Berlin, Germany (Weltexpress). What if the real aim is to cover up hormonal damage? An Orwellian solution that turns victims into followers who no longer have any reason to ask questions and who support the ruling power instead of questioning it?
Once again, it was just a short note, more of a comment in an article, that set off a whole chain of thoughts and led me to a hypothesis that seemed exotic at first glance: Could it be that the whole LGBTQ hype has its origins in the cover-up of an environmental scandal?
First of all, it is important to remember that although many events are often interpreted as part of a plan, they are not necessarily part of a plan, or that plans often only develop in connection with actions that are originally spontaneous reactions to completely different events. In other words, it is reasonable to assume that, in addition to planned action, there is also something like spontaneous opportunism.
And it is important to remember the scale of damages claims in the United States. The classic case dates back to the 1990s: 2.7 million US dollars because a customer scalded herself with McDonald’s coffee. Or the 7.4 billion dollars that the owners of the US pharmaceutical company Purdue have to pay for their aggressive marketing of opioids, which triggered the opioid crisis in the US. There are also well-known films on this subject, such as ‘Erin Brockovich’.
And now to the comment that made me stumble. It’s not that I’d never heard or known about it before, but sometimes the necessary pieces of the puzzle just happen to fall into place. It was just the remark that hormones are still used in cattle fattening in the US.
And then I remembered the first reports about the effects of plasticisers in plastics, for example, especially bisphenol A, which has a similar effect to oestrogen, as well as other reports about residues of contraceptive pills in wastewater and residues of other medications. Growth and sex hormones in livestock fattening (where, ironically, sex hormones are also permitted in the EU), and the fact that ultimately hardly anyone knows what is floating around in our rivers and how this chemical cocktail actually works. Except that phenomena of feminisation of male fish can be documented in water bodies. An old quote on this from the Welt newspaper on 15 January 2009: ‘Because more and more contraceptive pills and hormone preparations are ending up in wastewater, one in five male black bass in US rivers has now developed female sexual characteristics. This is weakening the fish’s ability to reproduce.’
It is quite striking that in the entire transsexual scene, men become ‘women’ far more often than vice versa. From a biological point of view, this is entirely understandable, provided that it is a case 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 basically 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 by adding testosterone or testosterone-like substances, and in not insignificant doses, the number of males who become feminised in the event of environmental influence would be far higher than the number of women who become masculinised.
The following has always been the point that was confusing against the social background: Why, in a society where men still have far more power and wealth than women, would men even strive to reduce their own status (if we ignore the current phase, in which this actually brings a gain in status in some places)? Socially speaking, this is completely illogical, but if one assumes that the trigger is biochemical, it suddenly becomes explainable.
Is it completely inconceivable that the entire LGBTQ movement was deliberately promoted in order to conceal such damage? Not if one considers the enormous compensation payments that would otherwise have been due. In addition, the counterpart (except in individual cases that are easier to prove) would have been the state. With the cocktail that today’s society generates and is also administered through water and food, it is not only difficult to identify how effects reinforce each other, it is equally difficult to prove who is responsible for which substance and in what way. This is why pharmaceutical companies and chemical corporations, for example, would tend to get away with it, while the state could well be held liable for the consequential damage due to a lack of control, which may encourage governments to resort to measures that prevent such burdens.
In principle, this is a pretty ideal solution: 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 seek out the root causes or think about finding those responsible and holding them accountable.
What’s more, those who find their own development unnatural, and who might therefore be tempted to take legal action, lose any opportunity to find out what happened to them if the result is defined as normal. Just imagine if the pharmaceutical companies that produced thalidomide had been able to sell missing arms and legs as a new stage in human development. That would have been much cheaper for them and would have prevented Contergan from serving as a cautionary tale of greed for generations to come. The ‘corona vaccination’ has recently demonstrated how helpful large-scale propaganda can be.
The differences between urban and rural areas with regard to LGBTQ would also fit into 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 hormone-like substances potentially ingested would be higher, which, if this scenario is correct, would result in a much higher proportion of gender-altered (especially male) individuals.
Well, the classic gay scene in the West has had links to the pharmaceutical industry since the 1980s – arising out of pure necessity, because the financing of the initially extremely expensive AIDS drugs first had to be pushed through politically. But such contacts rarely remain a one-way street. Assuming the hypothesis is correct, these companies could also work specifically to steer developments in a certain direction through their contacts.
With sufficient lead time, this is feasible, especially in Western societies, where it has long been established that each generation needs a new variant of ‘otherness.’ It is not a new menu that is being established, so to speak, but only a single dish being replaced; the expectation of being served something new already exists. This is likely one of the reasons why LGBTQ has not really been able to establish itself in other parts of the world. Apart from the fact that the contraceptives that transported oestrogen into the rivers were first widespread in Western societies.
Of course, once the first step has been taken, other agendas would also be attached to the trans project. Such as the thorough destruction of the ‘classical’ left by overshadowing the actually central economic issues. A wonderful distraction that ensures that young people spend much longer preoccupied with finding their sexual identity than biology has intended with the relatively short period of puberty. Would it really be possible to enforce this state of permanent immaturity in society so stringently if there were no tangible biochemical changes behind it?
The greatest advantage of such an approach is, of course, that it would permanently prevent scientific investigation of the phenomenon, as this would then be considered ‘discriminatory.’ This would ensure that even those victims who still feel psychological distress would no longer have any opportunity to seek out those responsible, because their suffering would simply be redefined as normal, thereby becoming an individual psychological problem. That something like highly toxic puberty blockers would then be discovered as a business opportunity is actually a logical consequence for those presumably involved.
Incidentally, bisphenol A, which has an estrogen-like effect, was only banned in the EU as an ingredient in food packaging 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 an issue for a relatively short time; the young people who today have problems defining themselves as fish or meat were infants when the plasticiser was still permitted in dummies.
Of course, this is just speculation, a hypothesis that I have no way of verifying. But perhaps there is someone out there who has the time and inclination to at least investigate possible correlations: When and where did the LGBTQ hype begin? Were chemical and pharmaceutical companies involved, and if so, to what extent? Are there any studies that prove hormonal changes in humans? Such evidence could be used to verify whether the hypothesis fits the facts in detail. One thing is clear, at least – it is not unthinkable.
