UK false statistic support for homosexual marriage
UK correspondent Sam Johnson reveals a telling memo (two, actually), exposes the chicanery both mathematical and spiritual of the ligbitists.
Tory Councillors and officials received a copy of the attached email from a little known but apparently highly placed Conservative Party group calling itself LGBTory.
The identity of this email's particular recipient has been discretely but messily removed with Tippex and biro by yours truly.
Note the reference to a large volume of written communiqués from the public that revealed, to the LGBT movement’s chagrin, a bedrock of public antagonism toward the change in marriage. More on what this flood of opposition letters entailed, momentarily.
The December 11, 2012, memo responds to the alarming reality that the British public overwhelmingly didn’t want SSM (same-sex marriage). LGBTory activists counter this prevailing trend by dismissing public opinion as foolishness and suggesting ways to subvert the democratic process.
The author from LGBTory, writing to highly placed people in the government, claims SSM as a step in a program of deceptive purpose and subterfuge. It has the usual LiGiBiTist quota of lies and deceptions, but is interesting because it proves that the programme now being enacted has been plotted in secret darkness for very many years.
In months following, the scale and ferocity of the operation in the UK was breath taking, as was the coalition of gay power across parties, ultimately destroying the traditional family value position of the Conservatives in both the Commons and the House of Lords.
This government legislation passed only because of full opposition Labour support in July 2013.
Prior to the whirlwind passage of same-sex marriage (summer 2013), and prior to the panicked memo from LGBTory (December 2012), there were events that revealed the British public to be unsupportive of, even hostile to, the whole Beelzebubian intrigue of SSM.
On 15th March 2012, a public-sentiment canvassing process was initiated when the Conservative / Liberal Coalition announced it would be running a ‘consultation’* on how ‘Equal marriage’ (civil only, of course – a promise that bit the dust the moment the consultation response was published) would be implemented.
Note the shameless sense of entitlement inherent in a memo talking about how to go about forcing something on Britiain, which the British did not want. The haughty approach railroads the more fundamental issue of whether marriage should be redefined at all.
Responses to the highly assumptive questions in this bogus consultation were mainly online and no individual details were taken, so there was no control against cheating by multiple respondents or responses from overseas. Even then, the outcome against redefining marriage was so massive that Cameron had to rig the final count.
It must be noted that the Coalition For Marriage (C4M) had been assured by the civil servant running the exercise that signatures collected by C4M in its petition to save Real Marriage would each be counted as individual consultation responses.
C4M, unlike the government consultation itself, spent a fortune scrupulously checking their petitioners’ address details, eliminating duplication and fraud. Since C4M are Christians, why wouldn’t they?
Here are the numbers.
The official headline claim was that there were 228,000 responses, of which 104,880 (46%) were against SSM, 120,840 (53%) were for it, and 2,280 (1%) undecided.
But here is the fun part. C4M were now told all their 509,800 individually verified and auditable responses would be treated as ONE response only! And here is the wording from the consultation report: the result “does not include petitions, all opposed, with over 500,000 signatures” (oops – there goes C4M’s ‘one’ and only response count). So what happened to the gay lobby’s 64,000 pro-SSM petition responses? Exactly as you would expect, they were, each and every one of them, included. Stand by for some maths.
Here is the official result again:
This records the data as received. It excludes nothing. It is the actual result. The government’s official headline score is the result of a massive distortion by excluding the ‘Against SSM’ (properly, ‘Pro Real Marriage’) petitions.
Yet this fudged result was the basis on which the British government claimed public support for pushing through the most fundamental restructuring, distortion, of the legal basis for the family seen in history.
While we are at it, let’s try excluding both organised petition results:
The protocol of the pro-SSM petition is less clear to me. I believe it was predominantly email based, and may not have been readily distinguishable from normal responses to those conducting the consultation. So I am less confident of these numbers, but include the ‘ex-petition’ split here for completeness.
In medical statistical studies, one of the various ways used to avoid selection bias is analysis by ‘intention-to-treat’, in which results are included even if treatment is not completed. In this consultation the government went in the opposite direction, removing perfectly valid data – indeed the most scrupulously validated data possible - simply because it did not contain the answers it required. The official numbers were worse than biased, since they were, as we can see here, corrupt.
Quo vadis?
But I think we are missing the point if we focus exclusively on homosexuality as the core problem, simply because it is the most visible fracture around which a number of fundamental changes are crystallising.
In a way the gay stuff is a distraction. Working the logic backwards, why should gay people not enjoy the legal and cultural recognition accorded to heterosexual couples (see, we can’t even use the word ‘normal’ any more) via marriage? This only even begins to make sense in terms of a form of marriage which is completely different from that which our grandparents took for granted. Traditional marriage was about giving yourself to your spouse for life, and in doing so cooperating with God in creating new life.
Modern marriage is about share of assets, lifestyle management, contraception, holidays and keeping an eye out for spousal upgrades. Sex has broken free and become a fundamental entitlement, children a designer add-on, especially for the rich.
In a culture based on desire, formalised in economists’ equations as ‘demand’, the role of the individual is nothing like that envisaged for humanity in, say, Genesis.
In traditional religions we see ‘desire’ (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) or ‘craving’ (Buddhism, Taoism) as a natural but essentially negative force, to be overcome or turned to good by spiritual exercise and the practice of selflessness. But for us, it is the engine room.
A Russian general was once interviewed on TV about how the Soviet Union came to collapse. He said that Reagan’s Star War program terrified the Soviets because they could not possibly afford to fight it. So they decided they had to grow economically.
They thought their economy was basically a good engine, a bit rusty maybe, but sound. So they scraped off the rust, the system of fear that had hitherto kept things under control. To their intense horror and amazement, the whole system collapsed. They had made a terrible mistake. The engine was not the economy. The engine was the rust, the fear that kept things together. And they had destroyed the entire machine with Perestroika.
Our greed and lust, our desires, function in much the same way as the Soviets’ fear.
We are seeing a phase shift. We passed the point of no return long ago. The bit in the Bible that gets me most worried personally is Matthew 5:27-28 where Jesus says “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” It is this part where the battle was to have been fought, and where our failure has been most abject.
Decades of marketing spend and investment in media technologies have created commercial models that have disrupted the entire spiritual shape of humanity. We can hardly complain, since we bought it hook, line and sinker. The SSM machinery is now consolidating the victory wrought by years of prioritising consumption in public policy.
The simplest way of demonstrating this is to go back to the craving model of the Buddhists. The passions are manifestations of primal energy. Unless transformed and humanised they are dangerous. They are not ‘mine’, but can overwhelm and possess me if I deny or indulge them.
In meditation this energy and my awareness grind away at each other in a transformation process leading to a liberating maturity. This is impossible to commoditise or fetishise and our culture has industrialised precisely the opposite process. It is particularly easy to visualise these days. We energise passions, pumping maxed up desires through massive networks to individuals’ media devices in order to crank up investor returns in societies that have morphed themselves into leveraged macro hedge funds.
In the old world God made man and woman in His image.
We formed families with children, and families formed societies, governed on our behalf. Families helped in the early stages of maturation and the elderly were respected because they represented fulfilment of maturity, our aim. Of course, this was rare, but it was the kind of ideal.
A bit depressing really, but cheer up, here’s what the Boss says:
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
| December 11, 2012. |
Tory Councillors and officials received a copy of the attached email from a little known but apparently highly placed Conservative Party group calling itself LGBTory.
Here it is, revealed publicly in all its murky glory for the first time and exclusively on English Manif!
The identity of this email's particular recipient has been discretely but messily removed with Tippex and biro by yours truly. Note the reference to a large volume of written communiqués from the public that revealed, to the LGBT movement’s chagrin, a bedrock of public antagonism toward the change in marriage. More on what this flood of opposition letters entailed, momentarily.
The December 11, 2012, memo responds to the alarming reality that the British public overwhelmingly didn’t want SSM (same-sex marriage). LGBTory activists counter this prevailing trend by dismissing public opinion as foolishness and suggesting ways to subvert the democratic process. The author from LGBTory, writing to highly placed people in the government, claims SSM as a step in a program of deceptive purpose and subterfuge. It has the usual LiGiBiTist quota of lies and deceptions, but is interesting because it proves that the programme now being enacted has been plotted in secret darkness for very many years.
In months following, the scale and ferocity of the operation in the UK was breath taking, as was the coalition of gay power across parties, ultimately destroying the traditional family value position of the Conservatives in both the Commons and the House of Lords.
This government legislation passed only because of full opposition Labour support in July 2013.
So what was the hidden truth about public resistance to same-sex marriage, which prompted the memo?
Prior to the whirlwind passage of same-sex marriage (summer 2013), and prior to the panicked memo from LGBTory (December 2012), there were events that revealed the British public to be unsupportive of, even hostile to, the whole Beelzebubian intrigue of SSM.
On 15th March 2012, a public-sentiment canvassing process was initiated when the Conservative / Liberal Coalition announced it would be running a ‘consultation’* on how ‘Equal marriage’ (civil only, of course – a promise that bit the dust the moment the consultation response was published) would be implemented.
Note the shameless sense of entitlement inherent in a memo talking about how to go about forcing something on Britiain, which the British did not want. The haughty approach railroads the more fundamental issue of whether marriage should be redefined at all.
Responses to the highly assumptive questions in this bogus consultation were mainly online and no individual details were taken, so there was no control against cheating by multiple respondents or responses from overseas. Even then, the outcome against redefining marriage was so massive that Cameron had to rig the final count.
It must be noted that the Coalition For Marriage (C4M) had been assured by the civil servant running the exercise that signatures collected by C4M in its petition to save Real Marriage would each be counted as individual consultation responses.
C4M, unlike the government consultation itself, spent a fortune scrupulously checking their petitioners’ address details, eliminating duplication and fraud. Since C4M are Christians, why wouldn’t they?
Here are the numbers.
The official headline claim was that there were 228,000 responses, of which 104,880 (46%) were against SSM, 120,840 (53%) were for it, and 2,280 (1%) undecided.
But here is the fun part. C4M were now told all their 509,800 individually verified and auditable responses would be treated as ONE response only! And here is the wording from the consultation report: the result “does not include petitions, all opposed, with over 500,000 signatures” (oops – there goes C4M’s ‘one’ and only response count). So what happened to the gay lobby’s 64,000 pro-SSM petition responses? Exactly as you would expect, they were, each and every one of them, included. Stand by for some maths.
Here is the official result again:
There were 513,027 anti SSM petition signatures altogether, including C4M’s. We are going to add them back:
That was not too difficult, even for a government statistician. The actual consultation responses, of which we now know at least 509,800 (69%) have been professionally verified thanks to C4M, can now be seen. Here we have the definitive answer:
- · 83% of the responses were against redefining SSM and only 16% for it.
This records the data as received. It excludes nothing. It is the actual result. The government’s official headline score is the result of a massive distortion by excluding the ‘Against SSM’ (properly, ‘Pro Real Marriage’) petitions.
If GlaxoSmithKline or Pfizer had as brazenly tried reporting a drug trial excluding 69% of the results because they were inconvenient, the FDA would have told them to take a hike and hopefully closed them down or fined them. This is not mere ‘selection bias’, it is fraud.
Yet this fudged result was the basis on which the British government claimed public support for pushing through the most fundamental restructuring, distortion, of the legal basis for the family seen in history.
While we are at it, let’s try excluding both organised petition results:
So if both anti-SSM and pro-SSM petitions are removed, we find the result is
·
- 64% of the responses excluding petitions were against SSM and only 35% for it.
The protocol of the pro-SSM petition is less clear to me. I believe it was predominantly email based, and may not have been readily distinguishable from normal responses to those conducting the consultation. So I am less confident of these numbers, but include the ‘ex-petition’ split here for completeness.
By treating both types of petition ‘equally’, whether included or excluded, we find a substantial majority against SSM. In terms of the correct way of recording results, it is best practice to include all of them.
In medical statistical studies, one of the various ways used to avoid selection bias is analysis by ‘intention-to-treat’, in which results are included even if treatment is not completed. In this consultation the government went in the opposite direction, removing perfectly valid data – indeed the most scrupulously validated data possible - simply because it did not contain the answers it required. The official numbers were worse than biased, since they were, as we can see here, corrupt.
Quo vadis?
Several months on from the passage of the UK SSM legislation itself, the LiGBiTist (or as R.O.López writes it, “ligbitist”) momentum continues, ably assisted by the Church of England ditching Christianity as fast as conveniently possible.
But I think we are missing the point if we focus exclusively on homosexuality as the core problem, simply because it is the most visible fracture around which a number of fundamental changes are crystallising.
In a way the gay stuff is a distraction. Working the logic backwards, why should gay people not enjoy the legal and cultural recognition accorded to heterosexual couples (see, we can’t even use the word ‘normal’ any more) via marriage? This only even begins to make sense in terms of a form of marriage which is completely different from that which our grandparents took for granted. Traditional marriage was about giving yourself to your spouse for life, and in doing so cooperating with God in creating new life.
Modern marriage is about share of assets, lifestyle management, contraception, holidays and keeping an eye out for spousal upgrades. Sex has broken free and become a fundamental entitlement, children a designer add-on, especially for the rich.
In a culture based on desire, formalised in economists’ equations as ‘demand’, the role of the individual is nothing like that envisaged for humanity in, say, Genesis.
In traditional religions we see ‘desire’ (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) or ‘craving’ (Buddhism, Taoism) as a natural but essentially negative force, to be overcome or turned to good by spiritual exercise and the practice of selflessness. But for us, it is the engine room.
A Russian general was once interviewed on TV about how the Soviet Union came to collapse. He said that Reagan’s Star War program terrified the Soviets because they could not possibly afford to fight it. So they decided they had to grow economically.
They thought their economy was basically a good engine, a bit rusty maybe, but sound. So they scraped off the rust, the system of fear that had hitherto kept things under control. To their intense horror and amazement, the whole system collapsed. They had made a terrible mistake. The engine was not the economy. The engine was the rust, the fear that kept things together. And they had destroyed the entire machine with Perestroika.
Our greed and lust, our desires, function in much the same way as the Soviets’ fear.
We are seeing a phase shift. We passed the point of no return long ago. The bit in the Bible that gets me most worried personally is Matthew 5:27-28 where Jesus says “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” It is this part where the battle was to have been fought, and where our failure has been most abject.
Decades of marketing spend and investment in media technologies have created commercial models that have disrupted the entire spiritual shape of humanity. We can hardly complain, since we bought it hook, line and sinker. The SSM machinery is now consolidating the victory wrought by years of prioritising consumption in public policy.
The simplest way of demonstrating this is to go back to the craving model of the Buddhists. The passions are manifestations of primal energy. Unless transformed and humanised they are dangerous. They are not ‘mine’, but can overwhelm and possess me if I deny or indulge them.
In meditation this energy and my awareness grind away at each other in a transformation process leading to a liberating maturity. This is impossible to commoditise or fetishise and our culture has industrialised precisely the opposite process. It is particularly easy to visualise these days. We energise passions, pumping maxed up desires through massive networks to individuals’ media devices in order to crank up investor returns in societies that have morphed themselves into leveraged macro hedge funds.
In the old world God made man and woman in His image.
We formed families with children, and families formed societies, governed on our behalf. Families helped in the early stages of maturation and the elderly were respected because they represented fulfilment of maturity, our aim. Of course, this was rare, but it was the kind of ideal.
And at least the individual was the autonomous ethical unit – instanced in Christian-speak via God’s incarnation as a human. In the shiny new greed-and-lust world things are very different.
The State is now supreme. Religion, nation, family are obstacles to its securing dominance of the individual, who is now simply a tiny craving node in a global network manipulating desires, a giant hive. LiGBiTism is the demolition agent, delegitimising and criminalising the basic traditional cultural structures, especially any that have the gall to reek of Christianity. In the hands of operators like Cameron and Obama it is being deployed with skill.
The State is now supreme. Religion, nation, family are obstacles to its securing dominance of the individual, who is now simply a tiny craving node in a global network manipulating desires, a giant hive. LiGBiTism is the demolition agent, delegitimising and criminalising the basic traditional cultural structures, especially any that have the gall to reek of Christianity. In the hands of operators like Cameron and Obama it is being deployed with skill.
A bit depressing really, but cheer up, here’s what the Boss says:
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
(Matthew 5: 11)
SamJohnson lives in England and contributes often to English Manif.
*American readers, note from Editor: The “consultation” seems to have been a specific process wherein the government agreed to accept written statements of public opposition or support during a particular window. This process occurred half a year before LGBTory’s alarmist memo.
