valusa tõe hoiukoht

The propaganda of homosexualism – why exactly is it dangerous to youth and children?


This is a modest attempt to translate a very popular Estonian-language blog entry. We really apologise for the translation quality – it has been accomplished by an amateur. If you are a native speaker, you can donate some working hours to improve the translation.

While reading such a culturally rich text, some important cultural and linguistic details are to be taken into account. As of today, Estonians aren’t yet bought the homosexuality as a behavioural norm (as required by EU and western civilization). Despite some huge and externally financed brainwashing campaigns (homo-parades etc), an average Estonian still strongly believes the homosexuality is a disease. However, and it should be very clear,  Estonians do not think that disease being curable, once an infection occurred (which leads to the situation Estonians will mostly not attack homosexualists in public), but most of Estonians still believe the issue is avoidable by limiting the contacts with wrong people and closing the mind to wrong influence/ideology. Due to some special kind of survival awareness inherited from Soviet times (KGB, totally controlled society etc), an average Estonian will usually not reveal what he/she actually thinks.

Then we have a special note about the terminology. Estonian word “pederasty” has several strong side connotations like “undue situation” and “disorder“. In Estonian language, there is a completely new word “pederasm” which meanings (beside the obvious one) are “overall nihilism“, “unjustice“, even “faggot-sponsored society” and “homosexual world order“. There have been numerous but so far unsuccessful tries at Estonian bulletin boards to censor off “offending” words like “pederasty” and “pederasm” to deprive opposition the very termins and to force them using official soft-neologisms like “gays” and “lgbt”, but so far the only result of that has been the appearance of completely new and even more damaging euphemisms like “kakanoku” – shitdick – or “pepuvend” – arse-brother or even “liberasty” and “tolerasty” – noting the societal order where pederasty is tolerated. This way, Estonia could worldwide serve as an excellent model indicating what will happen when trying to introduce the viewpoints by money and influence.

A note about the legal heritage. “Pederasty” as a punishable deed was included in the following Penal Codes active on Estonian territory:

  1. Russian Penal Code of 1832 (see §995 criminalized consent anal sex while §996 criminalized forced sodomy (committed by misusing the position) .
  2. Estonian Penal Code of 1929 (see §479 – Pederasty
  3. During Soviet times (1940-1990) Estonian Criminal Code actually copied the structure of Soviet Russian Criminal Code (or 1934 origin) where pederasty (with actual meaning of “man-penetration”) always was a punishable deed.
  4. Estonian Criminal Code of 1992 – (see §118 – Pederasty (well, sodomy). In 1992 the pederasty between two adults was decriminalized and then, in 2001 a new Penal Code issued without any mention to pederasty at all.

There are two serious issues here. First, the legal continuity. After some activities have continuously remained illegal during at least 160 years, these now suddenly started to be advertised as an acceptable norm. Normally at least one generation is needed to accept such U-turns. The second problem is a linguistic one – general public has no idea whether “pederasty” meant “anal” in 1832 – or was it felt as “sodomy” (a very vague termin including animal penetration) or either of these termins included extra “boylover” connotation which should be rather called “male aimed pedophilia” or even “pedophilic pederasty” in our contemporary world.

This way, two distinct realities currently exist in Estonia. The historical tradition and common wisdom is now clearly opposed by the official EU-sponsored pseudo-truth which make use of some characteristic neutralized words like “LGBT” and “gay” in contrast to the actual reality, where words like “pede” and “pederast” (faggot) prevailed. The problem lays in the fact these two realities never confront in public, except mutual trolling at respective bulletin boards. The official (EU-induced) lgbt-ization has arrived by lethal force, not involving any discussion in Estonian society. Even humanitary arguments once used to legalize the pederasty in West, have equally not been discussed here. As we say in Estonia, a steam-roller has been used to ran us down. A less known but very interesting fact is that the society is much less confronting the lesbianism than the pederasty, which could be explained by a the clear lack of instrumental “power” component in most lesbian contacts.

Last but not least – a couple of words about the very definition of an “Estonian” – we (Estonians) never mean the citizenship. We very strongly mean the language, culture and nationality (as opposed to the “eestimaalased” – people living in a country called Estonia). In context of our topic, it effectively means, most Russians (disregarding their actual citizenship) are cursing homosexualism and pederasty even more deeper – the views of their orthodox church are the direct cause of that. A big cultural difference is that while orthodox and catholic believers are fighting their views in open discussion, an average Estonian will never behave this way. The maximum you can expect from an average Estonian, is deeply but quietly sabotaging the sponsored “official” view.

