slug.com slug.com
7 5

There is a call for a legal ban on conversion therapy. Do you support it?

There is a growing list of countries looking to outlaw conversion therapy, including New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Mexico and Germany (Brazil, Ecuador and Malta already have bans in place). The UK government is also under pressure to ban conversion therapy (Boris Johnson actually promised he would but he hasn't done it yet).

What is conversion therapy?

According to Stonewall, a charity that campaigns for the equality of lesbian, gay, bi and trans people, conversion therapy (otherwise known as “cure” therapy or “reparative” therapy) refers to any form of treatment or psychotherapy which aims to change a person’s sexual orientation or to suppress a person’s gender identity. The practice is based on an assumption that being lesbian, gay, bi or trans is a mental illness that can be “cured”.

Is conversion therapy harmful?

The American Psychiatric Association has clarified that “the potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behaviour, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.”

So, do you support the ban or not?

The only concern I have is that the legal ban will deprive LGBT+ people of the choice to or not to receive convesion therapy.

[independent.co.uk]

Naomi 8 Mar 11
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

7 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Do they supply....um...someone... in conversion therapy? Asking for a friend.
Isn't conversion therapy just an offer of a helping hand? I mean you can't bind and gag someone...well unless they want that...o-okay-y.
I'll just say that in 1973 when they removed homosexuality from the DSM it was because they did not have an effective conversion therapy, their hands were tied without one, and there were psychiatrists that were homosexual and didn't want to be called crazy. I doubt they have an effective conversion therapy today, if they did there would be no risks involved with so-called "reparative" therapy. It's a sad comment on our progress in understanding sexual preferences...or not. Still, a person should have the option available to him if he so desires.

Hi there. I find it concerning that whatever therapy, unqualified, untrained people are allowed to offer it. I have reservations about a complete ban on conversion therapy, considering that there are non-aggressive methods and that some people may want to try it, but I think regulating the type of therapy, required qualifications, etc. would be a good idea.

@Naomi Psychologists would be untrained as well since there is no such therapy. Is there a spirit/soul or is there only electro-chemical reactions? The materialist approach has not produced a drug or found a section of the brain to zap or disable/enable. I haven't looked into this in any depth but I think it is only the Christian community that has offered any sort of conversion therapy. Of course that horns in on the domain of the psychologist and psychiatrist so they would condemn that sort of thing.
I don't envy people that are not heterosexual. Their lives can be very tormenting if they wish to try conversion therapy, in such case, the warnings from the mental health community would just be no change. They can be very creative if they just wish to contribute to society but they can also be very destructive by wanting to engineer society to their ideal as well.

We have a lot to learn about ourselves. I'm having trouble even appealing to leftists let alone converting them.

@FrankZeleniuk
"I'm having trouble even appealing to leftists let alone converting them."
Maybe you're slightly missing the point I'm making... Why even try to convert someone who does not wish to be converted? Trying to convert someone is a forcible action. If someone wishes to be converted back to someone or something they wish to be and therefore seek help, believing that it'll make a happier person, that is a different matter, and that has to be their own choice. Deradicalization is probably a good example, though I'm not suggesting that it ever works.
Anyway, I get your points, though.

@Naomi It's impossible to change someone's mind without their consent. Psychiatrists will inflict as much shock a body can withstand and people will still not change their mind. They may acquiesce to avoid further shock or be too numb to have a thought but that is not changing their mind.

People like to have problems, too. It gives them something to occupy their time.

@FrankZeleniuk It may be true that some people like to have problems, but I usually refrain myself from making a general statement like that. I have an acquaintance who suffers from schizophrenia, and another who suffers from depression who nearly succeeded in killing himself. Luckily, they both found psychiatrists who are right for them and who know how to help them deal with their emotions. We really don't know what goes on in other people's minds and in their personal lives.

@Naomi It's true that general statements are generally true but a person must have problems. It has been said that the easiest way to kill a person is to provide for all their needs.

It is good that your friends found someone that can help them cope in their lives. It is a rather hit and miss endeavor. Unfortunately, even in this stage of our advanced civilization, just being able to cope is the best one can hope for.

Have you ever seen "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" or "A Clockwork Orange"?

