▶ KGB defector and propaganda expert Yuri Bezmenov on the lie of "equality" - YouTube
Posted by UncommonSense 11 years, 11 months ago to Politics
This is regarding the on-going "equality", especially among the LGBT crowd. PAY ATTENTION to this superb video. "Yes, equality, yes equality, people are equal" (Russian accent)
Pay attention to what Yuri says beginning at 1:48. SPOILER: Anything built around "equality" will COLLAPSE. Stop pushing the propaganda of equality. Instead, start pushing for LIBERTY for individuals, free of Government interference.
Pay attention to what Yuri says beginning at 1:48. SPOILER: Anything built around "equality" will COLLAPSE. Stop pushing the propaganda of equality. Instead, start pushing for LIBERTY for individuals, free of Government interference.
SOURCE URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZatGAkBZcW4
After watching the video above I found another that is even scarier and correct in every point he makes. Please follow the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3nXvScRa... It is the perfect explanation for Obama or at least to what has happened to our population. Yuri Bezmenov indeed foretold the future and the future is here. His videos should be seen by every American and I humbly ask that you will send it to everyone you know. It is indeed late, but hopefully not too late to save this nation.
Sincerely yours,
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
"God is not a respecter of persons." = equality
An eye for an eye = equality
The Creator blesses the good, bad and ugly with the blessing of rain and sunshine = equality.
Everyone shall reap what they sow = equality.
12 There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. (Pro 14:12 NKJ)
We all need to examine our judgments and actions.
2 ".......yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. (Joh 16:2 NKJ)
In most struggles and conflicts, most people feel justified in what they choose to do to their enemies. The Pharisees of the Christ's day felt they were killing one man to save their nation from being wiped out by Rome and thus doing a righteous holy service to God. They were wrong.
The Creator has endowed all humans with unalienable equal rights( not equal strength, beauty, talent, etc.) and no individual, race, religion, royalty, etc. with superior rights. Those who have been forced to live with inferior rights have the right to use the minimum force necessary to increase their rights to a level equal to those who unjustly use offensive force to enforce their false superior rights. Any black or white who is willing to kill to enforce his false superior rights deserves to reap what he sows
One cannot "increase" or "decrease" rights. That's like increasing or decreasing pregnancy, or existence.
I like Bezmenov - he is like a pro-capitalist dynamo! I truly believe one has to experience the evils of the socialist communist machine to be able to so elequantly speak against it... They saw the deliberate destruction of their country by that horrid system, and as someone who actually crafted the propoganda for the "official party line" he comes off brilliantly.
But to tie his very true message about the falsehood of forced equality into some anti-GLBT message? That's flaky. I know a LOT more plundering socialist straight moochers than gay ones, and a lot more GLBT enterpreneuers, capitalists, and right-thinkers than communistic socialist ones.
Go ahead and fire away at examples of inequality. If it is about the sanctity of marriage, don't waste my time. NO ONE (Federal and/or State judges) can redefine what God has already defined. This of course, assumes you believe in God. (that's another argument, but not this thread). Nor can anyone legislate God into compromising on His own principles.
There are other videos of Yuri Bezmenov out there that cover the whole gamut of what the Soviet Union did to the U.S. concerning propaganda. While I can't precisely remember where at in the video segments he says it, there is a point at which he says 'when sexual orientation becomes political, that's communism.' That's the problem this nation is facing: the use of sexual orientation as a political weapon ~ much to the delight of our old adversaries, the communists. 'yes equality, equality...' It's decades-old propaganda and the LGBT crowd is fully hooked.
I don't give a damn what sexual orientation someone is. If they're a Producer and I like the product, I'll buy it if the price is agreeable. Using that example, the hypothetical LGBT Producer would actually be "more equal" over the competition simply because of pure economics. Sexual orientation does not win the $$.
