Are we having the conversation? A Lecture? Or an Agenda?

It looks as though I am not going to benefit from the House of Representative’s Health Care provision, because it leaves the door open to allow states to opt out, leaving the possibility of the elimination of preexisting conditions. Apparently, Rape, as the liberal media is trying to fabricate and contort, is the latest needle being thread to demonize any tweak to Obamacare. Now, my preexisting condition is more of a “mental rape”, due to the media mind melding that my family and I receive every evening from the top 3 Television networks…at the very least.

There’s truly nothing like turning on the TV, watching the Hollywood Left push LGBT lifestyles at every opportunity, and then have to explain it to my 5 year old as we eat dinner. Now before I go any further, please keep in mind that I’m not directing this rant at specifically towards same sex relationships. I’m using it as one of MANY examples of leftist bullet point wish list that is shoved into entertainment that we use to decompress from everyday life. But it gets thrust into our home. I guess that means we’re “having the conversation”. You know what? I want to have the conversation when I decide the conversation is necessary. When I DEEM it necessary. When real life provides me with an example to which I can teach my children. But even the conversation isn’t allowable through our free will, on my terms, by the leftists. The Tolerant, benevolent Progressive Left must DEMAND we have the conversation when THEY DECIDE. The Crux of their mission – control. Again, let me have the conversation when a real world experience provides me with the opportunity to do so. Maybe we encounter a person who is in the process of “transitioning” out in public. We can have the conversation then. Maybe we are out at a restaurant for dinner, and the server that greets us at the table is extra flamboyant. I’ll have the conversation then. But ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox…It’s not your responsibility to force the conversation after we finish watching Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy at 8pm on a Sunday afternoon, if we accidentally forget to change the channel. Most of those shows beat you in the head with it out of the gate. It’s not just a cold opening to a television show that starts with a risqué bedroom scene. It’s one that encompasses some sort of LGBT bedroom scene agenda that causes us to rush to catch the remote like a fumble at the one yard line in the final seconds of the Super Bowl. And not because it’s a same sex couple hooking up on TV. It’s because there’s sexually explicit encounters on television AND it’s with a same sex couple. If it were a heterosexual couple engaging in the activity, we would STILL have to scramble for the remote like a nuclear isotope. Hollywood spends a fair amount of energy trying to inject whatever will get a rise out of people that just want to have solid values. Whatever strikes a nerve is what Hollywood is more than happy to write into the script.

Now, I have many friends, coworkers, even a boss who was homosexual. That’s your deal. I couldn’t care less about what you do on your own time and in your bedroom. But, the agenda of magnifying the population size of these groups is in full steam on every show. The character is ALWAYS written into the script somewhere. And that’s because of the old saying “perception is reality”. The “All in the Family” sitcom formula. Only this time, it’s not to change hearts and minds of a viewpoint towards race of people who were not accepted as equal in the eyes of others. This time, it’s to normalize the mindset towards those who choose to follow a particular lifestyle. And it must be flashed continually, and flaunt it in every possible method one every type and style of Television show. And when inundated with it, we then hear the questions from our children. They are genially inquisitive and curious as to why they are doing what they are doing. Why they look and act the way they do. And it’s not because of cultural norms, it’s because if you take measures to force yourself to look completely opposite of how you were born, then curiosities arise. They’re trying to make sense of the world. And then, “the conversation” begins. And the conversation always MUST be had on their viewpoints. There is no conversation encouraged about inherit, God-given rights, freedom, and liberty. The conversation must be about progressive agendas and special interest platforms.

Think about the last time America was united, arguably at its greatest. September 12, 2001. American Flags on every car and a muted, special interest. There were no arguments about a multitude of sub genders. There wasn’t any outrage over whether or not we should change the name of college administration leadership from Master to Magister, because of some crazy linkage to slavery. We weren’t offended over every single thing, but if we were, we didn’t care to complain about it. But at a certain point encroachment occurs, on a level which forces itself into the makeup of your values, is framed as a “conversation about tolerance”. After 9/11/2001, all of that took a pause. And really, we shouldn’t need a 9/11 event to push us to the core of what our principles and values SHOULD be, regarding liberty and freedom.