The real value of the underlying text probably lays in the fact that while the text (without any doubt) constitutes a serious and accountable criticism on the LGBT value chain, it succeeds to do so leaving out any biological or moral aspects of gay opposition, but achieves the result via studying the sexual ontogenesis of an individual and clearly demonstrates the fragility of the natural mechanisms of sexual learning of a child, which are prone to be hopelessly owned and totally misused through the contemporary LGBT propaganda.



In Estonian (secondary) schools, ad-hoc lections on homosexuality are suprsisingly considered much more important than any generic sexual education. As of an advertising an exception could ever be more significant than a rule. And then, LGBT people are telling only partial truth in these “field lectures”. We are not sure most of them even know the full truth. And, as a consequence, the is a relatively high pressure on a old-fashined teacher (note: the absolute majority of teachers at Estonian schools are female while their average age is 50+). How to find the grain of truth in the middle of conflicting sexual ideologies?

[links to local progay propaganda omitted]

The aim of current writing is to deliberately throw off any kind of political correctness, but honestly and in open fashion explain to educators all the finesses of ongoing pederastic propaganda.

We should start with the apprehension that LGBT propaganda both in society and particularly in schools retains many features of the advertising (with a little difference that ads normally promote a “product” while PSYOP usually challenges the mindset). Unsuccessfully we cannot deny the fact – the money for propaganda has come from outside. And very likely somebody (somewhere) has even a detailed but non-public plan with all the goals indicated – in modern society the charity money assumes certain accountability.

In other words – somebody has extra money and he is not willing to spend it for charity, for the fight with fatness or poverty; instead of these goals he desires to change the attitude of somebody else (in our case the attitude of the majority in our society) – when paraphrased, somebody would like to prescribe us what is moral and right since today and what turns to be amoral from now. Such kind of powerful transforming the public opinion is unprecedented and has no analogies on world scale, excluding maybe the 1960-s active marketing of holocaust consequences.

But then, the ads are always limited timewise and as well as by amount of cash used. Ads can evaluated as a model, as a simplified reality. There are some natural limits imposed by human conciousness – how extensive re-programming can we do within 50 kiloEUR budget or how profound or complex can be the conveyed message  provided the timespan is  30 sec or 30 min. Let’s assume the ad will assess a coffee pack or washing powder – in this case the resulting images do not even pretend to be omnifarious. What we see, the ad will create a minute-long soft and nice image, will introduce that image to the human brain and, knowing how human brain works with the pattern, will hope that sometimes in future, most presumably at some important decision point (e.g. in shop, amid the goods), just the image induced will materialize.

We reiterate it – it is very difficult if not possible to explain the whole world during a half a minute nice ad or half-an-hour very positively tuned gathering. No, you only can sell a couple of memes during that time. And, it is very important, in ads you cannot neither derogate the competitor nor give any in-depth praise on your own product (or, hmm, the philosophical viewpont). The wider conclusion is that no ad campaign is suitable to seriously assess the benefits or shortcomings of a product on sale – some critical thinking is still required.

Now it is very convenient to return to our initial postulate and speculate what will happen if LGBT people will keep silence about certain things, during their paid ads. What if the omerta actually includes some critical knowledge absolutely necessary for schools and teachers?


First important omission is the percentage of people practicing LGBT (see [10]). (One can argue whether it constitutes 1% from the capita or a little bit more, but it’s a marginal group anyway.) While relating the adepts number to the cash spent on the ads … sorry, for the awareness campaigns, then we probably feel it – there is no another topic sold so powerfully. Even AIDS campaigns have less money behind them. Each individual has his freedom of decision but at least me do not want to be changed due to a prepaid propaganda campaign. I want to make my value judgements myself, and before changing my mind, I want weight facts pro and contra. Is it wished too much? However, the very existence of a large budget to promote a tiny issue should put all critically thinking individuals on their back feet.

Certain homosexual propaganda is very rude, instructing adepts for “effective” handling not only the standpoints but also the carriers of “unsuitable” standpoints []:

"Make victimizers look bad by linking to Nazi horror while helping straights to see gays as victims and feel protective towards them. Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality."

