Document:Is LGBTQ being used to cover up a gigantic environmental scandal
(Picture not part of original article.)
| What if the goal is actually to cover up hormonal damage? An Orwellian solution that turns victims into followers who no longer have reason to ask questions and support the ruling power instead of challenging it? |
article by Dagmar Henn dated 8 Apr 2025Subjects: LGBTQ
Source: Link
Translated from German
★ Join the Discussion about this document
Is LGBTQ being used to cover up a gigantic environmental scandal?
This time, too, it was just a short note, more like a comment in an article, that set a whole chain of thoughts in motion and led me to a hypothesis that, at first glance, seems exotic: Could it be that the whole LGBTQ hype has its origins in the cover-up of an environmental scandal?
To do this, one must first recall that while many events are often interpreted as part of a plan, they are not necessarily part of a plan, or that plans often develop in connection with actions that were originally spontaneous reactions to completely different events. In other words, it is reasonable to assume something like spontaneous opportunism alongside planned action.
And it's important to remember, and this is important in this context, the magnitude of damages claims in the United States. The classic case dates back to the 1990s: $2.7 million because a customer scalded herself with McDonald's coffee. Or the $7.4 billion that the owners of the US pharmaceutical company Purdue had to pay for their aggressive marketing of opioids, which triggered the opioid crisis in the US. There are also well-known films on this topic, such as "Erin Brockovich".
And now to the comment that tripped me up. Not that I've never heard or known this, but sometimes the necessary pieces of the puzzle just fall into place by chance. It was simply the remark that hormones are still used in cattle fattening in the US.
And then come the memories of the first reports about the effects of plasticizers in plastics, for example, especially bisphenol A, which acts similarly to estrogen, as well as further reports about residues of contraceptives in wastewater, residues of other medications, growth and sex hormones in livestock farming (although sex hormones, of all things, are also permitted in the EU), and the fact that, ultimately, hardly anyone can know what's swimming around in our rivers and how this chemical cocktail actually works. Only that phenomena of feminization in male fish can be documented in waterways. An old quote on this topic, from Die Welt, dated 15.09.2009:[1]
"Because more and more birth control pills and hormone preparations are finding their way into wastewater, one in five male smallmouth bass in U.S. rivers has now developed female sexual characteristics. This weakens the fish's reproduction."
It is quite striking that, in the entire transsexual scene, men become "women" far more often than vice versa. From a biological perspective, this is entirely understandable, as long as it is a form of damage – the female body is, in a sense, the norm, and only the presence of testosterone makes it possible to deviate from it. This means that there are essentially two ways to disrupt the development of this deviation: substances that resemble the female sex hormone and "override" testosterone, or substances that inhibit the production or effect of testosterone. In both cases, the result would be a return to the female norm. Because a change in the other direction is only possible through the addition of testosterone or testosterone-like substances, and in a not-too-small dose, in the case of environmental influences, the number of males who then become feminized would be far higher than the number of women who become masculinized.
The following was always the point that was irritating – given the social context –: Why, in a society where men still have far more power and wealth than women, should men even strive to reduce their own status (if we ignore the current phase in which this actually leads to a gain in status in some places)? Socially speaking, this seems completely illogical, but if one assumes that the trigger is biochemical, it suddenly becomes understandable.
Is it completely inconceivable that the entire LGBTQ movement was deliberately promoted to conceal such harm? Not when you consider the enormous compensation payments that would otherwise have been due. Adding to that is the fact that the counterpart (except in better-documented individual cases) would have been the state. With the cocktail that today's society generates and receives in its water and food, it is not only difficult to recognize how effects mutually reinforce each other, it is equally difficult to prove who is responsible for which substance and in what way. Therefore, pharmaceutical and chemical companies, for example, would be more likely to get away with it, while the state could certainly be held liable for consequential damages due to a lack of control, which could encourage governments to resort to measures that prevent such burdens.
In principle, this is a pretty ideal solution: the victims are persuaded that their condition is not only normal, but also particularly valuable, even desirable and career-enhancing, and then only a few will look for deeper causes or think about finding those responsible and holding them accountable.
What's more, those who find their own development unnatural, and who might ultimately be tempted to sue, lose their ability to even find out what happened to them if the outcome is defined as normal. Just imagine if the pharmaceutical companies that produced thalidomide had the opportunity to sell the missing arms and legs as a new stage of human development. This would have been significantly cheaper for them and would have prevented the marketing of thalidomide from serving as a deterrent to profiteering for generations. The "coronavirus vaccination" recently demonstrated how helpful large-scale propaganda can be.
The differences between urban and rural areas regarding LGBTQ people would also fit this scenario. Very few large cities can actually supply themselves with spring water; for reasons of quantity alone, treated river water is more common. However, this also means that the amount of potentially ingested hormone-like substances would be higher, which, if this scenario is correct, would result in a much higher proportion of gender-altered (especially male) individuals.
Well, the traditional gay scene in the West has had connections with the pharmaceutical industry since the 1980s – arising out of pure necessity, for example, because the financing of the initially extremely expensive AIDS drugs had to be politically secured. But such contacts are rarely a one-way street. Assuming the hypothesis is correct, then these companies could also work specifically to steer developments in a certain direction through their contacts.
With sufficient advance notice, this is feasible, especially in Western societies, where it has long been established that each generation requires a new version of "being different". It's not a case of establishing a new menu, so to speak, but simply exchanging a single dish; the expectation of being served something new is already present. This may be one reason why LGBTQ hasn't been able to truly establish itself in other parts of the world. Apart from the fact that contraceptives, which pumped estrogen into the rivers, first spread in Western societies.
Of course, once the beginnings are made, other agendas could also be attached to the trans project. Such as a thorough destruction of the "classical" left by overriding the actually central economic issues. A wonderful distraction that ensures that young people spend much longer preoccupied with finding their sexual identity than biology intended, given the manageable period of puberty. Would it really be possible to enforce this state of permanent immaturity so stringently in society if there weren't tangible biochemical changes behind it?
The greatest advantage of such an approach, of course, is that it would permanently prevent any scientific investigation of the phenomenon, as it would then be "discriminatory." This would ensure that even those victims who still feel distress would no longer have the opportunity to look for someone to blame, because their suffering would simply be defined as normal, thus transforming it into an individual psychological problem. The discovery of something like highly toxic puberty blockers as a business is actually a logical consequence for those presumably involved.
Incidentally, the estrogen-like substance bisphenol A was only banned as a component of food packaging in the EU at the end of 2024. It has been banned in baby bottles and pacifiers since 2011, but not in other toys. However, it was only a relatively short-lived issue; the young people who today struggle to define themselves as fish or meat were infants when the plasticizer was still permitted in pacifiers.
This is, of course, just a thought, a hypothesis that I don't have the means to test. But perhaps someone has the time and inclination to, at least investigate possible correlations: When and where did the LGBTQ hype begin? Whether and to what extent, for example, were chemical and pharmaceutical companies involved? What studies might exist that document hormonal changes in humans? With such evidence, it would be possible to test whether the hypothesis fits the facts in detail. One thing is clear - it is not unthinkable.