It’s not simply homosexuality and transgenderism that we have to have “The Conversation” about. It’s all of the leftist talking points: “

The problem is the conversation you’re wanting to have is like that annoying person at the kiosk in the mall who chases you with the forehead massager or perfume. It’s as annoying as the Timeshare phone call you never want to answer. They box you into a corner and start spewing their BS, while you’re expected to sit there and take it, comply, and accept their demands. A conversation requires a back and forth, a sharing of discussion points. Or, as it’s defined: The informal exchange of ideas by spoken words.

We’re not getting an “exchange”. We’re getting a lecture. We are supposed to tolerantly sit there and take it. See, when people hear Conservatives argue against these wins by saying, “This is a slippery slope” it’s because conservatives understand the natural reactions that come from push certain boundary’s over. Without any self-awareness, they find themselves actually putting the WD40 on the freaking slide and sliding down the slope. Because the conversation doesn’t just stop there…it gets forced down a rabbit hole of insanity, like what was displayed at the MTV Movie and TV Awards.

(This from the Daily Wire)

“This year has been full of firsts for me. I am the first, openly, non-binary actor to play a non-binary character on a major, television show and now it’s so cool to be here presenting the first, acting award ever that celebrates performance, free of any gender distinctions,” gushed Dillon. “Tonight, we celebrate portrayals of the human experience because the only distinction we should be making when it comes to awards is between each outstanding performance. I am honored to give this golden popcorn trophy to one of these talented nominees.” Watson gave the most SJW-appeasing speech of all time. 

“The first acting award in history that doesn’t separate nominees based on their sex says something about how we perceive the human experience. MTV’s move to create a genderless award for acting will mean something different to everyone, but, to me, it indicates that acting is about the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and that doesn’t need to be separated into two, different categories,” said Watson. “Empathy and the ability to use your imagination should have no limits.”

Then the Beauty and the Beast actress stopped mid-sentence to hug and thank Dillon “for educating me in such an inclusive, patient and loving way. 

“I’m so proud to be a part of a film that celebrates diversity, literacy, inclusion, joy and love the way that this one does,” continued Watson. 

The Left, of course, had a full-blown orgasm over the spectacle. After all, rich Hollywood elites solved female oppression! Yeah, not even close. First of all, there are many more male than female lead actors. This will put women at a disadvantage if this “genderless” award trend continues. Also, men and women tend to play much different roles. For example, judging Hugh Jackman in Logan and Emma Watson for her role in a fairy tale in the same category seems ridiculous. This is why we have categories in the first place. If the genderless theme applies to an award show like the Oscars, women will start winning awards for purely politically correct reasons as a way to fill some SJW quota in Hollywood elites’ minds, or men will likely dominate many more categories than they already do.  So the Left should enjoy their “equality” now, before females don’t come out on the winning end of the genderless awards and we get a socially conscious #OscarsSoMale hashtag. 

They probably created the genderless Award because they didn’t want to face the upcoming consequences for the bizarre world they’ve built – the one with 63 freaking genders. Eventually it would’ve come down to “The Award for Best Cisgendered Actor in a Supporting Role is…”, “Best Lead by a Two-Spirit in a romantic comedy…”, or “Best Gender Nonconforming support in a dramatic role goes to…” So they make it across the board, genderless. Then, they cheer their achievement and while giving themselves awards to prop up their egos, while they simultaneously pat themselves on the back on the great work they’ve done. Nothing like taking the achievements of the Women’s Suffrage Movement, where we find unique ways to empower women at every opportunity


And AGAIN, they didn’t stop pumping another award show with crap-tons of politics, 10 pounds of special interest progressive leftist crap in a 5 pound bag, as they always do. They even lauded a 70 year old women on a youth focused demographically based network, who’s also a lifelong career politician, was cheered as if she was this hip cultural icon. She was the most outspoken against President Trump, so she’ll be the one to be lifted up as “Cool” in MTV’s eyes. And she was giving out the award. She didn’t receive one of those ambiguous, androgynous, genderless Spacepersons Trophy for her latest track, “I didn’t call for impeachment (Impeach 45)” – the Contradictory Remix.

