Thursday, January 23, 2020

Reflection on "Conservative" Drag Queen Denouncing Drag Queen Story Hour

I had had to spend some time thinking about this development surrounding this "MAGA Drag Queen" coming forward to speak out against Drag Queen Story Hour. My focus is on the promotion and normalization of a drag queen as a spokesman for promoting a conservative, pro-family value.

I am glad that a drag queen is openly admitting that the whole drag culture is saturated with sex, drugs, and alcohol. It's an abusive, adult scene which children should have nothing to do with.



Kitty Demure, whose real name we do not know, shared the following:

“What in the hell has a drag queen ever done to make you have so much respect for them, and admire them so much?” asked Demure, “other than put on makeup and jump on the floor and writhe around and do sexual things on stage?”

This Kitty Demure is known as a "conservative Drag Queen", according to The Blaze. Seriously? A conservative Drag Queen?

Wow. I don't think so!

He, Mr. Kitty Demure, forgets to mention, that drag culture is overwhelmed with sexual degradation and debasement. He forgets to mention that predominantly men in bondage to same-sex lusts are involved in this whole perversion. Her certainly forgets to make the point that kids should not get involved in homosexuality, transgenderism, or other paraphilias burning within the LGBT dumpster fire.



Furthermore, I am deeply disturbed by the fact that TPUSA, (and Conservative Inc in general) once again want to normalize this whole Drag Culture in the sense that they are offering this man a platform to share his opinion at length.

Drag Queens are not for kids. Guess what? WE KNOW THAT ALREADY!

I will go one step further.

DRAG QUEENS ARE NOT FOR ADULTS! Demure pretty much admits as much in his video! Smoking is not for adults. Drinking excessive alcohol is not for adults. Sexual degeneracy is not for adults, either. However, in a free, civil society, adults are afforded the option to make those bad choices, and thus also to absorb the consequences of those bad choices. Children do not have the experience, development, knowledge base, or skill to assess the consequences of their actions. It's cruel to allow children to engage in such behaviors and also endure the consequences of those decisions and suffer irreparable harm when they literally do not--cannot--know better at their young age.

We should not start parading "conservative" Drag Queens as if they are heroes because they are telling us the down-to-earth obvious. OF COURSE Drag Queens are not for kids! Kitty Demure makes a point, sure, but so have many of us in MassResistance and in other pro-family movements. Kitty Demure is getting fifteen minutes of fame because a gay "conservative" is making the same case, and therefore his opinion somehow has more value. Wrong.

The issue about Drag Queen Story Hour has gone beyond making an argument. The issue is about winning the fight and stopping not just Drag Queen Story Hour, but ending the normalization of LGBT behaviors to children, to adults, and to our communities as a whole.



A few weeks ago, Wilson Gavin (God bless that young man) joined with his conservative college friends to protest a Drag Queen Story Hour in the local library. They were not trying to convince the drag queen at the Brisbane library that Drag Queens are not for kids. He and his fellow Liberal college students (the conservative party in Australia is called "Liberal") were opposing the filthy man, to prevent him from getting access to the kids in the first place!

Furthermore, Wilson Gavin opposed gay marriage and the full-on normalization of LGBT behaviors and ideas in the general public. These are the people whom we need to recognize and imitate, not just appreciate.

And you know what? We need to stop promoting drag queens in general, and we need to stop promoting LGBT "conservatism" in particular. If individuals are struggling with same-sex temptations or gender dysphoria, they can advocate for conservative causes, but why are they celebrating a so-called LGBT "identity"? That is wrong. Consider this: Wilson Gavin was dealing with same-sex temptations. He didn't go around calling himself "gay conservative" to the best of my knowledge, nor did he expect people to praise him for not acting on his feelings. He recognized the struggle, but spoke out against the advancement of the LGBT agenda. That's what really matters: not this petty identity politics nonsense to expand the number of people telling everyone else the obvious.

On a larger note, we need to stop allowing sexual deviants who espouse some conservative talking points to then promote themselves and thus normalize their perverse lifestyles. There are conservatives who eat too much, drink too much, lose their temper without warning. We don't celebrate their personal failings, do we? Why then are we celebrating drag queens who tell us what we already know about drag culture to begin with?

Update:

Lo and behold, look what's happening to Kitty Demure:
This is more grifting, nothing more. Why are we putting gay or transgender people on pedestals for stating the obvious about sexual perversion around minors?

