[b]Let's see how the HIV theory was invented by the pharmaeutical industry to cover the lethal effects of one of their drugs, used by gays, and for another reason linked to the gay agenda, that we will see later:
[/b]This is the story of Peter Duesberg. Duesberg is a professor of molecular and cell biology at the
University of California, Berkley. He is a cancer researcher who has formulated a theory that HIV does not cause AIDS.
According to Duesberg what is known as AIDS was originally caused by the use of Alkyl Nitrate in the homosexual communities. Alkyl Nitrate is a recreational drug that creates some euphoria, and also loosens the anal spincter making anal sex easier.
Hence its use by homosexuals. Alkyl Nitrate, like some other nitrates, causes Karposi Sarcoma, a virulent cancer. When homosexuals in the late 70's and early 80's started surfacing with Karposi Sarcoma the possibility of a new epidemic disease was proposed.
Causes for the new disease were explored. HIV, a retrovirus present in many of the homosexual community that had Karposi Sarcoma was identified and labeled the possible cause of AIDS.
The extremely toxic cancer drug AZT was resurrected from oblivion, because it had been banned for chemotherapy cancer use.
AZT was approved for treatment of HIV infection. AZT itself causes many disease conditions commonly associated with AIDS. Merely detecting HIV infection was cause for "treatment" with AZT.
Once AZT treatment was initiated a whole myriad of AIDS symptoms surfaced, not just Karposi Sarcoma.
Lots of money was made from causing more disease conditions, which of course had to be treated with other expensive drugs as well.
AFRICA
Africa
has suffered from many tropical diseases like malaria, and malnutrition because of wars, revolutions, and famine. These conditions were labeled as AIDS, even though HIV positive test results were not
obtained in most cases.
The AIDS figures were always greatly inflated by this sleight of hand. This resulted in huge amounts of money allotted for AIDS research. Many "researchers" and pharmaceutical companies profited greatly.
Duesberg contends that HIV is a harmless retrovirus. That is why a person may be infected with HIV for
years and never experience any symptoms associated with AIDS, until of course treatment with AZT is initiated.
Doctors will then say, "good thing we started treatment just in time as symptoms started to surface."
Huge sums were made from the AIDS hoax. It could never be "cured", just treated indefinitely at a high cost, and AZT caused many more disease conditions.
Duesberg's theory was totally ostracized by the scientific community, and personal attacks were made. It was the classic kill-the-messenger approach. Duesberg wrote a book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" that details his theory.
Duesberg's theory has never received much press even in conspiracy circles. I believe that is because it is probably the closest to the truth.
I wrote this article for anyone infected with HIV, which could be almost anyone homosexual or heterosexual, so that they could have necessary information before starting any AZT regime for
"treatment".
I am not a homosexual, but I certainly do not wish any harm to come to anyone. Promoting the theory that AIDS is really an epidemic disease is the exact MO of the "Powers That Be" to keep the
population in a perpetual fear state.
I know for a fact that drugs used to treat "Autism" actually cause many of the symptoms labeled
"Autism". I have witnessed it with my own two eyes. That is going to be the topic of one of my subsequent articles.[b]
[/b]