A good book I might suggest is "The End of Average" by Todd Rose. It seems the mental health profession is trying to place everyone in the center of a bell curve that is called normal. Average does not equate to normal and often doesn't work.

@FrankZeleniuk Life is hard and it requires a lot of mental effort and strength. Also, different people have different levels of tolerance. I watched both "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "A Clockwork Orange" by the way. What is normal? It is so contextual that it is hard to define. What you call normal can be quite different from what I call normal, like your reality and mine can be very different.

2

As a Christian I do not support the ban because I believe that homosexuality is sinful and that people who convert to Christianity can expect to be delivered from it. For those who still struggle with this sin after conversion -- as all Christians tend to struggle with some sin or other -- we would want to offer them counsel from the Bible as to how they may fight against their temptations. I suspect that a ban such as the one under discussion would quickly be turned against such Bible-believing Christians, if it isn't already written in part for that purpose.

I have read many of your posts and I think of you as a level headed “good guy” with always best intentions.

You remind me of so many people I know and partly of what I used to be, and there for I can understand what you are saying.

However,
I am still appalled by it. I know it is a very big step to realise and understand that “sin” is merely something people made up and it was whatever people at the time thought was needed for the society and encoded it as “god’s word” so people would follow it.

For example the bible NEVER say slavery is a sin. Or having sex with a child.
That tells you a lot of what your bible is worth when it prescribes what sin is. Many more examples, however I am not going to go into that now.
I just want you to think about it.

The whole concept that you think you have the right based on YOUR belief in some religious texts, to tell other people what they may and may not do... is something I had to deal with and something you need to think about as well. (Yes, yes, I am telling you what to do, I am sorry).

There are few things in life to me more offensive than people telling other people what they can and cannot do that in no way affect them, and then use some religious basis to justify it.
You hate it when the left wants to tell you what you may say or think, however you do the same.
And no, my bible tell me so, so I am not responsible is not ok. You are personally responsible for the things you say and do.

I have always appreciated your posts, else I would not have bothered responding to you.

Hello Keith, Thanks for your comment. I'm afraid that I'm not religious, so I cannot agree that being gay is a sin; I tend to listen to scientific explanations like genetic and neurological causes. However, if someone hates being gay and wants to seek help including conversion therapy (and that would be their choice), yet it is not available because it is against the law, there needs to be something else available to ease their pain. To me, forcing someone not to have something is as bad as forcing someone to have something unless there is a very legitimate reason to support it.

@Naomi Right, we should never "force" anyone to do anything. From my perspective, we simply share what we believe to be true and why we believe it to be true, and we let people make up their own minds.

@Hanno I appreciate your response, especially since you are trying to be polite while also being direct. I assure you that I appreciate both politeness and directness. I will try to do the same with just a few short responses.

I know it is a very big step to realise and understand that “sin” is merely something people made up and it was whatever people at the time thought was needed for the society and encoded it as “god’s word” so people would follow it.

Given your own background, as you indicate in the start of your comment, you will not be surprised to find that I strongly disagree with this assessment. I see the fact that so many societies historically have seen homosexuality as wrong as an indication that they were made in the image of God and therefore have consciences that convict them of its wrongness. And, as you no doubt already know, Christians do not believe that the Bible is simply "made up" but that it was given to us through prophets inspired by the same God who created us. At any rate, you and I are never going to agree on that issue, I suspect. Hopefully we can still be friends here on the forum. 🙂

For example the bible NEVER say slavery is a sin. Or having sex with a child.
That tells you a lot of what your bible is worth when it prescribes what sin is. Many more examples, however I am not going to go into that now.
I just want you to think about it.

You have brought up two issues, the first of which oversimplifies the issue as it is portrayed in the Bible and the context in which it was practiced and discussed in the Bible. It therefore mischaracterizes it. And your presentation of the second issue misunderstands the Bible on the matter.

The first issue is the Bible's teaching on slavery. What needs to be understood here is that the slavery accepted in ancient Hebrew culture was really akin to what we in our past would have described as indentured servitude. The exception to this would have been occasions in which enemies captured in war were enslaved, but even then there were strict rules about how they were to be humanely treated. For a brief overview, see here: [carm.org]

By the way, it is no accident that the Abolitionist movement in America was led by Christians who saw the evil and hypocrisy of many other professing Christian slave owners and condemned it. In fact, as I am sure you know, the Abolitionist movements in both England and America were led by sincere and staunch Christians who, although some would still have allowed indentured servitude, could not countenance what they saw happening precisely because they saw it as going against the teaching of the Bible properly understood.