The continual progressive stealth assault on the unassuming masses with their indoctrination continues. Similar in the way that the left has destroyed American Pride by rewriting History, lending many to hate the nation and the founding, they have targeted other fundamental foundations in order to destroy the culture of the United States. They were able to convince the youth that American settlers stole The Native American’s land, when Native Americans sold the land to them thinking they had just pulled one over on them because they didn’t believe in property ownership. They focused on the internment of the Japanese in America during World War II, even though it was a progressive liberal president who enacted the policy from the get go. And they vilified the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as some unwarranted, imperialist terrorist strike by America, when it was to thwart the unimaginable resolve of the Japanese who fought till the death. They’ll say that we didn’t need to bomb them because they were going to surrender, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Even after BOTH areas were strategically targeted, not for maximum civilian deaths but because of the military concentrations that resided in those areas, the Japanese was STILL persevering. But we’ve destroyed historical truth and fact to cultivate anti-Americanism in favor of global citizenship.

So, after rewriting history, we’re now trying to rewriting science. And Bill Nye is the one spearheading this mission.

From the Washington Free Beacon: ‘Bill Nye’ Episode on Netflix Omits Segment Saying Chromosomes Determine Gender

A segment saying that chromosomes determine one’s gender on an episode of the educational children’s show “Bill Nye the Science guy,” is cut out on the Netflix version.

Netflix did not edit Bill Nye the Science Guy. The series was delivered that way by Buena Vista TV, according to a Netflix spokesperson.

In the original episode, titled “Probability,” a young woman told viewers, here is the portion of the show that was edited out:  “I’m a girl. Could have just as easily been a boy, though, because the probability of becoming a girl is always 1 in 2.” “See, inside each of our cells are these things called chromosomes, and they control whether we become a boy or a girl,” the young woman continued. “See, there are only two possibilities: XX, a girl, or XY, a boy.”

But in the version of the episode uploaded to Netflix, the segment has been cut entirely. While noncontroversial at the time, the 1996 segment appears to contradict Netflix’s new series “Bill Nye Saves the World.”

The new show endorses a socially liberal understanding of gender, under which gender is defined by self-identification rather than genetics and there are more than just the two traditional genders.

Update May 5, 2017 9:28 a.m.: This post has been updated to reflect comment from Netflix, which says it did not have a role in cutting the segment from the episode.

Of course, Bill Nye “the Consensus, Mechanical Engineer Guy” demolished the science he touted in the 90’s recently with his new show, Bill Nye Saves the World. Unfortunately, they couldn’t save our ears from this travesty of a song

My apologizes for linking to that talentless, tuneless drivel that amounts to televised poop on a stick. We just needed you to get a healthy dosage of the sickness that they’re spewing, much like a vaccine, so you can recognize the disease and attack it before it strikes while you’re not looking. But this is their version of “Science”. Much like this speaker at the March for Science event, which had nothing to do with science, displays in her words alone.

But again, Science is not something that can’t be changed without some intense questioning, leading to the construction of a hypothesis. Through multiple testing attempts, they can establish a definitive result to prove or disprove the hypothesis from every angle possible. But they avoid this on their Pet Agendas. They omit the results in order to bolster their narrative and continue the “Conversation”, as they lecture you and your family into submission. Even when glimmers of scientific research emerge to debunk their talking points and overall agenda of control.

