Peter Tulip goes mask off

I love that @HeinzyGuderian reply

yes you are cosmopolitan homosexual, you have no values except for rent seeking and being a parasite. we knew that already.

50k aussie kids currently homeless, there is no “economic” consideration more important than putting a roof over thier heads.

you are a piece of shit

Sometimes all it takes is for someone to tell the unspoken truth and then all the fancy framing and posturing falls away. IMHO Peter Tulip has no buy-in or interest in the future other than as a model on his spreadsheets. He should have never been allowed any role in contributing to Australia’s financial and economic narrative.

In terms of the gestal Egregore that is created by allowing segments of the community to contribute to it, Peter is a perfect example of why open homosexuals were generally excluded from contributing to our narrative.

Society, our Egregor, requires its members to reproduce, in order to perpetuate itself. Theoretically that is the social contract with our God ie society, that provides everything to us and ourselves.

In a society on the edge of survival, intent of procreation should be non-negotiable. LGBT tolerance is a luxury such societies can’t afford – hence part of the social taboos in most religions around LGBT identities and behaviours. Those that refuse procreate are effectively a burden on future members i.e. the generations progeny – placing them at a disadvantage.

Obviously we live in a time of bountiful resources, so that ‘burden’ of additional support of childless gays, shouldn’t be as much of an issue. But it doesn’t just stop at being a future burden. There is also the consequence of denying a family the income that Peter has snaffled for himself and no doubt spent it all on himself. This also causes harm to our Egregore for similar reasons.

Having no buy into the future, i.e. no descendants to be concerned about, then you are not going to be concerned about the social capital you’ve invested in your children being destroyed, through wholesale transference to immigrants and the growth lobby… because you accumulated no social capital by spending it all on yourself..

These social drivers are one of the main reasons why people with open LBGT identities were purposefully excluded by our Egregore from specific areas of our social narrative – policy making, leadership, etc.

There were probably plenty of closet fags, but then being a closet fag back then still meant having kids – Oscar Wilde, one of the most famous gays of the past 200yrs had to two kids. The point is, they were much more likely to either hypocritically assume the same values as heterosexual men, or they already had ‘buy-in’ by having kids of their own.

Consequently open gays generally worked in either the Navy or the Theater, or other limited professions, and by and large that was accepted by society as an acceptable trade off.

Were these social restrictions good or bad? They were good if we take the point of view of our Egregore in terms of i) perpetuating itself, and ii) ensuring income was distributed to those most worthy or in need of receiving it. A healthy Egregore values raising kids over air plan tickets to international pooh-poking parties.

However these outcomes were bad from the point of view of the individuals who wanted to pursue both open LGBT identities, equal employment opportunities and not be burdened by families.

Obviously in our Satanic times of ‘Self over Society’ what is good is bad, and what is bad is good.