The second claim you made was that the Bible never said that having sex with a child was sin. However, this misses the fact that the Bible teaches that sex was only to be between a man and a woman who were married, and thus who would have been of marriageable age, and that it was thus clear that sex with a child would not be allowed and would be sinful. After all, any sex outside such marriage was viewed as sinful. This is why both Jews and Christians never allowed what we would call pedophilia, even when many people in the surrounding cultures actually practiced it. It is also why in our Western culture, influenced as it has been by what many call a Judeo-Christian worldview, it has always been outlawed.

The whole concept that you think you have the right based on YOUR belief in some religious texts, to tell other people what they may and may not do... is something I had to deal with and something you need to think about as well. (Yes, yes, I am telling you what to do, I am sorry).

I'm glad you have already sensed the inconsistency of your telling me what to do while saying that I should not do this. Frankly, however, I see no problem with either of us telling others what we think is the morally right or wrong thing to do, so long as we don't force them to do what we say. But this is what the proposed legislation is about, and it is why @Naomi, for example, said that she disagrees with it. I'm guessing we can all agree on that point. Sadly, many in the Gay Rights movement, however, will not be satisfied until we are all forced to accept their view.

There are few things in life to me more offensive than people telling other people what they can and cannot do that in no way affect them, and then use some religious basis to justify it.
You hate it when the left wants to tell you what you may say or think, however you do the same.

Those on the Left are free to tell me what they think I should do as much as they like. What I hate is their attempts to force me to comply with their views. But, alas, there is a moral divide here, and each side is convinced that the other holds to an immoral position that they would like to see stopped. We may, then, be at an impasse. As I see it, the law allows the behavior of LBGTQ+ folks, and they have gotten what they wanted. They should be happy with the win and stop trying to force others to approve of their views and behavior or trying to get them cancelled due to their moral convictions against homosexuality, religious or otherwise. After all, they didn't like it when they saw it happening to them.

I have always appreciated your posts, else I would not have bothered responding to you.

I have appreciated your post in response to me as well. I thank you for your attempt to be kind and fair while stating your position forthrightly. I am not in the least offended. People should always feel free to express what they believe to be true and right, which is why this forum exists. In your response you have exemplified the spirit of this forum quite admirably in my opinion.

@KeithThroop In my Jewish experience, there are several outreaches for the afflicted of homosexuality, usually from the orthodox mainstream but there are other undercurrents that would make the Gomorrahans blush with embarrassment.

I am speaking as someone who has been thrown out/asked to leave a certain reform synagogue for questioning their liberal (and by reform standards very liberal) interpretation of Torah ~ the books of Moses for the Christian viewpoint, and the position taken by that rabbi, and publishing it in the newspaper in his weekly Sunday column for the greater community and the university.

I take my orthodox Rabbi's viewpoint anymore. It is between that individual and G-D. It is not up to me to judge or be jury & executioner. If someone needs help, I will help them. If they curse at me in vitriolic diatribes, I try not to take it personally and just say whatever.

Although the current state of affairs in Israel troubles me greatly, there is not much I can do about it. I live by Jeremiah 33:3. I have been shown plenty, that to understand the report of it would be abject horror to comprehend it all.

[bbc.com]

@KeithThroop
Thank you for your response and I agree with almost every point you made.

We will not agree on many things and after being an evangelical for decades myself, I understand why.

No interest in trying to “convert” you and your statements on how you share and do your faith I have no issues with.

@Hanno It sure is nice to have candid, civilized discussions about important and contentious issues.

@KeithThroop it was legal to marry underage, hence you had cases in the US where an 60+ year old could have a shot gun marriage to a 14 year old and avoid being charged with statuary rape and yes they were 'Christian'. And the 'Christian' lobby groups fought hard against changing laws to prohibit underage 'marriage'. And let's not even open the can of worms of how the churches have dealt with clergy who had a thing for kids. Not trying to pick on your religion, because I know that not all Christians supported or excused this, and many other religions practice underage marriage all over the world. Still, backing up what Hanno said, many excuse that since the Bible (or whatever religious text they read) doesn't say anything about it...