(From the Daily Wire) – TRANSGENDER AGENDA FAIL: Scientists Say There Are More Than 6,500 Genes That Express Differently in Men and Women

Transgender activists have simultaneously detached gender completely from sex and suggested that men can magically become “real women” by merely “identifying” as female, and vise-versa. This is untrue, of course. A new study composed by Weizmann Institute of Science researchers just widened the hole in the transgender narrative pushed by progressives: it has been found that the two sexes express over 6,500 genes differently, adding to the already major biological differences between men and women.

“Weizmann Institute of Science researchers recently uncovered thousands of human genes that are expressed — copied out to make proteins — differently in the two sexes, “notes the Weizmann Institute. The study focuses on how “harmful mutations in these particular genes tend to accumulate in the population in relatively high frequencies.”

Professor Shmuel Pietrokovski and Dr. Moran Gershoni, both researches from the Weizmann Institute’s Molecular Genetics Department, “looked closely at around 20,000 protein-coding genes, sorting them by sex and searching for differences in expression in each tissue. They eventually identified around 6,500 genes with activity that was biased toward one sex or the other in at least one tissue. For example, they found genes that were highly expressed in the skin of men relative to that in women’s skin, and they realized that these were related to the growth of body hair. Gene expression for muscle building was higher in men; that for fat storage was higher in women,” reports Weizmann Institute. 

And the differences continue: mutations expressed in men were less likely to be weeded out via natural selection than in women. “The more a gene was specific to one sex, the less selection we saw on the gene. And one more difference: This selection was even weaker with men,” said Gershoni.

The researches highlighted sexual evolution theory from the 1930’s to account for such a difference: “In many species, females can produce only a limited number of offspring while males can, theoretically, father many more; so the species’ survival will depend on more viable females in the population than males,” said Pietrokovski. “Thus natural selection can be more ‘lax’ with the genes that are only harmful to males.”

There were also discoveries of sex-linked genes in the mammary glands: 

Aside from the sexual organs, the researchers discovered quite a few sex-linked genes in the mammary glands — not so surprising, except that about half of these genes were expressed in men. Because men have fully fitted but basically nonfunctional mammary equipment, the scientists made an educated guess that some of these genes might suppress lactation.

While such a difference might be obvious in the mammary glands, the researchers also found genes “to be expressed only in the left ventricle of the heart in women. One of these genes, which is also related to calcium uptake, showed very high expression levels in younger women that sharply decreased with age; the scientists think that they are active in women up to menopause, protecting their hearts, but leading to heart disease and osteoporosis in later years when the gene expression is shut down.”

Additionally, they found “another gene that was mainly expressed in women was active in the brain, and though its exact function is unknown, the scientists think it may protect the neurons from Parkinson’s — a disease that has a higher prevalence and earlier onset in men. The researchers also identified gene expression in the liver in women that regulates drug metabolism, providing molecular evidence for the known difference in drug processing between women and men.”

“The basic genome is nearly the same in all of us, but it is utilized differently across the body and among individuals,” said Gershoni. “Thus, when it comes to the differences between the sexes, we see that evolution often works on the level of gene expression.”

“Paradoxically, sex-linked genes are those in which harmful mutations are more likely to be passed down, including those that impair fertility. From this vantage point, men and women undergo different selection pressures and, at least to some extent, human evolution should be viewed as co-evolution. But the study also emphasizes the need for a better understanding of the differences between men and women in the genes that cause disease or respond to treatments,” added Pietrokovski. 

Still, the many intricate biological differences between men and women, such as the ones expressed by Weizmann Institute researchers, will be said by progressives to be simply overridden by one’s feelings.

So, it looks as though Mr. Nye’s (not Professor Nye, or even Dr. Nye mind you) attempt to shroud scientific truth by removing it from older shows to attempt to recreate consistency with his new platform is thwarted yet again. But that’s his M.O. Listen to this exchange on his Pet Political Agenda Item, Climate Change.