The reason why Drag Queen Story Hour is not for kids is that drag queen entertainment is illicit to begin with. The moment that conservatives begin normalizing LGBT behaviors among adults, and then divert opposition only to keeping it away from children, there will come a point where they will no longer have any argument to keep such filth away from children.

Gender confusion is occuring because there is so much confusion about truth, fact, and reality. All of this sexual confusion must be confronted with uncompromising truth. It's time to:

Make Male and Female Great Again
Make Marriage Great Again
Make Mom and Dad Great Again
(and yes, Reclaim the Rainbow!)

Tuesday, January 7, 2020

Bill Whatcott, Enemy of the Canadian LGBT State, Facing Hate Crime Trial for Passing Out Gospel Tracts


Canada MassResistance contact Bill Whatcott is a true freedom fighter.



He is committed to fighting the LGBT Hate Machine with all the ardor at his disposal. He has faced numerous attacks and unprecedented persecution in "free nation" Canada for years.



Yet he refuses to relent in releasing the truth about the dangers of the LGBT lifestyle and agenda.

He was arrested last year for "inciting hatred" just for passing out Gospel tracts at the 2016 Gay Pride Parade in Toronto, one of the most notoriously perverse, disgusting displays of anti-God, anti-Christ perversity imaginable. The LGBT disgust is so deep, with pot-bellied naked men running around in front of children, one has to wonder why no legal authority in Canada takes a stand to stop this evil.

Notwithstanding the unprecendented challenges and Satanic opposition he has faced, Whatcott perseveres. He was facing a $104 million civil action from the 2016 Toronto Shame Parade organizers, but the lawsuit was first rejected, and then upon appeal the LGBT legal activists decided to quit, since they were losing more money than they could have ever hoped to have gained (the appellate court would have likely rejected the lawsuit, too).

David Cooke of Campaign Life Coalition recently connected with Bill Whatcott and interviewed him so that more people would know about the plight that he is facing in his own country. Let no one think that LGBT tyranny won't descend upon him in his own country. This agenda is pernicious, having no interest in love, tolerance, diversity, or acceptance of any kind. In fact, LGBT activists have been clear-cut in their demands that other people "must accept them", or else. That is not liberty, that is not right. There must be no acquiescing to this hateful ideology.

And for the millions of people who are engaged in these behaviors, they need to know the truth which sets them free.

Here's the full report from Mr. David Cooke:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had the opportunity this week to sit down with Bill Whatcott and talk candidly with him about his ongoing judicial saga. Bill’s trial began over a year and a half ago, after he was charged in June of 2018 with “public incitement to hatred”. This alleged crime occurred two full years prior, when he was distributing literature at a homosexual “pride” parade in Toronto in June of 2016. That literature – which was distributed peacefully and without fuss – presented the real, physical and spiritual dangers of practising homosexuality. It also offered the hope of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to LGBT practitioners.

Bill Whatcott and David Cooke

 
For this supposed “hate crime” the wrath of the Liberal government of former Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne fell heavy upon Bill. However, it appears this charge was not in the interests of justice, but in the interests of politics. The fact that Premier Wynne was herself an open homosexual might suggest a conflict of interest. Also, the fact that Ms. Wynne was seeking to rally her left-wing base in a difficult election year might suggest a self-serving political agenda.

Bill now faces up to eighteen months in jail if convicted – which seems to be a foregone conclusion. All this for politely handing out Gospel pamphlets to people who willingly received them.

Bill’s full trial has been scheduled in Toronto for the entire month of June this year. This “conveniently” happens to be so-called “Gay Pride Month”, with Canada’s biggest and lewdest pro-LGBT parade taking place at the end of the month. I guess the parade will be just in time for the expected guilty verdict! This sounds more and more like a show trial than any real semblance of justice.

In my ten-minute video interview, I talk with Bill one-on-one about his experience thus far. We also discuss some important elements of his upcoming trial. In addition, Bill mentions the threat posed to all Christians by Bill S-202 (the “conversion therapy ban”).

WATCH THE VIDEO HERE: https://youtu.be/-e7zoTpyUws

As Pastor Art Pawlowski commented when Bill was first charged, “We’re turning Canada into a Nazi state, into a communist state, where if you voice your politically incorrect views, you will be attacked by the forces of the government.” Now it seems you may not only be attacked and arrested, but they may hold a parade to celebrate your condemnation!