@Tom81 You've brought up a number of issues in your comment, so I will have to try to address them one by one as best I can.

... it was legal to marry underage, hence you had cases in the US where an 60+ year old could have a shot gun marriage to a 14 year old and avoid being charged with statuary rape and yes they were 'Christian'. And the 'Christian' lobby groups fought hard against changing laws to prohibit underage 'marriage'... Still, backing up what Hanno said, many excuse that since the Bible (or whatever religious text they read) doesn't say anything about it...

As I noted in my comment to Hanno above, the Bible teaches that sex was only to be between a man and a woman who were married, and thus who would have been of marriageable age, and that it was thus clear that sex with a child would not be allowed and would be sinful. After all, any sex outside such marriage was viewed as sinful. This is why both Jews and Christians never allowed what we would call pedophilia, even when many people in the surrounding cultures actually practiced it. So, it isn't exactly true to say that the Bible "doesn't say anything about it" when everything the Bible teaches about sex and marriage rules it out.

But you raise another issue here, which is how we should determine when someone should be considered an adult and therefore of a marriageable age. The Bible teaches that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and it has language, both in the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament, to distinguish between a man and boy and a woman and a girl. So, when it speaks of marriage only between a man and a woman, it not only rules out marriage between two men or two women (which is another issue altogether), but it also rules out marriage to a boy or to a girl. Now, it does not explicitly state precisely when one is considered to have reached adulthood and thus to have become a man or a woman versus a boy or a girl, but, given that one of the primary reasons in the Bible for marriage and a sexual relationship within marriage is procreation, it would require at least that males and females be old enough to have children and to responsibly raise them, typically with the help of grandparents and other family member with whom they lived in very close proximity. There is quite a bit in the Bible, by the way, about what it means to responsibly raise a child and the type of maturity it requires. So, at what age would that be? Could individuals be as young as 14 or 16 years old and carry out these responsibilities? In earlier times, when much more was typically expected of the young, when they were expected to grow up fast, especially at times when the average life expectancy might only be about 40 years of age, many thought that 14 years old was adequate. So, a 14-year-old wife could have children safely in past generations perhaps into her mid-twenties, although there was still a fairly high infant death rate as well, and this gave adequate time for them to have families. As time went on, however, life expectancy rates and infant deaths rates improved, and the age one was considered to be an adult and of marriageable started to rise as well. I see this as a good thing, but I don't look back in horror at the judgments of the preceding generations about the issue. After all, our own assessment that one should not be considered an adult until age 18 is itself an arbitrary one. Admittedly, however, it isn't as easy an issue to decide as one would wish. I suppose if I had my way we would raise the age even higher for some things, especially military service (which should be no younger than 20 years old in my opinion, but I digress), and I realize that it is simply my preference.

Before moving on, however, I would like to point out a double standard employed by many who would judge earlier generations for allowing marriage at 14, 15, or 16 years old (depending on various state laws, I suppose), but who nevertheless see no problem with teenagers having sex outside of marriage, or even with them having children as teenagers, or with their consenting to abortions without parental consent at those ages, or with their being legally emancipated from their parents at those ages. In fact, I think the legal age for the emancipation of a minor in California is currently 14 years old (please correct me if I am wrong).

At any rate, I hope you can see that we are dealing here with a thorny issue that our own culture today is having difficulty deciding.

And let's not even open the can of worms of how the churches have dealt with clergy who had a thing for kids. Not trying to pick on your religion, because I know that not all Christians supported or excused this ...

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Christians abhorred the pedophilia cases that were uncovered in some church organizations (most notably the systemic coverups under some Roman Catholic dioceses). They certainly did not condone it, and, whenever these things have been uncovered, they have almost unanimously denounced them for the heinous sins that they are (I'm allowing here for the possibility of the occasional perverted oddball who would be denounced by the rest and most likely excommunicated). And that is saying something, because various church groups are not unanimous about very much. 😉

2

I oppose taking the option/possibility off the table.

I wonder if this is coming up now because of Milo's repentance and desire for transformation.

govols Level 8 Mar 11, 2021

Milo... 😖 You may be right though.

2

If it's proven to be successful, let it remain an option. People should be free to choose.