Bill Nye even implodes on Climate Change

William Happer, a physicist at Princeton University,” caused Bill Nye to become ‘heated’ after Happer said the climate change that Nye talks about is a “myth.”

“There’s this myth that’s developed around carbon dioxide that it’s a pollutant, but you and I both exhale carbon dioxide with every breath. Each of us emits about two pounds of carbon dioxide a day, so are we polluting the planet?” Happer, who has advised President Donald Trump on climate issues, said.

He wants to silence opposition. He wants to remove dissenting opinions. And that hasn’t stopped him from taking on other UN Agenda21/2030 sustainable talking points, like population control or this issue with you having what he says is “extra Children”.

From the federalist

The 13th and final installment of “Bill Nye Saves the World.” is titled “Earth’s People Problem,” and with a name like that, you know we could be in for some ideas that border on eugenics.

The 26-minute episode starts off in fairly inoffensive fashion. Following an intro that demonstrates how human consumption is like sponges soaking up water, Nye explains how women who have access to educational and professional opportunities tend to have fewer children. This is true, and he illustrates his point by telling the story of his mother, who developed technology for the United States during World War II and went on to earn her master’s degree and doctorate. (Inspiring!)

Nye says when women are in power, they have fewer children, and more resources can be devoted to those children. “It’s not rocket surgery. It’s science!” he coyly explains. Sure, it’s not science in the same way that a Punnett square is science, but there is certainly a correlation there and the overall goal of providing equal opportunity to women is noble enough. So let’s just indulge him and call his observation “science.” Close enough.

Noting that the population density is highest in India, Nye’s correspondent Emily Calandrelli went off to India to deliver a report on population growth in the country. It is followed by a brief chat between Nye and Calandrelli that quickly devolves into a lecture on how America’s maternity leave policy is an example of our patriarchal society (or whatever).

She says women in India get 16 weeks of paid maternity leave, which is “unheard of in the United States.” Never mind that in California (home to roughly 20 percent of Americans), they have 16 weeks of guaranteed maternity leave as well. Also disregard the fact that the absence of a federal requirement for maternity leave does not mean maternity leave is nonexistent in the United States. Instructively, she approvingly lists China when she rattles off some of the countries that do have required paid maternity leave policies.

Then we get to the rancid meat and soggy potatoes of this whole spectacle: the panel segment. On the panel are: Dr. Rachel Snow, chief of population development at the United Nations Population Fund, Dr. Travis Rieder, ethicist at the Berman Institute at Johns Hopkins University, and finally Dr. Nerys Benfield, director of Family Planning Montefiore Medical Center. Benfield is an abortionist, (so you may know where we are headed here).

Nye starts off the panel by asking “What should we be doing?” Benfield immediately jumps in and says that as a physician, she feels access to health care and family planning is important. She avoids the A-word. Repeating the observation that women’s education levels and fertility rates are inversely related, Benfield says the reason is either women are having less sex (Nye, redblooded horndog that he is, howls “I hope that’s not true!” with a quasi-sheepish grin), or that women are using contraception.

The panel notes the importance of contraceptive access. Snow jumps in and says “We need justice and we need education.” What “justice” means in this context is anybody’s guess? My personal guess is that she is referring to abortion. But, again, the panel dances around the word.

How do we create and export this justice? Nye asks. Snow responds with vague concepts like “excellent education systems” (You heard her, everyone! Make them excellent!) and “family planning,” as she nods in the direction of the abortion doctor two seats to her left. Family planning, meaning abortion, a word that is again avoided.

The fight against climate change, Nye’s most passionate cause, is brought up by Rieder, who notes that children in developed countries use 160 times more resources than children in the developing world. This is where the creepy totalitarianism of the environmental movement starts to show itself. Nye asks, bluntly, “Should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?”

