Leaving Islam




The Decline and Fall of the West



The Weakness of the West

When you face an enemy there are two things you should know. One is your enemy, his weaknesses and his strengths and more than anything else his mind. You should know how he thinks and what he wants. This we covered already. We peered into the mind of the Muslims and learned about their idiosyncrasy. We know Islam is psychopathology. It is a ruthless, mindless cult of domination and conquest that stops at nothing. It has no mercy, not even on children, and its thirst for blood is insatiable. Islam will either destroy us or we must destroy it. There is no other alternative. 

The next thing we should know is our own weaknesses. This is crucial. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The strongest ship can sink if it has a hole in its bottom. The strongest dam breaks at its cracks. The western society is strong in many ways. It has a superior technology, a more powerful military, a richer culture and is much wealthier. But it also has weaknesses. It is important to know about our weaknesses or we will be vulnerable to our enemy.

History shows that great empires and civilizations have succumbed to much smaller forces made of barbarians. Could this happen to us? 

1400 years ago mighty civilizations such as Byzantine , Persia and Egypt fell to a bunch of warriors far less sophisticated. What made these empires fall? The understanding of this question may help us see the vulnerabilities of our own society and prepare ourselves against our enemy. It is important to know the history. History can teach us lessons that could save our future.

There are several reasons for the fall of these empires. The Persians and the Byzantines had exhausted each other with years of warfare. The Persians were further weakened by economic decline, heavy taxation and religious unrest. They were fed up by their corrupt and powerful religious rulers and were ready to embrace Christianity. So when the Arabs invaded Iran , they did not put up a fierce resistance. Resistance came later, when the brutal nature of Islam became known to them and in some cities it lasted for centuries. However they lacked coordination and eventually were subdued.

What basically made all these countries fall was their lack of knowledge of their enemy. They underestimated the brutal nature of Islam and once they learned it, it was too late. Are we not making the same mistakes today? Are we not underestimating the threat of Islam? Do we have weaknesses that we should be worried about and correct? What are they? 

The western society has a major flaw. It is called political correctness or PC for short.


PC: The Whiteman’s Disease

Political correctness is an intellectual sickness. It means lying when telling the truth is not expedient. This practice is so widespread and so common that it is considered to be normal. It is a dogma as oppressive as a cult, whose main doctrine is appeasement.

The purported claim of the politically correct is to protect the underprivileged and the oppressed through censorship, control of language and “affirmative action”.  

“Affirmative action” means legislating laws that would ensure certain groups, perceived as underprivileged, receive preferential treatment in areas of employment, education, business, and etc. The preference is not based on merits but is selective and is based on race, gender or ethnicity.

Islam is a religion and does not fall into these categories. Nonetheless, for some unexplainable reason, Muslims are classified as ethnic group and therefore are protected by political correctness. Any criticism of Islam, is frowned at, is considered to be “racism” and one could even face prosecution, pay fine and go to jail for it.

The truth is that Muslims, although the minority (in the West), are not oppressed. They are the oppressors. Nonetheless they have become the protégées of the “bleeding heart” leftists. 

One must not mistake political correctness with manners. While manners imply consideration for others and the adherence to conventional social standards of good behavior, it’s voluntary.  “It costs nothing to be polite”, said Winston S. Churchill. Non compliance with political correctness could cost one dearly. One could be ostracized, prosecuted and even lose his life, depending on the gravity of the offence and the intransigence of the society. Political correctness is obligatory.   

Political correctness is not a joke. It is a deadly disease that has caused the death of tens of millions of people in Europe, in the old Soviet Union, in China , indeed everywhere.

Political correctness is not new. It is as old as the oldest tyranny. The tyrant cannot tolerate criticism and opinions contrary to his. So he demands that others around him control their language, do not criticize him, approve of him and say only things that are pleasing to him. He instills fear, punishes those who express views critical of him and prizes flattery. Political correctness is the common denominator of all tyrannies. You must praise the emperor’s invisible cloak or face his wrath.

A story is told of Abu Hodhaifa, a young Meccan believer who participated in the battle of Badr and his father was in the rank of the Quraish. It is said that when Muhammad instructed his followers to spare Abbas, his own uncle, who was also among the Quraish. (Abbas was Muhammad’s spy in Mecca .) Hodhaifa raised his voice, “What? Are we to slay our fathers, brothers, uncles, etc., and to spare Abbas? No, verily, but I will slay him if I find him.” Upon hearing this impertinent remark, Muhammad’s face turned red and his eyes bulged with rage. Omar, in his usual sycophantic gesture of loyalty, unshielded his sword and looked at the Prophet for his signal to behead the ill-mannered youth at once.[1] 

This threat had an immediate effect. A dramatic change took place in the behavior of Hodhaifa and we see him after the battle, a completely subdued and different person. When he found his father slain and his corpse, unceremoniously dragged to be dumped into a well, he was overwhelmed and started crying. “What?” asked Muhammad, “Are you saddened for the death of your father?” “Not so, O Allah’s Prophet!” responded Hodhaifa, “I do not doubt the justice of my father's fate; but I knew well his wise and generous heart, and I had trusted that the Lord would lead him to the faith. But now that I see him slain, and my hope destroyed! ---- it is for that I grieve." This time Muhammad was pleased with Hodhaifa’s response, comforted him, blessed him; and said, “It is well.”[2]   

Muhammad’s reproof of Hodhaifa’s irreverence in defying his word and the swift reaction of Omar threatening to slay him on the spot, were such powerful stimuli that Hodhaifa immediately changed his demeanor and a day later he even could see the “justice” in his father’s murder. On that occasion, Hodhaifa, and others present, learned their lesson on political correctness.  Muslims are taught this lesson from childhood. They are told which questions are permissible to ask and which ones are not. As a Muslim you must be very careful what you say or you could lose your head. A Persian proverb warns: “The red tongue will make you lose your green head”.

Today, in Afghanistan , teachers defending the right of girls to an education are threatened with death. In Iraq , women's rights activists are threatened for demanding equality and freedom. In Iran , journalists who published articles critical of the regime are languishing in prisons. In Yemen , up to 21 prosecution lawyers called for the death penalty for Mohammed Al-Asadi, the Editor-in-Chief of the Yemen Observer, and the permanent closure of the newspaper, during his trial. His crime? Al-Asadi has recounted how the prophet Muhammad ordered the assassination of a woman who had insulted him.


But don’t think this kind of censorship is limited to dictatorships and Islamic countries. In Britain , in 2006, Bryan Cork, 49, of Carlisle , Cumbria , in the Lake District , was sentenced to six months in prison for standing outside a mosque, drunk, and shouting, “Proud to be British,” and “Go back to where you came from.” But when hundreds of Muslim protesters in London displayed signs threatening to behead Westerners for “insulting” Islam, the British police said they didn’t want to arrest anyone for fear of setting off a riot. The list is endless. The crime of all these people is that they have violated the rules of political correctness.


Political correctness is a tool of tyranny. It is practiced in wherever people are muzzled and freedom of expression is censored.


Tyranny of the Masses:


The tyranny need not be the tyranny of state; it could be the tyranny of masses. The tyranny of masses of ignorant people can be just as oppressive and intolerant as the tyranny of state. In Islamic countries it is not just the tyranny of rulers but the tyranny of mobsters that suffocate freedom. The majority is not always right. Islamism is glaring examples of this tyranny.


The tyranny of masses was what concerned Aristotle. He understood the danger of populism when people are not yet ready for self rule. The peripatetic philosopher was not against democracy. He suggested a sound balance between two extremes – one that romanticizes the rule of people and the other that advocates the governance of the elite that underrate them. The ignorant masses can give birth to communal tyranny and witch-hunt that can be as oppressive, if not more, than the tyranny of state. The reason Voltaire distrusted democracy, was because he saw it propagating the idiocy of the masses. Ignorant people turn any democracy into dictatorship.


Democracies have been earned with sacrifice, but they must be safeguarded or they can be lost through negligence. History shows that democracies have been turned into dictatorships. It is not just through coup d'états that dictators come to power. Many dictators owe their scepter to universal suffrage. The Bolsheviks, the Nazis, the fascists and the Islamists of Iran, all came to power with popular support of the masses.


French political thinker, Alexis de Tocqueville (1805, 1859) in the first volume of his book, Democracy in America, highlighted the dangers of mass mentality that lead to political correctness. He identified anxiety as a political problem that could be resolved by political means: anxiety was the political weapon of a tyrannical majority, which drew its power from law, ideology, and institutions, and subjected minority dissenters to the threat of ostracism.

Corey Robin in Fear: The History of a Political Idea, analyses the views of Tocqueville.


The tyrannical mass, Tocqueville believed, represented a new kind of political animal, brandishing new instruments. It did not wield the “clumsy weapons of chains and hangmen.” Instead, it roamed about the land, arranging a dull sameness through sentiments. The new agent of fear was a majority wielding power not through traditional offices or weapons of state, but through the social mechanisms of popular opinion and common belief.


Just as the foundation of the majority’s power was political, so were the weapons it wielded against dissenters. The majority threatened dissenters not with physical violence or prison but with isolation, telling those who challenged it, “You are a stranger among us.” It did not deprive dissenters of their rights; through ostracism, it made those rights ineffective. In democracies like the United States , Tocqueville believed, exercising power depended upon the cooperation of like-minded men and women.

Without the ability to talk to fellow citizens, the dissenter was politically crippled, incapable of advancing his goals. “You can keep your privileges in the township,” the majority would declare to the dissenter, “but they will be useless to you, for if you solicit your fellow citizens’ votes, they will not give them to you, and if you only ask for their esteem, they will make excuses for refusing that.” The dissenter’s potential allies were well aware that if they joined him, they too would face isolation and be equally crippled, and so they kept their distance from him.


Based on this definition, democracies are naturally prone to become dictatorships of the majority. According to Tocqueville, the individual conforms not because of any distribution of power, not because of laws, ideology, and institutions, but because he is too weak, psychologically, to insist upon his freedom. Because of this emotional need to belong, the modern, democratic individual “does not have to be actively frightened into submission: he is already anxious by virtue of his inability to stand on his own, already prepared, with no encouragement, to hand over his freedom.”


Tocqueville seems to have recognized the flaws of human psyche and his weakness in standing his ground and defending his freedom of expression with astounding accuracy.  Look at today’s democracies. Political correctness has crippled plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech. These are the pillars of democracy and the safe-guards against tyranny.


The Absurdity of PC


The proponents of political correctness have embraced absurdity to the extent that they hurt those whom they claim to want to protect. Commonsense dictates that some words are pejorative and should be avoided. For example it is better to call someone retarded, “mentally disabled” than “imbecile”, “moron” or “idiot”. But the PC folk have gone too far.  Many terms that were once considered acceptable, even in the medical profession, are now considered out-of-date and offensive.


The National Cristina Foundation offered $50,000 to the person who came up with the most “empowering” term for people with disabilities. The winning entry was “people with differing abilities”. This ridiculous phrase is seldom used even by the disabled, or their care providers.


What is the subliminal message behind these euphemisms? The subliminal message is that people with disabilities should be ashamed of their condition or that they are so emotionally weak that they can’t handle the truth of their medical condition. Isn’t that more insulting?


In 1993, The National Federation of the Blind passed a resolution condemning the use of politically correct terms to describe blindness. They resolved: “We believe that it is respectable to be blind, and although we have no particular pride in the fact of our blindness, neither do we have any shame in it. To the extent that euphemisms are used to convey any other concept or image, we deplore such use. We can make our own way in the world on equal terms with others, and we intend to do it.”


Those in deaf culture similarly dislike such euphemistic phraseology. Clearly political correctness is demeaning and goes against the very wishes of those whom it intents to protect.


But this is only the ridiculous side of PC. Political correctness can also be deadly. It even considers race or gender as something shameful and calls for the change of language when referring to them. 


