Militant Homosexual KGB “Sleeper” Agents Described Over 25 Years Ago

All of a sudden we see a homosexual… 15 years ago he did his dirty job and nobody cared. Now he makes it a political issue. He demands recognition, respect, human rights, and he rallies a large group of people and there are violent clashes between him and police, his group and ordinary people. No matter what. It’s black against white, yellow against green. Doesn’t matter where this division line goes. As long as these groups come into antagonistic clashes, sometimes militantly, sometimes with firearms, that is the destabilization process. The sleepers, many of whom are simply KGB agents, become leaders of the process of destabilization.

Yuri Bezmenov, 1983

And what is the state of affairs 25 years later?

The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob
By Michelle Malkin • November 19, 2008 12:55 AM

Anti-Prop. 8 mob rings in 2009 with more church vandalism
By Michelle Malkin • January 5, 2009 06:02 AM

NYTimes finally acknowledges that anti-Prop. 8 mob is harassing traditional marriage supporters
By Michelle Malkin • February 8, 2009 06:11 AM

$%^&*!!: Civility and tolerance in the Age of Obama
By Michelle Malkin • April 22, 2009 09:55 AM

————————————————————
Update July 12, 2011:
The Yuri Bezmenov video linked in the quote above is no longer active because that user has deleted their account.

Here is a link to show all Yuri Bezmenov videos currently on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=yuri+bezmenov&aq=f

The quote above can be found in other videos. I found it split between the end of the first and start of the second videos below:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Militant Homosexual KGB “Sleeper” Agents Described Over 25 Years Ago

  1. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Whats your point? All gay people are KGB agents?

  2. Frin,

    Obviously not. But the leaders of the violent protests very well could be. If this were truly about “gay rights” or “gay marriage”, then why didn’t they protest in front of mosques, too?

    If you really care about what my point is, start with this comment by “havoc” and read down for my for comments.

  3. Jonah says:

    About 40% of Prop 8’s financial support came from the Mormon church. Are you suggesting that California’s Muslim population contributed anywhere near that amount?

    Obviously, any assault on churchgoers, verbal or otherwise, is totally inappropriate (and illegal). But let’s not pretend that there aren’t obvious reasons to feel some animosity against a religion critically important in the removal of a population’s rights.

  4. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Thanks for the link – I got about 3 comments down from havoc and saw your entry:

    “The true answer is that this isn’t really about gay marriage.

    It’s about destabilizing the United States of America.

    It is part of a long-established Soviet practice of Ideological Subversion.

    And in that endeavor, the Communists and the Islamists are allies.
    (as also evidenced by Russia’s participation as an observer nation of the “57 state” Organisation of the Islamic Conference)

    That is why the gay marriage protestors don’t protest outside of mosques.

    Seriously.”

    For you to suggest that Russia is allies with Islamists is completely naive, undeducated and paranoid in the extreme. Do you not bother to read anything that doesn’t suit your world view? Have you not noticed that for the past god knows how long Russia and Chechyna – a predominately Sunni Muslim state – have been fighting?

  5. Jonah says:

    At any rate, I’m finding this blog is becoming uninteresting in the same way that Michelle’s is. The arguments are never about the actual issues, but rather the people involved. It’s not ad hominem per se, but it’s definitely de homine: you’re talking about Prop 8 protesters, rather than the actual issue of gay marriage. Ideas are way more important than the people who put forward those ideas. Let’s talk about the former, shall we?

  6. Math says:

    Jonah: I agree, Michelle Malkin’s blog was entertaining for a while, but now it’s Obama bashing non-stop. I removed her RSS feeds from all my readers. And this blog is turning into a MM mouthpiece.

  7. Actually, MM is making more sense lately than ever!

  8. Frin says:

    Americaneocon,

    If repetitious articles consisting of superficial right-wing catch-phrases designed to pander to the mindset of her loyal viewers, without any sort of analysis or insight into the causes of issues is her making sense, then yes ! She is making real sense at the moment !

  9. Can we cause the SAME level of suffering, trauma, and harm to the “YES ON PROP 8″ crowd that THEY have inflicted on us?

    To any who say “what suffering?”, my God, you are naive. When laws aren’t in place for ALL, horrible suffering happens. Children permanently separated from parents, assets & property lost, mental disorders, financial devastation, etc….

    I say – Let’s work on SUFFERING EQUALITY. Perhaps those who donated to PROP 8 need to FEEL what we experience when we are EXCLUDED from U.S. law. They need to lose homes, children, property, and jobs….for starters. Fair is fair. Now THAT would be justice.

    Too harsh? But I’m only suggesting that they EXPERIENCE what we ALREADY DO BECAUSE of PROP 8 and similar initiatives.

    I hate to quote to Bible, but “an Eye for an eye”….

  10. Math says:

    John: quoting the bible is all they do around here, so don’t be shy. Land of the free… lol

  11. Thomas Shawn says:

    Research Bella Dodd who was an union activist and communist party member. She testified before Congress regarding the infiltration of academia, Hollywood and the Roman Catholic Church.

    The attack on the Church was especially ingenious … working at the parish level, promoting homosexuals as candidates to the priesthood and derailing orthodox young men. This was going on well into the 1980s.

    The communists (especially in Europe) knew that the Roman Catholic Church was enemy number one.

    Google provides a wealth of resources: Bella Dodd.

  12. Thomas,

    Thanks for your comment.

    I quoted Bella Dodd in a post last September:
    “Establishing a Soviet America”

  13. Frin,
    Yes you quoted one of my comments at Michelle Malkin’s site, but perhaps you missed this one:

    If the issue is truly about “gay marriage”, then I challenge those protestors to go protest at mosques.

    See how that works out…

    Until we see that happen, these protests are shown to be not as much “pro-gay” as they are “anti-Judeo-Christian”. They are actively trying to destroy the foundation upon which this country rests. They know that if they destabilize the foundation, then everything built upon it will fall.

    The 1st Amendment is intended to protect everyone’s freedom of religious speech, press, association, and petition for redress of grievances. Everyone is free to worship as they please, or choose not to worship at all.

    With that said, there can be no honest denial that this country was founded on the Judeo-Christian teachings of the Bible.

    Judeo-Christian Capitalism is under attack from multiple directions (the topic of thread is just one of many different types of attacks). If that foundation crumbles, so will this nation.

  14. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    As Jonah pointed out – around 40% of the financial support from Prop 8 came from the Mormon church. I’ve looked through a list of all donors who contributed more than $5000 to support Proposition 8, and there was not a single Islamic organisation identified. Apart from individuals, the overwhelming majority of organisations that contributed were Judeo-Christian based.

    So, why would the protestors protest at a mosque(s), when there is little to no evidence that said mosque(s) supported Prop 8 financially?

  15. John says:

    @johnbisceglia :
    [sarcasm mode on]
    Or we could talk about all the “suffering” of the families of slave owners, or bank robbers, or tax cheats, or loan-shark enforcers, or the “suffering” of the families of murderers, or airplane hijackers, or kidnappers, and we could have a two-minute hate for those who discriminate against drug dealers or prostitutes or smugglers or drunken drivers or sellers of tainted food, or CEOs who dump toxic waste into municipal water supplies or who illegally deforest your local Bambiland or who discriminate against politicians who take bribes to pervert justice, etc. etc. Why should we allow the whiners to snivel on and on about turning morality upside-down as it affects only the socially destructive perverters of sexuality?

    [sarcasm mode off]

    Surely murder is as “natural” as sexual deviance, and surely the murderer is born with a desire to murder that makes such behavior impossible to resist.

    [sarcasm mode on]

    Science has proven it, right?

    Hell, you say, why don’t we just get rid of all laws?

    [sarcasm mode off]

    After all, everyone that does as he pleases does as he pleases because he is born with a “natural” and irresistible urge to do as he pleases.

    [sarcasm mode on]

    And AIDS isn’t a “queer” disease, because it isn’t transmitted by queer intimacies unless it is, and it wasn’t spread from a queer population to everyone else unless it actually was, and just because a queer sexual deviant infects a newborn via a blood transfusion is no reason to think that homosexual deviance is revealed to be dangerously selfish and anti-social . . . Or not?

    [sarcasm mode off]

    Your comment implies that homosexual behavior is perfecly innocent, and that homosexuals have suffered innocently. It is not and they have not.

    It is wrong. It is sinful. Ungodly. Anti-social. Perverse. Deviant. Destructive. Corrosive.

    It ought to be criminal, because it is corrosive to a stable civilized society. It makes brotherly love impossible. Every homosexual is a child molester. (Go ahead, scream. What I said is now demonstrably true.) Many of these “wrongs” you complain about are acutally rights. No homosexual should be allowed to adopt a child, nor to raise a child taken away from a heterosexual partner, nor to “buy” a child via artificial insemination. Science has only lied to us on this. Such a monstrous practice as homosexual parenting has an extremely damaging effect on children. Even though it is no secret that these effects are denied by the homosexual advocates, including those who claim to be “objective” scientists, they are very real, and overwhelmingly visible to every observer with open eyes. “No scientific evidence/proof!” cry the deviants. But there is likewise no scientific proof that the mass killing of homosexuals has any harmful effect on society, either. One cannot have scientific proof without an experiment, but such experimentation as would be required to confirm our common sense is only horrifying to any moral person.

    It is wrong. Any way you look at it, it is wrong. It doesn’t take a Biblical morality to show it wrong, but it does require that the “rationalists” take off the wicked blinders of hedonistic self-interest. It destroys society.

    To equate it with the sanctity of marriage is to compound an abomination with a sacreligious lie.

    Anything “your” group has suffered has been more than richly deserved. Eternal damnation will certainly be its just reward, as all the evidence now proves.

    Secular society would be better off if homosexuals were hanged than it is by turning them loose with a “right” to public flaunting of their perversion as though it were as normal and pure as marriage. But as I pointed out, it would be immoral to prove this.

    Your kind was created for only one purpose: to be a fit vessel for the wrath of God. Be afraid. Be angry. Go ahead. Steam. Fume. Blow your top. Feel the wrath. Embody the wrath. Become the wrath. God gave it to you. Keep it. Keep it forever.

    –John

  16. Jonah says:

    As someone who was raised Jewish, I have to say that I’m uncomfortable with your use of the “Judeo-” prefix here, Red. The congregation in which I grew up was founded by a gay rabbi. The only gay wedding I’ve attended was at a Conservative Jewish synagogue. Yes, there is still much debate about homosexuality within Judaism, but it is mostly relegated to the Orthodoxy. I don’t think it’s incorrect to say that a majority of Jews support gay rights. We certainly don’t align ourselves with the intolerance displayed here by John.

  17. Jonah,

    The “Judeo-” prefix comes from the fact that portions of the Christians’ Holy Bibile are shared with the Jews’ Torah.

    Yes, there is still much debate about homosexuality within Judaism, but it is mostly relegated to the Orthodoxy.

    Can you show me any part of the Torah that supports the practice of homosexuality?

    I think you’ll find just the opposite.

    I have a hard time understanding how someone can claim to be a follower of a certain religion (any religion), yet believe things that are diametrically opposed to what that religion’s holy book teaches. “Gay Rabbi”, “gay Priest”, “gay Pastor”, “gay Imam”, etc. are oxymorons. They are living a life that contradicts the scriptures they claim to represent.

  18. Jonah says:

    I have a hard time understanding how someone can claim to be a follower of a certain religion (any religion), yet believe things that are diametrically opposed to what that religion’s holy book teaches.

    This cognitive dissonance is good for you. Maybe instead of rejecting such positions outright, you should discuss the apparent contradictions with one of the above “oxymorons”. I think you’ll learn a lot.

    I am hardly a religious scholar (see: atheist), so I doubt I could shed much light on the topic. But if I had to guess, I’d say such scholars’ understanding of Biblical condemnations of homosexuality are much in line with rules on, say, eating shellfish.

    I know you and John both protest at this comparison, but let me continue. I would posit that of the rules in the Torah, there are two types: moral laws, like the important Ten Commandment stuff, and “survival guide”-type laws. The latter comprise rules that, while not related to morals, were essential to the survival of mankind back in the days of Abraham. But just as refrigeration technologies have allowed us to now eat shellfish without risk of food poisoning, so too does modern man’s increased lifespan ameliorate Biblical concerns about population decline. What was once a grave threat to civilization, namely sex without procreation, is now not much of a danger at all, at least when safely practiced.

    This argument is, of course, very imprecise. My knowledge on these matters is limited. But widespread Jewish acceptance of homosexuality is a fact, and I encourage you to stare this fact in the face and ask questions. You are certainly not the first person to do so.

  19. Jonah says:

    Just found this article by Steven Greenberg, an openly gay Orthodox Rabbi. I encourage you to give it a read. It doesn’t come close to answering the many questions and contradictions surrounding such a lifestyle, but I think you’ll find it highly enlightening nonetheless.

    Also, though I’ve promised myself to stop responding to John, this part of his latest screed is especially troubling:

    Your kind [the gays] was created for only one purpose: to be a fit vessel for the wrath of God.

    Is this really the God in which we are supposed to believe? One who creates men merely to serve as His punching bag?

  20. John says:

    ITtRP:

    The argument that population decline is no longer a concern is just another of the big lies. It is indeed a very big lie and a very destructive lie, a monstrous lie. Its destructive effect is written large right in front of our faces. Indeed, it is another of the Big Lies that was willfully engineered to produce the effect I describe here. We are being supplanted by our enemies.

    Our country is currently being invaded by a population hostile to our ideals because of a much fretted over shortage of “labor,” according to the enemies of truth. (I do not here mean “from another country” but rather, from all over the world.)

    Why do we have a shortage of “labor”? We have a shortage of “labor” because we have had a shortage of infants that are brought to term for the past 36 years. Because we have a shortage of our own children, we are being replaced by children who are not our own.

    This is diabolical. This was planned. There is no innocent way to say otherwise.

    As for the wrath of God, that is explicitly explained in Scriptureas exactly as I pointed it out, as surely you know, though the issue is thrown in your face in a way that makes it clear that you will not be tolerated if you agree with the apostles. You see, then, my earlier point. You cannot feed the dogs without getting bitten.

    The Biblical explanation, perfectly rational is: What if God, wanting to make the fullness of Himself known to us, wanted to show us His wrath? (God has feelings, as Scripture makes clear.) In whom would he display this wrath? He would not exhibit it Himself, because wrath is an unpleasant thing to experience–He would not foul Himself to make this point. Therefore, He would create vessels specifically designed to be fit for displaying it: those He does not love because they do those things which are not pleasing to Him. (No, the Scripture does not say that God loves everything.)

    An atheist who says that he does not have any theological expertise is, like a broken clock, accidentally right about something.

    –John

  21. John says:

    ITtRP:

    The New Testament makes it clear that homosexuality is a moral issue that has nothing to do with “survival” of the species. I say this lest my previous post be misconstrued (as it surely will be by the dogs, since they twist everything) to support their perverted arguments.

    Christians are taught to “flee fornication” because it entails a sin against one’s own flesh. But heterosexual fornication can result in children (even if such children are bastards and cannot grow up in a godly environment), were mere population God’s only concern. But population is not the issue. (Leave it to the perverted atheists to attempt to twist every moral question into a mere question about some issue of importance to science.) The issue is that fornication defiles the person who does it, the temple of the Holy Spirit (as I am sure you understand).

    Much more, then, the homosexual’s fornication (all homosexual behavior is fornication) is likewise sin against his own body more loathsome than heterosexual fornication (for its complete strangeness to marriage), making his body all the more defiled and utterly unfit for habitation by the Holy Spirit.

    Because the Holy Spirit will not enter such a horribly defiled body, the atheist homosexual has a dead conscience and everything he says is a lie because he cannot even know the truth about something. Their minds are utterly given over to corruption, as it is written “God has given them a reprobate mind” so that they consistently choose that which is inconvenient and contrary to all possible beneficial outcome.

    I could have told you that the atheist was queer just as soon as he took pride in being an atheist. It is always the case. Whenever a person insists that s/he is an atheist, “moral” or otherwise, I know it to be predictable that next s/he will be saying that homosexuality is perfectly fine, and that s/he “never hurt anybody.” There is one, great, overarching reason for a human being to adamantly insist that there is no God; they are sexually queer and steeped in moral depravity and they would selfishly sooner exalt themselves as judges to condemn God than even consider changing their selfish ways. That is, they are given over to a “reprobate mind” — a mind beyond salvation.

    (The same is not true of a homosexual who admits his/her sin.)

    Their behavior is so perverted that it corrupts no only their own consciences, but society and everything around them. It turns them into creatures who have a completely backward, irrational, perverted moral standard–thus they call good, “evil” and evil, “good”.

    As I reported elsewhere, their every thought is an abomination to God, their every action a sin; the whole of their being is utterly perverted and corrupted and “of little worth”.

    There is not a single socially redeeming thing about them. They are damaging to everything they touch. They truly are, yes, fit for only one purpose: as examples of the absolute damned failure of all that is evil.

    Having said all this, I must also acknowledge that Paul writes that everyone is guilty, as they are, of all the sins for which they are guilty. Hard thing to accept! But if Paul says so, then it is true. (And I am sure that every honest conscience must knowingly admit that it is true.) The difference is that we are forgiven by our acceptance of Christ’s saving work on the cross, and they are utterly given over to a reprobate mind because they reject God. So yes, they can certainly find fault with us. (Yawn.) And they will.

    –John

  22. Jonah says:

    I could have told you that the atheist was queer just as soon as he took pride in being an atheist.

    What makes you believe I’m gay? The fact that I’ve attended a gay wedding? A bizarre conclusion indeed.

    Red, it seems John is hopelessly committed to squashing any potential discussions we might have. I hope you don’t fall pray to this. Even if, like a broken clock, I am right only twice per day, I still think these conversations are worthwhile. For both of us, really.

  23. Jonah says:

    Er, “fall prey to,” rather. Was that Freudian? I’m not sure.

  24. John says:

    ITtRP:

    Anyone who would attend a “gay” “wedding” is certainly strange, odd, bizzarre, disturbed, disturbing, yes, queer. Birds of a feather . . .

    But it is the preoccupation with defending homosexual behavior and comparing it to eating shellfish that is, frankly, . . . very queer.

    Did he forget to mention that syphillis is treatable with antibiotics, so that adultery is likewise just like eating shellfish?

    –John

  25. Jonah says:

    John,

    This rhetorical device of speaking through Red is tiresome. Let’s drop it.

    If you insist on staying in this conversation, I request that you try to participate meaningfully, rather than sling around accusations. Your “birds of a feather” comment is especially strange. Are you not aware that Red has “been friends with homosexuals for decades”?

    Since you seem bent on sticking around, why not give the above linked article a read? Though my patience with your behavior is wearing thin, I’m still (perhaps morbidly) interested to hear your response.

  26. Frin says:

    John,

    At first I found you disturbing – now I find you amusing. You amuse me because you clearly spend a lot of time dwelling on the evils of homosexuality, and it makes you angry, and you carry that anger and hatred and fear around with you and it builds and builds, and then you let it out in a sad, pathetic scree in the comments section of a blog.

    I find you amusing because you are wasting so much time and energy hating a segment of the population, 99.9999999% of whom don’t even know you exist. Your hatred and anger will not affect their lives one little bit.

    And you don’t even help your own cause, because you are so full of vitriol that you will be ignored. You will be laughed at. And you will achieve nothing, except to continue a life full of anger and hate for yourself.

  27. Jonah says:

    And you don’t even help your own cause, because you are so full of vitriol that you will be ignored.

    I’m not ignoring him. But you’re right: he’s not helping his own cause. After reading his post this morning, I happened to run into some canvassers for the Human Rights Campaign. I don’t usually throw money at kids with clipboards on the street, but because I was feeling so gay rights-y today, I gave ’em $20.

  28. John says:

    ITtRP:

    I didn’t read the linked story, but I don’t need to.

    I have no doubt that the communists were instrumental in putting homosexuals into the confessionals during the fifties and sixties.

    Personal observation, report of classmates, common sense, and the nature of a confessional all point to the same sad fact. It’s a strange weak link in more than one chain, and would naturally appeal to some very specific types of people in ways that were certainly nothing new.

    –John

  29. Jonah says:

    Confessionals? Your understanding of Judaism is strange.

  30. John says:

    Some people are strange.

    The world does not revolve around them, so they throw a hissy-fit.

  31. the new world order should be labeled – “the gay world order” now

    they have manipulated society beyond anyones wildest imaginations.

    i think the illuminati and satan himself are flaming homosexuals – it would explain alot woudnt it?

    whats sad is homosexuals and lesbians dont even realize how they have been manipulated – if they REALLY knew – they might rethink their sexuality…

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s