[Marshall Kirk, Hunter Madsen – After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s –]

And … for in the case you did not notice …  in the situation when an average schoolteacher in Estonia is a 50+ old lady, we haven’t yet said a word about morality.


But let’s continue. According to the textbooks, there are several distinct groups of homosexuals. One kind of these probably have the genetical pre-disposition. Probably these people are unhappy because they have no freedom to change their orientation (still one can demagogically ask whether a donkeyfriend or a pedophile have?). Another kind of homosexuals have acquired the disposition during their lifetime. This is the group we mostly want to talk about, and we want to indicate it relatively precicely, how and on what conditions can these choices be influenced. But then there is a third group, let’s call them “the swamp”, it includes various experimenters, bisexuals and all other people incapable to definitely express their “devotion” at the moment of yet another LGBT opinion poll.

This way, we talk about acquiring some sexual preferences while not at all are these all linked to LGBT background. Sexuality and mating is a relatively complex topic, because, before two beings meet, the Nature will put a bunch of hindrances on their way, to ensure the pair exhibit the topmost features and do match best before consummating the Life. Part of the most dark and shady preferences are transmitted via DNA while another kind of preferences (like copulation expertise) are too complex to ever encode them into DNA. This is why those preferences are imparted socially. The younger generation will observe the older one at these activities and will copy the rituals.


Human experimentation is not favoured in modern society but experiments with animals are still possible. The research by Woodson [2] deals with the isolation experiments where lab animals (rats, birds, dogs) are grown up in a complete isolation from animals of their kind. After reaching the mating maturity, it becomes evident that the very ability to copulate depends heavily on the fact whether male animals have ever met other members of the same species. The most interesting fact – even the slightest previous experience – seeing other animals of its kind or communicating with these will improve the result vastly.

Woodson concludes – “On one hand there is evidence of a heterosexually oriented predisposition in males of many species, and along with this predisposition should come, on average, reproductive benefits. On the other hand, there is an important and perhaps necessary role for experience at many developmental stages, and it appears that sexual learning mechanisms are potent enough to override a heterosexual predisposition under certain circumstances“.

Woodson cites the works of Nash and Domjan [3], these scientists experimented with the learning mechanism in “this field” more widely.
"In a remarkable series of experiments, Nash and Domjan tested the biological limits of discrimination learning using individually housed, initially sexually inexperienced male brown Japanese quail. [..] The experimenters manipulated the opportunity for each male bird to copulate with either a bown female of the same strain, or with a blonde female quail from a separate strain. Despite prepubertal exposure to brown females (which is reported to be sufficient for the establishment of sexual imprinting in the species, and which normally results in a preference for brown females), sexual experience with blonde females in adulthood was sufficient to establish and to maintain significantly higher levels of social proximity behavior near those animals compared to the brown quail females."

Even more quotes from the same source:
"A second experiment suggests that, in male quail, a `homosexual' preference can be learned just as rapidly as a cross-strain preference". [..] Thus, Nash and Domjan have not only provided evidence to support a role for learning in the establishment of partner preference, but also have demonstrated that other developmental factors can bias the processing of sexual experiences to predispose a hetero-sexual preference in males."

Woodson further cites Beach [4]: "The findings listed above all support a concept which might be termed 'learned sexuality'. [..] Beach noted that experiences ocurring during initial sexual contact were particularly potent in their effects on subsequent sexual responsiveness."

Beach made an experiment with three groups of 18 male rats in each:
(1) isolated males were raised alone withtheir dam until weaning at 25 days of age, and then housed individually until testing,
(2) males were isosexually group reared with five other males,
(3) heterosexually group reared males were raised with two other males and three

At 95 days of age, mating tests were conducted with estrous females for 25 consecutive days. On the initial test, four isolated males, 11 isosexually reared males, and 17 heterosexually reared males displayed an ejaculatory pattern. By the second test, all the heterosexually reared males copulated completely (met the criterion of achieving ejaculation), and this group maintained their performance to the end of testing. Limited experience allowed the isosexually group-reared males to approach the competence level of the heterosexually group reared males. By the eighth test, 95% (all but one rat) of the isosexually-reared males copulated completely and this groups’ performance subsequently remained at the 95% level. The performance of the males reared in isolation, however did not peak until much later, during the 14-th test, at which point five of the 18 males still did not ejaculate. Those five males remained deficient until the end of the testing.