Elizabeth Whelan, ScD, MPH, president of the American Council on Science and Health, says ideology and science are becoming more intertwined in public health and, in fact, “the ideology is starting to take over the science.” Dr. Satel, in her book PC. MD.: How Political Correctness Is Corrupting Medicine writes: “Many in the public health elite are putting more passion into the promotion of political doctrine than into direct efforts to improve health.”


This much is enough to show the absurdity of the very concept of political correctness, how it goes against truth and how dangerous it can be. But the real danger of PC is in the field of humanities.


PC as the Harbinger of Cultural Revolution

The politically correct enforcers have self-appointed themselves as the vigilantes of thought and language police and try to impose their views on others. What they want to bring about is a cultural revolution. The idea is that carefully chosen language can promote or establish certain social outcomes resulting in changes that benefit society. The areas of interest for the PC warriors are gay rights, feminism, multiculturalism and the disability rights.

What is behind this obsession with PC? Why the ideologues of this doctrine insist on it when it clearly hurts those whom they intend to help?

The real intent of PC is social engineering. The idea is to impose leftist agenda and their political ideology on public behavior. It is not the protection of the rights of the oppressed but imposition of leftist ideas. No feminist organization is interested to speak about the abuses of women in Islamic countries or in the West. Why? It’s because criticizing Islam does not further the cause of feminism and socialism. Muslims are against the West too and in the West they are deemed to be allies.

Today, political correctness is the harbinger of cultural Marxism. PC is Marxism translated in cultural terms. The objective of PC is to destroy the foundation of the western society and pave the road for Marxism.

Marxism, like Islam, divides the world in two. In Islam this division is between the believers and the unbelievers, where the former is good and the latter is evil. According to Marxist ideology certain groups i.e. workers, the non Whites and feminists (non feminist women are deemed not to exist) are a priori good while other groups, i.e. the bourgeoisies, the owners of capital and the White males are a priori evil. One group is the oppressor and the other group is the oppressed. Feminists, homosexuals and minority races in predominantly White (Western) countries are determined to be victims regardless of what any of them do and they should be entitled to special privileges. White males, particularly the religious kind are the oppressors. They are responsible for all the wrongs their ancestors have done to other cultures centuries ago, and now is the payback time.

Cultural Marxism, like Islam, wants to re-write the history. Everything must be interpreted in terms of labor vs. Capital. The history of mankind is the history of the struggle of classes. But the truth is that the history hasn’t happened that way. So the task is to redefine the history to conform to the ideology and confirm it. So Shakespeare is no more about literature but it is all about suppression of women and the Bible is all about race and male supremacy. When Mao was alive, his wife who was in charge of the Cultural Revolution banned Beethoven and denounced him as the bourgeois composer. According to cultural Marxism, all the history is about power and which group rules.


The Origin of Modern PC

It is in this milieu of cultural Marxism that we have to find the origins of the modern political correctness. It goes back to World War I. 


Marxism does not believe in nationalism. Marxists are internationalists. Mehdi Qasemi, a veteran Iranian political activist, in his book The Political Dossier of Mossadeq, (which he calls a “book of repentance” because he opposed Mossadeq, the Iranian prime minister who brought democracy to Iran and whose government was toppled by CIA in a coup, in 1953), says that during his youth he was one of the pundits of the organ of Tudeh, the Iranian communist party. He reveals that despite the fact that the slogan of the party was about freedom and social justice, the real goal was to surrender Iran to the Soviet Union . He says that one day, Noureddin Kianouri, the Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party, very angrily addressed his comrades who were meeting in secret and emphatically stated that the party’s allegiance should not be to Iran but to Communism International, whose head is the USSR . Kianouri affirmed that the working class does not recognize national boundaries and that all the communists of the world must put the interest of the Soviet Union above the interest of their own nation.


Marxists are universalists and shun nationalism. This is very similar to Islam. Muslims also do not recognize nation states. Like communists, they too, strive to destroy the nationalistic sentiment of the people and instill in them the loyalty to the World Caliphate.  

According to the Marxist theory, the proletariats of the world have more in common with each other than they have with their bourgeois governments and should there be a war between two countries, the workers from both sides of the boarder would unite and will rise to overthrow their respective governments and would establish international communism.

Well, the reality has not worked that way. In 1914 the European workers, flocked to their own colors and siding with the ruling class of their countries. Roused by their nationalistic fervor, they marched on to kill one another, and killing they did. Later, the acerbic relationship between the Soviet Union and China also proved that this Marxist utopia that all the workers of the world are comrades is just that – a utopia.

However Marxism succeeded in 1917 in Russia giving the impression that the theory is working. But it stalled and the revolution did not spread further. The European workers showed little interest in communism. They did not support the Spartacist's uprising of 1919 in Berlin , nor did they support the Hungarian and the Bavarian (a.k.a Muich) Soviet Republics .

The Marxists realized that they have a problem. William S. Lind says that two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci[3] in Italy and Georg Lukács[4] in Hungary went to work on this problem and they came up with the solution.

Lind explains that Gramsci and Lukács “came up with the same answer. Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist, class interests that communism was impossible in the West until both had been destroyed. Asking, ‘Who will save us from Western civilization?,’ Lukács, as deputy commissar for culture in Hungary 's short-lived Bolshevik regime, in 1919 introduced sex education into the Hungarian schools. He knew that if traditional sexual morals could be undermined, Western culture would suffer.” [5]

Bela Kun government was ruthless. They killed thousands of people, taking their properties and distributing them among themselves (the proletariats). Apart from their brutality, the introduction of sex education also offended the religious minded Hungarian workers who overthrow Bela Kun’s Bolshevik government in just three months. So the problem was identified. As long as people remained religious, Marxism would have no appeal. The solution was to get rid of religion. Lind continues:

In 1923, a think tank was established at Frankfurt University in Germany that would pick up on Lukács' work. Named the Institute of Social Research and known informally as the Frankfurt School , this institution would create a new, heretical Marxism that saw culture not simply as a function of the ownership of the means of production, but as an independent and important factor on its own. In 1930, when Max Horkheimer became its director, it began the intellectually difficult task of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms. The key was crossing Karl Marx with Sigmund Freud.


In 1933, the institute left Germany and moved to New York City . With it came a new member, Herbert Marcuse. In the 1950s, Marcuse would take the institute's abstruse intellectual work and package it for American students in works such as Eros and Civilization. During the 1960s, Marcuse became the chief guru of the New Left, and he injected the institute's cultural Marxism into the baby-boom generation. Its central theme, now as then, was "negation": undermining, with constant criticism and psychological manipulation, all the beliefs and institutions of Western society until Western culture itself was destroyed.


The ideology of "multiculturalism," which now dominates the American elite, has as its goal and objective the destruction of Western culture. The West is assailed not only from without by Islam, but from within as well, as the dying snake that is Marxism pumps its last poison into America .  That poison is designed precisely to make the West unable, psychologically and morally, to defend itself at the very time that self-defense is most vital. Multiculturalism is, quite simply, culture treason. Lind [6]

In 1933, Horkhemier published Materialismus und Moral, “the theme of man’s domination of nature”, where he expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human sensual happiness. Lind writes: “In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkheimer discussed ‘the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.’ And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his ‘protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.’” 

The scholars who made significant contributions to this school were, Theodor W. Adorno (philosopher and sociologist), Walter Benjamin (essayist and literary critic), Herbert Marcuse (philosopher), Max Horkheimer (philosopher, sociologist), and later, Jurgen Habermas. Each of these philosophers believed, and shared Karl Marx’s theory of Historical Materialism. Each of them adjusted Marxism with his additions, or "fix". They then used the "fixed" Marxist theory as a measure modern society needed to meet. These ideas came to be known as "Critical Theory."

Critical What?

Critical Theory is shorthand for critical theory of society or critical social theory, in contradistinction to “traditional theory,” i.e. theory in the positivistic, scientistic, or purely observational mode.

By definition, criticism involves the application of principles or values in order to make judgments for the purpose of bringing about change. The objective is to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order through criticism without offering an alternative. Lind says: “They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down.” [7]


Critical theory aims to criticize the society in order to “liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” Horkheimer wrote. It is a radical form of Marxian theory that the School of Frankfurt conceived as the covert way to introduce orthodox Marxism. It is meant to be directed at the totality of society in its historical specificity. The criticism is made of all the major social science theories that grasp all aspects of human society, including morality, religion, family, economics, sociology, history, political science, anthropology, and psychology.


Polymorphous Perversity and Repression

Marcuse went to work for the United State government and became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA). Others like Horkheimer and Adorno, moved to Hollywood .  Now they were no more writing for the European intellectuals but for the American masses and their social engineers.

Marcuse called for a society of "polymorphous perversity". Polymorphous Perversity is a term coined by Freud. It is the ability to find erotic pleasure out of any part of the body. Experts like Havelock Ellis and Richard von Krafft-Ebing were convinced that sexual orientation is hereditary. But Freud, in 1905 published a short work that challenged that concept and redefined modern understanding of sexuality. He claimed that a child is born with a sexual drive that lacks direction. Instead of heredity, Freud wrote, it is a child's upbringing that determines the nature and direction of his or her sexual drive. Thus, according to Freud, a child is born “polymorphously perverse",[8] which is to say that, before education in the conventions of civilized society, a child will turn to various bodily parts for sexual gratification and will not obey the rules that in adults determine perverse behavior. Education however quickly suppresses the polymorphous possibilities for sexual gratification in the child, eventually leading, through repression, to amnesia about such primitive desires. Some adults retain such polymorphous perversity, according to Freud.


He explained: “What makes an infant characteristically different from every other stage of human life is that the child is polymorphously perverse, is ready to demonstrate any kind of sexual behavior, with any kind of pleasure, without any kind of restraint.” According to Freud, “civilization” emerges when this innate, polymorphous perversity is restrained by psychological repression, social form, and custom. Such restraint, Freud felt, was inevitable and indeed necessary for procreation and therefore heterosexual coupling was essential for perpetuation of civilization.


The whole problem, Marcuse thought, was this very restraint that Freud believed was essential.  According to Marcuse, the only way to achieve liberation is to undo that repression, to reverse that restraint, and thus to unleash in society that infantile stage of pure sexuality of polymorphous perversity.


Marcuse believed that people are not free because they function within systems such as the economy. If people were really free, they would be free from these systems.


In his book Eros and Civilization, subtitled A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, Marcuse argues that by freeing sex from any restraints, we could elevate the pleasure principle over the reality principle and create a society with no work, only play. Marcuse’s influence on the Hippy generation was immense.

He argued[9] that repression is the essence of capitalism. He said that as per Freud, when the sexual instincts become repressed, one becomes neurotic. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of polymorphous perversity, in which you can “do your own thing.”

This message was music to the ears of the anti social radicals of the mid sixties. They were young, rebellious students, fools and full of idealism. And here was a philosopher, painting for them a rosy picture of the future in which they “never have to work”, “do their own things”, “make love”, and the only standard for morality was: “if it feels good, do it”. What could be better than that?


What Repression?

The entire theory of Horkheimer, Marcuse and their fellow Marxist colleagues of Frankfurt School was based on the Freudian premise that neurosis is caused by repression of childhood sexual instincts. For example, Freud believed that schizophrenia and depression are not brain disorders, but narcissistic disorders. Autism and other brain disorders are not brain problems but mothering problems. These illnesses do not require pharmacological or behavioral treatment. They require only "talk" therapy. Is there any truth to that? Actually there is none.

skepdic.com has published an article entitled Psychoanalysis where it says “psychotherapy is second only to Scientology as the champion purveyor of false and misleading claims about the mind, mental health, and mental illness.” [10]

The article derides Freud’s claim that mental illnesses such as schizophrenia is a disturbance in the unconscious caused by unresolved feelings of homosexuality.  

Imagine the reaction if a diabetic were told that her illness was due to "masturbatory conflict" or "displaced eroticism." One might as well tell the patient she is possessed by demons, as give her a psychoanalytic explanation of her physical disease or disorder. Exorcism of demons by the shaman or priest, exorcism of childhood experiences by the psychoanalyst: what's the difference? So why would anyone still maintain that neurochemical or other physical disorders are caused by repressed or sublimated traumatic sexual childhood experiences? Probably for the same reason that theologians don't give up their elaborate systems of thought in the face of overwhelming evidence that their systems of belief are little more than vast metaphysical cobwebs. They get a lot of institutional reinforcement for their socially created roles and ideas, most of which are not capable of being subjected to empirical testing. If their notions can't be tested, they can't be disproved. What can't be disproved, and also has the backing of a powerful institution or establishment, can go on for centuries as being respectable and valid, regardless of its fundamental emptiness, falsity, or capacity for harm.

Refuting the very notion of “repressed memory”, the skeptic.com writes: 

The most fundamental concept of psychoanalysis is the notion of the unconscious mind as a reservoir for repressed memories of traumatic events which continuously influence conscious thought and behavior. The scientific evidence for this notion of unconscious repression is lacking, though there is ample evidence that conscious thought and behavior are influenced by nonconscious memories and processes. 

Scientific research into how memory works does not support the psychoanalytic concept of the unconscious mind as a reservoir of repressed sexual and traumatic memories of either childhood or adulthood… To have memories requires extensive development of the frontal lobes, which infants and young children lack. Also, memories must be encoded to be lasting. If encoding is absent, amnesia will follow…Thus, the likelihood of infant memories of abuse, or of anything else for that matter, is near zero.

Marx’s dialectics along with his Historical Materialism and Freudian psychotherapy are the foundations of the Frankfurt School and the New Left. All these are proven to be baseless theories and hocus pocus.  The leftist doctrine, therefore, is based on fallacies. Despite their insistence, there is nothing scientific in their interpretation of history or human psychology. When you combine two lies, what you get is stupidity.   


The Ethos of Double Standard:

Marcuse argued for what he called “liberating tolerance”, which he defined as tolerance for all ideas coming from the Left and intolerance for any idea coming from the Right. In his own words “liberating tolerance” is: “intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left”. This sums up the concept of Justice in the New Left (Liberals, Socialists, Social Democrats, etc.).


As one can see, there is very little difference between the Left and Islam. What is lacking in both these creeds is the adherence to the Golden Rule. Just as for Muslims, everything Islamic is a priory right and good and everything un-Islamic is a priori wrong and evil, for the Left, everything leftist is a priori oppressed and good and everything rightist is a priori oppressor and evil. Facts don’t matter. Justice is determined by who you are and not by what you have done. It’s not your actions, but the color of your skin, your gender, your sexual orientation and your disability that determines whether you are right or wrong. If you are a colored lesbian in a wheelchair, of course you have more rights than a White healthy heterosexual man. This means that you’ll get first option to get scholarship even if you are dumb and unable to finish your studies. This means that you will get the job even if you are least qualified. This means that if you are a woman filing for divorce because you have found a new lover, you can be sure that courts will take your side even if it is your fault. The list of injustices is endless. This is called “affirmative action”.   

In this “liberating tolerance”, Muslims are also covered. They too are classified as the oppressed and as such their rights supersedes the rights others. For example; in Canada it is against the law for any student to have any religious exercises and or religious instructions, during the instructional program of school day. This law applies to everyone, but Muslims are exempt. They managed to persuade the ministry “to accommodate Muslim students whose religion requires all of its faithful to engage in ritual prayer at specific times of each day”.[11] As if this is not outrageous enough, Muslims in Ontario lobbied and got the approval to legalize the Sharia as the substitute of state law for Muslims. [12]

What is the rationale behind this double standard? According to Marcuse, it was to restore the balance between oppressors and oppressed. This double standard is what constitutes the basis of political correctness.


Marcuse is the chief "guru" of 1960s New Left.[13] He injected the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School into the babyboomers. His thinking influenced a generation of radical scholars, who in turn deeply influenced the colleges and the law schools. From there it infiltrated the society at large to the point where it is now America 's state ideology. The phrase, "Make love, not war" is coined by him.


Today the West is in the grip of this double standard. We already saw an example of this double standard where a British citizen was sentenced to six months jail for shouting “Proud to be British,” and “Go back to where you came from” in front of a mosque while no action was taken against hundreds of Muslims who carried placards demanding the slaughter of those who insult Islam. Judge Paul Batty said it was clear that people arriving at the mosque had reacted with “horror and disgust”.  But what about Muslims shouting, “Slay those who insult Islam” and preaching hate in their mosques? Don’t these demonstrations arouse horror and disgust? Judge Batty said: “Racism in this city simply will not be tolerated in any form. It will not be tolerated anywhere in this country if at all possible.” Batty seems to be confused. Islam is not a race. It is an ideology. If criticism of Islam should be banned, also criticism of Nazism and fascism should be banned. We must also ban the criticism of Christianly, Judaism and all creeds. Why this injustice and double standard? It’s because Muslims are seen as ethnic minorities (when in reality they are not) and as such, like endangered species, they are covered and protected by PC.  


This double standard is what is corroding the Western civilization. Double standard is also a fertile ground for Muslims and Islamism to spawn. As we can see, the real enemies of the West are from within.  

The Frankfurt School was set to destroy the Western culture by undermining its values and they succeeded. Herbert Marcuse saw his opportunity in the rebellious students of the 60s and indoctrinated them with the theories of the New Left that had been baked in the ovens of the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt , thirty years earlier, the creation of which was inspired by anti Western sentiments of two avowed Marxists, Gramsci and Lukács.

Marcuse is dead and few know remember his name and the hippy movement is also a thing of the past. However, he left his virus. This virus is slowing spreading throughout the society and is infecting it. Today, not only the leftists but everyone in the West is actively engaged in the destruction of their own culture. In the Western society, it’s no more shameful to be immoral but you’d be put to shame if you talk about morality. Those who stand for morality and family values don’t speak out for the fear of being ostracized, attacked and ridiculed. In fact the very concept of morality seems to be antiquated. The Westerners think that immorality and sexual freedom are the signs of their freedom.

Cui bono? Who benefits from this cultural degeneration? It is not the Left, which would never be able to resurrect from its death but Islam. The western civilization is falling because its pillars have been undermined. Morality and family values are the pillars of the society. Once these pillars are weakened the society will fall. Islam is poised to fill this gap.  



The Transformation of the Western civilization:


The Western civilization today, is in the throws of the greatest and direst transformation. In 1930, the historian Christopher Dawson observed: “Western civilization at the present day is passing through a crisis, which is essentially different from everything that has previously been experienced. Other societies in the past have changed their social institutions or their religious beliefs under the influence of external forces or the slow development of internal growth. But none, like our own, has ever consciously faced a prospect of a fundamental alteration in the beliefs and institutions on which the whole fabric of social life rests.”


Dawson also wrote: “It is easy enough for the individual to adopt a negative attitude of critical skepticism. But if society as a whole abandons all positive beliefs, it is powerless to resist the disintegrating effects of selfishness and private interest. Every society rests in the last resort on the recognition of common principles and common ideals, and if it makes no moral or spiritual appeal to the loyalty of its members, it must inevitably fall to pieces.[14]


We would ignore the warnings of Dawson at our own peril. With Islam or without it, the western civilization has to reclaim its morality or it will have to prepare itself for its destruction. Once the morality is destroyed, the family will be destroyed and once the family is destroyed the society will be destroyed.

The New Morality

The Frankfurt School brought us finally the sexual enlightenment. Isn’t that great? Yes, we are now free. Now we can enjoy sex without the social and psychological hangover of the past. What a joy! We are free at last. We even have a National Coalition of Sexual Freedom [15] “fighting for your rights”, i.e., your right to enjoy sex in anyway, with anywho and anywhat you desire. Isn’t that great? What can be more liberating than this?


But are we happier? Our downtowns are filled with prostitutes as young as 12 years old. Our teenagers start their sexual activity at much younger age with negative consequence both to their health and to their future relationships. Marriages are breaking apart with an alarming rate and larger numbers of children are growing up with a single parent and in broken families. Let us not even mention child pornography, and human trafficking of young girls to be used as sex slaves. 


What freedom? It is clear that the sexual revolution has not brought us the promised nirvana.


Of course when it comes to human sexual misdemeanor, there is nothing new under the sun. A cursory look at the history shows that what Freud called polymorphous perversity has been known to humanity since the dawn of humanity. What is new is that for the first time in history this perversity is considered to be normal, even promoted as the human rights, while denouncing it is regarded as hate crime and it punishable by law. The sexual revolution has also revolutionized our moral sensibility to the extent that little of it is left.


We live in a society that legalizes swinger clubs where husbands and wives consensually commit adultery with other people and engage is orgies. We live in a society that sees nothing wrong in strip clubs. As the proof of heir “liberation”, now, even women have their own clubs where male strippers, not only dance nude, but also engage in sexual activity with the clientele, something that is taboo in clubs for men. We live in a society that celebrates gay “pride” parades that are grotesque public displays of obesity and immorality, in which our elected dignitaries take part and every one is jubilant. We live in a society where many think nudism is okay. I never understood what satisfaction one gets watching someone else nude. Some families even practice nudism at home. Doesn’t this encourage incest?


It is not nudity per see that is wrong. Nudity has a long cultural history in India and China . The "Nangas" in India are nudist ascetics that wander around India in the nude covered with ashes. Francisco of Assisi stripped naked in public as a sign of his absolute commitment to poverty. We are talking about the exploitation of nudity to advance a culture of hedonism and moral decadence. The nudity we are seeing in the West is not of that kind. It is sensual and suggestive.


Long time ago I was flabbergasted to see a television channel, watched by everyone, showing porn. Now, no longer I get surprised because I have seen even programs showing group sex, homosexuality, bisexuality and sadomasochism on TV. Marcuse must really rejoice in his grave to know his revolution has worked and his doctrine of immorality is now the religion of the West, indeed the entire world.


Other Pioneers of Immorality


But let us not lay all the blame on the shoulders of Marcuse and his buddies. There were other western intellectuals who had nothing to do with the Frankfurt School but did their best to demolish the Victorian taboos about sexuality and free the society from all the oppression of religion. Bertrand Russell wrote a book, Marriage and Morals (1929) in which he denounced the puritan concept of chastity and advocated “trial marriage”. Just to make you see how things are changed, it’s enough to say that when Russell visited the United States , shortly after his book’s publication, he was received with vigorous protests and denunciations. Russell was also in favor of easy divorce, but if the marriage had produced children, Russell’s advice was that the parents should remain married but be tolerant of each other’s sexual infidelity. He himself was a Casanova. His friend Sidney Hook, another philosopher, has reported that Russell often spoke of his sexual prowess and of his various conquests. Russell's second wife Dora was openly having an affair, and became pregnant by another man.

In the same period (1928), a young anthropologist, named Margaret Mead visited Samoa and upon returning she published her book Coming of Age in Samoa, which immediately became bestseller, selling 100,000 copies per year. In her book she described that the youth in Samoa are taught to live together and that teenager sex is not taboo but rather youngsters are encouraged to have multiple sex partners before marriage. She compared this to American society and concluded that as the result of this freewheeling and idyllic lifestyle, the Samoans are much happier and are emotionally more secure than people in others societies, who are taught to compete against one another.  Mead said that in Samoa the concept of family does not exist and if children are not happy to live with their parents, they can move to another family. 

The book made Mead instantly famous. American and European students gobbled her book and swallowed everything she had written, hook line and sinker. Decades later, another anthropologist, Derek Freeman, traveled to Samoa to follow up on Mead’s work. He concluded Mead’s source of information were two girls. Freeman found those girls, now grownup women, who confessed they had made up those stories because they saw how Mead loved to hear them. Mead probed these girls about the sex lives of the teenagers in Samoa . She was not interested to hear about the Christian life by which these two girls were brought up but about frolicking on the beach. The girls who had no idea about the scope of her probing, entertained themselves with “recreational lying”, something girls of all cutlers are fond of. Eager to please, they spun the kind of yarns that Mead wanted to hear. They filled her head with wild tales of nocturnal liaisons under the palm trees. “She must have taken it seriously,” one of the girls would say of Mead on videotape decades later, “but I was only joking. As you know, Samoan girls are terrific liars when it comes to joking.”

It’s easy to be fooled when one wants to be fooled badly. Not only Mead was fooled by these playful teenagers, the entire American and European students were fooled too. No one asked if this was true, what about the children born to these adolescents. No one bothered to investigate and find out that the Samoan society was just as puritanical as the American society at that time. But the message was pleasing. As the British psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple puts it, “Here was a South Sea paradise in which adolescents spent the years between puberty and marriage in uninhibited sexual activity, as much as possible with as many as possible. There was no jealousy, no rivalry, no anxiety, no guilt, just fun—and, mirabile dictu, no unwanted pregnancy, a somewhat surprising fact that did not arrest Mead's attention then or at any time subsequently.” [16]

This lie captured the imagination of generations of youths in the West and changed their outlook on sex and morality. Moral relativism became the new morality of the West.


Dalrymple who reported the above story also talks about Havelock Ellis (1859, 1939), sexual psychologist and one of the pioneers of immorality. He was one of the earliest sexual revolutionaries, an advocate of sexual liberation and nudism in Great Britain . Ellis wrote the seven volume Studies in the Psychology of Sex between 1897 and 1928. This man, whose first wife was a lesbian sexologist and who confessed that his first full sexual arousal happened only when his second wife urinated on him wrote:  "Our thoughts of duty and goodness and chastity are the things that need to be altered and put aside; these are the barriers to true goodness," and "I foresee the positive denial of all positive morals, the removal of all restrictions. I feel I do not know what license, as we should term it, may not belong to the perfect state of Man. " According to Ellis, once freed from all restraint—social, moral, legal, and political—man would regain his natural beauty and generosity of character. He would become again the noble sexual savage. Ellis won respect among the medical profession on both sides of the Atlantic and shaped the views of countless people about sex and sexuality.

More than half a century later, another English doctor sexologist, Alex Comfort, (1920, 2000) whose sex manual The Joy of Sex (1972) sold by tens of millions, also advocated free sex and alternative lifestyle. In The Facts of Love a manual written for young boys, Comfort advised all 15 year boys to take condoms with them to the parties. Comfort was an anarchist pacifist who saw all institutions as the enemy of human happiness. During World War II he had opposed to armed resistance to Nazism.

In Barbarism and Sexual Freedom (1948), Comfort explains his views about marriage: “Normality of the biological kind . . . excludes religious coercion, economic pressure and social custom. Institutions based upon the State and other such bodies, civil or religious, have no place in biological sexuality.”

The list of pioneers of immorality is indeed long. But we must not forget Alfred Kinsey (1894, 1956). Kinsey's research on human sexuality profoundly influenced social and cultural values in the United States during the 1960s. He was one of the protagonists of the sexual revolution. And the founder of the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University at Bloomington .

Alfred Kinsey, who according to Theodore Dalrymple “was a walking Psychopathia sexualis” and suffered from a larger conglomeration of personal sexual peculiarities, maintained that people do not clearly fall into the categories of exclusive heterosexuality or exclusive homosexuality, but that most can be placed somewhere between, in a continuum of sexual orientations with homo- and heterosexuality at the extremes and bisexuality at the midpoint.

In a biography on Kinsey, Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, James H. Jones says that Kinsey was a bisexual masochist and that he participated in unusual sexual practices. He is reported to have encouraged group sex involving his graduate students, wife and staff.

It is in great part thanks to Kinsey that the American Psychiatric Association, in 1973, removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Homosexuality was previously listed as paraphilia in the DSM-I and DSM-II, but this was declassified from both DSM-III and DSM-IV. That had nothing to do with science but the sexual preferences of psychiatrists and sexologists like Kinsey. This is like a group of thieves ruling that theft should be removed from the list of illegal activities.


There are continuing claims that the Kinsey Reports contain statistical and methodological errors. Dalrymple says that Kinsey’s methodology was not only flawed but deliberately designed to reach preordained conclusions. “By assuming the superior attitude of scientific objectivity and detachment”, Dalrymple writes: “he destroyed all distinction between the normal and the abnormal, the healthy and the pathological, and thereby obliterated also the distinction between the permissible and the impermissible. The Parisian rebels of 1968 learned their slogan, that it is forbidden to forbid, in part from the unlikely figure of Kinsey”.  “Ideological hedonists” says Dalrymple, “undertake pleasure as a duty, much as its avoidance was once the principal duty of ideological puritans.” [17]

Today, sexual freedom has gained the status of human rights and is practiced by everyone irrespective of their political inclination. But we must remember that sexual revolution was part of the Marxist Cultural Revolution and its proponents had mostly leftist and liberal tendencies. The main objective of this revolution was to destroy the foundation of the Western civilization and pave the road for the communist takeover. Today, communism is dead and buried but the Frankenstein monster that it has unleashed continues wreaking havoc and destroying the Western culture. All this is godsend to Islam.  


The Gay Hubbub

Homosexuality and the rights of homosexuals are the scared cows of our society today. Dare to question the normality of homosexuality and you would be immediately called homophobe, bigot, hatemonger and what not. But what if homosexuality is genetic? This theory is promoted by gay activists and many people actually believe this to be the case. Howard Dean, who ran for presidency of the US in 2004 said: "From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people,"[18] he also said "The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it [homosexuality]." Only a few months ago I concurred with Dr. Dean. Of course my only source for such belief was the media and I assume this is where most people get their information to form their minds about almost everything. Who has time to research everything? The implication of this claim is that if homosexuality is inborn and normal, like being e.g. left handed, then of course, the homosexual has no control over his sexual orientation and any criticism of it would be wrong.

The issue of homosexuality being caused by genes is however, a double-edged sword. On one hand this would end any stigmatization of and/or discrimination against homosexuals but on the other hand it would put homosexuality in the category of genetic diseases, something that can be cured. Parents might decide to tamper with their fetus genetically to make sure their child is born heterosexual or even abort it if is shown to be homosexual. And of course the gay community wants us to believe that homosexuality is completely normal and there is nothing wrong with it.

Freud was the first to reject the hereditary claim. He suggested that nurture, not nature, is the cause of homosexuality and blamed mostly post-natal environmental influences as the sole determinant of sexual orientation and gender.

However, in 1991, an English neuroscientist, Simon LeVay, claimed to have found subtle differences in the post-mortem brains of heterosexual and homosexual young men. He said there is a difference in size in the third interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus. His methodology and the size of the sample that he had worked with have come under question. The fact that LeVay himself was a homosexual also has created doubts that probably he was not working without the sense of scope of his project.

But in the year 1995 Scientific American printed an article reporting the doubts of the scientific community over the genetics of homosexuality. It stated that LeVay’s findings, had remained unproven and he himself had “been charged with research improprieties and is now under investigation by the Federal Office of Research Integrity”. 


LeVay himself who in his 1991 paper had concluded that his results suggested that "sexual orientation has a biological substrate", later urged against over-interpretation of his results and stated: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. ...Since I look at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later." [19]

In 1993, Dr. Dean Hamer and his team reported that, using DNA from homosexual siblings and their pedigrees, a gene for homosexuality seemed to be maternally linked and found on the Xq28 stretch of the X chromosome. His book was subtitled The Search for the Gay Gene.[20]

But in 1999, Canadian researchers George Rice and George Ebers disproved once and for all Hammer’s claim that gay brothers are more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by chance. They indicated that “there is no reason to focus linkage studies on the X chromosome” and that there is “no evidence that gayness is passed from mother to son”. This officially sounded the death-knell of the theory of gay gene.


In an exchange with Rice and Ebres, Hamer confessed “Sexual orientation is a complex trait that is probably shaped by many different factors, including multiple genes, biological, environmental, and sociocultural influences. In a 1993 report, my group provided initial evidence that a locus at the q28 region of the X chromosome was involved in male sexual orientation in some, but not all, individuals." But as the Canadian researchers showed, Xq28 does not prove Hamer’s claim.


Then it was the turn of Lee Ellis and Linda Ebertz who in their book Sexual Orientation: Toward Biological Understanding (1997) suggested that maternal prenatal stress affects the fetuses’ exposure to levels of sex hormones, and consequently, development of the nervous system leading to both demasculinization and feminization in adulthood. Demasculinization is characterized by difficulty in ejaculation; feminization by a lordotic response. These conclusions are the result of studies conducted on mice, not on humans and they are not related to sexual orientation. Demasculinization and sexual orientation are two distinct subjects. Gay men do not necessarily have difficulty with ejaculation and are not feminized. Many gay men were at one time heterosexuals and have fathered children before converting to homosexuality.

The final nail in the coffin of the theory of gay gene was hammered by Edward Stein, Ph.D., homosexual activist and author of The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation (1999). In his book, Stein critically examines the research of both Hamer and LeVay and explains that none of the researchers studying hypothesized biological origins of homosexuality has proven direct causation, although in some circumstances they claim to have done just that.

In an interview with the Advocate (a homosexual magazine), Stein said, "There are serious problems with the science itself. ... My training had taught me that a lot of what was being said was, well, highly unscientific."[21]


Stein writes:

“Genes in themselves cannot directly specify any behavior or psychological phenomenon. Instead, genes direct a particular pattern of RNA synthesis, which in turn may influence the development of psychological dispositions and the expression of behaviors. There are necessarily many intervening pathways between a gene and a disposition or a behavior, and even more intervening variables between a gene and a pattern that involves both thinking and behaving. The terms 'gay gene' and 'homosexual gene' are, therefore, without meaning. No one has presented evidence in support of such a simple and direct link between genes and sexual orientation.[22]  

Speaking about LeVay’s claim Stein writes in his book:

LeVay has at best shown that there is a correlation between INAH-3 and sexual orientation; he has not, as he admits when he is careful, shown any causation. Further, and relatedly, he has no evidence that biological factors directly affect sexual orientation. Even if he could prove that INAH-3 size and sexual orientation are perfectly correlated in his sample population (and I have argued that he fails to do so), this would not establish any direct causal account of homosexuality.[23]

Stein told the Advocate:

Many gay people want to use this research to promote gay rights. If gay people are 'born that way,' then discrimination against them must be wrong. ... A gay or lesbian person's public identity, sexual behaviors, romantic relationships, or decisions to raise children are all choices. No theory suggests that these choices are genetic. [24]

This should settle the argument that homosexuality is not inborn. It’s a learned behavior, much like smoking or drinking. Environment and external influences have a lot to do with it. Nonetheless it is not biologically determined. Homosexuality is a choice. A great number of homosexuals were originally heterosexuals and a great number of them have become heterosexual again. If homosexuality was biologically determined, such changes would have been impossible.

Yvette C. Schneider is former lesbian who is now married, and is a policy analyst in the cultural studies department at Family Research Council. She wrote: “In this day of shirking responsibility and blaming anything but ourselves for our actions, claims that someone is genetically or chemically structured to engage in dangerous or antisocial activities find increasing appeal.[25] Rejecting the concept of gay gene she continued:

In a joint research venture, Hamer's partner, molecular geneticist Angela Pattatucci, found that lesbianism's pattern in families was just like that of male homosexuality. [26] A woman whose sister was a lesbian had a 6 percent chance of also being a lesbian. Astonishingly, the daughter of a lesbian had a 33 percent chance of being a lesbian. This result is genetically impossible. A mother and her child cannot be more genetically similar than two sisters. "But the pattern we observed could mean only one thing: being a lesbian, or a nonheterosexual woman, was 'culturally transmitted,' not inherited," Hamer wrote. [27] 

This is a very important statement. Homosexuality is transmitted. One does not become homosexual because of genes but through conditioning. Today, homosexuality is on the rise because it is condoned, legitimized and even donned with respectability. It is recognized as an alternative sexuality. Small children are taught that homosexuality is normal. They are taught that family does not necessarily mean a mom and a dad but it could also mean two dads or two moms. 

Mrs. Schneider quotes biochemist Neil Whitehead, who in his book My Genes Made Me Do It!, writes:

Science has not yet discovered any genetically dictated behavior in humans. So far, genetically dictated behaviors of the one-gene-one-trait variety have been found only in very simple organisms. The closest thing to a genetically-caused human behavior that science has come up with in humans so far (aggression in Dutch men related to a mutation of one gene), is far too responsive to counseling and varied in its expression to be genetically determined. This raises the obvious question: is there really any such thing as a genetically-caused human behavior? [28]

She also quotes from Science that in an article published in 1994 made the following statement:

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. 'Unfortunately,' says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, 'it's hard to come up with many' findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. 'All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute.' [29]

She writes: “Not only is the scientific research that tries to prove an inborn nature to homosexuality questionable, but the researchers also fail to take into account the existence of thousands of former homosexuals. If homosexuality were biologically determined, it would seem impossible for homosexuals to become heterosexual.” [30]

In the conclusion of her article Mrs. Schneider writes: “Scientists have not even come close to proving a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality, yet homosexual activists continue to say that sexual activity between members of the same sex is "just the same" as race or gender. Using "biology" as a stamp of legitimacy, activists have pushed for special rights, from sex-partner subsidies to "gay marriage" to adoption. Without scientific evidence to support such claims, it is wrong and dangerously misleading to say that people are born homosexual and cannot change.”


Despite the fact that the claim biological component to homosexuality is completely refuted, it does not mean that its proponents are going to give up.



On May 11, 2005 - The New York Times reported on findings from Swedish researchers, Dr. Ivanka Savic and her associates, who claimed to have found that gay males are attracted to a different kind of scent than heterosexual males. [31]

"It is one more piece of evidence ... that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Ontario [32]

This claim was refuted by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a lecturer in Civil Liberties and Constitutional Law at Princeton University .


The key statement in the New York Times interview with one of the authors of the article is this: "We cannot tell if the different pattern is cause or effect," Dr. Savic said. "The study does not give any answer to these crucial questions."


This study says nothing about homosexuality being innate (whether on a direct genetic or indirect, epigenetic hormonal-developmental basis). Likewise, if one changes the state of one's sexuality. The pheromone response would presumably change in consequence of behavioral-induced alterations in the underlying hypothalamic structures.


Every single study that has emerged since the original LeVay study that falls into the above class--looking for or finding bimodal statistical physiological correlates (nervous system or otherwise) to homosexual versus heterosexual populations, in both males and females, however defined--comes with the same essential caveat: That cause and effect cannot be distinguished by the study. [33]




The gay community finds it expedient to say “I was born that way”. Despite such claims, I recall watching a movie on TV several years ago about a woman who was going through divorce. She was surrounded by her lesbian friend who supported her in that difficult time and introduced her into the lesbian lifestyle. The woman at first showed some apprehension but eventfully embraced her newfound sexuality and “found happiness”.  Ever since I wondered, if homosexuality is innate, then what that movie was about?  What was the message that it wanted to convey? It was clearly saying that heterosexual women can become lesbians and find happiness by sharing their lives with a woman.



I Was Sherlock Holmes


In early 2006 responding to an interview I criticized the immorality in the West and condemned the gay parades. I was vehemently attacked in the forum of my site and after being called all sorts of names I was denounced as a bigot, ignorant, homophobe, among other names. I decided to look into this subject deeper and apologize in the case I have made a mistake. So I decided to conduct my own “scientific” (read detective) investigation. I joined an online lesbian forum posing as a married woman curious to learn about bisexuality.[34]


At first I was received coldly. The ladies there were offended by my insinuation that homosexuality can be learned. They claimed that one is born that way and even those who were married prior to becoming lesbians and had children, said that they had “discovered” their homosexuality rather than converting to it. Here are a few extracts from what these ladies wrote: 


chordphrute :
As for your curiosity, no you can not 'gradually' learn to like it? Are you nuts?!?!”



You would not be in a forum such as this, asking questions such as these, if you did not, at some point, suspect that there was something drawing you towards this type of questioning. Before I realized that I was a lesbian I was about as deep in denial as was possible. I couldn't understand what women saw in other women, why a woman would not want to be with a man or how one could consider having sex with another woman. I realized afterwards that this was my way of being in denial and a safety net so I would not have to come to the serious revelations about myself. Now that I have, life has never been so sweet!”


Can it be the other way round and that LoriSue is in denial today? Look how she claims being “born” a lesbian while not understanding what women saw in other women. If she was born a lesbian shouldn’t she be attracted to women from the start. I recall being attracted to girls ever since I distinguished there is a difference between a boy and a girl. How could one be so confused about her sexuality? Here LoriSue was clearly contradicting herself. Let us see what others said:



“…after many years of trying to squelch gorgeous, lovely thoughts of women loving women, many women here finally found the courage to begin living life as they were born to live it vs. as society tries to dictate we live life.”

But DEVELOP the feeling?
Did you develop the feeling for your man?
Did you watch hetero porn films or read hetero sex books to make yourself be that way? Is that how you developed the attraction to men?

We're just like you, but gay! Reverse this process a moment, suppose i went to a hetero site and made a post, can i DEVELOP the attraction to men if i watch porno movies? What would your reaction be? laugh? aghast? say what? who the f* is this? and what kind of a question is that?

We did not DEVELOP the feeling for women, many of us recognized very early in our lives and simply followed it; the way i presume you followed your own sexual instincts.”


I knew who I was for a very long time. Though, believe me, I slept with enough men for three straight women. Maybe I was protesting too much...Maybe I was looking to find in a man what I really was searching for in a woman...I don't really know. Anyway, I married...twice.

No, I did not develop my feelings for women. They were there all along and all I had to do was allow myself to feel it.”


Here was another contradiction. How can a born lesbian sleep with so many men? That is a weird kind of protest.


Okay! They were denying it adamantly. I needed to gain their trust to hear the truth. I was however impressed by the fact that these ladies considered my interest to have sex with someone else beside my spouse as adultery. They warned me of the dangers of falling in love with my girlfriend and the potential that it could destroy my marriage. Actually I already knew that sex is a potent way to make two people fall in love with each other. That is my whole point in insisting on monogamy. Sex binds couples, which strengthens the family, which in turn provides stability for the children and increases their chance of enjoying a healthy emotional growth. It was good to hear that at least some of these ladies did not approve of adultery. But I did not get the answer to my question. So I joined their chat-room. Once there and after gabbing about various things, they opened up to me and truth finally came out. Here is an extract of that yackety-yak. My nick is I “Marlene”, expressing my curiosity about bringing my girlfriend to my marriage.






i think if you are curious then you may possibly be bi....


to answer your question marlene...try it you may like it.


that doesn't mean you are a lesbian. that means you may be bi


once you tried it, there is NO going back. there is NUTTIN better than being with a woman


there IS a difference. that is also the diffs between gay woman and gay men, i think


so you may want to rethink this Marlene


i can’t do the sex thing if i am not emotionally involved


or i can, but it leaves me feeling empty and as if i degraded my values


what may start out as just sex may end up as something very different


So, slave you think one can really "convert" from straight to gay?




 it is not a question of 'convert' marlene


you have to have the pre-existing feelings


what i AM saying is don't play with fire




 How do I recognize these pre-existing feelings?


 you are curious


i think by you being here you already recognised some of them, marlene


I am just curious




a straight woman isn't curious


and if you get involved with a woman, but have no intention to leave hubby, you may cause tremendous hurt


 But that does not make me a lesbian or bi. Does it?


my guess is you may be bi


what it means Marlene is you could find yourself in an emotional tug of war


The answers were clear. Yes a heterosexual person can become homosexual. Note that earlier in the forum these ladies had adamantly denied such possibility. After this chat, even in the forum these ladies were saying that anyone who is curious about homosexuality must be one already.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being curious.

Every kid plays the show me yours and I'll show you mine game. We are all curious beings and as such we like to try things out. This does not mean that you will want to forever be with women but if it is something that you have thought about and you are comfortable within the confines of your current relationship, then by all means go for it.”
I would like to challenge you to be completely honest with yourself if no one else. Are you curious about the same sex? If so who cares? Nothing wrong with that. Believe it or not a hell of a lot of people are curious they just choose not to act on their curiosity

Well thank you very much dear coconut. But children are children. They are not responsible for their actions. Children do not know better. As grownups shouldn’t we be more responsible? There are lots of things that we humans might be curios about, but it would be foolish to try them. Aren’t you curious to know how cyanide tastes? Would you try it?

Are all childhood fantasies legitimate? Armin Meiwes, the German computer technician who killed and ate a willing victim he met over the Internet told the court: "I had the fantasy, and in the end I fulfilled it".  His fantasy first developed between the ages of eight and 12, he added.

Children, and even adults, can have all sorts of fantasies. These fantasies come natural. But if they are not controlled and directed they can lead to disaster. What about pedophilic or incestuous fantasies? Should they be allowed because they occur naturally? Pedophilic fantasies mostly invade the minds of those who have been abused as a child. But that does not mean they have no control over it. They are victims, but guilty if they perpetuate this crime. If they were not in control of their actions, then incriminating them would be unjust.

Cavewoman, after trying for years to squelch “gorgeous, lovely thoughts of women loving women”, finally decided to give up and act on her thoughts. Pedophiles do the same. Armin Meiwes did the same. 

Son of Sam is an extremely dangerous psychopath serial killer. This man who in his taunting letters to police prior to his capture, described himself a “monster”, killed six completely strangers and wounded several others in the late 1970s, for no other reason than pleasure. He had fantasies about killing and he acted upon them. The thoughts of this man was so distorted that the jury thought he was not in control of what he was doing and did not sentence him to death. That was ironic, because the only difference between him and other serial killers is that he was worse. The difference was in the degree of evilness not in kind. Son of Sam could have been in control of his thoughts and actions if he wanted. But he gave in to his macabre fantasies and became the monster that he became. Now that he is caught and is serving life behind bars, unable to live his fantasies, he has turned into religion and has changed his name to Son of Hope. He did not undergo any therapy. What made him change?  He changed because he had no option. Now that the days of his killing sprees are over and he can’t live that fantasy anymore he has turned into Christ. Couldn’t he do that before? Yes he could. But he didn’t. He indulged in his fantasies. The moral of this story is that you are in control of your thoughts. You choose to be whoever you want to be. Homosexuality, pedophilia or all other sexual and character disorders start in our head. There are no biological components to these disorders. They are caused by thinking and we are the conductors of our thoughts. External circumstances influence, but we decide which thoughts we harbor in our heads. Let us go back to the Lesbian Forum.

you and your friend seem to be close... As for amorous feelings, it seems they're already there… This may sound like more than friendship…but that doesn't mean it's a romantic relationship... It's like your more than friends, sisters might be a good word for it… This is not to say that feelings with one or both of you won't progress, because they might. If this happens and it makes one or both of you uncomfortable, the best thing to do is talk it out. I whole-heartedly believe that a straight woman can develop amorous feelings for another woman, just like a lesbian can develop amorous feelings for a man. This does not mean there's anything sexual involved, otherwise they would be called sexual feelings.

This message was a bit confusing. On one hand she says two good friends can develop amorous feelings twards each other then she says it does not have to be sexual. So I asked, “Doesn’t this mean that once you develop the amorous feeling it is just a snap to make it sexual?”

Beautifullyjaded responded:
Very difficult question, Marlene. Yes, amorous feelings can develop into more sexual feelings when there is already an attraction. You may not realize the attraction is there until that fateful kiss that leads to so much more, when it's been there all along. Then again, it doesn't even have to be a kiss.

She also wrote:

In being myself I've lost half my family; I've suffered humiliation more times than once; I've had my heart broken to the point, I thought, of no return; and I've lost many people I considered to be my friends. I can't marry, in some states I can't adopt, and by having sex I'm breaking the law in many states. I'm denied jobs in some cases, some of my profs make my life a living nightmare, and the church I grew up in shunned me. Why do I go through this? Why not just deny who I am? Because if I did I wouldn't be with the wonderful woman I'm with now. Love is always worth any risk, any lost, because love is what life's all about.

It is regrettable that the society should discriminate against other humans based on their sexual preferences. Discrimination is always unethical. What the homosexuals do does not directly hurt you and me. It hurts mostly them and their loved ones particularly their children, if there are any. However this does not mean that they can’t change and become heterosexuals again. People who suffer from addictions, and I am not just taking about addiction to chemical substances such as to drugs, cigarettes or alcohol but about compulsive behaviors such as gamboling, sex or kleptomania, suffer from these disorders. They know what they do is wrong and try to change, but they can’t. Change in behavior is not easy. In the case of homosexuality, there is not even the will to change. There is suffering but the suffering does not make homosexuality right. It just shows that it is a very addictive behavior to the extent that despite discrimination and deprivation they persist in that thought. In fact, discrimination gives them the sense of “martyrdom” converting their orientation into a cause.

The same argument can be made about pedophilia or any other sexual orientation, including heterosexuality. Change, although not impossible, does not come easy, especially when sex or thinking about it is its own reward. You can’t fight a thought, especially if you perceive it as “gorgeous” and “lovely”. What you have to do is to find another positive and constructive thought that also produces pleasure and engage in that thought, like creative writing, a humanitarian cause, etc. Better yet, find a friend of opposite sex, go out with her and look out for her beauties. Your thoughts can make you anything you want. You are in control of your thoughts.

I know one rule, for which i don't know any exclusions:

i don't know the exclusions, but i know a lot of examples, which illustrate this rule)))

This was the most straightforward and honest answer yet. According to Ashamed, everyone can become gay. Ashamed also wrote:

And about the attraction; i was in the 8th form when i touched my classmate's waist and understood that i liked it. that's all, i think.

This is basically what Freud had called polymerous perversity – the ability to find erotic pleasure out of any part of the body and in any object. Apart from heterosexual attraction between a man and a woman, which is the only natural and normal sexual orientation, there are 21 sexual deviances that may be clinically diagnosed as “paraphilias” – some of these paraphilias are more harmful than others. Among them are pedophilia, zoophilia (bestiality), sadism, masochism, transgenderism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, fetishism, necrophilia, etc. (See the complete list bellow[35] ) All these orientations happen just as naturally as is heterosexuality. They tend to be caused by classical (Pavlovian) conditioning when a sexual stimulus is paired with situations that do not typically result in sexual response and because the sexual response is its own reward or positive reinforcement, the behavior is further reinforced and perpetuated through operant conditioning[36]

Psychologically speaking there is no difference between homosexuality and pedophilia or any other form of paraphilia. They all occur naturally. In some people their sexual orientation becomes defined from childhood, while everyone can develop any orientation at anytime. Any one can become homosexual, pedophile, zoophile and acquire taste for any of these sexual deviances, just as those having these disorders can become heterosexual. Our sexuality finds its orientation in our head. Its’ our thoughts, that determine our sexual preference. The good news is that we are in control of our thoughts, i.e. if we want to be.

We are the product of our thoughts and our fantasies in all spheres of life, including our sexuality. We can decide what sexual orientation we should have and change it, only through thinking. We can be serial killers or saints only by thinking. 

I learned a lot from these ladies, but some of them started preaching about the dangers of my marriage being destroyed. So I said good bye to Marlene and hello to Palma .[37]  As Palma I was a single mother having a lesbian friend who was showing interest in me. This time the ladies were way more encouraging. See the extract of some of the responses: 

Can I become a Homosexual??????????

If I go to bed with the same sex as myself, does that make me a homosexual???
If I go to bed with a person of the opposite sex does that make me straight???

Or am I just a person with labels!!...................

slaveofMistress :
Marlene's post has made for some very interesting conversation in chat. Her situation is quite different from yours though. i warned her about 'playing with fire' because of the consequences of bringing a 3rd party into any relationship. You, however apparently are not in that situation. If this is a genuine curiosity and you have some interest in your friend then you have a different problem. Sex can change a friendship. So i recommend caution. As i told Marlene, women bond emotionally very quickly. i do not agree totally with your friend about being hetero or homosexual. i believe some people are truly one or the other and can not change. Then there are those that are somewhere in the middle and depending on circumstance, they could be with either sex.

I did not set out to fall in love with a woman. I didn't try to fall in love with a man. I spent my life just taking care of me. Then I met someone. This person had a heart of gold. This person made me smile. This person made me realize that I had worth. This taught me that is was ok to hurt. This person taught me that it was not a horrible thing to cry. This person showed me how good life could be. I fell head over heels for this person. It just so happened that she was a woman. I fell in love with the heart and soul and not the gender.

I don't see becoming a homosexual as really changing who you have always been. I see it as breaking away from what society says you are supposed to love and taking the time to really get to know the heart of a person and not spend so much time obsessing over the package.

My first reaction when I read your question was: good heavens, when are people going to realize that loving another woman is not learning calculus - you don't work at it, you see it as a gift, a life altering connection and a part of your life that surpasses any other joy you have ever known!

LoriSue also explained that heterosexual relationship is conditioned by society while all other forms of relationships are just as normal.

Therefore, when a woman who has lived her entire life under that type of mind control realizes as she gets older and more aware of the world around her that there are options outside of what she has seen as her normal, she is afraid to take that step. This natural reluctance to step into the world of perceived abnormality makes us reluctant to recognize parts of us that may have existed from birth. It also, many times, forces us to live a life that does not recognize our own truth and thereby causes us to miss out on many fulfilling relationships just because we are afraid to admit that maybe....just maybe.....we are not the ones who are wrong. After all, who exactly said that they had the inside track on what is right and wrong, normal or abnormal. Oops, that was a man, I believe.

That is a very important question. Who can say what is right and wrong, normal and abnormal? Why certain behaviors should be classified as immoral? What is morality and what is its source? This subject deserves to be studied and I will talk about that later.

LoriSue went on to say that she is a mother and previously has been a community leader and a prominent figure in her church. Then she added:

At some point in our lives we have to realize that a) this life is all we have. We may not be going to some specific place in this life journey so the journey itself is what we need to honour and value. Enjoy it - it doesn't come again. And b) we lead by example. Yes it's hard for some of us to come to that realization of our true selves but in doing so we not only insure happiness for ourselves but will contribute to someone else doing the same thing!

That is my opinion on whether you can 'become' a homosexual. I guess you can, seeing as those of us who were lesbians managed to live some of our lives as heterosexuals for many years. However, I believe that if you are truly a lesbian you will find that it is not an unpleasant chore nor will you have to do much work at it.

I am 48 years old. I have been attracted to women since I can remember maybe age 4and 1/2? I did not know what is was nor did I think it was abnormal. I was always femme a girly girl and wanted to be married with children. Puberty hit and then I knew I was different. Absolutely no attraction to men at all! I asked my mom what you call someone like me and that's when I heard lesbian for the first time. Now I knew but it sure wasn't what I wanted. Anyway I have been out for a long time and I realize I was born this way. Why others marry? I do not know? Both my ex lovers were married with children. One went back to another man the other stayed with women. I get lonely too but the thought of men and being sexual with a man just grosses me out. I have been asked out and hit on by men far more than I have with women. I just do not see them as an alternative to my true sexuality.

Katla12 interprets her attraction to women as natural, something that she was born with. But the fact is that no one is born homosexual, just as no one is born pedophile, masochist or zoophile. These orientations are caused by classical [Pavlovian] conditioning, sometimes at childhood, sometimes later, and can be reversed through operant conditioning. Operant conditioning is goal oriented; it requires the voluntary participation of the individual to change his or her behavior. The core idea of operant conditioning is that positive behaviors are reinforced, causing the behavior to occur with greater frequency and negative behaviors are punished, causing it to occur with less frequency. But when the very notions of "positive" and "negative" are questioned, when values are challenged and defied, of course no change can happen. Homosexuality is reversible, but not in a society that condones it and vests it with normalcy, robbing its victims of any incentive to change. Those who want to change can change. For example through a religious awakening, a person suffering from any form of paraphilias or other character disorder may decide to change. No drugs or therapies are needed. One can change only with the power of one’s will power. Religion is a mere excuse. It is the will power of the individual that makes him change.  

The crisis of our society is the crisis of values. We live in a world that even our sexuality is not defined. It’s no more our gender that determines our sexuality. We are told that this is something that we have to figure out by experimenting and seeing what gives us more pleasure. Note how these ladies defined sexuality is just a “label”, something that should be discarded because it causes anxiety.

Bobby Mcgee:
You are attracted to who you are attracted to. Don't worry about labels. They cause anxiety because when you try to put labels on things you are putting yourself in a box you have to live in. There are studies showing we have a predisposed tendency to one or the other. But sometimes those lines are blurred. You can be attracted to both. You can be attracted to people of the same sex or people of the opposite sex. But the bottom line is, if you start a relationship, it needs to be because you love the person and are attracted to them.


Grownup Babies

My next question was about children. I wanted to know how these ladies broke the news about their new sexual orientation to their children and, what was their reaction. The response was total silence. I waited two days and repeated the question. No response again. This was a topic that obviously these ladies were not comfortable to talk about. Was it guilt? Or was it complete disinterest about children?

It does not require a great deal of imagination to figure out how children must feel and how they process the confusion and the trauma that breaking such news would have on them. We were all children once and know perfectly how we would have felt if one of our parents had announced he or she was a homosexual.

But our culture does no longer care about children. Everything is about ME and MY fulfilment. As LoriSue wrote, “this life is all we have”. Others around us are important only to the degree that they help us achieve our hedonistic needs.

We know all about the “joy of sex” but so little about the bliss of love. We know about pleasure, but very little about happiness.

Stojgniev O’Donnell has this warning for us:


The true faith of the West since the 1960s is hedonism, which teaches that the ultimate goal of human life is to undergo every possible pleasurable experience, with an emphasis on physical stimuli. Hedonism throughout much of history was the privilege of the powerful and wealthy, but in America , it was democratized in the 1960s, especially with “sex, drugs and rock’n’roll” and fifteen minutes of fame, and pandered to the masses addicted today.


The fallacy of hedonism is that the hedonist believes he can, indeed, experience every possible human experience. Yet such hedonism, in fact, precludes the feeling of denial of pleasure and the experience of asceticism. For if one is overwhelmed by physical pleasure, one cannot appreciate any pleasure from a denial of physical pleasure. Varieties of asceticism characterize some varieties of Islam, just as even longer they have been a significant tradition of Apostolic Christianity and other religions. This involves the experience of asceticism as an ideal of personal sacrifice, not personal fulfillment or indulgence. Asceticism relates somehow to the issues of martyrdom, such an important aspect of early Christianity and contemporary Islam, and military service. Those societies willing to defend their own cultural and spiritual values do not object to military service for their youth, even with the possibility of death.


Thus, the Muslim world and the West today are distinguished by their values. The Muslim world possesses something, namely faith and tradition, which its youth is willing to die for (in war, suicide bombings, etc.). No one in the West wants to die for hedonism. No one in the West, in fact, wants to die for anything. Thus, a dynamic of future history is revealed. Those willing to die for their values surely will triumph over those who have none worth dying for. [38]


The point is not the will to die but the will to live. We are cynics and have no faith in anything. We do not care about people around us – not even about our own children. We don’t care about our family, our country, our culture or their perpetuation.


Infants experience the world only through their senses. That is exactly how we want to experience the world – sensually. They are selfish and want everyone to please them without them having to work for it. They have an inborn sense of entitlement. For that stage of their growth, that is how it should be. But when an entire society acts and behaves like infants, each like a spoiled brat, concerned only about his or her own hedonistic needs, this society is doomed.  


More Detective Work:

On the subject of homosexuality, Eduardo, one of the members of the forum of FFI (faithfreedom.org) wrote:

I have a client who told me in detail the whole story of his transformation, in a year's time, from a homophobic heterosexual into a bisexual. The first 40 years of his life he was as repulsed as any hetero by the idea of contact with other males' genitals, or any kind of sexual relation to males. In a year's time, to his own amazement and great discomfort, he found that through the working of his own imagination, active in internet sex chat rooms, he was turning by an odd route into a bisexual of sorts, who occasionally dressed as a female and did sexual favors for men. I had never heard of this before, so I'm not sure how rare it is. But it seems clear that not only genes, but also environment and imagination, coupled with the licentiousness and anonymity of the internet, can work remarkable transformations on quite straight men.[39]

At the time I read this, I too believed that genes also have something to do with sexual orientation. Now, after having done my homework, I know better. I decided to pose as Eduardo’s client and take this story to a gay forum and see what they have to say. [40]

These are a few extracts from what they responded:

if you feel comfortable, act on your desires, and if not, don't...


Prozac Suicide:
I'm in the middle, I don't think I'm gay. I could never see myself in any sort of relationship with another man, but the thought of gay sex turns me on some times. It depends on my mood. Sometimes I think I am bi, and sometimes I think I am straight.

It sounds like your earlier repulsion was not about other men having sex, but repulsion over repressed desires. No straight man looks at gay porn for shits and giggles. Only somebody who is deeply closeted will try to deceive themselves with the idea that they are going to look at gay porn to laugh at it. If you haven't realized that about yourself yet, I'm not ashamed to be the one to tell you. But if you are aware of where your desires are leading you, there is no need to create a false front in this forum.

I spare you from the rest, but you get the idea. Homosexuality is a learned behaviour. All gays and lesbians agree on that, even thought publicly they deny it adamantly. This must be something like taqiyyah in Islam. All Muslims know Jihad is an inalienable part of Islam and yet all of them claim that Islam is a religion of peace. Like Muslims, homosexuals don’t seem to be aware of the incongruity of their statements.

There is more similarity between Muslims and the gay community. They are both in denial that there is something inherently wrong with their ethos. They both become defensive and even aggressive if you criticize their culture. They call you Islamophobe/homophobe, bigot, hatemonger or racist if you express your disagreement with their doctrines. They try to manipulate the media with lies and false “scientific findings”. They intimidate their critics with lawsuits. They are pro censorship of any thought that might expose the fallacy of their creed. They advocate that the laws be changed to grant them preferential status. They engage in argumentum ad misericoridam fallacy and portray themselves as victims while actively try to promote their cause.


This is Nihilism
What we saw in the Lesbian and gay forums is Nihilism where world and human existence are devoid of objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth and all values are baseless. Traditional morality is defied, repudiated and scorned.  There is resentment against society, its morality, its values and its institutions. They are deemed to be oppressive, redundant and obstacles to ones happiness and freedom. Even the most sacred human institution which is family, which is the foundation of human society, has not escaped criticism of these nihilists. The gay activist, Graham Willett, in an article entitled Gay oppression: a prop for the family (1985) writs:

For all that lesbians and homosexual men have achieved in the last fifteen years, one thing still eludes us: liberation.

Law reform, anti-discrimination legislation, the decline of bigotry are important gains and they have made our lives noticeably easier and much less insecure than they were twenty years ago.

But when gay liberation erupted in Australia in 1970-71 it did not see itself merely as a movement for reforms. It was part of a broader, fighting movement that was out to win real liberation for all the oppressed. We declared that civil rights were not enough. All of society and its institutions had to be changed. We challenged the family, the laws, the church. The very ideas that people had about homosexuality, ideas that had all the force of "simple common sense" were defiantly rejected.

And yet for all the courage that gay activists showed and for all their efforts, the gains we made do not nearly measure up to the goals we set. The reason for this is actually very simple. The oppression of lesbians and gay men is deeply rooted within the capitalist system. And while that system survives, real liberation is simply not possible. [41]

Willett links family to capitalism, arguing that since the capitalists needed new workers, they strengthened the family and encouraged women to stay home and have more children. They also passed laws banning homosexuality and prostitution. All this was intended to serve the interest of the factory owner. Willett concludes that true liberation of the gays can only happen when capitalism and family, which is a capitalist institution, are eradicated. “Only freedom for everyone can liberate any of us. And that means socialism,” says Willett. 

Willett of course bases his views on Friedrich Engels’s concept of family expressed in Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State published in 1884. Engels said that the monogamous family is the result of bourgeois law that dictates the rules for relationships and inheritances. Marriage therefore, is merely to preserve the inheritance and in a proletariat society where inheritance is eliminated family becomes superfluous. Without property to consider, people are free to enter as well as dissolve any marriage whenever they wish to. Relationships will last as long as there is voluntary sex-love relationship between the partners. The Social Revolution which Engels believed was about to happen would eliminate the family that as he believed, is nothing but the enslavement of women. If men needed only to be concerned with sex-love and no longer with property and inheritance, then monogamy would come naturally, he argued. This is of course the farthest thing from the truth. What can strengthen monogamy is commitment not lack of it. It’s in commitment that sexual attraction is elevated to love. What is completely missing in Engels’s ideal man-woman relationship is the joy of raising the children. According to this top Marxist, man is no more than an animal whose needs are only physical. Man’s emotional dimension is completely ignored. 

The socialists have long tried to redefine the family famous. Robert Owen (1771-1858), built a community in Indiana and thought that children should be taken away from their parents and raised in public institutions said that family must give way to the “scientific” association of from five hundred to two hundred people. 

Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto did not hide their disdain of family and said it is nothing but a “hallowed correlation of parent and child” and “bourgeois claptrap.” They added, “Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents?  To this crime we plead guilty.” 

Obviously humans for these prophets of communism were no more than means of production. People were deemed to be cattle whose only function is to produce milk or hens whose only use is to lay eggs. The emotional and psychological components of humans are completely missing in the Marxist concept of human being. Children have emotional needs too. They need to be hugged, taught how to smile, and receive one on one attention. All these will help them become more confident, develop a stronger self esteem, become more intelligent and eventually more successful in life. Children’s brains become stimulated through their interaction with others. Each child needs hours of personal attention. Maybe it's more economical and efficient to raise chickens communally. But humans are not chickens. When it comes to raising children, don't ask what is efficient, ask what is effective. It's more effective if children receive personal attention. And that is only something parents can provide, selflessly and joyfully, because that is in their instinct. Only a fool could call Marxism "scientific". Marxism is idiotic, not scientific.

What Feminists Say About Family:

Marxism left its impact on many and has given birth to a culture of hate. Below are a few quotations from well-known leading contemporary feminists on men and family. Please pay attention to the professional positions of these women. [42]

  • We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men..." (Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "One Woman, One Vote", Wheeler, p.58)
  • "All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." (Catherine MacKinnon - Prominent feminist scholar at the University of Michigan and Yale)
  • "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig”..."for a woman, the home is the most dangerous place in the world!" .... "The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. The cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid down and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used." .... "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." (Andrea Dworkin (1946 - 2005) American radical feminist and author of ten books on feminism including Pornography: Men Possessing Women)
  • "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." (Catherine Comin, Vassar College . Assistant Dean of Students.)
  • "All men are rapists and that's all they are." (Marilyn French, Author; and advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign)
  • "To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo." Scum Manifesto. (Valerie Solanas (1936 - 1988) American feminist writer. She wrote the SCUM Manifesto.)
  • "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." (Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor)
  • "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." (Robin Morgan, from Sisterhood is Powerful, (ed), 1970, p.537).
  • "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" (Sheila Cronan, 1988 Houston National Organization for Women {NOW} Conference for Women.).
  • "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." ( Sheila Cronan, National NOW Times, Jan.1988)
  • "The incest taboo can be destroyed only by destroying the nuclear family as the primary institution of the culture. The nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society. (Shulamith Firestone - The Dialectics of Sex)
  • "We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men..." (Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "One Woman, One Vote", Wheeler, p.58)
  • "The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it." (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Rage," p.67.)
  • "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." (Radical feminist leader Sheila Cronan)
  • "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981.)
  • "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman)
  • "The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft." ("The Declaration of Feminism," November 1971).
  • "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God." (Gloria Steinhem, former editor of 'MS' magazine.)



Social Atomism

What underlies all this is selfishness. The modern man is individualist and cares about nothing but his own self. He is not concerned about others and least about future generations. In the past individuals were parts of a whole. They were part of a family, a clan, a community, and a nation. There was a sense of belonging. I still recall visiting the village of my father, where every male friend or relative of the family was an “uncle” and every female relative or friend was an “aunt”. There was a sense of community. Everyone knew everyone else and the community was basically the extended family. The villagers helped each other for tilling the soil and in the time of harvest everyone pitched in. Members of families relied on each other and depended on one another. The individual’s identity was in his society. His relationship to his community was that of a child to his mother. Today we live in a world where only individual people are real – society is just a name for the individuals to work together and family is a name devoid of meaning. This is called social atomism. In social atomism, society is no more than the sum of its parts. All that matter is the individual and his rights.

Let there be no mistake. Individualism was liberation from the tyranny of tradition and the old order. It did not come easy. It took at least two revolutions in order to attain it.

The founding fathers of the United States , influenced by European philosophers such as Descartes, Hobbes and Locke, Shaftsbury, Hutcheson, Hume and Kant, encoded in their founding document the principles of equality and individualism. We owe our democracy and freedom to that document and to these men of the Enlightenment.

Then the French revolution took place. Inspired by the Americans, the French overturned centuries of class privilege enjoyed at the expense of the majority of people from whose labour the few managed to attain leisure, wealth and culture.

Voltaire, and other philosophers of the Enlightenment advocated eradications of old values based on collective identity, to replace them by a new contract based on the radical autonomy and individual equality of all men - a nation of associates governed by principles based on reason and universal justice. One’s place in the society was no longer to be determined by heredity and divine rights but by one’s intrinsic worth as a human being. With this vision, a new age dawned and the concept of the autonomous, unconnected, rational human individual was born.

This was no small feat. But individualism created the concept of social atomism, where people are seen as separate selves. Humans are social animals. In order to avoid conflict between these separated entities, Hobbes and Locke suggested that the individuals must be bound by a contract by which the authority is given to the state whose duty is to preserve peace and social order by upholding the law. For his own preservation, the individual should give up part of his independence and relinquish his freedom.

According to this model, society is made up of individuals each being a self contained “social atom”. This concept of social atomism forwarded by Descartes, Hobbes and Locke was further reinforced by the concept of “moral atomism” derived from the theories of Shaftsbury, Hutcheson and Kant. The core of these theories is that moral authority arises from reason. Ethical atomism is the foundation of American political theory. 

Individualization is not without side-effects. John Dewey argued that modern social and ethical theories, perceive each moral subject as distinct from others. According to all the philosophers of the Enlightenment, the operating assumption of ethical atomism is that the self is a given and the problem of ethics consists in getting these separate entities not to hurt one another. Social atomism inevitably creates dualism between the individual and the society in which he lives and pits one individual against another aggravating the sense of separation.

In atomistic societies, individuals are perceived as molecules of gas, independent and separate from one another that occasionally may collide with each other but the interaction is kept at minimum. Based on this prototype, all the members of the society are equal and at the same time interchangeable. According to this model, total equality is achieved, but at the cost of losing our uniqueness and importance by virtue of being irreplaceable. 

But that is not an adequate description of society. Society is organic. It has a life of its own, in which each member plays a role that is unique. The society is not a mere aggregation of individuals but rather a living organism made of many individual cells. It is the harmonious cooperation of these cells that make the body function. The cells on their own can’t survive. 

Another example is the function of words in a sentence. A sentence is not a mere collection of words. For it to make sense it must abide by the rule of the grammar and each word must appear in its proper place. The lack of a verb or a noun can render the sentence confusing and meaningless. To make a book, words are put together in an organic way so the sentences make sense. Then the sentences are ordered in a way that each paragraph conveys a meme, a unit of information. Paragraphs succeed one another to describe a bigger concept in a chapter and finally chapters are related to each other in order to make the message of the book clear to the reader.

The book has a structure. It is not just a list of words pulled out of the hat and placed together randomly. The structure of the book is words, sentences, paragraphs and chapters, each must follow its own rules or the book becomes meaningless.

The body is structured too. We are not just a leather bag stuffed with billions of cells. Cells form tissues, tissues create organs, organs work together to make systems and the body is the harmonious relationship of its systems. There are billions of cells in the body, but they all have their place and they are all important. They are all interrelated.

Likewise, the human society is not made of many isolated individuals. A living society must have its equivalent of tissues, organs and systems too. This definition of the individual and society is based on science and commonsense. Any definition that discounts family and its important role in society is not scientific. 

Enlightenment has brought us freedom, democracy and progress. But it has also created social atomism. As the result we do not feel belonged anymore. We feel like molecules in a bucket of water that rub against one another but are not connected to each other and can be easily replaced. In this world, we are not connected to anyone. Our relationships are superficial and hedonistic. The molecules with whom we rub against are also interchangeable. That is because social atomism has destroyed the structure of the society. As the result, we don’t have that sense of belonging and commitment that characterize natural societies. We live in a society that is not natural. It’s synthetic; it’s artificial, it’s not organic and it’s doomed to fall.


Building an Organic Society

The nuclear family is the cornerstone and the first organ of the society. The disintegration of the nuclear family means the disintegration of human society.

The critics argue that family means, return to patriarchy, loss of individuality, subjugation of women to household chores and taking away her hard earned rights. These are straw-man fallacies. The strength of the family depends on the strength and independence of both spouses.  Only those who are not co-dependant can build a healthy, functional family. Marriage is partnership of equals. Only a vibrant and healthy marriage based on equality and love can raise emotionally healthy and successful children. If the individual has not found his individuality and selfhood yet, it’s better for him not to marry at all. In fact it is better that such a person to refrain from having children, and to not perpetuate the cycle of misery and hurt.

These critics say that family stands in the way of building a more egalitarian world. By undermining family we haven’t build a more egalitarian world but rather we have eliminated the differences and created sameness. This has been brought to such an extreme that even gender is decried as nothing but a label that should be discarded.  Sameness does not mean equality. What we must strive for is equal rights, not sameness. The cells in a living body are not the same. They are different and unique. Each one is important and indispensable. The molecules in a bucket of water are all the same, but they are not indispensable or important. 

Family is all about children. People who don’t want to have children, can form unions and break them if the relationship does not work. But when children are born, family becomes sacred. Making children is easy but it is a very important decision that should not be taken lightly. Children should be planned only when the couple know each other well and vow to commit to one another and to their children, if not for life, at least for two decades after the birth of the youngest child.

Numerous studies show that children raised in families where they receive attention of both parents, on average develop faster, are smarter, do better in school and eventually in life, compared to those who did not have both parents. Nearly 75% of the prison inmates in USA come from broken families where the father authority has been missing. If nothing, only this statistic should suffice to prove the importance of family.

In Israel ’s socialist Kibbutzim settlements, originally children used to live separately from their parents and were raised collectively. This practice has been completely abandoned now, in favor of nuclear family life. In a few Kibbutzim that have survived, children live with their families.  

Family is a manmade institution, or in the postmodernist parlance, a “social construct”. It is not divinely ordained. But not because of that it is unimportant. Aren’t our laws manmade? Aren’t our constitutions manmade? Aren’t our governments and our civic institutions manmade? Everything we have is manmade but this does not mean we can dispose of them.

The institution of family is manmade too but it is the product of thousands of years of social evolution. Marriage is not for parents; it’s for children. This is the way we humans have devised to perpetuate our species, raise our children, provide for them and protect them. But above all give them love, security, raise their self-confidence and provide for their emotional health.    

Family does not mean two moms or tow dads. Men and women are different. Their equality of rights does not eliminate their uniqueness. We are not interchangeable; we are unique. The child needs a mother and a father for her emotional sanity. Parents’ first responsibility must be to their children. They must do everything possible to ensure that their child is not deprived of love and attention of either one of them. She did not come to this world on her own. You brought her here. Now it’s your responsibility to take care of her, and provide, not just for her physical needs, but also her emotional needs, at least until she reaches the age of maturity. 

Homosexuality does not just hurt the homosexual but it is also corroding the morality of the society. Forget about the spread of AIDS. That is another subject and relatively insignificant compared to what promiscuity, of which homosexuality is a part, does to human society.


The society is not just an agglomerate of individuals. The society has structure. It is organic. Family is the cornerstone of human society. Homosexuality, along with all other forms of sexual deviances destroys the family.


Sex is not just for procreation. It is also the glue that binds two individuals together. The force that binds the subatomic particles of the nucleus (protons and neutrons) together is called “strong force”, because it is the strongest force among the four known forces of nature.  Sex does the same for humans. It holds the mother and the father, which form the nucleus of the first atom of the society, together. Protons and neutrons are not interchangeable. Protons are positively charged while neutrons are negatively charged. Likewise the main component of the nucleus of the family must be of opposite sexes. A family made of two moms or two dads is not a family.


Man is the only animal capable of doing sex all year round. This is not because nature wanted to give us an extra recreational tool. It is because human children have a long childhood and as such require many years of parental care. Our needs are not just physical but also emotional and psychological. Humans need both parents around for a long time. Sex is what makes the parents have inkling towards each other and stay together to ensure a happy nuclear family for the kids.


We are not here for our own sake. We are here to advance the human civilization. We are part of a bigger plan. We are part of an evolution that has started billions of years ago and is continuing.


This is all part of the value system that is missing. Our outlook is nihilistic. Hedonism is a paradigm without values, which inevitably leads to nihilism.


What we need is a reversal of this ethos of destruction and cynicism that is permeating the Western civilization. We need to find our place in the universe. We are not just an evolved ape. We are the masterpiece of evolution. We are the sweetest fruit of the universe. What we need is to reclaim our dignity and worth as human beings.


It is not all about ME and my immediate needs and sensualities. It is about US, about our children and our destiny as human race.  

[1] Waqidi p. 75

[2] Waqidi, p. 106; Sira p. 230; Tabari, p. 294

[3] Antonio Gramsci has been described as "the most significant Marxist thinker since Lenin."

[4] Georg Lukács (1885 -1971) was a Hegelian-Marxist philosopher born to a wealthy Jewish family in Budapest . He became the deputy commissar for Education and Culture under the infamous communist dictator of Soviet Republic of Hungary, led by Bela Kun (Cohen). Kun’s bloody regime lasted only three months, during which time tens of thousands of Christians were massacred, and their land and personal property were distributed among Kun’s cohorts, (allegedly “peasants”). Kun nationalized banks, all businesses with over 200 employees, all lands of over 1000 acres, every building in Hungary except the houses of the workers, all jewelry, all private property above the minimum, for example: two suits, four shirts, two pairs of boots, and four pairs of socks. And to show his utter contempt for the masses, he also nationalized all toilets in private homes on Saturday nights! After three months of the murder, rape, and pillage of Christians, the government of Bela Kun was deposed, and he and Lukács escaped to Russia . 


[5] Multiculturalism Reigns Over the West http://grecoreport.com/multiculturalism_reigns_over_the_west1.htm William S. Lind is Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation

[6] William S. Lind  Ibid.

[7] An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind  http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html

[8] Introductory Lecturs 15.209

[9] Eros and Civilization

[11] Janet Ecker Minister of Education of Ontario (year 2001) in a letter to Rev. Mark Harding who protested this preferential treatment.

[12] This was later overturned thanks to the tireless efforts of many conscientious people like Homa Arjomand.   

[13] The New Left differed from earlier leftist movements that had been more oriented towards labor activism, and instead adopted a broader definition of political activism commonly called social activism.

[14] Christopher Dawson "What Had Grown Old Will Be Made New" http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/cdawson/cdawson.html


[15] http://www.ncsfreedom.org/whycare.htm

[16] http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=93

[17] http://ao.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article_detail&id=2028

[18] Washington Post

[19] http://www.fact-index.com/g/ge/genetic_basis_for_homosexuality.html

[20]  Dean Hamer and Peter Copeland, The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994).


[21] Michael Bronski, "Blinded by Science," The Advocate, February 1, 2000, p. 64.


[22] Stein, op. cit., p. 221.

[23] Stein, op. cit., p. 215

[24] Bronski, op. cit., p. 64.

[25] http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS00D2#edn15

[26] Angela M.L. Pattatucci and Dean H. Hamer, "Development and Familiarity of Sexual Orientation in Females," Behavior Genetics 25 (1995): 407-19, cited in Hamer, ibid., p. 191.

[27] Hamer, Ibid.

[28] Neil and Briar Whitehead, My Genes Made Me Do It! A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation (Lafayette, La.: Huntington House Publishers, 1999), p. 209.

[29] C. Mann, "Genes and Behavior," Science 264 (1994): 1687.

[30] http://www.frc.org/edn23#edn23

[31] http://www.narth.com/docs/scrutinized.html

[32] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/09/tech/main694078.shtml

[33] Dr. Satinover is author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. http://www.narth.com/docs/satinbook.html

[34] http://www.melswebs.com/generalboards/viewtopic.php?p=14630#14630

[35] 1. Homosexuality
2. Pedophilia (pp. 527-528; DSM-IV).
3. Exhibitionism: fantasies and sexual urges involving the exposure of one’s genitals to an unsuspecting stranger.” (pp. 525-526; DSM-IV).
4. Voyeurism: Achieving sexual excitement by peeping unsuspecting individuals, who are naked, in the process of disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity” (p. 532; DSM-IV).
5. Bestiality (clinically known as Zoophilia): Sexual attraction to and relationships with animals. (p. 532; DSM-IV; Webster’s)
6. Bisexuality:  Sexual desire and interaction with both males and females.
7. Coprophilia (Sexual arousal associated with feces), (p. 532; DSM-IV).
8. Frotteurism: “Recurrent sexual urges to touch and rub against a nonconsenting person”, (p. 526; DSM-IV)
9. Fetishism: Sexual fantasies involving non animate objects (e.g. female undergarments, leather, etc (p. 526; DSM-IV).
10. Transvestic Fetishism (cross-dressing and in extreme case Gender Dysphoria when he desires “to dress and live permanently as a female and to seek hormonal or surgical reassignment” (p. 530-531; DSM-IV).
11. Gender Identity Disorder: “A strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or insistence that one is, of the other sex) (p. 532-533; DSM-IV).
12. Klismaphilia: Sexual arousal and pleasure derived from enemas, (p. 532; DSM-IV).
13. Necrophilia: (erotic attraction to corpses) p. 532, DSM-IV). 14. Partialism: Sexual arousal obtained through “exclusive focus on part of body” (p. 532; DSM-IV).
15. Sexual Masochism: Recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the act (real, no simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer. Fantasies could involve being raped, while being held of bound by others. Others act on the masochistic sexual urges themselves (e.g. binding themselves, sticking themselves with pins, shocking themselves electrically, or self-mutilation) or with a partner (p. 529; DSM-IV).
16. Sexual Sadism: Sexually arousing fantasies, involving acts in which the psychological or physical suffering (including humiliation) of the victim is sexually exciting to the person” (p. 530; DSM-IV).
17. Telephone Scatologia: Obsession with “obscene phone calls” (p. 532; DSM-IV).
18. Transgenderism: A person whose gender identity is not clear, and who may take on the sexual identity of either male or female to carry out sexual fantasies or behaviors. This might be a medical condition and therefore should not be classified as a disorder.
19. Transsexual: A person who identifies himself as having the identity “of the opposite sex, sometimes so strongly as to undergo surgery and hormone injections to effect a change of sex”.
20. Transvestite: A person who derives sexual pleasure from dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex.
21. Urophilia: Sexual arousal associated with urine (p.532; DSM-IV).


[36] Operant conditioning is the modification of behavior brought about over time by the consequences of said behavior.

[37] http://www.melswebs.com/generalboards/viewtopic.php?t=2148

[38] Stojgniev O’Donnell February 2006 http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/75914-0/

[39] http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17339&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90

[40] http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151776

[41] The Battler, 20 April, 1985 http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/gayleft/oppression.htm

[42] Source: http://www.dadsnow.org/index3.html






Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.