A recent intervention of the Department of Justice of the Nazi States of America was commented in the press with the words “the child has no right to a mother”. I have not read the article yet and do not know what Nazi monstrosities might be read thereon, but I thought I’d expand on the general subject.
Yes, a child has no right to a mother. This has always been so in Catholic countries, and with good reason. This also saved countless lives.
In the past, raising a child was the responsibility of the parents. If the parents did not have the means or inclinations to do so – or if they were violent or abusive or neglected their children – the child was given – voluntarily or not – to an orphanage to be raised there. It still is, in fact, extremely easy in Italy to give a child to an orphanage, with a traditional “no questions asked” policy and great flexibility for the mother – who can, for example, choose whether the child may be adopted by other parents, can visit as much as she likes, & Co. -.
Again, think of the premise of this reasoning: a child is a responsibility, not a right. But the fact that the mother does not have a right to raise her own child has as a necessary corollary that the child has no right to be raised by his own mother.
This basic principle – a natural expression of the self – responsibility traditionally demanded from everyone in Catholic countries – seems to have vanished from Anglo-Saxon thinking. Where I live nothing seems more natural than the fact a girl should be maintained by the taxpayer pretty much for her entire life, and provided with accommodation and basic comforts for which others have to work very hard, simply because she was both sluttish and stupid enough to become pregnant (once the greatest shame imaginable within a family, and today reason for victimhood and entitlement).
The socialist absurdity of this thinking in turn leads to the socialist absurdity of modern Anglo-Saxon societies: an army of whining “single mums” costing astonishing amounts of money and, more tragically, an holocaust of children murdered in the womb, because the idea that a child could be born and given to an orphanage isn’t really there at a practical level, and perhaps not even at a legal one.
All this nurtures the other evils of socialist thinking: self-responsibility almost disappears in the background of a society exclusively focused on self-victimhood and entitlement; and, predictably, the lack of self-responsibility leads to an army of boys raised to be criminals or hopeless scroungers and girls raised to follow the same careers of their mothers, which they’ll soon discover is vastly preferable to cleaning toilets at £5.70/hour.
Compare this with traditional Catholic societies like Italy, where being a “single mother” is still a shame few would want to bear and even fewer would be able to afford; where many children are still raised in orphanages, which traditionally provide the children with solid guidance, proper raising and even the learning of skills; and where, as a result, youth criminality is at practically non-existent levels compared to what we see in places like London.
No, a child has no “right” to have a mother; not any more than the mother has the “right” to raise her child. A child has the right to be born and, if necessary, raised in a sound, Christian environment, surrounded by women who love children and can, to an extent, soften the blow of the absence (partial or total) of the biological mother (there are plenty of those good, loving, motherly women in Catholic countries; do not even ask why).
Socialism has distorted and even perverted traditional Catholic thinking in matter of child raising; has substituted duty with entitlement, and allowed the entitlement to subvert Christian morality. People don’t even wonder anymore whether it be right to have children outside of wedlock or without a father worthy of the name.. Children just happen, like flu, or they get murdered so that they don’t.
Tutto si tiene, the Earl of Cavour used to say. Sexual licence, social scrounging, youth criminality and staggering social(ist) costs are all caused by the same forgetfulness of basic Christian thinking and its substitution for a soppy, socialist, emotionally charged, free-meal, no-responsibility, guilt-free mentality.
It is time to go back to sound Christian thinking, and realise what our forefathers would not even have considered worthy of discussion.
Of course, the child has no right to a mother.
The Diocese of Rockford has put an end to its collaboration with the diocese of Illinois in matters of adoption, after it has become clear that they would have been forced to work with unmarried couples and even with homosexual so-called couples.
This is why Catholic Charities has stopped the collaboration with the State of Illinois. Sixty-six people have lost their job. The activity of Catholic Charities will continue – including adoption – on a private basis.
It is highly ironic that the political correct blindness of these times does not even allow to consider the religious nature of an organisation. The sufferers will be those who cannot afford the private adoption service and will be deprived of the service ranked as second-best in the state.
I hope that there will be more controversy on this in the years to come, and that the bishops in the US will energetically start to fight such absurd mentality and plead for the return to sanity; not only for the good of the country, but – though it may seem rhetorical to say so – for the good of the children.
I am rather sure that you have wondered, like me, about how the hysterical screaming of perverts of both sexes for “marriage” (ha!) and “adoption” (ha!) contrasts with the stability of such “unions” (ha!) in real life.