As for the stated risks, think about the things millions of people do every day that lead to depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior. If banning an optional therapy is ok, there's a very long list of other activities that should be banned, too. I think we all know why this particular therapy is on the chopping block.

You are right on people should be free to choose. I am against the indoctrination/grooming of impressionable young minds, influencing their freedom to rightly choose what they wish or even what they would have become without outside mitigation. I think you are on track with the long list and chopping block analogy.

3

If you ban 'conversion therapy' because it doesn't work and teaches people to hate themselves, then shouldn't we also ban all the 'critical race/gender/sexuality theory' groups for the same reason?
Personally I don't believe any of them do anything but harm and create further division, whilst the grifters that run these schemes rake in cash.

Tom81 Level 8 Mar 11, 2021

Absolutely, everyone should be allowed to investigate and found their own sexuality, in their own time.

And it has nothing to do with anyone else who you decide you want to be.
Conversely, don’t force your sexuality on me, I don’t care who you shag.

Hello @Tom81, @Hanno, Some people hate being gay because they are Christian and they firmly believe that it is a sin to be gay. While it is impossible for them to stop being Christian, would it be so wrong for them to want to seek help including conversion therapy? That would be their own choice. There seem to be non-aggressive conversion therapy programs which may not work but may at least give comfort and placebo effects. If these treatments are unavailable to help seekers because they're banned, what option could they have to ease their pain?

@Naomi
People should be allowed to do whatever therapy they want if it does not harm them or others to a serious extent.
The question is how much “free will” is involved. And how much cohersion.

We have had this discussion many times. Muslim women where the Burka because they want to... yeah right.
Gays do conversion therapy because they want?
You see it is not simple.

@Naomi don't know if you are just playing devil's advocate here or not. You can be gay and Christian at the same time. If we're to offer conversion therapy as a viable option for LGBT, then why not offer the same to straight (repressed/in the closet) people, any and every religious group, any and every spiritual belief, any and every political ideology, any and every sub culture that goes against the mainstream etc... It sounds more like coercive brainwashing based on guilt and fear of not being accepted by the status quo. What is the aim here? I thought the point of therapy was self discovery and improvement NOT homogeneity of thought and belief.

@Hanno "You see it is not simple". That's exactly my point.

@Tom81
We are both OK with someone being gay and Christian, but we also know that it's not OK for many Christians to be gay because they believe that it is a sin, as @KeithThroop explained. And yes, we may believe that they're brainwashed but I don't think we should judge them because religious beliefs are so very personal. I think that if someone hates themselves for being who they are or what they are, they should seek a way to turn that self-hate to self-love. And whatever help they decide to receive, that has to be their own choice without being forced, plus they must be responsible for their choice and the consequence. I have reservations about a complete ban on conversion therapy, but I was surprised to learn that it is sometimes delivered by unlicensed, non-qualified individuals and groups, which I strongly oppose. Considering that there are non-aggressive methods and that some people may want to try them, by their own choice, I think regulating the type of therapy, required qualifications, etc. would be a better idea than a complete ban.

@Naomi I get your points, and even though I don't believe in it, I wouldn't want to ban it. Even if it's harmful to the individual, as long as it's their choice then let them (many things are bad for your health, yet perfectly legal).
If it is banned, it will just live on in the underground. Prohibition didn't stop alcohol, drug laws don't stop drug use - banning things doesn't work.
Therapy (and what passes for it) is an interesting and complex topic. I believe that conversion therapy is just another fad that will come and go, surfacing occasionally - kind of like diet trends.

@KeithThroop
By the way, I read or heard some time ago about a man who hates being homosexual. He is Christian. He said that the fact that he is attracted to the same sex is so wrong that it torments him. He wishes to stop being gay. I can't remember if he managed to find any help. Being a pastor, have you actually met people like him?

@Naomi Yes, I have met a few like him over the years. For example, one has been happily married to a woman for over 30 years, with three very fine children. She knows about his past and about his struggles with homosexual lust, and they work together to confront it, just as other couples do with respect to the lust they may often experience for members of the opposite sex to whom they are not married. The truth is that, as Christians, we are all sinners saved by grace and who ought to have compassion for our fellow Christians as we all still battle our owns sins and seek to overcome them with God's help. In this regard, we pretty much treat all sinful sexual lust the same, even if in some cases the temptations are more difficult than in others (such as in the case of some who struggle with homosexual lust and some who might be considered sex addicts). Those who see no problem at all with such lust and do not embrace the Biblical teaching on such matters find other churches to attend that do not follow the Bible on these issues either.