Bill will make a brief appearance in court next week, on Tuesday, January 14th at 9:30 AM at 361 University Ave., Toronto.

God Bless.

David Cooke

P.S. You can read more about the dangerous “conversion therapy ban” being proposed by the Trudeau government here: https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/clc-blog/id/95/title/-conversion-therapy-ban-threatens-churches

Sunday, January 5, 2020

MassResistance Warned Ahead of Time What USA Today Op-Ed Shares Today

The fifth anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges is coming up this year.

Five years ago, five bad lawyers in black dresses decided that somewhere in the United States Constitution, there is a right for two men or two women to marry.

Image result for End obergefell v. hodges
It takes a family, and a family takes one man and one woman.

The truth is that the four clearly liberal justices and the one swing justice (no pun intended) named Anthony Kennedy decided to draw up a new right out of nowhere and impose it on the country.

First of all, let's cut through all the haze, smoke, and fog. There is no such thing as a "right to marriage".

Marriage is a sacrament, an institution, a covenant. I do not have the right to demand that a woman marry me. She has to consent to that marriage. There is a fundamental understanding when it comes to consent, that it requires maturation, the attainment of majority, i.e. adulthood.

Children should not be getting married, and if a seventeen and a sixteen year old do want to marry, in many states in the United States they must obtain the consent of their parents.

Just five years later, and there is massive cultural and moral fallout in the United States. MassResistance sounded the alarm on the damage that the travesty of same-sex marriage would have on the country as soon as the Massachusetts Supreme Court shoved false marriage onto the Commonwealth.

Folks, the stakes could not be higher. We need to take a firm stance against false marraige. It's about one man and one woman, not two men, not two women, not any other relic of barbarism.

Check out the commentary in this latest USA Today editorial:


The transformation of our legal system as to marriage was rapid and top-down. Changes in law brought changes in culture, and they're not all rainbows.

There are no rainbows in the LGBT movement, simple as that. The Rainbow is God's promise to the world that He would never again wipe out the world in a flood. The LGBT movement has a six-colored band.

A decade ago, President Barack Obama affirmed that marriage unites a man and woman. So did 45 states and the federal government. The only states to redefine marriage had done so through activist court rulings or, in 2009, legislative action. At the ballot box, citizens had uniformly voted against redefinition. A majority agreed with Obama.

Yes indeed. The public declared clearly that marriage is for one man and one woman. In North Carolina, 65% of voters made it very clear that they would not accept any redefinition of marriage. That amendment passed the same year that Obama got re-elected, by the way.

Then, in 2012, Obama “evolved,” and the Supreme Court took cases involving marriage law. Nothing in the Constitution answered the actual question at hand: What is marriage? The court should have left the issue to the people. But in 2013, it struck down the federal definition of marriage as a male-female union in a 5-4 ruling.

Shameful.

The court also punted on a challenge to a state definition of marriage adopted in a 2008 constitutional referendum by which a majority of Californians — yes, Californians — overturned an activist court. Only in 2015 did the Supreme Court, breaking 5-4 again, redefine marriage for the nation, provoking four irrefutable dissents.

I voted for Prop 8 in 2008. I was so glad to do that. I know lots of people who voted to retain the definition of marriage as the eternal institution, the union of one man and one woman.

Same-sex marriage advocates told the public that they sought only the “freedom to marry.” Same-sex couples were already free to live as they chose, but legal recognition was about the definition of marriage for all of society. It was about affirmation — by the government and everyone else.

Homosexuals were free to live together, but perhaps we need to start having the discussion about why sexual perversion between two men or two women had been decriminalized. There is no reason for this. There is no right to sexual predation, degradation, or sodomy in the United States Constitution.

It’s unsurprising that once a campaign that used to cry “live and let live” prevailed, it began working to shut down Catholic adoption agencies and harass evangelical bakers and florists. This shows it was never really about “live and let live” — that was a merely tactical stance.

This movement was never about "Live and Let Live." Homosexual activists were crystal clear early on that 

Family, marriage — redefined

While these were the early effects of redefinition, the more profound consequences will be to marriage itself. Law shapes culture; culture shapes beliefs; beliefs shape action. The law now effectively teaches that mothers and fathers are replaceable, that marriage is simply about consenting adult relationships, of whatever formation the parties happen to prefer. This undermines the truth that children deserve a mother and a father — one of each.