Extra kids. These d-mn people and their existence, am I right? Nye (who, again, decided we all needed to see that abomination from Bloom) is wise enough to set limits on humanity. This whole concept and the ease with which he discusses it is so frightening and evil that I am genuinely appalled at Netflix’s decision to air it.


Rieder says we should “at least consider” a form of punishment for people who have these Extra Kids I. Nye impatiently responds that “consider means do it.” Snow, to her credit, jumps in and takes issue with the idea that “we do anything to incentivize fewer children or more children.” Benfield notes the history of compulsory sterilization in America, a practice that was in place as recently as the 1970s. The issue was not come at from a position of justice in the past, she adds. But this time will be different, I guess?

So, if you’re scoring at home, that leaves China’s maternity laws and their recently ended one-child policy as the key points from this half hour of science televangelism. As Calandrelli says, it’s time for America to “catch up.” With China.

Yeesh. The program had eight minutes left that I couldn’t watch even if I tried.

So why is this all happening? Transgendered bathroom arguments, the entertainment community injecting alternative lifestyles into every bit of programming, recognizing the ridiculous premise of the existence of about 63 different genders, implementing ridiculous federal education curriculum to encourage data mining in the name of Common Core, changing energy policy to undeveloped, unproven energy resources in the name of saving the planet, aligning our healthcare system as a government controlled system that is compatible with other nation’s systems, population control with the idea that family planning must consider the limitations to having “Extra children”? There are two things at work here. Much like the economic policies over the last 8 years to stunt and stifle economic growth, leaving GDP under 1% for 8 long years, you cannot coax the ceding of sovereignty by the globes freest nation in the world’s history without diminishing them to a level that would allow them to willingly hand over freedom in favor of security, stability, and “Sustainable Development” – the global community engineering of the United Nations. Read through the proposals of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. It lays out the “non-binding agreement” to set the stage for utopia.

We’ve covered how the UN

A shocking statement was made by a United Nations official Christiana Figueres at a news conference in Brussels. She admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not of environmental activism and not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She said very casually:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”



Is that why there’s a timeline with regards to an Agenda? Agenda 21/Agenda 2030?

Now, how does all of this explain the insanity the associates itself with this agenda, like arguments on Transgendered bathrooms, and the LGBTQ injection into entertainment media (with every sitcom having a token LGBTQ character forced into the script and every episode breaking out into a Musical with a plethora of Jazz hands)? It’s the method that the Soviet Union employed to crumble America from within, as explained by Former KGB Agent, Yuri Bezmenov, in this video from the 1980’s. Listen to the methodology, and before you shrug it off, ask yourself – “Is any of this actually happening?”

Is this why we are adopting all of these European cultural positions? Is this why we are currently even removing our civil war monuments in order to set the stage for the new global community? Is all of this setting the table for what’s to come? In my opinion, the model for the new global governance will be the Chinese model: a state run Faux-Capitalism. They will tout China’s economic prosperity as the key mixture of State Socialism & Capitalism. But they will be completely mistaken. Because where they opened up their economy to allow some form of capitalism to go it will be like a controlled burn, when it could’ve been a wildfire. The United Nations Agenda is even using Communist Methods to implement a Chinese/Soviet crafted Global Authoritarianism.

You may think this is all insane, but follow the money, power, and search for an endgame goal to all of the insanity in the world and all paths lead back to these points.

How do you fight this back? How do you overcome this encroachment? The way you combat this with your family is by building a strong foundation. No matter what they do in defiance for a time, or if they are inundated with values that don’t agree with your families, that foundation will be something that they’ll return to. We can’t allow the Government’s education system provide this foundation in a form of “Creative Outsourcing”. Giving this responsibility over to them because of a sense of Faux-Expertise. We can’t give the foundation of values and principles over to cultural groupthink by tastemakers and celebrities. It must be within your family and you must measure every bit of influence and teaching (School Coursework, etc.) through the lens of your values and principles, to be certain that you can identify indoctrination and be able to use them as teachable moments via real world examples to your family.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s