@KeithThroop That is why I have reservations about a legal ban on conversion therapy. If someone is tormented by their own sexual orientation, they should seek help so that they can escape from that torment and feel better about themselves. And if they decide to receive conversion therapy, so be it; that's their own choice. If they decide to stop the therapy because it's not working, that's their choice, too. Perhaps, we can stop calling it "conversion" therapy and call it something else. It also requires some level of regulation so as to make sure that the therapy does not cause any harm to the recipient.

1

Well....in the old school medical books, it WAS defined as a mental illness, and a choice.

But as for the 'psychotherapy which aims to change a person's sexual orientation or to suppress a person's gender identity" THAT's going on right now in public schools and media coverage and entertainment productions.

There's no 'since therapist alignment with societal prejudices' ~ that's pure projection and propaganda. Self hatred is already exemplified and manifested by the cognitive dissonance of liberalism.

When Liberace came out of the closet and 'shocked' the nation, no one cared except homophobes and ultra religious people. They didn't take his television show off the air, and he was a brilliant villain on Batman. He said he was gay, as in the Puss-n-boots book; or the Flintstones cartoon sign off song "We'll have a gay old time".

Some kids that played piano had to quit playing and taking lessons. Some gladly and others had to hide it or be accused of being gay. That's the way it was as Walter Cronkite use to say.

[time.com]

Those old medical books also prescribed treatment for schizophrenia girls: forced orgasms... and that was actively practiced by doctors (only on pretty young ones) till it was banned in the 1970’s.
Go back another 100 years and they still though evil spirits were involved.

However yes, the vast majority don’t (and shouldn’t) care about other people coming out of closets.

0

I see this like a banning of the choice to burn one's house down.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 25

Photos 11,776 More

Posted by JohnHoukVideo Collection of Tyranny Past, Present & Future SUMMARY: This is a collection of seven videos that are in a random date order showing my interest… Tyranny is the theme.

Posted by GeeMacMexico admits it is a hotbed of drug trafficking, but not of drug use, according to its top politician.

Posted by JohnHoukReprising ShadowGate Documentaries: With Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukLest YOU Are Brainwashed to be Happy in an Age of Transformation Tyranny: Videos & Commentary to Refresh YOUR Memory to at Least Awaken Personal Resistance! SUMMARY: An examination of saved videos...

Posted by Weltansichtwell....doggies

Posted by MosheBenIssacMetoo in action

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukConnecting the Dots! Some AI Truth – What Used to be “Playing God” is Really “Playing Devil” SUMMARY: … Satan – the foe – has only one delusional recourse: Brainwash human souls ...

Posted by JohnHoukMy Intro to Documentary, ‘Let My People Go’ SUMMARY: Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukMedical Tyranny – A Look at mRNA Danger & COVID Bioweapon Exploitation SUMMARY: Medical Tyranny has become a fact of life that the brainwashing Dem-Marxists, RINOs and Mockingbird MSM work hard ...

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukIrritated With Transformation Yet?

Posted by JohnHoukVOTE TRUMP – Overcome Dem-Marxist/RINO Lies – Video Share SUMMARY: The first batch of shared videos reflects VOTE-FOR-TRUMP in the midst of Dem-Marxist/RINO government LIES.

Posted by JohnHoukA Look at Mike Benz, THEN Tucker Ep.

Posted by JohnHoukLooking at ‘The Great Setup with Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukEnlightening Videos of a Corrupted Society SUMMARY: … The thing is, TYRANNY today has become very multifaceted in how the socio-political infection of CONTROL has crept into the one-time Land of ...

  • Top tags#video #youtube #world #government #media #biden #democrats #USA #truth #children #Police #society #god #money #reason #Canada #rights #freedom #culture #China #hope #racist #death #vote #politics #communist #evil #socialist #Socialism #TheTruth #justice #kids #democrat #evidence #crime #conservative #hell #laws #nation #liberal #federal #community #military #racism #climate #violence #book #politicians #joebiden #fear ...

    Members 9,397Top

    Moderators