Some scientists in Japan have tried to model the cooperative mating behaviour, using hardware robots [5]. Mathematically, the mutual awareness and complex movement of the bodies is a complex task which only can be successfully solved a) using some learning algorithms and b) on the condition that the movement “primitives” have been shifted to the hardware level. Doesn’t it sound familiar?


So far have we investigated how skills are acquired in Nature. Now it is time for real life examples. And we shall start from sexual learning mechanisms so deeply described by Woodson.

City called Perm is located in Russia – it is a typical industrial city, where parents worked at factories and children lived relatively carefree. Until approximately at 1998 some strange things started to happen – children, more frequently the boys, started to disappear. They just vanished, but re-appeared several days later, unblemished.

As it became clear later, everything focused around someone Sevastjan Kaptsugovitch,  teacher by profession [6]. Uncle Seva opened a photo and movie studio. All boys in the city from grades 3-7 knew the rules. First they were photographed dressed and 100-200 roubles was paid for it. If the face was unsuitable, 50 roubles was paid with the advise to never come back. But those, satisfying certain known criteria, the shooting was continued naked and paid 300-400 roubles for session. The “best” ones managed to earn 3000-4000 roubles per week. Cigarettes and wines were distributed among boys, children were accustomized to the thinking that both mutual sex and sex with an “uncle” was completely normal. Because boys had no external reference, they appraised the teaching as the norm. Nobody was raped and boys were able to keep the secrecy.

Ended the story as numerous similar stories – “uncle” Seva was put behind the bars and child porn was confiscated. But what remained, was the homosexual orientation of hundreds of young men. The “uncles” landed in prison but boys continued “to do it” with each other, and what was most terrible – involving the next generation of children for the purpose.

A story interchangeably similar happened in city Novo-Kuibyshevsk, in Samara district [7], where to faggotize the whole city (once again) only one “uncle” was required. This time, the name of the “uncle” was Vladimir Timofeyev and of course his business idea was to produce child porn for western markets. To the end, “Uncle” Timoha got lazy enough to personally recruit the adepts but told his “artists” to do the work. The most shocking was a description from a  boy complaining he already had initiated four youngsters during the day and due to his achy member, he probably could not undertake the fifth one.

The plot got a solution when a young boy asked his mother at home – “ma, what does it mean – the time has come to sell your arse”… At a years long delay the militia appeared, confiscated the videotapes and put the “uncles” into prison, from where, we have to say, they were freed suspiciously soon. Several boys later choosed the porn actor profession. Hearsays claim that after the arrest of “uncle Timoha”, children went to city Perm by foot, to see their precious Uncle [8]. Let this example underscore the unpleasent power of the sexual learning mechanisms we all inherited from Nature.

Both these stories are too complex to cite them in full length or with full details involved, but there is a special word in Russian language about these cities – blue cities (голубые города / faggot cities). As evident, a random city only needs one charismatic person to create a self-sustaining and continual “community” which is capable to offer the alternative “targets” even years later. And … Russia has much more of these cities beside the two described here…

Let’s put it straight, these are very embarrasing stories. To peruse them, one has to know foreign languages. In contemporary Estonia there is yet another problem – from the standpoint of political correctness, such events are prohibited ever to happen – because pedophilia and pederasty are indistinguishably mixed in these stories … something that the modern LGBT viewpoint never tolerates.


The reader might think in relation to the previous stories that, sad, but the gang’s pressure or economical conditions forced poor people to change their sexual preferences. The next story indicates that, provided you possess the necessary knowledge and skills, it is possible to gain the trust in a permanent way. The “victim” will feel himself harrased nor during the events neither later.

In Brisbane, Australia, a former court reporter Clarence Osborne managed to have sexual contacts with more than 2500 boys during the preceeding 20 years [9]. Osborne was often driving around the city and seeking for the boys. In Osborne’s own words, the boys had ‘to look as though they might be willing’.

Osborce claimed he only needed a look at the boy to decide whether or not the boy is “interested”. According to Osbornes’s theory, young males have a very specific development period during which they are interested to talk about their sexuality, to compare themselves “physically” to the “norm” and even undertake certain experiments for the reason. The man probably knew how important it is for teenagers, to speak about sex.

