URANIANS? NEO-URANIANS? SAY WHAT?

Occasionally, I run into a blog that I believe is sufficiently special to host. This post by Downnlaced deserved this acknowledgement. See below for why that is.

In life one can observe many oddities. Prominent during the last thirty years has been the rise to the level of Establishment of leading elements of the homosexual-rights movement. In the process they and their allies have done yeoman duty “cleansing” the public image of homosexuals and homosexuality. Important assistance was provided by the various media, wherein homosexuality is alleged to be more than “one in ten” by credible observers. Indeed, I recall the old Spotlight tabloid mentioning in an article that an organized homosexual group approached newspapers and other media outlets to lobby against “negative” stories appearing in them about homosexuals. In this they must have operated upon the pattern set by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith ["ADL"] in its early years of power-grabbing and intimidation. Now, of course, no Establishment type or organization would dare criticize the ADL. The same “respect” may some day soon be shown to the organized homosexual groups.

Certainly, one would correctly expect a positive attitude to be evident in the likes of The Washington Post, whose liberal face is apparent, although not necessarily admitted. Because the Post has typically been associated with the “war makers”–at least at the outset of war, when the body bags rest empty in their boxes, it has viewed itself as “centrist” and “responsible” in its editorials and overall reportage. Those who have views which are opposed to the expressed Postian views are “far-out” and “irresponsible.”

The expressions uttered by the Post since its purchase by Eugene Meyer during its “fire-sale” under Depression-Era duress has been essentially Trotskyitish. The Marxist programs have been supported in America by the Post, while the Trotsky affirmation of violence against (wrong-thinking) neighbors finds symmetry in the Post’s support of violence by Imperial Federal U.S., as one would expect of secret admirers of The Internationalists’ war against “middle-classism.”

Parenthetically, the middle-class in America is the pathetic category of people who desperately strive against falling into paisano status by supporting the rich, whose fervent wish [is] to eliminate the middle class in favor of “Lords & Serfs” as a global “ideal.” The dictatorship of the rich will be disguised as “democracy.”

Lest anyone suppose that I have a peculiar animosity toward The Washington Post, let me hasten to comment that all the major media have progressed along a similar road. Were that not true, there would be something akin to media wars–not in the sense of financial cannibalism & merger–but at the level of ideas. Only small newspapers and the like provide a consistent alternate view. These sorts of people, who control the major media, enforce a policy which is, in effect, one of material omission. That’s good enough for some people–some humdrum people–to read. I want a lot more, myself.

Therefore, given the Marxists’ expressed solidarity with the homosexual movement, the support of America’s major media outlets was a given. “International business” leaders, educated often enough at the “best schools,” found policy solidarity very easy to impose on their “company culture[s].” Academia, crawling with members of the homosexual movement, likewise imposed “liberal policies,” which tended to be very “embracive.” Opponents are invariably likened to Hitler, or other bete noir of the internationalist liberal movement. “We are pink,” gloats the Financial Times of London in its frontpage heading. Indeed, its correlatives in America can easily say the same–and I don’t refer merely to media.

The color “pink” is meant to suggest that its bearers are not full-bore “reds,” which generally connotes “blood-spilling revolution now!” The “pinks” are for a gentler road to global socialism, relying on cultural changes, demographic changes, and time. ["The old die; the young forget."] As the Beatles noted in a song: “There’s nothing to get hung up about.” Put down your Communist carbines, and give “love” a chance, seemed to be affirmed as a weigh station along the road to the global paradise of the rich. The “pinks” don’t want a world war. That is too destructive. They seem to approve of endless small wars around the globe to nudge the people toward their future of “toil, sex, drugs, and body-organ ‘donation.’”

Why do I bring up all this extraneous material, considering the title of this post? Because I believe that the homosexual movement in America (and elsewhere) has far more in common with Marxism than a mere category of sexuality. I believe that the selection of the color “pink” as emblematic has more to do with the ideology reflected in the front page heading of the Financial Times than the suggestion that it implies a female-esque orientation. The “homosexual liberation movement” was an important part of the broader ”sexual revolution” which was planned and implemented in conjunction with new developments in birth control. Women were “liberated” from fear of pregnancies, and that liberation, aided by propaganda, helped to propel the social changes which were also being redefined by the “black liberation movement.”