I would have thought (being of gentle disposition; and much less chauvinist than I may sound ; and generally well disposed toward the other sex, and ready to attribute to it all the advantages and accomplishments my own sex hasn’t) that whilst the co-habitation of two sodomites must be hell on earth – with a drama queen factor barely endurable by human nature, and a compound bitchiness rate higher than even perverted natures can live with – the concubinage of two inverted women must be, in its own way, stable; as if the abomination of same sex attraction would not be able to cancel the natural attitude of the gentle sex to cling to one’s companion, to look for stability in a relationship and to exercise those virtues of forgiveness and understanding for the faults of the beloved person that are so rightly considered its natural traits.
It turns out that, whilst the easy prediction about the “marriage” (ha!) behaviour of poofs are confirmed, I clearly overestimated the lesbian part of the equation.
It would appear from here (and please look at the notes for some original sources, further sources will very probably follow) that the exam of perverted “couples” (ha!) in countries where such abominations have a sort of “tradition” (we are talking, of course, of the fortresses of European secularism: Netherlands, Danemark, Norway and Sweden) shows pretty constant results as follows:
1) Marriages between people of opposite sexes (erm: marriages) are the most stable.
2) “Unions” (ha!) between homos have a far higher probability of dissolution than heterosexual ones. This alone should – if common sense were not enough already – put an end to every discussion about “adoption”; but no, it is better for our politicians to utterly wretch young lives, than to risk some votes. Hell awaits, I suppose…
3) “Unions” (ha!) among lesbians are actually – with the only exception of the Netherlands, where readily available pot might be of some help – even less stable than the faggoty ones, with the “ladies” (ha!) actually parting ways like there’s no tomorrow.
This, mind you, in a context of societies where promiscuity is ripe and divorce a common occurrence even among heterosexually oriented people.
What transpires is the extreme childishness, selfishness and utter ridicule of a small bunch of perverts who play with “marriage” and “adoption” as if they were toys seen in a shop window and obtained through senseless and ceaseless crying, but soon discarded after having obtained them. This, note again, not from limited anecdotal evidence, but at collective, multinational level across a couple of decades.
The utterly criminal concept of allowing such small children to even adopt small children has been already examined, and doesn’t need any further explanation.
In their collective behaviour, our perverts’ population shows all the traits the popular wisdom – now branded as “homophobic” but, in fact, purely factual – has always attributed to them.
It is time to throw in the bin of the political correct madness every concept of homosexual “couple” (ha!), let alone “adoption” (ha!).
I have written only yesterday about the extraordinary times we live in; times when an old pervert who, together with his perverted (er, what….. mistress?) decides to have a new and unusual toy can easily “rent a uterus” and, through the help of sperm of not yet revealed origin, provide to what he probably calls “procreation” and certainly “fatherhood”.
Today, the “Telegraph” has an additional article about that. The article shows at the same time the pit in which the “Telegraph” has descended, the indifference to perversion of its journalists and more broadly the indifference with which vast parts of society – even among those calling themselves “conservative” – looks at abominations of this sort before happily moving back to the enjoyment of Cheryl Cole’s secondary sexual characteristics.
The article’s position first. It is in the “celebrities” section of the Telegraph’s “news” internet presence. From this we infer that a) the “Telegraph” finds it necessary to have a “celebrity” section, and b) the “Telegraph” considers celebrity gossip “news”. Not many years ago such rubbish would have been considered something for the working classes; which, by the way, is still the case.
The content of the article is also revealing. Elton John’s childishness is heavily criticised, his decadent habits utterly (and, I must say, rather amusingly) exposed. Still, not one word about his perversion, the scandal he gives, the monstrosity of men “adopting”. Yes, the sperm-uterus-concoction used in this case does cause a certain discomfort, but I fail to detect any moral message in that. Basically, the fact that the man buys a tram and has it shipped through a couple of oceans is seen as morally reprehensible, the fact that he is an openly homosexual old perv living with his concubine isn’t.
So much so, that the article’s author considers clearly reprehensible that an Ukrainian child suffering from Aids could not be adopted by the “couple”. How backwards, these Ukrainians who continue to insist on a family being….. a family! “With a rubber stamp, a small boy’s life chances were crushed”, says Ms. Woods in an emotionally charged, X-Factor-cum-Dickens moment….. (I failed to cry, though. It must be me).
What? Crushed because the poor child has not been adopted by….. a couple of homos? What “adoption” is this? What “family” is this? And for Heaven’s sake let us set aside the donations. Donations don’t buy one the right to be above the Law and I am rather pleased that the Ukraine showed more integrity than Madonna’s Malawi (or whichever other tin-pot African post-colonial disaster it was).
So there we are: two homos go around a) trying to adopt children and – failing that – b) proceed to hire alien uteruses (and perhaps even sperm; who knows, they might have quarrelled about who is “the father” and I really wouldn’t want to see two aged homos in a kitchen fight…..) and the “Telegraph”‘s journalist doesn’t criticise the obvious monstrosity of all this, but merely the infantile, ego-driven, diva-like character of one of the two (good Lord, there we are again…) “fathers”.