It's time for us to shape the law. It's time for the laws of nature to push back against the corruption of the natural law, the natural rights of individuals, and natural marriage itself.

It also undercuts any reasonable justification for marital norms. After all, if marriage is about romantic connection, why require monogamy? There’s nothing magical about the number two, as defenders of “polyamory” point out. If marriage isn’t a conjugal union uniting a man and a woman as one flesh, why should it involve or imply sexual exclusivity? If it isn’t a comprehensive union inherently ordered to childbearing and rearing, why should it be pledged to permanence?

Marriage is about much more than feelings. It is a covenant, a commitment to the truth, that God designed man and woman to be united in a marriage covenant, or to live in singlehood.

Marriage redefiners could not answer these questions when challenged to show that the elimination of sexual complementarity did not undermine other marital norms. Today, they increasingly admit that they have no stake in upholding norms of monogamy, exclusivity and permanence.

Once the definition is shifted in one way, then anything goes. Of course, marriage and family advocates had long pointed this out.

Same-sex marriage didn’t create these problems. Many in America had unwisely already gone along with the erosion of marital norms in the wake of the sexual revolution — with the rise of cohabitation, nonmarital childbearing, no-fault divorce and the hookup culture. It was no surprise that many would then question the relevance of the male-female norm. Legal redefinition is a consequence of the cultural breakdown of marriage.

True.

Monogamy is old news

But same-sex marriage is a catalyst for further erosion. Already, we see respectable opinion-makers mainstreaming “throuples,” “ethical nonmonogamy” and “open relationships.” This was predictable; we and others predicted it.

FYI: Told you so!

Something we didn’t predict are the headlines about transgender and nonbinary “identities.” A decade ago, few Americans had given much thought to the "T" in "LGBT." Today, transgender identity seems to dominate the discussion of sexuality and sexual morality.



MassResistance predicted this. They talked about what happened in Massachusetts shortly after the imposition of false marriage on the state. Transgenderism became a growing, rampant reality very quickly in the Commonwealth.

There’s a logic here. If we can’t see the point of our sexual embodiment where it matters most — in marriage — we’ll question whether it matters at all. Hence the push to see gender as “fluid” and existing along a "spectrum” of nonbinary options.

Hence Drag Queen Story Hour has become a "thing." We need to resist this perverse program, and then at length stand up to the whole LGBT agenda.

There’s a deeper logic, too. Implicit in the push for same-sex marriage was body-self dualism — the idea that we’re actually nonphysical entities inhabiting physical bodies, or ghosts in machines. That’s why the "plumbing" in sexual acts seemed not to matter.

Of course, it does. We are not mere beings, but beings whom God designed as male or female.

True one-flesh union, the foundation of conjugal marriage, was thought illusory. What mattered was emotional union and partners’ use of their bodies to induce desirable sensations and feelings. Of course, two men or two women (or throuples or even larger sexual ensembles) could do that. But the logic didn’t stay with marriage. If the body is mere plumbing, then sex matters less than identity.

This recognition of complementarity is profound. Indeed, the pro-family lawyers who were arguing to retain marriage, i.e. between one man and one woman, for some reason refused to discuss the biological as well as the psychological and sociological implications.

The pro-family movement, for lack of a better label, has never really been interested in fighting to win. They want to be liked, they want to appear respectable, they want to gain the favor of the media (which will never happen), and they don't want to fight back hard.

Image result for repeal obergefell
Marriage is for one man and one woman

Yet that does not work. It never works, in fact. The LGBT lobby has been hardcore in their demands. They don't, they won't take "No" for an answer. The behaviors which undergird this whole agenda are unceasing. There is no peace, there is no real consumation. It's a perversion, it's destructive, and it communicates a lie which no one can make right, real, or true.

This has had tragic consequences, especially for children.

Children burdened by our mistakes

Nearly unthinkable a decade ago, certain medical professionals tell children experiencing gender dysphoria that they are trapped in the wrong body, even that their bodies are merely like Pop-Tarts foil packets, as one expert explained.

Transgenderism was the inevitable result to this destruction, dissimulation of true marriage, of natural marriage. This is hurting children. Whatever happened to doing what is best for boys, for girls?

