That notorious den of iniquity and perversion, the BBC, informs us more and more men in California use that strange tentative, “I am not really sure of what I’m saying” tone effected by raising the pitch at the end of the sentence.
I did not know the phenomenon (totally unknown in my neck of the wood) until I came in contact with Americans who had a strange way of answering your question, almost as if they were asking a question themselves rather than give an answer. This was not only by straight answers, but by every expression of opinion or judgment, often mixed with qualifiers like “I suppose” or “I guess”. I heard it mostly from women, but also from men, and whilst it might have had a girly charm in a woman (particularly if young) I found it extremely emasculated in a man.
Question: “Where do you come from?”
Answer: “Los Angeles?”
John Wayne, it ain’t.
It now appears the trend is spreading. How can you be surprised? More and more boys are growing in dysfunctional families, either without a father or with an absent one, whilst the schools have less and less male teachers. Even the priest is – probably if you are a catholic, and very probably if you aren’t – not a model of masculinity. These poor boys, who must in many cases nowadays not even be allowed to play “Cowboys and Indians” by their politically correct, possibly men-hating single mothers, will forcibly grow up in an effeminate environment. Worse, in an environment where masculinity is seen as threatening, or otherwise not desired. Is it a surprised that these poor boys grow up speaking like girls? They speak like girls because, even if the environment will not succeed in make of most of them faggots, it will succeed in making them sissies. A life of whining and bitching awaits them, in which the expectation of handouts from the ever-growing State will prevail over the traditional masculine virtues of going out there “hunting”, possibly taking risks and always accepting responsibilities, and seeing themselves as the providers and protectors of the women in their life. Make no mistake, such a sissy is very likely to vote Obama and his successors for his entire life, expecting the Government to take over every aspect of his life whilst he waffles about women’s rights.
Your typical product of the Californian liberal-single-mother culture (I shudder at thinking how many they must be, sipping their caramel faggoty skinny latte macchiato grande at the nearest Starbucks while making burnt offerings on the altar of inclusiveness) will clearly absorb the ways of their mothers and their (bitchy; yes, bitchy; yes, I know it) female friends and start to behave accordingly.
The Starbucks generation is upon us. Clearly, they’ll have to rely on the Government as their provider.
The first weekend of summer has arrived, though from my window I can’t see much of it.
Summer, who has inspired countless poets and filled so many hearts with joy and optimism.
“Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” the Bard asked some unknown beauty.
We do not know whether the beauty in question liked the comparison, though we are informed she was more lovely and more temperate, and her eternal summer would not fade.
What we know, though, is that the summertime is the perfect time to dump Starbucks, and to give your money to enterprises that do not glorify sexual perversion instead.
This is to pay tribute to a not-so-small company which has been proudly displaying the strong pro-life convictions of its owners for… the last 15 years; and has been prospering whilst doing it.
This is a family run operation owned by four brothers. The CEO is Mr Tony Maas, a chap with very clear ideas about life in general.
Maas says that JTM has never encountered a complaint about the unapologetically pro-life messages that have been on his semitrailers for 15 years.
“Quite frankly, we never get any bad calls. It’s all good.”
Maas said that his pro-life convictions were passed on to him from his “extremely Catholic” parents and grandparents who believed that with the passage of Roe v. Wade, there would be a need for “much prayer, not just for the babies, but for the mothers who were going to have abortions and for the grief that they would be experiencing.”
Maas explained that a culture of life is founded upon the principles that “God has made us”, that a man and a woman come together to form a “forever relationship in the sacrament of marriage” through which children are born, and that “strong families” are the building blocks of a flourishing society.
“Unfortunately our culture has countered these principles with the destruction of human life through abortion,” he said.
“A culture of life is about being obedient to God and his plan whereas a culture of death is about being disobedient to God and his plan.”
“There’s nothing more important in this world than trying to bring people to the truth, because there’s a lot of people living in misery because of ignorance.”
“It’s our responsibility to have our company honoring God with what we do, and to evangelize in the setting that he has given us.”
“To be honest with you, it’s good. It’s good business.”
Moral integrity, business sense, and an “extremely Catholic” background (we are not told whether the “four brothers” are all Catholic, but one can hope…) obviously mix here to create a success now going through the third generation, and $100m turnover a year for a family business certainly witness the soundness of the business model.
Compare with the like of Starbucks, peddling their ideology (and, hopefully, coffee with it) to a tiny minority of perverts and a less tiny minority of degenerate urban cretins: a strategy which has already started to hurt, and will hurt more in the years to come.
Conclusion: pro-life works in business, too, whilst support for perversion damages business, too. I can easily predict that in five or ten years’ time Starbucks will try to let their customers forget their “message” with the same zeal with which Marks & Spencer backpedaled on what must have been the most cretinous campaign of the century: the “Plan A” to “save the planet”, (and I quote) “because there is no plan B”.
The always rather biting Daily Mail informs us Starbucks (the politically correct, probably homo-ridden coffee-house chain for the perverts and those who would like to be it, but only if they can pay too much for the privilege) wanted to go away from artificial dyers and, in a move to please the limp wrists of their clients, moved to natural ones. In this case, they took many little cochineal insects and squeezed them to a red pulp, which then landed in the frappuccino of some wannabe Elton and his, as they call each other nowadays, “civil partner”.
Things turned sour for Starbucks when a group of vegans (sexual orientation not known, but I never found one who doesn’t eat meat an archetype of masculinity, either; more fitting to querulous women, for sure) complained they don’t want to be eating little red animals with their frappuccino without even knowing it; and when they know it, they don’t want in the first place.
Now, Starbucks is a very, very faggoty company. Sodomarriage is, apparently, one of their core values, or something like that. Therefore, they must have imagined their clients abandoning themselves to shrill little cries of disgust at knowing those horrible, horrible animals are in their favourite strawberry latte skinny non macchiato something. As a result, they have decided to abandon the little insects and switch to a tomato extract. I am waiting for the next group of fanatics to complain this is against their principles.
My reflection on this is that Starbucks is so gay one has to be afraid of even being seen there. Look at Eddie Murphy above, and think if you want to be put in the same basket with them.
Avoid Starbucks, folks. You don’t want to be seen there.
It’s so, so, so gay.
And so it came to pass that Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz was scheduled to speak at a “mega church” in the United States. The ecclesial community in question seems to be rather prominent, and has in the past been honoured by speeches from the likes of Bill Clinton (no doubt, talking about the spiritual possibilities afforded by cigars).
It turns out that after a community of perverts decided to criticise the ecclesial community as (you guessed it) “homophobic”, valiant Mr Schultz decided that the best thing to do was to wet his pants and cancel the appearance.
I frankly begin to think that street workers are shining beacons of morality compared to these servile CEOs, ready to brown their noses at every possible and impossible occasion.
I invite you to send your own message to Starbucks that this behaviour is counterproductive, by banning them from your wallet for a certain period of time. Let your wallet speak, and let all your friends and acquaintances know about this.
If you want Starbucks to know why they don’t get their money, you can contact them clicking here. Make sure to click “other” from the menu.
It is truly astonishing that big multinational companies be led by such sissies. Show them that if they want to be so idiotic, they’ll have to do it without your money.