Can any LGBT get a drivers license? Yes. Can they get a college degree? Yes. Can they go onto become Hollyweird movie stars? Yes. Can they become successful sports stars? Yes. Can they become Federal Judges? Yes. Can they join the military? Yes. Can they get any job they wish if they put their minds (key word there)? YES. Can they buy a house in any area they please if they have the $$ to afford it? Yes. Can they have Civil Unions? Yes.
Oh, but wait none of that matters. No they really want to be MARRIED IN THE EYES OF GOD. Sorry folks, that isn't happening. Sure, the LGBT crowd can force States to force Churches to "marry" them, but that doesn't mean GOD will ever recognize the marriage.
Aside from the marriage thing,(the LGBT crowd's problem is with GOD, not ME) I just don't see where the inequality is?
Before you go on ranting about what the so-called "Biblical" definition of marriage is, you might want to actual read the Bible. You might be surprised at what it says.
Religion and Gay Marriage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQw0eLzfG...
And no, it's not about being married in the eyes of God, it's about being married in the eyes of the state and the nation, so that they can get the same legal benefits which are given to straight couples. And no, civil unions (in states which allow them, which is only a few) do not give the same benefits as marriage. In every state where civil unions are available, they are far more limited and have several restrictions which marriage doesn't have. Therefore, they cannot be called equal treatment.
As for equality in other areas besides marriage, the discrimination is actually pretty severe. Granted, many people are able to avoid it and/or overcome it, but that doesn't mean the discrimination isn't there or that they have perfect equality. To suggest that there is no discrimination simply because various LGBT have succeeded in spite of discrimination is incredibly foolish.
Here, read these:
Fired For Being LGBT:
http://www.advocate.com/politics/2013/05...
Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey:
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/re...
When God decided that Adam shouldn't be alone, who did he create? Was it Steve or was it Eve? Just curious.
Taking religion out of it, and strictly looking at it from a biological perspective: biologically, homosexuality is wrong. It doesn't help the species survive. Two different sperm mixed together doesn't produce the next generation. Likewise, two eggs mixed together won't result in the next generation. Interesting isn't it? The point here is homosexuality ultimately would lead to the demise of the human species. So, I'm sure you can surmise I do not support the "lifestyle" or choice to be homosexual. Oh, I can hear the grumblings in the Gulch on this one.
Here we go. I condemn the sin, not the sinner. You may want to read that again. I condemn the sin, NOT the sinner. Yep, I'm Christian and NO, I'm not perfect either. I'm a sinner and so is everyone else. But, I pray for those who refuse JC & His message to open their hearts, repent & seek a new way of life, not my way, His way. And homosexuality (among many others) is not the way. Yes, I have known gay people & a couple of them I considered friends of mine. So, consider that before you potentially go down the 'bigot' name-calling path...
I disagree with you about being married in the eyes of God concerning LGBT. Marriage is a sacrament of God. It's not a State thing & never was. Rather than go after "marriage" the LGBT crowd needs to go after "civil unions" & change that definition to included the legal bennies that go with marriage, rather than going after the marriage sacrament itself.
Anyways, this post isn't about gay marriage. It's about when equality is the center focus on everything, it becomes a house made of cards. In the end, the LGBT crowd doesn't win, neither do the Christians, but the communists & the muslims do.
Oh, that reminds me. I challenge ANY LGBT couple to DEMAND to be "married" in a Mosque. Where's the vitriol by the LGBT crowd on Islam's view of marriage? I'll bet I'll hear deafening silence on that one. But no, there is no war on Christians is there? It's too easy to pick on the Christians isn't it?
And marriage has been a function of the state since the middle of the 19th century, so saying that it's a purely religious institution is simply incorrect.
Can you take two magnets with the same polarity and have them be attracted to each other? NOPE. It's wrong to think that two magnets with the same polarity are just as useful as two magnets with opposite polarity.
So your whole argument is centered on pure sexual attraction, and that there is nothing wrong being sexually attracted to anything, even if it isn't procreative? Hmmm, sounds a lot like 'do thou shall wilt' BS. Anything goes Maph is that it? That's satanic and yes, it's wrong.