Some doctors now prescribe puberty-blocking drugs to otherwise healthy children struggling to accept their bodies. They prescribe cross-sex hormones for young teens to transform their bodies to align with their gender identities.

This is child abuse, and it is time to take a stand against it. The good news is that more states are looking at legislation which will make it a crime to transition children from their sex at birth. We need to affirm for boys and girls that they are just fine in their bodies. There is no need for them to change, and there is no need for them to take medications or undergo harmful surgeries. They need to be trained to accept the truth of their bodies.

As part of a government grant-supported study, doctors even performed double mastectomies on adolescent girls — including two 13-year-olds.

Evil.

These changes weren’t grassroots movements. They’ve come from people wielding political, economic and cultural power to advance sexual-liberationist ideology. The change has been top down — from Hollywood’s portrayal of LGBT characters to business executives boycotting states over religious-freedom laws. Having lost at the ballot box over and over — even in California — activists found new avenues: ideologically friendly courts, federal agencies, big corporations.

Yes, but thankfully the Left is losing the courts. Now it's time to go after the corporations which insist on pushing these agendas through economic bullying. We as consumers have the power to decide "I am not going to buy this product or seek this service" if the company insists on pushing a destructive, false ideology onto others. What do we do about federal agencies, though? President Trump is removing all references to protecting so-called "sexual minorities." He has removed all protections for these behaviors from the different executive branches, too. He has even ordered state departments and embassies not to fly the six-colored LGBT flag. These are profound, welcome victories.

And there are more coming.

Having secured a judicial redefinition of marriage, they pivoted to the “T,” with the Obama administration redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity” and imposing a new policy on all schools.

President Trump is rolling back this nonsense. He also forbade "transgender" troops from serving in the military. This decision was long overdue. As Governor Mike Huckabee declared: "The military is not a social experiment. They exist to break things and kill people." Done.

And having won government support, activists turned to eliminating private dissent. Former presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke wants to yank the tax-exemption of noncompliant churches. Megadonor Tim Gill vows to spend his fortunes to “punish the wicked.” Who are “the wicked”? Those who refuse to accept the new sexual orthodoxy.

Tim Gill is wicked. His time is coming. Thankfully, perverted former elected officials like Beto (male) O'Rourke did not make it into office, either as US Senator or as President. They got taken down on the chopping block, and no doubt they would not have had a discernable chance of getting elected. 

All of us, including those identifying as LGBT, are made in God’s image, are endowed with profound dignity and thus deserve respect. It’s because of this dignity and out of such respect that the institutions serving the human good — like the marriage-based family — should be supported, not undermined or redefined. That basic rights like religious freedom ought to be upheld, not infringed. That a healthy moral and physical ecology — especially for children — must be preserved.

Those who "identify" as LGBT are called to be restored to God's image. Let's be Biblically accurate. We are all God's creatures, but it takes the Spirit of Adoption for us to call God "Daddy" (Romans 8:15), and thus to be restored to God's image.

When we understand that love has been perfected among us, then we can declare: "As He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17).

Still, it's worthwhile that more writers, editors, and academics are pointing out that LGBT behaviors, the forced imposition of false marriage is hurting the essential dignity which God wants for all people. Let's continue to push for this revelation to grow into the greater revelation of others!

The “progress” of the past decade has exacted steep costs.

It's not progress.

Final Reflection

After five years, the rampant costs of false marriage beyond forced on the United States is breaking out for all to see. Marriage cannot be redefined, no matter what any overreaching court has declared. 

What is needed now is concerted activism. It is essential that grassroots activists fight back at the lcoal, state, and federal level against this fraudulent, deceptive agenda. We cannot allow the cultural, corporate, and government elites to dictate to the world that marriage can be anything that anyone wants it to be.

God's will, nature's design, general recognition of the truth will never abide allowing marriage to be anything but the union of one man and one woman. This is what is best, this is what is true, and this is what is essential to any country, to any culture, to any community.

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and the founder and editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute. Follow him on Twitter: @RyanTand

Robert P. George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. Follow him on Twitter: @McCormickProf

Saturday, December 28, 2019

Singapore Protects Children from LGBT Content in Movies -- More Countries Should Do the Same


The Republic of Singapore, a city-state located at the base of Malaysia and at the intersection of a number of Southeast Asian countries, maintains a conservative family culture within its borders.

