I believe left-wing (neo Liberal) social engineers are trying to bring in a new social order by breaking down the fabric and bedrock of western civilization; the cooperative heterosexual monogamous biological family unit. To understand the reasons why the social engineers are focusing on the destruction of the family unit, it is necessary to know how important these units are to civilization. To understand this, one needs to take a brief layman’s look at the evolution and development of modern human beings.

The Evolution of Human Beings

The biblical story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is a wonderful story but that is all it is, a story because it has little basis in fact. This is because human development from hairy ape to naked ape was not a rapid process but one that happened in several stages over about six million years. The final stage of human evolution was the appearance of the homo group about two million years ago; with modern humans appearing about 200,000 years ago.

There is no doubt that modern humans are a descendant of the primate group, the great apes that live in the rain forests of Africa because we share about 99% of genetic material with chimpanzees. History also tells us that we also share the same aggressive territorial behavior of chimpanzees.

What environmental and/or climactic changes triggered the evolution of the naked ape branch of the great ape family cannot be clearly stated. But what we can state is that when early man stood erect and left the African rain forests, they walked into an extremely hostile environment. Fortunately, these early humans took with them the primates instinct to live in co-operative communal groups to increase their chances of survival.

While the great apes practice a diversity of mating systems (Monogamy, Polygyny, Polyandry and Promiscuity), at some stage during their evolution and development, early humans became exclusively monogamous. In other words, one male formed a long-term sexual bond with one female. There are a number of possible reasons for this evolutionary change.
A – The long-term monogamous sexual bonds removed the need for a dominant male to fight (and possibly kill) other males for the right to copulate with the group’s females. Not a good survival strategy.
B – A lone hunter would find it impossible to provide for a harem of females and their young. A lone hunter also had a 50/50 chance of becoming the prey of a larger predator.
C – As cooperative family units coexisting together, the males would be able to go hunting as a party to increase their chances of a successful hunt. The ‘kill’ would then be shared and eaten by the whole group as a communal activity.
D – Like the young of the great apes, human young are completely helpless at birth and take years to reach maturity. With both parents sharing the responsibility for rearing their young, the chances of them surviving to reach maturity were greatly increased.
E – To strengthen these long-term monogamous sexual bonds, early females evolved the ability to engage in copulation for pleasure as well as for procreation. This evolutionary change enabled a female to satisfy the sexual needs of her mate which, in turn, removed the need for her mate to stray. This is what separates human beings from most other mammals on Planet Earth.
F – These cooperative groups of monogamous biological family units made it possible for early humans to live together as a group in relative peace and harmony so they could thrive, grow and develop.

At that stage of human development, there would have been very little in the way of spoken or written language so there was no religious ideology to tell them that they were fornicating, living in sin and their children were illegitimate bastards. Nor was there any political ideology to tell them that their heterosexuality was not normal but a ‘sexual orientation.’ Imagine that, totally natural and guilt free monogamous heterosexual sex for procreation, pleasure and for long-term bonding. Today we call this LOVE and MARRIAGE. How lucky they were. Simply because over, thousands of years, these monogamous long-term sexual bonds between a man and a woman have been ritualised and formalised, does not mean that they are religious or government institutions.

Because of the lack of spoken or written language, it is not known whether or not any of these early humans were homosexual. Nor am I aware of any instance of cave or wall paintings depicting homosexual behaviour. So how homosexuals (if any) were treated by early humans we will probably never know.

But I do not believe they would have received favourable treatment because of their inability to form a long-term sexual bond and to copulate with a female thereby increasing the number of cooperative monogamous biological family units within the group to ensure its growth and survival.

These cooperative groups of monogamous biological family units were so successful because they provided the fabric that held the group together and became the bedrock upon which civilizations were built. These cooperative arrangements also enabled small individual groups (tribes) to amalgamate and become the super groups (tribes) that we know today as nations and made human beings the most dominant creature on the planet.

The Twentieth Century

During the twentieth century, the monogamous biological family unit came under extreme pressure. This was a century of mass murder on a scale never before experienced in human history. The major armed conflicts of the twentieth century deprived hundreds of thousands of children of one (usually the father) of their biological parents: thousands more children lost both parents and were orphaned.