While these “movements” were not alone, I believe that these three were the ramrods of social legislation and “supreme Court” social interpretations of policies and law. A victory of any one of these movements in the courts tended to be applied to the others. They were defined as minorities, even when majorities.

The “pill” not only liberated women from fears and moral strictures in existance for thousands of years, but the broad & massive addition of “mind-altering” drugs shortly after the advent of the “pill” created the “loose” thinking that translated into across-the-board immorality, according to previous Christian doctrines. Such usage made it easy for women who adopted the “new morality” to forget their pills.

The result, naturally, was unwed pregnancies. This led to the creation of increasing numbers of confused offspring, exhibiting a marked inclination toward criminal behavior. Another result was ever-increasing use of abortion. The latter required an “adjustment” in religious views on this subject, as well as the coersive power of the State, as it implemented “supreme Court” decisions favoring abortion.

Parenthetically, one of the unnoticed aspects of these liberation movements was an increasing use of spies, “intelligence” machinery, and applied police enforcement across the country in an increasingly pervasive form. As the “Bill of Rights” became a neutered document, individuals became more conscious of the possibility of a new American Police State. With confused people everywhere in America declaiming loudly vain imaginings, there was no chance that such a mob could derail the revolution in their midst.

Another aspect of this “sexual revolution” was increasing hybridization of the population. That this was a planned aspect of the “pink revolution” is certain, as there are at least several prominent Jewish figures who gloat about the coming extinction of white people, per se, in a new world order. This was certain because white people were too dumb, too feckless, and too corrupt to stop it. Hence, a “world without white people” was very much a premeditative part of the “sexual revolution.”

Still another aspect of this “sexual revolution” was the unprecedented rise of venereal diseases. These diseases tend to be intractable. Some could be cure by wonder drugs, yet,–wouldn’t you know it?–some proved damnably resistant to the old treatments. Yet, with so many Americans “blitzed” on drugs and booze, who’s going to be vigilant? Further, some diseases that arose proved deadly. The homosexual revolutionaries were smitten hard in their doctrine.

No one said that revolution was going to be a pleasant stroll through a comely rose garden. There were expectations of regrettable “losses.”

It is not an accident that a successful effort was begun in the ’70s to impose the term “gay” upon the category of people who engage in sodomy, et al. Its use in literary works, such as Tennessee Williams’ plays, suggests that it has an even older birth period. But its insistent usage I believe, at least in America, began in the 1970s. The groundwork for its acceptance rests with its general positioning in a broad class of humanity, whose relative position improved mightily during the last 100 years.

Previously, these sets of people existed under a negative pale. With the help of “new ideas” advanced within the relatively new pedagogic field dubbed the “soft sciences,” they became minorities, who were basically like others–only misunderstood. Furthermore, this very movement evolved into one that asserted that “we are all alike,” gruffly brushing aside or ignoring data that suggested otherwise.” Soft science” came to prevail over “hard science,” when politicians and judges began to “scratch their heads” as to the correct course to take. This assumes that “dodging the issue is no longer a possible option.

Who were these avant-garde thinkers of the new soft sciences? They certainly included such prominent figures as Franz Boas, Claude Levi-Strauss, Otto Klineberg, Melville Herskovits, Alexander Goldenweiser, Isador Chein, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Gene Weltfish, Kenneth Clark, Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead.

A look at two is revealing enough. Consider:

“…Perhaps in the belief that one good myth deserves another, Franz Boas (1858-1942), a scholar of German-Jewish origin and a professor of anthropology at Columbia University, put forward the first comprehensively developed theory of racial equality. Boas hypothesized that nurture, not nature, was the chief determinant of important racial differences. He went so far as to assert that even such a persistent genetic trait as head shape (cephalic index) could be altered by an environmental change in one or two generations…” [THE DISPOSSESSED MAJORITY,(3rd revised ed.), Wilmot Robertson, p.14]

Well, many would agree that the last-mentioned supposition was a bit “cock-eyed.” But let’s consider another prominent figure.

