While Poland’s government has thus far managed to keep unassimilable migrants out of its country, it hasn’t been as successful with another foreign import: the homosexual agenda. In fact, many Polish schools just celebrated an “LGBT tolerance day,” though some canceled the indoctrination event after pressure from the ruling Law and Justice Party.
As the AP reports, “More than 200 schools had planned to take part in ‘Rainbow Friday,’ an anti-discrimination event that a civic rights group, the Campaign Against Homophobia, had promoted in hopes of building greater acceptance for LGBT students.”
Note the subtle propaganda. “Anti-discrimination” would be assumed to reference efforts to eliminate unjust disparate treatment of different groups. But does it here? Or is it a euphemism for diminishing people’s ability to discriminate between good and evil?
One person who is making this distinction is Poland’s education minister, Anna Zalewska. She warned school officials that there could be serious repercussions if they allowed the indoctrination event and requested that parents notify authorities of educators who go forward with it.
The AP reports that, as a result, “several” schools canceled the event, though it states that the exact number is currently unknown.
That the sexual-devolutionary agenda has taken root in Poland is no surprise. I’ve spent some time there, and the same moral degradation prevailing in the West is evident in that nation; it’s just less advanced. The Poles have largely the same entertainment, are subject to the same sexualization process, share with the West a below-replacement-level fertility rate, and to a degree have the same leftist propaganda in schools.
In fact, Polish journalist Eunicka Chojecka told The New American recently that, in a sense, it’s “not true” that Marxism fell in her country because a high percentage of college professors are former communists.
Poland shares another similarity, too. According to this report, the homosexual agenda in Poland is funded and advanced by billionaire financier George Soros, an Emperor Palapatine-like puppeteer who pushes globalist, sexual devolutionary, anti-Christian social engineering the world over. He’s so malevolent, in fact, that his native country, Hungary, enacted what are known as “Stop Soros” anti-migration laws earlier this year.
Hungary also recently prohibited the teaching of “gender studies” in its universities. Unfortunately, too many nations actually facilitate the sexual-devolutionary agenda, as they’ve fallen victim to a certain devilishly slick con game. I’ll explain.
Consider again the Polish group Campaign Against Homophobia (CAH). Propaganda is evident right in its name, which demeans traditional sexual mores as it reflects the rebranding of virtuous inclinations as “homophobia.” (We might as well label attempts to cure breast cancer “cancerphobia.”)
Then there was CAH’s 2016 campaign Let Us Offer Each Other the Sign of Peace, in which it discussed Christian “values” for the unstated purpose of destroying Christian virtues. It wrote at its website, reported LifeSite News, “that the aim of the campaign is to remind the faithful that ‘from the Christian values flow the necessity of respect, openness, and willing dialogue with all people, including homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals.’”
Evident here is another part of the con: that one should dialogue with homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals. No, it’s not that there’s anything wrong with “dialogue” per se. First, though, the term here is a euphemism for “We’ll keep talking and shaming and talking and shaming until you agree with us.”
In fact, an editor at pro-homosexuality Polish magazine Więź (Connection) even admitted as much. Explaining why he refused to participate in CAH’s campaign, Tomasz Kycia wrote, “I have been living for 28 years in Germany and not once did I see an LGBT campaign aimed at authentic encounter and reconciliation,” reported LifeSite. Kycia further stated that “it was always about ‘acceptance of [the] thinking and acting of one side’ and changing the teaching of the other (the Church),” the news organ continued.
The second problem with the “dialogue” call is that there shouldn’t even be political/social categories such as “homosexuals,” “bisexuals,” and “transsexuals” — because we shouldn’t define ourselves by our sexual passions. (And transitioning to the opposite sex is impossible.)
After all, should people define themselves as “fornicators,” “adulterers,” “zoophiles” (bestiality), “pedophiles,” or “auto-eroticists”? And if there were an adulterer lobby and activist groups relating to these other designations, would we speak of “dialoguing” with them?
The absurdity is plain. The sexual devolutionaries have succeeded in shaping (or misshaping) thinking, in cultivating the notion that sin should be redefined as a “lifestyle choice” and that those indulging it should be considered a group like blacks or whites (not that we should define ourselves based on race, either, but that’s a different topic). But we’re not first and foremost “homosexuals” any more than we are “adulterers” or “porn watchers.” We’re children of God who, as is man’s plight, may happen to have certain sinful attachments.
The reality, though, is that this sexual devolution’s foundation was laid long ago by “straight” people who ceased being morally straight. Consider: I’ve often pointed out that, contrary to sexual-devolutionary claims, Christians don’t single out homosexual behavior for sin status; the sexual devolutionaries single it out for special status. Are Christians supposed to say: Adultery is a sin, fornication is a sin, self-gratification is a sin, cohabitation is a sin, indulging impure thoughts is a sin, but homosexual behavior is…what? A lifestyle choice — like living on a houseboat?
Yet this works the other way, too. Once society says fornication is okay; self-gratification is okay; cohabitation is okay; indulging impure thoughts is okay; and maybe, even, adultery is okay (if both parties agree to an open marriage), it becomes increasingly difficult to proclaim, “But, you know, that homosexuality? We’re keeping that in the closet!” So, really, our acceptance of it reflects a perverse kind of consistency.
This isn’t to say there’s no hierarchy of transgressions; there is. But when you start moving up that hierarchy legitimizing one sin after another — with one domino toppling the next, the next, and the next — you may eventually end up, unintentionally, some place angels fear to tread.
Moreover, normal people find it emotionally difficult to condemn others’ absence of sexual virtue when they lack it themselves. Why, resurrect that eternal moral yardstick and it just may condemn your carnal appetites as well. Better to just let sleeping standards lie.
Besides, the moral relativism sweeping civilization doesn’t logically allow for any judgments about right and wrong, causing people to wallow in moral confusion and diminishing the resolve to stand against the day’s fashionable, feel-good “values.” (And what accounts for relativism’s appeal? Try this on for size: “My sins aren’t really sins if all is perspective. Voila! Perpetual absolution!”)
And as we slouch toward Gomorrah, the above should give the same pause for thought whether we’re in Poland in Europe or Poland, Ohio or Poland, Maine. For as President John Adams warned, “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.”