The country still criminalizes sodomy, even though the elected leadership has announced that they will not actively enforce this legislation.

The country has recently forbidden foreign influence of any kind in any of the country's public assemblies, including the Pink Dot Festival, which promotes LGBT themes and advocates for the repeal of the anti-sodomy law on Singapore's books.

Public attitudes toward homosexuality, transgenderism, and the like remain negative, despite perverse attempts from LGBT Activists to force accept of these issues into the mainstream of Singapore society.

Another welcome step that the country has taken is to prevent the broadcasting of pro-gay scenes and themes in international movies showcased in the city-state.

Such is the case with the latest iteration of the Star Wars franchise, which was purchased and has now been exploited by the Disney Corporation. A same-sex kiss worked its way into Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. However, to ensure wider release to general audiences in Singapore, the movie distributors removed this same-sex kiss. Otherwise, a M18 rating would have been placed on the film, and thus cut off a large source of potential revenue.

This kind of censorship should be happening in the United States, and to such a degree that these films will cease incorporating pro-LGBT themes and moments in the movies. The truth is that more Americans, especially the younger generation, are getting tired of this LGBT propagandizing getting forced onto the general public, especially children.

Of course, there are entertainment commentators who think that Singapore's views on family values in entertainment are backwards, and that the country needs to give up safeguarding the well-being of the youth and the general public.

Teng Yong Ping of Yahoo Lifestyle SEA wrote the following:

Teng Yong Ping
Teng Yong Ping


Here's his brief bio:

Yong Ping covers lifestyle and entertainment news for Yahoo Lifestyle Singapore. He watches too much television for his own good and, in between binging Netflix shows, plays badminton and sings with a show choir.

Perhaps he should get out more often and consider what mothers and fathers want for their children, as opposed to the narrow-minded, arrogant views of the chattering classes on the Internet.

What's more, here are his featured profiles and friends on his Facebook page:


He is clearly biased toward the repeal of 377a, the law in Singapore which criminalizes homosexual sodomy.

Notice also that one of his main friends is Otto Fong, the radical homosexual activist who came out in 2007 while serving as a public school teacher in Singapore. He subsequently was forced to retire, but he is still pushing for the normalization of his sexual perversion. Other of Yong Ping's friends include those who are #Ready4Repeal. (For more information on Otto Fong, click here)

Image may contain: 1 person, suit
Otto Fong,  Former Singapore Teacher, Radical Gay Activist 

This entertainment "journalist" is clearly an LGBT propagandist, if he is not an active homosexual himself. Such corrupted reporting has worked against the news industry in general, and entertainment media in particular. This kind of forced indoctrination and propagandizing is completely unacceptable. Isn't it is his job to report whether a movie is worth watching or not?

Now let us consider the contents of his report.

Here are the noteworthy comments from his article condemning the Republic of Singapore's decisions to censor and remove pro-LGBT scenes and sentiments from the movies.

As pop culture juggernauts like Hollywood studios and Netflix include more and more queer characters and stories in their content, Singapore’s regressive censorship rules will increasingly be invoked in more visible ways. 

Good for Singapore!

Last week, as Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (TROS) opened in Singapore, it transpired that Disney had voluntarily cut a scene of a same-sex kiss on the lips between two minor female characters in a romantic relationship. This meant that Disney would be able to retain a PG13 rating for the movie in Singapore, so that families could bring their children to watch it. 
You can’t really blame Disney, which owns Lucasfilm, the studio that produces the Star Wars movies. They’re just looking after their bottom line, after all. In censoring its film, albeit by cutting mere seconds of footage, Disney was simply reacting to the Singapore government’s long-standing LGBT censorship policy.

Disney pays enough attention to its bottom line in other countries, enough that they removed the LGBT propagandizing from its latest Star Wars movie. But why didn't they do the same thing for the American audiences? Does Disney really believe that general audiences in the United States want to watch the same insufferable "woke" filth?

In Singapore, where gay sex is illegal, movies that depict queer characters or queer romances usually receive at least an M18 rating, or an R21 rating if the LGBT content is considered egregious enough. (Only people above the ages or 18 or 21 can watch movies with such ratings.) Such content is censored from TV shows too.

Good! The same thing needs to happen in the United States, Canada, and other English-speaking countries with a considerable share of the prospective audience market share.

