Glad of having saved his political career (largely, courtesy of his bosom buddy Dave) Nick Clegg now tries to gain some points making himself beautiful among his more “progressive” voters.
As you probably know, Nick Clegg is one of those new-breed politicians without any notion of the fact that God made two sexes for a reason. He may be partially excused because he doesn’t believe in God (insofar as one can be excused for non believing in God), but one would have thought that at his age and with three children it would have occurred to him that men and women are wired somewhat differently.
In Mr. Clegg’s world, the concept that a mother would stay at home and accompany her children in the first phase of their life is not something natural, but an option at best. In Mr. Clegg’s world a woman who has just had a child and wants to go back to conquer the world (?) leaving her child alone with her husband is not only not what Italians would call (and Italians know about happy families a bit more than Clegg) una madre snaturata, but she has even the right to feel persecuted if she is “judged” by what he calls “Edwardian” mentality (and we call thinking).
Therefore, in Mr. Clegg’s world a mother should be free to dump her child to the care of her husband (a person, well, not naturally hardwired to be mother and I hope that Clegg will agree on this, though on reflection I am not entirely certain) and, on her warpath to emancipation, get out to win the bread for the family whilst her baby stays at home with his certainly not so impressively manly but oh so caring surrogate mother. I’m sure Clegg likes the concept of surrogate mother, by the way. It’s so not Edwardian.
In Mundabor’s world, on the other hand, it is a rather indisputable fact that women are the ones naturally hardwired to be mothers, and men are the ones naturally hardwired to be breadwinners. I do not know whether this is Edwardian; I for myself would say that this is most elementary common sense and if Mr. Clegg had cared to think about it, he would have realised that this is the same thinking used by pretty much the entire humanity, before and after Edward VII and with the exception of a tiny minority of, well, madri snaturate.
Whenever I hear such politicians, I wonder whether they live in the same planet of plain facts and common sense as most of us, or whether the relentless search for sellable soundbites has long removed even the last trace of sensible thinking.
Clegg’s great-grandmother would have considered him not merely a retard, but positively insane if he had uttered such opinions in, say, 1909. But we are in 2011, when insanity is in power and using one’s brain “Edwardian”.
Bye the bye, I’d like to know how long Clegg took paternity leave when he had each of his three children.
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.
I have reported yesterday about the extraordinary opinions of Prince Charles regarding the so-called “religion of peace”.
We now read in the London “Times” of the hanging of a 7-year-old boy for being, it would appear, a collaborator of the US and NATO forces, but the fact that his father – a tribal elder in the village – has spoken out against the Taliban might, well, just have played a role…….
The motives are still unclear and the Taliban deny any responsibility for the fact (they would, wouldn’t they?). Perhaps it was a local feud; perhaps the Taliban wouldn’t dare to go openly against a village elder and have murdered his son; or perhaps it was just a spontaneous outburst of environmental zeal due to the fact that over there there is – as the Prince deigned to inform us – “no separation between man and nature”.
Whoever the responsible of this atrocious murder may be, could someone please tell Prince Charles that in Christian countries – where there is a separation between man and nature – children of seven are not found hanged at nearby trees.