In the space of just a few years, the federal government — along with the commanding heights of corporations, universities, and nonprofits — has been transformed into a propaganda and promotion vehicle for homosexuality and gender confusion.  Our embassies, even in devoutly Muslim countries, have flown flags promoting homosexuality.  Our military, once the most powerful in the world, is now indoctrinating troops into gender confusion.

Now, hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars are being spent to translate into Spanish a dictionary of terms related to homosexuality, transgenderism, and other deviant non-standard sexualities.

Colin Anderson writes in the Free Beacon:

The Biden administration is spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to translate the Homosaurus, a self-described "vocabulary of LGBTQ+ terms" that includes phrases such as "anal fisting" and "jizz," into Spanish, documents show.

President Joe Biden's National Endowment for the Humanities in January announced the $350,000 grant, which will see the University of Washington create a "Spanish-language version of the Homosaurus." The dictionary, which features a dinosaur standing under a rainbow as its logo, defines hundreds of terms and phrases "relating to bisexuality, trans, gender, and intersex concepts," according to its website. Examples include "anal fisting," which the Homosaurus defines as the "sexual practice of inserting a fist into an anus," "jizz," which it calls the "slang term for semen; primarily used in the United States," and "Indigiqueer," a "term used to describe the identity of people who are both Indigenous and queer and view those identities as inherently related and interconnected.

Many Americans of Hispanic heritage are more conservative in matters of sex and sexuality than Anglophone Americans, especially those on the coasts.  Is this dictionary aimed at them?  Or is it aimed at Spanish-speaking countries, which also in general do not embrace the destruction of the historical and biblical norms around sex?

Obviously, it is aimed at both.

With the federal government so committed to propagating ideas and the language to discuss them, one ought to be able to assume that there was a national consensus that we want as many people as possible to engage in what might be called "alternative sexuality."  Heterosexuality is limiting, and the more people encouraged to break the constraints of traditional thinking on sex, the better.

Yet no such consensus exists, nor has anyone attempted to have a broad-scale political debate on what role the federal government should play in promoting sexual practices.  Instead, the transition to the feds becoming a propaganda organ for nonstandard sexual practices has been accomplished by stealth, from the top down, with elites at the summit of our institutions persuaded to enlist in the effort.

Tolerance is fine.  But active promotion is a very different stance for government institutions to adopt.  Given the depth and breadth of the surrender of our institutions to promoting alternative sexuality, it is not an overstatement to call it a coup d'état.