He usually started to talk with a boy and created an emotional and a physical contact. Could be, first in his life, the boy was able to discuss some taboo questions or to be convinced in his “normality”. In our society one can talk about love but not about technical details how the “hardware” works.

In contrast to preceeding stories, Osborne did not pay nor offer some other values. Osborne listened carefully. As a mentor he helped boys to overcome certain problems, he made relatively scientific notes in his diary and that was it! Osborne did not betray a confidence – he always honestly told boys how things really are. He did not err the minors. If “something” ever happened, then only on mutual consent.

In certain age, boys are extremely interested in it, whether all their organs are having the proper length. They are interested, how “it” works and also eager to learn about the correct mating procedures. We probably should say all these are questions that contemporary sexual education fails to address (in Estonian schools, aside from the very suitability of teachers to give side disciplines, there are clear divides between teachers and students agewise, culturewise and genderwise). But Osbourne was able to discuss these topics well and, if needed, gave some practical advise to boys. Of course, Osborne was a brilliant listener. Regarding males, their need for love and affection is often underestimated. Most probably Osborne had to offer something that is neglected by the canonical education.

The answer to the question – what happen afterwards – mostly was: nothing too deep. In many cases Osborne acted as a helping hand. Only in cases the “client” asked it directly, something more heavyweight happened.

But most interesting, no one of over 2500 clients of Osbourne agreed to write a complaint to police, while the all names and addresses were known from Osborne’s own notes. These few ever agreed to talk to the police said, everything that happened was  a rather positive and educating experience, which helped them over a difficult life situation.

The rhetorical question in western society (where the image of “old dirty men” is even more powerful than that of “terrorists” or “enemies of the state” are) is, – how at all is it possible to misuse a child so effectively that it is consent with the deed both during the actual event and then, as continuously so as an adult, even tens of years later.

The embarrasment related to the story lays in understanding that in addition to officially marketed myths about pedophilia (where older and wiser partner is always evil), there are some normally suppressed “extra circumstances” related to Osborne case and, according to these, boys themselves (and why not girls) at a certain age are actively seeking for adventures of sexual nature.

Unfortunately, we have to discuss these topics, because exactly the same vector  Osborne used to initiate contacts with boys and, which makes youngsters to contact adults to verify their sexuality, the same vector makes the child in gentle and subtle phase of the development absolutely defenceless in front of LGBT propaganda. Precisely when a child needs some inner understanding how “these things” work, the representative of agressive LGBT community steps into the classroom to offer a “legally correct” sublimate (hmm, instead of the reality).

TAM2012 gathering took place 12-15 July 2012, and psychologist Deirdre Barrett talked there about “Supernatural Stimuli” and demonstrated how to redirect animal’s sex drive using some artificial objects. It is relatively easy to trick wasps and birds “mate” some technogenic objec. It is known that some orchids use that kind of mimicry [] and [].

Robin Baker in his Sperm Wars [] gives an example: if a girl gains her first experience in violent or rape-like sex, she is likely to prefer the hardstyle further in her life. This underscores the importance of the first contact.


We would like to introduce an interesting US research [12], where a wide scope of risk behaviour (open seatbelt, drugs, unsafe sex) was analyzed and mapped to the sexual preferences of young people. A very modestly worded conclusion was: “Compared with students who are not sexual minorities, a disproportional number of sexual minority students engage in a wide range of healt-risk behaviours.“. The classical conclusion would probably be that there is something ‘loose’ in the heads of young people with non-standard sexual preferences. While the correlation itself is evident and proved by the research, the direction of that relation could be astonishly wrong…

Is it possible that vice versa, not the genetically disposed sexual preference makes one to take risks but, kids of sensitive and delicate nature are more eager to experience “all” they see and hear, be that alcohol, drugs, riding the bicycle without helmet or practicing extreme forms of sex? But if so, then the LGBT troupe visiting the school will become a predetermined trap for these students. It only depends on the teacher, how deep she lets children to fall into that trap.