“Ashley Montagu, a physical anthropologist of Anglo-Jewish origin, became the great vulgarizer of racial equalitarianism with a seemingly endless stream of bestselling books, television appearances and speeches before learned and unlearned societies.” [supra, pp.14-15]

I recall seeing Mr. Montagu on late-night television programs of the “Johnny Carson Show” sort. He was an engaging sort, making for a good propagandist. Let’s consider one more prominent figure in the “shape-changing” field of academia, which has given birth to most of our injurious policies in government.

“Perhaps the most interesting of all theories that attempt to account for the current Jewish ascendancy is that advanced by John Murray Cuddihy, an assistant professor of sociology and a scion of a prominent Irish-American family. In Cuddihy’s view, Freud, Marx, Claude Levi-Strauss, and other prominent Diaspora Jews, who have done so much to bruise Western culture, were not impelled by their love of truth or their desire to improve mankind, but by their fear and loathing of Western civility, the repressed and controlled behavior that is incomprehensible to an irrepressible people. Since they obviously could not get away with a direct attack on Gentile conduct, they consciously or unconsciously worked out highly ramified interpretations of history, economics, politics, psychology, and anthropology to undermine it. Communism was an ideal weapon to divide and destroy the Western political and economic order. Freudianism attacked Western morality by its neurotic emphasis on sex and by lending respectability to the promptings of the baser instincts. Levi-Strauss’s anthropology compared savage and civilized societies to the disadvantage of the latter. Cuddihy even hints that Einstein’s physics was motivated in part by a desire to shock and shatter rather than refine and advance Western science.” [supra, p.189]

Now all this dovetails very well with the new approach of Marxism, as developed by Antonio Gramsci of Italy (born in Sardinia) in the 1920s & ’30s. Consider:

“Use Lenin’s geopolitical structure not to conquer streets and cities, argued Gramsci. Use it to conguer the mind of civil society. Use it to acquire a Marxist hegemony over the minds of the populations that must be won.” [THE KEYS OF THIS BLOOD, Malachi Martin, p.249]

There does not seem to be any doubt that the American Entertainment industry, as well as the informational media, have done yeoman work, according to Comrade Gramsci’s prescription for victory. One hardly ever encounters a nonJew in America who doesn’t seem completely at one with the “change.” Change is good–right?

Indeed! Among the “wall of scoundrels” advancing toward Jerusalem to be born were the Neo-Uranians, which was a group that first seemed to manifest itself in an organized way during the last part of the 19th century in Germany, especially. Whether these were mostly Germans, or others residing in Germany is not clear. Given the character of known revolutionary forces, there is reason to be cautious. Still, before the homosexual revolution grew powerful here in America, it manifested itself in 19th century Germany. Consider:

“As we move closer to modern times, we see that during the Masonic revolutions throughout Europe in the nineteenth century, laws restraining homosexuality were relaxed. Tannahill informs us that in France ‘by the 1860s homosexuality and lesbianism were, if not commonplace, at least tolerated.’” [SCARLET AND THE BEAST, Vol. II, John Daniel, p.63]

Now, I think it wise to point out that the influence on American politics and religion of Freemasons is marked. If there is a “sexual revolution” or “moral revolution” in America, it cannot occur without widespread Masonic assistance. As an example of a typical Freemason in American politics, one might adduce the life and times of the late Senator Strom Thurman, who pronounced Freemasonry to be “love,” who was an alleged womanizer (frequently eating oysters to “promote” libidinous excess), and apparently fathered a child or two out of wedlock.

Freemasonry is not a friend of sexual temperance. Since most American men define their “maleness” in terms of “body count”–real or imagined, the leadership offered by Freemasonry was certainly welcomed. Let’s continue with our study of Uranians/Neo-Uranians.

