LGBT lobby issues an ultimatum to European education

Elena Karaeva

A gender theory inv-ented by the New Zealand “guru” of psychology John Money, which has practically no scientific basis and justification, but only the fantasies of its creator, decorated with rainbow colors (for brightness) and slogans of equality (for the convenience of political technologists), at first studied almost exclusively from curiosity and optional, today it is slowly but very consistently creeping into the curriculum of European schools. Starting from elementary school. And even from older groups of kindergartens. The invention of a charlatan, which in the middle of the last century already led to a double tragedy : twin brothers David and Brian Reimer, one of whom, on the advice of a psychologist and “sexologist” Mani, was raised by parents as a girl, as a result committed suicide.
Mani argued that biological sex does not matter, and gender is formed solely as a result of the influence of the environment. As well as the result of all the same upbringing, including sexual orientation can be. Anti-scientific nonsense, like the one from the Middle Ages, when alchemists were looking for the philosopher’s st-one, and astronomers, until the discovery of Copernic-us, were convinced that the Sun revolves around the Earth, if and when they try to refute it, today it goes boldly and burns everyone who disagrees with it with napalm.
Countering underage br-ainwashing attempts these days (at least in France ) is next to impossible. Asso-ciations of LGBT activists come to schools and practically impose conditions on the teaching staff: “Either you allow us to “sex and gender education” of children, or…” The ultimatum turns out to be effective.
So, in French Brittany, a region where conservative people live – skippers and fishermen, far from the games of the rainbow mind – such lessons (instead of subjects like physics or mathematics) have become almost a routine practice.
Parents, to whom children bring knowledge about what, it turns out, are “non-binary, transgender and transsexual” people, tried to sound the alarm timidly – after all, the LGBT community likes it or does not like it, but sex education is a family business, not a school – bitten their tongues pretty quickly. Wrong word or wrong look, and that’s all – you are labeled homophobic or transphobic, and this is a sign of racism in modern united Europe. And racism in the same united Europe is not an offense, but a crime.
The second half of the twentieth century, when Europe tried to patch up its past, which was full of both racism and xenophobia, was marked by a movement for civil rights and freedoms on the continent. The protests of the late sixties, when well-fed youth dreamed of getting rid of the guardianship of their elders and finally, instead of work and education, devote themselves to hedonism, the search for pleasure and other joys, gradually faded away. But the undisguised craving for carnal pleasures and their almost constant consumption of youthful fun has become a lifestyle.
“Prohibit prohibit” – and under this well-known slogan, not just sensual pleasures, a part of life, important, but intimate, that is, not put on display, but real vices, as such, were considered to be before the advent of “gender theory” crawled out of all the cracks. And with its emergence and popularization, with the abolition of prohibitions, vices and perversions gradually turned into the norm of behavior. Not Breton skippers and fishermen, of course – they had and have where to spend their energy – but Parisian bohemia. Becoming a trendsetter and a leader in the promotion of all these deviations. which have been named. Habit. Behavior feature. A creative way of relating to one’s own sexuality. A feature of gender self-identification. In other words, even if it is impossible (including because desires can be criminal), it is still possible.
It is today, starting from a tender age, that they are urged not to be ashamed of any desires and openly express them, calling taboos and prohibitions dictated by “patriarchal values”, but thirty years ago this was customary to hide.
In a book published a few years ago, its author Fabrice Thomas describes the mores of those who dictated the current agenda of the LGBT community and generously sponsored numerous NGOs that were supposed to promote and popularize the rights of sexual minorities.
Monsieur Thomas came to apply for a job. To a fashion house that bore the name of the creator, Yves Saint Laurent. The business and amorous partner of the famous couturier Pierre Berger answered him that hiring goes through his, Berger, bed. Monsieur Thomas, a heterosexual, broad-shouldered handsome man, agreed to such a personnel policy. When Berger had had enough of them, he handed over Fabrice to Saint Laurent.
The details of what happened behind the scenes, in these luxurious estates, villas, hotel apartments, as Fabrice Thomas himself says, could make even Harvey Weinstein blush. Violence and sadism were the most popular way to get pleasure. Then the silence of the participants in orgies was most often bought. And every time new sensations were needed. And that means new – let’s say it again – victims.
In public, Pierre Berger – a billionaire, philanthropist, art connoisseur – was one. Private to others. And politically – the third. It was he, Pierre Berger, who was the main lobbyist for the media (as one of the shareholders at that time influential Le Monde) and financial (he had enough funds) legalization of same-sex marriages in France. And to the then presidential candidate Hollande, he stated unambiguously: full financial and PR support for bohemians, intellectuals and other philosophical fraternity in exchange for the adoption of the law. And Hollande accepted the offer. Because to refuse Berger was to commit political suicide.
The law, perhaps the only one that marked Hollande’s leadership as president, was adopted with a number of amendments, conditions and reservations. They concerned, among other things, that the school (in the broad sense of the word, as an educational institution) would be left aside from the agitators and propagandists of “gender theory” and “rainbow diversity.” Biology as a science – yes, but the promotion of “non-binary and fluid” – no.
Well, today the price of all these promises is visible.
Yves Saint Laurent, truly a fashion genius, a truly outstanding stylist who managed to liberate a woman and her body (our favorite trouser suits are him, our gentle perfume intoxicating men who love us is also him, our black turtlenecks, our leather jackets are also Saint Laurent), died exhausted by melancholy and drug addiction. His heart failed.
Fabrice Thomas, who spoke about the morals of those who sponsored the “fight for equal rights of sexual minorities”, was forced to leave France for Quebec. Where did he get married. He gave birth to children. And he works as a bricklayer.
And, apparently, he is satisfied with his life as a heterosexual middle-aged man, family man and father.
Here are just children from Breton cities and their parents from all this persistent passive (yet) aggression, when those who actually have no right to do this interfere with the most intimate – self-identification, growing up girlish or youthful – there is nowhere to run.
Well, “rainbow” activists are boarding schools with threats, ultimatums and loud screeches about discrimination.
Therefore, you should not ask for whom the pipes and castanets, painted in these very iridescent colors, whistle. They whistle through today’s European children and teenagers. Some of which can repeat (situations are different) the fate of Fabrice Thomas. Or the fate of those, unknown to anyone, from whom Berger and Co. paid off, having previously broken their lives. If not suicidal at all.
Harvest victims of “gender theory” has already begun.