The summary: very likely there is a certain age in individual development, where boys and girls are highly responsive to any influence of sexual character. Everything that is experienced at this critical age, will be later taken as norm and basis, the personality will build it’s sexual life upon. Stories above mostly dealt with boys, however, the absence of a father or his substitution in age 11-14 will almost certainly induce later problems for girls – e.g. while choosing the partner. However, boys are much more fragile – even a single event can drastically change their orientation and therefore, the whole life.

When LGBT propaganda subsidized by foreign money reaches the school, then the teacher absolutely must weight the contraindications. Is it really OK to tell homosexual fairytales to a child at a fragile age, while it’s known before – every powerful stimuli will be transformed into the norm in child’s mind?! Homosexualism can be exorcised nor by law nor by deed … it purely exist. But maybe should we screen children (in certain subtle development phase) from any jarring LGBT propaganda? Analytically there are only two possibilities for doing so, either to interdict agressive LGBT propaganda at all (which trend is noticed in Russia, Lithuania and other countries with strong hierarchical church system) or, to protect children by means of transferring some basic knowledge to them about their sprouting sexuality even before admitting any LGBT propaganda. To tell the truth, either of these solutions seem to unacceptable to the “moral majority”, first method seems to assault “democracy” (or at least the subtype of the democracy called liberastia here), while the second has to refract some profound sexual education taboos in society wider. If so, then the price for delaying with that decision is a LGBT community of constantly growing size, but hopefully restricting itself after reaching the theoretical limit.

The teacher probably still should consider the development phase of each child, as well as the lifelong interests of a child. The teacher has to understand that acquiring a non-standard sexual preference will make the individual’s life considerably more complex as an adult. It is not a secret that manifestation of STDs is much frequent for the people with sexual life much differing from the traditional (I really would like to say – normal) one. It is not a secret that homosexuals who have long spent in the closet, could have certain polarizing character shift, which enables them to see the world black-white (also see ponerology, [14]. It seems like this shift has some common attributes with the character shift specific to epilepsia (depression, empathy decrease). But as an important difference, LGBT adepts glorify the fight, they maintain the very possibility of subjugating “the enemy”, and improve their own life quality via this act and, at least within some limited reference system, it enables them to live an unconstrained life … For outsiders it means the obligation to “enjoy” a personality gifted, uncompromising and immune to any critics, whose destiny is to constantly hover somewhere between depression and orgastic enlightenment.


A question worth a separate investigation is, how to assess the ability of persons so declined from the average to adequately perceive another people … these  within the norm. Do any rules or behaviour code exist to maintain the unbiased attitude to the representatives of a different world and neutral communication?  Indeed, Judit Strömpl [13] defines so called “sensitive topics” (or should we say subjects dictating some extra safety requirements).

Backtranslation from (Holstein & Gubrium 1995): “The role of an investigator is to be an understanding and active listener who is neither teaching nor representing the norm. As a social actor, (s)he can belong to other groups – be adult, have heterosexual identity and is not actively working with clients. His/her task is to comprehend the clients’ standpoint enabling the analysis of their behaviour.”

This excerpt demonstrates the truth recognised by social workers that the watershed between persons of different sexual identity could be very deep. To even get the access to the material under investigation, these  neutrality requirements mentioned above, are to be followed. The inability to establish the rapport without “rubber gloves” and special tactics, it suggests us that despite the politically correct (and seemingly neutral) opinion being introduced from above, the teacher in no way has to treat the homosexualist as a neutral researcher or a neutral opinion leader. Thas is what a homosexual certainly certainly is not. A homosexual has an own polarized agenda, an own “truth” and an attitude prescribing to never waive the “enlightenment” mission.

Judit Strömpl correctly identifies [13] that regarding homosexuality, this is not about sexuality, this is the question about power. A rough translation from the source:

"While planning the investigation of "sensitive topics", one should base on non-normative, non-discriminative theoretical paradigm (Hall et al. 2003; Parton & O’Byrne 2000). Most suitable for the purpose is the social-constructivistic theory based on the assumption that the essence of social phenomena is not imminently embodied in these phenomena but, constructed by humans during their everyday life (see e.g. Gergen 1999, 2001; Potter 2000). Above all is the process of such construction influenced by power relations and the desire of these in power to protect and recreate the existing order. To comprehend the real state of affairs, the phenomena are to be investigated not only by people at power position, but also by people experiencing the phenomena but whose voice is the weakest."