“This was due in part to the efforts of a homosexual organization founded in 1862 called the Urnings, or Uranians, named after the Greek god Uranus. In 1893 the Urnings founded their own secret society called ‘The Order of Chaeronea,’ with rituals, insignia, and secret codes patterned after Freemasonry. The Chaeronea Lodge planned to organize all homosexuals into a political force, which they heretofore were unable to do. Germany was their target. They would infiltrate the imperial court for the purpose of cutting the emperor off from his more responsible advisers, thereby influencing German society so they could practice their lifestyle openly and freely. By the turn of the twentieth century, militant homosexuals were heavily involved in German politics…” [supra, p.63]

My interpretation of this passage includes the view that the Uranians were seeking a sort of autonomy within German society. The only people to exhibit this desire for autonomy within a host country for over two thousand years were the Jews. If Freemasonry itself is a Jewish “Trojan horse,” operating within countless nations across the globe, then the aspirations of the “Chaeronea Lodge” were consistent with Jewish and Masonic history. Please perceive that the opposed forces MUST have been Christians in lands such as 19th century Germany. Let’s conclude our citation on the Uranians.

“Their scheme, however, was exposed by a Berlin publisher. Tannahill tells the story: ‘In 1906, Maximilian Harden, publisher of the Berlin periodical Die Zukunft, decided to open everyone’s eyes, including those of the emperor, to the dangers of an Urnings’ alliance. These people formed…a comradeship which is stronger than that of the monastic orders or of Freemasonry, which grips tighter and makes a link across all the walls of creed, state, and class, which unites the most remote, the most foreign, in a fraternal league of offense and defense. Men of this breed are to be found everywhere, at courts, in high positions in armies and navies, in the editorial offices of great newspapers, at tradesmen’s and teachers’ desks. even on the bench. All rally together against the common enemy.‘

“The common enemy was the German imperial state. Allied with the Urnings was the German Communist Party, operating from within the Grand Orient Masonic Lodges. Hence, public opinion generated by the lodges favored sexual emancipation….” [supra,pp.63-64]

Although the view expressed above supposes that the “common enemy” was the German imperial state, I believe that this was merely the first target, which had to be neutralized first to better destroy the larger targets: the German people, per se, and Christianity. Be that as it may, let’s continue with the Communist view of the Uranians.

"Felix Halle, spokesman for the German Communist Party, summarized the party’s opinion on the subject during the first decade of the twentieth century: ‘The class-conscious proletariat, uninfluenced by the ideology of the churches, approaches the question of sex life and also the problem of homosexuality with a lack of prejudice afforded by an understanding of the overall social structure….In accordance with the scientific insights of modern times, the proletariat regards these relations as a special form of sexual gratification and demands the same freedom and restrictions for these forms of sex life as for intercourse between the sexes [such as] control over one’s own body and finally respect for the rights of non-involved parties.’ " [supra, p.64]

The language and concepts found within this early 19th century communist tract are virtually the exact concepts pushed by “Women’s Lib” spokespersons, such as Barbara Friedan, Gloria Steiner, Susan Brownmiller, Germaine Greer, Bella Abzug, and a host of other Jewish thinker-activists. They are also the same concepts pushed by the “Gay” movement. Nothing much has changed here, except their batting average is better. With much of Christian leadership corrupt or incompetent, there is little to stand in their way. Here, I speak not just of the sexual revolution but the broad range of revolutionary changes constantly being pushed. The inevitable conclusion will be national destructoion, which has also been planned.

Please note: with college students supposing that the Communist Revolution has been destroyed and is a mere relic of the past, the revolution has won. Those who live in its midst are so imbued with its doctrines that they don’t even see it. Why? It’s everywhere! The revolutionary changes have become their nannies. They are uncomfortable anywhere else.

The past known records of the original Uranians point inevitably to their resurfacing with spectacular success in America from post-’60s forward under the new title of “Gay Movement.” Todays Gays are worthy disciples of the Uranians. Their idiom is “ur-anus.” For this reason I dub them all: Neo-Uranians. They are part of the Establishment.
[Downnlaced, 2008