I’m better known today for my writings and teaching on anti-Marxist constitutionalism and on Biblical prophecy, but for thirty years my ministry was single-issue: opposing the LGBT political agenda around the world. One of the first things I observed from my front line culture war vantage-point was that the LGBT movement has a very parasitical nature – attaching itself like a leech to other constituencies of the progressive coalition to exploit whatever political advantage it can for itself, without regard for the damage this causes to the host body.
The first host was the Jews, as evidenced by the first symbol chosen by the “gays” to identify themselves: the inverted pink triangle. This was a blatant and outrageous attempt to exploit the public sympathy Jews hold by having suffered the Holocaust, symbolized by the yellow star.
The 5,000 to10,000 homosexuals estimated by “gay” historians to have been interned in the network of roughly 10,000 Nazi work camps (not the 6 death camps) — most for violating the same anti-sodomy laws in effect throughout the world in that era — wore pink triangles as part of the Nazi system for classifying inmates by criminal category. Based on that tenuous connection to Nazi-era Jews (who were almost universally opposed to sodomy as a gross violation of the Torah), the LGBTs attempted to fabricate a “Gay Holocaust” by which they could hijack Jewish political power for themselves under the banner of “The Pink Triangle.” That was the title of Richard Plant’s pioneering book on that theme (the first offering of an orchestrated political marketing campaign that swept American popular culture in the late 1980s and early 90s).
It was no mere coincidence that “The Pink Triangle” was published in the same year as the US Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v Hardwick (1986), which recognized the right of states to regulate harmful sexual conduct in the public interest, but specifically homosexual sodomy. Justice Byron White (a JFK appointee) literally mocked the “gay” argument that the (then admitted) lifestyle choice of sodomy should be constitutionally protected, writing for the majority: “to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ is, at best, facetious.”
The Bowers ruling (later overturned in Lawrence v Texas, 2003, by the chief engineer of “Gay Cultural Supremacy” in America, Justice Anthony Kennedy) marked the end of an LGBT political strategy launched in the 1940s. Now abandoning their admission that homosexuality was (and is) a lifestyle choice, they pivoted to the so-called “born that way” argument originally popularized by German homosexual occultist Karl Ulrichs in the mid-1800s, who claimed that male homosexuals were really female souls trapped in male bodies, thus “born that way” with supposedly no control over their sexual proclivities or conduct.
After Bowers, the entire American LGBT movement began marching in a new direction, insisting homosexuality is innate and unchangeable (and thus recovery from same-sex attraction disorder is impossible), and demanding recognition as a helpless victim class whose homosexuality was the equivalent of being Jewish: ergo the pink triangle.
But in 1995, Orthodox Jewish Holocaust researcher, Kevin E. Abrams and I, wrote The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, which successfully debunked the “Gay Holocaust” hoax and (due to an outcry from Orthodox Rabbis in response to the book), the “gays” were forced to abandon the pink triangle (with a few rare exceptions).
Having lost its first host, the LGBT political parasite attached itself to the Black Civil Rights movement, which it has possessed and exploited ever since. Dropping the pink triangle like a snake sheds its skin, it hijacked the rainbow as its new symbol, which it stole from Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.
From that point forward it drove the American civil rights agenda for its own purposes, always bundling LGBT political goals within a “coalition” agenda, and using primarily Black front-persons to lead the efforts while using their own extraordinary power to manipulate the political process and the media from the shadows. This was best exemplified in the “Human Rights Commission” strategy in which the Dems established city and state HRCs to “promote diversity” and “oppose hate crimes” through implementation and strategic enforcement of “anti-discrimination” laws. These laws were always sold as a defensive “shield” for “minorities” but in practice used as a pro-active “sword” to set up and punish LGBT opponents (think “bake shops” and “printing companies”).
The LGBT movement insisted that all anti-discrimination policies must include “sexual orientation” (an invention of “Queer Theorists” to cloak the “born that way” lie in pseudo-scientific jargon). By this method, augmented by a great many “hate hoaxes,” laws characterizing opposition to homosexuality as “homophobia” (an LGBT-invented slur) spread from just a few cities to become nationwide public policy, entrenched in state and federal law, protected by multiple layers of (judicially activist) Supreme Court precedent.
The LGBT’s still control the Black host body as evidenced by the Black Lesbian couple running Black Lives Matter who aggressively push the LGBT agenda under the BLM banner. Again, it was not accidental that the first faction to steal the media spotlight once BLM took to the national stage was the “Black Trans Lives Matter” sub-cult.
The LGBT hijacking of Black power is all the more egregious a moral crime in that the Black community as a whole (though not the leaders, who have mostly been bought off) has and still does strongly oppose the LGBT agenda – a fact the Marxist media hides from the public.
Somehow the rest of the leftist coalition never recognizes the LGBT threat until it’s too late, the most recent example being the hijacking of the Feminist contingent by “transgendered women,” which has all but destroyed womens’ sports. And even when they discover they’re being exploited, they never seem to reconsider the presuppositions of liberalism that led them into the trap.
In the case of the Black community, however, there is a ready solution at hand, and that is the aggressive reclamation of the leadership of their movement by the Bible-believing Black pastors. I urge you to forward this essay to them.