Sometimes the question arises, why the tolerance ends more abruptly for pederasty than lesbiality? Judit Strömpl has a clear answer for us: of course due to power relations arising from and around the penetration, which obviously lack the equivalent in lesbian world.

An understaning about the amount of cash spent and the power of technologies of political control involved, can rise a bewilderment, because the parties of the LGBT talk in Estonia have changed their positions within last 10 years. The bearer of normality is being demonized now and labelled as homofobic. But in light of research methods Strömpl describes, it can now be explained how it happened. A “sensitive person” was allowed to daydream on a “sensitive topic” and, according the instructions in source [1] and all the resulting fantasies, supported by EC money, were recorded into an official document as the actual reality. Rubber gloves critical to obtain these confessions, were forgot by intent. To remain balanced, we should still cite the notice on the European research document [17] which sounds:

"The material reflects the authors' opinion and European Commission takes no responsibility on the further usage of this information"...

This way, the document [17] is not at all an Absolute Truth despite as somebody uses it in its own gambits. But as one might see, the canonization risks remain high.

In original article, two Estonian language articles were linked. Tõnu Lehtsaar [10] clearly states: in no way the homosexuals are the weakest side but from now, the normalists and conservatives are. Ülo Vooglaid as a high level opinion leader has written it in an newspaper article that “pederasts are only the tip of an iceberg” [15] and earned a written defamation assault from gay leaders. However, the Estonian Press Council in its statement [16] said it clearly – if Vooglaid has the opinion that lewdness between individuals of the same sex is amoral, then according the §40 (freedom to think) and §45 (freedom to word) of the Estonian Constitution he has full right to distribute this opinion. And Vooglaid has never been instigating to any discriminination towards the homosexuals.

While seeking publication in printed media, an early version of current text was promptly denied. The reasoning was: 1) containing hate speech; 2) the rhetorical trick of confusing homosexuality with pedophilia”.


Sources listed from the original version:

[1] Kirk, Madsen, “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s”, 1989, vt

[2] James C. Woodson “Including `learned sexuality’ in the organization of sexual behavior”, 2001, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 26 (2002) 69-80,

[3] Nash S, Domjan M. Learning to discriminate the sex of conspecifics in male Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica): tests of `biological constraints’. J Exp Psychol: ABP 1991;17:342-53.

[4] Beach FA. Comparison of copulatory behavior of male rats raised in isolation, cohabitation, and segregation. J Genet Psych 1942;60:3-13.

[5] Stefan Elfwing jt, “Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning: Using Macro Actions to Learn a Mating Task”, 2004, Proceedings of 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems September 28 – October 2, 2004, Sendai, Japan,

[6] Nikolai Bahrošin, “Lillad poisikesed”, 2002,

[7] Larissa Kislinskaja – “Ettevaatust, pedofiilid!”,

[8] Sergei Mihailõtš, blogikirje –

[9] Paul Wilson, “The Man They Called A Monster”,1981, ISBN 0 7269 9282 8,

[10] Tõnu Lehtsaar – Vaikiv ajastu homoküsimuses, 2009 –

[11] Küsimused heteroseksuaalsele inimesele –

[12] Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health-Risk Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9–12 — Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, Selected Sites, United States, 2001–2009, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Early Release / Vol. 60, June 6, 2011 –

[13] – Judit Strömpl, „Tundlike teemade uurimine Eesti sotsiaaltööuurimuse kontekstis“ –

[14] – Poneroloogia – ;

[15] – Ülo Vooglaid –

[16] – Avaliku Sõna Nõukogu –

[17] – GLBT-inimeste ebavõrdne kohtlemine Eestis; Uuringu lõpparuanne

2012-07-23 - Posted by | English translations, LGBT propaganda koolis | , , ,

Kommentaare veel pole.

Lisa kommentaar

Täida nõutavad väljad või kliki ikoonile, et sisse logida: Logo

Sa kommenteerid kasutades oma kontot. Logi välja /  Muuda )

Google+ photo

Sa kommenteerid kasutades oma Google+ kontot. Logi välja /  Muuda )

Twitter picture

Sa kommenteerid kasutades oma Twitter kontot. Logi välja /  Muuda )

Facebook photo

Sa kommenteerid kasutades oma Facebook kontot. Logi välja /  Muuda )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: