Homosexual Cognitive Dissonance: How to break the spell

You suffer from cognitive dissonance. You're too much the conformist, too conditioned, too enslaved openly to ask: "Do penises belong in anuses?" You're a coward. You're phobic of offending the homosexuals who have you hypnotized. You're weak-minded.

If this speaks to you, the shoe fits. You've self-identified as brainwashed into believing that men should shove their penises up other men's rectums — a truly insane position — fraught with disease of many kinds. You are ignorant. You can't tolerate truth, only inconsistency. You are bigoted against those who do not suffer your confusion.

Repeat after me:

  1. Penises do not belong in anuses.

  2. Penises do not belong in anuses.

  3. Penises do not belong in anuses.

Repeat that truth everyday until you are out from under the spell of the sick, lying homosexuals.

Believe it. It's true, and you know it. Stop being a liar! Spread this truth, or lose your soul.

In the late 1950s, social psychologist, Leon Festinger observed that in people who have dissonant cognitions (pieces of knowledge), the level of psychological stress increases with the degree of discrepancy between cognitions and the number of discrepant cognitions. He discovered that to cope with dissonance, after a decision is made (here accepting one's homosexuality), people would attend to information that conforms to their attitudes and values while ignoring, denying or distorting information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. Indeed, people alter aspects of the decision alternatives to reduce dissonance, which leads to viewing the chosen alternative as more desirable and the rejected alternative as less desirable.

(Source [Warning: Some people will be highly offended by the language, but the content is worth reading for those who can overcome certain disgusting words]: "Homosexism," by Carman Bradley. StandForGod.Org.)

Note: Shortly after I published this the first time, the blog went down (extremely rare). It's only the second time that it has happened that I've seen. The first time was also immediately after I published pointed anti-homosexuality material.

This post is so important that I've deleted the first and republished so the moment it goes live/public, those who click through won't be met by a down server. If they are again, it's no mere fleshly coincidence. Yes, I believe in spirit; and I believe it is over the flesh whether for good or evil. There is radical evil beyond the flesh, and it considers me an enemy.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.