These censorship rules are based on the idea that media content should not “promote homosexual lifestyles” – that seeing gay characters onscreen will turn children gay – which is, of course, rubbish. 

And there you have the not-so subtle arrogance of these entertainment writers and reporters. The truth is that the LGBT Agenda has been fighting for a long time to normalize their sexual perversions for general audiences, especially children. Gay activists made their intentions very clear in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were not agitating merely for political acquiescence. They expected to be accepted, and they insisted that they would not rest until homosexual and transgender behaviors and conduct.

In their latest push for accommodation, domination, and admiration, the LGBT lobbies are demanding that their characteristics behaviors receive considerable attention and promotion in the arts and entertainment industries. When does this abuse of the public square cease?

Even the way local mainstream media reported the news was telling. Yahoo Lifestyle SEA first broke the news that the gay kiss in TROS had been censored in Singapore. It was only days later that mainstream publications such as The Straits Times and Today Online featured the same news – using foreign news wire articles, mind you, not their own reporting. This was after international news outlets such as BBC and the New York Times had already picked up the news. 

There is a silver lining to this revelation: major news outlets like the British Broadcasting Corporation and the New York Times are not that major anymore. In fact, the legacy media is in complete freefall as fewer people are putting up with the Marxist propagandizing which has become so ubiquitous. In fact, this is great news for pro-family and pro-tradition forces throughout the world.

TROS is groundbreaking in being the first global blockbuster to feature a same-sex romantic kiss. But it’s by no means the first instance of LGBT representation in tentpole Hollywood films.

No, what is truly ground-breaking is that the Disney Corporation has ruined the Star Wars franchise so completely. Despite a decent revenue haul over the past two weeks, this movie had the worst opening weekend of all the Star Wars movies. "Get woke and Go Broke" now has struck the Disney Corporation and its Star Wars franchise.

The Beauty And The Beast live-action remake was the first Disney film to feature gay characters. Marvel’s Avengers: Endgame had a minor gay character that mentioned dating another man. Star Trek Beyond retconned Hikaru Sulu into a gay character complete with husband and daughter. Pixar’s Toy Story 4 had a female same-sex couple with a son in kindergarten. (These films all received PG ratings in Singapore since the gay characters were tiny parts of the movies – and they didn’t kiss.)

These themes should not be promoted to children, to anyone. How much longer before everyday movie-goers rebel in larger measure by boycotting these movies?

The kiss in TROS may have been merely a split-second nod to LGBT inclusion. But Hollywood giant Marvel Studios, which is also a subsidiary of Disney, has stated its commitment to portraying greater diversity in the next phase of its hugely popular movies.

Greater diversity is going to be mean less prosperity very soon.

The upcoming Thor: Love And Thunder will feature a queer romance involving the bisexual Valkyrie, played by A-lister Tessa Thompson. And The Eternals, which counts Angelina Jolie among its cast, will feature a gay superhero character

Will Singapore censor such movies? Marvel is a cinematic powerhouse that has influenced global pop culture profoundly. It now boasts the box-office record for highest grossing film for Avengers: Endgame (US$2.8 billion or S$3.8 billion), which capped off a decade-long blockbuster saga. If Singapore censors LGBT characters from these beloved movies, it will be very obvious to millions of local and global moviegoers how backward our government is. 

People in Singapore really should not care what other countries think of them. The fact that Asian countries are more faithful to family commitments than diversity quotas works in their favor. More countries need to be committed to promoting what is right, true, and good, not "accepting." Besides, so-called cinematic powerhouses risk losing whatever funding or cultural influence the more that they continue pushing sexual perversion and deviance onto the greater culture. In fact, more countries are taking firmer steps against LGBT hegemony within their borders, in large part because of the virulent spread of venereal disease.

Let’s do some thought experiments. What if the LGBT storyline featuring Tessa Thompson in Thor: Love And Thunder leads to, say, three minutes being cut from the movie so that it gets a PG13 rating? What if 10 minutes are cut? What if The Eternals are rated R21 because the gay protagonist cannot be excised from the story? What if Marvel decides to withdraw the movie in Singapore rather than bow to censors? What would that say about Singapore, supposedly an open and cosmopolitan city?