The aftermath of these twentieth century conflicts left young widows to rear their children alone without the steadying influence, guidance, discipline and income of a father. This brought about single parenting by young widows on a huge scale. These young women had no choice but to re-marry (if any eligible male could be found) or join the work force to support themselves and their children because the ‘widows’ pension,’ where payable, would have been less than enough for these young fatherless families to live on.

All of these unfortunate families would have suffered a high level of trauma due to the loss of the husband and father. Many children who were orphaned suffered further trauma because they were institutionalised and subjected to harsh treatment and sexual abuse at some of the institutions, particularly those associated with religious groups.

In those days, there were no social support services to council or treat those widows and children to help them overcome the trauma suffered by the tragedy of armed conflicts. These young widows and children were, as far I am concerned, the forgotten casualties of war.

Nor were there any child care facilities to look after these hapless children so they were left on their own on a daily basis. That is, the mother left for work before the children left for school and did not return home until after the children returned home from school. This was the era of ‘latch key’ children. They left an empty house in the morning and returned to an empty house in the evening.

Then, in the 1970’s the Family Law Act became law which made a divorce as easy to obtain as a take away meal. Again it is the children who suffered because they were deprived of the full-time care of one (usually the father) of their biological parents. Statistics show that almost 80% of children are traumatized by their parents divorce.

This new law brought about situations in which divorced fathers found it impossible to support themselves and their estranged families. Some simply disappeared, others committed suicide. Some murdered their children in acts of revenge against their ex-wives; while others murdered their ex-wives and children and then committed suicide. Not a very good outcome for a society and civilization that depends upon cooperative monogamous biological family units for survival.

It is my opinion that the rapid increase in drug and alcohol abuse, antisocial behaviour, tribalism, individual and group vandalism and violence and the violent crimes that pervaded the latter half of the twentieth century can be directly linked to the massive and tragic loss of so many cooperative monogamous biological family units.

The Twenty-First Century

The first 14 years of the twenty-first century has seen a full frontal assault by left-wing social engineers on the family unit and family values in order to introduce their new social order. So how are they achieving this goal?

First of all, they have interpreted Article 16 (the right to marry) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to include homosexuals and lesbians which, in my view was never the intention because same-sex relationships do not constitute a natural and fundamental family group unit. Also, reaffirmed that the natural family is the fundamental unit of society.

Social engineers have also shifted twenty-first century society’s focus from ‘family’ and ‘family values’ to overt sexuality and copulation for pleasure. Women’s fashion reflects this shift to overt sexuality; shorts cannot get any shorter and pants cannot get any tighter. Also, there seems to be a competition among fashion designers to see who can design dresses and gowns that reveal the most naked flesh without actually exposing breast nipples or vaginas. But I am certain that, in the not too distant future, the next step will be taken and female nipples will become cosmetically enhanced fashion accessories.

Twenty first century woman have now been labelled as ‘sexual beings.’ My question is, when were women (like men) not sexual beings? As a species, we have always been ‘sexual beings.’ I think these two words are simply a euphemism for ‘promiscuous behavior’ in both males and females. Women in particular are now being actively encouraged to be promiscuous. They are fed a daily dose of bed hopping via the newspapers, glossy women’s magazines, television shows and movies. Promiscuous behavior has, in my opinion, increased violence against women. When a woman dumps one bed mate for another, in some cases, the dumped bed mate cannot cope with or accept rejection so he takes revenge on his former bed mate and sometimes, on the woman’s new bedmate as well, often with tragic consequences.

Women today are also being actively encouraged to be ‘single mothers.’ There are two types of single mothers; those who ‘stay at home’ and those who work. Single mothers who stay at home are often labelled ‘parasites’ because many of them are totally reliant on welfare payments to survive. But at least they try to rear their children. The down side of this is some single mothers have children with different men; the more children they have the greater the welfare benefit. This creates situations where siblings have different fathers and don’t know who their father is: nor, in some cases, does the mother.

Working single mothers rely on child care workers and pre-school teachers to look after their child while they work. Some of these women simply do not have the time to toilet train their child let alone form a maternal bond. These responsibilities are given to child care workers and pre-school teachers.