Your view on open sexual attraction opens the door to even more perversion. If a guy is seriously sexually attracted to his dog/horse/sheep/automobile/DEAD PEOPLE , according to your flawed logic, you're ok with it?! Seriously. Your views are totally screwed up on marriage and sexual attraction.
Marriage is NOT is function of the State. Although your claim may be factually correct, concerning the middle of the 19th century, what about the 2-3000 YEARS before? Oh, that's right - it's about God & His sacrament.
Governments rise & fall, but God always remains the same. You can take gov't, I'll side with God. He was the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. With gov't, NO ONE can ever know what they'll get.
How do you define "right-thinkers"?
I'll link some pictures of the Folsom Street Fair and you point out to me all the entrepreneurs, capitalists, "right-thinkers"... and I'll point out to you all the socialists.
Clearly people are not equal in physical size, shape, or ability. Everyone is relatively unique in that respect (though at the same time, there are various categories into which most people can be grouped).
People also do not all have equal opportunity. A child who was born into a wealthy family is going to have far more opportunities and advantages in life than a child born in a trailer park. This is the particular kind of inequality which Socialists and Communists try to eliminate, though their methods actually make it worse, not better.
So if people are not equal in ability, intelligence, physicality, class, or opportunity, what other areas are there left for equality? The answer is simple: human rights. Everyone, regardless of race, sex, gender, class, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and any other immutable characteristic, all have the same basic human rights. One of the biggest issues that early European colonists had, and the reason many of them decided to come and settle in America was because several European countries did not permit commoners to have the same legal rights as royalty. There were many things which were legal for royals to do, but illegal for commoners to do. That is the type of inequality which is horribly unjust, and which the Founding Fathers set out to eliminate. The Deceleration of Independence reads, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Because equality can only be rightly applied to human rights and not material possessions, we can easily dismiss the Communist concept of equality as being fundamentally flawed and unworkable. But that does not mean we should dismiss equality entirely, as it really was one of the founding principles of our nation.
"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means as De Tocqueville describes it, 'a new form of servitude.' "
~ Friedrich von Hayek
Need examples? Ok, Ovomit care ~ we (the commoners) get the crap, they (the elite) are exempted from it. They get lifetime benefits after serving only ONE term in office. Meanwhile, our brave men and women in the military have to serve 20 YEARS before they can get a percentage of their base pay. Those are two examples of true "inequality".
Another reason why the first Europeans left (the Pilgrims) was to have the freedom of religion. Have you ever read the story behind their epic journey? It's something today's pathetic public schools do not teach. I learned all about it in my late 30's. How sad is that? Here's the spoiler: It was hellish.
Wrong. The correct way to phrase that is, "because several European countries did not permit commoners the same exercise of their rights as royalty".
It's still historically wrong, but at least my way it's accurate.
What do you mean?
Referencing Maphesdus: >>"It depends on what kind of equality we're talking about. This man, Yuri Bezmenov, apparently seems to believe that equality has only one meaning, when in fact it has several."<< That statement is indicative of the sort of problems that faces this country and all of us today, and if you pay attention to Bezmenov's positions and descriptions you'll discover the sources of much of it, that being the continued efforts to redefine, beyond historical and common sense definitions and meanings of words and concepts by those wishing to confuse and conflate together, solid ideas from separate areas of study or understanding into a nonsensical explanation.
"created equal" in the Declaration has nothing to do with the LGBT issue or the equality discussed by Bezmenov. The men that wrote the Declaration fully understood it to mean equal under law and at the moment of creation, and that all would have to experience life and it's common travails equally and at the end face a death unequally. They did not propose or believe that all are born into a world of equality in all and everything, that all are born with equal abilities or opportunities, that all would receive equal treatment in equal portions from everyone they encountered in life in every circumstance, or in any other way as argued and proposed in today's progressive and collectivist and moocher societies.
What's interesting to me of Brezemov's presentations is that he's speaking from some 29 years ago from an outsider's viewpoint about issues and predictions that I find to be more factually derived and therefor more threatening than Brave New Word, 1984, Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and several others. And I find it frightening that so many that think of and self describe themselves as Objective and Rational and of the Mind allow themselves to be drawn in to and participating in those very attempts to confuse and erroneously conflate from individual words or sentences picked from the references or issues posted for some BS purpose.
Is our world and country so far down the road that Brezemov describes and predicts that some of us are going to have to find a 'Gulch'? So far that we fear to or no longer know how to call BS?
Just some thoughts that popped as I've read the contents of several threads lately and this one particularly.
http://blog.reeset.net/wp-content/upload...
But yes, you are correct that the notion of equality as written in the Declaration of Independence was intended to mean equal rights, and not any other form of equality. I said as much in my own post.
As regards Jefferson's statement, I doubt that any could find justification to describe those men as 'barbarous ancestors.' In fact, I believe that most would find them to be more enlightened than most of today's population and no doubt better educated and more concerned for their progeny. It's only through redefinition and conflation that you find this 'notion of equality.'
I don't see how you can read that and not get equal rights out of it. >_>
As I keep telling everyone, groups do not have rights. Individuals have rights. Therefore, the are... EACH OF THEM... endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
"Rights" are not analog; there is no degree to possessing a right. You either possess it, or you don't.You can't apply equality to a binary concept like that.
But, no right can require the assertive effort of another. For example, there can be no "right to health care" *if* said care requires a doctor to work on you. Such slavery would violate the doctor's rights.
You can't have a "right" to a job, because that would require the employer to hire you.
You don't have a "right" to free condoms, because either someone has to pay for them, or someone else has to manufacture them without compensation. Further, someone must be compelled to manufacture them if nobody wants to manufacture them.
Tell me, how do you explain the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII? I guess since it was only against Japanese-Americans, a specific group, no one's rights were violated?
IF anyone's rights were violated (foreigner's rights are not protected by the Constitution), EACH person as an individual had his rights violated.
There were Japanese-Americans who were not interned; there were Japanese-Americans who fought in Italy. Were their rights violated, because they fit into the classification of "Japanese-American"? No. Because groups don't have rights. Because Ubuntu is a lie.
---
And you think the government was telling the truth?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS [...]"
This clearly says that all men are created equal, specifically in regards to their unalienable rights, which were endowed by their Creator. It can't be any more plain than that.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident,"
So what follows are self-evident truths.
"that all men are created equal,"
First self-evident truth.
"that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,"
Second self-evident truth.
"that among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness---"
Third self-evident truth.
"that to secure those rights, governments are instituted among men,..."
Forth self-evident truth.
"that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends..."
Fifth self-evident truth.
"...happiness."
End of sentence and list of self-evident truths deemed necessary to list by authors and signers.
Don't see 'equal rights'. You're perfectly free to interpret, be confused, or imagine something there that's not, but I don't have to agree with you and I'll continue to blame many (if not much) of the problems facing this country today on those of your ilk that do as you.
As an aside, I'm pretty confident that the authors of the DoL and the Constitution were probably fully cognizant of LGBT issues. Many of them were students of the natural sciences. It's not a new thing in the circumstances of human life anymore than any other birth defect. They just didn't imagine sexual preferences to be of any import or concern in entering into a revolutionary war against the most powerful nation on earth, or in instituting a completely new form of government.
And no one in the 18th century understood LGBT issues. They were aware that homosexuality existed, certainly, but that doesn't mean they understood it. The science on that subject wasn't conducted until the 20th century. Do you really want to hold the position that 18th century scientists and doctors were more knowledgeable than modern ones? I mean seriously, physicians in that day believed that using leeches to drain sick people of their blood was a beneficial way of healing people. But that pseudo-scientific belief led to the death of George Washington.