How does one define "open" or "cosmopolitan"? Allowing rampant homosexuality and other forms of sexual degradation in the movie industry has not opened up the industry, but rather shown how closed off, how narrow-minded the industry has become. This kind of "openness" is rather stagnating and debilitating, actually. Singapore is rightly to reject such presentations.

My guess is that many Singaporeans would feel, at best, indignant, and at worst, embarrassed at the image portrayed of our country. 

This "woke" entertainment journalist is so out of touch, one has to wonder how much longer he will remain in business or even have a job with "Yahoo News Singapore."

It’s not just Disney or blockbusters that are becoming more inclusive. There has been a general trend towards diversity in films and television. Singapore’s censorship will likely kick in increasingly, as content features more LGBT characters. Already, two Netflix cartoon series – The Dragon Prince, and She-Ra And The Princesses Of Power – have M18 ratings in Singapore because of lesbian characters. These are shows meant for kids. 

Children's cartoons?! The targeting and systematic indoctrination toward children is beyond outrageous. American audiences should be raising alarm on this perverted content. It should not be released to any country.

With OTT streaming becoming more common, censors will increasingly become less relevant as well, since the final arbiter of content consumption on Netflix is the parent holding the restriction passcode, and not a committee of state-appointed censors. 

Mr. Teng Yong Ping obviously missed the memo, in which more Netflix subscribers have happily decided to cancel their subscriptions rather than permit such LGBT filth into their homes. Parents are engaging their rights to protect their children from such brazen indoctrination. Children deserve to know the truth about LGBT behaviors, that they are inherently disordered and destructive, and

The trend towards diversity is inevitable and a positive sign of progress in LGBT representation in media. Queer people, as do women and minority groups, deserve to see themselves being represented in the films and TV shows that reflect our culture and communities. 

Here we go: "The trend toward diversity is inevitable." Not so fast. This "wrong side/right side of history" argument has been quite popular with the Left. They love to give this impression that the rushed imposition of homosexuality, transgenderism, and the like is inevitable in our global or even in local cultures. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that more young people are becoming increasingly strained by and disdainful of this whole LGBT Agenda. They have grown up recognizing at the outset that it's a tyrannical regime. The whole LGBT push has nothing to do with "Live and Let Live" tolerance, as they had falsely yet persuasively claimed twenty years ago.

Having said that, it is certainly a government’s prerogative to censor what it deems harmful to society. But if Singapore’s censors choose to continue erasing queer people from our stories, they will find that the bigotry and homophobia in the country will be more and more obvious to the rest of the world.

"Queer people" do not exist. This is a lie, and more people are waking up to this lie. The Republic of Singapore has every right to censor such content, and the parents and stakeholders in the city-state have every right to continue demanding the diminution of such perversity in the public square.

Final Reflection

The entertainment industry has long sought to position itself as the full and final arbiter of culture taste and norms. However, they have pushed this intended hegemony too far, neglecting to realize that there is a growing cohort of men and women, especially from younger generations, who are tired of LGBT issues being imposed on the general cultural narrative.

There is nothing in this life that is inevitable. The notion that homosexual privileges will gain inevitable ascendancy simply is not true. There is a subtle yet growing culture undercurrent that is militantly pushing back against the normalization of homosexuality, transgenderism, and other paraphilias around the world. The entertainment industries are already discovering that their growing push to make something unnatural and abnormal into something, well, normal is not working. Hollywood does not have the industrial pre-eminence that it once possessed. Corporate media in the United States and throughout the world is not as strong as it used to be, either. Silicon Valley social media giants are starting to face fresh competition, as well, since individual users can propagate their views through different venues.

No, LGBT domination is not inevitable. In fact, the arrogant pre-eminence of this movement, now demanding its place in children's libraries and general entertainment, has proved to the public that this LGBT Agenda was never about "Live and Let Live", but rather "We live, and you live with it, or else."

The Republic of Singapore has every right to deem that LGBT content should not be broadcast to children. They nation and its people have every right to decide that they do not want a culture which promotes homosexual content and ideas to others, especially to children.

The ramblings of one "woke" (and possibly gay) entertainment journalist (in reality, propagandist) has little to no bearing on what will happen in the long-term in the Republic of Singapore. To be candid, more countries, more movie attendees should follow Singapore's lead and take a firmer stance toward censoring such perverse LGBT content in movies, television programs, but especially in cartoons and any other content geared toward a younger audience.