Sometimes I have the impression that just as we speak, up above dear old Abraham is haggling with God again, trying to spare us the angel’s visit…….
We live in – as the unforgettable Baldrick used to say – strange and disturbing times. Times so strange that common sense is not applied anymore and too many people are afraid to switch on their brains for fear that the result might not be politically correct and, as a result, put them into trouble or at the very least disturb the course of their orderly lives.
Take alcohol, for example. It doesn’t need a genius to understand that a young man or woman raised up in a family of alcoholics might well grow up to be one himself. Particularly so, when the habit of getting drunk is seen as not only harmful, but morally neutral or even part of an alternative way of living only criticised by “bullies” and “alcophobics”. Or take violence in the family, with the obvious effect that violence experienced daily will exert on the young souls if they get to know the world through the eyes of their role models, people glorifying violence as a way of life which only bigots and “violophobic” dare to criticise. Or take again coprophagy or coprophily, with a young boy or girl growing up in a family of people eating or loving crap and continually hearing how intolerant and “coprophobe” the world is.
The list of perversions and dysfunctions could be long, but common to all of them is that it is purely a matter of common sense that without a proper education and transmission of proper values, the healthy development of younger generations could be hampered and grave damage done. This is why the role of the parents is so paramount and the vital importance of their example so universally stressed.
Of course, things do not have to always go bad. Children raised up in dysfunctional families can grow up to become perfectly balanced adults, and some may even get – from the very evil they see in their own domestic environment – the desire to excel in the virtues their own parents lacked. But it is obvious to the simplest common sense that their task will be more difficult, and that whenever they’ll succeed they’ll do it notwithstanding the bad or perverted influence of their families instead of because of it.
In general terms, it has always been a received truth that the sins of the fathers are transmitted to the sons, both in a religious and in a more practical way. Talis pater, talis filius, the Romans also used to say; people, these, who must have understood something of human nature if two thousand years later we are still fond of their sayings.
Strangely enough – and in defiance to the most elementary common sense – all this would not be applicable to sexual perversions. For example, we are required to believe that a child raised up by an homosexual “couple” would not be influenced by the sexual behaviour and attitude he sees in his home every day and which is presented to him as perfectly natural. The obvious observation that to grow up in the midst of perverts might make of a child a pervert does not touch them (officially, at least); it isn’t convenient to say so, therefore it can’t be true, and damn common sense.
Obviously, homosexuals know all too well what could become of their “adopted” “sons”. They do desire it. But they don’t tell you, preferring you to believe the stupid tale of the sexual orientation being something which can’t be perverted but is simply in one way or the other. As if Sodom had been the place where, stranegly enough, the sexual orientation had happened to be always the same one. What en extraordinary coincidence.
It is another evil perversion of the homosexual lobby to demand that their tale of the non-influence of their sexual perversion(1) be accepted as mantra whilst working to have children made in their own image (another interesting figure of speech by the way). Can you imagine the homosexual “father” proud of seeing his son starting to run after the girls? How could this father not notice what probable effect his son growing as heterosexual will have on the relationship between the two? How easily can an heterosexual grown in an homosexual household grow up to understand the perversion running in his own domestic environment? In the very best of cases it will be as in Chandler of the Tv series “friends”; in the worst of cases, much worse.
Thankfully, every now and then someone has the courage (and courage it is) to say that the emperor has no clothes, and that children of homosexual “couples” are much more likely than the average to grow up perverted themselves.
The discovery of boiling water, you will say. Still, this is something that has to be said also in the “research” environment, where otherwise madness would know no boundaries.
If this elementary common sense continues to be spread and brought to the attention of the public opinion, perhaps one day we’ll force the homos to throw away the mask and at least admit that in adopting a child they’ll hope that he becomes a homosexual and do nothing to avoid this happening, trusting that family values and a habit of perversion lived every day will be sufficient. This will even reinforce them in the fantasy of their own “normality” and is in any way coherent with their idea that homosexuality be “their normality” (which, by the way, every paedophile Catholic priest could tell you in exactly the same words).
Truly, modern society is allowing itself such madness in ideology-driven social “experiments” as not even the Nazis would have dared to dream of.
(1) can we please stop the bollocks with the “orientation”. A perversion is a perversion. You don’t say of a paedophile that he has an “alternative orientation”. You say that he is a pervert.
From the “Creative Minority Report”, a moving video featuring the voice of the unforgettable Ronald Reagan.
It is only three minutes long. I’ll let Ronald Reagan’s message speak for itself. I have only added an “eternal rest” for this great, great man and invite you to do the same.