Promiscuous behaviour has also filtered down to teen and pre-teen girls who engage in ‘hook ups’. A hook up starts with a cell phone dating application and involves sending sexy pictures, sometimes including the genitals. Don’t these teenagers have any self-respect, self-discipline or sense of common decency? Research suggests that the girls get the short end of the stick during these brief sexual encounters because very few girls achieve an orgasm. And, when a girl gains a reputation for ‘sleeping around’ (being promiscuous), she cannot find a regular boyfriend because no one wants to have a relationship with a girl who has had sex with so many different boys during ‘hook ups’.

The downside of promiscuous behaviour is the rapid spread and increase in sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s) and, of course unwanted pregnancies. It would seem that in the twenty-first century, unwanted pregnancies are easier to fix than STD’s. Simply take a ‘morning after pill’ or if it is too late to do so, go to your local abortion clinic and have the fetus sucked out of the womb and tossed into the incinerator. No one seems care that the unique human being that the fetus would have become has had its one and only chance at life taken away forever, which is a very long time indeed.

I now come to the most farcical and concept ever devised in human history: same-sex marriage. These three words are a euphemism for one man copulating with another man’s anus and one woman copulating with another woman using an artificial penis. Personally, I cannot think of anything more burlesque than same-sex copulation. No matter how many words these people change the meaning of to suit their purposes, they cannot change human biology. That is, humans are heterosexual by nature and by design: a male’s erect penis is inserted into a lubricated female’s vagina and ejaculates and, if the female is ovulating, bingo the miracle of new life.

Our social engineers have tried to get around the biological facts by assigning humans a ‘sexual orientation.’ In my view there is no such entity as a ‘sexual orientation’ in a heterosexual species. But rather, the word ‘orientation’ is a euphemism for words such as: dysfunction, practice, deviation and perversion. Again, the incorrect use of a word cannot change the biological facts.

Social engineers are also working hard to suppress any opposition to the normalization and legitimization of same-sex copulation. The so-called homosexual (Gay) Mafia is running a fear campaign using another invented word ‘homophobia’. What does ‘homophobia actually mean? ‘Homo’ is the short form of homosexual. A ‘phobia’ is ‘an extreme abnormal fear of or aversion to’ or ‘an abnormal intense and irrational fear of a given situation, organism or object.’ In other words, homosexuals are claiming that heterosexuals are the ones with problems not them.

This being so, when a homosexual calls someone homophobic, it is a rather derogatory and insulting term to use. What is a homophobic ‘comment,’ ‘insult’ or ‘slur’? What is homophobic behaviour? It can be anything a homosexual wants it to be. In my view, it is the homosexuals who are ‘homophobic.’ I state this because, first of all they would much rather be identified as ‘gay people’ rather than homosexuals which, to me, indicates that they are very uncomfortable being homosexual. And, when anyone reminds them of what they really are, it upsets their fragile egos so much so they turn vindictive.

If homosexuals wish to be accepted they must first accept themselves for what they really are instead of trying to change society to suit what they believe their sexual practices to be. Once again, using an invented word to silence critics and ruin people’s lives cannot change the biological facts. All that has been achieved is the opening of ‘Pandora’s Box,’ releasing all the sexual perversions that beset modern society.

As stated above, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is just a story, but a story with a prophetic message: eat of the forbidden fruit and you will bring evil upon yourself. Sodom and Gomorrah may not have existed either but if it is a prophecy, I believe it is about to be fulfilled. Abraham believed his people could co-exist with the Sodomites and the people of Gomorrah but was wrong. Similarly, I doubt very much if, as a society, we can co-exist with modern Sodomites because of the Pandora’s Box effect.

As minority groups, homosexuals and lesbians are overrepresented in the governments of the western world and are becoming more and more aggressive towards citizens who are against the normalization and legitimization of same-sex copulation. Our social engineers are also working very hard to take away our freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of opinion. In other words, keep your opinions to yourself and keep your mouth shut.

This is a clear indication that this issue is not about discrimination, equally or acceptance: it is about gaining the power to build a society to suit their own image of themselves as normal sexual beings.

When a civilization slides down the slippery slope to sexual decadence, social anarchy and chaos, tyranny usually follows. If western society follows this path, we will end up back in the dark ages with no democratic freedoms and will become virtual slaves under the new social order.

This poses the question: are we on the eve of our own destruction?
aquarianmist

References:
The Human Family Tree – Smithsonian Museum of Natural History
The Great Apes
The Naked Ape – Desmond Morris – Dell Publications 1967
Homo Erectus – Bill Mehert – 1994
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Holy Bible